Seeing ethnography as a collaboration, the native as well as ‘urban’ researcher might have unique positions. This situation is highlighted in ethnographic film collaboration, especially since both the native or non-native collaborators can have their own version of ethnographic films. On the one hand, films made by non-indigenous filmmakers have greater potential to connect with outside audiences, as their more distanced position enable them “…to investigate cultural dynamics whose purposes and meanings are often less clear to the people who live within them than they are to outsiders” (Lempert, 2012, p. 39). On the other hand, indigenous filmmaker “…are in a better position than outside researcher-filmmakers when it comes to representing their own identities” (ibid, pp. 23–24). However, the dichotomy of insider and outsider is not always that simple. If the native filmmaker had attended film school, experienced life in different societies, and had portfolio of making a film that had been commissioned by media institutions, then he occupied a dual position, being simultaneously an insider and outsider. Compared to the non-indigenous filmmaker, they have more authorities in representing their own culture, and at the same time, they have objectivities that closer to those of the outsiders. The problem is that while film products offer clear credits for everyone involved in its production, the written academic products resulting from that collaboration belong only to the academics. These insider/outsider collaborators are the most valuable source in any form of ethnography. My main informants constantly giving me valuable insights, interpretations and analysis that made me wonder if I ever fail to credit them. This paper acts as a tribute to our main collaborators, informants, or fixers, exploring modern-day research situations, based on a filmmaking collaboration in the foot of Merapi, Central Java.