FILM 5230 W

Saturday April 12 • 10am-4pm

York Film Norman Jewison Speaker Series
And Goethe-Institut Toronto present

An intimate day-long ‘immersion’ with the legendary artist/theorist/activist Hito Steyerl (Berlin). Her essay films, documentaries and installations have been exhibited internationally in museums, festivals and at Documenta 12 (2007). These include: Lovely Andrea, (a playful investigation of Japan’s bondage porn industry); November, (about the interrelationships between territorial power politics -as practiced by Turkey in Kurdistan with the support of Germany- and individual forms of resistance), Film Journal No 1 – An Artist’s Impression, (about the impossibility of reconstructing the lost materials of the Sarajevo film archives), and The Centre (a close analysis of the processes of urban restructuring and transition that took place in the center of Berlin for eight years after re-unification).  Normality 1-10, (a series of short video essays –set in Austria of the year 2000-, registering everyday neo-fascist violence as being something that is declared normal by some and accepted as such by the majority). Rigourous, militant, hilarious, defiant…

This Immersion is limited to 15 participants — it will include screenings, discussions, two lectures by Hito (one addressing the politics of the archive) and lunch together at Schulich. This workshop is designed particularly for studies and production grads engaged with the essay film form — pre-registration is required: hayashi@yorku.ca

Please post your reading comments/questions here.

L’Intrus: An Interview with Claire Denis by Damon Smith (http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/05/35/claire_denis_interview.html)

BURNT CORK: TRADITIONS AND LEGACIES OF BLACKFACE MINSTRELSY
MARCH 28-29, 2008

http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~w3minstr/conf_press.html

1:00pm to 3:00pm

Blackface on Film

Curated by Nicholas Sammond and Alice Maurice, Cinema Studies Institute, University of Toronto

‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ (1999)

Screening with Dean Moss

3:15pm to 5:15pm

Introduction: Charlie Keil, Director, Cinema Studies Institute

Arthur Knight: American Studies, College of William & Mary in Virginia

‘Whiteface’

Linda Williams: Rhetoric and Film Studies, University of California, Berkeley

‘Surprised by Blackface: D. W. Griffith, Blackface, and One Exciting Night’

Author : Katharine Asals
Situating Accented Cinema – Hamid Naficy

My apologies to the class for this not-so-interactive form of presentation, but something quite serious came up and I had to be out of town. I will try to keep it light and chatty here and suggest possible points of discussion, in the hope that you will find something in it to chew on in class.

So, in looking at Hamid Naficy’s chapter on Accented Cinema, at first blush I found the project of grouping so many divergent filmmakers from so many countries and sensibilities, and films of so many production levels into one huge bunch, seemed like an absurdly broad net to cast.

But in delving in further, it began to feel like an intriguing approach, especially as he’s not only considering thematic issues, but more significantly, STYLE.

- pg 579 - “The accented group style, however, has existed only in a limited, latent and emergent form, awaiting recognition. Even those who deal with the accented films usually speak of exile and diaspora as themes inscribed in the films, not as components of style.

First up, Naficy clarifies terminology and makes some distinctions between
- exilic
- diasporic
- post-colonial ethnic and identity filmmakers

However, this breakdown serves almost as much to articulate the themes and experiences of each category and the extent to which they overlap, highlighting the extent to which many of the personal and social experiences are held in common, as much as they have their distinctions.

In fact, Naficy’s project of identifying “accented cinema” appears to be offered, not as an absolute category or a single reading of the films and filmmakers in question, but rather as one way of looking at the patterns and nuances in films born out of a certain kind of life experience.

As an example of the breadth of what he is suggesting, he describes the life and career of Luis Buñuel (in the book version of An Accented Cinema – not in the chapter in the reader). Obviously Buñuel could be categorized in several ways – on the one hand he is the archetypal Surrealist filmmaker, but he is also frequently considered to be a Spanish filmmaker, though of course he left Spain very early in his life and made most of his films in Mexico and France. Thus, “…Buñuel is both the epitome of exile and its most prominent exception.” A large part of what is an exception according to Naficy’s system, is Buñuel’s international success, his movement beyond the margin.

One quote from the reading seemed to help clarify in a quite general way some of the distinguishing characteristics of what is meant by “an accented cinema” -

Pg 581 -
“Applied to cinema, the standard, neutral, value-free accent maps onto the dominant cinema produced by the society’s reigning mode of production. This typifies the classical and the new Hollywood cinemas, whose films are realistic and intended for entertainment only, and thus free from overt ideology or accent. By that definition, all alternative cinemas are accented, but each is accented in certain specific ways that distinguish it. The cinema discussed here derives its accent from artisanal and collective production modes and from the filmmakers and audiences deterritorialized locations. Consequently, not all accented films are exilic and diasporic, but all exilic and diasporic films are accented.”
Also, on pg 580, “…realism is, if not subverted, at least inflected differently”.

Within the “Accented Style” he is identifying, he lists and explains some of the frequent identifying markers -

- language, voice, address
- embedded criticism
- accented structures of feeling
- tactile optics
- third cinema aesthetics
- border effects, border writing
- themes (journeys, identity)
- authorship and autobiographical inscription

Further to these categories, in the book, An Accented Cinema, he goes on to identify the use of “epistolary” conventions – letter-writing and phone calls – as well as “interstitial” production modes, and also offers an appendix with an extensive, detailed listing of components frequently found in exilic and diasporic films. Some examples of these are: multilinguality, amateur aesthetics, fetishized icons from the homeland, nostalgia, etc.

If we look at Divine Intervention, or indeed, The Perfumed Nightmare, we can ask ourselves whether these components are present and significant, and ultimately helpful in reading the film this way. For example:

- is the film political? (embedded criticism, 3rd cinema aesthetics)
- are the characters sad? Lonely? Alientated? (structures of feeling)
- is there a fragmented narrative? (border effects)
- does the filmmaker serve multiple roles? (autobiographical inscription)
- are there scenes in airports? Check points? (border effects)

And then perhaps a further question might be: does this “accented” way of thinking about the film give us fresh insight or a deeper understanding?

Again, looking at Divine Intervention or Perfumed Nightmare as examples, perhaps the following quote from pg 572 might be relevant for discussion, as it seems to hint at the nature of the nuanced politics and presence of the filmmaker he suggests are to be found in this body of work –

“As partial, fragmented and multiple subjects, these filmmakers are capable of producing ambiguity and doubt about the taken-for-granted values of their home and host societies. They can also transcend and transform themselves to produce hybridized, syncretic, performed or virtual identities.”

It might also be interesting to look at a quote from Elias Suleiman, the maker of Divine Intervention, in an interview from Framework magazine, Spring 2004, as he is clearly very aware of working with many of these issues –

“…I don’t see anything Jewish about statehood. In the conceptual, spiritual sense of the word. Of a diasporic experience, of always resisting power, authority, and centeredness, of making affiliations with non-dominant authorities. The list is endless to what we can say is Jewish. It is my affiliation. It’s what I thrive on. Not only in my daily life, but in my films. Look at my being in the frame. It’s completely marginalized. I am almost a present absentee or an absent presentee. I make sure that I don’t have any weight that could attract authority. I try to exist in a form of translucency so that I do not contain the whole frame. When you decenter the frame, it gives a democratic reading…This is very Jewish. I mean conceptually. Not tribally. By refraining from any sort of possession of authority.”

Another area for discussion might be the notion of “accented structures of feeling”, “which, according to Raymond Williams, is not a fixed institution, formation, position, or even a formal concept such as worldview or ideology. Rather, it is a set of undeniable personal and social experiences – with internal relations and tensions” (584).

Also, “Accented films differ from other postmodernist films because they usually posit the homeland as a grand and deeply rooted referent…”. And, “Multiple sites, cultures, and time zones inform the feeling structures of exile and diaspora…”. And, “Sadness, loneliness and alienation are frequent themes, and sad, lonely, and alienated people are favorite characters in the accented films”. (585)

Have fun with it!

Katharine

Don’t usually post ads on the blog (but you’re welcome to use it for all sorts of exchanges). Aimee Mitchell is unloading her paperback copy of Benjamin’s Arcade Project by Susan Buck-Morss. This book’s a keeper and a steal at $20. Contact:  amitch@yorku.ca

Please post you questions, comments, etc here

I just stumbled upon this site and thought of this class.

Its a video/test that takes less than a half a minute…and, I think, humorously exemplifies some of the theories we’ve been discussing…

http://www.dothetest.co.uk/

~ananya

Hey all, this is Christina…I’m sure this is going to show up in the wrong section, but c’est la vie, hopefully I can move it later…

 In “R as in Resistance” Deleuze is summarized as saying something along the lines of, “… it’s advertising that is presented as philosophy’s true rival since they tell us: we advertisers are inventing concepts”.  Having worked in advertising for nearly three years before returning to grad school, this jumped out at me.  Admittedly, while creating ads for a global internet portal my biggest concerns had to do with budgets and timelines and how I was possibly going to have time to grab lunch before my next meeting.  If I was actually engaging my brain instead of just my account management skills (or my constant concern for food), I was thinking about whether or not a concept was on brand and delivering on the creative brief.  In other words, I lived in the little bubble that was my account.  Sure, everyone in the industry knows on some level that advertising as an industry has invaded the psyche of every day people to an astounding degree, but I can guarantee you that no individual in the industry feels culpable or thinks about it on a regular basis.  If they think of it at all, they realize it’s probably true, but surely, it’s not their work that’s contributing to the problem!  The art directors and copywriters consider at the work from an almost purely creative perspective, whereas the account managers see it as a solution to a business problem that needed to be solved.  No one in the industry is thinking about how advertising concepts are now so sophisticated and powerful that they may actually be competing with the concepts of philosophers – a scary thought indeed. 

Since this section of the course is titled “Histories of the Image”, it might be interesting to consider the image through the history of advertising, in addition to cinema.  In the United States especially, where both Hollywood and Madison Avenue rose to dizzying heights of influence in the twentieth century, cinema and advertising have played a considerable role in shaping how their audiences viewed themselves and their country.  What’s scary is that there was a period of time in both industries when the producers realized this, but the consumers did not.  In essence, studios and ad agencies were running around unchecked in Buck Morss’ “wild zone” of unmonitored power.  It’s a convincing argument for the power of the image.  In today’s world, we consumers like to think of ourselves as being much more savvy and cynical than consumers of yore.  But are we?  Or has the digital evolution of the image rendered us yet again naïve victims? 

Also interesting to consider is how the evolution of internet advertising impacts the image.  Advertising images are now interactive: we can start, stop, replay, remix or refinish them online.  After Yahoo’s last major advertising campaign they posted their three television spots to a microsite and allowed users to create their own versions out of literally dozens of pre-filmed possibilities.  What does this new interactivity do to the power of the image?  Does it weaken it, allowing consumers some ownership and authority over it?  Or, the more cynical view, does it subtly bolster it, by ingratiating the ad image even further into our every day lives and psyches?

Now, an attempt to bring this wild tangent back to Deleuze and Cinema 1…  I was struck by the vivid description of how the three types of images, perception, action and affection, are related to one another within the movement-image; Deleuze’s description paints a tangible diagram in my head.  I’m wondering how these categories of images exist and have evolved in television advertising.  Just as Deleuze relates certain film genres (signs) more strongly to each of the image types, certain industry sectors have appeared appropriated different types of advertising images.  Think of car commercials in which the camera neatly moves with the vehicle through winding mountain roads:  action-image.  Or a “Diamonds are forever” spot that focuses solely on the reaction of a woman receiving a diamond engagement ring: affection-image.  Or the commercial for a beauty product, in which we watch a beautiful woman do nothing but flip her hair, newly-dyed blond, over her shoulder: perception-image.  Does the move to interactivity – obviously led in part by artists, but importantly when one considers mainstream reach, by advertisers – affect these categories?  Do we need a new category(ies) that better captures the human experience/reaction to interaction with images?

Please post your comments for Pervert’s Guide to Cinema and Zizek here.

Thanks!

SHH

Posted by Ananya:

The reasons behind Derrida’s idea of Europe as an interlocutor between ‘the United States and its enemy,” and the language used to explain this idea, reveal a logic that reinforces the imperialist “power arrangements” it is supposed to question.

I say this because:

- Europe, Derrida writes, would function as an interlocutor because it is the “only secular actor on the world stage…with one of the most advanced nontheological political structures” (275). He also states that doing so involves the “memory of a European promise that is yet to be fulfilled: democracy and emancipation for all…Enlightenment is not dead…” (260).

In these phrases “democracy and emancipation for all” is isolated as an “European promise,” Europe is, once again, presented as setting an example – or as ahead in development – to which all countries should aspire.

This echoes the reason behind the colonial desire to “civilize” and reflects the historicist perspective of linear progression where most of the natives have yet to reach a point (identified by the Europeans) where they can be considered for human rights and other privileges – as in this instance, states that might have experience balancing different religions (or any other relevant insights) are not considered in Derrida’s discussion because they do not measure up to his standard of “secular.”

The idea of “deconstructing boundaries,” particularly the way it has been articulated as an aspect of “development” to which others have to catch up to, also contributes to this argument. The boundaries, the nation-state, a history, and a national identity are often unavoidable products of colonization, which have been thrust upon post-colonial states by their colonizers, and are notions with which these states are constantly struggling. This notion of “deconstructing boundaries,” and de-centered identities goes against the efforts of these newer states trying to hold a disparate population within one nation. Instead of challenging this idea of “catch up development,” ‘universal” development, Derrida, through his language, articulates yet another universalist idea of development, which people must strive towards in order to be equal to some others on the globe.