LITR 5731 Colonial-Postcolonial Literature                                      1st Research Posts 2009

Abby Estillore

Research Post 1

October 19, 2009

Film and Postcolonialism

 Postcolonial theory is grounded on the idea that “resistance always inscribes the resisted into the texture of the resisting: it is a two-edged sword” (see Lye, URL website).  With this definition in mind, then, film generates certain images and perceptions about how resistance inscribes identity, how others (the resisting) define a particular group, and with whom we identify or differentiate in order to belong.  According to Robert Stam’s Film Theory:  An Introduction, film theory informs the following kinds of ongoing discussions surrounding identity formation:  “the analysis of ‘minority’ representation, the critique of imperialist and orientalist media, the work on colonial and postcolonial discourse, and the theorizing of ‘Third World’” (272).  In light of film theory and postcolonial studies, I ask the following question:  what is the role of film in depicting the West and East’s perspectives on social categories (race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation) toward educating viewers about identity construction through film? 

  In writing a research paper for Dr. Subramanian’s seminar course, “Contemporary Novels by Feminist Women of Color,” I investigated the role of feminist film theory in shaping women’s identity, voice, and representation in the patriarchal society.  Interestingly, the concept of the male gaze and the power dynamic inherent between the spectator and spectacle reveal the commodification of bodies for our viewing pleasure.  Laura Mulvey, a renowned scholar on feminist film theory in the 1970s, introduces the notion of visual pleasure through the roles of spectator and spectacle.  She borrows from Freud’s psychoanalysis theory the term “scopophilia”, which means gaining pleasure through looking or gazing.  The manner of gazing is patriarchal in nature because the person who controls the act of gazing derives pleasure from the spectacle, the object being gazed or looked at.  In Hollywood films, the female subjects are fetishized and commodified as sexual objects that reinforce the image of masculinity.  She often functions as an object of desire through displays of her physical beauty, body parts, and voice.  Since Mulvey’s argument in her first essay (“Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema”) assumes society’s attitudes about gender differences are signified (perhaps, stabilized?) through binaries such as male = superior, and female = inferior, postcolonial issues complicate the notion of the male gaze.  According to Stam, “European and North American film theory for the most of this century seems to have had the illusion of being raceless” (272) and relies more on gender.  Genders are categorized as an either/or concept, which opens up new paradigms that take into account race, postcolonial issues, transnational experiences.

 It is interesting to note, too, “the very concepts of nationality and identity may be difficult to conceive or convey in the cultural traditions of colonized peoples” (Lye URL website).  Therefore, to address race and racism, filmmakers have to negotiate discursive representations between tradition and modernity, West and East, colonized and colonizer, and so on. Reduction or simplification of stereotypes reproduces the racism imminent in films.  Filmic representations of persons or communities of color are racially stereotyped such as turning “Native Americans into bloodthirsty beasts or noble savages” or “that blacks be shown only as bootblacks or porters” (Stam 273-4).  Labels such as “First” (dubbed as “North”) or “Third” (dubbed as “South”) worlds confirm the social hierarchy of who transmits culture and who receives it (Stam 285).  The Western interpretation of the East/Third World through film privileges them as “decoders and ultimate interpreters of meaning” (Gabriel 348).  On the other hand, the Eastern/Third World interpretation of the West presents them with two options:  satirizes or caricatures, and extols or admires the dominant culture.  Thus, the power dynamic characterizes the one that disseminates/authorizes and acquires/absorbs cultural information. 

Along the same lines of filmic representation, it is also of equal importance to understand the experiences of the West and East’s film viewing.  Teshome Gabriel posits that the “Western experience of film viewing – dominance of the big screen and the sitting situation – has naturalized a spectator conditioning so that any communication of a film plays on such values of exhibition and reception” while Eastern or “Third World experience of film viewing and exhibition suggests an altogether different value system” (348).  An apt example of this is to show that “Americans and Europeans hate seeing a film on African screens because everybody talks during the showings” (Gabriel 348).  Consequently, African viewers of film in America complain about the very strict code of silence and the solemn atmosphere of the American movie-theatres” (Gabriel 348).  In reference to the etiquettes of film viewing, the differences here demonstrate that American and European viewers represent what is proper while African viewers signify what it is not.     

In Dr. White’s course, “Colonial and Postcolonial Literature,” I explored how transnationalism categorized the multi-racial characters in a film presentation of Part One of White Teeth, based on the novel by Zadie Smith.  It would be convenient to simplify the plot as a romantic story between characters unlikely to engage in a sexual relationship.  Doing so overlooks social categories that shape identities, ignores postcolonial communities, and fictionalizes race (the white race).  It is an eye-opener to consider Zadie Smith’s response to an interview concerning America and England’s reaction to the film adaptation of White Teeth.  I underlined the important point for emphasis.  Below is the reproduction of the interview from the Masterpiece Theatre Online:  (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/teeth/ei_smith_int.html)

Was the media reaction to White Teeth different in America than in England?

Certainly people talk about different things. I noticed in America that if you write a book of any kind, you're made to be the representative of all the issues that might surround it. So you're consequently called on radio shows and asked, "What is the future of Islam?" There is a kind of desperate need for somebody to tell everyone what to do, which I find really peculiar in America. And then when you tell them, they're not interested, because it's also a country where everybody's opinion is their opinion, and they really don't give a damn what you think. So it's a very odd experience.

What do they focus on in England?

I think they find the book more familiar and less serious. The conversation around the book seemed to be less didactic than it did here.

Two imperialist nations – United States and Great Britain – view each other’s filmic reaction to White Teeth in two incredibly different ways.  For American viewers, social issues tend to label a group; therefore, stigmatizing the person.  In other words, it is generally considered taboo to talk about interracial issues, for instance.  Conversely, for European viewers, social issues are “accepted” (for lack of a better word) as part of daily life.  In my opinion, as a transnational migrant, I see the concept of representation as a means to justify how stereotypes and racisms are formed and as a way to critique the dialogic interchange between the colonized and colonizer. 

The more films created in the ever-changing society, the more academic scholarship in film studies are needed to address the fluid changes in constructing identity.  To return to my original question, filmmakers tend to shy away from generic representations of male and female characters, and insist on portraying the “real thing”.  A call for an ongoing, discursive interchange that involves race, gender, class, and other social constructs is in great need so as to inform viewers about the necessity of identity (re)construction.  I consider the medium of film as a type of text that forces preconceived concepts about one’s race to be shaped and reshaped within a given social-historical context.  By looking at the power structures between spectator and spectacle along with social constructions of race, gender, class, and nationality, I am more sensitive to subconscious messages implied through images and social interactions in film.  More importantly, the dialog between the West and East’s perspectives about the ways they view each other continues to undermine what we, as a society, know about our and someone else’s identity through filmic representations.   

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Works Cited/Consulted

Gabriel, Teshome.  “Towards a Critical Theory of Third World Films.”  Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory:  A Reader.  Chrisman, Laura and Patrick Williams.  Eds. New York:  Columbia UP, 1994.  340-358.

Lye, John.  “Some Issues in Postcolonial Theory.”  Department of English Language and Literature.  30 April 2008.  <http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/postcol.php>.  17 October 2009.

Stam, Robert.  Film Theory:  An Introduction.  Oxford:  Blackwell Publishing, 2000.  267-314.

WGBH Online.  “White Teeth.”  Masterpiece Theatre.  2005.  <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/teeth/ei_smith_int.html>. 18 October 2009.