I feel that bell hooks' approach to analysing film is one that we could all benefit from. Instead of only judging movies on one aspect, bell hooks combines all those analytics into a multifaceted tool which enables us to see deeper into the film than we may once have. When we watch a film, we usually focus on the problem or part of the film that seems most relevant to our particular lives. If I was a white, straight, cisgendered male, and was watching a film such as Boys Don't Cry, I feel that I would view it in an entirely different light than I would as a queer individual. I may overlook a number of the finities and not be able to connect with the film as well as I could if I had put myself in someone else's shoes. Bell hooks teaches us to do this, and to remove ourselves from our own minds, and view the film from many different standpoints, as well as trying to fit ourselves into the character's shoes. Bell Hooks teaches us to watch these films from different standpoints, as well as even changing the language we use to express such ideas as we may encounter while viewing them. For instance; instead of using the term racism, bell hooks encourages the term 'white supremacy'. This brings an even more direct light to where the problem lies. Instead of using broad umbrella terms to describe a problem, hooks forces us to take a jab at where the problem in race truly lies. We're forced to deal with an actual problem, not a generalisation that we can easily blow off and exempt ourselves from. We need to be aware of every aspect of the film, and be aware of how all individuals are being portrayed. Oft times directors/producers attempt to draw our attentions away by using certain effects or musical scores, etc. We have to take a closer look at the film, and really be able to define what the true issues are, and how each population is being represented, taking in account our own experiences, as well as putting ourselves in the situations of others.
Cultural Criticism and Transformation
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/173808
I really like that you talked about the idea of using direct language, and different language than you are use to. It does sort of force one to think in different terms than you are used to. Although a lot of critical thinking can sometimes "ruin" a film by forcing one to engage in something that is on the surface meant to be an escape from reality. I find more and more of my favorite films being not quite as enjoyable because I do think critically of characters, and the stereotypes that they have, and the representations of marginalized communities that are shown on film. However, I do think it is important as an activist to do these sorts of things. I think it is critical to queer theory to be able to point to something and have an opinion on it that is not the blind follower opinion.
-Fia
I really wonder how much of this "distraction" from the "real issues" of the movie are deliberate by directors and producers. Do producers really chose certain musical scores because they think that it will distract the audience from a possible underlying message? Why would a director do that? In analytical courses like this, it is far too easy to make generalizations and assumptions. "The media is bad." "Hollywood degrades women."
In the same way that hooks wants us to use direct language when analyzing issues, we should also try to be specific and really pinpoint certain issues regarding certain situations and certain people without making broad assumptions and generalizations.
I do agree with everything you are saying; I would just hope that for this course, we really learn how to speak about these issues in an accurate and educated way. When I get frustrated with social/politic issues, I find myself spewing a lot of "THEY do this and THEY do that". I really want to learn effective, precise, and accurate speech.
The all-encompassing approach, to the assessment of our culture I agree is particularly important. However isn't it interesting that as long as one particularly charged issue such as "race", "wealth", "sexism", etc. can be a sole rallying point for a group of individuals that has severe limitations. Argumentatively you cannot have one of these problems without actions done by another. They are all inter-tangled that must be all discussed.