Since I teach the standard undergraduate film course "World Cinema" and use a transnational theoretical approach in my courses and writings, I was particularly keen on attending Friday's "L5 Workshop: Teaching Transnational Cinemas" and the "M16 Workshop: The “World Cinema” Turn in Film Studies." Both sessions were memorable and thought-provoking, ensuring that attendees will be considering new ideas and rethinking old ones.
"Teaching Transnational Cinemas," Sponsored by the Transnational Cinemas
Scholarly Interest Group and the Teaching Committee
"Teaching Transnational Cinemas" was chaired by Iain Smith from the University of Roehampton. He began the session by noting how "World Cinema" courses are often based on a national model (Japanese film, German film, Nigerian film, etc.) which tends to ignore the interconnections between national traditions. In addition, while the term "transnational" has been theorized (thinking beyond the scope of the nation, considering cross-cultural encounters and racial tensions, etc.), it is time to consider transnational pedagogy--especially since students may struggle without the framework of the national when approaching cinema and cultural flow.
The difference between "World Cinema" and "Transnational Cinema" was one of many topics addressed during the workshop. All presenters, as well as audience contributors, brought up practical concerns (such as which films to select) and strategies (such as teaching "World Cinema" in a comparative manner by studing film genres--
see the work of William Costanzo). I felt inspired by the discussion and ideas presented, and hope to write a future blog post on the way/s I use transnational theory in the classroom to both contribute to this discussion as well as listen to critique.
"The “World Cinema” Turn in Film Studies" workshop
sponsored by the Transnational Cinemas Scholarly Interest Group
Following the Transnational Cinema's panel was the "M16 Workshop: The “World Cinema” Turn in Film Studies." Unfortunately, neither Dudley Andrew nor Jean Ma could attend; however, the discussion got off to a wonderful start as co-chairs David Richler and Malini Guha of Carleton University questioned the ubiquity of the term "World Cinema" and its designation oftentimes as a "Non-Western" marketing term, thus re-inscribing the "West and the Rest" dichotomy. In contrast, the term "transnational" has been lauded as a term superior to the "postcolonial," and yet is the term not subsumed by "world" as in "World Cinema," and does it lead to universalizing analyses?
Workshop discussants introduced such topics as film festivals (as both locations of reception and production) that retain a western bias, the notion of "new waves" and their relation to national film traditions, the use of the term "cosmopolitan" cinema (based, at least pedagogically, on promoting empathy as a way for students to approach films alongside an absence of pre-conceptions), and the ways in which postcolonial theory (and in a very welcome turn, the work of Edward Said as discussed by Luca Caminati) can allow one to locate and identify geopolitical links in cinema. (Unfortunately, I must add, I had to slip out of the panel before hearing all audience feedback and their questions to the presenters--but as evidenced here, there is still much to consider!).
Also of note: Thursday's panel, H17 "Reimagining Sinophone Cultures
through the Lens of Cold War Cinemas," included a stunning presentation
by Ting-Wu Cho on exploitation films from Taiwan entitled: "“Taiwan
Pulp!: Subversive Pleasure at the Neoliberalist Turn? (1970s–1980s).”
The presentation, and hopefully subsequent publication, will undoubtedly
contribute to a clearer and more rich understanding of Taiwan's transition from 1970s to 1980s film by considering exploitation films and their
relationship to the national imaginary.
.jpg)
