Women’s transnational cinema: displacement, projection, and identification. A review of Patricia White, Women’s Cinema, World Cinema: Projecting Contemporary Feminisms

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Willis
Author(s):  
Belinda Smaill

Chapter 11 employs a feminist lens to situate women filmmakers within a wider global context in which all women’s cinema can be considered to be “world cinema,” set apart from local contexts that fail to encompass women’s film practices in terms of resources, space, and mobility. Advocating a perspective advanced by Patricia White in Women’s Cinema, World Cinema, Belinda Smaill proposes that women filmmakers should be viewed within “whole world approaches” that comprehensively address the context of production, circulation, representation, and image of each director. While tracking the mobility of female directors, Smaill points out that while it is difficult for women to achieve employment as feature directors in the U.S., it is even more difficult to gain access to the industry from outside the U.S. Hollywood is an exclusive domain, making Bier’s transnational American work a critical site for investigation. With Serena, Smaill contends, Bier cements her place as a director who takes on the world by lending her authorial signature to a complex manifestation of world cinema.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 229-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deniz Göktürk

The Turkish-German axis is not the first route that comes to mind when rethinking German cinema in a global perspective. Turks in German cinema have tended to be cast in one-dimensional roles, as victims on the margins of society, unable to communicate and integrate. After more than four decades of Turkish presence in Germany, can we finally observe a new trend in representation, focusing more on playful enactments, mutual mirroring, and border-crossings? In an era of increasing global mobility of people and media, questions about the status of transnational cultural productions by travelers, emigrants, and exiles have achieved a new intensity. Film critics, concomitantly, have begun to call for a new genre category, one which explodes the boundaries of “original” national cultures as well as those of cinematic conventions. This new genre is variously labeled “independent transnational cinema,” (Naficy, 1996) “postcolonial hybrid films” (Shohat and Stam, 1994) or simply “world cinema,” (Roberts, 1998) a descriptor which, in contrast to older separatist categories such as “third world cinema” (Pines and Willemen, 1989) or “sub-state cinema” (Crofts, 1998), stresses the universality of mobility and diversity.


Author(s):  
Neelam Sidhar Wright

This chapter discusses Indian film criticism, with a particular focus on traditional modes of studying Indian cinema. It first traces the history of the development of the Bombay film industry from the 1910s to the 2000s, arguing that the 1960s and 1980s are decades from which we can best study Indian cinema's most popular form of filmmaking: the masala genre. It then considers traditional approaches to Indian film and some popular themes in Indian film studies, including nationalism, diaspora, postcolonialism and cultural identity. It also examines introductory guidebooks and other literary sources that it accuses of having misled readers towards restrictive (if not outmoded and derogatory) definitions of the cinema they seek to understand. The chapter concludes with an overview of categories used to explore Bollywood's current manifestation, namely, third cinema, world cinema, Asian cinema, global contemporary Indian cinema and transnational cinema.


Panoptikum ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 10-23
Author(s):  
Dina Iordanova

The author calls for continuity and continuation of the study of women’s cinema. Attention is drawn to the blurring of memory and even erasing women from the history of national film industries. They are not recognised as authors, while the history of cinema has been subject to the concept of the auteur film-maker. The filmmakers are made through the commitment and work of film critics and then cinema historians. The expert does not hide the fact that those relationships are strengthened by bonds of friendship, without the fear of being accused of having a lack of objectivity, and are often associated with the support of the author on the international festival circuit. The author calls for ‘watching across borders’, i.e. a supranational approach to the study of women’s cinema. Crossing the borders of national cinemas, in which the authors have not been recognised, allows a broader perspective to see the critical mass of the authors of world cinema. Politically, for the feminist cause, it is better to talk about European women’s cinema. Iordanova selects from the history of Central and Eastern European cinema, the names of authors who did not receive due attention. Moreover, she proposes specific inclusive and corrective feminist practices: the inclusion of filmmakers in the didactics, repertoires of film collections and festival selections; a commitment to self-study by watching at least one woman’s film a week.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mette Hjort

A review of Patricia White Women’s Cinema, World Cinema: Projecting Contemporary Feminisms (Duke University Press, 2015).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document