Mid-Exam
Language and audiences
When we talked about Third World Cinema in the class, it seem to always comes with the word "colonialism". What is the relationship between "colonizer" and "colonial"? I felt "weird" when I was watching a Third World Cinema; the colonials were talking about their miseries but in their colonizer's language. Maybe they had been taught to speak their colonizer's language when they were children and were forced to forget their own language. It makes me think of when my parents had told me that when KMT came to Taiwan 50 years ago, their elementary schools debarred children speak Taiwanese but Chinese; nowadays almost all Taiwanese can speak Chinese but less and less one can speak Taiwanese or mother language. When I tried to introduce I myself to a foreigner, the sentence: "I am a Taiwanese, and/but I speak Chinese” always confused me. Personally, being a Taiwanese, I am pride of speaking Taiwanese, but in fact, I can't speak fluent one. Because Taiwan and China have very "close" relationship either on geography or history, nowadays, we separated because of politics, but if we imagine that KTM overcame the Communist China (vice versa) and we went back the "hugging" of China, would Taiwan still be a "colony" controlled by KTM (or Communist China), just like thousand-year history did?
That also made me think of the movie "The Last Emperor" (1987 / Italy / color / 160m) which is a story about the emperor of latter-day history of China; but the actors spoke English in the whole film. The movie won many prizes in public (America, United Kingdom, Italy, France and European Film Awards), but we can discover that it really only satisfied the imagery of the eastern world which in the western peoples' head. The movie was made by a foreigner for other foreigners and cannot touch Chinese peoples' heart. "What the filmmaker thinks and feels is manifested in the expressive means he chooses to use. His selection of language forms reveals his attitude and, therefore, a film tells us not only something about the subject it treats but also something about the filmmaker." Says in "the Problems of Form and Content in Revolutionary Cinema".
And when we talked about Yi-mou Zhang’s movie, I haven't seen his newest "House of Flaying Daggers" yet, but one of my French friends told me that he loves the movie. I remember when I first saw "Hero", I really cannot accept his attitude about "country" till now, but my Malaysian friend who came to Taiwan to study in cinema was touched by the "great chino-ism". In the article, "Film as Ethnography", it talks about the same situation; I wonder, is it meaningful making a film which satisfies foreigners but cannot touch those who should be the easiest to be touched audiences?
Seeing Third World Cinemas from a Third-world Country
What the Instructor said after our watching of "the Battle of Algiers" gave me a great impression: "every country has "third world" communities, because even in France, there are so many Africa people whose countries were colonized by France for hundreds years and their black parents bring them to France and let them have French education. When they started to try to work or live in France, they would realize that although they have the same memory of their background (France), but they still cannot become truly French just because of the color of their skin." The same situation happens in America, of course. There is always third-world people live in developed countries, especially today.
Before discussing of how we feel after watching a third world cinema, we have to know how we analyze it from what angle. I remember this September I wrote a latter to my French friend and told him the story of Full Moon Festival and Chinese moon cake, he wrote me right away and told me that my story looks like to the Austrian story vs. Turcoman. I think that in humans' history, there would always have similar part: of violence, colonize and being colonized.
In "the Battle of Algiers", and "The Blood of Condor", the stories are all about revolution; "Revolutionary cinema is in the process of formation" and as we already maintained in an article on this question", revolutionary cinema cannot be anything but collective." says in the "Problems of Form and Content in Revolutionary Cinema". Of course, a country needs people when it is going to have a revolution. A revolutionary cinema also needs filmmakers to achieve the goal. After completing the movie, crowds get revolutionary enthusiasm from the movie. Many Latin America countries had watched "the Blood of Condor", especially in Ecuador. The reasons of cultural identity and the fact that the people of Ecuador face the same problems as the rest of Latin Americans, some of these films have reached a surprising number of viewers. Years ago Taiwan had its own revolution, too. It makes us have easier and more understanding on watching other counties miseries.
I wonder when filmmakers are trying to make a revolutionary cinema, are they trying to tell the true sad story or just want to achieve the beauties of sadness and violence? Truly, people can create better works under larger pressure. Therefore, is it necessary that the violence parts in our human history? Of course, thousands of people died in a tragedy, which is why laughter is so treasurable when we live in "a city of sadness".
What Third-world means…
Not only excluded from the first and the second world, the other meanings of “the third world” are also “the weak” of lower education and lightweights, even minorities are also called “third world”. In “Black Girl”, it is a story about a Senegalese servant. From the movie we understood that the French couple didn’t abuse Diouana on physical. On the other hand, Diouana expected the new country can bring her a new flash and fashion life but it didn’t.
Compared with men, women are more emotional animals. In some way, most women are really third-world persons. They are not stronger than men. Cannot control politic, education, economics, even a best cooker in kitchen is also a man. Different from “the Blood of Condor”, “Black Girl” seems like an opposite of “collective cinema”. With Diouana’s thinking, the movie focused on her life and her flashbacks. It tells us that being ignored is so alone and desperate. It is also a situation of the third world: being ignored and do not have any power to make decisions about their future.
On Nov. 10, the Vanuatu government said that its Council of Ministers annulled the Vanuatu-Taiwan communique signed in Taipei on Nov. 3 because they want to keep their relationship with china.
In “the City of Sadness”, a Taiwanese scholar said (in the real life, he is a great director and a local actor in Taiwan): “when Ching Dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan, who had asked our Taiwanese’s will? Now KTM recover us, but they considered us are slaves of Japan and took our jobs away…”I think until now, Taiwan is still a third world “country”, but who we consider us? Are we Taiwanese or Chinese? It is remain to be seen. Can we make our own decisions of our future?
--
This is my first report which is in English. I know that there are many mistakes in it and maybe I didn’t explain what I want to say very well because of my poor English and being short of understanding of third world cinema. But I do want to have chance to write an English report to improve me ability of writing and thinking in an English way.
--
the Instructor Anita said:
Wen-huei Kuo/Betty, your paper reflects your understanding of the course material so far. You ask compelling questions and do proceed to explore them, using your own experience. You also write quite well!My only criticis is that while you write about the us (you) and them dynamic, you touch only briefly on this act of looking. Otherwise, a nicely written and interesting paper. Thank you! 23/25
文章定位：
