It is with relief, then, that one turns the pages of Resistance Literature to find a densely detailed road map of world literature. The resulting criticism can take the form of armchair travel through the "colorful" content of an "Othered" literature that is similar enough for the West to consume with the help of certain kinds of guides yet different enough to whet the appetite for cultural tourism. In much writing on the subject, terms like "literature," "film," "authorship," "genre," and especially "Third World" are givens, rarely contextualized in specific, historical detail. The trouble with electing critics like Canby as universal translators is twofold: their own uncritical acceptance of crucial terms of interpretation and our own (the American mainstream readers') uncritical reliance upon the myths of cultural difference and similarity. The greatest difference between "our" films and "theirs," the critic concluded, can be located in the perspective of the narrative: "films from emerging nations tend to reflect the concerns of societies rather than individuals." Lurking under such a discourse of difference is the innuendo of "propaganda." Aesthetics and politics don't mix we can't enjoy or fully appreciate the cultural productions of "emerging nations." Canby implies that texts from the non-West require the interpretive skills of a "specialist" to translate their alterity into familiar forms. For example, a film review in the New York Times on 23 October 1988 by Vincent Canby bore the headline: "Why Some Movies Don't Travel Well." His review of a current Chinese film referred to the discomfort and distance American viewers may feel when a combination of subtitles and culture shock leaves them uncertain about the "message" of the film.
When Western Critics Turn Their Gaze upon the cultural products of non-Western nations, they often resort to the language of tourism.
0 kommentar(er)
