Breaking the Distance: Asian Films, U.S. Critics, and Comparison Strategies

Mihyang Ahn, Mooweon Rhee, Daegyu Yang, Inyong Shin
{"title":"Breaking the Distance: Asian Films, U.S. Critics, and Comparison Strategies","authors":"Mihyang Ahn, Mooweon Rhee, Daegyu Yang, Inyong Shin","doi":"10.21588/DNS.2012.41.1.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study explores several factors affecting three different types of comparison strategies used by U.S. critics in their reviews of Asian films: U.S. comparison (comparing to U.S. counterparts), foreign comparison (comparing to counterparts from countries other than the U.S. and the focal Asian country that is compared), and home comparison (comparing to counterparts from the same country). Using 288 Asian film reviews, this paper reveals that critics tend to draw U.S. comparisons for films in culture-neutral and multiple genres that have been recently released in the U.S. In addition, this study reveals that critics use home comparison strategy more often than foreign comparison strategy on a large pool of prior home films in the U.S., while home comparison strategy is used more often on recently released films in the U.S. This suggests that critics\" comparison strategies are mainly influenced by such factors as genre, multiplicity of genres, prior release of home films in the U.S., and recency.","PeriodicalId":84572,"journal":{"name":"Development and society (Soul Taehakkyo. Institute for Social Devdelopment and Policy Research)","volume":"2 1","pages":"149-175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development and society (Soul Taehakkyo. Institute for Social Devdelopment and Policy Research)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21588/DNS.2012.41.1.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study explores several factors affecting three different types of comparison strategies used by U.S. critics in their reviews of Asian films: U.S. comparison (comparing to U.S. counterparts), foreign comparison (comparing to counterparts from countries other than the U.S. and the focal Asian country that is compared), and home comparison (comparing to counterparts from the same country). Using 288 Asian film reviews, this paper reveals that critics tend to draw U.S. comparisons for films in culture-neutral and multiple genres that have been recently released in the U.S. In addition, this study reveals that critics use home comparison strategy more often than foreign comparison strategy on a large pool of prior home films in the U.S., while home comparison strategy is used more often on recently released films in the U.S. This suggests that critics" comparison strategies are mainly influenced by such factors as genre, multiplicity of genres, prior release of home films in the U.S., and recency.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
打破距离:亚洲电影、美国影评人与比较策略
本研究探讨了影响美国影评人在评论亚洲电影时使用的三种不同类型比较策略的几个因素:美国比较(与美国同行比较),外国比较(与美国以外的国家和被比较的亚洲重点国家的同行比较)和国内比较(与来自同一国家的同行比较)。通过对288篇亚洲电影评论的分析,本文发现影评人倾向于对近期在美国上映的文化中性和多种类型的电影进行美国比较。此外,本研究还发现,影评人对大量之前在美国上映的本土电影使用本土比较策略的频率高于外国比较策略。而家庭比较策略则更多地用于最近在美国上映的电影。这表明影评人的比较策略主要受类型、类型的多样性、家庭电影在美国上映之前以及近期等因素的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Explaining South Korea’s Diaspora Engagement Policies A Comparative Study on Two Ways of Community Building with Different Commons Ownership Modes: Focusing on the cases of Gasi-ri and Seonheul 1-ri Synergistic Interactions between Social Policy and SSEs in Developing Countries: Interfaces in Discourse and Practice * Labour protection policy in a third world economy: The case of Indonesia Arguments on Information Secrecy Made by Public Agencies in Indonesia: A Case Study in the Disputes over Access to Information, 2010-2016
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1