展示我们的本来面目:牙买加电影中的地方、民族和身份

Q3 Arts and Humanities Caribbean Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-07-03 DOI:10.1080/00086495.2022.2105044
J. Bryce
{"title":"展示我们的本来面目:牙买加电影中的地方、民族和身份","authors":"J. Bryce","doi":"10.1080/00086495.2022.2105044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"FOR VERY GOOD REASONS, THE HANDFUL OF books on anglophone Caribbean cinema mostly treat it as part of a larger, regional endeavour.1 Apart from Cuba, few places in the Caribbean can support their own film industry, and production proceeds by fits and starts. Despite this, the long history and cultural specificity of Jamaican film-making have resulted in a body of work that repays a closer look. Rachel Moseley-Wood’s study does not set out to be a history of Jamaican cinema, or even a comprehensive overview. What she offers is a series of case studies of key films, from pre-Independence documentaries through the seminal 70s moment of The Harder They Come (1972) 2 to Better Mus’ Come,3 made in 2010. Setting each of these within the parameters spelled out in her title – place, nation and identity – she asks what they have to tell us about how Jamaicanness has been conceived and represented on film, how this is shaped by generic conventions and how it has changed over time. The first part of the title, Show Us as We Are, sets up an expectation of the cliché “telling our own stories” variety – the idea that certain people and perspectives have direct access to the ‘truth’ or to more ‘real’ versions of it than others. In fact, the words are taken from an editorial in the Daily Gleaner in 1913, objecting to a British film company’s dramatisation of Jamaicans as “halfsavage natives” who kidnap a missionary for ransom. “We want”, it declared, “to be shown just as we are . . . as a colony without a colour problem” (2–3). Seizing on this quotation, Moseley-Wood makes it her project to deconstruct its underlying assumptions and demonstrate how irony and contradiction are built into it from the outset. Far from cliché, in other words, she proceeds to lay out a nuanced argument for a plurality of perspectives inflected by class, race, gender, politics and history. In this regard, the title is misleading and one might have wished for a more effective clue to its purpose – “contesting place, nation and identity”, for example.","PeriodicalId":35039,"journal":{"name":"Caribbean Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Show Us as We Are: Place, Nation and Identity in Jamaican Film\",\"authors\":\"J. Bryce\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00086495.2022.2105044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"FOR VERY GOOD REASONS, THE HANDFUL OF books on anglophone Caribbean cinema mostly treat it as part of a larger, regional endeavour.1 Apart from Cuba, few places in the Caribbean can support their own film industry, and production proceeds by fits and starts. Despite this, the long history and cultural specificity of Jamaican film-making have resulted in a body of work that repays a closer look. Rachel Moseley-Wood’s study does not set out to be a history of Jamaican cinema, or even a comprehensive overview. What she offers is a series of case studies of key films, from pre-Independence documentaries through the seminal 70s moment of The Harder They Come (1972) 2 to Better Mus’ Come,3 made in 2010. Setting each of these within the parameters spelled out in her title – place, nation and identity – she asks what they have to tell us about how Jamaicanness has been conceived and represented on film, how this is shaped by generic conventions and how it has changed over time. The first part of the title, Show Us as We Are, sets up an expectation of the cliché “telling our own stories” variety – the idea that certain people and perspectives have direct access to the ‘truth’ or to more ‘real’ versions of it than others. In fact, the words are taken from an editorial in the Daily Gleaner in 1913, objecting to a British film company’s dramatisation of Jamaicans as “halfsavage natives” who kidnap a missionary for ransom. “We want”, it declared, “to be shown just as we are . . . as a colony without a colour problem” (2–3). Seizing on this quotation, Moseley-Wood makes it her project to deconstruct its underlying assumptions and demonstrate how irony and contradiction are built into it from the outset. Far from cliché, in other words, she proceeds to lay out a nuanced argument for a plurality of perspectives inflected by class, race, gender, politics and history. In this regard, the title is misleading and one might have wished for a more effective clue to its purpose – “contesting place, nation and identity”, for example.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Caribbean Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Caribbean Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00086495.2022.2105044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Caribbean Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00086495.2022.2105044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

出于非常好的原因,关于英语加勒比电影的书籍大多将其视为更大的地区努力的一部分。1除了古巴,加勒比地区很少有地方能够支持自己的电影业,制作也时断时续。尽管如此,牙买加电影制作的悠久历史和文化特色导致了一系列值得仔细观察的作品。Rachel Moseley Wood的研究并不是牙买加电影史,甚至不是一个全面的综述。她提供的是一系列关于关键电影的案例研究,从独立前的纪录片到70年代的开创性时刻《他们来的更艰难》(1972)2,再到2010年拍摄的《更美好的未来》3。在她的标题中列出的参数——地点、国家和身份——范围内,她问他们有什么可以告诉我们牙买加是如何在电影中被构思和表现的,这是如何被一般惯例所塑造的,以及它是如何随着时间的推移而变化的。标题的第一部分“展示我们的真实”,对陈词滥调“讲述我们自己的故事”的多样性提出了期望——即某些人和观点可以直接接触到“真相”或比其他人更“真实”的版本。事实上,这些话取自1913年《每日拾荒者》的一篇社论,该社论反对一家英国电影公司将牙买加人戏剧化为绑架传教士勒索赎金的“半野蛮本地人”。“我们希望”,它宣称,“表现出我们的现状……作为一个没有颜色问题的群体”(2-3)。Moseley Wood抓住了这句话,将其作为自己的项目,解构其潜在的假设,并展示讽刺和矛盾是如何从一开始就融入其中的。换言之,她远非陈词滥调,而是为阶级、种族、性别、政治和历史所影响的多种观点提出了一个细致入微的论点。在这方面,这个标题具有误导性,人们可能希望有一个更有效的线索来说明它的目的——例如“争夺位置、国家和身份”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Show Us as We Are: Place, Nation and Identity in Jamaican Film
FOR VERY GOOD REASONS, THE HANDFUL OF books on anglophone Caribbean cinema mostly treat it as part of a larger, regional endeavour.1 Apart from Cuba, few places in the Caribbean can support their own film industry, and production proceeds by fits and starts. Despite this, the long history and cultural specificity of Jamaican film-making have resulted in a body of work that repays a closer look. Rachel Moseley-Wood’s study does not set out to be a history of Jamaican cinema, or even a comprehensive overview. What she offers is a series of case studies of key films, from pre-Independence documentaries through the seminal 70s moment of The Harder They Come (1972) 2 to Better Mus’ Come,3 made in 2010. Setting each of these within the parameters spelled out in her title – place, nation and identity – she asks what they have to tell us about how Jamaicanness has been conceived and represented on film, how this is shaped by generic conventions and how it has changed over time. The first part of the title, Show Us as We Are, sets up an expectation of the cliché “telling our own stories” variety – the idea that certain people and perspectives have direct access to the ‘truth’ or to more ‘real’ versions of it than others. In fact, the words are taken from an editorial in the Daily Gleaner in 1913, objecting to a British film company’s dramatisation of Jamaicans as “halfsavage natives” who kidnap a missionary for ransom. “We want”, it declared, “to be shown just as we are . . . as a colony without a colour problem” (2–3). Seizing on this quotation, Moseley-Wood makes it her project to deconstruct its underlying assumptions and demonstrate how irony and contradiction are built into it from the outset. Far from cliché, in other words, she proceeds to lay out a nuanced argument for a plurality of perspectives inflected by class, race, gender, politics and history. In this regard, the title is misleading and one might have wished for a more effective clue to its purpose – “contesting place, nation and identity”, for example.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Caribbean Quarterly
Caribbean Quarterly Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
Communal Voices Lucille Mathurin Mair For Merle Editor’s Note Caribbean Writers on Teaching Literature
×
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