Sean has hit the nail on the head.
I want to respond to his mail, perhaps a little anecdoctally.
Not coming from a film studies background, I actually feel quite free from
the strait jackets of film theories. As soon as one starts to look at
'national cinemas' and 'third cinemas', one falls into the traps of the
theory of reality (or unreality in this global age!, which is what Ueno's
essay has tried to demonstrate). Cinemas cannot be compared and contrasted,
ignoring intercultural references, power relations, global commerce etc.
Most off the shelf models are inadequate in studying Hong Kong cinema (and
probably the case elsewhere!). When writers declare genres in HK as
'hybrid', 'mixed' etc. it points to different set of conventions at work. On
the other hand, there is no 'authentic' way of seeing. Is not being 'boring
and inaccurate' the best we can do? Is this the age of post theory?
Another thing, 'inter-east' is not new at all, even though technical
advances have exarcebated the movements. As a child in HK, in the early
1970s, we used to watch many fansasy Japanese tv- supermen and women, flying
sporty women -yes really! One thing I find hard to accept is Ueno's
distinction between tactical syncretism and pastiche/ eclecticism in terms
of random/ tactical, respect. A friend of mine recently went to China Town
searching for rice paper that we used as funereal equipage for her room
decoration- she is no doubt sincere and tactical but is she being eclectic
or syncretic? Is Tarantino's appropriation of Ringo Lam's plot (a little
thin on characterisation and ambiguity) dialectic of the debates on ethical
cinema?
And, anyone anywhere near Manchester may go and see Isaac Julien's 2 new
short films at the cornerhouse. Gotta go before I go into parody and cross
over...
Fai
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|