Explorations of
urban cinema sometimes emphasize the interconnection between cinema and a
(sometimes) lifeless modern and post-modern city, opening up possibilities for
ecocritical readings. In the introductory essay to Cinema and the City: Film and Urban Societies in a Global Context, for
example, Mark Shiel highlights the “curious and telling correlation between the
mobility and visual and aural sensations of the city and the mobility and
visual and aural sensations of the cinema” (1). The film industry contributes
to urban economies around the world “in the production, distribution, and
exhibition of motion pictures, and in the cultural geographies of certain
cities particularly marked by cinema (from Los Angeles to Paris to Bombay)
whose built environment and civic identity are both significantly constituted
by film industry and film” (1-2).
Shiel suggests
urban cinema’s grounding in the society of the city and the culture of cinema
opens it up for interdisciplinary readings connecting film studies with
sociology, cultural studies, geography, and urban studies. The book’s goal is
to “produce a sociology of the cinema in the sense of a sociology of motion
picture production, distribution, exhibition, and consumption, with a specific
focus on the role of cinema in the physical, social, cultural, and economic
development of cities” (3). Both sociology and film studies gain much from this
connection, according to Shiel. Following an Althusserian structural view,
Shiel argues Cinema and the City “recognizes
the interpenetration of culture [film], society [city], and economics as part
of ‘a whole and connected social material process,’ to use Raymond Williams’s
terminology” (4). For Shiel, cinema is also “a peculiarly spatial form of
culture” (5) in a global (inequitable) context that is historically situated.
Instead of approaching cinema and the city from an architectural perspective,
this volume explores the connections between the culture of cinema and the
society and economics of the city.
Focused
exclusively on Indian cinema, Preben Kaarsholm’s edited volume
Like Shiel,
Kaarsholm agrees that modernity and the metropolis are intertwined and
interrelated, and that association produces both positive and negative results.
As Kaarsholm suggests, “modernities and experiences of the breakdown of the old
come to the fore in the plural—as historical conjunctures and life situations
which are the outcomes of a single evolutionary logic, but rather as
battlefields of contestations between different forces of development and
different cultural and political agendas” (5), especially those between
European colonial powers with linear and dualist views of progress and an
indigenous agenda that strives for a more communal and equitable vision of
modernity. Indian cinema reflects this same mixture of Westernized and
indigenous cultures, both in films produced for Indian audiences and those
directed at an international audience and screening circuit (9).
With their
emphasis on class, race, and cultural politics, Shiel and Kaarsholm highlight
issues with potential environmental concerns, including environmental justice
and environmental racism. They also begin to connect the economic concerns
illustrated by urban cinema with toxic environments and human ecology. The hope
is that works like these can also reveal not only the toxic connections between
“cultural and political agendas” and the environment, but also demonstrate “the
fundamental connections to the environment in our everyday lives” (Price 538).
No comments:
Post a Comment