Does it Matter Who Directs the Story? Comparing Québec’s Immigrant Cinema and the Cinema of Immigration Through Case Studies of Karaman and Deraspe, Villeneuve and Bensaddek
{"title":"Does it Matter Who Directs the Story? Comparing Québec’s Immigrant Cinema and the Cinema of Immigration Through Case Studies of Karaman and Deraspe, Villeneuve and Bensaddek","authors":"Miléna Santoro","doi":"10.3828/qs.2023.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n If it is true that “[c]inema has from its inception been transnational, circulating more or less freely across borders and utilizing international personnel” (Ezra and Rowden 2006, 2), it is equally indisputable that cinematic traditions have historically reflected and reinforced national, regional, or ethnolinguistic identities. The cinema of Québec is a case in point, such that Bill Marshall’s choice of title for his 2001 landmark study,\n Quebec National Cinema\n , generally went unremarked upon. Since the turn of the millennium, however, “other” or immigrant stories are receiving increased interest and representation on screen. The crux of the current terminological dilemma is that while theorists of accented, diaspora, exilic, or transnational cinema tend to privilege films made by immigrant directors, a significant number of Québec films about immigrant experiences have been made by non-immigrant directors. Drawing on films released since 2010 by Onur Karaman, Sophie Deraspe, Denis Villeneuve, and Bachir Bensaddek, I discuss how they defy or destabilize the terminological landscape and propose the distinction between immigrant cinema and the cinema of immigration, the latter of which, I argue, embraces films made about immigration by non-immigrant directors. By bringing together examples of the cinema of immigration and immigrant cinema, this article examines the issues raised by the expanding inclusivity and popularity of stories of and by Québec’s ethnocultural “others.”\n","PeriodicalId":36865,"journal":{"name":"Quebec Studies","volume":" 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quebec Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/qs.2023.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
If it is true that “[c]inema has from its inception been transnational, circulating more or less freely across borders and utilizing international personnel” (Ezra and Rowden 2006, 2), it is equally indisputable that cinematic traditions have historically reflected and reinforced national, regional, or ethnolinguistic identities. The cinema of Québec is a case in point, such that Bill Marshall’s choice of title for his 2001 landmark study,
Quebec National Cinema
, generally went unremarked upon. Since the turn of the millennium, however, “other” or immigrant stories are receiving increased interest and representation on screen. The crux of the current terminological dilemma is that while theorists of accented, diaspora, exilic, or transnational cinema tend to privilege films made by immigrant directors, a significant number of Québec films about immigrant experiences have been made by non-immigrant directors. Drawing on films released since 2010 by Onur Karaman, Sophie Deraspe, Denis Villeneuve, and Bachir Bensaddek, I discuss how they defy or destabilize the terminological landscape and propose the distinction between immigrant cinema and the cinema of immigration, the latter of which, I argue, embraces films made about immigration by non-immigrant directors. By bringing together examples of the cinema of immigration and immigrant cinema, this article examines the issues raised by the expanding inclusivity and popularity of stories of and by Québec’s ethnocultural “others.”
如果“[c]电影从一开始就是跨国的,或多或少地自由地跨越国界,并利用国际人员”(Ezra and Rowden 2006,2)是真的,那么同样无可争辩的是,电影传统在历史上反映并加强了国家、地区或民族语言的身份认同。魁省的电影就是一个很好的例子,比尔·马歇尔为他2001年的里程碑式研究选择了魁北克国家电影作为标题,但却没有引起人们的注意。然而,自世纪之交以来,“其他”或移民故事在银幕上受到越来越多的关注和呈现。当前术语困境的关键在于,虽然口音电影、散居电影、流亡电影或跨国电影的理论家倾向于给予移民导演制作的电影特权,但大量关于移民经历的quamebec电影是由非移民导演制作的。根据奥努尔·卡拉曼、索菲·德拉斯佩、丹尼斯·维伦纽夫和贝希尔·本萨戴克自2010年以来发行的电影,我讨论了他们是如何挑战或破坏术语格局的,并提出了移民电影和移民电影之间的区别,我认为后者包含了非移民导演拍摄的移民电影。通过将移民电影和移民电影的例子结合在一起,本文探讨了quamezbec的种族文化“他者”的故事日益扩大的包容性和受欢迎程度所带来的问题。