Discussion Questions for 3/1 class

1) Manthia Diawara suggests that an examination of films spanning from older "race films" (such as Micheaux's) to Blaxploitation to Spike Lee and "the rethematization of urban life in such films as ...Boyz N the Hood reveals that mainstream cinema constantly feeds on independent cinema and appropriates its themes and narrative forms"(4). To what extent can we see this dynamic occurring in the films he cites or those we have viewed for class? Is the process he describes the same as described by Dick Hebdige in regard to subcultures (such as punk) being appropriated and subsumed by mainstream culture or are there relevant distinctions? Does such a process blur the distinction between independent and mainstream, and if so, where would a film maker like Spike Lee fall on the continuum?

2) bell hooks discusses the idea of an "oppositional gaze" that can look openly and critically at representations of certain identities in film, such as black women. She points out that an oppositional gaze was not always brought to bear, even by black female viewers who recognized the racism inherent in portrayals of black women in the majority of film history. Given her argument for the necessity of an oppositional gaze in terms of such portrayals, what aspect or element of film is currently most in need of the development of the sort of oppositional gaze discussed by hooks? In other words, what are we not confronting that we should really be overtly challenging?

2a) Not really a question, but I thought it was interesting that hooks includes the importance of "naming what we see" in her discussion of the agency conferred by interrogating and opposing the gaze of the Other (289). This reminded me of the discussion about naming in Daughters of the Dust, (Iona/I-own-her, Myown, etc). It is interesting to think about the agency claimed by naming that seems to obviously be a direct rejection of the lack of agency in naming during slavery times, and to consider the current status of naming. For instance, what to make of basketball player Ron Artest re-naming himself Metta World Peace? Does this take agency too far? Is it harmless? Does it even mean anything? Can creative naming backfire? While thinking about this I read an article about a study that supposedly proved that exceptionally creative names resulted in less job opportunities, lower pay, and so on. Basically just something to think about...