I like to take films as stand-alone universes, isolated bubbles of contrived truth borne from the lens of a unique point of view. But there's something about juxtaposition that raises questions and brings details to light.
Two films that are a part of the well-worn legacy of the travelogue, where the filmmaker goes somewhere with little pre-written, and leaves composition for the editing suite. Both are portraits of places through an outsider's lens, composed of breathtaking shot after breathtaking shot and playing with a particular rhythm of life.
As I watched these two short films, two thoughts came to mind.
First, I caught myself thinking that Sugrue had captured the dynamism of Africa, before realizing that I had no idea what the "dynamism of Africa" was, just that it was a conception of the continent (of which, surely, all regions cannot be dynamic in the same way) that came easily to the tip of the tongue.
Indeed, both societies are portrayed in line with the general perception of them by the rest of the world, but how much of that perception is inherent to the society and how much comes from the hand of the filmmaker? Does the filmmaker himself view the society through that lens, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Second, that despite the ubiquity of Western culture these days, cultural differences still manage to shine through in each film. I don't like comparing a continent to a country, but I think I'll have to in this case for simplicity. In both films, we see typically "Western" clothing, as well as technologies and modes of transport. Yet they remain quite distinct from one another. It's somewhat heartening to see this, especially in the face of all the doomsday globalization homogenization talk I've become accustomed to hearing, but the first question is raised once again. How much of it is true and how much is self-perpetuating stereotype?
First, I caught myself thinking that Sugrue had captured the dynamism of Africa, before realizing that I had no idea what the "dynamism of Africa" was, just that it was a conception of the continent (of which, surely, all regions cannot be dynamic in the same way) that came easily to the tip of the tongue.
Indeed, both societies are portrayed in line with the general perception of them by the rest of the world, but how much of that perception is inherent to the society and how much comes from the hand of the filmmaker? Does the filmmaker himself view the society through that lens, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Second, that despite the ubiquity of Western culture these days, cultural differences still manage to shine through in each film. I don't like comparing a continent to a country, but I think I'll have to in this case for simplicity. In both films, we see typically "Western" clothing, as well as technologies and modes of transport. Yet they remain quite distinct from one another. It's somewhat heartening to see this, especially in the face of all the doomsday globalization homogenization talk I've become accustomed to hearing, but the first question is raised once again. How much of it is true and how much is self-perpetuating stereotype?
In any case, the process behind a film is infinitely more interesting than trading opinions, so:
