At one point or another, I am sure all of us have overheard someone say “I’d rather wait for the movie to come out”. According to Ezra and Rowden, “film is rapidly displacing literature (in particular the novel) as the textual emblematization of cosmopolitan knowing and identity (3). While as a medium it is quite distinguishable from traditional literature, one cannot deny that its transnational appeal may have an even greater outreach than that of a text. Cinema as a medium has become a more prevalent form of exposure to the concept of transnationalism, especially for the younger generations that do not remember a time without television or the internet. Furthermore, as a visual portrayal, the potency of transnational outreach is intensified by expanding accessibility. This semester, we have had a few discussions about transnationalism and privilege in terms of who has access to information and who does not. In regards to reception, film can thus serve as a means to ameliorate this criticism of privilege based on access which is often encountered in literature, as it mostly does not require literacy or a complex comprehension of lengthy texts.
However, the advantages that film may hold over traditional texts in both transnational production and reception also come with a new set questions and implications. Ezra and Rowden quote Jigna Desai and make a great point about reception by saying that “those films most likely to circulate transnationally are those that are more ‘Western friendly’, adopting familiar genres, narratives, or themes” and thus function “as ‘tasty, easily swallowed, apolitical global cultural morsels’ (6). In terms of production, it is also important to consider Ezra and Rowden’s point that “more heavily financed films tend to cross national borders with greater ease (5). So while film as a medium may increase exposure to a greater audience on a transnational level, these proposed considerations may hamper transnational depictions within the production process itself.
In order to illustrate this point, I would like to use a recent film series in order to demonstrate how both production and reception can be influenced by ongoing transnational discourses, both within and outside of the nation. An example that immediately comes to mind is the Harry Potter series, which gained even greater notoriety after being transcribed into to the world of cinema. For the purposes of this post, I will assume that most have heard of, or are quite familiar with, the Harry Potter franchise. I would like to draw specific attention to a character named Lavender Brown, a fellow Gryffindor in Harry’s year. She plays a minor role in the books, and makes even rarer appearances in the first five Harry Potter films. The ethnicity of her character is never truly specified in the books, and is left largely open to interpretation. However, in her few appearances in the first five films, she is played by an African American (or Afro British) girl, as can be seen below:
This, in itself, did not become controversial until the cinematic version of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (book 6) came out, where viewers suddenly found a completely different actress cast as the character of Lavender. If you take a look at the picture below, it becomes obvious why this casting decision raised numerous concerns:
It becomes apparent that a decision was made to replace Lavender’s previous character with a Caucasian actress. Her role in the series becomes most prominent in this film, as she has a brief relationship with one of the main characters (Ron). It appears that now that she becomes (even briefly) the romantic interest of Ron, the producers of the series assumed an interracial relationship would not be what Ezra and Rowden describe as ‘Western friendly’ or a ‘tasty […] easily swallowed morsel’. They are essentially maintaining their “homogenizing imperative” in order to “neutralize transnational cinema’s more fundamentally destabilizing potential” (Ezra and Rowden 11). Afraid of losing profit due to potentially deconstructing the preconceived notions and imagination of a transnational audience, homogenizing the discourse and relationships within the film seemed of greater importance. In this way, the decision defines the film as one that “narrates the nation as just this finite, limited space, inhabited by a tightly coherent and unified community, closed off to other identities besides national identity” (Higson 18).
This decision is even more so striking, when remembering that Ron and Harry took the Patil twins (two girls of Indian descent) to a grand Ball in the fourth installment of the movie series titled Goblet of Fire. It seems that to the producers, the portrayal of the latter interracial relationships is fine, especially since the twins were essentially what would be considered ‘last resort’ dates for both Harry and Ron. We see an exemplification of the process Higson attributes to certain branches of cinema dealing with ‘foreign commodities’, in that “it will not be treated as exotic, but […] will be metaphorically translated into a local idiom” (19). The ‘foreign commodity’ as a love interest is homogenized to conform to a universal and apolitical imagination in order to prevent loss of profit, while it is seen as perfectly acceptable when the ‘foreign’ or ‘exotic’ illustrated as an object of last resort. So while the possible advantages of transnational cinema over traditional literature in contemporary culture are indisputable, taking a closer look at certain examples can also unearth problematic implications for both the production and reception of transnational discourses within the world of cinema.
Eileen! I really appreciated your post discussing production and reception as pertains to cinema. I had no idea about the Lavender Brown situation in the Harry Potter films. What I’m wondering, though, is the fact that millions of people (I’m assuming) have seen the Harry Potter series, thus making it more likely to find mix-ups or errors or, in this case, changes in the race of a character in a film; yet, would this “homogenization” be found in lesser known films, such as indie movies, and, if it was found, would the studio who produced the film receive any backlash (due to the smaller quantity of viewers who expressed anger)? Because the reception of Harry Potter encompasses millions of people, this might just take place with bigger-title movies. Just an idea for all of us to think about!
Eileen,
I think your choice of the Harry Potter series, both the printed and filmed versions, allows for quite a few interesting connections to the themes we’ve discussed in class so far. Also, I love the Harry Potter books!
Given the massive appeal of the books and films, considering them as examples of transnational “texts” seems obvious. Both have been translated into numerous languages, but they also contain transnational elements themselves. Characters in the novels hail from all manner of ethnic backgrounds and nationalities, from the Afro British and Indian British you mentioned to Irish, Chinese, and Bulgarian. Boundaries and borders play important roles in several of the ongoing story lines, from the mundane of national borders to the line between life and death. The Ministry of Magic even has a Department if International Magical Cooperation!
To the specific example you raised concerning the recasting of an actress, I agree with your idea that a homogenized love interest for a main character would be a more “easily swallowed” “cultural morsel” than would be a face that did not resemble his. I also agree with your take on why the Patil twins are acceptable as “last resort” choices. I would suggest going further to consider the event, the Yule Ball, as an international gathering, making the non-Anglo characters perhaps more “appropriate.” We might also want to consider why it might have been easier to replace Lavender Brown rather than the Patil girls. Going strictly by the characters’ names, Patil clearly suggests national or ethnic origin to Western audiences, where Lavender Brown, though literally two colors, is much easier to white-wash. The casting choices do little to challenge Western presuppositions and expectations, and in that regard, I agree that this particular film fails to take full advantage of the power of the transnational turn seen in some of the literary texts we’ve read.
The question of the race and its representations in movies is a very important issue. The anecdote about Harry Potter is particularly significant, as it reveals certain expectations and prejudices regarding race, gender and its intersectionality. It is true that transnational cinema can give us access to different types of realities, presenting experiences from multiple angles and in new and unknown ways. However, the question of the reception must always be taken into account. In a largely globalised and capitalist world there are certain power relations that cannot be separated from visual moving images. That’s why I consider that a critical analysis that pays attention to the context of production ad reception is essential as far as it also allows us to explore the dialogical tension between the homogenising and hybrid tendencies in transnational cinema. In this sense, I consider that if we adopt a critical and informed perspective, transnational cinema has the potential to open up subversive and original interpretations due to the different contexts of production and receptions that are involved.
Your comments about making transnational films more “palatable” for western audiences reminds me of some of the issues I’ve had with the marketing of *Persepolis* in its film version. In interviews about the goals of the film, Satrapi often talks about how the comic form allows for both Tehran and Iranian people to be seen as any city and any people; this decision purposefully allows western audiences to inhabit the spaces and bodies of the film (and graphic novel). While I can see the merit in such a strategy, I also wonder if getting Westerners to accept the “other” simply by allowing them to picture the “other” as themselves is really making any progress. In the end, Westerners still will not have truly understood or accepted difference.
I often wonder if Persepolis could have been received in the same way if Marjane had embraced the veil. What if she had found it beautiful and celebrated it? Would Western audiences have been able to inhabit that character?