【CIMS305】Discussion Post Week One

Considering the suggested scope (length) of this discussion post, I mainly want to focus on the issue of binary relationship of dichotomy, both in the realm of theories and the cinematic nature. One essential argument in Homi Bhabha’s essay is deconstructing the polarized, opposed, binary relationship between the Eurocentric world and the Other. From my perspective, in other words, he opposes the static subject-object discourse, in which the Other (the Third World) might be degraded into passive objects being “described” by the subject: the Western scholars. Therefore, Bhabha turns to propose another space for a more dynamic and dialogic method: negotiation, where both sides could become active participants and subjects of the discourse. This subject-object dualism may assist to understand the difference between cultural diversity and culture difference as well. His attack on cultural diversity always reminds me of Edward Said’s critic on Orientalism. The Other, the Third World in Bhabha’s mind or the Orient in Said’s mind, frequently descends to be the fantasies satisfying the Eurocentric discourses, extracted from the realities. The Other ceases to speak, to demonstrate their desires. They themselves become the desires of the Western writings. Therefore, such criticism made by Bhabha and Said could also be viewed as an attack on the subject-object dualism. This closure needs to be broken and expanded into discursive dialogue. However, moving from this theory-based discussion to the cinematic practices (or “praxis,” when bearing this discussion of theory in mind), I feel difficult to discard this subject-object relationship when analyzing the film. Being one kind of visual art, cinema is by nature ocular, which creates many necessary subject-object relationships: the observer and the observed, the film and the filmed (vice versa, inspired by Prof. Kaja Silverman’s course), the projection and the projected. Interestingly, changing “the ocular language of the image”, Bhabha seems to suggest through Paul Gilroy that “as an attempt to transform the relationship between performer and crowd 'in dialogic rituals so that spectators acquire the active role of participants in collective processes which are sometimes cathartic and which may symbolize or even create a community.” (Bhabha, 15) From my perspective, the voice-over by Trinh in this film seems to overturn this observer-observed dichotomy through poetic expressions. For instance, she once says “I am looking through a circle in a circle of looks.” The gaze is reflected back to the observer, making the audience to reflect on themselves. “What I see is life looking at me. I do not intend to speak about, just speak nearby.” “Speak about” is certainly rooted in the subject-object power structure. The self-conceived narrators, unsound beholders of “knowledge”, feel privileged to speak “about,” or “upon,” the Other. The Third World is being narrated, becoming passive contents. Instead, as Trinh softly whispers, the recorders are speaking “nearby,” creating a coexistence of two sides and equal positions between them.