Review of Transnational Cinema/Media Studies conference

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. For example, see Ezra and Rowden (2006), Vitali and Willemen (2008), Ďurovičová and Newman (2010), Nagib, Perriam, and Dudrah (2012) and Bâ and Higbee (2012).

2. ‘Intellectuals and scholarship’, they explain, ‘play an important role – directly or indirectly, willingly or unwittingly – in legitimizing American exceptionalism and rationalizing US expansionism and repression, domestically and globally’ (6–7).

3. Kollywood is the colloquial name for the Tamil-language industry in the Kodambakkan district of Chennai; Tollywood, for the Telugu-language industry in Hyderabad.

4. For a discussion of appropriation in this regard, see also Hudson and Zimmermann (2009, 138–139).

5. For discussions of South Korean cinema in the context of globalization, see Shin and Stringer (2005). For discussions of western and central African cinema, see Diawara (1992) and Harrow (2013), for example. For discussions of Nollywood in a global context, see King and Okome (2013).

6. BRICS refers to Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

7. The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

8. For an analysis of the effect of the manifesto on film theory and criticism, see Stam (2000).

9. Alternative aesthetics matched the revolutionary politics in modes of filmmaking that were transnationally and indigenously informed, such as Glauber Rocha’s ‘cinema of hunger’ (1965) and Julio García Espinosa’s ‘imperfect cinema’ (1969), which refused relationships of dependency in favour of ‘decolonizing the mind’. For responses to these manifestos, see Grant and Kuhn (2006), particularly essays by Julianne Burton-Carvajal and Teshome H. Gabriel.

10. See Desai (2003) and Majithia (in press).