Cultures of representation: disability in world cinema contexts

The introduction of this book speaks of the need to engage with matters of culture beyond the Anglophone-centric traditions of Disability studies in the ‘globalised West or the Global North’, setting an agenda to examine disability in world-wide cinema. Contributions are provided from a wide range of authors. The introduction raises important questions about the value of multi-perspectival views on disability and cinema, including issues such as the place of disability in ‘national imaginaries’, ‘constructions of nationhood’, ‘linguistic contexts’ and ‘state practices’, or whether we can discern commonalities across cultures, even a ‘universal disability culture’ (1) pertaining to cinema.

Looking towards a more global understanding of disability in cinema, and culture, drawing on analysis from authors from a wide range of countries, this is indeed a welcome addition to the small, but growing body of work on the distinct topic of cinema and disability. Fraser says that that the intention of the collection is to respond to the non-Anglophone lacuna – something considered in both conception and design of this collection, and it is successful in following this project in many ways. However, the framework for so doing is rather ill-defined. Reading some of the chapters I felt that the collection intended to focus on ‘world cinema’ (i.e. if one defines it as non-Anglophone). In other instances I found myself checking the original remit of the book, as there were two chapters which fell outside this category, and both the subject matter and approaches were sometimes disparate.

For example, it was not explained, or apparent why there was a chapter on Avatar (2009), an Anglophone film, although there might easily have been a reason given associated with its reputation for being the highest-grossing film in the history of cinema. It would rather stretch the definition to include it as a non-Anglophone film due to the language of the fictional people of the Na’vi, inhabitants of the moon of Pandora, a key part of the narrative. Although my own, more basic analysis of Avatar (Wilde 2010) differs in emphasis (I discuss colonialism, militarism, rehabilitation, ecology, racism, gender), the author (Susan Flynn) is also very critical of the film’s disability content, arguing that disability is seen as a symptom of American individualism, and as a support for biotechnology. As glad I was to see another critic’s concern about this film, it is unclear what it adds to the agenda set by Fraser in the introduction, especially in terms of non-Anglophone understandings. Similarly, Katherine Lashley’s chapter ‘Displaying Autism – The Thinking and Images of Temple Grandin’ (2010) focusses on representations of Temple Grandin. As useful as both of these chapters might be for those with interests in these areas they both seemed out of place within this collection.

Other than these anomalous contributions this book lived up to its promise, bringing a wealth of knowledge of many films and of wider cultural issues in moving images of disability. Personally, as a researcher in cinematic representations of impairment and disability (usually within Hollywood and other English-speaking films), I needed to extend my knowledge of studies of disability in non-Anglophone contexts. I imagine that this is true for a wide range of potential readers, not least those who study world cinema and scholars in Critical/Disability Studies. Further, the majority of chapters in this collection also make the book accessible for lay readers.

It was pleasing, and very appropriate to see that the first chapter after the introduction was a discussion of film festivals, written by David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder. As Fraser says, this chapter ‘begins an important conversation on attitudinal change’ (9) which continues, in various forms, throughout the collection. Mitchell and Snyder continue their important contributions to the area of disability and cinema with an insiderly view of international disability film festivals and independent/in(ter)dependant films, demonstrating the value of festivals in awareness raising and in the shaping of alternative ‘ethical map[s]’(18). They draw comparisons with cultural constructions of other ‘anomalous bodies’, showing how festivals ‘pluralise encounters with human variation’ and challenge notions of public space.

There are a number of countries represented in the films discussed and the contributors discuss the work of a variety of directors, ranging across cultural hierachies of taste, if leaning a little towards ‘art film’. I was particularly delighted to see Susan Antebi’s contribution ‘Picturing Disability in Buñuel’s Los Olvidados (1950). This is a film which has preoccupied me for many years, and deserves analysis for its complex portrayals of disability and childhood – something not apparent in Anglophone film criticism. Antebi’s analysis aided a more complex understanding of how discourses of disability in this film relate to the ‘wider crisis of revolutionary modernity’ drawing links between constructions of disability and Mexican attitudes towards ‘problem children’. Antebi also provides us with an elegantly argued exposition of how cinematography works to create associations between impairment, corporeal difference, playing with the audience’s knowledge and positioning to create affect in the viewer.

Other notable chapters, for me, included Wren’s chapter on Kurosawa’s, Dodes’ka-den (1970), a beautifully written discussion of disability as a symbol of disorder, drawing attention to Kurosawa’s problematisation of normalcy, whilst providing valuable analysis of his body of work and cinematic techniques. Similarly Ken Junior Lipenga’s ‘Through the Disability Lens’, provides an enthralling examination of Ousmane Sembène’s work, a renowned African filmmaker; this compares two films and relates disability as an ‘embedded concept’ (12) to neo-colonialism, racism, humanism and ableism. Other particularly enjoyable chapters include José Alaniz’s discussion of the ethics of Anton’s Right Here (2012) a Russian documentary film about autism, including analysis of the director’s (Liubov Arkus) relationship with, and portrayal of, Anton, a young autistic person. Anna Grebe’s ‘On the Road to Normalcy’ also provided an enjoyable, informative account of disability in European Road Movies (2002–2011), i.e. the German and Belgian ‘Behinderten-Roadmovie’. The analysis explores discourses of normalcy within these films and the ways they address questions of autonomy, independency and re-institutionalisation.

Dependent on reader interest in analysis there are a number of other contributions which may interest scholars interested in disability and/or world cinema. These include Mitzi Waltz’s analysis of Postwar Dutch Cinema (1973–2011), a chapter by Michael Gill on Down Syndrome in Yo también (2009), a fascinating account of disability discourses in the Korean New Wave (firmly contextualised in national context), accounts of disability in Spanish film (featuring films by Almodóvar), a chapter on Italian film (featuring a film by Carbonari), and chapters focusing on German (several) directors and Iranian film (focussed on The House is Black, a film by Farrokhzad). A chapter on Dyslexia and ‘Bollywood’’s Taare Zammen Par is also likely to be of considerable value to those working in Education Studies and those of us who grapple with the pros and cons of labelling, telling us the story of an Indian boy who faces great obstacles due to a lack of recognition of his impairment, needs and talents. This chapter also raises important points, often neglected in screen studies about the individualisation of impairments and the need for analysis of social context.

In conclusion, this is a book which is (overall) accessible to most readers – scholars, students and cineastes alike. It has widened my knowledge of disability in non-Anglophone cinema and the variance in cultural dispositions towards impairment and disability, and is likely to do the same for other readers. It is perhaps likely to appeal to a niche audience but I heartily recommend this book, not least as enjoyable reading for the day.

Alison Wilde
Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
[email protected]
© 2016 Alison Wilde
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1219525