The Ashgate Research Companion to Media Geography Film
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 24 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Ashgate Research Companion to Media Geography Paul C. Adams, Jim Craine, Jason Dittmer Film Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315613178.ch2 Deborah Dixon Published online on: 28 Aug 2014 How to cite :- Deborah Dixon. 28 Aug 2014, Film from: The Ashgate Research Companion to Media Geography Routledge Accessed on: 24 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315613178.ch2 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 2 Film Deborah Dixon Introduction Scholars in disciplines such as media and film studies have time and again invoked a “geography of cinema,” by which is largely meant the political economic settings within which film is sponsored and produced, and the differential scales of activity exhibited by the entertainment industry, as well as the re-presentation of specific locations on screen, and the role of such scenes in setting the emotional tone for a character, culture, or plot device. Research emerging from geography, however, is arguably distinctive by virtue of the fact that “space” and “place” are at the forefront of their analyses, and, moreover, that film becomes a means of nuancing these terms, and of exploring new “spatial turns.” Certainly, and in concert with scholars outside of the discipline, geographers have looked to film as a case study, a metaphor, an analogy, a symptom, and a causal factor. But also, geographers have looked to cinematic film as a site for exploratory and innovative thought and practice around some of the discipline’s key terms, or “primitives.” In large part, this disciplinary interest is driven by a recognition of and desire to understand the “extent and reach” of cinema industries, its “globalizing” effects, and its role in “subject formation.” Whilst cinematic film as an object of analysis boasts numerous characteristics, there is no doubt that the primacy of the visual in all of these issues and more has also captured attention. Accordingly, whilst commentators have long bemoaned that for a quintessentially visual enterprise, geography is remarkably uncritical in regard to their own and others’ deployment of the image, at least one area of human geography has consistently addressed this very issue: cinematic geographies. This “minor” subfield has turned time and again on the question of how, where, and with what effect the image has helped to constitute, and confound, our own and others’ spatiotemporal imaginaries and materialities. It is none too surprising, then, to find that some of the most contentious, as well as productive, conceptual lines of inquiry to emerge in geography have been played out within cinematic geographies. Some of these will be outlined below. It must also be recognised, however, that as with many topics considered to help comprise “popular culture,” there has also been a tendency within the discipline to eschew cinematic geographies as both marginal and ephemeral in comparison with the “real” terrain of (especially) economic and urban processes and practices (Aitken and Zonn 1994). Indeed, film itself has often been referred to as the “reel” counterpart to the “real” (e.g. Lukinbeal 1998; Zonn 1984; 1985). In arguing the case for the dissolution of such a distinction, numerous geographers have taken the opportunity to make a variety of conceptual points in regard to the mediated character of the “real” and the extratextual character of the “reel” (Benton 1995; Dixon and Grimes 2004; Gold 2002; Hanna 1996). Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:34 24 Sep 2021; For: 9781315613178, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315613178.ch2 THE ASHGatE RESEARCH COMPANION TO MEDIA GEOGRAPHY In this chapter, I provide an overview of the emergence of the cinematic geography subfield, noting a significant shift from film as a real-world mimetic, and hence useful teaching medium, to film as a complex social construct and material assemblage that “does work” on a variety of levels, from the ideological to the affective. Whilst providing a sense of the relevant literatures available, I also stress at key moments individual essays that speak to a conceptual, as well as methodological, engagement with space especially. I conclude the chapter by turning to current lines of inquiry that, whilst using film as an exemplar and symptom, promise to speak to broadscale debates across the geographic discipline. An Emerging “Cinematic Geography” Whilst film as a complex and important object of analysis became a feature of social theoretical writings early in the twentieth century – indeed, the early reach of the industry, and the societal impacts of film-watching, were taken by some as helping to define a “modern condition” (see Clarke 1997) – there is no doubt that within geography film was to become instrumentalized as a minor element in practitioners’ teaching strategies. The earliest disciplinary writings on film, for example, produced for the Geographical Magazine in the 1950s, were explicitly concerned with their utility as teaching aids, insofar as selected clips could re-present for students the “earth and its people” (Cons 1959; though see Sherman 1967). Indeed, film was superior to photographs in this regard, insofar as their capturing of movement as well as scenery would allow for an even more faithful experience of “being in the field” (Griffith 1953; Koval 1954; Manvell 1953; 1956a; Wright 1956; Knight, 1957). Some subsequent film analyses have echoed this concern over the fidelity of such representations, with a tendency to bemoan the “subjective” input provided by filmmakers, such that images are “distorted” and “misleading” (Liverman and Sherman 1985; Godfrey 1993). Whilst recognizing the pioneering work of Gold (1984; 1985), it is only since the 1990s – and in particular the publication of Aitken and Zonn’s (1994) genre-building, edited collection – that sufficient quantities of critically engaged research articles and books on this popular medium have been produced to allow for a disciplinary subfield to emerge. Such efforts were very much influenced by broadscale debates within and without the discipline on the complex, socially constructed character of “popular culture” per se, and looked to interrogate film in terms of its content, form, and distribution, but also its efficacy as a particular medium of expression. Such efforts can be very loosely grouped into two bodies of literature and methodological practice. First, geographers already interested in ideological apparatuses turned to the work of the Frankfurt School, emerging in 1930s Germany, to understand the particular role of screened people and places, as well as the relationship established between the screen and the audience. The shooting as well as the content of such films, it was argued, more often than not served to divert attention away from the broader effects of the global capitalist system, such as a pervasive neoliberal discourse, toward viscerally exciting scenes of sex and violence, or a more benign concern with the melodramatic plight of the individual (Dixon 2008). What is more, it was argued, as people and place become part of cinematic production and screening, their individuality and uniqueness are subsumed. In response, some geographers were to urge the critical analysis of film as a consciousness-raising exercise (for example, Alderman and Popke 2002; Algeo 2007; Cresswell 2000; Lukinbeal 2002; Mains 2004; Youngs and Martin 1984). And yet, as Scott was to caution, with specific reference to the film industry, any analysis of culture as a matter of identity and power must take into account the potential for a heightened cultural 40 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:34 24 Sep 2021; For: 9781315613178, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315613178.ch2 FILM differentiation, as well as a sustained resistance to a homogenized “cultural osmosis.” He writes, Alongside the grim analyses of the Frankfurt School about the leveling and stupefying effects of capitalist culture we must set not only the resilient and creative reception that it encounters in many sorts of traditional cultures, but also the enlightening and progressive cultural forces constantly unleashed by capitalism. (1997: 15) This more avowedly dialectical approach to screen-audience encounters certainly animated Harvey’s (1989) now iconic analysis of Blade Runner (1982), as well as Natter and Jones’s (1993) innovative analysis of Michael Moore’s Roger and Me (1989), which takes to task the role of General Motors in building, and then breaking, the town of Flint, Michigan. For Natter and Jones cinematic form as well as content is crucial, insofar as a documentary-style montage presentation does not sum up the tensions inherent in contemporary capitalism: instead, It juxtaposes past and present, class perspectives of the rich and poor, views of capital as both a private and social power, and the seemingly impersonal laws of the economy against their personalized effects. The trope of irony which organizes the film’s stylistic juxtapositions does not permit a reconciliation of these differences, but instead exposes them as unresolved contradictions. It is between the positions thus revealed as unreconcilable that the viewer is forced to choose.