FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1602668161> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1602668161 endingPage "108" @default.
• W1602668161 startingPage "105" @default.
• W1602668161 abstract "Teaching Indian Cinema Chakravarty Sumita (bio) I teach in a media studies program, have been involved in developing a major in culture and media at my university at the undergraduate level, and my doctoral degree is in communications. I mention these because, while my research and writing have been on Indian, primarily Hindi-language, cinema, opportunities to teach Bollywood cinema have been few and far between. This in itself would be unimportant to the readers of this essay, except that the vicissitudes of a perhaps familiar academic path in a communications-related field help to shed light on how an object of inquiry develops, what frameworks and methodologies it adopts, what constitutes its teaching practice, and who it seeks to educate or enlighten. I begin, therefore, with a brief historical look at some of the contexts—theoretical, pedagogical, and practical—in which Indian film studies inserted itself, cleared a space, or was given a seat at the table. Since teaching does not take place in a vacuum, but is actively shaped by overlapping sets of determinations (the availability of critical works and films, student interest in the topic reflected in course enrollment, and the relationship of the course to the program as a whole, to name a few), a course on Indian cinema is always more and less than the name suggests, marked as much by absence as by presence. I may be wrong here, but my sense is that in most film or media studies programs, a course on Indian cinema (or Egyptian or Iranian) must bear the burden of being a course in social history, politics and economics, language and religion. As a stand-alone course on a culture, civilization, or film tradition, it cannot benefit from the symphonic effect that courses more central to the curriculum, such as ones on American or European cinemas, can generate. Students taking a course on French director Jean Renoir, say, are able to draw upon a film theory course that would include Andre [End Page 105] Bazin, Christian Metz, and Lacanian psychoanalysis, another on the French new wave, and yet another on French comedy or cinema colonial. While distinct, these courses could build towards a cumulative understanding of French cinema in a way that a lone course on Bollywood cinema cannot. The challenge of teaching a particular film from India, then, must be seen as symptomatic of the undertaking as a whole. Let me briefly touch upon three stages or shifts in the paradigms governing the study and teaching of Indian cinema over the past two decades. The first stage, that of third world or third cinema characterized the 1980s; the second was the rubric of national cinemas that held sway during the 1990s; and the third stage, marking the current period from 2000 on, deals with Bollywood in the context of globalization. (I simplify, of course, and do not mean to suggest a strict chronology, since all three rubrics can coexist in the same course.) I will locate my experience of teaching Indian cinema in each of these moments, pointing to their pedagogical strengths and weaknesses. The opportunity for teaching Indian cinema in the American academy first arose for me in the mid-1980s, at a summer institute on Third World Cinema organized by Robert Stam at New York University. Arising out of political debates around underdevelopment and the need to view cinema as a radical instrument of social change, the third cinema movement followed in the wake of leftist manifestos from Latin America, and sought to unite for analytical purposes the diverse styles of filmmaking from the formerly colonized countries of the world.1 The purview of the course included Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, vast geopolitical areas with different histories and traditions from which we sought to derive commonalities of aim and achievement. The course featured a series of guest speakers, each of whom spoke on a chosen region based on research interests. I lectured on India's art and alternative cinema, using Satyajit Ray's work for both thematic and practical reasons. His were virtually the only films available in the United States at the time, although I was able to get two recent..." @default.
• W1602668161 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1602668161 creator A5056397330 @default.
• W1602668161 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W1602668161 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W1602668161 title "Teaching Bollywood Cinema" @default.
• W1602668161 cites W1481666893 @default.
• W1602668161 cites W1980699254 @default.
• W1602668161 cites W247772898 @default.
• W1602668161 cites W2606562353 @default.
• W1602668161 cites W582061819 @default.
• W1602668161 cites W591410909 @default.
• W1602668161 cites W616372519 @default.
• W1602668161 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.2007.0048" @default.
• W1602668161 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1602668161 type Work @default.
• W1602668161 sameAs 1602668161 @default.
• W1602668161 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1602668161 countsByYear W16026681612014 @default.
• W1602668161 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1602668161 hasAuthorship W1602668161A5056397330 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C2778572836 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C2781238097 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C519580073 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C519982507 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C138885662 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C142362112 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C144024400 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C153349607 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C2778572836 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C2781238097 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C29595303 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C41895202 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C519580073 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C519982507 @default.
• W1602668161 hasConceptScore W1602668161C95457728 @default.
• W1602668161 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1602668161 hasLocation W16026681611 @default.
• W1602668161 hasOpenAccess W1602668161 @default.
• W1602668161 hasPrimaryLocation W16026681611 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W1584135434 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W1940596189 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W2065178917 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W2128958768 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W2171615873 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W2460628709 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W2758480172 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W3135857409 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W4293090918 @default.
• W1602668161 hasRelatedWork W4318323815 @default.
• W1602668161 hasVolume "47" @default.
• W1602668161 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1602668161 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1602668161 magId "1602668161" @default.
• W1602668161 workType "article" @default.