Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Multiculturalism in Contemporary Italian Film

Since the turn of the century, Italian cinema has emphasized multiculturalism in response to Italy’s growing immigration. This emphasis is much like Hollywood’s contemporary, “token” portrayal of minority groups through which the following occur:

  • Regardless of exposure, the groups are still seen as having levels of exoticism rather than familiarity.
  • This exoticism is largely due to the subtle perpetuation of stereotypes.
  • Stereotypes replace more complex, realistic characters.

To detail Italian cinema’s focus on multiculturalism further, contemporary directors have followed this trend in order to re-think what it means to be an Italian citizen. They have also done this to perpetuate a new kind of national cinema in contrast to the 1990s immigration cinema and other’s film.

Multiculturalism in the new national cinema is aimed at diminishing the otherness of minority groups. However, this does not mean that the spiral of silence is no more. While multiculturalism puts more faces on the screen, the characters present are not necessarily flush, complex personalities; instead, their presences are connotated with exoticism and are portrayed through stereotypes.

Marco Ponti’s 2004 film A/R Andata + Ritorno provides a case study of this through his character Tolstoj. Tolstoj is one of the most pronounced ethnic characters in the movie, but his voice repeatedly lends itself to uttering foreign words of wisdom. This foreignness falls directly in line with Edward Said’s conceptions of Orientalism.

According to Said, the foreigner is exotic and therefore is the other. The stereotype of the other is meant to be a device through which the viewing party can understand the foreigner. In new Italian cinema, the immigrant is stereotyped in order to be better understood. However, this is not a simple meaning-making process. An overly simplistic, often one-sided, representation is cultivated, and it is usually framed to reinforce hegemony.

This kind of representation has long been seen in Hollywood films as well. Taking the recent blockbuster wave as an example, an increasing number of man vs. "other" movies have been produced. Remember Man of SteelOz the Great and PowerfulWorld War Z, and Captain Phillips (to name a few)? Each exalts the heterosexual, white man as the hero who vanquishes the unknown enemy. This gives power to whiteness and those who fall under hegemonic masculinity.

These movies also highlight how political controversy can be portrayed in abstract ways. The U.S. is at war and is paranoid of terrorism, so its culture more readily consumes texts that deal with vanquishing the outside enemy. Similarly, Italy is dealing with immigration, so its cultural products try to connect the audience with that controversy. Furthermore, although Italy and the U.S. have maintained positive relations since 1944, a hypothetical quarrel between the two would also generate cultural products with immediacy. Still, cultural products tell stories that are just as stereotyped as characters. A film's framing of people, places, and situations cannot completely escape cultural contexts.

Sources:

Film Ratings: Sensible or Censorship?



If you live in the United States, it is likely that your television set contains a V-chip, used in accordance with the 2008 Child Safe Viewing Act. These chips, mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), allow TV users to voluntarily censor their household from television and movies that earned certain ratings.


Because of an influx of technology plus an increase of violence among children (citing the Desensitizing Theory), film and television ratings have gotten more attention.

This post will compare the United States' rating system (regulated by the Motion Picture Association of America - MPAA) and that of Britain (regulated by the British Board of Film Classification - BBFC). The BBFC and MPAA function as gatekeepers.

Both systems are very similar. And both focus on protecting children, an idea not uncommon in the media industry.

For the sake of brevity, this post will compare BBFC's "18" rating with MPAA's "R" rating.

BBFC's "18"
BBFC ratings breakdown. 
  • No children under 18 can see the film in theaters or buy/rent a copy.
  • "Adults are free to pick their entertainment under the law."
  • These films may contain:
    • Very strong and detailed violence
    • Frequent strong language
    • Strong portrayals of sexual activity
    • Strong horror
  • However, these may be cut from the film:
    • Material that breaches criminal law
    • Material that harms individual morals


MPAA ratings breakdown.

  
  MPAA's "R(estricted)"
  - Children under 17 require an accompanying    parent or guardian.
  - It is "not appropriate for parents to bring their    children to an R-  rated movie."
  - These films may contain:
     - Intense or persistent violence
     - Hard language
     - Sexually-oriented nudity



It appears that Britain is more lenient once a child reaches 18, marking them as adults. In the United States, however, R-rated movies are available to 17 year-olds so these films may be less graphic.

It is also interesting to note that the BBFC and MPAA are private media businesses. This injects economics directly into the ratings system and begs the question of objectivity. 

Ultimately, ratings lose to the uses and gratification approach. Media users are attracted to the types of content that meet their psychological and social needs, no matter the film rating.

At a basic level, ratings are censorship. Organizations like the BBFC and MPAA examine material and remove parts that are harmful, or rate it "higher" to limit access. However, even in two countries that value freedom of expression, the ratings system provide the benefit of protection, something worth the regulation.

Check out the full sources for more info.