So why and
how did the IMDb hurt me so? It told me that Dušan Pekić (Pinki) died in 2000
while serving in the military, circumstances unknown. Wikipedia corroborated,
adding director Srdjan Dragojevic cast him because he and the Pinki character
grew up in similar backgrounds. This made me wonder about the rest of the actors’
post-Wounds lives. Fellow classmates
recognized Suzana as Ana, the erstwhile fourth sister-wife Henrickson, in Big Love. Svaba seems to have a
successful Serbian acting career. Pinki’s father, Stojan, is a national
cinematic hero, having received a Life Achievement Award ("Pavle
Vuisic") in 2004 for his roles in Yugoslav cinematography. Looking at just
this cast of players’ real lives, I feel we see globalization’s contradictions
and ambiguities, writ large. Their fora are local, global, “glocal.” Their
fates* countervailing examples of globalization-proffered opportunity and
catastrophe. (*Incidentally, I hate using the word “fate” here, given that no
military operation is any more destined than are globalization’s aftereffects
inevitable. Apologies.)
Now we turn
to Morley and Robins. Certainly Morley and Robins’ thoughts are located in a
particular moment; 1995 was lifetimes ago in the communications revolution
timeline. Still what strikes me is how just as true those chapters are today,
only the names are changed. It might be comical if the accusations of racism
were so on the mark, but replace every “Japan” with “China,” change the story
from being one of technological innovation to economic, and we have a story
about the current Sinoparanoia. Only the West is even more freaked out because
okay, we’ll grant that other cultures can be modern, but communists can
definitely not be capitalists, right?
Right?
“Under
Western Eyes: Media, empire, and Otherness” features Saddam Hussein as the Evil
Other of the early 1990s, whom we know was later re-demonized after 9/11. Bin
Laden’s satanization lasted us nearly a decade with Ahmadinejad throughout,
a sort of trusty lower-level demon. And in recent months, our characterization
has extended to include two of the Arab Spring’s losers, Mubarak and Gaddafi.
None rightful men, obviously, though their collective portrayal has, per Morley
and Robins, psycho-historical foundations in America’s need to treat military
actions in the Middle East as cleansing military operations, absolution for the
devastations of the Vietnam War. "America could recover its moral purpose
and emotional wholeness" (140). But of course we haven’t and the American
moral compass is damaged worse than ever.
Meanwhile,
Al-Jazeera’s emergence has complicated hegemonic attempts at whole cloth villainization
of the Middle East. Not only did U.S. media outlets lose market share to the outlet
during the Arab Spring, but American audiences petitioned for the channel’s
inclusion in American cable markets, expressing their consumer power (Jenkins
2004). Despite being entirely state-owned, Al-Jazeera is considered one of the
world’s trustworthier, legitimately global news providers. Recalling Sparks,
that Al-Jazeera and RT (once “Russia Today”) are state funded is secondary to
their dedicated relationships to their audiences. I now go to RT for its
perspective, use of political analysts and scholars over book-peddling
“experts,” and unflinching coverage of American policy, but I admit it won my
heart with a deliriously fun interview with Brian May. Stepping well outside
the traditional bounds of celebrity chats, the interviewer asked things like, "Do you believe in God?" and "You've been
very depressed before and almost killed yourself. What made you stop?" May
remarked more than once on the interview's singularity. I stay reading their
headlines for gems like this: “Banks bulldozing towns across America… If
something is giving you a hard time, there is one surefire American way to deal
with your problems: knock it straight to the ground.”
Heh. US
hegemony has it coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment