Questions of Realism and Representation

Reading through the articles this week, all the authors I have read so far (Naficy, Higson, Barlet) make some type of implicit or explicit argument for (or complication against the current) alternatives to the critical category of the national cinema. I have found the terms of these discussions—largely the problems inherent to notions of national cinema and national audiences in an increasingly transnational climate—to be predominantly as I expected, however I found a provocation in Olivier Barlet’s discussion of diasporic filmmakers. He writes on page 222:

…the fact that they live principally in Europe casts a shadow of suspicion on the filmmakers of the ‘diaspora.’ Here too contempt is the norm, and the force of accusations proportional to the frustrations felt. They are said to be disconnected from African realities, uninterested in their audiences’ expectations, sell-outs to the West. Would such accusations be made against an abstract painter? Is a filmmaker no less of an artist?

The tone of Barlet’s article marks it with a polemical quality, and a number of moments in the piece include what I perceive to be a certain degree of rhetorical imprecision or exaggeration, particularly when he addresses “the West” or African audiences, which are in keeping with the article’s call for a change in attitudes. This temper is well evidenced in the question “Is a filmmaker no less of an artist?” which I would imagine I am not alone in judging to be a fairly unproductive inquiry outside of the emotional register. What particularly struck me about the quote above however was Barlet’s implicit assertion that an abstract painter would not be faced with “accusations” of cultural disconnection from his homeland and incomplete/failed/distorted representation. While I think that, on the level of practice, this claim is probably not true (as I would guess that painters enjoy as much critical attention as any other high profile cultural practitioner), what interests me here is the underlying question of realism, which seems to be built into many of these discussions. For the sake of argument, if Barlet is correct and an abstract painter would not be subject to the questions aimed at diasporic cinema, what about a realist painter?

Throughout the articles by Naficy, Higson and Barlet, there are particular norms at work in the evaluation of the relative “national” qualities of various works. Within the question of cultural relevance is also the question of cultural representation. Each of these three authors assumes or argues that diasporic and transnational filmmakers will create works that are representative of their experiences and thus, will resonate with the multitude of communities with which they belong, but to what to what degree does this representational assumption/obligation break down if the work is not based, at least to some degree, in a realist mode of storytelling? What if the work in question is abstract or avant-garde, and thus does not directly resemble the experiences of the audience(s)/communitie(s) to which it belongs? To what extent do non-realist films belong to the national/transnational/diasporic dialogue and to what degree is their belonging predicated on multiple filmmakers creating works in a similar vein (the Czech surrealists for example) and thus developing a movement or taxonomic category? I would argue that particularly strong or cohesive moments in national cinemas are marked by a level of perceived cohesion between multiple filmmakers at a certain place and time. To what degree does a transnational, diasporic or global cinema require or demand this same type of thematic and formal interconnection?