Unit 5:
Panivong Norindr: "Critical and popular acclaim notwithstanding, Wargnier’s representation of Indochina exerts a dangerous fascination precisely because it brings visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in Southeast Asia. Indochine merely displays beautiful images and should only be remembered as a symptom of the current French fad for things exotic." Do you agree? Why or why not?
I do agree with Norindr. I found the movie Indochine full of visual pleasure. I was hypnotized by the landscape, beautiful images, and cast. I had not idea how mystical rubber forests could be, or how pleasant the workers were who harvested them. The plantation owner was breathtaking and her handsome lover was unstoppable.
With a preconceived notion that a French film may or may not show France in a true or negative light, I was prepared to take this film with a grain of salt. The only scene that made me "feel" was the scene when Camille noticed that Sao had been killed with at least one of her children. This made me set up and take notice that the French were doing Indochine no "real" favors. Other than this scene, I was left with no real idea of the true extent of the French rule. This is why I agree with Norindr in that Indochine should be regarded as "displays of beautiful images and a symptom of a current French fad for things exotic".
Panivong Norindr: "Critical and popular acclaim notwithstanding, Wargnier’s representation of Indochina exerts a dangerous fascination precisely because it brings visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in Southeast Asia. Indochine merely displays beautiful images and should only be remembered as a symptom of the current French fad for things exotic." Do you agree? Why or why not?
I do agree with Norindr. I found the movie Indochine full of visual pleasure. I was hypnotized by the landscape, beautiful images, and cast. I had not idea how mystical rubber forests could be, or how pleasant the workers were who harvested them. The plantation owner was breathtaking and her handsome lover was unstoppable.
With a preconceived notion that a French film may or may not show France in a true or negative light, I was prepared to take this film with a grain of salt. The only scene that made me "feel" was the scene when Camille noticed that Sao had been killed with at least one of her children. This made me set up and take notice that the French were doing Indochine no "real" favors. Other than this scene, I was left with no real idea of the true extent of the French rule. This is why I agree with Norindr in that Indochine should be regarded as "displays of beautiful images and a symptom of a current French fad for things exotic".
Régis Wargnier’s imagery, indeed, exerts a “dangerous fascination”, but does it bring “visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in Southeast Asia? (Norindr 135) Is it possible for the viewer not to question why the French are in Indochina? How did they obtain, certainly in the case of the Lang-Sai plantation, such large land-holdings? Why are the French leaving the country? Why did Tanh and Camille select to become involved in the communist party?
ReplyDeleteIn the same chapter, Norindr proffers that “Eliane’s relation to the “geographical narrative is made unambiguous when the narrator/protagonist describes herself as “une Asiate”, which is not defined as “to give into the milieu, to become Asiate, in sum to lose one’s identity”, but as “simply a French woman born in Indochina who has never left it”. This provides yet another level for exploration and brings to mind the following statements by Eliane, “the difference between people isn’t skin color…it’s this. The taste. A child who only crunches apples can’t be me…I’m an Asian. A mango.”