Chang's documentary seems to address a multitude of conceptual nuances we've experienced in this unit of representation, the most relevant and interesting to me being Burke's terministic screens. While watching the film there exists a heavy dose of discomfort, due to a combination of elements that include the visual, emotional, and rhetorical realms. Never having personally traveled to China, nor having extensively educated myself on the PRC as a nation prior to watching this movie, I can honestly say that I was affected by the film's content. Beyond that however, there are elements strictly from the film and its style that catch the attention of the viewer even if they've somehow tuned out. The lack of vocal narration, save for, you could argue, the moments when Chang's dialogue is present in a few interviews, catches attention immediately and speaks volumes in itself. The "voice" of the Yangtze, even of China, seems to be slow, mysterious, daunting melodies, causing the viewer to make their own assumptions and curiosities based on the images. While containing no text, these images function as terministic screens and allow the audience to construct their own personal reality of the People's Republic of China, or at least the portions that we see in the film.
Another aspect of the film that I took into consideration subconsciously at first, was the effects that the subtitles had on the viewers perspective, especially when the subtitles remained while the dialogue was in English. Had the film been dubbed with voice-overs there would have been an extremely different, possibly more personal, emotional, and accurately-represented portrayal of these characters, specifically for an American audience. Subtitles cause the viewer to lose focus visually, and somewhat separates the auditory experience from the rest of the film. While reading subtitles, it becomes difficult to observe the other facets of the shot, the people in the background, the way someones eyes shift when they tell a story, the actions of periphery characters, each of these factors draws into the (mis)representation of these people and, possibly, China as a whole. Also, instead of listening for voice inflection, the viewer reads the subtitles in their own voice, just as with anything else they've ever read. This complicates the representation of the characters that are speaking, unable to fully translate and reach the audience in the same way. The film itself constitutes a set of terministic screens, yet these factors also complicate the viewing experience, and therefore complicate the representation of the Yangtze and the country to which it belongs.
In this sense, there must be some sort of conclusion about the motivation and message behind the film. If there are multi-layered screens that Chang arranges to represent a small-scale population of citizens (which then possibly represent the country as a whole), what is the lingering feeling that you walk away with? Not necessarily disdain or an depreciation for the Chinese culture and people, certainly, and not one of overwhelming joy and motivation either. This film is interesting because it seems to function as a source of human information, a 90-minute glimpse into the interactions of the minds that are so unlike the ones that I (we) personally encounter day by day. Although Chang is Chinese, and although we assume he has a certain pride in his country, he does not perpetrate or propagate any kind of false emotion towards China. He seems to present the small scale situations as a spot-on example of Chinese nationalism, and how it drives the social sphere. Rather than advocating change, or movement, or action, he uses these screens to represent the reality of China, exactly how the people are, and advocates instead knowledge and awareness, and an intrigue from the mysterious overtones about what the future could hold for this empire.
Burke, Kenneth. "Terministic Screens." In Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. 44-57. 1966
Up the Yangtze. Dir. Yung Chang. 2008. DVD. Zeitgeist Films.
I agree that terministic screens are fluid throughout the film, and I would add that these screens are actually helping us identify, dissociate, and associate. Chang involves so many people with completely different stories and points of view. Cindy, Jerry, the antique salesman, the tourist from numerous countries aboard the cruise, and more help us understand all sides of the story. The points of views are representations and like you said the film functions as a "source of human information, a 90-minute glimpse into the interactions of the minds that are so unlike the ones that we personally encounter day by day." We get allot of representations in this film, accurate or not. But as we have come to find out, there is no representation without misrepresentation. I felt at times that the tourist were overally Americanized or Westernized, whatever you want to call it. If you notice there was people from many different countries. What's interesting is that the man who we called Charlie in class today, who was prepping the workers for their jobs aboard the ship, seemed to create this extreme ideal of what an american likes and dislikes. I guess this could go for any country, but Chang really wanted to get the point across. He wanted to shake our identification process, and test our terministic screen, He accomplished that task.
ReplyDeleteYou also mention elements in the film that "catch the attention of the viewer even if they have somehow tuned out." The soundtrack, usually low and curious-like, created a mournful mood for me, however, the images that were paired up always correlated. I wanted more, especially in that last scene.
Another element I found quite creative was the "contrast between the surrealism of the marching band and the realism of the migrant story" (Interview with Yung Chang). Going back to identification, the classic American song was attention grabbing, and out of the ordinary kind of. The images we receive from the representation, as you say, "function as terministic screens." Even though Chang's documentary is a controlled narrative which uses these images as terministic screens, the film is still able to show the China collective, and highlight the result of strong hegemony and diaspora in the area of the Yangtze.