Writing my @BSA2019 paper and stuck at this provocation: can we have a postcolonial investigation of Hamlet set in an occupied geography? How do the logics of the War on Terror challenge postcoloniality? #ShakeRace
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @DrDadabhoy
Nice provocation! I think there are elements in the play that work well for exploring this. Vishal Bhardwaj's HAIDER puts these to effective use in the context of "occupied Kashmir" (forgive clumsy terminology), which has connections to wider War on Terror geopolitical alliances.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ChrisThurmanZA ja @DrDadabhoy
eg. Expanding Hamlet's sense of being under surveillance to a collective experience, with constraints on civil liberties and freedom of movement, etc. Also emphasising thematic implications of marching armies fighting over "eggshells" of land and the consequences for civilians.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ChrisThurmanZA ja @DrDadabhoy
Kashmir is ambiguous ITO your question because in the world of the film we have postcolonial India functioning as an occupying power/army, and Pakistan is associated with Islam and "guerilla" separatists.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ChrisThurmanZA ja @DrDadabhoy
Bhardwaj claims not to be siding with one or the other but on my reading of the film his sympathies are more with the "terrorists", or at least against the Indian government/army and its proxies. Hamlet in this context morphs from avenging son into freedom fighter.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @ChrisThurmanZA
I actually have a bit of a contradictory reading. While the Indian state is certainly critiqued, the spectacle of violence we see at the end locates it in Muslim bodies, reinforcing the kinds of pathologies of suicide bombers the west traffics in.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @DrDadabhoy
I could go with that. Muslim subjects as both agents and objects of spectacular violence in that final scene. I guess a lot hinges on how Ghazala is treated earlier in the film. Does the suicide vest give her some kind of agency that Gertrude is not usually granted, or ...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ChrisThurmanZA ja @DrDadabhoy
is it a culmination of fatalism/nihilism/death drive that seems part of her character? In which case she conforms to the stereotype of the "female suicide bomber". And reverts to type - a helpless Gertrude who loves her son but learns too late she has been deceived by Claudius.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ChrisThurmanZA ja @DrDadabhoy
And what to make of the lasting visual impression of the stylised violence compared to Haider's choice not to kill Khurram in the end? Is it convincing? A mockery of "revenge begets revenge"? An existential shrug of the shoulders at political commitment? ("what good does it do?")
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
Isn’t there an alternate ending where he does kill him?
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @DrDadabhoy
*hunts for special features DVD*
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäysKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.