Göçmen Sinemasını Yeniden Düşünmek

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 1 - Migration, 207 - 223, 15.06.2015

Özgür Yaren

Abstract

Yaklaşık yirmi yıl önce, göçmen filmlerinin sıklığının artmaya başlamasıyla birlikte “göçmen sineması” belli bir grup filmi tanımlayan jenerik bir kavram olarak tartışmalara girdi. Avrupa’nın genişleyen ve derinleşen birliğinin getirdiği iyimser hava, çok kültürlülüğün bir değer olarak kabul görmesi ve ulus devlet fikrinin sorgulanması bu kategorinin tanınmasında yardımcı oldu. Ulusal sinemaların katı gölgesi ortadan kalktığında, ulus-aşırı, göçmen, diasporaya ilişkin filmler ve çoğulcu kimlik pratikleri görünür hale geldi.

Bugün Avrupa kimliği, yükselen aşırı sağ, Avrupa şüpheciliği, Yunanistan’da başlayıp başka ülkelere yayılma işaretleri veren ekonomik çöküntü, istikrarsızlaşan çevre coğrafyalar ve sığınmacı akını karşısında darbe yerken birleşik Avrupa fikrinin gerisindeki iyimser kozmopolitan zemin güç kaybediyor. 1990’ların refah Avrupası ve güçlü Avrupalı kimliği döneminin öncelikleri değişirken göçmen filmleri de dönüşüyor. Filmlerin odağı göçmen topluluklardan sığınmacılara kayarken bu çalışma ‘göçmen sineması’ kavramının geçerliliğini sorgulamayı amaçlıyor

Keywords

Göçmen sineması, sığınmacılar, ulusal sinema, Avrupalı, Avrupa Kalesi

Re-thinking Migrant Cinema

Abstract

Almost two decades ago, along with the increasing frequency of migrant films, ‘migrant cinema’ as a generic domain entered into the discussions. The optimism brought by extending and deepening union of Europe, growing acceptance of multiculturalism as a merit and new concerns on the idea of nation-state helped migrant cinema to be embraced as a category. In the wake of the disruption of the thick shades of national cinemas, transnational, migrant, diasporic films and pluralist practices became visible.

While European identity is smitten by the rise of far-right, Euro-skeptics, economic depression which hit Greece and tend to spread, destabilized neighboring regions, and the influx of asylum seekers, the optimistic cosmopolitan ground for the idea of a united Europe is losing power. Today changing priorities of 1990’s welfare Europe and emphasized European identity transform migrant films, as well. As the focus slides from migrant communities to asylum seekers, this work aims to question the validity of the term ‘migrant cinema’.

Keywords

migrant cinema, asylum seekers, national cinema, European, fortress Europe

References

• Ahmed, S. (2000). Strange encounters. Embodied others in postcoloniality. London: Routledge.
• Balibar, E. (2009). Europe as Borderland. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27(2): 190 – 215.
• Bergfelder, T. (2005). National, transnational or supranational cinema? Rethinking European film studies. Media, Culture & Society. 27(3): 315–331, DOI: 10.1177/0163443705051746
• Dasgupta, S. (2008). Visuality of the Other: The Place of the Migrant Between Derrida’s Ethics and Rancière’s Aesthetics in Calais: The Last Border. Murat Aydemir, Alex Rotas (der.) Thamyris/Intersecting:Migratory Settings 19:181-194.
• Derrida, J. (2000). Of Hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle invites Jacques Derrida to respond. (çev.) Rachel Bowlby. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Gibson, S. (2006). ‘The Hotel Business is AboutStrangers’: Border Politics and Hospitable Spaces in Stephen Frears’ ‘DirtyPrettyThings’. Third Text, 83, 20(6): 693–701.
• Göktürk, D. (2003). Turkish Delight, German Fright: Unsettling Oppositions in Transnational Cinema. Karen Ross, Deniz Derman (der.) Mapping the Margins: Identity, Politics and the Media. 177-192. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
• Grassilli, M. (2008). Migrant Cinema: Transnational and Guerrilla Practices of Film Production and Representation. Journal of Ethnicand Migration Studies. 34(98): 1237-1255.
• Habermas, J. (2001). Why Europe Needs a Constitution. New Left Review. (11): 5-26.
• Higson, A. (1989). The Concept of National Cinema, Thesis Eleven, (22) 36-46.
• Higson, A. (2000a). The Instability of the National, J. Ashby ve A. Higson (der). British Cinema, Past and Present, 35-47. Oxon, Routledge.
• Higson, A. (2000b). The Limiting Imagination of National Cinema, M. Hjort ve S. McKenzie (der.) Cinema and Nation. 57-68. London: Routledge.
• Kovačević, N. (2012). Europe as Host/Hostage, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 14(3): 361-376, DOI: 10.1080/1369801X.2012.704496
• Linehan, T. (2012). Comparing Antisemitism, Islamophobia, and Asylophobia. The British Case, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 12(2): 366-386.
• Loshitzky, Y. (2010). Screening Strangers: Migration and Diaspora in Contemporary European Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Malik, Sarita (1996). Beyond 'The Cinema of Duty'? The Pleasures of Hybridity: Black British Film of the 1980s and 1990s. Andrew Higson (der.), DissolvingViews: KeyWritings on British Cinema, s. 202-215. London: Cassell.
• Naficy, H. (2001). An Accented Cinema: Exilic and Diasporic Filmmaking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Ponzanesi, S. (2011). Europe in motion: migrant cinema and the politics of encounter, Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, 17(1): 73-92, DOI: 10.1080/13504630.2011.531906
• Ponzanesi, S. (2012). The Non-Places of Migrant Cinema in Europe, Third Text, 26(6): 675-690, DOI: 10.1080/09528822.2012.734565
• Tsianos, V. ve S. Karakayalı, (2010). Transnational Migration and the Emergence of the European Border Regime: An Ethnographic Analysis, EuropeanJournal of SocialTheory, 13(3): 373-387.
• Yaren, Ö. (2008). Altyazılı Rüyalar, Ankara: De Ki.