Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://buratest.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8242
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCieplak, P-
dc.date.accessioned2014-04-03T09:01:47Z-
dc.date.available2014-04-03T09:01:47Z-
dc.date.issued2010-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of African Cinemas, 2(1), 49 - 63, 2010en_US
dc.identifier.issn1754-9221-
dc.identifier.otherhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/jac/2010/00000002/00000001/art00004-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8242-
dc.descriptionCopyright © 2010 Intellect Ltd. This article is available open access at the below link.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe 1994 Rwandan genocide has been a subject of filmic representation in and outside Africa. This article examines two examples of this portrayal and attempts to put them in the context of western perception of African conflict and suffering and its depiction in feature-length fictionalized films. A close analysis of 100 Days (Nick Hughes, UK/Rwanda) and Shooting Dogs (Michael Caton-Jones, UK/Germany), accompanied by cited interviews with their directors, aims to examine the mechanism of the representation of otherness in a situation when the term others is not a straightforward antonym to us. The argument revolves around the idea that others are always a group defined by a common characteristic (the colour of their skin, cultural identity or suffering), while us consists of individuals whose major qualifying feature is the fact that he or she is, individually and collectively, not like others. Special attention is paid to the difference between formal and character-based othering, as well as to the films' adhesion to western cinematic genres. The consideration is contextualized by the concept of the bestiality of representation, which becomes a manner of positioning an event within a socio-historical and individually cognitive context and determining the dynamic among the experience lived, the experience seen and objectivity. Lastly, the article looks at how the circumstances of the production process directly influence the stylistic and aesthetic choices made in films about the Rwandan genocide. In this, it relies on the examination of the trichotomy of politics, representation and the politics of representation.en_US
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherIntellecten_US
dc.subjectRwandaen_US
dc.subjectGenocideen_US
dc.subjectFiction filmen_US
dc.subject100 Daysen_US
dc.subjectShooting Dogsen_US
dc.subjectRepresentationen_US
dc.titleThe Rwandan genocide and the bestiality of representation in 100 Days (2001) and Shooting Dogs (2005)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1386/jac.2.1.49_1-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff/School of Arts-
Appears in Collections:Media
Dept of Social Sciences Media and Communications Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Notice.pdf39.66 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.