Rude; or the Elision of Class in Canadian Movies
1999; Issue: 49 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2562-2528
Autores Tópico(s)Cinema and Media Studies
ResumoTowards end of Clement first feature film Rude, Luke (Maurice Dean Wint) confronts his brother Reece (Clark Johnson), wrestles for possession of a gun and, in a mix of emotions, asks: When are we going to grow up, Reece; do we become men?. Reece has no answers, Luke has nothing further to add and disappears into night, and audience can quite safely assume that there is nothing more to this sibling encounter. Or, unanswered question can be read as one of themes which ties three stories of Rude together. If Rude is steeped in film genre, as Rinaldo Walcott argues, then question (when do we become men?) seems appropriate. (1) But film is barely interested in representing rites of passages or sustained realistic portrayals which distinguish many U.S. hood Clearly film is not about young men becoming adults. The significance of this question in a U.S. black film lies in very fact that almost half of ghetto-born males never reach age of adulthood. In Canada, that social statistic is not what inspires Luke. Rather, his question seems related to broader topic of gender relations and search for and recovery of male power and identity in context of multiple gradients of colonized identity. In this sense, question is more akin to types of questions Frantz Fanon asked and answered about identity and post-colonial subjectivity. It is also worth noting that question which Luke asks is a familiar one within history of Canadian feature fiction film. To extent that it suggests immaturity and underdevelopment it relates to anxiety of being little brother, silent subject, loser and victim which are all designations that have been applied to most male characters in Canadian movies and to Canadian fiction film itself. (2) That is to say that question when do we become men? could be asked of all males, for example, in Goin' Down The Road, The Rowdyman, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, Porky's, Videodrome, Dead Ringers, Loyalties, Family Viewing, Highway 61, South of Wawa and Careful in ways that would not be as appropriate or as useful if asked of male characters in American films. The assertiveness of U.S. film hero is legion and has always impressed viewers worldwide: by contrast, hesitant attitude of Luke and Reece seems typically Canadian. Within film, itself, relation between men (they are never boys) and their boss, Yankee (Stephen Shellen), is similarly structured such that their existence is mere fodder for (the) Yankee who expresses his desires, plans and character forcefully and repeatedly. The name he gives Luke, for instance, is General which refers specifically to Luke's role as head of Canadian operation of Yankee's drug empire but process of naming is thoroughly indicative of boss's appropriation and control over his workers. The final irony is that only in name could Luke assume rank of General in Yankee's empire: his ultimate lack of power stands as a precisely-positioned comment on role of branch-plant capitalism which has defined Canada's relations with U.S.. But as much as film may articulate Canadian insecurities and take a shot at U.S. hegemony Rude is not a strident nationalist project -- in fact, it is difficult to see it as much more than an entry into respectable tradition of Canadian art cinema. In this sense, film assumes a privileged place alongside work of Atom Egoyan, John Greyson, Srinivas Krishna, Bruce MacDonald, Guy Madden, Deepa Mehta, Lea Pool and Mina Shum. It is distinguished by its technical beauty, imaginative interweaving of three distinct narratives and its believable and well-rendered characters. Walcott observes that Virgo's cinematic virtuosity is clearly playful, and sometimes reveals a diasporic sensibility and Peter Harcourt enthusiastically claims that Rude is the crowning achievement of new Canadian cinema. …
Referência(s)