Appetites and Anxieties: Food, Film, and the Politics of Representation
2017; University of Illinois Press; Volume: 69; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
1934-6018
Autores Tópico(s)Culinary Culture and Tourism
ResumoAPPETITES AND ANXIETIES: FOOD, FILM, AND THE POLITICS OF REPRESENTATION Cynthia Baron, Diane Carson, and Mark Bernard. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2014. 334 pp.Films depend on food. This seemingly absurd statement, which begins introduction to Appetites and Anxieties: Food, Film, and Politics of Representation, by Cynthia Baron, Diane Carson, and Mark Bernard, will be news to those who love films for artistry of writers, directors, actors, and cinematographers (1). authors, however, quickly crafttheir argument, reminding reader that Slapstick comedies need pie-throwing scenes that escalate into brawls. To build their resolve, tough guys in western and actions films down shots of cheap liquor. Gangsters talk with their mouths full. Noir detectives drink alone. Comradeship leads soldiers and officers to share and drink. Melodramas require disastrous, sometimes heart-warming family dinners. Romantic comedies benefit from chocolates (1).Chapter 1, Foodways as an Ideological Approach, furthers this point, defining as, quoting Yvonne Lockwood, the entire complex of ideas and behaviors associated with and adding that the concept entered academic discourse in early 1970s when folklorist Don Yoder used term 'foodways' in his article 'Folk Cookery' (25). Along with introduction, chapter 1 gives fullness to authors' proposition, moving beyond in an obvious context, in movies such as Big Night and Like Water for Chocolate, to contexts where food does not nourish or heal, nor does it establish beneficial communities or encourage supportive individual relationship; authors cite Soylent Green (1973), Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), and Hunger Games (2012) as examples (108).Unfortunately, rather than build upon this well-structured reasoning in chapter 2, writers submit a dizzying jumble of facts and notes about film's unbridled relationship with corporations and government regulators, stating, Representations of are thus one of many filmic elements impacted by co-production arrangements (54). authors have a particular disdain for use of tie-ins (e.g., Iron Man eating a Burger King cheeseburger) by Hollywood blockbusters (54). Of course, and corporate coproductions have been part of radio and television since their inception. Soap operas were so named because they were sponsored coproductions with soap companies, and television was once filled with stars endorsing cigarettes.In turning to government regulators and censorship, authors fail to associate government regulation with perceived (real or imagined) threat to America. Likewise, they state plainly that topics that disrupt pleasure of film entertainment, such as toxicity of diets infused with corn syrup, economic downside of 'cheap food,' and problem of insecurity even in leading exporting countries like United States and Brazil, have been consistently 'ignored or hidden from view' (59). Why? The power of and beverage giants helps to explain this practice (59). Although reader may know examples that run counter to this position, authors present only one side of issue. rest of chapter moves this way: set up a straw man, shoot down straw man, and offer no counterpoint.Thankfully, they leave their personal politics out of next few chapters, which continue promisingly. In chapter 4, they use Man Who Fell to Earth, Soylent Green, and Hunger Games to skillfully demonstrate a new subgenre of sci-fi: films that show foodways representation to explore problem of increasingly scarce resources. heart of these dystopian worlds is a critical or water shortage (108). title character in Man Who Fell to Earth seeks water for his family on a dying planet (108). …
Referência(s)