查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 「現代」主體的浮現與「現代性/亞洲」傷口的彌合:《南京!南京!》的文化症候
- 後冷戰時期中共對臺政治壓力之選擇及其戰略思維之研析
- 跳出妒恨的認同政治,進入解放的培力政治--串聯尼采和工運(或社運)的嘗試思考
- 現代性與其批判:普遍主義與特殊主義的問題
- The Isolationist Heritage and America's Post-Cold War Foreign Policy
- 全球化、現代性與世界秩序
- 評Keith Jenkins: «On “What is History”: From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White»
- 後冷戰時代國家主權概念的發展
- 後冷戰時代北韓的戰略外交、外交戰略及其對東北亞的影響
- 構造一個新現代性:文化中國建築實踐的理論策略
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 「現代」主體的浮現與「現代性/亞洲」傷口的彌合:《南京!南京!》的文化症候=The Appearance of Modern Subject and Healing the Wounds of Modernity/Asia: An Analysis of the Cultural Symptom of City of Life and Death |
---|---|
作 者 | 張慧瑜; | 書刊名 | 文化研究 |
卷 期 | 12 2011.06[民100.06] |
頁 次 | 頁45-73 |
專 輯 | 情感的亞洲 |
分類號 | 628.5、628.5 |
關鍵詞 | 後冷戰; 抗戰影像; 現代主體的內在分裂; 現代性; 亞洲的傷口; 被砍頭者的位置; Post-cold war; Resistance image; Internal splitting of modern subject; Wounds of modernity; Asia; Position of the beheaded; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 《南京!南京!》這部建國60周年的獻禮片因選擇日本士兵的視角而引起激烈的爭論,本文把這部電影放置在中國「大國崛起」和東亞「區域整合」的雙重語境中來解讀,試圖從三個角度來呈現這部影片的文化症候。一是把這部電影放置在抗戰影像的流變中,這種由80年代「落後就要挨打」的悲情敘述到把自我想像為侵華日軍的轉變是一種從「前現代」主體到「現代」主體的置換,這種轉換與中國走向「大國崛起」的主體想像有關;二是這部影片講述了日本士兵角川從侵略、屠城到走向崩潰、自殺的心理歷程,在這裡,我引入對魯迅「幻燈片事件」的討論來呈現這種現代主體的自我批判與現代性所攜帶的內在暴力之間的關係;三是中國所遭遇的現代性暴力主要來自於同樣是亞洲國家的日本,亞洲的傷口與現代性植入這個區域有著密切關係,因此,亞洲的傷口也是現代性的傷口,而這種日本士兵/他者的視角在新的東亞區域整合的背景中成為醫治近代以來中日戰爭創傷的嘗試。由此,《南京!南京!》具有雙重整合功能,對內扭轉80年代以來的悲情敘述,對外以入侵者自殺的敘述來彌合現代性/亞洲的傷口。 |
英文摘要 | his paper is designed, according to the context of “the rise of the great nation” and “the territorial integration of East Asia”, to present three cultural symptoms of City of Life and Death, a film controversial for its Japanese perspective. Firstly, based on a study of the evolution of resistance images, the author argues that the shift of the narrative strategy is the replacement of premodern subjects with modern subjects, which is in fact a reflection of the idea of “the rise of the great nation”. Secondly, the author will track, with reference to Lu Xun’s “The Slide Event”, the psychological journey of a Japanese soldier named Kadokawa from invasion to massacre to breakdown to suicide, demonstrating the relationship between modern subjects’ self-criticism and the inborn violence of modernity. Thirdly, considering the violence of modernity befallen to the Chinese was mainly from Japan, and the wounds of Asia also the wounds of modernity, the author claims that the Japanese or Otherness perspective is, against the background of territorial integration of East Asia, an attempt to heal the trauma resulting from the Sino-Japanese wars. As such, City of Life and Death plays a twofold function in integration, internally reversing the sad strategy adopted in the 1980s while externally healing the wounds of modernity/Asia. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。