Hello this is Myoungsook Park, a second year Ph. D at Univ. of Iowa cinema studies program.<br>
I just sent my abstract of my paper to Aaron Gerow. Hopefully, I would get in the conference.<br>
I have worked on Japanese horror films and Hollywood remakes in terms
of Hollywood's attempt to assimilate Asian market, the future biggest
market in a decade. I found that the issue of 'cultural translation'
from Japanese original to Hollywood remake is quite complex and
problematic.<br>
The following is the abstract.<br>
If you have time, would you take a look at that?<br>
<br>
Sincerely<br>
Myoungsook<br>
-------------------------------------------------<br>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">Semantics of horror: contemporary Japanese horror films, and Hollywood remakes.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">Assessing so called 'Japanese horror boom,' which began with <i>Ringu</i>'s
unexpected success in 1998, I would like to historicize what actually the
horror boom means in Japan and other Asian countries such as South Korea,
Taiwan and Hong Kong at the specific period around 1997. I will demonstrate how
the Asian financial crisis, Japan's economic slump the early 90's onward, and
Hong Kong's return to China in 1997 are interrelated to each other, and
contribute to the culture of 'horror' in Asia, and finally how all those are
related to global Hollywood.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">Coterminously with the Asian financial crisis and Hong Kong
return in 1997, Hollywood,
the biggest global entity of entertainment industry, completed its mission of
globalization. The statistics show that Hollywood's
overseas box office finally reached the same figures as the domestic one in
1998. Global Hollywood has two missions;
provincializing national films, and protecting the U.S. domestic market from foreign
films. Remake seems to be the best answer. Hollywood had succeeded in
assimilating two biggest film industries in France and Hong Kong which were
challenges to Hollywood's supremacy: by remaking French films avidly in the 80's
and early 90's, and by grabbing Hong Kong talents in the mid 90's to
precipitate the fall of the local film industry and at the same time, to
benefit from it. Now, we are witnessing these two combined together in Hollywood remakes of Japanese horror films. Takashi
Shimizu (<i>The Grudge)</i>, and Hideo Nakata (<i>The Ring</i> 2) remade their
own originals, and they topped the biggest opening for a horror film. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">I do not intend to equate the current remake boom with simply
a practice of cultural imperialism. However, the repetitive appearance of trope
of authorship and cultural translation seems very problematic because it tends
to ignore the fundamental power differential. To assign the directorial job of
remake to the original directors seems to be interpreted as an ultimate virtue
with the rhetoric of the truth to the original and respect to authors. It is
epitomized in <i>The Grudge</i>; Takashi Shimizu directed the same film in the
same location, and even in the exactly same house used in his original. The
'minor' difference here, the production company claims, is people and language.
If the original director does the remake, is it a credential of keeping 'the
original director's vision'<i> </i>intact? Who guarantees that language and
actors/actresses are minor difference? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><i>The Grudge </i>proves that the remake is absolutely
different text from its original despite the same director. Here, we have
issues of semantics of horror genre. Going back to<i> kaidan</i> tradition, <i>Ju-on</i>
raises the question whether it would be right to equate 'Japanese' horror with
generic horror, which has been defined predominantly in the American context.
When the remakes of Japanese horror films are discussed, it is often agreed by
many American critics that horror genre is one of the most universal genres.
This again presents us with questions of 'who' assumes, and 'who' defines
genres. Although <i>kaidan</i> genre is familiar to Japanese and Asian
audience, it is translated as 'Japanese' horror. Indeed, who put the national
marker? Whose genre is this 'unmarked' horror? To what extent, 'Japanese'
horror is horror? Questions about national/local genre are at stake. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">By analyzing culturally specific semantics of genre such as
the female avenger, the figure of high school girls, and the essential
sentiment of <i>on/</i><i><span style="font-family: Batang;" lang="KO">怨</span></i><i><span style="" lang="KO"> </span></i>in
Japanese horror, I will address the issue of translation of the untranslatable.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/13/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mark Nornes</b> <<a href="mailto:amnornes@umich.edu">amnornes@umich.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Is there anyone out there that would be interested in forming a panel<br>with me on the issue of translation?<br><br>I'm thinking of both actual translation practices (subtitling, dubbing,<br>interpretation, translation of theory/criticism), or metaphoric uses of
<br>translation (as you see in many areas of film and cultural studies).<br><br>If you are interested in joining me, drop me a line and we'll<br>constitute a panel.<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Markus<br><br></blockquote></div><br>