중국 ‘비(非)-한족(漢族)’ 영화 연구를 위한 논의들

Abstract

There are two tendencies in Chinese film after Kekexili(可可西里, 2004) directed by Chuan Lu(陸川): one is minor ethnic film, another is documentary. These tendencies remind us of Root-Seeking Literature(尋根文學) syndrome in the mid-1990s. The Root-Seeking Literature was recognized that had influences on the Fifth Generation films, however, those films had devoted some ways otherization(objectification) of minor ethnics. Therefore, we can say the most conservative tendency among the wide spectrums of Chinese minor ethnic films today is the extension of the Fifth Generation film. However, at the same time, some other films are making a new viewpoint and position. Chinese minor ethnic film has gone through the four periods since 1905: the first was ‘exclusion’ from 1905 to 1949, the second was aggressive ‘identification’ from 1949 to 1976, the third was passive subjectifying, and the last is the period of vitality today after the mid-2000. This study is trying to call Chinese minor ethnic the non-Han ethnic, and Chinese minor ethnic film the non-Han ethnic film. It explains three premises of the argument: first, the studies on minority has depended on achievements of cultural studies and post-colonialism, therefore it is very important that reveals falsity of some ways Han ethnic centrism deals with minor ethnics; second, we should consider the concept of ‘minor ethnic film’ as an argument, and discuss availability of the concept of ‘films representing minor ethnic’ for avoiding some confusions and colonial hierarchies of ‘ethnic film’(sometimes it is misunderstood for ‘national film’), or ‘minor ethnic material film’ etc; third, the socio-cultural contexts of Chinese minor ethnics could resist colonial power relationship are different from the other minorities, because they are not only qualitative minority but quantitative minority. It is a problem comes from original politics of the concept of ‘minor ethnic’; fourth, we raise the concept of non-Han ethnic with the way decontextualizing the naming of ‘minor ethnic’. (1) It can bring in a possibility that exists other ethnics exempted from official approval by Chinese government, denying the hystoricity of the concept of ‘minor ethnic’. (2) It also can bring in “non-Han and many” ethnics, reconsidering situation that unify internal differences by the concept of ‘minor ethnic’. (3) It can deny that the quantitative significant own premise a power relationship as the concept ‘minor’ in ‘minor ethnic’ represents ‘quantitative’ layer, and the opposite could be ‘majority ethnic’. Finally, this study sets four categories for discussion Chinese ‘non-Han ethnic’ film. First, the language of ‘non-Han ethnic’ films: we should argue (self-) colonialization through identification of language, discussing the problem of post-colonial. Second, the capital and the nationality of ‘non-Han ethnic’ films: we can find out the identity of coloniality of those films, looking for the capital roots of films, and it is also related to nationality. Third, scapes of ‘non-Han ethnic’ films: it would be a problem the layers on otherization(objectification), exhibition, representation, reconstruction, and problematizations. Fourth, the identity of ‘non-Han ethnic’ films: there are two ways included the identities ‘non-Han ethnic’ films representing or reconstructing, and the identity itself as minority films.