The Imperial Imaginary: Response

After reading the article by Ella Shohat and Robert Stam, I came to ask myself two specific questions; What purpose did the camera serve as a tool, and what effect did this tool have on the people who came under it’s influence.

The main purpose of the camera as a tool is to dissect experience as a visual and spatial entity in order to re-present that experience in a way that suits whomever creates the actual film. In the sense of the imperial imaginary, this method was used to create a largely fictional representation of colonial peoples for the consumption of the mass European populace. By creating, for the duration of the film, an emotionally super-charged environment- the filmmaker could present an image of history tainted by romanticism, racism, and a heavily weighted agenda.

The camera was a scalpel used to slice open the surface of a colonized people, but rather than portray the heart of what was really an intriguing and different culture of people, film was instead used to create a politically acceptable image of an animalistic people who, if left to their own devices, would kill and eat each other within a year.
So, when viewed in this light, is the camera more of an artist’s paintbrush than a scientist’s scalpel?

Even stranger is what happens to a member of one of these “savage” colonial nations is brought into contact with the common European populace? Does he disregard the predisposed notion of everyone that he meets assuming that he is a dog made to dance for the entertainment of his owners? Or does he find the overwhelming pressure of an entire nation’s expectations too great a force to stand up against? The slightly disturbing examples presented in the article prove that the fantasy created using cameras and film is far stronger than the actual reality that dies deep in the heart of the transplanted “savage”, and he becomes no more than a puppet used to further the agenda of his captors.