>          contrast, I  had  thought  that  the  key  if  not  the principal

>          distinguishing element of magical realism must be its basis in  a

>          certain social or sociological viewpoint behind the narrative and

>          frequent  roots  in  folklore outside  of  the  dominant  Western

>          culture.  Otherwise,  the  simple  journey  into  a  make-believe

>          netherworld where magic is a possibility is  a standard Hollywood

>          genre.  (I  don't  mean  magic  as  basic  wish-fulfillment,  but

>          embodied  in  such  manifestations  as  guardian  angels,  flying

>          carpets, etc.) For instance, is there  a difference between Field

>          of Dreams and Heaven Can  Wait  vs.  The Thief  of Bagdad or  The

>          Jungle Book and Lost Horizon? I fail to see it. Magical realism I

>          would think, by  its  very nature  and commitment to  a political

>          perspective, must  remain almost entirely out  of  the  realm  of

>          mainstream production, generally precluding the  Hollywood  genre

>          of "fantasy".

 

I think this is (for me) a very important aspect of the generic problems

raised by magical realism.  Essentially I agree with you, as I understand

you to be saying that MR cannot be defined formally alone--although formal

elements are necessarily present for a work to be defined as magical

realism.  On the other hand, nor can it be defined much more easily by

referring to content--although certain subject matters, generally revolving

around the home, for example, are familiar in many such works.  This seems

to leave us suggesting that magical realism must be defined by a certain

political "commitment"--as you suggest--but that seems to be very shaky

ground from which to begin an analysis.  If magical realism (and here I

over-simplify, of course) is to be judged on the basis of a "party line",

then it seems closer to *socialist* realism than anything else.

 

Besides, how exactly would you compare the political views (even given they

are self-evident) of, say, Allende's _House of the Spirits_, Rushdie's

_Satanic Verses_ or Kundera's _Unbearable Lightness_.  Compare the gender

politics of each, for example.  More evidently, each comes out of a very

different social and political context (although much magical realism can

loosely be defined as "postcolonial" there are many postcolonialisms) so how

could we presume identity of strategy?

 

Here I am using literary examples, because they seem somewhat less

problematic in terms of identification than cinematic ones.  But, supposing

some of the films I have suggested are magical realist, how would one go

about comparing the political viewpoints of _Wings of Desire_, _Miracle in

Milan_ or _Like Water for Chocolate_?

 

At the same time, clearly any genre is problematic at some point, but here I

think that magical realism raises more problems than most.

 

>          These are just some initial reactions to what  I  find  to  be  a

>          fascinating question in  a discussion that has provided some very

>          worthwhile ideas to contemplate.

>          Brian Taves, Motion Picture Division

>          Library of Congress

>                                Tavesmail.loc.gov

>

 

Jon

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

[log in to unmask]