The article The Problem of Speaking for Others poses an incredibly interesting predicament. Overall the theme is whether it is appropriate to speak for others in terms of relaying history. Alcoff provides examples stereotypically more privileged or well off populations speaking for those of less privilege., such as Anne Cameron speaking for Native Canadian women (1991-1992, 7). The argument here is that speaking for a less privileged population creates more oppression that was previously by taking the voice from said group. Who has given the authority to the speaker to speak on behalf of the group, or does the speaker need permission? This article poses perplexing questions and views all sides of each argument. The contrary to the argument of creating oppression is that it is important to speak up for groups if you have the voice or platform (Alcoff 1991-1992, 9). Although the general theme is about speaking for others and when or if it is appropriate to do so, I also see a theme of accountability in the article. The author almost is implying that if you choose to speak on behalf of a group or population you must be accountable for the words you choose. The words must have truth and validity if you want to be taken seriously. Although she makes arguments for all sides, there is always going to be an exception.

 

The second article It’s Just a Movie explores the spectrum of whether a film is simple entertainment or if a deeper meaning can be taken from it. This almost reflects on the theme from the prior article, if you interpret a message from a movie, are you speaking for the director or movie writer? The issue is perhaps that there is a wide range of calibre of movies, and moviemakers. Even within genres there is a variety of quality. Although even if a film isn’t commercially successful or appears to be a shallow, meaningless movie, does not mean that it can’t be analyzed (Smith 2001). The intention may not have been for it to be, but the audience can take from it what the like, which may be to analyze. Some movies have quite ambiguous endings, coming to mind is Birdman, or Inception, where the audience is left to decipher what they believe happened in the end of the film. In these cases, I believe the director or whoever made the movie wants the audience to read into every detail and analyze each scene to create their interpretation. The piece Smith presents is attempting to decipher whether movies should be read into or not, and my opinion, is it is in the hands of the viewer. If they find joy in analyzing, then so be it, educated or not. People find entertainment in various ways, and combing through details of a film just may be one of them!

References

Alcoff, Linda. “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, 20 (1991-1992) : 5-32.

 

Smith, Greg M. “It’s Just a Movie, ” Cinema Journal, 41, no. 1 (2001) : 127-134.