NewCinemas: Journalof Contemporary FiIn Volume4 Number 1 @ ?006 Llteilect Ltd Article.English laaguage. 10,13g6/ rrcin.4.I.

2l/l doi:

Digital cinema:The transforrnation of film practiceand aesthetics

Adam GanzRoyal Holloway, University of London Lina Kha tib RayaI Holloway, Univsysify
oJ'London

Abstract

tYtrxe--""j of iir;,*'i5i!-::;;{,f:'I::;tr#'f:::;{!';;:'!;,X^!,::*; ***X*" took disitalcinema at ucn"obsi;a deturminism: ratheadisitql ::":-y:1, fil;
fiIma;sthetics makinsis looked ^ at pottilriii^ for cinemas oroura in, *orld- The pirtormiii;. , : proposesnew i!!il|\li ilti"t iis article a oi' "t* o_uort y,1y, iiital cinema toitii ii*ithin the- _fiImmakirig.__-. _ ,_ tnot process cinematic of devel'lgnen gri tnot iii;rrognizes , themedium,s uniqueneis in trarcforming retatl;ft4U bitween tke thedirectorthe actors the.audience, and. as weIIasin impaca4i,,parj&lrrit rrturr, prry**on , on4image. articleappkes The this theoryto2:tlie'cqiiof cinemain i;o;'-*h'"r, _ digitql technology havingrr is remarkable ortihe existencetheiniustry effect of in a newfreer form.
. ' ?

This article discusses tl

Keywofds,

'l--::|'

- --

. ... -:..::
: : .:,i'';Lr:.:rlll!,*::,.:.: ,,.

''-':': ": ']

i ,-,,.

E'verythingin the worid, from every possible angle. 1,.,., ,. (Sontag2e02:76) This article looks at m" merSrng of film a4d elechonic media 9f lhe to create the phenomenon "ff:l digital of cinem"a. iigitut cinema is defined for the purposesof this articre as both a technicai phenomenon ;;.bu ;rr* now be originated, edited and distributed "* tirougt digitar/ereetronic merria, and alsothe kind

of cinemathar has .o*" CIt. ,n"""inirr"r" ra", theoristsand practitionersare divided "rr#or. in thJ stancetowardsdigitar cinema, with opinionsoscillatingbetween*g*ai"g i as a revolution (ohanian and Phillips 2000-)an-dan_evorution o. crilJ )oorl or cinema practice,our argument is that digital technology has hansfo*ned ,*"*" i.r'lir-Luuoo and recordingof the image and sound, how the two are editedand malipulated' and how the final pieceir a"rr"*a io the audienceand watched by them' But thisrisnot just a technorogical hansformation; is most of an a it kansformation of perception,Not orrly *. th" _"*, by which image and sound are recordedand manipulated firn;;enta'y different, far more important is the different significance that these kansformed images and soulds haveon the relationship befir,een,fr. nr* and its audience.In what an y" wilffirst gr.ve assessment rhe impacrof digitat rechnology of 31"::, on me practiceof fir'mai<ing and the aesthetics or iuLJ ,n""li"rr.o fo digital cinema,and then examine "i".*u, trr.lppri.ation of this practice and aesthetics Iraaian cinema,focusing in o,,rtroiiarramark digitar Iranian films: Ten(2002) bv AbbasKiarostamiand-20 Fingers (2005) by tr^ania Akbari.
NCICF (1) 21-36 @ Inreilect 2006 4 Lrd

27

Digital technology, by transtbrming the relationship betrveen the actors' the director and the camera, has offered a moment of liberation or rather a seriesof liberations, because it allows a fundamental redeiinition of what cinema can be. It is nothing less than a re-imagining of the spatial relationshipsbetr,veen different parties. Film rryas languageof respect, the a with privileged accessto the camera and the viewfinder. It was accorded an enigmatic numinous quality, which came from the trust and secrecy involved in fixing a chemical inage on right-sensitive material. only thl camera operator cou-ldwatch the image as it was being made. Even the director could only check what the {ilm had recordedat the rushesscreening the next day. sidney Lumet describes this unspoken relationship in his book Making Movies: (. . .) basicallythe operatoris lilming the picture at all timesduring the take. Iris sense beauty, drama,his sense rhythm, his sense compositionof of of of all that is critical to the creativity of the shot. His technique has to be practically subconscious, because want him watching the actor,not the cornersof I his frame.It's beeninvariabiytrue that the bestcameraoperators do their will besttal<e when the actor'sdoing his besttalrc.It sounds romanticbut it's pari of the mystique moviemaking of (1996: 11g). John Belton in Digiial cinema: A FalseRevoiution (2002) has argued that digital cinema as a practice offers nothing new for the audience. But we argue that digiial filmmalcing, in conjcining the tra<iitionai i'neihods and rituals of fiimmaking with the dilferent traditions of the electronic media, is creating a new kind of practice associated with the purely digital image.

The journey to digital cinema

what are the defining characteristics of digital cinema? A major difference between the making of film and digital drama is the spatial relationship' beiween the players, The feature film depend, oo orr" prson looking through a camera while the director engages with the u.io.r. There is a clear difference between spacebehind and in front of the camera, which are connected b]z a clear one-lvay gaze in which the director and the camera look at the actors and the actors do not look back. Furthermore, these places were separatedin time as well as space, born from the requirements of the physical properties of the medium (the chemical recordrng of light on fikn and the physical manipulation of celuroid). viewing the deveroped firm was dependent on an industrial process and a higlrly developedinfiastrucfure. space in digital drama is vague. There is azoDerather than one ansle. This is because first, there are ofltenmultipre cameras. ard second, b"calse there is feedbaci< and crossoverbetween the area behind and in froni oi'the camera. There is usually a monitor or monitors on set availableto the crew and actors. Tape can be rewound and reviewed instantly. one can identify the first stage in this linlcing betwee'those trva areas and perhaps the lirst siep towards a digital cinema as the video assist.invented to assistcomedianJerry Lewis with the processof simultarieously acting and directing. The patent 'closed circuit Teler,'ision Anillied to N{ofionPictures' is or,vned Le',r'is. rvas firsi used on the 1llm riri netnov by It

Atlan.i Canz and Lina Kiratil:;

(directedby and starring Lewis) in 1950, aliowing him to monitor his performance in front of the camera lt hile directing it from behind the camera. But it rapidly had a di{ferent effect from the one first imagined, because the electronic image that appeared on the monitor was available to be watched by anyone in the vicinitY. ProducerErnestGlucksmanusedthe monitor many times to vierv Associate with Lewis, changes ancitakes and sometimesafter discussions rehearsals ASCusedthe monitor to evaluHaskeilBoggs, weremade.Cinematographer ihe and Arthur Schmidt,the editorial supervisor, ClajreBehnl<e, ate set-ups. to usedthe monitor when access the setwas restrictedby script supervisor. usedthe monitor to locate Acker sometimes The setpainter Gene equipment. highlights to be dulled down. The assistantdirectorsviewed the monitor with extras. empty areasto be filled or crossed to occasionalll, observe (Frediani f995/6) Suddenly the private world of the viewfinder was a public property and the sightlines of cinema changed. in'stead of the clear arrow from camera' operator to performers there was a potential for all of those invoived in working on the film to see,reflect and act on what was being made. '(the The effect of the video assist on the practice of fiimmaking is that director) no longer confronts the world directiy but looks instead at an image formed through an optical contraption. In other words a mediation is taking place' (Geuens1996: 21). And this digital mediation is becorning +1-ar l r l l a r J --i-o-r2.",a" h.,'n'hich v"'ereccrd and receivethe $'orlC.The image vr vt cJ u-v p LUE now begins as well as ends on a screen and the mediated image ha; gradually become the primary one. We can see, in the evoiution of the home yideo camera, holv the screen has developed,first as an appendage to the camera, and now as an integral part of the design.Moreover the addition of the video assist to the camera had the perhaps paradoxical effect of making the camera more manoeuvrable, giving rise to the Steadicam, the remote-controiled crane and aii other cievices,where the camera operatot does not need to look directly through the camera. These developments continue the change in spatiai relationships between subjeci and object' What is transformed by the video assist is not only who can view the image and where and 'when they can view it, but also horv the camera sees,and where it can go. The secondkey moment in the developmentof digitai cinema rtias the project developedby Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope Studios, which he of describedin his address at the 51st Annual z\cadem3,- Motion Picture Arts and Sciencestelecast (April 9, L979): s F L I t t o \ V e ' r e n i h e e r , e f s o m c l h i n gh a L g . o i r go m a l t e h e n d u s t r i a le v o l u i i c n o rer.olution I iook like a small out-of-towntr,vout. can seea cotnmunications and that's aboutmoviesand art and music and digitalelectronics satellites, but aboveall. iruman taieni and it's going to malie the mastersof the things ihat they believe inheritedthis business' cinema,from whom r,ve've wouldhavetiroughtimpossible.
(quoteri n 8rou"r 1982)

Digital cinema: The lransformation of film pracl"iceand aesthetics

Coppola attempted at Zoetrope Str-rdios(signilicantly established in San Francisco,away from the tilm indushy's traditional basein Los Angeles,but close to the burgeoning computer industry of Silicon Valley) to slnthesise {ilm and television practices in what he called the electronic cinema. At the hearrt of the operation was the Silver{ish, a custom-designedmotor vehicle with a video editing system, an audio mixing console and video and audio feedsfrom the five sorrnd stageswhere the director could preview something as close as possibleto the finished {ilm. As Thomas Brovrm,who supervised the design of the Silverfish said, 'Francis envisioned an environment where image, sound and data flowed iike hot and cold water' {Zoetrope 2005). Although the technology was not ygf portable as we nolv understand it, portability was central to the way in which this was envisaged.The Silverfish could be moved from place to place around the sound stagesand the director 'if could be simultaneously remote from the action and present * needed he could easily walk on to the sound stage' (Brown 1982). The electronic cinema envisageda karsformation of ihe iraditionai organizational srructure of fiL.nproduction by enabling pre-producticn,prcduction, and post-prcductlol tc occur simultaneously The script could change in responseto the input of rhe actors, or the way a scenewas edited.But the technology was not yet able tc cope particularly with the dernandsof postproduction. The subsequentdevelopment of non-linear editing systemssuch as Avid and Lightworks and the enormous leaps forward in digital compression, digital storage and distribution have meant Coppoia'svision has come to pass, and made it more available than he could have imagined. Digital cinema transforms sounds an<i images to zeroes and ones, which can flow searnlessly between wha? were previously discrete areas of production. As Walter Murch, one of Coppola'seditors an Apocalypse Now, wrote in 1999, (. . .) digitaltechniques naturaliytend to integrate with eachotherbecause of their maJhematical commonality;thus they comeunder easiercontrol by a sjngieperson.I can seethis alreadyhappeningln the sound-mlxingwork that I do, where the bordersbetweensbund editing and nlxing havebegun io biur. And it is about to happenin the further integration of film editing ald 'risuai effects. Films can be recorded or created oc computer; they are edited on compuiei':ilihey have spet-ial efiectsrhcy vvill be creaiedin r"he coinpurer. Tire physical limitations of the medium, which defined many of the practices of traditional cinema, have become more or lessirrelevant. It is not just thal digitai filmmaking means generally speahingfewer crew. iighti,veightequipment, lessmoney, tapes cheaperthan film stock (or no tapes at all); freeing film irom the physical eflect of light on silver has meant that digital terchnology potentially avaiiable to all. Film is a comis parailvely unstable fragile nreciium.It neecistc ire protected from light and extremesof temperature. Its iiery expense aestheticizes. Often the fiirn is more expensi-rethan the things it is iilrning. The digital images thai repiace it have no ph5;sicaiexistence,can be copied for nothing and aie mcre or iessindestructible.

Adam Canz and Lina Khatib

:;:t;t.:t''.-t!'.111f1:*:ti;::,i.ii,;r;;::1'r+:;ir:*rd3.:

. ..::-.,k,'.;f",;j; . ".,r....;.j.'..*1.

r..je:ii?E:i;..gi

'mff.i$tf

t'#n,,llii:tiin;:i;:*.,3i.+ii:ii l

:-..,,:;,:.'r.='-.. id-9.$+;:r-'::.;'::r=,,,.i..-: .-:ai-',rJfrir;.i

:.';#i:

-.

.. . .'-!+,.

l"::jl

:-=i i!:i l,

There is a physical iimit on the number of cuts that can be made on a piece oi celluloid, and on the amount of manipulation ihat an image can take. A range cf practices which nere only availableio big budget studio drana (iike specialeffects,high shooting ratios, and on-camera improvisation) are now available to all filmmakers. For example, the particular icind of studied naturalism epitomised by the likes of Pacino, Brando and De Niro, and dependent on creating a performance from multiple takes, improvisation and rehearsing on camera, has become availableto cinema of ali hinds and ail budgets. The finished film is increasingly likely to be -rier,r'ed a-digital artefact. lncreasingly the DVD is the original. Star Wars: as Attackof the Clones(Lucas 2002) was outputted to the D\D as code not lrom an image. That is to say it existed in its primary form not as a film but as computer code.Digital proiection, the linal stagein the migraticn to digital. is only a feiv years awaY.

The private and the public in digital cinerna

fwst publishedkt 1977 as Coppola Susan Sontag writes in OnPhotography, Now: rvas editing Apocalypse One of the effectsof the newer pameratechnology(video,instant movies) in has beento turn evenmore ol what is donewith cameras private to narBut uses,that is, to sel{-surr?eiliance. such currently popular usesof cissistic conferand in image-feedback the bedroom,the therapysession the weel<end ence seem far less momentous than video's potential for surveillancein (2002:777). s publicplaces r /hat Sontag could not have foreseen was that, with this new technology, the iirere v,rouid be uitimately no distinciion bet'.r.reen pritrate and the public. Both the public and private spaces have become above all filmed spaces,spaceswhere filmmai<ing can and does"occur.There is nor'^rhere to ihratis noi accessible the dlgital cameia, whether inside the body, or cutside the Earth's atr:rosphere, Simply put, there are more cameras filming more people in more places than ever before. The irnages will consist of both 'objective' surveillance images and private images shot on handimpersonal, heid cameras and mobile phones. The change in our relationship to digital images and the different ways they are used in practice has transformed the idea of fikned space.If cameras the are ever-presentand always recording, the spacerruhere drama occurs is no longer assembled from shot reverse-shot or careful camera molies. Instead there is a zone, in which the camera(s) operate. This consists of a web of ccmplex spatial relationships inhabited jointly by the audience, the fiimmaiier and the actors; the audience is encouraged to think of themselves in as potentially inhabiting any part of this spaceand thus (like Jerrl' Ler'rris TheBeIIboy)to be potentially both behind and in front of the camera'

The aestheticsof digital cinema

The cost of stocli and processingin traditional cinema means that maryr takes that vrere shot were not printed and would neveir see the iight of day. The digital camera does noi forget. It seeseverything and it records everything.

Digital crnema: The transformation of film practice and aestheiics

L)

And everything it remembers can be easily found. It is unsurprising, then, that the senseof privileged accessand disciosing secretsis a common theme in digital ci'ema' Take as an exampreThomas vilterberg's Dogme firrn Fesren {1998)' perhaps the delining work of the Dogme movement. It is signi{icant that this lilm, which deart with incest in an apparently successfi.rl bourgeois l-amily,is about re-remembering and revealing. The digital allows the repre_ sentation of multiple yet fractured points of view, r,vhichgives a senseof privi_ legedyet partial access. The audienceis everJ,"where nowhere at the same and time. A comparatively conventionar screenpray (which courd armost have been written by TerenceRattigan and has been a successthroughout riurope as a theatre piece)is transiormed tirrough the prism of the &gitJ cinema and its different relationship befi,rzeen the audience the performers and their stories.IA/ehave a &fferent kind of access.we never watch the story directly, instead we are present where it occlus, uzeoverhear it. The analog-v with a rs camera at a football match that films the players in the tu-nnelLefore they appea,r the pitch. we are preseni before and after ihe normal on boundarles oi,
LAlg JLU1 V-

The digital camera continues to look i,vhen the film camera averts its gaze. we can see this in the blurring of bouadaries between art film and pornography in Michael Winterbottom,s 9 Songs eAOq, or in Lars von Trier's Dogville {2003) r"rherethe a*dience has prir,tieged accesstc ihe various levels of illusion which go into the ma_hingof the"drama. as *.ti a, watching a drama with many simirarities with the sfylized studio dramas of the forties and fifties, we are observing and partitipating in how the film simultarr"o..rly constructs and deconstructs 9:uTu_i:--ade. Jhe ,\icole Krdman's virtuoso performance, and we are constantly reminded of ail the aspectsof the cinematic i[usion as we are re-drawn into it. As the actors must, we too consfruct the sets which exist oniy a*q chalh lirres on the studio floor. The audience inhabits the same a.arnati. space with apparently the same privileges as the actors and filmmakers. Digital cinema aliows for a different kind of ierationship between acror and camera, because the digitar video camera looks rn a drfferent warr. since the digitat camera is potentiaily arways on, the performers are potentially always performing" cameras are cheaper and more mobire; it is common for more than one camera to be on set. The camera is often explicitly or implicitly returne d to the context. It is on the dashboardof the car' It is part of the action. It is in the hands of the actors. There are often many points of view representedinstead of only one. The camera is not attempting to frame ihe aciion bui oniy to cover it. As we have grown used to the non-aesthetics of the ccrv camera, which does not"irarrr", t rt instead is placed to record acti'ritiesthat occur in given a -carnera(si envir'nmenr-. \^ie also accept the non-aesthetics of the firmmarcer's - ur-abuu, Kiarostami's in Ten(2AAl * as being one of a number of ways of r:ecoril, ing the action. Tb us, the dirference betlveen photoglapher an i'dirriduareyeand the as the phoiographer a'.' objective as recorderseerns fundarnentar, dirfererice the oftenregarded, misti{<enlv separ-aiing as photographl, art lrom photograas phi' as doc'meni. Bu1 both are logical extensions of what photogrilphy

26

Adain Can;; auo Lioa r-ita:ib

l--li+:;i.ii:i,

'?4l[]-lql..:"r.

means:note-taliingon,potentia'iiJ'"everythinginther'vorldfrornever5'posstbieangle' 2oo2:176) (sontag 'action' harsan impacl ou and This changing relationshipbetween camera maridng a return of improvisational both the acting aoa th* directing, soderbergh (n'hose brealithrough filn techniques to storS'tetting'-it"pntl quaiidependenlon the perception of a se;r,Liesandvideatapeiissgii", iniage - Ssr' Liss t'nd-Super I tative difference in the personai eiectron-ic when disatf*tent film) describes this process 'EverY would have been "SuUAk " ""tV on hi-definition video: (2005)' shot cussing the mahing o' on my computer so we would watch night I had the lbotage in my room u,hatweshotthatday.Icou}deditscenesandshootitdifferentlytbenext weaver's experience lchti'ti" 2005b)' Sigourney -us u--iog; ;;;.lt described by the frlm's is TZOOZ) another example' while makin g Tadpote winicli: director Gar]' the theatreand fiim' Because Shelovedit, Shesaidit's litcea hybrid between medium and she was able mini digitai videois such a performance-oriented of is ihe exactopposite a fiim day' to just act and act r'vhichI Lind of feel 2005a:52) (Christie percentageof the day is taken up in ii is not just that a much greater move in space' ald lines o{ action are acting, but that actors are ireer to aliowing much more time f""t* so defined by what iighting ispossible' of action can be pre-Iit and "" be spent ln ttre act of p*.iorriu""". The zone ic thestockissufficientlysensitivetooperateunderalllrindsofconciitions. this cle-ar:''SPeciai of chastity The fourth ruie of tit" Oog*"'t uo-* F"l*t lighi for exposure ine scene is too little lighting is not acceptable.ltf there (Dogrne 95 ri;p be attached to the camera.)' must be cut or ",i"si. subjectiveuses cf the tecbini.erisely igg5). What both tfJob;ective and world harre !n which #e increasingly experience the nology through Commonisourlacliofaestheticexpectations.Classicthree-pointlighting image or the home video. i, ,rot u feature either of the ccrv behind 'The elision of ihe bouldaries between the spacein front and in the mai<ing of the film in participate the camera means that the actors person and the actor fft" Uoondaries between the actor as a clifferent uru:''. be recorded and edited into when aii can in performan"" ir""o-" i"" "ltu' thefinishedrurn,rnaninterviewwiththeMoviecrazed'websiteactorPaui the processof working om Doguille: describes ;;;*"y no in our hair-so there's boom--and There's me and Nicoleivith mllres iust LarswithavideoCamerathathasaiapeinittiratrunsforanhour.'..You what vou'vedone ' ' you you'vedone'remember r'vhat can't hopeto knor'rr 98 oihor'r'I did' because perceni just haveto let go ' ' ' I've gol no sensation j'ou' of it' I can guarantee 98 percent of it isn'i goingio be in the morrieAnd SoI.rr realljrbarrkingon in rny |ife, is sonreof ihe worst acii:rg l've everdone percentbeing lelt in threfilm. the other tn'o (Flarlev 2002)

practice arrd aeslhetics Digitai cinema: The transformaiion of liim

I !-.. -

The processof acting becomesless about perfcrming for a single observer and more about the condition of being observed,whether by a small flxert camera, a camera in the hands of another actor, or by severalcameras simultaneously.The techniques of making are adaptedto a dynamic relationship between director, performer and audience. in the digital tlim the immediacy of the image becomesthe aesthetic, And that has led to a transformation oi the nature of cinema. As Thomas Brown then recognised.electronic cinema r,vill eventually ceaseto be an au-xiiiary tool of the Iilmmaking process: it wiil be the process.These effectshave proportionately been felt more in countries without an established fiim inriusiry or where that industry was subject to strong central control. The technology is not only transforming the film industry, it is allorving fiim industries to exist where there were none previously. In the secondpart of this article we are going to seeto what extent theseinsights a-re true in the Traniancinema.

Digital Iranian cinerna

The iiriro<iuction oi digital iechnoiogy to emerging fiim inciustries iike Iran's has ailoweC the crealion cf all kinds of cinema at once in places ihai did not have cinema befcre or -where cineraa practice was limited. The affordability and easeof use of the technology have pushed the boundaries cf form in those induskies. enabiing the instantaneous exrsience aa old of form (film) as well as a new one (digital). Digital cinema has therefore enabled the creation of industries vvhere it would have been impossible otherwise. As GeoffAndrew argues, the !ry notion of world ctnemaigabout empowerment: aboutpeople teliing their own stories rather than simply accepting what Hollywood and its clonesoffer.Digital car,reras, because they're comparativeiy small,inexpensive,portable,versatile,anci abie to record and store imagesln far greater quantitiesand irl a i wider range of conditionsthan otlrer cameras, play a crucialrole in that empowerment (2005: 13). Palestine for example is a piace with few cinema resourceswhere digital technology has aliowed severai young people to mai<efilms under the harsh conditions of Israqli occupation. Digital technology is also bene{icial in reducing distributidri costs. For a thriving industry lihe Bollywood, the process of refitting Indian cinema theatres with digital projectors that siarted in 2003 has meant not only better picture qualitSz, but also the abiiity- to premiere fiims simultaneor-rsiy diiierent cinemas acrosslndia in (Chadha 00 I r. 1 fu{oreover, we have argued above, digital cinema mahes a new kind as of aesthetic possible.This may explain why vrorld cinema directors vl,hc have accessto relatir,el-v high budgets sometimes chooseto shoot fi1msdigitall-v. rhe Egyptian director fiohammad Khan for exampie. knolvn for making epicslike AplyamEs-Sadaf iDays of Sa<lat, 2LtOi), choseto shoot his mosi recent fin lilephty {,2ao4\ on digital riideo. Khan says that drgitai technology allor'r's (F{absirian2aa4,1. him tc; narrate the story difierentl_v The stor;r cf a streelr,rrise thiel filmed on the crmvcledstreets of caiic.

Adimr Canz and l,ina i{natib

lLE*r,::1::rti*'*:: "'..i:r.:r;r.' :']:''a::il-.:

,-,.-.,.-.,,-.:"::_1

:':,,,"',;ll,l:.r

;.;,,., ...it+ll:,,.r,

:.r.:.i.rj,,.,.""...::l:.:.,,;,.,::.-ii.,+

'rougher d L h K l e i t h t y s d e p e n d e no n h a u d - h e l d i g i r a l( ' a m e r : ars a t g i v ei t a i edge' than Khan's 35mil iilms. Khan's deliberaie Lrseof digital cameras 'docudramatic' in nature, a stems from his desire to make a lilm that is 'slolen shots, on peopie going about their ordinary film that dependson iives becoming part of the backdrop and texture of the film' (El-Assyouti the 2004). The film's foregrounding of the city of Cairo necessitated use of a small crew - ten members on locafion compared to fifty worhing onDays ol Sadat- that enabled a greater mobility and the scopeto shoot ninety per cent of the film on location in one of the world's most crovrded cities (El-Assyouti2004). Khan's experience reminds us of that of Abbas Kiarostami's rn;hiie working on his landmark film ?en. Like Khan, Kiarostami is a world cinema veteran who chose to use digital technology to shoot on location. The location in Tenis limited to a cal driven by its main character Mania, played by Mania Akbari. Akbari herself has directed and starred in a film titled 20 Fingers, rn'hich is a homage to Ten, where location is mainly a seriesof moving vehicles:cars, a ta;ii, a motorbike, a boat, a cablecar and a train. I{owever, for those two films, digital technology is more than just a convenient way of shooting in confined spaces.One of the major impacts of digital technology on Iranian cinema is its challenge to censorship. Iran's cinema is a heavily regulated industry where censorship occurs at every stage of the filmmaking process:scriptwriting, shooting, postproduction and distribution (Golmahani 7992). Samira Makhmalbaf (2000) 'screen' their fiims on argues that digital technology allows fiimmakers to internet, thereby evading the government's controi on distribution. the Another advantage digital is that of from the [t]he only way to shoot in lran on 35mm is to hire equipment v'rhichmeansscript approvaiaird a gcvernmentminder central authorities, the scriptis adhered Shooling diiital to. on alieiidirrg sirootio ensure ihe
' - i r { e n r e n l i r e c c . r i n r e!n D ! - n y a l , U f t 1 Om i n d e r i S s e n l a l O n e . h * Y " (Reuters2uu4l

The result of this is that far Ten and 20 Fingers, I{iarostami and Akbari respectively submitted scripts for approval that rt'ere sanitized versions of the ones they proceededto maice.But boih films do not rely on traditional scripts;u'hile they are not strictly improrrised,tire films present characters 'unacled', telling stories in a way that appears and therefore both have a terms ol image and performance.Tn lerr specrfrcally. thc natural feel in people like us, giving the film a documentary feel. characters are ordinary 'docudramas' is However what makes Ten ar'd 20 Fingers difi'erent from i h a t f i r s t . t h e i r s t y l i s t i cm i n i m a l i s m l a l i e s L h e i r s u b j e c t m a t t e r b e y o n d drama, documentary, or melodrama (or any mixture of those eategories), meaning that they are films that go beyond genie conventions. And second, that they can be classified as non-piot cinema, telling us stories r,r.ithout a'narrative'. What \re mean bl' this is not oniy that the films but cannot be loolied at from a linear/non-linear narratirre con-,rention, go be5,ondthe expectation of narrative; in the rn'ordsof also that ihey ' I r r l i L hS i r n m t h e l e ' s i ne x p e c r a i i oin r y o u c o B t o t e i l as t o r y , u t Kiarcslami.

Digiial cinema: The transiornation oi film pracilce and aeslheiics

with digital, I think we'li get used to new sfyles fof fiLn-making], so maybe 2005: 35). we need not reiy so much on stories'(2003, quotedin Andrer'v go beyond traditional narrafir,-ecinema can be seen as This intention to 'a creating cinema r,vithouta story (. . .) cinema beforethe story of cinema, and cinema that does not necessarilyhave to tell a story, although stories might w-ellsurface in this kind of cinema' (Bergaia 2004: 45' quoted in Elena 2005: 1"83).Divided into separatesequences(ten ln the caseof Ten and seven in the case af 20 Fingers),the stories in the films are circrilar and episodic. Each sequence stands alone and can be understood as a take us on a ride whole piece cf art. yet viewed together.the sequenccs Iranian women. Those lives are presented to Lls as into the inner lives cf moments and feelings mostly through long tai<esthat contain fe-,valmost invisibie cuts in Ten, and through single shot episodesin the case of 2C Fingers. Nlania Akbari (2005) has assessedthe use of singie shots as enabling the edlting to be in the acting. Digital technoiogy has pushed the boundaries of seeingin lessobserved societies sholvins rrs thinss filmed for the first time. This js seen in the way Ten and 20 Fingers present their subject matter: the stories of women depicting conversationsin a car driven in lian. ?enpresentsten sequences young Iranian r,vbman, which together give us a glimpse of the life of by a women in modern Iran: the conversations tackle the relationship betr,veen the woman and her ten-year-old son, her divorce, the problems faced by women like the breakdown of relationships,prostitution and abortion, and ale conducted between the driver and a variety of female passengers,in addition to her son. 2a Fingersgoesfurther into addressingwomen's issues through seven sequences depicting seven different couples played by the same actors, who are also the film's director (the actress,Mania) and producer (the actor, Bijan). Each of the couples engagesin a conversation about controversial issues regarding women in Iranian soeiety,from virginify to adultery to lesbianism and abortion. The films illustrate digital technology's changing of the relationship with the subject of film, hor,v it ailor.rs us to go places r,vedo not normally go. We listen in on the conversation between Mania and her passengersin Ten,and between her and Bijan in 20 Fingers, but we are not guided by the director as is the case in a traditional narrative film. The stories in both films are intimate and revealing. They allow us to inhabit what is a woman's spacewithout going through the fiiter of a film crew. The drama in the fi1ms comes not from the stories tfiey tell (Iranian cinema has in the recent yea-rsproduced a issues,IIke Dayereh(The Circie, Panahi. nunrber of films abo,lt r,rrom.en's 2000) and Roozi ke zan slwdqnt(The Day I Becarife a lVoman, Ldeshkini, to 2000)), but from the audience'sseemingly direct access that space.Tlle audience is given pri-rilegedaccessto the space, and through listening to to fragmenied conl'ersaticns,is allor,rred deduce what the story is. In other -words,the stories in themselves are not 'different', it is the relationship between sr:bject anil objeci that makes them different^ The audience is allorsed to make a decision abo,-itthe rlaterial tiiat ihe director wo'.rid the absenceof wide shots in both films means thai the make. fu{oreover. n s p a c er v es e ei s i n t i m a t . ' ,a l i o r v i n gf o r a d i f f e i - e n!t' e p r e s c n t a i i co f i m a g . r aI10Dr]Ormance.
Jl'v 1 ! '-:o

30

Adam Canz and Lina Kbai.ib

:,r,ril.:', t-;1

r- r:.,;ri*i

''t'::4-:ta-rl; jr:''r-:::l:l:: .':::.!.it;"..:-

il9{r-.,'.r,,,:,r:

.li.l:.;!. :.*1.1r.,.,,.-. J

.-i-*ltL.-,,r ,.;.r

.- :;lnr.*:,.= ili,:iinl

Looking on the insideand the outside

hal'e argued above, Cigital technciogy presents room fol experillenAs rn,e taiion. \ve can go as far as saying that it demands informaiity in mise-enis of one o{ the moststril,ingaspects lerr and 20 Fingers the way the scene. are testimony to ihe iilms icoi<. Shot mainif in moi'ing vehicles, the fiims fluiclity of rvoriring n'ith digital cameras. Both rely on very flarrow canera angies, rnrith ?enshot using tnro cameras fued on the dashboard of the car, The fact eaJh pointing at the driver and the passengerseat, respectively. film's frames are that the cameras in Ten are static means that the in unusual. Traditionally, the lrame follows the characters as they move them control space,giving the audience a privileged position that allou's frarne oier the spatiai movements oi the characters. But ,in Ten, lhe transformbecomes a urindorv through vrhich vr'epeep on the characters, ing the au<lience into voyeurs r,vho do not have fuil access to the moriements of those they are observing. Thus the characters sometimesmove passtightly outside of the frame, and appear differently in the space of the ends and ,"og". seat: this is most clearly seen rnthen Sequence ten by u"qo*.t.. nine begins:in sequenceten, the passengerseat is occupied plenty of the ten-year-oid boy Amin, his child proportions giving the frame space to fully record his movements as he shifts in his seat. In nine' Mania's adult sister replaces Amin, and we are imrnediately struck by how her presence aimost fully fills the screen space. Kiarostami does not seem. vrithin to adlust the zoom on the camera to girzethe actress more space eye of the the frame, thus malcing the camera mimic the natural 'iewer/voyeut' see I ,esnot allow Being set almost entirely. in the car, Tendoes not allow us to seewhat is such happening outside it. what we do see is the characters reacting to looking events. Mania comments on the traffic. we see her and her sister accept at a clriver in front of them and commenting on their actions' We happening vyhat the characters are commenting on despite the events' outside the frame. The frame almost transforms the scene into a theatrical gaps piece, where the audience have to use their imagination to fiiI in the iheir irr.,r"uf imagery as they iisten to characters on the stage describing to the surroundings. Kiarostami goesfurther by sometiinesdenying access car in chiiracters themselves.A prostitute who Mania gives a ride to in the the car' sequenceseven is cnly seeg for a fraction of a Second as she leaves we ana in the first 16 minutes of the filrn rne do not seeMaqia, although us Amin, can hear her arguing \^/ith her son Amin. Kiarostami onil,trho*t making Mania a disembodiedvoice. Yet through the argument we are to introduced to Mania's story: a divorceer,vhohad to lie in court in order vrho feels get a divorce, whose son is unhappy rn'ith her neltr husband and caught between his parents, Bv not seeing Mania, rve ideniify r,r'ith Amin urhose framing in mid shot ailows us to register his facial expressions and hls body language e\renbefore he launches his verbal counter-attacks on com,noih". accusing her of loriing no one but herseif. Kiarostami has mented on his deliberate use of omissions b5; 33ying that it changes the relationship betrveen the spectator and the film into an active one 'To capti{Andrevr 2005), r,,,hichcreales a bigger impaci. on ihe viel'ver: vate a viewer is lo rob him oi his reason' (Kiarostami 2OA+)'

Digilal cinema: The transfornation ol fiim praciice and aesthetics

) 1

20 Fingers I'ollows?enin its use of tight camera angles,however,Ahbari ailows the camera to move. But the movement of the camera is also used Like Ten,20 Fingerspresents charto parallel the eye of the vier,ruerlvoyeur. acters whom the audienceis invited to peep at. However,instead of cutting between the two characters in each of the seven sequences,Akbari chooses to have one camera filming the actors, panning left and right. back and forth between Mania ald Bijan as they talk to and argue n'ith each other. The carnera's movements mirror the movements of our eyes when we watch two people having a conversation, giving the film a more natural feel and a sense of immediacy As Dovey argues, we are surrounded by digital images of ourselves, from mobile phone images to famiiy videos to CCTV to accidentaily appearing on television; therefore, 'the privileged form of (. . .) "truth the digital video image has become telling", signifying authenticity and an indexical reproduction of the real world' QOA4: 557). 20 Fingers' naturalized camera raovements can be seen as a revival of the ethos of 19 60s' Direct Cinema, where the concern 'was '[h]ow to ccnvey t]re feeling of being there' (Leacock1995, quoted in Dovey 2004: 557).IrVhat takes the film beyond Direct Cinema is that this feeling is shared by the director and the viewer: because we are surrounded by digital images of ourselves, we are more familiar with the aesthetics of the digital image.

T'helucidity of performance
Digital cinema's allowing room for experimentation can be seen as almost demanding informalify in performance. While making Ten, Kiarostami often directed the actors from the bach seat of the car, while in 20 Fingers, Akbari is both the actor and director, existing behind the camera as well as in front of it. This ner,v reiationship resuited in a transformation of the space filmed, and in the performance of the actors within this zone. Ten and 20 Fingerspresent striking, naturai perforrnances by non-professional actors. Abbas Kiarostami has often commented on Ten as being a film without a director. In an interview with Geoff Andrew, he compared directing t$e film to rnanaging a footbail team, believing that distancing himself frorn the shoots makes the actors more comfortable: It's di{ficulttc see',,rho's duector,me or them [tbe actors].Uitimatel3a the just managethe situation.This kincl of ev-erything belongs fhe actors--uve to your directing, think. is very similarto being a footbaiicoach.Youprepare I p l a v e r a r r d i a c e h e mi n t h e r i g h tp l a c e sb r r lo n c er h eg a r n es o n . t h e r e s p . i t s n o t h i n gr r u c hy o , :c a n d o - - y o uc r n s m o l t e c i g a r e t L e g e i n e r v o u s .t r t or a b you can't do much. lVhile shootingTenl vzas sitting in the backseat, I br,rt didn't interlere. I in Sometimes,lvasfollo-,nring anothercar,soI \,r'as e\'el1 not p r e s e n o n t h e s e ' , b e c a u s ir t l r o u g h iI h e _ rn v o u lw o r k b e r l e ri n m \ t i d abseuce. create, the5'can alsodestrol",,vith many Directors don't ailvays too r d e m r n d sl.- s i n gn o n ' d c r . Lh r i \ i r s o i r , r nu l e sa n d r e a l l )t e q u i r e t h a rv o u s ra a l l o i rt h e ; r L oc . i r l r e i r w n i l r i l r g(2 } u i ) . ' o o
I

!Drr1ts urBrLdL viuuu

-i--

lr^i4^1

--:l^^

vdthcr:t

financial

inealt that Kiarostami ccr,rlduse a high shooting ratir; repercussions:the fiim's 90 minutes he.vebeen ediied

.12
i,i...

Adam Canz and Lina Khatib

ii#r,,**ir+::,.::
I

'rrr:

11":c.rts::

:-,":'"'""

,:ti!:;,:i,

'i*!.ii,,.:,+i...r,:

.;e{4_!*;+ :- i,ii.::::..;:

down from an original 2 3 hours of footage. This gave room for the actors to improvise as they rvere being ftimed without interruption from the director: 'while it's diflicult if a scene'sgoing the wrong i,r,ay, I rvait a bii they may if come up with something better than I'd have been able to thinlc up' (Kiarostami 2003, quoted in Andrew 2005: 38), This flexibility in perfor, mance can be seen as allor,r4ngl(iarostami to almost 'discover' the filn as he made it. Digital cameras also had an impact on the performances. The cameras are small and non-intrusive to the extent that they are forgotten by the actors (Saeeri-\r-aia F.osenbaumJ003). Kiarostarnicomments: and It's very true that non-actors feel more comfortablein front of a digital camera, withoutthe lightsand the Iarge crowdaroundthem,and rvearrive at much more intimate momentswith them. So I do believethat a 1iim like Ten couldneverhavebeenmadewith a 35mrncamera. The first part of the film lasts 17 minutes,and by the end of tirat part, the kid has totally forgot(2005). ten the camera Another aspect impacting on performance in the films is their use of moving vehicles. The characters1n cars in ?en and 20 Fingerstalk to each other without having to register each other's facial expressions,which gives another dimension of freedom to the actors who do not have to look at each other, but only do so r,^-'hen they l,r.ishto (Kiarostami 20A\,In 20 Fingers,the cable car journey in sequence2 sets a boundary to the con, versation between Mania and Bijan rnrhois jealous of her dancing with another man at a pa,rty.As she argues that she only did that to get Bijan,s attention, the cabie car arrives at the other side of the snoury r'alley it has crossed and with it the conversation abruptly ends. while this is unusual in terms of filmic conventions, where time is usually manipulateri io fit the narration of a story by characters, in 20 Fingers the technique worhs to make the conversation further mimic 'real life'. 'Reai iiie' is also perceived in the fiims through their pu_shingthe boirndaries of what canbe represented. This must be read in the conrexr cf sccietf in iran. rvhere lcoldng at others is heaviiy subjectedto moral codes defining what is permissible and r+rhatis not. in Ten, the perfornances can be seen as intimate as Kiarostami choosesto shor,r'us characters caught off-guard. In sequericenine, the camera focuseson Mania's sister as she v"aits for Mania on her own in the car. We seeher adjusting her veil and absent-mindedlyscratching her face - mundane actions that are striking in their closenessand intimacy, for they are actions from which, in'real [Te'as well as in Iilmic conrrentions.the viewer (as observer and audience) may be expected to arrert their gaze. Ahbari ensures that the audience recognize themselvesin the individuai characters in 2a Fingers- especiaily the r+,omen- tr5z focusing the camera on 'inlerrupting' and t h e s t o r i e sr r ' i t h t h e m u n d a n ea c r i o n so f e v e r y d a y i f e . i The seconcl sequencestarts lrriih a side shot of }v{ania's head as she applies lipstick. In ihe fourth sequence, Mania tells Bijan about a couple vrho have had extrarnarital affairs .,a'hileabsent-mindedly flossing her teeth. In the following sequence. in a restaurant, Mania orders food and speakswith set her mor-iih full. AlEbari'smersins ol iniimale stories and intimate acts are

Digitai cinema: The hransformationof fiim practice and aesthetics

33

testimon5i to the foregrounding of physicality in digltal cinema, and iis linking of the inside of the body and the outside. N{oreover, through this practice, gone is the iliusion of seamlessness that cinema traditionally presents.In its piace are "'dead moments" fthat] enhance the impression of documentary authenticity' (Andrer,v 2005; 48). However, what makes the lilms intriguing is their seemingly contradictory combination of this senseof cioseness and the distanceof observation and surveillance, or as Dovey puts it, the 'cornbination of quasi-scientific accuracy and voyeui:isticpleasure' (2004: 565). Tenis brohen dovyn into ten sequencesdivided by the tmage of the number of each sequenceon ihe screen counted dcwn to the souad of film reel roiling follor,vedby a bell. resembiing that signalling the start of a boxing match, which has a 'distancing and formalizing effect' (Saeed-Vafa and Rosenbaum 2003: 100). 20 Fingers is more self-reflexive: By playing all the characters themselves, Mania and Bijan remove the illusion that we are watching 'real' people. we are constantly aware that these characters represent different aspects of Iranian society. The audience is less likeiy to identify with individual characters than with the stories they teii. As iVtania Akbari comments, '[t]his is real Iranian life' (Reuters 2OO4). The film itseif emphasizes this point in its last sequence, where Mania and Bijan are revealed as themselves,in the role of actors playing a number of characters- cruising across a lake in a boat, Mania teils Bijan 'each part is one side of yourself'. Mania's statement is aiso a self-reflexive comment on her role as both actor and director in the film. In this new cinema, she can be both subject and object. This fundamental change in the relation between subject and object is at the heart of digital cinema. Film is aesthetic. video is demotic. we have probably seen ourselves on video; w-edo not know how we iook on 35mm film. on film we looh at other people. on video we watch ourselves.we now all belong to ihis digitally: perceived world, where the real and the photographed come together. Ail the tools necessary for a complete industrial {ilm practice are arriving in places that did not have the infrastructure ro support an indigenous cinema. The technology not only has the potential to revive the ossi{iedHollywood cinema. but aiso to enable storyteliing from different cultures and from people who were previousiy unheard. The technology is therefore transforming relationships of por,uerbetween different cinemas: it is not only the lVest that is the bearer of the gaze. lVorks cited Al<bari, (2005), 'Intrcductiontc 20 Fingers', Iv{. ,+ cinema Iran Season. chennel (Aired Thursday tu{a_v 14 2005, 12:10am), Andrew, (20051, London: C. i0, BFI. j. ]lelton, QAO2),'Digitai Cinema: Ferise A Revoluticn'. actober.1OrJ, 9g_l 14. pp. Brown, T. (1982). 'The Electronic Camera Experinlent', tlmerican cinematographer {lanuary)fOniine]. Avaiiable: http:l/wivw.oneiromthehearrmovie.com/anericancinenratogiapher/. Accessed Ll Februar.i 100r.. 'Boii1,'r,'vood Chadira, (2003.}, f,{. (\&'ednesday., Enter"s DigitaiAge',BBCi.,e.,vs 12 tu{aicii 20113) http://nev;s.bbc.cc.i-rl--'2rhi/iechroloeyiJS4ilJl.sin. [ontine].Availabie:
P .ndceA d | / lai...,-' )1tfte

)J.

Aciam Ganz and Lina Iihatio

: :-r'.f': l --'' ::':'::*-:iari::'""ir,'''lr":'are

r'-::!rF.l:l

Cirristie, (2005a).ADefiningMornent', FTL4agaitu,Ociober15/16 pp. t2*5j^ N. -(\.Vednesda5' (2005b), 'StevenSoderbergh: The Director's Cur', Thelndependent 26 October 2005) fOnlinel. Available: .ece' http://enjo1'ment.independent.co.uklhlur/intenriews/article322399 Accessed12 February 2006. 'Tire Von' of Chastity', Dogme95 (13 lt{iuch) fOnline]. Available: Dognre 95 (f 995), r.dl(/the-vow/vow.html. I arv 2006. Accessed 2 Febru h ttp://wrwr'.dogmeq 'Camcorder Cults', ir R.C. Allen and A. Hili (eds.)The Televisiort Dovey,J, (2004), Reader, London: Routledge,pp. 5 5 7-5 68. Studjes 'CitizenK', '\i-AfuamWeeklg; (10-16 ]une, IssueNo. 694) M. El-Assyouti, (2004), Accessed lOnline].,{r'arlable: irttp://r^,'eel'Jy."hram.org.egl200416941clt5"htm I2 February 2U06. of Elena, A. (2005), TheCinema AbbasKiarostami.London: Saqi. (2C02), 'Remember r,vhen princely Paul Bettany was a blood-thirsty Flatley, G. thag?' Moviecra:ed [Onlinel. Available: Accessed http ://r,r''ww.moviecrazed.com/gu1-movieslpaul-bettany,htm. l2February 2006. Frediani, M. (799516),'On the Set with Video Assist', OperatingCameraman. (Falli'Winter) fOnline], Available: 12 html. Accessed February 2OO6' http://m,r'r,v.soc.org/opcam/mgO7-1w9596. 'Cinema: Nqnr Times, Same Problems',IndexonCensorship, Goimakani, H. (1992), 21: 3,pp.L9-22. 'Through the Looking Glasses: From the Camera Obscura to Geuens,J.P.(L996), Video Assist', FiIm Quarterlv,49: 3, pp. 76-26. 'Mohamed Khan: The Future is Digital', AI-Balad(Sunday 26 Habshian, H. (2004.), p. September), 21. {in Arabic). Kiarostami, A. (2004), 70 onTenlDYDl. I{iarostami, A. (2005), GtLardian Intert'iew at the NFT, April 28, 2005' Transcript available: 7,I+7 6326,AA.lntL"tll'. hffn:i./film.suardian.co.ul</interview/interviewpages/0,573 Accessedi2 February 2006. Cinemain the Digital Age.London: BFI. Le Grice, M. (2C0 1). Experimental New Yorlc:Knopl Lumet, S. (i996), Making Movies, Art and Otanian, T.A" and Phillips, M.E. (2000), Digital Filmmaking:TheChanging ng Mo tion Pictur es, Oxford : Focal Press. CraJtoi Maki 'The Digital Revoiution and The Future Cinema', Address Mahhmalbaf, S. (2000), at Cannes Fesiival, May 2000, Iran ChamberSociety [Online], Available: http://www.iranchamber.com/cinema/articles/digital*revolution-future-cine ma.php. Accessed12 February 2006. X{urch, W. (1999), A4ligltal Cinema of the Mind? Could Be', New York Times (2 May 1999) fOnline]. Available: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/film/0 502 9 gfuture-film.htmi. Accessed 12 February 2006. Reuters (2004), Iranian Film Ventures into Adultery, Lesbianism.Persian iotLrnnl (8 September2004) [On]inel. Availabie: http ://n'wvu iranian.r,rrs/cgi-bin/ iran-nern s/exec/r'iewcgil 2 / 3 68 5' Accessed 12 February 2006. Kiarostami.Urbana: University of N'I. Saeed-Vafa, and Rosenbaum,]. (2003), Abbas Iilinois Press.

of Digital cinema: The transforn.ration film practice and aesthetics

35

London: Pengurn' Sontag, S' (2002)' OnPhotography' Thirty Yeats' ' Amencan 'fttftttofo*'ul I"nnovators {or N{ore Than (2005), Zoetrope

*I,'fl:Xf;21;iJ.illff;"'-rilms'cgi?page:tech'orogv'Acces
2 I I Februarv 006'

citation Suggested of 'Digitalti":Tu; The transformation film praciice 1'21I 1 Canz,A., & Khatib,L' (2006)' pp 2t-36' doi: 1O'138 6/ncin'4' i" 1' N'* and aesthetics', ;i;*;' ContribuLordetails ^r r ^-.r, A{amGanzisalecturer-in}vlediaArtsatRoyalHollowav'UniversityofLondon.lle tv ptstgraduate studv in Film studiedEnglishu, and Televisionschool the "u*o"a*l*Iint"trsit;nirgyefNational Film Practiceat the universtt of shortsin both Iilm and direcieda number riirectorscourse'He has *ti"tt ";?;;i; ""a Departmentof NlediaArt' Royal Holiorvay' ;;fu' disital formats' Contact: uK'

;it#ttrtil;oaoo,

Tw200EX' ngnu*'sunev

ganz@rhul'ac'uk n-*uit' adam. of Media Arts Cinyra a-t'{re Department Dr Lina Khatib is leciurer in I//orl-C at

;i*ffi :l"J:ml:fr't?i1^' "l'i-"'rv:T:'*#i#ili#*l?,f Arab (r'B' and''he \No.rtd'

Y;:;:::#t;#?l'1lii;;"i;'-ii"iin'^os.or.Hoilvwoad include *Jdiu
oi L'Iiddie il;;t "pttt"ntations Tauris 2006). n*t tt"*th theory' Coniact: Lina anr3postcolonial Easternpoiitics,laiaor" iluslr;";;t;*' of London,Egham' *r, *yal Hoiloway,university I(hatib, Department", oiri" UK' TW20 OEX' SurreY ac'ul< g-*uU, Iina.kh atib@rhul'

Adam Ganz and Lina Khal

36

.'-:-i+a--.:a:-,

r' :'

" : :Yrr: