This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: nor pretends to¶ properly engage with black film. Furthermore, Wilderson separates the different¶ waves of black film theory and approaches them,
only, in terms of how a most recent¶ one might challenge its precedent. Again, his approach is problematic because it ¶ does not mention or emphasise the inter‐ connectivity of/in black film theory. As a¶ case in point, Wilderson does not link Tommy Lott’s mobilisation of Third
Cinema¶ for black film theory to Yearwood’s idea of African Diaspora. (64) Additionally, of¶ course, Wilderson seems unaware that Third Cinema itself has been
fundamentally¶ questioned since Lott’s 1990s’ theory of black film was formulated. Yet another¶ consequence of ignoring the African Diaspora
is that it exposes Wilderson’s corpus ¶ of films as unable to carry the weight of the transnational argument he
attempts to¶ advance. Here, beyond the US‐ centricity or ‘social and political specificity of [his] ¶ filmography’, (95) I
am talking about Wilderson’s choice of films. For example,¶ Antwone Fisher (dir. Denzel Washington, 2002) is attacked unfairly for failing to¶ acknowledge...
View Full Document
- Spring '14