The defence was indeed worthwhile to attend. The Faculty Examiner, Professor Jolyon Mitchell, from university of Edinburgh, the School of Theology, did a great job. He had enjoyed reading the thesis.
This kind of exercise always includes a section when the examiner goes through the thesis and explains what it is all about. After that the examiner must ask the candidate if the candidate can recognize the expose as a true reflection of the thesis. Oulia did so. And after that the conversation began. I think Oulia responded very well. Sometimes with humour. Sometimes by admitting that the examiner had a good point but most of the time by showing that she mastered the subject.
So let me say a few things about the thesis. Oulia explains in the beginning of the thesis:
My research does not begin with African Christianity, the place and role of the Bible and African Christians. Rather, it starts from looking at how film receives and depicts Christianity and the Bible in Africa.
This is important
to understand. With this point of departure, she describes her aim like this:
The aim, then, is to show the ways in which the socio-political emphasis and decoloniality have influenced portrayals of Christianity and the reception of the Bible in African marked political films.
She then
asks three questions to the films:
1. How do the selected films address Christianity and interpret the Bible?
2. How are they framed in relation to specific historical, cultural and
political contexts?
3. What are the potential implications of the transnational framing and circulation of the films?
The films
are:
- La Chapelle, (The Chapel, directed by Jean-Michel Tchissoukou, 1980, Republic of Congo)
- Au Nom du Christ (In the Name of Christ, directed by Roger Gnoan M’Bala, 1993, Côte d’Ivoire
- La Génèse (Genesis, directed by Cheick Oumar Sissoko, 1999, Mali)
- Son of Man (directed by Mark Dornford-May, 2006, South Africa)
I have only watched one of those, namely Son of Man. I was appointed commentator in one of the sessions of the seminar in History of Religions and World Christianity at Uppsala University, to which I belong. An interesting movie that I had not seen in South Africa when we lived there from 2002 to 2006.
Early in the defence Oulia explained that she had written the thesis because no one before her had studied African films from this perspective, except Jolyon Mitchell, but only in one article. She wanted to study the films not from a theological point of vies but from a cinematic one.
But why had she not chosen films from Nollywood? (The Nigerian film industry). The answer she gave was that she wanted to study politically engaged cinema. Then the examiner asked why she had not considered studying films from Hillywood. (Rwanda's film industry named for the country's rolling hills - I had not heard this term before. Interesting to learn new things.) But according to Oulia most films from Rwanda interprets the genocide and this was outside her focus.
It was very
amusing when the examiner challenged Oulia and asked if she had been doing
cherry picking, meaning that she had studied only films that she liked. She
answered directly:
I don’t like any of them.
She also explained why she did not write about the reception of the films. It would have made the study more of historical study, which she did not want. And in the case of for example Son of man a number of persons had already written about it. Some of them are my former colleagues from the University of KwaZulu- Natal, like Gerald O West and Sarojini Nadar.
At one
stage the examiner asked why she was so modest about her contribution and then
she again answered rapidly:
I think my analyses are great.
One comment I found especially interesting. That African film sometimes look at the past more than into the future. It reminds me of what John S Mbiti wrote many years ago about the absence of the future in the African mindset. But is that really true? To me it sounds like a generalization.
Another aspect that was highlighted was that Oulia had applied a different methodology for each chapter. The problem being, that it might be difficult to find coherence between the chapters. My take on this is that it makes the thesis more alive. She explained that she wanted each film to influence the method to use and the questions to ask. But again, this might be the weak point; that the thesis lacks a whole. On this note my reflection is that this is how theses in medical science always are done. One adds several articles to one another. And one combines them within a framework (kappa in Swedish). Maybe one can see Oulia’s thesis as four articles combined in this way?
My final reflection is about the role of laughter. Oulia gave an example from Au Nom du Christ. I have not seen this film, but her example aroused my curiosity. The situation where the characters laughed included – amongst other things – a woman who had no children and twins. Two phenomena with symbolic charge in an African culture. Oulia said that she had watched the scene repeatedly until she understood the meaning of laughter in the context. It was a reaction to absurdity. This resonates with my own experience from the continent, albeit from southern Africa.
After the
examiner and Oulia had finished their conversation the grading committee were
allowed to ask their questions. When Professor Jyoti Mistry from the University
of Gothenburg asked about aesthetics, Oulia exclaimed:
You made my day.
The whole
public defence seminar ended after more than two hours. I guess Oulia was
exhausted. But she did very well. And of course, she passed!
 |
Professor Kajsa Ahlstrand, the supervisor and Oulia Makkonen. |
No comments:
Post a Comment