First of all, it is necessary to emphasize, that the common feature of all the analyzed writers, is that they all from Latin America. This fact is augmented by the notion, that most of these countries experienced totalitarian regimes. The creation by these writers in some measure expresses the wish for freedom, happy and beautiful life. Thus, Umberto Eco’s Casablanca symbolizes the desire for the American style of life.
When people in their fifties sat down before their TV sets for a replay of Casablanca, it is a regular subject of nostalgia. What then is the fascination of Casablanca (both, movie and novel)?
Here are the passionate lovers – he harsh, she kindhearted but both have been seen to improved improvement. Every component is in its suitable place, the characters are dependable from one moment to the next, and the plot comes from Maupassant – in any case, the first component of it. So one is attracted to read Casablanca the way T. S. Eliot reread Hamlet. One attributed its attraction not to its being a winning work but to something moderately the contrary: Hamlet, according to the statement by Stuart Hall “Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies”, was the result of an ineffective combination of numerous previous Hamlets, one in which the theme was reprisal (with insanity as only a subterfuge), and another which theme was the disaster brought on by the mother’s sin, with the resulting inconsistency among Hamlet’s panicky excitation and the ambiguity and improbability of Gertrude’s crime. So critics and the public alike find Hamlet beautiful because it is interesting, and consider it to be attractive as it is beautiful.
Though ground-breaking, Eco’s work has not aged fine. Its concept that a film has to be watched all the way during in one session constructs little logic in video or based fan cultures, while its persistence that the films of Lucas and Spielberg do not value cult deliberation flanking Casablanca proposes a substance of generational taste faintly camouflaged as an academic difference. Eco’s anxiety with ‘detachability’ and ‘livelihood textuality’ is also confused by the auteurism which many media alternatives exhibit.
“Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote” by Borges is created in the form of an appraisal or mythical critical section about Pierre Menard (fictional; character in all relations). It starts with a brief foreword and a catalog of all of Menard’s work.
Borges’ “review” is described by the 20th-century French writer who has made an attempt to go extra than mere “translation” of Don Quixote, but to immerse himself so thoroughly as to be able to actually “re-create” it, line for line, in the original 16th century Spanish. Thus, Pierre Menard is often regarded to raise issues and discussion about the natural world of precise translation. Stuart hall declares in his work, that the “only theory worth having is that which you have to fight off, not that which you speak with profound fluency.” This documentary takes its name from Hall’s symbol as it wrestles with such notions and theories as a genuine self, spirit of being, shifting/ hyphenated/ fragmented individualities, creolization, hybridization, transculturation, globalization, and post-identity – all within an exploration of Caribbeans.
Borges’ work is certainly literary criticism but during the standard of daydream, irony, and humor. Borges’ narrator/reviewer considers Menard’s incomplete Quixote to be much wealthier than Cervantes’s “original” work, as Menard’s work should be viewed in light of world events since 1602 and thus is richer in reference. Cervantes “…pampers in a quite common resistance among tales of knighthood and the scanty, unsophisticated realism of his state.” From the point of view of the cultural analysis, it is necessary to mention, that the novel by Borges may be regarded as the kind of abstraction from real life, as he describes the matters of some careless life, never minding the problems of the world of that days.
The analysis according to Adorno and Horkheimer on the matters of the popularity of the regarded novels argue, that Western culture used to be separated into nationwide promotes and then into high-quality, middle-quality, and low-quality, the modern view of mass civilization is that there is a single marketplace in which the best or most admired works are successful. This recognizes that the merging of media corporations has centralized authority in the hands of the few staying international companies now managing manufacture and allocation. The theory recommends that culture not only reflects society but also takes a significant role in forming it through the procedures of standardization and commodification, making objectives rather than subject matters. The culture industry maintains to serve the customers’ needs for amusement but covers the way that it standardizes these requirements, manipulating the customers to longing what it manufactures. The result is that mass production supplies a mass market that diminishes the uniqueness and flavors of the personality customers who are as compatible as the productions they consume. The foundation of the theory is to encourage the liberation of the consumer from the tyranny of the creators by suggesting the customer issue beliefs and ideologies. Adorno stated that explanation would bring pluralism and demystification. Unluckily, society is said to have endured another fall, tainted by capitalist manufacturing for unequal reasons.
References
Eco, Umberto. Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon, eds. Bedford Books, 1994.
Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder,1972.