This study investigates the challenges facing screenwriters in Australia who set out to represent the Japanese on screen. The study is presented in two parts; an exegesis and a creative practice component consisting of two full length feature film screenplays. The exegesis explores how certain screenwriting conventions have constrained recent screen images of the Japanese within the bounds of the cliched and stereotypical, and argues for a greater resistance to these conventions in the future. The two screenplays experiment with new ways of representing the Japanese in mainstream Australian film and aim to expand the repertoire of Asian images in the national film culture.

[pt] Vivemos num mundo em crise. E essa crise é também cultural. Se o multiculturalismo favorece o diálogo entre inúmeras áreas da cultura, rouba-lhes muitas vezes, a especificidade, dilui suas marcas. E isso acontece, neste momento com a história, com a ficção e a realidade. A concepção de História que decidimos interpretar, nos parecia uma narrativa de estrutura simples, quando esta se revelou uma narrativa de estrutura complexa ao seguir os passos da ficção, oscilando entre a tragédia e o folhetim. Uma história pode ser uma narração histórica ou uma fábula, dependendo de como se conta esta história. O mesmo ocorre com a ficção que pode, muitas vezes, testemunhar a verdade de um fato histórico. Essa aproximação entre estas duas práticas discursivas é o ponto crucial da nossa investigação, verificar como se comportam os discursos histórico e ficcional, ambos fabricados e elaborados pelo fetichismo dos fatos na produção histórico-ficcional. Este trabalho apresenta os resultados de uma pesquisa que se debruçou sobre o viés que deflagra a proximidade das narrativas da História e da Ficção. Enfocou representações sociais e discursivas nas investigações feitas pela análise das obras: A Carta de Caminha em diálogo com o Diário de Bordo de Colombo e Peregrinação de Barnabé das Índias de Mário Cláudio, A Implosão da Mentira de Affonso Romano de Sant Anna, O Conto Da Ilha Desconhecida de José Saramago e O Vendedor de Passados de José Eduardo Agualusa. Investigamos, portanto, vários gêneros literários, tais como: uma carta, enquanto documento histórico, uma poesia, um conto e um romance. Atravessamos o Atlântico dos Séculos XV e XVI até o atual Século XXI, viajando literariamente entre Portugal, Brasil e África. / [en] We live in a world in crisis. And this crisis is also cultural. If multiculturalism encourages the dialogue between different areas of culture, it steals, many times, the specificity, dilutes its marks. And it happens, at this moment, with history, with fiction and reality. The conception of history that we decided to interpret, seemed like a narrative of simple structure, when it revealed to be a narrative of complex structure by following the steps of fiction, oscillating between tragedy and feuilleton. A story can be a historical narrative or a fable, depending on "how you tell" this story. The same occurs with fiction that can, many times, witness the truth of a historical fact. This approximation between these two discursive practices is the crucial point of our research, verifying how historical and fictional discourses behave, both manufactured and elaborated by the fetishism of facts in historical-fiction production. This paper presents the results of a study that bent over the bias that outbreak the proximity of history and fiction narratives. It has focused social and discursive representations in the investigations made by the analysis of the literary works: A Carta de Caminha em diálogo com o Diário de Bordo de Colombo e Peregrinação de Barnabé das Índias by Mário Cláudio, A Implosão da Mentira by Affonso Romano de Sant Anna, O Conto Da Ilha Desconhecida by José Saramago and O Vendedor de Passados by José Eduardo Agualusa. Therefore, we investigated several literary genres, such as: a letter, as a historical document, a poem, a tale and a romance. We crossed the Atlantic in the XV and XVI century until the present century XXI, traveling through literacy between Portugal, Brazil and Africa.

No description available.

The core of House M.D. is its assertion that current Western civilization lives in a perpetual state of dissonance: we desire to have the rawness of emotion but we can only handle this rawness when we combine it with intellect, even if that intellect lies to us. This is the ontological paradox that the televisual text grapples with. Through the use of archetypal analysis and allegorical interpretation, this thesis reveals that dissonance and its relationship to contemporary Western society. Through House M.D. we realize that there are structures to the paradoxes that we live and there are paradoxes in our structures. Dr. House is a trickster in an allegory of American capitalist culture. The trickster metaphorically pulls away from society the rules protecting cultural values. Dr. House and House M.D. participate in revealing the cultural disruption of the current moment of Western society. While playing on the genres of detective fiction and hospital dramas, House M.D. is an existential allegory exposing the paradox that we can never be free while still seeking our own self-interest.

Ce travail de recherche prend sa source dans mes diverses expériences professionnelles, sur plus de dix ans, en tant que psychologue clinicienne et psychanalyste en formation, exerçant avec des enfants, des adolescents, leurs familles ainsi qu’avec des adultes. Il s’agit d’une clinique particulière puisqu’elle a été recueillie au Liban, un pays qui a une histoire difficile à cerner, ponctuée de guerres et parsemée de violences. Un pays qui est marqué par un système de résonance et d’écho entre les traumas individuels et les rapports aux traumas collectifs. Cette recherche porte plus précisément sur une population bien définie puisqu’elle est exclusivement constituée d’ex-enfants, puis ex-adolescents de la guerre de 1975 à 1991 ayant vécu dans l’ex-Beyrouth-Est, puis devenus désormais adultes. Elle est aussi caractérisée par le fait qu’une fois le travail de la cure est bien avancé, j’ai pu comprendre que j’avais durant mon enfance puis mon adolescence, partagé, des tranches de vie avec mes patients. Ces moments étaient des vécus de guerre traumatiques. En effet, mes patients adultes, les parents des petits en cure et moi-même, nous-nous sommes trouvés aux mêmes endroits, et nous avons vécu aux mêmes moments, seuls, loin des adultes, les mêmes événements de guerre. Il s’agit d’une réflexion qui englobe au final, quatre générations. Je m’interroge sur la qualité du lien qui existerait entre la question des particularités du travail d’élaboration de situations de traumatismes personnels et de traumatismes familiaux au sein de thérapies d’enfants. Mon interrogation porte également sur le type d’intéraction qu’il y aurait entre le trauma spécifique du parent ex-enfant de la guerre et celui du trauma collectif propre à un pays en guerre. Comment ceci se joue-t-il dans la cure et avec le thérapeute de l’enfant (génération 1) né après la guerre ? Je m’interroge, d’une part, sur les modalités défensives des parents (génération 2) et les particularités des traumatismes personnels internes qui survenaient en écho avec des traumatismes familiaux entremêlés et emboîtés aux traumatismes cumulatifs collectifs/sociaux. D’autre part, je me questionne à propos de la psyché parentale qui me semblait figée, envahie, prisonnière d’un « entre-deux intérieur/extérieur-non-humain, fantasme/réalité », aux liens forts et inapparents qui semblaient inexistants mais desquels ils ne pouvaient pas se libérer à l’âge adulte. Je me demande si les enfants (génération 1) nés après la guerre, ne seraient pas pour leurs parents (génération 2), réduits à un symptôme ; symptôme que ces derniers n’auraient pas eu la possibilité de porter durant leur vécu infantile. L’enfant (génération 1) ne serait-il pas le porteur du « clivé parental » ? Je me demande finalement si les parents (génération 2) pourraient avoir accrédité, lors de l’entretien qui fixe le cadre, le contrat muet ou pacte suivant : « nous savons/vous savez ce que nous avons/vous avez vécu dans notre/votre enfance : on le pose là et on n’en parle pas ». Même si ce pacte n’a pas été explicité verbalement, la transmission s’établissait d’une autre manière : au-delà du langage. C’est pour cette raison qu’en confiant leur enfant, ces parents (génération 2) parvenaient enfin et pour la première fois, à confier l’enfant en eux à une personne qui « saurait », qui « serait passée par là » et qui a « les mots pour l’exprimer ». Pour essayer de répondre à mes interrogations, je tente d’introduire et d’expliquer une modalité particulière de vivre le cadre analytique : il s’agirait d’une co-construction, avec le patient d’un cadre. Ce cadre serait comme une piste de danse propice à la mise en place d’une « chorégraphie de la cure » qui permettrait à l’analyste et son patient de « danser avec la cure ». Ceci sous-entend un mouvement de rythmicité, un rapproché, un va et viens nécessaire à l’évolution.... / This research is rooted in my various professional experiences over more than a decade as a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst in training, dealing with children, adolescents, their families as well as adults. This relates to a particular type of clinical work since the data for this study was collected in Lebanon, a country that has an elusive history, punctuated by wars and scattered violence; a country that is characterized by a resonating and echoing system between individual trauma and collective traumas. This study refers more precisely to a well-defined population, consisting exclusively of former children and adolescents of the 1975-1991 Lebanese war having lived and grown up in the former East Beirut. The study is also characterized by the fact that, once the analytic cure was well advanced, I was able to understand that I experienced, during my childhood and my adolescence, similar shared moments with my patients pertaining to traumatic experiences resulting from the war. In fact, my adult patients, the parents of the children in psychotherapy as well as myself, found ourselves as children and adolescents in the same places, experiencing the same epoche, alone, and away from adults (our parents or teachers), the same violent and destructive war events. This is a reflection that pertains to four generations. I wonder as to the quality of the links that exist between the peculiarities of the elaborative work of personal traumatic experiences and family traumas within the context of child psychotherapy. My interrogations also relate to the possible type of interaction existing between the specific trauma of the parent who is an ex-child (and ex-adolescent) of the war and the collective trauma that is specific to a country at war. I question in part the nature of the defense modalities of parents (generation 2) And the particularities of inner personal traumas that occur as an echo to family’s trauma, intertwined and interlocked with cumulative and collective social trauma. Moreover, I question why the parental psyche seems frozen, as if invaded, a prisoner “in a “no man’s land”, an undefined territory internal/external- non-human, fantasy/reality”, I also wonder about the strong, hidden links that seemed to glue up the members of a family. Those links or particular ways to live the attachment seemed, at first, apparently nonexistent but paradoxically they were extremely present in the sessions. The adults seamed unable to free themselves from this chain. I wonder if the children (generation 1) born after the war, are not, in the parental psyche (generation 2) reduced to a symptom – a symptom that the parents (generation 2) could not have had the opportunity to carry during their own childhood. Therefore, the child (generation 1) would be the bearer of "parental splitting"? I finally question the setting and wonder if the parents (generation 2) may not have accredited during our first encounter the « psychoanalytic » framework with the following dumb contract or agreement: "we know/you know what we/you have lived in our/ your childhood: we leave it aside and we do not talk about it at all. " Although the pact has not been explained verbally, transmission seemed to have been established in a « non-verbal communication. It may be for this reason that, the parents (generation 2) felt sufficiently at ease to try and place, for the first time in their lives, the suffering “child in them” in what they might have felt as being the securing, healing and soothing arms of “someone” who can be there for them; “someone” who has known what they have encountered because he is not a total stranger to their childhood experiences, “someone” who has the words and the capacity to talk about these unpleasant things; someone who may be able to express the “unspeakable experiences” with simple words ....