All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission of the publisher.The electronic open access publication of 'Migration, Dislocation and Movement on Screen' has been made available under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license as a part of the Berghahn Open Migration and Development Studies initiative. https://doi.org/10.3167/9781805395942. Not for resale.
INTRODUCTION . 3another way, that we are human, and that means that we are social, communitarian, moral and compassionate. In the film work scrutinized by Campanioni, Evans, Kocatürk, Hudelist, Raj and Sreekumar, and Peruzzi, Bruno and Massa, we have a clear exploration of the ethical outcomes of witnessing sacrifice, injustice and trauma. As Evans explains, reimagining the national imaginary to make it more inclusive and to bring into reality a more cosmopolitan outlook must be one of the main impacts of films about migrants and migration. However, as Kocatürk, and Raj and Sreekumar observe, films can also miss this opportunity and (self) reterritorialization and self-imposed immobility can often raise their ugly heads again, in the analysis provided by Andreas Hudelist in his chapter. Cinema is 'imperfect', as Campanioni asserts.Within the context of ethics, we could argue that an important achievement of this ever-increasing body of films, television series and documentaries about migration is the re-elaboration of the theme of otherness or strangeness. It offers the opportunity to talk in detail about strategies of othering (see Anisimovich's chapter in this volume), but more importantly, it allows 'strangers' to tell their own stories, as screen writers, directors and actors, or simply as people with a camera (see the chapters authored by Hudelist, Peruzzi, Bruno and Massa, and Trandafoiu and Shannon, in particular). This allows audiences to move away from parochial, nationalistic and ideologized storytelling and adopt multiple perspectives. We become 'us' and 'them' at the same time, we feel what foreigners feel as they are gazed upon and, similarly, we adopt the critical gaze of the stranger seeing things anew. Accordingly, films about migration are films of 'ambivalence', to adopt a term dear to Malini Guha (2015: 26). They adopt difference as a philosophical inquiry but, at the same time, they normalize difference, they transform it into a way of living with difference, while being different. They adopt a pendulum or seesaw approach, refashioning exterior experiences into interior ones, shifting perspectives, allowing viewers the freedom to appropriate or reject them, or even sew them into the quilt of their own lived experiences. And yet, in the same movement, they may perpetuate the troubling association between 'strangeness' or 'difference' and 'anomaly', as Campanioni explains i...