Seeking the Subaltern Consciousness in Nepali Cinema

Abstract

This article overviews the resistance of the subaltern and the ongoing debate on seeking the subaltern consciousness within and outside the elitist structure. The first part of this article exposes the notion of subaltern and subaltern resistance consciousness concerning the development of the Nepali film industry. The second part discusses different dimensions of resistance of the subaltern in shifting politico-cultural contexts. It also unfolds the structure of representation of the subaltern transformed within transitions which are observed more vehemently through the different politico-cultural scenarios of filmmaking, particularly before and after the Maoist insurgency. The last part analyses the aspects or efforts of the self-formation of the subaltern in terms of- along with class- caste, ethnicity and gender with references to representative Nepali movies, i.e. Numafung, Batomuniko Phool and Uma flash hope within hopelessness.

Erotic Abuse on Woman's Body: A Study on Chapali Height

“…As the shift in Nepali movie, the issues of liberty and the self-sufficiency of minorities have been started to be raised in the movies. So, Shrestha et al (2021) in their research regarding subaltern consciousness in Nepali cinema have written that the Nepali film industry has provided some hope by producing films that celebrate art as an apparatus for subaltern freedom and autonomy. It indicates a positive transformation which benefits to those who are marginalized.…”

Untitled

“…In this sense, the subalterns can speak and act more autonomously in secular spaces, where counter hegemonic actions could be made possible from academic and literaryartistic activities. Coulter-hegemonic space with secular aesthetics is very essential for the intellectuals to exist and speak more autonomously (Shrestha, 2011). The Bhutanese diaspora is gaining space in the resettled countries, where formulating counter-hegemonic intellectual groups for counter-hegemonic actions is possible, which should not be taken as radical or extreme thought (Barden, 2010;Carroll, 2007;Hyug, 1991).…”