Mémoires de Magister

Permanent URI for this community

https://dspace.ummto.dz/handle/ummto/1

Browse

Browsing Mémoires de Magister by Subject "A Postcolonial Study"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Postcolonial Study of David Lean’s Film Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
    (Université Mouloud Mammeri Tizi-Ouzou, 2016) TAHIR Fahima
    This dissertation analyses David Lean’s 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia in the light of postcolonial theory. Appropriating Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism, our research was conducted on three major axes; the depiction of the Arabian Desert as a space where the events took place, the representation of the Arabs and the possible hidden agenda underlying the film. Having analysed various scenes, characters, dialogues, we came out with the conclusion that the film is filled with all manner of stock Orientalist images, characters and themes. As an Oriental space, the Arabian Desert is represented as a place beyond history and civilisation and is given two images. It is both an “exotic” place where a bored and undisciplined young Englishman gets the opportunity to become a hero and a “hostile” place where the latter is in constant danger. As Orientals, the Arabs are ascribed a set of negative characteristics that fix them in an inferior position vis-a-vis the Westerners. Most of all, we discovered that, in his adaptation of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, director David Lean added several historically inaccurate scenes. From our analysis of the these scenes we noticed that the Arabs are shown either as a divided people always fighting against each other or as subordinates who are in desperate need for Western guidance. Taking into consideration the historical context of the film’s production, it appeared to us that all the added scenes carry overt political connotations. It became clear that Lean purposefully altered history to serve his film’s hidden imperialistic agenda.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Utopia and Dystopia in Colonial Writings: Henry Rider Haggard’s King Solomon’s Mines (1885) and Pierre Benoit’s L’atlantide (1919): A Postcolonial Study
    (Université Mouloud Mammeri Tizi-Ouzou, 2016) BESSAD Djedjiga
    This dissertation aims at studying the issue of utopia and dystopia in two colonial fictions: Henry Rider Haggard’s King Solmon’s Mines (1885) and Pierre Benoit’s L’atlantide (1919). While the former belongs to the British literature, the latter belongs to the French one. Both were written during the period of the height of imperialism in their countries. While the peak of the British colonial power was the late nineteenth century, the French one was the two first decades of the twentieth century. In this dissertation, I seek to demonstrate that there is a simultaneous incorporation of utopian and dystopian elements in both fictions. These elements are manifest in the English and the French characters’ vision towards the colonial world notably “the human world” i.e. the inhabitants, and “the vegetable world” i.e. the natural environment. The existence of utopian aspects in the two fictions is evidenced by “apocalyptic and romantic images”, concepts borrowed from Northrop Frye’s essay “Archetypal Criticism: Theory of Myths”. As for the dystopian aspects, the evidence is given through “the demonic images” and the ironical situations, two other concepts taken from Frye’s theory. Throughout the discussion chapters of my dissertation, I explore the romanticisation of some native characters and the landscape in the colonial world which creates a desirable or utopian atmosphere for the white men in the colonial world-South Africa in Haggard’s fiction and Algeria in Benoit’s fiction. I also discuss the demonisation of other native characters, because they hinder the fulfillment of the white characters’ utopian imperial dreams, and the challenges caused by the colonial natural environment. These aspects cause disillusionment for the white men and render their life in the colonial world undesirable i.e. dystopian. I also consider the variety of myths incorporated in the two authors’ discourses and make an ideological reading of them relying upon Roland Barthes’s theory of myths. Finally, I have come to the result that: the authors’ discourses are ambivalent; they are “paradisiacal” and “anti-paradisiacal” at the same time