they speak quebecois, don't they?

OK. Since I have decided to procrastinate a little bit tonight and not work on studying for my French exam, I thought I should use the time to be critical regardless.

Last Thursday I attended a lecture/seminar entitled "Cinemas of Minor Frenchness." I didn't know what the hell this meant, and reading the information online about the visiting scholar from Glasgow who was going to speak didn't answer any questions I had about the topic, either. So I went to it to find out.

And my suspicion that it would be about Quebecois cinema was confirmed. He uses a theoretical framework concerning the dichotomy between "major" and "minor" cultures to study Quebecois cinema vis-a-vis French cinema. I didn't catch to whom he attributed this concept. In any case, it refers to, in his context, the fact that the Quebecois are a minority in Canada but a majority within their own nation or region (and that depends on your politics). But he extends it to stand for Quebecois cinema being overlooked because films from France dominate French-language cinema. I can understand that he wants to avoid calling it a subcultural or an oppressed cinema, but I do not like the taxonomies "minor" and "major." Throughout the talk, I squirmed whenever he said it because the words connote a hierarchy and a value judgment for me. As if Quebecois cinema, a "cinema of minor Frenchness" is of little importance. Clearly he doesn't think that, otherwise he wouldn't waste all the time and energy researching it. Quebecois cinema isn't an oppressed cinema (it's largely state-funded even though it makes no money, apparently). If it were, then all cinemas but Hollywood are oppressed. I may poo-poo big American studio films, but I do not think any cinemas are oppressed. That they don't reach as wide an audience does not make them oppressed.

Finally, a few days ago, I put my finger on the real reason why I don't like his theoretical framework, and it derives from an answer he gave me to one of my questions. He had explained that the French do not care much for films from Quebec, whether it's because they don't understand the dialect and thus don't want to read subtitles or because they are snobs. Like Britain, France only receives maybe one Quebecois film a year. I have no idea what the U.S. receives. I'm so out of touch. Anyway, this did not surprise me: that the French don't watch/care about these films.

So I asked how French films are received in Quebec. He admitted that he didn't know, stating only that the Hollywood juggernaut is what captivates audiences and that French comedies don't translate well. Tell me something I don't know. That this very established and well-read scholar did not even think that this means something made me realize that he has not considered everything about that "cinemas of minor Frenchness" conceptualization. By asking the question, I was implying that the audience reception of French films might suggest something about this "minor/major" cinemas idea. While I understand that the Quebecois have a complex cultural/national identity, that some may consider themselves Quebecois first, Canadian second, or one but not the other, I was wondering if French films in any way "inform" the Quebecois on how to be more French-like, less Canadian or whatever. Alternatively, does it "inform" them on how to stand apart from French cinema since they're most often compared to French cinema?

More than this though, I realized the real problem with "minor" and "major": language alone should not define the relationship between two completely different cinemas so that one is called "major" while the other is "minor." For instance, I do not see the Quebecois as French. It is a different language. The histories are different. The land and space are different. They are a different nation with a different culture, so why are they of "minor Frenchness"? If you ask me, they're not of Frenchness at all. As for the cinemas of African countries that used to be French colonies: are they cinemas of "minor Frenchness," too? No.

So "Cinemas of Minor Frenchness" is misleading. I seriously don't think he was trying to be ironic with that title because he still sees the need to study Quebecois cinema so closely with French cinema. Throughout his talk I was trying to come up with an alternative theoretical framework, but who am I to suggest such a thing to him? But I regret now not telling him how I disagree with the "minor/major" culture dichotomy.

C'est la vie.