National Cinema the Cinema and

National Cinema The cinema and film is an art form that has existed since the first silent films saw the light. Today's manifestation of this type of entertainment takes many different forms. In the main stream of society, any person asked what type of film he or she prefers to see will focus on some sort of genre, such as romance or horror. Far less recognized is the fact that film is also connected to nationality.

This fact is related to the growth and dominance of Hollywood many decades of the existence of the film industry. There has been, however, also a rise in the film industries of smaller nations, and especially those in Europe. Although a large number of these are highly dependent upon financial and loyalty endorsements from governments that are often concerned with matters other than their nations' filmmaking equipment, there has been a rise in the success and prowess of films coming from non-American states.

Hence, it has become necessary to distinguish what is meant by the concept of "national cinema." Questions of concern include whether a nation that has indulged in the art of filmmaking in any capacity can be said to have a sense of national cinema.

Where are the boundaries when defining the concept of national cinema? If a nation, such as the United States, has indulged in many different film genres with many different subject matters, can this still be referred to as a sense of national cinema? Does this type of cinema have to focus on purely indigenous, national concerns, or can it also be used as a platform for displaying the technological skill and filmmaking prowess of national professionals, including actors, filmmakers, and other technical filmmaking personnel? These questions can be difficult to answer.

However, a review of the existing literature on national cinema and what this does or does not entail could shed some light on some of the concerns when identifying what national cinema is and who can be said to have such a sense of an art form that is increasingly complicated, technical, and entertaining in nature. The Origin and Growth of Cinema Williams (2002) connects cinema with the ancient art of story telling. In ancient tribes, story telling has been used as a form of unifying the tribe and/or nation.

As the world grew and developed, early nations used literature in the same way. According to Williams (2002, p. 3), the written word was an important component in developing nationalism in early, pre-industrial times. Specific forms of literature included not only story telling, in terms of novels, short stories, or poetry, but also disseminations of languages within a specific country. These might have included dictionaries and grammars, for example, to unify the nation by means of its linguistics as well as its ideas.

Williams' premise is that the film industry, once this art form started developing on an international platform, was a continuation of the national tendency to use language and story telling in combination as a means of sculpting a unique identity within country borders. Williams uses this to emphasize the importance of recognizing the ongoing nature of the development of that nationalist ideal, not only by means of the written word, but also by means of cinema.

He describes it as a dynamic process, which makes it rather difficult to pin down the nature of the ideal of a national cinema. However, before national cinema can be pinned down, it is useful to consider the concept of genre and how this influences the concept of nationality within the film industry. Genre and National Cinema Complicating the issue of national cinema is the concept of genre, which at first glance appear to be international. Certainly, a comedy is a comedy, or a horror includes several bloody, gory scenes.

However, the way in which comedy, gore, or romance is presented must certainly be influenced by cultural ideals and values. Hence, while genre does indeed complicate the idea of national cinema, it in no way does away with the concept. What it does is add several dimensions to an existing and already complicated mode of understanding cinema and how it relates to nationality. Altman (2012, p.

16), for example, explains that film genre is, in practice, dependent on the specific inter-action between the audience seeing a film and the studio that created it. The author follows this statement by emphasizing that film genres have not been created by any critical or historical organization, many of which so often claim to hold the almost holy scripts of history, written in stone and unchanging.

Genre, on the other hand, is a fluid and dynamic component of film, created for audiences by studios catering for the changing needs and tastes of audiences over time. Hence, as the tastes and dynamic of nationalities change, so will film genres. Genres, having grown from this interaction, adhere not to national boundaries but rather to boundaries regarding their nature as a Western, horror, romance, drama, science fiction, or any of a myriad genres that exist today. Altman (2012, p.

86) draws a close parallel between this idea of genre and the ideal of nationhood. The American nation, for example, is bound together not so much by its physical boundaries as by its system of values or ideals. It is a number of concepts that make a nation what it is. Hence, an American moving to Russia does not automatically change into a Russian as a result of being within a different set of physical boundaries.

In the same way, a genre adheres to a set of principles rather than to any physical boundaries or historical occurrences. Both nationhood, values, and genres tend to be dynamic, influenced as they are by relationships and other external forces. Taking this a step further, one might then consider the parallels between the values that bind a nation and those that bind a genre. They may be considered as similar in nature, being dynamic and independent of physical boundaries.

Even further, one might consider the influence of genre and the national identity upon each other. Unique genres and sub-genres may, for example emerge from different nations, where a horror film in Italy may not mean exactly the same as a film of the same genre in China, for example. National audiences and tastes dictate the exact nature and principle of the same thing in different nationalities. It is therefore a very complex dynamic that changes both rapidly and frequently. The Challenge Presented by Hollywood Crofts (2008, p.

44) considers the challenge for national cinema as presented by Hollywood. This filmmaking city has dominated the industry worldwide since early in the 20th century. Hence, most Western films have been offset against the trend set by Hollywood. Indeed, between the years 1914 and 1945, Hollywood has grown to displace French filmmaking and dominate the industry worldwide. This creates an interesting conundrum for the United States and its national filmmaking identity.

Can a country that houses a transnational film industry be said to have a sense of national identity in filmmaking? In early films, one might identify "American" values such as the white male as action or romantic hero. In more recent films, the anti-hero has become popular, while inclusiveness has created an industry where females and males of all colors, orientations, and creeds can be seen as acting as either hero or anti-hero.

In this way, boundaries have blurred to include a myriad way of telling endlessly complicated stories, which has similarly blurred the boundaries of national identity when it comes to Hollywood, the film industry and a national identity constructed in this way for the United States. However, Crofts (2008, p. 45) also points out that the growth and dominance of Hollywood has impacted other national cinemas as well.

Indeed, the United States and Hollywood have created what Crofts refers to as an "unequal cultural and economic exchange." This means that, in many cases, Hollywood dictates the shape of not only its own country's filmmaking but also those stories told by foreign films. Some nationalities, such as many in Asia, have however maintained their own identity and agenda when creating films. In the context of Hollywood, then, Crofts (2008, p.

45) has identified different modes of existing within the film industry, creating a sense of national cinema despite or even because of the largest cinematic endeavor in the world. First, some national cinemas differ from Hollywood, while also not competing directly. An example is Asian films, which target a specialist market sector that is distinct from those catered for by Hollywood. Another type of national cinema does differ from Hollywood while not directly competing with it, but does deliver direct critique.

A third type of national cinema is the Third World or European cinema that does compete directly with Hollywood, but achieve little or no success, mainly because of Hollywood's superior economic, technological and social power. Few cinemas, on the other hand, manage to ignore Hollywood, but there are a few who do. In the fifth place, some English language cinemas compete directly with Hollywood within its own playing field. The sixth and seventh cinema types are interesting, since they attempt to retain a singular identity without external influence.

One of these is the cinema that exists entirely within a state-controlled industry, which is often subsidized by the same state. Finally, there are those national cinemas that hold such a specific identity that they distance themselves, in terms of language or culture, from the nation-states within which they exist. Having identified these categories, Crofts also points out the importance of recognizing their permeability. The author uses the example of French, Australian, and Indian films to demonstrate this point.

The French, for example, would operate in the fields of differing from Hollywood, not competing directly with it, but occasionally delivering critique on its films and practices. On exceptional occasions, French cinema would also venture into the field of specializing in terms of specific market sectors. The Australian cinema, on the other hand, would generally create English language films to compete directly with Hollywood, although it could also enter the first category, where it does not compete.

On rarer occasions, it would cater for specific specialist markets, which could be cultural in nature. Indian cinema, on the other hand, would be in the fourth category, i.e. ignoring Hollywood with relative success, while also entering the first category, where it does not compete directly, and the second, where it caters for a specific market segment. Many national cinemas use their second category films to enter the first category as art cinema.

In terms of art cinema, Hollywood has however also played a role in significantly blurring the boundaries. By developing its own art sector, the American cinema has blurred the boundaries between deep art and pure entertainment in film, not only in its own market but also abroad, in other national cinemas. This trend started during the early 1960s, when Hollywood experienced significant interchange with European art cinema and used this as inspiration for its own art cinema.

This new trend occurred along with the existing entertainment genres on offer by Hollywood at the time, including the spaghetti Western, gangster genres, romantic dramas, and the like. The insecurity created by these new Hollywood ventures into the art world has further resulted in greater difficulty within the international film market to distinguish itself at the same level as before. This is particularly so at platforms such as the Cannes film festival, which has been dominated in the past by European cinema.

Another trend that has significantly influenced both Hollywood and other national cinemas is the disintegration of the nation-state, homogenising discourses, political sanctions, globalizing forces. Many of these trends have created situations in which ethnic and linguistic minority markets have not been able to create regional or national cinemas as a result of funding and infrastructure shortcomings (Crofts, 2008, p. 52).

Some examples in this regard include the Welsh, Aboriginal, Maori, and Native American cinemas, which have been marginalized and subverted under the main stream as a result of a lack of resources and infrastructure. On the other hand, some marginalized markets have managed to overcome these challenges to nonetheless achieve success in a market so dominated by the mammoth that is Hollywood.

On the other hand, within Hollywood, regional cinema such as Afro-American cinema has achieved success with leadership by directors such as Spike Lee and others The Challenges and Opportunities Presented by Globalisation Globalisation as a constructive and destructive force for the concept of national cinema has been mentioned briefly above. According to Hedetoft (2000, p. 262), international contemporary cinema, like all other forms of entertainment and business, is not exempt from the sweeping force of globalisation.

Indeed, there is necessarily some influence, however small, that results from the changes brought about by globalisation. Not all these changes are unfavorable, and some have even encouraged survival of the national cinema concept where it would otherwise not have been possible. The author, however, also points out that, despite the hegemonous implication of the word "globalisation," the phenomenon itself is wrought not only with tension, but also with paradox and contradiction.

The influencing factor of external forces have penetrated even the most tightly closed local markets, which necessarily influences not only the concept of nationality, but also translate to changes in the concepts of national cinema. In terms of Hollywood itself, Hedetoft (2000, p. 265) points out that, even in its stance as global producer of international-themed films, this cinema is nonetheless primarily national, adhering principally to the American ideal of film and using its cinema to globalise ideals and viewpoints that have originated in the United States.

Ironically, the author notes that it is globalisation that helps us revisit the idea of Hollywood as primarily national in spite of its drive to become truly international. The author follows this by pointing towards the further challenge implicated by this.

If Hollywood can be regarded as primarily a form of national cinema, how are other national cinemas to be defined and identified? Traditionally, the perimeters of this kind of cinema have been relatively simple, with locus and ownership of production at the heart of requirements to identify specific concepts of national cinema. If Hollywood, however, is to be identified as national, then neither locus nor ownership of production any longer provides a clear indication of what this concept should mean. This is the challenge of globalisation.

Some have risen to the challenge by using international influences to create a new local flavor in cinema. This has created a new unique culture, locally bound, but nonetheless connected to the international arena in more intrinsic ways than have been possible in the past. The danger here is that many cinemas that pose as national, regional, or local, could become no more than Hollywood influenced, reworked themes and viewpoints, with very little left that is in fact local.

To demonstrate this process by means of a Hollywood example, Hedetoft (2000, p. 276) refers to the film "Saving Private Ryan," in which an "allhuman" and universal spin is given to fundamentally American concerns and viewpoints. In other words, the film includes the privileged, elite viewpoint in terms of self-image and the concept as the other. There are also period-specific ideals concerning war, peace, national identity, values, humanitarian ethics and the like. The value system displayed in the film is primary Western, as is the concept about transatlantic cooperation.

Hence, American values are at the heart of the film that focuses on American characters as its main vehicles for presenting the narrative within the film Hedetoft (2000, p. 276). Hence, regardless of the universal nature of loyalty, love, or self-sacrifice, the way in which Hollywood presents these is necessarily American, where the Hollywood industry originates an operates. This is the nature of national cinema, not only in the United States, but especially also elsewhere in the world. The Concept of Nationality and Cinema In this regard, Sorlin (1996, p.

1) mentions Italy and its involvement in the First World War since May 1915. This War, along with subsequent violent conflicts, have created a sense of nationality that is strong enough to inspire killing and dying in its name. The author uses the war and history as examples of phenomena that influence the common concept of nationality.

During the war, nationality meant one's individual origin within the borders of a certain country, growing up here and learning to communicate in a certain language, and finally being willing to fight to the death for these symbols of the national feeling. Rooted in history and ideology as the concept of nationality is, it is little wonder that the film industry has become similarly subject to concepts of nationality. Sorlin refers to this concept as a "semi-mythical" ideal.

Since this ideal is rooted in a common concept of national history and growth, Sorlin states that art historians have similarly sought the history of the film industry within national borders, and hence this is where the concept of national cinema originates; in a history that is tightly woven into the common concept of politics and national cultural history.

It follows that the idea of film and cinema forms part of the idea of a national culture, governed by the traditions of a certain country, much in the same way as the above-mentioned idea of genre influences and is influenced by the nation within which it develops. When one considers more specific nationalities when it comes to cinema, Europe is a useful area of initial investigation, having been at the heart of the cinematic development for somewhat longer than Hollywood.

The continent can therefore, as it were, be considered as the parent of cinematic development throughout the world. European Cinema and National Identity in Cinema Elsaesser (2005, p. 13) points towards the paradox that is the concept of European cinema. First, the author shows that there is no collective European cinema per se, but that on the other hand, European countries have made films for as long as this art form has existed.

It was seen above that France was the dominating filmmaking force before it was displaced by Hollywood early in the 20th century. This does not mean, however, that other European countries like Germany and even Russia have not tried their hand at creating a collectivist and inspiring sense of the European in their cinematic endeavors. What remains today is the cinematographies of singular European countries that have become national and individual rather than European in a more collectivist sense.

Unlike the Euro, the cinema of the continent did not serve a unifying force and was, ironically, torn apart by Hollywood and globalisation. As such, Europe has become a set of audiences for Hollywood films, where nonetheless, individual countries seek to find ways of circumventing this global influence to construct or reconstruct their own filmmaking identities. Elsaesser (2005, p. 35) also points out that the current collectivist concept of Europe today is mainly an American one, where the continent is seen as a single entity by an external force.

Internally, however, there is diversity, often to the extent where there is a struggle to overcome the sense of difference in an effort to tolerate and even harmonize. Nevertheless, the differences are far more extreme and divergent than acknowledged by the external agent that is the United States.

As such, the concept of "national cinema" in Europe must be understood not only in terms of each nation and its effort to use an art form for self-expression, but also how this art form fits into the dynamic of political and economic support. In many cases, national cinema either flounders or flourishes as a result of these dynamic relationships. Hence Elsaesser (2005, p. 37) offers a definition of national cinema, whether European or otherwise, as the economic conditions within any given country, within which filmmakers attempt to create their work.

If these conditions are poor in terms of any number of factors, such as financial support within the industry, the availability of technology, or infrastructure in general, it is likely that those attempting to work within the industry will meet with little success. Hence the extreme success of Hollywood, existing within a country that is no less than obsessed with appearances, pretensions, and entertainment. Bergfelder (2000, p. 131) confirms the idea of European cinema as somewhat more divergent than implied by the collective term.

What the author refers to as "national speficities indicate the cultural authenticity and indigenous contexts of film production within the various areas of he European continent. The author points out that European cinemas are nonetheless somewhat unified in reaction to the economic advantages of expanding towards international locations, while divergently, also experiencing the drive towards a more ideological project, in terms of recreating a definition of national cinemas by focusing not only on critical discourses, but also on specific national film policies.

Despite the inherent suspicion with which many politicians and artists have regarded internationalisation in terms of the European context, little argument could be offered against the economic advantages of overcoming internal national discrepancies in terms of taste across Europe (Bergfelder, 2000, p. 141). This process has gained some impetus between the 1950s and 1970s. Specifically, Bergfelder names the "adventure film" as a good example of this development, where changing trends in both filmmaking and audience tastes could be accommodated rapidly by means of sub-genres and hybrid combinations in quick succession.

As such, the genre competed well with Hollywood's far more fixed genre distinctions as they occurred during the same period. Importantly, Bergfelder (2000, p. 141) points out that genres such as the above-mentioned adventure film and those like the spaghetti Western in the United States should not be studied only for their connection to the cultures that spawned them, but also for their international and cross-cultural appeal, which would beg for a redefinition of national cinema and the purpose of such a cinema type.

Is the purpose of national cinema, for example, merely to appeal to the national environment from which it is born, or should it also be seen as a display of all that is appealing in that particular culture towards the wider context of the international world? Perhaps, for all its faults, Hollywood has achieved the perfect balance in this: Creating a display of values that are purely and truly American and showing them to the world for the entertainment of the international masses.

In order to truly compete with Hollywood, other nationalities and their cinemas might follow suit; display their culture and values in a way that is not necessarily compromised, but rather that is internationally appealing or entertaining in some way. The one advantage of globalization now is that the only limits to this for smaller nations is the size of their budgets and the prowess of their infrastructure. Schlesinger (2000) offers yet another perspective on national cinema and how the concept is to be understood.

The author reiterates what has been said before about the external influences created by globalization. Although it remains true that nations continue to shape genres of film according to a unique cultural and national identity, it has also become true that external forces leave their stamp, interact with the internal identity and potentially creates something entirely different in sum than the two separate parts (Schlesinger, 2000, p. 22). Hence, the study of the national identity and cinema can be conducted from two perspectives as well.

First, the discourse and images presented in the films themselves can offer insight into the values, principles and culture held within the nation that created the art. Alternatively, the nation and its values can be studied for the influences on national cinema at any given time (Schlesinger, 2000, p. 26). The National Cinema of Smaller Countries One fascinating field of investigation in terms of film studies is the way in which the concept of national cinema manifests in what is known as "small" nations.

There is a very high divergence in the economic and political development of these nations, as well as the support filmmakers receive from their governments and other artistic bodies. Sadly, the imagination is not enough to overcome such basic material limits as funding and political negativity. Nevertheless, a study of several of these small nations prove revealing not only in terms of material prowess or shortage, but also for the extent of cultural unity and creativity that such nations might bring forth, given the opportunity.

Britain Street (2007) focuses her efforts on a nation whose prowess is, even within the country itself, both divergent and unifying. The United Kingdom, lying as it does between the United States and Europe, offers the world a unique mixture of cultures and therefore a high variety of what could constitute national cinema within the various borders of the islands.

One advantage that all filmmakers within the borders of the UK have is the UK Film Council, sponsored by the Government and responsible for allocating funds to film-making, the Council declared recently that the industry is a powerful medium to not only entertain, but also to inspire, challenge, and inform. Hence, there is a generally very positive official attitude towards the culture of films and filmmaking in the country (Street, 2007, p. 126).

At the same time, the author acknowledges that there is no single uniform way in which British cinema manages to entertain, inform and so on its audiences. Despite these resources and attitudes, however, the author also notes that audiences for British cinema are relatively small, since Hollywood tends to dominate even in this relatively prosperous location. Box offices and DVD sales continue to be dominated by the United States.

As a result, many British films are never released or only reach art houses, with others meeting the sad fate of only being broadcast on television. Further complicating the matter of identifying a national cinema for Britain is the fact of production funding, of which many sources are in countries other than the UK itself. Nevertheless, despite the discrepancies in funding, location, and personnel, there is a common cultural aspect in many British films, dealing with the reality of British living.

In fact, Street cites one source claiming that the very aspect of international funding could strengthen the ability of British filmmaking to probe the depths of social questions and political conditions in the country. A further rationale for focusing particularly on British themes is the drive to make an impact on foreign markets with a differentiated product. Particularly, Street notes that the U.S. market is difficult for foreign producers to enter. This has also been mentioned by other authors, as cited above.

British themes and identities are therefore an important and popular vehicle for achieving this. Hence, despite the complications of identifying the British national cinema, the drive towards focusing on these themes in fact makes it less difficult than it seems. As an example, Street (2007, p. 127) mentions "Vera Drake" by Mike Leigh, which was co-produced by UK and French filmmakers. This film has achieved considerable success at international film festivals as well as at the box office, indicating that the British national cinema has gained significant prowess in the international market.

Hence, the point above is reiterated here, that British national cinema exists not only for its own sake, but also for the sake of presenting it to the world in an engaging and entertaining way. Danish National Cinema Far less prominent than either the British or French markets, Danish cinema, like the industry in the UK, is heavily subsidised (Hjort, 2007, p. 25). With this support, as well as the basic drive to achieve internal and external cultural recognition, Danish films have achieved both recognition and success.

One factor in this success is the country's cultural pride in its cinematic history, and particularly in what Hjort (2007, p. 26) refers to as the country's "golden age" in terms of cinema at the start of the 20th century. This was politically perpetuated by the Film Act of 1964, which resulted in the creation of a film fund and a national film school. In this way, political support as well as cultural changes and artistic leadership have confluenced to create a highly supportive atmosphere for Danish cinema.

One policy change that had a significant impact on the current success of Denmark in the film industry is the fact that the DFA allowed filmmakers, by means of funding, to circumvent and neutralize the "expert evaluators" that would make decisions regarding the specific films that were allowed to continue production. Danish filmmakers have therefore been fortunate in that, like Britain, the drive to present the world with a cultural product has been supported by powerful officials and artistic leadership in the country.

Iceland Iceland has been less lucky in the industry (Nordfjord, 2007). This country's national cinema is so hidden beneath the national cinemas of the rest of the world that it sometimes appears to vanish on occasion, just like the country itself. Iceland contains one of Europe's smallest nations and is therefore worthy of mention as one of the "small nations" containing a national cinema within its borders. According to Nordfjord (2007, p.

43), this is a country where the "local and global meet face-to-face." Tragically for the cultural presentation of Iceland's filmmaking on a global scale, the country's domestic market is simply too small to compete on a global scale. Unlike the UK and Denmark, national funding is also somewhat non-existent, leaving filmmakers in the country obliged to seek international funding.

Also unlike the UK, this creates a situation in which international art films are used as a model for Icelandic films, which has an erosive function on the concept of an Icelandic national cinema. Attempts have been made, however, to encourage a specific concept national cinema within the country, specifically in the form of the Icelandic Film Fund, introduced in 1978. This has resulted in a rush of film productions that attracted large domestic audiences, including Land and Sons and Fathers' Estate.

The brief hope for the national industry created by this was soon crushed when audiences began to decline when the novelty wore off (Nordfjord, 2007, p. 46). Hope was somewhat revived when coproductions began to see the light during the 1990s. In Iceland, therefore, it appears that the greatest hope of creating a national cinema concept for the country would be to engage in European co-productions.

The advantage of this is that Icelandic filmmakers could seek funding from pan-European entities without necessarily compromising the subject matter or presentation of their films, thus preserving the national identity in cinematic production. Ireland According to McLoone (2007, p. 60), Ireland is a relatively prosperous country in terms of national cinema, in that Ireland and Northern Ireland combined produce around ten feature films per year. In addition, the country further supports production in terms of many short films, animations, and documentaries per year.

Again, the reason why the country is able to be this creative in terms of its national cinema is by means of collaboration and co-operation with other countries, in addition to internal sources. These sources include a mix of state-funded agencies, broadcasters, producers, and schools and colleges that include filmmaking as part of their curricula (McLoone, 2007, p. 60). Here too, as in most other European countries, Hollywood tends to dominate the industry. It is, however, in reaction to this that there is such a large amount of support for local filmmaking.

Hence, in some contexts, local competition from Hollywood stimulates greater effort towards national cinema productions. Scotland For the knowledgeable film connoisseur, and even for the.