National Cinema: Identity, Genre, and Hollywood's Global Reach
This paper examines the concept of national cinema, tracing its roots in storytelling and nationalism before exploring how genre, Hollywood's global dominance, and globalization complicate its definition. Drawing on scholars such as Crofts, Elsaesser, Hedetoft, and Sorlin, the paper discusses how film industries in both large and small nations negotiate cultural identity against the economic and technological power of Hollywood. Case studies of Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Scotland, Bulgaria, Hong Kong, and Singapore illustrate the diversity of strategies smaller nations employ to sustain distinct cinematic identities, ranging from state subsidies and co-productions to the cultivation of culturally specific subject matter.
- Introduction: Framing the concept of national cinema
- The Origin and Growth of Cinema: Cinema as extension of national storytelling traditions
- Genre and National Cinema: How genre complicates and enriches national cinema
- The Challenge Presented by Hollywood: Hollywood's global dominance and its effects on other cinemas
- The Challenges and Opportunities Presented by Globalisation: Globalization as both threat and opportunity for national cinema
- The Concept of Nationality and Cinema: Nationality as semi-mythical ideal shaping film
- European Cinema and National Identity: Divergence and paradox in European cinematic identity
- The National Cinema of Smaller Countries: Case studies from Britain, Denmark, Iceland, and beyond
- Conclusion: Resilience and future of national cinemas worldwide
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It synthesizes a wide range of scholarly sources coherently, moving from broad theoretical frameworks to specific national case studies without losing argumentative focus.
- The case study structure in the final sections gives concrete grounding to abstract theoretical claims about national cinema, making comparisons across nations clear and instructive.
- The paper consistently returns to a central tension — between Hollywood's global dominance and the survival of locally distinct cinemas — which gives the argument thematic unity throughout.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of secondary source synthesis, weaving together multiple scholars (Crofts, Elsaesser, Hedetoft, Sorlin, Altman, and others) to build a multi-dimensional definition of a contested concept. Rather than relying on a single authority, the author layers perspectives to show that "national cinema" cannot be reduced to any single criterion — economic, cultural, linguistic, or political.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a theoretical introduction that frames the core questions, then moves through the historical origins of cinema and storytelling, the complicating role of genre, Hollywood's challenge to national cinemas, and globalization's paradoxes. It then narrows to specific national and regional contexts — first European cinema broadly, then individual small nations — before concluding with reflections on the industry's resilience. This funnel structure, from theory to case study, is a strong model for comparative film studies essays.
Introduction
Cinema and film is an art form that has existed since the first silent films appeared. Today's manifestation of this type of entertainment takes many different forms. In mainstream society, any person asked what type of film he or she prefers will typically focus on a genre, such as romance or horror. Far less recognized is the fact that film is also connected to nationality — a connection rooted in the growth and dominance of Hollywood over many decades of the film industry's existence.
There has, however, also been a rise in the film industries of smaller nations, particularly those in Europe. Although a large number of these are heavily dependent upon financial and loyalty endorsements from governments that are often concerned with matters other than filmmaking, there has been a notable rise in the success and creative prowess of films coming from non-American states. Hence, it has become necessary to examine what is meant by the concept of "national cinema."
Questions of concern include whether a nation that has engaged in filmmaking in any capacity can be said to possess a national cinema. Where are the boundaries when defining the concept? If a nation such as the United States has produced many different film genres addressing many different subject matters, can this still be referred to as a form of national cinema? Does national cinema have to focus on purely indigenous concerns, or can it also serve as a platform for displaying the technological skill and creative prowess of national professionals — including actors, filmmakers, and other technical personnel? These questions can be difficult to answer. However, a review of the existing literature on national cinema and what it does or does not entail can shed light on the concerns involved in identifying what national cinema is and who can be said to have developed 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 storytelling. In ancient tribes, storytelling was used as a form of unifying the tribe and the 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 storytelling — in the form of novels, short stories, or poetry — but also the dissemination of languages within a specific country. These might have included dictionaries and grammars, for example, serving to unify a nation by means of its linguistics as well as its ideas.
Williams' premise is that the film industry, once this art form began developing on an international platform, was a continuation of the national tendency to use language and storytelling 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 nationalist ideals — expressed 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 exact nature of a national cinema. Before national cinema can be defined, however, it is useful to consider the concept of genre and how it influences nationality within the film industry.
Genre and National Cinema
Complicating the issue of national cinema is the concept of genre, which at first glance appears to be international. Certainly, a comedy is a comedy, and a horror film includes several frightening or gory scenes. However, the way in which comedy, gore, or romance is presented is inevitably influenced by cultural ideals and values. Hence, while genre does indeed complicate the idea of national cinema, it in no way eliminates the concept. What it does is add several dimensions to an already complex 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 interaction between the audience watching 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 claim to hold almost immutable scripts of history. Genre, on the other hand, is a fluid and dynamic component of film, created for audiences by studios catering to the changing needs and tastes of audiences over time. Hence, as the tastes and dynamics of nationalities change, so will film genres.
Altman (2012, p. 86) draws a close parallel between the 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 and ideals. It is a set of concepts that makes a nation what it is. Hence, an American moving to Russia does not automatically become Russian simply by crossing into different 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 and genres tend to be dynamic, influenced by relationships and other external forces.
Taking this a step further, one might consider the parallels between the values that bind a nation and those that bind a genre. They may be considered similar in nature — dynamic and independent of physical boundaries. One might further consider the influence of genre and national identity upon each other. Unique genres and sub-genres may emerge from different nations; a horror film in Italy, for example, may not mean exactly the same as a horror film in China. National audiences and tastes dictate the exact nature of a given genre in different cultural contexts. It is therefore a very complex dynamic that changes both rapidly and frequently.
References
Abbas, A. (2007). Hong Kong. In Hjort and Petrie (Eds.), The Cinema of Small Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Altman, R. (2012). Film/Genre. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bergfelder, T. (2000). The nation vanishes: European co-productions and popular genre formula in the 1950s and 1960s. In Hjort and MacKenzie (Eds.), Cinema and Nation. London and New York: Routledge.
Crofts, S. (2008). Reconceptualising national cinema/s. In Vitali and Willemen (Eds.), Theorising National Cinema. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Elsaesser, T. (2005). European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Hayward, S. (2005). French National Cinema (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Hedetoft, U. (2000). Contemporary cinema: Between cultural globalisation and national interpretation. In Hjort and MacKenzie (Eds.), Cinema and Nation. London and New York: Routledge.
Hjort, M. and MacKenzie, S. (Eds.) (2000). Cinema and Nation. London and New York: Routledge.
Hjort, M. and Petrie, D. (Eds.) (2007). The Cinema of Small Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hjort, J. (2007). Denmark. In Hjort and Petrie (Eds.), The Cinema of Small Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Iordanova, D. (2007). Bulgaria. In Hjort and Petrie (Eds.), The Cinema of Small Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Jarvie, I. (2000). National cinema: A theoretical assessment. In Hjort and MacKenzie (Eds.), Cinema and Nation. London and New York: Routledge.
McLoone, M. (2007). Ireland. In Hjort and Petrie (Eds.), The Cinema of Small Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Murray, J. (2007). Scotland. In Hjort and Petrie (Eds.), The Cinema of Small Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Nordfjord, B. (2007). Iceland. In Hjort and Petrie (Eds.), The Cinema of Small Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Rosenbaum, J. (2002). Multinational pest control: Does American cinema still exist? In Williams (Ed.), Film and Nationalism. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press.
Schlesinger, P. (2000). The sociological scope of "national cinema." In Hjort and MacKenzie (Eds.), Cinema and Nation. London and New York: Routledge.
Sorlin, P. (1996). Italian National Cinema: 1896–1996. London and New York: Routledge.
Street, S. (2007). British National Cinema (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Tan, S. K. and Fernando, J. (2007). Singapore. In Hjort and Petrie (Eds.), The Cinema of Small Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Vitali, V. and Willemen, P. (Eds.) (2008). Theorising National Cinema. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Williams, A. (Ed.) (2002). Film and Nationalism. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.