National Cinema: Identity, Genre, and Hollywood's Global Reach

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.

The Challenge Presented by Hollywood

Crofts (2008, p. 44) considers the challenge for national cinema as presented by Hollywood. This filmmaking center has dominated the industry worldwide since early in the 20th century, and most non-American films have been assessed against the standard set by Hollywood. Indeed, between 1914 and 1945, Hollywood grew 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 coherent 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 greater inclusiveness has created an industry in which females and males of all colors, orientations, and creeds can be seen as either hero or anti-hero. In this way, boundaries have blurred to encompass a myriad of ways of telling endlessly complicated stories, which has similarly blurred the boundaries of national identity when it comes to Hollywood and 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. 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 not only of its own country's filmmaking but also of the stories told by foreign films. Some nationalities — such as many in Asia — have nonetheless maintained their own identity and agenda when creating films.

In the context of Hollywood, Crofts (2008, p. 45) has identified different modes of existing within the film industry, each representing a distinct approach to maintaining national cinema despite or even because of Hollywood's global reach. First, some national cinemas differ from Hollywood while also not competing directly with it. An example is Asian cinema, which targets specialist market sectors distinct from those catered for by Hollywood. A second type differs from Hollywood, does not compete directly, but delivers direct critique. A third type — encompassing certain Third World or European cinemas — does compete directly with Hollywood but achieves little or no success, mainly due to Hollywood's superior economic, technological, and social power. A few cinemas manage to ignore Hollywood almost entirely. Some English-language cinemas compete directly with Hollywood on its own terms. The sixth and seventh types attempt to retain a singular identity without external influence: one existing within a state-controlled and often state-subsidized industry, and the other maintaining a cultural or linguistic distance from its surrounding nation-state.

Having identified these categories, Crofts also points out the importance of recognizing their permeability. French cinema, for example, generally differs from Hollywood without competing directly, though it occasionally delivers critique of Hollywood's films and practices and sometimes ventures into specialist market sectors. Australian cinema generally produces English-language films to compete directly with Hollywood, though it also produces works that do not compete and occasionally caters for specific cultural market segments. Indian cinema tends to ignore Hollywood with relative success while also entering the non-competing and specialist market categories.

Many national cinemas use their specialist category films to enter the art cinema space. In terms of art cinema, however, Hollywood has significantly blurred the boundaries. By developing its own art sector — inspired in part by significant interchange with European art cinema during the early 1960s — American cinema has blurred the line between deep art and pure entertainment, not only in its own market but abroad as well. This trend occurred alongside the existing entertainment genres of the period, including the spaghetti Western, gangster films, and romantic dramas. The resulting insecurity has created further difficulty for the international film market in distinguishing itself, particularly at platforms such as the Cannes Film Festival, historically dominated by European cinema.

Conclusion

There are many other small nations that have not been discussed above. Those that have been discussed are representative of the major issues experienced in the industry, especially within small countries that cannot realistically compete with financial global giants such as Hollywood. Yet many of these small nations survive and even thrive, presenting their local images and culture to the world while strengthening the internal sense of cultural and national pride within their borders.