The Study of National Cinema

The study of national cinema and the way in which its defined has been a topic of discussion that many scholars have debated. Stephen Crofts �Concepts of National Cinema,’ Susan Hayward’s �Reframing National Cinema’ and Andrew Higson’s �Limiting the imagination of National Cinema’ attempt to define the tricky boundaries of what the term national cinema means and the impacts it has on the way in which audiences perceive these types of films.

One of the key areas of debate in the discussion is determining what the idea of nationalism and the nation-state mean in a world that is becoming globalised. Crofts uses Anderson’s concept of �imagined communities, ’ which alludes to the idea of an individual having their own image of their affinity to their nation, to build upon his notion that due to the increasing hybrdity of modern culture there is now a “growing lack of congruence between nations and states. ” This prompts Crofts to refer to national cinema as nation-state cinema.

In contrast to Crofts publication, Hayward develops a more complex approach to the ideas of nation and culture. She calls upon a host of works including that of Anderson to develop a set of “rubrics” for framing national cinema into her three key words “history-masquerade-symbolism. ” Hayward furthers Crofts idea of the nation-state by defining the reasons for hyphenating the word. The nation Hayward sees as a cultural society or the �motherland’ that an individual feels an identification with. The state however is a political sovereign body, which this �national’ community must obey to. The two words together in the view of both Hayward and Crofts is appropriate when analysing national cinema.

Whilst both authors devote attention to the importance of defining the idea of a nation and nationalism, Crofts and Hayward present different focuses in summarising the key concepts of national cinema.

Crofts outlines the major elements that constitute world cinema, from European-model art cinemas and totalitarian cinemas to national cinemas that attempt to imitate Hollywood. Crofts analysis on different types of national cinema is particularly relevant as it recognises that the production of films from nation to nation vary greatly. This is essential to the audience being able to understand and interpret film.

This is where Crofts article could be read as a criticism of an article like Hayward’s.

Hayward’s close affiliation with French Cinema (she wrote a book French National Cinema ) means one can assume the majority of her ideas on national cinema could be bias, or somewhat based on the French national cinema. This is shown in her article where she refers to very few types of national cinema.

At this point I would like to bring in my third reading from Andrew Higson’s article in �Limiting the imagination of National Cinema.’ Higson agrees with Crofts argument of interpreting national cinema from a global perspective by admitting that his own specialised knowledge of British Cinema could lead him to giving an “Anglocentric version of what a national cinema might be. ”

One of Higson’s main arguments focuses on the idea of films becoming transnational and penetrating the boundaries of the reflectionist ideas of the National Cinema. Higson provides examples including that of Evita (1996), a Hollywood production of an Argentinean hero to prove how problematic framing national cinemas is and to further his idea on the increasing relevance of the term transnationalism. However, Higson stops short of coining the term national cinema obsolete when he says, “to question tradition and embrace cultural difference is not to necessarily to reject the idea of national cinema that can speak eloquently to a multi cultural audience. ”

This neat summary is in support of the argument of John Hill, who argues despite the global dominance of Hollywood and its transnational market there is still value in national cinema. This is exemplified when he writes “the value of home-grown cinema is to the cultural life of a nation and, hence the importance of supporting indigenous film-making in an international market. ”

The debate whether the term national cinema should be rendered obsolete is also presented by Hayward. Hayward writes current reframing of national cinema “carves out spaces that allow us to reevaluate the concept of national cinema. It makes it possible to reterritorialise the nation ”. Hayward’s use of the term reterritorialise calls attention to the hybridity of national cultures that expose the “masquerade of unity ”. This is one of Hayward’s key arguments, she points out the role of national culture