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
…show more content…
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
Nagib, Lucia and Anne Jerslev. Impure Cinema: Intermedial and Intercultural Approaches to Film. London, U.K.: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2014. Print.
Auteur theory “…was a product of several ideas which coalesced in French film criticism at the end of the forties…” (Hess 29). The idea was that by understanding the film as a product of one individual person, critics could better access “…the revelation of a transcendent reality” (Hess 29) about the central meaning of a film. After all, auteur theory “valorize[s] the film director as artist, gave strong impetus to the European art film movement, and, in so doing, aligned itself with the traditions of high modernism in the arts – privileging the uniqueness of artistic self-expression as an oppositional force in the face of industrialized society” (Burke 36). Thus, it was an important strategic movement in the field because of how it created a sense of continuity within film studies and other academic fields. Auteurism is a theory that ensures that film is taken seriously as an art form and that the contributions of all to a production are perhaps problematically distilled into the work of just one person with a singular vision. Although critics of this theory have noted that it allows for critics to focus on “…what was really of significance: the discovery of recurring themes, characters, and situations in film after film of one’s chosen hero” (Petrie 27).
In “A Century of Cinema”, Susan Sontag explains how cinema was cherished by those who enjoyed what cinema offered. Cinema was unlike anything else, it was entertainment that had the audience feeling apart of the film. However, as the years went by, the special feeling regarding cinema went away as those who admired cinema wanted to help expand the experience.
Movies, being an influential factor in our society, make a great impact on our outlook on foreign and
What is identified as 'excess' in Western cinematic experience is, therefore, precisely where we locate Third World cinema. -Teshome Gabriel
But in what I want to do, most likely out of a broken taste set and unhealthy affection for the self-defined idea of the ‘unconventional’ I find myself asking above all and completely out of bias: What is a film saying, what is it doing with what it is saying, and does it make sense?
In service of this argument, the essay unfolds in three parts. The first section sketches an appropriate framework for understanding how cinema marshals and moves viewers by engaging them in a fully embodied experience.4 The second section offers a brief overview of the film's plot before turning to an analysis of its triptych narrative and affective development. The third and final section considers the methodological, critical, and theoretical implications suggested by the preceding analysis.
“I’m going to make a name for myself. If I fail, you will never hear of me again” Edward James Muggeridge. True to his words he succeeded in making a name for himself and he created the first movie or “motion picture”. Movies are a rollercoaster ride that transcends people into a whole different world fresh out of somebody’s imagination as seen through the genres of horror, drama, and science fiction. The movie business allows people to break through the burden of everyday life. Considering today’s way of life, people would be lying if they did not admit that movies are an influential entity in our culture. Movies have been successful in ingraining values and elements into society. Movies exaggerate, sensationalize and at
Discuss the importance of the cinema industry’s bid for respectability in this transitional period (1905 – 1912) with regard to at least two national cinemas. How did film style, content, and exhibition change?
Hess and Zimmermann mention that conventional categories have blurred and there’s demands for new political and aesthetic responses in transnational cinema (John Hess 2006). These transnational films I believe would be growing significantly in the film industry as a part of film history.
The passage of time often results in change. In effect, it would be safe to assume that change over prolonged periods denotes progress from one point to another. In the case of film production, there is a stark difference between films produced as early as the 1950s and those produced following the turn of the 21st century. This change can be thematic or evident from the nature of production, which is important in describing the degree of variance between the old and the new. This is the case of the analysis of the films I Know Where I’m Going (1945) and Separate Lie (2005), which are British films set more than 50 years apart. Both of these films belong in the romance genre and are likely to possess both similarities and differences in their depiction of the social attitudes and issues of the times in which they were produced. Such may include disparities and congruencies in their representation of the then-current events on subjects such as love, sex, class, and race among other societal issues. This paper compares and contrasts the films I Know Where I’m Going (1945) and Separate Lie (2005) with respect to themes and characterization . The films also indicates about British society and social attitudes in the period in which it was produced. This includes the depiction of social issues, investigation of British history, reflection on the political climate, and representation of current events.
Cosmopolitanism or the capacity of belonging everywhere has been defined by “a high level of mutual respect for the rights of others and a generalized tolerance of ethnic, cultural, political and national differences” (Buchanan, 2010, p. 99). Beyond the Kantian, individual definition, some recent sociological and cultural approaches on the issue suggest that it could be more productive to study it in a situated context and not as an abstract idea (Glick Schiller and Irving, 2015). Now that the concept is becoming more relevant to the study of transnational cinemas, it is worth to notice that this interpretation of film cosmopolitanism is not necessarily subscribed to the idea of a neutral cinema, free from local or national perspectives.
In the immediate post war period, cinema going was at an all-time high as almost every town and village in the United Kingdom had a local cinema with one screen. Economic recession, the popularity of TV and the introduction of video all served to bring about the closure of a great many of these venues. Attitudes to leisure and spending changed as there seemed to be much more on offer such as foreign travel, consumer goods to mention a few. In addition, those who couldn’t access a cinema felt unable to fully participate in the cultural life of the nation.
“The world became a web of crisscrossing diasporas, with people trying to sink new roots while still yearning for the lands they had left” (Thompson, 715). Many people move from their hometown for many reason, but one of the main reasons were because of multiple wars. Wars cause migration and migration produced an emerging “new” Europe. Examples of these outcomes can be viewed in diasporic cinema. By definition, according to Indie Judge, diasporic cinema means “films made by members of communities founded by exiles or immigrants displaced from their homelands. These films interact with the tradition of national cinemas in which they are made but often share
How can we explain this paradox of Nollywood’s boom whose film products are being madly sought after by the audience it targets and yet remains a victim of the scorn and contempt of the Western press? Nollywood’s success story is paradoxically a result of an economic failure of structural adjustment policies in Nigeria, which rendered the shooting of celluloid films prohibitively expensive (Ayakoroma 2010). By cutting corners and avoiding all the difficulties that francophone movies had to contend with in depending wholly and solely on French subvention, Nollywood has aggressively filled the void that Western filmic can never really fill in poverty-stricken African contexts. Born out of an economic necessity, Nollywood,has sadly been conditioned by the urge to make profit while paying little or no attention to ideals of promoting a national esprit de corp, ethics of respect for copyright laws or the recounting of the collective story of the people (Ayakoroma 2010).