Benedict Anderson in Imagined Communities defined a nation as “an imagined political community-and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” (6). They are ‘imagined’ as members will not know everyone in the community but perceive an image of intimate togetherness. ‘Limited’ as all imagined nations have borders since “no nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind” (7). Thirdly, ‘sovereign’ as nations want to be free and lastly, a ‘community’ as contrary to the inequality and exploitation in each nation, there is a deep sense of comradeship.
What I want to focus on in particular is the ‘limited’ quality of each imagined nation. As this opposition between nations works well to explain the context of Stephen Crofts’ article, Reconceptualizing National Cinema(s). Croft defines national cinema production as usually against Hollywood, particularly in the West. As Hollywood movies have become the standard form of cinema, being that the films were successfully exported and naturalized. In response, Croft identifies seven traits of national cinema going against Hollywood. However, he also clarifies that these borders are pliable, meaning national cinemas can fit into multiple categories as listed below:
- Cinema that differs from Hollywood but does not compete directly as it goes for a different market. This is mostly seen as art cinema. Croft gives the example of France, which was considered the “most successfully nationalist of national cinemas” (855). In French cinema, like other nations, foreign movies were tariffed and taxed in order to promote and fund national productions. If we relate this to class, you might think of counter-Hollywood films like Jean-Luc Godard’s The Weekend as an example of national art cinema of France.
- Cinema that is different from Hollywood but does not directly compete with it. However, it does directly critique Hollywood. As Croft explains: “Third Cinema 1960s–1970s opposed the United States and Europe in its antiimperialist insistence on national liberation, and in its insistence on the development of aesthetic models distinct from those of Hollywood and European art cinema” (856). However, later the definition of Third World cinema expanded as it now can be used to dismantle First World notions of national cinema. For example, the inability for British film culture to recognize the “plethora of ethnic, gender, class, and regional differences” in its own film industry (857). As another example, this could apply to African American cinema in the United States. Inherently putting down the notion of national cultural sovereignty. Or put in another way, rejecting the theory that nations endorse the many ways of life within a nation. Which brings us to the last point of Third World cinema, where “the easy Western assumption of the coincidence of ethnic background and home” is refuted (858).
- European and Third World cinema that struggles against Hollywood with little to no success. European and Third World films struggle to get the global appeal compared to Hollywood films. Croft also puts European commercial cinema here.
- Cinema that ignores Hollywood (this is accomplished by few). These nations have large domestic markets and/or effective trade barriers, i.e. India and Hong Kong.
- English-speaking cinemas that try to beat Hollywood at its own game and have failed. Croft also mentions Hollywood’s tendency to steal foreign talent as well, ranging from directors, scriptwriters, to actors. In our case you might want to think about Alfred Hitchcock or the director of Y Tu Mamá También, Alfonso Cuaron, who goes back and forth from American to Mexican productions.
- Cinemas that works within state-controlled and state-subsidized industries. This revolves around cinema that is used to convince the audience of the virtues of the political order. Examples range from “Fascist Germany and Italy, Chinese cinema between 1949 and the mid-1980s” and in my case of study, North Korea (861).
- “Regional or national cinemas whose culture and/or language take their distance from the nation-states which enclose them” (854). This section looks at the forced homogenization of the nation-state cinema. In particular how “ethnic and linguistic minorities have generally lacked the funds and infrastructure to support regional cinemas or national cinemas distinct from the nation-states that enclose them” (861). We might be able to connect the regionalism and the political situation that is presented in Y Tu Mamá También. Emily Hind’s Provincia in Recent Mexican Cinema, 1989-2004 examines some of this discourse Croft briefly describes, bringing to the forefront the issues of how Provincia is viewed in Mexican cinema.
Questions:
- How can Deadwood, Episode 9 fit into this conversation? Would you consider the town to be an individual nation or an imagined community (especially when it comes to the events of this episode)?
- What about other films we have watched so far? Do you think that they fit into any of these categories?
- I mostly talked about Y Tu Mamá También as fitting mostly in the last category of national cinema. Do you think the film could fit in a different category?
References:
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, Verso, 1991.
Croft, Stephen. “Reconceptualizing National Cinema(s).” Film Theory and Criticism, edited by Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, Oxford University Press, pp. 853-864.
Hind, Emily. “‘Provincia’ in Recent Mexican Cinema, 1989-2004.” Discourse, vol. 26, no. 1-2, 2005, pp. 26–45.