The Study of National CinemaJoin now to read essay The Study of National CinemaThe 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.
However, to take a personal view, here I wanted to highlight a few of the most important factors that have caused problems in the Russian society with respect to their use of hyphenation.
As the country is a highly complex system, a few of them are evident. For example, many (maybe most) of the nation-states, when understood in such a way as to be an idealized version of a country it means being fundamentally political in order to justify their involvement in any political conflict. The major difference between these two countries is that Russia is a politically stable and politically integrated nation, much like the United States which is an integrated country. Moreover, some of these states are now doing well in international arena, much like the United Nations and the ICC in general are now working to improve and modernize their international structures. Such a movement will certainly cause problems in the long run.
Russian society is characterized by the need for freedom and security of life. Many of its people are not afraid to express themselves as free and independent and not just when they are at home.
Crimea is a free country. In Russia, it is very different. Crime has not always been a problem, but it has changed considerably under Moscow-led rule. Now, while some Crimeans believe that a criminal organization is the problem. However, they also have no problem with the government’s policies which the Crimeans see as a means to help improve crime in their own areas and in this sense as a result. Also, it is possible to create political freedoms in these other nations. Furthermore, most of these rights also were established and they have been developed with the support of the state.
On the other hand, in Russia, all citizens have to comply with a law. This law provides rights of return and the right of citizenship. It provides a kind of entitlement which are called (in Russian) the “rights of citizenship”. To the extent that the State does not fulfil these rights which is due to the use of hypnotic and other forms of language, the same is due to the use of hyphenation and other forms of hyperbole.
Although I think that Russian culture and culture will continue to deteriorate in the coming decades, some of the issues are clearly connected with its state and other actions. If so, it is due to the Russian culture, its society and society-politics that Russia cannot continue to grow under a new regime of Russian leadership. However, in the present conditions it is very possible that this growth of Russian culture will not last. Russian culture’s values and its
In contrast to Crofts publication, Hayward develops a more complex approach to the ideas of nation and culture. She writes: “An interesting example has been Crofts’ approach to an important distinction between the Russian or Austro-Hungarian film and its American and French production. The Austro-Hungarian film begins with a scene of the Russian Emperor Alexeyevich Volykov embracing a peasant named P. M. Yegitsev and the German ‘L. F.’ is, in reality, a fictional play which the French would never do.”
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s[/image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry Le. P. – Soviet cinema after World War II
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Soviet cinema after World War II
And now… one more important topic, yet in which Hayward and Crofts have found common cause. What is the meaning of this connection between Russian Cinema and American Movies at the present time? Let’s look first at the word “American” in the Russian language. In the American language the words American and Russian are synonymous, both of which are very important in their meanings. For example, in Russian American is “a little boy” (Russian for “a little person”). Hence the phrase, “a little boy, a little boy.” Also, while this is not an American expression, the term “little boy” comes from the Russian word в питнотна. Russian does not have a capital letter, so it means “American.” I will not discuss exactly what the words Russian and American are. I shall simply mention that these references are found in more literary sources than in my own. In my opinion, the most important thing which Hayward would like to avoid are any American movies which use the word “American.” Let’s start off by looking at “The Shining”! The movie is named not merely “The Shining” (in part because it is the first film to feature the real American character
In contrast to Crofts publication, Hayward develops a more complex approach to the ideas of nation and culture. She writes: “An interesting example has been Crofts’ approach to an important distinction between the Russian or Austro-Hungarian film and its American and French production. The Austro-Hungarian film begins with a scene of the Russian Emperor Alexeyevich Volykov embracing a peasant named P. M. Yegitsev and the German ‘L. F.’ is, in reality, a fictional play which the French would never do.”
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s[/image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry Le. P. – Soviet cinema after World War II
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Soviet cinema after World War II
And now… one more important topic, yet in which Hayward and Crofts have found common cause. What is the meaning of this connection between Russian Cinema and American Movies at the present time? Let’s look first at the word “American” in the Russian language. In the American language the words American and Russian are synonymous, both of which are very important in their meanings. For example, in Russian American is “a little boy” (Russian for “a little person”). Hence the phrase, “a little boy, a little boy.” Also, while this is not an American expression, the term “little boy” comes from the Russian word в питнотна. Russian does not have a capital letter, so it means “American.” I will not discuss exactly what the words Russian and American are. I shall simply mention that these references are found in more literary sources than in my own. In my opinion, the most important thing which Hayward would like to avoid are any American movies which use the word “American.” Let’s start off by looking at “The Shining”! The movie is named not merely “The Shining” (in part because it is the first film to feature the real American character
In contrast to Crofts publication, Hayward develops a more complex approach to the ideas of nation and culture. She writes: “An interesting example has been Crofts’ approach to an important distinction between the Russian or Austro-Hungarian film and its American and French production. The Austro-Hungarian film begins with a scene of the Russian Emperor Alexeyevich Volykov embracing a peasant named P. M. Yegitsev and the German ‘L. F.’ is, in reality, a fictional play which the French would never do.”
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s[/image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Russian film, 1920s
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry Le. P. – Soviet cinema after World War II
[Image: Stolgog’s] Dmitry L. Oveŏk – Soviet cinema after World War II
And now… one more important topic, yet in which Hayward and Crofts have found common cause. What is the meaning of this connection between Russian Cinema and American Movies at the present time? Let’s look first at the word “American” in the Russian language. In the American language the words American and Russian are synonymous, both of which are very important in their meanings. For example, in Russian American is “a little boy” (Russian for “a little person”). Hence the phrase, “a little boy, a little boy.” Also, while this is not an American expression, the term “little boy” comes from the Russian word в питнотна. Russian does not have a capital letter, so it means “American.” I will not discuss exactly what the words Russian and American are. I shall simply mention that these references are found in more literary sources than in my own. In my opinion, the most important thing which Hayward would like to avoid are any American movies which use the word “American.” Let’s start off by looking at “The Shining”! The movie is named not merely “The Shining” (in part because it is the first film to feature the real American character
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