Gonceptsof

nationalcinema
StephenCrofts

Priorto the 1980s criticalwritings on cinema adopted on film textsproducedwithinthe territoryconcerned

common-sensenotions of nationalcinema.The idea of whileideasof the nation-state wereconceivedPrrmar-
national cinema has long informed the promotion of i l yi n e s s e n t i a l i a , e i ti f i n s o m e t i m easn t i - i m P e r i a l i s t ,
s tl b
non-Hollywood cinemas. Along with the name o{ the rerms.
director-auteur,it has served as a means by which non-
Hollywood films-most commonly art films-have
been labelled,distributed, and reviewed.As a market-
Problematizingthe nation-state
ing strategy,these national labels have promised varr-
'otherness'-of what is culturallydifferentfrom
eties of Key publications in the rethinking of the natron-
both Hol lywood and the fi lms of other i m porting coun- state and nationalism have been Anderson (1983),
'new
tries.The heyday of art cinema's waves' coincided Gellner (1983), Hobsbawm (1990), Smith (1991),
w i t h t h e r i s eo f a n g l o p h o n e f i l m - b o o kp u b l i s h i n gi n t h e and Hutchinson (1994).These have all advanced
mid-1960s. Later, 1960s radical politics extended the non-essentialist conceptions of the nation-state
range of territories covered to those engaged in post- and national identity, arguing for both the con-
'imagined
colonial s t r u g g l e s .T h e i d e a s o f a n a t i o n a l cinema structedness of the community' (Anoer-
underpinning most of these studies remained largely son) which constitutes the nation-state, and its
u n p r o b l e m a t i cu n t i l t h e 1 9 8 0 s ,s i n c ew h i c h t i m e t h e y historical limits as a post-Enlightenment organizer
have grown markedly more complex. Prior to this of populations, affected particularly by the huge
period, ideas of national cinema tended to focus onty migrations and diasporas resulting from Post-
 W O R L DC I N E M A C
: R t T t C AA
L ppROACHES
Second World War processesof decolonization.Such
ideas have informed recent accounts of national
cinemas which seek to resist the homogenizing fic_
tions of nationalism and to recognize their histor_
ical variability and contingency, as well as tne
cultural hybridity of nation-states (so that US cul_
ture, for example, is seen to be a part of most
'national'
cultures and to interact with them). In
Philip Rosen's words, 'identifying the . . . coher_
ences [of] a "national cinema,' [and] of a nation
. . . will always require sensitivity to the counrer_
vailing, dispersiveforces underlying them, (19g4:
71 ) .
Historically,the 1980s and 1990s have put further
pressure on the national, with the global spread of
corporate capital,the victory of finance over industrial
capital,the consolidationof global markets,the speeo
a n d r a n g e o f e l e c t r o n i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n s ,a n d t h e
f u r t h e r w e a k e n i n g o f n a t i o n a lc u l t u r a la n d e c o n o m i c
b o u n d a r i e sw h i c h h a s f o l l o w e d t h e d i s i n t e q r a t i o no f
S o v i e tc o m m u n i s ma n d P a xA m e r i c a n a .H a l f a c e n t u r y
'1
after 945 it is difficult to imagine a nation-stateretain_
ing the congruence of polity, culture, and economy
which characterizedmost nation-statesbefore then.
Arjun Appadurai's (1990) model for accounting for
these developments emphasizesthe deterritorialized
c h a r a c t e ro f t h e s u p r a n a t i o n ailm a g i n e d c o m m u n i t i e s
which displacethose of the nation-state.He pinooints
the acceleratrngtransnationalflows of people (tourrsts,
immigrants, exiles, refugees, guest workers),of tech_
n o l o g y ( m e c h a n i c aal n d i n f o r m a t i o n a l )o, f f i n a n c ea n d
media images (all moving ever faster through increas_
ingly deregulated markets),and of ideologies (suchas
the global spread of Western rhetoricsof democracy),
and the disjunctions amongst these flows: ,peopre,
machinery money, images and ideas now follow
i n c r e a s i n g l yn o n - i s o m o r p h i c p a t h s . . . t h e s h e e r
speed, scale and volume of each of these flows rs
now so great that the disjunctures frather than over_
lapsl have become central to the politics of global
culture' (199O:297 -301)
This conceptualization of the post-national ooes,
however, have weaknesses.Shohat and Stam (1994)
note that 'discernible patterns of domination channel
"fluidities"
the e v e n o f a " m u l t i p o l a r , , w o r l dt;h e s a m e
hegemony[ies]that unifies[y]the world through global
networks of circulating goods and information also
distributefs]them according to hierarchicalstructures
of powel even if those hegemonies are now more
subtle and dispersed' (1994: 31). Nevertheless,Appa_
durai's model has many implications for the study of
nationalcinemas,some taken up later,some now. One
consequence of the disjunctive relationshipshe iden-
'is
tifies that the state and the nation are at each other!
throats' (1990: 304). The former yugoslavia-with its
five nations, three religions,four languages, and two
alphabets-stands as a grim emblem of the historical
role of the state in suppressingethnic, religious, and
cultural differences. In view of the growing lack of
congruence between nations and states, I therefore
propose to write of states and nation-state cinemas
r a t h e rt h a n n a t i o n sa n d n a t i o n a lc i n e m a s ,w h i l e c l e a r l y
differentiatingstateswithin a federal system,and with-
out of course collapsing all into totalitarianstates.
Problematizing nation-statecinema
studies: categoriesof analysis
Nation-state (or 'national') cinema studies until the
1980sfocused almost exclusivelyon the film texts pro-
duced within the territory,sometimesseeing these-rn
a reflectionist manner-as expressionsof a outative
national spirit.Typically,a historicalsurveywould con-
struct its chosen films as aesthetically great works
(usuallyseen as made by great directors)and as great
moments (the longestfilm, most expensivefilm, and so
on). Such studies rarelyanalysedthe rndustrialfactors
e n a b l i n gt h e f i l m s t o b e p r o d u c e d .
Since the 1980s new categories of analysis have
begun to emerge. A number of these are summarized
i n A n d r e w H i g s o n ' s ' T h eC o n c e p t o f N a t i o n a lC i n e m a
(1989), one of the first general considerations of
nation-statecinema, based on generalizationsarouno
the Britishcase. Higson argues that nation-statecrne-
mas should be defined not only in terms of ,the films
produced by and within a particularnation state,, but
also in terms of distribution and exhibition, audiences,
a n d c r i t i c aal n d c u l t u r a l d i s c o u r s eTs e
. x t u a l a n dg e n e r i c
questions,however,are strange lacunae in his (indust-
riallyoriented) account;for texts do, after all, mediate
between exhibition and audiences.The factors which
analyses of nation-state cinemas involve, therefore,
may be identified as follows:
Production. David Bordwell,Janet Staiger,and Kris-
tin Thompson's monumental Ihe C/assicaI Hollywood
Cinema (1985) redressesthe lack of attention to the
industrialwhich has been characteristicof film studies.
They reject any simple reflectionist thesis of text-

context relationsand argue how the economic, tech-
nological,and ideologicalfactorsaffecting Hollywood
production act as mutually interacting determinatrons
which are irreducible to one another (Lapsley and
Westlake 1988: 1 17). Hollywoodt mode of film prac-
'consists
tice, they conclude, of a set of widely held
stylisticnorms sustained by and sustainingan integral
mode of film production' (Bordwell et a/. 1985, p. xiv).
Most subsequent analysesof production have adopted
a similarly post-Althusserian model. Crisp's (1993)
account of the production of French cinema between
'1930
and 1960, for example, develops the Americans'
mode of analysis,breaking down the heading of pro-
duction into various components: political economy
and industrialstructure,plant and technology, person-
nel and their training, discursiveendeavours to form
audiences,authorial control in relation to the mode of
production, and work practicesand stylisticchange.
Distribution and exhibition (these two are taken
together because of their virtual interconnectedness).
Higson argues that categories of analysisof nation-
state cinemas should include 'the range of films in
circulation within a nation-state' (1989: 44). One of
the few analysesof imported films and their audiences
is Paul Swann's The Hollywood Feature Film in Postwar
Britain (1987), but attention towards 'imported' cine-
mas is becoming more common in nation-statecinema
studiesas in Thomas Elsaesser's New German Cinema
(1989). Given Higson'sconcern that nation-statecine-
mas should not be defined solely in terms of produc-
tion, it is fair to note that many states actuallyhave no
production industry. Poor states, especially in Africa,
cannot afford it unless,like Burkina Faso-one of the
world's most impoverished states-foreign funding
sustainsan art cinema offering exotic representations
to foreign audiences. Some states principally watch
films in a language they share with other states, for
instanceTunisiaand Uruguay.Other states,such as in
South Asia and the South Pacific,have no audiovisual
production and no cinemas, but do have flourishing
video distribution.
Audiences. This remainsan under-researchedcare-
gory. lt is arguably to the benefit of film studies that it
has not followed media studies in its massive invesr-
m e n t i n e m p i r i c a la u d i e n c er e s e a r c h F
. i l m s t u d i e sh a s
thus largelyavoided the latter'seffectivecollusionwith
g l o b a l c o n s u m e r i s m ss i n c e t h e 1 9 8 0 s ( s e e W i l l e m e n
19 87 b). Largely,but not enti rely:see John H i Il'scritique
of Higson'swillingnessto allow Hollywood'spopularity
'to
in Britain blur the arquments for film oroduction
C O N C E P TO
SF N A T I O N AC
LINEMA
which is specificallyBritishratherthan North American'
(1992:13-14). Unlike the approach to the audience rn
media studies, however, nation-state cinema studies
h a s i n t h e m a i n a n a l y s e da u d i e n c e si n t e r m s o f b o x -
office statistics.Discussionof audiences has been par-
t i c u l a r l ys i g n i f i c a n ti n s t u d i e sa n a l y s i n gt h e p r o b t e m s
which locally produced cinemas experience when
faced with transnational domination by Hollywood
( H i l l 1 9 9 4 ) ,o r i n s u s t a i n i n ga n i n d i g e n o u s ' a r tc i n e m a '
as in Elsaesser's (1989) analysisof the audience despe-
rately sought by the state-funded practitionersof the
N e w G e r m a nC i n e m a .
Discourses.The discoursesin circulationaboutfilm,
as well as wider culturaldiscoursesin the nation-state,
clearly affect industry and audiences, and also
inform-and are articulated within-film texts. Given
cultural hybridity, these will of necessity include for-
e i g n - o r i g i n a t e di d e a s .H e n c e ,s i n c et h e 1 9 8 0 sn a t r o n -
state cinema studies have lesscommonly treated films
as objects for the exerciseof aestheticjudgement than
as instances of (national-)culturaldiscourses. Hill
( 1 9 8 6 ) ,f o r e x a m p l e ,a n a l y s e sB r i t i s hc i n e m a ' si d e o l o -
gicaI articulations-and repressions-of class,gender,
youth, consumerism, and related categories in films
from the period 1956-63. Marsha Kinde/s (1993)
account of Spanish cinema gives central attention to
'its
distinctivecultural reinscriotionof the Oedioal nar-
rative, that is, the way Oedipal conflicts within the
family were used to speak about political issuesand
historicaleventsthat were repressedfrom filmic repre-
sentation during the Francoistera and the way they
continue to be used with even greater flamboyance in
the post-Franco period after censorship and repres-
s i o n h a d b e e n a b o l i s h e d '( 1 9 9 3 : 1 9 7 - B ) .I n a s i m i l a r
vein, some scholars have adopted the idea of a
n a t i o n a lo r s o c i a li m a g i n a r y( E l s a e s s e1r9 8 0 ; D e r m o d y
and Jacka 1988: 15-23).
Textuality.Ratherthan see nation-statecinemas in
'great
terms of works',writers have increasinglyidentr-
fied systemsof textual conventions,principallygeneric
'national'
ones, as characterizing cinema. Dermody
and Jacka, for example, employ a quasi-generictax-
'aesthetic
onomy to identify the force-field' of Austra-
l i a n c i n e m a b e t w e e n 1 9 7 O a n d 1 9 8 6 . G e n r e s ,i n t h i s
respect, are seen less in industrialterms than as codi-
ficationsof socio-culturaltendencies.
N ati on a |-cu ltural sp e cif icity. N ati on a |-cu ltu raI spe-
cificity may be differentiated from both nationalism,
and definitions of national identity. As Paul Willemen
'The
argues: specificityof a cultural formation ma\/ be
@
 W O R L D C I N E M A : C R t T t C A LA p p R O A C H E S
::::tm;Alrawr'::
Antonio clas moftes (1969F " . a :
Latin Ametican countet-
,#
cinema
marked by the presence but also by the absence of
preoccupations with national identity . . . the dis-
courses of nationalismand those addressing or com-
prising national specificity are not identical . . . tne
constructionof nationalspecificityin fact encompasses
and governs the articulationof both national identity
and nationaIist d iscourses'(1994: 21 O).NationaIly spe-
c i f i c c i n e m a ,t h e n , i s n o t b o u n d t o t h e h o m o g e n i z i n g
myths of nationalism and national identity. Hill uses
Willemen'sexample of black Britishcinema to illustrate
the point, arguing how such films display a ,sensitivity
to social differences (of ethnicity, class, gender and
sexual orientation) within an identifiably and specifi-
cally British context' (Hill 1992: 16) and that this is
strikinglydifferent from the nationalistically,successfu
. . . marketing and packaging [ofl the national literary
heritage, the war years, the countryside, the upper
classes and elite education' noted by Elsaesser
( 1 9 8 4 : 2 O Ba) s c h a r a c t e r i z i n dg o m i n a n t B r i t i s hc i n e m a .
In contrast,the internationalco-production can often
be seen to erase cultural specificity:as Geoffrey Now-
ell-Smith observes of Last Tango in paris (Bernardo
Bertolucci,1972),it'had no nationalityin a meaningful
s e n s ea t a l l ' ( 1 9 8 5 :1 5 4 ) .
The cultural specificity of genres and nation-state
crnema 'movements'. A nation-state cinema,s capa_
city to produce culturallyspecific genres depends on
whether it can sustainproduction in sufficientvotume
* -"73",',..:".;&.'
to support the requisite infrastructuresand audience
familiarity;on the power of its local cultural traditions;
and on how strongly these are articulated by film rela-
tive to other artistic practices.The generation and/or
survival of local genres has been a gauge of the
strength and dynamism of nation-state cinemas, but
this may be less so in the 1990s as genres diversify,
fragment, and recombine. Localculturaltraditionsand
their articulationthrough film rather than other artistic
practices have likewise underpinned the best-known
nation-state cinema 'movements'. These have fre-
q u e n t l ya r i s e na t h i s t o r i c am l o m e n t sw h e n n a t i o n a l i s m
connects with genuinely populist movements to pro-
d u c e s p e c i f i c a l ln
y a t i o n a lf i l m st h a t c a n c l a i ma c u l t u r a l
I authenticity or rootedness (Crofts 1993). Some of
these-ltalian Neo-Realism, Latin American Third
Cinema,and FifthGeneration ChineseCinema-arose
on the crest of waves of national-popularresurgence.
T h e F r e n c h N o u v e l l eV a g u e m a r k e d a n a t i o n a l i n t e l -
lectual and cultural recovery in the making since the
'1
late 940s. However,cultural hybridity is often a char-
acteristicas well. As Kinder (1993:6\ notes, such move-
ments regularly borrow from elsewhere formar
'conventions
to be adapted to the [importers'] own
cultural specificity': ltalian Neo-Realismfrom French
poetic realism, the Nouvelle Vague from Hollywood
a n d R o s s e l l i n ti h
, e F i f t hG e n e r a t i o nf r o m C h i n e s ea n d
foreign painting traditions.
 C O N C E P TO
SF N A T I O N AC
LINEMA

The role of the state. The idea of nation-state while an American scholar;informed by the US imper-
cinema needs to be conceptualized in terms not onty ium and substantialHispanicimmigration, knows more
of the categories above, but also of the state! own of Latin American cinema than of African cinema
involvement.The state retains a pivotal role. For all (Crofts 1993: 60-1). Such limited understandings of
t h e m u c h - v a u n t e d ' d i s i n t e g r a t i o na' n d / o r ' s u p e r s e s - the cross-culturalhave severe implications for canon
sion' of the state under the forces of globalization formation as well as for global politics. Even in 1962
and cyber-hype, and alongside the more realistic Sadoul took note that Third World production was
recognition of its fragmentation under sub- ano more plentiful than North American and European
suprastatepressures,it is stillstate policiesand legisla- c o m b i n e d ( 1 9 6 2 : 5 3 0 - 1) . l t i s t h i s g l o b a l r a n g e o f
tion (or lack of them) which substantiallyregulate and nation-state cinemas that the followinq section arms
controlfilm subsidies,tariff constraints, industrialassrs- to cover.
tance, copyright and licensing arrangements,censor-
ship, training institutions,and so on. Individual states
desiringto restrictHollywood imports, for instance,do
Varietiesof nation-statecinema
at the least have the power to decide whether or nor
they wantto riska trade war, as can be seen in the case
production
of South Korea in i 990, when it battled with the Motron
Table 1 presents a model for differentiating types of
PictureExport Associationof America to reduce Holly-
nation-statecinema that takes into account the three
wood imports to roughly 5 per cent per year (Lent
main industrialcategories of production, distribution
1990:122-3\.
and exhibition, and audiences as well as those of tex-
The global range of nation-state cinemas. In an
tuality and national representation(thisaccount distils
argument also applicable to film, Geoffrey Hartman
and substantially reworks Crofts 1993: 50-7). As in
argues that every literary theory is 'based on experi- most taxonomies, these varieties of nation-state
ence of a limited canon or generalisedstrongly from a c i n e m a a r e h i g h l y p e r m e a b l e .I n d i v i d u a fl i l m s c a n b e
particular texVmi Iieu' (197 9 : 507). In a sim i lar fashion I cross-bred between different varieties. And a grven
have argued previously that 'lflilm scholars' mental state may host different varieties by sustaining differ-
maps of world film production are often lessthan gro- ent modes of production, most commonly the indus-
bal . . . Sadoul (1962),informed by Frenchcolonialism, trial and cultural modes. Moreover, the export of a
knows more of African cinema than of LatinAmerican. given text may shift its variety,as in the common recy-
,1
TABLE . EIGHT VARIETIES OF NATION-STATE CINEMA PRODUCTION

Mode of production as regulated and controlled by the state

Minimal Mixed economy M a x i m a l ,c e n t r a l l y Other or outside

( ' m a r k e te c o n o m y ' ) controlledeconomy stateprovision

Industrial 1. United States 3 . O t h e r e n t e r t a i n m e n t 4 . T o t a l i t a r i a nc i n e m a s

crnemas c rn e m a s
2. Asiancommercial
successes

Cultural 5. Art cinemas:

A m e r i c a na r t Art Art for socialist export

6 . l n t e r n a t i o n a cl o -
proouc!ons

Political (anti-state) 7. Third Cinemas

8 . S u b - s t a t ec i n e m a s

@
W O R L DC I N E M A C
: R I T t C AA
L ppROACHES
c l i n g o f f i l m sf r o m T h i r d a n d t o t a l i t a r i a nc i n e m a sa s a n
ctnema.
The eight varietiesof nation-statecinema shown in
the table can be briefly summarizedas follows:
1. United Statescinema. This is covered in part 2 of
t h i s v o l u m e . l t i s s o c a l l e d t o i n c l u d et h e r e c e n t
m e d i u m - b u d g e t ' i n d e p e n d e n t 'f i l m s a s s o c i a t e d
with, say,the Sundance Instituteas well as Hollv-
wood. Hollywood's domination of world film
m a r k e t ss i n c e a s e a r l y a s 1 9 1 9 i s s o w e l l k n o w n
(Guback 1976; fhompson 1985) that Western
natron-state cinemas are habitually defined
against Hollywood. lt is hardly ever spoken of
as a national cinema, perhaps because of its
transnational reach. This has been further con-
solidated since the 1980s by its increaseddom-
ination of West European screens, and the
substantial inroads it has made into East Eur-
opean and other new markets.
2. Asiancommercial successes.With large domes-
t i c a n d r e l i a b l ee x p o r t m a r k e t s ,I n d i a na n d H o n g
Kong cinemas can afford to ignore Hollywood,
w h i l e J a p a n e s ep r o d u c t i o ns o m e t i m e so u t s t r i p s
Hollywood imports at the local box-office (Lent
1990: 47).
3. Other entertainment cinemas. These include
E u r o p e a na n d T h i r d W o r l d c o m m e r c i a lc i n e m a s
w h i c h a d o p t g e n r e s s u c h a s m e l o d r a m a ,t h r i r r e l
a n d c o m e d y .T h e y c u s t o m a r i l yd e p e n d m o r e o n
private than state investment, but mostlv fart to
dominate their local markets (except in rare
cases such as Egypt, which supplies other
Arab states).This variety of nation-state cinema
includes anglophone (Australian,Canadian)
i m i t a t i o n so f U S c i n e m a a n d B a n g l a d e s h i m i t a -
t i o n s o f I n d i a nc i n e m a s .
4. Totalitarian cinemas. These include those of
fascist Germany and ltaly, communist China,
a n d t h e S t a l i n i s tr e g i m e s o f t h e S o v i e t b l o c .
5. Art cinemas. These vary somewhat in the sour_
c i n g o f t h e i r f i n a n c e s ,a n d i n t h e i r t e x t u a l c h a r -
. o r d w e l l ( j 9 7 9 , j 9 B 5 ) d e s c r i b e st h e
a c t e r i s t i c sB
t e x t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i cosf a r t c i n e m a i n t h e i r h e v -
d a y a n d S m i t h ( P a r t3 , C h a p t e r 2 ) s u m m a r i z e si i s
features.
6. lnternational co-productions. Like offshore pro_
d u c t i o n s ,t h e s e f i l m s e x e m p l i f y t h e m o b i l i t y o f
c a p i t a l a n d p e r s o n n e l ,a s w e l l a s t h e i n t e r n a _
t i o n a l m e r g i n g o f m e d i a i m a g e sn o t e d b y A p p a -
d u r a i ( 19 9 0 ) a b o v e .
7. Thtrd Cinemas. This term originally referred to
t h e a n t i - i m p e r i a l i s tc i n e m a s o f L a t i n A m e n c a ,
b u t i t s d e f i n i t i o nh a s b e e n e x p a n d e d , e s p e c i a l l y
by Willemen, to cover films with 'a historically
analytic yet culturallyspecific mode of crne-
m a t i c d i s c o u r s e '( 1 9 8 7 a : 8 ) . D i r e c t o r s s u c h a s
t h e I n d i a n M r i n a l S e n , t h e F i l i p i n oK i d l a tT a h i -
m i k , t h e A f r i c a n sO u s m a n e S e m b e n e a n d S o u -
leymane Ciss6, as well as black British
f i l m m a k e r sh a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d i n t h i s c a t e q o r v
( P i n e sa n d W i l l e m e n 1 9 8 9 ) .
8. Sub-state cinemas. These may be defined eth-
n i c a l l yi n t e r m s o f s u p p r e s s e d ,i n d i g e n o u s ,d i a -
s p o r i c ,o r o t h e r p o p u l a t i o n sa s s e r t i n gt h e i r c i v i l
r i g h t sa n d g i v i n g e x p r e s s i o nt o a d i s t i n c t i v er e l i -
gion, language, or regional culture. Catalan,
Qu6becois, Aboriginal, Chicano, and Welsh
c t n e m a sa r e e x a m p l e s .
While the categoriesof state regulation and control
on the horizontal axis of Table 1 are self-explanatory,
the three modes of production may require some clar-
i f i c a t i o n .T h e i n d u s t r i a lm o d e i s t h a t w h i c h c h a r a c -
t e r i z e sH o l l y w o o d a n d a p p l i e s s i m i l a r l yt o t h e n o n g
Kong and lndian industries.The cultural mode of pro-
duction is distinguishedfrom Hollywood by state leg-
islation overtly supporting production subsidy-
increasinglyvia television-and quotas and/or tariffs
on imported films. In its anti-statepolitics,the political
mode of production is characterized by artisanal
modes of filmmaking, and in its purest form-for ex-
ample, Hour of the Furnaces (Argentina, 1969)-is
conducted clandestinelyand at riskto the film workers
involved.
Under its two axes, Table 'l subsumes nine cate-
gories analysablein nation-statefilm industries.These
allow us to expand upon the categories of analysis
described in the preceding section:
(a) Mode of production effectively subsumes:
(b) the mode of audience address targeted thr-
ough distribution and exhibition of texts of
t h e m o d e o f p r o d u c t i o n i n v o l v e d ;a n d
( c ) t h e k i n d s o f g e n r e w h i c h i t t y p i c a l l yp r o d u c e s .
S i m i l a r l y ,s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d
d i s t r i b u t i o n - e x h i b i t i o nc o m p r i s e s t h e f o l l o w -
ing three categories:

(d) state subvention and regulation or control of
production (or not);
(e) state intervention in and regulation or control
o f d i s t r i b u t i o na n d e x h i b i t i o n ( o r n o t ) - i n t h e
'free
case of the market' option, the lack of
regulation is neverthelessan active state policy
d e c i s i o n ;a n d
( f ) t h e i m p l i c i t l yo r e x p l i c i t l yn a t i o n a l i s to, r i n d e e d
a nti-nationaIist representations-if any (for, as
seen above, there need be none)-encour-
aged by the mode of productionconcerned.
Three further categories, concerning audiences, are
i m p l i c i ti n t h e t a b l e a n d w i l l b e e x p l i c a t e db e l o w :
@) the successor otherwise of the variety of state
cinemawithin its localmarket;
(h) its successin exporting to other territories;and
( i ) t h e r a n g e o f c o m p e t i n g e n t e r t a i n m e n tf o r m s
a v a i l a b l ew i t h i n t h e s t a t e c o n c e r n e d .
Under the industrial mode of production there is an
almost complete correlationbetween categories(a)to
(c):between, that is,the industrialmode of production,
entertainment modes of address in distribution and
exhibition, and entertainment genres, with the inflex-
ion of the entertainment mode of addresstowards the
didactic in the caseof totalitarianmode. Similarly,there
is a strong correlation between the cultural mode of
production, the modes of address of the art film-to
the cu ltured, fi Im-literate viewer-wh ich characterizes
a r t c i n e m a s 'd i s t r i b u t i o na n d e x h i b i t i o nc h a n n e l s a
, no
art film genres. The bulk of international co-produc-
tions also conform to these criteria, with the marn
exceptions being the higher-budget samples of
'Euro-pudding'.
M u c h a s t h e p o l i t i c a lm o d e o f o r i g i n a l
T h i r d C i n e m a p r o d u c t i o n i s c l a n d e s t i n ef,u g i t i v e ,a n d
makeshift, so its politicized mode of address endan-
gers its target audiences, and its typically agit-prop
documentary genres serve its anti-statepolitics. Later
versionsof Third Cinema are lesslife-threatening.With
variable production levels and degrees of access to
mainstream distribution and exhibition, the substate
cinemas are also instancesof this mode of production
but are Iessco-ordinated in their strategiesof produc-
tion, mode of address,and genre.
The horizontaldimension coverscategories(d)to (f):
state regulation and intervention in the sectorsof pro-
d u c t i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o na n d e x h i b i t i o n ,a n d t h e e x p l i -
c i t o r i m p l i c i t n a t i o n a l i s m sa d v a n c e d b y t h e c i n e m a s
C O N C E P TO
SF N A T I O N AC
LINEMA
involved. Most varietiesof statefi Im oroduction exh ibit
a strong correlation between these three categones.
T h e m i n i m a lg o v e r n m e n ts u b s i d yt o p r o d u c t i o nw h i c h
characterizesHollywood, Asian commercialsuccesses,
and to a lesser extent other entertainment cinemas
finds echoes in the general lack of intervention in the
distribution and exhibition sectors in the territories
i n v o l v e d ,a n d i n t h e u s u a l l yi m p l i c i t f o r m s t h a t a n y
nationalistic representations adopt. This contrasts
with totalitariancinemas,whose statescontrol produc-
tion-with the exceptions of fascistltaly and pre-1938
Nazi Germany-and which intervene strenuously in
distribution and exhibition with censorshipscrutinyof
local and foreign product, and which urge expressry,
and usuallyexplicitly,nationalisticrepresentations.
T h e m o s t f a m i l i a ra r t c i n e m a s( i . e .o f t h e E u r o p e a n
model) differ again in that while their production
depends largely on state subsidy, their distribution
and exhibition operates largely withoutstate interven-
tion (post-SecondWorld War France being the con-
spicuous exception) and their representations are
aestheticaIly constructedbefore they are nationaIistic.
American art cinema differs in the lack of state produc-
tion support, while socialiststates subsidize their art
cinemas in both production and export distribution.
International co-productions function in the same
way as art cinemas,except that any nationalismsmay
disappear in the bland mix (while those of the Fifth
Generation Chinese Cinema post-Tiananmen ser-
iously question the nationalisms of the People's
R e p u b l i co f C h i n a ) O . r i g i n a lT h i r d C i n e m ae n j o y ss t a t e
support for neither production nor distribution,and its
practitionerswould argue that their states' abuse of
freedoms of speech and assembly justify-indeed
necessitate-its anti-state representations.Later ver-
sions enjoy less brutal, if still less than comfortaore,
state patronage. Third Cinema representationsover-
lap with substate cinemas' interestsin regions, ethni-
c i t i e s , r e l i g i o n s ,a n d / o r l a n g u a g e s w h i c h a r e n o n -
hegemonic within the state.These latter rarelybenefit
from state support in production or distribution and
exhibition unless from states within a federal system
s u c ha s t h e O u 6 b e c o i s .
Audiences, conceived in box-office terms, figure
u n d e r h e a d i n g s( g ) - ( i ) :t h e f i l m s i n p r e d o m i n a n tc i r c u -
lation in the state concerned, the successor otherwise
of its exports,and the range and popularity of compet-
ing entertainmentforms availablewithin the state con-
cerned. The lastof these is a factor for considerationin
nation-statecinema studies. As regards the first two,
 W O R L DC I N E M A C
: R|TICAA
L PPROACHES
nation-statecinemascan be categorizedas net impor_
tersand netexporters. Hollywood, Indian,Hong Kong,
and big totalitariancinemas dominate their locar mar-
kets, through market and/or regulatory means, ano
garner varying degrees of additional revenue from
foreign markets. Smaller totalitarian cinemas (the
Soviet Union'sEuropean satellitestates)and the other
five varieties of nation-state cinema production fight
over the remainder,their principal enemy being Holly_
wood, which dominates most anglophone markets
and exerts considerable influencethrouqh the United
States' world-wide strategic, economicl and cultural
l i n k s .l n d i a n a n d H o n g K o n g c i n e m a se x p o r t t o t h e i r
ethnic diasporas, Hong Kong also throughout East
Asia, and big totalitarian cinemas to their colonized
and satelliteterritories.Art cinemas of all kinds distri_
bute themselves broadly world-wide, but also thinly,
within the limits, that is, of art film distribution ano
exhibition channels.Third and substatecinemas rarelv
break out in the mainstream(an exception is the eue-
becois Jesus of Montreal(Denys Arcand, 19g9) which
was in fact a Canadian-Frenchco-production).Given
their predominant anti-state politics, circulation is
sorely limited, and sometimes wider-because less
policed-outside their country of origin.
Recent cultural issues and debates
Politi c a lcl yr i t i c ana
l ti o n acil n e ma s
Perchedon the edge ofTable 1, the spacefor anti-state
cinemas is very limited, emerging from the political
u n d e r g r o u n di n t h e c a s eo f t h e o r i g i n a lT h i r d C i n e m a s ,
from the intersticesof the contradictionsof liberal prur_
alistfunding regimes, from the capacity of production
units with progressiveheads to cross-subsidizefund_
ing in the Fifth Generation Chinesecase,or, in the case
of those same directors post-Tiananmen,from their
ability to raise non-PRC international co-production
finance on the strength of their names as auteurs.
Willemen has noted the growing pressureson politi_
c a l l yu n o r t h o d o xc i n e m a :
The capital-intensive natureof film production,and of its
necessary industria
l, administrativeand technologicalinfra_
structures,requiresa fairlylargemarketin whichto amortise
costs,not to mentionthe generationof surplusfor invest_
ment or profit.This meansthat a film industry[otherthan
Third,substate,and poor cinemaslmust addresseitheran
internationalmarketor a very large domesticone. If the
l a t t e r i s a v a i l a b l e ,t h e n c i n e m a r e q u i r e s l a r g e p o t e n t i a l a u d i _
ence groups, with the inevitablehomogenising effectsthat
follow from this . . . a cinema addressingnational specificity
w i l l b e a n t i - o r a t l e a s t n o n - n a t i o n a l i s t i c ,s i n c e t h e m o r e r t r s
complicit with nationalism! homogenising project, the less
i t w i l l b e a b l e t o e n g a g e c r i t i c a l l yw i t h t h e c o m p l e x , m u l t i _
d i m e n s i o n a l a n d m u l t i d i r e c t i o n a lt e n s i o n s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s e
and shape a social formation's cultural confiqurations . . .
the marginal and dependent [politically critiJal] cinema rs
s r m u l t a n e o u s l yt h e o n l y f o r m o f n a t r o n a lc i n e m a a v a i l a b l e :i t
i s t h e o n l y c i n e m a t h a t c o n s c i o u s l ya n d d i r e c t l y w o r k s w i t h
and addresses the materials at work within the nattonal
c u l t u r a l c o n s t e ll a t i o n . ( W i l l e m e n 19 9 4 : 2 1 1- 1 2 )
ln terms of the table, internationalizing economic inter-
ests force their way downwards and to the right; cul_
tural, national ones struggle upwards and to the leftl
Arguingfor the cultural
While box-office dollars increasinglydrive the industry
globally, this should not preclude our attending to
cultural issues-indeed, it should demand it. Europe
in the 1990s provides some key debates. Even French
cinema, which has probably been the world,s most
successfulin meshing industrial and economic con-
cerns with cultural discourses,is feeling the pressure
of global commodification in the 1990s.In the case of
Britain, Hill elegantly advances cultural against eco_
nomrc arguments in seeking to influence policy and
practice on nation-statecinemas,critiquing in particu_
lar the policy endorsement of 'the operations of the
market place (and its domination by transnationalcon-
glomerates)and, hence,the restrictedrange of cultural
representationswhich the market provides,(1992: jg).
This returnsthe argument to the issueof cultural spe-
cificityset out above. The Celtic poor cinema for which
Colin McArthur campaigns poses acute problems for
the realizabilityof acceptable culturallyspecific repre-
sentations.Given centuriesof Englishothering of Cel_
tic Scotland, lreland, and Wales as ,uncivilized,and
'backward',
he offersthis'axiom to Celtic film-makers:
the more your films are consciouslyaimed at an inter-
national market, the more their conditions of intellig-
ibility will be bound up with regressive discourses
about your own culture' (1994: 118-20). In the context
of the much more powerfulWestGerman state, Elsaes-
serstillhas occasionto urgethe importance of commit-
ment to 'the politics of culture, where independent
cinema is a protected enclave, indicative of a will to
create and preservea nationalfilm and media eco/oqy
 C O N C E P TO
SF N A T I O N AC
LINEMA

amidst an ever-expanding international film, media
and information economy' (1989: 3).
Exportand culturaldifference
As observed above, a given film can shift its variety of
nation-statecinema when exported, depending on the
distribution and exhibition parameters of the import-
ing state and its political relationshipswith the expor-
ter. Cross-culturalreadings are more of a worry for art
and substate cinemas than for Hollywood, the worldl
biggest producer of largely undifferentiated product
for export. ElsewhereI distinguishthree levelsof criti-
cal responseto imported films:
perceive and rethink one's own cultural constellation
at the same time . . . a double-outsideness'whereby
the analystrelatesboth to her or his situationand to the
'elsewhere'
group as an other (214, 216-1 7). Rajad-
hyaksha and Willemens (1994) encyclopaediaof
lndian cinemas represents a realizationof that goal.
In a similarvein Chow argues for the relevanceof the
Western theoreticaldiscourseof psychoanalysisto the
examinationof Chinesesocialand culturalrepresstons
(1991 , p. xiv). And later positioning herself outside
both Western and Easternreadingsof China, she chal-
lenges the notion of an authentic cultural identity as
any more than an ideological construct (Chow 1995).

( a ) b l a n k i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n ,w h i c h i s m o s t l y p r e -
e m p t e d b y d i s t r i b u t o r s 'n o t i m p o r t i n g c u l t u r a l l y
Futureprojections
s p e c i f i c m a t e r i a l ss u c h a s t h e f i l m s o f W e r n e r
S c h r o e t e ro r A l e x a n d e r K l u g e , o r m o s t s o c i a l Will the wash of globalization rinse out cultural differ-
r e a l i s ta n d p o o r c i n e m a s ; ences between states? lf nation-state cinemas and
( b )t h e s u b s u m p t i o no f t h e u n f a m i l i a rw i t h i n d e p o - their marketing constitute a point of resistanceto the
l i t i c i z i n ga r t c i n e m a d i s c o u r s e so f ' a n e s s e n t i a l i s t growing pressuresagainst the state from within and
humanism ("the human condition"),and com- without, many argue that they cannot resistfor long:
'the "cinema", "nation" "national
plemented by a tokenist culturalism ("very concepts and
F r e n c h " ) o r a n a e s t h e t i c i z i n go f t h e c u l t u r a l l y cinema" are increasingly becoming decentred and
specific ("a poetic account of local life")'; and assimilated within larger transnational systems of
( c ) e t h n o c e n t r i cr e a d i n g s ,s u c h a s i n U S a c c o u n t so f entertainment' (Kinder 1993: 44O).The accelerating
flows of people, technologies,images,and ideas com-
Crocodile Dundee (Peter Faiman, 1986) which
bine with the intensifyingsearchof film producers for
use the film to inscribe American frontier myths
multiple internationalmarketsto imply growing homo-
and to rediscover an age of innocence (Crofts
1992, 1993: 58-9). This last mode of reading geneity in nation-statefilm production. And the possi-
'projective bility of distinguishing product with nation-state
Willemen calls a appropriation'
(1994:212\. cinema labels is threatened not just by the increasing
number of international co-productions, but also by
developments in electronic and fibre-optic delivery
Theorizing
the culturallyspecific systems with their encouragement of indiscriminate
Besides'projectiveappropriation',which includesthe c h a n n e l - z a p p i n ga n d i m a g e - m i x i n g . O n t h e o t h e r
'imperial hand, art film sectors world-wide offer new hopes of
and colonising strategy' of universalist
h u m a n i s m ( W i l l e m e n 1 9 9 4 : 2 1 O ) ,W i l l e m e n d r s t r n - interestin culturalspecificity,even if only in the form of
guishestwo otherways of analysingculturalspecificity. finding new foreign sets on which to inscribe old sce-
'Ventriloquist narios of innocence and nostalgia. Growing atten-
identification' has the speaker
'immersed dances at film festivalsin many parts of the West hold
in some ecstatic fusion with the others
voices . . . the monopolist-imperialist'sguilty con- out hopes for raised interest in cultural specificities.
'cross-over'
science' (213). The move beyond these complicit And the emergence in the 1990s of distri-
stances is based on Bakhtin'sdialogic mode, and is 'independent'
bution successesand of the American
'not
simply a matter of engaging in a dialogue with production sector holds out some promises for grow-
some other culture's products, but of using one's ing consumer discrimination, at least in the West,
understanding of another cultural practice to re- againstthe typically Hollywood mainstreamfare.

@
 W O R T D C T N E M A :C R t T I C A t A P P R O A C H E S

BIBLIOGRAPHY
nomics and Culture of pan-European
S t r a t e g i e s , ,i n J o h n
Anderson, Benedict (j 983), lmagined Communfttes: Hill, Martin Mcloone, and pauj Halnsworthied
s.) Border
Ref/ectlons on the Origin and Crossing: Fllm in lreland, Britain and
Spread of Natrcnalism Europe ieelfast:
(London: Verso). Institute of lrish Studies; London: British
*Appadurai, Fjlm Institute).
Arjun (1990), ,Disluncture and Difference Hobsbawm, E. J. (l 990), Nations and
Nationa/isrn srnce
in
the Global Cujtural Economy,, in 1780: Programme, Myth, Rea/lty (Cambridge:
Mike Featherstone Cam_
(ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t yp r e s s ) .
Globalisation and
Modernity (London: Saqe). Hutchinson, John (1994), Modern Nationalism (London:
Bordwell, David (1979)l ,Art Film Fontana).
as a Mode of Film
Practice', Film Criticism, 4/1. Kinder, Marsha (1993), Blood Cinema:
fhe Reconstructron
- (1985), Narration in the of National ldentity in Spain (Berkeley:
Fiction Film (London: University ot
Methuen). California press).
-Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson (1985), Lapsfey, Rob, and Mike Westlake (jggl),
Ihe F i l m T h e o r y :A n
ClassicalHollywood Cinema: Film In t r o d u c t io n ( M a n c h e s t e r : M a n c h e s t e r
Styte and Mode of pro_ Unlversity press).
duction to 1960(New york: ColumbL Lent, John (1990), fhe Asian Film lndustry(Austin:
Universif press). Univer-
Chow, Rey (1991), Woman and sity of Texas press).
Chinese Modernty: The
P o l i t i c so f R e a d i n g b e t w e e n E a s t
and West (Minneapolis: McArthur, Colin (1994),,The Cultural
Necessityof a poor
U n i v e r s i t yo f M i n n e s o t a p r e s s ) . C e l t i c C i n e m a , ,i n J o h n H i l l , M a r t i n M c L o o n e ,
*- and paul
(1995), primitive passlons: Hainsworth (eds.), Border Crosslng:
Visuality, Sexuality, Ethno_ Film in lreland, Brit_
gra,phy and Contemporary Chinese ain and Europe (Belfast: lnstitute of
Cinema (New york: lrish Studles; Lon-
C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t yp r e s s ) . don: Britjsh Fjlm Institute).
*Crisp,
Colin (1993), C/assic French Cinema Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey (1985), ,But
1930_1960 do we Need tt?,, in
(Bloomington: Indiana Universitypress). Martin Auty and Nick Roddjck (eds.),
Britlsh Cinema Now
Crofts, Stephen (1992),,Cross-Cujtural (London: British Film Instrtute).
Reception Studjes:
C u l t u r a l l y V a r i a n t R e a d i ng s o l C r o c o d i l e Pines, Jim, and paul Willemen (1989),
Dundee,, Con_ O u e s t l on s o f T h t r d
t t n u u m ,6 / i . Cinema (London: British Film Institute).
*- ( 19 9 3 ) , ' R e c o n c e p t u a l i s i n g
National Cinema/s,, Rajadhyaksha, Ashish, and paul Willemen (1994),
Ency_
Quarterly Review of Film and iideo, clopaedia of lndian Cinema (London:
lq.3: qS_dl . British F;lm Insti_
Dermody, Susan, and Elizabeth t u t e a n d O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t vp r e s s ) .
lacka (t9gg), fhe
Screening of Australia, ii: Anatomy
of a National Cinema R o s e n , P h i l i p ( 1 9 8 4 ) , , H i s t o r y ,T e x t u a l i t y ,
Nation: Kracauer,
( S y d n e y :C u r r e n c y p r e s s ) . Burch, and Some problems in the
Study of Narronar
Elsaesser,Thomas (19g0),,primary C i n e m a s ' , l r i s ,2 / 2 : 6 9 _ 8 4 .
ldentification and the
Historjcal Subject: Fassbjnder Sadouf . Georges (1962), Histoire
and Germany,, Cine_ du Cin6ma (paris:
Tracts, 1 1 (Fall), 43_52 Flammarion).
- (1984), 'lmages for England (and Shohat. Ella, and Robert Stam (1994)
Scotland, lreland, Unthinking Euro-
W a l e s . . . ) ' , M o n t h l y F i l m B u l l e t i n( S e p t . ) , 2 6 7 _ 9 centnsrn: Multiculturalism and the M e d l a ( L o n d o n :
*. - (1989), New German Cinema:
a' iirtonl (London: Routledge).
Macmillan). *Smith, Anthony
D. (1991),Nationa/ ldentity (London:
Geffner, Ernest (1983), Nations and Penguin).
N a t i o n a l i s m( O x f o r d :
Blackwell). Swann, Pauf (19BZ), The Hollywood
Feature Film in post_
G u b a c k , T h o m a s ( 1 9 76 ) , ' H o l l y w o o d , s war Britain (London: Croom Helm).
lnternational Mar_
ket', in Tjno Baljo (ed.), Tie American Thompson, Kristin (l 985), Exporting Entertainment:
im naurt,y
( M a d i s o n : U n i v e r s i t yo { W i s c o n s i n p r e s s ) . America in the World Film Market 19-07_1934
(London:
Hartman, Geoffrey (1919), 'A British Film lnstitute).
Short Hrstory of practical
C r j t i c i s m ' , N e w L i t e r a r y H i s t o r v ,1 O / 3 . Willemen, Paul (1987a/1994), 'The
Third Cinema eues-
*Higson,
Andrew (1989), ,The Concept tion: Notes and Reflections', Framework,
of Natronal 34: 4_3g;
C i n e m a ' , S c r e e n ,3 0 / 4 ( A u t u m n ) , r e p r . i n L o o k s a n d F r i c t i o n s( L o n d o n :
36_46. British Film Insti_
Hifl, John (1986), Sex, C/assand tute).
Rea/ism: British Ctnema
1956-1963 (London: British Film lnstitute). - (1987b),Review of John Hill,
'-(1992), Sex, C/ass and Reatism:
'The British Cinema 1956-1963, Framework,
lssue of National Cinema and Britjsh 34: 1i4_2C.
Film Production,,in Duncan petrie (ed.), *- (1994), ' T h e
New Ouestrons National,, in Looks and Frictions
o f B r i t i s hC i n e m a ( L o n d o n : B r j t i s h (London: British Film Instrtute).
Film lnstitute).
- (1994), ' T h e
Future of European Cjnema? The
Eco_