In this post, I am going to talk a little more about Andrew Higson and his ideas on National Cinema. This time, we will look at an excerpt from “Cinema and Nation,” edited by Mette Hjort and Scott MaxKenzie, chapter 4, pages 63-74, originally published in 1995.
In this article, Higson argues that the overwhelming basis of his original article still remains true to this day (of when this article was written in 1999). However, with his bias of only knowing the British mode of cinema, he assumed all the other forms as essentially identical to the British mode of production, merely for their lack of their non-American style. With the transnational nature of more cinematic financing, more nations were allowed to expand their filmmaking. This helped to encompass the world’s unique and individual style among nations. If the government can decide where a country starts and where another begins, then a scholarly definition of national cinema will always differ with the governments definition of its own culture. “The product of a tension between ‘home’ and ‘away’, between the identification of the homely and the assumption that it is quite distinct from what happens elsewhere” (67).
The government continues to promote the idea of national cinema because it is through national cinema that it defines itself, the culture of the nation, its values, and the pride of the nation. If the cinema can make a member of a particular country proud to be a member of said country, such as through images and messages of uplifting patriotic sentiment, then the country itself is much more willing to assist the government in their decisions for the betterment of the country. The more proud a person is, the more they are willing to do. And cinema does just that, by enhancing the overall image of the nation or country in its films, or by creating uplifting messages that will encourage the citizens to better themselves and help to better their country. “Such developments have traditionally assumed that a strong national cinema can offer coherent images of the nation, sustaining the nation at an idealogical level, exploring and celebrating what is understood to be an indigenous culture” (69). This helps to also promote local industries within the country if a nation is viewed positively and helps to attract tourism to the nation as a whole. The more pride people have in their country, the more passion and determination they have to see it succeed. And that correlates to how filmmakers portray the nation in their films.
The concept of national cinema, according to Higson, is problematic because it is ignoring the diversity among nations. It becomes ignorant to assume every one in a particular community feels the same way about major cultural, economic, and political decisions. Its even more ignorant to let the government make those decision for them with their propaganda-style films instead of letting the filmmakers make the films with the intended message on which they approached the film with. National cinema can be defined in many ways, and has many approaches on how to define it. However, the basis of it all comes down to monetary value and who owns more rights to most films to say what the national cinema of a particular nation can be.
Film Chatting 