Hayward Susan Framing National Cinemas
-
Upload
lepservice -
Category
Documents
-
view
251 -
download
14
Transcript of Hayward Susan Framing National Cinemas
6
FRAM
ING
NATIO
NAL C
INEM
AS
Swsan lloyw
ard.
In this chapter I want to address a series of questions w
hich the concept"national cinem
a' raises and to argue the case that debates around what is
national cinema are still extrem
ely important ones to be haüng, as indeed is the
production itself of a national cinema (w
hatever rhar might happen to m
ean). Ishould m
ake the point too that, as general editor of the National C
inema Series
for Rcrudedge (since 1989), I am
acutely aware that the narional of cinem
as hasbeen quite upperm
ost in my m
ind for over ten years now; and I am
also acutelyaw
are that there are no eâsy definitions - nor do I seek to establish any. What I
do bear in mind, how
ever, is Terry Eagleton's statement that 'To w
ish class ornation aw
ay . . . is to play straight into the hands of the oppressor' (1990: 23).In the light of the above com
ments, the questions I am
raising are: \{/hat isthe value of a 'national' cinem
af What needs does it fulfilf H
ow can w
e think interm
s of framing or conceptualising itf W
4rat function does it servef And, why is
it still extremely im
portant to be talking about itf
Introduction: natiorl ând cultureC
learly, â stârting point is to turn to the debates around the key concepts ofnation, national identity(ies), nationalism
and culture as ways to help clarify
some issues in relation to national cinem
a and to enable us to pose ottrer ques-tions or to question differently w
hat is meânt by national cinem
a. And my
introductory comm
ents, which w
ill be reasonably brief, are going to pull on thew
ork of Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson, Anthony Sm
ith, Patrick Hall and
Thomas Erikson - because betw
een them w
e can come up w
ith a first set ofuseful rubrics (or key w
ords) for leading our discussion of framing national
cinemas. These key w
ords which I have established in relation to the concept of
nation constitute â neât triumvirâte: thât of history-ruasqaerade-syrubolisru.
Letm
e lay these before you and trlr t6 .rrrntt what I m
ean.G
ellner (I983: 55-6) argues that nationalism invenrs narions w
here they donot exist and not the other w
ay round. In other words, to quote Sm
ith, 'natiorl-alism
is an ideological movem
ent for the attainment iurcl rrraintcn:rncc of (thc)
unity and identity of a human populati<>u sl.raring:rn historic tcrrirory'(1996:
8889
FRAM
ING
NATIO
NAL C
INEM
AS
359). Both Gellner and Anderson (1991) stress that nations are ideological
constructions seeking to forge a link between a self-defined cultural group and
the state, creating abstroct or iruagirued. comm
unities that we loosely refer to as
'the nation' or indeed 'the nation-state' and which get passed off as 'natural',
although of course they are in fact not natural. It holds then that national iden-tities are also constructions and equally get passed off as 'natural'. As such, then,they too are not 'natural', and to identify culture w
ith a particular identity is toreify a one-to-one relationship. As Erikson Q
,993: 103) says, nationalism reifies
culture in the sense that it enables people to talk about their culture as thoughit w
ere a constant and also distinctive, but it isn't. Nationalism
leads us to thinkin term
s of bounded cultural objects. That is, cultural artefacts are rnod.e (in theFrench sense of fabr'iqw
é lfabricated] and obligé lobligedl) to represent a nation,to function as evidence of the nation's distinctiveness. And the question thatim
mediately pops into m
y mind is: 'is the cuckoo clock as intrinsically Sw
iss asO
rson Welles w
ould have us believef '.The question is of course w
hy there is this need to reify culture in such aw
ay| V/hy is there the need to create â nâtion, a social cultural comm
unityf Ancllastly w
hy is nation hyphenated to stâtef A first answer is the im
portance ofw
holeness, of belongingness. As Erikson says: 'an important aim
of nationalistideology is to ... ?'ecreû.te a sentim
ent of wholeness and continuity w
ith the pastt<> transcend that alienation or rupture betw
een individual and society thatm
od.ernity brought about' (1993: I05). IIere modernity refers broadly to thc
Indr"rstrial Revolution and subsequent urbanisation of ciizenry/subjects and thc
loss of kinship and family. In other w
ords, nation comes to stand for/in for lost
issues/concepts/realities of kinship and family obligations. This is w
hy, argucsFlrikson (ibid.: 108), threats to the nation get read as issues of kinsl'rip anclfàm
ily. The nation becomes a collective individual that one dies for (the fathcr-
()r more particularly and pertinendy, the m
otherland). Or again, the nation is a
collcctive (female) individual thât suffers râpe at the hands of the enem
y. Thus ackrscd, self-referential, even vicious circle gets established w
hereby one conccptfccds the other: threat to nation leads to (m
anifestations of) Idnship, anclkinship leads to nationalist discourses (in the nam
e of the mother natiorl etc.) -
i.c., :r nationalism w
hich in turn engenders the notion of nation. Each conccptruasqw
erad.es as a grounded reality, disguising the fact that, as such, thcsc arci rrugincd abstractions.
'l'his closcd discursive circle nonetheless does the trick: it bounds thc noti«rrrol' nrtion t«r the individual and has an em
bodied ideal (the maternal [rocly).
'l'hcrc lrc ()thcr boLlnctings at play however, betw
een nation and state . Thc statcis n lcgal and political concept, and is not a com
munity. The nation firr its part is
tlcfinccl irs ir s<>ciirl cultr.rral comm
unity aucl yct it is onc thât lrlust cornply with
thc strrtc. Nrrtionirlist cliscourscs ar«rrrnd culturc w
ork t«r fbrgc thc link - thchyphcn - bctw
ccrr nâti()u rnd stntc. Nnti«rnrrlist tliscotrrscs îct thcll to nrnkc tlrc
l)rilcticc ot'thc statc irs 'rrilturtl' ils thc c()nccPt ()l'nrrtionr 'ln thc nitrilc 0f'tlrc nirtiorr, tlrc sfirfc nliry g()vclnt. lly bindirrg tltc conccpt «lf'rrirti«rn t() stiltc
SUSAN
HAYW
ARD
(literally by hlphenating it), the state has legitimate agency over and of the
nation. Another closed, self-referential circle is born, therefore: the state isfounded in the nation and the nation is constituted as the state. As Erikson says:'the distinguishing m
ark of nationalism is by definition its relntionship to the
state. A nationalist holds that political bound.aries should be coterminous w
ithcw
bwrol boundaries' (ibid.: 6, em
phasis added). And of course the standardisa-tion of culture is one very im
portant way of form
ing the nation-state, offounding cultural boundaries that then becom
e political boundaries. Theobvious exam
ple of this is educatiorr. but one cannol underesümate the im
por-tance of visual and print m
edia and their role in disseminating this relationship
between nation and state - a role w
hich cinema necessarily shares.
A third very important point is how
is this abstract and therefore potentiâllyunstable concept of nation securedl R
ather than secured, we w
ould say that itbecom
es consecrated as a concept by its invocation as a historical subject. AsSm
ith (1996: 375) says, nationalisms have an investm
ent in the past (why for
example w
ere national costumes inventedl w
hat do they meanf ). N
ationalisms
are forged in part in an apprehension (a seizing and remodelling) of the past.
Nationalism
s make use of the past, go back to 'ancestral' traditions or indeed
'inpemt them
. In this regard, says Smith, nations are a product of a territorialisa-
tion of mem
ory. Mem
ory here stands for collective mem
ory) a shared culture,shared m
emories of a collective past. All w
ell and bad/so far so clear. Butm
emory also m
eans amnesia and, as Sm
ith goes on to say, 'the importance of
national amnesia and getting one's ow
n history wrong (is essential) for the
maintenance of national solidarity' (ibid.: 382). W
e need only think all toobriefly of the post-occupation period in France to realise the self-serüngpurpose and necessity of national am
nesia.N
ationalism's investm
ent in history to create its nation and its identity means
that the modern nation is built on shared m
emories of som
e past or pasts thatcan m
obilise and unite its mem
bers. Mem
ory is then very much bound to the
notion of place, to a homeland and therefore to identity. M
emory is, as Sm
ithsays, 'crucial to identiry. In fact one m
ight almost say: no m
emory, no identity;
no identity, no nation' (ibid.: 383). What happens then to a nation new
lyem
erging from colonialism
, postcolonialism or post-apartheid) To a nation - in
other words - that has suffered erasure of its ow
n collective mem
oryf This is apoint I shall be raising in the last section of this chapter.
History then is a crucial player in this construction of a nation. But, and this
is the point, üewed in this context the nation is constructed as a historical
subject from nationalist discursive practices. N
ow, according to H
egel's dehni-tion of history, history becom
es knowledge of itself - both subject and object *
and not the subject of knowledge. In H
egelian terms, history is then very self-
regarding/self-reflexive. Another closed-circle. As a historical subject, thcnation becom
es itseif a self-regarding concept/objcct, displayiug a narcissismthat conceals w
hat really is at stake, uarncly practiccs «rt powcr nurl know
lcdg,c(the real firnction of thc (nation-)stirtc). Ifut slys l'irtrick IIrrll, in lris clcvcr irntl
90()l
FRAM
ING
NATIO
NAL C
INEM
AS
persuasive essay on nationalism and historicity, the nation is not a 'historical
subject, but instead a social relation of power and know
ledge'. What has
happened, he argues, is that this relation has'become rep?'estnted. as a discursivc
régime w
here the nation d,ppeû.rs to be the historical subject' (1997:3, emphasis
added). In otherwords, the concept of nation is disguised, m
asquerades as at.tabstract'out-there-ness'w
hile (also already) being a set of'concrete practices ()lpow
er orld. hnowled.ge' (and I am
reminded here of parallels w
e could establishw
ith mainstream
cinema and the construction of the fem
inine as masqueradc).
Hall (ibid.: 5) goes on to say that by disguising the nation as a historical subjcct
(to disguise what it really does) nationalist discourses m
obilise the nation into 'ttsurrogâte religion of m
odern society'. To this effect 'nation' both masqueradcs
irr.rd has symbolic value - it is represented as and acts as the precise oppositc ot
wl'rat it truly is: (w
hich is) a 'fictional', one might say pathological, constructi«rtt
to ease the fear of alienation. But as Terry Eagleton (1990: 30-l) suggcsts,nrtionalism
involves an impossible irony: the fact that it is itself a form
of alicn-irtion, that of individual life into collective anonym
iry.
Debates around national cinem
as
It will be fairly self-evident that in the light of the above com
ments therc w
illrrlw
irys be problems in defining 'national' cinem
a. Yet it is a fruitftil, altrcit as'lirrn O
'Regan (1996:2) puts rt, tm
essy affoir. In defining/framing a nationrrl
cirrcrra, or is it the natîonaI of a cinema, w
hat is instructive âre the discottrscsrrrobilised to do so - w
hat they include and exclude; how they choose t<> liantc
nlrlttcrs; the assumptions and presuppositions they m
ake. These framir.rgs - lrc
tlrcy rr matter of m
appings/typologies, be they structuralist, political or cultttrrtl
rrll tcrrd to setthe very territory of the nation orod,artefact, and the ltati()tt ,rJrrrtclirct. In other w
ords, they assume a one-to-one relationship l'rctw
ccn'culttrral artefact' - 'cultural identity' -
'nation/national identity': in otlrcrw
<rrtls, thc artefact'film'speaks of/for/as the nation. [4rile of coursc tllis is itr
l)xrl tnrc, there are significant problems w
ith this set of assumptions, w
hiclr I'll(()nlc t() in ir m
inute. A second set of problems is that these discourscs/friuD
irrg,sIt.rrtl to assurre/infer that a nation is in place as it m
oves through history in itsow
n pcculiar dcvelopment. Europe w
arns us that this is an unstablc Prlcticc(rurrl I lur rcm
inded here of the sigh of relief from the alrthor, w
ho origirritllyrvrrs to w
ritc thc Sovict nâtional cinema book, w
hen the Soviet Uttion diss«llvctl
'rr<»w', lrc clcclarcd,'l need only w
rite the Rw
ssian National C
irrct-na trtlok').liirrrrlly thcsc clisc<>urscs, at least in thc W
est, ineluctably fi"arnc thc'r'titiottitl',rgrrirrst tlrc tlonrinirncc of H
ollywood - w
hicl.r is uscfirl aucl u«rt uscful '- bccrtttscit rcrlrrccs thc itlcir «rltl nltionll cincura to cc«»r«rutics r>f scalc rrntl tltcrclilrc trr()nc c()nccl)t <»l' polw
c: nirnrcly, ccortorttic wcllllcirrg,. It rrls«r rctlttccs thc itlc«rlrtgy
()l rritliortitl citrctuit t() it sct 0l'llilritrics.'lir tonrc [rrrcl« to tlrcsc issucs, tlrc tclritoriirlisirtiort ol'lhc ctrlttrrirl rtrtclitct, tlrc
tirrt.rnrr, lrs'rritliorrltl lx»trrtrlctl trrltrrrirl irltclittl'protltttt's l Iirst sct ol'problcttts.
'l'lris tcrritorirtlisrrli«»tt tttitl<cs cittcrrr;r irrto,r lrrstolit.rl sulrjcet. lt st;rrrtls lirr tlrc
nrrti«rlt - it is rr lnc:rr.rs by wlriclr [ltc rrirti6rr (.illt rcl)rcscllt itscll t6 itscll (4zrr
subject) and to its strbjects (as otrjcct).'l'his 1.lr'otluccs rr nlrcissistic, scll:rcllcxivcar-rd self-fulfilling view
of national cinenra, ()uc in which thc lrisr«rricrrl
subject/object becomes know
ledge of itself and nor the subject of knowlctlgc.
Writing a national cinem
a as a territorialised historical subject runs thc risk t5c1of colluding w
ith the idea of (re)producing the meaning (a history) of the
nation, of setting false boundaries that limit one's understanding of w
hat reallym
ight be occurring in terms of practices of pow
er and knowleclge (these are
points I will develop in a m
oment). A"d this ties in w
ith the other issue which
concerns the concept of value and the ideology of national cinema as a set of
binaries which start from
the primary one of H
ollyrvood/other. The problem
Iam
hinting at here is the risk we run of providing an essentialist view
of nationalcinem
as. Thus when D
udley Andrew states thar 'from
the standpoinr ofeconom
ies, there is but one viable national cinema * H
ollr,vood - and thew
orlcl is its nation' (L995 54) and when Le M
ond.e reirerates this idea bvdeclaring that 'there is no European cinem
a only American cinem
a, (àN
ovember 1996), w
e must be very chary of w
hat they are saying because -intentionally or not - such statem
ents feed into the essentialist approâch tonâtional cinem
a.Tom
o'Regan's (1996) discussion of Australian national cinem
a helps us seew
here we m
ight better go in our attempts at fram
ing nârional cinema - it is a
first set of steps in an alternative direction. There are no claims that these are
the only ones, but they do help move tl-re debate along as indeed w
ill othersw
hich I will com
e to in my fourth and final secrion.
Having established a triangular form
ation : film / natron /production
- compâny
as the praxis for a national cinema, o'R
egan (ibid.: 45) argues thar nationalcinem
as are a series of sets of relations between national film
texts, national andinternational film
industries, and the films' and industries, socio-political and
cultural contexts. This allows us to distinguish betw
een cinemas in dom
esticand international circulation. It also allow
s us to see a national cinema as being
'in conversation' with H
ollrvood and other national cinemas (i.e., H
olly,rvoodis not the only referent) (o'R
egan 1996: 115). Finally, it affords us rhe means
to see how these national cinem
as carve out a space (economic/m
arkey'audi-ence spaces) Iocally and internationally for them
selves in the face of thedom
inant international cinema, H
ollyrvood. That is the first point. second, we
are also talking here of the need for an interdisciplinary approach when dealing
with national cinem
as, which is som
ething that is no\M reâsonably com
monly
practised in film stlldies. Thus w
hat gets taken into account, in this context, iscinem
a in relation to its economic industrial base, but also in relation to film
and criticism, film
history, cultural studies and film, cultural policies and film
,political culture and film
. But, as o'Regan points out w
e are really in fact prac-tising national cinem
a analysis rather than answering the question ,w
hat isnational cinem
a)' (ibid.: 33a).
92r),1
lr trA,!llN(; N
A'.l'l()NAl (',lN
lÀl ,\\
I Iorr'«.r,r.r',,r nrrrjol stcl) l()r\\,irr(l is lirr'11t'tl u,lt«'tt tt'c lrlitrli tlrt'sc l\{/() (()tl(('l)Irrrrl ,rpprrr;rtlrcs logr'tlro': tlrc rclirtiorrrrl rrrrtl tltc intcltliseiplirrirry. ltt tlris tlotrIrlt'lr,rr';rnrr.lrit'(()nlcxt,:rs
()'l(cg,irrr cxlllltitts, nilti()ttill t'ittctttl ltccotttcs.tlt o[rjcct olkrrrrrvlcrlgc (ibitl.: 27) rttttl rr problcttr ol'kttow
lctlgc (ittitl.: 261 362):
. lrirst its .rn olticct of'hnon,lcd11c: thrrt is, cincrnir becotrrcs rr clotrtititt ilr w
lricltrlilli.rcrrt l<lrow
lcdgcs irb«rut nltional cincrna arc 1'rroclucccl (fi'orn protlttcli<»rrlo rcccptiott) itltt-l irrc [rrotrght it-tt«r rclatiotr.
. Sccontl, uirtionll cinctna bccom
cs/rr-ranifcsts itsclf ;rs t prllll(?u ql'
l;non,ltdllc: thlt is, by viewing cinem
a in a rclational ancl intcrtlisciplirrrrry(()lltcxt it docs not allow
fbr a 'naturalising' of the conccl'rt of'ttittiott;tltincrrrrr brrt ltthcr it c:tuses a callir-rg of things into question antl in so tkrittg,l',(.ncrrrtcs prr>blcr.ns in three areâs, the critical, thc political al.rcl p«rlicy-w
isc.
l'lrrrs tlrrcstions:rrisc tllat generate problems of know
ledge.
. (lliticrlly, thcse qlrestions bring us to ask is there such a thing irs llilti()llillt irrcrnrr rrncl w
hat purpose does it fulfilf.
I'oliricrrlly, what gets raised are questions of exclusion/incltrsi«rlt (ritcc,
1,,t'rrrlcr, irgc and so on)..
I'olicy-r,visc, here we ask questions about w
hat might Lrc thc cllt'cts ol'
Irrlrlic irncl private sector strategies (i.e., government/state, bttt als«r sttprrt
nrrtionrrl strâtegies (as in the European Union) versus/alongsidc thc pliv;ttc
sc('l()r strrtcgies of film and independent TV industries).
Irr otlrcl w«rrds, O
'Regan suggests that rather than talk about natiotrrtlisrtr irrrtl
rr.rliorr:rt cirrcr.nrr as exclusive terms w
e should seek to investigatc thc wir1, i1l
rvlriclr s«rcicty ls â national whole is problem
atised and the kind of ttitti()tl lllrllIr,rs lrccn projcctcd throw
gh such problemâtisation. In this regard w
c cittr lrcg,ittIo st'c cirrcrrr:r as an effect of and as affecting that problem
âtisation'So litr thcn w
hat this seems to help us do is to get aw
ay fron-r 'llistoricisirlp,tlv; ttrllott' lud to see em
erging (ideas of) the practices of powcr atltl klt«rw
lr.tlgc (thc vcry thing that nationalism
s in their discursivity attempt to c«»ttccrtl).
'l'lris rtpproach, the one suggested by O'R
egan, goes against thc ttrrrcissistit'noliorr «rl'sclf:rcflcxivity of w
hich historicity is a central practicc. Artcl it docsnr()l'c tl)rur cxp()sc thc 'm
asquerading' practices of the nâtion as ir citcli()ricill(()rrccl)t. Ycs, it show
s l'row the nation is im
agined (as subject t.rr.rd objcct in rrrttlol itscll) rturl how
it shapes objects and subjects in contemporary social prilcticc
ol u,lrich cirrcrnir is onc - all of this exposing of practices is alrcady a g<xrtl tltirrp,.llrrt tlris ir1'r1'rr«rlch irlso carvcs ()r-lt sprlccs that allow
Lts to re1)û.lue thc c()l)ccl)t ()ln,lti()nll cincr-r.rir. It r-nal<cs it p<>ssiblc to rctcrritori:rlisc thc r-rrrtitltr (to rcw
ritcl'.rrrl Virilio, cchoing, l)clcrrzc pcrhitps) n()l irs l)()ull(lctl, clctttirrcrrtctl rttttl tlistirletivc lrtrt rrs «rrc w
ittrin whiclr lxrtrrrtlutics r'onst,tnlly criss cr«rss b«rtlt lrrrpltirzirltlly
ttl ttttlttll.ttr'trll1'. l,ct rts ttorv l)tll§tl(' tlris itlc:r.
Itc-cvirhrating/rcvaluirrg tlrc c()rccpr urcl thc vrluc «rfnati«rnirl cilrcrn:r
Or: w
hy Marianne Jean-Bnptiste d.id lrntllo t0 C
annes (May 1997) a*d
Daùd Thew
lis d.id es l,a?,t of Britain,s special envoy of tbe new, yow
rgand. aspiringfaces of Britoin)s octors (as Thew
li.s bi.ruself pointei owt in
an interyiew he ,is ne,itber ylang nlr new
... !)Paul virilio speaks of boundaries no longer surrounding ancl dem
arcating a
territory, but of boundaries criss-crossing inside every rerritory (199I: g17).H
omi Bhabha ralks of 'national' cultures increasingly being produced from
theperspective of disenfranchised m
inorities (1990: 303-19). undeniably in non-w
estern nations and cultures Bhabha's comm
ents are strongly borne out bypractice. But tlere is now
evidence of this in western cultures and nations as
well, in that there has been a foregrounding of the m
argins of the nation-spaceof w
hich so-called marginal-cinem
a is but one manifestation. To quote Kristeva,
there has been a'demassificarion of the problem
atic of differencei (19g6:209),a questioning of the legitim
acy of the state-representing-the-nation, challengesto nationalist discourses w
hich represent the nation âs one. How
is this so, howdid it com
e aboutf ll/ell there are two partial answ
ers which I,d like to put
forward. First, the paradox of globalisation and the concom
itant valuation ofthe local - this has m
eanr that the parochial and ultimately/eventually the
periphery find a new relevance and im
portance within cliscourses of nationalism
.w
e look to signal our difference from other nations and in so doing look ro our
own sets of differences. llow
ever, and here is the problem, it is in that set of
differences that we seek ro forge our national identity as one: calling it m
ulticul_tural (i.e. different but as one) w
hereas in fact it is patently pluÀultural (i.e.segregated cultures) as those on the m
argins, occupying what Bhabha term
s (re-w
riting Fanon) the place of 'cukural undecidability' (I990: 304), never cease rom
ake evident. In fact what is presently going on in Europe (particularly w
ithinthe European union in term
s of nationalist discourses) is very revelatory.Europea, nations have becom
e) more evidently than ever before, ierritories of
struggles between com
peting subject positions, narrarives and voices, which
nationalist discourses attempt to w
in either by appropriating the cliverse culturesand placing them
under some sort of illusionist rainbow
coalition and inte-grated w
hole, or by some vain attem
pt to wipe out the traces of these struggles
(although not of Europe, the cultural and national history of south Africa isextrem
ely relevant in this context).A second point that needs to be m
ade about the ,e,franchisement, of
voices/cultures (that virilio, Bhabha and IGisteva speak of,) is that it is not just
the effect ofglobalisation, though that has played a significant role. It is also aneffect of an earlier ser of events - the effect of the post 1960s in the w
est, theI960s revolt against the lack of rolerance of difference that prevailed before. Ifw
e look at ttre pre-1960s discourses it is clear what a piofound effect the
94(rh
l9(rOs lrrrtl nlti()ns w
i«lc irrrrl irrtclnirtiorrirlly.'l'lrc srx'iirl t'cvolttliott ol'thc l9(r()sclcittc(l girps iurtl lcp,itirtrirtc spirccs lirl tlivcrsilicirtir»rt.ttttl tlrc lxrssibility ol'rzzltli'trltrrrirlisrrr grrps w
lrich irrc conslrrttly [tirrg t'cttcltotiittctl (rlcspitc tlrcililcnll)is irr tlrc IJI( trtrtlcr'l'lrltchcrisnr to w
ipc or.rt tlrc cllèct «rl'thc l9(r0s).Arr«l tlrc inrl'r<>rtirrrcc ol'thc r«rlc of cultural studics w
ithin this rcvolutiotr tnustrrr»t bc trudcrcstiuratccl in its u.raking visiblc thc'p<-rpular'and in turu thc rrrulti-plicity of points of diffcrclltiâtion. Thc rrrultiplication of points of diflLrcnrirrtiortIrrrs conrc t() m
câr1 an cxpansion of points of contact in the context of palpirltlctlivcrsity: i.r:. racc, class, agc, sexuality and/or gender. In otherw
ords, thc p«lliticrrl irnd thc scxed body have becom
e palpably visibilised. So too has thc b«rdy ol'othcr cxcludcd pcrsons. The ailing body.
Whrrt w
c can rlake of this enfranchisement andvisibilisation is that, w
ithirr rrlirrritctl sphcrc of cultural expression at least, identity co-existing w
ith dilll'rcntc(s) lrirs becom
e a reality - the very thing that nationalisms seck t<l clcny. 'l'hc
p;u.rtlox «rf a national cinema becom
es clear in that henceforth it will irlw
rrys irrirs lirrnting - go against the underlying principles of nationalism
and ['rc ilt cr()§sl)urJx)scs w
ith thc originating idea of the nation as a unified identity.lltrt, as is clear from
my earlier rem
arks on nationalisms, this is ll()t yct il
u,itlcly cnough practised reality. Not yet. N
ations are still powcr-rclntctl
('()ucrctc practices even though they disguise themselves as abstract hist<>ricisctl
srrhjcct-objccts (nineteen years of Thatcherism prove how
alivc this politicirlrlise trlsivc m
asquerading still is). In fact, the picture is complex becausc trltitttrs
.u'c b«rth things at once - ât the same tim
e - thus it is hard to makc a clistirrcti«rrr
lrt'lwccn w
hat nations really are and what tlley are m
asquerading as. AIrcl s() ()l'tc
rrrrrst bcwlre of invoking an'alternative'form
of essentialism as a solutiorr sincc,
irr thc lirrirl analysis, it merely m
irrors the practice of dominant idcology. lt is
n()t clr()ugh to sây that this invocation is part of a strategy of'dcnrystilÿirlg'(()necl)ts and practices that rule our life, valuable though that is. Arrtl irt nnr()nrcnt I shall attem
pt to oudine some w
ays in which w
e can tl-rirrk irncw tltc
(()nccpt of nation, nationalism, and the fram
ing of national cinema. Ilut bclillc
u'c 1r,ct tlrcrc I need to put in one more piece of the przzle.
It is important to recall, as Tom
O'R
egan (1996:305) docs, tltat tttrtttyn;rliorrs ilrc settler nations w
hich have practised various tactics of annihilrrti«rrr ol'tlrc irrtligcr-rous societies. M
any of these nation-states are ones that havc rcprotlrrcctl in the settler nation Europe and European nationalism
with its ultinrirtcly
proliruntlly anti-humanist principles (starting w
ith racist, colonialist atrocitics).Arrtl ir is irnportant to recall also that m
ost nations (whether sclf:cviclcutly
scttlcr-nations or not) practice some form
of apartheid or ânotl-Ier) lcgitinrrrtctl()r' r'r()t (l.rcncc the title of this section and its reference to M
ariantrc )crtrrItirptistc). Ancl this practisir-lg of apartheid includes nâtions that havc thcltrsclvcsbccrr victinrs of colonialisation or apartl.rcicl. So w
e are always in thc prcscttcc ol'
tlrc corrrlrlcx issuc of exclusion/inclusiotr. - thcrc is always an it.tvcsttucttt itt
rcprcssirrg hist«rry/r-ncrnrlry, ol'cvrtcultting tltc 'cokruisccl's' culturc ls rtlrcrrrtrtl,.rs rrbjcct. As l.ltlw
irrtl Slïtl says, irrrpcrirrlisnr/eolonirtlistrt is irtr act «rl'gcog,rrrphicrrl
SUSAN
HAYW
ARD
violence disguised as humanism
; it is a form of m
aking the colonised countryinto im
ages of what has been left behind (f990: 77).W
hat we are saying then is
that these practices occur not just between nation and colonised country but
they also happen within a nation-stâte. And the role of culture (w
ithin thenation-state as w
ell as the colonised/settler nations), the role of national cultureis (still) to suppress political conflict and disguise it as im
agination -iruage/ruatiotc - a function that is so clearly m
anifest in the very problematic
issue and conceptualisation of national cinema. For, to rew
rite ludith Buder(1993), there is still a cinem
a that matters and one that doesn't. IIow
ever, it isw
hen the latter penetrates into the material boundaries of dre form
er (material
in all the senses of the word: physical, econom
ic, etc.) that we jubilate because it
does cause fissures that allow for changes. W
e witness the effect of the 'occult
instability' of the peripherals (to quote Fanon 1990: 83).
Towards a fram
ing of national cinemas
Let us now look at this question of fissuring and see w
hat it tells us in thecontext of national cinem
as. I'm very m
uch tempted to subtitle these rem
arks:cineruils pathology arud. t'isw
nl cwltw
re - 0?' 'tyha.ls Fa.nln glt to do with itl
If we start from
the premise that H
olllwood's hegem
ony cân be viewed as a
nationalism (not necessarily a new
idea), then we can start to look at som
e ofthe issues of pow
er and knowledge (w
hich nationalism seeks to hide) in a very
interesting and destabilising way. In other w
ords, \Me can m
ake our own 'tech-
niques of trouble' (to re-write Butler 1990: 34) - that is, pose questions
provocatively (and in turn ensure that these questions filter on through to ques-tion other national cinem
a practices).[4rat I am
proposing to do here is to come back to the earlier essentialist
and binaried reading of national cinemas (as H
ollyvood/other which sets in
motion a chain of other binaries - e.g. Europe/other) and to rethink it both in
the light of the above framings and focusings and through a Fanonian optic.
And I want to speak first in term
s of what conceptualising H
ollyrvood's hege-m
ony as a form of patra-nationalisru m
ight produce, pd.l/ù, in the triple Greek
sense of n.eor-beyond.d.efective,/abnorruaL N
ear and beyond are I think quiteself-evident, the latter 'defective-abnorm
al' is less so and that is the one that will
be my m
ain focus. And it is here that I invoke Fanon and his reading of colo-nialism
and indeed alienation and madness (f990: 201-50). H
olly.wood has of
course effected forms of colonialism
, the first of which is econom
ic. Apart fromFrance, w
here Hollpvood 'only' takes around 60 per cent of the m
arket,Am
erican film-products garner 80 per cent (plus) of the w
estern European filmm
arket. The second form of colonialism
is cultural (dress-codes, eâting prac-tices, Am
erican look-alike movies and TV program
mes) etc. - know
n hostilelyas 'C
ocacolonisation'). According to Fanon, colonialism (w
hich is tr practicc r>fnationalism
) is a narcissistic practicc - :rn imposir.rg ()n thc c«rloniscrl '«rtlrcr' of
colonialist discourses and irlages: thc nlti<ln'c«rloniscs'itscllton to (in-tof ) tlrc
()6t)7
lrltAMl N
(; NA'l'l()N
Al' (ll N lllllAs
t.r»lorriscd botly. F)cort«ttnicirlly spcrrkirlg, ùt lclst, its wc ltrtt'c lrrst stirtctl, tlrc
Ilrritctl Stltcs is r.r()t cxct'llpt fiotn this cok>uisiug Prilcticc tll'irnP«rsirrg, its trwlt
irrrrtg,cs irtrrl cliscottrscs. Ancl its pirrl-trrrti«rnrrlist citrcttrir (Hollyw
«xxl) tttrtkcs tllis.rl,tr,rl,r1tly clcirr cvctr to thc 1-roint tlrat thc'col«ltrisccl'scck to intitrrtc tlrcI lollyw
ood proclnct (tl.rc cloncs cloncl).II,,*,"r.,j (br-rt/also) this sclf:rcflcxivity w
ithin colonialism protlttccs rrll sorts
ol'blindncsscs (racc, gender blindness, ctc.) whicl-r is ol cottrsc ir blintlncss (rr
vtsrrrrl tlctcctivcrless) that ilitiates from w
ithin ll.ttiorlalisnr. A prinrc cxittltplc ol'rlris Slip6pcss - as Fanon (1996:I0) m
akes clear through l.ris 1'rost-lilctrtliittlsli.rtcu)cnt,w
htrt does the black m
an wantf' - is blincincss to thc fàct tllirt scr
,urtl gcnclcr irucl race are inextricably linkei'l to aud involvcd in tltrtiotrirlisltl rttttlr lrcrrllirrc colonialism
(something w
hich the Scncgalcsc filnr-nrlkcr l)io1rM
rrrutréty adclresses right up front in his film H
yànes, 1992). i'-tlrthcrruorc, tltisscll rcflcxivity/narcissism
produces pathologies (the abnormal)' llut tlris tkrcs
rr.t jtrst take the f'orm of pathologising the culture of the'<>tl'rcr'as'lcss tltrtll'
1to ilrc pgint of erasr-lre, as could be argued is the case filr Sgrrth Atlicl lrrtl itseurcnrir,.'r'ro r1lem
ory, no identiry no identiry no natior1'). It irlso tirkcs tllclirrrrr ol'irn intcrnal set of pathologies w
hich in Hollyw
ood occur trotttttl its owlt
inrltrstrill practices, ftrr example, its current 'the budget is all' appr<xrch w
hcl'cllytlrc 1',rrcluction costs signify as M
lre than the actllâl Product (c'g','go rttrtl scctlris filrl l-rccause ir cosr x billion $'). cost, not the actual film
proclttct is whirt
nlirtrcrs. In this pathology, capitalistic pathology, money is thc sigr.r atltl rcli'rctlt
rrll rollccl into one. These internal pathologies also revolvc ar«luutl Hollyw
rx»tl's()\\/n l)irrticlllar sets of representations. For exam
ple, Hollyw
<xrcl's fitctts ottrvhirc rnlsculinity springs to m
ind and the consequent hystcricisirtit>tr ol"otllcrrrcss, w
ithin its own film
culture. Thus we think of the m
odcrtlisittiorr r»l'wllitc
rrrrscrrliuity in the 1930s and early 1940s (heroic and complcx chrrrlctcl'isrtti«rtt),
rlrc rhrcrlr r() it in the 1940s and 1950s (fitw ,xlir:)) the recollstrtlcti()rr ol'it itr
tltc lig6t 6f tl-rc 1960s and I970s into new m
asculinities, aucl of c<ltlrsc tt«rw lltc
1x»st-nroclcrnisation ar-rd virtualisation of white m
asculinity/ies <>vcr thc prtst tw
rr
tlccirtlcs - irs in Forrest Gum
p (a.k.a. Tom H
anks), sylvcstcr stlllotrc, ArrloltlSclrw
rrrzclcggcr. Rcpresentations w
hich ir.r this contcxt lead (trnir.rtcrtti«rltrrlly :rslirr rrs nltionalist discursiviry is concerned) to a perft)rm
allcc, ir clisplrly ol rttlcl.()tics of n:rtionalism
thror-rgh the male body that rcf'lccts tlre vcry piltll()l()g,ic§
lltcsc scts ()f rcprcsclltatiorls-as-a-discourse-of--I1âtior-ralisr-n scck to tlcny'
'l'5c wity iri w
hich thc bocly is a site of perfirrmancc in tilnr disPlirys yct
lirrrhcr c()ptradicti()us within thc conccpt/cottccPttlalisilti«rtt tlf 'ttitti«rtr' :ls ()llc
;rntl irrtlivisitrlc.'l'hc uitti()n prctcncls to bc gcndcr-uctttrrrl (in thrrt it PttrPorts ttrtliss.lvc tlil,ll.rcrrcc) rurcl yct thc w
onrirn's lrotly is closcly lliginctl/itlcnrilictl witlr
,rlti()llrlist tlisc«rur.scs. Wc figlrt rrnrl rlic lirr «rur ttl()t11cr-llilti()tr; w
hctr wc lc.tvc
\\,c rctur.n t() ()r.lr.urothcr-nrtti«rn; tlrc col«rrtisctl rcli'rrctl t«r tltc c«rkrnisirtgc().1tr.)/ rs 1r()tllcr.c()q1try. W
lrcrr'slrc'is irrvrrtlctl lry thc crrcrrty, slrc is'rrtpcrl'.Il,,rvcvcr, .rs M
irry l,iryorrrr srrvs (in .r s'«rntlctlirl tollcctiott <»l'cssitys clltitlc(l,\rtltrrrl
I lt1lnnortirs) 'tlrc rtrerirplrorit' crlttittiott ol' ittvi«rlrtblc wollt.ttt rtlltl
SUSAN
HAYW
ARD
inviolable motherland is as unsurprising as it is fearfully problem
atic' (L994:65). The sym
bolic equation mobilised by nationalist discourses goes âs follow
s:
violated motherland : violated w
oman
invasion by the enemy = rape of the m
other-land/wom
anrape = occupation of the m
other-body by t}Ie enemy
occupation = reproducrion of the enemy w
ithin the mother-body
It is inconceivable (para-logic is the term M
ary Layoun uses) within nationalist
discourses that the wom
an might choose to sleep w
ith the enemy. so it is not diffi-
cult to see that and why nationalist discourses do m
ilitate for a genderedproscription of agenry and pow
er (so that, implicitly agency becom
es naturalisedas m
ale), and that they use the very real concepr ofrape in an abstracr (but alsoextrem
ely concrete) \May to keep that proscription in place. R
ape, then, becomes
one way of eroticising rhe nation's plight in m
ale-driven narratives that haveappropriated the fem
ale body. But that isn't all. In these male-driven narrarives,
the female body by extension becom
es the site oflife and death of a nation, rhe riseand fall of a nation. And, by w
ay of an example, I am
thinking here of lean stelli'sfjJ.m
Le voile blew (1942) - a sado-m
asochistic fantasy based in naralist discourses.In stelli's film
the female body is appropriated by nationalist discourses that begin
with the representation ofttre fem
ale/mother-body
as rhe site oflife and death. Togive the context: the fem
ale proragonisr's hero-husband has just been killed in thew
ar, and this precipitates her prematurely giving birth to a son, w
ho then dies. Inturn, her body (and this is the core of the narrative) becom
es the site for natalistdiscourses - cruel post-natalist discourses one m
ight add - as in: 'there are lotsm
ore babies out there who need m
othering'which
is what the nurse declares to
the heroine, upon which she em
barks on a self-sacrificing life as nanny/-w
aruuo/proto-mother to the m
any (to the nation-state,s need ofmoüerhood).
Erotics is linked to image and display of the body and, therefore, to perfor-
mance. And it is tem
pting here to agree with Bruce Brasell that 'all nationalism
is performative' (w
hich it is if we take nationalism
as 'enunciation') (r99s: 30).But w
hile I agree that that is part of it, I think \Me can also say m
ore. And thisbrings m
e to the question of national culture. National culture is a producr of
nationalist discourses and is based in the principle of represenration and (ofcourse) repression. Before getting there, how
ever, let us start with the concept
of nation first. The concept of nation as constructed by nationalist discourses isone that is in constant denial. It is:
not concrete but abstractnot based in am
nesia but mem
ory/historynot gendered but gender-neutralnot anti-hum
anist but enlightenednot free and unbounded but dclineatcd, fixccl, uulrrrbiguousnot divided, scattered) flagurcntccl ['»ut unitcd
aaaaaa
FRAM
ING
NATIO
NAL C
INEM
AS
The fact that these discursive concepts of the nation are based in a 'fictional'representation of the nation does not m
ean that they do not have real effects.Indeed w
e have seen how it is that the nation m
asquerades as these, the concepts
create a reality which then acts upon actors' (those living the nation, thereforc
our) perceptions and behaviour. And it is here, as we shall see, paradoxically that
there is the glimm
er of hope, the fissuring mom
ent. Because the fact that natiottsare invented and fictional m
eans that they can be re-defined and re-appropriatctlby actors - in other w
ords, a re-possessing of the nation by excluded groups is1'rossible. And it is that very act of re -possession and re-definition that is lit'rcr-lting and em
powering not only because it claim
s a geo-social, geo-politicalrnd geo-psychological space but also because it show
s ineluctably thnt anclhow
there is something w
rong with the hegem
onic discursive practicc rtl:dcfining the nation exclusively and essentially as 'in constant denial'.
Before developing that point, however, let us first return to the sym
t'lolicvalue of the fem
ale body within nationalist discourses as a w
ay of discussing thcw
r.ise-erc-scèroe of national culture. We talked about the sym
bolic value of tltclcrnale body as a m
eans of playing out national insecurities (rape, natalisttliscourses, etc.). This sym
bolism disguises (albeit badly) real questions «rl'
l.r,cndered agency and power. W
ithin the shifting discourses of nationalisn.r, tlrcirnage of w
oman shifts accordingly and serves the im
age of the nation-statc (irrrliffcrent but analogous v/ays to the m
asculine body as evoked before; anal«rg«rttsbccause the body serves nationalist discourses; different, because agcncy :ttttll)()w
cr are invested in the male not the fem
ale body). Thus the maternal l'r«rtly ol'
t hc 1940s cinema in France m
ight well give w
ay to the liberated fernalc l'r«xly ol'rlrc 1950s/I960s. H
owever, the im
age of the liberated \Mom
ân scrvcs thcnlti()n-state just as m
uch as the maternal one . In the first, the display of' thc
'uv<rnlr'rrl's maternal body functions as a rn'ise-en-scène for the natiot-t's c()llccl'll
;rtrout demographic decline. In the latter, the liberated fem
ale bocly scrvcs thcnrli()r.r's im
age as modern and not reactionary. The sym
bolic use of tl.rc fcnrirlch«rtly is enough to tell us that nationalist discourses are invested in producirtg,
rt
nrlti()nal identity that is dialectically based in the principle of 'lack', lncl llrttnxti()r)al culture in this regard has as its starting (but disguised/abscnt)
p«rint:rlcnirrl, cleficiency/lacking and repression. In m
uch the same w
ay as natiottitlisrttsirrvcrrt nrrtior-rs w
here they do not exist, national culture does not rcprcsctrt whitt
is tlrcrc but âsscrts what is im
agir.red to be there: a homogct]isccl fixccl c()ttltll()tl
trrllrrrc. Nltional culture then participates in the practicc r>f rcprcssiott w
hich isirr itsclf rn rct ()r firrn.r «rf alicnation (starting w
ith tl.rc fàct tlut it irlicnirtcs wltrtl
rt errnrrot tOlcratc) - it crcîtcs il c()lnln()n cr,rlturc ir-r w
hich thc intlividtrrrl is uls0,r lit'natctl.
Wc crru rrow
bcgin to scc lrow in rcllti«rn to thc idcrr ol ttirriotrirl citrcttt:ts,
I lollyw<xrtl's ÿnro-n,tti<»r't.t lisrrr is 1'lrtlrokrgic - 'pnrn' in thc scttsc ol'ils irtlct'ttrtl
rr;rtiorrrrlist tliscrrrsivt' prrtcticcs ('ucirr'), 'lmrt' itt thc scrtsc ol' ils prottr
t olrrrrirrlist l)l'ictic('s ('lrcyorrtl'). 'l\rn'in llrc scnsc tlrrrt, lrotlr ncitt'rttttl lrcy«rrttl, ilsn;lti()nillisnt is irIrrrolrrrrrl irrrtl tlcli'ctivc irr tlrc lirrirl;rn,rlysis, it rcllccts to itscll'its
98lr()
()wl) slriltcgics ()l rc[)r'cssiott:trttl .rlicrr.rlrorr.rl llrt s.rrrrc linrt';rs il .rltcrrrpls
clcsPcpllç1t rl()t l() tltt s<,. lt is rrrrrvittirrLlll r'()unl('r'rr.ut'rssistir' il trlr,rst's ilsow
n ideological practices. And this is rrn irrrportrrnt point t() nrîkc bccrrrrsc, rrsFanon so rightly points out, pow
er and knowlcclge w
ithin color.rialist l)r-:reticcs(w
hich as we recall function narcissistically) are not generally visiblc arrapr w
hcnthere is the visibility of difference (i.e. m
arked by colour/race) (1990: 29-30).To w
hich I would add the audibility of difference. Language and language of
the body. And Holllw
ood's ability only to reflect itself to itself, to repear irsdiscourses inter- and extra-nationally, is both its strength and its w
eakness(strength as in econom
ically predatory, weakness as in endlessly self-reflexive ). It
denies and senses its own alienation - it repeats its ow
n 'success formuias' and
buys up, to remake (Am
erican-style), the successes of other national cinemas.
This major film
production industry is then the biggest recycling dream factory
in the West.
'So whatf ' you m
ight ask, 'does this tell us about framing nâtional cinem
asf '.Im
plicit in what I
have been sayng about the marernal body as
occupied/colonised is the notion that the colonising culture will insert itself
into the indigenous cultural body and be reproduced by 'her' - in short culturalrape. But also cultural erâsure ('no m
emory, no identiry no nation'). N
othinghow
ever stays still. In every colonialism a post-colonialism
is implicit. And this
brings me back to considerations of Fanon and his discussion of the role of the
native poet and the production of national culture (Fanon \990 166-99).Because it is here that the concept of national cinem
as reveals its importance.
For my purposes, I shall read the term
native poet as âlso native poet-film-
maker. According to Fanon, in the evolution from
colonialism to postcolonialism
there are three mom
ents: pre-liberation, liberation and post liberation. During
the colonised period, the native poet-film-m
aker experiences a double sense ofalienation: alienation fr"orn his/her ow
n society and with,in that of the setder
nation. Alienation, we recall, is doubly experienced by the colonising narion.
But the latter's alienation (that of the colonialist) is the result of denial andrepression of 'otherness,/difîerence'. The form
er's (the colonised) alienationresults from
exclusion as 'othey'different'. The essentialised alienation of theone is not the sam
e as the existential one of the other - and that also is why
change can occur and nationalisms ultim
ately can function differently. As indeedFanon goes on to m
ake clear. The native poet-film-m
aker must progress, ârgues
Fanon, from the pre-liberation m
oment of denouncing his (I add her)
oppressor to the liberation mom
ent of acting as mediator joining the people to
their suppressed history. The native poet-film-m
aker) w
ârns Fanon, must not
however dw
ell nostalgically on that pre-history, that pre-their-past, and erect itas the cultural artefact that w
ill stand for the nation. Insteâd, the poet-film-
maker m
ust negotiate that pre-history throlrgh the colonitrl past ar-rcl calleverything into question (problem
atise it to recall O'R
cgarr's tcrnt) rtnd rlo s<rby addressing his/her ow
n people, by rntrkirrg r funtlrrurcrrt:rl corrccssion «rl'tlrcselftoothers-tom
akcthcpcoplctl'tclub.|rrt rrottlrt'oltjtrttil'lris/lrcr'.ut.()r)lv
l(x)l() I
llt \ÀllN(l N
/\ll()fn"\l ( lr!l^l'\"
It,rnt tll.tl l1o1l(nl (lltr'post lttrt't.tliotr lll(,lll( lll ),'..t1': l;.tttott, \'lll '\\'('' spt"llt olr rr.rtrort.tl (trltllt('. rvlri,lr is.l ((llltll('ol
totttlr'tl irr tlr'rt it t'rlls otl lltt'rtltolt'l,( ()l)l(. t() lilqltt li»' llrt.il t'xislt'ntt' .rs :r rt:tliott
lo lt'.tvt' :lll(l l() ltt.tli.t' lt,ttt s. Il ts.r , rrllurt. ol t.orlllrrl lrt.t.tusc il tttotrltls lltc rt:t(iottrtl (()lls(i()tlsll('ss lrotlt lrt'r,,rrrrrr,, it lirr.nr:rrrrl (()llt()uls tttti l',y llirrgirrg ollcrr llcl'trl'c it tlt'u':ttttl llotttttllt""lr.u/()ns. liirrrrlly it is,t cttlttttt'()l ('()llll)xt Irccrtttsc it ltssrttttcs lcsllorrstlrilrlt"trrtlrr r,, tlrt.$,ill tll litrcrly cxP|cssctl irr tcflrrs tll tirrrc,ilrtl sPrttt'.'l'ilttt'rttttl sP.ttt',lltt', r r rrr,'.rrrilrq ol'r'ittt'ttt:t.
lirrl §,lrrrl is tlrc tcrritoly lllrll rl'nlrli«rrrirl'cittctttrr occttPicsf Iiot'eittt'ttl.t is ttot
r l,rrrt.p;9tltr.'t. It is irtIcrcptly a lry[rritl 6l'lttrttly crtltttt'cs' Irc tllcy ('(()ll()llli(,lr:.. rrrsivc, ctltrtic, scxctl rrtltl tltorc. It cxists rts:t cttllrtt'rrl Illisccgcrtlttioll"t tlct'Plyrrrrr r.r l.rirr protlgct, thcrctirrc, ls to its hcritrrgc palriw
Loittt,:ts lltt' lltt'ttt lt 1'tllrt, nr.rl(('s tlrc poitrt trtorc clcirrly. W
ho allcl whcrc is tlrc lirtlrer'f W
llilc it rrr'rt'nr,rl(.t'l() lrcgctuotty, it tlttcS lt()t t() cillclllrt itt lltltl of itscll. liol it is 't pt otlttt li'rtt
'r lr,,rr. te pt'otlttCcrs :.rre W
itlC irllcl SC
,tttcrccl ltlcl ttot ()llc t)()t .t silrglc ttt'tlt't'tt'll
1,,,,1y, rr,r'rr l6rrc pltrilrchll orrc. N
or is it solcly thc ol liprirrg ol'tttrttt't tt.tl .ttt,ll,rlrr,rrtlt:tl rlisc«rttrscs. Its ltlorcncss, its hytrriclity chrrllcllg'cs lllc tlt"ttllittcss ol1,.rtrr,urlr.tl (:rncl rnoclcrlrist) binary th«rught. It is, irl tltc crttl, rts tttrtt'lt rtlrottl llttr,rr,l ,lillt.r.crrcc irs is thc hunran body. Lr othcr w
t>rtls, it is es rrrtlltitttlltrr':tl irr ilrrr{.urin1,. rrs tltc tratiot-t is, tinirlly, pluriculttrrll. Alltl this is ir lilrtlrcl r'v'ty irr rvllit lrr rr,rtrorr.rl cincnn cau probletlatisc a tlati<lu - by cx1-rositl1.l, its rlt;tstltr('l'l(l('olIr trl \' ( s('(' lrllovcr, p. 94).
\, lr.\r,t)()w
t() speak of fi-aming rutional citrctttlsf 'l'his w
ritirrg, ()l ir ll;lli()ll.ll, rl( lnit is oltc thlt rcfuscs to historicisc thc l-tlttiolt rrs strbicct/otrictl itr 'tttrl olrr,,,.ll lrrrl rrrrkcs it a subjcct and objcct of know
lccllic''l'his (iilc:rl) u'tilittl', "1 'trr.rlrrrr,rl eiltcttrrr is otle that is investcd in (clcfining) trlltiotrrtl ctlllttt'll tlistotttst'rr,. ,yrli .rssilrilationist, anti-intcgratiot-list aucl pr9 irltcgrllislrr. It is ortc u'ltit lt,l,.lvr.s tlccp itrto tl-rc PàtholO
gics of ui-rtitltlirlist cliscottrscs lttttl t'xpost s l ltt.,1.rrrlr.lie pr,rcticcs of thesc fornrs of cnutrciltiott. Irirrirlly, tlris li:rrrrirrl', ,lrr.rlrorr.rl eittctttl-rs is otlc w
hich perceivcrs cittctttl-t îs ir 1')rlcliCC
lltrtt sltottltl ttol, r,rtrt.:ll slt'uC
turcs of powcr ancl know
lctlgc but wltich slrotrltl Iitttttit'tt 'tr 'r
tln\!.t.)t sr.r:rrr,«>f scrtttcrccl ancl ciisscnrbling iclcntitics:rs wcll lls li'lttttttt'tl sttl',t',
rrr rlit s rrrrtl fiegntcntctl hcgct-rtouics.
BibliograPhY\rr,lt lsort, li. (199 I ) Irun.llirrri O
owruu'ttitics, Lotltlotl: Vcrso'
,\rr,lrtrr', l) (1995)'Apprlising, lirctlchIltrrigcs',WidcAn11lr l(r'3: 5'i oo'
lilr.rlrlr.r, ll. (t.rl.) (l99lt) Nttiorr a.nd N
t.rntl.i|il, Lotttlort: l{otrtlt'tlgt'.Itr.rscll, lri.l{. ilr)t)5)'(]rrccr N
.rtiorrrrlisnr.rrrrl tlrc Mrrsitrrl lirrg llrtslrirtl', ol lolttt (irtvsott"'
Iltt llrrl'itt.rt ol'll'lorrslttt', Widr Artllr l(r, 'i: 27 ltl'
l,,rrrlr.r, | (l()()0) (ir'rrdrr'li.orrltlr; l:rtrtitri.vtr rrrtrl tlrr ,\trltt,n'.çirttt ol'llnttitt',I otttlotrr l(.ttlIt rlllt'
1 l()().i) /lrrr/lr,r tlttt Àlttnrt.: ()rt tlrr llr.rrrrtrivt l,rttrrt, rr/ "\r.r'', l,otttlott: l(otttlttll',t'
S USAN
HAY\-Ir'AR
D
l,rl1ltr,rr,'l'. (1990)'Nationalism
: Irony and Com
mitm
enr,, in Eagleton, lameson and
S.rril (ctls).lr.rglctrrrr,'l'., /am
eson, F. and saïd, E. (eds) (1990) Nntionalistn, colonialisw
and Litera-tw
rc, intro. S. Deane, M
innesota: University of M
innesota press.L,rikson, T.H
. (1993) Ethnicity and Nationalisru: Anthropological perspecTittes, London:
Pluto Press.Fanon, F. (1990) Tbe W
retched. of the Earth, preface J.-p. Sartre, trans. C. H
arrington,Ilarm
ondswort h : Penguin.
- (1996) Blach Shin, W
hite Masks, trans. C
.L. Markm
ann, London: pluto press.G
ellner, E. (f983) Nations and N
ationnlistn, Oxford: Blackw
ell.G
rewal, I. and Kaplan c. (eds) (1994) scattered. H
egeruonies, Minnesota: university of
Minnesota Press.
Hâll, P. (1997) 'N
ationalism and H
istoricity', Nations and. N
otionalisru 3,l: 3e4.Kristeva, l. (1986) 'w
omen's Tim
e', in T. Moi (ed.) The r{risteva R
eader, oxford: Black-w
ell.Layoun, M
. (1994) 'The Female Body and "Transnarional,, R
eproduction; or, Rape by
Any Other N
amef ', in G
rewal and Kaplan (eds).
O'R
egan, T. (1996) Awstralian N
ational Cim
erua, London: Routledge.
Saïd, E. (1990) 'Yeats and Decolonizarion', in Eagleton, lam
eson and Sard (eds).sm
ith, A.D. (1996) 'M
emory and M
odernity: Reflections on Ernesr G
elrner's Theory ofN
ationalism', N
otions and Nationalisru 2,3: 37L--BB.
smith, A.D
. and Hutchinson, l. (eds) (1994) N
ationalisw, oxford: oxford university
Press.virilio, P. (1991) The I'ost D
itnension, trans. D. M
oshenberg, New
york: semiotext(e).
I ()2I0.t
7
THEM
E,S OF N
ATION
Mette H
jort
N.rriorr:rl cinem
as, it has been argued (Higson 1989, 1995), are to ân im
portantr rrr'rrl lhcrnatically defined, yet little has been said about w
hat exactly consti-trl(\ llrc relevant them
es. My aim
here, then, is to identi§r some of the key
lr,rrrrrts oltthemes of nation. In the course of m
y discussion, I draw on exam
-
lrlrr llorrr contemporary D
anish cinema. I argue that them
es of nation arerop1t.ql, rrlthcr thân perenniâl, and involve a Process of m
arking and flaggingtlr,rt rlrstingr-rishes them
from instances of banal nationalism
. I further contendtlr,rt .r1',t'rrts cngaged in the construction of a national cinem
a emphâsise a loose
,,r trrl ol ;rlroutness which is constitutive, not of them
es of nation, but of banalil,rlr' ril.llisll).
'l'lrcme âs national policy| The case of contem
porary Danish
cinema
lrr l()()l{, thc t)anish Film Institute presented an am
bitious'Four-Year Plan',rrrtlrrun1,, ,r scries of strategies designed further to develop the D
anish filmtr' lr r,,l r \'. Argu rrcnts having to do w
ith economic viability figure centrally in the
'lrrrrr Yc.rr l'lan', but they are complem
ented throughout by a consistettt,ril, nrl)l ltl:rrticulate a set of artistic and cultural visions, one of w
hich concernstlrr ( i)nslructi<>u of â nâtional culture through film
. The document repeatcdly
, rrrl,lr,rrist's thc ncccl to fbster opportrutities allowing film
-makers to reflcct,
, \lrli,r( .rrrtl iutrrginativcly invent Danish realities:
l'lrt'poirrt «rl'thc l)irnish Fihn Ir.rstitutc is to bc tl-re key sitc fi>r ensttrirtgtlr.rr l)rurcs ru'c prL:scntcd w
ith rrrtistically clualificcl ofïèrin15s in irrtrrr, rr'.rsirrg,ly gkrbrrl rrtcdir cttltttrc. 'fhc Instittrtc's sttpport policy is t«rl,,il.il.urlcc thc rrvrrilebility of lilnls thirt cxprcssr r r I I r r r'(', l.rngrt;t11c, rrrrtl irlcnt ity.
rrrrtl srrstrrin lhnish
(An«rtt. l99tl: (r)
lr,rrrrrlr lilnr nlrk«.r's, it rv«»trltl ill)l)cilrt ill('l() [)('t'rtt'otttltl4ctl to tttthc ltlttts tlnttlIt.rrr,,,.rrrrl llrctl torrrrtr'\,. [)ot's it lirllorv tllilt l)()lit.v ttt;tkt'ts (()tl('('l'll('(l rvitll tlrc