FRAMING NATIONAL CINEMAS

FRAMING NATIONAL CINEMAS

Swsan

lloyward.

In this chapter I want to address a series of questions which the concept "national cinema' raises and to argue the case that debates around what is national cinema are still extremely important ones to be hang, as indeed is the production itself of a national cinema (whatever rhar might happen to mean). I should make the point too that, as general editor of the National Cinema Series for Rcrudedge (since 1989), I am acutely aware that the narional of cinemas has been quite uppermost in my mind for over ten years now; and I am also acutely aware that there are no esy definitions - nor do I seek to establish any. What I do bear in mind, however, is Terry Eagleton's statement that 'To wish class or nation away . . . is to play straight into the hands of the oppressor' (1990: 23). In the light of the above comments, the questions I am raising are: \{/hat is the value of a 'national' cinemaf What needs does it fulfilf How can we think in terms of framing or conceptualising itf W4rat function does it servef And, why is it still extremely important to be talking about itf
Introduction: natiorl nd culture
Clearly, strting point is to turn to the debates around the key concepts of nation, national identity(ies), nationalism and culture as ways to help clarify some issues in relation to national cinema and to enable us to pose ottrer questions or to question differently what is ment by national cinema. And my introductory comments, which will be reasonably brief, are going to pull on the work of Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson, Anthony Smith, Patrick Hall and Thomas Erikson - because between them we can come up with a first set of useful rubrics (or key words) for leading our discussion of framing national cinemas. These key words which I have established in relation to the concept of nation constitute net triumvirte: tht of history-ruasqaerade-syrubolisru. Let me lay these before you and trlr t6 .rrrntt what I mean. Gellner (I983: 55-6) argues that nationalism invenrs narions where they do not exist and not the other way round. In other words, to quote Smith, 'natiorlalism is an ideological movement for the attainment iurcl rrraintcn:rncc of (thc) unity and identity of a human populati<>u sl.raring:rn historic tcrrirory'(1996:
88

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. communities 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 identities are also constructions and equally get passed off as 'natural'. As such, then, they too are not 'natural', and to identify culture with a particular identity is to reify 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 though it were a constant and also distinctive, but it isn't. Nationalism leads us to think in terms of bounded cultural objects. That is, cultural artefacts are rnod.e (in the French sense of fabr'iqw lfabricated] and oblig lobligedl) to represent a nation, to function as evidence of the nation's distinctiveness. And the question that immediately pops into my mind is: 'is the cuckoo clock as intrinsically Swiss as Orson Welles would have us believef '. The question is of course why there is this need to reify culture in such a way| V/hy is there the need to create ntion, a social cultural communityf Ancl lastly why is nation hyphenated to sttef A first answer is the importance of wholeness, of belongingness. As Erikson says: 'an important aim of nationalist ideology is to ... ?'ecre.te a sentiment of wholeness and continuity with the past t<> transcend that alienation or rupture between individual and society that mod.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 words, nation comes to stand for/in for lost issues/concepts/realities of kinship and family obligations. This is why, argucs

Flrikson (ibid.: 108), threats to the nation get read as issues of kinsl'rip ancl fmily. The nation becomes a collective individual that one dies for (the fathcr()r more particularly and pertinendy, the motherland). Or again, the nation is a collcctive (female) individual tht suffers rpe at the hands of the enemy. Thus a ckrscd, self-referential, even vicious circle gets established whereby one conccpt

fccds the other: threat to nation leads to (manifestations of) Idnship, ancl kinship leads to nationalist discourses (in the name of the mother natiorl etc.) i.c., :r nationalism which in turn engenders the notion of nation. Each conccpt a grounded reality, disguising the fact that, as such, thcsc arc
ruasqwerad.es as
i

rrugincd abstractions.

'l'his closcd discursive circle nonetheless does the trick: it bounds thc notirrr ol' nrtion tr the individual and has an embodied ideal (the maternal [rocly).

'l'hcrc lrc ()thcr boLlnctings at play however, between nation and state . Thc statc is n lcgal and political concept, and is not a community. The nation firr its part is

tlcfinccl irs ir s<>ciirl cultr.rral community aucl yct it is onc tht lrlust cornply with thc strrtc. Nrrtionirlist cliscourscs arrrrnd culturc work tr fbrgc thc link - thc hyphcn - bctwccrr nti()u rnd stntc. Nntirnrrlist tliscotrrscs ct thcll to nrnkc tlrc 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'rrirtirn t() stiltc

l)rilcticc

89

SUSAN HAYWARD

FRAMING NATIONAL CINEMAS

persuasive essay

(literally by hlphenating it), the state has legitimate agency over and of the nation. Another closed, self-referential circle is born, therefore: the state is founded in the nation and the nation is constituted as the state. As Erikson says: 'the distinguishing mark of nationalism is by definition its relntionship to the state. A nationalist holds that political bound.aries should be coterminous with cwbwrol boundaries' (ibid.: 6, emphasis added). And of course the standardisation of culture is one very important way of forming the nation-state, of founding cultural boundaries that then become political boundaries. The
obvious example of this is educatiorr. but one cannol underesmate the importance of visual and print media and their role in disseminating this relationship between nation and state - a role which cinema necessarily shares. A third very important point is how is this abstract and therefore potentilly unstable concept of nation securedl Rather than secured, we would say that it becomes consecrated as a concept by its invocation as a historical subject. As Smith (1996: 375) says, nationalisms have an investment in the past (why for example were national costumes inventedl what do they meanf ). Nationalisms
are forged in part in an apprehension (a seizing and remodelling) of the past. Nationalisms 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 territorialisation of memory. Memory here stands for collective memory) a shared culture, shared memories of a collective past. All well and bad/so far so clear. But memory also means amnesia and, as Smith goes on to say, 'the importance of national amnesia and getting one's own history wrong (is essential) for the of national solidarity' (ibid.: 382). We need only think all too France to realise the self-serng

on nationalism and historicity, the nation is not a 'historical subject, but instead a social relation of power and knowledge'. What has

happened, he argues, is that this relation has'become rep?'estnted. as a discursivc rgime where the nation d,ppe.rs to be the historical subject' (1997:3, emphasis added). In otherwords, the concept of nation is disguised, masquerades as at.t abstract'out-there-ness'while (also already) being a set of'concrete practices ()l power orld. hnowled.ge' (and I am reminded here of parallels we could establish with mainstream cinema and the construction of the feminine 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 mobilise the nation into 'tt surrogte religion of modern 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: (which is) a 'fictional', one might say pathological, constructirtt 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 alicnirtion, that of individual life into collective anonymiry.

Debates around national cinemas

maintenance

briefly

of the post-occupation period in

purpose and necessity of national amnesia.

Nationalism's investment in history to create its nation and its identity means that the modern nation is built on shared memories of some past or pasts that
can mobilise and unite its members. Memory is then very much bound to the notion of place, to a homeland and therefore to identity. Memory is, as Smith says, 'crucial to identiry. In fact one might almost say: no memory, no identity; no identity, no nation' (ibid.: 383). What happens then to a nation newly

emerging from colonialism, postcolonialism or post-apartheid) To a nation - in other words - that has suffered erasure of its own collective memoryf This is a point 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, ewed in this context the nation is constructed as a historical subject from nationalist discursive practices. Now, according to Hegel's dehnition of history, history becomes knowledge of itself - both subject and object * and not the subject of knowledge. In Hegelian terms, history is then very selfregarding/self-reflexive. Another closed-circle. As a historical subject, thc nation becomes itseif a self-regarding concept/objcct, displayiug a narcissism that conceals what really is at stake, uarncly practiccs rt powcr nurl knowlcdg,c (the real firnction of thc (nation-)stirtc). Ifut slys l'irtrick IIrrll, in lris clcvcr irntl 90

It will be fairly self-evident that in the light of the above comments therc will rrlwirys be problems in defining 'national' cinema. Yet it is a fruitftil, altrcit as 'lirrn O'Regan (1996:2) puts rt, tmessy affoir. In defining/framing a nationrrl cirrcrra, or is it the natonaI of a cinema, what is instructive re the discottrscs rrrobilised to do so - what they include and exclude; how they choose t<> liantc nlrlttcrs; the assumptions and presuppositions they make. These framir.rgs - lrc tlrcy rr matter of mappings/typologies, be they structuralist, political or cultttrrtl rrll tcrrd to setthe very territory of the nation orod,artefact, and the ltati()tt ,rJ rrrtclirct. In other words, they assume a one-to-one relationship l'rctwccn 'culttrral artefact' - 'cultural identity' - 'nation/national identity': in otlrcr w<rrtls, thc artefact'film'speaks of/for/as the nation. [4rile of coursc tllis is itr l)xrl tnrc, there are significant problems with this set of assumptions, whiclr I'll (()nlc t() in ir minute. A second set of problems is that these discourscs/friuDirrg,s It.rrtl to assurre/infer that a nation is in place as it moves through history in its own pcculiar dcvelopment. Europe warns us that this is an unstablc Prlcticc (rurrl I lur rcminded here of the sigh of relief from the alrthor, who origirritlly

rvrrs to writc thc Sovict ntional cinema book, when the Soviet Uttion dissllvctl 'rr<w', lrc clcclarcd,'l need only write the Rwssian National Cirrct-na trtlok'). liirrrrlly thcsc clisc<>urscs, at least in thc West, ineluctably fi"arnc thc'r'titiottitl' ,rgrrirrst tlrc tlonrinirncc of Hollywood - whicl.r is uscfirl aucl urt uscful '- bccrtttsc it rcrlrrccs thc itlcir rltl nltionll cincura to ccrrutics r>f scalc rrntl tltcrclilrc trr ()nc c()nccl)t <l' polwc: nirnrcly, ccortorttic wcllllcirrg,. It rrlsr rctlttccs thc itlcrlrtgy ()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 lxtrrtrlctl trrltrrrirl irltclittl'protltttt's l Iirst sct ol'problcttts.

()l

lr

trA,!llN(; NA'.l'l()NAl (',lNll ,\\

'l'lris tcrritorirtlisrrlitt tttitl<cs cittcrrr;r irrto,r lrrstolit.rl sulrjcet.

ar-rd self-fulfilling view of national cinenra, ()uc in which thc lrisrrricrrl subject/object becomes knowledge of itself and nor the subject of knowlctlgc. Writing a national cinema as a territorialised historical subject runs thc risk t5c1 of colluding with the idea of (re)producing the meaning (a history) of the nation, of setting false boundaries that limit one's understanding of what really might be occurring in terms of practices of power and knowleclge (these are points I will develop in a moment). A"d this ties in with 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 Hollyrvood/other. The problem I am hinting at here is the risk we run of providing an essentialist view of national cinemas. Thus when Dudley Andrew states thar 'from the standpoinr of economies, there is but one viable national cinema * Hollr,vood - and the worlcl is its nation' (L995 54) and when Le Mond.e reirerates this idea bv declaring that 'there is no European cinema only American cinema, ( November 1996), we must be very chary of what they are saying because intentionally or not - such statements feed into the essentialist approch to
nrrtirlt - 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:rcllcxivc

lt

st;rrrtls

lirr tlrc

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 ol krrrrrvlcrlgc (ibitl.: 27) rttttl rr problcttr ol'kttowlctlgc (ittitl.: 261 362):

. .

lrirst its .rn olticct of'hnon,lcd11c: thrrt is, cincrnir becotrrcs rr clotrtititt ilr wlriclt rlilli.rcrrt l<lrowlcdgcs irbrut nltional cincrna arc 1'rroclucccl (fi'orn protlttcli<rr lo rcccptiott) itltt-l irrc [rrotrght it-ttr rclatiotr. Sccontl, uirtionll cinctna bccomcs/rr-ranifcsts itsclf ;rs t prllll(?u ql' l;non,ltdllc: thlt is, by viewing cinema in a rclational ancl intcrtlisciplirrrrry (()lltcxt it docs not allow fbr a 'naturalising' of the conccl'rt of'ttittiott;tl
tincrrrrr brrt

ltthcr it c:tuses a callir-rg of things into question antl in so tkrittg, l',(.ncrrrtcs prr>blcr.ns in three ares, the critical, thc political al.rcl prlicy-wisc.

l'lrrrs tlrrcstions:rrisc tllat generate problems of knowledge.

. . .

t irrcrnrr rrncl

(lliticrlly, thcse qlrestions bring us to ask is there such a thing irs llilti()llill what purpose does it fulfilf

ntional cinema.

I'oliricrrlly, what gets raised are questions

of

exclusion/incltrsirlt (ritcc,

Tom o'Regan's (1996) discussion of Australian national cinema helps us see where we might better go in our attempts at framing nrional 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 will others which I will come to in my fourth and final secrion.
Having established a triangular formation : film/ natron/production - compny as the praxis for a national cinema, o'Regan (ibid.: 45) argues thar national cinemas are a series of sets of relations between national film texts, national and international film industries, and the films' and industries, socio-political and cultural contexts. This allows us to distinguish between cinemas in domestic and international circulation. It also allows us to see a national cinema as being 'in conversation' with Hollrvood and other national cinemas (i.e., Holly,rvood is not the only referent) (o'Regan 1996: 115). Finally, it affords us rhe means to see how these national cinemas carve out a space (economic/markey'audience spaces) Iocally and internationally for themselves in the face of the dominant international cinema, Hollyrvood. That is the first point. second, we are also talking here of the need for an interdisciplinary approach when dealing with national cinemas, which is something that is no\M resonably commonly practised in film stlldies. Thus what gets taken into account, in this context, is cinema 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 we are really in fact practising national cinema analysis rather than answering the question ,what
is

1,,t'rrrlcr, irgc and so on). I'olicy-r,visc, here we ask questions about what might Lrc thc cllt'cts ol' Irrlrlic irncl private sector strategies (i.e., government/state, bttt alsr sttprrt nrrtionrrl strtegies (as in the European Union) versus/alongsidc thc pliv;ttc sc('l()r strrtcgies of film and independent TV industries).

Irr otlrcl wrrds, O'Regan suggests that rather than talk about natiotrrtlisrtr irrrtl rr.rliorr:rt cirrcr.nrr as exclusive terms we should seek to investigatc thc wir1, i1l rvlriclr srcicty ls national whole is problematised and the kind of ttitti()tl lllrll Ir,rs lrccn projcctcd throwgh such problemtisation. In this regard wc cittr lrcg,itt Io st'c cirrcrrr:r as an effect of and as affecting that problemtisation' So litr thcn what this seems to help us do is to get away fron-r 'llistoricisirlp, tlv; ttrllott' lud to see emerging (ideas of) the practices of powcr atltl kltrwl r.tlgc (thc vcry thing that nationalisms in their discursivity attempt to cttccrtl). 'l'lris rtpproach, the one suggested by O'Regan, goes against thc ttrrrcissistit' noliorr rl'sclf:rcflcxivity of which historicity is a central practicc. Artcl it docs nr()l'c tl)rur cxp()sc thc 'masquerading' practices of the ntion as ir citcli()ricill (()rrccl)t. Ycs, it shows l'row the nation is imagined (as subject t.rr.rd objcct in rrrttl ol 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'rrrlch irlso carvcs ()r-lt sprlccs that allow Lts to re1).lue thc c()l)ccl)t ()l n,lti()nll cincr-r.rir. It r-nal<cs it p<>ssiblc to rctcrritori:rlisc thc r-rrrtitltr (to rcwritc

national cinema)' (ibid.: 33a).

92

tivc lrtrt

l'.rrrl Virilio, cchoing, l)clcrrzc pcrhitps) n()l irs l)()ull(lctl, clctttirrcrrtctl rttttl tlistirle rrc wittrin whiclr lxrtrrrtlutics r'onst,tnlly criss crrss brtlt lrrrpltirzirltlly
rrs

ttl ttttlttll.ttr'trll1'. l,ct rts ttorv l)tlltl('

tlris itlc:r.
r),1

Itc-cvirhrating/rcvaluirrg tlrc c()rccpr urcl thc vrluc rf

natirnirl cilrcrn:r
Or: why Marianne Jean-Bnptiste d.id lrntllo t0 Cannes (May 1997) a*d Dad Thewlis d.id es l,a?,t of Britain,s special envoy of tbe new, yowrg and. aspiringfaces of Britoin)s octors (as Thewli.s bi.ruself pointei owt in an interyiew he ,is ne,itber ylang nlr new ... !) Paul virilio speaks of boundaries no longer surrounding ancl demarcating a territory, but of boundaries criss-crossing inside every rerritory (199I: g17).

writing Fanon) the place of 'cukural undecidability' (I990: 304), never cease ro make evident. In fact what is presently going on in Europe (particularly within the European union in terms of nationalist discourses) is very revelatory. Europea, nations have become) more evidently than ever before, ierritories of struggles between competing subject positions, narrarives and voices, which nationalist discourses attempt to win either by appropriating the cliverse cultures and placing them under some sort of illusionist rainbow coalition and integrated whole, or by some vain attempt to wipe out the traces of these struggles (although not of Europe, the cultural and national history of south Africa is extremely relevant in this context). A second point that needs to be made 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 an effect of an earlier ser of events - the effect of the post 1960s in the west, the I960s revolt against the lack of rolerance of difference that prevailed before. If we look at ttre pre-1960s discourses it is clear what a piofound effect the
94

tural (i.e. different but as one) whereas in fact it is patently pluultural (i.e. segregated cultures) as those on the margins, occupying what Bhabha terms (re-

periphery find a new relevance and importance within cliscourses of nationalism. we look to signal our difference from other nations and in so doing look ro our own sets of differences. llowever, and here is the problem, it is in that set of differences that we seek ro forge our national identity as one: calling it multicul_

the local -

Homi Bhabha ralks of 'national' cultures increasingly being produced from the perspective of disenfranchised minorities (1990: 303-19). undeniably in nonwestern nations and cultures Bhabha's comments are strongly borne out by practice. But tlere is now evidence of this in western cultures and nations as well, in that there has been a foregrounding of the margins of the nation-space of which so-called marginal-cinema is but one manifestation. To quote Kristeva, there has been a'demassificarion of the problematic of differencei (19g6:209), a questioning of the legitimacy of the state-representing-the-nation, challenges to nationalist discourses which represent the nation s one. How is this so, how did it come aboutf ll/ell there are two partial answers which I,d like to put forward. First, the paradox of globalisation and the concomitant valuation of this has meanr that the parochial and ultimately/eventually the
rlise

l9(rOs lrrrtl nlti()ns wilc irrrrl irrtclnirtiorrirlly.'l'lrc srx'iirl t'cvolttliott ol'thc l9(r()s clcittc(l girps iurtl lcp,itirtrirtc spirccs lirl tlivcrsilicirtirrt.ttttl tlrc lxrssibility ol' rzzltli'trltrrrirlisrrr grrps wlrich irrc conslrrttly [tirrg t'cttcltotiittctl (rlcspitc tlrc ililcnll)is irr tlrc IJI( trtrtlcr'l'lrltchcrisnr to wipc or.rt tlrc cllct rl'thc l9(r0s). Arrl tlrc inrl'r<>rtirrrcc ol'thc rrlc of cultural studics within this rcvolutiotr tnust rrrt bc trudcrcstiuratccl in its u.raking visiblc thc'p<-rpular'and in turu thc rrrultiplicity of points of diffcrclltition. Thc rrrultiplication of points of diflLrcnrirrtiort Irrrs conrc t() mcr1 an cxpansion of points of contact in the context of palpirltlc tlivcrsity: i.r:. racc, class, agc, sexuality and/or gender. In otherwords, thc pllit icrrl irnd thc scxed body have become palpably visibilised. So too has thc brdy ol' othcr cxcludcd pcrsons. The ailing body. Whrrt wc can rlake of this enfranchisement andvisibilisation is that, withirr rr lirrritctl sphcrc of cultural expression at least, identity co-existing with dilll'r cntc(s) lrirs become a reality - the very thing that nationalisms seck t<l clcny. 'l'hc p;u.rtlox rf a national cinema becomes clear in that henceforth it will irlwrrys irr irs lirrnting - go against the underlying principles of nationalism and ['rc ilt cr()s l)urJx)scs with thc originating idea of the nation as a unified identity. lltrt, as is clear from my earlier remarks on nationalisms, this is ll()t yct il u,itlcly cnough practised reality. Not yet. Nations 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 politicirl trlsivc masquerading still is). In fact, the picture is complex becausc trltitttrs t the same time - thus it is hard to makc a clistirrctirrr
.u'c brth things at once

lrt'lwccn what nations really are and what tlley are masquerading as. AIrcl s() ()l'tc rrrrrst bcwlre of invoking an'alternative'form of essentialism as a solutiorr sincc, irr thc lirrirl analysis, it merely mirrors the practice of dominant idcology. lt is n()t clr()ugh to sy that this invocation is part of a strategy of'dcnrystilirlg' (()necl)ts and practices that rule our life, valuable though that is. Arrtl irt n nr()nrcnt I shall attempt to oudine some ways in which we can tl-rirrk irncw tltc (()nccpt of nation, nationalism, and the framing 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'Regan (1996:305) docs, tltat tttrttty n;rliorrs ilrc settler nations which have practised various tactics of annihilrrtirrr ol' tlrc irrtligcr-rous societies. Many of these nation-states are ones that havc rcpro tlrrcctl in the settler nation Europe and European nationalism with its ultinrirtcly proliruntlly anti-humanist principles (starting with racist, colonialist atrocitics). Arrtl ir is irnportant to recall also that most nations (whether sclf:cviclcutly

scttlcr-nations or not) practice some form of apartheid or notl-Ier) lcgitinrrrtctl ()r' r'r()t (l.rcncc the title of this section and its reference to Mariantrc )crtrr Itirptistc). Ancl this practisir-lg of apartheid includes ntions that havc thcltrsclvcs bccrr victinrs of colonialisation or apartl.rcicl. So we are always in thc prcscttcc ol' tlrc corrrlrlcx issuc of exclusion/inclusiotr. - thcrc is always an it.tvcsttucttt itt rcprcssirrg histrry/r-ncrnrlry, ol'cvrtcultting tltc 'cokruisccl's' culturc ls rtlrcrrrtrtl, rrbjcct. As l.ltlwirrtl Sltl says, irrrpcrirrlisnr/eolonirtlistrt is irtr act rl'gcog,rrrphicrrl
.rs

(rh

SUSAN HAYWARD violence disguised as humanism; it is a form of making the colonised country into images of what has been left behind (f990: 77).What we are saying then is that these practices occur not just between nation and colonised country but they also happen within a nation-stte. And the role of culture (within the nation-state as well as the colonised/settler nations), the role of national culture is (still) to suppress political conflict and disguise it as imagination iruage/ruatiotc - a function that is so clearly manifest in the very problematic issue and conceptualisation of national cinema. For, to rewrite ludith Buder (1993), there is still a cinema that matters and one that doesn't. IIowever, it is when the latter penetrates into the material boundaries of dre former (material in all the senses of the word: physical, economic, etc.) that we jubilate because it does cause fissures that allow for changes. We witness the effect of the 'occult instability' of the peripherals (to quote Fanon 1990: 83).

lrltAMl N(; NA'l'l()NAl' (ll

lllllAs

Towards a framing of national cinemas Let us now look at this question of fissuring and see what it tells us in the context of national cinemas. I'm very much tempted to subtitle these remarks:
cineruils pathology arud. t'iswnl cwltwre
0?'

If we start from the premise that Holllwood's hegemony cn be viewed as a nationalism (not necessarily a new idea), then we can start to look at some of the issues of power and knowledge (which nationalism seeks to hide) in a very
provocatively (and in turn ensure that these questions filter on through to question other national cinema practices). [4rat I am proposing to do here is to come back to the earlier essentialist and binaried reading of national cinemas (as Hollyvood/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 terms of what conceptualising Hollyrvood's hegemony as a form of patra-nationalisru might produce, pd.l/, in the triple Greek sense of n.eor-beyond.d.efective,/abnorruaL Near and beyond are I think quite self-evident, the latter 'defective-abnormal' is less so and that is the one that will be my main focus. And it is here that I invoke Fanon and his reading of colonialism and indeed alienation and madness (f990: 201-50). Holly.wood has of course effected forms of colonialism, the first of which is economic. Apart from France, where Hollpvood 'only' takes around 60 per cent of the market, American film-products garner 80 per cent (plus) of the western European film market. The second form of colonialism is cultural (dress-codes, eting practices, American look-alike movies and TV programmes) etc. - known hostilely as 'Cocacolonisation'). According to Fanon, colonialism (which is tr practicc r>f nationalism) is a narcissistic practicc - :rn imposir.rg ()n thc crloniscrl 'rtlrcr' of colonialist discourses and irlages: thc nlti<ln'crloniscs'itscllton to (in-tof ) tlrc
()6

'tyha.ls Fa.nln

glt
to do with

itl

interesting and destabilising way. In other words, \Me can make our own 'techof trouble' (to re-write Butler 1990: 34) - that is, pose questions

niques

tlrc t.rlorriscd botly. F)cortttnicirlly spcrrkirlg, t lclst, its wc ltrtt'c lrrst stirtctl, Ilrritctl Stltcs is r.r()t cxct'llpt fiotn this cok>uisiug Prilcticc tll'irnPrsirrg, its trwlt tttrtkcs tllis irrrrtg,cs irtrrl cliscottrscs. Ancl its pirrl-trrrtirnrrlist citrcttrir (Hollywxxl) .rl,tr,rl,r1tly clcirr cvctr to thc 1-roint tlrat thc'colltrisccl'scck to intitrrtc tlrc I lollywood proclnct (tl.rc cloncs cloncl). II,,*,"r.,j (br-rt/also) this sclf:rcflcxivity within colonialism protlttccs rrll sorts ol'blindncsscs (racc, gender blindness, ctc.) whicl-r is ol cottrsc ir blintlncss (rr ol' vtsrrrrl tlctcctivcrless) that ilitiates from within ll.ttiorlalisnr. A prinrc cxittltplc rlris Slip6pcss - as Fanon (1996:I0) makes clear through l.ris 1'rost-lilctrtliittl sli.rtcu)cnt,whtrt does the black man wantf' - is blincincss to thc fct tllirt scr ,urtl gcnclcr irucl race are inextricably linkei'l to aud involvcd in tltrtiotrirlisltl rttttl the Scncgalcsc filnr-nrlkcr l)io1r r lrcrrllirrc colonialism (something which Mrrrutrty adclresses right up front in his film Hynes, 1992). i'-tlrthcrruorc, tltis scll 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' filr Sgrrth Atlicl lrrtl its 1to ilrc pgint of erasr-lre, as could be argued is the case eurcnrir,.'r'ro r1lemory, no identiry no identiry no natior1'). It irlso tirkcs tllc owlt lirrrrr ol'irn intcrnal set of pathologies which in Hollywood occur trotttttl its inrltrstrill practices, ftrr example, its current 'the budget is all' appr<xrch whcl'clly tlrc 1',rrcluction costs signify as Mlre than the actlll Product (c'g','go rttrtl scc tlris 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 arluutl Hollywrxtl's ()\\/n l)irrticlllar sets of representations. For example, Hollyw<xrcl's fitctts ott rvhirc rnlsculinity springs to mind and the consequent hystcricisirtit>tr ol"otllcr rl'wllitc rrcss, within its own film culture. Thus we think of the modcrtlisittiorr rrrrscrrliuity in the 1930s and early 1940s (heroic and complcx chrrrlctcl'isrttirtt), 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 masculinities, aucl of c<ltlrsc ttrw lltc of white masculinity/ies <>vcr thc prtst twrr 1xst-nroclcrnisation ar-rd virtualisation tlccirtlcs - irs in Forrest Gump (a.k.a. Tom Hanks), sylvcstcr stlllotrc, Arrloltl Sclrwrrrzclcggcr. Rcpresentations which ir.r this contcxt lead (trnir.rtcrttirltrrlly :rs lirr rrs nltionalist discursiviry is concerned) to a perft)rmallcc, ir clisplrly ol rttl cl.()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--I1tior-ralisr-n scck to tlcny' 'l'5c wity iri which thc bocly is a site of perfirrmancc in tilnr disPlirys yct ()llc lirrrhcr c()ptradicti()us within thc conccpt/cottccPttlalisiltirtt tlf 'ttittirtr' :ls ;rntl irrtlivisitrlc.'l'hc uitti()n prctcncls to bc gcndcr-uctttrrrl (in thrrt it PttrPorts ttr tliss.lvc tlil,ll.rcrrcc) rurcl yct thc wonrirn's lrotly is closcly lliginctl/itlcnrilictl witlr ,rlti()llrlist tliscrur.scs. Wc figlrt rrnrl rlic lirr rur ttl()t11cr-llilti()tr; whctr wc lc.tvc \\,c rctur.n t() ()r.lr.urothcr-nrttirn; tlrc colrrtisctl rcli'rrctl tr tltc crkrnisirtg c().1tr.)/ rs 1r()tllcr.c()q1try. Wlrcrr'slrc'is irrvrrtlctl lry thc crrcrrty, slrc is'rrtpcrl'. Il,,rvcvcr, .rs Mirry l,iryorrrr srrvs (in .r s'rntlctlirl tollcctiott <l'cssitys clltitlc(l rtlltl I lt1lnnortirs) 'tlrc rtrerirplrorit' crlttittiott ol' ittvirlrtblc wollt.ttt

,\rtltrrrl

t)7

SUSAN HAYWARD

FRAMING NATIONAL CINEMAS

inviolable motherland is as unsurprising as it is fearfully problematic' (L994: 65). The symbolic equation mobilised by nationalist discourses goes s follows:
violated motherland : violated woman invasion by the enemy = rape of the mother-land/woman rape = occupation of the mother-body by t}Ie enemy occupation = reproducrion of the enemy within the mother-body

It is inconceivable (para-logic is the term Mary Layoun uses) within nationalist discourses that the woman might choose to sleep with the enemy. so it is not difficult to see that and why nationalist discourses do militate for a gendered proscription of agenry and power (so that, implicitly agency becomes naturalised
as male), and that they use the very real concepr ofrape in an abstracr (but also extremely concrete) \May to keep that proscription in place. Rape, then, becomes one way of eroticising rhe nation's plight in male-driven narratives that have

appropriated the female body. But that isn't all. In these male-driven narrarives, the female body by extension becomes the site oflife and death of a nation, rhe rise
and fall of a nation. And, by way of an example, I am thinking here of lean stelli's fjJ.m Le voile blew (1942) - a sado-masochistic fantasy based in naralist discourses. In stelli's film the female body is appropriated by nationalist discourses that begin with the representation ofttre female/mother-body as rhe site oflife and death. To give the context: the female proragonisr's hero-husband has just been killed in the war, and this precipitates her prematurely giving birth to a son, who then dies. In turn, her body (and this is the core of the narrative) becomes the site for natalist discourses - cruel post-natalist discourses one might add - as in: 'there are lots more babies out there who need mothering'which is what the nurse declares to the heroine, upon which she embarks on a self-sacrificing life as nanny/waruuo/proto-mother to the many (to the nation-state,s need ofmoerhood). Erotics is linked to image and display of the body and, therefore, to performance. And it is tempting here to agree with Bruce Brasell that 'all nationalism is performative' (which it is if we take nationalism as 'enunciation') (r99s: 30). But while I agree that that is part of it, I think \Me can also say more. And this brings me to the question of national culture. National culture is a producr of nationalist discourses and is based in the principle of represenration and (of course) repression. Before getting there, however, let us start with the concept of nation first. The concept of nation as constructed by nationalist discourses is one that is in constant denial.
a a a a a a

It

is:

not concrete but abstract not based in amnesia but memory/history not gendered but gender-neutral not anti-humanist but enlightened not free and unbounded but dclineatcd, fixccl, uulrrrbiguous not divided, scattered) flagurcntccl ['ut unitcd
98

The fact that these discursive concepts of the nation are based in a 'fictional' representation of the nation does not mean that they do not have real effects. Indeed we have seen how it is that the nation masquerades 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 glimmer of hope, the fissuring moment. Because the fact that natiotts are invented and fictional means that they can be re-defined and re-appropriatctl by actors - in other words, a re-possessing of the nation by excluded groups is 1'rossible. And it is that very act of re -possession and re-definition that is lit'rcrlting and empowering not only because it claims a geo-social, geo-political rnd geo-psychological space but also because it shows ineluctably thnt ancl how there is something wrong with the hegemonic discursive practicc rtl: dcfining the nation exclusively and essentially as 'in constant denial'. Before developing that point, however, let us first return to the symt'lolic value of the female body within nationalist discourses as a way of discussing thc wr.ise-erc-scroe of national culture. We talked about the symbolic value of tltc lcrnale body as a means of playing out national insecurities (rape, natalist tliscourses, etc.). This symbolism disguises (albeit badly) real questions rl' l.r,cndered agency and power. Within the shifting discourses of nationalisn.r, tlrc irnage of woman shifts accordingly and serves the image of the nation-statc (irr rliffcrent but analogous v/ays to the masculine body as evoked before; analrgrtts bccause the body serves nationalist discourses; different, because agcncy :ttttl l)()wcr are invested in the male not the female body). Thus the maternal l'rrtly ol' t hc 1940s cinema in France might well give way to the liberated fernalc l'rxly ol' rlrc 1950s/I960s. However, the image of the liberated \Momn scrvcs thc nlti()n-state just as much as the maternal one . In the first, the display of' thc 'uv<rnlr'rrl's maternal body functions as a rn'ise-en-scne for the natiot-t's c()llccl'll ;rtrout demographic decline. In the latter, the liberated female bocly scrvcs thc nrli()r.r's image as modern and not reactionary. The symbolic use of tl.rc fcnrirlc hrtly 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 llrtt nxti()r)al culture in this regard has as its starting (but disguised/abscnt) print: rlcnirrl, cleficiency/lacking and repression. In much the same way as natiottitlisrtts irrvcrrt nrrtior-rs where they do not exist, national culture does not rcprcsctrt whitt is tlrcrc but sscrts what is imagir.red to be there: a homogct]isccl fixccl c()ttltll()tl trrllrrrc. Nltional culture then participates in the practicc r>f rcprcssiott which is irr itsclf rn rct ()r firrn.r rf alicnation (starting with tl.rc fct tlut it irlicnirtcs wltrtl rt errnrrot tOlcratc) - it crctcs il c()lnln()n cr,rlturc ir-r which thc intlividtrrrl is uls0 lit'natctl. Wc crru rrow bcgin to scc lrow in rclltirn to thc idcrr ol ttirriotrirl citrcttt:ts,
,r

I lollyw<xrtl's nro-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 olrrrrirrlist l)l'ictic('s ('lrcyorrtl'). 'l\rn'in llrc scnsc tlrrrt, lrotlr ncitt'rttttl lrcyrrttl, ils n;lti()nillisnt is irIrrrolrrrrrl irrrtl tlcli'ctivc irr tlrc lirrirl;rn,rlysis, it rcllccts to itscll'its

lr()

llt \llN(l N/\ll()fn"\l ( lr!l^l'\"

()wl) slriltcgics ()l rc[)r'cssiott:trttl .rlicrr.rlrorr.rl
clcsPcpll1t rl()t l() tltt s<,. lt is rrrrrvittirrLlll r'()unl('r'rr.ut'rssistir' il trlr,rst's ils own ideological practices. And this is rrn irrrportrrnt point t() nrkc bccrrrrsc, rrs Fanon so rightly points out, power and knowlcclge within color.rialist l)r-:reticcs (which as we recall function narcissistically) are not generally visiblc arrapr whcn there is the visibility of difference (i.e. marked by colour/race) (1990: 29-30). To which I would add the audibility of difference. Language and language of the body. And Holllwood's ability only to reflect itself to itself, to repear irs discourses inter- and extra-nationally, is both its strength and its weakness (strength as in economically predatory, weakness as in endlessly self-reflexive ). It denies and senses its own alienation

llrt

s.rrrrc .rltcrrrpls

linrt';rs il

buys up, This major film production industry is then the biggest recycling dream factory in the West. 'So whatf ' you might ask, 'does this tell us about framing ntional cinemasf '.

- it repeats its own 'success formuias' and to remake (American-style), the successes of other national cinemas.

Implicit 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 cultural rape. But also cultural ersure ('no memory, no identiry no nation'). Nothing however 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 cinemas reveals its importance. For my purposes, I shall read the term native poet as lso native poet-filmmaker. According to Fanon, in the evolution from colonialism to postcolonialism there are three moments: pre-liberation, liberation and post liberation. During

'\\'('' spt"llt ol It,rnt tll.tl l1o1l(nl (lltr'post lttrt't.tliotr lll(,lll( lll ),'..t1': l;.tttott, \'lll r rr.rtrort.tl (trltllt('. rvlri,lr is.l ((llltll('ol totttlr'tl irr tlr'rt it t'rlls otl lltt'rtltolt' .rs :r rt:tliott lo lt'.tvt' :lll(l l() ltt.tli.t' lt,ttt s. Il ts l,( ()l)l(. t() lilqltt li' llrt.il t'xislt'ntt' .r , rrllurt. ol t.orlllrrl lrt.t.tusc il tttotrltls lltc rt:t(iottrtl (()lls(i()tlsll('ss lrotlt lrt' tlt'u':ttttl llotttttllt"" r,,rrrrrr,, it lirr.nr:rrrrl (()llt()uls tttti l',y llirrgirrg ollcrr llcl'trl'c it lr.u/()ns. liirrrrlly it is,t cttlttttt'()l ('()llll)xt Irccrtttsc it ltssrttttcs lcsllorrstlrilrlt"trrtl rr 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'nlrlirrrirl'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'Ply lltt'ttt lt 1'tll rrrrr r.r l.rirr protlgct, thcrctirrc, ls to its hcritrrgc palriwLoittt,:ts lltt' rt, nr.rl(('s tlrc poitrt trtorc clcirrly. Who allcl whcrc is tlrc lirtlrer'f Wllilc 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 lr,,rr. te pt'otlttCcrs :.rre WitlC irllcl SC,tttcrccl ltlcl ttot ()llc t)()t .t silrglc ttt'tlt't'tt'll 'r .ttt,l 1,,,,1y, rr,r'rr l6rrc pltrilrchll orrc. Nor is it solcly thc ol liprirrg ol'tttrttt't tt.tl lllc tlt"ttllittcss ol l,rlrr,rrtlt:tl rliscrttrscs. Its ltlorcncss, its hytrriclity chrrllcllg'cs It is, irl tltc crttl, rts tttrtt'lt rtlrottl llttr 1,.rtrr,urlr.tl (:rncl rnoclcrlrist) binary thrught. ,rr,l ,lillt.r.crrcc irs is thc hunran body. Lr othcr wt>rtls, it is es rrrtlltitttlltrr':tl irr ilr lr rr{.urin1,. rrs tltc tratiot-t is, tinirlly, pluriculttrrll. Alltl this is ir lilrtlrcl r'v'ty irr rvllit r rr,rtrorr.rl cincnn cau probletlatisc a tlati<lu - by cx1-rositl1.l, its rlt;tstltr('l'l(l('ol
Ir
trl

the colonised period, the native poet-film-maker experiences a double sense of alienation: alienation fr"orn his/her own 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 and
repression of 'otherness,/diference'. The former's (the colonised) alienation results from exclusion as 'othey'different'. The essentialised alienation of the one is not the same as the existential one of the other - and that also is why change can occur and nationalisms ultimately can function differently. As indeed Fanon goes on to make clear. The native poet-film-maker must progress, rgues

\, lr.\r,t)()w t() speak of fi-aming rutional citrctttlsf 'l'his writirrg, ()l ir ll;lli()ll.ll ol , rl( lnit is oltc thlt rcfuscs to historicisc thc l-tlttiolt rrs strbicct/otrictl itr 'tttrl rr,,,.ll lrrrl rrrrkcs it a subjcct and objcct of knowlccllic''l'his (iilc:rl) u'tilittl', "1 't rr.rlrrrr,rl eiltcttrrr is otle that is investcd in (clcfining) trlltiotrrtl ctlllttt'll tlistotttst'r r,. ,yrli .rssilrilationist, anti-intcgratiot-list aucl pr9 irltcgrllislrr. It is ortc u'ltit lt ,l,.lvr.s tlccp itrto tl-rc PtholOgics of ui-rtitltlirlist cliscottrscs lttttl t'xpost s l ltt .,1.rrrlr.lie pr,rcticcs of thesc fornrs of cnutrciltiott. Irirrirlly, tlris li:rrrrirrl', ,l s ir 1')rlcliCC lltrtt sltottltl ttol

\' ( s('(' lrllovcr, p. 94).

Iitttttit'tt 'tr , r,rtrt.:ll slt'uCturcs of powcr ancl knowlctlgc but wltich slrotrltl tln\!.t.)t sr.r:rrr,>f scrtttcrccl ancl ciisscnrbling iclcntitics:rs wcll lls li'lttttttt'tl sttl',t', rlit s rrrrtl fiegntcntctl hcgct-rtouics.

rr.rlrorr.rl eittctttl-rs is otlc which perceivcrs cittctttl-t

'r

rrr

Fanon, from the pre-liberation moment of denouncing his (I add her) oppressor to the liberation moment of acting as mediator joining the people to their suppressed history. The native poet-film-maker) wrns Fanon, must not however dwell nostalgically on that pre-history, that pre-their-past, and erect it as the cultural artefact that will stand for the nation. Insted, the poet-filmmaker must negotiate that pre-history throlrgh the colonitrl past ar-rcl call everything into question (problematise it to recall O'Rcgarr's tcrnt) rtnd rlo s<r by addressing his/her own people, by rntrkirrg r funtlrrurcrrt:rl corrccssion rl'tlrc selftoothers-tomakcthcpcoplctl'tclub.|rrt rrottlrt'oltjtrttil'lris/lrcr'.ut.()r)lv
l(x)

BibliograPhY

,\rr,lrtrr', l) (1995)'Apprlising, lirctlchIltrrigcs',WidcAn11lr l(r'3: 5'i oo' lilr.rlrlr.r, ll. (t.rl.) (l99lt) Nttiorr a.nd Nt.rntl.i|il, Lotttlort: l{otrtlt'tlgt'. (irtvsott"' Itr.rscll, lri.l{. ilr)t)5)'(]rrccr N.rtiorrrrlisnr.rrrrl tlrc Mrrsitrrl lirrg llrtslrirtl', ol lolttt Iltt llrrl'itt.rt ol'll'lorrslttt', Widr Artllr l(r, 'i: 27 ltl' otttlotrr l(.ttl l,,rrrlr.r, | (l()()0) (ir'rrdrr'li.orrltlr; l:rtrtitri.vtr rrrtrl tlrr ,\trltt,n'.irttt ol'llnttitt',I
It

\rr,lt lsort, li. (199 I ) Irun.llirrri Oowruu'ttitics, Lotltlotl: Vcrso'

rlllt'
1

l()().i)

/lrrr/lr,r

tlttt

lttnrt.: ()rt

tlrr llr.rrrrtrivt l,rttrrt,

rr/

"\r.r'',

l,otttlott: l(otttlttll',t'

l()

USAN HAY\-Ir'ARD

l,rl1ltr,rr,'l'. (1990)'Nationalism: Irony and Commitmenr,, in Eagleton, lameson and S.rril (ctls). lr.rglctrrrr,'l'., /ameson, F. and sad, E. (eds) (1990) Nntionalistn, colonialisw and Literatwrc, intro. S. Deane, Minnesota: University of Minnesota press. L,rikson, T.H. (1993) Ethnicity and Nationalisru: Anthropological perspecTittes, London: Pluto Press. Fanon, F. (1990) Tbe Wretched. of the Earth, preface J.-p. Sartre, trans. C. Harrington, Ilarmondswort h : Penguin. (1996) Blach Shin, White Masks, trans. C.L. Markmann, London: pluto press. Gellner, E. (f983) Nations and Nationnlistn, Oxford: Blackwell. Grewal, I. and Kaplan c. (eds) (1994) scattered. Hegeruonies, Minnesota: university of Minnesota Press.
Hll, P. (1997) 'Nationalism and Historicity', Nations and. Notionalisru 3,l: 3e4. l. (1986) 'women's Time', in T. Moi (ed.) The r{risteva Reader, oxford: BlackKristeva,

THEME,S OF NATION
Mette

Hjort

well.

smith, A.D. and Hutchinson,

Layoun, M. (1994) 'The Female Body and "Transnarional,, Reproduction; or, Rape by Any Other Namef ', in Grewal and Kaplan (eds). O'Regan, T. (1996) Awstralian National Cimerua, London: Routledge. Sad, E. (1990) 'Yeats and Decolonizarion', in Eagleton, lameson and Sard (eds). smith, A.D. (1996) 'Memory and Modernity: Reflections on Ernesr Gelrner's Theory of Nationalism', Notions and Nationalisru 2,3: 37L--BB. l. (eds) (1994) Nationalisw, oxford: oxford university

virilio,
(1991)
The I'ost

Press. P.

Ditnension, trans. D. Moshenberg, New york: semiotext(e).

N.rriorr:rl cinemas, it has been argued (Higson 1989, 1995), are to n important r rrr'rrl lhcrnatically defined, yet little has been said about what exactly constitrl(\ llrc relevant themes. My aim here, then, is to identir some of the key lr,rrrrrts oltthemes of nation. In the course of my discussion, I draw on examlrlrr llorrr contemporary Danish cinema. I argue that themes of nation are rop1t.ql, rrlthcr thn perennil, and involve a Process of marking and flagging tlr,rt rlrstingr-rishes them from instances of banal nationalism. I further contend tlr,rt .r1',t'rrts cngaged in the construction of a national cinema emphsise a loose trrl ol ;rlroutness which is constitutive, not of themes of nation, but of banal
,,r

il,rlr' ril.llisll).

'l'lrcme s national policy| The case of contemporary Danish cinema

lrr l()()l{, thc t)anish Film Institute presented an ambitious'Four-Year Plan' ,rrrtlrrun1,, ,r scries of strategies designed further to develop the Danish film lr r,,l r \'. Argu rrcnts having to do with economic viability figure centrally in the 'lrrrrr Yc.rr l'lan', but they are complemented throughout by a consistettt
tr'

,ril, nrl)l ltl:rrticulate a set of artistic and cultural visions, one of which concerns tlrr ( i)nslructi<>u of ntional 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 ensttrirtg tlr.rr l)rurcs ru'c prL:scntcd with rrrtistically clualificcl ofrin15s in irrt rrr, rr'.rsirrg,ly gkrbrrl rrtcdir cttltttrc. 'fhc Instittrtc's sttpport policy is tr l,,il.il.urlcc thc rrvrrilebility of lilnls thirt cxprcss rrrrtl srrstrrin lhnish
r
r r I

rr

r'(', l.rngrt;t11c, rrrrtl irlcnt ity.

(Anrtt. l99tl: (r)

lr,rrrrrlr lilnr nlrk.r's, it rvtrltl ill)l)cilrt ill('l() [)('t'rtt'otttltl4ctl to tttthc ltlttts tlnttl It.rrr,,,.rrrrl llrctl torrrrtr'\,. [)ot's it lirllorv tllilt l)()lit.v ttt;tkt'ts (()tl('('l'll('(l rvitll tlrc
I

()2

I0.t