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