Referring to one or more non-US/European national cinemas of your choice, critically examine Stephen Crofts' national cinema model

Stephen Crofts model of nation-state cinema seems to be rooted in Andrew Higsons The Concept of National Cinema (1989), whereby it is understood that nation state-cinemas should be defined not only in terms of the films produced by and within a particular nation state , but also in terms of distribution and exhibition, audiences, and critical and cultural discourses. Croft suggests nine factors which should be considered when analysing nation-state cinemas: production; distribution and exhibition; audiences; discourses; textuality; national-cultural specificity; the cultural specificity of genres and nation-state cinema movements; the role of the state; and the global range of nation-state cinemas. Taking into account all of the above categories, Croft differentiates types of nation-state cinema by presenting a model that distinguishes eight varieties of cinema. These are United States cinema; Asian commercial successes; Other entertainment cinemas; Totalitarian cinemas; Art cinemas; International co-productions; Third cinemas; And sub-state cinemas. Here I will attempt to explore Crofts category of Totalitarian cinemas in context to Chinese cinema. Crofts sets out the categorisation of three industrial modes of production in his model: industrial, cultural and political (anti-state). This section is to explain how they work independently from one another with their own methodology and criteria for production. What becomes obvious, something which Crofts is quite aware of, is the blurring of these boundaries into one another, becoming inter-related and inter-dependant with regards to the countless films that incorporate a mixture of various aspects found in each of these categories. Films such as Zhang Yimous Hero (2003), whereby it contains an industrial mode of production and distribution, in the sense that it is ultimately a capital generating genre film (or even a multi-genre cluster of action/martial arts, detective and romance) aimed at entertaining and is reliant on international distribution channels. At the same time it fulfils certain art house criteria in its narrative structure and cinematography, as well as relying on independent film festivals to garner specific art-house

publicity and distribution channels. This highlights the use of various modes of distribution. Since in those early days the conviction prevailed that foreign markets could only be conquered by artistic achievements, the German film industry was of course anxious to experiment in the field of aesthetically qualified entertainment. Art ensured export, and export meant salvation. (Kracher, 1974: 65) This has obviously changed somewhat, as industrial and economical factors are increasingly impinging on artistic creativity. Though surprisingly, artistic achievement is still a major fundamental factor for both domestic and international distribution. Although many Sixth Generation Chinese films struggle to find international distribution channels, many still gain recognition through international film festivals, especially those films from the previous Fifth Generation. The fact that there are a growing number of film festivals catering for such films is testament of the growing popularity of provocative creativity in cinema. One may ask what of the political mode of production and distribution? Here lies a rather large grey area. It was the Tiananmen Square demonstration and massacre of 1989 that politically defined the Sixth Generation filmmakers an event that still is so politically sensitive and so brutal that those of the Sixth Generation can rarely visit it in their art as those of the Fifth had done with the Cultural revolution. Now at the beginning of a new century, more and more young directors are producing films outside the state-owned studio system in various ways, engaging the youth culture and urban life, and stylistically, turning their backs on elaborate allegories. For example, Zhang Yuans Beijing Bastard (1992), uses amateur actors and hand-held cameras, preferring less artificial miseen-scenes and avoids dramatic intensity. With regards to the Sixth Generation director Zhang Yuans debut film, Mother (1990) - about a womans frustration at looking after her retarded son without social help or sympathy, an ignored aspect of Chinese urban life - was banned, but later, having won the Special Jury Prize at the 1991 Nantes Film Festival and gaining further recognition abroad, brought interest domestically. In 1997, it was aired on Beijing cable TV. This example highlights that even in state controlled cinemas, there are nevertheless

those who will push the boundaries and navigate themselves around the industry, rejecting state dictated nationalisms. The Sixth Generation are a perfect example of filmmakers that have rejected both these state dictated nationalisms, as well as the government funding available to mainstream films. Instead, they attracted private Chinese investment, rather than the overseas funding established Fifth Generation directors would garner. This suggests that in certain nation-state cinemas, such as the seemingly open and minimal state intervention in industries such as Hollywood, there is nevertheless numerous examples that can deconstruct this theory. Likewise, in this interpretation of state-controlled cinemas, there are indeed numerous examples that will contradict, perhaps even more so with regards to state-controlled cinemas, as the will to express the nations discontent is likely to be strong, especially in a country that is torn between the constant flux of its economy and its cultural identity, such as China. Crofts describes the mode of production in Third cinemas as clandestine, fugitive, and makeshift, so its politicized mode of address endangers its target audiences, and its typically agit-prop documentary genres serve its anti-state politics. (Crofts, 1998: 391) It is the films produced by Third World countries that he is pointing to, though many films that come under the Totalitarian category will also cross over here. Films that fulfils this perfectly would be films such as Nelson Pereira dos Santos Vidas Secas (1963) and Fernando Solanas La Hora de los Hornos (1968). But surly this indicates more the political climate, lack of funding and limited distribution channels, rather than the particular political motivations, which to be fair, is not isolated in its motivations in implementing ideological discourse. In fact much of the Sixth Generation filmmakers emerging out of China are actually echoing a similar scenario as those indicated here. Is Crofts addressing the mode of production here or vehemently giving his view on the effect of the mode of discourse? Because this area, needs to be thoroughly explored and examined before coming to some kind of formidable conclusion. For example, there are numerous docu-films that can fulfil this criterion without even being considered to be placed in this

category. Many Americans would probably want to place Michael Moores work in this class, though due to the very nature of its production, it wouldnt fit. Interestingly, the mode of production on a film such as the Blair Witch Project can most certainly be described as clandestine, fugitive and makeshift. This only really leaves those films whose production is politically audacious, has no state or any real funding available to it, and which is inherently indigenous in its otherness. Here, I believe, is the point. So where exactly does that leave us in defining an all encompassing model for differentiating types of nation-state cinema, whereby the very nature of the cinema which makes up half of the worlds feature films, is described as typically agit-prop documentary genres (Crofts, 1998: 391)? This seems to be alluding to an irrational fear. For if it can be seen to endanger its target audiences with its anti-state politics, then it can equally be said that it can also assist those states by suggesting that these politicised modes of discourse is proving merely reactive, polarising and segregating itself from the state, alienating their radical politics, ideologies and themselves from the masses at large who have adopted the safety of common culture. Whether this proves to be attractive or repellent depends on whether it can penetrate through the mind of the masses and communicate to the individual. The horizontal dimensioncovers state regulation and intervention in the sectors of production and distribution and exhibition, and the explicit or implicit nationalisms advanced by the cinemas involvedThe government subsidy to production which characterises Hollywood, Asian commercial successes, and to a lesser extent other entertainment cinemas finds echoes in the general lack of intervention in the distribution and exhibitionThis contrasts with totalitarian cinemas, whose states control productionand which intervene strenuously in distribution and exhibition (Crofts, 1998: 391) Croft seems a little nave with this interpretation of state intervention as there are many cases that deconstructs this argument. Firstly there are many films that fall into the typical Hollywood category, but are nevertheless under state scrutiny, perhaps even more so due to its wide reaching exposure, both domestically and internationally. Take, for example, the threats of removing the use of the Black Hawk helicopters due to differences with the script between Ridley Scott and the U.S. army during the filming of Black Hawk Down (2001). On the other end of the scale, which concerns

state regulated (and state funded) films such as Hero (2003) and especially with regards to Yellow River (1984), both contain explicit nationalistic representations, with the preaching of a collective ideology, they both nevertheless harbour a more covert message of the sacrifices that have to be appropriated in receipt of this, something which questions rather than seduces despite the rigorous scrutiny of censorship in China. In Yellow Earth, the omnipresence of the earth itself overshadows and dwarfs the humans living on it. Clearly presented in a Taoist cosmology that believes that humans can only prevail by harmonizing with nature, the grand earth image in the film contrasts Chinese culture in two ways: first, revolution that defies human will, and second, with the Chinese peasants livelihood that has been overpowered by the domination of nature (Kuoshu, 2002: 215) This highlights the multi-directional current of state intervention and the apparent contradiction to this model, which is too wooden in its structure to explain the sophisticated methods of both state and auteur. With regards to Zhang Yimous Hero (2003), here we have evidence of a national cinema being utilised to bring in revenue, as well as being a vehicle for a nationalistic identity, whether used domestically or internationally. This reflects Hollywoods strategies in film production. What makes this interesting, is that national cinema aesthetics/discourse can be utilised for both financial and ideological/political purposes, but also films that are seemingly focused on commercial/economic reasons are also subject to an injection of ideological discourse. This highlights the ambiguity not only of the purpose of film production across the globe, but also the identity of nationalistic cinemas. This inevitably turns full-circle and we now have to attempt to tackle and define the notion of a national identity and the relentless nature of the de-culturalisation process that is globalization. a world conceived as bound together by a universal history; but also the universalization of an egalitarian concern with doing justice to particularities and differences, with humanitythe rise of the modern national-state, in which the particular characteristics of a national integration process have been generalised into a model of social integration, in which society becomes the key frame of reference for sociology, is gaining wider acceptance (Featherstone,1990: 3)

The effects of globalisation are continuous and irreversible. It may even be perceived as a process that is innate; necessary if cultures are to homogenise, adapt and survive within their immediate environment, which inevitably includes others. There are those who are aware of this process, needing to distinguish themselves from others, in an attempt to cling onto what is discernible of their identities, that if they let go, they will become lost in a sea of chaos. Ideologies of this type respond to the problems and conflicts of an evolving modern society, but they remain rooted in a pre-modern context, inasmuch as they operate with totalitizing conceptions of order, and when the credibility of the latter is irreversibly undermined by the modernizing process, the result is a fragmented consciousness rather than a new form of ideological discourse (Arnason 1990: 208) Chow suggests that the notion of an authentic cultural identity is no more than an ideological construct (Chow, 1995) The economic motivations of film industries, such as Hollywood, to attract as wide an audience as possible can be juxtaposed against films that may come under the categories of art cinema or national-cinema. Through attempts to question ideologies, practices, institutions, etc. in the belief of benefiting the greater population, it has to stand outside of itself, to observe objectively, and through this mode of critique, it isolates itself from the chorus. This mode of discourse gradually turns into a independent/subjective perspective, the auteurs vision, something which questions and critiques, becoming disengaged with the currently accepted standards of society. This can be seen in the dichotomy of a capitalist spirit opposed to the socialist equivalent: the realisation/disillusionment of ones self, independent from his/her environment. Perhaps this can be interpreted as a necessary struggle of a cultural identity, the symbiotic relationship of the individual and the collective. Interestingly, although economically speaking we are seeing an increase in the effects of globalisation, we are also seeing a rise in a conservative nationalism in politics across the globe, counter-acting otherness in their cultures, as if in a cultural identity crisis. A world of competing national cultures seeking to improve the ranking of their states, offers the prospect of global cultural wars with little basis for global projects of cultural integration, lingua francas, and ecumenical or

cosmopolitan unity through diversity notions, despite the existence of the necessary technical communications infrastructures. (Featherstone 1990: 10) 21st century technologies such as the World Wide Web and freely accessible telecommunications on various levels, has increased the pace of globalisation, though has also increased tension between those constitutions that are trying to retain their individually recognisable nationalities. Here Crofts seems sceptical of these technological advances. the possibility of distinguishing product with nation-state cinema labels is threatened not just by the increasing number of international coproductions, but also by developments in electronic and fibre-optic delivery systems with their encouragement of indiscriminate channel-zapping and image-mixing (Crofts 1998: 393) This statement seems to struggle with his earlier quote of Willemen, where he states a cinema addressing national specificity will be anti- or at least nonnationalistic, since the more it is complicit with nationalisms homogenising project, the less it will be able to engage critically with the complex, multidimensional and multidirectional tensions that characterise and shape a social formations cultural configurations (Willemen 1994: 211-212) Crofts here seems conflicted about where he stands with regards to the function of nation-state cinemas. If nation-state cinemas are to continue to be politically critical and remains the only cinema that consciously and directly works with and addresses the materials at work within the national constellation (Willemen, 1994: 211-212), then the developing technology that he describes will only assist this continued refinement of culture, if not depend on its continued evolution, regardless of the chosen mode of production. Culture is something that Crofts does not engage conclusive with, something that is more than necessary in the light of a model that tries to define modes of production in nation-state cinemas, an industry that is culturally/politically motivated. The limitations of Crofts model is its inability to address and contain the chaotic flow of culture, something which reflects those nation-states that struggle to maintain their national identities, is ever

more prominent in the light of globalisation. Although Crofts is aware of the cultural issues affecting production, it can be said that that this is not entirely Crofts aim, as he tries to focus on the industrial and economical dynamics of these nation-state cinemas. But as we have just explored, culture is not something that can be refined and separated from any stage of cinema. And why isnt the factor of audiences given more consideration? Surly this is an integral area that should be fervently explored. The movement of film criticism has moved from absolute definitions of codes and structures relating to specific genre interpretations to predict audience preferences, to an altogether deeper exploration into the audiences psyche to further engage with what it is that truly draws viewers to watch certain films, which invariably drives those industries regardless of economical or political motivations. But this relies heavily on the theory that audiences are passive and have no say in what is digested; that audiences can only be considered by their numbers in terms of box-office statistics. Does the viewer not project as well as introject? Can the cinematic experience be considered an interactive one? Perhaps this is open to debate, though through observation it seems that audiences are becoming increasingly media literate and sophisticated in reading between the literal, metaphorical and allegorical lines. Perhaps even, audiences are smarter and actually more independently motivated than was originally anticipated.

References
Crofts, Stephen (1998) and Willemen, Paul (1990) Oxford Guide to Film Studies John Hall and Pamela Church Gibson (Eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press Kuosha, Harry H. (2002) Celluloid China Illinois, Southern Illinois University Featherstone, Mike (1990) and Arnasson, Johann P. (1990) Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity Mike Featherstone (Ed.) London: Sage Publications Ltd. Krachauer, Siegfried (1974) From Caligari to Hitler: a Psychological History of the German Film Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press