GROUP A: RESPONSES & NEW QUESTIONS

RESPONSES 

1.  According to Higson, what are the four ways the concept of national cinema has been used/defined?

Higson begins by declaring a single universally accepted discourse of national cinema does not exist. He summarizes what the term has been used for in four bullets. He believes that national cinemas is often what it ought to be, not what is actually is, and asks: what makes a cinema national?1. economic terms - where are they made, by whom, who control the industrial infrastructure, production companies, distribution, circuits2. text-based approach - what are they about, do they share a common style or world view3. possibility of an exhibition-led or consumption based approach - which films audiences are watching, number of foreign to American, cultural imperialism 4. criticism led approach-quality art, elitist ideas rather an popular culture 

2.  How can we establish the coherence or specificity of a national cinema?

To establish the coherence or specificity of national cinema starts by identifying a stable set of meanings. This process involves production and assignation of a particular set of meanings, and an attempt to contain the potential proliferation of other meanings. It also entails resistance in the face of national domination (Hollywood.) In other words, national cinema must be the unique product of a single country. There are two methods: comparing and contrasting one cinema to another and exploring the cinema of a nation in relation to other pre-existing economies and cultures.

Question to Consider

According to Higson, national cinema must be non-Hollywood to embody the definition, but to what degree can a "national cinema" actually achieve that status? If so, what is an example?

3. Why is it important to consider the influence of Hollywood when discussing "national cinemas"?

It is important to consider the influence of Hollywood when discussing national cinema because of the uniformity that Hollywood cinema bring to each nation's films. This institutionalized set up of the hollywood films, allows for a standardization and blend of culture within each nation. The familiarity and relatability, or the exoticness of a film, depending on the origin of the cinema's creation versus where the film is being viewed, helps its viewers escape the reality for a few hours and view a different world. National cinema's help its natives construct a visual identity, and allow foreign viewers to construct an idea, and because of the Hollywood cinematic influence, the foreign audience can understand and relate to a foreign culture whether it be exotic or not. A great example of this would be American audiences and Bollywood cinema. Slumdog Millionaire shows a love story between a man and a woman, and the struggles of economy, class, love, youth, etc. Although the majority of American's cannot relate to many specifics, they do find a way to connect.

4. In order to consider film culture as a whole, it is important that a few issues are addressed. The first one is the range of films in circulation within a nation-state, including American and foreign films. It is important to look at how these films are circulated and exhibited. Second, he states that it is important to address the range of sociologically specific audiences for different types of film and how these audiences use these films in different circumstances. This includes reasons why certain audiences go to the cinema, how it makes them feel, the nature of a shared experience from going, and the different experiences offered by the various types of theatrical spaces. Third, we must also address the range of and relation between discourses about film circulating within that cultural and social formation. One thing that is crucial among these discourses is the tension between those intellectual discourses that insist that a "proper" national cinema is one that aspires to the status of art and the more populist discourses where the idea of "good entertainment" overrides questions of art or nationality. All in all, exploring national cinema in these terms requires putting a greater focus on the points of consumption and the use of film, rather than on the point of production.

NEW QUESTIONS:

1.In Jose Marti's Our America how are the American Republics described? How are they differentiated? 

2.How does the author perceive government, specifically it's interactions within a given population as a mechanism for control? 

3. What does the author consider to be the Americas greatest danger?

4. How does Marti broadly depict nationalism and ways in which countries try to differentiate from one another? 

5. What does Robert Sklar mention about the attraction and cultural appeal of Spanish-American war and film production?

6. What remains unexplored in Spanish-American war films and what does the author suggest is the result of this?