National cinema

National cinema is a term from the field of cinema theory and film criticism , the generally accepted definition of which has not been developed. The semantic content of this term is a subject of discussion and disagreement in the professional environment. Critics and theoreticians propose different factors, but on the basis of which the film can be included in the list of "national cinema" of a particular country. Among these factors are the following: the country that funded the creation of the film, the communication language of the characters, the nationality of the characters of the film and their costumes, interior and exterior locations, music, cultural elements represented in the film, etc. ^[1] . There is also an approach based on the particular structure of the film industry and on the influence of “... market forces, state support and cultural transfers ...” ^[2] . Also, national cinema can mean a large body of films, or “a complex of semantic structures ... that have gained historical significance through the presence of common intertextual“ symptoms “,” or internal intertextual consistency ” ^[3] . Philip Rosen in his book Theorising National Cinema proposes to consider national cinema as the result of the conceptualization of three features: (1) directly the “national” films / texts selected for analysis and the relationships between them, which are expressed through general (main) "symptom"; (2) an understanding of a “nation” as an entity in sync with this “symptom”; and (3) an understanding of past or traditional “symptoms”, also known as history or historiography, as contributing to the folding of modern systems and “symptoms” ^[3] . These "symptoms" of intertextuality can be understood as the style, type of information carrier, content, narrative and narrative structures, costumes, specifics of mise-en-scenes , type of character, especially camera work. Also, the “symptom” can refer to the cultural background of the creator of the film and those who act in it.

Another common definition in the academic environment of national cinemas is their opposition to Hollywood cinema. Within the framework of this approach, the classification proposed by Stephen Crofts in his article “Rethinking National Cinematography“ ”( Reconceptualizing National Cinema / s , 1993) is of interest. Choosing the opposition of Hollywood cinema / national cinema as a reference point, he offers 7 “types” of the latter ^[4] :

1. Art cinema of the European sample (European-Model Art Cinemas). If we consider Europe as a single entity, then its national cinema as a whole coincides with the traditions of European art cinema. This type of national cinema is ideologically opposed to Hollywood, but does not compete with it in the economic field, focusing instead on a different market and audience. If we consider each European state separately, then the criteria for national cinema are the inclusion in the films of the political realities of the country, the specifics of its culture, as well as the features of the economy of film production.
2. Cinema countries of the "third world" (Third Cinema). This type also puts himself in opposition to Hollywood, but in this case there is not economic competition, but criticism of the films produced by Hollywood. This type of national cinema is politicized; he contrasts himself with Hollywood in an aesthetic sense, reworking the existing aesthetic and narrative conventions (deliberately underestimating quality, creating discontinuous narratives (reflecting, among other things, the instability of borders and the financing of film production). Oppositionism is also manifested in the broadcast through the cinema of the ideas of national liberation, anti-imperialism , in the use of local cultural plots. At the same time, national cinemas of the Third World countries also oppose the tradition of European art cinema, thereby declaring the independence of their nations, albeit not recognized on the world stage. Examples of this type of national cinema are Brazilian cinema, Ugandan cinema, etc.
3. Commercial cinemas of the countries of the "Third World" and Europe (Third World and European Commercial Cinemas). This type of national cinema is trying to rebuild from Hollywood not ideologically, but according to economic indicators ( box office ). Such attempts, however, for the most part fail. This type can be attributed to Russian fighters of the 2010s, exploiting the typical Hollywood conventions in an attempt to create commercially successful films.
4. Films ignoring Hollywood (Ignoring Hollywood). This type includes cinemas of countries striving to develop their own authentic film industry by introducing restrictions on the import of American films (to prevent their competition from the actual national cinema). National cinemas of such countries are developing parallel to Hollywood, not being built up from it, but ignored. An example of this type of national cinema is Bollywood .
5. Cinematography imitating Hollywood (Imitating Hollywood). This includes the national cinematography of countries (primarily populated by Anglophone - Britain , Australia , Canada ), the specificity of the national cinema of which is due to the orientation on Hollywood and its markets. Croft characterizes this as an attempt to “defeat Hollywood in his own game” (which, in his own words, is mostly a failure). The desire to predict the expectations of the American audience forms a type of national cinema, in which the national specificity is erased. In addition to the Anglophone countries, this type of national cinema is typical of India and the Republic of Bangladesh.
6. Totalitarian Cinemas. This type of national cinema is characterized by a strict film production system, due to the nationalization of the film industry. The specifics of the cinema of totalitarian countries, their “nationality” is determined by the needs of the state, commercial success is not a factor determining the features of films. A typical example of such a cinema is the cinema of the USSR . At the same time, with this type of cinema, simultaneously with the “official” totalitarian cinema, there is usually an independent underground, which is engaged in broadcasting marginal ideas. Examples of such cinematography are “new waves” in the countries of Eastern Europe ( Poland , Czechoslovakia ). The mass cinema of these countries is very homogeneous, but the films of the "new waves" take a critical position in relation to it and "attack" the "pain points" specific to their countries.
7. Regional / Ethnic Cinematography (Regional / Ethnic Cinemas). This type of movie is created by ethnic and linguistic minorities. A way to isolate themselves from the rest of the cinema - including both Hollywood cinema and the cinema of the country of which the ethnic minority is a part - is to use these groups in films of their own language. This type of national cinema represents an ethnic group as a kind of whole entity, different from the cinema of the nation as a whole. Typically, ethnic cinematography is not widely known, largely for economic reasons. Among the famous representatives of this type of cinema, however, Denis Arkan and Spike Lee can be distinguished.

When referring to the classification of Stephen Crofts, it should be taken into account that there are almost no “pure” types of national cinematography, and the national cinema of a particular country with a high degree of probability will combine the features of several types.