George Higson: The Connotation Of National Cinema

“All nations are in some sense diasporic” (64). Built upon this playful and poignant deconstruction of the concept “nation”, Higson reflects on and revises the “national cinema” paradigm that he proposed in 1989 in a paper published eleven years later. The connotation of the word “diasporic” here may be two-pronged. First it refers to the physical distance and inaccessibility, for which, exactly, the “national film” is summoned as a cultural media to sustain an imagination of the “nation” as a connected and united community. Then, in a more metaphorically understanding, the word may imply that there are a bunch of alternative identities and collectivities being banished from the monolithic “national cinema” paradigm, with the problematic presupposition …show more content…
By regarding national cinema as a consequence of governmental “defensive strategies designed to protect and promote both the cultural formation and the local economy” (69), Higson reveals the interlocking cultural mechanism regarding the state, the nation, and the capital. However, although the connotation of national cinema is easier to define in this frame, it risks losing the effectiveness to cover filmic works in certain period and the complexity that continuously contributes to a critical dialogue. In the example I will give in Chinese context, we can even find a paradox consequence. Recently, Baituan Dazhan (2015), a film on a battle in anti-Japanese war led by the CCP, is exposed for “stealing the box office revenue” of other films, mainly business blockbusters, through clandestinely transferring other film’s revenue in ticket sale system. This phenomenon has provoked netizens’ anger for its violation of business ethic, but what aggravates the anger is the fact that the film is a total ideological propaganda of the party state. Here arises the paradox of the national film, if the notion is mainly considered through state policy, that the state-promoted film turns out begetting anti-state, if not anti-nation, reaction from its audiences. In this sense, is the notion “national audience” still tenable? Can the notion be adopted, in a more neutral and descriptive way, to suggest a cultural field built generally on the consciousness of the “nation”, regardless the fierce opposition it may contain? Or, is the notion still needed to be located in the formation of the “imagined community”? And it will be not applicable if it appears to be