Barry Barclay (2000, p.1) coined the term ‘Fourth Cinema’, a classification in which he encompasses all means of Indigenous Cinema, made by Indigenous people, for Indigenous people. Barclay also puts emphasis on Fourth Cinema ‘Indigenous’ being spelt with a capital “I”, a category he created for his own personal satisfaction but has since caught on globally. This essay will discuss the concept of Fourth Cinema as outlined by Barry Barclay in general, as well as, in relation to Taika Waititi’s Māori film, Boy (2010). First, Second and Third Cinema are all Cinemas of the Modern Nation State and from an Indigenous place of standing, these are all invader Cinemas according to Barclay (2000, p.7).
Barclay (1990, p.9) suggests that over the years …show more content…
Firstly, a novelty phase where a once off Indigenous film is funded. Secondly, a developmental phases, where the Indigenous filmmaker takes the funder along with them but has to work ‘within the confines of the traditions and practices and words of First, Second or Third Cinema’. Thirdly, a backlash phase, where Indigenous filmmaking is closed down by the funding establishment as ‘projects become more deeply Indigenous’ and replaced by look alike films that imitate Indigenous films. Finally Fourth Cinema, the revival phase, where it is expected Indigenous filmmakers start creating their own films once again for their own people …show more content…
Most of all, it is the question to what extent the inclusion in a dominant framework that serves both state and commercial interests is able to provide Māori filmmaking the platform to achieve its political ambitions. Barclay’s notion of Fourth Cinema has activist beginnings rooted in a commitment to the self-determination of Indigenous peoples and the recognition and protection of Indigenous rights in postcolonial settler nations (Martens 2012, p.15). Barclay (2000, p.6-7) comments that Indigenous cultures are external to national orthodoxy and the national outlook, that they are outside spiritually and almost globally as ancient remnant cultures persisting within the modern state, that Indigenous Peoples are also, by definition, outside
Barclay (1990, p.9) suggests that over the years …show more content…
Firstly, a novelty phase where a once off Indigenous film is funded. Secondly, a developmental phases, where the Indigenous filmmaker takes the funder along with them but has to work ‘within the confines of the traditions and practices and words of First, Second or Third Cinema’. Thirdly, a backlash phase, where Indigenous filmmaking is closed down by the funding establishment as ‘projects become more deeply Indigenous’ and replaced by look alike films that imitate Indigenous films. Finally Fourth Cinema, the revival phase, where it is expected Indigenous filmmakers start creating their own films once again for their own people …show more content…
Most of all, it is the question to what extent the inclusion in a dominant framework that serves both state and commercial interests is able to provide Māori filmmaking the platform to achieve its political ambitions. Barclay’s notion of Fourth Cinema has activist beginnings rooted in a commitment to the self-determination of Indigenous peoples and the recognition and protection of Indigenous rights in postcolonial settler nations (Martens 2012, p.15). Barclay (2000, p.6-7) comments that Indigenous cultures are external to national orthodoxy and the national outlook, that they are outside spiritually and almost globally as ancient remnant cultures persisting within the modern state, that Indigenous Peoples are also, by definition, outside