Journal of Mediterranean Studies, 2012 ISSN: 1016-3476 Vol. 21, No. 1: 77–99 Entering through the Golden Door 77 ENTERING THROUGH THE GOLDEN DOOR: CINEMATIC REPRESENTATIONS OF A MYTHICAL MOMENT YIORGOS KALOGERAS Artistotle University Greek director Pantelis Voulgaris’ Brides/Nyfes (2004) and Italian director Emmanuele Crialese’s Nuovomondo/The Golden Door (2006) are examples of creative response to the cinematic circulation of Elia Kazan’s America, America (1963), an archetypical white immigration story and movie. The ideological configurations that come into play in these films centre on the representation of one of the most important moments in the American ‘rebirth’ of the immigrant, his/her entrance to the US. This is a mythical moment in American vernacular knowledge of immigration and Americanization and it is the sequence that concludes all three films. In the wake of recent massive immigration to the EU, these films respond by conflating past immigration to the US with recent immigration to ‘Fortress Europe’; while they sensitize their audiences to the possible historical and economic parallels between the two, they also meditate on the crisis of identity that such migrations precipitated. Elia Kazan’s America, America (1963) marked a turning point in Hollywood’s production of feature film; it introduced a novel epic genre, that of the European immigration to the USA. Three hours long, America, America was the first major studio production of an immigration story of epic proportions filmed by Elia Kazan (1909–2003) in a documentary-like, almost neorealist style. Such a documentary-like approach militated against the epic style of popular films that Hollywood studios produced at the time. Furthermore, this ‘American’ immigration film presented the male protagonist’s pre-immigration story rather than his American experience; thus, the audience was asked to identify with an oriental locale, a pre-industrial reality and an alien history. Given such an unfamiliar context, viewers had to infer the ideological choices of the new immigrant before his transatlantic voyage. How would Kazan be able to produce such an unHollywood-like epic film? Kazan was given free hand in theme and production costs after a series of box office and artistic triumphs he had directed on stage and screen (Kalogeras, Copyright © 2012 Mediterranean Institute, University of Malta. (04) Yiorgos Kalogeras (Final)77 11/8/12, 11:42 AM 78 Yiorgos Kalogeras 2009: 64). His work had foregrounded novelty and often grappled with controversy; the list is indicative, Gentlemen’s Agreement (1948), A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), On the Waterfront (1954), Baby Doll (1956), A Face in the Crowd (1958), Splendor in the Grass (1961). It is likely that the producers were hoping for yet another thematically and generically innovative film that would challenge critics and public alike. This time, however, his most personal movie since On the Waterfront faced production difficulties. For political reasons, he was not allowed to shoot the film entirely in Turkey, as he had originally planned (Kazan 1988: 635–645); in the middle of shooting, he was forced to smuggle the already filmed material out of Turkey under threats of confiscation, and had to relocate the entire production outside Athens, Greece. On a personal note, he was not entirely happy with his protagonist Stathis Gialelis (Young, 1999: 277). Even so, the movie was completed but did poorly at the box office, while the critics fell embarrassingly silent (Kazan, 1988: 719). This was not an epic like The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, El Cid, Cleopatra, and others; it lacked lavish technicolor cinematography, renowed names and a hero with whom one would easily identify. Although the main character was an immigrant, this was a time when white America felt detatched from their new immigrant origins.1 Besides, America, America appeared at a time when the US public was preoccupied with the Vietnam war, and the civil rights movement in the South was focusing people’s attention on race and racialization and away from issues of white ethnicity. Over the years, as the interest of critics and public in the US increased, their original assessment shifted; America, America was viewed as an archetypical immigration film, a testimonial to the new immigrants’ transatlantic voyage. The film was also viewed as an autobiography, and studied by Kazan biographers in order to re-evaluate his notorious 1952 testimony as a friendly witness before the House of Unamerican Activities Committee. As a work of cinematic representation, America, America refocused attention on the new immigrants’ seduction by the American Dream before their arrival on Ellis Island, and was lauded by filmmakers and critics for that reason. Finally, in 1999, the film was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, as it was deemed ‘culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant’. America, America, now a classic immigration film, fascinated subsequent American movie directors. One of Kazan’s greatest advocates, Martin Scorsese, recently produced a documentary on Elia Kazan A Letter to Elia (2010), while he openly acknowledged the influence of America, America on his own film Italianamerican (1974). Across the Atlantic, America, America (04) Yiorgos Kalogeras (Final)78 11/8/12, 11:42 AM Entering through the Golden Door 79 elicited enthusiastic critical responses in France, Greece and other European countries, while Kazan and his work were championed by French critics and his films were given special screenings. In Greece, America, America was particularly appreciated by a public that felt very close to their recent past under the Ottoman Empire and maintained ties with immigrant relatives in the USA. Throughout Europe, Kazan and his films never lost their advocates, especially after Kazan himself was declared an auteur by the French critics. In the present study, I analyze Greek director Pantelis Voulgaris’ film Brides/Nyfes (2004) and Italian director Emmanuele Crialese’s Nuovomondo/ The Golden Door (2006) as examples of creative response to the cinematic circulation of Elia Kazan’s America, America which I view as an archetypical white immigration story and movie.2 Crucial to my reading of these two films is the fact that both invest thematically in a previous rather than a current wave of immigration. In the wake of massive immigration from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa to Greece, Italy and the EU in general, I believe that these two mainstream films respond by conflating past immigration to the US with recent immigration to ‘Fortress Europe’; while they sensitize their audiences to the possible historical and economic parallels between the two, they also meditate on the crisis of identity (American, European) that such migrations precipitated.3 The two films have been scripted and directed by non-immigrant, non- ethnic, mainstream artists and present a view of immigration to the US from the so-called ‘home-front’. Produced in Greece and Italy, respectively, these were not independent productions; Hollywood intervened in the production and circulation/distribution of both films. Since both Voulgaris and Crialese were strangers to the US movie market, such an intervention was crucial. Martin Scorsese and Barbara da Fina produced Brides after Kazan himself gave them the script and introduced them to the director. In the case of Nuovomondo, Scorsese endorsed, promoted and introduced the film to a North American market.4 Scorsese’s involvement with both movies reflected, on the one hand, his personal preoccupations as a director who chose to undertake the re-examination of American popular mythology regarding immigration and ethnicity; on the other, Scorsese’s interests reflected the interests of a generation of American filmmakers (Coppola, Cimino, De Palma) who aired their ethnicity and turned ‘the ethnically marked subject position [into] a normative’ «American one» (Jacobson 2006: 128). Scorsese’s endorsement of both movies as well as of America, America upgraded such legitimation of American ethnicity into a transnational context and invited a conversation among three different views of European immigration to the US; the conversation revolved around the Americanization of the European immigrant. (04) Yiorgos Kalogeras (Final)79 11/8/12, 11:42 AM 80 Yiorgos Kalogeras In working with these three films, I examine the ideological configurations that come into play in the representation of one of the most important moments in the American ‘rebirth’ of the immigrant, his/her entrance to the US. This is a mythical moment in American vernacular knowledge of immigration and Americanization and it is the sequence that concludes all three films. Kazan’s film offers a sequence where the immigrant testifies to his consent and affiliation; it reflects a conservative ethos and politics regarding the filmic transformation of the new immigrants into American citizens; it condones aggressive capitalism and with some reservations the racialization of US society. In the discussion below, I elaborate on the re- articulation of this sequence by Voulgaris and Crialese. Both directors foreground the important role that gender, class, race and able-bodiedness played in the ‘rebirth’ and Americanization of the immigrants. Such aspects of the immigration experience, although present, were sublimated in Kazan’s film in the interests of a more conformist representation of the European immigrant. Thus, I will analyze the two more recent