Canadian Cinema in the Era of Globalization Cine Canadiense En La Era De La Globalización
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RTÍCULO Revista Arbitrada de la Facultad Experimental de Arte de la Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo, Venezuela AÑO 5 N° 8. ENERO - JUNIO 2010 ~ pp. 66 - 72 Canadian Cinema in the Era of Globalization Cine canadiense en la Era de la Globalización Kay Armatage University of Toronto, Canada Recibido: 20-02-10 E-mail: [email protected] Aceptado: 30-03-10 Abstract Resumen In this article I will approach many of the currently domi- En este artículo abordo los tópicos más actuales en relación nant topics in relation to Canadian cinema: the impact on con el cine canadiense: el impacto en los cines nacionales y national cinemas and auteurism of international film festi- el cine de autor en Festivales de Cine Internacionales, hora- vals, shifts in distribution patterns, labour issues, produc- rios de trabajo, asuntos laborales, resultados de producción, tion output, and globalised aesthetics, as well as other re- y estética globalizada, así como otros temas relacionados, lated issues, such as slippages in notions of populism and como el deslizamiento de las nociones de populismo y po- popularity. Also, I analyze the marks of globalization that pularidad. Asimismo, analizo las huellas de la globalización are present in the Canadian film industry in the co- presentes sea en la industria cinematográfica canadiense, production treaties and financing exigencies, as well as en los tratados y exigencias financieras de las coproduccio- they are in other countries. I base my research in the postu- nes, sea en las producciones de otros países. Baso mi investi- lates of Hjort (2010), Iordanova (2010), Chow (1995) and gación en los postulados de Hjort (2010), Iordanova (2010), Hansen (2010) among others. Global cinema becomes in- Chow (1995) y Hansen (2010), entre otros. El cine globaliza- creasingly drive n by genre, costly technologies, expertise, do está cada vez más impulsado por el género, los costos de enormous budgets and superstars, but to trespass borders la tecnología, experticia, presupuestos enormes y estrellas, formerly marginal national cinemas may nevertheless tran- pero para traspasar los límites geográficos, las culturas y las scend borders, cultures and ethnicities through dissemina- etnias a través de la difusión por vías alternativas, como ca- tion via alternative channels, including the internet, film nales que incluyen el internet, festivales de cine, aplicacio- festivals, Iphone apps among others. nes del Iphone, entre otros. Key words: Palabras clave: Globalization, national cinema, Canadian directors. Globalización, cine nacional, directores canadienses. Kay Armatage Canadian Cinema in the Era of Globalization In recent years, there has been considerable the impact on national cinemas and auteurism of inter- academic attention to the impact of globalization on the national film festivals, shifts in distribution patterns, la- international film industry.1 While some see global statis- bour issues, production output, and globalised aesthet- tics as confirmation of Hollywood’s continued hegemony ics, as well as other related issues, such as slippages in no- (approximately 70% of world box office receipts), others tions of populism and popularity. are optimistic about the potential of a diverse world mar- Although many national cinemas have been ket. Dina Iordanova, for example, declares, “It is about transmogrified in the era of globalization, Canadian cin- time to acknowledge the new realities. A quarter of the ema does not stand out among them. The marks of world’s most commercially successful films come from globalization are present in the Canadian film industry in sources other than Hollywood; many are more profitable the co-production treaties and financing exigencies, as and bring higher per-screen averages than the studio they are in other countries. A Canadian production may blockbusters. Not only are many more peripheral films have a director from France and stars from Hong Kong, being produced, many more of them are also seen and the U.S. and Canada (Clean, 2004, d. Olivier Assayas, star- appreciated, due to the vitality of growing alternative ring Maggie Cheung, Nick Nolte and Don McKellar, re- channels of dissemination.” (2010, p. 24). She notes as a spectively) or an international cast including Susan Sa- salient factor “the increasingly interconnected festival randon (U.S.), Gabriel Byrne (U.K.), Max von Sydow (Swe- phenomenon” as “an autonomous circuit with its own set den) and Roy Dupuis (the mandatory Canadian) – Emo- of nodes, connections, and tenets.” (2010, p. 30). She also tional Arithmetic (based on a Canadian novel, 2007). This cites the “export-import business model” of diasporic dis- sort of transnationalism, in it lowest form, is what Mette tribution, in which “film production centers may be lo- Hjort (2010, pp. 19-20) refers to as opportunistic: “Oppor- cated in one country, yet in planning and generating out- tunistic transnationalism involves giving priority to eco- puts they operate with the consciousness that the con- nomic issues to the point where monetary factors actually sumption of what is created ‘here’ will most likely be tak- dictate the selection of partners beyond national borders. ing place somewhere else, among audiences who are Opportunistic transnationalism is all about responding to scattered in different locations around the world.” (2010, available economic opportunities at a given moment in p. 30). Mette Hjort underlines this concept when she time and in no [way is] about the creation of lasting net- writes that “Multiple belonging linked to ethnicity and works or about the fostering of social bonds that are various trajectories of migration here becomes the basis deemed inherently valuable.” Yet such co-productions are for a form of transnationalism that is oriented toward the commonplace on a world-wide level now, and the marks ideal of film as a medium capable of strengthening cer- of globalization have become somewhat different in other tain social imaginaries. The emphasis is on the explora- national cinemas. tion of issues relevant to particular communities situated While much has been written about the alterna- in a number of different national or subnational locations tive exhibition circuit offered by international film festi- to which the cosmopolitan auteur has certain privileged vals, shifts in distribution patterns, labour issues, and re- access.” (2010, p. 20). As Iordanova puts it, the “‘ever- newed questioning of the dominance of Hollywood, -rising international presence of Bollywood’ which caters rarely do questions of style enter the discussion.2 In a dis- to the twenty-odd million nonresident Indian communi- cussion of cinematic transnationalism, Mette Hjort deliv- ties scattered around the globe” is the most obvious ex- ers a taxonomy of pluralistic transnationalism, in which a ample of diasporic distribution. (2010, p. 33). quintet of types is articulated: epiphanic, affinitive, In this article I will approach many of the cur- milieu-building, opportunistic and cosmopolitan forms rently dominant topics in relation to Canadian cinema: of transnational cinema. Only the epiphanic, which de- 1 I owe thanks for research assistance to Christopher Heron, a former M.A. student a the Cinema. 2 See, for example, Scott, Allen J. “Hollywood and the World: The Geography of Motion-Picture Distribution and Marketing.” The Contemporary Hollywood Reader. Ed. Toby Miller. London: Routledge, 2009. 162-184; Christopherson, Susan. “Behind the Scenes: How Transnational Firms Are Constructing a New International Division of Labor in Media Work.” The Contemporary Hollywood Reader. Ed. Toby Miller. London: Routledge, 2009. 185-204; Iordanova, Dina. “Rise of the Fringe: Global Cinema’s Long Tail.” Cinema at the Periphery. Ed. Dina Iordanova, David Martin-Jones and Belén Vidal. Detroit: Wayne State U P, 2010. 23-45. 67 sITUARTE REVISTA ARBITRADA DE LA FACULTAD EXPERIMENTAL DE ARTE DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. AÑO 5 Nº 8. ENERO - JUNIO 2010 pends upon the thematics of shared cultural knowledge, Zhang Yimou, 2004), although other national cinemas relates to issues of the visible marks of globalization on have produced films that were not as successful, but the surface of the films. just as clearly aimed at the global market. The Fifth Ele- When formal issues are addressed, for example ment (d. Luc Besson, 1997) is an example from France in articles on specific non-Hollywood films that have had that took up different strategies but evinced similar a global impact, the critical instruments tend to point global ambitions. “The success of such non-Hollywood back to Hansen’s vernacular modernism (2010), since the blockbusters,” writes Iordanova, “is signaling a bold use of genre in these films is considered the way in which move toward an increased heterogeneity that has been a locality is ‘translated’ into global legibility. Challenging feature of some of the established national film indus- received notions of modernism as an elitist form, Hansen tries that, like France or India, remain marginalized in the writes: “By contrast, I take one of the defining aspects of wider global context and are eager to devise ambitious vernacular modernism to be precisely the way in which hits that nonetheless engage with specific cultural lega- these films engaged with the experience and imagina- cies and concerns.” (2010, p. 28). Likewise Hjort recounts tion of their audience. By doing so, they implicitly ac- the strategies for global success through modernizing knowledged, and helped