Crossing Borders: , Nation and Cinema

On the New Conditions of in the Case of Iran

R.M. Korrel Supervisor: Dr. Blandine Joret 10253238 Second reader: Dr. Amir Vudka [email protected] Media Studies: Studies Word count: 20.836 University of Amsterdam Date of submission: 26-06-2017

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

ABSTRACT

This thesis “Crossing borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema” provides an overview of the key concepts and debates within the still-developing field of the national cinema in film studies, taking the contemporary censored and uncensored Iranian as case study. The main question is: What new insights do censored and uncensored Iranian films of the twenty-first century provide concerning the national identity of Iran? The films Tambourine (Parisa Bakhtavar, 2008), (, 2009), Women Without Men (, 2009) and Taxi (, 2015) will be discussed in depth in terms of how they convey contemporary Iranian national identity. This research is a literature study of national and global aspects of cinema in the case of twenty-first century Iranian with guidance of four film analyses.

Keywords: Iranian cinema, national identity, national cinema, globalisation, theory

2

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK National Identity and Cinema 1.1 The Origins of National Identity………………………………………………….…. 8 1.2 National Cinema………………………………………………………...... 14 1.3 National Cinema in the Twenty-First Century………………………...... 16 1.3 Conclusion….…………………………………….……………………………………………23

CHAPTER 2. CASE STUDY IRAN – LITERATURE REVIEW: The Islamic Republic of Iran and Its Film Industry 2.1 The Origins of Iranian Censorship……………………………………………. 24 2.2 The New Iranian Cinema……………………………………………………………29 2.3 General Themes……………………………………………………………………….. 33 2.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...... 36

CHAPTER 3. CASE STUDY IRAN - FILMANALYSES: The Global Auteur and Splitted National Identity 3.1 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………… 37 3.2 Film 1: Tambourine (Parisa Bakhtavar, 2008) ………………………… 37 3.3 Film 2: About Elly (Asghar Farhadi, 2009) ………………………………..45 3.4 Film 3: Women Without Men (Shirin Neshat, 2009) …………………. 50 3.5 Film 4: Taxi Tehran (Jafar Panahi, 2015)…………………………………. 51 3.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………. 54

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………..…… 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………….. 60 FILM LIST…………………………………………………………………………………..………… 63 WEBSITE LIST…………………………………………………………………………………..… .. 63

3

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

INTRODUCTION

This Is Not A Film (Jafar Panahi, 2011) tells the story of the Iranian director Jafar Panahi in expatriation by recording him during a ‘typical’ day in Iran. Panahi had to smuggle this politically charged film out of Iran by sending the film on a USB stick, hidden in a pie, to the jury of the Cannes in 2011. Hereby he gained his goal: to present his controversial film to the world. The film is blur between documentary and , and shows the moviegoer an insight of Iran’s contemporary status of film censorship.

This example of Panahi shows (1) multiple difficulties of Iranian directors living in Iran due to the cinematic censorship rules and (2) multiple facets of globalisation that has impacted national cinema. On the one hand, the difficulties of Iranian film directors to tell their story to the world. It gives a concerning example of the repression of free cinematic expression in the contemporary nation state of Iran. These Iranian cinematic modesty rules such and political control derive from the Iranian (Islamic) Revolution in 1978-9 and are still present today in Iran. Several internationally known Iranian filmmakers have left Iran because of the strict regime of Iran’s government, including , , and . In contrast with his fellow directors, Panahi still lives in Iran (EYE Film Institute, “This Is Not a Film”). On the other hand, Panahi’s film shows the facets of the globalisation and new digital improvements in the film industry, such as digital format, DVD, digital screening, and home screening, makes it easier for the Iranian director to deliver their film to the distributor company and for the distributor to distribute the film worldwide. Although the political charged film from Panahi is prohibited for showing in Iranian theatres, the film can be shown at Iranian homes with DVD and the World Wide Web such as Home screening. Thusly, the Iranian government wants to create an independent Iranian national cinema, but Iranian filmmakers want to create films that are also open and accessible to the global market. Therefore, the current situation in the Iranian film industry is a split in national identity for the Iranian exiled

4

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

filmmakers. Jafar Panahi is an example of an Iranian exiled filmmaker, that expresses the national identity of Iran by using a ‘diasporic’ film style1. This thesis examines national identity and the way it is constructed in contemporary Iranian films which are situated in different circulation of the national or global market. This may give a new model for national identity and national cinema in the twenty-first century. By considering the narrative structures of the four Iranian films (Tambourine, About Elly, Women Without Men and Taxi Tehran) and the legal context of the directors I hope to give new insights about the national identity in the twenty-first century. This leads me to my main question of this research: What new insight do censored and uncensored Iranian films of twenty-first century reveal concerning the national identity of Iran? In this thesis, I will improve previous research about the new conditions national cinema enters in the twenty-first century. Previous research have stated this new link and relationships between the globalisation and national cinema and the new ontology for national cinema (Esfandiary 62). Moreover, the tension between Iranian state and new wave Iranian directors have risen scholarly attention2 since the in 1978-9. Most notably papers are about the new wave - censored - Iranian cinema. However, I will add information - to the existing literature on Iranian national identity and cinema - by using both categories of contemporary Iranian cinema: censored and uncensored Iranian films. I will examine four films. Two uncensored films in Iran: Tambourine (Parisa Bakhtavar, 2008) and About Elly (Asghar Farhadi, 2009); and two censored films in Iran: Women Without Men (Shirin Neshat, 2009) and Taxi Tehran (Jafar Panahi, 2015). The Iranian uncensored films are based on UNESCO statistics on films popular among Iranian moviegoers in film theatres in Iran. The internationally known Iranian films are based on prize- winning films from film festivals, including Berlinale. The second reason for

1 Hamid Naficy has studied exiled and diasporic filmmaking and describes the current trend of ‘accented cinema’. This means a certain style of film style by directors who are banned or exiled from their home country (Naficy ‘Accented Cinema’ 4-6). 2 Most renowned three books on new Iranian cinema are as follows. Firstly, Shahab Esfandiary has researched in his book Iranian Cinema and Globalization the national identity of new wave Iranian cinema to the current phenomenon of globalization. Secondly, Richard Tapper has edited a book – The New Iranian Cinema – with different essays on the developments of the strict regime of Iran upon cinema since the Revolution, the themes of new wave Iranian cinema, the development to new wave Iranian cinema and the national identity by new wave Iranian cinema. This book was a result of the conference held on new wave Iranian cinema in 1999. Thirdly, Hamid Naficy has researched in his book An Accented Cinema the new wave Iranian cinema from exiled Iranian filmmakers and their ‘accented’ style.

5

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

this research, I refer to the statement of cinema history and media archaeologists Tom Gunning and André Gaudreault: "Theory has History"3. This means that in the contemporary society, cinema has adjusted and changed to the new phenomena of globalization and seeks for new and old theories (Van Den Oever et al. 13-16). In this matter, the theory of imagined community from Benedict Anderson in 1983 and the theory of national cinema from Andrew Higson in 1989 are still relevant in contemporary film research and practices. The third reason for this research is the still existing barrier, obstacle and border between the West and “the Other”4 that needs to be crossed. With this research, I provide more observations and theories for anyone interested in learning about Iranian culture, a niche in Middle Eastern culture and particularly in Islamic culture. Not only is it a culture that is or was treated as “the Other” or as counterpart of culture, it is also a culture that is in transformation by the new conditions of the capitalist-globalisation and medium-digitalisation. To conduct my research, I have structured my thesis in three chapters. The first chapter is a theoretical framework of the two essential concepts: national identity and national cinema. I will use literature as research method. In this chapter I will try to combine these two essential concepts from two different disciplines by asking the question: What is cinema’s capacity of containing structures and symbols of national identity? Therefore, I need to identify what the concepts national identity, national cinema and the auteur involves from the its early beginnings until the early twenty-first century. The first step – section 1.1 – is examining the essence of national identity from its early beginnings until now by theorists David Hume, Benedict Anderson , Anthony Smith and Montserrat Guibernau. This leads to a list of theories, to answer my sub-research questions: What do the theories have in common in approaching national identity? More specific: How do these prospects of national identity apply to exiled Iranian filmmakers? The second step – section

3 “Theory has History” means that ideas an theories are part of a certain time: they contain traces of the time and context they were developed. Theories that have been forgotten a century ago can be useful in a later century within changed society with new conditions. This means old theories can be reused for new phenomena in film studies: they get a different practical value then wherefore they were developed. 4 There are still big cultural differences that exist between Western culture and Islamic culture. According to UNESCO, the best prospects for continuation of peace in the world come from knowing more about ‘the Other’ (UNESCO no pag.). For example, Middle East studies and Orientalism studies provide knowledge about different cultures, particularly the Middle East.

6

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

1.2 – is examining the link between national identity and cinema. What are the first developments of cinema from its early beginning till now related to nation? What is the essence of the concept national cinema according to Andrew Higson, Stephan Crofts and Hamid Naficy? The third step – section 1.3 – is examining the new concept of the global auteur. What are the new prospects by theorists for the auteur theory by considering the effect of the globalisation - new conditions of crossing borders with cultural communication? How is cinema’s capacity of containing structures of national identities changed? How is the auteur theory developed? What is the essence of the concept global auteur? How does the auteur theory apply to Iranian cinema? What kind of narrative structures and aesthetical formats does apply to national cinema? In the second chapter, I will discuss Iran’s film censorship – the state’s film regulation and I will use literature as research method. In first section of the chapter the focus will be on the national authorities and directors on how they want to express Iran’s national identity. The first step is examining the history of the Iranian Revolution. What is the impact of the Iranian Revolution on the film industry? When and how does the Iranian Revolution developed? And what does the post-revolution Iranian government want to accomplish as national identity in the media culture? The second step is examining the effect of the Iranian Revolution on the Iranian film industry for the film director. The main sub-question of this chapter is as follows: What is the effect of the Iranian Revolution on the film industry for expressing the national identity in the twenty-first century un- and censored Iranian films? In the third chapter, I will discuss four censored an uncensored Iranian films of the twenty-first century. I will use David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson’s formalist method of narrative analysis. All-together, these chapters will clarify cinema’s capacity of producing narrative structures – locate the space - of national identity in the case of twenty-first century Iranian films which are situated in the opposite of national and global market.

7

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

1. NATIONAL IDENTITY AND CINEMA

National identity and national cinema upsurge of scholarly attention in in the early 1990s and continued till now. In this chapter I will try to combine these two essential concepts national identity and national cinema from two different disciplines by asking the main sub-research question: What is national cinema’s capacity of containing structures and symbols of national identity in the twenty-first century? In the first section, I will explain the origins (‘essence’) of the concept ‘national identity’ rooted in political philosophy5 by asking the questions: What can be categorized as the first theories on national identity; or: how and when did the first theories of nationalism in academic scope appeared and what does involve these theories? Moving on, in the second section, I will explain the origins (‘essence’) of the concept national cinema by asking the sub-question: What are the first prospects of national cinema in film studies and what do these theories involve? Thirdly, I will explain the concept national cinema in the twenty-first century by asking the sub-questions: What are the new theories of national cinema that encounter the new conditions of the twenty-first century? All-together, this clarifies what the link is between national identity and national cinema, and what course it takes - the debate - towards the twenty-first century.

1.1 The Origins of National Identity

National Identity’s Roots

The topic of nationalism and nation finds it roots in political philosophy. Up till mid- 1750s and 18th century the differences between nations and people were constructed upon the factors of the climate circumstances (Jensen 9-10). For instance, people in south of Europe were different than the people in the north of Europe on the grounds of different climate living circumstances. The climate theory was the ruling paradigm from antiquity until eighteenth century in Europe (9, 23).

5 On the origins of national identity, see the Oxford Bibliographies (Miscevic no pag.). This is a list with the most cited and relevant research-papers written about the topic Nationalism in the academic scope.

8

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

In 1748, philosopher David Hume6 attacked this theory, by arguing that differences between nations and people were constructed upon the “social- political” and “moral factors” (Jensen 9; Hume 207). David Hume stated that differences between nations and people is constructed by the manner and characters of people; and with ‘people’, Hume stresses the people in higher circles - “nobles” -, with power - “landed gentry” – and the religious leaders – “the genius of a particular sect or religion” (207). These people are, according to Hume, leading the nation to a particular set of manners, instead of the climate living circumstances:

We may often remark a wonderful mixture of manner and characters in the same nation, speaking the same language, and subject to the same government [..] Where the government of nation is altogether republican, it is apt to beget a peculiar set of manners. Where it is altogether monarchical it is more apt to have the same effect; the imitation of superiors spreading the national manners faster among the people. If the governing part of state consist altogether of merchants, as in Holland, their uniform way of life will fix their character. If it consist chiefly of nobels and landed gentry, like Germany, France, and Spain, the same effect follows. The Genius of a particular sect or religion is also apt to mould the manner of people (David Hume 207).

In historical context for national identities, Hume’s statement was important start for thinking in national identities. Because in the theory of Hume, the differences between nations is set on the factors of manners of people – the “social-political” and “moral factors” instead of climate factors (Jensen 9). Lotte Jensen7 clarifies that “the way [Hume] reflects upon ‘nation’ and ‘national character’ reveals that these terms had become ingrained in common speech, but were historically charged and contested ” (9). Thusly, the essay of Hume in 1748, was not the start of the terms, but a new approach and start of theorizing

6 David Hume (1711-1776), a philosopher in times of Enlightenment, was great thinker during these times: he influences thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Popper, Russel, Adam Smith and Einstein. But Hume was not rewarded by everyone for his sceptical thinking about religion, as Antheïst (Vink no pag). For instance, the phrase of “particular sect or religion is also apt to mould” shows his atheist and his analytical vision of “getting knowledge by experience”. His most-cited article about ‘Nationalism’ is “On National Characters”. In this article, the terms nation and national characters got problematized. Jensen clarifies that “Hume’s essays is part of a long tradition of texts about national stereotypes and character that can be traced back to the Middle Ages. The way he reflects upon ‘nation’ and ‘national character’ reveals that these terms had become ingrained in common speech, but were historically charged and contested” (Jensen 9). 7 Lotte Jensen (1972) , professor specialized in Dutch literature, History and Philosophy, has edited the book The Roots of Nationalism: National Identity Formation In Early Modern Europe, 1600-1815. This book is a result of a two-day conference, titled ‘The Roots of Nationalism. Early Modern Identity Formation in Early Modern Europe, 1600-1815’, which was held in January 2015. This book is the first volume and well-structured about scholars who have written or examined on the subject of nations and nationalism.

9

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

about nations in subjective – social - factors instead of objective factors. This trend8 continued after Hume. In 1983, the concept ‘nation’ as “imagined community” got introduced by Benedict Anderson9. In his paper, “Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism”, he stated that the elements of capitalism and printing is the foundation for nationalism (Cheah and Culler 2; Chaudhuri 2). According to Anderson’s research, the concept of a nation can be defined as an imagined community. This means, that although a citizen does not know his or her fellow countrymen, they feel connected to each other by sharing the same media objects (Chaudhuri 2; Anderson 135). In this matter, Anderson’s research, has given rise to increased scholarly attention to the concept of nation in film studies. Through his statement, that of a nation as an imagined community, national cinema has been examined and identified as a media object that can be considered as an element of structuring the national identity of a country. Anderson states: “[…] all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even these) are imagined. Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity-genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined” (6). In such contexts, the nation – national identity - is still a powerful entity despite that is ‘imagined’ – a social construct - because it has a strong belief by the inhabitants of the nation. In 1991, the term ‘national identity’ got introduced by Anthony Smith10 for his identification – ontology – of a nation. Smits theory of national identity is an ethno symbolist approach. This means the subjective components are based on the sociological collective cultural identities (Smith National Identity 9; Guibernau 133). Smith clarifies that national identity involves “some sense of political community, history, territory, patria, citizenship, common values and traditions” (Smith National Identity 9). This means that “nations must have a measure of common culture and a civic ideology, a set of common

8 The trend of thinking in subjective (social and moral) factors for the identification – ontology – of the concept nation by theorists. This means that the nation exists upon the social factors and that these social factors are getting prominent role in the academic scope according to Nenad Miscevic. As stated by Nenad Miscevic8: “it seems that for a nation to exist, a certain number of people have to have relevant beliefs, and other mental attitudes” (no pag.). 9 Benedict Anderson is a professor in social science and a constructivist. He has influenced the academic scope for his breaking through research, for his ontological statement that a nation is a imagined community (Miscevic no pag.) 10 Antohony Smith is one of the first professors in ethnic and national identities at the School of Economics and Political Science. He brought nationalism as value research-topic in the academic scope on world basis. He retired in 2004. For his intellectual achievement, the department and linked parties (scholars in this department, the journal of the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism Nations and Nationalism and many editors such as Smith himself) devoted the book Nations and Nationalism for the problems he addressed and helped defined in the field (Smith et al. Preface Nations and Nationalism. Vol. 10 Part ½ January/April. 2004).

10

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

understandings and aspirations, sentiments and ideas, that bind the population together in their homeland” (11). He adds the statement of Ernst Gellner’s theory of nationalism, from 1983, which is that the agencies of the socialization11 are holding this common culture – national identity – by the public educational system and the media. Smith lists the following features of national identity: (1) an historic territory or homeland; (2) common myths and historical memories; (3) a common, mass public culture; (4) common legal rights and duties for all members; and (5) a common economy with territorial mobility for members (Smith 14). Smith’s theory of national identity in 1991 is based upon a common mass public culture. From 2002 Smith includes citizenship as criteria for defining national identity as follows: “common legal rights and duties for all members” (Smith “When is a Nation?” 15). In 2004, Montserrat Guibernau attacked this last statement, by arguing that there is no difference between ‘nation-states’ and ‘nations without states’ for defining the concept national identity. Guibernau critiques Smith’s definition that national identity is bound to citizenship of the nation-state. Smith defines “national identity as a quality shared by the citizen of a state and he completely ignores that, in many cases, nation and state are coextensive” (134). This means, that in Smith theory, the identities without legal states are not existence. Guibernau states that instead of approaching the three terms ‘nation12’, ‘state13’ and ‘nation-state’” as one, as in the theory of Smith, a “clear- cut distinction needs to be drawn between three main concepts. She adds a new phenomenon and concept: “nation without a state” (132). Montserrat Guibernau states, that “there are other cases [..] where national identity is shared among individuals belonging to a nation without a state of their own. Memories of a time when the nation was independent [..]” (134).

Montserrat Guibernau defines national identity as follows: “[..] national identity is a modern phenomenon of a fluid and dynamic nature, one by means of which a community sharing a particular set of characteristics is led to the subjective belief that its members are

11 Socialization is a concept for “the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained” (Clausen 5). It stands for the civilization with a continuity by its set of norms and values. A concept that is introduced in the field of Social Sciences and in more fields such as Political Science in the late 1980s (5-9). 12 See Montserrat Guibernau defention of a nation in 1996: “human group conscious of forming a community, sharing a common culture, attached to a clearly demarcated territory, having common past and a common project for the future and claiming the right to rule itself (47-48; Guibernau 2004 132). 13 See Max Weber’ definition of a state in 1991: “a human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (78).

11

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

ancestrally related. Belief in a shared culture, history, traditions, symbols, kinship, language, religion, territory, founding moment, and destiny have been invoked, with varying intensity at different times and places, by peoples claiming to share a particular national identity” (Montserrat Guibernau 134).

Guibernau states, that national identity is a “modern phenomenon” that has to adjust itself to the new conditions of the society. In her theory, a new facet of the twenty-first century is added: a person from a state without have the legal papers of being the citizen of the nation (or the country is not legally admitted as country) can have the national identity of that concerning country. In my case study, the Iranian directors who are banned from their country of origin do not have the legal Iranian citizenship, but can still have the Iranian national identity – the feeling of belonging and being member of the imagined community of Iran.

National Identity in the Twenty-First Century

Now, with the theoretical overview, I can answer my sub-research-questions: What is the ‘essence’ of the concept national identity in the twenty-first century? What do the theories have in common in approaching national identity? More specific: How do these prospects of national identity apply to exiled Iranian directors?

In the twenty-first century, the essence of the concept national identity did not change. It is a fluid, transformable concept, that shapes to the new facets of the twenty-first century society of globalisation. Just as Montserrat Guibernau defined, the concept of national identity is a “modern phenomenon” that adjust itself to the new conditions of the society. The theories have in common that the theorists are all defining national identity on the differences between nations on the basis of cultural differences implied by people themselves. Just as David Hume formulated in the early definitions of national identities: people are different from each other by the way they are imposed by the people’s standards of culture habits in higher circles. And as stated by Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith, in the essence, national identity is the difference between nations by cultural rules of the community. In short: the subjective socials factors are the key for the

12

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

proliferation of national identities, which are transformative. Just as Monserrat Guibernau stated that national identity is a modern fluid phenomenon. I argued, that Montserrat Guibernau’s theory is a good adjustment for the new complexities of national identity of the Iranian director in the current, twenty-first century society. Because, in the theory of Guibernau, the citizen of nations without state is included for having a national identity. This new condition is lacking in the Smiths theory, due to the time of his studies14. In Guibernau’s theory exiled Iranian former citizens can have a feeling of belonging to Iran – having a Iranian national identity. They are being banned or illegal in the country but they still have the same ‘feeling of imagined community’15 and ‘belonging’ to the nation state (Gauibernau 133). In the case of my research object, Iranian filmmakers, who are in exile, want to express their national identity more than ever in their films. In such contexts, Guibernau’s theory includes – the new category - exiled or outlawed Iranian filmmakers for having a Iranian national identity, because the national identity is not bounded to the legal status of the “nation-state”. How do Iranian directors express their national identity – the feeling of being an Iranian citizen and feeling of belonging to the community of Iran – in line with the post- revolutionary Iranian cinematic censorship rules? These structures will explained later on in the second chapter and in the close readings of the four films.

14 Smith’s theory in 1995 and 2002 was written in the begin phase of the new phenomena of “states” and “nations”. The theory of Guibernau is a continuation of Smith’s research upon national identity in modern times (twenty-first century). The research of Smith has to be considered, according to Guibernau and Smith et al. as a non-finished product, non- finished definitions of national identity, that has to be continued and adjusted. 15 On the feeling of a “imagined community” for defining national identities, see book Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson.

13

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

1.2 The Origins of National Cinema

National Cinema’s Roots

In order to understand the national and global aspects of cinema in the twenty- first century, I will firstly explain the historical background of the concept national cinema and its scholarship. David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson clarify in their book Film History that the idea or development of cinema from a nation’s perspective16 developed during the first World War. Before WW I, cinema was considered as an internationally oriented medium. The authors clarify, that national cinema emerged because of the increasingly importance of national identities during this so called ‘Great War’ (Bordwell and Thomson 45). Many nations developed their own independent films, accompanied by their own film trends, styles, and culture. Such as German, American, Italian, Danish, Swedish, French, Soviet, Dutch and American national cinema (45). The American national cinema, Hollywood, became the biggest producer of cinema of the world. For this reason, the term national cinema was “generally used as a marketing strategy to distinguish the limited number of films in circulation that were not from Hollywood” (Esfandiary 39). However, it was not until after the second World War that national cinema and art cinema in academic scholarship became a subjects of matter. Shahab Esfandiary clarifies that “the term of national cinema did not seem to require any further scrutiny [in academic scholarship]” (39). Thusly, both terms national cinema and art cinema terms already occurred as marketing strategy or in the film journals, and from the mid-1980s national cinema became a problematic concept in line with developments of the concept nation. Till 1989 there was not one single accepted definition or consensus of the term national cinema. Andrew Higson is one of the first scholars who did a full assessment on the term national cinema in the academic scope. He wrote the well-known article titled “The concept of National Cinema” as part of his PhD thesis in 1989. He acknowledges the work of Thomas Elsaesser, which enabled him to develop his arguments in advance. Higson explores and problematizes the usage of the term ‘national’ in the discourse about cinema in the film industry and film

16 In addition: the interwar movements led not only to establishment of film as national product, it also established and helped to legitimate film as an artistic product. Alex Lykidis clarifies that “the interwar movements such as German Expressionism and French surrealism led to the establishment of film journals, clubs, and archives that helped to legitimate cinema as an art form” (no pag).

14

Crossing Borders: Iran, Nation and Cinema

culture. He defines ‘national cinema’ in two ways: first, national cinema as the opposite of Hollywood and how it differs from other cinema, a semiotic definition; and second, cinema in terms of the historic, economic, political, and cultural elements of the ‘nation’ (Higson 40–42). Higson states that the term national has been used in variety of ways, on the grounds there is not a single universally accepted consensus on the use the term national cinema. According to Higson, the following four approaches are hitherto used to define national cinema: economic, text-based, exhibition-led or consumption-based, and criticism-led. Higson asserts that the four approaches are incorrect and have their shortcomings; they are prescriptive rather than descriptive. The economic approach defines national cinema in terms of the ‘domestic film industry’, which includes the following survey questions: Who owns and controls the production, distribution, and exhibition of the film industry of the concerning country? In the second approach, national cinema is defined in terms of the content of the film, which poses questions such as: What are