Session One Part 1: Hollywood ≠ Europe (?) The Logics of Nation & Culture – or why Hollywood is seen as an American Institution Department of Film and Audiovisual Culture Dr. Richard Nowell ¨12:30 – 12:50 ¨Brief Course Overview ¨ ¨12:50 – 14:20 ¨Screening: The Artist (2011) ¨ ¨14:20–14:30 ¨Break ¨ ¨14:30 –15:45 ¨The Logics of Nation and Culture ¨ artist.jpg ¨ ¨ ¨Write down 10 things that come to mind when you hear the word “Hollywood”. ¨ ¨Write down the first ten things that come to mind when you hear the term “European Cinema”? ¨Structure: Weekly screening and seminar ¨ ¨Preparation: Home Screening and Reading(s) ¨ ¨Organization: Screenings/readings discussed ¨ (student participation encouraged) ¨ ¨Slides: Uploaded within 24 Hours ¨ ¨Assessment: 3 x 1300 word essays (equally weighted gradewise) ¨ ¨Feedback: One Page Grade Rationale Emailed Promptly ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨Focus: Relationships between Hollywood and Europe ¨ ¨Structure: Revise dominant understandings of this topic ¨ ¨Approach: Conceptual, textual, and contextual analysis ¨ ¨Emphasis: Disparities between reputations and realities ¨ ¨Purpose I:Facilitate nuanced and informed understandings ¨ ¨Purpose II: Question: Distinction, Opposition, and Imperialism ¨ inglourious_basterds.jpg mamma_mia_ver3.jpg in_bruges.jpg grand_budapest_hotel.jpg from_paris_with_love.jpg paul.jpg roman_holiday_ver3.jpg it_started_in_naples.jpg under_the_tuscan_sun.jpg vicky_cristina_barcelona.jpg ¨Logics of “National Cinema” ¨ ¨Hollywood and Nation ¨ ¨The case of The Artist (2011) ¨ ¨ ¨ artist.jpg ¨Do you feel like you are watching an American movie? ¨ ¨If so, what exactly makes it American? ¨ ¨If not, why does it not feel like an American movie? ¨ ¨How else would you classify it? ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 1. artist.jpg Session 1 The Logics of Nation & Culture – or why Hollywood is seen as an American Institution ¨The Logics of “National Cinema” ¨ ¨Hollywood and Nation ¨ ¨Case of The Artist (2011) ¨ ¨ ¨ artist.jpg 1.What did you feel was a quintessential American film? 2. 2.Why did you chose this particular film? 3. 3.Did you need to think hard about this decision, or did it simply spring to mind? 4. 4.Do you stand by your decision? star_wars.jpg rocky_iv.jpg ¨Films are often thought of in national terms – American Cinema, French Cinema, Czech Cinema etc… ¨ ¨Hollywood tends to be associated with the United States … ¨ ¨To say a film is American is to imply that it is not something else; Hollywood is American and therefore s not Dutch, Czech etc … ¨ ¨Such labels are not inevitable or neutral, or without implications ¨ ¨For example, charges of Americanization/cultural imperialism are presaged on the association of Hollywood and the United States ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨At the heart of Higson’s paper is an explanation of why in everyday life people think of things in national terms. ¨ ¨Higson’s piece is effectively a reception study, albeit one lacking empirical research and support; he is nevertheless quite right! ¨ ¨DESCRIPTION: ¨What THREE ways does Higson suggest cultural products like films were – and are – assigned national status in everyday life? ¨ ¨PRESCRIPTION: ¨What is the FOURTH “new” way Higson suggests that we might also think about film in terms of national status? ¨ ¨ ¨Three ways films tend(ed) to be assigned national status ¨ ¨1. Economic (misleading): Nationality of makers and stars ¨ ¨2. Text-based: Content and Address ¡ – what it is about; to whom it speaks ¨ ¨3. Criticism-based: what elites deem national treasures ¨ ¨ Higson suggests we should ALSO consider … 1. ¨4. Consumption-based : what nationals actually watch ¨Hjort develops the text-based approach to national cinema, perhaps the most commonly used in film culture ¨ ¨What does she suggest sets apart examples of so-called national cinema from other films? ¨ ¨What does she suggest are the TWO principal “modes” through which filmmakers seek to achieve this end? ¨ ¨Do you have any issues or problems with Hyort’s conceptual frameworks? ¨ 1. ¨ ¨Deliberate. recognizable thematizing of nation ¨ ¨“About-ness” NOT “banal nationalisms”/ ¨“Topical themes ” NOT “perennial themes” ¨ ¨Topical: temporally/spatially specific/ ¨Perennial: trans-historical, trans cultural (love etc) ¨ ¨Strategy I: Monocultural – hyper-saturation of film with flagged national reference points ¨ ¨Strategy II: Intercultural – contrasts different national discourses ¨ ¨ ¨ lincoln.jpg lincoln-bill-and-ted.jpg american_sniper.jpg american_pie.jpg ¨Hjort purports to talk of intention but oftentimes her model ultimately hinges on the ways individual viewers liker herself engage with a film ¨ ¨The difference between banal nationalism and aboutness is not all that clear cut, and again hinges on our subjective perceptions of the material ¨ ¨Topical themes are always examples of a perennials; distinguishing between them rests yet again on how a viewer engages with a film ¨ ¨Monocultural: Hypersaturation must be spotted to function at all ¨ ¨Intercultural: is multinational in nature ¨ ¨Monocultural and intercultural can coexist in a given film ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨Do you feel like you are watching an American movie? ¨ ¨If so, what exactly makes it American? ¨ ¨If not, why does it not feel like an American movie? ¨ ¨How else would you classify it? ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 1. artist.jpg ¨Themaizes US social history, and mythology; American Dream and The Wall Street Crash … but ¨ ¨1. Situates these national discourses into a regional and transnational framework … ¨ ¨Concerns a tiny multinational regional community ¨ ¨This “American tale” is experienced by an émigré whose situation derives from being an immigrant ¨ ¨2. Topicality exemplifies perennials like love, loss ¨ ¨Frames human experience as transcending language artist 1.jpg theartist_2127367i.jpg The-Artist--007.jpg ¨US: Rarely labeled using national markers ¨ ¨UK: Typically described as “French” ¨ ¨Principal Crew: ¨Writer- Dir.: Michel Hazanavicius ¨ (French) ¨Producers: ¨France, USA, Sweden, Belgium ¨ ¨Principal Cast Members: ¨Jean Dujardin (French) ¨Berenice Bejo (Argentina) ¨John Goodman (USA) ¨ ¨ bejo.jpg Weinsteins.jpg ¨The Artist’s location in nationally demarcated cultural space is not monolithic: it is contradictory ¨ ¨The Artist did not attract a large audience anywhere, except for France where it was a moderate hit ¨ ¨But it fared well by the standards of the art house market, making it relevant to an international niche ¨ ¨But it was endorsed by the most public US-based cinematic “taste-making” institution: The Academy ¨ ¨Yet, this publicity has a place within – and places The Artist within – international “popular” culture ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ oscar artist.jpg harry_potter_and_the_deathly_hallows_part_two_ver23.jpg Cinq-Oscars-pour-The-Artist-Jean-Dujardin-meilleur-acteur.jpg ¨Hollywood is usually seen as a quintessential US institution both in the Academy and more importantly in everyday life ¨ ¨Higson argues this logic usually rests on who we think makes them, what we think they are about, and what elites deem national “treasures” ¨ ¨Hjort adds National Cinema be seen as films about a specific nation; those activating preexisting discourses about a nation… ¨ ¨However, Higson adds we must also consider consumption; what nationals watch and imagine as part of a shared cultural experience ¨ ¨We can use these ideas to shed light on the reasons why Hollywood is typically associated with the US … ¨ ¨1. We are used to others doing so – authoritative public sphere claims-makers, but also everyday folks like us (doing so un-selfreflexively) ¨ ¨2. We think of Hollywood as based in and run from a district of the American city of Los Angeles … but how true is this? ¨ ¨3. We think of Hollywood films as principally financed by, made by, and starring American nationals … but how true is this? ¨ ¨4. We think of Hollywood films as telling primarily American stories; stories that are about America as a nation … but how true is this? ¨ ¨5. We think of Hollywood films as primarily made for and consumed by the “domestic” US market … but how true is this? ¨ 1. 1.