In modern cinema, transnationalism is a dominant feature within many films. Incorporating a blend of different elements from many nations, transnational films can not be easily defined as belonging to one nation alone.
From early days, film was recognised as a purposeful means to promote the interests of a nation.However, the emergence of transnational film has challenged this concept and consequently made it seemingly difficult to assign a fixed national identity to much cinema (Ezra 2006).
In turn, transnational films allow us to recognise the hybridity of much cinema and how such films are transforming the ways people throughout the world are making and watching films.
However, there is much incongruity in determining whether transnational cinema is good or bad. Is it an effective way to understand elements of various cultures outside our personal experience? Are we enriched with different cultures and given the opportunity to experience them through film? Or are they as (Lee, 2008) suggests, so bland and nonspecific they stop addressing any community?
Despite whether transnational film is arguably a positive or negative concept, its existence only continues to increase worldwide. Karan and Schaefer (2010) particularly address this idea, as they discuss the apparent hybridity embedded in many popular films today.
In a bid to overthrow the hegemony of American Hollywood, Karan and Schaefer (2010) illustrate attempts made by other nations (particularly India and China) to appeal to a wider range of audiences by incorporating transnational concepts into their films.
“Within cinematic public spheres, filmmakers act as bricoleurs mixing both global and local elements to appeal to audience tastes and trends”
(Karan and Schaefer 2010)
The western demographic is one such particular audience that Hindi films have evidently attempted to appeal to. A content analysis methodology conducted by Karan and Schaefer (2010) recognised how of the 61 highest-grossing Hindi films for each year between 1947 and 2007, there are “significant increases in the levels of Western (86%–92%) and modern (83%–89%) content in popular Hindi films, accompanied by highly significant decreases in levels of Eastern/India (91%–85%) and traditional (43%–29%) content.”
Slumdog Millionaire: A transnational film containing Bollywood
and Westernised influences.
This evidence provides insight into the apparent ‘Westernised shift’ that Hindi films are experiencing, and how transnational influences may be incorporated to appeal to a wider demographic.
Karan and Schaefer (2010) also recognise North American interests in ‘Bollywood’ and Indian culture, as shown through the highest-grossing film of all time – Avatar, which was seen to have incorporated significant Hindu inspired elements throughout it’s plot.
In a bid to gain supremacy among audiences, national film industries appear to be adopting elements of various cultures in their cinema. Karan and Schaefer (2010) express that as this hybridized content spreads, “the boundaries between the modern and the traditional, the high and low culture, and the national and the global culture are significantly blurred.”
Which indeed calls into question the effects of hybridized content.
Are modern films at risk of becoming increasingly bland and at risk of homogenisation? Is it becoming less likely for national audiences to find films that truly evoke their culture and national interests precisely?
As an Australian audience member who has not seen a ‘true blue Aussie film’ in a long while, I would tend to think so. What ever happened to classic Aussie films like Gregor Jordan’s Two Hands?
References:
georgettebarling 