National Cinema

[dreamdead]

I was thinking of national cinema over the weekend, and I was curious how you would go about ranking and deciding the qualitative value of a given culture's cinema. Do you decide by the quantity of important filmmakers (U.S.), or merely by the importance of a film's impression on film history afterward (Eisenstein)? Below is a merely cursory selection of national cinemas that I think of as having enough importance to be qualified as a national cinema. If you think others deserve to be included, try to justify the value of that national cinema...

What's your ranking, and which filmmakers are the key figures that you think of when you think of that national cinema?

U.S.
English
Japanese
German
Russian
Italian
French
Spanish
Swedish
African
Iranian
Hong Kong
Chinese
Canadian
Indian
Korean
Australian
Taiwanese
Polish

Cinemas that haven't had a long enough time to gestate and otherwise develop a history (Vietnam, Thai, and perhaps New Zealand).

[Ezee E]

I have no idea where to start because you wouldn't have a certain set of American movies if it weren't for the Japanese influence. And also the other way around. That goes for nearly all countries.

Having influence on other countries, I'd still say that American films have the most simply because they're the most accessible, even outside the U.S.

[dreamdead]

1. U.S. (Malick, Hitchcock, Linklater, Lubitsch, Capra, Fosse)
2. French (Rohmer, Godard, Denis, Assayas, Renoir, Cocteau, Kieslowski)
3. Japanese (A. Kurosawa, Ozu, Mizoguchi, Naruse, Imamara, Ichikawa, Kon, Miyazaki, K. Kurosawa, Kitano)
4. Russian (Tarkovsky, Eisenstein, Mikhail Kalatozov)
5. English (Leigh, Powell and Pressburger, Greenaway, Lean, Roeg)
6. German (Murnau, Fassbinder, Lang, Herzog)
7. Swedish (Dreyer, Bergman)
8. Italian (Fellini, Antonioni, Pasolini, De Sica)
9. Chinese (Jia Zhang-ke, Zhang Yimou)
10. Spanish (Bunuel, Almodóvar)
11. Indian (S. Ray)
12. Iranian (Kiarostami, Panahi, Makhmalbaf)
13. Korean (Lee Chang-dong, Hong Sang-soo)
14. Hong Kong (Wong, To, Woo)
15. Australian (Luhrmann, Wier)
16. Taiwanese (Yang, Hou)
17. Polish (Kieslowski, Polanski)
18. African (Sembene)

[Eleven]

Interesting topic, even if it's increasingly hard to quantify "national" cinema. So many of the classic Hollywood directors were emigres (Hitchcock, Lang, Lubitsch, Clair, Sirk, Renoir) and so many filmmakers later crossed national boundaries (Bunuel, Herzog, Godard, Ruiz, Hou) that they should probably be counted multiple times. Which are better, Lang's German films or his American ones?

Secondly, I can barely keep up with the history of cinema in my own country, let alone that of any other one. It's sad but understandable that "Africa" is considered its own category, yet Nigeria actually produces more films per year than the US (but still less than India), albeit many on digital video. Even with the scarce percentage of things I get to see from anyone else in the world, it's near impossible to get a grasp on. But I'll try.

Just like dreamdead, it seems to me that the big three are the United States (for economic and cultural reasons the most widely diverse cinema to exist thus far), France (a more cinephilic country there never was), and Japan (even with so much of its film history destroyed).

Germany, Russia, Italy, and Spain are in the next bunch.

Some countries, especially in the Middle East and southeast Asia, have been up-and-coming for the last few decades and should probably be upgraded before too long.

I'm probably seriously underrating India, as it's been healthily whirring along this whole time.

[Ezee E]

India may put out the most films, but they seem to stay accessible only to those in the country. Bollywood is starting to expand with a few stars, but very few movies seem to leave the country.

I'll agree with the major three that have been discussed thus far. Although I'd say Italy is closer to the top tier than we think.

[Spinal]

When I am in the foreign section of my video store or library, I am drawn to these nationalities, regardless of director:

Japanese
German
French
Swedish
Czech
Korean
Dutch
Danish

I find that I have a certain reluctance towards these nationalities:

Russian
African
Iranian
Indian

Whether or not this is true across the board, my biases have to do with my general impressions of a national cinema's ...

... williness to explore artistic boundaries that I personally find exciting.
... flamboyance, sense of humor, openness with regards to sexuality.
... attitudes towards organized religion and global politics.

In short, the more my sterotype of a region is as a repressed, religiously obsessed, artistically timid culture, the less interested I am. China is an interesting contradiction because the political repression is counter-balanced in my mind by the frequent use of bold, colorful, emotionally charged imagery (particularly in the work of Zhang Yimou). My stereotypes are often wrong, and I do push past my reluctance to see films that capture my interest, but that is my general thinking.

[Spinal]

Key figures I think of:

U.S. (Spielberg, Coens, Lynch)
English (Greenaway, Leigh)
Japanese (Kurosawa, Miyazaki)
German (Herzog)
Russian (Eisenstein, Tarkovsky)
Italian (Fellini, Antonioni)
French (Breillat, Godard, Denis)
Spanish (Almodovar)
Swedish (Bergman)
Chinese (Zhang)
Indian (Ray)
Korean (Kim)
Australian (Miller)
Polish (Kieslowski)
Mexican (Bunuel, Cuaron)
Czech (Forman)
Danish (Trier, Dreyer)
Dutch (Verhoeven)

[balmakboor]

12. Iranian (Kiarostami, Panahi, Makhmalbaf)

I think you are missing one of their finest and certainly my favorite -- Majid Majidi. I just re-watched The Willow Tree on the big screen and it is a truly great film. So are Children of Heaven, Color of Paradise, and Baran.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Iceland's output is pretty solid, although it's mostly angsty, depressing family dramas.

Apart from that, Japan, France, and the US seem like the big winners. What I'd like to do is learn more about Bollywood. The only flicks I've seen with prominent Indian characters are Lagaan and The Namesake, and neither of those are completely "Indian."

[[ETM]]

I think Yugoslavian cinema needs to be mentioned. By this I mean the films from the former Yugoslavia, as well as the countries created after its breakup: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia...

It is mostly represented by directors from the "Novi film (New film)" tendency (or movement, if you like) from the 1960s and 70s, inspired by Italian Neorealism and various new waves in European cinema, who were also named "Crni talas (Black wave)" by the censors, because they rejected the dominant style of socialist realism (socrealizam), with its officially sanctioned optimism and patriotic education of the masses, and instead exposing the darker side of the socialist state and its corruption and hypocrisy.

Dušan Makavejev (1932-) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0538445/) is definitely the biggest name (although probably not the most known or popular): Čovek nije tica (Man Is Not a Bird, 1965), Ljubavni slučaj ili tragedija službenice PTT (Love Affair; or the Case of the Missing Switchboard Operator, 1967), W.R.—Misterije organizma (W.R.—Mysteries of the Organism, 1971), Gorila se kupa u podne ( Gorilla Bathes at Noon , 1993).

Notable "Novi film" directors:
Aleksandar Petrović (1929–1994) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0678249/): Dvoje (And Love Has Vanished , 1961), Tri (Three , 1965), Skupljači perja (I Even Met Happy Gypsies , 1967), Majstor i Margarita (The Master and Margaret , 1972); Živojin Pavlović (1933–1998) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0667870/): Buđenje pacova (The Rats Woke Up , 1967), Kad budem mrtav i beo (When I Am Dead and Gone , 1967)

Other significant directors come from the "Yugoslav Prague Group" or "Czech School", who graduated from the Film and TV School of the Academy of Performing Arts (FAMU) in the Czech Republic. Emir Kusturica (1954-) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001437/) is probably the best known name in international circles, followed by Goran Paskaljević (1947-) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0664607/), Lordan Zafranović (1944-) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0951799/), Srđan Karanović (1945-) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0438906/), Goran Marković (1946-) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0548648/) and Rajko Grlic (1947-) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0342748/).

In recent years, several younger directors have left their mark internationally, such as Danis Tanović (1969-) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0849786/) from Bosnia, with Nicija zemlja (No Man's Land, 2001), and Milčo Mančevski (1959-) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0541391/) from Macedonia: Пред дождот (Before the Rain, 1994). Mančevski (Manchevsky) also directed one episode of The Wire, among other things.

During communist rule, several large international productions were shot in Yugoslavia, mainly depicting great events from WWII, with enormous budgets, thousands of extras, and starring biggest Hollywood (and, amusingly enough, Russian) actors of the time: Bitka na Neretvi (Battle of Neretva, 1969) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064091/) - with Yul Brynner, Orson Welles, Franco Nero, Sergei Bondarchuk, and Sutjeska (1973) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070758/) - with Richard Burton were the greatest spectacles out of those titles. Films from this "Partizan film" subgenre are still very popular in the region, as well as communist China, it seems.

Animation also had notable examples, especially from the "Zagreb school" - Montenegrin director Dušan Vukotić (1927-1998) (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0904370/) who lived and worked in Croatia was the first foreigner to win an Oscar in the Short Animated Film category, in 1962. for Surogat (The Substitute, 1961) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054854/).

That should cover it for the basics... I know many of you are familiar with quite a few of these, I was just wanting to post something like this for quite some time now and this was a good opportunity.

[[ETM]]

I find that I have a certain reluctance towards these nationalities:

Russian

Oh, my good man, you should see some of the more unorthodox Russian works. Especially sci-fi and animation. I haven't seen some of the older films in a long time, but they were shown on TV a lot in these parts, and I remember seeing some pretty "out there" Soviet stuff as a kid.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm currently taking a course on Quebec Cinema, and am somewhat interested in Canadian film in general. Though we don't necessarily have the strongest cinema, I do think we are often underrated as world leaders in documentary, experimental and animated film especially. The work of the National Film Board in shorts and feature lengths are fairly incredible, and though as an organization, it is not without it's faults, it has encouraged and supported some truly great talents over the years.

Examining just the NFB, we have filmmakers who worked both predominantly and in part for the organization, like Norman McLaren, Claude Jutra, Michel Brault, Denys Arcand, and Frédéric Back. Notable films like, Lonely Boy, The Man Who Planted Trees, Pas de Deux, Le Chat dans le sac, La vie heureuse de Léopold Z, Kanehsatake 270 Years of Resistance, etc. etc.

Moving into the private sector, especially in recent years, you have many highly respected Canadian filmmakers making films that are respected all over the world. I've already mentioned Denys Arcand, but you also have David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, Lea Pool, Denis Villeneuve, Guy Maddin and Don McKellar.

Though universally appealing, with most of these filmmakers films, you often have Canadian themes and settings featured predominantly, though perhaps it is not always obvious to all international audiences.

Also, like most National Cinema beyond (perhaps) the States, you have many films and filmmakers that are not only unknown to people from outside of Canada, but largely unavailable. In Canada's case, I think many of the great ones are from Quebec, and it's a shame that filmmakers like Gilles Carle are completely unknown outside of the province, because he just has the most incredible style and sense of humour. He strikes me as a French Canadian Russ Meyer, but with even more nuance and politics thrown in. LOVE HIM. Again though, it's rare that even if you're able to find some of his work, or other Quebec filmmakers that slip under the international radar, that you'll be able to find English subs :/

Another great one I've seen recently is La Bete Lumineuse, a strange documentary that chronicles a bunch of Quebec hunters on a trip to get some moose. They throw in a poet/professor in the mix, who was the childhood best friend of one of the "men", and ooo how painful it is to watch.

Also, Canada is of course home to some very notable film festivals, like TIFF or the Montreal Fantasia Film Festival, which are both also worth mentioning.

Another point, most of the foundations of Direct Cinema started here in films for the NFB.

It's easy to make fun of Canadian film, but you know, I think it's worthwhile discussing. Perhaps not on the same level as some of the super powers, it's difficult to deny that Canada has produced some truly great films and film talents over the years.

[Adam]

Don McKellar is a national treasure. You should be very proud of him

[Adam]

And Sarah Polley is a total fox. You should be proud of her, too

[Philosophe_rouge]

Trying to just find key figures for this list shows how incredibly ignorant I am with most National Cinemas beyond Canada, USA, UK and France :/ Terrible me. It's also difficult with American film to choose AMERICAN filmmakers, I think many of the best workers within the Hollywood systems were foreign born, I'll still include them though

U.S. (Mike Nichols, Howard Hawks, John Ford, Ernst Lubitsch, Leo McCarey, Chaplin, Altman, Sirk, Sternberg etc. I love American film too much to choose just a handful :/)
English (Powell & Pressburger, Losey, Reed, Lean, Anderson, Roeg)
Japanese (Mizoguchi, Naruse, Miyazaki, Sono)
German (LANG, Murnau, Herzog)
Russian (Eisenstein)
Italian (Antonioni, Fellini, Leone)
French (Godard, Rohmer, Kirsanoff, Renoir, Kieslowski, Zulawski)
Spanish (Almodovar)
Swedish (Bergman)

Also, my own addition;

Canadian (Egoyan, Cronenberg, Carle, Jutra, Clark, Back, McLaren)

The rest of these I'm pretty stupid with :/
African
Iranian
Hong Kong
Chinese
Indian
Korean
Australian
Taiwanese
Polish

[dreamdead]

Eek. Sorry for forgetting Canadian cinema, rouge and meg. :sad:

Is anyone willing to argue that the big 3 aren't U.S., French, and Japanese? Is Japanese cinema the logical choice because so many of us used Kurosawa to get into foreign cinema?

[Eleven]

Canada, like Britain, was disparaged and hugely underrated for decades until interesting modern auteurs appeared and history was rediscovered. It's hard to imagine a time when Powell & Pressburger weren't known as beacons of English cinema.


Is anyone willing to argue that the big 3 aren't U.S., French, and Japanese? Is Japanese cinema the logical choice because so many of us used Kurosawa to get into foreign cinema?

Not really to the second question. I'd put Ozu, Mizoguchi, Naruse, Ichikawa, Imamura, Oshima, and possibly Masumura, Kinoshita, Miyazaki, and Shimizu, at or above the level of Kurosawa. They have more than enough outstanding filmmakers to constitute one of the premiere film histories.

[soitgoes...]

Is anyone willing to argue that the big 3 aren't U.S., French, and Japanese? Is Japanese cinema the logical choice because so many of us used Kurosawa to get into foreign cinema?

I think so, but not necessarily for the reason you gave. Japanese cinema has been chugging along putting out quality films, for the most part at a high rate, since the late 20's. Except for the US and France, which have been doing it since the birth of cinema, I don't think any other national cinema can say the same. UK maybe, but nowhere near the level of consistency or quantity of Japan. Italy would be closer to nudging into the top 3, but they did next to nothing from Cabiria until the rise of the Italian neo-realism movement. I do think the Italians along with the Germans are 4th and 5th (or possibly equal) with the Russians (are the non-Russian Soviets included?) not far behind.

An interesting thread, an idea that I've considered before, but like others have stated, it's hard to use directors as a basis for judging national cinemas.

[thefourthwall]

And dreamdead willfully ignored Irish cinema (Doyle, Jordan, Sheridan, Huston, Margo Harkin, John Carney) although there's definitely the issue of individuals like Neil Jordan who alternate between Hollywood films and Irish ones.

I wonder how dependent on national funding is a national cinema. I know the Irish government funds a fair amount of films and Russia's did when Eisenstein was working; it would seem to me that countries with less developed cinemas would need government funding to become established. Otherwise any filmic talent they have will be co-opted by foreign (probably US) money. Although, the advent of digital video has changed that somewhat, making it possible to shoot a decent film for far cheaper.

[balmakboor]

It seems to me that some of our neighbors to the south like Mexico and Brazil have fairly active cinemas. I know the wikipedia page for Brazilian cinema goes all the way back to the early 20th century. Maybe later when I have a bit more time I'll try to prove or disprove my case for them.

[lovejuice]

Is anyone willing to argue that the big 3 aren't U.S., French, and Japanese? Is Japanese cinema the logical choice because so many of us used Kurosawa to get into foreign cinema?
i won't argue with that, although Hong Kong and Indian cinema deserve a big nod based on how massive their industries are.

[balmakboor]

It seems to me that some of our neighbors to the south like Mexico and Brazil have fairly active cinemas. I know the wikipedia page for Brazilian cinema goes all the way back to the early 20th century. Maybe later when I have a bit more time I'll try to prove or disprove my case for them.

Actually, both of these wikipedia pages make a vigorous case for these cinemas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Brazil

[baby doll]

Canada, like Britain, was disparaged and hugely underrated for decades until interesting modern auteurs appeared and history was rediscovered. It's hard to imagine a time when Powell & Pressburger weren't known as beacons of English cinema.Who exactly is there in Canada's pre-80s-Revenge-of-the-Auteurs film history worthy of comparison with Michael Powell--that is, some one who might be considered a beacon of English narrative cinema? (Michael Snow is clearly a major figure, but since he operates well below the radar of government funding agencies like Telefilm, and his best known work was produced in New York, claiming him as a Canadian is a bit like calling Roman Polanski Polish.) In any event, speaking as some one born in Canada, I don't feel like the films of David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, and Guy Maddin are ''mine'' any more than they are anyone else's--or for that matter, that the films of Jia Zhang-ke, Lucrecia Martel, and Jafar Panahi are some how less mine because of where I was born.

[Eleven]

Who exactly is there in Canada's pre-80s-Revenge-of-the-Auteurs film history worthy of comparison with Michael Powell--that is, some one who might be considered a beacon of English narrative cinema? (Michael Snow is clearly a major figure, but since he operates well below the radar of government funding agencies like Telefilm, and his best known work was produced in New York, claiming him as a Canadian is a bit like calling Roman Polanski Polish.) In any event, speaking as some one born in Canada, I don't feel like the films of David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, and Guy Maddin are ''mine'' any more than they are anyone else's--or for that matter, that the films of Jia Zhang-ke, Lucrecia Martel, and Jafar Panahi are some how less mine because of where I was born.

Well, I'm one who said


it's increasingly hard to quantify "national" cinema.

and named several filmmakers who don't fit within a "national" paradigm. I'm more than with you on the second half of your post. Isn't it Rosenbaum in Essential Cinema who tells the story of a Peruvian critic who said Goodbye, South, Goodbye spoke more about Peru than any native film did?

As for the first half, I was just trying to use England as an example of a cinema history that only in retrospect became heralded. I don't have comparable figures to the Archers for Canada, or much in the way of knowledge in that area anyway, just stating how "national" film histories can be revised. Maybe unlikely, but possible.

[baby doll]

Well, I'm one who said...

and named several filmmakers who don't fit within a "national" paradigm. I'm more than with you on the second half of your post. Isn't it Rosenbaum in Essential Cinema who tells the story of a Peruvian critic who said Goodbye, South, Goodbye spoke more about Peru than any native film did?

As for the first half, I was just trying to use England as an example of a cinema history that only in retrospect became heralded. I don't have comparable figures to the Archers for Canada, or much in the way of knowledge in that area anyway, just stating how "national" film histories can be revised. Maybe unlikely, but possible.The last sentence wasn't really addressed at you specifically; that was just my opinion about national cinemas in general, and Canadian cinema in particular.

As for Canada's national history being revised, if you look at any of the Canadian-made lists of the greatest Canadian movies, they're plainly stuck in the 70s with dreary NFB features like Goin' Down the Road and Mon oncle Antoine coming out on top with no mention of Cronenberg, Egoyan, Lauzon, Maddin, or Snow. So I don't think the fact that Canada produced a couple of interesting directors recently has lead to any kind of reevaluation, or even updating, of the national canon. Nor do I think there are any seriously neglected filmmakers whose work needs to be revisited. Maybe some okay social realist downers (I haven't seen Francis Mankiewicz's Les Bons débarras, which is another film that usually turns up on lists of the best Canadian movies), but nothing that could hold its own against the best of world cinema in the 60s and 70s (think Altman, Antonioni, Bertolucci, Bresson, Buñuel, Cassavetes, Demy, Fassbinder, Fellini, Frampton, Godard, Kubrick, Pasolini, Jancsó, Resnais, Rivette, Tati, Tarkovsky, Varda, and Wenders--to name only the first twenty names that come to mind).

[balmakboor]

Wow! I didn't know Peter Frampton made films. Rock on.

[baby doll]

Wow! I didn't know Peter Frampton made films. Rock on.I'm hoping that's a joke.

[balmakboor]

I'm hoping that's a joke.

Of course, but I do have no idea who this Frampton person is, even after checking imdb, which is bugging me because I'm quite familiar with all of the other directors in your list.

[Raiders]

Of course, but I do have no idea who this Frampton person is, even after checking imdb, which is bugging me because I'm quite familiar with all of the other directors in your list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollis_Frampton

[balmakboor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollis_Frampton

Ah, one of those experimental type dudes. Thanks much.

[dreamdead]

In any event, speaking as some one born in Canada, I don't feel like the films of David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, and Guy Maddin are ''mine'' any more than they are anyone else's--or for that matter, that the films of Jia Zhang-ke, Lucrecia Martel, and Jafar Panahi are some how less mine because of where I was born.

This raises the question, then, of what responsibility film culture within the academic ranks has to expose students to film through a transnational lens? That is to say, foreign cinema here at Northern Illinois University remains fairly abandoned in favor of educating students in film class about Hollywood and anti-Hollywood filmmaking, but it seems bereft of consideration of some of the more obscure foreign directors. Naturally, this is not too surprising when we consider that NIU has a small film/lit department and that most of us consider foreign cinema through the lens of appropriation (see Austen's Pride and Prejudice and the Bollywood Bride and Prejudice, for example) and a study of the cultural differences that transpire from such refashioning. I don't like the hegemony placed on English/American culture, where we banish foreign culture to re-envisioning, but considering the extent to which U.S. cinema foregrounds cinema studies, should we be trying to always create a transnational culture in our classes, be they film-related or not...

[Adam]

Hey, match-cut, are there any modern bollywood films that are especially essential viewing or anything? What little I've seen seems to this horrible amalgamation of everything that was wrong with western pop culture in the mid-late 1980s

[baby doll]

Hey, match-cut, are there any modern bollywood films that are especially essential viewing or anything? What little I've seen seems to this horrible amalgamation of everything that was wrong with western pop culture in the mid-late 1980sMohabbatein and Lagaan are both pretty awesome.