Is there a difference between 'transnational' cinema (which I take to
mean something like 'encompassing two or more nations' or
alternatively 'not limited to national boundaries') and
'multinational' cinema?
J
On 5/1/07, Henry M. Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I disagree, cinema wasn't always transnational. The second phase of
> globalization (the first being pre-1914) has brought about some
> changes. Maybe we should use the term MULTINATIONAL CINEMA - to
> describe films such as Zhang Yimou's HERO or THE HOUSE OF FLYING
> DAGGERS which signify 'Chineseness' (or 'Sinicity'?) to the world
> market and which would indicate that these are films of no genuinely
> national origin.
>
> H
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cinema was always already transnational (viz. various tedious
> > arguments
> > about primacy)...if it is a tool, as Colin suggests, then the
> > legitimate
> > question would be to ask: "A tool to do what?".
> >
> > Bring about the collapse of national boundaries as arbitrary and
> > intrinsically unhelpful?
> >
> > If so, I'm all for it.
> >
> > However, to bring the syllogism back full circle: hasn't that
> > always already
> > been true of the concept of nation?
> >
> > d
> >
> > *
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
> > you are replying to.
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> > **
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|