Transnational cinema as a critical tool

***Some of the formatting has been messed up due to its html transition. As a result the footnotes, citing sources and quotations have ALL been lost and it would take extensive reworking to redo them. No plagiarism is intended. I think the cases in which other peoples work are cited are pretty evident and a bibliography does follow***, but if you would like an original copy, one can be requested from the writer at di901@hotmail.com***

In recent years, regard for the concept of Transnationalism has grown in academia. The frequency with which it is now used as an analytical point of reference, to explore widely varying contemporary occurrences, is testament to its value as a critical tool. Most recently, it has been used to investigate the place of Transnationalism in Irish film, in Brian McIlroy’s Genre and Cinema: Ireland and Transnationalism. It has also been investigated in the political realm which has been highlighted by the media. There was recently an attack on two Polish men in Dublin, which thus far has resulted in the death of one. As a result the Irish Government has been forced to consider the handling of relations between the Irish indigenous people, and the influx of immigrants to the country. The
economic impacts have contributed massively to the rise of the Celtic Tiger, in Ireland, and equally to its current downturn. This recession has resulted in part from better economic benefits in other European countries.

Broadly speaking, transnationalism can be defined as a movement which transcends or evades national boundaries. It is a movement which has grown as a result of the new globalised environment. This new setting has allowed people from different nationalities to be able to communicate more readily with one another. It has also had massive cultural and economic impacts which are far reaching.

The term “Transnationalism” first appeared in the July 1916 issue of Atlantic Monthly, in an article entitled Trans-national America written by the anti-war writer, Randolph Bourne. Bourne, had been influenced by the 1915 essay Democracy Versus the Melting-Pot by Horace M. Kallen, which stated that the Anglo Saxon tradition, must not automatically correspond to what it means to be American. The White Anglo Saxon Protestant (or WASP) was a dominant group, which consisted of the upper class elite in America. This group evolved over time to include Catholics. It created the ideology, a set of beliefs, principals and traditions, which the majority of citizens followed, or aspired to. The “Melting Pot”, was seen as a way of dealing with the influx of immigrants into the country. It became a part of the ideology created by WASP culture. The term “Melting Pot”, described a dilution of the cultural traditions of the outsider, in order that they would fit in with the prevailing customs of the country. It was seen as a way of homogenising America.

Bourne and Kallen believed that such an attempt would only serve to create hostility and mistrust between the original inhabitants and the incoming groups. History offers up two extreme examples which support this theory. These are; The Holocaust, where parts of Europe slaughtered large numbers of groups predominantly, the Jewish people, through carefully constructed strategies, which involved legislation and extermination camps. The Holocaust was an attempt to cleanse society of the influences of the external cultures, by means of literally eliminating the outsider entirely. The other example saw the authorities attempt to forcibly integrate the outsider into dominant society. This is the case of the aborigine children in Australia. Between 1869 and 1969, formal legislation, saw children of mixed ethnicity removed from their aboriginal families. The idea was that they would be initiated into white Australian society through education and upbringing in orphanages and institutions. This era, known as the “Stolen Generations”, after the event, by the aborigine descendants, was only formally acknowledged as a human rights injustice and finally apologised for on February 13th of this year. Bourne and Kallen also feared, that the isolation of the outsider would
cause frustrations which would lead to aggression on their part. By attempting to repress the customs of the immigrant, in order to impress the principles of the dominant group upon them, the outsider would feel compelled “to assert their traditions in strident and unwholesome ways.” Matthieu Kassovitz 1995 classic film, La Haine, illustrates perfectly the impact of this frustration of identity, through the violence of it's central characters. The films violent content was a departure for its director Kassovitz. The film itself, is about race relations between second generation immigrants, and focuses on the outsider and their aggressions which arise from their dual identities. The film centres around three friends who live in an estate: Said; the Arab, Hubert; the black, and Vinz; the Jew. The three friends, fuelled by rage at the mistreatment of their Arab friend Abdel, each react differently to their predicament. Hubert believes that retaliation in this instance is futile, while Vinz struts around living in a fantasy world where he is Travis Bickle the protagonist from Taxi Driver. Said's reaction is more violent. He vows that if Abdel dies, he will use a police gun he has found to kill a cop. An eye for an eye. When he does, it is Hubert who is caught in a showdown with a cop, both looking down the barrel of a gun, and pointing one at his opponent. In the end the viewer sees only Said, closing his eyes as a shot goes off. The viewer does not know, definitively, who has been shot, but perhaps this detail is unimportant. The circularity of the events reflects the ongoing conflict between the outsider and the native. Neither party is willing to make the conversion into acceptance and cohabiting. Until such a time exists, they cannot successfully make the transition to transnationalism.

Both Bourne and Kallen argued that rather then imposing the dominant conventions of American culture onto the immigrant, America should seek to embrace the cultural differences of the new arrival, in order to aspire to a more cosmopolitan America. This new America would encompass all of the best qualities from each culture, creating an ideal environment for the individual to flourish and contribute positively to society. Abraham Lincoln’s American constitution, declares “liberty, justice and freedom for all”. Bourne believed, that as a result, the USA was uniquely equipped with all the right apparatus to develop into the poster child for Transnationalism, whereby each individual could be not “American”, but rather a citizen of the world. Transnationalism was to express a new way of reflecting the relationships between cultures. Bourne said

“Let us make something of this transnational spirit instead of outlawing it.”

Transnationalism is a distinct concept. It is separate from its counterparts “internationalism” and “multinationalism”. These structures deal with the relationship between countries, and focuses on global collaboration particularly between Governments. The United Nations and the European Union, for example, are good examples of Internationalist groups working together to create synergy between societies. Transnationalism concentrates on the individuals themselves. It operates irrespective of border restrictions. For example, the group “Doctors without Borders“, provides emergency medical aid to over 60 regions. Bourne’s original concept that every person should belong to a world citizenship, is more supportive of individual governments working together to create harmony between Nationalities. In doing so, the ultimate goal is that all nations and people come to be treated equally, with an even distribution of wealth through co-operation in trade.

The cultural, political and social possibilities are matched by the economic potentials. Transnationalism has the potential to aid the relations between people, but also to ease the transition of goods between countries. This prospect would mean that the money going into and out of each country would be more fairly matched than at present. However, transnationalism

“exceeds simple economic considerations“

At present, a number of factors are accountable for the surge in interest in Transnationalism as a critical tool. The advances in telecommunication in recent years, allow people across the globe to communicate with one another at minimal cost and with little effort. The internet, which is available in many households internationally, has radically altered the ability for interconnectivity worldwide. At the touch of a button, shipments from overseas can be ordered,
and individuals can converse as readily as if they were in the next room. Phone systems such as Skype allow International phone calls to be made at minimal cost. The impact of Globalization has played a major part in the invigoration of Transnationalism also. Globalization, has meant that large corporate symbols, for example Coca Cola and Mc Donald’s, are recognised world wide. This familiarity feeds into social intimacy between nations, which aids trust relations between nations. Sallie Westwood and Annie Phizacklea discuss the upshots of globalisation in Transnationalism and the Politics of Belonging. They say that it is the outsider who bears the brunt of the many negative consequences of globalisation. The “outsider”, refers to an individual who is not fortunate enough to be “geographically positioned in the contemporary globalised world.” Specifically, the pair are referring to Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans, who are, they say, well educated, resourceful and well intentioned.

The implications of changing patterns of migration, are equally significant in the resurgence of interest in transnationalism . Emigrants are no longer leaving one specific point and settling elsewhere. With the aid of improved international transportation systems, they have the ability to be continuously moving between spaces. As a result, individuals are no longer simply belonging to one Nationality, or even to two (as in the case of the Irish-American). Any single individual may have parents from two separate points of origin. They may be raised independently of their parental cultures and settle in yet another country. This individual is known as a Hyphenate, an epithet from the 19th century. The Hyphenate has emotional, biological and physical ties to two or more nationalities. Contemporary migration has given rise to the multi-hyphenate, whose identity consists of several cultural Nationalities. The fashionability of the multi-hyphenate is on the rise also. Cultural ignorance is no longer acceptable, and the exploration of social heritage is rising in popularity. This has led to the re-evaluation of theories of national identity and citizenship and the role of Diaspora in relation to Transnationalism.

There is one major difference between an individual coming from a transnationalistic background to one coming from a diasporic one. This difference is that in the majority of cases the diasporic individual’s original reason for emigrating was not voluntary. The diasporic immigrant is usually forced from their point of origin as a result of war, famine or persecution. In many cases, these individuals are the ideal candidates to transition into becoming transnationals. These individuals can operate within two distinct socio-cultural and political areas. Once the individual has integrated into a particular society, they have both the objective and subjective knowledge of the differing cultures to contribute in a positive transnational way to their new society.
One way in which the transnational can make use of their unique knowledge, is through filmmaking. The economic and cultural changes which are taking place in the contemporary environment, are clearly signified through the medium of film.

Transnational cinema stems from several pre-existing categories. These categories include: National Cinema, which broadly refers to the cinema associated with a particular country. Third Cinema, which principally is opposed to mainstream Hollywood cinema, due to its capitalistic nature. And Third World cinema, which refers to films produced and developed in the third world. Transnational cinema was created to fill the void created by globalisation. The implications of globalisation, meant that more filmmakers were approaching cinema from a hyphenated background. As a result of which, economic and cultural exchanges between societies had shifted from National to International, and the speed at which these interactions were made had increased due to the major technological developments.

Predominantly, transnational cinema can be defined as cinema which is made by displaced filmmakers who are living away from their original point of origin. The transnational film acts as a counter cinema to the dominant ideologies which cause mainstream cinema to become homogenous as a result of globalisation. It functions as a way of articulating the interstitial nature of the contemporary film. It does this by amalgamating local and foreign influences and components. This inter-dependence takes place at various points of production, such as narrative conception, location filming, use of foreign equipment and in post production through marketing and distribution. The numerous cultural backgrounds inform the artisanal product of the filmmaker.

The move to a transnational cinema, has meant that the collectively driven nature of the national cinemas shifted to a more auteuristic one, which focused on the individual. The transnational filmmakers were choosing to work with smaller crews with whom they had established working relationships. This allowed the filmmaker to maintain control over his work and thus stay true to his vision, without compromise. This new structure of transnational cinema has meant that the filmmaker is now provided with a new medium. Through this medium he can challenge the dominant ideology and its established relations.

Head On is a good example of a Transnational film. The film’s director Fatih Akin is of Turkish-German descent, like his two central characters. Akin’s parents emigrated to Germany in the 1960’s, and their son was bon and raised in Germany. Akin was fascinated with his cultural origins. He sought to examine the relationship of transnationals to their various distinct ethnicities through his films. Akin’s first film Short Sharp Shock, was originally written by him to provide an alternative acting role to the stereotypical parts that he as a Turkish-German artist was typecast in. Set in Hamburg, where Akin had settled, the film followed a
group of three men of varying descents, (Turkish, Serbian and Greek) who fall into a life of crime in Germany. The implications of the narrative reflected the crises of the transnational people. Despite initially being cast in the film, in the early stages of filming, it was felt that Akin was the best person to direct the film, due to his viewpoint, which allowed him to identify with his characters. Neither this film, nor his follow up, Solino, had any massive impact upon their release. Solino seemed to illustrate Akin’s desire to make films which were not related to the subject of Turks in Germany. The emigration from Italy to Germany by the family in the film, seemed to only mirror the emigration of Akin’s own parents from Turkey to Germany. Akin’s attitude to the view of himself as a spokesperson for the transnational people, and of his films as transnational films was quite complex. He said:

“Imagine I’m a painter, and we speak more about the background of the paintings than the foreground of the paintings, or we speak about the framing but not about the painting…For sure this is frustrating, and for sure that’s why I will leave it behind sooner or later.”

Akin did not want his films looked at in terms of only relating to his Turkish-German origins. But the overwhelming theme in his films has always highlighted his perspective on transnationalism. While Akin may have wanted to make a departure from transnationalism as the main focus of his films analysis, it is a subject that clearly foregrounds itself in his films. Akin cannot escape his own desire to scrutinize the implications of what it means to be transnational.
Head On saw a return to the subject of the Turkish-German transnational. The film seemed to signal a re-embracing by Akin of the exploration of the place of the transnational in German society. It was released at a time when the German community had begun to re-investigate the relationship of the indigenous German to the immigrant Muslim community. As a result, the films popular success was closely linked to Akin’s unique insight into transnationalism.

Akin seemed acutely aware when writing the script, that he must consider the impact of the film on the three major audiences it would draw. These were the German population, the Turkish viewer and the German-Turkish minority to which he belonged. Each audience would collectively have a distinct response to the film, just as each individual would. In the end, the film was overwhelmingly embraced by the Turkish audience (with exceptions) as belonging to part of the Turkish cinema. The distinctive music which plays throughout may have something to do with this. Particularly the use of the classic Turkish singer and the band on the Bosphorous, which appear to mark the opening of a new chapter in the film, at regular interludes. The Band gives the film a distinctively non Western look, as it breaks from the realist conventions of Hollywood cinema.

In comparison, the Turkish-German audience, were more divided then their
purely Turkish counterparts. Some people felt it was an accurate depiction of life as a transnational in Germany, while others felt it portrayed them in a very negative light. There was also an adverse reaction to Akin’s disaffiliation from tradition through his characters. Sibel, played by former porn actress Sibel Kekilli, is shown naked in several scenes, a move which was deemed offensive by certain more conservative members of the Turkish-German audience.
Akin attributed the conflicting receptions more to a generational clash rather than one which could be considered specific to the Muslim community. He compared this aspect of his film’s to similar one’s in the film’s of Martin Scorsese. Akin insisted that Scorsese’s treatment of Catholics evokes similar responses within the Catholic community as his own treatment of Muslims. Akin’s point was to highlight the Universality of conflicting beliefs between the generations, particularly first generation emigrants and transnationals. The emigrant who has been raised within the Turkish community, and who leaves it to live in Germany is likely to be keen to retain their Turkish heritage. They will cling onto the traditions and cultures of their homeland, within their new country. In contrast, the second generation will have grown up within a community separate from that of their parents. They will have a different education, and opinion of their heritage from their elders, and they will also be influenced by the cultures of their new country.
Akin’s central characters, Cahit and Sibel are second generation Turkish-
Germans. Akin illustrates the conflict between them and their parents through the demand on Sibel to find a Turkish husband and not bring shame on the family. Sibel has other ideas, however, which are more pertinent to her German background. She wants to have lots of sex with lots of men, to party and take drugs. She repeats the phrase “Punk is not dead” throughout the film. Her struggle to free herself from the restrictive regimes of her parents is so strong that at first, she slits her wrists and then seeks out a Turkish man to marry platonically. Sibel’s dualling backgrounds are representative of that of the transnational. The Hyphenate can feel displaced by these oppositions, feeling that they belong completely, to neither culture.
Throughout the film Cahit and Sibel are told to leave places. At the beginning of the film, the barman tells Cahit “Go home! Go home now”, after he starts a fight in the bar. This command can be read in two ways. Firstly, that the command is surface in its context, and that Cahit is being ordered out of the bar and back to his apartment. The other reading, relates to the perpetual demand on the transnational from groups of their new country’s indigenous people to return to their home land. Cahit is also told this by the doctor, Schiller, who suggests he “go somewhere else.” Later, when he and Sibel are on the bus, the driver tells them to get off after she proclaims that they are Turkish. The driver’s command is less subtle “There’s no room for Godless dogs like you on my bus! Get out!”. Cahit makes an attempt to protest that the bus belongs to the city, but is barely heard. His dispute centres around the fact that as a transactional, he has as much right to be there as anyone else, but, in the face of authority, he backs down. Later, Cahit turns on Sibel after she asks him what his wife’s name was. He tells her to “Get out” and throws her out of the apartment. This act has immense ramifications. The act of one transnational rejecting another, is indicative of the transnationals complex relationship to their own otherness. Later, Cahit exclaims “fucking Turks!“, to which Sibel says “What? But you’re one of them.“ Cahit does not identify with the Turkish people. This goes some way toward accounting for his earlier rejection of Sibel. But if he does not claim to be a Turk then where does he fit in? The desire to belong is a theme which crops up repeatedly in the film. Sibel is virtually exiled from Germany as a consequence of her promiscuity. Cahit’s Uncle tells her “You can’t stay here.” This fact sends the girl into a deep depression as, despite the complications thrown up by her cultural heritage, Sibel is much more capable of relating to her life in Germany. Later, in the film, when Sibel moves to Istanbul, she has great trouble adapting, and is deeply unhappy. Her appearance changes radically. She has cut her hair off, and her gloomy demeanour reflects that she is a shadow of her former self. She writes to Cahit, “I’m the only one not living here.” She has in essence “Gone home” as she was repeatedly told to, but finds that she cannot identify with her new environment. The ultimate irony arises when, after a drug binge, the owner of the bar in Istanbul tells her “get out”. In this act, it is plain that she has been rejected by her homeland. Sibel has literally nowhere to go, and finally no one to
go to. It is at this point, when she is at her lowest ebb, that the men in the street ask her tauntingly, “have you lost your way?” Sibel flies into a rage, and is beaten as a consequence. She has lost her way. She can no longer equate herself with either her German upbringing or her Turkish heritage as she has been excluded from both. The one person with whom she can identify, Cahit, who is also a hyphenate, is locked away in jail. As Sibel expresses in her letter, her life is also like a jail. She is trapped between two cultures.

Akin put a lot of thought into the scene in which Cahit travels through Istanbul in the taxi. The scene was re-shot several times, and the actor playing the driver was alternated frequently. This is perhaps due to the fact, that the driver seems to hold the key line which sums up Akin’s attitude to the Transnational. The driver tells Cahit he is from Munich to which Cahit says “Oh God. You’re Bavarian.” the driver responds “No. In my last life I was Bavarian… But now… I’m here.” Akin is trying to say that irrespective of where an individual has come from, they have something which goes beyond their point of origin, to contribute to society.

“What I’m always trying to say is, this Turkish-German gap, you know, or this connecting element of the two nations, or systems, or worlds — you can change that and put other things instead,” Mr. Akin said. “Mexico and the U.S., same thing.”

This attitude is very analogous with Bourne’s original concept of Transnationalism. Head On, allows the analyst a very straightforward approach to applying transnationalism as a critical tool. The transparency of a transnational occurrence in a film is not always so explicit. The increasing developments of globalisation, has seen a rise in cultural hybridity. The effect which this has on cinema, is that various nationally specific modes and genres of filmmaking, are materializing in countries independent from their points of origin. Similarly, the regularity of International co-productions is growing. The consequence of this amalgamation, is that, as the industries become increasingly hybridised, the distinction between them becomes vague. For example, a recent trend in Hollywood has seen the blockbuster, take stylistic elements from Film Noir and German Expressionism, in films such as Sin City and Sweeney Todd. Likewise European cinema, for example, is increasingly taking its lead from Hollywood. The box office success of domestic films in Europe, tends not to be as consistent as the subtitling or dubbing of the Hollywood film. The upshot of this, has been the emergence of Hollywood-ised films in the indigenous cinema of Europe. The key difference between Hollywood borrowing from Europe, and Europe borrowing from Hollywood, is that the American film cannot be seen as transnational. The United States exists as a colony, in which many nationalities, and colonised nations, such as Puerto Rico, have settled permanently and have co-existed for generations. The European Hollywood-ised film, meanwhile, can be seen as belonging to the transnational mode. Falling, particularly, into this category is the Spanish Transnational film.

In recent years, the Spanish Government has introduced initiatives to Spanish filmmakers, in order to encourage more domestic success at its box office. This has meant that the big budget Spanish film is on the rise. In order to justify the substantial investments into these films, Spanish filmmakers are encouraged to make films, which will reach audiences beyond the Spanish market. As a result, Spanish films, which feature English speaking actors and are shot in the English language have emerged as a new trend in Spanish cinema. Such films have included, The Machinist, Goya’s Ghosts, Two Much and Basic Instinct 2. The most groundbreaking of these films was The Others, starring Nicole Kidman, and directed by the Spanish-Chilean filmmaker, Alejandro Amenabar. The film was the first of its kind to win several awards at the Spanish Film Awards, The Goya’s. Most notably winning best film. Amenabar himself was born in March, 1972, in Chile. The son of a Spanish mother, and Chilean father, the family returned to Spain when he was a year old. In 1997, his feature film Abre Los Ojos, inspired by Hitchcock’s Vertigo, received International acclaim. It was remade in Hollywood starring Tom Cruise, and Amenabar’s original actress, Penelope Cruz. The film, directed by Cameron Crowe, was released under the title Vanilla Sky. Despite the success of Amenabar’s version, the achievements of the remake opened his eyes to the far reaching potentials of the English language film. In 2000, Amenabar began shooting the film Los Otros (or The Others as it is most commonly known), in Cantabria, a province along the Coast of Spain. The resulting film was not immediately identifiable as a Spanish film to the uneducated viewer. The Others could not be said to adhere to any strict idea of national specifity. The film was set on the island of Jersey, in the immediate aftermath of World War Two. The characters were English, and the film followed the Hollywood formula. Perhaps the most initially evident abnormality, was that the film had been marketed as a horror in the U.S, but fit better into a suspense category. The expectations of a “horror” film were very different in Spain and America. The Others, was released in America following a surge in the 90's teen horror flick. These horrors were bloodier, gorier and featured prettier stars then ever before. In 2000, Scary Movie, the first of a series of films spoofing these films was released. The environment which greeted Los Otros release, was both a hostile and a cynical one. In contrast to the American films, Los Otros was a psychological horror, which was asking the viewer to think and put themselves in the characters position, rather then being spectacular in content.

Upon closer inspection, and being aware of the Spanish connection, and Amenabar’s position as a transnational filmmaker, it is easier to identify the film’s Spanish interpretation, and to apply a transnational reading to it. Religion, the supernatural, and the exploration of life after death are recurring themes in Spanish cinema. The film’s subject of belonging, is profoundly embedded in the topic of transnationalism. When Grace proposes separating the children to aid their study, Anne tells her mother “We get scared if we’re separated.“ The transnational finds comfort in the company of other transnational’s who share their experience. When Cahit and Sibel are separated, the lives they are attempting to build collapse, and they reach their lowest point. Similarly, when Grace separates the children from each other, it is the beginning of her realisation of what has happened, when she hears the “ghosts” for the first time. In Head On, Cahit and Sibel are caught between two worlds - Germany and Turkey. Similarly, the Stewart family suffer a crisis of belonging. In this instance, they are caught between the worlds of the living and the dead, of which they belong entirely to neither. The family are isolated and separated from the outside world. Grace expresses her frustration at being shut away in the house to Mrs Mills when she says “I’m beginning to feel totally cut off from the world.” Her loneliness and seclusion is akin to that which Sibel experiences upon her return to Istanbul. In The Others, Grace tells the children, that they will go to children’s limbo when they die if they deny Jesus, as a cautionary tail . Limbo, they are told is a very hot place, between heaven and hell, where they will wait for all eternity. They are warned that if they are bad they will remain caught between the two worlds forever. Limbo shares many attributes with the state of the immigrant. In terms of the state of uncertainty and the sense of lack of belonging the environments throw up. As they have already died, their remaining in the house is their limbo. Anne says to her mother that they were baptized and so cannot go to limbo, as only children who have not been baptized go there. This may account for their remaining in the house. Grace’s connection to the house is significant. Just as the immigrant retains strong ties to their origins, to the point that they can become even more traditional then if they had remained in their home place. Grace literally shuts herself off from the outside world, not willing to let even the light penetrate the house and she locks each door obsessively. Evidently, her attachment to the house is so strong that she is unwilling to leave it even in death. In the house she has a sense of belonging. When Grace is confronted with the reality of the situation, upon seeing the séance, she attacks the group whom she sees as invaders. Mrs Mills tells her that they must all learn to live together. This assertion correlates back to Bourne’s notion, that the transnational people and the natives must learn to live together in harmony, and find a way to benefit from their varied experiences. Grace screams at the group to “Get out of my house!” and she gets her way when they leave. As the family drive away, she and the children chant “This house is ours”.
The generational conflict which can exist in transnational families between first generation emigrants and their descendants manifests itself in the relationship between the children and their mother. This conflict was expressed in Head On in a very candid way. With the customs of the two generations clashing. In The Others, the two generations collide over the existence, and eventually regarding the explanation for the ghosts. At first, Grace is in complete denial over the presence of any intruders. She punishes Anne for suggesting there are any, making her read the Bible for several days. When she finally accepts that they may not be alone in the house, she goes searching with a shotgun. The use of the weapon is, of course, futile, as we see later in the film when Grace shoots at the house staff. Anne knows this and when her mother asks her again what is going on, the little girl expresses her confusion. She has already told the truth and been punished so shouldn’t she now repress her instincts and keep quiet? This repression, relates back to that of the emigrant, whose cultural inclinations may be at constant odds to their new environment. In order to fit in, the outsider must conform to their new environment. The transactional, however, believes that their cultural experiences can enhance their new environment. They must find a way to infiltrate the new space, and add to it, assimilating the old customs with the new. Anne struggles to make her mother understand, but Anne only knows part of what is going on. The Staff try to ease Grace into the reality of the situation gradually. They say that while the children will adjust, it is Grace who worries them. Mrs Mills tells Anne, “There are things your mother doesn’t want to hear. She only believes what she was taught, but don’t worry. Sooner or later everything will be different.” This assertion by the Housekeeper not only highlights the generational conflict, but also gives the film a hopeful twist. Corresponding with the transnational theme, what Mills is saying is that given time, the immigrant can make the metamorphosis into becoming transnational. In turn, the native can accept them and the new possibilities which their presence throws up. Prior to that, both parties must open their mind, and be willing to learn new things.

Because of its subtlety, The Others can be read on two distinct levels. Firstly, on a transnational one, whereby the story can be understood in a symbolic way, as a means which is open to analysis. And secondly, it can be read as a straightforward thriller. A non-Spanish audience is unlikely to know anything about Amenabar, and that the film was made in Spain. As a result, it may be fair to say that the uninformed viewer is lacking a complete comprehension in their interpretation. As Andrew Higson puts it, in his essay on Limiting imagination of National Cinema:

“there is no guarantee that all audiences will make sense of these experiences in the same way, since audiences will translate each experience into their own cultural frames of reference, using them in different contexts and for different ends.”

What Higson is saying is that each national audience will, collectively, have a different understanding of any film. It may well be said that Los Otros’s transnational reading is superfluous. But even without Amenabar’s intent to give the viewer the opportunity for such an interpretation, the film would remain undoubtedly transnational. This is as a result of Amenabar’s own upbringing, and the relation he has to his own otherness, and also through his choice to present the film, in the English language.

Through defining transnationalism, and researching its precursors, it is easier to understand its contemporary resurrection, as a critical tool today. By observing the factors which have contributed to its surge in re-examination, it is clear that transnationalism is extremely relevant in the current cultural climate. Its ramifications extend beyond the individual, and develop into transnationalism both as a concept, and in turn as a critical tool. Through analysis of films such as La Haine, Head On and Los Otros (aka. The Others), it is clear to see the capacity of transnationalism as a critical tool.

Ultimately, the application of the transnational concept, being successfully applied as a critical tool to cinema comes back to Bourne. He said “Let us make something of this transnational spirit instead of outlawing it”. Bourne was referring to the potential ability of the transnational people, to contribute positively and in harmony with the native, toward the betterment of a culturally diverse society. Through the art form of cinema, and its unique capabilities, transnationalism has returned as a focal point to the general public sphere, and in turn to the academic one.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
To follow***

Nuit et Brouillard - A Film about Space and Time

***Some of the formatting has been messed up due to its html transition. As a result the footnotes, citing sources and quotations have ALL been lost and it would take extensive reworking to redo them. No plagiarism is intended. I think the cases in which other peoples work are cited are pretty evident and a bibliography does follow***, but if you would like an original copy, one can be requested from the writer at di901@hotmail.com***


Nuit et Brouillard is primarily a film which relies on spatial constructs to convey its message. The film’s relationship to temporality, has played a fundamental role also. Space and time both work within the composition of the film, and in terms of itself as a representation of memory having taken place over a significant period of time.

The film’s relationship to space and time was entrenched in its make up before it even began production. The film was commissioned ten years after World War Two officially ended, and the doors of the concentration camps were closed. The concept of the film was to mark this anniversary, and also to make use of the archival footage which was available. The origins of this material included such prestigious sources as the Auschwitz Museum. In terms of accessibility, the film came up against opposition before it had even begun production. The French authorities wanted to censor much of the film‘s proposed content, due to the films perceived anti-political nature. Permission was eventually granted to use unused footage from the SCA, which was to prove central to the film‘s final composition. On the twenty fourth of May 1955, Alain Resnais signed a contract which, due to subsidy demands, had a deadline of December that same year. Undertaking the considerable task, constructing a film from the archival footage relating to the Holocaust was destined to be challenging even without the added time constraints.

Resnais had been approached by the Producers, and had agreed to direct the film on two conditions; the first being that the film would not simply be a vehicle to commemorate the dead, but rather that it would convey a more comprehensive message. By communicating the harsh reality of the event, Resnais hoped that the events which occurred would act as a deterrent and warning for other wars which were taking place at that time, in particular, the Algerian war. Resnais believed that by depicting the facts through a careful spatial construction, and handling of the temporal factors which resulted from the span of time that had passed since the events themselves, the film would prevent similar atrocities from recurring. According to Ewout van der Knaap, due to its symbolic nature, the film was essentially

“a product of its time and situation”.

In other words, its relationship to the events and the time which had elapsed since their occurrence was such that the film captured a specific response to the events during that moment in time. The second condition was that van der Knaap would involve a scriptwriter with first hand knowledge of the Holocaust, one who could give a personal account of the events, while remaining somewhat impartial and objective with regard to the brutality of the affair. The writer Resnais had in mind was Jean Cayrol, a poet and survivor, who had been imprisoned in the Mauthausen camp during the war. Cayrol had written a poem entitled “Poemes de la nuit et brouillard” following his release from the camp, which Resnais believed captured the essence of the message he wanted his film to convey. Cayrol was to undertake the role of scriptwriter, while the professional actor, Michel Bouquet was to act as the films narrator and the eyes of the viewer in revisiting the remains of the camps. Together Cayrols text and Bouquet’s voice were to guide the audience on their journey back and
forth through time.
　
Nuit et Brouillard was the first film about the Holocaust of its kind and despite its relaying of factual historical events, Resnais rejected the label “documentary” from the film’s onset in favour of the term “non-fiction”. This was, in part, due to the heinous nature of the atrocities, which Resnais believed were too appalling to comprehensively grasp their total nature, and therefore, to document. Resnais preferred to represent and reflect these events through the archival footage, to the best of his ability. He would also require the viewers to interrogate their own responses to the film.

In a dialogue on the construction of film form, Thomas Elsaesser said,

“Different film forms would seem to be determined by a filmmaker’s ability to construct space and time, the two dimensions simultaneously present in filmic representation.”

Resnais believed that the way in which he intended to go about representing the Holocaust by means of these two aspects of space and time, was to be so dedicated to the truth of the events themselves, that the term documentary would be ill-defined. Resnais believed that the danger in calling his film a documentary, was that it would give the film an exploitative predisposition and Resnais was determined that the archival footage that had been made available to him would not be used in a voyeuristic manner, an inclination which was entirely possible given the filmmakers distance both emotionally, and in terms of time, from the event. His use of Cayrol, an individual who had experienced the Holocaust personally, would help prevent this.

The poets intent was to convey Resnais’ message through a system of “movere” that is appealing to the emotions, alongside the system of “probare”, which is to teach and provide evidence. It comes as a surprise then, given the lengths the filmmaker had taken, that the film was widely understood to have communicated its message through the medium of horror.
In Margarethe Von Trotta’s 1981 film, Die Bleierne Zeit, the character of Gudrun Enslinn, a terrorist, is shown as a child watching Nuit et Brouillard. Her reaction to the images she sees on screen is to vomit. Indeed Cayrol himself was taken ill the first time he viewed the footage. Van der Knaap says that

“This criticism fails to take into account the time in which the film was made.”

What van der Knaap is saying is that after a period of time has passed, in this case ten years, viewers should be able to view the images with an more detached, objective perspective, then if the film had been made in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust. In addition, Resnais directed that the text be as unemotional as possible, without being detached, and that Bouquet should deliver his voiceover in a neutral tone.

The space within film itself, was extremely multifaceted, it consisted of a complex juxtaposition of images from both the past (that is during the holocaust) and then the present (ten years on). The images of the past were predominantly stills, some of which
had been taken from and inspired by Wormser and Michel’s anthology of pictures commemorating the Holocaust for, “Tragedie de la Deportation”. Despite the intensity of these images however, Resnais found the book lacking somewhat, as it offered only a French perspective of the events. Resnais would attempt to show a more balanced perspective, in order that the film could convey a more universal message.

In terms of the narrative qualities of the film, the combination of black and white stills, colour images and travelling shots within the film, allow the viewer to consciously make the journey through time and space. In Bernard F. Dick’s analysis of film narrative, Anatomy of Film, his investigation into understanding film as a medium, caused him to question the fundamental difference between fiction (by which he means the literary fiction) and film. Through his close examination, he concluded, that by recognizing the process through which conflict is operated, in the narrative mode, such a distinction can readily be found. The conflict he refers to varies greatly, from that which occurs between the characters as individuals, arising from a particular situation or misunderstanding to that which exists within society as a whole. Irrespective of the nature of this conflict, (in this instance, the Holocaust) Dick says its presence is inevitable in a “good” narrative. In the case of the movie, he says this conflict is presented to the viewer audiovisually, that is, the action unfolds before the viewer to be seen, heard and witnessed as though a voyeur. In the case of the text, what is read must be processed and imagined; temporal references such as “meanwhile” or “at the same time” are necessary to relay a crossing over of time, such as if two separate events are taking place concurrently. Through cross
cutting, fades, blackouts and various other cinematic devices, the viewer can recognise this process for themselves, without disrupting the seamlessness of the film itself.
A good example of this system in practice, occurs in the 1981 film Blind Chance, in which the male protagonist’s life follows three different outcomes after he collides with another man on his way to the train. The viewer is given a privileged view of how his life differs depending on how he handles this seemingly insignificant event. Later, films such as Sliding Doors and Run Lola Run, follow a similar pattern, which see the central characters following different paths simultaneously. How the viewer recognises this is due to the sophisticated editing techniques used, which they have been conditioned to understand. For example in the opening scene of Sliding Doors, the doors of the train close and we fade out to a repeat of the previous scene. The distinction is further highlighted later in the film when the character, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, cuts her hair in one of her parallel lives. This is in order that the viewer can instantly recognise which version of the character they are watching. This device further underpins the visual contrast necessary for the viewer to make the transition alongside the central character. Recent films such as The Butterfly Effect and Donnie Darko journey through time and space in a similar way, using cinematic effects to signify the changeover. In Butterfly Effect, the protagonist travels back and forth in time to alter history and determine the consequence its amendment has on the present. While the alternate lives he occupies are not parallel, (that is they do not occur at the same time) similar devices are used are to signify the crossing through time. The images on screen shake rapidly from side to side,
up and down, although the camera itself does not move. This device was created in post-production, and its presence indicates the transition through spaces of time.
Dick’s investigation furthermore revealed that the medium of film, uniquely allows time itself to be interchangeable. A minute on screen can condense a year in real time and vice versa. Perhaps the best known example of this occurs in Eisenstein’s Potemkin, where time is distorted to stress the brutality of the massacre on the Odessa people. The scene which takes place on the steps is slowed down, so that the viewer can take in every blow and every slaughter. Had the sequence been left in real time, it would have been over almost as soon as it began, and the viewer would not have been allowed the opportunity to identify with the victims. It is this facility which allows Resnais to alternate between images of the concentration camps as they were during the Holocaust and how they are ten years after the event has occurred. Both Eisenstein and Resnais employ this technique with the same intention, that is to emphasize the horrors which occurred, and prevent them from happening again.

At times the transition from past to present and vice versa is deliberately jarring, to emphasize the break in time, such as when the narrator describes how on his way to the camp he inspects the railway lines for any clue of the events which occurred. But there are none. In Nuit et Brouillard, the atrocities have already taken place ten years previously, and cannot be undone. What is unsettling is how quickly, and relatively effortlessly, the traces of the events, like its victims were buried. The remains of the past
have been physically wiped out in this instance. Looking for an indication of the past along the tracks is pointless. It is the film in itself, which unearths the brutal history of the now seemingly banal land. Resnais uses the interchanging clips and images between the past and present as his instruments to do this. The way in which Resnais alternates the clips and images, is a form of de-fragmentation, and he de-fragments the memory of the events, and reconstructs them in the same way. His background as an editor and short filmmaker, go some way toward explaining his unusual construction of space within the film. His early work featured artists of the Cubist movement, such as Van Gogh, and the infamous Picasso portrait of Guernica, in which a scene of a town, was bombed by Nazi’s sent by Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Like Nuit et Brouillard, the painting centred around a particular war as symbol for a larger message.
In the opening scene, set in 1955, the viewer is presented with a sharp contrast, between the natural environment and the man-made barbed wire fences. This initial image suggests that the intrusion of man, at least in this instance has had a negative impact on the surrounding landscape. This suggestion serves as a device by Resnais to foreshadow the grave mistakes made during the Holocaust, and what must be done to prevent them from happening again in the future. Music composed by Johannes Eisler, plays over the scene, and throughout the film. Eisler, like Cayrol, was Jewish and an anti-fascist, and the score for the film had been composed before its conception. Its presence serves to give the images structure and pace. Indeed Cayrol worked closely with Resnais’ assistant Chris Marker, to keep the text in harmony with the rhythm supplied by Eisler. As the
images shift for the first time to the time of the Holocaust, the occasion is marked by a change in the tone of the music. The viewer is presented with the rise of Nazi ideology, images of the Swastika, and the Hitler salute, while the voiceover explains how the concentration camps were assembled and why, “The architects calmly design doorways to be entered only once”. There is an awareness of inevitable doom from the films outset. The viewer knows what will happen in these camps. Bouquet begins to mention individual people who were victims of the holocaust, Burger, Stern, Shmulski and Anne, each with a familiar story, in order that the viewer might identify with these individuals on a personal level, rather then simply considering the Jewish people as a whole. As the first trains are filled and sent to the camp, the viewer too goes on a journey through time, into and out of the past.

Next, Resnais uses a clever device, of placing an image outside of its original context, and returning it later in the film, to within its initial framework. An extreme close up on a man’s eyes is shown as the narrator discusses his arrival into the camp. The viewer, led by the narrator, might assume that these are the eyes of a shocked man who is arriving in “another planet”, and have been placed at this point in the film to act as a physical manifestation on screen of the eyes of the viewer, taking in the scene upon entering the camp, of the skeletal victims. Indeed the way in which these images have been put together by Resnais, seem upon first view to be perfectly logical. Later in the film, this image of the man’s eyes is used again. This time the camera pulls back to reveal the image in context, we see the scene which surrounds him. The man is in the camp
hospital, where the Nazi experiments are carried out surrounded by other men and women sharing the same expression, and the viewer is told “All deportees came to look alike”. The idea that what had previously been presented as a face undergoing an extreme reaction of shock, came to be a permanent fixture on the faces of the victims which serves to underpin the severity of the trauma experience, and the way in which Resnais enforces this image through a substitution exchange of context in time is skilful.
In another scene which is set in 1955, the camera pans down one of the now vacated dormitories. This panning shot serves to act as the eyes of the viewer walking down the empty corridor. Bouquet describes the physical conditions of the concrete beds as being cold and uncomfortable, and also the fear which the prisoners were constantly living in, even in rest, with the knowledge that they may be removed at any time and disposed of. This description serves to conjure up imaginings of these conditions from times past, in the mind of the observer. At this point, Resnais reverts back to a time when the dormitories were occupied, and the viewer no longer has to imagine the circumstances, but can see for themselves. By first having the viewer imagine, and then confirming their imaginings of the past, by representing the images on screen, Resnais sends a more unsettling message then had the older images been shown initially. Resnais is making optimum use of the images through his assembling of space and construction of time, to get his message across, in as powerful a way as possible. The experimental filmmaker Stanley Brakhage, who made Window Water Baby Moving, a film centred around the birth of his wife, and The Act Of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes, a documentation
following several autopsies, which believed that there was no substitute for seeing the act itself first hand, even if it was through the camera lens. The viewer imagines the scene as it was in their mind’s eye, and then their imagining is confirmed.

In stark contrast to the enclosed prison of the camps, was the outside free world, just a short distance away. This was the world the deportees had been forcefully removed from, a place which must have seemed a distant memory. The disconnection between the two worlds, that is the space within the fences, and the space outside of them, is key. Resnais uses this separation in space to emphasize the desperation of the situation, when he shows the images through the fences of the outside world which the victims can clearly see and are constantly aware of. The images of failed escape attempts, dead bodies hanging from the fences show that while hope was still alive, and the free world was so close, it only served to further torment the inhabitants who could see the free world, but were not a part of it. A similar approach is taken in John Boyne’s 2006 novel The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas, where the son of the Commandant, Bruno, plays through the fence with the young camp deportee Shmuel. The novel seems to share the same moral as Resnais’ Nuit et Brouillard when in its closing lines, it says in a mordant tone, “of course this all happened a long time ago, and nothing like that could ever happen again. Not in this day and age.” Boyne’s message, like Resnais’ serves as a warning to prevent similar atrocities from recurring. The message of the film is that it calls upon its audience to draw “contemporary parallels”.

As a result of this audience reaction, the film became a “part of the cultural memory” immediately in Germany and France, despite major censorship from the authorities due its potentially politically damaging nature. Later, the French government removed these restrictions, and imposed regular screenings of the film in order to prevent anti-Semitism from returning. The nature of the film, and its short running time made it accessible to both commercial and art house cinema and it became popular among students for its complex grouping of images from past and present. Nuit et Brouillard was however, met with fierce opposition from a surprising source. Certain groups within the Jewish community were critical about the fact that they felt not enough had been done to highlight the specific Jewish suffering at the hands of the Nazi’s. Resnais was accused of “Unjewishing the Holocaust”. While Resnais’ film does use the Holocaust as an example to convey a larger message, the assessment fails to take into account that specifically, the images of the victims on screen are plainly Jewish. The viewer knows from the outset that Cayrol’s text is discussing Nazi Germany, as they have seen the swastikas and the Nazi salute, they see the star of David on the prisoners and bodies, and are aware of the history of the camps. Even the only moderately-educated viewer is presumably aware of these signs. So, considering this verification, if it is not the lack of Jewish victims portrayed on screen that the Jewish people objected to, it must be the universalisation of the events. While Resnais believed his message of the Holocaust as a cautionary tale was an important one, the Jewish people felt that such a message was a disservice to the victims, and believed the film ought to straightforwardly commemorate their lives. As a result the Jewish people deemed Nuit et Brouillard to be a historical falsification. But at no point,
did Resnais claim to be creating a comprehensive account of the Holocaust. Indeed he was aware that in creating a straightforward film about the Holocaust he was, in essence required to make the unspeakable, spoken; the unimaginable, imagined and the unconscious, conscious. This was why he was so opposed to the term documentary. Resnais film was not a documentary, it was a representation of the event, with a broader message. Irrespective, it was vital that the account he gave was an accurate one.

Memory was a theme in Resnais’ work, both leading up to Nuit et Brouillard, and particularly after it, in films such as Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), in which a French actress sleeps with a Japanese man, and is reminded of her first love. Over the course of the film she recalls the romance which occurred during World War Two, and the film concludes with her falling in love with the Japanese man. Resnais message is clear: To effectively live in the present one must learn from the past. The memory theme also continued into his later films Last Year at Marienbad (1961), Muriel (1963), and Providence (1977).

Aside from photographs and film segments, after a significant period of time (in this instance-ten years) has passed, human recollection must be drawn upon to piece events together. Despite the meticulous organisation and logging of the Holocaust implementers, it would have been impossible to chronicle every thought, occurrence and sentiment, especially those of the deportees themselves, as they were largely viewed by the authorities to be subhuman and therefore, void of any relevant emotion. The mystique
surrounding the events of the Holocaust has led to numerous inaccuracies, and conspiracy theories, the most astonishing of which, being that it never happened. This theory serves to underline the importance of memory in the preservation of such a prolific historical event. Accurate recollection of the events was vital to the construction of Nuit et Brouillard in terms of staying true to the message Resnais wanted to convey. It has also facilitated the films longevity as an educational tool today. Russian Filmmaker Andrey Tarkovsky said;

“Time and memory merge into each other; they are like the two sides of a medal. It is obvious enough that without Time, memory cannot exist either. But memory is something so complex that no list of all its attributes could define the totality of the impressions through which it affects us.”

The problem lies with the question of faithful representation, whereby one researcher looking to represent the events of, for example, the Holocaust looks back to an older representation for its information. Roland Barthes asked, “Can analogical representation (the copy) produce true systems of signs, and not merely simple agglutinations of symbols?“ After a period of time has passed, if somewhere along the line, memory is inconsistent with fact, the result will be that the events become misrepresented, and historical fact becomes intermingled with myth. Andre Bazin placed major emphasis on the importance of faithful representation in the reproduction of a pre-existing reality. He said;

“Memory is the most faithful of films… but who does not see the difference between a memory and the objective image that gives it eternal concrete form”

He believed that the image presented on screen needed to remain true to the reality of the event. Indeed, authors such as Primo Levi had a very negative view on the reliability of memory in terms of the Holocaust. As Nuit et Brouillard was the first film of its kind relating directly to the Holocaust, the importance of accurate recollection is of utmost consequence. The matter was further complicated by Resnais desire to represent the events which could not easily be articulated. To make the unspoken, spoken. As Bill Nichols puts it

“Representation turns to those vital signs that provide an oblique index of what cannot be shown directly, like the unconscious”.

Envisioning a Holocaust film today, after a substantial period of time has passed, the images of starving deportees, in their blue and white tattered clothes going about camp life seem passé and obvious, and it is at this point that these images run the risk of diluting the magnitude of the events themselves. Films such as Schindler’s List, Empire of the Sun and Hogan’s Heroes all dramatize the Holocaust in similar ways. They rely on sentimental and at times sensationalised imagery to manipulate the viewers response. For example, Schindler’s List received criticism for its clichéd imagery. Conceivably the way in which Resnais wished to impart his message, was not so much about the images in themselves as memory, but rather as James E. Young suggests, about the way in which the narrator relays them, and so “videotaping the Holocaust survivors was not about documenting the experience or presenting the facts, but rather to document the witness as he makes his
testimony and is meaning and understanding of the events through the way he presents his testimony.” This highlights the fact that as such, the images do not stand alone to communicate Resnais message, they are each shaped by the commentary which is applied to them through Bouquet’s voiceover, the framework in which Resnais has presented them (that is camera angles, running order etc), and the context in which they are viewed by the audience. Barthes in his study of the photographic message said

“ The structure of the photograph is not an isolated structure; it is in communication with at least one other structure.”

To understand clearly what Barthes is trying to say, the way in which Resnais communicates his message through the images and the voiceover must be examined. Both mediums can be looked at as relating to Sausseure’s concept of the signifier and the signified. The “signifier“, is represented by the images themselves, and is communicated by means of the voiceover (the “signified“). Together, they work to create the “Sign”, which is the message which Resnais wishes to convey to the viewer. Barthes gives the example of an advertisement of a product, in which the message that the product manufacturer wishes to imply to the viewer is entirely intentional, and carefully constructed: i.e. how the product is placed on the screen, what surrounds that product, what is said about, or implied about the use of the product, and how the product is framed all give the viewer a carefully constructed image of that product via its spatial construct. While this construction is more subtle in the case of Nuit et Brouillard, its incidence is no less prevalent. Barthes believed that the message could be broken into two distinct sections, which together formed an interrelationship to produce an overall meaning. The denoted message, is understood to be the straightforward basic image in
itself, for example a basket of heads. This is what the observer can see happening superficially in the space within the frame. While the connoted message, that is, “the imposition of a second meaning on the photographic message” is more complex. Barthes alleged that in reading an image, the sociological and cultural context of the viewer would alter their perspective of the image:

“Thanks to its code of connotation, the reading of the photograph is thus always historical; it depends on the readers knowledge, just as though it were a matter of a real language [langue] intelligible only if one has learned the signs…this depends on (sic.)…a certain knowledge on the readers part or if one prefers from the readers cultural situation”

So an objective American audience would have a very different analysis of Nuit et Brouillard then a more subjective German audience, just as the 1955 audience would have a completely different understanding to an audience who have experienced a break in time from the event in 2008. The interpretation and understanding of the image as a result of social situation of the viewer make up part of the connoted message, while the influences of the filmmaker have an inevitable impact also. This is the way in which Resnais has constructed the images in Nuit et Brouillard; how they morph between the decades, his contrast between colour images and black and white, and the way the tracking shots work to give the viewer a feeling of walking through the space. But, in terms of gaining a degree of control over the responses of the viewer, to the images, it is arguably Cayrol’s text and Bouquet’s voiceover that have the most perceptible impact. This voiceover, relates back to Barthes concept of the “relay-text”, which he believed to
be crucial to the deconstruction of the film’s message. The narrator remains invisible throughout the film, not even referring to himself in the first person until the final sequence of the film, when he says “At the moment I am talking to you”, van der Knaap says this substantiation of the individual as narrator, aids to bridge the gap between the images shot in 1955 and the Holocaust.
While not a tangible presence in terms of space, the existence of the voiceover, is fundamental to its translation from image to message. Barthes says of this text, it “becomes very important in film, where dialogue functions not simply as elucidation, but really does advance the action by setting out, in the sequence of messages, meanings that are not to be found in itself.” Several times throughout the film, Cayrol’s text employs a linguistic device identified by van der Knaap as praeteritio whereby he first claims that he cannot say something, as it is too inexpressible for words; “But one can say nothing more…” and “it is useless to describe what went on in these cells…”, but he follows these phrases by doing just that, and describing exactly what has happened. Consequently the concept attached to the obligation to remember, and the impossibility to do so is formed.

Van der Knaap says that it is during these instances of voiceover exposition, that image and text must work contingently with one another to convey the message which Resnais wishes to impart. For example in the scene in which we see how the Nazi’s made use of everything, and wasted nothing, including human remains; skin, bones, skulls and
tattoos, Cayrol specifically tells the viewer the things they were used for. We are told the skin is made into soap, and we see the skin and the soap. The effect this has, is to reinforce to the viewer the extent to which the Nazi’s were willing to go to serve their cause. The score also has a powerful effect on manipulating the viewers reaction to an image. For example at the beginning of the film, the first time the images change into the past, there is a distinct transformation in the tone of the music, which signifies to the viewer there is a change in the tone of the images. By guiding the viewer in this way, Resnais can divert the emotions of the viewer to an extent. Independently, neither the image itself nor the voiceover or music, would have the same effectiveness as they have working together. As Barthes puts it,

“The text produces an entirely new signified, which is retroactively projected into the image.” and “The image no longer illustrates the words; it is now the words which are structurally parasitic on the image”

Resnais’ meticulous construction of images and auditory processes serve to convey his message through spatial constructs.

The scenes of the gas chambers are serve best to encapsulate the message Resnais wanted to convey, due to their profound relation to time. The scene opens with the
deportees being separated into two lines, one with those who can serve a purpose to the Nazi’s, such as labourers or whores, and the other with those who were of no use to them. The gas chambers are a common symbol today of everything which was inhumane in the concentration camps. Deportees were stripped and tricked into entering calmly, believing the chamber to be a shower room, and were then gassed to death, while the Nazi’s could
observe through grates. In the scene in Nuit et Brouillard, Resnais turns the tables, so that the viewer is now the voyeur. The viewer must ask numerous moral questions of themselves: Is it right to watch? Is it necessary to see? And most importantly; How can they prevent this from happening again? As the images revert to 1955, Bouquet’s voiceover narrates over the images of scratch marks in the ceiling which the prisoners desperately clawed at in an attempt to escape. As the viewer explores the camp, these scratchings are the only evidence from the past, in the present. This assertion is a powerful statement from Resnais that while most of the marks from the Holocaust have faded, when one looks hard enough they can still be found today, even after time has passed. As Bouquet says in the final scene, “War has dozed off, one eye is still open.”
It is only through looking back reflectively, and investigating what has happened in the past and why, that we can prevent history from repeating itself, and this is the point Resnais’ film is trying to make. The fact that Nuit et Brouillard still maintains its cultural cache today is testament to Resnais’ impeccable construction of spatiality, even in the wake of more contemporary cinematic depictions, such as Schindler’s List and The Pianist. The film’s timelessness, and composition of still images, alongside the moving picture which encompasses both the period during the events, and a retrospective view of them, combine to create a cinematic masterpiece. Francois Truffaut considered Nuit et Brouillard the greatest film ever made, and while this remains a matter of opinion, Michael Darlow’s assessment, that Nuit et Brouillard is the film about the Holocaust, is perhaps not an overly ambitious one.

Nuit et Brouillard, was originally conceptualised to make use the footage which was available, in order to mark the anniversary of the end of the second World War. In the hands of Alain Resnais, the film took on a more universal intimation then its initial proposal. Resnais employment of several key processes in constructing the film, allow him to seamlessly alternate between the past and the present. Nuit et Brouillard’s careful construction invites the viewer to examine their own responses to the images from the past and the present. In doing so, Resnais is asking the question how can it be prevented from happening again? The critical approach to the question of accurate representation in relation to memory, serves to highlight Resnais’ opposition to the film as a comprehensive film about the Holocaust. Resnais’ film, while presenting the actions of the Holocaust was not seeking to commemorate its victims, but rather using the consequences of the war as a metaphor for a larger message. The interrelationship between the images and the text, serve as mediums through which Resnais can convey his message. The film’s relationship of space and time to its narrative is thus evident in these aspects of Nuit et Brouillard. The film relies on its spatial and temporal structure to communicate Resnais’ message.
　
Bibliography

**To follow**
　
　
　

Cinematic representations of Ireland - 2007

***Some of the formatting has been messed up due to its html transition. As a result the footnotes, citing sources and quotations have ALL been lost and it would take extensive reworking to redo them. No plagiarism is intended. I think the cases in which other peoples work are cited are pretty evident and a bibliography does follow, but if you would like an original copy, one can be requested from the writer at di901@hotmail.com***

At present, Ireland is in the throes of a significant social transformation. Following the depreciation of the Celtic tiger, and the present quest for economic stability, the search for a national identity is pervasive.

In today’s fast paced, technologically driven world, global society looks to representation for its understanding of the unfamiliar. Interpretation, portrayal and depiction through the mediums of theatre, literature, television, journalism and film allow their audience an insight into another world. Mis-recognition contributes immensely to these socially accepted perceptions of the world, as these art forms have a propensity to simplify and mythologize complex social issues ranging from gender to national identity. The predicament lies in the misguided notion that these art forms have an inescapable union with realism. The idea that the constructed image presented to the viewer on the screen is a direct reflection of reality is an erroneous one.

Beth Newall highlighted the potential dangers in her essay concerning racial stereotype. She warned that the Imperialist ideology, in which films rely on the absolute obedience of their audience in accepting without question, that which is presented to them on the screen as a symbolic representation of a whole culture and people, is hazardous, due to the fact that film as a construct by the auteur, has power and control over viewer perception, which can be used to impose upon the audience the principles of the individual. In Unthinking Eurocentrism, Stam and Shohat argue that often, a key factor in reinforcing the ideology of the film is the employment of binary oppositions, for example, order versus chaos, good versus evil or right versus wrong. Therefore, through the exploitation of stereotype, the filmmaker can manipulate their work for whatever political, religious or moral means they see fit. Newall goes further in saying that another harmful effect which may result from the passive acceptance of negative depiction, is that the progression made by a society in its quest for modernisation may potentially be repressed, resulting in its inability to move on from its beginnings. Nowhere are these issues of mis-representation more present then in Irish cinema, where stereotypical characters and romanticised landscapes prevail.

In addition, Ireland has the added obstacle of being in a post-colonial state, which as Albert Memmi affirms leads to the severity of its mis-recognition further down the road of complication, and causes a struggle for the balance of power between Particularism and Universalism. As a result of its colonial history, to this day the Nation of Ireland and its people are the victims of stereotyping, due in large part to the fact that history is usually written by the coloniser. At the root of the apparent logic behind which colonizers strive to tame the natives, lies the notion that regardless of the measures taken, the colonised country and its people will never rival that of its regulator. This is due to the coloniser’s own need to rationalize its’ conquest, and dehumanise its’ victim, thus alleviating its feelings of guilt. As a result, the colonized people come to be identified by only their inferior attributes. In the case of the British perception of the Irish people, they were the drunken, violent masses who possessed a slurred speech and grubby appearance due to their chronic alcohol abuse. The Irish representation was that of a people who sat around drinking all day with no real objectives or goals other then to go home and return the following day to begin the process all over again. Such perceptions allowed any attempt at intellectual thought to be readily dismissed as nonsensical prattling which would disappear from thought as swiftly as it had appeared. Correspondingly, in contrast the coloniser could then be supposed to possess the positive characteristics lacking in their inferiors, as we have seen as a result of the technique of binary opposition. The danger of such an unfounded stereotype lies, not only in it becoming an internationally accepted perception as a result of its ensconcement in theatre tradition, (which was inevitably carried into more progressive art forms such as film and television), but also in our own inclination to accept it as truth.

The problems of representation within Irish cinema come equally from its own indigenous filmmakers as from its foreign ones. In response to this, Irish Nationalists were creating stereotypes of their own. Images of the Irish as a loyal, intelligent, politically empowered people fighting against British oppression, whilst retaining a strong sense of community and family became more and more common. They strove for an insular Ireland, one where the country could be self sufficient, independent and would staunchly resist external influences that would be detrimental to the Country. Such beliefs, which followed the thought processes of leaders such as Eamonn De Valera, were bordering on xenophobia. Both images are equally misrepresentative, neither truly answering the question of Irish National identity. So why the need for these caricature images of Irishness in the first place?

Ruth Barton’s analysis of My Left Foot seems to offer an insight in which she says that a film must immediately

“establish the identifying traits of its central characters and, in order to achieve this ..(sic) must draw on a range of existing archetypes with whom audiences should already feel a sense of familiarity”

thus the recognizability factor plays a major role in the viewers enjoyment. By presenting a character who may be perceived as too complex or who goes against viewer expectation, the film is already at a disadvantage, and so drawing upon preconceived images is generally a natural measure taken during the pre-production stages.
Hollywood was quick to claim the Irish stereotype for its own purposes. A country with so many Irish immigrants of its own, it took a more romantic view of the Irish. While we were still generally perceived as drunken layabouts, it was more in the manner of the lovable rogue. The negative characteristics inherent in such caricatures were presented to the audience with a satirical eye. With a strong Irish brogue and peasant-like dress sense, there was an air of nostalgic mystique to the Hollywood Irish, a race of enchanting alcoholics and wife-beaters who lived in the beautiful untouched countryside.

Hollywood’s romantic vision of the Irish is perhaps most evident in the work of John Ford, an American film director with Irish ancestry. Ford’s various depictions of Irishness has been both embraced and integrated into popular culture by its audiences, and criticised by the academics, who predominantly viewed his representations as highly patronizing. Public figures, such as theatre Director Hilton Edwards, (the man who discovered Orson Welles) said of the film:

“I cannot for the life of me see that it has any relation to the Ireland I, or anyone else, can have seen or known.”

The New Yorker’s critiques were especially disparaging saying,

“ Everyone’s just cute as a button. The people are not only cute but quaint…(sic) the informer seem to have fallen into a vat of treacle”

and later

“There can be no doubt that Mr Ford dearly loves the Irish, but I’m not at all sure that in his excess of affection he hasn’t been guilty of representing them as superficially as if they were straight out of vaudeville.”

Ford’s fascination with the Irish dates back to 1940, when his film The Long Voyage Home saw him employing a group of Irish actors to play the characters, and his 1941 film How Green Was My Valley which was based on Irish playwright Eugene O’Neills work was essentially Irish in every way. It was during this period, of high profile Irishness in Hollywood, that a group, collectively known as the Irish mafia, became key players in Hollywood. The group of actors who worked under Ford with Warner brothers, consisted of stars such as Pat O’Brien, Spencer Tracy, Frank Morgan and James Cagney who came to be known as the professional Irishmen. Naturally, Ford’s films came up against fierce opposition from Irish nationalist groups due to their frustration with such tenuous stereotypes, and as a result, many wrote off his work as nonsensical, on the basis that they viewed it as primarily an inaccurate American perspective of Ireland. Indeed, many of his films were banned in the Irish Free State upon their release in order to avoid such controversy. One such incident saw Ford’s The Rising Of The Moon, attacked by D.P Quish of Limerick County Council for being damaging to the Irish people, as he saw it. The Justice Minister of Ireland demanded that allied countries withdraw the film from their circulation, but this was met with no response.

Ford reached his pinnacle of Irish representation with The Quiet Man in 1952. The film was a massive hit at the box office, and had an instantaneous impact on the image of the Irish in popular culture. Ford was clearly aware of the appeal of an exceedingly Irish film in Hollywood, and exploited its expectations of Irishness through its aesthetics. The film which won a “Best Cinematography” Oscar for its beautiful landscapes, features the colour green in every shot, and from the outset, with its picturesque opening credits, the viewer is saturated with images of green fields and rural buildings, untouched by modern technology. This was to be the Ireland of Ford’s dreams, and during the commissioning of the film he stipulated that technological development be put on hold in the areas which were to be shot on location in Galway and Mayo. The majority of the film however, was shot in studio’s using Technicolor, as the real Ireland was not romantic enough for his depiction. “The Quiet Man” sought to literally introduce the American man to the Irish way of life, in the form of Sean Thornton, the American who makes a nostalgic return to his hometown of Inisfree by horse and cart, to rediscover his lost heritage.

The Quiet Man reflects all off the stereotypes which Ford believes to be intrinsically Irish, from the drinkers and wife beaters, to the Irish Republican Army. The film’s characters can usually be found in their local pub, or at a cheile and are portrayed as very primitive, the concept of a sleeping bag proving too confounding. Characters such as Michaleen Flynn and his naughty leprechaun like ways are purely two-dimensional and lack any depth which would make them plausible as real people, but Ford makes no apologies for such depictions, as he seems to employ them as symbols for aspects of the Irish character in its most concentrated form. Anthony Slide touches briefly upon the subject of the Irish female as represented in film in The Cinema and Ireland, whereby American actresses such as Marjorie Main and Patsy Kelly played hard boiled, wise cracking Irish women, whose strong-willed fiery characters were in stark contrast to representations of the more passive, prim and proper American female characters of the time. Mary Kate Danaher, played by the Irish actress, Maureen O’Hara, with her flowing red hair, rosy cheeks and wild nature, but ultimate desire to please her man, was the epitome of the passionate Irish cailin with a heart of gold. It is clear to the audience why Sean falls for her the moment he sees her, as the viewer is also drawn to her. Ford beautifully illustrates the fundamental nature of their relationship in the dramatic scene in which O’Hara is almost blown away by the wind. As her skirt and hair blow violently around her, both the wild nature of the character, and her fragility as a woman are clearly evident, and when Sean pulls her close and kisses her, it is almost as though he is taming her. This power struggle is equally evident in the scene in which Mary Kate slaps Sean, and the ease with which Sean throws her around throughout the film. By the close of the film, Sean has achieved the romantic reintegration he came to find. He has become an “Irishman” through his actions at least. The final fight scene, which involves Sean giving his Irish lassie a good thrashing, is given a comic treatment, and lasts a lengthy nine minutes. This demonstration of violence is not portrayed in a shocking or even cruel way, but rather in the way in which it is shot which seem to legitamise the event as almost ritualistic in its Irish context. In spite of its brash stereotyping, the film was warmly received by audiences around the world, even amongst cultures such as Australia who are equally, habitually, subject to misrepresentation. Predictably, the Irish Nationalists felt the representations presented in the film, were unfounded and inaccurate, and they rallied together to protest at its depictions, despite the fact that the film had proved beneficial in raising tourism and trade, both in the local vicinity of Inisfree, and nationally, to the country as a whole. Upon closer inspection, it is evident that Ford’s intent was to depict the Ireland of his imagination, a nostalgic Ireland, whereby its representations were romantic exaggerations of the Ireland of his dreams. In fact Ford even goes so far as to shatter the illusion of reality by having some of his characters look directly at the camera. Ford is not mocking the nation and its people, but rather embracing its unique culture and eccentricities. Indeed, Ford pokes fun at Hollywood’s naive acceptance of the representation as accurate, for example, in the scene in which Mrs Playfair jokes that only an American would think to paint the cottage green. Slide reaffirms this idea when he says that Ford is representing Ireland

“not as it is or was, but a land of his dreams”

In spite of Ireland’s clear denunciation of the Hollywood representation of the nation, it took Hollywood almost two decades before it offered any form of differentiation to the popularised stereotypical depiction. This alternative was offered in the form of British director, David Lean’s, Ryan's Daughter (1970). The film tells the tale of Rosy Ryan, a young Irish girl and it is set during the Irish Revolution. Ryan's Daughter’s contribution to American iconography, in terms of Irishness, was colossal. It’s vast success led Hollywood to challenge its long established preconceptions of faithful Irish portrayal. Ryan's Daughter with its notions of the land as a destructive force in our society, goes some way toward rectifying the disproportionate concept of Ireland as an overtly agricultural economy. The film approaches the idea of Irish representation in a more holistic way then previous films, and attempts to find an accurate balance between the country’s negative and positive attributes. Lean said of his portrayal:

“Film is a dramatised reality and it is the director's job to make it appear real”.

In an attempt to refute the conventional stereotypes of the Irish people, Lean worked hard to ensure his characters were multifaceted. They are never entirely straightforward, and are indisputably more complex then those created up to this point by the likes of Ford. For example, the film’s protagonist, Rosy is never entirely moralistic, nor a wholly guilty party. She commits the terrible sin of cheating on her husband, thus violating the sacred family structure and then returns to him inconsequentially for his part at least. She longs for love to sweep her off her feet, but is adamant that there ought to be more to her existence then marriage. Nothing is clear cut, black and white, good or bad, just as nothing is in real life. Lean fails, however in his attempt at a fully accurate portrayal, when it comes to the Irish landscape, finding the green fields too tempting to resist. Filming was completed in South Africa, after the unpredictable Irish climate proved too great an obstacle to contend with. In response to the critics, he said

“We tend to beautify everything we touch, even the ugly”.

More recently, Ireland has seen a return to popularity in Hollywood, with the rise of indigenous Irish film in the nineties. John Sayles 1994 film, The Secret of Roan Inish is significant, due to its sentimental return to the romantic representations most evident in Ford’s work. Padraic Whyte conducts a detailed analysis of the film in his essay American Dreams and Irish Myths in which he says that the film was originally situated in Scotland. Sayles relocated the film to Donegal, as he felt the setting was a more appropriate “cultural signifier of themes of loss and return”. The move to Ireland was equally a profitable one because in doing so, the film would appeal to the Irish Diaspora around the world, and in particular, in the United States. As a result, the film would rely on the most recognisable characteristics of Irishness, in order that the foreign market could make the direct connection to the Ireland of their mind’s eye, and would therefore immediately connect with the film. Subsequently, the film was not aimed at an Irish audience who knew better, but rather towards an International one who nostalgically longed for a return to the Ireland seen in The Quiet Man. Indeed as Whyte points out, both Sean and Fiona are Irish immigrants (like many of the viewers) who are searching for their own sense of self through their return to Ireland; a safe, uncorrupted land of green fields and magic. Upon her return, Fiona’s apparently poorly appearance is commented on by the locals who suggest that the city life is bad for her health; Huh says “it’s nothing but noise and dirt” The film came up against fierce criticism from Irish film critics and theorists. Martin McLoone said that the film “succumbs to stereotypical images of romantic Ireland and it partakes to an essentially regressive ideology”. Barton had an equally grim view of the film, drawing parallels with Into The West ‘s “clichéd representations” which as she concluded, were mere whimsy. Whyte points out that in terms of appealing to an Irish audience, the timing of the films release could not have been worse. At a time, when the Celtic Tiger was booming, and Section 418 was introduced to entice foreign film makers to Ireland, it was widely believed that the oppressive nature of these outdated films could only have a negative effect on modern Irish society.

In the wake of the events of 9/11, global society as a whole has longed for a return to innocence, and in a romantic representation of the Irish, that can be found. From the Irish perspective, this continuity of stereotype is viewed in a negative way, as with the emergence of a more global and cosmopolitan society, the modern Irish people wish to change the International perception of themselves and be viewed as intelligent, forward thinking technologically advanced people with a capacity for change and a willingness to contribute to a new culture both nationally and internationally. With the recent boom in the indigenous Irish film industry, it is clear that these early representations have had a lasting impact, as a result of the more self sufficient economies (such as America) monopolizing the Universal directional exchange of information. Films, such as Jim Sheridan’s In America, which sees a contemporary Irish family emigrate to America for a better life, sees the characters once againrevert to all the old clichés. The father has an aggressive streak and turns to alcohol both in times of crisis and celebration. The family are overwhelmed upon arriving in the U.S. by the hustle and bustle of city life, and their expectations for a better life are portrayed as naive, when they arrive in their new home, surrounded by dealers and prostitutes. What is most significant about this film though is the representation of the character Mateo. Beth Newall discusses the representation of the black man in her essay Ebony Saint’ or ‘Demon Black’?. She says that Mateo is represented through a “racist discourse”. Mateo is presented as a mystical and exotic character, a medium through whom magical things can occur. He senses the presence of a third child, and speaks in a foreign accent. Newall quotes Brett Buckalew’s review of the film which says that

“ the black man (sic) suffers so that the white man can succeed”.

Through this depiction, Sheridan is transferring the Irish stereotype onto the Black man. This may be seen as a process of empowerment on the part of the Irish film maker but, in fact, his justification of misrepresenting this other race, only serves to excuse the falsification of his own.

More recently, the Irish stereotype has been embraced by the indigenous industry, perhaps in an attempt to satirise it and expose it as a blatant misrecognition, or possibly, to show that Ireland has a capacity to laugh at itself. John Tomlinson pointed out that such critical self reflexivity in film can only be achieved when a country has distanced itself sufficiently from the actual event. As to whether Ireland is prepared for this yet is still questionable. It is certainly getting there with television programmes such as (the British funded) “Father Ted” and “Podge and Rodge”, but an air of unease still surrounds these representations. Ultimately, try as they may, foreign filmmakers find it irresistible to resist the urge to revert to stereotypes in the portrayal of Ireland. The iconography is simply too deeply embedded in the perceptions of Irish culture and film tradition. The challenge for foreign filmmakers is to make a film about Ireland, rather then one which is merely set there, and the challenge for the indigenous Irish industry, is to find their own voice, and to determine an accurate identity for themselves within the world of contemporary film.



BIBLIOGRAPHY
(The) Cinema and Ireland Slide Anthony (1988) London: Mc Farland and company inc
Cultural Imperialism Tomlinson John (1991) London: Pinter Press
Film History and National Cinema Hill John and Rockett Kevin (2005) Dublin: Four Courts Press
Jim Sheridan: framing the nation Barton Ruth (2002), Dublin: Dufour editions
National Cinemas and world Cinema: American dreams and Irish Myths Rockett Kevin and Hill John Dublin: Four courts Press (2006)
Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the media Shohat Ella and Stam Robert (1994) London: Routledge
Working for the Films Blakeston Orwell (1947) London: Focal Press