***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***
