Nation Contested and Re-framed: Reflections on the National Myth, Film, and the In-Between
We discussed the notion of nation, its cultural
manifestation in the form of national cinema, the issues and problems that
challenges the very concept of nation, as well as the implications of the
recent trend of globalization and massive and extensive population movement to
and out of the nation. This is, for me, close to home because I come from a
“nation-state” that emerged out of the complexities and convoluted historical
narratives of a series of invasions and colonization commencing from the
Spanish period to the Americans and then finally by the Japanese during the
Second World War. My experience and background as a student and teacher of
Philippine History exposed me to the highly debatable, sensitive, and
politically charged issue of Philippine nationalism, its genesis, development,
legitimacy, and continuous reconfiguration.
Many
scholars have explored the foundation and framework of nation, state, and
nation-state. I have barely anything to add to their findings and arguments,
but I would like to note here that, in the context of our course, the concept
of national cinema has multiple intricate layers in it. In the first place, the
root of the phrase itself – the nation – is a highly contested terrain. But
perhaps, it is imperative to remember that the nation, like any other cultural
and political idea, is socially constructed. It is therefore artificial. The
notion of the nation is not something that is naturally given and it emerged
out of a particular historical background – and did not emerge out of a vacuum.In the case of Southeast Asia, for example, the nations here were constructed as a response to the colonial and imperial trend that enveloped the globe from the 15th to 19th century. Like Hegel’s dialectic, the thesis of colonialism paved the way for the rise of nationalist movement – the imagined, yet necessary, construction of a sense of belonging on account of a shared history, experience, language, among others (in the same manner, national cinema also was also formed out of the interactions, perhaps even struggle, between the national and the foreign or Hollywood films; national cinema do more than imitate or ignore Hollywood, national cinema always engages to negotiate, adapt, resist, and re-create Hollywood). That imagination was pertinent in the campaign for independence, or in some cases, just the survival of a regime. In due course, the acquisition of independence led to the formulation of a national myth which initially became the basis of a national cinema – that which was produced to legitimize, strengthen, and make the nation more real and more convincing.
However, we have also discussed, and I completely agree that even after the establishment of nation-states and the rough delineation of borders and boundaries, the nation remains to be dynamic. As such, its innate heterogeneity, multiplicity, and fragmentation remain despite the state’s comprehensive effort for unification – a unilateral explanation for the existence of the nation. We may have terms such as Philippine cinema or Singaporean cinema, but the very utilization of these terms cannot capture the diversity of films, narratives, and ideologies that are prevalent in contemporary societies. There is Singaporean cinema but there are also within it various shades – those with a different set of style and characteristics and perhaps even ethnic foundations such as Tamil or Malay films. Add a layer of the increasingly global, mobile, and interdependent world where we live today and all we have are ambiguous divisions and categories of films.
Like the movie we watched, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon – it appears to hail from the Chinese nation – bearing the stereotypes attached to the nation of China, its martial arts, the significance of family, the position of women, the art of swordsmanship, the culture of calligraphy, and filial piety, among others (as oppose to Hollywood which emphasize wealth, promiscuity, independence, liberalism, among others). We watched and we as spectators having a specific ensemble of assumptions about the Chinese nation read the narrative from a specific frame. However, the film in itself is actually a product of multiple nations – as such one that is transcending nations and therefore transnational – American, Hong Kong, Taiwanese, and Malaysian, to name a few. As such, essentialism disappears but the appearance of a homogenous national character in the film remains. I guess, at the end of the day, we can more or less agree that the concept of nation, though artificial, contested, and imagined, is a necessary concept. We have a globalizing world but the states, which usually though not always correspond to nations, prevail as the dominant political framework. This, I surmise, will still be the case in the near future. The task ahead therefore is to reshape the definitions, parameters, and flexibility of the notion of nation so it would be able to respond to the changes within and outside of these societies, of these states. Then perhaps we should ask, how will the national cinema evolve? How will it survive global forces? Finally, how will the idea of a nation change given a change in national cinema, and vice versa. These are just my musings.
Comments