1. Please outline some of the controversies surrounding the expression ‘world cinema’,
including the authors of relevant theories, and explain what world cinema is in your
view. In order to clarify your argument, please analyse what you consider ‘world-
cinema’ characteristics in two films of your choice. (You can choose films analysed in
class or any others).
The term ‘world cinema’ is a complex expression, which is heavily debated regarding its
definition and usage in relation to cinema across the globe. Is it a term which merely
describes the dominant cinemas whose films are widely distributed across the globe, or is it
defining the niche cultures of cinema, from across the world who are not conformist to
Hollywood’s normality and expected convention? Both fortunately and unfortunately, there is
extensive writing regarding the classification of the term ‘world cinema’, the main problem
being that, many of these scholars have widely opposing opinions on what we mean when we
utilise the precarious term ‘world cinema’. In order to best decide how to consider what
‘world cinema’ means and how it should be used, we must first explore the theories and
insight to the controversies surrounding the label of ‘world cinema’.
To begin, we must definitively decide from which standpoint we will be starting at when
finding a personal definition of what we call ‘world cinema’. In this essay, as in many books
on the subject, it is written from an outlook of the world from ‘the west’ - and to be clear,
when using the phrase ‘the west’, I mean to disregard geographical accuracy to include only
North America and Britain. There is a huge concern within the field regarding the separation
of ‘the west’ and the rest of the world, in which there is often “refer[ence] to cultural products
and practises that are mainly non-Western.” (Lim and Dennison, 2006:1) These concerns are
readily recognisable in ‘the west’ as when categorising writing, music or cinema, anything

2. produced outside of the perimeters of ‘the west’ are isolated into sections abrasively named
‘world’ followed by literature, music or cinema. In retail displays, these pieces are stripped of
their similarities to ‘western’ arts, as rather than being categorised with western counterparts
of their genre, target audience or even ascending price tags, they are banished to the world
cinema section - with the criminal notion of having a copy of Japanese anime cartoon about
teenage heroine Sailor Moon (1995) neighbouring the repulsively visceral gore and sexual
dysfunction of the German horror film Schramm (1993). This organisation of products could
potentially be merely to remove the prospect of accidentally purchasing a film in a language
you do not understand by integrating it alongside its western equivalents, nonetheless it could
just as easily be due to the belief that Hollywood and ‘the west’ are the central cinema
dominating the rest of the world and anything else must be considered as an ‘otherness’.
It is undeniable that, for some it is non-negotiable ‘the west’ is the epicentre of cinema, and it
is important to analyse the reasons behind this. In Dudley Andrew’s An Atlas of World
Cinema he reluctantly dissects the whys and wherefores of Hollywood’s coronation as the
monarch of cinema. “Hollywood’s lopsided economic mass (bags of box-office receipts
returning to it from nearly everywhere but India) pulls it out of true. Such domination of
distribution includes both theatrical exhibition and video dissemination.” (Andrew, 2006:20)
But is this to say that Hollywood’s domination is solely based on its revenue and its wide
dispersal and reception? It is worth considering, that Bollywood films are distributed widely
around the world also, and that possibly the Hollywood reign is actually accredited to the
linguistic accessibility of films from ‘the west’. Further in Andrew’s research he discusses
Moretti and his Darwinian approach to cinema and linguistics where he cites Fredric
Jameson’s law that “in cultures that belong to the periphery of the literary system, the modern
novel first arises not as an autonomous development but as compromise between a Western

3. formal influence (usually French or English) and local materials.’(Andrew, 2000:22) This
law of language conveniently provides a reasoning behind the global form of film
conforming to Hollywood’s governance over the film world.
The hierarchy of the film world has, unfortunately, placed Hollywood as the benchmark to
which all other films will be considered to in comparison, and it has been this way since the
1920’s possibly even before as it has been the leading force in entertainment since World
War One, gaining power as it was always accessible and universally received. ‘World
cinema’ is often written about for its differences and abnormality in comparison with
Hollywood, it is seen as an alienated idea of ‘otherness’, this representation of victimisation
and alienation, also is in jeopardy of duplicating and maintaining existing estrangement with
the ‘foreign’ world it is attempting to represent. Thus meaning that rather than critiquing the
separation of parts of the world from Hollywood, it accidentally and unintentionally revisits,
reinforces and reminds us of these pre-existing ideas and prejudices. In Lúcia Nagib’s World
Cinema and the ethics of realism she insists on the need to dissolve the notions of singular
centres on the map of world cinema, to allow an impartial equilibrium among all of the
cinemas of the world, which is in direct correlation with ideas proposed by Stam and Shohat
in Unthinking Eurocentrism which formulate “the concept of a ‘polycentric
multiculturalism’, summarily dismissing as insufficient and ultimately wrong, the world
division between ‘us’ and the ‘other’, ‘centre, and periphery’, the west and the rest.”(Shohat
& Stam, 2014:8) There is a clear desire among many scholars in the elimination of
Hollywood’s strong dominance over the entertainment world1
, as even Andrew believes that
during the 1980’s that we became overwhelmed at the brilliant cinematic ventures emerging
1
Theatrical and festival systems under ‘western’ control cause the marginalisation and disregard of Latin
American cinema despite their aesthetic, ideological or thematic brilliance, as explored in Chanan, Michael,
‘Latin American cinema: from underdevelopment to postmodernism’, in Remapping World Cinema: identity,
culture and politics in film, ed. Dennison, Stephanie and Lim, Song Hwee (London: Wallflower, 2006). pp.38-51

4. from cinema cultures who were previously considered unviable or boring, such as Taiwan,
China, Iran, Yugoslavia and Ireland. We should, however, not be searching for differences
throughout ‘other’ cultures and their cinemas, but instead finding similarities between ‘us’
and ‘them’.
In the study and research regarding the differences and similarities between ‘the west’ and
‘the rest’, there has been an exploration into another widely debated term: transnational
cinema. Much like ‘world cinema’ there are many varying definitions of ‘transnational
cinema’ and there is much deliberation on the correct use – or the plausibility altogether- of
this terminology. Since the twilight-years of 1980, ‘transnational’ as a concept has developed
from merely being a synonym for international, to now include collaborations across borders
both creatively, for “production or distribution practices, sources of funding, casting
decisions, thematic concerns, [and] the complex identities of various film professionals”
(Hjort, 2010:12). These ‘transnational’ partnerships help to create previously unthinkable
possibilities for filmmakers across the globe, but also immediately gain criticism regarding
the accuracy or impurity of the representation of the nation it claims to portray2
. As
mentioned earlier these films can have as little interference in the film as merely a mode of
distribution or funding, right up to huge influence into the creative or ideological content,
however there are many issues regarding whether these collaborations may affect the
representation of the nation it is presenting, if we once again revisit Andrew’s An Atlas of
World Cinema, the worry of misrepresentation is delivered through Franco Moretti’s analogy
of transnational cinema studies. In this analogy, Moretti’s unquestionably strong opinion
regarding the need for ‘purebred’ cinema, he refers to each country having their own
2
Further study into the definition, examples, and critiques of ‘transnational’ cinema is available in Nagib, Lúcia
and Jerslev, Anne. Impure Cinema: Intermedial and Intercultural approaches to Film. (London: I.B. Tauris & Co,
2014).

5. ‘genealogical trees’, these trees do not represent any ‘intermingled roots’ with the ‘roots’ of
any other countries regardless of close geographical or cultural positioning. Although
interference from another country in a collaboration is possible, these conglomerates provide
oppurtunities previously unattainable, a good example of this is Haifaa al-Mansour’s Wadjda
(2012).
Wadjda (2012) is a Saudi-German film, based and filmed in Saudi-Arabia by the first female
director to come out of the country and the reason for this, is that cinema is, in actual fact,
banned in the country. The creation and distribution of this film therefore relied on German
funding and equipment due to the restrictions based on Haifaa al-Mansour, not only as a
woman – but also as a film director. This collaboration not only allows the actual creation of
the film, with the provision of funds and equipment, but also the wide distribution of the film
allowing it to be seen at film festivals both in ‘the west’ and also the rest of the world3
.
Wadjda (2012), aside from German funding, the film is, otherwise, completely Saudi
influenced and orientated. It contains an all Saudi cast of amateur actors with local accents
and voices for authenticity, which helps the film not only represent its own nation
spectacularly and originally. The film still is accessible to other cultures and it is comparable
with other cinematic cultures, which is notable from the success of the film at festivals
around the globe. Haifaa al-Mansour herself even expresses that she “hope[s] the film offers
an insight into [her] own country and speaks of universal themes of hope and perseverance
that people of all cultures can relate to”. The expression ‘universal theme’ is something to be
remembered, considered and revisited whenever analysing world cinema, as this is something
which keeps all cultures’ cinema connected. Within Wadjda (2012) we are subjected to the
idea of ‘the racing hero’. The racing hero, is a private hero whom we follow in an ordinary
3
Further discussion on globalising transnationalism including financial aid in Ďurovičová, Nataša and Newman,
Kathleen. World Cinemas, Transnational perspectives. (New York: Routledge, 2010). pp.21-22.

6. situation with repetitive motifs and emphasis on shoes, running, cycling to represent a child
desperately trying to progress to a better life. Although we are used to seeing public heroes
within Hollywood films, the private hero is a recurring trait among many cinema cultures
around the world. Within Wadjda (2012) the constant referral to Wadjda’s want for a bike,
and when we see her ride her bike all the way to the main road at the end of the film shows
her desire for progression towards a better future.4
Although it may be dismissible that Wadjda (2012) has comparable features to Hollywood, it
could be proposed that the films may have similar goals, however the outcome is different
due to the differences in the culture it attempts to present. ‘Western’ films tend to employ the
use of storyline to express an idea, issue or representation of a time and place which is
occurring or has occurred, for example in horror films we are often exposed to a monster
which represents a current societal fear that will gain the biggest audience reaction due to its
context5
. Obviously, Wadjda (2012) was not a film that intended to scare, but Haifaa al-
Mansour has also clearly used the film in order to present a current issue as she has not only
had to overcome the repression of being a woman in Saudi-Arabia but also being a filmmaker
in a country in which cinema is prohibited. The film itself is a reflection of the director, who
is restricted in what she can do and is shown through Wadjda’s mother, who must be driven
by a man, and Wadjda herself, who is told she should not be riding a bike because she is
female. The film’s narrative is directly correlative to the journey of the director in making the
film and the ending where she cycles toward the main road represents Haifaa al-Mansour’s
escape from cinema prohibition.
4
There is a similar motif with riding bicycles towards civilisation and away from the favelas between Thiago
and Benny in City of God. Dir Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund. O2 Filmes and others. (2002).
5
In 28 Days Later. Dir Danny Boyle. DNA Films and British Film Council. (2002) the storyline took advantage of
the current societal panic regarding epidemics in Britain in order to scare its audiences more than horror film
made decades previous which would have been directed in the same way to scare audiences of that context.

7. In ‘world cinema’, the use of universal themes and techniques to highlight the context of the
country it claims to represent, is of utmost interest and importance. In The Forgotten Ones
(1950) it, similarly to Wadjda (2012), uses non-professional actors and real location shooting,
which alongside the documentary-style opening, imply authenticity of the culture we are
having an insight into. The Forgotten Ones (1950) draws upon influence from different
artistic movements such as surrealism, neo-realism, and also cultural influence from Spain,
Mexico – specifically Mexican Melodrama, and by extension Italian neo-realism. This film
draws upon multiple cultures across the cinema world map in order to represent a single
country’s intimate culture, the film utilises the Italian’s neo-realism in order to more
accurately portray the poor people, as in other cinematic depictions they are hideously
romanticised as sympathetic characters. The stylistic and conceptual parallels between The
Forgotten Ones (1950) and films from other cultures, courteously affirms the concept that
‘world cinema’ is to be compared for familiarity rather than difference.