Transnational Cinema

Beyond Borders

In order to understand transnationalism, first of all we need to identify the concept of "nation". If we perceive it as a static concept then we can not talk about cultural interference, because that means, nations set boundaries forming fundemantals of their cultures. But antithetically as a result of globalization, cultures started to change and hybridize. In fact Kraidy presents hybridity as "the cultural logic" of globalization.

However when it comes to cinema, this type of cultural hybridization decelerates. Hollywood undeniably keeps the control of the film industry in its hands. The term "world cinema" is used to identify non-english films. It is unlikely to class a Hollywood movie as a "world cinema" even though in a non-english speaking country. This is because of the fact that American films are dominant in almost every market. The roots of globalization goes to the mass consumption and eventually Americanization. But today it is hard to talk about the notion of nationality in cinema. The expectations of audiences are changed. Pursuit of identity is not limited by nationality.

Transnational cinema refers to film studies and auteurs superseding national boundaries. Boundaries are the main reason behind cultural and identifical diversities. National identity and national cinema are refused by transnational cinema. Nationalist approaches to cinema establish national narratives, which contradicts with understanding and identifying the international issues and trends. Migrant and diasporic cinema lies in the core of transnational cinema because of its hybrid and boundary-free characteristics. With the help of being jammed between different cultures, migrant cinema is able to have an international identity. Also in a globalized world, culture becomes a non-related term with nation and boundaries. As already mentioned, individuals started to destroy their national identities.

Since 1960's Europe is an attractive place to live for those escaped from difficult conditions in their home countries. As a result people with different cultural backgrounds and etnicities came together in Europe. But they were perceived as labor force by the indigenious people. Also because of the increasing unemployment, immigrants from third world countries were seen as scapegoats. The reason behind this accusation was the fact that immigrants were used as cheap labor force and therefore they were the prior choice of the employers. In other words, even though they lived in better conditions they still had to face exploitation, discrimination and xenophobia.

Migrant and diasporic cinema deals with the cultural separation of individuals and cultural conflicts as an outcome of todays multicultural world. Migrant individuals are separated between two cultures and besides that, they internalize both of these cultures; thus the phenomenon of immigration brings the identity issues into the forefront and questions their state of belongings. Fatih Akın claims that half of the people in the world do not live in their home countries and it is natural that they make films about their lives; therefore it is wrong to use the term "migrant cinema", in fact it is currently identified as "world cinema".

An another way to analyse diasporic films as transnational, is possible through postmodernism. Postmodernism examines the cognitive foundation of modernism and the state of modern human. Modernism imposes several notions like universality, uniformity and objectivity. Postmodernism critizes those notions. According to postmodernism, values and moral codes differ through time and individual. Postmodern thought rejects universal paradigms and emphasizes cultural plurality. In that aspect, postmodern thought utters that the reality is artificial and imposed by existed cultures, and therefore individuality and individuals are vanishing. When we compare modernity and post modernity in terms of art, while modernity relies on