Crossover Cinema

Source: http://purpose.edelman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Picture-12-594×306.png

When the topic of crossover cinema, it is often confused with transnational cinema. According to Khorana (2013), transnational cinema enables the recognition and consideration of the impact of post-World War II migration and globalisation on film practice and scholarship. On the other hand, cross-culture cinema is defined as the emergence of a new form of cinema, which crosses cultural borders during conceptualization and production, thus manifesting into a form of hybrid cinematic grammar at the textual level, as well as cross overs in the consumption of content such as distribution and reception.

Personally, I have watched a lot of foreign (particularly Asian) television shows and movies. Did/Do I understand the language? No. How could I possibly know what was even going on when I couldn’t? Simple. SUBTITLES! However, through the ever-growing impact of globalisation, crossover cinema has allowed the creation of a new cultural experience. Nowadays, we can find that movies have similar storylines, which could have been potentially remade. East Asian films are a great example, as many have been appropriated and remade to cater to Western audiences such as Park Chanwook’s 2003 South Korean mystery thriller film, Oldboy and Spike Lee’s 2013 American remake film of the same name.

In particular, I will focus on one of the most well-known crossover cinematic films – Slumdog Millionaire. Slumdog Millionaire is an Oscar-winning British-Indian drama film first released in 2008, co-directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan. The film garnered mass international attention for its incorporation of the Hindi language, Indian actors/actresses and cultural/film elements, especially Bollywood music and dance sequences. According to Kavoori (2009, cited in Khorana, 2010), Slumdog Millionaire is “a classic crossover text” due to using Indian locale to speak about wider (global) concerns that impacted world citizens after the post-financial crisis in America such as personal responsibility, the need for agency in an alienated society and the renewal of ‘love’ and self-understanding. Despite these incorporations, the film is still predominately Westernized due to the fact that it was a British-made film that was intended to appeal to and resonate with the Western audiences rather than just the Indian audience. For these reasons, there have been numerous academic criticisms and controversies after its box office release.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that Slumdog Millionaire is a true example of crossover cinema due to the fact that the film had crossed over to the main (non-foreign) category at the Academy Awards in 2009. Although it is the fact that it won multiple awards at the Academy Awards is any indicator that it is a crossover cinematic film, but its ability to have transcended cultural borders, appeal to and resonate with Western and global audiences is something to be commended. Thanks to the rise of globalisation, crossover cinema allows all cultures to be embraced and united through entertainment.

References

1. Khorana, S 2013, “Crossover cinema: a conceptual and genealogical overview”, Research Online, p. 1-18

Global Film Beyond Hollywood: Chindia

Source: http://villagefilm.com/

Everyone has heard of Hollywood, right? Technically it’s a district located in Los Angeles, California but it’s most notable as being the heart of the American, if not global, entertainment industry. However, the new millennium has seen the emergence of Asian film industries, particularly China and India (Bollywood), which scholars predict will compete against the global film flows of Western dominance (Karan, 2010).

Bollywood, the large Hindi language-based part of the Indian film industry, originating back in 1899. On the other hand, the creation of Hollywood dates back to 1910, 11 years later than Bollywood, with many similarities discovered between these two national film industries. Although it may be more common to hear that Bollywood has remade (or plagiarised, depending on the situation) Hollywood films but more so, it is unlikely vice-versa. Such similarities are an effect of cultural hybridity, which intentionally creates and mixes both local and global cultural elements appealing to current audience tastes and trends. Appadurai (1996 cited in Karan and Schaefer, 2010) emphasises that this cultural mixing of elements in film production are results from the provision of global mediascapes.

As hybridized content continues to spread worldwide, ‘contra-flows’ arise that shifts cultural influence towards the direction of the Global South, blurring boundaries such as modern/traditional, high/low context, and national/global culture (Thussu 2006: 175 cited in Karan and Schaefer, 2010). In the case of Bollywood films, it is exemplified through their ‘soft power’ because, although everyone may not understand the Hindi dialogue, audiences are enraptured by its spirit and glitzy entertainment as shown through the 2008 Oscar-winning British/Indian drama film, Slumdog Millionaire (Tharoor, 2008 cited in Karan and Schaefer, 2010).

Positive impacts of hybridized contra-flows on global film trade are further exemplified through East Asian films industries such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and China. Curtin (2007: 287 cited in Karan and Schaefer, 2010) claims that East Asian film makers have been most successful with mixed unique content such as Chinese martial arts and ‘Wuxia’ storylines. An exemplification would be Ang Lee’s ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’, where success attributed to hybridization as it was an film that could be enjoyed by both Western and Eastern audiences (Lagerkvist, 2009: 370 cited in Karan and Schaefer, 2010).

In conclusion, it appears that Indian (Bollywood) and East Asian are becoming increasingly influential players in the global film industry, also known as ‘Chindia’ (Ramesh, 2006 cited in cited in Karan and Schaefer, 2010). In particular, Indian/Bollywood films stand the best chance in challenging Hollywood’s dominance in the movie industry, demonstrated through the incorporation of ‘Bollywoodism” in mainstream media (Bose, 2006: 195, cited in Karan and Schaefer, 2010). However, the hype of Bollywood doesn’t yet compare to the great influence that Hollywood possesses in global film industry but its their vast potential is undeniable.

References

1. Karan, K and Schaefer, DJ, 2010, ‘Problematizing Chindia: Hybridity and Bollywoodization of popular Indian cinema in global film flows”, Global Media and Communication, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 309-314
2. Woke, 2007, Bollywood vs Hollywood – The Complete Breakdown, Mutiny, blog, 1 February, viewed 25 August 2014 <http://mutiny.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/bollywood-vs-hollywood-the-complete-breakdown/>
3. Unknown, 2014, 10 Hollywood movies you probably didn’t know were a direct copy of Indian films, IBNLive, viewed 25 August 2014, <http://ibnlive.in.com/news/10-hollywood-movies-you-probably-didnt-know-were-a-direct-copy-of-indian-films/484753-79.html>
4. Pranshu, 2014, A Complete List of Bollywood (Indian) Movies copied from Hollywood | Plain Plagiarism, Pranshu, viewed 25 August 2014, <http://pranshu.hubpages.com/hub/a-complete-list-of-bollywood-movies-copied-from-hollywood-plain-plagiarism>

Internationalising Education in Australia

Source: http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/

Although I am Australian-born and a local student, I am ethnically both Vietnamese and Chinese. I personally know of many people from overseas, some whom are relatives, who have travelled to Australia for better opportunities, especially in education that are not offered in their home country. Even if I have no personal experience myself, I have witnessed international students trying to adapt to a new country with great cultural differences from what they grew up with.

However, everyone may not understand life beyond Australia and the idea of studying abroad and international education. As I’ve experienced in University, most international students tend to befriend each other. Thus, there is a misconception that they do not want to interact with local students. However Marginson (2012) reveals that it is quite the opposite; international students want closer interaction with local students and are willing to take risks to achieve this, or friendship, but it is local students who are disinterested. He believes that:

“International education is not the rich intercultural experience it could be.”

(Marginson, 2012)

Most research has found that the pathway to improvement lies in creating interaction between international students and locals, especially students (Marginson, 2012). Consequentially, educational and welfare benefits follow. Intercultural encounters improve language proficiency in English, their communicative competence, and strengthen their confidence, their agency. Through studies of international students conducted by Kell and Vogl (2007), they further support Marginson’s argument. They reveal that despite international students learn English in their respective home countries, they have difficulty with communication in Australia because there was a strong focus on grammar, writing and reading, rather than spoken word. International students struggle with Australian-English due to our heavy use of colloquialism/slang and unfamiliarity with the social norms and conventions of Australian life. It is further exemplified through the quote:

“…language could not be understood without close attention to the cultural context in which it was situated in.”

(Bourdieu from Jenkins, 1992: 152 cited in Kell and Vogl, 2007)

In conclusion, it is important for both international and local students to have social interaction because it will help improve international students’ English proficiency, while increasing their confidence with approaching local students, while utilising colloquial and non-formal English. These factors are important in reducing and preventing alienation, loneliness and homesickness that international students may feel living and studying abroad. Thus, we must be considerate and make sure international students feel as welcome and accepted as possible because imagine the hardships international students live through conversing and learning in a language that you aren’t proficient in while adapting to a country where it is TOTALLY different from your own (culture-wise). In any case, it is important that we avoid tragic events in the future such as the attack on Indian students in Australia earlier this year.

1. Kell, P and Vogl, G, 2007, “International Students: Negotiating life and study in Australia through Australian Englishes”, University of Wollongong, p.1- 10
2. Marginson, S, 2012, “International Education as Self-Formation”, University of Wollongong. p.51-61

Globalisation

Source: http://arthemis-cinema.ca/sites/arthemis.nt2.ca/files/0214map.jpg

According to O’Shaughnessy and Stadler (2012), Globalisation refers to an international community that is influenced by technological development as well as economic, political and military interests. It is characterised through global interactions and unification (i.e. interdependence, interconnectedness and instantaneity), which could potentially lead to the homogenisation of world cultures, or towards hybridisation and multiculturalism.

According to Appadurai (1990), in order to analyse and evaluate globalisation, we must consider five key dimensions:

1. Ethnoscapes
2. Technoscapes
3. Financescapes
4. Mediascapes
5. Ideoscapes

On the topic of international communication, the key dimensions that I will be focusing on are technoscapes. Technoscapes are the global and fluid configuration of technology (Appadurai, 2000). Technology has rapidly and relentlessly advancing, simultaneously surpassing impervious boundaries, such as time and space, on a global scale through platforms such as the Internet. The Internet is an example of the utopian view of globalisation. This utopian view is captured in McLuhan’s phrase of ‘the global village’ that suggests no matter where we are in the world, everyone can be brought closer by the globalisation of communication (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2012). The Internet is a world where everyone can have a voice and be heard and also enable information to be freely shared with each other or as members of online communities, similar to the image depicted in McLuhan’s ‘global village’.

However, today’s global interactions have created tensions between cultural homogenisation and heterogenization. Negative reactions to globalisation represent a dystopian view, which is exemplified by cultural imperialism. Cultural imperialism describes the widespread cultural values and ideas of one culture through means such as the media rather than direct rule or economic trade which is detrimental as it threatens the loss of cultural diversity and a global monopoly (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2012). Thus, there are both positive and negative reactions and consequences following globalisation.

References

1. Appadurai, A.1990), ‘Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy’, Public Culture, Vol.2, No.3, pp. 1-23
2. O’Shaughnessy, M & Stadler, J (2012) ‘Globalisation’, Media and Society, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Vic, pp. 23-38