Reflections on Third Cinema

The concept of Third Cinema, which is clearly more than a numerical adjective, is one that has generated considerable interest among film critics and film scholars, especially from the developing countries. To be sure, it is an ambiguous concept that admits of a plurality of interpretations. At times, the architects of this concept have explicated it in a way that is in turn shadowy and luminous, thereby increasing its internal tensions.

However, it is a formulation that needs to be subjected to closer scrutiny as a way of locating the problems of cinema in developing counties in a wider social, cultural, economic, ideological narrative. Vexed by colonial anxiety, it attempts to unweave the hegemonic mystifications of Western film discourse; this is a move that needs to be examined carefully. The binaries that underpin international cinema" westernisation and indigenization, tradition and modernity, localism and globalism, native poetics and cosmopolitan desires, forgotten legacies of the past and contemporary imperatives" can be given a sharper focus through this concept of Third Cinema.

However, while recognizing the importance of a shareable world, we must be on our guard against the easy temptation of lumping together all non-Western cinemas and discrepant identities into a unified, monolithic and unwieldy rubric; It is indeed true that cinemas that belong to the non-Western world, that operate outside the orbit of Euro-American operations, share many features and affinities of interest in common. However, it is also important to bear in mind the fact that while they may share several traits and trends in common, each of the countries that belong to this capacious concept, because of its specific social formations and historical conjunctures, displays its own distinctive vectors of cinematic development and maps of growth.

At the same time, we must not fall into the equally seductive trap of regarding all non-Western cinemas as expressive of some immutable essence; essentialism is the dark twin of cultural identity. Instead, we must learn to think of them as sites of discursive contestation, or representational spaces, in which changing contours of social and cultural meanings are created and challenged. It is evident that the discursive boundaries governing various societies and cultures are ceaselessly expanding and hence cannot be explained away in essentialistic terms. Furthermore, film-makers and film scholars who are at the leading edge of developments of film countries in their respective societies have been exposed to, and in many cases, shaped by, western traditions so that their self-positioning in relation to the specificities of their own cultures is understandably complex and laced with ambivalences.

The concept of Third Cinema, originally formulated by the Argentinean film-makers Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino, two buoyantly invigorating presences on the Latin American film scene, and later elaborated by film scholars such as Teshome H. Gabriel, focus on a multitude of issues connected to non-Western cinemas. The moral reach of their proposed argument is one that deserves closer scrutiny. Generally speaking, First Cinema refers to mainstream Hollywood productions while Second Cinema signifies European art house cinema; In contradistinction to the First and Second cinemas, Third Cinema's self-understanding is one that encourages the production of a new terrain for the exploration of emergent cultures and social transformations vitally linked to developing countries.

The eminent film critic Paul Willemen expresses the view that the manifestoes and programmatic statements put out by the architects of Third Cinema tend to exude the view that it was developed by Latin Americans for Latin American purposes and that its wider applicability was added as an after thought. He also, quite rightly in my view, suggests that there is a danger lurking in the concept of Third Cinema that signals a premature homogenization and totalization. It also pays inadequate attention to the questions of ethnic and gender divisions as well as the contested relationship between cinema and nationhood. This complex relationship needs to be unpacked if we are to make use of the concept of Third Cinema productively.

Nationhood, as with all other types of identity, revolves on the question of difference" how the uniqueness of one nation differs from the uniqueness of comparable nations. The well-known theorist of nationhood, Benedict Anderson suggested that nationhood can be most productively comprehended in terms of an imagined community; for him, nationhood is a cultural artifact of a particular kind. It is imagined because members of even the smallest of nations can never get to know, or meet, most of the fellow citizens. Yet, within the imagination of each, the idea of the nation as a collectivity persists. The nation is also imagined as a community in view of the fact that irrespective of the very real conflicts and fissures that are discernible in society, it is always perceived as, to use Anderson's words, a deep and horizontal comradeship.

The interconnections between cinema and nationhood are intimate and complex. It is apparent that cinema constitutes a very powerful cultural practice and social institution that both reflects and inflects the discourse of nationhood. Consequently, the concept of national cinema is at the centre of most discussions of popular culture in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Cinema, for the most part, is examined in terms of the textual and industrial dimensions.

The textual level seeks to focus on the distinctiveness of a given cinemas" whether it be Sri Lankan or German or Mexican" in terms of theme, content, style and representational strategies. The industrial level aims to call attention to the complicated relationship between cinema and industry, the modes of film production, distribution, consumption within the boundaries of a nation-state. These two levels interact constantly and generate multifarious issues related to national cinemas. Any discussion of Third Cinema, if it is to be fruitful, has to pay attention to this phenomenon. The difficult hyphenation of Third Cinema and nationhood merits sustained study.

As Scholars such as Homi Bhabha have pointed out, there is a close linkage between nation and narration; nations are narrated into existence, and in the modern world, in this effort, cinema plays a pivotal role. How a nation tells its unifying and legitimizing story about itself to its citizens is central to a proper understanding of nationhood. In his analysis, Benedict Anderson highlighted the role of print capitalism in paving the way for the birth of nationhood.

He demonstrated how newspapers and nationalistic novels were responsible for the production of a new national consciousness. He did not discuss the role of cinema in this endeavour, but in modern times the influence of cinema is indeed central.

The topic of nationhood assumes significance on account of another reason as well. Cinema in most Asian, African, Latin American countries is closely connected to the functioning of the nation-state. Questions of economics" production, distribution, consumption of films" as well as control over content through various institutional regulatory agencies have much to do with this. For most film producers in the developing world, that depend largely on local audiences for returns on their investment, the assistance, intervention, co-ordination, of governments assume a great significance. The role of film development corporations, script boards, training institutes, censorship panels, national festivals and so on become important in this regard.

The concept of Third Cinema is a good launching pad for discussions of cinema in the developing world. However, for this concept to become truly meaningful, the way it intersects with the idea of national cinema, nationhood and films, has to be explored in depth. The declared motive and motif of Third Cinema is the creation of a sovereign space of cinematic expression for directors from the developing world with an unfettered freedom; hence, it is evident that this concept is driven by a larger ambition.

Cinema as a form of entertainment was imported into Asian countries from the West. However, it became indigenized very quickly, putting down roots in the national soil and the consciousness of the people. The most distinguished Asian film directors display in their best work the creative assimilation of cinema into local structures of feeling and modes of sensibility. As film began to spread throughout the world, European and American theories of cinema came to influence ever more strongly and profoundly the thought-worlds, the tracks of imagination, and understandings of cinema.

The impact of European and American film scholarship on the rest of the world brought to the surface many important issues related to the comparative study of cinema. The concept of Third Cinema, as formulated by Fernando Solanas and Ocatvio Getino serves to focus sharply on this problem.

Nothing if not political, the Third Cinema foregrounds issues of power and cinematic self-representation.

It has ignited critical and luminous moments of cinematic re-discovery. Some of the questions it raise are the following - is it possible to widen the European-American referents that guide contemporary film theory so as to accommodate the experiences and realities of Asia, Africa and Latin America?

What is the nature of the theoretical space from which Asian, African, Latin American intellectuals and film commentators can effectively speak?

Is it possible to introduce a new exegetical lexicon, a new vocabulary of analysis, into the analysis of international cinema? Are we allowed the freedom and power to fashion new subject-positions for us?

These and related questions need to be addressed vigorously, as the proponents of Third Cinema are keen to engage in this debate galvanised by purposes both practical and edifying.