On the plurality of cinematic transnationalism

There is much talk these days in film studies of cinematic transnationalism. And given the ubiquity of transnational arrangements in the world of contemporary filmmaking, and the undeniable transnational dimensions of earlier periods of cinematic production, the use of “transnational” to describe production or distribution practices, sources of funding, casting decisions, thematic concerns, or the complex identities of various film professionals (to name but some of the more obvious candidates) often has an aura of indisputable legitimacy. At the same time, the term “transnational” does little to advance our thinking about important issues if it can mean anything and everything that the occasion would appear to demand. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that a number of film scholars are tiring of the steady incantation of “transnational” and are beginning to ask themselves whether the very cinematic phenomena currently being described in 2009 as transnational would not, just some ten years previously, have been discussed in terms of a now allegedly outdated national cinemas paradigm.