Hill begins the article by quoting a chapter title of a Geoffrey Nowell-Smith book, “But do we need it?” informing the reader of what the main focus of his article will be and what the arguments will revolve around. He also shows us his own personal biases as he discusses that although Nowell-Smith wrote the chapter due to the growing fear of the survival of British cinema, posing this question “suggests something of the lukewarm attitude towards British film.” The tone of dismay which he speaks with implies that this is the wrong attitude to hold towards British cinema, which is reinforced by a later statement in the very same paragraph in which he claims that due to the current state of the British film industry, “the importance of being able to argue successfully the case for why a national cinema is necessary or desirable has thus become all the more urgent.” This confirms his bias, which the reader must keep in mind when using this article to understand British cinema and it’s importance as Hill could focus on the positive aspects of a British film industry and gloss over the negative.
Hill proceeds to discuss the two main arguments which are used to defend national cinema; the economic benefit and the cultural benefit. In the case of the economic argument, he conveys British cinema to be a booming industry, however reminds us that this is about the “fundamentally about the virtues of a national film industry.” As an example of this, he gives films such as Flash Gordon, and the Superman movies, which are not “recognisably British” despite being made in Britain. As he identifies the failings in the economic argument, we can deduce that the majority of Hill’s argument will depend upon the argument of a cultural benefit. He reaffirms his bias by stating that it is a “fundamental argument regarding the value of home-grown cinema … the importance of supporting indigenous film-making in an international market dominated by Hollywood.” He shows us that he is arguing for British cinema because of principle rather than due to artistic merit – something which he acknowledges. He also provides two counter arguments to the cultural argument, namely the growing scepticism towards a the ideas of national identity, nationality and the nation, as well as the shift in focus in media studies to the moment of reception and the role played by audiences. By being able to include counter arguments to the two main arguments for British cinema, we can see that this article is valuable in the consideration and understanding of British cinema and British film.
Despite presenting two cultural arguments which seem to argue against national cinema, Hill says that “this need not necessarily be the case” and discusses the evolution of media and film studies. It is here that he talks about how the medium changes and evolves, using the theoretical presuppositions of media and film studies in the 70s as an example as they no longer hold sway in modern academia. An example which Hill uses in this article amongst others is the “growing emphasis on the role of audiences” as it is now accepted that audiences are able to “construct their own readings of, and impose their own meanings upon, media texts.” Hill then argues that this theory downplays the importance of the “characteristics of the texts” in favour of something which can be enjoyed by media audiences. This means that where the films where made and who by becomes much less important, implying that the importance and need for a national cinema is greatly reduced, as it “lessens the demand for alternative, or simply different, types of films and television programmes… [as] diversity does not depend on the actual range of media output.” The detail Hill puts into his counter argument here shows that he has given full consideration to the arguments he is presenting, allowing this article to be of great value when searching to understand British national cinema.
Hill has also assessed how British audiences reacted to Hollywood cinema. He acknowledges that other film and media scholars such as Nowell-Smith have questioned the supposed dangers presented by Hollywood films in Britain, saying that they offer “pleasures, attitudes and meanings not to be found in British films or British culture … which may be appropriated and made use of by British audiences.” The argument here is that by consuming Hollywood film, we are able to learn of other cultures and apply cultural resources which we would not have had if it were not for these films. By acknowledging the important cultural benefit of watching films which are not ‘home-grown’ the argument in favour of British cinema seems flimsy, particularly when we look at the counter argument provided by Hill. Whilst he acknowledges the accuracy of the argument, he dismisses it saying there are “dangers none the less” and that to emphasise the progressive nature of Hollywood cinema only “undermines the case for a specifically British cinema.” Here we see the first example of oversight in the article – Hill doesn’t make any argument as to why we should have a British cinema yet insinuates that we should have one.
It is at this point in the article when Hill begins to reflect upon another contemporary scholar, Andrew Higson, and his theories in relation to national cinema. He discusses Higson’s idea that the site of consumption is just as important as the site of production, and explains the failings of this argument, reminding us that this would mean that Hollywood films would then be considered part of British national cinema, but that this theory is an oversight on Higson’s part as it doesn’t distinguish between cinema in Britain and British national cinema. By considering the work of other scholars, Hill increases the value of this article in understanding British cinema as we get the views of others.
The shortcomings of British cinema are not ignored in the article. Hill acknowledges that scholars such as Nowell-Smith have described British films as “restrictive and stifling.” Whilst this reflection may be true to the large amount of literary adaptations found in British cinema, Hill reminds the reader that this is not true for all British cinema, as there were varied forms of filmmaking which emerged in the 80s. This argument shows that Nowell-Smith has an opposite bias to Hill, a bias which he critiques with evidence, but also with a comparison with another national service – public service broadcasting. Hill acknowledges that whilst both of these media platforms have their shortcomings, the principles which underlay them are worth defending and improving upon, not irradiating from national culture.
The concept of national identity is also discussed in the article. Hill acknowledges that there is more than one national identity because of the complexity of the population of Britain. He acknowledges that national identity needs to be conceived in dynamic terms and the three main consequences which this outlook on nationality has, and comes to the conclusion that to conceive national identity in dynamic terms is to constantly critique nationalism which has an imaginary sense of unity which lacks the diversity of identities needed to define each individual. Hill also acknowledges that there is more than one national identity, showing that he has considered regionality in his arguments. He also believes that whilst this could be considered a counter argument to the concept of national cinema, that it doesn’t need to be the case as national cinema doesn’t need to have the implication of ‘fixity’ which we have given it. Instead, Hill argues, national cinema should simply be nationally specific, tackling national preoccupations. To give an example of this, Hill uses black British films made in the 80s which Willemen described as ‘strikingly british’ despite not being nationalistic. These films were able to deal with social divisions and differences in the nation whilst addressing nationally specific materials, hence why this type of film makes the need for a national cinema all the more important and pressing.
Despite the fact that this type of cinema would culturally enrich British culture, Hilly acknowledges that this type of cinema would not have the economic benefit that other types of national cinema would have as they do not have the ‘universal’ appeal. They would also be difficult to market as they would not have the internationally recognisable characteristics of British films. The market is what encourages the use of the easily recognisable nationality and national identity, which is everything that national cinema should try to challenge. This is why Willemen and Hill invision national cinema as being poor and dependent, which is why the cultural benefits of national cinema are the arguments we should focus on, as this type of cinema is the “most capable of making a valuable contribution to British cultural life.” However, Hill acknowledges that this is contrary to government policy, which focuses on economic arguments for national cinema instead of the cultural benefits which is what would be necessary for a national cinema which flourishes.
By the end of the article, Hill concludes that we do not need national cinema, however we can “legitimately want the British cinema to survive and flourish.” For this to happen, we need to make the type of cinema which is interesting and so able to compete with Hollywood. This cinema, he argues will need to be economically modest, however culturally ambitious with representations “adequate to the complexities of contemporary Britain.” In his article Hill has discussed how to achieve this, from differences in approach and changes in government policy, and so we can see that this article is a valuable one from the perspective of finding the value of British cinema.