| The Argentine film industry enjoyed a period of fame and prosperity known as the "golden age" (la epoca de oro) during the 1930s--40s throughout Latin America. During WWII and after, the US film industry became a formidable threat to Argentina's national cinema and soon dominated the country's movie screens. From the 1950s onward, the studio system declined, and state funding was necessary to insure its survival. The rationales for state intervention in the film industry were twofold: (1) to support national cinema as an "infant industry" in need of protection against the Hollywood industry behemoth; (2) a cultural industry such as film has been defined as part of the "national patrimony" and a product that preserves cultural tradition and fosters the development of national culture. This case study, while particular to Argentina, demonstrates more generally how government film policy is tied to state definitions of national culture. The issue at stake is how the state has shaped national culture toward its economic, political, social, and cultural aims in different historical junctures. More specifically, this study traces the relationship between the state and the national film industry over different government terms. The three most recent government administrations in Argentina (1983--1998) and their directives on film policy comprise the bulk of the study. At different historical moments, national cinema has been fashioned for different markets---some for the national audiences, others for export. For example, under Alfonsin's government, films were considered a form of "high culture" and worked at a time of "Redemocratization" as a "public relations" tool abroad. For Menem, films were fashioned for a domestic audience, in the more "Peronist" vein of mass popular culture. The film industry under Menem's neoliberal economic policies, teamed up with private television channels to create a "blockbuster" commercial cinema using popular television actors in "Hollywood style" genre films. Films were made with a glossy, high budget aesthetic and appealed to a wide general audience, thus boosting the economic viability of the industry. However, state support for a "national culture" used to inspire, educate and cultivate a national sense of community was compromised. |
