This essay examines the ways Southeast Asian Independent Cinema can be located – or, perhaps, de-located –, departing from traditional concepts of film studies, by examining the discourse on this cinematic movement as it is shaped by local and foreign voices. The paper focuses on the nexus of independence, political involvement and regionalism and asks how these meanings are negotiated in their transfer from various previous concepts of cinematic independence and alternativeness into the local context. As Southeast Asian Independent Cinema challenges conventional notions of film studies (the frame of national cinemas; the binary system of Hollywood vs. World Cinema; and the pre-digital cinematic apparatus), it presents an opportunity to rethink and expand traditional concepts and the underlying epistemologies in an innovative, non-Eurocentric way.
application/pdf
2036-461X
16271
20
en
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Cinéma & Cie. Film and Media Studies Journal
De-Location "Indipendence:" The Discourse on Southeast Asian Indipendent Cinema
Text.Serial.Journal
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie
13
Thematic issue / Section thématique
2013-03-01
2021-09-06
2013-03-01
2024-02-14
Cinéma & Cie
Natalie Boehler
2013/03/01
University of Zurich
2036-461X
20
en
De-Location "Indipendence:" The Discourse on Southeast Asian Indipendent Cinema
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie/article/download/16271/16840
13
DE-LOCATING “INDEPENDENCE”
THE DISCOURSE ON SOUTHEAST ASIAN INDEPENDENT CINEMA
AND ITS TRAJECTORIES
Natalie Boehler, University of Zurich




Abstract
This essay examines the ways Southeast Asian Independent Cinema can be located – or, perhaps,
de-located –, departing from traditional concepts of film studies, by examining the discourse on this
cinematic movement as it is shaped by local and foreign voices. The paper focuses on the nexus of
independence, political involvement and regionalism and asks how these meanings are negotiated
in their transfer from various previous concepts of cinematic independence and alternativeness into
the local context. As Southeast Asian Independent Cinema challenges conventional notions of film
studies (the frame of national cinemas; the binary system of Hollywood vs. World Cinema; and
the pre-digital cinematic apparatus), it presents an opportunity to rethink and expand traditional
concepts and the underlying epistemologies in an innovative, non-Eurocentric way.




Introduction

   Across the region of Southeast Asia, forms of independent cinema have sprung up since the
late 1990s. Filmmakers in various Southeast Asian countries are working outside the dominant
national systems of mainstream studios and state-financed television productions, producing short
films, features, documentary, and fiction alike. This is all the more remarkable because many
states in Southeast Asia have a history of employing the mass media for efforts at nation-building,
circulating homogenized, state-defined images of the nation and controlling media content with
rigid censorship systems. While studio systems were predominant in the region for decades, they
have been in demise in many countries since the 1970s or 1980s; nonetheless, the mainstream
prevails. Its output consists mainly of generic, formulaic works for mass consumption, such as
genre movies, telenovelas and the like.1
   Southeast Asian independent filmmakers typically navigate around the mainstream-dominated
areas and state-imposed restrictions by working with alternative modes of production, circulation
and exhibition. Production costs are typically kept low by working with grassroots methods, low
wages and, sometimes, free labor; funding is often provided by private sources, crowdfunding,
sometimes by development funds and grants issued by institutions abroad, or by prize money from
festival competitions. Independent films are distributed by small production companies, often the
filmmakers’ own, and frequently via informal modes of distribution. Many of these production


Cinéma & Cie, vol. XIII, no. 20, Spring 2013                                                      41
Natalie Boehler

companies use social media, such as blogs, Twitter or Facebook as a platform for advertising
and distributing their movies. Thus, the internet serves as an alternative to working modes of
the traditional, often state-controlled production studios. For example, the Malaysian production
company Da Huang Pictures, founded by four independent filmmakers, uses its website as
information channel, business site, online DVD shop, blog, and publicity channel all at once.
Online platforms for streaming movies, such as Youtube, Vimeo, or Mubi, are another common
way of circulation, as is piracy. The films are shown at alternative venues and festivals, such as the
Substation in Singapore or the Thai Short Film and Video Festival, in semi-formal, “underground,”
and private locations, such as micro-cinemas, bars, film clubs and art galleries. Another prominent
exhibition mode is the international film festival circuit, especially festivals that concentrate on
showcasing so-called World Cinema or Asian Films, for example Pusan, Rotterdam, or the Forum
section of the Berlinale.
   To a large extent, these alternative filmmaking practices and strategies are enabled by the
emergence of digital technology and high-speed internet connections in the region, innovations
that are crucial since they account for possibilities such as (relatively) low production costs,
online distribution, circulation via DVDs or online streaming. In fact, many local filmmakers,
scholars and cultural activists see digital filmmaking as a cornerstone for independent cinema.2
It is widely acknowledged as a gateway for new possibilities and alternative aesthetics owed to
digital technology.
   In the course of the last decade, this cinema has gained momentum with the establishing of
regional festivals and specific websites that serve as platforms and places to meet and gather
for the filmmaking and cinema-going community. While the individual cinemas of Southeast
Asian countries are still primarily understood as national cinemas, the regional scope seems to
have gained importance. “Southeast Asian independent cinema” has become a keyword, a much-
discussed entity in the regional film community. Among filmmakers, academics and cinema
enthusiasts, it has become a local concern to group the region’s cinemas together in order to reflect
on independent filmmaking as cultural expression, as strategy, and to carve out common ground
and overarching traits, while at the same time acknowledging the diversity of the region and its
films, and their modes of representation and production.
   For many filmmakers and other participants in the discourse, the element of independence
is key in this cinematic practice that is seen as a subversive, political cinema, since it presents
alternatives not only to mainstream production and aesthetics, but also to state policies of media
content and the representation of national identity. Many films touch on off-limits or sensitive
topics, and some projects are directly connected with political activism: the Malaysian film project
Kampong Radioaktif (Survival Guide Untuk Kampong Radioaktif, Liew Seng Tat, Tan Chui Mui,
Woo Ming Jin and Yeo Joon Han, 2011) consists of four short films that satirically comment the
government’s efforts to downplay the long-term effects of radiation towards the local population;
the Indonesian Q! Film Festival screens queer cinema, aiming to raise awareness for queer issues
and HIV, while facing protests by conservative religious groups. Independent cinema is also
opposed to commercialism and to Hollywood productions and the local mainstream cinemas that
dominate the region. The existence of various cinematic manifestos, declaring independence and
the search for an alternative filmic vocabulary, is indicative of the pioneer spirit that motivates
much of local independent filmmaking.3


42
                                                                         DE-LOCATING “INDEPENDENCE”

   The emergence of this cinema has put Southeast Asia on the map internationally. Festival
screenings and prizes garnered by filmmakers have suddenly made visible a region that was
mostly a blank space on the cinematic map, even in the prevalent narrative of “World Cinema.”
In their home countries, however, where the wide public turns to Hollywood productions, the
local mainstream cinema, or both, independent films have a rather marginal audience. They are,
paradoxically, viewed less here than abroad, by foreign audiences, even though they often show a
strong concern with local problems and issues.4 In this way, some filmmakers have become global
figures, such as Filipinos Lav Diaz and Raya Martin, Malaysian directors Amir Muhammad and
Tan Chui Mui, or Thai directors Aditya Assarat and Apichatpong Weerasethakul. For these reasons,
Southeast Asian independent cinema has been described as a trans- or postnational cinema.5



Discourse elements and their trajectories

   Southeast Asian independent cinema presents a fruitful topic for reflection for contemporary
film studies, as it concentrates several novel aspects of cinema: the use of digital technologies,
their industrial and aesthetic implications; political marginality; and its location in a part of the
world still largely unknown to most film scholars. These novelties challenge classical concepts
and traditional epistemologies of the discipline – most obviously, the frame of national cinema,
classical apparatus and spectatorship theory, and the concentration of film studies on Western
cinemas, namely those of Hollywood and Europe.
   This essay examines the current discourse on contemporary Southeast Asian independent cinema,
especially the way it is defined and positioned. While studying these (self-) reflections, I shall focus
on the linkages between independence, the digital, and the regional/national. This nexus of topics
seems especially rewarding to research, because it touches on several currently debated subjects in
film studies, namely the nation as frame, the digital turn, and theories of world cinema.
   By analyzing some voices that shape this discourse, I aim to unravel some of the various strains
that shape it. As I shall explain, the discourse on Southeast Asian independent cinema shows
obvious parallels to and borrowings from several discourses in film theory and history. The
paper’s interest lies in how these traditional discourses are received and modified in contemporary
Southeast Asia.
   There are several reasons I am interested in this. First, the discourse on cinema has repercussions
on filmmaking itself: filmmakers shape their self-concepts and identities in the frame of global film
history. How, then, do they relate to certain historical concepts? Most of these concepts originate
in different parts of the world, raising the question how geopolitical and cultural differences are
dealt with.
   Further, non-Western cinema presents an important opportunity to mirror traditional film
studies. The transferring of traditional Western theory to other places inevitably raises questions
of adequacy and conclusiveness; to examine how these theories are negotiated in other places can
offer new impulses as to how they can be rethought and expanded.
   Finally, as concepts and discourses travel through space and time, they are transformed. Thus,
translocalization processes of discourses and theories are highly informative of how film theory,
and knowledge systems in general, work in the present day.

                                                                                                     43
Natalie Boehler

Independence, the digital and the regional

  In the discussion of Southeast Asian independent cinema, the question of independence is
assigned great importance, whilst at the same time, its meaning appears to be rather vague. In
fact, the significance of the term “independence” makes the vagueness of its meaning and the lack
of a definition for local cinema all the more striking. As the Australian scholar Benjamin McKay
wrote, “maybe a definitive ‘definition’ is not needed. But we need to recognize that one person’s
independent is another person’s ‘mainstream’.”6
  As John Lent points out, the term “independence” is used in different contexts, varying
according to place, time and speaker. Lent thus suggests looking at three different entities
toward which independence manifests itself in this cinema: government regulation, the
mainstream studio systems, and traditional methods and styles of filmmaking.7 Examined from
this variety of aspects, the question of independence seems to touch on various levels, namely
that of political involvement, an economical and industrial level, as well as one of aesthetics
and narration.
  The concept of cinematic independence has several lineages in film history, many of which are
referred to in the discussion on Southeast Asian independent cinema: independent US cinema of
the 1990s, the European New Waves, Third Cinema, and postcolonial cinema. They all comprise
the three levels mentioned above. Each of them links independence to new technologies and new
ways of handling film equipment, in order to reduce prohibitive costs and enable filmmaking
outside the realm of big production studios and their streamlined, commercialized content and
style. Moreover, all of them ascribe, albeit to strongly varying degrees, to political involvement or,
in some cases, oppositionalism. In this way, they all propose an “other” cinema, contrasting with
and opposing cinematic forms perceived as dominant, mainly those of Hollywood.
  In the following, I shall examine several references in the discourse on Southeast Asian
independent cinema to various cinematic traditions and concepts from film studies, discussing
them under the aspect of their translocalization and their conclusiveness for this new discourse.



Confronting the studio system: The influence of 1990s US independent films

  Probably the most customary use of “independent” refers to films produced and distributed
outside the big studios, which dominate or even monopolize the film industry in much of Southeast
Asia. Perhaps, though, the first impulse to make independent films did not primarily arise from
local conditions, but rather followed an imported concept of independence. When asked in an
interview if independent cinema reacts in opposition to mainstream, commercial Malaysian
cinema, independent filmmaker Amir Muhammad negates and instead ascribes a strong influence
to foreign tendencies, especially

  the hype of independent movies, which you can’t deny started in America in the early 90s. So we then
  got the romantic idea of doing it our own way. So I don’t think it was consciously in opposition in that
  sense, because that would only work if mainstream Malaysian cinema were the only films that we see.
  But we still watch mainstream movies.8

44
                                                                       DE-LOCATING “INDEPENDENCE”

   As Gaik Cheng Khoo, a scholar who has worked on Malaysian independent cinema, points
out, the lineage of independence of the studio system reaches back to US independent film of
the 1960s, while its origins lie in the European avant-garde film of the 1920s.9 In the 1990s,
a convergence of independence and the Hollywood ideals of glamour, stardom and prestige
happened; the bridging of the fine line between mainstream and independent became influential
for Southeast Asian filmmakers.
   According to this point of view, the divide between mainstream studio industries and
independent film seems to be less severely handled than might be expected of an oppositionist
movement; instead, there might well be the aspect of independent filmmaking as emulating
a cinematic strain from the USA. Furthermore, the divide between the mainstream and the
independent probably is less absolute than it used to be, as there has recently been a spillover
of elements of independent cinema into more mainstream forms. In some cases, successful
independent films have enabled their makers’ deals with big studios, offering them opportunities
such as commercial releases in local theaters and projects with larger working budgets. Some
filmmakers work inside and outside the studio system simultaneously, straddling the borders
between the independent and the mainstream. Malaysian director James Lee, for example,
shoots independent films as well as Malay genre cinema, such as the 2011 Sini Ada Hantu (Here
Got Ghost!, 2011), a horror film.
   This spillover might be among the reasons that some critics speak of a recent demise of independent
film. Malaysian filmmaker James Lee points out how the accessibility of digital filmmaking leads
to a large amount of films being made with little experience and without realizing the full potential
of digital work, and thus to a loss of quality in filmmaking.10 In this way, “indie” has become
a hip label that many young filmmakers strive for, since cheap DV presents the possibility of
making features from an early career stage on, and the commercial (and financial) success of
some independent filmmakers is a strong incentive. According to “Thaiindie,” a group of Thai
independent filmmakers, “indie” – the popularized, trendy version of independent filmmaking that
has established itself in the course of the late 2000s–, has itself become a kind of formulaic genre
with a new “set of rules,” a fixed style that has become a sort of commercialized brand.11



Aesthetic independence, high/low culture and “indie” commercialization

   Filipino film critic Alexis Tioseco has written about the demarcation between mainstream
and independent cinema becoming increasingly blurred.12 While he refers to the situation in the
Philippines, this statement can be expanded to many contemporary Southeast Asian film industries:
it is nowadays harder to distinguish between the two by the categories of film formats (DV vs.
35mm), length (shorts vs. features), form (alternative vs. formulaic), or distribution (limited
vs. wide), since the old framework and its boundaries have been confused. Larger production
companies have entered territories previously inhabited by the independent film scene, such as
small festivals, and have created sub-labels employing young filmmakers working with lower
budgets; meanwhile, previously independent companies are producing films geared toward larger
audiences and theatrical releases, often accepting financial backing from production companies or
corporations. In sum, convergences have taken place that expand new niches in the film industry

                                                                                                   45
Natalie Boehler

and water down the significance of the term “independence,” that, in Tioseco’s opinion, “was once
like a battle cry, but now it is a whimper, a marketing tool, a hip reference.”13
   According to Tioseco, since industrial or technical determinants have seen shifts in connotation,
the question of aesthetics is of particular importance for the notion of independence today. In
this understanding, independence is seen as cultural and aesthetic resistance; aesthetics clearly
is understood as having a political reach, following the belief that representation forms the
spectator’s subjectivity by positioning him or her in certain ways, based on classical apparatus
and spectatorship theory, as coined by Raymond Bellour and Jean-Louis Baudry.
   However, it has meanwhile become a common concern that the aesthetics of independent film,
too, has become commercialized. The Filipino movie Ang Babae Sa Septic Tank (The Woman in the
Septic Tank, Marlon Rivera, 2011) spoofs the typical “indie” style: slow editing, voice-over-less,
extreme long takes and grainy photography seem to have become a cliché and lost their edge. In
positing independence as alternative culture, and in stating the loss of political urgency and artistic
significance that comes with the commodification of “indie” culture, a Western truism appears: that
of high versus low culture. In this notion that was formed in 19th century Europe and links culture
to social class, high culture is seen as a force for moral and political good, as opposed to low,
mass and folk culture, which are deemed of inferior value. In current film history, the distinction
often resurfaces in the contrasting juxtaposition of arthouse and commercial cinema. Whereas
arthouse cinema is understood as eschewing commercialism for an artistic and cerebral focus,
and existing for a niche audience of connoisseurs, commercial cinema is deemed nonpolitical,
escapist entertainment for the masses. The positioning of Southeast Asian independent cinema as
alternative culture thus seems to refer to this art/entertainment divide.



Digital cinema and new aesthetics: “Dogme”

   By aligning digital practice with alternative culture, as opposed to commercial culture, Southeast
Asian filmmakers follow a notion previously employed by several movements or currents in film
history: the use of new, more cost-effective technology to produce films understood as alternative
counterpoint to more established cinemas, such as the lighter, more mobile camera types used
by the European New Waves or New Hollywood, handheld cameras favored by the Danish
“Dogme” movement or, most recently, DV cameras as the choice tool of the sixth Generation of
Chinese filmmakers. The novel qualities and handling of these technologies entail an aesthetic
and narrative agenda that stands in contrast to that of the according mainstream and that usually
features alternative modes of representation and viewer positioning, novel narratives, and the
eschewal of the star system.
   In his manifesto “The twelve Bowowows of Impurity,” Khavn de la Cruz, a Filipino independent
filmmaker, directly alludes to the Danish avant-garde movement “Dogme 95,” founded by Lars
von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, and its manifesto and “vow of chastity.”14 Like its Danish
predecessor, Khavn’s manifesto establishes filmmaking rules based on traditional filmmaking
parameters – photography, lighting and color, sound recording, mise-en-scène, narrative
conventions, and the like – and advocates the use of low-cost equipment and simple solutions,
instead of elaborate technology and high-profile work standards. Khavn calls his manifesto a

46
                                                                       DE-LOCATING “INDEPENDENCE”

“bastardization” of the “Dogme” credo, counterpointing the original aim of “chastity” with that of
“impurity.” While the Danish manifesto establishes a clear set of rules stating rigid imperatives,
Khavn sets up his “rules” as options that allow the filmmaker the widest possible range of creativity
and self-expression, the utmost goal being to “just make your film, now.” 15



Political activism: Third cinema, postcolonialism, anti-imperialism

   Another recurring notion in the history of independent cinemas is the alignment of their
alternativeness with political involvement. In this way, cinema is understood as a mode of cultural
and aesthetic resistance against established authorities holding power. Since many Southeast Asian
nations are ruled by authoritarian governments and are struggling for democracy, the main authorities
contested by alternative films are the state powers. Independent cinema resists state ideologies by
speaking about taboos and sensitive issues, and challenges state control by dodging censorship,
sometimes even making fun of it. Singaporean filmmaker Royston Tan’s short film Cut (2004), for
instance, is a satirical medley of pop songs and dance scenes making fun of the Singapore Board of
Film Censors after it pressured him to cut his feature film 15 (2003). Here, digital filmmaking plays
a vital role, as it often enables avoidance of state-approved channels of distribution and exhibition,
for example by internet streaming or homemade DVDs, and by creating publicity via social media.
   The notion of cinema as political activism, means of resistance and a pathway to freedom can
be traced back to Third Cinema. The 1970s Latin American movement aimed to inspire mass
revolutionary activism and to counterpoint commercial-escapist films as well as art cinema, by
founding a cinematic movement and aesthetic adequate for the economic and political situation
of the at the time so-called Third World. Southeast Asian independent cinema, or some of its
veins, has repeatedly been read as a possible descendant following the politicized, communitarian
and radical spirit of Third Cinema.16 However, while acting as oppositional voices, various
filmmakers or institutions in fact partially depend on state funding. For example, the state-funded
Bangkok Art and Culture Centre regularly houses screenings of independent films; the Substation,
a Singaporean alternative cultural center, is partially supported by the state, as is the Thai Short
Film festival. As Mariam Lam points out, while Vietnamese independent film exists in the form
of non-mainstream cinema, the Vietnamese state is involved in all Vietnamese films, thus shifting
the definition of independence away from an economical level.17 The fact that state funding and
independent filmmaking are not separated and, in some cases, not separable, relativizes the open
oppositionalism and radicalism proposed by Third Cinema, and blurs political positioning. It might
be indicative that the alignment with Third Cinema has been constructed by foreign or diasporic
critics rather than by local activists, many of whom are involved in and perhaps depend on the
complexities of state participation in the funding of film and film culture, and in the negotiation of
their own political and economical positioning.
   Another aspect of Third Cinema as political resistance is anti-imperialism, a mindset that might
seem conclusive to the postcolonial situation of most of Southeast Asia. Digital technology is
sometimes seen as a vital tool for the empowerment of local film culture, since it enables local
filmmaking with much lower budgets than the use of 35mm stock would require. As Filipino
filmmaker Lav Diaz says in an interview:

                                                                                                   47
Natalie Boehler

  Digital is liberation theology. Now we can have our own media. [...] The issue is not anymore that
  you cannot shoot. You have a Southeast Asian Independent Cinema now. We have been deprived for a
  long time, we have been neglected, we have been dismissed by the Western media. That was because
  of production logistics. We did not have money, we did not have cameras, all those things. Now, these
  questions have been answered. We are on equal terms now.18

   Here, the rise of Southeast Asian independent film is described as an opposition to Western
cinema as an agent of cultural hegemony, echoing an essential concern of Third Cinema. Seeing
Southeast Asian cinema as a reaction to more dominant cinemas – mainly Hollywood, but also
other, more prominent cinemas, such as those of Japan, Hong Kong or India – is a powerful strain
in the discourse.19 However, the resistance towards hegemonic powers claimed by Third Cinema
activists has since shifted, as various present-day independent Southeast Asian filmmakers
receive contributions from foreign funds and festivals, and other institutions that support film in
economically weaker regions, such as the “Hubert Bals” Fund of the Rotterdam Film Festival, or
the produire au sud workshop run by the Nantes Film Festival.
   As the structure of global cinema has profoundly changed since the 1960s, the cultural and
political positions constitutive of Third Cinema have shifted. Cultural hegemony, eurocentrism, and
capitalist forces are no longer fixed to certain parts of the world, but have become delocalized and,
in some cases, even absorbed into non-Western epistemologies, economies and value systems. As
Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt write, “Empire” can no longer be located geopolitically, but has
become a conglomeration of various entities and practices. Therefore, traditional anti-imperialist
strategies can no longer be applied against individual nations.20 While Third Cinema remains a
key reference point in the discourse on non-Western film cultures, the changing coordinates that
locate the discourse, cause a re-adjusting to the present-day landscape of global cinema. In the case
of Southeast Asian independent cinema, this entails a redefining of the notion of independence,
aligning itself with institutions offering contributions, and negotiating the transnational positioning
that this entails. It also raises the question of current hegemonies and new power centers that are
not located in a geographically determined space, but are delocalized, such as transnational funding
institutions, the politics of major film festivals, and the influence of critics and academic institutions.



Transnationalism, regionalism, scapes – and the nation

  The notions of transnationalism and regionalism figure prominently in the discourse on Southeast
Asian independent cinema, as digital technology figures as a way to transcend national boundaries
and to establish regional and global networks. In line with communitarian values, the regional
frame is thought to help locate the individual national cinemas on the map of global cinema and
to bolster their presence, making the region visible as a whole. Several groups, institutions and
networks involved with Southeast Asian independent film operate transnationally, such as the
websites Criticine and Southeast Asian Film Studies Institute, the Luang Prabang Film Festival or
the Singapore-based Southeast Asian Film Festival.21
  Several Asian postcolonial critics have theorized regionalism as an alternative conceptual
framing to anti-imperialism.22 In the wake of the concept of the nation as imagined community and

48
                                                                       DE-LOCATING “INDEPENDENCE”

of the questioning of the frame of national cinema, the concept of regional cinema seems to offer a
promising point of departure. Tilman Baumgärtel describes the digital and regional aspects of this
cinema with a concept developed by Arjun Appadurai.23 In Appadurai’s approach, “scapes” are
boundary-crossing spaces created by various contemporary cultural global flows: a mediascape
refers to the global reach of media and their ability to disseminate information throughout the
world; a technoscape refers to the ability of technology to transcend borders and boundaries.24
   On the levels of representation and of audience reception, though, the national continues to be of
high relevance, and the national cinemas of the region are still very much acknowledged as such.
The nation as an authoritative, repressive power is often contested; since many films comment on
political issues and social injustices that are specific to their home countries, and often indirectly
to avoid censorship, viewers need a fair level of contextual knowledge to understand the various
levels of meaning.
   Thus, the concept of the national seems to persist as an important entity and frame of reference,
side by side with the concepts of the regional and the transnational, as Southeast Asian filmmakers
deal with a simultaneous multiple spatial and geopolitical positioning. This multiple positioning
is characteristic of present-day cinemas in general, and of their move beyond the binary divide
of local and global, as they are embedded in transnational cultural and economic flows and the
complex frameworks they entail. In this way, transnational cinemas open up a communicative
space that can be inhabited by local and foreign audiences at the same time. In this vein, local
writers have suggested an understanding of Southeast Asian independent cinema as cosmopolitan
or cosmopolitical.25



Conclusion: From traditional concepts toward a vernacular

  While the conjunction between digital cinema (or other, previous technological innovations),
alternativeness and independence forms an underlying pattern for the discussed cinematic
concepts, it also shapes the link by which Southeast Asian independent cinema (partially, in some
cases) aligns itself with these concepts. By doing so, this cinema positions itself in relation to
global film history, carving out its own meaning based on other discourses, rhetorics and credos.
  Various strains of traditional film theory and history are employed in the discourse, either
explicitly or implicitly, and are followed rather informally. Some of them, such as US independent
cinema or spectatorship theory, serve as loose points of reference; others are parodied, as in the
example of “Dogma.” Still others are adopted partially and in a negotiated way, such as Third
Cinema, anti-imperialism, and transnationalism. In all cases, the preexisting concepts are modified
in order to gain flexibility. They are not absorbed blindly and totally, but instead adapted to local
contexts, meanings, conditions and concerns, and thus made useful for local purposes, creating an
own, vernacular branch of film discourse.
  These transformations point toward the general situation of contemporary, transnational cinema.
Notions such as alternativeness, independence and transnationalism can no longer be clear,
unambiguous stances, and anti-imperialism and anti-commercialism in the original senses are no
longer valid concepts, as old binary systems have become unfixed and replaced by more complex,
globalized force fields.

                                                                                                   49
Natalie Boehler

Outlook: Widening the scope of film theory

   Because it combines several novel aspects of contemporary cinema – the digital turn, multiple
spatial frames, and non-Western cinema –, the cinematic movement and discourse I have portrayed
here point toward aspects of traditional film theory that need to be reconsidered or updated. In
this sense, the flow of discourse from the West to Southeast Asia described above would change
direction: what do the modifications that traditional theory concepts undergo elsewhere say about
the state of film studies today?
   Since many traditional paradigms of film studies depart from Western-based epistemologies, they
currently find themselves facing delimitations of reach and of adequacy. As the West’s dominance
as representational norm and epistemological center is challenged, calls for a repositioning of
global knowledge systems are being made.26 Among the major contested fields are those based
on Western notions of subjectivity, individuality and perception, such as auteur theory, classical
apparatus theory and psychoanalysis. The classical canon of film history has been criticized
for omitting a large part of world cinema; the contextualization of non-Western film in terms
of history, language and culture is seen as an often lacking aspect, as are adequate approaches
toward non-Western cinema.27 At the same time, the digital turn begs the question how cinema is
redefined in its practices of production, distribution and exhibition, as well as in its aesthetics.28
Also, the rise of coproduction leads to a questioning of the concept of national cinema, backed by
wider scholarly reflection on the concept of the nation as Western construct.29
   The topic presented in this essay suggests several challenges to traditional film studies. Most
obviously, inquiring into the cinema of a geopolitical area largely unknown to Western film
studies expands the usual canon of films as well as of theory to a less Eurocentric focus. As Lúcia
Nagib suggests, world cinema understood in this way is not a niche opposed to Hollywood or to
well-known Western cinemas, but the all-inclusive sum of global cinemas.30 Much of Southeast
Asian independent cinema is produced and circulated digitally. This entails new pragmatics and
aesthetics. The conventional working modes of production, distribution and audience reception
are becoming historical, and are increasingly replaced by new industry structures, modes of
working and viewing habits. Further, as this cinema is transnational, regional and national at once,
it departs from the category of nation as sole entity, as well as from later approaches that declare
the nation an obsolete category and suggest a distinct change of paradigm, fully replacing it by
transnationalism.
   This cinema’s discourse on independence, with its processes of selecting, reflecting and adapting
or rejecting traditional concepts, points to aspects of these concepts that need revision. Among
these aspects are the consideration of unfamiliar or newly formed industry structures such as those
in Southeast Asia; changes in the filmmaking, distribution and viewing practices due to digital
technology; the positioning of the area in relation to global cinema and the transnational industry;
and the political engagement of postcolonial areas that connect to the global (and often Western-
lead) festival circuit. Previously shaped notions of cinematic independence and political cinema
mentioned in the analysis, such as those of Third Cinema, anti-imperialism, or apparatus theory,
no longer fully apply to recent developments and have become historic lines of thinking. To this
effect, the transformation they undergo in the Southeast Asian discourse is exemplary for changes
in film studies in an age of post-eurocentrism, the digital turn, and of cinematic “relocation.”31

50
                                                                               DE-LOCATING “INDEPENDENCE”

   Like all knowledge systems, film theory is not bound to one place, but travels and shifts. As
its concepts circulate, their contexts and meanings fluctuate, and they are subjected to processes
of exchange and entanglements. They thereby enter into a state of fluidity where their terms
and epistemological backgrounds constantly need to be rediscussed and thus find chances
of reconnecting to the present. As Lúcia Nagib put it, “world cinema, as the world itself, is
circulation”32 – as is discourse on it.




1    For overviews on the film history of individual Southeast Asian countries, see: John A. Lent, The Asian
     Film Industry, University of Texas Press, Austin 1990; David Hanan (ed.), Film in South East Asia:
     Views on Film in Ten South East Asia-Pacific Countries, Seapavaa, Hanoi 2001; Anne Tereska Ciecko
     (ed.), Contemporary Asian Cinema: Popular Culture in a Global Frame, Berg, Oxford 2006.
2    See: Eloisa May P. Hernandez, The Beginnings of Digital Cinema in Southeast Asia, in May Adadol
     Ingawanij, Benjamin McKay (eds.), Glimpses of Freedom. Independent Cinema in Southeast Asia,
     Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications, Ithaca 2012, pp. 223-236, p. 227.
3    Examples are: Khavn de la Cruz, Four Manifestos, in Tilman Baumgärtel (ed.), Southeast Asian
     Independent Cinema, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong 2012, p. 119-124; or the I Sinema
     Manifesto, in Tilman Baumgärtel (ed.), Southeast Asian Independent Cinema, cit., p. 151.
4    This is a paradox shared with other independent cinemas from countries with strict censorship policies,
     such as China’s Sixth Generation.
5    See: Tilman Baumgärtel (ed.), Southeast Asian Independent Cinema, cit., p. 22.
6    Benjamin McKay, “Toward New Ways of Seeing Southeast Asian Cinema,” in Criticine, 29 January
     2006, http://criticine.com/feature_article.php?id=25, last visit 21 May 2013.
7    John A. Lent, Southeast Asian Independent Cinema: Independent of What?, in Tilman Baumgärtel (ed.),
     Southeast Asian Independent Cinema, cit., p.13.
8    Benjamin McKay, “A Conversation with Amir Muhammad,” in Criticine, 13 October 2005, http://www.
     criticine.com/interview_article.php?id=18, last visit 10 May 2013.
9    Gaik Cheng Khoo, “Just-Do-It-(Yourself): Independent Filmmaking in Malaysia,” in Inter-Asia Cultural
     Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, 2007, pp. 227-247.
10   Eloisa May P. Hernandez, The Beginnings of Digital Cinema in Southeast Asia, cit., p. 234.
11   Idem, p. 224.
12   Alexis A. Tioseco, Like the Body and the Soul, in May Adadol Ingawanij, Benjamin McKay (eds.),
     Glimpses of Freedom. Independent Cinema in Southeast Asia, cit., pp. 183-184.
13   Idem, p. 183.
14   Khavn de la Cruz, Four Manifestos, cit., p. 119; Lars Von Trier, Thomas Vinterberg, Dogme 95. The Vow
     of Chastity, in Andrew Utterson (ed.), Technology and Culture. The Film Reader, Routledge, London-
     New York 2005 (1995), pp. 87-88.
15   Khavn de la Cruz, Four Manifestos, cit., p. 122. Critics have pointed out that the “Dogme” credo
     was mapped out with a certain irony, and that its criticism remains abstract and vague (Mads Egmont
     Christensen, “Dogma and Marketing,” in P.O.V., no. 10, December 2000, http://pov.imv.au.dk/Issue_10/
     section_4/artc1A.html, last visit 29 July 2013; Niels Weisberg, “Great Cry and Little Wool,” in P.O.V.,
     no. 10, December 2000); some suspect that the rigidity in its phrasing served as a way to attract publicity
     and to provoke (Ove Christensen, “Authentic Illusions – The Aesthetics of Dogma 95,” in P.O.V., no.
     10, December 2000). While one might argue that Khavn’s text reflects “Dogme”’s irony by mirroring its
     rigidity, still the contrast between the texts remains obvious.
16   May Adadol Ingawanij, The Thai Short Film and Video Festival and the Question of Independence, in
     May Adadol Ingawanij, Benjamin McKay (eds.), Glimpses of Freedom. Independent Cinema in Southeast
     Asia, cit., p. 180; Joel David, “Review: May Adadol Ingawanij, Benjamin McKay (eds.), Glimpses of


                                                                                                             51
Natalie Boehler

     Freedom,” in Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 1, no. 3, December 2012, p. 531; Cameron Bailey, quoted in
     Tilman Baumgärtel (ed.), Southeast Asian Independent Cinema, cit., p. 6.
17   Mariam B. Lam, The Postcolonial Condition of “Indochinese” Cinema from Viet Nam, Cambodia and
     Laos, in Sandra Ponzanesi, Marguerite Waller (eds.), Postcolonial Cinema Studies, Routledge, London
     2012, p. 87.
18   Tilman Baumgärtel, “Digital is Liberation Theology.” Interview with Lav Diaz, in Id. (ed.), Southeast
     Asian Independent Cinema, cit., p. 177.
19   Benjamin McKay, “Toward New Ways of Seeing Southeast Asian Cinema,” cit.
20   Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, Empire, Harvard University Press, Cambridge-London 2001.
21   www.criticine.com; http://southeastasiancinema.wordpress.com, last visit 21 May 2013.
22   See Mariam B. Lam, Circumventing Channels. Indie Filmmaking in Post-Socialist Vietnam and Beyond,
     cit., p. 108. Lam especially mentions the work of Naoki Sakai, Gayatri Gopinath, and K.H. Chen.
23   Tilman Baumgärtel (ed.), Southeast Asian Independent Cinema, cit., p. 24ff.
24   Arjun Appadurai, Modernities at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, University of Minnesota
     Press, Minneapolis 1996.
25   Gaik Cheng Khoo, “Just- Do- It- (Yourself): Independent Filmmaking in Malaysia,” cit., p. 227; Z.H.
     Raju, “Filmic Imaginations of the Malaysian Chinese,” in Journal of Chinese Cinemas, no. 1, 2008, p.
     74.
26   In keeping with Negri and Hardt’s notions of “Empire” mentioned earlier, “the West” here refers to an
     ideology rather than a geography (Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, Empire, cit.).
27   See: Ella Shohat, Robert Stam, Unthinking Eurocentrism Multiculturalism and the Media, Routledge,
     London-New York 1994; Saer Maty Ba, Will Higbee (eds.), De-Westernizing Film Studies, Routledge,
     Abingdon-New York 2012.
28   See: Francesco Casetti, “The Relocation of Cinema,” in Necsus. European Journal of Media Studies,
     no. 2, 2012, http://www.necsus-ejms.org/the-relocation-of-cinema, last visit 22 May 2013; Barbara
     Flückiger, “Das digitale Kino: Eine Momentaufnahme,” in Montage/av, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003, pp. 28-51.
29   See: Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,
     Verso, London 1991.
30   See: Lúcia Nagib, Towards a Positive Definition of World Cinema, in Stephanie Dennison, Song Hwee
     Lim (eds.), Remapping World Cinema: Identity, Culture and Politics in Film, Wallflower, London 2006,
     pp. 30-37.
31   Francesco Casetti has used the term relocation to describe a new kind of filmic experience in the wake of
     a transformed media environment (Francesco Casetti, “The Relocation of Cinema,” cit.).
32   Lúcia Nagib, Towards a Positive Definition of World Cinema, cit., p. 37.




52
