What attributes makes a film's country of origin?

[Cinephrenic]

Seriously, language of the film comes my mind first, but the recent announcement of Vampyr brought this question up. The film was made in France, but the language is in German and filmed by a Danish filmmaker. So does this make the film France/Germany? There are tons of examples I can give, but I like to know if it is language, country of production, or country that finances the film or all these elements combined?

[zedz]

Seriously, language of the film comes my mind first, but the recent announcement of Vampyr brought this question up. The film was made in France, but the language is in German and filmed by a Danish filmmaker.

I'm no Vampyr expert, but I've always assumed that the film was produced in several different language versions at the same time, like lots of early talkies. The German language version would then just be the variation that survived in the best nick.

You can 'nationalise' films however you like (and different bodies with different vested interests apply different rules), but the industry standard seems to be financing. If all the money comes from France, then it's a French film, even it was filmed in Nigeria with a local cast by a German director and a Japanese DOP. If Nigerian or German or Japanese financing was also involved, it's a French / Nigerian / German / Japanese co-production.

[HerrSchreck]

I've always thought of Vampyr as a French film. It's pedigree (the style of it's images) always seemed far more Impressionist than Expressionist, the autumnal evening/twlilight gloom, the superimpositions etc seemed very Kirsanoff/Epstein to me. And was a very French production, made in and around the environs of a french Chateau... stressing Dreyer so much that he had a nervous breakdown and recovered in an asylum... on the rue de Jeanne DArc. Hows that for irony! (This was his film right after his Joan film).

[Tommaso]

I've always thought of Vampyr as a French film. It's pedigree (the style of it's images) always seemed far more Impressionist than Expressionist, the autumnal evening/twlilight gloom, the superimpositions etc seemed very Kirsanoff/Epstein to me.

Interesting, I never thought of that, but it makes complete sense. The reason why I always thought of "Vampyr" as a German film is its theme of (romantic) mysticism and obsession with the supernatural. In this respect not dissimilar to "Nosferatu", of course, but one should always remember that "Dracula" was written by an Irishman. I think we can hardly decide now which of the versions of "Vampyr" is authoritative; as far as I can remember they are not all surviving in complete forms. But with some other films, say "Faust", it seems obvious that the German version is superior due to the fact that often for the export version different footage (and 'weaker' footage in this case) was used. It's more difficult for films that were actually made in three different languages with different actors, though in the case of "Threepenny" I'd say the German version is much superior to the French one.
As to "Vampyr": at least the two main actors are German, and speak German as a native language. This for me is also an indication of it being a 'German' film, even if produced by a French company.

A more general question is raised if you regard the director of a film as the most important bit. What about the films that Wim Wenders made in the US with American actors? Are these German films, or American films?
Curiously, they look like nothing I would normally associate with 'typical' films from either of these countries made at the same time. Perhaps this also applies to Dreyer in a way: I never thought of "Michael" as particularly German or "Jeanne" as particularly French (nor as typically Danish). They all look particularly like Dreyer, though.

[MichaelB]

This is something I have to wrestle with all the time, especially given that my day job involves compiling an online encyclopaedia devoted to British film and television history.

And I find the only truly sensible approach is to apply common sense to individual cases. Taking Wenders as an example, it seems absurd to me that Hammett could be considered a West German film when it was funded and shot in the US with an almost entirely American cast and crew, and its subject matter is 100% American. In fact, that particular film is no different from the likes of Casablanca or Double Indemnity, and I doubt anyone would claim that they're Hungarian or Austrian.

But although I don't like applying blanket rules, I do think it's a major mistake to confuse the nationality of the director with the nationality of the film, especially if the situation regarding virtually every other aspect is perfectly clear. Regardless of where Dreyer and Tarkovsky came from, The Passion of Joan of Arc is unarguably a French film, and The Sacrifice is equally unambiguously Swedish.

Similarly, Alexander Korda would certainly regard the films he directed and produced in Britain as being British - even in cases where there was a huge Hungarian input (for instance, The Four Feathers has a Hungarian director, producer and co-writer, but there's nothing culturally Hungarian about it whatsoever). And, aside from one or two later entries, Alfred Hitchcock's British output essentially stopped in 1939.

[lubitsch]

Financing is used for most festivals, film prizes and catalogues though it's rather pointless if the artistic input is zero. I think it's sometimes impossible to decide the nationality of the film, one just has to face the fact that a film can be a co-production between countries. After all film is a work made by many people despite auteuristic attempts to identify the single artist responsible for everything in the director. And the same idea is behind the wish to identify the country.

But what about the many links between GB and the USA? The co-productions between the French and the Italian film industry in the 50s and 60s?

Take a look at I WAS A CRIMINAL from 1945. Made by a German director with a German leading actor after a famous German play written by a German script writer and shot by a German cameraman ... in the USA in English. Is it a German or American Film? Are the films by Lubitsch or Stroheim based on European stories and made with European collaborators American or European?

The history of film is a history of influence and collaboration across the borders and if you look at Hollywood it gets complicated beyond your wildest imagination, but there's enough glory for every country.

[Awesome Welles]

And I find the only truly sensible approach is to apply common sense to individual cases.

culturally

I think that as far as the industry would like it, it must place it's criteria in various places in order to allow itself to validate all the input. A case in point was Caché, surely a French film though France and Austria were unable to submit it to the Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language film as France could not agree to submitting a film by an Austrian director and Austria could not agree to submit a film financed with French money and with French subject matter. A shame because I think the film was deserving of winning in that category.

Personally I don't see the importance of money in the consideration of the nationality of a film. What the film shows about the culture it portrays is the most important aspect. If Stanley Kubrick was American and made a film based on a British novel, set in Britain with British subjects I don't see that the film can be anything but British. Similarly though Peter Watkins made a film on a Norwegian painter with Norwegian actors and Norwegian, German and English languages the film cannot be anything but Norwegian because it is about Norwegian culture. To assume that a director cannot make a film about a culture that is not his or her own is absurd, their nationality has nothing to do with what they want to say. Though of course I am sure there are circumstances in which a film is made in a culture though about something else entirely, possibly about the nation of another country to which the actors, language and setting are in contrast. I can't think of an example off hand though if one strikes me I will mention it.

[reaky]

Didn't Welles' OTHELLO take the Cannes Palme d'Or as a Moroccan entry?

[MichaelB]

Though of course I am sure there are circumstances in which a film is made in a culture though about something else entirely, possibly about the nation of another country to which the actors, language and setting are in contrast. I can't think of an example off hand though if one strikes me I will mention it.

Off the top of my head, Andrzej Wajda's Danton - on the surface, this seems to be unarguably a French film, but as it's also clearly an allegory of what was happening in Poland (and one of the two leads is Polish, like the director), it definitely qualifies as being Franco-Polish. In fact, its critical reception in France was pretty negative, since they were far more sensitive to historical "errors" - actually deliberate changes made so that Wajda could exploit the Danton-Wałęsa Robespierre-Jaruzelski parallels.

(DISCLAIMER: I haven't seen the film since it came out, so that may be a horribly superficial reading!)

[zedz]

Though of course I am sure there are circumstances in which a film is made in a culture though about something else entirely, possibly about the nation of another country to which the actors, language and setting are in contrast. I can't think of an example off hand though if one strikes me I will mention it.

Dogville? Denmark / Sweden / Norway / Finland / UK / France / Germany / Netherlands, according to the books. Even though it's ostensibly 'about' America, and delivered with an American / English cast, it's hard for me not to think of it as absolutely, irremedially Danish.

[dx23]

Well, there is also A Very Long Engagement, which has a French cast (except for Jodie Foster) and director, but was rejected for funding by a Paris court ruling because according to them, the film was made by an American company (WB, though its international division). Then, the film was rejected to participate at Cannes because it was shown outside its country of origin (France according to the powers that be), even though the court ruling had already passed the film as American.

The film also lost eligibility to the Best Foreign Film Academy Award nomination because of the ruling.

So the film is a Fredoom Fry.