The main problem with assigning national identity to films is the enticement to pick movies to fit the premise. Hardly ever does a director present any significant standards by which particular films have been chosen for analysis. To give a specific example, one merely has to consider the Japanese instance of Kurosawa Akira whose movies regularly received positive commendation both overseas and in domestic ratings, yet several of Akira’s films remain difficult to get to to the mainstream Japanese viewers.
Another problem for assigning national identity to films is the relative lack of engagement with modern social and political concerns or conditions. It’s pretty evident with Australian films (Nadia Tass, Malcolm and The Big Steal). Australian movies do not create a point of plainly and continually pondering over national identity. They take the method of conveying tales in a local context and allowing inquiries of national identity work out themselves in the backdrop through the working of their diverse and unlikely narratives.
The issue of “what does it mean to be Australian? is responded upon by illustrating various Australians, in unusual situations, with several problems. In my humble opinion, studies with this stature helps shine a ray of light on how and why the nation pass on a meaningful masterpiece in their local perspective, the focal point should be on reputation within the related/state/area as the major norm for selection.. Whether they have established vital praise at ‘key film festivals’ is another material connected to ‘art house’ films, which is frequently not a fine statistic of admired appeal and consequently not a superior indicator of community communication.