Spaniwood? English Language Spanish Films since the 1990s

Is there such a thing as “Spanish identity”? If so, what are the characteristics that best define it? Since the early 1990s we have observed a movement toward young Spanish directors interested in making a different kind of cinema that departs markedly from the lighthearted landismo of the 70s and, later, the indulgent almodovarismo of the 80s. These new directors—as well as producers and actors—are interested in reaching out to wider audiences, in and outside of Spain. The internationalization they pursue comes, in many cases, with an adoption of the English language in their works. This multicultural cinema presents a dilemma: what characteristics define a “Spanish” movie? This study explores and argues for the use of the terms “world cinema” and “glocal cinema” in favor of outdated notions of “national cinema” while pointing out the need for defining clear notions of the new, plural and inclusive forms of Spanishness evident in films today. This article is available in Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature: http://newprairiepress.org/sttcl/vol33/iss2/8 Spaniwood? English Language Spanish Films since the 1990s Cristina Sanchez-Conejero University of North Texas Is there such a thing as “Spanish identity?” If so, what are the characteristics that best define it? In the area of Spanish post-Franco cinema, Barry Jordan identified what he called “the Almodovar effect,” which projected the image of the happy, promiscuous and sexually liberated Spaniard.1 To a certain degree, this image still persists outside of Spain, despite the movement by the early 1990s toward young Spanish directors interested in making a different kind of cinema that departed markedly from the lighthearted landismo of the 1970s and, later, the indulgent almodovarismo of the 1980s.2 These new directors—as well as producers and actors—are interested in reaching out to wider audiences, in and outside of Spain. The internationalization they pursue comes, in many cases, with an adoption of the English language in their works, a cinematic phenomenon that could be identified as the product of a new “Spaniwood” characterized by a Hollywoodization of Spanish cinema. Such Spaniwood contributions include, among others, Two Much (1995) by Fernando Trueba, Dance With The Devil Perdita Durango (1997), The Others (2001) by Alejandro Amenabar, My Life Without Me (2003) and The Secret Life of Words (2005) by Isabel Coixet, and The Oxford Murders (2008) by Alex de la Iglesia. This multicultural cinema presents a dilemma: what characteristics define a “Spanish” movie? We have generally labeled these movies as “Spanish” because their directors are Spanish. However, is it the director’s vision alone that makes a movie Spanish, or are other factors such as the choice of language equally paramount? How should English-language Spanish productions or co-productions 1 Sanchez-Conejero: Spaniwood? English Language Spanish Films since the 1990s Published by New Prairie Press Sanchez-Conejero 337 such as The Machinist (2004) by Brad Anderson, Sahara (2005) by Breck Eisner, and Basic Instinct 2 (2006) by Michael Caton-Jones be classified? Should the participation of internationally known Spanish actors such as Javier Bardem, Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz be factored into the equation? What role does the use of Spanish cultural themes play when it comes to denominating a movie as “Spanish”? What account should be made of English-language remakes of indisputably Spanish films such as Abre los ojos (Vanilla Sky, 1997) by Amenabar–reformulated as Vanilla Sky (2001) by Cameron Crowe? Conversely, how should films be handled when the reverse is true, as in the case of Coixet’s My Life Without Me–an adaptation of the 1987 book Pretending the Bed Is a Raft by North American author Nanci Kincaid? Any narrow definition of what makes a film Spanish belies the true complexity and character of the modern cinematic landscape, and these various considerations highlight the futility of simple classification into a “national cinema” when analyzing post-Franco movies. As Burkhard Pohl and Jorg Turschmann point out, La nacionalidad de una pelicula constituye, paradojicamente, una categoria muy controvertida y a la vez uno de los rasgos imprescindibles de la comunicacion cinematografica, de manera que se suele hablar de peliculas “alemanas,” “espanolas,” “francesas” o “inglesas” ... La colaboracion de productoras de distintas nacionalidades, por un lado, y la diferenciacion regional—el cine vasco, el cine catalan, p. ej.—, por el otro, indican las dificultades de determinar las fronteras exactas de un cine nacional en Espana. The nationality of a movie paradoxically constitutes a very controversial category while at the same time presenting an essential feature in film circles. We usually speak of “German,” “Spanish,” “French,” or “English” movies ... The collaboration of production companies of different nationalities on the one hand, and the regional differentiation—the Basque cinema, the Catalan cinema, etc.—on the other indicates the difficulties of determining the exact boundaries of a national Spanish cinema. (15)3 Many critics such as Svetlana Boym, Yingjin Zhang, Pohl and 2 Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature, Vol. 33, Iss. 2 [2009], Art. 8 http://newprairiepress.org/sttcl/vol33/iss2/8 DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1705 338 ST&TCL, Volume 33, No. 2 (Summer 2009) Turschmann prefer instead the term “glocal cinema,” which, given the inclusion of the local with the global, is very fitting for Spanish movies of today. Additionally, if we pay particular attention to the subset of Spanish movies shot in the English language since the 1990s, it may be asserted that the Spaniwood phenomenon emerges as a form of globalization, along with both the positive and negative consequences that implies. I will investigate these issues along with the question of what characteristics should be considered to define a unique or expanded view of Spanish cinema, with special attention to the English-language Spanish films of the 1990s. 1. Spanish Director = Spanish Movie? Peter William Evans states that, “While the reputation of Spanish cinema had to rely, at first, on the names of Bunuel and Saura, and then on Almodovar and perhaps to some extent Bigas Luna ... it now enjoys greater exposure largely thanks to a new “New Spanish Cinema” of emerging talent” (“Introduction.” Spanish Cinema 2). He explains that this “New Spanish Cinema” is basically an auterist cinema, that is, a very personal cinema in which the director is frequently also the writer of the script. Examples of auterist directors include Amenabar (Tesis ‘Thesis,’ 1996, Abre los ojos ‘Open Your Eyes,’ 1997, The Others, 2001, Mar adentro ‘The Sea Inside,’ 2004), Iciar Bollain (Hola, ?estas sola? ‘Hi, Are You Alone?,’ 1995, Flores de otro mundo ‘Flowers From Another World,’ 1999, Te doy mis ojos ‘Take My Eyes,’ 2003, Mataharis ‘Mataharis’, 2007), Coixet (Demasiado viejo para morir joven ‘Too Old To Die Young,’ 1989, A los que aman ‘To Those Who Love,’ 1998, My Life Without Me, 2003, The Secret Life of Words, 2005, Paris, je t’aime, 2006), Julio Medem (Vacas ‘Cows,’ 1991, La ardilla roja ‘The Red Squirrel ,’ 1993, Los amantes del circulo polar ‘Lovers of the Arctic Circle,’ 1998, Lucia y el sexo ‘Sex And Lucia,’ 2001), and Trueba (Belle Epoque, 1992, Two Much, 1995, La nina de tus ojos ‘The Girl Of Your Dreams,’ 1998, El embrujo de Shanghai ‘The Shanghai Spell,’ 2002). However, in addition to being an auterist cinema, the “New Spanish Cinema” Evans refers to is also a cinema that includes movies often shot in English, and moreover includes a director’s personal mark that is not always 3 Sanchez-Conejero: Spaniwood? English Language Spanish Films since the 1990s Published by New Prairie Press Sanchez-Conejero 339 strictly related to the exploration of Spanish cultural topics. This observation is evident in the works of Amenabar, Coixet and de la Iglesia. In Amenabar’s case, even though his movies present topics of interest for Spaniards such as death and euthanasia, among others, these topics cannot be considered as “Spanish” because they are of equal interest to an international audience, regardless of geographical barriers and viewer nationality. Rosanna Maule explains: Amenabar’s films address universal and transnational themes and problems, even though they are set in Spain and deal with nationally specific topics and events. Amenabar’s oblique representation of Spanishness reflects a tendency of many new Spanish filmmakers aiming to produce films suitable for the international