Abstract

In the introduction to their 2006 edited collection Remapping World Cinema Dennison and Lim urged scholars to think about World Cinema as a discipline, methodology and a perspective. Such a suggestion was posited in response to the fact that the term “World Cinema” had, at that time, “given origin to a highly questionable, though enduringly popular, opposition between the American mainstream and the rest of the world” (Nagib et al. 2012: xviii). In one of the chapters in the Remapping World Cinema collection, Lúcia Nagib summarises the issue thus:

Despite its all-encompassing, democratic vocation, it [World Cinema] is not usually employed to mean cinema worldwide. On the contrary, the usual way of defining it is restrictive and negative as “non-Hollywood cinema” [… in doing so] it unwittingly sanctions the American way of looking at the world, according to which Hollywood is the centre and all other cinemas are the periphery.