Search results

This essay offers a succinct but comprehensive overview of Icelandic cinema from its early 20th-century emergence to the present day. Split into two parts, the first half focusses on filmmaking in Iceland prior to the founding of the Icelandic Film Fund in 1978, which was to establish a continuous local film production for the first time. Prior to that filmmaking in Iceland boiled down to the occasional efforts of local amateurs, albeit often quite skilled ones, and professional filmmakers visiting from abroad. Indeed, the few silent feature films made in the country all stemmed from foreign filmmakers adapting Icelandic literature and taking advantage of its photogenic landscapes. The first Icelandic feature was not made until 1948 and although immensely popular, like those that followed in its wake, the national audience was simply too small to sustain filmmaking without financial support. Although this changed fundamentally with the Icelandic Film Fund, which instigated contemporary Icelandic cinema and the subject of the essay's second half, the Fund's support proved insufficient as the novelty of Icelandic cinema began to wear off at the local box office in the late 1980s. The rescue came from outside sources, in the form of nordic and European film funds, whose support was to transnationalize Icelandic cinema in terms of not only financing and production but also themes and subject material. These changes are most apparent in Icelandic cinema of the 1990s which also began to garner interest at the international film festival circuit. In the first decade of the twenty first century, however, American genre cinema began to replace the European art film as the typical model for Icelandic filmmakers. Hollywood itself also began to show extensive interest in Icelandic landscapes for its runaway productions, as did many other foreign film crews. In this way Icelandic cinema is increasingly characterized by not only national and transnational elements but also international ones.

- ; In critically important parts of the cold war era the Democratic Party was the steward of American foreign policy. But since September 11. 2001, the party has, however, mostly been a bystander to the major transformation of U.S. foreign policy carried out by the Bush administration. Will the party continue to play such a passive and reactive role or will it be able to formulate a coherent and realistic alternative the Bush foreign policy? Both the U.S. international behavior and world politics will be greatly affected by the outcome of the ongoing internal debate in the party. This paper takes a closer look at this debate and the various fractions that now compete for being the foreign policy face of the party. It is still too early to tell the outcome of this jockeying for power, and consequently the Bush administration will most likely continue as the dominant force behind American foreign policy.