In the work of the authors under consideration here, cinematic depictions and allusions are not the result of what Robert Stam calls ‘dichotomous thinking’, a presumed bitter rivalry between literature and film in which both forms are presented in their rival media as the lesser opponent in a Darwinian death struggle. Likewise, the authors operate under a clear distinction between national film industries and national cinema, a differentiation, according to Jigna Desai, in which ‘the latter is thought to represent the nation, which increasingly is seen as threatened from the inside (minorities) and from the outside by the hegemony of Hollywood…’ and ‘the former may be considered a commercial, profit-seeking enterprise that often is protected as a national industry against other international producers of similar commodities’. As a result of their goals for commercial appeal and international dissemination, national film industries echo Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's discussion of the communications infrastructure that produces the conditions and terms of government for the entity they deem the empire of corporate imperialism. As Hardt and Negri write: