Hollywood’s ‘Decoupling’ From US Audiences
Last year, I mentioned that if Emerging Markets are truly to dominate the 21st century, then they would have to capture the world’s imagination through ‘soft power’, which I defined to mean cultural appeal. While I expect this will be a long-term process, evidence of Emerging Markets’ ability to transform Hollywood was apparent in a Wall Street Journal article on August 2. According to the article, citing Screen Digest Cinema Intelligence Service, foreign ticket sales now account for almost 68% of the US$32bn global film market, up from 58% a decade ago. Consequently, Hollywood studios have found themselves remodelling their films to foreign tastes.
Examples cited include:
- Greater use of foreign actors in American blockbusters
- A reduction of romantic comedies due to foreign audiences not finding the US sense of humour funny
- The production of original films made especially for markets such as South Korea and Brazil
Unsurprisingly, this is being driven – like virtually everything else these days – by shifts in the global economy, i.e., the rise of Emerging Markets. For example, the WSJ article notes that China is planning to open 35,000 cinemas over the next five years, up from only 5,000 at present.
The point about a more diverse cast is an astute one. As far back as the 1960s, Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, recognised the importance of having an African, Japanese, Russian, and Scotsman in the crew of the Starship Enterprise. More recently, the highly successful US TV drama Lost had characters from Australia, Britain, France, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, and Russia, giving it much greater breadth of narrative than had it been an all-American cast.
What Sort Of Things Might We Expect?
It’s difficult to say, but here are some of my conjectures:
- Perhaps fewer films with a strong US military theme, since this won’t play well in countries critical of US foreign policy. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were rumours that Rambo IV would take Sylvester Stallone back to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. However, when the fourth Rambo film did finally materialise in 2008, Sly went to Myanmar, a far less controversial destination.
- Related to that point, it will be more difficult to cast global villains. Muslim villains are somewhat taboo these days, and it would be foolhardy for a big film studio to portray China as an evil superpower, since this would risk offending a potential audience of 1.3 billion people.
- More emphasis on global coalitions to save the world from alien invaders. One of my main critiques of Independence Day (1996) was that the fight against the alien invaders was waged solely by the US (with President Bill Pullman personally leading the air armada into battle). In future, China, India, and Brazil will surely be taking part in any interstellar conflagration.
- Perhaps more films with ambiguous endings. Hollywood films usually have a clear-cut good guy/gal triumphs over bad guy/gal conclusion, but in my experience, many Asian films end on a more sober and balanced note, and it’s not uncommon for the protagonist to die in the final scene, sometimes in an act of self-sacrifice.
- Potentially more conservative messages. Many emerging economies, although undergoing rapid social change, are still conservative, and this may necessitate certain themes (including sexual themes) being toned down. Censorship is still more widespread in many of these countries than compared to the West (see this list of notable films banned by China, though it fails to mention Avatar).
Going forward, there are still questions in my mind about whether foreign audiences actually want American films to be tailored to their perceived tastes. Surely one of the appeals of American films is that they are… American? After all, when I go to see a French/Korean/Iranian film, I am going to see it precisely because it is French/Korean/Iranian. This is something in which Hollywood will have to strike a balance. However, foreign film studios will also need to strike a balance between remaining original and just producing local clones of Hollywood-style films, of which there are plenty.
August 4th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Two corrections and one additional point:
Hollywood makes ‘movies’ not ‘films’
Lost had a character claiming to be Canadian, in a transparent attempt to attract Canadian viewers
Judging from the reaction of spineless movie studios, the great recession will produce conservative, non-comedic Hollywood movies with ambiguous endings? What a disaster. The movie industry will die.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:34 am
“…it will be more difficult to cast global villains. Muslim villains are somewhat taboo these days, and it would be foolhardy for a big film studio to portray China as an evil superpower, since this would risk offending a potential audience of 1.3 billion people.”
-How about Europeans as villains? This brings to mind the Ben Affleck movie ‘Sum of All Fears‘. Originally the villain was supposed to be Islamic Fundamentalists, but after 9/11, they changed it to a secretive cabal of Europeans keen on restoring Europe to the height of the new world order. I believe their leader was Austrian.
-As an addition, I have certainly noted a new genre of what I refer to as ‘hyper global’ films. Movies which have no specific national setting. These can range from the terrible, such as ‘Jumper‘ and ‘Push‘, to the mediocre ‘Babel‘ and ‘Code 46‘, to the much better ‘Inception‘ and ‘Bourne‘ series, and are characterised by rapid scene shifts between cities traditionally not portrayed in Hollywood films. Inception, for instance, jumps from Paris to Tokyo to Nairobi with an ease that would have been impossible a few decades ago and yet very much reflective of the faster paced movement of people, capital and goods of today’s global economy. What’s also key to me is that the settings are portrayed as incidental to the plot, and not intrinsically crucial to the story. Decades ago we did have films portrayed in differing international settings, but that was because the country was part of the story itself, think ‘The Year of Living Dangerously‘ in Indonesia or ‘Black Rain‘ in Japan. In short, they were movies that had very strong ‘national’ settings. Thinking of the final Bourne movie though, and how they moved in and out of Morocco almost for the sake of having a global setting, not because there was anything vital about Morocco itself.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
@ Gen Eto: I agree that country settings are beginning to be trivialised and used more for the entertainment value than a strong national setting. This makes for faster paced and more ‘credible’ movies, which the viewer acknowledges as not merely the product of Californication.
At the same time, though, I think the same is increasingly true for historical settings. Basically, the same tale of a love triangle or revenge is placed into historical settings such as World War II or even the holocaust. This is particualrly the case in European film, where these time settings make for a powerful backdrop for generally overtold personal tales. So are we seeing a trivialisation of national identity and historical events?
August 5th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
The USA does not fight the aliens on their own in Independence Day! If you recall, they simply organize the global counterstrike single-handedly, prompting the British to say “about bloody time!” and the French army (which wears berets and smokes cigarettes in a wood paneled room) to say “When does the attack begin?”
August 6th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Thanks for your comments.
Richard: I’m not sure if the movie industry deserves to survive, which is why I seldom go to the cinema these days. I instead prefer US TV dramas, although my favourites have all come to and end. The WSJ has another feature on Hollywood today which looks interesting.
Gen: Yes, I recall that the producers of The Sum of All Fears switched Islamic fundamentalist villains for European ultra-rightists. The producers of the film Rising Sun (adapted from the Michael Crichton book) also switched the identity of the main murderer from Japanese (in the book) to American to tone down controversy, I recall.
I agree with your point about hyper-global films, and that Babel was no good, though I did like Code 46.
Mitt: I have to say, I can’t remember the details of Independence Day, though I do recall some token British inclusion. I do remember though that the film was slated here for its US hyper-patriotic feel.
August 9th, 2010 at 8:29 am
As I recall Mitt, in the global pan-over in the scene where they plan the counterattack, the Israelis and an unnamed Arab air force (possibly Egypt), the Japanese and the Russians were also involved in the counterattack.
August 11th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Faced with a common threat, we stand united!
Where is this thread going?