MCLC: Hollywood powerhouses meet a sleeping giant

Denton, Kirk denton.2 at osu.edu
Mon Nov 11 09:29:33 EST 2013


MCLC LIST
From: kirk (denton.2 at osu.edu)
Subject: Hollywood powerhouses meet a sleeping giant
***********************************************************

Source: (11/9/13): 
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-ca-china-ess
ay-20131110,0,7069762.story

Hollywood powerhouses meet a sleeping giant
Perspective: China's massive movie market is influencing U.S. studios. But
mainland filmmakers also need American expertise and talent.
By Ying Zhu

In April, when DreamWorks Animation Chief Executive Jeffrey Katzenberg
rebutted accusations of political motivations behind the company's
decision to co-produce with the China Film Group an animated feature,
"Tibet Code," he was telling the truth. But in September, when Sid Ganis,
the former motion picture academy president who is involved in making
"Transformers 4" in China, denied any self-censorship by pandering studios
("No filmmaker I know would do it that way"), he was stretching a bit.

In its bumpy ride with China, Hollywood has been on a hot seat, enduring
both interference from the Chinese censor and media backlash at home.
Indeed, the rumblings have been that Tinseltown is kowtowing to China.
Evidence of such compromises includes changing a film setting from the old
glory of Paris to the new glory of Shanghai ("Looper"), depicting a
Chinese scientist as a hero who comes to the rescue of Western
civilization ("Red Dawn") and portraying Beijing, and thus China, as the
land of promise ("The Karate Kid"). This new perspective is interesting
because China in early Hollywood films was known for vices of all sorts.
China in the new films, however, is seen as glitzy, wealthy and fabulously
trendy.

As for "Tibet Code," an adaptation of a series of recent Chinese novels
set in 9th century Tibet, it would inevitably toe the official Beijing
line concerning Tibet. DreamWorks had to come clean, as Katzenberg told
the Wall Street Journal, that the film had no "secondary agenda" and that
it was chosen solely for its potential as a "blockbuster story."

Despite earlier films critical of China's Tibet policy, such as "Kundun"
and "Seven Years in Tibet," Hollywood was not out to smear China then and
is certainly not on a mission to rehabilitate China now.

Inevitably, it's the bottom line that the studios are attuned to.

It is widely speculated that China, already the world's second-largest
movie market, will overtake North America to become the largest market by
2018 and will be double the U.S. market by 2023. With a financial stake
this large, a few pandering plot or location twists is nothing more than
"localizing strategy." DreamWorks is simply following the playbook of an
industry that has been acutely attuned, from its inception, to what is
permissible and indeed preferred in its vast export destinations.

The trend has only intensified in the last decade, with the majority of
moviegoers now living abroad, which accounts for up to 80% of Hollywood's
box-office income. To maximize overseas distribution, films must be
rendered free from international offense. The more expensive the movie,
the more scrupulous the studios must be to ensure the avoidance of any
potential overseas hazards.

To stay out of (financial) trouble, Hollywood has long modified,
obfuscated and even eliminated content that is deemed inappropriate in an
effort to appease worldwide audiences of vastly different cultural,
religious and political persuasions.

For instance, in 1935, RKO handled with great ingenuity rules of the
British Board of Film Censors that barred religious icons by keeping
Christ off the screen in "The Last Days of Pompeii," which tells the story
of a Roman artisan-turned-gladiator who transforms himself after a fateful
encounter with Christ. Christ was implicitly invoked but never actually
shown on screen.

Recent reports about how much of Hollywood kept its German market running
by appeasing the Nazis in the run-up to World War II point to a more
egregious case.

In the case of China, a significant proportion of the correspondence in
the 1920s, '30s and early '40s between the Hays Office and China reflected
American studio executives' concerns about Chinese sensitivities, both
cultural and political. The depiction of China was sanitized to appease
the Chinese state and public, both hypersensitive to the country's
humiliations at the hands of Western powers.

While making "The Good Earth," for instance, MGM carefully studied Chinese
films dealing with rural life and solicited story ideas from Chinese
elites. A number of plot and character adjustments were made as a result
of the Chinese feedback. While making "East Is West," Universal wrote in a
Chinese hero to diffuse Chinese villains.

As we fret about the compromises Hollywood makes, it helps to see the
Sino-Hollywood courtship as an intriguing case study of political,
cultural and economic rivalry and coaptation on a global scale.

It is a fitful relationship that, however tentative and antagonistic at
times, has brought two willing partners to the table in their common
pursuit of prosperity and happiness— measurable by the enormous box-office
receipts.

The ups and downs of this courtship suggest intrigue of blockbuster scale.

The American film business made a forceful entry into the Chinese film
market during the waning days of Qing, China's last dynasty. It soon swept
the market, dominating China's movie scene during the Republic era
(1911-49).
China's nascent film industry struggled to maintain a foothold. Building a
profitable and patriotic domestic industry were the twin driving forces
during this era and remain intact to this day.

The domestic industry has failed to produce entertainment products that
would woo global audiences. Yet that has not stopped the Chinese from
claiming a stake in Hollywood. One company in particular has been on a
spending binge in Hollywood since last year.

Wanda Group, the owner of China's largest theater chain, acquired AMC
Theatres in 2012 for $2.6 billion. A year after, Wanda's CEO donated $20
million to the American film academy's history museum, with the proviso
that a part of the museum bear the name of Wanda.

Soon after marking its territory in the United States, Wanda's boss, Wang
Jianlin, dashed back to China with Hollywood mega-stars by his side to
unveil an $8.3-billion film studio complex in Qingdao.

Next, Wanda announced plans for another multibillion-dollar entertainment
complex, this one in Wuxi, a city close to Shanghai. The Wuxi Wanda City
is to compete head-on with the upcoming Shanghai Disneyland amusement park.

As the Chinese government seeks to steer its economy toward domestic
consumption and boost its soft power and cultural influence abroad, Wanda
has become its perfect poster boy. But the financial muscle Wanda brings
can't compensate for what is lacking in the Chinese film industry:
imaginative and exportable work that can come only from a cultural climate
that values creativity, not enforced conformity.

It is doubtful that the Chinese film industry can simply buy or bully its
way into the hearts and minds of global audiences. Meanwhile, Hollywood is
able and willing to lend a hand. to China's emerging filmmakers — for a
Price.

So the wolves are indeed at each other's doorstep, and there is a bargain
to be made for a joint force to conquer the world.

Ying, a professor of Media Culture at the City University of New York, is
the author of "Two Billon Eyes: The Story of China Central Television."







More information about the MCLC mailing list