Hollywoods Dominance of International Cinema - Literature review Example

Hollywood Cinema Outline factors that account for Hollywood’s dominance of international cinema, and assess the impact of this dominance on world cinema.  The Fordist regime of production and consumption was able to penetrate much of American culture and society. This regime took onto various systems and functions of the overall social definition mechanisms. Hollywood was redefined under the Fordist regime and in doing so it differentiated itself from the cinema industries around the world. The cinematic tradition can be traced back to the early parts of the twentieth century for most major cinematic establishments around the world. This stands true for the cinematic traditions in India, Egypt, Great Britain, Germany and the United States as well as myriad other countries. However, the scale and grandeur of Hollywood remained unbeatable and dominant when compared to other cinematic traditions from this era. The greatest evidence for this can be characterised in terms of the finance involved in film production as well as the number of films produced each year. A close observation reveals that compared to other cinematic traditions, Hollywood was traditionally prolific and ready to experiment with anything that came its way. In the first quarter of the twentieth century, globalisation was not much of a real concern and hence there was no question of moving motions films from one cinematic geographical domain to another. This meant that the prolific nature of Hollywood remained confined to the American cinema houses while other cinematic traditions flourished elsewhere. This period of relative isolation was to define both Hollywood and other global cinematic traditions in the years to come. It is from this era that the conglomeration of artists began to appear in the form of new studio ventures such as United Artists. The contention was to remove the monopolistic structure of the Hollywood film industry by providing artists with alternatives. The conglomeration effort was able to provide the early artists with a number of options but such organisations soon became monopolistic in their own right. The power of these artistic and other similar establishments is more than strong in Hollywood and tends to define both American cinema and international global cinema. Since these larger corporations have the kind of finance and other resources available to make spectacles, it is little surprise that their movies receive wide international acclaim. The strength of such establishments could be best highlighted by the fact that most of the early corporations created in the first quarter of the twentieth century persist to the modern day. These mega million and billion dollar establishments have the right kind of muscle to impress themselves upon the world stage through targeted marketing and to ensure that their movies are watched and that their movies sell internationally (Bordwell et al., 1985). It is notable that as the Second World War engulfed the world, the Hollywood order became weaker since audiences reduced spending on cinema. After the war ended, it was expected that Hollywood would bounce back but this was only true to a certain extent. Major changes in the social structure following the Second World War meant that cinema lost its edge to more modern innovations such as television. In addition, there is evidence to support the notion that most cinema going audiences were located in metropolitan areas before the war. This meant that these audiences could benefit from the cinemas in these metropolitan areas, but after the war, the growth of suburbs meant that these audiences moved outside the sphere of influence of these cinemas. The changes was accelerated by the fast growth of the baby boom culture under which most people chose to buy televisions rather than go to cinemas to find entertainment (Balio, 1990). These developments would have a profound effect on Hollywood that would tend to affect Hollywood’s international projections as well. It is estimated that between 1948 and 1952 the amount of televisions owned in America increased from 1.2 million to some 15 million. The greatest affected party was Hollywood since people stopped going to cinemas and relied on their televisions for entertainment instead. The stiff competition provided by television meant that Hollywood began to reorganise itself on a vast scale in order to secure its very survival. This evolution saw Hollywood adapting to the television mode of production as well as the introduction of novel features to attract and retain audiences. A simple example of this evolution to provide differentiated products is the “wide screen revolution” (Balio, 1990). Hollywood began to experiment with different screen sizes and myriad depth illusion schemes in order to differentiate itself from television. In terms of international projection, no other cinematic tradition faced such competition and was hence not ready to take onto Hollywood. The wide screen revolution was able to make Hollywood cinematic productions successful and differentiated throughout the entire world. This move by Hollywood was compounded by the move to distribute Hollywood content on television. This collaboration model between Hollywood and television meant that more and more time was devoted to showcasing Hollywood movies on television. Initially it was common to display old films from Hollywood along with regular programming but soon this model changed to display more recent films as well as leaving out regular programming altogether. This signalled the creation of the new film channels regime. These television channels provided Hollywood content all day long at little cost compared to previous costs for cinematic visits. Above everything else, the viewer could easily experience these movies sitting at home without having to pull a muscle. This made these channels all the more attractive. Another reason for the wide appeal of these channels was the fact that the movies showcased on these channels subscribed to a number of different tastes and genres. The availability of a wide stream cinematic experience right at home was the ultimate experience that an average television user could ask for (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003). Research on the matter has demonstrated that Hollywood was responsible for a large part of television programming. Hollywood produced around twenty percent of all prime time programs. At the same time, Hollywood was responsible for around forty percent of the daily schedule for an average television station (Guider & Williams, 1999). Another noticeable thing was the major outlet for production planned in Hollywood was more relevant to television programming than cinematic viewership. An estimate relates that Hollywood produced roughly ten times as many films for television broadcasting than it did for cinematic viewing (Guider & Williams, 1999). The wide acceptance of Hollywood on television soon made it a quick favourite around the world as American television programming became a sought after international commodity. By the late sixties American television enterprises had expanded globally especially into the European markets bringing with them Hollywood movies. This move was greatly accelerated by the massive increases in television ownership outside the United States such as in Europe. An estimate reveals that foreign markets account for roughly forty percent of all revenues generated by American telefilms (Henning & Alpar, 2005). This is a clear indicator of the penetration of Hollywood into foreign markets especially for revenue generation streams. Other quarters have also indicated that most money in international television is made by Hollywood that tends to dominate the local cinematic traditions as well (Guider & Williams, 1999). Global domination especially in context of localised cinematic traditions was helped out by vertical integration of the Hollywood media machine. The Hollywood style of vertical integration meant that various media companies were united into a single ownership system. In turn, these media outlets operated in the international markets especially in upcoming media markets. The vertical integration of these companies with Hollywood meant that Hollywood was the chief supplier for cinematic viewership. In addition, it is also argued that Hollywood dominated international cinematic traditions by providing them with cameras, video players, television sets and similar things which ensured that these cinematic traditions copied Hollywood (Aksoy & Robins, 1992). Balio (1990) has argued that Hollywood’s expansion into newer markets has meant that Hollywood is now flexible, profitable and ready to jump onto upcoming challenges. In a globalised world, this would clearly mean that in the global cinematic tradition, Hollywood is the best adopted for change and dominance. Other cinematic traditions have a hard time to compete with Hollywood given its dominating finances and distribution mechanisms. Hollywood productions can be found anywhere around the world where a sizable enough market exists be it Europe, Japan, Middle East, Asia or South America. Since Hollywood media outlets are available in all of these regions, it is easier for them to project themselves onto the local cinematic traditions using both television programming and their marketing capabilities. Film producers around the world are looking to generate profits and it is no surprise that in order to generate profits they will often go for popular themes and styles. The dominance of American media especially Hollywood on local television programming as well as the minds of local viewers means that audiences around the world are looking for Hollywood like flicks. This tradition tends to stand true in terms of production, cast, effects, visual appeal and the like that is often copied from Hollywood productions to create much cheaper local productions. Perhaps one of the more appalling aspects to the story is the trend to copy entire movie plots and stories to make local films. While it would be expected that local cinematic traditions would produce films that reflect on their society and culture, the opposite is true instead. Large amounts of local films are actually artless hybrids between Hollywood movies and their local interpretations. Often a few local elements are kept standing in these local productions such as the use of songs in Indian movies (Ekstrand, 2005). It is no secret that Bollywood tends to imitate Hollywood to a large degree including the costumes for the case, sets, visual effects and obviously the storylines. However, the local audiences are so attuned to Hollywood based ideas and stories that they perceive these local productions as the ultimate results. Since large sections of populations are unable to understand the English being spoken in Hollywood movies, there is a large trend for these segments to view the Hollywood local cinema hybrids instead. Doing so keeps these sections of the population tuned into the popular forms of fashion and living. Various forms of other American television programming and its hybrid offspring augment these ideas in large sections of foreign populations. For example, it is common to take up American shows such as “American Idol” and to convert them into local variants carrying the same concepts, get ups, tests and rewards. This development is highly recent and has been backed up by Hollywood given the large role played by Hollywood based celebrities in furthering such shows. In the beginning, it was common for local producers and investors to produce variants of American programs and movies but this has been replaced by Americanised hybrids for the local market. While shows were previously marketed in English alone, there has been an upsurge in translations as entire television channels have been translated into local languages. National Geographic Television has multiple variants as per lingual bifurcations that differ from region to region. Although the content showcased is the same around the world but it is translated into local languages to make it more understandable and more appealing to local audiences (Pang, 2005). In a similar manner, there is an upsurge in the amount of American movies that have been translated into local languages for local audiences. Instead, it would be more appropriate to say that there is an upsurge in the amount of American movie channels that are being translated into local languages for local audiences. There is another advantage available to Hollywood for translating entire channels – the movies are often old and are not desired by American audiences. This indicates that such movies are well beyond their revenue generation potential. The translation of these movies into local languages ensures that these movies are available once again for revenue generation in foreign markets. It must also be taken into account that these American translated films could be expected to generate new waves of local audiences that are more Americanised in their approach to local film productions. Consequently, these audiences would require more Hollywood style films in the future which would again tend to benefit Hollywood since only it can take care of such demands. Looking at the issue conclusively it can be said that Hollywood has an overbearing presence in the international cinema domain. Also, Hollywood tends to dominate local film production through its large and flexible distribution mechanisms that are geared to promote American films at the expense of local productions. The early friction between television and Hollywood in America meant that Hollywood adopted quickly and took over significant parts of television programming. In turn as television spread beyond the boundaries of America, it became possible for American cinema to be showcased abroad. The large finance base of Hollywood as well as its will to stay a few steps ahead of the kerb ensured that Hollywood productions dominated international cinema. The resulting situation saw the rise of hybrid local movies that were again taken over by Hollywood through its projection of older movies into local languages. It is expected that such a course of action will produce international audiences that are hooked to American cinema and would expect Hollywood to take up the gap between local and foreign productions. References Aksoy, A. & Robins, K., 1992. Hollywood for 21st Century: Global Competition for Critical Mass in Image Markets. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 16. Balio, T., 1990. Hollywood in the Age of Television. London: Unwin Hyman. Bordwell, D., Staiger, J. & Thompson, K., 1985. The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Styles and Mode of Production to 1960. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W., 2003. Media / Society. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Pine. Ekstrand, V., 2005. News Piracy and The Hot News Doctrine, Origins in Law and Implications for the Digital Age. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Guider, E. & Williams, M., 1999. Euros strut their stuff at Mip. Variety, 9(2), pp.19-25. Henning, V. & Alpar, A., 2005. Public aid mechanisms in feature film production: the EU MEDIA Plus Programme. Media Culture & Society, 27(2), pp.229-50. Pang, L., 2005. Copying Kill Bill. Social Text , 23(2). Read More