Hollywood in the conflict between the United States and China

Mercenaries of the Soft Power

China is killing it. There is a wide debate about whether this is something positive or negative for the future of the rest of the planet's inhabitants or if there is something that can be done about it at this point. It seems that in the United States they think so... Normally, they have been used to being the only superpower for so long that it is possible that they are making a fool of themselves that some gentlemen on the other side of the world have decided to reach out to them to give them a fight... And are able to endure them.

Before, when a war was fought, we thought of soldiers, tanks and bombs. In the 21st century, the key concepts seem to be such as hackers or asymmetric warfare... But China has upped the ante.

And there is a lot of talk about how we are fighting this pandemic by spending the day in a bathrobe, eating pizza and watching Netflix at home (unless you work in logistics or the health sector, but I hope you will forgive the poetic license) . But in this article I'm going to tell you how the Chinese are going to win a war by going to the movies. Yes, as you hear it.

Okay, and now that I have your attention, welcome! In this article we are going to reveal everything that is happening with Hollywood and the important role that it is having in the trade war between the United States and China, and, what is more curious, how Its role is key to contributing to the rise of China as the world's leading power, instead of sticking to its traditional role as a tool for the United States to maintain that position.

And we will do it in several parts. First of all, we will make a brief introduction to the history of cinema and how today's big production companies were once small companies that moved to California to avoid paying for user licenses. We will also take the opportunity to define the soft power, its importance for geopolitics and its role in the Americanization of Western culture. We will make some notes about the propaganda and how it has contributed for decades to establish and lay the foundations of the narrative culture of Hollywood cinema.

And, the highlight, how China is positioning itself as the world's leading film consumer, which, added to its censorship and quotas, in addition to the laws of supply and demand, is modifying that aforementioned narrative culture, and how this affects Hollywood's loyalties in spreading cultural content across the world. We will also finish analyzing the case of one of the most popular releases this year, but for that you have to get to the end of the article. Hint: it's from Disney.

Let's start then! And we will do it with a little context, briefly explaining the beginnings of the American film industry.

And is that Between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, businessman and inventor Thomas Alva Edison embarked on a technological and patent struggle to gain a monopoly on the emerging film industry.. There is a great debate about whether cinema came from the hand of Edison himself or the Lumi brothers.ère in France. But, what is certain is that, at the beginning of the 20s, the scientist would have gained control of the intellectual property rights over the use of all essential technology to produce and market cinema over much of the territory of the United States.

This situation resulted in a mess of treaties by which, Every film producer in New York had to pay an intellectual property tax to Edison for using his technology. There was no legal way to escape. However, what seemed like a great source of passive income for the businessman would end up becoming the triggering one of the most significant revolutions in the history of cinema. Soon, small production companies that were against paying intellectual property taxes (or could not afford to pay them) began to look for new territories to move to in order to get away from all that dead end based on Edison's legal engineering. .

It was in California where they found the answer. Between the decades of the 10s, 20s and 30s of the last century, its surplus of cheap and unused land, added to the climate of the southwest of the United States, which allowed a greater number of hours of natural light for recording, combined perfectly with the fact that the legislation favorable to Edison did not apply in that territory. It was like this, one by one, The rebel production companies began their march to the Hollywood area, in Los Angeles, where they began to establish themselves, produce films and grow until they became the great giants that we all know today: Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox or Paramount, Among others.

Since then, these production companies have shaped and expanded Western culture, and especially American culture, around the world through one of the most popular forms of entertainment of the last century: cinema.

That said, we must be careful about considering Hollywood as the monopoly of film production worldwide, since it is not the only place, nor necessarily the one that produces the most. For a few years now, it has been competing for that position with two other epicenters of film production: Bollywood in India and Nollywood in Nigeria. And while Hollywood still holds the lead in budgets and return on investment, it appears to not have it in terms of total production. But we will talk about this in other articles.

The point is that the movie doesn't end when we leave the movie theater. The way society consumes cinema affects us on a much higher level than the average individual may realize. Day after day, hundreds of thousands of people go to movie theaters and consume dozens of films, most of them imported from abroad. If you read us from a Western country, it is most likely that the main and most popular origin of the cinema you consume is American.

And it is not a minor matter. We are talking about several generations who, for decades, have regularly consumed scenes of yellow buses taking suburban preteens to school; brave soldiers landing in Normandy or young adults starting a new life in a city full of skyscrapers, where all the streets are written in English. Names like John, Mathew, Jacob, Sally or Cindy are normalized, as is the idea that a standard family lives in a house with a garden, on the outskirts of a big city.

This relationship with cinema makes us feel a familiarity with all things United States and that we know, among other things, its political and territorial organization, what happens within its borders, what its anthem is or who its president is. At the same time, I doubt that the majority of our readers can answer the same thing about other countries such as Slovakia, Burkina Faso or Cambodia. At least not without doing a quick Google search (and I'm not judging you, I couldn't either!).

We are talking about that, Thanks to Hollywood, the United States has been able to make the world known in a very close and attractive way their customs, its politics, its culture andpractically all the aspects that characterize it as a country. Control of this film industry is a perfect complement for a country like the one that has been the great power for so many years, since it represents the acquisition of much greater power than one might think. We refer to the soft power, or soft power.

The Oxford dictionary defines soft power as “a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of cultural or economic influence.” It was a concept proposed by political scientist and member of Bill Clinton's administration, Joseph Nye. This concept would mark international relations in the post-war era. Cold War as a way to measure the power of countries beyond their military power.

In essence, it refers to the way to get a certain country to gain support to make decisions without having to use its military power to convince them of it. And I would make it through cultural, ideological and institutional methods. Basically, countries with high levels of soft power They are characterized by being those that the rest of the countries want to be like. Among the most tangible measures of this power, we can find liberal democratic policies, free market economies or human rights. But if you want to know more about the theory of soft powerI recommend this one Foreign Policy article.

As we have already said, there are several factors that contribute to generating high levels of soft power, among them the cultural one. This is why we can affirm without a doubt that Hollywood is one of the great guarantors of soft power from the United States, which in 2019 ranked 5th in the classification of countries with the highest soft power after Sweden, according to The Soft Power 30.

This is due to the capacity that it has and has had during the last century to popularize, legitimize and spread internationally the cultural aspects of the North American country. This is something that the country's government knows perfectly well. That is why it takes advantage of the intangible assets generated by the mass communication to encourage the appearance of American nationalist and cultural symbols in Hollywood. And it is here where we must mention another of the great people responsible for this phenomenon: the propaganda.

This activity, which began its international peak during the industrial era, very much at the hands of the Russian constructivist movement and expanded throughout the world, became an especially popular technique in times of war. Logically, it was no less during the Second World War or the Cold War. In these times, Governments would exert direct and indirect pressure measures so that the mass media included nationalist and war symbols in their publications.. Radio, press, television and of course, cinema would have to modify its content and its advertising to include and glorify national symbols and show soldiers as heroes who must be supported.

It is probably due to the long duration of the Cold War that nationalism and patriotism ended up settling into the day-to-day life of American cinema naturally, becoming one of the great topics of Hollywood cinema.

We are aware that During World War II, specific government departments were even created just to control the information that Hollywood transmitted.and Bureau of Motion Pictures, which was part of the US Office of War Information. This one who reviewed the scripts, one by one, to ensure that the production companies did not publish content that could incite anti-war or anti-patriotic feelings. Content that reached some 90 million American citizens who went to the movies every week.

This trend was also present during the Cold War. It is known that, during the Vietnam War, the Pentagon itself gave up supplies and military bases for the filming of the film. The Green Berets, by John Wayne, in exchange for reserving the rights to approve the final script. It has not been the only case either. In one way or another, there is no doubt that Hollywood has been a key tool to achieve this passive transmission and legitimation of American values, culture and politics in the world, in addition to a very strong pillar in the structure that has allowed the country to be established as the only world superpower in recent decades.

But it has a loose end. It turns out that Hollywood is not a government agency, but a private business conglomerate. What does this mean?

Well it means that The ultimate purpose of its members is to obtain and maximize economic benefits., so the industry will naturally tend to orient itself through the principles of supply and demand.

This is where things get interesting. And, of course, thanks to china, which was already taking a while to be mentioned. It turns out that In recent years, the Asian giant has become one of the main markets for American films.. If you want to know some more general aspects about the keys to its economy, I invite you to take a look at the publication by my colleague Álvaro Pérez, but as far as cinema is concerned, let's see how it happened.

In the year 1994 The Chinese government allowed the introduction of foreign films within its borders. It was then that, thanks to a small quota of 10 foreign films a year, the Chinese were able to begin to enjoy cinema from other places. And it is clear that they liked it, since there was a trend that has been increasing, while corresponding to the growing demand for cinema by the Chinese public. And it is that, If in 2005 China had 4.000 movie screens, in 2019 there were about 70.000.

Along with this trend, the annual quota of allowed foreign films has also been increasing, which is currently at 34.

And we cannot fail to emphasize how much the Chinese public loves foreign cinema. In 2016, the animated film Zootopia grossed a quarter of a billion (yes, with a “b”) dollars at the Chinese box office, which was a third of its collection outside the United States. O Warcraft, which in the same year grossed 10 times the amount it grossed at the North American box office at the Chinese box office, owing the salvation of the financial fiasco to this audience. Or, more recently, Avengers: Endgame, the highest-grossing film in history, which owes a third of said revenue exclusively to the Chinese public.

Hollywood productions have devastated their metrics in the Asian country and have begun to trust China to guarantee the financial success of their projects…as long as they are able to enter within the aforementioned quota. Let us remember that, while between 500 and 600 films come out of Hollywood a year, Only 34 foreign productions receive the desired permission to be marketed in China (and not all of them are for the United States) so, although the benefits are very attractive, the competition is extreme.

One way to avoid this fee is to associate. The films that are produced in partnerships with Chinese producers count as national production and are not subject to said quota. Furthermore, nationally produced films are the only ones that are allowed to be broadcast during national holidays, which account for practically half of the sale of movie tickets in the country, according to data from the edition of The Economist, last September 29.

As we can see, it is clear that access to the Chinese market is not only a significant and assured source of income, but, in the most extreme cases such as Warcraft, it can even make the difference between commercial success and failure.

In addition to this quota, we have already mentioned that there are also the filters of their censorship system, which is also another key issue. Because? Well, because the fact that any Hollywood production that passes the filter is a commercial success of exaggerated proportions has started a new race for production companies to position themselves on the list of titles with permission from the Chinese government to be distributed in the Asian country. Let us remember that only 34 of them will achieve it. This means that, to compete for one of the desired positions, heThe contents of the films must broadcast content that pleases the regime, which are defined by this censorship filter. And although the requirements for an official list are not very clear, they do certain elements can be identified that increase or decrease the chances of acceptance.

Among the content that would probably eliminate a foreign production from the game we could include those that mention any of the three Ts (Tiananmen, Tibet and Taiwan). Other taboos seem to be ghosts. On the other hand, include Chinese characters, cultural elements or products with a positive impact on the narrative They seem to be the most appropriate way to pass the filter.

The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China

In general terms, Fantasy films that cover themes far from reality have it easier. When it comes to dramas that cover realistic or critical themes with reality, it is more complicated, especially with films that address the daily difficulties of members of the working class.

The fact is that this limit has a very important strategic factor. If any American film could pass the filter, there would be no problem. But by existing, A massive trend of Western production companies is generated competing to position their content in a way that seems attractive to the Chinese government., which means that, although only 34 pass a year, hundreds of other productions, which also do their best to please China, end up spreading throughout the rest of the West regardless of whether they enter the Chinese market or not.

We are talking about a perfect example about how economic power can change loyalties and the way of generating soft power simply taking advantage of the most basic laws of supply and demand. Do you remember the incentives of the United States government to favor propaganda and patriotic symbols in cinema during times of war? Well, simply, the new incentive comes from China.

Let's finish the job.

There are several economists who have followed the growing trends in demand for cinema and income from the Chinese public. Especially in recent years. And to everything we have already told in previous paragraphs we have to add one more fact. In recent years, China was positioning itself as the second market for world cinema after the United States. However, the pandemic has forced the closure of theaters in both countries… with one key difference. While American theaters remain closed, fighting to survive the second wave that is already upon them, China has already taken control of the pandemic and its rooms can enjoy a constant flow of customers.

In fact, speaking in numbers, in the middle of October 2020, film revenue at the box office in the United States is equivalent to two and a quarter trillion USD, while China has already reached 3 trillion, according to data from Statista and The Numbers . This means that 2020 has been the year in which China has surpassed the United States in box office revenue. Although we must keep in mind that we are still moving in significantly reduced numbers compared to previous years, due to the pandemic, so the long term remains to be seen.

However, strictly speaking, this has made China the first world market and, therefore, the main target audience for international productions, which represents, as we have already said, the culmination of the small breeding ground that we have been describing. throughout the entire article.

And this is something that worries the United States government. Because?

I guess you already see it coming. This trend is precisely ensuring that one of the greatest guarantors of soft power, whose activity is key for the United States government, is reducing its activities to disseminate patriotic content to favor Chinese ideas, but at the same time maintaining its ability to influence Western thought and culture. Which means that The billions of people who consume Hollywood content every day around the world are beginning to receive content designed to please China and spread its culture.…And that includes Americans themselves. Which means that this soft power generated, would be attributed to China.

The billions of people who consume Hollywood content every day around the world are beginning to receive content designed to please China and spread its culture.

And all this precisely within a context of trade war between the United States and China, which in recent months has bordered on diplomatic on more than one occasion. Like the recent consulate closures, the Chinese in Houston or the American in Chengdu. We are talking about a China that uses its immense economic power to manipulate the content created by Hollywood companies with the aim of legitimizing its culture, ideas, traditions and policies throughout the West. Basically, indirectly controlling what Hollywood produces.

It is not the only way in which the country is legitimizing its power on the international scene. In other articles my colleagues have already spoken about the New Silk Road.

But back to the movies. Basically, instead of investing in their own film industry, China has decided to use its great economic power to transform Hollywood, the great propaganda machine of American ideas, into a transmitting agent of ideals increasingly favorable to the Chinese regime. It is a brilliant plan that shows that the Hollywood conglomerate is not made up of patriots, but rather mercenaries, whose main client has been the United States, until China has offered more money.

And can this be done? Technically yes. After all, as we have already said, Hollywood is made up of private companies that seek to maximize their profits. However, there are already several members of the United States political class who have harshly criticized these actions. Among the most notable criticisms we can mention that of William Barr, the attorney general of the United States, who in July of this year accused both Hollywood and big technology of giving China massive propaganda.

We also have Ted Cruz, a Republican senator who has proposed that studios that modify their content to pass Chinese censorship be prohibited from filming in collaboration with the US military. Do you remember what we mentioned about the Pentagon?

And these criticisms are not exclusively attributed to the conservative wing. Pen America, an organization focused on freedom of information, published a report a couple of months ago criticizing Hollywood decision-makers for increasingly favor the demands of the censors of the Chinese Communist Party.

One way or another, it is clear that what has been the epicenter of the soft power America for a century is now changing course in its narratives and business objectives. And although there is probably still a long time left to know the long-term results, it is evident that business priorities themselves are driving the conglomerate of production companies towards eastern territories.

Are we finally entering that era where China is able to do whatever it wants to the companies of its trade rivals without taking any direct action? And, after all, isn't that precisely the concept of soft power What have we been talking about throughout the article? What is clear is that the future of Hollywood narratives is worthy of extensive study. But we will leave that for another time.

Surprise! Brief analysis of the case of Mulan

The perfect example of Disney's manifesto of loyalties for the coming years

Well that. After all this analysis that we have done about the situation in Hollywood, it occurred to me that we could apply what we discovered to understand a little better all the controversy generated around one of the most popular premieres this year.

The new Disney version made with actors, which had a production budget of 20 million dollars, was already enough on its own to be one of the hot topics of the year in regards to the international billboard. But it has also not been without controversy. And probably, after reading the previous paragraphs, we can understand why a little better. And this movie is probably nothing more than the climax of Disney's attempts to choose its commercial allies for the coming years. You see where I'm going, right?

Let's go step by step.

We have all this information about how, for reasons of basic economics, Hollywood is competing for a place in the limited, but extremely beneficial Chinese market. Which, in itself, is reason enough for Disney to join the “let's please the Chinese government” bandwagon. But there is still more.

Disney did not get off to a good start with the Asian giant. In 1977, the film “Kundun”, based on the life of the Dalai Lama, deteriorated relations between the country and the Hollywood company. Do you remember what we talked about about the three T's? In the end…

At first it wouldn't matter much, because the Chinese film market in the 70s was what it was. But since its significant rise began to be experienced, Disney has followed the trend. We can see it in examples like “Chirrut Îmwe”, one of the main characters of the film Rogue One (2016), played by Donnie Yen, Chinese martial artist and actor. Or the new installments that Disney is announcing based in China: “Beyond the Moon”, which it will do in co-production with a Chinese production company, or a second part of Mulan… But let's not anticipate events.

Regarding this first installment, we have already said that The controversy has been one of the great companions. And several activists have publicly denounced various events related to the film. First of all, we have the scandal unleashed after the publication on social networks by Liu Yifei, the Chinese American star who plays the protagonist, in which showed his support for the Hong Kong police.

This is not an article about the situation between China and Hong Kong, but it is worth mentioning the social and political tension that has been experienced in this regard. Although for more information on the subject you can read this great BBC article about it. Once this happened, several human rights activists, including Joshua Wong, called for a boycott of the Disney production on social media with the hashtags “#BoycottMulan” and “#BanMulan.”

By the way, did you know that there is a disney land in hong kong? I suppose that, if you have to side with someone, it doesn't hurt that that someone be the authorities where your companies keep their most valuable headquarters.

Second, we have the Xinjiang theme. It is one of the most prominent locations in the film, but also a controversial area as it is where the Chinese government maintains “re-education” camps to keep the Uyghur population Muslim, although this has been denied by the authorities. It is not only the location of the filming itself, but the fact that In the final credits of the film, explicit thanks are made to the government authorities of the area., which makes Disney's positioning regarding the theme more evident.

We must also mention the character of Mushu, who stood out by his absence. And although director Niki Caro insists that it is because “Mulan had to face her own challenges and make her own decisions,” we know on good authority that the little talking dragon in the animated version did not sit well with the Chinese, who They considered it offensive.

The point is that we can see several examples of explicit political support for China by Disney actors and producers, which gives us a clear indication of where the company's future is headed.

In that aspect, it is likely that the criticism of its Western and, more specifically, American audience no longer matters so much to it because, after all, we have seen how trends indicate that they could soon cease to be its first market. And yet, it's not necessarily a bad thing for business either. As public relations pioneer PT Barnum said: “I don't care what the press says about me, as long as they spell my name correctly.” Or, in other words, it doesn't matter what they say about you, as long as it's what they talk about. But that's another story.

What do you think of the Mulan case? Is the criticism he is receiving from human rights activist groups legitimate? Are Disney's actions to improve relations with what could potentially be its first customer in the future legitimate? Or, my favorite, are there, on an ethical level, differences between this situation and the one that occurred during World War II when it was the United States Government that filtered and censored all the content produced by Hollywood to control opinion about the war?

As always, let me know what you think in the comments, we read each other!

Main image source: FilmAffinity