Film Policy in a Globalised Cultural Economy

John Hill, Nobuko Kawashima

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780815380290
• eBook ISBN: 9781351213523
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

The past two decades have witnessed major changes in film industries worldwide in response to both economic globalisation and technological developments. The dominant position of Hollywood movies in the global film market has remained largely uncontested, but Hollywood itself has become increasingly international in its operations whilst 'regional' screen industries such as those in East Asia and in the Indian subcontinent have (re-)emerged and developed new forms of collaboration. The advent of digital technologies has also transformed the content of films and the ways in which they are made and consumed. Such changes, in turn, have posed new economic and cultural challenges for policy-makers around the world and led to a degree of rethinking of how film policy objectives are to be conceived, defined and implemented.

This collection brings together a range of international scholars from the USA, Europe and Asia to consider how film policy has responded to the various economic, technological and political shifts shaping the global film industry; and to identify the many tensions between global and local, economic and cultural, and public and private policy objectives that have been the result of these changes. This book was originally published as a special issue of the International Journal of Cultural Policy.

Regulating the global infrastructure of film labor exploitation

Michael Curtin

Confronted by media globalization, many governments have expressed concern about the productive capacity of domestic screen media institutions that are aiming to sustain the allegiances of resident populations. Policymakers are furthermore aware that creative labor is now widely perceived as a resource worth cultivating for its perceived benefits as a catalyst to economic innovation and productivity. In fear of being left behind, countries with even modest resources have fashioned a range of subsidies, tax breaks, and other enticements that have facilitated the emergence of a global production infrastructure that favors producers and media conglomerates at the expense of screen media workers. This mounting crisis of creative labor calls for a critical reassessment of the fundamental rationales behind these film policies and encourages speculation about new directions for cultural activism. Drawing inspiration from environmental studies, this essay advances the concept of stewardship as a geographically scalable approach to the challenges of media globalization.

Since the 1990s, market liberalization and new technologies have accelerated the transnational flow of media imagery much to the delight of Western conglomerates that have expanded their operations and exports around the globe. This has, of course, raised anxieties in countries that find themselves ever more vulnerable to a flood of foreign films, television shows, and online video. Yet Hollywood is no longer the only major exporter of audiovisual media, having been joined by a host of thriving competitors, including Mumbai, Lagos, Miami, and Rio de Janeiro (Curtin 2003, 2009). Commercial enterprises in these cities are now distributing popular fare to regional, diasporic, and even global audiences. As viewers venture beyond local or national fare, they now survey a menu of alternatives that is far more diverse than previously imagined. Arab audiences are, for example, enamored of Turkish dramas, which have been strongly influenced by Latin American telenovelas. And West Africans are fascinated by Indian musicals and Chinese martial arts movies, which have in turn inspired Nigerian videofilms that circulate to audiences across the continent and among the African diaspora. Consequently, cities such as Lagos, Miami, and Mumbai have emerged as commercial media capitals that are increasingly competitive with Hollywood’s transnational cultural influence. These industries have succeeded by showing greater regard for audience preferences than government priorities.

Policymakers outside these media capitals are therefore confronted by a distinctive new set of challenges as they try to cultivate homegrown creative talent and position them favorably within global contexts. Some governments play a passive role, occasionally lending a hand to domestic media entrepreneurs or public service broadcasters. Others take an alternative route that positions government institutions in a leadership role, actively cultivating resources that aim to promote national (and often government-owned) media while angling for cultural influence abroad. Cities that benefit from such calculated state policies – such as Beijing, Seoul, and Dubai – could therefore be considered official media capitals as opposed to their commercial counterparts. Policymakers in these parts of the world see media as a key component of their broader strategies for economic development and ideological leadership. Regardless of the approach, certain cities have emerged as significant nodes of a growing transnational media economy.

As these ‘media capitals’ prosper, many national and local governments have expressed concern about the ability of their domestic cultural institutions to produce screen media content that can sustain the allegiances of resident populations. Policymakers are furthermore aware that creative labor is now widely perceived as a resource worth cultivating for its perceived benefits as a catalyst to innovation and productivity across the economy as a whole (Garnham 2005; Goldsmith and O’Regan 2005; Hesmondhalgh and Pratt 2005). Finally, national leaders are alert to the putative value of media as an instrument of ‘soft power,’ potentially enabling them to exercise political and cultural leadership on a wide range of issues, both at home and abroad (Hu and Ji 2012; Ang, Isar, and Mar 2015). In fear of being left behind, policymakers in countries with even modest resources believe it is important to intervene in the realm of film and media policy.

Public officials are therefore searching for fresh ideas to help them navigate turbulent and uncharted waters. Yet this essay contends that the foundational rationales behind most film policies have contributed to a pack mentality that has failed to nurture local capacity, instead lining the pockets of major producers while undermining the status and working conditions of screen media laborers around the world. Interestingly, the mounting crisis of creative labor has opened the door to a fundamental reassessment of core policy principles. This essay therefore offers speculative reflections on new directions for film policy that employ stewardship as a geographically scalable concept to address the current challenges of the global era. Drawing analogies to the environmental movement, it argues that although film policy will continue to be formulated in national and local contexts, it needs to expand its frames of reference and reimagine its objectives, emphasizing multiplicity and diversity over traditional concepts such as unicity, sovereignty, and productivity.

Policy concerns

In an era of media globalization, only a handful of centers can realistically aspire to become transnational media capitals. But what about small nations and impoverished countries that are subject to cultural influences from their wealthier counterparts? What are the prospects for creative endeavor in Benin, Nigeria’s neighbor, or in Nepal, nestled between India and China? Similarly, what should be done for subnational populations in places like Oaxaca, where culturally distinctive communities strive to sustain themselves in the shadow of Mexico City? And what are the options for metropolitan media that vie with nearby neighbors for cultural and commercial prominence, as is the case in the Pearl River Delta where Hong Kong film and TV prevail over competitors from Guangzhou and Shenzhen?

These spatial dynamics are not entirely new. In fact, they have been an enduring feature of the modern era ever since the development of print capitalism. Media and markets have long conspired to privilege some places over others. These inequities have prompted some governments to persistently assert their cultural authority and political sovereignty by intervening in the realm of popular communication, the result of which is that political capital sometimes counts as much as, if not more than, economic or creative capital. In extreme cases, media have at times become instruments of the state or of an autocratic elite. At their very best, however, public media institutions and enlightened media policies have provided the means by which common legacies have been maintained, policies debated, and futures imagined.

The trend toward media globalization has, nonetheless, undermined many of the conventional tools of policymakers. Traditionally, regulators have intervened most effectively in the realms of distribution and consumption by limiting imports and technological access, or by censoring content before it made its way into circulation. Nowadays these tools have limited value and, in fact, may be counterproductive due to widely available technologies that can circumvent official restrictions. The Chinese government, for example, limits the number of Hollywood movies imported each year, but this has little effect on the actual consumption of foreign films in China since most foreign titles can be acquired through black and gray market distribution channels (Wang 2004; Lobato 2012). Government sanctions not only fail to circumscribe personal consumption of foreign films, but they paradoxically have a negative impact on Chinese film and TV, since they drive audiences out of the officially-sanctioned media economy and foster resentment and distrust of government institutions.

Keeping citizens engaged with indigenous media requires that states not only acknowledge audience preferences but also recognize their personal capacity to evade official constraints. Given these considerations, many governments have shifted their attention to the supply side of the policy equation. Instead of trying to restrict or manage consumption, they are looking for ways to nurture local, national, and regional media that offer distinctive and popular content that foreign enterprises are unlikely to provide. Governments have therefore turned to the literature on creative industries, which seems to offer both a tonic for cultural sovereignty and a stimulus for the broader economy (Hartley 2005; Anheier and Isar 2008). Yet as we shall see, the principles behind this approach engender a range of outcomes, some of which are actually counterproductive both locally and globally (Garnham 2005; Hesmondhalgh and Pratt 2005; Banks and O’Connor 2009; Hewison 2014).

The creative industries literature emerged in the midst of economic restructuring during the latter part of the twentieth century that profoundly affected societies around the world. As manufacturing migrated to the Global South, policymakers in industrialized economies shifted their attention to service and information sectors, which they believed would provide the managerial and creative infrastructure for an emerging global economy (Harvey 1989; Castells 1992; Sassen 2001). Moreover, they contended that the effects of de-industrialization could best be addressed by enhancing domestic human capital in industries that focused on high value-added products that ranged from computer software to fashion to finance (Howkins 2002). In Britain and Australia this perspective gained momentum by collapsing a host of enterprises under the umbrella of creativity, pointing to the synergistic value of an economy that nurtures excellence in science, software, sports, and media. Meanwhile in the United States, a society largely allergic to the concept of cultural policy, attention was focused on the social and industrial conditions that spur innovation in particular locales (Porter 1990; Florida 2005). Despite the distinctions between these approaches, many critics agreed that media productivity had become an important barometer of a society’s innovative capacity. Indeed, the global media conglomerate and the motion picture blockbuster were seen as telling indicators of productive capacity, cultural influence, and healthy employment. Policymakers in many parts of the world now use these rationales to justify subsidies, infrastructural investments, and training programs in media, computer, and design industries.¹

The level of investment is sometimes astonishing. Chinese government officials have over the past decade spent billions to make the PRC a more prominent cultural producer and exporter (Hu and Ji 2012; Keane 2013). Although controversial, many have nevertheless embraced such policies, realizing that a failure to take action could doom the prospects of local media institutions and further strengthen the grip of media capitals like Hollywood and Mumbai. Scholars and policymakers remain observant, however, of the potential pitfalls, noting how difficult it is to manage and measure intangible resources such as creativity and innovation (Baltruschat 2010; Flew 2011; Goldsmith, O’Regan, and Ward 2011; Cunningham 2013).

In the field of film policy, the most widely used tools are subsidies and tax incentives designed to attract foreign investment, enhance local infrastructure, and develop technical and creative skills among the resident workforce. Ideally, these policies aim to insinuate locales like Hyderabad, Wellington, and Budapest into the globally networked production infrastructure of feature film blockbusters. Supposedly, they entice free-spending producers to shower their resources on the local economy, and over the longer term they aim to encourage the development of sophisticated services and skill sets that are transferable to other enterprises. While indeed this may occur in some cases, the most consistent beneficiaries seem to be the major motion picture producers who have proven to be more demanding and cost-conscious than expected. Perhaps more significantly, these policies have fostered a globalized production infrastructure that has proven to be detrimental to screen media workers and the many small firms that service the major producers.

Globalization of production

The seeds of globalized production were planted long ago, according to Goldsmith, O’Regan, and Ward (2011) who contend that it was influenced by the tradition of ‘project thinking’ in US engineering and military manufacturing during the latter half of the twentieth century (Dicken 2015). Aiming to facilitate large-scale projects (bridges, bombers, and computers), designers and procurement officials opened the door to bidders that agreed to comply with detailed specifications for costs, inputs, and processes that guided each project. By creating networks of interoperable elements, managers were able to coordinate the work of contractors and subcontractors, many of them hundreds of miles apart. This approach also established a contestable bidding system with relatively transparent standards that helped to foster competition and innovation. Certainly, these projects were susceptible to the influence of dominant firms, but the bidding process nevertheless encouraged the participation of multiple players, all of whom operated according to a shared set of protocols.

Besides this trend towards project-based production, innovations in communication, transportation, and shipping have made it possible to create global assembly lines that have dramatically transformed the geography of manufacturing. No longer is it presumed that cars or their component parts will be produced in Nagoya, Turin, or Detroit. Instead, cities, states, and national governments engage in ‘locational tournaments’ to lure contracts, factories, and jobs to their territories (Mytelka 2000). Thus, the codes and conventions of engineering and manufacturing have allowed more firms in more places to participate, but they have at the same time strengthened the negotiating leverage of managers.

In the film business, major producers today scour the globe for favorable locations using a dedicated staff of specialists that compares the relative merits of prospective locales. One executive describes the process as framed initially by aesthetic concerns related to the script, but these constraints tend to be relatively elastic, since talented crew members can dress their sets and frame their shots in ways that make a Malibu ranch look like an Army base in Korea or a street in Prague look like nineteenth century London (Curtin and Sanson, forthcoming). Moreover, film studios in places like Hyderabad advertise themselves as infinitely malleable, providing soundstages and back lots that afford a wide range of visual possibilities for the discerning producer (Ramoji Film City 2015). Although the visual requirements outlined in the script may be the initial departure point, studio executives move along quickly to the economic calculations, taking into account exchange rates, taxes breaks, subsidies, and economic incentives. Having narrowed the list, producers then begin to compare facilities and crew base (Curtin and Sanson, forthcoming).

Where once it was the case that producers only occasionally ventured beyond the studio gates, today it is presumed that most producers will shop around for shooting locations. This process is facilitated by organizations such as the Association of Film Commissioners International (AFCI), which annually holds a conference that attracts officials from around the world who set up booths to pitch the merits of their locales to motion picture producers and location executives. The conference also features workshops and panels that provide venues for sharing concerns and fostering a common language for proposals and budgets. Representatives from...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: film policy in a globalised cultural economy
• 1 Regulating the global infrastructure of film labor exploitation
• 2 Hollywood, the MPAA, and the formation of anti-piracy policy
• 3 Living with Hollywood: British film policy and the definition of ‘nationality’
• 4 German film policy’s new horizons
• 5 ‘Why not make films for New York?’: the interaction between cultural, political and commercial perspectives in Swedish film policy 1963–2013
• 6 Film policy under globalization: the case of Mexico
• 7 The Chinese–Korean co-production pact: collaborative encounters and the accelerating expansion of Chinese cinema
• 8 Film policy in Japan – an isolated species on the verge of extinction?
• Index