Globalization of Cinematographic Communication
https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2023-2-74-91
Abstract
This article examines the globalization – in its Americanization format – of international cinematic communication within the perspective of cultural diversity. The globalization process is comprehended as a result of the historical succession of market formations: from free competition in American cinema to an oligopoly and on to a national and an international monopoly. During the period of polypoly, the trail for globalization was blazed by the grande dame of the cinématographe: France. The United States, where in 1908 French films accounted for 70% of the market share, mounted a resolute challenge. We look at three factors – institutional, geopolitical, and creative – that explain why the French lost their domination over the American and, then, their own market. The French state responded to the soft power of American cinema by introducing quotas for national films. The industry was motivated by the need to protect the state both within its borders and beyond, and the preserve national customs and traditions. A number of other countries also resorted to the use of quotas as a means of mitigating the soft power of the United States: larger countries did so for economic considerations, while smaller countries did it for cultural reasons. The globalizational might of the American film industry is explained through the rational choice of the main line for its stylistic development and the filmmakers’ mastery of their craft, as well as through the professional skills of industry executives and marketing divisions, investment from big capital, and through support from the government in its push for the “cultural hegemony” of the United States. The major studios that emerged during the period of oligopoly (1909–1929) competed with one another on the terms of a certain accord. Their method of dealing with competition was to invest obscene amounts in movie production, far beyond the capabilities of smaller studios, which enabled them to establish a national monopoly over the domestic market (1930–1946). On the world market, the chosen method of competition enabled the American film industry, in the second half of the 1940s, to gain the position of international monopolist. An important role in the process was played by Motion Picture Export Association, established in 1945, as a sort of “diplomatic service” that functioned with permission from and under the support of the U.S. government. From its position as the global monopolist, the American film industry strives not only to dominate intercultural cinematic communication, but also, in this status and as a means of popular geopolitics, to control it through lobbying and exporting capital and goods. The transborder circulation of products by various national cinemas and the cultural diversity of cinematography have largely fallen prey to the globalization process. Extensive research has demonstrated an imbalance in in tercultural film communication. When, in a social-functional respect, the importing of films mainly supplants their production in a certain country, the population is largely deprived of the chance to reproduce its culture and, accordingly, its identity with the means of depicting and mastering its own image. The making of a national cinematic picture of the world and its integration into the communicative process becomes a pressing issue in the provision of cultural diversity.
About the Authors
M. I. ZhabskiyRussian Federation
Michail I. Zhabskiy – Doctor of Sociological Sciences, leading research fellow, Research Sector
105/2, ul. Oktyabr'skaya, Moscow, 127521
K. A. Tarasov
Russian Federation
Kiryll A. Tarasov – Doctor of Cultural Science, Professor, Department of Sociology
76, Prospect Vernadskogo Moscow, 119454
References
1. Altenloh E. 1914. Zur Soziologie des Kinos. Die Kino-Unternehmung und die sozialen Schichten ihrer Besucher. Jena. 102 s. (In German)
2. Austin B. 1989. Immediate Seating: A Look at Movie Audiences. s. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. 194 p.
3. Campbell R., Martin C., Fabos B. 2016. Media & Culture. Mass Communication in a Digital Age (10th ed.). Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martins’ Macmillan Learning. 574 p.
4. Fowles J. 2007. Mass Media and Star System. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, eds. Communication in History. Technology, Culture, Society (5th ed.). Boston: Karon Bowers. P. 190–196. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315664538
5. Gomery. D. 2005. The Hollywood Studio System. A History. London: British Film Institute. 333 р.
6. Grantham B. 1998. America the Menace: France’s feud with Hollywood. World Policy Journal. 15(2). P. 58–65.
7. Guback T. 1979. The International Film Industry. In G. Gerbner, ed. Mass Media Polices in Changing Cultures. London–Toronto: T. Wiley & Sons. P. 21–38.
8. Guback T. 1980. Hollywood 1969–1979. In B. Daniotti, ed. Immagini, piacere, dominio. Venezia: Marsilio Editore. P. 78–115.
9. Higson A. 1989. The Concept of National Cinema. Screen. No. 4. P. 36–46.
10. Jäckel A. 2003. European Film Industries. London: British Film Institute. 168 p.
11. Jowett G. 1976. Film: The Democratic Art. Boston–Toront: Little, Brown. 518 p.
12. Jowett G., Linton J. M. 1989. Movies as Mass Communication (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. 160 p.
13. Lee K. 2008. “The Little State Department”: Hollywood and the MPAA’s influence on U.S. trade relations. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business. 28(2). P. 379–397.
14. Mattelart A. 1998. European film policy and the response to Hollywood. In J. Hill, P. C. Gibson, eds. The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 478–485.
15. Moran A, ed. 1996. Film Policy: International and Regional Perspectives. New York: Routledge. 304 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203978900
16. Negt О. 1973. Massenmedien: Herschaftsmittel oder Instumente der Befreiung? In D. Prokop, ed. Kritische Sozialforschung. München. S. I–XXIX. (In German)
17. Nye J. 2004. Soft Power. The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs. 191 p.
18. Prokop D. 1982. Soziologie des Films. Frankfurt am Main: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag. 374 s. (In German)
19. Razlogov K. E. 2011. Paradoxi globalizatsii: kino na peresechenii promishlennosti i iskusstva [Paradoxes of globalization: cinema at the crossroads of industry and art]. Kultura i iskusstvo. No. 2. P. 72–87. (In Russian)
20. Rondely L. D. 2013. Kino i ego auditorya. Analiticheskaya letopis’ vzaimootnosheniy (1969– 2010 gg.) [Cinema and its Audience. Analytical Annals of Interrelations (1969–2010 gg.)]. Moscow: Kanon+ ROOI Reabilitatsiya. 441 p. (In Russian)
21. Smith A. 1980. The Geopolitics of Information. How Western Culture Dominate the World. London–Boston: Farber & Farber. 192 p.
22. Sobchak T., Sobchak V. C. 1987. Introduction to Film (2nd ed.). Boston: Allen and Unwin. 514 p.
23. Stabinar K. Selling American Films Abroad. New York Times Magazine. 30.11.1983. P. 126–135.
24. Tarasov K. 2005. Audiovizual’naya kultura i obrazovaniye [Audiovisual culture and education]. Visshee obrazovanie v Rossii. No. 5. P. 90–96. (In Russian)
25. Tarasov K. 2005. Nasilie v zerkale audiovisualnoy kultury [Violence in the Mirror of Audiovisual Culture]. Moscow: Beliy bereg. 384 p. (In Russian)
26. Tarasov K. 2016. Nasiliye v fil’makh: tri usloviya mimeticheskogo vozdeystviya [Violence in films: three preconditions for the mimetic effect]. Vestnik VGIK. 2(28). P. 84–96. (In Russian)
27. Tarasov K. 2018. Reprezentatsiya nasiliya v kinoindustrii [Representing violence in cinema industry]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. No. 8. P. 65–63. DOI 10.31857/S013216250000799-1 (In Russian)
28. Tarasov К. 2021. Motiv sotsial’nogo nasiliya v prostranstve kinokommunikatsyi [The Motif of Social Violence in the Space of Cinematik Communication]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Serya 18. Sotsiologiya i politologiya. 27(3). P. 167–186. https://doi.org/10.24290/1029-3736-2021-27-3-167-186 (In Russian)
29. Zhabskiy M. 2009. Sotsiokulturnaya drama kinematografa. Analiticheskaya letopis’ (1969– 2005 gg.) [Sociocultural drama of cinematography. Analytical annals (1969–2005)]. Moscow: Kanon+ ROOI Reabilitatsiya. 775 p. (In Russian)
30. Zhabskiy M. 2015. Sotsiodinamika kinematograficheskoy zhizny obshchestva [Dynamics of Society’s Cinematic Life]. Moscow: Kanon+ ROOI Reabilitatsiya. 496 p. (In Russian)
31. Zhabskiy M., Tarasov K. 2021. Kino – svoboda ot tsenzuri [Cinema – The Freedom from Censorship…]. Moscow: Kanon+ ROOI Reabilitatsiya. 320 p. (In Russian)
32. Zhabskiy M., Tarasov K. 2018. Razvlekatel’noye nasiliye v kinodosuge uchashcheysya molodezhy. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii. No. 4. P. 76–85. (In Russian)
33. Zhabskiy M. 2020. Sotsiologiya kino [The Sociology of Cinema]. Moscow: Kanon+ ROOI Reabilitatsiya. 512 p. (In Russian)
Review
For citations:
Zhabskiy M.I., Tarasov K.A. Globalization of Cinematographic Communication. Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations. 2023;2(2):74-91. https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2023-2-74-91