Cinema Is Truly Global

A decade in review...

The film and entertainment industry have seen a number of changes during the past decade, with forces both new and old shaping cinema as we know it today. Many things come to mind, but one aspect which headlines often overlook is the impact of globalisation. This past decade has seen consumerism and economics shift towards a truly global landscape, and film has been so exception.

We now live in a truly global world, which means different parts of the world, for better or worse, have an influence on what media we consume. A global film industry means filmmakers must understand the implications their film’s themes and messages have on audiences. Political messages, religious beliefs, and mockery of either can have huge ramifications in terms of box office earnings, where the film is played, and how the film is received (especially by those audiences who are generally more conservative). Throughout the past decade we have begun to see the power and influence the international film market can wield on Hollywood.

Studios have generally benefited greatly from a more globalised economy. The development of entertainment / hospitality industries in Asia, South America, and the Middle East have meant more people around the world have the opportunity to access filmed entertainment in a high quality environment, which has led to an increase in box office revenue. Around 70% of Hollywood’s box office revenues come from “international markets” (i.e. not North America), a figure which has steadily been growing for more than a decade. For studios, they not only have a diversified source of income, but pressure is also decreased on traditional markets (US, UK, and Japan for example) to perform exceptionally well. Their brand and IP’s are exposed to new audiences, creating new fans and ambassadors of studio franchises, ensuring profit is somewhat guaranteed in the long run. Utilising a country’s home-grown talent can also immensely help a film’s performance. Take Disney’s 2016 live-action remake of The Jungle Book for example. A fantastic film in its own right, Disney scouted Bollywood superstars - Irrfan Khan, Priyanka Chopra, Om Puri - as the voice cast to bring the story to Indian audiences. Driven by the popularity of both the voice actors and the IP itself, The Jungle Book become the highest grossing foreign film of all time in India at the time.

Not only has the foreign box office made great films super profitable (over $2bn of Avatar’s box office came outside North America), but they have also saved certain franchises from what was certain disaster. Time and time again this decade we have seen films fail in traditionally reliable markets, only for newer international markets to propel them to break-even / profit. Films like Pacific Rim and Warcraft bombed in North America and Europe, but over-performed in China and saved the studio incurring major losses (Pacific Rim even got a sequel). Then you have films like Fast 7, Dangal, Venom and many more which performed very well, but became blockbusters thanks to their higher than expected box-office overseas, particularly in China. International markets can make or break a film and the careers of those involved, so it is crucial for studios to understand the needs and limitations of its foreign audience if they want to see real success – that is success on a global scale.

And this is where China comes into the equation. Many analysts expect (whilst some already believe) that China is going to become the world’s biggest box office market, meaning they are going to play the most crucial role going forward into this new decade. I’ve mentioned China a few times, and in positive light. Their audience’s appetite for western cinema has seen studios make billions of dollars, with Transformers, Fast & Furious, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe proving very popular in the region. But when it comes to China, things are rarely as simple as you’d like them to be. They only allow up to 40 foreign films to be distributed in the country every year meaning competition is high, and with its strict approval process and censorship regime, studios have been known to edit films / change dialog in order to guarantee a Chinese release. Deadpool was famously denied distribution in the country (probably due to the amount of profanity in the film), not that its box office was hindered in that instance. But for so many films, securing distribution in the region can be the difference between profit and loss and then some. It’s so important for studios that they often cast high-profile film stars in leading roles (to make the film more appealing to international audiences), even when it goes against the story e.g. Scarlett Johansen being cast as the lead in Ghost In A Shell, or Matt Damon being cast as the lead in The Great Wall – both roles which should have naturally gone to Asian actors.

But this growing dependency on the global box office poses a challenge which Hollywood is yet to overcome. Many countries like China pose a unique situation in that politically they are vastly different compared to North America and Europe, but hold a lot financial power in terms of the global film industry. With censorship in film and wider media rife in countries with such different ideologies, there is going to come a point where studios are going to need to decide what is more important…their fundamental beliefs or the box office dollar (unless their true belief lies in the dollar). Film is supposed to be representative, and storytelling should not be hindered by the politics that govern the world, yet these very ideas are consistently being questioned, strained, and sadly suppressed to favour global audiences. Scenes are edited, commentaries and accountability of those in power shouldn’t be questioned, and true representation can sadly be lost. I personally believe that one of the biggest reasons holding Hollywood back from introducing a gay lead character in a blockbuster film is the reception this it would get overseas. Any potential film would be denied release in many countries, or at the least be edited to not “offend” audiences. It definitely is a deterrent for studios, but should it be? Another example is in 2014 when Sony cancelled the wide release of its political comedy The Interview, based on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Controversial due to topic, it was funny in my opinion, yet it was pulled from release due to cyber threats and political tensions…and why? Because it poked fun at a reclusive leader with an appalling human rights record? The situation was unfortunate, but I doubt it’ll be the last.

Changing ideologies is tough in our own society let alone that of another country, so it is not anyone’s place (including mine) to put blame on a studio for bowing to external pressures. I’ve sometimes felt, having lived through Brexit, Trump’s election, and witnessing countless incidents of casual racism, that perhaps globalisation happened to soon. There are so many ways in which people were and still aren’t ready for a global world, yet it’s the world we live in and film is no exception to this, meaning all parties must adapt. It would be foolish of me to suggest that the deeper issues that come with a global film market can be solved with a black and white approach. As with most things in life, it’s very complicated. But as I’ve mentioned, there are many positives of having a thriving, global film industry – more jobs, diverse storytelling, and with some caveat, increased representation of monitory groups in film. Film is now well and truly global, but with all the challenges that comes with this, the opportunity it gives to bring people closer together is unparalleled. If the story, and the people behind them, come first…then all else will be ok!

This piece is part of a series of blog posts reviewing the decade in film. Click here to discover more posts in this series.