Story-telling is a core element of the human experience, our brains are in many ways storytelling machines, and even our memories are based on narrative rather than acting like a recording device as you might imagine. The format of storytelling has changed across the centuries and even millennia but storytelling is always a key component of human culture. At first, our ancestors told stories to one another simply through word of mouth, then as societies became more complex theatre was the primary mode of storytelling. We invented books to record our stories, with some ancient texts even surviving to this day, and then in the late nineteenth century we created a new format of storytelling, one which remains arguably the dominant form of storytelling in the 21st century; film-making. But what happens when business interests become more important than the stories we tell and why even now do films made primarily in Hollywood dominate the global landscape in the way that they do, leaving very little room for cultures around the world to tell their stories?

Internal Suppression

Hollywood has transformed the organic nature of storytelling and cultural creativity into an exercise in profit-making, because of this Hollywood restricts creativity in filmmaking and its social relations under capitalism so that creativity does not pose a risk to financial gain (McMahon,2022). The Hollywood filmmaking industry is dominated by five large firms that in 2022 held 81% of the market share in North America and Canada, these five firms are; Disney, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros. The big five were formally known as the big six but in the late 2010s Twentieth century fox, the sixth member, was acquired by Disney. These five firms view filmmaking not as an art form but as creating income-generating assets. It is the desire to reduce risk to these income-generating assets that motivates Hollywood’s reluctance to allow cinema to grow and change organically. The limits on creativity mean that the audience’s reaction to the film is more predictable and therefore financial forecasts on the ability of the asset to make a profit are more stable (McMahon,2022).

Using the capital-as-power approach in which capital is a form of power not merely something that interacts with power, we can understand how Hollywood uses selective funding to determine which projects will make it to market and which will not (McMahon,2022). The power of Hollywood capital and the ownership of intellectual property rights means that Hollywood controls the direction of cinema and can keep films, that may present a risk to their assets, off the market (McMahon,2022). The filmmaking market has not always remained the same and has looked radically different through the decades. The filmmaking industry in the 21st century is vastly different to that of the 20th century as it is now global, has adapted to digital and internet technology, and media conglomerates now create intellectual property to be used in sequels or franchises. These developments have allowed Hollywood to diversify their method of gaining income with distribution after initial cinema screening, through video, discs and most recently streaming, being a key element in the industry.

However while Hollywood does stifle creativity to a degree it does not do so entirely. Creativity in the filmmaking industry is a double-edged sword as while it can be a risk to the financial gain of a project without creativity there is no story-telling, which is the foundation of all cinema. Some films because of their subject matter or stylistic choices will never make it to market as major firms deem them too much of a risk to invest their capital, alternatively, films can receive financing but under a contract which limits content, form and other creative aspects of the project.

Links with Foreign Policy

 

The second facet of the global political economy of film is the dominance of Hollywood in the global filmmaking market. Hollywood’s supremacy has been attributed to a variety of factors but not much attention has been given to the U.S. department’s support of Hollywood abroad. The State Department has embassies across the globe which support the interests of the Hollywood film industry and some would say this is evidence of modern cultural imperialism (Moody,2017). Cultural imperialism is a theory of international relations after WWII in which the US does not seek to directly conquer territories or economies like colonial empires of the past but instead seeks to integrate countries into a global system based on liberal democracy, a capitalist-based economic system and a consumerist culture (Moody,2017). The evidence of support from the State Department comes from the release of 250,000 U.S. diplomatic communications by Wikileaks in 2010 in which the State Department appeared to be exploring avenues for the Hollywood film industry to infiltrate the Indian film market which so far has retained its own very successful indigenous film industry (Moody,2017). While it may seem like the reports by the U.S. state department are mundane the fact remains that the state department was scouting new markets on behalf of the Hollywood film industry illustrating the links between U.S. foreign policy and Hollywood’s financial interests. The links between U.S. foreign policy and Hollywood are again demonstrated in the negotiations of an FTA between foreign countries and the United States. U.S. embassies and foreign policy initiatives work towards free trade in the film and media market rather than cultural protectionist policies which creates an advantageous environment for Hollywood. The South Korean film industry has a very successful domestic market and it is supported by the South Korean government in the form of cultural policy. One such policy was a quota from the South Korean government that mandated 40% of screenings in South Korean cinemas had to be from indigenous filmmakers (Moody,2017). The U.S. before even bringing free trade negotiations insisted that this quota be lowered to 20% which would be financially advantageous to Hollywood in the South Korean market (Moody,2017).

The global political economy of film is not only about internal harnessing and control of creativity but also a form of cultural export and perhaps even imperialism in foreign markets. These factors illustrate how the capital-as-power approach and the lens of cultural imperialism can be used to analyse the global political economy of film. The Hollywood film industry is one of two aspects one which funds new creative endeavours but as illustrated by the above also stifles creativity in the pursuit of profit.

Word count:1048