Social Influences in Film: China vs. Hollywood
Since China opened up its film market to 34 revenue-sharing U.S. films in 2012, film-aficionados, the media and the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) have expressed fears that Hollywood would censor or change content to appeal to China’s film industry.
The major concern with the partnership between China and Hollywood revolves around leverage the Chinese government has on the content of modern day movies. In order for a film to be brought into China, it must first be approved by the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television of the People’s Republic of China (SAPPRFT). They reject films that showcase China in a negative light, are contrary to Chinese ideals (i.e. movies with homosexuality, religious depictions and/or supernatural forces), and/or infringe upon the morality of the Chinese people (depictions of excessive crime, violence and nudity).
The USCC fears that due to China’s growing film industry, Hollywood will edit movies to please Chinese censors rather than lose chunks of profit. The Communist party of China’s belief that art should be used as a means of social control, is used as justification by the USCC to minimize Hollywood’s partnership with China in order to prevent the Chinese government from influencing film for their benefit.
However, by condemning China, the USCC (and critics of the film deal) ignore Hollywood and the U.S. government’s own history of using film to control the behaviors and beliefs of moviegoers.
SAPPRFT’s ethical and political restrictions echo those of its U.S. counterparts, the Hays Code (1930-1968) and the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The former was a vehicle for the Motion Picture Association of America to control moral content in films, forbidding elements such as negative depictions of clergy members, excessive kissing, miscegenation and profanity.
The House of Un-American Activities Committee, well known for its influence in Hollywood, helped ruin the careers of actors, directors, producers and screenwriters that, in the eyes of the committee, subverted American values. Among those targeted by the HUAC were comedian Charlie Chaplin, who was forced out of the U.S. partly due to political instigation in his work, and prolific playwright and screenwriter Walter Miller, whose play The Crucible satirized the HUAC’s actions.
The past 40 years have seen a rise in films championing American values. Movies that reinforce U.S. elements such as individualism in the face of invading foreign forces, romances with women in submissive roles and militant U.S. patriotism, have extremely high domestic box office returns. Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper, with its blunt glorification of the Iraq war and derogatory attitude toward Iraqis, made $350.1 million in the U.S.
Sam Taylor-Johnson’s misogynistic film Fifty Shades of Grey demolished progressive romance Carol in domestic box office returns, making $166.2 million compared to Carol’s $ 12.7 million. Similarly, films championing individuals fighting for U.S. values against an invading force are extremely prevalent in movie history (ex. Independence Day, Red Dawn, Braveheart, Olympus Has Fallen).
The culling of behaviors and promotions of beliefs in U.S. films is not always negative. 12 Years a Slave’s message against servitude and for equality is a triumph of ideas over D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation. Also, it is important to note that unlike China, films critical of U.S. policies and viewpoints, such as Apocalypse Now and The Great Dictator, are still allowed to be shown and are sometimes as successful as their pro-U.S. counterparts. However, history has proven that the shift from U.S. to Chinese dominated influences is not a new threat to creativity in cinema but simply the passing of film’s sepulcher from one hand to another’s.
