Hollywood Diplomacy

Just how many times George Cloo- ney and Sandra Bullock referenced Tiangong-1， the Chinese space station， in Gravity was jarring to me， but then again I’ve seen scores of articles celebrating China’s space program and know all too aware of how much a point of national pride it is. Despite only two characters ever really appearing in the film， Tiangong seems like the third – moreover a third character who is the key to survival– a positive image， to say the least， yet just subtle enough that the average American（and average Chinese person） wouldn’t think too much about it， subtlety only America’s greatest marketing artists （in this case， Mexican Alfonso Cuarón） could possibly achieve.

Say it ain’t so. Esquire and a handful of other notable American media outlets have accused Hollywood of pandering. As Americans with a century of film-loving cultural history beneath our belts， we all know that Hollywood is a realm solely of artists committed to authenticity. The reason virtually every computer that appears in American films and television is a Mac is that in reality， everyone has an Apple. Cars always look and perform great too. If you’re missing my sarcasm， I imagine you reading this on a smartphone you bought because Jennifer Aniston used it in her latest romantic opus.

Past Hollywood product placements such as Ethan Hawke delivering Hamlet’s“To be or not to be” speech in front of a massive Blockbuster Video billboard have become unintentional slivers of master artistic irony – laughable relics of a bygone era. Today， in their place， Bruce Willis grumbles in Looper with a smirk， “I’m from the future. Trust me. Move to China.”A $100 million check is fairly high as far as product placement fees go.

Nothing has changed as much as everything. As the West once wished for， China is now an enthusiastic player in the global free market. As the Western market has contracted over the last decade， its Chinese counterpart expanded exponentially. While Hollywood’s past bankrollers were getting bailed out by the government， the American film industry， one of the most consistently vibrant sectors of the American economy， simply turned its eyes elsewhere for sponsorship.

Hollywood is one of the last remaining titans of American industry， the country’s last profitable global export， its banner of culture and influence on the world， and embodiment of core values such as freedom of expression. It has been noted that even critically thrashed fare such as Desperate Housewives made a positive contribution to the American image in the Middle East– it allowed Middle Easterners to see that Americans weren’t exactly the monsters they thought （only slightly different， perhaps）. As iconic of America as Hollywood is， it should be remembered that it’s always been a haven for outsiders， refugees， rejects， and foreigners. The industry found its home over a hundred years ago far far from America’s eastern seaboard in the pre-jet era. And for good reason. Charlie Chaplin is only one name on a very long list of foreign-born entertainers who found home and heaven in Hollywood.

But the fact that Hollywood is embracing a rising foreign superpower can be scary and fear sells. China thinks that the Western media usually unfairly leans against them， and in a market that doesn’t really want to hear good news about an exotic Eastern rival， such an idea holds some weight. China’s global diplomacy since its rise has advocated fairness. Westerners have all seen how funny haphaz ardly translated English is on Chinese and Japanese signs. Now that China is so eager to more intimately communicate with its Western global neighbors – and can afford it – they’re hiring the best publicists the world has to offer rather than relying on their inexperienced in-house staff.

Although Hollywood （and the theater arts in general） has a notoriously left-leaning history， today’s American film industry is all rabid capitalists， in fact， not even artists. They’re entertainers and closer descendents of vaudeville-type shows than traditional performing arts， save the school of Shakespeare – the consensus greatest artist of the English language and commercially viable to both elite and working classes. As much as Blockbuster product placement， Hollywood’s idealist artists of the McCarthy era are also a relic of the past – or at least a marginalized demographic with a new home on YouTube.

As China has stepped out of the shadows of what was deemed themselves a century of humiliation， the country has shown tremendous eagerness for global recognition of their recent successes – which are many – and a desire to be a well-liked and respected global neighbor.

China often talks of “win-win relationships”， “avoiding the zero-sum game”，“mutual benefits”， and other ways to say the same concept， so the real issue is how to maximize the mutual benefits of a relationship that is already tightening. China knows well from experience that attracting foreign talent enhances the development of its younger domestic industry. The current movie quota model， which limits imports， is meant to bolster China’s comparatively young domestic film industry. It pushes foreign studios to seek joint projects with Chinese partners， which allows the film to qualify as domestic and skirt the quota. Joint productions employ Chinese industry labor and more importantly， perhaps， they receive training from more experienced foreigners. The foreign studios get paid by the wider access to the Chinese market.

However， the quota policy limits for- eign access to the China film market only to mega studios. If China wants its film industry to find any development on the grassroots level， it should reform its openness in this sector – especially when China is quick to accuse others of protectionism in the face of trade restrictions. Independent， low-budget filmmakers are the innovators， artists， and game-changers of tomorrow， and while they are thriving in China as well as the West， both groups exist across oceans in separate， isolated universes， Youku and YouTube – while only the elites can ever afford exposure to each other.

One of the best Chinese low-budget domestic indie films in recent years， Pingguo（“Apple” or titled Lost in Beijing （2007） in foreign releases） was banned in China due to its graphic sexual content， so other issues remain for development of the Chinese

market， which has been unsurprisingly traditional. The same thing happened to Lust， Caution （2007）， Ang Lee’s WWII Shanghai period masterpiece， which was heavy on the Chinese elements， faces， and even

patriotism， but also lots of sex and violence. Django Unchained had nothing to do with China and was cut specifically for access to the Chinese market， yet its release was abruptly delayed for unspecified reasons and the Oscar-nominated film’s eventual performance in China was negligible.

Reform is in the air， however， and Hollywood has historically been a positive player in international diplomacy， but in China rather than Desperate Housewives， they’ve salivated over Prison Break， Two Broke Girls， and The Big Bang Theory.

Although I personally didn’t really like the film as a whole （just one disaster after another）， Gravity marked a high-point in terms of Hollywood’s marketing of China： subtle， positive， there. If you want to label Gravity’s China content propaganda， its message would be： The Chinese are around； they’re our neighbors right over there. They’re capable of building cutting-edge technology. In fact， they built a space station and it has an extra escape pod you’re free to use... Director Alfonso Cuarón is on Hollywood’s A-List.

Contrast that with perceived promotional failures like the China content of Iron Man 3， which was largely mocked by Chinese moviegoers and critics. The film still made a bunch of money in China，but some speculate it could have done even better if the added scenes were more adeptly done or left out completely （they were completely irrelevant to the plot）.

Another glaring mistake was Disney’s High School Musical： China， which with hindsight looks like a failure to grasp the market， a market in which Disney has decades of experience， and has performed very well. As the project progressed， the Chinese partners even foresaw the flop on their hands and pulled out： Chinese teenagers aren’t really as interested in the fun-filled scholastic world of singing and dancing as their American counterparts. Although the film was eventually completed and released in China， it never got any curtain calls. And don’t forget The Karate Kid. Karate is Japanese. Jackie Chan is Chinese. Enough said.

Perhaps the pacesetter of the trend was Kung Fu Panda （and to a lesser extent Disney’s 1998 Mulan before it）. Released in 2008， Kung Fu Panda’s Chinese receipts of $26 million already seem modest by today’s standards， but the film did gross over $400 million in foreign markets compared to about $200 million in its country of origin， the United States. It expertly combined two of China’s most marketable “characteristics” and placed them in a well-scripted family-friendly computer-animation. Reactions from the Chinese film and adolescent animation industries were envious： Why hadn’t they thought to make this film？ Americans in Hollywood did， and raked in over half a billion of dollars globally using Chinese cultural icons. The sequel performed worse in the U.S. market （$165 million） and better abroad （$500 million of which$92 million came from China）， to net about the same revenue as its predecessor. A Chinese animation studio even produced an uninspiring almost “wannabe”version with a rabbit （for a tiny fraction of Kung Fu Panda’s budget， it should be noted）， which thudded resoundingly.

For China’s film industry to ever become a global leader， it needs to be able to produce films that are commercially viable to the global market， which still seems a long way away. Until China produces a film the caliber of Kung Fu Panda， it seems like a choice between heavy Chinese elements or global com- mercial viability. Foreign audiences don’t clamor for China-isms cobbled together， but when depicted expertly （Kung Fu Panda was made by DreamWorks）， they can be as appealing to everyone else as they are in China. Most of the top grossing movies in China in 2013 were made in China and no one else saw them. A gap in the demands of each market exists as it always has. The Chinese film industry is certainly capable of making products which appeal to the Chinese market， which is what their American counterparts seek and have to gain from working together. China is still far away from producing films that appeal to the world， and developing towards this ends is more than reason enough to continue seeking cooperation with Hollywood.

But in the end， any manner of pandering is a substitution for quality. Tastes are different： Many of the most recent Hollywood winners in the Chinese market were action or sci-fi， while the thriving domestic films were lighthearted comedies. James Cameron sells better in China than anyone from either place， but he also does fairly well in the West， or so I’ve heard.