Hollywood and its world influence: How long will it last?

By Tim Oliver

Photograph originally by John Kobal currently on display at the National Portrait Gallery

The turn of the 20th century saw the development of cinema as a technology. It was a technology that continued to develop and, along with it, a desire surfaced to sell and consume it as a means of entertainment. Enter stage left Hollywood with its classical studio system, its stars and its directors all of whom contributed to the construction of cinema as a product. As with any product there is a need for formula which Hollywood offered in its use of narrative structure. The 1930s and 40s saw the ascendancy of narrative cinema and in particular a set of cinematic codes through which a film’s narrative was articulated. Noel Burch (1981) termed this the Institutional Mode of Representation (IMR). The IMR covers everything from cause and effect narrative, to continuity editing to Mise-en-scène.

Hollywood’s IMR offered a platform from which world cinema could be constructed. Whilst I am by no means ignoring the existence of any world cinema before or during Hollywood’s rise to formal dominance, I am suggested that IMR provided a mainstream starting point. For instance Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu would have been aware of the conventions of Hollywood during his film production from the late 1940’s onwards. It is recognised that Ozu produced films that could easily be labelled as Hollywood alternatives; take for example his ‘misuse’ of the 180 degree rule in Tokyo Story (1953) in favour of a 360 degree approach –  a move that affected the continuity of his films. Although Ozu’s films were not in line with prevailing Hollywood conventions, one can suggest that an alternate only arises through digestion and comprehension of the dominant; that the former cannot exist without the latter.

Of course to suggest that Ozu’s filmmaking was nothing more than reactionary is very reductive; importance must also be placed on the cultural context of Ozu’s work. Whilst cross-cultural analysis can be insightful one must be careful with it. Hollywood’s influence on world cinema may predominantly be that it encouraged counter cinema, the alternative, its influence is not necessarily forced to be a formal or stylistic one which is sometimes, given its all-consuming emphasis in the modern-day film society, easy to forget.

Moving on through film history, however, examples emerge of stylistic influences that are perhaps more fashioned out of New Hollywood and the concept of MTV visuals, the music video style. Wong Kar Wai’s Chunkking Express (1994), has many instances of fast editing, uses western music and feels, at points, very Hollywood in its stylistic approach. Similar ideas can be seen in City of God (2002), its borrowing from gangster film conventions and its pulp fiction, portmanteau narrative produce a decidedly western cinematic style.

Naturally this is not a one way process, filmmakers do not live in a cultural vacuum; the boundaries of the modern world are blurred and the concepts surrounding culture are now much more fluid. What then, does world cinema offer Hollywood? If we consider the past decade it would seem that Hollywood’s incessant remakes of Japanese Horror (not to mention the current trend of remaking European art house pictures) would be a good place to start. Hollywood, arguably, currently lacks originality; many of this years blockbusters have been remakes or part of a franchise. It’s even worse when you look at the likes of The Amazing Spider Man scheduled for summer 2012, another reboot, where is the new material? And, furthermore, is a system that is so lacking in new ideas really a formidable influence at an artistic level?

By constantly remaking foreign films for the western market Hollywood seemingly gets the best of both worlds: all the revenue without any of the donkey work. This said, if Hollywood can only source original material from world cinema will Hollywood ever wane in its influence? Probably not given the amount of cold, hard cash they seem to have just lying around in comparison to other countries.

With this in mind it is seemingly more important, and more poignant, than ever for film fans to vote carefully with their pocket. If people keep throwing money at the box offices every time they churn out yet another a remake the everlasting cycle of reheating old material is highly unlikely to stop. Similarly if world cinema doesn’t start to draw bigger audiences it will be forever limited in how far it can develop. To use an oft-recalled quote from a soon-to-be-rebooted franchise: with great power comes great responsibility. How will you use yours?

Advertisements

4 responses to “Hollywood and its world influence: How long will it last?

  1. Mr.Oliver has produced an insightful and powerful read, I would like to see more articles like this in the future. He makes some important points, and his passion for media is clear to see from his technical detail, and commitment to creating an article that flows with ease.

  2. Graeme Macfarlane

    You make a very good point Tim. As a former, avid cinema fan who, before multi-screen facilities, would watch the same film twice if nothing new came to town, I now am very selective in what I choose to see. Save from family pressure I tend to now avoid the re-makes and the franchise films you mention. Yes you can’t fail to be impressed with the technology that comes with these products, however, the whole point of film/cinema is to entertain and tell a story and this is where the product films tend to be lacking. Can the film industry survive? I hope so and so long as the new talent with fresh ideas have access to finance to deliver their promise then yes and Hollywood with its influence and funding has to play a significant part in that.

  3. A very thought provoking approach to Hollywood cinema. A very entertaining read, i look forward to more from Mr. Oliver.

  4. Some inciteful points made particularly in relation to the rehashing of foreign films and the lack of originality of the remakes of films such as Spiderman etc. However, it is worth considering that some of the remakes of old films do modernise classic tales such as the comic book characters with some excellent effects which Hollywood do well and appeal to ‘new’ audiences. Also, populist films such as the Harry Potter and Twilight films are overall true to the original books, and this, they can do well.
    Your point about the lack of originality is a pertinent one, there is a lack of this in Hollywood at present. Their focus does however, appeal to the masses, and they are a money making machine and thus, they churn out what they do to meet this need. Maybe we need to look at British films to create the original films, but as we know, they won’t (unless Richard Curtis is involved!) draw in those world wide audiences that the Hollywood blockbuster does. Hollywood will only diversify if they stop making money.
    Some thought provoking points, Mr.Oliver.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s