Media pundits, both East and West, have been locking horns about Hollywood’s attempts to appeal to the “Chollywood” market. Will China’s “soft opening” to Western media create greater opportunities for Hollywood studios to market their wares inside the communist behemoth, or will it merely make it easier for US directors and screenwriters to self-censor and make movies for the China market that do not probe social or political issues at all?
When interviewed by the Los Angeles Times a few years back, Stanley Rosen, director of the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California, said he was concerned that “a generation of movie-goers could emerge with a skewed, sanitized view of China in which human-rights abuses and even the grittiness of everyday life are swept under the rug.”
He more or less said the same thing the other day when interviewed live on CNN International by Hong Kong anchor Anna Coren. The two held a five-minute discussion about the topic with Coren’s questions informed and to the point and Cohen’s answers unflinching and direct.
During a one-hour presentation at the Josef Korbel School for International Studies in March, Rosen pretty much dished the dirt on how China is seeking to promote both nationalism and internationalism — and if it is possible — also promote both Confucian values and modern-day materialism hand in hand.
Sterling Wong raised a pertinent point about this issue last month: “Hollywood is looking to exploit the growing Chinese market, but some worry about the undue influence China will have on American movies.”
Remember that old saw? “China produces, America consumes”? In the movie industry, it is the other way round, with movies made in communist China mostly treated as oddities or as art films in the West, but all this could change if China gets the upper hand and dominates the movie business worldwide, too.
However, Rosen told me that he sees both positive and negative aspects to Chinese policies, domestically as well as internationally.
“I think China’s opening to the West and the goal of promoting its ‘soft power’ is definitely real, but I don’t really see it as a threat,” Rosen told me in a recent e-mail after his CNN appearance. “Every country tries to promote its views using ‘soft power’ and it’s not surprising that China would try to do it as its power increases, but — as I meant to say in my recent comments via Skype to CNN International’s Anna Coren — promoting ‘soft power,’ even with Hollywood’s cooperation, is difficult if a country’s policies are too far out of step with prevailing global norms.”
“The real issue may be whether long-prevailing global norms — associated primarily with the West — change and become closer to the “Chinese model” of growth and international relations, along with a rather different set of values than Western values. We like to associate our values with universal values, but China is questioning much of that,” Rosen said.
So will Beijing’s “soft opening” to the West create more opportunities for Hollywood studios to market their wares inside China, or will it merely make it easier for US and British directors and screenwriters to self-censor and make “China-friendly” movies for the China market that do not probe social or political issues at all?
Sure, Beijing is using “soft power” to seduce the West, but remember this is one of the most brutal regimes the world has ever seen, “hard power” and all — just ask the Tibetans or Ai Weiwei (艾未未).
So, Hollywood players, be careful what you wish for.
Dan Bloom is a writer in Chiayi.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under