Film quota on Hollywood films

During a news conference in Seoul to promote his new film Curse of the Golden Flower, Zhang Yimou stressed the need for Asian countries to work closely together to compete with Hollywood. As I read this article, the issue of film quotas crossed my mind.

South Korea, France, Italy, and I believe China are countries with film quotas that maximize the amount of time domestic movies are shown in theaters, while limiting the amount of time Hollywood films are shown.

Proponents of the film quota argue that it helps safeguard the development of the local film industry by keeping domestic moviegoers attuned to their cultural identity via cinema. Preventing Hollywood from gaining a huge market share not only allows local filmmakers to concentrate on making better quality films, but it also helps curb some of the excesses found in Hollywood films.

Opponents of the film quota argue that moviegoers should be allowed to choose whatever movie they want to watch. Government or the film industry should not interfere with people's freedom of choice. A film quota would run contrary to a free market system where demand should dictate supply and not the other way around, in the cinematic sense.

One reason why the Korean film industry was able to mature to its current state was because of the film quota that has been in place for 40 years. The maturation has led some opponents of the film quota to say that Korea no longer needs a quota because Korean films can now compete with Hollywood films. Despite this assertion, the recent reduction in the film quota in South Korea has met fierce opposition from filmmakers and actors, who worry that the current competitiveness of local films will not last if Hollywood is allowed to make further inroads into the film market.

France and Italy (two countries with strong cinematic traditions), and Iran have strongly backed South Korea's quota system.

Do you think it is a good idea for countries to adopt film quotas to boost the domestic film industry to allow the nurturing of local films? Or do you think the ultimate decision whether to watch a local movie or a Hollywood film should rest with the moviegoer based on free market principles?

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/culture/200701/kt2007012119531211690.htm

Chinese director Zhang Yimou, whose earlier films were critically acclaimed as small but powerful human dramas, will release a blockbuster film, ``Curse of the Golden Flowers,’’ here this week.

He said he produced the commercial blockbuster to compete with Hollywood films.

``The number of Chinese people who watch Chinese films are now on the decrease, while the market share of Hollywood films in China is on the increase. To tackle the problem and compete with Hollywood films, I decided to make movies with more commercial potential,’’ Zhang said Thursday during a news conference at the Imperial Palace Hotel in southern Seoul....

A big fan of Korean films, Zhang also expressed his hope to work with Korean actors.

``I’ve seen many Korean films. I think there are a lot of talented Korean actors, and I want to work with them if there is a good script, which could help us cope with the language barrier. It doesn’t really matter if it is the Korean wave or the Chinese wave. I think Asian countries need to work closely together to compete with Hollywood films,’’ Zhang said.

An old article:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=17&art_id=4720&sid=5280518&con_type=1

Hollywood blockbusters that can go international generally are visually oriented and with very little dialogue (easier to translate). In the US, such movies are designed for the 15- to 25-year-old market. Older audiences in the US tend to like movies with more of a story and interesting characters, which is why these action-oriented blockbusters come out in the summer months when school kids are on vacation and the more substantive story-oriented movies (often Oscar contenders) come out during the Christmas seasons when adults, as well as kids, are off from work and want to see movies.

What's the relevance of this for the Chinese market? Well, the Chinese market have a similar logic. Younger audiences like visual movies. Older audiences want story movies. Since Hollywood story movies don't translate well, they tend not to be exported. Zhang Yimou and other Asian directors really don't have to worry about Hollywood if they want to make story movies. As for why Korean movies are so successful, I think it's because with the fall of the dictatorship, Korean writers and directors have been free to produce stories that are meaningful to the public. Mainland directors don't have that privilege, which is why Zhang Yimou and other mainland directors have largely abandoned story movies and are concentrating on visual movies nowadays.

Movies in the mainland are suffering because movie tickets are too expensive. In Shanghai and Beijing, it's often US$7-10 a ticket, this when the average salary is still US$200/month. No wonder people just buy those 50-cent pirated DVDs and watch at home. The movie studio make nothing from the pirated DVDs, of course, and so they have to chase after the small market of urban elites who can afford to go to the theater.

Here's a good article on China's movie import quota system from Variety, Hollywood's trade paper.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117935348.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Quota fix leaves H'wood hanging

Studios vow to wow China gradually

China's quota system is riddled with exceptions and uneven application. For instance, 21 films from [Motion Pictures Association] studios were released on a revenue-sharing basis in 2005, not the strict 20 that many believe applies.

Hollywood's ambassadors have learned not to bother presenting films of genres that China Film does not expect Chinese auds to go for. In addition to horror, most U.S. comedy is out, although family-oriented laffers such as "Cheaper by the Dozen" and "Big Momma's House" were successfully released, and both have sequels hoping for play in 2006.

UIP presents films by Universal subsidiary Working Title as British and this year [2005] secured berths for "Wimbledon" and "Thunderbirds" in addition to Working Title/Mirage Entertainment's "The Interpreter" and Par's "War of the Worlds." Warner Bros. delivered "A Very Long Engagement," the only non English-language pic to get a quota release in 2005. Given the state of Sino-Japanese political relations, it seems unlikely that a Japanese film will qualify for revenue-share release any time soon, though animal drama "Quill" went out on a flat fee basis this year.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HL02Cb02.html

Curtains for foreign cinemas?

By Aventurina King

Well, the Chinese market have a similar logic. Younger audiences like visual movies. Older audiences want story movies. Since Hollywood story movies don't translate well, they tend not to be exported. Zhang Yimou and other Asian directors really don't have to worry about Hollywood if they want to make story movies. As for why Korean movies are so successful, I think it's because with the fall of the dictatorship, Korean writers and directors have been free to produce stories that are meaningful to the public. Mainland directors don't have that privilege, which is why Zhang Yimou and other mainland directors have largely abandoned story movies and are concentrating on visual movies nowadays.

Well said Gato!

I think the market should sort it out, but I understand the sentiments behind limiting Hollywood movies. Personally, I think it might be best for small countries to fund their movie industries to help them compete. Also, even if you keep Hollywood out of the theaters, people can still probably find the movies they want on DVD's and on the Internet.

The worst case scenario is to hurt market access a country's already thriving movie center (Hong Kong), and then killing off creative local movies through the heavy hands of a commitee of 60-year-old, un-elected Propaganda ministers who wouldn't understand art if it bit them in the arse. Hollywood couldn't ask for better case scenario!

By the way, one day I was scanning the Internet for reviews of Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat", and I came across this review by an economist who slams the book. He also talks about the economics of why Hollywood is dominating (page 4-7).

http://www.uclaforecast.com/reviews/Leamer_FlatWorld_060221.pdf

I think there are two issues at work simultaneously. On the one hand, there is the desire to restrict foreign movies for economical reasons - in this case, regulation should be treated no different then trade barriers for, say, foreign car makers. On the other hand, there is the desire to protect the countries' own culture from Americanization. If that was the case, one might wonder why such import restrictions do not exist for works of literature (or coffee shops, for that matter.)

Literature: perhaps because it's expensive to publish a foreign book? One has to pay the translator, and that might be more expensive than just bringing out a book by a local writer. Translating movies, especially movies with little dialogue, is much cheaper. Also, the market for literature is much more free than the movie market. If someone would write a book that, say, only 10,000 people are interested in, they can still sell it, and all those people could buy or at least order the book, even if they would live in Xinjiang or Hainan or Germany or wherever. But if someone would make a movie that only 10,000 people would want to see, which theater would play it?

And this is also a reason why I think it is a good idea to have a quota for Hollywood movies, at least in theaters. They are so easy, and the big studios in Hollywood have so much money to promote them, that it is very hard for local movies to compete with them. And there is not much of a free market for movies: the movie theaters decide what we are going to see. In Holland, there is no quota, and the result is that about four Hollywood movies play in every single cinema in the country, and that who wants to see something else (something better) had better live in Amsterdam or Den Haag or they have to undertake a real quest for it.

Coffee shops: perhaps because it's easier to count movies than to count coffee...