Recent
acquisitions of Hollywood studios by Chinese media corporations — in particular
Dalian Wanda’s purchasing spree in the US screen industry — have caused a US
panic over ‘a Chinese Communist takeover of Hollywood’.
In September 2016, 16 members of US Congress issued a letter that
called for closer scrutiny of Chinese media investment, expressing ‘growing
concerns’ of Chinese efforts to exert ‘propaganda controls on American media’.
Back in
2015, the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission also released a report which
concluded that ‘with an eye toward distribution in China, American filmmakers increasingly edit films in anticipation of
Chinese censors’ many potential sensitivities’.
Chinese
companies’ high-profile investment in Hollywood studios and US cinemas is
unprecedented in US–China film and business exchanges. The most remarkable
cases include Alibaba’s latest partnership
with Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Partners, Dalian Wanda Group’s latest purchase
of Dick Clark Productions for US$1 billion, as well as its acquisitions of
Legendary Entertainment for US$3.5 billion and Carmike Cinemas for US$1.1
billion, and Bona Film Group’s US$235 million investment
in a slate of 20th Century Fox movies.
These moves
have left many Americans with the impression that Chinese firms are going to conquer the
US screen industry. Such a ‘Red Scare’ is not new: it is symbolic of a Cold War
mentality. China and the United States are two countries with fundamental
disparities in political ideologies and cultural values as well as an uneasy
historical relationship. To some, China’s ascendance as a global power
threatens both US values and its way of life. Compared with similar 1970s acquisitions
of US companies by the Japanese — a key Asian ally — China’s expansion seems
more frightening to the average American.
China does
have its own agenda. This expansion into the US industry is part of its
long-practiced strategy of ‘going to sea by borrowing a boat’ — taking
advantage of Hollywood resources to transform its domestic film industry,
export Chinese culture and enhance its soft power.
For example,
Wanda’s acquisitions of Hollywood studios are often considered overpriced or
financially risky, but these moves are just the first step for Wanda to take a
strong foothold in the market. According to Husam Sam Asi, a UK Screen
reporter, within 18 months of
Wanda spending US$800 million to purchase the financially struggling AMC
entertainment, it turned AMC into a profitable company valued at US$1.7 billion
by extending the business into China and restructuring the company. Wanda’s
purchase of Legendary Entertainment also helped it to produce its latest
blockbuster co-production The Great Wall. Wanda’s partnership with Sony could
empower it to beat Disney in its theme park business. With this transfer of
knowledge and capital, the Chinese industry can learn, grow and further expand
its influence.
So is the
US’s Red Scare mentality justified? The answer is a firm no and there are
several reasons why.
First, those
caught up in Red Scare ideology are ignorant of the drastic changes that have
taken place in Chinese society and the Chinese state over the past 30 years.
China has become gradually integrated into the global market economy system and
now follows the rules of the WTO. To a large degree, communism and socialism in
China have become merely rhetoric and Beijing now utilises much of the
‘Washington Consensus’ in terms of its market economy.
Chinese-style ‘socialism’ and Western-style capitalism are no longer mutually
exclusive.
Second,
those critics underestimate the checking power of the market economy, and how
commodified the nature of the film industry is. China’s domestic film industry
has been transformed into a profit-driven cultural industry rather than a propagandistic tool
for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Film is a market product, and its value
depends on its sales and the audience’s tastes. Even if the CCP intends to
promote Chinese soft power via the film industry, obvious and clichéd
propaganda does not work in China, let alone in the United States. Without
market value, film can hardly create cultural values or exert further
influence.
Third,
Chinese companies’ aggressive expansion will have a head-on collision with the
US’ mature market economy, established industrial structure and rule of law,
which will constrain and limit excessively unethical business practices.
So what are
the possible outcomes from the increasing sprawl of Chinese companies in the US
screen industry?
First and
least plausibly, Chinese companies could conduct massive acquisitions of US
companies and studios, exercise a complete takeover of Hollywood and launch a
mass wave of communist propaganda.
Second,
Congress could check the spread of Chinese companies and shut the free trade
door. This is possible but a highly unlikely scenario. US companies need money
— with which China is rich — whereas China wants the advanced filmmaking
technologies and story-telling techniques possessed by US companies. The latest
loosening of the quota
on film imports by China and the possibility of the increase in revenue-sharing
imports by 2017–18 speaks to China’s growing need for Hollywood movies.
Third and
most plausibly, the United States and China continue to collaborate.
Collaboration between the two countries can be interdependent and mutually
beneficial. It can not only transform both industries and create new business
models, but also transform the Chinese state and the CPP. Ultimately it is the
market economy that rules, and money talks.
Wendy Su is
an Associate Professor at the Media and Cultural Studies Faculty, University of
California, Riverside.
No comments:
Post a Comment