Michael Ryan's "Policy and Industry" (Summary)

 

Culture is a complex interplay of creative ideas and their physical realization. This involves talented individuals bringing their concepts to life through various production methods. In the past, gifted music composers relied on wealthy patrons for support while creating their music. Nowadays, figures like Joss Whedon, a prominent television artist, depend on production and distribution companies like Fox to turn their ideas into reality. He learned, with the cancellation of his show "Firefly," that both artistic merit and commercial success are crucial for one's work to thrive. The culture industry, driven by profit, tends to standardize its products to ensure a steady income. Given the substantial financial stakes, any deviation from the norm that proves financially successful will quickly spawn imitations, eventually becoming the new standard. This standardization is also necessary due to the diverse nature of the audience, which varies in educational levels and ability to grasp audiovisual messages. The term "lowest common denominator" is commonly used to describe how the mass culture industry creates products designed to appeal to a wide range of people, often catering to the simplest tastes with straightforward characters, themes, and plotlines. Mass audiences generally prefer to see their existing worldview confirmed rather than challenged. This has resulted in a division in many cultural forms, such as film and music. On one side is mainstream art, characterized by recognizable products that appeal to a broad audience, often by making significant compromises to suit the audience's preferences. On the other side is marginal art, which typically refers to the independent sector or avant-garde, where higher levels of experimental form and innovative themes are possible due to the often smaller, better-educated, and more critically-minded audience, which holds perspectives at odds with mainstream assumptions.

 

In the decades following World War II in the US, films from Europe, Asia, and elsewhere gained popularity among educated audiences despite being made on low budgets with often untrained actors. These films addressed issues overlooked in mainstream Hollywood productions of that era. While American films of the 1950s depicted White suburbia as a world of easily resolved emotional conflicts, films like Satyajit Ray's Apu Trilogy portrayed the challenges of life in poverty-stricken situations with tangible and material problems.  By the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hollywood adapted and began producing more realistic films, such as "Five Easy Pieces," that dealt seriously with human and social issues. The days of simplistic plot resolutions seemed to be over. The repeal of the Production Code in 1968, a policy that restricted the subject matter and treatment of controversial topics in Hollywood films, also paved the way for a more creatively diverse mainstream film production. A change in government policy facilitated a shift in cultural content.

 

However, the US economy faced difficulties in the 1970s, causing the film industry to suffer. To survive, it turned to producing more "blockbuster" films, like "The Godfather," that were guaranteed to generate substantial profits. As a result, US filmmaking became more standardized and mainstream once again. The lowest common denominator returned, evident in film series like "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones," which featured racial and cultural stereotypes that would have been considered unacceptable in films aimed at more educated audiences. With the country adopting a more conservative tone in the 1980s, the film industry responded by creating movies like "Top Gun" that celebrated US military power.

 

 

 

The theory of economic liberalization overlooks the importance of cultural identity and downplays concerns about cultural survival. The French government argued that if the market alone determined what cultural products the French consumed, French productions, especially in film and television, would suffer. They pointed out that American films make up a significant portion of global box office revenue, whereas European films have a smaller presence in the US market. In 1998, the majority of the top-grossing films worldwide were American.

 

American filmmakers excel at efficient storytelling, dedicating minimal time to dialogue unrelated to the storyline. In contrast, French films are known for their dialogue on philosophical and personal matters that may not directly contribute to the narrative. Additionally, American films often have high production values, requiring substantial funding not readily available to filmmakers in other parts of the world.

In 2005, Europeans produced more films than the previous year, while American film production decreased. The increase in public funding for audiovisual production in Europe during this period supports this trend. It's worth considering that cultural preferences may play a role in why American audiences may not be as inclined to watch French films. The focus on national market share doesn't compensate for the absence of a share in international markets. European films only made up 4.9 percent of the US market in 2007, and only 11 percent of those were French. This suggests that French film culture may be more inward-looking, primarily appealing to domestic audiences. Critics argue that this subsidy-driven approach could lead to cultural isolation, as French films may require a deeper understanding of French culture and history to be appreciated. However, this policy has also led to a positive outcome in terms of diversity. Films from regions like Africa, Latin America, and Asia have found a space in the European market that they might not have otherwise had. Between 2002 and 2006, 1,324 new films from these regions were distributed in Europe, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all new titles. This has coincided with an increase in film production in these areas. European policies that limit American market dominance are helping to support filmmaking in regions that lack the financial resources of the US industry.

 

The argument for liberalization assumes that a country's products are superior if they reach a wider audience and generate more revenue. However, this economic argument overlooks two important considerations. Firstly, it disregards the standard used to assess quality. American films achieve global popularity because US filmmakers excel in specific forms of filmmaking that rely on predictable, easily recognizable conventions. These forms are simple and uniform, often resembling cultural stories from around the world. They may not be culturally insular, but they narrow the focus to a limited set of life concerns, lacking complexity.

 

Secondly, preserving cultural diversity worldwide is crucial. European policies safeguard domestic culture industries, promoting diversity by protecting cultural forms that might fade away if forced to compete on equal terms with more financially powerful players like the US film industry. Without these protections, only a few who could mimic the US model of success might survive, while those favoring complex narratives, unconventional characters, and critical themes might struggle. This could lead to a significant uniformity in global culture.

 

This  debate revolves around the question of value. Which do we prioritize more – an economic model that emphasizes maximum freedom for powerful players, potentially leading to market domination, or the goal of preserving diverse cultural traditions solely for their intrinsic worth, without needing economic justification? If a global monoculture were to emerge, with only US films prevailing due to their success in reaching a widespread audience, would that be desirable? Would it be justified solely because it was financially lucrative for American owners of the US film industry? Like many things, it boils down to a matter of choice.