UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
Home away from home : global directors of new Hollywood
Behlil, M.
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Behlil, M. (2007). Home away from home : global directors of new Hollywood Amsterdam: in eigen beheer
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),
other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating
your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask
the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)
Download date: 17 Jun 2017
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:44
Page 1
HOME AWAY FROM HOME
GLOBAL DIRECTORS OF NEW HOLLYWOOD
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus
prof. dr J.W. Zwemmer
ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties
ingestelde comissie,
in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit
op dinsdag 26 juni 2007, te 14:00 uur
door
Melis Behlil
geboren te Istanbul, Turkije
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
Promotiecommissie
14:44
Page 2
HOME AWAY FROM HOME
Promotor:
Prof. dr. T.P. Elsaesser
Overige Commissieleden:
Prof. dr. W. Fluck
Prof. dr. R. Kroes
Prof. dr. P.P.R.W. Pisters
Prof. dr. K. Robins
Dr. J.A.A. Simons
GLOBAL DIRECTORS OF NEW HOLLYWOOD
Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen
Melis Behlil
to my mother, and the memory of my father
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:44
Page 4
0. Introduction; or How a Turkish PhD Candidate Studying in the Netherlands Chose to
Write a Dissertation on Hollywood 7
1. Starting Out: Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Aliens of Extraordinary Ability 13
Brief History of Foreign Talent in Hollywood
Talent Flows in ‘New’ Hollywood 24
Existing Paradigms 26
Contemporary Patterns 28
Conclusion 33
13
19
2. Looking at the Bigger Picture: Hollywood and the World
Discourses of Globalization 45
Changing Paradigms of New Hollywood 47
Hollywood and Labor 51
Hollywood and the Others 56
Runaway Destinations 57
New Waves and Rising Stars 59
Outsiders and Competitors 62
Conclusion 65
45
3. A View to a Franchise: James Bond Films, Co-Productions and Franchises
Why Bond? 77
Meeting Mr. Bond 79
Bond History 82
The New Bond and the Newer Bond 84
Other Franchises 86
Conclusion 87
4. Let Me Rephrase That: Autoremakes across the World
Why Remake? 94
European Autoremakes 96
‘Asian Invasion’ 98
Conclusion 102
93
77
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:44
Page 6
0. Introduction; or, How a Turkish PhD Candidate Studying in the
Netherlands Chose to Write a Dissertation on Hollywood.
5. I Want My MTV and My MP3: Advertising, Music and Film Industries
Why Advertising? 110
Globalization of Advertising and Media 110
The Scott Empire 113
Advertising and Music Videos: A New Aesthetics 115
Conclusion 118
6. Conclusion: Where Do We Go From Here? 125
Globalizing Hollywood 126
Globalizing Business 129
Hollywood the Brand 130
After Hollywood 134
New Rules of the Game - Still “The American Way”?
Bibliography
145
Appendix - List of Directors
Nederlandse Samenvatting
Acknowledgments
171
164
169
137
109
My earliest memory of going to the movies is of SUPERMAN (Richard Donner,
1978). This must have been at the end of 1979, when the film appeared on the
screens in Istanbul, eleven months after its US release. It was a different time; films
were not released simultaneously across the world, and there were no pirate copies
on every street corner. For many of the urban filmgoers of my generation in Turkey,
SUPERMAN was either the first film seen in a movie theater, or at least it was among
the most significant1. This was partly due to the limited choice available for viewing
at the time. In November 1979, Superman was released in Turkey along with
twenty-four other films. While this may seem like a large number of films to choose
from, many of these were popular sex comedies with titles like DÖRT SICAK YATAK
(FOUR HOT BEDS), AILEDE BÝR BAKÝRE (A VIRGIN IN THE FAMILY), SEKS TEKNÝÐÝ
(SEX TECHNIQUE) and KADINLAR APTAL DEÐÝLDÝR (WOMEN ARE NOT STUPID)2.
Another popular genre of the period was the ‘arabesk’ melodramas, several of
which were released that month. These were low-budget musicals with a singer in
the lead role, and served as vehicles to promote the singers, whose songs were
heavily Arab-influenced in terms of music. These songs and the films told of painful
love stories, and were aimed mainly at the recent internal migrants from rural areas
into the cities3. With the decline of Turkish cinema in the late seventies, audiences
diminished, and the remaining ‘family audiences’ seemed to prefer Hollywood
films. Among the foreign fare released in November 1979 were one Italian-West
German co-produced erotic thriller and several Hollywood productions from
previous years4. It was under these circumstances that I saw SUPERMAN in Istanbul,
as a small child with my parents, in a now-defunct movie theater. I was amazed by
the special effects, especially by how the hero really seemed to be flying. Superman
may have stood for “Truth, justice, and the American way”; but to me it was simply
wonderful adventures and the smile of Christopher Reeve.
Of course, I was also unaware of the place SUPERMAN would hold in film history.
The first of many super-hero films to come over the next decades, SUPERMAN is
furthermore considered to be among the leaders of the blockbuster era of
Hollywood. As the most popular comic book character, with animations, film
serials, TV series and a Broadway musical already produced5, SUPERMAN was a presold commodity that had practically guaranteed its audiences. Heralded by its
producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind as one of the most expensive movies ever
made, SUPERMAN’s budget of US$40 million promised its audiences a lavish
spectacle with big stars and state-of-the-art special effects6. But perhaps even more
importantly, and typically of the later Hollywood blockbusters, the film was being
produced and released by Warner Bros., the owner of which, Warner
Communications Inc. (WCI), had purchased ten years earlier DC Comics, publisher
of the Superman adventures. Not only did this deal facilitate the development of the
project, but it also allowed other merchandising possibilities within the
conglomerate. The Licensing Corporation of America, a WCI subsidiary, allocated
merchandising rights to major companies like Bristol Meyers, General Foods,
7
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 8
Pepsico, Lever Bros. and Gillette7. Warner Books issued eight Superman-related
titles, and Warner Records released a soundtrack album as well as two singles, while
another Warner subsidiary, Atari, brought out a Superman pinball machine8. This
was one of the first instances of synergy at work, which only increased over the
subsequent years as all Hollywood studios became part of larger media
conglomerates.
In his introduction to Hollywood Abroad, Richard Maltby discusses the
reception of Hollywood productions by audiences across the globe, and the extent
to which these films are construed as ‘American’. He argues that throughout its
history, Hollywood has been identified as ‘American’ largely by its competitors, and
by European cultural nationalists, while American supporters, as well as critics of
Hollywood “do not perceive these products as part of a specifically national
culture.”9 This is a sentiment echoed by more and more film scholars, especially in
recent years. Andrew Higson has argued that Hollywood, in addition to being “the
most internationally powerful cinema”, has been “for many years […] an integral
and naturalized part of the national culture, or the popular imagination, of most
countries in which cinema is an established entertainment form”10. My watching of
SUPERMAN as a child was a part of this naturalization; how they could make
Superman fly was among the hottest topics of debate at my elementary school in
Istanbul11. However, my early acquaintance with Hollywood is not the main reason
why I choose to study it within an academic context. I am a Turkish citizen who has
been educated within the German, US, and Dutch systems; and who has lived in the
US, Netherlands, Hungary and Turkey. Globalization is not just a buzzword for me;
it is part of who I am. And Hollywood is among the showcases for this
phenomenon, in terms of production, distribution, exhibition, as well as reception.
As Thomas Elsaesser and Warren Buckland have pointed out, “Hollywood cinema
is a world industry, just as much as it is a world language, a powerful, stable,
perfected system of visual communication”12. Thus, it is common that this world
industry is studied by citizens of the world, regardless of location or nationality.
My fascination with Hollywood’s global directors grew out of these interests in
Hollywood and globalization. While I was writing my MA thesis on DutchHollywood director Paul Verhoeven, I noticed that many of the new classics of
Hollywood had been directed by non-Americans. I already knew that Hollywood
had been a center of attraction for foreign directors from its earliest days. The
studios handed these directors all kinds of films, ranging from frivolous comedies
to ‘problem pictures’, from ‘weepies’ to action-adventure films. However, the films
that have been embedded in the public’s mind have been largely those of the émigré
generation, of those directors who have migrated to the US from Europe before the
Second World War. It is easier to categorize these directors, since they have been
largely credited with giving rise to the film-noir style13. Films like DOUBLE
INDEMNITY (Billy Wilder, 1944), LAURA (Otto Preminger, 1944), THE WOMAN IN
THE WINDOW (Fritz Lang, 1945), MILDRED PIERCE (Michael Curtiz, 1945), DETOUR
(Edgar G. Ulmer, 1945) and THE KILLERS (Robert Siodmak, 1946) have cemented
the image of the dark Hollywood films directed by Europeans.
In the more recent decades, there have been other names that garnered attention,
for instance Ridley and Tony Scott from the UK, Ang Lee from Taiwan, John Woo
from Hong Kong, Roland Emmerich and Wolfgang Petersen from Germany, and
Paul Verhoeven from the Netherlands. The cinema-going public might know that
BLADE RUNNER (Ridley Scott, 1982) INDEPENDENCE DAY (Roland Emmerich,
1996), STARSHIP TROOPERS (Paul Verhoeven, 1997) or FACE/OFF (John Woo, 1997)
have been directed by a foreign director, even though this is not really an attribute
that is highlighted in the marketing of any film. It is very unlikely, however, that
anyone in the audience should be aware that the following films were their nonAmerican directors’ Hollywood debuts: the seventh installment of the series STAR
TREK: GENERATIONS (David Carson, 1994), the martial-arts genre movie DOUBLE
TEAM (Hark Tsui, 1997) Oscar-nominated racial conflict drama MONSTER’S BALL
(Marc Forster, 2001), and the comedy hit LEGALLY BLONDE (Robert Luketic,
2001)14. Incidentally, SUPERMAN is indeed directed by an American director, but it
came very close to not being so. The film was initially to be shot in Italy by the
British director Guy Hamilton, renowned for his James Bond films. However, when
production was moved to the UK, the director’s native country, he had to step down
because of tax issues. James Bond, runaway productions and tax issues are all
themes that will re-emerge in the following pages.
The films above are only a few of the dozens of Hollywood titles directed by
global filmmakers every year, and clearly, they have no thematic or stylistic
resemblance to one another; other than being a part of the Hollywood system. This
shift that I noticed from earlier eras to the present has convinced me to take up this
topic as my dissertation subject, and has resulted in this book. In the following
chapters, I will be looking at Hollywood as a global site of production as well as a
center of attraction for foreign talent throughout its history. I will discuss other
regional and national filmmaking centers and their relationship vis-à-vis
Hollywood. Throughout the case studies, I will look at various strategies employed
by Hollywood (and the foreign directors) to make cooperation possible. Hopefully,
my research will shed a new light on some of the notions taken for granted in
discussions of Hollywood, and thereby provide a clearer understanding of the
workings of global cinema. The title of the book is suggested by a quotation from
British producer Sir David Puttnam. Describing the first day he went to America in
1963, he says he felt that “part of [him] was coming home”15. I will argue that for
many of the directors examined in this book, Hollywood is a part of their cinematic
identities, therefore a ‘home away from home’.
9
Introduction
Global Directors of New Hollywood
8
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 10
Endnotes
1 I came to this conclusion not only from personal experience, but from discussions on
various online film forums: <http://www.beyazperde.com/mesaj/294401>,
<http://www.sinemafanatik.com/yabbse/index.php? threadid=8718>,
<http://sozluk.sourtimes.org>.
2 Out of 195 films produced in Turkey in 1979, 131 were based on sex. Agah Özgüç:
Türlerle Türk Sinemasý [Turkish Cinema Genres]. Istanbul: Dünya Kitaplarý, 2005: 150.
3 Two leading sources for discussion on arabesk culture are: Martin Stokes: The Arabesk
debate: music and musicians in modern Turkey. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992 and Meral
Özbek: “Arabesk Culture: A Case of Modernization and Popular Identity.” In Sibel
Bozdoðan, Reþat Kasaba (ed.s) Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey.
Seattle: University of Washington Press: 1997, 211-232. Late seventies are considered to
be the end of the ‘Yeþilçam’ era of the sixties, when Turkey had a strong film industry
with about 200 films a year. Sex comedies and ‘arabesk’ films are often seen as the main
culprits behind the public’s shying away from the theaters.
4 Considering these were more adult fare such as ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN (Pakula,
1976), THE DEEP (Yates, 1977) and THE DEER HUNTER (Cimino, 1979); my parents would
have been hard-pressed to find suitable entertainment for their children.
5 In 1941, 1948, 1952, and 1966, respectively.
6 Les Daniels: Superman: The Complete History: The Life and Times of the Man of Steel.
San Francisco: Chronicle Books LLC, 2004: 139
7 Justin Wyatt: “From Roadshowing to Saturation Release: Majors, Independents, and
Marketing / Distribution Innovations”. In Jon Lewis (ed.) The New American Cinema.
Durham & London: Duke University Press, 1998: 65-86, here 81.
8 “Merchandising New Abracadabra of Cinematic Showmanship”. In Variety, 23..8.1978:
6; Tom Shone: Blockbuster. How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Summer. New York: Simon & Shuster, 2004: 99.
9 Richard Maltby: “Introduction: ‘The Americanization of the World’”. In Melvyn
Stokes; Richard Maltby (ed.s) Hollywood Abroad. Audiences and Cultural Exchange.
London: British Film Institute, 2004: 1-20, here 5.
10 Andrew Higson: “The concept of national cinema”. In Screen, vol. 30, no. 4, Autumn
1989: 36-46, here 39.
11 I found out later that Superman had literally become a part of the Turkish film culture
already in the sixties. See the following adaptations / remakes: SÜPERMEN FANTOMA’YA
KARÞI [SUPERMAN VS. FANTOMA] (Kayahan Arýkan, 1969), SÜPERMEN GELIYOR
[SUPERMAN IS COMING] (Volkan Kayhan, 1972), SÜPERMENLER [SUPERMEN] (Italo
Martinenghi, 1979) and SÜPERMEN DÖNÜYOR [SUPERMAN RETURNS] (Kunt Tulgar, 1979);
where the latter predates its Hollywood namesake by 27 years.
12 Thomas Elsaesser, Warren Buckland: Studying Contemporary American Films: A
Guide to Movie Analysis. London: Arnold Publishers, 2002: 4
13 The role of the émigré directors in the birth of film noir has been discussed in many
articles and books. See the following books on film history: Kirsten Thompson and David
Bordwell: Film History, An Introduction. International Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill,
2003: 234; David Cook: A History of Narrative Film. Third Edition. New York and
London: W.W. Norton, 1996: 451; Phil Hardy: ‘Crime Movies”. In Geoffrey NowellSmith (ed.) The Oxford History of World Cinema. London: Oxford University Press,
1997: 304-312, here 308.
14 Carson is British, Forster is Swiss, Luketic is from Australia and Tsui is from Hong
Kong.
15 David Puttnam: Movies and Money. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998: 265.
11
Introduction
Global Directors of New Hollywood
10
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:44
Page 12
1. Starting Out: Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Aliens of Extraordinary Ability
While the concepts of my topic may appear to be simple, it is nonetheless
worthwhile to start by clarifying my terms and definitions. The directors in question
here are those who hold the nationality of a country other than the US. Admittedly,
I was unable to research the current nationality status of every director involved, so
I have included every filmmaker who was born and raised outside of the US. Some
of these have later become US citizens, or hold dual citizenship. Essentially, my
categorization is one that hinges on the question of nationality and citizenship.
Hence, directors with famed roots outside the States, such as the Italian-Americans
Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola are not a part of this research. I am
interested in filmmakers who have had to obtain a visa permit to enter the US in
order to make films. ‘Aliens of extraordinary ability’ is the official term used by the
US Immigration Services for people “with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts,
education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field
through extensive documentation”2. This definition will apply to the objects of this
study as well. However, whether these directors really are ‘aliens’ in terms of being
alien and therefore foreign to the Hollywood style of filmmaking presents a
different issue. As I have just pointed out, I believe that the distinction between
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
This project about directorial talent in Hollywood starts out with an analytical
question. The initial goal is to see how we can position this blockbuster-era global
talent within a wider historical context of ‘émigré’ directors in Hollywood. I have
set off to answer this question through the analysis of the data I have collected.
However, while considering various answers, I noticed that a second, more complex
issue had arisen: What does the flow of this talent tell us about cinema in the
globalized world, especially vis-à-vis the positions of Hollywood and various
national cinemas? In the following pages, I will extend my inquiry by also
examining the relationship between Hollywood and its ‘other’s, as well as emerging
patterns in world cinema in relation to filmmakers. My use of the word ‘global’
directors instead of ‘émigré’ or even ‘foreign’ is deliberate, due to a number of
reasons. I will not employ the term ‘émigré’, since I aim to distinguish my work
from the research done about the earlier generation of filmmakers who emigrated to
the US in the 1930s and the early 1940s, also because ‘émigré’ connotes an act of
relocating for good, and leaving the old country behind. Many of the directors,
especially in the post-1975 era, have chosen to move between countries1. The use of
‘foreign’ to describe these filmmakers has been quite common in the last decades.
After all, many film professionals work on films in Hollywood, outside of their
nation of origin; and to do so, they need a special permit to enter and work in the
US, as I will describe below. Nonetheless, while the filmmakers I am concerned with
are initially identified by their nationality as ‘foreign’, I will demonstrate that this
foreignness does not go beyond a basic preliminary identification.
13
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 14
‘native’ and ‘foreign’ are no longer clear categorizations when it comes to studying
Hollywood, thus I will prefer using ‘global’ as the key adjective in my discussions
of the filmmakers in question. I will demonstrate throughout these pages that
Hollywood is no longer a national cinema - and it is debatable if it ever has been,
and notions of emigration no longer apply to ‘foreign’ talent in Hollywood. If
Hollywood is indeed a global and transnational cinema, one should not even talk of
‘foreign’ talent, since Hollywood cannot be construed as the total other, and “since
so much of any nation’s film culture is implicitly ‘Hollywood’”3. Hence, the use of
‘foreign’ in this book will be mostly in relation to the discussions of earlier
generations, and will be replaced with ‘global’ in contemporary debates.
While not only directors, but talent from all sections of the film industry have
chosen to work for Hollywood, I have chosen to focus on directors alone. This is not
a decision made solely on auteuristic convictions. In the early days of Hollywood,
directors, apart from a few exceptions, were seen more as technicians who would
fulfill the vision of the studio and the producer. With the fall of the studio system,
producers had to become more involved with dealmaking and retreat from the
actual production process, while directors filled their void. Although the director is
largely regarded as the leading creative force behind a project, his / her control over
production is fragile. Additionally, in a Hollywood studio project, there are so many
steps leading up to the green lighting, many of the creative choices are already made
before the director comes on board and the actual production process begins4. In
certain cases, what the directors do provide is their name, for marketing purposes of
the film. Although Hollywood studios may tend to import famous names, these
names tend to get blurred after their arrival; and furthermore, many of the directors
are not well-known to begin with. The handful of directors who are famous before
they start working for Hollywood, like Woo, Emmerich, or Verhoeven, are the
names everyone remembers, overshadowing dozens of other, lesser-known
directors. It is quite interesting to note that while very few directors have been
promoted with their national backgrounds, most directors’ nationality is never
brought into the spotlight5. The existing literature on flows of foreign directors, as I
will discuss briefly, provides me with a structure, although it is wanting in various
aspects. Looking at directors specifically will not only provide me with a historical
consistency and a framework, but it will also question the very nature of the position
of directors. Additionally, categorization of directors by nationality will challenge
the straight-forward definitions of citizenship. Films are also often categorized by
their nationality, which is in part defined by the nationality of their directors, but this
task has proven to become increasingly difficult in the age of co-productions and
transnational corporations, as I will examine shortly.
To narrow my focus, I have chosen to concentrate on the period after the mid1970s, what some scholars have termed the ‘New Hollywood’6. In terms of
corporate structures, this is the Hollywood of blockbusters, of mergers and
acquisitions, and of giant media conglomerates. In terms of style, this is the postclassical, post-fordist, global Hollywood. In the post-WWII era, Hollywood studios,
which had formed an invincible oligopoly from the 1920s on, faced a number of
challenges. To begin with, the labor strike of 1945 resulted in a 25% increase in
wages the following year, directly increasing costs. Taxes levied upon American
films first in Hollywood’s largest overseas market, Britain, were followed by taxes
in other countries, resulting in a steep decline of revenues. Even more crucially, in
1948, the Paramount decision by the US Supreme Court demanded that the vertical
control exercised by the studios over rights of production, distribution and
exhibition be dismantled. This court decision was the result of a long struggle by the
independent exhibitors and the US government to end the monopolistic practices
employed by the majors. All major studios were required to divest themselves of
their exhibition arms, which were their profit centers. To face the diminishing
profits, studios geared towards fewer productions, which led to a bigger change in
the system. Filmmaking personnel was no longer on a payroll; individual projects
were put together by producers and brokered through agents, slowly changing the
power structures in the industry. ‘New’ waves in European cinema, led by
Neorealism in Italy, and technical advancements facilitating location shoots added
momentum to these changes. In the 1950s, blacklisting practices caused by the
HUAC (House Committee on Un-American Activities) prosecutions and the
growing popularity of television left the American film industry in a difficult
position. One should note that while these factors are heterogeneous, ranging from
economic to political and aesthetic, their combination entirely transformed the
filmmaking landscape in Hollywood.
It was only in the 1970s that the studios started to return to their glory days,
thanks not only to the lucrative blockbusters they released, but also to acquisition
activities by large media conglomerates. While there have been various changes in
the industry, primarily related to new technologies such as home theater systems or
digitalization, this period of the blockbuster is still ongoing in terms of industry
structures7. I aim to discern what is unique to this time period, to see what forces are
at play and how they interact. This is not an arbitrary selection. The results of my
empirical analysis show an increase in the number of foreign directors starting from
the mid-1970s. This rise is intensified by two sharp increases, in 1989-90 and 199697. I will be discussing these figures later in this chapter.
The seemingly simpler question, ‘What is Hollywood?’ is one that will not be
easily answered. What Hollywood entails and how it functions is too complex an
area to be reduced to a passing reference. Thus, I will come back to this issue in
more depth in the following chapter. For now, let me explicate what is meant by
‘working in Hollywood’ in this thesis. As a location, Hollywood is a district of Los
Angeles. But with the move of the motion picture industry from the East Coast to
the West Coast, the terms ‘Hollywood’ and ‘American film industry’ have come to
be used interchangeably since the mid-1920s8. However, not all the studios have
American ownership. The Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News
Corporation started this trend in 1985, when he purchased Twentieth Century Fox.
MCA, parent company of Universal Studios, was purchased in 1990 by the
Japanese Matsushita, then in 1995 by the Canadian Seagram, and Seagram was
purchased in 2000 by the French Vivendi. In 2004, following corporate scandals
involving the Vivendi CEO Jean-Marie Messier, the company’s film studios, theme
parks, and cable TV channels merged with General Electric’s NBC to form NBC
Universal. Sony’s path was more straight-forward. It acquired Columbia Pictures
Entertainment, including two studios (Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures), as
well as home video distribution, a theater chain and an extensive film library in
19899. The last stand-alone studio was MGM, which was purchased also by Sony in
the summer of 2005. Warner Bros. is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., whose
chairman stated in 2000: “We do not want to be viewed as an American company.
15
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
14
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 16
We think globally”10. Similarly, but to a smaller extent, during the second half of the
1990s, Korean business conglomerates (chaebols) like Samsung, Daewoo and SK
have invested in independent production companies based in Hollywood in return
for exclusive distribution rights in Korea11. In view of these changes, Hollywood no
longer equals American, at least at the level of ownership. Therefore, I will refrain
from using ‘Hollywood’ and ‘American film industry’ interchangeably for the
period discussed in this thesis, namely from the mid-1970s on. While an American
film industry does consist for the large part of Hollywood companies and is
centralized there, Hollywood goes beyond the US and spreads across the globe. One
also needs to keep in mind that the discussions in this book will revolve around the
transnational nature of Hollywood production. Distribution of these products is
often done through studios themselves or their subsidiaries. Among the leading
distribution companies is United Pictures International (UIP), jointly owned by
Paramount and Universal, based in London, with offices in 26 countries,
representation in 23 others, and business involvement in nearly 200 other countries12.
That the exhibition of these films is also global hardly needs any explanation13.
The terms ‘studios’ or ‘majors’ are also frequently used in the same sense as
Hollywood. The word studio in its most simple sense means “a place where motion
pictures are made”14. And while there are a large number of studios in and around
Hollywood, this term has been closely associated with the major studios that have
been producing the films with the high production values that are now expected of
Hollywood15. As Ben Goldsmith and Tom O’Regan put forth in their study of
contemporary international studios, a ‘Hollywood studio’ now refers not “to the
physical plant but to the ‘command and control’ distribution and financing
operations of the Hollywood majors”16. These major studios, ownership of some I
have discussed above, are the members of Motion Pictures Association of America
(MPAA), the leading trade organization founded in 1922. While mergers and
acquisitions frequently reshape the proprietary landscape, the members at the
present time are17: Walt Disney Company, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., MetroGoldwyn-Mayer Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corp., Universal Studios, Inc., and Warner Bros. According to Allen J. Scott,
the production system of Hollywood now consists of three tiers. In addition to the
majors and the independent production companies, there is also an “intermediate
circle of companies as represented by the majors’ own subsidiaries combined with
independents allied to the majors”18. For the purposes of this thesis, ‘working in
Hollywood’ means making a film that is being produced by a production company
from any of these three tiers. While most global directors work for the majors or
their subsidiaries, there have been occasions of smaller independent films directed
by a global filmmaker19. Nonetheless, even these smaller films are distributed
worldwide by distribution arms of Hollywood studios.
As Tom O’Regan argues, Hollywood is “[s]imultaneously, […] a national film
industry; an international film financing, production and distribution facility; and a
name for globally popular English-language cinema”20. Working in / with / for
Hollywood does not necessarily mean working physically in Southern California.
Hollywood studios make films across the globe, and directors who become a part
of this world work wherever the production takes place. Hence, another question
arises: does working in Hollywood also mean working for the American film
industry? Especially since the mid-1970s, when major studios started being
acquired by transnational media corporations, it has become almost impossible to
call Hollywood films ‘American’. Jonathan Rosenbaum asserts in an essay about
the European filmmakers Verhoeven and Emmerich, that blockbusters, the
identifying products of Hollywood, stopped being American some time between
STAR WARS (George Lucas, 1977) and STARSHIP TROOPERS21. He argues that while
American pop cinema used to be an American product, by the 1990s, “it belong[ed]
mainly to global markets and overseas investors, and because so-called ‘American
cinema’ is the brand name that sells best in those markets and for those investors,
that’s what it says on the label”22. He continues that what’s inside this ‘American’
package has an identity that “is multinational, not national”23.
Similarly, Frederick Wasser argues that Hollywood studios “ceased to be
institutions of national culture” around the mid-1970s24. He points out that long
before Japanese corporations started buying American studios, European producers
like Dino DeLaurentiis, Arnon Milchan and Mario Kassar produced films in
Hollywood, with largely European money. These were “‘Hollywood’ pictures
independent of American companies and of American financing”25. Because these
were ‘event’ films, blockbusters with enormous budgets, they needed to do well not
only in the US market, but globally. Wasser calls this the transnationalization of
Hollywood, borrowing the term from Danish media scholar Preben Sepstrup.
According to Sepstrup, ‘international flow’ and ‘transnationalization’ need to be
distinguished from one another. To quote Wasser, “[t]ransnationalization is the first
order effect of the international flow on the production, supply and consumption of
the messages”26. While Wasser’s periodization of transnational Hollywood is based
largely on where the financing comes from, some critics lament the deAmericanization of Hollywood films in terms of style and content. Lynn Hirschberg
argues that “big studio films aren’t interested in America, preferring to depict an
invented, imagined world, or one filled with easily recognizable plot devices”27. Yet
others praise Hollywood for having become a global aesthetic, reckoning its
“transnational appeal” to this quality28.
I agree with Rosenbaum and others that Hollywood in the blockbuster era is no
longer purely American, but multinational, and even transnational. In my
discussion, I will prefer to employ the term ‘transnational’. Transnational
corporations have been defined by the United Nations in relation to four criteria:
size, oligarchic nature, a large number of foreign subsidiaries and branch offices,
and origins in the developed countries29. As far as alternative terms go, multinational
implies that “the economic interests of several countries are involved as equal
partners”, and international also implies “equal principles based on
internationalism”, both of which are rare in reality30. Hence, also considering that the
media conglomerates which now own Hollywood studios are transnational
corporations, and that Hollywood has always employed talent from around the
globe and does increasingly so, it is plausible to call Hollywood a transnational
cinema. Aihwa Ong elaborates on the meaning of ‘trans’, which denotes both a
movement and a change. She argues that “transnationality also alludes to the
transversal, the transactional, the translational, and the transgressive aspects of
contemporary behavior and imagination that are incited, enabled, and regulated by
the changing logics of states and capitalism”31. Likewise, global directors traverse
borders and translate between cultures; they transgress the boundaries set by their
original filmmaking environments to reach greater audiences.
17
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
16
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 18
While the definitions of transnational cinema have often limited it to “the films
of diasporic subjects living in cosmopolitan First World cities”32, co-productions and
crossovers between film industries are also termed transnational throughout the
literature33. I believe that despite the current connotations of the term, ‘transnational
cinema’ is also, if not more suitably, applicable to Hollywood. In the Introduction to
their comprehensive transnational cinema reader, Elizabeth Ezra and Terry Rowden
define the transnational as “the global forces that link people or institutions across
nations” and assert that it comprises globalization, “in cinematic terms,
Hollywood’s domination of world film markets”34. The authors call attention to the
role of the transnational as a category in recognizing the hybridity of many of New
Hollywood’s products; especially in terms of style. The ubiquitous example Ezra
and Rowden use is the influence of Asian martial arts films on Quentin Tarantino’s
work35. What they fail to mention is that this influence is not only in terms of style.
For his KILL BILL films, Tarantino employed the legendary Chinese fight
choreographer Yuen Woo-Ping, as well as renowned Chinese martial artist / actor
Gordon Liu Chia-hui, and realized a large portion of the production in China36.
Andrew Higson also points out that the nature of cinema itself is transnational, both
in terms of production and reception. He gives examples of two Hollywood
productions from the 1990s, EVITA (Alan Parker, 1996) and THE ENGLISH PATIENT
(Anthony Minghella, 1996), whose identities can “be called nothing but
transnational”37. The transnational model in sociology is an extension of the global
system. Hence I am using ‘transnational’ and ‘global’ largely interchangeably, as
suggested by Leslie Sklair38. Ulf Hannerz suggests the use of ‘transnational’ instead
of ‘global’, since globalization is used “to describe just about any process or
relationship that somehow crosses state boundaries”, while “many such processes
and relationships obviously do not at all extend across the world”. He argues that
‘transnational’ highlights the fact that states have been replaced by “individuals,
groups, movements and business enterprises” as corporate actors39. In this sense,
transnationality of Hollywood is connected with that of its corporations, managers,
producers, filmmakers and agents. Nonetheless, I will favor using ‘global’ in
reference to the subjects of this book, taking into account not only the production
sites, but also the distribution net cast wide over the globe.
In 2004, the debates surrounding the nationality of a film sparked a significant
controversy in France. The film in question was French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s
UN LONG DIMANCHE DE FIANÇAILLES (A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT), an adaptation
from a French novel, shot in France and in French, with French cast, crew and lab.
When the film’s producers applied for financial support, an ‘agrément’, from the
Centre National de la Cinématographie, they were initially granted one. An
‘agrément’ is issued to all films with a French or European producer that qualify for
the government’s audiovisual support fund, and its criteria are based on a
‘barometer’ system of points assigned by the nationalities of a film’s participants.
However, a group of French producers went to court to block the support for the
film, and the court ruled that UN LONG DIMANCHE was not a French film, because its
French production company 2003 Productions, although based in France, was
partly owned by Warner Bros. In addition to the 32% directly owned by Warner
France, another 43% of the shares was divided among the senior executives of
Warner France. The court ruled that 2003 Productions was created solely “to benefit
from [state] financial help even though [the fund] is reserved for the European
cinematographic industry”40. Around the same time, Oliver Stone’s ALEXANDER
(2004) did receive the financial support that was denied to UN LONG DIMANCHE.
ALEXANDER was shot mostly in Morocco, in English, with an international cast and
crew. Nonetheless, one of its producers was the French Pathé, its post-production
was completed in France and Oliver Stone has dual citizenship from France and the
US, thus holds a French passport41. This incident underlines where the nationality of
a film matters today: not its cultural content as a reflection of the society, but its
funding. A film that scored ninety-nine out of a hundred points on the ‘barometer’
in terms of being French42 can be at the same time a product of Hollywood.
Nevertheless, the perception of Hollywood as the American national cinema still
persists, and it is this perception that places Hollywood at the center of debates
around globalization and Americanization. G.O.R.A. (Ömer Faruk Sorak, 2004) is
a science-fiction comedy, one of the largest box-office hits in the history of Turkish
cinema. After many adventures in space and a love affair with an alien princess, the
leading character played by Cem Yýlmaz, a Turkish comedian, looks straight at the
camera in one of the many self-reflexive moments of the film and says: “American
cinema, I’m talking to you! All these years you’ve represented aliens as evil to us.
But don’t forget, alien or not, we’re all human!”43 These lines come towards the end
of the film, which mimics and parodies a number of Hollywood blockbusters. The
production values of G.O.R.A. are much higher than any other production in the
country, and the film clearly emulates the Hollywood style44. The above lines, set in
a parody of Hollywood films45, symbolize the love-hate relationship various national
cinemas have with Hollywood. Indeed, the very existence of a national cinema is
often defined against the dominance of Hollywood46. I will further discuss various
theories concerning what makes Hollywood so popular around the globe, and how
other film industries cope with it in the following chapter. However, at this juncture,
I would like to examine Hollywood’s history on the basis of its talent influx.
Brief History of Foreign Talent in Hollywood
It is possible to periodize the history of Hollywood through different criteria.
One can base it on technological changes, or the transformations in the industry.
Since these different criteria also affect one another, the periodizations sometimes
share certain milestones. I propose a periodization in terms of the influx of global
directing talent coming into Hollywood. Such a periodization, not surprisingly, turns
out to be parallel to one made based on the ups and downs of the studios. Roughly,
the first period corresponds to the “golden age” of Hollywood, where studios
functioned in a vertically integrated system47 from the early 1910s until the mid1940s. The second period is ‘the slump’, when the studios were trying to adjust to
the new realities brought on by a combination of reasons discussed in the previous
section. The final period is the era with which this thesis is concerned, namely the
‘New’ Hollywood era starting in the mid-1970s, and also identified in the previous
chapter.
Looking at the earliest days of American cinema, before there were any
established directors to speak of, one must first consider the ‘founding fathers’ of
Hollywood, the entrepreneurs who founded the studios. A very large majority of
these businessmen were East European Jews who had emigrated to the US as
children or teenagers. Carl Laemmle, who founded Universal Pictures, came to
19
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
18
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 20
New York from Germany at the age of seventeen. William Fox was born as
Wilhelm Fried in Hungary, then went into the business of film exhibition in New
York. Adolf Zukor from Paramount Pictures emigrated from Hungary to Chicago,
founders of the future Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Samuel Goldwyn (né Goldfisch)
from Poland, Louis B. Mayer, Nicholas and Joseph Schenk from Russia, Marcus
Loew from Austria48. Sometimes called the ‘inventors’ of Hollywood, these
producers opted to make their own backgrounds invisible, by making their films
visibly ‘American’. In a way, they are also reminiscent of Joe Shuster and Jerry
Siegel, the two young friends, both children of Jewish immigrants from Eastern
Europe, who created Superman.
The large studios have seen Europe as a hotbed for fresh talent starting from the
1920s. Even earlier, one of the greatest future directors, the British Charles Chaplin,
was snatched from his touring vaudeville company in 1914. Ufa, the heart of the
German film industry, was where the producers looked primarily for new talent.
Germany had the largest film industry in Europe, and was the only one that could
possibly challenge Hollywood. The high inflation and the volatile financial markets
at the end of WWI made it possible for the German production companies to
produce films very cheaply. High-level executives of the American studios made
frequent trips to Europe for ‘trophy-hunting’, as Fritz Lang called them49. These
hunts served two purposes: one, to make American pictures more popular
worldwide, and two, to diminish Germany’s strength in the film industry. It helped
that in the mid-1920s, when the national economy started to expand, the German
film industry was faced with a major financial crisis. The American studios put the
market in an even tighter spot by flooding the German market with their films. On
the brink of bankruptcy, Ufa was forced to accept the four million dollar loan offered
by Paramount and MGM. In exchange, these studios owned all cooperation rights
with Ufa, covering production, exhibition and most importantly for the purposes of
this book, personnel. The Parufamet agreement, named after the studios involved,
was signed in early 1926 and was clearly to the advantage of its American partners.
By the end of the year, Ufa’s losses had reached twelve million dollars50. The trophy
hunts and Parufamet agreement resulted in the first big wave of European personnel
in Hollywood.
One of the facilitating factors for the move of the Ufa directors was the German
producer Erich Pommer, who was active in Hollywood already between 1926-27.
As a German Jew, Pommer was to be forced to leave Germany for good in the
following years, and relocate frequently between several European countries and
the US. Despite the exceptions of Ernst Lubitsch, and Michael Curtiz (Mihaly
Kertész)51, many of the directors who worked in Hollywood as a result of the
Parufamet agreement were not able to deliver the success expected of them.
Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau passed away at a young age in the US as he was
preparing to return to Germany, where Paul Leni lost his life at a similarly young
age. Alexander Korda and Lothar Mendes went to the UK, while Ludwig Berger
returned to Germany. Ewald André Dupont, who returned to the US in the 1930s
because of the war after a brief stint in Europe, never became popular as a director52.
Around the same time, the ‘founders’ of Scandinavian cinema, Victor Seastrom
(Sjöström) and Mauritz Stiller, were also invited to work for American studios.
However, by the end of the decade, Seastrom retired himself and Stiller died after
directing several run-of-the-mill productions. Jacques Feyder, Pal Fejös and
Benjamin Christensen all returned to their native countries as well, France, Hungary
and Denmark respectively, after a few years in Hollywood at the end of the 1920s.
In terms of artistic freedom and the success (or lack thereof) of these directors in the
US, it would be rather confining to limit the explanation for their failure to the
opposing binaries of Hollywood / European styles of filmmaking and to argue that
after possessing absolute freedom in Europe, they were oppressed in the American
studio system. Nonetheless, one could argue that these directors, invited to
Hollywood on the strength of the films they made in Europe, were expected to
remain European and be ‘exotic’ on the one hand, while adapting to the norms and
expectations of the American studios. These ‘temporary’ residents of Hollywood
are often neglected in accounts of foreign talent, which often focus on Germans
before and during WWII.
The rather large number of directors flowing from Europe to Hollywood is an
indication that the ‘émigré paradigm’ had been flawed to begin with, since it fails
to explain the talent movement within these earlier generations, as well as in the later
generations. A significant aspect of the international movement is the
accompanying personnel alongside the filmmakers. Popular European stars were
desirable assets for Hollywood studios, and certain directors were considered to be
capable of delivering these stars. Elsaesser notes that Lubitsch brought along Emil
Jannings as well as Pola Negri, whereas Mauritz Stiller was responsible for Greta
Garbo’s arrival to Hollywood53. Less visible than the stars, nonetheless, more
significant, were the producers. Erich Pommer’s role as a facilitating factor has
already been mentioned in the previous pages. His “vast network of contacts and
incessant travels”54 in France, England and the US enabled many German
filmmakers to move beyond Germany. Similarly, it was Pommer’s predecessor at
UFA, Paul Davidson, who helped Lubitsch get to Hollywood55. Paul Kohner,
another European hired by Laemmle in 1920, worked as a supervising producer in
a number of films directed by fellow Europeans for Universal. He later became an
agent and was instrumental for the careers of many of the émigrés in Hollywood
during the 1930s and 1940s56. The importance of the producers cannot be
overestimated; while the power structures evolved in Hollywood, their roles
evolved, but never diminished. As I will demonstrate in the following chapters, to
this day, producers are key players in international talent flows.
While the focus was on German and Scandinavian filmmakers during the 1920s,
the initial group of political émigré filmmakers arrived in Hollywood within the
same decade. These directors, often neglected in film history, left their country for
reasons just as political as the later, more famous Western European émigrés. They
are the Russian refugee directors who came to the US via Europe in the second half
of the 1920s. Having fled from Russia to Paris and Berlin, these filmmakers kept
their belief that the Bolsheviks were to be defeated one day. In this regard, they
aimed to shelter their culture in Hollywood, for as long as it would take to return to
their homeland. Obviously, this remained an unfulfilled dream. Russian directors
such as Richard Boleslawski, Fyodor Otsep and Dimitri Buchovetski adapted to
their new land, even modifying the classically tragic endings of their films to the
happy endings preferred by Hollywood. This extended even to an Anna Karenina
script worked on by Buchovetski, where Anna appeared to be actually dreaming
that she jumped in front of the train57.
The switch from silent film to sound, at around the same time as the first big
21
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
20
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 22
wave of Europeans hit Hollywood, was less influential for the directors from abroad
than it was for the actors. In fact, several directors, including Warner Bros.’ imports
from Germany, William Dieterle and Günther von Fritsch, were specifically hired
to direct foreign-language versions of American films, aimed at the foreign
markets58. Before the advent of technology for subtitling and dubbing, the same
script and sets were used to shoot various versions of a film in several different
languages. These were called multiple language versions (MLVs), and although the
practice was abandoned after a few years, many of these MLV directors remained in
Hollywood. However, Hollywood was not the only location where the studios
produced MLVs. In 1930, Paramount purchased the Gaumont-St. Maurice studios
at Joinville near Paris and quickly equipped them for sound production59. Joinville
became the primary location for European MLVs, producing the same script by
different crews in up to 14 languages60. Paramount’s financial troubles in the US and
the move towards subtitling and dubbing cut the studio’s French involvement
short61. Nonetheless, Joinville can be considered one of the earliest examples of a
substantial overseas investment for a major studio, anticipating the current situation,
wherein Twentieth Century Fox owns studios in Australia and Mexico, and Sony
Pictures Entertainment has “motion picture operations” worldwide, including
“Columbia Pictures Film Production Asia in Hong Kong, Columbia Films
Producciones Espanolas in Madrid, Columbia Pictures Producciones Mexico in
Mexico City and operations in the United Kingdom, Brazil and Japan”62.
The second large wave of directors to arrive in Hollywood during the heyday of
the studios headed West following the Nazi party’s (NSDAP) seizure of power in
Germany in 1933. Still, one should keep in mind that although these directors left
Germany, Austria, and in the later years, France and the Netherlands for political
reasons and to flee from war, some of these names probably would have come to
Hollywood even if there had been a different political climate. For instance, Fritz
Lang fled Germany right after being offered to cooperate with the Nazi regime, but
when he signed his deal with David O. Selznick in 1934, he was aware that there
were other producers interested in him, and was likely to arrive in the US at some
point in his career63. Alfred Hitchcock, possibly the most famous foreigner of the
later years, came to Hollywood after the start of the war in Europe. Nonetheless,
when he visited America in 1938, it was quite clear that he would accept Selznick’s
offer of four films, and his delay was caused largely by administrative rather than
political troubles64.
Nonetheless, to this day, when one talks of ‘émigré directors’, it is frequently
assumed that one is referring to this second wave. Among the first to arrive was
Billy Wilder, then just an aspiring scriptwriter. He became the iconic figure of these
directors for his Jewish roots, early arrival, and subsequent success. Fred
Zinnemann, who is often included in the émigré groups, arrived in the US as early
as 1929 in order to find work as a cameraman65. Following the pioneers such as Lang
and Otto Preminger throughout the 1930s were Robert Siodmak, Curtis Bernhardt,
John Brahm and Wilhelm Thiele. This entire group had already left Germany and
came to the US via Paris. Having waited in Paris for the conditions to return back
to ‘normal’, and initially having no intention of emigrating to the US, these directors
can be seen as the ‘true’ political émigrés66. The latest group included Reinhold
Schünzel, Frank Wisbar and Douglas Sirk from Germany, and Max Ophuls, Jean
Renoir and René Clair from France. Most Germans and Austrians arriving at this
time acquired American citizenship. While Sirk’s name became synonymous with
classical Hollywood melodramas, Preminger made his fame with films involving
the social problems of his new homeland. The French on the other hand, considered
themselves to be in exile and made films aiming to support their fatherland from
afar. As expected, they returned to France after 1945, but never again could achieve
the status they had had before the war67. Fritz Lang also went back to Germany in
the late 1950s to direct several films, but eventually returned to Los Angeles.
Although most of the directors who had arrived in the US before and during the
war remained there afterwards, the period between WWII and the mid-1970s was
the most barren for global directors going to work in Hollywood. On the contrary,
a reverse stream was started by Joseph Losey, who moved to Britain to avoid the
blacklisting. Richard Lester and in later years, Stanley Kubrick were other directors
who left the US. Opportunities provided by British studios and the
internationalization of film production during these decades resulted in many
American directors preferring Europe as their shooting location68. Some of these
émigré directors had already had great influence on the European film culture
during this period, even before working in Europe again. Authors of Cahier du
Cinema, birthplace of ‘la politique des auteurs’ in the 1950s, had canonized a
number of Hollywood directors, including Europeans such as Lang, Wilder,
Preminger and Hitchcock. The concept of director as the artist, reserved for
European ‘art’ films until then, was hereby adapted to directors of the studio system,
whose films were openly cited by the directors of Nouvelle Vague. In the later
decades of European film movements, it has been argued that the directors of the
New German Cinema adopted Hollywood directors such as Murnau, Lang, Sirk,
John Ford, Nicholas Ray and Sam Fuller69.
There are, however, a few exceptional figures who relocated to Hollywood in
this era. Two key names from the British social realism movement, Tony
Richardson and Karel Reisz, continued their careers primarily in Hollywood from
the mid-1960s on. They were followed by their fellow citizens John Boorman and
John Schlesinger. Widely popular in France, Roger Vadim worked on various
projects in Hollywood starting from 1971, never quite reaching the same level of
popularity as of his French films. Also in the early 1970s, one of the few later names
frequently included among ‘émigré’ directors was Miloš Forman from socialist
Czechoslovakia. Although Czech Ivan Passer and Polish Roman Polanski later
joined him, Forman was the only one to be fully embraced by the American film
industry, winning two Oscars, for ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST (1975) and
AMADEUS (1984). Polanski preferred to work in France and US on different
projects, until he had to leave the US due to ‘personal reasons’70. These three
directors are in line with the ‘political refugee’ narrative of the earlier generations,
and it would be possible to refer to them as ‘émigré’ directors71.
By the early 1970s, Hollywood had undergone major changes, as I have noted
at the beginning of this chapter and will discuss in further detail in the next. Along
with the decline of the studios, the Production Code that determined what was
‘proper’ to be shown on screen lost its effectiveness. Furthermore, universities
started opening film departments, resulting in the ‘Hollywood Renaissance’
generation of filmmakers. These young American directors provided an alternative
film style from within Hollywood. It was during this period that some of the leading
names of what has been called the European art cinema collaborated with
23
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
22
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 24
Hollywood. Ingmar Bergman directed THE TOUCH (1971), a Swedish co-production
shot in English. Even though the film was received poorly72, in 1977 Bergman made
another co-production, THE SERPENT’S EGG. This second attempt, shot in West
Germany, again in English, was also a critical and commercial failure. It is worth
noting that both productions were Dino De Laurentiis projects73. In a way, De
Laurentiis took on the role that the German producers in the 1920s and the 1930s
had assumed; facilitating European ‘arty’ directors’ moves to Hollywood, and not
always with great success. Similarly, another key director of post-war European art
cinema, Michelangelo Antonioni, made a three-picture deal with MGM and Carlo
Ponti that resulted in BLOW UP (1966), ZABRISKIE POINT (1970), and THE PASSENGER
(1975)74. In this case, it was Ponti who played the European facilitator.
This brings us to New Hollywood; the third, and continuing era in terms of
filmmaker traffic towards Hollywood. The enormous popularity of Steven
Spielberg’s JAWS in 1975 is frequently seen as a milestone for the ‘blockbuster era’,
characterized by huge productions and substantial investments in promoting these
films75. The massive amounts of capital required for blockbusters could only be
afforded by large studios. The box-office success of blockbuster completed the
circle, bringing the studios back to their former glory days. And by the rebirth of the
studios, talent from all over the world started flowing into Hollywood once again76.
Talent Flows in ‘New’ Hollywood
There are several characteristics identifying these post-1975 flows. Firstly, in the
earlier years, a large portion of these directors came from the UK, as a continuation
of the 1960s and the early 1970s. Britain had always been the major foreign market
for Hollywood, until Japan became a major player in the last few years. The
common language and Anglo-Saxon culture have resulted in Britain being viewed
almost as an extension of the American film industry, starting from the early 1920s.
From 1916 on, the percentage of Hollywood films screened in British cinemas has
never been below 50%, frequently exceeding 90%77. In the 1960s, Britain became
the ‘mod’ with aid from The Beatles and James Bond, but this popularity was less
a reason for studios’ shooting in the UK than were the affordable production
conditions in the new British studios. In 1966, 75% of the production financing in
Britain came from Hollywood companies, and this number reached 90% the
following year78. As a result, the bonds between the two industries, already strong,
continued growing and paved the way for the ‘British invasion’ in the late 1970s
and the early 1980s.
Famous names from the advertising industry, Alan Parker79, Hugh Hudson,
Adrian Lyne and Ridley Scott were already anticipating invitations from Hollywood
in the late 1970s. David Puttnam, the producer whose name is often mentioned
together with these directors, has become a key figure for this group because of the
international productions he put together and his brief stint as the chairman and
CEO at Columbia Pictures80. Parker and Lyne directed their feature debut in
Hollywood, where they had been invited by the studios81, whereas R. Scott had only
directed one feature in Britain before his arrival in the US 82. Mike Newell and John
Irvin, both with television backgrounds, also directed their first feature films in
Hollywood83. In the following years, R. Scott founded his own production company,
helping other European directors, including his brother Tony Scott and Marco
Brambilla, in their transfers to the US, and is still active in both advertising and
filmmaking. During the same period, famed names of European ‘art cinema’ such
as Ken Russell and Richard Attenborough from Britain, Louis Malle from France
and Wim Wenders from Germany also worked on various projects in Hollywood.
This should not come as a surprise if one remembers the similar pattern in the 1920s,
when importing ‘artsy’ directors from Europe was a source of prestige for the
studios. What is surprising, however, is that the studios had now become willing to
import directors who had made their fame only through advertisement films, with
no feature film success to their credit. This is indeed one of the major changes in
transferring talent to ‘new’ Hollywood. Although the practice is essentially the
same, fresh blood needs to be found and snatched as quickly as possible, at least
before the next studio gets their hands on it. In the 1980s and the 1990s, music video
directors joined these advertising directors84, along with directors whose short films
or feature debuts had created a stir in festival circles85.
Another differentiation in recent years is that the source for new talent is no
longer limited to Europe and now covers nearly the entire globe. While there was
no flow towards Hollywood from anywhere outside Europe until the 1980s, this
was changed by the boom in Australian film industry. Led by Bruce Beresford, Fred
Schepisi and Peter Weir, every acknowledged director from Australia has
eventually worked in the US. The next shining continent was Asia, which faced a
similar pattern. Especially the dominant Hong Kong film industry saw its directors
go to Hollywood, either early on (Corey Yuen, John Woo) or after the transfer of
sovereignty to China (Hark Tsui, Stanley Tong, Ronny Yu). Although most of these
directors did eventually return to Hong Kong, their influence on young American
filmmakers is still visible. Lately, Latin American directors, especially the Southern
neighbors of Hollywood in Mexico are acquiring their share of Hollywood’s labor
globalization: Luis Mandoki, Alfonso Cuarón, Alejandro González Iñárritu and
Guillermo Del Toro are the leading names who started working for the Hollywood
studios.
As I have stated before, talent transfer to Hollywood from other countries is not
a new concept. The changes in the last few decades lie in the shortening of directors’
‘discovery time’ and widening of geographical domain, both natural results of
globalization and technological developments. Technology also facilitated
directors’ ability to move between continents and alternate between production
bases. The distance that separates continents now ranges between only a few hours
by plane and none, considering the new communication technologies. Furthermore,
films are now frequently shot on locations in numerous different countries. This
mobility allows directors such as Michael Apted, Brambilla and Del Toro to work
in entirely different styles in almost the same year. Apted does frequent work in
Hollywood (NELL, 1994; EXTREME MEASURES, 1996; ENOUGH, 2002), while
continuing his British documentary career with the UP series, as well as filming coproduced projects such as ENIGMA (2001) in Britain. After shooting DEMOLITION
MAN (1993) and EXCESS LUGGAGE (1997) in Hollywood, Brambilla has focused on
advertisements and conceptual art projects. In 2001, Del Toro directed both the
sequel to BLADE, and the Spanish production EL ESPINAZO DEL DIABLO. The postWWII changes within the studio system have also facilitated this mobility. While in
the classical studio era the studios had to keep a director on a payroll, or to make
multiple-picture deals with filmmakers, they now work on individual projects.
25
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
24
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 26
Robert Faulkner and Andy Anderson contend that single-project organizations
foster work force mobility, and that successful projects result in rehiring and
renewals86. In a way, this is a more elaborate wording for the classical Hollywood
maxim “You’re as good as your last movie”. It is an adage that will come back
throughout the case studies.
Another reason why directors do not have to stay in the US is the fact that there
are no longer political émigrés. The last director to start working in the US for at
least partially political reasons, Andrei Konchalovsky, has returned to Russia for
various projects and is no longer a member of the DGA. Since the demise of the
Soviet system, any director with a political stance is essentially making films critical
of the American hegemony, thus invalidating the political émigré narrative. In fact,
mobility is the most important factor differentiating the newer generations from the
older generations. One only needs to compare the sad stories of Swedes like Stiller
and Sjöström from the 1920s, or Frenchmen such as Renoir and Clair from the
1940s to those of today’s directors. Adding to this mobility is the prevalence of
‘runaway productions’, which makes it possible for directors to work for
Hollywood studios, yet still remain in their native country. 'Runaway productions'
is the term widely used to refer to Hollywood production done outside of the US,
not only for creative reasons such as location shooting, but largely for economic
reasons. A recent and well-known example is THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, shot
by Peter Jackson in his native New Zealand. Since the mid 1990s, post-production
work has become ‘runaway’ as well. Jackson’s trilogy is also significant in this
aspect, since nearly all post-production work was completed in Wellington, New
Zealand. The increasing reliance on new information technologies in filmmaking is
likely to further this trend where production as well as post-production is dispersed
across the globe. Indeed, Goldsmith and O’Regan point out that the use of the term
‘runaway’ has become problematic with the transnationalization of productions in
terms of financing, production and distribution87. Nonetheless, I will continue using
the term as it emerges in relevant debates.
Existing Paradigms
Existing literature on foreign directors in Hollywood has been rather restricted
thus far. Most sources focus on the intense emigration during the Nazi regime and
the Second World War, while hardly any look into earlier periods when economics
was a more influential factor than politics88. More recently, there have been several
works trying to theorize this movement to Hollywood rather than simply
documenting it or explaining it with the political émigré paradigm. The most
comprehensive study is James Morrison’s book Passport to Hollywood, wherein he
examines European directors in Hollywood from the silent period until the 1970s.
Morrison is more interested in the individual films made by these directors than the
conditions of these talent transfers. In seven chapters, he analyses films by F.W.
Murnau, Jean Renoir, Fritz Lang, Jean-Luc Godard, Milos Forman, John Boorman,
and Ivan Passer, as well as those of two Americans working in Europe: Joseph
Losey and Richard Lester. He argues that this set of films can be thought of as
“manifestations of a particular style of subculture within the larger institutional
system,” where the subculture is the network of (mostly German) émigrés in
Hollywood throughout the 1930s and the 1940s89. According to Morrison,
Europeans in Hollywood found “themselves defined as ‘alien’ in Hollywood culture
and in turn produce representations often driven to define […] American culture
itself as ‘other’”90. Morrison applies concepts from Mikhail Bakhtin to cinema,
whereby he argues that through films made by European directors, a “dialogue
between Hollywood-as-institution and European art-cinemas” occurs, constituting
an “instance of ‘polyglossia’,” where ‘language-codes’ migrate across ‘language
systems’91. While this may have been true for the time period in question, it is no
longer possible to distinctly categorize films by foreign directors as having a
different style than that of Hollywood. Quite the opposite, I would like to argue that
these films are more typically ‘Hollywood’ than films made by the young
independent American directors92. Morrison himself notes that the situation may
have changed, especially with the influx of directors from areas other than Europe93.
At this point, there is no study that takes into account all the directorial talent
flowing to Hollywood. While my scope may be seen as too wide, I think such a
survey is the only way to get a clear picture of talent flows within a globalized
Hollywood, moving beyond older paradigms.
While the political émigré narrative is insufficient to explain the talent flows
certainly of today, it may have already been inadequate as far back as the silent
period. Thomas Elsaesser has reinvestigated why so many talented European
filmmakers have ended up in Hollywood starting from the very early days of
cinema94. Aiming to “complicate the picture” set forth by the political émigré thesis,
Elsaesser extends the emigration period backwards to cover those directors from the
1920s, and brings trade and competition into the picture95. This is essential for an
analysis of the migration flows of recent eras, as the political motives have been
practically non-existent since the time of the émigré Czech directors of the 1970s.
Even from the countries that may be considered to be totalitarian regimes, where the
state imposes limitations on filmmakers, like China, there has been hardly any
‘emigration’ in a political sense. More recently, Elsaesser has put forward an
‘emulation / emigration’ model, where he proposes that some European, in this case
German, directors such as Roland Emmerich and Wolfgang Petersen adopt a
Hollywood-like style which makes it possible for them to be noticed by the
American studios. He argues that “these directors and directors of photography […]
practiced a deliberate and open emulation of Hollywood: their dream was to make
films that either found a large popular audience or pleased an American distributor,
in order then to set off and emigrate to New York and Los Angeles”96.
The tendency to mimic Hollywood style is not unique to our times. Kristin
Thompson points out that Lubitsch often declared that “he was strongly influenced
by Hollywood films”, and that the influence of these Hollywood films in Germany
during the first half of the 1920s is often underestimated, even disregarded97.
Similarly, taking advantage of a German tour Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks
were on, Murnau hired Pickford’s cameraman Charles Rosher as an advisor for his
next film to be shot in Germany, FAUST (1926)98. Charles Rosher recalled that
Murnau would constantly ask questions about how things were done in Hollywood;
as a result, Murnau was already fluent in Hollywood style when he was offered a
contract by William Fox in 192699.
Other research has frequently been limited to directors from a single country,
exemplified by Peter Krämer’s work on German directors100. Krämer looks into
directors from before and after the émigré generation, thereby providing a wider
27
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
26
29.05.2007
Page 28
29
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
2003
2004
2005
2004
2005
2002
2003
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
0
Figure 1.1 First Hollywood release of non-American directors by the years
˝
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
0
1978
Contemporary Patterns
In conducting research, my initial step has been a fundamental one. I have compiled
an inventory of all non-American directors working for Hollywood studios during
the given time period, as well as of the films they made. To do this, I have surveyed
lists of yearly cinematic releases by Hollywood studios and determined the origin of
their directors. I have employed a number of online references such as the Internet
Movie Database, as well as trade papers like Variety and Hollywood Reporter.
Hollywood productions directed by these filmmakers have made up my second
inventory, numbered close to eight hundred. Next, I have performed some
quantitative analyses on these inventories in terms of the directors’ national and
professional backgrounds and the year of their first Hollywood features. These
analyses were aimed at finding out how many global directors made their Hollywood
debuts, and how many films were made by them at any given year; analyzed further
by filmmakers’ origins. In order to obtain these results, I have employed basic
analytic tools found in Microsoft Excel such as pivot tables and charts. The results of
my analyses have determined the scope of my research, as well as my case studies.
Although initially I did not have a specific timeframe in mind, my results revealed
that a divide had occurred in the late 1970s. Not surprisingly, this divide coincides
with New Hollywood, as well as the increasing globalization of world economy. As
seen in Figure 1.1, the number of directors who make their first Hollywood film in a
given year started to increase during the mid-1970s and reached a level of at least 68 directors a year by the early 1980s104.
1976
scope than scholars mentioned above. He also notes that German films imitating the
Hollywood style attracted enormous international attention, and specifically in the
case of DAS BOOT (Wolfgang Petersen, 1982), led to the realization that big budget
German genre films might cross over to other - namely American - markets. The
more comprehensive studies on this topic also tend to be limited, if not temporally,
spatially; discussions of European directors are not only dominant, they are the only
wider studies available. Several chapters in a Cahiers du Cinéma compilation on
Asia and Hollywood relations present an exception, but these chapters are largely
descriptive and do not elaborate or conceptualize101. These directors are occasionally
mentioned also in discussions of globalization. However, it is again the European
directors who are cited as examples, or occasionally, John Woo as the sole Asian102.
Nearly all these works continue using the migration discourse. However, my
research has shown that the ‘migration’ to Hollywood is not a final one, nor does it
always require a physical relocation. Contemporary directors who have moved to the
US in order to work in Hollywood can and do return to their home countries to make
other films. This has been the case for Alejandro Amenábar, Paul Verhoeven, as well
as a number of Hong Kong directors like Ringo Lam, Stanley Tong and Hark Tsui103.
Even John Woo, the ‘poster boy’ of Asian directors, has returned to China to shoot
THE BATTLE OF RED CLIFF; based on an epic battle from 208 AD. There is a change
in the flow of talent, a change of origin, which appears not to be sufficiently analyzed
in any existing literature. In addition, existing studies are largely focused on
individual directors and forego the larger picture. As I have stated earlier, since my
analysis is not an auteuristic one, I will pay more attention to general patterns that
have arisen during the last decades. This will also highlight the role played by the
producers, who have been instrumental throughout the history of talent flows across
Hollywood. Below are the primary patterns that my research shows.
1977
14:44
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
28
29.05.2007
1976
global directors.qxd
Figure 1.2 Number of non-American directed Hollywood films by the years
Many of the directors who arrived in the 1980s continued working in
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 30
Hollywood for at least several years, and their number accumulated. This resulted
in Figure 1.2, which shows the number of films made by global directors in
Hollywood each year. This number has increased over the last three decades,
occasionally surpassing 80. Out of approximately 450 new films yearly released in
the US105, about 250 are domestic106. In the face of these numbers, the proportion
made by global directors is not to be underestimated: it varies roughly between 1020%. A crucial point one can see through this particular chart is that the number of
films made by global directors reaches an all-time high in the late 1990s and
stabilizes thereafter. The change in the number of these films is a function of the
number of inflowing directors. If all the filmmakers had continued their careers in
Hollywood, the number of films made by global directors would continue
increasing, assuming they continue making films at their usual pace. This plateau
shows us that this is not the case and that there appears to be a large turn-over in the
global talent in Hollywood. This outcome is also backed up by specific data.
100%
relatively strong ties with the majors since the silent days of cinema. These are
followed by filmmakers from Australia and New Zealand, where one can see a
significant increase in the early 1980s, immediately following the ‘boom’ of the
Australian film industry. The last two categories, Asian and Latin American
directors, start becoming visible already in the 1980s, but the noteworthy influx
happens after the mid-1990s, when Asian filmmakers, followed by Latin American
filmmakers, started garnering accolades at film festivals around the world. The fact
that the national backgrounds of these directors are now so varied, along with the
changed structure of Hollywood indicate that the keyword to be examined in this
context should be globalization, and how it influences and is shaped by Hollywood.
Compared with this geographical diversity, however, the lingual diversity is less
observable. Figure 1.4 shows that directors from English-speaking countries form a
clear majority among filmmakers transferred to Hollywood. Similarly, one can see
in Figure 1.5 that almost every year, more than half of the Hollywood films made
by global filmmakers are helmed by directors whose native language is English.
This also indicates that a higher rate of the English-speakers continue working in
Hollywood, compared to directors from non-English speaking countries.
90%
80%
70%
60%
LATIN
ASIA
AU, NZ
EUR
CA, UK, IR
50%
40%
100%
90%
80%
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
ASIA
19
90
40%
19
88
0%
19
86
LATIN
19
84
50%
19
82
10%
19
80
60%
19
78
70%
20%
19
76
30%
Figure 1.3 Origin percentages of Hollywood arrivals by the year
30%
EUR
20%
CA, UK,
IR + AU,
NZ
10%
04
02
20
20
98
20
00
19
94
19
96
92
19
19
19
90
6
88
19
19
8
19
84
0
82
19
19
8
76
19
78
0%
19
In terms of their backgrounds, these directors are increasingly diverse, a fact that
I had already presumed, but one that became clearly visible once I had compiled my
lists. Until the 1970s, Europe was the only source of talent for Hollywood. In Figure
1.3, one can see how the balance has shifted in terms of percentages. I have divided
the directors into five categories. The first category is comprised of directors from
English-speaking countries that have had traditionally strong ties to the American
film industry: mostly UK, but also Ireland and Canada. This category has always
provided Hollywood with the largest number of talent, due to their ties and their
linguistic affinity. These three countries have also been on the receiving end of
many runaway productions, making it even easier for filmmakers today to cross
over to Hollywood107. In the second category are the Europeans, who have also had
Figure 1.4 Language percentages of Hollywood arrivals by the year
31
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
30
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:44
Page 32
32
100%
90%
60%
LATIN
50%
ASIA
40%
EUR
CA, UK, IR
+ AU, NZ
30%
20%
10%
04
02
20
20
20
00
96
19
98
94
19
92
19
19
19
90
86
19
88
84
19
82
19
19
78
19
80
19
76
0%
19
Global Directors of New Hollywood
70%
Figure 1.5 Language percentages of active Hollywood directors by the year
Establishing oneself in Hollywood is difficult, possibly even more difficult for
someone from outside the US. Directors have different ways of getting noticed;
some are already well-established in their native countries, some are well-known
among the festival circuit, some are known for their advertising films or music
videos, some for their short films, and some are just extremely determined, as in the
case of Renny Harlin, who is said to have come to Hollywood from Finland without
an invitation, with reels of his earlier work to show studio executives. Producers
play an influential role in these transfers, as I have already stated above, and will
demonstrate in my case studies. Among the most significant of these producers is
Dino DeLaurentiis, whom Wasser credits with introducing “global thinking to
American film financing”108, and he has been instrumental in the careers of several
global directors throughout the 1970s and the 1980s.
Already in the 1960s, Albert Broccoli was a typical example. This ItalianAmerican producer of the Bond franchise chose British directors to take helm in the
franchise. After Broccoli’s death, when his daughter Barbara Broccoli and his
stepson, Michael Wilson took over producing duties, they continued the tradition
somewhat differently: the last four Bond films, produced by Broccoli and Wilson,
have had directors from New Zealand and Canada, as well as the UK. In the
following decades, David Puttnam has been an influential figure in boosting the
Hollywood careers of several British directors. His involvement in various projects,
as well as his position at Columbia Pictures has helped the likes of Adrian Lyne,
Michael Apted, Bill Forsyth, Brian Gilbert, Pat O’Connor, Roland Joffe, Mike
Figgis and Michael Caton-Jones. Another major figure of the 1980s was the
Lebanese-born producer Mario Kassar and his partner Andy Vajna at Carolco, who
Conclusion
With the current number of global directors working in / with / for Hollywood
and the present rate of mobility, it is quite a challenge to come up with a single
model that explains everything. Of the two major existing paradigms I have
presented above, the political émigré paradigm supported by studies limited to
33
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
80%
put projects together bringing in European directors, working often with filmmakers
such as Paul Verhoeven, Adrian Lyne, Alan Parker, and George Cosmatos. More
recently, Mike DeLuca who is known for “taking chances on no-names and firsttimers”109 has consistently worked with global directors during his tenure at New
Line110. Harvey and Bob Weinstein, founders of Miramax, one of the most influential
distribution and production companies in the last decades, have also played a pivotal
role in terms of talent flows. Initially a specialized art house and foreign language
films distributor, Miramax opened the US market to a number of European and
Asian films. Their first foreign film Oscar, for the Danish PELLE THE CONQUEROR
(Bille August, 1987), was immediately followed with the great success of MY LEFT
FOOT (Jim Sheridan, 1989)111. After being purchased by Disney in 1993, Miramax
started producing films as well, often working with international directors112. Even
though the Weinstein brothers have often been accused of interfering with the films
they distribute or produce113, they have also been powerful facilitators of
filmmakers’ mobility.
Agents play a similar part in terms of building projects and networks, but are less
visible. A classical example is Paul Kohner, who has already been mentioned as a
producer in the 1920s, and founded his own eponymous talent agency in 1938.
Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, there was hardly a renowned European film artist
who was not a part of the “Kohner family”114. It was Paul Kohner who allowed Max
Ophuls to obtain a US visa and a French exit visa by cabling him a non-committal,
yet still sufficiently convincing offer115. Among the directors included in my study,
nearly all who still work for Hollywood have an agent representing them. Out of the
143 global directors who do have agents, 85% are represented by one of the five
major agencies: CAA (Creative Artists Agency), ICM (International Creative
Management), WMA (William Morris Agency), Endeavor and United Talent
Agency116. Certain names are repeated, however, and the fact that these names have
signed more than one director from the same country on various occasions seems to
point at the effectiveness of networking in Hollywood. For example, Robert
Newman at ICM117 is known for his ability to spot talent early. He has brokered deals
with studios for his clients, most of whom were known widely in Hollywood at the
time he started working with them. These include Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Danny Boyle,
Alex Proyas and Lee Tamahori. Another one of his clients, Baz Luhrmann, argues
that Newman “directly contributed to the phenomenon of outsiders being able to tap
into Hollywood's resources in order to make the films they want”118. Similarly, John
Ptak at CAA119 represented Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Peter Weir and Bruce
Beresford among others at the beginning of their Hollywood careers. As Michael
Storper also notes, despite its similarities to other industries in economic terms, film
production functions differently, relying heavily on “interpersonal relational
networks and conventional reputations.”120 Even if the directors are not physically
present in Hollywood, these agents stand for their presence.
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 34
World War II-era emigration to Hollywood has clearly lost its validity in this day
and age. The other approach is the émigré plus producer paradigm, suggested by
Elsaesser in his study of the emigrating German directors of the 1920s and 1930s.
Current waves of talent transfer could possibly be considered as a continuation,
albeit with adjustments, of the earlier generations who have emigrated for a mixture
of personal, political and economic reasons. In this case, the political émigré
generations are only an exception within a wider picture. However, I do not find this
paradigm of economic émigrés satisfactory either. The rules of the game have
changed in Hollywood within the last twenty-thirty years, and I think that these
changes require a new approach to this particular issue as well. Hollywood has
become even less of a specific place and has grown even more global than before,
necessitating different paradigms. I believe that we are seeing something else
happening in Hollywood on a wider scope, but in terms of global talent in particular,
which I hope to prove by the end of this book.
Global talent flow towards Hollywood has always had rather clear reasons.
Hollywood offers them more possibilities, financial and otherwise. This means not
only higher fees, but larger production and marketing budgets121. Even in Germany,
where there is an established film (or at least television-) industry, directors
complain about the low pay they receive in their home country122. Majors can also
provide the filmmakers with more advanced technologies, access to world-famous
stars, and a possibility to reach much larger audiences through their globally
supplied and locally established distribution networks. In return, the directors are
expected to make films that earn well and to play the game by the rules.
Hollywood wants and needs the global talent for a number of reasons. Clearly,
human capital, no matter of what nationality, is desirable for producing high-quality
output in entertainment industries. For the studios, the rational path of action has
often been hiring directors who have already demonstrated a full grasp of the
Hollywood style, as suggested by the emulation model. Hollywood has another
motivation in importing talent has been to weaken the various local film industries
that can pose a threat, a practice dating back to the 1920s and the German and
Swedish industries. An added advantage to employing global talent is in servicing
the local markets of the filmmakers’ native countries. In the 1920s, this was
achieved through employing directors like Dieterle and von Fritsch to film Germanlanguage versions of Hollywood pictures, aimed at the German markets. Currently,
studios’ interest in East Asian source materials and filmmaking personnel, to be
explored in chapter five, can be explained through the substantial Japanese market
and potentially enormous Chinese market.
As I said at the beginning, my aim is to (re)conceptualize the international flow
of directors towards Hollywood. Through the analyses in the following chapters, I
hope to expose the complex nature of contemporary talent flows. Tim Bergfelder
has argued that “the influence of exile and immigration have been readily
acknowledged as essential to the multicultural composition of Hollywood”123. It may
have been acknowledged, but I believe that it has not been sufficiently examined. It
is time we go beyond the ‘émigré directors’ clichés and look at this phenomenon on
a truly global scale. I would now like to return to a concept I introduced in the
previous pages, and propose that we look at the ‘global director’ through the lens of
transnational structures Hollywood studios have become a part of. Hollywood has
always been international, as the examples from the 1920s throughout this chapter
have already demonstrated. Nevertheless, its current transnationality extends to
ownership, production (including pre- and post-), distribution, exhibition and
reception. Within this global network, filmmakers are more analogous to mobile
human capital employed by transnational corporations than they are to ‘émigré’
directors of the earlier decades. In the following chapter, I will be looking at
Hollywood and the role of the directors within it, taking into account Hollywood’s
interactions with the other film industries of the world.
35
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
34
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:44
Page 36
36
1 As a matter of fact, this has been the case even with the earlier generations, especially in
the twenties, but often fails to be mentioned. While my research does not cover this earlier
era, I hope to bring a new perspective to thinking about moving talent from the earliest
days of Hollywood. For a discussion of various forms of displacement and mobility
among the intellectual classes, see Darko Suvin: “Displaced Persons”. In New Left Review,
no. 31, 01-02.2005: 107-123.
2 Definition available on US Citizenship and Immigration Services web site:
<http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/eligibility.htm> Accessed 01.11.2005. For an overview
of immigration and naturalization rules for nonresident cultural workers, see Joni Maya
Cherbo: “Case Study C. Issue Identification and Policy Implementation: Union
Involvement in the Immigration of Temporary Cultural Workers”. In Journal of Arts
Management, Law and Society, vol. 31, no. 2, Summer 2001.
3 Thomas Elsaesser: “Chronicle of a death retold: hyper, retro, or counter-cinema.” In
Monthly Film Bulletin, vol. 54 no. 641, 06.1987: 164-167, here 166.
4 See Mark Litwak: Reel Power: The Struggle for Influence and Success in the New
Hollywood. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press, 1986; Janet Wasko: How Hollywood
Works. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003; and Joel W. Finler:
The Hollywood Story. Third Edition. London: Wallflower Press, 2003.
5 I have noticed that especially in cases of directors from other English-speaking
countries, their nationality is hardly ever mentioned. The more fame a director accrues, the
likelier it becomes for his national background to be mentioned, like Sir Ridley or Tony
Scott. The obvious exception is when the films are marketed in their director’s native
country. See chapter four for the discussion of an example.
6 For a detailed discussion of different definitions of New Hollywood, see Geoff King:
New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
pp. 2-9. The term is sometimes also used to identify what others call the Hollywood
Renaissance, the films of the young, film-literate American directors in the late 1960s and
1970s. Several articles published in a book on Contemporary Hollywood also use the
same terminology: Steve Neale and Murray Smith: Contemporary Hollywood Cinema.
London and New York: Routledge, 1998. Other works focusing on New Hollywood will
be further discussed in the next chapter.
7 My cut-off year is 2005, since this is the last full year of data I can analyze. 2005 also
marks the end of a 30-year period starting in 1976. Nonetheless, I will be discussing
several individual films released in 2006 in my case studies.
8 Allen J. Scott: On Hollywood. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005: 25.
9 Tino Balio: “‘A major presence in all of the world’s important markets’: the
globalization of Hollywood in the 1990s”. In Steve Neale, Murray Smith (ed.s)
Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. London / New York: Routledge, 1998: 58-73, here
62-63.
10 Quoted in Danny Schechter: “Long Live Chairman Levin!”. Posted 05.07.2000.
<http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/chairman.shtml> Accessed 22.08.2006.
11 See Doobo Shim: “South Korean Media Industry in the 1990s and the Economic
Crisis”. In Prometheus, vol. 20, no. 4, 2002: 337-350, here 344.
12 UIP web site <http://www.uip.com> Accessed 24.01.2007.
13 See, for example, Tom O’Regan: “Too popular by far: on Hollywood's international
popularity”. In Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture vol. 5, no. 2,
1990. <http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/5.2/O%27Regan.html> Accessed
30.07.2004. or M. Mehdi Semati and Patty J Sotirin: “Hollywood’s transnational appeal:
hegemony and democratic potential?” In Journal of Popular Film & Television vol. 26,
no. 4, Winter 1999: 176-188.
14 According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. <www.m-w.com>
15 For a discussion of how these studios function, see Scott pp. 35-52; Wasko, 2003;
Finler.
16 Ben Goldsmith, Tom O’Regan: Cinema Cities, Media Cities: The Contemporary
International Studio Complex. Sydney: Southwood Press, 2003: 64.
17 This information is taken from the official web site of MPAA: http://www.mpaa.org
18 Scott: 47.
19 Incidentally, these independent films also tend to be the most ‘American’ in terms of
the issues they deal with. Among the more famous examples are MONSTER’S BALL and
Ang Lee’s THE ICE STORM (1997).
20 O’Regan.
21 Jonathan Rosenbaum: “Multinational Pest Control: Does American Cinema Still
Exist?”. In Alan Williams (ed.) Film and Nationalism. New Brunswick and London:
Rutgers University Press, 2002:217-229, here 217-218.
22 Ibid.: 221.
23 Ibid.: 221.
24 Frederick Wasser: “Is Hollywood America? The Trans-Nationalization of American
Film Industry”. In Critical Studies in Mass Communication, vol. 12, no. 4, 1995: 423-437,
here 423.
25 Ibid.: 431.
26 Ibid.: 425.
27 Lynn Hirschberg: “Us & Them: What Is an American Movie Now?”. In New York
Times Magazine, 14.11.2004: 88-93, here 91.
28 Scott R. Olson: “Hollywood goes global”. In The World & I, vol. 16, no. 2, 02.2001:
263-277, here 263.
29 See Thomas Guback and Tapio Varis: “Transnational Communication and Cultural
Industry”.
Reports and Papers on Mass Communication. No. 92, Paris: Unesco, 1982. For an
analysis of California-based transnational corporations in terms of globalization, see Leslie
Sklair: “Globalization and the Corporations: The Case of the California Fortune Global
500”. In International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 22, no. 2, 06.1998:
195-215. The analysis includes Walt Disney Corporation as the only media company, and
its sector is listed as ‘miscellanous’.
30 Robert Burnett: The Global Jukebox: The International Music Industry. London / New
York: Routledge, 1996: 12.
31 Aihwa Ong: Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham /
London: Duke University Press, 1999: 4.
32 Martin Roberts: ““Baraka”: World Cinema and the Global Culture Industry”. In
Cinema Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, Spring, 1998: 62-82, here 63; see Hamid Naficy: “Phobic
Spaces and Liminal Panics: Independent Transnational Film Genre”. In Rob Wilson,
37
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
Endnotes
global directors.qxd
14:44
Page 38
Wimal Dissanayake (ed.s) Global / Local: Cultural Production and the Transnational
Imaginary. Durham & London: Duke University Press, 1996: 119-44.
33 See Kwai-Cheong Lo: “Double Negations: Hong Kong Cultural Identity in
Hollywood's Transnational Representations”. In Cultural Studies, vol.: 15, no.: 3-4, 2001:
464-485; Hester Baer, Ryan Long: “Transnational Cinema and the Mexican State in
Alfonso Cuarón’s Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN”. In South Central Review, vol: 21, no.: 3, Fall
2004: 150-168.
34 Elizabeth Ezra, Terry Rowden: “General Introduction: What is Transnational
Cinema?” In Elizabeth Ezra, Terry Rowden (ed.s), Transnational Cinema, The Film
Reader. London / New York: Routledge: 2006: 1-12, here 1.
35 Ezra, Rowden: 2.
36 See Christina Klein: “Martial Arts and the Globalization of US and Asian Film
Industries”. In Comparative American Studies vol. 2, no. 3, 2004: 360-384, here 368; and
“KILL BILL Production Notes”. <http://killbill.movies.go.com/Kill-Bill-ProductionNotes.pdf> Accessed 18.08.2006. Tarantino also proved instrumental in the American
releases of Wong Kar-Wai’s CHUNGKING EXPRESS (1994) and Zhang Yimou’s HERO
(2002).
37 Andrew Higson: “The Limiting Imagination of National Cinema”. In Mette Hjort,
Scott MacKenzie (ed.s), Cinema & Nation. London & New York: Routledge, 2000: 6374, here 68.
38 Leslie Sklair: Sociology of the Global System. Second Edition. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1995: 5.
39 Ulf Hannerz: Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. Florence, KY:
Routledge, 1996: 6.
40 Quoted in “Film ruled ‘not French enough’”. In BBC News 27.11.2004.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/entertainment/4048439.stm> Accessed 12.01.2007.
Nonetheless, UN LONG DIMANCHE was nominated for twelve César Awards and won five.
41 John Lichfield: “One of these films is officially French - but it's not the one in French,
shot in France, by a Frenchman”. In The Independent, 05.12.2004.
<http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article23255.ece> Accessed 12.01.2007.
42 Jonathan Buchsbaum: “The Exception Culturelle Is Dead.” Long Live Cultural
Diversity: French Cinema and the New Resistance”. In Framework, vol. 47, no. 1, Spring
2006: 5-21, here 16-17.
43 Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. However, in the official DVD of
the film, the translation for “American cinema!” reads “Hollywood!”, showing once again
the inseparability of the two terms in the public mind. Tom O’Regan also points out that
audiences around the world do not “lose sight of [Hollywood’s] Americanness”, even
though much of Hollywood’s production is made outside of the US, with international
production funding. Incidentally, Kevin Robins commented on the very same scene at the
2006 Association for Cultural Studies Crossroads Conference in Istanbul on a panel titled
‘Rethinking Transnationalism’.
44 The estimated budget was US$5 million, highest in Turkey until that time. The
production designer of the film said that “in order to make fun of other films, one has to
approach their level”. Aysun Koç: “Ve G.O.R.A. geliyor!” In Birgün, 04.12.2004.
45 It is worth noting that parody had become a very popular genre in Hollywood in the
1980s with the films made by the Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker comedy team.
G.O.R.A.’S style is very similar, with a number of local touches.
46 See Higson, 1989.
47 This is also the mass-production era, according to Michael Storper: “The transition to
flexible specialization in the US film industry: external economies, the division of labor,
and the crossing of industrial divides”. In Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 13, no. 2,
06.1989: 273-305, here 277.
48 See, among others, Cook: p.42.
49 Ibid.: 100.
50 Cook: 125-126. This debt was later paid by the Prussian businessman Alfred
Hugenberg, returning Ufa to 100 % German ownership.The fact that Hugenberg was also
the leader of the German Nationalist People’s Party (DNVP) paved the way to Ufa
becoming a Nazi propaganda machine in later years.
51 Lubitsch came to the US in 1922 through an agreement with Paramount, and Curtiz in
1926, for Warner Bros., both independently of Parufamet. See Jan-Christopher Horak:
“German Exile Cinema, 1933-1950”. In Film History, vol. 8, no. 4, December 1996: 373389, here 247, 252.
52 For a more detailed analysis of Dupont’s career, see Thomas Elsaesser: “Ethnicity,
Authenticity, and Exile: A Counterfeit Trade?”. In Hamid Naficy (ed.) Home, Exile,
Homeland: Film, Media and the Politics of Place. London and New York: Routledge,
1999: 97-123.
53 Elsaesser (1999): 101.
54 Ibid. 105.
55 Ibid. 105.
56 Heiko R. Blum: Meine Zweite Heimat Hollywood. Berlin: Henschel 200: 225-226; JanChristopher Horak: “Sauerkraut & Sausages with a Little Goulash: Germans in
Hollywood, 1927”. In Film History, vol. 17, no. 2/3, 2005: 241-260, here 254.
57 See Natalia Nussinova: “The Soviet Union and the Russian Émigrés”. In Geoffrey
Nowell-Smith (ed.) The Oxford History of World Cinema. London: Oxford University
Press, 1997: 162-174, here 165.
58 See Elsaesser (1999): 103.
59 Colin G. Crisp: The Classic French Cinema, 1930-1960. Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press, 1993: 22.
60 Ginette Vincendeau: “Hollywood Babel”. Screen, Spring 1988: 24-39, here 26.
61 The studio was active between 1930-33. Crisp: 23.
62 Sony Pictures Corporate Fact Sheet.
<http://www.sonypictures.com/corp/corporatefact.html> Accessed 10.12.2006.
63 See Taylor: Strangers in Paradise: The Hollywood Émigrés 1933-1950. London: Faber
and Faber, 1983, 47-48, 59-62.
64 See Cook: 296-297. As of the early 1930s, the studios were not yet quite aware of the
gravity of the situation in Europe. Their regular trophy-hunts to the old continent
continued as before, even though meetings with German and Austrian directors frequently
took place in France or the UK, instead of their native countries.
65 See Robert Keser: “Fred Zinnemann”. In Senses of Cinema.
<http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/04/zinnemann.html>. Accessed
25.03.2006.
66 Elsaesser (1999): 104.
67 Janet Bergstrom: “Émigrés or Exiles? The French Directors’ Return From
Hollywood”. In Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, Steven Ricci (ed.s) Hollywood & Europe:
London: British Film Institute, 1998: 86-103, here 88-89.
39
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
38
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 40
68 This includes émigré directors like B. Wilder, O. Preminger and F. Zinnemann etc. I
will be discussing the issue of runaway productions later in this chapter.
69 See Thomas Elsaesser: “American Friends: Hollywood Echoes in the New German
Cinema”. In Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, Steven Ricci (ed.s) Hollywood & Europe. London:
British Film Institute, 1998: 142-155, here 146.
70 Polanski pleaded guilty to statutory rape charges in 1978 and fled the US. While he did
receive a Best Director Oscar for THE PIANIST (2002), he was unable to appear at the
ceremony. His award was flown to France, where he received it five months later.
71 For a more detailed discussion of these directors’ work, see James Morrison: Passport
to Hollywood: Hollywood Films, European Directors. Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1998 and John Baxter: The Hollywood Exiles. London: Macdonald and
Jane’s, 1976.
72 Hamish Ford: “Ingmar Bergman”. In Senses of Cinema. Posted 11.2002.
<http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/02/bergman.html> Accessed
15.12.2006
73 For the production of the film and its place within European ‘international’ strategies,
see Thomas Elsaesser in Maaret Koskinen (ed.), Ingmar Bergman Revisited. London:
Wallflower Press, forthcoming in 11.2007.
74 Peter Brunette: The Films of Michelangelo Antonioni. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998: 23-24.
75 Universal spent US$ 700,000 on promoting JAWS, the largest advertising budget of the
studio to date. Consequently, JAWS became the first film to break the US$ 100 million
mark at the box-office. See Shone, 26.
76 A more detailed discussion of New Hollywood can be found in chapter two.
77 Robert Murphy: Sixties British Cinema. London: British Film Institute, 1992: 256.
78 Murphy: 258.
79 Even though he said “I always get pissed off when I get put into that category of
people who come from commercials.” Alan Parker, quoted in Michael Apted: “One on
One: Michael Apted and Alan Parker”. In American Film, vol. 15, no: 12, 09.1990: 42-45.
80 A position he held between June 1986 and September 1987.
81 Parker to direct BUGSY MALONE (1976) and Lyne for FOXES (1980).
82 THE DUELISTS (1977).
83 Newell did THE AWAKENING (1980) and Irvin THE DOGS OF WAR (1980).
84 Richard Wainwright, Stephen Norrington, Michel Gondry etc.
85 Danny Boyle, Christopher Nolan, Ellory Elkayem, Robert Luketic, etc.
86 Robert R. Faulkner, Andy B. Anderson: “Short-term Projects and Emergent Careers:
Evidence from Hollywood”. In American Journal of Sociology, vol. 92 no.4, 01.1987:
879-909, here 881.
87 Goldsmith, O’Regan: 11.
88 For an itemization of these eras, see Hans-Bernhard Moeller: “German Hollywood
Presence and Parnassus: Central European Exiles and American Filmmaking”. In Rocky
Mountain Review of Language and Literature, vol. 39, no. 2, 1985: 123-136; Hans-Georg
Rodek: “Europäische Filmemigration in die USA vor 1920”. In Kintop-Jahrbuch 10.
Basel, Frankfurt am Main: Stroemfeld Verlag, 1992; Jan-Christopher Horak: “German
Exile Cinema, 1933-1950”. In Film History, vol. 8, no. 4, December 1996: 373-389; JanChristopher Horak: “Sauerkraut & Sausages with a Little Goulash: Germans in
Hollywood, 1927”. In Film History, vol. 17, no. 2/3, 2005: 241-260; Natalia Nussinova:
“The Soviet Union and the Russian Émigrés”. In Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (ed.) The Oxford
History of World Cinema. London: Oxford University Press, 1997: 162-174; Ernst
Schürmann (ed.): German Film Directors in Hollywood (Catalogue). San Francisco:
Goethe Institutes of North America, 1978; Hans Kafka: “What Our Immigration Did for
Hollywood – and Vice Versa”. In Aufbau, 22.12.1944, pp. 40-41; John Baxter: The
Hollywood Exiles. London: Macdonald and Jane’s, 1976; John Russell Taylor: Strangers
in Paradise: The Hollywood Émigrés 1933-1950. London: Faber and Faber, 1983; Gene
D. Phillips: Exiles in Hollywood: Major European Film Directors in America. Bethlehem,
PA: Lehigh University Press, 1998. Further and up-to-date research on German exiles in
Hollywood can be found on newsletters of the Gesellschaft für Exilforschung (Society for
Exile Studies), available on their website at
<http://www.exilforschung.de/NNB/nnb.html>. Another anthology, Passport to
Hollywood: Film Immigrants Anthology (Don Whittemore and Philip Alan Cecchettini,
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976), to accompany the PBS film series Film Immigrants,
brings the history up to Milos Forman. A collection of German-speaking film artists
working in Hollywood up until the end of 20th century can be found in Heiko R. Blum:
Meine Zweite Heimat Hollywood. Berlin: Henschel 2001. For a nation-based
categorization of émigré filmmakers from across Europe, see Larry Langman: Destination
Hollywood: The Influence of Europeans on American Filmmaking, Jefferson, NC:
McFarland 2000.
89 Morrison: 16.
90 Ibid.: 17.
91 Ibid.: 16.
92 What ‘Hollywood style’ of filmmaking entails is too large a debate that I would rather
not engage with at this point. For some of the essential debates on this issue, see David
Bordwell, Janet Staiger, Kirsten Thompson: The Classical Hollywood Cinema. Film Style
& Mode of Production to 1960. London: Routledge, 1985; Peter Krämer: “Post-Classical
Hollywood”. In John Hill, Pamela Church Gibson (ed.s) The Oxford Guide to Film
Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998: 289-309; Eleftheria Thanouli: Postclassical narration. A new paradigm in contemporary World cinema. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, University of Amsterdam. 06.2005; Kristin Thompson: Herr Lubitsch goes to
Hollywood. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005.
93 Morrison: 272-273.
94 See Elsaesser (1999).
95 Ibid.: 98.
96 Thomas Elsaesser: European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood. Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, 2005: 306. Emmerich made his motivations clear: “For me
German movies were boring and dull, and everything that came from the new Hollywood
was cool”. Shone: 235.
97 Thompson: 17. 14-16.
98 Incidentally, Rosher was not only one of the first cameramen in Hollywood, but he
was also British; adding an extra layer to the international nature of talent flows.
99 Rosher quoted in Baxter: 68.
100 See Peter Krämer: “Hollywood in Germany / Germany in Hollywood”. In Tim
Bergfelder, Erica Carter, Deniz Göktürk (ed.s) The German Cinema Book. London: BFI
Publishing, 2002: 227-237; and Peter Krämer: “Hollywood and Germany: Notes on a
History of Cultural Exchange.” Paper for “Media in Transition: Globalization and
Convergence”. International conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
41
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
40
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 42
Cambridge, MA, 10-12.05.2002
<http://cms.mit.edu/conf/mit2/Abstracts/PeterKramer.pdf> Accessed 21.03.2004.
101 See Charles Tesson, Claudine Paquot and Roger Garcia (ed.s): L’Asie à Hollywood.
Paris: Cahiers du Cinéma, 2001: 129-179.
102 For some examples, see Thompson and Bordwell: 707; Tyler Cowen: Creative
Destruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002: 89, 93; Semati and Sotirin:
178. Ang Lee is likely to become the other noted Asian, following his Oscar win in 2006.
103 It must be noted that even the earlier generations of filmmakers have often returned to
their home countries, like the Swedish directors of the twenties or the French directors
who worked in Hollywood during WWII.
104 Unless otherwise noted, data for all charts has been obtained from the inventory I
have composed, available in the Appendix.
105 MPA: 1, this is an average of the last ten years.
106 Hollywood Foreign Press Association Official Website.
<http://www.hfpa.org/aboutus.html> Accessed 29.04. 2005. One would have to keep in
mind, however, that many of these ‘domestic’ productions are shot outside the US, with
international talent, and occasionally, with international financing.
107 The issue of runaway productions will be discussed in greater depth in the next
chapter. For a detailed analysis of these productions, see the study commissioned by the
Directors Guild of America (DGA) and Screen Actors Guild (SGA): The Monitor
Company: “US Runaway Film and Television Production Study Report”. 06.1999.
108 Wasser: 429.
109 Corie Brown, Jeff Giles: “Mike De Luca's wild antics used to create more buzz than
his movies. Now he's one of the industry's hottest execs.; Hollywood's Bad Boy Makes
Good”. In Newsweek (International ed.), 13.09.1999: 58.
110 Another name, Roy Lee, has been showing a similar pattern in the last 2-3 years and
will be discussed at length in the case studies.
111 Sharon Waxman: “Weinstein's Miramax, a Crucible for Future Hollywood Leaders”.
In The New York Times, 15.05.2005.
112 Among them are, Jane Campion, Anthony Minghella, John Madden. Marc Forster,
Stephen Daldry, Oliver Parker, Tom Tykwer, Lasse Halström.
113 Harvey Weinstein earned the nickname ‘Harvey Scissorhands’ for his close
involvement of the editing process of Miramax films, often at the expense of the directors’
wishes . For a detailed and rather subjective account of Weinstein Brothers’ career, see
Peter Biskind: Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of
Independent Film. New York: Simon & Shuster, 2004.
114 Blum: 226.
115 Lutz Bacher: Max Ophuls in the Hollywood Studios. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press, 1996: 21-23.
116 It should be noted that while this information is reachable, it is not always up-to-date
due to frequent changes inherent in the nature of agencies. This data has been compiled
largely from the DGA and The Writer’s Building websites.
117 Newman moved to Endeavor in January 2007.
118 John Brodie: “Secret Agent Man”. In Details, 02.1997.
119 In May 2006, Ptak founded his own agency, Arsenal.
120 Storper, Michael: The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global
Economy. New York / London: The Guilford Press: 1997, 97.
121 According to MPA (Motion Pictures Association is the international branch of
MPAA), the average negative cost of a film made by its members was US$60 million in
2005. With the marketing costs, this number comes up to almost US$100 million. For
more details, see Motion Picture Association: “US Theatrical Market: 2005 Statistics”.
2006.
122 Oliver Hirschbiegel, director of DER UNTERGANG (2004), quoted in “Geld ist auch ein
Argument”. In Der Tagesspiegel, 12.02.2006: 29.
123 Tim Bergfelder: “National, transnational or supranational cinema? Rethinking
European film studies”. In Media, Culture & Society, vol. 27, no. 3, 05.2005: 315-331,
here 320.
43
Definitions, Paradigms and Patterns
Global Directors of New Hollywood
42
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 44
2. Looking at the Bigger Picture: Hollywood and the World
Discourses of Globalization
Before I discuss recent theories on Hollywood’s position vis-à-vis globalization,
an overview of some of the debates on globalization is in order6. While I am
concentrating on the culture industries and the media, globalization makes itself felt
Hollywood and the World
Leading Brazilian director of the 1960s, Glauber Rocha wrote: “Every discussion
of cinema made outside Hollywood must begin with Hollywood”1. Indeed, as I have
discussed in the previous chapter, Hollywood plays a vital role as the signpost
against which to define all national cinemas. But where does one begin the
discussion of Hollywood itself? Hollywood is not simply a location, as John Ford
said over forty years ago: “Hollywood is a place you can’t geographically define.
We don’t really know where it is”2. Nor is it just a moniker for the American film
industry. There have been multiple definitions of what Hollywood is and how it
works. To quote another filmmaker, Miloš Forman: “[…] it’s a mistake to regard
Hollywood as one entity. Hollywood doesn’t exist – hundreds of Hollywoods exist,
and behind every door you’ll find a different Hollywood”3. In this chapter, I will first
outline the leading discourses of globalization, within which I shall discuss
Hollywood. A brief survey of how recent paradigmatic changes in Hollywood have
been approached within film studies, as well as different disciplines, will be
followed by an investigation of Hollywood’s relationship with other film industries
around the world. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the strategies
employed by global directors to access Hollywood and overstep the barriers of
entry.
David Hesmondhalgh discusses the major changes that the cultural industries
have undergone since the early 1980s in his book, The Cultural Industries4. One of
the most significant changes, as already mentioned, is in the ownership and
organization of the cultural industries. Conglomerates that specialize in multiple
fields are in competition with each other, but they are also “connected in complex
webs of alliance, partnership and joint venture”. Nonetheless, there are more small
and medium-sized companies than ever that are in relationship with the larger
companies. This point is reflected in Alan J. Scott’s model of the three-tiered
Hollywood, which consists of majors, independents, and subsidiaries; as shown in
the previous chapter5. Hesmondhalgh also highlights the globalization of the
cultural industries, pointing at the increased circulation of cultural products across
national borders, as well as increased borrowings and adaptations of “images,
sounds, and narratives” across cultures. Another change is the in terms of
approaching audiences, with “greater emphasis on audience research, marketing
and addressing ‘niche’ audiences”. The focus on audiences is a key element of
contemporary culture and media environments, and has picked up speed with the
spread of the Internet. These defining changes, especially globalization and
conglomerization, are tropes that will be the focus of further discussions
throughout this book.
45
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 46
equally in the business and finance world, if not more. Financial crises at the end of
the 1990s, which started in East Asia in 1997 and then spread to Russia, and later
to Latin America, have proven this all too clearly. For better or for worse, global
financial systems like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and
the World Trade Organization (WTO) have led to a greater interaction between the
financial systems of individual countries. Transnational corporations (TNCs),
including those in the media sector, have become the key players in this process. In
their attempt to minimize cost, TNCs often turn to outsourcing, and spread their
production bases around the world. Outsourcing is defined as the delegation of noncore operations or jobs from internal production within a business to an external
entity that specializes in that operation7. Offshore outsourcing is when these
operations are delegated to a business in a different country, resulting in the
production and sales of a variety of goods and services to be spread around the
world. Additionally, TNCs expand their presence across the world via foreign direct
investment by opening fully-owned local subsidiaries or international joint
ventures8.
Theodore Levitt, among the earliest advocates of globalization, spoke of “the
liberating and enhancing possibilities of modernity”, and argued that the
persistence of national preferences are inefficient, costly and confined9. Similarly,
taking his cue from Levitt, who says “the earth is flat”10, Thomas Friedman claims
in his book, The World is Flat, that the playing field is now level. He argues that
individuals from anywhere in the world, and especially from India, China and the
former Soviets, are now able to globalize and become part of a global competitive
work force11. This sense of globalization’s equalizing qualities is reflected in other
globalists’ works as well; for instance, Tyler Cowen remarks that “individuals are
liberated from the tyranny of place more than ever before”12. According to Cowen,
cross-cultural exchange that is part of globalization’s nature will “support
innovation and creative human energies”13. These idealizations of a global and
equal work force may hold true to some extent for the transnational capitalist class,
“composed of corporate executives, globalizing bureaucrats and politicians,
globalizing professionals, and consumerist elites” as defined by Leslie Sklair14.
Nevertheless, the playing field is nowhere near level for the millions of employees
performing outsourced tasks across the globe15. Offshore outsourcing by the US
companies has increased largely for both service and manufacturing industries
over the last decade. Offshore outsourcing of information technology (IT) jobs is
estimated to be currently around 5%, but it is expected to rise to 30% within the
next decade16.
There are other concerns regarding globalization, in particular over its
homogenizing effects on culture. Among the strongest skeptics of globalization,
Benjamin Barber has coined the term ‘McWorld’, arguing that the global corporate
culture, rooted in consumption and profit, will lead to a culturally homogenized
world17. Barber’s point of view is reflected by other critics of globalization,
particularly with respect to cultural imperialism. In the 1970s, media scholars like
Herbert Schiller expressed concerns about cultural aspects of globalization. Schiller
used cultural imperialism to explain how the large multinational corporations of
developed countries dominated developing countries, especially in the media18.
However, the notion of cultural imperialism was criticized on multiple levels in the
following decades19. The rise of the newly industrialized countries such as the Asian
tigers, China, and India, and the proliferation of their cultural products indicates that
‘the West’ or the core countries, including Japan, are no longer in a position to
impose their culture on the rest. The cultural component of imperialism is much
harder to measure than the economic; and the reception of cultural imports need to
be analyzed separately. Furthermore, the creative usages of cultural goods across the
globe should not be overlooked. While the TNCs control a large portion of media
distributed across the globe, how these media are consumed, and how meaning is
created does not necessarily depend on the producers alone20. And as Internet usage
increases and allows for the free circulation of media in its different forms, including
home-made and pirated, cultural imperialism discourses are challenged even
further.
Changing Paradigms of New Hollywood
It is against this backdrop that I will raise the issue of Hollywood within
globalization. In chapter one, I have argued that the rules of the game have changed
in Hollywood; hence a new paradigm is needed to look at its foreign talent. These
changing rules have already been the subject of scholarly work over the last few
years. While Thomas Elsaesser in the 1970s referred to the ‘New Hollywood’ of
the 1960s as a cinema self-conscious of its heritage and inspired by the European
directors21, this style of filmmaking was only the initial phase of New Hollywood.
Noel King points out that New Hollywood “does not remain the same object across
its different critical descriptions”22 ranging from the “adventurous” filmmaking of
the late 1960s and the early 1970s, to the arrival of the ‘movie brats’, graduates of
newly established film schools. I would like to avoid confusion by using Diane
Jacobs’ term ‘Hollywood Renaissance’ when referring to the late 1960s and the
early 1970s23, and reserve New Hollywood for the later era as described below.
King contends that the next distinctive moment of New Hollywood begins with the
release of JAWS, ushering in the blockbuster era, as briefly mentioned in chapter
one24. New Hollywood in this sense has been initially theorized by Thomas Schatz,
who has identified the rise of the blockbuster as “the key to Hollywood’s survival
and the one abiding aspect of its postwar transformation”25. Following Schatz,
Murray Smith defined New Hollywood as a “reorientation and restabilization of
the film industry” achieved after 1975, “a return to genre filmmaking. But now
marked with greater self-consciousness, as well as supercharged by new special
effects, saturation booking, engorged production budgets and, occasionally, even
larger advertising budgets”26. Elsaesser offered a number of key characteristics,
identifying “a new generation of directors”, “new marketing strategies”, and “new
media ownership and management styles” as the three key elements that make up
the New Hollywood27.
While there is an abundance of literature on individual films made by New
Hollywood, the availability of studies concerned with the structure of the industry
are somewhat more limited. In her book Hollywood in the Information Age, Janet
Wasko identifies New Hollywood through the changes in technologies employed
in the entertainment and information industries. These changes also coincide with
the conglomeration of media companies, simultaneously strengthening an existing
trend towards mergers and acquisitions. Wasko defines Hollywood as “a set of
corporations” … “at the heart of the entertainment business” not only in the US,
47
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
46
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 48
but also in much of the world; and points out that these corporations are
transnational conglomerations that are involved in more than just filmmaking
activities. Wasko further states that “technological developments, commercial
motivations, and globalization trends” have turned Hollywood into “one of the
focal points of cultural industries”28. While it can be argued that these reasons are
inseparable, in this book, I am more interested in the latter two; namely the
commercial interests and the effects of globalization in the context of New
Hollywood. Other recent scholarly works in film studies have also looked at these
two concepts closely together; where the growing international markets for film
and related products such as TV productions, DVDs, and merchandising is the
fundamental connection. Like Wasko, Tino Balio argues that with the increase in
worldwide demand for entertainment, Hollywood entered its age of globalization;
ushered in by multiple international mergers brought up in the previous chapter.
According to Balio, this increase in demand is a result of multiple factors, such as
“economic growth in Western Europe, the Pacific Rim, and Latin America, the end
of the Cold War, the commercialization of state broadcasting systems, and the
development of new distribution technologies”29. Balio locates this globalization
process in the 1980s, less than a decade after the beginning of the blockbuster era.
Hence, it would be correct to assume that globalization is the next step in the
development of New Hollywood.
One of the most influential works on the globalization of Hollywood focuses
on the international division of labor as a site of Hollywood’s globalization. In
Global Hollywood 2, Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurrin, Richard Maxwell,
and Ting Wang argue that “Hollywood’s ‘real’ location lies in its division of labor”
and that dispersing various stages of production and post-production throughout
the world is not only how Hollywood is structured, but it is also the source of its
continuing domination across the world30. Their research is largely based on
employment, in terms of both above-the-line and below-the-line labor31; but they
also discuss the dispersal of shooting locations. They see Hollywood’s globality
more in terms of economic relations, where Hollywood “sells its wares in every
nation, through a global system of copyright, promotion and distribution that uses
the NICL [New International Division of Cultural Labor] to minimize cost and
maximize revenue.”32 Their discussions often concentrate on their agenda, which is
a call for reforms in cultural policy, copyright and marketing33. The fundamental
question asked in Global Hollywood, whether Hollywood is global, and in what
sense 34, is one of the main issues my book is concerned with; and Global
Hollywood’s focus on labor shows parallels with my work. However, Miller et al.
are interested in all labor, whereas I am specifically concerned with one portion of
above-the-line talent, namely the directors. Their research is a far larger project
than my own, but I also believe that in an industry that is almost entirely projectbased, where personalities are crucial both in terms of deal-making and marketing,
one has to pay special attention to the individuals. I will shortly return to the
question of labor within the context of Hollywood.
Defining Hollywood and its position within globalization has recently been a
field pursued not only by film scholars, but also by academics from other
disciplines. These analyses look at all levels of filmmaking: production,
distribution and exhibition. Literary scholar Franco Moretti’s study focuses almost
solely on the exhibition aspect of cinema, but provides some useful insights
nonetheless35. Moretti looks at a ten-year period between 1986-95, charting the
international performances of five most successful Hollywood films of each year
across the globe36. However, as he also admits, his data is limited, and excludes
some of the major countries like India, China and Russia. A more significant
shortcoming of the analysis is that Moretti does not go into any details in terms of
production. This results in some indistinct generalizations in terms of the films’
nationalities, as he uses ‘American’ and ‘Hollywood’ interchangeably, in an age
when this is no longer the case37. Nonetheless, his observation regarding the
diffusion of Hollywood films raises interesting questions, as he shows that
different genres are popular in different areas of the world.
Aida Hozic approaches the globalization of Hollywood from a political
scientist’s perspective. In her book Hollyworld, she examines the causes of
industrial change in Hollywood, and traces these changes through the conflicts
between manufacturers (producers) and merchants (distributors and exhibitors)38.
She argues that domination of Hollywood relies largely on owning the channels of
distribution and divides Hollywood’s history into three phases: Hollywood in the
studio, on location, and in cyberspace. This categorization, although done on
somewhat different criteria, corresponds to other histories of Hollywood, where
the studio era dominates the industry from the 1910s until the Paramount decree in
1948, followed by a slump in the 1950s and the 1960s in terms of studios, and takes
us to New Hollywood. In her periodization, Hollywood has lost its geographical
importance starting with the 1960s, when studios’ productions became dispersed
across the globe. Hozic argues that the dispersal of ‘manufacturers’ across the
world led to the rise of the ‘merchants’ in Hollywood, resulting in a strong network
of not only distributors and exhibitors, but also one of agents and independent
producers, ushering in the era of ‘package’ deals39. While Hozic’s analysis of
Hollywood’s presence and influence over the globe is thorough, her investigation
of how the rest of the globe is affecting Hollywood is much more limited, and she
appears to consider Hollywood to be a distinctly American industry40. Even though
she points out that the transnational links among the merchants help them dominate
the industry, she limits the discussion of these links mostly to runaway productions.
One discipline that has seen extensive research specifically on Hollywood has
been economic geography. While Hollywood as ‘a set of corporations’, to quote
Wasko, may be global, Hollywood is also a specific place, and recent books have
emphasized its function and value as a location. Some scholars see Hollywood as
a typical example of a cluster, defined as “[a] geographically bounded
concentration of similar, related or complementary businesses with active channels
for business transactions, communication and dialogue that share specialized
infrastructure, labor markets, and services and that face common opportunities and
threats.”41 Clustering as a phenomenon has been observed as early as late the
nineteenth century, under different names such as agglomeration and geographical
concentration42. More recently, Michael Porter has conducted extensive research
on various local industries that show how clustering works as an effective model
of industrialization43. It may seem like a contradiction to discuss the global nature
of Hollywood alongside its local concentration. Porter argues that since clustering
causes constant interaction and therefore increased innovation among firms,
companies can make more productive use of their inputs. Companies can “mitigate
many input-cost disadvantages through global sourcing”44, yet maintain their
49
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
48
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 50
headquarters within a cluster. What Porter calls “global sourcing” is a euphemism
for what Miller et al have termed the New International Division of Labor, as their
model is a response and a rebuttal to the cluster model.
Similarly, Michael Storper and Susan Christopherson have also analyzed
Hollywood in terms of agglomeration45 and have developed a model using the
‘flexible specialization’ theory, arguing that Hollywood has successfully made the
transition from the mass production system of the studio era to a system of
flexible specialization in New Hollywood46. This change is analogous to the
transition made in other industries, from Fordist to post-Fordist mode of
production. Flexible specialized industries are defined by their ability to produce
a wide range of products for differentiated markets, by their more flexible division
of labor than that of the Fordist system, and by their balancing of competition and
cooperation among firms. They argue that after the studio era, Hollywood has
survived by turning towards flexible specialization, and when the major studios
had to divest of their exhibition arms in the 1950s, the industry structure started
to change. By the 1970s, many films in Hollywood were being made by
independent production companies which subcontracted work to smaller,
specialized firms. Since the film industry is largely project-based and “consists of
short-term contracts, individual workers experience considerable variation in and
uncertainty about the amount of work they are offered”; this uncertainty is a major
factor in the agglomeration, since “workers offset the instability of short-term
contractual work by remaining close to the largest pool of employment
opportunities in the industry”47. Similarly, economist Tyler Cowen argues that
because of the dynamic nature of film projects, studios “need to assemble a large
number of skilled employees on very short notice,” which is why they would
“‘fish’ for talent in a common, clustered pool.”48
Storper and Christopherson show that agglomeration has continued throughout
the 1970s and the 1980s, even though the actual filming process has moved largely
outside Southern California49. Storper concedes that the major studios, and not the
smaller independent companies, are still dominant in the industry; and he argues
that through flexible specialization and the increase in intermediary firms, the
centralization in the industry demonstrates itself largely in distribution activity, and
not as much in production50. Allen J. Scott continues this tradition to demonstrate
that Southern California continues to be “a center for the more creative segments
of motion picture production.”51 He argues that runaway productions have so far
failed to pose a vitally serious threat to Hollywood, and “may well never become
life-threatening, at least in the more creative segments of the industry.”52 According
to Scott, “pronouncements” that suggest Hollywood’s existence to have spread
worldwide, such as those by Asu Aksoy and Kevin Robins and by Hozic are
“exaggerated and premature”53. It is within these arguments of Hollywood’s global
spread where the clustering model has its strongest opponents. In addition to, and
preceding, Hozic and Miller et al., Asu Aksoy and Kevin Robins have challenged
Storper directly; arguing that seeing Hollywood as a local industry is impossible in
an age when Hollywood is run by global “entertainment megacompanies” 54. They
contend that the giant media conglomerates controlling Hollywood can structure
the audiences’ choices and produce films according to their own needs, and that
this synergy and control over ancillary markets are the key to understanding how
Hollywood structures. Indeed, Christopherson and Storper fail to address the issues
of “film distribution, exhibition, and finance”55, which are paramount to the
industry. Aksoy and Robins also note that the film industry cannot and should not
be seen as just any industry, and that the particular logics of cultural industries must
not be overlooked56.
Within the last decades, all major studios have become part of greater media
conglomerates. And while some of the studios are still located in Southern
California, others are dispersed around the globe, and companies’ headquarters are
frequently in New York rather than in Los Angeles. Fox Filmed Entertainment,
home to Twentieth Century Fox and itself owned by News Corporation (founded in
Adelaide, Australia; incorporated in Wilmington, Delaware; currently
headquartered in New York), is based in New York, with studios in Los Angeles,
Mexico, and Australia. Viacom (owner of Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks
SKG) and Time Warner (owner of Warner Bros.) also have their headquarters in
New York. Sony Pictures Entertainment’s parent company, Sony is based in Tokyo,
and NBC Universal is now owned by General Electric, headquarters of which are
located in Fairfield, Connecticut. National executive director and chief executive of
Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Robert Pisano complains: “When Lew Wasserman was
head of Universal/MCA, he was here in Los Angeles. Today, the key decision
maker sits in Paris”57. Additionally, these conglomerates have been commissioning
and building ‘location-based entertainment’ such as theme parks, real estate projects
and stores. The projects are spread not only all across the US, but also around the
globe; putting Hollywood in the ‘place’ business, allowing it to sell “a synopsis of
itself and its labors as an attraction”58.
Hollywood and Labor
In this discussion of Hollywood’s position as a global construct versus a specific
location, but above all as an industry, one also needs to take labor into consideration,
especially bearing in mind the central topic of this book. Within this context, one
needs to focus on Hollywood as a location; not surprisingly, since discussions of
labor are concerned with the production stage of film industry. As Storper,
Christopherson and Scott have all demonstrated, production is still largely
centralized in California. To quote a Hollywood screenwriter: “There is still some
truth to the notion of Hollywood as a place located in Southern California. The
district of Hollywood is still more or less the geographic center of a cluster of
production facilities, soundstages, office buildings, and studio ranches […]. […] At
some point, every major figure in world entertainment has to come to Hollywood,
if only to accept an Academy Award”59. Hollywood is a cultural industry system that
“can be conceived as a social structure, as a configuration of social actors joined to
one another by basic ties.”60 At this point, it is useful to go back to a distinction I
made earlier about the different levels of employees in Hollywood, termed aboveand below-the-line. On both levels, the MPAA has estimated that 582,900 people
were employed in the US motion picture industry (including video rental
employees) as of 200261.
Labor unions in film history have a long and colorful history, going back to the
days before film. National Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, now called the
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE62), the largest belowthe-line labor union with approximately 100,000 members, was founded in 189363.
51
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
50
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 52
Having survived a major racketeering and bribery scandal in the early 1940s, and
despite a deterioration of power in the 1980s, IATSE is still influential in the
industry. In fact, this influence is one of the reasons studios choose to move their
production overseas, to countries with looser labor regulations and lower labor
costs. In the concluding chapter of Global Hollywood, Miller et al. stress the
difficult position in which runaway productions have put Hollywood’s local belowthe-line labor. It is the “proletariat [of Hollywood,] on the margins of the ‘creative
class’”64 that have felt the effects of globalization most severely. Unlike the directors
that are the subject of this book, this technical and other personnel is immobile,
unable to move where the productions go, at least not without losing their
bargaining power, salary level and rights65. In this sense, below-the-line work force
is not much different than the workers of any other manufacturing industry.
Members of IATSE include not only creative personnel such as art directors, story
analysts, animators, set designers and decorators, scenic artists, graphic artists, but
also artisans and craftspersons like set painters, grips, electricians, property persons,
set builders, teachers, costumers, make-up artists, hair stylists, camerapersons,
sound technicians, editors, script supervisors, laboratory technicians, projectionists,
first aid employees, inspection, shipping, booking and other distribution employees
within theater, film and television production66. A former studio executive
proclaims: “[IATSE] is worse than the United Auto Workers in having rules
designed to ensure mediocre work as well as getting benefits to the sky”67. If this is
the general view held by the studios, it is not surprising that runaway productions
are on the rise. In terms of below-the-line personnel, runaway productions are the
equivalent of outsourcing seen in other industries.
More recently, outsourcing has been quite common in animation. US animation
is frequently outsourced to India, and Japanese studios have started outsourcing
parts of their works to the Philippines and South Korea68. For Hollywood, this is
largely the case for television productions of the studios, which require traditional
2D animation no longer used in feature films. High-end 3-D animation by Pixar and
the other companies is still produced in California69, where the cutting edge
animation technology is developed. While Miller et al. argue that runaway
productions (and post-productions) result in a substantial loss of jobs for
Hollywood, others have pointed out that outsourcing, because it saves money for the
companies, can result in the creation of new jobs in the original country70. Similarly,
Allen J. Scott, who rejects the seriousness of any possible threat posed by runaway
industries, asserts that even though Hollywood is likely to lose projects to lower-cost
locations, this will not “imply any reversal of growth at the managerial-cumcreative” level71. Unlike the proletariat on the margins of Hollywood’s creative class,
this level is its nexus. Scott argues that to ensure continued growth, Hollywood
needs to make sure that “its central deal-making and innovative capacities remain
healthy”, in order to “safeguard its position as the world’s leading center of
conception, design and content development of popular culture”72. This dependence
on its managerial and above-the-line talent is resonant of an increased reliance on
producers and agents, brought on by the flexible specialization, as well as a
reflection of a greater change towards knowledge-based economies on a global
level. Peter Drucker suggests that “knowledge is now fast becoming the one factor
of production, sidelining both capital and labor”73. Within this context, global
filmmakers lie between the central and the periphery; while they are members of the
creative class, they need not be constantly at the center of the decision-making
process. Unless a director is part of this process by commanding power either
through great previous box-office success, or acting simultaneously as a producer,
he / she can be also easily pushed to the margins and proletarianized, which is the
case with many of the global directors.
Concurrently, the administrative class, namely the studio executives, agents and
managers who make the deals, put the projects together and make the Hollywood
machine run smoothly need closer inspection. Hollywood functions as a network of
connections, and as in most industries, but here more so than any other; whom you
know is the key to survival74. In an industry primarily dependant on relationships, a
very large role is played by producers and agents. After the studios lost their
dominance, independent producers gained importance, and with the rise of dealmaking in the blockbuster era, agents came into the game as major players. In this
three-leveled model of administrative, above- and below-the-line labor, directors are
within the most mobile level: above-the-line talent. The administrative level is
located in and around Hollywood, because that is where the deals are made; the
dealmaker has to be “at the right dinner parties, at the right cocktail parties”75 to make
the right connections and secure the necessary financing. Below-the-line talent needs
to be in the same area as well, due to the reasons I have just discussed in terms of
clustering. Administrators are part of management, thus they do not have a labor
union. Producers on the other hand, have founded the Producers Guild of America
in 1962, through the merger of Screen Producers Guild and Television Producers
Guild. However, they have not been recognized by the studios as a union on the
grounds that “producers are part of management”76.
Above-the-line talent has a different status. As I have discussed earlier, this
group includes producers, directors and stars; all the figures whose salaries are
individually negotiated, and who stand as individual items in a film’s budget.
These are also the names expected to draw the audiences to see the completed
film77. The three major unions representing these workers are Screen Actors Guild
(SAG), Directors Guild of America (DGA) and Writers Guild of America (WGA);
founded in 1936, 1937 and 1954, respectively. Above-the-line talent, especially
stars, who at times have been pointed at by leaders of below-the-line unions as the
real source of high cost of moviemaking, hold much more power in negotiations.
Looking at runaway productions, one can see that above-the-line talent is largely
part of a negotiated deal by the studio, and is taken to the shooting location,
whereas below-the-line workers are supplied by the host country. Hence, abovethe-line talent is more mobile than either of the two other classes discussed above.
For these members of the filmmaking community, actual presence in Hollywood
can be delegated through agents. Membership to the DGA is another type of
delegation. Alan Paul and Archie Kleingartner draw attention to the position of the
labor unions in Hollywood, and how these unions have played a role in the
transition from the studio system to flexible production78. The DGA is located in
Los Angeles, and 82% of the global directors researched for this book are members
of this 13,100-member union79. By being members, directors have a presence in
Hollywood, even if they are not there physically. Members include Michael Apted,
who was selected as the DGA President for a second term in 2005. The Britishborn director, who holds dual citizenship, is the first non-American to hold the
position80.
53
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
52
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 54
Faulkner and Anderson propose that filmmakers, as well any other artists or
technicians in the film business, accumulate “a history of performance results.”
These results are “part economic, part artistic, and part collegial industry-relevant
outcomes imputed or attributed to the contributions of an individual in the
community.”81 According to Faulkner and Anderson, industry players acquire
“performance ‘ratings’ by the film community,”82, akin to Pierre Bourdieu’s notion
of cultural and social capital83. They argue that these ratings frequently result in
recurrent patterns, where the same names are frequently entrusted with major
blockbusters. When global directors are recognized and invited to work in
Hollywood, it is because of a certain reputation they have already built. No global
director is likely to be bestowed with a mega-budget for their Hollywood debut.
Even the big players of today, like the Scott brothers, Emmerich, or Petersen, have
started smaller and have had to gain the confidence of the industry as they went
along. As the visibility and value of talents increase, they will be pursued by agents
regardless of nationality and country of residence. Festival circles and the music
video and commercials industries also need to be included into this circle of ratingconstruction, since they function similarly to a cluster. While these may not be
clusters in the traditional sense, festivals bring industry people close together for
short but intense periods of time, facilitating a network of personal deal making and
creating possibilities for future projects84. The music video and commercials
industry is also an increasingly mobile global network that allows new directorial
talent to be recognized with speed.
Above-the-line workers of the film industry, along with the executives, the
decision-makers, and the facilitators, are a part of a different class that has been
named but not expanded upon in the previous pages. Richard Florida’s notion of the
‘creative class’ clearly covers the group of people at issue here. While there has been
a recognition of a new ‘professional class’ that has arisen with the globalization
processes85, Florida adds creativity to the definition of this new class, ruling out
executives in finance and manufacturing sectors, and including the media networks
that will be the subject of discussion in chapter five.86. Manuel Castells recognizes
the same group of people when he talks about not only high-level professional labor,
but also “artists, designers, performers, sports stars, spiritual gurus, […] anyone with
the capacity to generate exceptional value added in any market”87. He points out that
while this class is not large in numbers, it is “decisive for the performance of
business networks, of media networks, and of political networks” and that the market
for this labor is becoming globalized88.
As I claim that the directors who constitute the subject of this thesis are a part of
this new class, and that this increased flow of talent is a result of globalization; I find
it very useful to employ a study that looks at the same subject, albeit through a wider
lens. Saskia Sassen’s work on international investment and labor flows is essentially
concerned with migrants and largely with the working class. However, her findings
are also applicable to my research. Sassen makes the connection between
international labor migration and the internationalization of production89. I believe
the same holds true for the globalization of Hollywood and the flow of global talent.
Sassen’s research also shows that the relationship relies largely on direct foreign
investment, and that the “major immigrant-sending countries are among the leading
recipients of the jobs lost in the US and of US direct foreign investment”90.
Replacing US with Hollywood, the analysis later in this chapter will show the
relationship between countries that receive runaway productions, which stand for
‘direct foreign investment’ in this analogy, and directors who work in Hollywood,
corresponding to Sassen’s ‘immigrants’. I would like to recall once more, that while
‘working in Hollywood’ often denotes an actual presence in Hollywood, it is no
longer an absolute necessity. The difference between Sassen’s research and mine lies
in the distinction between migrant labor and mobile creative class; while these two
groups are distinguished on a class level, their movement patterns demonstrate
clearly discernible similarities.
At the same time, the international talent working in Hollywood can be situated
within a larger context of mobile skilled labor. Film is not the only industry in the
US that attracts global talent. ‘Brain drain’ from various industries and from the
academia around the world is caused by skilled labor choosing to work in the
States. The US is the primary destination for foreign skilled workers; “40% of its
foreign-born adult population have tertiary level education.”91 Carlos Holguín
reports that the US “allocates 57.2 percent of its annual labor-based immigration
quota of 140,000 visas to aliens of ‘extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts,
education, business or athletics’”, and that “the United States’ labor-based
immigration policy encourages not so much the migration of labor, as the import
of human capital” 92. This tendency to import labor and human capital appears to
have increased over the past decades, as the rate of foreign-born labor in the
American work force increased from 6.4% in 1980 to 9.7% in 199493. Similarly,
foreign-born workers have constituted nearly half of the net labor force increase
between 1996 and 200094. Research also indicates that more educated labor with
more specialized skills “do tend to exhibit greater geographical mobility measured
by migration rates”95. Since filmmaking requires a very specific set of skills, and is
at the same time a project-based profession, filmmakers are in an ideal position to
move across borders and continents. In the 1980s, in view of concerns voiced by
organized labor, Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) commissioned a
study of nonimmigrants with working permits. The study showed that cultural
workers had become the largest vocational grouping of temporary foreign workers
admitted in 1986-8796. While the study found no adverse impact on US workers,
including entertainers and professionals; the unions, represented by Jack Golodner,
then president of the Department of Professional Employees AFL-CIO, requested
a role in the process of granting visas to workers in the arts, entertainment and mass
media sector.97 This function was granted by the Immigration and Naturalization
Act of 1990, and requires visa petitioners98 to obtain “a written advisory opinion or
consultation letter from an appropriate arts union.”99 Hollywood unions, especially
those for above-the-line workers, clearly still have a strong position, despite the
anti-union spirit of 1980s.100
Richard Florida points out that “migratory patterns of the Creative Class cut
across the lines of race, nationality and sexual orientation”101, and this takes us back
to the initial definitions of this project. In the previous chapter, I stated that my
categorization hinges on the problematic issue of nationality and citizenship.
However, like the nationality of a film, nationality of individuals is no longer (if it
has ever been) an uncomplicated matter. Recent debates in citizenship have centered
on alternative notions of belonging. The internationalization of capital has led to a
denationalization process, especially in large cities where capital is concentrated.
While my main concern here is the denationalized creative class; there are other
55
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
54
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 56
forms of transnational identities, as posited by Linda Bosniak, such as EU
citizenship, citizenship within transnational civil societies, transnational
communities constituted through transborder migration and a global sense of
solidarity through humanitarian concerns102.
Aihwa Ong’s work on transnationality is useful here, as she suggests the term
‘flexible citizenship’ as a way to theorize contemporary practices. This flexible
notion of citizenship “refers to the cultural logics of capitalist accumulation, travel,
and displacement that induce subjects to respond fluidly and opportunistically to
changing political-economic conditions”103. In a world where the nation-state is no
longer fixed and unchanging, passports become “less and less attestations of
citizenship, let alone of loyalty to a protective nation-state than of claims to
participation in labor markets”104. In this sense, Michael Apted’s dual citizenship is
less a statement on where his loyalties lie, and more a matter of convenience. Global
directors are members of a creative class with flexible citizenships. As Cowen
suggests, they are relatively liberated from the tyranny of place. Nonetheless, while
as Miller et al. argue, Hollywood’s labor is spread across the world, Scott’s
insistence on the importance of Hollywood, California as a location is not entirely
diminished, and the two are hinged in the networks provided by the DGA as well as
agents and producers.
Hollywood and the Others
Whether one defines Hollywood by its location, as a set of corporations, or as a
style of filmmaking, the undeniable issue is its global popularity. Film scholars have
long tried to explicate the reasons that lie behind Hollywood’s worldwide appeal.
The most frequent line of argument is that Hollywood films are as popular as they
are, because they come from a country where the multicultural ‘melting pot’
audience, comprised of all kinds of different peoples, acts as a microcosm to
develop and create productions that will be to the liking of audiences everywhere105.
Along these lines, the easily comprehensible plots and transparent film language of
‘classical Hollywood style’ are seen to have contributed to the popularity of
Hollywood products106. These explanations are not enough however, and have on
occasion been rejected to be too simplistic107 at a time when the global spread of
Hollywood has come to a point where Hollywood is inscribed in practically every
nation’s film culture. Alternatively, even when Hollywood is seen as the absolute
other for any national cinema108, it approaches all its global viewers as “potentially
equal customers”109, reflecting the idealized democracy constructed in its films’
texts, thereby confirming its popularity.
Hollywood’s dominance has been enhanced in the blockbuster era. The
advantages that come along with the global financing strategies employed by the
studios enable Hollywood films to be made and marketed on budgets that far
surpass those of any other film industry. Blockbusters are designed to reach the
maximum number of audiences, and released with elaborate marketing schemes,
with full market saturation110. The enormous production and marketing costs
involved function as a barrier of entry to the film market, leaving the few giant
studios that can afford to make blockbusters without any other substantial rivals.
The synergy created by the studios and the other subsidiaries under same ownership
helps to “anticipate, nurture and challenge” consumer preferences, thus ideally
maximizing box office revenues111. This is aided by the centrally organized and
locally specified massive advertising campaigns. Films are often marketed on
whatever their strong suit is in a specific country, be it its stars, director, or subject112;
and they can be popular in different markets for different reasons.
Hollywood has no rivals that pose a threat to its dominance on a global scale.
Nevertheless, various film industries attempt to compete with Hollywood within
their national borders and in their regions; and some of these have been successful
at different times. These attempts come in different shapes. Some filmmakers
emulate, copy, and / or parody Hollywood pictures, reaffirming the impossibility of
“maintaining a strict dichotomy between Hollywood cinema and its ‘others’”113,
whereas others distinguish themselves through ‘heritage’ cinema114. Countries like
India and South Korea keep hold of their markets through quotas, despite recent
changes. Within discussions of a globalized cinema world, I would like to reiterate
Tom O’Regan’s point that “generalized cultural matters such as gender, sexual
preference, political orientation, psychological type and social class” constitute a
more relevant point of discussion and that “‘national’ and ‘international’ issues are
not the important fault lines for distinguishing between Hollywood and other
cinemas”115.
Nonetheless, I find it useful to categorize the world’s film industries into a few
groups in terms of their relationships with Hollywood, forming categories that are
established by several determinants. Among them are the proportion of Hollywood
productions screened in these countries, the frequency with which they are used as
shooting locations by major studio productions, and most importantly for this thesis,
the amount of talent they supply for Hollywood. It is my conviction that there is a
strong correlation between Hollywood’s local market penetration and the frequency
of local talent working in Hollywood. This is not the only factor to explain why one
country or another tends to export more talent, but it seems to be a noteworthy one.
The first category covers the countries seen as ideal runaway destinations, those in
very close contact. The second category is that of ‘New Wave’s, up-and-coming
film industries that provide Hollywood with fresh hunting grounds for talent. These
first two groups are not mutually exclusive, and do sometimes overlap. The last
category consists of countries which have either reasonably large film industries of
their own, and/or have been home of a new wave of films, but have not sent a
considerable number of directors to Hollywood.
Runaway Destinations
Historically, Hollywood has been in close contact with two film industries:
British and Canadian. Since nearly the beginning, these two industries have been
defined in terms of their relation to Hollywood, on occasion referred to as
Hollywood’s backyards. Both countries suffer from having the same language as
the US. As British producer Leon Clore said in 1982, “If the United States spoke
Spanish, we would have a film industry.”116 In fact, there is a film industry in Britain;
it just happens to be largely financed by transnational Hollywood corporations.
Similarly, Canada’s film industry both suffers and profits from its geographical
proximity to Hollywood. It is an ideal destination for runaway productions because
of its proximity, its language and its lower labor costs, but has too small a market to
be self-sufficient for films produced by Canadian companies and thus it is
57
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
56
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 58
practically dependant on Hollywood. Britain has long had the reputation of boasting
the best technicians in the world. Its major studios, namely, Pinewood, Elstree and
Twickenham, have consistently produced films, albeit mostly financed with
Hollywood money. What has been a historical reality for Britain has become a new
condition for Canada. I have briefly defined ‘runaway productions’ in the previous
chapter, but there is more to be said about the subject. According to the Monitor
Report prepared for DGA and SAG, there are two types of runaway productions.
‘Creative’ runaways depart because “the story takes place in a setting that cannot be
duplicated or for other creative considerations,” and ‘economic’ runaways depart to
lower production costs117. The sharp increase in the number of economic runaways
in the last decade118 caused alarm in the American film industry, becoming a top
priority for the DGA. While runaway productions are one of the ways in which
Hollywood has become more global, these productions mean a direct loss of
business for filmmakers, especially for below-the-line talent based in the US. In
addition to British studios substituting for their American counterparts, more and
more Canadian cities are posing as American cities. So much so, that Justine Elias
of the New York Times has called Vancouver “The city that can sub for all of
America.”119
Beyond the seemingly simple decision to cut costs, there are numerous other
factors that bring about runaway productions. In addition to costs of production
facilities and labor costs, favorable exchange rates, government rebates, and various
tax incentives draw producers to the outside of the US120. Canada started the 1990s
as the prime destination for most economic runaway productions, and its share grew
even larger, now frequently called ‘Hollywood North’. The chart in Figure 2.1 is
derived from the Monitor Report data, covering only the theater releases and not the
TV films, TV series and mini-series121. The Monitor Report does not feature Ireland
as a separate destination, but it has also become an attractive locale due to a tax
incentive law passed in 1997, allowing filmmakers to recoup up to US$2 million as
shooting begins122. Two other countries have become popular destinations for
Hollywood productions in the last few years. Australia and New Zealand have both
been attractive because of their reportedly low labor costs, English-speaking, skilled
crews, reverse seasons and a variety of locations123. These two countries, whose
cinemas gained international acclaim in the 1980s, will also be touched upon in the
next category. Similarly, South Africa has become a prime destination, at this point
more for advertising productions than feature films124. With South African films
receiving major international awards, it is likely that directors from this country will
be obtaining Hollywood contracts in the near future. All of these countries are a
good indication that familiarity with Hollywood filmmaking, on the levels of both
exhibition and production, is an important factor in the transfer of local talent to
Hollywood. I have shown in the previous chapter that when grouped together,
Anglophone directors comprise the majority of global talent. They are studied less
than their counterparts, nor are they seen as ‘émigré’s; their English names make
them less easily identifiable as ‘foreign’. And due to the frequency of runaway
productions in their own countries, many of these directors do not have to leave their
homes to work for Hollywood125.
59
180
160
140
19
54
13
120
18
100
10
10
80
35
6
8
60
40
23
2
3
40
42
1990
1991
9
Others
8
Australia
16
17
U.K.
Canada
2
2
4
4
105
78
88
75
75
59
55
20
20
4
11
24
28
7
13
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Figure 2.1: Annual US Economic Runaway Theatrical Releases, by Location
Mexico must also get a special mention, for becoming the first country to host a
Hollywood studio (Twentieth Century Fox in Baja) with a native language other
than English. Although already popular as a shooting location for Westerns
throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, Mexico became a prime target for blockbusters
in the 1990s, most famous of which involved the construction of a near-life-size
replica of the Titanic for James Cameron’s eponymous film of 1997126. Mexico is
close to Hollywood, cheap and sunny. And recently, more and more of its
technicians have been trained in the US, and have gained experience working on
telenovelas. Filmmakers in these countries have the opportunity to stay in their own
countries and still benefit from the large budget and reaching power of Hollywood.
Some like Michael Apted and Guillermo del Toro move between countries, others
like Hugh Hudson stay in Britain and claim they do not work for Hollywood, even
though their films are produced largely by Hollywood studios, and yet others like
Peter Jackson and Baz Luhrmann move their productions to their native countries,
contributing to economic runaways.
New Waves and Rising Stars
This category is comprised of different countries at different points in time, as
they have gained strength, either in festival circuits, or in regional markets. Some of
these countries, like the UK, Australia and New Zealand, have already been subject
of discussion as sites of frequent Hollywood productions. Others like Germany and
Hong Kong will be added to this category. However, not all new waves and strong
industries will be discussed here, since some of them, supplying Hollywood rarely,
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
58
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 60
if ever, with talent, fall under the third category. When a series of acclaimed films
start emerging from one particular country’s film industry, Hollywood tends to take
notice. Soon, production companies start making lucrative offers to the filmmakers
of that country. As I have mentioned before, this is nothing new. Executives’
‘trophy-hunting’ trips to Europe in the 1920s were common, and in 1930, Sergei
Eisenstein was invited for a contract with Paramount127. This helped not only in
bringing fresh talent to Hollywood, but also in halting the local rise in film
production. It is ironic then, that most, if not all, upward trends in local film
industries are largely supported and caused by the local governments, but eventually
result in the draining of talent.
Britain was home to a number of young, talented advertising directors in the
1970s. I have already briefly discussed the arrival of these directors to Hollywood
earlier in this chapter. Although British cinema was largely aided by financing
support from Channel 4 and the British Film Institute (BFI) in the 1980s, David
Puttnam argues that this support was too little, too late: “The British industry and
the British government did little or nothing to encourage or invest in this pool of by
now unique and skilled talent.” Accordingly, “the cream of Britain’s special-effects
industry left, joining other enormously valued British technicians who found
Hollywood more receptive and appreciative of their gifts.”128 Directors like Alan
Parker, Ridley Scott and Adrian Lyne had already caught the eye of studio
executives, and were given offers to work with the large studios.
With the resources of state television, the Young German Film Board
(Kuratorium Junger Deutscher Film) and grants from the Film Subsidies Bill
(Filmförderungsanstalt), the ‘New German Cinema’ of the 1970s was one of the
most striking film movements of its time. Its directors, most notably Wim Wenders
and Volker Schlöndorff have made forays to the US, with varying degrees of critical
and commercial success. Arguably the most famous member of New German
Cinema, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, did not live long enough to try his luck in
Hollywood, but judging from his quote in FASSBINDER IN HOLLYWOOD (Robert
Fischer, 2002), one can presume he meant to go: “I’d rather be unfree that way [in
Hollywood] than imagine I was free in Germany.”129 Even though the directors of
New German Cinema mostly stayed away from Hollywood, other personnel was
being recruited, like set designer Rolf Zehetbauer, actors Klaus Kinski, Klaus-Maria
Brandauer and Armin Müller-Stahl, cinematographer Michael Ballhaus and
musicians Giorgio Moroder and Hans Zimmer130. This generation was followed in a
few years by two of the most notable German directors working in Hollywood
today: Wolfgang Petersen and Roland Emmerich. Kraemer argues that it is indeed
the New German Cinema that has lead to these directors’ move to Hollywood131,
because of the attention it drew to the German film industry and because it has
allowed many young filmmakers to study and make films from the 1970s on. In
terms of exhibition, New German Cinema again plays a significant role, albeit
indirectly. After WWII, although Germany was seen as a fertile market for
Hollywood films, German films were still popular. Throughout the 1950s, West
Germany was the fifth largest producer of films in the world132. By the 1970s
however, this system had collapsed and the choice of German films at the cinemas
were reduced to sex comedies, which were often commercial failures, or products
of New German Cinema, which refused to strive for profit133. In spite of the critical
acclaim abroad for New German Cinema, German films were no longer successful
at the home box office, and Hollywood productions poured in to fill the void. As a
result, the next generation became more likely to direct films in Hollywood style, or
in other words, to emulate Hollywood, and eventually to be ‘discovered’ by the
studios. Producer Bernd Eichinger played a pivotal role during this period, reviving
the tradition of the powerful European producers with strong international
connections134. Eichinger is the name behind several large-budget European coproductions, often adaptations of popular novels, shot in English, like THE NAME OF
THE ROSE (Jean-Jacques Annaud, 1986) or SMILLA’S SENSE OF SNOW (Bille August,
1997). He was also responsible for a number of diverse Hollywood co-productions,
directed by European as well as American filmmakers135.
A similar pattern has been the case for Australia. In 1970, following social and
economic changes in the 1960s, Australian Film Development Corporation
(AFDC)136 was founded. This was followed by founding of state-funded government
film agencies in all states but Tasmania137. Second half of the 1970s saw a rise in
Australian cinema, led by Bruce Beresford, Fred Schepisi, Peter Weir, George
Miller, Phillip Noyce and Gillian Armstrong138, all of whom started working for
Hollywood in the 1980s. Some of these directors still work for Hollywood studios,
but frequently shooting in their native country, contributing to the increase in
runaway productions. Australia’s southern neighbor, New Zealand, had a minuscule
film industry, having produced only seventeen motion pictures between 19301970139. Following in Australia’s footsteps, New Zealand founded its own Film
Commission in 1978. Within a few years, not only were a larger number of films
produced, but they also received international attention. The first director to be
noticed among the new generation was Roger Donaldson, who, after a Hollywood
co-production of MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1984) shot in New Zealand, left for
Hollywood in 1987. New Zealand film industry continued its success throughout
the 1990s and supplied Hollywood with fresh talent. Arthouse director Jane
Campion and arthouse / science-fiction filmmaker Andrew Niccol are at one end of
the spectrum, and Peter Jackson and Ellory Elkayem at the other140. Lee Tamahori,
whose ONCE WERE WARRIORS (1997) was an international festival hit, and who
went on to direct thrillers and a James Bond movie, lies in the middle.
One should not forget however, that Hollywood films have not always
dominated the entire globe. Other film industries have been leading in other parts of
the world, but mostly to be absorbed and co-opted by Hollywood eventually. One
of the best examples, Hong Kong cinema, has been not only popular all over South
East Asia through the 1960s and the 1970s, but also influential in Hollywood.
Among the booming economies of South East Asia in the 1980s, mainly Hong
Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, Hong Kong was the only one to have a
matching growth in its film industry. Sek Kei proposes several reasons as to why
the film industry blossomed particularly in Hong Kong141. In this small, densely
populated island, cinema has always been the leading form of mass entertainment,
and was not affected by competition from TV or video. Compared to its neighbors,
Hong Kong has traditionally had more liberties in terms of freedom of expression.
As a Chinese cinema open to Western influences, Hong Kong cinema has succeeded
in being both East and West. According to Kei, this has also helped the industry
reach all the overseas markets where the Chinese are active. Hong Kong’s close ties
with the West and its cinema’s popularity in the US have caused many of its leading
directors to move to Hollywood in the 1990s, during the period leading up to, and
61
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
60
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 62
around, the Chinese handover in 1997. With many of its major stars gone along with
the directors, and the rampant piracy in the region, Honk Kong film industry has
been in a slump in recent years. The untapped Chinese market is still unreachable
for Hong Kong filmmakers, since in addition to the piracy problem, their films are
still classified as ‘foreign’, thus have to compete directly with Hollywood’s
products; moreover, the films are mostly in Cantonese142. Although some of the
talent like directors Stanley Tong, Hark Tsui and Ringo Lam have returned to Hong
Kong 143, the industry has already taken a hard blow. Due to its restrictions in terms
of location and technology, Hong Kong has not been able to benefit from its
migrating directors to direct some of the runaway productions in its vicinity.
There are other examples, such as the Taiwanese New Wave, leading to Ang
Lee’s career in Hollywood. Recent interest in Japanese horror films has brought
Hideo Nakata and Takashi Shimizu deals to remake their own films in English,
RINGU 2 and JU-ON, respectively. Taiwan and Japan also happen to be two of the
largest markets Hollywood has outside of US. In 2003, Japan accounted for over
40% of the Asia-Pacific box office market.144 Latin American countries, especially
Mexico, have also been experiencing a new popularity lately. As I have discussed
earlier, Mexican directors have the advantage of being able to work in their own
country on Hollywood projects, and being geographically close to the US. In
addition to Guillermo del Toro; Alfonso Cuarón, Alfonso Arau and Alejandro
González Iñárritu have worked on Hollywood projects recently.
Outsiders and Competitors
The third and last category comprises of countries that have an established film
industry, and/or have been the home of a new wave, but have not sent a significant
number of its personnel to Hollywood. The most significant of these countries have
been India, Iran, China and South Korea. The greatest common denominator of
these countries is that they have had limited access to Hollywood films due to
government regulations. These regulations, quotas or bans on film imports have
political and economic reasons, depending on the country, as discussed below.
India has been among, and usually leading, the top film-producing countries in
the world since WWII. In addition to its huge domestic market, Indian films have
drawn audiences from around the world, and more recently, have reached the
Western markets, via the Non-resident Indians (NRIs), the Indian diaspora145. The
Film Finance Corporation (FFC), founded in 1961, was reborn as National Film
Development Corporation in the 1980s. NFDC supported local ‘quality cinema’
through its monopoly on foreign film imports.146 NFDC’s monopoly ended only in
1992, after which there appeared several successful Hollywood films in the Indian
market. However, these claimed no more than 10 percent of the box office, due not
only to Indian audiences’ loyalty to the local productions, but also to the fact that
tickets to foreign films cost several times more than those to Indian films147. As many
as 7 billion tickets are sold yearly in Indian cinemas148, making it unnecessary for
Indian directors to work for Hollywood to reach large masses.
The only Indian directors working in the West today are those who have already
had close ties with the Western world. Mira Nair studied at Harvard as a graduate
student, and currently goes back and forth between India and the US, where she has
worked in film and television industries. Shekhar Kapur, a chartered accountant in
London in the 1980s, returned to India to direct films, and has made a name in the
West for his British-Hollywood co-produced historical dramas, ELIZABETH (1998)
and THE FOUR FEATHERS (2002). The most recent Indian in Hollywood is Tarsem
Singh, who went on to becoming an acclaimed music video director after getting an
MBA at Harvard, and directed THE CELL (2000) for New Line Productions (a unit
of Time Warner). This may change however, with the increased interest shown by
the studios in the Indian market. Sony and Twentieth Century Fox have announced
plans to diversify their India operations in 2003. And as the Indian director Sudhir
Mishra pointed out, “The feudal attitude of Indian producers, who will mainly
support you if you’re so-and-so’s son, may force the better talent to veer towards
Hollywood companies.”149 With more attention from the studios and an increased
exposure to Hollywood films, India may become the ideal talent pool in the coming
decades.
In the 1980s, films from two distinct, but in certain ways similar countries
created a stir in festival circles. China and Iran were both anti-American regimes
undergoing major changes throughout the 1980s. In China, the Beijing Film
Academy reopened in 1978. Members of its first graduating class in 1982, along
with a few working directors, formed what came to be known as the Fifth
Generation. Although they have become world renowned, these directors chose to
remain in their homelands. Wu Tiangming, a former actor, emigrated to the US after
the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989, but after teaching at some of the
prestigious American universities for several years, he returned to China to resume
his work as a director. More recently, Chen Kaige became the first mainland Chinese
director to work for a major studio when he directed KILLING ME SOFTLY (2002) for
MGM in London, with a largely British cast and crew. But like the Indian directors
discussed above, Chen had briefly lived in New York at the end of the 1980s and
his earlier films such as FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE (1993) and THE EMPEROR AND
THE ASSASSIN (1999) were international co-productions. Regrettably for Chen,
KILLING ME SOFTLY proved to be a commercial and critical disaster. Calling it “a
jaw-dropping catastrophe of a movie,” Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian added,
“Kaige has no feeling for the suspense genre, and clearly no sense of when his
English-speaking stars are either being wooden or going way, way, way over the
top.”150 Bradshaw was supported by David Rooney of Variety: “… [Chen’s] first
experience with English-speaking actors reveals an uncertain hand with the cast.”151
This erotic thriller went straight to video in the US and fared no better elsewhere.
Chen returned to China, where he said he would go, even before the failure of his
Western debut152.
One must take note that exposure to Hollywood films had been rather limited in
China until very recently. In 1994, the Ministry of Radio, Film & Television (RFT)
issued a reform measure, allowing the annual import of ten international
blockbusters, the criteria for which was loosely defined as “reflecting up-to-date
global cultural achievement and representing excellence of cinematic art and technique.”153 These have included NATURAL BORN KILLERS (Oliver Stone, 1995),
BROKEN ARROW (John Woo, 1995), TWISTER (Jan De Bont, 1997), TOY STORY
(John Lasseter, 1995), TRUE LIES (James Cameron, 1995), WATERWORLD (Kevin
Reynold, 1995), BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY (Clint Eastwood, 1995), and
JUMANJI (Joe Johnston, 1995); generating huge revenues and accounting for 70-80%
of all box-office returns in 1995154. This quota has since been increased and was
63
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
62
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 64
expected to reach fifty by the end of 2005155, and although around fifty foreign films
were shown, 120 domestic films were also released, and out of the top ten grossing
films, six were made in China156. In addition to accounted-for movie sales, China has
the world’s highest amount of piracy. According to International Intellectual
Property Alliance’s 2002 report, estimated trade losses due to piracy in motion
pictures has reached US$160 million, or 88% of potential earnings in 2001, and
many Hollywood films are widely available157. Stanley Rosen argues that
Hollywood films’ popularity has led Chinese cinema “to adopt Hollywood-style
narratives.”158 If this is indeed the case, and continues in this direction, especially
now since China has entered the WTO in 2001, we are likely to see a stronger
interaction between the Chinese film industry and Hollywood. But this may still be
some time away, as the all-time highest grossing Chinese film, BE THERE OR BE
SQUARE (Xiaogang Feng, 1998) could not get American distribution, despite a mere
US$30,000 price tag159.
Iran, home to one of the strongest national cinemas to emerge in the 1980s, has
had an even more problematic relationship with Hollywood. Immediately after the
1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, foreign films, some of which had been banned
under the Shah’s regime, flooded the Iranian market. However, as early as July of
the same year, efforts to curb film imports began, firstly with a limitation on Bmovies from Turkey, India and Japan, then a ban on ‘imperialist’ and ‘antirevolutionary’ films, followed by exclusion of all American films160. This has
allowed Iranian filmmakers a space where they could create their own films without
having to worry about the market share. In an interview, the famous Iranian director
Mohsen Makhmalbaf likens this situation to “bringing up a flower in a greenhouse,”
sheltered from the “commercial hurricane” of Hollywood161. Makhmalbaf argues
that having had no choice but to watch non-Hollywood films, the Iranian audiences’
tastes changed, and became more open to Iranian films. That may well be true, but
the films that are well received in the West have the hardest time being distributed
in Iran162. This is not only due to governmental restrictions, but also to falling ticket
sales; as pirated videos and satellite dishes become more wide-spread, there are
alternatives to local films163. And although there have been a number of Iranian
filmmakers popular in the West, none have opted to work for Hollywood so far.
While co-productions with Western European or other Middle-Eastern countries
have been made, and screened at film festivals, the anti-American feelings in Iran
through the 1980s and the 1990s have built too large a gap for the Iranian directors
and the studios to feel comfortable working with each other. And now, after 9/11, it
has become a challenge for these directors even just to step onto US soil164.
The most recent example of a blooming film industry is South Korea, which has
had a remarkable number of commercial and art-house hits in the recent years. In
2000, domestic share of the market climbed to a record 49.1 percent, and Korean
films accounted for six of 2001’s top ten hits165. Following a flood of Hollywood
films on Korean screens in the early 1990s, the government started imposing a
quota on locally produced films in order to guarantee their distribution. Westerntrained filmmakers and new sources of funding helped boost the industry166. Local
filmmaking is at its highest, both in terms of mainstream action films and art house
films gathering awards at international festivals167. Currently, Korean directors have
the large budgets and the large audiences provided for them, without having to go
to Hollywood, although some of their films have been purchased in order to be
remade into English168. However, an increasing number of box-office failures have
already started damaging the industrial high. Early in 2006, the government
announced among protests from filmmakers, that the quotas will be decreased
starting July 1, 2006. With pressure from Hollywood rising to abolish the quotas
altogether, South Korea’s time in the spotlight may already have ended, causing its
leading filmmakers to try their chances in the West. As their films are already being
remade in Hollywood, these directors may stand a good chance in Hollywood,
much like their Japanese counterparts to be discussed in chapter four.
Conclusion
These categorizations have been aimed at establishing the existing patterns in
film industries today. A strong or flourishing industry attracts the attention of
Hollywood, which then recruits directors from that local industry. This is not
necessarily bad for the local industry however, since having one’s directors work for
Hollywood can result in becoming the receiving end of runaway productions, which
is not only economically beneficent in the short term, but also results in having welltrained personnel. Among the most representative examples are Australia and
Mexico. This system does not work however, if the directors in question are not
sufficiently familiar with Hollywood-style filmmaking. Joseph Garncarz claims that
a film industry’s economic strength increases proportionally to its audiences’
cultural assimilation: “The greater the global cultural acceptance of US films is, the
higher the investments in US films may be” 169. In turn, Garncarz argues, the US film
market’s expansion is increased and the globalization process of the film industry is
accelerated. While I would refrain from using Hollywood and ‘US film industry’
interchangeably, this is one aspect of understanding how the talent flow between
Hollywood and other parts of the world functions. Hollywood is both the agent of
transformation and the manifestation of this change in the process of globalization;
resulting in a cycle that seems to be operating in favor of Hollywood.
Within this context, it appears to be more useful to construe today’s Hollywood
as a global filmmaking network rather than just a center where filmmaking activity
is agglomerated. Hollywood in Los Angeles County is indeed the primary node
within this network; nonetheless, there are other nodes170. As I will discuss in the
following chapters, some of these nodes are other media capitals like London or
New York, where executives, producers, and directors are situated. Other key nodes
are the festivals; they are mobile and are positioned at different locations only for a
brief period of time. Nonetheless, this does not diminish their significance. As Piers
Handling, the head of Toronto Film Festival, has noted, festivals have become “an
alternative distribution network”171. They are also showcases for independent
productions waiting to be ‘discovered’ and purchased by Hollywood’s distribution
companies. This is especially true of the Sundance Festival in Utah, where the
careers of American directors like Kevin Smith, Ed Burns and Steven Soderbergh
blossomed172. De Valck points out that the festival system both “counters and works
with the hegemony of Hollywood”, offering alternative “platforms for marketing
and negotiation”173. In this regard, Cannes Film Festival plays an enormous role
among the festivals, providing an opportunity for the studios not only to encounter
global talent, but also to showcase their ‘quality’ products. Every year, global media
zestfully cover the Hollywood stars and directors visiting Cannes, supplying their
65
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
64
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 66
films with invaluable PR coverage. Stars are often contractually obliged to
accompany the films to festivals and give interviews to the press174. An award at one
of the major festivals (Cannes, Venice, Berlin, Toronto) means even more
international recognition and credibility; and for Hollywood films, attending a
festival is an executive decision taken as part of the marketing strategy by the
production company175.
In the following chapters, I will look at several case studies which function as
sub-networks within the larger Hollywood network. These case studies are not of
specific directors, but of groupings that consist of different styles and production
conditions. I have chosen examples that represent several significant patterns visible
in Hollywood today. These cases also demonstrate some of the strategies adopted
by filmmakers, leading them to working in Hollywood. In chapter one, I have
already discussed some patterns and some of the networks that facilitate global
directors’ work in Hollywood, and looked at the roles played by producers and
agents. The best way still seems to earn box-office success in one’s own country,
region, or the global festival circuit, often leading to an Oscar nomination, which
then regularly translates into a contract with a major studio. Variety reports that out
of the 50 director nominees of the last decade for Best Foreign Language Film,
almost all “have gotten calls from Hollywood agents testing their interest in coming
to California”176. These filmmakers’ reputation helps them become brand names,
strongly aiding in the marketing of their Hollywood films177. But there appear to be
certain other networks and patterns that have proven useful in becoming a global
director.
Many of the global directors experience their first taste of Hollywood through
co-productions. Paul Verhoeven directed FLESH+BLOOD (1985) as a Spanish / US /
Netherlands co-production shot in Europe, before he moved to Hollywood for
ROBOCOP (1987). Roger Donaldson shot THE BOUNTY (1984) as a British / US /
Australia / New Zealand / Italian co-production in French Polynesia and his native
New Zealand before relocating to Hollywood. Additionally, franchises like the
Harry Potter or Batman series are often shot outside the US and employ global
directors. A forbearer of both co-production and franchise practices has been the
James Bond films, which have become a jumping board for many British directors,
and will be the topic of the next chapter.
Another way of being noticed by the studios is by creating a script in order to
“have a full hand” and “something to sell”178, but for non-native speakers, this is a
very difficult task to achieve. Therefore, the possibility arises as the remake of an
already successful film. In the early sound era, a number of directors remade their
own films in sound, at times in a different language and context. Some filmmakers
made their films into different genres during the studio era. One of the most
successful examples came from a British director, where the film changed locations,
but not its language: Alfred Hitchcock’s THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH
(1934/1956). Since the 1980’s, however, very few directors attempted remaking
their own films for Hollywood audiences, and until recently, all faced critical and
commercial failure: Francis Veber’s LES FUGITIFS (1986) / THREE FUGITIVES (1989),
George Sluizer’s SPOORLOOS (1988) / VANISHING (1993), Ole Bornedal’s
NATTEVAGTEN (1994) / NIGHTWATCH (1998), and Jean-Marie Poiré’s (Gaubert) LES
VISITEURS (1993) / JUST VISITING (2001). But in the last few years, Japanese
directors Hideo Nakata and Takeshi Shimizu successful remade their own horror
films. Nakata directed the sequel to the Hollywood version of his RINGU (1998),
THE RING TWO (2005), and Shimizu remade two of his films, JU-ON: THE GRUDGE
(2003) / THE GRUDGE (2004), and their sequels JU-ON: THE GRUDGE 2 (2003) / THE
GRUDGE 2 (2006). Chapter four will examine these sets of remakes and their
function in bridging different film cultures.
A new way of achieving worldwide recognition since the mid-1970s has been
by directing advertisements and music videos. The ‘British invasion’ at the
beginning of the blockbuster era came from advertising. Ridley Scott still keeps his
close ties with the advertising industry via his company Ridley Scott Associates
(RSA), which was founded in 1965179. Lately, some European and Asian music
video directors such as Michel Gondry, Tarsem Singh and Jonas Åkerlund have
been attempting to break into Hollywood, not all with great success. Nevertheless,
since the UK is considered to be a world leader in directing music videos180, one can
expect this field to be a continuing source of talent for the film industry. The last
case study will be about directors with these backgrounds, focusing on RSA and the
talent it has fostered181. The case studies will be focusing on how these networks of
media and talent have been structured and how they function. The focus on British
and European examples reflects the distribution of global directors in Hollywood,
as analyzed in chapter one.
In a study encompassing over 200 individuals and their films, there could have
been a variety of case studies. To focus on individual filmmakers would have been
insufficient in a project that covers so many directors with such different
backgrounds. Moreover, I wanted to focus on patterns and decision-making figures
and institutions. EON Productions, Roy Lee and Ridley and Tony Scott are such
figures and institutions that will be discussed in the case studies. I believe that on a
larger scale, they are more influential in the shaping of talent flows than the
individual filmmakers themselves. I have deliberately chosen not to base my case
studies on specific nations. In a book that focuses on the mobility and
denationalization of filmmakers and the films they produce, a classification based
on nationality would have been contradictory. Nonetheless, certain patterns that
reflect the state of specific national cinemas do arise in the following chapters. The
reason I chose these particular cases was twofold. On the one hand, the patterns
illustrated by the case studies appear among a noticeable number of directors, and
provide an informative look at how talent transfers function. On the other hand, they
also represent some of the major current trends in Hollywood like franchises and
remakes, irrespective of the filmmakers’ nationalities. I believe we can get a clearer
understanding of these talent flows and the state of Hollywood after analyses of
these cases.
67
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
66
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 68
Endnotes
1 Glauber Rocha, quoted in Roy Armes: Third World Filmmaking and the West.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1987: 35.
2 John Ford in a 1964 BBC Interview, quoted in (among others) Bordwell, Staiger,
Thompson: xiii.
3 Miloš Forman quoted in Peter Cowie: Revolution! The Explosion of World Cinema in
the 60s. London: Faber&Faber, 2004: 243.
4 David Hesmondhalgh: The Cultural Industries. London / Thousand Oaks / New Delhi:
Sage Publications, 2003: 1-2..
5 Scott: 46-49.
6 For detailed analyses of approaches to globalization and its cultural implications, see
(among others) Mike Featherstone: Undoing Culture. Globalization, Postmodernism and
Identity. London / Thousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995; David Held and
Anthony McGrew: “The Great Globalization Debate: An Introduction”. In David Held
and Anthony McGrew (ed.s) The Global Transformations Reader. Cambridge, Oxford,
Malden: Polity Press, 2000: 1-45; Hesmondhalgh: The Cultural Industries.
7 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/outsourcing > Accessed 29.08.2006.
8 Kamal Saggi: “Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and International Technology
Transfer: A Survey”. In The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 17, no. 2: 191-235.
9 Theodore Levitt: “The globalization of markets”. In Harvard Business Review, vol. 61,
no. 3, 05-06.1983: 92-102, here 101.
10 Ibid.: 100.
11 See Thomas L. Friedman: The World is Flat. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux,
2005.
12 Cowen: 5.
13 Ibid.: 17.
14 Leslie Sklair: The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford / Malden: Blackwell
Publishers, 2001: 4.
15 For an account of how economic globalization has been unable to provide stability and
an equal distribution of wealth, see Joseph E. Stiglitz: Globalization and Its Discontents.
New York: W.W. Norton, 2002.
16 Vincent Mosco: “Knowledge and Media Workers in the Global Economy: Antimonies
of Outsourcing”. In Social Identities, vol. 12, no. 6, 11.2006: 771-790, here 775. One
should note that estimations and projections vary greatly in this matter, a fact Mosco also
acknowledges.
17 Benjamin Barber: Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995.
18 Herbert I. Schiller: Communication and Cultural Domination. New York: International
Arts and Sciences Press, 1976. For a brief historical discussion of the term, see Mel van
Elteren: “US Cultural Imperialism Today: Only a Chimera?” In SAIS Review, vol. 23, no.
2, Summer-Fall 2003: 169-188. Schiller’s comments from later decades will be discussed
in chapter six.
19 John Tomlinson: Cultural Imperialism. London / New York: Continuum, 1991.
20 See Paul E. Willis, Chris Barker: Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London /
Thousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003: 344-345. For two classical
examples of creative consumption, see Ien Ang: Watching Dallas. London / New York:
Methuen, 1985; Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz: The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural
Readings of Dallas. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
21 Thomas Elsaesser: “The Pathos of Failure: American Films in the 1970s”. In Thomas
Elsaesser, Noel King, Alexander Horvath (ed.s) The Last Great American Picture Show:
New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2004:
279-292. (Originally printed in Monogram, no. 6, 1975: 13-19).
22 Noel King: ““The Last Good Time We Ever Had”: Remembering the New Hollywood
Cinema”. In Thomas Elsaesser, Noel King, Alexander Horvath (ed.s) The Last Great
American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 2004: 19-36, here 20.
23 Diane Jacobs: Hollywood Renaissance. Cranbury, NJ: Barnes: 1977.
24 N. King: 23.
25 Thomas Schatz: The New Hollywood”. In Jim Collins, Hilary Radner and Ava
Preacher Collins (ed.s) Film Theory Goes to the Movies. New York: Routledge, 1993: 836, here 8. Also see Thomas Schatz: Old Hollywood / New Hollywood: Ritual, Art, and
Industry. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1983.
26 Murray Smith: “Theses on the Philosophy of Hollywood History”. In Steve Neale,
Murray Smith (ed.s) Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. London / New York: Routledge,
1998: 3-20, here 11.
27 Thomas Elsaesser: “Specularity and Engulfment: Francis Ford Coppola and BRAM
STOKER’S DRACULA”. In Steve Neale, Murray Smith (ed.s) Contemporary Hollywood
Cinema. London / New York: Routledge, 1998: 191-208, here 191.
28 Janet Wasko: Hollywood in the Information Age. Austin: University of Texas Press,
1995: 4.
29 Balio (1998): 58. Also see Tino Balio: “Adjusting to the New Global Economy.
Hollywood in the 1990s”. In Albert Moran (ed.) Film Policy. International, National and
Regional Perspectives. London / New York: Routledge: 1996: 23-38.
30 Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, Richard Maxwell and Ting Wang: Global
Hollywood 2. London: BFI Publishing, 2005: 7. Global Hollywood 2 is an extended
version of Global Hollywood by the same authors (except for Ting Wang). Whenever I
refer to Global Hollywood, I will be citing from the second book, the “director’s cut, with
expanded features” as it is called in the Introduction.
31 Above the line workers are those workers “whose salaries are individually negotiated
and who are named explicitly as line item entries in any project budget” like the director
and the stars. Below the line workers’ remuneration is “set impersonally according to
wage schedules defined in collective bargaining agreements”. These workers comprise the
majority of the crew on the set. See Scott: 121.
32 Miller et al.: 362.
33 Ibid.: 333-368.
34 Ibid.: 7.
35 Franco Moretti: “Planet Hollywood”. In New Left Review, no. 9, 05-06.2001: 90-101.
36 While Moretti calls these ‘American’ films, I would like to call them ‘Hollywood’
films, for the reasons explicated in the first chapter.
37 This may be due to Moretti’s background in literary studies, where it is relatively easier
to assign a novel a nationality.
38 Aida Hozic: Hollyworld. Space, Power and Fantasy in the American Economy. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2001.
69
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
68
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
Global Directors of New Hollywood
14:45
Page 70
39 Ibid.: 85-112.
40 Hozic does discuss several schemes involving international ties employed by the
merchants to strengthen their standing, such as international co-productions and pre-selling
films’ international rights. 104-108.
41 Definition is taken from Stuart Rosenfeld: A Governor’s Guide to Cluster-Based
Economic Development. Washington, DC: National Governors Association, 2002: 9.
42 See Marcus Berliant, Robert R. Reed III, Ping Wang: “Knowledge Exchange,
Matching, and Agglomeration”.
<http://www.econometricsociety.org/meetings/wc00/pdf/0261.pdf> Accessed 07.03.2006:
1.
43 See Michael Porter: The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: MacMillan,
1998.
44 See Michael Porter: “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition”. In Harvard
Business Review, vol. 76, no. 6, 11/12.1998:77-90.
45 Clustering and agglomeration are frequently used interchangeably by economists,
while economic geographers distinguish clusters by the synergy they create among firms,
instead of a simple geographical grouping. See Suma Athreye: “Agglomeration and
Growth: A study of Cambridge Hi-Tech Cluster”. In Open Discussion Papers in
Economics, The Open University, no. 29, 12.2000.
46 Michael Storper, Susan Christopherson: “Flexible specialization and regional industrial
agglomerations: the US film industry.” In Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, vol. 77, no. 1, 03.1987: 104-117; Susan Christopherson, Michael Storper:
“The effects of flexible specialization on industrial politics and the labor market: The
motion picture industry”. In Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 42, no. 3,
04.1989: 331-347.
47 Storper, Christopherson: 113.
48 Cowen: 88.
49 Storper, Christopherson: 104.
50 Storper 1989: 301. Los Angeles is home to 72 studios with 369 soundstages. 40% of
these soundstages’ total square footage is owned by the six majors (Disney, Sony,
Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Warner Bros.), 10% by the three television networks
(ABC, CBS, NBC), and the rest is operated by independent studios. See Scott, 85.
51 Scott: 38.
52 Ibid.: 55.
53 Ibid.: 56.
54 Asu Aksoy, Kevin Robins: “Hollywood for the 21st century: global competition for
critical mass in image markets”. In Cambridge Journal of Economics vol. 16, no. 1,
03.1992: 1-22, here 17.
55 Ibid.: 7.
56 Ibid.: 6.
57 Darrell Satzman: “Once all-powerful, labor adjusts to decline of influence - Who's
Who Entertainment - Hollywood Unions”. In Los Angeles Business Journal 23.09.2002.
The key decision maker no longer sits in Paris, however, since Vivendi sold its majority
shares in Vivendi Universal in 2006 to General Electric.
58 Consider Universal Studios Japan, Disneyland Paris, Sony and Disney stores, etc. See
Susan G. Davis: “Space Jam. Media Conglomerates Build the Entertainment City”. In
European Journal of Communication, vol 14, no. 4, 1999: 435-459.
59 Christopher Vogler, quoted in Wasko 2003: 40.
60 Faulkner, Anderson: 882.
61 Wasko, 2003: 41.
62 Full name of the organization is ‘International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees,
71
Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories
and Canada’. It was changed from ‘national’ to ‘international’ when Canadian unions
started joining as early as 1898.
63 See Satzman; Encyclopedia of American Associations, 39th edition. Vol. 1, part 2,
New York: Thompson Gale Publishers, 2003.
64 Miller et al.: 368. ‘Creative class’ as a category, theorized by Richard Florida, will be
discussed shortly.
65 While Canadian unions are a part of IATSE, different local unions use different price
scales; making Canada an ideal destination for runaway productions. For a comparison of
fees between IATSE Hollywood and IATSE British Columbia, see Audrey Droesch:
“Hollywood North: The Impact of Costs and Demarcation Rules on the Runaway Film
Industry”.
<http://www-econ.stanford.edu/academics/Honors_Theses/Theses_2002/Droesch.pdf >
Accessed 16.03.2006.
66 Wasko, 2003: 46.
67 Litwak: 85.
68 Japanese Economy Division: “Japan Animation Industry Trends”. In JETRO Japan
Economic Monthly, 07.07.2005.
<http://www.jetro.go.jp/en/market/trend/industrial/pdf/jem0506-2e.pdf > Accessed
28.08.2006.
69 Ted Tschang, Andrea Goldstein: “Production and Political Economy in the Animation
Industry: Why Insourcing and Outsourcing Occur”. Paper presented at the DRUID
Summer Conference 2004 on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development,
Elsinore, Denmark, 14-16.06.2004.
<http://www.druid.dk/conferences/summer2004/papers/ds2004-92.pdf> Accessed
27.01.2007.
70 See Daniel W. Drezner: “The Outsourcing Bogeyman”. In Foreign Affairs, vol. 83, no.
3, 05-06.2004: 22-34
71 Scott: 76.
72 Ibid.
73 Peter F. Drucker: “From Capitalism to Knowledge Society”. In Dale Neef (ed.), The
Knowledge Economy. Woburn, MA: Butterworth, 1998: 15-34, here 15.
74 Insider histories on Hollywood are a good source to grasp the inner workings of the
industry. In addition to Litwak, see Dennis McDougal: The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman,
MCA, and the Hidden History of Hollywood. New York: Da Capo, 2001, and David
Rensin: The Mailroom: Hollywood from the Bottom Up. New York: The Random House
Publishing Group, 2003.
75 Litwak: 160.
76 Ibid.: 144.
77 Though by no means is any name a 100% guarantee for box-office success. For an
analysis of star power as a factor in ensuring financial success, see Arthur DeVany, W.
David Walls: “Uncertainty in the Movie Industry: Does Star Power Reduce the Terror of
the Box Office?”. In Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 23, no. 4, 11.1999: 285-318.
Hollywood and the World
70
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 72
78 Alan Paul, Archie Kleingartner: “Flexible Production and the Transformation of
Industrial Relations in the Motion Picture and Television Industry”. In Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, vol. 47, no. 4, 07.1994: 663-678.
79 Those who are not members either no longer work in Hollywood, or have shot their
films outside of the US.
80 Dan Salmon: “Interview with Michael Apted”. In Take 33 (Screen Directors Guild of
New Zealand Magazine), republished on
<http://www.thebigidea.co.nz/article.php?sid=1674 > Accessed 03.02.2006.
81 Faulkner, Anderson: 889.
82 Ibid.: 892.
83 See Pierre Bourdieu: “The Forms of Capital” (R. Nice, trans.). In John G. Richardson
(ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York:
Greenwood Press, 1986: 241-258. (Original work published in 1973).
84 For an in-depth analysis of global networks of film festivals, see Marijke de Valck:
Film Festivals: History and Theory of a European Phenomenon That Became a Global
Network. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam. 05.2006. Forthcoming with
Amsterdam University Press, 2007.
85 Saskia Sassen: Globalization and its Discontents. New York: The New Press, 1998:
86; also see William I. Robinson and Jerry Harris: “Towards A Global Ruling Class?
Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class”. In Science & Society, vol. 64, no. 1,
Spring 2000: 11-54; Leslie Sklair: The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford / Malden:
Blackwell Publishers, 2001; Matthew W. Rofe: “‘I want to be global’: Theorising the
gentrifying class as an emergent élite global community”. In Urban Studies, vol. 40, no.
12, 11.2003: 2511-2526; Michael Peter Smith, Adrian Favell (ed.s) The Human Face of
Global Mobility: International Highly Skilled Migration in Europe, North America and
the Asia-Pacific. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006.
86 Richard Florida: The Rise of the Creative Class. Paperback edition. New York: Basic
Books, 2004: xxvii. Similarly, Ulf Hannerz identifies four “transnational categories” of
people who “play major parts in the making of contemporary world cities”, two of which
are the managerial class and the people specializing in “expressive activities”, namely
producers of the culture industries. Hannerz: 128-130.
87 Manuel Castells: The Rise of the Network Society, Second Edition. Oxford / Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000: 130.
88 Ibid.
89 Saskia Sassen: The Mobility of Labor and Capital. A Study in International Investment
and Labor Flow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
90 Ibid.: 13.
91 Mario Cervantes and Dominique Guellec: “The Brain Drain: Old Myths, New
Realities.” In The OECD Observer, no. 230, 01.2002: 40-42, here 40.
92 Carlos, Holguin: “US Immigration Policies, US Labor, and the Role of Immigrants in
the US Labor Market.” Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Los Angeles.
January 2001. <http://www.centerforhumanrights.org>.
93 George J. Borjas, Richard B. Freeman and Lawrence F. Katz: “Searching for the Effect
of Immigration on the Labor Market.” In The American Economic Review, vol. 86, no. 2,
05.1996: 246-251, here 246.
94 See Abraham T. Mosisa: “The role of foreign-born workers in the U. S. economy”. In
Monthly Labor Review, 05.2002: 3-14.
95 Ronald G. Ehrenberg and Robert S. Smith: Modern Labor Economics: Theory and
Public Policy, 3rd edition, Glenview: Scott Foresman, 1988: 360.
96 Booz, Allen and Hamilton: Characteristics and Labor Market Impact of Persons
Admitted Under the H-1 Program. 06.1988.
97 Joni Maya Cherbo: “Case Study C. Issue Identification and Policy Implementation:
Union Involvement in the Immigration of Temporary Cultural Workers”. In Journal of
Arts Management, Law and Society, vol. 31, no. 2, Summer 2001: 149-167, here 152.
AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Relations) is the body
that unites most US unions into a federated organization.
98 The person who files a petition on behalf of the nonimmigrant alien. This can be an
individual, a presenter, a producer, an employer, or an agent.
99 Cherbo: 150-151.
100 SAG head Pisano points out that increased runaway productions in the nineties have
spurred greater collaboration among the unions and helped strengthen them, see Satzman.
101 Florida (2004): 243.
102 Linda Bosniak: “The State of Citizenship: Citizenship Denationalized”. In Indiana
Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2000: 447-510, here 482.
103 Ong: 6. The notion of ‘flexibility’ is one that appears often in the globalized, postFordist world, if one is to think back on the ‘flexible specialization’ thesis.
104 Benedict Anderson: “Exodus”. In Critical Inquiry, vol. 20, no: 2, Winter 1994: 314327.
105 See Geoffrey Nowell-Smith: “But do we need it?” In Martyn Auty, Nick Roddick
(ed.s) British Cinema Now. London: British Film Institute, 1985: 147-158, here 152; and
Olson: 269.
106 Olson: 270. For a detailed analysis of ‘classical Hollywood style’, see Bordwell et
al.’s The Classical Hollywood Cinema.
107 Miller et al.: 5.
108 Stephen Crofts: “Concepts of national cinema”. In John Hill, Pamela Church Gibson
(ed.s) The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998: 385394, here 390.
109 Semati and Sotirin: 183.
110 Schatz (1993): 35-36.
111 Aksoy, Robins: 13.
112 See Martine Danan: “Marketing the Hollywood Blockbuster in France”. In Journal of
Popular Film & Television vol. 23, no. 3, Fall 1995: 131-140, here 131.
113 Ezra, Rowden: 2.
114 Andrew Higson defines heritage film as quality cinema aimed at the middle-class
British audience that values an “iconography” of the “national past, its people, its
landscape, and its cultural heritage.” Higson states that “the adaptation of heritage
properties, whether novels and plays or buildings and values” is central to this cultural
impulse. See Andrew Higson: Waving the Flag: Constructing a National Cinema in
Britain. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995, 17. While heritage film is defined uniquely to Britain,
examples of heritage films can be seen in other cinemas.
115 O’Regan.
116 Quoted in Nick Roddick: “If the United States spoke Spanish, we would have a film
industry…” In Martyn Auty, Nick Roddick (ed.s) British Cinema Now. London: British
Film Institute, 1985: 3-18, here 5.
73
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
72
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 74
117 The Monitor Company: 2.
118 Ibid.: 7.
119 Justine Elias: “The City That Can Sub for All of America.” In The New York Times,
[late edition – final] Section 2, Page 36, Column 1.
120 The Monitor Company: 18-23.
121 Canadian share is even larger for telefilms. The Monitor Company: 10.
122 Borys Kit: “Dublin’s ‘Attraction’ Includes Tax Breaks.” In Hollywood Reporter.
<http://movies.yahoo.com/news/va/20040413/108191597600p.html > Accessed
13.04.2004.
123 Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration: “The Migration of US
Film and Television Production Impact of ‘Runaways’ on Workers and Small Business in
the US Film Industry.” 01.2001, 54-55.
124 Miller et al.: 155.
125 Personal interview with Hugh Hudson, 23.04.2004. Another, highly publicized
director working at home and transforming New Zealand’s film industry is Peter Jackson.
See Richard Florida: The Flight of the Creative Class. New York: Harper Business, 2005.
126 Miller et al.: 164-165.
127 Cook: 180.
128 Puttnam: 245.
129 FASSBINDER IN HOLLYWOOD is a documentary made for Bayerischer Rundfunk.
130 See Krämer: “Hollywood and Germany”, 9-10.
131 Ibid.: 10.
132 Cook: 658.
133 Joseph Garncarz: “Germany Goes Global: Challenging the Theory of Hollywood's
Dominance on International Markets.” Paper for “Media in Transition: Globalization and
Convergence,” an international conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, 10-12.05. 2002. <http://cms.mit.edu/conf/mit2/Abstracts/Garncarz.pdf>
Accessed 21.03.2004, 11.
134 Elsaesser (2005): 314-315.
135 These include WRONGFULLY ACCUSED (Pat Proft, 1998), SLAP HER… SHE’S FRENCH
(Melanie Myron, 2002), RESIDENT EVIL (Paul W.S. Anderson, 2002), as well as Uli Edel’s
two Hollywood productions, LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN (1989) and BODY OF EVIDENCE
(1993).
136 It was called Australian Film Commission (AFC) after 1975.
137 Australian Film Commission: “Information for Filmmakers.” 06.2003, 4-5.
138 Among others, see Cook: 591.
139 Cook: 598.
140 Niccol arrived in Hollywood via scriptwriting in the UK; Elkayem is a 1972-born
director whose first feature film EIGHT LEGGED MONSTERS (2002) was produced by
Roland Emmerich on the strength of his shorts.
141 See Sek Kei: “Achievement and Crisis: Hong Kong Cinema in the ‘80s.” Bright
Lights Film Journal. <http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/31/hk_achievement1.html>
Accessed 05.08.2004.
142 Amanda Brown: “Hong Kong: Exit the Dragon?” PricewaterhouseCoopers Global.
<http://www.pwcglobal.com/Extweb/industry.nsf/docid/9C8D438A16B39E9385256C910
05D43A2>. Accessed 04.08.2004.
143 Winnie Chung: “Giving in to the homing instinct.” In South China Morning Post
[Hong Kong]. <http://www.members.tripod.com/~journeyeast/homing_instinct.html>.
Accessed 23.03.2004.
144 See PricewaterhouseCoopers: “Global Entertainment and Media Outlook.”
<http://www.pwc.com/images/em/outlook2004/AsiaPacificBoxOfficeMarket.pdf>.
Accessed 04.08.2004.
145 For an overview of Indian films’ penetration of Asian, Middle Eastern and Eastern
European markets, see Dina Iordanova: “Indian Cinema’s Global Reach: Historiography
Through Testimonies”. In South Asian Popular Culture, vol. 4, no. 2, 10.2006: 113-140.
146 Thompson and Bordwell: 642.
147 Ibid.: 644.
148 Stanley Rosen: “Hollywood, globalization and film markets in Asia: Lessons for
China?” Conference paper from Fudan University, Shanghai, 23-24.11.2002.
<http://www.asianfilms.org/china/pdffiles/rosen_pdf1.pdf>. Accessed 18.03.2004, 17.
149 Quoted in Meenakshi Shedde: “Columbia and Fox trot into masala land.” In Times of
India. Internet Edition.
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-44102931,prtpage-1.cms?>.
Accessed 05.08.2004.
150 Peter Bradshaw: “Killing Me Softly.” In The Guardian [London] 21.06.2002, Internet
edition.
<http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,4267,740970,0
0.html> Accessed 06.08.2004.
151 David Rooney: “Killing Me Softly”. Variety 19.03.2002: 38.
152 Feng Mei: “Killing Me Softly.” In Beijing Youth 22 January 2001.
<http://www.monkeypeaches.com/KMS-Interview01.html> Accessed 06.08.2004.
153 Ying Zhu: “Chinese Cinema's Economic Reform from the Mid-1980s to the Mid1990s”. In Journal of Communication vol. 52, no. 4, 01.12.2002:905-921, here 915.
154 Ibid.: 915.
155 For the summary of the trade agreement, see The White House Office of Public
Liaison: “Summary of US - China Bilateral WTO Agreement”.
<http://www.uschina.org/public/991115a.html> Accessed 30.03.2006. For a discussion of
said agreement, see Wan Jihong, Richard Kraus: “Hollywood and China as Adversaries
and Allies.” Pacific Affairs vol. 75, no. 3, Fall 2002: 419-434.
156 “Chinese film-makers see a blockbuster year in 2005”.
<http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/28/content_4353480.htm> Accessed
30.03.2006.
157 International Intellectual Property Alliance: “2002 Special 301 Report: People’s
Republic of China.” <http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2002/2002SPEC301PRC.pdf> Accessed
06.08.2004, 32.
158 Stanley Rosen: “China Goes Hollywood.” In Foreign Policy no. 134, 01-02.2003: 9498, here 94.
159 Jihong and Kraus: 434.
160 Hamid Naficy: “Islamizing film culture in Iran”. In Samih K. Farsoun, Mehrdad
Mashayekhi (ed.s) Iran: Political Culture in the Islamic Republic. London / New York:
Routledge, 1992: 178-213, here184.
161 David Walsh: “A moment of innocence: interview with Mohsen Makhmalbaf”.
<http://www.filmlinc.com/archive/programs/11-99/makh/momint.htm>. Accessed
06.08.2004.
162 Cheshire, Godfrey: “Why We Should Care About Iranian Films”.
75
Hollywood and the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
74
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 76
<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069292/>. Accessed 06.08.2004.
163 “Acclaimed Iran films face apathy at home”. In Gulf News [Dubai].
<http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=62595>. Accessed 06.08.2004.
164 A controversy erupted in 2002, when Abbas Kiarostami was denied a US visa by the
American Embassy in Paris. He was to attend the New York Film Festival, where his
latest film was to be screened. As a sign of solidarity, Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki
withdrew from the festival as well.
165 Frank Segers: “South Korea”. In Peter Cowie (ed.) Variety International Film Guide
2003. New York: Silman-James Press, 2003: 302-305, here 302.
166 Rosen (2002): 35.
167 A recent production from the West has also helped increase the national spirit: the
twentieth James Bond installment, DIE ANOTHER DAY (Lee Tamahori, 2002) sparked
many protests due to its portrayal of Koreans.
168 These remake projects will be discussed in more detail in chapter four.
169 Garncarz: 18.
170 One should also note that many media corporations like The Walt Disney Company
or Warner Bros. Entertainment are now actually located not in Hollywood but in Burbank,
another city within Los Angeles County.
171 Quoted in Kenneth Turan: Sundance to Sarajevo: Film Festivals and the World They
Made. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002: 8.
172 Ibid.: 31-32
173 De Valck: 101.
174 Ibid.: 139.
175 Ibid.
176 Steven Gaydos: “Directors Bask in Hollywood Spotlight,” In Variety 13.0119.01.2003: A4.
177 For a discussion of artist as a brand, see Jonathan E. Schroeder: “The artist and the
brand”. In European Journal of Marketing, vol. 39, no. 11/12, 2005:1291-1305.
178 Litwak: 131.
179 Brian J. Robb: Ridley Scott. London: Pocket Essentials, 2001, 18.
180 Steve Rose: “Smack My Film Up.” In The Guardian, 20.11.2003.
181 One pattern that one might expect but does not appear is foreign graduates of
American universities or film schools. There are indeed a few examples such as Ang Lee
(NYU), Marc Forster (NYU), Sam Firstenberg (UCLA), Peter Chan (UCLA), Michael
Rymer (USC), Wayne Wang (California College of Film), Wych Kaosayananda
(Emerson), and Tarsem Singh (Harvard Business School), but even some of these
directors have gone back to their country first, before they were ‘discovered’ by
Hollywood. The number of directors who have gone to film school in their native country
is much larger, but still does not create a majority.
3. A View to a Franchise: James Bond Films, Co-Productions and
Franchises
In the latest James Bond film, CASINO ROYALE (Martin Campbell, 2006), there is a
peculiar series of events early in the film; a chase sequence where Bond (Daniel
Craig) follows a suspected terrorist through construction sites in Madagascar, ends
in the Nambutu Embassy. While this is not out of the ordinary, throughout the scenes
at this embassy of an imaginary African country, the use of security cameras and
screens is highlighted, much more so than in any earlier Bond film. At the end of
the sequence, as Bond shoots the suspect and blows up the embassy, his actions are
all distinctly recorded on one of the security cameras. The audience soon finds out
that the man was indeed a terrorist bomb maker, which is meant to justify Bond’s
actions to some extent. Nonetheless, it is the information age and the rules have
changed; in the following scenes, Bond’s actions, along with security camera
footage, are reported on news sites and newspapers, read by Bond’s nemesis Le
Chiffre, as well as his boss M. The new Bond, played by a new actor, is as
susceptible to the global information networks as any other world citizen. Sony,
Bond’s parent company, is also embedded in transnational networks on various
levels.
Originally an electronics company, Sony was founded in Japan in 1946. It has
since entered music, film, video games, and insurance businesses. With
headquarters in Tokyo and New Jersey, offices in over 20 countries and regions, and
a CEO who holds a dual US-UK citizenship, Sony is a truly transnational
corporation. As I have noted in chapter one, Sony Pictures is also a major player in
Hollywood; it owns Columbia Pictures, Tristar Pictures, MGM and its subsidiary
United Artists, which has traditionally produced the Bond films1. In the last quarter
of 2006, Sony reported a 5% drop in its profits. This was largely blamed on the
launching costs of its PlayStation 3 gaming console, which was released in the US
and Japan, but was kept out of the European market due to production problems and
ensuing shortage2. While its gaming division reported losses, Sony benefited from a
weak Yen, and in the movie business, good DVD sales for DA VINCI CODE (Ron
Howard, 2006) and the box office success of CASINO ROYALE helped the company
increase its sales. One needs to see James Bond as a part of this global
conglomeration, and keep in mind that the films are not just entertainment. They are
also marketing tools for the Sony’s other products, such as the PlayStation Bond
games, or the limited edition ‘James Bond Silver Sony Ericsson K800i’ phone.
Why Bond?
Within this context, the James Bond film franchise carries a relevance to this
project on multiple levels. The very nature of a franchise producing blockbusters is
an important element of New Hollywood. As pre-sold commodities, these films are
familiar to audiences through different channels. They are event films, released
worldwide to millions of audiences with great fanfare, and come with a collection
of merchandising products. More often than not, they are designed as franchises, or
in cases of unexpected success, they are followed by sequels and become one. As
77
James Bond , Co-Productions and Franchises
Global Directors of New Hollywood
76
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 78
the ultimate blockbuster franchise, James Bond came into being much earlier than
JAWS or any of the other well-known harbingers of New Hollywood. From the early
1960s on, Bond films became a truly global phenomenon3. The films initially
appealed to viewers familiar with the novels, later becoming events in their own
accord. Commercial brands, which existed in the novels to characterize Bond,
became product placements in the films, spurring the sales of a wide variety of
products4.
On another level, Bond films have always been multinational in terms of
financing, locations, cast and crew. As Tino Balio noted in his historical account of
United Artists, “the James Bond films are quintessential examples of products
tailored for the international market. Financed by an American major partly with
British film subsidy funds, produced by two expatriates who had incorporated in
Switzerland, and based on a popular series of espionage novels that played off Cold
War tensions, the James Bond films were shot in exotic locales featuring a cast of
mixed nationalities that was headed by a star of universal appeal”5. While Bond
films initially appeared as British productions, the main funding always came from
Hollywood. MOONRAKER (Lewis Gilbert, 1979) was a French / British production
due to tax reasons, and CASINO ROYALE was released as a “United Kingdom / Czech
/ German / United States” production. And within the context of global talent,
Bond’s earlier British directors continued their careers with other Hollywood
projects, and since GOLDENEYE (Martin Campbell, 1995), the Bond franchise has
employed relatively established global directors, a more detailed account of which
I will give in the following sections.
James Bond is one of the most recognized film characters of all times. The
character, created by Ian Fleming, reached a wide popularity first through the
novels, then through their filmic adaptations, which in turn made the books even
more popular. Of nearly 28 million James Bond paperback sales in Britain between
1955-1977, almost 20 million copies were sold between 1963-1966, when the first
Bond films were released6. Over the course of forty years between 1962 and 2006,
twenty one Bond films reached a ticket sales of over 1,5 billion. It has been
estimated that between 25-50% of the world’s population has seen at least one Bond
film7. This popularity is clearly visible in the hundreds of fan books, web sites and
discussion groups devoted to everything about James Bond8.
Being “highly visual films” may be a great part of James Bond films’
popularity9. But another factor in its success is the transnational nature of the
franchise. In their discussion of co-productions as a business strategy, Hoskins et al.
identify nine major benefits of co-produced film and television productions10. While
some of these benefits like “pooling of financial resources”, “cultural goals” or
“learning from partner” are more relevant for co-productions among smaller
filmmaking countries, there are clear advantages for Hollywood companies as well.
Two of these, “access to foreign government’s incentives and subsidies” and
“cheaper inputs in partner’s country”, are the most significant reasons behind
economic runaways; while “desired foreign locations” is the motive that drives
creative runaway productions. Another benefit that co-productions provide to all
parties involved is access to partners’ markets. In terms of Hollywood companies,
this ensures higher profits in overseas markets, but more importantly, for other
parties, this can be seen as a possible way to overcome the barriers of entry to the
US market. This has been the case not only for directors like Paul Verhoeven and
Roger Donaldson, cited in the previous chapter, but also for producers like Dino
DeLaurentiis11. The subject of this case study, the James Bond franchise, has been a
US/UK co-production with input from countless other nations, making the films
significantly transnational. As with other co-productions, the question of films’
nationality arises within the Bond franchise as well. Bond films have been identified
as ‘British’ or as ‘Hollywood’, depending on the standpoints and agendas of the
identifiers. This chapter will examine the history of the Bond franchise, as well as
its directors, and raise questions about the role of co-productions and the nationality
of films.
Meeting Mr. Bond
Compared to Bond’s popularity among the audiences, the scholarly world has
been comparatively less interested in the series. While studies on the novels had
already been published in the 1960s12, the first volume on Bond films did not appear
until 198713. Only around the fortieth anniversary of the series, several scholarly
books and volumes were published14. James Chapman explains this neglect of the
Bond series in films scholarship with the nature of the “orthodox film criticism […]
in Britain, with its emphasis on ‘realism’ […] and notions of ‘quality’.”15 But even
after the 1980s, when film scholars started showing interest in films outside the
traditional British canon, Bond series failed to gain attention. Chapman argues that
this is in part due to the big-budget values of the films16, but mostly because of their
“sexist, heterosexist, jingoistic, xenophobic and racist” nature, as well as their
apparent endorsement of these qualities.17 Studies published since Chapman’s book
not only acknowledge these characteristics of the films, but often focus on issues of
representation in terms of gender, nationality and ethnicity. As I am interested not
in the James Bond character per se but in the production of the series, most of the
published work falls outside my scope. The most relevant study on the subject was
published by Jane Woollacott in 1983, therefore it does not cover most of the time
period this thesis is concerned with18.
There are hardly any characters known as well as Bond, yet there is also much
not known about either the character or the series. Possibly the most ‘British’ figure
in all contemporary film and literature, this member of MI6, the British secret
service, was transferred to the silver screen in the 1960s, starting with DR. NO
(Terence Young, 1962). The last of the installments so far came out in November
2006. CASINO ROYALE (Martin Campbell), while different from its predecessors in
many ways, still had Bond save the world and serve his queen. However, a closer
look reveals that Bond may not be so ‘British’ after all. James Bond, the character,
was born of a Scottish father and a Swiss mother. The film franchise is the
brainchild of Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, an Italian-American and a
Canadian producer, respectively, who obtained financing for the films from an
American company, United Artists. United Artists has since been merged into
MGM, which was then purchased by Sony Pictures, a unit of the Japanese corporate
giant Sony19. The scriptwriter for most of the films, Richard Maibaum, also is an
American, in later stages accompanied by Michael Wilson, Broccoli’s stepson.
Bond’s gadgets include a Swiss watch and a Swedish cell phone, and for a few films
he drove a German car instead of the usual Aston Martin. Title songs are frequently
sung by American singers or bands, as well as one Norwegian band and several
79
James Bond , Co-Productions and Franchises
Global Directors of New Hollywood
78
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 80
British performers20. Location shooting, an integral part of a Bond film, frequently
spans the entire world, and on occasion, outer space. The films’ directors come from
different geographies, mainly Britain, but also Canada and New Zealand. Earlier
directors, who were all British, have retained their close ties with the studios,
directing Hollywood action films.
As a result, although James Bond films are on occasion quoted as “the great last
gasp of British film-making”21 or “some of the best-known British successes”22, and
the limited academic discussion of the films can be found in works on British
cinema23, they are not truly ‘British’, a problematic term in itself as discussed by
scholars of national cinema in the last two decades. It should also be noted that one
of the main reasons behind the decision to have a British production base was not
loyalty to the novels’ pedigree, but that the films qualified for the Eady Levy24. The
Eady Levy was established in 1958 to assist the British film industry. In order to
avoid criticism from the American companies, it was set up as an indirect levy. A
proportion of the ticket price was to be pooled; half to be retained by exhibitors and
half to be divided among qualifying 'British' films in proportion to the UK box
office revenue, with no obligation to invest in further production25. The films needed
to be “registered as British, regardless of their source of finance”26.The levy was
terminated in 1985, but until then, it attracted many Hollywood (as well as
European) productions to the UK.
Defining any country’s films is a difficult task; however, defining a British film
is particularly problematical. The colossal presence of Hollywood capital invested
in the British film industry is the primary cause of this difficulty. Prevalence of coproductions with various other European countries is another factor. Britain’s
Department of Culture Minister Chris Smith announced in 1999 that all films which
have spent 75 % percent of their budget in the country and employ mostly British,
E.U. or Commonwealth citizens as crew qualify as British27. This definition is a
rather wide one, but at least it is more concrete than some other suggested
definitions. In an editorial published in the June 2003 issue, Sight & Sound discussed
what should be considered a British film. Despite contrary arguments, Sight &
Sound’s designation of British films is limited to “the national location of the
production companies involved.”28 By this definition, the Britishness of the James
Bond series is questionable, due to the presence of MGM/UA behind it. In fact, in
her discussion of British cinema’s emulation of Hollywood, Sally Hibbin suggests
that Bond films are the opposite of what British cinema is29. Even in terms of the
official definition, Bond series are in danger of no longer being British. Despite the
location shootings around the world, sets at Pinewood Studios in England had been
used for all Bond films. Some time before the shooting for CASINO ROYALE began
in early 2006, trade papers announced that the production could be transferred from
Pinewood to Barrandov Studios in the Czech Republic30. The British Culture
Secretary Tessa Jowell commented that “everything possible is being done” to keep
Bond in the UK31, but most of the production was ultimately moved to Prague.
Nonetheless, CASINO ROYALE’s release as a British / Czech / German / US coproduction did not prevent it from becoming one of the most nominated films at the
British Film Academy Awards (BAFTA).
While it may be difficult to qualify the James Bond series as British, it is not
possible to define these films as American products either. After all, they come from
a British literary tradition; they have a British protagonist and usually British
directors and lead actors, and are shot at a variety of locations, including sets in
England. The impossibility of assigning a specific nationality to these films brings
into question the nationality of films as an essentialist category, as discussed briefly
in chapter one. The labeling carried out by critics and scholars is often either
arbitrary or aims to serve specific agendas. Initially, the identification of Bond films
as ‘British’ has been partly for financial reasons, due to the Eady Levy. Cultural
branding was also an issue, as evinced by the producers’ insistence on hiring a nonAmerican actor for the lead role. Even though the franchise has always been
multinational, the ‘face’ of Bond has consistently been from the Commonwealth32.
Currently, especially with a sizeable portion of the shooting done in the Czech
Barrandov Studios, there is little Britishness left in the Bond franchise, save for the
title character and the lead actor. The transnationality of Bond not only reflects that
of Hollywood, but it is also what makes the franchise so popular around the globe.
The films are concoctions that can no longer be tied to any specific nationality, but
thrive on their own traditions and conventions.
In terms of story structure and narration, the films are close to the Classical
Hollywood narration, although by now, with twenty films and countless spawns,
they nearly have their own filmic language. The narrative structure has
unchangeable elements such as the thrilling opening sequence, the climax at the
villain’s hide-out and the ending in the arms of a Bond-girl. Iconographic details
like the Walther PPK gun, the gadgets and the women are ever present, as well as
the fixed characters, reappearing like M or Q, the two Bond girls, the power-hungry
villain, his principal henchman, etc. The score, not only in terms of the famous
theme, but also where and how the theme is employed, are all a part of a Bond
picture. In the last analysis, these films are more ‘Bondian’ than anything else, to
employ a term used by Broccoli and other members of the production team33. This
is a space that is neither British nor American, but encompasses both, as well as
nearly everywhere else around the world, geographically.
The persistence of this ‘comforting’ consistency is what makes Bond films so
popular. The hero and the lines between Good and Evil have always been easily
identifiable, prompting John Brosnan to approach Bond films as “fairy tales” and
“twentieth-century folk epics”34. James Chapman suggests that the Bond films need
to “find the right balance between repetition and variation, […] so that they can
simultaneously provide the sort of entertainment pattern which audiences expect
while at the same time providing new thrills”35. Despite their Anglo-Saxon origins,
the films were “able to achieve an international appeal in much the same way as did
the cartoons of Walt Disney”36. The non-US box-office of Bond films vary between
55-78% of total revenues, which is a relatively high percentage compared to other
studio films37. Within this structure of repetition and continuity, the producers have
been the constant force behind the Bond series. Their role has been more important
and dominant than that of the directors, who frequently change between films. Thus,
calling the ‘author’ of the films into question, I see the producers as the primary
owners of these products. To get a better grasp of this argument, one would need to
look at a brief history of the Bond franchise.
Bond History
An evaluation of Bond films’ history reveals three major periods. These periods
81
James Bond , Co-Productions and Franchises
Global Directors of New Hollywood
80
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 82
are separated by changes in production, but also correspond to other landmarks.
These periods are briefly as follows: The first period, with Broccoli and Saltzman
acting as producers, goes on from DR. NO (1962) to THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN
GUN (Guy Hamilton, 1974). Since this period can be seen as the birth of the
franchise, and falls outside the boundaries of this project, it will not be dwelled
upon. The second period starts when Saltzman leaves the franchise and the films are
first produced by Broccoli alone, then by Broccoli and his step-son Wilson. This
period begins with THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (Lewis Gilbert, 1977) and ends with
LICENSE TO KILL (John Glen, 1989).
The third period starts in 1995 with GOLDENEYE (CAMPBELL) and continues until
DIE ANOTHER DAY. The producers in this period are Wilson and Broccoli’s
daughter, Barbara Broccoli. This period brought along several significant changes.
Not only has the franchise entered a very profitable era at this point (See Figure 1),
but the directors’ backgrounds have become varied, unlike the solely British
directors working on the films in the first two periods. This clearly reflects the
changes discussed in chapter one in terms of Hollywood’s global directors’
backgrounds. One can argue that with CASINO ROYALE, the Bond franchise has
entered a fourth period. A new Bond, portrayed as a young agent at the beginning
of his career, and a reduced reliance on gadgets and special effects appear to be this
period’s pointers. This is also a new era on the production level, since Bond is now
a part of the Sony group.
160,000,000
140,000,000
120,000,000
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
Casino Royale
Die Another Day
The World Is Not Enough
GoldenEye
Tomorrow Never Dies
Licence to Kill
Octopussy
A View to a Kill
Moonraker
For Your Eyes Only
The Spy Who Loved Me
Live and Let Die
The Man with the Golden Gun
Diamonds Are Forever
You Only Live Twice
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Goldfinger
Thunderball
Dr. No
From Russia With Love
0
The Living Daylights
20,000,000
Figure 3.1: Worldwide ticket sales for all James Bond films38
Even before the first period however, there is a pre-films Bond era, starting when
Casino Royale39 was published in 1953. From the very beginning, Ian Fleming was
convinced that James Bond was a hero suitable for the silver screen. Despite various
offers during the 1950s, including one from the famed Hungarian-born British
producer Sir Alexander Korda, no film project actually materialized. The very first
adaptation of James Bond came in the form of an hour-long television film based
on Casino Royale, directed by William H. Brown Jr. This version, wherein James
Bond became Jimmy Bond, an American agent played by Barry Nelson, aired on
CBS in October 1954. DR. NO, the first film of the Bond franchise, was inspired by
an unrealized film project called JAMES GUNN-SECRET AGENT, again with an
American title character. Although this was later changed, details about Doctor No’s
character and the Caribbean location remained largely the same. The two men
behind the project were the producers Albert ‘Cubby’ Broccoli and Harry Saltzman.
Broccoli was born in New York to an Italian-American family. Having started out
as a tea-boy at Twentieth Century-Fox, he eventually moved up to the position of
assistant director. After a stint at the Famous Artists Agency following the war, he
founded the British production company Warwick Films with Irving Allen in the
1950s. Harry Saltzman was born in Canada, but eventually moved to New York.
After various jobs in the show business, he co-founded the Woodfall production
company. Saltzman was the one to first meet with Fleming in 1960, although
Broccoli had been entertaining the idea of Bond adaptations for several years at that
point. The two producers met in May 1961 and formed the Danjaq production
company in Switzerland, as well as its subsidiary, EON Productions, for their
operations in Britain. To secure financing, they first spoke to Columbia, but it was
United Artists that accepted their project. The director, Terence Young, had already
worked with Broccoli, as had one of the three scriptwriters, Richard Maibaum. After
the selection of a Scottish actor to play Bond (Sean Connery) and a Swiss actress to
be the original Bond girl (Ursula Andress), location shooting began in Jamaica.
Thus from the outset, the franchise was a rather multinational formation.
The first period in Bond film series starts thus with DR. NO, which was initially
released in the UK, and did not open in the US until May 1963. Although not
favored by the critics, it made a profit large enough to ensure the second film.
Setting the standards for the franchise, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (Young, 1963)
included a pre-credits sequence and credits accompanied by the title song. Made by
the same producer-director-scriptwriter team and the same lead actor, the film was
set largely in Istanbul, with Italian and German actresses playing Russian spies and
a Mexican actor playing a major Turkish character. This trend, with similar crew
members, some of the same actors and international locations, continued throughout
the rest of the films. Guy Hamilton and Lewis Gilbert took over direction from
Young for several films each, and later, Peter Hunt, an editor on Bond films, directed
ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE (1969). In the meantime, earlier directors such
as Young and Hamilton had started working in Hollywood, as would Hunt later in
his career. Young directed, among others, the well-received thriller WAIT UNTIL
DARK (1967). Hamilton, although chosen to direct the original SUPERMAN (1978),
had to back out due to tax reasons when production moved from Italy to England;
nonetheless, he worked in other, less successful Hollywood films40. All of these
directors continued working in British, Hollywood, and co-produced projects41.
Their experiences as directors of a popular film series surely must have helped them
get Hollywood jobs, but having worked in projects that are largely controlled by
producers, as was the case with the Bond franchise, may have given them extra
credibility in the eyes of Hollywood producers. In this regard, EON Productions is
at least partially responsible for the transnational careers of these directors.
The initial period of the franchise ended in 1975 when Saltzman sold his 50%
83
James Bond , Co-Productions and Franchises
Global Directors of New Hollywood
82
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 84
share in Danjaq to United Artists. The second period, from THE SPY WHO LOVED
ME (1977) to LICENSE TO KILL, (1989) covers seven films. The first four of these
were produced by Broccoli alone and starred Roger Moore, who had replaced Sean
Connery in 1973. The last three, two of them starring Timothy Dalton, were
produced by Broccoli as well as Michael Wilson. Wilson was originally a lawyer
specialized in international business, but had come on board the Bond franchise in
1974, when Broccoli’s troubles with Saltzman were ongoing42. He became a coscriptwriter with Maibaum for FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (Glen, 1981), and co-scripted
the following four films, until the end of what I have called the second period. The
directors in this period were Lewis Gilbert, who had already directed one Bond film,
and John Glen, who had edited and acted as second unit director on three Bond
films. This was a problematic era, since James Bond had become an icon and
subsequently turned into a cliché. Roger Moore played up the comedy element in
the films, and the presence of Jaws (Richard Kiel), a gigantic villain with steel teeth
was blamed for steering the films towards a juvenile audience: “Jaws [seems to be]
created to appeal to anyone under the age of ten.”43 Despite the criticisms of older
fans, the films did well at the box-office, each bringing in over US$150 million.
When Roger Moore was replaced by Timothy Dalton in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
(Glen, 1987), the films took on a more serious note in an attempt to return to their
earlier style, but were faced with the collapse of the Soviets. Dalton starred only in
two Bond films, and after LICENSE TO KILL (Glen, 1989), the series went into a
hiatus for six years, marking the end of the second period. The two directors of this
period helmed several Hollywood pictures after, and between, their Bond films, but
were unable to become major players. This is not too surprising, considering this
period was the one with lowest popularity in the franchise history, as can be seen in
Figure 1.
The New Bond and the Newer Bond
In 1995, GOLDENEYE ushered in a new era. Not only was this the first Bond film
after the end of the Cold War and the first outing for Pierce Brosnan in the title role,
but it was also the first time Albert Broccoli delegated production to his daughter
Barbara Broccoli and step-son Michael Wilson, and the first film after the death of
Maibaum, who had scripted thirteen of the sixteen previous films. GOLDENEYE came
six years after LICENSE TO KILL, a gap much wider than the usual 2-year cycle.
Although this is an era of new blood, there are essentially no major changes in the
Bondian universe. The pattern has been set, and the franchise stays within the
family. One noteworthy change is in terms of the selection of directors. Until
GOLDENEYE, the sixteen Bond films had been directed by four directors only, two of
whom had already been on the crew as editors. Martin Campbell of New Zealand
became the first director of the new Bond era, and this was to be his first experience
with the Bond franchise. Although he was not originally from the UK, a solid career
in British TV series and experience with US action films (NO ESCAPE, 1994) were
the primary reasons Campbell was given the job. The success of the films, however,
is not solely due to the capabilities of the director or the producers. GOLDENEYE
opened with a massive ad campaign, positioning the film not as the forefather of the
1980s’ and the 1990s’ action blockbuster, which it arguably was, but as a
contemporary, thrilling action-adventure44. At this point, it was clear that the Bond
franchise had become truly Hollywood, and the campaign pushed the film as an
update on the franchise everyone knew and loved, without any specific references
to Bond’s nationality.
After the major success of GOLDENEYE, the next Bond was produced very
quickly, this time under the direction of British-raised Canadian Roger
Spottiswoode, who had started out as an editor first in the UK, and continued in
Hollywood working on films of Sam Peckinpah. His career as a director largely
included action films such as UNDER FIRE (1983), AIR AMERICA (1990) and the
universally reviled STOP! OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT (1992). Although TOMORROW
NEVER DIES (1997) did well at the box-office, and even surpassed GOLDENEYE,
much friction was reported between the director and the producers, as had been the
case on the set of GOLDENEYE with Campbell. Broccoli and Wilson had complete
control over the films. As Wilson noted in an interview when asked if there is a line
they don’t cross in terms of MPAA ratings, “You can ask [Martin Campbell] how
many times we asked him to get some cover on that and do it another way.”45
These frictions between the production company and the director have led to
new directors for every following film. The choice for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
(1999) was Michael Apted, who fit the criteria: a British director with several
Hollywood thrillers under his belt (BLINK, 1994; EXTREME MEASURES, 1996).
Curiously though, Apted was also known for his documentary work in the UK (7
UP series) and more ‘dramatic’ films (COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER, 1980; GORILLAS
IN THE MIST, 1988). THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is considered to be one of the
darker Bond films, so much so that the review in Sight & Sound found the film to
be almost non-Bondian: “The makers of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, of whom
director Michael Apted should be singled out for blame, have attempted to depict
all-too fleshy characters who desire, lack and feel. It's what is valued in a Ken Loach
film, but it acts as an explosive and unsettling expulsion from the fantasies Bond
films invite us to.”46 This resulted in yet another change of directors. DIE ANOTHER
DAY (2002) was directed by Lee Tamahori, half Maori, half British, born and raised
in New Zealand. Tamahori made his international breakthrough with a drama about
the Maori, ONCE WERE WARRIORS (1994), and quickly transferred to Hollywood to
direct a series of thrillers (MULHOLLAND FALLS, 1996; THE EDGE, 1997; ALONG
CAME A SPIDER, 2001). The Guardian called Tamahori, probably one of the most
famed directors in the franchise, an “expert, solid, faintly anonymous director, [he
is] tailor-made for the next Bond movie”47. The director himself is also aware of the
limitations, saying “… they have a very loyal fan base and after 19 pictures, I'm not
the guy to come in here and say that my idea is right and theirs is wrong”48, even
though he argues that the limitations are imposed by the genre itself, not by the
producers or the studio. It is, however, the producers and the studio that have created
the genre. For CASINO ROYALE, Martin Campbell was chosen to direct, despite
Quentin Tarantino’s apparent interest49. GOLDENEYE’s enormous popularity was
clearly the leading motive, but Campbell’s success after GOLDENEYE, with two
ZORRO films has proven that he is an ideal Bond director – skillful, action-oriented,
yet consistently ‘invisible’.
CASINO ROYALE did breathe new life into the franchise, bringing audience
numbers back up to the early Bond era. Initially, Daniel Craig’s selection as the new
Bond sparked heated debates on the web and in the press. His blondness and his
rough features, especially when compared to Pierce Brosnan, the previous Bond,
85
James Bond , Co-Productions and Franchises
Global Directors of New Hollywood
84
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 86
drew a lot of criticism50. Nonetheless, the film opened to rave reviews51 and proved
to be a great critical and commercial success. CASINO ROYALE took the series back
to its beginnings, when Bond first received his ‘license to kill’. The opening
sequence, shot in black and white with sharp camera angles and intercut with shots
of an unusually bloody fistfight, signaled to the audiences that this was a different
Bond. While the rest of the film is closer to what is expected of a Bond film, James
Bond’s awkwardness around classical features like his tuxedo and his drinks, as well
as the romantic plotline set CASINO ROYALE apart. While James Bond was born in
the Cold War era, this Bond is fighting ‘the War on Terrorism’. The villain is not a
madman trying to take over the world, but a banker who holds global terrorists’
fortunes. The film even suggests that the events of September 11, 2001 were not
ideologically motivated, but instead was a part of a stock market scheme to
depreciate the values of airline companies. Slavoj i ek has compared Osama Bin
Laden to Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the villain of numerous Bond films, and asked
whether single hero movies like Bond can survive after September 1152. CASINO
ROYALE answered this question by setting Bond up against not an individual terrorist
villain, but against the very source that sustains terrorism. Concerning global stock
markets and an international poker game, with villains from multiple regions, the
film’s plot is a reflection of the age of transnational corporations, and Bond is
renewed for a new generation.
Other Franchises
Although widely used, the term ‘franchise’ is rarely properly defined. It is often
used for all films with multiple sequels; however, serials from Hollywood’s studio era
are often kept out of discussion. Janet Wasko and Eileen Meehan define the film
franchise as a concept that is copied and recycled, that generates different products.
While these have always existed, they were not called franchises until the last few
decades53. To better comprehend the impact of franchises on film industry, it is enough
to take a quick look at the top ten films in the all time box-office list for worldwide
grosses. Except for one film, all are parts of franchises54. Furthermore, studios earn
even higher revenues from merchandising, tie-ins and DVD sales. Franchises offer a
great variety of these products, becoming gold mines for their studios.
Similar to James Bond, most of the successful franchises are transnational in
terms of their production. HARRY POTTER and THE LORD OF THE RINGS, both from
an English literary tradition, were runaway productions with multinational casts and
crew. The first two HARRY POTTER films were directed by the American director
Chris Columbus, the third by a Mexican, Alfonso Cuarón, and the fourth by an
Englishman, Mike Newell. All were shot at Leavesden Studios outside London,
where GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY were also filmed, as well as the first two
episodes of STAR WARS. THE LORD OF THE RINGS series were written, filmed and
completed in New Zealand, by a local director. With the global popularity of the
series, ‘Wellywood’ was put on the map of international filmmaking. Nonetheless,
the three films were produced and distributed by Hollywood companies and are
perceived, not incorrectly, to be Hollywood films.
Even the most ‘American’ superhero, Superman, had his farmhouse, including
its surrounding corn fields, built from scratch in Australia for SUPERMAN RETURNS
(Bryan Singer, 2006). Warner Bros. produced the first four BATMAN films with
PolyGram Filmed Entertainment, a London-based subsidiary of the Dutch music
company PolyGram. While BATMAN (Tim Burton, 1989) and BATMAN RETURNS
(Burton, 1992) were shot partially at British studios, BATMAN FOREVER (Joel
Schumacher, 1995) and BATMAN & ROBIN (Joel Schumacher, 1997) were produced
in-house, at Warner Bros.’ Burbank Studios. With BATMAN BEGINS (Christopher
Nolan, 2005), however, the franchise took another step away from the US, where
the fictional Gotham City is located. BATMAN BEGINS had an English director, a
Welshman (Christopher Bale) in the title role, and an assortment of international
acting talent in supporting roles55. A cartoon published prior to the release shows
Batman in his classic pose: perched atop a building, high over the city. Albeit, the
building is Big Ben, and Batman is sipping tea from a floral cup. The film
eventually grossed over US$ 370 million, 55% of which came from the US market,
which did not seem to mind Batman’s new English heritage.
Conclusion
Successful franchises continue to provide audiences with familiar delights, and
studios with guaranteed revenues. While the content of these films may be
homogenous and standardized, their productions are certainly not. Bond films are
among the earliest examples of franchises, but they have now been joined by many
others. The space that Bond films belong to is that of co-productions, aiming for the
largest common denominator for audiences, and the largest possible profit. Through
“access to foreign governments’ incentives and subsidies”, access to each other’s
markets, “foreign locations” and “cheaper inputs”56 across countries involved in the
co-production, worldwide profits are maximized. This is a transnational space,
encompassing more than one ‘nation’. In these ways, this realm is much closer to
Hollywood, which does not necessarily need to be located in Southern California,
than to an invented construct of ‘British’ cinema.
The significance of Bond franchise for this project is twofold. The first is that
this transnational space had been created as early as the 1960s by Bond, which acted
as a blueprint for many blockbuster action films in the decades to come. The second
involves the position of directors within this space. The name, nationality, and style
of a Bond director are of little importance compared to the franchise, its producers
and its studio. While the émigré auteur narrative still prevails for some of the famous
global directors like Paul Verhoeven or John Woo, many others have been ignored
largely in their capacity as any other industry filmmaker57. In this light, it is not
surprising that Bond directors continued their careers in other Hollywood films.
Instead of émigré auteurs who wanted to leave their marks on the films they made,
they were highly skilled craftsmen who were capable of providing the studios with
the thrills that could lure audiences to cinemas, and for the studios, that has always
been more important than a director’s nationality.
Several months after its release, CASINO ROYALE had its China premier,
becoming the first Bond film ever to be officially released there. This was the
biggest launch ever for a foreign film in China on 1000 screens, and yet Sony did
not expect to make a significant profit, since China’s state-owned distributor retains
the bulk of the box-office returns58. Nonetheless, the film’s stars Daniel Craig and
Eva Green, as well as Martin Campbell, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson
were present. This premier highlighted two of the key issues in contemporary
87
James Bond , Co-Productions and Franchises
Global Directors of New Hollywood
86
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 88
cinema. The first is copyright issues, as the filmmaker Campbell was faced with
pirate copies of his film on the streets of Beijing59. Piracy is a great concern to the
studios, but at the same time it transforms the global film viewing practices and
opens China to the world, even when only a limited number of foreign films are
allowed official releases. The second is the importance of this new market in China,
as well as other Asian countries. Asia, both in terms of audiences and in terms of
talent, started playing a significant role in world cinema within the last decades. In
the next chapter, I will be discussing the practice of remakes and Asia’s importance
in the industry.
Endnotes
1 I am only concerned with the ‘official’ twenty one James Bond films produced by EON
Productions, thus I will leave out Columbia Pictures’ spoof CASINO ROYALE (Ken Hughes,
John Huston, Joseph McGrath, Robert Parrish, Val Guest, 1967) and NEVER SAY NEVER
AGAIN (Irvin Kershner, 1983), the Warner Bros. remake of THUNDERBALL (Terence
Young, 1965). Ironically, both films’ distribution rights now lie with MGM, along with
the official Bond films.
2 “Sony Reports 5 Percent Net Profit Drop”. In The New York Times. 30.01.2007.
3 For a detailed analysis of Bond’s global popularity, see Alexis Albion: “Wanting to be
James Bond”. In Edward P. Comentale; Stephen Watt; Skip Willman (ed.s): Ian Fleming
& James Bond. The Cultural Politics Of 007. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press 2005: 202-220.
4 In addition to product placements of brands like Smirnoff and Aston Martin, these
products included 007 pajamas, coats, cufflinks, and gilded lingerie for women inspired by
GOLDFINGER. Albion: 205. See also Aaron Jaffe: “James Bond, Meta-Brand”. In Edward
P. Comentale; Stephen Watt; Skip Willman (ed.s): Ian Fleming & James Bond. The
Cultural Politics Of 007. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press 2005:
87-106.
5 Tino Balio: United Artists: The Company That Changed the Film Industry. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1987: 253.
6 Tony Bennett; Janet Woollacott: “The Moments of Bond”. In Christoph Lindner (ed.)
The James Bond Phenomenon. Manchester: Manchester University Press 2003: 13-33,
here 17.
7 James Chapman: Licence to Thrill. A Cultural History of the James Bond Films.
London: I.B. Tauris 1999: 14.
8 As of April 2006, there were 322 discussion groups under the James Bond Series
category at groups.yahoo.com, with the largest boasting over 3000 members. While many
of the largest groups are devoted to Bond women, there are many others, focusing on the
novels or the films, the gadgetry, or any of the specific entries of the series. In addition to
the official website (jamesbond.com), there are dozens of sites devoted to everything about
Bond (a few examples: the007lounge.com, universalexports.net, jamesbond007.net,
hmss.com, commanderbond.net, bondian.com). Most books published on Bond films are
companion books focusing on production, with many pictures. Some of the most popular
books are: Lee Pfeiffer; Dave Worrall: The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the
World of 007. New York: Harper Entertainment 1999; Alan Barnes; Marcus Hearn: Kiss
Kiss Bang Bang. The Unofficial James Bond Film Companion. London: BT Batsford
2000; John Cork; Bruce Scivally: James Bond: The Legacy. New York: Harry N. Abrams
2002; Steven Jay Rubin: The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia, Newly Revised
Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill 2002.
9 John Brosnan: James Bond in the Cinema. London: Tantivy Press, 1972: 11.
10 Colin Hoskins, Stuart McFadyen and Adam Finn: Global Television and Film. An
Introduction to the Economics of the Business. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997: 104.
11 Wasser: 430.
12 Most notably, see Kingsley Amis: The James Bond Dossier. London: J. Cape 1965;
89
James Bond , Co-Productions and Franchises
Global Directors of New Hollywood
88
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 90
and Oreste del Buono; Umberto Eco (ed.s): The Bond Affair. London: Macdonald 1966.
13 See Tony Bennett; Janet Woollacott: Bond and Beyond. The Political Career of a
Popular Hero. London: Macmillan 1987. For a bibliography of books on Bond novels as
well as films, see the Bondian Website: <http://www.bondian.com/books >. For a
bibliography focusing on books and articles about the Bond films, see BFI’s National
Library 16+ Guide:
<http://www.bfi.org.uk:8080/filmtvinfo/library/publications/16+/pdf/bond.pdf >
14 In addition to Chapman, see Jeremy Black: The Politics of James Bond. From
Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen. London: Praeger 2001; Christoph Lindner (ed.): The
James Bond Phenomenon. Manchester: Manchester University Press 2003; Edward P.
Comentale, Stephen Watt, Skip Willman (ed.s): Ian Fleming & James Bond: The Cultural
Politics Of 007. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press 2005.
15 James Chapman: 11.
16 Ibid.: 12.
17 Ibid.: 13.
18 Janet Woollacott: “The James Bond Films: Conditions of Production”. In James
Curran, Vincent Porter (ed.s) British Cinema History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson
1983: 208-225.
19 This purchase is quite ironic, since James Bond’s holding company, Danjaq LLC was
involved in a court battle with Sony between 1997 and 1999. Sony had purchased
copyrights of Kevin McClory, a former collaborator of Ian Fleming, and made clear its
intentions of producing Bond films. Sony settled out of court with MGM in 1999, and
purchased MGM in 2005.
20 Out of the 21 theme songs, 10 were sung by British musicians, 9 by American, 1 by
Norwegian. It is worth noting however, that in the last six films, made between 19892006, including all four films starring Pierce Brosnan, the theme song was written and
sung by American musicians. License to Kill by Gladys Knight, Goldeneye by Tina
Turner, Tomorrow Never Dies by Sheryl Crow, The World Is Not Enough by Garbage
and Die Another Day by Madonna, and the CASINO ROYALE theme song You Know My
Name by Chris Cornell. The fact that all but one (Cornell) these musicians are female
(Garbage has a female lead vocalist) can be seen as a reflection of Shirley Bassey’s
success earlier in the series.
21 Lee Tamahori, in an interview with Edward Lawrenson: “Bond for Beginners”. In
Sight & Sound, 11.2002.
22 Cowen: 84.
23 See Roy Armes: A Critical History of British Cinema. London: Secker & Warburg
1978; James Curran; Vincent Porter: British Cinema History. London: Widenfeld and
Nicolson 1983; Robert Murphy: Sixties British Cinema. London: BFI 1992; Sarah Street:
British National Cinema. London and New York: Routledge 1997.
24 James Chapman: “Bond and Britishness”. In Edward P. Comentale; Stephen Watt;
Skip Willman (ed.s): Ian Fleming & James Bond. The Cultural Politics of 007.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press 2005:129-143, here 137.
25 “Eady Levy” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eady_levy>. Accessed 18.04.2006.
26 Street: 20.
27 Sam Andrews: “British Resolve: England’s Venerable Film Industry Marshals its
Resources and Renews Its Commitment to Producing World-Class Cinema”. In American
Cinematographer - The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques
vol. 80, no. 5, May 1999: 72-76, here 75.
28 “British not British”. In Sight & Sound, 06.2003: 3.
29 Sally Hibbin: “Catastrophic Cycles. Film and National Culture”. In Andrew Beck (ed.)
Cultural Work. Understanding the Cultural Industries. London and New York: Routledge
2003: 142-146, here 145.
30 For a history of this traditionally local, but now very global studio, see Michael Millea:
“Czech Privatization: The Case of Filmové Studio Barrandov”. In Journal of International
Affairs, vol. 50, no. 2, Winter 1997: 489-504; Ben Goldsmith; Tom O’Regan: Cinema
Cities, Media Cities: The Contemporary International Studio Complex. Sydney:
Southwood Press, 2003: 45-49.
31 Caroline Briggs: “Government bid to keep Bond in UK”. In BBC News World Edition
17.05.2005. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4556727.stm> Accessed
13.11.2005.
32 Burt Reynolds and James Brolin were among the actors considered for the role by the
directors. See Kevin Colette: “Do You Expect Me to Talk? An Interview with Guy
Hamilton”. In New York Post, 28.12.1978.
<http://www.geocities.com/digitalcinema/kryptoneditorial.html> Accessed 04.06.2003;
Deane Barker: “Licensed to Thrill. An Interview with John Glen”.
<http://www.ianfleming.org/mkkbb/magazine/glen1.shtml> Accessed 19.04.2006.
33 Woollacott: 213.
34 Brosnan: 11.
35 James Chapman: “A Licence to Thrill”. In Christoph Lindner (ed.) The James Bond
Phenomenon. Manchester: Manchester University Press 2003: 91-98, here 94.
36 Brosnan: 11.
37 This analysis has been done on figures obtained from wikipedia.org.
38 The box-office figures are from wikipedia.org, adjusted by the inflation data at
boxofficemojo.com.
39 To distinguish between the book and film titles, book titles have been printed in Italics.
Characters that carry the same name as the titles have been printed in regular font.
40 For example, REMO WILLIAMS: THE ADVENTURE BEGINS (1985).
41 Young has even directed a 6-hour documentary / propaganda film about the life of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
42 Richard Ashton: “The Michael G. Wilson Interviews 1989-1999”. In Her Majesty’s
Secret Service, vol. 3, no. 2, <http://www.hmss.com/films/mgw/mgw95.html> Accessed
21.11.2002.
43 Nicholas Anez: “James Bond”. In Films in Review, vol. 43, no. 11-12, NovemberDecember 1992: 30-36, here 32.
44 For a detailed analysis of the campaign, sea Tiiu Lukk: Movie Marketing. Opening the
Picture and Giving It Legs. Los Angeles: Sillman-James Press, 1997: 43-69.
45 Ashton.
46 Jose Arroyo: “THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH”. In Sight & Sound, 01.2000.
47 Xan Brooks: “The name's Tamahori, Lee Tamahori”. In Guardian Unlimited,
11.01.2002 <http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,631454,00.html> Accessed
22.11.2002.
48 “Lee Tamahori Talks DIE ANOTHER DAY”.
<http://actionadventure.about.com/library/weekly/2002/aa111202a.htm> Accessed
22.11.2002.
49 “Tarantino tips himself as Bond director”. In The Guardian, 07.04.2004.
91
James Bond , Co-Productions and Franchises
Global Directors of New Hollywood
90
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 92
50 A CNN poll from October 2005 showed that while 11% of the participants agreed with
the selection of the new Bond, 35% did not. 54% said they “did not care”
<http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/20714.exclude.html> For more details
about the anti-Craig movement, see <http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/>.
51 On rottentomatoes.com, a website that categorizes positive and negative reviews for
films, CASINO ROYALE received a 95% positive rating, highest for any film released in
2006.
52 Slavoj i ek: Welcome to the Desert of the Real. New York: The Wooster Press, 2001:
21, 39.
53 Janet Wasko, Eileen Meehan: “Commodifying Culture: Film Franchises and Strategies
of Synergy”. Presentation at SCMS Conference in London, 31.03.2005.
54 TITANIC (James Cameron, 1997) is the only exception. As of August 2006, there were
three HARRY POTTER, two THE LORD OF THE RINGS, one each of JURASSIC PARK, SHREK,
STAR WARS and PIRATES OF THE CARRIBBEAN films in the top ten.
55 Morgan Freeman and Katie Holmes were the only Americans in a cast that mainly
consisted of British actors (Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson, Cilian Murphy,
Tom Wilkinson, among others), and included a Dutchman (Rutger Hauer) and a Japanese
star (Ken Watanabe). The sets were said to be modeled after the now-demolished slums in
Kowloon, Hong Kong. See David Gritten: “Batman Now Speaks with a British Accent”.
In New York Times, 19.12.2004.
56 Hoskins et al.: 104.
57 See some of the franchise films directed by global filmmakers, often as their
Hollywood debuts: JAWS 2 (Jeannot Szwarc, 1978), OMEN 3 (Graham Baker, 1981)
RAMBO 2 (George Cosmatos, 1985), BEVERLY HILLS COP 2 (Tony Scott, 1987),
NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4 (Renny Harlin, 1988), BRIDE OF CHUCKY (Ronny Yu,
1998), BLADE 2 (2002), LARA CROFT 2 (Jan de Bont, 2003), HARRY POTTER AND THE
PRISONER OF AZKABAN (Alfonso Cuarón, 2004).
58 “Bond breaks into China”. On Al Jazeera, 29.01.2007.
<http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F2ADCB07-AAC7-4536-8D0429DE0F961192.htm> Accessed 31.01.2007.
59 “Beijing Pirates Skimming Bond’s Profits”. In The Guardian, 29.01.2007.
<http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6379049,00.html> Accessed 31.01.2007.
4. Let Me Rephrase That: Autoremakes across the World
Jean Renoir famously said that great directors make the same film over and over
again throughout their careers. While he may have meant this to refer to auteurs who
dwell on particular themes and employ a consistent style within their oeuvre, it is
the literal truth for certain filmmakers who have remade their own works. Sven
Lütticken points out that this practice dates back as early as the Lumiére Brothers;
and that the “mythical first film,” WORKERS LEAVING THE FACTORY, was shot three
times: once on paper in 1894 and twice during 18951. This practice, labeled
‘autoremake’ by Daniel Protopopoff and Michel Cerceau, has constituted a sporadic
but steady subdivision of remakes in general2. Robert Eberwein has suggested a
thorough classification of remakes by dividing them into fifteen categories, taking
into account the films’ origins, cultural settings, genres, as well as other factors that
may be changed between the original and the remake3. Autoremakes can fall into
the first two of Eberwein’s categories. The first category is “a silent film remade by
the same director as a sound film.” The second is a sound film remade either in the
same country and same language, in a different country in the same language, or in
a different country in a different language. I will return to examples of each of these
categories shortly.
In this chapter, then, I will look at directors who remade their own films in
Hollywood; translating their native cinematic language into that of Hollywood. The
reason I have chosen to study auto-remakes is that they provide global directors with
a comfortable move into the Hollywood system, reworking their own previous
material. Having a film that has proven well in one country is already a great asset,
having a film that can be remade into a Hollywood picture is an even greater one.
These remakes give their directors a possibility to distribute their films in countries
that would otherwise be out of their reach. Hollywood’s vast distribution
infrastructure guarantees this reach; at the same time, it secures financing for
production, allowing for the larger budgets4. Furthermore, comparing ‘original’ and
Hollywood versions of films, particularly by the same directors, can provide an
insight into the content and the style of the film, and how these are translated when
transposed from a national into a global context.
Remakes have become a common occurrence in filmmaking starting in the late
1920s, with the advent of sound. Since silent films lacked recorded dialogue, they
were easily screened in different countries. With the coming of sound, this
convenience disappeared. In addition to remakes of silent films into sound films,
early days of sound saw many films shot as multilanguage productions, as briefly
discussed in chapter 2. The same sets were utilized to shoot different language
versions of the same story with different casts. Ewald André Dupont, hired in 1929
by British International Pictures to direct the English and German versions of
ATLANTIC5, was one of the first directors to shoot multilanguage films, Dupont had
already worked in Hollywood, and he was a German national; hence he was an ideal
candidate. The practice of multilanguage versions was abandoned when cheaper
methods such as dubbing and subtitling started to be deployed. During the first
decades of sound era, several autoremakes were made that fall into Eberwein’s first
93
Autoremakes across the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
92
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 94
category. Abel Gance remade his silent 1919 film J’ACCUSE in 1937; and in 1941,
Ernst Lubitsch directed THAT UNCERTAIN FEELING, a sound remake of his 1925 film,
KISS ME AGAIN. During the studio era, several directors remade their own films not
only in the same country and same language, but often for the same studio; at times
changing the genre, as in Raoul Walsh’s crime picture HIGH SIERRA (1941) and
western COLORADO TERRITORY (1949), changing the stars, as in Leo McCarey’s
LOVE AFFAIR (1939) and AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER (1957), or adding musical
numbers, as in Howard Hawks’ BALL OF FIRE (1941) and its musical version, A
SONG IS BORN (1948)6.
Autoremakes are more interesting for the historian when the original and the
remake are done in different countries, reflecting the differing conditions of
production and expectations; both on the part of producers, as well as audiences. On
a rather naïve level, these projects can be seen as a new chance for the directors to
improve on their initial work. But this is rarely if ever the motivation. The reason
that these particular films are remade is to reap profits for an intellectual property
with an already proven appeal; and the task facing the directors in question is to
provide at least the same level of profitability with the remakes as with their original
films. In the recent years, these autoremake projects have taken on an extra purpose:
for many global directors, these films are seen as a stepping stone for working in
Hollywood7. They provide international directors with a comfortable move into the
Hollywood system, since the filmmakers are reworking their own previous
material. Having a film that has proven itself in one country is already a great asset,
having a film that can be remade into a Hollywood picture is an even greater one,
and these remakes give their directors a possibility to distribute their films in
countries that would otherwise be out of their reach. In this essay, I will look at the
nature and conditions of production for several recent autoremakes. Comparing
“original” and Hollywood versions of films, particularly by the same directors, can
provide an insight into the content and the style of the film, and how these are
translated when transposed from a national into a global context. I will be discussing
a number of autoremakes, focusing on two recently remade Asian films.
Why Remake?
Remakes by different directors can and do happen across all cultures. Luc
Besson’s LA FEMME NIKITA (1990) was remade as BLACK CAT (Stephen Shin, 1991)
in Hong Kong before it became POINT OF NO RETURN (John Badham, 1993) in
Hollywood. Unauthorized remakes of Hollywood films were and still are
commonplace in various film industries, especially in India. In turn, one of the
greatest classics of Bollywood, Raj Kapoor’s AWAARA (1951), was remade as
AVARE (Semih Evin, 1964) in Turkey. While this type of remaking can happen
between all kinds of national film industries, Hollywood productions of foreign
films garner the greatest attention, due to the wide international distribution they
receive. Although Hollywood’s interest in remaking films from other countries has
been a constant part of the business since the very early days of sound film, this
tendency has increased visibly with the advent of ‘New Hollywood’, or the
‘blockbuster era’,. The enormous popularity of Steven Spielberg’s JAWS in 1975 is
frequently seen as a milestone for this era, characterized by huge productions and
substantial investments in promoting these films. The massive amounts of capital
required to produce and to market blockbusters could only be afforded by large
studios, and the magnitude of these investments required that the films be as little
‘risky’ as possible. The popularity of remakes in this era is related to the studios’
desire to use sources that are ‘presold’ in other media, that have already proven their
popularity in other markets, to provide pictures that are more likely to succeed at the
box office. The blockbuster era saw an increase in these ‘safe’ productions. This is
also the case for remakes, where films already successful with audiences are chosen
to be remade. This trend is supported by the limited (or at times non-existent)
distribution of foreign films in the American market8. As Eberwein notes, every
remade film is bound to encounter new audiences9, and since the foreign originals
can reach only a small portion of the world market, the remakes are certain to
broaden their audiences.
Not all remakes have proven to be financially successful, but those that have
combined the allure of blockbusters and the narratives of the originals have done
very well at the box office. Among the most notable ones are TRUE LIES (James
Cameron, 1994) with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead role, THE BIRDCAGE
(Mike Nichols, 1996) with Robin Williams and VANILLA SKY (Cameron Crowe,
2001) with Tom Cruise - Remakes of LA TOTALE! (Claude Zidi, 1991), LA CAGE
AUX FOLLES (Edouard Molinaro, 1978), and ABRE LOS OJOS (Alejandro Amenábar,
1997), respectively. Asian remakes have been added to this list, after the
phenomenal success of THE RING (Gore Verbinski, 2002) with Naomi Watts. This
film, remake of the Japanese horror film RINGU (Hideo Nakata, 1998) will be
discussed in the following pages. This pattern is a partial answer to an essential
question: why are films remade and not simply shown in the US market as they are?
Star appeal cannot be underestimated in terms of its role in attracting crowds to
cinemas, and relatively little-known actors in the original films lack the familiarity
audiences desire.
The other part of the question is the language. Wherever they are shown,
‘foreign’ films need to be subtitled or dubbed. Especially in the US, subtitles qualify
a film to be received as an ‘art film’ with a limited distribution, even if the film is
an example of its country’s popular cinema. Conversely, and somewhat ironically,
distributors claim that the American public is too filmically sophisticated for dubbed
films10. As a result, instead of simply translating the spoken language of the original
film, remaking, and in the process, translating the filmic language of the original,
becomes a more financially viable choice for the American distributors. Remakes
are shot invariably with larger budgets, changing not only the cast, but also
frequently the narration, and in some instances, the narrative. The studios get
originality in terms of a new story, but also familiarity in terms of a proven success.
The question of turning ‘foreign’ films into Hollywood productions is one not only
concerned with the US market, but with the global markets. Atom Egoyan and Ian
Balfour point out that “all films are foreign films, foreign to some other audience”11.
However, a Hollywood film is not as foreign as a film from any other culture.
Hollywood “has become a part of the popular imagination”12 of audiences
worldwide and remade versions of films open in more markets than the originals
could aspire to. While Higson made this observation for British audiences, at a time
when Britain was the largest overseas market for Hollywood, it is true also for other
countries, such as Japan which now occupies Britain’s position; we will return to
the importance of the Japanese market for Hollywood studios in the following
95
Autoremakes across the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
94
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 96
pages. Ultimately, a Hollywood remake is likely to draw larger audiences, because
it carries the brand of Hollywood. For most audiences around the world, this brand
signifies a high level of technical standards and promises an entertaining experience.
I will return to discussing Hollywood as a global brand in the conclusion chapter.
European Autoremakes
As I have indicated in my introduction, the history of autoremakes is somewhat
limited. Hitchcock’s THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, as a 1934 British and a
1956 Hollywood film, is possibly the best-known example. It is also an interesting
case, since the language of the original and the remake are the same. Anatole Litvak
and Julien Duvivier made their Hollywood debuts with auto-remakes13. Roger
Vadim, who alternated between France and Hollywood throughout the 1970s and
the 1980s, remade his classic ET DIEU CRÉA LE FEMME (1956) in 1987 as AND GOD
CREATED WOMAN in Hollywood. Since the 1980s, Hollywood studios have
produced seven more sets of autoremakes. Interestingly, these are rather easily
classified by region and genre: two French comedies, two North European thrillers
and three Japanese horror films. The trend started with Francis Veber’s LES FUGITIFS
(1986) / THREE FUGITIVES (1989) and Jean-Marie Poiré’s (Gaubert) LES VISITEURS
(1993) / JUST VISITING (2001). Comedy is a genre that does not tend to travel well,
and both films received scathing reviews. Disney tried to avoid the negative
comparisons with the original for THREE FUGITIVES by not distributing the original
LES FUGITIFS in the US market, but to no avail14. The Washington Post proclaimed:
“THREE FUGITIVES, a Disney remake of a French farce, recalls THREE MEN AND A
BABY, a Disney remake of a French farce, which recalled DOWN AND OUT IN
BEVERLY HILLS, a Disney remake of a French farce. Aside from a lack of Yankee
ingenuity, what we have here is an advanced case of déjà view.”15 Despite the
negative reviews, the film did exceptionally well at the box office, providing Veber
with another chance to direct a Hollywood studio film, called OUT ON A LIMB
(1992)16. This was to be his last studio project, proving the old Hollywood adage
“you’re only as good as your last movie”. JUST VISITING, Poiré’s Hollywood debut
also received negative reviews, exacerbated by the fact that LES VISITEURS had
indeed been released in the US by Miramax in 1996: “JUST VISITING not only
microwaves what is already four-day-old fish in Paris, but lets the original director,
screenwriters, and stars do the reheating.”17 Unlike THREE FUGITIVES, JUST VISITING
failed to earn enough money at the box office18, and brought a quick end to Poiré’s
Hollywood career.
Another set of Hollywood-debut auto-remakes are two thrillers, one by a Dutch
director and the other by a Danish director: George Sluizer’s SPOORLOOS (1988) /
THE VANISHING (1993) and Ole Bornedal’s NATTEVAGTEN (1994) / NIGHTWATCH
(1998)19. Both SPOORLOOS and NATTEVAGTEN were extremely successful in their
native countries, and received several awards at international festivals. SPOORLOOS
was also distributed in the US, and in addition to receiving positive reviews, did well
at the box office. Shortly thereafter, Twentieth Century Fox, which had purchased
the rights of SPOORLOOS, hired Sluizer to remake his own film, this time set in the
US, with American actors and with a budget of US$33 million; as opposed to the
merely NLG1,5 million spent on SPOORLOOS20. One of the most striking elements of
SPOORLOOS, adapted from Tim Krabbé’s novel The Golden Egg, was its final scene,
where the protagonist lies inside a coffin, buried alive. It was this ending that was
picked up by many critics to be the most striking part of the movie despite its
claustrophobic and decidedly gloomy nature, but predictably, was changed in the
remake. The reviewer in Variety remarked, “Should Sluizer decide to issue a dubbed
version of the film, it might find a large audience in the US. It has all the ingredients
of the best American suspense film and could do well. Its ending, while a little bleak
and not for all tastes, is a sensible choice that is almost a signature for the film.”21
Producers of THE VANISHING wanted to make sure that audiences would not be
alienated by seeing the protagonist die and made a safe choice by requesting Sluizer
to change the ending. In the Hollywood version, the protagonist’s new girlfriend, a
role significantly expanded for the remake, kills the villain and rescues the
protagonist from the coffin in which he was to be buried alive. Sluizer started the
project knowing full well that he would have to change his film quite drastically. In
an interview given prior to the shooting of THE VANISHING, the director said that in
order to make a film in Hollywood, one had to play the game by their rules, and that
otherwise one could end up sharing the fate of FATAL ATTRACTION (Adrian Lyne,
1987)22. Sluizer also argued that his main reason for accepting the project was not to
tell the same story differently, but to direct different actors in similar roles. The
author of the novel and the initial original script, Tim Krabbé connects Sluizer’s
choice to a desire to work in Hollywood: “It was, at 61, his one chance to work in
Hollywood, so I can understand that he yielded to the pressure that made him spoil
his own masterpiece.”23
NATTEVAGTEN/NIGHTWATCH remakes are also of the thriller/suspense genre.
Unlike THE VANISHING, there are barely any differences between NIGHTWATCH and
its original in terms of narrative. There was, however, a major difference in
distribution. When NATTEVAGTEN became a hit in Denmark and received awards at
several European festivals, Dimension Films, the genre division of Miramax,
purchased the distribution rights and promptly put the original film on the shelf.
NATTEVAGTEN was never released in the US, thus the audiences and most of the
critics did not have the chance to compare NIGHTWATCH to the original. Interestingly,
some critics mentioned the failure of THE VANISHING as a factor in Dimension Films’
decision not to show the original film. Roger Ebert wrote: “[Dimension] kept
[NATTEVAGTEN] off the market here while producing the retread, no doubt to
forestall the kinds of unfavorable comparisons that came up when the Danish [sic]
director George Sluizer remade his brilliant THE VANISHING (1988) into a sloppy,
spineless 1993 American film”24. Despite this strategy, NIGHTWATCH did not garner
critical or financial success.
Surely, critics have the tendency to dismiss remakes as inferior to the original,
just by virtue of not being the original25. But in these cases, the public also failed to
show an interest in the films. Although there have been attempts to theorize a model
for predicting the success of a motion picture, there is still no clear formula as to
which films become profitable at the box office26 (Litman, Sochay, Chang and Ki).
In the case of THE VANISHING, the main reason seems to be the drastic change in the
ending. The new ending gave the audiences a safe familiarity, but failed to provide
them with the originality of the first version. Beyond the content of the film, a lot
hinges also on the release pattern and the marketing efforts. In the case of
NIGHTWATCH, Dimension Films did not release the film until 1998, although
shooting had wrapped in late 1996. While there has been no official explanation,
97
Autoremakes across the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
96
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 98
this delay was reported to be due to some last-minute changes and “fixes” with the
script, as well as to avoid going up against the film’s lead actor Ewan McGregor’s
other 1997 releases (Peter Greenaway’s THE PILLOW BOOK and Danny Boyle’s A
LIFE LESS ORDINARY) at the box office27. Whatever the reasons, this lag in release
had a negative effect on the film’s box-office success. In addition, although both
films featured well-known actors, neither of them had bankable major stars, or
special effects, which have become star of their own accord in the age of the
blockbuster. Like Veber and Poiré, these films were Sluizer and Bornedal’s
Hollywood debuts. Both directors returned to their respective home countries after
these films.
Steven Jay Schneider concludes that these remakes “prioritize spectacle and
action at the expense of character development and plot subtlety,” are “less
psychological and less philosophical,” “more conventional and more predictable,”
and lack the sense of humor found in the originals28. One can see these autoremakes
as an extension of the close relationship Hollywood has had with Europe throughout
its history. As a source of inspiration and talent from the 1920s on, Hollywood has
followed Europe; even as European auteurs themselves, like the filmmakers of the
New Wave era, admired and appropriated works of Classical Hollywood. The
dualities between Hollywood and Europe that uphold the European films as “unique
works of art” versus Hollywood’s “standardized commodities”29 reappear in much
of the discourses surrounding these remakes, despite the fact that the European
originals are popular genre films. Looking toward Europe in search of new ideas had
been standard practice for Hollywood until the late 1990s. The large Asian market
and the rising popularity of Asian films on festival circles as well as cult video
distribution networks has added Asia as an alternative, as I will discuss in the next
section.
‘Asian Invasion’
The final sets of remakes are a rarity in the sense that they seem to have found
a good balance between familiarity and originality. They are part of a trend that has
been called the ‘Asian Invasion’ in Hollywood30. These films are THE RING TWO
(Nakata, 2005), the sequel to the remake of Hideo Nakata’s RINGU, THE RING; and
two films by Takashi Shimizu: THE GRUDGE (2004) and THE GRUDGE 2 (2006), the
remakes to Shimizu’s JU-ON: THE GRUDGE (2003) and JU-ON: THE GRUDGE 2
(2003), which are remakes of his straight-to-video JU-ON films. The fact that the
‘original’ films themselves are adaptations and remakes opens up a new set of
questions. Unlike in Europe or the US, the question of ‘originality’ is not central to
cultural debate in these cases. In fact, there is no Japanese word for ‘originality’,
since the concept is “generally alien to Japanese Aesthetics”. 31. Thus, in Japan, the
remakes are not necessarily labeled ‘inferior’ from the onset. This may be one of the
reasons why THE RING surpassed RINGU in terms of box office success in Japan. The
other and likely greater reason is that Japan has become the largest foreign market
for Hollywood films in the last decades. This position, along with the recent surge
in popularity of Japanese horror films32, can also explain the closer relationship
between Hollywood and Japan.
Koji Suzuki’s popular novel Ringu (first published in 1989), about a video tape
that kills anyone who sees it within a week, was first adapted to television in 1995
by Chisui Takigawa. It became a great hit with international audiences when Nakata
adapted it to the screen in 1998. RASEN (Joji Iida), a sequel based on the novel’s
sequel, was produced and released simultaneous to RINGU, but failed to receive the
same popularity. Since he was the director of the more popular version, Nakata was
asked again to make a sequel independently of the novels, which became RINGU 2
(1999), with an original storyline. RINGU 2 had several of the same characters as the
original film, and tried to shed more light on the character of Sadako, the dead little
girl who kills people through the mysterious video tape. This was followed by
RINGU 0 (Norio Tsuruta, 2000), a prequel, as well as a Korean-Japanese coproduction remake, RING (Dong-Bin Kim, 1999), and two television series, based
on Ringu and Rasen.
The enormous success of RINGU around the world attracted the attention of a
young studio executive, Roy Lee. Lee, a Korean-American who served as the
intermediary in selling the remake rights of the Japanese film to DreamWorks, is
billed as one of the executive producers in THE RING. Vertigo Entertainment, the
company which he co-founded with Doug Davison, continues to be the gatekeeper
of the Asian remake market in Hollywood. Having already released THE GRUDGE,
Lee and Davison are behind remakes of many famous Asian films of the last
decade. These include Nakata’s HONOGURAI MIZU NO SOKO KARA (2002), remade
by the Brazilian Walter Salles as DARK WATER, the Hong Kong crime picture
INFERNAL AFFAIRS (2002), remade by Martin Scorsese as THE DEPARTED (2006), as
well as a number of South Korean films like SIWORAE (Hyun-Seung Lee, 2000),
remade as THE LAKE HOUSE (Alejandro Agresti, 2006). The fact that a leading
Hollywood director like Martin Scorsese has remade an Asian film shows that the
stature of these films has risen quickly. Lee argues that the most important factors
in the popularity of Asian films are the directors like Park Chan-wook, Kim Ji-woon
and Bong Joon-ho, as well as the story33. It is noteworthy that while the stories are
retold, the Korean directors Lee mentions have not yet worked for Hollywood. This
may be due to the quota system, which allows them to reach large audiences in
South Korea. However, with the changes in the system as discussed in chapter two,
Korean directors may become more active in Hollywood in the next few years.
With all his involvement, Roy Lee is now seen as “the go-to guy for Asia” in
Hollywood34. Although he does not speak any Korean, nor Japanese or Chinese, he
has discovered that his Asian appearance gives him an advantage both in the US and
in Asia35. His role in this new wave of Asian remakes is fundamental and is an
excellent example for the importance of individual producers, agents and managers
in cinematic trends. Vertigo Entertainment is based at Universal Pictures, but also
has close ties with Warner Bros. The company is the key node in the remakes
network spread across the globe. This network has dense ties between Hollywood
and various Asian filmmaking centers like Tokyo and Seoul, as well as festivals.
When asked about his working methods, Lee responds: “I don't really have a game
plan, I just sort of bumble around, meet people”36. He notes that he was shown
RINGU by the director of Puchon Fantastic Film Festival37, and that he goes to the
festival to meet the filmmakers, even though he has seen all the films. Lee’s strategy
of going to festivals and meeting people is a node that interconnects the global
festival network and the executives’ network. I have already stressed the importance
of international festivals as alternative distribution networks where deals are made
in chapter two. Lee’s regular attendance of Asian film festivals highlights this
99
Autoremakes across the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
98
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 100
fixed location, and that the producers today are an essential part of this global
presence.
THE RING, the Hollywood adaptation / remake (opening credits acknowledge
both the novel and the Nakata film) was released in 2002 and opened the floodgates
of Asian films’ remakes. The remake had moved the location to the Pacific
Northwest, which shared the rainy atmosphere of RINGU’s Japan. The story included
elements from both RINGU and RINGU 2, as well as added components, to make it
less ambiguous and less ‘spiritual’38. The greatest change was possibly the budget:
compared to RINGU’s US$1.2 million, THE RING cost US$45 million to make. A
sizeable portion of this budget was spent on computer generated effects. THE RING’s
success, both critical and commercial, led the way to a number of remakes of Asian
films, most facilitated by Roy Lee, many still in production. It also led to a sequel,
this time shot by the director of the original, Nakata. Admittedly, it is somewhat
difficult to call THE RING TWO a true remake, since the story line differs completely
from that of RINGU 2. This was necessary, since elements from RINGU 2 had already
been used in THE RING, and also because unlike the Japanese version where the first
film’s lead character is killed off in the sequel, producers wanted to keep Naomi
Watts, who played a large part in THE RING’s popularity, in the sequel39. Nakata’s
first Hollywood film thus became a variation on a theme he was already thoroughly
familiar with. While the budget for the film was not disclosed, THE RING TWO
earned over US$160 million, more than half of which came from overseas markets.
Although this was less than the US$250 million made by THE RING, it was still
considered a financial success.
Another film that Roy Lee helped sell the remake rights to, THE GRUDGE, was
released between THE RING and THE RING TWO. Takashi Shimizu first wrote and
shot JU-ON and its sequel for television and the video market, in 2000. The films,
about a haunted house and ghosts who kill, had minuscule budgets and were shot
within a matter of days. They were later remade, again by Shimizu, for the big
screen in 2003. The Hollywood remake was also a relatively low-budget
production, costing US$10 million. The story remained in Japan in this case, but the
protagonists were Americans living in Tokyo, played by Sarah Michelle Gellar and
Jason Behr. Director Shimizu said in interviews that he was changing the story only
a little bit for his own sake, since “if the American producers didn't think the original
version was scary then they wouldn't have wanted to do the remake.”40 In addition
to the horror sequences that remained identical, the same location was employed as
the haunted house, and the family that started the curse was played by the same three
actors. Changes served to simplify the story and make it less ambiguous. Shimizu
had the advantage of releasing the film after the success of THE RING and amid the
buzz surrounding Japanese horror films and their remakes. His use of Tokyo as the
location again points at the fragile balance between the familiar and the original: a
foreign location, where familiar faces confront an unexplainable horror. This
formula proved to quench the thirst of international audiences for a genuine horror
movie, earning nearly US$40 million on its opening weekend alone.
A remade film, especially by the same director, is easier to sell in its native
country. The DVD cover of NIGHTWATCH for the Danish market reminds the viewers
in bold letters that this is “Ole Bornedal’s Hollywood-version of NATTEVAGTEN”.
The blurbs printed are from a Danish (Jyllands-Posten) and an American (The
Washington Post) newspaper, and they both feature Bornedal’s name prominently. 101
Nonetheless, Denmark is a small market as world markets go, unlike Japan. Hence,
it should not come as a surprise that the Japanese poster for THE GRUDGE uses the
original name of the films, with only a hint of Hollywoodization; the new version is
called THE JU-ON in Japan. This strategy of highlighting the local component in the
remakes is in fact similar to localization policies adopted by TNCs like
McDonald’s, a global corporation with specific advertising campaigns, and even
specific products for individual markets41. Additionally, a remake often increases the
interest in the original film in terms of DVD sales and rentals worldwide42. Two
years after the first film, Shimizu remade its sequel; THE GRUDGE 2 was released in
2006. Again, he shot the film in Tokyo with American actors, but this time, the story
line was different from the Japanese version. Nonetheless, with a relatively low
budget of US$20 million, the film was profitable; the second sequel, THE GRUDGE
3 is announced to be released in 2008, directed again by Shimizu.
But what was it about these films that made them so much more successful than
the European thriller remakes? Obviously, there is no clear formula as to which
films succeed at the box office. As Barry Litman says, “it takes the right thing at the
right moment to catch the public fancy”, in addition to the marketing efforts43. The
remakes of Japanese horror films appear to be the right thing at the right time. Their
stress on suspense at a time when slasher films and slasher parodies such as the
SCREAM series dominated the market, responded to an unforeseen demand. In
addition to good timing, the increase in alternative distribution networks such as cult
video stores (not only in large Western cities, but also on the Internet) and fantastic
film festivals44, familiarized at least a portion of Western audiences with Asian
horror films.
Laura Grindstaff argues that films already “Americanized from [their]
inception” have a better chance at getting remade and succeeding and that
Hollywood searches “for its own shadow” in remakes45. This is quite understandable
since the studios want the familiarity of a presold project to guarantee maximized
profits. Gang Gary Xu argues that RINGU also possessed “Americanized”, or at least
Hollywood type features: “the strong-minded yet vulnerable female as the ‘final
girl’, unambiguous sexuality, and thrilling yet non-threatening horror.”46 Nakata
himself professes to being influenced by the AMITYVILLE horror films47. And while
JU-ON: THE GRUDGE relied on Japanese horror conventions, these conventions are
becoming more familiar territory to western audiences after THE RING. David
Bordwell calls INFERNAL AFFAIRS, the film on which THE DEPARTED is based, a
Hollywood film made in Hong Kong, mainly because of its “comprehensible
exposition, intricate plotting, and well-earned twists”48, reflecting Grindstaff’s
argument that Hollywood searches for its likeness in its remakes. Xu also points out
that “many East Asian films aimed at commercial success now have a built-in
“remaking mentality”, which self consciously measures the films against
Hollywood standards and actively exercises self-censorship”49. These approaches
are reminiscent of Elsaesser’s argument that German directors emulated Hollywood
films in order to be ‘discovered’ by the studios. In this sense, what Petersen and
Emmerich did in the 1980s can now be seen in the works of Asian, mostly Japanese
and South Korean directors, making it even easier for executives like Roy Lee to
find potential candidates for remaking.
Following a pattern that had already been established, these remakes were their
Autoremakes across the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
100 network once again. His frequent travels also remind us that Hollywood is not a
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 102
received offers to direct other Hollywood pictures. When asked in an interview
whether he thought about permanently moving to Hollywood, Nakata gave an
answer that reflects the attitudes of many other global directors: “Ideally, I would
love to work in both countries, because although Japanese film production is really
limited in terms of budget and schedule, I can have creative control during the shoot.
But I'd love to be able to enjoy the good things about both countries”50. Indeed,
unlike their European ‘émigré’ predecessors who moved permanently, directors
today can enjoy a much larger flexibility. Considered alongside Shimizu’s practice
of directing Hollywood films from one’s own home country, this statement takes on
a new meaning regarding how films are made; one can see that Hollywood can be
freed from the ‘tyranny of place’, to revisit Tyler Cowen.
Conclusion
While some directors remake their own works as discussed in the previous
pages, it is worth noting that many of the Hollywood remakes of Asian films have
been directed by other international filmmakers. These include DARK WATER by
Walter Salles of Brazil, THE LAKE HOUSE by Alejandro Agresti of Argentina, and
the 2007 releases MY SASSY GIRL, directed by the Frenchman Yann Samuell and
THE EYE, by French directors David Moreau and Xavier Palud, among others. Not
all of these films are in the horror genre, MY SASSY GIRL is a romantic comedy /
drama, while THE LAKE HOUSE is defined as a fantasy romance. Another upcoming
Asian autoremake is from the Philippines; Yam Laranas is remaking his horror film
SIGAW (2004) as THE ECHO, to be released in 2008. Despite its recent problems, the
Philippine film industry has been a locally popular one throughout the 1990s51 and
is keen to re-establish its popularity52. For all of these directors, these remakes are
also their Hollywood debuts, reconfirming the practice of establishing oneself with
a presold product that is likely to succeed both in the US and global markets.
Another point worth observing is that every one of these films involves Roy Lee in
the capacity of producer or executive producer, and has been brought into
consideration as possible remakes via Lee’s Vertigo Entertainment, once again
confirming the importance of such key figures as facilitators.
The autoremakes discussed in this article point to several trends and highlight
some recent patterns in Hollywood and world cinema. Most significant of these is
the growing importance of Asia in terms of film trade. Until recently, Europe,
including Britain, was the most important international market for Hollywood
studios. In fact, Tom O’Regan argues that ‘Hollywood’ is “culturally specific to a
general ‘European’ or ‘Western’ cultural frame.”53 However, while Europe
(calculated with Middle East and Africa) is still the largest foreign regional market
for Hollywood, Asia has been growing fast. In 2004, the Asia-Pacific region made
up 21.6% of world-wide box office revenues of Hollywood films; but it constituted
63.4% of the worldwide admissions, as can be seen in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 below54.
These numbers show that there is great potential in this region, and that it could
easily become the largest market if the ticket prices went up.
103
4% 3%
22%
38%
USA
EMEA
As ia-Pacific
Latin America
Canada
33%
Figure 4.1: Regional shares of Hollywood’s total box office income, 2004
4% 1%
16%
USA
15%
EMEA
As ia-Pacific
Latin America
Canada
64%
Figure 4.2: Regional shares of Hollywood’s total admissions figures, 2004
Autoremakes across the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
102 directors’ Hollywood debuts. After the successes of the two films, both directors
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 104
In terms of mutual influences, Hollywood and Asian cinemas have been
increasingly intertwined in the last decade. Asian martial arts have become a staple
of Hollywood action films and the polished Hollywood-style has become prevalent
in larger-budget Asian pictures.55 Compared to the aging population of Europe, Asia
presents much larger potential, as well as challenges. This potential / challenge is
embodied by the greatest anticipation, or dread, of recent times: China. People’s
Republic of China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, but
accession implementations still continue. Once China completes the changes it has
started, the large Asian market will get much larger. Turning to Asia for new ideas
results in closer ties with the continent, and possibly an eventual break into the
Chinese market, as argued by the Hong Kong directors Andy Lau and Alan Mak56.
The other pattern demonstrated here, largely interdependent with the one
discussed above, is the globalization of the film world and the transnationality of
Hollywood. As discussed in the previous chapters, the conglomerization in the
media industry and the increase in runaway productions, as well as in the mobility
of the creative class have contributed to these trends. At the same time, the
international talent working in Hollywood has become increasingly varied; instead
of only Europeans, filmmaking talent from all parts of the world, Asia, Australia, as
well as South America are now working in Hollywood, as I have demonstrated in
chapter one.
The Asian remakes are illustrations of the trends discussed, and Takashi
Shimizu’s THE GRUDGE series is their epitome. Shimizu worked in his homeland for
a transnational conglomeration, Columbia Pictures (owned by Sony Pictures
Entertainment, part of Sony). The project had a Japanese source, an international
cast and crew, transnational financial backing, and was a runaway production. With
a larger Asian market, and a globalized China, there is no doubt that more Asian
directors will be making their way to Hollywood. Some of them might take
advantage of the wave of remakes, since it has proven to be an effective way to
break into the US market, and subsequently, the world markets. As the career paths
of the six directors discussed here prove, whether the Hollywood careers of any
global director can then continue depends entirely on the financial success of their
films.
Endnotes
1 Sven Lütticken: “Planet of the Remakes.” In New Left Review, no. 25, 01-01.2004: 103119, here 104. One should note, however, that the reason for this was very different; it was
not yet possible to make physical copies of films, and the original wore out because of the
repeated viewings.
2 Serceau, Michel; Daniel Protopopoff (ed.s): Le remake et l’adaption, special issue of
CinemAction 53. Paris: Telerama, 1989.
3 Robert Eberwein: “Remakes and Cultural Studies”. In Play It Again Sam: Retakes on
Remakes. Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougall (ed.s). Berkeley / Los Angeles /
London: University of California Press 1998: 15-33, here 28-30.
4 For a thorough analysis of Hollywood’s global distribution networks, see Miller et al.:
294-311.
5 Thomas Elsaesser: “Ethnicity, Authenticity, and Exile: A Counterfeit Trade?”. In Hamid
Naficy (ed.) Home, Exile, Homeland: Film, Media and the Politics of Place. London and
New York: Routledge, 1999: 97-123, here 119.
6 Jennifer Forrest, Leonard R. Koos: “Reviewing Remakes: An Introduction” In Jennifer
Forrest, Leonard R. Koos (ed.s) Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice.
Albany: SUNY Press, 2001: 1-36, here 21.
7 Unlike remakes of Hollywood films in other countries, autoremakes are unique to
Hollywood, as no director has ever remade his/her own Hollywood production in a
different country.
8 Lucy Mazdon: Encore Hollywood: Remaking French Cinema. London: BFI 2000: 1314.
9 Eberwein: 18.
10 Mazdon: 24.
11 Atom Egoyan and Ian Balfour (ed.s): Subtitles: On the Foreignness of Film,
Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press, 2004: 21.
12 Higson (1989): 42. While Higson made this observation for British audiences, it can be
extended to others as well. At the time Higson wrote this essay, Britain was the largest
overseas market for Hollywood, that position now belongs to Japan.
13 Litvak remade L’ Équipage (1935) as The Woman I Love (1937) and Duvivier remade
Un Carnet de Bal (1937) as Lydia (1941)
14 Williams and Mork quoted in Grindstaff: 142.
15 Rita Kempley: “THREE FUGITIVES”. Washington Post, 27.01.1989.
16 OUT ON A LIMB grossed about $2 million in the US, a ghastly box office figure by any
standard, and much lower than the $40 million THREE FUGITIVES had brought in.
17 Michael Atkinson: “Expired Ham”. In Village Voice, 09.04.2001.
18 With a $40 million budget and less than $5 million at the US box office, JUST VISITING
was a huge flop.
19 For an in-depth analysis of these two remakes, see Steven Jay Schneider:
“Repackaging Rage: THE VANISHING and NIGHTWATCH”. In Kinema, Spring 2002.
<http://www.kinema.uwaterloo.ca/schn021.htm> Accessed 22.04.2006.
20 Anita Voorham: Remakes. De Europese Film Weerkaatst Door Hollywood.
Unpublished thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Film- en TV Wetenschappen, June
105
Autoremakes across the World
Global Directors of New Hollywood
104
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 106
Global Directors of New Hollywood
34 Julien Thuan quoted in Tad Friend: “Remake Man”. In The New Yorker issue
02.06.2003, 26.05.2003. <http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030602fa_fact>
Accessed 11.06.2005.
35 Ibid.
36 Frater.
37 J.D. Nguyen: “Interview with Roy Lee”. On KFC Cinema, 08.07.2002.
<http://www.kfccinema.com/features/interviews/royleeinterview/royleeinterview.html>
Accessed 19.07.2005. Puchon Festival is held in a small town near Seoul and is
specialized in horror films.
38 For example, in the original film, Ryuji Takayama (Hiroyuki Sanada), one of the
leading characters, can relate to the spiritual world. His counterpart Noah Clay (Martin
Henderson) on the other hand, goes through most of the film without even believing
anything supernatural is at hand.
39 David Hilson: “Nakata makes Hollywood debut with THE RING TWO”. In Daily
Yomiuri. <http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20050616woa1.htm> Accessed 19.06.2005.
40 Todd Gilchrist: “Crossover director Takashi Shimizu is intent on holding a Grudge for
Western audiences”. <http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue383/interview.html > Accessed
11.06.2005.
41 For a general overview of global and local advertising practices, see Marieke K. de
Mooij: Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes. London /
Thousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998; for McDonald’s specifically, see
Claudio Vignali: “McDonald’s: “think global, act local” – the marketing mix”. In British
Food Journal, vol. 103, no. 2, 03.2001: 97-111. For an analysis of local advertising
campaigns for global films, see Martine Danan: “Marketing the Hollywood Blockbuster in
France”. In Journal of Popular Film & Television vol. 23, no. 3, Fall 1995: 131-140.
42 Anthony Kaufman: “Why Studio Remakes Don't Suck; US Versions Rebound Foreign
Originals, From Korea to INSOMNIA”. Indiewire, 06.05.2002..
<http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_020506_WorldCine6.html> Accessed 20.06.2006.
43 See Barry R. Litman: “Predicting Success of Theatrical Movies: An Empirical Study”
In Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 16, no. 4, Spring 1983: 159-175, here 159-160.
44 The European Fantastic Film Festivals Federation was launched in February 2005, and
represents over 20 festivals in Europe, Asia, and North America. See
<http://www.melies.org/>.
45 Grindstaff: 145-147.
46 Gang Gary Xu: “Remaking East Asia, Outsourcing Hollywood”. In Senses of Cinema.
<http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/05/34/remaking_east_asia.html> Accessed
17.02.2005.
47 Totaro, Donato: “The ‘Ring’ Master. Interview with Hideo Nakata”. In Offscreen
21.07.2000. <http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/new_offscreen/nakata.html> Accessed
11.06.2005.
48 David Bordwell: “THE DEPARTED: No Departure”. On David Bordwell’s website on
cinema, 10.10.2006. <http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=18> Accessed 04.01.2007.
49 Xu.
50 Hilson.
51 Thompson, Bordwell: 654.
52 See Gloria O. Pasadilla, Angelina M. Lantin Jr.: “Audiovisual Services Sector: Can the
Philippine Film Industry Follow Bollywood?” Philippine Institute for Development
Studies: Discussion Paper Series, no. 2005-31, 12.2005.
<http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps0531.pdf> Accessed 17.02.2007.
53 O’Regan: 308.
54 Figures taken from “MPA Snapshot Report: 2004 International Theatrical Market”.
2005.
55 For a more detailed discussion of these mutual influences, see: Klein: “Martial Arts and
the Globalization of US and Asian Film Industries”.
56 Quoted in “Why Hollywood is brimful of Asia”. In The Independent online edition,
20.02.2004.
<http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=493102&host=5&dir=211>
Accessed 11.06.2005.
107
Autoremakes across the World
106 1995: 66-67. NLG1.5 million translates roughly to US$3 million.
21 “Spoorloos”. In Variety, 19.10.1988.
22 See Peter van Lierop: “Jeff Bridges en Kiefer Sutherland in Hollywood-versie van
SPOORLOOS”. In Utrechtse Nieuwsblad, January 1992. Directed by another European,
Fatal Attraction’s finale was drastically altered when test audiences gave a negative
response to the ending where Glenn Close committed suicide. In the released film, Anne
Archer kills Close, saving the unity of her family.
23 Mark Morris: “Once more with the volume up”. In The Guardian, 20.01.2002.
24 Roger Ebert: “NIGHTWATCH”. In Chicago Sun Times, 17.04.1998.
25 For further discussion of reception of remakes by critics, see Mazdon, L. Encore
Hollywood and Carolyn A. Durham: Double Takes: Culture and Gender in French Films
and Their American Remakes, Hanover: University of New England Press, 1998.
26 See Litman, Barry R. “Predicting Success of Theatrical Movies: An Empirical Study.”
Journal of Popular Culture, 16:4 (1983): 159-175; Scott Sochay: “Predicting the
Performance of Motion Pictures”. In Journal of Media Economics, vol. 7, no. 4, 1994: 120; Byeng-Hee Chang and Eyun-Jung Ki: “Devising a Practical Model for Predicting
Theatrical Movie Success: Focusing on the Experience Good Property”. In Journal of
Media Economics, vol. 18, no. 4, 2005: 247-269.
27 Schneider: “Repackaging Rage”.
28 Ibid.
29 For a summary, analysis and critique of these dualities, see Elsaesser (2005): 491-494.
30 Minh-Ha T. Pham: “The Asian Invasion (of Multiculturalism) in Hollywood”. In
Journal of Popular Film & Television, vol. 32, no. 3, Fall 2004.
31 Brian Moeran: “Individual, Group and Seishin: Japan's Internal Cultural Debate”. In
Man, New Series, vol. 19, no. 2, 06.1984: 252-266, here 261.
32 The remade films discussed here are a part of a larger trend. See Richard Corliss:
“Horror: Made in Japan”. In Time, New York, vol. 164, no. 5, 02.08.2004: 76; Noy
Thrupkaew: “No ‘PULSE’”. In The American Prospect, Online Edition, 12.02.2005
<http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=1068
5> Accessed 26.04.2006; Isabel Reynolds: “Japan Movies Giving the World the Creeps”.
Reuters, 23.03.2005
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=598&ncid=600&e=4&u=/nm/20050
324/film_nm/leisure_japan_horror_dc> Accessed 27.03.2005.
33 Patrick Frater: “Remake king Lee takes bigger bite”. In Variety, 31.12.2006.
<http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117956456.html> Accessed 07.01.2007.
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 108
5. I Want My MTV and My MP3: Advertising, Music and Film
Industries
Advertising, Music and Film Industries
One of the most famous advertising commercials of all times is a 60-second spot for
Macintosh called ‘1984’, shot by Ridley Scott for Chiat\Day advertising agency.
Within a dystopian setting as suggested by the George Orwell novel of the same
name, a young woman in vivid color is seen running towards a giant TV screen
amidst hollow-eyed workers dressed in gray. She throws a sledgehammer she is
carrying, crashing the screen. A voice-over is heard saying: “On January 24th,
Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you will see why 1984 won't be
like ‘1984’”. Although it ran only once, on January 22, 19841, during the Super
Bowl game in the US, it received four major advertising awards that year, and went
on to be declared the best advertising commercial of the last 50 years in 19952. Its
US$400,000 budget allowed for high production values, reminding audiences of R.
Scott’s BLADE RUNNER, which had just been released in 1982. In the late 1990s,
Macintosh released a Quicktime version of 1984, and the commercial is currently
available on all video streaming web sites.
‘1984’ is significant on various levels. Firstly, it is one of the earlier examples of
media convergence; it is beyond just an advertising commercial or just a movie, it
is an event3. It is an instance of an already famous feature film director working on
a commercial, which has now become commonplace. In terms of its production
company Ridley Scott Associates (RSA), which will be further discussed in this
chapter, ‘1984’ is an example of a transnational production. And what happened to
the advertising agency responsible for the commercial in the following years is a
classical example of the conglomerization process that media and advertising
companies have been going through since the 1980s. The agency was Chiat\Day,
based in Los Angeles, called “the hottest shop” in the 1980s’ US advertising4. In
addition to working with the London-based RSA, the agency was the first one in the
US to adopt the British strategy of account planning. Nonetheless, Chiat\Day was
still largely a national agency. Even though it had purchased the Australian
advertising agency Mojo to become Chiat\Day\Mojo in 1990, it stood only at
number 18 on the list of the largest US agencies based on worldwide income. This
was largely due to its limited international involvement; Chiat\Day\Mojo’s non-US
gross income was only 33% of its overall income, much below the average 60%
among the leading agencies5. In 1993, after it sold Mojo, the agency was dropped
by one of its largest clients, Reebok, because it did not have “the global resources
the company needed”6. Soon after this incident, Chiat\Day was acquired by the
Omnicom Group, and merged with TBWA, becoming a part of one of the largest
global marketing groups. The necessity to build international networks is as
inevitable for advertising corporations as it is for media conglomerates. These
networks, in turn, show parallels with the global film industry, as Hollywood studios
extend their presence in world markets via local production and distribution, much
like the strategies adopted by advertising corporations in recent decades.
109
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 110
Over the last few decades, directing commercials and music videos has become
an ever increasingly common passage into directing feature films. The reason I am
discussing these two types of filmmaking is that music videos are in fact a form of
advertising, made to publicize the songs. Additionally, patterns of globalization and
conglomerization within advertising, music, and media industries strongly resemble
one another. I will continue with brief histories of advertisement films and music
videos in the following pages. These two relatively new forms of media proved to
be showcases for aspiring filmmakers. Advertising has been called “the most
creative” and “the most daring” domain by French director Étienne Chatiliez, who
directed commercials for fifteen years before turning to feature films7. Similarly,
novelist John Updike noted in 1984: “I have no doubt that the aesthetic marvels of
our age, for intensity and lavishness of effort and subtlety of both overt and
subliminal effect, are television commercials”8.
The 1980s was a time when commercials started being taken seriously as a
unique form of media. Indeed, many of the global directors working in Hollywood
today began their careers in this fashion, as did many American directors. Most
remarkably, the directors belonging to the ‘British invasion’ of the 1970s and the
early 1980s, Ridley Scott, Alan Parker, Adrian Lyne and others, all well known for
the commercials they directed in the UK in the 1970s, were the pioneers of this
trend. This chapter will look at advertisement and music video in regards to the role
they play in the global media networks; and how this network, within which
advertising and media industries interact with each other, provides a space that
makes it possible for global directors to transition between different types of
filmmaking and different geographies. I will then discuss the works and positions
of Ridley and Tony Scott, not only as directors (of advertisement, music videos, as
well as feature films), but also as producers and shapers of the industry.
Globalization of Advertising and Media
The development of the advertising industry throughout the 20th century shows
many parallels with that of the film industry. The history of moving image
advertising is nearly as old as cinema itself. The first cinema advertisement is widely
considered to belong to Dewar’s Scotch, dated 18989. These advertisements
continued in cinemas and later transformed into the new media of television. The
first TV advertisement was for a Bulova watch, shown during a baseball game in
1941 in the US. With the spread of network televisions, commercials became a
staple in the homes of viewers across the world. The internationalization process in
service industries such as advertising that started in the 1970s gave rise to a number
of multinational agencies10. These changes not only mirrored, but also facilitated the
internationalization of capital11, including the transnationalization of media
conglomerates that purchased the Hollywood studios. As of 2005, the top
advertising holdings of the world by revenue were transnational conglomerates like
Omnicom Group, WPP Group, Interpublic Group, Publicis Groupe, and Havas.
Each of these holdings owns numerous individually transnational advertising
agencies. Omnicom and Interpublic are headquartered in New York, WPP in
London, and Publicis and Havas in Paris. All of these groups earn their revenues
largely from advertising services, but also offer services such as public relations,
branding, and even healthcare. Like the media conglomerates that own the studios, 111
these corporations are globally flexible and aim to profit from synergy.
Along with the conglomerization of these companies in the 1980s, the
transnational brands they serviced started launching international advertising
campaigns. Through market segmentation independent of nationality, advertising
companies created a global space12. Like Hollywood’s role in global filmmaking,
New York plays a central role in terms of global advertising, albeit with further
emphasis on localized versions of global campaigns13. As suggested by the slogan
adopted from ecological campaigns, ‘think global, act local’, global companies offer
and sell their products in as many countries as possible, but always bear in mind
differences between individual markets, with the help of similarly globalized
advertising corporations14. This practice, also termed glocalization, has been the
leading factor in creating this global space, while maintaining the uniqueness of
each local market. The advertising world is also brought together by professional
networks. The International Advertising Association (IAA) has representation in 76
countries, whereas World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) is represented in 55.
These associations facilitate the globalization of advertising.
Patterns followed by the music industry within the last decades have been
similar to those in film and advertising industries. Conglomerations built through
mergers and acquisitions started dominating the industry starting from the 1980s
onward. By 1994, “more than 90 per cent of the gross sales of recorded music
worldwide came from albums, singles, and music videos owned or distributed by
one of six multinational corporations: Time Warner, Sony, Philips, Bertelsmann,
Thorn-EMI and Matsushita”15. Due to the constantly shifting nature of media
industries, there have been changes in this data. For example, Time Warner sold
Warner Music Group in 2003, and Matsushita rid itself of most of its foreign stock
by the late 1990s16. Further mergers, like that of the recorded music divisions of
Sony and BMG in 2004, continued the consolidation process17. Film and music
industries are both dominated by the few major media conglomerates, and often,
they are the very same ones like Sony or until recently, Vivendi and Time Warner18.
The greatest challenge faced by the music industry over the past years has been
online piracy. The proliferation of online music file sharing started in 1999 with
Napster, and although Napster was shut down in 2001, other peer-to-peer file
sharing programs like Kazaa allow millions of users to access files for free, and has
contributed largely to the decrease in recorded music sales19. Legal measures taken
to curb the practice of downloading free music, such as suing “individual computer
users who are illegally offering large amounts of copyrighted music over peer-topeer networks”20, coupled with the success of Apple’s iTunes, which allows users to
download individual songs legally for US$0.99, have helped the recovery of sales.
With the increase in broadband Internet access, film industry is facing the same
problems, some of which it may avoid by adopting practices developed by the
music industry. Aida Hozic, whom I briefly mentioned in chapter two, argues that
since the end of the studio era, the power has shifted from the manufacturers
(producers) to the merchants (distributors)21. While the main transnational
distributors are still largely a part of the media conglomerates, pirate distribution,
whether online or on the streets, has become an alternative network that in some
markets threatens the legitimate distribution and exhibition channels. This is
particularly evident in China, a new market that Hollywood studios want to reach.
Advertising, Music and Film Industries
Global Directors of New Hollywood
110 Why Advertising?
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 112
accessed, the limited number of non-Chinese films released, along with the low
price of available pirate copies shows that this access is achieved by illegitimate
networks rather than the studios themselves. I will return to these topics and the
developments in film distribution in chapter six, nonetheless I would like to look at
some of the new industry practices that are currently gaining momentum.
While I have discussed the transnationalization of Hollywood largely from a
production point of view so far, the borderless distribution network that the Internet
has become is surely a part of this process. Selling legal downloads of entire films
is a practice that has yet to catch on, primarily because of limited bandwidth, and
the limited variety of available films. iTunes started offering films in September
2006, but only from the subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company22. Another
drawback to downloaded “near-DVD quality” films is that unlike DVDs, they do
not offer extra features or multi-channel audio. Without a drastic change in pricing
policies, films that are readily available on DVD are not likely to be popular
downloads. Nonetheless, for films that are harder to find, downloads may prove to
be a valuable distribution strategy23. An alternative is to release portions of films, as
done by India’s Rajshi Productions. Aimed primarily at the large non-residential
Indian (NRI) market based largely in the UK and North America, rajshi.com
provides free streaming videos, which can be purchased and downloaded24. The
structure of Bollywood films is ideal for such a fragmented viewing experience,
since song-and-dance sequences are often also broadcast on television as music
videos independent of the films they are in. This may be an alternative distribution
method for Hollywood as well, whereby audiences can download specific scenes.
While this may seem unreasonable at first, for a generation of Cinephiles raised on
DVDs, it is not uncustomary to watch individual scenes repeatedly, or to view only
the extra features like the making-of documentaries. The fact that this strategy was
first developed by Indian distributors reflects Tyler Cowen’s approach that the
exchange of ideas across cultures operates in various directions.
Music videos are conceptually rather similar to commercials; they are indeed
promotional films made to market songs. As acknowledged by Peter Wollen: “In
origin and, from the point of view of the music industry, in function, music videos
are an advertising vehicle, promoting the sale of records.”25 Forerunners of music
videos date back to Oskar von Fischinger’s animated films synchronized to jazz and
classical music. These were followed by the American ‘Soundies’ in 1940s and the
French ‘Scopitones’ in 1960s. In 1975, Jon Roseman and Bruce Gowers produced
BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY for Queen, often credited as the first video clip26. Music
videos entered an entirely new age with the launch of MTV in 1981. Incidentally,
the very first video to be broadcast by MTV was The Buggles’ VIDEO KILLED THE
RADIO STAR, directed by Australia’s Russell Mulcahy, who then went on to helm
feature films, including HIGHLANDER (1986) and RICOCHET (1991), both fairly highprofile Hollywood pictures. MTV Networks was acquired by Viacom in 1986, of
which it is still a division today. This puts MTV under the same umbrella with
Paramount and DreamWorks. Consequently, MTV Films was founded in 1995.
This is the motion picture production arm of MTV, which produces youth-oriented,
relatively small-budget films27. The European MTV started its broadcast in 1987,
and as of September 2006, broadcasts on 51 channels in 25 countries28. MTV Asia
has local versions in 11 countries, MTV Latin America includes Mexican and
Brazilian channels, as well as MTV Central and MTV South29. These attempts at 113
localizing within a global framework mirror the developments in advertising, and
film companies utilize localization strategies that are not dissimilar. Warner Bros.’
Chinese joint-venture released its first film, the low budget FENGKUANG DE SHITOU
(CRAZY STONE, Hao Ning) on June 30, 2006. Only 12 days later, it followed with
the film’s DVD, sold for as little as 10 yuan (US$ 1.25)30. This kind of a short release
window is still not the norm in other markets, but in China, where piracy rates are
the highest in the world with 90%31, it may work as a solution to curb the sales of
illegal DVD copies.
To see how these conglomerates function as networks facilitating the flow of
filmmakers, it is useful to look at Stefan Krätke’s analysis of ‘global media cities’32.
Krätke includes in his study a variety of entertainment and media industries, namely
“theatres and orchestras, music production, film production, television and radio
productions, the printing and publishing trade, as well as design agencies,
advertising design and the advertising industry”33. The main criterion is that they are
global, meaning that they have a presence “in at least three different national
economic areas and at least two continents or ‘world regions’”34. His inclusion of
advertising agencies alongside entertainment companies demonstrates the
interconnectedness of these industries. Cities function as the ‘nodal points’ of these
networks, as they do in other industries35. Companies in question are locally
anchored to specific centers of cultural production and are networked within their
local business area, but at the same time, they are integrated into the supra-regional
and transnational networks of the global media companies. This two-directionality
allows local talent to form global alliances and be mobile within this network. It is
not surprising then, that talent can move around more quickly and freely than it has
ever before.
Advertising, Music and Film Industries
Global Directors of New Hollywood
112 While Hollywood films are being shown in China, and the viewers are indeed
Advertising and Music Videos: A New Aesthetics
The pervasiveness of music videos, along with the launch of home video
systems, has ushered in a new era for the film industries36. Dubbed ‘the video
decade’ by Billboard magazine37, the 1980s brought about major changes in
filmmaking style, often associated with ‘music video aesthetic’. The style is also
influenced by global advertising; it has been argued that to gain an international
appeal, advertisements “with a strong visual or musical component” have been
emphasized38. Some have also drawn attention to British filmmakers who have
started their careers as advertising directors, also the subject of this chapter39. This
new style was characterized by very rapid editing and flashy visuals, frequently at
the expense of credible storylines. Embodied in blockbusters of the period,
especially those made by the producing duo Jerry Bruckheimer-Don Simpson, this
style proved to be immensely successful. These films also had ambitious
soundtracks, and videos to the songs from the films were played on MTV,
promoting not only the song, but also the film, doubling the commodification
process. One of the earliest and most quoted examples of this is Tony Scott’s TOP
GUN (1986), which combines songs specifically written for the film with classics
like ‘You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling’. As John Mundy argues, even more
important than the mutual “commercial exploitation” clearly manifest, “… is the
impact the music exerts on film style. With a rather bare storyline, what the film
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 114
sequences such as the beach volleyball game. It is a prime example of the
contemporary ‘cinema of attractions’ based on both visual and audio seductions.”40
Justin Wyatt discusses advertising and the music video as part of the ‘high
concept’ idea that lies behind the blockbusters and their marketing41. He argues that
large portions of these blockbusters are composed of extended montages, which are
“in effect, music video sequences”42. Music videos, as well as the films they
influenced, were meant to be international. MTV’s slogan from the mid-1980s:
“One World: One Image: One Channel” aimed at a mostly non-verbal entertainment,
able to be absorbed wherever it may have been screened. Tom Freston, a former
MTV director, remarked: “Music videos are internationally acceptable ... [and] ...
[f]or the bulk of our music programming the words are practically irrelevant.”43 This
international appeal is reflected in films that adopt music video aesthetics: less
dialogue and spectacular action scenes, all combined in a breathtaking speed became
the blockbuster staple throughout the 1980s and the 1990s; and directors with
backgrounds in advertising and music videos were clearly perfect candidates to
direct these films. Throughout the following decades, MTV localized its broadcasts
with subsidiaries like MTV Italy, MTV Poland, MTV India, MTV China etc., and
has faced growing competition in shape of local 24-hour music channels across the
world. Proliferation of these channels across the world results in an ever increasing
number of new directors working in music videos. With the new digital
technologies, production and distribution of these videos have become easier. In the
long run, this provides many young directors with a chance to make themselves
heard, and Hollywood with a steady source of fresh new international talent. The
same holds for advertisements. While many advertisements are screened locally,
global brands like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nike, Volkswagen etc. produce advertisements
that are screened simultaneously across the world. In addition, periodical
advertisement collections like the Shots or DVDs allow the best works in
advertising to be viewed universally.
Until recently, it has been almost impossible to find music videos more than a
few years old. As music videos have created their own auteurs, this has also come
to change, albeit slowly. In addition to various music artists’ collections of their
videos, there are now DVDs devoted solely to the work of individual music video
directors, overcoming the ephemeral nature of music videos. Launched by the New
York-based distributor Palm Pictures, The Directors Label series came out in 2003
with 3 DVDs, bringing together works by Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry and Chris
Cunningham. Each of these directors has a different nationality (US, French and
British, respectively), yet their popularity is worldwide. Jonze and Gondry have
since moved on to features, directing highly acclaimed and award-winning films44.
In 2005, The Directors Label series released four more collections: Jonathan Glazer,
Mark Romanek, Anton Corbijn, and Stephane Sednaoui. Again, this international
selection45 reflects the global reach of music videos. Having made themselves a
name in music videos, Jonathan Glazer and Mark Romanek made the transition to
features. Among these four filmmakers, Glazer is the only one whose work as a
commercial director is just as renowned. SURFERS, which he made for Guiness in
1999, was chosen the best British advertisement in 2001 by The Sunday Times and
Channel 4. Glazer’s first feature, SEXY BEAST (2000) was a British production that
was nominated for an Alexander Korda Award at the BAFTAs. His choice of a
screenplay that focused on dialogues rather than characters is what saved him from 115
being labeled as yet another style-over-substance director46. His next project, BIRTH
(2004) was produced by Fine Line Features, the specialty division of Time Warner.
The Directors Label series and the directors they feature have provided music
videos with artistic legitimacy, and allowed these films to be screened publicly at
international film and digital arts festivals47.
The Scott Empire
In this web of advertising, music videos and feature films, and among
Hollywood’s global directors, Ridley Scott and Tony Scott hold a unique position.
Both former advertising directors, their path to Hollywood is rather typical. What
sets them apart however is their status as not only directors, but also as producers,
entrepreneurs and innovators. Within this capacity, they have on various occasions
been involved with other global directors’ entrance into the US film industry. Their
backgrounds as advertising directors and their capacity as owners of an advertising
agency (Ridley Scott Associates, including Black Dog Films, a music video
production house), a production company (Scott Free), a state-of-the-art postproduction company (The Mill48) and major shares in Britain’s leading film studios
(Pinewood Studios Group). Pinewood Studios Group, which consists of Pinewood,
Shepperton and Teddington Studios, is a significant node in the links between
Hollywood and the British film industry. Traditionally home to James Bond films,
other major Hollywood films shot at these studios include THE CHRONICLES OF
RIDDICK (David Twohy, 2003), CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (Tim
Burton, 2005) and THE DA VINCI CODE (Ron Howard, 2006).
Ridley Scott, born in 1937, received his formal training at the Royal College of
Art (RCA) as a set designer. During his college years, he became interested in the
cinema and consequently started working for the BBC, as many British feature
directors have done. From being a set designer, he moved on to directing. After
directing several series for the BBC, he founded his own commercial production
company, RSA, in 196549. He directed over 2000 commercials, including the famed
1984 spot for Macintosh. His earlier work, most notably his commercials for Hovis
bread and Maxwell House coffee paved the way for his feature film career. In 1976,
he was the top-prize winner at Cannes for a commercial he directed for the French
Elle magazine50. His feature debut, THE DUELLISTS (1977) was produced by David
Puttnam’s Enigma Pictures. Made in the UK, the film received an award for ‘Best
First Work’ at Cannes.
David Puttnam played another important role at this point, by recommending
Scott to a Paramount executive. The executive was impressed by Alan Parker’s
BUGSY MALONE (1976) at Cannes and asked Puttnam if there were other British
filmmakers like Parker51. While the Paramount project of a Tristan and Isolde
adaptation never materialized, Scott relocated to a Los-Angeles production office,
and was ready for a chance to work in Hollywood; he has admitted to having been
very envious of Alan Parker, who had been invited to Hollywood earlier52. Scott was
then offered to direct ALIEN (1979) by Twentieth Century Fox, his first Hollywood
film. Throughout his long Hollywood career, some of R. Scott’s films have
reconfigured entire genres, like ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER and GLADIATOR (2000). As
many other directors with backgrounds in advertising, his style is characterized by
Advertising, Music and Film Industries
Global Directors of New Hollywood
114 offers is the spectacular, whether in the extensive shots of in-flight combat or in
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 116
Among those who criticize his work, David Thompson complains that R. Scott is
“[beset by] disastrous ‘stylishness’.”53
However, the negative criticism Ridley Scott has faced is considerably little
compared to the disparagement Tony Scott often receives. Tony Scott, seven years
younger than Ridley Scott, followed in his older brother’s footsteps. He went to
Royal College of Art, studying painting. With his brother’s encouragement, he
started directing commercials for RSA soon after his graduation. Over the next
decade, he directed commercials, an episode of a French TV series54, and he realized
his first feature film project, THE HUNGER (1983) for MGM. Despite the critical and
commercial failure of the film, Scott continued with TOP GUN, already mentioned
for its music video aesthetics. By the mid-1990s, the combined worldwide revenue
of Tony Scott’s films at the box office had surpassed the billion-dollar mark, a feat
not achieved by many directors. He is often seen as the more profitable but less
celebrated of the two brothers and reviews of his films frequently make allusions to
his past as a commercials director. His latest films, MAN ON FIRE (2004) and
DOMINO (2005) push the limits of the music video aesthetics, and reflect the work
he did on his longer commercials. Indeed, Tony Scott has also stated that he uses his
commercials as testing grounds for what he can do in feature films, like the GM
commercials about surveillance, which were then translated into the surveillance
shots dominating ENEMY OF THE STATE55.
Since its foundation, RSA has been a major player among the commercial
production companies. It expanded in 1986, opened its New York branch and
established RSA USA, Inc. A few years later, RSA moved its US headquarters to
LA to be at the center of production activity. It has produced campaigns for Philip
Morris, Ericsson, Coca-Cola, Visa, Kodak, Nokia, Nike, American Express, BMW
and many others56. Black Dog, already mentioned above as a music video
production company, is not the only firm functioning under the umbrella of RSA.
Little Minx@rsa is a semi-independent commercial / music video production house.
It was founded by Rhea Rupert57 in 1999 and formed an association with RSA in
2002. JOY@RSA UK emerged when director Mehdi Norowzian’s Joy Films,
London, merged with RSA Films, London, in 2003. There is also ‘La Division’
geared for the Latin American market, and a ‘Special Division’, formerly called
‘Top Dog’, specialized solely in sourcing film directors such as Sam Mendes and
the Polish Brothers.
The growth RSA has demonstrated through acquisitions of smaller, more
specific firms reflects to a smaller degree the expansion larger media companies
have shown since the late 1970s. By having separate, yet related units in different
media capitals, RSA enables itself to utilize a wider network of businesses. Ridley
and Tony Scott are still closely involved with the company, and “work closely with
productions”58. RSA has been a nucleus for new ideas and directing talent over the
last two decades. As Ridley Scott states, “Now, and essentially for the last ten years,
everyone has been looking into the advertising game and the music video game for
directing talent”; and Tony Scott agrees that “movie studios routinely steal from the
spot world; they just haven't figured out how to avoid some of the pitfalls that come
along with it”59. Anna Notaro points out that after various incarnations, the auteur
was transformed into “the figure of the ‘technically savvy’ director”60, befittingly
epitomizing the filmmakers who come from advertising and music videos; who are
obliged to be not only familiar with, but have full command of cutting edge 117
technologies. Many directors who worked, or still work for RSA have moved on to
feature film directing. The early generation, Scott brothers, Hugh Hudson and Alan
Parker are frequently mentioned as the forerunners of directors with a background
in commercials. There are also those who have made shorts, and / or independent
British films, like Jake Scott, who directed PLUNKETT & MACLEANE (1999).
However, for the purposes of this book, one would need to look at only the nonAmerican directors who followed their careers at RSA with Hollywood
filmmaking: Marek Kanievska, Marco Brambilla and Marcus Nispel.
Marek Kanievska is a British director, well-known for his work on TV and in
commercials. In 1984, he directed his feature debut, ANOTHER COUNTRY, which was
quite well received. His first US film came in 1987 as an adaptation of the Brett
Easton Ellis novel, LESS THAN ZERO. Alongside his feature film career, Kanievska
continued directing commercials and worked largely for RSA London. His return
to features in 2000, WHERE THE MONEY IS, was produced by the Scott brothers’
production company, Scott Free61. This fact, along with Kanievska’s background in
advertising, is highlighted in one of the many negative reviews: “Trading in
coherence for flash, underlining each event with portentous music, remaining
content with half-drawn characters and never missing an opportunity to pander,
director Marek Kanievska works in the tradition of the film's producers, Ridley and
Tony Scott.”62
Marco Brambilla, originally from Italy, moved to Canada to study film, where
he started his career as an advertising director. He transferred to the US in 1990,
where he worked for RSA USA. His first feature film, Warner Brothers’
DEMOLITION MAN (1993), is the subject of a chapter on cultural globalization in
Thomas Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree63. Again, Brambilla’s origins in
advertising surfaced in various reviews: “… [a] director who made his name in
commercials, which shows”64; “… Brambilla betrays his origins in TV
commercials. DEMOLITION MAN is sleek and empty as well as brutal and pointless.
It feels computer engineered, untouched by human hands.” 65 Following the failure
of his next feature film, Excess Baggage (1997), Brambilla returned to commercials,
however, no longer with RSA. Brambilla also directed a miniseries called
DINOTOPIA (2002) for Hallmark Entertainment, broadcast on ABC. He shot
DINOTOPIA at Pinewood Studios, which is owned in part by the Scott brothers.
Brambilla is also involved with projects as a video artist and has been hired to create
video game titles for Playstation, Xbox and Gamecube66.
German-born Marcus Nispel started his career as an art-director in Germany,
then moved to the US and became a director of music videos67. In New York, he
founded his own company, Portfolio Artists Network, which then merged with RSA
USA. In 2000, his ties with RSA were severed due to a controversial print
advertisement protesting the SAG (Screen Actors Guild) strike68. Nispel then moved
onto MJZ Production Company. He directed his first feature film in the form of a
remake: THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003), produced by Michael Bay,
himself one of the prominent directors with a background in advertising. Again,
Nispel’s credentials as a music video and commercials directors are brought up
frequently: “The slick and witless remake [is] the feature debut of music-video
veteran Marcus Nispel”69. It should be noted that references to these directors’
professional backgrounds are much easier to come by than references to their
Advertising, Music and Film Industries
Global Directors of New Hollywood
116 stunning visuals. For some, these come at the expense of story or character depth.
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 118
and will direct a video game adaptation of his next feature film, ALICE (2006), based
on Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland70.
Ridley Scott says that his interest in commercials and RSA films is out of
loyalty, but also to “bring in new talent”71. However, in addition to functioning as a
springboard for young talent, RSA is changing the face of advertising. By signing
major feature film directors for commercials, RSA makes the job of directing
commercials more respectable. Sam Mendes, the Oscar-winning British director of
AMERICAN BEAUTY (1999) made the BOILING TURKEY (2003) advertisement for
Allstate Insurance, which was chosen among the best of the month by Adweek72. In
2001 and 2002, RSA launched one of the most talked-about campaigns in
advertising. THE HIRE was a series of short films made for BMW, to be made
available online only. Eight films in total, the series were also screened at festivals
and ultimately released on DVD. The entire project was global from the outset, due
to its distribution channels. The list of directors reflected this globality: Alejandro
González Iñárritu, John Woo, Ang Lee, Wong Kar Wai, John Frankenheimer, Joe
Carnahan, Guy Ritchie, and Tony Scott. Among others, the films won the Cyber
Lion Grand Prix at the 2002 Cannes International Advertising Festival Awards and
the ‘Best Action Short’ award at the 2002 Los Angeles International Short Film
Festival. In 2003, The Hire series was inducted into the permanent collection of the
Museum of Modern Art (MOMA)73. The films provided a space for the directors to
demonstrate their styles and experiment. Tony Scott’s BEAT THE DEVIL is the second
film in the series, and reflects a new sensibility that combines feature film,
advertising and trailers. Indeed, the 9 minute film was edited by Skip Chaisson, who
has cut the trailers for many of Tony Scott’s films74. The ultra-rapid editing and the
constantly moving camera have long been associated with commercials. Tony Scott
also added freeze frames, jump cuts, digitally altered colors and subtitles. This style
has permeated his two feature films after BEAT THE DEVIL, as mentioned above. In
an interview about his latest film DOMINO, he stated that he loves working with the
youth at RSA and that he steals from them all the time75.
Conclusion
The filmmakers who work for RSA are typical examples of what Richard
Florida has termed the Creative Class, as they move competently between countries,
styles and types of production. They are the high-level professionals whom Manuel
Castells sees as essential to the performance of networks. In this case, these are the
networks of media and culture, or more specifically, of advertising and film. Music
video and commercial advertising directors like these are now among the strongest
influences on feature filmmaking. The global nature of their work provides newer
filmmakers with an arena to present their output worldwide and become noticed.
RSA’s position within the international urban networks is anchored by the locations
of its offices in London, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Also utilizing the
new communication technologies like the Internet, where THE HIRE was initially
launched, RSA takes full advantage of existing networks, thereby facilitating the
global flow of talent it employs. The parallel networks of film and advertising are
connected through institutions like RSA and other transnational production
companies and advertising agencies.
These parallels between various media and technologies have also been closely 119
observed by Henry Jenkins, who discusses different forms of media convergence in
his work. Some of these convergences have been taken up in this book, albeit under
different names. For instance, Jenkins calls attention to ‘economic convergence’,
the horizontal integration resulting from the conglomerations of giant media
corporations, controlling interests in various media such as film, music, books,
games, etc.76 This integration has been the determining factor in the structure of New
Hollywood. Similarly, what Jenkins terms ‘global convergence’ is the cultural
hybridity this book has been concerned with throughout. The explosion of
“creativity at the intersections of various media technologies, industries and
consumers”77 is what shapes the transformation of Hollywood at this juncture,
bringing globalization and digitalization together.
As Stefan Krätke and Peter J. Taylor point out, global firms are “connecting the
internationally distributed urban clusters of media and cultural production with one
another”, enabling “the large media groups to tap the globally distributed creative
potential of cultural production”78. RSA, with its subsidiaries in different media,
allows a space where directors can transition between advertising commercials,
music videos and feature films. Ridley Scott emphasizes the importance of working
on different forms: “We are always looking for ways to help our directors develop
their careers, challenge their talents and evolve their style”79. This flexibility offered
to the global talent not only in terms of product or style, but also in terms of
geographies. RSA itself is located on both sides of the continent, and production
shoots are done across the globe. Within the last decade, one of the most attractive
locales for commercial production has been South Africa, due to its strong
infrastructure, trained professionals, production values and varied geographies80. In
terms of talent, RSA signed, among others, Stockholm-based music video director
Jonas Åkerlund in 2003 and Hong Kong-based postproduction specialist Kofai in
January 2007, expanding its international roster.
The small-scale conglomeration Scott Brothers built, encompassing RSA, Black
Dog Films, The Mill and Scott Free, along with their share in Pinewood Studios,
demonstrate the connectivity of media and advertising industries between
themselves and across the globe. As globally networked institutions, firms such as
these provide global talent with high-quality work regardless of their location. In the
case of RSA, these networks are connected to Hollywood via Scott Free film
production company and Pinewood Studios Group. On an individual level, as
decision-makers within Hollywood, Ridley and Tony Scott hold a powerful position
not granted to many other global directors. Among the filmmakers discussed in this
book, Ridley Scott has directed the largest number of films, followed closely by
Tony Scott81. One can see the same pattern for other directors who have strong
presences in Hollywood; Renny Harlin, Fred Schepisi, James Cameron, Roland
Emmerich and Peter Jackson all produce their own films, in addition to other
projects82. In my concluding chapter, I will return to discussions of Hollywood, both
in terms of a location and a mode of production. I believe that these case studies
provided me with tools to clarify some of the debates on Hollywood’s stance vis-àvis globalization, and to reformulate the position global filmmakers hold within
these discussions.
Advertising, Music and Film Industries
Global Directors of New Hollywood
118 national backgrounds. Like Brambilla, Nispel has entered the video game business,
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 120
Endnotes
1 Technically, the commercial was shown twice. From Apple Confidential, quoted in
wikipedia.org: “The famous "1984" commercial that launched the Macintosh during the
Super Bowl in 1984 is purported to have been shown only once; but to qualify for 1983's
advertising awards, the commercial also aired on December 15 at a small TV station in
Twin Falls, Idaho (KMVC Channel 11), and in movie theaters for weeks starting on
January 17th.”
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(television_commercial)> Accessed 22.10.2005.
2 See “The Fifty Best” in Advertising Age, vol. 66, no. 6, 1995; Stephen Fox: The Mirror
Makers: A History of American Advertising and Its Creators. Urbana / Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 1997.
3 James Twitchell: Twenty Ads That Shook the World: The Century's Most
Groundbreaking Advertising and How It Changed Us All, Reprint edition. New York:
Three Rivers Press, 2001: 188.
4 Fox: 19.
5 Deborah Leslie: “Global Scan: The Globalization of Advertising Agencies, Concepts,
and Campaigns”. In Economic Geography, vol. 71, no. 4, 10.1995: 402-426, here 404.
6 George S. Yip, Tammy L. Madsen: “Global account management: the new frontier in
relationship marketing”. In International Marketing Review, vol: 13, no:3, 1996: 24-42,
here 31.
7 Quoted in Armand Mattelart: Advertising International (M. Chanan, trans.). London /
New York: Routledge, 1989: 142.
8 Fox: 19.
9 Although some sources report the date as 1897 or 1899, I adopt the date given by Kino
International, which released the advertisement in a collection titled ‘The Movies Begin,
Vol. 3’.
10 Joanne Roberts: “Knowledge Systems and Global Advertising Services”. In Creativity
and Innovation Management, vol. 9, no. 3, 09.2000: 163-170.
11 Leslie: 404.
12 Ibid.: 413.
13 Peter J. Taylor, Gilda Catalana and David Walker: “Multiple Globalisations: Regional,
Hierarchical and Sectoral Articulations of Global Business Services through World
Cities”. In The Service Industries Journal, vol. 24, no. 3, 05.2004: 63-81, here 73. Global
advertising has been the subject of much debate in the last decades. In addition to Leslie,
see Robert T. Green, William H. Cunningham, and Isabella C.M. Cunningham: “The
Effectiveness of Standardized Global Advertising”. In Journal of Advertising, vol. 4, no.3,
1975: 25-30; Marieke de Mooij: Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding
Cultural Paradoxes. London / Thousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998;
David A. Aaker and Erich Joachimsthaler: “The Lure of Global Branding”. In Harvard
Business Review, 11-12.1999: 137-144; among others. For an analysis of local advertising
for global films, see Martine Danan: “Marketing the Hollywood Blockbuster in France”.
14 See Gerd Hallenberger: “Aesthetic Conventions in European Media Cultures”. In
Emergences, vol. 11, no. 1, 05.2001: 117-131.
15 Robert Burnett: The Global Jukebox: The International Music Industry. London / New
York: Routledge, 1996: 2.
16 For a more detailed analysis of the mergers and acquisition trends in the media
industries, see Stéphanie Peltier: “Mergers and Acquisitions in the Media Industries: Were
Failures Really Unforeseeable?” In Journal of Media Economics, vol. 17, no. 4, 2004:
261-278.
17 John Bishop: “Building International Empires of Sound: Concentrations of Power and
Property in the “Global” Music Market”. In Popular Music and Society, vol. 28, no. 4,
10.2005: 443-471, here 443.
18 See Bishop for a detailed account of mergers and acquisitions in entertainment
industries within the last decade. Vivendi has since sold Universal Pictures, but retains
Universal Music Group, and Time Warner sold Warner Music Group to a group of
independent investors.
19 Alejandro Zentner: “Measuring the Effect of File Sharing on Music Purchases”. In
Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 49, 04.2006: 63- 90, here 64.
20 Zentner: 87.
21 Hozic: 25.
22 These are Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Pixar, and Miramax Films.
“Apple Announces iTunes 7 with Amazing New Features”. Apple iTunes Press Release,
12.09.2006 <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/sep/12itunes7.html> Accessed
03.02.2007.
23 See for example the movie-download startup Jaman.com; Arik Hesseldahl: “More
Movies than iTunes”. In BusinessWeek, 02.02.2007
<http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2007/tc20070202_619146.htm?ch
an=top+news_top+news+index_technology > Accessed 03.02.2007.
24 Aminah Sheikh: “Bollywood films now a click away”. In Business Standard, 01.02.2007
<http://www.businessstandard.com/common/storypage.php?autono=273255&leftnm=8&subLeft=0&chkFlg=>
Accessed 03.02.2007.
25 Peter Wollen: “Ways of Thinking About Music Video (and Postmodernism)”. In:
Critical Quarterly vol. 5, no. 2, 1986: 167-170, here 168.
26 Andrew Goodwin: Dancing in the Distraction Factory: Music Television and Popular
Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1992. 30.
27 Among the first films produced by MTV Films were feature versions of MTV’s shows
like BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD DO AMERICA (Mike Judge, 1996) and JACKASS: THE MOVIE
(Jeff Tremaine, 2002). Some of the company’s other films were vehicles for music stars
such as Britney Spears in CROSSROADS (Tamra Davis, 2002) and 50 Cent in GET RICH OR
DIE TRYIN’ (Jim Sheridan, 2005). Some others were received very well critically, and
garnered Academy Award nominations: ELECTION (Alexander Payne, 1999), HUSTLE AND
FLOW (Craig Brewer, 2005), MURDERBALL (Alex Rubin / Dana Adam Shapiro, 2005).
28 Figures are taken from wikipedia.org and include other channels owned by MTV
Networks: VH-1, Nickelodeon, and various national music channels.
29 MTV Central is based in Colombia, and covers Central America, Chile, Ecuador, Peru,
Bolivia, and Venezuela. MTV South, based in Argentina, also covers Paraguay and
Uruguay.
30 “Warner Bros. takes on China’s movie pirates”. Reuters, 19.07.2006.
<http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=12892227&src
=rss/technologyNews> Accessed 22.08.2006.
121
Advertising, Music and Film Industries
Global Directors of New Hollywood
120
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 122
Global Directors of New Hollywood
47 International Film Festival Rotterdam has been among the leading showcases for the
screenings of music videos. Similarly, resfest, a global traveling digital festival, has a
special section devoted to music videos.
48 The Mill has presences in London, New York and Los Angeles, and has been focusing
on television and commercials recent years. In February 2007, The Mill was bought out
by the Carlyle Group, a global private equity firm. Scott Brothers have retained a small
minority share in the company. See Stuart Kemp: “Carlyle aids Mill management
buyout”. In The Hollywood Reporter, 07.02.2007.
<http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3if30fa27b0aeec1
209fbefab3fe57adb8> Accessed 07.02.2007.
49 Brian J. Robb: Ridley Scott. London: Pocket Essentials 2001: 18. Other sources show
the founding date as 1965, 1967 or 1968.
50 Mattelart: 142.
51 Robb: 20.
52 Lynn Barber: “Scott’s Corner”. In Observer, 06.01.2002.
53 David Thomson: “The Riddler has his Day”. In Sight and Sound vol. 11, no. 4, April
2001: 18-21.
54 Nouvelles de Henry James (1976)
55 Quoted in Mike Figgis (ed.): Projections 10. Hollywood Filmmakers on Filmmaking.
London: Faber and Faber, 1999: 130.
56 Most of this information is widely available; see the RSA Website for details:
<www.rsafilms.com>.
57 Rhea Rupert changed her name to Rhea Scott when she married Jake Scott, Ridley
Scott’s son. Along with Jake Scott, his brother, Luke Scott, and his sister, Jordan Scott, are
also directors at the company.
58 Trevor Wilde (RSA London). Email to the author. 06.09.2005.
59 “The Scotts”. In ‘boards October 2000: 21.
60 Anna Notaro: “Technology in Search of an Artist: Questions of Auteurism/Authorship
and the Contemporary Cinematic Experience”. In The Velvet Light Trap, no. 57, Spring
2006: 86-97, here 87.
61 Scott Free Productions carries out projects in collaboration with other production
companies. These can be co-productions with European production companies, as was the
case for WHERE THE MONEY IS, or with Hollywood majors or their subsidiaries, as in most
projects directed by Ridley or Tony Scott.
62 Gary Mairs: “Where the Money Is”. On culturevulture.net,
<http://www.culturevulture.net/Movies/WheretheMoneyIs.htm> Accessed 23.10.2005.
63 Thomas Friedman: The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books 2000:
276-305.
64 Vincent Canby: “Waking Up In a Future Of Muscles”. In New York Times,
08.10.1993.
65 Peter Travers: “Demolition Man”. In Rolling Stone
<http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/_/id/5948893> Accessed 23.10.2005.
66 David Bloom: “The New Game in Town. Vidgame boom lures top writers and
filmmakers”. In Variety vol. 390, no. 10, 21-27.04.2003: 1/59.
67 This information is largely from Nispel’s own Website, <www.marcusnispel.com>.
68 Roger Armburst: “SHOOT Chief Gives Apologia For RSA Ad”. In Back Stage, vol.
41, no. 23: 3.
123
Advertising, Music and Film Industries
122 31 Motion Picture Association and L.E.K.: “The Cost of Movie Piracy”. 2006.
32 Stefan Krätke: “Global Media Cities in a World-wide Urban Network”. In European
Planning Studies, vol. 11, no. 6, 09.2003: 605-628.
33 Ibid.: 607.
34 Ibid.: 613.
35 See Stefan Krätke and Peter J. Taylor: “A World Geography of Global Media Cities”.
In European Planning Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, 06.2004: 460-477. Krätke and Taylor adapt
Saskia Sassen’s global city concept specifically to cities with a high concentration of
media companies.
36 Most early scholarship on music videos has involved approaching the subject through
postmodern theories. See for example Goodwin and Wollen, quoted above, as well as
Simon Frith, Andrew Goodwin & Lawrence Grossberg (ed.s): Sound and Vision: The
Music Video Reader. New York & London: Routledge, 1993; E. Ann Kaplan: Rocking
Around the Clock. Music Television, Postmodernism, and Consumer Culture. London &
New York: Routledge 1987; some of the later work focused on case study analyses from a
gender or ethnic perspective. For a more detailed bibliography, see
<http://www.zx.nu/musicvideo/bibliography>.
37 Jim McCullaugh: “1980-1990: The Video Decade”. In Billboard vol. 102, no. 1,
06.01.1990: 6-7.
38 Leslie: 414.
39 Scott Lash and John Urry: Economies of Signs and Space. London / Thousand Oaks /
New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1994.
40 John Mundy: Popular Music on Screen. From Hollywood Musical to Music Video.
Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press 1999: 227. ‘Cinema of attractions’
is Tom Gunning’s label for the very early examples of cinema, where showing moving
images was more important than telling a story. Gunning argues that recent spectacle
cinema, full of effects and style over substance, reaffirms the early “exhibitionist”
filmmaking. Tom Gunning: “The Cinema of Attraction: Early Film, Its Spectator and the
Avant-Garde”, In Robert Stam and Toby Miller (ed.s) Film and Theory. An Introduction.
Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 2000: 229-235. Originally published in
Wide-Angle vol. 8, no.s 3-4, 1986, 63-70.
41 Justin Wyatt: High Concept. Movies and Marketing in Hollywood. Austin: University
of Texas Press 1994. ‘High concept’ connotes an idea that can be easily summarized and
marketable; the term has been credited to different names, including former ABC
executive Barry Diller and former Disney president Michael Eisner.
42 Wyatt: 17.
43 Tom Freston quoted in Simon Philo: “Getting Dumber and Dumber: MTV's Global
Footprint”. Cultural Studies Study Group.
<http://members.tripod.com/~warlight/PHILO.html> Accessed 15.10.2005.
44 Spike Jonze directed BEING JOHN MALKOVICH (1999) and ADAPTATION. (2002). While
Michel Gondry’s first feature, HUMAN NATURE (2001) did not garner much interest, his
second, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004) was a commercial and critical
success, with an Oscar for best screenplay. Both directors’ works were hailed as new and
original, and were produced by specialty divisions of major studios.
45Glazer is from UK, Romanek from US, Corbijn from the Netherlands and Sednaoui
from France.
46 Mark Olsen: “A Place in the Sun”. In Film Comment, March/April 2001.
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 124
Global Directors of New Hollywood
125
6. Conclusion: Where Do We Go From Here?
I started this book by asking a number of questions. The initial question was how to
position the blockbuster-era foreign talent within a wider historical context of
‘émigré’ directors in Hollywood. This question, it soon transpired, could not be
answered without another, regarding what the flow of this talent tells us about
cinema in the globalized world. Is Hollywood global, and if so, how does this
globality function? These are ongoing discussions and are subject to significant
changes within short stretches of time. Even during the time I wrote this book, there
have been considerable developments in filmmaking and communication
technologies that transformed distribution practices around the globe. In the light of
the case studies I have already presented, I would like to pinpoint some of the
emerging trends that might be helpful in shedding light on these questions.
Chapter three, on the James Bond franchise, has demonstrated the complexities
of a film’s nationality, or its multiple nationalities. While the Bond films’ stories, as
well as a portion of cast and crew, come from Britain, implying a British pedigree,
their Hollywood financing, their narrative and visual conventions and their
multinational production values indicate otherwise. Nonetheless, Bond films have
often been quoted as being ‘British’, a label that has more to do with cultural
branding than actual production. While EON Productions, the company behind all
official Bond films, is based in London, the films themselves are “quintessential
examples of products tailored for the international market”, in Tino Balio’s words1.
The everlasting popularity of Bond films and their recent turn towards more actionfilled sequences also show a trend in Hollywood that aims at the international public
by prioritizing action over dialogue. While this strategy for the global markets had
been adopted by the studios since the advent of sound2, it has become even more
significant during the blockbuster era.
The chapter on remakes has shown Hollywood’s dependence on stories from
across the world, and the significance of the English language and international stars
in terms of global distributional access. The analysis of some of these remakes
demonstrated the differences and similarities between Hollywood’s film language
and that of films from different parts of the world. The chapter has also revealed the
influence of intermediaries like the executive Roy Lee and his production company
Vertigo Entertainment, without whom many of the Asian remake projects would not
be possible. Moreover, this interest in Asian remakes manifests the growing
importance of Asia as a major player in world cinema, both as a provider of new
talent, and as a growing market to be conquered.
The last case study, on advertising and music video directors, showed the
significance of global advertising and media networks and their relationship with
Hollywood. The new aesthetics and distribution practices that were developed
within these networks ineradicably altered Hollywood and furthered its
globalization, and continue to do so. Furthermore, the positions held by Ridley and
Tony Scott within these networks demonstrated the importance of being nestled in
Conclusion
124 69 Lou Lumenick: “Doesn’t Cut It”. In New York Post, 17.10.2003.
70 Gabriel Snyder: “‘Alice’ woos Buffy. Gellar, Nispel set for vidgame adaptation”. On
Variety, 20.06.2005,
<http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117924768?categoryid=1079&cs=1> Accessed
23.10.2005.
71 Lisa Campbell: “Maverick moviemaker set to make a return to advertising”. In
Campaign (UK), no. 8, 01.03.2002: 21.
72 “Best Spots”. In Adweek.
<http://www.adweek.com/aw/creative/best_spots_03/031212_02.jsp>. Accessed
30.10.2005.
73 BMW Films Press Release. 11.10.2005
<http://www.bmwusa.com/bmwexperience/filmspr.htm> Accessed 30.10.2005.
74 Sarah Woodward: “Taking on the Devil in a BMW”. In SHOOT, vol. 43, no. 41: 50.
75 Chris Hewitt: “Scott of the Kinetic. Tony Scott talks DOMINO”. In Empire
<http://www.empireonline.co.uk/interviews_and_events/interview.asp?IID=330>
Accessed 22.10.2005.
76 Henry Jenkins: “Convergence? I Diverge.” In Technology Review, 06.2001: 93. Also
see Henry Jenkins: “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence”. In International Journal
of Cultural Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 03.2004: 33-43.
77 Ibid.
78 Krätke, Taylor: 462.
79 Quoted in Richard Natale: “Commercial Break”. In Laurence Knapp, Andrea Kulas
(ed.s) Ridley Scott: Interviews. Jackson: University of Mississippi, 2005: 172-179, here
177.
80“An in-depth look at production in South Africa”. In SHOOT, vol. 45, no. 33: 17-18. In
fact, the controversy that caused Marcus Nispel to be fired from RSA involved a not-sosubtle threat to SAG by reminding the union-free production sites like South Africa. See
Diane Taylor, Pascoe Sawyer: “Livingstone race adviser calls for Gladiator boycott”. In
The Guardian, 11.06.2000.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/livingstone/article/0,,330799,00.html> Accessed 03.02.2007.
81 Ridley Scott directed 14 Hollywood films between 1976-2005, Tony Scott 12.
82 Although James Cameron moved to the US at a young age, he is still a Canadian
citizen.
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 126
Hollywood are the ones who take on decision-making duties and become producers.
These case studies are based on career patterns that have stood out in the recent
decades. At the same time, they reflect the importance of middlemen such as agents
and especially producers. Hollywood studios are a part of larger conglomerate
networks, and middlemen function as facilitators of talent moves along certain paths
within these networks. Taking transnationality and global mobility as my
framework, I have avoided case studies based on specific nations. Had I decided to
follow the path of nation-based case studies, a chapter could have been devoted to
directors from Australia and New Zealand, demonstrating the intricate relationship
between Hollywood and the festival and arthouse circuits. Indeed, these circuits
were where the ‘New Australian Cinema’ directors such as Peter Weir, Fred
Schepisi and Bruce Beresford, as well as filmmakers from New Zealand, like Jane
Campion, Lee Tamahori and Niki Caro first made a name for themselves, before
moving on to larger projects. Or I could have focused on a group of directors from
Europe, the names most famously associated with Hollywood blockbusters:
Wolfgang Petersen and Roland Emmerich from Germany, Paul Verhoeven and Jan
de Bont from the Netherlands. These directors are among the most visibly ‘foreign’
in Hollywood, yet their style has been called “more American than Americans”3.
Petersen himself has admitted liking to work in Hollywood, not only because of the
facilities and the large audiences, but also because it gives him the opportunity to
“make political-patriotic films of a kind he could never make in Germany”4.
Similarly, the directors from Spanish-speaking countries deserve a chapter of their
own. The networks between Spain, Mexico and other Latin American countries
allow Spanish-speaking directors like Guillermo del Toro, Alfonso Cuarón and
Alejandro González Iñárritu to work across these and larger geographic areas. Their
rising popularity in Hollywood is the recognition of their recent success at
international festivals, as well as of the rapidly increasing Hispanic market within
the US. But since I chose to highlight the transnational network structures, a
nationally based classification would have defied my purposes. I would now like to
revisit some concepts that I have presented in the earlier chapters, in the light of
these case studies.
Globalizing Hollywood
In Global Hollywood, Toby Miller et al. set forth that Hollywood’s dispersion of
various stages of production and post-production throughout the world is how
Hollywood is structured, and this system is also the foundation of its continuing
domination across the world5. Similarly, Aksoy and Robins point out that the
synergy provided by the global media conglomerates bestows Hollywood with the
power it possesses. These arguments have been raised opposite those of Californiabased economic geographers like Michael Storper, Susan Christopherson and Alan
J. Scott, who stress the agglomerated nature of Hollywood.
In the earlier chapters, I have discussed Hollywood as a network with nodes
across the world, the most significant of which is in Los Angeles. But other nodes
like London, Vancouver, New York or any major festival site - Berlin, Cannes,
Toronto - are not to be easily dismissed. Hollywood, or Los Angeles County, is
home to studios, which are now “basically distributors, banks, and owners of
intellectual copyrights, contracting out creative and production activities to others”, 127
as observed by Richard Fox, executive vice president international at Warner Bros.6
While many production studios are indeed located around Hollywood, other studio
agglomerations like the runaway destinations around Vancouver, the Pinewood
Studio Group near London, or more recently, Wellington in New Zealand hold
significant positions within the Hollywood network. Goldsmith and O’Regan point
out that “Hollywood majors are not so clearly synonymous with or connected to
their affiliated studio complex”, and argue that their real ‘strength’ lies in their
“‘command and control’ functions”, which allow them to assemble different groups
of employees to collaborate on complex projects”7. The arrangement of these
collaborations is primarily through producers and agents, the importance of whom
I have maintained throughout this book.
The shift towards a network of deals is characteristic of the post-Fordist flexible
production system, as described by Susan Christopherson and Michael Storper. But
while Christopherson and Storper, and more significantly, Allen J. Scott emphasize
the importance of the clustering around Hollywood, they underestimate the
importance of other studio complexes around the world8. Hollywood’s production,
in terms of location, stories, as well as talent, has become more deterritorialized over
the last decades. Goldsmith and O’Regan argue that agglomeration is still “a feature
of this ‘deterritorialised’ system”, as production requirements demand a level of
concentration of services. Nonetheless, they note that “functional proximity - how
well ‘plugged-in’ a location is” in terms of data and transport connections now carry
more weight than geographical proximity alone, both for production and postproduction facilities9. Post-production companies from far-flung countries such as
Israel, Japan, Hong Kong, UK, and Canada have been collaborating on digital
special effects with studios over Internet connections10. According to Miller et al.,
this deterritorialization is what makes Hollywood global, and lies behind its
supremacy as a leading factor. Ultimately, Hollywood functions as more than a
conglomeration of film production companies. It is a global network, a network that
is connected through specific nodes across the globe, which can also play a
significant role in decision making, as I have demonstrated in my discussion of
media and advertising capitals in chapter five.
The nature of the products of this command and control network has also been
debated in terms of globality and nationality. Jonathan Rosenbaum contends that
Hollywood no longer produces any films that are specifically American11. Charlie
Keil has argued that the reduced trade barriers championed by the US contribute “to
the elimination of any sense of national cinema at all”, and that in the meantime,
what constituted American cinema has undergone a similar de-nationalizing
process12. Globalization creates a suitable environment for cross-cultural exchange,
which, as Tyler Cowen argues: “creates a plethora of innovative and high-quality
creations in many different genres, styles, and media”13, and allows the availability
of a much wider range of cultural products. Richard Pells for example, has argued
that America has been ‘Europeanized, as much as Europe has been
‘Americanized’14. Hollywood’s international nature has been reflected in the films
made by the earlier generations of émigrés, as well as by the American directors of
the 1970s who were influenced by foreign filmmakers15. A.O. Scott sees the
contemporary cinematic environment in Hollywood, with its “remakes, homages
and rip-offs” as “a hybrid of influences from elsewhere, to an extent not seen since
Conclusion
Global Directors of New Hollywood
126 one of the nodal points of global networks, as the only truly powerful directors in
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 128
approaches may be seen as overly optimistic, carrying assumptions of equality
between different film industries, they do nonetheless reflect trends in world cinema,
from earlier and current practices.
This hybridization in Hollywood’s products reflects the transnationalization of
its production and distribution. While Hollywood becomes less ‘American’, films
from other parts of the world become more ‘Hollywood’, as demonstrated by the
discussions of Asian remakes and by Elsaesser’s emulation model. Recent
scholarship on national cinema within a global context has yielded approaches that
reflect a change in the very definition of the term, not only for Hollywood as
American national cinema, but also for the world’s other national cinemas. Tim
Bergfelder stresses the transnational nature of current European cinema, calling for
a reconceptualization of European film studies, taking into account migration as an
“integral element in the discursive construction of national cinemas in Europe
itself”, as it has been in discussions of Hollywood17. Martine Danan’s analysis of
‘postnational’ French cinema highlights the attempts by French production
companies to make transnational films emulating the Hollywood style in order to
compete internationally. At the same time, she draws attention to the role of state
policies in allowing alternative modes of filmmaking to coexist18. This coexistence
is needed for the continuation of a global, yet not homogenized film culture.
Some critics of Hollywood from outside Film Studies have argued that
Hollywood, as the dominant power in world cinema, hegemonizes other
filmmaking cultures, co-opts talented personnel and exploits cheaper labor of local
film industries19. Benjamin Barber claims that TOTAL RECALL (Paul Verhoeven,
1990), a “French-financed movie made by a Dutch director and an Austrian star”,
“feels wholly American”20. His positioning of Verhoeven as a “foreign auteur gone
Hollywood big time with an assiduously nonauteur corpus” sets Hollywood and
European cinemas against each other, labeling products of the former as commercial
art and of the latter as art - these are binaries that have been strongly challenged in
the last decades21. Making no distinction between what is American and what is
Hollywood, Barber asserts that film and video, and more specifically Hollywood,
are key contributing elements in the constitution of McWorld culture. He also
argues using the émigré paradigm that “the best and most successful filmmakers”
who “emigrate to Hollywood” are not likely to want to, or be able to, go back
home22. This, as I will explain shortly, is often not the case.
Herbert Schiller, has recently proposed a new approach that corresponds to the
contemporary context of global media. Schiller contends that American national
power no longer is the exclusive dominant force of world culture, and that it has
been replaced by “transnational corporate culture domination”23.Although this is an
extension of Schiller’s cultural imperialism thesis, a transnational approach such as
this eliminates the problems that arise from a nation-based concept of cultural
imperialism and addresses recent developments in global production and
distribution networks. These transnational corporate networks are where
Hollywood’s global talent operates.
Another point to remember is that cultural homogenization and heterogenization
are inseparable24. The global does not lie beyond the limits of local, nor is the local
constructed outside the global; these trends are complementary and
interpenetrative25. The localization strategies employed by global companies, as
touched upon in chapters four and five, are a case in point. One needs to constantly 129
keep in mind that the influence of Hollywood is not a uni-directional flow, and that
globalization in cinema is not limited to Hollywood alone. Hollywood films are
influenced by cultural products from the rest of the world. This is facilitated by the
increased availability of these products in the age of globalization since the number
of festivals has been growing rapidly and it is possible to find a wider variety of
cultural products, specifically films, via the Internet. The expanded distribution of
alternative cinematic products through the Internet and the festivals, both of which
can be seen as manifestations of cultural heterogeneity26, fuel the studios’ search for
new and fresh talent throughout the world. The Internet in itself is not an alternative
to Hollywood; but its function as a global showcase, as well as a new channel of
distribution as discussed in chapter five, establish it as a principal shaping force in
the current cinematic environment.
Globalization has not only facilitated Hollywood’s reach over the entire globe,
but it has also made it easier for directors to reach Hollywood. The new information
and communication technologies, along with the digitization of filmmaking, have
brought down the borders for ‘aliens with extraordinary abilities’. The formerly
unique ties the US had with Europe27 have become the norm for most parts of the
world. The accelerating interdependence has brought the world’s film industries
closer, significantly increasing the mobility of financial and human capital. These
developments are not unique to film, and are evident in different industries.
Conclusion
Global Directors of New Hollywood
128 the great wave of émigré talent” of the 1930s and the 1940s16. While these
Globalizing Business
The debates surrounding globalization and outsourcing practices are not just
vague theoretical concepts; they have implications in our daily lives beyond the
influence of Hollywood. Many critiques aimed at globalization take issue with
Americanization. However, core countries do not necessarily impose their culture or
economic dominance on the rest of the world without a challenge, or without
reciprocation. China’s Nanjing Automobile Group, which bought MG Rover in
2005, announced that it is planning to build MG sports cars at its plant in Oklahoma
by 200828. Nanjing Group will cooperate with two American investment groups, and
will hold 49% of the stocks of the new company. This will be the first Chinese
company to assemble vehicles in the US, and the brand MG, although now Chineseowned, originally has British roots. The company has also announced that the
revived MG will be produced at two more sites, in Longbridge, England and at a
Nanjing Auto plant in China. The output will be sold in North America and across
Europe29. This Chinese company’s move reverses the familiar outsourcing patterns
from the West towards Asia, and yet proves another instance of a globalized
production process.
On a more individual level, members of the transnational capitalist class as
defined in chapter two present a parallel picture to one seen in Hollywood’s
employment of global directors. I have stated in chapter one that one of the
incentives for employing global talent is to better reach the local markets of the
filmmakers’ native countries, and have argued in chapter four that the recent interest
in Japanese directors is closely related to the growing Japanese market. In August
2006, PepsiCo named Indra Nooyi, an Indian-born woman, as its CEO. Nooyi is the
first CEO not born in the US, as well as the first female to hold the job. She was
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 130
shortly after Pepsi and Coke were banned from distributing their products in several
Indian states due to concerns over pesticide levels found in these beverages30.
PepsiCo’s effort is seen by many as a strategic one, aiming to recapture the Indian
market. This move has also been considered to be an outsourcing of the CEO, and
it has been suggested that PepsiCo “understands that the only market that matters is
the global marketplace”31. PepsiCo’s move to appoint an Indian-born CEO cannot
be seen as entirely different from what the studios have been doing in terms of
directors. Nooyi’s appointment, while on a different plane, reflects the same
strategy.
One should remember however, that transnational corporations (TNCs) are not
alone in acting globally. Ironically, the campaign that led to the protests and the bans
on PepsiCo and Coca Cola Co.’s products were organized by a non-governmental
organization (NGO) called Global Resistance, based in Northern California, which
coordinated the activities of protesters in India and communicated their cause to the
outside world via the Internet32. Although they have been accused by Coca Cola Asia
of “making false environmental allegations against us to further an antiglobalization
agenda”33, NGOs such as Global Resistance are a part of the globalization process,
albeit on a non-corporate level. They communicate, coordinate and plan their
actions online on a global scale. In the global film scene, this can be compared to
independent online distribution networks like YouTube and ifilm, as well as the
global film festivals network as discussed in chapter two.
In the case studies, I have repeatedly stressed the transnational nature of
Hollywood productions. Globalization entails more than interaction between
Hollywood and its others, however, and its reflections can be seen among different
parts of the world. Bollywood producers have also been shooting films
internationally. One of the main locations has been Switzerland, first used in the
1960s, then again since the mid-1980s, with over twenty Bollywood films a year
shot in this European country34. More recently, the UK has been a main destination
of location shooting for Bollywood producers, in an attempt to lure the large Indian
population there. The growing middle class in India cannot be ignored by local
tourism industries worldwide, and tourism boards of Australia, Singapore, Malaysia
and others have been competing to attract Bollywood producers35. Similarly,
numerous Japanese and Korean commercials are produced in Australia, where postproduction houses also complete work on Taiwanese feature films36. Co-productions
within the European Union and between the EU and Eastern European countries are
also very common occurrences.
Hollywood the Brand
Within globalization debates, one of the most renowned anti-globalization
stances has been articulated by Naomi Klein in her book No Logo37. Klein argues
that globalization is interconnected with the proliferation of the brand culture
worldwide, created by the corporate hegemony. Antiglobalists’ position against the
transnational corporations is often symbolized by protests of these brands38.
Hollywood’s relationship with brands has been the subject of some research in
terms of product placements39. Product placement, defined as a “paid product
message aimed at influencing movie (or television) audiences via the planned and
unobtrusive entry of a branded product into a movie (or a television program)”40 has 131
already been touched upon in chapter three, regarding the many deals made with
different brands for James Bond films. However, there are many more levels to this
relationship between brands and Hollywood.
The content of the term ‘brand’ has evolved greatly within the last three decades.
While brands used to be confined to consumer goods and services, they now
encompass various business sectors, non-governmental organizations, countries,
cities, sports teams, political parties and celebrities41. Within Hollywood, stars and
directors have become brands of their own. Their association with a project gives
the prospective audiences a sense of familiarity with the film, which itself can
become a brand42. In fact, even if a brand-name filmmaker is not associated with the
production of the film, his or her stamp of approval can play a vital part in the
release. Films like YING XIONG (HERO, Zhang Yimou, 2002) that would most likely
go unnoticed otherwise are heavily promoted under the banner: ‘Quentin Tarantino
presents’.
On a larger and more traditional level, the corporations are also brands. Charlie
Keil has pointed out that studio logos, while interchangeable amongst themselves,
signify quality43. In the studio era, studios were strongly branded and each identified
with specific genres. For instance, MGM was known for its lavish musicals, Warner
Bros. for gangster films, and Universal Pictures for horror pictures. Among the
current Hollywood brands, Disney is a leading global brand, and its name is
immediately associated with family-oriented entertainment. Miramax Films, a
subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, has become synonymous with foreign
arthouse films and ‘independent’ productions. Dimension Films, founded within
Miramax and now a part of The Weinstein Company, specializes in genre films like
the SCARY MOVIE or SPY KIDS series. The Weinstein Company was founded in
2005, when Harvey and Bob Weinstein left Miramax Pictures, which they had
founded in 1979. As much as Miramax had become a significant brand within film
world, the Weinstein name itself was sufficiently attractive to investors and became
the name of the company44.
But above all, Hollywood itself can be seen as a brand name. In chapter one, I
have quoted Jonathan Rosenbaum, who argues that ‘American cinema’ is the brand
name which sells best in global markets, even though what is inside the ‘American’
package is multinational, not national45. Regardless of its nationality, the package
that Hollywood presents to the world is a hugely popular and clearly branded one.
In this sense, it is Hollywood’s identity as a ‘name for globally popular Englishlanguage cinema’ as well as a certain style which is emphasized. This is not a
conscious or intentional branding in the same vein as the branding of individuals or
companies; nonetheless it functions as a brand.
Chuck Brymer presents five traits of successful brands46. The first is their
consistency in delivering on their promise. Much of Hollywood’s success relies on
its ability to provide its audiences with reliable and familiar products, whether
through franchises or through remakes, as I have discussed in chapters three and
four. The second trait is the brands’ superior products and processes. While their
content is up for debate, there is rarely any objection to the technical superiority of
Hollywood films, achieved through increasingly huge budgets that are mostly
unattainable for other national film industries. This consistency and quality is
ensured through a lengthy process of greenlighting - formal approval of production
Conclusion
Global Directors of New Hollywood
130 born in Madras and attended business school in Calcutta. Her appointment came
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 132
division of labor and close control of studio management and producers over all
expenses47. While DeVany and Walls argue that the uncertainty of the market deems
all executive control imaginary in terms of a guaranteed box office success, it is
nonetheless this control that ensures the level of technical and narrative quality in
Hollywood films48. However, it is also this very process of constant controlling and
playing safe that leads to Hollywood’s homogenization, contributing to the
widespread criticism of its cinematic products.
The third trait of successful brands is their distinctive positioning and customer
experience. Hollywood offers its audiences films featuring stars and special effects
other cinemas cannot afford. While other cinemas often emulate Hollywood, the
level of box office attained is rarely at the same level, as one can see in the releases
of Bernd Eichinger or Luc Besson. For audiences around the world, the Hollywood
brand signifies a certain level of technical competence, engrossing narrative and an
emotional catharsis. Despite the challenges to the Hollywood / European binary
models where the former signifies high budgets, attractive locales and extravagant
action, and the latter, low budgets, local settings and quotidian daily life stories,
Philippe Meers’ study of young Flemish audiences demonstrates that these
separations still exist in the minds of the audiences, reaffirming the strength of
Hollywood as a brand49.
On a more complex level, the fourth trait that a successful brand needs to possess
is the alignment of internal and external commitment to the brand. Since Hollywood
as a brand consists of multiple corporations, internal commitment is not provided as
intentionally as in other examples such as Harley-Davidson or Google50.
Nonetheless, since the early studio days, Hollywood as a town has promoted its
glamorous inhabitants, fostering the celebrity cult that is now promoted through
media such as magazines and television shows that are owned by the same
companies as the studios. Since stars began to matter in the 1910s, audiences have
been encouraged to admire not only what they see on the screens, but also what they
find out, or are lead to believe, happens behind the scenes in Hollywood.
Another strategy to create commitment to the brand which is employed by
Hollywood studios and media conglomerates that own them, is the diversification
of their products. Booz, Allen and Hamilton define diversification as “a means of
spreading the base of a business to achieve improved growth and/or reduce overall
risk that may take the form of investments that address new products, services,
customer segments, or geographic markets”51. Chan-Olmsted and Chang point out
that this diversification can be studied from the ‘geographic’ or ‘product’
perspective52. On a macro level, media conglomerates expand their presence across
various regions, providing familiar, yet globalized products in a variety of
geographies; and they branch into related products within media, aiming to create
synergy among their businesses. More specifically for Hollywood studios,
companies aim to diversify the films they release through their specialty divisions.
While the clichéd image of a Hollywood picture by Disney or Twentieth Century
Fox may be of a blockbuster aimed at the male teenage population, the same
companies also foster subsidiaries like Miramax and Fox Searchlight Pictures,
respectively, which cater to a different group of audiences. And the blockbusters that
are prone to be dismissed by Hollywood’s critics are still manufactured at the
highest levels of production quality; they reach millions of spectators from all
nations at all education levels, as JAWS, STAR WARS, and THE MATRIX (The 133
Wachowski Brothers, 1999) have done.
The last trait of a great brand is the ability to stay relevant. All the examples in
this book, be it the changing nature of James Bond, new production venues, or
alternating styles, point to the often articulated fact that Hollywood is nothing if not
adaptable. By incorporating changing styles and creating new stars, Hollywood has
always managed to remain relevant and continues to be so. In such a collaborative
medium as film, where authorship is often open for debate, multiple brands often
need to join forces, whether it is the studio, the director, or the stars, all within the
Hollywood brand. The legal ‘owner’ of a film is also a matter of debate and the
practices differ among countries. In the previous pages, studios have been called
“owners of intellectual copyrights”53. It is worth noting that in France, copyright of
a film belongs to its director, as per the ‘droit d’auteur’ copyright law54. In contrast,
producers hold the copyrights in Hollywood, as evidenced earlier by the ‘official’
James Bond films, the rights of which belong to EON Productions. In the recent
years, one of the most controversial court cases has been fought between New Line
Cinema and Peter Jackson over the revenues of the LORD OF THE RINGS series. In
February 2005, Jackson sued New Line, a subsidiary of Time Warner, claiming that
he was owed money and demanded an independent financial audit of the company.
In the following months, New Line declared that Jackson would no longer be
considered to direct THE HOBBIT, the prequel to the famous trilogy, to be shot by
2009. New Line holds the rights to THE HOBBIT and the trilogy, of which the box
office receipts alone surpassed US$ 2.9 billion55. This court case caused some of the
debates regarding accounting principles of large studios to reemerge, where profits
are reduced in the books, in order to minimize the payment to directors and stars
who have agreed to receive a portion of their pay as share of the profit56.
Beyond ownership issues, another important problem facing the film industry as
well as other international brands today is brand protection. In terms of other brands,
this usually means registering the brand name and other features that represent the
brand, such as logos, slogans, colors, sounds, shapes, etc.57 In case of Hollywood,
this is possible for individual companies58, but not the overall Hollywood style,
which is emulated across the world. Intellectual property rights, important to all
brand identities, are more crucial than ever to film industries, which primarily create
copyrighted works. Intellectual property rights have long presented a predicament
for the studios. Unauthorized remakes of Hollywood films were and still are
commonplace in various film industries, especially in India. These have not been
legally pursued, however, since Hollywood involvement in India was relatively low
until recently. In 2003, author Barbara Taylor Bradford sued Sahara TV in India,
claiming that a series produced by the TV channel was a ‘rip-off’ of her bestselling
novel A Woman of Substance. The Calcutta high court ruled that there had been no
infringement on her copyrights59. After this example, it is not very likely that other
cases would go to court. In any event, all the remade films are ‘Indianized’ with the
addition of song and dance sequences and often do not reach large audiences outside
India.
Piracy, however, became a concern for the studios from the late 1970s on with
the advent of the VCR, especially in Asia and the Middle East, where intellectual
property laws were inadequate and ineffectively enforced. A proliferation of
recording technologies, public demand for content, and the inability of small local
Conclusion
Global Directors of New Hollywood
132 finance, followed by the efficient Hollywood mode of production, with a clear
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 134
digital technologies, the costs of reproduction decrease and the volume and speed
increase, while quality remains unchanged with each generation of duplication61.
The World Trade Organization requires all of its member countries to conform to its
agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) by 2006.
TRIPS includes “basic trade and international intellectual property principles,
protection, enforcement, dispute settlement, and transition arrangements”.62 The free
flow of data allowed by digital technologies permits consumers (and pirates) to
connect to creators more directly, diminishing the need for intermediaries such as
distributors63. Considering the importance of their distribution networks to connect
with a global market, Hollywood studios are likely to explore new avenues for
reaching their audiences.
On November 5, 2003, THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS (The Wachowski Brothers)
became the first film to be released simultaneously across the world, and this
practice has become the norm for many of the big-budget studio films64. Similarly,
piracy problems have also prompted studios to shorten release windows. Steven
Soderbergh released his film BUBBLE on January 27, 2006, in theaters, on DVD and
on high-definition cable-TV simultaneously, arguing that different formats are
available on the day of the release anyway through piracy65. While BUBBLE’s
commercial failure may have slowed down the process of simultaneous release
across different formats, the window between theatrical and DVD release has
indeed shortened from about six months to four months in recent years66.
Hollywood the brand may be controlled largely from South California, but its
current mode of production is neither completely flexible and fleeting, nor squarely
established around Los Angeles alone. Clustering arguments that uphold
Hollywood’s position as the leader of global media production tend to undervalue
the spread of Hollywood in terms of production. Chris Lukinbeal’s study of
production centers in North America outside of Hollywood demonstrates that while
Los Angeles remains as the industrial core for production, ‘on location’ shooting
has increasingly spread across other states and Canada as well67. Sassen’s suggestion
that Manhattan as a financial hub “is a highly specialized functional or institutional
realm that has become denationalized”68 also holds true for Hollywood, in that it has
become a denationalized node within the deterritorialized network of media and
entertainment production. What does this tell us about the central issues of this
book? The globality of Hollywood lies in its transnational nature of finance,
production and distribution. And the foreign directors no longer need to remain in
Hollywood, even when they continue working with Hollywood studios. Their
presence can be delegated through the agents whose job it is to be situated wherever
deals are being made. The filmmakers’ membership in the Director’s Guild of
America is an attestation to their (virtual) presence.
After Hollywood
Whether a director actually resides in Hollywood, or makes Hollywood films
elsewhere, the relationship between a filmmaker and the studios is often not eternal.
The ‘ticket to Hollywood’ is not a one-way ticket, as can be seen in my discussion
of directors who alternate between Hollywood and other film industries. The
strength of the ‘command and control’ center and the Hollywood network attracts a
great number of international talent, diversifying the nature of the industry; 135
nonetheless, this talent has a considerably high turnover, with most of the directors
eventually going away. The Hollywood maxim “you’re only as good as your last
movie” is as true as it has ever been, and it is very much applicable to foreign
directors. In fact, looking at the number of Hollywood films made by foreign
directors gives us the clear picture seen below:
Conclusion
Global Directors of New Hollywood
134 production industries to satisfy this demand exacerbated the situation60. With newer
8+
11%
6-7
11%
1
31%
4-5
12%
3
17%
2
18%
Figure 6.1: Number of films made in Hollywood per director, 1975-2005
Figure 6.1 shows the number of films made by any foreign director in
Hollywood. Those who directed only one film comprise the largest portion by far,
and directors with only one or two films comprise nearly half of the entire group.
This chart also included newer arrivals, who may continue making films in
Hollywood. However, another analysis, where only directors who started working
in Hollywood in or before 2003 are considered, does not give dramatically different
results. What this indicates is that after one or possibly two attempts in Hollywood,
those who do not succeed no longer try, or are not likely to be offered any other
major projects. The significance of these figures in terms of this thesis is that my
initial statement, positing that the émigré paradigm is no longer valid, is confirmed
once again.
Foreign directors are more flexible in the face of failure in Hollywood, since
they have a ‘homeland’ to fall back on, and are not purely dependent on
Hollywood’s studios for their careers. An analysis of directors who have made one
or two films in Hollywood and no longer work there, reveals that the largest portion
of the said filmmakers direct feature films in their home countries. This also holds
true for some of the directors discussed in previous chapters: later careers of some
of the earlier James Bond directors such as Terence Young and Guy Hamilton, or
directors whose auto-remakes failed, namely Francis Veber, Jean-Marie Poiré, and
Ole Bornedal. Even Paul Verhoeven, one of the most significant foreign directors in
Hollywood throughout the 1980s and the 1990s, returned to his native Netherlands
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 136
co-produced period piece set in WWII, ZWARTBOEK premiered at the Venice Film
Festival, where it received the Young Cinema Award. Then it won Best Film,
Director and Actress in a Leading Role awards at the Dutch Film Festival; it was
nominated at the BAFTA Awards for Best Film not in the English Language and
became Netherland’s entry into the Academy Awards, where it was shortlisted
among nine films, but failed to make it to the final five nominations. The film
remained at the top of the Dutch box-office lists for seven consecutive weeks, and
its distribution rights were sold to numerous countries, including the US. As a major
Hollywood director, Verhoeven’s name has become an internationally recognizable
brand, facilitating the sale of his multinationally produced and transnationally
promoted European film. Hence, Verhoeven has left global Hollywood to work in
a transnational Europe.
A very significant number of filmmakers retain their Hollywood contacts,
working on Hollywood’s television productions. In a sense, these directors, such as
Elory Elkayem, Peter Hunt, Mikael Solomon, Robert Dornhelm or Carl Schultz,
still work in Hollywood, albeit in an adjacent sector. Another group of filmmakers
that keep in close contact are those who return to their own country, but work on
projects that have significant Hollywood financing. Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s
controversial UN LONG DIMANCHE DE FIANÇAILLES discussed in chapter one is one of
the most noted cases. The controversy surrounding Jeunet’s film shows just how
relevant some of the debates within film studies can be. As I have argued, issues of
nationality regarding individuals as well as cultural products have become more
complex than ever.
Returning to the very first question set forth in this book, namely, how we can
position this blockbuster-era foreign talent within a wider historical context of
‘émigré’ directors in Hollywood, I would like to recapitulate the points I have made
in the preceding chapters. I have found it impossible to employ the émigré paradigm
and believe that in order to comprehend the global flow of talent to Hollywood in the
current era, one needs to take into consideration that Hollywood has become
corporatized. Hence, taking a cue from Richard Florida’s work, these directors can
be considered as part of the global creative class. Florida defines the creative class in
two components: the ‘creative core’ who fully engage in the creative process, and the
‘creative professionals’, who work in knowledge-intensive industries including
financial, legal and health services, as well as business management69. In this sense,
the creative class encompasses the transnational capitalist class, and its members are
similarly mobile70. Since the émigré paradigm is no longer valid, and global mobility
of international talent has become the norm, there is no reason why the filmmakers
in question should not be treated as any other member of a global, mobile,
transnational creative class; or indeed, as CEO’s or other leading executives of
multinational corporations. Unlike their émigré-era counterparts, global directors
today need not be tied down to a single locality. They are denationalized both in terms
of citizenship and in terms of workplace. If they are to work within the US, all they
need is a valid visa and a membership to the DGA, which can both be temporary. In
case of directors like Takashi Shimizu who take their production outside the US, even
those formalities may not be necessary71. In transnational Hollywood, questions of
nationality no longer work as a paradigm, although they still matter, as they continue
to be the point of entry to many debates, including this very book.
New Rules of the Game – Still “The American Way”?
137
What are some of the possible scenarios for the future of global filmmaking? I
have set the limits of this particular research between 1975 and 2005, for reasons
explained at the outset. In the mid-1970s the last big shift occurred in Hollywood,
ushered in by the introduction of VCRs and the blockbusters. This thirty-year era in
Hollywood had been preceded by two other periods that lasted approximately thirty
years each, as discussed in chapter one72. The digital era, with the introduction of
digital editing and recording equipment, DVDs, and digital projection, has already
revolutionized production, distribution and exhibition processes. While studios
continue investing in large budget projects that employ the latest digital technology
for shooting and special effects, it is now easier than ever for individuals to shoot,
edit, and distribute their own low-budget films. In 2003, Jonathan Caouette released
TARNATION with an estimated budget of US$ 218 to great critical acclaim, and went
on to earn nearly US$ 600,000 at the box office. While the ultra-low-budget home
movies have not become the norm in theaters, they do constitute an alternative.
Throughout this book, I have focused on the production side of the film industry,
and except for box-office figures, have not delved into audience research. This was
for purposes of brevity, as well as clarity. However, some of the most significant
changes influencing the film industries, and the media in general, are related to
audiences. This is reflected in the Internet with the proliferation of the participatory
sites, termed Web 2.073. This new generation of websites includes collaborative
efforts like the wikis, blogs, forums, and so on. These websites provide audiences
with new spaces to express their opinions, share information, and experience new
media74. YouTube’s success as a free video hosting website has reached phenomenal
levels. Shopping sites like Amazon and eBay, and search engines like Google and
Yahoo have created a huge database of the public’s tastes and preferences.
Hollywood studios have spent millions of dollars on market research in the last
thirty years, but with the data from the Internet, this research can become much more
effective, both content- and cost-wise. Nearly ten years earlier than the designation
of Web 2.0, James Daly published an article in Wired magazine, dubbing the
transformation of Hollywood through digital technologies ‘Hollywood 2.0’75. While
the term never truly caught on, the article highlights certain tendencies that I have
referred to above, such as the dispersal of production and post-production facilities,
significance of online communities and online film screenings, and the distribution
of home entertainment over the Internet, which I have briefly discussed in chapter
five76.
Summer of 2006 has been an interesting time to see the new interactions
between web communities and Hollywood studios, thanks to the SNAKES ON A
PLANE (SOAP) phenomenon. SOAP was a horror-thriller film released by New Line
Cinema in August 2006. A throw-back to the older B-movies, the film was initially
to be directed by the Hong Kong action director Ronny Yu. Samuel L. Jackson, who
had worked with Yu before, signed on to the project because of its director, and
allegedly, its title. Before shooting began, Yu was replaced by David Ellis. The
online excitement began on several blogs in August 2006, snowballing into
something much bigger77. Although principal shooting ended in September 2005,
the hype generated online lead to the re-shooting of portions of the film, in order to
raise its MPAA rating from a PG-13 to an R to reach a specific segment of the
Conclusion
Global Directors of New Hollywood
136 to shoot ZWARTBOEK (BLACK BOOK, 2006). A Dutch / Belgian / British / German
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 138
blogger, which became the catchphrase of the film. This catchphrase was not used
as the film’s tagline because of its adult language, but it was featured in parodies and
skits on a number of TV shows like The Daily Show. In the meantime, fan-made
trailers and songs began appearing on YouTube and elsewhere. In June 2006, New
Line Cinema and the social networking site TagWorld announced the results of the
song contest which had been opened for the film. Out of 500 entries, two winners
were chosen for the soundtrack, increasing the fan-input to unprecedented levels.
By the time SOAP opened on August 18, it had become one of the most hyped
movies of film history. Before its release, New Line Cinema announced that it was
expecting about US$ 30 million box office revenues for the first weekend. The
film’s budget was estimated around US$ 33 million. Anticipation was high, since
SOAP was seen as the film that might change the industry. However, the result was
largely disappointing. The film only reached US$ 15 million in its first week, failing
to live up to all the commotion. It turned out that although the Internet may
eventually change some of the industry practices, the online communities are not yet
as strong as they were made out to be78. Nonetheless, the SOAP phenomenon
provided the studios with new ways of producing and promoting their films.
In addition to the studios, filmmakers have become more and more aware of the
direct relationship they can build with their audiences over the Internet. Peter
Jackson announced on a fan website, theonering.net, that he would not be directing
THE HOBBIT; debates and calls to protest New Line Pictures continued on that and
many other websites. Similarly, Joss Whedon used his whedonesque.com to
pronounce the end of the WONDER WOMAN project he had been involved in with
Warner Bros.79 David Lynch has a store and a password protected members only
division on davidlynch.com, where his various projects can reach the paying
audience directly. This new availability of the directors does not only influence the
way film and media are consumed, but also the way the idea of an ‘auteur’ is
maintained and perceived by the public.
For the directors examined in this book, there have been some changes in a more
practical sense. Miller et al. point out that since the attacks of September 11, 2001,
there has been increased scrutiny on all paperwork involving temporary workers
admitted for special projects80. Similarly, Florida calls attention to a possible flight
of talent away from the US following the development of recent isolationist
policies. He points to Peter Jackson as an example, and underscores his
transforming of Wellington from a small town to a global cultural capital81. Perhaps,
as the flow towards the US diminishes, Hollywood’s globalization will continue,
resulting in a flow among other nations, yet still as a part of transnational
Hollywood. With the decline in box-office revenues in 2005, as well as the increase
in piracy concerns, the styles and budgets of films are also likely to change. George
Lucas has predicted that budgets will decrease significantly in the next few years,
opening the path to more independent productions82. But revenues started increasing
again in 2006, giving the studios another break before having to make drastic
changes.
In addition to the SOAP phenomenon, 2006 will be remembered for the return of
Superman. When I went to see SUPERMAN RETURNS, nearly 27 years after my initial
Superman experience, things were quite different. One of the biggest changes was
that I did not have to wait for months to see the film in Turkey; it was released
almost simultaneously across the world. It was not the first, nor the only superhero 139
coming to the theaters; X-MEN: THE LAST STAND had opened a few weeks before,
the Batman franchise had been revived successfully in 2005, and SPIDER-MAN 3
was to be released in 2007. Its director was also no stranger to superhero films;
Bryan Singer was seen as the master of superheroes, due to his success in bringing
the first two X-MEN films to the screen. The night before I watched SUPERMAN
RETURNS, I visited a friend to watch the first two Superman films on DVD. We
watched the extended director’s cut, with eight minutes worth of footage seamlessly
integrated into the original. In terms of the film itself, Superman does not seem to
have changed much; the producers have chosen Brandon Routh, whose looks are
uncannily similar to those of Christopher Reeve. Nonetheless, this new Superman
does not settle for saving only the inhabitants of Metropolis. Newscasts from as
varied locations as the Philippines, Germany, Egypt, China, Australia and France are
seen, informing the people of the world that Superman is back, and that he knows
no boundaries. But there is one sentence in the film that shows how Superman and
Hollywood have evolved over the last 30 years, becoming truly global, and I would
like to conclude with that. In the old days, Superman stood for ‘truth, justice, and
the American way’. In Superman 2006, Clark Kent’s boss, the Daily Planet editor
Perry White gathers his team after Superman’s return. He demands his staff to find
out everything about the hero and asks: “Does he still stand for truth, justice, … and
all that stuff?”
Conclusion
Global Directors of New Hollywood
138 audience. One of the added scenes featured an R-rated sentence suggested by a
global directors.qxd
14:45
Page 140
Endnotes
1 Balio: United Artists, 253.
2 Richard Maltby and Ruth Vasey: “’Temporary American Citizens’. Cultural anxieties
and industrial strategies in the Americanisation of European cinema”. In Catherine Fowler
(ed.) The European Cinema Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 2002: 180-193,
here 189.
3 Shone: 247.
4 Elsaesser, European Cinema: 312.
5 Miller, Govil, McMurria, Maxwell, Wang: 7.
6 Quoted in Puttnam: 227. In 2006, Fox was honored with the Chevalier de l’Ordre des
Arts et des Lettres by the French Ministry of Culture for “his lifetime commitment to
cultural diversity, as exemplified by his achievements in the world of international film”.
Fox was also responsible for the controversial UN LONG DIMANCHE DE FIANÇAILLES. See
“Warner Bros.' Richard Fox to be Named Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres”.
On PR Newswire, 20.02.2006
<http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=164398> Accessed 11.02.2007.
7 Goldsmith, O’Regan: 64.
8 Scott: 85. While Scott calls studios like Pinewood and Shepperton, as well as Boulogne
Billancourt and Éclair in Paris, Cinecittà in Rome and Babelsberg in Berlin strong
competitors, this is only mentioned in passing.
9 Goldsmith, O’Regan: 66.
10 See Bruce Haring: “Net casts film production wide”. In USA Today, Tech Extra,
04.02.1998.
11 Rosenbaum: 218.
12 Charlie Keil: “‘American’ Cinema in the 1990s and Beyond: Whose Country’s
Filmmaking Is It Anyway?” In Jon Lewis (ed.) The End of Cinema as We Know It:
American Film in the Nineties. New York: New York University Press, 2001: 53-60, here
53.
13 Cowen, 18.
14 Richard Pells: Not Like Us. How Europeans have loved, hated, and transformed
American Culture. New York: Basic Books: 1997.
15 Richard Pells: “From modernism to the movies: The globalization of American culture
in the twentieth century” In European Journal of American Culture, vol. 23, no. 2,
09.2004: 143-155.
16 A.O. Scott: “What Is a Foreign Movie Now?” In New York Times Magazine,
14.11.2004: 79-86, here 86.
17 Bergfelder: 320. Similarly, Jerry White argues for a more nuanced definition of
national cinemas in the global age. He contends that “not every film in a national cinema
[…] will be an example of national cinema”, just like “some films may not be a part of a
national cinema at all”. See Jerry White: “National Belonging. Renewing the concept of
national cinema for a global culture”. In New Review of Film and Television Studies, vol.
2, no. 2, 11.2004: 212-232, here 228.
18 See Martine Danan: “French cinema in the era of media capitalism”. In Media, Culture
& Society, vol. 22, 2000: 355-364 and Martine Danan: “From a ‘Prenational’ to a
‘Postnational’ French Cinema”. In Catherine Fowler (ed.) The European Cinema Reader.
London and New York: Routledge, 2002: 233-245.
19 In an addition to their Empire, Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt argue that Hollywood
presents an imperial US military that can defeat all enemies, worldy and alien, by
suggesting two films where the US president leads the battle: INDEPENDENCE DAY (Roland
Emmerich, 1996) and AIR FORCE ONE (Wolfgang Petersen, 1997). What they fail to note,
however, is that both films were made by German directors. See Nicholas Brown, Imre
Szeman / Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt: “Subterranean Passages of Thought: Empire’s
Inserts”. In Cultural Studies vol. 16, no. 2, 2002: 193-212, here 210.
20 Barber: 95.
21 See for example Elsaesser, European Cinema: 317, 491-492. Ironically, quite a number
of film critics, including Brian D’Amato and David Rimanelli of Art Forum, Adrian
Martin, and Jacques Rivette, himself a film director and a former critic for Cahiers du
Cinema where the auteur concept was born, would firmly disagree with Barber’s stance
on Verhoeven. See Adrian Martin: “The Offended Critic: Film Reviewing and Social
Commentary” On Senses of Cinema, 07.2000.
<http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/8/offended.html> Accessed 21.07.2000;
Brian D’Amato, David Rimanelli: “Dutchman’s Breaches: D’Amato and Rimanelli Talk
with Paul Verhoeven”. In Art Forum, 06.2000; and Jacques Rivette: “La Sequence du
Spectateur”. In Les Inrockuptibles, No. 144, 25.03.1998.
22 Barber: 331.
23 Herbert I. Schiller: “Not Yet the Post-Imperialist Era”. In Meenakshi Gigi Durham,
Douglas M. Kellner (ed.s) Media and Cultural Studies KeyWorks, Revised edition.
Oxford / Malden / Carlton: Blackwell Publishing, 2006: 295-310, here 297.
24 See Roland Robertson: “Glocalization: Time-space and Homogeneity-heterogeneity”.
In Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, Roland Robertson (ed.s) Global Modernities. London:
Sage, 1995: 25-44 and Arjun Appadurai: Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of
Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
25 Robertson: 40.
26 On the other hand, considering that most festivals tend to be filled with the same films
circling the globe, one could argue that festivals also demonstrate homogenization.
27 For a discussion of the ‘European’ nature of Hollywood, see O’Regan.
28 Austin Ramzy: “Coming to America”. In Time Asian Edition, 17.07.2006: 10.
29 “Nanjing Auto promises to revive MG marque”. In Autoasia. 21.08.2006.
<http://www.auto-asia.com/viewcontent.asp?pk=10527> Accessed 25.08.2006.
30 Jenny Holland: “Indra Nooyi Becomes First Female CEO at Pepsi”. In Brandweek.
14.08.2006.
<http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002986123>
Accessed 25.08.2006.
31 Paul McDougall: “Pepsi Outsources CEO Job To India”. In InformationWeek,
16.06.2006.
<http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/08/pepsi_outsource.html>
Accessed 24.08.2006.
32 Steve Stecklow: “How a Global Web of Activists Gives Coke Problems in India”. In
Wall Street Journal, 07.06.2005: 1.
33 David Cox, Coke's Hong Kong-based communications director for Asia, quoted in
Stecklow.
34 Mahesh Vijapurkar: “More countries wooing Bollywood to lure tourists”. In The
141
Conclusion
Global Directors of New Hollywood
140
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 142
Global Directors of New Hollywood
self-confidence (Brymer: 70). Google is known for its creative and idiosyncratic work
environment, where employees are allowed, as well as encouraged, to devote 20% of their
time to projects unrelated to their current tasks.
51 Booz, Allen, & Hamilton: Diversification: A survey of European chief executives. New
York:
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., 1985. Quoted in Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted, Byeng-Hee
Chang: “Diversification Strategy of Global Media Conglomerates: Examining Its Patterns
and Determinants”. In Journal of Media Economics, vol. 16, no. 4, 2003: 213-233, here
215.
52 Chan-Olmsted, Chang: 215. Also see Thomas Schatz: “The Return of the Hollywood
Studio System”. In Eric Barnouw et al. Conglomerates and the Media. New York: The
New Press, 1997: 73-106.
53 Puttnam: 229.
54 See Pascal Kamina: Film Copyright in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
55 Sharon Waxman: “To Web Fans, Peter Jackson Is the One True Director”. In The New
York Times, 29.11.2006.
56 Gary Susman: “‘We call it martian accounting’”. In The Guardian, 31.08.2001.
57 See Allan Poulter: “Brand protection”. In Rita Clifton, John Simmons (ed.s) Brands
and Branding. Princeton: Bloomberg Press, 2003: 157-168.
58 Not everything can be trademarked, however. Following the success of his reality TV
show, THE APPRENTICE, Donald Trump attempted to patent his famous line, “You’re
fired!” in 2004. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a rejection a few
months later.
59 “Taylor Bradford loses Indian plagiarism case”. In The Guardian, 22.07.2003.
60 Ronald V. Bettig: Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual
Property. Boulder: Westview Press, 1996.
61 Shujen Wang: “Recontextualizing Copyright: Piracy, Hollywood, the State, and
Globalization”. In Cinema Journal, vol. 43, no. 1, Fall 2003: 25-43, here 31.
62 Ibid.: 26.
63 Ibid.: 31.
64 Among other simultaneous releases are LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
(Peter Jackson, 2003), STAR WARS EPISODE III: THE REVENGE OF THE SITH (George Lucas,
2005), and THE DA VINCI CODE.
65 Xeni Jardin: “Thinking Outside the Box Office”. In Wired, vol. 13, no. 12. 12.2005.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/soderbergh.html> Accessed 16.02.2007.
66 Anita Elberse, Felix Oberholzer-Gee: “Superstars and Underdogs: An Examination of
the Long Tail Phenomenon in Video Sales”. Harvard Business School Working Paper
Series, No. 07-015, 05.09.2006.
<http://www.people.hbs.edu/aelberse/papers/hbs_07-015.pdf> Accessed 16.02.2007: 7.
67 Chris Lukinbeal: “The rise of regional film production centers in North America 19841997”. In GeoJournal, vol. 59, no. 4, 2004: 307-321, here 319.
68 Saskia Sassen: Losing Control? New York: Columbia University Press, 1996: 30.
69 Florida, 2004: 69.
70 Florida, 2005: 237.
71 Shimizu is not a member of the DGA.
72 From the foundation of the studios until the end of vertical integration (the mid-1910s
to the mid-1940s), and from then until the mid-1970s.
143
Conclusion
142 Hindu Business Line, 20.08.2004. In 2002, Museum für Gestaltung in Zurich organized an
exhibition titled ‘Bollywood: The Indian Cinema and Switzerland’, accompanied by a
film program.
35 As many as 14 Bollywood films were shot in Australia between 1998 and 2003. The
federal Tourism Minister Fran Bailey said, “What THE LORD OF THE RINGS did for New
Zealand, Bollywood has done for Australia”. Quoted in Akash Arora: “Indian film-makers
snub attempts to curry flavor”. In The Australian, 28.07.2006.
36 Goldsmith, O’Regan: 11.
37 Naomi Klein: No Logo. London: Flamingo, 2001.
38 For instance, the ‘stocks and stripes flag’ used at some demonstrations is a variation of
the American flag, where the stars are replaced by corporate logos. Among the logos are
those of Adidas (headquartered in Germany) and Royal Dutch Shell (based in the UK
with headquarters in the Netherlands).
39 See for example, Klaus Bente: Product Placement: Entscheidungsrelevante Aspekte in
der Werbepolitik. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, 1990; Pola B. Gupta,
Kenneth R. Lord: “Product Placement in Movies: The Effect of Prominence and Mode on
Audience Recall”, In Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, vol. 20, no.
1, Spring 1998: 47-59; Stephen J. Gould, Pola B. Gupta, Sonja Grabner-Kräuter: “Product
Placements in Movies: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Austrian, French, and American
Consumers’ Attitudes Toward This Emerging International Promotional Medium”. In
Journal of Advertising, vol. 29, no. 4, Winter 2000: 41-58; James A. Karrh, Kathy Brittain
McKee, Carol J. Pardun: “Practitioners' Evolving Views on Product Placement
Effectiveness”. In Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 43, no. 2, 06.2003: 138-149.
40 Siva K. Balasubramanian: “Beyond Advertising and Publicity: Hybrid Messages and
Public Policy Issues”. In Journal of Advertising, vol. 23, no. 4, 12.1994: 29-46, here 31.
41 See Tom Blackett: “What is a Brand?” In Rita Clifton, John Simmons (ed.s) Brands
and Branding. Princeton: Bloomberg Press, 2003: 13-25.
42 See Aron M. Levin, Irwin P. Levin, C. Edward Heath: “Movie stars and authors as
brand names: Measuring brand equity in experiential products”. In Merrie Brucks,
Deborah J. MacInnis (ed.s.) Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 24, 1997: 175-181;
and Kalpesh Kaushik Desai, Suman Basuroy: “Interactive Influence of Genre Familiarity,
Star Power, and Critics’ Reviews in the Cultural Goods Industry: The Case of Motion
Pictures”. In Psychology & Marketing, vol. 22, no. 3, 03.2005: 203-223.
43 Keil: 56.
44 These investors include the investment bank Goldman Sachs and the luxury goods
producer LVMH. See David Carr: “Placing Bets on Miramax the Sequel”. In New York
Times, 31.10.2005.
45 Rosenbaum: 221.
46 Chuck Brymer: “What makes brands great”. In Rita Clifton, John Simmons (ed.s)
Brands and Branding. Princeton: Bloomberg Press, 2003: 65-76, here 68-71.
47 Studios’ executives are as much a part of this process as individual producers. See Lee
Berton, Roy Harris: “Reel World Accounting”. In CFO Magazine, 03.1999.
48 DeVany, Walls: 314.
49 Philippe Meers: “’It’s the Language of Film!’: Young Film Audiences on Hollywood
and Europe”. In Melvyn Stokes, Richard Maltby (ed.s) Hollywood Abroad. Audiences and
Cultural Exchange. London: British Film Institute, 2004: 158-175.
50 Harley-Davidson creates a loyal customer base by aligning its employee experience
with the values the brand embodies, such as freedom, individualism, self-expression and
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:45
Page 144
Global Directors of New Hollywood
Bibliography
Aaker, David A. and Joachimsthaler, Erich: “The Lure of Global Branding”. In Harvard
Business Review, 11-12.1999: 137-144.
Aksoy, Asu; Robins, Kevin: “Hollywood for the 21st century: global competition for critical
mass in image markets”. In Cambridge Journal of Economics vol. 16, no. 1, 03.1992: 122.
Albion, Alexis: “Wanting to be James Bond”. In Comentale, Edward P.; Watt, Stephen;
Willman, Skip (ed.s): Ian Fleming & James Bond. The Cultural Politics Of 007.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press 2005: 202-220.
Amis, Kingsley: The James Bond Dossier. London: J. Cape 1965.
Anderson, Benedict: “Exodus”. In Critical Inquiry, vol. 20, no: 2, Winter 1994: 314-327.
Andrews, Sam: “British Resolve: England’s Venerable Film Industry Marshals its Resources
and Renews Its Commitment to Producing World-Class Cinema”. In American
Cinematographer - The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques
vol. 80, no. 5, May 1999: 72-76.
Anez, Nicholas: “James Bond”. In Films in Review, vol. 43, no. 11-12, NovemberDecember 1992: 30-36.
Ang, Ien: Watching Dallas. London / New York: Methuen, 1985.
Appadurai, Arjun: Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
Appadurai, Arjun: “Disjuncture and Difference”. In Inda, Jonathan Xavier; Rosaldo, Renato
(ed.s) The Anthropology of Globalization. Oxford / : Blackwell Publishers, 2001: 46-64.
Apted, Michael: “One on One: Michael Apted and Alan Parker”. In American Film, vol. 15,
no: 12, 09.1990: 42-45.
Armburst, Roger: “SHOOT Chief Gives Apologia For RSA Ad”. In Back Stage, vol. 41, no.
23: 3.
Armes, Roy: A Critical History of British Cinema. London: Secker & Warburg 1978.
Armes, Roy: Third World Filmmaking and the West. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London:
University of California Press, 1987.
Arora, Akash: “Indian film-makers snub attempts to curry flavor”. In The Australian,
28.07.2006.
Arroyo, Jose: “THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH”. In Sight & Sound, January 2000.
Ashton, Richard: “The Michael G. Wilson Interviews 1989-1999”. In Her Majesty’s Secret
Service, vol. 3, no. 2, <http://www.hmss.com/films/mgw/mgw95.html> Accessed
21.11.2002.
Athreye, Suma: “Agglomeration and Growth: A study of Cambridge Hi-Tech Cluster”. In
Open Discussion Papers in Economics, The Open University, no. 29, 12.2000.
Atkinson, Michael: “Expired Ham”. In Village Voice, 09.04.2001.
Bacher, Lutz: Max Ophuls in the Hollywood Studios. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press, 1996.
Baer, Hester; Long, Ryan: “Transnational Cinema and the Mexican State in Alfonso
Cuarón’s Y Tu Mama Tambien”. In South Central Review, vol: 21, no.: 3, Fall 2004:
150-168.
145
Bibliography
144 73 Tim O’Reilly: “What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software”. On O’Reilly, 30.09.2005
<http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html>
Accessed on 05.09.2006.
74 For a discussion of online communities’ relationship with cinephilia, see Melis Behlil:
“Ravenous Cinephiles: Cinephilia, Internet and Online Film Communities”. In Marijke de
Valck, Malte Hagener (ed.s) Cinephilia: Movies, Love and Memory. Amsterdam:
University of Amsterdam Press, 2005: 112-123.
75 James Daly: “Hollywood 2.0”. In Wired, vol. 5, no. 11, 11.1997.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.11/hollywood.html> Accessed 06.02.2007.
76 For a more detailed analysis of the relationship between the artist, audiences and
technology within the context of the Internet, see Notaro.
77 For a history of the SOAP phenomenon, see Amanda Schupak: “SNAKES ON A PLANE’s
slithery slope: How one movie with a straightforward title became a phenomenon”. In
Forbes, Posted on 17.08.2006
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14396783/> Accessed 05.09.2006.
78 One could argue that the Internet movie fans prefer to watch films at home. The DVD
sales of SNAKES ON A PLANE, while healthy, were not exceptional. The other option is that
these fans illegally downloaded the films, but that is an unmeasurable form of distribution.
79 Incidentally, the title of this chapter is a reference to a song written by Joss Whedon for
a musical episode of his hit TV series, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER.
80 Miller et al.: 132.
81 Florida (2005): 1-3.
82 Lloyd Grove: “Lucas: Big pics are doomed”. In New York Daily News, 06.03.2006.
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/grove/story/397170p-336664c.html> Accessed
07.03.2006.
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 146
Global Directors of New Hollywood
Blackett, Tom: “What is a Brand?” In Clifton, Rita; Simmons, John (ed.s) Brands and
Branding. Princeton: Bloomberg Press, 2003: 13-25.
Bloom, David: “The New Game in Town. Vidgame boom lures top writers and
filmmakers”. In Variety vol. 390, no. 10, 21-27.04.2003: 1/59.
BMW Films Press Release. 11.10.2005
<http://www.bmwusa.com/bmwexperience/filmspr.htm> Accessed 30.10.2005.
Blum, Heiko R.: Meine Zweite Heimat Hollywood. Berlin: Henschel 2001.
Booz, Allen and Hamilton: Characteristics and Labor Market Impact of Persons Admitted
Under the H-1 Program. 06.1988.
Borjas, George J.; Freeman, Richard B.; Katz, Lawrence F.: “Searching for the Effect of
Immigration on the Labor Market.” In The American Economic Review, vol. 86, no. 2,
05.1996: 246-251.
Bordwell, David; Staiger, Janet; Thompson, Kirsten: The Classical Hollywood Cinema. Film
Style & Mode of Production to 1960. London: Routledge, 1985.
Bosniak, Linda: “The State of Citizenship: Citizenship Denationalized”. In Indiana Journal
of Global Legal Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2000: 447-510.
Bourdieu, Pierre: “The Forms of Capital” (R. Nice, trans.). In John G. Richardson (ed.),
Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York:
Greenwood Press, 1986: 241-258. (Original work published in 1973).
Bradshaw, Peter: “Killing Me Softly.” In The Guardian [London] 21.06.2002, internet
edition.
<http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,4267,740970
,00.html> Accessed 06.08.2004.
Briggs, Caroline: “Government bid to keep Bond in UK”. In BBC News World Edition
17.05.2005. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4556727.stm> Accessed
13.11.2005.
Brodie, John: “Secret Agent Man”. In Details, 02.1997.
Brooks, Xan: “The name's Tamahori, Lee Tamahori”. In Guardian Unlimited, 11.01.2002
<http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,631454,00.html> Accessed
22.11.2002.
Brosnan, John: James Bond in the Cinema. London: Tantivy Press, 1972
Brown, Amanda: “Hong Kong: Exit the Dragon?” PricewaterhouseCoopers Global.
<http://www.pwcglobal.com/Extweb/industry.nsf/docid/9C8D438A16B39E9385256C9
1005D43A2>. Accessed 04.08.2004.
Brown, Corie; Giles, Jeff: “Mike De Luca's wild antics used to create more buzz than his
movies. Now he's one of the industry's hottest execs.; Hollywood's Bad Boy Makes
Good”. In Newsweek (International ed.), 13.09.1999: 58.
Brown, Nicholas; Szeman, Imre / Negri, Antonio; Hardt, Michael: “Subterranean Passages
of Thought: Empire’s Inserts”. In Cultural Studies vol. 16, no. 2, 2002: 193-212.
Brymer, Chuck: “What makes brands great”. In Clifton, Rita; Simmons, John (ed.s) Brands
and Branding. Princeton: Bloomberg Press, 2003: 65-76.
Buchsbaum, Jonathan: ““The Exception Culturelle Is Dead.” Long Live Cultural Diversity:
French Cinema and the New Resistance”. In Framework, vol. 47, no. 1, Spring 2006: 521.
del Buono, Oreste; Eco, Umberto (ed.s): The Bond Affair. London: Macdonald 1966.
Burnett, Robert: The Global Jukebox: The International Music Industry. London / New
York: Routledge, 1996.
147
Bibliography
146 Balasubramanian, Siva K.: “Beyond Advertising and Publicity: Hybrid Messages and Public
Policy Issues”. In Journal of Advertising, vol. 23, no. 4, 12.1994: 29-46.
Balio, Tino: United Artists: The Company That Changed the Film Industry. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.
Balio, Tino: “Adjusting to the New Global Economy. HW in the 1990s”. In Moran, Albert
(ed.) Film Policy. International, National and Regional Perspectives. London / New
York: Routledge: 1996: 23-38.
Balio, Tino: “‘A major presence in all of the world’s important markets’: the globalization of
Hollywood in the 1990s”. In Neale, Steve; Smith, Murray (ed.s) Contemporary
Hollywood Cinema. London / New York: Routledge, 1998: 58-73.
Barber, Benjamin: Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995.
Barber, Lynn: “Scott’s Corner”. In Observer, 06.01.2002.
Barker, Deane: “Licensed to Thrill. An Interview with John Glen”.
<http://www.ianfleming.org/mkkbb/magazine/glen1.shtml> Accessed 19.04.2006.
Barnes, Alan; Hearn, Marcus: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. The Unofficial James Bond Film
Companion. London: BT Batsford. 2000.
Baxter, John: The Hollywood Exiles. London: Macdonald and Jane’s, 1976.
Beer, David: “The Pop-Pickers Have Picked Decentralised Media: the Fall of Top of the
Pops and the Rise of the Second Media Age”. On Sociological Research Online, vol. 11,
no. 3, 30.09.2006. <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/beer.html#garfield2006>
Accessed 02.02.2007.
Behlil, Melis: “Ravenous Cinephiles: Cinephilia, Internet and Online Film Communities”. In
de Valck, Marijke; Hagener, Malte (ed.s) Cinephilia: Movies, Love and Memory.
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 2005: 112-123.
Bennett, Tony; Wollacott, Janet: Bond and Beyond. The Political Career of a Popular Hero.
London: Macmillan 1987.
Bennett, Tony; Wollacott, Janet: “The Moments of Bond”. In Christoph Lindner (ed.) The
James Bond Phenomenon. Manchester: Manchester University Press 2003: 13-33.
Bente, Klaus: Product Placement: Entscheidungsrelevante Aspekte in der Werbepolitik.
Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, 1990
Bergfelder, Tim: “National, transnational or supranational cinema? Rethinking European
film studies”. In Media, Culture & Society, vol. 27, no. 3, 05.2005: 315-331.
Bergstrom, Janet: “Émigrés or Exiles? The French Directors’ Return From Hollywood”. In
Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey; Ricci, Steven (ed.s) Hollywood & Europe: London: British
Film Institute, 1998: 86-103.
Berliant, Marcus; Reed III, Robert R.; Wang, Ping: “Knowledge Exchange, Matching, and
Agglomeration”. <http://www.econometricsociety.org/meetings/wc00/pdf/0261.pdf>
Accessed 07.03.2006.
Berton, Lee; Harris, Roy: “Reel World Accounting”. In CFO Magazine, 03.1999.
Bettig, Ronald V.: Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property.
Boulder: Westview Press, 1996.
Bishop, John: “Building International Empires of Sound: Concentrations of Power and
Property in the “Global” Music Market”. In Popular Music and Society, vol. 28, no. 4,
10.2005: 443-471.
Biskind, Peter: Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of Independent
Film. New York: Simon & Shuster, 2004.
Black, Jeremy: The Politics of James Bond. From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen.
London: Praeger 2001.
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 148
Global Directors of New Hollywood
Press, 1993.
Crofts, Stephen: “Concepts of national cinema”. In Hill, John; Church Gibson, Pamela (ed.s)
The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998: 385-394.
Curran, James; Porter, Vincent: British Cinema History. London: Widenfeld and Nicolson
1983.
Daly, James: “Hollywood 2.0”. In Wired, vol. 5, no. 11, 11.1997.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.11/hollywood.html> Accessed 06.02.2007.
D’Amato, Brian; Rimanelli, David: “Dutchman’s Breaches: D’Amato and Rimanelli Talk
with Paul Verhoeven”. In Art Forum, 06.2000.
Danan, Martine: “Marketing the Hollywood Blockbuster in France”. In Journal of Popular
Film & Television vol. 23, no. 3, Fall 1995: 131-140.
Danan, Martine: “French cinema in the era of media capitalism”. In Media, Culture &
Society, vol. 22, 2000: 355-364.
Danan, Martine: “From a ‘Prenational’ to a ‘Postnational’ French Cinema”. In Catherine
Fowler (ed.) The European Cinema Reader. London / New York: Routledge, 2002: 233245.
Daniels, Les: Superman: The Complete History: The Life and Times of the Man of Steel. San
Francisco: Chronicle Books LLC, 2004.
Davis, Susan G.: “Space Jam. Media Conglomerates Build the Entertainment City”. In
European Journal of Communication, vol 14, no. 4, 1999: 435-459.
Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration: “The Migration of US Film
and Television Production Impact of ‘Runaways’ on Workers and Small Business in the
US Film Industry.” 01.2001.
Desai, Kalpesh Kaushik; Basuroy, Suman: “Interactive Influence of Genre Familiarity, Star
Power, and Critics’ Reviews in the Cultural Goods Industry: The Case of Motion
Pictures”. In Psychology & Marketing, vol. 22, no. 3, 03.2005: 203-223.
Directors Guild of America Website: <www.dga.org>.
Drezner, Daniel W.: “The Outsourcing Bogeyman”. In Foreign Affairs, vol. 83, no. 3, 0506.2004: 22-34.
Droesch, Audrey: “Hollywood North: The Impact of Costs and Demarcation Rules on the
Runaway Film Industry”.
<http://www-econ.stanford.edu/academics/Honors_Theses/Theses_2002/Droesch.pdf >
Accessed 16.03.2006.
Drucker, Peter F.: “From Capitalism to Knowledge Society”. In Dale Neef (ed.), The
Knowledge Economy. Woburn, MA: Butterworth, 1998: 15-34.
Durham, Carolyn A. Double Takes: Culture and Gender in French Films and Their
American Remakes, Hanover: University of New England Press, 1998.
Ebert, Roger: “NIGHTWATCH”. In Chicago Sun Times, 17.04.1998.
Eberwein, Robert: “Remakes and Cultural Studies”. In Play It Again Sam: Retakes on
Remakes. Horton, Andrew; McDougall, Stuart Y. (ed.s). Berkeley / Los Angeles /
London: University of California Press 1998: 15-33.
Egoyan, Atom; Balfour, Ian (ed.s): Subtitles: On the Foreignness of Film, Cambridge, MA /
London: The MIT Press, 2004: 21.
Ehrenberg, Ronald G.; Smith, Robert S.: Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public
Policy, 3rd edition, Glenview: Scott Foresman, 1988.
Elias, Justine: “The City That Can Sub for All of America.” In The New York Times, [late
149
Bibliography
148 Campbell, Lisa: “Maverick moviemaker set to make a return to advertising”. In Campaign
(UK), no. 8, 01.03.2002: 21.
Canby, Vincent: “Waking Up In a Future Of Muscles”. In New York Times, 08.10.1993.
Carr, David: “Placing Bets on Miramax the Sequel”. In New York Times, 31.10.2005.
Cervantes, Mario; Guellec, Dominique: “The Brain Drain: Old Myths, New Realities.” In
The OECD Observer, no. 230, 01.2002: 40-42.
Chan, Kenneth: “The Global Return of the Wu Xia Pian (Chinese Sword-Fighting Movie):
Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”. In Cinema Journal vol. 43, no. 4,
Summer 2004: 3-17.
Chan-Olmsted, Sylvia M.; Chang, Byeng-Hee: “Diversification Strategy of Global Media
Conglomerates: Examining Its Patterns and Determinants”. In Journal of Media
Economics, vol. 16, no. 4, 2003: 213-233.
Chang, Byeng-Hee; Eyun-Jung Ki: “Devising a Practical Model for Predicting Theatrical
Movie Success: Focusing on the Experience Good Property”. In Journal of Media
Economics, vol. 18, no. 4, 2005: 247-269.
Chapman, James: Licence to Thrill. A Cultural History of the James Bond Films. London:
I.B. Tauris 1999.
Chapman, James: “A License to Thrill”. In Christoph Lindner (ed.) The James Bond
Phenomenon. Manchester: Manchester University Press 2003: 91-98.
Chapman, James: “Bond and Britishness”. In Comentale, Edward P.; Watt, Stephen;
Willman, Skip (ed.s): Ian Fleming & James Bond. The Cultural Politics Of 007.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press 2005: 129-143.
Cherbo, Joni Maya: “Case Study C. Issue Identification and Policy Implementation: Union
Involvement in the Immigration of Temporary Cultural Workers”. In Journal of Arts
Management, Law and Society, vol. 31, no. 2, Summer 2001: 149-167.
Cheshire, Godfrey: “Why We Should Care About Iranian Films”.
<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069292/>. Accessed 06.08.2004.
Christopherson, Susan; Storper, Michael: “The effects of flexible specialization on industrial
politics and the labor market: The motion picture industry”. In Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, vol. 42, no. 3, 04.1989: 331-347.
Chung, Winnie: “Giving in to the homing instinct.” In South China Morning Post [Hong
Kong]. <http://www.members.tripod.com/~journeyeast/homing_instinct.html>.
Accessed 23.03.2004.
Colette, Kevin: “Do You Expect Me to Talk? An Interview with Guy Hamilton”. In New
York Post, 28.12.1978. <http://www.geocities.com/digitalcinema/kryptoneditorial.html>
Accessed 04.06.2003.
Comentale, Edward P.; Watt, Stephen; Willman, Skip (ed.s): Ian Fleming & James Bond:
The Cultural Politics Of 007. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press
2005.
Cook, David: A History of Narrative Film. Third Edition. New York and London: W.W.
Norton, 1996.
Cork, John; Scivally, Bruce: James Bond: The Legacy. New York: Harry N. Abrams 2002.
Corliss, Richard: “Horror: Made in Japan” In Time, New York, vol. 164, no. 5, 02.08.2004:
76.
Cowen, Tyler: Creative Destruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Cowie, Peter: Revolution! The Explosion of World Cinema in the 60s. London:
Faber&Faber, 2004.
Crisp, Colin G.: The Classic French Cinema, 1930-1960. Indianapolis: Indiana University
global directors.qxd
14:46
Page 150
edition – final] Section 2, Page 36, Column 1.
Elberse, Anita; Oberholzer-Gee, Felix: “Superstars and Underdogs: An Examination of the
Long Tail Phenomenon in Video Sales”. Harvard Business School Working Paper
Series, No. 07-015, 05.09.2006. <http://www.people.hbs.edu/aelberse/papers/hbs_07015.pdf> Accessed 16.02.2007.
Elsaesser, Thomas: “Chronicle of a death retold: hyper, retro, or counter-cinema.” In
Monthly Film Bulletin, vol. 54 no. 641, 06.1987: 164-167.
Elsaesser, Thomas: “American Friends: Hollywood Echoes in the New German Cinema”. In
Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey; Ricci, Steven (ed.s) Hollywood & Europe. London: British
Film Institute, 1998: 142-155, here 146.
Elsaesser, Thomas: “Specularity and Engulfment: Francis Ford Coppola and BRAM
STOKER’S DRACULA”. In Neale, Steve; Smith, Murray (ed.s) Contemporary Hollywood
Cinema. London / New York: Routledge, 1998: 191-208.
Elsaesser, Thomas: “Ethnicity, Authenticity, and Exile: A Counterfeit Trade?”. In Hamid
Naficy (ed.) Home, Exile, Homeland: Film, Media and the Politics of Place. London /
New York: Routledge, 1999: 97-123.
Elsaesser, Thomas: “The Pathos of Failure: American Films in the 1970s”. In Elsaesser,
Thomas; King, Noel; Horvath, Alexander (ed.s) The Last Great American Picture Show:
New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2004:
279-292. (Originally printed in Monogram, no. 6, 1975: 13-19).
Elsaesser, Thomas: European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood. Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, 2005.
Elsaesser, Thomas in Koskinen, Maaret (ed.), Ingmar Bergman Revisited. London:
Wallflower Press, forthcoming in 11.2007.
Elsaesser, Thomas; Buckland, Warren: Studying Contemporary American Films: A Guide to
Movie Analysis. London: Arnold Publishers, 2002.
van Elteren, Mel: “US Cultural Imperialism Today: Only a Chimera?” In SAIS Review, vol.
23, no. 2, Summer-Fall 2003: 169-188.
Ezra, Elizabeth; Rowden, Terry: “General Introduction: What is Transnational Cinema?”. In
Ezra, Elizabeth; Rowden, Terry (ed.s), Transnational Cinema, The Film Reader. London
/ New York: Routledge, 2006: 1-12.
Faulkner, Robert R.; Anderson, Andy B.: “Short-term Projects and Emergent Careers:
Evidence from Hollywood”. In American Journal of Sociology, vol. 92 no.4, 01.1987:
879-909.
Featherstone, Mike: Undoing Culture. Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity. London /
Thousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995.
Figgis, Mike (ed.): Projections 10. Hollywood Filmmakers on Filmmaking. London: Faber
and Faber, 1999.
Finler, Joel W.: The Hollywood Story. Third Edition. London: Wallflower Press, 2003.
Florida, Richard: The Rise of the Creative Class. Paperback edition. New York: Basic
Books, 2004.
Florida, Richard: The Flight of the Creative Class. New York: Harper Business, 2005.
Forrest, Jennifer; Koos, Leonard R.: “Reviewing Remakes: An Introduction” In Forrest,
Jennifer; Koos, Leonard R. (ed.s) Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice.
Albany: SUNY Press, 2001: 1-36.
Fox, Stephen: The Mirror Makers: A History of American Advertising and Its Creators.
Urbana / Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997.
Frater, Patrick: “Remake king Lee takes bigger bite”. In Variety, 31.12.2006.
<http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117956456.html> Accessed 07.01.2007.
Friedman, Thomas L.: The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books, 2000.
Friedman, Thomas L.: The World is Flat. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2005.
Friend, Tad: “Remake Man”. In The New Yorker issue of 02.06.2003, 26.05.2003.
<http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030602fa_fact> Accessed 11.06.2005.
Frith, Simon; Goodwin, Andrew; Grossberg, Lawrence (ed.s): Sound and Vision: The Music
Video Reader. London / New York: Routledge, 1993.
Garncarz, Joseph: “Germany Goes Global: Challenging the Theory of Hollywood's
Dominance on International Markets.” Paper presented at “Media in Transition:
Globalization and Convergence,” an international conference at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 10-12.05. 2002.
<http://cms.mit.edu/conf/mit2/Abstracts/Garncarz.pdf> Accessed 21.03.2004.
Gaydos, Steven: “Directors Bask in Hollywood Spotlight,” In Variety 13.01-19.01.2003: A4.
Gesellschaft für Exilforschung (Society for Exile Studies), Website
<http://www.exilforschung.de/NNB/nnb.html>.
Gilchrist, Todd: “Crossover director Takashi Shimizu is intent on holding a Grudge for
Western audiences”. <http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue383/interview.html > Accessed
11.06.2005.
Goldsmith, Ben; O’Regan, Tom: Cinema Cities, Media Cities: The Contemporary
International Studio Complex. Sydney: Southwood Press, 2003.
Goodwin, Andrew: Dancing in the Distraction Factory: Music Television and Popular
Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
Gould, Stephen J.; Gupta, Pola B.; Grabner-Kräuter, Sonja: “Product Placements in Movies:
A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Austrian, French, and American Consumers’ Attitudes
Toward This Emerging International Promotional Medium”. In Journal of Advertising,
vol. 29, no. 4, Winter 2000: 41-58.
Green, Robert T.; Cunningham, William H.; Cunningham, Isabella C.M.: “The
Effectiveness of Standardized Global Advertising”. In Journal of Advertising, vol. 4,
no.3, 1975: 25-30.
Grindstaff, Laura: “A Pygmalion Tale Retold: Remaking LA FEMME NIKITA”. In Camera
Obscura vol. 16, no. 2, 2001: 132-175.
Gritten, David: “Batman Now Speaks with a British Accent”. In New York Times,
19.12.2004.
Grove, Lloyd: “Lucas: Big pics are doomed”. In New York Daily News, 06.03.2006.
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/grove/story/397170p-336664c.html> Accessed
07.03.2006.
Guback, Thomas; Varis, Tapio: “Transnational Communication and Cultural Industry”. In
Reports and Papers on Mass Communication. No. 92, Paris: Unesco, 1982.
Gunning, Tom: “The Cinema of Attraction: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde”,
In Robert Stam, Toby Miller (ed.s) Film and Theory. An Introduction. Malden, MA &
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 2000:229-235. Originally published in Wide-Angle vol. 8,
no.s 3-4, 1986, 63-70.
Gupta, Pola B.; Lord, Kenneth R.: “Product Placement in Movies: The Effect of Prominence
and Mode on Audience Recall”, In Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, vol. 20, no. 1, Spring 1998: 47-59
151
Bibliography
Global Directors of New Hollywood
150
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 152
Global Directors of New Hollywood
International Intellectual Property Alliance: “2002 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of
China.” <http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2002/2002SPEC301PRC.pdf> Accessed 06.08.2004.
Iordanova, Dina (with contributions from Juan Goytisolo, Ambassador K. Gàjendra Singh,
Rada Šešic, Asuman Suner, Viola Shafik and P.A. Skantze): “Indian Cinema’s Global
Reach: Historiography Through Testimonies”. In South Asian Popular Culture, vol. 4,
no. 2, 10.2006: 113-140.
Jacobs, Diane: Hollywood Renaissance. Cranbury, NJ: Barnes: 1977.
Jaffe, Aaron: “James Bond, Meta-Brand”. In Comentale, Edward P.; Watt, Stephen;
Willman, Skip (ed.s): Ian Fleming & James Bond. The Cultural Politics Of 007.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press 2005: 87-106.
Japanese Economy Division: “Japan Animation Industry Trends”. In JETRO Japan
Economic Monthly. 07.07.2005.
<http://www.jetro.go.jp/en/market/trend/industrial/pdf/jem0506-2e.pdf > Accessed
28.08.2006.
Jardin, Xeni: “Thinking Outside the Box Office”. In Wired, vol. 13, no. 12. 12.2005.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/soderbergh.html> Accessed 16.02.2007.
Jenkins, Henry: “Convergence? I Diverge.” In Technology Review, 06.2001: 93.
Jenkins, Henry: “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence”. In International Journal of
Cultural Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 03.2004: 33-43.
Jihong, Wan; Kraus, Richard: “Hollywood and China as Adversaries and Allies.” Pacific
Affairs vol. 75, no. 3, Fall 2002: 419-434.
Joo, Jeongsuk: “From Periphery to Center: The Rise of the Korean Film Industry Since the
Late 1990s”. Paper presented at New York Conference on Asian Studies, 01.10.2005.
<http://www.newpaltz.edu/asianstudies/nycas/2005%20GRAD%20Ryan%20Prize%20J
eongsuk%20Joo.pdf#search=%22%22Joo%22%20%22Periphery%20*%20Center%20
*%20Rise%22%22> Accessed 24.04.2006.
Kafka, Hans: “What Our Immigration Did for Hollywood – and Vice Versa”. In Aufbau,
22.12.1944, pp. 40-41.
Kamina, Pascal: Film Copyright in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002.
Kaplan, E. Ann: Rocking Around the Clock. Music Television, Postmodernism, and
Consumer Culture. London / New York: Routledge, 1987
Karrh, James A.; McKee, Kathy Brittain; Pardun, Carol J.: “Practitioners' Evolving Views
on Product Placement Effectiveness”. In Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 43, no. 2,
06.2003: 138-149.
Kaufman, Anthony: “Why Studio Remakes Don't Suck; US Versions Rebound Foreign
Originals, From Korea to INSOMNIA”. Indiewire, 06.05.2002.
<http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_020506_WorldCine6.html> Accessed 20.06.2006.
Kei, Sek: “Achievement and Crisis: Hong Kong Cinema in the ‘80s.” Bright Lights Film
Journal. <http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/31/hk_achievement1.html> Accessed
05.08.2004.
Keil, Charlie “‘American’ Cinema in the 1990s and Beyond: Whose Country’s Filmmaking
Is It Anyway?” In Lewis, Jon ed.) The End of Cinema as We Know It: American Film in
the Nineties. New York: New York University Press, 2001: 53-60.
Kemp. Stuart: “Carlyle aids Mill management buyout”. In The Hollywood Reporter,
07.02.2007.
153
Bibliography
152 Hallenberger, Gerd: “Aesthetic Conventions in European Media Cultures”. In Emergences,
vol. 11, no. 1, 05.2001: 117-131.
Hannerz, Ulf: Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. Florence, KY:
Routledge, 1996.
Hansen, Miriam Bratu: “The Mass Production of the Senses: Classical Cinema as
Vernacular Modernism”. In Modernism/Modernity, vol. 6, no. 2, 04.1999: 59-77.
Hardy, Phil: “Crime Movies”. In Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (ed.) The Oxford History of World
Cinema. London: Oxford University Press, 1997: 304-312.
Haring, Bruce: “Net casts film production wide”. In USA Today, Tech Extra, 04.02.1998
Held, David and McGrew, Anthony: “The Great Globalization Debate: An Introduction”. In
Held, David and McGrew, Anthony (ed.s ) The Global Transformations Reader.
Cambridge, Oxford, Malden: Polity Press, 2000: 1-45
Hesmondhalgh, David: The Cultural Industries. London / Thousand Oaks / New Delhi:
Sage Publications, 2003.
Hewitt, Chris: “Scott of the Kinetic. Tony Scott talks DOMINO”. In Empire
<http://www.empireonline.co.uk/interviews_and_events/interview.asp?IID=330>
Accessed 22.10.2005.
Hibbin, Sally: “Catastrophic Cycles. Film and National Culture”. In Andrew Beck (ed.)
Cultural Work. Understanding the Cultural Industries. London / New York: Routledge
2003: 142-146.
Higson, Andrew: “The concept of national cinema”. In Screen, vol. 30, no. 4, Autumn 1989:
36-46.
Higson, Andrew: Waving the Flag: Constructing a National Cinema in Britain. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1995.
Higson, Andrew: “The Limiting Imagination of National Cinema”. In Hjort, Mette;
MacKenzie, Scott (ed.s), Cinema & Nation. London / New York: Routledge, 2000: 6374.
Hilson, David: “Nakata makes Hollywood debut with THE RING TWO”. In Daily Yomiuri.
<http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20050616woa1.htm> Accessed 19.06.2005.
Hirschberg, Lynn: “Us & Them: What Is an American Movie Now?” In New York Times
Magazine, 14.11.2004: 88-93.
Holguin, Carlos:“ US Immigration Policies, US Labor, and the Role of Immigrants in the
US Labor Market.” Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Los Angeles.
January 2001. <http://www.centerforhumanrights.org>.
Holland. Jenny: “Indra Nooyi Becomes First Female CEO at Pepsi”. In Brandweek.
14.08.2006.
<http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002986123
> Accessed 25.08.2006.
Hollywood Foreign Press Association Website. <http://www.hfpa.org/aboutus.html>.
Horak, Jan-Christopher: “German Exile Cinema, 1933-1950”. In Film History, vol. 8, no. 4,
December 1996: 373-389.
Horak, Jan-Christopher: “Sauerkraut & Sausages with a Little Goulash: Germans in
Hollywood, 1927”. In Film History, vol. 17, no. 2/3, 2005: 241-260.
Hoskins, Colin; McFadyen, Stuart; Finn, Adam: Global Television and Film. An
Introduction to the Economics of the Business. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Hozic, Aida: Hollyworld. Space, Power and Fantasy in the American Economy. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2001.
global directors.qxd
14:46
Page 154
<http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3if30fa27b0aee
c1209fbefab3fe57adb8> Accessed 07.02.2007.
Kempley, Rita: “THREE FUGITIVES”. Washington Post, 27.01.1989.
Keser, Robert: “Fred Zinnemann”. In Senses of Cinema,
<http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/04/zinnemann.html>. Accessed
25.03.2006.
King, Geoff: New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2002.
King, Noel: ““The Last Good Time We Ever Had”: Remembering the New Hollywood
Cinema”. In Thomas Elsaesser, Noel King, Alexander Horvath (ed.s) The Last Great
American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 2004: 19-36.
Kit, Borys: “Dublin’s ‘Attraction’ Includes Tax Breaks.” In Hollywood Reporter.
<http://movies.yahoo.com/news/va/20040413/108191597600p.html> Accessed
13.04.2004.
Klein, Christina: “Martial Arts and the Globalization of US and Asian Film Industries”. In
Comparative American Studies vol. 2, no. 3, 2004: 360-384.
Klein, Christina: “CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON: A Diasporic Reading”. In Cinema
Journal vol. 43, no. 4, Summer 2004: 18-42.
Klein, Naomi: No Logo. London: Flamingo, 2001.
Koç, Aysun: “Ve G.O.R.A. geliyor!” In Birgün, 04.12.2004.
Krämer, Peter: “Post-Classical Hollywood”. In Hill, John; Church Gibson, Pamela (ed.s) The
Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998: 289-309
Krämer, Peter: “Hollywood in Germany / Germany in Hollywood”. In Tim Bergfelder,
Erica Carter, Deniz Göktürk (ed.s) The German Cinema Book. London: BFI Publishing,
2002: 227-237.
Krämer, Peter: “Hollywood and Germany: Notes on a History of Cultural Exchange.” Paper
presented at “Media in Transition: Globalization and Convergence”. International
conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1012.05.2002 <http://cms.mit.edu/conf/mit2/Abstracts/PeterKramer.pdf> Accessed
21.03.2004.
Krätke, Stefan: “Global Media Cities in a World-wide Urban Network”. In European
Planning Studies, vol. 11, no. 6, 09.2003: 605-628.
Krätke, Stefan; Taylor, Peter J.: “A World Geography of Global Media Cities”. In European
Planning Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, 06.2004: 460-477.
Langman, Larry: Destination Hollywood: The Influence of Europeans on American
Filmmaking. Jefferson, NC: McFarland 2000.
Lash, Scott; Urry, John: Economies of Signs and Space. London / Thousand Oaks / New
Delhi: Sage Publications, 1994.
Lawrenson, Edward: “Bond for Beginners”. In Sight & Sound, November 2002.
Leslie, Deborah: “Global Scan: The Globalization of Advertising Agencies, Concepts, and
Campaigns”. In Economic Geography, vol. 71, no. 4, 10.1995: 402-426.
Levin, Aron M.; Levin, Irwin P.; Heath, C. Edward: “Movie stars and authors as brand
names: Measuring brand equity in experiential products”. In Merrie Brucks, Deborah J.
MacInnis (ed.s.) Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 24, 1997: 175-181.
Levitt, Theodore: “The globalization of markets”. In Harvard Business Review, vol. 61, no.
3, 05-06.1983: 92-102.
John Lichfield: “One of these films is officially French - but it's not the one in French, shot in
France, by a Frenchman”. In The Independent, 05.12.2004.
<http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article23255.ece> Accessed 12.01.2007.
Liebes, Tamar; Katz, Elihu: The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
van Lierop, Peter: “Jeff Bridges en Kiefer Sutherland in Hollywood-versie van SPOORLOOS”.
In Utrechtse Nieuwsblad, January 1992.
Lindner, Christoph (ed.): The James Bond Phenomenon. Manchester: Manchester University
Press 2003.
Litman, Barry R.: “Predicting Success of Theatrical Movies: An Empirical Study” In
Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 16, no. 4, Spring 1983: 159-175.
Litwak, Mark: Reel Power: The Struggle for Influence and Success in the New Hollywood.
Los Angeles: Silman-James Press, 1986.
Lo, Kwai-Cheong: “Double Negations: Hong Kong Cultural Identity in Hollywood's
Transnational Representations”. In Cultural Studies, vol.: 15, no.: 3-4, 2001: 464-485.
Lukinbeal, Chris: “The rise of regional film production centers in North America 19841997”. In GeoJournal, vol. 59, no. 4, 2004: 307-321.
Lukk, Tiiu: Movie Marketing. Opening the Picture and Giving It Legs. Los Angeles:
Sillman-James Press, 1997.
Lumenick, Lou: “Doesn’t Cut It”. In New York Post, 17.10.2003.
Lütticken, Sven: “Planet of the Remakes.” In New Left Review, no. 25, 01-01.2004: 103-119.
Mairs, Gary: “Where the Money Is”. On Culturevulture.net,
<http://www.culturevulture.net/Movies/WheretheMoneyIs.htm> Accessed 23.10.2005.
Maltby, Richard: “Introduction: ‘The Americanization of the world’”. In Stokes, Melvyn;
Maltby, Richard (ed.s) Hollywood Abroad. Audiences and Cultural Exchange. London:
British Film Institute, 2004: 1-20.
Maltby, Richard; Vasey, Ruth: “’Temporary American Citizens’. Cultural anxieties and
industrial strategies in the Americanisation of European cinema”. In Catherine Fowler
(ed.) The European Cinema Reader. London / New York: Routledge, 2002: 180-193.
Mattelart, Armand: Advertising International (M. Chanan, trans.). London / New York:
Routledge, 1989.
Maxwell, Winston; Massaloux, Julie: “Defining ‘Control’ of Motion Picture and Television
Companies under French Law”. In Entertainment Law Review, 01.04.2005.
Mazdon, Lucy: Encore Hollywood: Remaking French Cinema. London: BFI Publishing
2000.
McCullaugh, Jim: “1980-1990: The Video Decade”. In Billboard vol. 102, no. 1,
06.01.1990: 6-7.
McDougal, Dennis: The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman, McA, and the Hidden History of
Hollywood. New York: Da Capo, 2001.
Meers, Philippe: “’It’s the Language of Film!’: Young Film Audiences on Hollywood and
Europe”. In Stokes, Melvyn; Maltby, Richard (ed.s) Hollywood Abroad. Audiences and
Cultural Exchange. London: British Film Institute, 2004: 158-175.
Mei, Feng: “Killing Me Softly.” In Beijing Youth, 22 January 2001.
<http://www.monkeypeaches.com/KMS-Interview01.html> Accessed 06.08.2004.
McDougall, Paul: “Pepsi Outsources CEO Job To India”. InformationWeek, 16.06.2006.
<http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/08/pepsi_outsource.html>
Accessed 24.08.2006.
155
Bibliography
Global Directors of New Hollywood
154
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 156
Global Directors of New Hollywood
Naficy, Hamid: “Islamizing film culture in Iran”. In Farsoun, Samih K.; Mashayekhi,
Mehrdad (ed.s) Iran: Political Culture in the Islamic Republic. London / New York:
Routledge, 1992: 178-213.
Naficy, Hamid: “Phobic Spaces and Liminal Panics: Independent Transnational Film
Genre”. In Wilson, Rob; Dissanayake, Wimal (ed.s) Global / Local: Cultural Production
and the Transnational Imaginary. Durham & London: Duke University Press, 1996:
119-44.
Natale, Richard: “Commercial Break”. In Laurence Knapp, Andrea Kulas (ed.s) Ridley
Scott: Interviews. Jackson: University of Mississippi, 2005: 172-179.
Neale, Steve; Smith, Murray: Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. London / New York:
Routledge, 1998.
Notaro, Anna: “Technology in Search of an Artist: Questions of Auteurism/Authorship and
the Contemporary Cinematic Experience”. In The Velvet Light Trap, no. 57, Spring
2006: 86-97.
Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey: “But do we need it?” In Auty, Martyn; Roddick, Nick (ed.s)
British Cinema Now. London: British Film Institute, 1985: 147-158.
Nussinova, Natalia: “The Soviet Union and the Russian Émigrés”. In Geoffrey NowellSmith (ed.) The Oxford History of World Cinema. London: Oxford University Press,
1997. pp. 162-174.
Olsen, Mark: “A Place in the Sun”. In Film Comment, March/April 2001.
Olson, Scott R.: “Hollywood goes global”. In The World & I, vol. 16, no. 2, 02.2001: 263277.
Ong, Aihwa: Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham /
London: Duke University Press, 1999.
O’Regan, Tom: “Too popular by far: on Hollywood's international popularity”. In
Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture vol. 5, no. 2, 1990: 302-351.
<http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/5.2/O%27Regan.html> Accessed
30.07.2004.
O’Reilly, Tim: “What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software”. On O’Reilly, 30.09.2005.
<http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html>
Accessed on 05.09.2006.
Özbek, Meral: “Arabesk Culture: A Case of Modernization and Popular Identity.” In Sibel
Bozdoðan, Reþat Kasaba (ed.s) Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey.
Seattle: University of Washington Press: 1997, 211-232.
Özgüç, Agah: Türlerle Türk Sinemasý [Turkish Cinema Genres]. Istanbul: Dünya Kitaplarý,
2005.
Paul, Alan; Kleingartner, Archie: “Flexible Production and the Transformation of Industrial
Relations in the Motion Picture and Television Industry”. In Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, vol. 47, no. 4, 07.1994: 663-678.
Pasadilla, Gloria O.; Lantin Jr., Angelina M.: “Audiovisual Services Sector: Can the
Philippine Film Industry Follow Bollywood?” Philippine Institute for Development
Studies: Discussion Paper Series, no. 2005-31, 12.2005.
<http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps0531.pdf> Accessed 17.02.2007.
Pells, Richard: Not Like Us. How Europeans have loved, hated, and transformed American
Culture. New York: Basic Books: 1997.
Pells, Richard: “From modernism to the movies: The globalization of American culture in
the twentieth century” In European Journal of American Culture, vol. 23, no. 2,
09.2004: 143-155.
Peltier, Stéphanie: “Mergers and Acquisitions in the Media Industries: Were Failures Really
Unforeseeable?” In Journal of Media Economics, vol. 17, no. 4, 2004: 261-278.
Pfeiffer, Lee; Worrall, Dave: The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of
007. New York: Harper Entertainment 1999.
Pham, Minh-Ha T.: “The Asian Invasion (of Multiculturalism) in Hollywood”. In Journal of
Popular Film & Television, vol. 32, no. 3, Fall 2004.
Phillips, Gene D.: Exiles in Hollywood: Major European Film Directors in America.
Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1998.
Philo, Simon: “Getting Dumber and Dumber: MTV's Global Footprint”. Cultural Studies
Study Group. <http://members.tripod.com/~warlight/PHILO.html> Accessed
15.10.2005.
Porter, Michael: The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: MacMillan, 1998.
Porter, Michael: “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition”. In Harvard Business
Review, vol. 76, no. 6, 11/12.1998:77-90.
157
Bibliography
156 Millea, Michael: “Czech Privatization: The Case of Filmové Studio Barrandov”. In Journal
of International Affairs, vol. 50, no. 2, Winter 1997: 489-504.
Miller, Toby; Govil, Nitin; McMurria, John; Maxwell, Richard; Wang, Ting: Global
Hollywood 2. London: BFI Publishing, 2005.
Moeller, Hans-Bernhard: “German Hollywood Presence and Parnassus: Central European
Exiles and American Filmmaking”. In Rocky Mountain Review of Language and
Literature, vol. 39, no. 2, 1985: 123-136.
Moeran, Brian: “Individual, Group and Seishin: Japan's Internal Cultural Debate”. In Man,
New Series, vol. 19, no. 2, 06.1984: 252-266.
The Monitor Company: “US Runaway Film and Television Production Study Report”.
06.1999.
de Mooij, Marieke: Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes.
London / Thousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998.
Moretti, Franco: “Planet Hollywood”. In New Left Review, no. 9, 05-06.2001: 90-101.
Morris, Mark: “Once more with the volume up”. In The Guardian, 20.01.2002.
Morrison, James: Passport to Hollywood: Hollywood Films, European Directors. Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1998.
Mosco, Vincent: “Knowledge and Media Workers in the Global Economy: Antimonies of
Outsourcing”. In Social Identities, vol. 12, no. 6, 11.2006: 771-790.
Mosisa, Abraham T.: “The role of foreign-born workers in the U. S. economy”. In Monthly
Labor Review, 05.2002: 3-14.
Motion Picture Association: “MPA Snapshot Report: 2004 International Theatrical Market”.
2005.
Motion Picture Association: “US Theatrical Market: 2004 Statistics”. 2005.
Motion Picture Association and L.E.K.: “The Cost of Movie Piracy”. 2006.
Motion Picture Association Website. <www.mpaa.org>.
Mundy, John: Popular Music on Screen. From Hollywood Musical to Music Video.
Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press, 1999.
Murphy, Robert: Sixties British Cinema. London: BFI Publishing 1992.
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 158
Global Directors of New Hollywood
Ramzy, Austin: “Coming to America”. In Time Asian Edition, 17.07.2006: 10.
Rensin, David: The Mailroom: Hollywood from the Bottom Up. New York: The Random
House Publishing Group, 2003.
Reynolds, Isabel: “Japan Movies Giving the World the Creeps” Reuters, 23.03.2005
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=598&ncid=600&e=4&u=/nm/200
50324/film_nm/leisure_japan_horror_dc> Accessed 27.03.2005.
Ridley Scott Associates Website. <www.rsafilms.com>.
Rivette, Jacques: “La Sequence du Spectateur”. In Les Inrockuptibles, No. 144, 25.03.1998.
Robb, Brian J.: Ridley Scott. London: Pocket Essentials, 2001.
Roberts, Joanne: “Knowledge Systems and Global Advertising Services”. In Creativity and
Innovation Management, vol. 9, no. 3, 09.2000: 163-170.
Roberts, Martin: ““Baraka”: World Cinema and the Global Culture Industry”. In Cinema
Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, Spring, 1998: 62-82.
Robertson, Roland: “Glocalization: Time-space and Homogeneity-heterogeneity”. In
Featherstone, Mike; Lash, Scott; Robertson, Roland (ed.s) Global Modernities. London:
Sage, 1995: 25-44.
Robinson, William I. and Harris, Jerry: “Towards A Global Ruling Class? Globalization and
the Transnational Capitalist Class”. In Science & Society, vol. 64, no. 1, Spring 2000: 1154.
Roddick, Nick: “If the United States spoke Spanish, we would have a film industry…” In
Auty, Martyn; Roddick, Nick (ed.s) British Cinema Now. London: British Film Institute,
1985: 3-18.
Rodek, Hans-Georg: “Europäische Filmemigration in die USA vor 1920”. In KintopJahrbuch 10. Basel, Frankfurt am Main: Stroemfeld Verlag, 1992.
Rofe, Matthew W.: “‘I want to be global’: Theorising the gentrifying class as an emergent
élite global community”. In Urban Studies, vol. 40, no. 12, 11.2003: 2511-2526.
Rooney, David: “Killing Me Softly”. Variety 19.03.2002: 38.
Rose, Steve: “Smack My Film Up.” In The Guardian, 20.11.2003.
Rosen, Stanley: “Hollywood, globalization and film markets in Asia: Lessons for China?”
Conference paper from Fudan University, Shanghai, 23-24.11.2002.
<http://www.asianfilms.org/china/pdffiles/rosen_pdf1.pdf>. Accessed 18.03.2004.
Rosen, Stanley: “China Goes Hollywood.” In Foreign Policy no. 134, 01-02.2003: 94-98
Rosenbaum, Jonathan: “Multinational Pest Control: Does American Cinema Still Exist?” In
Alan Williams (ed.) Film and Nationalism. New Brunswick and London: Rutgers
University Press, 2002:217-229.
Rosenfeld, Stuart: A Governor’s Guide to Cluster-Based Economic Development.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association, 2002.
Rubin, Steven Jay: The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia, Newly Revised Edition.
New York: McGraw-Hill 2002.
Saggi, Kamal: “Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and International Technology Transfer: A
Survey”. In The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 17, no. 2: 191-235.
Salmon, Dan: “Interview with Michael Apted”. In Take 33 (Screen Directors Guild of New
Zealand Magazine), republished on <http://www.thebigidea.co.nz/article.php?sid=1674
> Accessed 03.02.2006.
Sassen, Saskia: The Mobility of Labor and Capital. A Study in International Investment and
Labor Flow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Sassen, Saskia: Losing Control? New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
Sassen, Saskia: Globalization and its Discontents. New York: The New Press, 1998.
Satzman, Darrell: “Once all-powerful, labor adjusts to decline of influence - Who's Who
Entertainment - Hollywood Unions”. In Los Angeles Business Journal, 23.09.2002.
Schatz, Thomas: Old Hollywood / New Hollywood: Ritual, Art, and Industry. Ann Arbor,
MI: UMI Research Press, 1983.
Schatz, Thomas: “The New Hollywood”. In Collins, Jim; Radner, Hilary; Preacher Collins,
Ava (ed.s) Film Theory Goes to the Movies. London / New York: Routledge, 1993: 836.
Schatz, Thomas: “The Return of the Hollywood Studio System”. In Barnouw, Eric et al.
Conglomerates and the Media. New York: The New Press, 1997: 73-106.
Schechter, Danny: “Long Live Chairman Levin!”. 05.07.2000.
<http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/chairman.shtml> Accessed 22.08.2006.
van Scheers, Rob: Paul Verhoeven. London: Faber and Faber, 1997
Schiller, Herbert I.: Communication and Cultural Domination. New York: International Arts
and Sciences Press, 1976.
Schiller, Herbert I.: “Not Yet the Post-Imperialist Era”. In Durham, Meenakshi Gigi;
Kellner, Douglas M. (ed.s) Media and Cultural Studies KeyWorks, Revised edition.
Oxford / Malden / Carlton: Blackwel Publishing, 2006: 295-310.
Schneider, Steven Jay: “Repackaging Rage: THE VANISHING and NIGHTWATCH”. In Kinema,
Spring 2002. <http://www.kinema.uwaterloo.ca/schn021.htm> Accessed 22.04.2006.
Schupak, Amanda: “SNAKES ON A PLANE’s slithery slope: How one movie with a
straightforward title became a phenomenon”. In Forbes, 17.08.2006
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14396783/> Accessed 05.09.2006.
Schürmann, Ernst (ed.): German Film Directors in Hollywood (Catalogue). San Francisco:
Goethe Institutes of North America, 1978.
Scott, A.O.: “What Is a Foreign Movie Now?” In New York Times Magazine, 14.11.2004:
79-86.
Scott, Allen J.: On Hollywood. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Segers, Frank: “South Korea”. In Cowie, Peter (ed.) Variety International Film Guide 2003.
New York: Silman-James Press, 2003: 302-305, here 302.
Semati, M. Mehdi and Patty J Sotirin: “Hollywood’s Transnational Appeal: Hegemony and
Democratic Potential?” In Journal of Popular Film & Television vol. 26, no. 4, Winter
1999: 176-188.
Serceau, Michel; Daniel Protopopoff (ed.s): Le remake et l’adaption, special issue of
CinemAction 53. Paris: Telerama, 1989.
Shedde, Meenakshi: “Columbia and Fox trot into masala land.” In Times of India. Internet
edition. <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-44102931,prtpage1.cms?>. Accessed 05.08.2004.
Sheikh, Aminah: “Bollywood films now a click away”. In Business Standard, 01.02.2007
<http://www.businessstandard.com/common/storypage.php?autono=273255&leftnm=8&subLeft=0&chkFlg=
159
Bibliography
158 Poulter, Allan: “Brand protection”. In Clifton, Rita; Simmons, John (ed.s) Brands and
Branding. Princeton: Bloomberg Press, 2003: 157-168.
PricewaterhouseCoopers: “Global Entertainment and Media Outlook.”
<http://www.pwc.com/images/em/outlook2004/AsiaPacificBoxOfficeMarket.pdf>.
Accessed 04.08.2004.
Puttnam, David: Movies and Money. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1998.
global directors.qxd
14:46
Page 160
> Accessed 03.02.2007.
Shim, Doobo: “South Korean Media Industry in the 1990s and the Economic Crisis”. In
Prometheus, vol. 20, no. 4, 2002: 337-350.
Shone, Tom: Blockbuster. How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Summer. New York: Simon & Shuster, 2004.
Sklair, Leslie: Sociology of the Global System. Second Edition. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1995
Sklair, Leslie: “Globalization and the Corporations: The Case of the California Fortune
Global 500”. In International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 22, no. 2,
06.1998: 195-215.
Sklair, Leslie: The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford / Malden: Blackwell Publishers,
2001.
Smith, Michael Peter; Favell, Adrian (ed.s) The Human Face of Global Mobility:
International Highly Skilled Migration in Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006.
Smith, Murray: “Theses on the Philosophy of Hollywood History”. In Neale, Steve; Smith,
Murray (ed.s) Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. London / New York: Routledge,
1998: 3-20.
Snyder, Gabriel: “‘Alice’ woos Buffy. Gellar, Nispel set for vidgame adaptation”. On
Variety, 20.06.2005
<http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117924768?categoryid=1079&cs=1> Accessed
23.10.2005.
Sochay, Scott: “Predicting the Performance of Motion Pictures”. In Journal of Media
Economics, vol. 7, no. 4, 1994: 1-20.
Stecklow, Steve: “How a Global Web of Activists Gives Coke Problems in India”. In Wall
Street Journal, 07.06.2005: 1.
Stiglitz, Joseph E.: Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002.
Stokes, Martin: The Arabesk debate: music and musicians in modern Turkey. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1992.
Storper, Michael: “The transition to flexible specialization in the US film industry: external
economies, the division of labor, and the crossing of industrial divides”. In Cambridge
Journal of Economics, vol 13, no. 2, 06.1989: 273-305.
Storper, Michael: The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New
York / London: The Guilford Press: 1997.
Storper, Michael; Christopherson, Susan: “Flexible specialization and regional industrial
agglomerations: the US film industry.” In Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, vol. 77, no. 1, March 1987: 104-117.
Street, Sarah: British National Cinema. London / New York: Routledge 1997.
Suvin, Darko: “Displaced Persons”. In New Left Review, no. 31, 01-02.2005: 107-123.
Susman, Gary: “‘We call it martian accounting’”. In The Guardian, 31.08.2001.
Taylor, John Russell: Strangers in Paradise: The Hollywood Émigrés 1933-1950. London:
Faber and Faber, 1983.
Taylor, Peter J.; Catalana, Gilda; Walker, David: “Multiple Globalisations: Regional,
Hierarchical and Sectoral Articulations of Global Business Services through World
Cities”. In The Service Industries Journal, vol 24, no. 3, 05.2004: 63-81.
Tesson, Charles; Paquot, Claudine; Garcia, Roger (ed.s): L’Asie à Hollywood. Paris: Cahiers
du Cinéma, 2001: 129-179.
Thanouli, Eleftheria: Post-classical narration. A new paradigm in contemporary World
cinema. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam. 06.2005.
Thomson, David: “The Riddler has his Day”. In Sight and Sound vol. 11, no. 4, April 2001:
18-21.
Thompson, Kirsten; Bordwell, David: Film History, An Introduction. International edition.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003
Thompson, Kristin: Herr Lubitsch goes to Hollywood. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press, 2005.
Thrupkaew, Noy: “No ‘PULSE’”. In The American Prospect, Online Edition, 12.02.2005
<http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=106
85> Accessed 26.04.2006.
Tomlinson, John: Cultural Imperialism. London / New York: Continuum, 1991.
Totaro, Donato: “The ‘Ring’ Master. Interview with Hideo Nakata”. In Offscreen
21.07.2000. <http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/new_offscreen/nakata.html> Accessed
11.06.2005.
Travers, Peter: “Demolition Man”. In Rolling Stone
<http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/_/id/5948893> Accessed 23.10.2005.
Tschang, Ted; Goldstein, Andrea: “Production and Political Economy in the Animation
Industry: Why Insourcing and Outsourcing Occur”. Paper presented at the DRUID
Summer Conference 2004 on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development,
Elsinore, Denmark, 14-16.06.2004.
<http://www.druid.dk/conferences/summer2004/papers/ds2004-92.pdf> Accessed
27.01.2007.
Turan, Kenneth: Sundance to Sarajevo: Film Festivals and the World They Made. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2002.
Twitchell, James: Twenty Ads That Shook the World: The Century's Most Groundbreaking
Advertising and How It Changed Us All, Reprint edition. New York: Three Rivers Press,
2001.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services Website.
<http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/eligibility.htm>.
de Valck, Marijke: Film Festivals: History and Theory of a European Phenomenon That
Became a Global Network. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2006.
Forthcoming with Amsterdam University Press, 2007.
DeVany, Arthur; Walls, W. David: “Uncertainty in the Movie Industry: Does Star Power
Reduce the Terror of the Box Office?” In Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 23, no. 4,
11.1999: 285-318.
Vijapurkar, Mahesh: “More countries wooing Bollywood to lure tourists”. In The Hindu
Business Line, 20.08.2004.
Vincendeau, Ginette: “Hollywood Babel”. Screen, Spring 1988: 24-39.
Voorham, Anita: Remakes. De Europese Film Weerkaatst Door Hollywood. Unpublished
thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Film- en TV Wetenschappen, 1995.
Walsh, David: “A moment of innocence: interview with Mohsen Makhmalbaf”.
<http://www.filmlinc.com/archive/programs/11-99/makh/momint.htm>. Accessed
06.08.2004.
Wang, Shujen: “Recontextualizing Copyright: Piracy, Hollywood, the State, and
161
Bibliography
Global Directors of New Hollywood
160
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:46
Page 162
Globalization”. In Cinema Journal, vol. 43, no. 1, Fall 2003: 25-43.
Wasko, Janet: Hollywood in the Information Age. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995.
Wasko, Janet: How Hollywood Works. London / Thousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage
Publications, 2003.
Wasko, Janet; Meehan, Eileen: “Commodifying Culture: Film Franchises and Strategies of
Synergy”. Presentation at SCMS Conference in London, 31.03.2005.
Wasser, Frederick: “Is Hollywood America? The Trans-Nationalization of American Film
Industry”. In Critical Studies in Mass Communication, vol. 12, no. 4, 1995: 423-437.
Waxman, Sharon: “Weinstein's Miramax, a Crucible for Future Hollywood Leaders”. In The
New York Times, 15.05.2005.
Waxman, Sharon: “To Web Fans, Peter Jackson Is the One True Director”. In The New
York Times, 29.11.2006.
The White House Office of Public Liason: “Summary of US - China Bilateral WTO
Agreement”. <http://www.uschina.org/public/991115a.html> Accessed 30.03.2006.
White, Jerry: “National Belonging. Renewing the concept of national cinema for a global
culture”. In New Review of Film and Television Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, 11.2004: 212-232.
Whittemore, Don and Cecchettini, Philip Alan: Passport to Hollywood: Film Immigrants
Anthology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
Wollen, Peter: “Ways of Thinking About Music Video (and Postmodernism)”. In: Critical
Quarterly vol. 5, no. 2, 1986: 167-170.
Woodward, Sarah: “Taking on the Devil in a BMW”. In SHOOT, vol. 43, no. 41: 50.
Woollacott, Janet: “The James Bond Films: Conditions of Production”. In Curran, James;
Porter, Vincent (ed.s) British Cinema History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1983:
208-225.
The Writer’s Building Website: <www.thewritersbuilding.org>.
Wyatt, Justin: High Concept. Movies and Marketing in Hollywood. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1994.
Wyatt, Justin: “From Roadshowing to Saturation Release: Majors, Independents, and
Marketing / Distribution Innovations”. In Lewis, Jon (ed.) The New American Cinema.
Durham & London: Duke University Press, 1998: 65-86.
Xu, Gang Gary: “Remaking East Asia, Outsourcing Hollywood”. In Senses of Cinema.
<http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/05/34/remaking_east_asia.html> Accessed
17.02.2005.
Yip, George S.; Madsen, Tammy L.: “Global account management: the new frontier in
relationship marketing”. In International Marketing Review, vol: 13, no:3, 1996: 24-42.
Zentner, Alejandro: “Measuring the Effect of File Sharing on Music Purchases”. In Journal
of Law & Economics, vol. 49, 04.2006: 63- 90.
Zhu, Ying: “Chinese Cinema's Economic Reform From the Mid-1980s to the Mid-1990s”.
In Journal of Communication vol. 52, no. 4, 01.12.2002:905-921.
i ek, Slavoj: Welcome to the Desert of the Real. New York: The Wooster Press, 2001.
“Acclaimed Iran films face apathy at home”. In Gulf News [Dubai]. <http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=62595>. Accessed 06.08.2004.
“Apple Announces iTunes 7 with Amazing New Features”. Apple iTunes Press Release,
12.09.2006 <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/sep/12itunes7.html> Accessed
03.02.2007.
“Beijing Pirates Skimming Bond’s Profits”. In The Guardian, 29.01.2007.
<http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6379049,00.html> Accessed 31.01.2007.
“Best Spots”. In Adweek.
<http://www.adweek.com/aw/creative/best_spots_03/031212_02.jsp>. Accessed
30.10.2005.
“Bond breaks into China”. On Al Jazeera, 29.01.2007.
<http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F2ADCB07-AAC7-4536-8D0429DE0F961192.htm> Accessed 31.01.2007.
“British not British”. In Sight & Sound, 06.2003: 3.
“Chinese film-makers see a blockbuster year in 2005”.
<http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/28/content_4353480.htm> Accessed
30.03.2006.
“Film ruled ‘not French enough’”. In BBC News 27.11.2004.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/entertainment/4048439.stm> Accessed 12.01.2007.
“Geld ist auch ein Argument”. In Der Tagesspiegel, 12.02.2006: 29.
“KILL BILL Production Notes”. <http://killbill.movies.go.com/Kill-Bill-ProductionNotes.pdf> Accessed 18.08.2006.
“Lee Tamahori Talks DIE ANOTHER DAY”.
<http://actionadventure.about.com/library/weekly/2002/aa111202a.htm> Accessed
22.11.2002.
“Merchandising New Abracadabra of Cinematic Showmanship”. In Variety, 23.08.1978: 6.
“Nanjing Auto promises to revive MG marque”. Autoasia 21.08.2006. <http://www.autoasia.com/viewcontent.asp?pk=10527> Accessed 25.08.2006.
“Sony Reports 5 Percent Net Profit Drop”. In The New York Times. 30.01.2007.
“Spoorloos”. In Variety, 19.10.1988.
“The Scotts”. In ‘boards October 2000: 21.
“Tarantino tips himself as Bond director”. In The Guardian, 07.04.2004.
“Taylor Bradford loses Indian plagiarism case”. In The Guardian, 22.07.2003.
“The Fifty Best” in Advertising Age, vol. 66, no. 6, 1995
“Warner Bros.' Richard Fox to be Named Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres”. On
PR Newswire, 20.02.2006 <http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=164398>
Accessed 11.02.2007.
“Warner Bros. takes on China’s movie pirates”. Reuters, 19.07.2006.
<http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=12892227&sr
c=rss/technologyNews> Accessed 22.08.2006.
“Why Hollywood is brimful of Asia”. In The Independent Online edition, 20.02.2004.
<http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=493102&host=5&dir=211
> Accessed 11.06.2005.
163
Bibliography
Global Directors of New Hollywood
162
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
14:46
Page 164
Appendix - List of Directors
165
Name
Nationality
Born
Parker, Alan
Attenborough, Richard
Russel, Ken
Malle, Louis
Wenders, Wim
Scott, Ridley
Apted, Michael
Irvin, John
Lyne, Adrian
Newell, Mike
Spottiswoode, Roger
Reitman, Ivan
Cameron, James
Baker, Graham
Firstenberg, Sam
Hunt, Peter
Maylam, Tony
Tramont, Jean-Claude
Beresford, Bruce
Clifford, Graeme
Costa-Gavras
Damiani, Damiano
Schepisi, Fred
Wang, Wayne
Scott, Tony
Cosmatos, George
Franklin, Richard
Mackenzie, John
Roddam, Franc
Donaldson, Roger
Konchalovsky, Andrei
Molinaro, Edouard
Silberg, Joel
Armstrong, Gillian
Babenco, Hector
Hudson, Hugh
Lynn, Jonathan
Miller, George T
UK
UK
UK
F
D
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
CDN / UK
CDN
CDN
UK
IL
UK
UK
B
AUS
AUS
GR
I
AUS
HK
UK
I / GR
AUS
UK
UK
NZ
USSR
F
IL
AUS
RA / BR
UK
UK
UK / AUS
1944
1923
1927
1932
1945
1937
1941
1940
1941
1942
1945
1946
1954
1950
1928
1943
1934
1940
1942
1933
1922
1939
1949
1944
1941
1948
1932
1946
1945
1937
1928
1927
1950
1946
1936
1943
1945
Died
1995
1996
2005
First
First
Feature Hollywood
Feature
1976
1976
1969
1977
1964
1977
1958
1978
1971
1978
1977
1979
1973
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1971
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1969
1981
1979
1981
1977
1981
1972
1982
1982
1982
1965
1982
1960
1982
1976
1982
1982
1982
1983
1983
1970
1983
1973
1983
1969
1983
1979
1983
1977
1984
1965
1984
1958
1984
1964
1984
1979
1984
1975
1985
1981
1985
1985
1985
1982
1985
Name
Nationality
Born
Petersen, Wolfgang
Sluizer, George
Weir, Peter
Wincer, Simon
Yuen, Corey
Dornhelm, Robert
Gibson, Brian
Mulcahy, Russell
Forsyth, Bill
Kanievska, Marek
Dick, Nigel
Bogayevicz, Yurek
Llosa, Luis
Miller, George
Schroeder, Barbet
Cornell, John
Frears, Stephen
Gilbert, Brian
Harlin, Renny
Holland, Agnieszka
O'Connor, Pat
Schultz, Carl
Barron, Zelda
Avis, Meiert
Campbell, Martin
Chechik, Jeremiah
Edel, Uli
Hopkins, Stephen
Joffe, Roland
Jordan, Neil
Noyce, Phillip
Palcy, Euzhan
Schenkel, Carl
Temple, Julien
Veber, Francis
Amiel, Jon
Amurri, Franco
Barreto, Bruno
Caton-Jones, Michael
Figgis, Mike
D
NL
AUS
AUS
HK
R / AUS
UK
AUS
UK
UK
UK
PL
PE
AUS
F
AUS
UK
UK
SF
PL
IRL
H / AUS
UK
IRL
NZ / UK
CDN / I
D
UK / AUS
UK
IRL
AUS
F / RMM
CH
UK
F
UK
I
BR
UK
UK
1941
1932
1944
1943
1951
1947
1944
1953
1946
1952
1953
1948
1951
1945
1941
1941
1941
1960
1959
1948
1943
1939
1929
1940
1955
1947
1958
1945
1950
1950
1958
1948
1953
1937
1948
1958
1955
1958
1948
Died
2004
2006
2003
First
First
Feature Hollywood
Feature
1973
1979
1974
1979
1981
1986
1982
1979
1979
1984
1987
1987
1985
1979
1969
1988
1972
1984
1986
1977
1984
1978
1984
1989
1974
1989
1981
1987
1986
1982
1977
1983
1979
1983
1976
1989
1986
1974
1988
1988
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1986
1986
1986
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
Appendix
Global Directors of New Hollywood
164
29.05.2007
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 166
167
Name
Nationality
Born
Glen, John
Green, David
Mandoki, Luis
Murphy, Geoff
Schlondorff, Volker
Branagh, Kenneth
Faiman, Peter
Hallstrom, Lasse
Harris, Damian
Hughes, Terry
Nair, Mira
Tass, Nadia
Bell, Martin
Donovan, Martin
Kidron, Beeban
Menges, Chris
Rose, Bernard
Duguay, Christian
Emmerich, Roland
Armstrong, Vic
August, Bille
Brambilla, Marco
Madden, John
Minghella, Anthony
Salomon, Mikael
Woo, John
De Bont, Jan
MacKinnon, Gillies
Wainwright, Rupert
Morahan, Andrew
Carson, David
Simoneau, Yves
Proyas, Alex
Anderson, Paul
Bird, Antonia
Chelsom, Peter
Parker, Oliver
Softley, Iain
Lee, Ang
Arau, Alfonso
UK
UK
MEX
NZ
D
UK
AUS
S
UK
UK
IND
AUS
UK
UK / RA
UK
UK
UK
CDN
D
UK
DK
I
UK
UK
DK
HK
NL
UK
UK
UK
UK
CDN
AUS
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
TW
MEX
1932
1948
1956
1946
1939
1960
1946
1958
1957
1956
1950
1961
1940
1960
1957
1955
1946
1948
1960
1949
1954
1945
1946
1943
1948
1962
1955
1965
1965
1959
1956
1960
1958
1954
1932
Died
First
First
Feature Hollywood
Feature
Name
Nationality
Born
1981
1985
1983
1977
1966
1989
1988
1975
1989
1991
1988
1986
1992
1988
1988
1988
1988
1991
1985
1993
1978
1993
1993
1991
1993
1974
1994
1989
1994
1994
1994
1979
1989
1994
1994
1991
1995
1993
1992
1969
Cuarón, Alfonso
Baird, Stuart
Bennett, Bill
Campion, Jane
Hytner, Nicholas
Jackson, Peter
Lam, Ringo
Luhrmann, Baz
Tamahori, Lee
Trueba, Fernando
Boyle, Danny
West, Simon
Waller, Anthony
Del Toro, Guillermo
Hogan, PJ
Jeunet, Jean-Pierre
Annaud, Jean-Jacques
Niccol, Andrew
Tong, Stanley
Tsui, Hark
Yu, Ronny
Bornedal, Ole
du Chau, Frederik
Chan, Peter
Kaye, Tony
Norrington, Stephen
Radford, Michael
Ward, Vincent
Wong, Kirk
Butterworth, Jez
Sinyor, Gary
Hicks, Scott
Mendes, Sam
Michell, Roger
Rusnak, Josef
Rymer, Michael
Nolan, Christopher
Kaminski, Janusz
Berliner, Alain
Singh, Tarsem
MEX
UK
AUS
NZ
UK
NZ
HK
AUS
NZ
E
UK
UK
UK
MEX
AUS
F
F
NZ
HK
HK
HK
DK
B
HK / T
UK
UK
UK
NZ
HK
UK
UK
AUS
UK
SA / UK
D
D
UK
PL
B
IND
1961
1947
1953
1954
1956
1961
1954
1962
1950
1955
1956
1961
1959
1965
1962
1955
1943
1964
1960
1951
1950
1959
1963
1962
1952
1965
1946
1956
1949
1969
1962
1953
1965
1957
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1963
1970
1959
1963
1962
Died
First
First
Feature Hollywood
Feature
1991
1996
1985
1989
1994
1987
1983
1992
1994
1980
1994
1997
1989
1993
1986
1991
1976
1997
1990
1979
1979
1994
1998
1991
1998
1995
1983
1984
1981
1997
1992
1981
1999
1995
1984
1995
1998
2000
1997
2000
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
Appendix
Global Directors of New Hollywood
166
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 168
168
Garcia, Rodrigo
Moore, John
Forster, Marc
Gondry, Michel
Luketic, Robert
Adamson, Andrew
Poiré, Jean-Marie
Zwart, Harald
Leterrier, Louis
Akerlund, Jonas
Elkayem, Ellory
Kaige, Chen
Kaosayananda, Wych
Kapur, Shekhar
Polson, John
Stainton, John
Kassovitz, Mathieu
Nispel, Marcus
González Iñárritu, Alejandro
Glazer, Jonathan
Greengrass, Paul
Natali, Vincenzo
Allen, Kevin
Loncraine, Richard
Haggis, Paul
Hamm, Nick
McGuigan, Paul
Nakata, Hideo
Shimizu, Takashi
Richet, Jean Francois
Sax, Geoffrey
Siri, Florent
Collet-Serra, Jaume
Jennings, Garth
Schwentke, Robert
Hafstrom, Mikael
Naess, Petter
Caro, Niki
Salles, Walter
Nationality
CO / MEX
IRL
CH
F
AUS
NZ
F
N
F
S
NZ
PRC
T
IND
AUS
AUS
F
D
MEX
UK
UK
CDN
UK
UK
CDN
UK
UK
J
J
F
UK
F
E
UK
D
S
N
NZ
BR
Born
1959
1970
1970
1964
1973
1966
1945
1966
1973
1966
1972
1952
1945
1974
1965
1967
1964
1963
1966
1955
1969
1962
1946
1953
1963
1961
1972
1966
1965
1974
1968
1960
1960
1967
1956
Died
First
First
Feature Hollywood
Feature
2000
2001
1996
2001
2001
2001
1978
1998
2002
2002
2002
1984
1983
1998
1999
2002
1993
2003
2000
2000
1989
1997
1997
1975
1998
1998
1998
1996
2001
1995
2005
1998
2005
2005
2002
2001
1999
1997
1991
2000
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2002
1998
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
De hoofddoelstelling van dit promotieonderzoek is om buitenlandse regisseurs uit
het blockbustertijdperk binnen een bredere historische context van ‘émigré’-talent in
Hollywood te plaatsen. Toen Hollywood globaliseerde, bleek dat bestaande
paradigma’s die zich – om politieke of economische redenen – op emigratie baseren,
niet langer functioneerden. Daarom onderzoek ik de grotere debatten over
burgerschap, over de nieuwe transnationale kapitalistische klasse en de beweging van
menselijk kapitaal in een gemondialiseerde wereld en pas ik deze begrippen toe
Hollywood. Mijn verwachting bij aanvang van dit onderzoek was dat de huidige
stromen van filmtalent zich ontwikkelen in een patroon dat parallel loopt met andere
gebieden waarbij menselijk kapitaal betrokken is. In de laatste decennia zijn
Hollywoodstudio’s immers onderdeel geworden van grotere globale conglomeraten,
die niet alleen belangen hebben in andere media maar ook in elektronika en overige
industrieën. Daarom is het wenselijk dat Filmstudies gebruik maakt van de tradities
van sociaalwetenschappelijke onderzoek die zich richten op het identificeren en het
onderzoeken van internationale arbeidsstromen.
Het eerste hoofdstuk zet de grondslagen van mijn onderzoek uiteen en verduidelijkt
de basisconcepten. Dit hoofdstuk begint met de geschiedenis van buitenlandse
regisseurs in Hollywood, vanaf het vroege begin tot de situatie van vandaag. Dit wordt
gevolgd door een literatuuroverzicht van de bestaande paradigma’s met betrekking tot
deze filmmakers. Het hoofdstuk eindigt met de resultaten van een kwantitatieve
analyse van regisseurs op basis van hun nationale herkomst en het jaar van hun eerste
filmproductie in Hollywood. In het tweede hoofdstuk wordt de betekenis van
Hollywood vandaag besproken, evenals haar verhouding met de andere
filmindustrieën. Het hoofdstuk begint met een analyse van de huidige discoursen
rondom globalisering en cultureel imperialisme. De veranderende paradigma’s van
Hollywood worden behandeld tegen deze achtergrond. Deze bespreking omvat een
verhandeling over werkverhoudingen binnen Hollywood. Dit wordt gevolgd door
analyses van de verhoudingen die Hollywood met andere filmindustrieën heeft, zoals
bestemmingen van ‘runaway’-producties door Hollywoodstudio’s, of markten die
voor multinationale Hollywoodmediacorporaties moeilijk te penetreren zijn. Ik
beargumenteer dat Hollywood niet zozeer als een specifieke geografische plaats moet
worden beschouwd, maar eerder als een netwerk van productie, distributie en
vertoning dat over de hele wereld functioneert en dat zich via lokale betrokkenheid
verspreidt.
Het proefschrift presenteert drie casestudies. Zij onderzoeken hoe verschillende
patronen functioneren als subnetwerken binnen het grotere netwerk van Hollywood.
De cases richten zich niet op specifieke regisseurs, maar gaan uit van clusters die uit
verschillende stijlen en productievoorwaarden bestaan. Ik heb geopteerd voor
voorbeelden die alle verschillende significante patronen vertegenwoordigen die in het
Hollywood van vandaag zichtbaar zijn. De cases representeren bovendien enkele
strategieën die door buitenlandse filmmakers worden aangewend om in Hollywood te
kunnen werken.
Veel van de globale regisseurs hebben een eerste ervaring met Hollywood door te
169
Nederlandse Samenvatting
Global Directors of New Hollywood
Name
Nederlandse Samenvatting
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 170
of Batman series, vaak buiten de V.S. zijn ontstaan en dat zij veel mondiale
regisseurs voortbrengen. Een voorloper van zowel coproductie als ‘franchise’praktijken zijn de James Bond films, die als een springplank voor menig Britse
regisseur naar Hollywood heeft gefuncioneerd; ik bespreek deze specifieke
casestudy als eerste.
De tweede casestudy laat een andere manier zien waarmee mondiale regisseurs
door de studio’s worden opgemerkt; namelijk door een reeds succesvolle film
opnieuw te maken in Hollywood. Sinds de jaren ‘80, proberen enkele regisseurs
een remake van hun eigen films voor het Hollywoodpubliek te maken. Hoofdstuk
vier onderzoekt verscheidene reeksen van ‘auto-remake’ en hun functie in het
overbruggen van verschillende filmculturen. Sinds midden jaren ’70 is er een
nieuwe manier om wereldwijd erkenning te bereiken ontstaan dankzij reclame en
muziekvideo’s. De ‘Britse invasie’ aan het begin van het blockbustertijdperk kwam
via reclame. Ridley Scott onderhoudt nog hechte banden met de
advertentieindustrie via zijn bedrijf Ridley Scott Associates (RSA). Deze laatste
casestudy gaat over regisseurs met een achtergrond in de reclamewereld. De
casestudy richt zich op RSA en onderzoekt de manier waarop dit bedrijf filmtalent
stimuleert. Alle casestudies geven inzicht in de manier waarop zij als subnetwerk
gestructureerd zijn en functioneren.
In het slothoofdstuk grijp ik terug op de bespreking van Hollywood binnen de
context van globalisering. Na een korte blik op de globalisering van
wereldondernemingen, beargumenteer ik dat Hollywood gezien moet worden als
een merk, net als veel andere diensten en bedrijven. Ook stel ik dat de mondiale
regisseurs slechts actoren binnen dit netwerk zijn. Hun positie kan conceptueel
begrepen worden met begrippen die ons door de sociale wetenschappen zijn
aangereikt, bijvoorbeeld door hen te zien als lid van Richard Florida’s creatieve
klasse. Het werk van Aihwa Ong aangaande transnationaliteit is ook nuttig,
aangezien zij de term ‘flexibele burgerschap’ introduceert om de huidige praktijk te
beschrijven. De mondiale regisseurs zijn lid van een creatieve klasse met flexibel
burgerschap. Ik stel voor dat wij de ‘mondiale regisseur’ bekijken door de lens van
transnationale structuren waar de Hollywoodstudio’s onderdeel van zijn geworden.
Hollywood is altijd internationaal geweest; desalniettemin is het opvallend dat haar
huidige transnationaliteit zich uitbreidt tot eigendom, productie (van pre- tot postproductie), distributie, tentoonstelling en ontvangst. Binnen dit mondiale netwerk
lijken de filmmakers meer op het mobiel menselijk kapitaal dat door huidige
transnationale bedrijven wordt aangewend dan dat zij ons aan ‘émigré’-regisseurs
van de vroegere decennia doen denken.
Acknowledgments
Throughout the last six years, my life has revolved around this dissertation. It is a
long period in one’s life and there are many people whose help I would like to
acknowledge. I want to start this long list with my supervisor Thomas Elsaesser,
who has been a source of inspiration and support since our very first email
exchange. Our subsequent meetings and conversations have always been
enlightening; he understood what I was trying to say, often times more clearly than
could I. My gratitude goes beyond academic matters, and I want to thank him for
providing me with a haven during one of the more difficult times of my life. Without
his guidance, this dissertation would simply not exist.
Fitting with the theme of mobility, I have moved across countries and institutions
during my writing process. Thanks to Eloe Kingma, Jantine van Gogh and Helene
Boeren in Amsterdam for helping me through the mazes of Turkish and Dutch
bureaucracies. As an externally funded PhD candidate at University of Amsterdam,
my first year of study was made available by a grant from Istanbul Bilgi University,
for which I am grateful. Also thanks to the Media and Culture Department at the
University of Amsterdam and the Film and TV Department at Yeditepe University
for providing me with employment. During the final stages of my dissertation, I
became a part of the Radio, Television and Cinema Department at Kadir Has
University. I would like to thank the entire department, especially Deniz Bayrakdar
Sevgen and Levent Soysal for their support during this time.
Many others have helped me in this process, some with their suggestions, some with
their revisions, and some by simply being there. It will be difficult to do everyone
justice, but I will try. I would like to extend my thanks to Winfried Fluck, Rob
Kroes, Patricia Pisters, Kevin Robins and Jan Simons, who kindly agreed to serve
on my committee. The members of Cinema Europe group and others at the
University of Amsterdam provided a wonderful environment to bounce ideas off of,
and I am grateful to all of them – not just for the intellectual input, but also for being
my friends. Thank you Malte Hagener, Jaap Kooijman, Tarja Laine, Floris Paalman,
Ward Rennen, Wanda Strauven, Ria Thanouli; and especially Marijke de Valck, for
always being there to answer my endless stream of questions about how things work
and her Dutch expertise. Friends in Amsterdam opened their homes for me to stay
during my regular visits, making each one of those trips enjoyable and memorable.
Thanks to Armaðan and Çimen Ekici, Begüm Fýrat, and Nazlý Karabenli. Other
friends and colleagues at home have been kind enough to read and discuss my work
on many occasions. I am grateful to Savaþ Arslan , Yeþim Burul, Ýdil Elveriþ, Wendy
Shaw, Louise Spence, and Ayþe Ünal; as well as Mine Niþancý and Özlem Ünsal for
moral support. This book took its final form with the help of Emre Yerlikhan, Doða
Aytuna, and especially Anýl Bilge, my design advisor, who showed me how
important a study break can be – especially when it is spent watching SUPERMAN.
I would like to thank everyone again for all their help. But it is with the support of
two very special people that I have even attempted this adventure. Many parents
would not encourage their children to quit a lucrative job in banking in order to
venture into the unpredictable world of Turkish academia. Melahat and Aykut
171
Acknowledgments
Global Directors of New Hollywood
170 werken voor een coproductie. Ook blijkt dat veel ‘franchises’, zoals de Harry Potter
global directors.qxd
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 172
172 Behlil have stood by me emotionally and financially every step of the way as I made
Global Directors of New Hollywood
this decision. While my father was not able to see the completion of my dissertation,
my mother not only saw it, but read through every word as an excellent copy editor.
It is to them that I dedicate this book.
173
global directors.qxd
Global Directors of New Hollywood
174
29.05.2007
14:46
Page 174
175