The Issues of The Western Perspective of Cinema
The benefits of global cinema and the MPAAs issues
The average American citizen has forgotten how to watch films. More specifically, they have forgotten the importance and impact of foreign cinema on hollywood. Filmmaking was not created by one person in one place. More importantly, no one country can claim to have created cinema. Cinema rapidly expanded throughout the world during the late 1890’s and early 1900’s. Films generally catered to audiences from their own regions and nations. In 1906 the US got The Great Train Robbery and in 1908 Japanese audiences got Honno-ji Gassen. Both of which are considered the first dramatic films of their nations.
This trend of filmmakers and studios creating films for the audience of their respective nations continued until the late 1940’s and early 50’s when the arthouse movement in the United States boomed and “Cinema Verite” expanded across Europe and eventually throughout Africa and Asia. Both of which sought to bring humanity to the world after the terrors of World War II. Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, production budgets for American films grew and grew and the appeal for the smaller, low budget films of the past left general audiences in the states. Thus, indie film or independent film became the easiest entryway into the creative medium for young, aspiring filmmakers. Since filmmaking equipment grew smaller and more affordable over time, those young filmmakers could now make the films they wanted to make on a lower budget. Unfortunately, these filmmakers couldn’t compete with the Hollywood filmmaking monopoly that the “starving artist” identity befell these young directors. Those who once thought they could be the next Cassavetes quickly realized that Hollywood controls the success and failure of films in the United states.
Today, the average American’s view of cinema has gone narrow. While American film studios export nearly one hundred percent of their films but rarely import films, the American view of world cinema has been skewed to the point of abstraction compared to many European, African and Asian nations.
In 2018, Ericka Knudson and David Campos wrote in the book, Cultivating Creativity through World Films, Campos and Knudson (2018) stated “By examining sociocultural codes and norms conveyed in films from around the world, through a child protagonist’s point of view, teachers can guide students to embrace a multitude of perspectives in today’s complex intersection of cultures” (p. 10). Similar views are what led to the arthouse movement in America in the 1950’s and are the cornerstones of the beliefs of preservationist corporations like The Criterion Collection. These practices should also be applied to adult learning. The authors suggest that film can provide articulated frames for certain people groups and cultures. Take Seijun Suzuki’s 1966 film Tokyo Drifter and juxtapose that against a number of French or Italian films. While Tokyo Drifter is heavily influenced by European noir films, it is still distinctly Japanese. The main character is obsessed with not losing his sense of duty and refuses to walk beside men who have lost theirs. While plot points may be the same in an Italian or French noir film, duty and purpose are almost thrown out the window. To them, their purpose is simply to live. C’est la vie.
The issues of ignorance towards global cinema within the American movie-watcher do not particularly fall in the individual’s lap. More so, the blame falls upon Hollywood and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). In 2014, Tom Brook wrote an article for the BBC titled “How the global box office has changed hollywood” that argued that Hollywood and the MPAA focus far too much on exporting their own films around the world rather than import foreign films to the United States. More specifically he argues that the MPAA shoves out films that don’t entirely correspond or translate well with other cultures. Brook (2014) states, “Despite the studios’ desire to peddle their wares internationally, there are certain genres that pose a challenge — particularly comedy. As Matt Singer notes: ‘Very talky comedies don’t tend to translate, the humour is particularly American and it doesn’t necessarily play well in Asia or in parts of Europe.’” (p. 2). Brook suggests that despite the MPAA’s efforts, films often fall flat critically, resulting in more universal or rudimentary dialogue in contemporary cinema.
Global cinema as a means to build empathy and not to solely entertain
Now it’s important for us to note that the world and its people can’t be seen through one universal, rudimentary lens. Geography, religion, language, etc. all provide different perspectives on the primordial issues that we face here on Earth. Particularly religion and filmmaking are intertwined in providing frames through which we see the world. In a book written by S. Blent Plate titled “Religion and film”, he tackles the subject of the relationship between religion and cinema and provides fresh insight to the meta symbiosis between the two. Plate (2004) states “the authors are all keenly aware that the “religious” dimensions of cinema are not simply a matter of the message or content of films but also their form and reception. If, as the editor says, “filmmaking is related to culture making is related to mythmaking” (2), then in our present world both religion and film are intertwined in the way persons and communities make meaning insofar as both religion and film participate in the shared activities of “framing” a world and “projecting” a world”(p. 35). By this, the author is suggesting that in order to properly represent a culture — or in this case — a religion through film, one must understand the framing of the world that a specific religion has. A filmmaker can only properly convey this frame if he or she practices or has thorough understanding of this religion. This principle follows for any other aspect of a culture be it language, social norms or dress. It all follows.
In the West, it’s often easy to view films simply as entertainment. By plurality, this is a great way to view Western cinema. Why is the American film industry so popular? Well, the same answer for why drugs and alcohol are so popular can be applied. Its content makes us feel good. Although, it is also important to note that oftentimes, the films we view as entertainment are regularly inspired by far more serious, political films of the more esoteric corners of world cinema. Christopher Nolan’s films, while widely regarded as masterpieces, often steal from overlooked eras of film history such as the Czech new wave in the 60’s and early 70’s. These films sought to shed light on the corrupt past and present situations of Eastern Europe.
While these films were deeply important then, we view these new interpretations as fun entertainment instead of taking the time to see the inspiration and learning from that overlooked era. But, if we only view cinema as entertainment, we quickly judge movies that don’t stack up against large action productions or heavy dramas as underwhelming and uninspired. Once we exclude these films from our palette, we inadvertently block out the filmmaker’s of an entire region. Take Yasujiro Ozu as an example. Ozu, a Japanese director that worked from the 1920’s to the early 1960’s, often focused on dramas that tracked the longevity of a couple’s relationships and intergenerational struggles within families set in a rapidly changing 20th century Japan. Often he crafted stories that feel as if they should lead to large dramatic events like a wedding but more often than not, Ozu leaps right over those events. Details like this add stark contrast against American cinema. It highlights our material fascination and obsession with the “facade”. Similarly, look at Akira Kurosawa’s samurai war dramas. Almost any of these films can show us an Eastern framing of honor and mercy. For example, in his 1958 masterpiece The Hidden Fortress a samurai beats his peer in a one on one battle, the defeated samurai then begs the other to kill him immediately. He disobeys his command and keeps him alive. Instead of feeling grateful for his mercy as a Western person would, he feels the shame of not properly fulfilling his responsibilities as a revered warrior. Instead of saying this frame for honor and shame is inferior, we can use this moment in the film to build empathy within us and learn a different culture’s point of view on these dichotomous themes.
Surveys have proven that viewing a broad palette of films from around the world can change the rituals and practices of individuals. A study conducted by Itsiak Mahmood shows that, 90% of participants in a 120 person survey reported to have changed their behavior and gained a more varied perspective on their own life according to Mahmood (2013). This further reinforces the fact that global film provides broader, more educated perspectives on the primordial issues that we encounter in stories and in our own personal lives. America should not be blind to the inspiration Hollywood pulls from.
Our efforts and how we should respond and seek films from around the world
Now this leaves issues for Americans, if these studies show us nothing but positive results on the human pathos and ethos, then why does the MPAA proactively export American films but act with such austerity when it comes to importing films from around the world and leave that job to small, underfunded businesses and projects? How are we supposed to consistently access global cinema to gain those benefits? These are tricky questions to answer in 2020. A lot of it has to do with the fragility of capitalism in the American film world, some of it has to do with the pretentious stigma around foreign films. Thankfully, we have companies like The Criterion Collection that seek to bring films both classic and contemporary to Western audiences. Supporting these companies not only benefits your learning but also benefits filmmakers around the world and sends a message to the MPAA that Americans want to see these movies!
What can the world of cinema do for American society
We in the West are rooted among many different cultures and perspectives. Over time, the close proximity of all these people groups has caused confusion, misinterpretation and animosity. Films have proven to provide insight that breaks down these misinterpretations. Abbas Kiarostami is a director that America could benefit greatly from. As an Iranian director, his subjects are often Muslims. His films Where Is The Friends House?, And Life Goes On, and Through The Olive Trees all seamlessly portray the frame for the preciousness and sanctity of life Muslims have. Furthermore, The Japanese have long faced scrutiny for not being completely transparent to foreign entities regarding emigration as well as facing persecution during and after world war II. But if we watch films like Ozu’s Good Morning and An Autumn Afternoon or Keisuke Kinoshita’s Twenty Four Eyes you will see the unstoppable influence the West had on modernizing and altering Japanese culture. Through these films we can understand the emotional and empirical connection Japanese citizens have with the history, customs and qualities of the long-rooted culture in Japan.
Unfortunately, we have to act more proactively in seeking these kinds of films. As Tom Brook (2014) stated in his article for the BBC, the MPAA makes 70% of their earnings overseas (2014, p. 1) but very staunchly avoids spending any money to import films. As adults, we should be motivated by the work of Ericka Knudson and David Campos as they observed the pedagogical benefits in viewing global cinema for children. If we seek broader films as adults, we will be able to “embrace a multitude of perspectives in today’s complex intersection of cultures” as well as pass down these perspectives and further eliminate prejudice.
Final conclusion
The lack of effort to bring foreign cinema — both classic and contemporary — to American audiences has ultimately weakened us as a society. American audiences have grown accustomed to the “universal perspective” of the world. It’s very important to recognize global cinema as a pedagogical, empathy building tool for both children and adults. In order to get more foreign films into American homes and theaters, we should support local arthouse cinemas and support preservationist projects. We can also change our outlook on film by treating cinemas the same way we treat museums or concert halls. It is imperative for us as American audiences to seek these overlooked films not only to broaden our horizons and create empathy but to also see the influence and inspiration the world has on The American film industry. Through the works of directors from all over the world such as the aforementioned Seijun Suzuki, Abbas Kiarostami, Yasujiro Ozu and Akira Kurosawa, we can add frames and perspective to the “universal” way we see the world in American cinema. We can replace the lens in which we see the world with an authentic representation of foreign culture through these films.
Bibliography
Brook, T. (2014, October 21). How the global box office is changing Hollywood. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130620-is-china-hollywoods-future
Mahmood, I. (2013). Influence and Importance of Cinema on the Lifestyle of Educated Youth: A study on University Students of Bangladesh. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 17(6), 77–78.
Knudson, E. (2019). Cultivating creativity through world films.
Plate, S. B. (2004). Religion and Film. Columbia, Ohio: Columbia University.
Suzuki, S. (1966) Tokyo Drifter. Tokyo, Japan: Nikkatsu Studios
Kurosawa, A. (1958) The Hidden Fortress. Tokyo, Japan: Toho Studios
Ozu, Y. (1959) Good Morning. Tokyo, Japan: Shochiku Studios
Kiarostami, A. The Koker Trilogy. Tehran, Iran: Kanun parvaresh fekri
