This article was downloaded by: [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ]

On: 23 December 2014, At: 02:11

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Cultural Policy

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcul20

Cultural globalization and the

dominance of the American film
industry: cultural policies, national film
industries, and transnational film
a
Diana Crane
a
Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
Published online: 11 Sep 2013.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Diana Crane (2014) Cultural globalization and the dominance of the American
film industry: cultural policies, national film industries, and transnational film, International
Journal of Cultural Policy, 20:4, 365-382, DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2013.832233

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2013.832233

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014
 International Journal of Cultural Policy, 2014
Vol. 20, No. 4, 365–382, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2013.832233

Cultural globalization and the dominance of the American film

industry: cultural policies, national film industries, and
transnational film
Diana Crane*
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

(Received 14 January 2013; accepted 2 August 2013)

The global film market is a strategic site for examining the global influence of
American media culture. Using a database compiled by the European Audiovi-
sual Observatory, I show that the global film market consists of 34 countries
that produce over 25 films per year. Thirty-two countries produce less than 26
films. The countries that produce over 25 films per year were categorized as
Super Producers (four countries), Major Producers (seven countries), Medium
Producers (11 countries), and Minor Producers (12 countries). Lists of top 10
films in these countries show that US films dominate, followed by local films.
A discussion of national cultural policies shows that film policy contributes to
the success of national film industries but does not enable them to challenge
US dominance. Hollywood’s need for global box office receipts has led to
changes in the content of Hollywood film toward deculturized, transnational
films, a trend that is also evident in other countries.
Keywords: American film industry; global film market; cultural policy;
transnational film

Introduction
In the past decade, there have been enormous changes in the organization and
content of the media in many countries, particularly in Asia. At the same time, the
availability of media and other types of content on the Internet has soared. These
developments raise the question as to whether and how American media culture
continues to play a dominant role in global culture.
The global film market is a strategic site for examining these issues. The global
domination of the American film industry exemplifies one of the major criticisms
of cultural globalization, the potentially homogenizing effect of global culture,
which constitutes a threat to the distinctiveness of national cultures. An important
theme in the study of cultural policy has been the issue of cultural imperialism,
particularly the question of the global influence of American media culture.1
The film industry is the target of national cultural policies in many countries.
The fact that many governments spend large sums to maintain a presence in the

*craneher@sas.upenn.edu.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the VIIth International Conference on
Cultural Policy Research, Barcelona, 9 July 2012. I am grateful to Nobuko Kawashima for
comments on a previous version.

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 366 D. Crane

film industry indicates that films are perceived as having considerable symbolic and
cultural value. Film production and consumption are seen as performing an
important role in ‘negotiating cultural identity and articulating social consciousness’
(Gao 2009, p. 423). Cultural policies that support national film industries in the
form of tariffs, quotas, subsidies, and tax credits may be interpreted as a form of
cultural resistance to the homogenizing effects of globalization (Gao 2009, p. 423).
In spite of the enormous increase in the social media on the Internet, the global
film industry continues to expand (European Audiovisual Observatory 2010). In
many countries, the number of films being produced is steadily increasing as well
as the number of tickets being sold.
In this paper, I examine responses by national governments to American
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

domination of the global film market. First, I review studies that show how the
organizational and economic characteristics of the American film industry have
enabled the industry to dominate the global market. Second, I present statistics for
34 national film industries, showing the number of films they produce and their
market shares in their own countries. These statistics reveal a highly stratified
global film market in which a few countries produce the majority of films and most
national film industries have national market shares inferior to those of the Ameri-
can film industry in their countries. Third, I discuss the role of cultural policies in
protecting national film industries. I show that, in most countries, cultural policies
contribute to the maintenance and even growth of national film industries but do
not increase their capacity to challenge the domination of the American film indus-
try in the global film market. Statistics on market shares of national films reveal
that, next to American films, audiences prefer films produced in their own
countries. I then discuss recent changes in the content of American films that are
producing the so-called transnational film and whether some American films still
constitute a form of cultural imperialism.

The global film market: dominance of the American film industry

The numbers of producers of media content and of countries producing such
content are steadily increasing, particularly in Asia, and are contributing to the
diversification of global culture (Curran and Park 2000) (see UNESCO 2005 for a
detailed statistical analysis of international trade in cultural goods). According to
Goldstein-Gidoni (2005), ‘Globalization cannot be easily described anymore as
having “a distinctly American face”. There is more and more evidence for compet-
ing centers or multiple globalizations’.
However, the expansion of media culture industries in other countries has to be
seen in the context of the continuing dominance of American media culture.
Banerjee (2002, p. 517) states: ‘The USA has emerged as the most powerful player
and clearly dominates the world’s cultural industries’. This is particularly true in
the film industry.2 Using data from 2002 to 2007, Fu and Govindaraju (2010,
p. 223) found that countries are increasingly importing American films. The annual
World Box Office Top 20 consists of American films and a few US co-productions
(European Audiovisual Observatory 2010) (see Chart 1).
The dominance of the American film industry is generally explained by three
factors: (1) the enormous concentration of talent and economic resources dedicated
to the production of film in the Los Angeles region (Hollywood) (Scott 2002); (2)
the comparative advantage of the huge American market that offers economies of
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 367

Chart 1. Top 20 films worldwide by gross box office, 2009 ($US million).
Country North Amer. Intl box
Original title Studio of origin box office office Total
1. Harry Potter/Half- Warner GB Inc/ 302 632 934
Blood Prince USA
2. Avatar Fox USA/GB 352 547 899
3. Ice Age: Dawn of the Fox USA 197 691 888
Dinosaurs
4. Transformers: Re- Paramount USA 402 433 835
venge of the Fallen
5. 2012 Sony USA/CA 163 591 754
6. Up Disney USA 293 417 710
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

7. New Moon Summit USA 288 400 688

8. Angels & Demons Sony USA 133 352 485
9. The Hangover Warner USA/DE 277 190 467
10. Night at the Museum Fox USA/CA 177 238 415
11. Star Trek Paramount USA 258 128 386
12. Monsters vs. Aliens Par-D’Works USA 198 183 381
13. X-Men Origins Fox USA 180 195 375
Wolverine
14. Terminator Salvation WB-Sony USA 125 247 372
15. Fast & Furious Universal USA 155 208 363
16. Inglourious Basterds Weinstein-U USA/DE 121 199 320
17. The Proposal Disney USA 164 153 317
18. A Christmas Carol Disney USA 137 174 311
19. G.I. Joe: Rise of Paramount USA/CZ 150 152 302
Cobra
20. G-Force Disney USA 119 165 284
Source: European Audiovisual Observatory (2010).

scale, ensuring that cultural exports can be sold at rates well below the cost of
production for smaller nations (Van Elteren 2003, p. 173); and (3) a widespread
and effective distribution system for American films in the USA and in many other
countries that effectively excludes foreign films from the US market and ensures
the success of American films abroad (Scott 2002).
Scott (2002, p. 958) attributes Hollywood’s competitive advantages to ‘a dense
agglomeration of firms and workers and associated institutions’. This production
system has two major components, one devoted to the production of very expen-
sive blockbuster films that are marketed globally and another devoted to the
production of relatively low-budget independent films which may or may not be
distributed abroad. A few American conglomerates produce the most expensive
films and provide financing and distribution for films made by small independent
companies.3
These elements exist in an institutional environment and regional milieu which
provide filmmakers with ‘strong competitive advantages in the form of increasing
returns to scale and scope’ and which function as ‘a seedbed of creativity and inno-
vation for the industry’ (Scott 2002, p. 965).
Among all film-producing countries, the USA is unique in the average cost of
films. The average cost of films produced by major studios is close to $100 million
while the average cost of independent films is less than $40 million (European
Audiovisual Observatory 2006, p. 37).4 By comparison, the average cost of a
British film is $13.3 million (Brunet and Gornostaeva 2006), of a French film, $5.1
 368 D. Crane

Table 1. Film production costs by region, 2008.

Region Average budget per film (in $M)
North America 22.96
Western Europe 6.13
All Europe 4.73
Far East 4.29
South America 2.86
Asia 0.44
Source: Screen Digest (2009) quoted in De Vinck and Lindmark (2011).

million (European Audiovisual Observatory 2010, p. 23), and of an Egyptian film,

Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

$1.3–$5.5 million (European Audiovisual Observatory 2010, p. 61). Table 1 shows

the disparity in production costs between North America and other regions. The
high production costs of American films are necessitated by their use of a star
system and their emphasis on increasingly elaborate special effects.
Although many American films are very profitable in the USA, foreign markets
have become much more important, as the costs of making films have increased. In
2005, 61.3% of Hollywood’s box office receipts were derived from foreign markets
(MPAA 2006, cited in Gao 2009). US firms have the advantage of working in the
principal international language, English. Typically, about one-third of a US film’s
budget is devoted to extensive advertising and promotion, including an emphasis on
film branding which includes product placements, ancillary products that are widely
marketed through commercial tie-ins and cross-promotions (York 2010, p. 3).
Scott argues that, without its effective and unparalleled distribution system, the
production system in Hollywood would be much less successful than it is. The
system relies on extensive networks of regional offices in the USA and abroad,
saturation marketing and distribution involving intense publicity campaigns and
exhibition in many different theatres simultaneously (Scott 2002, p. 969). The
absence of comparable distribution systems in the film industries in other countries
prevents them from competing effectively in the USA and elsewhere. The
American market for foreign productions has been described as ‘impenetrable and
unattainable’ (Brunet and Gornostaeva 2006, p. 61).
Another factor in the global dominance of the American film industry is the role
of cultural policy. As will be discussed in a subsequent section, the continuing
success of Hollywood films in the face of increasing competition from other coun-
tries is at times the result of a fierce battle between national cultural policies, one
which Hollywood, supported a system of Foreign Trade Agreements, negotiated by
the American government, usually wins (see below).

The global film market: classification of national film industries

In almost all countries, which participate in the global film market, American films
predominate in the top 10 films. The remaining films on these lists are usually local
films, but the extent to which local films appear on the top 10 lists varies consider-
ably depending on levels of investment in local film industries and on the extent to
which national cultural policy limits the import of foreign films.
Statistics published annually by the European Audiovisual Observatory provide
an extensive database for comparing film industries and film policies in the 66 coun-
tries, which participate in the global film market (European Audiovisual Observatory
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 369

2010). National film industries vary on two major dimensions: (1) the number of
films produced annually and (2) the national market share of local films. The average
market share of national films for 33 countries that produced over 25 films in 2009
(excluding the USA) is 30%. Based on the number of films produced in each country
in 2009, I identified four categories of countries producing over 25 films in 2009.
Thirty-two countries produced less than 26 films in 2009 (see Table 2).5

Super producers
The first category of film-producing countries in the global film market consists of
four countries that produced over 400 films in 2009. The average market share of
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

their films in their national markets was 74.3%. These countries participate in the
global film market in varying degrees. For example, India produced more films than
any other country in 2009 (see Table 2), but it exports relatively few films, mainly
for the benefit of the Indian diaspora which is sizable (Oxford Economics 2010). Its
films obtain a higher share of their national market than any other country, with the
exception of Iran (see Table 2). India and Iran are the only countries in the global
film market in which no American films appeared among the top 10 films in 2009.
The USA, which is the second highest producer of films in the world, had the
third highest national market share in 2009.6 China and Japan also produce large
number of films. Their penetration of the global market is slight although their
national market shares are relatively high. In the past decade, the Chinese film
industry has begun to produce its own blockbusters, copying Hollywood’s approach
to the global market with huge budgets, stellar casts, special effects, and expensive
marketing campaigns (Wang 2009).
In Japan, the national market share is relatively high because audiences prefer
local blockbusters rather than foreign films (European Audiovisual Observatory
2010, p. 57).

Major producers
The second category of film-producing countries consists of six countries that
produce between 101 and 400 films per year. Films made in these countries consti-
tute a minority on the lists of the top 10 films in their own countries with the
exception of South Korea (see Table 2). Their average national market share in
2009 was 26.6%, significantly lower than that of the super producers but higher
than that of the medium and minor producers. Films made by the major producers,
most of which are European, are usually not widely viewed outside their countries
of origin. A study of 10 non-European markets (European Audiovisual Observatory
2012b) found that European films accounted for around 3% of total admissions.
Other studies have found that the market share of European films in Latin America
and Asia ranges from 2 to 6%, although in some years this figure is slightly higher
in Japan (see Table 3). By comparison, the market share of US films is over 80%
in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico and approximately 50% in South Korea and Japan
(Commission of the European Communities 2009, quoted in De Vinck and Lind-
mark 2011). European films represented 6.8% of the American film market in 2009
(European Audiovisual Observatory 2010, p. 19, 43). When European films pene-
trate markets in other regions, they tend to be in the form of co-productions with
other countries, usually the USA.
 370 D. Crane

Table 2. Global film market: number of films produced by country, national market shares,
and number of national films in country’s top 10, 2009.a
No. of films Perc. natl No. of natl films in
Super producers (over 400) market share country’s top 10
India 1288 92.0 10
USA 751* 91.8 10
China 456 56.6 6
Japan 448 56.9 5
N=4 Mean: 74.3
Major producers No. of films (101–400)
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

France 230* 36.8 3

Spain 186* 16.0 1
United Kingdom 154 16.5 3
Germany 149* 27.4 2
South Korea 138 48.8 6
Italy 133* 24.4 3
Argentina 101 16.0 1
N=7 Mean: 26.6
Medium producers No. of films
(51–100)

Canada 98 3.3 –
Brazil 84 14.3 2
Indonesia 80 – –
Switzerland 80 3.4 0
Russian Federation 76 23.9 5
Hong-Kong 70 21.0 1
Philippines 70 25.7 (2011) –
Turkey 68 51.0
Mexico 66* 7.5 0
Iran 62 99.7 (2011) –
Belgium 52* 7.9 –
N = 11 Mean: 25.7
Minor producers No. of films
(26–50)

Poland 42* 21.5 2

Netherlands 40* 17.4 2
Sweden 37* 32.7 4
Czech Republic 33* 25.6 3
Australia 38* 5.0 0
Thailand 37 37.5 –
Egypt 35 80.0 5
Denmark 28* 17.3 4
Taiwan 28 2.3 –
Malaysia 28 13.7 –
Hungary 27* 9.3 0
Norway 27 20.6 3
N = 12 Mean: 23.6
Notes: aBased on statistics contained in European Audiovisual Observatory (2010). Figures have been
adjusted on the basis of subsequent information appearing in European Audiovisual Observatory
(2012a). Includes documentaries unless otherwise indicated with an asterisk.
The following countries produced fewer than 26 films in 2009: Africa: Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia; Asia:
Singapore; Europe: Austria*, Bulgaria*, Croatia, Estonia*, Finland*, Greece*, Iceland, Ireland*, Latvia*, Lithuania*,
Luxembourg*, Portugal*, Romania*, Slovakia*, Slovenia*; Latin America: Chile, Columbia, Peru, Uruguay,
Venezuela; Middle East: Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Qatar, Syria, the UAE.
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 371

Table 3. Market shares of European and US films by country, 2009.

Market share of (in percentages)
Country European films US films
Argentina 5.5 82
Brazil 3.0 86
Mexico 3.0 81
India 2.0 10–12
Japan 5–9 50
South Korea 3.0 47
USA 6.8 91.8
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

Source: Commission of the European Communities (2009) quoted in De Vinck and Lindmark (2011);
European Audiovisual Observatory (2010, p. 19, 43).

Medium producers
The third category of film-producing countries consists of 11 countries that produce
between 51 and 100 films per year. Their average national market share is 25.7%.
Iran is a classic case of a totalitarian country that blocks external competition and
has a market share of 99.7.
Turkey has the second highest national market share in this category: 51%.
More than half the films in the top 10 are Turkish. Demand for local films has
increased to such an extent that the number of national films has increased from 18
in 2003 to 69 in 2009 (European Audiovisual Observatory 2010, p. 41).

Minor producers
The fourth category of film-producing countries consists of 12 countries that pro-
duce between 26 and 50 films per year. Their average national market share was
23.6% in 2009. Two countries at opposite poles in this category are Australia with
a market share of 5% and Egypt with a market share of 80%.
Australia had one of the smallest national market shares in the minor producer
category. None of its films were on its top 10 list, although one film and one
co-production were in the next 10. American films dominate the Australian film
market. Egypt is one of only three African countries with a structured film industry
consisting of production studios and distribution and exhibition chains comparable
to those on other continents. Its films are widely distributed in countries where
Arabic is spoken.
The figures presented in this section reveal that the global film market is highly
stratified. In almost all countries, American films are more successful than most
local films.

Cultural policies and national film industries

How does cultural policy contribute to the success of national films in the global
film market and to their share of their domestic market? Most nations have
developed systems to ensure that a national film industry survives (Hancock 1998).
National government policies in support of their film industries rely on two types
of measures: those that attempt to restrict entry of foreign competitors, such as
 372 D. Crane

tariffs and quotas, and those that provide preferential treatment to the domestic
industry in the form of subsidies and tax credits (Gao 2009, p. 426). According to
Hancock (1998), ‘tax laws can make or break film industries, as can levels of state
support’.
Cultural policy is an important element in the global dominance of the
American film industry. The goal of the American government’s film policy is to
eliminate film quotas in other countries so as to ensure that their film markets are
open to American films. At the beginning of the past decade, UNESCO (2000,
2005) recognized the exceptional nature of cultural goods and affirmed the right of
nation states to implement policies that protect and provide cultural expression in a
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

Expression (Jin 2008). While European countries, particularly France, ardently

supported the convention, the USA refused to sign it and vigorously lobbied
against it (Jin 2011).7
The American response to the UNESCO convention was an increase in the use
of Foreign Trade Agreements on a one-to-one basis with other countries. FTAs are
intended to eliminate film quotas and promote exports of American films to other
countries. The American government’s reaction to the UNESCO convention and its
use of FTAs reflect the enormous importance that the American government
attaches to its film industry. Cultural industries, such as film, music, and television,
are major sources of American exports (Jin 2011).
While negotiations concerning the UNESCO convention were taking place, the
USA was initiating FTA agreements with more than 20 countries, including
Morocco, Columbia, Australia, Israel, South Africa, Malaysia, and Korea (Jin
2011). In some but not all of the countries that signed FTA agreements with the
USA, their domestic film markets declined rapidly as indicated by the market share
of domestic films. This was particularly true in small countries with relatively small
film industries, such as Canada and Australia, which were no longer able to
adequately protect their industries.
The USA also pressured South Korea to reduce a quota system for foreign films
that had been in existence for several decades as a precondition for starting negotia-
tions for a US-Korea FTA (Jin 2008).8 In spite of intense opposition from the film
industry, the government halved the quotas because it expected other industries to
benefit from other aspects of the FTA.
The effects of American pressure to cut screen quotas vary depending upon
the economic and cultural contexts in different countries. In the early 1990s,
when screen quotas were cut in Mexico as a result of the NAFTA Treaty with
the USA, the number of films produced in Mexico declined from 100 in 1992 to
14 in 2003. The market share of Mexico’s film industry was 7.5% in 2009. In
Korea, the short run effects of cutting the film quotas in 2006 were very nega-
tive. The film industry lost money in subsequent years but, in 2009, it once again
became profitable. Six Korean films were among the country’s top 10 films (see
Table 2). The Korean film industry survived the change in screen quotas because
of the huge market all over Asia for all forms of Korean popular culture (known
as the Korean Wave), including film, in an economic and cultural context where
emerging countries are expanding their economies and their populations are start-
ing to have disposable income for various forms of consumption (Shim 2006; see
also Keane 2006).
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 373

FTAs have been interpreted as diminishing the cultural sovereignty of other

countries and the rights of their citizens to enjoy locally created culture and
employment in the industries that produce them (Breen 2010, p. 673). Breen states
that FTAs are ‘driven not by human rights but by a powerful commitment from the
US political apparatus and the US entertainment industry to take care of their own
interests’ through unfettered access to other markets.
Several other countries in the global film market use quotas to protect their film
industries, including two major producers, Argentina and France.9 Egypt, a minor
producer, which limits the distribution of foreign films, has the fourth highest
market share in Table 2. Indonesia, a medium producer, also protects its film
market using quotas (European Audiovisual Observatory 2012a, p. 59).
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

China’s cultural policy establishes strict quotas for Hollywood films. Rather
than being pressured by the USA to open its film market, the Chinese government
decided on its own to admit American films but the decision was highly controver-
sial. In 1994, the Chinese government began to import 10 Hollywood blockbusters
per year, using a revenue-sharing system. The American films quickly captured
70% of China’s film market, leading to a debate about the desirability of these
imports that lasted from 1994 to 2007. Contrary to what one would expect to be a
highly centralized decision-making process, the debate over Hollywood films ‘was
a fiercely-contested battleground on which various social forces competed’
(Su 2011, p. 189). After China joined the WTO in 2001, the annual quota of
imported films was raised from 10 to 20. The quota was raised to 34 in 2012
(Wyatt et al. 2012). Strong protectionist barriers concerning political content are
still in place.
Only in Egypt have film quotas enabled a high national market share (80%).
Chinese films have one of the highest market shares in the global film market
(56.6%), but the success of a Chinese film at the Chinese box office does not nec-
essarily represent the public’s enthusiasm for the film. The Chinese film business is
closely allied with politics. A film (Beginning of the Great Revival) for which the
brother of a former vice-president of China served as a consultant:

was shown on nearly 90,000 movie screens across the country. Government offices
and schools were ordered to buy tickets in bulk. The media were banned from criticiz-
ing it. It became one of the top-grossing films of last year. (Barboza and Lafranière
2012)

Government funding and subsidies perform important roles in the production of

films in many countries. The level of government funding for European films has
recently been estimated at 2.1 billion euros (Newman-Baudais 2011).
France has a very elaborate system of film subsidies which benefit French film-
makers and some foreign filmmakers, as well as distributors and exhibitors (Jäckel
2007). Special funds are available for directors making their first films and for
directors of films that are considered to have artistic merit. Filmmaking outside of
Paris is also encouraged. The result is an ‘array of measures serving contradictory
(economic and cultural) goals, and its huge, varied production’ (Jäckel 2007, p. 24;
see also Scott 2000). The relative ease with which funding can be obtained has led
to an enormous increase in the number of French films being produced annually
(from 89 in 1994 to 230 in 2009) (Collectif 2013), but three-quarters of French
films do not recover their costs (Hayes and O’Shaughnessy 2005, p. 3).
 374 D. Crane

Government funding has also performed an important role outside Europe. In

Egypt, the dramatic rise in film production in the past decade was made possible
by ‘a strong, systematic state funding system that began in 2005’ (Turgut 2009). In
Australia, a sharp decrease in direct public funding for feature films from 23% of
film budgets to 9% (European Audiovisual Observatory 2010, p. 51) had disastrous
effects.
Taxes to generate funds for filmmaking and tax rebates are another important
instrument of film policy, but taxes on revenues or profits may have disastrous
effects.10 The US government supports Hollywood through tax-credit arrangements
to big companies and loans to small businesses (Jin 2011). Several American states
offer tax incentives to encourage film production (Oxford Economics 2010). In
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

France, money for making films is generated through taxes on the sale of tickets
for films, on television earnings, and on video and online delivery services (Jäckel
2007, p. 22). Tax shelters encourage foreign film companies to make their films in
France (p. 23). Tax incentives are also used in Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
and South Africa.
An extensive study of the impact of tax ‘relief’ to encourage investment in the
British film industry on the industry concluded that the policy is: ‘vital to sustain-
ing the competitiveness of film production in the UK. Without the Film Tax Relief,
we estimate that film production would be 75% smaller …’ (Oxford Economics
2010, p. 3). Nevertheless, the market share of British films, a major producer, is
relatively low (16.5%) with only three films in the top 10. According to Brunet and
Gornostaeva (2006, p. 64), the British film industry is heavily dependent on Ameri-
can film companies for both distribution and exhibition and for financing film
production in the high-budget range. The remainder of the British film industry is
‘fragmented, “cottage” and undercapitalized, as small independent production
companies struggle to develop one film at a time and as financing concentrates on
production rather than marketing and distribution’. The UK has benefitted from
investment by US studios and co-productions with US film companies. Two recent
co-productions, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Avatar, were the only
films associated with a country other than the USA, which reached top 10 lists all
over the world. One British film, Slumdog Millionaire, had a similar level of
success.
This review of film policies in relation to the statistics presented in Table 2
indicates that film policy is most effective for the film industry that needs it least,
the USA. Film policies contribute to the viability of some national film industries
(e.g. Egypt, France, and the UK) but, for the most part, they do little to enhance
the capacity of other countries to compete with the American film industry.

Foreign audiences and American films

How do foreign audiences interpret American films? One interpretation is that
different audiences interpret American films in different ways and that Hollywood
deliberately produces narrative structures that are susceptible to ‘plural meanings to
suit different viewers’ (Pang 2005, p. 142; see also Liebes and Katz 1990).11 The
concept of a ‘cultural discount’ suggests that foreign media have limited appeal
because audiences lack the background knowledge, linguistic competence, and
other forms of cultural capital to appreciate them (Lee 2008, p. 119). Significantly,
the lists of top 10 and top 20 films by country show that, next to Hollywood films,
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 375

local films are almost invariably favored rather than films from countries other than
the USA (see Table 2) (see also Chon et al. 2003, Oxford Economics 2010).
Presumably, local films speak more directly to the concerns of their audiences.
If this is the case, why do foreign audiences watch American films? One explana-
tion is that American filmmakers have developed a type of film that crosses
national boundaries easily because it has eliminated a great deal of cultural
complexity. In order to attract foreign viewers in the global film market, the content
of Hollywood films has been transformed. The levels of violence, action, sex, and
fantasy, all of which can be conveyed visually rather than through dialogue, have
steadily increased in Hollywood films.
Lee (2008, p. 121) argues that contemporary American films are ‘less cultur-
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

ally specific’ than classic American films. Settings of many American blockbusters
are ‘delocalized’ and do not correspond to real places. The list of the top 20 films
worldwide in 2009, all of which were American or American co-productions,
confirms this thesis (see Chart 1). The titles include: Harry Potter and the
Half-Blood Prince, Avatar, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, Angels & Demons,
Star Trek, Monsters vs. Aliens, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and A Christmas
Carol.
As a result of these tendencies, according to Lee (2008, p. 121), ‘American
films are arguably “non-American”’ and ‘culturally empty’ (p. 133). He suggests
that a process of ‘deculturation’ has taken place in which the capacity of American
films to communicate something meaningful about American society and culture
has disappeared. Wasser (1995, p. 423, 435) refers to ‘deracinated transnational
media’ in which ‘fewer and fewer films address a specific community or the
national audience in a profound way’. He claims that ‘Hollywood studios ceased to
be primarily American, ceased to be institutions of national culture’. De Zoysa and
Newman (2002, p. 188) contrast the present situation with:

the mythical golden years of Hollywood spanning 1938–1960 (which) projected a

uniform vision: faith in the democratic order, the classless society, heroic individual-
ism and the golden opportunities offered by the capitalist work ethic and enterprise.

Many successful American films incorporate themes and motifs from other coun-
tries. Contemporary Hollywood filmmaking has become a culture of appropriation
that draws ideas and motifs from a wide variety of sources both in the USA and
elsewhere (McCram 2010), a phenomenon that is increasingly becoming the hall-
mark of all forms of popular culture, including music and literature (McCram
2010). Pang (2005, p. 150) claims that ‘Hollywood constantly copies ideas and
expression of others as its own, forging a national identity composed of transna-
tional influences’. Themes and styles are often borrowed from foreign films, such
as Asian films, and in some cases are actually remakes of foreign films. Plots, char-
acters, and settings are frequently lifted from foreign films, particularly Asian
films.12
One of the requirements for successful participation in global cultural markets
may in fact be the creation of products that are easy to understand by viewers in
other countries because cultural differences have been simplified and references to
other cultures expanded. Japanese exports of animation films and comics use a
similar strategy, which Iwabuchi (2002) calls ‘cultural odorlessness’, that systemati-
cally eliminates elements that identify their Japanese origin.
 376 D. Crane

This type of film, which is also appearing in other countries, has been labeled
‘transnational’ (Higbee and Lim 2010). Vanderschelden (2007, p. 38) claims that
transnational films:

through a combination of national, international and post-national elements … deliber-

ately blend nations and cultures, rather than simply erasing cultural specificity.

Fu and Govindaraju (2010, p. 233), in a study of box office revenues in 35

countries between 2002 and 2007, found that, in spite of cultural and economic
differences, preferences of film audiences for American films in these countries are
becoming more similar to those of American film audiences.
Some American films, usually made by independent filmmakers, have not elimi-
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

nated cultural specificity. For example, films with small budgets made for women
and usually by women, have been described as follows (Goodwin 2008):

Their scripts offer a radically different sensibility and world view from that of their
‘savage brethren’. They are more intimate, more realistic, more obviously relevant to
most of our lives, and are painted with a far more restrained palette.13

Goodwin claims that ‘it is hard to recall a time when there has been such a
radical divide between what men and women have chosen to explore on film’.
However, small-budget films directed by women rarely reach the top 20 lists either
in the USA or globally.14

Non-US films and audiences: the case of France

One of the reasons for the lack of success of many non-US films in both the
American and the global film markets is that understanding these films requires
familiarity with national cultures. This is particularly true of French films. Barthel-
Bouvier (2012) found that while successful American film comedies were well
received at the box-office in France, successful French comedies were either not
exported to the USA or did not do well when they were exported. Vanderschelden
(2007, p. 40) states: ‘The French market is dominated by domestic comedies which
produce the majority of box-office hits. However they only rarely become export-
able, mostly owing to the culture-specific nature of humour’. French films that have
recently been successful in the USA have either presented an almost stereotypical
image of what foreigners think France is like (Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain)
or were nature films with minimal dialogue or narration (The March of the
Penguins). For the latter film, the French narration was entirely rewritten for the
American audience. Many French films are ‘personal and introspective’ (Vander-
schelden 2007, p. 38), deeply rooted in the filmmaker’s experience of the national
culture, and have difficulty finding an audience even in France. The major interna-
tional export markets for French films are located in western European countries
whose cultures have more similarities with French culture than the USA (Hayes and
O’Shaughnessy 2005, p. 13).
However, a few French filmmakers have been moving in the same direction as
Hollywood, toward the transnational film (Tarr 2007). Such films are not only
transnational in terms of content but also in terms of production. They tend to be
international co-productions, filmed in English, with international casts and
personnel (Vanderschelden 2007, p. 40). These films have been much more
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 377

successful in attracting foreign audiences. Jäckel (2007, p. 26) reported that France
has co-production agreements with 44 countries in every continent.
Films in other countries and regions, such as China, East Asia, Scandinavia and
other parts of Europe, are also becoming transnational. They are likely to be less
rooted in their national cultures and more likely to incorporate perspectives from
other countries in order to attract audiences in the global film market (see, for e.g.
Lu 1997, Bergfelder 2005, Nestingen and Elkington 2005, Hunt and Wing-fai
2008). Involvement in co-productions enhances these trends.

Cultural imperialism and the transnational film: does American cultural

Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

imperialism still exist?

The ubiquity of American films on the global film market raises the question of
their cultural significance. Can they still be interpreted as disseminating a homoge-
nous and hegemonic form of culture that displaces other national film cultures?
During the debate in China over the decision to import Hollywood films, Chinese
critics expressed their concern about the impact on China of American cultural
values and the American way of life which they perceived as being promoted by
Hollywood movies. According to one Chinese critic, ‘American movies,
collectively speaking, serve America’s state interests … There is hardly a single
American movie that does not glorify Americans and propagate American values
and the American way of life’ (quoted in Su 2011, p. 192). According to another
Chinese critic, ‘If there is an export called ideology, Hollywood is no doubt the
most successful exporter’ (quoted in Su 2011, p. 192).
However, as discussed above, Hollywood films have become increasingly
transnational, incorporating themes and motifs from other cultures. Under these
circumstances, is it still possible to detect elements of cultural imperialism in Holly-
wood films?
Cultural imperialism in film is generally discussed in very general terms as the
transmission of hegemonic messages. In specific films, it takes the form of system-
atic distortion of ideas, of actual events, such as wars, and of relationships between
genders and races (Cooper n.d.). The goal is to maintain or reproduce a conserva-
tive or traditional social order. For example, war films are generally made with the
intention of convincing the audience that wars are inevitable and of humanizing the
military (Kashani 2004). Kashani analyzes two war films made in 2001 and
2002.15 Both films were based on real events in which the American military inter-
vened abroad but facts were omitted and distorted in order to present a favorable
image of the heroism and patriotism of American soldiers.
In American ‘remakes’ of foreign films, local characteristics tend to be ‘decultu-
ralized’, as explained by Wang and Yeh (2005) in a discussion of a Disney anima-
tion film (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) based on a popular folk tale in China
that had already been the subject of operas, television series, and three films in
China prior to the Disney production. Contrary to the ideology of the Chinese
story, American-style individualism was inserted in the story, transforming a shy,
demure heroine into an outgoing and tomboyish girl. Instead of concentrating upon
Chinese cultural iconography in the form of pagodas, willow trees, and flowing
robes, the film was distinctly multicultural in its use of actors from several different
ethnic and racial backgrounds as voices for the main characters in the film. Wang
and Yeh (2005, p. 182) claim that ‘the story, although set in ancient China, is
 378 D. Crane

resolutely modern and American … the Mulan story was remade into a timeless
legend aimed at Disney’s family audience’.
Cultural imperialism evolves and changes over time in response to social
changes and major events. Aknin (2012) identifies the major, longstanding themes
of American blockbuster films as science fiction, alien invasion, catastrophes, space
travel, horror, and super heroes. He argues that, since 2001, many new films based
on these familiar themes respond in various ways to the trauma of 9/11, which
shattered the nation’s belief in its invulnerability. Films that did not recognize the
changes in the zeitgeist failed at the box office.
After 9/11, terrifying events were presented in a much more realistic manner.
For example, Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, a film about alien invasion, presented
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

an exceedingly realistic picture of the carnage caused by the invasion, comparable

to that of World War II. Post-2001 films about space travel exhibit a new pessi-
mism about the future. Aknin (2012, p. 56, 57, 60) states: ‘There is no longer a
question of a spatial odyssey … The frontier has closed … The image of conquest
and expansion is no longer viable’. According to Aknin, the dominant theme in
many of the recent blockbuster films for men is anxiety, not only about the threat
of terrorism (as in The Dark Knight Rises, 2012) but primarily about the anguish
of a country that perceives itself on the verge of decline.
Films about controversial topics, such as war, terrorism, and the depiction of
women in powerful roles, are still likely to contain hegemonic devices but the
nature of these devices changes over time.

Conclusion
This article has examined the domination of the American film industry in the
global film market using three analytical frames: (1) quantitative assessment of the
domination of American films in the global film market; (2) review of cultural poli-
cies for national film industries; and (3) qualitative analysis of recent changes in
the content of the most popular American films.
The quantitative analysis shows the domination of the US film industry in
almost every region. American films and American co-productions dominate the
lists of top 10 films in the global market and in national markets in spite of protec-
tionist cultural policies and national subsidies in many countries. Many countries
participate minimally in this market (less than 26 films produced per year) or not at
all, but others still devote significant levels of resources to their film industries. In
many of these countries, the numbers of films being made and the numbers of
tickets being sold continue to increase.
A review of national cultural policies for film industries indicates that the
continuing importance of film industries can be explained in part by the cultural
and symbolic significance of films in national cultures. As one analyst put it (Breen
2010, p. 662): ‘The nation is constructed through the reproduction of its culture by
the media industries’. Globalization has eroded the economic and political power of
many countries but the cultural and symbolic significance of a nation can still be
expressed and disseminated to other countries through its films. Cultural policies
supporting national film industries are still important, but they do not provide the
means for resisting American domination of the global film market.
A discussion of the content of recent American films shows that, while the
USA still dominates the global film market in a form of economic imperialism the
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 379

cultural and symbolic significance of American films has changed. Hollywood’s

strategy of augmenting its profits by attracting global audiences has led to
important modifications in the content of Hollywood films. Hollywood now exem-
plifies a form of global culture that emphasizes violence, action, sex and fantasy
that other countries often try to imitate on a smaller scale. However, in American
films of the past two decades, references to American culture are less specific while
themes and motifs from other cultures are more prevalent. The so-called transna-
tional film is better suited to appeal to highly diverse audiences in the global film
market.
Cultural imperialism is still evident in films about controversial topics. In some
cases, American values and the American way of life are imposed on remakes of
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

films from other countries in a process of delocalization. American cultural imperi-

alism is still exemplified in films that exalt the American military and American
patriotism (Kashani 2004), but they are less likely to be major successes at the box
office (Aknin 2012). Low-budget films that present typical dilemmas of daily life
in America from a female perspective are seldom seen abroad.
To conclude, this article shows that the American film industry and American
film policy have important effects on other national film industries whose
cultural policies represent a form of resistance to American dominance. Changes
in the content of American films in the direction of transnationalization and
deculturalization have occurred in response to Hollywood’s increasing need for
box office receipts from other countries. Similar changes are occurring in other
countries, because films, which are less culturally specific, represent the most
viable means of communicating with audiences that are widely distributed across
the globe.

Notes
1. The cultural imperialism thesis originally referred to the imposition of political ideolo-
gies. The later version, media imperialism, attributes the source of hegemonic domi-
nance to media conglomerates, based in a few western countries, that control
production, program content and worldwide distribution in the television, film, music,
and publishing industries (Kellner 1999, p. 243). This system affects the survival of
national cultural industries in smaller, weaker countries whose cultural goods are often
unable to compete in their own countries with those that are distributed by international
media conglomerates. TNCs can eliminate or decrease opportunities for the expression
of indigenous cultures by substituting western media culture.
2. Statistics on imports of feature films by country (UNESCO 2000, table 4) demonstrate
the global dominance of American film in the 1990s. In 86% of the 73 countries for
which data is available, the USA was the major country of origin for imported films in
1994–1998. In 68 of these countries, the average percentage of imported films (out of
the total number of films distributed in 1994–1998) was 86%.
3. The major conglomerates include: 20th Century Fox (owned by NewsCorp), Sony
Pictures Entertainment (owned by Sony), NBC Universal (owned by General Electric),
Warner Bros. (owned by Time-Warner), Paramount Pictures, and Walt Disney (Brunet
and Gornostaeva 2006).
4. For example, the budget for the film, Avatar, one of the most successful recent films,
was $237 million plus $150 million for promotion (Cieply 2009).
5. An alternative approach to film production is that of ‘Nollywood’, Nigeria’s
video-based film industry which produces up to 1000 films per year with average
budgets of $5000–$10,000 (European Audiovisual Observatory 2010, p. 61). The films
are distributed widely via VHS, DVD, and TV networks. Many other African countries
have similar industries.
 380 D. Crane

6. The number of US films released per year fluctuates. Between 2005 and 2008, the
figures varied as follows: 2005: 507; 2006: 594; 2007: 609; 2008: 633 (European
Audiovisual Observatory 2010, p. 42).
7. 149 states signed the UNESCO Convention (Jin 2008, p. 11).
8. Under the quota system, movie theatres were required to screen Korean films for
146 days of the year (Jin 2008). Korean film quotas, which were introduced in 1967,
were under attack by the USA in the 1980s and 1990s. They were the source of enor-
mous controversy and massive demonstrations by members of the film industry in the
1990s. For a history of cultural policy for the Korean film industry in the late twentieth
and early twenty-first centuries, see Jin (2006).
9. In France, the quotas are for broadcasting films on television.
10. For example, the Philippine government instituted a 30% tax on gross revenues of its
film industry in the 1990s, in addition to a 12% value-added tax, leading to a decline
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

of 50% in the number of films that were produced (Whaley 2012).

11. For a review of recent literature on reception studies, see Lee (2006).
12. Pang (2005) provides a detailed analysis of Quentin Tarantino’s film, Kill Bill (2003),
in which he shows that Kill Bill appropriated specific elements from Asian cinema.
13. Recent small-budget films for women include Juno (2007), a story about an unwed
pregnancy, Away from Her (2006), a story about an elderly woman with Alzheimers,
and The Kids are Alright (2010), a film about a lesbian family.
14. The number of American films made for female audiences is much smaller than those
made for male audiences. Only 10% of Hollywood screenwriters are women. Only 6%
of Hollywood films are directed by women (Goodwin 2008; see also Bielby and
Bielby 1996).
15. Black Hawk Dawn (2001) and We Were Soldiers (2002).

References
Aknin, L., 2012. Mythes et idéologie du cinéma américain [Myths and ideology in American
cinema]. Paris: Vendémiaire.
Banerjee, I., 2002. The locals strike back? Media globalization and localization in the new
Asian television landscape. Gazette: the international journal for communication studies,
64 (6), 517–535.
Barboza, D. and Lafranière, S., 2012. China’s elite share spoils to cash in on boom times.
International Herald Tribune, Saturday–Sunday, 19–20 May, pp. 1–8.
Barthel-Bouvier, D., 2012. Exportability of films in a globalizing market: the intersection of
nation and genre. Cultural sociology, 6, 75–91.
Bergfelder, T., 2005. National, transnational or supranational cinema? Rethinking European
film studies. Media, culture & society, 27 (3), 315–331.
Bielby, D. and Bielby, W.T., 1996. Women and men in film: gender inequality among
writers in a culture industry. Gender and society, 10, 248–270.
Breen, M., 2010. Digital determinism: culture industries in the USA–Australia free trade
agreement. New media and society, 12 (4), 657–676.
Brunet, J. and Gornostaeva, G., 2006. Working title films, independent producer: internation-
alization of the film industry. International journal of arts management, 9 (1), 60–78.
Chon, B.S., Barnett, G., and Choi, Y., 2003. Clustering local tastes in global culture: the
reception structure of Hollywood films. Sociological research online [online], 8 (1).
Available from: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/1/chon.html
Cieply, M., 2009. A movie’s budget pops from the screen [online]. Available from: www.ny
times.com/2009/11/09/business/media/o9avatar.html [Accessed 9 November 2012].
Collectif, 2013. La production indépendante est à bout de souffle [Independent production is at
the end of the road]. Le Monde, 24 janvier, p. 19.
Cooper, B., n.d. Hegemony and Hollywood: a critique of cinematic distortions of women of
color and their stories [online]. Available from: http://ac-journal.org/journal/vol2/Iss2/arti
cles/brendacooper/[Accessed 3 June 2013].
Curran, J. and Park, M.-J., 2000. Beyond globalization theory. In: J. Curran and M.-J. Park,
eds. De-westernizing media studies. London: Routledge, 3–18.
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 381

De Vinck, S. and Lindmark, S., 2011. Media and content industries: film industry case.
Brussels: SMIT (Studies Media Information Telecommunication), Vrije Universiteit
Brussel).
De Zoysa, R. and Newman, O., 2002. Globalization, soft power and the challenge of
Hollywood. Contemporary politics, 8 (3), 195–202.
European Audiovisual Observatory, 2006. Focus 2005: world film market trends. Cannes:
Marché du Film.
European Audiovisual Observatory, 2010. Focus 2009: world film market trends. Cannes:
Marché du Film.
European Audiovisual Observatory, 2012a. Focus 2011: world film market trends. Cannes:
Marché du Film.
European Audiovisual Observatory, 2012b. Theatrical export of European films in 2010.
Key Statistics–A sample analysis of the distribution of European films in 10 non-Euro-
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

pean markets. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, Council of Europe.

Fu, W.W. and Govindaraju, A., 2010. Explaining global box-office tastes in Hollywood
films: homogenization of national audiences’ movie selections. Communication research,
37 (2), 215–238.
Gao, Z., 2009. Serving a stir-fry of market, culture and politics – on globalization and film
policy in Greater China. Policy studies, 30 (4), 423–438.
Goldstein-Gidoni, O., 2005. The production and consumption of ‘Japanese culture’ in the
global cultural market. Journal of consumer culture, 5 (2), 155–179.
Goodwin, C., 2008. The celluloid ceiling. Sunday Times, suppl. Culture, 24 February,
pp. 10–11.
Hancock, D., 1998. Working Document: Global film production, for Venice Conference held
by EURO-MEI on 29–30 August 1998 [online]. Available from: http://www.obs.coe.int/
oea_publ/eurocine/global_film_production.pdf.en
Hayes, G. and O’Shaughnessy, M., 2005. French cinema: globalization, representation, and
resistance. French politics, culture & society, 23 (3), 1–13.
Higbee, W. and Lim, S.H., 2010. Concepts of transnational cinema: towards a critical trans-
nationalism in film studies. Transnational cinemas, 1 (1), 7–21.
Hunt, L. and Wing-fai, L., eds., 2008. East Asian cinemas: exploring transnational connec-
tions on film. London: I.B. Tauris.
Iwabuchi, K., 2002. From Western gaze to global gaze: Japanese cultural presence in Asia.
In: D. Crane, N. Kawashima and K. Kawasaki, eds. Global culture: media, arts, policy
and globalization. New York: Routledge, 256–273.
Jäckel, A., February 2007. The inter/nationalism of French film policy. Modern and contem-
porary France, 15 (1), 21–36.
Jin, D.Y., 2006. Cultural politics in Korea’s contemporary films under neoliberal globalisa-
tion. Media, culture and society, 28 (1), 5–23.
Jin, D.Y., 2008. Cultural coup d’état: the changing roles of UNESCO and local government
on cultural sovereignty. Javnost, 15 (1), 5–28.
Jin, D.Y., 2011. A critical analysis of US cultural policy in the global film market: nation
states and FTAs. International communication gazette, 73 (8), 651–669.
Kashani, T., 2004. Hollywood an agent of hegemony: the war film [online]. Available from:
www.dissidentvoice.org [Accessed 3 June 2013].
Keane, M., 2006. Once were peripheral: creating media capacity in East Asia. Media culture
and society, 28 (6), 835–855.
Kellner, D., 1999. New technologies, the welfare state, and the prospects for democratisa-
tion. In: A. Calabrese and J.-C. Burgelman, eds. Communication, citizenship, and social
policy: rethinking the limits of the welfare state. New York: Rowman and Littlefield,
239–256.
Lee, F.L.F., 2006. Audience taste divergence over time: box office of Hollywood movies in
Hong Kong, 1989–2004. Journalism & mass communication quarterly, 83, 883–900.
Lee, F.L.F., 2008. Hollywood movies in East Asia: examining cultural discount and
performance predictability at the box office. Asian journal of communication, 18 (2),
117–136.
Liebes, T. and Katz, E., 1990. The export of meaning: cross-cultural readings of Dallas.
New York: Oxford University Press.
 382 D. Crane

Lu, S.H., ed., 1997. Transnational Chinese cinemas: identity, nationhood, gender. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
McCram, R., 25 au 31 mars 2010. L’art du plagiat. Courrier Internationale, 1012, 42–43.
Nestingen, A. and Elkington, T.G., eds., 2005. Transnational cinema in a global north:
Nordic cinema in transition. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Newman-Baudais, S., 2011. Public funding for film and audiovisual works in Europe. Stras-
bourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, Council of Europe.
Oxford Economics, 2010. The economic impact of the UK film industry. 3rd ed. Oxford:
Oxford Economics.
Pang, L., 2005. Copying Kill Bill. Social text summer, 23 (2), 133–153.
Scott, A.J., 2000. French cinema: economy, policy and place in the making of a cultural-
products industry. Theory, culture & society, 17, 1–38.
Scott, A.J., 2002. A new map of Hollywood: the production and distribution of American
Downloaded by [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ] at 02:11 23 December 2014

motion pictures. Regional studies, 36 (9), 957–975.

Shim, D., 2006. Hybridity and the rise of Korean popular culture in Asia. Media, culture
and society, 28 (1), 25–44.
Su, W., 2011. Resisting cultural imperialism, or welcoming cultural globalization? China’s
extensive debate on Hollywood cinema from 1994 to 2007. Asian journal of communi-
cation, 21 (2), 186–201.
Tarr, C., February 2007. Introduction French cinema: ‘transnational cinema’. Modern and
contemporary France, 15 (1), 3–7.
Turgut, P., 2009. Film industry: cinema writes a script for success. Financial Times, 8 June.
UNESCO, 2000. World culture report: cultural diversity, conflict and pluralism. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2005. International flows of selected cultural goods and
services, 1994–2003: defining and capturing the flows of global cultural trade. Mon-
treal: Institute for Statistics.
Vanderschelden, I., February 2007. Strategies for a ‘transnational’/French popular cinema.
Modern and contemporary France, 15 (1) 37–50.
Van Elteren, M., 2003. US cultural imperialism today: only a chimera? SAIS review, 23 (2),
169–188.
Wang, T., 2009. Understanding local reception of globalized cultural products in the context
of the international cultural economy. International journal of cultural studies, 12 (4),
299–318.
Wang, G. and Yeh, E.Y., 2005. Globalization and hybridization in cultural products: the
cases of Mulan and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. International journal of cultural
studies, 8 (2), 175–193.
Wasser, F., 1995. Is Hollywood America? The trans-nationalization of the American film
industry. Critical studies in mass communication, 12 (4), 423–437.
Whaley, F., 2012. Philippine films breaking down barriers. International herald tribune, 9
May, p. 14.
Wyatt, E., Cieply, M., and Barnes, B., 2012. U.S. scrutinizes Hollywood deals in China.
International herald tribune, 26 April, p. 15.
York, A.E., 2010. From chick flicks to millennial blockbusters: spinning female-drive narra-
tives into franchises. The journal of popular culture, 43 (1), 3–25.