One important and distinct
attribute to Globalisation is the ‘Hollywoodisation’ of the foreign film and the
entertainment industry. This blog post will focus on the ‘Hollywoodisation’ of
foreign films drawing on examples such as the 1998 Japanese Horror film Ringu which was remade into a Hollywood
hit The Ring in 2002 with a sequel The Ring Two in 2005 (which in itself is
a trait true to Hollywood films), the ‘Hollywoodisation’ of the film Infernal Affairs a 2002 Hong Kong
gangster film which was remade in the 2006 film The Departed and the ‘Hollywoodisation’ of the 2004 Danish film Brodre which was remade into the 2009
film Brother. These examples will
draw on the idea that ‘Hollywoodisation’ causes homogonisation of world cinema
by presenting a dominant American ideology. Rampal (2006, p. 34) states “the
globalization of media imagery is surely the most effective means ever for
cloning cultures to make them compatible with the Western corporate vision.” The
blog will then draw on the history of ‘Hollywoodisation’ and its rise in the
1990s due to economic exploration in the foreign film market. The blog will also
draw on the use of Hollywood techniques such as cinematic techniques; the
celebrity, production and advertising techniques that Hollywood films use that
make them unique.
According to the Oxford dictionary (2013,
online) ‘Hollywoodise’ is defined as “adapt (a story or series of events) so as
to conform to the supposed norms of a typical Hollywood film, especially in
respect of being unrealistically glamorous, exciting, or simplistic.” This
definition of ‘Hollywoodisation’ is further commented on by Shriver-Rice (2011,
p. 9) who states ‘Hollywoodisation’ “includes the use of English dialogue,
regardless of whether or not the film is set in a English-speaking country, an
international cast and a tendency for a plotline that follows Hollywood style
editing, genre models and American dramaturgy.”
When I first saw The Ring, apart
from being scared and not being able to sleep that night I had no idea that it
was a remake of a Japanese film. This is a perfect example of a non-Western
film that has been ‘Hollywoodised’. Rampal (2006, p. 40) comments the Hollywood
remake of Ringu as The Ring was produced by Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks studio, directed by American
Gore Verbinki and starring Naomi Watts. Aside from the plot everything about
the film had been Hollywoodised. This is a perfect example of Hollywoodisation.
A film of Asian heritage that is completely remade and modeled to fit the
Hollywood market. The film was further ‘Hollywoodised’ when it was made into a
sequel, another feature of the American film industry. The Ring is a great film and if you’re like me you’ll spend half
the time not looking at the screen but it really represents how ‘Hollywoodisation’
occurs in relation to Hollywood producing a dominate global western influenced
culture.
Trailer for Hollywood version of The Ring
Trailer for original Japanese film Ringu.
The 2006 film The Departed is another example of a
foreign film being ‘Hollywoodised’. The
Departed is a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs. Just like The
Ring when I first watched this movie I had no idea it was a remake of Asian
cinema. The key aspects of the film that have been Hollywoodised aside from the
most obvious being the change of location, English language and Hollywood
actors as well as Hollywood cinematic techniques with the combination of
production and advertising methods is the construction of hyper-masculinities
in The Departed that were absent in Infernal Affairs. Feng (2008, p. 4)
states a close look at both movies identifies some exaggerated American
ideologies embedded in The Departed such
as the use of coarse words, the objectification of women and the excess of gun
fights. Feng (2008, p. 4) further comments “The ideology of hierarchal
masculinities in The Departed is
persistent to the Hollywood representation of hyper-masculinities, which
confirms the Hollywood ideology and undermines the Asian culture in the
original screenplay.” This example represents how Hollywood has the power to
push its dominant ideology on world cinema. With the original Infernal Affairs not being that well
known to the western world its Hollywoodised version being The Departed can shape the audiences of the world to the dominate
western ideology that it presents in its plot and narrative. Verevis (2005, p.
3) states in Feng (2008, p. 3) Hollywood remakes demonstrate the cultural
imperialism and terroristic marketing practices that are designed to block the
original content in the US market. These characteristics of Hollywoodisation
are a win on two sides as for western audiences The Departed presents a story that is known to them and that is
comfortable for them to understand; while it presents to Asian and European
audiences an experience that is different to their own cinema which draws in an
international market and money. Feng (2008, p. 3) states “Hollywood repackages
the dominate ideology with a multicultural decoration, with the purpose of a
global distribution and international profits.” What makes the departed further
Hollywoodised is the character choice and lack of women. Feng (2008, p. 3)
states “twelve actors appear in The Departed
while only one actress is featured.” The
Departed is a really good movie but is a prime example of
‘Hollywoodisation’ of Asian cinema that pushes its western cultural ideology.
A mashup montage of The Departed vs Infernal Affairs.
The 2004 Danish film Brodre is another example of
Hollywoodisation that was Hollywoodised in the 2009 film Brother. This example is a lot like the previous with the
similarity between the story lines like in Infernal
Affairs and The Departed is the
same with Brodre and Brother. Although the Hollywood version
follows the same storyline of the original the messages in relation to war
themes presented in the film run parallel to the dominant Hollywood ideology.
The idea that the US soldier is the hero, the Afghanistan army is the enemy.
There is the clarification of good and bad which is a trait of Hollywood
cinema. Shriver-Rice (2011, p.17) states “Conceptions of good (America) versus
bad (the insurgents in Afghanistan) are delineated to a greater extent by
Hollywood for an American audience.” Brother is further Hollywoodised by the
adaptation of traditional media culture that is relatable to the western
viewer. Shriver-Rice (2011, p.18)
comments “Hollywood’s remake becomes almost cloyingly ‘American’ with
cheerleaders marrying high-school football stars, sons following the footsteps
of father’s military careers, and small-town communities that are in support of
an individual’s decision to heroically make the military their profession.”
This is the main area where the two movies differ. The Hollywood version
glorifies the action of war while the Danish goes into a bigger concept then
war itself such as what happens to the relationships after the war between the
soldier and his family after a traumatic experience. This ties in with
Hollywood pushing its ideology that the US is the good and the Middle East in
this context presented in the film is bad. Brother
just like its other Hollywood counter parts such as The Ring and The Departed
are produced, developed and advertised in a way that is crucial to the
Hollywood process.
Trailer for original Danish film Brodre.
Hollywood trailer of Brother.
The Hollywoodisation of foreign
films started to take off from the early 1990s when Hollywood film companies
need to fill a financial void when the international market of films started to
slow. The Hollywoodisation of foreign films is for one thing and one thing only
this being profit. Kitamura (2004, p. 237) states due to a massive domestic
market and demand for popular entertainment, US movie companies churned out
hundreds of feature films during the 1910s and transformed integrated
enterprises. Hollywoodisation occurred due to a rise in the 1990s for viewers
around the world to indulge in local cinema rather then international and
especially American or Hollywood. Hollywood’s response to this happened in two
parts. The first Dawtrey (1995) states in Klein (2004, p. 371) “Hollywood since
the mid – 1990s has moved into the distribution of local films, both within
their own domestic markets and internationally.” The second Klein (2004, p.
372) comments “Hollywood’s second response to the resurgence of local film
industries has been to go into business of making local – ‘foreign’ – movies.” An
example of local foreign entertainment is the TV station MTV. Now MTV has
spread it’s studios and distribution throughout the world and has adapted its
shows to the audience they are portraying to. We know have MTV Lebanon, MTV
Japan and MTV Germany to name a few. Klein (2004, p. 374) states Hollywood’s
move into local language production as a form of cultural imperialism, a
backdoor way to take control of local film industries and erode their qualities
by producing Hollywood movies with a local veneer. This is evident in the three
movie examples I have analysed above.
Hollywoodisation is the making of
foreign films American through adaptation by Hollywood as well as the
convergence of cinematic techniques, advertising, the English language and the
celebrity. The three examples that I have talked about these being The Ring, The Departed and Brother
are prime examples of films that have been Hollywoodised. Hollywoodisation can
also be understood as a cultural phenomenon where the American film industry is
homogenising world cinema by producing a constant western ideology in film.
People want to see films that are made by their own people but with Hollywood
being so great and globalized content is hard to pin down to where it came
from. I love Hollywood films but I think it is crucial to be aware and critical
that movies you consider to be one thing such as foreign or even local are
usually entwined with Hollywood techniques and cultural implications that
reflect dominate western ideology. I think this statement is so true in my own
reading of The Ring and The Departed, I had no idea that these
were remakes of Asian cinema. It is also evident that there is the counter flow
where foreign films are influencing Hollywood but next time you watch a new
summer blockbuster or a new film on DVD, Google it and I think you will be
surprised how Hollywoodised that film is.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reference List:
Academic References:
-Feng, J 2008, ‘Constructing
Hyper-Masculinities, Conquering Multiculturalism: A Narrative Criticism Of
Infernal Affairs And The Departed’, Conference
Papers-National Communication Association, p. 3, 4.
-Klein, C 2004, ‘Martial arts and
the globalization of US and Asian film industries’, Comparative American Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 371, 372.
-Kitamura, H 2004, ‘Hollywood and
the Wider World: A Review Essay’, American
Studies International, vol. 42, no. 2 & 3, P. 237.
-Rampal, KR 2006, ‘Asia: The
Hollywood Factor’, in L Artz & YR Kamalipour (ed.), The Media Globe: Trends in International Mass Media, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Plymouth, pp. 34, 40.
-Shriver-Rice, M 2011, ‘Adapting
National Identity: Ethical Borders Made Suspect in the Hollywood Version of
Susanne Bier’s Brothers’, Film
International, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 9, 17, 18.
Online and Multimedia Reference:
-Oxford University Press, 2013,
‘Definition of Hollywoodize in English’, 25/9/2013, <http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Hollywoodize>.
-The Ring [trailer] (2002), YouTube Clip, robotuku, 14 December,
25/9/2013, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuH5FaUpFm4>.
-Ringu movie trailer, YouTube
Clip, SatansLittleMistress, 1 August, 10/10/2013, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Z-MOqAvtY>.
-The Departed vs Infernal
Affairs, YouTube Clip, deaconjade, 21 September, 10/10/2013,< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVX3pHHrJ0w>.
-Brothers/Brodre Trailer, YouTube
Clip, Sheri F, 4 July, 10/10/2013, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5e2IM4QAMY>.
-“Brothers” – Official Trailer
[HQ HD], YouTube Clip,
watchCulturalentertainment, 18 July, 10/10/2013, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xYyCCjLpZs>.
