Page 24 - Cultural Studies A Practical Introduction

8 Policy and Industry

The first is the standard we use to determine quality. American fi lms are
popular worldwide because US filmmakers have mastered particular

forms of filmmaking that are based in predictable, easily recognized

conventions. Everyone around the world knows what to expect when
they go to an installment of Mission Impossible or Pirates of the
Caribbean . These forms are simple and uniform from one film to the

next; they resemble the forms that one finds in cultural stories from

around the world, stories of heroes and of combat or of love and
intrigue between rivals. They lack complexity and are insular in their
own way. They may not be nationally or culturally insular, but they
focus audience attention on a very limited set of concerns from life.
They do not explore beyond the boundaries of the generic forms. To
an extent, then, they promote a greater insularity of vision than French

films that deal with specifically French topics and that require, to be
understood, some knowledge of French culture. Such fi lms generally
seek to expand the perspective with which people view the world and
understand life.
The second consideration is the need to preserve cultural diversity
worldwide. European policies that protect domestic culture industries
foster diversity by protecting cultural forms that would die out if
they were obliged to compete on equal terms with far more fi nancially
powerful players such as the US film industry. Without such protections,

a few might survive who could imitate the US model of success by

making films with simple narratives, highly conventional characters,
and uncontroversial themes. But many others who favor complex narra-
tives, unconventional characters, and critical themes would not thrive,
and what would result would be a great deal of uniformity in global
culture.
Ultimately, the debate comes down to a question of value. Which do we
value more – an economic model that places the ideal of perfect freedom
for powerful players, who could dominate and monopolize all markets,
over all other considerations, be they aesthetic or cultural, or the ideal of
preserving different cultural traditions for that end alone without any
economic justifi cation being necessary. If indeed we succeeded in creating

a global monoculture in which only US films were seen because they were
the most successful at reaching a common global audience, would that

be a good thing? Would it be justified by the fact that money was being

efficiently made by American owners of the US film industry? As with so
many things, it is a matter of choice.