The MPAA has just released figures for the Top 20 film markets worldwide in 2013. The Hollywood majors are most interested in the financial return so they list markets by value:
2013 Box Office (US $ billions)
1. US & Canada 10.9
2. China 3.6
3. Japan 2.4
4. UK 1.7
5. France 1.6
6. India 1.5
7. South Korea 1.4
7. Russia 1.4
9. Germany 1.3
10. Australia 1.1
11. Brazil 0.9
11. Mexico 0.9
13. Italy 0.8
14. Spain 0.7
15. Argentina 0.4
16. Netherlands 0.3
16. Turkey 0.3
16. Taiwan 0.3
19. Sweden 0.2
19. Switzerland 0.2
19. Malaysia 0.2
The total box office worldwide was $39.5 billion.
The major caveat that needs to be noted is that these are mainly the figures collected by rental tracking agencies which are part of the Hollywood-dominated international film industry. Where such agencies don’t operate (large parts of Africa, Middle East and Asia) it is difficult to gather data on box office. Some estimates suggest that the true figure for India would be more like $3 billion. The chart does not rank film territories according to admissions. Although most ticket prices in the territories above are roughly similar at US$6-9, prices in India are lower and in Japan much higher.
It would seem that the majority of BAFTA members are lacking in any sense of irony: they awarded the Outstanding British Film Award to Gravity. Technically they are correct, and apparently about 90% of what we see and hear [much of it debris] was Made in Britain. However one wonders what criteria they were following: two Hollywood stars and the logo of Warner Brothers. I thought the latter resided under the famed Hollywood sign rather than overlooking one of the plinths in Trafalgar Square?
One wonders how many of the members actually watched all of the nominees in this category. Not that this mattered that much: they included Philomena, The Selfish Giant and then the South African Mandela biopic, Rush and Saving Mr Banks. The last two were celebrating Formula 1 and Walt Disney. I assumed that given Best Picture frequently goes to a Hollywood movie that the function of Outstanding British Picture was to celebrate home-made films. I rather think we are in danger of losing the plot.
Gravity also won the award for Best Cinematography. This would seem slightly more appropriate. If like me you listened to Radio 4 on Friday morning, you would have heard one of the skilled technicians explaining about the Computer Generated Images in the film. Monday’s Radio 4 had a critic justifying the awards, including that for Gravity. ‘Me thinks they protest too much’.
To balance the above the officially listed US film 12 Years a Slave won Best Film and Best Actor – the director and lead actor having crossed the Atlantic to present a film about slavery in the USA. This is a film that also has no visible presence from these shores: but the invisible presence includes the British ships that transported the majority of Africans across the same Atlantic Ocean.
For the past couple of years I’ve been trying to distil some of the best ideas and analysis on The Case for Global Film into a form that I hope will be accessible and useful for students and teachers. The project has now reached fruition in the form of The Global Film Book published in January by Routledge in the UK and US. I’m very grateful to Routledge for their support in publishing a full colour textbook with a range of illustrations and I think it looks very good.
I have also committed to writing a support blog for the book and that too is now live at globalfilmstudies.com At the moment, nearly all the posts on the new blog are taken from the archives of The Case for Global Film, but they are organised in relation to the structure of the book and, over time, new material will appear as exclusive to the new blog (but I will also continue to contribute to this one).
The new book offers an argument about the global production of films (and includes a chapter on ‘global television’) and analyses the ways in which the international trade in film exports operates. It can’t cover every film-producing territory so I have selected certain film industries and film cultures in order to explore specific aspects of my general argument. After a brief outline of the development of the international trade in films since the early 20th century, the book offers an analysis of the influence of the ‘Hollywood model’ and then considers ideas about European ‘national cinemas’ in the UK, France, Spain and the Nordic countries.
I’ve included a chapter on the festival circuit, new waves and auteur cinema (with a case study on Claire Denis). Cuba and Sub-Saharan Africa feature in discussion of what was once known as Third Cinema, ‘Middle East Without Borders’ surveys a region whose cinematic identity often seems to be defined by those outside the region and which is sometimes characterised by the influence of diasporic and ‘exilic’ filmmaking. Japan and South Korea are the focus for a debate about the challenge to the idea of Hollywood as the ‘only’ classical cinema and Indian and Chinese cinemas get separate chapters in recognition of their importance for the future.
One chapter looks at four case studies of filmmaking from around the world and attempts to help students become engaged. I’m going to draw on this material in a free event to be hosted by the National Media Museum in Bradford on Saturday 15 March which will launch the book officially. Film and media teachers and students of all ages (including evening class students) are welcome to attend. Please check out the details here. After this event I will also be giving an illustrated talk to introduce the screening of the new Claire Denis film Bastards (France-Germany 2013).
If you can’t make the launch, the book is available from all good bookshops and the usual online stores – it’s also available as a Kindle book and an e-book from Taylor & Francis (Routledge’s parent company). You can get full details and ‘look inside’ on the Routledge website.
The Global Film Book follows on from The Media Student’s Book in not being tied to a specific syllabus or course. I hope it provides useful background and an introduction to study of films from around the world for any student from A Level to undergraduate and evening class – indeed anyone interested in global film.
In the last few years, January has become a desert as far as diversity in UK cinemas is concerned. The US/UK ‘awards films’ fill all the specialised cinema screens that would usually take a major foreign language film release. Distributors are discouraged from competition with Hollywood and mainstream independent distributors. So, currently, 12 Years a Slave (eOne), American Hustle (Columbia/Entertainment) and Gravity (Warner Bros) are still in cinemas alongside The Wolf of Wall Street (Universal). Dallas Buyers’ Club (Universal) and Her (Warner Bros/Entertainment) are to open soon. We did get The Missing Picture the Cambodian entry for Foreign Language film (in French) a couple of weeks ago but only in a very small number of cinemas and the Palestinian entry Omar has not yet been released in the UK.
I’ve complained about this before but it is getting worse and as Charles Gant reported in Sight and Sound (February), 2013 was the worst year for foreign language films at the UK box office since he started monitoring data in 2007. I genuinely fear that we are going to lose the audience for these films. The two most dynamic film industries in the world in terms of production and domestic success in 2013 are China and South Korea. When was the last time you saw a Chinese or Korean film at the cinema? I should point out that both exhibitors and distributors are part of the problem, but both are likely to rely on perceptions of what audiences want. Where do these perceptions come from? If younger audiences have never had the chance to see foreign language films how can they form a view about them?
It’s very important to support any foreign language films you can find on release. We do get regular South Asian films in our multiplexes but they remain ghettoised. Please, please go and see what is on offer. I’m hoping to catch a Pakistani film today and a Chinese film on Tuesday (a special screening at Cornerhouse by the indispensable Chinese Film Forum UK). I’m also looking forward to tonight’s last two episodes of The Bridge on BBC4. The popularity of foreign language drama on UK TV is one of the few pluses at the moment.
February should bring the new Claire Denis film Bastards and Lukas Moodysson’s We Are the Best – while the former is most likely to attract devotees, the latter sounds like a return to more accessible filmmaking. I’m sure both will feature on the blog and I hope they find their audiences in cinemas.
The ratio of the film frame is often overlooked. However, it has changed as cinema itself has experienced major changes. In the silent era the dominant frame was 1.33:1, a third longer on the horizontal than on the vertical. With sound the norm, the Academy ratio was established by Hollywood: 1.37:1, accommodating the soundtrack on one side of the celluloid strip. Widescreen bought more changes: New Academy ratio settled on 1.85:1, though European films as frequently utilised 1.66:1. And anamorphic films offered between 2.55:1 and 2.35:1. Larger screen formats like 70mm, Cinerama and IMAX had their own variations.
When film first appeared on television screens they had to fit into an old-fashioned frame, 4:3. The digital age has bought widescreen television, the norm being 16:9, which equates to 1.78:1. At various times television has cropped, stretched or panned and scanned films. And whilst 16:9 is closer to the modern widescreen ratio such practices continue, though with a less drastic impact.
I tended to think that serious filmmakers and serious exhibitors of film will respect older films, preserving their original presentation: complete as intended, black and white or colour as fits, mono or stereo sound as fits, and the correct aspect ratio. The model here would be the filmmaker Hans-Jűrgen Syberberg, who’s Parsifal opens with the prescription that it only be exhibited in the Academy ratio.
From this point of view 2013 was not a good year. Not just one but four [in my viewing] major and serious filmmakers had films released in which older archive material was cropped or squeezed into a 1.85:1 or even 2.35:1 ratio. There was Ken Loach’s The Spirit of ’45: where the archive material, carefully researched and selected, was almost uniformly cropped to fit a 1.85:1 frame. Andrzej Wajda’s Walesa: Man of Hope (Walesa. Czlowiek z nadziei) also included archive film, this time cropped to fit a frame of 2.35:1. Margarethe von Trotta’s Hannah Arendt included material shot for television of the trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann. Early in the film there was a cut from such material, cropped to fit a 2.35:1 frame to a dramatised re-enactment in colour and widescreen. This might be justified? But later on there was a cut from Arendt watching a TV monitor to a POV shot, in 2.35:1. And then there was John Akomfrah’s Stuart Hall Project. In this case both earlier film and television footage was cropped to fit the 2.35:1 frame.
I assume that the rationale in all these cases was the time when these films were to be screened on television. In fact, Akomfrah had already used cropping of archive material for his television documentary Martin Luther King and the March on Washington (shown on BBC 2 in 16:9). Much of earlier material in all of these films was noticeably handled at some point – or as above ‘mishandled’. The cropping often cut off heads or the top of the frame, and rendered titles within the frame partial. In the case of 2.35:1 framing, this accentuated the film grain in black and white material. And with some of the colour extracts there was noticeable pixilation.
2014 looks likely to continue this unfortunate practice. Mark Kermode, who I mark as a serious film critic, fronted a profile of Steve McQueen and his new film 12 Years a Slave in which extracts from earlier films like The Birth of a Nation (1915) and Gone With the Wind (1939) were cropped to fit the 16:9 frame. Ironically the extracts from contemporary features were screened in their correct ratio.
NB – Stuart Hall Project is now released on DVD. According to the Sight & Sound review this is in a ratio of 16:9. Why it has been cropped I do not know: but presumably the contrast between the new film and ‘found footage’ will be less stark.
With the flurry of postings last week, The Case for Global Film passed 1,000 individual postings. The 1,000th post was on Vicky Donor. Our stats tell us that we have a regular group of visitors that is steadily growing but that most of you visit us when you are looking for something specific on a film and on average you visit just under 2 separate postings on your visit. Perhaps you aren’t aware of the vast array of material (approaching 1 million words and thousands of images) that we hold?
The best way to get the most out of this blog is to have a quick look at the How to navigate this site page and discover how to search through the material.
We are moving forward onto the next 1,000 now, so watch this space! Suggestions for better ways of organising the material are always welcome.