Question 6

Should we be concerned about Hollywood's dominance of cinemaaround the world?

Hollywood dominance and the decline of the British film industry hasraised alarms among many.. It is true that mainstream Hollywoodfilms can be found on the screens of most British cinemas, limiting theextent to which British films are viewed. However some may debatethat this is nothing to be concerned about as a Hollywood providedfilm does not mean that a film cannot be enjoyable or even of goodquality. Furthermore it is debatable if Hollywood dominance issomething .to be concerned about as it doesn't stop the British filmindustry from producing films that are successful both in the US andthe UK.

The number of screens that are occupied at a cinema during therelease of the Harry Potter franchise may anger many cinema goers.Firstly because it is an American produced (by AoL Time Warner)taking up screens which could have shown British films. Secondlybecause this is a film which many feel should have been produced bythe British film industry, because it is set in England, has an Englishcast and the book is by an English author. The problem is there issimply no British studio in existence which could have produced thisfilm on such a large budget, or have marketed and distributed in onsuch a large scale. This would suggest that yes, Hollywood'sdominance over indigenous film production is definitely something tobe concerned about.

Additionally it has been argued that Hollywood dominance over Britishcinema has contributed greatly to the "Americanisation" of Britishculture. Hollywood dominance begs the question, shouldn't the Britishbe shown films that are relevant to them and not about a consumeristculture that is said to be so different from their own.

On the other hand, it may also be argued that there is not such agreat need to be concerned about Hollywood dominance as aHollywood mainstream film does not necessarily equate to a "bad"film. Hollywood can be said to be responsible for some of the greatestfilms of their time, such as The Godfather or Gone with the Wind.Hollywood films can be said to be thought provoking, and criticallyacclaimed. For example, Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby does notfollow the same high concept formula but addresses sensitive issuessuch as euthanasia. Furthermore Fox Searchlight has recently taken

independent productions and turned them into highly successful films,namely last year's Garden State and Napoleon Dynamite which wonover independent audience both in the UK and the US.

Once more it may be argued that British audiences prefer Hollywoodfilms to British films, which tend to be British social realism. WhilstGary Oldman's Nil by Mouth may be a far superior film to any of theLord of the Rings franchise, audiences may feel more comfortable withthe escapist violence of the Battle of Helm's deep than the extremedomestic violence of Nil by Mouth. This begs the question of whether itis more important for films to entertain or intellectually challenge.Hollywood films that do not do both may cause concern forHollywood's dominance over indigenous film industries. British filmswhich both entertain and are thought provoking have gone on to beextremely successful in the UK and America, such as East is East.Furthermore the recent overseas success of Danny Boyle's 28 Dayslater would suggest that there is no need to be concerned aboutHollywood dominance, as the British film industry continually proves tobe original and produces films with ingenuity.

In conclusion it would seem that there are may conflicting argumentsthat address the concern we should have over Hollywood's dominanceover British and other indigenous film production. Whilst the Britishpopulation may enjoy some mainstream, high concept films it is clearthat they limit the extent that British films can be exposed to thepublic. It would appear yes, one should indeed be somewhatconcerned about Hollywood dominance as it limits cultural diversity inthe films we are able to view and an individual should be offered thechoice of indigenous film.

'.."