Well, referencing my first post about international cinema, it should be no surprise that the world of film is definitely bucking the trend it once had of exclusive national markets. The barriers to entry have definitely fallen (for the most part) and Hollywood blockbusters now more than ever are having an impact on the international scale. What is so interesting about Iron Man 3 in particular is its release to the international market prior to it's domestic theatrical release, and the subsequent massive return of over 198 million dollars. That is plenty of return on investment for the studio, and not nearly over yet.
But more important than money, the success of this film definitely speaks to the global society that we are becoming. It is not uncommon for a superhero film so wholly engrained in the American identity like Iron Man and Captain America to do well overseas. International audiences do in fact like American films. Now some would argue that it's Hollywood's distribution deals and financial wrangling that allows them to capture such a market share, alongside massive protections in the domestic market; but at the same time, these blockbuster films are putting their money where their mouth is. People are going to see these films, and with that, some of these characters and movies become something that an international audience can identify with. At this point, when vastly different groups of people can identify with the same film, does it really get to carry the "Made in America" brand? And if so, then we have to look at the financing of the film. Which, if you did not know, it was reported in 2012 that a Chinese firm, DMG, selected Iron Man 3 to be one of twenty-five films chosen for release in the Chinese market. This seems to me much less like an American cultural icon than an international product.
That is the benefit and drawback to this type of film, because there are connotations that go with commercializing a film and distributing it in this way. First, it does degrade the general perspective of film as expression vs entertainment. Don't get me wrong, they can be one in the same and there is a certain spectrum, but the approach of selling a film as a product of strict entertainment does mean that it must appeal to vast audience, especially internationally, and that takes away from the expression of the filmmaker and makes it more of an appeal to the consumer. Argue what you will about film as expression vs entertainment, but in this case Iron Man 3 is the result of mass appeal. Secondly, in relation to mass appeal, the larger the spread, the weaker the content. You can't please everyone. When you expand your market from the United States to the U.K. or France, the leap is much smaller than when you try to appeal to the Chinese, U.S., U.K., and France. Cultures vary and perspectives on cinema still exist within these cultural contexts that will prevent the communication of certain nuances and ideas from being clear. Ultimately this could result in a diluted product. But if the goal is consumption, then it does still become a success if it is able to penetrate the market.
So in that respect, Iron Man 3 is certainly successful and will be successful. But to look at it through an American lens is myopic, when there are so many international factors at play. I believe there will be many more world-films to follow Iron Man 3, and they certainly will have equivalent if not stronger impacts on the film industry as well as the global community. Yet at the same time it should call attention to where the industry is headed. The potential for a world market is lucrative, but it may be at the sacrifice of a quality and respect that many films have garnered in the past.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/iron-man-3-opens-massive-448006#comments
No comments:
Post a Comment