Business as Usual: The Worldwide Dominance of American Film

Although Europe took the first steps to bring cinema to the world (the Lumiere brothers had already traversed the globe with trained cameramen and projectionists by the end of the year 1896), it didn’t take long for American businessmen to join in the filmmaking frenzy (Nowell-Smith 53). Inventors and entrepreneurs such as Thomas Edison immediately saw the monetary benefits of producing films for the masses both in domestic nickelodeons and international cinema-houses (Nowell-Smith 24-5). Edison and fellow producers, such as the Biograph companies, created the Motion Picture Patents Company (also known as “The Trust”) in 1908 to “protect their interests,” effectively limiting the success of foreign imports (Nowell-Smith 25).

            In 1915, the Trust was shut down thanks to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Nowell-Smith 25, 27). Nevertheless, this temporary, if exclusive, protection of business interests within the American film industry provided a stable, domestically “cornered market,” per se, from which producers could safely expand in other parts of the world. What is interesting to study, however, is not only the swift, if sometimes dishonest, business takeover of American film producers and studios, but the general reception of American films abroad. Notably, the American film would not have penetrated Europe, for instance, so deeply or so quickly if the general European audience didn’t appreciate the U.S.-made products on-screen (even during World War I, when their own national cinemas weren’t producing a lot).

            Will Hays, the famous censor for Hollywood movies until 1945, asserted that American films did so well because of “their historical appeal to the polyglot immigrant communities of the large American cities” and that “American producers necessarily developed a style of filmic communication that was not dependent upon literacy or other specific cultural qualifications” (Nowell-Smith 61). In this instance, American films also translated well in other countries because of “fast-paced action” (a product of the transitional period American emphasis on editing) and an “optimistic, democratic outlook,” as well as “high production values” (Nowell-Smith 32, 61). Because of this, as well as the hard effects of world war on Europe’s industry, America could count on thirty-five percent of the film industry’s revenue coming from abroad by 1920 (Nowell-Smith 57).

            This is not to say that the United States did not have some kind of international competition following World War I. Britain made up the largest export market, after the U.S., in the late 1920s, and domestic films in Germany were shown more than imports by that time, as well (Nowell-Smith 58). Nevertheless, foreign exhibitors continued to prioritize American movie screenings. According to the Oxford History of World Cinema, these movies “arrived like clockwork and they made profits” (58). Undoubtedly, the biggest blow to America’s competitors was World War I; however, even neutral European countries like Denmark and Sweden, though they profited, could not thwart American dominance (Nowell-Smith 66).

            From the outset of World War I, then, an American film industry takeover in Europe was inevitable. The fact that U.S. films could cover production costs and make a profit domestically only gave them further advantage in the world market, when most countries depended on exports to do this (Nowell-Smith 55). Even in India, whose production companies numbered twenty-one, American films made up eighty percent of films exhibited in the 1920s (Nowell-Smith 59).  

These reasons, as well as some not mentioned here, all combined to make a powerful national cinema that not only affected the United States’, but also affected and continues to affect international cinema. The American film industry might have had some unfair advantages, but in order to understand the state of cinema in the world today, it is important to look at American cinema and even just a handful the various reasons for its dominance – even ninety years later – in world film production and exhibition.

 

Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey. The Oxford History of World Cinema. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. 24, 25, 27, 32, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 66.