Foreign America: One World

If you have ever tried to see a foreign film in an American theater, you may already know how difficult that can be. Though American films are generally widely known throughout the rest of the world, the films that make it here are much more selective and hard to attain, making the foreign film industry in America somewhat subversive. Though there are some films that become very popular here, most are hidden gems or go unviewed due to distribution problems, or even just due to general interest level. The fact that foreign films are in fact, foreign, already sets a division line between them and the American public. What it comes down to is that most people are not interested in ‘reading’ their movies. Since America is not nearly as multi-lingual as other countries, ‘reading’ our movies is what we usually have to do. However, there are other factors involved in this matter, which need exploring.

With so much working against foreign films in America, there is a need for a champion of the genre. James Selvidge is one interesting character that has worked to help change the reception of foreign films for most of his life. One of the issues he fought most was censorship, in his article A Triumph of Art over Censorship, he mentions on the subject of censorship in his home, Seattle,

“…They created the Seattle Board of Theater Supervisors in 1954, whose job was to view every porno film ("loop"), codify it, and pronounce it as “not obscene.” As a result, no prosecutions in Seattle or per other metropolitan cities they supplied for two decades. Probably coincidence, the board chairman and most members were Catholic, so they were determined that no conventional theaters should be allowed to play foreign films rated “R” by the Legion of Decency. This translated to most films, as to the legion; “Heresy” was on the same level as “sex” (a bare breast in a Swedish or French comedy). They became known, nationally, as the most insidious censor board in America.”

Selvidge is one man who is a hero to foreign film, using his own theaters to help combat American prejudice against these films. One of the great things about him is that he never compromised on his choice to show them in his own theaters, and fought for his right to show what he wanted.

One of the main issues that prevent foreign films from being seen is censorship. This can come in many forms. There is the censorship imposed on a film when it enters the country so that it meets our ratings standards, and there is the censorship that is garnered from the individual theaters that won’t play certain foreign films. This is sometimes a result of a community’s culture, but can also be traced back in history to a time of suspicion. McCarthyism was often used to censor our own artists, so foreign arts were probably censored even more so. James Selvidge, a man who has fought for foreign films in America for most of his life, wrote in his article A Triumph of Art over Censorship,

“Followers of Joe McCarthy and the John Birch Society had a common mantra: All foreign films were part of the Communist conspiracy.”

This fear of communism that spread over America was detrimental to the life of any film played here. Often referred to as a ‘witch hunt’, McCarthyism was the cause of many artists to be black listed, and unable to find work. During this era foreign films were even harder to come by, as anything foreign was untrustworthy, and America was in a constant state of xenophobia. This climate of fear had long lasting effects that shaped the way we see foreign films today. Through all this and even after, James Selvidge always fought for his right to play foreign films in his theaters, and played an integral role in the ‘freeing’ of theaters today. He recounts one such incidence that helped him accomplish this, saying,

“When they condemned Bergman’s “The Silence,” I brought suit against the City of Seattle, the Seattle City Council, and the theater board challenging the constitutionality of the network of ordinances that structured the porn business and created the theater board. We won the case the city appealed. The Supreme Court upheld in our favor 9-0. Bill was immediately on retainer to the movie industry’s MPAA, and the studios created a “war chest” to finance my taking the censorship fight to other jurisdictions. By 1970, America’s movie screens were “free.”’

One of the reasons foreign films get censored here is because they tend to deal with more risqué topics, or show sex more expressively than we do here. This country was founded by puritans after all.

Another problem that stems in part from the censorship issue is the distribution of foreign films. Distribution can be hard for any film made outside of the Hollywood circuit, but foreign films have many other things working against them as well. Filmmakers may not want to compromise on censorship issues, and thereby not allow their films to reach American theatres. There is a much wider market for foreign films on DVD or online, through websites like Netflix, which open up another field for distribution. In the article Coming to America, by Timothy Corrigan, he states,

“While video and DVD sales long ago surpassed theatrical ticket sales, what often gets overlooked in this shift is how the video and DVD market allowed a more targetable and more open market for the distribution of foreign films. If most foreign films are rarely seen theatrically (except in the very limited art-house circuit), the expansion of home video through the expansion of DVD technology makes more and more foreign films available to all audiences and, perhaps more significantly, allows distributors to target DVDs to local communities with particular interests in, for instance, Asian, European, or African cinema.”

Theater distribution remains strained, with only so many rooms for showing, most commercial theaters will opt out of a foreign film, believing it will not sell well. The most common place to find foreign films in theater is through smaller ‘art house’ theaters that keep more of an open mind and cater to a more specific clientele. Distribution can also be difficult because of this belief that Americans are not interested in foreign film. This is another belief stemming from the one that Americans don’t want to read their movies. However, many people love foreign films and have no trouble reading subtitles, and there is always the option of using English dubbed films. Distributors look at numbers though, and the numbers are low because people can’t easily find foreign films, which is because they aren’t being properly distributed, and it goes round in circles like that. There is more than enough room for both American and foreign made films in our theaters. Another genre that is locked into smaller venues is the indie film, which has been gaining in popularity in recent years, and is sometimes linked in type to foreign films. With the expansion of indie films in our culture, they are helping to stretch the lengths that foreign films can reach as well. The independent film is often lumped with foreign films in the type of theatre that they might be shown in, but the Hollywood machine affects both. Hollywood offers a very different type of film, and it changes the way other types of films get distribution. Hollywood essentially controls much of the way films are distributed and received in society, and when a film falls outside that realm, it becomes more difficult for it to reach the same level.

The distribution of foreign films, or lack thereof, stems in part from the film’s promotional value. Films with little or no promotion will not be picked up by distributors, and will not reach much distribution level at all. This issue happens with many American made films as well, but probably due to different reasons. Unless a foreign film reaches a high level of recognition before coming to America, there may not be much left in the budget to advertise here, as our advertisement industry is much larger than most other countries and is generally more expensive besides that. Many other countries also get support from governmental programs, but in America you are expected to make it on your own, and they lose that support here. One of the best forms of film promotion is word of mouth, but when the country is unable to see a film, there is no way to spread the word, which is why a film would need that high level of recognition before coming here, so that foreign media will pick up on it, and America will pick up on that media and become curious, thus giving the film a better chance here. Another thing that affects a film’s promotional value circles back to censorship, and the ‘un-marketability’ of certain films, unless they become censored to fit American standards. The promotion of these types of films can be effected by how risqué they go, but other films may not get promotion based on subversive natures, or due to the distribution company they have aligned with. Seeking to find money in the foreign film markets, some American studios have created sub-companies to promote and distribute certain foreign films, thus laying claim to them before even entering the country. This is good in that it ensures that a film will be distributed, but a large part of the profits go back in to American production, rather than helping to stimulate the foreign filmmakers. Of course, this practice is very old and can be traced back to the Parufamet Agreement of 1926 between America and Germany. The Parufamet Agreement ensured distribution of both film markets between the countries, though it proved to be far more favorable for the Americans. While German films were played here in exchange, many more American films were played there, and German talent was sent to Hollywood to work on American films as well. This practice was eventually dissolved, but the effects are lasting.

Foreign films do not get much recognition not only in our theaters, but awards ceremonies like the Academy Awards display a lack of respect for the genre. Though in more recent years foreign films have grown and become more accepted, there is still less room for them to shine. Timothy Corrigan can cite an example of this growth in the article Coming to America:

“Perhaps the most interesting feature of the 79th Annual Academy Awards, held in February 2007, has been the multiple nominations of three Mexican films: Alejandro González Iñárritu's Babel, Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men, and Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth. The fact that only the last of these was nominated in the best foreign film category and that several other foreign films appeared in mainstream categories—such as the nominations for best actress of Helen Mirren in the British production The Queen and Penélope Cruz in the Spanish film Volver—suggest a decidedly global range to what Hollywood has chosen to honor. Also suggestive of this foreign migration into Hollywood's 2007 Oscar ceremony is that American icon Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima, nominated for best picture and best director this year, is primarily a Japanese-language film.”

However, it is to be noted that the category withheld for foreign films is titled Best Foreign Language Film. This means that one of the requirements for this category is that the language is foreign to our country, not necessarily that it is made on foreign ground. In the case of Clint Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima, it was considered an American film, even though, as is stated above, it is mainly in a ‘foreign’ language. The Academy applies many other rules to the category, such as, if a film is made in another country but is English language, it cannot qualify, and until 2006 the primary language spoken must have been native to the country the film was made in. The award itself was instituted in 1956, which, according to Corrigan, was a time when foreign films were first starting to take hold in America. He states in his article Coming to America,

“As America's cultural expansion grew after World War II, the Paramount Decrees of 1948 laid a foundation that would gradually but profoundly alter the direction of American movie culture and lead to the international film scene today. These decrees effectively broke up the monopolistic hold of the major Hollywood studios on the American marketplace. As a result, through the 1950s and early 1960s, both independent U.S. productions and, eventually, foreign films started to make their way into U.S. theaters.”

The Golden Globes, however, have different standards than the Academy Awards, and allow any film in another language to be eligible to win Best Foreign Language Film. The differences in the two awards ceremonies show the level of exclusivity they display. Though the Academies have stricter guidelines, it seeks to support more authentic foreign films, whereas the Golden Globes support any film in another language. While this is also important, it does not help spread films made by other cultures and expose Americans to other civilizations, in addition to opening up competition between American made foreign language films, and films made in foreign countries. Both examples show only one category set aside for foreign films, thus making them ineligible for winning overall best picture, essentially segregating them from the whole competition. If a film is truly good, foreign made or not, it should be eligible for best picture. Though some films, like Slum Dog Millionaire could be categorized as foreign, (British director, set in India etc.) the primary spoken language is English, thus making it ineligible for the category. Though they may be nominated for other categories like Best Sound etc, foreign films are still considered separately, proving that they are not truly equal in the eyes of The Academy and so on.

One of the other factors that affect the foreign film in America is the MPEA, or Motion Picture Export Association. According to one article titled American Film Boycotts,

“The US film industry, represented by the Motion Picture Export Association (MPEA) has used the threat and actual imposition of boycotts in an attempt to force other countries to accept trading conditions for its films that are favourable (or at least not unfavourable) to Hollywood interests.”

One such boycott that was implemented was on Denmark, from 1955 to 1958. According to the same source,

“The MPEA decided that rental payments for US films were too low. Danish distributors refused to pay more. The number of American films released dropped dramatically (236 submitted for censorship in 1954, 189 in 1955, 116 in 1956, 55 in 1957) and films from leading European film-making nations—especially British, French and Italian—gained.
 Some Danish exhibitors agreed to increased fees, and shipments resumed. But the three-year hiatus had the apparently lasting effect of helping Danish films, which increased in number and maintained market share for years to come. Although admissions to Danish cinemas fell slowly during the period of the boycott, the rate of decline accelerated significantly after the flow of American films resumed and ownership of television sets spread.”

There have been many other American boycotts against other countries for similar reasons including Italy, France, Germany, Spain and the U.K. The effects of these boycotts have certainly made a lasting impression on the way foreign films are received in America. They have stunted the growth of this market in our country, while in some cases stimulating the growth of film in other countries, as is the case with Denmark. Another company partially responsible for lack of growth here is the Motion Picture Patents Company. From 1908 to 1912, this company attempted to control all aspects of film in America. Sometimes called the Movie Trust, they owned most types of film patents, especially those from Thomas Edison, and they controlled the use of equipment etc, and held a monopoly on the industry. With the control over film in America, they would also control and shape the way foreign film was received. One of the effects of the Movie Trust was the inadvertent creation of Hollywood, as filmmakers moved west from the New York film scene to escape the tyranny of the Movie Trust. Once Hollywood gained control, it would forever change the way films are thought of and seen in America, which in turn effects the foreign film in America as well.

Foreign films in America have a very unique and at times troubling history. Censorship, distribution, promotion, and other regulating influences have had both positive and negative effects on the industry. With people like James Selvidge, who are willing to sacrifice for the art, the foreign film has been gaining in popularity. Even dating back to Nanook of the North, though American made, we have always been interested in other cultures and experiencing new things. The foreign film provides this as well as a chance to support film not only in our own country, but all around the world. Film can unite us all under one aegis, our humanity. We can share the same experiences and emotions even though land and oceans may separate us.

Works Cited

"Academy Awards Rules and Regulations." Oscars.Org. 2009. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Web. 10 Dec 2009. .

Corrigan, Timothy. "Coming to America." America.Gov. 10 JUN 2008. America.Gov, Web. 10 Dec 2009. .

Fisher, David. "American Film Boycotts." Reference: Media Laws. 06 Jun 2009. Terra Media, Web. 10 Dec 2009. .

"Foreign Films and Foreign Markets." Encyclopedia. 2009. Online Encyclopedia, Web. 10 Dec 2009. .

"Motion Picture Patents Company." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 11 Dec. 2009 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394184/Motion-Picture-Patents-Company>.

"Parufamet." Economy-point.org. 23 JUN 2006. Web. 10 Dec 2009. .

Selvidge, James. "A Triumph of Art over Censorship." Foreign Film in America. Nov 2008. Truline Legacy Inc., Web. 10 Dec 2009. .