The Cultural Implications and Advantages of Co-Production - Term Paper Example

Student Name: Tutor: Title: Essay of Asian Study Course: The cultural implications and advantages of co-production Introduction Producers in East Asia culture have expediently enhanced co-productions in the last several years. The Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese industry cultures have resulted into cross-cultural outputs, comprising of television dramas, music and films. Local cultural producers as well as industries in East Asia have commenced pooling cultural and financial resources, which is an important means of competing with cultural products from other regions of the world, especially those from Hollywood, and have come up with few cross-cultural hits since the end of 1990s. The Asian Film industry is becoming one of the biggest film industries in the world besides India and the United States since 2001 (Shim, 2005, p.251). Movies produced locally approximately account for about 50% of the general ticket sales as well as usually dominate prior to the largest Hollywood blockbusters. This has compelled the Hollywood industry to shift focus to the Asian industry. Hollywood has been accused for having overwhelming bombarding the global audience with the American culture. Nevertheless, there has been evidence growing dominance to include actors from Hong Kong as well as scripts from South Korea entailing product facilities in New Zealand and China. The film industry in America gets its 50% of revenue from abroad and Asia appears to be its next stop (Goldsmith & O’Regan, 2008, p. 27). This is due to huge audiences present in India and China. Hollywood is using an approach which integrates as well as reflects diversity of the world’s audience. Cinema in Hong Kong has been the most successful Asian film industry with regard to global influence. It has been received well in the Asian regions despite making impact in the Hollywood filmmaking. The film industry in Hong Kong is the only industry that has competed with the success of Hollywood within China. Co-productions have been on the rise within the East Asia region and there are various cultural implications that are involved. Producers from various countries in the Asia region come together to co-produce a film or a television program for various reasons. Films and television projects that have been co-produced have been received well in the regional market and led to cutting down on costs of sales and production. Foreign actors have appealed to a large audience across the region as opposed to domestic actors. Cultural understanding has led to regional integration on political and economic fronts (Hammett-Jamart, 2004, p.49). This essay explores the cultural implications of co-productions as well as their disadvantages with a special reference to Seven Swords and Battle of wits which are co-productions in East Asia. Producers in East Asia have growingly resorted to international co-productions since the end of 1990s, owing to the fact that Pan-Asian co-production mode gains from joint consumption cost structure. It involves jointly producing after developing a film and television programs that have attributes that make them embraced by audience from more than one national market. Television networks as well as filmmakers together with independent producers are quickly are at a fast pace reaching beyond their national and local audiences to attract global and regional viewers. Co-production is a relatively new phenomenon in East Asia. Over the years cultural product flows have been enabled through flows of information through films and television productions from the same region like Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Nations in Latin America like Brazil and Mexico have successfully reduced the flow of television programs from developed countries in Europe and America for the purpose of securing their own programs produced locally. Indigenous television programs have been exported to neighboring countries within the same region (Goldsmith & O’Regan, 2008, p. 27). East Asia has gone through the same phase in recent past. Countries like Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan have expanded their cultural penetration in the same region. Broadcasters from Asia are increasing their operations in the regions hence popular culture within East Asia routinely goes beyond national boundaries despite international media firms increasing their operation within Asia. Collaborative international ventures are in the form of treaty co-productions as well as non-treaty co-ventures. Treaty co-productions are under the governance of agreements between the host countries of two or more partners and the agreements go ahead to define the minimum investment percentage for every partner. For the goal of meeting local content quotas, the outcome is regarded as a national production within each of the co-producing nations and eligible for any tax incentives. Non-treaty co-ventures do not have the same requirements as well as paperwork like the treaty co-productions although they have defined quota access benefits. American companies enter into global co-ventures for pooling resources or producing content that plays well in the global market place (Palacio & Türschmann, 2014, p.36). US companies in some cases take part as third-party in treaty co-productions for the purpose of accessing the markets as well as incentives of other players. International co-ventures and co-productions happen across a variety of genres and budgets, but particular productions are more suited for international partnerships. The balance in cultural and economic benefits in co-production relates proportionately to the questions of cultural protectionism that is majorly underrated by economic imperatives in developing television and film industries that are able to compete in the global market. These developments steer clear of the original conception of treaty co-production being a means of establishing geo-cultural industries for purposes of cultural production and to offset proliferation of United States production. The prevailing debate tends to be inclined towards a fiscal argument for achieving a competitive advantage within the international market. The issue of cultural protectionism goes beyond competition in the market, but remains relevant issue to democratic media as well as representation of various perspectives within television and film (Baltruschat, 2010, p.48). The transformation in priorities towards economic imperatives is as a result of market deregulation as well as its devastating impacts on public subsidies that have occasioned the commercialization of the public space and public good. Closely connected to these developments is the concept of normalizing commercial branding and sponsorship that are synonymous with major forms of cultural events and productions. In the neo-liberal paradigm, culture represents industry and hence becomes an entity founded on capitalist values and profit motives. Culture is an accessible form of practice for the documentation, celebration and reflection on human condition related to specific moments in time and tied to experiences in specific locales. Co-production provides a chance for collaboration of cross-cultural programming that closely engages the audience (Baltruschat, 2010, p.49). This form of production technology is an important tool that fosters international cooperation with regard to culturally diverse film as well as television production-a goal that can be attained due to stronger commitment as well as well as wider vision from cultural and media agents alike. More often than not producers are not able to raise funds needed for a world-class project in a domestic market. The chance of an international co-production provides an avenue for generating this kind of funding by getting financial assistance from a partner abroad. The financial pooling is advantageous to a product where majority of the costs is taken up by the first copy production. It is not common for companies to pool resources for the purposes of undertaking research and development in order to develop a new product. The significance of this benefit cannot appear to be connected to cultural distance. Co-production of films is done to enable access to foreign government’s subsidies and incentives. If a venture is structured so that it can be recognized as a domestic content within the local market of each partner, it is eligible to any government subsidies as well as tax incentives. Official co-productions agreements seem to facilitate this. Cultural impacts are not relevant here. Co-production enables access of the partner’s market (Harper & Smith, 2012, p.13). The foreign partner will possess better knowledge of the process of distribution within her domestic market and have better link to important players. The foreign partner will further have superior attributes that are demanded by viewers within her market and facilitate the program to have such attributes. Where there are quotas in action, a treaty co-production will make the project to be regarded as being a domestic product. Owing to the joint consumption nature of the production, a feature film or television program is not devalued in the process of consumption; therefore, cost is affected to a slight margin by the population of markets where the copies are supplied. Accessibility to the partner’s market increase revenue at a slight additional cost (Palacio & Türschmann, 2014, p.36). Co-production makes it possible for a company to get access to third-country market. Moreover, an international co-production is able to facilitate access to a desired and valuable foreign location that was needed to make the production a success. Such access is facilitated in a foreign project using a service agreement. Co-productions in films within East Asia region are growingly succeeding. Film co-productions in the East Asia region share a long history. Some producers within the Asia region had co-produced films prior to the 21st Century. In the event of rapid increase in co-productions between broadcasters, the population of co-productions is rapidly increasing. China, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong have invested in movies and share actors, locations, as well as contents like Musa: The Warriors, Korean-Chinese co-production that was shot in China. Seven Swords, a co-production movie among China, Korea and China in 2005, was made in three languages comprising of Mandarin, Korean and Cantonese. Besides, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and China co-produced a fusion movie entitled Battle of Wits in the year 2006 which was a co-investment worth $16 million (Shim, 2005, p.251). Four film producers in the countries shared out the costs of production evenly. The movie had a Hong Kong director with two co-stars coming from Korea and China; the origin script was developed in Japan. International film agencies and film festivals have become major avenues for co-productions. Film forums and festivals have also played a vital role in the co-production process of films. In 2006 the co-production market was anticipated to attract 500 film insiders, from financiers, producers, bankers, to buyers, distribution companies and film funding groups. There are various dimensions to the increase in co-productions within East Asia: diverse product sourcing, technological and economic exchanges, as well as the cultural proximity of East Asia are some of the issues (Yecies, 2007, p.29). As an illustration of this complexity, co-production make use of creative labour and production sites from each other, mitigate the financial cost burden, and enhance the appeal of the product within the regional market. Using co-production, local broadcasters and film companies can get funding as well as aid for distribution of their programs in various countries in the region, while at the same time learning more about advanced technologies of their colleagues in other countries. Producers from the East Asia region are able to come up with better programs as compared to previous time following cooperation and consulting among them. From time immemorial co-production tendencies in the cultural sector especially in filmmaking developed as a solution to the inability of securing huge budgets for films produced in small countries. The pooling of finances is undisputedly the greatest reason for the huge number of co-productions in many countries even in Eastern European countries (Shim, 2005, p.251). In many circumstances producers are not in a position to raise funds that are needed for a world-class production solely in the domestic market. Usually an international joint venture is able to amass the level of funding using the financial contribution of a foreign partner or foreign partners. The example of Battle of Wits that was produced by four countries, the most important reason for the co-production will remain to be commercial profits. The $16 Million production cost for the program is one of the largest in East Asia, hence film companies targeted to reduce the production risk through distributing the film within the East Asia region simultaneously (Morawetz et al, 2007, p.441). Co-production was needed since local producers were not in a position to come up with funds on the domestic market for production a world-class project that would compete favourably with others in the global market. As another kind of financial pooling to the local producers, foreign stars are able to attract huge audiences as well as financing from abroad. Enhancing the exchange of actresses and actors is a good way of appealing to regional audiences with regard to a financial perspective. Co-productions make companies be able to keep the costs of transactions as well as sales low. Co-production programs sell productions amongst themselves and hence do not need bidding processes and can possess smaller accounting and sales departments (Harper & Smith, 2012, p.13). Low costs of production within cheap places provide the right interest of relocating the production of TV programs and movies. This facilitates absorption of the costs involved in the introduction of new products where smaller firms perform poorly and hence they are able to compete effectively within the emerging global market. Moreover, co-productions allow market control in a way that a corporation that has its own production companies as well as movie theaters is guaranteed at the same time a means for supply through its outlets as well as broadcast/exhibition of the output that it produces. Various film firms as well as broadcasters are seeking for synergy effects using cultural convergence or collaboration (Hoskins, McFadyen & Finn, 1999). Accessibility to a partner’s market is possible since the foreign partner possesses better knowledge with regard to the process of distribution in his domestic market and furthermore, better links to vital players in the market. Pooling of finances is not the only big factor. There are also economic and political reasons. The recent growth in co-productions within the East Asia region can be conceptualized within the overall regional politics embedded in the Asian countries. Co-productions are the easiest means of solving program quotas issues in several countries. Terrestrial television networks are more often than not under government control and controlled by stringent restrictions with regard to television programming. Reflecting on the cultural and social impact of broadcasting services, numerous regulations have been developed with regard to the aspect of content. The main purpose of content regulations is relatively connected to culture as well as standards of programming (Goldsmith & O’Regan, 2008, p. 37). Regulation of content has been applied in supporting the advancement of national programs and placing limitations on the broadcast of foreign programs. Numerous countries globally place a quota requirement for domestic programs to be broadcasted. Nevertheless, changing of policies of each government administration in the sector of broadcasting to a mood that is more deregulatory has played a significant role in the spread of foreign programs within the East Asia region. Just like other parts of the world, Asian countries possess program quotas for the purposes of supporting the national broadcasting system as well as maintenance of cultural identity. Owing to the quota system it is not easy to penetrate the domestic market; on the other hand, co-production programs are regarded as domestic programs in many of these countries (Harper & Smith, 2012, p.13). Within Asia, Vietnam TV has to broadcast at least forty percent of its programs being domestic programs within its national broadcasting. The country, however, considers co-productions as being domestic programs. Producers in Vietnam use co-production to beat the quota regulations while concurrently grasping production technique as well as saving production costs by co-producing with other countries from Asia. Conclusion International co-production in television and film increasingly became a significant focal point for film and television industries in the later 1990s. Whereas the global market grew to become a strategic priority, domestic television and film production sectors experienced a phase of downsizing with regard to cutbacks to public service cultural and broadcasting agencies. Co-production proliferated at the beginning. In the course of 2003 this form of production technology slowly down and therefore, failed to offer a lasting solution for viable local industries. On the other hand, drastic decline in co-production from 2003 to 2008 illustrates the volatility of this form of production technology that interconnects cultural polies from various international jurisdictions and exposes producers to shifting cultural and fiscal priorities in the global market. It presents the absence of opportunities for producers who have diverse cultural backgrounds and are able to gain from co-production treaties that have not materialized. Co-production enhanced cultural integration and encourages political cohesion among countries from the same region. Diverse locations used to shoot international co-productions market individual countries cultural setting to the rest of the world. Domestic quota systems in program production have been easily circumnavigated through international co-production where in most countries co-productions are regarded as domestic programs hence enjoying tax incentives and other subsidies due to them. Technological and cultural exchanges happen during co-production hence languages and cultural aspects are transferred from one country to another. Work cited Baltruschat, D. 2010, Global Media Ecologies: Networked Production in Film and Television, Routledge, New York. Goldsmith, B. & O’Regan, T., 2008, International film production: Interests and motivations In Cross-Border Cultural Production: Economic Runaway or Globalization? ed. Janet Wasko and Mary Erickson, 13-44.: Cambria Press, Amherst, NY. Hammett-Jamart, J. 2004, Regulating Diversity: Cultural Diversity, National Film Policy and the International Coproduction of Films, Media International incorporating Culture and Policy, 111: 46-62. Harper, S., & Smith, J.T., 2012, British Film Culture in the 1970s: The Boundaries of Pleasure, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Hoskins, C., McFadyen, S. & Finn, A., 1999, International Joint Ventures in the Production of Australian Feature Films and Television Programs, Canadian Journal of Communication 24(1). Palacio, M., & Türschmann, J. 2014, Transnational Cinema in Europe, LIT Verlag Münster. Morawetz, N., Hardy, J., Haslam, C. & Randle, K., 2007, Finance, Policy and Industrial Dynamics – The Rise of Co-productions in the Film Industry, Industry and Innovation 14(4): 421–443. Shim, D.B., 2005, Globalization and Cinema Regionalization in East Asia, Korea Journal 45 (4): 251. Yecies, B., 2007, Parleying Culture against Trade: Hollywood’s Affairs with Korea’s Screen Quotas, Korea Observer 38 (1): 1-32. Read More