Critical Analysis of International Co-Production in World Cinema - Essay Example

Critical Analysis of International Co-Production in World Cinema Introduction World cinema is commonly described as cinema that is produced in non-English speaking countries. However, Najib (2006, p. 35) argues against this binary and western-centric approach to global cinema. Sarkar (2010) also argues against the assumption of Hollywood as the natural and preeminent model of global cinema. In contrast, Najib defines world cinema as a global cinema that is not centered in Hollywood, the West or any other part of the globe. She further stresses that world cinema addresses distinct movements in cinema and makes geographical boundaries more flexible. World cinema addresses themes that are generally not explored or known to traditional western and Hollywood film makers. In this way, world cinema offers interesting perspectives on the issues of diverse communities across the globe. World cinema needs to be distinguished from terms such as second and third cinema which describe films produced on alternative or post-colonial themes (Fraunhar, 2005). World cinema does not profess such ambitions and strives for creating diversity and a distinct identity in global cinema. The popularity of world cinema has increased with the success of international world film festivals such as those hosted at Cannes, Berlin, Venice and other destinations. This popularity has led to international co-productions in world cinema where production teams from two or more countries collaborate on producing a film addressing issues that connect the different cultures. McFadyen, Hoskins & Finn (1998) have identified several important advantages and disadvantages of such international co-production. This paper analyzes these advantages and disadvantages in the light of critical research using specific examples of world cinema. Advantages of International Co-Production in World Cinema This section critically analyzes the advantages of international co-production in world cinema identified by McFadyen, Hoskins & Finn (1998). 1. Creating a Larger Financial Base One of the significant advantages of international co-production in world cinema is gaining access to a common financial resource for the countries involved in the co-production. When analyzed from a critical perspective, this is an important advantage and may even be beneficial to promoting the development and growth of world cinema. Often times, cinema from non-English speaking countries may be deprived of a global or international audience because of limited financial resources at the disposal of the film producers. This is also disadvantageous to the global film industry because it is deprived of unique alternative narratives and storytelling techniques. Therefore, international co-production makes financial resources accessible to production companies operating in smaller local film industries. This in turn enables them to create productions that present the cinematic culture of that region to a wider audience. Evidence of this is presented in research by Teo (2000) who explains how international co-productions between Hong Kong and other Southeast Asian countries provided the much needed financial resource base the Hong Kong industry needed to evolve as a mature industry. Johnson (2006) traces the evolution of Brazilian cinema from the comparatively independent Cinema Novo era to the contemporary period where independent film makers seek financial support through collaboration with American film distributors such as Columbia. However, it appears from the above argument that the pooling of financial resources can create an imbalance in the influence of the countries involved. For example, the production company contributing the larger share of the financial pool is also likely to have greater influence in determining the content and execution strategy of the cinematic product than the smaller company. Thus, the pooling of financial resources may not always result in a fair or realistic portrayal of the potential of world cinema. There is therefore a need to derive a formula that places all co-producing companies on an equal footing so that the cultural integrity of the content is not compromised and an authentic cinematic experience is created. 2. Benefiting from Financial Incentives of Foreign Governments International co-production in world cinema is advantageous in the sense that it provides a production company in one country access to financial incentives offered by the government in the other country. These financial incentives may be in the form of subsidies or tax concessions that the government offers to promote the development of the local cinema industry. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (2007), the smaller European countries pursue co-production with larger countries such as France and Germany so that the films are granted national status in the co-producing countries and benefit from the incentives offered by national governments. Dan Hull (2012) presents a comparison of the financial incentives offered by various countries to promote local film production. For instance, the United Kingdom offers 20% tax credit on local expenses for film expenditures below £20 million while France and Hungary offer a similar tax credit regardless of the expenditure. It is important, however, to note that the government offering the incentive will expect the content of the co-production to match the criteria laid down by it for qualifying for the financial incentives. One of these may relate to the content reflecting certain cultural norms and standards. If the content and other elements of the co-production match the criteria of the government, the co-production effort is likely to benefit from the savings made through the financial incentives. When analyzed from a critical perspective, while access to foreign government incentives can be beneficial to the co-production through its effect on overcoming logistical and resource-related issues, it can impose other challenges to the creative process. An important challenge is that the criteria for qualifying for the government incentives may be based upon a particular cultural policy or propaganda aims of the government in question. As a result, the producers on both sides may be required to adapt the content to comply with the government’s criteria. This could have a damaging effect on the cultural veracity of the images conveyed through the medium and thus limit the credibility of the final product by perpetuating an image that conforms to state or government policy rather than indigenous creative expression. 3. Increased Access to International Markets By entering into international co-productions, world cinema productions can gain access to wider national markets by virtue of the complementary knowledge of local markets possessed by the partner. Thus, if the production companies from two different countries enter into a co-production arrangement, the cinematic product would be distributed relatively easily in both the markets than if the film was to be produced exclusively in one country and simply distributed in the other as a foreign film. The partners in each country can be expected to possess deep knowledge and insight about distribution and viewership trends among audiences in their home country. They are thus likely to use this knowledge to secure the widest access for the film in the local market and thereby widen the exposure of world cinema in the two countries. On close examination, this appears to be a phenomenon with more relative benefits than disadvantages. Ease of market access is highly desirable for a world cinema product because of its uniqueness which might make access difficult through conventional distribution systems. Moreover, greater effort may be required to inform, educate as well as persuade the audiences about the film, especially if they are accustomed to view only locally produced films. Seen from this perspective, international coproduction may be regarded as particularly advantageous to world cinema by virtue of expanding the reach and access of world cinema into new markets. This would also strengthen the distribution networks of the two countries involved and facilitate diversity of cinematic culture in the countries. Unfortunately, as Yang (2014) explains, Chinese films have had to adhere to the mainstream Hollywood image of the submissive and feminine Chinese with respect to the heroic westerner in order to reach out to a global audience. Chow (1995) also explains that contemporary Chinese productions merely parody the stereotypes and assumptions of western audiences for market access. This shows that some cost must be paid to gain increased market access. International co-production with a particular country can open opportunities in other national markets as well. This may happen, for instance, where the partner country shares a number of cultural factors in common with other national markets. Not surprisingly, Hollinger (2008) explains that African and Latin American films released in Europe perform better if they are co-productions and benefit international distributors. The interest has shifted from the west to the east in line with globalization trends. Dudrah (2011) analyzes the increased interest among American producers to enter into international co-productions with India as the Hindi film industry Bollywood becomes an attractive market. Cooke (2007) also argues that the influence of other national and transnational cinemas has often been underestimated. In other instances, a film production company from China entering into an international co-production with a company in Germany will be able to promote the film not only in Germany but in other countries where the German language is spoken, such as Austria and Switzerland. The same may be said for international collaborations with English-speaking countries or Francophone countries of the world. International co-production with countries such as India or the Philippines, which have a large diaspora distributed across the world, can help a world cinema product gain access to audiences in diverse international markets. This does not, however, imply that the cultural similarities between the partner country and third countries would be reflected in similar political, legal and distribution systems. While the international co-production could generate interest and demand for the product in the third markets, the partners would need to devise separate strategies for marketing, promoting and distributing the film in each national market. When considered along with other advantages analyzed above, this advantage can be very helpful if the third markets are also able to offer incentives and similar distribution systems. In some cases, it can be expected that these third markets would be receiving cinematic products from the partner country in the normal course because of cultural similarities. In that case, it should not be difficult to leverage the distribution systems used by the partner country to distribute its own local content in those markets. 4. Access to Projects Reflecting Shared Themes The quality and authenticity of world cinema products can be augmented through international co-productions. In fact, one of the advantages of international co-production in world cinema is that it enables various countries to collaborate on projects that address themes shared among the national cultures. In this way, international co-production serves to integrate diverse yet relevant perspectives into the narrative of a world cinema product. The result is that the product becomes more enriched through stories, events and actors who present accurate and authentic portrayals of cultural differences and similarities. This is a very lucrative opportunity particularly as the peoples and cultures of the world becomes intertwined more closely with common events affecting communities in different parts of the world. Camporesi (2014), in a study on co-productions between Italy and Spain during the early 1940s, argues that these productions such as Sin Novedad en el Alcazar, enable the exploration as well as obfuscation of common history, especially the said film which explores the siege of Alcazar by Franquist forces during the Spanish Civil War. Examples of themes in world cinema that could benefit from this aspect of international co-production include the world wars which have affected people on all continents in one way or the other. More contemporary themes that are well-suited to international co-production may include global terrorism, climate change, global imperialism, post-communist themes, and so on. This aspect of world cinema is therefore one of the most relevant stimuli to international co-production. 5. Realization of Common Cultural Goals The countries or companies engaged in international co-production can contribute to world cinema by focusing on the cultural aspects of the project. At times, sufficient cultural overlap exists between two countries to allow them to select a subject or theme of common interest. Yet, the overlap is not complete so that the joint venture can also be expected to yield distinct perspectives for the audiences in the two countries. In this way, international co-production may facilitate cultural debate and introspection among the audiences. It is particularly important to note the potential to stir up discussion on controversial subjects such as historical conflicts or social differences between the two countries involved in the co-production. De Turegano (2004), for instance, explains that international co-productions between Spain and Latin American countries have created a unique cultural identity that balances the perspectives of local, national and regional audiences. At times, this results in simply transporting known stereotypes and conventions into an exotic environment, as in the Macedonia co-production titled Happy Together. Jameson (2010) argues that while this is unnatural it can help to rectify a number of stereotypes about communities marginalized in mainstream cinema. This is an important benefit of international co-production in world cinema that goes beyond financial and marketing objectives. It is expected that international co-production in world cinema may be motivated by non-financial motives and focus on cultural exchange and cross-pollination of cultural ideas between the co-producing countries. This may occur when the cultural distance between the two countries inspires interest in such collaboration while supporting cultural affinities. For instance, Roberts (1998) explains that world cinema enables transnational audiences to experience the perspectives of other ethnic communities as well as learn about their own culture in a new light. An artificial cultural bond should not be attempted when the cultural dissimilarities between the countries outweigh the similarities. At times, however, co-production between dissimilar cultures that have been in prolonged contact leads to the incorporation of different cultural practices. For instance, Thackway (2002) argues that French co-productions in West Africa have incorporated the oral story-telling traditions into francophone norms of film narration. At the same time, if the two cultures are extremely similar, then there may be little cultural value added through an international co-production. Thus, what may be desirable is that the cultural distance be taken into account when assessing the advantages of international co-production from a cultural point of view. 6. Easier Access to Authentic Foreign Locations A possible advantage of international co-production in world cinema is the ability to gain easier access to desired foreign locations. Foreign locations may be required for reasons of contextual accuracy or merely for aesthetical reasons. In either case, having an international co-production agreement can save the time that would otherwise be spent in searching for the required locations and acquiring the necessary permits and clearances to shoot at those locations. In the case of the Soviet-Indian co-production titled Mera Naam Joker (My Name is Joker), Salazkina (2010) explains that the long-standing co-production tradition between the two countries facilitated the exploration of authentic locations for this story about a touring Russian circus. In films addressing historical events that have unfolded in another country, for instance, it would be essential to have access to the authentic locations in order to shoot scenes there. This could be facilitated through an international co-production partner in the foreign country as they would have access to the local authorities as well as information about the historical background and logistical information to support the shoot at the location. When analyzed from a critical perspective and evaluated in relation to other points discussed above, this appears to be a relatively weak and secondary advantage of international co-production and not one that would of necessity drive production companies to engage in co-production. The reason for this is that access to foreign locations can be obtained even without international co-production arrangement with a local production company. Governments and culture departments frequently facilitate foreign film productions who want to shoot in various historical, cultural and natural sites in the country. The production company can simply contact the relevant department or a local agent directly instead of going through the channel of a co-production. 7. Comparative Cost Advantage In addition to the cultural advantages of international co-production, there is the potential for realizing economic benefits if the required resources can be accessed in the partner country at a lower cost. This is an important aspect of international co-production because it motivates production companies to seek collaborations across national boundaries even in the absence of cultural influences and inspirations. The technical services or resources might be available in the partner country for a smaller cost compared to in the home country. This might be true in the case of developing countries where technical services and manpower tends to be available at a lower cost than in developed countries of the west. Baltruschat (2013) explains that the United Kingdom and other European countries have begun to divert international co-production partnerships away from Canada and towards East European countries because of their lower cost structures. Thus, a world cinema production can be produced at a lower cost without compromising on the quality of the content or execution. The appeal of access to cheaper resources and services in a foreign country is not exclusively dependent on international co-productions. As in the case of access to foreign locations, access to cheaper inputs can also be had by entering into specific service agreements with service providers and companies in the foreign country. With increased globalization and communication technology advancements, it has become much easier for content to be produced and transmitted in different countries. In such a context, going through the process of an international co-production agreement along with the process of determining profit and cost-sharing ratios seems to be an unnecessary exercise. Therefore, access to cheaper inputs is another weak advantage of international co-production in world cinema. 8. Technology and Management Skills Transfer One of the significant advantages of international co-production is the sharing of knowledge and technology transfer between the countries engaged in co-production. Where one of the co-producing partners is less experienced in technical or creative aspects, collaboration with a more experienced partner can provide the necessary exposure and learning to enhance the competencies of the weaker partner. These competencies may relate to the production planning and management aspect, the execution of the plan or the marketing and distribution of the end product. Lai (2004) explains how international co-production between Singapore and Hong Kong served to develop the technical and managerial competencies in the Hong Kong industry. The production houses of Shaw Brothers and Kong Ngee Studios played a dominant role in such international co-productions. In each case, the production companies on either side can benefit from the expertise and experience of the other. However, not all international co-productions are motivated by a desire to enhance skills. It is important to note that this advantage is likely to be attractive only for those companies who are interested in the development of the competencies in the local industry. In a global economy, the emphasis is likely to be on developing expertise in complementary skills instead of addressing self-sufficiency in every process involved in production, planning and marketing. Hence, if a production company is interested in acting the role of a client and acquiring the skills through international collaboration instead of developing those skills in-house, then this advantage is not likely to be realized. Such companies would continue to pursue international co-production for other objectives not directly related to learning and development. Disadvantages of International Co-Production in World Cinema This section critically analyzes the disadvantages of international co-production in world cinema identified by McFadyen, Hoskins & Finn (1998). 1. Increased Costs of Coordination An important disadvantage of international co-productions stems from the need to constantly coordinate and manage the operations on both sides of the partnership. In such joint ventures, the production planning team can be stretched to its limits in trying to achieve coordination and efficiency in the operations. Valuable time would have to be invested in initiating, discussing and finalizing the arrangement with a chosen partner. As issues arise during the execution phase, troubleshooting efforts would continue to keep production team members busy. Additional resources including human resources would have to be acquired to meet the coordination challenge. Schchijo (2012) argues that international co-production gives rise to complex production processes and necessitates the need to navigate through different legal systems in each country. Gregson (2012) explains that high legal costs as well as high cash flow requirements are the major deterrents to international co-production in New Zealand. In addition, it would be essential for the coordination team to be comfortable in a multicultural environment where communication can pose significant challenges and obstacles to coordination. The co-production venture can suffer if the costs of coordination and management outweigh the gains from shared resources, processes and collaboration. Problems in coordination should not justify an outright rejection of international co-productions. These problems need to be viewed in relation to the savings or gains derived from international co-production arrangements. At times, the relationship with the foreign partner may pose coordination challenges but might have the potential to develop into a mutually beneficial long-term partnership. In addition, despite the coordination challenges and its associated costs, the relationship might yield other more valuable benefits such as complementary skills, a wider market, access to cheaper local resources, and so on. These factors should all be taken into account when evaluating the problems of coordination and managing diverse production teams. 2. Increased Shooting Costs Entering into an international co-production arrangement can result in increased shooting costs. It has been stated in the discussion on advantages of international co-production that access to different foreign locations is achieved through international co-production. When shooting takes place simultaneously in both the countries involved in the production, it leads to the doubling of costs. The costs of shooting can increase with each day and may also increase with logistical complications, especially if the locations are difficult to access or are affected by weather conditions. Shooting costs can also be related to coordination costs and an increase in shooting costs can also lead to greater problems in coordination and increase in coordination costs. However, the increased costs of shooting may be expected to be offset to some extent by savings in the total number of shoot days and other efficiencies in operations. The shooting costs and coordination costs discussed in the previous section affect world cinema by making the execution of international co-production more cumbersome. The need to coordination multiple teams and shooting schedules make the situation more complex and stretches the resources and capabilities of the teams involved. If one assumes that the production companies have entered into international co-production because they are motivated by the opportunity to share resources and complement their own limited resources, these challenges can make it extremely challenging for the teams to execute an international co-production. In such a case, the disadvantages of international co-production may exceed its advantages for the participating production teams. 3. Loss of Cultural Authenticity As with any joint venture project, an international co-production in world cinema is likely to dilute the cultural significance of the theme or subject. The unique appeal of world cinema lies in its capacity to project a distinct perspective or narrative to the audience. This narrative is believed to be unique to the country or culture in which the film is being produced. While the integrity of the cultural product can be protected to a great extent if the project is executed within the country of origin, it becomes more difficult to ensure this when two or more countries become involved in an international co-production. Houseley, Nichols & Southwell (2013) argue that this risk is also present in international co-productions between American and European partners since the co-productions tend to be attuned to American narrative models and technical style. Moving to the scope of co-production in East Asia, Jin & Lee (2012) argue that while some co-production films such as Friends were universally successful, others like The Promise had limited success because they could not appeal to local audiences in all the co-producing markets. Similarly, Arora (1994) argues that the film Salaam Bombay caters to western stereotypes of Indian subjects rather than an indigenous representation. When teams from different countries become involved, each one is likely to promote its own interpretation or understanding of the theme or subject. Since this is a co-production arrangement and the profits and costs are to be shared in a particular ratio, the decisions about creative content cannot be made on the basis of a formula. Thus, the process is likely to involve negotiation and a number of trade-offs which might produce a less than satisfactory outcome. The two teams might settle on a certain way of presenting the theme or choice of actors that might satisfy their interests without reflecting the authenticity of the content. Thus, the end product loses its relevance to the culture and becomes a purely commercial enterprise. For instance, the Korean film Never Forever released in 2007 was the first international co-production between American and South Korean producers. Yoon (2009) observes that the skewed relationship and heavy Hollywood cultural influence resulted in the co-production reflecting American sensibilities in a Korean context instead of presenting Korean sensibilities. To avoid this risk, it is essential that the teams involved devise a pragmatic solution to creative choices that achieve a balance between sharing control and ensuring cultural relevance. Where this is achieved, as in the case of West African co-productions discussed by Thackway (2003), world cinema can offer alternative narratives to colonial stereotypes. 4. Delays and Costs Associated with Government Dealing One of the most distressing disadvantages of engaging in international co-productions is the need to deal with government agencies and officials. In many countries, the bureaucratic processes and systems might be too cumbersome and the foreign partner might not be able to anticipate the time and costs that could be consumed in the entire process. Baltruschat (2002) explains that problems also arise when producers coordinate with their own national governments to seek facilitation in co-production. The problem of red tape can be daunting to independent film-makers who might become frustrated with the paperwork and long waiting times involved. These problems might be more severe especially if the producers are trying to secure government funding or other financial incentives for the co-production. Especially if the teams on both sides are committed to other projects of their own, the delay and costs involved in dealing with the government can have spillover effects on those projects as well. In such cases, the two teams might even call off the project altogether or at least defer it to a later time. When analyzed critically, this disadvantage can be overcome easily especially if the local production company is well-experienced in the environment and has connections in government circles. On the basis of local knowledge, the local partner can assume responsibility for facilitating the foreign partner in completing the legal formalities and qualifying for the government funding or incentive programs. Where reasonable coordination between the parties has been established, the costs of dealing with the government can be managed in a more efficient manner, which makes things easier for the foreign partner in the international co-production. 5. Risk of Unscrupulous Practices and Deception It is extremely important to secure a reliable and honest partner in international co-production because of the knowledge gap between the two partners. The difference in knowledge levels leaves ample scope for deceptive practices through which an unscrupulous partner may seek to exploit the ignorance or trust of the other. The partner might do so by providing exaggerated estimates of local resource and service costs as well as the complexity of local regulations and processes. Where the foreign partner has not worked in that country previously, he or she is likely to rely on the local partner’s representation and incur greater costs than they would otherwise. This is a major risk and when exposed can damage the reputation of the country and discourage others from collaborating with it in future. This disadvantage can be avoided to a reasonable extent by the foreign partner undertaking independent preliminary research about the local environment. Gaining some familiarity with the local systems can prevent local partners from exploiting international partners. Another factor that makes this a relatively short-lived disadvantage is that the local industry is likely to penalize the cheating partner for bringing the industry into disrepute through its exploitative actions and vile practices. Thus, the threat of being excluded from other projects can serve as a deterrent against such practices for local partners. Moreover, the foreign partner is more likely to contact an honest partner especially if the local industry places its own checks on the people and companies operating in the industry. 6. Loss of Competitive Advantage The potential advantage of learning from an international partner brings with it an associated risk. The international partner might acquire comparable skills, knowledge and competencies to become a potential competitor of the partner company. During the course of the production, the two partners exchange creative ideas, execution strategies and other technical resources to execute the film. As explained by Liang (2000), during the 1950s, co-productions between Taiwan and Hong Kong generated large inflow of technological and human resources as well as cultural influences from Taiwan into Hong Kong. While the sharing of knowledge serves to enhance the quality and efficiency of the end product, it also narrows the competitive distance between the two partners. As a result, the two partners might end up possessing competing rather than complementary skills. This could have a potential deterring influence on future collaborations with the same partner and each time the partners might have to search for new co-producers in world cinema. However, this risk is not as severe as it might seem at first. Although the difference in technical skills and competencies can be reduced considerably in the course of international co-production, significantly more time is required to bridge the gap in cultural knowledge and ideas. In this way, each of the international co-producing partners is likely to retain much of their distinctive competitive edge over the other even though they may have learnt the technical aspects from each other. Some support for this argument can be obtained from Miller et al. (2001) who describe international co-production in terms of an international division of cultural labour, thus implying that the cultural strengths of each partner are non-substitutable. Thus, far from narrowing opportunities for future collaboration, international co-production can bring together partners who appreciate the technical and creative strengths of each other. Thus, the competitive disadvantage argument is of moderate seriousness for international co-production in world cinema but can be managed with mutual trust. References Arora, P. (1994). The production of third world subjects for first world consumption. In: D. Carson, L. Ditmar & J. R. Welsch (eds.), Multiple Voices in Feminist Film Criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Baldruschat, D. (2002). Globalization and international TV and film co-productions: In search of new narratives. Media in Transition 2: Globalization and Convergence May 10-12, 2002, at MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Baldruschat, D. (2013). Co-productions, global markets and new media ecologies. In: M. Palacio & J. Turschmann (eds.), Transnational Cinema in Europe. Lit Verlag. Camporesi, V. (2014). ‘Whose films are these?’ Italian-Spanish co-productions of the early 1940s. Historical Journal of Film, Radio & Television, 34(2), pp. 208-230. Chow, R. (1995). Primitive passions: Visuality, sexuality, ethnography, and contemporary Chinese cinema. New York: Columbia University Press. Cooke, P. (ed.) (2007). World Cinema’s ‘Dialogues’ with Hollywood. Basingstoke: Palgrave De Turégano, H. (2004). The international politics of cinematic coproduction: Spanish policy in Latin America. Film and History, 34(2), pp.15-24. Dudrah, R. (2011). Bollywood Travels: Culture, Diaspora and Border Crossings in Popular Hindi Cinema. London: Routledge. Fraunhar, A. (2005). Mulata Cubana: The Problematics of National Allegory. In: L. Shaw & S. Dennison (eds.) Latin American Cinema: Essays on Modernity, Gender and National Identity. London: McFarland and Company. Gregson, F. (2012). Film co-production agreements review. Ministry for Culture and Heritage, New Zealand. Hollinger, H. (2008). Co-Productions a better bet in Europe. Hollywood Reporter, 407(3). Houseley, W., Nicholls, T., & Southwell, R. (2013). Managing in the Media. Taylor & Francis. Hull, D. (2012). Research and information service briefing paper: A comparison of film tax relief schemes. Northern Ireland Assembly, Paper 58/12. Jameson, F. (2010). Globalization and hybridization. In: N. Ďurovičová & K. Newman (eds.). World Cinemas, Transnational Perspectives London: Routledge. Jin, D. Y., & Lee, D-H. (2012). The birth of East Asia: Cultural regionalization through co-production strategies. Follow the Money: Financing Practices in Contemporary International Cinema, Spectator, 32(2), pp. 26-40. Johnson, R. (2006). Post-Cinema Novo Brazilian Cinema. In: L. Badley, R. Barton-Palmer & S. J. Schneider (eds.), Traditions in World Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Lai, R. (2004). Film pictorial culture at a glance—Singapore as the bridge between Shanghai and Hong Kong cinemas. Hong Kong Film Archive Newsletter, 28. Liang, L. (2000). Tai wan yin shu dui xiang gang dian ying de ying xiang. In: Z. Zhang (ed.) Xiang Gang Dian Ying Hui Gu. Zhong Guo Dian Ying Chu Ban She. Beijing. Miller, T., Govil, N., McMurria, J., & Maxwell, R. (2001). Global Hollywood. London: BFI. Najib, L. (2006). Towards a positive definition of world cinema. In: S. Dennison & S. H. Lim (eds.), Remapping world cinema: Identity, culture and politics in film. London: Wallflower Press. Roberts, M. (1998). Baraka: World Cinema and the Global Culture Industry. Cinema Journal, 37(3), pp. 62-82. Salazkina, M. (2010). Soviet-Indian co-productions: Alibaba as political allegory. Cinema Journal, 49(4), pp. 71-89. Sarkar, B. (2010). Tracking ‘Global Media’ in the Outposts of Globalization. In: N. Ďurovičová & K. Newman (eds.), World Cinemas, Transnational Perspectives. London: Routledge. Schichijo, N. (2012). International co-production and social capital formation: Evidence in film industry using movie databases. WIAS Discussion Paper no. 2012-005. Waseda Institute for Advanced Study. Teo, S. (2000). The 1970s: Movement and transition. In: P. Fu & D. Desser (eds.), The Cinema of Hong Kong: History, Arts, Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thackway, M. (2002). Future past: Integrating orality into Francophone West African film. In: T. Doring (ed.), African Cultures, Visual Arts, and the Museum. Rodopi. Thackway, M. (2003). Africa Shoots Back: Alternative Perspectives in Sub-Saharan Francophone African Film. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2007). Rights, Camera, Action! IP Rights and the Film Making Process. Creative Industries Booklet No. 2. Yang, J. (2014). The reinvention of Hollywood’s classic white savior tale in contemporary Chinese cinema: Pavilion of Women and the Flowers of War. Critical Arts: A South-North Journal of Cultural & Media Studies, 28(2), pp. 247-263. Yoon, S. (2009). The neoliberal world order and patriarchal power: A discursive study of Korean cinema and international co-production. Visual Anthropology, 22, pp. 200-210. Read More