When one mentions Bollywood, to most people, the first and sometimes only thought that comes to mind is the sensational film, Slumdog Millionaire. However, India has realized and capitalized on a wildly successful industry that exports more films than the U.S. In fact, India exports on average 1000 films a year to a worldwide audience of over 3 billion, compared to the United States’ 500 films and 2.6 billion people respectively. Our world can be considered both a “global village” and a globalized economy, which refers to “the growing dominance of western forms of political, economic, and cultural life.” Although this has helped Bollywood thrive, it has also shaped the industry and created competition.
But has globalization also made for an uneven playing field?
Globalization has allowed the United States to take full
advantage of the advancements in both technology and capitalism, evident by the
$60 million average that the film industry spends to produce a movie.
Comparatively, Bollywood only spends around $5 million per film. Furthermore,
50% of the movies produced by Bollywood are never released, and of those that
are, 95% result in losses. Moreover, America’s dominance and wealth has afforded
them the ability to offer filmmakers tax credits and subsidies. Michael Cieply of The New York Times examined this
aspect of the film industry and notes that states will offer film producers
astounding tax credits to shoot the movie in that state. The Texas Film Commission states that movie companies can receive 5%-22.5% in tax credits in Texas,
based on how much they spend. Additionally, ticket prices in India go for $1 on average, compared to $8.38 in the U.S. The Indian film industry will have a
very difficult time competing with these incentives. They are not afforded tax
credits, and due to the high-risk environment, cannot spend $100 million on a
movie like U.S. productions can.
Yet, Michael Schuman of Time notes that the world is now turning the tables, with many countries
such as China and India exporting their goods. He states that although, in the
past, globalization was a one-way street, “it is knitting together a society
that, more than ever, is truly global.” Whereas developed nations were solely exporting
to developing ones, countries such as the U.S. are now consuming those nations’
goods.
So, has globalization been advantageous or detrimental to
Bollywood?
Although globalization has given countries such as India a
worldwide market to consume their movies, it has also afforded the United
States the ability to hand out subsidies to film producers, once again destabilizing the playing field.
Sources
I completely agree with your answer to the final question: "has globalization been advantageous or detrimental to Bollywood?"
ReplyDeleteWhile globalization provided a market and a system for Bollywood to mimic and later grow into, it also produces global competition that they may not be ready for. As we saw, "Nollywood" films are not yet capable of truly competing with the quality of big-budget Hollywood films. Bollywood, on the other hand, may be close. This makes me wonder if Bollywood may one day dominate the global film industry as Hollywood does today. Perhaps the two may merge ideals and potentially merge their unknown "others" and give consumers a more wholesome media-facilitated films of the "global village" we all live in.
Like Sarah, I'll answer your final question too. However, coming from an Asian Studies background, my opinion is slightly different. Globalization has certainly affected Bollywood on a global competitive scale. Hollywood has far more resources for cultural exportation than Bollywood. However, it should never go unnoticed that exportation is not necessarily the end goal for most Indian filmmakers. The film industries of Bollywood, Japan, and ESPECIALLY China are more concerned with national productions than exports. Also, the number of western films coming in is also barred. In China, only a handful of Western films can be shown in theaters a year, so the films have to battle it out for theatrical exhibition. So, it is not as much a Western free-for-all as some communication texts make it out to be. Having a unique form of cultural production comes before profit for Bollywood. That's why Bollywood and Nollywood are named so satirically. They want to say, "Hey, this is how we do things." Yes, Hollywood has influenced them, but once they re-appropriate the conventions the hybrid becomes something specifically theirs. Also, as far as pure profit, the more digital lifestyles grow, the more we'll search for alternative content. Streaming sites are already hosting more and more content from international sources. The goal? To make us pay for streaming subscriptions instead of downloading it illegally. If Bollywood producers are paid reasonably for their content to be streamed, the profits could trickle down favorably.
ReplyDelete