Multiculturalism in Contemporary Italian Film

Since the turn of the century, Italian cinema has emphasized multiculturalism in response to Italy’s growing immigration. This emphasis is much like Hollywood’s contemporary, “token” portrayal of minority groups through which the following occur:

• Regardless of exposure, the groups are still seen as having levels of exoticism rather than familiarity.
• This exoticism is largely due to the subtle perpetuation of stereotypes.
• Stereotypes replace more complex, realistic characters.

To detail Italian cinema’s focus on multiculturalism further, contemporary directors have followed this trend in order to re-think what it means to be an Italian citizen. They have also done this to perpetuate a new kind of national cinema in contrast to the 1990s immigration cinema and other’s film.

Multiculturalism in the new national cinema is aimed at diminishing the otherness of minority groups. However, this does not mean that the spiral of silence is no more. While multiculturalism puts more faces on the screen, the characters present are not necessarily flush, complex personalities; instead, their presences are connotated with exoticism and are portrayed through stereotypes.

Marco Ponti’s 2004 film A/R Andata + Ritorno provides a case study of this through his character Tolstoj. Tolstoj is one of the most pronounced ethnic characters in the movie, but his voice repeatedly lends itself to uttering foreign words of wisdom. This foreignness falls directly in line with Edward Said’s conceptions of Orientalism.

According to Said, the foreigner is exotic and therefore is the other. The stereotype of the other is meant to be a device through which the viewing party can understand the foreigner. In new Italian cinema, the immigrant is stereotyped in order to be better understood. However, this is not a simple meaning-making process. An overly simplistic, often one-sided, representation is cultivated, and it is usually framed to reinforce hegemony.

This kind of representation has long been seen in Hollywood films as well. Taking the recent blockbuster wave as an example, an increasing number of man vs. "other" movies have been produced. Remember Man of Steel, Oz the Great and Powerful, World War Z, and Captain Phillips (to name a few)? Each exalts the heterosexual, white man as the hero who vanquishes the unknown enemy. This gives power to whiteness and those who fall under hegemonic masculinity.

These movies also highlight how political controversy can be portrayed in abstract ways. The U.S. is at war and is paranoid of terrorism, so its culture more readily consumes texts that deal with vanquishing the outside enemy. Similarly, Italy is dealing with immigration, so its cultural products try to connect the audience with that controversy. Furthermore, although Italy and the U.S. have maintained positive relations since 1944, a hypothetical quarrel between the two would also generate cultural products with immediacy. Still, cultural products tell stories that are just as stereotyped as characters. A film's framing of people, places, and situations cannot completely escape cultural contexts.

Sources:

• "Multiculturalism in New Italian Cinema" - by Alberto Zambenedetti 
• Orientalism - by Edward Said 
• "U.S. Relations With Italy" - by the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Related Sources:

• The Media of Mass Communication - by John Vivian

Hollywood vs. Bollywood: An Even Playing Field?

Figure 1

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?

Figure 2

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.

Figure 3

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

Time Magazine - Globalization

New York Times - Movie Subsidies

Texas Film Commission - Tax Credits

Bollywood vs. Hollywood

Bollywood's Global Push

U.S. Movie Ticket Prices

Stanford Encyclopedia - Globalization

Global Village

Inside Bollywood

Bollywood Perceptions

Hollywood Finds Formula to Beat Bollywood

Hollywood "Charisma Men" in Japanese Commericals

The appearance of male Hollywood stars in Japanese commercials involves more than famous buzz words such as American cultural imperialism and globalization. It is instead more closely an effect of:

1. A negative stigma within the United States that looks down on Hollywood actors who take jobs for TV advertising. (i.e. Hollywood/film is high-brow and should not mix with low-brow televisual content.)
2. A romanticized exoticism associated with the Western man.

In Japan, unlike the United States, celebrity appearances in commercials work to promote fame rather than stain it. Japanese companies put forth an agenda of associating stars with brands in order to sell products based on celebrity fandoms. This is true to an extent in the United States, as some stars will do big budget commercials for events such as the Super Bowl, but no one sees a blockbuster star starring in an ordinary coffee commercial among the majority of the American media landscape. However, one can certainly see it in Japan as Tommy Lee Jones has become grounded as the symbol of Boss coffee.

 

Therefore, why are Hollywood actors, such as Tommy Lee Jones, George Clooney, and Harrison Ford, taking face-time in Japanese commercials despite the negative stigma?

The answer is money – the bottom line. They can make a lot of money because the stigma is not in Japan. Even Dennis Hopper commented to Entertainment Weekly, “I couldn’t believe the money they were paying me. If I could do one of these every year, I could retire.” They also do it because the likelihood of the commercials becoming vastly visible in the U.S. is small. After all, media tend to go out of America, not in it.

Furthermore, the big money given to these male superstars is mostly for their exoticism as “Charisma Men.” “Charisma Man” is a stereotype in Japan that assumes Western men are more charming, doting, and easygoing than Japanese men, and it is both originated and perpetuated by the frequent Hollywood male presence within Japanese channels. The result is that Japanese women get to utilize media to fawn over actors like George Clooney, while Japanese men are left with a cultivated ideal that they may see as either competition or normative.

Sources:

• De Zoysa, Richard, and Otto Newman. "Globalization, soft power and the challenge of Hollywood." Contemporary Politics 8.3 (2002): 185-202. Print.
• "Hollywood's Secret Japanese Commercials Are no Longer Secret" - by Brian Ashcraft
• "Leonardo DiCaprio and the easy money of foreign commercials" - by Jeff Labrecque 
• "The return of Charisma Man" - by Lisa Gay