Friday, March 25, 2011
A New Red Dawn
The 1984 film "Red Dawn" fantasized about
a group of American teenagers called the Wolverines who valiantly repelled an
invasion of foreign communists. For its mix of dystopia and hope, the movie
became such an enduring cultural touchstone that U.S. military leaders honored
it by naming their 2003 effort to apprehend Saddam Hussein "Operation Red
Dawn." Amid the triumphalism, however, we missed the fact that the
invaders started winning—a fact that none other than "Red Dawn's"
2011 remake underscores.
That's the subtext of a Los Angeles Times report this week about MGM taking "the extraordinary step" of digitally removing fictional Chinese villains from the $60 million film "lest the leadership in Beijing be offended." Why the fear of upsetting such an odiously anti-democratic government? Because movie executives worry that a film involving a negative message about China "would harm their ability to do business with the rising Asian superpower, one of the fastest-growing and potentially most lucrative markets for American movies."
The studio suits are right to be concerned. China's government only allows about 20 non-Chinese movies per year into its theaters, and in the late 1990s, the regime halted Walt Disney, Sony and MGM business in the country after those companies produced films deemed critical of China. Seeking to avoid a similar fate, the film industry now regularly shapes its products to appease—rather than challenge—the political agenda of the Chinese despots. In that sense, the only thing newsworthy about this week's "Red Dawn" tiff is the public nature of the content revision.
Whether you are a "Red Dawn" fan or not, the episode shows that for all the high-minded theories about American cultural exports aiding democratic ferment and challenging autocracy, the dynamic is starting to work the other way as autocracy gives orders to American culture. Indeed, wielding its increasing market leverage, China is now countering our First Amendment ethos with a push for what Times reporter Ben Fritz calls pervasive "self-censorship"—the kind in which America's media industries preemptively shape content to keep China's dictators happy.
The consequences are more profound and worrisome than just a change of bad guys in a campy '80s retread. Just ask Rupert Murdoch. In 1993, the world's leading media baron removed the BBC from his Star TV channel so as to satisfy Beijing and thus secure the station's access to China's audience. A few years later, Murdoch's publishing firm nixed a book by British diplomat Christopher Patten after seeing that the manuscript was critical of the Chinese government, and then the same publishing company released a fawning biography of Premier Deng Xiaoping by the dictator's daughter.
Then came Google's move in 2006 to censor its search engine in exchange for a pass through China's Great Firewall. And though Google recently said it was ending that censorship, Microsoft's Bill Gates—another powerful content gatekeeper with business interests in China—publicly slammed companies for daring to thwart Beijing's demands.
In a radio interview this week, Fritz explained the cumulative effect: "If you think the rules and restrictions of the authoritarian government in China are a bad thing and amount to censorship, then in a global economy where products made in America are seen and consumed in China, those rules and that censorship is affecting what we here in America see."
And unfortunately, no band of Wolverines can stop it.
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
That's the subtext of a Los Angeles Times report this week about MGM taking "the extraordinary step" of digitally removing fictional Chinese villains from the $60 million film "lest the leadership in Beijing be offended." Why the fear of upsetting such an odiously anti-democratic government? Because movie executives worry that a film involving a negative message about China "would harm their ability to do business with the rising Asian superpower, one of the fastest-growing and potentially most lucrative markets for American movies."
The studio suits are right to be concerned. China's government only allows about 20 non-Chinese movies per year into its theaters, and in the late 1990s, the regime halted Walt Disney, Sony and MGM business in the country after those companies produced films deemed critical of China. Seeking to avoid a similar fate, the film industry now regularly shapes its products to appease—rather than challenge—the political agenda of the Chinese despots. In that sense, the only thing newsworthy about this week's "Red Dawn" tiff is the public nature of the content revision.
Whether you are a "Red Dawn" fan or not, the episode shows that for all the high-minded theories about American cultural exports aiding democratic ferment and challenging autocracy, the dynamic is starting to work the other way as autocracy gives orders to American culture. Indeed, wielding its increasing market leverage, China is now countering our First Amendment ethos with a push for what Times reporter Ben Fritz calls pervasive "self-censorship"—the kind in which America's media industries preemptively shape content to keep China's dictators happy.
The consequences are more profound and worrisome than just a change of bad guys in a campy '80s retread. Just ask Rupert Murdoch. In 1993, the world's leading media baron removed the BBC from his Star TV channel so as to satisfy Beijing and thus secure the station's access to China's audience. A few years later, Murdoch's publishing firm nixed a book by British diplomat Christopher Patten after seeing that the manuscript was critical of the Chinese government, and then the same publishing company released a fawning biography of Premier Deng Xiaoping by the dictator's daughter.
Then came Google's move in 2006 to censor its search engine in exchange for a pass through China's Great Firewall. And though Google recently said it was ending that censorship, Microsoft's Bill Gates—another powerful content gatekeeper with business interests in China—publicly slammed companies for daring to thwart Beijing's demands.
In a radio interview this week, Fritz explained the cumulative effect: "If you think the rules and restrictions of the authoritarian government in China are a bad thing and amount to censorship, then in a global economy where products made in America are seen and consumed in China, those rules and that censorship is affecting what we here in America see."
And unfortunately, no band of Wolverines can stop it.
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
© 2011 Creators.com
What was the 1984 film's primary message? I think it was much about the NRA and gun registration, not just a "feel-good Karate Kid" moment about those crazy high school teens triumphing over some unwanted, oppressive new establishment.
Thinking of recent events in Egypt, where the internet and cell-phone texting was cut-off in an attempt to silence the dissent. CB radios back in the day would have required "boots on the ground" jamming equipment, but AT&T can probably just throw that "switch" of theirs to shut off all the cell phones and internet in these modern times.
We are rapidly approaching this, until we pay attention to net neutrality, or the funding of Public Radio and Public TV.
I am not in so much fear of our own government to cut off political dissenting communications. I am more concerned about capitalist business cutting of the means to dissent against corporate interests. Never mind if some invading horde will use those same means against us Americans.
I thought the moral of the film was this: when deciding whether or not to start a fight in a country-western themed tavern, be sure to determine whether or not the head bouncer is a martial artist- because if he is, you might not want to start that fight. Oh wait, that was Roadhouse. I'm getting my Swayze all mixed up.
But seriously, Waukesha Dude, wasn't the real moral of Red Dawn that hispanics are bad, bad people who are ready to join the Russians in the fight against democracy? I'm trying to get the race card involved here (for your benefit), but that's really the best I can do. Maybe this- African Americans are bad at forming post-invasion militias? I don't know...
Yeah- AT&T and that "switch" of theirs. They provide the connectivity. Why would they NOT have a switch, and how would it beneft them to "throw" it? You cite an instance of a government attempting to turn off the internet, then you turn it into a reason to fear a company, which makes a buck providing access to that internet, turning off access. Makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Wasn't part of the story line that the Chinese were our allies in Red Dawn and that they had been nuked for that? I don't remember a single Chinese villain. It seems like once again there is a media invented event for a media invented controversy that did not exist to make a point (never let the facts get in the way of a good story). Of course, maybe they meant the Manchurian Candidate and just never bothered to see either film.