top of page

Co-production

 

As a result of economical issues such as tax incentives and insufficient domestic funding, co-production now makes up for most of the film activities worldwide (Morawetz et al., 423, 434). However, as Norbert Morawetz, Jane Hardy, Colin Haslam and Keith Randle point out in an article published in Industry and Innovation (2014), this increase in co-production activity can restructure “film industries…that previously operated predominately in a regional/national context” (Morawetz et al., 440). This is because creative and cultural elements of projects are often being changed to meet certain global expectations in an attempt to expand their market base and increase commercial success (Morawetz et al., 428, 343; Drazin, 3).

 

Since a majority of Australian production relies on taxpayer funding (Burns et al., 111), “the rise of co-productions is part of a wider narrative of financial and institutional dynamics [that are] shaping the industrial organisation in the film industry” (Morawetz et al., 422). In other words, government support institutions, such as Screen Australia, must broaden their policy frameworks based on cultural protection to developing feasible film industries founded on commercial 'blockbuster' success (Morawetz et al., 428).

 

According to Mark David Ryan in Media International Industries (2010) “different audiences exist for diverse movie genres and aesthetic cycles at any given time” (Ryan, 87). That being the case, co-productions motivated only by financial requirements may lack a cultured interest to extend social or political resonances (Halle, 2002, p. 33; cited by Morawetz et al., 428). This is due to industry uncertainty, which precipitates the search of finance as a central issue in the film industry for “nobody knows what makes a hit or when it will happen” (De Vany and Walls, 1996, p. 1493; cited by Brewer et al. 589). Hence, “the interrelationship of financial and production capital evolve in the light of financial innovation and changing legislation [while] cumulative change in film support policy in the context of ‘new economy’ has led to a vicious circle of tax competition between competition states, that encourages co-productions in search of finance” (Morawetz et al. 439). So when major storylines or characters are altered in projects to access co-production funding from another country, this may question the artistic integrity of a film (Morawetz et al., 440).

This is especially evident in current Australian cinema, which in the past was largely funded by public subsidies to encourage cultural productions and the telling of ‘Australian stories’ (Ryan, 86). Yet according to chief executive of Screen Australia, Ruth Harley, the local policy frameworks are now adopting a new phase of policy where “better business and bigger audiences” have become the principal driving forces behind Australian screen content (Ryan, 86). This, then, signifies a dramatic shift from a cultural-based policy to an industry-based policy that further demonstrates the willingness of Screen Australia to “embrace internationalisation in an attempt to foster the growth and enterprise structures of local screen industries” (Ryan, 86-87). Since finance is one of the major constraints of film production, searching for finance is a key function of a producer's international networks (Coe, 2000: 405; cited by Morawetz et al., 424). Hence, introducing fiscal incentives that appeal to foreign productions in order to bring inward investment has become indentified as the best practice by policymakers around the world (Morawetz et al., 430).

Nonetheless, according to producer Janet Yang, the potential of co-production with China was initally realised with the release of American-Chinese-Hong Kong-Taiwanese co-production Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), directed by Taiwanese-born American Ang Lee and featuring an international cast of ethnic Chinese actors. Although the film won an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film that was presented to Taiwan, the film remains an international co-production between companies across four regions: the Chinese company China Film Co-Production Corporation; the American companies Columbia Pictures Film Production Asia, Sony Pictures Classics and Good Machine; the Hong Kong company EDKO Film; and the Taiwanese Zoom Hunt International Productions Company, Ltd; as well as the unspecified United China Vision, and Asia Union Film & Entertainment Ltd., which had been established solely for this film. Today Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon remains one of the most influential foreign language films in America. Yet, while co-production in service of blockbuster films has existed since the 1900s, co-production contracts for independent art-house cinema remains in its early stages since commercial success are less predictable and more difficult to market in this area.

 

Thus, “a purely national and cultural production-centered approach to screen industries, in an era when globalisation and technological change are eroding national boundaries and transforming screen practices, is becoming increasingly limited” (Ryan, 88). In this sense, we can examine the audio-visual landscape as growing more diverse rather than restricted (Morawetz et al., 440).

 

Written by Julia Tran

 

Works Referenced:

 

  1. Ryan, MD 2010, ‘Film, Cinema, Screen’, Media International Australia, no. 136, pp. 85-89

  2. 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, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 421-443

  3. Brewer, SM, Kelley, JM, Jozefowicz, JJ 2009, ‘A blueprint for success in the US film industry’, Applied Economics, vo. 41, pp. 589-606

  4. Drazin, C 2014, ‘Film Finances: The First Years’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 2-22

  5. Wu, CC 2002, 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is Not a Chinese Film', Spectator, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 65-79

  6. Pidd, H 2012, 'Sci-fi blockbuster Looper achieves Chinese box office first', The Guardian, October 2, viewed June 3 2014, <http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/oct/01/looper-sci-fi-blockbuster-china>

  7. 'The Red Carpet' 2013, The Economist, December 21, viewed June 3 2014, <http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21591741-red-carpet>

  8. Turner Entertainment Networks 2014, 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)', Turner Classic Movies, viewed June 5 2014, <http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/442944/Crouching-Tiger-Hidden-Dragon/original-print-info.html>

  9. CBS Interactive 2014, 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Cast & Details', TV Guide, viewed June 6 2014, <http://movies.tvguide.com/crouching-tiger-hidden-dragon/cast/134505>

  10. 'The Best of Both Worlds: Co-producing Films for the U.S. and China' 2013, online video, USC US-China Institute, May 14, viewed June 3 2014, <http://youtu.be/0gGBg8L2M3g>

A recent example of this is Looper (2012) director Rian Johnson, who relocated the setting of this science-fiction blockbuster from Paris to Shanghai in order to access Chinese funding. On the contrary, in an article written by Helen Pidd and published on The Guardian website entitled Sci-fi blockbuster Looper achieves Chinese box office first (2012), Johnson claims that Shanghai turned out to be “a more natural setting than…Paris”. As the title of the article also suggests, Looper had been able to achieve higher returns in its opening weekend in China than in the US. The result of this has encouraged Hollywood filmmakers to support Chinese-made blockbusters despite their strict guidelines and censorship. Films are lengthened or cut short or specially adapted in order to fit the criteria established by the Chinese government, who "controls which films are made and has a hand in every aspect of the film business, from production to exhibition" (The Economist).

Embedded above is a promotional video taken from Screen Australia. The government is offering partnerships in Asia, which illustrates some of the ‘equity co-production’ agreements (Burns et al., 110) encouraged by Australian policymakers, such as “bypassing the ‘significant Australian content’ (SAC) test for accessing the Producer Offset” (Screen Australia).

What does this mean for the film industry?
bottom of page