This article was published in the American magazine "Foreign Affairs", in which the author examines the effects of Chinese commercial expansion within one of the most important tools of American soft power

Hollywood.

This case of surveillance is a precedent, as Chinese censorship is not limited to the Chinese geographical area, but is spreading in the United States of America, via Hollywood, Netflix, and many modern platforms, so that its content adheres to the Communist Party's vision of China, the world and history.

What distinguished the United States from the rest of the world was, and always will be, its soft power.

The Soviets may have been competent with the Americans in nuclear capabilities, but they have never been able to compete with the glamor of the "American way of life."

Even in the midst of China's attempts to spread its culture around the world, its rise calls for more fear than admiration.

Many factors combine to give US soft power its strength and reach, but entertainment and culture have always been fundamental to this mix, as both film and television shaped the way the world viewed the United States and the way the country saw its opponents as well.

But it seems that this unique feature is fading, as with regard to some of the most important issues surrounding great-power politics these days, Hollywood has become more conservative, and it even exercises complete silence in a number of them.

The most obvious examples are the growing caution in US studios against doing anything that could threaten their relationship with the Chinese government, as the Chinese box office is as big as its US counterpart, and entertainment is ultimately a business, so Hollywood is proceeding to sterilize or monitor topics that do not appeal to To China.

But the phenomenon is not limited to China, nor is it related to revenue only, as studios, authors and producers are increasingly afraid of being hacked or damaged if any foreign authoritarian figure is presented with a negative template, be it Russian President Vladimir Putin or North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

But it was not always like this.

In the 1930s, Charlie Chaplin in "The Great Dictator" played the role of Adolf Hitler.

Later, Martin Scorsese's "Conden" shed the spotlight on the state of Tibet, while "the intolerable lightness of being" and "the hunting of Red October" brought the Cold War back into mind.

But these days, China's market power - and the cyber power of some red nations - is forcing studios and their creators to think twice before making bold political films of this nature.

With the acceleration of the move away from the kind of films in which American soft power has grown, Hollywood lacks the category of reality villains.

Nazi forces were marching into Poland when Chaplin began filming "The Great Dictator," and the film's symbolic character, a farsiious dictator with a mustache called Adenoye Henkel, was clearly wanted to detract from Hitler's tyrannical appeal.

At first, the British government saw the possibility of banning the film from British theaters to appease Germany, then changed its mind with the outbreak of the war.

But even Chaplin's collaborators in Hollywood were suspicious of the possibility of a clash, as Hollywood had financial interests in accessing the huge German film market, and historians are arguing about the degree to which this led US studios to succumb to Nazi preferences in the 1930s. US President Franklin Roosevelt personally urged Chaplin to go ahead with production.

When the film came to light in 1940, it proved to be both a political and an artistic victory, and was among the highest-grossing films that year.

Explicit denunciations of fascism soon became the norm. Between 1942-1945, about half of Hollywood's films touched the war in one way or another, and hundreds had anti-Nazi connotations.

Charlie Chaplin in "The Greatest Dictator"

With the Cold War, a new adversary came, against whom the promises and temptations promised by American consumerism would be used, and Hollywood was on the first front lines to achieve these endeavors, and American films from the early years of the Cold War were usually full of American chauvinism.

In 1951, the movie "I Was a Communist for the FBI" was released, a classic in this category.

Certainly, half of the films that bore Cold War themes emerging from Hollywood in the 1950s were done with the help of the Pentagon and scrutinized in their content to ensure their patriotism sufficiently, and they still link the Pentagon and the CIA with bonds of affection with the entertainment industry to this day.

Non-American films were also recruited into the cultural war against the Soviets. In 1954, when British authors "Animal Farm," quoted George Orwell's famous literary condemnation of Stalinism, it was secretly funded by the CIA.

By the 1960s, Hollywood productions were focusing the most critical lights on the United States and its global roles.

Even if this was not the intention behind them, these films presented American values ​​and nurtured American soft power in their own way, by demonstrating American openness and tolerance of opposing views.

"Doctor Strangelove" evokes the absurdity of a nuclear confrontation that leads to devastation, while works such as "Resurrection Now," "Platon," and even the popular TV series "Mash," offer subtle and sometimes terrifying views about American power abroad.

Today, audiences can choose whatever they want. There is no shortage of American chauvinist films and series, or any material that challenges the strict principles of biased foreign policy.

But in terms of how the other great powers emerged, there are some hot topics that can no longer be touched upon.

American films about the history and people of Tibet, a popular theme in the 1990s, have become rare.

No Hollywood fictional film has ever been made about the horrific Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, while the remake of "Red Dawn" in 2012 was originally centered around a Chinese invasion of the United States, but the film was later rewritten so that North Korea would become the aggressor country. Instead of China.

Variety described the 2014 blockbuster movie "Transformers: The Age of Extinction" as "a national glamor, if you happen to be a Chinese citizen."

In all areas, film studios appear to be extremely careful not to expose to Chinese allergies.

A scene from last year's movie “The Obnoxious,” which was co-produced by Dreamworks with Shanghai-based Pearl Studio, showed a map showing the so-called Nine-Point Line, which represents China's impugned expansionist claims in the South China Sea.

In the same year, the censor’s scissors hit the CBS drama series “The Good Fight,” and recounted a scene that mentioned several topics Beijing considers taboo, including the Falun Gong religious movement, Tiananmen Square, and “Winnie the Pooh”, Who portrays Chinese President Xi Jinping in the sly, insidious style spread across social media platforms.

The most obvious reason for Hollywood's caution is the size of the Chinese market.

Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China is not only a geopolitical enemy, but also a huge economic partner, and its box office numbers will soon become the largest in the world.

Hollywood didn't care much about distributing its films in the Soviet Union, but the same does not apply to China today.

The promise of Chinese financing is another possible reason why studios are wary of dealing with sensitive political issues.

For example, the technology giant "Tencent", based in Shenzhen, is one of the investors in the long-awaited new version of the movie "Top Gun," showing early thrill from the movie Tom Cruise wearing the iconic flying uniform, but without the Taiwanese and Japanese flags sewn on her back in the movie The original version was in 1986. The world's largest movie group, which includes the American company "AMC Theaters", is now owned by the "Wanda" group, the Chinese conglomerate.

An outside financier may be a useful partner, but his presence, unsurprisingly, can also prompt producers to be wary of content that might not appeal to their financiers.

Box office money is not the only reason why Hollywood is shying away from certain topics, it is likely that studios and production groups are also wary that some content might put them in the crosshairs of targeting external hackers.

Hollywood itself took a hit in 2014, when Sony Pictures came under a massive attack from hackers ahead of the show of "The Interview," a satirical act against North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The North Korean government had earlier warned Hollywood, calling the presentation of the film by Kim Jong a "declaration of war behavior", promising a "firm and uncompromising response."

Controversy still rages in the industry over whether the hack was in fact the work of North Korean hackers, disgruntled insiders, or even Russia.

Whoever the perpetrator, the attack was a turning point.

Since the days of the "Great Dictator," studios have feared that controversial material will prolong their revenues, but the Sony penetration has heightened fears that personal or professional harm will extend to those who provoke certain foreign leaders or regimes.

Russia is particularly worried.

When the idea of ​​quoting a book, "A Red Note," which details the corruption of Putin's henchmen, was discussed in a major studio a few years ago, executives backed off for fear of a potential reversal that would anger Putin, according to a source familiar with the deliberations.

As for "Red Bird", released in 2017 and based on a novel written by a former CIA agent, it preserved the Russian atmosphere that the book carried, but avoided mentioning Putin, who played a central role in the novel, as the "Hollywood Reporter" pointed out at the time: By avoiding mention of Putin, Hollywood freed itself from the evil of any Russian hackers who might have protested against it.

Fears of cyber attacks are not fanciful, as HBO, Netflix and UTA, one of the biggest talent agencies in Hollywood, have been subjected to breakthroughs in recent years.

In the case of HBO, federal prosecutors ultimately pointed the finger at a former Iranian military hacker.

Other cyber attacks against other agencies and institutions in the United States, such as the 2015 data breach at the Federal Office of Personnel Management, which US officials linked to the Chinese government, have proven no institution immune to the threat.

Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election has fueled the already existing perception in the liberal wing of Hollywood that foreign hackers are talented, ruthless, and resilient.

Self-censorship imposed by Hollywood on itself is not a fleeting censorship, it is unlikely that the field of revenge acts on the Internet and the ground, and unless affected by a huge economic collapse, the lure of the huge Chinese market will remain.

Chinese acquisitions of movie theater groups, its investments in film studies, and co-financing of films, all make Beijing a critical player that can shape American entertainment content and thus cut the wings of a key element of American soft power.

There is no doubt that the US government is increasingly viewing the entertainment industry as a liability that could fall within the realm of national security.

The US Foreign Investment Committee, the government body responsible for scrutinizing foreign investment in sensitive industries, has never previously carried the burden of the entertainment sector, but it seems that things are in the process of transformation.

In 2016, co-Schumer, a Democratic senator from New York State, wrote a letter to Secretary of the Treasury at the time, Jack Law, drawing his attention to the Wanda Group's acquisition of AMC theaters, as well as investments in US studios, asking the committee to pay more attention to deals of this kind.

Jerry Lopez (left), CEO of "AMC Entertainment", shares documents with "Zhang Lin," vice president of Wanda Group.

As the line between media and technology continues to blur, the committee is likely to answer Schumer's call soon.

But larger government restrictions by the United States are unlikely to further encourage studio executives to broadcast content that could fuel Beijing's anger and threaten its profits.

The result is a competitive landscape that has been upset and rewards those who influence safety.

Tibet, Taiwan and Tiananmen will still be banned subjects in Hollywood.

It is also possible to demonstrate the same deference to other countries that do not have huge markets at the ticket counter but their systems have shown their determination to attack their opponents abroad, as North Korea and Russia do.

Chaplin attacked Hitler and reaped money and art, but it is hard to imagine a contemporary Chaplin opposing Vladimir Putin, let him be exposed to Xi Jinping.

Encounters with villains in comic books are undoubtedly still there, and on the rise, but the flip-flops that in the past nurtured the soft power of the United States in the face of its opponents are becoming increasingly rare.

Not too long ago, an Oscar-winning screenwriter was asked to re-write one of video game's greatest masterpieces.

The company started by saying that war video games have a problem, is it: Who is the enemy?

It could not be China of course, nor Russia, nor North Korea, nor Iran, the company executives said, "We don't know which bad guys we do anymore."

———————————————————————————————-

This article is translated from Foreign Affairs and does not necessarily feature Maidan.