Every film must be made with a lens. This is true both figuratively and literally. When telling stories there made be a point of view taken. Ultimately, whose stories are told, and how, creates the basis for new cultural artifacts and interpretation. This goes even deeper, however, as Fraser explains that these cultural artifacts are not just incidental articulations of a culture, but very carefully crafted narratives that perpetuate specific values and perceptions of a given society. He points out that this is particularly the case with the United States. While the creation of film was in France in the late 19^th century, the introduction of film to the United States created a nationwide fascination and ultimately a medium for exportable propaganda. Insight into the film industry shows that politics have always been very closely tied. Not only did many presidents enjoy films in their past time, but a literal committee was formed and lead by a journalist, George Creel, in order to moderate the vision of what it meant to be American, both nationally and internationally (Fraser 40). It’s no mystery that Hollywood movies are known worldwide and have an incredible influence on people, but this was actually crafted on purpose as a form of soft power. The industry was heavily regulated in terms of what was imported and exported in order to sustainable a positive representation of the United States and its people.

However, as the industry expanded and national contexts changed so did the characters represented in stories. One of the beautiful things about cinema is that it can tell tales of fiction, reality, or something in between. You can craft each scene in your own creation and even create different edits for different populations. As movies were created about war and investigations, it became extremely apparent who was an in-group, and who belonged to that of ‘the other’. This is easily reflected by the kinds of films that were created and popularized during specific times of war and conflict. Over time ‘the other’ is easily changed, or even in new contexts. For example, in the film Red Dawn the enemy was changed from the Chinese to the North Koreans in the Chinese imported version of the film (Langfitt 5).  Such careful crafting allows the United States to cater to different audiences. Yet, sometimes the original versions of film are discovered or ultimately go unchanged, as is the case with the movie Aladdin in the Arab world. Fraser mentions that this upset many people and it deepened the divide between the two civilizations of the West and the Arab world (79). Other examples include films made to appeal to Russians so as to declare ally-ship with Russia against Hitler and Nazi Germany (61).

As mentioned previously, films were not just used to declare allies and enemies but also as a way to market an idealistic image to outside nations. The case of cinema is extremely telling in relation to soft power because people felt free to enjoy these films rather than coerced. American cinema plays to the illusion of choice and while many nations have attempted to compete with the American industry in order to achieve similar levels of influence, there are far to many factors specific to the American context to have the same level of influence. As Nye mentions, choices are increasing while attention is becoming a more finite resource. So while other nations do appear to be creating more films and access to these films is becoming more readily available through the Internet and services like Netflix, only time will tell who the next big players will be… but from where I’m sitting, America doesn’t look like it’s losing steam anytime soon.

Fraser, Matthew. “The Movies: The Power and the Glamour”. Weapons of Mass Distraction: Soft Power and American Empire, Toronto, Key Porter, 2003, pp. 34 – 111.

Langfitt, Frank. “How China’s Censors Influence Hollywood.” National Public Radio, Washington, D.C., 2015.

Nye, Joseph. “American Soft Power in the Age of Trump”. Project Syndicate, May 6, 2019.