Confronting Hollywood is a global issue. How to deal with Hollywood's aggressive invasion is a problem that the vast majority of countries and regions around the world must seriously consider when developing their local film industries. The most common method is the quota system, which legally mandates cinemas to screen domestic films for no fewer than a specified number of days each year.
The quota system restricts Hollywood films in the market circulation field, creating survival space for domestic films. Meanwhile, in the production field, many countries also have special support and subsidy policies for local film production.
The details of quota or subsidy policies vary from country to country, but most have built, through legislation, mechanisms that operate effectively and are generally accepted by domestic filmmakers, domestic audiences, and even Hollywood. Compared to the crude and simplistic "domestic protection month," such protective measures do not seriously violate the principles of free competition in a market economy, nor do they rudely infringe upon the audience's right to choose what to watch.
The United Kingdom was the first to implement the film quota system as early as 1927, while the most famous film quota system belongs to South Korea. Known as the "Domestic Film Mandatory Screening System," the South Korean government legislated in 1996 that every theater in the country, in each of its screening halls, must show Korean films for at least 146 days per year.
In France, in addition to a strict quota system, the government has also established many policies to support local film production. From script creation to shooting and distribution, domestic films can receive corresponding financial assistance, which mainly comes from a percentage of box office revenues, with an additional portion from a national special reward fund.
Furthermore, France levies a special tax on the box office income of Hollywood films to fund the training of French film talent and to support local film creation.
To a certain extent, just like the insistence on not classifying films by rating, the "domestic protection month" can be called crude and simplistic—a time-saving and labor-saving method worthy of the nickname "Great Scissors."
More importantly, whether it concerns the exhibition-side quota system or the production-side subsidy policy, these specific measures to protect domestic films are clearly stipulated by law in almost all countries.
But as for the "Great Scissors," it openly declares that it has never set up a domestic protection month…
As for the treatment The Dark Knight Rises received in the Chinese market, Duke was powerless to change it. Compared with the Chinese market, the increasingly chaotic North American scene had already consumed most of his energy, leaving him no time to pay much attention to overseas matters.
When Monday came, The Dark Knight Rises entered its first weekday. That day's box office plunged by more than fifty percent compared to Sunday, grossing $22.14 million.
After this period of fermentation, the shooting incident's impact on The Dark Knight Rises became increasingly evident.
"If this trend continues, sitting in the reception room of the clifftop villa, public relations expert Panny Kallis frowned deeply. "The North American box office outlook for The Dark Knight Rises is far from optimistic."
"So, we need to find a way to divert the media and public's attention," Duke said, rubbing his temples wearily. "If a sensational event could break out right now, the pressure on both us and The Dark Knight Rises would be greatly reduced."
Panny Kallis looked out the window toward the manor gate. "Didn't Tina go to meet Lee Pace?"
Duke nodded lightly. "Hopefully, Tina will bring back some good news."
Like all super-rich men, Duke maintained a good relationship with the Los Angeles authorities—especially the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. That morning, Tina Fey had gone downtown to meet Sheriff Lee Pace. It was said that there had been some unexpected progress in James Holmes' case. Before the next official press briefing, Lee Pace would first disclose certain details to Duke's side.
This would give Duke and Warner Bros. more time to prepare.
Around noon, Tina Fey rushed back to Malibu. Before even sitting down in the reception room, she said, "During the police interrogation, James Holmes claimed that last year's car accident involving Vin Diesel was not an accident but a carefully planned murder and the one who carried it out was him!"
"What?" Panny Kallis seemed unable to believe such news. "Vin Diesel was murdered?"
Compared to Panny Kallis, Duke appeared calmer. Since Lee Pace had revealed this information to Tina Fey, it meant the police were quite confident about it.
He nodded slightly to show he understood, then stood up, walked to the window, and gazed outside, his mind racing rapidly.
Why would James Holmes target Vin Diesel?
This man's mind was clearly abnormal; his imitation of the Joker already showed that. From that angle, such an act wasn't entirely unexpected.
The problem was—Holmes sought the same kind of shocking effect as the Joker. If he had killed Vin Diesel, why had there been no uproar until now? That was completely inconsistent with his behavior in the Santa Monica mall.
Duke shared this thought with Tina Fey and Panny Kallis.
Seventy-year-old Panny Kallis, with far more experience, thought for a moment and said, "Then there's another possibility—James Holmes was only the executor, not the planner."
Tina Fey added, "It could also have been a hired hit. If that's the case, it would explain how an unemployed man like James Holmes got the money to buy so many weapons and ammunition."
Sitting back on the sofa, Duke lightly tapped the armrest.
"If it was a hired hit, then who hired him?"
Tina Fey's question made all three people in the room fall into silence.
After a full five minutes, Duke slowly spoke. "Whoever benefits the most is the one most likely responsible."
Tina Fey and Panny Kallis exchanged glances, and a certain name came to both their minds. But… could it really be possible?
It was only speculation, and Duke would not make it public. After some thought, he said, "Inform Warner about the case progress. Have Warner's media teams prepare accordingly. Once the police officially announce the news, we should let Vin Diesel's murder overshadow the current public pressure facing The Dark Knight Rises."
Tina Fey nodded slightly.
Duke added, "Stay in close contact with Lee Pace. Use every resource at our disposal to pressure the Los Angeles police to keep pursuing the investigation into James Holmes."
This country's legal system was indeed well established and supposedly upheld judicial independence—but the distance between that ideal and true fairness, openness, and justice was as far as from Earth to the planet Vega. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was subject to far too many influences.
It's not even impossible that Vin Diesel's murder case will eventually end up with no resolution.
At present, the focus of the entire American media is still on the Santa Monica mall shooting. However, compared with the previous few days, some reflective voices have begun to appear in the media. These opinions, in Duke's view, are relatively fair and not without reason.
Gunfire beneath the silver screen once again echoed in American theaters. There was no Superman to turn the tide, nor any superhero descending from the sky.
What there was—scattered popcorn, panicked crowds, and shrieking police sirens.
The perplexing and infuriating violent incident once again brought the topic of "Should cinema reflect on whether it has bred violence?" to the table. This was not the first time people had committed crimes inspired by films or imitating them: groups modeling crimes after The Italian Job; the American youth John Hinckley Jr. attempting to assassinate Reagan for Jodie Foster; and Natural Born Killers spawning its own imitators and worshipers…
Now, tragedies were no longer simple murders, assaults, or explosions, but acts aimed at creating public chaos to challenge social order. This ideological trend of anti-civilization and anarchy was becoming increasingly apparent.
Under Hollywood's spectacularized display of violence, imitation of on-screen brutality has gradually become a normalized escalation. Thus, among the many participants in this narrative—the media, communication, audiences, and epistemology—can any truly claim to be blameless?
In today's mass media, violence is often trivialized, overexposed, and aestheticized. Although there is still insufficient evidence to prove that violent scenes in films or television are directly linked to violent tendencies, one thing is certain: if a person is already prepared to commit a crime, watching such films may push his criminal emotions to the brink, ultimately leading him to act out violence.
In response, many in Hollywood also came forward to express their opinions.
Harvey Weinstein, facing the camera with a serious expression, publicly urged Hollywood filmmakers to sit down and reflect on the impact of cinematic violence on people and the role filmmakers play in it.
The media, led by The New York Post, supported this stance—"Our movies today are drenched in blood and violence. Hollywood should be held accountable for this."
On the other hand, Time magazine came forward to defend Batman, arguing that this innocent film merely experienced the baptism of a coincidental tragedy—"Don't blame Batman; criminals always randomly seize on something to justify their twisted acts."
Meanwhile, related psychiatrists also said, "The claim that a young man watched a violent movie, thought it was cool, and then committed murder doesn't hold up—the motive is insufficient. Something must have happened in his life that pushed him toward crime; we just don't know what yet."
Should movies be held responsible for violent crimes? Should films truly be blamed this way? Even Harvey Weinstein, who called for a reduction in visual violence, expressed doubt. He deeply understood that violent aesthetics are often inseparable from creativity, style, and brilliance. "I've produced many violent films. Sometimes I suddenly feel, 'I can't keep doing this—cut these scenes out.' But you know, you have to respect the director's vision. It really is a difficult problem."
This difficult problem—this unbalanced dilemma—like all paradoxes in the world, has no clear conclusion.
Thus, a nationwide debate over whether cinematic violence is guilty erupted across the United States.
...
Hi For access to additional chapters of
Director in Hollywood (40 chpaters)
Made In Hollywood (60 Chapters)
Pokemon:Bounty Hunter(30 Chapters)
Hollywood:From Razzie to Legend(40 Chapters)
The Great Ruler (30 Chapters)
Join pateron.com/Translaterappu