112
not intended for the China market, for fear that all films by the studio would be blocked. Indeed, the last spate of movies made for general circulation that addressed topics that the Chinese government deemed sensitive were released in 1997 and included such productions as Red Corner, Seven Years in Tibet, and Kundun. Several prominent American entertainers have been subject to bans by China, most often for their association with the Dalai Lama. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, actor Richard Gere, an outspoken advocate of Tibetan culture, stated, “There are definitely movies that I can’t be in because the Chinese will say, ‘Not with him,’”*?
Beyond self-censorship, American studios and creative personnel are at risk of being actively co-opted in advancing Chinese soft power. Chinese political and entertainment leaders are conscious that American entertainment companies have played an outsize role in defining China, from Mulan to Kung Fu Panda. By the time the third edition in the Panda franchise had been released, however, it was being coproduced with a Chinese partner. The list of films portraying China in a positive light grow each year, such as the space films Gravity and The Martian, a movie backed by Chinese money in which the American protagonists are saved by the Chinese. Ironically, in Gravity, a central plot twist involves the shooting down of a satellite by the Russians. In fact, the only nation to have shot down a satellite in real life is China. These positive portrayals, of course, are not inherently objectionable— and they may, indeed, provide a constructive countervailing force in an otherwise deteriorating relationship. The issue is: How do these portrayals come to be: In other words, has independent artistic vision been manipulated by political pressures to maintain commercial standing?
The rush of Chinese investment into the American film industry has raised legitimate concerns about the industry’s outright loss of independence. In 2012, Dalian Wanda acquired the AMC cinema chain, followed in 2016 by the acquisition of the Legendary Entertainment studio. Before encountering political trouble at home, Wanda’s chairman announced a desire to invest in each of the six major Hollywood studios. Since then, other announced partnerships and investments have faded, principally because of Beijing’s pushback against what it deemed to be grossly excessive, and often ill-considered, foreign investment plans by Chinese companies.**
Conclusion and Recommendations
Through control of its companies operating abroad, growing influence over foreign companies, and the rapid activation of business-related United Front groups, China is using commercial interests as an important means of exercising “sharp power” influence. As with other sectors, much of China’s activity is, regardless of its intent, legal and thus should not be disparaged. The appropriate response to this commercial challenge must be temperate and multifaceted. In some areas, it will require that the political system increase its transparency regarding or reduce its exposure to corporate money entirely, which, given
Corporations
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020571