Neoliberalism and Monopoly in the Motion Picture Industry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 3-19-2020 Neoliberalism and Monopoly in the Motion Picture Industry Michael S. Wartenbe Florida International University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the American Politics Commons, International Economics Commons, International Relations Commons, and the Political Economy Commons Recommended Citation Wartenbe, Michael S., "Neoliberalism and Monopoly in the Motion Picture Industry" (2020). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 4417. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/4417 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida NEOLIBERALISM AND MONOPOLY IN THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY A d issertati on s ubm. itt ed in par tia l fulf illm en t of the requireme nt s for the deg ree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS by Michael Wartenbe 2020 To: Dean John F. Stack, Jr. Steven J. Green School of International & Public Affairs This dissertation, written by Michael Wartenbe, and entitled Neoliberalism and Monopoly in the Motion Picture Industry, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved. ________________________________________ Gail Hollander ________________________________________ Jin Zeng ________________________________________ Clement Fatovic ________________________________________ Ronald Cox, Major Professor Date of Defense: March 19, 2020 This dissertation of Michael Wartenbe is approved. ________________________________________ Dean John F. Stack, Jr. Steven J. Green School of International & Public Affairs ________________________________________ Andrés G. Gil Vice President for Research and Economic Development and Dean of the University Graduate School Florida International University, 2020 ii ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION N EOLIBERALISM AND MONOPOLY IN THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY by Michael Wartenbe Florida International University, 2020 Miami, Florida Professor Ronald Cox, Major Professor M onopolies and industry concentraLon have returned in our time, as did the ramifications in the globalized political economy. One of the most impactful in our daily lives are the Mass Media C onglomer ates who not only own the majority of film, television, and news we access, but increasingly c ontrol the means of accessi ng it, from cable to digital. Wh ile many are familiar with these corporaLons via their services and products, less known by the public are their poliLcal operaLons and close c ooperation with Washington. This is due to the lack of holisLc analysis of the industry and cooperation in the media oligopoly. Especially lacking is the focus on trade associaLons in the poliLcal process. As such, this dissertation analyzes the role of the prominent trade association for the film industry—the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The MPAA was formed in the early days of Hollywood’s film dominance, and today is one of the most prominent and notorious trade associations in promoting neoliberal development. These changes include transnationalized production and distribution, Intellectual Property Rights extensions, and invasive trade agreements to name a few. The influence and power to do so goes beyond lobbying, by instrumentalizing their industry, incorporating state bureaucracies, and developing an international structure that enhances corporate political power. The results have been an ever-growing consolidation that branches into related sectors and industries of communication and technology. With this such trade associations like the MPAA become more iii representative and hold more political leverage, which is increasingly used on the global arena and impacting the foreign and domestic policy of many states far beyond Hollywood. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. Introduction……………………………………………………………….………………………………….1 Historical Background…………………………………………………………………..……..5 Neoliberalism………………………………………………………………………..….………..11 The Evolution of the Neoliberal Era: Contemporary Scholarship…………17 Internationalization, Intellectual Property, and Corporate Power…..…..22 Associationalism……………………………………………………………………………….…27 Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………..36 Chapter Outline…………………………………………………………………………………..41 II. Development of Mass Media Conglomerates………………………………………………45 Mass Media Conglomerates………………………………………………..……………..45 Sectors……………………………………………………………………………………..…………49 Theater Control………………………………………….………………….……..…………….50 Blockbusters……………………………………………………………………………………….52 Advertisement…………………………………………………………………………..………..61 Finance……………………………………………………………………………..………………..65 Indie Producers and Control………………………………………………………..……..67 MPAA Cartel and the State………………………………………………..………………..73 III. MPAA in International Markets…………………………………………………………………..78 History of International Film Monopolization……………..……..……………….81 The Motion Picture Export Association……………………………..…………….….83 Internationalization and Domestic Politics…………………………..……………..87 The Film Oligopoly under Neoliberalism………………………………..….………..91 Special 301 – Expanding State Partnership……………………………..……..……94 Integration into the Global Film Structure……………………………..…….……..99 Conclusion…………………………..……………………………………………………..…….103 IV. Corporations, Associations, and the State: The International Subsidy System…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..104 Runaway Production…………………………………………………………………………107 International Subsidies: Canada and Europe…………………………..…………111 Europe………………………………………………………………………………………..…….113 Expansion of Subsidies: American States……………………………….………….116 Florida…………………………………………………………………………………….…………120 Georgia……………………………………………………………………………………………..125 California……………………………………………………………………………………..……128 International………………………………………………………………………….………….133 Consolidation of a Global System………………………………………………………136 Local Incentives to a Neoliberal Subsidy System………………..…..…………140 v V. The New Media Oligopoly………………………………………………………….………………148 Disney and Fox……………………………………………….………………………….……..149 Warner and Universal…………………………….………………………………..……….151 Declining Studios……………………………….……………………………………….…….153 Changes to Industry Competition…………………………….……………….………156 Hulu and Netflix…………………………………………………….……………….…………157 New Competitors………………………………………..…………………………………….159 Changes to Cooperation……………………………………….………………..…………163 Solutions………………………….……………………..…………………………….………….171 List of References…………………………………………………..………………….………….…………………177 VITA……………………………………………………………………………………….……………………..188 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Ad from The Moving Picture World…………………………………………………………………………7 2. Aspects of Mo,on Picture Eras……………………………………………………………………………...12 3. Control Pyramid Graphic…………………………………………………………………….………………….31 4. Overlap ping Trade Association Example: FACT, IIPA, and DCA……………..…………………..36 5. Paren t Compa nies……… …………… ……………………………………………………………………..……..48 6. Film In dus try R evenue So urc es: 1 948-2 007……… …… ………… …………………………….……..50 7. Major Stu dios ’ Domes, c M arke t S hare …………… …… ………… ……………………………….……53 8. Dome st ic and I n te rna tional Bo x Off ic e Revenue for Major Studios………………….…..….58 9. Adv er , sem en t F ig ur e … …… …… ………… …………………………………………………………………….62 10. Do m es , c B o x O ffi c e Sh are for MP AA F ilms…… …… ………………………………….…..………….64 11. D o m es , c Bo x O f f i c e S h are by M a jor S t udio… …… ……………………………………..……………64 12. Box Of fi c e Rev e nu e b y S t ud i o Cl a s s …… …… …… …… …………………………………………….…….68 13. 20 Mo st Pro fita ble S t ud ios a t th e B ox O ffice for 2008…………………………………………..69 14. Junior Pa r tn e rs a nd M a jor S tu dio s… …… …… ……………… ……… …………………………………..72 15. Box Office S ize b y Re gi on… ……… ………………… … ……… ………………………………………….…..79 16. Major St u d ios shar e o f Bo x Offi c e, L a, n Am e rica… ……………………….………………………80 17. Major St udio s shar e o f Box O ffic e, Asia………………………………………….……………………..81 18. Major S t ud i o s sh a re of Box O ffic e , Euro pe … …………… ………… ………………………….……..81 19. Numbe r o f T h eat e rs g l oba l ly an d share of A m eric an Films, 1949…………………..………86 20. Play -ti m e o f U .S. Fil m s by C ou n tr y… … ………… … …… …………………………………………..….…87 21. The atr i c a l R el eas es v e rs u s Fil m A d m i s sions in EU, 2005-2013……………………..……….102 22. Num be r o f In ce n tiv e Pr o g ram s an d Fu nds………………………………………….………………..116 23. Stud io A dv e r , si n g i n G eo r gia … …………… …… ………………………………………………….……..127 24. Geo rg ia C o nd iti o n s for B e n e fi ts ………… …… … ……… …………………………………….……….…127 25. Employ m en t by S tat e……… … … … ………… … … … ……… ……………………..……….…………..……130 26. Larg e st Box o ffi c e Rev enue Film Produc ,on Locations…………………………………..………133 vii 27. Lead ing Int erna tio nal Subsidies…………………………………………………………………..………143 28. Dome s , c Box O ff ice Sh are by M ajo r S tu dio……………………………………………………….149 29. Box Offi ce Share by Year, Disney and Fox……………………………………………………..…..…149 30. Box Offic e S hare by Y ear, War ner a nd Un ive rsal………… ……… …………………………………151 31. Box Offic e Share by Year, Sony……………………………………………………………………….…….153 32. Box Of fic e S hare by Ye ar, Via com …… ………………………………………………………….………..154 33. Box Of fi ce Sh are by Year, Lio n sgate……