Film Distribution Research Kit

Research Questions

What are some of the challenges Latin American film distribution has faced? How has Latin American film distribution changed? What do these challenges with distribution mean for worldwide viewers?

Audience

The target audience for this research kit is upper high school and college level students. I think this research kit can also be applied outside of educational settings and used by people with a general interest in Latin American film.

For high school students, this research kit may supplement a World History 1500-Present course. The following standards of learning can relate to the topic of film distribution and what it means:

H, the dir, Viva Zapata!.Overview

Some of the influence on my research kit comes from my own personal experiences as a student and film viewer. I was encouraged to consider and ask questions of the films and shows I watch.

Historically, there has been a trend of a US and Hollywood monopoly over the film industry. Combined with the social issues that the US has struggled with surrounding race, racial equality, and representation, this monopoly can have negative effects. With my research kit, I felt that it was important to explore film distribution trends and relate them to some of the films and readings throughout the semester. This idea of a monopoly can relate to the concept of film as power and the way power is demonstrated through film is related to who gets access to a film through its distribution.

 The Hollywood Cold War film, Viva Zapata! (dir. Elia Kazan, 1952) depicts the people and societies from the point of view of the US not of Mexico, where the film takes place. The revolutionary, Emiliano Zapata, is depicted as illiterate and  unintelligent, operating from his animla-like instincts, in the film. This characterization differs from the historical figure of Zapata. This scene, for example, depicts Zapata being showered in appreciation by his followers after a recent victory. The celebration is interrupted when Zapata receives a letter. He goes on to interact with another individual, encouraging them to open and read the letter for him, alluding to illiteracy.

Robert Rosenstone discusses history as a document versus history as a drama. While history as a document is taken more as fact, one of the downfalls to it is that, he explains:  “All those old photo­ graphs and all that newsreel footage are saturated with a prepackaged emotion: nostalgia” (p. 52). Rosenstone discusses how history is typically ‘compartmentalized’. Historical films can combine those compartmentalized topics and display them relative to each other. This is different from the standard written history where “the strategy that fractures the past into distinct chapters, topics, and categories; that treats gender in one chapter, race in another, economy in a third” is present (p. 60-61). He explains, “these conventions mean that history on film will create a past different from the one provided by writ­ten history; indeed, they mean that history on film will always violate the norms of written history,”  (p. 65). Film and written history present different ways of engaging with the past. 

https://www.tcm.com/video/1432578/viva-zapata-1952-congratulations-general-zapata/

Other information for this research kit comes from  sources that discuss the specific challenges Latin American films have faced with reaching an audience. Issues within specific countries, like censorship and funding have contributed to the earlier problems with film distribution. This being said, distribution levels are seeing improvement, especially since the 1990s when film festivals facilitated new success for many Latin American films.

A source of inspiration to explore film distribution was the Brazilian show, 3%. Its first season has a similar plot and themes to another, extremely popular Netflix series, The Squid Game.  As 3% is a Latin American show and the other show is not, it raised questions regarding a film or show’s popularity and what that is reflective of.

The biggest challenge Latin American film distribution has faced is breaking into a film market that is monopolized by the US and Hollywood. Secondary challenges stem from country specific issues surrounding funding, casting, directorship, and general acceptance. Latin American film distribution has seen growth and change in recent years, especially since breaking into the nationwide market in the late 1990s. Currently, Latin American films are continuing to become more widely screened and available. This can be attributed to the attitude shift within society and recognition of misrepresentation through content and casting. Individuals and societies are looking to accurately educate themselves and this has influenced the distribution of films coming directly from the source. These challenges can mean that as viewers, people are unable to get accurate depictions of other places and people. Additionally, these challenges with distribution speak to larger political and social issues around the world and issues within films regarding race, representation, and casting.

Annotated Bibliography

3%, directed by César Charlone, Daina Giannecchini, Dani Libardi, Jotagá Crema, & Philippe Barcinski, 2016

3% is a primary source Brazilian TV show that was released in 2016. It’s actors and show creators are Brazilian. For the purpose of this research kit, my focus is less on the depictions of characters in the show and more on how a Brazilian show with this plot did not see the same instant success as Squid Game, which has a similar plot. This questioning and comparison bring in another view to my topic, as the rest of my sources explore distribution of Latin American films in relation to US productions. This source is intended to serve as a source of comparison when exploring the content of a film or TV Show and it’s distribution.

Alvaray, Luisela. “National, Regional, and Global: New Waves of Latin American Cinema,”Cinema Journal, 47, Number 3, Spring 2008, pp. 48-65.

This is a secondary source that contains information about changes within Latin American Cinema. The piece relates topics like a globalized economy, Hollywood and Latin America, the distribution of films, and film festivals. This source directly relates to my topic of film distribution and the questions I will ask as well as being easily related to the information within other sources.

A specific time that brought great change for Latin American films is the 1990s. This is due to the new support for film from governments and sources of funding (p. 49). This aligns with points made in the Hart source, helping me to formulate a timeline of sorts as I discuss the changes in film distribution.

A topic highlighted in this source is the correlation and role of government in Latin American films and their distribution and success. While finances dropped after governments stepped away from film, what was created for screens was less heavily regulated. These two situations worked against each other for a time, as creators wanted to take advantage of new freedoms, but lacked the funding to do so. During this time, film festivals gained popularity and lower budget films were created (p. 49).

Emphasis is also placed on the usage and power of film festivals as outside ways to promote films and get exposure (p. 59-60). When films and filmmakers were unable to break into the market otherwise, film festivals became a place to network, mingle, and get interest in a film going. Global alliances were results of film festivals, and these alliances served to help films make their way into mainstream viewing.

Something I found interesting was “The Motion Picture Association (MPA), an organization whose members are the major Hollywood studios, activated its Latin American offices in the 1990s with a clear goal:

The MPA-AL [América Latina] protects and defends the interests of its member companies in each distribution sector—theatrical, television, pay TV, home entertainment, and new technologies—through activities aimed at the improvement of market access and the protection of intellectual property rights. The MPA-AL also works closely with national film institutes and other local government agencies to promote regulatory frameworks that foster the expansion of film industry activities and co-production of national films (p. 50).” This is Hollywood’s seemingly first reasonable attempt at including non-Hollywood based films in its viewer market. This is also the boost that Latin American films needed to gain success, reflecting the power Hollywood has over the film industry (p. 51).

Birri, F. (2014). CINEMA AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT (Argentina, 1962). In S. MacKenzie (Ed.),Film Manifestos and Global Cinema Cultures: A Critical Anthology (pp. 211-217). Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520957411-067

This is a secondary source that addresses the portion of my question regarding the impact of film distribution. Specifically, Birri is writing about the importance of accurate film for the people in Argentina and what they need through the films. The quote, “And with the raw material of a reality which is little and badly understood: that of the underdeveloped countries of Latin America (or, if you prefer the euphemism favored by the Organization of American States, the developing countries of Latin America). Understanding—or, rather, misunderstanding—of these countries has always come about by applying analytical schemes imposed by foreign colonialists or their local hench- men (whose particular mentality has deformed such ideas even further)”, connects to themes of inaccuracies or colonialist themes common in Hollywood based films.

This source also compares who needs film the most and who it is being made for. This outlines the harm of misrepresentation in film, negatively impacting the group of people being represented. Birri gives a suggestion on how to improve upon these issues “By showing how reality is, and in no other way. This is the revolutionary function of social documentary and realist, critical and popular cinema in Latin America. By testifying, critically, to this reality—to this sub-reality, this misery—cinema refuses it. It rejects it. It denounces, judges, criticizes and deconstructs it. Because it shows matters as they irrefutably are, and not as we would like them to be (or as, in good or bad faith, others would like to make us believe them to be).”

Hart , Stephen M. “Introduction to Latin American Film,” from A Companion to Latin American Film, Tamesis Books, 2007, pp. 1-16.

This is a secondary source that contains information on Latin American films and how they faced early struggles to be viewed and gain popularity. Within the source, there is a common theme that relates the struggles of Latin American films to the US and the role Hollywood played in an essentially monopolized industry. As my topic is exploring the distribution of films in relation to their content and origin, this source provides some information on some of the factors influencing film distribution and popularity.

Hart mentions the way that US Film and Hollywood served as models that other films were made to be like. He specifically mentions the comedia ranchera, a type of film being created in Mexico and chanchada in Brazil. Unfortunately, these productions did not see the same level of success as productions from the US. This is largely due to lack of funding and resources, but the films did not become popular with an extensive number of viewers (p. 5).

Hart talks about the music festivals that took place in the 1960s that gave Latin American film directors more of a platform than they had before. Having Latin American directors brought different things to films that US created and directed films could. He also mentions how the festivals contributed to cultural identity (p. 8-9). This was interesting to me because the previous pages show how much the US is involved in film and what this means for other countries.

The 1990s-2000s was a time when “Latin American cinema had finally come into its own.” The time was a shift for Latin American films, and they became internationally successful and exited the struggles that early films had (p. 13). I also found it interesting how Hart discusses the differences in government funded vs privately funded films. The most successful films were not the government funded ones.

Rocha, Glauber. “Aesthetics of Hunger.” 1965.

This secondary source references and addresses the deeper issues that stem from misrepresentation and misunderstanding. Rocha argues that the results go further than being contained to film but speak to and address much larger issues within politics and society.

The largest topic Rocha touches on in this source, is violence and its usage in film. He reflects on what the impact on viewers when exposed to violence, and almost argues for the necessity of violence where necessary to preserve the truth. The truth is not always pretty, and film needs to push to overcome cutting uncomfortable parts in order to present accurate depictions and representations. Rocha alludes to the way this is hard because that will require people to become aware and responsible for the information they learn.

Rosenstone, Robert. “The Historical Film:  Looking at the Past in a Postliterate Age,” from The Historical Film:  History and Memory in Media, edited by Marcia Landy (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2001) pp. 50-66.

This is a secondary source that specifically discusses historical films and their impact. The piece also includes information that could be considered a ‘con’ to historical films. This will provide information for me to integrate into my topic about film distribution, as there is often misrepresentation of history in films. For instance, if a film about Brazilian culture is created in the US, there is a chance it will be more widely circulated, but because it does not come from Brazilian people, could contain things that are inaccurate. The other side of this is the same film being created in Brazil, by Brazilian people, facing difficulties breaking into the international viewer market, but containing accurate information. This source will help me bring in information about the harm that can be done with variable circulation

Rosenstone discusses history as a document vs history as a drama. While history as a document is taken more as fact, one of the downfalls too it is that “All those old photo­ graphs and all that newsreel footage are saturated with a prepackaged emotion: nostalgia” (p. 52).

Rosenstone then discusses how history is typically ‘compartmentalized’. This stood out to me because I thought about how I’ve learned through written history compared to visual history and I can agree that things are more compartmentalized in written history. Historical films can combine those compartmentalized topics and display them relative to each other. This is different from the standard written history where “the strategy that fractures the past into distinct chapters, topics, and categories; that treats gender in one chapter, race in another, economy in a third” is present (p. 60-61).

The quote, “these conventions mean that history on film will create a past different from the one provided by writ­ten history; indeed, they mean that history on film will always violate the norms of written history,” discusses the differences in how written history will vary from film (p. 65). It seems that he is concluding here that written history will always present a fuller, more accurate picture of history because historical film will run into boundaries in what it is able to do. This is not to say that history shouldn’t be told in film, but more as a word of advice when engaging with historical film.

Schoenwald, Jonathan M. “Rewriting Revolution: The Origins, Production and Reception of “Viva Zapata”!Film History, Vol. 8, No. 2, The 1950s and beyond (1996), pp. 109-130.

This is a secondary source that focuses on Viva Zapata!. The source also touches on the topic of communism, as well as approaches to film using decolonized or colonized approaches. In reference to the creators, they are anti-communist but chose to write about the revolution during the cold war in a conservative way.

The source also explores who the film was screened by and what the content-based issues within it mean for society. Overall, this source supports an open dialogue and questioning process to determine the accuracy of film, Viva Zapata! specifically.

Viva Zapata! directed by Elia Kazan, 1952.

This is a primary source (film) that connects to the Jonathan Schoenwald source as well as other themes and topics I may integrate into my final project. It will serve as an example of a film that came out of Hollywood and presents historical and social inaccuracies that involve particular groups of people.

The Film Viva Zapata! includes incidences of black face as well as the main character, Zapata, being misrepresented in the movie. Zapata is depicted as illiterate, when, this was not true of him. The action and usage of blackface is also unacceptable but is present in the film. I hope to connect this back to the Schoenwald and Rosenstone sources to display the downfalls of a monopolized film market where certain films are having higher or lower distribution.

Another way this film can tie into my topic is through its creation/origin. The creators are anti-communist but chose to write about the revolution during the cold war in a conservative way. Elia Kazan was anti-communist and testified for the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) against people in Hollywood who he said were communists of the era; irony here of Kazan writing the scenes of Diaz and Zapata making lists as being bad, then in his own life makes a list of people to name to the HUAC.

Zannoni, David. “The Latin American Film Market: A Complete Guide for Filmmakers & Producers.” Stage 32, March 26, 2020, https://www.stage32.com/blog/The-Latin-American-Film-Market-A-Complete-Guide-for-Filmmakers-and-Producers.

This source is a primary source that explores some specifics of how the Latin American film market operates. As the processes involving Latin American films and their distribution is at the core of my research, this source will provide a more technical look at what happens in the process, from film incentives to benefits to challenges.

I am intrigued by the financial factors that come into play, mentioned in this source. Financing is not the only financial matter involved, as there is revenue to consider and tax and financial incentives in place to motivate filmmakers to create in Latin America.

A point that reflects some of the other sources is “Latin America combines a variety of cultures and histories, which produce stories for your next film and a reason to produce and shoot your film in Latin America.” This relates to the idea that inaccuracies in films can be common when a film is not created in or consulted by someone of the culture it is depicting.

Overall, the points within this source point to basic facts that surround Latin American film creation and distribution. It is also the most modern of the sources so far, and is able to provide current information regarding challenges, setbacks, and what is being done to increase the production and circulation of Latin American films.