Cultural Diplomacy through Hollywood films

Exporting Hollywood films to other countries can promote a better understanding of the American culture. In our class discussion we touched the issue of film a couple of times in the context of soft power and cultural diplomacy. And yet, while the medium film itself has a great promise to capture an audience, there is another component that should not be overlooked. When screened in other cultural contexts, the impact of a film can alter from offering an insight to American culture to arousing negative emotions and, in the worst case, offending another culture.

Last week, a Hollywood delegation was invited to join the Iranian Cinema Association. AP reported on March 2:

The group includes the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Sid Ganis; actors Bening, and Alfre Woodard; producer William Horberg; AMPAS Special Events Programmer and Exhibitions Curator Ellen Harrington; and Tom Pollock, the former Universal Pictures chairman.

Although, from a cultural diplomacy viewpoint, it was a valuable gesture to invite the Hollywood delegation to come to Iran, the meeting also provided an opportunity for Iranians to communicate specific problems that the culture has with some Hollywood movies.

An adviser to Iran's president has demanded an apology from a team of visiting Hollywood actors and movie industry officials, including Annette Bening, saying films such as "300" and "The Wrestler" were "insulting" to Iranians.

Without an apology, members of Iran's film industry should refuse to meet with representatives from the nine-member team, said Javad Shamaqdari, the art and cinema adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iranians mainly criticized two Hollywood films: 300 and The Wrestler.

The film "300," portrays the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days. It angered many Iranians for the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.

Iranians also criticized "The Wrestler" starring Mickey Rourke as a rundown professional wrestler who is preparing for a rematch with his old nemesis, "The Ayatollah." During a fight scene, "The Ayatollah" tries to choke Rourke with an Iranian flag before Rourke pulls the flagpole away, breaks it and throws it into the cheering crowd.

This recent example underscores the impact of cultural predispositions on the way films are perceived and interpreted and shows that cultural diplomacy is never just about show casting a blockbuster. One problem lies in the few options to control this process. “Neither movie was shown in Iran”, states the AP coverage. And yet, new technologies and communication structures have made it possible for Iranians to access the movie.

Hollywood movies are produced for a mass audience which is first of all an American audience. In a second step the movies are exported to other countries – and this mainly for profit and not for diplomacy reasons. While Western countries, such as Germany, might have a similar cultural background and therefore share some overlapping values and reactions to the movies, other countries, which are more different from the US, might refer to a different value system and therefore react differently to the films.

Overall I think it is a complex process. Hollywood movies offer a great promise to bring American culture to other countries; however, they can also reinforce negative impressions and perceptions that other cultures have about the US.

Initial Reactions to BBC Persian TV

The initial reception to the BBC’s Persian language news channel launched last month seems to be positive and hopeful. This is according to a story, which highlights a handful of reactions to the new channel from Persian-speaking bloggers across the world. One blogger gave a stamp of approval:

“I believe that BBC Persian TV made an explosive start! The appealing variety of programmes, the praise-worthy professionalism of its presenters and anchormen, the studio's lively atmosphere and the lack of long and tiresome analyses all demonstrate the fact that a different Persian-language news network has been launched…”

Many of the bloggers conveyed frustrations about the lack of credible news sources emanating from Iran, considering the government’s censorship of the news media, and believe the new BBC channel will succeed:

“The Islamic Republic is concerned that in the absence of a credible media outlet inside or outside Iran which can clearly reflect its stances, BBC Persian TV will turn into the Iranians' main news source during various political and social crises…In the absence of credible media, the BBC can attract a wide spectrum of viewers with its [Persian] television.”

Many of the blogges continued, voicing their appreciation for the new channel, while explaining some of Voice of America’s weaknesses in comparison:

“The quality of BBC Persian TV's programmes was excellent and beyond my expectations. I am sure that soon it will gain a special standing in Iran. It is run very professionally and proficiently… It is much more proficient than the VOA…The reason behind this is pretty obvious. The VOA is smaller than the BBC and it is not allowed to be broadcast inside the US.”

There was also a sense of hope conveyed that the high standards of the channel would lead to changes in Iranian-based media, even possibly democratic advancements in the country:

“Maybe it's too early to draw such a conclusion but I believe that the BBC will rank first among Persian-language channels. It will motivate Iranian officials to come to their senses a little and start spending the huge budget they have on producing better TV programmes inside the country rather than on networks such as Press TV and al-Alam which spread lies.”

“The best it can do is that it can act as a mouthpiece for some of the reformists. In the absence of good Persian-language media, the BBC Persian TV can play an effective role in creating a democratic environment.” 

The BBC recognizes the tremendous power that a credible, objective news source has, especially in countries such as Iran. The question remains: will the U.S. realize this and bolster the VOA and its overall news media outreach as a tool of public diplomacy? 

Badminton Diplomacy?

In class last night, we talked about Culls article and the facets of PD. A story in the news this week highlights cultural/exchange diplomacy in an interesting way.

The United States women's Badminton Team was denied visas to enter Iran for an International tournament coming up in March. According to their foreign minister, the visa process was just too "time consuming" thus the team would not receive them in time. See FP Passport for their blog on it, which brings up a sexist angle as well.

The relationship between Iran and the US is increasingly in the spotlight as the world waits to see how our new president will act. According to an NY Times article yesterday,
"While Mr. Obama is expected to soften the Bush administration’s line against talking to Iran, the aides said, he may also seek to toughen sanctions."

While Badminton tournaments may not be on the top of Mr. Obama's list of grievances against Iran, this particular snub of our public diplomacy does show an unwillingness to engage with the US.
If even the most benign form of PD, allowing our teams to compete in their country, is rejected then it seems difficult to forsee how or where the US and Iran will ever diffuse tensions.