HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020571.jpg

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.’”53

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.54

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