Hollywood aims to please ... China?

When offending China would mean losing a big percent of film grosses, filmmakers tread carefully.

Joe Lederer/Sony/Columbia Pictures/AP
John Cusack (l.) and Woody Harrelson in a scene from the film '2012.'

This fall, Hollywood will roll out a remake of "Red Dawn." The 1984 original depicts a band of high school students defending their hometown from a Russian invasion. With the Soviet Union long gone, the new script casts China as the great menace – at least that was the plan.

Partway through production, someone reminded the filmmakers that offending Beijing would not only get "Red Dawn" banned from China, but also might push government censors to reject other films from the same studio.

Big popcorn flicks earn up to 70 percent of their money overseas. Now that China is the second-largest film market in the world, Hollywood has gone to extraordinary measures to cater to Chinese audiences.

The "Red Dawn" crew "spent a million dollars or so digitally changing the language of the bad guys to make them North Koreans," says Stanley Rosen, professor of political science at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. "They couldn't quite get rid of everything; but they changed uniforms, flags, and things like that."

Chinese regulators allow in only 34 foreign films a year. With such a quota, some studios have sneaked little winks into their films, touches that Americans probably won't notice but Chinese viewers love.

" '2012,' which was a big hit in China, went out of its way to make China look good," says Mr. Rosen. In the film, John Cusack leads a group that must escape apocalyptic natural disasters. They eventually find refuge in massive arks that can ride the rising waves. Guess who built the arks?

As the film reveals these ships, Oliver Platt, playing the White House chief of staff, says in a moment of admiration, "Leave it to the Chinese. I didn't think it was possible, not in the time we had."

While China regularly rejects movies or deletes scenes with Chinese villains, the government also balks at more subtle topics, such as vampires, ghosts, insults to neighboring countries, and time travel (especially if it suggests that things were better before communism).

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.