ADMISSIONS 2007
(Millions)
plus figures for [2006] and [2005]- 2,500~ - INDIA [5,000~] [500~]
- 1,400 -- USA [1,395] [1,376]
- 883.8~ - Europe [857~] [892]
- 674~ --- CHINA [n/a] [1,430]
- 178 ---- FRANCE [188.5] [175.7]
- 175 ---- MEXICO [165.5] [162.5]
- 164.2 -- UK [156.6] [164.7]
- 163.2 -- JAPAN [164.3] [160.5]
- 158.8 -- SOUTH KOREA [163.8] [143]
- 125.4 -- GERMANY [136.7] [127.3]
- 116.9 -- SPAIN [121.7] [127.6]
- 106.6 -- RUSSIA [99] [91.8]
- 106~ --- CANADA [103] [105]
- 103.5 -- ITALY [107] [105.6]
- 88.5 --- BRAZIL [90.2] [10.7]
- 84.7 --- AUSTRALIA [83.6] [82.2]
- n/a ---- THAILAND [n/a] [45]
- 34.5 --- ARGENTINA [34.2] [37.2]
- 31.2 --- TURKEY [34.8] [27.3]
- 33.6 --- MALAYSIA [n/a] [26]
- n/a ---- SOUTH AFRICA [29.7] [29]
- 24.1 --- Québec [24.8] [26]
- 22.3~ - BELGIUM [23.8] [21.9]
- n/a ---- POLAND [n/a] [23.3]
- n/a ---- NETHERLANDS [22.5] [n/a]
- n/a ---- TAIWAN [n/a] [20]
- 19.4 --- Hong Kong [16.8] [18.9]
- n/a ---- IRELAND [17.8] [n/a]
- 16.3 --- PORTUGAL [16.4] [15.7]
- 15.5 --- SWEDEN [n/a] [n/a]
- 15 ----- AUSTRIA [n/a] [14.5]
- 14.2 --- SWITZERLAND [n/a] [n/a]
- n/a ---- DENMARK [12.6] [n/a]
- n/a ---- IRAN [11.5~] [7.8]
- 9.7 ---- ISRAEL [9.5~] [n/a]
- n/a ---- CZECH Rep. [n/a] [9.5]
- 2.9 ---- ROMANIA [2.8] [n/a]
- 2.5 ---- MOROCCO [2.5~] [6]
- n/a ---- LEBANON [n/a] [2.1]
- 1.8~ --- KENYA [n/a] [n/a]
- 1.6 ---- ESTONIA [n/a] [n/a]
- 1.4 ---- SERBIA [n/a] [n/a]
- n/a --- CAMBODIA [n/a] [0.8]
| DOMESTIC SHARE
(% of admissions for domestic films)
plus % for [2006] and [2005] - 99.4 % - IRAN [99~] [99]
- n/a ---- USA [95+] [96.9]
- 92 % --- INDIA [95~] [95~]
- n/a ---- EGYPT [81] [n/a]
- 54.1 % - CHINA [55] [68.5]
- 50.8 % - SOUTH KOREA [64.2] [59]
- 47.7 % - JAPAN [53.2] [41.3]
- 36.5 % - FRANCE [45] [36.9]
- n/a ---- CAMBODIA [n/a] [35]
- 32.4 % - TURKEY [51.7] [42]
- 31.7 % - ITALY [24.7] [24.7]
- 29 % --- UK [19] [33]
- 26.3 % - RUSSIA [25.7] [29.7]
- 25.5 % - SERBIA [n/a] [n/a]
- n/a ---- DENMARK [25] [n/a]
- n/a ---- CZECH Rep. [n/a] [24.2]
- 22.4 % - Hong Kong [31.5] [35.1]
- 21.1 % - SWEDEN [n/a] [n/a]
- 20~ % - THAILAND [36.2] [20]
- 18.9 % - GERMANY [25.8] [13.9]
- 16.2 % - CANADA [4.1] [5.2]
- 14.3 % - ESTONIA [n/a] [n/a]
- 14 % --- ISRAEL [10~] [n/a]
- 13.6 % - MOROCCO [n/a] [18]
- 13.5 % - SPAIN [15.4] [16.7]
- 11.7 % - BRAZIL [11] [12]
- n/a ---- NETHERLANDS [10.9] [n/a]
- 10.7 % - Québec [11.7] [18.9]
- n/a ---- POLAND [n/a] [10]
- 9 % ---- ARGENTINA [11.4] [11.4]
- 7.9 % -- MALAYSIA [n/a] [14]
- 7.5 % -- MEXICO [7] [4.5]
- 7.5~ % - BELGIUM [6.4] [4.1]
- 5.4 % -- SWITZERLAND [n/a] [n/a]
- 5~ % --- KENYA [n/a] [n/a]
- 4.8 % -- ROMANIA [4.3] [n/a]
- n/a ---- IRELAND [4.5] [n/a]
- 4 % ---- AUSTRALIA [4.6] [2.8]
- 2.8 % -- PORTUGAL [2.3] [3]
- n/a ---- SOUTH AFRICA [2] [16]
- n/a ---- TAIWAN [n/a] [1.59]
- 1.1 % -- AUSTRIA [n/a] [2]
- n/a ---- LEBANON [n/a] [1]
|
RUNNING SCREENS
plus figures for [2006] and [2005]- 38,974 --- USA [39,668] [38,852]
- 25,028 -- Europe [25,803~] [29,046]
- 14,000~ - INDIA [13,000~] [9,000~]
- 5,264~ -- FRANCE [5,373] [5,314]
- 4,832 --- GERMANY [4,848] [4,889]
- 4,296 --- SPAIN [4,299] [4,383]
- 3,920 --- MEXICO [3,892] [3,536]
- 3,514 --- UK [3,440] [3,357]
- 3,500~ - CHINA [2,940] [2,668-38,500]
- 3,221 --- JAPAN [3,062] [2,926]
- 3,087 --- ITALY [3,890] [3,280]
- 3,000~ - CANADA [2,933] [3,200]
- 2,120~ - BRAZIL [2,020] [2,081]
- 2,058 --- SOUTH KOREA [1,847] [1,634]
- 1,941 --- AUSTRALIA [1,964] [1,943]
- 1,464 --- TURKEY [1,299] [1,333]
- 1,400 --- RUSSIA [1,319] [1,000]
- 1,049 --- SWEDEN [1,171] [n/a]
- 980 ----- ARGENTINA [974] [789]
- n/a ----- POLAND [n/a] [862]
- n/a ----- SOUTH AFRICA [780~] [560]
- 757 ----- Québec [771] [767]
- n/a ----- CZECH Rep. [n/a] [667]
- n/a ----- TAIWAN [n/a] [661]
- 645 ----- THAILAND [645] [638]
- n/a ----- NETHERLANDS [n/a] [625]
- 570 ----- AUSTRIA [n/a] [552]
- 507 ----- BELGIUM [527] [527]
- n/a ----- PORTUGAL [479] [629]
- n/a ----- IRELAND [407] [n/a]
- n/a ----- DENMARK [391] [n/a]
- 380 ----- ISRAEL [380~] [n/a]
- 368 ----- MALAYSIA [n/a] [248]
- 325 ----- SWITZERLAND [n/a] [n/a]
- 255 ----- IRAN [276~] [n/a]
- n/a ----- EGYPT [231] [n/a]
- 192 ----- Hong Kong [198] [195]
- 97 ------ MOROCCO [88~] [125]
- 85~ ----- SERBIA [n/a] [n/a]
- n/a ----- LEBANON [n/a] [77]
- 67 ------ ESTONIA [n/a] [n/a]
- 34 ------ KENYA [n/a] [n/a]
- 32 ------ ROMANIA [110] [n/a]
- n/a ----- CAMBODIA [n/a] [19]
|
SCREENS PER CAPITA
(per Million population) - 160~ : Iceland
- 128.6 : USA
- 116.5 : Sweden
- 107.4 : Spain
- 99.3~ : Ireland
- 98.7 : Québec
- 94.2 : Australia
- 90.4~ : Canada
- 82.2~ : France
- 71.1~ : Denmark
- 69.5 : Austria
- 65.4~ : Czech Rep.
- 58.9 : Germany
- 57.7 : UK
- 53.5 : Israel
- 53.1 : Italy
- 51.5 : Estonia
- 48.8 : Belgium
- 45.2~ : Portugal
- 42.8 : Switzerland
- 41.8 : South Korea
- 37.7~ : Netherlands
- 35.7 : Mexico
- 28.9~ : Taiwan
- 27.4 : Hong Kong
- 25.3 : Japan
- 24.1 : Argentina
- 22.4~ : Poland
- 20.4 : Turkey
- 19.3~ : Lebanon
- 17.8~ : South Africa
- 14.6 : Malaysia
- 12.0~ : India
- 11.1~ : Brazil
- 10.5~ : Serbia
- 9.9 : Russia, Thailand
- 3.9 : Iran
- 2.8 : Morocco
- 2.8~ : Egypt
- 2.6~ : China
- 1.5~ : Vietnam, Tunisia, Ukraine
- 1.4 : Romania
- 1.3~ : Cambodia
- 0.9 : Kenya
|
36 commentaires:
Notes :
Cahiers publishes a profile for each country in the yearly Atlas, but they don't rank the stats in a list. And I prefer to see them side by side to get a better idea of the big picture. Thus we can see how the world market works compared to the number of foreign films we see on our local distribution circuit.
The selection of countries features in the Cahiers Atlas changes from one year to the next. That's why I keep track of the past years too, to get a rough idea where the countries not mentioned are ranked, even if their rank is taken from a different year.
These statistics are far from accurate anyway. Even the figures published by Cahiers contradict the ones they published the previous year! So I crosschecked with the CNC and the MPAA. Anyway it's just to get a general idea of the state of world cinema.
For instance the figures for China or India vary greatly, so it's impossible to tell how they surveyed the data. Not every country counts the same way, some include co-production, some don't, some only count the official market, some only count the films approved by the government...
Hopefully in the years to come we'll get a world standard for adequate comparison and each country should develop an accurate survey of EVERY films, EVERY screens, EVERY movie-goer.
USA and France are highlighted in red in the lists to serve as an indicator for ranking comparison. Not that they are necessarily the most important in the world, but they are references I'm most familiar with.
Québec and Hong Kong are also included in the list, even though they are not actual countries. but they represent an independent market that has a meaningful value separate from the rest of their nation.
1) FILMS PRODUCED
This list doesn't interest me to figure out which country makes most films. However it's important to know, when we watch a foreign film, when we review it, how many of them were produced in that country. It's easy to brush off an average flick made in Hollywood or Bollywood, because they make them by hundreds from the same mould. But when we know there are only a dozen of them per year, and that we only get to see one of them, we can give it a little more attention than usual and try to support a striving industry in spite of eventual flaws.
So this list ranks the national industry from their financial capacity as well as their creative pool of active filmmakers.
That's why it's also important to relativize this list with the Ratio #3 (see below), in relation to the population of this country.
I will repeat the same comments I made last time... India is first, nearly twice as much as USA, and we don't even see half as much Bollywood films on our screens (outside India), while Hollywood spams the world screens with blockbusters. At least I believe in France and in the USA, very few Indian films show up. Maybe they do better in Iran, in South East Asia, in the UK or in Australia... it would be interesting to have some reliable stats on this.
I do believe Bollywood makes quality genre films with universal themes, albeit formulaic, and could easily appeal to the popular audience worldwide, just like equivalent Hollywood movies. It's just a matter of marketing persuasion and cultural hegemony that ranks Hollywood at the top of all the charts in every last country in the world. It's not systematically because they are superior in quality or in popular appeal.
Same with Japan. The number of Japanese movies to hit the French market isn't representative of the quality and variety of production! We should see more of them.
The number of films produced in the USA includes films never released in theatre (direct-to-video, shelved, film for TV), and I supposed the releases include foreign films distributed by American distributors and unreleased films produced in past years.
2007 : 603 Produced / 590 Released
2006 : 480 Produced / 599 Released
2005 : 699 Produced / 535 Released
China : the 2005 number (2,601) sounds more proportional to the demographic of this market, but it's almost 10 times off compared to subsequent years, so there is no economical/political conjuncture that would explain this drop. We need more reliable stats. There is also the issue of the censorship board banning certain Chinese filmmakers from the local market for political reasons. With the economic boom, the Chinese market could easily absorb more than 400 movies a year, if creation was encouraged.
France : Cahiers complained last year that there was too many films produced here!!! As if there was such thing as too much of cultural goods... They said there was too many films per week released (an average of 15-20 per week with peaks up to 25) and it was impossible for critics to cover them all properly. Not to mention the shorter run in theatre due to new releases kicking out the films older than 2 weeks.
We only produce around 200 (133 strictly French in 2007) films per year, with some international co-production, notably with developing countries. But there are about 500-600 new films released in theatre each year (including foreign movies).
589 films distributed In 2006 = French (41%) + American (30%) + European (17%) + other foreign films (12%)
Harry, I quite agree with the fact that more Bollywood rather Indian films should be released worldwide. Sadly, as of now, it’s mainly the Indian Diaspora who makes up the majority attendance for Bollywood films. Beside this day’s most, if not all, Directors and Producers here cater stories especially to the NRI (Non Residential Indians). So a lot of Bollywood films are released in places with sizeable Indian Population or South Asians. As far as I know, USA, UK and Australia are some of the biggest overseas market for Bollywood films. I think even in some part of Europe like Germany and East European nations, I believe, lot of Bollywood film is released.
But is it a sub-circuit? I mean, just projections organized by and for this community outside of the official public market? Because I don't see that much Indian films being reviewed in the press that is supposed to cover every single weekly release. Or DVD's available on the same public market. I remember Girish saying how few Bollywood titles are shown in the USA.
And only mentioned Bollywood, because they make commercial movies that have a marketing power equivalent to Hollywood. The non-Bollywood Indian cinema is more like indie cinema in any other country, and doesn't have the economical force nor the wide appeal to reach the same natural worldwide distribution.
Even French commercial movies are less "universal" (too French) and couldn't appeal to as much people outside the French-speaking community. Only a couple of French blockbuster get distributed in the USA every year for example.
English is a foreign language to most of the planet, Hollywood blockbusters feature a very American culture that is foreign to most of the countries in the world, especially in the south and in the East. Yet, they have no problem to fare much better than the domestic movies made on non-English markets.
And I wonder what is the rational behind this preference. Is it just quality that justifies such a universal embrace? So only Hollywood is able to seduce the entire world at once? No other film industry in the world, could ever take the lead once, with a blockbuster, domestic greater than usual.
And since India is the only nation making more films than Hollywood, we could expect Indian films to have at least as much visibility and circulation.
I'm talking about cultural exchange, in spite of language barrier. There is a universally shared charisma of the Hollywood star, and the American movie that no other country in the world seems able to match. Is it just a matter of money, of populist appeal (we're talking about the top of the box office there, the largest majority of the audience, not the high-brow taste), or of marketing skills?
As far as I know a number of Indian films, and especially the ‘ Big Blockbusters’ usually has a proper release in US AND UK markets, and a number of Indian films in the last decade have broken in the US and UK Top Ten Box Office. I think Sight and Sound is the only international film magazine which regularly reviews Bollywood films in their monthly issues. Beside I’m clueless as to why Bollywood films are usually bypassed by film journals and mainstream publication.
Though not a lot of Bollywood film has an overseas release in a big manner (no of sizeable prints); it’s especially the Blockbusters from South India film industry and Bollywood that sees a sizable release. Beside I think Bollywood DVDs are easily available in the markets like US and UK. What’s the scene in France? Though I know, Bollywood DVDs are available in France, and recently few Bollywood films saw a release there. Moreover, selling of overseas rights has become an important and lucrative market for a number of Indian Producers.
It’s quite true that today Bollywood films has huge marketing power, and with every passing year more players are entering into the Industry, and even Hollywood studios like Warner, Sony, Universal, 20th Century Fox are getting into Co-Production and financing. I think Bollywood has a sizeable market even outside India, because of the huge Diaspora of Indian people, similar to the Chinese. And the percentage of attendance would reflect the fact that Indians love and embrace their Cinema.
I think quality, entertainment, charisma; I mean Hollywood embodies a certain sort of Dream factory. Most people even here watch Hollywood films, because of their technical superiority, and ability to tell so many varieties of stories with ease. I think we all have grown up on American machine, thinking America dreaming America, somewhat it reminds of a quote by Lars Von Trier, when he said: “ He dint need to visit America to talk about America”, as its already has been so much part of our his own culture. Perhaps, the success of Hollywood has to do beyond its quality, technical superiority.
I think even today when a Bollywood film is released overseas, irrespective of their marketing skill and PR; it’s mainly the ‘Indian Diaspora’ which goes and watches the films. Here in India most of the Indian Producers are not worried and mainly not interested in tapping or going beyond own cultural domain. Till the time they are happy targeting ‘only’ Indians I don’t think Bollywood could break cultural barriers like Hollywood and become truly global.
Thanks for the extensive reply. In France I don't think there is more than half a dozen of Indian films released per year (though there is no sizeable Indian community). And compared to the number of films made in India it's not proportional to the number of Hollywood exports, or even the French exports. And I don't think the USA nor France make films other than to please their domestic culture. Hollywood doesn't make films to please a Chinese audience, yet, they do sell a lot over there.
More notes on the above stats:
The minimum number of films produced for an active industry would be 52, which means they put out at least one new national movie each week to keep feeding the movie goers with novelty. Now compare with USA producing the equivalent of over 11 new American films per week continuously. India doubles that, but one assumes not every film gets released nationwide, so most probably there are sub-markets with their distinct weekly batch of releases. I'm guessing that there is not a single city in India with 22 new movies every week. Which is also the case in the USA, where only a meagre portion of this dozen gets a wide distribution throughout the country. Though in NYC or LA they usually get to see pretty much everything released.
So this challenges the idea we get from reading a weekly reviewer that what we see listed in the newspaper is what is available on every screens. Lots of films never go beyond a test audience or a weekend release on a couple of screens.
Now countries with less than 52 films made per year, either have a poor attendance, or rely mainly on imports (i.e. Hollywood blockbusters, or their closest neighbour with an active cinema industry).
In grey, I've added additional ratios, composed from these available stats, that help to relativize these abstract numbers in relation to the size of each national industry. They aren't meaningful, just an indicator to weigh in and re-evaluate the original ranking of these countries in straight production.
RATIO 1 : Screens available per films produced.
A better ratio would be screens available per films released, including imports (but I don't have these numbers), to get a sense of the average visibility of a given film on the domestic distribution circuit. This tells us if the amplitude of distribution and production match in each country, or if they over/under produce compared to other countries.
Obviously the cinema activity of a country influences this ratio. In a large country that plays a lot of foreign films and produce very few domestic films the ratio will be abnormally high, without meaning that domestic films get an equivalent visibility to Hollywood imports. This is the case for South Africa, Lebanon or Netherlands which have a large network of cinema houses, despite producing very little films of their own. This ratio shows the duality of a film industry, split between the prosperity of its distribution (eventually driven by foreign blockbusters) and the prosperity of its domestic creation (which is not necessarily proportional the the domestic movie goer enthusiasm).
So among comparable countries (big producers) we can see USA is at the top, even though the huge number of films made per year suggests a greater competition to attract an audience. And in this case the ratio is meaningful since the films produced tallies 95% of releases. So we could roughly say that every American film made has a potential average of 64 screens all year long. Multiply that by 52 for the room available to each film on a weekly run, on average. That is nearly 3400. But since some films stay on more than a week this number is a maximum. And some films are given a nationwide distribution while another category of films come out on a handful of screens only, this average ratio is only an abstract generality. But it gives us a sense of the adequation between production and distribution.
In France, a much smaller country, with much less screens, we are obviously over-producing compared to the distribution slots available every week. Not to mention our domestic market is only 40% of the total releases. By comparing these two countries we can see how much more risky it is to invest in French cinema, which has less selling potential, less visibility and less exportability too. An American film enjoys a very profitable market at home, AND is also highly attractive for export, which adds as many more screens on the international scene to increase visibility!
I just wanted to point that out when American analysts are whining about a "poor" summer profit. There are countries in the world that continue to make films every year under most defavorable economical conditions, and a domestic market much less visible than France.
In Iran for instance, which makes an average of 2 new movies a week, the ratio is 30 times inferior to the USA because of the little number of screens available (even thought the domestic is as hegemonic as in the USA).
RATIO 2 : Tickets sold per film made.
This ratio should also compare total admissions to total film released (instead of just domestic films produced) to be more meaningful, but it gives a sense of the movie going activity of a demography in proportion to the local production. In a country that sells a lot of tickets, there is a better market opportunity to sell a domestic film (even if most of those tickets go to Hollywood blockbusters), than in a country with a slim domestic share and a small attendance turnout.
Like RATIO 1, this is a (very rough) indicator of the market health in each country.
USA one more time on top of the charts of big producers. Those 600 films may share nearly 1.5 billion tickets, which is an average of 2.3 Millions per film. With a domestic market share of 95%, this is number is only marginally lowered by the non-American films ticket sales. Again the most profitable market on Earth according to this ratio.
Now we can compare this "standard" with all the other less profitable markets. India is roughly equal with 2.2 Millions admissions per film on average (also a quite accurate number since the domestic market is 92%), but with ticket prices much lower than in the USA. So the return profit requires a larger audience to match investments.
However the situation in Japan (0.4), or even in France (0.8), Germany (0.7) and Spain (0.7) is makes for a greater competition between films to attract an audience. Especially since in these countries, the domestic films have to share the market with imports (i.e. Hollywood blockbusters), which lower by half this ratio at least. Domestic movies can only sell half of these total admissions.
RATIO 3 : Films per capita
Now the number of film produced is compared to the size of its local population. It's just a proportional indicator, this figure doesn't mean anything. We get a sense of whether a large country is able to produce lots of films or a small country produces few, and vice versa.
It helps to rationalise the previous stats.
For example Estonia is a relatively small country (only 1.3 Million inhabitants) but produces 10 films per year (as much as South Africa which is 40 times more populated!). The ratio of films per capita reaches 7.7 for Estonia and is only 0.2 for South Africa. One country is very active (compared to its potential local audience, and local pool of filmmakers) even if producing less than 1 new film per week, the other country has a quasi-non-existent industry, compared to other countries of similar size.
This way we can see how active are small territories like Hong Kong, Quebec or Switzerland with a population around 7 Millions. While the most populated countries in the world, do not develop the largest movie industry, contrary to what we might intuit. India, with the largest number of films produced in the world, is only half the ratio of the USA, which population is 4 times smaller. China, with the largest population in the world, is at the bottom of the chart.
WORLDWIDE BOX OFFICE 2007 :
First, the groups formed by the MPAA for this survey is really strange and probably tells a lot about this American-centric world view.
- Northern American (just USA and Canada and no Central America?), by the way the figure is equal to USA alone, so Canada doesn't seem to be even included, it should adds 106 Millions Canadian admissions to the 1.4 Billion (see the chart at MPAA)
- Latin America (all non-American speaking countries from the American continent = 12 countries)
- Asia + Oceania = 41 countries
- And a weird melting-pot (117 countries) composed of Europe (47) + Africa (53) + Middle East (17)
I don't see how meaningful the partition of these sub-market are either culturally or commercially...
Anyway, we can see that North America is #1 in gross profits (with only 2 nations), but Asia + Oceania is #1 in tickets sold because they are cheaper (I assume cinema houses and technology are less costly too) and the demographic is overwhelmingly superior. Again it explains why it's more profitable to make movies in Hollywood than in Asia, despite the larger potential movie-going base.
We notice how largely underdeveloped is the distribution circuit in Latin America too (despite counting Brazil and Mexico in)! The lower density of population probably makes it more difficult to makes screens easily accessible to every inhabitants.
We could notice the same for Africa and Middle East, if they were surveyed separately from Europe...
ADMISSIONS :
The numbers are hardly reliable except for a few countries with a bureaucratic counting system. For example what the Cahiers Atlas tells us about India for the past 3 years ranges inconsistently from 500 to 5,000... Same for China. It's a shame we can't get credible data from these countries since they are the largest core of the movie going population on Earth.
Aside from India, the USA (which is 4 times less populated) is the most movie-going nation in the world (maybe only defeated by the tickets per capita count of Iceland).
While among the largest populations, countries such as Indonesia (4th largest pop), Pakistan (6th), Bangladesh (7th), Nigeria (8th), Philippines (12th), Vietnam (13th) are not even surveyed.
Others like Brazil (5th), Russia (9th), Egypt (16th), Iran (17th), Turkey (18th) clearly don't sell tickets in proportion to the size of their population.
Interesting case, France makes it to 4th place, with only the 19th largest population (64 Millions inhabitants).
Iceland is not surveyed by Cahiers, but Bordwell says it's the most movie-going audience in the world.
I'd need to add another ratio to these stats: Admission per capita.
DOMESTIC SHARE :
This is the proportion of tickets sold by domestic films in the total of admission sold in that country.
So it tells us the balance of local v. foreign (successful) films distributed on their screens, and also the preference of these movie goers. This figure could be the result of a policy enforced by administrative regulations (law, quotas, censorship, ban) or just because the local population doesn't like to watch foreign (or domestic if the % is low) films, so if it doesn't sell, distributors neglect this kind. It could also be dependent on the amount of the domestic production in relation to the movie-going activity.
#1 : Iran. Most likely for political/religious reasons. Hollywood blockbusters (which usually makes the majority of imports in any other country) are banned and disliked by the indoctrinated population (due to Anti-American sentiment). Only movies approved by the government are allowed. That's why a couple of Iranian films are released in France instead (like Persepolis or Negah).
But I've been told that Bollywood blockbusters are quite appreciated by Iranians... I don't know if they get there through the black market, or if they get proper theatrical releases, but it doesn't show on this statistics of 99.4%
Again, I repeat myself, but I'm shocked to see the American market ranked that high in this category, second to Iran in the most isolationist champions!
I understand that Americans don't like subtitles nor dubbed versions, they prefer REMAKES!!! But among all Western countries, it doesn't explain why there is not even 5% of the American audience willing to buy a ticket for a non-Hollywood movie... It's not even a matter of market protectionism or insular mentality (which exists in every country, especially when there is a language/cultural barrier), but here it means that the cinephile community is largely insignificant.
As I said earlier (here and here), the quota regulation, like South Korea (50.8%) or France (36.5%), can be pretty severe to protect the domestic production against the tycoon-dominated "free-market", but it doesn't even secure more than 50% of the market! Even under regulated conditions the foreign films making it to the screens sell at least 50% of admissions!
So why is America so American-centric? Is it because foreign films pale in comparison to the Hollywood quality standards? I would believe that since we talk about the mass of mainstream attendance in this statistic. But the royal superiority of mainstream Hollywood is questionable when compared to South Korea, Japan, Bollywood, Hong Kong... heck even Europe. Even if the American public considers Hollywood to be #1, which is OK, I think it's an outrageous stretch to pretend that American popular movies are so much better better than only 5% of foreign imports can compare. It's ridiculous and it's a shame for the cultural opening to world culture of the American market!
And now if we consider the high-brow fare, the awards in international festival hardly show this level of disproportionate preference for American films either.
So either the audience refuses to watch foreign films when they are distributed, or American distributors just don't acquire foreign films at all and the public is denied their freedom of choice. Which is it? Either way they aren't defensible for a Western industrialised democratic country like it is for Iran or India (which are culturally isolated for other reasons).
And this situation is all the more offending because Hollywood owns at least 50% of the market in virtually every country in the world, crashing the domestic production of other countries with forceful marketing campaigns and monopoly deals! This is not capitalism, it's hermetic imperialism. Even communist China is more open to foreign films than USA is! This is simply absurd.
Do we hear American critics question this monolithic system? (maybe Jonathan Rosenbaum sometimes)
No. All they whine about is the 3% drop in revenues when the Summer Blockbusters didn't make as well as the previous year... This is not only a superficial concern, but it's utterly disrespectful for the market health of cinema in the world, and a complete disregard for the cinematic art on a global scale.
It's really disappointing, both from the American audience and the American critics. Now instead of complaining about Anti-Americanism, there is a greater concern to be addressed : the Anti-World sentiment in the USA.
Great data and insightful analysis, Harry.
"So why is America so American-centric? Is it because foreign films pale in comparison to the Hollywood quality standards? "
While I have no concrete data to account for this fact, here's one possible reason that comes to mind:
The perception of films solely as a means of entertainment.
I believe this is a huge factor that influences people's movie-going decisions/choices. In the age of American Idol and Wife-Swapping reality shows, people may often tend to see cinema as just a bigger extension of television. Why would they want to pay $9 to watch a movie about some girl in Iceland dealing with depression (as a fictitious example) when they have the (more accessible and convenient) option of being able to watch Samuel Jackson battle snakes on a plane?
More action = more entertainment = more viewership = more profits = more chances that a film that caters to the the current tastes will find distribution.
Not a lot of foreign films can compete with Hollywood in terms of star power and sheer monetary strength (both in production and distribution). This alone can be enough to annihilate any chances of a meek foreign film trying to make a cautious entry into the labyrinth where the H'wood minotaur dwells.
Of course, there are the non-chain multiplexes, the local theatres, the independent-friendly cinemas etc but when it comes to that holy number - ticket sales - where does the vast majority of revenue come from? I've been in local theaters where I was one of the 4 or 5 people in the entire auditorium for a not-even-so-obscure foreign movie's screening.
And then, even in the world of so-called "independent films", there exist various levels and forms of classifications that separate the feel-good indie (Little Miss Sunshine, for example) from the provocative/incisive/original indie (Old Joy, for example) and you can easily calculate the chances of an original work of art making it to the big screens.
Kunal
Hi Kunal, thanks for visiting and sharing your take on this.
I totally agree with you, the indie and high-brow market are marginal in ticket sales. I'm not talking about huge-budget productions that only Hollywood can make (like superhero/SciFi/Apocalyptic/epic movies).
That's why I bring up the only possible competition to Hollywood : other powerful mainstream and commercial movies, the blockbusters made from an equivalent universalist formula in South Korea, Japan, Bollywood, Hong Kong or Europe. These countries are able to produce great popular movies, with star-power and showing-off budgets, and their entertainment quality (even their artistic standards) are at least as appealing as any Hollywood blockbuster (if not more if you ask me). So with comparable commercial products, the only deciding factor left is the cultural barrier and... subtitles.
Why the average American audience (the one buying the most tickets) would systematically prefer to watch a Hollywood version to a comparable foreign film of the same genre?
For example:
- The Departed ($132M) / Infernal Affairs ($89,600)
-Funny Games U.S. ($1.3M) / Funny Games, Austria (marginally insignificant?)
-The Ring ($128M) / Ringu (unreleased?)
- Taxi, NYC ($36M) / Taxi, French ($138,500)
-Cloverfield ($80 Millions) / The Host ($34M)
- The bodyguard ($411M) / La Môme ($10.3M)
- Down With Love ($20M) / Devdas ($3.5M)
...
To relativise a little the % of foreign films distribution, let's compare France and USA in actual numbers instead.
USA (2007)
- 1,330M admissions go to American films (95%)
- 70M admissions to foreign films (5%)
The MPAA doesn't break down the number of films distributed between domestic and foreign (no wonder, it's a negligible portion) but they show a graph of the Majors/indie distributors respective shares:
590 films released = 179 films released by Majors (30%) + 411 films released by indie distributors (70%)
FRANCE (2007)
- 65M admissions go to French films (36.5%)
- 113M admissions go to foreign films (63.5%) which is broken down between :
88.8M admissions for American films (49.9% of total)
24M admissions for other foreign films [non-French/non-American] (13.6% of total)
In straight numbers there are more tickets sold by foreign films on the French market, but since 50% of the total is taken by American movies, it's expected that the American audience would also favour these movies at home (although they count as domestic on their market).
So let's compare the non-domestic, non-Hollywood numbers, and compare them to the population for proportionality.
Foreign films admissions per Million inhabitant :
in France = 0.38 (1.76 if we include American films)
in the USA = 0.23
So there are still more foreign films watched in France even if we ignore Hollywood imports!
"Why the average American audience (the one buying the most tickets) would systematically prefer to watch a Hollywood version to a comparable foreign film of the same genre?"
You're right that subtitles can be a huge block.
One of the reasons I've heard most people cite is that they don't "like" subtitles. I guess this could mean anything from "I can't concentrate on both the subtitles and the image" or "I'd rather just listed to a dubbed version than a subtitled version", or just plain refusal to exert some effort on their own part to be more involved in the movie.
One other reason that comes to mind is that sometimes people may just not necessarily be inclined to watch foreign movies, sad as that may sound. Maybe it arises from a sense of 'fulfillment' that they get from watching H'wood movies and they feel there's no need to branch out into realms that may potentially challenge their way of thinking?
Then there's the issue of how culturally receptive/diverse people really want to be. No amount of star power or special effects is going to change that...
I'm sorry for posting my analysis in the middle of the conversation. I hope it's not too distracting. I'm not trying to discourage people to comment. It's OK to interrupt any time.
Kunal,
I know the taste and behavior of the mainstream American audience is for a fact. We can't do anything about it. But I wonder why the USA, as the most successful melting-pot in the world, has evolved in the country the least open to international culture... It's counter-intuitive.
I wonder why people are so put off by subtitles in Cinema, since these very lot would go back and spend hours reading subtitle on a Japanese RPG video game! I think more than subtitles its also about the notion of watching a ' foreign' film, since the moment you ment the word ' foreign' other than Hollywood or Bollywood here some very common words come flying into people mind: cryptic, tough, boring(the most common word used to sidelines tons of foreign films).
I mean here in college I had to beg my teachers to show foreign films during classes, even though we were studying Media Appreciation, sadly in a Media School half, if not full, class disappears while watching a Chinese film. A friend of mine studying at reputed French Film School was talking about a similar situation in France, where most, if not all, student don't land up to watch good films and are least interested about it, maybe its an exception case, but my point is, if this very lot of people are so uninterested and the number increasing day by day, I'm sure the general public everywhere would find it difficult to watch foreign films. And especially such situation are more prevalent in American Film Schools where with each passing year most student are lacking any formal knowledge on Cinema.
I think for most people Hollywood is something more accessible- a place they know they wont be cheated( full enjoyment) and less use of brain, somewhat I have noticed that the notion of Cinema for most people is more to do with Entertainment value, and even the slightest possible use of Grey cells would result boredom, perhaps, something to do with Lacanian idea of the mirror stage, I presume!
Harry, thanks for posting this whole lot of information and updates, another update from India, some Indian Corporate players would soon be entering Hollywood market. Relaince funded Adlabs would be producing Hollywood films with the likes of Brad Pitt, Micahel Douglas, Jim Carrey and others( full artistic and creative control would be given), the company would just hold the final right of the project.
Besisde this year there should be an increase in Produciton of films here( more players entering market), but decrease in ticket sales and attendance.
Nitesh,
what you say about film students is interesting, and it doesn't really surprise me that even French students would prefer to learn from the formulaic Hollywood films that have a commercial potential, rather than to study old classics that the audience doesn't want to see anymore today. They want to learn how to make successful movies, popular movies and are afraid to be trapped in an "elitist" career with little appeal to the common viewer. They want to become filmmakers loved by the crowd!
I've noticed on numerous occasions already that film students aren't the most knowledgeable in film history, let alone world cinema.
And I guess the cinephile community is a very small minority among movie-goers. There are few people who enjoy watching a great variety of movies, from all eras and continents... And film students, film professors, even filmmakers aren't necessarily part of it, contrary to what we might believe. I've heard a lot of filmmakers declaring they don't consider themselves cinephiles, that they don't watch the work of others much, that they don't have a large culture of film history. And actually it shows in their films most of the time.
Your remark about Indian investment in Hollywood is very interesting! Maybe given the recession in the USA and the economic boom (China, India, Europe), if foreign companies take some shares in the Hollywood industry it will make the mentality of the market evolve a little. I'm eager to see how it's going to turn out.
*********************************************
More notes on the domestic share stats:
If we compare the domestic share ranking with the respective number of domestic films produced, we can spot the ones where the national preference is consistent with a large production at home, and the ones where the audience still prefer imports despite a rich domestic production.
For instance India produces the most films (over 1,000) thus it's expected that these films saturate the market, leaving little room for the foreign competition. And we find India near the top of the domestic share maximum (95%).
However Iran (99.4%) only produces only an average of 2 new movies a week, so the distribution circuit is hardly saturated, yet the import of foreign films is negligible. Though to be fair, Iranians are not the most movie-going people (the screens per capita ratio is towards the bottom), at least from the numbers of the official survey. Maybe it's a different story on the black market of DVDs. But the theatrical circuit seems to be very much regulated by a domestic monopoly.
Same for Egypt (81%), which is under the arbitrary mark of one new movie per week, and has a poor number of screens.
Then there is a big gap in domestic shares, jumping from the 4 top countries (around 80-99%) to the next 3 countries (around 50%) and then 12 countries (20-35%). These gaps don't exactly match the gaps between the very active industries: around 1,000 films/year (1 country), then 400-600 (3 countries), then 170-230 (3 countries), then 100-130 (4 countries). Which means each country has specific circumstances justifying the national preference. And it's a combination of factors that determine the opening of the market to foreign films. One is the taste of the audience obviously. But there is also the screen per capita/turnout, the popular appeal of domestic films, and the permeability to a foreign language...
Japan (47.7%) is an interesting exception, where the theatrical circuit seems to be under-developed. The domestic production is very large, yet there it owns only 50% of the market and the screens available per films is rather low. With 400 films produced per year (assuming they are all released theatrically), the audience is ready to absorb as much foreign movies (I'm guessing essentially Hollywood, Hong-Kong and Korean films). And it's easy to understand there is more cultural/language barrier between Japan and the USA, than there is between the USA and Europe (who share the same alphabet and a common history!)
Japan and South Korea (50.8%) have been occupied by American military forces, so maybe it explains the implantation of a preference for American culture there. Although we should also credit them for helping the development of the local film industry (obviously largely influenced by Hollywood methods).
France (36.5%), Germany (18.9%) and Spain (13.5%) are producing a sustainable quantity of films, of high quality (from international standards), with a large number of screens, a good movie-going population and yet the national preference is minority!
Italy (31.7%), Russia (26.3%) and the UK (29%) are historic cinema nations and should produce a lot more movies, but their domestic market is stuck at around 30%. The British industry in particular is largely dominated by English-friendly imports from Hollywood that inhibits local production. which is also true for Canada (16.2%).
A few exceptions pop up In the middle there: Cambodia (35%) and Turkey (32.4%), which secure a sizeable market share with a much smaller domestic production (30-70 films/year) than the big European countries cited above. Though their films are not as visible on the international market as all the other big nations cited until now. When was the last time you heard about a Cambodian film?
While Brazil (11.7%), Mexico (7.5%), Argentina (9%) don't seem to support their domestic films as much as they should comparably to the number of films they put out.
And at the other end of the spectrum, compare the situation in the USA (95% domestic/5% foreign) to all these countries where the numbers are reversed, with a meagre domestic share around 1-10%. Among these markets overwhelmed by foreign invasion, we find (Québec), Taiwan, Belgium, Austria, Australia, Poland, Portugal, Romania which are quite famous on the international scene for making very good movies!
*********************************************
*********************************************
Notes on RUNNING SCREENS :
Again these numbers are not consistent and are not necessarily representative of all the active screens projecting films in public in these countries. I believe that for the CNC, a screen is only counted if it runs at least 50 shows per year.
The first thing we can notice is that we take for granted the presence of theatres in our cities, but unfortunately they come and go. Thus the number changes quite a lot from one year to the next! Few new screens arrive (usually in multiplex form), and more disappear (usually the repertoire/arthouse screens).
Uncontested #1 : USA (38,974), with almost as much screens as India and Europe combined (the next two on the list)! And twice as much as India and China combined (which represent a population 10 times larger). So it is the world's densest theatre circuit (save for Iceland, which is a very small country). With the most movie-going population, and the most number of screens, the USA is clearly the country where cinema benefits from the best visibility, and easily reaches out to the largest part of their population. It's definitely the population the most in touch with its film culture. Too bad this very movie-aware culture is not a little more interested in non-American cinema...
Compare with India (#2 on the list), which produces twice as much films per year, with less than half as much screens (14,000). And we already said the average admission is much cheaper in India, so it is way more difficult to harvest profits on the Indian market. We should admire the vitality of this rich production. The Indian theatres either seat much more people on average or fill every show much more efficiently than in the USA. Although a smaller portion of the population is able to watch the films in theatre.
France (5,264), which is a relatively smaller country, ranks #3, the largest screen circuit in Europe! It's definitely a place where cinema is accessible for all, even outside big cities. And there is a great density of screens in Paris (over 500 screens showing about 600 prints every week) which sells the 1/4 of all national admissions.
But there are 6 countries with a greater density (screens per capita) than France that are lower on the list because of a smaller population : Sweden, Spain, Ireland, (Québec), Australia, Canada.
Close behind France, between 3,000 and 5,000 screens, are 4 European nations (Germany, Spain, UK, Italy), Mexico, China, Japan and Canada.
The Chinese circuit appears to be way underdeveloped (but the number is dubious, it was surveyed as high as 38,500 in 2005!), just like in India, Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Russia. So there is room for expension in the future for these countries if investments are made.
At the bottom of the list is Romania (with only 32 screens! which I assume are mainly in Bucharest). Can you imagine what it's like to run a cinema industry in a country with only 32 screens in activity? This number was 110 last year, which means that since Romania won la Palme d'Or, 2/3 of the screens shut down... It's unbelievable.
*********************************************
From the summary of the 2005 world survey by Screen Daily :
"Total screens in the world (2005) = 149,083 (+ 2,734 from 2004)
The 1.8% annual growth was led by screen growth in the Americas, where an average of 5% was recorded in both North and South America.
Screen growth in Asia dipped by 1.1% led by China and India, although the conversion rate of small screen closures to modern multiplex cinemas there has been gradually slowing. In 2005, there were 39,245 screens in China, including rural projection units, and just 2,668 modern screens.
North America accounts for 28% of world screens, up from 27% the previous year.
(...)
[2005 was the year of the slump for USA and Europe]. However, there was still some spectacular growth for emerging markets around the world, led by China and Russia with 33.3% and 27.4% increases in local currency box office respectively.
Some Asia-Pacific markets also recorded growth. Factors such as screen growth (Malaysia), modernisation of exhibition infrastructure (China) and mushrooming of multiplexes (India) had a positive effect on ticket sales. But again, these were isolated bright spots.
Australia recorded the largest drop in the region, down 10%.
Latin American markets also suffered from the poor run of US blockbusters in 2005, most notably Brazil, where gross revenues slipped 16%."
The NYT on Cannes 2008 :
"In recent years some of the studios’ art-house subsidiaries have been moving away from acquisition and toward financing and production. For them, leaving Cannes empty-handed was not necessarily a sign that business was slow. James Schamus, chief executive of Universal’s Focus Features, summed up the festival in a succinct e-mail message: “Sold everything; bought nothing.”"
With this kind of unilateral transaction the diversity on the USA market is nowhere near to improve soon... If they can't find a single worthwhile film in CANNES, it's hopeless really. What's the analysis by AO Scott and Dargis? They just speculate on whether the hard-to-sell Festival films the USA brought to Cannes will be distributed through Majors or indie studios... Come on, get real!
Anne Thompson at Variety (May 30, 2008) addresses the hot topic :
Subtitled films seek to break mold
"When Picturehouse opens summer counterprogrammer "Mongol," Sergei Bodrov's Oscar-nominated action bio-epic, on June 6, it will put to the test the conventional wisdom that foreign-language movies don't play for American audiences.
Au contraire.
Give American moviegoers, young or old, a rousing commercial entertainment like Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" or "The Passion of the Christ," which were both considered huge risks due to their Mayan and Aramaic dialogue, respectively, and they will come, subtitles be damned. (...)
Studio distributors tend to shy away from foreign-language fare because they can't rely on their usual DVD formulas. Foreign-language titles typically deliver 50% or less of box office, rather than the usual 70% or more on DVD returns, points out Roadside Attractions co-prexy Howard Cohen. (...)
"Most foreign language film releases are done by small companies hoping to squeak by on wafer-thin profit margins or awards-oriented releases that probably lose money," Cohen says.
(...)
Miramax Films prexy Daniel Battsek will go to bat for just one foreign language movie a year that might mix both art and commerce, such as the Oscar-winners "Tsotsi" and "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" and this year's modest arthouse performer "Reprise" (which had producer Scott Rudin as its champion).
"There is a definite barrier in the audience against seeing films with subtitles," says Battsek, who walked away from Cannes empty-handed, one of many distribs at this year's fest who would not consider stepping up to Steven Soderbergh's Spanish-language "Che" at its current four-hour, 18-minute running time.
"But there are exceptions to the rule that were able to cross over," Battsek says. "Foreign-language movies are not a genre per se: There are varieties of films that have another selling point that allow them to throw off the shackles of a foreign language and do box office way in excess of the norm." (...)
But most studio specialty execs are averse to abandoning their number-crunching formulas with subtitled pics, especially at a time when the domestic marketplace is already glutted with too much product, which makes profit margins on a foreign pic even slimmer. (...)
"Different audiences are drawn to different foreign-language films," says Searchlight's Tony Safford, "which means that the pie (which may actually be growing) is cut into smaller pieces." (...)
"People's internal resistance to subtitles is partly that they think it means a 'good-for-you festival art film,'" Bob Berney [indie vet] says. "We didn't sell 'Pan's Labyrinth' as a Spanish-language subtitled film. Pure storytelling and visuals trumped any other issues. There's been a lot of progress made." (...)
U.S. distribs are emerging from the Cannes fest with new pics they hope to convince American moviegoers to adopt, no matter the language.
The future of foreign cinema may not be in theaters. Cannes' biggest stateside buyer was IFC Films, which picked up five foreign pics: Arnaud Desplechin's heartwarming "A Christmas Tale," starring Catherine Deneuve; Matteo Garrone's gangster film "Gomorrah"; Olivier Assayas' French hit "Summer Hours"; Na Hong-jin's Korean thriller "The Chaser"; and Russian helmer Anna Melikyan's "Mermaid." IFC no longer relies on theater box office alone: Moviegoers all over the country can access these films via video-on-demand."
Notes on Indian cinema sub-genres and underground market at Girish
Finally Cahiers put up a page on their website for the Atlas 2008 (so I can link to it)!
More Stats and neat graphs at NationMaster.com, and also correlation with other easy stats (per capita, GDP, energy, gender, age of population...) :
- Cinema attendance worldwide / per capita (UNESCO 2003)
- Films produced / per capita / correlation with Movie attendance (country by population size), same with country by GDP size (IMDb 2003)
- number of movie houses / per capita / correlation with Films produced (UNESCO 2003)
- number of televisions per capita (CIA World Factbook 2003)
- number of Cable TV subscribers (OECD 2005)
re: Bollywood (which Nitesh talked about)
Listen to this NPR podcast (08-20-2008, MP3, starting from 10'45"), about the development of Bollywood distribution in the American market, and the Spielberg/Clooney-backed project of a Bollywood-friendly distributor cum Theatre-chain to bring Indian films to American audiences. Sounds like a brighter future.
And "Art as activism. cinema in India" by Nitesh at Winds from the East (08-22-2008).
After India, the oil tycoons of the Middle East invest in Hollywood too.
International Herald Tribune (9-3-200_)
Le Monde (9-5-2008) FRENCH
Anne Thompson at Variety (9-12-2008)
Big directors turn to foreign investors
"Kathryn Bigelow wanted to tackle a toxic genre: Iraq war movies. Darren Aronofsky wanted to cast a toxic movie star: Mickey Rourke. Steven Soderbergh wanted to make not one, but two two-hour biopics in Spanish.
All three projects sold in Toronto, backed by foreign sales companies, not studios or specialty divisions."
Bollywood is overflowing with money these days. And most of these corporates have sprung up their smaller independent Production houses to finance art films- according to them, yet the follow the same basic rules:Stars, songs, and much more or without it- but they would keep calling it art film. Wodner why? And those with big pockets are looking elsewhere much like the sheikh of Abu Dhabi with their oil rich cashes. In the end, good for the market. However,
beneath it all it's still diffcult to make free-independent films where the director wants to something differet. Recently, I meet an Indian director Kumar Shahaini, who was(is) one of only few in Indian cinema who played with the forms of the medium, he even had assisted Bresson. But, believe it or not, he is just unable to get fianance for his films. Evem when one of his former assistant has become a marketable name. Sad, but true, for a man whose first film lauded critical accliam dint get finance for 12 years to make the next. But one is optimistic.
Sad to hear the state of Cahier magazine and its ever cahnging hands. What is its current sate of affairs?
Bresson had a rough time too, when nobody wanted to fund his projects towards the end of his career... even though he was aknowledged as a master by everyone. But the logic of the (mainstream) market has its own rules, and "quality" is not necessarily a priority (because it is not one for the audience either).
Cahiers is still undetermined. The buy out deal was supposed to be known on monday... and still no news. They are working on the october issue as if nothing happened anyway. We'll see soon or later.
I am struck in the comments relating to Indian cinema by the continual confusion between Indian cinema and Bollywood. A confusion rather encouraged by the statistics that lump all the Indian traditions of cinema together. India, it is true, is the largest producer of films in the world but "Bollywood", that is the Bombay film industry producing films in Hindi is not especially large. It produces about 200 films a year (like France or the UK). Over two-thirds of Indian film production is in four states of the South of India (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala) in the various Dravidian languages (Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam respectively). Mumbai/Bombay is no longer even the largest single producer of films in India. This honour now belongs to Hyderabad which produces about 260 films a year (mainly in Telugu). Chennai/Madras also produces very nearly the same number off films as Bombay (mostly in Tamil but it does also produce Hindi versions of some films).
Please check out this later post dedicated to Indian regional industries. If you have more data about the proportion of Indian films by languages or by local industry, in recent years (since 1993) I would gladly complete my graph.
Enregistrer un commentaire