Markus Nornes is Professor of Asian Cinema in both the Department of Film, Television, and Media and the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures. While most of his work is on Japanese cinema, he shared with us the profound influence that Taiwanese films had on his career, his research on Chinese films, as well as the often overlooked issue of race in the impact of Asian films.

How did you get involved in Asian films?

“China tried to buy into Hollywood 10 years ago like Japan tried in the 1980s. But things didn’t go the way they anticipated. I don't think people account enough for race as a factor in those failures. This is America and it's a very white business. “

In high school I discovered art cinema and loved it. In 1983 I took this study abroad trip—we went to Egypt, India, Taiwan and Japan. Everywhere I went, I walked into movie theaters to see what was showing. In Taiwan, I saw some of the first films of those great Taiwanese directors such as Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Edward Yang, Wan Jen and a few others. They were just wonderful. I went to grad school after that and I thought I would become the first scholar of Taiwanese cinema. But there were two problems: First, American academia did not care about Taiwan ; and second, when I told people in film studies I was interested in Taiwanese cinema, no one had ever seen or heard anything about Taiwanese cinema. I thought that if I did this I would never get a job. So I ended up studying Japanese films.

What’s your research on Chinese films about?

My research on Chinese films has been focused on independent films – those made outside of the system. It's really an art cinema – directors do what they really want to do without thinking about market or money. It's rather pure in that way. One of the reasons is there's no way to show the films in theaters because those films don’t have the “dragon mark.” (the government’s censorship seal) so they can’t make money. Filmmakers usually have other careers such as designers or computer programmers or do all sorts of other things. My research focuses not on the films themselves but on the context for viewing films. Film festivals were one of the venues to show those independent documentaries, and they are often supported by artists. It’s really a fascinating ecosystem and totally different from the West. Unfortunately, because of recent political conditions most of those festivals are shuttered.

As a scholar who has studied Asian cinema extensively, what do you think are some of the most significant impacts of Asian filmmakers to global film landscape?

Some Eastern Asian films have been very influential and directly impacted the West. For instance, Kurosawa Akira's samurai films were remade in Hollywood. Other times it's more indirect, like just being inspired by the beauty or styles of some film. Think of what Mizoguchi Kenji did with the long take and reframing. Or Hong Kong action films. In the 70s, Kung Fu films really had a huge impact on action films, especially black action films in America. But then in the 90s John Woo and Jackie Chan and other big Hong Kong filmmakers had a huge impact on Hollywood's action movies and the way they shot and edited fight sequences in particular. The action in The Matrix looks the way it does because of the American filmmakers' contact with Hong Kong popular cinema.

Why do you think that western films tend to have a broader global impact and generate bigger commercial success compared to Asian films?

It's not western films. It's American films. I mean Norwegian films are not taking in the world, right? Though they’re great! There are historical reasons. By the 1910s cinema was already a pretty big industry globally, and the European industries were wiped out in World War I. Outside of those big European industries like Germany, Italy and France, the big industries were Hollywood America and Japan. That's the moment when Hollywood took over the global film industry and achieved hegemony.

In addition, Hollywood had the power of the U.S. government behind it, which helped export US films and helped them take over the world market place. Making a film as good as a Hollywood film takes a huge amount of capital, and Hollywood could do that because they own global markets — filmmakers here don’t have to recoup their investment domestically because they will make money everywhere else. But if you're a filmmaker from anywhere else you have to make money at home and hopefully you can make some money outside.

So why don't Asian films make more of an impact? One reason is there's just not as much capital backing up those films. Another is freedom of speech issues—like China was making amazing films after Deng Xiaoping relaxed censorship and gave some freedom to artists in China. But it’s not the case anymore. Lastly, race is a huge part of this.

Can you elaborate on the race dynamics?

First, there’s the cultural insularity of Hollywood’s mass market at home. There are films that have succeeded in tapping into it, but they are the exception.

Then there’s the way Asian directors are treated when they come to Hollywood. Some of the best have tried, but none of them could accomplish their best work here and they do a U-turn back home. It’s an impressive list; Kurosawa, Woo, Chen Kaige, Shimizu Takashi, Nakata Hideo, Harada Masato, Kitano Takeshi, Park Chan-wook…

Actors face analogous problems. A very solid study from USC of over 35,000 roles in mainstream films from the past 10 years found that only 4% of roles went to Asian-Americans—almost no leads. Obviously, that doesn’t leave much territory for talent from Asia, all of whom have accents to boot. Because Hollywood has a close eye on the Chinese market it has been casting Chinese stars—notably Li Bingbing, Jing Tian, Wu Jing—but these are uninteresting token roles for huge stars. I’m sure they’re very frustrated.

At the industrial level, China tried to buy into Hollywood 10 years ago like Japan tried in the 1980s. The most spectacular example is the Chinese company Wanda Group, which bought AMC theaters’ 5,000 screens for $2.6 billion in 2012, and then spent another $3.5 billion to buy the Hollywood studio Legendary. But things didn’t go the way they anticipated and in recent years Wanda started selling off shares. I don't think people account enough for race as a factor in those failures. This is America and it's a very white business.

Markus Nornes: Unacknowledged Race Dynamics in Asian Film Impact