Abstract
This paper aims at examining the significant relationship between cinema and soft power, defined as the ability to attract and persuade others to act in a certain manner on the global arena. It will explore the role of cinema as a powerful tool for soft power and propaganda, with a specific focus on the United States and the European Union. Lastly, the paper will analyze the impact of cinema on international cultural relations, particularly during film festivals, highlighting the reciprocal influence between cinema and social, economic, and cultural variables.
Authors
Giulia Consonni - Junior Researcher Mondo Internazionale G.E.O. Cultura & Società
Marco Rizzi - Senior Researcher Mondo Internazionale G.E.O. Cultura & Società
Matteo Restivo - Senior Researcher Mondo Internazionale G.E.O. Cultura & Società
Introduction
Bretherton and Vogler (2006) conducted an extensive analysis of the concept of “actorness” within the realm of international relations, elucidating three key dimensions that ascertain the capacity of a state or organization to achieve global actor status. The first dimension, termed "presence," pertains to a state's ability to shape the perceptions, expectations, and behaviors of other actors within the global arena. This encompasses the effective establishment and assertion of its existence, skillful persuasion of others, and the acquisition of support for its objectives. The second dimension, denoted as "opportunity," encompasses the external contextual factors, ideas, and events that facilitate or impede an actor's actions. The attainment of actorness necessitates the ability to capitalize on opportunities to articulate concerns, actively engage in global deliberations, and adeptly communicate intentions. The third dimension, referred to as "capability," addresses the internal contextual factors that determine an actor's preparedness and aptitude for external action or inaction. This encompasses the ability to monitor and comprehend global dynamics, possess the necessary resources, expertise, and institutional mechanisms required for efficacious analysis, response, and the shaping of international outcomes. Rising from here, an intriguing inquiry arises regarding the potential influence of cultural elements, such as the worldwide reach of films, on an actor's presence, potentially engendering a form of soft power.
In our analysis, we will focus primarily on two key actors: the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). As we are aware, US cinema is deeply entrenched and pervasive in everyday society and practices. The constant exposure to US symbols and culture through movies inundates our society. Consequently, the US has been able to establish mechanisms of presence and influence, shaping its own narrative and culturally colonizing external contexts. In contrast, European Union cinema has been more fragmented, particularly due to the EU's relatively recent formation, which has hindered its ability to follow a similar trajectory.
1. Cinema, soft power and propaganda
In international relations, the concept of power is a key element characterizing the international arena, usually acknowledged as the capacity of an actor to influence another to act in a way in which it would have not acted otherwise. Traditionally, two major categories of power have been outlined and explored. On one hand, hard power refers to military and coercive intervention as well as economic sanctions. It is the case of hard power in those contexts where force is used in order to influence the behavior of a certain actor. On the other hand, soft power is understood as the ability to persuade, instead of forcing, others to act in a certain way. Grounded on attraction, it generally encompasses everything other than military and economic power (Wilson, 2008).
Cinema is a great example of soft power in light of, inter alia, the huge cultural influence that major international actors exercise through it. It is a way of ‘imposing’ values, culture, and ideology without using any military means. This ‘imposition’, while ending up constituting an act of sovereignty over other subjects, does not appear as such due to the absence of force. When considering the soft power of cinema, a key aspect is the absence of horizontality: the kind of influence exercised by Hollywood for instance, and the consequent absorption of US values and culture, is not met by any specular process. In this sense, it is emblematic that, generally speaking, people outside the US are more familiar with the works of a US filmmaker than a local director (Luiz, 2019).
It is crucial to point out the relationship between soft power and propaganda, to then highlight the link between these two and cinema. Nye, who first coined the term soft power, distinguished it from propaganda, stating how ‘the instruments of soft power are not fully under the control of governments’, since ‘culture and values are embedded in civil societies. Moreover, soft power depends on credibility, and when governments are seen as manipulative and information is perceived as propaganda, credibility is destroyed’ (Nye, 2008). Others have underlined how the goal of propaganda is to convey a message while soft power is a by-product of creative expression (Elliott, 2010). However, when it comes to cinema, propaganda and soft power may overlap. Culture is indeed sometimes subjected to political and economic instrumentalization in the processes of external cultural representation carried out by a state’s government management. For example, American foreign policy and cultural diplomacy were justified by soft power as the latter can be a tool to hide ideology (Zamorano, 2016). Therefore, the concept of soft power is both a means for persuasion and cultural diplomacy since the goal of improving the state’s cultural position is contained within the concept. These phenomena blurred the boundaries between soft power and propaganda and the field where the overlapping between propaganda and soft power is cinema (Jang, 2019).
The US system, identified in the Hollywood industry, is the strongest and most symbolic example of the effective use of cinema as soft power. Two main instances can be stressed to show the importance and deep influence that cinema can have and its strict relationship with soft power and propaganda.
First, the Cold War constituted a conflict between two antithetical political, cultural and social systems that had to be fought with less traditional weapons. Considering the overriding significance that ideology had in that opposition, it is not surprising that cinema played a paramount role. Indeed, cinema was both a source of information and a means of shaping the public’s opinion on the contemporary state of affairs. In the Soviet-American confrontation, propaganda had a huge role and cinema was the vehicle allowing spectators to see the ‘exceptional and adventurous’ features of American actions. Films and newsreels assisted with controlling and leading Western opinion during the most intense moments of the Cold War (Sorlin, 1998).
Second, Hollywood strongly contributed to shaping threatening and demonizing figures of Islamic terrorism which resulted in a general and negative depiction of the Middle Easterns, a portrayal that not only takes away the diversity of millions of people but also makes them be understood in the same way, as a threat. As Said, the father of Orientalism, underlined, the intimidating picture of Islam represented by TV and films helped to bring about a generalization of Islamic terrorism that cannot be compared with the (inexistent) generalization of Christian fundamentalism and terrorist attacks. These vast generalizations about Islam and the nature of Islam have been useful to let the US constantly have a threat, an enemy that could justify its gigantic military budget and its political actions (Said, 1998).
As these two examples have shown, cinema can well be understood as a vehicle of propaganda and soft power, able to exercise an extraordinary cultural influence. The next paragraphs will focus on the film industry in the US and in the EU.
2. Film industry in the US
Cinema has served as a powerful instrument for projecting the actoreness of the United States and Hollywood on a global scale. Drawing from Bretheron and Vogler's conceptualization of actoreness, the US has effectively established its presence by creating and promoting cinematic products that shape perceptions, expectations, and behaviors of audiences worldwide. The US film industry possesses a well-established global reach and holds a prominent position in the international film market. Its success stems from the ability of Hollywood to cater to universal tastes through the production of high-budget blockbuster films that resonate with global audiences. Moreover, the external context, encompassing ideas and events, has provided opportunities for the US and Hollywood to capitalize on the global arena (Elsaesser, 2005). The globalization of film distribution, for example, has expanded Hollywood's influence beyond the domestic market and into international territories. Furthermore, the US government has strategically employed the film industry as a tool for cultural diplomacy, leveraging cinema to promote American values, beliefs, and lifestyles (Miller, 1998). Internally, the actoreness of the US and Hollywood is propelled by their capacity to employ a diverse range of instruments in pursuit of their goals. Hollywood utilizes various marketing and distribution techniques to ensure broad audience reach, while the US government deploys soft power and cultural diplomacy to advance its values and interests through cinematic means. The cohesion between Hollywood and the US government becomes apparent through their shared objectives and strategies in promoting American culture and values through cinema: the government provides financial support and other forms of assistance to the film industry, while Hollywood serves as a vehicle for promoting the American way of life (De Zoysa et al. 2002; Elsaesser, 2005). Furthermore, the autonomy exhibited by Hollywood and the US government in international negotiations is a crucial aspect of their actoreness. The film industry possesses a considerable degree of autonomy in decision-making processes and goal formation, enabling independent action in promoting American culture and values through cinema. Similarly, the US government maintains a high degree of autonomy in its foreign policy, allowing it to leverage the film industry as a tool for advancing its interests and values (Medin et al. 2017; Elsaesser, 2005).
More specifically, the Military-Entertainment Complex (MEC) represents an example of the close relationship between the entertainment industry, particularly Hollywood, and the US Department of Defense. Collaboration between these entities involves the production and promotion of films, TV shows, and video games that often depict military themes and reinforce pro-military and patriotic sentiments. This relationship became particularly prominent following the 9/11 attacks and the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq during the early 2000s. The US military actively utilized popular culture to enhance its image and recruit new soldiers, while Hollywood benefited from access to military resources, such as equipment, locations, and technical expertise (Wasson, 2018; Stockwell, 2003).
Examples of this collaboration include the films “Black Hawk Down” and "Zero Dark Thirty". These movies exemplify the close relationship between the MEC and the use of cinema for soft power by the US. Directed by Ridley Scott, the first movie is based on the true events of the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993, where US Army Rangers and Delta Force operatives fought against Somali militias in a mission gone awry. The production of "Black Hawk Down" involved extensive cooperation and support from the US military, particularly the Department of Defense. The film crew had access to military equipment, technical expertise, and even active-duty personnel who served as advisors and actors in the movie. This collaboration ensured the authenticity and realism of the combat sequences, enhancing the film's impact on audiences. In terms of soft power, "Black Hawk Down" was strategically utilized by the U.S. government to promote American military prowess and valor. The film portrays the U.S. soldiers as courageous heroes facing overwhelming odds and displaying exceptional bravery in the face of adversity. By depicting the US military in a positive light, the movie reinforces notions of American military superiority and instills a sense of national pride among viewers. The release of the movie was accompanied by a broader public diplomacy campaign aimed at leveraging the film's narrative for soft power purposes, highlighting the dedication and sacrifice of American troops in their mission to restore peace and stability (Hirsch, 2011). This promotion aimed to shape global perceptions of the United States as a force for good and a protector of global security. Furthermore, the film's release was strategically timed to coincide with key political events: it premiered in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, when the US was rallying support for its military interventions in Afghanistan and later Iraq. In addition to its impact on public opinion, "Black Hawk Down" also had a tangible influence on military recruitment and training. The film's realistic depiction of combat and the heroism of American soldiers resonated with many young individuals, inspiring them to join the military and serve their country, using the film as a recruitment tool, showcasing the valor and camaraderie depicted in the movie as core values of the armed forces (Hall, 2010).
The second movie used as case study is “Zero Dark Thirty”, which depicts the decade-long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden following the 9/11 attacks, culminating in the successful operation to capture him in 2011. The film was produced with the assistance of the US government and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which provided classified information and access to military personnel and resources (Bigelow, 2012). This collaboration between the entertainment industry and the intelligence community is a prime example of how the MEC operates, blurring the lines between reality and fiction, and leveraging the power of cinema to shape public opinion and promote a particular narrative. Its realistic depiction of intelligence gathering, interrogations, and military operations added to its credibility and impact on audiences. By drawing upon real-life events and incorporating classified information, the film created an aura of authenticity that resonated with viewers and enhanced its persuasive power. The use of "Zero Dark Thirty" for soft power purposes is evident in how the US government leveraged the film to shape global perceptions and advance its interests. The movie served as a powerful tool of propaganda, promoting American values, exceptionalism, and the effectiveness of US intelligence and military agencies. It projected an image of the United States as a capable and determined global actor, combating terrorism, and ensuring security. Through partnerships with filmmakers, the government facilitated the creation of a narrative that aligned with its strategic objectives, emphasizing American heroism, resilience, and the success of the intelligence community (Greenwald, 2012). Furthermore, the release of "Zero Dark Thirty" was strategically timed to coincide with the final months of President Barack Obama's reelection campaign. The movie served as a reminder of his administration's accomplishment in eliminating Bin Laden and portrayed him as a decisive leader in the fight against terrorism. This alignment of political messaging with cinematic storytelling demonstrates how the US government harnessed the power of cinema to enhance its soft power and shape public perception both domestically and internationally (Rashidi et al. 2014).
On the other hand, critics of the MEC argue that it fosters militarism and jingoism, while obscuring the realities and costs of war. The close relationship between the entertainment industry and the military blurs the line between reality and fiction, making it more challenging for audiences to critically engage with issues related to war and national security (Lenoir et al. 2018).
3. Film industry in the EU
In the EU, concerns have arisen regarding the impact of American popular culture on European audiences. Some argue that the prevalence of American cultural products in Europe can erode European cultural identity and promote American values and worldviews. Additionally, the promotion of militarism and war through popular culture can clash with the EU's commitment to peace and diplomacy. To address these concerns, the EU has implemented policies and regulations aimed at countering the use of popular media for propaganda purposes. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ECTT) are among the regulations designed to foster transparency, accountability, and prevent the spread of hate speech and propaganda (Burri-Nenova, 2007) .
To counterbalance the dominance of American cultural influence and combat US hegemony, the EU has employed the MEDIA program as a strategic tool. Introduced in 1991, this initiative serves as the primary platform dedicated to promoting European cinema within Europe and beyond its borders. The program has been successful in providing substantial financial resources and support for the advancement, production, and distribution of European films (Aguaded-Gomez, 2013). Its achievements are evident in the effective promotion of European films and co-productions within Europe, exerting a notable impact on esteemed film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, and Venice. Notably, the Cannes Film Festival has emerged as a prominent stage for European films, with a significant proportion of competition entries being co-produced in collaboration with various European nations (Neidhardt, 2011).
Despite its accomplishments within Europe, the MEDIA program has faced challenges in extending its influence globally. European films constitute only a fraction of the global box office revenue, which remains overwhelmingly dominated by Hollywood productions. This dominance can be attributed to several factors, including larger budgets, superior marketing efforts, and extensive distribution networks. Hollywood blockbusters typically enjoy substantially higher marketing expenditures compared to European films (Elsaesser, 2005).
Nonetheless, the MEDIA program remains a significant endeavor by the European Union to foster the growth and development of European cinema both within Europe and on the international stage. By facilitating financial support and aid for the production, distribution, and promotion of European films, the program has played a pivotal role in the advancement of European cinema. It extends its assistance to various aspects of the filmmaking process, encompassing the advancement of new projects, funding for script development, and financing for feature films, documentaries, and television programs. To achieve its objectives, the MEDIA program has established the International Co-production Fund, a dedicated fund aimed at facilitating the production of high-quality European films in collaboration with non-European counterparts. This fund seeks to nurture emerging talent and strengthen connections between European and non-European film industries, particularly with former colonies and developing nations. As such, the program has emerged as a crucial force in the advancement and promotion of European cinema (Neidhardt, 2011; Aguaded-Gomez, 2013).
The financing of world cinema relies on diverse forms of state-funded support schemes or cultural subsidies, indicating a country's commitment to financially support creative talent as part of its "liberal" image or in preserving national culture through cinema, alongside subsidies for other arts and crafts specific to the nation. Notably, the funding may originate from sources outside the filmmaker's own state, often provided in the form of "development aid." Within the European Union, the realization of world cinema predominantly occurs through co-productions, wherein former colonies receive cultural development aid. This is exemplified by notable instances such as France and Belgium's involvement in Francophone Africa, where nearly every film receives support from European subsidies. Moreover, the significant pan-African film festival held in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, not only receives funding but also organizational support from Brussels and Paris. Furthermore, Germany, despite its relatively brief and tumultuous colonial history in Africa, provides financial resources for film production in Namibia and Tanzania through its national film fund. Certain film festivals, such as Rotterdam and Berlin, also offer production subsidies, including the establishment of the World Cinema Fund (Neidhardt, 2011). These cases underscore the pivotal role of subsidy in shaping world cinema within the EU context.
Co-productions between the European Union and non-EU countries, encompassing former colonies and developing nations, yield numerous advantages that amplify the EU's role as a global actor and enhance its presence and influence in these regions (Papadimitrou, 2018). These benefits can be examined through three key dimensions.
Firstly, co-productions serve as conduits for cultural exchange and dialogue among disparate regions across the globe. Through collaborative endeavors, European and non-European filmmakers engage in mutual cooperation, facilitating the exchange of ideas and experiences that culminate in films embodying the diverse facets of their respective cultures. This intercultural interchange plays a pivotal role in dispelling stereotypes and fostering comprehension and mutual understanding between distinct global regions. Such endeavors align with the fundamental principles of the EU's cultural diplomacy, which emphasize the significance of transcultural connections in nurturing amicable relations (De Vinck, 2009; Papadimitrou, 2018).
Secondly, co-productions contribute to the development and advancement of the film industry in developing countries, thereby fostering economic growth. Through partnerships with European counterparts, local filmmakers gain exposure to innovative techniques and gain access to international markets, enabling them to enhance the quality of their films and expand revenue streams. Consequently, this generates employment opportunities locally and fosters the expansion of the film industry in these countries (Morawetz et al. 2007; De Vinck, 2009).
Thirdly, co-productions serve as mechanisms to promote the EU's values and interests within these regions. By actively supporting co-productions, the EU can champion its core principles of cultural diversity, democracy, and human rights. Consequently, it cultivates a favorable perception of the EU within these regions, nurturing a positive image. In this regard, co-productions become instrumental in bolstering the EU's soft power, thereby enhancing its standing and influence in the regions under consideration (Morawetz et al. 2007; De Vinck, 2009).
4. The impact of cinema on the international circuits of culture and economy
In contemporary society, cinema serves a dual role as both a modern industry and a cultural necessity in many countries worldwide. Undoubtedly, it is one of the most fundamental and effective media which plays an active role in deepening the expansion and survival of real art and culture of a society. Cinema influences social, economic, and cultural variables while simultaneously being shaped by the development of these areas (Rahimi et al., 2014).
At the same time, the role of cinema became central also in facilitating relationships between different cultures, economies, and societies. Especially in the context of cultural international relations, since technological and media competition has resulted in international film festivals, which started to represent powerful vehicles for bridging ideas and networks across the globe. They facilitate access to large numbers of people to connect and interact, whether in terms of the film industries or as audiences who are interested in exploring the world beyond cultural stereotypes (Fagarasan, 2014).
As a matter of fact, the consequent upgrading quality of the film in competition has had a great impact on the development of intellectual, cultural, social, economic and trade dimensions of different communities (Rahimi et al., 2014). From the perspective of cultural diplomacy, the role of the cinema, especially during film festivals, aims also to enable, re-construct or de-construct the centrality of the notion of Nation, inside the festival circuit, as well as in the collective mentality of different communities across the globe (Fagarasan, 2014).
The film festivals as international events in Europe date back to the 1930s and they started gaining more popularity after WWII, reflecting the desire to showcase new cinema. In addition to answering the need to articulate an alternative to the economic power of the Hollywood film industry, they also played a key role in legitimizing specific elements such as authorship, production, exhibition, cultural prestige, and recognition (Fagarasan, 2014).
The Cannes Film Festival and all the major European film festivals - supported by film critics and institutions - are born to counter Hollywood’s and US’ narrative supremacy and they align in opposition to a mainstream American film product (Fagarasan, 2014). A defining role of all the major film festivals is the ability to construct a canon of “quality” cinema whose reputation is extended as it travels across the international circuit and which in turn bestows cultural capital on the festival itself, its jury, the host city and country, and its wider audiences.
The auteur films are normally not translated into foreign languages, due to the limitations of distribution and exhibition networks which themselves are essentially the result of Hollywood’s longstanding domination of the global box office (Fagarasan, 2014). However, film festivals finally constitute the opportunity for European films to extend beyond the domestic context as they journey from one festival to another. Successful films within these festivals can achieve international distribution on the art-house circuit.
Film festivals also constitute an economic source for the host cities and countries, in particular in terms of tourism. However, tourism is an economic sector which is mainly affected by the imagery created by cinema, when linked to a particular place or country (Un-industria, 2012). When choosing a vacation destination, individuals often rely on their perceptions and emotions connected not only to the physical landmarks and landscapes but also to the customs, traditions, and culture of the local population. Finally, employment statistics are also interesting: direct, indirect, and induced tourism has often created numerous jobs.
On this aspect, communication has a great influence and, in particular, the entire audiovisual industry is able to reach a mass audience right into their homes or, more recently thanks to the development of technology, wherever they are thanks to new mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets (Un-industria, 2012).
Sometimes, cinema is part of a larger nation branding campaign that seeks to project a single coherent national image to the rest of world in order to attract visitors, students, business, and income (Aronzyck, 2013). Through “product placement” of a city such as Barcelona in Woody Allen’s film Vicky Cristina Barcelona, for which local public authorities contributed 10% of the total budget (Barcelona’s city hall paid €1 million and the Catalan Regional Government paid €500,000), a city can advertise and promote itself to an external audience, boosting tourist numbers and revenues. Despite the controversy surrounding the use of public money to fund Vicky Cristina Barcelona, it has proved a successful model for increasing tourism, which was subsequently repeated in Midnight in Paris and To Rome with Love (Rodriguez Campo et al., 2011).
Conclusion
This paper has analyzed the strict relationship between cinema and soft power, the latter intended as the ability to persuade, through attraction, others to act in a certain way. Cinema is considered a strong vehicle of soft power and propaganda, given the extraordinary cultural influence that the greatest international actors can exercise through it.
The paper has focused on two key actors, the US and the EU. On one hand, The US film industry has a well-established worldwide reach and possesses a primary position in the international film market. Hollywood’s influence does not limit itself to the US but constitutes a tool for cultural diplomacy globally, representing American values, beliefs, and lifestyles. The propagandistic role of Hollywood can be seen in the close relationship between the Military-Entertainment Complex (MEC) and the US Department of Defense. On the other hand, the EU, concerned about the impact of American popular culture on European audiences, to counterbalance the dominance of American cultural influence and combat US hegemony, has employed the MEDIA program. Notwithstanding its accomplishments within Europe, this program has faced challenges in enlarging its influence internationally. Nevertheless, co-productions between the EU and non-EU countries, involving former colonies and developing nations receiving development aid, yield numerous advantages that amplify the EU's role as a global actor and enhance its presence and influence in these regions. The financing of world cinema relies on diverse forms of state-funded support schemes or cultural subsidies. The funding may originate from sources outside the filmmaker's own state, often provided in the form of "development aid." Within the European Union, the realization of world cinema predominantly occurs through co-productions, wherein former colonies receive cultural development aid.
Finally, the paper has analyzed the impact of cinema on international cultural relations, focusing on the role of cinema during film festivals. Cinema indeed influences social, economic, and cultural variables and mutually it will be affected by the development of these areas. Moreover, the role of cinema became central also in the relationships between different cultures, economies, and societies.
Sources
• Aguaded-Gómez, J. I. (2013). El Programa Media de la Comisión Europea, apoyo internacional a la educación en medios= Media Programme (EU): International Support for Media Education. El Programa Media de la Comisión Europea, apoyo internacional a la educación en medios= Media Programme (EU): International Support for Media Education, 1-4. (1-A)
• Bigelow, K. (2012). As Enigmatic as Her Picture, Kathryn Bigelow on 'Zero Dark Thirty'. Interview With New York Times, (Brooks Barnes). New York Times, November 30. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/movies/awardsseason/kathryn-bigelow-on-zero-darkthirty.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&. (1-A)
• Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a Global Actor, 2nd edition. London: Routledge (1-A)
• Burri-Nenova, M. (2007). New Audiovisual Media Services Directive: Television without Frontiers, Television without Cultural Diversity, The. Common Market L. Rev., 44, 1689. (1-A)
• De Vinck, S. (2009). Europudding or Europaradise? A performance evaluation of the Eurimages co-production film fund, twenty years after its inception. (1-A)
• De Zoysa, Richard, and Otto Newman (2002). "Globalization, soft power and the challenge of Hollywood." Contemporary politics 8.3: 185-202. (1-B)
• Edward Said (1998). Edward Said On Orientalism. (1-A)
• Elsaesser, T. (2005). European Cinema as World Cinema: A New Beginning?. In European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood (pp. 485-514). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. (2-B)
• Ernest J. Wilson III (2008). Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. The Annals of the American Academy. (1-A)
• Greenwald, G. (2012). Zero Dark Thirty: CIA hagiography, pernicious propaganda. The Guardian, Dec 14. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/14/zero-dark-thirty-cia-propaganda. (2-B)
• Hall, T. (2010). An Unclear Attraction: A Critical Examination of Soft Power as an Analytical Category. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3(2), 189–211. (1-A)
• Hirsch, J. L. (2011, August 12). The Black Hawk Down Effect. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2011... (2-B)
• João Luiz (2019). Hollywood Como Soft Power (short doc). (2-B)
• Joseph S. Nye (2008). Foreword, in Y. Watanabe & D.L. McConnell (eds), Soft Power Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the United States. New York and London: M.E. Sharpe. (1-A)
• Kelley, A. (2018). MOBILIZING THE MOVING IMAGE: Movie Machines at US Military Bases and Veterans’ Hospitals during World War II. In H. Wasson & L. Grieveson (Eds.), Cinema’s Military Industrial Complex (1st ed., pp. 44–60). University of California Press. (1-A)
• Kyungjae Jang (2019). Between Soft Power and Propaganda: The Korean Military Drama Descendants of the Sun. Journal of War & Culture Studies (12). (1-A)
• Lenoir, T., & Caldwell, L. (2018). The military-entertainment complex (Vol. 4). Harvard University Press. (1-A)
• Lorena Rodríguez Campo, José Antonio Fraiz Brea and Diego Rodríguez‐Toubes Muñiz (2011). Tourist Destination Image Formed by the Cinema: Barcelona positioning through the feature film Vicky Cristina Barcelona. European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation 2, n. 1. (1-A)
• Mariano M. Zamorano (2016). Reframing Cultural Diplomacy: The Instrumentalization of Culture Under the Soft Power Theory. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research (8). (1-A)
• Medin, B., & Koyuncu, S. (2017). Cinema as a soft power instrument: Hollywood cinema case. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 3(3), 836-844. (2-B)
• Melissa Aronzyck (2013). Branding the Nation: The Global Business of National Identity. New York: Oxford University Press. (1-A)
• Miller, T. (1998). Hollywood and the World. In J. Hill & P. Church Gibson (Eds.), The Oxford Guide to Film Studies (pp. 371-381). New York, NY: Oxford University Press (1-B)
• Morawetz, N., Hardy, J., Haslam, C., & Randle, K. (2007). Finance, policy and industrial dynamics—the rise of co‐productions in the film industry. Industry and Innovation, 14(4), 421-443. (1-A)
• Neidhardt, I. (2011). From the Field: Co-Producing the Memory. Cinema Production between Europe and the Middle East. Global Media Journal, German Edition, 1(1), (1-A)
• Papadimitriou, L. (2018). Greek cinema as European cinema: co-productions, Eurimages and the Europeanisation of Greek cinema. Studies in European Cinema, 15(2-3), 215-234. (1-A)
• Pierre Sorlin (1998). The Cinema: American Weapon for the Cold War. Film History (10). (1-A)
• Rahimi, M. Mousai, N. Azad and S.M. Syedaliakbar (2014). Impacts of economic, cultural, social, invididual and environmental factors on demands for cinema: case study of Tehran. African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 8, n. 13. (1-A)
• Rashidi, Y., Saei, G., Faraji, M. R., & Hosseininha, L. (2014). The Mediating Role of Cinema in Representation of Hard Power: Case Study: The movie "Zero Dark Thirty." Vol.4, No.12, 128 (2-B)
• Rebecca Elliott (2010). Two Decades of American Painting: Propaganda?. International Journal of the Arts in Society (5). (1-A)
• Silvia Fagarasan (2014). The Tradition of European Film Festivals and Cultural Diplomacy. ICD, Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. (2-B)
• Stockwell, S., & Muir, A. (2003). The Military-Entertainment Complex: A New Facet of Information Warfare. Fibreculture Journal. (1-A)
• Unindustria (2012). L’impatto economico dell’Industria Audovisiva in italia. Analisi internazionali, stato del settore e proposte di Policy. Available at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=... (2-B)
• Wasson, H. (2018). EXPERIMENTAL VIEWING PROTOCOLS: Film Projection and the American Military. In H. Wasson & L. Grieveson (Eds.), Cinema’s Military Industrial Complex (1st ed., pp. 25–43). University of California Press. (1-A)