After Russian troops began invading Ukraine, Hollywood mobilized in protest. Major studios paused the release of films in Russian theaters. Netflix suspended operations in the country, halting future productions and acquisitions. This week, Discovery, WarnerMedia, and Amazon ceased their services in Russia. The U.S. film and TV business has, effectively and collectively, pulled the plug on Moscow.
Not allowing the Russian public to see the latest iteration of Batman may seem an inconsequential response to a dire international crisis. But cinema is a form of soft power, and American film historians told me the boycott could have wide-ranging implications at home and abroad. Here are four of their biggest takeaways:
Hollywood is more willing to respond to international crises at this moment than it used to be.
Given the American entertainment industry’s challenges at home—the pandemic’s effects on production, the shaky theater business—its response to a distant war is significant, according to Jonathan Kuntz, a film historian at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. “Hollywood is feeling that it has an obligation to take a stand,” he told me. “I don’t think Hollywood necessarily always felt that, except when [Americans] were actually fighting a war … This may be less like what we’ve seen in the past, and may be a harbinger of what we’re going to see more in the future.”
Indeed, in its relatively brief history, Hollywood has typically been slow to respond to foreign conflict. In the past, studios were more inclined to play a part if the United States was directly involved, and normally contributed by working with the government on the home front. During the 1940s, auteur directors such as Frank Capra helped make educational and propagandistic films, theaters sold war bonds, and stars helped rally public opinion. And yet, companies didn’t stop exporting projects…