Content uploaded by Rodrigo Gómez García
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rodrigo Gómez García on Jan 28, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Political Economy of Media
Industries
This book provides a critical political economic examination of the im-
pact of increasingly concentrated global media industries. It addresses
different media and communication industries from around the globe,
including lm, television, music, journalism, telecommunication, and
information industries. The authors use case studies to examine how
changing methods of production and distribution are impacting a va-
riety of issues, including globalization, environmental devastation, and
the shifting role of the State. This collection nds communication at
a historical moment in which capitalist control of media and commu-
nication is the default status, and so, because of the increasing levels
of concentration globally allows those in control to dene the default
ideological status. In turn, these concentrated media forces are deployed
under the guise of entertainment but with a mind toward further con-
centration and control of the media apparatuses many times in conver-
gence with others.
Randy Nichols is an assistant professor in the School of Interdisciplinary
Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington Tacoma, U.S.A.
Gabriela Martinez is a professor in the School of Journalism and Com-
munication at the University of Oregon, U.S.A.
Routledge Studies in Media and Cultural Industries
1 Community Filmmaking
Diversity, Practices and Places
Edited by Sarita Malik, Caroline Chapain and Roberta Comunian
2 Reconceptualising Film Policies
Edited by Nolwenn Mingant and Cecilia Tirtaine
3 Asia-Pacic Film Co-productions
Theory, Industry and Aesthetics
Edited by Dal Yong Jin and Wendy Su
4 Audiovisual Industries and Diversity
Economics and Policies in the Digital Era
Edited by Luis A. Albornoz and Maria Trinidad García Leiva
5 Political Economy of Media Industries
Global Transformations and Challenges
Edited by Randy Nichols and Gabriela Martinez
Political Economy of Media
Industries
Global Transformations and Challenges
Edited by
Randy Nichols and Gabriela Martinez
First published 2020
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an
informa business
© 2020 Taylor & Francis
The right of Randy Nichols and Gabriela Martinez to be
identied as the authors of the editorial material, and of the
authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Tradem a rk not ice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identication and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-60296-0 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-46933-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by codeMantra
We dedicate this book to Janet Wasko for her inuence in
the elds of media and communication, and her friendship,
mentorship, leadership, and collegiality.
Onward!
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
List of Contributors xiii
Acknowledgments xix
List of Abbreviations xxi
1 Introduction 1
RANDY NIC HOLS AND GABRIELA M ART IN EZ
PART I
The Film Industry 7
2 The Hollywood Trilogy, The Disney Duo 9
EILEEN R. MEEHAN
3 Movie Theaters and Money: Integration and
Consolidation in Film Exhibition 22
BEN BIRKINBINE
4 How Hollywood Workers Unite: Labor Convergence and
the Creation of SAG-AFTRA 41
CATHERINE MCKERCHER A ND V INCENT MOSCO
5 The Mexican Film Industry 2000–2018: Resurgence
orAssimilation? 57
RODRIGO GÓMEZ
Contents
viii Contents
PART II
Other Media Industries 83
6 The New Holy Grail: Scripted Television Production and
State, Provinical & National Incentives 85
WILLI AM M. KUNZ
7 Old Strategies in the New Paradigm: Web Series and
Corporate Control 110
MARY P. ERICKSON
8 State Monopoly of Telecommunications in Ethiopia:
Revisiting Natural Monopoly in the Era of Deregulation 127
TÉWODROS W. WORKNEH AND H. L ESLIE STEEVE S
9 Through Being Cool: The Critical Political
Economy of iTunes 148
DAVID GR ACON
10 In Practice and Theory? Scholarship on Wikipedia’s
Political Economy 165
RANDALL LIVINGSTONE
PART III
New and Enduring Challenges 183
11 Bribe and Journalism 185
JÖRG BECKER
12 Labor in the Age of Digital (Re)Production 205
GERALD SUSSMAN
13 Power Under Pressure: Digital Capitalism in Crisis 226
DAN S CH ILL ER
14 Minutes to Midnight: Capitalist Communication and
Climate Catastrophe 244
GRAHAM MURDOCK
15 Time, Globality and Commodity Fetishism 262
WAYNE HOPE
Index 277
Figures
3.1 New ownership structure for AMC 30
3.2 Ownership and corporate interlocks in digital
lm exhibition 34
5.1 Selected years of historic lm production and release
performance from 1930 to 1990 61
5.2 Mexican production and releases from 1990 to 1999 63
5.3 Mexican Film productions and releases
from 2000 to 2017 71
5.4 Performance of Mexican lms in revenues, attendance,
and releases by % from 2010 to 2017 72
5.5 Mexican lms productions from 2000 to 2017 73
11.1 Gustav Freytag Monument in Wiesbaden, Germany 187
3.1 Top ten movie theater chains in the United States and
Canadain2012 28
5.1 Number of cinemas in Mexico from 1938 to 1990
(selected years) 64
5.2 Distribution companies that had record attendance from
2011 to 2017 in Mexican cinemas 75
6.1 Original scripted series and miniseries, at least
40minutes per episode, on selected U.S. broadcast
networks – ABC, CBS CW, FOX, and NBC – with and
without production incentives, 2010–2011
through 2016–2017 94
6.2 New York state tax credits issued for original scripted
series or miniseries on CBS, 2013–2014 96
6.3 Original scripted series and miniseries on broadcast
network in 2016–2017 receiving California tax credit 97
6.4 Original scripted series and miniseries, at least
40minutes per episode, on selected U.S. basic cable
networks – AMC, FX, TNT, and USA – with and
without production incentives, 2011 through 2017 99
6.5 Original scripted series and miniseries, at least
40minutes per episode, on AMC, FX, TNT, and USA
receiving California tax credits in 2015 100
6.6 Original scripted series and miniseries, at least
40minutes per episode, on three premium cable
services– HBO, Showtime, and STARZ – with and
without production incentives, 2011 through 2017 102
6.7 Original scripted series and miniseries, at least
40minutes per episode, on three online streaming
services– Amazon, Hulu, and Netix – with and
without production incentives, 2011 through 2017 104
8.1 Summary of all telecommunication expansion
projectsuntil 1993 137
Tables
Jörg Becker(born September 17, 1946) is a Professor of Political Sci-
ence at Marburg University in Germany. He was Guest Professor for
Political Science and/or Communication Research at Universities in
Roskilde in Denmark, Beirut in Lebanon, Hong Kong, and Innsbruck
in Austria. Fields of interest: international and intercultural media
politics, informatics and information technology, cultural studies,
and peace research; numerous publications in more than ten lan-
guages. Latest book publication: Medien im Krieg – Krieg in den Me-
dien (2016; Media at War – War in the Media).
Benjamin Birkinbineis an Assistant Professor of Media Studies in the
Reynolds School of Journalism and Center for Advanced Media Stud-
ies at the University of Nevada, Reno. His research focuses on the
political economy of communication with a specic focus on free
and open-source software and the digital commons. He is the author
of Incorporating the Digital Commons (University of Westminster
Press, 2019), coeditor of Global Media Giants (Routledge, 2017),
and his research has been published in the International Journal of
Communication, The Political Economy of Communication, and the
Journal of Peer Production.
Mary P. Ericksonteaches media studies at Western Washington Univer-
sity. Her research focuses on regional and independent screen media,
gender, distribution and marketing, and global media. She coedited
Independent Filmmaking Around the Globe (University of Toronto
Press, 2015) and Cross-Border Cultural Production: Economic Run-
away or Globalization? (Cambria Press, 2008). She has also worked
in independent lms as a publicist, researcher, and distribution
consultant.
Rodrigo Gómezis a Professor of Communication Policies and Indus-
tries at the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Cuajimalpa and
currently is the Chair of the Political Economy section of the In-
ternational Association for Media and Communication Research
(IAMCR). His research is grounded in the critical political economy
Contributors
xiv Contributors
of communication, examining ownership and public policies in cul-
tural industries. He is coeditor (with Ben Birkinbine and Janet Wasko)
of the series and book Global Media Giants (2017).
David Graconis an Assistant Professor of Media Studies and Digital
Production at Gonzaga University. His research/creative projects and
teaching interests include cultural studies, lm studies, media liter-
acy, DIY cultural production, punk studies, political economy of me-
dia, documentary, and experimental production. His media works
were screened at the Chicago Underground Film Festival, Seattle
Underground Film Festival, New Art Film Festival (Champaign), the
Mexican Centre for Music and Sonic Art, and many others. During
the 2017/2018 academic year, David was an U.S. Fulbright Scholar
teaching media literacy in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine. He is a native
of Buffalo, New York, and has been invested in post-punk, indie,
experimental music scenes, zine communities, and college radio as
well as activist-orientated experimental lm, video, and documentary
communities and collectives since the mid-1990s. David completed
his PhD in Communication and Society at the University of Oregon
and MA/BA at the University at Buffalo (SUNY) in the Department
of Media Study and Sociology.
Wayne Hopeis a Professor in the School of Communication Studies at
the Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. His specic
areas of research include: New Zealand media history and public
sphere analysis, the political economy of communication, sport-media
relationships, and globalization and time. He is the author of Time,
Communication and Global Capitalism (Palgrave, 2016 – described
by a reviewer as “a virtuoso work of synthesis, provocative and path-
breaking. It needs to be read by anyone interested in the ways we live
now, where we might be headed and how we might arrive at desti-
nations not at the neoliberal route map”). His research has also been
published in a range of journals, including Media, Culture & Society,
the International Journal of Communication, and Time & Society.
He is the founding coeditor of the online journal Political Economy
of Communication. Within New Zealand, Wayne has appeared regu-
larly as a media commentator on television and radio when not writ-
ing pieces against neoliberalism in The Daily Blog.
William M. Kunzis a Professor in the Division of Culture, Arts & Com-
munication in the School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences at the
University of Washington Tacoma. He received his PhD in Commu-
nication and Society from the University of Oregon. He is the author
of Culture Conglomerates: Consolidation in the Motion Picture and
Television Industries as well as various articles and chapters focused
on media ownership and regulation in the television industry. He has
Contributors xv
also worked in sports television at the network level for over 30 years,
including ABC Sports, Turner Sports, and NBC Sports.
Randall Livingstone, Ph.D.,is an Associate Professor in the School of
Communication at Endicott College. He earned his PhD from the
School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Ore-
gon, where his dissertation work focused on the socio-technical na-
ture of Wikipedia. At Endicott, he primarily teaches courses on social
media, algorithmic culture, crowdsourcing, and research methods.
Randall’s research focuses on the role of automated robots (“bots”) in
social media, and his research has appeared in the Journal of Com-
munication Inquiry, M /C Journal, FLOW, Slate, First Monday, So-
cial Science Computer Review, and the Newspaper Research Journal.
Gabriela Martínezis a Professor in the School of Journalism and Com-
munication at the University of Oregon. Martínez is a scholar who
specializes in international communication and the political econ-
omy of communication. Her research addresses topics ranging from
telecommunications to lm industries to human rights and collec-
tive memories. While her primary geographical area of expertise is
Latin America, she also looks at, weaves in, and analyzes histori-
cal, political, cultural, and economic connections highlighting the
long- standing relationship of this region to others around the globe.
She is the author of Latin American Telecommunications: Telefóni-
ca’s Conquest. In addition, Gabriela Martínez is an international
award-winning documentary lmmaker, who has produced and di-
rected more than 14 ethnographic and sociopolitical documentaries.
Her early documentary work includes Ñakaj, Textiles in the Southern
Andes, Mamacoca, and Qoyllur Rit’i: A Woman’s Journey, and her
most recent work includes Media, Women, and Rebellion in Oaxaca
and Keep Your Eyes On Guatemala.
Catherine McKercheris Professor Emeritus at Carleton University in
Ottawa, Canada. She holds a BA in political science from Carleton,
a Master of Journalism from Temple University, and a PhD in the
Humanities from Concordia University. Before joining the faculty of
the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University
in 1987, she worked as a newspaper and wire service journalist in
Ottawa, Toronto, and Kingston, Ontario, and in Washington, D.C.
She is the author, coauthor or coeditor of a half dozen books, includ-
ing Shut Away: When Down Syndrome was a Life Sentence (2019),
The Laboring of Communication (2008), Knowledge Workers in the
Information Society (2007), and Newsworkers Unite: Labor, Con-
vergence and North American Newspaper (2002). In 2014, she and
Vincent Mosco were named joint recipients of the AEJMC Profes-
sional Freedom and Responsibility Award.
xvi Contributors
Eileen R. Meehanis a Professor Emeritus at Southern Illinois Univer-
sity, Carbdondale, and a political economist specializing in the cul-
ture industries and media arts. Her research examines the interplay
of corporate structures, legal supports, and production processes in
U.S.-based media industries. She is probably best known for her pio-
neering work on the television ratings industry, with particular atten-
tion to the operations and economics of the A. C. Nielsen Company
(currently known as Nielsen Holdings) and her explication of transin-
dustrial media conglomeration’s impact on the creation, production,
distribution, and recycling of specic media artifacts. The latter in-
cludes analyses of the S tar Trek and Batman franchises. Among other
publications, Meehan is the author of Why TV Is Not Our Fault,
coeditor with Ellen Riordan of Sex and Money: Feminism and Polit-
ical Economy in Media Studies, and coeditor with Janet Wasko of A
Companion to Television (2nd edition).
Vincent Mosco (Ph.D, Harvard)is a Professor Emeritus of Sociology at
Queen’s University and Distinguished Professor of Communication,
New Media Centre, Fudan University, Shanghai. At Queen’s, he was
Canada Research Chair in Communication and Society and Head of
the Department of Sociology. His research interests include the po-
litical economy of communication, the social impacts of information
technology, and the communication policy. Dr. Mosco is the author
or editor of 26 books, including The Digital Sublime (2004) and The
Political Economy of Communication (2009). His To the Cloud: Big
Data in a Turbulent World was named a 2014 Outstanding Aca-
demic Title by Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. His
latest books are Becoming Digital: Toward a Post-Internet Society
(Emerald, 2017) and The Smart City in a Digital World (Emerald,
2019). In 2019 the International Communication Association named
Dr. Mosco recipient of the C Edwin Baker Award, which recognizes
outstanding scholarly contributions in the area of Media, Markets,
and Democracy.
Graham Murdockis a Professor of Culture and Economy at the Depart-
ment of Social Sciences at Loughborough University and Vice Presi-
dent of the International Association of Media and Communication
Research. He has held the Bonnier Chair at the University of Stock-
holm and the Teaching Chair at the Free University of Brussels, has
been a Visiting Professor at the Universities of Auckland, California
at San Diego, Mexico City, Curtin Western Australia, and Bergen,
and a Visiting Fellow at Fudan University in Shanghai. His work
has been translated into 21 languages. His recent books include: as
coeditor, Money Talks: Media, Markets, Crisis (2015), New Media
and Metropolitan Life: Connecting, Consuming, Creating (2015) (in
Contributors xvii
Chinese), and Carbon Capitalism and Communication: Confronting
Climate Change (2017).
Randy Nicholsis an Assistant Professor in the Division of Culture, Arts
& Communication in the School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sci-
ences at the University of Washington Tacoma. His work focuses on
the critical political economy of video games. He has published two
books: The Video Game Business (2014) and Inside the Video Game
Industry: Game Developers Talk About the Business of Play (2016),
as well as various articles and book chapters analyzing the interplay
of the video games industry with other media industries and the im-
plications of video games on cultural and creative industries policy.
Dan Schilleris a historian of communications and information in the
context of the continuing development of capitalism. Successively a
Professor at Temple University, UCLA, UCSD, and the University
of Illinois, he is the sole –author of seven books, including Digital
Depression: Information Technology and Economic Crisis (2014),
and many research articles. He is presently moving toward comple-
tion of a book based on archival sources on the social history of U.S.
telecommunications
H. Leslie Steevesis a Professor and Senior Associate Dean for Aca-
demic Affairs in the School of Journalism & Communication at the
University of Oregon, U.S.A. Dr. Steeves’ research addresses over-
lapping concerning media in and about sub-Saharan Africa, includ-
ing gender, media, and development/social change; information and
communication technologies (ICTs) for development; and entertain-
ment and tourism representations of Africa. In 2017 she received the
International Communication Association’s Teresa Award for the
Advancement of Feminist Scholarship. She coauthored with Srinivas
Melkote Communication for Development: Theory and Practice
for Empowerment and Social Justice (2015). She serves on a num-
ber of editorial boards and has published in leading journals in me-
dia studies, including Journal of Communication, Communication
Theory, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Communica-
tion, Culture & Critique, Media, Culture & Society, International
Communication Gazette, and African Journalism Studies. She has
received two Fulbright Scholar grants for teaching and research in
Kenya and Ghana; and she directs an annual study abroad intern-
ship program in Accra, Ghana, in collaboration with the University
of Ghana.
Gerald Sussmanis a Professor of Urban Studies and International
Studies at Portland State University, where he teaches graduate
courses in international development, political economy, political
xviii Contributors
communication, and media studies. His latest book (as editor) is The
Propaganda Society: Promotional Culture and Politics in Global
Context (Peter Lang, 2011). He is also the author of Branding De-
mocracy: U.S. Regime Change in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe (Peter
Lang, 2010), Global Electioneering: Campaign Consulting, Commu-
nications, and Corporate Financing (Rowman & Littleeld, 2005),
and Communication, Technology, and Politics in the Information
Age (Sage, 1997), and editor of two other books.
Téwodros W. Worknehis an Assistant Professor of Global Communica-
tion at the School of Communication Studies, Kent State University.
Workneh’s research agenda revolves around two areas of inquiry. His
rst research interest probes issues of regulation and policymaking in
communication industries through the lens of critical political econ-
omy, especially as they pertain to freedom of speech in state-media
relations in Ethiopia. His secondary research interest deals with post-
colonial inquiries of African imagination in Western media. His most
recent works investigate notions of hybridity, exoticism, and other-
ness in food-themed reality television programs.
We began this project several years back, and it is worth saying what a
labor of love editing this book has been for us. Our work wouldn’t have
been possible if it wasn’t for the help, support, and patience of the many
people involved. Thanks to Emma Rose, Alison Cardinal, Chris De-
maske, Andrea Modarres, Ellen Bayer, Riki Thompson, and Ed Cham-
berlain at the University of Washington Tacoma, all of whom heard
more than they probably cared to about the ins and outs of bringing this
book together and always gave their support. Thanks to Leslie Steeves at
the University of Oregon for her good disposition and encouragement.
Special thanks to Micky Lee at Suffolk University for seeding the idea
for the initial project. Erica Wetter at Routledge gave us invaluable feed-
back that allowed us to move the book on from its original idea to the
form it is in today. Most importantly, there are no words that convey
how thankful we are for the hard work and patience of our contributors,
including those who for a variety of reasons couldn’t continue on with
the project.
Acknowledgments
Chapter 4 – How Hollywood workers unite: Labor
convergence and the creation of SAG-AFTRA
AFRA The American Federation of Radio Artists
AFTRA American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
AMPTP Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers
CWA The Communications Workers of America
IATSE International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
SAG Screen Actors Guild
Chapter 5 – The Mexican Film Industry
COTSA Operadora de Teatros y Cadena Oro
EFICINE Inversión en la Producción y Distribución
Cinematográca Nacional (Fiscal Stimulus on Projects
for Investment in National Film)
FIDECINE Fondo de Inversión y Estímulos al Cine (Fund for
Investment and Film Incentive)
FOPROCINE Fondo para la Producción Cinematográca de Calidad
(Fund for Quality Cinema Production)
IMCINE Instituto Mexicano de Cinematografía (Mexican
Cinema Institute)
MFI Mexican Film Industry
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
OTT Over the Top
PAN Partido de Acción Nacional (National Action Party)
PRI Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional
Revolutionary Party)
PelMex Películas Mexicanas (International Distribution
Company)
PelNal Películas Mexicanas (National Distribution Company)
USMCAN United States-Mexico-Canada
Abbreviations
xxii Abbreviations
Chapter 7 – Old Strategies in the New Paradigm:
Web Series and Corporate Control
SVOD Subscriber video-on-demand
Chapter 8 – State Monopoly of Telecommunications
in Ethiopia: Revisiting Natural Monopoly in the Era
ofDeregulation
ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line
AfDB The African Development Bank
ASC (Ethiopian) Audit Services Corporation
BT British Telecommunications
BTE Board of Telecommunications of Ethiopia
ccTL D Country Code Top-level Domain
CDMA Code Division Multiple Access
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
EDU Ethiopian Democratic Union
EPLF Eritrean People’s Liberation Front
EPRDF Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front
EPRP Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party
ETA Ethiopian Telecommunications Authority
ETC Ethiopian Telecommunications Corporation
EU European Union
EVDO Enhanced Voice-Data Optimized
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GoE Government of Ethiopia
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction &
Development
IBTE Imperial Board of Telecommunications of Ethiopia
IDA International Development Association
IP Internet Protocol
MCIT (Ethiopian) Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MoFED (Ethiopian) Ministry of Finance and Economic
Development
MPLS Multi Protocol Label Switching
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NTT Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development
PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to
End Poverty
Abbreviations xxiii
PMAC Provisional Military Administrative Council
PSRPs Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
PTO Public Telecommunications Operator
PTT Ministry of Posts, Telegraph and Telephone
SDPRPs Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction
Program
TPLF Tigrayan Peoples’ Liberation Front
VSAT Very Small Aperture Terminal
WTO World Trade Organization
Chapter 9 – Through Being Cool: iTunes and
the Political Economy of Music Retail
DRM Digital Rights Management
RIAA Recording Industry Association of America
Chapter 10 – In Practice and Theory? A Review of Scholarship
on Wikipedia’s Political Economy
FLOSS Free/Libre Open Source Software
WMF Wikimedia Foundation
Chapter 13 – Power Under Pressure:
Digital Capitalism In Crisis
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IT Information Technology
TNC Transnational Corporations
WTO World Trade Organization
VOIP Voice-over Internet Protocol
This chapter understands the Mexican lm industry (MFI) as part
of the cultural industries, which means that these industries have the
“ability to make and circulate products that inuence our knowledge,
understanding and experience; a role as system for the management of
creativity and knowledge; and its effects as agent of economic, social
and cultural change”(Hesmondhalgh, 2013, p. 4). Thus, the products of
cultural industries must be understood in relation to their economic and
cultural dynamic duality and as distinctly different from other indus-
trial products and commodities (Guback, 1989). They are, at the same
time, commodities that have the main purpose to make prots as well
as symbolic texts that have a pivotal role in how our societies create
sense. Cultural products shape our imaginaries, ideologies, and iden-
tities (Murdock, 1988; Sánchez-Ruiz and Gómez, 2009). In addition,
one of the main differences from any other commodity is that these cul-
tural products/symbolic texts (songs, narratives, performances, movies,
news, TV series and formats, video games, documentaries) have as their
primary aim to communicate to an audience to make prots (Hesmond-
halgh, 2013, p. 4).
This chapter uses a political economy of lm approach, as Wasko
established: “The political economy of lm analyzes motion pictures
as commodities produced and distributed within a capitalist indus-
trial structure….” Thus, “the approach is most denitely interested in
questions pertaining to market structure and performance, but…would
challenge the myths of competition, independence, globalization, etc.,
and view the lm industry as part of the larger communication – and
cultural – and media industry and society as a whole” (2003, pp. 9–10).
Another aspect needed to understand the complexity of the cultural
industries from a political economy of communication perspective is
that these industries are interconnected, particularly the audiovisual in-
dustries, because as Garnham has noted, these industries compete with
each other for the same resources: “1) for a limited pool of disposable
consumer income; 2) for a limited pool of advertising revenue; 3) for a
limited amount of consumption time; 4) for skilled labor” (1990, p.158).
5 The Mexican Film Industry
2000–2018
Resurgence or Assimilation?
Rodrigo Gómez
58 Rodrigo Gómez
In addition, in my view, we have to add that these industries and their
products are in both continuous interactions and transformation; some-
times that transformation is stable and at other times it is more unset-
tled. Thus, to understand any lm industry, local or global, it has to be
analyzed from a multidimensional perspective and in a dynamic relation
with the interlocks with other cultural industries throughout time (Hes-
mondhalgh, 2013).
Historically the lm industry is a prime example of these complex
dynamics, interlocks, and changes throughout time. In fact, the lm
industry, as one of the rst cultural industries, has experienced those
transformations since its beginnings. For example, in the early days of
the 20th century, lm was the central cultural industry and competed
just with the press, primarily newspapers. When the radio industry
emerged as a challenger, it did so with an alternative business model as
well as different practices of cultural consumption. Not long after the
radio’s emergence, the TV industry brought another important change,
displacing lm as the nucleus of the cultural industries core. Television
impacted other cultural industries at a variety of levels, from their for-
mats and genre to cultural labor, particularly symbol creators, among
others. Thus, in a very short time, the lm industry had to change, in
order to compete and adapt to the interactions and transformations with
the different additions of new cultural industries.
Golding and Murdock (2000) and Meehan, Mosco, and Wasko (1993)
have established that structural historical analysis is central to provide
insight into social change. As well to understand and analyze relations
of power through the study of ownership and control of the cultural
industries, with the aim “through identication of contradictions, polit-
ical economy analysis provides strategies for intervention, resistance and
change” (Wasko, 2003, p. 9).
In that regard, the political economy of lm has been interested in
studying Hollywood’s domination and hegemony of the international
markets and the role of the national State to defend their lm industries
for cultural and economic reasons (Guback, 1989). Thus, the political
economy of communication, as Golding and Murdock (2000, p. 72) es-
tablished, “…is centrally concerned with the balance between capitalism
enterprise and public intervention” at local and international levels.
State Intervention and the Historic Mexican
Film Industry
The MFI underwent different processes in its development to generate
its current consolidation. Some could be explained in relation to na-
tional political and economic dynamics and circumstances. But at the
same time, its development can’t be explained without the international
historic context and the proximity to the United States of America.
Resurgence or Assimilation? 59
Thissection presents a snapshot of the MFI structure from its beginning
until the end of the 1980s through a historical analysis.
It is important to recall that the MFI from 1939 to 1992 was a key in-
dustry for the Mexican government. The importance of lm was clearly
established through the state’s role as an active protector, funder, pro-
ducer, distributor, and exhibitor (García-Riera, 1971; Getino, 1998;
Saavedra and Ávalos, 2012). However this role of the Mexican State,
through the different Partido Revolucianario Institucional (PRI)1 ad-
ministrations, was primarily a response in the moment to national and
international political, economical, and sociocultural situations rather
than a master plan or long-run State public policy planning (Peredo,
2012). In fact, this reactive performance of the various Mexican gov-
ernments was a constant of the dynamics and logics of the clientelist,
centralist, authoritarian, and presidentialist Mexican political system of
the second half of the 20th century (Gómez, 2007).
The central role of the State in the MFI had six key components during
this period. First, it offered support for the National Cinematographic
Bank, the public institution which nanced the production branch for
lming and technological equipment as well as the national distribution
and exhibition branches. This institution operated with different names
from 1942 to 1979 and was a keystone. Second, it issued the Federal
Cinematographic Industry Law (1949/1952–1992). This law mandates
promotion of and support for the lm industry. Furthermore, one of the
most important articles within this law addresses the screen quota sys-
tem for the protection of Mexican productions. Since 1950, the screen
quota was set at 50% devoted to the showing of Mexican lms; another
important issue of this law was that it prohibited the horizontal com-
mercial ownership in the industry. Third, the price of the movie ticket
was controlled by the government. The year 1947 is when the State rst
intervened and later governments included lm as part of the canasta
básica familiar or basic basket of goods2 (from 1970 to 1991). Fourth
was the ownership of Pelmex (1945) and partial ownership of PelNal
(1947), the most important distribution companies. Pelmex exported
Mexican productions throughout the Ibero-American countries and Pel-
Nal distributed domestically within Mexico. Fifth was the takeover of
Operadora de Teatros y Cadena Oro – better known as COTSA – two of
the most important national exhibition chains acquired in 1961. It later
invested in Estudios Churubusco-Azteca, the most emblematic Mexican
studios acquired in 1969. Finally, it invested in Estudios América, ac-
quired in 1975 (García-Riera, 1985; Paranaguá, 1995). It is important
to point out that all lm assets of the MFI were located in Mexico City,
clearly reecting the centralism of all cultural industries in Mexico (Sán-
chez Ruiz, 2005).
The above shows as an example how the Mexican administrations
took part in different initiatives and policies to maintain and protect
60 Rodrigo Gómez
the MFI during the second half of the 20th century. Certainly, there
were economic, political, and sociocultural reasons to protect this in-
dustry. We have to remember that before the expansion of television,
cinema was Mexico’s national entertainment, and it was the place where
the public accessed national and international news in audiovisual form
(Monsiváis, 2000). Other aspect that has to be highlighted in relation to
the Mexican society of those years is the level of literacy; for example, in
1950, 42.6% of the Mexican population was illiterate. Thus, for the PRI
regime, the lm industry and its national products were key to control
political information and cultural consumption through this mass me-
dium (Sánchez Ruiz, 2005).
In political terms, the lm industry was controlled by the government,
meaning that Mexican movies did not criticize the regime or raise for
public discussion issues related to politics that may inconvenience the
government (Sánchez Ruiz, 2005). In fact, the government had a special
ofce in the Secretaria de Gobernación (Interior Ministry) where lm
producers obtained permission for nancing their lms, distribution,
and screening. That ofce began its operations in 1949 with the name
of Dirección General de Cinematografía (General Direction of Film).
To illustrate the role of that ofce and political censorship, I would like
to point out the movie La Sombra del Caudillo (1960), which was not
allowed for release until the fall of 1990, 30 years after its production.
In terms of the economical dimension, the Mexican State’s economic
policies and their implementation presented a mixed economy “where
the State protected the capitalist system, dictated the rules for devel-
opment and take part as any other big private entrepreneur” (Smith,
2001, p. 332). The lm industry was a reection of this because the state
participated in all the activities of the productive chain of the lm indus-
try (Sánchez Ruiz, 2005). Another aspect that must be emphasized and
which helps explain the long-running active role of the State’s control
of the lm industry: it is an economic structural fact that the industry
gave nancial fuel to the different Mexican administrations. From the
1940s to the 1970s, the Mexican gross domestic product (GDP) grew
on average around 6%. No Latin American country grew at that pace
during those years (Meyer, 1992). This situation in combination with
the proximity to the United States gave an important competitive struc-
tural advantage, allowing the MFI to become the most important lm
industry in the Ibero-American geo-cultural zone (Getino, 1998). From
1926 to 1989, the MFI produced 4,609 movies (Gómez, 2005).
However, despite government support, the history of Mexican lm
productions was still cyclical, with ups and downs, as Figure 5.1 illus-
trates. Historically, during the 20th century the most productive year
was 1958 with 136 movies, and from 1945 to 1970 the production of
lms was consistently around 80 lms per year. But the most import-
ant occurrence of those years, particularly during the “golden age of
8
23
58
27
47
71
82
70
57
108
123
101
84
121
91
135
114
74
114
97 103 95
71
60
90 96
107
64
79
92
75
4
24
42 37
27
50
67
77
62
107 105
111
101 98
78 80 77
98 100
108
82 77
58
87
70
56
40
68 71
55 56
81 74
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Films productions Films releases
Figure 5.1 Selected years of historic lm production and release performance from 1930 to 1990.
Source: Elaborated by the author with information from: Imcine 2011: 134–135.
62 Rodrigo Gómez
Mexican cinema,” was the consolidation of the MFI, particularly in the
following aspects:
• The movies reected, in general, different social issues of Mexican
society, and above all showed some aspects of Mexican popular
culture through original cinema genres as melodrama, rancheras,
lucha-libre, and comedy;
• The average productions were technically and creatively produced
and directed with international standards and were recognized in
international circuits;
• The actors and actresses became national gures and generated a
Mexican Star System;
• The movies were distributed efciently at national level as well as
throughout Latin America, Spain, and U.S. Hispanic markets. In
other words, Mexican players controlled the distribution in Mexico;
• The Mexican and Latin American public/audiences were heavy
viewers of these lms, and it was included as a central part of their
everyday cultural diet, providing some cultural counterbalance to
Hollywood productions (Gómez, 2007).
In addition, the lm labor unions played an important role during the
second half of the 20th century. The unions were active agents in the de-
velopment, formation, and consolidation of the industry. However, they
weren’t exempt from internal conicts, clientelist practices, or harsh
negotiations with the government and the private companies (García
Riera, 1985).
It is important to underline that the relationship with Hollywood lm
production was complicated from the beginning of the industry, particu-
larly between the 1940s and the 1960s. In fact, the Mexican government
had to intervene many times as protector and defender of the Industry
to maintain the ownership of many assets in Mexico.3 One action that
illustrates that protection was the decreet to limit the foreign ownership
at 49% in 1944 (Peredo, 2012).
In the 1960s the industry entered a period of production spoilage,
because the star system remained unchanged without new fresh actors
and same directors while at the same time the lm industry experienced
big competition from TV in terms of cultural consumption. As a result,
the industry started to adapt to that new cultural mass media system
and new market dynamics of those years. As Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show,
during that decade, the result of those changes was a decrease in the
number of lms produced and in the number of theaters themselves (De
la Vega, 2012).
During the second half of the 1970s, Mexican lm production expe-
rienced an important wave of creativity and innovation in both formats
and in ways to interpret the cinema as an art (García-Riera, 1985, p. 285).
75
62 58
49
28
16 17 9
11
19
74
88
69
49 54
39
20 16
8
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
MX Film productions Mexican Releases
Figure 5.2 Mexican production and releases from 1990 to 1999.
Source: Imcine 2011: 134–135.
64 Rodrigo Gómez
AsTable 5.1 shows, these advances coincided with positive momentum as
the number of cinema screens increased signicantly. In fact, this period
of the MFI was characterized by the consolidation of the State’s inter-
vention into all parts of the industry and as the most important investor
(Sánchez Ruiz, 2012).
However, it is important to remember that the gures related to the
number of cinema screens have to be linked not just to Mexican pro-
ductions. In fact, since the beginning of Mexican movie theaters, Hol-
lywood movies have been an important part of the Mexican cinema
consumption diet (Ugalde, 1998, p. 55). This was particularly true of
the middle and upper classes.4 Hence, the increase of the screens is re-
lated with two main developments: the momentum and quality of the
Mexican and U.S. movies as well as their balanced distribution, and
the economic performance of the country impacting the whole lm in-
dustry, particularly through the disposable income power of the public.
Another aspect that has to be noticed: toward the end of the 1970s and
the beginning of the 1980s, the Mexican commercial TV company Tele-
visa5 dabbled in cinema production, particularly through its subsidiary
Televicine. From 1978 to 1982, it was the most productive private lm
company (Gómez, 2007).
This continued into the 1980s and experienced other important cul-
tural, technological, and market dynamic mutations in relation to the
cultural industries. The invention of the VCR and distribution of mov-
ies through video rentals as well as satellite television provoked a clear
transformation in cultural consumption in general and that of movies
in particular (Rosas, 2017). Also in this period, Mexico experienced
an economic crisis combined with increased migration from the rural
areas to the cities, particularly to Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Mon-
terrey (De la Vega, 2012). But there was another route for the migration
Table 5.1 Number of cinemas in Mexico from 1938
to 1990 (selected years)
Year Number of
cinemas
Attendance
(in millions)
1938 830 66
1942 1,125 No data
1946 1,140 No data
1953 2,459 162
1968 1,836 358
1970 1,769 253
1975 2,632 254
1980 2,831 264
1985 2,246 450
1990 1,896 54.8
Source: Gómez, 2007: 258.
Resurgence or Assimilation? 65
processes, which focused on crossing the U.S. border. During the decade
of the 1980s, Mexican immigration to the United States without proper
documentation experienced higher levels. According to the Consejo
Nacional de Población (CONAPO),6 it was estimated that 2.6 million
crossed the border (CONAPO, 2001).
In 1983 the Mexican government created the Instituto Mexicano
de Cinematografía (IMCINE).7 Since then, IMCINE has been the key
public player to support and promote the Mexican lm productions
through a range of funds and public policies. These interventions always
included the accompaniment and participation of the cinematographic
community – organizations, unions, federations, etc. (Carmona and
Sánchez, 2012).
As other researchers have pointed out, during the 1980s the MFI
experienced the erosion of their Statist model, and the De la Madrid
(1982–1988) and Salinas (1988–1994) administrations started the turn
of the economic model toward neoliberal policies (Davalos, 95; Sánchez
Ruiz, 2001). This situation was reected mainly in the bad quality of
the lms but also in a lack of directors and of new cinema actresses
and actors (Gómez, 2007). Because of that scenario, the middle and
upper classes abandoned Mexican movies (Rosas, 2017). Thus, the in-
dustry experienced a clear deterioration. Furthermore, the technological
and cultural changes combined with the economic crisis of that decade8
(better known as the economic “Lost decade”) produced further losses
in the Mexican lm production and in the number of movie theaters.
Under those circumstances, the exhibition companies started a new
model of business, as in the United States, begging to build the multiplex
multi-cinemas (Rosas, 2017). During this period, two genres had block-
busters in the popular cinemas of COTSA: the Cabrito-western and
sexi-comedy; the former focusing on stories of the northern borderand
immigration and the latter emphasizing stories about Mexico City and
other urban areas. Most of those productions were funded by private
investors but screened in state-owned exhibition chain. That kind of
Mexican movies was common during the 1980s so-called “lost decade”
(Gómez, 2007). Under that context of attrition the MFI continued to
change into the 1990s.
This brief historical structural analysis of the MFI established how
the processes, dynamics, trajectories, policies, and agents developed the
industry before the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
In fact, even its cyclical performance and strong intervention of the
Mexican State, both economically and politically, were successful,
particularly as both an important economic driver industry as well as
a dynamic and central cultural vector for Mexican society. As De la
Garza said: “…for most part of the twentieth century Mexican cinema
was truly national in that it helped to forge and disseminate a common
cultural background that cut across class, gender and ethnic cleavages,
both in terms of narrative content and outreach and engagement. It also
66 Rodrigo Gómez
served to shape and develop a cultural industry that had national scope”
(2016, p. 760). At the same time, it must be noted that Hollywood mov-
ies before the 1990s maintained an interesting balance, competing with
Mexican production releases and attendance. This was true even when
Hollywood represent just 30% of the releases (Ugalde, 1998; Sánchez
Ruiz, 2012).
Free Market Logic and Consolidation Reshape the
Mexican Film Industry
The decade of the 1990s has been characterized as the worst period of
the MFI (Sánchez Ruiz, 2001; Hinojosa, 2014; McLaird, 2013). As seen
in Figure 5.2, Mexican lm production hit bottom in 1997 with only
nine lms. Not surprisingly, exhibitors experienced a catastrophic time
in the next year with just eight new Mexican releases. Since then, it has
been difcult for the industry to launch lms that attract audiences and,
consequently, to have an important box ofce share in the lm market.
In fact, regaining and maintaining a constant Mexican audience has
been one of the main problems.
The need to respond to these structural conditions shaped the Film
Law of 1992, and it can also be linked to the liberalization context of
the NAFTA. Since 1988, particularly under the Salinas administra-
tion, there were many economic structural changes, particularly the
liberalization of many strategic sectors as well as the privatization of
state-owned companies. At the same time, many public policies re-
forms were established to accomplish those changes (Gómez, 2007).
In the case of the cultural industries, and particularly the MFI, its
former law from 1949 was repealed and replaced with a new one in
1992. In brief, the logic of that new law was to align the MFI to free
market imperatives. With that in mind, the most signicant change,
among others, was the abolishment of the 50% screen quota in favor
of Mexican lm productions. Further, in 1993, the Salinas adminis-
tration privatized the national state-owned cinema chain COTSA. It
should be recalled that this chain had controlled ticket prices, keeping
them at lower cost and focused primarily on the low income and poor
classes across the nation. The company that purchased COTSA was
TV Azteca, which closed down the entire operation two years later
(Sánchez Ruiz, 2001).
Also in 1992, the Foreign Investment Law was modied to allow
more foreign capital participation, giving national treatment to offshore
companies involved in lm production, distribution, or exhibition. In
addition, the Secretaria de Hacienda (Secretary of the Treasury) gave
tax incentives to exhibitors and lm production foreign investors. Sur-
prisingly, such incentives were not considered for national producers
(Muñoz and Gómez, 2011).
Resurgence or Assimilation? 67
As is well known NAFTA came into force in 1994 when the Mexican
government rejected the possibility of introducing the cultural exception
clause, affecting the cultural sector and particularly the cultural industries.
The government took the position that Mexican culture and identities
were sufciently solid to withstand any foreign cultural inuence. In addi-
tion, the government argued that having a different language would serve
as a natural barrier against foreign cultural product consumption (Gómez,
2007). The implication of this position was clear: the Mexican govern-
ment canceled the right to implement cultural public policies as strong
screen quotas or other protection initiatives under the argument that those
policies have an important impact as market distortions (Lozano, 2016).
In the case of culture, George Yúdice established that NAFTA dened
“culture” as a matter of property through the inclusion of copyrights,
patents, registered trademarks, phylogenetic rights, industrial designs,
trade secrets, integrated circuits, geographical indicators, codied sat-
ellite signals, audiovisual production, and others (2002, p. 266). This is
important because since then, this is the frame and logic that shapes the
cultural sector in Mexico. In fact, agreeing with D.Y. Jin that suggests
that NAFTA was the rst experiment by the United States to implement
and establish a strategy to shift global political culture by making it
signicantly more difcult for future national governments to develop
national institutions and culture. Instead, it crafted a policy that favors
transnational lm corporations and the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA) (2011, p. 665).
Another factor needed under the lm industry’s dynamic interaction
with the rest of the cultural industries was the expansion of pay-TV
across Mexico. The consumption of pay-TV in the 1990s increased expo-
nentially; in 1990 there were 545,000 pay-TV subscribers, and by 1999,
there were 2.8 million subscribers (Gómez and Sosa, 2010, p. 121). In
fact, the pay-TV programming consumed in Mexico reinforces U.S. cul-
tural products and consolidates their centrality in the Mexican cultural
audiovisual consumption offer because the majority of the pay-TV chan-
nels are U.S. cable networks (Sánchez Ruiz, 2001).
According to Sánchez Ruiz, during the 1990s “the Mexican lm in-
dustry went through a process of contraction, concentration, and trans-
nationalization” (2001, p. 98). I have argued in previous research that
there is an additional process: the elitization of its public (Gómez, 2005).
In fact, those public policies and the structural economic changes as
well as the continuous transformation of the cultural industries reshaped
the MFI. The winners of those changes were clearly identied. First the
Hollywood majors – Disney, Paramount, Universal, Columbia Pictures,
Sony, Twentieth Century Fox, and Warner Bros. – nally started to
control the distribution of the Mexican cinemas. Since the 1990s, the
majors controlled approximately 80% of the market share revenues (Gó-
mez, 2005). Second, but in close relation, the exhibition chains began an
68 Rodrigo Gómez
important growth period, privileging Hollywood lms. In other words,
after the Mexican production almost vanished, the terrain was wide
open to ll that void with the Hollywood steamroller and set their con-
ditions, since then, as “home eld advantage.”
In response to these circumstances, the Mexican cinema community
(unions, directors, actors, writers, etc.) reacted by organizing themselves
toward recovering some ground. They continue to defend their labor and
reinforce the idea of the value in supporting Mexican lm productions in
cultural and economic terms. They have created an important lobby in
Congress and the results have been interesting. In 1998, lm profession-
als gained some reforms to the 1992 Film Law to help lm production.
For example, a 10% screen quota devoted to Mexican productions was
reinstated. They have also continued to push to get some public funds to
be administered by IMCINE. By the year 2000, there were two funds
for domestic lm production: the Fund for Quality Cinema Production
or Foprocine and the Fund for Investment and Incentive to Film or Fide-
cine. The former was targeted to support art or less commercial lms
and the latter to commercial lm productions (Lay, 2011).
Because of those changes, during the 1980s and 1990s, the union
system experienced a signicant crisis as well. The labor environment
shifted from labor stability to “exible production.” As Muñoz and Gó-
mez noted:
At an internal level, the unions have had to accept the negative
repercussions of historic corruption practices like clientelism and
fraud, as well as corporatist attitudes that generate rigidity, dis-
trust, stagnation of expertise, and decreasing rates of formal union
membership. At an external level, unions have had to face the dis-
appearance of a corporatist welfare state in favor of a neoliberal-
oriented re-regulation that resulted in the dismantling both the
sources of work and also the social benets achieved by unions in
the past.
(2011, p. 863)
Paradoxically, as De la Garza (2016) noted, under that context of cri-
ses “The three amigos” made their debuts: Alfonso Cuaron’s Sólo con
tu pareja (1991), Guillermo del Toro’s Cronos (1993), and Alejandro
González Iñarritu’s Amores Perros (2000). It is important to note that
the professional as well as creative trajectories of these directors were
different and their successful careers are the result of their own merits
as well as their crews and not as a result of the MFI infrastructure. It
should also be noted that at the same time three women lmmakers
made their debut or consolidation: Maria Novaro’s Danzon (1991), Busi
Cortés’s Serpientes y Escaleras (1991), and Maryse Sistach’s Anoche
soñé contigo (1992) (MacLaird, 2013). These women were pioneers in a
eld dominated by men.
Resurgence or Assimilation? 69
The Recovery of Mexican Film Production and
Distribution?
The 21st century presented a lot of challenges, trends, and doubts
for the MFI. First, after the worst decade ever, there were numerous
questions about how the MFI would recover: what kind of strategies
and actions needed to be implemented, especially in production and
distribution? What will be the role of IMCINE? How Mexican lms
will recover the audience’s preference? Second, what would the result
be of the digitization and convergence process which created acceler-
ated transformations throughout all cultural industries, including the
MFI, forcing a response to the consolidation of global capitalism. As
Bárcenas (2015) noted, these changes presented trends and a window of
opportunities, including how to take advantage of distribution through
new platforms thanks to digitization; the possibility of launching digital
channels on broadcast TV; and how to use Over the Top media services
(OTT) including Netix, Amazon Prime, Claro, etc. But the main chal-
lenge remained in relation to theatrical distribution: how to advance
past the 10% line of market share and ticket attendance at the national
level? Each presented a difcult challenge because those variables are
all linked together.
In political terms, the year 2000 is an important moment for Mexico’s
political system, because after 71 years the ruling party (PRI) lost the
presidency, and a time of political alternation and some acceleration of
the Mexican democratic transition began. However, in spite of this po-
litical and democratic reframing, the support and impulse of economic
policies under the logic of free market and neoliberal imperatives of
global capitalism continued with support by the two Partido de Acción
Nacional (PAN; Action National Party) administrations with Vicente
Fox (2001–2006) and Felipe Calderon (2007–2012) as well as Peña Nie-
to’s PRI administration (2013–2018).
Public Policies and Programs
From the 2000s onward, the main public policies or initiatives related
to boosting lm production and distribution were, rst, the implementa-
tion of the Fiscal Stimulus on Projects for Investment in National Film,
known as Ecine 226 and 189. This initiative, established in 2006,
opened a signicative option to private investors. Second was the Stim-
ulus for the Promotion of Mexican Cinema or Eprocine established in
2012. This program sought to promote lm projects as well as their
commercial distribution.
It is important to track the total spending of IMCINE through its
different funds – Fidecine, Foprocine, and Ecine – because these funds
have been the fuel to increase Mexican lm productions. According to
IMCINE reports from 2000 to 2018, it has distributed around 8,200
70 Rodrigo Gómez
million pesos (Alvárez, 2018; IMCINE, 2016, 2018). Although the con-
version to U.S. dollars is difcult due the instability of the peso, esti-
mates suggest that amount represented around $500 million. This total
has increased signicantly since 2006 when Efecine started.
Previous research has demonstrated that MFI has not beneted from
its proximity to Hollywood; instead, there is a one-way ow of labor
mobility, as Mexican lmmakers move north to nd better work oppor-
tunities. Social and economic instability and strong competition from
English-speaking host countries like Australia, the United Kingdom,
New Zealand, and Canada have made Mexico a less attractive location
option for U.S. lm producers (Muñoz and Gómez, 2011).
Last, it has to be mentioned that Mexico and the United States re-
negotiated NAFTA in 2018. This new agreement will be the United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCAN). In those negotiations
the Mexican government did not require the inclusion of the cultural
exemption clause for Mexico’s cultural industries (Observacom, 2018),
despite the fact that the cultural and particularly the lm industry com-
munity had been asking for it since negotiations failed to exclude the
audiovisual industries from the treaty, following the Canadian position
to keep the clause in the new agreement (Rodríguez, 2017).
Economic Performance
The economic performance of the MFI9 during the rst 17 years of the new
century has been positive. In fact, the MFI has been growing constantly
since then. Accordingly, to IMCINE, the average annual total economic
increase of the MFI between 2008 and 2016 was 6.5%, exceeding 4.5%
of the national GDP. The gross value added of lm increased 13.7% in
2016 with respect to 2015. Thus, the economic performance of MFI has
been more dynamic than the Mexican economy overall (IMCINE, 2018,
pp. 29–36). In addition, during 2016 the MFI in relation to the audiovi-
sual media sector GDP represents just 8%. But it is important to note that
this economic sector is constantly growing, because of the dynamism of
internet platforms and their interlocks with all cultural industries. For
example, the growth of the audiovisual media sector in real terms rose
to 17.6% in 2016 (IMCINE, 2018). However, before overrating these
gures, we should break and analyze the MFI performance separately by
their branches: production, distribution, and exhibition.
Production
Production is the core and heart of any lm industry. This branch is
where the creative process and labor take place; it is closely related to
the cultural specicities of society. Since the second half of 2006 and
onwards, lmic production has experienced some signs of recovery. In
fact as Figure 5.3 shows, from 2013 to 2017, it surpassed the historical
landmark of 135 lms produced in 1958. Nevertheless, it is important
28 21 14
29 36
53
64 70 70 66 69 73
112
126 130 140
162
176
25 25 33 43 49 54 56 62 67
101
68
80 90 88
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
MX ilm productions
16 19 17 18
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011201220132014 20152016
MX Releases
2017
Figure 5.3 Mexican Film productions and releases from 2000 to 2017.
Source: Imcine, 2011–2018.
72 Rodrigo Gómez
to analyze the extent and how the recovery occurred because Mexican
lms still hover around 10% of attendance and market share of the total
tickets sales in Mexico as shown in Figure 5.4. Mexican releases remain
in clear disadvantage compared to Hollywood lms, particularly with
their distribution in the number of copies and by extension their national
reach and the costs of marketing (IMCINE, 2011, 2016, 2018). In terms
of cost, the average for Mexican lm productions from 2002 to 2017 has
been around one million dollars (IMCINE, 2018, p. 55).
As discussed, the public funds administered by IMCINE have been the
main funding source to get those numbers, as seen in Figure 5.5. Thus,
the State and public funding still are the central resource to recover the
Mexican lm production, though still in the context of free market and
competition. Fidecine, Foprocine, and Ecine have been the main tools
to stimulate the lm production branch (Lozano, Barragan & Guerra,
2017). In addition, since 2013, private investors have been increasing
their participation and represent 45% of the total lms produced in
2017. Furthermore, international coproductions have also been a factor
in those productions, meaning that many of the productions funded by
the State and private investors include other external investments. For
example, from 2007 to 2017, there were 285 coproductions made with
41 countries. The countries leading in coproductions were the United
States, Spain, Colombia, and Argentina (IMCINE, 2018, p. 53).
These last gures could suggest that the production branch is nally
healthy and recovered. But this performance could also be a mirage if
the positive increase is not reected in the releases, number of copies
distributed for national reach, attendance, and revenues. In other words,
this positive production momentum has to be articulated closely with
the other two branches – distribution and exhibition – and the whole
circulation process of the MFI. This is the core issue: how to articulate
664
12 10
6
9
6
67
4
12 10
6
10
7
18 19 21
27
21 19
22 21
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Revenue AttendenceReleases
Figure 5.4 Performance of Mexican lms in revenues, attendance, and releases
by % from 2010 to 2017.
Source: Imcine, 2018: 81.
17 77
17 25 42 34 41 57 57 59 59
85 94 94 94 94 96
11 14 7
12 11
11 30 29 13 910 14
42 41 36 46
68 80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Supported by the State
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201220132014 2015 20162017
Private Productions
Figure 5.5 Mexican lms productions from 2000 to 2017.
Source: Imcine, 2018: 49.
74 Rodrigo Gómez
the Mexican production with the other two branches to accomplish an
effective circulation? Even though the production has been increasing
steadily and hitting historic gures, the attendance to Mexican lms is
not growing accordingly (Figures 5.3 and 5.4). Thus, it is time to rm up
the circulation of those lms across all the audiovisual platforms (Bárce-
nas, 2015). This must be accomplished without neglecting the centrality
of movie theaters and continuing with audience creation and develop-
ment (De la Garza, 2016, p. 765).
Other types of industrial indicators in relation with the production
that have to be analyzed to evaluate these positive gures are the number
of companies that are involved in producing those lms. Accordingly
with the last INEGI report in 2015, there were 67 economic units reg-
istered related to lm production. If we look back 20 years at that same
indicator, we see that in 1995 there were 170 units reported. The sector
hit bottom in 2005 with 41 units (Álvárez, 2018). In other words, the
2015 industrial indicator reects a discreet increase and recovery.
Furthermore, previous research shows that the production remains
centralized in Mexico City (Sánchez Ruiz, 2012; Muñoz and Gómez,
2011). The nature of those companies:
…is dominated by temporary work because production projects last
from approximately three to ve months. Permanent employment is
downsized and typically reserved for producers and administrative
personnel. The temporary use of independent contractors, which
makes labor relations exible, allows the production companies to
save on xed costs and adapt for intermitent production by not hav-
ing a payroll with permanent employees and social benets.
(Muñoz and Gómez, 2011, p. 861)
Thus, the lm district in Mexico City is characterized by exible pro-
duction in its industrial organization and is motivated by the under-
capitalization of the production branch and the “one project” model
(Muñoz and Gómez, 2011). It is under this scheme that it could be ex-
plained how IMCINE has registered 325 lm producers from 2002 to
2013, but they do not operate or qualify as an economic unit. However,
it also identied around 20 lm producers that had been active from
2000 to 2017– Argos cine, Altavista Films, Canana Films, Astillero
Producciones, Producciones Tragaluz, Alebrije, Bandido Films, Ma-
layerba producciones, Interior Trece, Arte Mecánica, Lagartija Negra,
Jaqueca Films, El Chilito Enmascarado, Tequila Gang, Ánima Estudios,
Lemon lms, Axolote cine, Huevocartoon productions, and Cinépolis
producciones.
In addition, since the arrival of the OTT services – Netix, Amazon
Prime, Clarovideo, Blim, Cinepolis Klic, among others – and the com-
petition with pay TV channels – HBO, TNT, Sony, Fox, etc. – some of
Resurgence or Assimilation? 75
those audiovisual lm companies have been increasing their coproduc-
tion with those global players to attract Mexican, Latino, and Latin
American audiences (Sánchez Prado, 2014; Gómez, 2016).
Examining the participation of women in the production process ap-
pears to show that there is a signicant increase in participation in the
creative lm labor process as symbol creators. For example, during 2017,
women worked as directors, scriptwriters, or producer on 52% of the
productions. The number of women working as directors in that year
was very promising with 42 movies (IMCINE, 2018, p. 57). This is im-
portant, because to some extent gender equity and women’s participa-
tion seems to be working in a eld dominated by men, and at the same
time, their stories reect women’s points of view and preoccupations of
our contradictory, patriarchal, and violent society.
Distribution
According to the IMCINE annual yearbook in 2017, the U.S. lms
accounted for 88% of the attendance in Mexico’s cinemas (IMCINE,
2018). That gure has hovered at 85% since the 2000s onwards (Sán-
chez Ruiz, 2012; Canacine, 2014). In addition, Hollywood distribution
majors maintained between 70% and 75% market share of revenues and
attendance (Canacine, 2016; Huerta-Wong and Gómez, 2016). The ac-
tual Hollywood major companies are Disney Int, Fox Int, Sony/Colum-
bia Pictures, Warner Bros, Universal, and Paramount. These companies
get better results year by year in ticket sales (see Table 5.2). These gures
show that beyond their economic performance, U.S. cultural products
have been dominant in Mexican cinemas since at least the last decade
of the 20th century and into the rst two of the 21st century (Ugalde,
1998; Sánchez Ruiz, 2012; IMCINE, 2018). Hollywood dominance
could be seen across all audiovisual industries. As such, Hollywood has
dominated the Mexican box ofce and Pay-TV as well as OTT platforms
for more than 20 years. In other words, Hollywood has the advantage
Table 5.2 Distribution companies that had record attendance from 2011 to
2017 in Mexican cinemas
Year Distribution company Record of attendance
(in millions of pesos)
2011 Paramount 2,042
2013 Walt Disney 2,032
2014 Twentieth Century Fox 2,801
2015 Universal 3,064
2016 Walt Disney 3,205
2017 Walt Disney 3,316
Source: Canacine (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).
76 Rodrigo Gómez
to foster the development of audiences through and for the various au-
diovisual platforms.
Mexican distribution companies have had to incorporate U.S. lms
into their catalogs. For example, Videocine-Televisa company has had
a number of different distribution agreements with U.S. studios in the
past, and currently distributes the Lionsgate Film productions. Cora-
zón, Cinepolis, and Gussi have been distributing some U.S. independent
movies and other foreign lms. However, it is important to indicate that
their main lm distribution is Mexican movies. Another distribution
company that entered the Mexican distribution market since 2010 on-
wards is Diamont Films owned by Telelms group from Argentina. This
is important to note because clearly the majors are the main players in
this branch, but there are some other distribution companies competing
for around 20–25% of the market that is not in the hands of the global
media giants (Birkinbine, Gómez & Wasko, 2017). In that vein, after the
merger of Twentieth Century Fox with Disney in 2018, the global lm
distribution market will be even more concentrated. The impact will be
global, and Mexico won’t be an exception.
It must also be noted that the OTT services have begun to distrib-
ute movies, albeit not for theatrical release; for example, Netix and
Amazon Prime are the main players breaking in with this kind of dis-
ruptive practices. No doubt, there will be more adjustments and trans-
formations across the circuits and consumers of the cultural industries
in the coming years, guided by these new actors and competition with
the Hollywood majors.
In particular the distribution of Mexican lms have begun to see some
efforts to increase their circulation with some IMCINE funds as well as
the launch of digital platforms online (VOD) that offer Mexican pro-
ductions. Examples include FilminLatino.mx and Plataforma Digital del
Cine Mexicano. However, the process to build audiences is difcult due
to competition with the power and scale of the Hollywood majors. At
the same time, Netix has been an up and coming player promoting
Mexican cinema. In 2012, as an OTT, it had more Mexican movies in
its catalog – 276 (IMCINE, 2013, p. 166).
As Janet Wasko has pointed out, the major distributors are the agents
that dominate the lm business (2003, p. 59). In the same vein, Nicholas
Garnham noted: “It is cultural distribution, not cultural production,
that is the key locus of power and prot. It is access to distribution
which is the key to cultural plurality. The cultural process is as much,
if not more, about creating audiences or publics as it is about producing
cultural artefacts and performances” (1990, p. 162). This is important
to remember because this key process in the MFI, as seen in the data
analyzed here, was dominated by the Hollywood majors after the liber-
alization and privatization processes were implemented, starting in the
1980s. In other words, after the 1990s crisis of the MFI, the checkmate
Resurgence or Assimilation? 77
to the MFI was not the total scarcity of the Mexican lms, but the con-
trol of lm distribution and circulation.
Exhibition
This sector is the most concentrated of the MFI. It has experienced high
levels of concentration since the merger of Cinemex to Multimedios Cin-
emas (Huerta-Wong and Gómez, 2016). According to Canacine gures,
Cinépolis (50.3%) and Cinemex (42%) control 92.3% or 6,633 com-
mercial screens (Canacine, 2016). The rest of the 7.7% is distributed
by Henry, Cinemagic, and Citicinemas, among others (Canacine, 2016).
Further, those screens are concentrated in urban areas, with Mexico
City (26%), Monterrey (8%), and Guadalajara (6%) being the main mar-
kets (IMCINE, 2018, p. 105). In terms of market share, Cinepolis has
67.5% and Cinemex 29.1%. Thus, Cinepolis and Cinemex are the big
winners of the retail companies. In the case of the former, it is ranked as
the fourth largest exhibition group in the world in terms of screen count,
with 5,334 in 240 cities distributed in 15 countries: Mexico, United
States, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Colombia, Pan-
amá, Perú, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, and India. And it is second
in the world by number of attendance (Cinepolis, 2018).
In addition, Mexican screens and cinemas have continued to grow.
For example, from 2016 to 2017, there were 408 more screens. But that
growth is concentrated in urban areas and in some states with positive
economic growth. In that regard, it has to be pointed out that the na-
tional indicators have to be read carefully. For example, the State of
Mexico and Baja California Sur reported decreases in their screens while
Tabasco, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Durango, Campeche, Nayarit, and Zacate-
cas reported no new screens; in contrast, just in the metropolitan area of
Mexico City, 252 new screens opened in the same period.
From 2000 onward, the economic performance of this branch has
been remarkable. The number of tickets sales has increased, making
Mexico the fourth globally in terms of ticket sales. Admissions doubled
from 157 million in 2005 to 348 million in 2017. Furthermore, Mexico
ranks number ten in the global market in terms of earnings in U.S. dol-
lars, with $869 million dollars in box ofce revenues (Canacine, 2017).
The retail exhibition market also earns revenues from the advertising
market. According to Merca 2.0, from 2005 onwards, media advertising
total investment in the sector has been constant at around 1.2–1.5%. In
2017, this gure was approximately 1,200 million pesos or $60 million
(Merca 2.0, 2018, p. 51). These gures have been growing constantly,
year by year, in Mexican pesos, but after converting to U.S. dollars, it
appears to reect some stagnation because of the volatility of the Mexi-
can peso in relation to the U.S. dollar. That same situation explains why
in Mexico the ticket price of approximately $2.50 on average appears to
78 Rodrigo Gómez
be one of the lowest when compared with other international markets.
However, when put in context of the purchasing power of the majority
of the Mexican population, the cinema ticket is expensive. As such, it
must be remembered that going to the movies in Mexico remains expen-
sive, thus directed to the middle and higher classes (Gómez, 2005).
Cinepolis and Cinemex are a clear example on how the economic pol-
icies have promoted concentration and permitted the establishment of
noncompetitive market structures as oligopolies. Under these circum-
stances, Cinepolis has taken advantage of that position and began its
internationalization after its consolidation in Mexico.
Conclusions
The MFI has clearly showed some signs of recovery across the three
sectors. However, it has to be underlined that this general performance
has been shaped under the conditions, logic, and dynamics of the Hol-
lywood majors and free market imperatives. Thus, this new era of the
MFI should be characterized as its assimilation by the U.S. lm industry
as a signicant market.
In the case of Mexican lm productions, even though the output has
broken historic gures, those numbers are not reected in their cir-
culation, attendance, and market share, which is still less than 10%.
However, as Sánchez Prado suggested, after the rst decade of the 21st
century, the Mexican cinema “[has experienced] growing connections
with international lm markets and cultural ows” (2014, p. 157). But
as this chapter shows, following De la Garza (2016), this experience has
been more as lm niche genre than a lm industry as it was during the
past century. This is important, then, to not overreact about the Mexi-
can lm productions performance and their circulation at domestic level
and in some international market because, in actuality, it is still in the
margins globally and nationally, and production remains centralized in
Mexico City.
Further, the “one project8” model serves as a constraint on the work-
ing conditions of the range of cultural workers involved with the indus-
try and struggling with its industrial organization (Muñoz and Gómez,
2011; Bárcenas, 2015). As such, the production sector has not been able
to consolidate, though its industrial performance suggests some recov-
ery. This might allow for its reconguration in spite of the convergence
and competition between the different platforms of the national and
global cultural industries.
Finally, it is clear that IMCINE funds have been crucial to the in-
dustry, and the organization has been the key actor working to recover
the MFI. Nevertheless, the MFI is limited by the competitive advan-
tages that the Hollywood majors and the Mexican exhibition duopoly
have, both of which have stymied the possibility of implementing strong
Resurgence or Assimilation? 79
screen quotas that, among other protection policies, could retake or at
least rebalance the control of circulation.
Notes
1 Partido Revolucionario Institucional [PRI] – or The Revolutionary Institu-
tional Party – ruled Mexico from 1930 to 2000.
2 During those years the ticket price was included in the basket of goods,
which refers to a xed set of consumer products and services set and pro-
tected by the Mexican goverment, guaranteeing access through low prices
for the general public.
3 Peredo (2012) describes and analyzes different episodes of this circum-
stances during the 1950s.
4 Why particularly with those social classes? Because throughout the 20th
century, starting with the Lázaro Cárdenas administration, dubbing foreign
movies was not allowed. Thus, in Mexico, all foreign movies were subtitled,
and as a result, the target audience were the literate or educated classes.
This policy’s rationale was to maintain the lower classes who were illiterate
or functional illiterates as a secure market for Mexican productions. Rosas
said that this policy “gave the possibility that the spectators -mainly middle
classes and literate- knowed the original voices and dialogues, as well as the
different accents” (2017: p.177). This is important to note because in coun-
tries like France, Italy, and Spain they would rather have dubbing.
5 From 1973 to 1993, Televisa experienced its golden years because it was the
only commercial TV company that operated as monopoly at national level
with three national networks in the Mexican TV System and market. One
of those networks, Channel 5, was the window to the American way of life
through the consumption of U.S. cultural products: cartoons, series, movies,
and U.S. professional sports (Gómez, 2017). Monsivais named that channel
as the rst U.S. TV channel outside the United States (Monsiváis, 2000).
This is important to underline, because the Mexican urban middle classes,
particularly in Monterrey, Guadalajara, and Mexico City, grew with the
centrality of those cultural products (Gómez, 2017). This role of Channel
5 was central to build audiences with an important cultural consumption
of U.S. audiovisual products (Monsiváis, 1992) and for sure reinforced the
consumption of U.S. lms.
6 The Mexican National Council of Population.
7 The Mexican Cinematography Institute.
8 In Latin America the economic crisis of the 1980s is known as the lost decade.
Just to give an example, in Mexico the economic ination in 1982, 1986, and
1987 was 98%, 105%, and 152%, respectively (Smith, 2001, p. 372).
9 Accordingly to INEGI, they consider the lm industry economic activities
as: production, postproduction, distribution, and exhibition of lm and
other audiovisual media. This value chain as a whole is generically known
as the “lm industry.”
References
Alvárez, C. (2018). Las políticas públicas como mediaciones histórico-estructurales
que impulsaron la expansión del cine estadounidense en México: el Tratado
de Libre Comercio de América del Norte y sus repercusiones para la industria
audiovisual mexicana. (BA dissertation, Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico).
80 Rodrigo Gómez
Bárcenas, C. (2015). Productoras cinematográcas en México ante la conver-
gencia digital. (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, Mexico).
Birkinbine, B., Gómez, R., & Wasko, J. (Eds.). (2017). Global media giants.
New York: Routledge.
Canacine. (2018). Resultados denitivos 2017. México: Canacine. http://canacine.
org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Resultados-denitivos-2017-1.pdf
Canacine. (2017). Resultados denitivos 2016. México: Canacine. http://canacine.
org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Resultados-Denitivos-2016-1.pdf
Canacine. (2016). Resultados denitivos 2015. México: Canacine. http://canacine.
org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Resultados-Definitivos-2015-
ATI-1-1.pdf
Canacine. (2015). Resultados denitivos 2014. México: Canacine. http://canacine.
org.mx/docs/resultados-denitivos-2014.pdf
Canacine. (2014). Resultados denitivos 2013. México: Canacine. http://canacine.
org.mx/docs/Presentacion_PRENSA.pdf
Carmona, C., & Sánchez, C. (2012). El fortalecimiento de la producción desde
Imcine a través de la comunidad cinematográca. In Carmona, C. and Sán-
chez, C. (Eds.) El estado y la imagen en movimiento. Reexiones sobre las
políticas públicas y el cine mexicano. México: Imcine, 313–338.
Cinepolis. (2018). Datos de la compañía. Diciembre 2018. https://intranet.
cinepolis.com/SitePages/Fact%20Sheet.aspx
CONAPO. (2001). Migrantes mexicanos en Estados Unidos. In Boletín
CONAPO, 5 (15). México.
De la Garza, A. (2016). Film policy under globalization: the case of Mexico.
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 22(5), 758–769.
De la Vega, E. (2012). Del neopopulismo a los prolegómenos del neoliberalismo:
La política cinematográca y el “nuevo cine mexicano” durante el periodo
1971–1982. In Carmona, C. and Sánchez, C. (Eds.) El estado y la imagen
en movimiento. Reexiones sobre las políticas públicas y el cine mexicano.
México: Imcine, 227–270.
García-Riera, E. (1985). Historia del cine Mexicano. SEP: México.
García-Riera, E. (1971). Historia documental del cine Mexicano, Tomo III.
México: Era.
Garnham, N. (1990). Capitalism and communication: Global culture and the
economics of information. London: Sage.
Getino, O. (1998). Cine y televisión en América Latina. Producción y mercado.
Ciccus: Buenos Aires.
Gómez, R. (2017). Televisa. In Birkinbine, B., Gomez, R., and Wasko, J. (Eds),
Global Media Giants. New York: Routledge.
Gómez, R. (2016). Latino Television in the United States and Latin America:
Addressing networks, dynamics, and alliances. International Journal of
Communication, 10, 20.
Gómez, R. (2007). El impacto del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del
Norte (TLCAN) en la industria audiovisual mexicana (1994 –2002) (Doc-
toral dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona).
Gómez, R. (2005). La industria cinematográca mexicana 1992–2003: estruc-
tura, desarrollo, políticas y tendencias. Estudios sobre las culturas contem-
poráneas, 11(22), 249–273.
Resurgence or Assimilation? 81
Gómez, R., & Sosa, G. (2010). La concentración en el mercado de la televisión
restringida en México. Comunicación y sociedad, 14, 109 –142.
Golding, P., & Murdock, G. (1991). Culture, political economy and commu-
nications. In Gurevitch, M. and Curran, J. (Eds.) Mass media and society.
London: Edward Arnold.
Guback, T. (1989). Should a nation have its own lm industry? Directions, 3(1),
489– 492.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013). The cultural industries. Third edition. London: Sage.
Hinojosa, L. (2014). Economía política del cine mexicano: dos décadas de
transformaciones. Revista de la Asociación Española de Investigación de la
Comunicación, 1(2), 94–102.
Huerta-Wong, E., & Gómez, R. (2016) Media ownership and concentration in
Mexico. In Noam, E. and the IMCC (Eds.) Who owns the world media? New
York: Oxford University Press.
IMCINE. (2018). Anuario estadístico del cine mexicano 2017. México: Imcine.
IMCINE. (2016). Anuario estadístico del cine mexicano 2015. México: Imcine.
IMCINE . (2013). Anuario estadístico del cine mexicano 2012. México: Imcine.
IMCINE. (2011). Anuario estadístico del cine mexicano 2010. México: Imcine.
Jin, D. Y. (2011). A critical analysis of US cultural policy in the global lm mar-
ket: Nation-states and FTAs. International Communication Gazette, 73(8),
651– 669.
Lay, T. (2011). Sociedad civil y participación legislativa: el proceso de discusión
de la Ley Federal de Cinematografía como primer ejercicio. Revista legisla-
tiva de estudios sociales y de opinión pública, 4(7), 215–230.
Lozano, D., Barragán, J. N., & Guerra, S. (2017). El cine: el negocio de la cul-
tura. Innovaciones de Negocios, 6(12).
Lozano, J. C. (2016). Transnational forces, technological developments, and
the role of the state in the Mexican audiovisual sector. In Graham, M. and
Raussert, W. (eds.) Mobile and entangled America(s). New York: Routledge.
MacLaird, M. (2013). Aesthetics and politics in the Mexican Film Industry.
New York: Springer.
Meehan, E. R., Mosco, V., & Wasko, J. (1993). Rethinking political economy:
Change and continuity. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 105–116.
Meyer, L. (1992). La segunda muerte de la revolución Mexicana. México: Cal
y Arena.
Merca 2.0. (2018). Estudio anual de inversión en medios durante 2018. Media
Book. México: Merca 2.0.
Monsiváis, C. (2000). Aires de familia. Barcelona: Anagrama.
Monsiváis, C. (1992). De la cultura mexicana en vísperas del Tratado de Libre
Comercio. In Guevara, G. and García Canclini, N. (Eds.), La educación y la
cultura ante el tratado de libre comercio. México: Nueva Imagen.
Muñoz, A., & Gómez, R. (2011). Analysis of the lm production district in
Mexico City, 2006–2008. International Journal of Communication, 5, 31.
Murdock, G. (1988). Large corporations and the control of the communi-
cation industries. In Gurevitch, M., Bennett, T., Curran, J., and Wool-
lacott, J. (Eds.), Culture, society and the media. Third edition. London:
Routledge.
Observacom. (2018). TLCA N: Méx ico y E EU U a lca nza n acuerdo prel im ina r. http: //
www.observacom.org/tlcan-mexico-y-eeuu-alcanzan-acuerdo-preliminar-
AU: Please
provide missing
page rang e for
the refere nce
“Lozan o et al.
(20 17) ”.
82 Rodrigo Gómez
elimina-obligaciones-sobre-productos-digitales-y-establece-reglas-para-
remocion-de-contenidos-por-propiedad-intelectual/
Paranaguá, P. A. (Ed.) (1995). Mexican cinema. London: British Film Institute-
Imcine.
Peredo, F. (2012). Las intervenciones gubernamentales como estrategia de cre-
cimiento y supervivencia durante la segunda guerra mundial y la posguerra
(1940–1952). In Carmona, C. y Sánchez, C. (Eds.), El estado y la imagen
en movimiento. Reexiones sobre las políticas públicas y el cine mexicano.
México: Imcine.
Rodríguez, A. (2017, de Agosto 31). En el TLCAN lo audiovisual debe cam-
biar, señala el director de Imcine. Jornada. http://www.jornada.com.
mx/2017/08/31/espectaculos/a10n1esp
Rosas, A. (2017). Ir al cine. Antropología de los públicos, la ciudad y las pan-
tallas. México: Gedisa-UAM.
Saavedra, I. y Ávalos, G. (2012). La reconguración de la industria cinematográ-
ca mexicana. In Carmona, C. y Sánchez, C. (Eds.), El estado y la imagen
en movimiento. Reexiones sobre las políticas públicas y el cine mexicano.
México: Imcine.
Sánchez Prado, I. (2014). Screening neoliberalism: Transforming Mexican Cin-
ema, 1988–2012. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Sánchez Ruiz, E. (2012). El Tratado de Libre Comercio y la casi desaparición
del cine Mexicano, in Carmona, C. y Sánchez, C. (Eds.) El estado y la imagen
en movimiento. Reexiones sobre las políticas públicas y el cine mexicano.
México: Imcine.
Sánchez Ruiz, E. (2005). Los medios de comunicación masiva en México,
1968–2000. In Meyer, L. y Bizberg, I. (Eds.), Una historia contemporánea de
México: los actores. México: Océano.
Sánchez Ruiz, E. (2001). Globalization, cultural industries, and free trade: The
Mexican audiovisual sector in the NAFTA age. In Mosco, V. and Schiller, D.
(Eds.), Continental Order? Lanham: Rowman & Littleeld.
Sánchez-Ruiz, E., & Gómez, R. (2009). La economía política de la comuni-
cación y la cultura. Un abordaje indispensable para el estudio de las industrias
y las políticas culturales de comunicación. In Vega, A. (Ed.), La comunicación
en México. Una agenda de investigación.México: UNAM-AMIC, 53–68.
Smith, P. (2001). El imperio del PRI. In Timothy, A., Bazant, J., Katz, F., Wom-
ack, J., Meyer, J., Knight, A. y Smith, P. (Eds.), Historia de México. Barce-
lona: Cambridge University Press-Crítica.
Ugalde, V. (1998). Panorama del cine mexicano: cifras y propuestas. Estudios
cinematográcos, 14, 45–59.
Wasko, J. (2003). How Hollywood Works. London: Sage.
Yúdice, G. (2002). El recurso de la cultura. Barcelona: Gedisa.