ChapterPDF Available

The Korean Film Industry: From Domestic “Straggler” to Global “Outperformer”

Authors:

Abstract

To what extent is the Korean film industry a global outperformer? This chapter sets the scene by showing how Korea measures up to its five main competitors (China, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the US). This comparison covers the key dimensions of the Korean film industry’s growth—film markets, public financial support, regulations, and film quality. Based upon large data sets covering a long period from 1980 to 2018, the reader can trace the historical progress of how Korea went from straggler to global outperformer.
CHAPTER 1
The Korean Film Industry: From Domestic
“Straggler” to Global “Outperformer”
In recent years, a number of Korean films have been recognized at pres-
tigious international film festivals and have received a number of awards.
As the Korean film industry is relatively not well known, these achieve-
ments appear to be one-time events that happen out of blue. For instance,
it is telling that the richly-documented international panorama on the
world’s film industries in the Bilans or annual reports produced by the
French state film body Centre national du cinéma et de l’image animée
(CNC) deals with the Korean industry in only a few lines.1By contrast,
it devotes a much larger space to other film industries around the world,
which are comparatively smaller or under-performing or both. However,
the reality is that Korea has not only been able to produce a large number
of films, but it has the world’s fourth largest film market according to the
Motion Picture Association of America (MPA) (2020). This is a signifi-
cant achievement. Moreover, if one compares Korea with other countries
1CNC is the public body founded in 1946 with the task to manage all the issues
concerning the French film industry and policy. As analyzed in following chapters
(especially Chapter 5), it has extensive powers.
This chapter is based on Parc (2017,2020) but has been further updated and
expanded.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Parc and P. A. Messerlin, The Untold Story of the Korean Film Industry,
Cultural Economics & the Creative Economy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80342-1_1
1
1 THE KOREAN FILM INDUSTRY … 3
dynamics of the “overall” demand (for both domestic and foreign films)
showing how lively the selected film markets have been. Section 4goes
further by examining separately the evolutions of the demand for both
foreign and domestic films in each selected country. The dynamic perspec-
tive of Sects. 3and 4underlines the extent to which Korea’s growth is
sustainable.
How can the clear growth pattern demonstrated by the Korean film
industry be explained? More precisely, to what extent are these inflexion
points related to changes in the Korean film policy or/and to changes in
the strategies of the film companies? These questions are explored in the
following chapters based upon the preliminary knowledge in this chapter.
1Korea and the Korean
Film Industry in the World
Despite the achievement of films like Parasite (2020), a number of
observers still see Korea at the margin of the global film industry. To
challenge such perceptions, it is meaningful to offer a brief and broad
picture on the Korean film industry in the world. Table 1presents Korea
and its five most relevant counterparts. Indeed, these countries are used
Table 1 The global film industry and background information
No. of films
produced
(2017)a
Box office revenues
(2018, billion
USD)b
Population
(2019,
million)c
GDP
nominal
(2019,
current
USD
billion)c
GDP
(PPP) per
capita
(2019,
USD)c
Korea 494 1.6 51.7 1,642 43,143
Japan 594 2.4 126.3 5,081 43,236
France 300 1.6 67.1 2,715 49,435
UK 285 1.6 66.8 2,827 48,693
US 660 11.4 328.2 21,427 65,298
China 874 9.2 1,397.7 14,313 16,830
Note Data on US films include Canada
Sources aUNESCO Institute for Statistics; bMotion Picture Association (MPA); cThe World Bank
6J. PARC AND P. A. MESSERLIN
Table 2 Korean film industry’s performance (2018)
Korea Japan France UK US China
Demand: admissions in movie theater
Overall demand (million admission) 217 169 197 177 1,346 1,720
Frequentation index (per capita)a4.2 1.3 2.9 2.7 3.8 1.3
Domestic films (million admission) 109 93 78 66 1,300 1,070
Frequentation index (per capita)a2.1 0.7 1.2 1.0 3.6 0.8
Market share domestic films (%) 50.2 54.8 39.5 37.4 96.6 62.2
Supply: production of domestic filmsb
No. of produced films 494 594 300 285 660 874
Production index (per capita)a9.6 4.7 4.5 4.4 1.9 0.6
State support c
Financial support (million USD)a148 n.a 629 767 1,652 n.a
Note b based on 2017
Source British Film Institute (BFI) (various issues), Centre national du cinéma et de l’image animée
(CNC) (various issues), KOFIC (various issues), Motion Pictures Association of Japan (MPPAJ)
(various issues), Motion Picture Association (MPA) (various issues); aauthors’ calculation based on
data in Table 1;bUIS; cauthors’ calculation based on Table 1in Chapter 4
It sends two messages: that the Korean film market is widely open and
that Korean films are as attractive as Hollywood blockbusters.
Table 2presents the market share of domestic films, which is the
indicator most frequently mentioned in the public debate although it is
ambiguous and easy to misinterpret. For instance, a large share is often
understood as the sign of a successful film industry. However, as the
market share is a percentage that does not show the actual market size, it
can be large when the audience for domestic films is in actual fact low
and the audience for foreign films is even lower. In this case, a large
market share does reflect a serious lack of vitality of the film market for
the country at stake. Similarly, a market share can be small when the audi-
ence for domestic films is high and the audience of foreign films is even
higher—a situation that signals a very lively film market.
Indeed, the misinterpretation of the market share frequently emerges
in international relations. For instance, the US request to Korea on
cutting the screen quota during the negotiations of the Korea-US Free
Trade Agreement (FTA) has been based on such a misinterpretation (see
Chapter 3). The market share has additionally fueled hot debates about
the impact of the screen quota cut as Korean films did not perform so well
with a market share of around 50% in 2016 compared to roughly 64% in
22 J. PARC AND P. A. MESSERLIN
Sohu. 2019. 2018nian quanguodianyingpiaofang, guanyingrenci, dianyingchan-
liang shujutongji, guochanpian chengwei ladong piaofang zengzhangde hexin-
dongli [Statistics on the National Film Box Office, the Number of Audiences,
and the Number of Films in 2018: Domestic Films Have Become the Key
Driving Force for the Growth of the Box Office], Sohu.http://www.sohu.
com/a/290898105_775892.
Stephen Follows. 2017. How Important Is International Box Office to
Hollywood? https://stephenfollows.com/important-international-box-office-
hollywood/.
UNESCO Institute for statistics (UIS). http://data.uis.unesco.org/.
World Bank, Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Hollywood studios have actively sought to export more films to China in order to benefit from its huge film market. Facing this expansion, the Chinese government has introduced quotas in order to restrict the market access of foreign films while protecting its domestic film industry and preserving Chinese values. Nonetheless, this protectionism has brought about an unexpected effect; a limited number of Hollywood films in China have been able to attract large audiences and even exert a strong influence upon society. This paper examines how this paradox has been possible. First, it compares the level of China’s overall protectionism with other countries. Second, China’s two main policy instruments in the domestic market are scrutinized: import quota (buy-out and revenue-sharing models) and screen quota. In revealing their true effects, this paper demonstrates that these instruments of protection have produced unexpected negative business practices that foster rather favorable conditions for US films in China which is contrary to what the Chinese government is seeking to achieve.
Article
Full-text available
It has been widely believed that subsidies can help revive film industries, but the link between the intent and the actual results deserves more careful scrutiny. This paper addresses this issue by comparing and analyzing Europe and the United States. Originally, Europe's subsidies were developed to increase the number of film productions, but they soon became ineffective and were largely exploited by Hollywood as a way to circumvent European protectionist measures. By contrast, US subsidy policies have been initiated and implemented by local state governments in order to enjoy the economic and cultural benefits from the filmmaking business, instead of supporting the film industry per se. Again though, these local subsidies have been exploited by Hollywood studios leaving little benefit for the local states. All of these points show that subsidies can easily become a myth, thus careful consideration should be undertaken when developing more effective policies for the future.
Article
Full-text available
Co-production was developed by several European countries to revive their film industries and has become increasingly popular, spreading across the region and beyond. However, this scheme should be carefully examined as to whether it is truly beneficial to the film industry. In response, this paper proposes two new concepts, “corporation-led” and “state-led” co-productions by distinguishing them from the prevailing notion of “(international) co-production.” Corporation-led coproduction is to achieve the best outcome through the optimal utilization of production (or creative) factors and business activities. By contrast, state-led co-production has been used to enhance the national image and has been supported by financial incentives. As such, this type of co-production becomes a hindrance for the optimal utilization of production factors. All of these aspects can be found throughout the history of Europe’s co-production efforts. In the future, such an instrument should be redesigned in order to promote the film industry more effectively.
Article
Full-text available
With increasing business integration in cultural industries around the world, it has often been debated whether this process is helpful or harmful. The experiences of the Korean film industry provide an important example in this regard. Over the course of Korea's film industry, there have been three distinct periods of integration. This article analyses the causes, processes, and their effects. The first one was the result of strict regulations and strong government intervention. The latter two periods exhibit different characteristics: deregulation and pro-competition in a global setting. In fact, integration brought about rather positive effects to the industry when a business-friendly environment prevailed. Based on this study, the results show that integration can be used to enhance the competitiveness of a film industry. The analysis in this article can be useful toward providing a good reference point for establishing cultural policies for the film industry.
Book
Full-text available
This book is an analysis of the specificities of public film funding on an international scale. It shows how public funding schemes add value to film-making and other audio-visual productions and provides a comprehensive analysis of today’s global challenges in the film industry such as industry change, digital transformation, and shifting audience tastes. Based on insights from fields such as cultural economics, media economics, media management and media governance studies, the authors illustrate how public spending shapes the financial fitness of national and international film industries. This highly informative book will help both scholars and practitioners in the film industry to understand the complexity of issues and the requirements necessary to preserve the social benefits of film as an important cultural good.
Article
Full-text available
This paper assesses whether Korean film policies, particularly protectionist ones, have been instrumental in the success of the Korean film industry. The conclusion is, surprisingly at a first glance, that protectionist policies have played an insignificant role. First, the import quota regime (1956–1986) limited the number of films to be imported, but not the number of Korean audience to see these imported films. Furthermore, the import quota system strongly induced Korean filmmakers to produce bad quality movies and theaters to avoid showing Korean films. Second, the screen quota system, from 1966 until present, has not been effective because imposing a mandatory number of days for screening Korean movies does not ensure that the domestic audience will watch these movies. Finally, the subsidy policy was barely noticeable before the late 1990s and is now too late and too limited to be credited for any significant impact on the success of the Korean film industry which began from the early 1990s. The results of this paper are robust enough to suggest to policymakers in other countries to review their own policies that advocate merely protectionism as a way to make a more attractive national culture.
The Hollywood Economist 2.0: The Hidden Financial Reality behind the Movies
  • E J Epstein
Epstein, E.J. 2012. The Hollywood Economist 2.0: The Hidden Financial Reality behind the Movies. Brooklyn, New York: Melville House.
An Eclectic Approach to Enhancing the Competitive Advantage of Nations: Analyzing the Success Factors of East Asian Economies with a Focus on the
  • J Parc
Parc, J. 2014. An Eclectic Approach to Enhancing the Competitive Advantage of Nations: Analyzing the Success Factors of East Asian Economies with a Focus on the Development of South Korea. Thesis (PhD), Seoul National University and Université Paris Sorbonne.
How Important Is International Box Office to Hollywood?
  • Stephen Follows
Stephen Follows. 2017. How Important Is International Box Office to Hollywood? https://stephenfollows.com/important-international-box-officehollywood/.
2020. Services Trade Restrictiveness Index Regulatory Database (STRI)
  • P C Murschetz
  • R Teichmann
  • M Karmasin
Murschetz, P.C., R. Teichmann, and M. Karmasin. 2018. Handbook of State Aid for Film. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2020. Services Trade Restrictiveness Index Regulatory Database (STRI). https:// qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?Subject=063bee63-475f-427c-8b50-c19bff a7392d.