The New Face of Global Hollywood:Black Hawk Downand the Politics of Meta-Sovereignty

Abstract

This article uses Ridley Scott's 2001 blockbuster film BlackHawk Down to examine the claim that popular film is the "newest component of sovereignty." While the topic of the film -the 1993 UN/US intervention in Somalia -lends itself to straightforward politicization, this article is equally interested in the film's production history and its reception by global audiences. While initial reactions to the film focused on its ideological commitments (e.g. racism, collusion between Hollywood and the Pentagon, post-September 11 th patriotism), these readings continually posed an imagined "America" against Cultural Politics

The politics of a ‘Poncy Pillowcase’: Migration and borders in Coronation Street’

“…By focusing on Coronation Street , we both draw on recent studies of popular culture and world politics and expand the horizon of those studies. Much attention to popular culture in IR remains in the grip of the high politics of war, conflict, violence, and terrorism or draws on images of the spectacular and the horrific (see, for example, Bousquet, 2006; Carruthers, 2003; Der Derian, 1990; Dodds, 2008; Giroux, 2004; Lisle and Pepper, 2005; Power, 2007; Weber, 2006). However, popular culture is perhaps at its most revelatory for IR when used to access everyday life, attending to forms of politics that are foreclosed by the ordering of the field around the sovereign territorial state (Davies, 2010).…”

‘Have You Seen Any Good Films Lately?’ Geopolitics, International Relations and Film

“…The relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon has arguably become more significant in the post‐9/11 era. Shortly after the assaults on New York and Washington, President Bush's advisor Karl Rove met with Hollywood executives to consider how the motion picture industry might contribute to the War on Terror (Lisle and Pepper 2005; Robb 2004; Valantin 2005). At the Beverly Hills summit, leading Hollywood figures such as the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, Jack Valenti pledged their support and reaffirmed the significance of what James Der Derian had called the military‐industrial‐media‐entertainment complex (Der Derian 2001; Stockwell 2005).…”

“…Booth 2005; Croft 2006; Dahlman 2002; Davies and Wells 2002; Davis 2006; Debrix 2007; Dodds 2003, 2007; Gow 2006; Kellner 1995, 2005; MacDonald 2006; Nexon and Neumann 2006; Weber 2005; Weldes 2003). Second, the role of film in the post‐9/11 era is considered in order to elucidate further how film might work in a variety of geopolitical contexts including war, humanitarianism and what has been called ‘warrior politics’ (see, for example, Lisle 2003; Lisle and Pepper 2005; Mirzoeff 2005; Rich 2001; Valantin 2005). Finally, this article will pay particular attention to audiences and consider in some detail how a growing interest in reception studies is highlighting the diverse ways in which people interpret, react and are affected by films.…”

Hollywood, the Pentagon, and the cinematic production of national security

“…At the same time, it has been noted that major American film studios are now owned by multinational multimedia corporations, and that the financing and distribution of films is increasingly global in scope, with, on average, 50% of Hollywood's revenues being generated outside the United States. Lisle and Pepper have argued in this context that the production of a Hollywood film represents a de-territorialized and de-nationalized form of meta-sovereignty that corresponds with Hardt and Negri's definition of Empire as a transnational matrix of neoliberalism (Lisle and Pepper 2005). Here, the United States exists as a major hub in a global network of capital streams, political influence, and military violence, but no longer as a sovereign national power that establishes control over foreign territories like empires of the past (Hardt and Negri 2000).…”