The earth came into existence approximately 4.5 billion years ago; Homo sapiens emerged around 200-300 thousand years ago. If we consider that the first paintings made in the cave are 40 thousand years old, we can accept this age of art. Well, if we accept the first example of cinema as ‘Louis Le Prince's Roundhay Garden Scene,’ we can say around 136. The impact of this performing art, which is so young compared to others, on society is much greater. From the youngest child to the oldest individual, from the most educated to the most uneducated, it can be said that cinema can gather every individual under its umbrella. It would be excessive optimism to expect that this tool, which has such an impact on society, would not be included by the representatives of the capitalist system in their control mechanisms.

At the moment, the biggest center of this capitalist world is Hollywood, which has been located in Los Angeles in the USA for a very long time, but was cinema only in the hands of these capitalist tyrants? Of course, cinema was a field where there were also directors who made protest and socialist films for a time. So, what happened to these directors, or why was protest cinema not accepted by these platforms, while cinema halls were replaced by digital platforms? This article will explore these questions.

“It is widely believed that Hollywood as we know it today began with the big studio era in the 1920s. The term ‘Big Five’ is used to describe these studios. The studios mentioned above are 20th Century Fox, RKO Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount Pictures, and Warner Bros. It has been argued that these big companies have taken over the entire industry and are not only hegemonic in the industry but also engaged in rent-seeking activities by using actors and setting workers. (Shimizu, 2016).

Moreover, in this period, in addition to the restrictions imposed on actors in accordance with the white stereotype, restrictions were also imposed on the rights of female actors. Hollywood, which is today the center of glitz, fame, and luxury, was built on the rights of set workers and dozens of people exploited by deceased stuntmen. However, cinema was not only a world with directors who served this capital; there were also directors who protested against this system. Gillo Pontecorvo, Costa-Gavras, and Ken Loach, but instead of focusing on all three, we will focus on Gillo Pontecorvo and his film ‘The Battle of Algiers.’ Gillo Pontecorvo is an Italian director mostly known for his documentaries.

The film appears to demonstrate that cinematic productions are among the instruments employed by governments and other powerful entities to influence societal behavior. Despite the fact that the film was directed by an Italian film crew, the Algerian state made significant material and moral contributions to the film. The movie tells how the Algerian National Liberation Front (hereinafter: the FLN) worked step by step to realize the revolution and the psychological and physical damage to the Algerian citizens and society caused by the French invasion.

There are major reasons that make the film more than just a historical narrative. Of particular significance is that the film has become a symbol of popular revolutions. Not only in North Africa and the Muslim world, but the case of Algeria has also been a source of inspiration for radical Black movements such as the Black Panthers in the USA. The Black Panthers used the Algerian struggle for independence as a model for their own struggle. Ben M'hidi and Ali La Pointe, two important leaders of the FLN, have a dialogue in the film.

This dialogue explains that revolutions cannot be sustained by violence alone; while violence may be effective initially, what is crucial in the long run is for society to culturally and ideologically understand and assimilate the revolution. In fact, this is an illustration of the application of the soft power theory. The only surviving FLN leader was Saadi Yacef, who was not only instrumental in making this film but also starred in it. Yacef wanted cinema, one of the consumption tools of society, to tell the story of their revolution. In financing and supporting this film, Saadi Yacef and the Algerian state aimed to ensure that their own people would not forget the revolution and that future generations would be drawn to the point they desired through this power.

On the other hand, it may be argued that this war also aimed to rebel against the colonial movement and, thus, against the capitalist order. With the Black Panther example we gave earlier and B. Ruby Rich’s article After the Fall: Cinema Studies Post-9/11, it is implied that the film can be interpreted from the perspective of urban guerrilla warfare, modern terrorism, and counter-guerrilla tactics, unwittingly becoming training material for insurgent groups. These two examples exemplify how the film has spread the ideology of Yacef and the FLN globally in the context of soft power theory.

A film about Algeria, directed by an Italian director, could influence a Black group in America. However, at the moment, we can only say Ken Loach is a director who produces protest cinema. Or when we look at the content of the films, we see very similar film mathematics and scenario dynamics. Because cinema has been replaced by digital platforms, the studio era of the 1920s has been replaced by the platform era. Digital platforms are monopolized by North America, but one of the most widely used social media platforms today is TikTok, owned by China, North America's biggest rival.

The fact that China is economically as big as the US may be a reason for this, but we cannot attribute this only to economic factors. South Korea, for example, has become very popular in cinema with the Korean New Wave. Bong Joon-ho even won the Best Film Oscar in 2019 with Parasite as a foreign film. Throughout the history of cinema, neither Tarkovsky nor Bergman nor Akira Kurosawa was afforded the opportunity to win. Well, while the class conflict was described in his film, was the audience able to read Joon-ho's subtext in the film correctly? No, of course not, because the audience profile has changed a lot, especially in that they have lost the ability to focus and analyze.

Given this reality, we must also consider the common feature shared by TikTok and digital platform cinema: simplicity. Both products are very simple to use and consume. This enables them to be used by all segments of society and, as a result, broadens their range of consumers and expands their sphere of influence. Access to films has become easier thanks to growing digital platforms.

Thanks to platforms such as Netflix, Amazon, and Disney, we can access these films while sitting at home without going to the cinema. When we look at the content themes of these platforms, we see a very similar system. If a production gains popularity on one platform, we immediately see a different variant on the other platform. We can see the biggest example of this between Disney, Marvel, DC, and Warner Bros. Under the Disney umbrella, Marvel created a universe that follows a story that brings together multiple heroes with a predominantly entertainment side and gained a lot of success at the box office.

Observing this, DC and Warner Bros. swiftly attempted to apply the same formula, but DC characters were not suitable for this mathematics, but the important thing was not the product anyway; everything was blessed for them on the way to winning.

In essence, cinema used to be something that influenced society, groups, and people, and mobilized them. But today it is consumed as if it were a disposable tool with only economic purposes. It leaves neither an artistic pleasure nor an idea to the audience afterwards.