When European Cinema Led the World (And How it Could Again)

After its golden age, from the early 1920s to the post-war period, its influence waned; European films now rarely top global box-office charts. Instead, prestigious awards, like Cannes' Palme d'Or and Venice's Mostra are bestowed upon them, as they are celebrated by critics but remain largely ignored by audiences. Is European cinema then truly in qualitative decline or has the audience simply lost its taste for it?

Two Approaches

Historically, American and European cinema have followed two distinct approaches: in the main, Hollywood prioritised spectacle and mass appeal, while Europe focused on auteur-driven films, valuing artistic expression and the personal vision of its directors.

Filmmakers like Truffaut, Buñuel, Fellini, Antonioni, and Bergman prioritised artistic expression over commercial appeal, transforming European cinema from mere entertainment into a medium for self-exploration. Fellini revolutionised storytelling with dreamlike, symbolic narratives in La Dolce Vita and 8½. Bergman turned the lens inward, using intimate starkly shot character studies like The Seventh Seal and Persona to explore existential questions, human isolation, and spirituality.

European auteurs thus rejected Hollywood's standardised formulas. This commitment to artistry might explain why European films struggle to make waves at the global box office: they demand more from their audiences. Or perhaps the issue isn't European sophistication, but Hollywood's endless parade of mindless blockbusters numbing audience tastes? Box office figures, taken from the top five of the highest grossing films of all time for each film industry, speak for themselves:

A World Turned Numb

Whatever the box office numbers say, it’s obvious that American cinema dominates the industry, even if Indian and Asian cinema are taking ever larger slices of the pie. It is however Hollywood that has shaped global tastes. Its halcyon days when it turned out immortal classics like Gone with the Wind (1939) are however long gone. Tinseltown now mass-produces CGI-laden blockbusters, stripped of those contemplative moments that once gave films their soul. In the process, American filmmakers have conditioned audiences to prefer cheap and easy-to-digest entertainment. That, more than anything, has killed the soul of cinema. Who today can watch Bergman’s The Seventh Seal without boredom, without wishing for at least a little more action? Disney’s Marvel model has done its job: Loud explosions wrapped around plots so thin that it verges on the anorexic. It’s then not surprising that a European cinema, still clinging to its artistic ideals, is in decline. The U.S. has numbed the world; junk food and drink, and fiery explosions are now the recipe for nearly every box office hit.

Fragmented

But then, from the start the European film industry has been handicapped by virtue of its own, unavoidably fragmented, market; since each country produces films in its own language, and shaped by its unique culture, success outside of that country is rare. Meanwhile, the U.S. film industry has two great advantages: its domestic market is vast, and English is still the lingua franca around the world, which makes it easier to export its films to foreign markets. This structural imbalance gives Hollywood an undeniable edge, leaving European cinema fighting an unfair battle for international relevance.

Case in point: Polish cinema rarely sees its films translated, despite the country's rich post-war cinematic output, as exemplified by Andrzej Wajda’s Ashes and Diamonds (1958) and The Promised Land (1975). Even today, international films shown in Poland are often accompanied by crude voiceovers rather than proper dubbing. This perfectly illustrates the economic struggle of European cinema as a whole: it can not compete in a globalised world still dominated by English.

Fighting Hollywood on its Own Turf

European cinema then has become an industry which primarily caters to academics and critics. A glance at some recent critically acclaimed European productions paints a bleak picture. While these films may sweep awards at Cannes and Venice, such honours do not translate into worldwide earnings, where they are simply outmatched by the Hollywood machine.

Its waning influence is apparent; large part of this is due to its navel gazing (sold as artistic expression), a fragmented market and, undeniably, a growing trend of ‘woke’messaging. French cinema offers a clear example. While the French New Wave still spoke to the common people, Toutes pour une, the latest feminist remake of The Three Musketeers (which features d’Artagnan as being played by a Moroccan-Algerian French actress), does not. While auteur-driven, politically-charged films were never an issue to the French, empty moralism often is. The box office of the aforementioned remake leaves no room for debate: on the first day a meagre 1,271 tickets were sold across 564 screenings; an average of two viewers per show.

Can European cinema be saved? Perhaps its decline, as it is now eclipsed by Hollywood (and, increasingly, by East Asian and Indian cinema), mirrors Europe’s broader stagnation.

The French film, Le Comte de Monte-Cristo (2024), however shows a path forward: its reviving of classic themes of adventure and romance, paired with stunning visuals, offers a glimpse of what European cinema could be—Hollywood’s match in terms of epic storytelling.

Statement

European cinema, once a global creative force, now struggles against Hollywood’s dominance. Once defined by auteurs like Truffaut, Bergman and Visconti, its commitment to artistic, personal films often clashes with modern audiences’ taste for spectacle. Hollywood’s unified, English-speaking market gives it an economic edge, while European cinema , composed of various languages and cultures, rarely ranks high in global box office charts. Can European cinema be saved? The historical adventure film Le Comte de Monte-Cristo (2024) proves that classic themes, rich visuals, and a captivating narrative can draw crowds.

Weekly