Reis 1

Ravi Barros Reis

Professor Sarah Garrod

WRIT-150

9 Feb 2025

The Grobalization of the Glocal

George Ritzer, in his 2003 book The Globalization of Nothing, argues that globalization

has reached a point in modern society where it needs to be divided into two categories: glocal

(local aspects) and grobal (global aspects). Ritzer presents his theory that glocal products tend to

represent something, which is rich in distinctive substance, while grobal products represent

nothing, which completely lacks it. Ritzer argues that although it is possible to create unique and

valuable products and export them in a global scale, the complexity of their nature limits those

products into exceptions: “There are only so many world-class ballet companies, gymnastic

teams, and rock groups, and the profit potential of such groups is limited because they cannot be

mass produced” (195). We can, however, examine international cinema as a phenomenon that

directly challenges that concept, especially considering the recent demand and increasing

quantity of such films in American and global territory. Recognizing what aspects of the grobal

can contribute to the spread of glocal products is important so we don't disregard grobalization as

a purely negative phenomenon.

In Ritzer’s book, he determines that globalization can be defined by two processes:

glocalization and grobalization. In defining those processes, Ritzer portrays the difference

between something – distinctive products created through and supported by glocalization – and

nothing – products that lack substance or distinction and are carried by grobalization. To Ritzer,

the definition of local as we know it can no longer be easily found within modern societies, and

globalization has become such a powerful phenomenon that most of the areas and aspects we
 Reis 2

consider local are, in fact, glocal, and have been somehow influenced by global culture at some

point – “The local, to the degree that it still exists, is increasingly insignificant, and certainly not

an important element in the dynamics of globalization” (198). Ritzer also draws a clear

connection between something, glocal, nothing, and grobal. To the author, grobalization is the

main reason for the loss of identity in local communities and products, representing a new era of

mass-production and consumption. But while Ritzer presents glocalization as the better

alternative, he still seems to see the globalization process as a whole through a fairly negative

lens, highlighting how the “truly local” is now unachievable and we must look for alternatives in

order to resist the new and unknown. Though the relationship between a product’s substantial

content and its scale in the global market is usually clear and reinforces Ritzer’s theory, the

recent demand for international cinema from not only audiences, but institutions such as The

Academy itself, serves to show that glocal products can indeed achieve grobal status without

losing its substance or being labeled as exceptions. By analyzing international cinema, we can

better understand how those films break out of Ritzer’s binary concept of something and nothing.

Filmmaking is one of the most recent art forms conceived by us. While writing, drawing,

music, and even acting can be dated back from hundreds to thousands of years, the art of

capturing performances on film is about a century old. Although the medium had its origins in

Europe and quickly spread out into the world. In particular, the creation and establishment of

Hollywood brought American films to global dominance by the 1920s, and to this day the U.S. is

the ruling country in entertainment. That meant while films in the U.S. were attached to

prominent studios and big budgets, international films, especially those in underdeveloped

countries, had to be conceived on smaller scales by independent artists – and while American

films were being shown all over the world since their rise to prominence, international films
 Reis 3

were usually reserved for their local communities: “Until the early 1950s, the American film

industry was producing pictures in such quantity that there was generally a sufficient supply to

fill the demands of exhibitors in the United States. When demand exceeded output, old films

were available for reissue” (Guback section 4 para. 2).

In order to compare and contrast that grobal model, we can take a look at Brazilian

cinema specifically. Film was brought to Brazil very shortly after its creation and quickly

established itself in the country, and though film production had a significant increase in the turn

of the century, local films began to deviate from the standards set by European and American

films which audiences were already accustomed to, resulting in general dissatisfaction of

Brazilian audiences with Brazilian movies – “Brazilian cinema has found itself in a double bind.

On the one hand, it has not had the economic resources to equal the technical achievements of

advanced industrial countries, and on the other, it has often lacked audience support for

introducing different modes of filmmaking” (Randal, Brazil 258). Consequently, local

filmmakers were bound to small independent projects or commercial shoots and documentaries,

until Italian filmmakers began migrating to the country in the late 1910s and brought with them

heavy influence which was then integrated with already established local methods and

techniques, highlighting the glocal aspects of our cinema’s very origins. From that point on, local

films were created with government help and continuously achieved enough success in the

country to keep the national film industry alive- but when do our films become grobal?

After Fernando Collor’s presidency in the early 90s, which cut federal funding for

national films, the incentive towards filmmaking in the country was very strong, and

consequently, more films started gaining international recognition. Brazilian films had appeared

in prestigious festivals such as Cannes and the Oscars a few times before in the mid-20th
 Reis 4

century, but never enough to establish Brazilian cinema in foreign territory. By the mid 90s,

Randal Johnson notes, “Os filmes brasileiros aparecem bem mais no circuito de festivais, que se

multiplicaram nos últimos anos, que incluem desde mostras internacionais (Cannes, Berlim,

Veneza, Toronto, Los Angeles) até festivais com enfoques específicos, incluindo aí um número

crescente de festivais de cinema brasileiro [...]” (“Brazilian films have appeared way more in the

international festival circuit, which has proliferated in the last couple of years, and includes from

primarily international events [Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto, Los Angeles] to festivals

focused on specific criteria, including an increasing number of Brazilian Film Festivals”; Cinema

e Mercado 140).

In order to highlight the glocal nature of those Brazilian films which achieve grobal

success, we can analyze their background and substantial content. From the Oscar nominees list:

O Quatrilho (1996) tells the story of two Italian couples who immigrate to the South of Brazil

and get entangled in a romantic affair; O Que É Isso, Companheiro? (1997) tells a fictionalized

version of the kidnapping of a U.S. Ambassador in Rio de Janeiro in 1969; Central do Brasil

(1999) tells the story of a teacher helping an orphan boy in Rio find his father in Northern Brazil;

Cidade de deus (2004) tells a tale of violence between two rival gangs in the 70s; and more

recently, Ainda Estou Aqui or I’m Still Here (2025) tells the story of a grieving family during the

60s military dictatorship in Brazil.

When we look at those films and also take into account other countries which have been

infiltrating Hollywood, such as Bong Joon Ho with his best picture win for Parasite (2019),

which tells the story of a struggling Korean family, it becomes clear that International cinema is

a phenomenon that does not fit into Ritzer’s statement about the exception status of grobally

successful glocal products. These films are not extremely hard to make but they are also not
 Reis 5

“mass produced” such as Hollywood films, and yet, they have been gaining increasing popularity

around the world and shown more and more to audiences outside their birthplace. Instead of

inherently viewing substantially rich global phenomena as “exceptions”, we must take into

account how there is a visible appreciation for different cultures and experiences in today’s

world and understand that they may rise to success despite not fitting into categories which

would solidify them as “grobal” products.

Docs link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kf-

iTsnW5WKlqLCoo6pDFlt5xRboEWC6CkO5r3QZNf4/edit?usp=sharing
 Reis 6

Works Cited

Guback, Thomas H. “The International Film Industry: Western Europe and America since

1945.” Indiana University Press, 15 Feb. 2021,

https://doi.org/10.2979/theinternationalfilm.

Johnson, Randal. “Brazil.” The International Movie Industry, Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale, Illinois, 2000, pp. 257–272.

Interns, HFA. “How American Cinema Went Worldwide.” Division of Humanities and Fine

Arts, Division of Humanities and Fine Arts, 9 Oct. 2024, www.hfa.ucsb.edu/news-

entries/2022/11/26/americas-cinema-history-went-worldwide.

de Souza, Carlos Roberto. “Raízes Do Cinema Brasileiro.” Revista Alceu, revistaalceu-

acervo.com.puc-rio.br/media/Alceu_n15_Souza.pdf. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.

Johnson, Randal. “O Cinema Brasileiro Visto de Fora.” Cinema e Mercado, III, Escrituras :

Iniciativa Cultural, São Paulo, São Paulo, 2012, pp. 135–153.