To call this book comprehensive is an understatement. In these 30 chapters, the learnt authors present an encyclopedic survey of the media from the very beginning to our time of Netflix, covering all continents with a film industry and all types of films. More niche genres , like documentary, experimental/art house, independent, all receive their share of attention, so are the lessor known film industries like those of Cuba or Iran. Beyond the mainstay of detailing periods, countries and film movements, the authors do not miss the more technical details in filming or the development unseen by the audience (preproduction and distribution). Given the dominance of Hollywood production (and the fact that the authors are US scholars), one may be surprised to see that only about 6 chapters are devoted to the USA, a testament to the highly inclusive nature of this text.
However, its breadth is very likely to be overwhelming to most readers . The history of a media, unlike the history of a nation, seldom flows smoothly like a narrative, and all the twists and turns , in the form of lessor known political events and films, could make the text quite difficult to follow. The text is clearly stronger on highlighting facts than providing an explanation, and as expected, more convincing in its takes on Hollywood than on elsewhere. As it is often the case for introductory text, it is more a starting point than an in-depth analysis.
---------------------------
I came to this book with this question: how did Hollywood come to dominate the film industry? I am not sure I have received a top quality answer here (as its analysis stays at the surface level) but it does present an outline of such development: the power of any film industry ties strongly with politics and history, or more bluntly, the world wars brought money and talents to the USA and they made the best use of that. Just as the authors say, film history is the history of various countries trying to find their way under the shadow of Hollywood.
I was more than surprised to read the cinema was once ruled by the (Western) European . At that time, the USA film companies couldn't even stop suing each others until WWI. Besides the war, it's the invention of sound cinema that cracked the dominance of pan-european films as audience demanded talking pictures about their own countries in their own languages. Sound cinema cultivated the development of national film industries across Europe but pooling resources for a spectacular production to compete with the American was simply financially, and politically, unlikely after the world war. Soon the American rose to the top with their larger domestic market, which translated to unparalleled production value, and further their dominance with the political clout earned by the atomic bombs (to coerce/negotiate with countries abandoning quota systems on Hollywood production).
Another economic factor also played a huge role to the reign of Hollywood: it's simply more profitable to invest in Hollywood and show their films than producing local hits. It drained the capital from local production and its effect to any film industry, which was and still is the most capital-intensive entertainment business, was self-explanatory.
Once Hollywood established its footing in a new oversea market, they could easily secure ever-higher funding to drive that advantage to the point that no single film industry could be Hollywood's competitors, very much a "the rich gets richer" scenario. Even some indie, small-budget films in the 90s could command a budget as high as USD 3 millions as they could raise funding with oversea markets in mind. In one case, studios even gave a newly minted director close to USD 10 mil for a script with little commercial potential ("Memento").
----------------------------------
So how do Non-USA film industries thrive or even rise from obscurity? They either have the advantage accumulated from pioneering filmmakers (France, UK), or their countries have gained the necessary capital and self-sustaining domestic market by industrialization and urbanization (India, Nigeria, China). Then how about my little city which once produced even more films than Hollywood in the 60s? I will find that answer in another book, strangely, also by David Bordwell.