Global Art is Our Best Defense Against Isolationism

The arrival of a major international film is often treated as a mere curiosity for the cinephile crowd. But the release of Hope, the new thriller from South Korean director Na Hong-jin, demands we look at the broader landscape of our culture and our politics. In a time when isolationist rhetoric is surging and trade barriers are being proposed as the solution to every domestic ill, the crossover success of high-concept international cinema serves as a necessary rebuke to the idea that we can thrive in a vacuum.

As The New Yorker recently detailed in a review of the film, Hope is a sprawling, audacious work. Featuring an ensemble that bridges the gap between East and West—including Korean stars Hwang Jung-min and Zo In-sung alongside Alicia Vikander and Michael Fassbender—the film is a masterclass in cross-border collaboration. It is not just a movie; it is a proof of concept for a world that refuses to retreat behind national borders.

The Cost of Cultural Isolation

Progressives have long argued that labor and climate change are global issues that require global solutions. However, we often overlook the cultural infrastructure required to sustain that internationalism. When we talk about "protecting American interests," we must be careful not to fall into the trap of cultural protectionism. The arts are where we learn to empathize with people who do not look or speak like us, and without that empathy, the project of international labor solidarity falls apart.

If we want to build a world where workers in Seoul and workers in Seattle see themselves as part of the same struggle, we need a shared cultural language. The New Yorker notes the sheer ambition of Na Hong-jin’s vision, a vision that refuses to be contained by a single genre or a single language. This is the kind of boundary-breaking work that reminds us our fears, our triumphs, and our "hope"—as the title suggests—are universal.

Investing in the Global Commons

While corporate consolidation in the streaming and film industry has led to a glut of recycled intellectual property, it is the independent and international sectors that continue to take the risks that move us forward. The audacity mentioned by The New Yorker isn't just about the film's plot; it’s about the audacity to produce art that assumes an American audience is capable of engaging with the world at large.

We are currently seeing a push to de-fund international cultural exchanges and to prioritize "national" art. This is a mistake. A progressive vision for the future should include increased public funding for the arts that specifically targets international co-productions. We should be making it easier, not harder, for artists to move across borders, and for their work to be distributed without being gatekept by three or four massive media conglomerates.

The Power of the Subtitle

There was once a time when mainstream American audiences were considered too insular to enjoy a film with subtitles or a multi-lingual cast. Those days are over. From Parasite to Hope, it is clear that the public is hungry for stories that reflect a globalized reality.

This isn't just about entertainment; it's about democracy. A population that is exposed to diverse perspectives is a population that is harder to manipulate with xenophobic tropes. When we support films like Hope, we are voting for a world that is open, curious, and connected. We are rejecting the cramped, fearful vision of the future offered by the far right.

The bottom line

We must reject the rising tide of isolationism in both our politics and our media. The federal government should expand visa programs for international artists and increase grants for international co-productions through the National Endowment for the Arts. If we want to solve global problems, we must continue to embrace a global culture.