It is the maintanence of cultural identity. same difference.
It is the maintanence of cultural identity. same difference.
That would only be true if all the movies you were allowed to see were local productions. This is far form being the case: most of the movies shown in Canada are actually US made and I don't think that will change anytime soon. Even this supporter of "cultural protectionism" watches quite a lot of US movies, but that's not the only thing I want to see.
Jorghnassen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Messages
- 3,942
Movie wise, Hollywood has tons of money and has a global market, so they can make big movies and distribute them everywhere, and then reap big profits. In the case of local film, the market is way smaller and there is much less money to be put into making the movies in the first place, and much less profit can be made. So, to get a decent project going, you often need subsidies. As mentioned before, this could go against such trade agreements as NAFTA, and, technically, movie studios from Hollywood could say, sue the Canadian government over lost profit because their subsidies gave local movies (such as, say, C.R.A.Z.Y.) competitive edge on the Canadian market (which is usually just part of the North American market, with the exception of Québec, though this has changed somewhat since the provincial government forced Hollywood to release dubbed version of their movies simultaneously with the original version, the big studios complained at first, but then realized they made bigger profits that way)...
This was a referendum? If so, I have no critisism at all.
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,017
Well, I think we were talking about film. But can you name a single successful prime-time TV show on the major networks that is not identifiably American? Just one. Then see if you can find one in the history of American television.
Saturday morning cartoons are largely a throwaway to sell toys. The networks show them because the toy companies pay the production costs. We'd expect to see more thoughtful anime next to The Simpsons if Japanese cartoons were truly to American tastes. And I'm hopeful that that's exactly what we'll see in the future.
The film industry isn't a free market, so this argument fails.
Because most of the world is receptive to American culture. Not other cultures in general, importantly, but specifically American culture.
If you're seriously going to argue that the offensive stereotypes of foreigners in Titanic appeal to the rest of the world, I think you've been living in America too long. Everyone went to see it because it was a big spectacle with a schmaltzy love story that was heavily marketed to a world capable of understanding and appreciating the American idiom. Woody Allen sells soft drinks in Tokyo; it's the rare American who can name a Japanese equivalent.
The Choir is similarly a schmaltzy story of troubled kids overcoming adversity to blah blah blah. There's nothing about it that doesn't push the same old buttons.
I am scratching my head trying to figure out how you got from "budget is in some way correlated with success" to "budget dictates success."
Either way, the 3:1 ratio from before holds: $255 million worldwide, $88 million domestic. $175 million budget, incidentally. The world watches big-budget American movies, no matter how bad they are, which implies that there's something other than smart film-making going on here.
Can you name another low-budget film that hit it big without being financed by Hollywood? This looks very much like the exception that proves the rule. Blair Witch was successful because horror movies were almost a dead genre at the time and because the distributor didn't have a competing film to market.
Bollywood was precisely what I was talking about when I mentioned local appeal; Hollywood just doesn't make big glitzy musical numbers anymore. It's ridiculous to argue that you could produce a movie for less money (using local talent) than it costs to produce sub-titles or dubs (using local talent).
I can already do that precisely because of protectionist regulations. Protectionism in national film industries isn't new; global free trade agreements are new. What's happening here is the Unesco is sanctioning the continuation of protectionist measures, in the face of globalization. Presumably, there is some critical number of films produced, below which the French film industry would implode due to prohibitive fixed costs, and that's what they're trying to stave off.
I'm not exactly dissatisfied with the choices of my fellow consumers, I'm dissatisfied with the industry, specifically with what and how it chooses to market. I do think there's a market for small films, but Hollywood just doesn't bother unless they have a movie with broad enough appeal that it can open everywhere.
If you define "quality" as "the movie people are most likely to spend money to see", then yes, that is the reason one is played over another. It is a business, after all. That is the whole purpose of the industry: to make money. There are exceptions, of course. Rules almost always have exceptions.
The reason they will use multuiple screens to show the same movie is that the movie is popular enough for them to need to do that. Its all about what people want to see.
So everything a representative democracy does is right, and never deserves to be questioned? Cool! I'll keep that in mind the next time anyone here says anything bad about the US.
Freakshow, these days, the general practice is for the rights to a block of films to be sold before they are distributed to be shown successively by movie theaters, pay per view channels, pay television channels, VCR tape distributors, and network television channels, as well as to be sold for foreign distribution. The problem is that all of this is narrowly controlled by a few companies, and there's little opportunity for independents to get into the act. Although it would seem that there are many channels for film distribution, in reality only a small number of parent companies decide what films the general public will have the opportunity to see. To the average American it may seem that there are many independent channels of distribution for films and television programs, but the fact is that many of them are all tied together, either by joint ownership or by contractual agreement.
Taken from here: http://www.ims.ccsu.edu/Movies.htm
I really don't see how you can argue that moderate cultural protectionism, with a few subsidies and small quotas, is ethically or morally wrong...
Bjorn
Off Topic
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,968
Off topic as usual, but would you define 'quality' that way? Literature, music?
It depends on my point of view. If I was part of a film company, then yes, that is how I would define quality. I've got bills to pay, ya know.
As for the movies I personnaly like to see...I have my own opinions as to what makes a great movie. And those are different from others'. People like different things. Which is why government should not be involved in deciding anything in this matter. I'm not actually sure how "quality" factors into the discussion. Is the government going to appoint movie-critics to decide which low-budget local films are of sufficient quality to warrant government support? Isn't that a bit like a government determining which free speech is protected?
Virtually every decision and action by every entity (individual or group) has a moral and ethical component.
Bjorn
Off Topic
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,968
Isn't that defining the ability to make money, not the quality of the art? The National Enquirer sells a lot, and is probably making money for the publishers, but does that make it a 'quality' magazine? (I'm going to use the answer against you
).Does quality in arts equal the money made from it?
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Probably.
I see a clear difference. I think it is more like a government determining which free speech gets a subsidy, without limiting anyone else's free speech. Or it is like government museums buying paintings the government considers to be of great cultural value, and allowing anyone to paint whatever they like and allowing them also to sell their work to however wants to buy it.
To some extent, yes. Art is in the eye of the beholder. What is art to one person is garbage to another. Having a lot of people like something does indicate that the art does have some quality that is appealing to a large number of people. No one can tell me what should and shouldn't be "quality art" to me. It is a decision I make on my own. When a lot of people make that decision, it says something about the art's ability to touch people. Of course there are exceptions, there always are. (There are exceptions to that, too). YOU may look at something and think "that's junk", but many others might like it. It doesn't always hold, of course. But it is a factor to consider.Isn't that defining the ability to make money, not the quality of the art? The National Enquirer sells a lot, and is probably making money for the publishers, but does that make it a 'quality' magazine? (I'm going to use the answer against you
Does quality in arts equal the money made from it?
The National Enquirer is actually on the very low-end when it comes to making money. Much higher standard publications make a lot more.
Which is no longer true free speech, is it?
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,017
It's more or less like what the NEA does with literature fellowships.
I know, I know; you don't support the NEA either. But it should at least help shift the focus from self-righteous French bashing to self-righteous "liberal" bashing.
I know, I know; you don't support the NEA either. But it should at least help shift the focus from self-righteous French bashing to self-righteous "liberal" bashing.
Bjorn
Off Topic
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,968
"Much higher standard publications". How do you define that 'much higher standard'?