Yes I did. What it means is that the government made the decision, not the people.
Yes I did. What it means is that the government made the decision, not the people.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Well, not 'free' as in 'doesn't cost the government a penny', but in some cases it may be 'free' as in 'doesn't require direct payment from the user'.
It is however not 'unfree' in the sense of 'requiring anyone to listen to it' or 'prohibiting anyone from listening to something else'. If the president holds a speech, he is excersizing his right to free speech, and he gives you a free speech. And you are also free not to listen to him. You are also free not to go to a government subsidised museum, you are even free to start your own museum with your own paintings to compete with it. Even if you get no subsidy, it does not make you less free to do so.
I don't think it's quite accurate to speak of movies as a consumer item in the same way as others- you can't examine a movie before you see it, so you don't really know if it's bad beforehand. You have to make an educated guess based on previews, commercials and reviews, but by the time you've seen the movie and can make an accurate judgement, you've already "voted" for it economically.
Also, just because a movie is successful economically doesn't mean it is good. That's a subjective judgement, but there are other ways a movie can be "good" or "bad" that have nothing to do with the artistic aspects. Movies are a powerful medium of communication, and great damage can be done to people when movies consistently portray them in negative ways. Indians have been abused by Hollywood for generations, because they've always been portrayed in highly stereotypical ways. People don't deserve to be charicatured just because there aren't enough of them with enough disposable income to affect the box office take.
Also, just because a movie is successful economically doesn't mean it is good. That's a subjective judgement, but there are other ways a movie can be "good" or "bad" that have nothing to do with the artistic aspects. Movies are a powerful medium of communication, and great damage can be done to people when movies consistently portray them in negative ways. Indians have been abused by Hollywood for generations, because they've always been portrayed in highly stereotypical ways. People don't deserve to be charicatured just because there aren't enough of them with enough disposable income to affect the box office take.
Last edited:
Well, if the screens showing the 'indigenous' productions were making money, then they could spare a screen. A movie theatre is a business. People rely on the money coming in there. And while it's very noble to think that it would be nice if they only showed culturally relevant films, ultimately, the decision should rest with the movietheatre owner, who, if he's smart, is going to show the movies that people want to watch.
Numerous big chains have shown independent and foreign/domestic films, simply because they were doing so well in the independant theatres. Examples of this would be: Le Fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain (although I think in the english markets, it was released simply as Amelie), Life is Beautiful, Men With Brooms, Bowling for Columbine, The Blair Witch Project, La Cite des enfants perdus, and others that I'm no doubt forgetting. If people are willing to watch it, then it'll be shown. While I can see the reasons for CanCon, maybe people should make the effort to go out of their way to see something, as opposed to having the gov't decide that it's 'culturally important'.
Besides, it all boils down to taste. That's what's so wonderful about art.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,705
Yes indeed. But quotas force cinemas to screeen at sub-optimal profits, which means cinemas cannot expand to as many screens and remain profitable as they could without quotas.
In the short term, yes. In the long term, no. Movies can (and do) bomb regardless of how much money you put into advertising or distribution. Movie studios can only remain profitable if they produce movies that people want to see. In a free market, a studio will go under if its movies are not high enough quality.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,705
You're behind the curve, then, because those already exits. Ever hear of "Adult Swim" on Cartoon Network?
I keep seeing people make this claim, but it's not true. It IS a free market. The fact that there are large cost barriers to entry doesn't actually change that, you know.
And why might that be? Maybe because American culture is particularly appealing to the rest of the world, whereas French culture is not. The statement was made that foreign countries are are more receptive to American culture than vice versa, with the implication that our refusal to countenance foreign culture is what's behind our domination of the entertainment industry. But that's a bogus argument. It's not that we're fundamentally any less receptive, it's that we're better at making what people want to consume. Trying to arange protectionist measures for entertainment is really no different than if American car makers had banned Japanese imports because Detroit couldn't make a decent car. That might be great for Detroit, but it ends up hurting the consumers. The only justification for doing so in the case of cultural products is ultimately that consumers don't know what's good for them, and cannot be trusted to make good choices without government influence.
Strawman. I never made any such claim (though if I were Italina, to pick an example of one of the more absurd characters in that movie, I'd think those stereotypes were more pathetic and stupid than actually offensive). But there's a lot more in Titanic than said stereotypes. And however offensive foreign audiences found them, they ALSO found the rest of the film more than made up for it. Which is why they went to see in in such huge numbers all over the world.
Marketing can't sell what people don't want. They wanted Titanic. Sure, it may be just for the spectacle. But that's what they wanted. Are you saying that you think that their choice was wrong, and that they should be protected from making bad decisions? If not, I don't see you having a point. If so, well, that would be rather condescending.
So? The Japanese are peculiar that way. I don't think they mind the asymmetry, and I don't know why anyne else would. It's not like we're trying to keep Japanese celebrities off the air here, or forcing our celebrities on them. It's what they want, and there's no reason not to give them what they want.
Well, what exactly counts as "Hollywood"? It's hardly a monolithic entity. If all you mean is that most big hits are financed by large film companies, well, duh. Just like most successful IPO's are done by large banks. Money goes where money can be made. A better criterion than Hollywood is if small independent projects can be picked up by major studios. Blair Witch was unusual in that it got picked up after release, but if you count smaller budget movies that get picked up by larger studios before that, well, that gets a little more common. Farenheit 9/11 was basically an independent movie production with a major studio handling its distribution. Same with the Passion of the Christ. Or there's the case of Spirited Away, which Disney signed on to distribute. Why would Disney distribute a foreign film which might compete against its own domestic films? Simple: because it was a movie that audiences would want to see, so they could make money off of the deal. The fact that "Hollywood" dominates the film industry isn't nearly the barrier that you imply.
Yes. But Bollywood doesn't need government intervention to be successful. They can and do compete on their own, without protectionist measures.
Hollywood will bother to do ANYTHING if it makes a buck - that is both the best and worst thing about it. The fack that they don't bother to do what YOU want them to do is because it woudn't be profitable enough, because not enough people would make the choices necessary to make it sufficiently profitable. You are, in the end, dissatisfied that not enough people want to pay to watch small films.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,705
How is that any different than, say, food?
And actually, a lot of theaters will actually refund your money if you walk out partway through because it's crap. You may have to make a scene first, but it can often be done.
Yeah, but it should be pointed out that "governments" have pretty much being around deciding what's "culturally important" ever since civilisation started in Mesopotamia. By the way, deciding that governments shouldn't subsidise or protect the arts comes down to the government deciding what's "culturally important": that's effectively deciding that only commercially viable art should exist.
Canadian "masses" vote for politicians that favour Canadian content laws and some subsidies of the arts. In Quebec, the population take the survival of the french language pretty seriously, so they want the government to protect the arts.
See, the "masses" can decide for themselves.
Fine with me. Nobobdy has a "right" to have their art supported. Either it has enough appeal to keep the artist employed, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then tough. That's life. You make something that people don't want, you either have to make something that people DO want, or find a new career. I see nothing wrong with that.
It's pretty simple actually:
I'm not an opera fan, it mostly bores me. So I don't go to the opera, and I don't directly support opera with my pocket book. But I do think that opera is a legitimate form of art (albeit one I don't like), and I don't mind it if the gov. partially supports it with some of my taxes. Most Canadians, I believe, think like me. For instance, they wouldn't be caught dead in a modern art museum, but they nevertheless believe that there should be such a thing as modern art museums, and they are willing to give a little bit of money to insure they exist.
I'm not an opera fan, it mostly bores me. So I don't go to the opera, and I don't directly support opera with my pocket book. But I do think that opera is a legitimate form of art (albeit one I don't like), and I don't mind it if the gov. partially supports it with some of my taxes. Most Canadians, I believe, think like me. For instance, they wouldn't be caught dead in a modern art museum, but they nevertheless believe that there should be such a thing as modern art museums, and they are willing to give a little bit of money to insure they exist.
That's fine. I understand that you feel that way. I just happen to think the exact opposite, that's all.
If the government stopped supporting opera with tax dollars, would you start making donations to help make up the difference? And how would you decide which forms of art (that you don't like) would get your donations?
That's fine. I understand that you feel that way. I just happen to think the exact opposite, that's all.
If the government stopped supporting opera with tax dollars, would you start making donations to help make up the difference? And how would you decide which forms of art (that you don't like) would get your donations?
Well, I have a lot less money than the gov. I wouldn't give money to opera, but I would give money to a modern art museum. And I do give money to my local art house cinemas, video stores and independent music scene. I don't have deep enough pockets to support every worthy cultural cause.
By the way, do you object to governments building libraries out of the public purse?
The government doesn't have any more money than all of its citizens put together. Where do you think the government's money comes from?
Actually, I would like to see libraries start charging for things, yes. Not much. Maybe something like $20 a year to be a member, $1 for each book rented, charge something (less than places like Kinko's) to use the computers and Internet access, etc. Just to help offset the costs a bit.
You asked me about what I would do, not what I wish the gov. to do, there's a difference.
If a certain type of art is commercially viable, then by definition it doesn't need gov. support. Since I think that there is quite a lot of non-commercially viable art that deserves to exist (art that is either confrontational, or cerebral and very abstract, art that is only accessible, for some reason, to a small number of people), I want the gov. to use some of its tax money either to finance it, or to buy it to be exhibited in public museums, so that more people can be exposed to it.
And people have been around since civilization pretty much started saying that women should stay at home and have kids. Whether they've done it in the past or not isn't a valid argument.
And I do have to agree with Freakshow on this one, why on earth does 'art' have a right to exist? Who decides which art is worthwhile, and which isn't?
I dunno. Do you? By the way, why should "market forces" get to decide what is art and what isn't? And why should art be reserved to those who can afford it? Public museums with cheap admissions contribute to the democratisation of art. Cheap seats at the orchestra do the same thing for classical music.
So are you saying that art is unable to survive in society where it isn't subsidized? Maybe if people were forced to pick and choose what they wanted to support, we might see a bit more creativity.
Look at classical music. Most of the new compositions are coming out of the private sector. Movie scores (I love Danny Elfman's work), and surprisingly enough, video games is where most of the newer stuff is coming from. Are you saying that we would never get another Glenn Gould if it wasn't for publoic sponsorship?