Ah! The French again....

[Orwell]

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?

I have no idea. Maybe most of the new compositions are coming out of the commercial sector, but, as far as I know, most performances are being done by orchestras that receive gov. money and most of the musical instruction is being given at schools that receive gov. mullah. I think we need both, public sponsorship and commercially appealing work.

 

[mumblethrax]

You're behind the curve, then, because those already exits. Ever hear of "Adult Swim" on Cartoon Network?

Yes, I have. I was talking about shows on the major networks, and specifically about shows with significant market share. Check out Adult Swim's Nielsen numbers some time. They're good for basic cable, but lousy in general.

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.

It's not a free market because it deals with intellectual property, which requires government intervention in the form of a grant of temporary monopoly in order to function. You might argue this is equivalent to some model of property rights which is necessary for a free market to exist at all, but this is not at all obvious; even many libertarians argue against intellectual property rights. The fact that patents and copyrights expire is itself explicitly utilitarian, so it's not hard to argue that the best structure for a given industry is that which yields the best results for society.

The bigger problem, then, is that to the degree that it functions like a free market, it is not an efficient free market. Since efficiency is the only reason I can think of to promote free markets over regulated or nationalized industries, I see no reason why we should accept that an industry has become an oligopoly, just because it's "free."

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.

This is an exceptionalist argument by assertion.

Americans are not innately less receptive to other cultures, it has emerged from a sort of cultural network effect. Because we make the expensive spectacles that virtually no one else can afford to produce (due to a large, relatively culturally uniform and affluent customer base), we don't really need to invest in understanding films from other cultures. Meanwhile, those in foreign cultures who have invested in understanding American culture (often through film, for the cause of seeing and understanding the big spectacles that we produce) have an interest in seeing more people from their own culture invest in understanding the American idiom (rather than, for example, the French), that they may see greater returns (in the form of more and more spectacular films made for a larger market) for their investment. The result is a runaway effect which leads to market domination, not on the merits of any particular product, but because of the structure of the market.

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.

It's significantly different. If a Japanese car is functionally equivalent to an American car but costs half as much, we can expect that the rational consumer will choose to purchase the Japanese car. We can't really make two functionally equivalent movies, but we can come close with remakes. Someone used the example of La Femme Nikita earlier; the original, which was critically well-received, made $5 million in its US release. The generally faithful (some of the shots are directly lifted from the original) remake, Point of No Return, made $30 million. So if the broader appeal of American movies can be explained by our greater ability to give the people what they want, how can you explain that an American copy of a French movie outperforms the original so handily?

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.

I don't think it's really a strawman. You make an argument that we are just better at appealing to international movie-goers than their very own countrymen, and I present the counter-example of the stereotypes in Titanic, which imply that American filmmakers don't have any real insight into foreign cultures. Marketers, on the other hand, might.

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.

This is a problematic assertion. Marketing can and does sell what people don't want; often by being outright deceptive. If a trailer present a few good jokes, a quote from an invented critic, and a few celebrities, I might think, "Hey, that looks funny." And then I can go see the movie, have the only good jokes in the entire movie be the ones I saw in the trailer, see some bad performances from good actors, and generally walk away feeling two hours older and $10 poorer. This certainly cannot be reasoned away by simply stating that this is what I wanted; what I wanted was what was presented in the trailer, which isn't what I received.

My argument, to reiterate, is that the structure of the industry does not actually allow me to see much of what I want without protectionism, and I do not think I am unrepresentative of a significant market segment. I don't think the American public are a bunch of low-brows who cry out for Hollow Man II, I think Hollywood executives would rather make 100 mediocre sequels with limited (but broad) appeal before they take a risk on making small movies for specialized markets.

So? The Japanese are peculiar that way.

Are they? Take a poll of passers-by in France, asking them to name some Tarantino films, and then repeat the experiment in the US with Jeunet. This is true all over the developed world; almost everyone has a basic understanding of American culture, while very few Americans can reciprocate.

Well, what exactly counts as "Hollywood"? It's hardly a monolithic entity.

Let's say those films which are identifiably American and which are produced or distributed by corporations represented by the MPAA.

Yes. But Bollywood doesn't need government intervention to be successful. They can and do compete on their own, without protectionist measures.

Bollywood has basically the same advantage that Hollywood does; a very large audience with at least a few cultural elements in common. As India becomes more affluent, Bollywood is feeling more pressure from Hollywood, and is not, in fact, doing all that well financially at the moment.

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.

Notice that you just made two contradictory statements.

You are, in the end, dissatisfied that not enough people want to pay to watch small films.

No, I am in the end dissatisfied that the film industry is not good at addressing specialty markets. I am also quite comfortable with governments subsidizing culturally important forms of expression.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

No, it isn't. Plenty of people choose to spend their own money, sometimes rather extravagently, subsidizing art that is otherwise not commercially viable. The problem with governments doing it is that they're spending my money, against my will, in order to do it. Removing government from patronage of the arts won't end that patronage, it will just make sure that it only happens willingly. But you don't seem to really care about letting people choose.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's significantly different. If a Japanese car is functionally equivalent to an American car but costs half as much, we can expect that the rational consumer will choose to purchase the Japanese car. We can't really make two functionally equivalent movies, but we can come close with remakes. Someone used the example of La Femme Nikita earlier; the original, which was critically well-received, made $5 million in its US release. The generally faithful (some of the shots are directly lifted from the original) remake, Point of No Return, made $30 million. So if the broader appeal of American movies can be explained by our greater ability to give the people what they want, how can you explain that an American copy of a French movie outperforms the original so handily?

Not having seen either movie, I can't really comment directly. But I have seen a number of French commedies remade for US audiences. And while the script and acting may not be any better (and is often worse), the production values of US movies are generally superior, and the actors often prettier. The remakes just look better. And however superficial that may be, audiences care about that. American remakes thus add value to the movies.

I don't think it's really a strawman. You make an argument that we are just better at appealing to international movie-goers than their very own countrymen,

No, that's not my argument. I'm saying that Americans are better at appealing to Indian moviegoers than the French are. That's rather demonstrable. So it's quite natural to expect that we'd be better at appealing to French audiences than the French are at appealing to American audiences. THAT is what I mean - I'm not trying to claim that Americans appeal to the French better than the French appeal to the French. I'm arguing that audiences aren't really that different the world over, and that it's the ability to produce appealing culture that is really the differentiator. I'm arguing against the assertion (which you haven't really addressed) that there's something fundamentally different about American audiences compared to the rest of the world.

and I present the counter-example of the stereotypes in Titanic, which imply that American filmmakers don't have any real insight into foreign cultures.

But that's exactly my point: it's not ABOUT that. We don't NEED to have any particular insight into foreign cultures, we just need to be good at finding what's universally appealing. And Titanic did that in spades.

This is a problematic assertion. Marketing can and does sell what people don't want; often by being outright deceptive. If a trailer present a few good jokes, a quote from an invented critic, and a few celebrities, I might think, "Hey, that looks funny." And then I can go see the movie, have the only good jokes in the entire movie be the ones I saw in the trailer, see some bad performances from good actors, and generally walk away feeling two hours older and $10 poorer.[/B]

At which point, you tell your friends, and none of them forks over money to see it. Yes, you can snag audiences in the first week with deceptive advertising, but it doesn't last, and it's not enough to keep a movie afloat. And the more money you poor into deceptive advertising, the more money you need to earn in order to break even, so it's not a hole you can really dig out of with mere deception.

My argument, to reiterate, is that the structure of the industry does not actually allow me to see much of what I want without protectionism, and I do not think I am unrepresentative of a significant market segment.

But you ARE unrepresentative. So am I. It's the people who wanted to see Titanic more than any other movie that came out that year who are actually representative.

Are they? Take a poll of passers-by in France, asking them to name some Tarantino films, and then repeat the experiment in the US with Jeunet. This is true all over the developed world; almost everyone has a basic understanding of American culture, while very few Americans can reciprocate.

That's begging the question. You presume that Jeunet is really equivalent to Tarantino, but why is that necessarily the case? If Tarantino is simply better than Jeunet, that this is rather the EXPECTED result, isn't it?

Notice that you just made two contradictory statements.

Not really. The requirement that something be not just profitable but sufficiently profitable is an economic requirement, and isn't confined to the movie business. After all, investing in T-bills is profitable. But there's a little something called opportunity cost: because resources are always finite, if you invest in one thing, you cannot invest in something else. Opportunity cost is the difference between your actual investment returns and the potential returns had you invested in something else. If you calculate opportunity costs, then small profit margins are essentially equivalent to economic losses.

No, I am in the end dissatisfied that the film industry is not good at addressing specialty markets. I am also quite comfortable with governments subsidizing culturally important forms of expression.

In other words, you want to take my money to pay for cultural products you want even though I don't want them. You may indeed be comfortable with it, many people are, but I am not.

 

[kimiko]

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.

Generally, you can see exactly what you are buying before you buy it when purchasing food. Some packaged things you can't, but often have pictures instead, and they don'y limit the image to a tiny fraction of it. You can sometimes get samples of packaged food to taste test first, and unlike movies, once you've tasted it, the taste doesn't change partway through eating, which distinguishes samples from previews. Food also relies on repeat purchases. A food or restaurant will fail if it doesn't get repeat buyers. People seeing movies multiple times in a row may help make a movie a huge hit, but the industry doesn't rely on repeat viewings for basic success. Food is an essential part of existing- you have to eat, and the structure of society means most people's food will be purchased. Movies aren't essential at all. Good marketing can make a movie successful, even if many people end up hating it, but even if a food is a trend, if people hate it and don't repurchase, it will quickly fail. The only place that I know of where food is similar to movies is the snack/candy/soda market in Japan, where a larger part of the market is made of a rapid turnover of novel flavors.

I question your assertion that "a lot" of theaters refund. My experience is far more often that the theater gives free passes to something else, but won't give back the cash, so you still "voted" for something you hate.

 

[Orwell]

No, it isn't. Plenty of people choose to spend their own money, sometimes rather extravagently, subsidizing art that is otherwise not commercially viable.

First: if the artists is able to finance himself with sales of his art to private entities, then by definition his art is commercially viable. Second: I don't think that art should be something reserved to an elite that can afford it.

The problem with governments doing it is that they're spending my money, against my will, in order to do it. Removing government from patronage of the arts won't end that patronage, it will just make sure that it only happens willingly. But you don't seem to really care about letting people choose.

I'm not talking about you, Zig. I'm talking about my government and its support of cultural protection policies, policies that most Canadians agree with, by the way. I don't mind that my gov. spends a bit of money making sure that choices are not entirely dictated by what a few big corporations think will sell...

 

[Ziggurat]

Generally, you can see exactly what you are buying before you buy it when purchasing food.

Which is what movie reviews and word-of-mouth is for.

Food also relies on repeat purchases. A food or restaurant will fail if it doesn't get repeat buyers.

Disney has built a fortune on the idea that parents know basically the sort of thing they can expect from going to a disney movie. More broadly speaking, the movie business is very much built on repeat buyers - not always for the same movie, but very much for the same actors, directors, writers, etc.

Food is an essential part of existing- you have to eat, and the structure of society means most people's food will be purchased. Movies aren't essential at all.

Not relevant. In developed countries, food is not sold on the basis that you'll die if you don't eat. It's sold on the basis that people want particular tastes, just as people want to see movies.

Good marketing can make a movie successful, even if many people end up hating it,

People keep making that claim, but is there any actual evidence it works? Fooling a few people isn't enough. What movie have audiences hated but still went to see in large numbers?

 

[Ziggurat]

First: if the artists is able to finance himself with sales of his art to private entities, then by definition his art is commercially viable. Second: I don't think that art should be something reserved to an elite that can afford it.

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, but you missed my point completely. I'm refering specifically to situations where people pay for art in order to allow OTHER people to experience it. For example, you go to a play at your civic theater, and in the back of the playbook there's a list of donors. Those people paid out money specifically so that YOU could watch the play. The theater would never survive if it had to rely solely on ticket sales, and is therefore not commercially viable. It can only survive because of patronage. That is what I mean. There are plenty of examples of such art, it will not disappear simply because government so longer supports it (which is the claim you made).

 

[ZeeGerman]

Not having seen either movie, I can't really comment directly. But I have seen a number of French commedies remade for US audiences. And while the script and acting may not be any better (and is often worse), the production values of US movies are generally superior, and the actors often prettier. The remakes just look better. And however superficial that may be, audiences care about that. American remakes thus add value to the movies.

Really Zig,
while I do agree with your standing througout this thread, this is (ahem) rubbish.

Woman in red
Birdcage
Three Men and a Baby

are all remakes of french movies and compared to the originals, they majorly suck.
Same is true for "Vanilla Sky" of which the original is spanish.

Of course, that's a matter of personal taste.

Zee

 

[Jorghnassen]

I'm sorry, but movie and game music doesn't count as classical. Orchestral maybe, classical, no.

 

[mumblethrax]

Not having seen either movie, I can't really comment directly....

I just don't think that's true in this case. The production values were approximately equivalent (if anything, they were better in the original). The remake got generally poor reviews, and is rated a 5.7 on imdb. The original got good reviews, and a 7.5 on imdb. There's likely to be a selection bias going on there, but how do we explain that disparity? How does a movie that more people rate higher get outperformed by what most people who have seen both would rate as an inferior remake?

I think it's pretty obviously a matter of how the films were marketed and distributed, and the degree to which Americans are perceived to be receptive to foreign films (which would include whether or not they can handle sub-titles or dubs).

No, that's not my argument. I'm saying that Americans are better at appealing to Indian moviegoers than the French are. That's rather demonstrable.

You can't make this argument without also acknowledging that the US dominates 85% of the French market (and France is in a better position than the rest of Europe). You're saying that the US is better at appealing to French audiences than the French, even if only because we're better at it in general. The only way this is possible is if, like I said, the US is capable of flooding the market with big budget, high production value spectacles, which is more or less what you've reduced your argument to. But this is exactly the argument I've been making, and it's why national film industries have to be protected; they need the infrastructure paid for big successful films to make small, culturally important films, but the owners of that infrastructure don't have an interest in granting them access because it costs them screen time which could instead be used to present big-budget spectacles.

At which point, you tell your friends, and none of them forks over money to see it.

Too late, the opening weekend will often make or break a movie, and a mediocre movie usually makes 80% of its box office in the first two weekends. Word of mouth often takes more time than this to get around. This is generally how the industry gets away with making bad movie after bad movie. There was an article in the New York Times recently about Hollywood's hand-wringing over how this has depressed box office; for all the complaints about piracy, the real problem they're facing is that the movies they make just aren't that good, for whatever value of "good" you might choose. We know it and they know it.

But you ARE unrepresentative. So am I. It's the people who wanted to see Titanic more than any other movie that came out that year who are actually representative.

I am representative of a specific market, which is all I claimed. I'm not saying I'm the personification of the vaunted 18-35 demographic, I'm saying there are several underserved markets precisely because everyone chases the biggest prize.

That's begging the question. You presume that Jeunet is really equivalent to Tarantino, but why is that necessarily the case?

They're not equivalent, and it wasn't intended to be an argument for equivalence. I don't see why you would accept this argument in the case of Woody Allen in Japan and attribute it to Japanese peculiarity, and then contest it here. It's just another example of how Americans are not generally familiar with other cultures, which supports my argument that this produces an unfair advantage for American movies. It is, in effect, cultural protectionism, which doesn't seem any better or worse than government protectionism on the face of it.

If Tarantino is simply better than Jeunet, that this is rather the EXPECTED result, isn't it?

I would not expect that it would be difficult to isolate that variable. I think it's fairly obvious that Americans really are materially less literate in world culture than the world is in American culture, and not because American culture is "better."

Not really. The requirement that something be not just profitable but sufficiently profitable is an economic requirement, and isn't confined to the movie business.

The problem is not small profit margins but small absolute profits. The major studios and distributors will not finance a $100,000 movie that they're confident will make $300,000 on a very limited release. It just doesn't happen. An independent filmmaker will do this, but because he is denied access to significant distribution channels, he can't get it shown at the local multiplex, even on one small screen, even for one day.

In other words, you want to take my money to pay for cultural products you want even though I don't want them. You may indeed be comfortable with it, many people are, but I am not.

In the same way that I want to take your money to pay for copyright protection regardless of whether you personally benefit from it. If you want to frame this as me putting a gun to your head and demanding your hard earned dollars, I guess that's your perogative. Ultimately, I recognize that it's better for society to encourage creativity and limit forces (governmental, cultural or economic) that discourage it, and I think it's strange that you resent ponying up a couple of dollars to meaningfully enrich other people's lives.

 

[epepke]

Really Zig,
while I do agree with your standing througout this thread, this is (ahem) rubbish.

Woman in red
Birdcage
Three Men and a Baby

are all remakes of french movies and compared to the originals, they majorly suck.
Same is true for "Vanilla Sky" of which the original is spanish.

Of course, that's a matter of personal taste.

OK, so I'm going to express my own personal taste. I thought The Birdcage was way better than La Cage aux Folles, even though I usually hate American remakes of foreign films. And let's not forget the Broadway adaptation of the former, which has been quite successful.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really Zig,
while I do agree with your standing througout this thread, this is (ahem) rubbish.

Woman in red
Birdcage
Three Men and a Baby

are all remakes of french movies and compared to the originals, they majorly suck.

I agree that they suck. But it's not my personal tastes that matter, it's what audiences want. And much of the time, audiences want things that I think suck. But I don't actually see a problem with that. In my personal opinion, Titanic sucked. But from an objective point of view, it was a GREAT movie, because it's what people all over the world wanted to see. Audiences apparently want to see remakes of French commedies. Are the originals better? In the end, that's not really up to me to decide. And I don't want anyone else, other than audiences, making that decision either.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ultimately, I recognize that it's better for society to encourage creativity and limit forces (governmental, cultural or economic) that discourage it, and I think it's strange that you resent ponying up a couple of dollars to meaningfully enrich other people's lives.

But you're taking it as a given that my tax dollars going to subsidize such "art" IS actually going to meaningfully enrich other people's lives. I don't accept that assumption. The only given in such government funding is that it meaningfully enriches (in a monetary sense) the artists who are being subsidized.

 

[Orwell]

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, but you missed my point completely. I'm refering specifically to situations where people pay for art in order to allow OTHER people to experience it. For example, you go to a play at your civic theater, and in the back of the playbook there's a list of donors. Those people paid out money specifically so that YOU could watch the play. The theater would never survive if it had to rely solely on ticket sales, and is therefore not commercially viable. It can only survive because of patronage. That is what I mean. There are plenty of examples of such art, it will not disappear simply because government so longer supports it (which is the claim you made).

I missed your point because you weren't clear enough. Lets make one thing clear: I have nothing against the corporate sponsorship deals you describe. But I don't think it's enough either. I'm in favour of having both corporate sponsorships and government sponsorships. By the way, it is a well know fact that corporations avoid supporting cutting edge art. Corporations don't like controversy. A few rich individuals might give some support, but why should public access to this stuff be dependent on the hypothetical generosity of a few patrons?

 

[Freakshow]

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.

But my point is...you keep saying that Canadians are behind using tax money for support of the arts. If that is the case, then why do you need the government to do it? Why can't all of the Candian citizens who believe this contribute that money voluntarily, and not do it through government and taxation? The money comes from the same place. Why do you need the government to do it for you?

I know the answer. I just want to hear what you think the answer is.

 

[Orwell]

But my point is...you keep saying that Canadians are behind using tax money for support of the arts. If that is the case, then why do you need the government to do it? Why can't all of the Candian citizens who believe this contribute that money voluntarily, and not do it through government and taxation? The money comes from the same place. Why do you need the government to do it for you?

I know the answer. I just want to hear what you think the answer is.

Because there often is a difference between what people wish and what people do. You probably won't get the necessary focused constant level of funding directly out of people. It's already hard enough getting the money from the gov.!

I know what you're thinking: "government handouts". But governments can also contribute to art simply by, for instance, buying artistic works for state sponsored public museums, or by buying art for a gov. building, or asking someone to decorate a new library... I know that the National Endowment for the Arts was often controversial, but I don't see what's wrong with it, as a system: the artists present their work to a committee of specialists who try to judge the work to see if its worth funding...

 

[Jas]

I have no idea. Maybe most of the new compositions are coming out of the commercial sector, but, as far as I know, most performances are being done by orchestras that receive gov. money and most of the musical instruction is being given at schools that receive gov. mullah. I think we need both, public sponsorship and commercially appealing work.

Well, maybe you should find out before making blanket statements.

As far as musical education, I'm completely fine with gov't sponsored education, provided there's enough of a market for it. The Royal Conservatory is a good example of this - they only just introduced a harp syllabus in the last 10 years, simply because there wasn't a demand for it.

 

[Orwell]

What blank statement did I make? You asked "Are you saying that we would never get another Glenn Gould if it wasn't for public sponsorship?" and I answered "I have no idea". Which is, by the way, the correct answer to give to such a question. By the way, Gould work extensively with the CBC, can't get any more "public money" than that.

 

[Jorghnassen]

But my point is...you keep saying that Canadians are behind using tax money for support of the arts. If that is the case, then why do you need the government to do it? Why can't all of the Candian citizens who believe this contribute that money voluntarily, and not do it through government and taxation? The money comes from the same place. Why do you need the government to do it for you?

I know the answer. I just want to hear what you think the answer is.

Well, there's the obvious reason of pooling money to one place then redistributing it. A lot of small contributions into one big pool that is then redistributed according to some scheme. If you don't like the particular scheme, you can influence the government by participating in the democratic process through the various means available. Sure, you can give money privately but your small donation (and the sum of local small donations) might not be effective. You can always find some sort of charitable private organization too, but then your saying in it is only somewhat proportional to your donation (and participation in the organization), and you also end up with problems that are at some point between the small ineffective direct donations to the large bureaucratic redistributor. Another advantage of the paying for the arts through taxes to the government is that you don't need to find particular places to give your money to, so it requires less effort on the donor's part.