Culture shock for Hollywood

[CHIMO]

THE French campaign against the global tide of American entertainment will take a big stride forward today when almost every nation backs the first world convention on protecting culture.

Most of the 191 members of Unesco, the United Nations’ cultural agency, are expected to vote for a “convention on cultural diversity”, which enshrines on a global level France’s longstanding policy of subsidising its arts and imposing quotas on American films and music. The vote will be a big defeat for the United States, which held out against the plan with partial backing from Israel, Australia and Japan.

The convention could now be cited by any country to justify protecting its entertainment industry with measures similar to those used by France if they are contested at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as barriers to free trade.

There are still big differences in interpretation. The Americans and British say that the convention text makes clear that it does not take precedence over existing law. The French say that it creates law in a hitherto undefined area and gives legal backing to countries that refuse American pressure to open their entertainment industry to foreign imports.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1834119,00.html

A lot of arm twisting going on in the backrooms over this.

[marmar]

1. I can understand their thinking...

but it's kind of fun to turn on the TV in your Paris hotel room and see "The Bernie Mac Show" dubbed in French.
Je suis triste.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. No matter what happens with this

pirated Chinese CDs and DVDs will still be available on the streets days before the Hollywood release.

[xchrom]

3. i'm with the french on this.

it's not about flag waving -- it's about blocking the mcculturizing of any individual culture.

[joefree1]

4. What about a cultural ban on everthing being made in China?

You know, Christmas ornaments, patriotic bumper stickers, etc.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

112. "Vote for Bush" buttons? n/t

[McKenzie]

5. Excellent news

Film is part of a nation's cultural heritage and should be both celebrated and nurtured. I watch a lot of European films and prefer them to most of what comes out of the USA.

The McDonaldisation of culture is not a good thing...jeez McKenzie...you are in "patently obvious" mode yet again.

[mongo]

16. So, if America imposed a quota on European films

and you couldn't see a foriegn film you had heard about because of it, would you feel the same way?

Are only American films bad?

[McKenzie]

102. not knocking American film per se mongo

the point I was trying to convey was the importance of not allowing commercial forces to skew the film market towards what might be popular, but not necessarily "good".

[DaDeacon]

103. that 's BS

govt should be the dictatiors of what is or isn't "good" .

[northzax]

46. yes, but what if europeans

feel the same way you do, that American film is better? don't they have that right as well?

[McKenzie]

104. I made the point badly

What I tried to say is allowing powerful commercial forces to dominate is something that needs to be guarded against. "Popular" does not necessarily translate into "good" so a degree of protectionism is necessary.

The McDonaldisation of fast food has already destroyed native fast foods worlwide. The same effect could easily happen with film if the determining factor, as to what gets produced, is purely market forces.

I am sorry if you read my initial post as an attack on US culture.

[AngryAmish]

6. Can't we ban "The Jerry Springer Show" from being exported?

[Felix Mala]

7. We should retaliate by withholding The Simpsons from them...

Such an embargo would surely bring them to their knees.

[Crayson]

10. Noooo oooooo oooooooooo oooooooo oo !!

Now that would breed terrorism in Europe !!!

Even I would pick up my Kalashnikow if I didn't get to see Simpsons anymore!

Or I'd try to immigrate illegaly via the mexican border...

;-)

[Felix Mala]

14. I've often felt that flooding the trouble spots in the world with

a huge dose of American "I gotta have it" culture would be the best cure, even though it's somewhat toxic. To paraphrase Maya Angelou, "We could beat them by enslaving them not with guns and chains, but with charge account payments, washers, driers and plasma screen TV's."

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. A bit like Asimov's Foundation series

where the technological planet wins the war by stonewalling the actual fighting, and cutting off the gadgets on which the other planet depends. There's not much actual fighting going on, so the Foundation's opponents don't get all nationalistic (planetistic?); they just start complaining their washing machines have broken down, and can't we end the war so I can get a new TV?

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Made in Korea

:hide:

[Brooklyn Michael]

21. Too late....

Homer becomes Omar for Arab makeover of Simpsons

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article320877.ece

[Flagg]

128. With their "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" xenophobic slurs

I think we could live without that...

[Orrin_73]

8. I do not agree with this

they (non-hollywood) should make competetive programs that appeal. People are free to choose whatever they want to watch and hollywood makes apealling entertainment to masses were others fail (miserably). Censorship of foreign (hollywood) entertainment wont work if people are willing to watch them.

[Crayson]

9. Banning / Blocking / Quotas is the wrong way

This is stupid and won't have the promised effect.
Everything that is banned only creates a black market and everything forbidden is only more interesting than before.

The only way is to finance movies and theatres in Europe or at least help them out with some professional public relations and merchandising.

The problem of European movies is that they are somehow "underground, rebellious, different" and that makes them cool but it's only for the more intellectual people.

The Hollywood style ENTERTAINMENT indusrie is virtually nonexistant in Europe, every movie is about some "problem" or has you go home in deep thought afterwards.

Hollywood is (in most cases) the opposite. A Hollywood movie distracts you for two hours from any problems you already have.

A good mix of both is best.
Plus some Japanese and African movies...

Banning is the wrong decision, but I see it as a panic reaction against a de facto entertainment monopoly of Hollywood.

[ElectroPrincess]

12. Can't they have some DIFFERENT leading stars?!?

For example, Julia Roberts replaced Meryl Streep in what's called movie blockbuster OVEREXPOSURE. Gosh, can't they get any OTHER star to lead in these quality films. I'm so burned out on Julia Roberts and don't get me started about seeing TOO MUCH Tom Cruise flicks! :puke:

On edit: "The problem of European movies is that they are somehow "underground, rebellious, different" and that makes them cool but it's only for the more intellectual people."

Give me MORE "underground, rebellious and different" flicks - hell, I don't even mind the subtitles on MhZ. :P

[Crayson]

107. The other side is always greener...

I think a good mix is what the world needs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. "subsidising its arts and imposing quotas" is what the French do

which sounds very like your idea of "finance movies and theatres in Europe" and "A good mix of both is best". I don't think they ban anything.

[K-W]

27. But nobody has proposed any bans.

This is about giving countries the ability to pass laws regulating cultural industries to protect local culture.

A ban would be one possible such law.

[Loonman]

11. The French are just into being French

They've always been like that. Canada also has laws that a certain percentage of art must be Canadian. Sounds reasonable.

[melody]

18. This isn't about "McDonaldization", it's about bigotry toward one culture

This is unconscionable -- nothing more or less than bigotry, brought about by a European aversion to Americans. You hear nothing about this from other places beyond the middle east (where the fundamentalists also would like to block out all western influences). This has been happening for a long time, but I guess the anti-US elements in Europe are using the Bush bastard as an excuse to further their bigotry.

They, of course, have every right to do this... and I have every right to think it sucks. It also sets a very dangerous precedent.

[Orrin_73]

19. Banning american entertainment

is impossible in this age. Everyone has acces to internet in europe they can easily download anything. So any ban is doomed to fail.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

108. DINGDINGDING!

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

109. self-delete

posted in the wrong place

[Orrin_73]

113. and besides euro cinema is boring especially french

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[melody]

116. I love European cinema

Especially the smaller filmmakers. I guess we should now ban them for being good. :)

[confludemocrat]

125. kinda of a blanket statement dontcha think? I like 'em both: US & French

They convey alot better things about gender relations, and about women's sexuality, which is not of interest to whom, I'd like to know?

[robcon]

20. I agree, Melody.

The U.S., I hope, will not succumb to this jingoistic call for 'cultural apartheid.'

We should be able to import any film we want. The rest of the world should be free to import any film it wants.

Wrapping protectionist economics as 'protecting the culture' is patent crap. It's just trying to keep American exports from other countries without violating WTO.

[confludemocrat]

126. Our stuff is mostly crap, face it. So big deal. We block foreign content

through corporate decision making and pure profit motive combined, so just because they do it openly as policy, they are bad? nonsense. This applies actually regardless of the medium. In Europe they actually have a smorgasboard of cultural content, we have wall to wall pap. Stop with the inferiority complex.

[melody]

127. no nferiority complex here

Actually, only about 70% of our stuff is crap - we'll have a higher percentage of everything (including good stuff) because of our output, but American filmmakers put out fine films every year.

[K-W]

26. Yah, the whole world hates america, thats why they do everything.

This is unconscionable -- nothing more or less than bigotry, brought about by a European aversion to Americans.

Speaking of bigotry...

You hear nothing about this from other places beyond the middle east (where the fundamentalists also would like to block out all western influences).

Then how do you explain this: "Most of the 191 members of Unesco, the United Nations’ cultural agency, are expected to vote for a “convention on cultural diversity"

This has been happening for a long time, but I guess the anti-US elements in Europe are using the Bush bastard as an excuse to further their bigotry.

Yes, nations have long wanted to protect thier cultures, what that has to do with the imagined evil plots of America hating europeans Im not certain.

They, of course, have every right to do this... and I have every right to think it sucks. It also sets a very dangerous precedent.

What dangerous precedent?

[melody]

28. explain please

>Speaking of bigotry...

How does my reference to any of this connote bigotry? Simply mentioning a cultural difference doesn't make one biased against it. This strain of Europe is trying to keep out American culture. If an entity in the US was trying to do this to France, I'd scream just as loud.

>“convention on cultural diversity"

Sounds like your basic bureaucratese for something no one wants to say.

>what that has to do with the imagined evil plots of America hating >europeans Im not certain.

It's not imagined in the least - it's bigotry. There's an age-old bigotry against my culture among elements in Europe just as there are morons here who would renamed French fries "Freedom Fries" and other such nonsense. What Europe should see is that we're as overrun with European culture here as you are with American culture. Funny thing - we *call that* diversity.

[K-W]

32. Gladly

How does my reference to any of this connote bigotry? Simply mentioning a cultural difference doesn't make one biased against it. This strain of Europe is trying to keep out American culture. If an entity in the US was trying to do this to France, I'd scream just as loud.

I think the picture of europeans you are painting would qaulify as bigotry before trying to make it possible for countries to pass laws regulating cultural industries.

Sounds like your basic bureaucratese for something no one wants to say.

Or maybe it actually is a convention on cultural diversity.

Regardless, my point was that most of 191 nations hardly matches your claim that this is something only Europeans and Middle Easterners want.

It's not imagined in the least - it's bigotry. There's an age-old bigotry against my culture among elements in Europe just as there are morons here who would renamed French fries "Freedom Fries" and other such nonsense. What Europe should see is that we're as overrun with European culture here as you are with American culture. Funny thing - we *call that* diversity.

They call it diversity too. So does everyone else. Which is why most of 191 nations approve of a convention on cultural diversity that would give nations the ability to pass laws protecting cultural diversity against the pressures of the free market.

There are bigots everywhere. It is your imagination that this convention is a plot by anti-americans.

[melody]

36. please

>I think the picture of europeans you are painting would qaulify as >bigotry before trying to make it possible for countries to pass laws >regulating cultural industries.

Nonsense. I didn't say all Europeans... I said anti-American Europeans. You read into it something that wasn't there. I specifically and carefully spoke only of those responsible. I wouldn't blame all Europeans for this anymore than I think anyone should blame all Americans for George Bush.

>Regardless, my point was that most of 191 nations hardly matches your >claim that this is something only Europeans and Middle Easterners want.

Please read my posts before you answer them. That isn't what I said at all.

>There are bigots everywhere. It is your imagination that this >convention is a plot by anti-americans.

I don't think it's a "plot" by anyone. I think it's the tendency that humans have to identify one group as the universal problem. It's not "right" when our own people are the target of the bias any more than it is when another group is.

[K-W]

44. Ditto.

Nonsense. I didn't say all Europeans... I said anti-American Europeans. You read into it something that wasn't there. I specifically and carefully spoke only of those responsible. I wouldn't blame all Europeans for this anymore than I think anyone should blame all Americans for George Bush.

Except that I didnt accuse you of saying all Europeans. I know what you said and that is what I was referring to.

Please read my posts before you answer them. That isn't what I said at all.

Except that is exactly what you said:

"This is unconscionable -- nothing more or less than bigotry, brought about by a European aversion to Americans. You hear nothing about this from other places beyond the middle east"

I don't think it's a "plot" by anyone. I think it's the tendency that humans have to identify one group as the universal problem. It's not "right" when our own people are the target of the bias any more than it is when another group is.

Obviously it is a plot. The convention wasnt an accident. It was planned.

The issue is whether it was, as they stated a convention on cultural diversity. Or, as you state, an anti-american project of some kind.

[melody]

49. mind games, et al

Look, you clearly have an axe to grind with proving yourself "right". None of the comments you make apply, which would be obvious with careful reading. I'm not into contentious scraps, but discussion. I'll opt out of this one with you.

Go on and have your last word, as you must.

[K-W]

58. So I am wrong because you say so? A convincing argument indeed.

Feel free to present a single comment of mine that doesn't apply.

[Zhade]

131. Indeed.

The very idea that this is BIGOTRY is just plain laughable.

[NorthernSpy]

53. I'm an American, and I don't think Hollywood represents my culture at all

It's fine with me that the French wish to defend French culture from Hollywood.

After all, I want to defend American culture from Hollywood et al. I'm hoping that all this music and video "piracy" that we read about will eventually bring down the beast.

[henslee]

63. Hollywood filmfare --99% of it is insidious and vile. One practice that

is particularly damaging is always casting twenty year olds to play teenagers due to child labor laws. The self image problem this creates among many young folks is awful. We all know what moswt teenagers look like.

[rooboy]

87. It isn't about bigotry at all.

In order to save money, tv networks in Australia are buying cheap American shows at the expense of our own actors, producers and writers.

We ALL resent the amount of American entertainment being blasted onto our tv screens. It's not just a 'European' thing at all - we don't mind having US movies and shows, but not at the expense of our own nationality.

[melody]

91. Then don't buy them... encourage your networks to boycott American TV

I should add - be prepared to lose a good number of quality shows, however, in the cultural purge.

That said, that's an entirely different thing than a government (or governments) forming a formal barricade against things from one culture - I'd say that no matter which culture was involved - including Australian culture.

[AngryAmish]

120. It becomes a cost issue

In the American market the American media owner can get their costs and some profits. The marginal cost of an American show to be shown in Argentina is virtually zero (subtitle/voiceover cost, marketing costs). So the American show can price themselves below the Argentinian show (or even below their costs).

That said, this ban is a bad idea.

[melody]

122. I understand that, it's the Walmart concept

I agree, we have to find some better method of promoting local culture.

And aside from that, we produce a lot of good TV shows (and quite a bit of bad) that - I think - people in Australia and Argentina and wherever would like to see. Banning CSI because WBX had poor toilet training seems an overstep.

[AngryAmish]

123. You can't agree with me

I think it is much more appropriate in this thread for you to call me names and then I'll call you stupid. Flamewars are so much fun. Kay?

[melody]

124. LMAO!!! Yeah, I've noticed. n/t

[Frederik]

106. Bullshit

Bigotry my ass. "Dangerous precedent", wtf? It's a welcome and long overdue measure to protect local cultures against the juggernauts of the American movie and music industry. It's not "censorship", but a recognition of states' rights to impose quotas and to subsidize local culture. Should have been in place long ago. I guess you'd rather see one global monoculture.

[melody]

119. read the information on the movement

If it was merely about protecting and promoting local culture, I'd be all for it. It's about protecting and promoting some local culture but inhibiting others because it emanates from a politically unpopular state... sort of like what the wingnuts do to Cuban artists here (and yes, I'm against that, too).

The big juggernauts are all over the place - they will not be touched - while smaller artists will be. A better understanding of distribution and how it happens on a global basis might help make the point.

[damntexdem]

22. OK, now we need a convention on worker protection ...

not to mention a convention on environmental protection.

Maybe we could also get a convention on local-production-and-distribution protection.

[sadiesworld]

23. I say we invade.

[YapiYapo]

24. When US impose quota on china textile

It's good, when Europe/rest of the world impose quota on Hollywood it's bad.Please explain the logic behind that...

[pitohui]

25. logic?

i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that

i think nations should protect their own workers, if usa is too foolish to protect its workers from competition in other countries, doesn't mean france or canada should emulate us

don't know much abt france but canada has good & sound reasons for encouraging production by canadian nationals, otherwise they would be completely swamped, as we have a huge population & film/publishing/entertainment industry that would eat theirs alive, you don't put a bantamweight in the same ring as lennox lewis

[melody]

29. Does one bad thing allow another?

Anyway, there are reasons for all things... the reasons for the anti-American culture war is quite simply bigotry.

You know, just because we hate George Bush (and believe me, I hate the Republican right-wing culture as much as anyone), doesn't mean we have to be ashamed of our people. Our country has done as many good things as bad. Our culture is as old as any other, because it is comprised of many others.

[Bridget Burke]

30. It's less about Culture than Entertainment Industries....

Between the World Wars, European countries had flourishing film industries. The Global Depression dealt them a blow & the War just about finished them off. Then US entertainment became the 800 Pound Gorilla.

US Entertainment will continue to be strong but we would ALL benefit from some competition. What would our TV be like without access to UK shows? Instead of Hollywood just "remaking" foreign films for the US market, perhaps they'll try some original ideas. I'd like more options than ultraviolence, sophomoric gross-out comedies & cloying "Chick Flicks."

Canada has similar policies; some of their movies & TV shows make it here, to the benefit of all. And Mexican cinema had a Golden Age--long ago.

[melody]

31. American entertainment is part of American culture

I certainly wouldn't want UK films and TV blocked - or any other culture's efforts blocked...that's my point.

[Bridget Burke]

33. Well, it's not your problem--unless you work in Hollywood.

Our output would not be "blocked" but a higher percentage of local product will be seen in each country.

[melody]

35. I live in LA... it is my problem

But that's not even the issue... it's the principle of the thing.

[Bridget Burke]

39. OK. Now I understand.

Principal or interest?

[melody]

41. Principle, not principal, and it has nothing to do with money eom

[1932]

55. An American hegemony on global culture would probably kill Hollywood

in the long term.

Look at what Clear Channel did to radio. When a few corporations have so much control over culture that they start telling people what to like rather than respond to ideas that percolate up from the bottom, they destroy the industry and then they discover that people go elsewhere for cultural entertainment.

If you want Hollywood to thrive, you want exciting ideas about music and film to come from all over the world. You want a lot of small people at the bottom, wherever they are, to come up with new ideas so that music and movies are exciting and keep people interested.

[Zhade]

132. Excellent point!

NT!

[K-W]

34. Why is it bad to allow nations to regulate thier economies? EOM

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[melody]

90. Did you read anything said by any of the others?

Or did you read one line and react?

There's nothing whatsoever "America-centric" in the remarks made. I'm just saying that banning any one culture's art is unfair and unwise.

Anything else you read into it, you have put there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. I read the whole thread before replying

Just so I could be sure that you were really taking such a ridiculous position. Once I confirmed that, I felt compelled to reply.

[Binka]

105. There's nothing whatsoever "America-centric" in the remarks made.

Oh Good Christ. Melody did you actually write that or was your computer overtaken by aliens? After reading this entire thread and I read your posts very CAREFULLY I was expecting a USA flag to jump out of my monitor and beat me. Unfuckingbelievable. Unreal. Weird. Surreal. Motherfucking Bizarre. And I'll second the poster who pointed this out to you YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. If you're not I am for you. You sound like a love it or leave it bigot. Sheesh. Another DU dumpster dive thread.

[melody]

114. rolling eyes

There is nothing America-centric in that in the least. I merely defended the right for individual American artists to not be banned because they are American. I've said repeatedly in this thread that I'm against (as is any sane person) bully economics and trying to intimidate culture. I HATE big corporations. Why is it so many of my fellow liberals feel the need to insult and debase our own culture? I love my country - which is the very reason I fight against the far-right trying to take it over. I'm sure the other Yanks (well most of you) feel the same. If you didn't, surely you'd just give up the ship to the rats and have done with it.

Why is it that one seems to need to embrace a given set of de facto mores that must be present or else people start suggesting the individual involved is a conservative? Don't we all have the right to individual minds?

What it comes down to is those who don't want to deal with arguments fall back on invective and cheap attacks. You distinguish yourselves by your arguments.

I should add -- those of us in the 70s who fought hard against America-centric/Eurocentric concepts in science and the arts wonder if the term is even understood any more. It's not about abandoning the fight to protect individuals... it's about a global mindset.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CHIMO]

37. Update

UNESCO adopts culture convention despite opposition from US

PARIS, Oct. 20 (Xinhuanet) -- The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organization (UNESCO) adopted Thursday to the great displeasure of the United States a convention aiming at protecting and promoting the diversity of cultural expressions.

Out of 154 countries represented at the two-yearly General Conference of UNESCO, 148 voted the text seen by most of UNESCO's 191 member states as an important tool to protect local languages,arts and culture against English-speaking globalisation and US "cultural imperialism".

Only the United States and Israel voted against it and four countries abstained.

Launched and ardently promoted by France and Canada, the convention affirms the sovereign right of nations to "protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions." Enditem

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-10/21/content_3659057.htm

[melody]

38. Very, very sad - and a dangerous precedent

If they ban ours, we ban theirs, pretty soon no one is communicating with anyone.

[CHIMO]

40. Guess That

It could happen that way. For an understanding of some of the background one has to go back to 1993 and a Sports Illustrated issue in Canada. Canada then realized that it had to take steps to prevent culture from becoming an issue that the WTO could claim is just another commodity. Thus the effort was started.

Culture Wars:
Canadian Magazines and the fight against American split-runs

On May 26th 1999, a deal was finally struck, and Heritage Minister Sheila Copps' efforts to protect the Canadian magazine industry appear thwarted.

Copps championed Bill C-55 as an important tool in the struggle to protect the Canadian magazine industry from competition from American split-runs. As a result of the bilateral trade deal, the Bill will be amended to include serious concessions to American magazines and the Canadian advertisers who place ads in them.

Split-run magazines are special Canadian editions that may feature a few pages of token Canadian content along with Canadian advertising in place of US ads. The American magazines benefit from this additional advertising revenue, yet can keep costs low because little, or no additional Canadian content is added.

Defending Canadian
Although the deal over split-runs was struck recently, the debates over protecting Canadian culture go back much further. Historically, building feelings of "Canadian-ness" has been difficult in Canada. Sharing a border (and for many Canadians, a language) with a powerful neighbour like the U.S. hasn't made this any easier. It also hasn't helped that our neighbour perceives culture as a commodity to be exported.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~parkland/post/Vol-III-No2/08valentine.html

[melody]

42. Does being Canadian (or French) require prejudice against Americans?

I don't think so. What would happen to Canada if the US barred its goods? Can you see the problem and how it would unfold? One is as fair (and unfair) as the other.

[Bridget Burke]

43. Canada has been trying to protect its culture for some time.

They are supporting their own country's entertainment business (with money) & ensuring that a percentage of their product is broadcast, etc. US entertainment is NOT barred.

Most of us do NOT see a problem here. If US Corporate Entertainment is going broke--which I doubt--perhaps higher quality product would make more money.

Edited to add: France is not the only country involved. Why single out the French?

[melody]

47. The French were referenced in the original post, beyond that

They are a major influence in Canada.

If Canada is concerned with cultural "invasion" to the extent that it would support a restriction on American products, that's the problem. Their support of their own culture is their own business.

>perhaps higher quality product would make more money.

That was a catty remark, which I'll overlook. I think American cinema speaks for itself, in all its aspects (and many of them are brilliant). One could make a similar catty remark about Canadian films, but that would be unfair to Canada.

[Bridget Burke]

60. Why is it "catty" to criticize US cinema?

Of the current to 10, I'll see The Corpse Bride & the latest Wallace & Grommit. The Corpse Bride is a US film--Wallace & Grommit is not. US companies can produce great films but most of the current output bores me dreadfully.

Here are top 10 grossing films made in 2004:

www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/2004/top-grossing

Yes, "American cinema speaks for itself."

[melody]

66. to limit the quality of all American film to what's on now is unfair

You're going to suggest that all the movies from the US fall within the quality field of one month's movie releases? BTW, that speaks to nothing but what people are viewing... not to what has been produced. Michael Moore is an American. So is George Clooney. "The Godfather" is an American film. Need I go on?

I hate to tell you this, but the Corpse Bride is NOT a US film. It was distributed by a US firm, but it's a UK release.

[Bridget Burke]

77. Thanks for the info on "Corpse Bride"....

I can see why you hate to admit that it's not a US product.

Looking at "what's on now" IS a good way to judge the quality of the current US film industry. Of course there's a great history; I love Turner Movie Classics. And some fine independent films are being produced. I try to catch them on their limited runs or on IFC. Netflix is a fine way to "test" them before buying; and I DO buy copies of films I love.

[melody]

82. Well, such things are highly subjective :-)

International critics have intermittently drooled over the death of American film, but it keeps coming back. Back in the 50s, a Dutch film reviewer pronounced that "On the Waterfront" would be the last great American film. There are brilliant young filmmakers emerging in our arts community. They shouldn't have their efforts restricted because someone has a hardon for Warner Brothers.

[CHIMO]

45. Red Herring

No one is talking about prejudice against anyone. The Canadian attempt has been for Canadian content while the US has insisted in having it their way.

I would classify it as anti others. Why should US subsidies, as illustrated in my above reference, be allowed to decide what Canadians want to have, or for that matter anyone else. If the people don't like it then they will just change the rules.

[melody]

48. I hate herring :)

I think Canada should be fully able to subsidize and support its own cultural output and anything else that goes on in its own country, without interference from outside countries. On the other hand, it shouldn't block films from the US unless it wants some form of retaliation. If US films are sought by a Canadian audience, then surely it's not the fault of the producers of the films.

And I do think an anti-American prejudice is behind much of this. There's plenty of sociological study data to support this. Bigotry takes many forms.

[northzax]

50. ironically

there are very few actual US subsidies for the film industry. most US films are shot outside the US to avoid the high labour costs here, and exploit a quirk in EU and German law that allows really really cheap financing in Germany. I don't recall any country complaining that Paramount or Disney was filming a movie on location, do you?

[CHIMO]

51. It Is Not

Only the making of the film but all the other things that go into it. One aspect is the distribution. If one can't get space to show a film, such as MM's film last year then one is essentially locked out.

http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/pol/cinema-film/pubs/epart3.htm

Without the ability to make culture a non commodity then the WTO would rule that it is protectionism and one would be penalised for any government support for their own industry or story. So this ruling allows governments to provide support for their own industry and art type of things without having them penalised under the WTO rules.

And yes, one can expect that governments will naturally try to push things to the limit.

[northzax]

54. F9/11 had trouble getting shown?

gee, here I thought it was the highest grossing documentary ever, by a factor of 10 or so.

I propose a quota, every nation can export one movie, and three CDs and two books to any other country once a year. I mean think about it, we're swamped, that frickin Harry Potter and all, damn cultural imports.

I really cannot understand why any government would want to deny people the right to see what they want to see. If American TV shows are more popular in Bulgaria than Bulgarian TV shows, then Bulgaria should make better TV shows, not ban the importation of American ones. And yes, if the French actually like McDonald's, then let them, obviously, McDonald's is filling a niche that no one else is France is. I despise cultural nationalism of all kinds.

This does not mean that traditional culture should be left to whither on the vine, it should be supported locally, but if the french film industry cannot sell it's films, even to French people, then it may not be viable, you know? so give it grants to compete, don't ban the competition.

[CHIMO]

57. It

Is my understanding that MM had trouble getting theaters to show his film. And remember that is in a country where 50% of the people more or less agreed with the film.

One only has to look at TV to see what would happen if everyone had to watch the same thing.

I don't think that they are talking about banning anything. As I said before it is to prevent the WTO from defining culture as a commodity. Thus if 30 countries now agree with the UNESCO rule the WTO can not include culture as a commodity.

[northzax]

59. and, since it isn't a commodity

you cannot appeal restrictions to the WTO. That's the point.

[CHIMO]

64. I Think

That we agree?

If it is considered a commodity then it would come under trade rules which would make subsidies to the industry a reason for other countries to impose penalties. Thus air and water are not treated as commodities for definitions of trade rules. If they were, then a country would have to allow trade in those items and any attempt to protect them would allow penalties.(I still think that water is not treated as a commodity. May be wrong on that.)

[northzax]

67. i suppose

it bascially means that any nation can impose arbitrary rules on the importation of 'culture' it's still a stupid thing to do.

[CHIMO]

72. Maybe

But I haven't seen the actual rule or agreement. I suppose that someone could build a case that the importation is possible because of a subsidy, such as the split run case of Sports Illustrated and as such should be subject to taxes. I guess we will just have to wait and see how it unfolds.

[1932]

52. And if you don't let countries protect their culture

then suddenly the globe is dominated by American corporations, American ideas and American culture.

It's important to protect a system which allows diverse ideas to thrive within their spheres and then percolate up. It's dangerous to let a few powerful entities force their ideas down from the top on to everyone else.

[NorthernSpy]

56. but this is blasphemy you speak!

Gawd forbid that anyone on earth should be deprived of -- or even just slightly inconvenienced in acquiring -- the timeless melodies of Twitney Spears!

:think:

[melody]

61. Are you suggesting that's all there is to American culture? (eom)

[NorthernSpy]

70. I'm suggesting that in what passes for "American" culture, the bad...

... is fast crowding out the good.

I object to Hollywood, Twitney, and the like serving as the public face of America. I don't know what the hell Hollywood is exactly, but I do know that it is not a wellspring of anything that could reasonably be called American culture.

If people in other lands want to turn thumbs-down on that crap, I can't say I blame them, and I don't take it personally.

[melody]

73. I'm not talking about product, I'm talking about art

I'd rather Jerry Springer's Show (even if it is fake) and Britney Spears (in all her gum-snapping glory) decombust, but if you're blocking out ALL art from one culture, then it goes way beyond that.

[1932]

75. I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. It's inflamatory, yes.

But is it accurate to say that "art" is being "blocked"?

Isn't this a case where indigenous cultural forms are getting a little help so that they can compete with powerful external forces?

[melody]

83. I believe it to be

I don't see what other overall point there is to this, other than to block one culture's art. Incidentally, I am a card-carrying Cherokee and have all manner of Native American friends in the arts community who are still Americans.

[melody]

62. This isn't about invasion, it's about invitation

Look, I'm in favor of any culture promoting its own... including Americans... but the simple fact of the matter is protectionism is anti-artist. The corporations aren't going to be hurt. They'll just morph into another entity in another country. The artists labeled as "American" (most of whom are liberal, btw) will be the targets of the restrictions.

[1932]

68. I think it's about power. It's about culture being imposed from above

or percoloating up from the bottom.

It's about Clear Channel vs some tiny record label from Olympia WA.

If governments don't step in and make sure that all culture doesn't flow down from the powerful, it's bad for everyone. It's even bad for the powerful, who will discover that after some short term windfall profits they've destroyed the industry they dominate.

[melody]

69. But Americans are being targeted, NOT American corporations

It's the culture, not the commerce, that's in question. American corporations will just close down shop and move elsewhere when being American becomes an evil thing to be. The rest of we poor nothings will still be here.

[1932]

74. I don't understand the distinction. CEOs are Americans.

Obviously when you take some power from Americans and give it to people without power, some Americans will suffer in the short term.

However, by preserving a vibrant cultural marketplace in which the playingfield isn't dominated by 5 American entertainment companies is going to make EVERYONE better off -- American consumers included.

I'm not prepared to sacrifice a vital, interesting cultural marketplace in order to protect Tom Cruise and BonJovi's bank accounts, and I think Bruce Springsteen might agree with me.

[melody]

76. If the 5 American entertainment companies are doing this in nefarious ways

Then they should be curbed and stopped. If it's merely a matter of targeting one culture, as I've said ten times, that's the problem I have with this. International business can do whatever it wants to international corporations. It's the artist who'll be harmed. And no, Bruce Springsteen won't be hurt by that, but lets see what happens when that "lets protect culture" ethic burgeons into full-blown bigotry among people.

As I said, dangerous precedent.

And with that, if I don't get my artistic butt back to work and meet my deadline, my editor (a Canadian, btw) will hang me by my thumbs. lol

[1932]

78. Well what's your definition of nefarious?

They're just big huge corporations with a lot of power who want to produce shure hits and not have to waste money on the misses. Is that nefarious? That's the thing about power imbalances: they are grossly unfair and distort the marketplace, but no individual actor is necessarily eveil just because they're powerful.

And again with the "targeting one culture" -- that's spin. It's also called "protecting local cultures from dramatic power imbalances." Sounds much less...well...'nefarious" eh?

How rich, by the way, does Sheryl Crow have to be? Don't you think she can stand having a few people from Nice buy records made in Nice of some French-Algeirian singer on some tiny label who sings about cultural things more relevant to people in Nice?

I think Sheryl Crow would be just fine with that even if it costs her a little bit of money.

This is absoutely not a dangerous precendent. It's a way to protect a difersity of ideas and prevent a few large corporations from inflicting their sure-fire hits on everyone to the cost of something new and differnt which might give people a new way to think about the world and themselves.

[melody]

84. On the surface, it seems to be a way to protect artists

In the end, when you study the full extent of what is being proposed, it's going to end up hurting them.

Using wealth as leverage is certainly nefarious. That's bullying the market and most rational economists frown upon it.

And I don't mean Sheryl Crow, I mean Sheldon Morgan (who happens to be American) with his little film that happens to gain distribution through WBX, etc. He put up his house to make it, but his film will be barred because it's the stuff of Americans? I don't see how that is fair or helpful to the arts.

[1932]

93. Quality rises to the top. If his film is good, it will find an audience.

And Sheldon will be better off if Hollywood has to try new ideas in order to keep up with ideas percolating up everywhere else.

Sheldon will be worse off if Warner Bros has total information control over the world and stops experimenting and only tries L.C.Denominator "art".

[melody]

95. I wish I were young and idealistic enough to believe that :)

However, I've been alive too long to do so.

[1932]

97. If you're old, then you've lived industry history and you should know

this is true from first hand experience.

When has the industry given new voices a chance? When has there been experimentation? Where did thos voices come from? When has the industry focused only on the bottom line and pushing out formula long after the formula has stopped working?

[DemExpat]

65. I do agree with you here, 1932.

It is a power issue in selling a product - and we know how good Americans are at selling things - so I see value in some protective measures in other cultures.

People the world over love American pop culture it seems - and have access to it - but measures to keep other cultural products visible under the "onslaught" :evilgrin: is valuable too IMHO.

DemEx

[1932]

71. Power. Exactly.

Cultural consumption is essentially a bunch of people at the tail end of the production chain making personal decisions about what they want to hear, see and read. Corporations want to satisfy those demands, but they also want to ensure their profits and don't want a lot of misses. They want all hits.

So there's a balance of power. I think there are examples by the thousands of the corproations getting too much power and then destroying the marketplace by reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and by refusing to experiment with new ideas that aren't clearly going to succeed. Clear Channel is one example, I believe.

Protecting the less powerful -- indigenous cultures for example -- is a very important part of keeping the powers balanced.

[DemExpat]

79. US entertainment / pop culture coming into a country

is backed by so much money and power structures (financing, advertisement, distribution systems etc.) that more local forms of art/entertainment/ artists don't have a chance in hell to compete.


This UNESCO policy hopefully protects the local artists - US artists have access to a huge market within the US anyway, so their very existance is not at peril here IMO, while other culture's arts, languages, music, etc. are at peril under the American dominance. This is how I see it, anyway.

I very much support protection of diverse cultural expressions that don't have the infrastructure (or huge national market) of American pop culture.
It will be lost if not preserved somehow, and then what will we have -global Americana.
Which has good things and bad....:-)
So no harm in trying to create some balance here for cultures all over the world - especially the more undeveloped, indigenous ones.
IMO.

DemEx

[1932]

80. I vaguely remember reading something about how before WW1

German companies had very thriving film distribution companies acting in Germany in Europe. After WW1, the allies broke them up and made sure that American companies took over all their business. That guaranteed that America produced fillms would get shown and that wealth would flow back to the US.

Commerce and culture are tied, and I think concentrations of power in each form is bad for a society. I think if one just had the rule of thumb that in all cases you want to locate as much power locally as is reasonably possible -- if you do that, you're going to build a stronger foundaiton for a society.

Foreign countries losing control of their culture to big corporations (and foreign big corporations) is probably not the most stabilizing of influences. I'm not saying that all commerical activity should be small and local (that makes as little sense as the other extreme). My point is that neither extreme is very good, and there needs to be a balance of power.

I don't think any community can last for long being an exporter of its wealth and an importer of everything else, including its culture.

[DemExpat]

81. Yes, this seems sensible to me as well.

Balance and especially balance of power is what we desperately need in so many areas.

:hi:

DemEx

[Bridget Burke]

110. "Cinema Europe" was a miniseries on silent film in Europe

The production brims with a wealth of rare films clips and interviews, and the thoughtful narration (by Kenneth Branagh) puts them in a rich historical and cultural context. Most importantly, it captures a vital period when films readily crossed borders and distinct national cinema styles flourished. It was a cinematic garden in full bloom and it cross-pollinated through ambitious and inspired filmmakers around the world.

When the lure of Hollywood and the rise of fascism pulled much the talent from Europe and the coming of sound created new language barriers, the garden went into a frosty winter.

www.amazon.com/gp/product/6305837171/103-0206775-7168617?v=glance&n=130&s=dvd&v=glance

I caught most of it on TCM & found it fascinating. (Available on Netflix.)

[1932]

117. "At the end of World War I, John Maynard Keynes...

later to become the founder of modern macroeconomics, returned from the
Versailles Treaty negotiations disappointed by the outcome and wrote a forceful little book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Its message was simple: the burden of reparations imposed on Germany would lead to economic crisis and social and political turmoil, and the result would not be good for Europe. Keynes turned out to be right.

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/Odious_Debt.pdf

Odious debt extracted the wealth from Germany, destabilized it, and open the door to fascism which had much greater costs for the world than the benefits that were created from the interest on the debt. Breaking up german companies and taking over their business also extracted wealth from germany. It had the same destabilizing effects.

What would have protected democracy and immunized germany from fascism after WWI would have been the equivalent of a massive Small Business Administration loan-type effort to build up wealth in the working class. That's what the Marshall Plan was in Japan, and it worked.

[melody]

86. Their expression is put in jeopardy

I'm sorry, I don't see how promoting prejudice against a whole culture can be a good thing in any context.

Much of what is seen as "American culture" isn't American culture at all (is it Molly Ivins who called it Yankonography?). And a lot of it that qualifies is positive and small-scale in nature. Sometimes, foreign markets are all that protect smaller artists from insolvency.

They need to find a way of working around things that doesn't include bias against one people, unless they want to open the door to the death of actual culture in the US (which the Bushites would celebrate) and a reactionary protectionist response that will hurt smaller countries more than it will hurt us. The industry won't be hurt - the individual artists will.

That's the last thing I have to say about it. I hope anyone supporting this will be able to live with the outcome.

[1932]

94. Melody, your misperception of your self-interest has blinded you to

your ACTUAL self-interest.

[melody]

96. Why the personal attack?

I'm not attacking you personally.

When arguments break down into this jibberish, they're not worth having.

If you're so antagonistic toward other opinions that you have to attack them rather than discuss them, it's best to let this be.

[1932]

100. melody, you've provided details about your business and bio to support

your argument, so I'm not sure that pointing out the obvious case that your bio and business interests might actually be compromising your objectivity is a personal attack.

Not only did you bring this information into evidence, it's an obvious and legitimate point. It also explains the twin problem of weak argument that is so persistently repeated without going much farther than alarmism and repetition of a few slogans.

[melody]

101. I haven't mentioned a thing about my bio or business interests

I'm not in the entertainment industry, though I have friends who are. I didn't bring anything into information -- I used it as an example of what might happen with this trend. If you wish to see only the best possibilities, so be it, but I disagree.

[1932]

118. Fair enough. You dropped hints, which I assumed

were made to buttress your argument that this will hurt artists (such as "And with that, if I don't get my artistic butt back to work and meet my deadline, my editor (a Canadian, btw) will hang me by my thumbs. lol").

[melody]

121. that was a joke meant to imply good will, not a secret message

We're all humans, aren't we? Why do we have to turn intellectual disagreement into personal attacks? I'm as amazed to find it here as anywhere, but it's all over this thread. You were among the kinder people actually.

I work at my computer...that's all that means. And now I have to go meet the UPS guy before my dog eats him.

[1932]

133. Barbara Ehrenreich's conclusion in Bait & Switch reminded me of our...

exchange. She says that it's really hard to get the white collar unemployed (and the w.c. emplyed who losing job security, benefits, salary and leisure hours) to realize their situation is caused by bad corporate behaviour because these are the people who form their identity around siding with management. They're so convinced that getting ahead requires adopting the politics and the psychology of management and capital that they have build this wall they can't see through when it comes to realizing that the policies these corporations persue are not making their jobs more secure, rewarding or profitable. (Everything that has happened since Bush became president is Clinton's fault.)

Yes, you haven't said that you actually work for the entertainment industry, but I do think you have this false sense that the corporate-level benefits of US cultural exploitation (the profitable hegemony) benefits the artists who are the labor for those corporations.

I think history shows that the more hegemonic and greedy the corporation becomes at the top level, the more they use that political and economic power to exploit all their inputs including labor -- and that's not even getting into the argument that hegemony does create blandness that leaves no room for innovation and experimentation (and I presume that you align yourself on a theoretical level with the interests of the small, new artist).

Think about it.

[melody]

134. I understand your point and on that level, I agree

But not all entertainment conglomerates are first-tier producers. It's more like book distribution (which I do know something about) than it is vying for a grocery marketplace, for instance. Because of the nature of the market here, most of the distribution modes of smaller companies are the big corporations that act as intermediaries. It's the nature of the food chain business ethos in the States.

What will happen is all of the smaller filmmakers (many of whom are among the best in the business) will be sidelined from foreign markets. Big producers will need fewer films/art productions and the smaller, marginal artists will fall by the wayside. Will there be some push to set-up a network to assist smaller American artists? I highly doubt it because the language itself bandied about is about the exclusion of American product. How are they going to execute that without taking an Aristotelian approach? Will they ban due to economic factors? There are many fair market, non-bullying larger companies that would be affected.

I'd like to be persuaded this is a good idea, but all I see is the little artist being hurt in the long run, simply because of the system in which he/she lives, and I thought that was the point that they were trying to correct. We're going to restrict import because a film is American? How else can they do it than by that method?

I'd think a stronger course of action would be putting their efforts toward freeing the internet to an apolitical international body, and furthering the digital delivery options for artists of limited communication range. The internet is the playing field leveler, imho.

[1932]

135. The ones who aren't first tier won't be affected by these laws

and policies. They don't have the power to push out, say, the cookbook author in Nice with the cookbook author with a show on the Cooking Channel in the US. They have to compete on quality and cultural relevance like everyone else.

It's the major entertainment conglomerates who don't want these rules becuase they know that, but for these rules, they could use their power to force there products on the world.

[melody]

136. If restrictions are based on percentage and nation, I don't see how

But I really hope I'm utterly wrong and you're right -- if not, this could seriously cripple real American culture (which was limping pretty badly from Shrubbery in the first place).

[1932]

137. Your average low budget US movie won't screen in Prague, Lyons or Grimsby

unless it is really really good.

However, Disney has the market power to inflict its product on every cinema in the world.

Disney stands to lose. Anything that's calling card is quality won't be hurt. Anything that's less than fantasitc that wasn't being pushed by a major studio wouldn't have sold abroad anyway so, for them, these laws mean nothing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

89. No one is banning anything

Don't get hysterical.

And the spectre of isolation is a laughable scenario and not worthy of serious debate on this topic.

[melody]

92. No one is hysterical

It's not a spectre of isolation, it's a very real possibility. A lot of us'n simple folks who saw Bush rising to power as a huge danger tried to say that also and were shrugged-off as "unworthy of serious debate".

[alcibiades_mystery]

98. Yeah, try to hook your nonsense here

To some supposedly accurate prediction in the past. Imagining your own prescience is, well, precious. But it's hardly worth an argument.

[Deja Q]

85. Culture valued over money? Damn, some people are still human!

We are still somewhat evolved!

For once I've got to unequivocally agree with the French.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

111. An extremely important point...

...was made upthread by Orrin_73, and that is this:

The internet will make all of this irrelevant. Anyone can access anything from anywhere.

[melody]

115. We all saw that, but it was reason in the midst of a gang fight. lol

[alcibiades_mystery]

130. It is not a question of access in general

The problem is of American mega-dollars flooding foreign markets with films to the point that local producers can't compete. This isn't even a question about the quality of the various products (except for those who believe quality is solely determined by markets and availability). Can a locally made French film outfit actually produce and distribute the number of reels and DVDs as Miramax? Can local cinemas afford to show locally produced films?

Access over the internet is actually irrelevant. They're talking about the diversity of selection when you walk into a video store in Montevideo, Belgrade, Caracas, or Nairobi.