Paul Clinco writes:
> Movies were invented in France, and there has been world cinema as long
> as there has been any cinema. The search for excuses as to why American
> films are the most popular can go into all sorts of gyrations, and
> everyone can bemoan the simplistic and jingoistic content of US studio
> output... but audiences prefer it. Sad, but true.
> I'm not an academic. I'm a film-maker with one micro-budget feature out
> and scripts circulating in Hollywood. I'm not particularly rooting for
> the remake of FLUBBER, but I also notice that no one is promoting a
> remake of BREATHLESS, either. In the world of the performing arts,
> either the audience is king, or the producer doesn't care if he makes
> any money. My film put me in debt for years; it isn't a trivial
> question. US films make money, and that is why they are the way they
> are. Thank the gods of celluloid there are people like Sol Saentz
Although I don't plead special knowledge in this area, this is a key
point. In addition to American films, the industries that seem to be
most commercially successful (India, Hong Kong) are geared toward more
visceral forms of entertainment. We experience "New Waves" every five
or ten years when a nation decides to backroll its filmmakers and
encourage "artistic" or "prestige" films, but the wave eventually dies
down or gets absorbed by Hollywood, which usually knows a good thing
when it sees it.
With the relative failure of various quota laws and other kinds of
restrictions on American films, it seems that at least some national
cinemas have decided to specialize in order to capture at least a
certain part of a certain market, but I'm sure others on this list know
much more about that!
Donald Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
[log in to unmask]
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.