> My answer to the question of US dominance is quite simple. When the American
> film industry started, the country was a nation of so many immigrants who did
> not understand English very well that only one formula would work--action
> films with a minimum of dialog. Having established the genre to make money
> with a diverse American audience, the same formula applies to the rest of the
> world. Hollywood's technical professionalism of action films has remained
> one leg up on all others.
There is also the fact that audiences prefer American studio films.
They vote with their dollars, yen, dinars, etc. People around the world
like to go to American movies. That is why the distributors and
exhibitors book them. They sell tickets for a living.
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
Paul E. Clinco
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.