 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.136.244.80
In Reply to: Not a cop out posted by Analog Scott on January 15, 2007 at 18:24:04:
Yes, there IS cinema in Mongolia, and according to you it produces just as much good stuff as France, Germany, Italy or Russia.
Some of us like to bash Hollywood not just because it fully deserves it, but also because it stole our dream, and its own promise.It used to know how to make intelligent, thought provoking films.
Follow Ups:
No where do I mention quantities. I have no doubt that there are several countries whose gross output put them in the rare catagory of having never produced a great film. My point wa that each film is it's own entitiy and not soley a function of it's geographic, or systemic origins. So to paint any country or any "group" of film makers as one thing or another is fairly idiotic.Bashing "Hollywood" is as meaningful as slaying windmills.
"It used to know how to make intelligent, thought provoking films."
Yeah Hollywood is a singular entitiy that plots to make the masses mindless and steal away the dreams of the genuine film lovers.
Each film is definitely not its own entity, it is also the product of the local culture and tradition.Some countries have long established cultural traditions - just look at France for one such example. They therefore have fertile soil that makes good works of art more likely.
The US lacks such cultural history and tradition, I think we could agree on that. We love the US for a miriad other reasons, but its high culture is certainly not one of them. It is a cowboy and outlaws country, and it is foolish to ignore that fact.
Back to Hollywood... I suppose every film making organization struggles with profit versus art issue, but given the higher role the culture plays in the countries like France or Italy, their decisions tend to lean one direction, while the US's - in the other. It seems in Europe the studios are more inclined to accept lower profits for the sake of producing stuff they would be proud to show their children.
Or are you now gonna start denying the existance of an American mentality?
If you are going to buy into this kind of prejudicial belief system we have nothing more to talk about. I guess Kubrick is just another "Hollywood" film maker that never made a film that didn't fail "to steal your dreams or it's own promise" I guess Tinear must not have liked any of his movies. the idea that all film kmakers are bound to make a certain kind of movie because of their culture is absurd. Each movie is indeed it's own entitiy. Each movie will have it's own set of influences and in ^many^ cases those influences will be the culture of the film makers home but certainly not always. I'd like to see what Mexican cultural influences you think were affecting Children of Men? Is that a "Mexican" movie? Is it an "English" movie? Is it a "Hollywood" movie? Technically it is a "Hollywood" move but I'd like to know what you think this film is? What culture and tradition is this film a product of? If you say "Hollywood" then you clearly prove me right that the hasty generalizations made towards "Hollywood" are idiotic yet if you say "Mexican" or English" I think you will have a very difficult time supporting it.As for your cultural elitism comments, they are laughable. The idea that America lacks the cultural history and tradition to make good movies makes me think you have no knowledge of American history. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Sorry Victor but everything you are saying here is purely ignorant and prejudicial. Did you know The United States of America actually has the oldest standing government on the face of this earth? Have you travelled the U.S? If so did you really fail to see the rich cultural heritiage of it's many regions? I mean can you really go to New Orleans or Boston or Chicago, or Santa Fe or any number of other places and not plainly see the effects of their rich cultural histories? Your comment is utterly absurd. Jazz, Blues, country and rock and roll were all the products of American culture. Hell 20th century world cultere was led by the nose by American culture. planes, trains and automobiles. I could go on and on. But the idea that we lack the culture to make good movies is silly stupid.
Your back to "Hollywood" comments, I hate to say it < speak of your ignorance in regards to how films are made both "Hollywood" films and films from other countries. The fact that you would see *the* divide as a national one and not one of the film makers themsleves tells me you neither know much about the making of films nor can you see past your own prejudices.
Sorry, I know this post was a bit rough on you but I call it like I see it. Feel free to prove me wrong. Just take my one example, The Children of Men, and show me that your assertions about "Hollywood" films is right and I will concede everything to you. even the absurd notion that America lacks the cultural history to make good movies ::cough::
Everyone knows, if you speak to someone who doesn't understand English, simply speak louder, they will get it.Oh, you can post as rough as you wish, that doesn't make you any more right. And your post is about 99% wrong... not 100% perhaps, but still close enough to be called totally wrong.
As far as your rather silly second paragraph... yes, I have done all that, and before jumping on your patronizing horse you should really first try to understand what I am talking about.
You write like someone who has never traveled outside the Boston-NO corridor, and certainly never opened up a fine European book, never listened to Mozart and never saw the 15th century Dutch paintings.
Let me break that horrible news to you - America has nothing of that. Get it? Zilch. It simply wasn't there when all that munumental world culture building was being erected. Therefore by late 19th century the best the American painters have been able to produce was riviling the Europeans ones of several centuries back.
American classical music? Opera? Poetry? Literature? There is some, absolutely, but the total body is nowhere near that found in Germany or France or Russia.
Deep, classical culture is not what America is about, and just a few trips to other parts of the world should teach you that.
BTW... planes, trains and automobiles are not part of culture, sorry to inform you. Well, maybe to you they are, but we are talking about fine aspect of same...
Let me give you another piece of news. When living in Europe, the high culture is everywhere, so one absorbs it by osmosis, you almost have to do nothing, and it still gets into you. By the time I was five I was able to hum most famous symphonies and concertos not because I was so smart of inquisitive, but because that was the only music I could hear all day long.
In America one has to search for high culture... it is there, but like gold, must be found and pulled out with labor.
Anyway, so far nothing in your post made me think anything new. There IS a strong nation divide, whether you wish to see it or now.
And last... America being rather poor on culture doesn't in any way make me lot it any less. I knew that before I came, and everything I had discovered since then only made me feel I had made right decision, and love it even more today. But apparently unlike you I am able to put things into right perspective.
"Everyone knows, if you speak to someone who doesn't understand English, simply speak louder, they will get it."Sorry I really thought you spoke the language I was speaking...
"Oh, you can post as rough as you wish, that doesn't make you any more right. And your post is about 99% wrong... not 100% perhaps, but still close enough to be called totally wrong."I am glad I did not hurt your feelings. that was my real concern in regards to it's roughness. You can say i am wong. doesn't make it so. OTOH you could prove I am wrong, if i really am wrong. So far all you haven't done that.
"As far as your rather silly second paragraph... yes, I have done all that, and before jumping on your patronizing horse you should really first try to understand what I am talking about."
Well, if you didn't explain it clearly the first time feel free to clarify. Your words as they were had a prety clear meaning. Your words:
"Some countries have long established cultural traditions - just look at France for one such example. They therefore have fertile soil that makes good works of art more likely.The US lacks such cultural history and tradition, I think we could agree on that."
Seems pretty clear you are saying The U.S, lacks the "cultural history and traditions" for the likelyhood of "good works of art." i think that is a silly, ignorant claim that stinks of a complete lack of knowledge of U.S history /culture, the culture that cultivated jazz, blues, rock and roll, country, Gershin, Copeland, Pollack, Wright, etc etc etc. there is no lack of such culture or the artistry that it spawns.
"You write like someone who has never traveled outside the Boston-NO corridor, and certainly never opened up a fine European book, never listened to Mozart and never saw the 15th century Dutch paintings."No, I write like a guy who doesn't really want to spend that much time explaining things to others on internet forums.
"Let me break that horrible news to you - America has nothing of that. Get it? Zilch. It simply wasn't there when all that munumental world culture building was being erected. Therefore by late 19th century the best the American painters have been able to produce was riviling the Europeans ones of several centuries back."
sorry but your explination once again says nothing other than you are ignorant on the subject of art. especially American art. I don't have time to educate you on it. Sorry.
"American classical music? Opera? Poetry? Literature? There is some, absolutely, but the total body is nowhere near that found in Germany or France or Russia.'
::sigh:: !. It's not just a question of quantity it is a question of quality and influence as well. the twentieth century, the century of cinema, was culturally dominated by the U.S. the rest that you are citing is h-i-s-t-o-r-y. I had every bit the access to European art as did you or anyone else growing up in Europe. we are talking film making here remember? you know, your assertion that American film makers were somehow lacking in culture. am I misinterpretating you here?
'Deep, classical culture is not what America is about, and just a few trips to other parts of the world should teach you that."
It's not what any counrty is about these days. Just a few trips to other parts of the world followed by a few steps on the streets should teach you that. the idea that the history of the various countries has such a profound and yet regionally limited affect on it's film makers as to dominate their merits is absurd and once again points to your complete ignorance in regards to the film making process.
"BTW... planes, trains and automobiles are not part of culture, sorry to inform you."
wrong.
" Well, maybe to you they are, but we are talking about fine aspect of same...'
culture has a real world meaning. "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group" If you don't think that planes, trains and automobiles profoundly affected culture, both american and world culture i don't really kno what to say other than you just don't get culture.
"Let me give you another piece of news. When living in Europe, the high culture is everywhere, so one absorbs it by osmosis, you almost have to do nothing, and it still gets into you. By the time I was five I was able to hum most famous symphonies and concertos not because I was so smart of inquisitive, but because that was the only music I could hear all day long."
I have a bit of news for you. That is your personal story not the story of all Europe.
"In America one has to search for high culture... it is there, but like gold, must be found and pulled out with labor."
ooh now we are talking "high culture." you mean this version of culture now? "enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training " sorry but Europe has no monopoly on that either.
"Anyway, so far nothing in your post made me think anything new."
i didn't really think it would.
" There IS a strong nation divide, whether you wish to see it or now."
A strong national divide? You are just simplifying a very diverse "culture" that is America."And last... America being rather poor on culture doesn't in any way make me lot it any less. I knew that before I came, and everything I had discovered since then only made me feel I had made right decision, and love it even more today. But apparently unlike you I am able to put things into right perspective."
So you think you are right. that makes you just like almost everyone else. Prove your point and address the issues as they relate to a "Hollywood" film like Children of Men. when you can get back to the core issues here and back your claims we will have something more to talk about. as it is I'm just not buying what you are selling here.
You started pushing and I showed you wrong, that's all. You attacked tin with not much to show and it is not your turn to demand others explain to you how and where you are wrong. You start the argument - either prove it is right, or back off. But lemme tell ya - there is no proof. You are pushing like a mad bull as somehow there were some absolutes in art. There aren't any. So your love for Hollywood films is just as justifiable as tin's dislike - too bad you can't acknowledge his righ to know something. So you were called on your bluff and all you did was start shouting louder - none of your follow up posts contained any new "revelations".So you like Hollywood - big deal. I don't - also big deal. It is people like you getting out of shape over such silly issues that is funny.
"It seems in Europe the studios are more inclined to accept lower profits for the sake of producing stuff they would be proud to show their children."I am not sure I would want my children watching the amount of adultery which has come out of French cinema. But then, they are cultured and I am not. I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. And even in their films not involving some level of adultery, I am not sure I'd want my kinds watching most French films.
How many European films are made for children the way Hollywood has produced Toy Story, Bug's Life, etc? The joy and pleasure I felt from watching The Polar Express with my three year old cannot be overstated. I even let him sit in the sweet spot. I have Hollywood to thank for that, not European cinema.
If you would rather have your kids watch the movies made for morons, than expose them to the real life often portrayed in the European movies, that is your right, no problem, your choice.But that kids movies thing is apparently wrong. I do not have hard info on the number of kids movies produced in Europe, but by my previous experience there is certainly no shortage, except they don't seem to be imported here.
I think I can understand why.
"If you would rather have your kids watch the movies made for morons, than expose them to the real life often portrayed in the European movies, that is your right, no problem, your choice."You are confused. Your statement that Toy Story, Bug's Life, et al. are made for morons is stupid and idiotic. That you cannot appreciate those films speaks volumes. That you did not, or could not, share in the joy and wonder that those films bring kids is pathetic, regardless of whether you or Mother Russia is to blame. Not my problem. Yours. If you think that Bergman, et al, geniuses all, bring the same joy to film watching as watching Nemo, et al. with a small child, then you, unfortunately, have missed on much life has to offer. It appears it is too late. Heaven help your grandchildren. When my 3 1/2 year old smiles at me and asks to watch Finding Nemo together, I'll think of your loss.
By the way, with respect to Finding Nemo, Clark Johnson wrote "have just quoted what may become a signature line of the year, and in context Man is it hilarious! But there are many funny lines, and nearly every remark out of Dorey's mouth makes you grin. (Ellen DeGeneres should be so good...)
The story begins in classical, satisfying Disney fashion -- a loss experienced by a child -- then loops its way through a truly astonishing, far-beyond-Disney variety of entertaining characters both good and bad. Wait 'til you meet Bruce the shark!
And if you're worried about your Disney stock, loosen up, they have the next five Pixar movies under contract.
Pixar! Pixar!
clark
Tell me, Victor, is Clark one of the morons of which you spoke? I'll anticipate your avoidance of any answer to this one.
And what real life are you referring to? You provide no answers. Please re-read my post. I wrote that I would not subject my children to most French films, in that many such films depict, if not celebtrate, adultery. Sure, adultery is real life. Should children be exposed to such things, in that such films rarely take a position on this topic? I do not know. Perhaps adultery is accepted in France, or Europe in general. As I wrote, they are cultured, I must not be, because adultery is not acceptable in my house. Is it in your's?
Now, some hard numbers, which you claim you cannot locate. Let's take Finding Nemo as an example of films made for morons. It grossed 339 million in the U.S., 702 million worldwide. You, being a smart guy and all, realize that about 48% of its gross was outside the U.S. France, that country of enlightenment (it is in Europe, after all) had over nine million admissions, almost twice Brazil, although it's population is about 1/3 as much, and eight times Argentina. Italy had 3.7 million admissions, Spain had 4.7 million admissions.
In terms of admissions per person, France is one of every 6.75, Italy 15.7, Spain is 8.57, Argentina is 33.25, Brazil is 40. I do not have the U.S. admissions, but if you take the domestic gross, divide it by $7.50 per ticket, average, then the U.S. is approximately 6.59, which makes it only slightly more seen here, per capita, than France.
Can you name for me another children's story from France, or any other European country which was more attended than Nemo. If such a film was that big, I suspect that you would know it, after all, ther is "no shortage." After all, Children of Heaven from Iran, which is released here, did a whopping 925k dometically. I would think that one of those European gems would have slipped through.Oh yea, there is a great example of a children's film that is not domestic. Perhaps these "no shortage" of European children films should look up the distributor for this small film from Iran. I mean, how much culture do Iranians have?
You started by saying you don't want your kids watch the adulturous French films (a stupid statement, 100%... perhaps you should start watching some French films - if adultery is the only thing you notice there then perhaps you are hopeless, though), presumably the adult films.Then you start talking about Toy Story in the same sentence, it seems.
How's that switch? Why not stay with one format?
My comment about morons and lives of morons had to do with American adult movies, not childrens' ones, that was clear.
So compare apples with apples, please.
I said I suspect I know why more foreign childrens films do not make it here, and this is sad situation. Some of the American childrens's movies are fun and fine, but pardon me for telling you that - some are dull, idiotic, syrupy and just plain stupid. The fact the Nemo is watched all over the world doesn't impress me - I have not seen it, and world wide popularity doesn't really bother me - Big Macs sell everywhere.
One thing is for sure... if you grow your kids watching randomly selected 1000 French films, or 1000 American films... well... do I need to continue?
"You started by saying you don't want your kids watch the adulturous French films (a stupid statement, 100%... perhaps you should start watching some French films - if adultery is the only thing you notice there then perhaps you are hopeless, though), presumably the adult films."Where did I write that adultery is the only thing French films are about? You wrote: "...than expose them to the real life often portrayed in the European movies, that is your right, no problem, your choice." You did not qualify your statement to European films geared towards children. But then, you did write "I do not have hard info on the number of kids movies produced in Europe, but by my previous experience there is certainly no shortage, except they don't seem to be imported here." So, your statement is clearly that European films are better for children because they depict "real" life.
Now, if France, as an example, manages to release many children's films that are good fare, fine. But they do not get released here. So here is the original point - if you do not receive these great children's films from Europe because they are not distributed here, what films did you enjoy with your children if not from Hollywood? Or with grandchildren? I can see it how - "Grandpa, let's watch Finding Nemo." "Nyet, Nyet, Kaka, Kaka I tell you. Moron, Moron, you."
"Then you start talking about Toy Story in the same sentence, it seems. How's that switch? Why not stay with one format?"
Unfortunately, you cannot organize multiple posts together into a cohesive dialog. I'll try to recap for you. Take as much time as you need. You introduced "children" into the argument when, in reply to Scott, you wrote: "It seems in Europe the studios are more inclined to accept lower profits for the sake of producing stuff they would be proud to show their children."
Now, let's keep score. YOU brought up children first, not me. YOU introduced the notion of being proud to show their films to children. You did not write "adult" children. You did not write "teenagers." YOU used "children" in a response in which you compared European culture, specifically France (your example, not mine) to America.
In reply, I wrote that most European films, specifically French, I have seen I would not want my children to watch. I enjoy them very much, thank you, but not for my kids. Give than you were on a Hollywood bashing tangent yet again (myna bird anyone), I posited that one area that Hollywood has surpassed their European brethren is with respect to children's films, because, well, you wrote about films for children. Why would any director be proud to show a film about adult relationships, job loss, death in the family, etc., and those otherwise fun real life stuff, to children.
I used Toy Story and Bug's Life as but two examples of films appropriate for children. This buttressed an earlier point that sometimes one wants to watch a film for reasons other than cultural enlightenment, one being to enjoy a film with a child, which is precious difficult to do unless it is from Hollywood.
I used two examples, Toy Story and Bug's Life in my post. You reply "If you would rather have your kids watch the movies made for morons..." Again, you, not me, introduce the concept of these films being for morons, and "the" movies, the only two mentioned were TS and BL.
So, let's tally the score. YOU introduce children into the argument. YOU introduce children into the argument in the same post in which you discuss European films and culture versus Hollywood. YOU call those films, and by implication that genre, as being made for morons. With me so far?
I then respond to the statement YOU (not me) introduced into this dialog vis a vis moron that Clark liked Finding Nemo (from that genre of film YOU claim is made for morons), querying whether you thought Clark was a moron (after all, he enjoyed a film made for morons), correctly predicting you would not respond. Well, you did write " My comment about morons and lives of morons had to do with American adult movies, not childrens' ones, that was clear."
Really, oh backpeddaling one.
I write: "How many European films are made for children the way Hollywood has produced Toy Story, Bug's Life, etc? The joy and pleasure I felt from watching The Polar Express with my three year old cannot be overstated. I even let him sit in the sweet spot. I have Hollywood to thank for that, not European cinema."
You respond: "If you would rather have your kids watch the movies made for morons, than expose them to the real life often portrayed in the European movies, that is your right, no problem, your choice."
Now, let's see. You were referring to "adult" films, not "children's" films, and that was clear, when you introduced children into the dialog, and then, in response, I write about kids specifically watching "Bugs Life", "Toy Story", avoiding adult films as examples, and previously pointing out that if you would like to watch films with your children, you are pretty much limited to Hollywood films, and you write, um, what, "if you would have your KIDS watch THE movies made for morons." Why would you be referring to films in a response in which I did not write about adult American films. But, you were not referring to Toy Story, et al., but unnamed adult films? And that was clear? A-ha. Right. Good one.
Given that "hard facts" are not your specialty, you write..."do not have hard info on the number of kids movies produced in Europe, but by my previous experience there is certainly no shortage, except they don't seem to be imported here. I think I can understand why."
I'll spell it for you. If a small children's film from Iran is imported here (a very good one, incidentally), then why not those from Europe? You infer that it is because Americans cannot appreciate your finer children's films which you cannot name, and apparently cannnot be distributed here, because Americans could not appreciate such fare, all the while a tiny little Iranian film manages to sneak across our fair shores. What does this little Iranian director know that these cultures Europeans do not?
But, the master of generalities is not done. You write "Some of the American childrens's movies are fun and fine, but pardon me for telling you that - some are dull, idiotic, syrupy and just plain stupid." Sure. I agree. But which ones? You mean Nemo, the film you have never seen?
You write: "The fact the Nemo is watched all over the world doesn't impress me - I have not seen it, and world wide popularity doesn't really bother me - Big Macs sell everywhere."
Here we go. Vic #1: "Some countries have long established cultural traditions - just look at France for one such example. They therefore have fertile soil that makes good works of art more likely."
Vic #2: "I suppose every film making organization struggles with profit versus art issue, but given the higher role the culture plays in the countries like France or Italy, their decisions tend to lean one direction..."
Lemme' see if I get this straight: The denizens of that cultured society, one that produces such art in so many forms, is too cultured to make these films (Toy Story and Bug's Life), but not too cultured to enjoy them? So, is that, or any other, cultured society defined by the creators of the "art", or the consumers of the "art," because according to the you, and the numbers I posted, those cultured societies are as willing to lap up shit as much as the good ole' U.S of A. The numbers demonstrate that Europe has caught up (or down) with us in culture. Seems when you left, Vic, it all went to hell in a handbasket.
This is now below kaka. You state:"YOU introduce children into the argument. "
Go back three posts and see who did.
The rest of your post I did not bother to read.
What a bore... put your thoughts into five sentences, then we will talk.. .but first - check that children thing.
Memory problem?
And... you sure you and Scott are not at least brothers?
Posted by Victor Khomenko (M) on January 16, 2007 at 06:16:43:"It seems in Europe the studios are more inclined to accept lower profits for the sake of producing stuff they would be proud to show their CHILDREN."
Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on January 16, 2007 at 07:18:49
In Reply to: More disagreement here, you seem to be just re-stating your vision... posted by Victor Khomenko on January 16, 2007 at 06:16:43:"I am not sure I would want my children watching the amount of adultery which has come out of French cinema. But then, they are cultured and I am not. I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. And even in their films not involving some level of adultery, I am not sure I'd want my kinds watching most French films."
Who used "children" first? Is 06:16:43 (Victor post) before, or after, 07:18:49 (James post)? Thought so.
It should be pretty clear that in my one-word mention the word "children" didot really mean children as young audience, it meant the decendants, the future generations of viewers... perhaps if I used the word grand-children it would have been more clear?However, your post, of which you of course only quoted a part (natch!) deals squarely with children, as the young viewing audience.
"I am not sure I would want my children watching the amount of adultery which has come out of French cinema. But then, they are cultured and I am not. I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. And even in their films not involving some level of adultery, I am not sure I'd want my kinds watching most French films.
How many European films are made for children the way Hollywood has produced Toy Story, Bug's Life, etc? The joy and pleasure I felt from watching The Polar Express with my three year old cannot be overstated. I even let him sit in the sweet spot. I have Hollywood to thank for that, not European cinema."
But it is good you limited your response to just a few lines - I honeslty did not have any inclination of chasing you all over your long, tedious and whining post like a mouse with a broom, all over my bedroom.
I appreciate your now standing up in the middle of the said room, like a proud brave mouse!
By now I have already forgotten the focal point of our argument, and frankly, you gave me little incentive to go back and read your ten-page narrations, so if you could state it in less than 100 words, then perhaps we could go back to the argument.
Usually given my work load, I prefer to debate one issue at a time.
Language is important. Write what you mean. Do not write in vagaries and then expect the reader to intuit what you meant. Perhaps doing so requires more words, but the trade off is that the reader understands your point. You use inexact and vague words to express your opinion, and then blame the reader for not "reading between the lines."Here is the point: You and Tin bash Hollywood for what it produces. If you reread Tin's original post, and my response, I agreed with his general observations, though I disagreed with the value judgment he made of the observation. You, like a crappie gulping down a minnow, entered the fray with more bashing of Hollywood. I fairly presume you post inviting responses. So I respond that one area of cinema where Hollywood still leads foreign cinema is in their productions for children.
Which, of course, is not to say that Foreign cinema does not produce children's films, as I recently posted on Children of Heaven, a very good children's film from Iran. When you bashed Hollywood films, you did not limit your critism to adult fare. Children's fare being part of Hollywood's output, it was fair for me to draw the conversation to those films. Had you limited your comments to "adult" films from Hollywood, we would not be corresponding about its children's films.
So I write about two such films, which you respond are made for "morons", which include children the world over (I wonder where Patrick is with his complaints about personal attacks), and then claim that there are "no small amount" of children's films making their rounds in Europe. I am not sure why you feel it necessary to call as "morons" children who enjoy those films.
Of course, you fail to name one single such foreign film, which makes your very generalized statement valueless. Second, although you try to backtrack on your "morons" statement, you insult those who like those types of films as being "morons", so I proffer one such person who clearly enjoyed at least one such film, and you fail to respond.
You also fail to respond to the argument that Hollywood still produces better children's films than the rest of the world. Rather than admit that Hollywood produces better children's films almost by default, your retort was to make up a statement that they produce "no small number" of such films.
Why would you make up such statements? Why would you call as "morons" all the people, including Clark, who enjoy such films? I posit these statements are of a person who is pre-disposed to bash Hollywood, particularly in light of the un-rebutted statement, with specifics, that Hollywood produces generally better children's films than the rest of the World. You simply say no, without providing examples.
Rather than admit that there is one area where Hollywood outproduces foreign cinema, your ego drives you to make false claims. Making things up is usually not a good sign of reliability. You win on substance? Provide me the names of the "no small amount" of European films for children. That would be substance. Really, the web has brought the world into our offices. I would think for a man of your advanced intellect and culture, proving your point with facts rather than conjecture would be important to you.
My choice of words was perfect. It was a completely legitimate use of the word "children" (as in, for instance "To leave this planet to our children in good shape"), all your rather tedious nagging notwithstanding. Why do you always enter that mode, BTW? You start bending facts, complain, misrepresent posts... why not just stick to one issue?You went headlong and for no good reason in the children direction - blame yourself only.
Pardon me, but your post makes even less sense now. It desn't even look like you can read English. OK... MY English, if you wish for a cheap way out.
So while the children's films do not really interest me here (inspite of your rather lame misrepresentation of my statements), I see no reason to believe Hollywood does an outstanding job in that category. It is obvious you are not familiar with the chidrens films outside the US, but there is plenty of life there. Like I said, I think I know why they are not being imported here - at my age I had seen many outstanding French, Russian, Japanese children's films, but most of them of course do not meet the US distribution criteria. Main reason, I suspect, is the presumption that children would not tolerate the subtitles. I actually have little argument here.
So tin made a very reasonable statement of his opinion and position. That did not sit well with you and your Corsican Brother Scott. You came out like bats from hell and both made little sense. You are making even less now.
What you childishly call "Hollywood Bashing" is basically just an observation, and I have really no sympathy for your position that one should post here some sort of non-existent "facts" - as I tried to state several times, in art there are no objective facts, there are only opinions. Your liking of Hollywood is just an opinion, and so is tin's or mine. While you gladly take your right to do so, you seem to refuse the others the same right.
You caught me on my lunch break, so you got more than 100 words... most likely not the words you would like, but hey, unlike you I do not state them "facts" - so pay whatever you want for this.
Opinion: I do not like Hollywood films.Fact: There are many children's films from Europe.
Opinion. Cannot be proven or disproven. Opinion: Your amp sounds great. Fact. Can be verified, proven. You say THD in your amp is .05%. You make a statement which can be supported with facts - you can show me the measurement.
Fact: You say there are many European children's films. I say provide examples to support your statement. You cannot. Facts. I am not asking your opinion of their quality. I am simply asking you to support a factually based statement which can be proven. (100 words)
Fact: Your attacks do not disguise that fact that you still cannot support your statements. Try again? (17 words)
I had a hard day today, james... maybe you wanna state your point clearly? What was wrong with tin's post?
I reviewed my notes on the last 242 films I have watched, 50 of which were foreign films. I agree that as a general rule, they do not use music to heighten suspense, actors act and appear more "normal", etc. I disagreed that those things necessarily make for a better film. I agree that I like a greater percentage of foreign films I see to domestic films I see. The conclusion Tin draws is that foreign films are therefore better. Neither he, nor anyone domiciled in the U.S. cannot drawn that conclusion because there is undoubtedly many bad foreign films that never make it here, and unless one is exposed to the junk in Europe, for example, as they are here to the junk here, one cannot conclude that foreign films are better than those made in Hollywood.I do not eat the same foods everyday, and doubt I could watch the same types of films everyday. Movie such as Pirates of the Caribbean and, say, Seaside, a French film I recently watched, satisfies different hungers. You or Tin may not have the hunger or desire to see Pirates, but that does not make it any less of a film. Or Seaside any more or less of a film. I would not expect the same acting techniques employed from one to the other, or the same musical score, anymore than I would expect Johnny Depp to act the same in another film, or a person in real life to act the same when walking down the street as they would if they saw their child in a burning building. Essentially, Tin concludes that because Seaside may have one set of attributes, it is therefore superior. When I watched Seaside, I preferred it. When I watched Pirates, I preferred it.
I am not sure calling people who are simply looking to be entertained morons, or worse, advances the debate. As someone who enjoys all types of films, of those fifty films, having seen films from Japan, China, Germany, Denmark, Thailand, Iran, Australia, Great Britain, Italy, South Korea, Brazil, Sweden, Israel, Netherlands, France, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Venezuela, and South Africa, each offers something of value, and are not bad, or good, merely because of their country of origin. Likewise, I believe that it is not fair to dismiss films from Hollywood, merely because they are from Hollywood, and merely because they may be made for no other purpose than to provide escapist entertainment.
Sort of like a die hard tube amplifier reviewer making his or her monthly disparaging solid state amplifier comments, then calling you and asking you to send a solid state amp his way for review. My guess is you would probably defer. I am not sure how dismissing Hollywood films out of hand is any different.
Your first paragraph simply states the viewpoint, not fact, which is fine with me. How does one make a judgement which country produces higher percentage of good films? Strictly speaking that is impossible. We all do it by sense, by feel. For instance, every time I go to Russia I sample their films. Much of them are pure trash, yet my gut feel, not based in any hard numbers, is telling me the percentage of those deserving my attention is higher than in the US.Patrick has good handle on French and German crap, living there, so you might want to ask his impression... he is a very objective guy.
Notice, none of us really has a dog in that fight - none of us stands to gain anything from our conclusions, we all just state as we see it, including you.
When I watch films I do not watch a Hollywood film, a French one... it is later, when I think about it, I put it in a bin. I do see a very large number of US films, so I am quite aware of what's going on here. The Pirates satisfied my hunger for killing two hours, I'll be frank with you. Except for the scenes in the sword shop the rest was a big snoozer for me, but I will give you that - something might be wrong with me, not the movie.
I see you took my morons statement extremely personally... I would need to re-read it again, but surely what I mean by those were the mindless hordes of idiots watching the horrible, horrible films and liking them, not someone like you... not that I need to earn your love, really. I do watch many such films on my cable, just to know what's happening there, and I stand by my word - only morons would go and pay for many of them. And I actually have enjoyed many Hollywood movies - they are always extremely professionally made and many serve as good fun viewing. I usually not post on them because I think this forum should be mostly about a bit more unusual, unique, interesting, funny. I must have seen Die Hard ten times or more, but I see no reason to post on it.
But we are making circles producing no new ideas. It interests me, however, to dig deeper into your rather inriguing statement about the adultorous French films. I would like to know what caused you to make that statement.
In general, it is not the nature of event itself that we should find objectionable, but rather the gratuitous nature of its employment. Adultery - or I would rather call it love affairs, falling in love, etc. - is a part of our lives. It is something that always produces strong emotions. And when I mentally look at many French films that I love, it doesn't seem to be present there in any gratuitous form.
However, the fact primitive sex and violence do figure very prominently in American films hardly needs any proof, and yet you let it slide for some reason.
I would submit to you that your children are hurt much harder by watching the endless parade of idiots and deviants outdoing each other in mutilation and brutal sex than by observing Depardieu falling in love with his neighbor.
Are you sure you have your priorities in right places?
"However, the fact primitive sex and violence do figure very prominently in American films hardly needs any proof, and yet you let it slide for some reason."Not at all. Had the topic been sex in American cinema, my rants would have been longer. I'll save you the time of a search. In another thread, moons ago, I posted that I felt that Foreign films are much more mature relative to sex than American films. For example, I cannot recall seeing what I would call gratuitous sex or nudity in a Foreign film. I recall a French film, the name escapes me, which was entirely about the filming of a sex scene in a movie. The film was very contemplative of the subject, not made to stimulate the audience. I shudder to think what that movie would have been had it come from Hollywood. Foreign films I have seen generally treat sex with more maturity than American films.
"I would submit to you that your children are hurt much harder by watching the endless parade of idiots and deviants outdoing each other in mutilation and brutal sex than by observing Depardieu falling in love with his neighbor."
I would never let my kids watch those films. My original point was if not for Hollywood and it's willingness to release films like Toy Story, Nemo, et al., then my son and I would not watch films together. I think there is value in that, regardless of the ultimate merit of the film itself. As I wrote in another thread, I recently watched Children of Heaven, a subtitled Iranian film. As I was watching, he came down to the basement to play, stopped in front of the television and watched with me. He cannot read subtitles. But the concept of watching kids agonize over shoes, together with the beautiful imagery, drew him to the film. I think that Children of Heaven is probably, on a critical level, better than any children's film coming from Hollywood. But those films are few and far between, and I thank Hollywood for producing those types of films.
Adultery in French films. Perhaps an overstatement. What I have noticed is that adultery seems to be treated as a lifestyle choice, rather than potentially destroying a family, particularly with kids involved. That is fine for me. I know better, so I can get past that issue and enjoy the film. But my kids are still learning. Which is why they do not see the litany of violence and sex that comes from Hollywood.
***Not at all. Had the topic been sex in American cinema, my rants would have been longer. I'll save you the time of a search. In another thread, moons ago, I posted that I felt that Foreign films are much more mature relative to sex than American films. For example, I cannot recall seeing what I would call gratuitous sex or nudity in a Foreign film. I recall a French film, the name escapes me, which was entirely about the filming of a sex scene in a movie. The film was very contemplative of the subject, not made to stimulate the audience. I shudder to think what that movie would have been had it come from Hollywood. Foreign films I have seen generally treat sex with more maturity than American films.You have my strong agreement here. But your last paragraph is a dream. It sounds like your child is still quite young, but believe me (or don't, if you wish) that as he gets older, it will be more and more difficult to control his access - after all at school there will be endless discussions of the latest crap chidren watched, and he will resent being an outsider... plus at all those sleep-over parties... only Devil himself knows what kids do there. Some watch porn and do oral sex - there was that story about very young kids having such parties.
Bottom line - sooner or later you WILL have to let him come in touch with the ugly cesspool reality.
"Bottom line - sooner or later you WILL have to let him come in touch with the ugly cesspool reality."No doubt. I only want a crack at him first before "they" do.
It is a hard one. I know.. we went down that path. Our daughter read at 3, and at 4 she read serious adult books. For long time her TV time was controlled and we did our best to make her love classical culture, good literature, music, etc.But I am telling ya... at some point it all just falls apart. The allure of pop culture and peer pressure are things you can't really fight. So she still has some of what we gave her, but she definitely went in her own direction.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
