I'm in EU. A Good Thing is letting me watch whatever the fuck I want. It's a real dystopia if the state decides which movies you should or shouldn't watch.
An Even Better Thing is to not have whole generations conditioned from childhood (by a system that distributes predominantly Hollywood movies for them to watch), to believe that those are "whatever the fuck" they actually want as free agents to watch.
An Even Better Thing is to introduce people to multiple cinematic cultures (and multiple cultures in general), not just the global monoculture that pushes the cultural and political agendas of the country that makes it, and expresses its own preoccupation and worldview as if the rest 95% of the world doesn't matter.
Especially since there are tens of different cultures and perspectives within the EU to represent. Not just the global fast food movies that are cheap to purchase and project because EU distributors only pay for screening rights (and not for their production costs).
That's parents job. Just as it is important that you give healthy food to your children and don't just let them eat fast food even if they would prefer it, same goes for entertainment. But the state shouldn't set a limit on burgers per month for you.
Kids aren't solely cultivated (not sure if that's the best term) by their parents (unless in Deliverance style situations).
They are also cultivated (and even more so) by school, tv, parents friends, their friends, the internet, social media, advertisement, society at large, and so on.
>But the state shouldn't set a limit on burgers per month for you.
No, unless I vote for it to do so. As a European whose not afraid of the term "social democracy" I don't believe the state is necessarily some "other", an "enemy", etc.
It can be that but it can also be a mediator for things people want in aggregate and vote to make sure they happen.
So, if we wish we had less fast food, we can very much vote to e.g. heavily tax those burger joints. Especially when they knowingly peddle poison for our health...
In any case it should mandate that other foods are also made available at the school canteen. Which is what it does here.
You heavily tax burger joints and then suddenly some homeless or very poor person becomes more hungry, taco business blossoms, and some other restaurants with poor quality food become more common because there's unfulfilled demand for cheap food. Society is a very complex system and it's hard to make it stable if it's not self-regulating. You can do a lot of harm having the best intentions in mind.
Even with perfect, uncorrupted, most well meaning, very intelligent and highly educated government (hah), just the amount of information about all different complicated cases, latency of it becoming available to it, time needed to process it and implement necessary changes makes it very hard to provide sensible regulation in today's very quickly changing word.
I'm not even going full Friedman here, I see what you mean, I just don't think this approach works well on the long run.
Instead of taxing burger joints, maybe include more education about balancing healthy diet in place of shellfish classification in the school.
But if you want to move forward, you must let people who make good choices be rewarded and those who make bad choices be punished. That's why you give them access to libraries, fast food joints and alcohol. And any site on the Internet they want to visit. If you force your wisest part of society to act with what you decided is best for the majority, they will flee the country or just die there without fully exploring their potential.
Well, the government in this case is not deciding what the people should watch. They're deciding that they should not just be offered to watch stuff that comes 99.9% from one country, but that they should also have the chance (not the obligation) to watch their own content.
If the tables were turned and Americans suddenly had 99% e.g. EU content in their TV programming and online video services, there would be riots.
While Europeans watch tons of American movies, the US watches a tiny number of EU movies (and even those found tiny audiences). If it wasn't for anime (which is still a niche when it comes to mainstream audiences anyway) what Americans consume in foreign films would be a statistical error.
>Instead of taxing burger joints, maybe include more education about balancing healthy diet in place of shellfish classification in the school.
That doesn't have a chance with ads that hits people directly on evolutionary irrational parts of the brain -- or the abundance of fats, sugar, salt, and other substances in unheard of amounts (historically speaking) that directly create craving and addiction. Trying to get a kid to respond to healthy foods when they see a burger ad and taste a burger is like trying to talk logic to someone that tried a first hit of heroin.
Almost any substance can be abused though. Where would you draw the line? Should we ban (or put more tax) on candies? Soft drinks? Salt? Carbohydrates?*
Personally I probably draw the line quite far from you, I think many drugs could be legal and it wouldn't shatter society, maybe it could even improve it. But that's disagreement about the line.
My general point is that even if we would agree that people should watch more EU content, then forcing it on them is like when you have some complex algorithm (like in these coding contests), and some test cases fail. And instead of trying to rethink the algorithm, you add a few IFs, to make those test cases green. You can find examples of workarounds that would have the opposite effect (like netflix providing less content so that % matches) that people came up in minutes after reading about it. And in case of legislation it's much harder to get rid of those unnecessary IFs later on, than it is to add them. Anybody who's trying to innovate then has to navigate around them. Law is already so complex that everyday citizen can just hope he doesn't break any. He cannot be sure, because it gets created faster than you can read and understand it, even if you would make that your only hobby.
It's like with cookies in the browser, yes I don't like tracking. But having to click a banner that I accept cookies on every website is not helping anybody.
May I ask you a few quick questions on how you see that happening? There's no email in your profile, mine is marius@booxia.com
Appreciate your thoughts!
Sure, fire away here too, I'll try to answer as best as I think it.
(Also in what sense do you mean "how I see that happening"? Technically? Legally? UI-wise?)
Say one is in a bubble of Hollywood action/romance movies, or NY Times bestsellers. When this person hears about something different from somebody else, he thinks Meh. What/how would they need to be introduced to a new movie/book that is outside their culture, but several people thought it was good?
Any other thoughts? Thanks :)
- Leverage the hits: e.g. Joe Nesbo has had his books made into major movies, Uberto Eco is famous worldwide, European TV series have been remade for the US market (e.g. Forbrydelsen -> The Killing), people know Fry and Laurie, and so on. One could promote those works at the first level, point to the originals, and then expand the recommendations of other works by the same authors, and then of similar authors and directors.
- Hijack on the popularity of certain themes in general (even Hollywood-inspired) culture. E.g. the recent remake of "Murder on the Orient Express" (not the best example popularity-wise, but will do for now), could be leveraged to promote works by Agatha Christi(and expand to more European crime fiction writers).
- Build the recommendation engine with a knowledge of mainstream/US/best-selling content as well -- not to promote it, but to let someone say e.g. "I enjoy John Grisham, what EU stuff should I read" and have the system recommended the relevant authors. Or "I enjoy this and this mainstream US comic" and they get a recommendation for some French graphic novel, for example.
- Excerpts and quotes from the works could be used in campaigns in places like Twitter, Pinterest, Facebook, etc to hook people in.
- It could start by building critical mass by appealing to and connecting the European and american more intellectual audiences who already consume these works in some kind of social media for smarties.
- Play into the "hipster" aspect of it, e.g. embrace smart/multi-cultural/open ended, as something cool to be (in an advertising perspective).
- Have content made by featured authors and directors directly for the website,
Some ideas from the top of my head
Note we're in heavy development and research. Any feedback is welcome!
An Even Worse Thing is when we allow a super-governmental organisation to dictate what they deem to be acceptable level of non-culture to be forced upon us.
Yeah, globalism sucks, and preserving your own culture is generally a good thing, especially in a day and age where Americana is encroaching so heavily on every aspect of life. But this is not the way to do it.
> Especially since there are tens of different cultures and perspectives within the EU to represent.
These can be added, or fail to be added, to streaming services, on their own merit. Have you ever seen films from your own country? I, as a Dutchman have, and I can say that most of them suck and there's a very good reason you don't see them on stuff like Netflix.
This also seems like a recursive problem. US/Hollywood have huge marketing power, thanks to this, they can ensure that the movie they produce should make a decent profit, they can then invest more money to make better production.
On the other end, local european production don't have that marketing power, most "local" movie will fly under the radar, whatever they quality might be. They sometime make it to the box office in their country but there is just not enough interest to adapt it for other country. Due to this, it's also normal that local production tend to have less production quality.
But if you look, a lot of actor, director, etc, involved in hollywood production come from other countries. So there is talent everywhere in the world, it's mostly a money problem.
If this protectionism result in more diversity in movies, it might be a good thing.
Also, let's be honest, it shouldn't be that hard for Netflix&co to comply. They will just buy the rights to a shitload of shitty TV-movies that nobody wants and be done with it. It's already what they do in France, you would be surprised by how much crap that you never heard about is produced.
No, it's a problem of target audience. If you produce films for a Dutch audience, you have two options: either appeal to a sense of Dutch pride or history, or go for something so generic that a decent swath of the population will like it; otherwise you won't have enough of an audience to make a profit. This is what they do, so Dutch films are generally about about our navy in the 16th to 18th century, about WWII, a romcom or some adaptation of a Dutch Children's book. You cannot locally produce a film about something which lies outside of the realm of interest of most Dutch people; Hollywood can, since they have a larger audience, and therefore do have the ability to target niche markets.
> On the other end, local european production don't have that marketing power, most "local" movie will fly under the radar, whatever they quality might be.
There's more than enough marketing power; you don't need to market these films outside the country they're produced in, so you can keep the marketing campaign fairly lean and targeted.
> Also, let's be honest, it shouldn't be that hard for Netflix&co to comply.
My stance is not on how hard it is or is not to comply, it's about the audacity of governments to demand this in the first place.
Well, EU has 400 million people. One can very well create a movie that appeals to EU audiences. We have lots of shared sensibility and modern problems and history (and it doesn't have to be BS like "16th century dutch navy" or "17th century french villagers").
Movies like Blow Up or Dolce Vita or For a Fistful of Dollars etc where shown successfully all over Europe at one time (and we still have films by people like Lars Von Trier, Almodovar, and so on).
Just because you make something that has a Dutch or Swedish or French etc sensibility, it doesn't mean it can't have pan-European (or even global) appeal. Trainspotting is as British as it gets, for example, but hit Europe big, as did La Haine, La vita e bella, Amelie, and others.
Besides, not all movies have to be blockbusters and multi 100 million dollar productions. Even from the US, I'd rather have the chance to watch some Hal Hartley or Jarmusch, or Cronneburg, that barely pushed 5-10 million dollars in the box office than the nth repeatitive formulaic shit from Hollywood.
India never had that American influence problem because it's a much more insular culture, and had many illiterate people in the near past, who wanted to just relax with a movie that shows people in their likeness and plays some nice local songs. Their average popular movies are even more formulaic and explosion/romance driven than Americans. They're also quite large. This created and maintains a stronghold against foreign movies. African countries have also managed the same feat (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nollywood ) and for much of the same reasons.
>European countries would just rather take the easier route and bully companies into trying to force the matter instead of creating conditions that would allow it to happen naturally
In Europe we don't consider companies "people", so we don't believe in "bullying" them. Seems that some cultures care for companies and their profits more than they care for culture and people.
This is a pretty ridiculous and off-the-mark assertion about both the nature of Bollywood cinema and its popularity within India.
> In Europe we don't consider companies "people".
Also completely wrong. Corporations retain the rights of the persons that comprise them, both in the US and in Europe. In some European countries, this is literally written into the constitution.
I welcome a fact-based counter-argument.
What is exactly ridiculous? That India had many illiterate people in the past? India is at 72%, below Bangladesh, and slightly above Rwanda and Yemen, far below all western countries. And that's the median, there are provinces like Bihar with sub 65% literacy (of ~100 million people). And that's today. In decades past it was worse.
Or that most Bollywood movies are song-and-dance simplistic affairs? Let me quote Wikipedia on the lemma Bollywood:
"Bollywood films are mostly musicals and are expected to contain catchy music in the form of song-and-dance numbers woven into the script. A film's success often depends on the quality of such musical numbers. (...) Indian audiences expect full value for their money, with a good entertainer generally referred to as paisa vasool, (literally, "money's worth"). Songs and dances, love triangles, comedy and dare-devil thrills are all mixed up in a three-hour extravaganza with an intermission. "
>Also completely wrong. Corporations retain the rights of the persons that comprise them, both in the US and in Europe. In some European countries, this is literally written into the constitution.
This is not about retaining some rights. This is about having the rights of natural persons. Referring to this:
Yes, this is about retaining the rights. That's exactly why corporations have rights of personality, both in the US and in Europe. It's not some unique facet of US law; it's literally written into the constitution in multiple European countries.
> I welcome a fact-based counter-argument
I'm not going to engage on this, because it's clear you're not particularly familiar with the topic at hand either. Claiming that illiteracy in India is somehow the reason that Bollywood has been successful despite Western influence is the sort of argument that no historian would actually make - and if they did, they would certainly provide more evidence than naively citing the literacy rate and literally no evidence and analysis linking literacy to cultural influence in cinema.
Between this and other comment threads, it's also clear that you're not interested in having a good faith discussion, because instead you're spending your time listing Orientalist tropes.
This is what people call a discussion, where they exchange arguments. I don't throw pre-digested ready-made conclusions at the other and call it a day. If you're interested in what historians say on the matter, go read them.
I gave my argument, and pointers to any raw facts used in it (e.g. literacy rates). You can evaluate it on its own merits, or leave it.
I, furthermore, have witnessed the connection with poverty/illiteracy and own-language song-and-dance movies from my own country, which for a large span until the '70s had a similar film industry, and for very similar reasons (and I have read local academics and cultural workers come to the same conclusions). But I don't just spew ready-made conclusions when it comes to soft sciences (as if they were physics), I prefer to process things with my own arguments.
In any case, here's another link between illiteracy and Bollywood:
https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/02/22/let-a-billion...
Only if what that "super-governmental organisation" dictates something against the wish of the people. I'm not a huge EU commission fan myself, but I surely do. And I'd bet at least the French, for one, are equally delighted with this (and I'd say Italians as well).
Unlike Americans who leave it all to the invisible hands of the market, and its "free" movements (easily distorted by all kinds of monopolies, power imbalances, private interests, foul play, cartels, and such), many Europeans (including me) believe in deciding as societies, and forcing our decision onto the corporations peddling their stuff.
And since you propose people to "vote with their wallet", so to speak, for that to happen people must have the option to do so, e.g. a variety to choose from. With these laws such services will be forced to give European people the option to watch EU content as well.
>I, as a Dutchman have, and I can say that most of them suck and there's a very good reason you don't see them on stuff like Netflix.
Well, there are people in EU who are hot on US culture and think that their own cultural production "sucks". But there are also people who think that its Hollywood films that suck, have naive simplistic plots and world-views, too much spandex and explosions, and so on.
When US films didn't dominate the market, we had lots of excellent European directors that have heavily inspired US filmmakers as well, as admitted by Coppola, Tarantino, Scorsese and so on.
It didn't convince me of another world view, except that Danish movies sucks and Americans are great.
If the EU wants original cultural content, subsidize that content, and perhaps use anti-trust law or direct subsidy to coerce Netflix to license this content. But there is no active harm done in Netflix et. al. choosing what is popular. Unless they actively work to keep cultural content off their platforms, this kind of hard requirement is simply outrageous.
Let's not pretend there aren't strong tendencies towards centralization and homogenization in media. (That we could, most charitably, ascribe to efficiency and risk management)
On the other side, yes, protectionism leads to a lot of otherwise unmarketable things being produced (looking at you, France).
But balance doesn't seem like too much to ask. Because Hollywood is doing fuck all for diversity.
Six million Wakandans might disagree with you...
He means in movies, and especially Hollywood movies.
Besides concerning just comics (and including titles that have insignificant circulation) the list is from all over the world. You thought Brazil and Mexico don't have their own superheroes in comics? That's not really what was asked.
Not to mention that without the token gestures to american black rights references, it's a totally sterotypical superhero movie, with the same cliche manifested destiny for the hero, the same cliche choices, etc.
You really want the state deciding what you watch?
[0]: https://www.the-numbers.com/Luxembourg/movies/year/2016
Nowhere do I see in the source that "local content" is determined per country instead of EU-wide. It also says that Netflix is already close to 30%.
Also, 833 movies is more than what is available in most of Europe, already (but I'm not sure about Luxembourg specifically, obviously it's an outlier).
[0]https://variety.com/2018/film/news/netflix-amazon-local-prod...
The market just means that you personally decide what you watch, by choosing what to spend your own money on.
You'd rather have that decision made by someone else, instead of by you?
It's not like content can't come from Australia that can compete on its own, like AC/DC and The Crocodile Hunter. If anything this policy is probably holding back such greats from happening because it's easier to just meet the lower bar of participating in the Australian content quota.
Not that I care a big time, but I'd be on board with a 10% quota, but in general I don't really like the idea either.
Agreed, but fortunately this isn't that. Although the big the question is if this will lead more EU content being added to the services or more non-EU content being removed from the service to make the quotas. The other risk is that Netflix etc. will basically just say "go out and find me 150 hours of EU made content, I don't care what it is, for as little money as possible so we can fulfill our quota" and that this will do little or nothing to promote actual quality or interesting work.
Either way though it's still the services and not the state that decide which movies "you should or shouldn't watch"
Good news, Netflix already do this.
Numbers picked from thin air as an example, but I still say that it quite severely limits my choice as an individual.
While I disagree in part with this, it is not forcing you on the chair and autoplaying a cult movie. You still watch what you want.