Comment by AllegedAlec | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AllegedAlec | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

>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.

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 managed to overcome this allegedly insurmountable American influence and have "the world's largest film industry in terms of film production"[1]. 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.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollywood

>India managed to overcome this allegedly insurmountable American influence and have "the world's largest film industry in terms of film production"

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.

> 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

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.

>This is a pretty ridiculous and off-the-mark assertion about both the nature of Bollywood cinema and its popularity within India.

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

> This is not about retaining some rights. This is about having the rights of natural persons. Referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

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.

>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.

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...

With a population of 1.3 billion people, India has a greater population than the combined total of the European Union (500m), Russia (144m), the United States (320m), Mexico (127m), Australia (24m), Canada (36m), NZ (3.6m). No wonder it can sustain it's own independent thriving film and television industries.

>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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com