Chirac warns of 'catastrophe' of world 'choked' by US values

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by alva

While I'd like to do something about it just to spite brats like Kuci, there's really little point to try.

Just a fashion, there will be a counter movement at some point.

If Bollywood takes over here it will be because we have been watching their movies en masse. In which case why would we piss and moan about the indians? Instead those who didn't like the bollywood influence will piss and moan about the lousy taste of their fellow movie goers.

I just took the Bollywood thingy because some-else used it, but what if half the US speaks Spanish only..?

That would be cool so long as the government wasn't trying to legislate the 'problem' away and so long as the inevitable economic disparity between the english speaking population and the spanish speaking population is not 'redressed' by misguided government policy. People are welcome to speak only spanish here so long as they don't piss and moan at the low standard of living that will result from lack of integration with the local economy.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Sprayber


ive seen plenty of foreign stuff. some of it I like and some of it is ****. just like American films. Where are the large French movie companies?

Good. These movies are usually very difficult to see outside of independant cinemas in large urban areas. To my knowledge, and that's probably the same in America, there are in Quebec 4 independant theaters for a population of 7,5 millions, while crap like Star Wars can be seen in over 200 theaters.

Some people just assume that a little bit more of balance would be better for the world. More diversity, more wealth of though, more artistic freedom. The market won't do it, so we're asking the government to.

I am not going to feel sorry just because people in other countries can't resist the urge to see American films or eat American food. And I'm especially not going to pay attention to someone like Chirac who is far less concerned about the native cultures of the world than missing an opportunity to say something negative about the US.

One has to wonder if the masses make culture or culture makes the masses before assessing such things.

When the question has been answered, and no doubt that the answer is obvious , then a government can think about how influencing culture in a way that the market won't can benefit national values or interest, usually determined by a Constitution or some sort of cultural charter (we've got one in Quebec).

No one is asking you to feel sorry for anyone, but rather to accept that some nations want to protect culture and refuse to see it as a consumer good. Chirac may be old fashioned and whiny, but I doubt that he's directly targeting America. He's just dreaming of a multilateral word where an Europe with France as a leader has its say, and in this case the issue was about cultural diversity. However you may question his motives and his positions on other issues, it remains that his stance on this specific one is hardly contestable.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by alva

While I'd like to do something about it just to spite brats like Kuci, there's really little point to try.

Just a fashion, there will be a counter movement at some point.

You don't seriously believe there'll be a move away from gobal communications, do you?

[alva]

You don't seriously believe there'll be a move away from gobal communications, do you?

Well, I hope not, ...though if communication will never raise beyond your level, I very well might change my mind.

Nah, I meant American (cultural) influence

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Good. These movies are usually very difficult to see outside of independant cinemas in large urban areas. To my knowledge, and that's probably the same in America, there are in Quebec 4 independant theaters for a population of 7,5 millions, while crap like Star Wars can be seen in over 200 theaters.

It may be crap to you but apparently there were a lot of people that disagreed with you.

Some people just assume that a little bit more of balance would be better for the world. More diversity, more wealth of though, more artistic freedom. The market won't do it, so we're asking the government to.

You can't force diversity.

No one is asking you to feel sorry for anyone, but rather to accept that some nations want to protect culture and refuse to see it as a consumer good. Chirac may be old fashioned and whiny, but I doubt that he's directly targeting America. He's just dreaming of a multilateral word where an Europe with France as a leader has its say, and in this case the issue was about cultural diversity. However you may question his motives and his positions on other issues, it remains that his stance on this specific one is hardly contestable.

the question is would he be so concerned about vietnamese or any other culture if they were watching French films, speaking french or consuming french culture?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by alva

You don't seriously believe there'll be a move away from gobal communications, do you?

Well, I hope not, ...though if communication will never raise beyond your level, I very well might change my mind.

Nah, I meant American (cultural) influence

But unless you really think that American culture is exceptionally crappy, that should be no consolation - diversity is going down the drain anyway.

[alva]

But unless you really think that American culture is exceptionally crappy, that should be no consolation - diversity is going down the drain anyway.

No reason why it should, I doubt modern day communication should be able to.

Even the US has many different 'american' sub-cultures.
Cultures will cease to exist and others will be born, but I really don't we will come to a point where there will only be one.

[Last Conformist]

I'm not saying there'll only be one. I'm saying there'll be fewer, and they'll be more like one another.

[DanS]

So I suspect that you may explain me how it is an illusion that lack of market and funding for local artists does not hinder local culture?

What you're proposing is one big Quebeçois circle jerk. Toronto seems not to have a problem fostering a film industry that shows its art everywhere in the world, even US multiplexes. What's so inferior about Montreal that it can't do the same thing?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


One has to wonder if the masses make culture or culture makes the masses before assessing such things.

Clearly it is the masses that make the culture. There is a little feedback but what the masses do not like generally disappears from their culture fairly quickly. Why not let the masses dictate which cultural items are successful?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
When the question has been answered, and no doubt that the answer is obvious , then a government can think about how influencing culture in a way that the market won't can benefit national values or interest, usually determined by a Constitution or some sort of cultural charter (we've got one in Quebec).

culture isn't for the governement its for the masses. Why should the government be allowed to dictate the choices of the masses?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
No one is asking you to feel sorry for anyone, but rather to accept that some nations want to protect culture and refuse to see it as a consumer good. Chirac may be old fashioned and whiny, but I doubt that he's directly targeting America. He's just dreaming of a multilateral word where an Europe with France as a leader has its say, and in this case the issue was about cultural diversity. However you may question his motives and his positions on other issues, it remains that his stance on this specific one is hardly contestable.

Nations can't want anything really. Only individuals can. If a nation wants to protect something by taking away individuals choices then that nations stance is not only contestable it is in fact dead wrong.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DanS


What you're proposing is one big Quebeçois circle jerk. Toronto seems to not have a problem fostering a film industry that shows its art everywhere in the world, even US multiplexes. What's so inferior about Montreal that it can't do the same thing?

Toronto's film industry is pretty much Americanized anyway, but truly Canadian productions face the same problems that others do. The American public is one of the most close-minded in the world (last time I heard the market share of American films in America is 98% or something). Of course that movie majors possess the distribution channels in North America (including Canada) doesn't seem to have any effect on the imports of Danish productions.

How many Canadian films can you name from your memory?

Re Quebec, a simple but sad truth: French. The general public in America doesn't want subtitles. Others in Europe are more open-minded, and despite Quebec's small size there are people interested about our culture in Germany, Italy, etc. Many Quebecois filsm get their entry there by the movie festivals, which have much more influence over there than in corporate stigmatized America.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Clearly it is the masses that make the culture. There is a little feedback but what the masses do not like generally disappears from their culture fairly quickly. Why not let the masses dictate which cultural items are successful?

so when people are born they adopt a culture from scratch? One may be left wondering why there aren't more Christians in Japan and more Buddhists in America.

culture isn't for the governement its for the masses. Why should the government be allowed to dictate the choices of the masses?

I never said it should dictate choices, I said that it should work towards ensuring that a choice can be made.

Nations can't want anything really. Only individuals can. If a nation wants to protect something by taking away individuals choices then that nations stance is not only contestable it is in fact dead wrong.

Hello! there some things as laws, Constitutions and civil charters (in democratic countries at least) that try to outline the values and principles that should underly the governing of a State.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Crouching Tiger made it to a theater near me. Any decent foreign film (ie that audiences actually like to see) will succeed here.

Decent and what audiences like to see are two different things. Audiences like to see 'Sposions. LCD does not decide what is decent

Where I live, not even decent foreign films according to your standards make it to the theaters. Unless you live in a urban center (and the surrounding suburbs don't count), you're unlikely to have acess to any foreign films. Hell, we don't even get decent American films where I live. Where I live, Wonder Bread reigns supreme.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Sprayber


It may be crap to you but apparently there were a lot of people that disagreed with you.

The point was not about crap, but rather showing that Hollywood's big money is having a detrimental effect on the choice of the consumer by telling you example numbers.

You can't force diversity.

Coercion would indeed be a questionable thing to do, but almost every country regulates culture, how much national content has to be shown on TV, what should be the official languages, etc, and of course subsidizes local culture. This is about giving in the end more choice to the consumer, who can as well decide to do what he wants to.

the question is would he be so concerned about vietnamese or any other culture if they were watching French films, speaking french or consuming french culture?

He probably wouldn't, but this isn't a strong argument, as it would apply to any person with a 'Conservative' mindset. If Chirac was in Bush's seat he would be acting like Bush, and if Bush was in Chirac's seat he would be acting like him (but in a more idiotic way anyway), just like those who become Muslim fundies in Saudi Arabia would probably be Christian fundies if they were born in Texas.

[DanS]

but truly Canadian productions face the same problems that others do

It's the same problem that independent filmakers face in all countries. But if your stuff is good, it gets shown. A digital camera with 24 fps capability costs $3,000. A computer fast enough to edit it all costs $2,000. Even these kinds of low budget movies are shown, and if good, will get a bigger stage.

When you say "truly Canadian", I interpret it to mean "it sucks, and nobody wants to watch it, but we've got to support it anyway, because it's Canadian."

The general public in America doesn't want subtitles.

Good stuff gets shown here, whether there are subtitles on it or not. There are lots of arthouse cinemas (even in a multiplex format, like Landmark Cinemas) and it makes no sense for them to not show as good of stuff as they can.

Listen, Americans aren't too proud to watch quality Quebecois stuff. The Cirque de Soleil owns the US.