World's Cultural Capital

[monolith94]

Hmmmm…
Once could argue however, that this will lead to the end of lage scale conflicts. One could argue that the more similar and bland we become, the fewer wars and fewer conflicts we will have, and this will lead to the unification of the human race. No longer would we think of ourselves on the terms of nations, but on the terms of what planet we come from, logically leading to the creation of a "world state"…
I wouldn't though.

[Drake Tungsten]

Strip malls = world peace?

[Sheep]

I think you are all too focused on American ciites and not the cities that have trully inspired the world. The Modern Culutre thing is a sham. I mean you still get that buzz if you walk down to the Coloseuim in Rome, or see the Eifel Tower in Paris. Honestly just becuse LA has some letters on a mountain doesn't make it cultural.

Culure takes many shapes. Music, Art, Acting, Achievements, and Sport. To say one place is the capital of the wold is wrong. I will gove you a couple of examples.

To a devout Muslim: MEcca is the obvious choice as it has a profound impact on their family history and lives

To a Jew: Jeruselum is pretty much obvious as it is in the centre of the Holy LAnd

The Egyptians have the pyramids and that still draws crowds.

THe French have Paris where up until Napoleon the world's gretest empire ruled. It still holds many monumnets and has great art and food, not too mention other cultural activites

The Germans have Berlin,. which is still a great place although it suffered too much in the divsion after ww2.

And the Russian s have St.PEtersburg and Moscow. Have you ever seen the Kremlin, it inspires you, the Palaces in ST. PEtersburg make you awe struck and remenise about times gone past. This is what culutre is designd for.

I therefore voted for Bananaville, as there is NO one cultural capital in the world. ANd if there was 80% of the world's population would make sure it wasn't in the Untied States.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Sheep
I therefore voted for Bananaville, as there is NO one cultural capital in the world. ANd if there was 80% of the world's population would make sure it wasn't in the Untied States.

I am in the 20 other %. I voted New York.
To be World's Cultural Capital, a city HAS to be multi-cultural. Paris is NOT. I've been there 4 years and all I heard is french. French everywhere, french in shows, french on television, french on radio, french in the streets, shops, theatre (films translated in french ), ...
I remember having told a french colleague I had the impression to be in the middle of nowhere there.
Paris is mono-cultural. It is very high culture, but diversity is poor.
From what I heard, New York seems more wide in its cultural events.

[Datajack Franit]

To be World's Cultural Capital, a city HAS to be multi-cultural. Paris is NOT. I've been there 4 years and all I heard is french. French everywhere, french in shows, french on television, french on radio, french in the streets, shops, theatre (films translated in french ), ...

When you start thinking only Fez has the God-given power of making feel yourself smarter, here comes another HUGE ass hole

Maybe, and just maybe all you heard was french because it is a FRENCH city?
Paris IS a multi-cultural city- tourists from all over the world goes there to see its magnificient monuments, buildings, museums, theatres and much more. France itself has a large foreign population made up of people who came from all over Europe. I really don't think there are many tv shows, newspapers and art exhibitions in NY which are in a language that is not american-english for that matter

[JohnT]

"I really don't think there are many tv shows, newspapers and art exhibitions in NY which are in a language that is not american-english for that matter"

Because you've never been to NY? Ahhh, I love the land of Apolyton, where opinions suffice for facts.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Dry

I am in the 20 other %. I voted New York.
To be World's Cultural Capital, a city HAS to be multi-cultural. Paris is NOT. I've been there 4 years and all I heard is french. French everywhere, french in shows, french on television, french on radio, french in the streets, shops, theatre (films translated in french ), ...
I remember having told a french colleague I had the impression to be in the middle of nowhere there.
Paris is mono-cultural. It is very high culture, but diversity is poor.
From what I heard, New York seems more wide in its cultural events.

Oh well... Call me when you come back, and Ill guide you through the XIIIth where all China and Paris celebrates the chinese New York. Or maybe you'll prefer to go to Indian, rather in the XVIIIth so you can buy a sari for your girl -- but they'll give the change in roupies. What about something more european ? Maybe you'd like to listen to a lecture on mute scandinavian films instead ? Or the Shakespeare and Company where you can find original in-quarto or [/I]in-folio[/I] works ?

Spending four years in Paris is good, but you would have learned more if you had stayed ourside of your bed.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit


When you start thinking only Fez has the God-given power of making feel yourself smarter, here comes another HUGE ass hole

For that sentence only, I forgive you all the rest.

Maybe, and just maybe all you heard was french because it is a FRENCH city?

Exactly. Just as many other European cities, they speak only one language: that's why they are NOT multi(=many)-cultural.

Paris IS a multi-cultural city- tourists from all over the world goes there to see its magnificient monuments, buildings, museums, theatres and much more.

Tourists only do not make culture, otherwise Teneriv, Hawaii,... would be highly cultural.

France itself has a large foreign population made up of people who came from all over Europe.

Come to Brussels, and I'll show you people from all over Europe.

I really don't think there are many tv shows, newspapers and art exhibitions in NY which are in a language that is not american-english for that matter

There are (may be some NYer could confirm?). I know that at least french shows are performed in NY. Best art exhibition are mostly in NY.

[Pandemoniak]

quote:
Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Dont make the huge mistake to think LA could be a cultural capitol just because of Hollywood. Even considering Hollywoodians films as culture, as I do, the cinematic grammar has been invented in NY, regarding the USA. And actually, France and ex-URSS have had, about cinema, much more influence than any other place.

answer:
Hardly. One director form the USSR and a few from France have indeed affected directors methods and styles. How many filmgoers have had their lives influenced by Sergei Esenstein? How many by any one of dozens of American film makers?

quote:
/me laughs his ass out
Actually, Eisenstein is not the only russian director. That was a group of directors called "the Russian formalists", and they were about ten. Eisenstein is just the most famous of them, since he made films for the communist revolution. Dziga Vertov is another famous name for the contribution he brought to the development of modern filmmaking. Anyway, if you want to know how many filmgoers had their lives influenced by Eisenstein, you have first to klnow that at the very beginning of cinematic grammar, there were two creations of languages : Griffith and Russian formalists. Griffith had a narrative editing, marked by alternate editing ; while Russian formalist had a "vertical editing", which was not narrative but suggested different meanings.
The succes of the narrative editing is mainly due to the industrial development of American film industry, on the eastern coast at this time (late 10's, early 20's). Esthetically, France made the difference with a group of surrealistic directors (Abel Gance, Julien Duvivier, etc...), which kept a narrative way to direct films, but used many figures inspired by the russian formalism. At this point, there was a large circulation of ideas and cinematic experiments, and what REALLY made the difference was Cecil B. DeMille. His innovations have been really implemented by directors such as Lang, who fled Europe in the late twenties and early thirties and thus worked in america.
All that is quite basic, but to sum up, the cinematic grammar has been created in Europe, and spread by america. (Just like the internet, invented by France, spread by America, IIRC ) so thats my point : you cant consider L.A. a cultural capitol for the films made these years, even considering any form of cinema as culture.
And to answer your question, how many american filmmakers havent been overwhelmed by the cultural influence of Eisenstein ? Hardly none.

quote:
This genre of film is not totally outdated, but it is obviously not the mainstream of nowadays culture.

answer : Creating genres again is not the same as influencing the average person. I think you understate the influence of Hollywood in filmmaking outside of the US in any case.

Well, you seem to ignore the definition of Classic Hollywoodian films, concerning films made in the late 40's and 50's. My fingers are tired to type, go get a good book on film history and film genres.

quote:
And if you consider LA highest culture place in the world because thats where many films are done, change your vote to Marocco, since thats the place were about 90% of mainstreams films are made.

answer:
First I didn't call LA high culture. Just the most influential place in the world on other people's culture. Second, just how many films have you seen from India versus Hollywood. India churns out movies for a simple reason. They have lots of movie theaters and a shortage of TV so people go to see movies in India instead of watch TV. The US churns out at least a much mass entertainment as Bollywood does in India. Its just not as many movies as in India.

Well : indian films are not mainstream, are they ? and they didnt influence mainstream films a lot neither. So its indian culture, not culture.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Spending four years in Paris is good, but you would have learned more if you had stayed ourside of your bed.

Or a little less at work and a little bit more free time.

May be you are correct about multi culture of Paris. But a chinese new year (i guess New York was a typo) and buying a sari in roupies is more folklore than culture.
Ok for skandinavian films and Shakespeare company. But how well-known this is? Known only by some specialists?

[Pandemoniak]

You can call it folklore, but I'd rather call it tradition.
About all the multiple things you can find in Paris, if someone's intersted and willing to go, it's easy to find. If someone's just another fat tourist then he can just spend his dollars and buy rubbish "I Paris" T-Shirts and say he loved french mono-culture.

[rah]

I just voted for Chicago. In keeping with the general theme in Chicago Politics, my vote counted more than ANYBODY elses.

It seems the inhabitants of the local cemetery wanted their opinion heard.

[Pandemoniak]

Paris is still better

[Dry]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
If someone's just another fat tourist then he can just spend his dollars and buy rubbish "I Paris" T-Shirts and say he loved french mono-culture.

No, "I Paris" is already old-fashion.
Today you have the "My sister-in-law went to Paris and all I got is this loosy T-shirt".

[Harovan]

It depends on what culture we are talking about. If western, so it's still Paris (my vote). Other cultures may have other capitals. It also depends on what we consider to be culture. If we include fast food, soaps and cheap (by content, not cost) movies, LA wins hands down.