No end to "The Hollywoodization of Filipino Movies."

av_phile1: Pardon my ignorance, can someone define what a brainless movie is and what a thinking movie is?  I must be too deep in Holllywood s**t to tell the difference.  Examples pls.

Are the movies Seven, Basic Instinct, Hamlet, Schindler's List, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Dr. Zhivago, The Last Emperor, Empire Of The Sun, Silence Of The Lambs, Whatever Happened To Baby Jane, Lawrence Of Arabia,  brainless?

Are the movies Roma, Seven Samurai, The Piano, The Pianist, Amacord, Chocolat, My Life As A Dog,  Amelie, Crouching Tiger..., Last Tango In Paris, thinking movies?

If not, what are??  How to distinguish?
Thanks

Seven isn't brainless, it's stupid. Nice-looking, though.

Basic Instinct isn't brainless, it's timid.  Mas malibog ang mga films ni Peque and Tikoy (Tikoy and Peque's films have more libido).

Hamlet you got to tell me which version.  Olivier's is okay, Gibson's is a farce, Branagh's is comprehensive, but not much else.

Schindler's List is hopelessly saccharine and simpleminded.

2001 A Space Odyssey is also stupid, but the filmmaking's great.  Besides, the filmmaker's innermost perversions are on display.

Dr. Zhivago--eh, As the World Turns in Russia.

The Last Emperor is big empty spectacle with a passive character in the middle.

Empire Of The Sun is really funny--JG Ballard turned into a Boy Scout adventure!

Silence Of The Lambs is well done, decent enough, but it's not Demme's best--it's not the poetry of the American middle class, or not as much of it as, say, his masterpiece, Melvin and Howard.

Whatever Happened To Baby Jane is wicked fun, but it tries too hard.

Lawrence Of Arabia is too tasteful, and Peter O'Toole too pretty (someone once said if he was any prettier he'd be called "Florence of Arabia").

Roma is crazy fun.  I don't think it makes sense.

Seven Samurai is so bloody violent (and great) it overwhelms its flabby humanitarian themes.

The Piano is pretentious surrealism, and it stole an image or two from Goeff Murphy's genuinely great Utu.

The Pianist I haven't seen. I like Polanski tho, and he doesn't sit easy on Hollywood's lap--this is a convicted rapist, remember (note: finally saw it, liked it far more than Spielberg's saintly drama).

Amacord isn't Fellini's best.  Some fine images, some grotesqueries a la Roma.  Mixed bag.

Chocolat--Clair Denis' film is finely made, if soporific; the Lasse Halstrom version is crap.

My Life As A Dog--sentimental crap.

Amelie--terminal cuteness.  I like the earlier, colder films.

Crouching Tiger--art film posing as martial arts film.

Last Tango In Paris--great film. Could have been more explicit, but the emotions are real.

How to distinguish?  No hard and fast rules.  Case to case basis, just argue for each case.

Not all brainless things are bad, not all thinking intelligent films are good. You can't get more intelligent than Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, which talks of racism, or of Man for All Seasons which is so damned self-righteous (it stacks all the cards blatantly in the hero's favor), or even something as recent as Schindler's List (Jews good, Nazis bad) and yet I say they're so thoroughly wrongheaded it's like pouring gold down a toilet.  Intelligence is no guarantee of quality, and I'd take somethig gaga stupid like Ace Ventura, Pet Detective or Freddy Got Fingered over the lot.

Anyway, it's not brainless films per se that I object to--I mean, who ever got an ounce of meaning from a divine piece of nonsense like A Night at the Opera?--but the multimilliondollar muscle they expend in pushing this crap.  A bit of it is fine, but Hollywood--and most Americans by extension and many Filipinos by default--never know what's enough. Moderation in all things, and as in food, variety and emphasis on nutritive material is recommended.

Even yet still more Hollywoodization

X44: If we had a 1:1 ratio of Hollywood / Non Hollywood or Commercial /Non Commercial fare then chances are things will level out, even our "tastes".

That's a thought.  For every five screens showing Harry Potpot, another five showing, uh, Batang West Side (West Side Avenue). And if there are six films from Hollywood out, there should be six from the local industry. Either they hold off the other three hundred Hollywood flicks lined up or they subsidize/cut taxes/whatever the local industry until it can line up as many local movies.

No problem with that. For the record, Pirates of the Caribbean is okay, same with Finding Nemo. I do like my share of brainless Hollywood crap...

Yet even still more Hollywoodization

It's starting in China

Say bye bye to the movies of Chen Kaige, Zhang Yimou, Tian Zhuangzhuang among others.  If they do go on working, I'll bet they'll be working in that totally flavorless Hollywood mode.  

It's the blockbuster mentality.  Small film, modest return, more adventurous.  Big film, big budget, of course you want to make sure you get your money back, so take out all the intelligence, take out all the eccentricity and flavor.  What's left is like--how did one guy in the article put it?--like fast food "no nutritional value at all."

Remember, popcorn tastes good but is mostly air.

Still yet more Hollywoodization

Quote from: milkeemee2 on Jul 30, 2003 at 11:13 PM Why don't we do the French model.  I think in France, a portion of the price one pays for a movie ticket goes to a fund which subsidizes production companies engaged in churning out art movies.  In doing so, we will create a big art movie market.  That will be a very good starting point.


That's one good suggestion.  


The French actually have a policy of "cultural diversity" "principled on the right of each country to produce and distribute its own images, be it via cinema, television or multimedia, as an expression of its culture. Akin to this is the protection of a country’s language and expressions in all its form. It also recognizes the importance of a framework of independent, well-balanced regulation policies."

Translation: they make sure their French films are seen.  Regulation, in other words.

Don't be too worried about the words "well balanced" in that excerpt, palabok lang yan.  Jack Valenti has been pressuring the French market for years to open up some more, and the French have been pointedly ignoring him.

Still even more Hollywoodization

X44: I mean these mochacinno-slurping dingbats are hopelessly devoted to the church of Hollywood. . .hell, they even think they're Americans.  

Word, mother.

The market is important in a capitalist economy.  France is fairly capitalist, but it's a fucking Communist dictatorship when it comes to Hollywood movies.

In Iran they practically use the celluloid for firewood (ooh, nice image...).

In India...well, they don't have a capitalist economy, and they're doing just fine...

I, robot commentary

From a_film_by egroups archive:

hotlove666:

>superb article

Thanks!

> Let's hope this compromised success buys
> Proyas some much-
> needed clout. I don't see him going the way of Jan
> de Bont -- he'll
> use the success to do something personal.

Of the newer effects-heavy filmmakers, he seems the most promising. Prefer him over Emmerich, or even Lucas.

Elizabeth Nolan:

>I know Asimov's name but haven't
> read any
> sci-fiction

Asimov I'd say, forget it; but if you're at all interested in dipping your toes, I'd recommend Philip Dick, JG Ballard, John Sladek, Thomas Disch among others.

> I think a robot filled world of 2035
> would look like a
> Robert Estes painting: clean, crisp, but melocholic.

I'm second-guessing the filmmakers and your notion sounds fantastic, but I think that emotionless,undistinctive cityscape is their point. And Asimov's (unfortunately) vision.

> The cgi images of the cityscape included graffiti,
> which
> made no sense to me

Didn't think of that. Anti-anti-graffiti paint, perhaps? Still if they're showing graffiti you'd think they'd want to make a quick sociological point by showing the graffiti artists, how and why they're doing it.

> Further, I found the use of a badge in the wallet in
> the
> his pocket as the requirement for identification
> rather
> unimaginable.

Could be his retro inclinations (again, it would have been better if they actually made a point of this, maybe in a scene or line of dialogue).

> I, ROBOT did not seem to have have any technological
> applications beyond the human size robots... it's
> like the
> minute and ubiquitous computer applications never
> made
> it to 2035...

This, surprisingly, is a detail actually faithful to Asimov. He completely missed out on the development of the computer.

> (I think it is a sweet potato pie; yesterday
> for the first time I had sweet potato chips in place
> of the
> plain potato chips; probably healthy with less
> salt.)

Terra chips which are a mix of sweet potato, taro and other exotic tubers is quite good.

hotlove666:

> (Dark City is a Gnostic film preceding Matrix by a
> few years, and
> much better.)

Hah. I happen to agree with this. Tho the best SF I've seen onscreen in recent years is, I think, Cowboy Bebop.

Still even more Hollywoodization of Filipino films

Continued from earlier posts:

av_phile1: Is it Hollywood deliberately killing the local cinemas of Japan, etc?  Or is it  because the better Japanese directors, producers and actros have all migrated to Hollywood?  And have not produced any film competitive enough for world distribution.  Is it the fault of Hollywood that the japanese market prefer hollywood flics?  (I think there are now more blond japanese youths than americans, thanks to those hair dyes,  pinoys not far)

Hollywood never deliberately sets out to do anything except make money.  I don't hold them responsible any more than I hold responsible an animal that goes wild, or a man that goes amok.

But you do shoot said animal or man, for safety reasons.

No, I never heard of a Japanese filmmaker selling out to Hollywood. I was going to say Hollywood has a better track record of using imports in the past, but I remembered that Jean Renoir did his worst films in Hollywood, Sternberg grew heavy handed there, and Fritz Lang, while he did some decent work, never matched M or Metropolis when he worked in Hollywood.  And I prefer Murnau's Faust to his Sunrise, which was far more expensive and more sentimental.

Nowadays there's Milos Forman who did the overproduced Ragtime, the stupid Valmont, the hysterical People vs. Larry Flynt, and the unfunny Man in the Moon.  Worse case of Hollywoodization I ever seen.

It's not a question of what's fair--who cares?--it's a question of what works.

And if the upper classes (and mostly the upper classes) are against the taking out of LOTR, Star Wars, etc. (I've gone to Manuela and the Gotesco cinemas and I can tell you, Star Wars is not big there--good place to watch em if the Glorietta moviehouses are full), they can toss their Starbucks mochaccinos at me