european cinema vs hollywood

How come that only Hollywood feels the need to re-make non-Hollywood films, and why is it never the other way round? Hang on, Hollywood now also re-makes Hollywood movies. Go figure

I agree manjo. I appreciate Nicholas Cage as an actor, but WOD spoiled me for any HOllywood re-do (bleh). I saw City.. but the dreamy, gossamer, film noir-esque beauty just wasn't there for me. I didn't find City of Angels memorable or moving in the same way (just as most people didn't find Faraway So Close, a close second).

It's probably not fare to compare one of Europe's best films with one of Hollywood's more mediocre offerings.

personally, I don't think you can compare Der Himmel Ueber Berlin and City of Angels, because, even though it can be considered a remake of the former, City of Angels doesn't address the same topics in my opinion.

I enjoyed both, and I agree with what a lot of people had to say about them on this board, like Der Himmel Uber Berlin is much more beautiful and breathtaking, and has so much more depth.

However, I really think CoA is quite good too, and I don't think for once that this is the type of movies that are just stolen by Hollywood, like a lot are, presumably for the sake of making them in a better way (which is not always a success...).


CoA is much more focused on love, the joy of existence, and the trade-offs faced by the fallen angels when they become mortal, when they loose eternity and the beauty of a lot of things they have access to as angels (like the music at sunrise) to be able to enjoy mortality through their feelings and senses.


WoD, on the other, is not only focused on this, and also focuses on history, on many levels: somehow history of Mankind, everybody's history, and writing history as it is when you're mortal.


That's why I think CoA can't be regarded as just a useless scam and copy of WoD: I think it achieves what the director had in mind, it's a little easier on the eyes for today's audience, a little easier to follow, and it deals with its topic correctly.

And I have to say, it seems like CoA is easier to understand/follow, because I'm quite afraid that so many people have very basic questions about WoD, that aren't raised for CoA... but I suppose it's because of the subtitles. being able to understand both english and german quite well, I could watch both in their original versions. I guess having to watch WoD with subtitles makes it harder to understand the message and the subtlities of the angels' condition than in CoA.

(for instance: the black & white thing is not explicit in WoD, and it not shown in CoA but we hear the angels talk about it if I remember correctly; the ability to understand all the languages on earth is also explained in CoA and isn't explicit again in WoD; the Fall from Grace; Peter Falk being an angel is again not explicit compared to the one fallen angel in CoA; and a few other stuffs that are more subtile in WoD than in CoA, but it doesn't disturb me either way).


I have to say that WoD has something CoA doesn't: on the personal level, I've been both to Berlin and Los Angeles, and even though I'm not entitled to decide which one is the true City of Angels ( ;-) ), I think the historical point of view of WoD is quite a great bonus, as it brings more substance to the movie. (the Wall; the post-WWII wasted Berlin; the purgatory-like city between heaven and hell, itself cut in half by a wall of shame...; the old man looking for a potsdamer platz he can't find as it's now (well.. back then in 1987) a wasteland, a field... And all of this is so much more valuable now that we can have another look at Berlin... Having been there many times over the past 12 years, I was able to see it evolve a lot, and it's amazing... I'm really moved when I look at WoD or pictures of the Potsdamer Platz in Berlin's Museums and go out to have a walk in the "New" Berlin).

But again, it simply wasn't the goal of CoA, when it maybe was one of Wender's goal with WoD...



All this being said, I really enjoy both. They're great.
Great acting in both moving, whatever you might.
Great music in both, but again not quite comparable (can't really compare the Nick Cave with U2 or Alanis Morrissette :) ): they just all fit with their own version.
Great poetry too. even though of course WoD is far ahead :-) CoA still has its own kind of poetry.





Have a nice day, and please don't compare things that can't be anymore.
I wish people on IMDB could sometime have a more open mind.
Or people in general. an open mind and the ability to appreciate another point of view is all that makes the difference.

Here is a quote from Andy Warhol that describes well what I feel Hollywood cinema is all about.

"Of course what I think is boring must not be the same as what other people think is, since I could never stand to watch all the most popular action shows on TV, because they're essentially the same plots and the same shots and the same cuts over and over again. Apparently, most people love watching the same basic thing, as long as the details are different. But I'm just the opposite: if I'm going to sit and watch the same thing I saw the night before, I don't want it to be essentially the same - I want it to be exactly the same. Because the more you look at the same exact thing, the more the meaning goes away, and the better and emptier you feel."
- Andy Warhol


As for European Cinema, I feel that it is constantly trying to progress and invent cinema, therefore it is never the same, and as Warhol says about feeling emptier and feeling better through those kind of American shows, European cinema is just the opposite. It tries to confront you with life and asks you to question yourself and your place in the world, therefore bringing a deeper understanding of life. Just look at the films of Kieslowski, Angelopoulos, Antonioni, Rossellini, Bergman, Almodóvar, Bela Tarr, Sokurov and many more.

I use to feel that you can't blame Hollywood cinema, because it is basically a business and its sole purpose is to make money. But there was a time, once upon a time back in the 1970's, when there was a European influence in Hollywood cinema, and the world was treated to the best cinema that has come out of that continent in decades. There was great directors like Altman, Coppola, Scorsese, Bogdanovich, De Palma, and more. But as a lot of those directors say today, they cannot make films like they once did because it is all about making a profit now, and no studio wants to take a risk.

Hopefully the Hollywood cinema of today will implode like the studio system of the 1960's, and yet again leave room for American directors to be able to make films like they want to.

But European cinema will always be superior to that of Hollywood,and will always lead the way for cinema and constantly bring it to new heights.

Normally I would agree with you but in this case I have to say that this film was just boring and completely without any redeeming features apart from its stylistic elements and cinematography. I like most of Wim Wenders movies but this one just didn't engage me at all it was excruciatingly slow with too much time was spent looking at angels being boring, sure it gets the point across but it was just too much.

I disagree totally that City of Angles was an insult to the original and it most definately wasn't an insult to the audience. You may need a films message to be tediously repeated and drawn out. I don't.

[deleted]

Most Hollywood and European films suck. There are only a handful from any industry of creative films.If you want to watch art films than go watch all the independent films that come out of Hollywood.Big budget Hollywood films aim is to appeal to as many audiences as possible and make a profit. Of course Hollywood could go back to the golden age of filmmaking.



Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.