MovieChat Forums > Little Fish (2005) Discussion > american cinema is the greatest

american cinema is the greatest

posted 18 years ago by nerdy87
20 replies | jump to latest

you actually have people on this board that blast US cinema. Why is that when the greatest movies and filmmakers are American? In the present and past American cinema has been the best. The only countries that have been close at times (but not quite there) are Germany, Japan, Italy and France. Im not talking about Jerry Bruckheimer movies or the tons of other mindless dumb action movies (although they can be really fun) Im talking about DW Griffith, Welles, Ford, Chaplin, Capra, Hitchcock (hes Brittish, but his greatest movies are 100% American), Wilder(Austrian, movies are 100% American), Hawkes, Kazan, Kubrick, Altman, Peckinpah, Romero, Scorsese, Coppolla, Cassavettes, Woody Allen, Spielberg, Lynch, Spike Lee, Cameron. No country in the world can claim these names, not one, but still you dare to say that American cinema sucks. what are you retarded. a guy from Australia dares to say that American movies suck, a guy from a country whos greatest director has made his best movies in the US ( Im talking about Peter Weir) Ok so when the quality of US movies isnt the problem you have with US cinema then what is? How can you hate the cinema that has produced (in most recent times) Coen, Linklater, Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Fincher, Anderson, David O Russell. American cinema is the best, allways has been and probably allways will be. a movie like Pearl Harbor doesnt change anything about that.

[–] CROWJANE29 18 years ago

There's a difference between having a rational debate about this subject and spewing insults. I have criticized certain trends in American cinema elsewhere on this and other boards but have never made blanket statements to the effect that "American cinema sucks". Pointing out that other countries like Australia also make great films, and that even the greatest Australian film won't get the kind of distribution abroad that, say Deuce Bigalow, European Gigiolo will get is in no way detracting from the achievements of America's best filmmakers. It's simply stating that great films from every nation deserve to be seen by a worldwide audience, and that American films shouldn't monopolize international boxoffices. Asking for some balance isn't an attack on America, and making it into one seems a bit paranoid. (And I AM American; I write the criticisms I write because there are so many international masterpieces that are unavailable on US format DVD, never mind given a US theatrical run. I want to see these films.) I agree most of the filmmakers you cite deserve a wide international audience. But a lot of Hollywood crap doesn't but gets one anyway.

Oh, and Hitchcock and Peter Weir made their best films in their respective homelands, not in the US. Compare the original, taut version of The Man Who Knew Too Much with the overlong, treacly Jimmy Stewart version and you'll see what I mean.

[–] theonlytrav 18 years ago

i believe i made this point somewhere else, but the american film industry isnt "better" exactly, its just more developed and older (hence more experienced and more grounded, supported, etc.)

im sure if people gave australian cinema as much time to develop as the american film industry had too then well there wouldnt be much of a difference between the two....and frankly, considering how relatively young australian cinema is i think its doing good..

also, crowjane made a good point about a lot of hollywood crap gets international audience and there are some masterpieces from around the world (even in america) that get none

(im australian and i tried to keep this from turning into an america.vs.australia argument, which you seemed to want...)

[–] CROWJANE29 18 years ago

I certainly don't want an Australia vs. America argument; both countries have made remarkable films. It is true that America is where most of the financing is, but American films are primarily financed by commercial interests, meaning the results aren't always brilliantly scripted and may rely too much on formula and F/X. That said there is a thriving indie market here and ordinarily filmgoers are starting to avoid the crappier things, as last year's box-office drop indicates.

All I was trying to say is that Americans shouldn't grandstand about how great their films and country are and ignore the rest of the world. Particularly if we want to keep importing Australian actors and directors for our industry. :) Considering how paltry funding is in Australia (though there are now new efforts to change this), they've made a remarkable number of great films. I just get annoyed at how many I can't easily watch in my country.

[–] cinematic_randomness 18 years ago

American cinema sucks now, it didn't always.

[–] milo_pie2002 18 years ago

You know, it's impossible to get an unbiased argument on this topic. Of course, generally speaking, people from American will have a bias towards American films, Australians will favour Australian films, Indians will favour Bollywood films, etc.
Why not just view a film as a film, irrespective of what country it was made/ financed/developed in?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CROWJANE29 18 years ago

I agree with most of what elephantsareblue said: certainly American filmmakers have brought great innovation to the cinema, and no one is suggesting there aren't great films being made there...but unfortunately too many films made there are terrible. I'm American but these days I certainly have no bias in favor of American film. Maybe that will change if continued box office declines provoke studios to take greater risks producing or distributing small-budget indies and spend less money on garbage...but right now things don't look good. I've read over the Summer Movies issues of all the film publications and it looks like a vast wasteland out there. In the 1970s...even as recently as the early 90s, there were many innovative American films being made. These days the innovators seem to be in Asia and Latin America, though some are already being courted by Hollywood. Too often imported directors do lose something in the transition.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LaFemmeUtopique 18 years ago

There's good and bad film making in all nations all across the world. Big directors, big budget and big names still doesn't mean the movie is good. To single-mindedly decide to glorify only your nations' film making shows your own ignorance.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it. -Voltaire

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CROWJANE29 18 years ago

Well, a lot of American films are made in Australia to save money, it's true. And a lot of Australian talent is siphoned off for Hollywood productions. But I would dispute the idea that these actors and directors did their "best work" for gigantic Hollywood studios in big budget fare. I'd take Russell Crowe's Aussie films over Gladiator and Cinderella Man any day. American productions to have an unfortunate tendency to homogenize acting styles and water down provocative stories in the name of "the bottom line", ie drawing as large an audience as possible. But the studios underestimate film audiences and falling box office receipts indicate we're tired of the same old crap. This doesn't mean ALL Hollywood or American films are bad...many are interesting each year. But the lion's share of great American films these days are indies, not blockbusters. I'm thrilled when there's a "big movie" that's as smart as it is thrilling, but those are all too rare.

And a lot of big names do remain true to the Australian film industry even if they work in or for American studios on occasion. The best actors seek out a wide variety of roles in many countries, on films with a wide budget spectrum. Doing too much of the same thing in any art form is creatively stifling.

[–] Felix-28 18 years ago

Hollywood has always drawn most of the best talent from all over the world, because Hollywood has always been prepared to pay much, much more than can be earned anywhere else. So in one sense, American cinema as a whole really does have to be regarded as the greatest.

If you take out of the equation all the directors, actors, writers, photographers and the rest who came to Hollywood from other countries, you'd find there was a lot less that qualifies as American than there was before. (What was left would still probably be the best, though, simply because of the far greater numbers.)

My problem with Hollywood is that the influence of money on the actual films that are made has always been too great, and right now it is worse than it's ever been. The endless procession of shatteringly expensive, shatteringly trivial and shatteringly boring productions that are unleashed on us week after week after week makes me despair. What also makes me despair is the enormous talent that goes into making this crap: there's some brilliant camerawork, acting, directing and (within an extremely limited range) writing that can be seen in most of these movies, but the product in the end, as you walk out of the cinema, remains just another piece of drearily predictable dross.

It's no wonder that the artists who succeed in Hollywood often go back to their home countries from time to time to make a movie there. Away from Hollywood, they can choose the project purely on the basis that it appeals to them, and they can do it the way they like rather than the way that the men providing the$100 million for a Hollywood movie want it done.

[–] ellen_elizabeth89 17 years ago

I also think there is cultural differences between American and Australia which are demonstrated in what films are successful. In particular I think a lot of Australian comedies do badly in the US because they are lost in translation.

For example 'The Castle' probably one of the most successful Australian films domestically totally fizzled in the USA because they didn't understand it. It's a specific type of humor which is very indicative of the Australian culture.

[–] happyhoix 17 years ago

"The endless procession of shatteringly expensive, shatteringly trivial and shatteringly boring productions that are unleashed on us week after week after week makes me despair."

I hear ya brother. The current formula seems to be bring out some old movie or even (God help us) TV show (Dukes of Hazard? Miami Vice?) bring in some high priced beef cake (actual acting ability doesn't appear to be that important) and jam as much CGI special effects into the production as the budget will bear.

Little Fish was a drug movie without car chases, without either corrupt or heroic police, without constant gun fights, fist fights, explosions, etc., without gangsters and their bimbos - it lacked everything a Hollywood formula 'drug' movie ought to have and I liked it. A drug movie about the inner struggle addicts have to get sober and stay sober - sure it might seem 'slow' because it doesn't have all that high speed violence, but it's a much sadder, thoughtful movie then the typical Hollywood crapfest.

And before someone wants to dis me for being anti-American because I don't like most Hollywood drivel, I'm American.

[–] Breast_in_Pieces 16 years ago

i wonder why the OP had to post that rant on *this* board, without even commenting on the movie itself ?

a bit of inferiority complex arising perhaps...

Little Fish was a drug movie without car chases, without either corrupt or heroic police, without constant gun fights, fist fights, explosions, etc., without gangsters and their bimbos - it lacked everything a Hollywood formula 'drug' movie ought to have and I liked it. A drug movie about the inner struggle addicts have to get sober and stay sober - sure it might seem 'slow' because it doesn't have all that high speed violence, but it's a much sadder, thoughtful movie then the typical Hollywood crapfest.

BEST SUMMARY for this movie.

He was going for the Tim-Tams
FOOTBALL is *entertainment* - NOT a "results business".

[–] SaraGooner 17 years ago

I would never say that. All types of cinema have good movies. Lots of movie come out of America so there are more likely to be really good or really crap movies in the bunch. I like lots of types of cinema, Australian ,Canadian, Persian, Indian, French, American cinema as well as many other types of cinema.

"Screw you guys, I'm going home!"

[–] smoodgekitty 17 years ago

Hey there,
America has more people, hence more disposable income, hence more visits to the movies, hence more money to make more movies.
Australia's population is about a hundreth the size of America, so if they have ONE good film for every 100 good films... then Australia's film industry isn't as bad as you'd like to think.

I am on Team Danny

[–] zacanescence 16 years ago

what abour moulin rouge? that was practically aussie
romeo and juliet - made by an aussie.
its because to make a movie here is much harder as we dont have LA LA land.

lLos Angeles the home of fruits and nuts.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Chrysanthepop 16 years ago

American filmmakers are the greatest? Dude, you need to spread your wings and fly aroung the world more often. you're missing too much! America is not the beginning nor the end of the world as there's too much beauty elsewhere...and that shouldn't be missed.