MovieChat Forums > L'instinct de mort (2008) Discussion > Why are the French aping Hwood?

Why are the French aping Hwood?


Stick to state sponsored non profitable art films, that's what you're good at. Hollywood is good at the big and dumb thing. If I want to watch a dumb action film, I'll go see Sly's latest. If I want to watch a non linear, post modernist, deconstructed, neorealist, ironic black comedy about a quirky girl who's doing good deeds for the entire town she lives in, only to end up killing herself after having a love triangle between a younger man and an older women, interjected with bold titles and randomly starting and stopping music, Ill go to a French film
If I want to be entertained, I go to a Hollywood film. By the way, David Mamet says that Hollywood is the mod democratic business because of the need to profit from the masses. He believes French govt sponsored films are just their so the self imposed elite to employ themselves and shove their sanctimonious bs down same thinking liberal elites. Thomas Sowell agrees.

reply

Um, all right. Well, it just so happens that the country has made a brilliant gangster film, or is stepping on Hollywood's turf not allowed?

reply

It'd be great if you actually watched the movie before you holed yourself up in your parents basement and pounded out a nonsensical rant...



__________

We're all running strong & charging up the hills of life again.

reply

"If I want to watch a dumb action film, I'll go see Sly's latest. If I want to watch a non linear, post modernist, deconstructed, neorealist, ironic black comedy about a quirky girl who's doing good deeds for the entire town she lives in, only to end up killing herself after having a love triangle between a younger man and an older women, interjected with bold titles and randomly starting and stopping music, Ill go to a French film
If I want to be entertained, I go to a Hollywood film."

Or how about opening your mind a little and accepting that a good film is a good film regardless of its the country it was filmed in or how it was financed? Maybe the first step would be to read columnists with more interesting things to say than Thomas Sowell.

reply

I am french and I feel truly unhappy after reading your "description" of french movies. About 600 movies are produced each year in France, and perhaps 10 are looking like your "description". Happily, the movies are really very diverse here.
Would you be joyful to read such cliches about Hollywood movies ? Such as :"plastic surgery made faces, endlesses car chases, excessive violence and excessive prudery, stupid devotion to fantasy heroes..." and all these delicious and friendly comments ?

natalia

reply

Perhaps I should inform you that the French were showing films before Hollywood. Or that Europe as a whole has a far better record than Hollywood for turning out groundbreaking films, which is why you keep remaking them, just pausing long enough to dumb them down so twats like you can understand them.

Or that Bollywood dwarfs your output without all the self-congratulatory nonsense that emanates from California.

Sure, the big money is in Hollywood, but since when did big budgets equate to high quality? Why did you bother to watch this at all? I'll lay odds you didn't. Probably read an article with a dictionary in one hand so you knew what the big words meant and decided to have a swipe at French cinema.

Chatte.

reply

@bogwart-1

I get what you're trying to say, but you're way off on some of this. Europe does not have a "far better record than Hollywood for turning out groundbreaking films." I hate Hollywood as much as the next guy, but for the most part, prior to 1980, Hollywood produced some amazing stuff. It's only since the blockbuster movement that they have consistently made junk. And the French were showing films before Hollywood? C'mon man. America invented motion pictures.

For the most part I support your opinion, but you don't need to warp facts to get your point across.


Okay. Now I'm going to do his teeth and cut off his fingers. You might want to leave room.

reply

Don't get me wrong, Hollywood has turned out some amazing films and the film industry as we know it today would not be what it is without Hollywood's contributions. The problem now is that the industry, like any other American industry, is totally driven by the bottom line in the same way that many European films are not. A lot of very good films are made with financing and support from European countries - they'll almost never be Oscar material, but that is not their purpose.

Because the most profitable demographics are young males aged say 18-28 that is the group for which a lot of blockbusters are made; other factors include the ever-increasing use of franchise-type films which, so long as they are making money, will get made regardless of the quality. Saw, for instance. And then of course you have the constant remaking of foreign-language films.

The first public screening of films for which admission was charged was by the Lumière brothers in Paris in December 1895. You can argue for as long as you like, but they were the first, in the same way that the Soviets were first in manned spaceflight. Yes, they were outdone within a decade by the US, but you cannot argue that the US was first, any more than you can legitimately claim that the US invented the moving picture.

I hope that will convince you that it is not my intention to warp anything. I don't have an axe to grind and will always give credit - or discredit - where I think it's due, regardless of whoever is responsible for a film's genesis.

reply

My argument is that we pioneered the camera. The Lumieres may have screened the first film, but Dickson created the sprocket hole technology that's still used to this day. If one wanted to split hairs, you could say that Muybridge or possibly Marey created the first camera, but Muybridge captured his images on glass plates, and Marey could only get about 12 frames total. It wasn't until Dixon, in 1891, created the technology that stuck. Edison took the credit, but it was Dixon. No disrespect to the Lumieres, because they came up with the projector four years later, but the camera was nearly 100% American.

And I completely agree with you about your take on Hollywood. But it's capitalism that's behind that, and not Americans themselves. Since Jaws, the greedy bastards who saw a way to exploit the form found ways to cut corners with the things that matter and just use gimmicks to sell tickets. I'm with you.

However, that's a very short-sighted approach, I think. Yeah, modern Hollywood is the devil, but there's been a lot of wonderful things that are a byproduct of that hell, not the least of which is world (including American) independent cinema. My professors often argue that the golden age of indie filmmaking was back in the seventies, but they're dead wrong. To be independent, the time is now. With HD and DSLR making shooting affordable and the internet/Blu Ray players making distribution plausible, all it takes is a an earnest dedication to the craft to get things done now, even if it's on a smaller scale. And I think it's naive to not say that has a lot to do with Hollywood's exploitation. They're mucking things up so badly that counterculture is becoming cool. Which is why world cinema and indie film are on the up in the States.

Hate Hollywood as much as you'd like; I certainly do. But there are good things that are coming out of this dry state.

Okay. Now I'm going to do his teeth and cut off his fingers. You might want to leave room.

reply

My argument is that we pioneered the camera. The Lumieres may have screened the first film, but Dickson created the sprocket hole technology that's still used to this day. If one wanted to split hairs, you could say that Muybridge or possibly Marey created the first camera, but Muybridge captured his images on glass plates, and Marey could only get about 12 frames total. It wasn't until Dixon, in 1891, created the technology that stuck. Edison took the credit, but it was Dixon. No disrespect to the Lumieres, because they came up with the projector four years later, but the camera was nearly 100% American.


While pioneering the camera is no small feat by any means, you're still greatly undervaluing the French and their achievements in the early history of cinema. Georges Melies, for example, maybe the most important name in cinema that virtually no one today has heard of. He is the father of motion pictures as a narrative form and the innovations he achieved with special effects are nothing less than jaw dropping given the technology of his era.

This clip of "The Conjuror" never fails to blow me away no matter how many times I watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs5BBaNJ6mg

Illusions Michael. Tricks are something a whore does for money.

reply

[deleted]

So two countries, two kind of films yes?

reply

Does it matter where the film is made? As long as it is good, who cares? Mesrine was a really good film, I enjoyed it.

reply

And if matters it doesn't so much. A good movie is often understood everywhere.

reply

So you didn't like the film and thought Hollywood would have done it better. Why not just say that? The French have made some terrific thrillers involving gangsters and the criminal underworld.

rouge silk,
fierce concentrated joy,
fires the blood

reply