<P>>Well, you have to ask yourself exactly why having a national cinema
is<BR>>important. For example, Germany's film industry is nearly extinct
yet German<BR>>people don't really seem that up in arms about it </P>
<P>"You might as well question why we breath!" to quote Casablanca. I can't
believe someone who is on a mailing list exclusively dedicated to the cinema
of one nation is questioning the need for a national cinema. </P>
<P>On a purely pragamatic level, the film industry is, quite obviously, an
industry, and what country wants to see any of their indigenous industries
collapse due to foreign competition?</P>
<P>Secondly, people quite obviously go to the cinema for different reasons,
and cinema is there to provide this diversity. Hollywood cannot tell stories
like Lynne Ramsay, Mike Leigh or Ken Loach (I use these examples on a
Japanese mailing list because I am British, so grew up with this). Hollywood
has provided no socio-cultural maps of my own country of the likes of BLACK
NARCISSUS, QUADROPHENIA, MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDERETTE, A ROOM WITH A VIEW,
TRAINSPOTTING, or BRASSED OFF. On the contrary, it has constantly
appropiated and distorted my country's history or downright lied about it in
films such as BRAVEHEART and U-571. And obviously Britain is not alone here.
It has taken classic (and not so-classic) works of world literature or
fairytales and warped them to fit its own image - its scarcely worth
providing examples here, but I guess a quick glance down the Disney back
catalogue should prove my point. </P>
<P>Is this healthy? If you wanted to learn about Japanese culture, do you
read Clavell's SHOGUN or Crichton's RED SUN, or painfully negative treatises
on the country such as those delivered by Alex Kerr? Or do you read the
country's own literature?</P>
<P>I'm not anti-Hollywood per se. In its day it has provided plenty of
classics that reflected its own culture - BONNIE AND CLYDE, EASY RIDER, TAXI
DRIVER and so on. I could probably count the number of ones that have
interested me in the past ten years on one hand. I just don't find Hollywood
interesting. The don't tell me anything about America I don't already
know.</P>
<P>At its best, national cinema is like a mirror, reflecting the culture of
the nation in question to its own audiences. Hollywood is more like a
Fresnel lens, blaring out its own culture all over the world. Since the
mid-80s there's been a demand for national cinema to serve exactly the same
purpose. I think this is where the problem lies.</P>
<P>>There are plenty of German writers, artists and playrights<BR>>to
satisy the artistic cravings of the people. I say that having a
thriving<BR>>set of national "arts" is VERY important but that cinema may
or may not be<BR>>equally important in light of other arts.</P>
<P>Yes, cinema is but one of many arts. It is no higher or lower in the
hierarchy than writing, theatre or music. Or cooking. Films have the
advantage that they transport well and the only last about 2 hours. </P>
<P>I really can't believe that you are saying this. A world without Ozu,
Fellini, Rohmer, Almodovar, and lets add a German name - Herzog. What would
we know about a country like Iran other than through skewed TV news reports
if we didn't have Makhmalbaf and Panahy? </P>
<P><BR>Jasper Sharp<BR><BR>Midnight Eye: The Latest And Best in Japanese
Cinema</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>www.midnighteye.com</P><BR />
<BR />
________________________________________________<BR />
Message sent using Hunter Point Online WebMail <BR />