What's happening to Europe?

[Guest]

Richard,

Could you make a movie in French Canada under that system?

 

How about "Vampire. the lost blood line" about ancient vampires that have travelled from france to quebec somehow and have slept undisturbed but become awoken during building work to develop a multi storey car park?

 

Do you think they would let you do that?

It would have to be almost entirely in French of course!

 

love

 

Freya

 

Yeah right, I'm from Ontario they'll run me off with pitch forks!

 

 

Quotas is the worst idea. Every attempt at regulating markets always ends up with inferior superficially sustained products that wouldn't survive on their own.

 

I would have to disagree with you Adam. In Canada Canadian content rules have been in place for years for Canadian radio and TV. As a direct result Canada has produced quite a number of internationally famous recording stars. These Canadian artists simply would never have been heard unless Canadian radio stations where forced to play their music. I'm talking for example about, Celine Dionne, Bryan Adams, Shania Twain, Anne Murray, Alanis Morissette, Neil Young. If it wasn't for the Can Con rules Canadian radio stations would only play American music.

 

The results for TV have not been as good, but it's the ONLY thing that keeps the odd Canadian TV show on air. Yes Global TV is famous for putting total pieces of poop on the air just to fill their Can Con rules, Train 48 was the classic example. Although every now and again a decent Canadian product pops up like Corner Gas. Corner Gas is actually on air in the USA. Oh my gosh Canadian TV on air in the USA, that's a sign of the end of the world!!

 

You are correct that the Canadian gov't meddles in what gets made. The CBC is the worst offender, their strategy is to make shows that "serve the under served" they don't give a rats ass if any one watches.

 

Now I'm certainly a free market orientated person, but, when is comes to film Hollywood has plowed Canada 20 feet under ground. Our only chance at getting some screen time is to legislate a quota system here. Keep the quota system in place until Canadian films go from 1% of the box office to 25%, then repeal it and see how the market reacts.

 

It worked with radio I think it can work with film.

 

 

The American film industry succeeds because there is a business climate here that promotes risky investment in film, unlike countries which are more conservative with their capital, and it is a system designed to allow a few successes pay for a mountain of failures. Few other countries produce enough commercial product in film that allows them to survive big-budget failures on a regular basis like Hollywood does.

 

You are certainly correct about that, the banks in Canada are absent from film financing where they are very involved in the USA. The problem though is why would Canadian business people and banks put money into a Canadian film when they know it has no chance of being seen because Hollywood has a 99% market share in Canada. I know I wouldn't invest.

 

Money flows into US films because people know that the world markets are in Hollywoods back pocket.

 

If Canada had a quota system guaranteeing more screen time for Canadian product people would be more likely to invest since there would be a chance of a return. Right now there is no chance of a return.

 

The Canadian gov't needs to get involved and make it happen, sure there will be some stinkers. Every country produces some garbage. But there will also be the Celine Dionnes and Shania Twains of the film world who will at last have access to an audience and succeed.

 

R,

[John Brawley]

What happened to the Australian industry by the way? You had those great movies of the 1980's coming out, many of them quite commercial (like Road Warrior). What was wrong with that system of tax incentives and breaks? It's not like you can call "Mad Max" an art film...

 

 

There was a tax incentive for those that invested in australian films. it was 150%. The result was that lot's of films got made. Very very few were actually any good. The rest were tax dodges at best so no one cared if they were commercial or not.

 

I find these kinds of discussions really interesting. We attach national identity to our films. All of the soft money (govt) in australia has the *national interest* or *cultural identity* imperatives. Not saying it's bad, but we don't seem to be making very successful films of late. In fact some of the most successful actively avoided government money.

 

Australia has such a tiny popluation that we just can't support and sustain an audinece that pays enough. We have 20 million people. Australian films are 3% of the national box office. There is so much US content crowding out available session times, that as soon as any film is not going through the roof it gets chucked.

 

They have just introduced a rebate system. You now get a 40% rebate on your investment from the australian government. So paramount could invest in an Australian film (defined on a points system, but mainly on HOD's being Aussies)

 

They then get 40% of their investment back. No upper limit. No limit on the number of films. Invest 100 Million. Get 40 million back once you get to the Australian BO. should be an interesting change...

 

 

jb

[Paul Bruening]

40 million Aussiebacks are about 80 million US single ply TP sheets. I could nearly clear my investment on accounting technique alone. I think I'll call my new production company, Enron Pictures.

[Saul Rodgar]

The mexican tale is an especially sad one because they could have been in with a chance to really have something going what with the growing spanish language population in the states and the world market for spanish film.

 

Of course how could they not sell out their little film industry when there was so much at stake on the table but then it isn't just the film industry it's their cultiural identity. Sadly that is of course something that people value little, well at least when it is their own.

 

Maybe they should have held out till they removed border controls and had a free flow of people in the "free" market. ;)

 

love

 

Freya

 

Having grown up in Mexico (and at the risk of sounding "elitist" in the Obama sort of way :P ) I can tell you that the demise of Mexican film industry as it was in the 70's and 80's is not such a bad thing. One would be hard pressed to think of a more tacky, sleazy, lowest-common-denominator content film industry, which can be valid from a sort of anthropological/ sociological point of view. The golden age of Mexican Cinema was in the 40's, 50's and ended sometime thereafter. The industry was then highjacked by producers who completely took it to its lowest depths, from which it would never re-emerge completely, with notable exceptions here and there. So the 30% that currently gets greenlit is arguably in the top tier content-wise scripts,. These higher-standard productions in turn get a little better funding than if they were competing for money with the trash-movie productions of yore.

 

I for one prefer to have far fewer, but higher quality in every sense of the word, productions; than too many unwatchable pieces of crap. I choose quality over quantity every day.

 

This does not mean that I support Hollywood protectionism and thinly-veiled cultural imperialism in any way, shape or form.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Max Jacoby]

Subversion is vital to filmmaking - and it never happens in state funded films.

I'm sorry but that is simply an incorrect generalization. Could you see a film like Lars von Trier's 'Idioterne', which is funded by the Nordisk TV and Film Fund, coming out of Hollywood? Thought not. Hollywood, on the other hand, makes films by comitee and crushes any individuality because they only care about the bottom line.

 

Like Richard said, a quota system has done wonders for the South Korean film industry, both from an artistic and commercial point of view. It's gone so far that in the UK and other countries The Host got a general release and played in multiplexes, instead of being confined to art house cinemas. Again, what's not to like about that? I think filmmakers should all be in favour of encouraging diversity, because it creates a situation where our films can be seen.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

I mentioned that earlier but I don't see how that conflicts with anything you just quoted by me, or what you think is incorrect? Perhaps you meant my summary was incomplete rather than incorrect, which is definitely true as obviously you could say a lot more about it all, what with companies often owning the DVD labels, DVD distribution, tv stations etc.

 

love

 

Freya

 

I wasn't referring to DVD's, I'm referring to movies that get shown in cinemas, not the bundled junk when you buy at the video shop. If a cinema chain in the EU wants to show the latest Indiana Jones, which they know will make money, the international distributor Paramount, etc will require the cinema to take on for a certain amount of time a few bombs/losers. Otherwise these junk movies would go straight to DVD or airlines.

[Freya Black]

The American film industry succeeds because there is a business climate here that promotes risky investment in film, unlike countries which are more conservative with their capital, and it is a system designed to allow a few successes pay for a mountain of failures. Few other countries produce enough commercial product in film that allows them to survive big-budget failures on a regular basis like Hollywood does. So it's not really about producing a commercial success, it's about being able to survive commercial failure and keep making product.

 

YES! It's an excellent point! Surviving the failure is partly the fact that Hollywood can bundle it's failing films and partly that as you suggest, the huge corporations produce so much that they can offset the failures against the succesful films as well.

 

When England had a bigger industry, it was being supported by a few rich men like J. Arthur Rank who created a large enough output of product tailored for local consumption that it could weather rises and falls in profit (to some degree). But there aren't a lot of J. Arthur Ranks anymore, or Kordas, etc.

 

However there aren't any people like this anymore because there isn't a film industry here anymore.

Such people would go to America to make films because that is where the industry is and it makes good buisness sense. See Rupert Murdoch as an obvious example.

 

Anywhere. And the international corporations that own Hollywood (it's almost silly to call it an American industry anymore when half of it is owned by the Japanese or Australians, etc.) are so big that it is much less of a level playing field compared to the 1950's or 1960's.

 

This is spot on and I'm glad someone has finally called me out on this! I've already mentioned Rupert Murdoch, and he is of course a US citizen and has been for a number of years as we all know! ;) I still felt preety sillly talking about Rupert Murdoch and America in the same posting tho! ;)

 

The corporations are preety much global entities at this point, however they make films in America with a very american point of view that reflect american life and cultural values etc. The American government also lobbies other governments to have total access to their markets in spite of the monopoly situation they hold.

 

If there were opportunities elsewhere then these large companies might invest elsewhere, just as they did under the quota quickies system here in Britain.

 

So the unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) is how to foreign film industries compete or do they even bother given the size of the forces at work now? If they can't create a large enough investment climate and mass-produced product to survive failure, do they opt for state-supported smaller

production?

 

I think you are right and these are the main 2 options, in terms of traditional filmmaking.

To create the large enough investment climate they would have to bring in quotas I suspect, I can't see any other way. The other main way of funding films is government funded filmmaking which is usually very, very, very prescriptive.

 

What happened to the Australian industry by the way? You had those great movies of the 1980's coming out, many of them quite commercial (like Road Warrior). What was wrong with that system of tax incentives and breaks? It's not like you can call "Mad Max" an art film...

 

I often get the impression that there is a certain amount of hostility here towards "art films" which are just another kind of film which some people love! It'd good to have diversity in our films which is at the core of what this discussion is about.

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

I wasn't referring to DVD's, I'm referring to movies that get shown in cinemas, not the bundled junk when you buy at the video shop. If a cinema chain in the EU wants to show the latest Indiana Jones, which they know will make money, the international distributor Paramount, etc will require the cinema to take on for a certain amount of time a few bombs/losers. Otherwise these junk movies would go straight to DVD or airlines.

 

I know I understand what you were talking about and I did mention this earlier in the thread and didn't see how the stuff you quoted by me was either incorrect or in conflict with what you are saying.

 

For me the bundled junk is the same thing however. When I was talking about the bundled VHS tapes I bought (way back in the thread) I was making a direct comparison to the way that films are bundled in the cinema. I guess I was trying to emphisize my point with an amusing real world and accesible annecdote but instead I ended up muddyig what I was saying perhaps.

 

Also the same thing does happen with DVD's here in the U.K (can't comment on other countries) but it's now very common to have triple film DVD's in the supermarkets in this style.

 

In the bit you actually just quoted however I was making the point that the summary of the situation I made was definitely incomplete because it avoided really talking about other issues like DVD's so it was actually incomplete in a whole bunch of ways, in addition to not directly mentioning the bundling that takes place in terms of cinema distribution.

 

I wasn't really trying to make a complete summary of the situation tho! :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

Quotas is the worst idea. Every attempt at regulating markets always ends up with inferior superficially sustained products that wouldn't survive on their own. It also introduces politics into filmmaking - which if we like it or not - affects the subjects and the stories and the production unfavorably. Just look at the old British quota quickies. Or the extremely politically correct French and Swedish films.

 

Subversion is vital to filmmaking - and it never happens in state funded films. Love or hate films like for instance Death Wish, but they're important in a healthy film-producing society.

 

But on the subject of American films; My experience from having both worked in LA and visited the US numerous times is that the American public devours and consumes film on a much bigger scale than Europeans. It's part of the national fabric. People of all ages and all classes go to the movies in the US - they don't here. My American GF's parents, both in their 60's, go to the movies regularly. My mum in Sweden goes to the movies every 5th year at best.

 

David Lean got his start in filmaking creating quota quickies!

To be fair there is always politics in film-making, it is kind of at the core of it al!

 

I've never thought of Deathwish as being subversive, so this kind of shocked me!

What do you have in mind here? In what way subversive?

 

...and what do you mean by politically correct French and Sweedish films and can you give any examples? Whenever someone says something is "politically correct" these days, my ears prick up, and I wonder if it might be just my kind of thing! So please do elaborate!! :) Of course "politically correct" can cover a whole multitude of things but I find that often it refers to the cool and groovy stuff! :)

 

You might be right about the demand for movies in America but perhaps that is also because here in Europe there isn't as much in the way of cinema being made that the european audience can relate to?

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

Subversion is vital to filmmaking - and it never happens in state funded films.

 

Derek Jarman! :)

Edited May 12, 2008 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

...by producers who completely took it to its lowest depths, from which it would never re-emerge completely, with notable exceptions here and there. So the 30% that currently gets greenlit is arguably in the top tier content-wise scripts,. These higher-standard productions in turn get a little better funding than if they were competing for money with the trash-movie productions of yore.

 

I for one prefer to have far fewer, but higher quality in every sense of the word, productions; than too many unwatchable pieces of crap. I choose quality over quantity every day.

 

Perhaps this will even help the mexican film industry. In Britain the quota quickies enabled Britain to cope with the investment needed for the coversion to sound and provided a lot of training for people like David lean and actually attracted Alex Corda to invest here. After the quota quickies went there was a bit of consolidation and some really amazing films were produced in Britain, so the quota quickies were the foundation for building a genuine and very wonderful film industry here for a time. Perhaps something similar can happen in Mexico!

 

Wasn't Pans Labarynth made in Mexico?

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

This has been an awesome thread as it's really helping me to think about things here in a really clear way. It's not like we are saying things that we probably don't already know but discussing all this stuff somehow makes it all clearer and more connected in my mind. I guess it's like putting together all the things you already know to get a greater kind of understanding.

 

I'm fantastically busy right now and have to rush off, but I really want to talk about all this some more!

So I will be back later.

 

A big thankyou to everyone participating in this thread! :)

Catch you soon!

 

love

 

Freya

[Phil Rhodes]

> I choose quality over quantity every day.

 

Oh to be that rich.

 

P

[Valerio Sacchetto]

I can only speak for the italian scene and naturally someone will say i'm utterly wrong. :rolleyes:

Some time ago tarantino said new italian cinema is depressing, many raised against him defending the italian productions. Now i'm one of the few who don't like tarantino but he was absolutely right, italian cinema is sick. What was the last italian movie you saw? and the last one you actually liked?

Andy's right, in italy we have a system where movies are funded by the government up to 70% of the budget and then only 30% is needed to be refunded. If that doesn't happens the state gets the rights for the movie. Now you can see that for a producer is not important if the movie gets distributed and the state of course can't afford the costs of a proper distribution (that's a semplification tho). By august 2007 only 25 movies were profitable over 544 produced, many of which never saw the screen of a theater (nor a dvd release) and amongst these there are movies by directors like monicelli and antonioni. One got 300.000? of funds and only got 995? (yes nine hudred ninety five euros) in returns. Since those funds should go to movies of "national cultural interest" the themes are always the same. It's like italy is chained to corrupted forms of neorealism and comedy. The french put up a machine where you can make genre films (sci-fi for example) while here the only thing you can do are demented comedies or "social" themed movies. Tv-movies are the others productions but they're all about saints or police :P

It's not a surprise that people don't go watch them.

David is right again about the risks and if you don't risk you can't hope to evolve and compete.

These are just a couple things and a proper analysis would take more time and touch many more topics, but to me the main culprit is the way those funds are given and to who (cinema here is just another political battelfield...).

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I'm sorry but that is simply an incorrect generalization. Could you see a film like Lars von Trier's 'Idioterne', which is funded by the Nordisk TV and Film Fund, coming out of Hollywood? Thought not. Hollywood, on the other hand, makes films by comitee and crushes any individuality because they only care about the bottom line.

 

But Lars Von Trier isn't part of the intellectual left-outs - he's very much in the club. And that's the thing - if you've once gotten in to the state funding, state approved funding scheme, you can literally poop on a piece of paper and get funding to turn it into a film. What I hate is that there's no accountability. If you make flop after flop after flop and STILL get funding year after year, something is wrong.

 

And Hollywood has proved that yes, amongst all the vile, lowest common denominator films only designed to make money, they still make good films once in awhile. All without any subsidy from state or government. Sweden has state subsidence and STILL can't make a good film - what does that tell us?

 

Regulations and protectionism is a slippery road to serfdom - it simply will not last or work.

 

I've never thought of Deathwish as being subversive, so this kind of shocked me!

What do you have in mind here? In what way subversive?

 

It was extremely subversive when it came out and created an uproar. It countered all the sentiments of the time (peace, love and understanding) and created entertainment out of at the time shameful human sentiments like vengeance. It could never have been state funded anywhere at that time. No way.

 

...and what do you mean by politically correct French and Sweedish films and can you give any examples? Whenever someone says something is "politically correct" these days, my ears prick up, and I wonder if it might be just my kind of thing! So please do elaborate!! :) Of course "politically correct" can cover a whole multitude of things but I find that often it refers to the cool and groovy stuff! :)

 

In Sweden you can't have an immigrant as a bad guy. That's racist. And since the Swedish state is providing the funding, you have to play to there sentiments in the scripts, which makes them extremely bland and very left wing - you know going in to see them already the moral conclusions the film will make.

[Saul Rodgar]

Wasn't Pans Labarynth made in Mexico?

 

love

 

Freya

 

Pan's Labyrinth was shot in Spain. The director, Guillermo Del Toro and the DP, Guillermo Navarro ASC, are Mexicans. In the case of Del Toro, his Spanish family was foced to exile in Mexico during the Franco dictatorship. Yet he retains a lot of ties to Spain and has shot several movies there, with Spanish funding, which puts him in a privileged situation.

 

Anyway, most (or all) of the Mexican heavies (directors Del Toro, Cuaron, Inarritu; DP's Navarro, Luzbeki and Prieto) have had to leave Mexico to expand their working possibilities, which is sad but ultimately endemic in Mexican Cinema. In fact, it can be argued that only after Mexican filmmakers and atrists leave and garner accolades internationally, will the rest of Mexicans truly respect their talent.

 

Yet there are a lot of foreign filmmakers and artists who travel to Mexico and settle there permanently or semi permanently, to produce great works of art, such as Bunuel, Jodoroski, Alex Cox, Traven, et al.

[John Holland]

Saul help me here where is "Nuke City " ?

[Saul Rodgar]

But Lars Von Trier isn't part of the intellectual left-outs - he's very much in the club. And that's the thing - if you've once gotten in to the state funding, state approved funding scheme, you can literally poop on a piece of paper and get funding to turn it into a film. What I hate is that there's no accountability. If you make flop after flop after flop and STILL get funding year after year, something is wrong.

 

And Hollywood has proved that yes, amongst all the vile, lowest common denominator films only designed to make money, they still make good films once in awhile. All without any subsidy from state or government. Sweden has state subsidence and STILL can't make a good film - what does that tell us?

 

Regulations and protectionism is a slippery road to serfdom - it simply will not last or work.

 

I LOVE Sange fra anden sal, or Songs From The Second Floor, which I know is Danish. Too bad Swedish movies cannot get it togehter, one would imagine there could be enough topics to make good films about.

 

Isn't Von Trier funding some of his projects with proceedings from an "Adult" films production house he is involved in? That is what I had heard, although it may be pure lies.

[Saul Rodgar]

Saul help me here where is "Nuke City " ?

 

Nuke City is what I call Duke City, sunny Albuquerque, NM, USA: home of more than 2000 atomic warheads, safely? stashed under the local Air Force Base. The Spanish Conquistadors called it that in the 1600's after the Duke of Albuquerque, equivalent in Spanish courts to the Duke of Windsor in the UK, in a truly kiss-ass ploy to look good with their higher ups as they conquered even more land and subjugated even more natives. Ah, imperialism!

 

Local pinko-commie bumper stickers read: Nukes out or Duke City!, and I am coming out with my version soon:

 

DUKES OUT OF NUKE CITY!

 

I think I am too clever with my play on words, I know . . .

 

Also, if you remember, this state is where the A-bomb was developed in the 40's.

[Saul Rodgar]

Additionally, Albuquerque holds the dubious distinction of being the only American city where an A bomb was dropped. In the 50's a bomber accidentally dropped an unarmed A bomb just outside the city when they were getting ready to land. Apparently the pilot opened the ordnance hatch and released the bomb INSTEAD of opening the landing gear hatch and lowering the wheels! The unexploded bomb landed in the desert and was successfully recovered shortly thereafter.

 

I am sure that was the last mistake that pilot ever made in the Air Force . . .

Edited May 12, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I LOVE Sange fra anden sal, or Songs From The Second Floor, which I know is Danish. Too bad Swedish movies cannot get it togehter, one would imagine there could be enough topics to make good films about.

 

Funny you should mention that film - it's actually Swedish and guess what? - it was completely privately funded by director Roy Andersson. And the reason the state funding didn't get involved is that Roy Andersson has for the last 30 years survived doing commercials (and very good ones at that) so he's the "enemy" and a corporate lackey in the eyes of the state funding body. He hasn't got the right political conviction for them, apparently. Obviously, when Songs From The Second Floor won bigtime in Cannes, they couldn't bask in the limelight quick enough.

[Max Jacoby]

But Lars Von Trier isn't part of the intellectual left-outs - he's very much in the club.

Being part of the club doesn't prevent him from making good films does it? Whether people like his films or not, there is no denying that he is a very daring filmmaker who really pushes the envelope of the art form.

 

In Sweden you can't have an immigrant as a bad guy. That's racist. And since the Swedish state is providing the funding, you have to play to there sentiments in the scripts, which makes them extremely bland and very left wing - you know going in to see them already the moral conclusions the film will make.

I don't like these 'worthy issue' films anymore than you do, but let's face it, they are not just an outgrowth of government funding, but of humanity in general. You have the same in Hollywood, all these 'prestige' films released at the end of the year with an eye towards an Oscar nomination. The big problem is that people in general have the tendency to think that films about an 'important' subject automatically must be good, when most of the time they are far from it. They are unable to separate the subject from the film itself, like all these horrible Oscar-winning films about the Holocaust for instance.

 

Also I think it is wrong to just judge films solely by their commercial success. There are many films that have become classics that when they got released didn't find and audience, but only later people came to realize how good and important they really were. Similarly many commercial success of their time are completely unwatchable by now. Luckily state funding does give people more artistic liberties, because there is less commercial pressure. Really, most the exciting filmmakers of our time are not American, but European or Asian. Theo Angelopoulos, Bruno Dumont, Lars Von Trier, Abbas Kiarostami all make important films that have artistic integrity and advance the art form, which cannot be said for the vast majority of main stream cinema.

[Saul Rodgar]

Funny you should mention that film - it's actually Swedish and guess what? - it was completely privately funded by director Roy Andersson. And the reason the state funding didn't get involved is that Roy Andersson has for the last 30 years survived doing commercials (and very good ones at that) so he's the "enemy" and a corporate lackey in the eyes of the state funding body. He hasn't got the right political conviction for them, apparently. Obviously, when Songs From The Second Floor won bigtime in Cannes, they couldn't bask in the limelight quick enough.

 

I originally thought it was Swedish, but then I got confused and . . .

 

Great movie. What you mention about Swedish political deviousness is akin to what happens in Mexico, except that instead of "enemy" of the people, in Mexico it is more an inferiority complex. Movies like Y Tu Mama Tambien did very well internationally and not until then did mainstream Mexican culture embraced it wholeheartedly. The reasoning is that local is bad, until the foreigners tell them otherwise. It is the conquered people's inferiority complex.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Alex Lindblom]

Okay a lot of interesting points here, so lets get right to it.

 

1. The Swedish/Nordic issue...

 

- Max, I have to support Adam here he is absolutely right in every point he makes. State funding has completely destroyed Nordic cinema, period.

 

Personally I am a Trier fan ( at least as long as he used sets.) But the percentage of good movies that has come out of these systems are about 2% to 98%. And then I am probably nice.

 

But even if the numbers would be reversed there is something very, very, very disturbing with a Country deciding what kind of art that gets produced, and in that also directly which artist are allowed to live on there craft.

 

You see, this leads to that one side always will starve, depending on which side that governs the country at the moment left or right.

 

And this is as the British puts it -- Are you joking, this is appalling and totally unacceptable.

 

I am well aware that you could argue that "but you are not free in the Hollywood system either you are bound by the money."

 

That is true but the fact remains, capital doesn't care what color it has or where it came from, in that way is great "democratizer". There is always some way to access it.

 

But you can never argue with an ideology, if it not the same as yours, you are simply poop out of luck.

 

2. European film/Production...

 

Back to main question of the topic. I think we need to split this in two category's.

 

1. European filmmakers.

2. Productions shot in Europe.

 

Because here in lays a wonderful paradox.

 

European directors are doing very well in the USA. Nolan, Harlin, Emmerich, Scott, Hallstrom, Leterrier and the list can go on and on...

 

Al of the above directors makes movies that people would call American typical Hollywood fare. I mean for Christ sake Emmerich (German) did ID4 and more American film then that, it will be very hard to find.

 

And why are these people "forced" to states. Well I will go out on a limb here and say it's because of the state funding, of films in Europe, have made it impossible to make the kind of movies they want to make with European money. ( Expect maybe the case of Hallstrom his Swedish movies are very similar to his US productions.)

 

A prime example of a so called Hollywood movie is The Exorcist The beginning: Harlin directed (Finland) two leading actors Skarsgard and Scorupco both Swedish, Cinematography by Storaro and all shot in Cinecitta in Rome.

 

This leads us in to point...

 

... 2. Productions shot in Europe.

 

There are quit a lot of Hollywood productions that shots in Europe.

 

Hellboy 2 - Hungary

Ninja Assassin - Germany

Harry potter and Bond - UK

 

And of Course Millennium films that bought Blugaria's flag ship studio Boyana Studios, and are building new sets there to shoot Rambo 5 as rumor has it.

 

Well now I ma just rambling, what I want to say is that things are more complex then it seems but on the whole, I think ther is a very bright future ahead for "European cinema".

 

Ah heck lets call it what it is World cinema -- bright future -- end of ramble...

[K Borowski]

Hey, worse things could be happening in Europe than a drop in production, like, say, another World War. . .

Edited May 16, 2008 by Karl Borowski