[Thor Joachim Haga]

FSM # 37: January 20, 2005

The low response of the Antonioni thread reminded me of something that I’ve been meaning to ask you for quite some time:

There is a strange paradox on the FSM Messageboard. It seems to be crowded of film-interested people, yet talk about movies or scores outside Hollywood is relatively limited (both geographically and stylistically), as evident in the equally low response in some of my Cinema Club threads, for example.

There are several people who know almost EVERYTHING about Hollywood and Hollywood history, down to the tiniest detail in the most obscure Golden Age film, for example. Yet they do not necessarily know the work of a Andrej Tarkovskij, a Vittorio de Sica, a Takeshi Kitano or a Neil LaButte.

Why is that?

I mean, if you’re a hard-core film enthusiast (which many of us are), I would think that it would be a natural evolutional step to – at some point – look BEYOND the “mainstream”, to look for OTHER types of filmic expressions beyond the classical etc.

I know that’s the case for me, anyway, and I’ve only been seriously interested in film for maybe 17 years or so. While I certainly love a Hollywood film as much as the next guy (perhaps even more), I’m also intrigued by ALTERNATIVE modes of expression – both past and present.

This is not meant a criticism, by the way, just a curiousity.

So…does anyone know how to explain it?

[Thor Joachim Haga]

I should specify that this was in 2005, when various attempts at creating threads on non-Hollywood fare failed. I think the tolerance level is higher here (although the Antonioni thread that WE have didn’t really catch fire either), but I think it’s an interesting question to ask more generally.

[Malte Müller]

The first reason is probably think generally it has to do with an over dominance of Hollywood. Now with social media but basically always.

The second reason might be that a lot of people hate subtitles as most countries do not dub films. I have to admit I also don’t really like them in generally as it me distracts from the movie. But in Germany most everything is dubbed – even more “obscure” stuff – so the level to watch foreign films is much lower.

[Jon Aanensen]

I’m not at all a hardcore film buff, so for me it’s enough with Hollywood and norwegian films really. Maybe an english film once in a while.

I couldn’t dream of putting on a Bollywood film, for instance 😅

[Blaize]

Good points there. It’s also a question I keep asking myself. I’m thankful that I have an interest in film scoring outside of Hollywood.

[GerateWohl]

It depends. There were times when I explored movies all over the place. Not only Hollywood, French films, English films, Japanese films, Korean films, Swedish films, Finish films, Danish films, Spanish films, Italian films, Latin American films, New Zealand films, Bollywood films etc.
But the only movies I was into for the scores were US American movies.
And while my taste in movie music widened, my interest in these various movie cultures narrowed somehow. Somehow my view on films as a medium has become more technical. I am less looking for experience but more entertainment.
And I have much less time and mostly watch films at home and not at the cinema. Might all be connected somehow.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Yeah, Gerate, I can understand that ‘ebb and flow’ in life.

If you’re a cat person and not a moth person, you’ll have periods in your life where you’re like a sponge – absorbing everything the artform has to offer. Most of us have that in our teens, and also again in our twenties. I remember that I sponged out on alternative cinema and music in my twenties (of course, I also studied it at uni, so there was extra incentive).

But then comes a period later in life when there’s more ‘comfort zone’, perhaps. I’ve had a bit of that since covid broke out, reverting to some of my favourite genres and styles (like sci fi). The interest in alternative cinema isn’t lost, and I’m always thrilled when I watch a new buzz film from Cannes or whatever, but later that same evening I might put on JURASSIC PARK for comfort.

Yin and yang. Spice of life. Alain Resnais in the morning, Roland Emmerich in the evening.

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

I think “Hollywood” (a.k.a. “American Cinema”) is so Universal because of… America!
Not the geography, but the myth. The melting pot where individuality is the national religion. Stories, and I realize that when I look at the stories that I like, that matter, that I prefer thrive on individuals. That’s why everybody still reads Shakespeare: it’s universal, it’s individuals that matter in these stories, no matter where they are set. And Hollywood has spent a century refining that “individual” story, the art of putting one man’s (or of course women, but let’s face it, it’s mostly men) who struggle and fight for freedom, self‑determination, reinvention… these are core American values.

Foreign cinema often becomes famous precisely because it speaks to its own soil. A French film may wrestle with French society; a Korean film may dissect Korean class structures; a Finnish film may brood in Finnish silence. These stories can be brilliant, but they often (not always) tend to be rooted in local anxieties. Hollywood tends to aim for themes that travel, that work regardless of cultural background, that are archtypes: heroism, ambition, fear, love, revenge. And of course the most important pillars of cinema: Cowboys, Dinosaurs and Spaceships! The universal stuff. Hollywood sells dreams rather than sociology lessons.

Then there is the language of course. A movie that doesn’t need subtitles already has a head start, and more people speak English than Armenian. A Norwegian masterpiece may be extraordinary, but it still needs translation before it can compete with a film that speaks directly to the audience’s ear.

So Hollywood has that head start, and now recognition matters too. Just mention Spielberg, Hitchcock, John Ford, or Charles Bronson, and people everywhere know what to expect. Non‑English stars often remain regional because, well, language matters. For an actor, language, the way he says what, is very important.

And when non‑Hollywood films do break through, and they do, they often succeed by tapping into the same universal veins. Kurosawa’s THE SEVEN SAMURAI is as instantly readable as THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Ingmar Bergman’s existential movies are universally understood as well. These films transcend borders because their themes do.

Finally, budget. America is rich, and Hollywood shows it. Professional crews, massive sets, orchestras, effects teams. Come on, even the average production has a sheen that signals “this is worth your time” (even if it doesn’t). I’ve watched some Apple TV shows recently I didn’t think were any good, but they were never less than super-professionally made. High production values don’t guarantee greatness, but they guarantee (more) attention.

And of course, last but not least, there are always the defying exceptions to anything I just said. Leone’s dusty Italian westerns had no budget, while CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON was a Universally understood adventure epic straight out of China.

So a non-Hollywood movie has several hurdles to take:
1. Language
2. Subject Matter (will it be entertaining, or will it be a social discourse based on a foreign society)
3. Budget
4. Star Power

But they can nevertheless “break through”. And they regularly do.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Good post, Nick!

Yes, universality certainly plays into it — after all, the classical Hollywood cinema style has spread all across the world, also when they do local productions. The classical Aristotelian mode of storytelling that Americans perfected early on (“invisible storytelling”).

I do think, however, that a lot of local productions, even if they’re within the classical style and their budget is about a fraction of a major Hollywood blockbuster, use their budget creatively. Perhaps spend their limited FX budget on a few select scenes, and then write their way around other bits. The Norwegian disaster film THE WAVE is a good example of this.

But I suppose there are two levels of discussions here — non-Hollywood films that emulate the Hollywood style, and non-Hollywood films that are more in the arthouse circle (or “alternative cinema”, which is a better word….”arthouse” sounds so hoity-toity).

[Malte Müller]

Indeed, great post.

I’ve watched some Apple TV shows recently I didn’t think were any good, but they were never less than super-professionally made. High production values don’t guarantee greatness, but they guarantee (more) attention.

Yeah, since decades I admired the general US professionalism even with cheaper/cheapest nonsense. Probably because everyone hopes to get attention and breakthrough with that, especially actors and there are so many waiting to take their place… Over here it often fees and feels everyone knows what they were doing and you direclty feel it watching, too (very simply put).

I do think, however, that a lot of local productions, even if they’re within the classical style and their budget is about a fraction of a major Hollywood blockbuster, use their budget creatively. Perhaps spend their limited FX budget on a few select scenes, and then write their way around other bits.

I think it is not really a matter of how they use their budget. Nowadays it is also the marketing power that comes to all this. If you have the budget you can flood the socials. As with classic advertisments it hooks into your brain subconsciously…

The Norwegian disaster film THE WAVE is a good example of this.

If it was a US film the world itself would have been in danger and not just “one fjord” (if I recall the movie right – I liked it btw) 😉

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

I do think, however, that a lot of local productions, even if they’re within the classical style and their budget is about a fraction of a major Hollywood blockbuster, use their budget creatively.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. And great creativity goes a long way. I mean, there are many big budget Hollywood movies that are totally vapid, while there are excellent and well crafted movies made on a shoe-string budget from a variety of genres.
I just tried to give a speculative overview about the basic “why” question from the thread’s title and tried to focus in on the core reason. Of course, there are many excellent movies from other countries, sometimes with little budget.
And nowadays, they even have it easier to find their audience because of streaming.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

I know that Gloin the Dark, who posted here for a short while, is very much into alternative cinema. It’s really a loss to us that he (seemingly) left.

[Author]

Posts