I live in Belgium. It feels like 95% of all films I ever hear about are American. Opponents counter MAGA with 'America was never great', but here they'll say 'Movies have never left America'?
Movies are overwhelmingly made _by_ American studios but I don't know if they are overwhelmingly _made_ (shot) in the US. It's very common to shoot in a ___location that gives tax incentives. E.g. Vancouver used to be (potentially still is) a common production ___location.
Vancouver and Toronto were very often used as stand-ins for shows based in places like Chicago, Seattle, NYC and many others. Might still be, but I barely consume that sort of media nowadays.
It made watching TV shows like Stargate SG1 additionally amusing though -- every planet they visited was basically some ___location near Vancouver. Me and friends used to joke about how much like carcinisation is a thing in evolution, in the Stargate universe all planets eventually ended up looking like British Columbia.
Iirc, either Carter or Daniel Jackson pretty much said something along those lines in one of the later seasons. Not the BC part specifically, but about why stargates were usually on planets pretty comfortable for humans.
But the overarching point is that even shows where at least one of the actors (RDA) were given an award by the US Air Force for their depiction of the branch, were largely filmed outside the US.
Another veteran movie insider's take on this issue:
"I say Los Angeles WAS the best, because I don't think it's true any more. For many decades, film tax incentives have sucked production from Hollywood (and New York). Also, due to technological advancements, it's a lot easier to shoot away from a production center." [0]
Some hard numbers:
"Lockdowns, strikes, and exploding production costs have pushed many productions overseas, especially for streaming services with global ambitions. Hollywood production volumes have declined steeply since the second quarter of 2023. Stateside production is down 40% in the second quarter of 2024 compared to peak television levels of filming during the same period in 2022." [1]
Work for IATSE crew union members has declined precipitously.
During the pandemic, there was so much demand for content that the studios spent a lot of money teaching foreign crews how to produce films. They sent a lot of staff to Eastern Europe and Asia to train local crews. Serbia, etc., where the crews are making well below union wages and can work long hours without regulation.
Since 2023, 60% or so of productions have vacated LA, Atlanta, and New York in favor of being shot overseas. They just fly the cast out. It's significantly cheaper than filming at home.
IATSE membership is being decimated. Lots of folks have moved out of California because the jobs just aren't there anymore.
I'm much more anti-union than the average joe, but Hollywood is one example where it kind of makes sense, disregarding the international competition angle for a sec: it is a highly specialised kind of work, sometimes dangerous, with a very limited number of employers that are operating in a cartel-like environment that is known to be financially (and sometimes also sexually and ethnically) ruthless and opportunistic. The negotiating power is very uneven.
Considering that even in a big and highly competitive environment such as Silicon Valley they managed to establish illegal hiring cartels between the big companies (Apple etc), I'd be sceptical to dish out free market arguments.
Hollywood is not loosing relevance due to inflated wages, they stopped making movies people want to see. The reason for that is quite obvious, but a totally different discussion.
Most non-American movies are slop, melodramatic vaudeville, or tear-jerking gut-punches. Most American movies are slop too, but America can afford to swing at more pitches and consequently get more hits.
Have you ever tried to watch Korean movies from the last 20 years? It's all melodramatic romance-crime-poverty slop, with the rare Kim Ki-duk or Bong Joon Ho in there to balance it out. And that's a country with a wonderful reputation for quality film-making.
I mean you get zombies on a train and that's a fun popcorn flick, but it's forgettable. It's no Tremors, Twister, or Independence Day.
In Indonesia for every The Raid there's 999 poorly acted, poorly shot melodramas with a thin well-trodden story.
And don't get me started on "let's yell at each other for 120 minutes" Russian cinema.
American movies are by far the most watchable, especially when you don't feel like going on a heart-wrenching journey of despair, which is all international cinema excels at.
I didn't realize how many bad movies Italy produces, or at least produced, until I started living there in the late 1990s. Italians often go to the movies every week, and I did too, and then I realized that for every 'Life is Sweet', there were 50 dire entries that were just well-targeted enough to make their money back from a native audience. You'll never have heard of these movies, and rightly so.
Having lived in other countries since, this appears to be a common syndrome. You can't judge a country by its tourists, and you certainly can't judge it by the small number of movies that get past its border control.
Well said. Most people don't realize this. And likewise there's a Paris Syndrome that tourists sometimes have when first visiting America and expecting to step into a Hollywood movie. That subsides quickly.
That said, American movies pass border control to other countries all the time because of their broad appeal.
I'll say that I am less offended than some of my fellow commenters in this thread. I can hardly name 5 Belgian movies that I would suggest anyone to watch; Belgium has 1/30th of the US' population, but certainly a much, much smaller percentage of good movies.
Also, none of them are of the same 'appeal' as the American movies you cited, which are mostly action movies. The general populace wants to see big stunts and explosions, which require budget, local movies don't gross because they rely on local audiences, repeat ad infinitum. Most European movies that try to _look American_ in that sense fail horribly imo.
However, the ones I can name all have something in common: they wouldn't appeal to an international audience because there is something inherently 'local' to them. Not only language barriers (imagine reading subtitles) but also a certain 'European film aesthetic/tone' just like American blockbusters have theirs. American movies don't have the same 'local barrier' for Europeans because they are the norm and we're getting them force-fed by the 100bio Hollywood industrial complex: it's a movie, or it's a local movie.
Hollywood undoubtedly has more money, but you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the quality of what gets made.
So many things that hollywood produces are remakes of foreign movies, except with an order of magnitude more money poured in and palate-switched for american audiences. (which, due to the sheer volume of content that comes out of hollywood- becomes the default international palate).
The entertainment industry in Sweden (girl with the dragon tattoo, a man called Otto) and the UK (the countries I have lived in) is undoubtedly very strong, even comparatively poor (not intended as a slur here) India is quite famous for its bombastic action movies.
Russia too, has some of the most thought provoking movies that I've ever seen. Leviathan and Durak- they even have your "fun" action style movies (Brat and Brat 2 for fantastic examples).
To say that Hollywood produces more and thus sometimes better, and that other counties make slop betrays two things:
1) Hollywood steals vigorously from other countries.
2) Other countries produce works that do not translate well for american audiences.
Every country has 5 or 10 good movies you can name, and they're always the same ones. Brat and Brat 2, Leviathan and Durak... the list doesn't go on much beyond that. And certainly not in the last 20 years.
For US movies, the list goes on. And you can debate which ones should make the top-100.
But here's a pivotal soviet comedy about a guy who goes to the future... okay, here's Bob Zemeckis's Back to the Future. Compare the quality of any aspect: story, acting, props, costumes, cinematography, special fx, attention to detail, MUSIC... 1:1 US cinema destroys on every level.
Bollywood action movies? They're parodies of themselves- Adam Sandler's You Don't Mess with the Zohan, except they take themselves seriously.
> But here's a pivotal soviet comedy about a guy who goes to the future... okay, here's Bob Zemeckis's Back to the Future. Compare the quality of any aspect: story, acting, props, costumes, cinematography, special fx, attention to detail, MUSIC... 1:1 US cinema destroys on every level.
There's a Russian saying "no point in comparing finger with a dick". "Ivan Vasilievich Changes His Profession" was made in 1973 on a budget that was modest even by Soviet standards. It looks like a cheap TV movie for a reason: they reused existing sets and decorations from other movies. The few Hollywood sci-fi comedies of the early 1970s are of similar quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BOnUobhm6U
> "Ivan Vasilievich Changes His Profession" was made in 1973 on a budget that was modest even by Soviet standards. It looks like a cheap TV movie
To be fair, it looks just like any other Soviet movie from that era ("The Diamond Arm", "Afonya", "Shurik's Adventures", etc.), with the exception of the few that were considered "mega projects' by the government ("War and Peace").
I wouldn't call "Ivan Vasilievich Changes His Profession" that either. It's more of a "Blazing Saddles" type movie with a cult following due to its catchphrases, but overall, it isn't very good. Even among movies by the same director, some slightly earlier titles like "Kidnapping, Caucasian Style" and "The Diamond Arm" from the late 1960s are much better, and hold up well against Hollywood contemporaries like "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" and "The Great Race". I'd even say that cinematically, "The Diamond Arm" is a league above the average Hollywood movie of the era. It was shot really beautifully and has wonderful use of color.
> "The Diamond Arm" is a league above the average Hollywood movie of the era.
OK, even if true, that's only one movie :) I mean, ask any person from that era and they'll tell you it's their favorite. Kind of unfair to compare the only shining example to the "Hollywood average".
Ask Russian-speakers to recommend a fun iconic movie to watch, and Ivan Vasilievich comes up all the time. I don’t see why, but it does.
Diamond Hand too.
It would be ridiculous if the same were true about Hollywood.
A Russian asks an American what movies to watch, and 8 out of 10 people go back to 1969 to recommend the same one? Impossible.
You’d get everything from Citizen Kane to Hitchcock to Rocky, etc. But you’d also get about 150 great picks from the 80s and 90s, and another dozen from after 2000.
And forget the greats. You’d get Zoolander, Demolition Man, Total Recall, Gremlins, Scream, John Wick, Legally Blonde even… there’s such a wide pool of fun iconic popcorn movies for any person.
Not to mention your Star Wars/Trek/Gate.
These movies aren’t “good” in the sense of being art. They’re good in the sense of people wanting to watch them.
Every n years I rewatch Commando, Con-Air, The Last Starfighter, etc just for kicks. It’s not pure nostalgia- they’re fun movies.
With int’l movies from any given country the list of recommendations is extremely shallow. It’s always one or two iconic revelations from a given decade. Or a couple auteur directors who won all the awards for their think-pieces about the human condition.
The quality of recommendations depends on the social circle, I guess. When the Russian Guild of Film Critics picked the 100 best movies from 1908 to 2000, "Ivan Vasilievich Changes His Profession" didn't make it to the list, but the other movies I mentioned did: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls006516589/
That list includes everything from the Wes Anderson-esque "Beware of the Car" to the gritty Western-in-the-East "White Sun of the Desert", to "Come and See", a truly disturbing war drama. Lots to choose from, and many notable omissions still remain, like the wonderful 1977 comedy "Mimino" about a rural helicopter pilot who dreams of flying large airliners, and the "Peculiarities of the National Hunt" from 1995 depicting a Finn with overly romanticized expectations coming to Russia to learn about the traditional hunting customs.
Look, this is a losing argument. It’s ok if you prefer stuff like Zemeckis (who I might add, made a lot of melodramatic films himself) over international films, but that doesn’t them objectively better or more watchable for everybody.
> Look at all those top non-American films on that list:
That’s not a list of non-American films, it’s a list of non-American directors.
To answer what I assume is your every so snarkily delivered point: Yes, about a third of the directors on that list ended up successful in Hollywood. Does that mean international films are bad? Probably not! Does it maybe mean even Hollywood recognizes that there is a lot of international talent, and very good international films being made? Probably yes?
Not trolling. Having lived in many countries and had the TV on, this happens to be my unpopular opinion.
American movies are popular globally not because they're American but because they're so damn watchable/enjoyable/varied.
Granted that becomes less true every year, since Hollywood appears to be broken. Other countries haven't figured out how to pick up the slack though. 1994 Hollywood will likely never come again.
Ah yes, the 'slop, melodramatic vaudeville, or tear-jerking gut-punches' of Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Wong Ching-Po, Stephen Chow, John Woo, Emin Alper, Win Wenders, Pedro Almodóvar, Sylvain Chomet, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Jacques Demy, Lee Chang-dong, Shunji Iwai, Wai Keung Lau, Wong Kar-wai, Hirokazu Koreeda, Park Chan-wook, Tran Anh Hung, Nadine Labaki, Santiago Mitre, ...
Yes, the US is a wealthy country, with a big population, a healthy movie industries and a lot of consumer. It does mean that the US produce a lot of movies, from auteur movie to holywood blockbuster. Disproportionally more than any other country in the world. But dismissing every non-US movie industry just show your ignorance about cinema in general.
There were several from China to be exact (Hong Kong to be precise, which had its own cinema golden-era between the late 80'and early 00'), and more than one from France also, some of which are more contemporary :) .
Most movie everywhere are not masterpiece, incredible contribution to the art, tasteful and original. They are easy, made to profit, amateurish, etc. That is true for every art form.
Again, yes the US being the wealthiest country in the world means that they can afford to produce more, and therefore, in your own word "can afford to swing at more pitches and consequently get more hits.". That much is true.
The rest of your message is just dismissive of non-US movie in general, and again just show your ignorance and unwillingness to engage with different movie.
> And don't get me started on "let's yell at each other for 120 minutes" Russian cinema.
Just because you don't like it does not make it slop.
> American movies are by far the most watchable, especially when you don't feel like going on a heart-wrenching journey of despair, which is all international cinema excels at.
If you were to look at US movies that win awards, they tend to be "heart-wrenching journey of despair". That is just a bias of the perception of "awardable" cinema. Good light-heated comedy rarely wins award (altough stories of hope also often do). That is not specific to "international" cinema.
You want some fun slapstick comedy from hong-kong, watch Stephen Chow movies. Some light hearted romance from France ? Jacques Demy might tickle your fancy. A more action horiented movie, Wong Ching-po wight interest you.
Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Melodramatic poorly acted, over-choreographed, stunt wire work. Might as well be a dance or a cartoon. At least in the Matrix homage to this genre, there was some diegetic explanation for why the characters appeared to be throwing each other around on wires.
> A 1964 film where every line is sung? You got me there. Chalk one up for the appeal of international cinema over Hollywood.
This snarky remark ridicules you more than it does the film. "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" is widely considered one of the finest romantic movies ever made. Its use of color and lead performances are legendary. I'll let Patton Oswalt explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nuprpehbaok
predictably, summing up the entire worlds cinema as inferior to one nations cinema provokes disagreement.
you can simply say that you were wrong to make such a sweeping judgement and have no actual notion of the entire worlds cinematic output, nor speak anything besides english to properly understand anyone elses films, but yey, feel free to dig in your heels and be wronger.
Or... I might speak multiple languages and have lived in multiple countries. Enough to see not only the movies that break through into Oscar contention, but also whatever random movie is playing in cinemas for 2 weeks over the rainy season, and will never be heard of again.
There's a universe in which one nation is a cinematic powerhouse that dwarfs not just the average quantity but also the average quality of the cinematic output of any other nation.
My argument is this is the case. Less so every year, since Hollywood is broken now, but still.
