GP’s great debates : Is culture just another consumer good ?

😠 To start with I would say that I've just attended in my school a so-called lecture from a former minister (the nearest job equivalent in UK would be a secretary, not a simple minister), who took part in several goverments between 1981 and 2002 here in France and was mostly responsible for culture and then for education.
He was supposed to make an account on the stakes of cultural policies, at a national level as well as a European or global level. He started the talk by saying he hadn’t prepared nothing at all, that he would prefer to answers our question; fortunately there were some guys from literary classes that study the history of Arts, for us (supposedly economics classes) hadn’t though we had to start fro scratch/to ask him anything.
As a good politician (the word “politician” is quite pejorative in French) he eluded all the question, never answering to any of them, talking about one thing and another (his decision in 1981 to set that prices of books should be the same all over he country, to avoid that supermarkets gain total control of the maket) and he dared twice telling us he had forgotten the questions he had been asked !!!
So nothing…I’m just a bit angry, but I had expected no more from him…

- Now I would like to set a new discussion. You all know that if the French cinema is in good shape (contrary to most Europeans cinema), that is because it is partly subsidized, for we consider here in France that cinema is part of Art/cultural stuff, and henceforth should be protected, helped, and not let on its own or sold/traded like another thing (soap, cars, rice,…anything you like).It is true that France makes film a lot more erm…intelligent, (more cerebral, less simplistic) [ie real “author movies”, sometime very near to real pieces of art(and besides, they are independent)] than US movies. The greatest conflict is between us and the US, which tries to pressure us into cutting subsidies in order to export more of its films. US official consider that movies are just entertainment, so shouldn’t be subsidized and just compete with other movies like if we were selling tin boxes of beans…

What is your opinion ? (Listen carefully: I don’t want a stupid duel America vs France, so if you have no arguments except ‘The US produces the best films’ just don’t take part in that discussion)

You can talk of art and Artistic works in general as well as I think their belonging to the cultural sphere cannot be called into question

Movies can be considered art and they can be considered Entertainment imo it depends on the movie G.P

haven't seen too many french movies the ones I have seen I'd call art

(you know flemish movies even get subsidized by the EU, because the flemish culture is considered a minority culture, **** that we aint even a culture)

I haven't seen much French movies myself. I agree with Fire above. For me Movies are about entertainment whether is from France, Italy, China or any other country. The only films I don't consider entertaining are documentaries.

Some movies, like stupid "shoot-m-up-head-first" are purely entertainment yeah and in that way it's just another consumer good.
Actually, quite some blockbusters can be considered that

I don't know a good example of a "foreign" movie (from my pov) but overhere we had a movie called "Het Gezin Van Pamel" (or something along those lines) translated into "The family Van Pamel", and it was a drama about life in our regions a long time ago.
It was a piece were the director tried to show how it was and that in some ways nothing has changed yet, y'know, a bit of criticism on today's society. You can't count that one as consumer good.
So, that one is like your french movie, GP

but imho, subsidizing for it doesn't make it any better. We get a lot of money to make movies, but the only decent movie of the last decade that pops to mind is De Zaak Alzheimer and didn't even bothered to see that one.
But perhaps you can blaim that on the small country and lack of interest from viewers side who are grown accostumed of this mindless entertainment movies (don't get me wrong, it's not that they are the root of all evil)

Perhaps a big country (like France, like the USA), should also promote if they don't do it already, movies who carry a message, a topic which to discuss

Ok I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. This thread is not about defending French movies (many of them are very crappy, no question)
This is not a question I am asking either. So please stop putting my name in your answers 😛

This is an actual real dilemma about movies that has real consequences : if, for example (I'm obliged to tal about France for it's the only country I know very well) French films ain't subsidized any more, then many little films will never be made just because there is no money or they won't be profitable, even if these are real good films (and I don't mean by that a big fight with guns and special FX all over, but a true story (well made) with either real feelings in it or some real reflexion about mankind, etc. ie the kind of movies no one would go to see in the US, I mean a real cinematographic work - sometimes a piece of art- for it's purpose is not making profit,etc...

It's the same thing when you think about painting, sculptures, etc... How can you give a price to a work of art, etc. (this is a bigger part of the problem and almost a philosophical question)

last time I write a post for your pleasure GP 😛

Depends on the genre. I honstly haven't seen any French films, probably because they don't make them as availible here in the Corporate States of America... Anyways, like I said, some movies can and should be considered art. Others, as yerss said, crappy action flicks, sappy romantic comedies, etc. should be considered solely a form of entertainment.

Well, I feel that there are two completely oposite spectrums when it comes to films: The entertainment spectrum, which is the big blockbusters that are filled with violence and a curse words that explosions; and the more subtle, intelegent films that have a deep message and filled with metaphorical images and actions. I think both of these are necessary in the world of film. But to sum it up, yes, film is often art.

I think that a good movie shouldn't be defined by the amount of money it makes, that is simply folly. And I think alot of films that could be great, are passed up because they don't hae a widespread appeal that most studios are willing to put up their money for. The fact is that films are made for money, the people who makes most movies make the films soley for cash. If they weren't getting paid for it they wouldn't be doing it.

However, there is the group of "artists" who are in it for the art, and for the expression of their beliefs in a way that will not only intrigue people, but entertain them at the same time. It's often a filmmaker like this will forget that a movie should entertain the audience while getting their message across, and it's these movies that give the other, good independant films the bad name of being pretentious.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure I didn't answer any question you asked, I don't really understand what you want people to discuss here. If you're asking if films should be funded as art even if there will be no profit made by the person who funded the film, then no. That would never happen. It would be nice to know that someone out there didn't care about money, and was willing to put his cash into good films for their messages and power, but that is simply a pipedream.

Originally posted by G.P [BWhat is your opinion ? (Listen carefully: I don’t want a stupid duel America vs France, so if you have no arguments except ‘The US produces the best films’ just don’t take part in that discussion) [/B]

By your post it seems that there are only French and USA films...And there a lot of stupid French filmes too. Some of then real consumer goods under a false appearance of culture very well accepted in the USA by some "wanna be something"; just remember the final scene by Woody Allen at "Hollywood Ending" - a typical basic american gag.
Not to mention that you are forgetting the country that produces more and worst films in the world: India 🤪

There are "intelligent" films everywhere and as you know the american independent movies are on top...As Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Chinese, Iranian, Brazilian, Danish, etc, etc.

I dont thonk in a mvie as a consumer good. I prefer to see and to think in a movie as a form of art/culture and It is rare to go to see a movie as pure entertainment, but then I try to see the most stupid movie of all at the cinemas, but sometimes if I dont like it I leave it at the middle 😛

But for some people is a consumer good. Just note that nowadays, the first thing some children do after wake up is to watch a video at home.

It depends of us to understand it as we want to.

I was talking about movies but it apllies for everything 😛

Originally posted by BackFire
Anyways, I'm pretty sure I didn't answer any question you asked, I don't really understand what you want people to discuss here. If you're asking if films should be funded as art even if there will be no profit made by the person who funded the film, then no. That would never happen. It would be nice to know that someone out there didn't care about money, and was willing to put his cash into good films for their messages and power, but that is simply a pipedream.

Originally posted by Corlindel
By your post it seems that there are only French and USA films...

Of course this apply to any movies... I'm not excluding anything. But do I have to make a comprehensive list before you understand what I'm talking about ?

I could have taken examples such as the Afghan movie "Osama" , or the Iranian film "Talaye sorkh" (Crimson Gold), or the Chinese/Thaï movie "Last life in the Universe"... How many of you have seen them ???

Originally posted by G.P
But do I have to make a comprehensive list before you understand what I'm talking about ?

No thanks. I understood. But I am not the only member here 😉 😉

(I am still confused about your and Kes mix at soccer thread 😛 )

I saw osama, but it takes a lot of effort to go and see the non-commercial movies

Originally posted by Fire
I saw osama, but it takes a lot of effort to go and see the non-commercial movies

I know I'm priviledged, for Paris must be the city in the world where the biggest amount of movies are on at the same time each week (around 220, maybe more...) but even then...

Ok, nevermind. I'm sorry I bothered you with my serious metaphysical questions. I won't do it again. If you still want to say something in this thread please be aware that the topic is from now on: "What is you least favourite drink ?" or "What's your fav. shoes brand ?" (Pick one). At least I'm sure that everyone will understand and that more people will be interessed.

Thanks for your time.

hey come on GP, it's just a subject were you have to actually think that takes time 🙂

Yeah. I am thinking a lot before post again 😛

mon oeil !

Originally posted by G.P
WHAT ?????? Three weeks ago, I went to see [B]7 movies in one week, 5 of which were non-commercial...so sure... 🙄

I know I'm priviledged, for Paris must be the city in the world where the biggest amount of movies are on at the same time each week (around 220, maybe more...) but even then... [/B]

well maybe not in paris 🙄

but in belgium, certainly in leuven (city where I live) it takes a lot of effort to find non-commercial movies.

and G.P don't roll your eyes at me 😛