Well, what exactly do you mean when you say “Hollywood”?
The place itself (i.e., the district of L.A.) doesn’t have that much production going on anymore. But even if you conceive of the what we have today of the traditional big studios as some kind of financing mechanism that could somehow be indicative of any kind of single aesthetic, that would be tenuous. Movie financing is all over the place.
There is no “Hollywood” anymore, in the sense that you’re using the term.
What you’re really asking in the OP is: “Do the majority of countries in the world watch primarily ‘American’ movies?,” but even that description defies clarity, because movie production is often transnational. And while big-bucks music recording is heavily concentrated in Los Angeles, the technology for music recording in general has changed so much that the question is even less meaningful.
They are shown at small, independent theaters in areas with large Indian populations. I don’t think many non-Indians show up to take a look.
There are several problems. One, being that Americans as a rule are very reluctant to watch movies that aren’t in English. Bollywood movies are largely in Hindi/Urdu with the occasional English thrown in. The kind of people who are going to watch “serious” Indian movies is going to be the kind of person who goes to the art theater to watch French movies. It’s a limited market.
Another being that Bollywood movies tend to be very deeply based in Indian culture, society, assumptions, etc. I just don’t see large numbers of Americans sitting still for movies where people dress foreign-like, where sons live with their parents, and the majority of characters are openly non-Christian. And then there’s also the difference in the sensibilities. As I said earlier, the most mainstream movies cover a half-a-dozen genres in one film. Indian movies also tend to have a very broad sense of humour, so you can end up with something that looks like Marx Brothers slapstick in a Bourne Identity movie.
I suspect you’re whooshing a bit. The term “Hollywood” does have meaning in American culture, and it really doesn’t have much to do with the boundaries of the jurisdiction named Hollywood.
That was the point, but only partly. It has come to connote a certain production value and aesthetic, but today we can see two things: 1) That aesthetic has become common for many productions throughout the world with sufficient financing; and 2), those productions we label as “Hollywood” actually involve various companies often from several countries, and often with co-financing from several countries (though the headline company be in So. California). Do you consider “The King’s Speech” (Prescience Film Finance) to be a “Hollywood film”? What about “The Fighter?” (Madeville and Scout)?
Well, then, what does it mean now, other than simply “from America” or “about ‘American’ themes”?
That it got wide release in America. That it isn’t an independent film. That the big companies were involved with it. And that, usually, the actors in it are “famous” in American circles.
Just because I go out and make a film in my backyard doesn’t mean it’s a Hollywood film.
I would define “Hollywood” in this sense as product of any major studio based in Los Angeles, regardless of where the movie is actually shot. And while most features from these studios are now done on locations away from LA studio lots, TV shows are still heavily made there.
There are some movie houses that show Bollywood movies, either in rotation with “art house” fare or exclusively. In the Washington DC area, the theater at Shirlington puts maybe three or four Indian movies a year into its rotation, and the cinema at Loehman’s Plaza in Fairfax, when I was aware of it, showed nothing but Bollywood (I haven’t been there in years and don’t know what they show now). DVD sales and rentals keep the Indian community pretty sated; there are many Indian and Pakistani groceries that carry Bollywood movies as a healthy sideline. And most Afghan restaurants I’ve been to keep Bollywood music videos going, since they’re just similar enough to their home product and quite a bit sexier. I’d say the market is appropriately tapped.
And that’s my point. These criteria are so loose (especially “independent”) that it’s close to just saying that it’s an American film. Often between pre-production and distribution, what was once an “independent” film suddenly is considered a “Hollywood” film, though it’s the same product. It’s easier to say that a film is definitively not a Hollywood film than that it is.
In any case, I think the intent of the OP (i.e., what is the extent of U.S. pop culture hegemony) is most interesting in the those cases of places (several mentioned above) where popular entertainment doesn’t defer to U.S. product. And I don’t see this as “abnormal;” it’s great, but if a country doesn’t have an economy and infrastructure for, let’s say, producing and supporting a popularly generated, distributed and consumed native culture, the default is always Michael Jackson.
It seems that the market is exclusively Indian/Pakistani patrons. Is there any crossover at all, and if not, why not? (I assume dubbing or subtitles are available).
Not having seen any Bollywood movies, I always thought that, to oversimplify, there was only one story line, the same actors repeating the same story with different colored costumes and the same songs in a different key. Is the genre that limited?
I certainly couldn’t characterize Hollywood movies that way. Is this just because of personal cultural bias (I didn’t grow up in India or Pakistan)?
No need to be culturally sensitive here. Bollywood movies suck so hard you wouldn’t believe anything like it exists on planet earth on such a large scale. Let’s not be too hard on America when it comes to culture. Bollywood movies are scripted with a mix and max of elements that don’t belong together plus they break out into musicals at wildly inappropriate times. Porn has higher production values than they do. Despite what ‘enlightened’ college students want to believe, foreign <> good and Bollywood is a great example of that.
Here is a Cracked.com article making fun of some of them but they didn’t have to pick and choose much to find their examples.
I don’t like Bollywood movies, but if you believe their production values aren’t good, you haven’t seen one in a long, long time.
Musicat, whatever crossover appeal there might be is going to be seriously hampered by the fact that they are steeped in Indian culture. To the extent that there is a small number of Americans willing to accept foreignness. In films, I think that market is already served. The mass American market is very unlikely to go fir it on a large scale.
Example? I would like to see a relevant clip because it must exist but I have never seen a good clip yet alone a whole good Bollywood film. Bollywood is like parts of Hollywood circa 1920 -1950 with none of the good stuff. That’s why you never see it here. They throw together their versions of spaghetti Westerns based on current themes that are from the same cookbook.
Then you and I have a different idea of what “production values” means, because so far as I’m concerned, the technical audio and visual aspects of film are comparable to what you would find in any filmed musical drama-comedy.
Like I said, show one comparable to even a mid-level Hollywood movie. There has to be at least one good clip out of that many made. Production values are just good acting + good writing, cinematography and special effects.
Thanks but that isn’t a Bollywood movie. It is British movie based on a script set in India. Gandhi won Best Picture too but that isn’t a Bollywood movie either.
Nominations are still open for an actual Indian film that is good.
Good acting and good writing are not production values. They are aesthetic values. Cinematography is a production value only when you’re talking about the technical aspects of shooting and producing film; not the stylistic aspects. Special effects only matter for certain genres of films.
So, basically, you’re not really talking about production values.
These clips of current films show production values exactly equivalent to comparable genres of American films –
In other words, “production values” refers to whether a film looks amateur or professional bases solely on the sophistication and quality of the physical objects employed–cameras, sound equipment, editing equipment, costumes, sets, etc., and how they affect how things look and sound on a purely physical basis. That’s why the term “production values” exists in yhe first place, to contrast these things from artistic skill and choices that influence the aesthetics of a film, such as acting, writing, direction, etc.
