How we differ

[la_marquise]

Aliette de Bodard (aliettedb has a terrific post here about US tropes and their effect on the world:
http://aliettedb.livejournal.com/392989.html?view=3598877#t3598877
Go, read, enjoy. And read her books, too: they're fabulous.

Skirt of the day: hearts and flowers

Comments

[aberwyn.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, superior British culture. Like the Boulton Brothers! "Carry on, Forever!"

:-)

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Firstly, sorry to be so slow answering -- I've been away for a few days.
Most British cinema is garbage, I quite agree. It's the Hong Kong situation that troubles me. The native industry there made great films, with a golden age in the 80s and early 90s. But when the big multinational cinema chains and distribution companies moved in (with the involvement, I suspect, of local rich business men, too, both colonial and Hong Konger) they put a lot of the existing cinemas out of business. Partly that was because the buildings were newer and more comfortable, and had more modern screen, sound systems and so on. Partly it was the novelty factor, to begin with. But the space they gave to locally made films was small -- one screen, maybe, if at all, because their owners had vested financial interests in films that were made outside Hong Kong and gave those precedence and cheaper deals. They showed the real blockbusters, yes (the latest Jackie Chan? Sure) but not the risky stuff, the odd stuff, the less immediately commercial stuff -- this also effect indie films in the US, of course. And they had more screens: the old places had one, maybe two, huge auditorium that took up lots of space (pricey in Hong Kong), landlords who wanted the easy money of selling off the land. They closed because they were cut off from the big money generated by the big local films -- people went to the new places because they were more comfortable and modern -- and couldn't show enough other films fast enough to make up the gap. It's a small industry, and once the profits from the local blockbusters were creamed off by the multinationals, the older cinemas that showed local films went under, followed by many of the companies that made the films, including the legendary Golden Harvest studios. The audience wanted both sets of films -- Hollywood and local -- but the venues were slanted against the latter, due to the protectionist practices of the new chains. This was, I'm sure, down to the selfishness of the rich business leaders, not their nationality. If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that the rich serve no interests but their own, and care for nothing that doesn't benefit them and that that behaviour transcends nationality.
I don't know exactly what happened to the British film industry. I know there used to be all sorts of films, from the rubbish of the Carry On and the Hammer Horrors, to things like Scum (a really good, really horrific film about young men in young offender institutions). Then it was gone. I do remember, though, that when we wanted to see Star Wars, say, the nearest cinema had it, but when we wanted to see the British arthouse film Wetherby, we had to go miles and miles to a cinema that specialised in indie and foreign films, and was not linked to the big distributors.
Our culture is in no way superior. Our history is filled with awful acts of oppression and exploitation. I own all that. But, as I've said before, we are much smaller than the US, and US influence can sometimes feel very huge and very overwhelming, and US narratives of our past seem to displace our own native ones sometimes whether we participate or not. Sometimes, that's good -- we need very much to be reminded of and careful about our clay feet. Sometimes, it's less good (my military veteran neighbour was horribly, visibly upset by the film that had a US crew, not a British one, capture the first enigma machine -- he's 90, and he felt betrayed and devalued, and that was sad).
I do think at base it's about money, not culture: the rich dominate and demand, and expect everything else to be arranged to fit their world view (China in Tibet is an example, as is the dominance of Northern Indian culture in India, especially Marathi culture). They back the films and products that make them feel comfortable. In the 17th century, the dominant wealthy culture was that of France. In the 19th it was us. In the 20th, it was the US. In every case, those outside it felt uncomfortable. It will move on as capital moves.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Bah, lj made me split this!
I do think Aliette has a good point about how different cultures construct their dominant narratives -- the lone hero, the community, the family -- and how at present the bean counters are chasing the safe option of lone heroes because that's where the money has been in the last decades. I love how the Deverry books flout that trope. I think the best writers -- which means you, and Judy, and Alis, among others -- never go for the lazy option. I think she's talking about the cookie-cutter stuff that for some reason sells. And I never, ever want to upset you: you are lovely, and I value your friendship.

[queenoftheskies.livejournal.com]

I love her books. And her post was awesome, too.

[anna-wing.livejournal.com]

I don't worry about that sort of thing. It's going to matter less and less in the years to come.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

:-)