For anyone with an interest in films that explore the cinematic language and who sees film as a radical, contemporary art form on a par with the other arts, American cinema holds little interest.
The rather commercially successful cheap horror movies produced by such filmmakers as David Cronenberg, Ivan Reitman, Bob Clark, and a commercially self-reinvented William Fruet were not just excluded from consideration in the noble work of critically shepherding a proper Canadian cinema into existence, but actively deplored as exactly the kind of thing that was likely to give Canadian movies a bad name.
Both films are characterised by an undefined and often superimposed relationship between audience and film, which varies from omniscience to subjective perspective. In the white conquest of the Canadian west, nation-building virtue and heroic action, if any there be, are the province of the authorities, not the unusually gifted and largely unaffiliated individual.
Hardly any technical or stylistic innovation came from America. The short answer is that they are not like Hollywood movies. In this respect English Canada is, I would suggest, unique.
What the Western becomes in Canada in the extremely unlikely event that it raises its head at all is: In this historical time and place Hollywood cinema is the dominant force in the marketplace of most nations, and those nations have to struggle to maintain their national cinemas despite the fact that their languages are automatic difference markers, owing to the fact that movies are expensive commodities to make and Hollywood benefits enormously from economies of scale and possesses a catalogue of one-size-fits-all narrative types.
Griffiths was inspired to embark on his large-scale productions after seeing the Italian epic Cabiria. These personages stood on the sidelines, commenting and recommending and turning thumbs up or down, but they played at best a small role in the actual lack of success of their model of national cinema, or any other model.
And yet, as with the goods behind the shop window, they know that these things are not for them to use and enjoy, except as spectators.
To this end, considering the camera as a means performing a gender and a sexuality through its lens and, figuratively, though its gaze could initiate an analytical process unaffected by Astrucian camera-stylo authorship notions4.
Charles Acland, in the stimulating essay cited in the epigraph, has also made the argument that Canadian movies have to be works of a certain kind, ultimately works for a minority taste.
American indies, which realised that films could be made on a small budget outside the studio system, would not have come about if it were not for the example of the nouvelle-vague and the other New Wave movements in Europe, Japan and Brazil.
Complexity has not overtaken conventional forms within the majority of television programming today—there are still many more conventional sitcoms and dramas on-air than complex narratives.
So, all other things being equal, an English-Canadian film can sound pretty much exactly like an American film. Today, more than ever, American films are brightly packaged unsubtle entertainments mass-produced for intellectually undemanding unders.
He is a moody, depressive man with a poor self-image, bossed around by his father and his bank manager and without a girlfriend, and he invests himself all too uncritically in the utterly banal cop character, to the point of wearing his uniform around in the streets and behaving like an actual police officer in real situations and even being taken for one by actual cops, while inserting bad dialogue from his part as appropriate.
In Canada, the initial prescriptions put forward for national cinema excluded not only cheap horror movies but, as Peter Morris has pointed out 17artistically respectable material such as the impeccably arty oneiric cinema of Paul Almond 18 on account of its non-observance of realist ground rules.
And yet are they truly at home in Hollywood either? MillerThe Parallax ViewSerpicoand many others, which reflected a bitter cynicism about American aims and means never seen before or since. These numbers are so low as to prompt the question whether there really is an English Canadian theatrical film industry at all.
However, this is not expressed directly in the essays, as the idea of gender as a performative act was first introduced by Judith Butler in in her book " Gender Trouble " 3.European cinema is more complex than American cinema.
The above statement does not entirely reflect the reality. At the level of creative expressions, the relationship between these two continents has always been, to say the very least, a two-way road. - To use the title ‘Transnational American’ (Grewal, ) might be more politically correct than American imperialism but I contend that one is in fact an agent of the other.
The two readings for this week converge around the discussion of transnationalism and neoliberalism although in. Papers - U.S.'s Influence on British Cinema Culture Between and British films are much more low maintenance than American films and seem to deal with more everyday stories than - World War I, fought between major European superpowers, was an event that shook the world.
The main difference, when referring to the ‘studio’ system of American cinema, vs.
European cinema are many and varied. I point out the studio system, because the American ‘indie’ film scene is very large and successful, and often has many auteur. But English Canada cinema is working against pulverizingly strong linguistic similarities which call upon them to achieve much more in national differentiation from the hegemonic American model than.
European film movements are most clearly understood as part of the cinema of periphery in relation to popular Hollywood productions. In consideration of examples from one European country, to what extent is this an accurate view?
and it is probably fair to say that there are more mainstream British films on at the cinema now than there were.Download