Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on January 15, 2007 at 13:29:27

In Reply to: Okay, why no Hollywood in my list? posted by tinear on January 15, 2007 at 11:27:05:

I will briefly digress. I find it somewhat humorous that the leftist most folks are generally the most elitist. I would think you would be opposed to microbrews, as they are the most expensive, often out of reach of most working folks. Or apparently you feel, those type of folks cannot appreciate the finer things in life. I think Stalin is turning over in his grave. Reminds me of a story. I noticed all our hispanic clients who were busted for D.U.I. were drinking Budweiser. I queried a very liberal colleague as to why they were not drinking Corona, Tecate, Dos Equis, etc. He replied that those beers were too expensive for them here. They drank what they could afford.

Now to your point. As someone who sees many foreign and domestic films (I watch 25-30 films per month, no small feet with working 50+_ hours per week and two small children), I have noticed many of the attributes which you have observed.

I would differ, through, in ascribing value judgments to those differences. Sometimes I want to watch a film that is just plain fun to watch, or a film that takes me to another time, or makes me a part of the action. For those films, I must look to Hollywood, because foreign films, for whatever reason, do not attempt to do so.

I could say that foreign films are boring, that why should they reflect real life when I am living it, that why should actors act normal when I can see that for free everyday, and why do I want to see people cheating on each other (French film's specialty), people lazing about, being provided for with family allowances (English film's specialty), people constantly fighting because they do not marry "right" (Indian film's specialty), or plod along looking for love in small villages riding bikes (Asian film's specialty), or people hating their lives, and everyone in it, including themselves (Eastern Block films).

The differences were brought to bear last night as I watched the 2002 Japanese version of Dark Water. Many will recall the Hollywood version starring Jennifer Connelly. There were differences, but not pronounced. For example, the Japanese actress, I presume for cultural reasons, generally did not look the men in the eyes, rather looking down when she addressed them. Connelly was much more forceful when dealing with the opposite sex. Is that bad?

The other difference was that in the Japanese version, the lawyers were given smaller roles. The Hollywood version injected more legal proceedings into the film. I happen to think the Japenese version was better in this respect, but certainly did not make the Hollywood version bad.

Why I do not is because I like those films too. Fact is, there are good and bad films on both sides of the pond. Why bitch about your dessert because it was not as good as the steak?