As a Canadian, there are times when overtly American moments in film rub me the wrong way.
Such moments happen through other channels as well (TV, media, and the like), but for the sake of this conversation, I want to focus on film. This is not a new feeling; conversely, it's a feeling that has come and gone for as long as I can remember. It's a feeling that won't be easy to explain, but my thought is, by opening a dialogue I might be able to better understand it and perhaps bring it to light for those who didn't even know these feelings existed.
The direct culprit that rekindled this position is SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Remember? The film I love that I was praising just seven days ago? In that post I left one thing out, the detail of the film that has always bugged me: the core story of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - one of heroism, sacrifice, duty, and honour - is a universal story. It speaks to all of us in the west who live with the freedoms that we do. However for Spielberg, the core story needed to be more direct...it had to be specifically American. Thus the film begins and ends with that faded shot of the flag, and we pause after the opening act to take the whole story back to the homefront.
While the European front of World War II was an allied operation (one that Canada was heavily involved in, including the D-Day invasion), SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is only interested in it from an American perspective. No other nations are mentioned, no other accents are heard. The efforts that Canadians put into missions like these are nowhere to be seen, and the sacrifices made are not mentioned at all. No matter how proud I am of what my country contributed to WWII, Spielberg has said to me "Sorry there hoser, but this is our story".
Fair enough - if an American like Spielberg wants to tell an American story, why should he worry about the Canadian perspective? But here's what's weird; the film most often compared to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is THE THIN RED LINE. Wanna guess how many glimpses we get of Old Glory in that film? Care to guess how many times America is mentioned?? What makes this particularly ironic is that the Pacific Theater of WWII was very much America's war. But by withholding the nationalism from the film, Terrance Malick took specific conflict and made it more universal.
It's just that simple. By and large, overt Americanism is unnecessary. I'm not talking about the way it plays into particularly American stories like APOLLO 13, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, or THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT. I'm talking about the way it dots a film like MUNICH.
As a Canadian viewer, it shakes me out of the story. When I hear terms like "The American Way" and "How America Does It", I know without question they're not speaking to me, or even about me. However when such moments are skipped, it becomes a human story...one that does speak to me. Every now and then, a story even takes strides to stay neutral and speak to us all. Think about BLINDNESS and the way no cities or countries are named. Take the accents away from NEVER LET ME GO and it could be set anywhere. In ALIEN, the crew of The Nostromo have no allegiance, and the ship itself has no markings.
While trace amounts of Americanism might chide me, it is of course no match for unabashed flag-waving. (Sidenote: This is not to be confused with post-9/11 rah-rah, since such moments have been happening since well before 2001). I'm talking about lines, shots, and scenes that one would find in ARMAGEDDON, INDEPENDENCE DAY, or ROCKY IV. Moments that pretty much echo the sentiment of a certain film starring marionettes..."America: Fuck Yeah!". These pieces go far beyond the exclusion that Spielberg instilled in me, and I won't harp on them very much since I'd wager that even many Americans find them unnecessary.
That's the "what". Hopefully you're still reading and I can now explain the "why".
Canada has always had an odd relationship with our American neighbours. Our culture is very much influenced by America's, and yet there is often an unrest that our yankee brothers are becoming too influential. So in some respects, feelings like mine come from an odd place of inadequacy...like a younger sibling who is tired of hearing Kid Rock echo out from the next bedroom for hours on end.
What's more, is that Canadians are often apprehensive about the fact that America has so much effect on us, though we barely seem to be a blip on their radar. American films fill our multiplexes, and line our dvd shelves...but our biggest contribution to the American film scene is when our cities stand in for theirs for budgetary reasons. Oh sure we've given America James Cameron, Jason Reitman, and Paul Haggis...but given that they're working within the Hollywood system, and not the Canadian film system, they don't really count.
So one side of this relationship can't be avoided, the other side can't be heard, thus what we're left with is a slight unease. When you get unease, it just takes a dab of red, white, and blue at the wrong moment and suddenly something is "So American". What's odd, is that I don't dislike America. I think America needs to seriously find ways to come together, but that isn't the same as disliking them. So this feeling I get watching these films isn't Anti-American. If anything, it's feeling like a Jilted Canadian.
Perhaps the weirdest thing is, this feeling isn't fueled by the films of any other country. Hell, THE KING'S SPEECH might as well have been gift-wrapped in a Union Jack, but that causes nary a flinch. Ditto the films of France, Mexico, Italy, Japan, and any other nation you can name. It's only when American films start getting brash and forgetting about their neighbours that this unease sets in. It leaves me feeling like a good friend has invited me over for a barbecue, but forgotten I don't eat pork. Even though i've told them so. Six times.
Admittedly, much of this is on me as a Canadian. I'm a citizen of a young country, descended from a larger empire, without revolution being fought to become independent. Our identity is unclear because of our old ties to England and our proximity to The United States. I dare say that The Canadian Identity is still being forged, and that is what feels jilted in the face of such Americanism.
So that's my take, and a take that's been with me ever since I was seven years old playing G.I. Joe ("A Real American Hero"). There are other Canadians who don't feel these things as strongly as I do, and there are Canadians who feel them with far more vigour. Will the American slant in film go away anytime soon? No. Is that OK? No. My hope though, is that maybe as time goes on, and people like us continue to talk and express ourselves across cultures and borders, then future generations of filmmakers and filmgoers will see these unnecessary elements of nationalism too...and perhaps make them far less common.
Note: This post was created to foster discussion: Any and all feedback is welcome. However, given the subject matter I ask that commenters please be thoughtful in their remarks and respectful of the author and of one-another. - 10/6
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Capture the Flag (A Canadian's Take on Americanism in Film)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
I totally get where you're coming from. Due to Hollywood's dominance over the film-world, there is often a shortsightedness beyond wheeling these films out to American theatres, forgetting that they will play around the world. The culture here in England is also heavily dominated by America, which is only increasingly growing in size as time goes on. It takes period pieces such as The King's Speech and This Is England to recapture that essence of "Englishness".
It's unfortunate, because Canadian (and indeed most "foreign") films rarely get much attention outside of enthusiasts. The films that are exported also extol their home country virtues, and are not necessarily an accurate cultural representation (I'll admit I'm primarily thinking of One Week (2008) here) which is a shame. In the land of cinema, it seems there are two camps: American and Not American/Foriegn (regardless of language and culture).
If one was so inclined, they may even claim that it is arrogance which causes American cinema to remain so focused on their hometurf (others may wish to label this as patriotism). However, on a personal level I find that so-called American values have now been assimilated into English culture, so it's often easy to disconnect from the overt-Americanism and take away the universal themes that statements such as "truth, justice and the American way" attempt to cackhandedly convey.
I'll admit, this was a topic that I had honestly devoted no thought to previously. Yes, there are the rah, rah America rocks movies that bug me because they fail to capture the part of America that is me. So in a sense I think the overt Americanism can bother anybody, but I get where you're coming from when it seems like they're forcing you to be part of something that isn't you.
Very well written piece, Hatter! Like you point out, it is more about removing the universal appeal of a story than it is about being anti-American. The strength of the film medium has always been its ability to tell stories that people from all over the world can identify with.
I think part of the problem is that American culture is becoming more prominent all over the world as Hollywood is pushing their films, and shows, into more world markets. Yet they refuse to let other countries into their market. Instead, Hollywood would rather take other people’s stories and convert them to American ones. The film U-571 was a perfect example of this, it was a British story that took place before America was even in the war, but the film changed events to make it a tale of heroic Americans. I never understood why they just did not keep the events the same? Did they assume American audiences would identify with the story otherwise? Imagine what the outcry would be had the reverse happened and the British had reworked an America event.
'Independence Day' is perhaps one of the most egregious examples of what you're talking about. I liked the movie the first time I saw it (it's worn very thin since, however), but even after the first time I saw it, I remember thinking it was more America-centric than it needed to be, given that the aliens were, y'know, trying to destroy the entire world.
Just as an aside: they both came out in the same year, but I wasn't aware that 'Ryan' and 'Line' were compared as often as you say. If anything, 'Ryan' is usually paired with 'Shakespeare in Love' since they split Picture and Director at the Oscars.
@ Liam... Interesting. I wasn't certain if a Brit would be of a similar opinion.
(For what it's worth, my favorite English films recently would include ANOTHER YEAR and HARRY BROWN).
I don't know that I'd go so far to say that the inclusions are from arrogance...I tend to chalk it up more to just not realizing that such elements raise an eyebrow outside of American borders.
@ Jess... That was the biggest thing that prompted me to write this...more than the SAVING PRIVATE RYAN spark actually...the notion that even though it bugged me (and obviously with Liam and CS, others), that my American friends had little understanding that these feelings were there.
Figured I could rip off the bandaid and expose the wound to some air.
@ CS... Know what's funny about the angle of "foreign don't play"? Look at INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. A film that is 50% subtitled and even has a whole chapter where The Brits take the lead.
Makes me wonder what's wrong with Hollywood when Quentin Tarantino can make a film more globally influenced than Stephen Spielber can.
Interesting entry, Hatts.
As an American – yes – I don’t need to be reminded how great we are in films all the time – I mean I live here and breathe the freedom filled the fresh clean air all the time. I drink from our freedom filled water fountains and eat our freedom fries - I shit freedom – and it smells great! We are a self-centered people – we invented Hollywood – and Hollywood being a business – we think profits – and what puts American asses in seats (around the bible belt) – flags, freedom and giant robots beating the shit out of each other!
I think part of your argument that’s missing is that Hollywood – though quick to wave the flag of our freedom loving peoples – is also quick to dig into the seedy underbelly of the bad stuff that happens here too. We are the land of the free – and freedom breeds corruption – so though we might have many films that argue that we’re the best and force that on other less fortunate nations such as Canada – I think you’d find some socialists/god hating/hippies who also want to point out how we’re not the best. And a compelling story reaches beyond nationality – good or bad.
Films can’t do everything – and a film like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is the story of one small band of soldier’s perspective. I’m not sure how WWII was – but I’m not sure if everyone all jumped in together mixed up the nationalities and fought side by side by side – or if it was a group of Canadians fighting – alongside a group of Americans – alongside a group of Brits. I’m not sure if it would’ve added to the believability of the film if they hopped into a bunch of different camps along their journey in order to show that they were fighting a long side the Allies. But I must ask – would that have greatly bettered the film? Other than the patriotism that you feel? Would you have pointed to the screen and said “yes – there is my brethren!”?
There’s the whole mythos of the “American story” too – where people pull themselves up by their boot straps and make a name for themselves – the rags to riches bullshit... I mean tale. Thus why Rocky needed to literally wrap himself in the flag and pump his fists and grunted. But there’s also Hunter Thompson (or Raul Duke in Fear & Loathing) who wraps himself in the American flag to prove how we have fallen – and how we have sacrificed the American dream for selfish indulgence, greed, fear and loathing. The flag can be a symbol used in many ways - to push the culture - good or bad. The irony of your Buzz Lightyear picture is that we find out in the third film – he’s made in Mexico – again it’s ironic that he’s a “symbol” of America.
I’m sure I can force myself to type more becaue my sleepy mind could still push out more ramblings and tongue in cheek – but if I do – I will be neglecting a few things right now. So, if I end up typing more – I’ll post it on my blog later today.
I'm not so sure I agree with this piece (but it is worthy of consideration). Malick is a bit of a special case, and the fact that he doesn't flag wave is that he seems to be a humanist first, American second. But I also do not begrudge a filmmaker to tell the story rigorously through their perspective. A 'forcing' of folks to make certain artistic choices 'inclusiveness' seems wrong-headed (although in all fairness, you may not be suggesting this...) Japan, China, loads of countries focus their tales of adventure and heroism through the lens of their own nationalism. Should we take America to task because they happen to export their films more? I disagree. I have tended to avoid nationistic cinema (yes, even Saving Private Ryan) because it is all rather exhaustingly dull at times. Rank sentimentality (and SPR is very, very guilty of this more often than not. I far prefer Spielberg's Munich to get at the nature some things on SPR's plate.
I'll give you that narcissism and hubris can stem from xenophobia. Clearly the two countries who do this worse than anyone in their big-budget entertainment are USA and JAPAN.
--
Oh, in respsonse to the whole BUZZ comment. I don't think that Buzz was made in mexico (probably China!) the whole spanish thing is that he was being sold to many different markets and had different language settings. I couple be wrong, but do never recall Toy Story bring up origin of manufacture in the films.
Furthermore, the only reason that The Thin Red Line is compared to Saving Private Ryan is that they happened to come out in close proximity to each other. If The Thin Red Line came out in 1994 and SPR came out in 1998 it is far more likely that only a few would lump them together on the basis of them both being WWII movies.
Furthermore, if Flags of Our Fathers came out the same year as Saving Private Ryan, it would easily be the goto-comparison, again for reasons of proximity.
@ Rich... Yeah, action films seem to play to the home crowd more than any other genre. I like me a good action film, and while I've come to expect "that moment"...it still never sits well.
And Kurt nailed it, SPR and TRL get compared strictly because they were released six months apart. It's a rather unfair comparison since they are such radically different films.
@ Charles... I sorta skimmed past that when I said "I like America". Were I to elaborate, I'd say that I like that America has given the world artists like Bob Dylan, Martin Scorsese, and Alan Ginsberg (amoung many others) who want to talk about what's wrong. But that's sort of a whole other conversation.
I guess what I'm saying is that whether the story an artist wants to tell is about what America is doing right, or what America is doing wrong, when it's not 100% essential to the finished product I wish they would think about telling it in a more universal manner. Might give it more legs and more legacy.
@ Kurt... (Geez, thanks for backing me up buddy)
I know the scrapped story for TOY STORY 3 invvolved Buzz being recalled to Asia. So it might not be clearly addressed, but his country of origin is in there somewhere. 'Course most toys North American kids play with aren't made here anymore anyway.
Sure, because SPR is a story about an American unit it has every right to bring as many swirls of Yankee pride as it wants...but my question still stands: How much more universal does the film feel if it leaves that out?
And as you well know, the biggest reason why Canadians have moments like this where American culture and media is concerned is that our geographic proximity means that we have it ingrained into our conscience a little more than most.
Aren't you, yourself feeling lodged in your own nationalism, if you expect films to be generic. A film can get at a universal (ecstatic?) truth by using a specific case. By demanding 'universal concession' (again I'm not 100% sure that is your point here) you are stifling in a different form.
I'm as miffed and annoyed by incessant flag waving (definitely so for Saving Private Ryan) as you are, but I'm simply looking at the bigger picture here of how to tell a story. Still, I enjoyed the food for thought!
I kinda agree with the one commenter who said, if you put those extra things in to 'accommodate' then it can often detract from the story. Realism can be overrated. I'm not saying that specifically in context of SPR, but you get the idea.
Lets take documentaries for a moment. Some of the best documentaries at getting at the human condition focus on inane topics - Tightrope walking, Pet Funerals, Living with Grizzley Bears, Donkey Kong. Nobody expects these subjects to be 'about universal' they get at universal by simply telling their very specific story.
@ Kurt... (You're gonna make me work for this one, aren't you?)
Yes I am getting lodged in my nationalism, and perhaps even treading towards Anti-Americanism...though I'm really trying not to paint this with that broad of a brush.
Consider setting for a moment. I think we can agree that 3/4 of the movies set in New York aren't really "New York Stories". But yet they have to be grounded in that reality because some writer or director has believed that will help the film play.
Now widen that out to encompass all of American film.
There's plenty that makes American films "American" - often in very good ways. But quite often, a clueless producer, a hack writer, or a misguided director will add these little red-white-and-blue flourishes that, quite simply, don't need to be there.
Your last comment contains a healthy dose of both cynicism and optimism. First that you think many artistic choices are first and foremost business choices, and second that you fail to reason that is/has/ always been the paradigm of American movies.
Occasionally some directors manage to sneak a few out (Woody Allen, Terrence Malick, etc. etc.)
If you will allow me to wallow in my own cynicism for a moment, isn't almost every scene in Schindler's List a business decision. Man I hate that fuckin' movie.
Well, I guess the problem with being subversive and sarcastic is that it doesn’t always come through in the tone you are expecting when it’s written down – as you can’t be the voice inside the head of the reader. I’m not arguing you dislike America – I get that. What I’m saying is that it’s an American institution (Hollywood) – thus the market is America – showing the leadership and hand holding of other countries to prove we’re all in this crazy world together doesn’t really play into stories of individuals that well. Yet, films can’t be all things to all people – Spike Lee might complain that Clint Eastwood didn’t include black soldiers in his FLAGS film – but that wasn’t the story Clint was telling. Spielberg wasn’t telling a tale of the war – he was telling the tale of those certain individuals in the war. I’m sorry that it rubs you the wrong way – but the same could be said about any other country’s films. It’s story telling – and stories are told from the point of view of the teller (much like the tone of my first comment) – and though it may be narrow – it’s human.
As for Buzz Lightyear – I’m hoping that the point was made – and the assumption was based on the ‘default setting’ gag – if you want to nitpick that based on the film wasn’t made – good for you.
gah I had this great comment (too long to retype) and my internet explorer lost it on submit.
In summary:
If you look at the last few years Box Office Numbers the worldwide box office is slowly account for more and more than the domestic take. I believe last two years it's been true that the highest grossing films of that year were 50% foreign take. So you can expect to see the number of overtly American films slowly fade away.
However, that hasn't always been the case so I don't find it alienating - even if American films are more 'American' than most foreign films, it's a product of our society. In America we can hate everything about each other, but most of us agree we're the greatest country in the world. Why? *shrug* - product of a raising bent on nationalism. I'm not a big fan of any sort of structure built on superiority through spatial relevance, but nobody asks my opinion.
Just like every significant issue in life, I see merits in both sides of the argument and cannot decide where I fall. Between the post itself and the comments though, I think I got a pretty good read in this morning.
Wow. Great post with lots of good discussion. So many ins and out and what-have-yous that this is hard to parse out.
First off, SPR. I put myself in your shoes and thought about it for a second. If the opening and closing shots had been a Canada flag, you're right. I think I would be a little put off. So I can see that. And in retrospect probably doesn't really matter if it's there or not. However, I don't think SPR is as flag waving as you and Kurt seem to want pigeon hole it. Other than that opening and closing shot, is it all that rah-rah American? I always thought it was, but thinking about it now I can't think of much in there that is blatantly "American;" it's a humanistic and religious story MUCH more than an American one - "America is Kaput" line of dialogue is the only bit of dialogue or imagery that I can think of. But let's not micro-analyze the topic at hand...
Though that's sort of what you have to do in this case. Hollywood is a company. Filmmakers are individuals. You'd have to take each film on a case by case basis in order to make any sort of case here for either way. What is the goal here and who is making the film? Money is front and center for any studio. So there's that. Is the movie projected to make more money in the USA or abroad? If it's here, let's throw in a shot of a flag here and there and get a few more butts in the seats. If it's currency from abroad we're looking for, then two things A) keep it more universal or B) who gives a shit because people are going to go anyway, so leave the flag shots in there. And hey, there are some foreign audiences who actually do get off on some of the America stuff, they actually like it for some reason!
Then you have the filmmaker. Is it Michael Bay or is it Michel Gondry? Is it Clint Eastwood or is it Robert Redford? A filmmaker is going to do what they want from their perspective and their individual level of patriotism. What about the stars? Would John Wayne be in any film that even in the slightest brushing glance take a jab at America? Not a chance. Because he was strongly patriotic. The guy bled red, pissed white and shit blue. Studios will take this stuff into consideration as well. We really want Clint Eastwood for this role, we better make sure that the American guys are the ones kicking the ass.
END OF PART ONE
Now turn the tables. I know every chance afforded to the Canadian blog-o-sphere you guys champion the shit out of Cronenberg or Bruce McDonald's stuff and that excites you guys and you make mention of it all the time. And I think that's awesome. Do you have a problem with the Canadian slants those directors give to their films?
I know exactly the kind of guy I sound like when I say this, and that isn't my intention, but really I just want to say to posts like this (which is extremely well thought out, written and presented), it's "our" system, we built it, we're producing products mainly for America, so just deal with a bit of red, white and blue in there from time to time. A lot of us sometimes get off on it - particularly in revenge pictures like ID4. If a movie takes place in Lincoln, Nebraska, you're going to get shots of a neighborhood street lined with American flags or a parade on the 4th of July. If a movie is shot in New England (Departed, Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone) that kind of stuff is just going to be there. It's the location and to change that would be disingenuous to the film's believability and possibly credibility.
And lastly like another commenter here pointed out, A) there isn't really as much out there as it might seem like. And B) Hollywood shows the ugly and embarrassing side of the U.S. quite a lot as well; things we're not as proud of. There's a lot of negativity in Hollywood as well - particularly recently with some of the docs and war films being made. These films sometimes give us what we don't want or something to ponder and question about ourselves. They cause us to reflect on some of the poorer decisions this country has made.
Now I'm rambling.
END OF PART TWO
@ Kurt... Certainly seems to be a business decision: Just consider the amount of smaller/more thoughtful American films that don't get screens in smaller American markets (or Canadian markets for that matter) because studios assume that such stories are not what audiences want to pay to see.
(We're getting off on a tangent here...what is this, a Cinecast?)
All I'll say about SCHINDLER'S LIST is this: Spielberg has stated that his intent behind the girl in the red coat was to raise a flag. To say "This happened, and America didn't react"...and yet when time comes for the companion film, it's strictly an American reaction.
@ Charles... I've known you long enough to catch most of your sarcasm, but yeah - some of it gets past me.
You're right, American films can't be all things to all people...but sometimes, as a foreigner, I wish they'd try to be *more* things to *more* people.
@ David... If the conversation entertains and informs, then 'mission accomplished'.
A great and very thought provoking post. To me the most egregious "it doesn't count unless it involves America" moment in film belongs to Pearl Harbour and it's assertion that "World War II just started!"
I think one of the reasons why Americanism in film stings so much for Canadians is that our homegrown product tends to be supplanted by what's on offer from the US. Because Canada makes up part of the domestic market with the US, films from the States are just as widely and readily available here as they are down south and it leaves little room for Canadian films which have much smaller budgets both in terms of production and marketing. The result is that, by and large, Canadian audiences have never really had a chance to foster an appreciation for our own product. The only real exception to this, I think, is Quebec because of the language difference.
@ Andrew... (Deep breath)
Is SPR overtly flag-waving and rah-rah? No, definitely not...but the story brings up little American nods enough (The Lincoln letter, half a dozen states and cities mentioned, the tommygun of references The Nazi spouts off in the hopes of saving his ass). There's enough other great stuff going on within it (which is why I love it), but I wonder what could have been if there'd been even a passing nod to...say a British unit.
Your mention of foreign audiences getting off on all things American makes me think of Eugene Hutz in EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED. Just sayin'.
It's odd to me that a flag here and a flag there would draw in more people. But then I remind myself of the sort of common-denomonator stuff that sells these days. So you're on to something, but I still don't think that's..."right"? (Wrong word I think, but the best I can come up with.
You're right, it does indeed change on a person by person basis (and interestingly, when i think about it, Spielberg likes to lace old glory into his films a lot). What I question though is how often it's intentional - since I'd bet at least a quarter of the stuff that gets me as a foreigner isn't even noticed by the person responsible.
- ON TO PART TWO -
I mentioned this in the post, but you've got me: My problem is with American moments only. So no, Amenabar being overtly Spanish, Leigh being overtly British, or del Toro being especially Mexican in their projects don't bug me. Is that biased? Sure it is, and that was why I brought it up...because it's a tricky dynamic that Canadians especially endure as your neighbours.
I'm not saying knock it off (how fair would that be?), if I'm saying anything, it's listen up for how often it happens. Sometimes it's needed...sometimes it's happenstance...other times, it serves no purpose.
As for there not being as much out there...well...it sorta happens more often than you'd think. It's not always rah-rah, it's more often just an exclusive thought that doesn't have to be exclusive. It doesn't sound that way to the speaker, but it's in there. That's sorta what I was trying to get at with this post, is that there's a lot of art created and statements made that a lot of us in the rest of the world can get behind. So my hope is that artists and anyone else making a statement can think beyond the borders and broaden their scope.
@ Norma... Gotta stop you there.
For America, the attack on Pearl harbor was the beginning of WWII. For reasons that we won't pick apart on a movie blog, America didn't get involved during Hitler's invasion of Europe. So yes, many others in the world had already been fighting, but I'm not going to slam what America wants to say on film for that.
Were I to take this whole post further on down the road, your point of underexposure of homegrown product is valid (so too would be the odd equation we have of abandonning homegrown talent after a certain level until they 'make it' in The States).
Very good points, and ones that get into the broader issue.
Have you ever played the game Civilization? When cities close to a larger cultural behemoth suddenly decide to join that country rather than stay with its former country. That's Canada in 50 years ;p
@Castor - them's fightin' words, y'know...
While Canadians and Americans share many of the same values I'd argue that our respective cultures weigh those values differently.
There's a brashness to American culture, a sense of exceptionalism if you will. At its core there's nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, some people take that "American exceptionalism" to the extreme. That's when it becomes blind nationalism and that's when it becomes detrimental to the culture as a whole.
I grew up on the border. The nearest major city was Montreal, Quebec (a little over an hour away from where I grew up). I grew up watching Canadian television, listening to Canadian radio, and even frequently visitng my grandparent's camp on the St. Lawrence River just outside Dundee, Quebec. There's a lot to be said for Canadian culture that we Americans could learn from, much as there are aspects of American culture Canadians could learn from. That is to say, as much as there is an "American exceptionalism" there's also a "Canadian exceptionalism."
It annoys me at times that so many of my fellow Americans know so little about Canada (Rick Mercer has done a great job of showing just how little Americans know about Canada, btw).
If its any consolation my cell phone ringtone used to be O Canada and my cell phone wallpaper used to be a Canadian flag.
@ Castor... I do wonder about such things. Any other thoughts? I was curious as to what you'd think of this whole thesis.
@ Cheshire... Still got Sidney Crosby's goal on the TiVo?
@ Perplexio... I actually sent that Mercer video to someone this week!
I think you've best tapped into what I feel. While sure, there is a lot of Canadian art that I wish got more exposure south of the 49th, there is a lot of American art that knocks me out - just so happens that most of it is subtler in its approach.
@ Anyone Who's Interested... Does anybody remember the slight bit of pro-American/anti-foreign angle that gets laced into GREMLINS??
How do you feel about films such as SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD, MEN WITH BROOMS, LAST NIGHT, THE SWEET HEREAFTER, etc. that are so overtly Canadian?(I haven't given the best examples. Just the first ones that came to me.)
I'd counter that this phenomenon isn't necessarily an American conceit but a Hollywood conceit. Many times, these distinctly American things that are added to movies intentionally to me are insulting to my intelligence and sensibility. It's an appeal to the lowest common denominator of film viewer in an attempt to appeal to the largest audience possible.
When Hollywood attempts to re-do foreign films they tend to be far more successful when they stick as close to the original product as possible. When they try to Americanize foreign films they often end up insulting the intelligence of their audience.
Ah ... to be a dual citizen and pipe in on the debate. I will leave my two cents (with both faces) at the door as it may be.
Having been born and raised in the PNW (Pacific Northwest - Washington & Oregon), I was lucky to be exposed to a fair amount of open-mindedness re: the differences between the U.S. and Canada. I was lucky to live in a part of the States that Canada was willing (if not desperate) to annex into the Great White North. Hell ... our local microbrews, vineyards, and music hold enough equity there!
That being said, I was also well aware of the grand ole "American Sentimentality" that permeated pop culture, and the general consensus of things like "what version of U.S. History to teach to what grade level" and "what version of which international conflict is most American friendly". I was well aware of these internal national/state differences at a young age, and caught onto the sad fact that what is part of the fabric of the U.S. is not always the same as what is "American".
That being said: I have not now, nor will I ever call myself the A-word. I am from the States, specifically the PNW. I adore my hometown, the geography I call home, and the fundamental truths that it holds. Those truths being: damn fine beer/wine/food/music, the best in biodiversity and geographic diversity, and the sheer breadth and depth of thoughts/passions/opinions of those that live there.
I do not use the A-word because of what many of you have spoke on already: how slanted, grandiose, egregious, and biased that thought perspective can be (and often is). This is all too evident in media.
I have never watched Saving Private Ryan or Pearl Harbor. I cannot stomach it. I cannot stomach the notions of "this is how bad-ass were Americans were in this conflict" sentiment. I also cannot stomach it for personal, historical reasons. My Grandfather served 3 tours in WWII; he was in North Africa, Italy/Palermo, Sicily, and in France (both Normandy and Dieppe). He also went on later to serve in Korea.
Anyhow ... my personal diatribe aside. Culturally, even within the U.S., people tend to identify more with the state/region they are from versus being an "American". You ask most "Americans" where they are from or their background, and they will say "I'm from the Bronx; I'm from Chicago; I'm a Texan". There is an odd, distinct line between being an "American" in general and where you are truly from/call home. It is all about assimilation and not accommodation.
Culturally, here in Canada (Ontario, at least), it is far different. You ask people here where they are from, or their background and they will tell you just that. "I'm from Saint Lucia; I'm Chinese-Canadian; I was born in Newfoundland but my folks are Guyanese". It is acceptable and welcome to vocalize and embrace the diversity of your heritage.
Though Canada is still so very young as a nation, and is still coming to terms with our national identity and culture, the components of its history and ethnicity are slowly emerging and bleeding into the mainstream. Into the media. Into things like stand-up comedians, talk show hosts, popular musicians, and film and television shows.
Canada will find its feet and legs eventually, and it will eventually make its mark known though media. the many faces, voices, accents, and tones of our Canadian composition will get there, and hopefully sooner than later be visually represented in mainstream media.
Let's just hope that in the meantime, the "American" standard finds a new way to change its tone, and not be so "it's all about us" in its general representation, and subsequent exclusion, in their mainstream media (and general promotion and acceptance of other nation's media as well).
Most interesting post, congratulations on having provoked such debate!
I share your views completely. From a standpoint even further removed from the US, as a European.
I am strongly against the infiltration of the US culture and the way people here in Europe discard their own culture for an imported one with no second thoughts.
Of course, I'm not anti American and would be very sad in Hollywood films no longer showed in Europe, but I think people should remember that Hollywood films are made primarily for US audiences, so one should not expect to see ones own culture represented adequately, if one wants to see that, one should watch films from their own country.
@ Sasha... Isn't "Overtly Canadian" an oxymoron? if they cause a disconnect for a viewer, then I think they are a bad idea as well, but I don't think any of those films have the confidence that something like ARMAGEDDON does.
That said, i justr e-watched LAST NIGHT this week, and it didn't strike me at all as overtly Canadian...actually felt rather neutral.
@ Perplexio... That's a very good point actually. It's also rather puzzling as Hollywood is gaining more and more box office from the foreign market every year.
@ Nicole... Struck a chord did I? Look to stay on-point here, a lot of what you were talking about is outside of the realm of art, media, and film.
Can you think of any specific examples of what American film should strive to do more of? Films that the American identity you believe in is well represented and told in an engaging way?
gah I had this great comment (too long to retype) and my internet explorer lost it on submit.
In summary:
If you look at the last few years Box Office Numbers the worldwide box office is slowly account for more and more than the domestic take. I believe last two years it's been true that the highest grossing films of that year were 50% foreign take. So you can expect to see the number of overtly American films slowly fade away.
However, that hasn't always been the case so I don't find it alienating - even if American films are more 'American' than most foreign films, it's a product of our society. In America we can hate everything about each other, but most of us agree we're the greatest country in the world. Why? *shrug* - product of a raising bent on nationalism. I'm not a big fan of any sort of structure built on superiority through spatial relevance, but nobody asks my opinion.
A bit late to the party now, but never the less....
You knwo what's weird? I got a friend who watched a Canadian movie, and said she didn't like it because it was so 'Canadian'. Apparently, someone actually said 'aboot'. I think she was talking about Peacock, though, so take that as you will.
I'm inclined to agree with Univarn--it's, like, kneejerk to say America is the greatest country evereverever, but you can't really say why. We'll complain about the government, our neighbors, our school, our job, whatever, but then someone will ask where you'd rather live, and you can't really think of anything. Plus, say anything negative about America in a serious tone, and, uh, shit happens.
Of course, it is this attitude that precedes us. If I ever go out of the country, I'll just tell everyone I'm Canadian. Apparently, you get less bottles thrown at your head.
But (while I'm ranting, and while I'm sure you've long since run out of shits to give), I've always felt we (America) don't really ahve our own identity. We're one of the newer (major) countries, and we don't really have traditions. I mean, the kind that trace back hundreds of years.
And we do come off as privileged, don't we? I mean, here we are, without any significant border conflicts to speak of--no France to our England, no North Korea to our South Korea--all we got is you, Canada, and Mexico. We're on a particularly varied land mass, enough so that we had enough time to build up an entire entertainment empire. We're like those rich kids in college who stole your scholarship because their dad knew the chairman.
*sigh* And now I'm done.
Oh, wait. In Canada, do you have to take a test on your knowledge of all the territories? We get a States & Capitals test, and I've been wondering.
@ Jack... Interesting. Didn't realize that much of European culture is being whittled.
Part of what made me think of this is the fact that much of Canadian and American culture is so very similar. So when something comes along in a film that specifically is not, it feels jarring. Perhaps that's why it throws me so much.
@ Univarn... For the rest of the world to buy into something, it doesn't have to disguise its American core (just look at the popularity of Coca-Cola).
Perhaps the trick is that if American films are to succeed by being very 'American' that they can focus on some of the things that make America great...and not the cliches that America thinks makes America great.
@ Simon... Don't suppose you remember which film it was your friend watched, do ya?
As for sweating about saying anything negative about America, congratulations! You have now figured out why I spent much of Wednesday sweating the reaction to this post.
(BTW - Canadians know y'all have been posing as us when you travel for years. We're alright with it. For now.)
America definitely has an identity: it's one steeped in individual liberties, revolution, and opportunity. It comes from the fact that y'all fought hard for your independence and have continued to fight for your freedom as the years have passed.
America might be privileged, but I enjoy a similar privilege living right next door to such a co-operitive neighbour. That's one of the odd facets to Canada's relationship to America: we might get antsy about being bombarded with certain bits of Americanisms, but there ain't no way we'd ever cut things off.
Like I say - it's complexed being Canadian sometimes.
Oh, and we do get tested on the provinces, territories and their capitals...but with only 13 to remember it's a pretty easy A.
We grew up in schools here learning about America as a 'melting pot' where several cultural heritages get mixed up into one cohesive culture. From what I understand, Canada is more of a 'mosaic' philosophy where each heritage is appreciated for what it is without being encouraged to change to some singular identity. Both Canada and the United States are interesting case studies in ethnic diversity simply because both countries have a high amount of immigration going on, but I think the two philosophies have drastically different effects on national identity (and the American 'melting pot' does a huge disservice to minorities).
Maybe this same philosophy is what comes into play when Americanism is portrayed in film. And maybe it's why a Canadian would naturally be put off by it.
I don't even think it was a Canadian movie, I'm pretty sure it was Peacock. Because she was talking about how a girl who looked vaguely familiar to her was, in this one scene, outside and talking about whatever, and she was going so heavy on 'aboot' and 'eh' it was like a bad parody. Seriously, Ellen Page has a really thick accent sometimes.
OH by the way, I just got the Princess Bride from the library, will be having some form of writing by Sunday.
Right with you on this. Nothing makes me roll my eyes more than a mournfully waving American flag amid a chaotic scene of destruction, a la ARMAGEDDON or KNOWING. But some errant patriotism is alright by me, if it's useful to the movie, instead of some sorry ploy to stir our emotions.
Interesting how you put a GANGS OF NEW YORK picture up there, especially given that the "patriots" of the film (the natives), are the villains. Nice juxtaposition there, if you ask me.
I'd never noticed how THIN RED LINE never states the nationality. Makes me see the film in a whole new light.
Happy? :-p
"With only 13 to remember it's a pretty easy A."
Quick... without looking it up, what's the capital of Nunavut?
Wow. I wish I'd seen this topic earlier.
Had I been earlier in the queue, I'd have gotten all Ugly American on you as a joke, but I think at this late point, that joke won't play.
There are a number of reasons for the overt Americanism of some films. One of the biggest is that for many films and many genres of film, America is the target market and the biggest single market, and you have to play to what your market wants. And like it or not, there are a lot of flag waving, giant belt buckle wearing, country music listening, NASCAR loving, "everyone in the world wants to be an American" rednecks in parts of this country.
It is overt in certain films. It's likely that Spielberg's omission of British and Canadian troops (let's not forget that Canada took one of the five beaches in D-Day) never even occurred to him in SPR. He left out the rest of the Allies without even realizing he did it. That's a guess, of course, but an entirely possible one. I say that because as both a viewer of world cinema and an American, I never noticed the lack of other nationalities in that film. I say this as someone who considers himself pretty astute when it comes to film, and more than willing to watch films that center on stories specific to other countries. One of my favorite movies (Tampopo) is so Japanese it pees sake, another (The Devil's Backbone) is a Spanish story by a Mexican director, and a third (Amelie) couldn't be more French if it tried. And yet I missed this vital bit of SPR because, as an American, it never occurred to me. Not an admission I'm happy to make, but I figure we're all friends here.
Americans as a people tend to be extremely nationalistic. The "ugly American" moniker comes from those people who truly believe that everyone who isn't an American is jealous of Americans. Not all of us feel that way (excessive American nationalism strikes me the same way it strikes you, in general), but many do.
And it's not a new thing. Last year I watched Yankee Doodle Dandy which, if memory serves, I called a patriotism bukkake.
While some filmmakers are arguably too gung ho (and no fair, Norma Desmond, for using Michael Bay as an example--he's not a director but a billboard), others are quick to show not just a warts-and-all America, but an all-warts America, an America loaded with problems.
I've been in France during a time of strikes and unrest--police in riot gear lining the streets around Notre Dame--and I still can't picture something like Do the Right Thing happening anywhere other than where it is set...unless it's another large American city.
Nationalism being what it is, don't expect this to change anytime soon. Too many people with $9 for tickets want to see Old Glory rubbed in the face of those "dirty furriners."
@ David... Nic's comment earlier mentioned something about experiencing the difference firsthand. Perhaps you're on to something! The fact that I've grown up in a diverse community could be the reason I find exclusion so jarring...or I could just be a pussy making something out of nothing.
@ Simon... Makes sense (I haven't actually seen PEACOCK). Know what the funny thing is, while I can get my back up over feeling excluded...I never get up in arms over being the source of a joke (like in SOUTH PARK for instance). Just got me thinking since usually when you hear Canadians being lampooned in a film they are saying "aboot" - though from what I understand it actually sounds more like I'm saying "aboat".
@ Sebastian... Very happy. Don't put too much creedence into my inclusion of the Butcher Bill photo: I was more looking for iconic images of the flag than actual visuals hinging back to what I was saying.
Now just out of curiosity, can you give me some useful examples of errant patriotism?
@ Doc... Iqaluit (The only trick to that is remembering how to spell it).
@ Steve... Welcome to the fray!
A part of me wonders just how many NASCAR watchin', big buckle wearin folk there really are. That's not to question their personal tastes or politics, but more so to question whether they need to be fed the rah-rah or not.
Look at Nic: She comes from a family of military tradition, but one that also believes in individualism.
It's interesting that you mention never noticing SPR omitting mention of any other country, interesting because I think a lot of people never noticed. In part, that was why I wanted to start this dialogue. It's one thing for me to bitch to my local friends about some show or some film seeming "So American"...but the odds are that what makes it "So American" doesn't even get noticed. Long story short, I guess I hoping to heighten awareness.
You're right btw - I can't imagine DO THE RIGHT THING set anywhere but Brooklyn. That comment I made earlier about 90% of NYC stories not needing to be set in NYC? DO THE RIGHT THING is part of the other 10%
YANKEE DOODLE DANDY is an interesting example. On the one hand, it seems a bit overboard since it not only celebrates America but that it does so in song (Nothin' ups the ante the stakes like a musical number). But because it's the biography of George Cohan and his musical achievements, it didn't strike me quite as overt. At its core, it's a story about not only one man's life in show business...but what he was able to do to raise morale. The fact that it was American morale didn't phase me.
In short, it suited the story - and that's fine. Watching that as a Canadian didn't phase me one lick. Strange isn't it? The elements of Americanism that chide me are hard to actually define. It's like porn: you know it when you see it.
Thanks for this comment mate - gave me lots to chew on.
@MovieGuySteve - re:"...let's not forget that Canada took one of the five beaches in D-Day..."
Actually, not to get too nitpicky, but Canadian soldiers were the only ones to complete all of their D-Day objectives, despite vicious fighting at Juno Beach.
Just sayin'.
But to go WAY back to Saving Private Ryan and the "rah-rah-Americah!" in the film, consider this bit of fact located at http://www.sproe.com/o/overlord.html (down at the bottom)
One common complaint leveled at Saving Private Ryan is the lack of non-American forces in the film. While the D-Day landings were conducted by American, British and Canadian forces, there would not have been any significant amount of British or Canadian soldiers in or around Omaha or Utah Beaches between June 6th and June 13th. One notable exception was the presence of a small number of British coxswains who piloted LCAs that carried soldiers of the 2nd Ranger Battalion. Saving Private Ryan follows the story of an American Ranger unit trying to find an American paratrooper in a part of France that American units were operating in. The events depicted in the film do not lessen the British or Canadian contributions to D-Day, but the scope of the film simply does not cover these forces.
Hatter: You're right about the "aboat" vs. "aboot" thing. I've noticed a few other Canadian-isms over the years. The one that comes to mind is "adult." Americans generally pronounce it as "a-dult" whereas Canadians tend to pronounce it as "ad-ult." The difference is a bit more subtle than the "abowt" vs "aboat" pronounciation difference. Linguistic history and accents intrigue me. I may be wrong about this but I believe the subtle differences in pronounciations is due in part to the ethnic origins of our respective countries. Canadian English evolved more from Scottish English and American English evolved more from British English. But the differences are so subtle because of the Irish English influences as both the US & Canada had a lot of Irish immigration as well. The other factor is the time at which our respective countries split from the mother country. The British influence on Canadian culture and language is a bit stronger because Independence came to Canada later than it came to the US (and more peaceably). Because the US severed its ties to the British through armed insurrection I believe there was more of an early push to establish a new culture and language independent of our former rulers. With Canada being granted independence without bloodshed I believe there's more respect for the culture from which Canada spun off from.
I'm quite glad to see that my own slants and perspectives didn't drive away an exended audience on this post. Go team open-mindedness, go!
Cheers to the feedback and rousing conversation so far from all of the commentators and contributors. And a mad hip-hip-hoo-wah to the Hatter for such an engaging post!
I have every intention of following up on the recent additons to the pile ... will spin shortly!
Vietnam War films annoy me a bit more than WWII films because there's never any mention of the Australians who fought in Vietnam. Heck, I didn't even know the Aussies fought in Nam until I discovered the Cold Chisel song Khe Sanh.
@More errant patriotism. Let's see...
BATTLE: LOS ANGELES was bursting at the seams with its underlying theme of "GO AMERICA!!!"
All the RAMBO sequels, where he goes and blows the ever living crap out of some asian/middle eastern country, but always for the righteous reasons of bringing home our boys in uniform.
The DIE HARD movies, where McLane defends the hometurf against the evil, European invaders. The fourth one was the worst in this regard, even though the villain was american.
THE PATRIOT... but, then again, I guess that's kind of obvious.
You know, things like that.
Actually, the fastest way to spot an English Canadian in the crowd (and this seems to extend across the entire regional diversity from NFLD to BC) is to ask them to say the word 'process' without saying it yourself. Canadians across the board (Quebec excluded, more or less due to the Francais) seems to say PRO-cess (long "O"), whereas a lot of Americans say Prah-cess. Works better than About or 'eh' which seem to be far more focused in Ontario...
I can usually spot the 'canadian-ness in cinema, usually an earnest 'we all tried' it doesn't matter if we didn't win, or very low-key self-loathing. See also New Zealand, which has a similar complex with Australia.
@ Cheshire... Not saying that I needed to see Union Jacks on the sleeves of the troops on Omaha Beach, but for how deep they go into France would it have killed Spielberg to give us a glimmer of an allied unit?
@ Perplexio... Language has always fascinated me so I hear ya! There's all sorts of little differences between Canadian and American vernacular and pronunciation that amuse me ("Sorry" is another one). I've actually had the misfortune of hanging out with Americans who have directly asked me "Why do you say it like that?"
Hearing the changes in the way people speak around America has always given me a great smile, and if anything wished there was more of that in Canada (when I need a good dose I talk to my grandmother who hails from Nova Scotia).
@ Sebastian... yeah, i thought of those. Looks like we're on the same page, though I'd spot you THE PATRIOT since it's a story about the fight for your nation's independence.
@ Kurt... I could have a lot of fun with the way you pronounce words which almost makes you a dialect of one, but I'm happy to finally have you on my side.
I have an old friend from my hometown who graduated from McGill and now lives in Montreal (and intends to get her Canadian citizenship). She majored in linguistics. She works for a voice recognition software company. Her company sells their products to large companies for their customer service lines. At any rate she and I have great conversations about the history and evolution of languages. She lived in Paris briefly but has said she prefers Montreal because Montreal is a truly bilingual city to the extent that people in Montreal switch back and forth between French and English seamlessly, often without even realizing it and sometimes they'll change languages back and forth within the same statement/sentence. She finds that phenomenon to be quite remarkable and unique to Montreal.
One of the things I lamented about HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN the feature is that we lost the Nova Scotia Accent on some of the hilarious one-lines from Rutger Hauer. David Brunt (the Hobo in the trailer) can really deliver, "I'm Going to Sleep in Yer Bloody caaarrcasses Ta-Nite!") Hauer is merely servicable without the accent. Of course Hauer brings so much more to the rest of the film, but I still mourn the loss of the extreme 'regionalism' in language in that film.
And to keep on topic, Hobo slightly waves its Canadian flag with using old-school Canuck money in many scenes, and of course, the over-the-top use of hockey skates...
"A part of me wonders just how many NASCAR watchin', big buckle wearin folk there really are. That's not to question their personal tastes or politics, but more so to question whether they need to be fed the rah-rah or not."
How many are there? Enough to elect George W. Bush twice. Enough that NASCAR is, based on merchandise sales and attendance, America's most popular sport. Enough the country music about trucks and blue jeans is taken very seriously in many places.
I'm not saying that all of America is Redneckville, but parts of it really are. There are plenty of places in this country where being even a little out-of-the-norm is an invitation to 12 years of in-school bullying. There rae vast stretches of this country--many of them in the more regular-polygon-looking states--in which (for instance) not publically professing a love for Jesus is an invitation to a beatdown. Really.
Understand that in many places in the U.S., people can drive for 500 or more miles in any direction and still be in America and not even really have the accent change. For these people, Canadians are our toque-wearing mildly dopey cousins (no offense--I'm not saying this is my opinion, and in general, it's coming from people who can't spell "cat" if you spot them the consonants) and Mexicans are where the guys who do yardwork come from.
There are millions of them. In part, we have more simply because we have a larger population than most countries. And in part we have more because, more than most countries, the U.S. is isolated, not just geographically, but intentionally.
As for whether or not they need this flag waving...of course they do. It's they who really need it. Those of us who are happy to look elsewhere for knowledge, insight, and entertainment understand that America isn't the cultural center of the world but a larger-than-its-due share of a very large pie. But for the belt buckle crowd, any other point of view is not just uncomfortable but heretical. Not thinking that America is the greatest country in the world--even if you aren't an American--means you are a communist and probably a terrorist, and need a good, old fashioned punch in the jaw from someone like their patron saints, Bruce Willis and Chuck Norris.
Hyperbole? Less than you'd think. You should meet some of my students.
I get the feeling that because Scott Pilgrim was so clearly a Canadian was what (for reasons I'll never know) alienated moviegoers.
And I loved the line in Wolverine where Danny Huston says to Jackman, "Don't you want to serve your country?" and Wolverine cooly replies "I'm Canadian."
Nice article. I found it to be very interesting. It is almost impossible to escape the Americanism in film today, seeing is how, at least for now, America has had the largest impact on the film industry; Hollywood, in a sense, created the modern film and will forever have its name attatched to it, kinda like Adolphe Sax and the saxophone or Captain Kirk and cell phones. Anyway, that's my thought. Nice article and I look forward to your future work[:
I once read somewhere that the South Park guys picked Canada because they were either the coolest or the least threatening country on the planet. So there's that.
Perplexio's topic interests me. Do go on.
I'm sad so many Michael Bay movies are being mentioned in the comments of this post.
@ Everybody... If you see SOURCE CODE this weekend, it's another example of "Why are we playing this as specifically American". Food for thought.
@ Perplexio... Ever seen CODE 46?
@ Steve... You paint a very bleak picture sir. Funny thing is, I keep hearing the media (the very stuff that permeates our border with mild Americanism) referred to as "The Liberal Media Elite". If there so liberal and elite, why are they creating product for all those red states?
@ Fitz... Wolverine says that in the comics from time to time - and it always gives me a smile when he does.
As for SCOTT PILGRIM, I think the hitch there was that it was just too niche. Looking at the ads for it, the fact that it's a Toronto story really isn't all that overt unless you've been here. It was just a film with a limited audience, so there was only so much it was going to make at the box office. That said - it certainly didn't help that it was opening opposite THE EXPENDABLES.
@ Jordan... Welcome to The Matinee, and thanks for the comment.
@ Simon... I think they chose us because we're so unassuming.
@ Blake... He's an easy mark.
I am so late to the game on this - and I wouldn't be suprised if this is all done and dusted, but hey...
I think its not so much down to Americanism per say, its more about the monopoly have over cinema in gereal that no one else gets a look in. If Germany was Hollywood (which, to some extent, it was in the silent days of cinema...) then we would see more films with German'ism (is that a word?).
The problem is in how America has utilised its dominance to reflects its own agenda. Purposefully or not. I think changing the story to be 'American' is lying - in any respect, thats wrong. Making a story bias so it present the American stance (Saving Private Ryan) then thats not wrong because its just a bias stance - all docuemntary has a bias to some extent or another.
It may become a little boring though if every film tipped its hat to the 'other' national aspects of the story. Its an american film - so why not celebrate america.
All we can do is ensure we support the international film market and, hopefully, one day we will be arguing about the Canadianism in cinema...
@ Simon... I actually expected many more comments like yours from my European readers. In the run-up to this post, I was under the impression that mine was a distinctly Canadian mindset, one that comes with living in the shadow of this media empire.
I figured that where countries like England were concerned, that such an angle wouldn't hit the mark in quite the same way.
From what you've written, it looks like you are of that opinion!
As for the future of arguing the Canadianism of cinema - who was it that showed you our secret plans of world domination??
RE: liberal media elite
Well...they aren't that liberal. The people who run large media empires tend to have a lot invested in keeping their own money. They're more conservative than people think in many ways, and are driven by the bottom line.
"Liberal media elite" sounds like a line from Fox News, and I'm not sure I'd trust them to run a bake sale.
Hi Hatter, what a thought-provoking post! I'm late to the 'party' but I just want to offer my two-cents. As an immigrant who've been living in the US for half of my life, I actually don't mind the 'overt Americanism' you mention. I'm not saying it's completely ok to do so, but I guess I just don't take offense to it as these filmmakers are Americans and most of the target audience are Americans or people like me who prefer/choose to live in America (for whatever reason) than the place we're born in. By the same token, movies that are overtly Canadian, Mexican, British, what have you, don't bother me either. I don't know what that says about me, but I guess I'm just not reading too deeply into this matter. I just see it as something to identify the community portrayed in a given film, so it's not always blatant superiority about America. But again, that's just me. Still, I enjoyed reading your well-written post, as always.
Interestingly, the word verification for my comment was 'angst', an appropriate sentiment for this post, no?
Post a Comment