P u l p wrote:Why?!
Why what?
P u l p wrote:Why?!
Stewball wrote:And as bizarre as those are, nothing compares to O Brother being a UK film. That's hick Mississippi in spades. American cast and crew, Jewish directors, music/humor that screams Bluegrass/South'ren hayseed, and pokes fun at Homer's Greek classic The Odyssey. If the Queen ever finds this out, they'll be crowning King Charles shortly thereafter [God rest her soul, long live the king!]. His first act would undoubtedly be to have the UK sue Criticker. O the humanity!
paulofilmo wrote:The Machinist is an extreme example. American characters in a film ostensibly set in America, but the only country attached is Spain.
Stewball wrote:In any case, if money is the only determinant, then change the category from "country" to "origin of financing", or something.
Stewball wrote:P u l p wrote:Why?!
Why what?
P u l p wrote:Stewball wrote:P u l p wrote:Why?!
Why what?
This topic. I mean what's the point?
paulofilmo wrote:Good catch. Not sure why IMDb has TM listed w/USA.Stewball wrote:In any case, if money is the only determinant, then change the category from "country" to "origin of financing", or something.
i guess i've unconsciously redefined 'country' to myself as something like, countries involved with (making) the film. It'll never be perfect, but I assume IMDb, Criticker don't care enough to lose the elegance of the single word.
Stewball wrote:
You don't think that the culture of the country(ies) of origin of movies is relevant to the art or message contained in it, for context if nothing else. Then there's the possible issue of bias by some viewers (for or against the US or English). And last but certainly not least, is the oversized influence of the big/bad/old USA too overwhelming for itself....or the world? I mean, shouldn't there be cinema-welfare/re-distribution-of-carbon credits for the startup of a film industry for Zimbabwe, say? I have an idea for the first title, Mugabe's Bleeding Heart. We can only wish.
Naturally all that is trashed due with the apparent reliance on financing to determine the national identity of a given film. Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for a better measure of a culture's identity than which country's banks finance which films.
BTB, I'm kind of amazed that you could put up a one word response, "Why?", 4 and 1/2 years after the OP without any further comment, and expect people to osmosize what your getting at after all that time.
Stewball wrote:What about "cultural identity" as the determinant of the "country"--which is what I would have thought it was, if I'd ever thought about it before. Or is it to be assumed that the soul of art and entertainment is determined by financing?.
Stewball wrote:If the Statue of Liberty, which was a joint French and (finally) US effort, had been financed by Germany, we would, by this reasoning, be referring to it as a German Sculpture.