For Monday, December 14th, please read and respond to the following (if you still have a blog response to post):
- Cowen, Tyler. Creative Destruction. Chapters 4, 5, & 6.
Congrats for finishing the semester!! Happy Holidays!!
Advertisement
December 14, 2009
December 14, 2009 at 9:45 am
Creative Deconstruction 4,5,6
Scott Johnson
In chapter 4, Cowen explores Cinema, Hollywood in particular, and how it fits into a cross-cultural exchange system. He talks about clustering, or why is Hollywood and Bollywood such important places. A big reason he says is domestic interest with both countries. For Hollywood, the USA being so large for so long has helped also and especially the quality of the movies. Another thing that has led to so much success is America dominating domestic markets in other countries, like France. Also, the declining rating in those 35+ who go to see movies in Europe is hurting domestic markets. Cowen also talks about the significance of TV and how its increasing popularity stunts the growth of cinema and in many countries cinema is already on a strong low. Cowen then goes on to talk about TV, and how it is owned, the content shown, the affect of the governments on the viewers, and the implications of culture. While in his European example the government provides a lot for television and cinema, Hollywood and Hong Kong are supported commercially with exporting their products. Next he talks about the English language in cinema, making a large bold language that I take to be something like this “Globalization has been fueled by cinema because of the prevalence of the English language in other countries because of the need to understand language to watch a movie.” This is especially important because English is being exported, but no other languages are really being imported to America, keeping the domestic market for movies in America very strong. Looking at cinema from an economic standpoint, Cowen talks about clustering, how it is less costly and more productive if you have everything together. This reduces time also, and allows the quicker exporting of the product. Cowen also talks about a myth, that American movies are a monopoly, but what is significant is that all the world distributers are typically domestic in the country of origin, and have a choice, but business is fueling this, not Hollywood controlling everything. Next he talks about the possibility of American Cultural Imperialism. He argues, that everything is essentially universal in Hollywood and that areas of the world can determine by large crowds what they find appealing for them however he admits that American values are often drawn on. He ends the chapter talks about how independent film makers are accepted in Hollywood are seen, with an emphasis not on crushing them, but promoting them and mainstreaming independent movies and with a question of where does cinema go? His answer is pretty much that it will go where it will go, Asia is flourishing but if European cinema wants to infiltrate the market it will take a lot of work.
In chapter 5, Cowen talks about some more complicated topics such as the quality of things and how they are perceived, and what affect this may have on a system of cross-cultural exchange. What he is focusing on is this “dumbing down” trend. He starts by re-affirming that his process is one that fueled by trade, and that this Least-Common denominator effect increase the quality of those goods. To support this, he talks about fixed costs, the process of having a large enough audience to fuel the business in that area. Low fixed costs according to Cowen ensure a Market with broad, minority choices. However, he says that cross-cultural exchange lowers fixed costs and hurts the least common denominator effect. Another argument he explores is, larger markets have more less intelligent people. This is only a problem if the new person entering the market degrades the standards. He explains this more with intensive, or focusing in one area, or extensive, “channel surfing” as he calls it. He then goes on to say that these two idea’s rise and fall together and that the idea of high quality has been a resilient one. A new term he also introduces is a hobbyist, who focuses on specific cultural things, even if they aren’t there are or don’t seem to be important and flows well with the idea of a channel surfer. He then moves on to examples of how intensive consumption is increasing, through local things such as restaurant ratings to teens being intensive buyers into teen culture. Next he talks about this movement into “No Logo” or the proclamation of using no brand name items. To Cowen, a brand signifies quality, or a consistency in that product. A counter to this is BBQ, how it’s hard to replicated, and differs greatly depending on regions. Also to Cowen, brands when first introduced can be considered innovations, like the first McDonalds. He also defends brands as a way of increasing creativity, that high quality producers of a similar product, might market their talents by putting their name on something, and also talks about brands being able to let people experiment, without losing their support from customers. To end he basically says that culture seems to be split, higher and lower depending on the area or region or target group, but that is not necessarily bad since things do get dumbed down in some areas, others become diversified and gain higher quality also.
Chapter 6 is Cowen’s final chapter and he explores the idea of whether National culture should matter. He starts the statement boldly, saying that converging governments through the EU, France and Germany as an example, would strongly increase cross-cultural exchange for the better. However, homogenization is both a good and bad thing in this respect. What he really wants to know though, is which kind of diversity is the one that matters, diversity as an individual state? Individual person? Individual ethos? First he talks about the individual person, and re-enforces the idea that cross-cultural exchange increases the diversity, even though there may be a fusing of cultures, there will always be some small degree of uniqueness that globalization cannot overcome. Next he discusses Particulars, and how they desire for a certain time or attitude. Best I can make of his argument is that he talks about Gandhi and argues that, while Gandhi was ok with cultural imperialism, he disliked it when it affected his own, even when others have perceived it to be a huge benefit in the longer run for India. Then he talks about Diversity again, and how it’s perceived or favored, either now or across time. The problem that seems to be arriving because of this is that an older generation is the one that might favor these things, but the younger generation is the one that is fueling the less cultural specific movements, and the movement towards more globalized diversity. Next he talks about the definition of Culture and its impacts. He argues that many things in recent time are not culturally specific, that they are synthetic and that some cultures have taken from others and made it a national icon. Also, often times one can find that specific cultural ideas or objects, gain acceptance outside of their place of origin. Also, he argues that there is a fear of losing one’s status as a cultural icon, or one being considered the same as the other. Politics can also be a hotbed for culture and he uses France as an example and the government movements to preserve culture or the politics playing along in Quebec about its differences and how it wants to possibly break away. Also, there is the idea that many want something closer to them, even it is smaller as compared to having a large stake in something that is far way. The last big idea in his book is Cowen talking about the conclusions that can be drawn. Essentially, cross cultural exchange brings about a “clash of priorities and values”. He uses the idea of “freedom of speech” to also defend this, as governments as an example trying to change how their citizens view culture would be going against this. He then finishes the chapter with a recap of some of the ideas that were written earlier in his book. Rather than repeat those, I want to finish on some thoughts. All in all his ideas are complicated, but in a simple way. They are big picture ideas that have a lot at stake in them, but he presents them in simplistic, often under argued ways. There is not a lot of textual evidence from outside sources to argue against his points, so that he may better defend the points that he is trying to make. That said, this book feels like it was rhetoric with Cowen talking mostly about the positives of his ideas of a cross cultural exchange. His idea’s are interesting and how he views the many different players and actors in this world increasingly affected by globalization is interesting, their just simply isn’t enough argument to support it.
December 14, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Hollywood can be contributed to the spread of globalization as it has found a way to market films to countries all around the world. Hollywood is the place where people who have a dream of making it in the industry come and try to establish themselves. It is very hard for other countries to compete with Hollywood because they deal not only the competition from the U.S. but also from excess subsidies, demographics, language, and television shows. Hollywood does not face these same challenges or at least not on the same scale but Hollywood’s success can be contributed to the kind of films they make, “films that are entertaining, highly visible, and have broad global appeal” (75). Hollywood puts millions of dollars into the making of their films and over the years has increased due to demands from audiences, advances in special effects, and higher salary demands by actors. This can also be seen at the local level when you go to the theaters and buy a movie ticket which will probably end up costing $10 when several years ago it was much lower.
The United States and Europe have developed in the cinema graphic world very differently but the role of US movies has a huge presence in Europe. The use of sound in movies put a bigger emphasis on the English language and enforced it more as a dominant language. This made European countries want US films because “a multiplicity of different cultures or languages often favors the relative position of the dominant one, which becomes established as a common standard of communication” (83). More and more people are learning English now and through films, more people are able to connect and relate to American culture. Many American films are also subtitled or dubbed over but this is not as popular in America and foreign films have a much harder time in the American market without the use of English. When I was in Chile this summer I noticed the presence of the American film market everywhere. The big blockbuster movie coming out at the time was G.I. Joe and there were advertisements for it all over. This actually surprised me a lot even though it shouldn’t have. Even when I was watching tv there were American films or shows playing on the majority of channels. I almost felt like I was in my own living room watching tv except for the fact that it was either dubbed over or it was in English with Spanish subtitles.
Filmmakers want to make their movies as fast as they can to make a profit and to meet the demand of their audiences. This being said it is easier to produce movies in Europe because if filmmakers feel there is a risk of not making a profit the project won’t go through. Another reason that US films do well abroad is that other countries would rather see an American film than one from their own country because American films are known for values of heroism, individualism, and romantic self-fulfillment. This can also be sited as to why foreign films don’t do as well in the US; foreign films tend to deal with happy endings. America has lost some of its culture as it spreads it to other countries and the US doesn’t get the same amount of it back in return. In my opinion America needs more foreign films so that we can have a better look into other countries society but this is hard when European countries focus more on “art house” films rather than “blockbuster” films.
December 14, 2009 at 1:11 pm
The idea of cultural nationalism is one that can be debated for hours and hours on end. Whether the government of a certain nation should attempt to prevent “outside” cultures from imposing on their own culture has been a debate within societies and across societies for many years. Many Westerners believe that a government should not prevent a culture from changing while people from smaller countries with very deep cultural ties believe their culture should be protected at all costs. Tyler Cowen uses the example of Ghandi, in that he is not against cultural imperialism unless it affects his own culture. It seems that any person from any culture would feel this way, especially if one’s own culture is the one being exported to others. So it comes down, just as many concepts dealing with culture do, to a matter of perspective.
Cowen concludes with three related but contrasting values; 1) the paradox of diversity, “that the world as a whole may be more diverse if some societies refuse to accept diversity as a value” (146), 2) those who try to preserve their cultural identity will be extremely disappointed by any type of change, and 3) the desire for difference and distinction. The paradox of diversity seems possible in theory, but impossible in reality. A society may not accept diversity as a value but with technology and trade today it seems almost impossible for a society to completely block out another culture. Although the culture may at first remain “pure” it would eventually adopt some aspects of other cultures. Yes, the world may be more diverse because this culture has not accepted diversity, but depending on how the culture blocks out others would determine whether the world would benefit from the cultural diversity. Thus, there would be more diversity across cultures and less within the culture.
The next value is that those who try to preserve their cultural identity will be extremely disappointed by any type of change. This can be seen in many cultures, mostly in older generations. Since the beginning of time, cultures have changed and been affected by other cultures, the difference today is that devices now exist to allow this to happen much more rapidly. Although older generations, and some in the younger generations, may be upset and disappointed to see their cultures change and adapt to others, but they most likely have also experienced this type of change. This type of outlook could cause hostility within the culture as well as across cultures.
The final value is the desire for difference and distinction. This, again, is a matter of perspective. Is it the culture that wants to stand out next to other cultures? Or an individual that wants to stand out within its own culture? Or an individual that wants to stand out in a different culture? A culture that wants to stand out will most likely adopt more traditional customs in order to be different, while an individual that wishes to stand out within its culture may adopt the customs of a different culture in order to be distinct.
What it comes down to is that the causes, methods, and effects of cultural change, cultural imperialism, and cultural purity are all relative. The perspectives of each individual within each culture are different and thus shape their views of culture.
December 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm
The last three chapters of Tyler Cowen’s Creative Destruction discuss the issues of film and its impact on culture, the notion of ignorant customers and their effect on the quality of global goods, and the relative importance of national culture. The most interesting chapter to me and the chapter I wish to discuss in this blog in greater detail is Chapter Four: Why Hollywood Rules the World and Whether We Should Care. I found this chapter to be atypical of anything else we have read so far, and beyond this, I much enjoyed how the content of this chapter symbolized the globalization process through the workings and effects of a specific industry. The film industry truly represents how culture can be spread from nation to nation and film maker to film viewer without even realizing it or necessarily intending to do so. A film produced and written in the United States will inevitably encompass at least part of the American culture, which is then spread to those who watch American films worldwide. I have never really thought of films as spreading culture, or, to be more precise, as films spreading American culture to the world. I believe that as an American citizen I have never seen a film as a cultural document because, in large majority, the films I view are American films that echo the ideals that I know and understand to be part of my worldview.
I cannot help but think, however, that even though the films I watch are Hollywood films, they are often times not about the United States. The films I am most interested in are dramas, which usually deal with stories or histories of other nations, the struggles of people abroad, or are set in foreign nations. This leaves me to wonder if this genre of film I most frequently view would be classified as the type of film that “Americanizes” the global audience. If the film is about another part of the world, is it still promoting American culture and American ideals? Does the fact that the film is about another country or another culture cancel out the fact that the movie was produced and written in the United States or filmed in Hollywood? Or is it merely how the movie is presented and through what lens the dramatic film about Sierra Leone or World War II is filmed and directed that make the difference? Am I being increasingly “Americanized” by each film I watch that is not a foreign-made film? All of these questions came to my mind after reading Chapter Four.
What also interested me about this chapter was Cowen’s discussion of the typical American film and how the Hollywood film has different objectives than most foreign films. Most foreign films have a very local audience which they target and do not frequently serve a commercial purpose. Hollywood films, on the other hand, have an “entertaining, highly visible, and broad global appeal” that set them up for maximum profit. Whereas many foreign films are subsidized by their respective national governments and therefore deal with more specific and locally pertinent topics, Hollywood films aim to appeal to a large global audience and therefore, in many cases, play off of general themes so as to attract the broadest base of viewers worldwide. Many Hollywood films are of the action genre because they do not require a sophisticated plot. There is no risk of offending one certain cultural group or neglecting to interest another group when the theme is action-based and not based around a detailed story line or plot.
In my opinion, this broad-based Hollywood film genre is not forcing American culture down the throats of those around the world. Action movies are not representative of American culture, they are representative of America’s desire to profit and reach the largest audience so as to generate the largest revenue. If anything, American films are an extension of the American culture of capitalism, and nothing more. It is not as if American films are going to cause everyone to start working longer on the job in Europe, or eating hamburgers in India, or dressing like an American in the Middle East. These Hollywood movies are essentially spreading no culture, they are encompassing a general concept and theme that every culture can accept; they are spreading a culture that is unique- a culture based on the similarities of every culture. Hollywood movies are not an attempt for Americans to take over the world’s culture but rather to cushion the world’s culture with something mutually acceptable for maximizing American filmmakers’ profits. If there is any cultural impact of American films overseas, it is the spread of the English language. Seeing movies over and over again whose original script was written in English, in my opinion, does more in a cultural sense than the movie’s subject itself. I believe the spread of Hollywood films globally helps assert the English language as an essential and dominant language. If this, in turn, assimilates more people to the American culture, that is another topic of debate. However, American films are not chock full of pro-American propaganda, or American politics. If this were the case, I would say that American films, which generate a large deal of international profit, are affecting and impacting the development of cultures throughout the world. This, indeed, is not true. As Cowen states, people want to see movies or films they can relate to. If American films dealt with only American culture and only topics that Americans would understand, American films would yes, be spreading American culture, but at the same time, would not be attracting a large audience in which this cultural propaganda could assert its influence. The Hollywood film industry is very representative of globalization itself. America is hungry for profit, and so we do what we can to ensure we do profit. This does not mean that we are exporting our culture or influencing other nations to change their culture, but rather we are trying to appeal to parts of the global culture in order to maximize our revenue. The Hollywood film industry is made up of actors, producers, and directors from all over the world as well. Even our own industry is not purely American. Once again, I feel the cultural domination motive falls far behind the profit motive. In my opinion, the film industry and globalization itself seem to be reflections of one another.
December 14, 2009 at 2:12 pm
A couple weeks after watching the video “The Day My God Died”, about sex trafficking in Southeast Asia, I was approached by an employee of the Polaris Project to sign a petition for a human trafficking bill. Not witnessing and hearing about the sex trade every unfortunately causes people, myself included, to forget that something so awful even exists. The video from class and my run in with the Polaris Project has opened my eyes to the world of human trafficking.
After my encounter with the Polaris Project I visited their website (www.polarisproject.org) and was bombarded with disturbing facts. I never realized how prevalent human trafficking in the United States is until now. My naïve mind thought that it was something that could only occur in undeveloped countries, but I have learned that millions of people in rich and well-developed countries are affected by the sex trade every day.
Every year over 200,000 children in the United States are at risk for sex trafficking. This was shocking to me. I never thought American children were at risk of being forced into the sex trade. The fact that sex trafficking affects people so close to home is extremely disturbing and knowing that many people benefit from this awful business is even more sickening.
Although it is extremely unfortunate that globalization has, in a way, pushed the sex trade forward, it has also helped those combating it. Governments are finally becoming aware that this is a major problem affecting not only certain countries, but the entire world. The industry of human trafficking has become the second largest crime industry in the world and unfortunately it is still growing. Several countries have started taking small steps to fight sex trafficking, but bigger steps must be taken and it seems that the only way to do this is for people, like us, to take action and to demand action from our governments. We saw an example of this in the organization, Mother Nepal, in the video and I have seen it in person, at the Polaris Project.
December 14, 2009 at 7:06 pm
In his fourth chapter, Tyler Cowen focuses on cinema, and as we discussed in class last week, a large driving force behind what movies are being produced now in Hollywood are those which have global appeal (primarily, action movies. Who doesn’t love a good punch in the face?). Cowen argues that this, along with their high visibility and that they are so entertaining is the primary advantage of Hollywood.
My only response to this is that, of course these movies are visible, they are being produced by hugely successful companies which have more than enough money to inundate multiple different markets in order to market their films. Cowen does go one to say this, (in passing…) but rather than saying that these films are visible, there should be more of a focus on that they are AVAILABLE. You can go and see them in other countries, they have been subtitled and dubbed into a number of other languages. In the US, there is not the availability of other films, except in very specialized markets. The film industry in the US is just that. An industry. A business. They are going to do what they have to do to make as much money as humanly possible. That’s the American way! To me, this is also one of the driving forces behind clustering: that is where the money is, so let’s go there and maybe we can get sponsored, or hired and have the money available to make money…
Also, how do you define what makes a film entertaining? That is the point that really seems like a broad sweeping generalization about cultural interests. What is entertaining to one culture is not necessarily entertaining to another. This factor is merely a part of the ‘broad global appeal’ category and can not stand on its own. Despite this, I am very glad that Cowen makes sure to point out that rather than this all being the imperialism of American culture in cinematography, US films are a conglomeration of foreign influences, directors, actors, writers, etc. (Although it may be this very fact that actually makes this the paradigm of American culture…depending on who you’re talking to).
Chapter 5, in discussing the dumbing down of culture in order to share it with an audience which has not been exposed to it, rather than this being a huge problem because of globalization, it’s more a problem of… capitalism? Of consumerism? Whatever it is, I think this is just a tendency of art. Even within a single culture everything is dumbed down to get at the biggest audience available, I can’t see globalization’s impact changing the rate of such simplification that much. In addition, the “quality of taste” should be looked at subjectively. Taste is a personal matter and isn’t universal, because although you may like the newest band blah blah blah that is sweeping the nation, that doesn’t mean that you and everyone else who likes that band have exactly the same tastes, or that you like all their music or that you even like their music.
I’ll stop here, but I think my biggest problem with Cowen is, as we discussed in class, that he seems to skip from one idea to the next without fully covering all the aspects of how or why he gets from those points to the next, and it seems like what he leaves out are the issues that are the most interesting to me.
December 14, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I remember when the notion that the US may or may not remain the super power that it is today. It is difficult to imagine the US not being the leader of the free world. Economically, the US is starting to slow down dramatically. Although it seems inevitable for the US to step down from its leader position, I do believe that the US will remain the leader when it comes to soft power, the entertainment sector. As Cowen explains it, Hollywood (its export) has contributed to the globalization of culture (American culture); most movies out now across the globe are American movies. The export of Hollywood has allowed for the entire world to get a glimpse of the American dream (a glamourized version of it of course). My grandmother, who lives in France, has never been to the US, does not speak English, has even joked with me about “Team Edward or Team Jacob”! – That is powerful. It is also interesting to think that the US is the entertainment/movie super power but in 2008, all the major Oscar winners were not Americans: Daniel Day-Lewis (England), Marion Cotillard (France), Javier Bardem (Spain), and Tilda Swinton (Scottland).
I remember growing up in France, kids would use English words as instead of French words as substitutes in order to sound cool, or believe it or not, polite. For example, when it came to someone’s race, the word “black” would be used instead of the French word “noir” because the French word has some racial connotation (France is notorious with racial/religious issues).
As with any country, the youth seems to be the deciding group when it comes to culture evolution. Young people have always been in the forefront of new ideas. There is still a great concern in France over the protection of its culture that it is recommended to change one’s name to a French name when acquiring citizenship.
I do believe that the film industry has a great influence on cultures around the world; we see it in how kids want to dress to what they say (although they may not understand what it is they are actually saying). I remember when my cousins came to visit, and were astounded when not everyone had guns, or drove Escalades, and didn’t live in big old mansions. Because “Hollywood” has such a great impact, or the potential of influencing cultures to the least, it does have the opportunity to reach consumers on a level some industries cannot.
I don’t think that there should be a fear of culture destruction through movies, or commercial industries. I’ve always believed that it is up to the individual to make that personal decision/choice. As consumers, we each have the power to make a change whether we want to or not. No one makes us watch this movie or that movie, it all comes down to the self.
December 14, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I found it interesting that Cowen concludes Creative Destruction by drawing on three “potentially clashing values”: (p.145) 1)The Paradox of diversity, 2) Individuals favor particular markers of cultural identity, and 3) The common desire for cultural distinction.
The Paradox of diversity, or the direct clashing of values and priorities within a society, is something a student at George Mason should be able to resonant with on a daily basis. The United States seems open to cultural diversity at large, but on a local level many adults still prefer segmented cultural/class communities. Why is this? Our values and priorities concerning diversity, or even how we define diversity, differs from neighbor to neighbor. People in neighborhoods on the lower end of the economic status may not afford the luxury of an educated awareness from which to draw their opinions on diversity. How can we better educate the entire community in order to develop an agreeable standard for blossoming cultural diversity?
As individuals favor particular markers of cultural identity, is important for people to keep in mind how cultures inevitably will evolve. Some people for example believe that the Native Americans should go back to their traditional ways of living in order to preserve their culture. Who are we to tell others, others much like us, to leave their warm homes and to sleep in tents in the winter? Markers of cultural identity are important, but there are many ways to gracefully blend them, and keep them alive in modern culture.
About the common desire for cultural distinction Cowen writes, “Citizens disagree about how much commonality and how much distinction a country should have at a global level. Some seek more distinction and difference for their societies, others prefer to have more in common with the broader global community.” (p.149) This article has made me consider my own cultural distinction as a Virginian and as an American.
December 14, 2009 at 8:03 pm
For my last blog I’d like to write about the whole Tiger Woods scandal and how it has impacted his professional image/career. I thought this topic really helped me understand Naomi’s No Logo a little better than before, due to Tiger’s infidelity; he has been scrutinized by the public which has given him a pay cut. He had many sponsors and endorsement deals with Accenture, and Gillete, AT&T and Gatorade, which have pulled advertisements off the air and have even been terminated. It’s a shame that your income can be affected due to your personal life. Could you imagine if you cheated on your spouse and your boss or manager found out and gave you a demotion? Same with Chris Brown after his assault with Rhianna, his endorsement with Double mint gum was terminated as well. It’s amazing how one mistake in your life can affect your image, career, fans, despite your family and friends. I think celebrities have it hard because they are advertised so much due to their astonishing talents that automatically they are seen as money opportunities to big brand names. It’s sad how Tiger was pretty much branded, like a cow because of his professional golfer “image”. He wasn’t just any golfer though, I think because he was the first African American/Asian golfer, he had a lot of people rooting for him. He was treated like a product or an object that everyone admired and wanted to be, but now he’s nothing and he let a lot of people down. Most people who make mistakes feel horrible, learn from it and move on but when you’re in the public’s eye it’s probably not that easy. He’s damaged his image permanently and people will never look at him the same. Investors that endorsed Tiger to be their spokesperson fear the loss of their investments so much that they pulled the plug on Tiger. It just seems like the higher you rise, the harder you fall. Fame has its good and bad, but when it’s bad, it’s almost degrading and inhumane. He’s been treated like an object rather than a human-being because that’s what the market and the media see him as. The worst part of it is that all he wanted to do is be a successful golf player, which he still is. I’m not saying what Tiger did was right, but I think it belittles him when the whole world is so disgraced with his actions that his endorsements go down. Any other normal person would never know the guilt and humiliation. I blame the corporate companies who advertised Tiger. This is what Naomi was trying to get across in Chapter 5 of “No Logo”, who one’s own identity can be under threat by big brand names.
December 14, 2009 at 8:22 pm
In chapter four, Cowen does a valid job at describing the evolving global power of Hollywood and its effects on foreign film industries. However, he creates the illusion that the Hollywood model of film creation and marketing is the paradigm which other nations should pursue if they are to garnish anywhere near the success as American films. Rather, he illustrates that the commercialism that drives American cinema should be accepted and replicated so these other film producing countries can match sales with America. Personally, I don’t always see that as the point in filmmaking. My opinion is that it is more likely that in Europe, the production companies, screenplay authors, directors, actors and viewers are not necessarily in it for the flashiness equal to a James Cameron or Quentin Tarentino flick, but their low budget, sometimes not even profitable films that are created are more for an artful taste than an in-your-face “entertaining, highly visible, and broad global appeal” movie. There is an audience that it is directed to, not an attempt to captivate the wallet of a movie-goer.
Hollywood films serve the purpose of exposing not only the culture of Americans, but also the culture of the industry. With each part of the filmmaking process often coming from different regions, a Hollywood movie becomes a nexus of different ideas and culture rather than strictly American. Movies these days touch on so many demographics and are translated and/or subtitled for an abundance of languages. which have many believe that American films are intruding upon others cultures, but I believe that when there is no reciprocal return of films to America, that it is doing nothing more than providing entertainment.
Throughout this book, Cowen harps about how markets bring more homogeneity and more diversity. He is determined for his readers to accept that the more interconnected that we become through trade and cross cultural exchange, the more it allows us to “spread our wings” and develop new thoughts and processes. I can’t argue with him on the fact that more homogenous we become, the more knowledge we intercept, but often it seems that when one culture is saturated with the market and culture of another, that inception can cripple the traditions and methodology of the dominated culture.
December 14, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Cowen asks the question, How does cross cultural exchange affect theUnder the least common denominator effects, Cowen argues that the supplier may market a popular product that offers something to everyone, but at the expense of lasting product quality, as might be defined by a professional critic. This means a dumbing down of cultural content.
He goes to talk about how a large audience worldwide can relate to Action movies the best because there doesn’t have to be much dialogue involved. American Comedies don’t generally appeal to mass audiences because not everyone speaks English and different cultures find different things offensive. Harry Potter is a worldwide best seller because it has action and magic while it appeals to many different age groups and classes. A Fixed Cost (page 105) is incurred regardless of how large the audience is meaning that it’s not how many different theatres you set up throughout the state, it’s the amount of people living in that state that go to the theatres.
According to Cowen, “Fixed Costs are the bane of product diversity and limit customer choice. All other things being equal, consumer choice rises as fixed costs fall.“ There will be more things to choose from basically.Good things about the least-common-denominator effect: people all over the world will share different tastes such as the feeling the world shared when Michael Jackson passed away over the summer. Everyone has a MJ moment in their life and people that live in a small village in the Philippines can relate to someone here in DC.
In Chapter 6, Should National Culture Matter?
Cowen starts off the chapter by explaining that even though homogeneity and heterogeneity happen to be on different sides of the coin, they relate to each other more than they are different. He believes that there is so much diversity and choice in the world today, that even if they happen to be the same choices(homogeneity), there is much more to choose from (heterogeneity). He believes homogeneity is both good and bad.
Basically, there’s more out there in the world than there was a century ago. Technology plays a huge part and travel. We can find tribal music from Africa online, without having to travel there to listen, so we’re able to find more information about our interests.Should we worry about National Culture?
Yes, we should worry about National Culture because it creates diversity which generates more innovations, and allows everyone to have more to choose from. It essentially gives people more opportunities in life.
Cowen supports when a society has diversity within it’s own society over diversity across societies. Some societies are different though. As he pointed out, Canada wants to have its own identity, different from the U.S., just like Quebec wanting to have it’s own identity from Ontario. It may be the same nation but their societies are different, which they want others to notice them by. Their quest for identity values more than their desire for choice sometimes.
One can make the argument against him, saying:
He mentions that “if each society were exactly alike, we might all end up with less to choose from.” It feels as though we do have less to choose from especially after reading the article on the top five corporations. Everything is owned or has some type of partnership with these top five corps, giving the idea that they generally are the same. The three clashing values when it comes to Cross-Cultural Exchange: (page 145)
1) the ‘paradox of diversity’ = “the world as a whole may be more diverse if some societies refuse to accept diversity as a value.”
“
Note that when trade spreads to lesser-developed or poorer societies, diversity likely increases within those societies. Individuals will have more to choose from than in the past and they will be happy to have those choices“ page 146
I thought his statement there implies that even the poor will be better off with cross-cultural trade but that always isn’t the case. They may have more to choose from but can they necessarily afford it? Not all of those choices are happy choices these lesser-developed or poorer societies have to make.
I do agree that back from centuries ago, even decades ago, we have more to choose from, making us all happier but sometimes, having too many choices leads to others being outshined or pushed out of sight.
2) the strong preferences of many individuals for particular markers of cultural identity:
Talks about how over time, the younger generation wants to separate itself from the culture (in a way) by always wanting change when the older generation resists it.
3) the common desire for cultural difference and distinction:
Objective metric o difference – countries are becoming more alike because of border crossing
Overall, I thought Cowen’s thoughts were sort of like a brief overview. He never went into depth about any of his thoughts and I felt as if he would jump from one topic to another without any sort of balance. I felt throughout the last 3 chapters, he things diversity is good and is one for cultural exchange. I feel like that’s all he was saying and occasionally, he would mention Canadian pride but then jump to South African music and then talk about cinema. Also, he gives only an economist point of view. I thought it would’ve been better if he ties in different points of view in his writings or go into more specific detail.
December 15, 2009 at 12:55 am
I still remember when Titanic aired in Bolivia; it was sold out the first days. Many people went to watch it more than once. Tyler Cowen describes Hollywood as a success because of its entertaining, highly visible and broad global appeal. Cinema is one of the most problematic areas for globalized culture, as we see in chapter 4, due largely to the export success of Hollywood. I am sure that most people around the world are familiar with famous actors and movies from the U.S. Hollywood has crossed borders and has created a valuable and very lucrative market. Globalization has played a large role in making Hollywood as powerful and popular as it is around the world. Globalization has allowed Hollywood to be where it is today because of all the resources that were provided while it was attaining its popularity.
Tyler Cowen talks about how home audiences often prefer native products, if only for reasons of language and cultural context, and this encourages production to that shift market. I think that people around the world would prefer a movie in their native language but the movie industries in other countries do not invest as much in making high quality movies. Also, they can not invest as much because they don’t have the resources like Hollywood does. Audiences want to watch high quality movies and Hollywood is known for delivering these types of movies. Even though the quality has decreased in the last few years because of the amount of production, they still like Hollywood. Most of the movies that are exported overseas and are successful are action and drama movies. People just go to the movie theaters to watch special effects. Comedy and romance movies are difficult to export because of cultural differences and not being able to relate or understanding the jokes. Actions movies can be easily understood therefore; it makes it more valuable all over the world. Another aspect that makes Hollywood popular is that English became established as world standard. Many movies that are exported do not require translations anymore, they will use subtitles instead. The people around the world do not complain about this because sometimes translation changes the movie. People around the world have gotten used to watching the movies in English and can easily read the subtitles. By speaking the world standard, it promotes and increases the success of Hollywood.
Hollywood cinema itself has relied on international inspiration from the beginning, and should be considered as much a cosmopolitan product as an American one. Many storylines are from different countries with different actors. Many movies are being filmed overseas in order to avoid high costs for renting a set in Hollywood. Outsourcing is present in any level and Hollywood does not remain free from this occurrence. The reason why outsourcing takes place is because Hollywood wants to spend less in making the movie and make higher profits. I am sure that many people from different cultures get upset at the fact that someone else has to show a movie about their people.
In the last twenty years Hong Kong, India, China, Denmark, Iran, and Taiwan, among other locales, have produced many high-quality and award-winning movies. African cinema remains an undiscovered gem for most viewers, and European cinema shows signs of commercial revitalization. Most of them export these products to underdeveloped countries and many of them end up in the United Kingdom as well. I think that most people around the world are fine with Hollywood creating a film about their nations and their people. Most independent films are of great quality but unfortunately; they do not have the resources, the marketing skills and the special effects to export movies like Hollywood. Even though Hollywood makes and exports many movies around the year, most of the world’s movies come from Asia.
In the mid-1960s, American films accounted for 35 % of box office revenue in continental Europe; today the figure ranges between 80-90 %. European movies have lost its popularity within their own people. Most movies made in Europe have not been created with the intention to show in a movie theater rather, make it a TV movie. Most adults over 35 years old do not go or watch movies like they used to. These people rather stay home watching a TV movie. This trend has been seen in many countries that used to be more appealing to people all over the world.
I remember that anything that came from the U.S. was the best gift you could get. Globalization has allowed Hollywood to conquer the cinema industry all over the world. This would have been impossible if the U.S. was not a superpower. Hollywood has had a great impact and can certainly influence the audience and change a culture. American success ha led to easier finance and greater marketing expenditures, which in turn has led to greater export potential.