Foreign films

Cool... Wondering how this is your definition of the genre and what it means to you, though... There is a Favorite Foreign Films thread on the boards... and this isn't it.

__________________

I also see the British film industry as being quite different from the US industry in the types of films the Brits produce, like Notes on a Scandal, The Commitments, The Snapper, Waking Ned Devine, Shakespeare in Love, The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Full Monty. Where's the US equivalent of such original films in recent times? Britain still makes films for thinking adults, while the US industry panders primarily to pre-teen mall rats. Canada provides tax breaks for films made in Canada and featuring Canadians; such a government subsidy certainly is foreign to the US industry. And again, Canadian films often have a viewpoint different from Hollywood's. I don't know but suspect Australia offers a similar subsidy, but at any rate it created a new genre with Mad Max that made Gibson a star. But it has also turned out some fairly low budget big hits like that Picnic at Hanging Rock about the schoolgirls who disappeared. It also has drawn on its own history with films The Man From Snowy River and stories of outlaws like Ned Kelly.

At any rate, I think Britain's, Canada's and Australia's film industries are distinct and unique enough to stand on their own outside the shadow of Hollywood. And my gawd, look at the actors and directors they've produced--Hitchcock, Grant, Caine, Connery, James Mason, Olivia, De Haviland, Rathbone, O'Toole, Marty Feldman, the Monty Python crew, Peter Sellers, to name just a few--all of whom first made their marks in then to US audiences the very foreign British film industry.

I'll watch anything entertaining or of import, but "foreign" is only a category for those that don't care enough to make distinctions.

This is the first I've heard of it. Sounds like Mel was shooting for a particular accolade. Or he's just crazy.

Sure, why not? Granted with bigger studios the lines are getting fuzzy and will continue along that path, but I still consider movies like Goldfinger and Pitch Black to be foreign. I don't know if anyone here works in the industry, but in that realm you can't really afford to make mistakes. Not even drunk at a party. Credit must be given where credit is due. When in doubt, follow the money.

The question is, do people overseas consider movies like Shrek the Third to be foreign?

Loved it. For one thing there are too few movies that take place during WW1, and for another it's simply a great movie with an engaging storyline. It's a departure from Jeunet's previous work, which I am also very fond of, but this rounds out his repertoire nicely I think.


These two sentences are somewhat contradictory.

Essential as kung fu cinema was to my childhood I'm not going to try and convert you. Most of that tends to fall on deaf ears. But you've made this statement multiple times now using the same terminology, and truth be told I find it slightly irritating.

Even though my teeth grate at the mention of Four Weddings and The Full Monty I see what you're saying. I doubt if there are any direct comparisons to Roddy Doyle's mighty Barrytown trilogy (if you liked The Commitments and The Snapper, track down The Van - I think it is the best of the three, book or movie) but I'm sure someone with more time than me can reel of a list of faithful Working Class book adaptations done in recent Hollywood. We're getting into the territory of 'what makes a British (or in the case of those two and Waking Ned, Irish) film?'

Cast, crew, source material, funding?

I think that the British film industry would love to make a successful movie which caters specifically for the pre-teen mall rat sector. It knows that it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell at the box office because of the amount of (and budget which can be utilised by) Hollywood alternatives.

So, getting back to my main point - The US might think of the UK film industry as 'foreign' but I doubt very much if Brits think the same of Hollywood.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

I felt that the director indulged in his art and visual images far too much which became distracting after about forty mins and lost track of the storyline.

I expected a serious tone to this film about young lovers during a horriific time but the director just placed amelie into WW1 like it was a sequel.

However, the war scenes were fantastic and this should have been elaborated.

sedai, check out "facing window" starring giovanna mezzorgiono (spelling of surname may be incorrect). Now this is one engaging story about a young wife who fancies a handsome stranger neighbour.

this sounds cliched i know but the execution of the film is wonderful.
And there is a subplot involving a ww2 veteran. The acting from the leading lady is terrific.

Let's see--what I said was: "Basically, I judge foreign movies on the same basis as US-made films: is it interesting and entertaining? I do not, however, like cheap silly films like Godzilla or Japanese cartoons or the kung phooey films where people hang in the air chopping opponents to pieces."
I don't see any contradiction, since the Godzilla-type films, Japanese-cartoons, and martial arts films (with the exception of some of Jackie Chan's stuff) are neither interesting nor entertaining to me. That's not limited to foreign films: I didn't like Woody Allen's What's New Pussycat where he recorded a new English soundtrack over an old Japanese movie, with the same effects of the badly dubbed and poorly costumed Godzilla movies.

Well, we get closer to the crux of the matter now. You developed a fondness for that particular film genre as a child. I was well past childhood when I first saw Godzilla, so to me it looked, well, childish. I generally have never cared for kung fu films--didn't watch Bruce Lee on that TV series or David Carradine (or whichever of the brothers that was). I was willing to pay for martial arts action figures and lessons as my kids were growing up, as I'm sure your dad did for you, but I've never had much faith or interest in it myself. The more recent Asian films that has the heroes and heroines grabbing arrows out of the air, catching sword blades with their bare hands, running across the top of water, and stopping in mid-air leaps to sword-fight each other are particularly laughable to me. Reminds me of that spoof, Big Touble in Little China.
But if you like those films, fine. I wasn't trying to convert you or belittle your tastes. Merely expressed the type of foreign film that I do not care to watch.
If I've "made this statement multiple times now using the same terminology," I'm not aware of it. Certainly wasn't trying to irritate you; wasn't aware that anyone was that thin-skinned. Still, it does express my opinion of those films, and I'll stand by it, as I am sure you will stand by your opposing opinon. If it weren't for differing opinions, we would never race horses.

Occasionally we get a new point of view like Do the Right Thing, but I'm afraid Hollywood's idea of a "Working Class" film generally is about young black drug dealers, or a bottom-echelon member of the Mafia. Look what poor jobs they did in remaking some British classics like Alfie, Get Carter, or even The Italian Job, where a car chase alone wasn't enough; there had to be shoot-outs, too. Certainly anything like The Queen would be beyond Hollywood's background and capability.

Probably some of all of that. But I also would submit that attitude and a greater source of material has something to do with it. Britain (and Ireland) have a history and literature that goes back much further than ours, which is likely why they're less dependent on remaking old TV series and cartoon strips into movies. Also, live theater is cheaper and more accessible to the public than here in the states. I've seen original plays in London at a lower cost for tickets than for road shows years later here in Houston.


Well, I wouldn't dare try to guess what the average Brit thinks of the US or Hollywood but there has been a persistent tendancy among some Brits over a few hundred years to sort of look down on their boorish American cousins, and I suspect that some of those people definitely find Hollywood's view of the world to be completely foreign. Plus the wave of "new Brits" who have migrated from India, Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe--Hollywood must seem really foreign to those people. But the distinction may vary from person to person.

I'm sure you're not trying to tell anyone that their taste in movies is childish (which would count as belittling), but just want to point out that there are plenty of people, like myself, who didn't grow up loving martial arts movies but somehow developed a liking for them as adults.

I've seen you trash "kung fooey" films at least a couple times now, and while you're welcome to your pet peeves, many of your complaints seem to boil down to cinematic vocabulary and style, which is sort of like someone saying "can't stand those silly musicals, how they're alway breaking into ridiculous songs, so childish" or complaining about The Red Shoes because of the addition of special effects to the dancing. Or like the people who won't watch anime because "everyone has those big eyes", which is the kind of superficiality mature adults can usually get past. I've never found Betty Boop a physically attractive cartoon woman but I love her just the same.

I think the problem (of course to you this might not be a problem, but it is to me) is with your two criteria: interesting and entertaining, but not cheap and silly. I don't agree but am willing to accept the notion that you can't find cheaply produced movies entertaining, but I certainly don't see why they can't be interesting. I won't go into "silly" because it's pretty vague. Depending on what you're judging by, I'd argue just about every movie ever made can look silly, because they're all necessarily simplified when compared to real life, even "serious" movies.

I read a LOT.

I watch a fair amount of foreign films.

I find they reveal quite a bit about the culture they come from. I like opening myself up to them from time to time.

__________________
Bleacheddecay

I almost feel like asking what the best "American" made films are. Seriously though I do not care if a film is made by an American Director or a Chinese director, if it is good it is good. "Nuff said.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Someone asked if English, Australian and other English speaking cultures are considered foreign films to Americans.

I can't speak for all Americans but for me, the answer is yes. That's because a film from another country has a lot of the culture from that country in it, things that are different from mine. These things color a film in subtle and sometime blatant ways that make it feel "foreign" to me. Notice I didn't say wrong or lesser, nor did I mean that. I simply mean very different in feel.

I find those difference sometimes to be fascinating, sometimes entertaining and sometimes simply maddening but they are almost always interesting. This is a large part of why I watch foreign films.

That's right, I'm not belittling your choice of movies. I'm merely saying it's a generational thing. I'm older than most of the participants in this forum who, like my own children, grew up watching TV series and cartoons about martial arts, including as I recall, one series about a blundering martial arts dog that was called "Hong Kong Fooey" or something similar, that seemed to sum up the whole genre. Those TV programs and later badly dubbed Japanese-Chinese imports in which some martial arts star stands in a circle of 50 opponents who then attack him one at a time until he's defeated them all are just silly to me. The same way that badly dubbed European films with strongman Steve Reeves playing Hercules were also silly. The martial arts films didn't get any better when they were made in the US with US stars.

Of course, that doesn't apply to some great Asian films like Seven Samurai or even to Jackie Chan's films, which he makes interesting, entertaining, and funny. So it's not at all "like someone saying 'can't stand those silly musicals, how they're always breaking into ridiculous songs, so childish.'" I like some musicals, those that are entertaining and interesting. As for the difference between interesting and cheap, I'm referring more to cheap or low standards rather than a shoestring production budget. Some very good films have been made on a low budget, like the original Rocky and El Mariachi, the latter of which made some interesting use of some of the same elements that were uninteresting in many poorly made martial arts films. But I'm not interested in watching a badly made movie in any genre. I'm not into the Ed Wood school of movie making.

That hasn't always been true, of course. In my pre-teen years I went to the Saturday matinees to watch Lash LaRue and the Durango Kid and similar Western heroes. Thought those movies were great back then, but as I matured, I realized they were poorly made and pretty silly. Even if they do have a nostalgia about them, I wouldn't waste money on them now.

No, not every film.

I agree--I enjoy the cultural differences in foreign films that capture those subtle details. I like the same thing in US films that spotlight the differences in our early cultures, like a film made in the 1940s (or about the 1940s) that shows the gasoline rationing stickers on cars, the rationing points books for meat and sugar, signs in a diner advertising a breakfast of 2 eggs and bacon for 35 cents.

Now here's a question - Would you consider The Quiet Man to be an Irish or an American film?



As an English speaking non-American I wouldn't consider Hollywood movies 'foreign' at all and here's the reason.

This week's listings at my local fleapit: Link

This has been the case since I was first dragged to the cinema 30 years ago (and a sad indictment to the British and Irish film industries). I know a fair few 'new Brits' who's family migrated from, for example, India (heck, I married one) and while Bollywood movies are very popular, I wouldn't say that they are an alternative where people will forsake one for another. They co-exist quite happily.

In fact, the Bollywood industry have been on a PR campaign in England these past few weeks with loads of stunningly beautiful actresses and mullet-wearing blokes touring around Asian-English communities in the hope of reviving some flagging popularity.

I've always considered The Quite Man to be an American interpretation of Ireland in a certain period. Or rather that group of Irish-American director's and actors' view of the Irish-American myth of Ireland. For instance, I doubt if Irish train crews have ever abandoned trains on a mainline track to go watch a local fight, or the local IRA leaders were so open in their identifications to strangers or such jolly advocates of fair play. I'd be surprised if Catholic Irish really were concerned about keeping the local protestant minister in the parish. Same with the stereotypical benevolent landowner and the fighting Irish priest. Thats all an Irish-American view of Ireland as Paradise Lost. But it's a good story and the best film John Wayne ever made. The Irish location was beautiful and the local actors were both interesting and entertaining.

As for your local movie listings, it's not surprising that the list is dominated by US-made movies since Hollywood has so long dominated the movie industry. Since you get a steady diet of Hollywood films, I don't wonder that they don't seem foreign to you. English, Irish, Australian, Canadian, and such films are not so common in mainstream US movie-houses, however, and it may therefore be easier for us to discern the cultural differences between what Hollywood produces and what English, Irish, Australian, and Canadian studios produce.

Such foriegn films should co-exist happily, as do English, Irish, Australian, and Canadian films in this country. Because of Hollywood's dominance of the industry that has helped spread US culture to every part of the world, there are are bound to be certain similarities. But I celebrate the cultural differences, which give me a different viewpoint of the world and of life in general.

That would be "What's Up, Tiger Lily?"

I agree Godzilla was childish, and I'm not out to defend it. I believe that for young Japanese of the time it was a franchise akin to Flash Gordon serials and so forth. Pulp adventure, I suppose. An interesting footnote, however: when Sony bought rights for the 50-year anniversary, Japanese moviegoers were so up in arms at the thought of a high-dollar computer generated Godzilla that it was agreed the original studio would release its own movie, rubber-suit and all.

Based on what you've written I can say there is a whole lot you've missed. These movies come in all shapes and sizes. While it's true there is a lot of camp, and dubbed versions are indeed atrocious, it does help to understand a little of its history if one is so inclined. Your typical revenge-brawlers were heavily influenced by John Ford westerns, just in a very different way than Kurosawa's films and yes a lot of it may be acquired taste. The high-flying fantasy epics, however, were originally based on Peking operas and folktales and have been made since the silent era.

What you see hitting the theaters today are just revivals of a genre that is tied very closely with Chinese culture. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon presented the US with a conundrum. People unfamiliar with the genre wondered if Ang Lee was trying to convince them that Chinese people can fly. The simple fact is he grew up on these movies, just like I did, and always wanted to make one. His films just happen to be very, very serious and I guess it was off-putting. The director of Hero, however, I find to be overrated in all honesty. Not to mention the fact that all he seems to be doing is picking up that torch over and over again trying to hit the sweet spot.

There are a lot of subgroups in the martial arts category you may yet enjoy though, sans cheesy dubbing or flying swordsmen. The 1990's ushered a new wave of kung fu films that took a lot more care in terms of scripting and cinematography, and in a wide variety of settings and degrees of realism versus fantasy. I said I wasn't going to try converting you, but you mentioned El Mariachi which is firmly rooted in the same kitchen sink philosophy of filmmaking. If you do venture into the Jackie Chan back catalog, watch Drunken Master II. It was made at the height of the aforementioned era and is an excellent example of what's out there.

I happen to like Big Trouble In Little China. It's not meant to be a spoof, but an homage. John Carpenter is a big fan of these
movies, and like Ang Lee, he always wanted to make one. Can't say if it holds up though, it's been a while since I saw it.

It's not that big a deal. I just thought it, then thought it again. At that point I usually make my opinions known and move on. I honestly wouldn't consider myself thin-skinned; more to the point I tend to think that lumping Japanese and Chinese cultures together and using terms like "kung-fool" and "kung-phooey" is destined to offend someone.

hmmm, Pan's Labyrinth. Haven't seen it yet but, I might soon. I hear it is really freaky and stuff even for like 50yr olds :P?

As a Brit, I suppose I should classify all American films as 'foreign', judging by some of the replies on this thread. ... I don't really like calling films 'foreign' as it obviously depends on what country you are from as to what is foreign to you. It's fine if you are talking to someone in your own country, but on an international movie forum, it could get confusing...I always have the problem that sometimes it is hard to tell whether a film is American/English/Danish etc. It is easier to tell which language the film is in, so to me in my own mind a film is foreign if it is not in English and I have to watch it with subtitles.

'even 50 year olds'?? WTF?

You're right. "What's New Pussy Cat" was an early Tom Jones hit from about the same era and about as silly as Woody Allen's film, with that signature Burt Bacharach off-beat sound. I seem to remember that song being the theme of one of Woody's early movies.

I agree. Even as a child I could see the wire's holding up Flash's wavering, smoking "space ship" and thought it was mighty poor special effects done on the cheap. And I can understand the Japanese resenting the recent US remake; I also stayed away from that movie.

You say "missing," I say, "choosing." One need not read every comic book to understand the history and art of the comic book industry, and fans of Tales from the Crypt were unlikely to be frequent readers of Mickey Mouse, in that we all pick and choose our own favorites. Same applies to movies: I saw the first Godzilla, found it to be neither interesting nor entertaining, and avoided the rest of that series in favor of films like Seven Samurai.

I was vaguely aware that the high-flyer martial arts films had a connection to oriental theater, probably Chinese. With no knowledge of either, it's hard for me to distinguish Chinese theater from Japanese theater, although I'm pretty sure both cultures have produced martial arts films for the US market. I also am not sure whether the puppet shadow plays back-projected on movie screens are more indicative of the Indian or the Indonesian cultures. That said, if I tred on anyone's toes by mistaking one culture from another, I'm sorry for that offense. Blame it on Hollywood where someone like Anthony Quinn can be Mexican, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Native American, Filipino, Anglo, or Asian in one picture after another. Gee, Officer Krupke, no wonder I'm a mess!
I'm sure watching the high-flying leaps of Chinese characters in a live on-stage production would be quite amazing, as when the Beast transforms back into the Prince in the live production of Beauty and the Beast. Or when a magician makes an elephant disappear on stage in a live performance. But when done onscreen with the help of camera tricks, it's less impressive to me.

[quote=Misterking;373924]I happen to like Big Trouble In Little China. It's not meant to be a spoof, but an homage.[/i]

Well, Carpenter certainly fooled me on that one. With the leading man getting knocked out with falling plaster when he fires into the air, the villan sporting feet-long fingernails, and a monster monkey on the loose, I thought it was a spoof. Kinda liked it on that basis. But if it were a serious effort to make the Occidental character look the fool, maybe it was a racial insult. Still, it was funnier than most kung-features that I've seen.