22 novembre 2011

USA blames China's tight foreign films imports... LMAO

- Cultural Diversity Awareness -

"It is rare that marquee international film events take place in China. That is in part because of the censorship imposed by the government. Then there are the tight limits on the importing and screening of foreign movies, which cast a shadow on attempts to bring new film experiences to China."
"Streep and Coen Discuss Foreign Film in China" By Edward Wong (NYT; 21 November 2011)

What a noble gesture for the USA to bring "cinema diversity" to China, as if they had anything to teach in this domain...
Censorship on domestic and foreign cinema, there is indeed in China. There is a quota of 20 foreign titles per year since 1994. We do wish for the Chinese government to improve its policy, especially for the artistic freedom of its own filmmakers. But despite such administrative restrictions, foreign films in China (mainly Hollywood titles btw) manage to earn 39% of the admission market! And China is amongst the large producers of film in the world (500 films in 2010), so they don't leave such a big share to foreign films because of a lack of domestic production, like small producer countries do.
Meanwhile the patronizing "land of the free", the USA, with no quota and no governmental censorship, only opens a 8.4% (2009) window to foreign films (5% in 2008) on their exhibition market! 
Last month (October 2011) the USA "generously" gave 33 screens to the opening of the single Chinese mainstream blockbuster of the month : 1911 - Xinhai geming.

Wow. I don't think the Hollywood industry is in a position to lecture any country about their "openness" to "new films experiences"... the shadow is cast on the USA. Instead, the NYT should open their eyes, look around and see the plank in their own eye, and wonder WHY China is LESS isolationist than them, in spite of the protectionist measures!!!
The only countries you could harass would be India or Iran, they are in your league of isolationism.

Hello? New York Times? Anybody home??? Are you publishing disingenuous bullshit to brainwash your readers so they think that Hollywood is the good guy, the one that brings freedom and democracy to the world, and that the world welcomes you as liberators? Is it journalism or is it propaganda? You're just part of the marketing machine, aren't you? I thought you published facts... Am I mistaking "The New York Times" with another newspaper with an actual reputation for journalistic excellence and objectivity? This is a joke right?

Hint : 8.4% is LESS than 39%
Answer : USA's

Who are we kidding here? Who is complaining about the other's hermetic market??? Are you fucking blind? They are totally delusional...

I don't have the stats handy for the Hollywood share on the Chinese market, but we can easily assume a large chunk of these 39% are Hollywood blockbusters. Looking at the following BO top5's corroborates this hunch. On the other hand, there is no Chinese movie, ZERO, in the USA BO top5, and we know that they are distributed on a "limited release" and only gather a slim slice of these 8.4% (which large majority goes to Europe). 

CHINA box office top5 (2008) WITH IMPORT QUOTA :
  1. Transformers (USA)
  2. The Warlords (China)
  3. Assembly (China)
  4. Spider-Man (USA)
  5. Harry Potter 5 (UK-USA)

USA box office top5 (2009) WITHOUT QUOTA :
  1. Avatar (USA)
  2. Transformers (USA)
  3. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (UK-USA)
  4. The Twilight Saga: New Moon (USA)
  5. Up (USA) 

When 3 out of 5 most viewed movies in a country come from abroad, and 20 foreign films rack up nearly one third of the BO revenue (leaving 2 thirds for the 406 domestic films), I don't think we can speak of a problematic import/export balance... not given the state of the movie industry everywhere else in the world. 40%-60% is a pretty decent level, one that should be seen more often on the world market. If anything, this is a situation problematic for the Chinese industry, and they have the moral right to proceed to protectionist measures to make sure they don't loose a greater share of their market, or they would risk the bankruptcy of the local chain of film production.
At least in this domain, we can't reproach China anything. And using buzzwords like "censorship" or "import quota" to nitpick at openness to foreign cinema is disingenuous... Hollywood is only trying to widen the breach and get the lion's share in China (a most profitable market if they managed to extend their hegemony within Chinese culture), like in other countries their hegemony has conquered and submitted. They don't care about DIVERSITY on the Chinese market, they'll be happy as long as 100% of the foreign share is owned by American blockbusters, while they don't give a shit that the USA is not opened to foreign films at home...
China has the potential to produce a lot more movies than their current level. Domestic production comes a long way, and slowly builds up in recent years, since a low point (only 82 films) in 2001. China could reach a level somewhere between Japan and India. Thus, the foreign film share can only shrink in proportion to this prospect. And they proved they can make quality mainstream entertainment comparable to Hollywood.
Instead of whining, you should enjoy this privileged position (39%) on the Chinese market. Expending their production can only loosen and diversify the rules of censorship and the repression of Chinese artists, in the long run maybe, but inevitably they will open up (as they already have economically).


21 novembre 2011

Désir Mimétique (René Girard)

René Girard, philosophe français, né en 1923

StudioPhilo, n° 19, par Ollivier Pourriol, 2009

Ciné Philo 2 : Vertiges du désir, comprendre le désir par le cinéma; Ollivier Pourriol; 21 mai 2011; 252pp
Fidèle à sa méthode consistant à faire dialoguer philosophie et cinéma, Ollivier Pourriol dévoile les grandes théories du désir à l'oeuvre dans des films aussi variés que Le Mépris, Kingdom of Heaven, Heat, Beau Travail, Casino, Eyes wide shut, Eros, THX 1138, Blow Up ou Toy Story.
Fruit des conférences Studiophilo - où la philosophie est expliquée par le cinéma, et le cinéma par la philosophie (voir extrait sur le désir mimétique)- ce livre nous fait comprendre ce qu'est le désir, tout en nous ouvrant les yeux sur certaines scènes célèbres du cinéma : Sartre nous éclaire sur les fesses de Brigitte Bardot dans Le Mépris, Hegel sur la lutte à mort entre Al Pacino et Robert de Niro dans Heat, Girard sur le désir mimétique dont sont victimes les jouets de Toy Story, Deleuze sur l'électricité sexuelle de Sharon Stone dans Casino, Platon sur les vertiges de l'amour dans Les ailes du désir.
Olivier Pourriol consacre un chapitre au désir mimétique à travers les films Casino (Le désir des autres), Blow Up (L'illusion du moi), Charlie et la chocolaterie (Le désir de distinction), Toy Story (Les jouets du désir), Le Grand Saut (Le désir à la chaîne) et Zoolander (Les modèles du désir).
* * *

René Girard et le Désir Mimétique
(Les nouveaux chemins de la connaissance; France Culture; Nov 2011)
  1. Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque (14 nov 2011) [MP3] 50'
  2. Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde et Achever Clausewitz (15 nov 2011) [MP3] 50'
  3. La violence et le sacré (16 nov 2011) [MP3] 50'
  4. Shakespeare : les feux de l'envie (17 nov 2011) [MP3] 50'

Bibliographie selective de René Girard :
Bibliographie complémentaire :
  • Oedipe Roi; Sophocle; 415 B.C.
  • l'Evangile selon Saint-Marc / Caïn et Abel
  • Don Quichotte; Cervantès; 1615
  • De la démocratie en Amérique; Alexis de Tocqueville; 1840
  • Totem et Tabou; Sigmund Freud; 1913
  • Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion; Henri Bergson; 1932
  • Les structures élémentaires de la parenté; Claude Lévi-Strauss; 1948
  • Un Mime nommé désir; Jean-Michel Oughourlian; 1982
  • La marque du sacré; Jean-Pierre Dupuy; 2009
  • La connaissance objective : une approche évolutionniste; Karl Raimund Popper; 2009

* * *

Entretiens en 5 parties avec Raphaël Enthoven (A Voix Nue; France Culture, 2005) [MP3] 25'

* * *

René Girard, le penseur du désir et de la violence
Philosophy Magazine, Hors-série Novembre 2011
Sommes nous libres de désirer ? Non, affirme le penseur René Girard, auquel nous avons consacré ce numéro exceptionnel. Nous désirons un objet parce que celui-ci nous est désigné par un tiers. Voilà une idée dont tout parent de deux enfants, ou plus, a pu tester la solidité.. Seulement voilà indique René Girard, la rivalité mimétique qui en découle peut entraîner une société entière dans une spirale de violence. D'où, pour enrayer ce mécanisme, la désignation d'un bouc émissaire dont le sacrifice permettra le transfert des tensions. Retour à l'harmonie et à la paix, sauf pour la victime… innocente. Voilà la trame d'un phénomène qui se répète à travers les âges, depuis Œdipe jusqu'à l'affaire d'Outreau.
Démonstration à travers quelques chefs d'oeuvre de la littérature et mise à l'épreuve, dans les champs politique, financier, militaire et publicitaire, d'une théorie qui fait de son auteur un grand nom de la pensée française. 
Articles dans ce numéro :
  1. « Il y a une correspondance entre les thèses anthropologiques de Girard et mes observations d'éthologue » Boris Cyrulnick, neuropsychiatre, psychanalyste et psychologue
  2. « Je pense que la guerre a sa vie propre, hors de contrôle du politique, mais cela ne veut pas dire que la politique est impuissante » Colonel Durieux, officier d'active et spécialiste de Clausewitz 
  3. « Nous vivons dans un monde de sagesse au detail et de folie en gros » Peter Thiel, inventeur de Paypal et actionnaire de Facebook
  4. « Le marketing peut parfaitement être interprété à l'aune de la théorie du désir mimétique » Marie Claude Sicart, experte en stratégie de marques
  5. « Girard est un génie solitaire qui doit tout à toute l'histoire de la culture occidentale » Jean Pierre Dupuy, philosophe, ingénieur et épistémologue

* * *

Conférences et colloques proposés par l'Association Recherches Mimétiques 2011-12 [PDF] :
  • 10 décembre 2011 : "Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque à travers le cinéma", par Ollivier Pourriol (Espace Bernanos)
  • 16 mars 2012 : « Théorie mimétique et théologie »( avec James Alison, Benoît Chantre, Jean-Pierre Dupuy, François Euwe, Dominique Pécoud, Olivier Rey et Lucien Scubla) à la Bibliothèque nationale de France
  • mai 2012 : « René Girard lecteur de Shakespeare » (avec Sandor Goodhart, Joël Hillion, Jean Duchesne…) 

* * *

Entretiens / Conférences de René Girard en vidéo :

Voir aussi :

18 novembre 2011

"Overlong" Entertainment

Boredom is a subjective perception, and often deceiving.

Spectators who complain about the length of a movie, only stigmatize the run time when the content is not stimulating enough for the limitation of their attention span. They never complain about the same characteristic (duration) in an exciting ENTERTAINMENT movie. So many of the most popular/successful movies exceed the standard duration established by exhibitors in Hollywood and the Western world (90 minutes), and thus for quite a long time. Let alone the standard duration in Bollywood (closer to 150 minutes, although revised to 110 in recent years). The following examples in this list are not experimental works or obscur artfilms by Tarr Béla or Lav Diaz... they are all commercial movies for a mainstream audience, and ranked in IMDb's top1000. Except for Fanny and Alexander, and The Best of Youth (TV episodes released in theatre; the 2 highest dots on the graph), all are feature length movies with a commercial theatrical release. Some of them are animation for children (Fantasia, Cars, Spirited Away...)! or Teen flicks (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Carribean...) If children can take a movie longer than 2h, I would expect adults (who happen to work for the NYT) to be able to handle it too without whining like babies in front a broccoli.

A long movie is just not that odd! And not even in domain of the highest-grossing BO blockbusters. It's not rare, boring or unpopular!

Keeping this in mind, now reconsider the reasons why you reject "slowish artfilms" and CCC... It's not because of their duration, which rarely reach the epic length of a Harry Potter movie. You're just addicted, conditioned to constant nagging stimulation, and lost any reasonable sense of the passing time when it does not beat to the rhythmic cuts and punchlines. This is your problem, a problem of the audience in general in this day and age. Not the problem of a cinema that operates in different waters, nowhere out of reach, nowhere inaccessible to the common man's physiological abilities... but in a space where a greater deal of concentration is required to keep out of your mind the idea to look up your smartphone.

Mainstream entertainment movies longer than 120 minutes (incomplete selection, emphasized after 1994 to compare with CCC; longest runtime version available for each title):
  • The Birth of a Nation (1915) 190 min
  • Intolerance (1916) 197 min
  • Helena (1924) 204 min
  • Les Misérables (1925) 359 min
  • Les Misérables (1934) 281 min
  • Gone with the wind (1939) 226 min
  • Fantasia (1940) 125 min ***KIDS***
  • The 47 Ronin (1941) 241 min
  • The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943) 163 min
  • Henry V (1944) 137 min
  • Children of Paradise (1945) 163 min ***TEENS***
  • Tokyo Story (1953) 136 min
  • Shichinin no samurai (1954) 207 min
  • The Ten Commandments (1956) 220 min
  • Around the World In 80 Days (1956) 183 min ***KIDS***
  • War and Peace (1956) 208 min  
  • Giant (1956) 201 min
  • Les Misérables (1958) 210 min
  • Ben-Hur (1959) 212 min
  • Rio Bravo (1959) 141 min
  • Spartacus (1960) 184 min
  • Exodus (1960) 208 min
  • The Alamo (1960) 202 min
  • Pepe (1960) 195 min
  • Judgement at Nuremberg (1961) 186 min
  • El Cid (1961) 182 min
  • Lawrence of Arabia (1962) 216 min
  • Sodom and Gomorrha (1962) 154 min
  • The Leopard (1963) 187 min
  • The Great Escape (1963) 172 min
  • It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) 154 min
  • The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) 188 min
  • The Sound of Music (1965) 174 min ***KIDS***
  • Dr. Zhivago (1965) 197 min
  • The Bible (1966) 174 min
  • Hawaii (1966) 189 min
  • The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (1966) 182 min
  • Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) 175 min
  • Ryan’s Daughter (1970) 195 min
  • Woodstock (1970) 184 min  ***TEENS***
  • Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) 189 min
  • Fiddler on the Roof (1971) 181 min
  • The Godfather (1972) 175 min
  • The Iceman Cometh (1973) 239 min
  • O Lucky Man! (1973) 183 min
  • The Godfather: Part II (1974) 200 min
  • Barry Lyndon (1975) 184 min
  • All The President's Men (1976) 138 min
  • Star wars (1977) 125 min ***TEENS***
  • The Lord of the Rings (1978) 132 min  ***TEENS***
  • The Deer Hunter (1978) 185 min
  • Apocalypse Now (1979) 202 min
  • Tess (1979) 190 min
  • Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 127 min ***TEENS***
  • The Shining (1980) 142 min
  • Heaven’s Gate (1980) 220 min
  • Kagemusha (1980) 180 min
  • The Blues Brothers (1980) 133 min ***TEENS***
  • Reds (1981) 194 min
  • Fanny and Alexander (1982) 312 min
  • Les Misérables (1982) 220 min
  • Gandhi (1982) 188 min
  • Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) 135 min ***TEENS***
  • Scarface (1983) 170 min
  • The Right Stuff (1983) 193 min
  • Amadeus (1984) 160 min
  • Once Upon a Time in America (1984) 229 min
  • Ran (1985) 162 min
  • Goodfellas (1990) 146 min
  • It (1990) 192 min ***TEENS***
  • The Godfather: Part III (1990) 169 min
  • Dances with Wolves (1990) 236 min  ***TEENS***
  • At Play in the Fields of the Lord (1991) 189 min
  • JFK (1991) 189 min  
  • Malcolm X (1992) 202 min
  • Schindler’s List (1993) 195 min
  • Short Cuts (1993) 187 min
  • Pulp Fiction (1994) 168 min ***TEENS***
  • Shawshank Redemption (1994) 142 min ***TEENS***
  • Forrest Gump (1994) 142 min ***TEENS***
  • Burnt By The Sun (1994) 135 min
  • To Live (1994) 125 min 
  • Les Misérables (1995) 175 min
  • Se7en (1995) 127 min 
  • Underground (1995) 170 min
  • Heat (1995) 170 min
  • Braveheart (1995) 177 min
  • Casino (1995) 178 min
  • Sense and Sensibility (1995) 136 min
  • Nixon (1995) 192 min
  • The English Patient (1996) 162 min
  • Hamlet (1996) 242 min
  • The Rock (1996) 136 min  ***TEENS***
  • Secrets & Lies (1996) 142 min
  • Princess Mononoke (1997) 134 min  ***KIDS***
  • The Game (1997) 129 min 
  • Donnie Brasco (1997) 127 min 
  • Titanic (1997) 194 min ***TEENS***
  • L.A. Confidential (1997) 138 min
  • Boogie Nights (1997) 155 min
  • Jackie Brown (1997) 154 min
  • As Good as It Gets (1997) 139 min
  • The Thin Red Line (1998) 170 min
  • The Red Violin (1998) 130 min ***TEENS***
  • Elizabeth (1998) 124 min 
  • The Horse Whisperer (1998) 170 min  ***KIDS***
  • The Legend of 1900 (1998) 170 min 
  • Saving Private Ryan (1998) 169 min
  • Les Misérables (1998) 134 min 
  • Fight Club (1999) 139 min 
  • Matrix (1999) 136 min ***TEENS***
  • The Insider (1999) 157 min
  • Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace (1999) 136 min ***TEENS***
  • The Green Mile (1999) 189 min
  • Magnolia (1999) 188 min
  • Gladiator (2000) 171 min ***TEENS***
  • Amores Perros (2000) 154 min 
  • Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) 120 min ***TEENS***
  • Cast Away (2000) 143 min  ***TEENS***
  • Traffic (2000) 147 min
  • A Beautiful Mind (2001) 135 min
  • Black Hawk Down (2001) 144 min
  • Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) 159 min ***KIDS***
  • Spirited Away (2001) 125 min ***KIDS***
  • Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001) 122 min  ***TEENS***
  • The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 228 min ***TEENS***
  • Pearl Harbor (2001) 183 min
  • Catch Me If You Can (2002) 141 min
  • Minority Report (2002) 145 min
  • The City of God (2002) 130 min 
  • The 25th hour (2002) 135 min
  • The Pianist (2002) 150 min
  • The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) 131 min
  • The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) 235 min  ***TEENS***
  • Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) 174 min  ***KIDS***
  • Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) 142 min ***TEENS***
  • Gangs of New York (2002) 167 min 
  • Gods and Generals (2003) 231 min
  • La meglio gioventù (2003) 366 min
  • Love Actually (2003) 135 min
  • Mystic River (2003) 138 min
  • X-Men 2 (2003) 133 min ***TEENS***
  • Good Bye Lenin! (2003) 121 min 
  • The Last Samourai (2003) 154 min ***TEENS***
  • The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) 263 min ***TEENS***
  • Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) 143 min ***KIDS***
  • Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) 141 min ***KIDS***
  • Million Dollar Baby (2004) 132 min
  • Downfall (2004) 156 min 
  • Taegukgi (2004) 140 min 
  • Aviator (2004) 170 min
  • Un long dimanche de fiançailles (2004) 133 min ***TEENS***
  • Man on Fire (2004) 146 min
  • Ray (2004) 152 min
  • Alexander (2004) 214 min
  • Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004) 136 min 
  • Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) 140 min ***TEENS***
  • The New World (2005) 172 min
  • Brokeback Mountain (2005) 134 min
  • The Constant Gardener (2005) 129 min 
  • Batman Begins (2005) 140 min ***TEENS***
  • Munich (2005) 164 min
  • Walk the Line (2005) 136 min ***TEENS***
  • Cinderella Man (2005) 144 min  ***TEENS***
  • Kingdom of Heaven (2005) 192 min
  • Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) 157 min ***KIDS***
  • King Kong (2005) 187 min  ***TEENS***
  • The Departed (2006) 151 min 
  • V for Vendetta (2006) 132 min ***TEENS***
  • The Life of Others (2006) 137 min
  • Apocalypto (2006) 139 min 
  • Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) 141 min
  • The Black Book (2006) 145 min 
  • Casino Royale (2006) 144 min ***TEENS***
  • Blood Diamond (2006) 143 min
  • Babel (2006) 143 min
  • Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) 151 min ***KIDS***
  • Cars (2006) 117 min ***KIDS***
  • The Prestige (2006) 130 min ***TEENS***
  • There Will Be Blood (2007) 158 min
  • Into the Wild (2007) 148 min ***TEENS***
  • American Gangster (2007) 157 min 
  • Zodiac (2007) 157 min
  • The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) 160 min
  • Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) 169 min ***KIDS***
  • Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) 138 min ***KIDS***
  • The Dark Knight (2008) 152 min ***TEENS***
  • Entre les murs (2008) 128 min ***TEENS***
  • Che 1&2 (2008) 269 min
  • The Chaser (2008) 125 min
  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) 166 min
  • Iron Man (2008) 126 min  ***TEENS***
  • The Hurt Locker (2008) 131 min
  • The Changeling (2008) 141 min
  • Inglourious Basterds (2009) 153 min
  • Millenium (2009) 152 min ***TEENS***
  • Avatar (2009) 178 min ***TEENS***
  • Mother (2009) 128 min
  • Un prophète (2009) 155 min 
  • Watchmen (2009) 215 min  ***TEENS***
  • Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) 153 min ***KIDS***
  • Inception (2010) 148 min ***TEENS***
  • Shutter Island (2010) 138 min 
  • I Saw The Devil (2010) 141 min
  • Incendies (2010) 130 min 
  • Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 1&2 (2010) 276 min ***KIDS***
  • Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) 136 min ***KIDS***
  • Moneyball (2011) 133 min  ***TEENS***
  • X-Men: First Class (2011) 132 min ***TEENS***
  • The Help (2011) 137 min 
  • Warrior (2011) 140 min 


15 novembre 2011

Intuition, Reflection (Kahneman)

Daniel Kahneman, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his seminal work in psychology that challenged the rational model of judgment and decision making, is one of our most important thinkers. His ideas have had a profound and widely regarded impact on many fields—including economics, medicine, and politics—but until now, he has never brought together his many years of research and thinking in one book.
In the highly anticipated Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman takes us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think.
  • System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional; mostly below consciousness (innate reflex, natural instinct, learnt symbolism, acquired experience)
  • System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical; activated automatically if a lack in System 1 occurs (abstract thinking, corroboration, swift investigation, logical processing)
Kahneman exposes the extraordinary capabilities—and also the faults and biases—of fast thinking, and reveals the pervasive influence of intuitive impressions on our thoughts and behavior. The impact of loss aversion and overconfidence on corporate strategies, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the challenges of properly framing risks at work and at home, the profound effect of cognitive biases on everything from playing the stock market to planning the next vacation—each of these can be understood only by knowing how the two systems work together to shape our judgments and decisions.
Engaging the reader in a lively conversation about how we think, Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our business and our personal lives—and how we can use different techniques to guard against the mental glitches that often get us into trouble. Thinking, Fast and Slow will transform the way you think about thinking.


13 novembre 2011

Variety, Balance, Disparity (Stirling)

- Cultural Diversity Awareness -
Cultural diversity : “the ethnically marked cultural differences associated with the international movement of peoples and, within national territories, the claims to difference associated with the protracted struggles of in situ minorities to maintain their identity and specificity in the face of the homogenizing force of national cultures”
Differing diversities. Transversal study on the theme of cultural policy and cultural diversity (Bennett T., 2001, Cultural Policy and Action Department)
Application of the Stirling model to assess diversity using UIS cinema data 
(Françoise Benhamou and Stéphanie Peltier, UNESCO, 2010) [PDF]

Vertical axis : admission per capita in each country (top= most movie goers)
Size of the dot : number of films produced annualy in each country
Horizontal axis : HHI indicator = Cultural diversity (Left= most diverse)
Overall diversity (including all factors) : draw a line from the origin (bottow left corner) and the country, the highest angle defines the best score (angle closer to horizontal = least overall diversity)

Among other things, the concept includes languages, high and popular culture, and ways of life. [..]
Diversity in this case relies on many different factors – for example, the ability of producers to work with film-makers and actors from different origins, the number of films released or on the level of standardization of goods and more. Cultural diversity can be captured through two complementary dimensions. The first deals with the “human” criteria (i.e. criteria that apply to individuals), such as the genre or the origin of film-makers. The second dimension refers to more “material” criteria (i.e. criteria that apply to products, such as the nationality of a film). Of course, “human” and “material” criteria may be linked. The nationality of a movie depends on the original country where the film is produced but it may also have an influence on the nationality of the film-maker. More generally speaking, while some aspects are easily quantifiable, others are definitely qualitative. [..]
It is hypothesized that the diversity of cultural products implies diversity in the industrial structures and in the governance of companies. This can be seen in the TV sector in particular (Steiner, 1952). Many studies show that oligopolies with a competitive fringe dominate in cultural industries. This structure is well-adapted to the uncertainty that characterizes the production of cultural goods and services. The firms on the fringe develop a propensity to innovate thanks to their proximity to creators while the firms in the core regularly try to attract the most creative artists and/or to purchase the most promising small labels and firms.
If we adopt this point of view, we can assert that a country that wishes to support diversity is interested in subsidizing the creation of small firms – directly or indirectly (e.g. through tax cuts, etc.).
Table 14 :
- Among 33 top ten films – for at least one of the two years analysed – on average, 9 countries (27% of those sampled) share at least 7 titles in common with the global top ten over the 2005-2006 period. This percentage bears testimony to the existence of a globalized taste but also of the persistence of an audience ready to assert national and/or local preferences.
- National top ten are deeply different from global top ten in the countries that are culturally rather distant from the United States, like Japan (3.5 titles from 2005-2006), Malaysia (3.5), Morocco (3) and the Republic of Korea (3).
- The case in Italy seems peculiar. The rate of similarity (2) is the weakest of the sample in 2005. Yet, since data are not available for Italy in 2006, we cannot conclude that the Italian top ten is more diverse than for one of the other countries.

Table 15 : Films can be shot in several languages. This is especially true in multi-language countries like Austria, India, Nigeria, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. In some cases, there can be more than five languages in a given country.

Table 16 : The balance between different languages is somewhat high for Canada, Croatia, India, Morocco, Nigeria, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland. This balance concerns only two main languages in the cases of Canada and Croatia


10 novembre 2011

Future of Cinema (VIFF2011)

Panelists :
  • Simon Field, film producer (eg. Uncle Boonmee), member of the ICA (Institute of contemporary Art, London), former director of International Film Festival Rotterdam, consultant to Dubai festival 
  • Andréa Picard, film critic and programmer, formerly of the Toronto International Film Festival ("Wavelength" section, "Future Productions" sidebar) and the Cinémathèque Ontario 
  • Tom Charity, film critic and Vancity Theatre program coordinator, film critic for CNN, LOVEFiLM 
  • David Bordwell (USA), film critic, academic and author of numerous books on cinema, and a website
  • Alan Franey, director, Vancouver International Film Festival

VIFF 30th Anniversary (website)

The first few chapter headings in a film we did not program at this year's VIFF are: “Technology Is Great”, “The Industry Is Dead”, “Artists Have the Power”, and “The Craft Is Gone.” To which celluloid-loving film festival organizers might ask: Is it? Do they ?  Where on earth are we headed ? And why ?

VIFF has come a long way in its 30 years and never has the future of cinema - and VIFF's future - been more uncertain. Will it be bright and splendid and fair or will it move so quickly that a great deal of what is valuable will be lost before we know it ? There are now dramatically more “film festivals” and “films” being made than ever, yet some fear that the industry may be dead. Filmmakers are acutely worried for funding, yet need to operate on a growing number of fronts. Given that the numbers of hours in a day and the numbers of days in a life remain fixed, what limits should we council for our own appetites ? Why might we miss the Hollywood Theatre and Videomatica ? Given that cultural agencies seemingly have shrinking resources but more new media and film festival applicants every year, will the centres hold or is babble ascendant ? Will VIFF's function as an annual international universalist festival be superseded by myriad niche events ?
Technology is indeed great in that it has put the means of creative motion picture production in almost everyone's hands, but will the best artists be the ones to be recognized ? The entrepreneurial spirit tends to favour change in hopes that it may profit from it, but will artists have the power ? When entrepreneurs benefit, will consumers benefit ? Will cultural institutions that have taken years to build remain viable ? Will cinema, metrics of quality and craftsmanship and, ultimately, quality of life be improved or even be sustainable ? What do you personally care about for the future of cinema to offer ? What should VIFF 2020 aim to be ?

Alan Franey's VIFF statement of purpose :
This is not a panel about filmmaking, film financing. It's not a panel that is going to go into the nitty-gritty of technical issues. I hope that we'll need to get into some of that. And we're not talking really about Hollywood films. We're talking about festival films. I want this to be as pertinent as possible to our own operations here. What's relevant to a film festival in Vancouver now, particularly our festival, a festival anywhere. And most especially, year-round programming. How can movie theatres that want to bring audiences in to appreciate good films. Not that Hollywood blockbusters aren't but it's a completely different model that we're not going to concern ourselves with here, today.
We're also wanting to define what we mean by film, so I just want to say very loosely that in the BC Arts council grant, we've just finished writing, we have to explain this, so I want to read you this part:
"We intent to nurture cross-pollination between various domains and forms of the moving image but our mandate is cinema. We strongly believe in the theatrical experience of cinema. And we know that the membership of our film society expects us to deliver works that is worth their money. This means that with few exceptions, our programs must be made for the large screen, have a movie-like duration, and not be available on the internet (or not generally available). This is the only way to maintain a paying audience that has an increasing number of alternatives." 


09 novembre 2011

October 2011 releases USA

- Cultural Diversity Awareness - 

Let's take a look at the monthly release batch on USA screens, for October 2011, the national month of "Cultural Diversity Awareness", supposedly (hopefully) the most diverse period for American distribution...

ALL RELEASES USA Oct2011 (red=USA / colour=foreign)
"LIMITED RELEASES" USA Oct2011 (black=USA / colour=foreign)

Note that there are a lot of USA films relegated to the "limited release" limbo... it's not just the foreign films being silenced. Hollywood keeps at bay both foreign films and indies! (see here)
Usually the "commercial" releases (mainstream, populist, lowbrow, entertainment, teen flick...) monopolize the largest majority of screens. It's normal, because the largest crowd wants to watch these and we need to open enough seats for them. BUT, instead of the natural curve described by the Long Tail consumers, on the USA market we notice a drastic break between the top 16 titles (owning 97% of the screens) and the rest... 49 titles struggle and share the remaining 3% of screens (272 arthouse screens for a country of 310 million population!). There are more "press screenings" organised for the free previews, for the film reviewing community, than there are opened to the paying public! This is insane. Half of these "limited release" films, both foreign cinema and American "indies", get a single digit number of screens, and will never expand to wider release. This equates to a virtual invisibility in such a large country! Even for a huge city such as NYC, opening a couple of screens for a given film doesn't give a chance to the 20 million populating this mega-pole to discover it, except for a chosen few. 
The American distribution system only knows 2 speeds : 2000 screens or 30 screens, no grey areas. If this doesn't indicate a structural corruption of the system, what will? The producer-exhibitor monopoly has been ruled illegal since 1948, really? What a coincidence that even without official "collusion", we still see the major studios hegemony on the exhibition circuit... 
Let's just say that the USA released 25 titles nationwide in October 2011 (an average of 5 per week), and the rest only opened locally in NYC and LA... That's the name of the game. Not ALL Americans get to choose from the 68 titles line up.

  • Total number of screens in the USA (2010) = 39,028 (26% of world market!)
  • Total number of titles releases (30 Sept-3 Nov 2011) = 68 (avg 13.6 per week)
    • American titles = 51 titles; 39568 screens (91.8%)
      • USA = 42 titles; 34746 screens
      • USA co-production = 9 titles; 4822 screens 
    • Non-American titles = 17 (25%); 3569 screens (8.2%)
      • UK co-prod = 2 titles; 280 screens
      • Non-English titles = 15 (22%); 3289 screens (7.6%)
        • India = 3 titles; 77 screens 
        • 2 titles each : Spain, Germany, China
        • 1 title each : Netherlands, Mexico, Iceland, France, Finland, Congo

Because it is impossible to find FREE online data about foreign films distribution, I have to do it myself, and count films and screens manually. They only care about publishing a business report on how much money their movies make, and they are even incapable of distinguishing between USA proper and Canada in their datas, as they consider Canada an integer part of their commercial market! I'm sure the addition of Canadian numbers inflates the domestic/foreign ratio since Canada (and especially Québec) does a better job at showing a wider diversity of world cinema than the USA. And they think that Mexico doesn't belong to whatever they call "North America".
I can only bother doing it for one month (Oct 2011), but this should really be a yearly survey to compare to every other countries that do publish such surveys. Someone in America should take up on the task, and publish detailed statistics about the releases by country of origin and their weight on the market, every year (instead of making graphs that distinguish between Major-studio-owned distributors and pseudo-independent distributors... this is a business consideration, not a culturally sound segmentation). 


When we look at the catalog of film titles proposed on commercial distribution for that month, it is actually pretty diverse. 75% domestic - 25% foreign is a reasonable compromise. It's the lowest limit, but it's within reason I'd say, especially since the USA has a large domestic production (which fatally implies less room for the foreign competition). Somewhere between 75% and 25% for foreign cinema should be alright in any country. Less than that and you're denying the world to influence your own culture. Over that limit and you're letting the world appropriate your own culture, at the expanse of home-grown artists.
And contrary to other countries, foreign films come in subtitled in the USA, because spectators hate dubbing, which is a great thing for cultural diversity. It is always better to listen to the original voices, even if we don't understand them, because intonations and the melody of an idiom is characteristic of a culture. Not to mention dubbing often makes the audience forget that the films are actually made elsewhere, and tend to mistake them as part of their own national cinema.
There is also a nice share of co-productions, indicative of an opening of Hollywood with world collaboration  (although the results might not necessarily be inclusive of world culture, more like outsourcing production to places where it's cheaper).
As you see, the foreign films are almost evenly split between Europe (10) - surprisingly not dominated by UK - and the Rest of the World (7) with India, China, Mexico and Congo.
However the English language (80%) tends to dominate, not leaving the room deserved by Spanish language (since 26% of American movie goers are Hispanic), with only 3 Spanish films by Spain and Mexico. And the 63% of caucasian spectators should include all sorts of non-English backgrounds/ancestry (German, Dutch, French, Russian, Israeli, White-Hispanic...) and should inflate the interest in non-American culture, if only a few of them. Add to this 12% of African-American and the remainder 6% (Asians, American Indians, Pacific islands)... The American population is a diverse mix itself, but the diversity of culture offered by commercial distribution is a lesser mix. Whereas this country should show the world's highest interest in mixed-culture cinema because of the particular immigration history and demographic diversity present in its population unlike almost anywhere else in the world.

Now the distribution of screens for these films paints a different picture. If there is a decent share of foreign titles available on commercial screens, they are relegated to an insignificant number of screens for a country of that size, rendering them de facto invisible to the general population and the average movie goer. 91.7% of screens show exclusively American-made films, and 99.3% of screens show English-language films! So the 25% of foreign films are shown on 8.3% of the screens. And that includes The Three Musketeers 3D, which is a Hollywood-like blockbuster made by an Europe-America co-production (Germany/France/UK/USA) and shot in English language with familiar Hollywood actors. It's like when Harry Potter or James Bond are listed as a "British" movies... Anyway. If we ignore this pseudo-Hollywood vehicle, we are left with 272 screens (out of a nationwide total of 39028) reserved for non-English cinema in the USA (0.6%) which is ludicrous! What kind of a "melting-pot" is this?
In a country of 310 million inhabitants, just imagining that less than 300 screens show non-English cinema doesn't seem right. The number of screens is a direct correlation to the visibility of these films, and inevitably translates into the admissions ratio of 95% domestic / 5% foreign. Of course, world cinema is never going to exceed 10% of the admission market, and hasn't in the past 3 decades (see here) with only 0.6% of the screens offered to the movie goer population!!! 
The USA does not resort to legal quotas or subsidies or tariff to limit the number of foreign films. No. That's not even their excuse for such pitiful scores. It is the "natural" result of the "free market". Unfortunately, I doubt this is free in practice. There is a great deal of national-centric indoctrination, cultural isolationism, stereotypes, self-sufficient media, fatalism of cultural arbiters, anti-intellectualism, anti-art and all the Dan Kois who prefer pop corn to vegetables... This is obviously a recipe for success of patriotic exclusive consumption of nationally-made products, and disregard or even ridicule anything made outside of motherland. 
  • Studios make too many movies for their own good!
  • Studios buy rights to remake popular entertainment/art made abroad!
  • Distributors refuse to buy foreign films, even at major festivals! 
  • When foreign films are bought, they are either shelved indefinitely, go direct-to-video, or are quarantined on a handful of screens only visited by hipsters!
  • Movie reviewers incessantly bash film festival line ups, "boring" foreign films, insinuate foreign films get a free ride, and that there are too many of them oppressing their self-serving taste!

This situation might be the result of a poorly educated general population, and the plethoric production of Hollywood, which clearly makes way more films than is necessary for their market. They make more films than China! Come on. And anybody, even the average movie goer, will agree that more than half of it is substandard, not only artistically, but even for the basic entertainment consumption (poor acting, plotholes, pompuous CGI, facile dialogue, stock characters, stereotypes, unoriginal stories...). They could really afford to cut their production in half (they don't even distribute all films produced each year!), and welcome quality foreign entertainment, as well as quality art films made abroad. They could. For the benefit of their customers, to enrich American culture, to broaden the minds, to be more open to world culture, to better reflect and represent the ethnic/cultural/language diversity present in the very fabric of the America population. Starting with their Latin-American neighbours.
If regular movie goers do not want to go try non-Hollywood cinema, willingly and consciously, in earnest, then it's the responsibility of cultural educators to change these narrow-minded minds and help their taste evolve towards a greater sensibility to differences, diversity and richness of neighbour cultures. 

But a poor taste of consumers is not the only culprit, and is certainly not beyond improvement and evolution in the future *IF* educators take their responsibilities! If the film press stopped publishing B.S. and cared a bit more about changing the isolationistic distribution system they live in, instead of playing along... If critics had higher aspirations and cleaner ethics... If exhibitors took more risks for quality cinema (be it foreign entertainment or artfilms) instead of clinging to easy money promised by bad remakes... If distributors displayed more discernment in picking quality cinema and selling it better... If film schools formed open-minded and competent students rather than Hollywood-wannabees... If cultural studies cared about quality cinema rather than whatever zeitgeist phenomenon is best representative of the American population...
There are lot of things to do, and reviewing imported DVDs and films that are only available on 6 screens nationwide is NOT ENOUGH to push for fundamental changes. This isolationism will not fix itself, it is petrified by a powerful cultural inertia. Anytime someone talks about foreign cinema, it sounds elitist or "boring" in the American consciousness. So talking about it in small amounts always meets the same rejection. To overcome this barrier, a radical transformation of society and culture is necessary before any improvement could even start developing.

You do not need to compare the American distribution system to the one of France to understand there is something fundamentally wrong with only showing world cinema on 0.6% of your screens! Or do you?

Source : NYT (October releases); IMDb; Box Office Mojo; My spreadsheet 
Other titles which data (screens) is missing :
Bombay Beach (2011/USA); Cargo (2011/USA); Everyday Sunshine: The Story Of Fishbone (2010/USA); Father of Invention (2010/USA); Glitch in the Grid (2011/USA/UK); Klitschko (2011/Germany); Norman (2010/USA); Silver Bullets (2011/USA); The Nine Muses (2010/Ghana/UK); The Reunion (2011/USA); The Swell Season (2011/USA-CZ-IE)

Note: Sum of screens may exceed total number of screens available (I counted the max number of screens reached by each film in October)

Related :

07 novembre 2011

Random Factoid 4 : Cannes, Spain?

CNN believes Cannes is in Spain...

Not only they placed Cannes 1200km off, but it's even outside of France, in Spain, on the wrong side of the land mass, on the Atlantic coast instead of the Mediterranean coast! WTF? I know the average American sucks in geography, so says the stereotype, but shouldn't people working in a major News network get screened for basic knowledge?
Cannes is a small town (less than 100,000 inhabitants), so it's not a big deal not knowing every cities of that size in the world. Except that its reputation exceeds the limited population and the territory of France. Cannes just happens to be the recurrent location of a film festival of international fame, for the past 65 years! Which is in the news even in the USA, even on CNN... although not as much as it should. And if the G20 is in France, it would be a good idea to look up where France is in Europe... I mean, how many people work in CNN and didn't even double check what goes on the air?
Especially in this day and age, where it takes less than 5 seconds to check basic facts online, or to use the real Google Earth. Sometimes "the internet" is wrong, but with a bit of cross-checking on several reliable websites, it would be difficult to make a huge mistake like this one for such a general well known information.
CNN confirms one more time that Americans don't give a shit when it happens outside of the motherland. How can you inspire the uneducated part of the American population to improve their general culture, and world culture in particular, when their official institutions, their intelligentsia, their leaders, their media don't show they care about their own blind spots and failing culture??? If CNN doesn't make an effort, why would the average American? That's how you raise the bar of the average culture, through exemplary conduct and higher standards to aspire to... not by spreading misinformation on a mass scale or spiting on vegetables...
Let's note that the wrong red dot they display on their map, in Spain, is in fact Gijón (Galicia region), which happens to host another international film festival (established in 1963). Only the wrong festival. Oh, irony...

They need to hire a resident geographer at CNN! For a "leading" News channel which business is to deal with international affairs, and locating wars, G20 summits or Film Festivals is kinda your daily bread.

In 2005, to cover the unrest setting ablaze several cities in France CNN produced a ludicrous map, supposedly lifted from "Google Earth" (which is more accurate than that), where none of the cities are located right, and half of them end up outside France. Paris is 100km East (of where it should be). Lyon is 300km West. Lille is not a coastal port (100km off). Rennes is 100km East. Cannes is 300km West. Strasbourg is in Austria (100km East), and Toulouse is in Switzerland (800km off). WTF? At this point they're just throwing darts in the dark without caring a damn...

Related :

02 novembre 2011

Fit in to get distributed in the USA (Krohn)

-Cultural Diversity Awareness- 

Trois conseils d'un ami américain. Un art de la guerre à l'usage des cinéastes français
Bill Krohn (CinémAction, Quelle diversité face à Hollywood?; 2002)
"[..] Ces petites salles sont la première ligne de défense du cinéma français et du cinéma du monde (world cinema), auquel on peut goûter à Paris comme nulle part au monde. chérissez-les et protégez-les; chérissez et protégez Studio Canal ; et bien sûr, défendez "l'Avance", quels que soient ses défauts, bec et ongles s'il le faut [..]"
This article is published in a French revue (CinémAction), translated in French, for a French readership, and he still patronizes us about our art houses circuit, as if nobody remembered L'exception française because of the success of UGC (which is far from a trust, with the healthy competition of Pathé-Gaumont and MK2), patronizes us about "L'avance sur recette" (the subsidies program) which happens to be attacked by the USA-WTO-MPA. I don't think that the French system is in danger of extinction, and the help is not going to come from a wiseass American who feels like giving "advice" to the French, totally oblivious of the fundamental flaws of his own industry. Oh the irony!

He continues by citing the hypothetical example of a French filmmaker hoping to distribute a film in the USA to cover the production expenses :
"Bien sûr, nous ne pourrions que nous féliciter si votre film était distribué aux Etats-Unis, mais quasiment aucun film étranger ne l'est. Chez nous, aujourd'hui, les exploitants ont construit trop de salles, de sorte que la diffusion des films étrangers est probablement un peu élevée : cela se produit chaque fois qu'il y a des écrans à remplir et qu'Hollywood n'a pas produit assez - même si ce n'est pas tout à fait le cas aujourd'hui avec le surplus de films réalisés avant la grève des scénaristes et des acteurs qui n'a jamais eu lieu. [..]"
He seems to find totally normal that the USA doesn't screen foreign films, only in exceptional cases when the yearly production of films by Hollywood is too few (because of a strike) for the large number of screens... Apparently foreign films are considered as "fillers" in the USA, they wouldn't be screened for their own worth, just to save exhibitors when Hollywood doesn't make enough crap per week... Such fatalism is appalling.
OK let's take a look at 2001, the year before he wrote this article. 
  • USA production : 611 films
  • USA commercial releases : 462 titles
  • USA screens : 36764 screens
  • Foreign films admissions : 5.7% (up from 3.9% in 2000)
There is no deficit of films, since the USA always releases less films in theatres than they produce (until very recently). And he assumes that the peak to almost 6% makes the USA a Samaritan of foreign cinema for that year... The number of screens has not much to do with how many films you need to fill up each weekly batch, especially if people all watch the same films at the same time (blockbuster mentality). The number of screens only indicates whether a population has access to a screen near where they live or not, thus boosting the number of regular movie goers. But avid movie goers could all flock to watch the 3 blockbusters of the week, every week, which they do, since the non-commercial titles only open on 1 to 6 screens, euphemistically called a "limited release".

He then proceeds to give "intercultural" advice to French filmmakers/producers who wish to make it in America...
  1. Never draw attention to the foreign language by making a wordless trailer, or shoot a film in English!
  2. Shoot a dinner scene cause Americans like movies where people eat.
  3. "Joy of living" is a characteristic that appeal to the American audience (and he adds that "feel good movies" are what is lacking in Hollywood... WTF?)

"Agissez localement, pensez globalement"
Basically French films should be made for a French audience, and forget about the distribution in the USA, instead they should settle for the remake rights sold to an American studio which knows how to turn it into an American-friendly movie. 

Are these advice from a francophile critic or from a Hollywood executive? 
Instead of acknowledging the objective flaws of the Hollywood system (formulaic stereotypes, happy ending, mainstream narrative, conservative values, aversion to foreign culture, hegemonic distribution, steamrolling of cinema industries abroad...), which any educated and responsible CRITIC would do when addressing an international readership... he simply ignores the reasons why this system sucks, and blames it all on the French for not being American enough. Instead of actually giving good advice for foreign cinema to increase its niche, he, a supposedly art-cinema-friendly "critic", tell French filmmakers to sell rights for a remake and forget about the American distribution market altogether. Are you for real??? 

He adds the address of a French videostore in LA, who has connections, to send a video copy (direct-to-video) to be rented to American producers looking for good stories to rip off for their next remakes... 

I can't believe a film critic could be so blinded by his own isolationism... If an actual film critic with credentials (e.g. writing for Cahiers) thinks with this mentality, and believe that he's helping French cinema by telling us to stop trying to get a normal distribution, and sell remake material instead... then it's no wonder that the average American audience is even dumber than that (i.e. not even watching French films on video). The American film press is hopeless, these guys are not the generation that will upgrade the USA to world standards of cultural diversity and open-mindedness.

I'm not worried about the exports of French cinema, since it's the 2nd largest exporter in the world (see here), far behind the USA. And France is also the second best foreign cinema in the USA after the UK (which is a surrogate franchise of Hollywood) with 1.5% of the market (see here). 
What I'm worried about is the rest of the world, which doesn't benefit from the (relative) fame of "French cinema" amongst the hispters. If France, which produces quality commercial blockbusters (i.e. popular entertainment such as Amélie, La Mome, Coco Chanel...) that have a natural appeal to a wide audience, which produces world-class art films, is brushed off the board by a "cinephile-friendly" critic, then what chance would a Thai film or a Hungarian film would have? (see here, here, here and here)
This is an outrageous status-quo that too many American intellectuals take for granted at best, or find perfectly normal at worst. The inertia of the Hollywood business is one thing, explainable because of the enormous sums of money involved, etc. It's a logic that executives and publicists may hide behind, for the sake of business... But when intellectuals (critics, historians, cinephiles) accept this situation, AND speak out loud in public in favour of this anti-art-cinema, anti-foreign-cinema system, this is a serious failure of the intelligentsia.... if we can still call it that.

Thanks Bill Krohn for your advice, but no thanks, it is not helping, at all. It's not helping French cinema. It's not helping American culture.