Cool News
Latin-AICN: As the Mexican Cine Becomes Chic, their Government Pulls Its Funding, and USA companies launch lawsuits...
Father Geek here... sad news for lovers of Mexico's proud, long-lived Cine Industry. Government cutbacks and outside pressure from USA interests are making it increasingly difficult for new blood to enter the biz south of the border. In the December 11th issue of the NY Times, editorial observer Tina Rosenberg penned the following gloomy report for an industry that was once a world leader...
Just as Mexican Movies Become Chic Again, the Government Pulls Its Support
By TINA ROSENBERG
By TINA ROSENBERG
MEXICO CITY... Mexican movies and moviemakers are hot. Hollywood borrowed
Alfonso Cuarón, who made the breathtaking "Y Tu Mamá También," to direct the
third Harry Potter film. Alejandro González Iñárritu, whose 2000 debut
movie, "Amores Perros," was nominated for an Oscar for best foreign film,
has won more acclaim with the just-released "21 Grams." The once-great
Mexican film industry is again enjoying boom years.
Everywhere, that is, but in Mexico. It is hard to make a profit on a film in
Mexico, no matter how good. Mexico will produce 28 movies this year (only 14
last year), and the industry depends heavily on state funds. That money is
provided by Imcine, the Mexican Film Institute. Now the government is trying
to close it.
President Vicente Fox's new budget would also privatize the historic
Churubusco Studios, one of the most modern in Latin America. Churubusco may
find a buyer but when another major studio was privatized, it was bought
by a TV network, which dismantled much of it. The budget would also close
the government's film school although there are others in addition to
Imcine, Mexico's largest movie producer.
While Imcine has had its share of waste and nepotism, it helps beginning
filmmakers in countless ways. It puts up seed money, negotiates a discount
with Kodak and gives out postproduction grants. In a country where credit is
short and movies a terrible investment, Imcine is so important that its
annual budget determines the number of films produced in Mexico each year.
The government's proposals, which would save only $10 million a year, are
part of widespread budget cuts. But they are also inspired by a
philosophical shift. Under the 70-year rule of the Institutional
Revolutionary Party, the Mexican state did everything for everyone. Today, a
more free-market government is trying to cut back.
Many countries, of course, hold that government does belong in the movies.
France's film industry lives off more than 50 years of heavy state support.
An infusion of state money three years ago has sparked a resurgence of
British film.
Mexico's famous directors no longer need or get funds from Imcine. But if
they had not enjoyed Imcine's help when starting out, they would have been
shooting TV commercials or fetching coffee for Hollywood directors instead
of making their first pictures. Their movies ( even those financed entirely
with private funds ) would not exist.
Not every poor country should have a national film industry. But Mexico
should, and not just because of its history. Like France, Mexico defines
itself in large part by what it isn't: it's not the United States. For
Mexicans, their films are a defense against being swallowed culturally by
America. Despite the best efforts of the Mexican film industry, 80 percent
of the movies playing in Mexican theaters come from Hollywood.
Worried about sustaining the film industry as Imcine's budget shrank, Mexico
passed a law last December allowing it to do what Argentina and France do:
tax movie tickets. The law was modest. While France taxes each moviegoer 11
percent, Mexico wanted one peso < 10 cents < on every 35-peso ticket, with
the money going to film production. That would raise about $15 million per
year, more than Imcine has gotten lately. If the tax worked, it would
support films without state funds.
But even this tiny sum drew the wrath of the USA's Motion Picture Association,
whose head, Jack Valenti, wrote a letter to President Fox. The association,
which opposes all box-office taxes, argued that the law inadvertently
penalized film distributors. The Valenti letter came after the law had been
passed by the Mexican Congress, but in Mexico that is rarely the end of the story.
Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox and other American movie distributors have
filed lawsuits, which are blocking the collection of more than 80 percent of
the funds. It will probably be years before directors see the money.
Father Geek back again... Here's a link to the original New York Times December 11th story... Just Click Here to get the poop straight from the horse's...
-
+ Expand All
-
Dec 15, 2003 12:52:35 PM CST
Not thats its any of my buisness since Im not Mexican..
by jackiejokeman
but state sponsored art of any kind leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If the Mexican people define themselves as "not American" wouldnt they just reject hollywood movies anyway? I for one cant wait for the capitalist-socialist bloodbath that (at least I hope) will ensue in this talkback.
-
Dec 15, 2003 1:15:39 PM CST
Not happy with promoting socialism only in the U.S., the NYT's i
by vikingkitty
The NYT's has never met a government handout program they didn't like, or a free market they couldn't destroy with government regulations.
-
Dec 15, 2003 1:20:25 PM CST
I remember Britain's Channel 4 series entitled "Visions of Heave
by vikingkitty
Lord, that was a stinker. The idea behind it was to get the opinions of experts on technology, and how technology was affecting society. It turned into the usual whiny bitchfest, as fiction writers, musicians, and other grossly unqualified people talked about how technology was going to "further divide society" and lead to a "greater divide between the rich and the poor." All it was missing was someone yelling, "What about the children? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?" Fortunately, a few qualified individuals were interviewed (such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates), and they were able to provide some intelligent commentary on what we could expect from technology and where it was taking us.
-
What can you say, in a country as poor as Mexico, these artists need support from somewhere. At least in America those outside the Hollywood mainstream seem to find success from the trickle down effect, in other words American studios make so much they can almost use small independents as a sort of "farm system" if you will, for film makers. But this is another reason why people must understand what a worthless leader Vincente Fox is, and yet he has the cojones to come to this country and criticize states like Arizona and California for their policies regarding immigration and the like. This is maddening, one of the problems of a corrupt government like Mexico is that the people suffer, even the beloved "artists" such as the film makers, maybe this will open the eyes to the Hollywood leftists that Fox and his leadership are a problem for Mexico, and not just continually put all the blame on America.
-
total bullshit. art should stand on its own legs. why should beauracrats be its gatekeepers?
-
you get shit like that when you fund art with public money. you get art that is not trying to say anything to anyone, or connect in any way with anyone besides the artist himself. the artist with free reign is not necessarily the best. when monarchs and patrons funded art in the past they said "draw me a picture of myself" or "paint my wife" and you got the mona lisa. when the public says to a director with their moviegoing dollar "create something i want to see" most of the time we get crap, but sometimes we get awesome. when someone gives an artist a ton of free money to make a movie, we get the cremaster cycle, which no one fucking wants to watch because its just a massive wank.
-
Whoa! Who knew I was a socialist cause I think people who need help should get it, or that governments have a responsibility to the people they govern to ensure they are healthy and able to find jobs and housing.
And as far as art goes, the "state" has funded art ince the days of the greeks, and they made enduring masterpeices. Just cause filmmakers and artists have limited vision, doesn't mean the funds they use should disappear. -
Dec 15, 2003 2:19:09 PM CST
The government doesn't have the responsibility to give you a job
by vikingkitty
Government is designed to have a limited role in society. Granted, the NYT's and most liberals don't recognize this, and FDR tried his best to remake America into a workers' paradise befitting his beloved "Uncle Joe" (Stalin), but at least we can still pay lip service to being a constitutional republic and not a social democracy.
-
is that Fox is in a personal crusade to privatize all national institutions, even when the people dont want so.. hes
-
Dec 15, 2003 2:24:38 PM CST
My favorite part of this piece of shit article was when the writ
by vikingkitty
. . . they aren't America, and not being America is what keeps them from fully aborbing American culture. As if that would be a bad thing for Mexico, because god knows how productive that country has been, and how great they will be is they just keep resisting American influence. Why, eventually, they might find someone that wants to immigrate to their section of the world, instead of seeing their citizens pile up in cars 12 deep to escape.
-
Absorbing American "culture" would take mexico out of the hole that it
-
I said make available. The government IS responsible for it's people. A governement with no people is a worthless government, and one that simply exists for the purpose of existing. It should give back to the people. Fair wages. A livable existence. At least a rope when someone is drowning. And liberal is not synonymous with socialist.
-
Paying an artist to paint a mural for a public building is not the same thing as giving an artist a grant with which to explore their own vision. State subsidized religion is bad for the religion and State subsidized art is bad for art. As an aside I cant be the only one who picks up on the tendency of liberals and/or socialists to ignore the negative aspects of governments that lean left? Usually far left?
-
Ignoring the offensive nature of vikingkitty's remarks about Mexico, let's talk about the movies that are produced every year. They mostly go unseen outside of Mexico City or sit on the shelf for years after production, and don't even get me started on the garbage that does make it to the screens. For every "Y tu Mama Tambien" there's 5 "Cronica de un Desayuno"... not a bad percentage rate in the US, terrible when all you make is 14 films a year. The system is broken, but taking away the funding is not the way to fix it.
-
There
-
No, they can't see the obvious failings of left leaning governments. And if you criticize and point out the failings of these same piece of shit governments and cultures, which have lead to people trying to get from Cuba to America by turning trucks into boats and by trying to stuff themselves into any vehicle available to get out of Mexico, then you are labelled a racist hatemonger with no respect for other cultures. PC bullshit demands we not judge the world's toilet bowl cultures, for all cultures are equal and can offer things to the world. Well, I say, "Bullshit!" to that.
-
I've never even seen a Mexican movie, nor do I have any desire to. But if I was a Mexican, and the government was using my tax dollars to pay for entertainment such as movies, I'd be pissed, because that would be less tacos for me. God knows it's bad enough in America, where the government funds such garbage as the NEA and NPR.
-
Vikingkitty has really showed what a person it is by a number of its previous comments. The stabs at Mexicans and Mexican movies, FDR, NPR, & what not really put a smile on my face b/c it has it all wrong. Listen, we live in an anti-PC age because if you're a conservative you can say what ever you want about anything. Naturally if anyone says anything about that then they are simply a PC nitwit that wants to censor any insensitive speech. If a liberal uses un-pc like language then of course they are a bigot. Give me a break!
-
Other countires have toilet bowl cultures? What does America have, huh?
-
I actually see VikingKitty's point of view. I don't think he's talking shit about Mexicans, he's just talking shit about the Mexican government or any corrupt government in the world. After that being said, I don't think that having American influence in any country is a bad thing. SHIT, I don't I'd mind if the USA would go into Mexico and get rid of the money whores that are pretending to be politicians. Someone was right on the money when he said that the majority of the rich people in Mexico are the sons of the Spaniards that went into Mexico to fuck things up. If things in Mexico were at least half as legit as in the USA, Mexico would be a prosperous country (lots of oil and natural resources). Many young Mexicans like myself love movies and dream about making movies. It is just a shame they need the help of the government to get their movies off the ground instead of getting a private investor. It is hard for the majority of the Mexican film geeks to get a movie made with their own money like Alfonso Cuaron did.
-
Vikingkitty you dismiss the need for funding when you haver never seen a Mexican film? Why don't you try to get past your narrow world view (clearly determined by your right leaning politics) and watch great films such as "Y Tu Mama Tambien" or "Amorres Perros." Anyway thanks for the laughs you provided, as all of your fellow thinkers do, when you dismiss any article from the NY Times, based on your warped belief that everything in the paper has a leftward bias. If it bothers you so much read a really biased newspaper like the NY Post or the Washington Times. I am so happy that talented filmmakers such as Alfonso Cuaron or Alejandro Gonzalez Innaratu have already found success but am worried that if the Mexican government no longer gives any support to filmmakers then we will ALL be deprived of enjoying the art of produced by Mexican filmmakers
-
Dec 15, 2003 6:20:18 PM CST
I'd be pissed if I had less money for my Tacos also VikingKitty
by super cucaracha
TACOS RULE!!!! Do NOT mess with my Carne Asada Tacos beeeatches! By the way, try and see Amores Perros VK...it is all that and bag of chips with Guacamole!
-
Well if all governments stopped funding projects then we wouldn't have any good films. The majority of great films have been produced due to funding and/or co-funding from local govt's. To be honest I rarely view Hollywood flicks because they mostly pander to a demographic that I'm not a part of. Its to bad that we have people who have no interest in watching Mexican movies because they find American & only American films to be the only ones worth watching.
Aint-It-Cool-News...where you can mask xenophobic bigotry and just simply blame it on the overtly sensitive PC elitists! -
I'm glad someone can distinguish between making fun of corrupt governments vs. making fun of a whole group of people. Perhaps I will check out that movie you suggest, and not in the spirit of multicultural bullshit, but in the spirit of seeking entertainment.
-
Dec 15, 2003 7:04:09 PM CST
We have a new entry in the competition to see who can say the du
by vikingkitty
"The majority of great films have been produced due to funding and/or co-funding from local govt's." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
If I am not mistaken the " Golden Age " for Mexican cinema was from the late 40's to early 60's with stars like the legend PEDRO INFANTE and JORGE NEGRETE. Some amazing flicks were made in Mexico in those years. Pedro was so fucking charismatic and cool that he was even offered some movies in Hollywood. The mid 60's came and everything went to fucking hell with some shitty ass movies until about 5 years ago. I was thinking " finally, Mexico is back with great stuff " and I am hoping that it doesn't stop. There are a lot of young people in Mexico with some great shit that needs to be put on screen...CHEERS Amigos!!!
-
Believe it or not, not all Mexicans are short, dark and stubby. Anyway, I do recognize that there seems to be a little racism in entertainment in Mexico. You have to be a Mexican Orson Welles to be given a shot in television. Light skin Mexicans have more opportunities. This way of thinking goes from way back when Spain ruled the country....CHEERS Amigo!
-
It is sad to see how people replaces a possibly intelligent debate with cliches and oneliners (see: nothing good comes from right wing parties, Mexico's government=corruption, the uncle "joe" stalin reference, and the spaniards oppressors theory).
Going back to Mexico's case, for those of you who might care, (1) Vicente Fox's government slants slightly to the right only. (2) It is true that there exists a proposal to privatise, liquidate or perhaps merge (still within state ownership), some of the above named organizations, as part of a strategy devised to free resources to spend more money on social programs (although it is also true that few people believe that that really is the government's objective). (3) In my opinion, state support for movies in Mexico has hindered instead of promoting good cinema. State support allowed movie directors to make films for their own, and a few others, satisfaction. However, once they acknowldged the existence of a wider market (duh!), they were able to make decent, and sometimes brilliant films, with some commercial success. So, as long as they keep doing that, they will be able to work, with or without government support. -
than funding the arts in there country. Poverty, unemployement, among other things are bigger issues than movies. This is a movie lover saying the President did the right thing cutting the film funding. That money can be put to better use. I would also like to point out that there are plenty of American's getting directors coffee as well. It's called working for your position not getting it handed to you. As for the studios bitching about taxing tickets, STOP BITCHING! You guys have made theaters owners crank up the prices here to line your pockets and than you wine over crumbs from Mexico. It's shameful. This money is for a cause every studio should get behind by helping out filmmakers; you know, the guys that make the movies you sell. And this is where ALL funding should come from; the rich filmmakers not the government. If you really are so fucking concerned that Mexican cinema might be lost because of this law, I'm sure they'll have no problems accepting donations.
-
Dec 15, 2003 8:56:43 PM CST
Speaking as a dark dark skinned Mexican -American (or Chicano) I
by big bad clone
Light skinned mexicans have it better than dark skinned people. I am third generation Mexican on my mother's side and sixth generation irish on my dad's. I don't speak spanish even though I've taken spanish. On whole I act just like any other american but people will peg my as whatever brown skinned group they know of. I get a lot of are you hawaiin? Indian (both kinds)? Puerto Rican? Arab? etc. usually this said with a bit of negative vibe because when I say "no" they seem to breathe a sigh of releif. I don't think of these people as rasict so much as shelter and a bit scared of what little they think about someone with dark skin. What's really funny is that I have a blond blue eyed daughter with very fair skin (my dad is the same way) and she thinks that one day her skin will turn as dark as mine, not like a ridiculous Tara Ried tan but as her natural coloring. Heck my kids still don't understand what "black" means in terms of people. "Black" kids are just brown to them and brown is just another color.
-
If the film industry in Mexico wasn't so heavily funded by the government in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem. With the numerous problems in Mexico already, how can one think that Mexico should support this bs tax raise to fund film making.
-
Dec 15, 2003 9:12:53 PM CST
Conservatives do not get a free pass, and Mexico should be more
by aetius450
We do not live in an 'anti-pc' age. The idea that conservatives have license to say what they want while liberal speech is shouted down is ridiculous. The liberal side of most issues still has the unofficial endorsement of society's elites and the entertainment industry. But as for Mexico: Its true that the country is rich in natural resources, tourist destinations, and an abundance of possible workers, etc. That it is still mired in 3rd world status is an indictment of that country's elites. And there is somewhat of a racial divide in that country. You'll notice that most of the immigrants from Mexico, legal and illegal, do not look like presidente Vicente Fox, who himself looks pretty much like a standard white guy. That's only one of the reasons I laugh when people make the bogus 'xenophobe bigot' charges against Americans wanting true immigration reform. Its a well known fact that the elites of Mexico encourage the mass legal and illegal exodus of their people into the US because it serves as a safety valve for them; allowing them to dump their excess population and thus allowing them to avoid the necessary reforms that could possibly transform their country. If the United States did what most polls show the majority of Americans want-which is reduce immigration into the US-then it would be in the long-term interests of both the United States and Mexico. The big losers if such were to happen would be the elites of both society.
-
Dec 15, 2003 10:26:41 PM CST
This is happening everywhere - investors are reluctant because f
by theginger twit
....And then hollywood has no competition and puts out any old crap (They also hold the manopoly on cinema chains) ... then cheap arse independant films come along but don't get recognition because they're shot on video or the production values are dodgy as all hell ... and of course we have the biggest problem of all 'Illigal pirates'!
-
I have no doubt that when you people are done criticizing foreign countries for funding their films, that you will go back to raising holy hell about how bad hollywood films suck, and how some asshole or a nother has sold out. Man, you're all caught between Marx and Adam Smith and you don't even know it. Competition is not all that business is about, especially not show business. It's one part, which focused upon too much will take the life out of the whole affair. There's nothing that's inherently wrong about our culture, but if we impose it so heavily on other cultures that we squeeze them out, we will only make people more resentful about it's presence. Let them keep their subsidies. At least then, when Hollywood copies foreign movies after running out of remakes, we'll have something new to look at.
-
The Canadians, the Aussies, and various other governments attract foreign (read: American) production and encourage domestic film production by offering tax breaks, loans, and other incentives to the production companies. Some governments compete by offering incredibly cheap labor (try imagining what filming key sequences of Kill Bill would have cost in America vs. mainland China). The US government is really the exception to this. Some state governments have gotten into the act by offering tax incentives, or in the case of New Mexico, offering loans to production companies for a pretty good percentage of the budget (as long as they shoot in New Mexico and employ a high percentage of New Mexicans). A lot of us who live and work in the industry in LA were and still are hoping that Governor Arnie's gonna throw us a bone. I think my point is, other nations/cultures have a right, and a responsibility, to encourage the arts in their native lands. And yeah, a lot of it is going to be unwatchable. But so what? Lots of movies produced here are unwatchable - and I'm not just talking about Timeline. If you don't believe me, take in the free screenings at AFM in Santa Monica next month. Last January I saw something John Rhys Davies was trapped in involving very very VERY bad CGI of a cloned sabretooth tiger. My apologies to the filmmakers if they're reading this, but man did that movie stink. Back to my point about Mexico. For all the unwatchable tripe, the fact is that that funding trains and supports artists, and the good stuff that does emerge from those programs (like Y Tu Mama Tambien and El Crimen del Padre Amaro) has the halo effect of enhancing the national image of a country. It becomes a point of pride. Why would Vicente Fox - or anyone else - want to kill that? Oh, and since I'm still on my soapbox, if I were the Mexican judge hearing that lawsuit from Hollywood, not only would I throw it out, but I'd issue a bench warrant for Jack Valenti. Just on general principles.
-
Have there actually BEEN any other films made in mexico EVER apart from Y tu mama tambien and Amores Perros? Jesus, they're the only two mexican films people use in connection with the words 'mexican' and 'film'.
-
Dec 16, 2003 7:31:10 AM CST
Hollywood really does have the best system of funding - when you
by theginger twit
They work with the banks, personal investors and the likes, spending money that doesn't even really exist, and then repaying it all back through box office returns. Compare that to ... say ... Australia. The anual budget for the film industry is enough for one moderate priced hollywood film. Then trying to get to some of that money is like standing in a dole que. Not only do you then have to kiss arse with the absolute elite of 'no nothing of art business men' you also have to have your screenplay scruitinized, handed around and then told to place an aboriginal in here, a scene in the outback there... and then a strange quirky loveable character who is uniquely australian. sucking up to the asians and the wogs (no offence) is an optional extra that wont hurt your chances either. I'm serious - I was offered the money to produce one of my screenplays if I changed all the characters to Aboriginals with a reconciliation theme. Somehow I didn't see 5 aboriginals working on time travel in prestigious labratory to go back and learn about the dreamtime. But you see how they think. And then the most recent australian film to come out 'japanese story' perfectly shows without any shame the inner working of a corporately put together film. I'm serious - Government funding is not as good as it may sound in theory. but thus... I have a plan....
-
see you in Austin
-
Because it makes us seem like we really do hate democracy like they've been saying for years. Give me a fucking break. I'll probably say this till the day I die. COMMUNISM SUCKS. It doesn't and cannot work! But it isn't just communism that gets lambasted, it's socialism to. What's so wrong with having universal healthcare? Illegal immigrants get free healthcare, why can't we? The government spends tons of money on bullshit projects every year, why not put it to good use? Why can't people get the best possible health care even if they can't afford it? Is it just because it sounds like a commie idea? In 1978 California was able to have universal health coverage, and they weren't any poorer for it. It's very odd how all the pro-lifers will go to bat for something that by most legal standards doesn't even exist yet when you're finally out here and alive you can go to hell because if you aren't a success and are poor it's because you're lazy and worthless and should die to decrease the surplus population. GOD BLESS US EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!
-
The American government gave an art grant to a guy and he spent it to cover a statue of the Madonna(thats the Virgin Mary to all unfamiliar with religous terms) in elephant shit. That kind of thing is bullshit. You can go on all you like about definitions of art and how no one person should decide what is and isn't art, but in this case we can all call bullshit. It's not that it's a religious statue, if he had covered the Venus de Milo in shit i'd still be pissed. There is hardly ever one right and true answer to a problem. It's sad that we'll miss out on some possibly great movies, but we don't get to make that call.
-
There seems to be a high correlation between those who oppose state funding of the arts (and social programs in general), and those who oppose open borders. Those people should ask themselves, honestly, if they are not being hipocritical. How can you ask for free markets, free elections, free choice, and on the matter of geographical frontiers suddenly say, "Hey, that's wrong". At the very least you should think carefully if you really can live without immigration. (1) Illegal immmigrants go to the US to take the jobs that americans don't want to do, or won't do unless they are paid more. (2) So say, you effectively close your borders, then american wages would go up. (3) Corporations would loose business, so in order to stay competitive, they would have to move operations to Vietnam, China, Mexico, Pakistan or God knows where else. (4) Suddenly, a weird army of protectionist politicians, enviromentalists, human right activists, and suddenly unemployed workers would cry foul, saying that said countries are engaging in an unfair competition to "steal" american jobs. (5) So, after screwing their own industries with their boneheaded policies, next protectionist politicians would seek to impose tariffs on imports (as those recently imposed in steel imports and chinese textiles -by the way you should find out why they were imposed, and why they were eliminated, politicians sometims have no shame)or introduce a new bill to increase agricultural subsidies by a few other billions. (6) So in the end, consumers would have to pay more for their products, and pay higher taxes. (7) In the end, I hope people realize that immigration is no accident. It happens because some countries like Mexico have extra workers that are willing to work for less, and some other countries like America and other developed nations don't have enough workers (or are demanding wages that drive them out of business). (8) So go ahead and bar immigration, just don't ask yourselves why manufacturing plants leave the country.
-
American businesses already have moved their operations to those countries, and to top it off they've talked the government into setting up free trade agreements with those countries so they won't have to pay tariffs to ship their sweatshop goods back.
-
You say (1) "American businesses already have moved their operations to those countries". That seems to imply that that the process is either very advanced or already finished. That is not true, America still has a powerful manufacturing sector, that employs millions oa Americans. Those jobs (and some other kind of jobs) could be put in jeoparty if the wrong economic policy is implemented. You also say (2)"to top it off they've talked the government into setting up free trade agreements with those countries so they won't have to pay tariffs to ship their sweatshop goods back." That is also highly debatable. America has signed only one trade agreement worthy of the name, both in size, and scope, and that is NAFTA (it has rules applying to commerce, intellectual property, investment, enviromental standards, etc, and it also reaches practically all goods). Beyond that, it only has a few treaties with relatively small countries, and of course, it is part of the World Trade Organization. However, notwithstanding its reputation, the truth is that the WTO is a treaty with pretty small teeth, so whenever its members feel the need for it (for political reasons most of the times), they have ample margin to restrict trade. So I stand by my original comment. For their own good, Americans must be careful about what they do both with their trade and their immigration laws.
-
That shit was funny...I raise the bottle for you and give you one for the road!...CHEERS Amigo! By the way, I have fucked a white Brittish chick in the parking lot.
-
I wasn't trying to go against your point. I was jsut making the point that many American businesses have moved their manufacturing operations(Nike, almost every major clothing company, GM) to foreign countries. Not to mention that America has hammered out a free trade agreement with China, possibly to biggest exporter to America.
-
Hey GT. i hear you on that. When i was at film school in oz i made a doco about comic books. this was back in 89. at the time batman had just opened to huge box office. i thought it was good timing. i still consider it the best thing i have ever done. my professors on the otherhand asked me why i would want to make a doco about comic books. so my next project was about aboriginals in jail. nowhere near the imagination, style or editing yet it got brilliant marks and was eventually sold to the aboriginal and torres strait islanders affairs department of the government. i sucked up and accordingly i got the marks. pathetic. so yeah i fully understand your situation. don:t give in. fuck `em. i:m still dirty about it.
-
I wouldn't be fulfilling my duty as a Mexican American future filmmaker without responding to this. First off, let me just say that some people feel Mexican films are overrated and "mediocre." One of the previous posters even went on to say that "Y Tu Mama Tambien" was about a dying woman fucking and was "pointless." Maybe he's right. But it still won a Golden Globe nomination, a slew of recognition (two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper, not that anyone here cares or should care what those two think, but many, particularly corporate types do) and was good enough to earn Cuaron the director's chair for the third Potter flick. Not bad for "pointless shit." "Talk to Her" was kind of "pointless" as well with men in love with women in comas and "Live Flesh" was about a woman who cheats with the guy who paralyzed her husband. "The Crime of Padre Amaro" was about a horny priest. "Sex and Lucia" was about nothing but horny people. "Amores Perros" has been called a Mexican "Pulp Fiction." What is that trying to say? But you know what? Let me tell you something. All of these movies are terribly interesting stories, almost like spying into real people's lives, that are often beautifully shot, with each frame being handled with a sense of reverence and love ("Sex and Lucia" was one of the most beautifully shot movies ever made!!). They are damn good fuckin' movies, made with passion and in the end, that's what we care about. All Hispanic filmmakers follow what was basically Spike Lee's early formula: take an ethnically unique slice-of-life story, shoot it with a passionate style that reflects the story's exhibited culture and tone, all the while keeping a political polemic subtely looming in the background. It's why his films were successful early on and why people are starting to take a good look at the work of Hispanic filmmakers. Their work simply has passion in it, something that is often lost with American filmmakers in the wheels of corporate conglomerate machinery and commercialism. I find it so interesting that these films are deemed pointless, yet a movie like "Kill Bill" isn't? Oh, and what about "American Pie"? This was the film "Y tu Mama Tambien" was always compared to. "It's a Mexican American Pie." What the fuck was so great about those movies? What great message was laced into its subcontext? Here I thought these movies were just trying to be entertaining. I didn't even know every movie was supposed to have a point. I thought as long as it was a well told story and was entertaining, it had fulfilled its purpose. Newsfuckingflash! If you want a point, stick with Errol Morris and Michael Moore. If you want to be entertained, watch any of the movies I mentioned earlier. I think most AIC people would appreciate them. It is such a double-standard that some people have and a downright racist attitude that if Cuaron makes a successful film like "YTMT", it is deemed "pointless" when if Tarantino makes "Kill Bill" it's the second coming of Christ. What the fuck kinda racist shit is that?! I personally loved "Kill Bill" but it was definitely one of the most pointless movies of the year. It was one of the best, but definitely isn't going to reshape my religious beliefs or sense of morality. And Mexican or any Hispanic film should? Should it be obligated to? No, but because the filmmakers are Hispanic, it is subjected to unnecessary scrutiny. It's like saying since we're of tribal descent, everything we say, every piece of art should have some sort of shaman-esque reverence. That is just bullshit. To insult our films like that is just evidence of why it is so hard for Mexican Americans to have success in this industry. Robert Rodriguez is lucky to have made a name for himself, but Harry Knowles still didn't post a review for his last film, nor any of his others, even those commercial-machined "Spy Kids" movies. We still have a long way to go in terms of fully assimilating into Hollywood, but Fox's bullshit is not helping and Mexico is a well of unexplored talent. It is the passion that flows through our Mexican veins that allows us to take "pointless" stories and make them worth telling, just as it was QT's passion that fueled "Kill Bill." We just need one breakthrough filmmaker to take Mexicans to that next level. And it's the passion in the "pointless" that makes these films what they are. Do not forget that, cuz. !Viva La Raza!
-
First, the US government didn't give funding to "this guy" and he didn't "cover a statue" with elephant shit.
The painting (it was a painting) was part of the [privately owned] Saachi collection that was shown in London to paying customers.
When the collection was shown to New York, the city decided to publically fund the exhibition, for reasons I'll never understand. It's now back in London in a permanent private gallery.
Interestingly, in London, the painting at the exhibition that got most people upset was a painting of child murderer Myra Hindley done in child's handprints. It got paintbombed and had to be removed. No one cared about the elephant shit madonna. -
Filmmaking wasn
-
...Mexico has pulled back the rights for most of the El Santo and Lucha films as well as their early horror titles, such as the Nostradamus trilogy and others. Something Weird recently had their titles and rights to release those titles on DVD rescinded and is fighting for those rights back.
-
i'm a movie geek, so i hold in my hand the keys to solve all foreign policy, religious, racial, social, and fuck it, just plain all problems. and my opinions, even though, yes, they were mostly formed by WATCHING MOVIES, are 100% correct, and i'm so sure of it that i'm gonna take 5 hours out of my day to do nothing but argue my points on a movie news site. after all, ain't it cool news is, like, pretty much the same as meet the press, right? come on people, your arguments over movie quality, while entertaining, are inane enough.
-
sorry all, i just read my last post, and i sound like a complete dick. give me a break, i'm in the middle of quitting cigarettes. go back to solving the world's problems.
-
Dec 17, 2003 3:42:22 PM CST
I love the fact that that phantasm guy is so desperately looking
by big bad clone
No, that's not an invitation for you to "flame" me, mr. phantasm. I'm just making a comment to whoever is still reading this TB.
-
Dec 17, 2003 4:51:43 PM CST
Y Tu Mama Tambien is also about a great friendship torn apart by
by super cucaracha
But Phantasm just looks at the "fuck scenes" just to diss it. Go back to paying attention to your Brett Ratner 101 class of classic film making.
-
Dec 17, 2003 5:20:52 PM CST
Awwww...you are so cute when you try to flame, phantasm. Who's t
by big bad clone
Although, your "dick and nut burrito" bit was funny. But if you called a group a bunch of motherfuckers in the middle of any town, even in an anti-PC enviroment, wouldn't you be endangering your twig and berries?
-
Dec 17, 2003 5:44:35 PM CST
Ugh. You're from America Jr.? No wonder you're such a little bal
by big bad clone
...well that and the fact you want to be married in a dress. But I won't judge. I applaud the fact you and whatever life partner can stand you want to move to Hawaii, Vermont or Masschuttes to live out the rest of your butt banging days. Stay strong my gay friend! Stay strong.
-
awww that's clever...This type of ingenuity comes from the person who didn't like a little soft porn in the movie. It is fine with me if you didn't like the movie, it's your choice. Some people said they liked it and you went off raising hell like if Jenna Jameson was right in front of you naked. I guess you have a little problem with nudity.
-
Dec 17, 2003 7:48:57 PM CST
johnnyhotboy & gg - well said; more on sex & lucia & ytmt
by trader groucho
If memory serves, Sex & Lucia was from Spain, so that qualifies more as European film than Mexican, the common language notwithstanding. Not was the film magnificently shot, but it employs magical realism as well as any film I've seen to date. At the end of the day, you want the film to entertain on some level, whether it provides visceral thrills (Bay, Rattner), laughs (Monty Python), or moves you emotionally in some way, the deeper the better. Sex and Lucia, in spite of the graphic sex, takes us on this woman's journey, and we feel (on an audience level) what she feels - which is why it doesn't feel like porn. Y Tu Mama Tambien was, to me, more of a road movie, a coming-of-age movie, than an American Pie kind of comedy. The climax of the film - the drunk boys getting blown together and kissing each other - did not strike me as authentic, or consistent with the story told up to that point. It felt manipulative, like Cuaron was just trying to shock for the sake of shocking. Maybe audiences in Mexico - where there is a stronger sense of machismo in the culture - felt differently. To get back to primary topic of this TalkBack, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the Mexican government did not have the foresight or presence of mind to fund movies worth talking about. And while displaying a crucifix in urine (the now-infamous "Piss Christ") or introducing pachyderm excrement to the Madonna ain't my idea of art, to put this in perspective, the NEA's entire budget mght buy you a single Tomahawk missile. Also, as was pointed out in the article, Mexico's government film funding program could be more than paid for by a small tax on movie tickets. Jack Valenti and the MPAA and the studios are so totally on the wrong side on this one, and I certainly hope they get a Mexican judge who tells them on no uncertain terms to pack their carpet-bags and make a run for the border.
-
Any time art is funded by politics you do not get true art. Politics, by its very nature, is devoid of free thinking. After all, the first rule of "institution" is "protect the instution". And free thought propitiates change. It also gives us art. However, a point many folks on this talkback are overlooking, life is more complicated than theory. If government funding is necessary to get a filmmakers voice heard in a climate where filmmaking is a financial death sentence, then give the man his damn money. Then get into an environment more conducive to creating or expressing what you feel. BTW, "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and "Amores Perros" are brilliant films and deserved all of the attention they received. And anyone who swings either far right or far left politically in America are blind to the country around them, where it's been, and where we can feasibly go. We need a strong third party choice in this country and no one has stepped up to the plate. 70% of Americans do not align themselves with Democrats or Republicans. Think about it.
-
Y tu mama tambien and Amores Perros seem to be the most known mexican films. Well, let me tell you they weren't financed by IMCINE or CONACULTA.
Y tu mama tambien was financed by private investors. Specifically by Omnitrition's Jorge Vergara.
And Amores Perros was also financed by private investors. Alejandro Gonzalez' Zeta Films and others.
The problem with IMCINE is that they spend very little on advertising. Most of their movies stay only one or two weeks on cinemas. -
Now, I'd love to be able to say that Government funding has produced countless masterpieces in British film. Unfortunately, the likes of "Lucky Break" have (deservedly) sank without trace at box offices in Britain and elsewhere. Whereas the likes of Hollywood-sponsored trash like "Love Actually" and "Calendar Girls" have made millions worldwide. Not that I'm saying ALL Hollywood-sponsored British films are trash; I really enjoyed "Notting Hill". Nor am I saying that there's not a single good state-sponsored British film from the last couple of years ago (although I can't think of one at the moment). Are our cinema posters going to continue having tag-lines "The next Full Monty" and "The next Four Weddings" forever?
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Antepenultimate THRONES!! Lane Pryce Returns To MAD MEN!! Roger Waters On 60 MINUTES!! Plus GIRLS, VEEP, SIMPSONS, BURGERS, KILLING, METALOCALYPSE, SHERLOCK!! THE LAST SUNDAY OF SWEEPS!! -- 102 total posts 95 posts
- Duncan Jones To Tell The Story Of Ian Fleming! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- SNL Says Goodbye To Kristen Wiig!! -- 56 total posts 56 posts
- Hercules Picks Next Season’s 10 Most Promising New Broadcast Series!! -- 131 total posts 43 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will traumatize you. -- 37 total posts 37 posts
- "Some Men Are Coming To Kill Us. We're Going To Kill Them First." Teaser To SKYFALL! -- 34 total posts 34 posts
- There Can Be Only One... Ryan Reynolds?! -- 404 total posts 30 posts
- Dan Harmon Done As COMMUNITY Showrunner!! -- 148 total posts 21 posts
- Quint thinks John Hillcoat's prohibition-era flick LAWLESS is violently awesome! Cannes 2012! -- 69 total posts 20 posts
- Adrian Hieatt Gives Us His Second Daily Report From KAPOW! Comic Convention in London! The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! TOTAL RECALL! DC NEW 52! DAVE GIBBONS! And More! -- 18 total posts 18 posts