British Cinema Vs Hollywood Cinema As far as statistics show Hollywood films make twice as much money in the box office than British films. If we look at films in this manner than it is plainly obvious that more people watch Hollywood films than British films and if we believe that the best films are the ones that more people see than we can conclude that Hollywood films are better than British ones. But it's not as simple as this although the box office does have an impact on the end result. We have to first look at why Hollywood films make more money and how this pattern came about. Then we have to see whether or not this has had any sort of impact on the British cinema and if so why. From this understanding can we actually argue whether Hollywood or British cinema is the better art. Britain started of just like America when it came to cinema. It started with black and white colouring, no sound and really bad images. As time went by this changed and cinema developed technically as well artistically. Around 1913 American filmmakers came to Britain and started to make films here. World War One stopped this and the Americans left leaving many working studios in Britain. Although this had its advantages at the beginning, later on in the timeline because of the war and Britains 'technically not up to date productions' there was no money left for British films. This resulted in the British public wanting to see American films and in 1924 there was no such thing as British cinema. Hollywood however, was climbing its first steps in the direction of success. In 1933 this changed again as some filmmakers including Alfred Hitchcock got toge... ... middle of paper ... ...he money has to go back to British citizens, but to gain this the government has to fund films first. They let Hollywood fund films and when the film is a box office hit, Hollywood acquires all the money made from the film, which result in British companies making no money to make other films again. I also believe that a film should still be seen as a British film whether or not America funds it was still made by British talent. Lastly, I do believe that the British film industry has a rosy future because they make great films and sooner or later people will realise how great the films are. The only thing they need is for the government to trust them a bit more and fund them to gain this. This way all the British talent which are hiding or doing other jobs can have a chance and create great films for all to see.
The Revolutionary war, sparked by the colonist’s anger towards taxation without representation, was a conflict between the United States and its mother country Great Britain. This event had been considered the most significant event in the American history. It separated the thirteen colonies from the tyrannical ruling of King George. The revolutionary war was not a big war, “The military conflict was, by the standards of later wars, a relatively modest one. Battle deaths on the American side totaled fewer than 5,000”1. However, the war proved that the thirteen colonies were capable of defeating the powerful Great Britain. Over the years there were many Hollywood films made based on the revolutionary war, 1776, Revolution, Johnny Tremain, and The Patriot. But, no movie has stirred up as much controversy as the Mel Gibbson movie The Patriot. The patriot is very entertaining but it is historically inaccurate. Too much Hollywood “spices” was added to the movie for viewing pleasures.
Film makers use many historical events to spark up and idea for a movie. One historical event that is commonly used is war. One advantage a film maker has when using war as a movie plot is that there is already a lot of drama in war. This may seem like a good advantage for the film maker, however focusing on all of the drama of war leaves much of the actual info. When watching a war movie, you may feel like you have an understanding about the war, but when you really compare a war movie to an actual war you find that there is a lot of factual information left out. One may ask why would directors and film makers leave out the facts of war and focus on the drama? After reading The Faces of Battle by John Keegan and reviewing war movies such as Saving Private Ryan, and Pearl Harbor, one can clearly see what makes the Hollywood version of war different from real life war.
The many debates about art cinema versus classical cinema have been going around for a while. The mainstream Hollywood classical film and the art cinema are frequently presented as opposites. In one, the style of the film is bland, while the other seeks to center its focus on the visual becoming central as narrative unity. Throughout the movie directed by Stanley Kubrick called 2001: A Space Odyssey, we see that this film can be classified as an art film. On the other hand, it can also be seen as classical film. Even though these two are the complete opposite and they contradict themselves, they are both apparent in the film.
The debate over Casablanca and Citizen Kane has been a classic argument between film critics and historians alike because both of these pieces contain great cinematographic value, and are timeless pictures that have managed to captivate audiences well beyond their era. However, the real question at hand is which film is the greatest? Which film transformed the future of American film making? It is these questions that I as many others have, will attempt to answer in the following essay as I explain why I believe Citizen Kane has achieved the status of greatest film ever made.
Team member work together in an open plan office, it allows quick verbal communication between employees.
During the course of this essay it is my intention to discuss the differences between Classical Hollywood and post-Classical Hollywood. Although these terms refer to theoretical movements of which they are not definitive it is my goal to show that they are applicable in a broad way to a cinema tradition that dominated Hollywood production between 1916 and 1960 and which also pervaded Western Mainstream Cinema (Classical Hollywood or Classic Narrative Cinema) and to the movement and changes that came about following this time period (Post-Classical or New Hollywood). I intend to do this by first analysing and defining aspects of Classical Hollywood and having done that, examining post classical at which time the relationship between them will become evident. It is my intention to reference films from both movements and also published texts relative to the subject matter. In order to illustrate the structures involved I will be writing about the subjects of genre and genre transformation, the representation of gender, postmodernism and the relationship between style, form and content.
Before the Second World War began Hollywood’s purpose lied within entertainment for the American people. After the war started, the main focus shifted to wartime propaganda. Film was used to display the war in a way that did not show its true colors—including the censorship of soldier causalities and other negative connotations that are a simple fact of war. There was even a time in which some actors became better known to America than politians. Through films, Hollywood began to make a statement of their anti-Nazi beliefs. They began to make motion pictures for American recruitment into the Army as well as many that supported the war effort, and intended to make other Americans more aware of the war’s effect on the United States, and how people can get involved. Many European countries banned these Hollywood films, as they began to affect not only America but many other countries that were involved in the war as well.
Describe some ways in which business values and artistic values in Hollywood contend with one another.
There are many adaptations and interpretations on how the English arrived to the Americas and established their colonies. The 2005 film “New World”, written and directed by Terrance Malick, is a film based off the English settlers and how they settled in the Americas in 1607, and the forbidden relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas. Although the film highly exaggerates on some scenes in order to make the history seem more interesting, the film still holds most historical accuracy and is an enjoyable film.
This essay will seek to outline my findings on movie and theatre by looking at still image and moving image. I will discuss the relationship between cinema and film, and also compare some works of artists in order to answer the question which how might photography be contextualized as image on the threshold of still and moving – as an object incorporating the temporal and the narrative, the writing of history, or the presentation of documentation as record.
It is no doubt that Martin Scorsese has heavily influenced the emulating of American film making from European influences. He is a prime example of a ‘New Hollywood Cinema’ director, not only from his ethnicity and background, but from his sheer interest in this form
...nsequence for their actions, and thus this problem has yet to continue and to rise.
The movie “This is England” was released in 2006, written and directed by Shane Meadows , a story taken, in part, from his life as a boy growing up in the Midlands of England. Mr. Meadows work presents to the viewer a representation of the cultural depiction of the street gang known as Skinheads, in a non-stereotypical light. This is England is a drama combining peer pressure, gangs and gang violence, social gatherings, loss and companionship of youths in a working class environment of a small town in England. This is England has been nominated and has also won multiple awards, according to IMDb.com, several nominations are from the British Academy of Film and Television (BAFTA), Golden Kinnaree Award for Best Film, Best Screenplay for British Independent Film Awards and won the Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film additionally won Best European Film from the Mons International Festival of Love Films. This film stars Thomas Turgoose as Shaun, the 12-year-old troubled youth whom this film revolves around, Stephen Graham as Combo and Joseph Gilgun as Woody. Shaun's troubles seem to begin with the loss of his father, an officer, killed during the Falkland War. Subject to bullying from other local gang types, Mods, New Romantics . . ., depression takes it toll on young Shaun. Seemingly, being a loner, Shaun happens upon a small group of older teenage kids, Skinheads, led by a charismatic boy named Woody. Woody takes an immediate liking to Shaun and invites him to join his group. Shaun finds camaraderie in being a part of this group, and they all enjoying the carefree life of being kids, although sometimes the play progresses into vandalism like where a small group of abandoned, derelict housing units meet further destruction a...
Hollywood is starting to become more and more harmful to society. Many people wonder why it is this way. Simple, Hollywood is a very high power in the world; that power leads to being influential. Individuals look up to celebrities as good role models, when in fact, they aren't good ones at all. They aren't themselves on the set of a movie or a TV show. They are playing a role that the producers have written up. Since the characters aren't real, America gets the wrong impression of almost everything. Children get false ideas in their heads of what the world is really like. Teens and adults get false perceptions of how much they should weigh, what size clothes they should wear, and what they should look like. All ages get the wrong idea of what they should and shouldn't do. They also think Hollywood is perfect but it isn't. The effects of Hollywood on society today are very detrimental to all ages.