Perspectives on acting in different countries

[odybu]

"As to whether it will lead to greater exposure, I would say yes and no. Seems fame, particularly in the US which is how you are defining it, is measured in terms of dollars. A movie you are in makes hundreds of millions of dollars, your name is attached to it = you get to be famous for a while."

Virgil, your comment got me to thinking, why IS film making so different from country to country. I mean, I realize that the cultures are vastly different across the globe, but it does seem to be true that "money makers" define much of the fame of a particular actor or actress. In other countries, what do folks look for that makes it so different? And is $$$ money a motivator or is it art for the sake of art. I'm truly curious. . .

[Virgil Reality]

Oh I'm quite sure that fame and money are quite closely related in any place. Whether fame= success is another discussion.

In many places the film industry is subsidized by government money- it's one way to enable smaller film industries to tell their own stories in their own language or idiom where they might otherwise be swamped by the imported product.

EG, the population of Australia is approximately 20 million. Obviously even if every single person attended a made-in Australia movie, there's no way it could make the money that a movie could in the US. So obviously it can't be made for many millions of dollars as is spent on, say, a Disney movie. Then there's the cost of publicity and the issue of distribution Even here the cinemas are owned and/or dominated by the big international distribution companies.

None the less there are many Australian actors making a career with varying levels of success and fame. Some go on to make a career in Hollywood, some stay here and make do with a lower level of recognition and remuneration. Some vary it, they combine big budget Hollywood movies and small indie Aussie movies. Check out "Little Fish" a great little indie pic starring Cate Blanchett, Sam Neill and Hugo Weaving as very unglamorous losrs in the drug subculture of urban Sydney.

The situation would be the same in most countires where the population can't really support the scale of expenditure that a US movie can, which not only has a large domestic market but domination of the world market. In fact, the British film industry has been seeing hard times lately, which I guess partly explains why we haven't seen Hans in too many movies of late ( al ot of what he's done recently has been TV )- it's not like there have been too many successful Brit movies of late where you could say - It should have been Hans. And I don't see him heading off to do the stuuf you need to do to break into the Hollywood scene somehow.

[JenoWhatIMean]

Some really good points Virg...it never dawned on me that it would be a simple matter of a countrys' population that would prevent a local film industry from competing. Unless, of course, it got international exposure and was successful that way. When I said that Hans wasn't famous in the US...I simply meant that at this point I have yet to come across anyone in my everyday life who knows his name.
But success is a whole other topic. I would say he is quite successful. To be so young and having so many wonderful roles to play and, it seems, not having been put in the position of having to start out doing a lot of commercials and so forth.
What Hans considers to be success is yet another issue.

[Gg]

You guys have begun a complex discussion --particularily because film-making on a international scale and the interweaving relationship with the talent (including actors) of that country, and how the relationship effects each other, is as changing as,...the rest of the film industry...

But Virg has struck on a couple good points that you are all keying into. The striking one that population effects that countries film industries ability to compete. That all the local support available cannot alone provide the competitive box office receipts, to compel a film to international success without an international force behind it -- namely a distributor who wants to invest the vast support to put it on that platform.

What has been striking to me, from my perspective from inside the independent film market -- most notably in the time spent at film festivals, is that now the foreign films that find acclaim outside of their country will pop up at the larger festivals in this country -- and this is has repeatedly struck me -- to be in a room with these films while promoting a tiny little independent -- to be competing against productions that have palm leaves adorning their posters.

Which takes me to my next thought -- we're tying in actors with their films and trying to find a formula for success and considering those two elements alone together, when there are a myriad of elements and talent, that effect the chasm between those two. Without good writing, for instance, the work of the actor is greatly increased, if not impossible, and the film in general suffers -- you wonder how the film got off the ground in the first place, what deal mastery must have been involved, and what kind of actors would attach to a film with such a poorly written script. Then again, you wonder if maybe the performances were butchered in editing, and maybe the writer is as devastated as the rest of us... On the other hand, beautifully written scripts can attract amazing talent based soley on the writing -- even when the on camera talent realizes that there may be a rollercoaster in production they're only getting scale for... down to worrying even if the film can be completed in 35mm...

Poor direction, an unimaginative DP, compromised performance, the list of variables is endless seemingly. Hell just bad equipment....

Studio films in this country have the luxury of the best technology which of course brings them the best international talent (or at least the most "competitive" from a BO POV -- how Variety is that) from nearly every perspective -- however, writers, I would say, and many directors, have a bit more freedom outside of the system... really everyone does -- but freedom without support represents a great deal more personal risk and effort in getting the project attention. But from a distribution stand point, the support is ever growing for the independent film -- as is the competition. The numbers are exploding, so for every "Warner Independent Wing" that is born per year, the number of indies born is exponentionally higher. And frankly -- the fewer "independent" (ie "rising" and "foreign") actors who can compete for roles in independents with credibility... whatever that really means...

But it seems to me that it is the "buzz" that gets performers and to some extent directors noticed -- Cate Blanchet doing all this amazing theater in Australia, working with Jeffrey Rush -- just having that out their with her personal publicity after her first opportunity for exposure creates both credibility and that buzz factor that is going to attract the kind of attention that would get her more work from an amazing performance -- whether it (the previopus work) is seen or not... A buzz is something that somebody has to work on. SO much "foreign" talent moves to Hollywood after achieving some kind of established resume in their home country and three films later anyone who isn't paying attention doesn't even realize they came from anywhere but the US... but it is those that bridge that gap -- Cate Blanchet, Samantha Morton, Clive Owen, there's really a very nice long list (and some of our greatest US talent on it as well) who do both studio and independent, who make films in Hollywood and abroad, who still tread the boards and take preformance chances -- who bring back with them talent they believe in from smaller venues -- these are the professionals with the wisdom to create longevity for their careers (as artists -- not just actors) and who enrich the film industry as a whole -- because they make us aware, however quietly, of possibilties we may have never thought possible -- however much risk and occassional mark missing those possiblities expose in the face of such a commercial realm as film performance.

[JenoWhatIMean]

I'm speechless :-)

Wow, such an informative look at an inside view of film-making...thanks!

[Gg]

DON'T be rendered speechless!! Keep discussing!!

As Jeffrey Rush's character says, over and over, in "Shakespeare in Love":

"it's a mystery"

might as well keep the conversation going!

[JenoWhatIMean]

Well, what I meant was, you cover so much territory that I know extremely little about...but I think the truly great artists, whether they get "buzz" or not, are all about integrity...doing their best to find the best projects for them based on quality, not commercial appeal whenever possible. I think the real test of an actor's commitment to the artform in such a commercial arena is when they do begin to have more choices available to them...which ones do they make? Is it going to be about commercial exposure? (Which is not necessarily a bad thing since it can lead to greater opportunity to make artistic choices, but is a very seductive and slippery slope) Or is it going to be about the script, direction and so forth. I was impressed with Kevin Spacey on Inside the Actor's Studio when he said that he chooses projects based solely on the writing. He doesn't let his agent tell him who the director is or anything else about it until he's had a chance to read the script. Pretty darn admirable, if true. But as you said, Gigi, there are so many other things that go into it. Film is simply a collaborative artform, the group either comes together well or it doesn't. It would be interesting to apply group psychology to a film set, eh?

[JenoWhatIMean]

ooh, I'm an afficionado! When did that happen? Go ahead...ask me anything!

[Gg]

WHAT is the meaning of life?

[Gg]

dangerous...

has anybody seen the documentary on Metallica where they all go into "family" therapy!?

[Virgil Reality]

The thing is. how much should "foreign" films cater to the US market? It seems to me that those that are most successful are the ones that have compromised the least. Where international stars, gratuitous shot of scenic landmarks and wildlife interfere with the plot, it doesn't always pay off with increased international (ie American) interest. The main culprit would be the Euro pudding genre where there are so many different production companies all putting up their money and their star that you you get a movie that isn't just "one" thing. the compromised show.

I guess both "Canone Inverso" and "I Am Dina" would fall into this group - also "Nero". Where they film in English and then there's the accent issue with the non- English cast, seems no-one's happy.

[JenoWhatIMean]

About HANS!!!! Geeez...

[Virgil Reality]

No I'm meant generally. The end product can end up being some hybrid that doesn't really succeed in it's intentions to capture the international audience and in doing so, can alienate the home audience I haven't expressed it very well

[Gg]

I think as a film fanatic I really enjoy foreign films that make no apologies for themselves. I liked "Like Water for Chocolate" because it was true to it's Mexican heritage (though the actor was italian). I learned to love something, somewhere, a time and place, and got something universal out of it. "Cinema Paradiso" is beautiful to watch in it's native Italian and reading the subtitles is a seemless effort after a few minutes. I loved "La Cage..." in the original French -- not that I hated the Robin Williams/Nathan Lane American remake -- but a remake is a nod to a film -- that it was brilliant enough to be, in fact, remade. "The Ring" is devastating in it's original Japanese. But it is apples and oranges, and from my perspective there is room for both the original foreign films and the remakes -- my beef is the difficulty in finding the originals in the first place. Yes, I understand why...

But I think "In America" is a beautiful example of a film that brings the foreign and independent American sensibilty together beautifully -- because of course it is, in part, about the very experience of binding those two sensibilites together in the experience of the characters -- yet it speaks universally about love in a way that celebrates out unity as humans.

A film is a "success" if it fulfills its artistic intention. I believe that of art in general. Hell if it comes close to the mark for that matter. If one person is spoken to, is changed. BO is business... I can think of a lot of blockbusters that I consider artistically devoid of success. Did you know "Bringing up Baby" was a FLOP -- and is now a bonifide classic... what is success? Van Gogh was failure... then.


So I think, I guess, that if the film is truly "foreign" not just in it's production but in it's sensibility, it should not apologize, and pray for exposure, rather than artificially try to be universally marketable -- terrible business savy -- but I guess in a perfect world it would be the "business" of distribution that I would like to see change -- I would have liked the artistic decisions be based of the artistic intention of the movie -- slap on those subtitles and offer the film through small distributors internationally.


Can you say "Utopia"


?

(not to mention bankruptcy, pollyanna, naivette, wishful thinking, and you'll never amount to anything)

[Shars]

Ah the old conflict between commerce and art! Its sad but true. Unlike a lot of other major film centers (London, New Delhi, Rome), Hollywood is so focused on only one thing—the final numbers—that it often overshadows everything else in the process. Artistic credibility, inventiveness and creativity be d**ned! Yes, I realize that it is a business and certain criteria need to be in place in order for a studio to make money, but lately it seems as though these criteria have become an unbreakable formula. I mean really—how many awful remakes of awful old TV shows do we have to sit through (Bewitched, Dukes of Hazzard, The Honeymooners (OK, that was a great TV show, but the film had no connection whatsoever to it except the title) before the Hollywood power brokers realize that they have no idea how to really make movies.

Case in point—just last night I watched the absolutely dreadful "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" only to be angry at how much money was wasted making this drivel. Not to put too fine a point on it, but when the only good part of a film watching experience is seeing Brad Pitt running around in his boxers, you know you're in for a long night! That cash could have funded at least 20 smaller budgeted, interesting, experimental, non-intellectually insulting films that, now thanks to the flourishing DVD distribution markets (silly hats off to Netflix in particular), can easily find their audiences!

I totally agree with Gg. Some of the now classic, benchmark films from the past were huge financial disappointments. For example, Orson Wells' Citizen Kane didn't even make its production money back during its initial run in 1941. It wasn't until it won truckloads of Oscars and was subsequently re-released that it became well known and financially solvent! Does that mean that films of that ilk will not be made again? It does now!

There are very talented film people out there in CA/NY (including actors, screenwriters, costume designers, etc.) that are not being given a chance to do their best work because their "unprovenness." Even an authority no less than George Clooney (whom I would also like to see running around in his boxers—we've already seen Hans in his, but if he wants to continue this trend, who are we to stop him!) has in the past said that for every small, interesting film he makes (Good Night and Good Luck, which was excellent by the way), he has to give in to studio pressure and make an Oceans Twelve. Hey, we all have to make money, but its not ALL about making money!

Gg--as the soon-to-be crowned queen of quality indie films, you are the torchbearer for film fans everywhere !


Support your local independent filmmakers!! Thank you. This has been a public service announcement.

Shars