Talk:Cinema of the United States/Archives/2012

Racial controversy section
Without wanting to offer an opinion on the accuracy of the points made, the way this section is written is currently very synthetic and pointy; I'd believe it was copypasta from a newspaper website. I'm not qualified to fix it, but someone should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.186.1 (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Name
Someone please tell me why this article is under Cinema of the United States and not Hollywood. I know Hollywood is the name of a place but we could always use a disambiguation page that says Hollywood can refer to: Hollywood the place, Hollywood the movie industry, etc. Nsrav (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Nsrav


 * I'm wondering why it says "The cinema of the United States, also known as Hollywood..." in the beginning. I've always thought that there were two: Hollywood, which is the moneymaking film industry with blockbusters, etc. and American cinema which includes Hollywood, independent filmmakers, etc. I doubt anyone would call Stanley Kubrick, Ralph Bakshi, and David Lynch "Hollywood". SockMeAmadeus (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Golden Age
In the "Golden Age" period, Hollywood's prolific move production is compared to "cars rolling off Henry Ford's assembly line". This is a cute line, but it doesn't seem appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.191.79 (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No subject
Film noir doesn't belong in the "golden age" of hollywood. Or at least according to the article on film noir.

Removed this sentence:

If moving pictures were not an American invention, they have nonetheless been the preeminent American contribution to world entertainment.

According to the linked page Film, moving pictures are an American invention. What's the true story here? Rmhermen 22:14 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, but that was what the us government article said. It did not elaborate and I haven't had a chance to check it out. Sfmontyo

According to http://www.cinescene.com/dash/lumiere.html, it was a french man, Lumiere, and his two sons (in Lyons), who having been inspired by Thomas Edison's Kinetoscope, had invented a process of moving a filmstrip and projecting it onto a screen. Sfmontyo

Finally, according to this article, http://animation.filmtv.ucla.edu/program/before.html, others had a system of projecting images onto the wall, including Edison's personal system (not his public Kinetoscope), but it would appear that the sprocketed film coordinated with a shutter was the design of the french man Louis Lumiere. Sfmontyo

This title is ludicrous. It sounds like it's about movies ABOUT the United States. Avoiding the use of the adjective "American" is nonsense. -- Zoe

Okay Zoe, first I'm glad that you don't mince words and I've seen enough posts from you that I don't take this personally, but I'd appreciate it if you would be a little nicer. Anyway, here's my rationale, in the beginning, there was Culture of the United States and Music of the United States (as well as things like Politics of the United States which I think is a bit odd). So in the interest of keeping it similar to the other half-dozen to dozen _______ of the United States, I added Literature of the United States, Dance of the United States, Architecture of the United States, Visual arts of the United States. (BTW: I didnot use Film of the United States, because that literally sounded like it was a film about the US). Anyway, are you suggesting that we: Again, I was simply trying to go along with what I preceived was the spirit of the articles. Cheers, Sfmontyo 02:16 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) ) special case just this entry
 * 2) ) change all of the entries

How about this title: Movies made in the United States - Sfmontyo Actually, I don't like that either. Any suggestions?


 * I understand what you're saying, and I apologize for the tone, but the thing is that around here, the word "American" has become a dirty word, and I was reacting to that. I still think the title is wrong, but then, what do I know, I'm just one of those Unitestatesians who have stolen the name that belongs to everyone in the Western Hemisphere.  -- Zoe

It seems to me that the title is perfectly fine, and I, for one, wasn't confused at all. The rationale given above is perfect, I think. Let it stay as it is. Atorpen

Having read the above justification, I think the title is perfectly correct and logical. I will others would show the same logic sometimes in naming articles. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:03 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * But JT, you're not an imperialist warmongering Unitedstatesian. -- Zoe
 * Oops, I wanted to move Film history/France, Film history/Italy and Film history/United States out of subpages and I put them at Cinema of France, Cinema of Italy and Cinema of the United States, not knowing a discussion had already come up. I like my way better, because movies of the United States sounds strange to me, but I don't feel strongly.  If someone wants to integrate the two articles here, there or somewhere in between, that's fine. Tuf-Kat 16:34 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

From Votes for deletion:


 * Movies of the United States and Cinema of the United States are essentially the same, except "Cinema" is just a hole-y list. I propose Cinema gets deleted. Where's the best place to ask for a mediation?
 * On duplicate articles! :) Martin 21:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would to the Cinema content to Movies, and redirecting Cinema to Movies. The content seems valid enough as far as it goes. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:34, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I think Cinema is more canonical (?) than Movies - rather like Photography and Snaps. Andy G 21:03, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, most of the articles about the movies of other nations do seem to be titled Cinema of . . . (Cinema means a movie you don't want to see, with long shots of gauze curtains blowing in the wind, and subtitles, and no explosions.) So it looks like "cinema" is the keeper. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:44, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I second moving content from Movies to Cinema and placing a redirect at Cinema. Virtually everyone calls them movies in the U.S.  If there's a summary page somewhere that lists all countries, then just use Cinema if you want to make it pretty.  Daniel Quinlan 08:43, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * Whichever is kept, it seems better to make the other a redirect than to delete it. Andre Engels 08:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I third the move of content. Cinema is about the art form and its history. Movies should be a list of movies which references cinema for the art form. JamesDay 09:11, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * What about films? There's already a long list of almost entirely US pictures at List of 'years in film'. Andy G 22:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's an exclusive list for other countries, so we might as well accept the inevitability of a list of only US movies page. Personally, I don't care, I just forsee the inevitability of it happening.JamesDay 11:11, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In light of the above consensus-free discussions, I combined the content at cinema of the United States. While I prefer this to movies of the United States, the duplicate articles disturb me more. At least the content is now together and can be moved en masse.Tuf-Kat 02:53, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Introduction
Having added images, I'd like to ask other editors to help with the introduction. The quote by Pauline Kael - out of context and referring to an Italian film - is presented in a way that denigrates this subject. Surely there's a better way to begin the article. Durova 10:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but the new section claiming "Its history is marked by two distinct periods, the first often referred to as Classical Hollywood cinema, the second as the New Hollywood" is extremly dubious. There's a lot of this kind of stuff written on WP, presumably by people who have read Easy Riders, Raging Bulls and little else. JW 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * True. One could further divide them by decade, by pre-code and post-code (Production Code), by silent/sound, by genre, pre-VCR and post-vcr, pre-filmschool and post-filmschool ... --Jahsonic 21:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer the new introduction, but my understanding is that "new Hollywood" only lasted about as far as Heaven's Gate. Post-Star Wars is really another different era; the blockbuster era if you like. As for the deletions, we can all have fun adding our favourite actors or directors to the lists, but it looks like favouritism to put someone like Hal Ashby in with Huston, Spielberg or Kubrick. There are at least a dozen US directors you would add to the list before him. The actor list is the one most often added to; the key word I think is "iconic", not "famous". It's difficult to draw the line, but I don't believe anyone would really describe Tom Hanks as iconic. JW 11:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

missing something
Needs more stuff on CGI and animated films. Finding Nemo, Toy Story, and Shrek have been massively successful. Gflores Talk 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarity
"The cinema of the United States, although it is sometimes simply referred to as Hollywood, does not refer only to the film industry of the United States of America. Other modes of production like documentary film or experimental film manage to exist beside the dominant cinema."

This makes little sense. "Hollywood" refers specifically to the big studios, even if they are financing smaller-budget films. No one is going to call a film like, say, "Roger & Me" a "Hollywood" film, but they would call something like "Fahrenheit 9/11" "Hollywood" because of the bigger budget and bigger marketing/studio associations. I really don't understand how documentary or experimental film is outside the "film industry of the United States." I'm going to clarify this section, but I gues I'm anticipating some debate over this. Also, the "other modes of production" do more than just "manage to exist" IMHO.

One final note - there really should be a list of famous film directors. Is there one? - IstvanWolf 05:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was never really convinced by the intro either, but it seems to be the wrong way round now. It says "cinema of the United States " is used to refer to the larger studio-produced cinema. What you mean surely, is "Hollywood" is used to mean this. JW 22:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Version 0.5 review
I think this is a nicely put-together article, and it might well pass as a Good article if you nominate it. However, I held off giving it A-Class status because I think the English could be improved. Although it's not really bad, it is awkward in many places and could benefit from a rewrite. Nice job generally, though, I passed it for V0.5. Walkerma 05:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable film directors: Clint Eastwood
In my opinion Clint Eastwood should be included in the "Significant American-born film directors"-list. In addition to his career as an actor he has also directed several important films that one might even call "modern classics", such as "The Outlaw Josey Wales", "Million Dollar Baby" and of course "Unforgiven". So he obviously IS a notable film director and not just a "favourite non-notable director", don't you think? 83.189.18.112 14:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Bacon an "iconic" actor?
In my opinion Kevin Bacon isn't that "iconic" as to be mentioned in the "iconic actors"-list. You simply cannot compare him to the real legendary actors and actresses like Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne or Katharine Hepburn. He hasn't contributed much for the art and history of American cinema .83.181.70.133 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Other film industries
Should we include (more) info about how other film industries have modeled themselves after (modern) hollywood? Bollywood, for instance, is the obvious; not only the name but most of the films are patterned after films currently being worked on and/or released in the United States. Fmehdi 23:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Relative size?

 * On a similar note, how big is Hollywood? Is it the world's second-biggest movie industry? I'm pretty sure it is, but I need a confirmation. Brutannica 01:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends what you mean by "big". Hollywood makes more money and spends more money. But Bollywood makes a larger number of films. Cop 663 14:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actors and directors who were not born in the U.S.
How about a list with actors and directors who were not born in the U.S., but have contributed a lot to American film history? I know this might be difficult, but lately names like Cary Grant, Charlie Chaplin and Alfred Hitchcock have been added to the existing list(s) and had to be removed because they weren't born in the U.S.. Ironic, since they were very important figures in American film history. Dutzi (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating a "List of" article
Is it a good idea to create a "List of" article for the actors, the lists here is getting very big. In addition, what is the criteria being used for inclusion in this article? --Bardcom (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Relation between Hollywood and the Politicians
Hollywood by being the entertainment capital of the world and attracting millions of persons with its films is also a huge leader in political views and an endless pool of money for any presidential candidate who can convince the stars that he/she has the right cause. The relation between Hollywood and Washington began with a need for Hollywood to acquire a status of power by being seen with politicians and that relation is today reversed with Washington’s need to have good image, a glamour view with the help of Hollywood and most importantly, the money that is being given to the politicians.

It all started in the beginnings of Hollywood, mostly during the moguls’ era, the founders of the studios. Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford were used to sell war bonds for World War 1 and their image worked to attract crowds. It wasn’t so long until the moguls began looking for something else than fame and money from their successful businesses. Most of the moguls and power figures of Hollywood in the 1920s were Jews. Being a Jew in this era was seen as negative, in a time when Jews were not welcomed in America. Despite their success, the moguls did not have the respect or the social status that they wanted. That’s why by being seen with powerful politicians would raise their social status and assure the respect they wanted. MGM’s powerful executive Louis B. Mayer accomplished this desire by being a good friend with candidate Herbert Hoover. The role of Hollywood in national politics began with this friendship between Mayer and Hoover. From this friendship, Hoover gained the support of Mayer’s friend William Randolph Hearst, press lord and producer, in his cause. Mayer was a strong supporter of Hoover who eventually became the 31st President of the United States, and Mayer succeeded in being well respected and became an even more powerful figure in Hollywood.

In the 1930s the Democrats and the Republicans saw a huge pool of money in Hollywood. President Franklin Roosevelt saw a huge partnership with Hollywood. He used the first real potential of Hollywood’s stars in a national campaign. Melvyn Douglas toured Washington in 1939 and met the key New Dealers. Endorsements letters from leading actors were signed, radio appearances and printed advertising were made. The use of a star was to drawn a large audience into the political view of the party. By the 1960s a new form of relation began. The glamour relation between John F. Kennedy and Frank Sinatra was a new era of Hollywood-Washington relation. The young and fresh Kennedy was a new face for Washington in a time when the last moguls of Hollywood were gone and young new executives and producers began generating more liberal ideas. The celebrity and the money attracted the politicians into the high-class glittering Hollywood life-style. As Ronald Brownstein wrote in his book “The Power and the Glitter”, the television in the 1970s and 1980s was an enormously important new media into the politics and Hollywood helped in that media with actors making speeches on their political beliefs, like Jane Fonda against the Vietnam War. In this era we saw former actor Ronald Regan became Governor of California and then President of the United States. Something that could not have been possible before, Hollywood was now sitting in the White House. It continued with Arnold Schwarzenegger as California’s Governor in 2003.

Today Washington’s interest is in Hollywood being a money provider. The huge pool of money available is just waiting to be given to the right candidate. On February 20, 2007, for example, Senator Barack Obama had a $2300-a-plate Hollywood gala, being hosted by David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg at the Beverly Hilton. Hollywood was and is still a huge donator for presidential campaigns. The capital of power, Washington and the capital of glamour, Hollywood, are linked forever. The money is attracting politicians and their image combined with Hollywood being part of our cultural life will keep the political side alive. Not only is Hollywood influencing Washington with its glamour and money but Washington is also influencing Hollywood. With the help of the Pentagon and, based on Jean-Michel Valantin analysis in “Hollywood, le Pentagone et Washington”, Capitol Hill and the White House influence most notably the War films of Hollywood with their politics and ideologies. Hollywood, the glamour and the entertainment power in our cultural life together with Washington, the political power of America, are two inseparable aspects of the American life.

Discussion
This material does not concern the geographic district of Los Angeles named "Hollywood", and is more appropriate here. I didn't move it straight in because it needs some work to make it less of an essay.  Will Beback   talk    19:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the block of text above this line it has some problems. The Washington + 'Popular Cinema' connection didn't start with Hoover & Meyer. Joseph Kennedy was one of the founders of RKO, & before that, President Wilson was used to Bolster the publicity campaign for "Birth Of a Nation". So there has been an attraction between those two forces almost from the start. 71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)mbd71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The list of significant American directors
It really needs a clean-up. Robert Rodriguez? Danny Boyle? Christopher Nolan? Rob Reiner? Sam Raimi? Mel Gibson? Sophia Coppola? You can't be serious. Those folk rank among the most important, influential, quality filmmakers in the history of United States cinema? Boyle's films aren't even American productions; what's he doing there? You can't just put your favorite director in the list people. This is hilarious. Someone please work on it. Jonas.E.B. 09:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas.E.B. (talk • contribs)

Jewish community
The influence of the Jewish community is controversial, however there is an interesting Los Angeles Times article here that may be useful for information about Jewish-American cinema. ADM (talk)
 * The subject of Jewish Influence in Hollywood seems only to be sensibly discussed by Palestinians, who feel they are misrepresented in Movies made by Studios there. Other Jewish Conspiracy Theories involving Hollywood cannot be taken seriously by any rational person. The same people saying Jews in Hollywood are 'Mind Controlling' the world, are also saying 'Shape-shifting Reptile/Humans are living in Beverly Hills'.Johnwrd (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To me it's somewhat striking that this article only once mentions Jews ("[...], many Jewish immigrants found employment in the U.S. film industry.") and the article about Hollywood doesn't mention Jews at all, while "major American films in Hollywood were influenced by the Eastern European Jewish culture that most of the major movie moguls who controlled the studios shared" according to An Empire Of Their Own and as can be seen in its documentary adaption (part 1/11 on YouTube). I just saw that documentary and it contains quite a few (indisputable) facts that would make one think a bit more about the Jewish background would be in this article and/or in that about Hollywood. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Guess this movie!
In this film a serial killer gets a lift from a guy travelling across America. On the way he tries to scare the shit out of the guy by putting an alive venomous spider on him. At last, on reaching home the guy finally decides to confront him with a shotgun, but runs out of ammo. Then he kills the serial killer by holding an axe and adhsieve-tapeing it to his wrist. What I can't remember is the name of this film. Can someone please be kind enough to tell me what the film was... Jon Ascton    (talk)  08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Relation between Hollywood and the Politicians
This part is confusing and needs a cleanup  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysophia (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

General Conspiracy Theories.
Perhaps some mention of Conspiracy Theories involving Modern Hollywood may be worthwhile. If you doubt these Theorists exist you only have to listen to Talkradio Stations or visit New Age Book Stores around the world. Theorists confidently assert that Hollywood Directors and Actors are in league with Space Aliens, The Illuminati, The New World Order, Reptilians, etc, conditioning the Public for a 'War of the Worlds' like final showdown. The real 'Rulers' of Hollywood these people claim are; Druids, The Illuminati, Zionists, Freemasons, Jesuits, The C.I.A., Reptilian Shape-shifters, Alien Greys,.............Johnwrd (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)ddppdpdpdddddddpdpdpdppppppppppppppppppdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddpdpdpdpdpdpdpd tgggggtggtgtgtgtgt

Color
A history of US movies and the word "color" doesn't have any hits? Are you kidding?????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.30.91 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What location?
"The film patents wars of the early 20th century led to the spread of film companies across the U.S. Many worked with equipment for which they did not own the rights, and thus filming in New York could be dangerous; it was close to Edison's Company headquarters, and to agents the company set out to seize cameras. By 1912, most major film companies had set up production facilities because of the location's proximity to Mexico, though the region's optimal year-round weather is generally cited as the primary reason.[3]"

I suspect that the location in question is Hollywood and/or California?--79.169.164.69 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The cited book is available through "snippet view". I added "Southern California".   Will Beback    talk    04:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)