If you take money from government, you are beholden to government, so no, I am not advocating subsidies. (Although, I must admit I am sympathetic to a certain, minimal amount of funding… Not enough to make the industry dependent, but providing a little education to the best and brightest does not trouble me terribly).

Honestly, I do not know how to change things right now. The problems are fairly obvious — Korea needs better production skills (almost across the board… although it has some very good art designers) and much better story editing/ pre-production. And post-production (too many films use filming as their main publicity, forcing directors to edit and finish the movie really quickly). Unfortunately, Korean filmmakers are doing so well these days, there is less incentive to change, which can be deadly.

Fortunately, there are a few filmmakers who see how much more Korean movies need to improve to become internationally competitive, and are trying to form international coproductions, so they can learn. DJ Kim at ShowEast has tried this (he’s the one who got Jang Dong-gun into THE PROMISE … as there are several Chinese crews that are considered to be very good these days). There are a few others.

Haisan said:

In a free market, consumers bear the ultimate responsibility for the end product. It might be an ugly product, but at least we are all to blame.

I must disagree. Only those who consume the crappy product are to blame. Those who do not consume are not blame. This is true whether we are talking about movies, food, cars, or any other consumer product.

The problem is that it is a placebo. It puts no money into the pockets of filmmakers. I want to see good movies made. I want to see regional film markets do well. But to put one’s energies into defending (or opposing) something that has no real value or affect is a waste. And in the long run, worrying about a quota instead of worrying about the real structure of the Korean film industry (and as good as it is doing, it has some very real weaknesses), is dangerous for the health of the Korean film industry.

Are you advocating subsidies? Where will the funding come from? Who will determine who gets the money for what? You’ve explained clearly why you think the screen quota is a bad idea, but you haven’t suggested an alternative to boost the quality of Korean cinema.

I would think that is what those pesky little numbers were. There is no correlation between the rise of the Korean film industry and the quota. There is no numerical reason to think that Hollywood has any leverage over the local industry. Seems rather substantial to me.

> That is to say, what exactly is wrong with a screen quota?

The problem is that it is a placebo. It puts no money into the pockets of filmmakers. I want to see good movies made. I want to see regional film markets do well. But to put one’s energies into defending (or opposing) something that has no real value or affect is a waste. And in the long run, worrying about a quota instead of worrying about the real structure of the Korean film industry (and as good as it is doing, it has some very real weaknesses), is dangerous for the health of the Korean film industry.

I would echo Sonagi’s comments above, especially as regards banning vs. screening. As for elitism and movies, well, let’s put it like this: yes, I am an elitist. However, I have not the slightest inclination to decide for anyone else what they should be watching. As for having others decide for me, well, it’s really quite irrelevant as I rarely watch movies. I would make a distinction between the internet, which is personal, and the movie theater and DVD industry, which through the shared experience of watching movies with many other people promotes social change more directly and on a wider scale.

I do think that the cultural impact of the entertainment industry in the US has been simplistically minimized by many writers. I furthermore do not approve of the cultural situation in the US and Canada. I’m quite happy to live in South Korea, which has had a screen quota in place, a quota that has helped to produce a lot of very good prime time dramas. I believe that the culture of my adopted country is superior to the culture that I left behind on many counts. I have no desire to see South Korea become just like either Canada or America.

I would also state that many people do need a governmental parental hand in helping them. Nature abhors a vaccuum. In the absence of a healthy entertainment industry in a country, the easiest, but not the best thing, would be to import wholesale from the world’s largest supplier of entertainment. Screening quotas have given fledgling local film industries in many countries the chance to develop more healthy indigenous alternative to Hollywood.

The implementation of a screening quota is an appropriate exercise of sovereignty by national governments around the world.

Yes, I hate Hollywood, and yes, I do not like American popular culture, generally. I hope that I do not sound anti-American, though. The origin of the American political system is something that I have a lot of respect for. America’s foreign policy, which results in it doing the bulk of the heavy lifting around the world, and for very little thanks, is something I–for the most part–support and appreciate. America leads the world in many academic, medical, and scientific fields. In terms of cultural and literatary figures, America has given the world the likes of Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, and Martin Luther King Junior. It is only its current popular culture of movies and music, and the importance of that industry in the life of the nation, that I have such negative feelings about.

The good news, is, Blueballs, that I am not trying to change America. I am only hoping that South Korea does not become culturally like America.

> In Korea, our movie choices are limited by the screen quota.

As I explained in some detail, no, they are not. That might be the intention, but in fact the quota has no effect on our lives in Korea. Aside from getting the MPAA and quota supporters all up in arms.

I would not use a tone as strident as Blueballs’, but I think he is in the right neighborhood. In a free market, consumers bear the ultimate responsibility for the end product. It might be an ugly product, but at least we are all to blame.

People in Korea might complain about movie market diversity, but for the most part, the people who live here are not supporting the few alternative choices that they have. The question (in my mind), is “How do we get people interested in alternatives?”

Second paragraph was just to pre-empt the argument that free market competition keeps producers efficient. It wasn’t in response to anything you said, but since I’m still unsure of what your argument against the quota is, well.. it seemed safer that way.

As for the rhetoric of cultural protectionism, I’m inclined to agree to a point that giving the government carte blanche to decide what we watch under the guise of protecting our valuable culture is pretty crappy, yeah. But I’d definitely say that being able to watch a movie made by someone who shares your identity is a valuable thing. For instance, The Host isn’t simply “another (incredibly good and deep) monster film.” It also takes place in Seoul, in a Korean family, centering on the incredibly symbolic Han River. I’m not saying the government should have the right to choose what best represents the culture of Korea, but the people who live there ought to, especially the individual artists representing that industry in Korea.

Of course, as the Chungmuro industry gets larger and more profitable we may see a lot of vapid crap coming out of it, but this certainly isn’t a result of the screen quota, by your own argument, and at least it’s crap in Korean and not vapid crap that’s being shoved into theaters by guys counting numbers in California.

Of course, a lot of this discussion rests on the value of nationality. That is, does it actually mean something to be Korean or American, and does the value of an artwork depend upon the nationality of the audience or the artist? There are so many levels people can relate to a piece of art (or crap) on, I think it’s hard to say for sure, but I feel like there is a certain value to it. Of course, you as a semi-permanent expatriate probably have a deeper, more subtle view on this than I do.

Open your eyes, Blueballs. How free is a market dominated by a few large corporations? In Korea, our movie choices are limited by the screen quota. In the US, our choices are limited by the tastes of the masses. Either way, our choices are limited.

Great way of putting it. I think everyone in here needs to read a little Fanon, consider the flip side of capitalism (economic colonialism) and consider why, exactly, a screen quota is inherently “illiberal.” Remember, there’s more than one breed of liberalism, and though John Dewey isn’t often thrown into the same basket as Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham, they do have to share a philosophical denomination.

you must concede that jackass politicians have the right and the duty to choose which kinds of films you may see and which you may not see

Screen quotas are not the same as banning films. Hollywood blockbusters are still shown around the country, and any Korean who wants to see one can easily find a theater.

Most countries, including those in North America and Europe, have nurtured infant industries through tariffs and other trade barriers. Hollywood is a behemoth compared to the Korean film industry, which has developed and improved its craft under the protection of the screen quota.

cultural protection is based on the premise that there is value in something solely based on the fact that it is produced by that culture. see the quotas in france or canada — and the resulting piles of crap born of the lack of competition — for prime examples. but for anyone with any self respect and pride in their work, it should be an insult. if, as an artist, you must rely on your fellow citizens’ patriotic pity, you’re a failure. and a sad one at that.

Screen quotas are merely one form of government aid to the arts. North American and European governments use tax dollars to fund artists and organizations. I personally do not like French films, but they are popular in many countries.

I rarely go to the theater and watch DVDs at home instead. Recently, I borrowed the Afghan movie “Osama” from the local library. It was an outstanding movie that brought the horrors of Taliban rule to my living room. This movie is not available in any of the local rental shops, with a paltry foreign film selection. The “free market” does not always mean more choices for the consumer. Most Americans don’t have the patience or interest in watching a foreign movie with subtitles, so I am forced to scrounge around. Pirated DVD shops in China offered a greater selection of quality films from around the world than either the local Blockbuster or public library.

The ol’ “free market = more choices” doesn’t work for food, either. Olive Garden, Smokey Bones, Applebees, Chevy’s, it’s all the same old processed s**t. There is only ONE restaurant in town that serves nutritious food made from scratch with fresh ingredients. If this weren’t a college town, even that restaurant probably wouldn’t exist.

Open your eyes, Blueballs. How free is a market dominated by a few large corporations? In Korea, our movie choices are limited by the screen quota. In the US, our choices are limited by the tastes of the masses. Either way, our choices are limited.