So The Korea Herald posts another long opinion piece on the screen quota, once again long on assertions but short on data (but you need not feel required to check it out… ’tis stupid).
Among the idiotic assertions:
- There has been little talk about how the screen quota reduction affects art-house films. (In fact: There has been plenty of such talk. In fact, some in the film community have floated the idea of having an art-house quota instead of/in addition to the local film quota. Bad and impractical idea, but it has definitely been talked about).
- Hollywood makes crap. For Korea to compete, it will have to make mainstream crap, too. (In fact: Korean film companies are doing the same thing as Hollywood — making movies that Korean consumers want to see. Show me an example of a really good film that could not get into theaters, and we can talk. But the fact is plenty of good, art-house Korean films get lots of press and get into theaters, but then Koreans do not go to see them. What lesson are local distributors and producers supposed to learn from that?)
- Korean theaters will spurn risky local films because Hollywood films are ready-made, hugely marketed and safe. Plus Hollywood can make theaters sign up for package deals, insisting they show several crappy films to buy the one film they really want. (In fact: Korean films make more money than Hollywood films. The biggest Korean films make more than the biggest Hollywood films. The average Korean films make more money than the average Hollywood films. Only someone with completely ignorant of basic mathematics would prefer Hollywood to local films, or consider them safer. Plus, the biggest Hollywood films require such huge guarantees that it can be cheaper to make a local film.)
- Kim Ki-duk is unpopular in Korea because of his lack of access to theaters. (In fact: Kim Ki-duk had screen access around his BAD GUY period, but Korean movie-goers actively rejected his films. Each film after BAD GUY had increasingly small screen averages, and finally with his last film, THE BOW, Kim just released it himself, on one print. Even then, it was not very hard for Kim to find a theater that would show his self-distributed film.)
In short, the screen quota has been of no help to the art-house side of local films for years (in the 1990s, when there were fewer films made and getting into theaters, even for a couple of days, greatly improved your success on home video, you could at least make a bit of an argument).
Much more useful to small-budget films are the attempts to make them profitable. CJ Entertainment just started a project with Nabi Pictures and the Seoul Action School to make low-budget action movies. Sure, they will be more grind house and Robert Rodriguez than Stanley Kubrick, but if they make money, they will provide a real and useful way to diversify what we are seeing in the theaters.
The independent distributor Sponge is making a real attempt to bring off-beat films into Korea, and has even started producing local movies a little. Sponge bought the Cine Core theater at Jongno 2-ga in downtown Seoul and has turned two of the screens into an art-house theater. Check it out if you like to support that sort of thing. Hypertech Nada in Daehangno has long been a decent spot for arty films, as has the Seoul Film Forum, located at the theater that used to be the Hollywood (also at Jongno 2-ga).
(Btw, as someone who spends most of his time in Korea, but sees precious few art-house films in the theater, I include myself in many of those criticisms about local viewing habits… Although I try to see a lot more interesting stuff on DVD).
16 Comments
I don’t mind some aspects of American culture being globablized (I’ll never get my knickers in a knot over Starbucks, McDonald’s, or Walmart), but I’m sad to see that the US government made bringing down the screen quotas a priority, and sadder still to see that the Korean government caved in. My personal opinion is that Hollywood does, for the most part, make crap, catering as it does to the lowest common denominator in a culture that fixates on snarky one liners and fast punches. At some point cultural issues have to take precedence over economic arguments if Korea is not to start down the same road to becoming the splintered, violent, crime-ridden kind of society that we have in the west (and I include Canada and much of Europe in that designation).
The longer I live here, the more I respect the Korean culture I live in. (Of course, I do have it easy; as a foreigner, I’m not expected to do all those things which are forced on Koreans! But whatever they’re doing here works pretty well.)
What, as opposed to Chungmuro?
Japan has arguably one of the most sordid, violent pop cultures on the planet. Japan is also one of the world’s most law-abiding societies. My guess is that the roots of crime and violence in the West are a bit deeper than the crap Hollywood puts out.
Robert, I agree with you that Japan has a pretty sordid, violent pop culture. In this regard, it’s interesting that, as you note, Japan is also one of the most law-abiding societies in the world. I agree with you that to blame entertainment for the prevalence of violent culture in North America would be simplistic. At the same time, I do think that entertainment choices do affect people. The culture produces the entertainment, which in turn affects the culture again.
I don’t know why Japanese culture, which is not, for the most part, violent, hasn’t been more affected by its entertainment productions. There are other variables in play, including young people’s respect for elders and general busy-ness, which mitigate the harm caused by its entertainment. Then, too, we would have to look at the underlying “root causes” of violence in Canada, Britain, the US, etc. On the other hand, I think that to dismiss the effects of entertainment on a culture would also be simplistic.
As for films, I’d rather watch Korean dramas than American soaps anytime. I guess that’s sort of changing the subject from movies. I’ll admit that I’m not a movies person anyway, but I prefer movies that feature themes that are dealt with intelligently, and movies that show some character development. “Star Wars” actually counts on both scores, and I think I’m going to watch one of those movies again today.
It’s pretty obvious what Hollywood’s stake in this fight is, but I can’t quite wrap my mind around what Haisan is going for. I appreciate that Economics 101 drills “free market, free market, free market” into the brains of people all over the world, but in the case of the film entertainment industry, surely there are other things to take into consideration. To be perfectly academic, the only effect of removing the screen quota is going to be to pit the spending power of Korean blockbusters against those of Hollywood, and audience preferences aside, I think it’s pretty clear who’s gonna win that pissing contest.
If you’re suggesting instead that Korean producers are throwing money all over the place because they are promised profit by unfair competition laws, I think you would be well to consider the difference between domestic competition that those producers are necessarily going to confront anyway and international competition, which is an entirely different animal.
If it’s true that Korean film (and along with it, a certain intangible cultural value) can retain the same vibrance we’ve seen over the past decade without a screen quota, then what really is your argument against it? If it’s true that there’s nothing in it for Hollywood, is the MPAA just policing the nations of the world to keep them honest and free, and thereby doing us a favor? Please explain.
Supersolenoid - I have already gone on at length about why I do not like the screen quota:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/.....een-quota/
In short, I consider the quota a placebo that does nothing to truly help the film industry. The point of the above post and my original one in February was to try to inject some facts into the debate and end some of these knee-jerk, illiberal reactions about how the local film industry works and how to keep/make it healthy.
I have no idea what your second graph means or how it relates to what I wrote above. Sorry.
As for the MPAA, I do not consider that organization to be one of the bright lights of intelligence in this world. I doubt I would ever defend anything they say/do.
– cultural issues have to take precedence over economic arguments
in order to support this bullshit, you must believe that handing over your freedom of choice to government bureaucrats is your idea of fun. 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. those that support “cultural issues” taking precedence, must also regard the average korean movie-goer as too stupid to make that culture vs economics decision on their own. beware the cultural guardian, as they’re usually closet fascists who are more interested in stuffing their own personal tastes and preferences down the throats of the masses, all the while telling them that it’s “for their own good” or for the “good of the country.”
who says koreans have to like, or support korean films unless they choose to and if they merit such support? oh right, the korean government and the cultural protection reich do. any filmmaker that is afraid to venture outside the protection of the guaranteed audience bubble doesn’t deserve to be making films in the first place.
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.
and if you’re a proud member of the cultural protection brigade, at least have the stones to come out and say either A) that you believe that you’re one of the cultural elites that should be in charge of choosing what is good and what is crap for all the idiots or B) that you’re one of the idiots that must rely on the cultural elites for guidance because you’re not intelligent enough to decide on your own.
neither position is anything to be proud of.
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.
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.
One word, Sonagi: Netflix.
Okay, so I went and read your other piece and well, it’s a lot like the one you just wrote isn’t it? A lot of debunking and complaining about people protecting the screen quota, and not a lot of substance behind your own criticisms of it. That is to say, what exactly is wrong with a screen quota? not what’s wrong with saying it’s right.
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.
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.
Why do I bother posting anything?
> 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?”
One little comment got you pretty riled up, there, Blueballs. [sigh]
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.
Oops, “literary.”
> not a lot of substance behind your own criticisms of it
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 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.
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.
> Are you advocating subsidies?
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.
I think the biggest reason Korea should drop the quota is that they have more to lose than gain from cultural protectionism. China is already starting to restrict Korean content and other nations could be close behind. Korea has a lot to gain from an open international system, but having their spoiled “artists” conspicuously protesting the Evil Migooks(tm) will do nothing to boost their entertainment exports.