Talk:Cinema of the United States: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:22, 11 August 2014 editCheliue (talk \| contribs)1 edit →Modern Cinema: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:48, 20 November 2024 edit undo24.249.59.28 (talk) →Regarding the recent reversion: ReplyTag: Reply
(78 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{Vital article\|level=4\|topic=Art\|class=B}}
	{{WikiProject Film~~\|class=C~~\|American-task-force=yes		{{WikiProject Film\|American-task-force=yes}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=high\|USfilm=yes\|USfilm-importance=Top}}
	\| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no
			{{WikiProject California\|importance=top}}
	\| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
	\| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
	\| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = no
	\| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
	}}		}}
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis\|archiveprefix=Talk:Cinema of the United States/Archives/\|format=Y\|age=26297\|index=yes\|archivebox=yes\|box-advert=yes}}
	{{WikiProject United States\|class=C\|importance=high\|USfilm=yes\|USfilm-importance=Top}}
	{{V0.5\|class=B\|category=Socsci}}

			== Move discussion in progress ==
	==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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Hollywood#Requested move 9 March 2022 crosspost --> —] 17:31, 9 March 2022 (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. ] (]) 07:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Nsrav

			== First studio ==
	:I'm wondering why it says 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 ], ], and ] "Hollywood". ] (]) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
			What was the first studio in Hollywood itself? I've made two edits and started a thread ] about this because I have no idea. Help would be appreciated. ] (]) 1 October 2022 (UTC)

			== Hollywood is not synonymous with American cinema ==
	==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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

			<blockquote>
	Removed this sentence:
			The '''cinema of the United States''', mainly comprised of ] (also known as '''Hollywood''') along with some ], has had a large effect on the ] since the early 20th century.
			</blockquote>

			If you feel otherwise, as the previous version effectively stated, please supply a cite that says Hollywood is fully ''synonymous'' with American cinema.
	If moving pictures were not an American invention, they have nonetheless been the preeminent American contribution to world entertainment.

			I'm merely a film buff, but let me say it would be ''shocking'' news to me if very many independent film houses regarded themselves as ''part'' of Hollywood, though they very much regard themselves as part of American cinema. By Hollywood, they usually mean the American institutional behemoth, notorious for having barely any appetite to expand the formulaic box.
	According to the linked page ], moving pictures are an American invention. What's the true story here? ] 22:14 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

			No national culture should be so insulted as to be directly equated with the self-glorifying institutional outgrowth of the thing, no matter if it's the ] of ] self-regard.
	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. ]

			Perhaps "along with a small but vibrant independent film scene" would sound better, but I'm not one to moot puff language, even when dwarfed to the max by the proximate hindquarters of Puff the Magic Disney Kingdom. — ] 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
	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. ]

			:I agree with you. I've never liked the fact that "Hollywood" redirected to this broader scope. I feel like an actual Hollywood article would be more about etymology and cultural meaning, and it can also point to relevant historical sections in this broader article. Be bold and make a change? ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
	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. ]
			:Could also get other opinions by posting at ] since this is a core topic. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
			:I'm surprised to see the quick response. Thanks, Erik. For what its' worth, here ], apparently writing in ''Film Culture, n. 19, Spring 1959'', nakedly equating Hollywood with an ethos developed around a set of business practices ():
			<blockquote>
			Hollywood is not failing. It has failed.
			:...
			However the probability of a resurrection of the industry through individual expression is slim, for the men of new ideas will not compromise themselves to Hollywood's departmental heads. These artists have come to realize that to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it, to betray it.

			In Hollywood the producer intimidates the artist’s new thought with great sums of money and with his own ego that clings to the past of references of box office triumphs and valueless experience. The average artist, therefore, is forced to compromise. And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of his basic beliefs. And so the artist is thrown out of motion pictures, and the businessman makes his entrance.
	This title is ludicrous. It sounds like it's about movies ABOUT the United States. Avoiding the use of the adjective "American" is nonsense. -- ]
			</blockquote>

			:About John:
	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:
			<blockquote>
	#) special case just this entry
			First known as a television and film actor, '''Cassavetes also helped pioneer American independent cinema''', writing and directing movies financed partly by income from his acting work.
	#) change all of the entries
			</blockquote>
	Again, I was simply trying to go along with what I preceived was the spirit of the articles. Cheers, ] 02:16 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
			:I can't think of a single other figure in the history of American cinema more germane to the issue, but then I know next to nothing about film prior to the second world war, other than as written up by ] in his book ''The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires''. So that's my best shot, Alex, for what it's worth. I didn't squeeze hard on Cassavetes, either; what I found on one click in a single search was good enough. — ] 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

			:My final input, <strike>five</strike><strike>six</strike>seven American films I regard as entirely apart from Hollywood, as such, yet distinctly American:
	How about this title: ''Movies made in the United States'' - ] Actually, I don't like that either. Any suggestions?
			* ] — 1996; ]
			* ] — 1993; ]
			* ] — 1990; ]
			* ] — 1980; ]; ''belated documentary addition''
			* ] — 1974; ]
			* ] — 1972; ]; ''belated animation addition''
			* ] — 1971; ]

			:Some of those are student productions financed with pin money. As a Misplaced Pages editor, I'm a tumbleweed, most at home editing ten or twenty different pages daily for small blunders. It has already pained me to stick around here as long as I have, but my two cents was shining like a pair of pennies freshly toweled down after a good long soak in a vinaigrette hot tub, and just this once I couldn't help myself. — ] 22:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
	: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. -- ]

			== Reliability of tvtropes to support content found in the "Working conditions" section ==

			(Note: I'll try to use US english here)
	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. ]

			There is a source in the "Working conditions" section, which backs up content about labor unions. The reliability of this source has been challenged by ].
	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. ] 04:03 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
			The source in question is this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInHollywood

			TV tropes is considered generally unreliable, as it is user generated content. A better source needs to be found, but replacing the source with a "citation needed" isn't really the way to do it. 103, do you consider that this information is likely incorrect, or is it "just" referenced to an unreliable source? That will affect where we go from here. ]]] 🇺🇦 07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
	:But JT, you're not an imperialist warmongering Unitedstatesian. -- ]
	::Oops, I wanted to move ], ] and ] out of subpages and I put them at ], ] and ], 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. ] 16:34 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

			==Great Train Robbery image caption==
	----
			The image caption for this film says it's the first western. I changed the wording to be consistent with the Misplaced Pages article on the film that says that is a debunked myth and it isn't. (Though it's still considered such by some, so the revision still reflects this). ] (]) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
	''From ]:''

			== Regarding the recent reversion ==
	*] and ] 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 ]! :) ] 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. -- ] 20:34, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
	***I think ''Cinema'' is more canonical (?) than ''Movies'' - rather like ''Photography'' and ''Snaps''. ] 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. -- ] 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. ] 08:43, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
	**Whichever is kept, it seems better to make the other a redirect than to delete it. ] 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. ] 09:11, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
	***What about ''films''? There's already a long list of almost entirely US pictures at ]. ] 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.] 11:11, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

			Good evening, all. Recently this article was reverted. This version of the article is rife with grammatical errors as well as including a reference to a foreign film of questionable relevance to the article. Before the reversion, I had made edits to the article to fix some of its poor grammar and diction, add sourced material, and add templates regarding missing information (of which there is much). Other editors had amended erroneous punctuation, and another had also removed the poorly-sourced and irrelevant statement about Vijay's ''Leo (2023 Indian film)''. I believe these edits to have improved, if by a small margin, a frankly low-quality Misplaced Pages article, not to mention one which happens to treat a fairly consequential topic. Therefore, I do not believe this most recent reversion to be justified, "last good version" (the revision summary) hardly qualifying as rationale. As a matter of fact, the degree of the measures undertaken by myself and others to improve this article is not commensurate to the level of attention it actually requires. ] (]) 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
	----
	In light of the above consensus-free discussions, I combined the content at ]. While I prefer this to ], the duplicate articles disturb me more. At least the content is now together and can be moved en masse.] 02:53, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

			:Since no discussion has come about on the talk page, I have restored the edits that were unjustifiedly reverted. If anybody would like to undo this action, they ought to provide a legitimate reason. Thank you. ] (]) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
	== Introduction ==
			:I nearly threw up three different times while reading this. Not sure if you are the original author of the article or not, if not disregard the following:

			:If you can't keep your politics to yourself, you have no business contributing to Misplaced Pages.
	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. ] 10:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
			:Please don't make it worse by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. ] (]) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

	* I prefer the new introduction, but my understanding is that "new Hollywood" only lasted about as far as '']''. Post-'']'' 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. ] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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? - ] 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. ] 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 ] 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. ] 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? ] 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 .] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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? --] (]) 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	==Section moved from Hollywood CA article==
	===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. <ref> Brownstein, Ronald (1990). ''The power and the glitter : the Hollywood-Washington connection .'' ]. ISBN 0394569385</ref>

	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. <ref> Brownstein, Ronald (1990). ''The power and the glitter : the Hollywood-Washington connection .'' ]. ISBN 0394569385</ref> 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. <ref name="NewYorkTimes">{{cite web\|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/movies/awardsseason/06holly.html\|title=Politicians Are Doing Hollywood Star Turns\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2008-02-05}}</ref> 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. <ref> Valantin, Jean-Michel (2003). '' Hollywood, le Pentagone et Washington : les trois acteurs d'une stratégie globale.'' ]. ISBN 2746703793 </ref> 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.   <b>]  ]  </b> 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. ] (]) 03:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)mbd] (]) 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) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	==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. ] (])
	: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'.] (]) 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 ] 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 ] and as can be seen in its documentary adaption ( 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. --] (]) 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...] ] 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


	==The Relation between Hollywood and the Politicians==
	This part is confusing and needs a cleanup <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== 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,.............] (]) 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?????????????? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== 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."

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


	:Good catch. The cited book is available through "snippet view". I added "Southern California".   <b>]  ]  </b> 04:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

	== Lead section needs definition first ==

	Shouldn't the concept be defined in the first sentence? I've seen this on several "Cinema of (Country)" entries -- "]" is one of the few that does seem to do it correctly, however:

	{{quote\|Cinema of Australia, more commonly referred to as the Australian film industry, refers to the system of production, distribution, and exhibition of films in Australia.}}

	Compare to this entry:

	{{quote\|The cinema of the United States, often generally referred to as Hollywood, has had a profound effect on cinema across the world since the early 20th century.}}

	Or to the lead section for ]:

	{{quote\|The history of Italian cinema began just a few months after the Lumière brothers had patented their Cinematographe, when Pope Leo XIII was filmed for a few seconds in the act of blessing the camera.}}

	:::Good question. I remember starting out under the impression that all articles had to have their subjects defined and bolded in the first sentence, until another editor corrected that assumption and pointed me to ], which says: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as ]—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." So I learned that articles with "descriptive titles" like "]" are exempt from some of the usual rules for first sentences: their topics don't need to be bolded in the lead (an often-ignored rule, but see ]), nor do they even need to be included verbatim in the lead sentence. But the question is, do "descriptive" topics like this need to be ''defined'' in the lead?

	:::Common practice on Misplaced Pages currently suggests that if the subject is not a formal or widely-accepted name but instead is a phrase describing a concept or a phenomenon, and if its literal meaning is pretty self-evident, it's preferable to use the first sentence to immediately put the subject in context — usually by getting straight to what is most notable about the subject. The Manual of Style uses ] and ] as its chief examples of descriptive, non-formal article titles, and both articles appear to follow that principle. Other examples for comparison to this particular article are ], ], ], and ]. None of them stop to define the concept in the first sentence — they get straight to describing what is most important about the subject. Which seems sensible. Readers probably don't arrive at an article like ] hoping to have "education" or "United States" defined; they already understand what the topic refers to, and they're there, one would hope, to learn facts about the concept.

	:::Still, the Manual of Style could definitely stand to be clearer on this. ] (]) 02:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

	::::Alright, thanks. I'd edited it before I saw your comment but undid the edits. ] (]) 17:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

	== New Hollywood Section ==

	As a new user, I have found a section of this article that I think could be improved by a more in-depth discussion on the modern "blockbuster" since there are only a few mentioned in the New Hollywood section. After all, Spielberg, Coppola, Scorcese and Lucas went on to create many more blockbuster hits during that period and especially since they are all still creating today. (] (]) 19:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC))

	== Modern Cinema ==

	As a new user, I have been trying to identify places for improvement in this particular article. I feel that there is room for more information in the Modern Cinema section. Other sections specifically discuss movie studios and their impact on cinema. However, the Modern Cinema section could be updated to include how each studio has fared financially in the modern age of cinema, what types of films each studio most often presents, how studio movies impact cinema versus how independent movies impact it, etc. Perhaps this discussion is one for a separate article entirely, but it seems that this article could be improved with a further discussion of how cinema is continuing to evolve in the modern age. There are countless new outlets for filmmakers today, such as YouTube and even things like Vine, which deserve to be discussed in relation to their place in moviemaking and cinema progress. ] (]) 02:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:48, 20 November 2024

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Top-importance).

California Top‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hollywood which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

First studio

What was the first studio in Hollywood itself? I've made two edits and started a thread Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles#First studio about this because I have no idea. Help would be appreciated. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hollywood is not synonymous with American cinema

New version:

The cinema of the United States, mainly comprised of major film studios (also known as Hollywood) along with some independent film, has had a large effect on the global film industry since the early 20th century.

If you feel otherwise, as the previous version effectively stated, please supply a cite that says Hollywood is fully synonymous with American cinema.

I'm merely a film buff, but let me say it would be shocking news to me if very many independent film houses regarded themselves as part of Hollywood, though they very much regard themselves as part of American cinema. By Hollywood, they usually mean the American institutional behemoth, notorious for having barely any appetite to expand the formulaic box.

No national culture should be so insulted as to be directly equated with the self-glorifying institutional outgrowth of the thing, no matter if it's the Rickey Henderson of illeistic self-regard.

Perhaps "along with a small but vibrant independent film scene" would sound better, but I'm not one to moot puff language, even when dwarfed to the max by the proximate hindquarters of Puff the Magic Disney Kingdom. — MaxEnt 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've never liked the fact that "Hollywood" redirected to this broader scope. I feel like an actual Hollywood article would be more about etymology and cultural meaning, and it can also point to relevant historical sections in this broader article. Be bold and make a change? Erik (talk | contrib) 21:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Could also get other opinions by posting at WT:FILM since this is a core topic. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see the quick response. Thanks, Erik. For what its' worth, here John Cassavetes, apparently writing in Film Culture, n. 19, Spring 1959, nakedly equating Hollywood with an ethos developed around a set of business practices (src):

Hollywood is not failing. It has failed.

...

However the probability of a resurrection of the industry through individual expression is slim, for the men of new ideas will not compromise themselves to Hollywood's departmental heads. These artists have come to realize that to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it, to betray it.
In Hollywood the producer intimidates the artist’s new thought with great sums of money and with his own ego that clings to the past of references of box office triumphs and valueless experience. The average artist, therefore, is forced to compromise. And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of his basic beliefs. And so the artist is thrown out of motion pictures, and the businessman makes his entrance.

About John:

First known as a television and film actor, Cassavetes also helped pioneer American independent cinema, writing and directing movies financed partly by income from his acting work.

I can't think of a single other figure in the history of American cinema more germane to the issue, but then I know next to nothing about film prior to the second world war, other than as written up by Tim Wu in his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. So that's my best shot, Alex, for what it's worth. I didn't squeeze hard on Cassavetes, either; what I found on one click in a single search was good enough. — MaxEnt 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

My final input, ~~fivesix~~seven American films I regard as entirely apart from Hollywood, as such, yet distinctly American:

Bottle Rocket — 1996; Wes Anderson
Cigarettes & Coffee — 1993; Paul Thomas Anderson
Slacker (film) — 1990; Richard Linklater
Gates of Heaven — 1980; Errol Morris; belated documentary addition
Dark Star (film) — 1974; John Carpenter
Fritz the Cat (film) — 1972; Ralph Bakshi; belated animation addition
THX 1138 — 1971; George Lucas

Some of those are student productions financed with pin money. As a Misplaced Pages editor, I'm a tumbleweed, most at home editing ten or twenty different pages daily for small blunders. It has already pained me to stick around here as long as I have, but my two cents was shining like a pair of pennies freshly toweled down after a good long soak in a vinaigrette hot tub, and just this once I couldn't help myself. — MaxEnt 22:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of tvtropes to support content found in the "Working conditions" section

(Note: I'll try to use US english here)

There is a source in the "Working conditions" section, which backs up content about labor unions. The reliability of this source has been challenged by User:103.156.42.195. The source in question is this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInHollywood

TV tropes is considered generally unreliable, as it is user generated content. A better source needs to be found, but replacing the source with a "citation needed" isn't really the way to do it. 103, do you consider that this information is likely incorrect, or is it "just" referenced to an unreliable source? That will affect where we go from here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Great Train Robbery image caption

The image caption for this film says it's the first western. I changed the wording to be consistent with the Misplaced Pages article on the film that says that is a debunked myth and it isn't. (Though it's still considered such by some, so the revision still reflects this). 136.159.160.121 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the recent reversion

Good evening, all. Recently this article was reverted. This version of the article is rife with grammatical errors as well as including a reference to a foreign film of questionable relevance to the article. Before the reversion, I had made edits to the article to fix some of its poor grammar and diction, add sourced material, and add templates regarding missing information (of which there is much). Other editors had amended erroneous punctuation, and another had also removed the poorly-sourced and irrelevant statement about Vijay's Leo (2023 Indian film). I believe these edits to have improved, if by a small margin, a frankly low-quality Misplaced Pages article, not to mention one which happens to treat a fairly consequential topic. Therefore, I do not believe this most recent reversion to be justified, "last good version" (the revision summary) hardly qualifying as rationale. As a matter of fact, the degree of the measures undertaken by myself and others to improve this article is not commensurate to the level of attention it actually requires. 174.81.23.127 (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Since no discussion has come about on the talk page, I have restored the edits that were unjustifiedly reverted. If anybody would like to undo this action, they ought to provide a legitimate reason. Thank you. 174.81.23.127 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I nearly threw up three different times while reading this. Not sure if you are the original author of the article or not, if not disregard the following:

If you can't keep your politics to yourself, you have no business contributing to Misplaced Pages.

Please don't make it worse by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. 24.249.59.28 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: