But since 2000 Italian cinema is the most exciting in Europe again. They are the only ones who successfully experiment in new visual aesthetic with the new available camera technology. It's not only Paolo Sorrentini (Camera: Luca Bigazzi) * L'uomo in più (2001) * Le conseguenze dell'amore (2004) * L'amico di famiglia (2006) * Il Divo (2008) and then his famous ones, but also Zapruder Filmmakersgroup (Nadia Ranocchi, David Zamagni, Camera: Monaldo Moretti) with "All Inclusive 3D" (2010), Luca Guadagnino, Salvatore Maira, Michelangelo Frammartino and in the last years many more. Compare it e.g. to the current decline of the french movies.
The directors with which the decline of the Italian cinema started were Gianno Amelio, Guiseppe Tornatore, Roberto Benigni, Gabriele Salvatores, Franco Zeffirelli and Silvio Soldini. They should rest in piece.
Personally, I feel most movie awards are BS, but I do not understand why GP believes these authors are the cause of the "italian cinema decline" in the context of abroad appeal, given they are have actually been rather more successful at it then others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_Montalbano_%28TV_ser...
You will like these if you enjoy quieter productions that depend on subtleties. And if you enjoy works that are both artistic (think about the state of the filmed street-scapes) and that seek to imbue local flavor.
Also, depending on where you get them from, the subtitles may not accurately convey some of the language and subtleties.
P.S. RAI subsequently launched a "prequel" series, The Young Montalbano. I haven't seen it in a while. It's ok, I guess, but I prefer the original.
As one personal example of someone I know in the industry who left... an Italian who left was not even getting paid for the subtitle translation work she was doing. For something like six months.
Globalisation seems to be more of a "culprit": once upon a time, a country's local cultural production had a semi-captive audience (there was less foreign content and less of it moved from the original country to others, leaving more room for local production) and a much easier time competing (lower budgets, lower technological finesse and lower economies of scale all around).
Today, there's more high-production-quality quickly-available content than ever, between more people being able to consume anglo content directly and home-grown sub scenes, international mostly-anglo content is easier than ever to access for individuals, and going the other way it's much harder for local content to break international markets because the accessibility is much lower the other way around, which means it's harder for local content to recoup the same production budgets.
Paris is an even worse place for artists to live and work. Make things affordable for artists, and artists won't leave. Society is much better when you have artists amongst your midst.
When a media baron runs the country (like in Italy), it can't be good for the films being produced.
Germany has a license fee twice as much as in Italy. (much Germany cinema is beyond terrible but). The UK also has a higher tv fee.
How does this explain the success of Scandinavian crime dramas such as The Killing, The Bridge, Wallander? These have enjoyed much success in the UK and are always shown with subtitles.
So success for foreign language drama is certainly possible in English speaking markets, and without dubbing either.
Despite?
> Despite?
Yes?
Caos Calmo (Quiet Chaos) was fantastic though.
If your capital isn't allocated fairly results will be pretty bad.
And I wouldn't call the Hollywood situation of giving multi-million dollar budgets to BS like Transformers and spare change to far better movies a "fair allocation" either when it comes to artistic merit.
When it comes to art, allocation of capital and "efficient markets" just means more popular works get more money -- it doesn't say anything about their quality, which is part of what the article is about.
(Expecting accusations of 'elitism', I'm not talking about esoteric, self-congratulatory arthouse films either. The Godfellas for example, a mighty good movie, is anything but that, or Pulp Fiction (or, at their era, The Searchers, Vertigo etc.).
To be fair, the title asks about its appeal, not artistic merit. Transformers is a shitty film, but it certainly has appeal.