London's skyline is a growing mess (Commentary)

[the urban politician]

^ Wow, it's interesting how Silicon Valley essentially rescued the Bay Area during the worst years of the recession

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by 10023

Debatable. For example there are about 4,400 KFC locations in China, and if you count things like Coca-Cola, potato chips and chewing gum as "Western food", well...

But there are much more Chinese restaurants in the Western world (North America, Western Europe, Australia, NZ) especially when compared with the population.

4,400 for China, it is like 2,500 in the "Western World".
There are already more than 40,000 Chinese restaurants in USA and this is a common food all over "Western World".

[the urban politician]

^ And don't even get me started on Sushi, Thai, and Indian restaurants..

[Pretext]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Ok, here are the statistics from Eurostat (the only official GDP statistics that exist for English regions and counties).

London was hit by the financial crisis post 2007, so these years are going to show London growth in a bad light, as they are the worst possible years to use.

However as I have stated in previous posts in recent years London has bounced back, has had relatively good growth levels and is projected to have further increased economic growth.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Oh I dunno, probably by having been the seat of an empire that conquered a quarter of the world.

This is stupid. Try again.

At least Pretext put some effort into it.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by Pretext

I am not really interested in all the NUTS regions, in terms of the UK we had 1.9% GDP growth last year, with much of the growth being led by London. Furthermore forecasts predict 2.7% growth in 2014 and even stronger long term growth.

London's Economy Today

London’s astonishing boom can lift the whole of Britain

Like an idiot, I made the mistake of actually clicking on the second link; and immediately I came across this beautiful byline: "Wealth is flowing to the undisputed capital of the world – but with it comes a political test". And of course I immediately closed it. Can I ask you something Pretext, why are Londoners so fucking desperate?

[Pretext]

Originally Posted by pico44

Like an idiot, I made the mistake of actually clicking on the second link; and immediately I came across this beautiful byline: "Wealth is flowing to the undisputed capital of the world – but with it comes a political test". And of course I immediately closed it. Can I ask you something Pretext, why are Londoners so fucking desperate?

Actually the article was written by Benedict Brogan who has a French mother and English father and who was brought up in Washington DC where he attended Lycee Rochambeau a French International School before going on to study History at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Brogan is very proud of both his American background and French heritage and is a member of a number of Franco British groups such as the Franco-British Council. Hardly a stereotypical Londoner???. Furthermore the article contrasts London's boom with some other regions in the UK which are not experiencing such economic growth, with Brogan suggesting London's significant economic growth will help the whole of Britain in the longer term.

Benedict Brogan

Mr. Benedict Brogan

London’s astonishing boom can lift the whole of Britain

[10023]

Here's the thing about London. For people with unlimited money (or for whom money might as well be limitless), I'm not sure there is a nicer city in the world in which to live (leaving aside private tropical islands and the like). And they know this, so they come here, and all indications are that they will continue to.

[dc_denizen]

^ no property tax certainly helps. And being the center of the tax haven empire of the UK.

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

^ no property tax certainly helps. And being the center of the tax haven empire of the UK.

Certainly part of it, but being a tax haven alone wouldn't do it. There are others.

(and there are property taxes, they're just assessed on transfers rather than annually)

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by 10023

Hollywood movies are mass entertainment; they're more popular anywhere.

But if we're talking about cultural influence, let's not forget where Hollywood's approaches to acting and storytelling come from. In fact most of the best Hollywood actors and actresses have stage experience in New York, London or both.

I'd also stake some value on crossover appeal. Of course the average Chinese is more influenced by their own culture than ours - but are the Chinese more influenced by Western culture or vice versa? Clearly Western culture, at our current point in history, has more influence in other regions of the world than other cultures do in the West.

So now the massive amount of media, influence, and culture pumped out of LA is just repackaged New York/London theater, aka the tired old "LA has no culture of its own." Riiiight. LA never popularized multiple visual arts, they never evolved here, and they werent perfected here. And obviously the talent isn't rooted in LA at all since they all came from New York and London anyway. You really just want to try to win every point at all costs don't you, no matter how silly you sound?

Point is, New York and London aren't the center of the world for everybody and certainly not for everything, as much as you want them to be.

[10023]

The motion picture industry moved to LA because the weather is nice.

And yes, real films are following on the tradition of theater (as opposed to shitty "Hollywood blockbuster" schlock like Iron Man and Transformers and Fast/Furious).

[Pretext]

Originally Posted by 10023

The motion picture industry moved to LA because the weather is nice.

And yes, real films are following on the tradition of theater (as opposed to shitty "Hollywood blockbuster" schlock like Iron Man and Transformers and Fast/Furious).

The first film studio in Hollywood was built by English brothers David and William Horsley, they initially moved to New Jersey but weather conditions on the east coast made filming an uncertain proposition .

David Horsley

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by 10023

The motion picture industry moved to LA because the weather is nice.

And yes, real films are following on the tradition of theater (as opposed to shitty "Hollywood blockbuster" schlock like Iron Man and Transformers and Fast/Furious).

Theater is probably as old as humanity, but I'm glad that Victorian London was the place where it was actually invented.

[Pretext]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Theater is probably as old as humanity, but I'm glad that Victorian London was the place where it was actually invented.

I don't think anyone has said anything beyond the fact that London has some very good theatres as well as acting companies. In terms of British Theatre it has long established roots way beyond Victorian times.

Theatre History - Victoria & Albert Museum

Originally Posted by StethJeff

So now the massive amount of media, influence, and culture pumped out of LA is just repackaged New York/London theater, aka the tired old "LA has no culture of its own." Riiiight. LA never popularized multiple visual arts, they never evolved here, and they werent perfected here. And obviously the talent isn't rooted in LA at all since they all came from New York and London anyway. You really just want to try to win every point at all costs don't you, no matter how silly you sound?

Point is, New York and London aren't the center of the world for everybody and certainly not for everything, as much as you want them to be.

I don't think anyone is denying that Los Angeles is a major media hub or that it doesn't have it's own culture. If anything Hollywood is very much like the West End or Broadway, with their musicals and light entertainment for the masses, indeed for serious theatre you often have to look beyond many Broadway and West End Theates.

Hollywood is very good at what it does which is to produce light entertainment for the masses, using increasingly sophisticated special effects, in order to create as much money as possible for shareholders.

In essence Hollywood is the paperback book with the over the top cover you see at an airport book shop rather than the classic novel or work of art. In this respect Hollywood is often derided by critics. Indeed if you go to other parts of the world film production is often far more art driven than money driven, although I am not knocking Hollywood for making money, however there needs to be a balance between artistic integrity and pure profit.

Furthermore Hollywood's view of history and culture also seems some what distorted and almost laughable, although on a more serious note the re-writing of actual historic events has managed to offend a lot of people in the process. Personally I find it both laughable on the one hand and cringingly embarrassing on the other, whilst such blatant inaccuracies merely further paint Americans as uneducated and uncultured across the world.

Equally laughable is Hollywood's child like obsession with pantomime villains from Cold War Russians to those dastardly English who even do the voice overs for baddies in Cartoon Disney Productions. At the same time Hollywood like some horrible war time propaganda machines has made endless movies that show America constantly saving the day or largely winning WW2 single-handedly in some kind of Apple pie kind of history.

What's even more depressing is when actual events are distorted or shown in a false light or when a whole nations histories or an individuals contribution to real historic events is totally skewed or even obliterated from the pages of history by Hollywood screenwriters, there being sadly numerous examples. It's also worth pointing out that Los Angeles and particularly Hollywood are not the centre of the known world, and that Hollywood does not have some divine right to re-write the history and culture of others in order to suit it's own agenda and in order to make a quick profit.

Finally I want to make it clear that despite my criticism I am certainly not Anti-Hollywood, indeed US Film Studios have invested heavily in the UK in recent years in places such as Leavesden, Pinewood - Shepperton and Elstree to name but a few, and in recent years US Television Drama has upped it's game, with many superb quality dramas from companies such as HBO, all I am saying is, isn't it time the Hollywood film industry followed suit.

Originally Posted by Stephen Follows

Arguably, the quality of a movie is more important to British filmmakers than to American filmmakers. Before you start drafting hate emails, let me at least explain my theory. It comes down to two things – culture and business.

Culturally, the UK is a literary nation. Despite the fact that America has five times the population as the UK, they only publish twice the number of books. Right from the early days of British film there has been a sense that movies should continue to be works of “great literature,” civilising the nation.

Conversely, the American film industry grew from the principles of commerce and business. Hollywood was established by immigrants moving West to evade Edison’s patents and with the clear dream of making money. This is one of the (many) reasons why Hollywood is a dominant force in the business of film.

The end result is that the British ideal is the moving drama whereas the American ideal is a spectacular blockbuster. (For more on this topic check out David Putnam’s fantastic book ‘The Undeclared War’).

Of course there are examples on both sides which show that this isn’t a universal rule; Vertigo Films are extremely market-driven as are Working Title (although Working Title is a subsidiary of Hollywood studio Universal). Across the pond, festivals such as Sundance, South by Southwest and Toronto consistently showcase films which seem to be driven by art over commerce.

Measuring the Quality of British Films

Alan Parker - Director

How Hollywood destroyed our classical legends

300: Five historical errors in the new film - BBC News

One last year in the sun for UK-US ‘special relationship’?

[10023]

Obviously some form of theater has been around for milennia. We still perform ancient Greek plays.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the best actors in Hollywood develop their talents on stage in New York and London today.

[dc_denizen]

These comments make me want to share Phillip Roth's response to a Swedish interviewer in last weekend's NY Times:

Do you feel that there is a preoccupation in Europe with American popular culture? And, if so, that this preoccupation has clouded the reception of serious American literary fiction in Europe?

The power in any society is with those who get to impose the fantasy. It is no longer, as it was for centuries throughout Europe, the church that imposes its fantasy on the populace, nor is it the totalitarian superstate that imposes the fantasy, as it did for 12 years in Nazi Germany and for 69 years in the Soviet Union. Now the fantasy that prevails is the all-consuming, voraciously consumed popular culture, seemingly spawned by, of all things, freedom. The young especially live according to beliefs that are thought up for them by the society’s most unthinking people and by the businesses least impeded by innocent ends. Ingeniously as their parents and teachers may attempt to protect the young from being drawn, to their detriment, into the moronic amusement park that is now universal, the preponderance of the power is not with them.

I cannot see what any of this has to do with serious American literary fiction, even if, as you suggest, “this preoccupation has [or may have] clouded the reception of serious American fiction in Europe.” You know, in Eastern Europe, the dissident writers used to say that “socialist realism,” the reigning Soviet aesthetic, consisted of praising the Party so that even they understood it. There is no such aesthetic for serious literary writers to conform to in America, certainly not the aesthetic of popular culture.

What has the aesthetic of popular culture to do with formidable postwar writers of such enormous variety as Saul Bellow, Ralph Ellison, William Styron, Don DeLillo, E. L. Doctorow, James Baldwin, Wallace Stegner, Thomas Pynchon, Robert Penn Warren, John Updike, John Cheever, Bernard Malamud, Robert Stone, Evan Connell, Louis Auchincloss, Walker Percy, Cormac McCarthy, Russell Banks, William Kennedy, John Barth, Louis Begley, William Gaddis, Norman Rush, John Edgar Wideman, David Plante, Richard Ford, William Gass, Joseph Heller, Raymond Carver, Edmund White, Oscar Hijuelos, Peter Matthiessen, Paul Theroux, John Irving, Norman Mailer, Reynolds Price, James Salter, Denis Johnson, J. F. Powers, Paul Auster, William Vollmann, Richard Stern, Alison Lurie, Flannery O’Connor, Paula Fox, Marilynne Robinson, Joyce Carol Oates, Joan Didion, Hortense Calisher, Jane Smiley, Anne Tyler, Jamaica Kincaid, Cynthia Ozick, Ann Beattie, Grace Paley, Lorrie Moore, Mary Gordon, Louise Erdrich, Toni Morrison, Eudora Welty (and I have by no means exhausted the list) or with serious younger writers as wonderfully gifted as Michael Chabon, Junot Díaz, Nicole Krauss, Maile Meloy, Jonathan Lethem, Nathan Englander, Claire Messud, Jeffrey Eugenides, Jonathan Franzen, Jonathan Safran Foer (to name but a handful)?

link

[10023]

What does a discussion of real actors doing live theater have to do with American vs. European literary fiction? And what does any conversation about literary fiction have to do with LA?

[dc_denizen]

I kind of liked his point about the visibility of popular culture clouding the ability to perceive other types of cultural output being created.

[Greavsie]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I kind of liked his point about the visibility of popular culture clouding the ability to perceive other types of cultural output being created.

american writers are very well respected in the uk and on the continent.