February 26, 2008
The benefits of giving Oscars to Europeans
It was noticeable, watching the Oscars, that there were a lot of foreigners ascending the stage of the Kodak Theatre to accept Academy Awards.
The show started with Alexandra Byrne, the British costume designer, being given a statuette for her work on the costumes for Elizabeth: The Golden Age and culminated in all four of the main actor and actress awards going to Europeans.
The high profile of foreign talent was as striking as the shift towards independent studios and away from big Hollywood studios in the 1990s, led by Miramax.
It strikes me as admirable that Hollywood has demonstrated once again its openness to foreign actors and off-screen talent at a time when there are fears in other US industries about foreign competition and the outsourcing of jobs.
Hollywood has become perhaps the most open industry in its employment patterns apart from Silicon Valley, which draws software engineers from around the world, and Wall Street, where many different nationalities work in investment banks.
One reason for this openness is that, as I have discussed here before, international box office sales are outstripping the US box office in importance. That means that many more films are shot abroad and feature actors from other countries.
In addition, Hollywood has become so used to exploiting tax loopholes for film production in countries including the UK and Germany that global production is the rule rather than the exception. The Bourne Ultimatum, which provided Oscars to US sound technicians, was directed by Paul Greengrass, a Brit, and largely filmed in Europe.
For all that, Hollywood’s willingness to award Oscars irrespective of nationality is a tribute to its open culture. Some other US industries could learn from it.
it is quite amaxzing to note that hollywood has become so used to exploiting tax loopholes for film production in countries like uk or germany. even i can suggest they should look at places like dubai or abu dhabi in the middle east region where they have an access to local lush green places with high tech facilities including tax sops and cheap labour for production.
Posted by: Kish Kothari | February 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am | Report this commentNow that Hollywood is making more money abroad than in the US, the strength of the world film industry is something Hollywood can’t ignore anymore.
What happened on Sunday night isn’t “a tribute to Hollywood’s open culture”. It is simply the concept of pleasing your most profitable customers.
Just another big corporate event with more form than substance.
Posted by: Christian G. | February 26th, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Report this commentI find it downright amusing that both journalists and news readers are pointing out the “corporate” nature of the Oscars, as if this was an entirely new realization. Are the Oscars corporate? One certainly can’t argue otherwise. Do they award genuine talent? Yes–another statement that’s tough to argue.
SInce Europeans are such significant contributors to the movie market, it would only be an unwise business decision from Hollywood’s part to ignore it. Thankfully, as far as actor categories are concerned, they have plenty of talent to choose from. Without taking politics into account, it would be tough, even impossible, to decide who gave a better performance: Hal Holbrook, Tom Wilkinson or Javier Bardem.
Posted by: Laura P. | February 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm | Report this commentLet’s hear it for openness! Hurray for Globalism! The EADS’ air tanker contract win on Friday ensures that our USAF will soon be flying French Airbus. That’s a $35-100 Billion deal and a loss of ~9000 American jobs for Boeing. (Don’t try to say the EADS front, Northrup Grumman will get equal American jobs). What are we thinking? Why not Aeroflot? Or better yet - the Chinese — we might have gotten Boeing planes made with cheap Chinese labor and helped reduce their unemployment!
Posted by: George | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm | Report this comment