Movies are a far more efficient vehicle to market products

One thing that I have noticed about American movies over the years is the tendency of characters to talk about things in  great detail, almost personifying objects and events. 

For instance character X recounting his first meeting with someone would be like +

https://twitter.com/entropied/status/1296354791384207360?s=19

Thanks ! Though my final conclusion was opposite : That these fillers were a ploy to make the mundane appear a little more interesting and add some spark and colour ot the  proceedings. 

I mean in the movies, it's the fillers that tend to melt the heroine's heart usually. +

Religious Hindu poetry of the type Tulasidasa wrote has a lot of Upmas while describing gods but those are  imaginations. For instance 'Charan kamal" is not a description of a mundane reality but imagination. Also it is reserved for the most special characters such as our Gods.

True. I lately realizing Indian poets & authors have a razor sharp mind that’s no lesser than any doctoral candidate of top notch western universities.

Indian grammar itself has such a strong framework & the kind of constraints on writing poetry are immense

https://twitter.com/sreedutt22/status/1296472826510290945?s=19

Several factors explain this discrepancy but one of the major factors is that H verbal skills have been steadily degrading over the centuries. 

For example, translate this sentence into any Indian language: "The fruit is halfway up the tree."

https://twitter.com/BabyVanara/status/1296438904887947265?s=19

In Hindi, one might say “Phal ped ke beech mein tanga hai” or "Phal aadhi doori par hai" but its not an accurate descriptor. The translation being made is: "The fruit is in the middle of the tree."

However, the descriptor isn't "middle" but "halfway up" - a very specific visual.

One can provide plenty of idioms in Indian languages which cannot be translated into, say English, but we are not looking at idioms but descriptors. Descriptors, unlike idioms (which are often non-translatable), don't need cultural knowledge or context.

The fruit is half way up the tree is an objective statement. Has nothing to do with cultural context. 

You will find non-translatable descriptors too. But on average, we have a lot more trouble translating are descriptors into Indian languages than translating into, say English.

It's difficult to translate such things because we have lost the linguistic ability to describe things in accurate detail. I'm sure our forefathers would have struggled far less than we do to translate descriptors. Kalidasa would have laughed at such trivialities.

Another indicator is how easily Ys, Xs, Ps, & Fs indulge in dog whistling. On the other hand, the avg. H is incapable of communicating in dog whistles with each other. The average H speaks plainly. We have no active practice of in-group communication.

It is simply incomparable.

True. This is another key reason for the phenomenon.

Your observation reveals itself in movies like Breakfast at Tiffany's or American Psycho. How many have watched American Psycho & not wanted to have dinner at Dorsia? Or wear Oliver Peoples glasses?

https://t.co/BPxXVGPNYr

https://twitter.com/BabyVanara/status/1296799072238686209?s=19

And movies are a far more efficient vehicle to market products (generic & branded) than a 300 page novel. Visual sensory overload in combination with suave articulation, in short 20-30 second bursts captures our imagination like nothing else.

https://t.co/Cwx9lLfqEi

Of course, there are a few other key reasons that compound to result in this phenomenon. 

Yesterday, I wrote about how verbal skills in general have been deteriorating among Hs over the centuries.

https://t.co/jZNaWoubMQ

Another reason is because script & writing are valued far more in American media than in Indian media. In India, the writers are paid peanuts so they deliver gutter quality movie scripts. 

Also, there's a big difference in American & Vishwaguru professional culture & work ethic.

In literature, this is the charcteristic of the 19th century novel. Also known as ‘the realist novel’s mimetic ambition’.

https://twitter.com/TiwariNivedita/status/1296481818200416256?s=19

The phenomenon you talk about here has a lot to do with the American consumerist culture and its promotion by American cinema which served as an important advertising vehicle for companies and a tool for moulding consumer behaviour.

...

He’s enumerating the several reasons which could affect cinematic content. That difference in professional culture is a major determinant of the quality of output, doesn’t matter what kind of output. Despite Indian cinema’s proclivity to ape American film craft it still has

He never alluded to superior skills of one vs another. He said there’s a difference in professional cultures between the two. Although you referred to a particular style of presentation of content, it still very much remains within the wider scope of film craft when taken as a

whole. And the variation in professional quality (not necessarily because one country doesn’t have the requisite talent but that perhaps that talent may not be getting the right atmosphere to grow) determines every kind of output related to a particular field including the

He never stated it as the only reason. He enlisted several reasons. Out of which this was one. And it indeed is a factor however small or big a weightage one may assign to it. But professional cultures do play a part in the output a field produces. Not for anything some

industries experiment and research and innovate more than others do. In film craft ways of expression are part of the total product which it sells. Product quality or range also depends on the organisational culture which a firm nurtures.

it isn’t just about a particular style, it is about the range of styles and depth in presentation that a particular film industry has acquired. A space where it not only can experiment with diverse cinematic expressions but choose which works for it best as the spearhead of

American soft power. An industry without resources and required expertise cannot sway global audiences as American movies do. 

An industry in shambles or mediocre in output will not get the patronage of the wider capitalist circles to push their brands or be able to promote a consumerist culture. You need quality professionals.

Preference for a product or its market viability is gauged by professionals only. Preference may already exist or it can be created even induced. Which will be preferred is dependent on how much is to be gained by any of the choices. The entire process is manned by professionals.

Same industry can have a diverse product range to meet the same need of the consumers. For example alcohol. It has a very wide range. So that point isn’t valid that the product is same. Because there’s a lot of differentiation.

Indian cinema’s content is dependent upon the regions or ideologies which fund it. It’s not like the American film industry in this regard. It does not play for the home industry nor does it for the promotion of native culture as it should. With greater professionalism it may go further rogue.

It was never about * just professionalism*. I have already stressed that this was one of the reasons stated. One is free to assign it the weightage one wants. But one cannot dismiss it as it relevant to the case in point.

Already stated why certain styles are more preferred. Not the only that are preferred but more.

This is mere conjecture. It cannot be proved.

You are using history to make projections about future events and narratives which again according to you will occur in a changed set of situations than what past styles were based on. If this isn’t a bizarre conjecture I’m not sure what is. 

>> there is a lot that current narrative styles in movies derive from past<< not at all. They’re vastly changed from music to dancing styles to familial equations to attires.

Secondly these changed circumstances may not necessarily occur in a society which continues to remain stagnant and inspired by past cultural attributes. It’s an evolving canvas.

History isn’t supporting you in what present cinematic content holds. Contrary to what you said the content and styles have a vastly changed. Even if the ending remains by and large happy. 

Nobody said what you have quoted there. What was said was that in more professional circumstances there’d be a more diverse range and experimentation in movie making with technology matching the advanced American film craft.

The point with which this thread started was never the whole answer to that question.

It was just a part of the whole film making process. To that extent it still stays relevant. It was never mentioned as the primary reason or the reason only. It was suggested as one of the aspects of film industry which influences output. And type of style is part of that output.

https://twitter.com/anshikashukla_/status/1296885454319452160?s=19