It is an existing phenomenon that foreign films seem to be more prevalent
than domestic films. Several reasons underlie this case while I advocate
that governments ought to promote local film-making by subsidizing the
industry more frequently.
Several reasons uphold the fact that many audiences are more willing to
watch a foreign film rather than a locally produced film. Firstly, the
watching experience of a foreign film might truly be superior to a domestic
one. There are different factors contributing to the watching experience,
such as special effects, which might cost millions of dollars and audio
design which contains not only the inspiring music, but also the elaborate
planning of the director. Those direct presentations to the audience are the
most significant factors resulting in people’s choices between which
movies to watch. However, it might also be what local film-making lacks
most due to the gap between the development of film industry of different
countries. Another reason lies behind the phenomenon could be the
intrinsic values of the films. That is not to say local produced films fail to
deliver higher values. Instead, the key point is what the audiences prefer.
For the foreign films, it simply contains more foreign elements, including
costumes, cultures, customs and so on. Local audiences tend to be
attracted more by what are barely accessible to them in their real life.
Most of the audience expect to find something rare and new which
apparently are more difficult for a local film to provide. Therefore, the
presentation of the film itself and the ability to provide new contents lead
to the failure of locally produced films to attract the audience.
In my view, government should support local film industries financially. In
a modern society, every industry need enough funding to develop further.
Talented film-makers might be hidden among the populace while all they
need is an opportunity. Only if their works are exposed to the public and
gain enough recognition, can they be able to produce more high-quality
films and thus propel the progress of the whole industry. Without funding
from governments, they will be less likely to have chance to show their
talents since every single process of the film-making requires a large sum
of money.
In conclusion, I hold a firm belief that financial support from the
governments will turn out to be worthwhile. It could promote the film
industry and eventually encourage more audiences to choose to watch
locally produced films.
Many people prefer to watch foreign films rather than locally
produced films. Why could this be? Should governments give
more financial support to local film industries?
In recent years, it has become increasingly common for audiences to favor
foreign films over those produced domestically. Several factors contribute
to this trend, including the superior production quality of foreign films and
the global cultural appeal they often possess. While this preference is
understandable, I strongly believe that governments should provide more
financial support to local film industries to ensure their survival and
growth.
One of the primary reasons for the popularity of foreign films is their high
production quality. Foreign films, particularly those from countries like the
United States, are often produced with significant budgets, allowing for
advanced special effects, high-caliber actors, and cutting-edge technology.
For instance, Hollywood blockbusters like Avatar or The Avengers are not
only visually stunning but also benefit from intricate plotlines and top-
notch performances. This level of quality is often difficult for locally
produced films to match, particularly in smaller countries where film
budgets are more limited.
In addition to superior production quality, foreign films also attract
audiences due to their cultural appeal. Films from other countries offer
viewers a glimpse into different cultures, lifestyles, and societal norms,
which can be both educational and entertaining. For example, the South
Korean film Parasite, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture,
provided global audiences with a compelling narrative while also offering
insights into class disparities in Korean society. Such films are appealing
precisely because they present something novel and different, which local
films may not always be able to provide.
Despite the appeal of foreign films, I believe that governments should
invest more in their local film industries. By offering financial support,
governments can help domestic filmmakers compete on a global scale.
This could involve subsidies for film production, grants for script
development, or tax incentives for local studios. For example, New
Zealand’s government has provided significant financial incentives to
filmmakers, resulting in the international success of films like The Lord of
the Rings trilogy, which showcased the country’s talent and landscapes to
the world.
Moreover, supporting the local film industry has broader cultural
implications. Films are a powerful medium for expressing national identity
and preserving cultural heritage. By investing in local films, governments
can help ensure that their unique stories, traditions, and perspectives are
shared both domestically and internationally. This not only promotes
cultural diversity in cinema but also helps to foster a sense of pride and
unity within the nation.
In conclusion, while foreign films are often favored for their production
quality and cultural novelty, it is crucial that governments support their
local film industries. Through financial investment, domestic filmmakers
can be empowered to produce high-quality films that reflect their cultural
identity and compete in the global market. Such efforts will not only enrich
the local film industry but also contribute to the diversity and richness of
global cinema.
