Letters to the Editor

Arts Journal Home Page

PublishingTheatreVisual ArtsArts IssuesPeople
common threadsarts watchletters
issues archive
Arts BeatSearchContact UsNews Service Home`Services
Digest Samples
Headline Samples






Letters, opinions, tips, reactions, suggestions?
Send your e-mail to mclennan@artsjournal.com




FROM: Sudjoko, Indonesia


I have read GLOBAL CROSSING part one, The Movies. In my opinion, another way of global crossing should become habitual for American moviemakers. That is: make movies in other countries each year.

There are certain benefits which are culturally more agreeable:

  • using citizens of the respective country – say, Indonesia – as helpers, technicians, actors, assistants
  • using local environments, material, social as well as natural
  • using local culture: dress, dance, traditions, music etc. etc.

Indonesian filmmakers, for instance, would learn a lot from the way Americans make movies, and will be encouraged to make better films. American moviemakers would also learn from the country they work in. They will get ideas they have never had before.

In God's Hands is a good example of a recent American movie made for a considerable part in Indonesia. The filmers did many things with Indonesian elements which never entered the minds of Indonesian filmers. However, they use only American music, even though they must have heard lots of brilliant local music while in Bali. I don’t understand this side of the film.

Obviously this kind of “global crossing” is wrong. And if they just employed enough of our film people, we would have known a few ‘secrets’ of good filmmaking. By the way, In God’s Hand is a very good movie with a unique story. It is now available in video.


Global Crossing: Countries around the world struggle to shore up their local cultures in the face of pervasive and seductive American popular culture. Are Americans the bad guys? Part I - The Movies. By Jack Miles & Douglas McLennan