Bollywood vs. Hollywood

Bollywood is squaring off with Hollywood, according to Tyrell. What does this article tell us about the capacity of non-western countries to resist western culture? Should we expect Hollywood’s domination to decline further in the future? Why? What paradoxes about culture globalization does Tyrell illustrate through the case of the Indian cinema industry?
Western culture is often seen as this big monster that is going to make the world one big bland tasting soup. Bollywood is a perfect example as to why we are not all becoming alike. Non-western countries are not forced to indulge in our western evilness. Sometimes they do not even understand western culture or comedy or tragedy. As you explained in class, Philippines do not understand our movies at times, and people in India simply do not like our movies. People across the world have different cultures, ideas, ideologies, or sense of humor therefore in some countries, western culture will never dominate.
I do not think that Hollywood will decline in the future since the western world loves the movies from Hollywood. Even though a lot of movies are not filmed in Hollywood the still technically are from Hollywood. What will happen is that the film market will grow bigger than ever before. With Bollywood on the up rise and Hollywood not going away their will be more variety in the market. A larger audience can be reached with more than one point of view.
The paradox here is that in the films and TV show seem to have no western influence, however the stations are owned by companies working with the west or companies that are in the west. Another paradox portrait in the book is that the Indian Oscars in 1997 where broadcasted on Sony entertainment which means that maybe our western culture is not being indoctrinated in the people but the west is still the one profiting from India.

Why does Cowen call cinema “one of the hard cases for globalization”? Why does the production of certain kinds of movies cluster in Hollywood? Does Hollywood contribute to the Americanization of world culture? Does Cowen worry about that issue?
Cowen believes that cinema is a hard case because of the high coast it takes to make movies. It is hard for a non-American culture to produce a movie that would bring in the money that is needed to cover the production coast.
The reason for the clustering has again something to do with money. In Hollywood actors, producers, directors know they will receive the money they ask for. This means that high end movies will be made in Hollywood instead of other places. To make big productions movies in Hollywood simply makes sense. It is the easiest route so clustering is natural.
Cowen seems to have a split opinion on Americanization. One the one hand movies are made by non-American producers with non-American actors in non-American countries, however, the movies are in English and usually portrait American ideologies. We end up with American ideas portrait by non-Americans I do not feel that is Americanization I fell it is American explanation.
Cowen obviously worries about this issue otherwise he would have not written the article but not in a sense that he loses sleep over it. There is nothing wrong with entertaining the people of the world and if the Americans happen to be the best at doing so well then so be it.