The foreign talent of Hollywood (By María Fernanda Díaz Bernal)

In early 1910, David W. Griffith and his acting crew were sent to the west coast by the Biography Company. They filmed somewhere near to Georgia Street in downtown Los Angeles. While they were there, the company decided to explore new territories and they ended up in Hollywood, a small town a lot miles to the north. Griffith decided to stay a few months in there and, during that period, he filmed several movies. In 1913, many movie makers decided to go to Hollywood after hearing about the success that Griffith was having there. Also, they decided to go there because they want it to avoid the fees that Thomas Edison was imposing to them because he owned patents in the movie-making process. After that, the movie studios also decided to settled in Hollywood.

Before World war I, movies were made around the U.S but the industry developed in southern California so, they decided to go there. The warm climate and the good sunlight allowed them to do movies outdoors year-round, also there was a huge variety of scenenaries which leaded them to settled in Hollywood.
After the World war I, many moviemakers arrived from Europe, people such as: Ernst Lubitsch, Alfred Hitchcock, Fritz Lang and Jean Renoir. With the incorporation of sound to the film industry in 1927, the movie studios decided to made parallel foreign-language versions of the films in order to reach as much public as possible. Because of this, a lot of foreign unemployed actors, playwrights and winners of photogenia contests were selected and brought to Hollywood, to shot the parallel versions of the movies. The parallel versions had a lower budget, were shot at night and were directed by second-line american directors. For example, the spanish-language group included people like Luis Buñuel, Enrique Jardiel Poncela, Xavier Cugat and Edgar Neville. Unfortunately, this versions didn't have the success that they were expect to have, due to: the lower budgets were apparent, many actors didn't have the experience in cinema because they were theater actors, the mix of foreign accents (Castillian, mexican and chilean for example in spanish case) was uncomfortable for the audiences.

Not only european people have influenced cinematography. There has also been people from Asia, South america, etc... Some of the most remarkable foreign directors in Hollywood are:
Akira Kurosawa (Japanese)
James Cameron (Canadian)
Christopher Nolan (English)
Charlie Chaplin (English)
Jean Renoir (French)
Ernst Lubitsch (German)
Fritz Lang (Austrian-german)
Alfred Hitchcock (English)
Luis Buñuel (Spanish)
Peter Jackson (New Zealand)
Ridley Scott (English)
Alejandro Amenábar (Spanish)
Alejandro González (Mexican)

There are more directors that have had a huge impact in Hollywood. They all have left they own personal mark in Hollywood. In the economic aspect they all have influenced it because, in each country, people feel like they have to support they compatriots, so a lot of people went, goes and will go to watch a movie first of all because there is someone for their same country that has worked in that movie. Also, the compatriots of the directors, in this case, see them as a model to follow which make them dream about going to Hollywood to be as successful as the directors. They see that with a lot of effort it is possible to fulfill and to make their dreams come true and this carries a lot of money because those people are going to earn a lot of money that will make Hollywood bigger and bigger.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_States
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls004929793/
http://www.german-way.com/history-and-culture/germany/cinema-in-germany/germans-in-hollywood/
https://www.filmdoo.com/blog/2015/09/18/feature-foreign-directors-in-america-and-the-ever-shrinking-world-of-international-filmmaking/

The Diamond Myth By Natalia Reyes (What has happened to the diamond business -and diamonds marketing- since 1982?)

Diamonds Business since 1980  

“Diamond is the most valuable, not only of precious stones, but of all things in this world.” The Roman naturalist Pliny

The world’s love of diamonds had its start in India, where diamonds were gathered from the country’s rivers and streams.. The country’s resources yielded limited quantities for an equally limited market: India’s very wealthy classes. Gradually, though, this changed. Indian diamonds found their way, along with other exotic merchandise, to Western Europe (Venice’s medieval markets), but it was in the 1400s when diamonds became fashionable accessories for the royalty.  

  

Diamonds have a long history as beautiful objects of desire, but ever since the late 1980s, when bad publicity began to plague the diamond industry, guilt has become an increasingly powerful deterrent. Thanks to this event, a new term was born in the world of diamonds: The bloody diamonds, which is a term that will be a depth later.

The modern market of diamond began in the 1866 discovery of diamonds in Kimberley, South Africa. Then in 90´s De Beers, through its mines in South Africa, controlled an estimated 90 percent of the world’s production of rough diamonds. In the 1930s, Epstein explained, De Beers launched a massive American advertising campaign with the help of the New York advertising agency N. W. Ayer. The campaign spawned the “diamonds are forever”.

The black market for diamonds, he discovered, was especially prevalent in Namaqualand, a region north of Cape Town, South Africa. Miners supplemented their $350-a-month wages by smuggling diamonds from the mines and selling them to bootleggers. A September 1963 “Report on the Congo” detailed the web of smuggling. After political unrest forced European diamond workers out of the region, smuggling surged as production continued.  

 Curious Things ! 

Blood Diamond, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, reflects this growing backlash, dramatizing the diamond industry’s role in Sierra Leone’s recent civil war. the World Diamond Council has been on the alert, hiring a public relations firm to defend the diamond trade and remind consumers that diamonds stand for “exquisite beauty and the timeless qualities of love and devotion.” 

Diamonds are used a lot in movies as a simbolic thing. In Gentlemen prefer blonde with Marilyn Monroe, Moulin rouge with Nicole Kidman, Burlesque with Christina Aguilera and even Titanic!  

Even with this bad image that the cartels and all the dead in the African continent Diamonds are used in all kind of media has a desired product, royalty ...etc. The marked of diamonds is huge, and probably it will be a market that still exists throughout the years, as they keep saying that diamonds are forever and also the best friends of every woman.

References

• http://www.gia.edu/diamond-history-lore
• http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/12/the-diamond-myth/305491/
• http://www.jckonline.com/blogs/cutting-remarks/2016/01/20/why-diamond-business-keeps-getting-slammed

What has happened to the diamond business -and diamonds marketing- since 1982? by Nicolás Rincón Díaz

Brief Introduction

If you've ever read Have you ever tried to sell a Diamond?, or heard about the scam of the diamond industry, you should know the basics of this: Diamonds and its added value are bullshit.

Basically, the DeBeers company made US citizens believe that buying a diamond was a symbol of eternity and endless love, their slogan, 'Diamonds are Forever' was incredibly successful and led sales to increase greatly. In the article, How an Ad Campaign Invented the Diamond Engagement Ring its stated that "between 1939 and 1979, DeBeers' wholesale diamond sales in the United States increased from $23 million to $2.1 billion. Over those four decades, the company's ad budget soared from $200,000 to $10 million a year".

And every time diamonds seem to loss interest in the public, the DeBeers company would come out with another clever lie about the greatness of these rocks, boosting their sales and earnings. Among my favorites slogans there are:

• "I never hated a man enough to give him his diamonds back."
• "She already knows you love her, now everyone else will too."
• "Give her what she is waiting for… A symbol of forever."

Even one aimed for women investment instead of men:

• "She has a mind of her own. She gave me a diamond".

But, has something occurred to the diamond industry since Edward Epstein wrote about it in 1982? After all, he exposed the business strategy and showed everyone why getting a diamond is just a waste of money. Apparently, no.

Stats

Actually, statistics (see the following chart) don't seem to even suggest a possible ending of the industry, with constant growth on demand and world popularity (the plunge at 2009 was a result of the recession of those years). By the year 2017, it is expected for the rough demand to reach it's highest peak since 2007, and from there on, to continue growing.

And it's not only the constant growth of the diamond demand what should concern us. Cultural processes as the ones that took place in Japan between 1967 and 1981 seem to be repeating in China, the second largest consumer market in the world.

Just as it happened in Japan, the practice of using diamonds as a way of expressing deep and eternal love, and also proposing marriage to the woman, was practically non-existent by the year 1994, but by year 2010, more than 30 percent of Chinese couples were using it. Thousands of years of traditional marriage are being suddenly crushed by the concept that diamonds are equal to happiness, wealth, eternity.

Along with China, India is also becoming every year a stronger market for diamond consumers, and once the bigger economies agree unanimously that diamonds are indeed the greatest and best rock for a man to buy for a woman, is just a matter of time before it's spread to other minor countries. In a globalized world, the first world trends can be adapted or taken by third world countries.

It seems that the "diamond culture" is already way developed and there isn't much to do, and in fact that's the reality. Not many people is informed in the topic and they will continue buying diamonds to their couples, thinking they are getting a rare and unique piece of rock with great monetary value (when the reality is that there's still a fuckton of diamonds held by  the DeBeers), and the one who knows, won't take the risk of getting their girlfriends pissed (see second definition) at them. In fact, is really hard to not perceive diamonds as a symbol of luxury.

Conflict diamonds

"... diamonds illegally traded to fund conflict in war-torn areas, particularly in central and western Africa." (taken from Diamondfacts on Conflict Diamonds)

Also known as blood diamonds, had become a major problem for the countries involved in it (Angola, Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe), as its consequences go from ecological impact to civil wars, worker exploitation, violence and so.

The US, being the biggest consumer of diamonds in the world, has strong policies against the importation of such.

In 2003, the UN approved the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, which aims to reduce the illegal diamond traffic as well as imposing criminal charges to anyone trafficking with them. It forces the governments to "... keep records of of the diamonds they are exporting and importing and how much they are worth." (taken from Wikipedia on Blood diamond)

Final note

As responsible consumers, we should be concerned (or at least amused) on the power of advertisement, if they could give a really big economic value to a rock, maybe, who knows, in the future something similar could happen with grass or air.

Also, it's important to know and reflect how nowadays a product may have really big implications. Diamonds, as it was mentioned, ended up impulsing the civil war in Africa, and essentially they are just a worthless piece of rock.

Finally, here's a funny review of the topic made by College Humor in their series Adam Ruins Everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU