Canadian cities American counterparts

[Acajack]

From an economic and business perspective, Toronto is unquestionably the New York of Canada.

But quite honestly, from an entertainment/cultural/media perspective, the New York of Canada is... New York. And the Los Angeles of Canada is... Los Angeles.

People across the country complain about how Toronto-centric the “national” Canadian media is, but in all honesty if you compared the situation with how metropolis-centric the media is in most places in the world (Montreal in Quebec, Paris in France, London in the UK, Tokyo in Japan, Stockholm in Sweden, the NYC/LA two-headed beast in the U.S., etc.), Toronto doesn’t throw its weight around the country that much.

Seriously folks, Toronto is actually quite weak in its cross-Canada imprint as a media/cultural/entertainment metropolis. It may be the centre of the universe for*Canadian* (or English Canadian) culture, media and entertainment, but that doesn’t mean it is the centre of the universe for culture, media and entertainment for *Canadians*. For most Canadians, that latter function is mostly filled out by New York and Los Angeles.

Even on its own turf, Toronto is overshadowed by NYC and LA (and even some other American cities perhaps).

But this isn’t completely a bad thing, because the weakness of Toronto-centrism (again, some of you will scoff at this but if you looked abroad you would see what I mean) in Canada allows regional cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Halifax, etc. (skipping over Quebec deliberately here) to develop stronger local identities that you might otherwise expect to find. Precisely because Toronto doesn’t occupy most of the space like the largest city often does in most countries.

In most of the Canadian cities above, there is a fairly strong local media-driven culture, with a “national” layer on top of it that is very predominantly American (made in NYC/LA) with only a few “national Canadian” elements – usually Toronto-produced it is true.

Nobody in Canada travels to Toronto to hold up a sign that says “HI MOM IN SIOUX LOOKOUT, ONT.” outside the window of Canada AM. Young people in Brandon, Man. don’t make pilgrimages to Toronto to attend TV show tapings like Americans (and many Canadians) do for David Letterman, etc.

When I peruse Canadian magazines, it is always funny to see pictures from the Toronto social scene that is supposedly a reflection of Canada’s who’s-who. In reality, 95% of the people who are pictured there are total nobodies outside of the Golden Horseshoe. In fact, a majority are probably nobodies within the boundaries of the Golden Horseshoe as well. But when I look at similar pages in Quebec magazines about events in Montreal, 90% of the faces would be familiar to every Aunt Marie-Thérèse from Val-d’Or to Baie-Comeau...

All of which to say that people in the ROC who are fussy about their regional identities and specificity actually have good reason to be appreciative of Toronto. T.O. gives them a lot more space than they fully realize.

[yaletown_fella]

I'd say Toronto is Chicago and Vancouver with Atlanta's layout (without the freeway partitions) . Toronto and Chicago's layouts are very different.

[Gerrard]

"When I peruse Canadian magazines, it is always funny to see pictures from the Toronto social scene that is supposedly a reflection of Canada’s who’s-who. In reality, 95% of the people who are pictured there are total nobodies outside of the Golden Horseshoe. In fact, a majority are probably nobodies within the boundaries of the Golden Horseshoe as well. But when I look at similar pages in Quebec magazines about events in Montreal, 90% of the faces would be familiar to every Aunt Marie-Thérèse from Val-d’Or to Baie-Comeau..."

To be honest there's not much of a difference in what you're saying there. The Golden Horseshoe is about as populous as the entire province of Quebec. So if if you're trying to make the point that somehow being a celebrity is more meaningful in Quebec, you haven't, since most of the people in Toronto social scene pics would be recognizable to people in the GH.

If you're trying to make the point that Canada is culturally very regional, then yes, that's correct.

Now if you were also trying to make the point that English speaking Canada is somehow more culturally rich because it is far more open to and accepting of the cultural output of the continent versus a small region of it, then you'd be correct there as well.

Again these city comparisons are pretty much silly. Since each city in each province in each state in each country occupies a very different position and history in its country. You could visit any one and find similarities and they'd all be valid. Geez there are parts of Barcelona that remind me of Toronto but it doesn't make them similar at all. I've found L.A. is more similar to Toronto than New York is and would never mistake being in Chicago for being in Toronto at the same time thinking I was in Montreal walking down the streets of Boston or Pittsburgh. But again none of them are remotely alike.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

To be honest there's not much of a difference in what you're saying there. The Golden Horseshoe is about as populous as the entire province of Quebec. So if if you're trying to make the point that somehow being a celebrity is more meaningful in Quebec, you haven't, since most of the people in Toronto social scene pics would be recognizable to people in the GH.

Actually, I am not really sure that I agree that most of the people in the Toronto social scene pics would be that recognizable to the average person in the Golden Horseshoe, most of which would probably be more familiar with faces from the New York or Los Angeles social scene, to be quite honest.

As for people in Quebec, the celebrity recognition factors of the NYC/LA vs. Montreal social scenes probably balance out.

I don't really have an opinion on whether being a celebrity in Quebec, the GTA, English-speaking Canada, the U.S. or wherever, is more "meaningful" in one place versus another... Unless you equate face-and-name recognition with "meaningfulness", which I don't necessarily do.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

Since each city in each province in each state in each country occupies a very different position and history in its country. You could visit any one and find similarities and they'd all be valid. Geez there are parts of Barcelona that remind me of Toronto but it doesn't make them similar at all. I've found L.A. is more similar to Toronto than New York is and would never mistake being in Chicago for being in Toronto at the same time thinking I was in Montreal walking down the streets of Boston or Pittsburgh. But again none of them are remotely alike.

I was thinking about this on the weekend and on this I agree. Lower Manhattan and Harlem are part of the same city (even the same borough) and yet they don't look much alike at all.

Which means that discussions like these can only be "for fun". And they are fun. Just don't expect "victory" with your views - that's when you'll get into trouble.

[Gerrard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Actually, I am not really sure that I agree that most of the people in the Toronto social scene pics would be that recognizable to the average person in the Golden Horseshoe, most of which would probably be more familiar with faces from the New York or Los Angeles social scene, to be quite honest.

As for people in Quebec, the celebrity recognition factors of the NYC/LA vs. Montreal social scenes probably balance out.

I don't really have an opinion on whether being a celebrity in Quebec, the GTA, English-speaking Canada, the U.S. or wherever, is more "meaningful" in one place versus another... Unless you equate face-and-name recognition with "meaningfulness", which I don't necessarily do.

Oh I'm pretty sure most people in the GH would be more likely to recognize a pic of Hilary and Gaelan Weston over a Muffie Potter Aston or Somers Farkas. If by social scene you mean celebrity, local celebrities would get just as much facial recognition as Hollywood or New York celebrities. If we're talking degrees of "stardom" then, yeah, probably meeting or viewing Angelina Jolie ranks higher on the bucket list list than say Rick Mercer but I'm pretty sure even in London it'd still be better to see snaps of Brangelina versus say Billie Piper.

Now if someone in the GH were to see social scene pics from Quebec they'd be as unlikely to recognize any of the faces there as they would viewing social scene pics from Edmonton. Just as I'm sure someone in Boston would have as much difficulty recognizing the faces from a series of pics taken at a party in St. Louis.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

Now if you were also trying to make the point that English speaking Canada is somehow more culturally rich because it is far more open to and accepting of the cultural output of the continent versus a small region of it, then you'd be correct there as well.

The problem arises when what you are "open" to happens to be one of the most insular cultures in the entire world.

Way back when when I was going to university in Ontario I took some classes in Canadian studies from a cultural angle. One day the prof rolled out some statistics that showed that anglophone Canadians took in something like 97% of "foreign" films and TV programs, whereas francophone Canadians had much higher rates of domestic movie and TV consumption. Domestic TV consumption among francophones was particularly high and represented close to three quarters of viewing time.

So ensued a lot of self-congratulatory comments and back-patting from my classmates, about how English Canadians were so much more open to the world than French Canadians.

The professor then brought everyone back down to earth by saying that that "foreign" stuff was almost all U.S. stuff.

So if you think people are worldly because they are watching The A-Team, BJ and the Bear, Cosby Show and Die Hard (popular stuff at the time), then you go right ahead and think that buddy.

American popular culture is so all-encompassing that it more often than not leaves very little room for anything else. People may be watching technically *foreign* stuff but it's not Akiro Kurosawa, Lars von Trier or Wim Wenders...

In Quebec, if I may say without getting killed here, the cultural diet appears to be a tad more balanced, with homegrown Québécois jostling for position with American stuff (of course - I would never deny that it isn't ubiquitous here), and some stuff from other countries - especially France of course - coming up the middle between the two.

Consider that dubbed Swedish, German and Italian movies show up at mainstream cinemas in Quebec cities as small as 25,000 people every once in a while. Not sure this happens much in the rest of the country, where even large city dwellers complain they can't even get to see all of the *Canadian* films nominated for the Genie Award for Best Picture.

[Gerrard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The problem arises when what you are "open" to happens to be one of the most insular cultures in the entire world.

Way back when when I was going to university in Ontario I took some classes in Canadian studies from a cultural angle. One day the prof rolled out some statistics that showed that anglophone Canadians took in something like 97% of "foreign" films and TV programs, whereas francophone Canadians had much higher rates of domestic movie and TV consumption. Domestic TV consumption among francophones was particularly high and represented close to three quarters of viewing time.

So ensued a lot of self-congratulatory comments and back-patting from my classmates, about how English Canadians were so much more open to the world than French Canadians.

The professor then brought everyone back down to earth by saying that that "foreign" stuff was almost all U.S. stuff.

So if you think people are worldly because they are watching The A-Team, BJ and the Bear, Cosby Show and Die Hard (popular stuff at the time), then you go right ahead and think that buddy.

American popular culture is so all-encompassing that it more often than not leaves very little room for anything else. People may be watching technically *foreign* stuff but it's not Akiro Kurosawa, Lars von Trier or Wim Wenders...

In Quebec, if I may say without getting killed here, the cultural diet appears to be a tad more balanced, with homegrown Québécois jostling for position with American stuff (of course - I would never deny that it isn't ubiquitous here), and some stuff from other countries - especially France of course - coming up the middle between the two.

Consider that dubbed Swedish, German and Italian movies show up at mainstream cinemas in Quebec cities as small as 25,000 people every once in a while. Not sure this happens much in the rest of the country, where even large city dwellers complain they can't even get to see all of the *Canadian* films nominated for the Genie Award for Best Picture.

American culture is probably the least insular in the world. Americans pull culture from many different sources but place it under the American flag. There is heavy Latin, African American, Asian and European influences/actor/directors/writers in their film and other cultural output. America is a whole continent unto itself with an equal level of diversity as Europe. There is as much difficulty with defining American culture as there is a Canadian culture but it seems easier because there are more common social markers.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

American culture is probably the least insular in the world. Americans pull culture from many different sources but place it under the American flag. .

Ah yes. By taking innovative ideas, purging them of their cultural origin and then carefully repackaging them as American so that their audience is not disturbed in its comfort zone.

Most places in the world take in outside influences and appreciate them for what they are without edulcorating them.

Why should all these singers from abroad have to sing in English in order for their talent to be appreciated? Should the Barber of Seville or Carmen be in English?

Originally Posted by Gerrard

There is heavy Latin, African American, Asian and European influences/actor/directors/writers in their film and other cultural output. America is a whole continent unto itself with an equal level of diversity as Europe. There is as much difficulty with defining American culture as there is a Canadian culture but it seems easier because there are more common social markers.

But everybody (at least in the western world and even beyond) does this! The Americans haven't invented anything!

From Germany
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0HuEvYNJNk

From France
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhPz7...eature=related

From Quebec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3eg5vec5c

Best Québécois movie of 2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDf-XuYid1A

[Gerrard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Ah yes. By taking innovative ideas, purging them of their cultural origin and then carefully repackaging them as American so that their audience is not disturbed in its comfort zone.

Most places in the world take in outside influences and appreciate them for what they are without edulcorating them.

Why should all these singers from abroad have to sing in English in order for their talent to be appreciated? Should the Barber of Seville or Carmen be in English?

You are looking at the cultural life of the USA as monolithic, it's not. The repackage is for money and wider audience appeal. It doesn't mean 15 million Americans didn't see the original version of Let The Right One In with subtitles. It means that 30 more million are probably going to see Let Me In.

The U.S. is strange that way, it's huge and wealthy and has the means to remake and repackage. Sweden isn't going to remake "Die Hard" for a Swedish audience because it can't. It doesn't have the means. Would it if it could? Yes, more than likely. Would it recoup the budget? Definitely not. But because it can't I'm sure there are pockets of people that believe they are culturally superior because they can appreciate it in its original form.

Singers from abroad do not need to sing in English and even singers from the USA needn't sing in English either and often don't. The fact is, a measure of how popular you are has to do with how popular you are in America but it doesn't mean there isn't an audience in the U.S. for people who sing in German or especially Spanish.

You have a strange cultural bias about the U.S. without realizing that it's a huge country and more intellectually curious than you give it credit for.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

You are looking at the cultural life of the USA as monolithic, it's not. The repackage is for money and wider audience appeal. It doesn't mean 15 million Americans didn't see the original version of Let The Right One In with subtitles. It means that 30 more million are probably going to see Let Me In. .

If 15 million Americans went to see the original Swedish version, then they did so with deeply discounted tickets as the movie only barely grossed two million in the U.S.:
http://www.austin360.com/movies/holl...es-539592.html

Originally Posted by Gerrard

You have a strange cultural bias about the U.S. without realizing that it's a huge country and more intellectually curious than you give it credit for.

I don't have a bias against the U.S. and I do realize that in a country of 300 million people there are several million exceptions to what I have described.

To be quite honest, I am something of an Americanophile. But one thing I don't do is mistake the U.S. for something that it is not.

[freeweed]

This conversation is starting to remind me of pretty much every single conversation I've ever had about music.

Friend: all music sucks, just look at the pre-packaged crap on the radio today

Me: you know there's a whole lot more out there than just that, right?

Friend: ....

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

You are looking at the cultural life of the USA as monolithic, it's not. The repackage is for money and wider audience appeal. (...)
The U.S. is strange that way, it's huge and wealthy and has the means to remake and repackage. Sweden isn't going to remake "Die Hard" for a Swedish audience because it can't. It doesn't have the means. Would it if it could? Yes, more than likely. Would it recoup the budget? Definitely not. But because it can't I'm sure there are pockets of people that believe they are culturally superior because they can appreciate it in its original form.

It's actually a bit of an inside joke in some parts of the world (mostly non-anglo countries) about how Americans take fine wine (read= a good movie in its original language) and then pour so much Coca-Cola into it so that it doesn't taste at all like wine anymore, yet still pretend it's fine wine they're drinking.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by freeweed

This conversation is starting to remind me of pretty much every single conversation I've ever had about music.

Friend: all music sucks, just look at the pre-packaged crap on the radio today

Me: you know there's a whole lot more out there than just that, right?

Friend: ....

Phew! For a second there I thought Freeweed was gonna accuse me of bringing this into Quebec/Canada and French/English territory...

But I can do "USA vs. the world" or "Anglo-America vs. the world" just as well, you know...

[The_Architect]

So.. about cities..

-I'd actually say that Toronto could only be compared to New York and Chicago's love child, where the child grows and becomes more relevant than the mother, and not yet reached the relevance of the father.
However, Toronto historically (and visually) has much more in common with Chicago (complete with them both almost completely burning to the ground at one point).

I saw that someone claimed nothing of historical significance had to do with Toronto? How about the War of 1812, specifically the Battle and sack of York that caused the British army to move into the US, take Washington, and burn and sack it? The entire reason the White House is white is because they were painting over the scorch marks.. So.. ya, historically significant events have occurred in Toronto.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Phew! For a second there I thought Freeweed was gonna accuse me of bringing this into Quebec/Canada and French/English territory...

You already had, but I wasn't about to let you abort yet another thread with more smug talk about how Quebecers are more worldly while us dumb Anglos only know how to watch US television (or whatever the point about the university course was).

But I can do "USA vs. the world" or "Anglo-America vs. the world" just as well, you know...

And it's equally as amusing in its overreaching stereotyping.


As a fun anecdote, I actually know personally someone who travelled from a town very close to Sioux Lookout to Toronto, for the express purpose of standing outside the Muchmusic studios with a sign saying "Sioux Lookout Represent!" (well, the functional equivalent). Toronto is quite the pilgrimage for kids growing up in NW Ontario. Less so for folks in the west, but it's not unheard of.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

-I'd actually say that Toronto could only be compared to New York and Chicago's love child, where the child grows and becomes more relevant than the mother, and not yet reached the relevance of the father.
However, Toronto historically (and visually) has much more in common with Chicago (complete with them both almost completely burning to the ground at one point).

Bay Street/Wall Street. Massive neighbourhoods/boroughs that used to be their own towns and have been absorbed into the borg, yet still retain much of their original identity. Iconic skyline. Home of 2 of the 3 longest Stanley Cup droughts in league history (the fact that Chicago is #2 is not lost on me).

Toronto is so much like NYC it's not even funny.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by freeweed

And it's equally as amusing in its overreaching stereotyping.

And that's what I truly love about TV ratings and movie box office numbers that huge corporations use to base their multi-million-dollar decisions on - they don't lie!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by freeweed

You already had, but I wasn't about to let you abort yet another thread with more smug talk about how Quebecers are more worldly while us dumb Anglos only know how to watch US television (or whatever the point about the university course was).

I never called anyone worldly or dumb, and I was only replying to this comment by Gerrard:

Now if you were also trying to make the point that English speaking Canada is somehow more culturally rich because it is far more open to and accepting of the cultural output of the continent versus a small region of it, then you'd be correct there as well.

And BTW, I don't necessarily think that one has to be dumb to watch US TV, or that watching US TV makes you dumb. If this were the case, this country (and continent) would be in really big trouble!

[Gerrard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If 15 million Americans went to see the original Swedish version, then they did so with deeply discounted tickets as the movie only barely grossed two million in the U.S.:
http://www.austin360.com/movies/holl...es-539592.html




I don't have a bias against the U.S. and I do realize that in a country of 300 million people there are several million exceptions to what I have described.

To be quite honest, I am something of an Americanophile. But one thing I don't do is mistake the U.S. for something that it is not.

I said saw, not went to the movies to see. Netflix counts.