Complete the following tasks to improve your understanding of arthouse film and the possible audience pleasures that the genre offers:
1) Read Beyond Hollywood: Reading Arthouse Cinema. This is in MM45 on page 24 - go to our Media Magazine archive to find the article. Sum up the article in one sentence.
This article explores a side of the world of film that often is dismissed.
2) What are some of the suggested audience pleasures for arthouse film?
There are many pleasures of arthouse film. Most obviously, is the artistic or aesthetic value to films rather than the commercial purposes. Considering the importance the West places on aesthetic needs, this is a huge audience pleasure. Moreover, arthouse films tend to be far harder to decode or 'read.' Therefore it challenges its viewers, engaging their brains more. Also, arthouse film often makes use of intertextuality, making references or allusions to other texts. This provides viewers with the pleasure of recognition.
3) Why do some audiences struggle with arthouse film? Refer to some media theory here (there are some important media theories discussed in the article itself).
Firstly, viewers find arthouse cinema harder to decode or 'read.' Many people go to cinema as a form of diversion from their own minds/lives rather than to watch challenging content that they struggle to keep up with. Also, arthouse cinema often lacks any resolution in its narrative. Viewers may feel let down by the lack of closure, perhaps frustrating them. This alludes to Todorov's theory of equilibrium, without it being apparent in a film, viewers feel disappointed.
4) To what extent is arthouse film only for the middle classes and older audiences? Why might this be the case?
Due to 'cultural competences' proposed by Bourdieu, the article suggests that arthouse media is difficult to read for those who do not understand 'highbrow content.' This paired with the idea how historically the working class were considered uncultured, suggest they are not worthy of watching their content. Therefore, there is still remains of the idea that only upper/middle classes are intellectually competent enough to watch film content that is consider highbrow. However, we could argue that more recently, society's importance on class has subsided and class is no longer as apparent as it once was. In terms of age, older people are more likely to watch arthouse cinema because the have interest in these niche themes that prevail in arthouse films. The younger generation often find little interest in the serious topics that transpire in arthouse cinema.
5) What type of audience would A Field In England appeal to?
According to Young and Rubicam's theory, reformers see enlightenment, valuing their own independent judgement. This group is likely to be attracted to this film because it strays from mainstream content and provides a sense of culture. Moreover, succeeders are also likely to find this film appealing because can afford to go to an arthouse cinema. The age bracket would most likely range between 28-40 year olds. In terms of class, it is more likely to be upper or middle class because they are able to afford to watch cinema because they have steady incomes and are stereotypically more likely to want to watch cultured, highbrow content (ABC1).
A Field In England: BFI report on the release strategy and commercial success
1) Read this BFI Insight report into the release and reception of the film. What was the purpose of the report?
The main purpose of this report was to discuss the success that the film received due to its original release methods.
2) What was the budget for A Field In England?
The total production budget was £316,879.
3) What were the key numbers in terms of cinema box office takings, TV viewers, VOD and DVD sales?
4) What was the primary target audience for A Field In England? Does this surprise you? How does it contrast with your answer to question 5 in the tasks above?
The primary target audience was ABC1 18-25 year olds and frequent cinemagoers in the 25-35+ bracket, who might have already been aware of Wheatley’s work.
This differs from my answer because I didn't think the primary target audience would be aimed at such young people.
5) What did the report conclude with regards to social media and the marketing campaign? How does this link to our Ill Manors case study?
The report concluded with essentially claiming that A Field In England offered how unconventional release methods such as multimedia launches still be made to work. This links to our Ill Manors case study because it contrasts so largely with their release methods, yet both still managed to achieve the same degree of success despite their niche audiences.
6) Finally, what was the BFI's conclusion with regards to the unusual release strategy for A Field In England? Was it a success? What evidence is provided to argue this point?
The report concluded that for this specific movie, their methods for release were effective but primarily due to the fact that they had such a low budget and niche audience so ultimately they had very little too lose. This means it is unlikely to work for other films but was successful in this particular case.
No comments:
Post a Comment