Media Magazine: the appeal of arthouse cinema
1) Summarise the article in 50 words.
Arthouse films are artistic rather than commercial in character. Arthouse film are intentionally more difficult to understand and are often allusive. Arthouse film, as is the case with all ‘highbrow’ art, is difficult to read, and remains so even if you do possess cultural capital.
2) What are some of the suggested audience pleasures for arthouse film?
Arthouse films usually inform audiences about different aspects of culture that are not usually expressed in hollywood films. Arthouse films are more creative and require more thought.
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).
Arthouse films do not typically have narrative resolutions. This would be difficult for mainstream audiences who enjoy blockbuster films, as these films are usually centred around restoring the equilibrium (as established through Todorov's equilibrium theory). Because these audiences are accustomed to seeing the narratives of each film being resolved in some form or another, this means that they have become more hegemonic. As a result of this, they may find arthouse films slightly disappointing.
4) To what extent is arthouse film only for the middle classes and older audiences? Why might this be the case?
I think that typically arthouse film is mainly for the middle classes and older audiences as they appreciate the artistic cultural value of the films more than a younger audience would. Arthouse also typically have more complex narratives compared to those of a Hollywood blockbuster which would appeal less to a younger audience.
5) What type of audience would A Field In England appeal to? What about Chicken?
I think that both A Field in England and Chicken appeal to quite a niche audience - A field in England would appeal to more of a mature, older audience where as Chicken would typically appeal to a more broader aged audience (typically younger).
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 purpose of this report was to evaluate the performance of the film.
2) What was the budget for A Field In England?
The total production budget was £316,879. The BFI contributed £56,701 to the budget.
3) What were the key numbers in terms of cinema box office takings, TV viewers, VOD and DVD sales?
Cinema box office takings: £21,399 in theatrical revenues in the opening weekend
TV viewers: 918,000 viewers
VOD/ DVD sales: 1,462 sales - Blu-Ray outsold DVD
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 for A Field in England was those in the ABC1 demographic. This film was also expected to be more popular with male viewers than female viewers based around the general content of the film.
5) What did the report conclude with regards to social media and the marketing campaign? How does this link to our Chicken case study?
The report concludes that the marketing campaign was highly innovative as it ensured that the film was reviewed as a major release. Although the report expresses the fact that the campaign was an "attacking, not a defensive strategy", it also suggests that the established reputation of Wheatley helped to advertise/market the film. His heavy use of Twitter (i.e: re-tweeting comments etc) helped to promote the film which is similar to the usage of twitter to promote Chicken.
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 strategy did prove successful. The film was released during summer, and the main concern was that the film would not receive as much attention due to all of the focus being on Wimbledon and Andy Murray. However, the film still managed to surpass its benchmark for total box office revenues. The forecast was £25,000 - £35,000, but the film actually generated £51,409.
1) Summarise the article in 50 words.
Arthouse films are artistic rather than commercial in character. Arthouse film are intentionally more difficult to understand and are often allusive. Arthouse film, as is the case with all ‘highbrow’ art, is difficult to read, and remains so even if you do possess cultural capital.
2) What are some of the suggested audience pleasures for arthouse film?
Arthouse films usually inform audiences about different aspects of culture that are not usually expressed in hollywood films. Arthouse films are more creative and require more thought.
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).
Arthouse films do not typically have narrative resolutions. This would be difficult for mainstream audiences who enjoy blockbuster films, as these films are usually centred around restoring the equilibrium (as established through Todorov's equilibrium theory). Because these audiences are accustomed to seeing the narratives of each film being resolved in some form or another, this means that they have become more hegemonic. As a result of this, they may find arthouse films slightly disappointing.
4) To what extent is arthouse film only for the middle classes and older audiences? Why might this be the case?
I think that typically arthouse film is mainly for the middle classes and older audiences as they appreciate the artistic cultural value of the films more than a younger audience would. Arthouse also typically have more complex narratives compared to those of a Hollywood blockbuster which would appeal less to a younger audience.
5) What type of audience would A Field In England appeal to? What about Chicken?
I think that both A Field in England and Chicken appeal to quite a niche audience - A field in England would appeal to more of a mature, older audience where as Chicken would typically appeal to a more broader aged audience (typically younger).
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 purpose of this report was to evaluate the performance of the film.
2) What was the budget for A Field In England?
The total production budget was £316,879. The BFI contributed £56,701 to the budget.
3) What were the key numbers in terms of cinema box office takings, TV viewers, VOD and DVD sales?
Cinema box office takings: £21,399 in theatrical revenues in the opening weekend
TV viewers: 918,000 viewers
VOD/ DVD sales: 1,462 sales - Blu-Ray outsold DVD
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 for A Field in England was those in the ABC1 demographic. This film was also expected to be more popular with male viewers than female viewers based around the general content of the film.
5) What did the report conclude with regards to social media and the marketing campaign? How does this link to our Chicken case study?
The report concludes that the marketing campaign was highly innovative as it ensured that the film was reviewed as a major release. Although the report expresses the fact that the campaign was an "attacking, not a defensive strategy", it also suggests that the established reputation of Wheatley helped to advertise/market the film. His heavy use of Twitter (i.e: re-tweeting comments etc) helped to promote the film which is similar to the usage of twitter to promote Chicken.
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 strategy did prove successful. The film was released during summer, and the main concern was that the film would not receive as much attention due to all of the focus being on Wimbledon and Andy Murray. However, the film still managed to surpass its benchmark for total box office revenues. The forecast was £25,000 - £35,000, but the film actually generated £51,409.
Comments
Post a Comment