This post is not so much an in-depth analysis or an extension of our discussion in class. It is simply a response as I have always been interested in the role of the spectator in relation to the film-viewing experience. I have found this idea has a relevant place in our discussion and readings in regard to cinema and cultural institution. In particular, I found Decherney and Wasson's writings interesting as they discussed the role of the spectator regarding the way in which different institutions will exhibit different films according to their desired audience. I thought back on past film classes I have taken and thought about how some film theorists argue that the spectator must bring their cultural experiences to their viewing while others say that no such biases should be present (ie: Vivian Sobchack and her phenomenology theory). I began, then, to think about my own role in the film-viewing experience.
I suppose I can characterize myself into three distinct types of spectators. This means that I find I view films in three different ways. The first is like many others, as one who is viewing a film for purely entertainment purposes, being aware of Hollywood and all the gossip that goes along with that. Secondly, I have the role of a film student aware of the different ways of viewing certain films, especially if the filmmakers have spelled out how to do so. And thirdly, as an American viewing films in other cultures. It happens at times that these three roles overlap, but the majority of the time, depending on why I'm seeing a film; they remain separate and do not influence the other. At least, most of the time…
The first two roles I'm going to skip because it seems obvious as to the role of the said spectator. The role I feel that applies to this last week's discussion and reading is that of an American viewing films in other cultures. When I was sixteen, I went to an American film screened in a small Italian theater in Rome, Italy. Every Tuesday this theater would show international films in the native language. I lucked out when, at the age of sixteen, my only interest was the highly publicized, Hollywood films. At this particular theater, therefore, most of the English speaking films were Hollywood films.
The interesting thing was not so much how the theater targeted the audience with the films being shown, but the way in which they were shown. Half way through the film, the movie was turned off and the house lights were brought up. Apparently at this theater, they took a fifteen-minute intermission, which, I soon learned, was a part of the Italian culture, something as an American I did not experience unless I went to a play with my family. It was then that I realized how different audiences are.
This is why, when thinking about last week's reading, the idea of specialized viewing stuck out to me. As I was reading about the various institutions and the way in which they were aware of who their audiences were, I thought back on this experience. It made me consider how the institutions discussed in class have such a hard task of really understanding their audiences, as it will influence everything that is done. In going back to Film 101, if a film wants to earn money, the audience targeted will be that audience that will spend their money. If filmmakers want more of a critical reaction, the spectators targeted will be more critics and theorists. The audience is key in the production and distribution of a film.
As I continue to ponder on the role of the spectator, I realize the many opportunities that moving to New York has allowed me pertaining to contact with more films (mainly in theater viewing instead of renting films after its distribution onto DVD), many of which are available because of the institutions we discussed in class. These readings helped me reconsider the importance of such institutions and emphasized the difficulty that they must deal with when deciding programs and films to screen.
Ashley Pacini
No comments:
Post a Comment