Thick Description, Short Essay and Critical Feedback Essay:
Thick Description: Watershed in Bristol and Phoenix Cinema in Falmouth
Millions-upon-millions of people go to cinemas worldwide every year. But it isn’t as simple as that, if you dissect this huge amount of people, you find a vast number of groups of people with different tastes, genre preferences and personalities. If you go even further, it is broken down into demographics: age, gender, race, economic status etc. This colourful and diverse range of people all want to watch different films, so, as a result there are different kinds of cinemas for these audiences to attend.
One of these cinemas is the ‘arthouse cinema’. An arthouse cinema is a variety of cinema, where more niche, indie and low-key films are shown; it’s also an independent institution the majority of the time, free of branding and franchising. It can be said that the films shown at arthouse cinemas can be described as ‘high-brow’ and, like most high-art, generally attracts a very particular kind of audience – middle-to-high class, wealthy and intelligent with high cultural capital. The ‘Watershed’ cinema on Bristol’s riverside in the city centre is no exception to this generality. The Watershed is a rather small venue with, along with being a place to watch indie films, it doubles up as a bar and café for cinemagoers to frequent before or after watching the film. This duality of purpose creates a sense of larger experience for the respective Watershed attendee. What I mean by this is that, as opposed to major brand cinemas, someone going to the Watershed can spend hours there, be it having lunch, watching the film and then having an alcoholic beverage afterwards; the film-watching itself can be seen as only a part of the experience. Some people may even go to the watershed just for the sole purpose of having a coffee at the cafe, or a drink at the bar. For example, as you walk up the staircase (the whole place is in a centuries-old building, above shops and bars), you are a presented with a choice, head left to the cinema screens, or turn right to the murmur and chatter of the café and bar. In a chain cinema, the cinema screens are of central importance and everything else (service and community aspects like eating areas etc) are secondary. This focus on the community aspect is reflected in the prices of the tickets and the goods you can get there (food and drink. For example, the ticket price to watch a film after 16:00 costs £10 for adults, but it is £8 before 16:00. An evening out at the Watershed can cost upwards of £15 if an adult wants to watch a film and then have a single pint afterwards.
Another cinema that I have visited, and a cinema that I am comparing the Watershed to, is the Phoenix Cinema in Falmouth, Cornwall. This cinema belongs to the Merlin cinema chain, a British company who generally places their cinemas in smaller seaside towns, much like Falmouth. They operate entirely in the South west of England and have cinemas in places spanning from St. Ives in Cornwall, to Coleford in Gloucestershire. The cinema that operates under the Merlin brand in Falmouth is the second biggest Merlin cinema in the country with 5 screens and a restaurant – somewhat resembling a classic American diner – that operates upstairs. The cinema is built in a renovated church which can make it quite unique and attractive for a passer-by. This cinema differs vastly from the Watershed because it is part of a franchise that operates in over 3 counties. Furthermore, the films that are shown at the Phoenix Cinema are almost always mainstream, mass audience Hollywood productions. For example, during my visit at the Watershed, they were advertising a low-budget indie film that was being shown there, Peanut Butter Falcon (Nilson & Schwartz, 2019) – although its lead star is mainly known for the blockbuster franchise, Transformers. Whereas, at the same time, the Phoenix Cinema was showing major studio blockbusters, such as Joker (Phillips, 2019). These films have vastly differing budgets and target audiences; this is reflected in what cinemas they are shown in and how long they are shown at their respective cinemas.
However, what is unique about Phoenix Cinema is that it has shown indie films (ones that were also shown in arthouse, independent venues like the Watershed). An example of this is the film Bait (Jenkin, 2019), the film had a tiny budget and was shot in a way that lends itself to the middle-class audience with high cultural capital, like the people that go to the Watershed. Suffice to say, it was not a film made for the usual mass audiences that attend the Phoenix Cinema but more for the cinephiles at the Watershed. Despite this, the film was predominantly shown at the Phoenix because it’s set in Cornwall and had a local cast, rather than being there for people to soak up the artistry of it. This further goes to show that, even when an arthouse film is being shown at a mainstream cinema chain, it still amasses an audience that would generally be banded into the ‘mass audience’ category.
In terms of layout and aesthetic, the two cinemas differ greatly. As you enter the Watershed, you are presented with a small kiosk with a couple of screens advertising the films that they are showing; its primary function is to sell film tickets. Whereas, as you enter the Phoenix, past the billboards for the films they’re showing, you see a large and vibrant counter with up to 4 staff selling tickets and serving snacks. What’s more is that there is a stand of sweets next to the counter of popcorn, chocolate and slushies. Vastly different to the coffees and savoury snacks on offer at the Watershed, giving the Watershed a much more sophisticated appeal, drawing in an older audience. The Phoenix can be viewed as a cinema you spend little more than a couple of hours at (unless you go to the restaurant/bar), whereas the Watershed acts as a place to spend the whole afternoon to view art and discuss it in the quaint café afterwards, and that is reflected in the demographics of people going there.
Word count: 1031
Gill Branston and Whether Hunger Games is a High Concept Film
Simply put, a ‘high concept’ film is a film designed by its producers to be important and economically successful. Gill Branston refers to the classic films Psycho (Hitchcock, 1960) and Jaws (Spielberg, 1975) as a means to explain what a high concept film is. For example, Alfred Hitchcock told audiences not to come into the screening of Psycho after it had started and pleaded with them not to spoil the numerous twists in the film. Steven Spielberg did it a bit differently, Jaws was based off of a popular and classic book, thus generating excitement and ‘hype’ about the film in that way – this was a pioneering moment in cinema and was a catalyst behind the idea of an ‘event movie’ and ‘summer blockbusters’. Put plainly, an event movie is similar to a high concept movie, but it is the audience(s) that place this importance on a film before it even comes out; often, a high concept film becomes an event film. The Hunger Games (Ross, 2012), and its succeeding multi-million dollar franchise, is a perfect example of this idea of a high concept film becoming an event movie.
Steven Spielberg believed that “if a person can tell me the idea in 25 words or less, it’s going to make a pretty good movie”, this also is a big factor behind the idea of a high concept film, having an easily communicable idea. The Hunger games can fit into this pretty easily, for example, one could say that the Hunger Games is a ‘life and death battle between adolescents in a dystopian future for bourgeois entertainment’. Going back to the closing sentence in the first paragraph, the Hunger Games is a film that was based on a popular book series, so it already had an established audience and fanbase that placed excitement on the movie’s release even before it was put into production, it is likely that the producers made the film because they knew of its established, dedicated fanbase. What’s more, the film had a star-studded, mostly youthful cast (Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson etc.) Whilst it is easy to just label the Hunger Games as a high concept film, one of the big reasons it is labelled as such are because of the major business and economic factors behind the producers placing so much importance on it.
In addition, Gill Branston makes the connection between high concept cinema and ‘multi-marketed rollercoasters. She mentions about the synonymity between perceived quality and high-production costs but also makes the comparison between theme parks and these high-budget/concept films, ‘they form a part of a highly publicised intention to give the audience a spectacularly visceral experience, via both sound and image, which they will not easily forget. Theme parks promise a repeat of the cinematic thrill, and are now often built with the design talents of the same people making the movies’ (pp. 47). It can be interpreted that the rush and excitement one gets from going on a rollercoaster in a theme park is replicated by movies that have a huge budget and that are highly anticipated by audiences, with the anticipation’s payoff being watching the film, similarly to the emotional payoff one gets when riding a rollercoaster.
This is all well and good, but how does this relate to the Hunger Games? The Hunger Games had an advertising budget of $45million alone. Around two-thirds of the film’s total budget of $78million. The producers placed so much value on the advertisement because they could be almost certain they would get their money back. The film was distributed by Lionsgate Films, the flagship subsidiary of Lionsgate Entertainment, who control numerous media outlets. This control of the media means that Lionsgate could push the film across multiple platforms but under the same company, combined with the more traditional methods of advertisement like posters and television spots to show the trailer etc. ‘this mass embedding publicity clout might suggest that such films cannot fail’ (Branston, pp.47). she continues by mentioning how most high-budget films cover their costs in the afterlife via means of television, toys, books etc – obviously the latter doesn’t really apply to the Hunger Games because of its established plotlines and book series.
Furthermore, I mentioned about how Lionsgate could push and advertise the Hunger Games by using its many subsidiaries across the media industry to maximise its audience and minimise the risk. This is called vertical integration. It is a term used in business, economics and media where a company (usually a conglomerate) sell or advertise a product by using other companies under the same banner (subsidiaries) to increase the company’s market share and have greater process control. This is likely what the producers of the Hunger Games employed when they released the first film; more anticipation increases across a wider platform as more people are seeing the film being advertised, this helped bring in a new audience as well as having this already (almost) guaranteed audience. Minimising risk, maximising audience, thus maximising profit – meaning they can use this profit to fund the future Hunger games franchise and sell it to a higher degree across even more platforms and for a longer amount of time (should the first film be successful, which it emphatically was).
Continuing on the path of advertisement and the business aspect to high concept and high budget films, it is likely that the Hunger Games distributors, Lionsgate, used a technique called ‘saturation advertisement’ (Branston, pp. 48). Simply put, this technique is just flooding the marketplace with ad messages. In American media, as it so reliant on commercial spots, means that Lionsgate would have the short teaser for Hunger Games playing constantly during ad breaks at primetime and during sports events, i.e. the Superbowl half-time advertisements. Similarly to vertical integration, this introduces the film to the most mainstream audience possible and is only there to draw in viewers and build excitement for the big screen adaptation of a renowned book series. However, in criticism of the idea of saturation advertisement, flooding the market with ads may deter some audiences as they are constantly seeing this product being advertised and that can be off-putting. Furthermore, it allows viewers to pre-judge the film based on its repetitive showing in he media, with some filmmakers labelling this as one of the main reasons some films failed to be successfully marketed. This problem didn’t apply to the Hunger Games however, as it made almost $700million worldwide and $67.3million (figures from boxofficemojo.com) on its opening-day, setting box office records for a non-sequel (no doubt as a result of a combination of heavy advertisement, bringing in mainstream audiences, and pre-established hype from established fans).
However, the tried and tested model of the high concept film can be criticised. For example, a film’s producers can never be absolutely certain a high-budget, heavily advertised film will be guaranteed of an audience. As previously mentioned, a high concept film (put simply) is a film designed by its producers to be important and having an easily communicable idea, but if the film is no good, it will never make as much money as the producers would have hoped, even if the idea can be easily pitched. Not only that, but a mishap in the marketing or, say, if they filmmakers of the Hunger Games didn’t honour the books, then that would have directly and heavily impacted the sales figures of the film. It still would have been a high film, but any audience excitement would have dimmed. Obviously, this is purely hypothetical and in hindsight, as the film was a major success and led to a franchise that retains its status as a high concept, and event, film.
In conclusion, Hunger Games is a clear and definitive example of the notion of high concept cinema. It used its source material as a means to build an audience and enthusiasm even before the film had released, as reflected by its record-breaking box-office statistics. Perhaps my title/hypothesis for this essay was poor, as Hunger Games is quite clearly a high concept film, and that statement is supported by the business and economic factors. One could say that it is a modern Jaws, in the sense that these two films are easily interchangeable when explaining the idea of high concept cinema – both are based on books, both had high budgets and both spawned famous franchises that made a lot of money by means of merchandising, toys, theme parks (multi-marketed rollercoasters) etc; obviously there is no comparison in their respective narratives though.
Word count: 1420
Bibliography:
- Branston, Gill, ‘High-concept and multi-marketed rollercoasters’, in Cinema and Cultural Modernity, Buckingham and Philadelphia: OUP, 2000, pp.46-48.
- https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl4049110529/ 2012, IMDbPro
Reflection on Group Work
For the work on the blog site, I worked in tandem with Luke Gardener and Corey Powles. This assignment involved working together to create a film blog website to put our essays on but also to show how well we could use WordPress. We met a number of times in the library to discuss ideas and then put them into motion. We tried to split responsibility (of creating the site) into equal thirds, but since we all had varying levels of technological know-how, this proved to be quite the task.
As I felt I had the creative touch, I was in charge of the design of the blog and the overall aesthetics of the page. I would organise what images we used (we all had chosen the Hunger Games as the subject for our essays so that made it somewhat easier to work with) and where they would go, where to place the blogs and how to lay them out etc. This is quite a simple task in theory, but as is a common theme throughout all of our contributions, WordPress itself provided the biggest hurdle in achieving what we actually wanted to make.
Luke’s contribution was as the ‘linguistics expert’, as it were, and was in charge of what to write and where to place the writing. This includes titles, sub-titles, headings and the more minute features, e.g. the ‘about us’ section at the bottom of the page. One other aspect of Luke’s contribution was the providing of the links to our individual essay pages.
Finally, Corey was our proof-reader and our editor, essentially. As we all had little-to-no experience with WordPress, Corey stepped in to attempt to correct any errors we may have made. An example of an error I made was the images were the wrong size and had different resolutions, Corey had the role of re-sizing the images and make them fit better in accordance to the rest of the page. Another example would be the grammatical errors that were made, were quickly ironed out.
In conclusion, I would say that our group worked pretty effectively as we had finished the website within 2 sessions within one day. It was a relaxed environment and that made it easier to brainstorm ideas, but our productivity was reduced as a result of this. WordPress itself was a major hindrance to what we wanted to achieve, we did not know how to use its functions even hours after use. We all had the same vision (of the website) in our heads but the tools on WordPress were rudimentary at best. For example, there was no option to drag and place images, this turned out to be a significant point of frustration for us. As I had previous experience using other website creators (Wix.com), my overall satisfaction with the end product was significantly reduced as I felt it could have been a lot better than what it was. Obviously, I am only speaking for myself but I think my peers in the group agreed that WordPress was hardly fit for purpose.
Word count: 511
The Film Blog 