Here is my post from another film thread which is very similar
I've always argued that there are those that go to the cinema for no more than all out entertainment (which is fine ) and those who go looking for an experience
I see films of that nature as a bit of fun, something I'll forget about after I leave the cinema. Like I said, for many that is more than enough to warrant their admission fee.
Here is the conclusion from my dissertation on Michael Haneke
Production teams within Hollywood are far from foolish; they are just as aware as Haneke, or debatably even more aware, of the ongoing abyss within mainstream cinema. The distinction between Haneke and Hollywood is apparent in how they address the abyss. Mainstream cinema deliberately chooses to welcome and conform to it because consumption is the preference at the box office juxtaposed to provocation.
Haneke argues that Hollywood’s strive for audience satisfaction has never been the function of drama, stating that his films incorporate audience manipulation raping the viewer into interaction with the narrative. In doing so, empowering his audience to recognise their role in the ‘game of manipulation’ and relate it to their personal life experiences.
Haneke acknowledges raising more ‘insistent’ questions than ‘false’ answers at the conclusion of a film goes against the ‘consensus’ of the majority, this demonstrates that his productions do not prioritize audience satisfaction. Mainstream cinema’s emphasis on audience satisfaction has resulted in a ‘consumable commodity’ in which ‘going to the movies’ is part of mass culture. The ‘aesthetic of astonishment’ provides the audience with a spectacle of entertainment, guaranteeing box office success.
With reference to mass culture, art critic Clement Greenberg states that mainstream cinema:
Predigests art for the spectator and spares him the effort, provides him with a shortcut to the pleasures of art that detours what is necessarily difficult in genuine art''
Part 2
Audience A
Hollywood is so concerned with audience satisfaction that it feels obliged to pre-test its productions by exhibiting them to preview audiences before general release. In doing so, they receive feedback and alter the film with regards to how it can be made more ‘entertaining’
Evidence of this is apparent in the conclusions of Adrian Lynn’s Fatal Attraction (1987) and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) , which is now available in a ‘Directors Cut’. Ridley Scott claims the directors cut to be the superior version of Blade Runner but had to compromise this as a means of audience satisfaction, to ensure maximum profits at the box office. The directors cut granted Ridley Scott complete artistic control. Blade Runner is the story of ex-cop Rick Deckard, (Harrison Ford) who is re-hired to eliminate genetically engineered humans known as ‘replicants’. As the narrative progresses, Deckard begins to have feelings for one of the replicants, which inevitably complicates his mission. The theatrical release (1982) provides the audience with a conventional ‘happy ending’ in which both characters escape proclaiming their love for each together. The directors cut (1992) replaces this scene completely, and puts an emphasis on ambiguity, striving for audience interaction, as the two lead characters exit in a lift with no further explanation of what the future holds. Another significant difference between the theatrical release and the director’s cut is the removal of the didactic explanatory voiceover, which accompanied the whole duration of the theatrical release. The thought of Haneke ‘compromising’ one of his productions to please the masses is quite frankly comical, and it is here where the distinction can be drawn between auteur and box office success.
A demonstration of how far Hollywood are willing to go to satisfy their audience can be seen in Kevin Macdonald’s The Last King of Scotland (2006), an evocative depiction of Uganda under president Idi Amin. We are informed that the story is ‘inspired’ by true events. The term inspired empowers the director to manipulate the audience by confabulating the events as a means of entertainment.
Protagonist Dr. Nicholas Garrigan (physician to Idi Amin) played by James Mcavoy, finds himself in a perplexing situation as Amin installs trust in him and promotes him to his personal advisor. Dr Garrigan witnesses scenes of mass genocide and abhorrent acts of cruelty including the ostracization of his third wife, Kerry Washington, after giving birth to an epileptic child.
In the climactic scene, Dr.Garrigan (based on British soldier Bob Astles) escapes as he boards a plane full of Israeli hostages ready to spread the word of Amin’s barbaric regime. This depiction is a far cry from the truth. Conversely, Bob Astles was imprisoned for six and a half years for his role in Amin’s regime.
‘Inspired’ by true events provides justification for Kevin MacDonald’s portrayal of ‘false answers’ in which the spectator is ‘disempowered’ into ‘consumption’ as a means of avoiding ‘provocation’ to adhere to ‘consensus’.
This shows that the narrative in mainstream cinema often abides by chronological linearity and causality in which all enigmas must be answered to assure audience satisfaction. In A Practical Manual of Screenplay Writing, Lewis Herman argues:
‘Care must be taken that every hole is plugged; that every loose string is tied together, that every absence is fully explained; that every entrance and exit is fully motivated’
Hollywood is set apart from its competition due to its commercial scale and universal appeal. For the majority, entertainment alone is enough to warrant their admission fee. Audiences aren’t encouraged to ‘work’ but to merely consume, and judging by Avatars success at the box office, they are more than happy to do so.
Audience B
At it’s best; film should be like a ski-jump. It should give the viewer the option of taking flight, while the act of jumping is left up to them
Haneke steers away from didactic explanatory narratives as he strives for ambiguity. Haneke forces his viewers to interact with the narrative to come to their own interpretation of the enigmas presented throughout, whilst provoking the audience to ‘kick start their intelligent and emotional engines, into motion and production’ 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance is by no means a coincidental title, ‘it’s only via fragmentation that a story can be told honestly’
This is a contrast to the ‘disempowerment’ of the spectator as proposed by Haneke who states that in mainstream cinema, we always pretend to know it all. Haneke argues that we never know what the truth is, there are a thousand versions of the truth and ones interpretation is dependant on perspective
Personally, I enjoy a combination of the two, a film that is very entertaining but makes the audience work. Hence why I'm very much looking forward to seeing Inception at the IMAX on Monday.
