News, Reviews, Clues, Interviews and Other Ancillary Materials

22 Pages·2015·0.1 MB·English

by  Mark Gallagher

News, Reviews, Clues, Interviews and
Other Ancillary Materials -- A Critique and
Research Proposal
Martin Barker, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales
DirectorJohn Lassiterandhis computerartists andscientists spent four years
designingeverything you see,everycharacter,houseandcar,downtoeach of
the1.2millionleaves onthetrees inAndy's neighbourhood. Infact themore
youknow about howit was made, you'll neverbe abletowatchToyStorythe
samewayagain.(Narrator's commentary,documentaryaccompanyingthe
DVDSpecial Collector's EditionofToyStory,2001)
Movie-makers andpublicists havelongknownsomethingwhichfilm researchers and
analysts havenot yet muchconsidered.This performativeact from theToy Story
documentary--tryingtoensurethat somethingoccurs bydint ofannouncingit --is aprime
exampleofaphenomenonstill toomuchignored.
Therehas been asteady, andmuchtobewelcomed,moveinrecent years awayfrom a
primarilytext-interpretativeapproachtofilms. Althoughthemoveis farfrom complete,there
areanumberof clearsigns that it is takingplace. Theacknowledgement of aneedfor
situatedunderstandingof howfilms areproduced, andthat attempts todeterminea
"meaning"tofilms without regardtotheirtimeandmodeofproductionare unsustainable,is
onesign.Theslowthoughhesitant development ofaudiencestudies is another.Athird,
whichthis essayis interestedin,is thepartial acknowledgement oftheimportanceof(what
havebeenvariouslycalled)secondary,ancillaryor satellitetexts whichshapeinadvancethe
conditions underwhichinterpretations offilms areformed.
In a1989essay, Barbara Klingeridentifiedand consideredverythoughtfullyanumberofthe
problems emergingfrom text-centrednotions offilm (Klinger,1989).Takingofffrom a
discussionofforms ofuninhibitedbehaviour(callingout,repeatinglines of dialogue, etc)
whichdraw attentiontothecollectivenatureof cinema-going,shedevelopedanargument
that suchbehaviours shouldnot beseenas abnormal (howeverirritatingtheymight beon
occasion!).Rather,theysignal audiences'moments ofdeparturefrom engrossment inthe
film/text,intoavarietyofintertextual frames. Klingerproposed callingthese"digressions".
Herargument is important andhas beeninfluential.But callingthem "digressions", Iwant to
argue,raises anumberof difficulties.
First,it suggests that,wereit not forthedigressions, audiences wouldbeinthrall tothe
"text". It might bethecase,ofcourse,that ourcinematiccultureis empiricallyso richin
occasions fordigressionthat noactual enthralledaudiencecould everbefound.But evenso,
theideaofenthralment lurks behind"digressions",andthis backgroundanalytic construct
canstill distract us from exploringintheoppositedirection--that theseacknowledgements
ofcontext maynot takeus awayfrom thefilm,orleadto"fragmentation"of thetext,as
Klinger argues. Ratherthan"momentaryguidedexits from thetext",whichsuggests that
digressions arelikemomentarylapses inconcentration, Iwill arguethat weshouldthinkof
such things as materials whichguideandhelp construct themannerweattendto,andindeed
oftenconcentrateon,the films wewatch. But theimplications ofthis concentrationarevery
different from thoseimpliedby"textual enthralment"(Klinger,1989: 14).
Thedifferenceis important.Afilm has what wemight call a relativeontological priorityover
thosematerials whichaccompany,surround, and discursivelyaddress it.Thefilm constitutes
thegroundoftheirexistence.But inreturn,theirrelationtoit is tofunctionbyproposing
reasons andstrategies for preparingto goandseeit --orfor reflectingsubsequentlyonthe
natureofthe experience obtained.
Klinger elaboratedherinitial proposal inherstudyofDouglas Sirk's changingreputation
(Klinger,1996).She explores thewaythereputationofhis films changedovertimeacross
"subversive,adult,trash, classic,camp, andvehicles of genderdefinition" (Klinger, 1996:
xv).Theinsights from this researchareenormouslyvaluable.However, whentheorisingthe
significanceofthis, Klingertakes astepwhichtroubles me.Rightlynotingthat wemustn't
assumethat reviews are abletodictateresponses -- that wouldjust betext-determinism at
anotherlevel --sheturns insteadtoRobert AllenandDouglas Gomery's suggestionthat
perhaps reviews maytell us what tothinkabout,ratherthanwhat tothink.This useofavery
general principlefrom theUses andGratifications traditionworryinglyforecloses researchon
theconcreteconsequences ofmodes ofreviewingpractice. Andperhaps the motiveforthis
foreclosurecomes from theresistancewithinAmericanreceptionresearchtotheEuropean
traditionofaudienceresearch.
Addressingrelatedproblems, Thomas Austinhas recentlyofferedawide-rangingand
judicious surveyofthecurrent stateofthinkingabout therelations betweentextual analysis,
audience research andwhat hecalls "satellite" texts (Austin,2002). Inlayingthe groundfor
his ownargument,Austindefends theproject of audienceresearchagainst thecriticisms
whichhaveflowedfrom American receptiontheory. Critics suchas Janet StaigerandCynthia
Erbhave arguedthat audienceresearchholds toa chimeraofunmediatedaccess to "pure"
responses. Austin's replytothis is important,andonethat Iwouldwant toaccept and extend:
Anyandall forms of evidence--whethertextual orethnographic,
contemporaryorretrospective--areamediationofthemoment offilm
reception,an experience that canonlyeverberetrievedthroughtheoperations
oflanguage.Thereis thus no'pure'andpre-discursivesourceof evidence
beyondthe 'stumblingblocks'ofmediation,representationanddistortion.Yet
this is what Staiger's rejectionofaudienceresearchimplies. Moreover,the
needforqualitativeaudienceresearchis highlightedbytherestrictednature of
Staiger's own contextual investigations, whichomit empirical details of
everydaycinemagoing,andcanultimatelyonlyhypothesiseabout possible
audience responses. (Austin,2002: 26)
HoweverAustindoes not particularlypursuetheimplications ofthis forStaiger's own,
increasinglyinfluential,strategies ofuseofsatellitematerials. Twobooks ofStaiger's have
exploredfilm reviews inelaboratingherwider argument that film meaningderives primarily
from contexts ofreception,ratherthantextual formation(Staiger,1992; Staiger,2000).This
approachhas providedthebasis fora growingrangeofotherworks, forinstanceCynthia
Erb's bookonthehistoryofKingKonginthemovies and,albeit inmuchless structured
fashion,someessays in Loshitzky's edited collectionon Schindler's List (Erb,1998;
Loshitzky,1997).
Theaddress toreviews is certainlyvaluable,especiallyinas muchas it challenges the
unstatedassumptioninmuchfilm analysis that thepresumedaudienceis somekindofend-
point,experiencingfilms as things-in-themselves, andonthebrunt endoftheirassembled
symbolicforce.Seeingreviews rather as indicators ofreceptionprocesses at theveryleast
reminds us that film viewingoftentakes placefor quitespecificpurposes -- andtobeawriter
ofreviews is tobeoneparticularkind of audience.
But thereis aproblem in thesheerprivilegingof reviews overotherkinds ofancillary
materials, aprivilegingwhichassociates withthe greaterattentionthis leads to,towards
"serious"overpopularfilms. It is troublesomebecause,ofcourse,it is popularcinemawhich
is most seriouslyengrossedinthephenomenonof publicity, gossip,andotherancillary
materials. Iwas remindedofthis issuewhenre-watchingrecentlyatelevisioninterviewwith
theGuardianfilm criticDerekMalcolm,whocommented:
What thefilm companies, themajorcompanies want,is coveragefrom other
thancritics, show-business correspondents, interviews withthestars, scandal
about thestars, anythingthat is goingto get them inthepapers, onthe radio on
thetelevision.Thelast thingtheyreallymindabout is apompous criticsaying
it reallyisn't verygood. Nowadays ifit's areallybigfilm,it's not thereviews
that theyreallyrequire,it's thepublic.Andthat's ratherdifferent,because most
ofthepublicdoesn't read reviews. (Malcolm,1998)
Malcolm alerts us todimensions that donot fit easilywithinStaiger's approach: that formany
films, it isn't so muchthekindoftalkthat matters as theamount.Forthis andotherreasons,
then,Staiger andothers'exclusivefocus onserious, broadsheet reviews maybemissingthe
mark. It also reminds us that talkaroundfilms is veryimportantlyawayof generating
expectations ofpleasures --orof course,intheotherdirection,fears ofdisappointment,or
evenofdiscomfort anddislike.
Publicitycampaigns haveadistinctiverhythm.Theyflowfrom leaks and teasers, advance
information,websitepresentations, throughposter campaigns, advertorials, television
advertising,into--as releasefinallyapproaches --publicationofMaking Of books, released
interviews withstars, director,andothers ElectronicPress Kits, andthefinal floodandpush
topersuadepeopleto givethemovieatry.Thesignificanceofthis canbelost ifweattend
onlyorprimarilytoreviews. Reviews needtobeconsideredfortheirplace intheflowoftalk
aroundafilm; forthe extent towhichtheyspeakonlytotheirtarget community,or
alternativelyhowfartheirargument flows beyond intoaninterdiscursiveterrainwherewider
debates about a film's status maytakeplace. Iproposethat weneedtoset reviews withinthe
fieldofmarketingandpublicitymaterials, Press Kits andEPKs, contractually-required
interviews andphotoopportunities, andso on--whichtogether, Iwill argue,constitutemore
orless patterneddiscursivepreparations forthe act ofviewing. Ortoput it morecrudely, we
needtostudyhowall the circulatingpriorinformation,talk,images anddebates generate and
shapeexpectations which will influencehowwe watchamovie.Myconcernthereforeis with
howwemight studytheseancillarymaterials intheiranticipatoryandthus prefigurative
capacity.
Blockbuster Lessons
Anotherrelevant corpus ofwork,foundinstudies ofthe"NewHollywood",has drawn
attentiontothestudios'increasingdependence after1975onthe Blockbuster "event"movie.
Thesuccess ofsuchmovies depends heavilyupon alaunchweekendto establish their"legs"
at thecinema.Andthat launchweekendis built onthebackofdeluges of publicity.Thomas
Schatz amongothers has demonstratedtheneedforthemarketers, as part of this, toestablish
clearsingulardefiningconcepts foreachsuchfilm --the "HighConcept"of DonSimpson
fame(Schatz,1993; Fleming,1998). Bydrawingattentiontothesignificanceoftie-ins,
licensingagreements and merchandising,theseworks remindus oftheextent towhichfilms
arenot self-contained "texts".Theyarelikelytobeencountered,fortheiraudiences, through
morethanonechannel -- andthereis noreason in principletosupposethat,forall audiences,
thefilm is themost important component inthepackage(seeAppendix One).
But workofthis kindtends toestimatecampaigns bytheir expense--hencetheinterest in
stating,as quitea few authors do,therisingproportionofbudgets whichis devotedto
marketingandpublicity. Therehas beenmuchless attentiontohowsuchcampaigns work.As
aresult,theseaccounts mainlydeal onlysketchilywiththecareers ofpublicityforparticular
films. Theexceptions are,interestingly,wheretherehavebeenserious conflicts andoften
failures. Therehas forinstancebeensomeinterest intheriseofwebsites suchas Harry
Knowles'aint-it-cool-news,andthemanoeuvres ofthestudios (from threats oflegal action,
throughtryingtoincorporateKnowles, finallyarrivingat a relative accommodation--
Knowles, 2002),and evenwithafewmovies (The Blair WitchProject beingthemost famous
--Telotte,2001)buildingthemajorparts oftheirpublicitycampaignthroughsuchdialogues)
as theytriedtocometoterms withthem (seeAppendix Two).But interest inthese
phenomenaremains primarilyanecdotal.
Inherrecent overviewof debates aroundcinema andmodernity,Gill Branstonraises someof
theissues Iam tryingto explore.Shewrites: "Distributionandexhibitiondonot simply
'deliver'acommodityunaffectedbytheirdeliveryroutes, especiallythepreviewingandthe
exhibitionpractices neededtoensuremoneyback onglobal blockbusters." (Branston,2000:
76)Discussingthe extent towhichaudiences can beconsideredfreeagents inchoosingwhat
theywill watch,andhow theywill watchthem,sheconsiders the ways in whichfilm releases
areaidedbysupportivebut "tied"paraphernaliasuchas studioclips andcopyright-free
photos. This, shesuggests, encourages thetendencies forthePress toparticipateinthe
marketinggameandto assumeamask ofmock-positivity-- amask which removes anyneed
toconsiderwhetheraudiences aresatisfiedordisappointed.Branstonstops at thepoint of
recognisingthat thesetendencies encouragea "knowingness",whichshechooses tocall
"postmodern".Tomyeye,this is tooloose.Whilepointingtothephenomenon,this unwieldy
generalisationhardlyencourages investigationoftheconcreteprocesses involvedin
particular cases.
Thesebits andpieces aside,thereis littleinthewayofsystematicstudyof ancillarytexts.
Audiencestudies, which seem anywaytobeinretreat at present,havehardlyaddressed
issues ofpriorexpectations. Thenearest thingtothis might bethesmall groupofstudies, of
whichAnnetteKuhn's studyis perhaps thebest example,ofhistorical audiences'interests in
stars (Kuhn,1999).Austinhas someveryinterestingthings tosayabout "satellitetexts"; one
ofhis emphases is onthe steps takenbyproductioncompanies torespond toandmanage
problematicdiscourses aroundtheirfilms, thus usefullyemphasisingtheprocess ofthese
overtime(Austin,2002). But it is hardtofindmorethanthese.
Isuggest that this is aserious gap.Evenaslight examinationofourowncinema-going
practices tells us that significant prefigurativeprocesses areregularlyat work. Ichallenge
anyonereadingthis tosaythat theyhavenot encounteredsituations where theyhavebeena)
irritatedwhen areview"gives awaytheplot"ofa film,orb)spent timeinafilm waitingfor a
moment tooccurwhichhas featuredinthetrailer, orc)comeout ofafilm thinking"that was
betterthan/ wasn't as bad as Ihadexpected",or d) chosenamovietoseeinparticular
company,orchosencompanytoseeaparticular movie,becauseofexpectations, ore)anyof
astringofvariants ontheseveryordinaryways in whichresponses toa film havebeen
affectedbyforeknowledge andexpectations. Thesearetheepiphenomenal expressions ofa
set ofprocesses whichwehavehardlybeguntorecognise,let aloneresearch.Theyare
important becausetheyconstitutethemost systematicchallengetotextualist approaches to
film. Ifno real audience couldever approximatetothenaïveaudiencepresumedby
interpretativeapproaches,does it not becomeahollowexercisetosearchfor"meanings"
whichcouldneverattach toanyone?
This lackofattentionis surprising, giventhe riseininterest inperformativeness.To
emphasisetheperformativeinhumanbehaviouris todrawattentiontothe ways inwhich
peopleinall situations (includingthereforethesituationofbeingaudiences)playroles, and
managetheirself-presentation,inlight oflearnedrules. That theserules will usuallybe
experiencedas normal andobvious is preciselythe point: onlyaslightlydistancedmannerof
investigationwill bringthem intoview.Consider,then,JonathanRosenbaum's recent assault
onthe"normality" ofways oftalkingabout cinema. Inthecourseofpolemicisingagainst
repeatedassertions ofthe "declineofcinema",blamedonstudios'"givingtheaudiencewhat
theywant",hepoints tothewayso manypublications nowroutinelylist the top-tenbox
office grossers (seeAppendix Three).Whydotheydothis, heasks? Aren't theyineffect
positingtoaudiences that theinterestingthingtobeaskedabout amovieis "Howbig(an
event)is it?".What Rosenbaum is pointingtois aninterestingcaseofwhat wemight call
indirect performativespeech.Performativeutterances werefirst analysedbythephilosopher
J.L.Austin,whodrewattentiontosentences whosedeliveryis itselfanecessarycondition
forthecompletionofthe situationofwhichtheyarepart.So"Inowpronounce youmanand
wife"performs theact of marriage,providedother circumstances havebeen properly
attendedtoandprovided that thespeakeris investedwiththeappropriateauthority.Austin's
focus onthis special groupoffirst-person sentences has subsequentlybeen extendedby
others toidentifyperformativeaspects of avast amount oftalkandwriting.So"Someonehas
left thedooropen"is, accordingto context,infact arequest that thenearest person nowclose
it --as well as, perhaps, offeringamilddenunciationofan(un-named)person's failure.And
so on.But then,thinktheprefigurative forceof "Everyoneshouldseethis movie"or "This is
onesick,degradedfilm whichnooneintheirright mindwouldchoosetowatch..."
Prefigurativetalkabout films seems tometohavestronglyperformative aspects. Theymay
turnout tobeindirect,inthesensethat thebehaviours theyconstituteandadvancewill not be
directlyconnectedtothe informational content of thespeech. But that maypreciselybethe
gain.Perhaps unusually, it shouldenableus tomovebeyond general statements about
performativitytodefininghow, andunder what circumstances, concreteresponses areinfact
elicited.
Prefigurative Materials
What kinds ofmaterials areinvolvedhere? Therangeis wide,andcanneverbeclosed,since
newvariants are constantlyappearing.Thereis, first,araft ofmaterials producedbythefilm
producers, distributors andmarketers. TheseincludeCampaign Books, Press Books (and
associatedProductionStills),ElectronicPress Kits,Press Releases, Teasers, Posters, Trailers,
contractually-required Interviews, leaks, free give-aways, prizes ofitems from theset,andso
on.Thereis aparallel bodyofmaterials produced byorganisations actinginconcert witha
film's makers: books, programmes on"TheMakingOf..."thefilm,educational
documentaries, merchandisers, licenceholders, product placers andthose withtie-in
agreements invarious modes circulateimages, especiallylogos, from afilm.
Therehas beenuseful research,bothindustry-basedandacademic,onthe "addedvalue"
whichbrandnames andlogos contributeto goods, but so faras Iknow,noneofthis has been
specificallyconnected withfilms (McLaughlin,1996: 101-30).Several authors, forexample,
havenotedthefact that JurassicParkmanagedto displayits ownlogo and indeed
merchandisingwithinthe film's diegesis. Noneof them taketheargument beyondthis point,
toask howthis presence, oncenotedbyviewers, might affect processes of viewing.Tohave
histories ofsomeofthe makers ofthesewouldinitselfconstituteasignificant contributionto
ourknowledgeoftheseprocesses. Unless Ihave missedthem,weawait eventhebeginnings
ofahistoryof,forinstance,Boxtree Books who (alongwithoneortwootherpublishers)
haveproducedmanyofthe"MakingOf..."books intheUK; andFilmEducationwhich,
until recently,produceda regularflow ofdocumentaries broadcast latenight bythe BBC for
teachers touseintheclassroom (timedtocoincide withthereleaseofthefilms themselves,
thus constitutingthemselves as astrangepart ofthepublicityprocess (see Appendix Four).
Anotherarea awaitingsignificant attentionis theworldofparallel releases.Many
contemporaryreleases nowspannot just film andvideo,but (as inthecase ofJudgeDredd)
anofficial comicbookadaptation,anewspaper comic-stripversion,anovelisationalongwith
anaudiobookofthat novelisation,andseveral small booklets tellingthe"storyofthemovie"
throughthe eyes of asecondarycharacter.Whiletherehas beenrecognitionofthe
importanceofthesenarrativeextensions forfans of,forinstance,Star Wars orStar Trek, Ido
not knowofanyworkon thewaytheoriginal maybevieweddifferentlyas aresult ofcontact
withtheseparallels, extensions, reframings, back-histories andthelike.Rather,theemphasis
offanstudies has beenonthefans' ownseizures andappropriations ofthe original "text"
(Jenkins, 1992).Again,at backofthis, is amodel suggestingthat but for audiences'"activity"
or"resistance" anunsulliedtext might influencethem (seeAppendix Five).
Useful workhas, however,beendoneonthehistory, form andfunctionofsomeofthese
kinds ofancillarymaterials. Afewindustryinsiders havetoldthestoryof film marketingin
veryuseful ways (Earnest,1983; Lukk,1997).Press Books havebeen givensomeserious
attentionbyresearchers (Miller,1994).Therehas beenadeal ofattentiontotheroleof
advertisinginrelationtofilms (DeBauche,1985; Haralovich,1985).Andtherehas been
growingattentiontotherelations between films andconsumerism,especiallywithregardto
women's consumption(Gaines, 1989; Eckert,1992; DesserandJowett,2000).There are
studies ofpublicityphotographs, afewofwhichexploretherelationshipbetweenthese and
theirsource film (Wolfe,1991).Again, Iwouldwant tostress theimportanceofsituatingall
thesediachronically.The releaseofHannibal (2001)provides aninterestingcaseinpoint.
Afteran earlyspateofpublicitywhichemphasised thelinks withtheearlier Silenceof the
Lambs (1991),ashift inmarketingstrategytook place,perhaps inresponsetoanawareness
that thelaterfilm was likelytoloseout inthecomparison. Insteaddistributors emphasised
thepresenceof abizarre romanceinHannibal -- andthis was condensedintoits releasedate:
Valentine's Day.This practice(of coursebest knownfrom theearliertimed releaseonJuly
4thofIndependence Day)was thenbackedbyaseries ofpractisedpuns, suchas "He's aman
after yourheart..."
Alongsidethese"sponsored"materials, thereis arangeofothermaterials withdifferent
degrees ofdependenceonafilm's makers ordistributors. Magazines withaspecialist interest
inparticular genres of films will frequentlybe grantedaccess toadditional photographs,
interviews, andinformationonthoseaspects of afilm whichwill particularlyinterest their
readers --therebyhelpingtoensurethat thefilm will get substantial coverage(Pierson,
1999).This indicates adegreeofmutual dependence,althoughfilm companies knowthat this
does not automaticallyleadtopraise.Alongsidethese,Press screenings withtheirassociated
packages of "goodies"tojournalists workarounda peckingorder--themoreimportant
mediaandindividuals will beassuredaseat,while regional andlocal journalists will often
havetodepend, at least at first,onwhat theycanlearnfrom thosefirst tothetable(see
Appendix Six).This mayactuallygivethemorepowerful journalists apositionfrom which
theycanbemorecritical,iftheywish, sincetheyareunlikelytobebarredfrom futurePress
Screenings. But journalists domorethanreview -- films areoftensufficientlyculturally
salient toproduceotherkinds ofcoverage.Gossip, exposés, backgroundstories, andof
courseintendedorunintendedcelebrityinformationandimages aresignificant parts ofthe
meanings bywhichfilms canbeframed.Eyes WideShut (1998)is a goodrecent instanceof
this. Twokinds ofuncontrolledstorycirculated aroundthefilm: first,therepercussions of
StanleyKubrick's deathintherun-uptothefilm's release; second, gossipabout therelations
betweentheon-screenandoff-screenmarriageandsex lives ofTom CruiseandNicole
Kidman.
Besides all these,somejournalists sometimes deal morebroadly,discussingthesignificance
offilms. Theproducts of this kindofwritingshade intodebates andcontroversies around
films --where intothefraycomea wholearrayof moral entrepreneurial organisations,
educational bodies, political parties andspokespeople.Thespirals ofdiscoursethese generate
will also from timetotimebringonboard "experts"whowill provide evidence andargument
toparticipants. Inthis veinalso must beconsideredthedecisions, Press Releases andother
materials producedbyclassificationandcensorshipbodies, andtheways thesearealso then
mediatedbyothers.
Anotherarrayofmaterials tobeattendedtowill bethosewhichtradeontheappearanceof a
film topromotethemselves --but intheprocess will almost certainlycontaminatetheir
original.Hannibal againprovides atellingexample.Spoofingtheofficial posterquiteclosely
andrunningclosetoit,Pepperami ranadverts for theirproduct makingplayful referenceto
its "cannibalistic"tendencies. Meanwhile,Channel 4ranaseries ofthreedocumentaries on
cannibalism,publicisedas "thereal lifeHannibals".And--perhaps coincidentally,but
nonetheless allowingfor thewatchful to generate another "leak"from film toworld--
Channel 4's populararchaeological series TheTimeTeam(March2001) ran aspecial edition
onthediscoveryofthe first strongevidenceofcannibalism inBritish history.Weneedtoask
inwhat ways theseparallel materials mayimpact onthemannerinwhich audiences manage
theirexpectations ofafilm (seeAppendix Seven).
However,priortoinvestigatingthe audiences, we needperhaps totakeinto account how
strategicallychosenmanyofthesematerials will havebeen.Anillustration: arecent
newspaperarticle examinedtheextraordinaryrangeofreleasetie-ins forDisney's Monsters,
Inc.(Hodgkinson, 2002). Interestingly, Hodgkinson missedwhat is tomethemost interesting
featureofthesematerials: thealtogetherabsenceofonekind--product placements. Although
intheUKeverythingfrom breakfast cereals topower generatingcompanies sought tolink
theirnames withthis film,nonewas visiblewithinthefilm itself. It is possibletothinkof
several reasons whythis might bethecase.Absenceofnational-specific products allows for
cross-national publicity. But it also puts abufferzonearoundthe film,against thecriticisms
ofboththeanti-globalisation Left, andtheanti-gayRight --this is "purefilm",simplya fun
experience. But theimplications forsubsequent viewingmaybeconsiderable(seeAppendix
Eight).
Most recently,but alreadyof great importance,areinternet-basedinformationflows about
films. Everysignificant contemporaryfilm (but especiallythosetargetingrelativelyyouthful
audiences)has a website associatedwithits name, from whichimages can beacquired.Many
oftheseofferlinks tootherunofficial (fan)sites. Theywill also oftenoffer merchandise,
games, images; theywill offerteasers, sometimes answerquestions. Their virtuefrom
makers'anddistributors'perspectiveis that theyarerelativelyunmediated--thewebsites do
not dependonjournalists toprovideonwardtransmissionofindexical informationand
images. Theirrisks also lieinthis --theycantooeasilybe raided,pirated,andparodied.
Again,weneedtoknow muchmoreabout theprocesses ofpublicity-management revealed
bythese.
This is not acompletelist --as Isay, Idonot believethat therecanbesuchathing. But it
does perhaps indicatethe range.Thetask ofstudyingthis potential arraywithout falling
eitherintosimpledescriptiveness orintoanalytical chaos is clearlyatough one. Iaim to
outlineaseries ofstages bymeans ofwhichthis maybedone. Idrawhere ontheexperiences
ofanESRC-fundedstudy(Award No.R000222194)ofthereceptioninBritainofDavid
Cronenberg's Crash in1996-7toput forward aseries ofproposals forwhat wouldbe
involvedinastudyofthat collectionofsecondarytexts that includes productionnews,
reviews, interviews withdirectors and actors, teasers, trailers, posters, and otherpublicity
materials, debates, controversies, moral and classificatoryinterventions, etc. (Barker et al.,
2001).This wouldinfact onlybethe first stageof what Iconceiveas athree-stagemodeof
enquiry(althoughtosomeextent thethreestages maybeseparatelyundertaken).
Thefirst stageis astudyofthelifeofthe ancillarymaterials, andtheways inwhichthey
constituteadiscursiveframeworkarounda film,akindofmental scaffoldinggivingit
particularkinds of "support"(it canofcoursebehostile,hencethequotemarks)and
providingthemeans bywhichpeoplemay"climbinside"it.Ofcourse,it is unlikelythat
anyoneotherthan researchers likemyselfwill everencountermuchmore thanasmall
proportionoftheactually-produced array.This does not maketheindependent studyofthe
materials anyless relevant.As mycase-studyhopefullydemonstrates, aproperstudyofthe
materials will reveal the extent towhichtheyare patterned,drawingonthe samesources, and
usingthesame rangeofconcepts, questions, andjudgements. This thenconstitutes a
determinatediscursiveterrain(seeAppendix Nine). It can also hopefullydrawattentionto
points ofabrasionandconflict,andhowsometimes producers anddistributors will seekto
allayorovercomethese (Austin,2002: 11-42).
Thesecondstage,then, wouldbeastudyofhow different audiences encounter,makeuseof,
orarepersuadedbythat framework --withwhat expectations (fears, hopes, curiosity,or etc.)
theydecideupon andpreparefortheirviewing.This essaydoesn't attempt todothis job,but
nonetheless Inotethreethings which Ibelieve are necessarytodevelopingthis intoa
researchstrategy.First,thereis goodreason tothinkthat this is farmorethanjust mental
preparation.Priorexpectations arelikelytoaffect people's choiceofcinema,orperhaps of
video(ornowDVD),the companytheychooseto gowith,andso on.Wedon't needthe
extreme(albeit still salient)exampleofaudiences dressingup forTheRockyHorror Show to
seetherangeofbehaviours that canbe affected; theidentificationofsomefilms as "date
movies"clearlycan,undertheright circumstances, affect preparations ina host ofways (see
Appendix Ten).Second, thereis also goodreason tothinkthat,whileit is certainthat there
will bewidevarieties intheamounts andkinds that different peopleencounter,it will
nonetheless besociallyandculturallypatterned.Talkabout film works throughnetworks,
bothformal andinformal (seeAppendix Eleven).Film distributors knowthis, andtryvery
hardtomakeuseofthem,workingto generate 'scuttlebutt',that is, film-relatedtalkamong
keytarget groups. Third, thereis goodreason tothinkthat prefigurativematerials will have
different degrees ofsaliencefordifferent groups andindividuals. Thereare obvious lessons
tobelearnt from the risingnumber ofstudies offans, whichmakeclearthe exceptional
degreeofattentionsuch peoplepaybothtotheirchosenmediamaterials andtoall
accompanyingcommentaries. Thereis aquitedifferent sourceforthinkingabout this issue
from Americancommunicationresearch, wherecritics reviewingtheconcept ofagenda-
settinghavepointedtotheneglect ofthis aspect of theissue(Edelstein,1993).
Thereis anissuehere about themeaningof"prefigurative". Anobjectioncouldeasilybe
raisedthat not all ancillarymaterials areencounteredpriortowatchingafilm.Arecent
experiencewouldconfirm this. Iobserved(andjoinedwith)people,at a recent screeningof
MulhollandDrive(2001),inchoosingnot tolookat theGuardian's publishedclues for
solvingthemeaningof David Lynch's film before they/Isawit.But twopoints areimportant
here. First,ofcourse,for thosewhoknewthat thereweresuchclues before theywatched,the
act ofpostponement indicates aviewingstrategyforthefilm premisedonincipient pleasure
inseeinghowfartheycanget ontheirown.This indicates somethingofthecomplexityinthe
notionofprefiguration. But tomeevenmoreimportant is that theobjectionmaystill depend
onaparticularnotionofthe"text"ofthe film. It presumes that anencounter withafilm ends
as thecredits roll.This istheboundaryofthe film,thereforeit is theboundaryofthe
meaning-makingfunctionofthefilm.Everythingthat follows is ofadifferent order. Iam
arguingagainst preciselythis view.Theprocess ofsense-formationaftercompletionof
viewingshouldnot bedistinguishedinthis way. Therefore,toreadreviews, orclues, or
anythingelse afterthecloseofthefilm is still prefigurativeinas muchas it contributes tothe
understandingthat peopledevelop,andthewayin whichafilm therebycontributes totheir
senseofself andsenseof theworldthat theyderiveandcarryforwardintotheirlives.
Thethirdstagewouldstudyhowthe actual encounterwiththefilm leads tofulfilment of
expectations, ordisappointment,orsurprise,orfrustration.As Ihave argued,audiences'
encounters withfilms do not beginand endwithopeningtitles andclosingcredits.
Encounters beginas thefirst layers ofknowledge andinterest aresedimentedin; andthey
"close"withtheprocesses, afterviewing,inwhich peoplereview,discuss,argue,andsettle--
intoarelativelystableform --themeaningandsignificanceofthefilmicexperience.Todate,
weknowverylittleabout what happens whenpatternedprior expectations finallyget tomeet
thefilm towhichtheyrelate.This did,infact,becomeoneofour central questions inmy
researchwithKateBrooks intotheresponses toJudgeDredd,where foreachofthesix
orientations weidentified wewereabletopaint a portrait ofthekinds ofattentiongivento
anticipatorymaterials, andtosaywhat happened whenthosewithhighlyformedexpectations
actuallyencounteredthe film (Barkerand Brooks, 1998).
InourstudyofCrash,weattemptedtolinkall threestages, withdifferent degrees of
emphasis, and(Isuspect) success.Thestudyof ancillarymaterials was one strandofour
research,which also includedaninternational comparison ofpublicreception,andan
audiencestudybasedon aspecial screeningofthe film. Inthis essay, Iaim todrawout
certainprinciples which became evident tomeinourresearchprocess. In profferinghere a
model ofhowmaterials aroundanyfilm might be studied, Ihavechosentofollowthe
methodofRickAltman,whoserecent exceptional bookongenre compiles aseries of
propositions as it unfoldsits analysis (Altman,1999).
Iam not presentingCrash as sometypical case. In fact it is, Ibelieve,helpful precisely
becauseit is not at all typical.Afilm whichsought topresent itselfas, essentially,a
committed,art-houseembodiment ofadystopian story, Crash becamebesiegedbyhostile
commentary.Our focus ofattentionwas therefore primarilyaroundthecontroversy,andthe
carriers ofthat --national andlocal newspapers. But it is thewaythedebate unfoldedover
time,andthewayinwhichthosearguingoverit hadtomaketheirpremises explicit,that
brings intounusuallyclearviewaset ofprefigurativeprocesses. That theywere
prefigurative,becamespectacularlycleartous whenweresearched audienceresponses tothe
film,evensomemonths afterits original release.
Learning from Crash
TheBritish controversyoverCrash effectivelylasteda year. It beganon6 June1996,when
AlexanderWalkerpublishedareviewfrom theCannes Festival.Asubeditorat the London
EveningStandard headlinedthis "AMovie BeyondTheBounds of Depravity" (Walker,
1996).Theresponsewas not immediate.But inNovember,coincidingwith ascreeningofthe
film as part ofthe LondonFilm Festival,theDailyMail launched acampaigntoprevent the
film beingclassifiedor,intheevent that it was, to persuadelocal authorities tousetheir
residual powers tobanthefilm from theirareas. At thesametime,theMail was seekinga
revisionoftheBritish Boardof Film Classification(BBFC) andperhaps of theObscene
Publications Act.Thecampaignwhich followedincludedapproaches to everylocal authority
inthecountryto attempt toget them toban Crash from theirareaofjurisdiction.MPs were
contacted, andquestions askedinParliament.Conservative-controlledWestminsterCity
Council didbanCrash from its area,withtheeffect that thefilm couldnot haveanormal
launchandPress screening(amongtheothers whobannedit foratimewerealso two Labour-
controlledlocal authorities).At theheight ofits campaign, Mail journalists door-steppedall
theBBFC's examiners, andranarticles about their privatelives. It even calledforaboycott
ofSonyproducts inBritain.Underrisingpressure, theBBFC underJames Fermansought
expert opiniononanunusual scale,callinginfirst apsychologist,Paul Britton,toadviceon
thefilm's handlingofsex andthedisabled.This reboundedwhen Brittonobjectedtothe
BBFC's selectiveuseof his findings. The BBFC also sought Queen's Counsel's opinionon
whetherthe film couldbeaccusedof "obscenity". Delayingits judgement forwhatever
reason, thepronouncement that thefilm wouldbereleaseduncut as an "18" coincidedwith
thelaunchofthe1997General Electioncampaign.TheMail accused Fermanofsmuggling
thefilm out undercover (althoughthe fact that,as Ishowbelow,thePress coveragepeaked
at this point suggests that ifthis was theBBFC's strategy,it was not awhollysuccessful one).
Thescale andintensityofthecampaign andthecontroversywas remarkable.As Cronenberg
himselfcommented,Britainwas virtuallyalone(seeAppendix Twelve)inthesebroad attacks
(albeit thedenunciationofthefilm byTedTurner, thenownerofits U.S.distribution
company,hadsomeimpact inAmerica).Released eventuallyinJune1997at alimitedarray
ofcinemas, Crash performedbadly(considerablyworsethaninanyother European country).
Thereseems littledoubt that this was inlargepart duetothecontroversy.Peopleweresimply