1)The article talks about different audience being able to view art house films. Elitism plays a big factor in deciding the different pleasures audiences get, for example middle class people pay see it as entertainment compared to viewing mainstream Hollywood movies and maybe lower class people who view art house films may see them for narrative and its art.
2)Some audiences are so use to the Hollywood blockbusters and their typical, generic film structures including equilibrium-dis equilibrium and new equilibrium. Art house films tend not to have no narrative closure and therefore make audiences feel estranged to the film genre. This links to
Todorov's theory of equilibrium.
3)Art house films have always been directed at a certain age group, even the décor and location of the cinemas helps differentiate it from that of those from larger chain cinemas, for example; art house cinemas tend to be in cities and blend in with the surroundings. They are also a lot more expensive then regular cinema tickets because they feel as though they are supplying to a more wealthy audience.
4)A field in England fits the bill perfectly for being an art house production. From the start you can tell that it is an art house production and that it was made for being art and not for the money. I think this would suit a typical art house audience being middle class/middle age people.
No comments:
Post a Comment