Deanna's Questions on American Independent Cinema

Hey, Mike. Deanna was having problems logging in to blogger, so I'm posting her questions through my account. Hope that makes sense - John V.

1. On p.140, Tzioumakis cites Steven Brody’s characteristics of Monogram’s approach to producing exploitative films in the 1950’s: “[The film should be] based on news headlines with a title that is as outspoken and controversial as the headlines; Covers subject in form of expose that illuminates illegal activities; Promises, but never delivers controversial visual material; Produced quickly and cheaply while the subject it is set to exploit is still in public discourse (still marketable).” He mentions that these criteria, along with successful exploitation/marketing during the film’s distribution and exhibition stages will attract maximum public awareness and generate interest. Maybe a more obvious modern day version of the 50’s “teenpics” may be today’s straight to video National Lampoon’s college movies; however, do you consider a certain group or demographic to be targeted as heavily and exclusively by film producers today as teens were in the 50’s? Aside from demographics, what personal characteristics or posturings define this/these group(s)? Rather than a specific group, what dispositions or ideologies are targeted and exploited today, and are films necessarily “unethical,” regardless of author intent, if they exploit a specific group or topic? Is film exploitative in its nature, or how much does the aesthetic and narrative context make a difference in representing the targeted topic or group?

2. When interviewed on his latest film W, Oliver Stone (JFK, World Trade Center, Nixon, Platoon) said, “If you don’t examine your environment, you live in ignorance.” W began production in May 2008 and was released on October 17, 2008 with little pre-release press or hype (for a movie with its specific subject matter) and received a PG-13 rating. Stone claimed that his target viewer is an intelligent 10 year old- like he was when he was a child. Although the context in which the subject is presented greatly differs between exploitation films and social commentary, do viewers go to social commentaries, like exploitation films, to see a show rather than a “picture?” Do today’s political satires sacrifice quality for profit to exploit, through the presentation of lurid subject matter, cynicism and public distrust, especially that of a young adult audience? Do political commentaries need to be marketed with strong “showmanship” to be profitable or economically successful? What recent films or directors would you consider to have been marketed with strong showmanship or through exploitative marketing? How much of a part does a film’s release date play in qualifying it as an “exploitative” film?

3. Tzioumakis mentions that the emergence of drive-in theatres were the result of the late 1940’s migration to suburbs, the accompanying auto culture, and the absence of socializing patterns, such as “cafes and strolls in the park or a town’s central square,” that are characteristic of European countries (142). He goes on to say that, “Drive-ins turned into a very significant hub for social interaction, especially among a younger generation.” Why are these “Euro” socializing patterns absent from American culture, and to who’s or what’s, if any, benefit. How does centering social interaction or meetings around viewing scheduled mediated entertainment affect the amount of time and money we spend during our leisure time and the enjoyment we get from it? How does the amount of time we spend on leisure activities affect the production of entertainment?