Fall 2015 Session Five Output I: Production Trends and Cycles Dr. Richard Nowell 12:30 13:00 Talking (about) genre 13:00 13:30 Production Trends and Cycles (Introduction) 13:30-13:40 Break 13:40 14:30 Production Trends and Cycles (Concepts & Methods) 14:30 14:40 Break 14:40 15:45 Exercise: Sketching Out a Hitherto Unmapped Cycle Cycles vs. Genres The Problems of Socio-Symptomatism Industrial Approaches to Industrial Phenomena Some Principles of Film Cycle Development Have you noticed at certain times certain types of media text are made in unprecedented numbers? Have you every noticed such trends coming to an end? Have you thought why such phenomena might happen? Cycles vs. Genres The Problems of Socio-Symptomatism Industrial Approaches to Industrial Phenomena Some Principles of Film Cycle Development Viewing genres as mutable clusters of discourses initiated a shift in how scholars claimed to examine content vis--vis film genre Many genre scholars felt it was inaccurate to think of similar films being made across long periods to a static textual framework Instead, they would advocate a longstanding albeit hitherto marginalized perspective rooted in the notion of cycles Derived from industry discourse, the term cycle refers to striking levels of calculatedly similar films released in a short period It captures the effects upon output of industry decision-makers briefly placing their confidence in an industrial category of film But many would use the terms genre and cycle interchangeably, reproducing the very problems they purportedly want to avoid In particular, they tended to conflate industry categories with those imagined by extra-industrial stakeholders; critics, fans, themselves Such studies usually posit a misleading picture of media history, wherein critical rubrics stand in for purported industrial practices Thus, Tim Snelson might claim to examine the responses of critics and psychiatrists to a 1940s psychoanalysis horror cycle But there was no such cycle, just depictions of the profession, and a category of film imagined by critics, psychiatrists, and Snelson Where such writers in reality produce genre scholarship, others viewed cycles as helping address a key concern of Films Studies These scholars felt cycles might help us explain the composition of media output: why film output is the way it is at a given moment This use of the film cycle as a scholarly framework seemed at first glance to respect the industrially-driven character of the cycle itself However, not all advocates were really interested in understanding how industrial forces shape this industrially-driven phenomenon Most of these film cycle studies actually marginalize industry decision- makers, logics, and objectives, and market forces Most studies of film cycles thus downplay industry practice in favor of overstating the purported roles of extra-industrial phenomena These socio-symptomatic accounts of (usually quasi-topical films), are underpinned by one of two tacit and questionable assumptions 1. That creative professionals obsessions with topical discourse is sufficient reason to generate swathes of films based thereon 2. That viewer interest is such, and films dealings so partial, that viewers seek more of the same, driving the market indirectly I submit these approaches paint misleading pictures of the cycles they discuss, and tell us little about the nature of cycles generally In reality, such studies posit that certain content might have been relevant, and perhaps why producers presented the ways they did 1. But this does not explain why the films were made in the first place: it risks conflating green-lighting and assembly 2. It fails to explain why most topical discourses do not form the basis of cycles, or why most cycles do not comprise topical films 3. The neat fit between topicality and cycles is undermined by subject matter waning in one medium but thriving in another 4. Temporal discrepancies between topical discourse and cycles suggest even topical film cycles are determined by other factors In contrast to socio-symptomatic approaches, others responded to calls to examine industry decision-makers use of genre This position did not jettison the relevance of topical discourse, but repositioned it as inspiration for content not green-lighting Aligned with Sociologys Production of Culture Perspective, it sought to explain how industry conduct really generated cycles Mapping trends initially involves tracing the invocation side of the invocation/difference dynamic of assembling formula films Yet, even here, several problems emerged, which must be addressed if we are to better understand cycle development Issue: The term cycle is used to refer to medium-term patterns Problem: There are numerous distinctive medium-term patterns Solution: Distinguish between these distinct formations Issue: Scholars tend to defer to press conceptions of output Problem: Journalists disagree, and are often wrong or biased Solution: Prioritize content analysis and practitioner discourse Issue: Scholars tend to assume all hits spawn cycles Problem: Most hits do not prompt a surge of similar films ever Solution: Recognize formulae filmmaking is still seen as high risk How does Nowell differentiate between patterns of output? What does he suggest distinguishes each pattern? How does he suggest we might conceptualize the different types of production operations driving these patterns? Fads Temporally specific, trans-generic, localized features of content Clusters Surge of film-type across one post-hit production/release phase When multiple hits emerge in quick succession we can expect Cycles Surge of film-type across two post-hit production/release phases Staples Surge of film-type across more post-hit production/release phases Pioneers Very High Risk vs. High Gain Aspire to a fashion a generically untried and thus untested film Speculators High Risk vs. High Gain Use an established model that has generated no recent hits Prospectors Medium Risk vs. Medium Gain: Invoke a hit film in the absence of a proven model of replication Carpetbaggers Surprisingly High Risk vs. Surprisingly Low Gain Join the widespread use of an established model of hit replication SUMMER CAMP SETTINGS SPECIFICALLY YOUTH- ORIENTED FILMS POST-SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER GANG MOVIES OF 1979 TEEN SEX COMEDY CYCLE OF Distinguishes between a production trend and cycle, suggesting the cycle can differ as it relates to the order/number of releases Approaches formula filmmaking as more risky than is often thought, hence most producers do not immediately ape hit films There may be a hidden algorithm to cultural production based on caution, risk-taking confidence, markets, and consumer interest Perceived viability begets unsupportable production, generating market saturation, waning confidence, rapid decline, and change If correct, in a free-market economy, economics explain cultural composition, with topicality positing potential subject matter only We should consider what supported the emergence, development, and the decline of a trend (films textual details notwithstanding) We must also consider a film-types industrial appeal relative to that of the other film-types across the trends entire development To better understand why one active film-type commands more confidence than another active one, we might therefore consider: 1. Absolute Profit Potential its projected returns on investment 2. Relative Profit Potential this sum compared to alternatives 3. Supply Chain Maintenance do all involved stand to profit? Hence trends/cycles are inherently inter-cycle phenomena We also need to adopt a flexible and open-minded perspective on the ways filmmakers engage with precedents and models Genre filmmakers walk a tightrope between partially recalling earlier films and offering audiences something a little different It is easier to spot cases leaning heavily toward evocation, but significantly more demanding when filmmakers are less direct Thus, the story-structure underpinning teen slasher films is strongly evocative, making it a relatively easy trend to map But sometimes the impact of a hit can be diffuse, and evocation can be achieved more abstractly, as evinced by E.T. (1982) Do you see any conceptual problems with Nowells model? Do you see any potential limitations of this model? Do you see any ways of adapting or improving upon it? But we may ask if the phases are as distinct as Nowell suggests? We might want to think if the phenomena he describes also talk place in other national film industries? We might want to ask if cost of production changes things? What might ask if motives change in relation to other media? We might want to consider how individual trends/cycles influence the development of other trends/cycles? Genre scholars embraced the concept of the cycle to overcome implying industry resource to blueprints is historically stable However, in reality, most of these scholars did not change their approaches, routinely conflating critical and industrial categories Those recognizing cycles help explain the changing face of output, also tended to posit unhelpful socio-symptomatic explanations I submit the cycle is best used to explain how industry conduct effects the types of film made, and how those films look generally Production trends that beget cycles are driven by perceived profit potential, relative profit potential, and supply chain maintenance When this trio is broken, a trend will invariably draw to a close Across the mid-to-late 80s, body-swap films proliferated like never before lets see how, and consider why, they did 1. Use boxofficemojo to track how many films of this type were released, and imdb to check their production dates 2. Make a note of where each film placed in the annual box office charts in the year you have been assigned 3. Make an assessment of the likely impact of this film 4. We will combine our findings to map out this trend/cycle Some Spec (>) Hidden (c. 100) Big (4)Dream (109) PS (19)LFLS (34)CtA (3) Vice Versa (73)