A Field In England concluded
1) Summarise the article in 50 words.
Arthouse focuses on the value of the production rather than trying to sell sequel after squel to a mindless audience, purely to make profit. They are made purely for artistic value rather than to make profit- therefore the people that watch them are a select few that enjoy the cultural gain and eduaton they can get from and arthouse film.
2) What are some of the suggested audience pleasures for arthouse film?
Arthouse tends to have more of a meaningful narrative than production and edits- this might be due to the low budget, or might be the reason they don't need a huge budget. An audience can gain an emotional experience from these narratives.
3) Why do some audiences struggle with arthouse film? Refer to some media theory here (there are some important media theories discussed in the article itself).
Most audiences value the diversion they can gain from a production- if a story is hard to understand or grasp they might not enjoy it as much as a regular block buster.
4) To what extent is arthouse film only for the middle classes and older audiences? Why might this be the case?
Younger people might not understand the meaning or significance of an arthouse story line, while older audiences might have little interest in superhero or action films. Older audiences would actually value the arthouse storyline and therefore reinforce their interest in these types of films.
5) What type of audience would A Field In England appeal to? What about Chicken?
A field in England might appeal to a niche audience, people that value the editing skills and the creativity of the storyline. The alternative perspective of this period of time is one that would entertain people if they understood the irony of how medieval characters are usually shown. As for Chicken, I think the same kind of audience would be attracted as they might enjoy the alternative view of England.
Arthouse focuses on the value of the production rather than trying to sell sequel after squel to a mindless audience, purely to make profit. They are made purely for artistic value rather than to make profit- therefore the people that watch them are a select few that enjoy the cultural gain and eduaton they can get from and arthouse film.
2) What are some of the suggested audience pleasures for arthouse film?
Arthouse tends to have more of a meaningful narrative than production and edits- this might be due to the low budget, or might be the reason they don't need a huge budget. An audience can gain an emotional experience from these narratives.
3) Why do some audiences struggle with arthouse film? Refer to some media theory here (there are some important media theories discussed in the article itself).
Most audiences value the diversion they can gain from a production- if a story is hard to understand or grasp they might not enjoy it as much as a regular block buster.
4) To what extent is arthouse film only for the middle classes and older audiences? Why might this be the case?
Younger people might not understand the meaning or significance of an arthouse story line, while older audiences might have little interest in superhero or action films. Older audiences would actually value the arthouse storyline and therefore reinforce their interest in these types of films.
5) What type of audience would A Field In England appeal to? What about Chicken?
A field in England might appeal to a niche audience, people that value the editing skills and the creativity of the storyline. The alternative perspective of this period of time is one that would entertain people if they understood the irony of how medieval characters are usually shown. As for Chicken, I think the same kind of audience would be attracted as they might enjoy the alternative view of England.
Comments
Post a Comment