Purdue University Fort Wayne Data Communications and Computer Networks Write a 300-word response to the following question. Please be clear and succinct. T

Purdue University Fort Wayne Data Communications and Computer Networks Write a 300-word response to the following question. Please be clear and succinct. The most important aspect of this essay is that you demonstrate your understanding of the article’s main argument(s) and how the author supports their analysis. 1. According to Noel Brown, why is “family” entertainment important to contemporary Hollywood? How does this kind of entertainment extend beyond cinema? Scope: An Online Journal of
Film and Television Studies
Issue 25
February 2013
“Family”
Entertainment
Hollywood Cinema
and
Contemporary
Noel Brown, Newcastle University
My central argument is that “family” entertainment is not merely the most
visible manifestation of the Hollywood studios’ ethos of global expansion
(see Miller et al, 2005), but, moreover, that it is absolutely central to their
industrial and commercial identities. Previous scholars (Allen, 1999;
Krämer, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006) have touched on this point. Peter
Krämer, for example, has correctly emphasised the commercial
importance of contemporary Hollywood “family” films, pointing out that
such products are “at the very heart of today’s media conglomerates and
indeed today’s popular culture” (2002: 96). Similarly, in 1999, Robert C.
Allen published a provocative essay that positioned the “family film” as
the “earliest and clearest expression” of “the rise of post-Hollywood
cinema” (127). For both writers, the operations of the contemporary
Hollywood studios are shaped not only by the needs of the box office, but
also the ability, and the need, to exploit products across numerous
horizontally integrated platforms. What has become known corporately
and popularly as “family” entertainment provides the best chance of
commercial success across platforms ranging from theatrical exhibition,
television and home video to video games, toys and other forms of
merchandise. In this essay, I would like to expand upon previous
accounts of “family” entertainment in two specific ways. Firstly, I will
demonstrate the extent to which “family” entertainment franchises have
come to dominate the high-end operations of the major studios,
especially since the mid-1990s. Secondly, I will attempt to redress the
significant under-appreciation of the ways in which the seemingly
unbounded proliferation of “family” entertainment has closely mirrored
industrial changes – namely conglomeration, global expansion, acquisition
and synergy – among these diversified multimedia giants.
The key difference between the Hollywood studios pre- and postconglomeration is the development of “family” entertainment. The term
“family entertainment” is used here to refer to a range of multimedia
products commonly associated with children, but which also attempt to
appeal to a much broader audience, transcending not merely
demographic, but also cultural, barriers. As typified by contemporary
Hollywood entertainment franchises such as Harry Potter (2001-2011),
1
Brown
Toy Story (1995-2010), Shrek (2001-2010) and Chronicles of Narnia
(2005-2010), “family” film narratives historically have been characterised
by narrative transparency, spectacle, emotive qualities, an optimistic
message (culminating in a “happy ending”) and broad audience suitability
– altogether encompassing a commercially-motivated desire to please as
many, and offend as few, potential consumers as possible (Brown, 2012).
Although the Hollywood “family” film dates back to the early sound era
(Ibid.), its current commercial dominance is largely a post-1980s
phenomenon, as is the development of the “family”-orientated multimedia
franchise. Although some very useful research has been published on the
subject, in general the centrality of post-Hollywood “family”
entertainment has been sorely under-appreciated in the academy.
Krämer has correctly observed that “most of Hollywood’s superhits” since
the late-1970s are “children’s films for the whole family and for
teenagers, too” (2004: 366-367).
Yet even Krämer, at times,
underestimates its scope by defining the “family” film simply as
entertainment “aimed at both children and their parents” (2002: 186). It
may well be (and we will not know this until the emergence of
authoritative demographic and ethnographic audience research) that
“families” – prototypically parents and children watching together – are
still important consumers. However, I would contend that this definition
of the “family” film is now anachronistic, for two reasons.
Firstly, as will be discussed, there has been a clear trend since the mid1990s to broaden the modes of appeal of “family” films beyond this core,
traditional consumer group.
Contemporary “family” entertainment
franchises are not merely trivial amusements for parents and their
children, but are also globally-oriented mass media that target the
broadest possible demographic and ethnographic cross-section.
Secondly, “family” entertainment can no longer be understood solely in
terms of a single, generative filmic text. Most major “family” films
generate multimedia franchises, while many are based on existing brands.
Although Warner Bros.’ Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings film series
derive from literary source material, Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean
(2003-2011) and Paramount and DreamWorks’ Transformers (20072011) are “adapted” from nothing more substantive than a theme park
ride and successful toy line, respectively. In each case, however, their
core brand images are widely accessible, possess an existing consumer
base, and can be realised across various media – films, television,
computer games, comic books, toys and other merchandise. Hollywood
2
Issue 25, February 2013
“Family Entertainment” and Contemporary Hollywood
“family” entertainment, then, has developed to the point where it
transcends cinematic typology.
Commercial Dominance
A short essay attempting to grapple with the nebulous but pervasive
phenomenon of contemporary Hollywood “family” entertainment thus
immediately encounters an obstacle: there is scant foundational literature
on the subject – whether historical or theoretical – on which to build. In
spite of Krämer’s useful working definition of the “family film” (cited
above), it is not altogether clear whether the “genre” should be defined
chiefly in formal, commercial or industrial terms. Whilst we should not
rule out the possibility of a more traditionally text-based formulation that
considers recurring narrative and structural patterns or ideological
overtones, such a project would be a major undertaking. Instead, for the
purposes of this essay, I will understand “family films” in terms of what
Steve Neale (following Lukow and Ricci) has called the “inter-textual
relay.” Inter-textual relays are the various “discourses of publicity,
promotion and reception: that surround mainstream films and shape
popular responses, including industry categories as well as trade and
press reviews (2000: 2-3).
The inter-textual relay provides scholars with an alternative means
through which films can be categorised, one which, properly, in my view,
places greater emphasis on labels used popularly and commercially.
When we examine a list of the 30 most commercially successfully films in
the history of commercial cinema (at the time of writing) in relation to
these discourses, a striking figure emerges: 27 of them – or 90 per cent –
have been marketed and/or widely received as “family” movies (“All Time
Worldwide,” 2012). By any measure, and even allowing for the fact that
this figure may be inflated by promotional discourses designed to boost
the audience-bases of the films in question, this is a remarkable statistic,
one which testifies both to the immense material popularity of such
entertainment and the considerable value of the “family” brand. It should
be noted that the table of films from which I draw this statistic does not
take inflation into account, and, consequently, most of the films are post1990s releases, a fact which allows us to register the extent to which
“family” films have come to dominate the international box office over the
last two decades.
Equally significant is the fact that all of these 30 films were produced
and/or distributed by the “big six” major Hollywood studios (Walt Disney
Issue 25, February 2013
3
Brown
Pictures, Warner Bros., Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, Sony and
Universal), which together comprise the trade association the Motion
Picture Association of America (MPAA). These studios account for the
vast majority of international box office hits and major cinematic
franchises, despite typically producing less than 30 per cent of all films
distributed annually in the United States (“2009 MPAA,” 2009). Of
course, by no means would it be true to say that the major studios only
produce or distribute “family” films, but that each of them endeavours to
craft a handful of “high-concept” blockbuster “family” films annually that
can be exploited on multiple levels, and thus develop into major
franchises.
The MPAA member companies’ exert a near-hegemonic
control over global film distribution, which, when combined with some
highly protectionist policies, have ensured that rivals – both domestic and
international – are effectively closed out of the world market.
The blockbuster releases of each of these companies since the turn of the
century have become increasingly standardised, both formally and in
terms of their intended consumer base.
A growing proportion of
mainstream films are rated PG or PG-13 by the MPAA, evidencing an
ongoing embrace of the nebulous, pluralistic but undeniably lucrative
international “family” market. In 2004, a Harvard School of Public Health
study observed that “a movie rated PG or PG-13 today has more sexual
or violent content than a similarly rated movie in the past” and accused
the MPAA of transgressing standards of acceptability in the “family”friendly ratings (i.e. G, PG and PG-13) (Waxman, 2004). This suggests a
broader renegotiation of the traditional parameters defining the “family”
audience, beyond its “core” demographics of parents and children.
Conversely, R-rated films, which ostensibly prevent pre-teen and young
teenage audiences from attending without adult supervision, and which
“were once the studios’ mainstay,” are reputedly “on the decline, both in
numbers and in lure” (Snyder, 2005). However, a closer examination
reveals that the overall proportion of films rated R has remained relatively
stable at just under 60 per cent; the difference is that far fewer
blockbusters are now released with an R rating (“Entertainment
Industry”).
In 1980, 55 per cent of the top 20 films of the year were R-rated; by
1995, this figure had fallen to 30 per cent, and by 2009 to 10 per cent
(“All Time Worldwide”). Accordingly, among the current 30 highestgrossing movies of all-time globally, none are rated R. This trend towards
“family-friendly” ratings contrasts dramatically with industry practice
between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, when the R rating was
4
Issue 25, February 2013
“Family Entertainment” and Contemporary Hollywood
widely perceived as a marker of artistic credibility.
Conversely,
notwithstanding notable exceptions such as the outputs of Disney, George
Lucas, or Steven Spielberg, for example, the “family”-friendly ratings
were more typically seen as a virtual guarantee of commercial oblivion.
In 1969, director Richard Sarafian openly complained when his film Run
Wild, Born Free was identified by the press as a “family” movie
(Goldstein, 1968). Equally significant was the U.S. release of Chariots of
Fire (1981), a case where the distributors inserted profanity into one
scene precisely in order to avoid a potentially damaging G rating. Today,
as Jennifer Geer has observed, marketers are eager to represent their
products as “family” entertainments, even when – as with the J. M. Barrie
biopic Finding Neverland (2004) – the label is misleading or inappropriate
(2007: 193-212).
While the R rating retains its connotations of
independent-minded artistry, the days when a “family”-friendly rating was
considered inimical to commercial success are long gone. One Hollywood
marketing executive wryly suggested: “you’re leaving tens of millions of
dollars on the table with an R rating. Why? For artistic integrity? Get
real” (Snyder, 2005).
One of the ways in which the Hollywood studios consciously attempted to
broaden public perceptions of “family” entertainment during the mid1980s was the advent of the PG-13 rating. Introduced by the MPAA
following protests in the US that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
(1984) was too violent to fit the PG criteria, PG-13 is a buffer between PG
and R, purporting to allow entry for children under the age of thirteen
only if accompanied by an adult. A PG or PG-13 rating has become
almost a prerequisite for live-action blockbuster success. More than 60
per cent of the top 30 films of all-time fall into PG-13, a rating which has
been applied to such unambiguously “family-oriented” films as The
Simpsons Movie (2007), The Golden Compass (2007) and Harry Potter
and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) (“All Time Worldwide,” 2012).
However, many of the 27 all-time hits identified by their inter-textual
relays as “family” entertainment would perhaps not have been regarded
as such by previous generations, notably The Avengers (2012) and the
Transformers film series. Although there were criticisms in the US that
the first Transformers film, which contained considerable violent content,
was being marketed to young children, such protests were chiefly lowlevel (Tiemann, 2007).
Issue 25, February 2013
5
Brown
Industrial Centrality
Although the current centrality of “family” entertainment is strongly linked
with the conglomeration and consequent global agenda of the Hollywood
studios, its proliferation has been abetted by a broader and progressive
cultural receptiveness to “juvenile” entertainment since the late 1970s,
particularly in North America. By 1976, 62 per cent of US audiences were
aged between 16 and 29, and between 1977 and 1979, there was a
further increase of 8 per cent in the quantity of tickets sold to the 12-to20 age group (Edgerton, 1983: 175; Cook, 2000: 23). However, this is
not to say that adult audiences abandoned the movie-going habit.
Allegedly, the main consumers of Spielberg’s E.T. (1982) in the US were
not children, but childless couples in their twenties and thirties (Morris,
2007: 85). The multiplex theatre, which became the predominant mode
of exhibition after the 1970s, also provided the economies of scale
necessary to fully exploit blockbusters (Gomery, 2005: 213-19).
Janet Wasko has claimed that the ensuing standardisation is the result of
rival companies attempting “to emulate the Disney model” (Wasko, 1994:
34), but this observation is suspect. In fact, it was the spectacular
success of Fox’s Star Wars (1977-2005) and Warner’s Superman (19782006) franchises that signalled the generic transition from a more varied
(but still undeniably adult-inflected) mainstream entertainment
programme to an increasingly “family”-oriented model. Star Wars in
particular – as Krämer has argued – established a rough template for
subsequent “family-adventure” franchises (2004: 366-367). After Lucas’s
Star Wars, “merchandising became an industry unto itself, and tie-in
product marketing began to drive the conception and selling of motion
picture products rather than vice versa” (Cook: 51). But although Star
Wars was a turning point aesthetically, the real industrial breakthrough –
which is at least as significant, but considerably less understood –
occurred during the early 1990s.
Hollywood “family” entertainment since the early 1990s is conterminous
with corporate strategies of vertical and horizontal expansion. In spite of
some immensely profitable “family” entertainment franchises, the actual
volume of “family” films as a percentage of total output remained
comparatively low during the 1980s. What I call the structural centrality
of “family” entertainment was initiated as a result of behind-the-scenes
deal-making and industrial realignment. Between the mid-1980s and
mid-1990s, all of the major Hollywood studios except Disney were either
acquired by larger multinational corporations or merged with other media
6
Issue 25, February 2013
“Family Entertainment” and Contemporary Hollywood
companies to create the diversified, international media conglomerates
that exist today. The first wave of Hollywood media conglomeration
began in 1962, when MCA acquired Universal, but a more significant
movement took place between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. In 1985,
Turner Broadcasting purchased MGM, while News Corporation acquired
Twentieth Century-Fox. Columbia was bought by Coca-Cola, which then
re-sold to Sony in 1989. The same year, Warner Bros. merged with
Time-Life to form Time-Warner, and in 1993, Viacom acquired
Paramount. This industrial process of conglomeration continues to this
day. Among the “classical” Hollywood majors, only Disney – a company
that has continued to expand both vertically and horizontally – has
resisted takeover (this is due, in large part, to the fact that its expansion
and diversification has always been based on the “family” entertainment
model). It is no coincidence that these media mergers coincided with an
upsurge in films and franchises with purportedly “universal” appeal that
could, theoretically, be realised across multiple media platforms, targeting
an increasingly accessible world market.
In 1991, Time-Warner announced plans to create a “family film”
production division. With hindsight, this was a development of the utmost
significance, yet it aroused very little surprise in the industry or the trade
press. Variety observed that it reflected “industry-wide awareness that
survival in the 1990s may be a matter of creating wholesome, familyoriented entertainment,” and that similar discussions regarding
“increasing production of family films, if not creating family film divisions”
were ongoing at Universal, Paramount, TriStar and Columbia (“New Plan,”
1991). The same article noted that Peter Guber, then head of production
at Sony, was “seriously interested in pursuing programming that has
strong family appeal,” partly because of the growing value of so-called
“aftermarket business” such as home video (Ibid). By this point, the
development of specialised “family film” divisions, which were intended to
produce movies beyond run-of-the-mill theatrical product, evidently was
considered logical, if not inevitable, given the increasing box office value
of “family” entertainment, coupled with the progressively global outlook of
the Hollywood conglomerates.
By 1993, Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox had “family film”
divisions in operation (Moerk, 1993; O’Steen, 1993).
As Warners
executive Rob Friedman explained, “the industry has identified a growing
family audience […] the baby boomers are now parents, and the family
orientation is growing as a business” (Moerk, 1993). Disney’s Tom
Deegan responded: “the family market has always been there, but
Issue 25, February 2013
7
Brown
Hollywood has just chosen to ignore it in the past” (Ibid). Universal,
Sony, and Paramount followed suit by opening their own specialist
“family” units in 1998, 1999 and 2002, and in 2007 Universal created a
specialised independent animation unit, Illumination (Sandler, 1998; Cox
and Littleton, 1999; Lyons and Dunkley, 2002; Fleming, 2008). The
magnitude of the industry’s attitudinal shift regarding “family”
entertainment was underscored when Disney divested itself of its leftfield, “indie” subsidiary Miramax in July 2010 in order to channel its
energies on its “family” entertainment operations (Littleton, 2010). In
1986, the same company had created Touchstone, an “adult film”
subsidiary, in order to escape the creative and brand-related restrictions
of “family” programming….
Purchase answer to see full
attachment