A Response to Leeper's Challenge

 

 

     Professor Leeper has asked us to respond to him when we have issues with what he has said or in his manner of teaching, etc. This blog post is meant to explain one of my serious issues with the mentality I think some people are becoming susceptible to in the class, namely, the fact that we must remember our audience.

     Let me start by stating that I do realize that Leeper's intention in the class is to get the ball rolling in terms of showing students films, art, etc. that they have not been introduced to. This, I believe, is a worthy goal. Many people are all too ignorant that these types of art exist. However, I also think (and have myself witnessed this), that just because something is new, oftentimes people suddenly forget everything else they have known and in their jubilance forget the conseuences of such thinking, whether these consequences be good or bad. This is where I wish to introduce my argument that although there may not be anything inherently wrong within the art we are watching, we must realize the audience that we wish to address in the future. As the picture I posted states, you must consider not only whether your content is worth sharing, but also whether the audience will care. This is where I think many people get lost in their jubilation at seeing something new. If you were to show most of the films in class to the people back home, do you think that they would likely care about the films after seeing them? We would be tempted to say that it is because their tastes have not become as refined as ours. I do not necessarily think this is true. Why did Jesus' parables work so well, despite being so simplistic? Because he understood the simplicity of his audience. When I hear students say that they want to make something like the films we see in class, I cringe because I fear that they think that these films will connect with many people and have a phenomenal chance to make tons of money or at least be well known. This simply is not so, because many people will not understand nor care about these type of films, whether they are good or not. The excuse the makers of such films often give is that ,"The audience simply does not understand my film." My response would be, "Do you understand your audience?"

     Films, although this is admittedly a broad generalization, tend to fall into two categories. Mainstream and what I will call "art house" (this includes foreign films). We must realize that depending on what audience we would reach, this should determine what type of films we make. If we wish to touch a select few (or work in a more experimentl manner), who often have what I will call higher/different faculties of mind and taste, art house is the way to go. However, if we wish to reach a large audience, we will likely have to make a mainstream film. If you are called to make art house style films, so be it. If you are called to make more mainstream films, so be it. I say that we should try to mix elements of both. When it has worked, it has had a large impact and can make tons of money (think The Dark Knight). This is a difficult task, since human nature tends to gravitate to extremes in any given situation. I think that it is the means that we should strive for, if we wish to make both good and impactful films.

     To close, I would simply like to reiterate that I understand why Professor Leeper is doing what he is doing. However, I think that since we are in a class that is designed to help us tell stories, perhaps it is worth discussing in class not only what the films we watch are about, or their meanings, but what audience are they attempting to reach, and more importantly, what audiences are they reaching. If we do not discuss this, we are in danger of falling into day dreams about how the kinds of films we wish to make are going to affect an audience. An audience that we often imagine is a lot bigger than it is likely to be be in reality. After all, perhaps the most important part of a story is the audience, and if you don't have an audience, then what you do have is a problem.