Film as Religion, Second Edition. John C. Lyden

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ settings, and how these processes of cultural production and consumption related to wider social structures and relations.”18 Lynch makes use of a revised form of this, which includes “processes of production, issues of representation in relation to cultural objects and texts, the ways in which cultural products relate to the formation of social identities, the ways in which cultural texts and objects are used and consumed, and the structures which regulate how cultural products are produced, distributed, and used.”19 I have myself used a form of the circuit of culture to analyze films, focused on the stages of the process of creating and producing the film, the marketing and distribution of the film, the film itself, and its reception by audiences.20 While I will not be able to consider all these aspects in detail for the films I discuss in this book, I will attempt to remain aware of the fact that the meanings films have do not exist apart from their appropriation by viewers in a particular societal and historical context, and the circuit of culture is an important reminder of that.

      Lynch notes that there has been some tension between those who have primarily utilized cultural theory to analyze popular culture and those who have utilized cultural studies.21 “Cultural theory” in this case would be similar to the approaches to popular film that I labeled “ideological” in my first edition—in particular, analyses that uncover the ways in which films mirror oppressive structures that exist within societies, such as classism, racism, and sexism. These approaches may utilize Marxist, psychoanalytic, or feminist theories (for example) to uncover these structures. Such approaches are sometimes accused of imposing a meaning on the film based on the theorist’s assumptions, which may or may not exist in the viewer’s appropriation of the film. For example, not all films that are critiqued by cultural theorists as supporting sexist ideologies need to be interpreted by every viewer in a sexist way; some may actually find themselves liberated by the same films that the theorist regarded as oppressive. “Cultural studies” has tried to correct this neglect of audience reaction through considering how audiences might interpret the artifacts and practices of popular culture (including films) in ways that subvert or counter the dominant ideologies.22 The latter approach attends to how ideology is at work in popular culture but also recognizes that consumers can make a variety of meanings out of it—an idea I also supported in the first edition of this book.

      In this edition, therefore, I continue to have concerns about cultural theorists who create eisegetical interpretations that bear little connection to how actual viewers receive the films. At the same time, I have a greater appreciation for a cultural-studies approach that actually pays attention to the diversity of ways in which viewers may interpret a film and the need to consider whether a film receives significant marketing or distribution. In addition to considering the circuit of culture, such interpretations can utilize audience-reception data where they exist. Although such data are still in short supply, the internet now offers a new source of data through user comments, which can give us an idea of how at least some viewers interpret films, and I will make use of that resource to some extent, as well as box-office returns, which suggest the popularity of a film at the time of its release and its ability to connect with a larger group of viewers.

      Although I am wary of interpretations that assume all viewers interpret a film in the same way or that ignore what they actually say about their viewing experience or what they find in a film, I realize that viewers are not always able to fully articulate how a film affects them. Cultural theorists are correct to be ideologically suspicious of films that may reinforce prejudices or provide support for status-quo hegemonies, and this has become increasingly obvious to me since writing the first edition of this book. I believe we should seek to uncover all ideologies that might be conveyed in films while at the same time realizing that some viewers may create alternate readings that counter the same ideologies. While this was a point that I also expressed in the first edition, I now have a better understanding of many of the ways in which this can occur. I have also heard Kent Brintnall’s challenge to me that religion is just as ideologically suspect as popular culture and that ideological analysis can be of great use in uncovering the ways in which hegemonic discourse occurs in these realms.23

      Part II: Genre and Film Analyses

      Part II of this book discusses particular genres of film, as in the first edition. I have chosen this approach as it offers a convenient way to structure the discussion of popular films, and many films fall within these categories. At the same time, many films worthy of discussion will not fall under these headings, and so I have not discussed them; this does not mean that the films I discuss in this book are the best in cinema or even the ones with the most obviously “religious” content or messages. They are, however, popular and influential for a large group of filmgoers, and that is my interest in them; a key part of my argument is also that films that do not appear to be “religious” in subject matter may be functioning like religions, and popular genres demonstrate that.

      The genres I have selected are basically the same ones as in the first edition, although subcategories have been added in some cases. I have eliminated the longer analysis of single films in order to make room for the more general discussion of the evolution of these genres up to the present, with more examples. The focus will also continue to be primarily on popular Hollywood films that generate larger profits as opposed to independent or art-house films, as these are most emblematic of trends in American films that express dominant American attitudes and often have extensive international distribution and so worldwide exposure. Once again, this does not mean that these are necessarily the best films made, but they are seen by the most people and so arguably have the most significant influence. Although they cannot and will not reflect the views of all members of their audiences, these are the products that sell the most, in part because they have the marketing and distribution but also because people choose to see them—even though they may interpret them in diverse ways.

      The chapter on westerns, action films, and superheroes is a revision from the earlier edition that adds a discussion of comic-book superhero films, a genre that has expanded exponentially since 2000. In that year, the first X-Men film appeared, followed by Spider-Man two years later, and since then, these films have dominated the box office. I have connected these films to my discussion of westerns and action movies, as they all offer violent heroes who fight and sacrifice themselves for others in order to save them from evil. These films are highly dualistic but also offer moral reflections on the use of violence in the service of justice that transcend simplistic judgments about their allegedly “fascist” content.

      Gangster films have not been as popular, but they remain significant in the history of film genre analysis.24 The contrast with the western, action, and superhero genres shows the different ways films offer attractive images of both “good guys” and “bad guys.” Gangster films continue to provide one of the best examples of how liminality functions in film, as audiences identify with forbidden behavior in order to channel dissatisfaction with the status quo—providing a temporary catharsis but also perhaps pointing to the utopian possibility of change.

      The chapter on melodrama and “women’s films” has been revised to include film series made from books such as the Twilight and Fifty Shades series. Strangely, increased liberation for women in society has coincided with the tremendous popularity of sexist stories among women, while earlier decades often featured strong female characters defying stereotypes. An analysis of this shift can indicate some of the ways in which women in particular interact with popular culture as society changes and how the backlash against feminism is expressed in the products marketed to women but also purchased by them.

      Romantic comedies have not changed their basic formula, but recent ones suggest the possibility of challenges to norms, as women in some of these films show more autonomy and have interests other than marriage. Stereotypes are hard to change, but we have begun to see more liberated women in romantic comedies, as well as more diverse representations that expand beyond white heterosexuals.

      Children’s fantasy films have evolved in significant ways, offering creative and sometimes profound fare that СКАЧАТЬ