The gangster genre, is a good specimen as examples of it exist in almost all film industries. Specimens include: “Run Lola Run” (Germany), “”Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” (Britain), “Chopper” (Australia)’ “Hard Boiled (Hong Kong) and “Goodfellas” (America). Warshaw argued that more localised historical and cultural reasons lead to a genres success rather then the one undefinable ‘X’ which, Tudor thoerised, leads to universal appeal. With independent examples this could be true as films examine the society’s criminal underground and question the law system. Within the gangster genre traditional dominant ideologies are subverted; the film’s hero is society’s villain and the bourgeoisie are revealed, as the corrupt megalomaniacs Marxists want them to be, Harvey Keitel in “Copland” for instance. Yet, the examination goes further as the ‘criminal heroes’ are still punished. Furthermore, the corruption, by being revealed, is seen as irradicated. So by showing these conflicting views the producer’s control is seen as just and, to quote Althusser, “inevitable”. The producer, after all, has media access to film and therefore is part of the bourgeoisie. By showing a text which seemingly questions social systems but eventually supports their own position these producers provide examples of Gramsci’s hegemony. Dominant views achieve greater legitimacy by their victory over opposing views, thus the audience is convinced (through a behaviourist vein) the conclusion, that the system works, is correct. Such use of intepellation rather then indoctrination instills greater confidence in the audience, as their role is assured and important. Even with the international popularity of the American gangster film, such as “Goodfellas”, Warshaw’s cultural links can still be applied as it plays on a very localised perception held across the world of life in the criminal circle of American cities. The world we are presented with at the beginning of “Goodfellas” is a 50’s Brooklyn filled with Cadilacs and Italian-Americans. Plus, Scorsese’s use of the ‘legs-only shot’ emphasises the ‘traditional’ gangster attire the audience expects, with Frank Dileo wearing polished shoes and a pressed suit.
The name “criminal” itself links with labelling theory as the character’s appearance coupled with the context of his actions earn him the label ‘criminal’ and all the social connotations which go with it. Such conventions are universal; in Hollywood this can be see in “The Godfather” as Michael reenters the life of crime to save his father, an arguably honorable role, the NYPD’s corruption is shown by their not guarding Don Corleone’s hospital bed and Michael’s eventual exile to Sicily is his punishment. Supporting examples in British film can be seen in “Get Carter” with the disregard of police action, as their inability is evident:
Carter: Would you call the police?
Edna: No
Carter: So shut up then!
Carter’s punishment is being killed. This formula of crime and punishment can be linked through literary history. The traits and tropes of Shakespearean tragedy for example, in which the faulted heroes of Lear and Othello can be seen as paralleled by the faulted heroes of Henry (“Goodfellas”) and Michael (“The Godfather “) as their faults eventually destroy them and their families. This is another example of Hollywood assimilating successful and populist aspects of other literary sources. The fact that Carter is faulted shows Independent Cinema also assimilates literary sources, suggesting that the nature of film (the necessity of immediate audience recognition and understanding) and subsequently, its incorporation of other sources, leads to global generic hybridity. Such definitions of the genre were also pointed out by Wellek and Warren. They observed paradigmatic relations, such as criminal progress or means of punishment and the significance of their syntax, as seen in the intrigue caused by Sam’s (DeNiro’s) car bombing being placed at the beginning of the narrative in “Casino”. This is an excellent example of Barthes' enigma code. The combination of which with Scorsese’s cult status with film fans and critics, could suggest “Casino” as a writerly text, as “bliss” results from the audience’s engaged understanding of the complex plot. The international popularity of the genre could be explained by Kitses’ thematic identities, as in every culture there is the idea of law vs. crime, social responsibility vs. self-interest and brutalisation vs. censorship. In this way seemingly different adaptations of the gangster genre across the world’s film industries actually work within the same generic conventions forming a global generic hybridity or alternatively standardisation across industries as well as standadisation within those independent and mainstream industries.
These general and international ideas of popularity could suggest that differences between independent and Hollywood films exist not in narrative, but production. Furthermore, these conventions are broken in both independent and mainstream cinema, such as the British example of “Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” when Big Chris escapes punishment with the money, as does Verbal Kint in “The Usual Suspects”, an American offering. Differences then, must be found in production. An obvious difference is budget, “Casino’s” Hollywood studio backing from Universal would have allowed Scorsese more money then Guy Ritchie had for “Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels”. Hence, sets are different, with small, restricted locations used by independent filmmakers, giving these films a claustrophobic edge. To legitimise this, directors often use sharp cutting and grainy camera filters to add realism to their texts, whilst Hollywood films utilise lavish sets and wide focus lenses to showcase the locations, such as the opening of “Goodfellas” showing the workings of a Brooklyn neighbourhood in 1955. Such freedom of production can also allow Hollywood films greater freedom of narrative, such as the extensive car chase in “Bullet”.
Bodyism suggest a glamorous, famous and attractive body or actor increases the value of the film as a commodity as the audience’s desire is increased (this desire for consonance in turn perpetuated by the director’s manipulation of the male/female gaze of the audience). This itself plays a part in those differences. None of the “Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” stars Jason Flemming, Dexter Fletcher and Nick Moran were international stars. Plus, other then perhaps Moran (who was featured in magazines such as “OK!” and “Hello!” as possessing alleged ‘Hollywood good looks’) none have the potential of becoming a Hollywood heartthrob. Contrastingly, faceism would suggest “Donnie Brasco” stars Jonny Depp and the famous face of Al Pachino are both sellable images. This investigation shows that the differences lie mostly in style, which would support Pye’s idea that trying to establish these territorial boundaries is impossible due to the amount of grey areas, or generic hybridity and differing audience demands and levels of consumption.
This again leads to the question of the genre's popularity and a possible answer is that the gangster film had proven to be the playground for groundbreaking directors. Within independent cinema, without the narrative constraints of industry pressure, young directors have had the chance to break boundaries. Guy Ritchie’s success with “Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” has lead to populist imitations such as “Gangster No1” whilst “Chopper’s” director Andrew Dominik created massive uproar in Australia over his sinister character study. Even within Hollywood much innovation has appeared through this genre, as the ‘brat pack’ of director/auteurs changed the genre single-handedly. Francis Ford Coppola created the modern gangster film with “The Godfather” whilst Martin Scorsese explored it through “Goodfellas”. This popularity through directorial innovation conjures up an idea of the gratifications model as the audience searches for, as Renoir put it, “esoteric structure” throughout the genre. Yet again, though, industry demands must be considered as Scorsese’s later works such as “Casino” could be seen as studio demands from Universal for a repeat of his success, equally so could Coppolla’s return to “The Godfather” in 1990 funded by Paramount. Therefore, the auteur can be seen as becoming diluted and formulaic, only supplying a global industry and therefore aiding the construction of the hybrid genre.
Going back to simple ideas of narrative could also help explain this popularity, as Propp’s characters can be seen, for example in “Donnie Brasco”, Depp is the hero, Pachino the helper, Heche the prize and Madson the Villain. Similarly in the German “Run Lola Run”, Lola is the heroine, Manni the prize and Ronnie the villain. Another prevailing narrative similarity is that of Todorov’s equilibrium, for example “Casino” starts with Sam having a bookkeeper’s job, the chaos ensues with his attempt at running a casino, then equilibrium returns once more as he again becomes a bookkeeper. This all points to the same conclusion, that despite independent innovation, globalisation has lead to the unification of the gangster genre, a pattern repeated across film and epitomised with the tentpole blockbuster, such as the kung foo/western/action hybrid “Shanghai Noon”. Commodification has ensured that every aspect of film can be sold. Yet such extensive creation of commodity is not limited to Hollywood, the “Run Lola Run” franchise, for example, can boast a DVD and VHS edition, soundtrack CD published on TVT records and a web page; . As independent films create new conventions they are immediately adopted into the mainstream, perpetuating global hybridity. An alternative argument, though, must be considered. Such new conventions evident with independent cinema could be seen as manipulation of the old to create the new. Many modern independent films could be seen as post modern, such as the Coen Brother’s twist on the American tale with “O Brother Where Art Thou?” paying homage to the 1940’s Hollywood musical and seminal films such as “Gone With The Wind” as well as Homer’s “Odyssey”. However, this view is limited, as cinema existed before Hollywood globalised it, such as France’s “age d’or” of the 1920’s.
One must now question whether independent cinema still exists. With the combination of Westernisation and Hollywood assimilation the mainstream is expanding to encompass the whole world. British cinema is starting to cater for American audiences with the joint Hollywood/British ventures of “Shakespeare in Love” and even the martial arts genre, such as Bruce Lee’s “Enter the Dragon” have been adopted into Hollywood films such as “Rush Hour”. This assimilation is even openly endorsed with the Hollywood remake of the Spanish “Open Your Eyes” in “Vanilla Sky” recreating the original almost shot for shot and proudly brandishing the same lead female, Penelope Cruz. The studio backing of independent filmmakers such as for “Snatch”, which was funded by Sony, alludes to Gramsci’s hegemony as the studios convince the audience that the Hollywood system caters for all.
The example of Sony’s financing of “Snatch” can act as a showcase for the globalisation of Hollywood, which in turn has contributed to generic hybridity. In the 1940’s or “classical Hollywood” period (Neale and Smith) a film’s studio backing was distinguishable by its style and genre. Furthermore, classic Hollywood consisted of the five majors (Paramount, MGM, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner’s and RKO) and the little three (Universal, Columbia and UA). Hollywood now has a myriad of powerful studios, Sony’s venture with “Snatch” being an example. Warner Brothers is an excellent example of integration, horizontally expanding into communication, becoming Time Warner, as well as vertically integrating with the creation of the Warner Village cinema chain. Such financial power and industrial control allow studios such as Warner’s to limit the type of film produced. With such a financial pressure placed on films, the studio features rely on past success and repetition whilst paradoxically searching for the new to ensure profit, hence assimilation of independent conventions leading to generic hybridity.
In fact the least Westernised industry is actually the second largest; Bollywood, which produces twice as many films per year as Hollywood, a prolific 900. Yet, whilst the Asian target audience for this industry also consume Hollywood pictures, very little permeation of Bollywood films occurs outside the Asian community across the world. Even this tide is changing; the recent “Asoka” was the first Bollywood film to be specifically marketed to non-Asian audiences in order to further the possible target audience. Plus, in December 2001 the west friendly (it has parts in English) “Kabhi Kushi Kabhi Gham” achieved a top three place in the British film charts.
Classic representations of Asians existing outside the mainstream film industry are also changing with the great success of “East is East” and the Indian actor Amitabh Bachchan’s position as top of the BBC’s online poll for the greatest actor ever, beating Lawrence Olivier. Bollywood conventions are also becoming apparent in Hollywood texts; with Heather Graham's “Guru” featuring Bollywood dance scenes as well as the lavish “Moulin Rouge’s” extensive dance sequences being described as “Bollywood-esque”. At the same time ‘Americanisation’ is sweeping the Bollywood industry with a recent American/Indian dual funded Western being filmed. Therefore, the two richest and seemingly opposing film industries are merging through generic hybridity. Such corporate fusion dilutes individual film industries as national significance is replaced with global significance in order to increase the possible market share. As film is becoming so commercially driven a ‘super industry’ has arguably been formed. Thus, contemporary cinema could be considered “baroque” (Bazin) as opposed to the art-oriented cinema of the early to mid twentieth century.
Throughout this essay, Hollywood, Britain, Australia, France and Germany have all been mentioned as bases of their own film industry, with the idea that their films are funded and produced within that country. Even that is a misconception. Hollywood films are produced across the world; such as “Lord of the Rings” which filmed in New Zealand. Similarly, British films receive Hollywood backing, i.e. “Snatch”. As Hollywood has become such a global network, does it, as we perceive it, still exist? No other industry has such geographical links, what is the center of the car industry? America? Germany? Japan? Where is the capitol of the computer industry? Silicon Valley or Tokyo? With massive production companies across the globe, Hollywood isn’t as centered as the word connotes. In fact, Hollywood could even be considered a genre. In the way that the epic genre can contain any type of narrative if certain criteria relating to setting and syntax are met, such as grand backdrops, many extras, large battles and a heroic conclusion, Hollywood can be considered in the same way. Various hybrids of the epic exist, from the fantasy epic, “Lord of the Rings” to the roman epic, “Spartacus”. Therefore any genre form when containing the “Hollywood criteria” such as Bazin’s universal attributes or Warshaw’s cutural links could then be considered Hollywood, despite its origin.
Thus the idea of defining ‘Hollywood’ and ‘not Hollywood’ is met. This has been attempted before; when trying to discern ‘Art cinema’ from the mainstream Neale pointed out art cinema’s “suppression of action in the Hollywood sense”, “stress on visual styles” and “stress on character rather then plot”, whilst Pam Cook defined it as “the absence of Hollywood”. This term of art cinema is, therefore, possibly more viable than independent cinema. As each country becomes inter twined with Hollywood, and its most successful codes and even directors assimilated into Hollywood, such as John Woo, then it could be said that all commercial or “mainstream” films from any country can come under the banner Hollywood. Then innovative films from individual countries can be placed alongside the creative works of American auteurs such as the Coen Brothers and Tarentino, rather then placed outside the system. Thus, even if the films are produced on the same location, one could constitute ‘art cinema’ and one ‘Hollywood’.
Yet the audience’s control over consumption and even genre development must be considered. The audience’s control over consumption has always been in question. The globalisation of Hollywood and its texts suggests Gramsci’s Bread and Circuses theory as the bourgeoisie provides entertainment to keep the proletariat appeased. However, the constant assimilation of new codes could suggest the gratifications model as their knowledge grows and more audience participation is necessary. Paradoxically, this could suggest the hypodermic model, as images are injected into our minds and we then subconsciously construct meaning, creating the connotations vital in cinema (Freud, psychoanalytical theory). Buscombe supports this idea, as he claims the audience is distanced from critics, as they are not attuned to modes of consumption being used when reading a text. However, it could be argued that audiences have more control and awareness. For example, the western genre has fallen out of fashion and so is no longer in Hollywood mass production, similarly the absence of the Roman epic not seen since “Spartacus” lead to a massive audience expectation upon its revival in 2000, manifesting itself into press hype and advertisement of “Gladiator”.
One must also remember that ‘the producers’ aren’t a whole different species separate from the audience. Every producer is also a member of the audience. In this way it is difficult to discern who controls whom; a director could take inspiration from one film and thus inspire another, each conveying a message to the audience. The relationship is more complex then Ryall’s artist/film/audience triangle. The break from the circle which predominantly controls Hollywood and mainstream film is the auteur. The directors, even if they are working within the Hollywood production line, still create innovation. These productions, such as the Coen brother’s “O Brother Where Art Thou?” are the closest support of Astruc’s claim that “cinema…is a means of expression”. Sarris defines the auteur as having “certain characteristics of style which serve as their signature”, such as Kubrick’s slow starts and Spike Lee’s social questioning. In a similar way to new conventions introduced by independent cinema, the antinomies prevalent in an auteurs work, such as the garden and desert in John Ford’s westerns, then become a code within that genre and is used in the mainstream. It is in this way that, by operating within or alongside Hollywood in the global distribution of films that independent cinema’s codes are assimilated into the mainstream.
Therefore, it can be seen that despite the perception that independent cinema is a separate industry to Hollywood, that they are, in fact, closely connected, one cannot live without the other and so the seemingly binary opposites are inextricably linked. Differences in production caused by budget are becoming less severe as independent producers receive Hollywood backing. Narrative comparisons can be made as well as links in location of filming be seen. By catering to the new global audience, independent cinema actually adds to the knowledge that can be drawn upon by mainstream directors in their manipulation of codes and conventions. This is how independent cinema paradoxically perpetuates global generic hybridity and therefore mainstream cinema.
Taken from “The Cinema Book”, Pam Cook, published by BFI
Taken from “The Media Students Books”, Routledge, 1996
Taken from “Advanced Studies in Media”, Nelson, 1998
Taken from “Approaches To Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995
Taken from “The Media Students Book”, Routledge, 1996
Taken from “Approaches to Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995
Taken from “Studying the Media”, Arnold, 1994
Taken from “Approaches to Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995
Taken from “Sociology in Action”, Harra Lambosse and Holborne
Taken from “Approaches to Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995
Taken from “The Media Students Handbook”. Routledge, 1996
Taken from “Approaches to Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995
Stuart Hall, www.aber.ac.uk/media/students
Mulvey and considerations of psychoanalytical feminist theory, taken from “Approaches to Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995
Taken from “Approaches to Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995
Taken from “The Cinema Book”, Pam Cook, BFI
Taken from “The Media Students Handbook”, Routledge, 1996
Taken from “The Media Students Handbook”, Routledge, 1996
Taken from “The Media Students Handbook”, Routledge, 1996
Examples of these characteristics being; downbeat and gritty for Warner’s and glamorous and glossy for MGM.
Information taken from “The Daily Mirror”
Taken from “Approaches to Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995
John Woo was recognised for his successes in Hong Kong cinema with films such as “Hard Boiled” he was then recruited to Hollywood, directing, among others, “Face/Off” and Mission Impossible: Two”.
Taken from “Sociology in Action”, Harra Lambosse and Holborne
Taken from “Approaches to Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995
Taken from “Approaches to Popular Film”, Manchester University, 1995