집단적인 수용자들의 영화 생산 과정 참여 현상의 함의 연구

Basic Information

Title

집단적인 수용자들의 영화 생산 과정 참여 현상의 함의 연구

Subtitle

-

Parallel Title

-

Country

국내

Production Date

2015-**-**

Language

-

Size (mm)

-

Pages

209쪽

ISBN/ISSN

-

Edition

-

Master Files

-

Producer

김현정 (동국대학교 대학원 연극영화학과 박사 논문 저자)

Description

(논문요약)Collective audience(consumers) have lately and deeply been involved in the film production processes. They do not simply watch the final product of the processes but instead, they take a further and proactive step to make their own contributions throughout all the processes of investment, production, distribution and screening; their fundraisings via the internet called “crowdfunding” have been a big factor in the investment of many films; their close participation in the production stage has resulted in the increasing number of cases of “directly participatory production process film”; and by promoting “community screening” for which the audience rent film theaters and films altogether, they play a big role in film distribution and screening. Responding to this current trend, the present study, based on concepts and theories of “active audience studies (cultural studies)”, “collective intelligence” and “structuration theory” analyzes 1) this current trend in comparison to the past cases of collective audience’ participation in the film production processes, 2) the motivation and background of why and how this trend was formed, 3) its (positive and negative) influences on the film producers, the audience, and the film industry overall, and lastly 4) the implications of the emergence of this current trend that challenges/questions the conventional role of the film audience. This current trend of collective audience’ proactive participation in the film production processes is not something unheard of ‘P.U.R.N membership’ by ‘P.U.R.N Production’; ‘100 feet fund-raising membership campaign’ by ‘Docu-factory VISTA’; ‘netizenfund’; <The Sang-kyedong Olympics>(Kimdong-won, 1988); <LaborNews>(Labor News Production, 1989-1997); and ‘Waranago campaign’. It presents, however, a few characteristics that are notably different from its counterparts in the past. Most notably, whereas the participation in the past was mostly run by some minority groups of particular interests(e.g., students, general laborers, the physically-challenged, and sexual minorities), the current collective audience extend their inclusion to more general and broad population. Furthermore, the gateways to the participation in the film production processes have changed as well. The collective audience in the past participated more “physically” and “closely” to support particular films and for that reason their participation was limited and temporary. However, thanks to the easy access to many “crowdfunding”, “directly participatory production process film” and “distribution” websites, the current collective audience participate in the film production processes more readily in a relatively less limited fashion. The major factor that rendered the current collective audience’ participation in film production different from that in the past was the technology that made the digital system possible. The digital system in film production and the communication within such system allowed the film producers and the audience to share the film production processes and each others’ feedbacks easily and ultimately to stay connected throughout the processes. The digital technology also brought the audience together connected through its digital networks so that they could “collectively” participate in film production. Easy access and use of digital movie equipments such as video cameras, digital editors, and projectors also helped open the door wider to the even closer participation in film production. The current trend of collective audience’ participation in film production reflects the expansion of collective intelligence; the audience’ collective intelligence is not restricted to one area. “Crowdfunding”, “directly participatory production process film” and “community screening” are thus not run individually on their own but rather work in close connections. It is important to note that the collective audience’ participation in film production does not mean that the films are distributed and screened independently of the film producers. In fact, what brings out the audience’ collective intelligence is none other than the film producers who also take more responsibilities throughout all the film production processes. This seemingly natural fact that the film producers lead the film production processes does lessen the role of the audience but this limit of their role should not be interpreted in any disrespectful manners. It is a partnership with the producers in a friendly and yet very organized environment where the audience still can experience the processes and give their feedbacks. This seemingly reasonable partnership between the film producers and the audience do not happen always automatically. Because the audience are autonomous agents on their own, even when the film producers want them to be involved in film production, they would not participate if both sides were not articulated with. It is challenging for the producers to realize what the audience want and need. Also, because the audience’ participation is only healthy and meaningful when it comes from “bottom-up” not from “top-down”, the film producers put their best efforts to understand the audience. When their efforts are recognized and thus draw the audience’ participation in film production, those efforts remain as important resources for the audience. In return, by the help of the audience’ participation in film production, the producers can enjoy some, though not complete, autonomy within the structure and the system of the prevailing film industry. Individual film producers and the reigning film system are interdependent. The film producers often feel restricted and frustrated by the current film system and thus seek for independence by introducing the collective audience’ participation in film production. It is, however, virtually not possible to have the complete autonomy within the overpowering system. The film producers, therefore, rather take advantage of the system for their benefits by utilizing their knowledge and information about the system whenever necessary. The film industry and its system, on the other hand, also intentionally and/or unintentionally benefits from those film producers as they and their participating audience bring in successful outcomes that encourage and support the industry back again. The collective audience’ participation in film production opens up the door for many positive and promising opportunities. First, it may establish a stable ground on which films can be produced freely from exterior pressures(e.g., government and single big investors) that have their voices heard and reflected throughout the making processes, mostly in distorted ways. The groups of variety from many different backgrounds will ensure a more democratic order in the film production processes. Challenging the current vertical order in the film production system, the equal rights of each and every participants may lead themselves to more reasonable solutions for the issues that may arise in film production. Secondly, when a film is supported by a crowdfunding, the entire processes including the timeline, the budget, and all the fund expenditures can be open to all the investors and even to the public through its website, which promises a fair and transparent film production. Thirdly, films can become more interactive through the audience’ participation. In comparison to other media contents, films have been notorious for their exclusive production. The audience’ participation will open up the production processes so the movie contents can reflect the audience’ wants and needs up to date. Lastly, the proactive participation of the audience may change the perception of the films overall. Films have been largely associated with a group of certain talents, a “top-down” product to consume, and/or some big money investors. When such perceptions are replaced by anyone’s participation, partnership, and our stories/values, movies may rightfully entertain its publicity. The collective audience’ participation in film production does not bring those positive and productive impacts only. It may be taken as an alternative media to the current major film production system but, as noted earlier, it can be viewed as another infrastructure that feeds the current film production system even bigger. Because of such different impacts and outcomes, it is difficult to pin down this trend of interest to one definite meaning. Therefore, further and extensive efforts are suggested to develop and guide the currently observed collective audience’ participation in film production towards the positive direction.

Holdings Information 1