Blockbusters

MODULE:
Blockbusters allow film companies to be more profitable. A blockbuster will be seen by multiple audiences; blockbusters make money because they build on one formula for many films.

1. “High Concept” films—blockbusters [7]—are easily represented by a short phrase, easily marketed with iconic images, and likely to appeal to a wide audience in a general way. These films seek to be the films Louis Mayer was looking for at MGM—guaranteed winners [8]. It is no accident that high concept films repute to be “critic proof.” But what makes these films so popular?

2. Wyatt proposes that such films, usually chosen for star power or previous success (as with sequels), succeed because they meet audience expectations. They are also easy to market. He writes,

Given their marketability and the reliance upon past successes, it is probable that the high concept films would be more popular than other films. In addition, given their modularity and “recycled” quality, statistical modeling, based on coding the film into several constitutive variables, might be able to predict their box office performance with more precision than that for the “low concept” films (20).

Wyatt suggests that three factors determine whether a film is “high concept” or not: “the look, the hook, and the book.” He describes these as “the look of the images, the marketing hooks, and the reduced narratives” that make a high concept movie work (22). But Wyatt’s explanation ignores what Lev Manovich describes as the “fractal” nature of modular media. In short, the fact that modular elements reflect similar structure on all levels.

3. For instance, the idea of the assembly line as devised by military leaders and rationalized labor proponents (like Taylor and Ford) reflects its own concept and structure throughout the system. The assembly line met the need for interchangeable parts for military weaponry; these parts needed to be identical so they could be swapped out if they malfunctioned. Thus, factory owners divided each piece of manufactured equipment into distinct parts which were machined identically. At the same time, Taylor studied the movements of workers themselves, breaking down their work into constituent parts and their projects into smaller and smaller bits of labor. In doing so, he not only made each worker more efficient, he removed skill and craft from the work they did. Each worker did only a small part of the job, needed less training, and thus became more easily replaced. The assembly line uses interchangeable workers to build interchangeable parts. Its modularity is fractal.

4. In a similar way, high concept films use modularity in a fractal way; these films are created using a variety of modules on a variety of levels. As Wyatt suggests, blockbusters need the look, hook, and book modules, but they also need genre and aesthetics. Because these films use a variety of modules, both narrative and aesthetic, from films audiences have seen previously, they appear familiar and thus become part of the films’ hook.

5. Blockbusters, or “High Concept” films, have reached a high level of modularity. These films combine Taylor’s rationalized division of labor (introduced to the movie industry by Louis B. Mayer) with the benefits of careful genre study and targeted marketing. The resulting films are popular because they are familiar; audiences know what to expect and enjoy getting it. Blockbusters epitomize modular filmmaking.

6. At the same time, blockbuster films like Jaws sometimes exceed the aesthetic limits that a strict adherence to modularity would occasion. Perhaps, in these moments, scholars of new media can find clues that explain how invention and innovation occur in modular authorship. In other words, when film makers working from a “database” of modules assemble an innovative film, they embody new media authorship. [Film Studies] [Grammatology]