dumbing down?

Does the blockbuster represent a dumbing-down of film aesthetics, or a means by which artistry and technology may be renewed?

One of the major criticisms of blockbusters is that they represent a prevalence for visual spectacle at the expense of narrative and artistic integrity. As a result of financial risk and the necessity for ever increasing box office receipts, the industry relies on formulaic dependency, over simplification and a need for mass marketing which compromises the ability for artistic endeavour. Though elements of what might be called blockbuster conventions, such as emphasis on spectacle, star power and narrative simplicity can be found far before the emergence of modern blockbusters in the biblical epics of the 1950’s such as Ben-Hur (1959) or The Ten Commandments (1956), this essay shall focus on the emergence of the modern blockbuster out of New Hollywood era starting in the 1970’s and specifically focussing on Jaws (1975) for its notoriety as beginning a trend (along with films such as Star Wars) for high concept, mass marketed films. Geoff King highlights that “numerous commentators on contemporary, new or post classical Hollywood seem to rely at least in part on such implicit assumptions about the cinema that went before,”[1] here I shall suspend critical comparison to classically aesthetically driven films such as the works of Eisenstein or Welles for the sake of necessity to focus on the implications and debate surrounding the status of the modern blockbuster. Specifically how aesthetics have been compromised for financial success and whether this supposed dumbing-down is as damaging and deplorable as it is believed to be or if it is allowing for a new renaissance in aesthetic and technological endeavour.

As previously stated, for the purposes of this essay the film Jaws will be used as an exposition for the theory that the blockbuster represents a dumbing-down of film aesthetics, as the film is generally considered a prototypical example of what was to emerge from the New Hollywood era as a modern blockbuster. Chief among the criticisms of dumbing-down in this film I believe is Spielberg’s method of audience pacification via cinematic spoon feeding throughout the picture. What is meant by this is primarily his overuse of reaction shots for the benefit or it is argued the deactivation of the audience. An example can be seen in the dock sequence when Brody is slapped by Mrs Kintner whose son has recently become a victim of the eponymous shark. Here the shot of the slap is quickly cut from Brody to Hooper who, like the audience is an observer of the action. Hooper recoils in shock at the force of the slap. What is important here is that Spielberg has depicted how an observer should react to the onscreen action as if to underestimate the ability of an engaged audience to infer consequence from action. If we are to understand audience responses in terms of Kahneman and Tversky’s model of simulation heuristics[2] then the insertion of Hooper’s reaction shot here undermines audience capability to engage empathetically with screen action, the implication of which is to make an audience dependent on visual cues to react in a manner which the filmmaker desires them to do so. Gerrig and Prentice argue that “Viewers bring some range of cognitive processes to the experience of film”[3] however this process of empathetic cognition is disregarded by Spielberg as a result of his reaction shots, which it could be argued make the audience lazy and unengaged, replacing narrative exposition with visual, visceral spectacle, the result of which is that “epic or fantastic events are designed to play strongly to the audio-visual qualities of the theatrical experience.”[4]

Secondly we can see in Jaws a level of narrative economy employed by Spielberg to advance the narrative quickly and more discreetly. The film opens in a style reminiscent of the B-movie creature features of the 1950’s where teenagers are punished for their sexual promiscuity and recklessness by an arbitrary and remorseless agent (here the shark) as a stand in for society’s parenting. By front loading the film in this way, audiences, particularly cine-literate audiences of the baby-boom generation would have preconceived notions from which to observe the film with. Rather than try to experiment with narrative and stylistic construct, a road map is placed for the audience to follow the generic cinematic conventions rather than challenge them through narrative expediency. Instead, narration, as Warren Buckland points out is “geared solely to the effective presentation of expensive effects.”[5] The film furthers this generic intertextuality again, morphing the monster movie into a chase movie and a buddy movie by the time the film reaches the scenes on the Orca. As a caustic emphasis of this point, P. David Marshall notes that “Great works emerge from a break with the horizon of expectation.”[6] Instead what we are presented with by Spielberg is Moby Dick in a comic book form complete with great white whale (shark) and (emotionally) crippled Ahab in Quint. The ending emphasises the triumph of the suburban everyman over the unknowable and terrible power of nature (or whatever meta-narrative one wishes the shark to embody) a predictable conclusion that bolsters Peter Wollen’s argument that in art rather than commercial film “There is a greater willingness to develop narratives that favour ambiguity over sentimentalised closure.”[7] In Jaws the clear cut hero triumphs for the safety of domestic suburban conformity and order is restored. Peter Bogdanovich commented on this to the extent that “Jaws was devastating to making artistic, smaller films. They forgot how to do it. They’re no longer interested.”[8] Though it can be argued that Jaws does have its artistic merits embedded in certain thematic exploration such as the mistrust of authority (represented by Brody’s antagonism with the mayor) which would have struck a cord with Watergate era audiences, criticisms of the film lie as Bogdanovich points out, with the legacy of blockbusters that Jaws helped to establish. Timothy Corrigan argues thusly that this type of blockbuster is “aimed at an undifferentiated popular audience…by means of a mix of genres – often combining action adventure with comedy, drama, romance…and the like.”[9]

This template of intertextuality, simplicity and audience passivity is repeated in many subsequent blockbusters. It has been argued that as a result of the commercial success of Jaws, Studios were quick to capitalise on the formulaic conventions Spielberg introduced to produce similar results in other commercially dependent releases. The resultant dependence on formulaic spectacle to draw the greatest box office receipts has arguably led to a dilution of narrative and aesthetic integrity in blockbusters, as Geoff King remarks; “the desire to appeal to a mass market is likely to produce a degree of built in incoherence and conflicting demands.”[10]As modern blockbusters become evermore dependent on extra box office revenues, particularly from foreign markets and commercial tie-ins that bring capital to modern conglomerate ancillary markets such as toy manufacture, soundtrack albums and video game divisions, the artistic integrity of the production is bound to be superseded by the necessity for high concept spectacle that can be easily marketed and sold to prime demographics. Thomas Schatz supports this belief stating that “the ideal movie today is not only a box office smash but a two hour promotion for a multimedia product line.”[11]

Though I have argued that Jaws and by consequence the blockbuster as a whole lack aesthetic integrity. Blockbusters and high concept productions should not however be dismissed out of hand as simply capitalist, formulaic money spinners; for inherent in the blockbuster phenomena and the revenue produced by them is the means to sustain the entertainment industry and allow studios to produce independent film. The Paramount Decrees of 1948 forced the dis-integration of the major studios and proliferated the trend of fewer but more expensive productions. Murray smith argues that this “package production leads to a growth in the number of independent film companies”[12] furthermore the major studios recycle the profits from their large commercial productions into subsidiary companies (such as Twentieth Century Fox’s Searchlight, or Disney’s Miramax) allowing for a pool of upcoming talent to be absorbed into the industry. He argues further that these independent companies, financed by the majors act in a form of “industrial dualism…as shock absorbers and research arms for the majors.”[13] The consequence is one of symbiosis within the film industry whereby independent film can be experimental and aesthetically bold because the studios can use blockbuster profits to cover risk and allow art house production the room exploration of narrative and aesthetic diversity which might not have been financially viable without the safety that the blockbusters provide. Another crucial aspect of blockbuster production that almost certainly would not be possible in smaller productions is the introduction of new technology.

Whether it be early exhibitions of Widescreen and similar formats, CGI or Dolby Surround sound, the necessity to showcase new technology on a wide scale requires the box office success that blockbusters bring. Only after the commercial viability of a new technology has been proven at the box office can it then become industry standard and used in other productions. In an industrial context, the standardisation of practices and technologies that comes from blockbuster showcasing such as saturation marketing for Jaws, viable CGI in Jurassic Park or widescreen in the biblical epics of the 1950’s allows for industrial stabilisation so that the industry not only avoids financial destabilisation from inter-competition but also escapes entropy through experimentation. The blockbuster stands as somewhat of a pariah in contemporary cinema, though often reviled as simplistic, over indulgent and formulaic, it is also a source of renewal for the industry which has become dependent on the success of its prestige releases to generate forward momentum in the competitive market. Ultimately blockbusters allow for diversity by bolstering independent talent in the industry whilst supplying staple fare for the movie going public to indulge in escapism. Choice is the final consideration, the film audience although clearly indulgent in blockbusters are also offered, as a result of blockbuster profits, the chance to see artistic films that challenge the notions of narrative and aesthetic regularity whilst being able to engage with the spectacle and excitement of the rollercoaster ride in the modern blockbuster.


[1] Geoff King, Spectacular Narratives: Hollywood in the age of the Blockbuster, (London, I.B Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2000) p. 3
[2] Richard J. Gerrig and Deborah A. Prentice, Notes on Audience Response, from Post-Theory: reconstructing Film Studies, Ed. David Bordwell and Noel Carroll, (Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1996) p. 396

[3]Richard J. Gerrig and Deborah A. Prentice, Notes on Audience Response, from Post-Theory: reconstructing Film Studies, Ed. David Bordwell and Noel Carroll, (Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1996) p. 402
[4] Geoff King, Spectacle, Narrative, and the Spectacular Hollywood Blockbuster, from Movie Blockbusters, Ed. Julian Stringer, (London, Routledge, 2003) p. 116
[5] Warren Buckland, Notes on Narrative Aspects of the New Hollywood Blockbuster, from Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, Ed. Steve Neale and Murray Smith (London, Routledge, 1998) p. 167
[6] Gary Woodward, Identification, Celebrity, and the Hollywood Film, from The Idea of Identification, (Albany, State University of New York Press, 2003) p. 246
[7] Gary Woodward, Identification, Celebrity, and the Hollywood Film, from The Idea of Identification, (Albany, State University of New York Press, 2003) p. 246
[8] Peter Biskind, Easy Riders Raging Bulls, (London, Bloomsbury 1998) p. 255

[9] Warren Buckland, Notes on Narrative Aspects of the New Hollywood Blockbuster, from Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, Ed. Steve Neale and Murray Smith (London, Routledge, 1998) p. 167
[10] Geoff King, Spectacular Narratives: Hollywood in the age of the Blockbuster, (London, I.B Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2000) p4
[11] Thomas Schatz, Conglomerates and the Media, ed. Erik Barnouw et al, (New York, The New York Press, 1997) p. 74
[12] Murray Smith, Theses on the Philosophy of Hollywood History, from Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, Ed. Steve Neale and Murray Smith (London, Routledge, 1998) p. 7
[13] Murray Smith, Theses on the Philosophy of Hollywood History, from Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, Ed. Steve Neale and Murray Smith (London, Routledge, 1998) p. 9