V£ IUCI1 I Ir f I No »-HJLLIiVUk/U^MULIlCt'Ut 26 Kracauer, 'National types', p. 56. 27 Kracauer, 'National types', pp. 71-2. 28 David and Evelyn T. Riesman. 'Movies and audience*'. American Quarterly vol. 4,1952. pp. 195-202, quotation p. 195. 29 David Ricsman, with the collaboration of Reuel Denney and Nathan Cilazer. The Loneh Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character I New Haven. Conn.: Yale University Press- 1950). 30 Riesnian and Riesman. Movie* and audiences- pp. 195-6. .11 Li/arsl'eld, 'Audience research', pp. 166-7. 32 Eliot Ftiedson- 'The relation or the social situation ol contact to the media in mass communication', Public Opinion Quarterly vol. 17, Summer 1953. pp. 230-8, quotation p. 231. 33 Friedson,'! he relation", p. 238. 34 Eliol Friedson.'Consumption of mass media by Polish-American children'. Quarterly Review of Film. Radio and Television vol. 9. 1954-5, pp. 92-101, quotation p. 96. note 4. 35 Riesman and Riesmau, 'Movies and audiences', p. 197. 36 Friedson. 'Consumption', p. 97. 37 F.liot Friedson,'Communications research and the concept of the mass', American Sociologičtí Review vol. 18. lune 195.1, pp. 313-7. Herbert Blumers paper was The moulding of mass behavior through the motion picture'. Publications of the American Sociological Society vol. 29. 1936, pp. 115-27. 38 Friedson. 'Communications research*, p. 317. 39 Handel. Hollywood Looks at lis Audience, pp. «8-90. 4(1 Khnger, Melodrama and Meaning, p. 68. 41 Thomas Doher ty, Teenagers and Teenpics: the frnvnilization of American Movies m the 1950s (Boston: Unwin Hyman. 1988). 42 Manny Färber. 'Movies aren't movies any more*, was reprinted in Chandler Brossard led.), Tlte Scene Before You: A Sew Approach to American Culture (New York: Rinehart, 1955). pp. 3-15. Färber changed the title to'The gimp'when he included the article in his collection negative Space: Manny Färber on the Movies (New York: Praeter, 19711, pp. 71-83. 43 Färber- Negative Space, p. 82. 44 Ibid.. p. 72. 45 Ibid.. pp. 71.72. 82. 5 A Powerful Cinema-going Force? Hollywood and Female Audiences since the 1960s Peter Krämer According to received wisdom shared by much of the lilm industry trade press, maga-nne and newspaper journalists, and academic critics- Hollywood, an industry domi-rutedby men, has been catering primarily to a young male audience since the 1960s. Yef in its 1995 "Box Office Review' ofThe American market, the British trade journal Screen international observed: 'After children, women are the second-most.powejfuixiDequi-going force. The all-female ensemble picture and the revamped romantic comedy/melodrama were probably the years steadiest performers.'1 The article also pointed out that'action pictures'performed best when they "attracted equal numbers of female and male viewers, thanks to female-friendly stars' such as Pierce Brosnan and Brad Pitt. A similar emphasis on female audiences characterised statements made by leading Hollywood executives in 1995. During a Directors' Guild workshop, for example. Laura /iskin, president of Fox 2000 »News Corp's adult-oriented film production subsidiary) ^vul formerly a producer whose filmography includes Pretty Woman (1990), staled lhat she intended to make films for mature women, for both economic and personal reasons < ii was the audience segment she fell closest to).: As a consequence of demographic trends, she pointed »tut, women over twenty-live currently make up an increasing share of I lollywood's [»olenti.il audience, and they are also presumed to be the ones who pick the him when going to the movies with their male partners. Quoting /iskin, a later article in the New York Timet* suggestively entitled 'What do women want? - Movies', noted a fundamental change of direction in mid-1990s Hollywood:'After years of making action and adventure films for hoys of all ages studio executives are concluding that a new audience has emerged that is changing all the rules. Women." The article noted that Hollywood's increased output of films appealing specifically to women resulted partly from 'the growing number of female studio executives with the power to give the green light to a movie'.1 There are obvious problems _ with such claims concerning the feminisation of American cinema in the mid-1990s. Firstly. Hollywood - decision makers continue to bjsipredoniinjntly mate. In Premiere magazine's 199ft list of'The 100 Most Powerful People in Hollywood' the first woman I Viacom/ Para mount executive Sherry Lansing) appeared at number I r>. the next < lulu Roberts) at 45. and there were nnlv twelve women on the entire list.* Secondly, the major Hollywood studios continue to spend much more money on the production and marketing ot what are traditionally per ceived as male genre films (such as action-adventure and science fiction) than on what may be called Temale' genres {romantic comedy, musicals, melodrama/wer pies. cos tume drama). In 1995, for example, female-oriented films made on comparatively In* budgets of $15-25 million, were olten substantial hits, grossing S?0-80 million at the North American box office (Clueíetŕ. Vraifřííg n> ľxh./ie. and While You Were sleeping, I'm example), yet Hollywood's overall output during that year was dominated by big bud get action-adventure and Science Fiction films, costing anywhere between Sr*l> million and an astonishing $180 million (Waterwwtifi* Thirdly, while it is true that several m these big-budget hints performed poorly in the United States, they often redeemed themselves at foreign box offices. Moreover, in Die Hani Ivírň ri Vengeance, this group of male-oriented big budget movies gave rise to the biggest international hit oi the year, grossing $354 million worldwide, or about twice the international gross of the mosl successful female-oriented film of that year, White You Wir« Sleeping.' The situation was similar in 1996. with modestly budgeted female-oriented hits being completely over shadowed by expensive male-oriented blockbusters such as Independence Dm (international gross $780 million) and The Rock 15330 million).* Thus, on closer examination, mid-1990s Hollywood was far imm undergoing-.!. reoTTěntation jfiven by female executives and audiences. Only rarely were women directly and specifically addressed as an audience. When they did go to the cinema oir *-tlSČir5wn.behalf - rather than accompanying, their partners or children - they were responsible for a few modest hits in a steady stream ol modestly budgeted films, §uch films were unable to compete with the success oi male- or family-oriented movies. This state ol affairs prompts a number of questions: What is actually known about theicm.il. audience and its Cinema-going habits and preferences in recent decades? Why haw female movie-goers and female-oriented movies become marginal in Hollywood since the 1960s? And are there any reliable indications that thi> marginalisation could be prevented? What Do Women Want? An audience survey conducted in 191*2 found that comedy »as by far the most popu lar genre with both sexes, irrespective of age/ When ask«! about the types of films thev intended to see in the coming year or about their favourite genre, in addition to com edy, women (especially older ones) mosl often listed draniJ and musicals, whereas men *vcre more likely to tick the categories SF, adventure/war and Western. Thus, women aPpeared to be primarily interested in characters and emotions, whereas men demanded violent action and excitement. Kat her than catering for all Ol its potential audience, Hollywoods output has clearly been biased towards men. The favourite gen •*sol Hollywood's potential audience (male and female) were tin this order): corned* Savoured by 33.5 per cent of all respondents), drama 1|7.S per cent). SF < |2.4 per S"»iJ, musical (10.1 per cent I. and only then adventu re/war (6.« per cent I. The levels °' interest in viewing certain types of films in the coming year were: 80 per cent for «Bncdy, 59 per cent for drama, 44 per cent for musical, with SF and adventure/war ^irthcr down the list. Potential moviegoers, then, preferred medium-budg.t comedies und dramas, olten oriented toward female viewers, to those male-oriented genres for **iKh contemporary Hollywood reserves its biggest budgets (SF. adventure?. Furthermore, when asked which types of films respondents had actually seen Jhinng the preceding year, comedy and SF came out on top (seen by about 50 per ant of respondents), followed by drama (with 43.8 per cent). Adventure/war was tm behind with 24 per cent and the musical category was hardly mentioned at all. Firstly, these figures show that the audience for comedy and drama was spread fairly •tJely across the spectrum of respondents, whereas adventure films had only been wn by about a quarter of respondents, most of them young men. The high figure fc* SF was largely the result of one universally popular movie, E.T. If this film is uixn out of the equation, the reach of the Sf genre was as limited as that of adventne films. Hollywood's big releases arc indeed servicing a minority audience. Vvondly, it is clear from the above figures that the film industry's output of musi-.jJi, and to a lesser extent of comedies and dramas, was insufficient to meet the peat demand, especially on the part of female cinema-goers. Women definitely did act get what thev wanted in cinemas. Yet they still went almost as frequently as moi - mostly, it seems, to accompany their male partners or children. In fact, chii-drrns films, which few adults declared to be their favourites, had nevertheless been •ren by about a filth of all respondents (mostly women over twenty-five, who had probably gone with their children). The survey also showed that. a.s a consequence «ŕ thť film industry's failure to cater to their specific needs in movie theatres, ' Women, who were generally more avid film~vicwers than men, preferred lo watch ■Sims, both old and ncw^on the small screen_at honic^ This applied especially to older women. These results confirmed research carried out in previous decades. A 1973 survey, for example, found that women were just as likely as men to go lo the movies at least once ayear (59 per cent of respondents did), yet I hey tended logo less frequently/'' This perhaps suggests that women were basically willing cinema-goers, yet were much less likely dun men to find films attractive enough to justify a trip to the movie theatre. While ■ingle people went to the cinema much more often than married ones, married people »nth children were much more likely to go to the cinema than couples without children, which again suggests that nianv women went 10 the cinema lo accompany their children." The lisí of preferred genres of all respondents in this 1973 survey was again Headed by comedy, followed for female respondents by love stories, drama and musicals, and for men by Westerns, drama and suspense. When asked about their least preferred type of movie, X-rated lilins came out on top lor both sexes, followed by horror films. Yet many more women than men objected to these genres and, lor women, the list continued with war films. SF and Westerns, whereas for men it continued with musicals, love stories and animated features. What men objected to most, it seems, were sentimentality and the blatant display of emotions, whereas women objected most strongly to sex and violence. Such ius>.:his into gender-spec í tic movie-going habits and preferences in fact go back at least to the 1940s, when the film industry first conducted systematic audience research.1-' it is quite surprising, therefore, that Hollywood would choose lo ignore the well-known and apparently stable likes and dislikes of its female ludiencr. Who Cares What Women Want? Already in 1972, Vhrie/v. observed lhal ihe'Recent box-office boom in violent fix has underscored the lessening commercial impact of fcmme-slatcd Features.' In the past, the article went on, Hollywood had considered women as one of the 'most steadfast and reliable markets' and the strong presence of female characters, able to appeal to this audience, had been deemed crucial for a film's commercial success. However, more recently, television had serviced this 'heretofore captive audience and movie outings 'became increasingly dominated by the male breadwinner's choice of screen fare Result is that most b|ox| o|ftke| hits of recent times barely feature women in sup porting roles.'1* The article reflected the assumptions informing Hollywood's operations at the lime: women prefer television to the cinema; men pick the film when going to the cinema with women; men are interested primarily in stones about men These assumptions were in sharp contrast to the beliefs which had underpinned Hollywood's output and marketing strategies in earlier decades, when the niaioi (Companies saw women, especially mature women in charge of regular cinema-outing« with their husbands and children, as the key audience for movie theatres." As recentlv ms the mid-1960s, Hollywood had catered to this traditionally conceived audience with big budget female-centred supcrhils such as the costume drama Cleopatra (196Í), and the musicals Mary Poppins (1964) and The Sowui of Musk 11965', which were amongst the highest-grossing lilms of alt time up to this point and had turned Elizabeth Taylor and lulie Andrews into the highest-paid and most popular of all Hollywood stars.14 Bv |9~2. however, there were numerous indications that Hollywood had re-oriented itself towards .' new tarflcT audience of men, especially young men. The Godfailw f 119721. an epic gangster movie concerned primarily with the familial relationships and violent interaction of groups of men, was well on its way to replacing The Sound i» Music as the highest-grossing lil m (»fall time. In Hollywood's production schedules and in the annual box-office charts of the late 1960s and earlv 1970s, there was a predomi nance of genre* which women were known to dislike, and which were now given a par ticularly violent inflection as well as a particularly strong focus on male relationships Amongst the top hits of the period were successful cycles of war films, including 1h> Dirty Dozen í19o7) and M 'A 'S*H í 1970). science-fiction lilms. including 2001: A Spin > Odyssey i 1968) and the Planet of the Apes series Marling in 1968, and Western«, mclud ing Hutch Cossidy and the Sundance Kul i I969i and Link Big Man ( 1971). There was also.i successful run of extremely violent crime and police films from Bonnie and Clyď (1967) to />i>f>* Harry (1971), as well as adventure lilms such as the James Bond series a top box-office attraction Irom 1964 on wards, and the beginning ol the hugclvexpens ivc cycle of top-grossing disaster movies with Airport (1970) and The Poseidon Adventure (197'). Tlie male-centrcdiicss of these lilms and of the industry as a whole was reflected in the stars whom American lilm exhibitors cinisidejid lo In» hnvoHiu attractions. Afi^rm.iny voir* m whi.-h..,ti»»-n war ,-pnsist.-nrly ffaiurH in tfr—t"f~ three positions mthe annual polls, they disappeared from these places in 1969 and Iron: l h en cm hart tt^nTTtrmc nuiking-ffrnto-mrTop ten. At tjitrjattte- lime, m sharp contrast roTRe previous run of female-oriented multiple-Oscar winners such as West Side Ston (1961), My Filir lady (1964) and ľJfŕ Sound of Music, ihe Acadcmv Awards wen' primarily to male-oriented films such as Midnight Cowboy (19691, Patron (1970), 77ie French Connection (19711 and TíiťGod/iirííer(1972).16 Apart from the fact that women were notably absent from many critically and commercially successful films, female audiences were also affected by the replacement of the Production Code with a ratings system in 1968. Through the Production Code, the major studios had regulated the content of their films in such a way as to ensure that they were unlikely to cause offence to any segment of the audience. In particular, Hollywood had tried to avoid offending women. The introduction of a ratings system regulating access to individual films according to the age of the movie-goer signalled the industry's willingness to abandon the notion of inoffensive entertainment for everybody, and instead to appeal strongly and specifically to some audience segments, especially young males, even if that meant excluding other segments such as women and children." The X-r.i«ed Midnight Cowboy (19691 and ihe horror film Rosemarys Baby (1968) indicated to women that perhaps it was not safe lor them to go to the movie theatre anymore.1S This impression was certainly enhanced by the dilapidated, ^insanitary State ot many mainstream movie houses and, in big urban centres, their ■ frequent proximity to porn cinemas.1" During this period, the production of musicals, romantic comedies and melodramas continued, with major box-office hits such as Oliver! and Funny Girl (both 1968), Love Story and Hello, Dolly! (both 1970), Fiddler on the Roof (1971) and What's Up. Doc? (1972). However, at this point budgets for major musicals had become so inflated that, despite high box-office grosses, lilms such as Hello, Dolly! were reported to have lost millions of dollars. These losses, together with the ruinous performance of lilms such as Dr. Dolittle (1967) and Star! 11968i encouraged the studios to invest more heavily in other, malc-oricnted genres, especially disaster movies.-'" Yet the enormous success of re-releases of classic, female-oriented films such as Cone With the Wind [in 1967/68), The Sound of Music, and Mary Poppins (both in 1973) indicates that the studios gave up too quickly on their tradit ional core audience of women, who had a continuing predilection for big-budget spectacles dealing with the trials and tribulations of female characters. So why was Hollywood so eager to focus on the_young male audience? According to Thomas Doheriy, this re-orientation was the industry's belated response to audience research conducted in the 1940s, which showed that teenagers and young adults were the most frequent movie-goers.-' This research was confirmed in subsequent decades: a 1968 survey, for example, found that 16-24-year-ulds bought almost half of all cinema tickets- with 16-20-year-olds being the most frequent movie-goers.'- Doherty argues that rather than continuing its attempts to win back or at least maintain its mature audience over twenty-live (the majority of the population, which rarely went to the cinema). Hollywood focused ever more exclusively on teenagers and young adults under twenty-five, a minority which constituted the group of regular movie-goers. In so doing, it adopted the doctrine known as'The Peter Pan Syndrome', which had under.-pinned the successful marketing strategy developed by American international Pictures for exploitation cinema in the 1950s: since younger children will watch what an older child is interested in, and girls will watch what boys are interested in, 'to catch your greatest audience you zero in on the 19-year-old male*.2* In the mid-1970s. Variety criticised Hollywood for its fixation on youth, examining -<:- IDENTIFYING HOLLYWOOD'S AUDlENCf: the impact of the post-war baby boom.2* The baby-boomers, most of whom had enteral their prime movie-going age (16-24) in the laic 1960s and early 1970s, constituted the bulk of the cinema audience in this period, but by about 1980 most of them would he about to move into the 25-34 age group. Variety argued that this age group should. therefore* become a key target audience for Hollywood. Since the ageing baby-boomer» were 'bearing fewer children, and often at more advanced ages than their parents', if appropriate measures were taken by the industry, 'the traditional drop off in filmgoine, [after the age of twenty-five]... may become less drastic*. Variety also urged Hollywood to drop its conception of cinema and television as separate markets for young people anil older people. With the rapid spread of pay-TV services- in particular movie channels such as HBO. in future there would be considerable overlap between the theatrical audi ence and the home audience. Variety itself expressed the hope that 'films may again be made for a truly mass audience - a paying audience both in theatres and in homes. ' This new mass movie audience did come into existence in subsequent years, but onl> for special occasions. Beginning with the extraordinary success of Star Wars 119771 and its first sequel- The Empire Strikes Back (1980). I lollywood has consistently managed to bring a cross-section of the American population, including the majority of infrequent moviegoers who may never see any other films at the cinema- back into the movie theatre for one or two family-oriented adventure movies a year, released in time for a long run during the summer holidays or the Christmas season- and destined lor an equally successful performance in the video and pay-TV markets.*6 Apart from these exceptional hits- however- the film industry largely continued its previous practice of investing most heavily in films addressed primarily- and often exclusively, to young movie-goers, especially young males. The wide release of laws in June 1975 (with an Unprecedented 5(H) prints), for example, provided the model tor future action-adventure movies. Released mostly during the summer, these films focus on the violent actions of their male heroes and are driven by stunts and special effects, drawing a lot ol attention to their record-breaking opening weekend box-oťlice figures and to their ever-escalating budgets, including multi-million dollar salaries and profit-participation deals for their male stars.-' This production trend has given rise to many of the top-grossing movies of the last two decades, including Sylvester Stallone's string of hits with the Rocky and Rawho series from 1976 onwards; Hurt Reynolds's action comedies, surt-in$ with Smokey and the Bandit (1976); the continuing series of lames Bond movies ■ for example. The Spy Who Loved Me, 1977); rogue cop movies featuring Clint Eastwood IThe Enforcer* 1976), Eddie Murphy (starting with 4« H RS, 1982), Mel Gibson (most notably the Lethal Weapon series, starting in 1987), or Bruce Willis (starting with Die Hard in 1988i; combat movies (most notably Platoon and"7i>p Gun, both in 1986); and Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'serious' action films such as Total Recall (1990). Also included •ire more famtlv oriented hints, most notably Schwarzenegger's comedies I starting with Twins, I98HÍ. the Superman (first instalment. 1979) and Batman (19891 series, the Star Witt (I977J, Indiana hues (1981) and Back to the future (1985) trilogies, as well as the Karate KUI (1984) series and horror comedies (starting with Gremlins in !984)-a These and other action-oriented films made up about half of all films in the annual lists of the ten biggest box office hits front 1976 onwards, often holding the top positions. During the same period, women made a moderate comeback in American cinema, A POWERFUL CINEMA-GOING FORCE? ^ m comparison to the rather disastrous decade for female genres and stars from 1966 to W76. In 1977, the romantic comedy Annie Hall was a considerable hit which established Ihanc Keaion as a top box-office attraction, the lane Fonda vehicle luha won most of :Sc major Academy Awards, and the release of Saturday Sight Fever led to a revival of ■he musical genre.1'' Melodramas/weepies also made a comeback, albeit often with a focus on the social and emotional trials and tribulations of male rather than female characters, generating a string of multiple Academy Award winners. Many of these films »ere also massive box-office hits- starting with Kramer vs Kramer (1979) and Ordinary People (1980).w Throughout the 1980s, the annual lists of top ten box-office hits usually :ncluded three to five female-oriented (yet quite regularly male-centred) films: musicals weh as Flashdance and Staying Alive (both 1983); romantic comedies such as Tootsie 11982) and Moonstruck (1987); melodramas such as Terms of Endearment (1983) and Rainman (1988); female ensemble comedies such as 9 to 5 (1980) and female ensemble dramas such as The Color Purple i I985J." With few exceptions, these films could normally be found in the bottom halfof the top ten lists and. even at their best, they tended to gross only about half as much as their male- or family-oriented competitors. In 1989. for example, the top three positions in the end-of-year box-office chart were held by male^jjr fa m i'y-"™'"1'''1 J'"''Q" li|nw Batman. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and Lethal Weapon 2 - with Ghostbusters II and Back to the Future II featured further down the list.'- All hut the last ol these films had been released between the end of May and the beginning of |uly. Budgeted in a range between $25 million and S42 million, each film played in 1800 to 2400 movie theatres, earning opening weekend grosses of between $20 million and $.'7 million, and total grosses going as high as $:50 million." In sharp contrast, tcmale-ortented films such as the romantic comedies When Harry Met Sally and Look Who's Talking, the eomedv drama Parenthood, and the melodrama Ifeäď lWt> Society M hit an earnings ceiling around $100 million.'1 Budgeted at under S20 million Inn average $10 million less than the action-oriented top grossere) and opening in fewer than 800 cinemas (less than half the number of theatres as action films), they had opening weekend grosses of around $10 million (again less than half of the figure for action films) In the 1980s, then, films specifically targeted at women had regained a secure place in Hollywood's overall scheme of things, vet in comparison with male- or family oriented films, Hollywood's output of female-oriented films remained marginal and failed to satisfy the considerable demand tor comedies, dramas and musicals that and ence surveys had identified. At the same lime, earlier prcdictions_of an agen^jr^wij audience became a reality, liv 1989. the share of 16-24-year-olds had dropped to ii pei cent {from about 50 per cent in 1968) and that of 10-20 vearolds to 19geregnt_lfjoni .30pcrcčiii m lT/'2T.an"dlhé~JV49.igegroup had gained J^tfgsjfehareot overall pud £"J7r,j_j,,iťin. ,4h „,, .-.-„.j .h,., .i,,, 12-24 ace erouo 144 relrcetiti admissions (46 per cent) than the 12 24 age group i44 percent).'" The commercial implications of these changes in audience composition were highlighted by thcjK unexpected performance of two women's films in 1990. Sometimes Women Do Get What They Want! When Pretty Woman was released on 23 March 1990, the surrounding publicity highlighted those aspects of th; film which were expected to appeal specifically to women. u-2 -1/ wu lULIII" I IKO I IUL \_l «UW« O "VJ UILll_Lu For example, Buena Vista's press book quoted ihc film's leading lady lulu Roberts saying the him 'is about rinding love in unexpected places', and director Garry Marshall asserting that 11 was 'a unique love story'.* In an interview with the New York Times, Marshall declared his rather "unmanly' intentions with this film: I like to do very romantic, sentimental type of work.... It's a dirty 10b, but somebody has to do it.'l" In order to put this 'dirty' work into a respectable tradition, he pointed out that the film had 'elements of Pygmalion, My ľmr Lady and Horn (iolightly- thus alluding both to myth and theatre as well as the great romances and female stars (.specially Audrey Hepburn) of the Hollywood ol an earlier era." Reviewers were sharply divided in their evaluation of the film, many objecting vociferously to its unrealistic portrayal of prostitution, its emphasis on money and shopping, its unconvincing characterisations, and the dubious sexual politics of the central couple's relationship.1" Yet even detractors of this kind rarely failed to mention the venerated tradition within which the publicity had situated the film. Similarly, lor the film's supporters. Pretty Woman appeared first and foremost as a welcome return to the themes and style of the Hollywood of the past, lohn Simon, lor example, wrote in ,Vew York that the film 'takes us back to I lollywood's softly beguiling entertainments of the fifties', pointing out that it is not an 'erotic fantasy' but a 'straight romantic comedy'.4' Vincent Canby declared in the Sew York Times that Pretty Woman was the most satisfying romantic comedy in years'.'-' Like other critics, he highlighted the film's female lead, linking her to a glamorous and, by now, near-mythical tradition of female Hollywood Mars, declaring that Julia Rot>erts had produced 'the most invigorating debut performance since Audrey Hepburn's in Roman Holiday. Andrew Sarris published 'a professional love letter' to Roberts 111 the Nift* York Observer, while lanet Maslin A KWcKhUL UINeMA-bOlNÜ r-tJKCfcV 101 wrote in the New York Times that 'Ms Roberts ... is a complete knockout, and this performance will make her a major star.'" Most reviewers, then, related Prefry Woman to older traditions of storytelling and popular entertainment, comparing it to classic works. Pretty Woman was seen both by detractors and by supporters as standing out from contemporary Hollywood's regular output in an attempt to revive the lost art of romantic story-telling focused on a captivating leading lady. A few months after the initial Hurry of reviews and articles, the lilm s extraordinary success gave rise to further reflections in the pres*. In |uly. the Mew York Times noted with astonishment that Pretty Woman was still performing strongly at the box-office. Indeed, very unusually, even in its 17th week, the film still played in 1-200 theatres, as compared to 1,300 in the first week and 1.800 at the point of the film's widest release in the 9th week." The film was now Lompetingdireitly with the big summer releases which, the article reminded the reader, 'tend to be either action movies or films for young audiences' As'an adult Cinderella story', 'a traditional tale updated with modern psyches and settings'. Pretty Woman had succeeded in finding an audience rarelv catered for in the summer: 'Magazine and newspaper articles indicate that the movie has proved particularly appealing to women.' Thus, the film was seen to provide a welcome alternative for all those who were dissatisfied with Hollywood's usual summer fare.** When this article appeared, ťdwi had iusl been released. Unlike Pretty Woman, Ghost was not marketed exclusively as a female-oriented 'love story', but was described bv Paramount's press book as both a 'suspense thriller' and 'a startling love story'.4* However, ihe nod towards the male following of thrillers was overshadowed bv the marketing campaign's heavy emphasis on love, passion and spirituality. The poster showed Patrick Sway/e and Demi Moore in a passionate naked embrace with Sway/e kissing her neck. In ihc pre« book, Swav/e described his character, Sam, as someone who fails to declare his love while he can, and then desperately tries to make up for this failure. Moore said about her character: 'Molly Jensen is given the opportunity to experience a last goodbye from Sam and be reassured that where he's going is a place of love.' And scriptwriter Scott Rudin emphasised the film's spirituality: I was intrigued by the idea of capturing the sensations and emotions of a person who suddenly realises they have passed from life into an immaterial world - a new universe.' The film's review in Variety was reasonably optimistic about its box-office prospects, describing it as a "lightweight romantic fantasy ... purely for escapists', along the lines of Patrick Swayze's previous surprise hit- Dirty Dancings The reviewer expressed a definite sense of unease- though, about this 'odd creation', with its 'unlikely grab hag of styles' and compendium oi constantly shifting moods and emotions, barely held together by the film's 'thriller elements' and its 'romantic momentum*. Most reviewers shared this perception and found much to criticise in the film's peculiar mix of incompatible elements, most notably the special effects sequences depicting (he demons of the underworld, Whoopi (ioldberg's performance and the film's unimaginative view of an afterlife."1 At the same time, the majority of reviews described it as a highly unusual summer release. The West Side Spirit, for example, wrote that'|a)s far as simple summer movies go. Ghost is trulv a breakthrough movie' because, bv subtly mixing genres, it demonstrated that'in this season of stick-em-upand hlow-cm-up flicks-a little tender- \UJ IDENTIFYING HOLLYWOOD'S AUDIENCES ness can be a wonderful thing'.-4* A generally very critical article in the Christum Science Monitor conceded that Ghost offered 'a touch of sentiment that isn't present (or is swamped by special effects) in its high-tech cousins'.*0 Ultimately, it was the film's ability to provoke strong emotions in its audience which clearly set it apart. In Time. Richard Corliss declared Ghost to be 'a bad movie that a lot of people will like' because it 'will touch movie-goers with its heavenly message that love can raise the dead'*1 Jami Bernard predicted in the New York Post that the 'ending can provoke a Wuthering Heig/itt-scale cry, depending perhaps on how many unresolved attachments you have.'5' This reference to a classic women's film and the legitimacy of its ability to make viewers cry indicates that, much like Pretty Woman. Ghost could best be understood as a return to an older, half-forgot ten tradition of powerful storytelling, which combined a strong emotional impact with a clear moral message. Indeed, in Fit'» Journal, David Bartholomew explicitly linked Ghost to Hollywood's self-regulated film production after the implementation of the Production Code in the early 1930s: The movie is as moral as a post-Hays Office woman's picture.'" Ghost's extraordinary success at the box-office led to further reflections on its significance. In November, the New York Times, for example, declared Ghost to be 'one of the biggest sleeper hits in Hollywood history', and a most unlikely one at that: 'A romantic suspense comedy, shot on a modest budget and without a major box-office star, that flirts with the supernatural.'" Sixteen weeks after its release on 13 iuly, the film was Mill popular enough to play in 1,750 movie theatres and take in more than S3 million per week.w Market research conducted by Paramount indicated that the movie's staying power was partly due to the fact ihai 'many women, who were the main target audience tor both Ghost and Pretty Woman, have returned to sec both movies several times', a rare occurrence in lemale genres. The article loosely grouped the two films together under 'host i lerry Zucker, 1990). A POWERFUL CINEMA-GOING FORCE? 103 the label 'romantic comedy' - 'a genre that in recent years had become less appealing lo Hollywood studios intent on making blockbuster act ion-adventure films'. However. now that Ghost and Pretty Woman had outperformed 'a host of costly action-adventure films that had been expected to dominate the market this year', the major studios were 'planning to increase their production and support for romantic comedies'. These predictions about a general re-orientation of the film industry were supported by Amy Taubin's article on Ghost and Pretty Woman in the Village Voice a few weeks later: '(T|he big news is that after a decade in which sci-fi. horror and action movies dominated the box-office, romance is back.'50 Täubin emphasised the low status that films such as Ghost and Pretty Woman had within the industry and outlined one of their primary cultural functions as 'archetypal dating movies': 'They affirm for couples of all stages that romantic involvement is not some kind of temporary insanity but a state of bliss that can endure longer than six days (Pretty Woman) and even transcend the death-do-us-parl cutoff point specified in the marriage vow {Ghost)' By defining movie-going as an important dating and relationship ritual, Täubin pointed out that romantic films, with their particular appeal to women, who would bring their male partners along, could become the cornerstone of a reconfigured film industry. Box-office statistics supported such speculation. Ghost and Pretty Woman topped the chart of lop grossing movies lor 1990." Furthermore, Pretty Woman was at number 15 in Variety's list of all-time domestic box-office hits, and Ghost was at number 10,a By the time they had completed their world-wide release. Pretty Woman would be in 5th place on Variety's list of all-time international top grossers. and Ghost would be second (behind E.T. and ahead of-Niiir IWirsJ." The enormity of the films'success did indeed call into question many of the basic assumptions which had guided Hollywood's operations since the late 1960s. Yet, as we have already seen. Hollywood went back to business as usual in the 1990s. Conclusion When, at the beginning of 1991, Anne Thompson looked back on the long runs and steady box-office performance of'films appealing to women and the rapid drop-off at the box-olficc ofmale-oriented actioncrs' in the previous year, she posed a crucial question in Variety: 'So why does Hollywood continue to resist movies with strong female appeal that are cheaper lo make and more profitable when they arc successful?'"3 She received a range oi answers Irom studio executives. Firstly, executives rejected the idea that films appealing primarily to women through strong female protagonists and high-profile female stars were viable, although, as one executive admitted» they once had been viable in 'decades past, when women flocked to films carried almost solely by screen queens like Bette Davis and loan Crawford'. Now, however, it was understood that female stars 'can't carrv a movie', because young men were mainly looking for male identification (igiircs and young women were unlikely to drag their boyfriends along to films v/ithout a 'big male star". It was, therefore, also understood that female-oriented movies were dependent on 'reaching adult audiences and garnering good reviews'. Since executives claimed that the overall number of mature women who actually went to the cinema was simply too small, their conclusion was that 'You can't make movies just for a women's audience anymore.' Secondly, executives still considered the under-25s as 104 IDENTIFYING HOLLYWOOD'S AUDIENCE; Hollywood's most important audience, since films appealing to this audience segment were seen to have a guaranteed young male audience on the first weekend and in foreign markets. Most significantly, it was believed that young women were more willing t«> watch boys' movies than young men were to watch women's films, and thus young men were perceived to "drive the purchase decision' when couples went to the cinema. Obviously, there are some omissions from thcK arguments (such as the demo graphic shift towards older audiences and the influence of women on the film choices of mature couples) itid there is also a baiie circularity. The industry appeals primarily to the vouth audience because older people are reluctant to go to the cinema: yet older people are reluctant to go to the cinema precisely because the films appeal primarily lo youth. .Similarly, Hollywoud films arc primarily addressed to young men. because boys movies can be enjoyed by young women as well; yet young women have accommodated themselves to boys' movies, precisely because there ate comparatively few alternatives offered to them and their male partners by Hollywood. In the end, then, the basic question remains: what lies behind these self-fulfilling prophesies and feedback loops and this avoidance of basic demographic facts? I" response to this question, at least one executive pointed the finger at Hollywood's basic sexism: 'Most studio executives are male ... They are more comfortable with male-oriented produci*1 This answer, however, raises vet further questions: how did the equally male-dominated and much more conservative til m industry of the pasi manage to cater primarily to women? Are there other reasons, apart from demo graphic shifts, for Hollywood's reorientation towards a young male audience in the late 1960s? Is it conceivable that the film industry will one day take demography trends and the demand of female audiences into account again and return to us previous conception of " female-led mass audience, and is Titanic the film which can make this happens Notes 1 Ana Maria Bahiana. * I995 box-office review: nuclear family business', Screen International 26 January 1996. p. 60. 2 Discussion with Laura Ziskin. '> August 1995. 15th Annual Directors Guild öf America Educators Workshop. l»s Angŕles. See also Ziskin s statements irt Bernard Weinraub, 'What do women want? - Movies', .Vew York Timet, 10 February 1997, pp, CI I. 14. 3 Weinraub, 'What do women want?', p. CI I. 4 Ibid.. p. C14. 5 'The 1996 Premiere power list: the 100 most powerful people in Hollywood', Premiere, May 1996, pp. 76-90- 'Masters of the universe: the power UH)'. SfWf International, 15 December 1995, pp. 12-28. ô Production costs arc given in the annual review of the US theatrical market i" the German magazine stcadycam, which uses figures provided by the American trade press. For the 1995 survey, sec'In Zahlen', steadyxam no. 31, Spring 199Ô. pp. 11-12. 7 Ibid.. and Leonard Klady, 'B.O. with a vengeance: S9.1 billion worldwide'. Variety, 19 February 1996. pp. 1,26. 8 Mn Zahlen*. Steotfyattn no. 33, Spring 1997, pp. 19-21. 9 'Movie Omnibus - Sept. 1982', a survey or the film viewing habit* of 1.000 people aged A POWERFUL CINEMA-GOING FORCE? 105 18.md over, contained in the Audiences Clipping* File, Museum of Modern Art, New York. See also |im Robbins. 'Survey says public likes sci-fi but really loves comedy*. Variety, 22 September 1982. p. 22. 10 'Movie going and leisure time'. Newspaper Advertising Bureau, January 1974: results of 769 interview«, with people aged eighteen and over conducted in July 1973. contained in file MFLx n.c.2, 101 no.4. Billy Rose Theatre Collection (BRTC), New York Public Library at Lincoln Centre-New York, See also results of 1972 MPAA survey reproduced in Garth fowett. Film: The Democratic Art (Boston: Little, Brown, 1976), p. 486. 11 A 1974 survey of 3,835 female heads of households in metropolitan areas suggested that only 2» per cent of" all respondents went to the movies at least once a month; for those living on their own or with another adult, rhe figures were 16 per cent and 24 per cent respectively, whereas for women with children it was more than 30 per cent. Sec "Shoppers on the move: movie-going and moviegoers*. Newspaper Advertising Bureau, November 1975: contained in rile MWEZ + n.c.26.510. BRTC. See also results of MPAA surveys conducted in 1988-91). which are reproduced in 'Industry economic review and audience profile'. Jason E. Squire, (cd. I, Vie Movie Business Book I New York: Fireside. 2nd ed.. 1992 >. p. 390. 12 See Leo A. Handel. Hollywood looks At its Audience: A Report of Film Audience Research (Urbana: University of lllinoií Press, 1950), pp. 118-27. 13 'Old 4-hanky "women's market" pix, far, far from 1972 "Year of Woman"-. Variety, 30 August 1972, p. 3. 14 Tino Balio, Grand Pesign: Hollywood as a Modern Business Enterprise. 1930-19.*$ (Berkeley: University of California Press. I995i.pp. 1-12. 179-312; Richard Maltby, Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), pp. 10-11. 15 For information on the box-office performance in the United States of Hollywood's hit movies, see Cobbett S. Steinberg, Film Fails (New York: Facts on File Inc., 1980). pp. 17-28, and Joel W. Fuller. The Hollywood Story \London: Octopus. 1988). pp. 276-8. For the results of the annual polls amongst lilm exhibitor* about the top box-office stars, see Steinberg, pp. 55-61. For information on stJr salaries see Steinberg, pp. 66-9. 16 Ibid.. pp. 233-47. 17 Maltby. Hollywood, pp. 10-1 340-1 18 The astonishing success of The Exorcist 11973), which eventually grossed even more than The Godfather and initiated a cycle of successful horror film*, would confirm this perception of ihe movie theatre as an unsafe space, kirrhermore. Academy Awards continued to go to male-oriented lilm> - ihe Sung 119731, The Godfather Part II (1974). Ote Flew (her the Cuckoo's Nest i 1973) and Rocky 119761. and the lists of top ten box-office stars featured only one woman per year from 1973 10 1976 iBarbra Streisand in 1973-5. latum O'Neal in 19761. Sec Steinberg, Film Facts, pp. 2Í-8.61, 248-52 19 Jerry Lewis, 'Children t«o have lilm rights', Variety, 5 Ltnuary 1972- p. 32; James Harwood. 'Films go!« eater to "aging" audience', Variety, 23 February 1977. p. 7; Judv Klemesrud. Family movies making a comeback; New York Times, 17 February 1978, p. CI f); Douglas Gomery, Shared Pleasures: . I History of Movie Presentation in the United States (London: BFI, 1992). pp. 93-102. 20 Thomas Schatz, "The New Hollvwt-od'. lOö IDtNlIFVlNÜ HOLLYWOODS AUOIfcNt, Collins (cds)- Film Theory Goes to the Movies (New York: Routledge. 1993). p. 14; tiki Roddick, 'Only the stars survive: disaster movies in the seventies*, in David Bradby, Louis lames and Bernard Sharratt (eds), Performance ami Polities in Popular Drama, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1980)- pp. 243-69. 21 Thomas Doherty. Teenagers anil Teenpiet: The fuveiiilization of American Movies in the 1950s (Boston: Unwin Hyman-1988). pp. 62-3.230-4. 22 'Pix must "broaden market1". Variety, 2fl March 1968. pp. 1,78. quoted in Doherty, Teenagers ami Tecnpics, p. 231. Garth Jowetl cites a 1972 study, according to which 73 per cent of the audience were between í 2 and 29, and 43 per cent were between u an* 20; 16-24-year-olds had a share of 46 per cent. The most frequent movie-goers were 16-20-year-olds, accounting lor 3u per cent of paid admissions, lowed. Film, p. 483. 23 Robin Bean and David Austen, 'I'.S.A. confidential- Films ami Filming no.213, November 1968. pp. 21-2. quoted in Doherty, Teenagers and Teenpies. p. 137. 24 A. D. Murphy,'Audience demographics, lilm luture', Variety, 2(1 August 1975. p. 3. CI. lohn Beltoii, Widescreen Cinema (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, I992>. p. 74; Steven Mint/ and Susan Kcllog. Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family life [New York: The Free Press-1988), pp. 179,198; Ben J. Wallenberg led,). Tři-Statistical History of the United Sto«s (New York; Basic Books. 1976). p. 10. See also Robert Allen's discussion of baby boomers in his essav in this volume. 25 See similar comments on the emerging video market in Frank Segers, 'Gallup check re likes: theatre, and/or. homes', Variety, 23 May 1977. p. 13. 26 Peter Kramer, Would you take your chdd to sec this him? The cultural and social work o! ihc ramilv-adventure movie", Stew Neale and Murray Smith (eds), Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (London: Routledge, 1998). pp. 294-311. 27 Schatz, "The new Hollywood", pp. 17-19. 28 These films are taken from the top ten of the annual box-office charts, as listed in Steinberg, Film Facts, pp. 27-H; "The 1980s: a reference guide to motion pictures, television. VCR, and cable". Hie Velvet Light Trap no. 27, Spring 1991, pp. 81-3; and the annual Tu Zahlen' column in steadycam, 29 Steinberg, hint Facts, pp. 28. 61, 253—1. 3(1 Ibid., pp. 256-7;'The 1980s', pp. 81-5. 31 'The 198!K',j>i>.8l-2. il INJ., p. S I. 33 In Zahlen, steadycam no, 13 (19891. p. 19; no. 14 119891. p. 9; no. 15 0990), p. 10. 34 'The 1980s', p. 81. With its extended mn into Í99Q, Look IVJw'j Talking, a November 1989 release, eventual I v earned about $140 million. Due to its magically talking baby and the childish perspective associated with it, this romantic comedy can also lie »onsidered a* a family movie, which helps to explain its greater success. 35 "In Zahlen', steadycam no. 14 (1989), p.9; no. 15 1199111, p. 111. 1(1 'Industry economic review and audience profile*, p. 389. CI". Leonard Klady,'Numbers game at showesi', Variety, ID March 1997, pp. 7,13. 3~ Press book contained in rile MR. x n.c.3.106 no. 19. BRTC 58 Lawrence van Gelder, 'At the movies'. New York Times, 23 March 199(1. p, OS. ^9 Holly tiolightly is the character played by Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's 119611. Hepburn also played Kli/a Doliltle in the 1964 film version of the musicd My A r-OWcKrUL UNlMh-ÜUiI-*ü rÜKLCr Fair Lady, key scenes of which are restaged in Pretty Woman. Hepburn makes an appearance in Pretty Woman in a clip from Charade (1963), which Vivian watches on televison. 40 Dave Kehr. 'Pretty ugly: a crass movie desecrates a classic song title; Chicago Tribune, 23 March 1990, Section 2. p. 6; Gary Giddins, review, Village Voice, 27 March 19911, p. 61; [ulie Salamnn,'Film: get rich,get happy?', Wall Street Journal, 29 March 1990, p. AI2; Richard Corliss, 'Sinderella', Time, 2 April 1990: Linda Winer. 'Pretty Woman, ugly message', Newsday, 27 April 1990, Part II, p. 2; David Sterriu,'Pnrtty Woman's, ugly message1, Christian Science Monitor, 27 April 1990, p. Ill; Paul Baumann, 'What's, left of desire?'. Commonweal, 4 May 1990, p. 296. 41 lohn Simon, review, Sew York, 31 April 1990, p. 61; Lewis Archibald, "Fun - if you don't make many demands'. Downtown, 28 March 1990, p. 12 A. 42 Vincent Canby, «Yew York limes. 3 lune 19911, Section 2. p. 19. Cf. Roger tbert,'Pretty good', AVw Kir* Daily Sews. 23 March 1991). p. 39. 43 Andrew Sams, Star Roberts: the stuff dreams are made of. New York Observer, 16 April 1990, p. 30; Panel Maslin,'High-rolling boy meets streetwalking girl'. New York Times, 23 March 1990. p. C20. 44 Gcraldine Fabrikant. 'Pretty Woman finds best friend in profit'. New York Times, 21 July 1990. p. 29. 45 Cf. Joseph GclimVA sexy Cinderella, or "My Fair Hooker" '. Newsday, 19 October 1990. Part II, p. 41. 46 Press book contacted in file MFL x n.c.3 108 no. 21. BRTC 47 Variety, 11 July 1990. p. 30. 48 Julie Salámou, review, Wall Street journal, \2 July 199(1, p. A8; Terry Kcllchcr, review, Newsday, 13 July 1990. Part II. p. 13; Georgie Brown, review. Village Voice, 17 July 1990, p. 63; Tcrrcncc Rafferty, review, New Yorker, 30 July 1990, p. 80. For a mixed review sec. for example- Roger Ebert, Sew York Daily News, 13 July 1990. p. 43. 49 Susan Kittenplan, review, 'the West Side Spirit, 31 July 1990, p. 22. 50 David Sterritt.'(j7i*»>r provides a second-rate showcase for a first-rate talent: Whoopi Goldberg'. Christian Science Monitor, 22 August 1990. p. 11. 51 Richard Corliss, review. Time. 16 July 199(1- pp. 86-7. 52 Jami Bernard, review. Sew York Post, 13 luly 199». p. 27. 53 David Bartholomew, review. Film lottrnal, August 1990. p. 22. 54 Larry Rohter. Top movie ol the year a sleeper: it's Gŕntsŕ, New York Times. 5 November 1990. p 13. Cf. [oseph McBride, 'Ghost to top domestic b.o. at year's end". Variety, 12 November 1990, p. 3, 55 Ghost opened in 1,1(11 movie theatres, taking in S12.2 million. By contrast, the most expensive summer release, Total Recall (reputedly the most expensive film of all time up to this point, with a budget of over S60 million, as opposed to Ghost* SIS million), opened in 2,0*0 theatres and t*«>k in S2=."> million during the first weekend, yet had dropped down to I i"S7 theatres and S4.2 million by the 6th weekend, when Ghost was still performing verv strongly with SS.3 million on 1,766 theatres: 'In Zahlen', steadycam no.17, 1990. p. 11, there was enormous demand for Ghost from video rental shops, and even at the high price of S100 it performed well in the sell-through market. 'Believers in Ghosť, Newsday, 2f> \pnl 1991. p. 78. 75 luü IWLľľriilWnULLl V1KJUU Ů «UUIClHÍ-CJ 56 Amy Täubin, 'Stocks and the bonds that tic. Village Voice, 4 December 1990. p. II. 57 'In Zahlen', steadycam no. I8,1991, p. II. 58 Leonard Klady.' ""Apollo" launched on .ill-time b.o. list', Variety, 26 February 1996, p. 46. 59 Variety, 3 June 1996, p. 70. ňu Anne Thompson. 'Studios stick to their guns over sex appeal oř piť*', Variety, 7 January 1991, pp. 109. 111. 61 Quoted in Thompson.'Studios stick to their guns', p. 111. 62 See Peter Kramer. 'Women First: Titanu- (1997). act ion-adventu re films and Hollywood's temale audience', Historical Journal of Film. Roilio ami Television vol. 18 no. 4. October 1998. pp. 599-618. 6 Home Alone Together: Hollywood and the 'family film' Robert C. Allen The first shot of funior opens on the back ol a donnishly dressed Arnold Schwarzeneggcr. as he walks through the stacks of what appears to be a research library. He and wc hear the wails of an infant, which Arnold locates lying alone atop the circulation desk. 'There's a baby here.' he notes with surprise to himself and the audience. 'There must be a mother. Hell, there's a baby." Seeing no-one else around- Arnold reluctantly picks the babv up. holding it in front ol him at arm's length as it were a bomb about to go off. Which it does: relieving itself all over Arnold's iacket and pants.'Help.' he cries, carrying the babv toward the camera. Wc switch lo j reverse shot which reveals an 'audience' of other babies, fitting in armchairs arrayed theatre-style watching him. We cut to a dose-up of Arnolds horrified expression, but as the shot pulls back we see him in pyjamas in his bed. His encounter with babies has been a nightmare. Behind the opening credits »t Home Alone, a policeman ■ |oe Pesci) approaches the front door of a large, upper-middle-class, suburban home, and tries unsuccessfully (o gain the attention ofa succession ofchildren as they scurry through the foyer, intent on the completion of individual missions. Wc cut to a bedroom in the house, where Catherine O'Haras character is simultaneously talking On the phone and packing things into suitcases spread out on the bed. Kevin (Macauley Cutkini. a pre-adolescent boy. enters the room to complain that his Uncle Frank will not allow him to ioin the big kids watching a feature film on video. 'And it is not even rated "R",- he protests. Meanwhile, back at the front door, the policeman (who turns out to be a burglar posing as a policeman) asks one of the hurrying children,'Are your parents home?' 'Yes", she says, 'but they don t live here,' She darts past him. He asks another the same question. 'My parents live in Paris - sorry." is her reply. 'Arc your parents home?' he asks a third. 'Yes: 'Do they live here?' 'No.' 'All kids, no parents,' Pesci's character concludes to himself and the audience. 'Probably a fancy orphanage.* These two scenes speak in different ways to the conjunction of social, demographic, technological and economic forces that link contemporary popular media to the