To What Extent Do High Concept Texts Prioritise Spectacle and Visual Surface Over Other Elements?
- Kayleigh Rose McFadden
- Jan 19, 2020
- 11 min read
To what extent do high concept texts prioritise spectacle and visual surface over other elements such as narrative?
Critics have debated high concept films visual forms in regards to them favouring spectacle over narrative and surface over depth. According to these critics, high concept films often prioritise the on screen visuals over elements such as narrative. The term high concept has been used to define films with this cinematic style. High concept is “a unique premise easily understood in a single sentence” (Calvisi, 2010). Within high concept cinema, the spectacle is favoured; there is a lack of character development and narrative complexity; and an overall emphasis on the market performance over any depth. Surface is defined as “the outer ward appearance” (Weiner & Simpson, 2004) and depth as “the complexity and profundity of thought” (Weiner & Simpson, 2004), both of which are binary opposites. Similar to these terms, spectacle and narrative can also be distinctive opposite ideas on high concept films. Spectacle refers to a visually striking performance or display, fitting to many mainstream Hollywood films such as The Terminator (Cameron, 1984) and Jaws (Spielberg, 1975). Narrative, essentially the story, is at the centre of nearly every film but is not always prioritised and elaborated, as is the case in many high concept films. Although many may view high concept film merely a visual wonderment, this cannot disregard the relationship the style has with the spectator and success. Among many films reviewed, the Sci-fi film Gravity (Cuarón, 2013) and Romantic Drama film Titanic (Cameron, 1997) are two examples that fit the description of a high concept film, but in some ways deviate away from this idea of being mainly spectacle over narrative, and have therefore been chosen to exemplify this debate.
Before analysing the context of the films and their narrative and spectacle balance, it is paramount to address the marketing aspects that also make the films fall under this high concept label. High concept refers to a film that can be summarised in a few words, has a song/ image distinctly associated with that film, and pre-sold stars/storylines. Justin Wyatt captured the relationship between high concept and economics as a vehicle to maximise marketability. Overall, “One can think of high concept as comprising ‘the look, the hook, and the book.’ The look of the images, the marketing hooks, and the reduced narratives form the cornerstones of high concept” (Wyatt, 1994). The name high concept alone is misnomer because as Wyatt explained, “The concept is so low that it can be summarised and sold on the basis of a single sentence” (1994, p.12). Titanic and Gravity conform to this aspect of high concept; Gravity summarised would be ‘astronauts stranded in outer-space and their subsequent attempt to return to Earth’. The overall narrative concept of Gravity is very simple, yet effective because of the spectacle. The narrative is easily reducible offering a high degree of marketability for a mainstream audience. Similarly, Titanic can be condensed to ‘the true story of the famous Titanic ship sinking and the passenger’s survival of this’. Based on the true events of the peacetime maritime disaster that occurred in 1912, the true historical aspect of Titanic’s narrative would have been a drawing factor for many viewers. Titanic is thought to be high concept with no narrative depth but this can be apposed due to it being based on a real event and employing a retrospective style of presenting the story, as the fictional character Rose recalls her experience of surviving the shipwreck. Wyatt argued that high concept relies “heavily upon the replication and combination of previously successful narratives” (1994, p.13), however this proves difficult to see all high concept products in this way. Moreover, Titanic can be seen as representing certain ideological ideas through the romance of a working class male and an upper class female. Likewise, Gravity has many patriotic themes of America being the first in space and the aspect of being a national hero. Titanic and Gravity are not consistently or obviously replicas of any films before them, but can still be seen as very high concept pieces, highlighting the cracks in some high concept ideas.
Titanic star Leonardo Dicaprio, was previously known for Romeo and Juliet and liked by a heavily youthful audience. Similarly, Gravity had a space for stars in the marketing of the film. Sandra Bullock (The Proposal, 2009, Miss Congeniality, 2000) and George Clooney (Oceans Eleven, 2001, Fantastic Mr. Fox, 2009) both were huge established stars before Gravity. By actively casting these actors, the film had already begun the advertising, as audiences can be drawn to films through star choice. “Perhaps the most significant pre-sold property from a commercial standpoint is the human capital the star” (1994, p.31), here Wyatt discusses the function of the star as a pre-sold attraction for high concept films, along with various other attributes. This is indicated in Richard Dyers Star Theory where he explains how the star is used as a means to promote film. Advertising in the form of trailers and television spots are essential for high concept films to have a pre-established audience before a film is released too.
New technological advancements for both Gravity and Titanic accommodate for greater (reconstructed) realism. For example, in James Cameron’s Titanic the shots of the ship are convincing with swoops and tracks, in a particular scene the camera passes the full length of the ship in a grand sweeping motion. However, this is filmed from a computer-controlled camera rig and designed to “mimic the helicopter based shot…used to display a real ship.” (Wyatt, 1994, p.49). With the ship being a miniature model, the only option was to replicate the way a real ship would have looked and been captured. Critics mistake this for favouring spectacle over narrative but this cannot be avoided, more implicitly, sometimes the two can compliment one another. Gravity had similar ground breaking technologies that excited audiences enough to watch the film. The film won the Oscar award for visual effects and “the majority of Framestore’s creations for the movie were made specifically for it.” (Skipworth, 2014) It was a brand new way of presenting film that only Gravity had endeavoured. For instance, the bravura opening sequence where Sandra Bullock is hit with debris resulting in her spinning throughout space , took two thousand frames in filming and the scene is shot from every angle, breaking the one-eighty degree rule. Although this would ultimately mean that Gravity is high concept, the academy award paired with new technologies rather than pre-sold ideas deviate against the tradition of it being high concept.
The distinctive match between image and soundtrack is apparent in most high concept films. While the match may not be subject to high concept alone, it still remains a theme that these films convey. In the final dream scene in Titanic when Rose imagines her meeting Jack again, the instrumental of Celine Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On” (1997, track 12) plays in the background. It is an emotional song that compliments Roses wishes to be reunited with her love again. The audience also feel sympathy for her because they saw their relationship blossom in the three hour and fifteen minute feature. The song is remembered for being featured in Titanic after two decades, from the success of the film (grossing over two billion dollars worldwide) to the prosperity of the song (attaining a Grammy award and selling over fifteen million copies) it succeed hugely. In a slightly more challenging way, Gravity also matches sound to character and image but had noted complications with there being no sound in space. However, the execution of this issue is critical to the character development. The chosen sounds provoke realistic feelings, as it would feel literally being in space. As explained, “Touch is the best way to hear, and dialogue whirls around the audience in an immersive 360-degree cyclone.” (Bishop, 2016). Sound “plays a critical role in conveying the sense of losing oneself in space” (Liang, 2016) although there is not an iconic single associated with Gravity, the scenes are filled with mellow instrumentals and drum beats for fast paced immersive scenes.
High concept offers several modifications from the typical Classical Hollywood Cinema. One of the most notable components includes character and narrative being simplified. Gravity and Titanic have both been ridiculed for having a lack of a plausible storyline and character depth; however, they both integrate their colossal spectacle with arguably a powerful narrative dynamic.
Geoff King reviewed Titanic alongside many other films for their adherence to high concept and argued that “some plot developments may not be as convincing as the digitally rendered spectacle, but narrative weakness at this level should not be mistaken for a lack of narrative dynamic.” (2000) With this in mind, Titanic is arguably a film that does have a weakness within the narrative -- due to the overwhelming technologies such as the large ship -- but would still not function the same as a whole if the narrative was not in place. The special effects support the narrative because without a realistic ship, the verisimilitude would not be apparent. Suspension of disbelief is maintained in Titanic because of the boat. The ship is the centre of the narrative and the story ultimately leading to some character development including a love story between Jack (Leonardo Dicaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet) who meet on the ship. The romance is “closely tied in with the broader historical epic, and obligatory feature of classical Hollywood narrative structure” (2000, p.51). Some spectators may prefer to involve themselves more with the narrative melodrama of Rose and Jack, as they are the main protagonists that serve to represent the victims of the disaster. Others may prefer to ignore this somewhat fictional romance and focus more on the immersive spectacle, and that alone. Audiences are offered the spectacle of “the Titanic itself and the spectacle of the special effects camerawork that can be achieved using computer-generated digital images and miniature models” (2000). The iconic scene when the titanic is upright in the water and small human figures fall off the ship in a dramatic manner, serves to heighten the emotion. Although this may be historically accurate, the amount of bodies spinning off the ship is unnecessary to show, unless it is solely for spectacle and shock. Titanic proves to be problematic in terms of being defined as a high concept film because the special effects in some ways furthers the story more than favour irrelevant spectacle effects over narrative.
Gravity upholds an exclusive balance between the two ends of the spectrum, on the one hand “it is a narrative fiction with a characteristically Hollywoodian plot designed for mass audience. On the other, the visual and auditory aspects…go beyond…conventions of mainstream production.” (Liang, 2016) The film informs us on Ryan’s (Sandra Bullock’s) personal experience of her daughter’s death, allowing the protagonist to develop. However, it cannot be ignored that no other character in the film has any depth or progression, leaving Ryan as the only one with some dimension. Unlike Titanic, it is harder to pinpoint where Gravity has narrative depth because it fully conforms to the high concept definition of being described in a few words. However “to assert the importance of narrative need not to disregard the role of spectacle.” (King, 2000) Compared to Titanic in terms of the special effects, Gravity has more of a focus on that area. This difference between the two films does not immediately make one film over another more or less high concept. High concept is not just a loss of narrative because of focus on spectacle. Furthering this, Neale and Smith argued, “narrative has not disappeared, but the new technologies…have encouraged certain kinds of narrative” (1998), which may be the case for Gravity. In the film the plot advances through the spectacle. For example, when Ryan returns back to a part of the spacecraft she found, there is a fire. The scene is a whole long take following her attempt to fix and survive the problem; it is filled with sparks, smoke, flames, and twisting/turning camera movements. All of these elements combined allow progression of the narrative as she learns to survive on her own and have some agency. The knockbacks that continue to arise for Ryan throughout would not be received in the same way had the spectacle not combined with the narrative.
Both Titanic and Gravity are unlike most films defined as high concept, such Spielberg’s Jaws (1975) and Jurassic Park (1993), alongside The Terminator (Cameron, 1984) and Star Wars (Lucas, 1977), because they do not have the same blockbuster elements or sequel appeal. Regardless of these case study films not conforming to the blockbuster style, it is important to consider all aspects of high concept, not just those that fit Gravity and Titanic. Indeed, high concept can be viewed as a progression from the blockbuster as it “shares the emphasis on pre-sold components, yet modifies the style and narrative of a blockbuster.” (Wyatt, 1994, p.80). The blockbuster in many ways “created the genesis for high concept” (Wyatt, 1994, p.81). A modern example of high concept film in this way would be the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where all of the superheroes are connected. The iconic after credit cut scenes allow for a set up of the next film in the universe. This is named purposeful incoherence, whereby a film can be open-ended without complete resolution in space of a sequel. Robin Wood wrote “the dividing line between coherent works that register incoherence and works that are incoherent within themselves may not always be clear.” (1986, p.46) This can be the case because although Marvel films are an example of high concept films that are aware of the incoherence and loopholes it has, other films may not deliberately have these narrative gaps.
High concept is an established film style that can be recognised and applied to many films; however, many aspects of categorising films in this manner has proven to be problematic. It is important to consider that the term is constructed and therefore the overall inclusion could be disvalued. As evident in this analysis, it is not as clear-cut to define a film based only on the possibility it may convey some ideas high concept symbolises. Gravity is high rated and high concept, bonding the two together. Another point to assess is that if a film can be deemed as high concept, it does not necessarily mean low quality. Many of the most successful and iconic films, including Titanic and Gravity, can be understood as a product of high concept.
Although on the surface high concept films are criticised for only valuing moneymaking techniques (such as pre-sold premises), and only focusing on the on screen visuals, there is further complexity to them. A film can attain and display ideas of high concept but does not tend to be only this alone. From the research of these two films, the problems occurred with seeing high concept as simple narratives and mainly spectacle is not always the case. Film crew within the high concept industry create vast popular films with large box office revenue, without over analysing the character and plot development. Making money is something high concept indefinitely values and as Don Simpson epitomised, “The pursuit of making money is the only reason to make movies…it may be important to win the academy award, for it might mean another $10m dollars at the box office” (Fleming, 1999). High concept texts do sometimes prioritise spectacle over narrative, alongside other elements, but this is not the sole defining function of high concept, there is more depth and logic to these films.
References
Anderson, W. (Director). (2009). Fantastic Mr. Fox. USA: Twentieth Century Fox.
Bishop, B. (2016, 10 October). How the Sound Masters of Gravity Broke the Rules to Make Noise in a Vacuum. [Weblog]. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4822482/the-sound-design-of-gravity-glenn-freemantle-skip-lievsay
Calvisi, D. (2010, 15 June). High Concept. [Weblog]. Retrieved from http://actfourscreenplays.com/glossary/high-concept/
Cameron, J. (Director). (1984). The Terminator. USA: Hemdale.
Cameron, J. (Director). (1997). Titanic. [Film]. USA: Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount Pictures.
Cuarón, A. (Director). (2013). Gravity. [Film]. USA: Warner Bros.
Dion, C. (1997). My Heart Will Go On. Let’s Talk About Love. [CD]. Canada: Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
Dyer, R. (1998). Stars. London: BFI Publishing.
Fleming, C. (1999) High Concept: Don Simpson and Hollywood’s Culture of Excess. New York: Doubleday.
Fletcher, A. (Director). (2009). The Proposal. USA: Touchstone Pictures.
King, G. (2000). Spectacular Narratives. New York: I.B Taurus & Co Ltd.
Liang, D. (2016). Sound, Space, Gravity: A Kaleidoscopic Hearing. The New Soundtrack, 6(1), 1-15. doi: 02:2016
Lucas, G. (Director). (1977). Star Wars. USA: Lucas Film, Twentieth Century Fox.
Neale, S. Smith, M. (1998). Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. New York: Routledge.
Petrie, D. (Director). (2000). Miss Congeniality. USA: Castle Rock Entertainment.
Skipworth, H. (2014). Digital Spy. The Technology Behind Gravity’s Oscar Winning Visual Effects. Retrieved 8 December, 2017, from http://www.digitalspy.com/tech/news/a555054/the-technology-behind-gravitys-oscar-winning-visual-effects/
Soderbergh, S. (Director). (2001). Ocean’s Eleven. USA: Warner Bros.
Spielberg, S. (Director). (1993). Jurassic Park. USA: Universal Pictures.
Spielberg, S. (Director). (1975). Jaws. USA: Universal Pictures.
Weiner, E, S, C. Simpson, J, A. (2004). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, R. (1986). Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wyatt, J. (1994). High Concept. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
Comments