This week's seminar was based on the structures of both the film and tourism industries, as a way of determining how different they are and the many levels to go through when working together.
It was funny how the class initially found it fairly difficult to identify how the tourism industry is structured and where their funding comes from, since we pretty much all just finished a business in tourism degree. I dunno, maybe I didn't pay enough attention in some of our undergrad classes, but I sorta found it hard to think of the different organisations and activities that happen under the Public Sector and the Industry Sector. But as soon as government activities were identified as the public sector, it was easy to think of the types of jobs the government does. Often that annoys me a lot, where I have no idea of the right answer to a question until I get a fairly large prompt or clue. I think it's a weakness in my learning skills, since I can't come up with an answer from my own head without help. It makes me more frustrated with others in the class are really good at that kind of thing.
Anyway, I was pretty interested in learning how the film industry is structured, because it's not something I often think about... It's more about the particlar films that come out of the studios, rather than how they came to be. I also had no idea that the distribution companies have so much power: they pretty much can decide whether a film is going to be a blockbuster, or a flop.
Was also interesting to hear that often distribution companies can dictate to filmmakers the type of content that is to be shown in the movie...
In the case of the Swedish films that were most popular in Germany. We talked about how the distribution companies over there demanded that all films coming out of Sweden have a very Swedish feel to them, with lots of scenic views and particular Swedish landmarks identified, since they were the things that Germans loved most about the films. It did make me wonder if the Swedish people seeing the finished products ever got sick of always seeing the same landmarks or countryside portrayed in the film.
I know that when I see an Australian movie, I tend to get sick of always seeing the same scenes over and over, like the Opera House, or Sydney Harbour Bridge, or Uluru. Instead, I like to see places that I have been before that aren't hugely prominent, but that are still great representations of the country I live in. I think that showing all different locations in films is a much better way of showcasing a country, even if it is in a film that isn't actively trying to promote a destination in any way. It's better than always seeing the same icons or places, and having audiences thinking that they're all a country has to offer.
The idea of film and tourim also helping each other out is another one that makes sense. Tourism bodies or organisations located in destinations are going to know the most picturesque or scenic places to shoot a film, and can probably find a destination within their region to fit most aspects of a film, whether they need beachfront, forest, jungle, alpine areas, urban settings or any number of other options. Therefore, tourism organisations can help find these areas in conjunction with the film location scouts, and might also be able to help them get council approval or after-hours access to attractions.
In return, film crews will know how to best display the destinations that they have been provided with, and can probably help to create marketing opportunities for a region, particularly if it's a smaller city that doesn't have a huge budget or knowledge of tourism marketing.
Anyway, I think I'm rambling a bit here, which I'm not meant to do. Hopefully I'll be able to clean these up a bit before submitting them for assessment.
Until next seminar...!
Xox
