Abstract
Within the framework of the Creative Europe programme, and due to the inexplicable lack of current academic information on the topic, this exploratory cross-cultural study seeks to advance the understanding of the relationship between European adolescents and cinema through a sample of 937 secondary students from eight countries of the European Union. Specifically, the research contributes to the identification of young people’s conceptions of the artistic value and functions of cinema, their knowledge of cinematography and their opinions about national, European or foreign cinema. In addition, it explores the extent to which these factors are alike and differ according to nation. The results of this work are relevant for academics from different disciplines, regulators, educators and members of the audiovisual industry.
Keywords
Introduction
Cinema is a strategic element for the European Union (EU). In its recent communication, European cinema in the digital age. Bridging cultural diversity and competitiveness, the European Commission (EC) defends the cultural, social and economic importance of the region’s audiovisual sector, to which it attributes the mission of forming identities and projecting regional values. The EU exhorts cinema to be an integrating factor in which the long-desired common identity flourishes (EC, 2014a). It also suggests that cinema is engine of innovation for growth and employment, according to the objectives of the economic strategy, Europe 2020; the framework Promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs in the EU (EC, 2012); and the Digital Agenda for Europe (EC, 2010).
All of the above reveals that the EU is aware that, despite the diversity and creativity of its film industries, the value of its film heritage or the high production of its member states, films produced in Europe do not reach their potential audience, not only from the different international markets, but from within the EU itself (EC, 2014a). The European film industry is vast: it has a high turnover (€60 billion in 2011), is made up of more than 75,000 companies and employs more than 370,000 people (European Parliament, 2014). For the institutions of the region, the weakness in the penetration of films made in Europe outside and within the EU means losing the opportunity to spread the diversity of European cultures around the world, to improve their competitiveness and to balance the trade deficit with third countries, in particular the USA.
The EU has often boasted of having implemented measures to protect members’ cinema as the policy of cultural exception (EP & European Council (EC), 2013), the emission quotas or the support programmes for the recovery, cataloguing, preservation and restoration of audiovisual works. The EU also holds awards to European films (e.g., EFA, Lux). Likewise, through successive editions of the MEDIA programme, the EU has supported the regional audiovisual industry in production, training, distribution, marketing, promotion and learning. Nowadays, MEDIA is part of the Creative Europe (CE) programme (EP & EC, 2013).
However, despite the dedication of the EU to promoting the regional cinema, it is felt that its financing, distribution and training efforts should be revised to increase their efficacy (Liz, 2016). As in the rest of the Western world, receipts from USA blockbusters are greater than those in Europe (European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO), 2015). Indeed, the mastery of Hollywood cinema in Europe has led academics and institutions to fear the cultural impoverishment of the region and its effects on audiences (Veenstra et al., 2016). All of the above explains why the EU seeks to adapt itself to the digital age and use its potential to attract new audiences, to conserve the existent and to build bridges between cultural diversity and competitiveness (EC, 2014a). One essential path for captivating audiences and increasing the competitiveness of its film industry is, for the EU, education in cinema (EC, 2015). Media literacy and, particularly, film literacy are fundamental in its institutional initiatives. According to the current EU audiovisual strategies, audiences should be at the centre of cinema’s policies. To properly form them, however, they must be known in-depth. The EU believes that, without the necessary information on their preferences, consumption habits, and conceptions about films, the expected cinema successes cannot be guaranteed (EC, 2014b).
This study is a product of the activities of the CE programme (EU, 2013), the new European audiovisual instrument that supports the creative and cultural industries of the region. The objective of the CE is to create both vocations and jobs whilst promoting European linguistic and cultural diversity. According to the CE objective, this research seeks to understand the relationship that European youngsters establish with cinema. Firstly, it aims to obtain information in order to support programmes on film literacy and the promotion of European audiovisual works. Furthermore, it also aims to provide information that contributes to academic knowledge of the relationship that various audiences establish with cinema in a globalised world to stimulate discussion in communication theory. Finally, it looks at offering useful information to the audiovisual industries to increase the penetration of European cinematography not only in Europe but worldwide.
There is a rich offering of film literacy initiatives for different educational levels in Europe (BFI, 2012) with a wide variety of pedagogical proposals (for extensive reviews see BFI, University of London and Film Education, 2011a and Polish Film Institute, 2014). The EU considers cinema as an art form, as with literature or music, so it tries it to be present in school curricula of the region, however, not always with encouraging results (Reia-Baptista, 2009).
Nonetheless, despite the importance attributed to cinema in Europe and the clear importance of film literacy in the creation of new audiences, there is surprisingly no academic research that explores the current conceptions, attitudes and knowledge of young Europeans about cinema and, in particular, cinema of the region. Knowing what young people know and understand about media is a prerequisite for any attempt to promote media literacy (Buckingham, 2005).
Additionally, it is not known if there are differences in those factors according to nation. In fact, research on film reception in Europe has been kept away from the debates about the common or specific identity signals (Bergfelder, 2005).
Nowadays, the notion of a common culture tends to be overlooked and the concept of cultural diversity is favoured: the European cultural condition is theoretically defined as a plurality of cultures (Barbato, 2008; De Vinck, 2011). Yet, there is little information about whether it is desirable to regulators, educators and audiovisual professionals to consider the attitudes of the region’s audiences, especially adolescents, as a whole. It is not even known if specific distinctions according to the nation the youngsters are from should be recognised, particularly in the way they relate to cinema. The limited availability of these cross-cultural studies on cinema in Europe is mostly due to the difficulties of conducting research simultaneously in different countries and, above all, to the variety of languages (Bergfelder, 2005). When studying young people in school contexts, research must fit in with formal teaching, which means altering curricular activities, with the consequent pedagogical or ethical dilemmas.
In response to the gaps and demands for knowledge, this cross-cultural research seeks to find an answer to the following questions: (a) How do European adolescents relate to cinema? And (b) Are there differences in the relationship of adolescents to cinema depending on the nation they are from?
To achieve those objectives, this research explores the conceptions about cinema (artistic value and functions), the knowledge about cinema and the opinions about national, regional or foreign cinema using a sample of young Secondary school students from eight different countries. This study observes the extent to which these factors are alike and differ according to nation.
It should be considered that there is a vast body of academic research on the relationship between young people and the media. This richness of knowledge includes early studies on cinema from in the middle of the last century in different latitudes and considering sociodemographic variables important (Wallace and Simson, 1959; Zazzo, 1958). There is no known recent research on the matter. Moreover, much of the available research has studied the effects of the media, particularly the harmful ones. A few other studies have dedicated themselves to exploring, specifically, media literacy (e.g., Buckingham, 2005; Kamerer, 2013).
Nevertheless, the study of cinema’s place in citizens’ lives, at the mercy of globalisation and the increased audiovisual offering, seems to be forgotten by communication researchers. Indeed, the study of the most relevant media and information literacy models lacks references to traditional media such as cinema (Giraldo-Luque et al., 2014). Through the study of the relationship of young Europeans with cinema, this work contributes to knowing the place that the films occupy in their life, in particular European cinema.
Theoretical background
Media and film literacy in the EU
To the EU, media literacy is the ability to consult, understand, critically appreciate and create content for the media (EC, 2007). In Europe, it is conceived as a product of two dimensions: (a) individual competences (i.e., use, critical and intellectual understanding and communication skills) and (b) environmental factors (i.e., external to the individual aspects as the media context, availability, policies, education, industries and civil society actions) (European Association for Viewers Interests (EAVI), 2009). Although a satisfactory level of accuracy has not still been achieved to allow its homogeneous application to the different media realities of the member countries, the EU has already advanced the definition and refinement of both criteria and the methods which characterise those dimensions (Danish Technological Institute and European Association for Viewers Interests (DTI and EAVI), 2011). However, achieving a satisfactory definition of film literacy, usually considered part of the media literacy, for all states member is difficult. Perhaps for this reason, the EU considers it the result of a wide range of aspects (e.g., understanding, awareness, curiosity, critical capacity, content, audiovisual language, and production) (Portalés Oliva, 2014) and defines it as: The level of understanding of a film, the ability to be conscious and curious in the choice of films and the competence to critically watch a film and to analyse its content, cinematography and technical aspects; and the ability to manipulate its language and technical resources in creative moving image production’. (BFI, University of London and Film Education, 2011b: 4)
The official definition of EU film literacy is strongly influenced by the British tradition of Moving Image Education, which puts together learning and teaching practices to understand, create, enjoy and share moving images (Bazalgette, 2009).
Nevertheless, Europe has other traditions, particularly the German one, which also influences this research. The German perspective integrates the theoretical and institutional debates. For this, it is considered more complete (Portalés Oliva, 2014). It advocates that students gain theoretical and practical knowledge, not only on the variety of production, but also on their effects so they are more competent, critical, conscious audiences and actively use films in their daily lives (Süss et al., 2008).
Uses and gratifications (U&G)
Theoretically, this research is based on U&G, which is an axiomatic approach applied to all kinds of communication and media messages (Luo and Remus, 2014), including cinema (Weaver et al., 1993). According to this paradigm, the present work considers that young people: (a) are active when they select media and messages; (b) choose and use media or messages to satisfy desires and needs; (c) behave differently in the use and selection of media according to social and psychological factors (which, in turn, influence how they satisfy those desires and needs), and (d) are able to identify and report their motivations, desires or needs (Tanta et al., 2014). The empirical and theoretical repertoire linked to the paradigm is broad. There are typologies of motifs, needs and functions of media (Katz et al., 1973; McQuail et al., 1972). Moreover, the effect of internal (e.g., personality) or external factors (Katz et al., 1974), and gratification models have been also identified (Palmgreen, 1984).
On the other hand, the U&G have demonstrated the relation between the gratifications obtained from media consumption and the psychological identification with social groups (Blumler, 1985). The gratifications obtained in media use operate on social identity: individuals seek representations or participate in media experiences which reinforce their identification with specific social groups and take aspects of race, gender and nationality into account (Abrams and Giles, 2007; Harwood, 1997, 1999; Katz et al., 1973; Tajfel and Turner, 1979). For adolescents, specifically, media is a source of identification models (Arnett, 1995; Phinney, 1990). In fact, the exploration of identity and identity gratifications are specific motivations for the media use of individuals at this age. Youngsters actively build their identity through media because they can individually select the messages they consume from a wide variety of potential models (Ellithorpe and Bleakley, 2016).
Audiences, nations and globalisation
The link between cultural identity and audiovisual consumption is a sensitive issue for this study. There are few known studies on the reception of media and audiovisual messages by audiences from different nations. In fact, most of the well-known research explores aspects such as the frequency of attending the cinema or market sizes. The EU, for example, adopts this strategy in its studies (see EC, 2014b, 2015).
Generally, research considers that culture and language are the fundamental elements for characterising audiences and understanding their reception processes (Morley, 1992). In these works, local culture is defined by space or social relations and also by the understanding of phenomena (Massey, 1994).
It should be clarified that, although there are practically no studies exhaustively explaining or distinguishing tastes or preferences for local or collective consumption, audiences are considered to be groups that decide on content in an idiosyncratic manner (Fu, 2013; Morley, 1992). Thus, they react to audiovisual products heterogeneously according to their cultural peculiarities (i.e., social norms or aesthetic preferences and judgements) (La Pastina and Straubhaar, 2005; Morley, 1992). For example, the morality of the social group or nationality seems to influence the preference of cinematographic genres and audiovisual tastes (Bowman et al., 2012; Fu, 2013).
Likewise, the scarce available literature on reception of cross-cultural audiences that has observed the responses of local audiences to foreign products (i.e., in cultural or geographical terms) shows that foreign content is appropriated by users through localisation processes (Cantor and Cantor, 1986). It is claimed that culturally distinct communities also perceive the same content in a different way (Lee, 2006).
On the other hand, the cultural distance with the country of origin of the audiovisual and the idiomatic competence in its language influence preferences (Fu, 2013). In general, media and messages produced by cultures similar to our own are preferred and selected (Straubhaar, 1991, 2003). Cultural proximity, therefore, has been used as a theory to describe the habits and consumption motives of television audiences especially. For example, the region and the country of students from eight different countries influence the attitude towards USA television fiction (Trepte, 2008).
In turn, Sinclair et al. (1996) and Straubhaar (2003) reflect on the existence of a cultural disposition of the spectators from ‘cultural linguistics’ or ‘geolinguistics’. Other studies on culture and personality suggest that even the psychological traits that influence media use vary according to culture (Hofstede and McCrae, 2004; Trepte, 2008).
In the specific terms of psychological processing, one of the few existing studies finds arguments, not only in favour of the fact that cultural proximity to the content affects its reception, but about identify aspects of processing. Through the responses of an adult sample from two European countries (Holland and Spain) more or less culturally distant to a film from a third country of the EU (Germany), the authors report evidence that the lesser cultural proximity to the film produces greater understanding and perceived clarity of the plot, plus a more positive overall assessment. On the contrary, the greater cultural distance produces more enjoyment, identification with the characters, credibility of the stories and intensity of certain emotions (Soto-Sanfiel and Igartua, 2016).
In spite of all of the above, country-specific audiovisual preferences tend to converge with those of USA audiences, and world cinema tastes are increasingly homogeneous (Fu, 2013). Therefore, evidence is available to support the existence of common reception and viewing modes among nations. Indeed, national repertoires of evaluation can be replaced by global repertoires in the processing of blockbusters (Kuipers and de Kloet, 2009). It is argued, accordingly, that current cultural references are increasingly dictated by transnationalisation phenomena (Esser et al., 2016).
Globalisation theorists now warn that media experiences are changing the environments in which individuals build identities because they introduce new sources, references and resources into them. In the globalised world, social experiences are affected by regional, ethnic, institutional, commercial and economic dynamics that operate at multiple levels: local, regional, national or global. Consequently, national borders lose influence (Esser et al., 2016) and multiple identities (Castelló, 2008) or hybrid identities (García Canclini, 1995) occur. In this sense, Straubhaar (2007) proposes the concept of levels of identity to understand the relationship of individuals with media today. Along the same lines, Beck (2006) claims the consumption of foreign cultural products and the development of taste for them changes the identities. It is therefore accepted that viewers’ cultural preferences and interpretations are configured not only at a national level, but also at a transnational one (Kuipers and de Kloet, 2009; Veenstra et al., 2016).
As a result of the new communicative reality, the theory of cultural proximity (Straubhaar, 1991) has evolved into the theory of multiple proximities (La Pastina and Straubhaar, 2005), which ascertains that cultural preferences are not always determined by the geographical environment. The use of nation as a unique analysis unit for understanding the cultural consumption processes is questioned nowadays. In fact, some cross-cultural studies, such as the work of Veenstra et al. (2016), conclude that language is a more relevant factor in the understanding and evaluation of American blockbusters than its nationality. Moreover, the concept of global citizenship identification (Reysen and Katzarska-Miller, 2013) is being strengthened today.
Because of all the above, this research is consistent with U&G in that adolescents, who are the subject of this research, use media to meet needs and obtain gratifications and that the modelling of the personal and social identities is part of an adolescent’s specific motivations and gratifications for their media use. To give light to the theories of globalisation, hybrid or multiple cultural identities and multiple proximities, this research also believes that both the adolescent’s media use and the gratifications they obtain are complex multivariable processes in which regional, ethnical, institutional, commercial and economical dynamics interact and operate at local, regional, national and/or global levels. Therefore, it is necessary that communication research begins by identifying how it manifests. This information will subsequently allow the study of the intensity and direction of the variables’ relationships to be expanded.
Method
This study is produced as part of a Film Literacy project funded by CE (2014-20), Media Sub-programme/Support for Audience Development (Film Literacy). 1 The research intends to report on the aspects that promote film literacy in European adolescents, for which it considers fundamental, knowledge of the factors influencing the relationship that young people have with: cinema in general, cinematographic production of their country, European cinema and other foreign film traditions, particularly American.
This work adopts the European cinema definition of the European Audiovisual Observatory: ‘European films are all films considered to be of European origin, i.e., to be produced and majority financed by a European country’ (EAO, 2016: 9). The concept of European cinema has been widely discussed as that of the European identity. In fact, all sorts of uncertainties and disputes coexist around it. However, the purpose of this work is not to expand on the characteristics of the cinema in the region, but to explore the conceptions that young people have about it. That is why it pragmatically adopts that definition.
Participants
Description of the sample.
The students were part of an extracurricular film literacy course offered free in their schools. The syllabus was the same for all schools and countries. It was designed before the beginning of the programme. Being aware that the social context in which films are viewed is a fundamental factor in their consumption and appropriation (Jancovich, 2011), all activities of the educational project were carried out in the schools. The questionnaires were answered voluntarily without any kind of compensation in exchange, before starting the course.
Procedure
Some days before the first intervention of the Film Literacy programme, and without having received any training, the students completed online questionnaires in group sessions in their computing classroom. In those sessions, the teacher in charge of the group was present, and provided instructions to answer and assist students in procedural questions. Teachers were previously trained by researchers. A set of questionnaires were created including closed questions inspired by the literature and with the collaboration of both the teachers (some of cinema) of the participating schools and experts in Film Literacy. The following was considered in the construction of the questionnaires:
Institutional reports (e.g., BFI, 2012, 2015; EAVI, 2009; EC, 2010, 2014a, 2014b, 2015). Scientific contributions related to Film Literacy and Media Literacy. Despite some theoretical or practical tensions between the two, it is recognised that their objectives are virtually identical (Burn and Durran, 2007). It was verified that the questions reflected an extensive understanding of the cinematographic world and Film Literacy (Burn, 2009; Burn and Duran, 2007; Fedorov, 2014; Livingstone et al., 2008; Martens, 2010; Reia-Baptista, 2009; Reid, 2009; Rogow, 2011). Contributions related to U&G theory, to the reception of national or foreign audiovisual products previously mentioned and to the psychology of adolescents in educational settings (Epstein and Karweit, 1983; Harkin et al., 2001).
Students were asked to answer questions related to access, analysis of the film, film production, projection and consumption (including legal issues) and evaluation of film messages.
Following the recommendations, the construction and adaptation of instruments, final questionnaires were created in Spanish, the researchers’ mother tongue (Muñiz et al., 2013). After successive refining versions, they were then translated into the seven other languages using the forward method (Hambleton, 1996). Once translated, the teachers of each country, together with linguistic experts of each language, again verified their adequacy to the characteristics of the sample.
Materials
Questionnaires required information on sociodemographic data (i.e., age, sex, school, course, city, country) and previous experience of formal education in film through dichotomous response options (Yes/No) (‘Have you received lessons on films in previous courses at your school?’ And ‘Do you currently receive film lessons at your school?’).
Questionnaires also included Likert format questions with five response options (1 = Totally disagree/5 = Totally agree) to explore the following variables:
– General conceptions about cinema, through a question (‘To what extent do you agree with the following statements?’), followed by 38 items that explored participants’ beliefs about aspects of film production and consumption. – Knowledge on film production and expression, through the question (‘To what extent do you agree with the following statements?’), followed by 24 items exploring various aspects. – Conceptions about European cinema, through a question (‘Compared to the cinema of other countries, like the American (Hollywood) or the Indian (Bollywood), European cinema is/has…?’), followed by 37 items.
Questionnaires and items are available in Appendix 1.
Statistical analysis
The free software package R (R Core Team, 2016) and SPSS 23 for Windows were used. First, a descriptive and frequency analysis was performed for the total sample and by country. Also, the relationship between categorical variables was observed using contingency tables. When the frequencies of the expected values were less than five, Fisher’s exact test was used; when they were larger, the Chi-Square test was used (McDonald, 2014). With the dichotomous variables (e.g., Yes/No), cumulative frequencies were obtained for those who chose three of the options.
To analyse the magnitudes of attitudes, the scores were observed and quartiles created: the first quartile was considered ‘very favourable’ whereas the third was ‘unfavourable’. To determine differences in these country assessments, since the distribution of the variables was not normal and the sample size was not homogeneous across countries, the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied for independent samples. In the results with statistically significant differences, a posteriori pairwise comparisons were performed. From these results, only those which are relevant will be detailed due to limitations of space. Finally, in the preferences, for the dichotomous variables, accumulated frequencies were obtained for all those who chose three of the options.
In order to answer the research objectives, the data were analysed according to the following phases: (a) general magnitudes and general trends were obtained for the whole sample; (b) results were analysed between different countries and general trends compared; (c) differences for each of the variables were observed comparing all countries, and (d) according to the results of each country, a picture of the most representative characteristic of each one was created. The results are presented following this order.
Results
Conceptions about cinema
Conceptions about Cinema.
: intra-order; MR: mean Rank for H test.
p < .05; **p < .001; d.f. = 7.
On the other hand, youngsters in the sample show an intensely negative attitude towards items related to the commitment of cinema with reality and society. They do not agree that cinema should be reflective of society, be critical of reality, or be faithful to reality. Neither do they agree that they like to watch classic cinema or that conversations on films with people from their closest circles help them to learn about cinema.
Comparing the responses between countries, the Kruskal–Wallis test confirms there are significant differences in a large number of items related to this question (Table 2).
Italy and Germany differed in one or more aspects with most of the sample. Italian students say they agree more strongly than more than half of the countries with the idea of considering cinema as storytelling. Also, they strongly disagree to a greater extent than the rest with the fact that cinema is a cultural expression. Germans mostly agree that cinema can be used for political and propaganda purposes than the rest of the sample.
Analysing the results by country and grouping according to the highest scores of each one, some characteristics that particularly characterise students from each country can be established:
– Croatians consider to a greater extent than the others that cinema should have a greater commitment to social injustices and that films are preferable from contemporary to classic. – Spaniards want to know more about cinema and consider that films can be made with low budgets. – Romanians and Icelanders have a positive attitude towards receiving education in cinema (they want to know more about cinema and believe cinema should be taught in schools) and on the educational and ideological functions of cinema (cinema could educate and transmit ideas that can influence in people). However, Romanians have a negative attitude towards following specific actors, whereas Icelanders do not want to be film experts, nor do they think films should be seen without pauses to be understood. – Italians stand out for believing that cinema is just for storytelling. – The British intensely believe that cinema serves as propaganda and that there are numerous forums for cinematographic debate. – Germans believe that cinema has ideological and political functions, that cinema has a commitment to social problems and injustices, that it is possible to make films with low budget and that it is necessary to know about film or be educated in cinema. – Finally, French students believe that cinema tries to tell stories, that it must be committed to the injustices or social problems and that the public projection of films implies paying copyright.
Film knowledge
The analysis of means, medians, and response frequencies reveals the presence of a clear ceiling effect in this variable. This can be interpreted by one of two reasons (or their whole): students really possess such knowledge or there was an effect of social desirability that led them to score very high on the items related to this question. Nevertheless, the scores based on the quartiles in which they were distributed were analysed.
It is seen that youngsters attribute higher scores to some items related to characteristics of cinematographic production (e.g., filming can last for years and it is teamwork) and with aspects related to the aesthetic-artistic use of sound and lighting resources. Therefore, their views, in this sense, are clearer and more definitive. On the other hand, students remain at the neutral point of the scale and do not have clear opinions on the aspects of script (synopsis and functions), cinematographic terminology (sequence and zoom plane), actors’ work, stages of film production and particular roles of professionals involved in film production (director, screenwriter, producer). It shows they are not very confident on their own knowledge of these aspects.
Knowledge about Cinema.
o: intra-order; MR: mean Rank for H test.
p < .05; **p < .001; d.f. = 7.
Observing the results by country, it is seen that:
– Croatian students have a firmer attitude than the rest on assessing the responsibilities of the director (creative manager, who expresses his/her ideology) and a more negative attitude about the artistic uses of lighting or sound. – Spaniards show ignorance about technical terms such as the subjective or low angle shooting and the director’s functions. – Romanians are more knowledgeable than the rest about the difference between film and television, and the director’s duties. Additionally, they do not attach much importance to the work of the voice of the actors. – Italians and Icelanders do not know of the differences between films for television and cinema. Icelanders specifically state that the director conveys his/her ideology to his/her work. They know more about the characteristics of the post-production work. – The British stand out for ignoring matters of acting work (differences between rehearsing for film or television or the actor’s voice work). – Germans stand out for knowing technical jargon terms such as low angle shooting. – Finally, the French are unaware of aspects of the production phase.
European cinema
The results of the analysis indicate that young people feel more satisfied watching American films than European ones, although they state they have watched, and like to watch films produced in Europe. Also, they generally show a negative attitude towards the films of their countries, which they consider to be of worse quality. Likewise, students believe that European cinema is less exaggerated, spectacular and commercial than cinema of other film traditions. In addition, they believe it to be of less quality and contain less fantasy. However, youngsters in the sample have no clear opinion about the fact that European cinema is more realistic or presents more social and sexual diversity than other traditions.
Considering the entire sample, the Kruskal–Wallis test shows significant differences in many of the items that form part of this set of variables (see Table 4). The following cases show statistical differences in a greater number of items:
– Italian students are more negative than the rest towards the films of their own country (watching them or stating their quality, which they consider worse). They do not consider European cinema to be more realistic, or present greater social or cultural diversity than other traditions. – Germans do not get more satisfaction with American cinema, nor do they consider European cinema to be more patriotic. However, they have a positive attitude about watching films from their own country. – The British show a more positive attitude than the rest of the sample about watching films from their country, and more negative about watching European films (just like most countries). Conceptions about European films. o: intra-order; MR: mean Rank for H test. p < .05. **p < .001; d.f. = 7.
The aspects that generate more differences between the eight explored countries and, therefore, reflect more diverse attitudes, are considering European cinema to be more artistic, more predictable, more patriotic, with better scripts and with fewer prejudices than cinema from the other regions and also, considering that watching an American film is more satisfying than watching a European film. As seen, these aspects are very diverse.
Observing the results for characterising each of the countries, it is seen that:
– Croatian students see European cinema as more patriotic and show a more positive attitude than the rest about wanting to watch films from their country. – Spaniards stress they consider that European cinema has fewer special effects, worse actors and scenery. They also believe it to being more predictable. – Romanians stands out in that they have a positive attitude about watching films from their country and thinking that the films of their country are not bad. – The British are characterised by showing a positive attitude towards the films of their country. – Icelanders stand out for having a positive attitude that European cinema is more artistic, dynamic and patriotic. – Germans show greater preferences for European films than for American films, and consider European cinema to be deeper and less patriotic. – Finally, the French are characterised by having a more negative attitude towards the films of their country, which they consider bad. They also show a positive attitude towards wanting to see European films.
It must be remembered that this study does not aim to discuss the concept of European cinema, but to determine the adolescents’ conceptions to it. Consequently, these results offer starting data that must be observed in depth and confirmed by future studies. Also, the results of this section are in the line to the investigations and reports aimed at maintaining that the American cinema leads the box office in the Western world (EAO, 2015). To the successful characteristics of its narratives (Olson, 1999), the powerful distribution of the American industry allows for the cultivation of its consumption (Gerbner, 1998).
Discussion
This cross-cultural study contributes to the understanding of the relationship of European adolescents to cinema. Specifically, it identifies the attitudes of young people from eight European countries on aspects that define their U&G of film consumption and film literacy. Due to the inexplicable absence of academic studies on adolescents’ general attitudes towards cinema, in comparison to studies on television or internet use, these results could induce the discussion and inspire future research that, in addition, validates and enforces them. The data provided for this study are also useful for industries, regulators and educators.
This research finds differences and similarities in the relationship that European adolescents establish with cinema and its consumption, according to their country. Many of the similarities could be attributed to the processes of globalisation and transnationalisation that lead to a homogenisation of tastes and modes of processing (Esser et al., 2016; Fu, 2013; Fu and Govindaraju, 2010; Kuipers and de Kloet, 2009). Another part can be interpreted by the current access and familiarity of individuals from advanced societies with devices for recording, reproduction and audiovisual production. However, the differences found must be mainly explained by the specific local characteristics of the sample. The cultural setting, thus, emerges as an influencing factor in the relation that youngsters establish with cinema, as previous research with adults has proposed (Bowman et al., 2012; Fu, 2013; La Pastina and Straubhaar, 2005; Morley, 1992).
Additionally, these results are also in line with some communication theorists in a globalised world. As we reported, they argue, on one hand, that media experiences are affected by regional, ethnic, institutional, commercial and economic dynamics and on the other hand, that media experiences operate at local, regional, national or global levels (Esser et al., 2016). However, the results of this work also inform U&G theory in that adolescents are dynamically related to cinema and adopt multiple identities (Castelló, 2008), hybrid identities (García Canclini, 1995) and/or varying levels of identity (Straubhaar, 2007). Moreover, these identities appear to interact with the social situation of film consumption. Consequently, the study of the relationship between adolescents and film should recognise the variability of social identities (e.g., local, national, regional, transnational and global) in the use of media, the perceived / obtained gratifications and the potential models obtained from national, regional and foreign audiovisual repertoires (Ellithorpe and Bleakley, 2016). Furthermore, U&G works should recognise that cultural preferences and meanings derived from film consumption can be dynamically and interactively configured at local, national and transnational levels (Kuipers and de Kloet, 2009; Veenstra et al., 2016). This, in turn, also changes identities (Beck, 2006).
The results indicate that any literacy, regulation and/or film promotion initiatives aimed at this segment of the population should mainly reflect the particular idiosyncrasies and attitudes of each local environment, without losing sight of the fact that they interact with other social realities (national, regional and/or transnational).
Of course, it is possible to think of European adolescents as a whole and, as this research has also done, to characterise them in such a way. In fact, considering the similarities in the attitudes towards cinema is one more step in the theoretical typification of the longed desired common European cultural identity. However, the results of this work recommend not ignoring the differences between the countries to ensure the effective implementation of policies and initiatives on film literacy. Local specificities not only allow the recognition of the place that cinema occupies in the personal, social and cultural life of the citizens of the countries and of the region, but also offers useful details for the evaluation of the educational systems and processes in which these young people are found.
From the variety of data that this study offers, it is necessary to specifically consider one due to its political and institutional relevance: the attitudes toward European and national cinema of the youngsters. The results report that adolescents, in general, recognise the existence of differences between European and American cinema, but prefer the latter. In fact, they report feeling more satisfaction watching American films than European ones. They also have a negative attitude towards the films of their own countries. Adolescents in the sample believe that European cinema is of lower quality than American cinema. Future studies must go deeper and find an explanation for these aspects. Also, they must specifically observe the notion of European cinema that youngsters of the region have.
According to these data, the EU should focus its attention on the film literacy of its citizens and the promotion of its cinema if it wants its expectations and economic-institutional plans to bear fruit. Indeed, the EU must develop programmes for film literacy on European and national cinema at the very early stages of school education, before strong attitudes or prejudices are formed by students. On the other hand, the EU should design plans for film promotion considering the motivations/preferences of young Europeans to attend the cinema, on which fundamental research is also essential. Motivations are predictors of media consumption (Austin, 1986; Moller and Karppinen, 1983). Preferences highlight them.
The results of this research have limitations that could be removed by future studies. It is recommended that, despite the difficulty, results are replicated with larger samples and adolescents of other European nationalities to have more powerful statistical data that reflect, more clearly, the identified trends. In addition, it would be pertinent to observe the invariability of the results with samples of different ages and education stages. Also, other studies could replicate these results in cultural contexts other than the European to advance the degree of particularity of attitudes. Moreover, knowledge could be obtained on attitudes towards cinema by individuals of different social, cultural and psychological profiles. Finally, it would be advisable to carry out country factorial studies to develop more robust and specific measuring instruments on the matter.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all the partners of the FRED at School project, in particular Emerald Clear LTD and its director Mr Federico Spoletti, for their collaboration in the production of this study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is produced as part of a Film Literacy project funded by the Creative Europe (2014-20), Media Sub-programme/Support for Audience Development (Film Literacy).