Introduction
The findings discussed here form part of a larger research project investigating audience responses to Asian Extreme films. The project also includes a small-scale reception study of 295 articles published in the ‘mainstream’ press between 2001 and 2011 (in this context, ‘mainstream’ refers to national daily and weekly newspapers, in print and online); a study of online fan activity that considers eleven forums and twenty-three websites and blogs; and interviews with eight fans and four professionals involved in the distribution and reception of Asian Extreme cinema in the UK. While it is not possible to provide an in-depth analysis of the project findings here, this article explores a specific set of issues relating to notions of fandom that have emerged out of the participants’ responses to the questionnaire.
The rationale behind the research project hinges on the concept of the ‘potential viewer’.[1] The BBFC is required by statute to take account of these ‘potential viewers’ during the regulatory process; it therefore has an interest in obtaining accurate research knowledge about them. However, unlike the in-house audience surveys conducted by the BBFC, this project follows the tradition of audience research within the academic field of Cultural Studies that seeks to analyse audience responses in relation to the broader social and cultural discursive frameworks that surround them. It therefore pays particular attention to the claims made about audiences for these films (by critics, censors, distributors and audiences themselves) and the debates surrounding Tartan’s marketing of the films in the UK. The first part of this article provides a brief overview of some of these discourses; it then moves on to analyse the findings of the questionnaire and explore the problematic issue of fandom in relation to this category of films.
A Discursive Category
The term ‘Asian Extreme’ is being used in this context to refer to the audience-appropriated category used by fans on websites such as Snowblood Apple and Eat My Brains! [2] It is important here to differentiate the category of Asian Extreme cinema from Tartan’s ‘Asia Extreme’ distribution label, as only six of the titles included on the questionnaire were distributed in the UK by Tartan. However, in reality these two categories are closely connected to each other and their history, status and different uses are inextricably woven together. Rick Altman’s seminal work on film genre draws attention to the way in which institutions, cultural commentators, film critics and spectators all contribute to our understanding and use of film genres.[3] Altman outlines the ways in which genres can be understood as discursive categories, “as language that not only purports to describe a particular phenomenon, but that is also addressed by one party to another, usually for a specific, identifiable purpose” (Altman: 124). Understanding Asian Extreme to be a discursive category, then, this article acknowledges the different ways in which the category is understood and employed by different parties, and for what purposes.
The short-lived commercial success of Tartan’s ‘Asia Extreme’ marketing campaign initiated a series of discussions amongst academics concerning the reception of these films in a Western context. Gary Needham mounted an early critique of Tartan’s brand, arguing that it operated along the same lines as the orientalist discourse theorised by Edward Said (1978).[4] Needham accused Tartan of feeding “...many of the typical fantasies of the ‘Orient’ characterised by exoticism, mystery and danger” (2006: 9). This approach was then explored by a number of other academics (Shin, 2009; Martin, 2009); in different ways they identified and analysed the orientalist discourses that they perceived to exist either within Tartan’s marketing materials, or within the reviews of these films by Western film critics. Mitsuyo Wada-Marciano has added to this argument, suggesting that although ‘Asia Extreme’ began as a distribution/marketing term rather than a production category, it has since “fed back into the production sector” (2009: 5). She suggests that it now functions as more than a marketing label: “It also carries a set of cultural assumptions and implications that guides – and sometimes misguides – the viewer in assessing the political and ideological significance of the films” (2009: 6). Her argument extends the critique of Tartan in order to make a significant claim about the effects that their marketing strategy has on audiences.
These academic discourses surrounding the ‘Asia Extreme’ brand raise a number of significant questions. Firstly, they demand a consideration of the extent to which Tartan’s marketing materials guide, or misguide, audience interpretations of the films. Secondly, they call for an investigation into the relationship between the distribution label and the audience-appropriated category through several inter-related questions: How do audiences discuss and value the Tartan label? Do audiences have a particular relationship with the label and, if so, what is the nature of this relationship? Are audiences aware of the academic discourse surrounding orientalism? If they are, how do they use, adopt or refute these discourses?
Copycat Killers, Sadists and ‘Fanboys’
In order to weigh up the influence of claims made about audiences of Asian Extreme films it is necessary to briefly identify and examine the nature of these assumptions. One of the most common generalisations that ‘mainstream’ cultural commentators make about these films is that they encourage ‘copycat’ violence. Most notably, over the last ten years the Daily Mail has maintained its position that violent media have a harmful effect on audiences by publishing a series of articles such as ‘Campus gunman's death video was direct copy of award-winning Korean revenge film’[5] and ‘Violent movies are to blame for knife crime wave,' blasts Sir Richard Attenborough’ [6]. Both of these articles link the Virginia Tech Massacre to Park Chan-wook’s Oldboy (2003) through a number of broad, unsubstantiated claims, such as those voiced by Daily Mail journalist Liz Thomas:
The findings discussed here form part of a larger research project investigating audience responses to Asian Extreme films. The project also includes a small-scale reception study of 295 articles published in the ‘mainstream’ press between 2001 and 2011 (in this context, ‘mainstream’ refers to national daily and weekly newspapers, in print and online); a study of online fan activity that considers eleven forums and twenty-three websites and blogs; and interviews with eight fans and four professionals involved in the distribution and reception of Asian Extreme cinema in the UK. While it is not possible to provide an in-depth analysis of the project findings here, this article explores a specific set of issues relating to notions of fandom that have emerged out of the participants’ responses to the questionnaire.
The rationale behind the research project hinges on the concept of the ‘potential viewer’.[1] The BBFC is required by statute to take account of these ‘potential viewers’ during the regulatory process; it therefore has an interest in obtaining accurate research knowledge about them. However, unlike the in-house audience surveys conducted by the BBFC, this project follows the tradition of audience research within the academic field of Cultural Studies that seeks to analyse audience responses in relation to the broader social and cultural discursive frameworks that surround them. It therefore pays particular attention to the claims made about audiences for these films (by critics, censors, distributors and audiences themselves) and the debates surrounding Tartan’s marketing of the films in the UK. The first part of this article provides a brief overview of some of these discourses; it then moves on to analyse the findings of the questionnaire and explore the problematic issue of fandom in relation to this category of films.
A Discursive Category
The term ‘Asian Extreme’ is being used in this context to refer to the audience-appropriated category used by fans on websites such as Snowblood Apple and Eat My Brains! [2] It is important here to differentiate the category of Asian Extreme cinema from Tartan’s ‘Asia Extreme’ distribution label, as only six of the titles included on the questionnaire were distributed in the UK by Tartan. However, in reality these two categories are closely connected to each other and their history, status and different uses are inextricably woven together. Rick Altman’s seminal work on film genre draws attention to the way in which institutions, cultural commentators, film critics and spectators all contribute to our understanding and use of film genres.[3] Altman outlines the ways in which genres can be understood as discursive categories, “as language that not only purports to describe a particular phenomenon, but that is also addressed by one party to another, usually for a specific, identifiable purpose” (Altman: 124). Understanding Asian Extreme to be a discursive category, then, this article acknowledges the different ways in which the category is understood and employed by different parties, and for what purposes.
The short-lived commercial success of Tartan’s ‘Asia Extreme’ marketing campaign initiated a series of discussions amongst academics concerning the reception of these films in a Western context. Gary Needham mounted an early critique of Tartan’s brand, arguing that it operated along the same lines as the orientalist discourse theorised by Edward Said (1978).[4] Needham accused Tartan of feeding “...many of the typical fantasies of the ‘Orient’ characterised by exoticism, mystery and danger” (2006: 9). This approach was then explored by a number of other academics (Shin, 2009; Martin, 2009); in different ways they identified and analysed the orientalist discourses that they perceived to exist either within Tartan’s marketing materials, or within the reviews of these films by Western film critics. Mitsuyo Wada-Marciano has added to this argument, suggesting that although ‘Asia Extreme’ began as a distribution/marketing term rather than a production category, it has since “fed back into the production sector” (2009: 5). She suggests that it now functions as more than a marketing label: “It also carries a set of cultural assumptions and implications that guides – and sometimes misguides – the viewer in assessing the political and ideological significance of the films” (2009: 6). Her argument extends the critique of Tartan in order to make a significant claim about the effects that their marketing strategy has on audiences.
These academic discourses surrounding the ‘Asia Extreme’ brand raise a number of significant questions. Firstly, they demand a consideration of the extent to which Tartan’s marketing materials guide, or misguide, audience interpretations of the films. Secondly, they call for an investigation into the relationship between the distribution label and the audience-appropriated category through several inter-related questions: How do audiences discuss and value the Tartan label? Do audiences have a particular relationship with the label and, if so, what is the nature of this relationship? Are audiences aware of the academic discourse surrounding orientalism? If they are, how do they use, adopt or refute these discourses?
Copycat Killers, Sadists and ‘Fanboys’
In order to weigh up the influence of claims made about audiences of Asian Extreme films it is necessary to briefly identify and examine the nature of these assumptions. One of the most common generalisations that ‘mainstream’ cultural commentators make about these films is that they encourage ‘copycat’ violence. Most notably, over the last ten years the Daily Mail has maintained its position that violent media have a harmful effect on audiences by publishing a series of articles such as ‘Campus gunman's death video was direct copy of award-winning Korean revenge film’[5] and ‘Violent movies are to blame for knife crime wave,' blasts Sir Richard Attenborough’ [6]. Both of these articles link the Virginia Tech Massacre to Park Chan-wook’s Oldboy (2003) through a number of broad, unsubstantiated claims, such as those voiced by Daily Mail journalist Liz Thomas:
There have been a string of murders and attacks in recent years by youngsters with an unhealthy obsession with gruesome films. The worst case was last year when U.S. student Cho Seung-Hui massacred 32 students and teachers at the Virginia Tech university before killing himself. Cho was said to have been repeatedly watching the Korean slasher film Oldboy (Thomas, 2008).
Putting to one side the fact that these claims are based on conjecture, Thomas constructs an audience type for films such as Oldboy that is (a) young and (b) morbidly obsessive in its interests; there is also a causal link implied here between the practice of repeat viewing and the development of this “unhealthy obsession”.
A general second claim made about audiences for these films is that they are sexual sadists. This category of assumptions is directed towards Asian Extreme films that include scenes of sexual violence, and assumes that the primary motivation for watching such scenes must be sadistic in nature. These claims have been made by the censors, for example, when the decision was made to reject the low budget Japanese ‘torture porn’ film Grotesque, the BBFC issued the following statement: “The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake” (BBFC: 2009).[7] This type of claim overlooks well-established academic work on the taste formations and reading strategies of audiences drawn towards low-budget horror and other forms of paracinema. Jeffrey Sconce argues:
Paracinematic taste involves a reading strategy that renders the bad into the sublime, the deviant into the defamiliarized, and in so doing, calls attention to the aesthetic aberrance and stylistic variety evident but routinely dismissed in the many subgenres of trash cinema (Sconce, 1995: 386). [8]
Rather than consider the complex and varied pleasures that might be involved in audience enjoyment of Grotesque, such as an appreciation of its black humour, bad special effects or Grand Guignol-style aesthetics, the BBFC focusses its report almost exclusively on the potential for sexual arousal amongst viewers.
A third set of assumptions made about the audiences of Asian Extreme category of films centres on the figure of the ‘fanboy’. Claims surrounding the ‘fanboy’ audience for these films originate, in part, with information provided by employees at Tartan. In his well-researched analysis of the success of Tartan’s ‘Asia Extreme’ brand Oliver Dew references an interview with Matt Hamilton, an employee at Tartan Video in 2005, who claims that, “people buying our product are generally the early-adopters, male, 18-30 year old consumers” (Hamilton in Dew: 61).[9] Following on from this, a second set of sources for these claims originate with film reviewers. Most notable of these is Tony Rayns, a critic who often writes film reviews for Sight and Sound magazine, and who makes a particular point of referring to the films of Park Chan-wook as “fanboy titles” (Rayns, 2006: 16).[10] In a 2005 article for Sight and Sound Rayns explains his views on the audience for Park’s films in further detail:
Park has clearly figured out that archetypes play better in foreign markets than cultural specifics. He has also opted to aim at the overgrown ‘lad’ audience which gets off on his hyperbolic violence (from the protagonist’s attempt to chew a live squid in Old Boy to the severing of a woman pianist’s fingers in ‘Cut’) and doesn’t much mind the absence of credible psychology or, for instance, the flip treatment of incest in Old Boy. His occasional gestures towards cultural sophistication, such as playing Vivaldi over a fight scene, fly right over his audience’s heads. (Rayns, 2005: 84) [11]
Here Rayns elaborates on his conception of the ‘fanboy’, firstly by suggesting that they are excited or aroused by watching scenes of excessive violence and, secondly, by claiming that they lack cultural sophistication. In an interview with Dew conducted in the same year, Rayns confirms these claims about the ‘fanboy’ audience by stating that they “take anything as long as it delivers enough thrills or gore or whatever it’s supposed to have to keep them satisfied”, and adds that “the average fan-boy type is not going to go to the ICA [The Institute of Contemporary Arts, London]… It’s just not likely to be on their radar – it says “Art” with a capital “A”’ (Rayns in Dew, 2007: 57).
Although Dew does not question the validity of Rayns’ claims, he provides an alternative profile of the ‘fanboy’ audience:
The cult fan-boy is often described by the media as an ‘early adopter’; this means that another way in which they can accrue sub-cultural capital within the fratriarchy is by ‘adopting’ – not merely consuming, but investing in, as the source of their social standing – both new sub-cultural ‘software’, whether that be the filmic texts themselves or websites and magazines such as Empire that impart satellite texts; and new hardware technologies, such as the Internet and DVD, that allow them access to these texts before either their peers with whom they are competing, or the imagined mainstream Other can ‘catch up’ (Dew, 2007: 61)
Dew goes on to make a convincing argument that the success of the Tartan ‘Asia Extreme’ label lies in the way it targets both the cult ‘fanboy’ audience and the ‘art house’ crowd using marketing materials; however, the assumption that ‘fanboys’ are the primary audience for these films is never questioned. Similarly, in her analysis of branding techniques employed by Tartan, Chi-Yun Shin summarises the history of the brand with a very similar claim: “Starting off as a cult phenomenon, targeting the cult “fan-boys” but soon incorporating the art-house audiences (or world cinema patrons) to its niche, the Tartan Asia Extreme label has established itself as an immediately recognisable label” (Shin, 2009: 86).
A clear indication of how ubiquitous and broadly accepted claims surrounding the ‘fanboy’ audience for Asian Extreme films have become in academic circles is evident in the way they are referenced by some UK university departments. For example, the description for an MA module titled ‘Japanese Transnational Cinema: From Kurosawa to Asia Extreme and Studio Ghibli’ (taught at SOAS, London) includes the following statement: “On a broader level, [the course] is also concerned with the appropriation of the Japanese aesthetic by international audiences through, for example, the nurturing of a nascent fan-(boy) cult following around the Tartan Video Asia Extreme ‘imprint’” (SOAS website).[13] Although the word ‘boy’ is bracketed, the implication in this statement remains fairly unequivocal: that Tartan’s ‘Asia Extreme’ label nurtures a ‘fanboy’ cult following. This series of claims made about the ‘fanboy’ audiences for Asian Extreme films can therefore be summarised as follows:
- They are male, aged approximately 18-30
- They are excited and aroused by gore and ‘titillating’ violence
- They cannot appreciate art house / highbrow culture
- They are ‘early adopters’ (they like to see films before the ‘mainstream Other’)
- They invest in their interest (collecting DVDs and ancillary materials) In sum, a number of common perceptions exist about audiences of Asian Extreme films.
Although each set of claims is slightly different, notions of sexual deviancy and “unhealthy” obsessive behaviour are persistent throughout them all. This article now considers the ways in which these broader discourses and ‘figures’ of the audience inform, influence or run counterpoint to the responses of the research participants involved in the project. Resisting Fandom: Audience Orientation Towards the Films The questionnaire went online in February 2011. In total there were 709 responses, of which 660 were submitted online, 49 on paper. Initially a link to the questionnaire was posted on five Internet forums dedicated to the fandom of Asian Extreme films, Asian horror films, Asian films, cult films or simply horror films. These forums were chosen because the category of Asian Extreme films is a complicated one and clearly does not equate with one particular genre or sub-genre of film. For this reason every effort was made to recruit participants who were fans of Asian cinema and cult cinema as much as those who gravitated towards extreme cinema and the horror genre. Although it cannot be claimed that the sample is representative of viewers of this category of films (there is an obvious bias towards recruitment via the Internet, for example), a sustained effort was made to attract participants with a wide range of film interests.
Fig 1: Audience orientation towards the films
|
During the initial stage of the research it became clear, through an analysis of fan activity in online forums, that the Asian Extreme category is a highly contested one. As a result, the decision was made to offer the participants five options on the questionnaire that allowed them to orientate themselves towards the films in a variety of different ways. The responses to this question reveal that participants are very reluctant to consider themselves to be fans of this category of films. Only 6.7% identify themselves as fans of Asian Extreme cinema, even though links to the questionnaire were posted in online forums developed for and by fans of Asian Extreme cinema. Whereas the common perception amongst film critics and academics is that audiences for these films are predominantly ‘fanboys’, the research findings reveal a marked disparity between this conception of the audience and the way that actual audiences conceive themselves. The orientation that was most popular amongst respondents was ‘I watch Asian Extreme films on the basis of the individual film and what I know/hear about it’. 31.6% of participants opted for this orientation, suggesting that there is a strong tendency amongst audiences of these films to conceive their cinematic interests and taste as being personal, well-informed and discerning in nature.
|
Fig. 2: Films seen by research participants according to orientation-type
The first question put to respondents asked them which films (out of a list of ten) they had seen. The results indicate that while occasional viewers have seen considerably fewer of the ten films, respondents of the other four orientation-types all produce remarkably similar percentages of figures with respect to which films they have seen; it is not the case, therefore, that those who consider themselves to be fans have seen more of the films. This finding was double-checked by further sub-dividing each of the five orientation-types into those who had seen 1-3 films, those who had seen 4-7 films and those who had seen 8-10 films. The table below illustrates that, with the exception of occasional viewers, each of the other four categories of orientation-type are as heavily invested in their interest as each other, in terms of the number of films they have seen; in fact, the ‘informed choice’ viewers are marginally more likely to have seen four or more films than any of the other orientation-types. It seems fair to conclude, therefore, that the reason why some respondents have chosen to avoid categorising themselves as ‘fans’ is not because they haven’t seen very many of the ten films listed.
Fig 3: Number of films watched by participants according to orientation-type
Question twelve asked participants what kinds of people they thought were fans of Asian Extreme films. Their answers were particularly varied, and frequently expressed a level of discomfort or displeasure at being asked the question. Common answers to the question are represented in the chart below:
Fig 4: What kinds of people do you think watch Asian Extreme films?
Significantly, there wasn’t a single response to this question that included the term ‘fanboy’. One distinctive group of answers were those that referenced Hollywood, ‘mainstream’ or Western cinema as a means to define the kind of films audiences of Asian Extreme were not fans of. This type of response was sometimes characterised by a dismissive attitude to ‘mainstream’ cinema. Comments made using this framework were often brief and included statements such as “People who DON'T like fluffy-kitten Hollywood plastic” (Female, ‘Informed Choice’); “People who enjoy things that aren't mainstream and predictable. People who think outside the box” (Female, interested in extreme horror); and “Those who are bored of the mainstream, identikit Hollywood films” (Male, ‘Informed Choice’). These responses point to an appreciation of the subcultural capital associated with Asian Extreme films in the UK.
In keeping with their general discomfort at being asked this question, the largest group of respondents (46%) suggested that all types of people could be fans of Asian Extreme films. Of those that expressed discomfort about being asked the question, one respondent wrote: “A dangerous question. Censorious people like to group people who like extreme movies as amoral or worse. If we try to define who likes them we just help out the enemy” (Male, ‘Informed Choice’). This comment reveals the extent to which many of the participants are aware of the way they are perceived by ‘mainstream’ film critics and others, who are classed by this respondent as ‘censorious people’ and ‘the enemy’. Another response came from a male participant interested in extreme cinema: “I think this question already tries to put people in a box, that they are some sort of sick group or share a perverted trait or gene between them. I think any kind of person could potentially be a fan of it.” This respondent then goes on to provide further information about his background and how it relates to his interests:
My brothers aren't into extreme stuff or films, just me. I don't have any fetishes and am not into kinky stuff. I guess what I'm trying to say is someone can be fascinated by this stuff without being actually "into it", or maybe I'm a rare case. I think one reason I'm into everything extreme (for example, gore) is because so many people have such a problem with it, and I just want to go against them. Gore is just our own bodies turned inside out, pretty much. When there is a gory accident, everyone is curious and wants to see the body, so I think it's a lot of self-denial and hypocrisy bullshit when people are so against gore and stuff like that. I'm done. Sorry for being so long-winded.
This additional information suggests that the respondent has come across people who “are so against gore”. Although there is no definitive evidence here, it seems reasonable to infer that some of the respondents who are uncomfortable with this question might have encountered social prejudice in relation to their interest in these films and, as a result, have become averse to the prospect of being put “in a box”.
Some of the responses to this question also reference Tartan’s marketing strategies. If these are examined according to orientation-type then a significant pattern emerges:
Fig. 5: Respondents who discuss the Tartan brand
Here, the variation in the relevance of this discourse amongst different groups of respondents is quite marked. Firstly, the chart reveals that relatively few females (2.8%) mentioned Tartan in their responses. The biggest percentage of respondents who raise the discourse of Tartan and orientalism are those with a passion for Asian Cinema (13.5%). Some of these responses are more overtly critical of the marketing label than others, for example, one respondent writes:
As a lecturer in Japanese Cinema I find the term rather reductive and offensive. Asia produces many excellent films a year and I find the need to produce such a label as ridiculous. Also reductive as 'Asia' in many ways is as much as manufactured an idea as the 'West'. How about the Asia-Non Extreme Range?
Overall, the respondents who identify themselves as male, and as being passionate about Asian cinema in general, are most likely to dismiss the term ‘Asia Extreme’ as a marketing strategy; in several cases their critique of the term is linked to claims of expertise and connoisseurship about Asian cinema in general: “I’ve been watching and studying these films for over two decades now, and I find the ‘extreme’ label reductive and insulting. It’s for people who don’t really appreciate Asian culture”. One of the few participants who identified himself as a fan of Asian Extreme films also questioned the Tartan brand, calling it a “false genre”, but then went on to make the following comment:
I used to work in a DVD rental store and I have to say Asia Extreme movies were very useful to me in pushing and promoting foreign films in general … it’s how J-horror and K-horror eventually got the attention of the West. The remakes of the tamer stuff helped immensely, but people kept staying around because of the flashy Extreme label … Asian Extreme, in the end, isn't really a unique trend or genre, but its good marketing.
The answers to this question suggest that audiences of Asian Extreme films tend to be acutely aware of how their filmic interests are perceived in ‘mainstream’ contexts. For some, this sense of difference is celebrated as a form of subcultural capital; for others, it becomes a point of contestation that requires them to disprove the claims that are made about them. These findings also complexify the argument that the ‘Asia Extreme’ brand informs and influences audience responses to the films in a straightforward way. Having explored some of the reasons behind participants’ reluctance to categorise themselves as fans, consideration will now turn to the extent to which broader patterns of response match the ‘fanboy’ criteria in other ways.
The Figure of the ‘Fanboy’
Fig.6 & 7: Gender and age range of all questionnaire participants
In many respects the data relating to the age and gender of the entire sample of questionnaire respondents appears to confirm the assumptions made about ‘fanboy’ audiences for this category of films. The majority of participants are male (72.8%) and are aged between 18 and 45 (90%). However, this surface assessment does not take into consideration the characteristics attributed to the figure of the ‘fanboy’ by both critics and academics alike. While the majority of participants in the research project are male, the female respondents nevertheless form a sizable minority. For this reason I have compared responses to the questionnaire according to gender to ascertain whether the younger respondents were predominantly male rather than female, as Tony Rayns and others suggest in their reviews. One difficulty here is that although the construct of the ‘fanboy’ is generally conceived as a young male, the specific age range varies according to different sources; this is often related to the genre or media that is seen to be the object of their fandom. According to Tartan, the age range is 18-30 (Hamilton in Dew, 2007), although there would clearly be an agenda here in terms of not acknowledging the under 18 market when the films distributed on the label all have 18 certificates. The age categories provided in the questionnaire did not include an 18-30 category, so while the under 25 and 18-25 categories have been considered to most closely parallel the figure of the ‘fanboy’, the 25-35 age category will also be given some consideration here.
Fig. 8: Age range of all participants according to gender (1)
The chart above represents the differences between male and female respondents in terms of age. This comparison reveals that while 31% of male respondents are aged 25 and under, a larger proportion of female respondents, 44.7%, fall within the same age category; if the 25-35 age category is included in these figures, then 67% of male respondents are aged 35 or under compared with 74.5% of female respondents. The questionnaire data firstly suggests, then, that female audiences of Asian Extreme films are more likely to fall within the ‘fanboy’ demographic than their male counterparts; the figure of the ‘fangirl’ is just as much a possibility as that of the ‘fanboy’. Secondly, the charts expose the high percentage of older male viewers (aged over 45) that are attracted to this category of films (33%); this compares with a meagre 6.4% of female respondents in the same age category. While these results do not preclude the possibility that some of the respondents might embody some of the characteristics of the figure of the ‘fanboy’, they certainly de-stabilise the notion that this ‘overgrown lad’ with a taste for ‘hyperbolic violence’ is somehow representative or typical of audiences for this category of films. If the age categories are divided into three segments (under 25, 25-35 and over 36) then the comparison between male and female respondents reveals more clearly the differences between the genders:
Fig. 8: Age range of all participants according to gender (2)
In terms of age and gender, then, the claims made about the figure of the ‘fanboy’ seem to be exaggerated. The problematic notion of fandom and orientation towards the films becomes more complicated when the participants are analysed according to gender. These findings confirm that while male respondents are more likely to declare themselves to be passionate about Asian films in general (32.8%), female respondents are more likely to indicate an interest in extreme horror (34.5%). Again, this suggests that the idea of the young male purposefully seeking gore or extreme imagery is not supported by the findings of this survey; in fact, conversely, it implies that it is more likely that female audiences of these films will be attracted by the promise of extreme or horrific content. The charts below show differences between male and female respondents:
Figs. 9 & 10: Orientation to the films according to gender
The tendency for female respondents to demonstrate a greater interest in extreme content is further illustrated by examining the responses to the question which asked participants to evaluate how important a part ‘extreme-ness’ plays in their response to a film. Although this very much depends on the way in which the individual respondent has defined what ‘extreme’ means to them, it nevertheless still provides a preliminary gauge for assessing the significance of this concept for each gender.
Fig. 11: Significance of extreme-ness according to gender
The results indicate that while both male and female respondents are more inclined to choose a moderate response, a significantly higher percentage of female participants consider ‘extreme-ness’ to be either extremely or very important – 43.1% compared to 26.8% of male respondents. Conversely, 41.4% of males thought ‘extreme-ness’ was either slightly or not at all significant, compared with 23.1% of females.
Some of the other claims made about the characteristics of ‘fanboys’, such as their tendency to access films online before ‘mainstream’ viewers, and their predisposition to collect DVDs and ancillary materials, can be partially assessed by looking at respondents’ answers to question nine, which asked them how they normally watch Asian Extreme films (the response allowed up to two answers, so percentages are not cumulative.) The graph below illustrates the gender differences on this issue:
Fig 12: How participants watch the films according to gender
This data illustrates several significant patterns emerging amongst the respondents who are DVD collectors. Firstly, it reveals that amongst both male and female respondents, those who describe themselves as viewers who make an ‘informed choice’ about the films they watch are less likely to buy DVDs than either those who passionate about Asian films or those who are interested in Extreme horror. While 31.5% of males and 31.9% of females orientate themselves this way in the overall sample of respondents, only 18.4% of female collectors and 27.4% of male collectors orientate themselves this way. In contrast, 44.9% of female collectors are interested in extreme horror, and 36.7% of male collectors are passionate about Asian cinema. So while those who make an ‘informed choice’ have seen fractionally more of the films than the other two audience types this investment is not matched by a tendency amongst this group of respondents to purchase or collect the films.
The findings produced by this question also reveal that only 17% of females indicate that they usually watch these films at the cinema, compared with 32% of males. The qualitative responses provided here by female respondents suggest that they have a preference for watching the films with friends or like-minded people. 22% of female respondents cite this as a significant factor in their answer to question ten; this compares with just 6% of male participants answering the same question. One older female participant explains why she would rather not watch the films at the cinema:
I prefer DVDs as I like to own them physically and I would rather watch them privately. The act of buying a ticket to see any extreme or horror film is uncomfortable and embarrassing for me, as people might see it as an admission of enjoying others' pain.
The fact that some women are more likely to watch the films at home, and that they might be embarrassed about being seen watching them in the public space of a cinema, could also partly explain the common perception that the majority of audiences for this category of films are male. This chimes with the results of research into female audiences of horror films conducted by Brigid Cherry (2001: 132)[12] who found that women were often an ‘invisible’ audience who did not enter the predominantly male-orientated world of fan conferences and festivals, and kept their viewing practices confined within a safe, domestic space. The findings of this survey thereby extend Cherry’s understanding of female audiences of the horror genre by unearthing the ways in which they respond to common perceptions, often articulated by film critics and censors, that audiences of extreme horror are inherently sadistic in nature.
Conclusions
This brief overview of some of the questionnaire findings produces a complex snapshot of audiences for these films. Many of the participants demonstrate a keen awareness of how they are perceived in ‘mainstream’ contexts and frame their interests and passions in response to these claims. This is expressed in a number of ways: through an impassioned refutation of the claims; as a celebration of their subcultural capital established in opposition to ‘mainstream’ opinion; and in the form of social embarrassment and shame. There is also evidence that discourses surrounding the Tartan brand are embraced and resisted in a range of ways by participants. These varied responses reveal, as Altman argues, that different audience groups make specific uses of particular film categories for their own purposes; here, these include embracing ‘Asia Extreme’ as useful promotional tool, and resisting it as a means to display their individual expertise and connoisseurship.
Although the respondents have watched numerous Asian Extreme titles, and there is a strong tendency to collect DVDs amongst certain groups, they are reluctant to categorise themselves as fans and, in most respects, do not conform to the ‘fanboy’ type. In this light, it seems fair to conclude that Rayns’ claims about the figure of the ‘fanboy’ cultist are, at best, overstated. Conversely, the figure of the ‘fanboy’ is revealed to be a misleading construct that betrays a number of simplistic and prejudicial attitudes about audiences for this category of films. These attitudes echo an historical stance adopted by British film critics towards horror films and their audiences (Egan, 2007: 22)[13] that appears, in this instance, to also include the newer category of extreme cinema. The findings also point to some significant differences amongst audiences in terms of gender and orientation; these will be explored in greater detail, alongside issues of censorship and genre, in forthcoming analyses of the qualitative research materials.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.mandiapple.com/snowblood/index.html [accessed 11th November, 2010]; https://www.eatmybrains.com/showtopten.php?id=10 [accessed 6th January 2011].
[2] Altman, R. (1999) Film/Genre. London: BFI Publishing
[3] Said, E. (1978) Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin
[4] Daily Mail (2007) ‘Campus Gunman’s death video direct copy of award winning Korean revenge film’. Found at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449460/Campus-gunmans-death-video-direct-copy-award-winning-Korean-revenge-film.html#ixzz1yEGH3iXI [accessed 26th February 2011].
[5] Thomas, L. (2008) ‘Violent movies are to blame for knife crime wave blasts Sir Richard Attenborough’ in the Daily Mail. Found at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1038361/Violent-movies-blame-knife-crime-wave-blasts-Sir-Richard-Attenborough.html#ixzz1yEHoHhpC [accessed 19th May 2012]
[6] BBFC (2009) ‘BBFC rejects sexually violent Japanese horror DVD’. London: BBFC
[7] Sconce, J. (1995) ‘“Trashing” the Academy: Taste, Excess and an emerging politics of cinematic style’. Screen 34:5 371-393
[8] Dew, O. (2007) ‘“Asia Extreme”: Japanese cinema and British hype’ New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film 5:1 53-73.
[9] Rayns, T. (2006) ‘Men Behaving Sadly’, Sight and Sound 16:1: 6
[10] Rayns, T. (2005) ‘Shock Tactics’, Sight and Sound 15:5: 84
[11] https://www.soas.ac.uk/courseunits/15PMSH017.html [accessed 12th February 2012]
[12] Cherry, B. (2001) ‘Refusing to Refuse to Look: Female Viewers of the Horror Film’ in (ed.) Jancovich, Mark Horror: The Film Reader. London: Routledge.
[13] Egan, K. (2007) Trash or Treasure: Censorship and the changing meanings of the video nasties. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
[1] https://www.mandiapple.com/snowblood/index.html [accessed 11th November, 2010]; https://www.eatmybrains.com/showtopten.php?id=10 [accessed 6th January 2011].
[2] Altman, R. (1999) Film/Genre. London: BFI Publishing
[3] Said, E. (1978) Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin
[4] Daily Mail (2007) ‘Campus Gunman’s death video direct copy of award winning Korean revenge film’. Found at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449460/Campus-gunmans-death-video-direct-copy-award-winning-Korean-revenge-film.html#ixzz1yEGH3iXI [accessed 26th February 2011].
[5] Thomas, L. (2008) ‘Violent movies are to blame for knife crime wave blasts Sir Richard Attenborough’ in the Daily Mail. Found at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1038361/Violent-movies-blame-knife-crime-wave-blasts-Sir-Richard-Attenborough.html#ixzz1yEHoHhpC [accessed 19th May 2012]
[6] BBFC (2009) ‘BBFC rejects sexually violent Japanese horror DVD’. London: BBFC
[7] Sconce, J. (1995) ‘“Trashing” the Academy: Taste, Excess and an emerging politics of cinematic style’. Screen 34:5 371-393
[8] Dew, O. (2007) ‘“Asia Extreme”: Japanese cinema and British hype’ New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film 5:1 53-73.
[9] Rayns, T. (2006) ‘Men Behaving Sadly’, Sight and Sound 16:1: 6
[10] Rayns, T. (2005) ‘Shock Tactics’, Sight and Sound 15:5: 84
[11] https://www.soas.ac.uk/courseunits/15PMSH017.html [accessed 12th February 2012]
[12] Cherry, B. (2001) ‘Refusing to Refuse to Look: Female Viewers of the Horror Film’ in (ed.) Jancovich, Mark Horror: The Film Reader. London: Routledge.
[13] Egan, K. (2007) Trash or Treasure: Censorship and the changing meanings of the video nasties. Manchester: Manchester University Press.