Category: Arts and Humanities
ORIGINAL
The phenomenon of film production: Literary and artistic projects of the XX-XXI centuries
El fenómeno de la producción cinematográfica: Proyectos literarios y artísticos de los siglos XX-XXI
Inna Kocharian1 
*, Olena Onishchenko1 *
1I.K. Karpenko-Karyi Kyiv National University of Theatre, Cinema and Television, 01054, 40 Yaroslaviv Val Str., Kyiv, Ukraine.
Cite as: Kocharian I, Onishchenko O. The phenomenon of film production: Literary and artistic projects of the XX-XXI centuries. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias. 2024; 3:1091. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf20241091
Submitted: 24-01-2024 Revised: 05-04-2024 Accepted: 10-07-2024 Published: 11-07-2024
Editor: Dr.
William Castillo-González
ABSTRACT
Introduction: the phenomena of cinema production has attracted a lot of attention, especially when it comes to creative and literary endeavours that interpret it. It is essential to comprehend the creative processes and the function of the film producer in order to advance cultural practices.
Objective: to express the phenomenon of producer’s activity in cinema on the basis of examples to literary and artistic projects of the XX-XXI centuries.
Method: the methods used in the study are the following: chronological, analytical, comparison, deduction, generalization, and abstraction.
Results: as a result of this study, several problems were identified that are directly related to the process of contemporary culture creation. Firstly, the phenomenon of film production was revealed, and various examples of experiments by American writers of the 30s-70s of the XX century were given. It was them who managed to carry out a literary interpretation of the profession of film producer, as well as to ensure the development of the creative and search dialogue “film – television series”. The latter was revealed on the example of a television project The Offer, which is dedicated to the history of the creation of The Godfather. As a result, it has been established that this series has led to a fundamental change in the artistic understanding of the problem of film production.
Conclusion: the conclusions drawn in this paper show that this project organically “fit” into the context of metamodernism and reflected its fundamental factors, namely: historioplasticity, craft turn, superhomogeneity, postirony, and quirky.
Keywords: Film Producer; Metamodernism; Historioplasticity; Superhybridity; Quirky.
RESUMEN
Introducción: el fenómeno de la producción cinematográfica ha suscitado una gran atención, especialmente en lo que se refiere a los esfuerzos creativos y literarios que lo interpretan. Es esencial comprender los procesos creativos y la función del productor cinematográfico para avanzar en las prácticas culturales.
Objetivo: expresar el fenómeno de la actividad del productor en el cine a partir de ejemplos de proyectos literarios y artísticos de los siglos XX-XXI.
Método: los métodos utilizados en el estudio son los siguientes: cronológico, analítico, comparación, deducción, generalización y abstracción.
Resultados: como resultado de este estudio, se identificaron varios problemas directamente relacionados con el proceso de creación de la cultura contemporánea. En primer lugar, se desveló el fenómeno de la producción cinematográfica y se expusieron varios ejemplos de experimentos realizados por escritores estadounidenses de los años 30-70 del siglo XX. Fueron ellos quienes consiguieron llevar a cabo una interpretación literaria de la profesión de productor cinematográfico, así como garantizar el desarrollo del diálogo creativo y de búsqueda “cine-serie de televisión”. Esto último se puso de manifiesto en el ejemplo del proyecto televisivo La Oferta, dedicado a la historia de la creación de El Padrino. Como resultado, se ha establecido que esta serie ha dado lugar a un cambio fundamental en la comprensión artística del problema de la producción cinematográfica.
Conclusiones: las conclusiones extraídas en este trabajo muestran que este proyecto “encajaba” orgánicamente en el contexto del metamodernismo y reflejaba sus factores fundamentales, a saber: historioplasticidad, giro artesanal, superhomogeneidad, postironía y estrafalario.
Palabras clave: Productor Cinematográfico; Metamodernismo; Historioplasticidad; Superhibridación; Peculiar.
INTRODUCTION
Analyzing the specifics of the problems of Ukrainian humanities in the last three decades, it is worth noting the dramatic changes that have led to, so to speak, a “renewal procedure” at virtually all its levels. It is going about identifying new perspectives in the process of understanding “classical” problems, and about leaving the “field of classics” by forming a fundamentally new research space that inspires theoretical research in the third millennium.(1,2,3,4) Now, it is worth articulating two points that, on the one hand, are key to this study, and on the other hand, are powerful factors in the latest issues that determine the humanitarian progress of the Ukrainian present. It is going about the phenomenon of film production and the specifics of its literary and artistic interpretation, which, by and large, have not been considered in such a comparison.
It should be noted that the problem of film production in the Ukrainian humanitarian space in the late 1980s was, so to speak, tabula rasa. This situation turned out to be quite natural and logical, given the specificity of the Soviet cinema structure, as the state performed the function of film producer at that time, which led to quite logical consequences.(5)
Ukraine’s independence began to gradually correct this situation, at least at the so-called general theoretical or, more precisely, educational level, when, for example, the I.K. Karpenko-Karyi Kyiv National University of Theatre, Cinema, and Television opened a speciality in TV and Film Production, the general focus of which is aimed at training producers who are currently working in Ukrainian cinema and television. However, in the context of this article, the phenomenon of production will be examined for the first time from an unexpected perspective, since the impetus for its writing was, as already mentioned, the experience of artistic interpretation of this profession, which determined the emergence in the twentieth century of a number of vivid literary works, and in the second decade of the 21st century – the television project “The Offer” (2022), which was released in the era of metamodernism, which today makes fundamental adjustments at all levels of human life – world-view, humanitarian, professional.(6)
In the scientific doctrine, the phenomenon of film production has received considerable attention. In particular, Kotliar S and Kuzmenko Y(7) concluded that it is the producer in the film industry who is responsible for initiating and organizing the creative process of creating a literary and artistic project. However, the researcher did not determine whether the producer can implement not only his own but also other people’s promising ideas. According to Pogrebniak GP(8), the producer should be the author of the idea, and his/her activity should generate a creative breakthrough and be characterized by high artistic quality. However, the researcher did not disclose how the producer should determine the interests of the public and implement them in his or her activities.
Sushko P(9) determined that this producer should have a wide range of knowledge not only in the field of history and theory of artistic culture, but also in economic, legal, and marketing issues. At the same time, he did not reveal the personal qualities of this subject, in particular, his spiritual component. Sabadash Ju(10) concluded that the phenomenon of production arose in the context of theatre, in particular as a consequence of socio-cultural transformations. However, the researcher did not pay attention to the distinction between production functions in theatre and cinema, respectively. Onishchenko H(11, 12) argued that the emergence of the institute of production was due to two factors, namely new approaches to cultural development and the need for its survival in a new socio-economic formation. The researcher did not separate these prerequisites, although they are essentially different, as the first expresses the need for development, and the second – for survival.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the experience of the artistic interpretation of the film producer in the practice of literary and artistic projects of the twentieth century, and the fundamental changes in this field that the television series “The Offer” caused in the context of metamodernism. Based on the “open interpretation” of this television project, the article emphasizes the special role of the film producer in the process of creating “The Godfather” (1972), a classic work of world cinema that prompted the comprehension of the creative and searching relationship between film and television series.
METHOD
The multi-layered nature of the article’s material requires careful attention to its methodological justification, primarily because of the need for clear, explicit use of the principles of cultural analysis. It is about both an interdisciplinary approach and taking into account the potential of personalization and dialogue. In addition to the above, the study of the phenomenon of “production”, which has a rather long history of development, should use the potential of the chronological method, relying on the principles of historicism.
An important burden is also placed on the analytical method, which makes it possible to identify and study the structural elements that form the profession of film producer. Furthermore, the study used the method of analysis to express the specifics of the producer’s activity. On its basis, the structure of the film production phenomenon was revealed, namely, its vectors and peculiarities of development were considered. The analysis was applied to the study of the main stages of the emergence and spread of the film production institute. Thus, using this method, the study expressed the factors that influenced this process and highlighted the role of the producer in it.
The method of synthesis allowed studying the fundamental factors of the metamodernist “cultural turn”. It was used to reveal various fundamental positions that underpin the producer’s activity in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In addition, the synthesis was necessary to formulate a unified approach to defining the structure and features of the phenomenon of film production in modern conditions. Given the theoretical orientation of the article, the comparative method is of great importance, since the professions of producer and director coexist during the filming process, which requires a clear delineation of the responsibilities of each. In the course of the study, this method was used to compare different literary and artistic projects of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Thus, on the basis of this method, common features in the producers’ approaches to the creation of these compositions were expressed, and distinctive features that are inherent only in individual films were identified.
To express the essence of film production, the study used the method of deduction. Accordingly, based on general knowledge about the film industry and the functions of a producer, the phenomenon of film production in general was expressed, taking into account the factors that influence its development in modern conditions. Accordingly, deduction was used to describe the features and properties inherent in this type of activity when creating literary and artistic projects. In addition, the method of generalization was used in the study. It was necessary to express the system of properties and skills that should characterize a film producer. This method was used to reveal the generalized features that could be traced in the approaches of producers to the creation of literary and artistic projects of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Abstraction was used in this study to investigate the specifics of the creative and organizational laboratory of film producers. This phenomenon was considered separately from other processes and activities, which made it possible to focus on its specific properties. In this way, the role of the producer in creating film art and expressing stories through special techniques and styles, including metamodernism, was defined.
RESULTS
The analysis of the film production phenomenon, in addition to the factors identified by the authors at the level of problem statement, requires considering one important point directly related to the specifics of creativity in the field of cinema – the collective nature of this art form, which makes it necessary to highlight two important points. Firstly, the producer is known to be, so to speak, one of the most cinematic professions, stimulated by both the creative and production-economic spheres, the parity of which, in fact, makes film production possible (figure 1).
Figure 1. The specifics of the producer’s activity
As for the structure of the film production phenomenon, it is inherently complex. This is because the activity of a film producer involves the direct creation of film and television projects, but is also closely related to literary origins and practices (figure 2).
Figure 2. The phenomenon of film production in cultural and artistic practices
Secondly, it is necessary to consider another rather complicated factor, which is caused by the specifics of the collective type of creativity. It is about the role of the “leader” in the process of not only film production, but cinema in general – the newest form in the classical artistic structure. The fact that this question prompted the relevant reflections is evidenced by an illustrative trend that was very clearly defined in the twentieth century. It is going about three powerful “literary projects” that in different decades of the last century were devoted to the phenomenon of cinema in one way or another: The Last Tycoon (1940) by F. Scott Fitzgerald; Hollywood trilogy: The Dream Merchants (1949) by Harold Robbins, The Fortune Hunters (1965) by Joan Aiken, and Evening in Byzantium (1973) by Irwin Shaw.
The analysis of these novels could probably be the subject of a separate article, since they have not been thoroughly systematically analyzed in Ukrainian humanities. In this case, these works perform, so to speak, a stimulating function for this further study, and therefore require at least a brief commentary on the most significant points. For now, let us highlight those that are fundamental to them, and quite important for the conceptualization of the material of this study. Obviously, all these novels have two common denominators:
1. They are written by US writers, two of whom are F. Scott Fitzgerald and Irwin Shaw, are generally considered to be classics of American literature, and the third, Harold Robbins, is a recognized high-level professional.
2. In all these works, the main characters are film producers. And although the events that unfold in them are related to the complex moral and psychological processes that take place in their lives, the key fact is that among all the cinematic professions, the writers chose the profession of film producer for their characters. Presumably, this fact is not accidental and is due to a situation that is, so to speak, on the surface – the factor of the environment.
The role of the environment has been quite actively studied by European researchers, from Charles Louis de Montesquieu (1689-1755) to Hippolyte Taine (1828-1895), who especially articulated its structural component, the geographical dimension. According to the authors, and for F. Scott Fitzgerald, Irwin Shaw, and Harold Robbins, it was this dimension that became decisive, determining the reason for their heroes’ choice of the profession of film producer, which, as it is known, played a special role in the history of American cinema.
The formation of the institution of production in the United States is largely identified with the figure of Thomas H. Ince (1882-1924), whose bright creative life and mysterious death are closely connected with the history of American cinema, which, in particular, prompted Peter Bogdanovich (1939-2022), a famous director, film producer, critic and film historian, to create Paper Moon (1973). Describing the contribution of Thomas H. Ince’s contribution to US cinema, researchers necessarily focus on his two indisputable achievements – the practice of the “iron script” and the role of the film producer in the film production process. At the moment, the fact that Thomas H. Ince’s understanding and organic combination of the creative and organizational principles that define, so to speak, the very nature of cinema, which was brilliantly embodied in the great achievements of American cinema at different periods of its history.
It is clear that F. Scott Fitzgerald, Irwin Shaw and Harold Robbins were well aware of all these processes when they worked on their works, making the main characters the bearers of this particular profession, which testified to the “writer’s understanding” of who is who. It should be emphasized that this profession was, to paraphrase F. Nietzsche, “cinematic, too cinematic” and novels “about cinema” “doomed” writers to focus on it as a kind of “code” of a fundamentally new art form at that time.
At the same time, the “professional novelty” was generously compensated by the traditional nature of the plot, which in all these “literary projects” was based on a love story, moreover, mostly tragic love, which is, in fact, the third denominator mentioned above. Thus, in the novels of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Irwin Shaw, and Harold Robbins, for all their undeniable originality, one cannot help but see a certain kinship, which naturally raises relevant considerations. At this point, it should be noted that the “chronology” of these works obviously requires us to distinguish The Last Tycoon by F. Scott Fitzgerald, who “discovered” the “film production theme” in the literary field. By a tragic coincidence, The Last Tycoon was the last unfinished novel by the great American writer, which makes it impossible to analyze it in depth. This, however, did not stop the American director Elia Kazan (1909-2003) from making his last film, The Last Tycoon (1976), based on this work, starring Robert De Niro.
It must be admitted that the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, in fact, became a kind of “tuning fork” for further literary research in this area. Therefore, Harold Robbins was building his Hollywood trilogy in the “context” of F. Scott Fitzgerald, and although, as already emphasized, he did it quite professionally, he nevertheless could not compete with the artistic level of his predecessor’s novel, even if it was unfinished.
In the authors’ opinion, the situation with Irwin Shaw’s Evening in Byzantium (1973) was much more interesting. On the one hand, it is possible to talk about the equivalence of the writing skills of “Irwin Shaw – F. Scott Fitzgerald”, but on the other hand, the “secondary nature” of Evening in Byzantium in relation to The Last Tycoon is undeniable. In this regard, a rather symptomatic fact attracts attention. As already emphasized, I. Shaw’s novel was published in 1973, which, by a strange coincidence, makes it a kind of “novel on the eve” – on the eve of an event that caused a fundamental “turn” in the cultural sphere. After all, in 1974, the American magazine Commentary published a discussion on “Culture and the Current Moment” that raised the problem of “understanding the state of culture, which had manifestations of “mass”, “antagonistic”, “elite”, and “avant-garde”. The position of defending the concept of “antagonistic culture” as a component of modernism (L. Trilling) was refuted by the concept of “aesthetic dimension of culture” (G. Marcuse), which, in fact, prepared postmodernism.
It is clear that the novel Evening in Byzantium cannot be considered a harbinger of this trend. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, literary critics, aesthetics, and cultural critics quite clearly personalized the names of writers who fulfilled this prognostic function. Firstly, it is going about the creative heritage of Boris Vian (1920-1959), a French novelist, poet, and jazz musician whose novels include The foam of days (L’Écume des jours) (1946) and Autumn in Beijing (L’Automne à Pékin) (1947), “Red grass” (L’Herbe rouge) (1950) – formed the original principles of postmodern literature, focusing on such techniques as quotation, collage, and the combination of reality and phantasmagoria. Boris Vian was probably the first writer of his generation to experiment with the potential of irony.
This aspect of his creative search was also consolidated in metamodernism, causing an extremely important transformation of “irony – postirony”. Obviously, the famous English writer, poet, and painter Mervyn Peak (1911-1968) was also involved in the formation of the aesthetics of postmodernism, who, in his novel Gormenghast (1950), brilliantly experimented with polygenre, professionally “working” at the crossroads of “fantasy – magic”, grotesque, satire, and elements of mysticism. Later, the artistic technique of polygenre, which will be traced in postmodern literature, will become one of the cornerstones of metamodernism and will be manifested in such art forms as cinema, painting, and television. This process significantly expanded the cultural space of metamodernism, articulated the “metamodernist turn” and enriched the artistic techniques of culture creation.
Returning to the novel Evening in Byzantium by Irwin Shaw, it is to be noted that although it does not belong to postmodern literature, it demonstratively “reflected” the principle that is considered one of the fundamental principles of postmodern aesthetics – citation. Thus, he “fit in” with the “postmodernist turn”, completing the literary comprehension of the “film production theme”. At the same time, it would be necessary to emphasize that this experience was indeed peculiar, because, as the authors emphasized, in the novels of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Irwin Shaw and Harold Robbins, firstly, it was a love story that mainly unfolded in complex moral and psychological dimensions, the “carrier” of which was the main character – a film producer. Thus, the protagonist’s “professional affiliation” was, on the one hand, a sign, so to speak, of a new profession of a new kind of art, but on the other hand, it was obviously not of interest to writers at the level of a creative and organizational laboratory.
It is significant that since 1974, over the following decades, artistic interpretations of the phenomenon of film production in art projects have been largely discontinuous in time – the films The Aviator (2004) by Martin Scorsese and Babylon by Damien Chazelle (2022) – where the line of this professional affiliation was rather marginal. This pause was filled by the television project The Offer (2022), written by Michael Tolkin and directed by Dexter Fletcher, which turned out to be more than symptomatic for a number of reasons:
1. The main stimulating factor is that the series was filmed for the “anniversary date” – the fiftieth anniversary of the release of the first part of The Godfather (1972).
2. The TV project was more than likely connected with another anniversary – the centenary of the Paramount studio, where The Godfather and The Offer were actually created, so these, so to speak, ceremonial and organizational moments should undoubtedly be taken into account.
3. It is not possible to ignore the cultural context of this project, which makes us consider it in the context of metamodernism, which began to emerge in the late 1990s and gained momentum in the third decade of the twenty-first century.
Analyzing the fundamental factors of the next metamodernist “cultural turn”, researchers usually articulate several fundamental positions, among which those that have become the most resonant and have been practically implemented in certain art forms will be highlighted. The first of them is the “formation of the historioplastic metaphor”, which is enshrined in the concept of “historioplasticity” – a specific interpretation of the “time” factor.(13) It should be noted that, so to speak, the classical artistic experience of historioplasticity is defined by a conventional scheme: “history + plasticity + individualized interpretation = historioplasticity”. A good example of historioplasticity in cinema is Quentin Tarantino’s films – his work is highly appreciated by metamodernists—Inglourious Basterds (2009) and Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood (2019), based on the technique of “hypothetical psychology”. The reliance on the principles of historioplasticity of the “hypothetical orientation” also prompts certain reflections on The Offer.
“Space artisan” is the second position that revives the ancient concept of “artisan”, introduced into theoretical usage since the times of Greco-Roman culture. It is known that at the initial stages of its existence, it outlined the sphere of artistic activity, i.e. poets, actors, painters, and musicians were “artisans”. It was only in the Renaissance that the term “artisan” replaced the term “master”. The resuscitation of both the “artisan” and the introduction of the metaphor “space artisan” allowed Nair K(14) to argue for a new view of Mannerism, alchemy, to connect the phenomenon of “new alchemy” with the work of metamodernist painters, and thus to express the author’s assessment of the cultural processes that he observes as a contemporary of the twenty-first century. Nair’s main focus was on craftsmanship as such, which he perceived not only as the highest level of professionalism, but also as the basis for the implementation of the creative process. It was this benchmark of the “craft metamodernist turn” that was clearly reflected in the general orientation and, by and large, the goal of The Offer TV project.
“Superhybridity: Simultaneity, Mythmaking and Multipolar Conflict”.(15) This thesis introduces the concept of “superhybridity”, among the various functions of which “myth-making” is articulated in this article. In this regard, D. Prasetyo and F. Junaedi refer to the works of such artists as Hito Steyerl, Seth Price, musician Gonqasufi and Yeasayer and show the fallacy of focusing on “myth-making” through a “mixture” of styles or artistic trends, since the accumulation of artistic techniques does not contribute to the “purity” of an artistic work. Nevertheless, “myth-making” in its so-called “pure form” is known to have very productive consequences, resulting in such a complex aesthetic and psychological phenomenon as myth-making. These specific signs of superhybridity were actualized in the process of reconstructing the history of the creation of The Godfather in the television series The Offer. Four Faces of Postirony is a “project” that was a response to postmodernism’s close attention to irony.(16) Postirony is a return to sincerity through four creative methods, namely motivated postmodernism, trusting metaprose/metafiction, postironic educational novel (Bildungsroman)/composition, and relational art. In this research, the last method of postirony, the relational principle, is primarily at work, since the series The Offer is, so to speak, “addressed” not only to the existing fans of The Godfather, but also to its future fans, as it will undoubtedly become an “offer” to watch the legendary film.
“Metamodernism, ‘quirky’ and film criticism”, thanks to this position, cultural studies have been enriched by the concept of “quirky”, which emphasizes a new aesthetic sensibility, the potential of which can open up unexpected emotional and psychological layers in the process of creating and perceiving a work of art. It should be emphasized that “quirky” is most evident in the cinematic and other “visual fields”. At the same time, taking on, as defined by C. Parvulescu (2022), the role of the (cinema) critic calls for extremely careful handling of the concept of “quirky” and, in general, the interpretation of metamodernism, because their future in the process of cultural creation is quite difficult to predict. Nevertheless, “quirky” actually “works” in contemporary film and television practices, as demonstrated by The Offer series (figure 3).
Figure 3. The structure of metamodernism
All the five factors that have been identified should be considered as a certain integrity, since each of them, to one degree or another, is manifested in metamodernist works, in particular, in the aforementioned television project, which reflects, so to speak, the “procedural” nature of the events to which it is dedicated – the creation of the classic film of American and world cinema, “The Godfather”. Since the length of this article does not allow expressing all our thoughts on this matter, it is required to focus on only a few of the most illustrative positions that led to the appropriate conceptualization of the material. This television project was, so to speak, “driven by proposals”, which were constantly implemented by the producer of The Godfather, Albert S. Ruddy, with whom the agreement to produce the film was signed on 22 March 1970.
At the same time, two other producers Robert Evans and Charles Bluhdorn are clearly identified alongside him, key players in Paramount, whose constant discussions and more than productive cooperation eventually gave the cinematic world its undisputed “legend”: “The Godfather”. Thus, the series reveals the secrets of the creative and organizational laboratory of film producers who, through complex negotiations and psychological compromises, made possible the collaboration of the original author Mario Puzo and the screenwriter Francis Ford Coppola, persuaded Marlon Brando to star in the film, and defended the approval of Al Pacino for the role of Michael Corleone, revolutionized the film’s distribution, which ultimately allowed The Godfather to make it to the 45th Academy Awards, winning the Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Actor (Marlon Brando), and Best Adapted Screenplay.
The authors of this study have reconstructed the main stages of Albert S. Ruddy, Robert Evans and Charles Bluhdorn’s activity, which were emphasized by the authors of the series, to emphasize the following point: the fundamental difference between this television project and its literary predecessors, namely, the articulation of specific actions of the producer in the cinematic process. This prompts us to think about the title of the series, which can be paraphrased by referring to the title of Michelangelo Antonioni’s famous film Professione Reporter (1975), and thus suggests the possibility of a more extended title for the television project: The Offer. Professione Film Producer. The basis for such a “game” with the title is the potential for historioplasticity, which, as already emphasized, is based primarily on individual artistic interpretation, but the research interpretation also has the right to exist, which, for the time being, allows reflecting on this hypothetical title of the series: The Offer. Professione Film Producer.
The emphasis on the “profession of film producer”, in turn, brings into the plane of the second factor of metamodernism – the “craft turn”, which prompts us to transform the metaphor of K. Nair’s metaphor of the “space artisan” into the metaphor of the “cinematic artisan”, which is reflected in a revealing way by the profession of a film producer, which is a practical demonstration of the creative potential of the craft. Obviously, all three characters of the series – Albert S. Ruddy, Robert Evans and Charles Bluhdorn – correspond to its essence, as the main meaning of their lives is to serve cinema, while everything else exists in the “background”, even the relationship between a man and a woman is “present” in the series, by and large, at the level of a reference to the brilliant Paramount film – Love Story (1970) by Arthur Hiller.
The “artisanal turn” in The Offer has actualized the third factor of metamodernism – superhydride, all components of which, without exaggeration, “work” in the TV project. However, it is necessary to single out one of the most significant ones – the creation of myths, which was probably very important for the authors of the series. After all, the anniversaries of Paramount and The Godfather stimulated the process of myth-making, which, in turn, led to the creation of myths on a personal level, as the figures of Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola undoubtedly became heroes of the “cinema”, became the heroes of the “cinematic mythology”, and thus the actors – Patrick Gallo and Dan Fogler, who respectively portrayed them on the screen, directly “entered” the dimension of superhydride, thus joining the myth-making. This complex, contradictory and provocative process is illustrated, for example, by the “lines” of Marlon Brando (Justin Chambers) and Al Pacino (Anthony Ippolito).
The approval of the Hollywood legend for the role of Don Vito Corleone and the defense of the novice actor for the role of Michael Corleone are positioned by the authors of the TV project as one of the biggest victories of the film’s creators, which were made possible by Albert S. Ruddy through difficult negotiations. Therefore, the participation of Marlon Brando and Al Pacino in the film is a formal, and possibly actual, achievement of a representative of the “film production shop”. So, the creators of The Offer series evidently faced a difficult task – to embody the images of actors who have become stars of world cinema on the screen. And the path they took was risky, but quite successful. Obviously, it was not about copying the acting style of Hollywood stars, although, in part, the authors of the TV project tried to duplicate the appearance of Marlon Brando and Al Pacino, and the performers of other roles in The Godfather. At this point, the “aesthetic and artistic structure” of these images was important, as they were obviously influenced by the “requirements” of the new time – the beginning of the third decade of the twenty-first century. After all, it is not possible to ignore the fact that during 1972-2022, the manner of acting changed, enriched with new expressive techniques and moral and psychological innovations that separate The Godfather from The Offer.
This “pathos of distance” between them prompts us to focus on the fourth factor of metamodernism that has been identified – the phenomenon of postirony. The internal structure of postirony, as already emphasized, is quite complex and multidimensional, but the authors of this study are currently interested in its relational component, which openly dominates this TV project. It can be assumed that in an effort to attract as many contemporary viewers as possible to the circle of fans of The Godfather, the authors of The Offer are very actively co-opting postirony into its plane. In fact, it permeates the entire series and, to a large extent, determines the general style of behavior of all its characters, but, above all, of the triumvirate of producers – Albert S. Ruddy – Robert Evans – Charles Bluhdorn.
The post-ironic element, which is one of the dominant features of The Offer, allows not only recreating the special atmosphere of zeal in the work on The Godfather, but also revealing the complex psychological states of the characters, which together “works” for the “quirky effect”, which is the fifth factor of metamodernism and performs a kind of generalizing function in the TV project. As Parvulescu C and Hanzlík J(17) affirm, “quirky is an aesthetic sensibility that provides us with a kind of useful magnifying glass that allows discerning elements of contemporary culture – especially in American cinema, which, one might assume, has a similar approach in terms of style, thematic interests, appeal and tone with humorous overtones”. The researchers observe such cultural elements on television, in particular, they mention the popular TV series Dead on Arrival (2014), New Girl (2011), Flight of the Conchords (2007) and indie music artists.
Thus, the potential of “quirky” – a new aesthetic sensibility – was fully exploited, organically linking historioplasticity, the phenomenon of craftsmanship in the dynamics of movement “from space craftsman to cinematic craftsman”, superhydride and postirony in The Offer series. In addition, by emphasizing the crucial role of the producer in film production, Quirky allowed the viewer to immerse themselves in the atmosphere of a film legend, to actually see with their own eyes the process of myth-making, and finally, it encouraged those who had not yet seen The Godfather to watch it and the “eternal return” of its fans to it, thus becoming a kind of mediator that united different generations of viewers around this great film of all time.
DISCUSSION
Describing the specifics of research that is relevant to the issues raised in the article, and, above all, to the phenomenon of film production, it is worth articulating the potential of an interdisciplinary approach, which currently has its own specifics. As already mentioned, it is going about entering both the economic and humanitarian planes, which is due to the peculiarity of this profession as such. At present, a rather peculiar situation is emerging that may become the subject of a separate discussion in the future, but should be commented on, at least briefly.
The interdisciplinary approach has prompted and continues to prompt discussions about “terminological correctness”, namely the use of the concepts of “interdisciplinary”, “interdisciplinary”, “interdisciplinary”, “interdisciplinary”, which are perceived as synonyms. (18) In the author’s opinion, the study of the film production phenomenon in this regard can make fundamental adjustments, since “interdisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary” are related to one field of knowledge, while “interdisciplinary” opens up access to its various spheres. The phenomenon of film production obviously actualizes reflections on this issue, as it exists in different planes both humanitarian and economic.(19,20) Thus, on the one hand, it involves the application of an interdisciplinary approach, but on the other hand, both humanitarian and economic knowledge are based on relevant interdisciplinary approaches, and therefore film production is a complex multi-layered phenomenon that obviously requires a comprehensive understanding and solution.(21)
Since this article is implemented in the humanitarian context, it is necessary to take into account the developments that have been made in this field. In this regard, it would be necessary to highlight the research of McIntyre P and col,(22) which is based on the intersection of artistic, cultural and sociological aspects of the problem of film production and which articulates the issue of professional training of future film producers based on international experience. The visuality of contemporary culture is related to the subject of the article, which is analyzed, in particular, in the research of Williamson MJ and col.(23) At the same time, this article is based on the potential of theoretical and practical parity, which has been quite fundamentally researched and productively applied in contemporary Ukrainian cultural studies. Obviously, it also works when analyzing the experience of artistic comprehension of the phenomenon of film production, which, in turn, stimulates the appropriate conceptualization of the material, especially since the research possibilities of theoretical and practical parity have not been covered in this perspective.
It should also be noted that literary and artistic projects of interpreting the profession of a film producer obviously require a clear consideration of the context that directly determined its features. Therefore, it is worth emphasizing once again that the “theoretical movement” of the 1940s – early decades of the twenty-first century largely caused “turning points” that ultimately influenced the specifics of cultural creation.
Today, the field of Ukrainian humanities clearly distinguishes between the “anthropological turn” and the “cultural turn”. In addition, it is worth taking into account the consequences that, at the general theoretical level, are stimulated by the “linguistic”, “methodological” and “craft” “turns”. At this point, it is worth referring to article by Arindi C and col,(24) which reconstructs the history of the “entry” of the concept of “turn” into the research space of European humanitarian knowledge and argues for the importance of this concept in the field of cultural studies. In particular, the article’s theses that highlight the nuances of two interrelated meanings of the concept of “turn” are important. The first one interprets the turn as a manifestation of radical changes in the transformation of modern socio-cultural processes, which are actively studied by philosophers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, art historians and other industry specialists due to the dramatic shifts in real practice in social, existential, technological, cultural, and human manifestations.
The researchers associate the second meaning of the “turn” problem with the need to find a new way of considering the comprehension and representation of the changed reality and the corresponding human attitude towards it. While some artistic projects discussed in this article existed in the context of, so to speak, the classical literary model, or were only close to the postmodern era due to their “time affiliation”, the television series The Offer, according to the authors, was inspired by the “metamodernist turn” – a segment of the “cultural turn” that is increasingly adjusting the world’s “cultural map” with each passing decade.
In today’s conditions, there is an objective need to develop specific entities that can effectively ensure the production and promotion of art products. This conclusion was reached by Nannicelli T,(25) who found that such entities act as intermediaries between commercialized art and its consumers. That is why the mechanism of interaction between literary and artistic projects and the market deserves special attention. This issue has also been addressed in this study, namely, producers as actors that provide a link between artistic culture and consumers. The researcher has established that the development of the phenomenon of production as a cultural and historical process is closely linked to industrialization and urbanization.
The latter is characterized by such features as mass production, standardization, and unification, which necessitated the establishment of interaction between artistic institutions and the needs of the public in the consumption of literary and artistic products, such as films or performances. According to the researcher, the invention of cinema caused a revolution in the field of culture and contributed to the formation of the phenomenon of film production. What is common between the conclusions of both studies is the approach to describing the chronology of the origin and spread of such an artistic subject as a film producer. The latter, in turn, had different names, including “film manager” in Britain, “impresario” in Italy, and “film producer” in the United States.
The producer’s level of control over the text of a cultural project is increasing. This position is supported by Phillips LE and col,(26) who argue that in the film industry, the producer was initially assigned financial and organizational functions, and only later ideological and artistic ones. It is worth noting that this study also emphasized the gradual development of such an artistic subject as a producer, who was not initially responsible for the script. The researchers note that an important step in the development of film production was the expansion of the producer’s activities and the assignment of technical responsibilities, including editing. In their view, this process is driven by the principle of ‘total capture’, which involves reforming the relationship between the sponsor and the artist from one of subordination to equality. They also emphasized that their relationship has also changed in terms of content, namely from equality to subordination, as the means (form) actually becomes the end (content).
The general conclusion is that the phenomenon of film production ensures that the priorities of cultural authenticity cannot be displaced by income. Observance of this boundary is extremely important, as it prevents the devastation of literary and artistic projects and their loss of ontological adequacy.
In the contemporary paradigm of the art crisis, culture appears as a civilization in the context of disinterested creativity. This conclusion was reached by Carpio R and Birt J,(27) who believe that the latter is definitely an alternative to both power and calculation. This study also found that the modern market is opposed by a developed elite tradition of literary and artistic projects. The researchers emphasized the expediency of distinguishing between cultural and civilizational properties in the phenomenon of film production. The first category includes the producer’s competences that belong to the realm of spirituality, including sensitivity, creative inclinations, developed moral standards, intellectuality, critical thinking, and the ability to contemplate and penetrate. The conclusion that these qualities are inherent in such subjects as the thinker, artist, hermeneutic, and art critic is common to all studies.(28) As for civilizational qualities, the researchers include ambition, optimism, risk-taking, and entrepreneurship. This approach to describing the properties of the film production phenomenon is common to all studies.
Based on the above, it can be established that the phenomenon of film production is quite deep in its content, which allows it to be studied in different contexts. The researchers’ positions are based on similar approaches to identifying the dependence between the elements of the producer’s internal activities in the film industry. As a result, it is possible to identify the fundamental principles that ensure the development of production in general.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the cinematic arts, the phenomena of film making is intricate and multidimensional. This research has examined how it has been interpreted in literature and art, following its development from mid-century novels to the modern television series “The Offer”. It’s clear that the job of the film producer has changed significantly over the years, going from being a supporting character to a key contributor whose influence is seen throughout the finished work. It is inevitable that as film as an art form continues to develop, so too will the demands placed on film makers. The emergence of novel technology, evolving consumer inclinations, and the constantly evolving nature of the entertainment sector will demand a continuous reassessment of the duties and competencies of producers.
Collaborative efforts between academic institutions and industry practitioners are vital in order to maintain the relevance and adaptability of film producer education for upcoming filmmakers. We can develop a new generation of producers who are prepared to face the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead by encouraging a thorough awareness of the craft’s historical foundations together with an openness to innovation and experimentation. The ability of film to animate tales, enthrall audiences, and push the frontiers of artistic expression is ultimately what gives it its lasting impact. For as long as this essential objective stays at the core of the industry, the phenomenon of filmmaking will persist and continue to influence cultural landscapes for future generations.
REFERENCES
1. Pogrebnyak G. Directing models of author cinema in the context of intercultural dialogue. Part 1. Co-production as a way to implement the producing and directing models. Cult Contemp. [Internet] 2021 [cited: 10 May 2024];2:23–28. Available in: https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-0285.2.2021.249210.
2. Pogrebnіak G. Directing models of author cinema in the context of intercultural dialogue. Part 2. The creativity of the director-author in the system of international cooperation. Cult Contemp. [Internet] 2022 [cited: 10 May 2024];1:35–40. Available in: https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-0285.1.2022.262553.
3. Gryglewski P, Ivashko Y, Chernyshev D, Chang P, Dmytrenko A. art as a message realized through various means of artistic expression. Art Inquiry. [Internet] 2020 [cited: 11 May 2024];22:57-88. Available in: https://doi.org/10.26485/AI/2020/22/4
4. Tabeikyna EK, Kamalova GT, Hasanov EL, Dzhumagaliyeva KV, Demeuova NK. The place of intelligentsia in socio-economic development of society: The creative perspective. Creat Stud. [Internet] 2021 [cited: 8 May 2024];14(1):235–50. Available in: https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.13639.
5. Seiler J, Eriksson L, Westerlund T, Almevik G. Ways of tacit knowing. FormAkademisk. [Internet] 2021 [cited: 10 May 2024];14(2). Available in: https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.4406.
6. Zhang Y, Weber I. Adapting, modifying and applying cinematography and editing concepts and techniques to cinematic virtual reality film production. Media Int Aust. [Internet] 2023 [cited: 10 May 2024];186(1):115-35. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X211018476.
7. Kotliar S, Kuzmenko Y. Film and series production as a result of collaboration between director and producer. Bull Kyiv Natl Univ Cult Arts Ser Audiov Art Prod. [Internet] 2023 [cited: 11 May 2024];6(2):177-85. Available in: https://doi.org/10.31866/2617-2674.6.2.2023.289286.
8. Pogrebniak GP. Director’s creativity in the context of European cultural practices of state support for film production and distribution. Natl Acad Manag Staff Cult Arts Her. [Internet] 2023 [cited: 12 May 2024];1:36-41. Available in: https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-3209.1.2023.277630.
9. Sushko P. Peculiarities of producer’s personality formation in the context of cultural identity. Cult Ukraine. [Internet] 2022 [cited: 9 May 2024];77:35-42. Available in: https://doi.org/10.31516/2410-5325.077.04.
10. Sabadash Ju. The problem space of Ukrainian culturology. Bull Mariupol State Univ Ser Philos Culturol Sociol. [Internet] 2022 [cited: 8 May 2024];24:112-21. Available in: https://doi.org/10.34079/2226-2849-2022-12-24-112-121.
11. Onishchenko H. From post- to metamodernism: Process cultural research. Kyiv Natl Karpenko-Karyi Univ Theatre Cine Telev Bull. [Internet] 2021 [cited: 6 May 2024];29:60-6. Available in: https://doi.org/10.34026/1997-4264.29.2021.248740.
12. Onishchenko H. Meta-modernism: Theoretical reality or “Figure of Philosophy”? Kyiv Natl Karpenko-Karyi Univ Theatre Cine Telev Bull. [Internet] 2021 [cited: 6 May 2024];27-28:137-44. Available in: https://doi.org/10.34026/1997-4264.27-28.2021.238837.
13. Vitkauskaitė I. Criteria for the evaluation of innovativeness of independent film production company in the perspective of creativity. Creat Stud. [Internet] 2023 [cited: 6 May 2024];16(1):50-78. Available in: https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2023.15054.
14. Nair K. Toward a phenomenology of film production. Discourse. [Internet] 2022 [cited: 7 May 2024];44(2):158-80. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2022.0016.
15. Prasetyo D, Junaedi F. Producer’s role in production management of the short film “Piknik Panik”. Proc Jogjakarta Commun Conf. [Internet] 2023 [cited: 7 May 2024];1(1):271-6. Available in: https://jcc-indonesia.id/proceeding/index.php/jcc/article/download/53/45.
16. Spottiswoode R. A grammar of the film: An analysis of film technique. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2022. 334 p.
17. Parvulescu C, Hanzlík J. Beyond postsocialist and small: Recent film production practices and state support for cinema in Czechia and Romania. Stud Eur Cine. [Internet] 2022 [cited: 12 May 2024];19(2):129-46. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1080/17411548.2020.1736794.
18. Monaco P. A history of American movies: A film-by-film look at the art, craft, and business of cinema. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2010. 368 p.
19. Pogrebnіak G. Circus as environment of screen action in modern directors’ creative work. Notes Art Crit. [Internet] 2022 [cited: 17 May 2024];42:151–8. Available in: https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-2180.42.2022.272315.
20. Barnych M, Slyvka I. Features of creative activity of the theater and cinema actor. Notes Art Crit. [Internet] 2022 [cited: 17 May 2024];41:165–70. Available in: https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-2180.41.2022.263207.
21. Kysliuk K. Peculiarities of visual representations of Ukrainian culture in social networks. Natl Acad Manag Staff Cult Arts Her. [Internet] 2019 [cited: 11 May 2024];1:55-9. Available in: https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-3209.1.2019.166533.
22. McIntyre P, Fulton J, Kerrigan S, Meany M. Entrepreneurship in the Creative Industries [Internet]. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2023. pp. 145-60. Entrepreneurship in film and screen; [cited: 10 May 2024]. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19455-9_9.
23. Williamson MJ, Curnick DJ, Jacoby DMP, Durant SM, O’Neill HMK. Ethical considerations in natural history film production and the need for industry-wide best practice. Glob Ecol Conserv. [Internet] 2022 [cited: 9 May 2024];34:e01981. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01981.
24. Arindi C, Abdullah A, Arifin HS. Message strategy in short film production competition for strengthening film ecosystem. ProTVF [Internet] 2023 [cited: 8 May 2024];7(2):128-47. Available in: https://doi.org/10.24198/ptvf.v7i2.48308.
25. Nannicelli T. A Companion to Motion Pictures and Public Value [Internet]. Hjort M, Nannicelli T, editors. London: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2022. pp. 171-89. Chapter 8, Film production and ethical criticism; [cited: 10 May 2024]. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119677154.ch8.
26. Phillips LE, Dhillon P, Kotas A, Kusler R, Shih J, Kause J. Film production during the Covid-19 pandemic. Occup Med. [Internet] 2024 [cited: 8 May 2024];74(1):24-8. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqac102.
27. Carpio R, Birt J. The role of the Embodiment Director in virtual reality film production. Creat Ind J. [Internet] 2022 [cited: 8 May 2024];15(2):189-98. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2021.2017634.
28. Demeschenko V. Features of genre formation in film art of the 21st century. Interdiscip Cult Humanit Rev. [Internet] 2023 [cited: 16 May 2024];2(2):11-19. Available in: https://doi.org/10.59214/2786-7110-2023-2-2-11-19
FINANCING
The authors did not receive financing for the development of this research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION
Conceptualization: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Data curation: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Formal analysis: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Acquisition of funds: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Research: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Methodology: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Project management: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Resources: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Software: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Supervision: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Validation: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Display: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Drafting - original draft: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.
Writing - proofreading and editing: Inna Kocharian, Olena Onishchenko.