Test Screening

It is not an uncommon occurrence for films to be screened prior to release. The objective is to gauge an audience’s reaction and alter the film so that more people will like it. So what does this mean? It means that the ‘art’ is being changed so that it is more widely accepted. Now it goes without saying, even though I have said it plenty, that the film industry is undoubtedly (and no one is pretended otherwise) a business. And yes, it makes good business sense to get as large a demographic as possible to make the most money as possible.

On the one hand this is good. It proves the best chances of a particular film being successful and thus the best chances of other films getting made. It ensures the continued success of the industry. Like the Oscar ceremonies (the word monies conveniently hidden within), they keep attention and interest in a product that survives on getting attention. Test screenings are a way for a filmmaker to know how the audience feels about the work; how it might be made better (read: more broadly accepted) and what they did not like (read: what will not make the final cut). Thus it provides areas in which the people involved might wish to make changes.

So on the other hand, it means that the production company is simply giving the audience what it wants. From an artistic standpoint, then, this sounds the alarm. Art, in and of itself, should not conform to the desires of those who look at it. If anything, art has always stood to challenge its viewer, to make them see things in a new way, to look outside the normal parameters in which their gaze is limited. But as we can be assured, the most challenging movies are usually the ones that a.) do well only because of the controversy involved in their reception, or b.) fail to find and audience and fade into filmic obscurity.

So we may wish to find a balance. But we should also take into account the nature of film. Unlike any other art form, film encompasses numerous areas of creativity and is truly the most complicated collaborative art. Cinematographers and actors and production designers and wardrobers and make-up artists all compile their skill and vision into a (hopefully) cohesive and complimentary work. Further, the temporal aspect of film means that small, short lasting aspects represent a smaller percent of the larger whole. Thus a little trim here and a deletion here do not affect the final product as much as it does with other media.

This in mind, the notion of a test screening comes into a bit more acceptable light. All the work that has gone into the film is still there, some obvious, some subtle. The only way to take it all away is to abandon the film entirely. It is now a question of intent. Is a creative choice made because it fits and benefits the piece as a whole or because it makes money. And is the money enough of a benefit to warrant it? And for those not convinced, is it ever warranted to alter a work, an artist’s vision, to make it more popular?

Keep in mind that all this refers to film with enough money in the first place to afford test screenings. We are mainly talking big films that already challenge the viewer to lend the term ‘art’ to their description. This does not mean the topic is irrelevant however. It is simply the context in which the discussion takes place.