Thursday, 13 November 2008
Authenticity & Displacement in Film Induced Tourism
This is a space for previous contributors to the Movie Tourism Group blog to openly discuss their views on film tourism in more depth. Thankyou to those of you who have agreed to contribute here also. Your views are highly valued and may be used in on-going research into the world of film tourism. When a film is shot/made in one place but is actually portraying somewhere else - please discuss your thoughts & feelings in relation to this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I guess my recent interest in this was largely due to my London visit and prompted by the Bridget Jones movies most of all. However when in London we took a James Bond taxi tour which we found fascinating. A real experience that added so much to our vacation trip.
Some months later after watching Casino Royale on dvd we very much wanted to visit Montenegro as it was so stunningly portrayed in the movie and really captured our attention. I then read on IMDB and on another film blog that it wasn’t filmed in Montenegro at all. While this did make us question whether to book a trip, we did in the end visit Montenegro after all. Since we were traveling all the way to Europe we decided however that we would visit Italy and the Czech republic as well (as I read that was where the Montenegro scenes were really filmed).
So in this case the movie prompted us to visit 3 countries! Which was more authentic to me? I have to say Montenegro for sure. My experience there brought back the movie and scenes and characters from the movie. So even though I knew it hadn’t really been filmed there – to me it was the most authentic part of my trip in relation to the movie. The place that to me meant the most. I just didn’t get those feelings from my visit to the Italian lakes or the Czech republic. So whilst we had the most wonderful time in these 2 countries I feel the authentic experience for us was very much the movie setting and not where it was filmed.
I’m still glad I knew before I went as I know I would have been very disappointed had I only found out afterwards.
My opinion is I don’t like it when this happens. I would much prefer that places depicted in movies are actually filmed where they are meant to be! In this case however I guess it did influence us to visit several places on our vacation which I guess we wouldn’t have seen otherwise and so I guess it can be a good thing for tourism if people visit both like us.
This has made me realize as this Blog asked that authenticity to me is the place portrayed – where it is meant to be and that I associate in my mind with the movie and the characters and the story. The actual location is less important to me in terms of the movie experience though I may still want to visit there as I did in this case.
Watching movies often makes me want to travel. I visited Fiji recently as I had always wanted to go there after watching the Blue Lagoon. I also took a trip to Thailand this summer and again it was my love of movies that made me want to go there. I love The Beach and have wanted to visit since seeing that movie.
Authenticity is important to me in my travels as for me it is the scenery and the landscape in a movie that often grabs me. So that's what I want to see when I go there.
I have to disagree with Carly on that. For me I want to visit the actual scenery I have seen. To me that's authentic. Maybe it hasn't been much of an issue for me so far as the places I have visited have been filmed where they were meant to be but even if they were not I would want to visit the location to see the actual scenery I watched on screen.
Although I do agree with Carly that I would prefer this doesn't happen and that people film movies in the actual places they are portraying. If they don't then what I see is authentic to me, not what it pretends to be or where it pretends to be.
My recent experience of this concerns a trip to Vienna which was influenced by several films I had enjoyed and related to the city.
What I found very disappointing was that one of the films (The Illusionist) wasn't actually filmed in the city at all but in the Czech Republic. I did not learn this until I was in Vienna. Thankfully one of my other influences was The Third Man which was filmed in Vienna itself. However, finding out my other recent influence was in a sense a 'fake' did slightly tarnish things a bit for me.
So unlike Carly here I didn't find out until I was actually on holiday that this film wasn't made there and what I had seen wasn't Vienna at all. Would I have gone if I had known this before hand? If The Illusionist had been my only influence I'm not sure (in my case The Third Man was a huge part of why I wanted to go there also - a more nostalgic part). I think perhaps, like Carly, I would still have gone. I do agree with Carly's comment that to me what is authentic is the place setting that I associate with the story. The Illusionist was set in Vienna. It was Vienna I wanted to see and experience as a result.
So I would have to disagree with Desert Rose. Visiting where the film was actually made - if it's not the setting or has no real connection to the story - just doesn't interest me. That might appeal to some people I understand, but not to me. That's not authentic to me.
I do agree with both Desert Rose and Carly that ideally it would be best if this didn't happen ie. films are made where they are set but I suppose there can be many reasons why this cannot always be.
How important is authenticity? I think it's very important! I mentioned on the other film tourism blog about lots of people visiting the beach near me in Jamaica because the famous Dr No scene. They want that 'actual' beach, not just any tropical Jamaican beach. They want the one they saw in the film. In this respect I tend to agree with Desert Rose. I would want to visit what I see. I would find that a more authentic experience. For example I stated on the other blog I have always wanted to visit Ireland after seeing Ryan's Duaghter many years ago. That's because I fell in love with the scenery I saw on screen. So of that film had been set somewhere else but still filmed in Ireland it would stil be Ireland I would visit because thats that real scenery the film presented me with. I read on the other blog that Braveheart was filmed in Ireland. I think that's a great example. I can understand why people will visit Scotland because of that film but I would now want to visit Ireland because I know thats what I'm seeing, not Scotland.
Films do influence me a lot and my travels are often based on films or aspects I have seen in films. Most notably a trip to Japan in recent years was heavily influenced by a number of films about Japan and Japanese culture – The Last Samurai, Memoirs of a Geisha and Lost in Translation. All 3 presented very different aspects and depictions of the country, its customs and culture and at different periods in time. Lost in Translation being the most modern. The combination of these films really fuelled my interest in visiting Japan and unquestionably prompted me to take a holiday there.
When I booked my trip I simply assumed all 3 films had been made in Japan, although at the time I did not bother to check this out for certain. It was only whilst visiting the country I learned that 2 of these films had not really featured Japan much at all. The Last Samurai was mostly shot in New Zealand and most surprising of all to me was that much of Memoirs of a Geisha was filmed in America. To be honest though I was more surprised than disappointed. I don’t feel it had any great effect on my holiday enjoyment. These films made me want to visit and experience Japan (regardless of where they were made). While yes I would say that the authenticity of what I saw in the movies was diminished for me a bit it wouldn’t have affected my travel plans even if I had known before I booked the trip. Realising that what I actually had seen in some of these films was America or New Zealand would not have prompted me to visit those places in connection with the films.
I have to agree with Carlyrich that I prefer to visit the film setting that for me has the stronger connection to the story and the film characters. Although Carly also visited the locations too that isn’t something that appeals to me at all especially if they have no ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ connection to the story. I accept other people here like Desert Rose may feel differently and I can understand that if things like scenery are really spectacular then you would want to see the ‘actual’ scenery that you viewed in the film. All very interesting! but for me I will always put the setting first.
Thanks for being invited to contribute here! Unlike many of the other bloggers here I don’t feel this has happened to me yet - being influenced by a movie that was filmed in a different place from it is portraying in the story. This doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Just that I am not aware of it happening to me!
My most exciting vacation in recent years was a trip in 2001 to Salzburg in Austria because of The Sound of Music. However that movie was actually filmed in Salzburg so I didn’t feel any real authenticity issues arose with that for me as we were able to take film themed tours around places that featured strongly in the movie.
I do feel that if the movie wasn’t filmed in the setting where it was meant to be, I would be much more inclined to visit the place it’s meant to be, as for me there is an emotional aspect to the story that usually prompts me to visit somewhere (as was the case with The Sound of Music). I find this with novels as well as movies! I doubt I’d get an emotional connection from visiting a movie location if that’s not where the story was set. Visiting the setting could be diminished too in such a case and perhaps wouldn’t mean as much to me knowing that’s not what I actually saw in the movie. I think the authenticity just wouldn’t be there in the same way in such instances. So, like carly and fleming I feel that what is most authentic is the place/story setting but if that’s not where it was filmed then less authentic than in cases like The Sound of Music where it was filmed and set in the same place.
This is definitely something I have experienced first hand. Like Carly, in 2007 I booked a holiday to Montenegro with Thomson that was inspired by the Bond film Casino Royale. I read on the other film tourism blog from Carly that it wasn’t filmed in Montenegro and I even did some further online research which confirmed this. So I found this out after I had already booked my holiday but before we actually went. At the time I was very angry with the tour operator – Thomson! who said in their online advertising that the ‘gorgeous landscapes starred on big screen in the James Bond blockbuster Casino Royale!’. Very much a blatant lie and as I wrote in a letter to them, false advertising!
My partner and I went ahead with the holiday but it wasn’t the same. I still felt disappointed over what had happened. In many ways it tarnished the holiday for me. Montenegro was a lovely place that I would recommend and had I gone there under no influence from the film I probably would have enjoyed it a lot but to me it lacked any authenticity to the film and to Bond. I have to disagree with Carly on that. I had a very different experience even though our situations were similar. I didn’t get the film connection with Montenegro that I expected and wanted from my holiday and I blame the tour operator for that.
Would I have found the actual locations more authentic? I think I would had I gone there but I’m not sure if I would have booked to go there had I known sooner. I agree with most of the bloggers here that it’s best this doesn’t happen. To me what is properly authentic is when the setting is where the film is actually shot – that’s when I would really want to holiday there so I get the connection with the film that I want unlike my recent experience.
Really disappointing to hear of Brian’s experience with Montenegro. Having seen the film Casino Royale I was impressed with Montenegro (or what was meant to be Montenegro) myself and can fully understand Brian’s anger and disappointment. My experience with Vienna and The Illusionist was similar though I didn’t actually encounter any false advertising. I just assumed what I saw in the film was Vienna. Ignoring my other film influence for Vienna (The Third Man) the ‘fakery’ of the more recent film did as I said before, tarnish things a bit for me. Maybe I should call the film The Disillusionist! That said, unlike Brian, I would still want to visit the setting for a film (that influences me) even if that’s not where it was made. The place setting is all important to me. That’s the true or authentic connection for me. Though as Brian says authenticity will always be stronger when the film is set and filmed in the same place.
So interesting to read about all these examples and experiences! In my original comments on the previous movie tourism blog I mentioned several film examples made in different countries than was projected in the film such as Seven Years in Tibet (filmed in Argentina) and The King and I (set in Thailand) filmed in Malaysia. I think the disillusionment and disappointment factor is much greater than many people think when this happens. I’m sure the experience of bloggers like Brian is very common. Interesting too that some bloggers like Zeni and Desert Rose want to visit the actual movie locations. I guess I can see how that may be more authentic to some people if it’s the scenery or the landscape that influences you. As other bloggers have said though where is the connection to the story then?
I suppose it depends a lot on what people want from their vacation experience but I do feel there is a lot of potential for disappointment if you expect to find exactly what you see in a movie. For this reason I try not to base my travel decisions on movies if I can help it though I think film can have a subconscious effect on all of us that is very difficult to avoid. We can learn a lot about other places from movies. The big question is how authentic that may be!!
Ok for me, I like to visit what I see. Film showcases the world. It can open new places to us that we are not aware of before. I am very much in agreement with desert rose. I too want to visit the scenery I see on screen, not where it is pretending to be. This blog mentions authenticity. For me that is the actual place, the film location, that I have actually seen. Always what I see, that is what I will always seek out.
I am influenced by the scenery in films. In Bruges was a recent example where seeing the city in the film, the medieval buildings and the wonderful canals etc really enticed me to go there. Bruges isn’t somewhere we had even considered or thought of before so I think this does show the power of films to influence where we travel. If it wasn’t for the recent film Bruges wouldn’t even have been on our radar as a possible holiday destination. In this particular example the storyline or the characters were not that appealing in terms of influencing me, it was purely the visual scenery. I have to agree with previous bloggers like esmie and desert rose that I also like to visit what I see. Maybe that’s because its usually the scenery that influences and so I want to see ‘that’ scenery – the authentic location, not anywhere else it may be masquerading as that happens in some films.
As I posted on the other movie tourism blog – how can you go somewhere portrayed in a movie if it doesn’t exist? In the case of fantasy and sci-fi movies like Star Wars and LOTR the settings are completely fictional and don’t really exist except in the minds of the writers and directors – yet many people (myself included) visit the locations used for these movies.
Some bloggers here say they always want to go where the story takes place. I disagree with that. In the case of the genre of movies I mentioned you can’t do that. It’s not possible. Those places don’t exist. So many fans of those movies visit the film locations. To them that brings a strong connection. The location brings some degree of authenticity to these people. For movies with ‘real’ settings but filmed in other places the same would still hold true for me. I would prefer to visit the location. Going to the setting if its not where the movie was shot seems odd to me. How can that be authentic in any way?
This happened to my boyfriend and I in relation to a trip to Ireland in 2004. We’d both wanted to holiday in Ireland for a long time and I think what we’d seen in lots of films and on television was a big influence for us. The film that really prompted us to go at last was called Waking Ned. We both loved the film and to us it summed up many of the things that attracted us to Ireland. It wasn’t until we were actually in Ireland and began to ask where the film was made that we discovered it was filmed in the Isle of Man! This was a big shock to us both. So I totally understand how other bloggers like brian and carlyrich feel. We did feel a bit cheated when we found this out. My boyfriend was quite annoyed at the time. We did have a good holiday though and we both agreed that had we known before we would still have gone to Ireland and definitely not the Isle of Man. It was the story and the great characters, the whole setting that attracted us. This does seem to happen a lot but in our case we would choose the film setting in such cases. I feel that’s authentic to me. I would have no desire to visit eg. the Isle of Man in connection with Waking Ned. So I do disagree strongly with some other bloggers like chris and tropical dancer who seem to prefer film locations in these cases, a fake location in my opinion.
Having just seen the excellent film Slumdog Millionaire I feel that it shows the real India. I think this is a film that is very authentic. I have been to India several times. If you went to India expecting to find what you see in a Bollywood movie you would be sorely disappointed!
To have authenticity then I feel the film has to made where it is portraying. Take the example of Braveheart. There is a Braveheart trail in Scotland now that for me just doesn't reflect the film at all (as it was made in Ireland). Maybe this trail is historically accurate in terms of the story but for me there's no link to the film.
One of my favourtite films is Highlander which was actually set and filmed in Scotland. I have visited several places used in the film such as Eilean Donan Castle and Glenfinnan and felt such a strong connection to these places when I was there. That connection I beleive was because I was knew I was where I seen and experienced in the film and it brought all that back to me. In contrast I didn't get that at all from taking the Braveheart trail in Scotland. There was no connection for me. I have learned there is a Braveheart trail in Ireland too and I plan to visit that. Perhaps it will be more authentic to the film for me and I will feel that connection that was missing in the Scottish trail.
I have to agree with the recent comment from fleming on Slumdog Millionaire. For me that film is very authentic I feel. I have seen other films set in India, many of them Bollywood films. They may be entertaining but they do not in my opinion portray authenticity about India. Some of these Bollywood films are not even filmed in India anymore. I have read that some have been made in Switzerland and other such places. That is very disappointing.
My thoughts and feelings on this are first of all that it shouldn’t happen. If at all possible films should be made where they are portraying. Sadly it does happen a lot and I find it very interesting to read other people’s views here. I am very much influenced by film in terms of where I like to travel, but when this happens I do feel torn. Having said that when a film does influence me in such cases then I have a strong desire to visit both where it was filmed and where it portrays. Sometimes that’s not always possible but in my view that’s ideally what I want to do. I feel the actual location can be more authentic to what I’ve seen in a film but the setting can obviously feel more authentic to the story as that’s where things are meant to have taken place. So when a film makes an impact on me I want to experience what both location and setting can offer me.
When this happens I like to visit both where it was actually filmed and the place the film was depicting or portraying. So for me, I agree totally with MKirk on that - that both hold a strong appeal for me.
Reading other blogger's views here I can understand that there are those who always want to see where the film was depicting. What I'd call the 'pure tourist'. I can also understand that many like to see the actual location where the film was made. What I'd call the 'pure movie tourist' more interested in some of the film aspects and what they have actually seen. I've met people on holiday myself who fit into both of these camps.
In my case, I like to see both. I'm a huge film fan and I also love travelling and both hold a fascination for me. As far as authenticity is concerned yes that has to be greatest when the film is actually made where it is depicting. When it's not then it depends on the individual and what is most important to them, what influences them.
Overall I feel films are a great influence on my travels and always will be and I have met many people on holiday and on blogs such as this who feel the same! It does complicate things when a film isn't made where it portrays but that is no reason not to travel and in fact it gives everyone two choices on where to visit, not just one! I don't feel torn like some other bloggers. It gives even more opportunity and when I can I will visit both places connected to the film.
Movie locations are a real draw for me. Often I just assume that the movie is filmed where it is set. Not always the case and I have enjoyed btw reading all the examples here from other bloggers.
As to what I prefer when this happens I have to agree with bloggers like Desert Rose & esmie & Zeni. I love to visit movie locations and it is the location that I want to see not the setting. If I visited the setting it might look quite different from the movie scenes and I just wouldn't get that buzz.
Personally movies don't induce me to travel, it are more television programmes on Discovery or National Geographic that make me want to visit a location.
I find it interesting how many people have taken the time to express their opinion on such a topic and to read how honest and detailed they are. From some comments you can even notice the frustration the writer(s) had when finding out they were or felt mislead.
At the moment I am writing my Bachelor thesis on film-induced tourism. The aspect of authenticity plays a very important role in my thesis and simply by using books and articles as theoretical sources is not enough in quantity and quality. Therefore I would just like to express my gratitude to the discussion leader for bringing up this blog and to all the people who have commented on the topic. All of you have provided me with a great amount of useful up to date and honest information.
Thanks to you all, it is very interesting to read all your thoughts and experiences.
Personally movies don't induce me to travel, it are more television programmes on Discovery or National Geographic that make me want to visit a location.
I can however understand very much how people might feel mislead or tricked when finding out a movie that induced them to travel was in fact shot at a different location it is portraying.
I find it interesting how many people have taken the time to express their opinion on such a topic and to read how honest and detailed they are. From some comments you can even notice the frustration the writer(s) had when finding out they were or felt mislead.
At the moment I am writing my Bachelor thesis on film-induced tourism. The aspect of authenticity plays a very important role in my thesis and simply by using books and articles as theoretical sources is not enough in quantity and quality. Therefore I would just like to express my gratitude to the discussion leader for bringing up this blog and to all the people who have commented on the topic. All of you have provided me with a great amount of useful up to date and honest information.
Thanks to you all, it is very interesting to read all your thoughts and experiences.
Post a Comment