Spielberg Blasts Test Screening Practice (1 Viewer)

[Luc D]

I'm not one for the practice of test screenings, but there have been a few cases where they actually helped. Kubrick relied on test screenings to perfect 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[MichaelPe]

I agree with those who are against the practice of test screenings. The film is no longer "the director's cut" if it has been tweaked in order to maximize its revenue at the box office by pleasing the mob.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I agree with those who are against the practice of test screenings. The film is no longer "the director's cut" if it has been tweaked in order to maximize its revenue at the box office by pleasing the mob.

Sure, it's still the "director's cut". Screenings are just another form of feedback. It's not like directors work in isolation and never get the opinions of others to construct their films. It's still the director's final decision, so whether he/she makes his choice based on an audience screening or the advice of his Aunt Mildred or goes it alone, it remains the "director's cut"...

 

[Marc Colella]

"An audience might respond negatively on a Wednesday night, so you'd make all these changes, but you could take that same film and show it to a different audience on the following Friday and get a positive reaction.

I agree with him being against test-screenings, but his reasoning leaves me scratching my head.

He hates test-screenings because it's not an accurate measure of what the audience wants?

How about the director making the film the way HE/SHE wants to?

I detest test-screenings because I don't like the idea of other people telling the director how he/she should make his film. Period.

 

[cayce B]

Spielberg once mentioned an experience he had with screening "JAWS". He said that in the screening, people in the audience had jumped with terrific fright during one scene (the shark taking a swipe at Schieder dumping chum?). He said that the scene had generated such an intense effect on the audience that he felt compelled to "go back to the well" and insert a similar scare in an earlier scene. He felt that the decision was a mistake however, because when the movie was released with the extra footage inserted, the second scene didn't garner the same screams as it had before.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Kevin Reynolds praises the test-screening process in the special features of the DVD for The Count of Monte Cristo (2002).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Sure, it's still the "director's cut". Screenings are just another form of feedback. It's not like directors work in isolation and never get the opinions of others to construct their films. It's still the director's final decision, so whether he/she makes his choice based on an audience screening or the advice of his Aunt Mildred or goes it alone, it remains the "director's cut"...

I agree. Just consider the aforementioned idea of live feedback for comedians that eventually went into more honed versions of comedy film routines. Carrying that further you could consider the extremely tight scripts/direction that resulted from 2 recent theatrical translations - Hedwig and the Angry Inch and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

The key here is that the artist is looking for a certain reaction from the audience, that is the goal. So a test screening can be a guide in that process if A) the feedback is of high quality and/or properly representative of your target audiences B) the artist knows how to properly adjust to the feedback.

Consider a comedian with a good joke but bad timing. They could realize the joke fell flat because of timing, but they might just screw up the timing even more. Reacting well to feedback is a time honed skill (or luck).

Then consider the same comedian with a good joke AND good timing, but with a very sour audience. That feedback could cause the comedian to alter a great joke and thus depreciate its value. In this case the skill is being able to recognize good feedback from bad. One way to do that is to see the reactions to sections that you are more certain on, thus indicating the quality of the audience.


And in yet another example, PROOF READERS are always highly recommended for even the most professional of writers. Why would Hemingway need a proof reader? To better gauge the audience reaction to the work, to better appreciate the level of clarity, etc. I can't imagine a single English/Writing professor saying that proof reading feedback is a bad thing.

But that doesn't make the final version not the artist's vision.


However, Spielberg is pointing out two very important negative aspects to screenings. First he is pointing out the dangers I've already expressed. A bad audience can cause you to make bad changes. Second, the SUITS (who should butt out) often use this feedback to leverage in ideas/changes that the artist/director would not normally make. This is the idea of "that may be your vision, but this will make us more money", and test screenings are not the source of such battles, they are just another battleground in that fight.

(note: Cayce just posted the following is less detail)
Now the Spielberg anecdote to back up the idea that the audience can induce a bad alteration if the director isn't quite sure how to fix things. On the Jaws documentary (at least the LD version) he mentions a screening change to get a bigger scare at a point earlier in the film (I think when the head pops out under the boat). He changed the scene to get a bigger jump and this worked. However, in the process he took away from what was the biggest jump previously (when "Bruce" comes up on Roy while he chumes off the back of the boat). The audience was now more on their toes for such a shocker because they had already been burned before.

So you put your finger in the dike in one spot and 3 leaks open up somewhere else because of this.

 

[MichaelPe]

The key here is that the artist is looking for a certain reaction from the audience, that is the goal. So a test screening can be a guide in that process if A) the feedback is of high quality and/or properly representative of your target audiences B) the artist knows how to properly adjust to the feedback.

Very true, and well said.

On a side note, if you've seen the Jerry Seinfeld documentary "Comedian", he makes an interesting point about how it's the audience that determines if his jokes are funny or not. He says something like "You guys aren't comedians or experts in comedy, but you guys determine if I'm doing a good job. What if I went to your office and started telling you how to do your job?" I'm not sure I got the quote exactly right, but it was quite funny when he said it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think test screenings are a problem only if the director goes against his gut due to them. They can help tighten up a film and point out concerns that otherwise might have gone unnoticed. You get so close to a film that you lose perspective, and screenings can help re-establish the necessary mindset.

If the screenings are used as a weapon - such as when studios try to force changes - or if the director's too insecure to follow his own feelings, that's a problem. As also noted, a bad audience can cause issues where none actually exist.

But none of these concerns mean that the test screening process itself is a bad thing. Like I mentioned, they should be simply another tool in the kit, another opinion of many. As long as the director maintains the final word, I think they're fine...

 

[Nate Anderson]

Speaking of Mel Gibson, does anybody know if it was test screenings that decided the fate of Riggs at the end of LEATHAL WEAPON II or was it just a decision based on the promise of sequels?

would have really killed the film, at least for me.

 

[Francois Caron]

If I were a movie maker (I wouldn't be just a director, I'd want to produce and/or write as well), I would use test screenings just to see how well the movie flowed in front of a live audience. I wouldn't use the test screenings to find out what should be left in or taken out of the movie since that stage would have already been accomplished during the storyboard process. But the movie's general pacing may still need a bit of tweaking, and a test audience would be perfect for this type of work.

In fact, I wouldn't be watching the movie at all during the test screening. I'd be hiding somewhere in the front of the theater watching the audience! How are they reacting? Are they paying attention? Are they falling asleep? Do they appear impatient? Are they at the edge of their seats? Are they running for the exits? All this will help me determine if any scenes were left running longer than they should or if some scenes were terminated prematurely.

It's unavoidable. Working on a movie will make me lose my perspective on the "big picture", and some parts will appear unevenly distributed when seen in front of an audience. A test screening is just right to polish off the rough spots.

A test screening is just like special effects. It's a tool that must be used within reason. If it's abused, the entire movie risks being ruined beyond any hope of salvation. But if you use restraint, the movie will come out looking much better than in the original cut.

 

[Chris Farmer]

It would have hurt that film yes, but the big films to get killed would have been LW 3 and 4.