Stalking the Audience

One of the main knocks against pop culture from the point of view of intellectuals is that it doesn’t respect the audience – giving them sentimental and/or predictable fare at every turn. And by ‘the audience’ intellectuals mean themselves. On another tack, intellectuals accuse pop culture of brainwashing the audience (and this time they mean everyone but themselves) – of being a dangerous force of oppression. It’s hard to square those two criticisms most times – that pop culture is both inept and deviously skillful.

Many intellectuals don’t have a good handle on what will be popular and why. Just witness this past weekend’s resounding box office for The DaVinci Code - a film many critics had panned, along with the highly successful book. Fans don’t care. There is something appealing about the book, or, more accurately, the book has numerous appeals to a vast cross-section of different audiences. I saw it, for example, because I love a good conspiracy theory. The fact that I first heard this theory in the very early 90’s doesn’t change that appeal. Sometimes these theories take some time to filter down to a broader audience. In this case, Dan Brown and his book were the last stage of the process.

Critics in many cases just simply missed the possible appeal of the film. But this doesn’t mean the film industry is filled with cultural geniuses. Just look at the number of bombs and disappointments from earlier this year and all of last year. They really can’t predict for sure what will work. That is exactly why, as we all know, they resort to sequels to successful films and to film versions of semi-successful TV shows. And it’s why studios hedge their bets and occasionally make an oddball film with an independent feel because they know that sometimes one of these can take off.

The unpredictability of the audience has to make you wonder. After all these decades of research by sociologists and psychologists, entertainers of all types are still unsure just how to attract a good-sized audience. Of course, you’re guaranteed to do it if you have a winning hockey team currently battling in the Stanley Cup semi-finals. The screaming and the car horns outside my window every now and again these last couple of weeks is very loud proof that you can get people out if you can make them feel 1.) Like they’re included and 2.) That they’re winners.

An audience like this is often a reminder to me of why I write poetry. Hardly anyone gets stabbed in a riot at my poetry readings. I nonetheless envy the purity of the response that a sports event or a concert can get from people… and of course the incredible numbers involved. I suspect that the closer an event comes to being pure ritual, the broader the interest in it. People call it the lowest common denominator, but I think it’s more accurate to call it the widest possible net.

I’m not so different from those critics and corporate types I mention above. I’d like to write things that attract large numbers of enthusiasts. But I’m not the type of poet that can do that because I’m usually trying to criticize or undermine my culture’s rituals in my work. In this, I’m not so different from many other poets who have too many questions and doubts about normal everyday cultural assumptions. That doesn’t mean I’m not in awe of any work that can move so many people at one time. What we have to recognize is that the work that can do that might be anything from a conspiracy-laden cotemporary thriller to DaVinci’s Mona Lisa. We can’t predict what will strike a chord any more than we can determine just what was making Mona Lisa smile.