Places on my Mind: Exploring Contextuality in Film in Between the Global and the Local

Abstract

Studying film contexts can inform us about places as experienced by viewers, raising questions of how films paint a sense of place. This paper considers these aspects in relation to the contexts of “place” depicted in films, how streets, quarters, landscapes and countries are portrayed and projected. Consequently, film is considered as a lens through which places can be studied. Furthermore, this study of places through film is situated in the context of global and local networks of influence on viewers. The way these places are “read” by different audiences is explored. The findings indicate that film viewers differ in their relation to the places depicted in films resulting in a variety of meanings attributed to (aspects of) these places and a variety of experiences. Furthermore, there is the hybrid nature that most “populations” have, and the need, consequently, in the study of places through film, to recognize the ambiguous circumstances that most cultural/sub-cultural “peoples” experience.

Introduction

Images of places abound in film. They are ubiquitous, and most often serve as a backdrop to the storyline. Thus, as a film viewer we go to these places “en passant”, virtually, in our minds, as we follow the plot. These places viewed in films leave an impression on the viewer, conscious or not, and this impression can live long after. Clearly there are many ways to study film and its relation to tourism, place and destinations. A growing body of work has been published on film as tourism generator. The impact of films on the destination (Beeton, 2005; Busby and Klug, 2001) as well as the relation with image formation (Busby and O'Neill, 2006, Hudson, Brent Ritchie, 2004; Kim and Richardson, 2003; Urry, 2002; Gunn, 1972) and their potential to promote destinations (O'Neill, Butts and Busby, 2005; Tooke and Baker, 1996; Riley and Van Doren, 1992) have been studied. Tourism promotion organizations and destination management organizations (DMO) are concerned with bringing the attention of their destination to potential tourists. Their efforts result in a range of promotion material, some quite beautiful and attractive, many though rather bland and flat.

The film maker or director, making a work of art, seems far more adept and successful at conveying a sense of place than many a destination marketer. The film viewer experiences atmosphere, people, music, colours, shades and silence. Films allow the viewer to experience a wealth of sensations that can be part of a destination. Drawing on the work of film theorist Giuliana Bruno, Law, Bunnell and Ong (2007, pp. 154-155) in their study on the film The Beach, suggest that film viewing itself may be understood as a form of tourism. Studying these film contexts could then inform us about places as experienced by viewers. Relevant questions, therefore, are: How do films paint this sense of place? How are contexts depicted in films? How are streets, quarters, landscapes and countries portrayed and projected? How do films create or represent these places, whether they exist in reality or not?

Film will thus be considered in this article, as a lens through which places can be studied. Furthermore, this study of places through film will be rooted in the context of global and local networks of influence on viewers (see Figure 1). The film Amelie (dir. Jeunet, 2001), for example, has triggered discussions between and among various audiences about the “Frenchness” of the film. Relating this to places, France, Paris, Montmartre, this article explores the way these places are “read” by different audiences. Which icons and characteristics are consciously or unconsciously recorded by the various audiences, and what meanings are attributed to them? How do these audiences combine local and global meanings? Our global world is a complex network society (Castells, 2000; Hannerz, 1993) in which various networks coexist, conflict or interact in diverse manners all over the world. Castells points to a new emergent social structure that has been developed within the contours of this complex global village. There are several centres and peripheries that are interconnected, there are nodes and hubs and dominant managerial, governmental, local and other elites. There are many, often subtle tensions between these diverse global, regional, national, virtual and local networks that influence the complexity of our cultural reality, as it has been theorized in the work of Hannerz (1993). Varying groups of ethnic, religious or other composition are scattered around the globe in various manners and often produce new perspectives. In cinema these new perspectives abound. Also on the viewer's side, this variety of perspectives is increasingly recognized.

Figure 1. Stakeholders involved in the “production” of places

Film viewers differ in their relation to the places depicted in films, resulting in a variety of meanings attributed to (aspects of) these places and a variety of experiences. Furthermore, there is the hybrid nature that most “populations” have (Bhabha, in Hollinshead, 1998). It is thus necessary in the study of places through film, to recognize the ambiguous circumstances that most cultural/sub-cultural “peoples” experience (Hollinshead, 1998, p.122).

In the first section film will be explored as a complex cultural product, and attention will be paid to the meaning and role of context. How can context be defined and how do its elements define the perceptions and representations of destinations? The question of how to study contexts in film will then be discussed, paying attention to the diversity of audiences as well as the artistic styles of various film makers. Implications for planning and development of destinations as well as areas for further research will be addressed in the conclusion.

In addition to a literature study on film, culture and tourism, preliminary research was done among NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences students to explore the interaction between student contexts and the contexts in films. In August 2007 class discussions were held with groups of second-year students of the international course (ITMC) on the film Amelie (dir. Jeunet, 2001), prior to which a short excerpt was shown. The class discussions first concentrated on whether the students would typify the film as French, then, the specific contextual elements of the excerpt which made students classify it as French or not were discussed. Students' own backgrounds were part of these discussions also, in the sense that they are considered a rich research base to study the hidden dimensions and the cultural dynamics of educational, business and professional contexts (Platenkamp, 2006). To complement this in-class experiment, the author scanned film reviews on the Internet, to search for comments on this aspect of “Frenchness”. In addition to this, a focus group was held in the Spring of 2007 with four Chinese (mainland) students on the film House of Flying Daggers (dir. Zhang Yimou, 2004). This focus group was organized to explore the question of “Chineseness”, and to what extent this film is appreciated by Chinese audiences as opposed to foreign or non-Chinese audiences.

Film as Complex Cultural Product and the Role of Context

Films are complex products, say Usunier and Lee (2005, p. 128), because they require a high level of interpretation and knowledge of the local context of the story in order for the film to be fully understood and enjoyed. Local and national film productions most often target local and national audiences; they are also primarily viewed or “consumed” by these audiences. Real global success, “blockbusting”, is reserved for a minority of films produced. Films thus tend to be “culture bound”, and therefore, in line with Usunier's argument, less prone to export and internationalization.

On the other hand, what can the “global” success of a portion of so-called Hollywood films teach us? Usunier brings forward the argument of low contextuality. Contrarily to the “local” films referred to earlier, Hollywood films contain less context, says Usunier. The characters are simplified, good struggles against evil and there is reliance on the universal appeal of violence, love and wealth. One could carefully make an analogy with Bollywood films, which also appeal to “global” audiences, yet arguably in a different manner. Kaur and Sinha state in their book on popular Indian cinema:

If Hollywood represents the homogenizing effect of American capitalism in global cultures, a study of Bollywood allows a unique opportunity to map the contrasting move of globalization in popular culture…One fundamental difference between Hollywood and Bollywood is that the former pushes world cultures towards homogenization, whereas the latter introduces in those cultures a fragmentary process.

(Kaur and Sinha, 2005, p. 15)

This refers to discussions yet to be held on the representation and reception by hybrid populations of films and places.

Usunier's argument of contextuality in films is situated in a broader discussion on the design of international marketing strategies. One strategic dilemma is to achieve low costs. Consequently companies look for economies of scale, namely in production and marketing and seek similarities between markets (Porter, 1986; Sheth, 2001; Sheth and Atul Parvatiyar, 2001; Keegan and Green, 2004). The more similarities in meanings conveyed to the product across cultures, the easier it is to standardize product policies. Thus marketers tend look for similarities. Usunier brings forward the argument that examining differences in consumer behaviour—looking with different eyes—provides a method of enquiry “which favours the discovery of significant differences in how consumers behave across cultures and offers insights into the way consumers invest meanings into their purchases” (2005, p.105).

This argument of contextuality deserves more attention. What is meant by local context? Antonia (Marleen Gorris, 1995), portrays post-war rural life in Flanders, Belgium. If the local context is defined geographically, then Usunier's argument says that primarily Belgian (Flemish) viewers will be familiar with the context—maybe also the Dutch and Walloons. But if we define the local context as being “rural life”, then the setting becomes familiar to a much wider audience. In many ways, as Geert Mak argues in his book How God left Friesland (2000), there are more similarities between a rural community in Friesland and a rural community in the Ukraine than between that rural community in Friesland and residents of Amsterdam or a part thereof.

Hall and Hall (1987) define context through analysis of culture as communication. Edward and Mildred Hall worked and researched in the field of intercultural communication for 30 years, selecting and training individuals working in foreign cultures and acting as consultants to international businesses. They specialized in identifying the non-verbal components of intercultural communication, the “unspoken signals and assumptions that flow from people's psychology and national character—and that are crucial to success in business” (p.7). The concept of context was identified by Hall and Hall as a key concept serving as a “code breaker” for the description of Japanese culture (business culture more specifically) to US businessmen intending to or already operating in Japan or with Japanese. These code breakers are a result of two years' in-depth study of Japanese business culture and are defined as “principal contrasting patterns that are at variance with US culture and have proved to be stumbling blocks on the road to understanding” (p. xi). Though Hall and Hall warn the readers that their book is for US business executives interacting with the Japanese, this concept of context, contrasting so called high-context cultures with low-context cultures, has proven very useful for a variety of foreign students (Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, various Latin American countries, China, Ghana, Cameroon, for example) studying international tourism at the NHTV University of Applied Sciences. Later indeed, the Halls used the contrasting pattern for other cultures as well, broadly situating Scandinavian, northern European (excluding UK) cultures together with the Americans of northern European origin at the lower scale of the context continuum. This continuum goes along the southern European cultures, the English and French, via Arab cultures, China, to Japan on the other end of the continuum. These cultures are more “high context cultures”, where most of the information flowing between people tends to be in and around the person rather that in the verbal or explicit message.

Context is the information that surrounds the event or message; it is inextricably bound up with the meaning of that event. (Hall and Hall, 1987, p.7). As the Halls do not define context precisely, Usunier advances the following components as being part of this context: location, people involved (age, sex, dress, social standing, etc.), and the context of the conversation itself (at the workplace, in a showroom, during a round of labour negotiations, during a sales visit) (Usunier and Lee, 2005, p. 375).

Depending on the culture, the context and the message are combined in different proportions. This leads to the next point: when two people are in a conversation, they each have an individual need for contextualizing, that is, the process of filling in background data. Many Americans, Hall illustrates, are low-context. In comparison with the Japanese, they tend to have less extensive, less well-developed informal information networks than their Japanese counterparts. Americans need detailed background information anytime they are asked to do something or to make a decision. Like the Germans, (and in my experience the Dutch), the Americans in this study approach life in a rather segmented way, they focus on discrete, compartmentalize bits of information (Hall and Hall, 1987). So typical “cultural incidents” between people from high context (HC) and low context (LC) cultures can be: a HC person can become irritated and impatient when a LC person insists on giving him information he already knows, or experiences as being redundant. Or, contrastingly, a LC person can feel mystified or lost when a HC person does not provide enough (explicit or verbal) information. Another typical misunderstanding in communication takes place when the HC person elaborates on issues not directly related to the task, or does not answer the question directly: the LC person experiences this as “beating around the bush”, hereby disregarding the often valuable contextual information provided. Both the HC and the LC person assume an appropriate level of contextualization. So the challenge is defined as finding the appropriate level.

Translating these thoughts to film, and representations of place, this question remains very useful in the process of understanding what elements (primarily non-verbal) are needed or contribute to conveying a sense of place, to which audience. Film directors and producers, being artists, arguably are high context people. This article then raises the question what are their secrets, their know-how, and their used subtleties to get this feeling across? What are the assumptions about places, about audiences, and how are they operationalized to convey the sense of place?

Approaching film as a consumption article may perhaps allow for a better understanding and unravelling of the way viewers combine local and global meanings. Usunier suggests examining whether a rich (or poor) cultural context surrounds the product (2005, p.126).

The context is thus implicit, but is an integral part of consumption (see Figure 2). It contributes to the attribution of meaning which the act of consumption entails (also see Beng-Huat, 2000 and Yoshimi, 2000). It incorporates and expresses cultural codes which can be considered crucial to the enjoyment or to the success of the act of consumption.

Figure 2. Contexts of consumption (adapted from Usunier, 2005)

Context and the way it is taken into account in the production and delivery to consumers will partly determine their global success. If this is true for film, could this also be true for tourism and destinations? Do tourists attach great importance to understanding the codes and local elements surrounding their experiences? And if so, which of these codes are understood, or not, and how does this vary across audiences or tourist groups?

Context is not only part of the act of consumption, it is also a shaper of thinking. Nisbett (2003), social psychologist at the University of Michigan, held the hypothesis that people from different cultures not only think about different things, they also think differently. Namely, Asian cultures view the world through a wider angle lens than their western counterparts. Experiments with his students of US and Japanese origin, showing and discussing an underwater scene, reveal the following results:

It appeared that the Japanese respondents mostly set the scene as a start (“there was a lake, a pond”). They made 70% more statements about the background and environment (the plants, rocks, other animals) of the underwater scene than their US counterparts. Moreover, the relationships between the animals and the inanimate objects (e.g. “the big fish swam past the grey seaweed”) were more often objects of descriptions, twice as much as the US respondents.

When the same fish was shown against another background, the Japanese had more difficulty recognizing it. This in part confirmed Nisbett's hypothesis that east Asians pay greater attention to context and relationships. It also corresponds with other studies (Peng and Knowles, 2003, cited in Nisbett and Masuda, 2003); Munro, 1985; cited in Nisbett and Masuda, 2003; Norenzayan et al., 1999 showing that easterners tend to think more holistically. They pay attention to the context and have a greater tolerance for ambiguity. In the same studies indications are provided that Westerners tend to detach the objects from their context more, and tend to avoid contradictions.

This study illustrates the point that culture, a context in which we grow up, is a shaper of thinking. It thereby determines not only what images we have, but also how we perceive them. Images in films, and destinations more specifically, will be viewed, just like the underwater scene in Nisbett's study. They will be viewed differently by different audiences, and in part this will be due to the viewers' backgrounds, their previous experiences, including their youth and childhood experiences.

During the focus group session with students from mainland China on Zang Yimou's film House of Flying Daggers (the original title being “Ambushed on Ten Sides”), there seemed to be agreement on the fact it was not a “Chinese” film. Yimou had made this for western audiences, it was a “typical Hollywood” film, respondents believed. In-depth interviewing on the reasoning behind this statement, and the characteristics of what would be a “real” Chinese film led to one particular point: Kung Fu. Kung Fu stories belong to a tradition of stories and storytelling, with specific meaning and importance for today's Chinese youth. And House of Flying Daggers adapted these Kung Fu codes too much to westerners for the liking of these Chinese respondents. This example shows the importance of youth and childhood experiences in the creation of expectations regarding contexts in film.

Youth and childhood images can be persistent, and transmitted from generation to generation. Edward Saïd, famous for his critical analysis of western representations of the Orient in literature and music, shows in his book Orientalism (2003) how these images were created by colonial authorities and artists, and consequently “distributed” among several generations of Europeans who had never encountered these “Orientals” themselves. Saïd's work is only slowly becoming part of the canon of tourism studies, possibly due to the fact that his “Orientalism” is a “slow” message (Hall and Hall, 1987), one that needs time, study and adequate frequency to decipher, to fully understand.

Only a few scholars in tourism, (Selwyn, 1996; Morgan and Pritchard, 1998; Bryce, 2007; Santos and Buzinde, 2007) remind us of the important message that representations—in Saïd's work, of the “Oriental”—are merely inventions, and should be seen as such.

The image of the “passive Orientals, not able to represent themselves” (Saïd, 2003) can still be found on a large scale in tourist brochures, guide books and TV travel programmes. These images have been created in western literature, and transmitted through generations. Their impact on representations of place, and on the expectations and experiences of sense of place, whether in film or on holiday deserves looking into and warrants more extensive research. It is contended here that Saïd's thoughts and theses deserve far more attention in the study of tourism, and in the process of understanding representations of place and people.

“Perhaps the most important task of all would be to undertake studies in contemporary alternatives to Orientalism, to ask how one can study other cultures and peoples from a libertarian, or a non-repressive and non-manipulative, perspective” says Saïd (2003, p.24), moving beyond Orientalism. In a hybrid cultural context many voices create a chaotic discourse on places. In a non-manipulative dialogue, these voices need to be heard in a structured way. James Clifford (1986) suggests the concept of polyphonic dialogue as a way to structure this chaos. Only by stimulating voices of all stakeholders (film directors, variety of film viewers, current visitors) to participate in the dialogue can this manipulative aspect be tackled.

Films, like life, like conversations, contain meaningful contexts. These contexts are thought to be a rich source for the study of representations of place. Ways of seeing and thinking about tourism destinations can be uncovered by researching the way films are viewed and interpreted. Much can be learned in this respect, by studying the way producers and directors choose to paint a sense of place. Simultaneously, viewers' experiences and interpretations of this sense of place will complement our insights.

Studying Contexts in Film

The complexity of films in this sense makes them a worthwhile source to study contexts, and more specifically, for the purpose of this article, the representation of places and destinations. Films are also cultural products, reflecting assumptions and shared meanings attributed to objects, places and experiences. The length of the film, a “slow” message (Hall and Hall, 1987) as opposed to an advertisement, for example, provides the opportunity to penetrate the context in an intensive, incisive manner. We can then study a cultural context, situated in familiar or exotic places, interpreted by a director, a producer, a script writer, with their own assumptions regarding place. This cultural context is also interpreted by the film viewer. Looking at these representations, as well as their interpretations, can possibly reveal codes. Codes are tacit assumptions and stereotypes of viewers, different viewers, but also of the makers of places in films. Perhaps the most important discovery in this process is that of our own taken-for-granted world views and assumptions. These are so embedded that they take outsiders to detect them. And in the end, even if we do not understand why, we begin to realize that what looks strange to us can make perfect sense to others; we then reach a deeper level of cultural affinity.

If we pursue this path, then a number of new questions arise: How to study contexts in films, how to uncover the (cultural) codes? How are places “constructed” in these contexts? What stereotypes of places are used? Which ones are understood and appreciated, and by which audiences? Why or why not?

It becomes increasingly clear that a cross-cultural dimension complicates our understanding process. Understanding each other's implicit and tacit assumptions is not self-evident between two people sharing a culture or sub-culture. But it becomes even less self-evident when one involves more than one culture. This aspect makes the study of film all the more relevant for understanding tourism, in the sense that films are produced and consumed by culturally diverse people. Platenkamp (2006) introduces the hermeneutical approach in his study on the cross-cultural contribution to the production of knowledge. This hermeneutical approach would allow us to approach the hidden assumptions from “different parties involved…and to reveal them as ‘biases’ that structure in advance” (p. 55). Again, in a hybrid context this seems to be a relevant strategy. The intentions of the film maker co-exist with the subsequent interpretations of the various audiences who in turn can co-exist or confront one another. These “confrontations” possibly lead to new, more hybrid interpretations, combining global and local meanings with even more complexity.

Within this framework a perspective-based approach is proposed to generate the information we are looking for on places and representations, part of which is coded and tacit. The perspective approach recognizes the subjectivity of all “stakeholders” involved in film, and thereby the “production” of places. Each of these perspectives, from director, to producer, to the diverse film viewers—also as current and potential visitors of places—provides a “hermeneutical source of rich information” (p. 56). Figure 1 situates the places in film at the centre and recognizes differences in place making between different audiences. Potential visitors to the places can partly be found in the various film audiences. Law, Bunnell and Ong (2007) illustrate in their study that tourist practices extend beyond the western film viewer or would-be tourist to include, for example, Thai environmental activists, Japanese Di Caprio fans and researchers such as ourselves. The dynamic relation between film audiences and potential tourists thus deserves more ample continuous attention.

International tourism behaviour shows consumers who combine local and global meanings. Likewise, this search for optimal combination is recognized in film viewing behaviour. Tourists show ambivalence in their desired experiences and in their expectations. They seek a balance between exoticism and familiarity. Like a film viewer, a tourist can handle only so much exoticism, and at the same time, is pleased or comforted by elements of familiarity, elements they know and recognize. In a tourism context one could question whether Plog's allocentrics (now replaced by venturers, Plog, 2001) prefer more exoticism and are less put off by the unknown? The psychocentrics (or dependables, Plog, 2001) are happy with many familiar elements in the destination with only a hint of foreign. Taking this one step further we would then wonder: What are these “familiar” or “exotic” elements of places? How are they interpreted? How do these interpretations change over time, and how do they differ across the various tourist segments?

This leads to the hypothesis that studying films, and the reactions of their viewers, can inform us about experienced and desired levels and proportions of familiarity and exoticism.

The French film Amelie (original title: Le fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain, directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2001) generated a great variety of reactions, both in and outside France (author's Internet film review scan, 2007/2008, class discussions 2007). It was an unexpected success, particularly outside France. Let us carefully advance the thesis that this international success makes it a more “global”, possibly more “low-context” film. For a foreign audience (arguably less familiar with France than the domestic “French” audience) to appreciate the film, the very French context must not be too subtle or unknown.

Film viewers' perspectives (see Figure 3) refer to an “exotic” or French element. In addition to recognizing it, they most often appreciate it. This appreciation (or dislike) is connected to its “Frenchness” it seems, while recognizing simulacra.

Figure 3. Amelie film viewers' perspectives on (aspects of) its “Frenchness”

At the same time, reviewers refer to something “familiar” to them. The US sweet tooth may imply the seemingly general appreciation for this genre or style. In the case of the Dutch blogger, he identifies with the “non-American” style of the film, even though the “feel good” genre can just as well be associated with “American” in some cases. Figure 3

The class discussions with ITMC students (August 2007), having a variety of backgrounds (Finland, Germany, Nepal, Netherlands, Latvia, Spain, and, quite a few “hybrids” with overlapping backgrounds) show a clear tendency to typify the film as French. Besides the language—an obvious, explicit aspect—other aspects mentioned to support their contention were “typical French atmosphere”, “art”, “the old man painting” and “painters”, “the look of Amelie”, “the lifestyle of actors”. Very few students would not typify it as a French film. These students had not seen the film previous to the discussion.

Moving to another “category” of perspectives—the French film viewer, things seem to become more complex. First it is important here to emphasize that there is not one French film viewer, but there are different “spokesmen” of the French film market. One part of the French audience simply enjoyed the film. Another part, though, rejected it. Just as a segment of the Chinese audience (focus group discussion NHTV Masters students, Spring 2007) rejected Zhang Yimou's House of Flying Daggers. The former judged the film as “non-French”, the latter “non-Chinese”. In both cases references were made in the criticisms to “American” or “Hollywood” films.

The director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, yet another stakeholder in the creation of Paris said (in interview with Weber, 2001):

I wanted to make a fake Paris, a very nice Paris, like in my head when I was twenty and I arrived in Paris for the first time. I wanted to avoid the bad things: traffic jams, dog shit on the street, the rain.

Jeunet hereby shows us his connection to Paris through time, an interesting case of a Frenchman unfamiliar with Paris when he was twenty. He also reveals his wish to represent a very personal place.

Film reviewer Haydn Smith (2001) writes about Jeunet and Amelie as:

his re-envisioning of contemporary Paris. Creating the fantastical out of the everyday, Jeunet paints a seductive image of Montmartre. A contrast to the lurid images created by Baz Luhrmann for his overblown, underwritten Moulin Rouge (2001), Amélie's strength lies in the transformation of what could have been a confection into an account of loneliness; the tiniest details building up a portrait of life in a bustling metropolis.

Screen writing student Wood (2007) also analyses Jeunet's choices—also expressing dislike— thereby informing us more about Jeunet's creation of a sense of place:

The choice of “old” Paris as background is a guarantee of charm. However, the film's setting, apparently making use of eighty separate locations, is so vetted and filtered that the manufactured Paris-scape resembles little more than a sustained advertisement for a traditional French product.

With Amelie, Jeunet clearly contributed to the production of France, Paris and Montmartre for foreign film audiences, some of which have turned into tourists. Amelie is now part of the identity of Montmartre and the Café des deux Moulins a tourist attraction. So much that actress Jodie Foster was asked by two Japanese tourists to step aside so they could get a better view and picture of the front (Buchet, 2004). Amelie contains—for some audiences—familiar “French” elements. These elements are in the context, sometimes subtle, yet play a key role in conveying a sense of place.

Departing from the oversimplified distinction between “global” films—films seen and appreciated by geographical markets other than the one(s) of the producers/directors of the film—and the “local” films, those only appreciated in the home market, the need is felt to identify at least one category in between. In this globalizing world we see an increasing group of films which are either produced by “trans-nationals” or cultural “hybrids” (Hollinshead, 1998), and/or viewed by them. Gegen die Wand (dir. Fatih Akir, 2004) or Le Grand Voyage (dir. Ismaël Ferroukhi, 2004) are examples of such films, where the makers of respectively Turkish and Moroccan origin, portray issues relevant to “their” lifeworlds: life as a migrant, or living in an Islamic culture with western influences and how this affects generation conflicts.

A very specific and very relevant category here is that of “classic” Bollywood films. They are generally a success in the Arab world, as well as with the migrant communities from Arab and Maghreb countries living in Europe. The majority of western audiences however tend to find Bollywood films too sweet and sentimental. Then what explains the success of Lagaan (dir. Ashutosh Gowarikar, 2001). This film, lasting nearly four hours and containing many sweet and sentimental songs and scenes, appealed to a much broader audience than other Bollywood films. Was it the recognition of the context of the colonial period, for the British and their European neighbours? Was it the “global” popularity of the game of cricket which made it understandable for the “new” western audiences? Was it a global sympathy for the underdog (Indian, colonized people) and feelings of guilt among western audiences for their past behaviour?

Conclusion

This article uses film as a medium to raise questions regarding the representation and interpretations of places. At first, the concept of contextuality was clarified using Usunier and Hall and Hall, and was illustrated with examples and discussion on the relation between “film” and “place”. Hermeneutics and the “changing perspectives” approach provided a framework. This led to a discussion on aspects of familiarity and exoticism relevant by analogy to the study of tourism, destinations and tourism behaviour.

Furthermore, the context of a globalizing world, in which different and hybrid audiences on one hand, and the internationalizing producers and directors on the other, was introduced in the discussion on representation and construction of places. Recognizing the hybrid audiences in that tension between the global and the local makes the interpretation process of contexts all the more difficult but also necessary in order to grasp the complexity and dynamism of tourism destinations and places. An implication for planning and development of destinations, particularly for its strategic marketing dimension, is the need for more attention for this complexity and hybridity of tourism experiences and how they are related—through potential visitors' attribution of meaning—to various (aspects of) these places.

Particular attention was paid in this article to the ways interpretations come into being and are related to places. In these explorations, the films Amelie and House of Flying Daggers gave way to discussions on “Frenchness” and “Chineseness” which are interesting starting points for further research: how are places represented, constructed or modified in film? What elements of context are used and how are they understood, or not, by the variety of audiences? An important area of research will certainly be the search for meaning through a transnational lens. There is a growing group of “globals” “cosmopolitans”, diasporas, migrant communities and ethnic groups. These cultural hybrids are very familiar with more than one cultural context and offer potential for a deeper understanding of the contexts in interaction.