Should destinations replicate or maintain film icons, sites, scenes and sets after a film is released?
Author: Helen Spiteri
0 Commentries
Abstract:
This paper discusses the arguments for and against replicating or maintaining sites/sights seen on in films, discussing potential positives and negatives of doing so. Authenticity issues are raised in terms of both the destination and the tourist.
Keywords:
Film induced tourism, replica sites, authenticity, icons
Discussion Paper:
Should destinations replicate or maintain film icons, sites, scenes and sets after a film is released?
Increasingly, films are being credited as a motivator for tourist choice, a trend Beeton (2005) identifies as 'film induced' tourism. Riley et al (1998, in Roesch, 2009, p.7) stated that "film tourism develops when people are seeking sights/ sites seen on the silver screen". Macionis (2004) further classified the types of film tourist- the 'specific film tourist' actively seeks out places they have seen in a film (though these are relatively few); the 'general film tourist' participates in film tourism activities while at a destination but is not specifically drawn to a films locations and the 'serendipitous film tourist' only happens to be in a location shown in a film. Hudson and Ritchie (2006) suggest that if destinations replicate or maintain icons, sites, scenes and sets, this will sustain the authenticity most tourists expect. It is relevant therefore to discuss the argument for and against doing this, in terms of the host destination and the tourist.
While studies into film induced tourism have highlighted the benefits it can bring, particularly economical, Beeton (2005) and Croy (2010) discuss that there is the potential for negative impacts resulting from film tourism, for example, a reliance on the potential short term tourism boost stimulated from films. Indeed, Beeton (2005) states that some destinations may even see a decrease in visitors as other traditional tourists are put off by the new film tourists attracted to replica sites.
Any replication should be considered within the context of the location. Before the release of The Da Vinci Code in 2003, Rosslyn Chapel (featured in the film) had 10,000 annual visitors. In 2006, this number had increased to 170, 000 (Knudsen and Waade, 2010). The chapel could not accommodate such large numbers and had to implement demarketing techniques, including downplaying the fictional aspects associated with the film. It would therefore be to the detriment of the location to have a large cardboard cut out of Tom Hanks for visitors to pose with in the middle of the chapel for example. To some extent this would devalue the location in terms of its authenticity. Indeed, it can be argued that it becomes the responsibility of the destination to portray the 'real' place/image and not simply replicate what has been shown on screen. Iwashita (2006) suggests that this may simply make the destination a stereotype of what it really is and Macionis (2004) and Croy (2010) state that it may become difficult for visitors to separate the authentic from the image they have formed from film.
Riley et al (1998) suggested that within films, certain images may be particularly captivating to the audience, in essence becoming an icon that the viewer will attach to the location shown. If destinations choose to acknowledge, maintain or indeed, create these icons and use them as stages for film tourists, the potential is there for access to a unique 'free' marketing tool. Roesch (2009, p.109) concluded that film tourists have a "longing to connect with the imaginary world through visiting the real places, which, in turn, serve as the symbolic link between the real and the imaginary". Alongside this, Eco (1987) discussed the 'liminal experiences' of tourists, where tourists behave in a different manner away from the norm. The opportunity to dress up as characters from films and recreate scenes may allow for social barriers to be broken down and tourists could interact with like minded people without fear of rejection.
Beeton (2005) suggests that a negative film may result in negative impacts at the destination (such as criminal activities). The town sign for Burkitsville, Maryland was repeatedly stolen after the town was portrayed in The Blair Witch Project (Washington Post, 1999). Films with a negative content may not be appropriate to promote at the destination and the relevant stakeholders may not want to acknowledge the connection and provide areas for film tourists. It is difficult to predict however how an audience is going to react to the film and what may motivate them to travel.
It is therefore possible to conclude that the issue of whether destinations should replicate or maintain icons, sites, scenes or sets is dependent upon a number of factors, mainly the type of tourist, film and the character and type of location, although, like most tourism activities, it is difficult to generalise. Tourism is a very individual experience and what one film tourist may want may be in stark contrast to what is wanted by the host community. Destinations will have different characteristics that will attract different types of tourists and while films may provide the justification for new opportunities, there needs to be a careful balance of management and awareness of the possibility of a short term tourism boost and film tourists providing a small niche market. What some may see as a cheap novelty replica, others may see as a form of escapism, a chance to boast to their peers on their return. Overall, however, the replication and maintenance of film sets, sites, scenes and icons allows for the intangible image created from films to become to some extent tangible and if this is done with consideration given to the relevant qualities discussed (film type, location type, tourist type for example), then it can certainly be beneficial.
References:
Beeton, S. (2005) Film Induced Tourism, Channel View Publications: Clevedon
Hudson, S. and Ritchie, J.R (2006) Promoting Destinations via Film Tourism: An Empirical Identification of Supporting Marketing Initiatives. Journal of Travel Research, volume 44, pp.387-396
Roesch, S. (2009) The Experiences of Film Location Tourists, Channel View Publications: Bristol
This paper discusses the arguments for and against replicating or maintaining sites/sights seen on in films, discussing potential positives and negatives of doing so. Authenticity issues are raised in terms of both the destination and the tourist.
Keywords:
Film induced tourism, replica sites, authenticity, icons
Discussion Paper:
Should destinations replicate or maintain film icons, sites, scenes and sets after a film is released?
Increasingly, films are being credited as a motivator for tourist choice, a trend Beeton (2005) identifies as 'film induced' tourism. Riley et al (1998, in Roesch, 2009, p.7) stated that "film tourism develops when people are seeking sights/ sites seen on the silver screen". Macionis (2004) further classified the types of film tourist- the 'specific film tourist' actively seeks out places they have seen in a film (though these are relatively few); the 'general film tourist' participates in film tourism activities while at a destination but is not specifically drawn to a films locations and the 'serendipitous film tourist' only happens to be in a location shown in a film. Hudson and Ritchie (2006) suggest that if destinations replicate or maintain icons, sites, scenes and sets, this will sustain the authenticity most tourists expect. It is relevant therefore to discuss the argument for and against doing this, in terms of the host destination and the tourist.
While studies into film induced tourism have highlighted the benefits it can bring, particularly economical, Beeton (2005) and Croy (2010) discuss that there is the potential for negative impacts resulting from film tourism, for example, a reliance on the potential short term tourism boost stimulated from films. Indeed, Beeton (2005) states that some destinations may even see a decrease in visitors as other traditional tourists are put off by the new film tourists attracted to replica sites.
Any replication should be considered within the context of the location. Before the release of The Da Vinci Code in 2003, Rosslyn Chapel (featured in the film) had 10,000 annual visitors. In 2006, this number had increased to 170, 000 (Knudsen and Waade, 2010). The chapel could not accommodate such large numbers and had to implement demarketing techniques, including downplaying the fictional aspects associated with the film. It would therefore be to the detriment of the location to have a large cardboard cut out of Tom Hanks for visitors to pose with in the middle of the chapel for example. To some extent this would devalue the location in terms of its authenticity. Indeed, it can be argued that it becomes the responsibility of the destination to portray the 'real' place/image and not simply replicate what has been shown on screen. Iwashita (2006) suggests that this may simply make the destination a stereotype of what it really is and Macionis (2004) and Croy (2010) state that it may become difficult for visitors to separate the authentic from the image they have formed from film.
Riley et al (1998) suggested that within films, certain images may be particularly captivating to the audience, in essence becoming an icon that the viewer will attach to the location shown. If destinations choose to acknowledge, maintain or indeed, create these icons and use them as stages for film tourists, the potential is there for access to a unique 'free' marketing tool. Roesch (2009, p.109) concluded that film tourists have a "longing to connect with the imaginary world through visiting the real places, which, in turn, serve as the symbolic link between the real and the imaginary". Alongside this, Eco (1987) discussed the 'liminal experiences' of tourists, where tourists behave in a different manner away from the norm. The opportunity to dress up as characters from films and recreate scenes may allow for social barriers to be broken down and tourists could interact with like minded people without fear of rejection.
Beeton (2005) suggests that a negative film may result in negative impacts at the destination (such as criminal activities). The town sign for Burkitsville, Maryland was repeatedly stolen after the town was portrayed in The Blair Witch Project (Washington Post, 1999). Films with a negative content may not be appropriate to promote at the destination and the relevant stakeholders may not want to acknowledge the connection and provide areas for film tourists. It is difficult to predict however how an audience is going to react to the film and what may motivate them to travel.
It is therefore possible to conclude that the issue of whether destinations should replicate or maintain icons, sites, scenes or sets is dependent upon a number of factors, mainly the type of tourist, film and the character and type of location, although, like most tourism activities, it is difficult to generalise. Tourism is a very individual experience and what one film tourist may want may be in stark contrast to what is wanted by the host community. Destinations will have different characteristics that will attract different types of tourists and while films may provide the justification for new opportunities, there needs to be a careful balance of management and awareness of the possibility of a short term tourism boost and film tourists providing a small niche market. What some may see as a cheap novelty replica, others may see as a form of escapism, a chance to boast to their peers on their return. Overall, however, the replication and maintenance of film sets, sites, scenes and icons allows for the intangible image created from films to become to some extent tangible and if this is done with consideration given to the relevant qualities discussed (film type, location type, tourist type for example), then it can certainly be beneficial.
References:
Beeton, S. (2005) Film Induced Tourism, Channel View Publications: Clevedon
Hudson, S. and Ritchie, J.R (2006) Promoting Destinations via Film Tourism: An Empirical Identification of Supporting Marketing Initiatives. Journal of Travel Research, volume 44, pp.387-396
Roesch, S. (2009) The Experiences of Film Location Tourists, Channel View Publications: Bristol