Direct Audience Research: MUBI Aside from the questionnaire I conducted to physically, I also investigated a possible target audience

in a smaller niche audience of film lovers, who tend to see film as a serious of study as is art and literature as well as a form of entertainment. This audience are generally more open to independent cinema than a mainstream audience are and although my questionnaires did suggest that there was some kind of possible secondary audience for social realism in a mainstream audience, they generally appeared to refute independent cinema. The media website I used was MUBI, which is a thriving serious film website. Their forum generally spans a wide amount of cinema: the mainstream cinema oscar films, acclaimed classics and contemporary independent films, known as 'Art House'. This forum, I thought, would be an apt place to start a topic regarding Social Realism. I asked the question to the viewers: With European films released in the 2000s such as Lilya-4-Eva and Fish tank and American gems such as Winters Bone and Half Nelson: is it safe to say that Social Realism Is undergoing a revival? These films cover a wide span of social realism, therefore likening the chance of gaining an opinion on these films and their relation to Social Realism. The response I gained from users was rather sparse, yet also proved to be my most useful mode of research. The first response I received to this question remarked that Social Realism never went away, which is to some extent is true. Through this first response, it was evident that this person was both aware and able to asses to some extent the genre Social Realism. The second response I gained was particularly interesting from the perspective of gaining an audience. This response agreed to an extent with claim, though challenged the films that I had used as an example, doubting whether or not they t fit all definitions of Social Realism. The responder clearly has a rather wide knowledge of Social Realism, able to once again asses the genre and the examples I have used and challenge them as being the genre which I have labeled them. It is also clear that they have watched the bulk of these films and are interested in the genre. This answer is particularly useful as the response I gained was a clear indication that I could establish this kind of person as being a primary audience. Because of the response I initially gained form this user, I decided to challenge their view in return in order for them to assert their argument further and gaining more detail. I said that although films used as an example could be considered to some degree hybrids (specifically in the context of Winters Bone), each generally display conventions that clearly exhibit the realist tradition, therefore would appropriately be called Social Realism films. The response received from this comment provoked another response from the poster, who explained why Arnold's film Fish Tank should not be called Social Realism. He quotes from Wikipedia regarding Arnold's intention as a film maker: "Since childhood, Arnold has been interested in human psychology and the human

experience. She says, I am obsessed with why people turn out the way they are."
This differs from Social Realist texts as they bare an 'objective distancing' from their characters' psychology. His conclusion is that although these films at first may appear to be similar, in intentional practice they are stark opposites. This comment once again displays a complete understanding of Social Realism and its definitions. The poster has an acute sense of what constitutes a true social realism film and is able to argue that a film does not fit these

requirements. One thus assumes that the poster has an viewed these films and is interested in them. It also could suggest that these kind of people are a possible target audience, as it is clear that these people not only consume social realist products but also are avid watchers of film (explaining why they are drawn to an post about social realism on a movie website). This comment is perhaps my most useful due to how this comment presents itself and the information it gives me regarding the type of audience this is and whether or not they could fit my primary audience. I received two more posts on my question, both of which were responses regarding the nature of genre. The first one argued the point of the different sub-genres in that of realism. He references an American journalist who states movements in American Cinema such as 'neo-neorealism',

the consequences of this are that Realism covers such a wide spectrum of cinema to say that one film could be considered 'Social' realism. This comment expands on the last comment and is expands the argument that this audience is the most useful in terms of being a 'primary' audience. Whether or not they consider my product to be 'social realism' or
not is irrelevant, it still suggests that they consume products around that genre. One weakness of this answer would be the focus on American cinema, which executes Social Realism in a completely different way to Britain (my focus). The next comment is more or less a ridicule of the last, asking if 'retro neoretrorealism' is next. I do not find this comment particularly useful, as its purpose is unapparent.

In conclusion, from the answers I have received on MUBI I can ascertain that the research is
generally the most useful of those which I have received thus far. The audience has been more frequently established as those who would like to view films from this genre. The responses I gained were sophisticated, demonstrating the writer's knowledge of the genre of Social Realism to a greater extent than my questionnaire. The opinions expressed regarding social realism are of greater quality than websites such as IMDB with the phrases such as 'artsy fartsy' and 'overrated and boring', being used to describe social realism films by critics.

EVIDENCE: