Is enjoyment of a film improved with local knowledge?

I only ask because one of my favourite films is "Brighton Rock". I am sure it could be enjoyed with no knowledge of what the seaside town was like at the time(and to a degree still is)..but does affinity with the town and its associations improve the film?(and of course the novel).

 

I'm not sure. I can find it distracting if it's your home town, especially if they travel about and it doesn't make sense geographically.

I love the original Brighton Rock, and the book is a favourite. It's so well written it creates the world and I don't feel I need to have been there. Maybe a knowledge of British seaside towns, with the tea shops and cafes, is enough.

So probably there are pros and cons really.

 

I’m going to go with yes. Partly because I love seeing vintage footage of my hometown, Manchester.

@Jim B. makes a good point about nonsensical geography, but it doesn’t matter much to me at the end of the day, as long as it works in the context of the film. Case in point: we visited many of the Venice locations for Nicolas Roeg’s Don’t Look Now, some of which don’t follow each other logically, but seeing how Roeg fit them together was fascinating.

 

I'd say it is. Especially if it is filmed in major cities, like L.A. and N.Y.C.

 

Having lived in Los Angels for 40 years I always enjoy seeing iconic places that I've been to in movies. The LA "river", the 6th st bridge (RIP), the Shakespeare Bridge, the Colorado Street Bridge, Bronson Caves, etc. Although it really kills the mood if an actor walks into a place you know and is transported to a completely different set.

 

Yes and no. Sometimes the "country of the imagination" wins for fictional settings (even for places set in the real world). Sometimes it's more a distraction than an aid to immersing oneself in the film's milieu, particularly as someone noted above, if you're familiar with the area and it breaks the fictional immersion when it's not true to a place you know firsthand.

 

Interesting discussion.

I can see how it could work both ways.

Overall, I think location shooting make for a more interesting film, generally speaking.

I think there are more positives than there are drawbacks.

Even so, realizing that it is a "movie", I can take the actual location out of it's real world context and enjoy how it is used as a location shot within the context of a movie.

 

I enjoyed Clerks more because it was set in an area I was familiar with, back when I lived in NJ (and populated by people who I recognized).

 

I'm from Brighton originally and grew up there but I don't think it enhances my appreciation of Brighton Rock - which was written of a time before mine and of a world which most didn't get to experience anyway.

 

I lived in Newcastle for a while, so I enjoy the scenes in Get Carter. Unfortunately, there are some locations that don't really make sense plotwise, although it doesn't spoil the enjoyment of the film.

 

I think it is distracting when a scene lack continuity for example when an actor walks into an alley and then walk out in a completely different part of town. This happens quite often. Such mistakes take me out of the movie briefly.

 

Always check IMDb for locations regarding a film ( only good thing about IMDb now imo) especially if it’s cities I’ve visited.