The experience of cinema-going has changed dramatically over the past century

The film-industry has changed dramatically since its birth over a century ago. With these changes have also come great changes in the cinema-going experience. In the MAS205 unit reader for 2005, a number of the readings aim to address many aspects of the experience of cinema-going. Included in the unit reader are pieces by Barthes, Carriere, Sontag, Moore and Lowenstein. Each of these writers has varying feelings to cinema-going over the past century and this essay will aim to address these different aspects.

Roland Barthes’ in his article ‘Leaving the Movie Theatre’ provides us with an interesting way of looking at cinema-going. He paints a picture at the start of his article about moviegoers always leaving the cinema in a hypnotic state, describing the moviegoer is “a little dazed, wrapped up in himself…sleepy…and he feels a little disjointed.” (Barthes, R. 1986) These traits are common to moviegoers as they leave the cinema. My previous opinion on these traits was that since you have been sitting down for the past two to three hours, you must be tired. However, Barthes argues that when we enter the cinema, a “dim, anonymous, indifferent cube where that festival of affects known as a film will be presented”, we are entering into the state of mind that we want to become a spectator and, in a sense, be hypnotized. We experience an “absence of worldliness”, a “relaxation of postures” and an “inoccupation of bodies.” (Barthes, R. 1986)

The primary focus once we enter the cinema is the screen and this is what hypnotizes us. Barthes provides an interesting anecdote in which he describes the screen as “a long stem of light [that] outline[s] a keyhole.” (Barthes, R. 1986) Human beings are naturally voyeuristic and have a fascination with staring into the lives of others. While what’s happening on screen may be fictional, we are staring through this keyhole into the private lives of others; and we are “glued” to it (Barthes, R. 1986). Barthes goes further to describe this fascination as animalistic, and comments that “I [Barthes] fling myself upon it [the screen] like an animal upon the scrap of lifelike rag held out to him.” (Barthes, R. 1986) Although the article may appear to condone cinema-going for its hypnotic affect it has on us, this experience helps us escape reality for a brief moment and absorb the film as if it’s reality.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

Jean-Claude Carriere’s introduction to his book The Secret Language of Film, discusses whether we can ever truly ‘see’ a film. Carriere makes the comment that when we see movies, “we see [movies] imperfectly.” (Carriere, JC. 1994) The most obvious reason for this is Barthes’ theory that we have entered a hypnotic state and therefore our mind may be elsewhere at a crucial moment of the film. However there are lots of other reasons why viewers may see a film “imperfectly” (Carriere, JC. 1994). For example, we may already have preconceived notions about an actor/actress in the film due to another film they appeared in or a secret scandal that’s in the tabloids that will change how we read the character. Another example may be if we see a film that depicts a certain historical event. If someone with historical knowledge of the event saw the film and noticed an inconsistency with the real event, they may view the rest of the film negatively. It can be seen that our cinema-going experiences can be affected by our previous experiences and knowledge.

Another interesting point raised by Carriere was that all moviegoers will experience a movie at the same pace. Carriere mentions that when we visit museums, we choose how quickly we wish to move between exhibits and that some people believe you should never linger so that a “fresh and powerful impression” never gives way to “cold analysis.” (Carriere, JC. 1994) Similarly, we can choose to read an entire book in one sitting, or we can spread it out over a series of weeks. This is not the case for moviegoers. Unless you choose to leave the cinema early, or you come back to see the movie a second time, each and every audience member in the cinema is forced to see the movie at the same pace and from beginning to end.

Sontag’s article ‘A Century of Cinema’ describes cinemas cycle over the past hundred years as moving from glorious to dull and is an overall criticism of the industry now. She rightly points out that films nowadays have to really do something special, namely violate “the norms and practices which now govern movie-making everywhere in the capitalist and would-be capitalist world” in order for us to “admire” them (Sontag, S. 1997). Cinema has moved in a more commercial direction, concentrating on quantity, not quality, rather than remaining purely an art form. What this means for cinema today is that a movie is less likely to stand the test of time and leave a lasting impression in our mind because all they are good for now is their entertainment value.

Another point raised by Sontag was that cinema in its’ early days had a unique ability to ‘kidnap’ its’ audience. She felt that “seated in the dark among anonymous strangers…you learned how to walk, to smoke, to kiss, to fight, to grieve” as well as “losing yourself in faces, in lives that were not yours.” (Sontag, S. 1997) This, contrary to what Sontag argues, is still applicable today. There are many audience members, today and in previous years, which idolize certain film actors and/or characters. As a result, they base their actions around their hero would do, such as repeating famous quotes from movies in everyday conversations. Sontag feels that this is no longer relevant today. I feel, however, that it is in fact more relevant because cinema is now being accessed to a much wider audience.

Lorrie Moore’s article on Titanic, directed by James Cameron, addresses a variety of cinematic experiences we enjoy when seeing this Hollywood blockbuster. Moore makes a point that she “often had a hard time getting people to go to the movies with [her]” because she is interested in “teenage girl movies”, such as Titanic that have a soppy love story underlying it (Moore, L. 2000). Cinema-going is usually a group activity and being a group activity, deciding on what movie to see is often dictated by the tastes of those people you have gone with. In Moore’s case, it is likely that she has well educated friends that might be more appreciative of plot driven films and wouldn’t be interested in the “terribly written” (Moore, L. 2000) Titanic. Moore rightly notes, however, that while this meant she had to see movies on her own, this made her experience “more intense [and] overwhelming.” (Moore, L. 2000) Seeing a film in isolation heightens the movie going experience because you’re able to blocks out all other distractions and focus on what’s happening on screen.

Moore also notes one scene that made Titanic a memorable cinema-going experience is Roses’ determination to rescue Jack when the ship is sinking. In what Moore describes as “hormonal conviction” (Moore, L. 2000), Rose gives up the safety of her lifeboat to rush back aboard the sinking Titanic to rescue her lover. Moore raises the point that so often in cinema, audiences used to seeing men playing the action heroes that dash to the rescue of the ‘dame in distress.’ This role-reversal emphasizes the love these two characters share and, for the moviegoer, makes a dramatic and powerful ending to the film. Finally, of course, Moore notes that the film was a “stunningly executed visual spectacle”. (Moore, L. 2000) This aspect of cinema going aims to enhance the experience of the film by creating the illusion that the viewer is actually there. The more believable this aspect, the more likely the viewer will leave the cinema with a lasting impression.

Richard Lowenstein’s article ‘Elvis and the Aboriginals’, is a touching reminder that cinema-going is primarily a community based activity. Lowenstein describes a scene from his childhood where he saw the Elvis film Clambake in an outback cinema surrounded by Kooris. He briefly mentions his visit to the candy bar, which while not directly related to the film being shown, has always been a crucial part of the cinema-going experience. This is an experience that varies with age. As a child, the lights and colors of the candy bar draws you to it while you plead with your parents to buy you something. However, as you get older, it loses its appeal when the expensive prices of the products deter you from it.

Once inside the theatre, Lowenstein’s experience was enhanced by the involvement in the movie of those around him. He describes that “wolf-whistles and shouts of encouragement greeted the girls, oral engine noises greeted the cars, more wolf-whistles and shouts met the kissing scenes.” (Lowenstein, R. 1995) This kind of involvement is rarely seen inside cinemas in modern society. However, in this particular case, the audience wasn’t there to deconstruct and analyze the film. In fact, Lowenstein states that “most were seeing the film for the tenth time.” (Lowenstein, R. 1995) Rather, they were there for an outing with friends where they could share in the experience of watching a film at the local cinema. Lowenstein’s cinematic experience is remembered so vividly because of the sense of community he felt in it.

The experience of cinema-going has changed dramatically over the past century. The discussed examples of aspects of the experience of cinema-going are only some of those covered in the five selected readings. They do, however, give a general overview of the authors’ feelings towards cinema-going over the past century, and how they can be compared to experiences today.

References

Barthes, Roland. “Leaving the Movie Theatre,” in Barthes, The Rustle of Language, trans. Richard Howard (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986): pp. 345-349

Carriere, Jean-Claude. “Introduction” to his The Secret Language of Film, trans. Jeremy Leggatt (New York: Pantheon, 1994): pp. 3-5

Lowenstein, Richard. “Elvis and the Aboriginals,” in Projections 4 and 1/2 (1995): pp. 246-248

Moore, Lorrie. “Titanic,” in Jim Shepard, ed. Writers at the Movies: Twenty-six Contemporary Authors Celebrate twenty-six Memorable Movies (New York: Harper Collins, 2000): pp. 180-183

Sontag, Susan. “A Century of Cinema,” Parnassus 22, 1/2 (1997): pp. 23-28