The Sociology Of Cinema Going: Contemporary Cultural Consumption Vs. Previous Viewing Habits

Cinema has massively changed over the course of the last century. The way we view films has in part, been altered through our progressive viewing habits. The understudied social space of cinema, relates to the experience you get from essentially going to the cinema. It’s a highly different experience from simply watching a film online, or rather the television. In the cinema, were enthralled by, “the theatre itself, the darkness, the obscure mass of other bodies, the rays of light, the entrance, the exit.” (Barthes., R. 2004. p. 255) Yet today, you might argue that cinemas have become soulless ‘temples of consumption’ built purely for profit and functionality.

In early 20^th century films were considered the most popular visual art of its time. The movie theatre established itself as a unique, and striking form of entertainment. One that was considered a cheaper, simpler way to provide enjoyment to the masses (particularly amongst the working class, who generally couldn’t afford this type of luxury) By the 1920’s, (post war) ‘nickelodeons’ began emerging in small suburban towns throughout Europe and America. Within ten years, society was entering a decade known as ‘the golden age’ of film.

Early cinema going was an essential social practice. In 1939, nineteen million travelled weekly to cinemas and by 1945 this figure had rose to thirty million. (half the population of the time) (Taylor, 2003, p.217) Cinema was used as a pass time or a distraction from reality of the modern world.  Stacey (1994) identifies three main areas of study in audience viewing habits.

1) ‘Escapism’ – Where people use the cinema to escape the troubles of everyday existence and enter a world of fantasy and material pleasure, temporally closed off from the drudgery of life.

2) ‘Identification’ – Where the audience chooses to go to cinema to follow the on screen endeavors of their favourite star. Here, the viewer can fantasize about a relationship between the star and themselves.

3) ‘Consumerism’ – Which suggests that people went to the cinema to temporarily live a life of wealth and materialism through the eyes of the on screen stars.  (Abercrombie and Longhurst, 1999, p151)

However, by the end of the 1950’s, the increasing popularity of television saw a dramatic fall in cinema going. People no longer had to leave the comfort of their homes to experience the wonders that cinema had to offer. Contemporary culture persuades us to invest in home cinema technology, to create this homemade leisure experience of our own, in our domestic space. Consuming the experience that cinema has to offer from the confines of ones individual existence. Jameson would suggest that today our “living room is just a box in theatre of the world.” Contemporary society provides us with hundreds of channels available at the flick of a button, but still surprisingly little to watch. (Brew and Lambie, 2011) Similarly, multiplex cinema chains can now hold a mammoth number of screens to accommodate for the growing needs of the consumer. However, these types of cinemas are arguably just another profitable medium for Hollywood's bottomless pockets. (Kermode, M. 2011)

Todays’ movie-going experience has evolved or devolved into this standardized simulated experience, which reflects late capitalist (postmodern) cultures’ emphasis on consumerism. We witness how cinematic theaters have aesthetically adapted to appeal to the consumer. Throughout history, cinemas were built to encapsulate the essence of wonder and magic that goes hand-in-hand with film. The setting is just as vital to your experience as the film itself. Theatres began appearing in these grand open spaces, to transform what was considered ordinary into something extraordinary (Richards, 2010) In the 1920’s there was a vast expansion of these ‘picture palaces.’ Four thousand were built in America in 1921, yet still, it was estimated that a further two thousand was required to meet the publics demand. Today, the architecture of these contemporary cinematic buildings varies in style; influenced from a mix of different cultures, the external aesthetic design of these buildings is now created to conjure an emotional experience, that the viewer is experiencing an entirely new culture. These second hand cultural models are mimicked and parodied from sticking historical architecture, for example: Chinese palaces, Egyptian temples and Italian Palazzo’s, to name a few. According to Richards, (2010) the interior design of cinemas now leans towards “depersonalisation, standardization and characterless functionalism” [p.89]

The creation of these internalized consumption spaces also allows the public to momentarily relate to stars that they screen. We now look back on our time spent at the cinema with gleeful memory; ‘the good old days’ when going to the cinema was an event in itself. Yet, arguably we are “nostalgic for something that never existed in the first place.” (Lyotard) Rather, we yearn for the feeling we felt in the past  “...one remembers the feel of the faded plush, the distinctive smell of disinfectant and orange peel, the cheer that greeted the lowering of the lights, the swish of the curtains and then total absorption into living dreams”  (Richards, 2010, p.19) An increased importance is now placed on the feelings the viewers get from being part of the experience of cinema, rather than the enjoyment of the visual art itself. We are essentially absorbing the cinema experience as “dreaming with your eyes open”  

This method catalyzed today’s multiplex approach to cinema going, this in turn, changing the way we view cinema entirely. Cinema is now seen as a casual expenditure, a pass time, a simulated event constructed within the parameters of our capitalist culture. Segmented through the pursuit of dreams and commodities, cinemas now predominantly appear on the edge of urban spaces in shopping malls or arcades. In addition, the experience of actually going the cinema has lost its own identity and is now a hollow reproduction of the original event. Furthermore, we now view our cinematic experience like any other form of consumption in today’s capitalist society. “The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry.  The familiar experience of the movie-goer, who perceives the street outside as a continuation of the film he has just left because the film seeks strictly to reproduce the world of everyday perception, has become the guideline of production.”  [Adorno p.99] Ardono would also suggest that this inauthentic standardized way of viewing film has consequently standardized its audience, who become lacking in any critical ability of the film itself.

Cinema has previously, and can still be discovered today, be used a form of social control. In the past, film was used as a tool for propaganda to convert the views of the masses during war. Today, the standardization of cinematic spaces in multiplex theatres has meant that the cinemagoers no longer need to venture out to a special designated location to see a film. Instead, we can consume this experience in a place designed to simulate our individual needs. Thus, further altering the current purpose of cinema from the original reality. Todays multiplex generation are less concerned with the production value of cinema. Instead, we have become complacent to the increasing commercialization of film. Shaky camera angels, quick editing and re-occurring dialogue patterns. These are the traits of Hollywood’s successfully commercial films, which are only desensitizing the viewer’s attention to detail, and ultimately allowing the films producers, to create an environment that is based only by its own political economy. The introduction of new digital media and the growing popularity of the 3D phenomena, only further reiterates the idea of film as a product. “Cinema...has fallen into a ‘resentment’ of its own culture and history, becoming ‘a performance game’; one displaying ‘a supreme contempt for the image itself which is prostituted to any special effect whatsoever’, as well as for the viewer, who has become an ‘impotent voyeur of this prostitution of images.”  (Merrin, 2005, p.123)

To large extent this has affected the types of films we choose to watch at the cinema. In the past you could categorize the type of film a person would prefer by their social class. The working class generally preferred American films with fast action, limited dialogue projected from a vast array of Hollywood stars. While the middle classes welcomed foreign films and historical pictures, viewing cinema as a cultural experience.  (Richards, 2010) Today however, cinemagoers are limited to their viewing choices, contemporary cultural films are predominantly shown in separate ‘art-house cinemas.’ The consumer is therefore far more likely to watch a film that doesn’t appeal to their personal taste, rather than venture out to a building that is isolated from society’s wider consumer culture.

For the last forty years, cinemas have maintained a uniform ticket pricing system for all movies (with the exception of students and seniors) (Orbach and Einav, 2007). However, the number of cinemagoers varies in America depending on the month the film was released in. This simplistic method of pricing is deliberately preserved, to provoke the consumer into spending more money on various goods while watching the film. Ironically, medium sized popcorn is in fact slightly more expensive than your average ticket price.

Translating this idea into numbers, we can see how popcorn has become the most important, valuable, and profitable item at the cinema, even more than films themselves. With a bucket of popcorn costing around $5 in America, it is estimated that the mark up is as much as 10,000 per cent. In 2002 the British film institute described popcorn in its natural state, as the most profitable substance on the planet, more than heroin, more than plutonium. This gives weight to the idea that cinema today is less interested with the standard of films, and far more concerned with profit.

Although the collective ritual of cinema going has changed, it is nevertheless an important aspect of the entire experience of film. People still use cinema as a form of release or escapism from everyday life. Yet today, film has become less about entertaining the viewer, and more about seizing their money. If we conform to mainstream viewing habits, and continue to view cinema like a product that can be continually consumed, then ultimately we will lose what we originally loved about film. If it is undeniably the memory of film that reminds us how great the cinema can be, then how long will it be before we forget the enjoyment we seek from films. Capitalism has inevitably transformed the nature of films. Yet the way in which we view films, is in part a reflection of the way we view ourselves. Therefore, if we really do wish to change the nature of films, then we must, primarily, take a look at ourselves.

References:

Abercrombie, N. And B. Longhurst (1998) Audiences.  London: Sage

Adorno, T. And M. Horkheimer (1997) The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception in Dialectic of Enlightenment.  London: Verso

Barthes., R. (2004) The Remembered Film. London: Routeledge

Brew., S and Lambie., R. (2011). The 10 biggest problems with modern day cinema. Available from: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/1011352/the_10_biggest_problems_with_modern_day_cinema.html. Last [Accessed 22 April 2013]

Kermode., M. (2011). The Good The Bad and The Multiplex. London: Random House Books.

Merrin,. W. (2005) Baudrillard and the Media. Cambridge: Polity Press

Orbach., B.Y and Einav., L. (2007). Uniform Process For Differentiated Goods: The case of the movie theatre industry. International review of law and economics.

Richards, J. (2010) The Age of the Dream Palace: Cinema and society in 1930s Britain.  I.B. Taurus