Stefan Hall Critical Studies in Film, Media, and Culture American Culture Studies 101 East Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 The Chimera of Audience Study in Cinema Increasingly scholars care to establish not the constitution of films but the constitution of audiences. Dudley Andrew, The Three Ages of Cinema Studies and the Age to Come Like the fabled beast of mythology, audience study in cinema remains a mostly elusive creature, often talked about but seldom confronted directly. The audience nevertheless haunts many an analysis as film theorists often find themselves moving from narrative analysis to audience analysis, wondering what the effect(s) of a film (or films) may have on mass culture (however nebulously defined). Historically, audience study in America began mostly as a class (and ethnicity) based reaction to the perceived power of cinema to influence people, from the lone voyeur to entire groups: 1 Audience issues who went to the movies, how they behaved while watching films and what were the subsequent effects of the movies they had seen were already salient in political discourse in the United States during the early twentieth century. Many native-born middle-class progressives were concerned by the large numbers of working-class, often immigrant men and women who patronised big-city nickelodeons (Stokes, 3). These immigrating groups swelled the US population to 123 million in 1930 and weekly film attendance averaged 90 million tickets (Austin, xix). People were not merely seeing films in droves, but also seeing these films repeatedly. Over time, changes within 1 As [David] Morley puts it, this tradition mobilises a hypodermic model of media influence in which the media are seen as having the power to inject their audiences with particular messages which will cause them to behave in a particular way (Jancovich, 139).
American culture and the film industry altered this relationship, and in 1970 the population had increased by 80 million while film attendance dropped by almost the same amount. Even in the media saturated Information Age of the early twenty-first century, average film attendance in the US declines while box office receipts are broken annually by event films (summer blockbusters or Oscar pushes); other nations are experiencing changes in their cinemas and audiences. How does one begin to trace out possible connections between the burgeoning audiences of early film and the oscillating audiences of today? Thinking about audience study raises a wide range of questions. For example, how might studio monitored contemporary test audiences be related to the Department of Research established by MPAA President Eric Johnson in 1946? In terms of technological mitigation, what differences and similarities might exist for audiences who view a film in a theater versus a home venue (or even an older, single screen theater versus a state-of-the-art multiplex (and now the almost completely lost drive-in))? On a more basic level, what conditions influence how an individual is initially motivated to even see a film? As these are rather broad questions given to complex answers, this essay broadly reviews some of the current literature on audience study. Methodology has moved somewhat from Albert Sindlinger s planting of porters in bathrooms who would question patrons and then report back to the theater, but some techniques still involve clandestine observation and gathering of data (Austin, xxi). To assist this exploratory essay, it will be necessary to also consider audience research done by social scientists with regard to television as this may help to illuminate possibilities for an overlooked period in cinema Stefan Hall 2
audience roughly from the 1950s to the 1980s. 2 Audience study may involve consumer research, not only the studies done by studios during their test market phase of film release but also the position of film as a commodity and how a particular film is situated in terms of other films as well as of other consumable goods. 3 Audience study also reveals problems that researchers have in interpreting the meanings and expectations that audiences attach to specific genres. Finally, within the audience itself, most analysis has focused on high school or university students (arguably based on perceived economic factors as much as being an already organized, identifiable group), so ways in which demographics have been used to identify or ignore certain segments of the audience also informs audience study. If one accepts the claim that the presence of an audience is, in other words, an essential part of the very definition of the medium of film, how one defines audience needs to be examined first (Gripsrud, 202). In terms of the specialized meanings commonly used in mass media, the idea of audience is tied to technology, emerging with the rise of commercial radio broadcasting (particularly with the need for radio to count listeners, since newspapers and film could rely on circulation numbers and box office receipts) (Mosco, 34-6). The concept of audience is problematized in that the structure of the idea presupposes both a mass and a social impact via communication on that group 2 Several writers on audience analysis have commented how studies of film audiences terminate in 1950, with the advent of television, and do not resume until thirty years later, which (if true) is a noticeable gap. Gripsrud states that ideas about audience returned to film theory in the 1970s, but at first as a generalized textual construct only (Gripsrud, 208). Interestingly, in his book Teenagers and Teenpics: The Juvenilization of American Movies in the 1950s, Thomas Doherty suggests that some of the last audience studies done in the 1940s and 1950s (on young males) by film studios subsequently influenced the target marketing of films in the late 1960s and early 1970s (and continues today). 3 A further source of the distrust of empiricism in film studies was the other main tradition of audience research: the attempt of the film industry itself to investigate its clients in order to further its understanding of its own market, and thereby its profitability (Stokes, 4). Stefan Hall 3
(Mosco, 31). This is just the beginning of the contested status that audience has, ranging from activity/passivity to singularity/plurality to producer/consumer; along with this theoretical positioning, one should also take into account basic demographic elements of an audience, including the way audience members identify themselves. A distinct thread in defining audience is grounded in considering the economies that film production and distribution represents and how this functions as a means of integrating socially and ethnically diverse audiences into a new mass culture of consumption (Stokes, 6). 4 The historical conceit of a textually constructed audience as being regarded as fundamentally male also became open to critique (as well as any essentializing classification). In an effort to counter this, case studies have been used to focus on specific audience subgroups and how their different reactions reflect their backgrounds and affiliations. Because there are a number of different ways to configure the audience, a researcher needs to be aware of how audiences are in part the outcome of the research questions and strategies which constitute them (Barker, 10). Since the 1980s, defining audience in audience study has been strongly influenced by cultural studies, in particular by the Birmingham Centre (Hagen, 5-6). It was there that Stuart Hall proposed an encoding/decoding model that theorizes the role that ideology plays along with social, economic, and historical conditions in textual production as an encoded text (such as a television program) can be decoded; traditional forms of human communication had given place, in modern society, to the contemplation 4 It appears that the 1971 essay Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses by Louis Althusser is important in promoting the idea that these apparatuses interpolate the audience into subject positions for the dominant mode of production. Strong political engagement emerges as a dominant theme in audience study first in France and then in Great Britain (where the use of Gramsci should also be noted) and the United States. Stefan Hall 4
and consumption of images (Stokes, 1). 5 The audience can then accept a film s dominant meaning, negotiate a position that incorporates certain parts of an ideology, or reject it in favor of an alternative, oppositional reading. This model presupposes that the audience is taking a limited but active role in meaning construction, which places audience agency in the interesting conceptual position of vacillating between creative interpretation and co-opted consumption of cultural product. The problem therefore, as Christian Metz put it, is not how films are to be understood but how come they are understood, what the process is by which we make sense of what we see on the screen (Nowell-Smith, 9). Even this suggestion is still haunted by the way that [m]ost film and literary analysis, for example, maintains an abstract conception of The Audience or The Reader (Jancovich, 143). While useful in its suggestive possibilities, Hall s encoding/decoding model could benefit from a more direct application in audience study. Since the tradition of research on actual film audiences is linked to the history of the medium, the points that Gripsrud makes helps to inform his delineation of the transition from reception theory in the 1970s to ethnographic audiences of the 1980s (Gripsrud, 203). 6 In the 1970s, three important ideas influenced the conceptualization of film audience: 1) the inclusion of psychoanalysis in film theory, 2) an increased attention on the political ramifications of film, and 3) the fact that most films being analyzed were not contemporary for the theorists (the preference given to older films). As reception theory developed to look at actual audiences, first in literature and then in television, film 5 It is important to note that Hall and others were concerned with television, although the perspective is well suited for studying other kinds of audiences as well (Hagen, 8). 6 It is interesting that Gripsrud would situate this thinking historically as a recently emergent move in reception theory argues that films are always interpreted historically and that these interpretations change over time. Stefan Hall 5
studies finally began moving away from theoretical audiences with the increased use of ethnography. Ethnographic work on television audiences helped to draw the potentialities of this kind of research to the attention of film scholars (Stokes, 7). For film scholars, one of the cornerstones of analysis is genre classification, but attention has only recently been given to how audiences categorize films and how this categorization can change over time because the audience is not a coherent body with a consistent set of expectations (Jancovich, 35). Members of a film audience are exposed to advertisements (print ads, television commercials, preview trailers before other films, email and other digital sources), film reviews (in magazines and newspapers as well as on numerous internet sites), and other promotions (behind the scenes featurettes or making of documentaries on television) in an effort to have them conceptualize a film within a genre position (either by reinforcing or resisting certain conventions) ostensibly to entice them to see the film. The constituents of an audience are then involved in a public discourse about a film, but most often without including their ideas. 7 Jancovich suggests that audience members can interpret films within their own genre guidelines to contest authority and determine the cultural value of a film to fit their own classifications; in his example, The Silence of the Lambs is refashioned from slasher/horror to suspense/drama. What becomes important is how an audience can control genre definitions. Audience control also figures into home viewing of film, since the playback is under personal control; this includes visual as well as aural presentation and intersects with issues of technology. In an essay on sound in film, Gianluca Sergi promotes the 7 Perhaps internet chat sites about films is changing this somewhat. This assertion of audience voice into the channels of distribution is an interesting one, eliciting the question of how truly public is this public discussion. Stefan Hall 6
idea that an audience is composed of listeners as well as viewers; in the past thirty years, film sound has played a key role in Hollywood s strategies for engaging audiences and providing them with new pleasures (Sergi, 121). 8 Because interacting with film sound requires the audience to attend in a different way from film image, this activity calls into question the configuration of an audience as passive, uncritical receptors. Sound in film is a complicated mix of diegetic and non-diegetic elements spoken dialogue, sound effects, a soundtrack and/or score, and even the absence of any noise that interact with the image track in intricate ways, from imparting basic information to serving as a counterpoint for a particular shot (one might also choose to consider other sounds present in a given location, such as machinery or patron conversation). Advances in home and concert sound quality in the 1970s created a demand for better sound in the cinema, and the emerging generation of film makers (particularly Lucas, Spielberg, and Coppola) understood the importance of addressing this issue (Sergi, 123). 9 Even today, Lucas continues to research his sound reference standard, THX, creating new configurations for the audio track that competes with Dolby, its offspring, and other rival digital sound certifications. These developments extend their influence into home film viewing, a largely neglected area of audience study, and merge with other technologies such as storage mediums (various tape formats as well as digital ones such as laserdisc and digital video disc, which are slowly being augmented by services like TiVo and video-on-demand) and displays (represented by the current mélange of conventional picture televisions, large 8 The English word audience can be traced back to the Latin root audire, meaning to hear (Mosco, 33). 9 That this demand was fueled by both a largely young and male group of film makers and audience members should also be acknowledged. Stefan Hall 7
screens, flat screens, wide screens, projection screens, video projectors, computer displays, and now almost wall-sized plasma screens). 10 Given that a person can invest in home film technology and practically monitor and regulate all aspects of film playback, this brings up some interesting implications in terms of audience control over film (as well as certain social and class issues when it comes to affording the equipment, but even the most humble VCR affords its user a measure of power over what is being viewed), even as some theorists have openly wondered if watching a film at home constitutes a cinematic experience. 11 Sergi made several references to the sonic playground with regard to the theatrical presentation of film, and this playground expands even more when one considers that technology such as laserdisc and DVD give a viewer the opportunity to watch a film with commentary tracks from the director, actor(s), screenwriter(s), composer, and other members of the crew (ones usually thought of occupying key positions here again can be seen a certain bias in film, although film scholars are beginning to provide commentary tracks), switch between alternate language tracks, isolate film scores in playback, or even recut and/or redub a film. 12 Furthermore, the experience for any home audience can be altered through viewing of deleted or extended scenes, documentaries, and other features that provide additional context for a film. 13 This hardware aesthetic that influences home viewing on multiple levels also ties into the commodification of film as artifact, with audience members able to acquire 10 Even the fundamental shift from a linear, analog system (such as videotape) to a random access, digital one (such as DVD) indicates a change in how films can be watched in a non-linear manner. 11 Roland Barthes insisted that the experience of watching a film on a television represented the antithesis of the theatrical experience by removing film from its cinematic context. 12 Both legally if the film presents that option and illegally in terms of digital copying and manipulation. 13 With regard to providing context for film, a suggestive line for research involves looking at how discussions by an audience about a film prior to and/or after a screening impacts their experience. Stefan Hall 8
copies of films, which leads to an interesting subaltern community of film collectors emerging as a niche audience situated suggestively at the fluid intersection between public and private (Klinger, 147). In her essay, The Contemporary Cinephile: Film Collecting in the Post-Video Era, Barbara Klinger provides a very fascinating look at the way a particular audience relates to cinema through amassing personal libraries of films, many promoted as being special in some way (typically by limited pressings with bonus materials included in the packaging). This audience attends films in theaters, and then continues to evaluate the films through repeated viewings at home. What is noticed, valued and appraised about films in this part of their after-life is how their display of characteristics mise-en-scène, special effects and sound maximises (or fails to deliver) the capabilities of the machines of reproduction (Klinger, 145). For cinephiles and noncinephiles alike, the sheer immensity of the revenue generated from home video rentals and sales indicates that this is an important area for additional research, having been looked at so far primarily from a marketing perspective. Be it in the theater, the home, or another venue, the power of films to continue to attract audiences of all configurations is apparent; even a popular culture indicator like Entertainment Weekly has featured articles looking at the relationship between cinema and audience. 14 As evidenced by the anthologies used for this essay, a lot of important work is being done in audience study and is slowly starting to come together (in particular, the strength of the BFI series should be commended). While in the past [o]ne of the problems with most examples is that they rely on conceptions of The Audience rather than socially specific audiences and viewers, more focused identification of 14 The April 25, 2003 Summer Movie Preview featured two articles involving ideas of film and audience interaction, one of which was continued in the following issue. Stefan Hall 9
audiences is entering into the research (Jancovich, 140). Despite being part of film studies for a long time, audience study offers plenty of areas for more detailed analysis, especially at a time where the nature of cinema itself is being reexamined and redefined. Stefan Hall 10
Bibliography Austin, Bruce. The Motion Picture Audience: A Neglected Aspect of Film Research. The Film Audience: An International Bibliography of Research. Scarecrow Press, 1983. vxii-xlii. Barker, Martin and Anne Beezer. Introduction: What s in a text?. Reading into Cultural Studies. Routledge, 1992. 1-20. Gripsrud, Jostein. Film Audiences. The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford University Press, 1998. 202-11. Hagen, Ingunn and Janet Wasko. Introduction: Consuming Audiences? Production and Reception in Media Research. Consuming audiences?: Production and Reception in Media Research. Hampton Press, 2000. 3-28. Jancovich, Mark. David Morley, The Nationwide Studies. Reading into Cultural Studies. Routledge, 1992. 134-47. Jancovich, Mark. Genre and the Audience: Genre Classifications and Cultural Distinctions in the Mediation of The Silence of the Lambs. Hollywood Spectatorship: Changing Perceptions of Cinema Audiences. BFI, 2001. 33-45. Klinger, Barbara. The Contemporary Cinephile: Film Collecting in the Post-Video Era. Hollywood Spectatorship: Changing Perceptions of Cinema Audiences. BFI, 2001. 132-51. Mosco, Vincent and Lewis Kaye. Questioning the Concept of the Audience. Consuming audiences?: Production and Reception in Media Research. Hampton Press, 2000. 31-46. Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey. How films mean, or, from aesthetics to semiotics and half-way back again. Reinventing Film Studies. Arnold, 2000. 8-17. Sergi, Gianluca. The Sonic Playground: Hollywood Cinema and its Listeners. Hollywood Spectatorship: Changing Perceptions of Cinema Audiences. BFI, 2001. 121-31. Stokes, Melvyn. Introduction: Historical Hollywood Spectatorship. Hollywood Spectatorship: Changing Perceptions of Cinema Audiences. BFI, 2001. 1-18. Stokes, Melvyn and Richard Maltby (editors). Identifying Hollywood s Audiences: Cultural Identity and the Movies. BFI, 1999. Stefan Hall 11