Control and Choice: Are We Tied down or Free to Leave?

by Oliver Spicer

In the early stages of cinema an important opposition between modes of distribution formed.

On one side inventors like the Lumière Brothers publicly exhibited their actualities (short documentary films) in public settings such as the infamous showing of 'The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat' at Paris's Salon Indien du Grand Cafe. This mirrored other innovators such as Eadweard Muybridge, who's Zooatrope was displayed in scientific lectures due to its ability to accurately capture the movements of animals and humans for biological studies.

This public reception method of distribution differs greatly from Thomas Edison's monetary dreams for cinema, with the patent-hungry businessman creating machines called Kinetoscopes to rival the contraptions of the innovators. These machines would be placed in public places like parks or barbers but would encourage a more private viewing of a film - with each customer paying 5 cents a reel to view a short film that varied from circus acts to locations such as blacksmiths.

Along with the instant monetisation came a contrasting method of spectatorship, one that gave control to the audience member by allowing them to start the film at their will and select which film to watch but still limited to the reels bought by the operator.

But this balance between control and selection can be seen throughout the lineage of film, with audiences given less or more control and choice with each new technological development.

As the medium of film became more popular and purspose-built cinemas began, the viewing experience changed once again. Films were shown throughout the day, with audience members having the freedom to arrive and leave the cinema at their will. High quality A-Pictures would be grouped with lower B-Pictures and newsreels to keep a constant flow of entertainment. However, this meant that the decision of what film to watch was weakened as it was combined with the unmotivated watching of other films before and afterwards.

Then, as standalone film presentations became the most popular (and economically sound) mode of exhibition there was another shift in power. The newsreels, shorts, and B-films offered exit points for a viewer to leave the auditorium. But now the single presentation captured the spectator for duration of the film.

Audience members were glued to their seats in multiple ways: the sunk-cost of buying the ticket for a specific film that made leaving wasting money, the style of narrative that encouraged immersion with enough twists to keep it interesting, and the focus on characters that encouraged an attachment with the fictitious people shown in the film (including the evil ones by making them interesting). The sitting in a cinema seat is also a social contract of entertainment, a one way ticket to be immersed in the world of the film until the credits say it is okay to leave. The bright screen in a dimmed room is impossible to avoid, with every seat facing forwards to make sure you don't miss it.

But along with this control due to single-picture viewings came a greater choice to select which film to watch and a greater weight in the decision, with cinemas advertising a timetable of films allowing audience members to also think about what time and title they would like to consume.

The next major change in viewing experience came from a shift in the media landscape through the mass-adoption of television in the mid 20th century. Cinema fought to separate itself through its entertainment counterpart through visual differences such as the widening of aspect-ratios and more rebellious narratives through hiring graduates from the recently established film schools such as Spielberg and Coppola. In the end television won in many ways by drawing in studios with large viewing figures to convince them to air their films on stations.

With television came ad-breaks, which released the hook from viewers previously seen in the cinemas - as it offered a corporate alarm clock that woke you up from the cinematic trance, displaying the real world of insurance policies and banking just in case you were a little too invested in the wonders of the film world. This then allowed television viewers from home to exit the viewing space in order to get food or talk to family members, and the constant flow of entertainment meant changing channels or switching the television off was just a remote control away. Cinemas are separated geographically from the household which adds another investment and so another reason not to stop watching, but the vicinity of television gave almost full power to the spectator.

Then another major change occurred in the form of magnetic tapes, DCRs, and VCRs in video rental stores and supermarkets that allowed the storage of films and the ability to watch them at will - giving the audience member the capacity to schedule their own viewing experience without the defeat of ad-breaks. Arguably the most significant shift in control came with the ability to pause, rewind, and fast-forward tapes - giving the spectator full manipulation of onscreen time without the limit of the live nature of television, the remote control acting as the key to escape a film momentarily or permanently - a permission slip to exit.

Rental services of DVDs then transformed into online streaming platforms, where the control over the media remained the same but the freedom of choice expanded. With saving the time already watched of a viewer only giving more power to them to watch a film however they like, such as in chunks separated by days or months or years.

This is the current state of film consumption, one in which the audience has an increased control over the films they consume.

However, the freedom of choice is being taken away as soon as it was given by the diversification of streaming services, with each studio opting to have their own platform such as Disney+ instead on a centralised one like Netflix.

Audiences in many ways still wish to be told what to do, with the lack of film schedules on steaming platforms leaving a space for recommendation that is filled by ranked lists from the likes of the BFI, the AFI, and IMDB as well as the rise of Letterboxd which promotes the creation and consumption of lists of films based on a single variable such as genre, director, or mood. The vastness of possibilities does not eliminate control, but instead shifts it onto other places including respected sites or other viewers.

Seeing a film in the cinema, which is the mode that controls the viewer the most by restricting them from movement and the outside world, is also presented as a kind of 'experience' to the modern audience - where the 'sound' and 'big screen' is the only proper way to watch a film. This is a belief encouraged by big directors who claim that you 'haven't seen a film' unless it's on a large screen - which is a partially valid argument as it is probably the best viewing experience, but invalidates the enjoyment of those watching from TVs or Laptops.

In many ways control is central to the cinematic experience. A film must control its audience in order to pass on its message and tone. To control a viewer's gaze is central to composition and editing. But give it is also important to give enough slack so that they formulate their own ideas, or at least have the appearance of doing that when still being told where to look and what to feel by the projection.

by Oliver Spicer, October 2022.

Same Author
Kill + Interview with Director Rodger Griffiths.
by Oliver Spicer
Same Tag
Faux Advertising: Products and Billboards Within Films.
by Oliver Spicer
Random
Genre and Spectacle in Jordan Peele’s Nope.
by Eda Gokcen