Ways of Watching Films

The discussions between film students do sometimes vary from tedious, pretentious ramblings on cinema and the like, and these variations sometimes bring out interesting points of discussion in an essay such as this. We will come back to why David Thorpe encloses himself in darkness and feels the need to pretend later, and indeed, the more important issues that are raised by this.

The essence of my essay really revolves around the thoughts of fellow students, both in the United Kingdom and the United States, with regard to their viewing habits when watching films. The three main areas of discussion of viewing centralize on watching films at the cinema, watching a film on television, and watching film on video, although we will also look briefly to other media in the future.

Laura Mulvey, in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, looked at psychological investigations by Freud to study cinema, but I want to take a more personal view of watching films. This does not, however, mean I will have no basis for my remarks, as I will be specifically looking at texts on the subject (primarily Visual Fictions by John Ellis).

For this study, I contacted various students (with whom I was already acquainted) throughout the UK and the United States via e-mail, and received back some interesting and sometimes informed replies. Many of those I chose to study are passionate about films, and the ‘feel’ of film as an art- form. I hope to patch into this, and observe how their opinions vary, and what this says about the viewing of films in the cinema, on television, and/or on video.

John Ellis, in his book Visible Fictions, writes of the very different experiences between the cinema and watching a film at home (primarily on television, but he does refer to video). He feels there are several main differences in the viewing experience of television and that of cinema; the differences being the place, the way it takes place and where, as well as the technical contexts, which he calls "Images and Sound" of the media. With these contexts in mind, I think we can group the differences in viewing into various categories, with the main contexts. We will explore these, and certainly discover some others during this essay.

The ‘place’ is an important concept when talking about difference. The setting and environment can make huge alterations to how we observe things. In this case, where the viewing takes place, and how it takes place are important. We can say that cinema is a more public event, obviously, because it requires us to ‘go out’ to see a film, whereas television and video are easier and require less activity, i.e. if we are feeling lazy, we can just switch on the television, or grab a video (if we own it), whereas going to the cinema can take some effort (especially for students). Aberystwyth student David Thorpe discussed this with me, and said:

This also suggests that when we go to see a film, we are thinking differently to when we are watching a video or television. We will return to this idea of intent later. Returning to the idea of ‘place’, watching television or a video takes place in a very domestic environment, and is often more casual. The environment of the cinema is very different to that of the living room or bedroom. There are physical differences, technical differences and, finally, atmospheric differences, which can be very important.

The cinema has a high-quality and detailed picture and loud, clear sound, which Ellis believes draws the audience into giving "intense and relatively sustained attention" (Ellis. P24), whereas the television screen is a smaller image (usually greatly smaller) with lower definition and poorer quality sound. To see the differences in viewing a film at the cinema or at home (on television or on video), we must know how the ‘experience’ differs specifically.

As Ellis points out in Visible Fictions, in the cinema, we are seated in rows, facing a large screen, spaced out a specific distance from each other. Arm rests separate us from the person next to us, and rather than provide comfort, I personally they hold back the casual approach to watching a film at the cinema. You are not able to sit in the way you possibly would on a sofa at home, relaxed and at ease. This certainly changes our comfort and our relaxed mood when watching films.

Also, we watch films in the cinema in near darkness, with the only completely visible thing being the screen in front of us. Ellis refers to Christian Metz, who believes the experience of the cinema is much like dreaming, with sitting relatively still in the dark. The difference, he believes, is that dreaming involves internal images in our minds, rather than in the cinema, where external images are projected onto a large screen. Indeed, the image of hundreds of people watching a large screen intently is an odd scenario, if we look from a distance at the situation. What would an alien to our culture think of the cinema? Are we being controlled or hypnotised in some way? In fact, our surroundings in the cinema do actually lend themselves to this idea. Of course, we know the idea of ‘force’ is not present, and we have the choice of walking out at any moment.

This leads us to another interesting characteristic of cinema, which is certainly lesser found at home; it is the idea of confinement of activity. In the cinema, we are confined to just watching and listening, and possibly eating popcorn (which is usually finished before the film starts anyway). When we watch a video or watch a film on television, we are certainly less confined to certain actions, with a series of other things around us, which could prove to be distractions. These distractions could include the fridge, feeding the dog, making a cup of tea or answering the phone. This is not the case in the cinema (or wasn’t until the popular consumption of mobile phones by literally millions of people, but that is another issue). These things become even more enticing when we are at home because we have opportunities to do them in advertisement breaks on television, or we can even stop the film on video. We will come back to this idea of control in a minute, but first I want to discuss the idea of distraction. Richard Acton writes

"[In the cinema there are] no distractions, no possibilities of toast"

He goes on to talk of immersing himself in the film, and of the concentration that can be felt in a cinema. To a certain extent, I think Richard feels that if he watches a film on the television, he will give in to the temptation of doing something other than watch the film, but others see advertisements as more harmful to their viewing than this. Vicky Holmes believes commercial breaks can "interrupt the flow and mood of the film", losing something which the film is trying to achieve. She continues:

Luckily, Leia McKenzie has got around the problem of adverts ruining her viewing, as she writes:

It seems that this problem has been solved then, and the viewing of films on television can be manipulated to be similar to watching a video, and then, as we will se later, can become more like watching a film at the cinema. It comes down to the fact that video is more convenient than television, so if we do not want to be disrupted when watching a film, view the film on video rather than on television. Richard points that we can watch a video when we want to, and rewind and fast-forward to parts we want to watch again, and, indeed, fast-forward parts we don’t want to watch. As we have discussed, we can also stop the video to do something else, whereas the film on television will continue without us.

Not everybody feels that the video recorder can help our viewing though, as Michael Southorn explains. He believes that video is "a symptom of a convenience society", and continues to write, "It is not about picture sound or quality, it is about commitment".

Returning back to the topic, this idea of control is important, because it varies so much between the various media. In cinema, there is little control, and on television also, unless we record it and view it later. But on video, our viewing can vary greatly. We can watch all in one go, as a film, or stop and start to do other things or even control the flow of the film, as Leia explains, when she writes "if I miss a line in a movie, I can go back and hear it". We can even ‘skip’ to the best bits, and fast forward through the bits we don’t like, as I have said. We are, by doing this, taking away from how the film is intended to be viewed, and this must surely affect the viewing experience. Many people argue, with considerable weight behind their argument, that cinema is how the film is meant to be seen, and is therefore the prime way to view it. In fact, some people may even attempt to view films at home as they would in the cinema. John Ellis explains:

The idea of suspending belief seems at first to be and odd one, but if we think about it, the way we watch films at home can be like a cinema. David Thorpe has found this in his home viewing:

So David, and I am sure many of us as well, recreate the cinema in our own homes. David also talked about how, if he had seen the film before, he could remember the experience and ‘live’ that, rather than the relatively poorer experience at home with the lights off.

It is interesting that David doesn’t mention anybody else when talking of his viewing habits, and this idea of the social contexts of film viewing is something we haven’t really touched upon yet. It is a subject that many people I interviewed had something to say about. Both Leia and Melanie Armstrong prefer seeing some films by themselves, rather than in a group, which is slightly surprising, because I had always thought of cinema as a shared experience, but this is exactly what Melanie thinks, as she writes:

Melanie also writes of how television can be a communal experience, but different, in as far as the community is chosen, which can be a good thing because "you are less likely to find them annoying". Vicky Holmes’ viewing can also be altered by whom she watches a film with, especially in a cinema, where "the jr. high kids and the gangster talk on their cell phones and talk obnoxiously all the time" (Vicky is from America, by the way).

In this way, viewing a film at home also gives us more choice, over our social group. Even if we go by ourselves to the cinema, others can still affect our enjoyment, whereas we can watch a film on television or on video completely alone, and be completely immersed, if we want to, or talk to our friends or family if we wish. Leia writes "It is nicer at home because there aren’t any noises or other people".

In Visible Fictions, Ellis writes of ‘the gaze’; a term used in media studies (as well as other studies) to mean a general looking at something, or how we look at something. Through what we have discussed about atmosphere and technical contexts, Ellis believes that film as a media requires us to ‘gaze’ in concentration, otherwise we may miss something. He also thinks that television lends itself to only glancing rather than gazing at the screen. This could, for example, be one of the many reasons for the lack of depth and detail in ‘TV movies’ (as well as technical and financial reasons), because the audience is not paying as much attention to the screen. The viewer is not forced to watch, we may not be as certain if we actually ant to watch (as opposed to making the effort to go see a film at the cinema. Ellis is referring, in his point, to watching television in general terms and to watching films at the cinema, which is different from what we are studying.

Although this is the case, the point about ‘gazing’ and ‘glancing’ is still appropriate, as I have already proved. This could also be the case with regard to adverts. I think that the presence of adverts on television (on all channels, except the BBC) supports the opinion that the viewing is only glancing at the film. The viewer’s trail of thought is constantly broken up, and our minds are being diverted away from the film by adverts, as well as getting a drink, or the phone ringing or there is someone at the door. The experience is, we could say, is a weaker one when watching a film at home. When writing about film at the cinema, Richard says he can immerse himself in the film, and Michael says, "It is a more engrossing format" and a "sensual assault".

The experience of the cinema is a major factor, and Ellis goes as far as to suggest that this can be more important than the film itself. He writes "cinema is enjoyed whether he film is or not". In this way, television and video can also be enjoyed as well. We must not forget that watching a film on television or on video can also be an experience. If we, for example, watch a funny film with some friends in a casual, domestic environment, this will probably be more effective than seeing the same film by yourself in the cinema. For different films, different situations are more appropriate. Richard brought up an example of this:

We must, when talking about the home viewing experience, briefly talk about the future. Many critics believe that ‘home cinema’ will become more like the real cinema, with new, superior technology, such as widescreen (as in cinema), better sound (Dolby Surround Sound) and improved picture quality. Although Leia has a DVD player, and enjoys the fact she can skip to different parts, many of the people I interviewed believed that going to the cinema is still a different and greatly superior experience. Michael writes (or rather rants):

Although Michael does (again) go slightly off the specific subject of the differences between the media forms, he does show that there is still a difference between cinema and home entertainment, and will be for the foreseeable future.