Benefits Of Playback Technologies Film Studies Essay

In what ways can playback technologies be said to have changed or enhanced modes of viewing film or television? Before discussing if or how playback technologies have enhanced modes of viewing, it is pertinent to understand how and why technologies have changed. The first instance of moving image on screen was by the lumiere brothers and their ‘arrival of a train’ film. This was shown to the amazement of the crowd as they mistook this for a real life event. This seminal moment would forever change exhibition of moving images and thus the lumieres blazed a trail for what we now consider contemporary film form. Around the time of the lumieres moving image, moving image itself was an incredibly new phenomenon and in the 1900s the moving image became massively popular, although for more of its novelty. Because of this it became a popular attraction for audiences attending travelling carnivals, music halls and vaudeville houses in the United States, public modes of viewing were now just around the corner

The first static movie house solely designed for showing motion pictures was Tally’s Electric Theater, in Los Angeles in 1902 one of the first modern movie palaces. It was also a forerunner to the more omnipresent nickelodeons (named because the entry fee was a nickel) that opened in 1905. This soon developed into a small yet popular movement in the US and people were consuming short films in the public sphere. This model of the public consumption of movies is of significance with regard to enhancing modes of viewing as it created a sense of a cinematic community. In 1912 film moved from the grass roots nickelodeons into real film theatres. The sole purpose was exhibiting film, film and the industry became more robust and the film industry itself shifted from a travelling novelty to a credible business.

The way in which we consume films has long been considered a public and social event, although the glamorous movie palaces of old had faced military bombardment in world war two Britain, and the public were refusing to attend decrepit movie theatres in the fifties and sixties. But when the seventies arrived, the west’s economies had revitalised somewhat, and many people were moving house to the newly built suburbs, industry had changed also, as technology jumped forward, the shift was from manual industry to retail and computing. Because of this many people had more expendable capitol and a newly flexible working week, and the phenomenon of ‘leisure’ time was born. Hollywood in the 1970s became astute to these many changes and overhauls and business practices along with public response as in 1975, the concept of a “summer blockbuster” was just beginning to materialise. For many years summer was considered ‘out of season’ for the movie industry, partly because few moviegoers wanted to spend ninety minutes to two hours in a theatre without any air-conditioning. Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977) respectively were at the frontline of this new filmic movement, both films are seminal with regard to how business practice enhanced a public mode of viewing, Spielberg’s Jaws, was the first motion picture to see the potential of television as a form of cross media marketing, until Spielberg came to this realisation television and film had had few dealings with one another. The two spheres existed in opposition until this time. Before the summer of 1975, Hollywood studios traditionally did not advertise their movies on network television. It was too expensive to do so and the risk of debt against a pre-realised film seemed suicidal. Shortly before the release of Jaws Columbia Pictures bought 40 viewing slots at prime viewing times, then, for three nights prior to the release of Jaws on June 20, 1975, Universal saturated the networks during primetime television with 30-second trailers of the movie. this is I argue, one of the first times where these two mediums have existed in harmony, the private viewing sphere of TV influenced the public viewing sphere of film. Mainly because of how television beamed into the private home at times of the highest probable viewing figures, i.e ad breaks between the modern equivalent of ITV’s The Xfactor, saturating the airwaves in such a manner shot Jaws into the record books, this two pronged approach to film marketing changed modes of viewing instantly as it brought all tiers of the public together by creating a none discriminatory genre, that is utilized even more predominantly to this day, the blockbuster evolved from a film term denoting a motion picture that had surpassed profit expectations and popularity. To that of a bona fide Hollywood genre, with execs wanting to harness such profitability to minimise risk, public reaction to Jaws fed back into Hollywood and the blockbuster as a genre is created

Furthermore Jaws helped set the trend in other areas as well, that of the opening in multiple theatres across a country. Although, Jaws was not the first film to adopt a model of saturated cinema release patterns; In 1970s the public saw the long awaited release of Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather. Prior to The Godfather, high-profile movies would usually play for three months in only one place, either one theatre or one city, before slowly feeding into other major cities and then, finally, to second- and third, small cinemas in small towns across the country. This modest mode of exhibiting film did have methodology, the film was allowed to spin its own hype, this kept costs down for companies and allow people to advertise the movie themselves via word of mouth. The Godfather had hit a new system of exhibition more through luck than judgement admittedly; Spielberg adhered to this mode of exhibition with Jaws. The film opened in nearly 500 theatres, and in an astounding 78 days it had already dethroned The Godfather at the box office. This level of public following and adoration had the knock on effect of creating a level of fandom and fan following, through saturating the public domain of film exhibition with these films; it created a metaphorical community of avid followers, which all revelled in the images Coppola and Spielberg created. These two directors enhanced modes of viewing via these methods, both synergy and saturated release patterns were pivotal for box office profits for both these movies. Also due to the sheer amount of people who consumed both these texts, Jaws brought people out of the domestic home into the public cinema, and through saturation Coppola created a level of public following present in both films, which enhanced understanding and thus blazed a trail for fandom to rise, Which Lucas’ Star Wars duly exploited with ancillary rights. Luca’s utilized both synergy and saturation with Star Wars but elevated the brand by use of merchandising, the result was twofold, Star Wars as a means of producing income; was solidified, even if it was to be a box office flop, Lucas was sure to be in profit, secondly ancillary rights gave insight to the film and allowed fans to ‘buy in’ to the brand, Luca’s created a physical fan base with his Star Wars products, where before, Spielberg and Coppola only had a metaphysical community

The discussion thus far has centred on how classic texts changed public modes of viewing, and through change, enhanced understanding of the films. Fandom is an important area to focus on when exploring modes of viewing as; when exploring the cinematic world at any length, the term ‘cinephile’ will undoubtedly raise itself. This is a term given to a person that not only watches and enjoys the film and the world it creates, similar to the reaction to the three texts previously mentioned. As Christian Metz suggests:

“Enchanted at what the machine is capable of,” the film devotee enters the theatre not just to encounter a particular film but to take ardent, fetishistic pleasure in the viewing conditions themselves”

The term cinephile would have been used to describe what we would deem a super fan by today’s standards. Although it has been argued that film exhibition in the domestic setting is the complete antithesis of the purpose of film itself, which is to revel in the sheer spectacle of film on the big screen, and be completely absorbed into it. But with the inauguration of cinematic conventions into the domestic sphere with regard to playback technologies, therein the recreation of cinematic conditions within the home. It has brought the elitist cinephile into the home and moulded the act of cinephilia as a norm for any buyer of DVD; and this is perhaps most explicitly underlined with the implementation of the DVD in 1996. the film Twister lead this new charge, the digital versatile disc movie compressed film code smaller allowing more flexibility and more film data per unit; this allowed more of an all encompassing control over the viewing experience. The picture and sound quality were now of a cinematic rival. Furthermore the introduction of extra features about the film, director interviews, interviews with cast and crew, behind the scenes etc. This gave the audience an insight that was usually the territory of the avid fan of super fan, the audience revelled in this new knowledge and the power it yielded over the film. The DVD in essence brought the wider world of fandom where an avid fan would physically need to seek out further information about a film through television, paper and magazine interviews and the internet. The DVD gave a full panoramic view of the film, from pre to post production and all in between. It gives the owner of the disc an ownership of sorts of the film they have purchased, no longer does the spectator only gaze at film, passively taking in the codes and conventions of the film world, being absorbed into the film world. But almost in a Brechtian fashion, the consumer engages with the film, starting and stopping, learning and absorbing elements of the film through their own choice, and the DVDs features encourage and accommodate such behaviours. This mode of viewing brought the once super-fan behaviour to the mainstream public and in this case private sphere, thus fandom which was once the domain of eccentric fans has now become the norm through the various features on DVD. The subject of fandom becoming the norm is significant and leads me to my next point, that of the private predominance of film consumption.

The days of public viewing of film being the sole exhibitor of film are unfortunately over, not to say the public event of film viewing is not still popular actually on the 18th of December to the 21st the fifteen films at the box office grossed a total of £133,519,510.00. But what has changed, is how the public now move through films and film worlds with the invention of playback technologies, making the domestic sphere an easier and more appealing surrounding for film viewing. The ownership of home theatre technology allows a private sphere where people have the flexibility to watch films at their own leisure, without the necessity of attending a multiplex at a specific time. With the constant implementation of new technologies in the home, it is easy to see how they help the domestic sphere in its faithful recreation of a public mode of viewing, I argue this domestic sphere is likely to remain the more prominent mode of viewing in what is now a modern society, especially as societal and cultural ethos has always been progression and not regression. This means, home theatre technologies and opinions towards it will enhance, progress and solidify, although Williams argues that the environment whereby we physically consume the film world is loaded with many sign systems influencing how and to what level we enjoy the film, it nevertheless supports the argument that even though a domestic home is busy, an often loud abrasive place to watch a film. The home world will endeavour in the recreation of an environment similar to a public cinema, i.e. wall mounted, flat screen television, HD, surround sound and ambient lighting. So these two worlds converge and interweave far more than suspected. Furthermore Eric Hirsh continues a similar argument. Since the late eighteenth century, private space of the home has often been idealized as a sanctuary from the complications and demands of public life. However, Hirsch argues, it is quite a different dynamic;

“Sustainable only through an ever-widening and interrelated set of connections with the public, the world of work, and ‘society,’ from which it was self-consciously separated.”

He alludes to that of the domestic sphere running alongside the public one, rather than each sector being mutually exclusive but rather the private domain is existing with ‘outside connections’. Both these spheres now have a symbiotic relationship, the modern home and its inhabitants are not shut out of society when they move into the private sphere but rather consume from within, this mode of consumption is loaded with many cultural and ideological arguments, but there is a definite correlation between this and modern advancements in playback technology. The modern integration of these playback technologies into the home is a modern phenomenon and it cannot be denied that their implementation has changed modes of viewing beyond anything that could have been hypothesized many years ago. the domestic sphere has forever had tags of ‘looking at’ the television with a somewhat roving eye, and the cinematic public mode of viewing has a engrossed eye, whereby the viewer is transported into the film world of the big screen, but these ‘outside connections’ break the barrier between the two spheres. But the actual atmosphere of the home struggles to rival a cinematic one, nevertheless the two spheres have now converged via modern playback technologies. Although the inherent irony lies that this ‘media self sufficiency’ is somewhat of an empty husk as it relies on the importation of such playback technologies from the ‘outside’. The more the private becomes saturated with commodities of the public it could be argued that the very term private will be a difficult description of the domestic sphere. Nevertheless the two domains do now interweave, which as discussed, was not apparent many years ago. Although where the dominance lies within which sphere can be ambiguous, although it could be argued that the internet is a one way door from the outside into the domestic and with people now consuming huge amounts of film texts via illegal streaming of just or pre-released texts, it looks unlikely that the public will place such high priority on the cinema again, with an engrained ideology of instant gratification, watching the public film from the private setting is now the norm. The prevalent enhancement rightly or wrongly to attach itself to new playback technology

Modern modes of film viewing is not only privatised within the domestic, but also individualised within the mobile. IPod’s, PSP’s, portable DVD players and mobile phones means modes of viewing are streamlined so we now ‘move through this media’ in terms of film consumption, we no longer have the restrictions of viewing in public cinema or the domestic home, but rather the prior mentioned technologies make viewing mobile and endlessly flexible, for instance youripodmovies.com offer customers a vast database of movie titles to download and then watch directly off of their iPod. This streamlined individual control was epitomized in Newsweek’s cover of the ‘future of entertainment’ (fig 1). The imagery has connotations of a goddess like deity in full control of her own modes of viewing, a hectic lifestyle and the act of consuming on the move, her many arms each holding a different symbol of technology, the image of technological abundance and the message being that universal control now resides at the site of a single person, and not beamed at a passive individual, who had to adhere to scheduling etc. With such centrality of the controlling and consuming individual it is small wonder that public modes of viewing is falling out of favour as the sole exhibitor of new film texts.

But if there is to be a cinematic hope it will be in Cameron’s Avatar, This film is perhaps as seminal as Jaws was in 1975. Cameron’s utilization of the reborn phenomenon of 3D, twinned with relentless synergistic marketing may bring the long lost youth audience back to cinemas to revel in the spectacle of cinema, and may take public viewing back to its main purpose, to view film, in a truly immersive panoramic sense, imparting the audience with a sense of being part of a film community. Rather than what the multiplex has been reduced to for many years, which is a social event and the film itself is of little interest to the individual watching it. Cameron’s use of 3D and large vistas makes Avatar a difficult text to transfer to TV or the private sphere as a whole. So there may be hope for the fans of watching film on the big screen. Furthermore the plot of Avatar has allowed Cameron limitless possibilities for ancillary rights to be utilized. The Avatar website encourages fandom on a mass scale: video games, cast and crew interviews, videos and toys for sale to name but a few. This sort of business practice is significant as it typifies modern modes of film following, many production companies produce films that endeavour to ensnare audiences with these synergistic methods, and very rarely do they fail, providing such a deep level of insight into the film making process is a tactic adopted from the DVD format that many films now adhere to even before films are released, as it creates a pool of knowledge about the text which the spectators enjoy. Avatar has opened with incredible success. But due to many of the above discussed points, Avatar will not be representative of a trend returning back to public viewing modes, the hype was created and paid off at the box office. In three days it has taken $158 Million. But with a budget close to 500 million Avatar has a long way to go, but many markets from which to make profit.

It seems unlikely that cinema will not ever reach out to all ages in society again, nor the levels of constant attendance that previous decade had attained, but is this a tragedy? Through streamlined and privatised modes of consuming films, it has enhanced the public’s knowledge and enjoyment of new and classic texts. Films are produced for the public so the public should have the flexibility and choice how, when and where they wish to interact with their favourite movies. Hollywood is certainly not dead but traditional modes of regular public viewing, certainly is.

3095.

References

Klinger, B. (2006) Beyond the multiplex: cinema, new technologies and the home, University of California Press (referenced twice)

(fig 1)