Abstract
For scholars interested in the study of film audiences, it is always encouraging to discover a new collection of empirical research, particularly one that offers original and innovative approaches to the field. Making Sense of Cinema: Empirical Studies into Film Spectators and Spectatorship, edited by CarrieLynn Reinhard and Christopher Olson, does exactly that, presenting a diverse range of methods for investigating film spectatorship within a global context. The introduction to the collection offers a useful overview of some key theoretical and empirical work on film spectatorship. As Reinhard and Olson point out, however, while theorising spectatorship might be interesting, in order for conceptual approaches to carry any weight they require ‘testing in the furnaces of reality’ (p. 21). The editors usefully identify some of the challenges involved in conducting empirical research, framing the collection very much within the tradition of reception studies and referencing the work of Janet Staiger and Jackie Stacey in particular. Although Making Sense of Cinema is not organized into themed sections, a number of chapters share similar approaches. Four chapters explore research conducted using traditional methods such as focus groups, questionnaires and surveys, while a further two focus on observational studies. Three of the chapters present the findings of collaborative research projects undertaken using innovative eye-tracking technology, and a further three employ alternative forms of qualitative research, such as ‘minutia reception method’ (p. 224) and an event-indexing study using ‘think-aloud protocols’ (p. 249). The strength of this collection, however, lies in the extent to which the work presents not only a wealth of new empirical data on film audiences but also reflects in meaningful ways on the methodological challenges involved in this kind of research. It is in this respect that Making Sense of Cinema offers a number of valuable provocations for thinking about film audiences in new ways.
The chapters presenting research using traditional empirical methodologies, such as questionnaires, focus groups and interviews, cover a diverse range of texts and contexts. Darren Waldron’s study of the French documentary, Les Invisibles (Sebastien Lifshitz, 2012), examines responses among lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer and transgender (LGBQT) communities in Barcelona, London and Manchester. Waldron’s methodology involves a triangulation of focus groups, questionnaires and email correspondence. He offers some interesting reflections on the challenges implicit in this kind of research, particularly in balancing a recognition and analysis of audience agency with questions around textual determinism. Alexander Geimer also uses a focus group in his study of what he calls ‘critique-of-ideology’ preferred readings (p. 96). Focusing on responses to Fight Club (David Fincher, 1999), Geimer’s methods involve discussion groups among peers who share the same habitus, which he argues facilitates a productive kind of discursive space. This, Geimer suggests, allows for a re-working of Hall’s encoding/decoding model to incorporate a ‘triad of decoding positions’ (p. 111) not facilitated by the original model. Martin Barker draws on the findings of the global Lord of the Rings project to investigate audience responses to eight LOTR characters from a dataset of 11,637 questionnaire responses. In his discussion of research methodologies, Barker points to the limitations of qualitative research and calls for greater investment in quantitative research that allows researchers to map responses ‘across demographic, orientation, cultural, political and geographical contexts’ (p. 135). Finally, Amanda C. Fleming’s chapter revisits a 1920s empirical study of children’s cinema spectatorship in Chicago, conducted by Alice Miller Mitchell and completed by 10,052 children. Fleming argues that, despite the prevalence and influence of audience models such as the ‘hypodermic syringe’ throughout this period, Miller’s study nevertheless offers a rich and revealing insight into the viewing habits and film preferences of children in 1920s urban America.
A further two chapters also use traditional empirical methods in the form of observational research. Annie Dell’Aria offers a set of contrasting and thoughtful accounts of spectator responses to art in public spaces, focusing on three very different case studies: Doug Aitken’s SONG 1 (2012) (screened onto the Hirschhorn Museum in Washington, DC), Jaume Plensa’s Crown Fountain (situated in Millennium Park, Chicago) and a 2013 BBC outdoor screening of Tosca in Plymouth, UK. These three forms of public art were selected, Dell’Aria explains, because there was a paucity of research on them. While some valuable observations are made about audiences for these events, Dell’Aria devotes more time to a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in this observational approach, highlighting the need to supplement this kind of data with other forms of archival and contextual information. Jessica Hughes’s discussion of cult audience responses to Asian Extreme films (often characterized by transgressive or excessive content) screened at international festivals uses observational research within a phenomenological tradition. However, Hughes seems slightly preoccupied with highlighting the issues she perceives as being problematic with other empirical methods, such as surveys, interviews and focus groups, rather than with evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of this phenomenological approach. While discussions around moderator demand are clearly important, Hughes appears to be making an assumption that observing collective audience behaviour en masse will produce more a more authentic set of data, thus overlooking questions of performativity and ritual group behaviour in relation to cult audiences of this kind.
Perhaps the most notable overlap in the empirical studies presented in Making Sense of Cinema occurs across the three collaborative projects using new eye-tracking technologies. Andrea Rassell, Sean Redmond, Jenny Robinson, Jane Stadler, Darrin Verhagen and Sarah Pink present a small-scale study exploring the relationship between sound and vision in audience responses to two films, Monsters, Inc (Peter Docter, David Silverman and Lee Unkrich, 2001) and Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg, 1998). Rassell et al.’s study analyses data gathered from six participants who took part in eye-tracking sessions lasting between 15 and 25 minutes each. The project set out to investigate the importance of sound within the cinematic experience by posing questions such as ‘do our eyes follow narrative-based sound cues?’ and ‘does the soundtrack affect viewer engagement and attention to detail?’ (p. 161). Their findings, though limited, point to a number of interesting avenues which this type of research could take in the future, particularly in relation to what they call the ‘wandering eye’ phenomenon and genre studies (p. 177). A similar project, conducted by Craig Batty, Adrian Dyer, Claire Perkins and Jodi Sita, examines data gathered from 12 participants watching a montage sequence from Up (Peter Docter and Bob Peterson, 2009). Batty et al.’s pilot study points to way in which this methodological approach could enrich our understanding of how audiences engage with narrative. A third collaborative study using this technology, undertaken by Thorsten Kluss, John Bateman, Kerstin Schill and Heinz-Peter Preußer, observed 77 participants watching clips from Imitation of Life (Douglas Sirk, 1959), Conte d’été/A Summer’s Tale (Eric Rohmer, 1996), Blow (Ted Demme, 2001) and On The Other Side (Faith Aitken, 2007). Kluss et al.’s study highlights the way this method can be employed in studies of narrative and genre. The complexity of this methodological approach is evident in the small size of each sample in relation to the comparatively large size of the research teams involved in analysing this kind of data. As Rassell et al. note, the information generated by eye-tracking technologies needs to be used in conjunction with other, more contextual forms of audience data in order to build up any sort of meaningful analysis.
Also focused on the exploration of audience relations with characters, Katalin Balint and Andras Balint Kovacs develop what they describe as an experimental qualitative approach to investigate the ‘attachment style’ (p. 203) that spectators develop towards characters, using 47 university students. While the study discusses the research design in some detail, it also acknowledges that the sample and the method of recruitment limit the implications of the study. Another more experimental method is discussed in the chapter by CarrieLynn Reinhard, who uses what she calls a ‘minutia reception method’ (p. 224) to explore the responses of 14 non-American spectators to a range of American superhero films. A third and entirely different experimental method involves drawing parallels between people’s responses to films and other narrative texts using a ‘medium-independence hypothesis’ (p. 247). Serman Ildirar provides an overview of how this ‘event indexing model’ (p. 248), which proposes that there are five different criteria which readers use to monitor and differentiate narrative events, has been employed to date in research into audiences for popular films. His study then applies this method to art films using 80 undergraduate students watching Caché/Hidden (Michael Haneke, 2005), using a ‘think-aloud protocol’ (p. 249).
Olson concludes the collection with a plea for more empirical studies of global film audiences, emphasizing in particular the benefits of mixed-method research designs that combine cutting edge new technologies with more long-established ethnographic approaches. Indeed, Olson argues that ‘those who set out to conduct film reception studies cannot focus entirely on one methodology’ (p. 291). While there is clearly room to argue the case for research adopting a single method approach, what is apparent from reading this engaging collection of empirical studies is that audience and reception studies continues to offer vibrant and creative new approaches to the study of film spectators. Making Sense of Cinema is a welcome addition to the field, raising new possibilities about what the study of film spectators can achieve and introducing experimental methods for exploring the place of the film audiences in the twenty-first century.