Spectatorship: An Introduction

As time has progressed, our understanding of the role spectatorship plays in films has developed immeasurably. This has had a few interesting effects and most certainly has widened the variety of films that have been produced to date.

Firstly, it is important to understand that in the early days of film and even up to the 1990’s, there was a very limited understanding and appreciation of the part that audiences played in films. In fact, the ‘Hypodermic Needle Model’ that was accepted during the 1940s and beyond, grouped the audience of a film into one lone category. This disregarded contextual and societal differences that form the basis of human identity.

This dated model assumed that audiences took on a passive role in film. That they merely facilitated more films to be made by exchanging money for this entertainment. It also suggested that everything displayed on film was absorbed by the viewer and that the filmmakers’ intended message was the only thing that the audience took from the film.

The effects of this model were that films became a form of economic profitability, especially under the studio model. This stifled creativity because studio executives were determined to mass market their films to the widest audience. This ensured that films featured similar themes and pop culture references, so as to not exclude anybody’s understanding or enjoyment of the product.

Therefore, we can see that films of the: romance, comedy and western genres were most popular during this time as they sought to entertain viewers, rather than challenge their understanding or engage with them on a more critical level as a documentary might.

Intriguingly, in an effort to be completely inclusive, this model was one of the most exclusive ideas ever proposed. By suggesting that all viewers engaged with a film in the same way, you completely ignore people’s unique experiences of the world. Equally, race, gender or sexual orientation were not factors considered. Whilst this reflects the extremely different cultural landscape of the 1940s and 1950s, it suggests that the Hypodermic Needle Model needed to be replaced.

And replaced it was; although, not immediately. The Uses and Gratifications Theory offered a much more specific explanation as to why a viewer chose to consume a certain piece of media. This theory goes hand in hand with the growing diversification of film after the 1960’s.

Using the graph above, the 1960s was very much a turning point in the emerging popularity of new genres as a result of studio decline. As a result of this, viewers were given a choice in what they watched; however, there was still a disparity in genre popularity, for example between horror and comedy. Consequently, the Uses and Gratification Theory is a requirement in explaining this difference.

In short, the theory puts forward the idea that five key factors determine why a viewer chooses to consume media:

1. Entertainment. Perhaps most common and most certainly the primary feature of the 20th Century, entertainment can be found from all genres and allows viewers to find enjoyment from the media and film that they consume.
   
2. Escapism. Whilst more of a feature in modern society, escapism ensures that viewers can be transported away from their life, even just momentarily and find comfort in fiction.
   
3. Personal Identity. Often associated with younger viewers, personal identity relates to viewers associating with something displayed on screen. For example if they find a character in a film endearing, they may replicate their mannerisms and view the character as heroic.

4. Social Interaction. Again, this is extremely evident in modern society. In the early 21st century this was most evident with the emergence of reality tv shows, which stimulated water cooler conversation. Nowadays, people feel part of a community within particular film franchises such as the Star Wars franchise, where blogs and social media pages connect fans from across the entire world.

5. Education. Whilst not necessarily a primary goal of most filmmakers, many people find educational value in film, specifically in documentaries.

The Uses and Gratifications Theory is important because it suggests that there are nuances in why people decide to watch particular things. This was necessary to explain viewing trends as filmmakers became more creative with their output after the 1960’s. Whilst this theory is still accepted today, many argue that contextual factors, such as: age, wealth or location play an even bigger role in determining viewing patterns. Most likely, is a combination of both.

Something that has become an important factor in today’s society is how we consume film. To an extent, the platforms in which we view content influence how we respond to action on-screen. This is true when you appreciate that a viewer watching a mainstream film on a Netflix group on a laptop will have an entirely different experience to somebody watching the same film in a large cinema. It is important that as media changes, film changes to reflect changing viewing habits. More films are going straight to online streaming services, in order to appease our lack of patience. A key drawback of streaming services is a regression to pre-1960’s choice, in that a viewer is more likely to watch similar films that appear as ‘recommended’.

What cannot be understated is how much of a factor an active audience is in terms of spectatorship. The transition from the Hypodermic Needle Model to the Uses and Gratifications Theory marked the audiences involvement in a film changing from passive to active. That is to say, that viewers thoughts and feelings about a film could be independent from those proposed by the filmmaker.

In modern times, we have characterised this by associating different readings to the film as text. When a directors opinion resonates so strongly with a viewer that they share the same opinion, comes under the blanket of a preferred reading. An oppositional reading is when the viewer takes a different view to the filmmaker. A negotiated reading is a mixture of the both, where the viewer is willing to accept multiple different meanings.

Key to this idea of narrative readings is the understanding that the viewer plays a very active role within the film. That they understand the message the director is presenting but that they still have the option of disagreeing. Whilst blockbuster films tend to have very distinct preferential readings, viewers are still able to disagree and alternate interpretations are encouraged. Contrastingly, more avant-garde films with enigmatic endings may contain very subtle themes and meanings. The viewer has to play an active role in deciphering these codes but their final reading of the film may still be preferred.

There have also been different theories put forward surrounding the ‘gaze’ within a film. This essentially concerns how a film goes about revealing the inherent fallacy of the form. In other words, how the spectator is positioned within the film and the cinematography. David Chandler proposed five different gazes that could be present within a film:

1. The Spectator’s Gaze is the most common use of a gaze. This relates to the viewpoint of the camera. As a spectator, one might derive pleasure in taking a voyeuristic role in the narrative. However, there might also be moments of self-reflection. The differences are due to different personal experiences and contextual factors that have been outlined above.
   
2. The Intra-Diegetic Gaze refers to the use of shot-reverse-shot when multiple characters interact. This offers the viewer a more emotive look into the narrative and the spectator can decide how to feel about a particular event based on less explicit factors like body language.
   
3. The Extra-Diegetic Gaze describes when a character looks directly at the camera, acknowledging the presence of the viewer. This can make the spectator feel uncomfortable at being ‘observed’ and there being a reversal of the spectator’s gaze. On the other hand, it could offer the spectator a chance to connect on a more emotional level with the character and find similarities between themselves and the fiction.
   
4. The Camera’s Gaze is the use of the camera to reveal the technology and design behind the film, hence exposing the fictitious nature of the narrative. This might make the viewer feel relieved at the action not being real or disheartened if they feel their feelings and emotions aren’t important.
   
5. ‘Text Within A Text’ is the gaze that uses the most obvious style of breaking the fourth wall. We see characters on-screen have a part in making a film, reminding us that we are watching something constructed. This ensures that the viewer can’t get too invested in the world of the film because they know that it is a product of a filmmaker.

These gazes can be useful in seeing how the camera is used to manipulate the audience’s emotions. Further explanation of why a viewer may express a particular emotion can be done by looking at contextual factors and the personal experiences of each spectator.