Ways of Being

The Spectator and the Spectacle

By
Peter O’Brien

A Film and Screen Studies Dissertation

For the School of Humanities and Cultural Industries

2012-13

Word count: 33,388

1
Abstract

An introductory speculation, Ways of Being: The Spectator and the Spectacle is a

consideration of the epistemological, ontological and metaphysical downfalls of film

theory’s understandings of the spectator and the spectacle; with particular emphasis

directed towards the neurobiological implications of the spectator’s body. The thesis will

argue that these shortcomings are representative of wider ranging issues of complacency

engulfing the film industry and film exhibition as a whole. Furthermore, the fundamental

disruptions of the digital upgrade of cinema, and the expanding means through which film

content can be experienced, will be explored in relation to the pressing need for film theory

to reassess itself. Drawing on a plethora of empirical and non-empirical research, this

dissertation is a highly progressive expression of how film experience has always been

about transcendence and, as a result of its digital re-birth and diversifications, it is now

becoming even more so.

2
Ways of Being: The Spectator and the Spectacle is the culmination of a lifelong personal

passion, a seven month research project and a last minute change of mind. The paper has

been praised for its originality, progressive thinking and received the highest mark ever

assigned to an undergraduate Film and Screen Studies dissertation at Bath Spa University;

in addition to being awarded the Media Futures Research Award.

3
“Pete, you have a fantastic dissertation which deserves the highest possible grade. Really, it

is brilliantly written which displays your thorough research and passion for the topic and,

most importantly, it is original and not something that people have written about tens of

thousands of times. You've done something new and fantastic.” (Matt Coot, Proof-reader,

03/06/2013).

4
FL6001:40 FILM & SCREEN STUDIES: DISSERTATION 2012-13

RECORD OF SECOND MARKING

1st marker Suman Ghosh

2nd marker Terence Rodgers

Name of student Peter O’Brien

1st marker’s 75
mark

2nd marker’s 85
mark

AGREED MARK 85%

2nd marker’s This is an outstanding undergraduate dissertation: brave, and

brief comment superbly executed. Its grasp of theory is superb and Peter
deploys it in a brilliant fashion. This is certainly one of the best
FL dissertations I have read for many a year and this is
reflected in my proposed mark

Joint comment, Agreed

if applicable

Signed: Terence Rodgers

Date of Moderation Meeting: 17 June 2013

5
FL6001:40 FILM & SCREEN STUDIES: DISSERTATION 2012-13

Student name: Peter O’Brien

Assessment criteria and assessment of achievement / performance:

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Introduction /
statement of aims

Knowledge and
understanding of topic
area
Analysis and
application of concepts
(making an argument)
Written
presentation

Referencing &
Bibliography

Other feedback / advice on how to improve:

This is a well researched, conceptually sound and cogently argued

dissertation which is striking in its originality of argumentation and in its
nuanced reading of a wide range of film and critical material. It draws
on a plethora of examples from traditions of visual culture from
prehistoric cave art to contemporary film, the IMAX experience and
future practices of audio-visual consumption in order to examine
traditional and contemporary theories of spectatorship and the
spectator’s relation with the spectacle. The introduction clearly sets out
the structure and methodology of the dissertation and provides a useful
overview of the technological shifts which have resulted in a
reconfiguration of the relationship between the viewer and the viewed.

6
This is clearly an ambitious project. It makes a passionate case for the
revival of grand theory in studies of Spectatorship in particular and Film
Studies in general and sustains this case through argumentation of an
exceedingly high order. It acknowledges the need to expand the scope
of such studies beyond film, in its reference to a wide range of media
texts as much as to critical literature, all of which are directed towards
an understanding of spectatorship from points of view as diverse as the
sensory, experiential, philosophical, spiritual, metaphysical and
neurological. The two chapter structure with ten appendices is
unconventional for a dissertation, but an interesting and evidently
viable one, and is executed with workmanlike assurance.

Marking tutor: Suman Ghosh Agreed Mark: 85

Date: 11.06.2013

7
 For Douglas Trumbull.

The dreamer who cared enough to keep going.

8
Contents

List of Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Notes on the Text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Declaration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Introduction

The Cave-Like Comfort Zone

A Pressing Need to Reconfigure the Spectator and the Spectacle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Chapter One

Looking Beyond the Gaze

The Spectator’s Relationship with the Spectacle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Chapter Two

Hypercinema
The Implications of the Spectacle as a Hyper-Immersive Commodity. . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Conclusion

Deshi Basara
A Pressing Need to Understand the Hidden Language of the Spectator
and the Spectacle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

9
Appendix A

The Perceiving Participator and the Spectacle Experiencing

Situation
An Example of a Reclassification for the Spectator and the Spectacle. . . . . . . . . . . 110

Appendix B

Fat and Sugar

The Variable of Cinema Snacking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Appendix C

The Terror of the Microphone

The Introduction of Sound and the Resulting Disruptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Appendix D

Large Formats of the Past

The Logistical Downfalls of Fox Grandeur and Cinerama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Appendix E

Resolutions
Image Resolutions, Higher Frame Rates and the Standardisation of Film Exhibition. . . 123

Appendix F

The Multiplex is in Trouble

The Aesthetic Downfalls of Low Standards and LieMAXes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

10
Appendix G

A Lousy Experience
The Multiplex Complaint that went Viral. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Appendix H

Highlighting IMAX
Comparisons of Conventional and IMAX Film Posters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Appendix I

The Multiplex is in Your Pocket

The Implications of the Interfacing Relationship of the Spectator and the Spectacle. . 145

Appendix J

The Overview Effect

Hypercinema’s Profound Implications for Humanity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Discography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Filmography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Illustration Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

11
List of Illustrations

Introduction

Figure 1: An Illustration of Plato’s simile of the cave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 2: A poster for Cave of Forgotten Dreams (Dir. Werner Herzog, 2011). . . . . . . . 42

Figure 3: The eight-legged bison. A screen capture from Cave of Forgotten Dreams. . . . 43

Chapter One

Figure 4: Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) looks through his peep hole.

A screen capture from Psycho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 5: John Berger demonstrates perspective. A screen capture from

Ways of Seeing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 6: Jefferies (James Stewart) gazes at Lisa (Grace Kelly). A publicity

photograph for Rear Window. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 7: Dolby Atmos auditorium layout schematic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 8: ‘The Brain in your gut’ diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

12
Chapter Two

Figure 9: An Illustration of 24 frames a second. A screen capture from

a demonstration of Showscan Digital (2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 10: The Higher frame rate FAQ sheet for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. . . . 65

Figure 11: An Illustration demonstrating the 3D stereoscopic effect,

featuring Creature from the Black Lagoon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 12: Douglas Trumbull directing an experimental test shoot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 13: An Illustration demonstrating the enormity of Cinerama,

from an edition of Life Magazine, 1952. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 14: Film format and screen size comparisons. A diagram

demonstrating the differences between 70mm IMAX, conventional

70mm and 35mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 15: IMAX is believing. A photograph of audience members in

front of the IMAX screen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 16: The number of films released in IMAX venues between 2009 and 2012. . . . . 75

Figure 17: The IMAX poster for The Dark Knight Rises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

13
Figure 18: The number of IMAX venues worldwide between 2008 and 2012. . . . . . . . 78

Figure 19: ‘Take in a Movie or get taken into one’. ‘IMAX is believing’

advertisement poster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 20: A photograph of an IMAX performance of The Dark Knight Rises. . . . . . . . 82

Figure 21: A photograph of the auditorium of the BFI IMAX venue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 22: A diagram demonstrating the peripheral vision’s role in the

perception of motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 23: A diagram demonstrating the different peripheral occupation range

of IMAX and conventional cinema screens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 24: A diagram demonstrating the human eye’s rods and cones

receptors and their role in the perception of peripheral vision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Figure 25: Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) jump for their

lives. A screen capture from the 9 minute IMAX preview of Star Trek Into Darkness. . . . 86

Figure 26: A photograph of a Showscan installation venue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 27: A photography of the production of New Magic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 28: A poster for Brainstorm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

14
Figure 29: A photograph demonstration of the in-ride experience of

Back to the Future: The Ride. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 30: Nancy (Rachel Blanchard) allures Jez (Robert Webb).

A screen capture from an episode of Peep Show. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Conclusion

Figure 31: ‘See a movie or be part of one’. ‘IMAX is believing’ advertisement poster. . . 97

Figure 32: A hand print cave painting from the El Castillo cave in Spain. . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 33: Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) prepares for his ascent from the pit.

A screen capture from The Dark Knight Rises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 34: A poster for Berberian Sound Studio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 35: Bruce Wayne climbs up the cavern. A screen capture from

The Dark Knight Rises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Figure 36: A poster for Silent Running. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Figure 37: Bruce Wayne contemplates his leap. A publicity photograph for

The Dark Knight Rises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

15
Figure 38: Bruce Wayne - risen from darkness. A screen capture from

The Dark Knight Rises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Appendix B

Figure 39: A photograph of the food and drink counter of a Vue cinema. . . . . . . . . . 113

Appendix C

Figure 40: ‘The Microphone – the Terror of the Studios’, the cover

of Photoplay, December 1929. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Appendix D

Figure 41: A screenshot of ‘The Future of Film’ article from Photoplay,

December 1929. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Figure 42: A 70mm advertisement for The Master. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Figure 43: A point of view roller coaster sequence from This is Cinerama.

A smile box re-creation of what the 3-strip Cinerama version of This is Cinerama

would have looked like in a Cinerama venue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

16
Figure 44: A layout demonstration of the workings of a Cinerama theatre. . . . . . . . . 121

Figure 45: Linus Rawlings (James Stewart) greets the Native Americans. A smile

box re-creation of what the 3-strip Cinerama version of How The West Was Won

would have looked like in a Cinerama venue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Appendix E

Figure 46: A diagram illustrating the parameters of different image resolutions. . . . . 124

Figure 47: A photograph of an 8K television display. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Appendix F

Figure 48: A photograph of The Little Theatre Cinema, Bath, UK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Figure 49: A photograph of the city centre Cineworld, Glasgow, UK. . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Figure 50: A poster for Quartet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Figure 51: A photograph of the Cineworld in Crawley, West Sussex, UK. . . . . . . . . . 132

Figure 52: A resolution comparison of LieMAX and IMAX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

17
Figure 53: An advertisement poster for Odeon’s isense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Figure 54: A photograph of a 4DX cinema entrance hall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Appendix H

Figure 55: A conventional poster for The Dark Knight Rises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Figure 56: The IMAX poster for The Dark Knight Rises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Figure 57: A conventional poster for Skyfall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Figure 58: The IMAX poster for Skyfall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Figure 59: A conventional poster for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. . . . . . . . . 143

Figure 60: One of four IMAX character posters for The Hobbit:

An Unexpected Journey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Appendix I

Figure 61: “What a difference 8 years makes: St. Peter's Square in 2005

and yesterday”. A photograph comparison created by NBC News. . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

18
Figure 62: Netflix account homepage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Figure 63: Google Glass. A publicity photograph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Figure 64: Google Glass technical schematic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Figure 65: Glass Glass - a user’s point of view. A screen capture from

How it Feels [through Glass]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Appendix J

Figure 66: ‘The Blue Marble’. A photograph that is currently the

highest resolution image of the Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

19
Foreword

“I just feel like I haven’t said everything I want to say on Film Studies,” these were the

words I lamented to Dr Terence Rodgers, the head of the Department of Film and Media, as

I was sat in his office on the 19th September 2012. Less than a week before the Film and

Screen Studies dissertation module was due to begin, I was presenting my case for why I

should be allowed to change to the module. Some would argue that I was very lucky with

my undergraduate degree, BA (Hons) Creative Writing with Film and Screen Studies, as it is

a joint degree, the final year dissertation is not compulsory for me. However, throughout

the summer break I had been debating whether I should stick with the scriptwriting module

I had signed up for or if I should change to the dissertation module for one final hurrah with

Film Studies. Ultimately, people like me have something inside… something to do with film

and fundamentally deep down inside of me there was something concerned with the

subject of Film Studies waiting to finally be expressed!

Up until that point I had been enrolled in Film Studies for five years (two for A-level and

three for Undergraduate). Beyond that, I had been studying films for much longer; I had

been fascinated by their status as a spectacle and my role as a spectator since I was about

five years old. It is fair to say that I subconsciously understood film grammar and the

conventions of cinema long before Ian Fleming properly taught me to read at the age of

fourteen! Films spoke to me in a way that no other form of education came close to; films

provided me with a context though which I was able to understand the world. Therefore,

the chance to study films on an academic basis was instantly appealing when the

opportunity arose. However, throughout my time studying films academically, I felt that I

rarely stepped beyond what were the safe-zone conventions of the academic Film

20
Studies/film theory field. As my grades had always been top-notch, I certainly feel that I had

taken steps in the right direction with all of my previous Film Studies endeavours, but there

was a complacent part of me that was always afraid to keep pushing things down a specific

direction or to take things down a wholly new progressive route. This dissertation is actually

the first time that I have looked at a current topic in the film and media field; in the past,

whether it was the national identity of Charlie Chaplin or the humanity of Kurosawa, all of

my Film Studies endeavours had always looked at subjects that had already passed. I always

followed that pattern because it was a safe pattern; there are too many unknowns in the

contemporary because it is always changing. To this end, I always felt like I had always

copped out with Film Studies. Therefore, I saw a dissertation as my last chance to set things

right and to say something absolutely relevant to what was happening right here, right

now. A dissertation was my chance to do something different, to say something really

uniquely personal on film that would deal with where I was as a person in the here and now

(or whatever the here and now was for me a year ago). Even if I did not consciously know

what that really unique personal thing was, deep down I wanted to write the film

dissertation to end all film dissertations!

Subconsciously and intuitively, I had already decided on the subject of my dissertation two

months previously, on the 20th July 2012 to be exact. This dissertation’s subject found a

very formidable physical manifestation when I saw The Dark Knight Rises at the BFI IMAX.

This was my first time in an IMAX theatre and The Dark Knight Rises was the first true IMAX

film that I had the pleasure of watching and the experience revealed to me this whole other

potential for experiencing films – a type of experience that made films intimately and

intensely more enjoyable! In the creation of my filmic experience with The Dark Knight

Rises via the IMAX format I saw into the pit of myself and realised that there was a great

climb to be undertaken. It was a climb that no one else had undertaken and through the

21
seven month process of that climb I went on to discover a fundamentally ancient yearning

of humanity that still manifests itself in the spectator and spectacle of today. Ultimately, I

wrote this dissertation because I wanted to discover why it was I had always enjoyed films

so much and, in turn, I was able to use that knowledge to reveal something far grander

about our human nature, our grasp of reality and our ways of being. Basically, on a

conscious level, I quite unknowingly stumbled into a largely untapped area where all of my

previously acquired and seemingly unrelated academic and non-academic knowledge all

convoluted together to give me an intuitive grasp on what you now have before you.

A monumental event! I have made many return visits to the BFI IMAX since The Dark Knight

Rises. One of my most recent visits in June was for The Dark Knight Trilogy all-nighter, in

which the whole auditorium gasped in sock when the first true IMAX image was projected

on to the screen – that gasp epitomises exactly what this dissertation is about!

22
However, all of this consciously eluded me as I was sat across from Terry trying to explain

what I would look at in my dissertation. The best I could come up with (because it was a

huge franchise that would surely have something a dissertation could be based around) was

the James Bond franchise. Fortunately, I did not need to try so hard and Terry let me

change to the dissertation with surprising ease. If I had known the full implications of the

exhausting seven month process that I was in store for I probably would have thought twice

about my decision to change to the module!

On top of my other final year commitments, writing this paper was an absolute death-trip.

However, that is not to say that I did not enjoy it and that I am not grateful for the

opportunity to be able to write it. If anything, the grinding process of writing it, of climbing

out of the pit, is what informs the paper with an extra level of hypertextuality and further

enforces the argumentation of the paper’s subject.

23
Seven gruelling months and several extensions later, when I finally submitted the resulting

paper for examination on the 6th June 2013, I had no Idea it would go on to receive the

highest mark ever awarded to a Film and Screen Studies dissertation at Bath Spa University

and be bestowed with the Media Futures Research Award! I also did not anticipate how

much attention the paper would go on to receive, or that I would continue to conduct

research after I had let the paper go, or that I would be asked back to give a talk to the

following year’s dissertation students, or that I would be invited by the Media Futures

Research Centre to give talks on whatever I wanted to talk about, or that it would provide

initiative to undertake postgraduate study, or that I would be sitting here producing a

refined draft.

The changes I have implemented in this refined draft are minimal and I would like to make

it clear that the content of the research and argumentation have not been altered or added

to in any way. Rather, the changes I have implanted are the polishing of sentences to make

things a bit clearer, some further proofing and the adding of initial page material. The most

prominent of this new initial page material is the marking feedback sheets I received from

the first and second markers. As I included the Notes of the Text section in the submission

draft to detail the formatting differences between the digital and paper volumes I

submitted, much of what is in the Notes on the Text section will not be fully accurate with

this new draft. Furthermore, I have not adjusted the Notes on the Text section for this

refined draft because I wanted to retain a record of what the submission draft was like and

how it evolved from the initial drafts. Likewise, the word counts in the Notes on the Text

section will not be applicable to this draft; in fact, the word count that is presented on the

front page is the unified word count for the entirety of this refined volume.

24
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Media Futures Research Centre at

Bath Spa University for bestowing this paper with the Media Futures Research Award. The

honour of being given this award was the final incentive for me to make something out of

the research I continued to do after I submitted the paper - this is how Ways 2 Interface or

www.ways2interface.com has come about.

I always referred to this paper as an introductory speculation and, accordingly, that makes

sense as it now serves as the introduction to Ways 2 Interface. This paper touches on some

very broad and highly untapped subjects and, as such, there is much I was not able to say in

this paper (even with the addition of the Appendices). Therefore, Ways 2 Interface now

provides me with a platform on which I can explore these other areas. Additionally, as

Ways 2 Interface is being hosted online it provides me with an opportunity to use

multimedia and eLearning in a way that I was not able to do in this paper, something that I

consciously bemoaned while writing it! Also, it provides the potential to get others involved

and this is something that I am keen to do, considering this paper deals with several

severely under-researched areas. Therefore, please do get in contact if this paper’s focus is

something that interests you!

Furthermore, my final year creative enterprise project: EYES, an experimental web series

concept proposal package, see www.eyesofastoryteller.blogspot.co.uk, is in many ways the

companion to this paper and overall research project. As this paper fulfils the criteria of my

theoretical dissertation, EYES, as my creative enterprise project, fulfils the criteria of my

practical dissertation.

25
Both this project and the EYES project were produced over the same time period and very

much rifted off of each other; as such, EYES is very much the practical expression of many

of things I explore in this paper and equally went on to inform many of the things I discuss

in this project. There is a strong force of reflexivity that exists between both projects and

that has a lot to say about what it is I am exploring.

26
People like me have something inside… something to do with film. This is a hugely personal

dissertation and that is the point - “sometimes a man rises from the darkness” (The Dark

Knight Rises, 2012) - that is exactly the point. When I am talking about films, I am talking

about humanity’s need for narratives and immersion in fantasy; its need for reflexivity and

rationality; its need to expand, to explore and to extrapolate. These are fundamentally

ancient yearnings and, when properly understood, they will reveal fundamental insights

about reality, human nature and our continually changing ways of being therein.

Understanding the spectator, the spectacle and their ways of interfacing is how we decode

these fundamental insights.

27
While I sit here writing this, I feel absolutely confident about the progressive endeavour this

dissertation has set me on and I now know why I have always enjoyed films so much!

However, have I now said everything I want to say on Film Studies and the subject of film?

Hell no, not by a long shot!

I am just getting started…

Peter O’Brien,

17/09/2013,

Bristol, UK

28
Acknowledgements

Fundamentally, the research project that finds its culmination in this dissertation is my

attempt to rationalise why I have always enjoyed films so much. Additionally, I wanted to

know why I enjoyed the experience of a film in IMAX more than the experience of the same

film in a conventional cinema. While these yearnings formed the subconscious incentive for

the project, the initial conscious embodiment of it was a vague notion of wanting to ‘look at

the gaze’ and explore ‘how we feel films’. When I said these two statements back in

October 2012, not only did I have essentially zero prior knowledge of the gaze as it exists in

film theory, but I knew little more about the study of film spectatorship in general.

Appropriately for this paper’s content, I had a very strong feeling for the direction of the

project and a belief that I had something deeply significant to say on its subject, even if I

could not adequately put that something into words. Considering there is not yet a single

unifying presence writing on the areas I deal with in the paper, this was probably just as

well. Accordingly, the majority of the project’s research has involved the connecting of a

very disparate range of dots; as well as an equal amount of deduction, imagination and

original thinking over the past seven months. The whole endeavour has been a hugely

enriching experience in which my intellectual capabilities have greatly risen to a formidable

level and through the process of which I have acquired a completely new way of enjoying

films. In this dissertation, I believe that I have orchestrated a highly complex explanation for

the project’s original incentives; that covers much more than what I set out to do, with still

more potential on the horizon.

However, this project was not a sole venture and, as such, I would like to thank:

29
My guiding tutor, Dr Suman Ghosh, for sitting through many of my incoherent ramblings

and who had the patience to endure my nonlinear writing style for an exceedingly long

time. Most of all, though, I would like to thank him for his sense of humour, words of

wisdom and belief in my capabilities.

Dr Terrance Rodgers for letting me change to the dissertation module a week before it

initiated, for allowing me to submit an increased word count and for authorising a deadline

extension so that I could rework the paper to satisfy the new word count.

Stephen Manley for pointing me in the direction of the seminal Film Theory: An Introduction

Through the Senses.

Bath Spa University as a whole for its support and encouragement.

Nic Driscoll (my sister), Tim Bradshaw and Matt Coot for their proofreading services.

My friends and family for their continual assistance, support and understanding.

Simon Callow’s highly articulate and overly indulgent prose style in his masterfully written

biography Orson Welles: The Road to Xanadu. Now that I have completed this dissertation, I

look forward to continuing it!

The Dark Knight Rises at the BFI IMAX on the 20th July 2012, the subconscious progenitor

for this project as a possible dissertation subject. The event was a hugely enjoyable and life

changing filmic experience; the full implications of which this dissertation should go some

way in expressing.

30
Notes on the Text

I feel that some clarification is required. The sheer amount of data that I unearthed as a

result of my research led to me writing a first draft that was nearly 20,000 words long,

double the acceptable amount for a submission! As such, this was followed by a second

draft in which I aimed to decrease the word count, but only managed to get it down to

around 17,000 words. These excessive word counts were not an agenda on my part, as I

had always fully intended to submit an 11,000 word paper, with some potential appendix

items. However, the breadth of my research, my passion for the subject and the fact that I

had written each section of the first draft largely in isolation caused the overall word count

to sky rocket. Ultimately, my dissertation developed to the point where it seemed the

integrity of the argument was reliant on all the contents of its text. It would have been a

deplorable mess, if I had just simply disbanded half of its contents and been done with it!

Therefore, a word count expansion to 15,000 words was authorised, as was a deadline

extension in which I could re-work the excessive contents of the first and second drafts into

appendix materials. As I had put a great deal of planning into building a strong, logical and

multi-layered structural spine for the dissertation, the re-working of its content was not just

a case of extracting huge chunks of material; rather, it involved extracting chunks of

material and then reconfiguring the main body to compensate for their omissions, often

this had a ripple effect that required the re-working of multiple points from multiple

sections.

The new word count of 15,015 stated on the front cover, excluding titles and subtitles,

refers to the primary content of the main body of this volume: Introduction, Chapter One,

31
Chapter Two and Conclusion. Originally the primary content also had a third chapter, but

that has been removed to satisfy the new word count, it now exists as Appendices F and I.

Likewise, Appendices A and B originally formed material of Chapter One; whereas

Appendices C, D and E were originally components of Chapter Two. Minus titles and

subtitles, the Appendices have a word count of 6,053. The unified word count for the entire

dissertation volume is 30,778.

In regards to formatting, the presentation of this volume adheres to the required

guidelines. However, there are two instances when text alignment has not been justified:

the quoted text in Appendix G and in the reference details sections. The result of justifying

these pieces of text led to a very unpleasant aesthetic result that, due to the amount of

white space generated in the text, actually made the text harder to read! Unfortunately, my

edition of Microsoft Word does not allow me to edit text alignment beyond justifying it or

aligning it left, right or centre. Therefore, these sections of text remain aligned left.

There is a difference of page numbering that exists between the two hard copies and the

digital submission. As with the text alignment, my edition of Microsoft Word does not allow

me to utilise multiple types of page numbering in the same document. As the hard copies

were created from three different documents, I was able to present the initial pages

without numbering, the front matter pages with lower case Roman numerals and the bulk

of the volume (the primary content, appendices and reference sections) with regular Arabic

numbering. However, as the digital copy is contained within one document it utilises only

the Arabic page numbering on all of its pages. Therefore, the sequential numbering of its

pages is different to that of the hard copies and its contents pages has been adjusted

according. Additionally, the digital version of the Declaration is a photograph of the hard

copy counterpart, as this enabled me to include my signature in the digital copy. Aside from

32
these two differences, the digital and hard copies are identical in their content and their

presentation.

Also, I have endeavoured to format the images and the text into an aesthetically pleasing

whole as best as I can, but there are some instances where substantial areas of white space

just could not be avoided.

Aside from the Harvard referencing guidelines already requiring a major overhaul in regards

to the range of reference sources that now exist, as there is no dictated way to present

image sources, I have endeavoured to present the required information based on what the

guidelines already state for other types of content. However, the image sources have not

been presented in alphabetical order; rather, they are presented in the same order that

they appear in the List of Illustrations and their linear order throughout the main body. This

has been done as it is more logical and makes the referencing of the image sources a much

easier process.

The creation of this final submission draft has required a great deal of my time and effort,

almost equivalent to formulating the original structure and writing the first draft! However,

I am grateful for the extended opportunity that has enabled me to complete the

dissertation I always wanted to submit. Initially the contents of Appendices F and I

(originally Chapter Three) formed integral components of my original argument and I was

very hesitant to disband them from the primary content. However, through the process of

re-affirming the contents of the Introduction, Chapter One and Chapter Two as expressing

what has always been the essential focus for this thesis, I can now say that while the

contents of Appendices F and I are relevant to the overall subject, they are not integral to

the essential focus of it. Additionally, with the appendices as a whole, while there are

33
indications at various points throughout the main body to reference them, this is by no

means essential. The logic of the appendices inclusion is discernible by reading them in a

linear fashion after finishing the conclusion.

In regards to the Conclusion, as it always existed in a very fluid, proto-form throughout the

first and second drafts, I do not believe my original aim for its direction has been

compromised; rather, the re-affirming of the Introduction, Chapter One and Chapter Two

has produced a conclusion that presents a formidably strengthened culmination of my

original intentions! Therefore, after a great deal of intricate re-formulations, I can

satisfactorily say that the 15,015 word primary content of this volume absolutely expresses

what I originally set out to define.

Finally, as much as this piece of work does adhere to the lethargic conventions of academic

writing, I have endeavoured to make it progressively engaging, entertaining and above all

enlightening.

I hope you enjoy reading it.

34
Declaration

I hereby declare that this dissertation is my own original work and that it has not been

submitted for assessment at any other institution. Where other sources of information

have been used they have been acknowledged.

Signed: PETER O’BRIEN

06/06/2013

Bath, UK

35
Introduction

The Cave-Like Comfort Zone

A Pressing Need to Reconfigure the Spectator and the Spectacle

The study of the relationship between the spectator (film viewer) and the spectacle (film

text/event) is film theory’s primary concern. Film consumption and film presence are

integral components of contemporary culture; the fact that the academic discipline of Film

Studies developed out of cultural studies and has become an equally diverse field, with ever

more emerging avenues of thought, is testament to this: “In order to understand today’s

world, we need cinema. Literally, it is only in cinema that we get that crucial dimension

which we are not able to confront in our real reality. If you are looking for what is in reality,

more real than reality itself, look into the cinematic fiction” (Žižek, 2006). While Žižek is

speaking from a psychoanalytically and ideologically motived point of view, the study of the

cinematic medium can offer us additional ontological and epistemological insights into

reality and our very nature of being in that reality. However, before we can adequately

attain this knowledge, first, we need to thoroughly understand the cinematic medium itself;

we need to understand how the spectator views, absorbs, receives, engages, experiences,

constructs, desires, negotiates, manipulates, participates, fantasises, debates, infers,

identifies, critiques, addresses, senses,

recreates and integrates with the cinematic fiction. The problematic nature of terminology

and diversity in film theorisation goes to the very heart of this thesis’ focus. This

dissertation will be concerned with reconfiguring film theory’s understanding of the

spectator and the spectacle for application in a new, diversified and deeply integrated age

of cinema.

36
Conceived two-and-half-thousand years ago, Plato’s allegory of the cave is one of the first

recorded instances of theoretical thought being applied to a spectator-and-spectacle -like

situation. Naively, it has often been compared to the archetypal cinema viewing situation:

“Imagine an underground chamber like a cave, with a long entrance open to the

daylight and as wide as the cave. In this chamber are men who have been prisoners

there since they were children, their legs and necks being fastened that they can

only look straight ahead of them and cannot turn their heads. Some way off, behind

and higher up, a fire is burning, and between the fire and the prisoners and above

them runs a road, in front of which a curtain-wall has been built, like the screen art

puppet shows between the operators and their audience, above which they show

their puppets… Imagine further that there are men carrying all sorts of gear along

behind the curtain-wall, projecting above it and including figures of men and

animals made of wood and stone and all sorts of other materials, and that some of

these men, as you would expect, are talking and some not.” (2003:241).

While it is tremendously clumsy to apply Plato’s cave as a direct representation of the film

viewing situation, the cave can tell us a great deal about film theory’s treatment of it.

Plato’s cave conceives of an ideal spectator – a prisoner bound in the cave from childhood

to observe the shadows on the cave wall. Therefore, Plato’s prisoner/spectator is just an

absorber of what is presented before him. The prisoner/spectator has no other existence

and knows of no other ideology, aside from the one he experiences in the cave – the cave is

the prisoner/spectator’s reality.

37
Figure 1. Plato’s simile of the cave.

When considering the relationship between the spectator and spectacle, this is the problem

with much of the thinking in film theory – every argument conceives of an ideal spectator

(Elsaesser et al., 2010:4). As with the heavily criticised film theories of the 1970s where the

spectator is a slave to the dominant ideology of society, Plato’s spectator is devoid of a life

outside the cave/theory in which the spectator’s body is relegated to a position where it is

essentially non-existent (not to mention a lack of cognitive consideration). However,

beyond the thinking of the 1970s, while all film theories are not guilty of employing the

cave’s spectator-wholly-as-dominant-ideological-absorber pre-set, the theories are at fault

by only ever considering ideal spectators – spectators made to fit the theory. As such, ideal

spectators are problematic as they are not thoroughly representative of actual audience

members (Williams, 1994:3). To say nothing of the corporeal influence, every audience

member willingly enters a film viewing situation with a plethora of preconceptions and

38
other unrelated mental data drawn from an individual life experience which they

cognitively apply to the film experience – every audience member experiences a film

differently and produces their own filmic experience.

Any cave-like theory that presupposes an ideal spectator, while always well intentioned:

“No amount of empirical research into the sociology of actual audiences will displace the

desire to speculate about the effects of visual culture, and especially moving images, on

hypothetical viewing subjects” (Williams, 1994:4), ultimately, is going to end up being

ignorant of the larger and unified contextual, cognitive and corporeal relationship that is

actually at work:

“The cinema and cinematic experience remain phenomenolgically and

philosophically undertheorized, in my view, so long as the events on-screen and the

spectator are each considered individually, as isolated entities separate from one

another. One needs to enlarge the frame of description and know how to draw –

behind the back of the spectator, so to speak – a second screen on which the

osmotic exchange between the so-called spectator and the events on the primary

screen becomes visible. (Voss, 2011:139).

Therefore, the phenomenological and wider philosophical aspects of film theory and how

they can provide a thorough understanding of the spectator-spectacle relationship form

one half of this dissertation. While re-asserting the roles vision and cognition fulfil in

relation to their respective film theories, Chapter One: Looking Beyond the Gaze will use

empirical data in the emerging fields of neurocardiography and neurogastroenterology to

demonstrate why the body of the audience member is a required phenomenological and

empirical variable in film theory’s conception of the spectator-spectacle relationship:

39
 “The idea of the body as sensory envelope, as perceptual membrane and material-

mental interface, in relation to the cinematic image and to audio-visual perception,

is thus more than a heuristic device and an aesthetic metaphor: it is the ontological,

epistemological and phenomenological ‘ground’ for the respective theories of film

and cinema today”(Elsaesser et al., 2010:11).

Following on from this, in order to be specific about what is actually happening in the film

viewing situation, Chapter One will also assert a need to reclassify the spectator and

spectacle elements of the film viewing situation, in an effort to demonstrate the

philosophical need to change the ways in which that relationship is discussed.

However, when dealing with the problem of terminology, film theory is only half at fault,

the film industry is equally to blame! Currently, the film industry is experiencing a

technological shift in the manufacturing and exhibition of its products; which, in turn, has

led to a plethora of new technical terms and differing processes of producing, exhibiting

and streaming film content. Equivalent only to the introduction of sound in the 1920s, the

2000s saw the rise of digital filmmaking and the 2010s will see digital filmmaking become

the dominant practice of the industry:

“Did you read the obituary for film? No, me neither, but the movies you see at your

local cinema, whether they’re blockbusters or smaller works, have probably been

made without the use of that plastic material that comes in reels. The stuff that

captured light and movement for filmmakers from the Lumières to David Lynch”

(Sweet, 2013).

40
35mm analogue filmmaking, the means by which films have been produced and exhibited

since their infancy, is being assigned to the museum. Fujifilm recently announced that it has

ceased production of celluloid film (Fujifilm, 2013); which comes as no surprise considering

analogue motion picture cameras have also ceased production (Seitz, 2011). Certainly,

when you take celluloid film out of the equation, what right do digitally produced films still

hold to be called films?

Chapter Two: Hypercinema will present the pioneering innovations of entrepreneurial

filmmaker Douglas Trumbull and, looking at the current growth of IMAX, the chapter will

examine a growing investment in establishing something approaching a hyper-immersive

cinematic exhibition commodity: “Theaters, movies, movie-going and other core

components of what we once called “cinema” persist, and may endure. But they’re not

quite what they were in the analog cinema era. They’re something new, or something else”

(Seitz, 2011). The aesthetic reconsiderations hypercinema is encouraging towards how films

themselves are exhibited, how this form of exhibition is experienced by the spectator as a

hyper-real impression and even how it may alter climatic language will be explored.

Furthermore, this will provide additional evidence as to why the reconfiguration of the

spectator and spectacle in relation to film theory’s venture to gain an understanding of the

ontological, epistemological and metaphysical aspects of cinema is an essential endeavour:

“The film spectator constitutes, as a resonating body in need of further

determination, the illusion-forming medium of cinema. Reflection on the formation

of illusion by means of and in the cinema thus leads to a new, expanded concept of

cinema itself that includes the spectator’s body – a concept of cinema that

emphasizes the relevance of intertwined sensations, and the interpretation of

these sensations, for the aesthetic experience of the medium.” (Voss, 2011:139).

41
The aesthetic experience of the medium is something that has suffered from a great deal of

ignorance by film-goers, filmmakers and film theorists alike. In the first forty years of its

existence the film industry was a hive of innovation; it underwent many changes as new

techniques and technologies were introduced to better handle the medium. Since the

stabilisation of sound and, aside from the introduction of colour, widescreen and television,

from the 1930s to the 2000s, the industry has found itself in a largely undisturbed

aesthetically and financially secure comfort zone. This was a result of the dominant

ideology of the film industry - to generate profits (Figgis in Sweet, 2013)! Accordingly, this

complacent and cave-like attitude has migrated into the majority of the audience and a

large part of the theoretical thinking of Film Studies. Film-goers, filmmakers and film

theorists were happy to submit themselves to the shackles of this cave-like scenario

precisely because it provided a comfort zone that seemed to be aesthetically perfected and

mutually beneficial for all involved parties.

42
Figure 2. The Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave in France has some of the earliest recordings of cave

paintings, over 30,000 years old!

Indeed, there is something deeply poetic about a conception of the cinema residing in a

cave-like scenario, as the cave wall is where we can find the first recorded instances of

humanity showcasing their artistic expressions. The cave painting is a proto-expression of

what is a fundamentally ancient language – the cave holds a integral link to our very nature

of being.

Figure 3. “we should note the artist painted this bison with eight legs suggesting

movement, almost a form of proto-cinema” (Herzog, 2010).

43
However, evolution forced us to leave the cave behind and adopt new canvasses for our

artistic expressions; in turn, these new canvasses have expanded our ways of thinking. As

such, digital evolution is doing the same with the cave-like comfort zone of cinema; it has

disrupted the tranquillity of cinema and is forcing us to take notice of its imperfections.

Accordingly, a great deal of foreboding surrounds the digitalisation of cinema (Dean in

Sweet, 2013). Equally, there is also a great deal of optimism (Figgis in Sweet, 2013), as

digitalisation came about precisely to ensure the longevity of the cinematic medium. We

live in the age of the upgrade and now cinema too possesses that ability; therefore, it will

continue to be in state of developmental flux for the foreseeable future. It seems cinema

has returned to its roots of innovation and coupled with the diverse means through which

film content can now be accessed, understanding its ways of being is paramount.

Ultimately, the topic to be discussed is vast and this dissertation cannot hope to cover the

full diversity of that discussion; at best this dissertation is an introductory speculation.

However, it will provide a broad overview and bring particular attention to elements that

are key in relation to how the experience of films can reveal insights into our ways of being

in the world. Far too long now a cave-like comfort zone has engulfed the film industry and

film theory based on a complacent assumption that filmmaking, film exhibition and film

theory had reached their optimum form. However, the ripples created by digitalisation are

revealing otherwise and the pressing need for a major reconfiguration has become

apparent:

“Today, many see the moving image as our most precious (and endangered)

historical heritage, a unique ‘archive’ of life and of things over the past 120 years.

Some have argued that cinema is the key and template for our cultural

understanding of the new (digital) media; and, for yet others, the cinema

44
 constitutes a material-mental organism in its own right, a new and vibrant

articulation of matter, energy and information, and thus a ‘thing’ that ‘thinks’,

which philosophy can help us understand. This is why it makes sense to speak of

both the cinema’s ‘epistemologies’ (ways of knowing, as well as ways of

questioning how the cinema knows what it claims to know) and ‘ontologies’ (ways

of being, as well as ways of classifying what is and exists) as the proper domain of

film theory.” (Elsaesser et al., 2010:185-6).

In short, it is time to leave the cave behind.

45
Chapter One

Looking Beyond the Gaze

The Spectator’s Relationship with the Spectacle

The position of the gaze in relation to the spectator and spectacle has been a problematic

subject of film theory for some time now. The very definition of the gaze invites

misconception from its outset. If you were to ask a layman to define the gaze as it exists in

the film viewing situation, then they would probably reply that it is the spectator passively

looking on as the film unfolds before them. While this statement is correct, according to the

most basic understanding of the definition of the gaze: “look steadily and intently,

especially in admiration, surprise, or thought” (Oxford, 2013), it is ignorant of the larger

academic understanding of the gaze as a theoretical construct. These academic

explorations of the gaze as a construct have been central to film theory’s understanding of

the spectator and spectacle relationship. However, the gaze is only one component of what

needs to be a larger body of knowledge.

Figure 4. Is the film viewer a voyeur?

46
Theories of the gaze and the spectator’s relationship to the spectacle were developed for

an academic grounding in the 1970s. The conception of the gaze in film theory signifies a

significant shift when the thinking of many film theorists aligned to establish and contest

theories that attempted to decode the spectator’s relationship with the film text. However,

the thinking behind these ideas are largely drawn from thinkers outside of Film Studies:

“John Berger’s Ways of Seeing could stand as the earliest and most accessible single

statement of a whole generation’s turn toward a commentary on a hypothetical spectator’s

relation to the visual image” (Williams, 1994:1).

Figure 5. “Perspective centres everything on the eye of the beholder” (Berger in Dibb,

1972).

47
In addition to Berger’s groundbreaking thinking, film theorists employed concepts from

semiotics, literature studies, narratology, psychoanalysis and ideology to elaborate on the

essential point of Berger’s Ways of Seeing: “that there is a ‘way of seeing,’ structured into

visual representations and the way those presentations address spectators” (Williams,

1994:1). Key to this process of elaboration was Louis Althusser’s assertions on the nature of

ideology:

“the theory of ideology he proposed seemed to offer film theorists the basis for a

detailed explanation of the influence of movies upon the imagination. In particular,

film theorists argued that the kind of deception that cinematic illusion wrought

upon the film spectator was a precise instantiation of the kind of deception

wrought by ideology upon the individual” (Allen, 1998:7).

Not only did the adoption of Althusser’s ideological theory serve to elevate the importance

of Film Studies as an academic means by which the status quo could be deconstructed:

“Since cinematic illusion seemed to demonstrate his theory so well, the analysis of

cinematic illusion promised to play a central role in bringing to fruition the Marxist project

of explaining and criticizing the function of ideology in society” (Allen, 1998:7), it also

enabled film theorists to begin to grasp the information processing that occurs from film

text to film spectator: “they wanted to understand how the filmmaker’s (and by extension

the culture’s) view of the world became confused with, or displaced by, the spectator’s

view; that is, they asked, how does ‘their view’ become ‘your view’ without provoking any

protests?” (Saper, 1991:33). Central to understanding this peaceful information/ideological

transference was Lacanian psychoanalysis:

48
 “Lacan argues that infants acquire their first sense of self-identity (the formulation

of an ego) through the experience of looking in a mirror and relating to their

bodies. For Lacan, this experience metaphorically captures a stage in the child’s

development when the child anticipates a mastery of the body that she/he lacks in

reality” (McGowan, 2007:1).

Therefore, the basic premise of classical film theory is that the cinema affords the passive

spectator only an illusionary sense of mastery over the ideology conveyed in the film text:

“the spectator inhabits the position of the child looking in the mirror. Like this child, the

spectator derives a sense of mastery based on the position that the spectator occupies

relative to the events on the screen” (McGowan, 2007:6). By combining the thinking of

Althusser and Lacan, a theoretical construct of a cinematic apparatus was established and

seemed to account for how the ideological transference between spectacle and spectator

took place:

“the alignment of projector, spectator and screen, constituted… ‘a basic cinematic

apparatus’ which in and by itself already predicated and circumscribed the effects it

could have on the spectator… the ‘centering’ as well as ‘pinning down’ or

‘capturing’ of a single individual as the locus of consciousness and coherence, giving

the impression of mastery when such mastery was the mere effect of the

respective machineries – optical, ideological, narrative, specular (Elsaesser et al.,

2010:68).

In the apparatus’ conception of the film viewing situation, the film text and the physical

cinema location form one systematic apparatus (the fire, the road, the puppeteers, the

cave wall and the cave itself) and the spectator is the subject component of that apparatus

49
(the chained prisoner in the cave). The gaze (the arrangement of visual material as an

ideological construct on the cave wall) is what supplies the spectator with a sense of

mastery over the filmic experience: “in the most seemingly natural or beautiful of visual

images, there is an invisible ideology that affords the gaze that surveys it both mastery and

equilibrium” (Williams, 1994:1). Phallocentric and monolithic leanings sum up much of the

thinking in regards to the gaze: “that is, the cinema works to acculturate individuals to the

structures of fantasy, desire, dream, and pleasure that are fully of a piece with dominant

ideology” (Mayne, 1998:18). Therefore, the gaze, as it exists in film theory, is less about the

physical, voyeuristic action of the spectator sensing the film text through their eyes and

more about a specific ideological construct which the spectator becomes subject to while

performing that ocular process: “The process of seeing paintings, or seeing anything else, is

less spontaneous and natural than we tend to believe. A large part of seeing depends on

habit and convention” (Berger, 1972). The gaze is a pre-packaged ideology that the

spectator adopts: “Every image embodies a way of seeing.” (Berger, 1972:2).

50
Figure 6. Feminist film theorist, Laura Mulvey famously and controversially postulated that

classical Hollywood cinema possessed a dominant male gaze. Rear Window (Dir. Alfred

Hitchcock, 1954) is a film about the shortcomings of voyeurism.

While every cinematic image does embody a way of seeing, as determined by the audio and

visual construction of the film text by the director, this pre-packaged mindset is always

open to further re-interpretations and, ultimately, is altered by the active cognitive

participation of the spectator, as the cognitive film theory of the 1980s and onwards

demonstrates:

“Viewers cannot absorb cinematic images any more than they can absorb reality.

Instead they undertake a perceptual dialogue, seeing in part what their schemas

51
 encourage them to seek out, and in part what the artist’s shaping of cinematic form

encourages them to see. If the viewers were studying a painting, their schemas

would accommodate to the work over a period of time (and the longer the time,

the more thorough the understanding, as any educator will attest)” (Nadaner,

1984:126).

Cognitive theory is a reaction to the shortcomings of the earlier film theory and disregards

its attitude of free association; it favours empirical explanations over the ideological

interpretations of the 1970s’ cave-like thinking (Bordwell, 2009). Therefore, cognitive

theory is able to factor in a spectator that is more than a passive, disembodied voyeur;

rather, cognitive theory conceives of: “the spectator as an active participant in

understanding the text” (Allen, 1997:4) and, as such, has a conception of a spectator much

closer to an actual audience member:

“In explaining viewers’ responses, [cognitive theory] looks first to features of the

human mind. This doesn’t mean that researchers study minds cut off from society;

rather, the emphasis is on the mental activities tied to all sorts of experience,

including social action and interaction” (Bordwell, 2009).

Therefore, in order to gain a thorough understanding of the spectator’s relationship with

the spectacle we need to look beyond the gaze – we need to look beyond looking: “One of

the major fallacies of contemporary film theory has been to imply that spectatorship in the

cinema is inherently voyeuristic. This emphasis on the cinema’s voyeuristic character results

from an overvaluation of the role that vision plays in determining the emotional responses

of the spectator” (Allen, 1995:133). The experiencing of a film is achieved by more than just

an ocular process - film viewership has never just been about viewing; in fact, film viewing

52
is not even an accurate term for it: film sensing or film experiencing would be better

descriptions of the process by which a spectator absorbs a film text and then collaborates in

the creation of the transcendental filmic experience:

“We watch films with our eyes and ears, but we experience films with our minds

and bodies. Films do things to us, but we also do things with them. A film pulls a

surprise; we jump. It sets up scenes; we follow them. It plants hints; we remember

them. It prompts us to feel emotions” (Bordwell, 2012).

Certainly, beyond the ocular, the aural elements of a film play a huge role in the creation of

a film experience; even more so with the monumental presence afforded by surround

sound: “sound ‘embodies’ the image – seeing is always directional, because we see only in

one direction, whereas hearing is always a three-dimensional, spatial perception, i.e. it

creates an acoustic space, because we hear in all directions” (Elsaesser et al., 2010:129-30).

53
Figure 7. Dolby Atmos, the next generation of surround sound will allow you to hear the

whole picture (Bowling, 2012).

Sound has always been an integral component of the film experience; not even silent films

were silent, all silent era cinemas had some form of in-house foley and musical

accompaniment (Brownlow et al., 1980). The role of sound in film cannot be understated as

54
the physical presence of sound allows the spectator to be: “bodily enmeshed acoustically,

spatially and affectively in the filmic texture” (Elsaesser et al., 2010:131-32).

However, the human body as a complex organic whole comprises a major variable that has

been missing from all film theories’ understandings of the spectator and spectacle

relationship: “the inclusion of the body in film theory is a way of overcoming the deadlocks

of the representational model and of calling for a more diverse set of approaches to

conceptualise the cinematic experience” (Elsaesser et al., 2010:131). Perhaps the reason

previous film theories have been unable to adequately factor actual audience members

into their paradigms is precisely because they have deprived their ideal spectators of a

physical presence and a body that can influence the filmic experience! Cognitive theory

only incorporates the body as far as being an experience simulator driven by perceptual

data sourced via the eyes and ears. However, what if the body was actively influencing the

filmic experience as a perceptual membrane on a basis equivalent to the eyes and ears?

What if the body was just as cognitively involved in the filmic experience as the brain

proper:

“Dr. J. Andrew Armour, introduced the concept of a functional ‘heart brain’ in 1991.

His work revealed that the heart has a complex intrinsic nervous system that is

sufficiently sophisticated to qualify as a "little brain" in its own right. The heart's

brain is an intricate network of several types of neurons, neurotransmitters,

proteins and support cells like those found in the brain proper. Its elaborate

circuitry enables it to act independently of the cranial brain – to learn, remember,

and even feel and sense” (Madurasinghe, 2008).

55
The implications of the heart brain should be apparent, as only considering the neural

activity of the cranial brain holds many, if you like, narrow-minded parallels with the 1970s

treatment of the spectator as being only discernible with the gaze! The heart brain’s

presence is even more important when it is realised that, while it does act independently in

regulating itself, it also influences and sometimes overrides the cognitive processes of the

cranial brain (Salem, 2007:4). However, the body’s role in our cognitive processes does not

end with the influence of the heart brain, human beings also possess a stomach brain

(Watzke, 2010)!

Figure 8. The source of butterflies in the stomach (Mosley, 2012).

56
The stomach brain is comprised of five hundred million nerve cells and one hundred million

neurons (equivalent to a cat’s brain) and it plays a significant role in emotional regulation:

“The gut is connected to our emotional limbic system and the two speak to each other and

make decisions” (Watzke, 2010). The signals the stomach brain sends to the cranial and

heart brains: “directly affect feelings of sadness or stress, even influence memory, learning,

and decision-making” (Hurley, 2011). The cranial brain, the heart brain and the stomach

brain all work in conjunction as one complex interconnected neural network, inherently

influenced by the larger nervous and sensory systems of the human body: “Throughout the

1990s, the view that the brain and body work in conjunction in order for perceptions,

thoughts, and emotions to emerge gained momentum and is now widely accepted”

(McCraty, 2003:3), the terms ‘gut feeling’, ‘follow your heart’ and many alike all seem to

have a logical scientific basis. While the fields of neurocardiography (study of the heart

brain) and neurogastroenterology (study of the stomach brain) are still very much in their

infancy, the findings already compiled are highly suggestive of a deeper and vastly more

complex role for human cognition. Therefore, beyond being an experience simulator, it can

be speculated that the entirety of the human neurobiological system acts as a perceptual

influencer in the film experiencing situation. We do not just watch films, we feel, simulate

and become aspects of them.

Further research even suggests that we may not only neurobiologically experience and

simulate data from a film individually, but are influenced by our fellow spectators as they

neurobiologically experience and simulate data from a film:

“There is now evidence that a subtle yet influential electromagnetic [field, as

generated by the heart] or ‘energetic’ communication system operates just below

our conscious awareness. Energetic interactions possibly contribute to the

57
 ‘magnetic’ attractions or repulsions that occur between individuals, and also affect

social relationships. It was also found that one person’s brain wave can synchronize

to another person’s heart” (Salem, 2007:2).

This research has a lot to say for intuition and could account for something film critic Mark

Kermode has commented on:

“it’s like there’s a temperature change in the room and I know there’s not

physically a temperature change, but you can tell how a film is playing and it’s not

because I can hear people sighing. No, it’s nothing that obvious. You can be in a

room with a bunch of critics and you can tell how a film is playing.” (2013).

However, there are doubtless many other potential ways the body can play an active role in

the film experiencing situation; one such under studied area is the body’s consumption of

food (see Appendix B). However, this is precisely why further research and consideration

needs to be directed towards the body to ascertain just how involved it actually is in the

creation of the filmic experience. Ultimately, integrating the body into film theory will

enable the discipline to access a wider field of knowledge and, accordingly, will generate a

number of new problems! Indeed, as has already been highlighted in this chapter’s diverse

use of terminology in regards to the various attributes of cinema, e.g. ‘spectator’, ‘viewer’,

‘audience member’, film theory as an epistemological and what is fast becoming an

ontological and metaphysical pursuit, needs to be exacting in the terminology it uses to

discuss its fields of study. As ever, Mark Kermode elaborates:

“What’s interesting about this habitual slicing vernacular, with its constant

references to scissors, knives, cuts, trims and so on, is that it makes no sense

58
 whatsoever in the modern digital era. You try editing a digital movie with some

form of physical blade and see how far you get. The very idea of anyone merrily

setting about a movie with a pair of scissors is rooted in the age-old physicality of

celluloid, and harks back to a time when ‘film’ was a physical entity rather than a

conceptual conundrum. Nowadays, movies aren’t ‘cut’; they are modified,

reformatted and adjusted to fit your screen. If you’ve been to the cinema in the

past few months, chances are that what you were watching wasn’t even a ‘film’ at

all. More likely it was a stream of electronic information, uploaded on to a server

and then beamed on to the screen by a digital projector without ever having passed

through the translucent celluloid that once gave the medium of ‘film’ its very

name” (Kermode, 2011:301-2).

Philosophy, then, is another required variable in film theory that can and has been

providing clarification. Essentially, philosophy has always formed the essential purpose of

film theory (Mullarkey, 2009:6-7), but only in the last ten years has it gradually found its

way to the surface as a prominent force and as a means of rationalisation (Elsaesser et al.,

2010:185-6); thanks in no small part to the digitalisation of cinema and the diversification

of film exhibition:

“Cinema is a world of its own – whether a grey soundless shadowy world or a fluidy

manipulatable one. This film-world is a flat, ordered, compressed world; a world

that is subtly, almost invisibly organised. A world that is a cousin of reality. And the

multiplicity of moving-image media in the twenty-first century means that this film-

world has become the second world we live in. A second world that feeds and

shapes our perception and understanding of reality. So it seems especially

important that we get to grips with the moving image, that we came up with a

59
 sufficient range of conceptual frameworks by which to understand it” (Frampton,

2006:1-2).

The terminology of film is problematic as there are many redundancies and contradictions

inherent in the definitions of the words that make up the film vernacular. With terms like

‘spectator’, ‘viewer’, ‘audience member’ there is too much emphasis on passivity and the

concept of gazing. On the other hand, with terms like ‘spectacle’, ‘film’, ‘cinema’, ‘film

viewing situation’, ‘film experiencing situation’ there are a great deal of redundancies and

ambiguities. Beyond celluloid film being discontinued, does ‘film’ refer to just theatrically

produced entities or does it also refer to entities produced for television and the internet?

Likewise, what is ‘cinema’ referring to: the physical cinema location, an artistic

temperament or the industry as a whole? Certainly, when dealing with audio-visual content

‘spectacle’ seems suited to cover both theatrically and non-theatrically released content, as

all audio-visual content is designed to create a spectacle. Without even moving onto the

passivity inherent in ‘spectator’, ‘spectacle’ alone does not adequately begin to cover the

means by which a spectator is able to engage with it (see Appendix A).

As a growing ontological, epistemological and metaphysical discipline, film theory’s only

hope of clarity in adequately understanding the spectator and spectacle relationship is

through philosophy. In addition to this, philosophy’s deployment of rationality and

empiricism also enables it to work with differing film theories. This chapter has presented

overviews of psychoanalytical and cognitive film theory – two theories that represent a

major polarisation in Film Studies and, as such, are highly critical of each other:

“Psychoanalytical readings are especially targeted for being ambiguous, equivocal and

limited to emotive, irrational aspects of films (sexuality, fantasy, surrealism). For the

cognitivists, if a scene can be explained cognitively, then there is no need for a

60
psychoanalytical reading” (Frampton, 2006:107-8). However, philosophy offers a means

through which both of their lines of thought and other contradictory/isolationist theories

can be combined:

“I will propose that film be seen instead as an immanent set of processes,

specifically as a series of relational processes and hybrid contexts comprising the

artists’ and audience’s psychologies, the cinematic ‘raw data’, the physical media of

the film, the varied forms of its exhibition, as well as all the theories relating

themselves to these dimensions. This is a stratified approach to film as textual and

material artefact, visual cognition and ontological world-view. As such, each partial

view will also be partially accepted and incorporated into the meaning of film

(without exhausting it, however), but each one’s own partiality for its own view – in

other words, each theory’s attempt to totalize and reduce film entirety to itself as

its illustration – will be deemed illegitimate” (Mullarkey, 2009:10).

In particular, Frampton’s contribution to the philosophical debate is significant as he

proposes a manifesto for a new way of understanding films. Frampton incorporates a

multitude of thinking from many theoretical approaches and, as seems to be a growing

trend in film philosophy, reconfigures the film as an entity that can think:

“The ‘filmind’ is filmosophy’s concept of film-being, the theoretical originator of the

images and sounds we experience, and ‘film-thinking’ is its theory of film form,

whereby an action of form is seen as the dramatic thinking of the filmind…

Filmosophy proposes that seeing film form as thoughtful, as the dramatic decision

of the film, helps us understand the many ways film can mean and affect”

(Frampton, 2006:6).

61
Therefore, if both films and their spectators can think, not only has film theory come a long

way from its disembodied, ideologically based thinking of the 1970s, but it is now in a

position where its status as an essential academic discipline has been established.

Increasingly so in our multimedia dominated age, through its explorations of ontology,

epistemology and metaphysics, as represented in the spectator’s relationship with the

spectacle, Film Studies as a whole now serves the purpose of being able to reveal

fundamental truths about reality and human nature. Likewise, by realising that the filmic

experience is in many ways just another way of neurobiologically experiencing and

cognitively understanding the world, film theory will be better equipped in its endeavour to

understand the spectacle’s appeal to the spectator. Looking is only one part of the filmic

experience; to understand it fully we need to explore its larger ways of being. Embarking on

this endeavour means not only that we are leaving the cave behind, but that we are better

prepared to consider the potentially game-changing paradigm of the hypercinema.

62
Chapter Two

Hypercinema
The Implications of the Spectacle as a Hyper-Immersive Commodity

If there is one leading figure that epitomises the desire to move away from the cave-like

comfort zone, then that person is Douglas Trumbull. Renowned for his special effects

wizardry and various entrepreneurial efforts, in 2011 Trumbull announced his active

process of producing a 3D science fiction film to be filmed at 120 frames per second (fps).

This is hugely significant as the 24fps frame rate has been one of the fundamental

components of the film industry since the introduction of sound in the 1920s: “the standard

speed was increased to 24fps to accommodate sound… Over the years, we’ve come to

associate 24fps with the cinema experience. The look of Hollywood feature films is

integrally tied to that frame rate” (Ascher et al., 2007:98).

Figure 9. Usually one second of film is comprised of twenty four separate still images; when

presented together in a one second sequence, the succession of still images create the

63
illusion of motion. Therefore, increasing the frame rate means you increase the amount of

still images in every second of film.

Furthermore, if the frame rate is increased it will convey an impression of motion closer to

how our eyes and brains sense the real world:

“Most researchers agree we perceive 40 conscious moments per second… In other

words: our eyes see more than that [66] but we’re only aware of 40. So if a frame

rate hits or exceeds 40 fps, it looks to us like reality. Whereas if it’s significantly

below that, like 24 fps or even 30 fps, there’s a separation, there’s a difference —

and we know immediately that what we’re watching is not real” (Kerwin in

O’Connell, 2012).

As a result the Hollywood/traditional filmic look is lost, as the recent case of The Hobbit: An

Unexpected Journey (Dir. Peter Jackson, USA, 2012) has demonstrated in its 48fps version:

“There are scenes when it causes the images to be crisper and brighter but, especially in

instances of high CGI content, it creates a non-cinematic picture. That may be the primary

reason why isolated moments feel like video game outtakes.” (Berardinelli, 2012).

However, increasing the flow of motion closer to how our brains process visual information

is not the only factor at fault. Doubling the amount of visual information in every second of

film allows twice as much detail to be captured and this can bring attention to artificial

elements, such as studio lighting and make-up (Kosner, 2013) - elements that have been

refined over the last eighty years precisely to make up for the visual inadequacies of 24fps:

“The text-book reason filmmakers add makeup to actors and then light them brightly is that

film is not as sensitive as the human eye” (Knoll in Kosner, 2013).

64
Figure 10. An effort to educate a confused and paying public, this is the higher frame rate

FAQ sheet issued to all venues exhibiting the HRF version.

The Hobbit’s higher frame rate marks the first time a different frame rate has been

commercially exhibited worldwide and the critical reception has been largely negative.

65
While the negative attitude does have some ground, as with citing the artificial elements

the higher frame rate reveals, it also epitomises the cave-like comfort zone of the cinematic

conventions of the past eighty years - the attitude of not wanting to move away from what

many see as an aesthetically pleasing paradigm: “Twenty-four or 30 frames per second is an

inherent part of the cinematic experience. It’s the way we accept cinema. It’s the way we

suspend our disbelief” (Kerwin in O’Connell, 2012). However, Trumbull has argued that due

to the industry going digital the introduction of new technologies and filmmaking

techniques is inevitable (Trumbull in Gilchrist, 2012). As such, filmmakers are not only going

to have to rethink how they make films, but the audience is going to have to re-learn how

they experience those films:

“My guess is that people are going to go through the same experience that he

[Peter Jackson] and I have been through, which is that once you sit in an editing

room or screening room and start looking at stuff at 48fps, you get to really like it.

And then when you go back and look at 24fps you say, “Oh my God, how did we

stand that for so long?” It’s a really interesting phenomenon. You kind of have to

go there and be in it for a while. And so I think the audience is going to have that

same experience” (Trumbull in Steigbigel, 2012).

This ‘interesting phenomenon’ holds many parallels with the introduction of sound into the

film industry (see Appendix C). As with the addition of make-up and lighting to make up for

the visual inadequacies of 24fps, sound technology was very quickly adapted into a process

that not only allowed the filmmakers to work efficiently with it, but enabled them to

discover a whole new way of telling stories. The filmmakers found a way to use sound as

another storytelling tool to add an additional aesthetic dimension to their films (Elaesser et

al., 2010:129-31; Scorsese in Stock, 2011).

66
Therefore, in light of this thinking, higher frames rates can be seen as just another

filmmaking tool that filmmakers and the audience will eventually become accustomed to.

Also, thanks to the diverse options afforded by digital filmmaking, there is a choice as to

which frame rate filmmakers want to utilise (Showscan Digital, 2010); in the same way that:

“you don’t have to use 3D and you don’t have to use colour…” (Scorsese in Stock, 2011).

Regardless of the negative critical reaction to The Hobbit’s higher frame rate, there

continues to be strong enthusiasm for higher frame rates from filmmakers and spectators

alike. James Cameron is going to capture and exhibit his Avatar sequels in 60fps, Andy

Serkis will be doing likewise at 48fps for his adaptation of Animal Farm (2014) and there are

now online communities, such as hfrmovies.com devoted to: “news, info, downloads &

discussions” (hfrmovies.com, 2013) on the subject. However, probably the biggest incentive

pushing for the use of higher frame rates is their ability to eliminate the motion blurring of

3D.

Stereoscopic 3D is another component of contemporary cinematic exhibition that shares

many parallels and problems with higher frame rates, and the introduction of sound. The

introduction of 3D has proven to be much more turbulent than sound. 3D first appeared

commercially in the 1950s and very quickly fell out of circulation due to technical neglect

(Burns in Skal, 2000), and it has reappeared and just as quickly disappeared in brief revivals

since then. However, now in the 2010s, it looks set to stay having grasped a foothold where

it is both technologically sustainable thanks to the digital transition and financially

rewarding thanks to the fact that most blockbusters are either filmed digitally in 3D or post-

converted into it (Sharp, 2012). As with sound and colour before it, there is now a growing

trend among filmmakers to use 3D as a storytelling tool, as films such as Avatar (Dir. James

Cameron, 2009), Cave of Forgotten Dreams (Dir. Werner Herzog, 2010), Hugo (Dir. Martin

67
Scorsese, 2011), Prometheus (Dir. Ridley Scott, 2012) and Life of Pi (Dir. Ang Lee, 2012) have

demonstrated:

"Every shot is rethinking cinema… rethinking narrative – how to tell a story with a

picture. Now, I'm not saying we have to keep throwing javelins at the camera, I'm

not saying we use it as a gimmick, but it's liberating… But it has a beauty to it also.

People look like… like moving statues. They move like sculpture, as if sculpture is

moving in a way. Like dancers…" (Scorsese in Kermode, 2010).

Figure 11. The introduction of 3D in the 1950s was envisioned to pry audiences away from

their televisions and bring them back to the cinema.

However, while 3D is still generating profits since its widespread re-introduction in 2009,

3D is quickly losing its unique cinema attraction value (Sharp, 2012). As with widescreen,

high definition resolution and surround sound, you can now experience 3D in your living

68
room thanks to 3D televisions and 3D Blu-rays; in addition to this, 3D will soon form a part

of television production and broadcasting, as the BBC’s upcoming 50th anniversary episode

of Doctor Who (Dir. Nick Hurran, 2013) will demonstrate (Plunkett, 2013). Ultimately, this is

only adding to a much larger problem for cinema exhibition:

“I think the movie industry really needs a shot of excitement now because people

are streaming their movies, downloading their movies and the phrase I use now:

‘the multiplex is in your pocket’ – convenience, low cost, ease of use, any time you

want, anything you want and so the rationale for the multiplex theatre cinema

which was all about that is now changing… movie-going attendance is at a 16 year

low right now and probably getting worse” (Trumbull, 2012c).

This has been an increasing problem for cinema exhibition since the widespread

introduction of television in the 1950s and earlier with the popularity of radio in the 1920s.

How do the film exhibitors keep the audience coming to the cinema, when the audience

can just as easily sit at home or delve into their pockets and have a ‘similar’ experience?

This is where Trumbull steps in as the industry’s champion: “For movies to survive as a

business, we have to make it better” (Trumbull in Giardina, 2012); he has been advocating a

new type of cinema for some time now, a type of cinema that will break away from the

cave-like complacency of the last eighty years and bring the audience back to a revitalised

auditorium: “I’d like to break ground on what I think will be a really powerful new kind of

cinema experience that you cannot get on your tablet, computer, or your cellphone, or

even in a regular theatre” (Trumbull, 2012g). Trumbull’s 3D 120fps science fiction project is

his demonstration of this powerful new of kind of cinema, a kind of cinema in which 3D and

higher frame rates are only two components:

69
 “it’s now possible with this new high frame rate, larger screens, higher reflective

screens and 3D. There are so many things now available to make a new kind of

movie experience which is going to be more like a window on to reality – like a

holodeck or something to break the theatre” (Trumbull, 2012c).

Figure 12. Douglas Trumbull has been innovating and advocating a new type of cinema for

over thirty years.

Thus far, Trumbull has described himself as a lone wolf in this area (Trumbull in Variety,

2012), but the fact of the matter is a widespread technological transformation of cinematic

exhibition is already taking place and it is not too far from what Trumbull is proposing. The

technology to make it a reality already exists, all Trumbull is suggesting is unifying all of

these disparate technologies into a form of cinema that is aesthetically pleasing and that

will provide a truly monumental (profit producing) cinematic experience:

70
 “I’ve come to the conclusion that if your objective as a studio producer is to make a

blockbuster spectacle that’s going to take you to Pandora or another dimension or

another world or [to see] vicious monsters that come out of the screen and eat the

audience, we need a more powerful medium” (Trumbull in Gilchrist, 2012).

A more powerful medium that any piece of consumer hardware outside of the auditorium

will have a hard time matching: “I’m trying to bring to cinema this spectacular illusion of

immersiveness. The spectacle of 2001 [: A Space Odyssey (Dir. Stanley Kubrick, 1968)] and

better than that” (Trumbull, 2012c). Until a better name comes along, Trumbull has

christened this new type of cinema ‘hypercinema’ (Trumbull in Variety, 2012).

The practice of what Trumbull envisions is very different, but in essence what he is

describing is the digital version of large format cinema. Up until recent years, large format

cinema has existed only as the occasional novelty and has always been overshadowed by

conventional film exhibition (see Appendix D). The promise of a large/enhanced format

cinema was first established concurrent to the introduction of sound: “There is colour to

give [movies] vividness and life. There is widescreen projection just out of the laboratory to

bring you the spectacles of nature and art in their true majesty. There is the promise too of

three dimensions to give lifelike perspective.” (Will Hays in Merton, 2011). Aside from the

widescreen, surround sound and 3D technologies that have ended up becoming a part of

conventional cinema exhibition, there have been two prominent forms of large format

cinema that have not: Fox Grandeur, a 70mm widescreen process, and Cinerama, a highly

praised widescreen process projected onto a 146° panoramic screen that closely mimics

human peripheral sight enabling a highly immersive experience (see Appendix D).

71
Figure 13. The highly immersive quality of Cinerama caused a sensation when it was first

released.

However, unlike Fox Grandeur and Cinerama, a large format process that has persisted

financially since its infancy in the 1960s is IMAX. Image Maximum, a.k.a. IMAX, currently

boasts the highest resolution imagery of any image capturing and exhibiting process; the

IMAX celluloid image is equivalent to 18K digital resolution (see Appendix E), around

eighteen times the resolution of current high definition displays and superior to what the

Human eye is actually capable of perceiving: “IMAX doubted if the viewer can see 18K

projected, estimating that 12K might be a more accurate guess” (Wilson, 2009)!

72
Figure 14. Larger formats call for bigger cinema screens.

IMAX captures onto horizontally aligned 70mm film and, as such, is able to hold a great deal

more detail than standard vertically aligned 70mm film: “IMAX 70mm standard is three

times bigger than normal 70mm and nine times bigger than 35mm [conventional analogue

format].” (Wilson, 2009).

73
Figure 15. “In an IMAX you feel everything more: you feel the picture, you feel the sound”

(Anon, 2010).

Like Cinerama (see Appendix D), due to its various logistical problems, IMAX was not a

process that was quickly embraced by the mainstream film industry and, as such, the

74
majority of IMAX’s initial output was documentaries. However, in the last ten years, a

radical shift has occurred thanks in no small part to Trumbull’s influence: “I was one of the

team who took IMAX public. We took IMAX from a sleepy little museum company into the

mainstream of movie business in a pretty short period of time” (Trumbull, 2012c). This

transition began with the introduction of the IMAX Digital Re-mastering process (IMAX

DMR): a top secret algorithm that allows 35mm, conventional 70mm and digitally captured

films to be upscaled into IMAX resolution. Essentially, the DMR process copies and pastes

the pixels that are already in every single frame to increase the image resolution; as such,

the DMR films do not have the same image vibrancy and detail diversity as a true 70mm

IMAX image. Regardless of this separation, the number of feature films being released in

IMAX venues has been on an upward curve as a result of the DMR process: “often resulting

in revenue multiples up to 8X the same film in a conventional 35mm theatre” (Trumbull,

2010).

Figure 16. The large format that keeps expanding.

75
In addition to upscaling films into IMAX resolution, filmmakers have also started to shoot

segments of their films in true 70mm IMAX. Christopher Nolan started this tradition when

he captured 38 minutes of The Dark Knight (Dir. Christopher Nolan, 2008) in true 70mm

IMAX (with the remainder of the film’s 35mm footage being upscaled); with The Dark

Knight, Nolan proved that it could successfully be done and could reap huge financial

rewards. Since then, other films have followed: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Dir.

Micheal Bay, USA, 2009) features 9 minutes of IMAX, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

(Dir. Brad Bird, 2011) features 30 minutes and The Dark Knight Rises (Dir. Christopher

Nolan, 2012) features 72 minutes. Upcoming true 70mm IMAX releases are: Star Trek Into

Darkness (Dir. J.J. Abrams, 2013), The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Francis Lawrence, USA,

2013), Transformers 4 (Dir. Michael Bay, 2014) and Interstellar (Dir. Christopher Nolan,

2014).

76
Figure 17. With 72 minutes of IMAX footage, The Dark Knight Rises is currently the longest

IMAX feature film; the film played for over three months at the BFI IMAX, this was

77
considerably longer than its multiplex engagement! IMAX releases also receive additional

promotional materials targeted at highlighting the film’s unique IMAX engagement. These

additional promotional materials often express a heightened and more prestigious

experience opposed to their multiplex counterparts, as the poster above demonstrates (for

more IMAX and multiplex comparisons, see Appendix H).

On the whole, though, there is a strong aversion to filming in true IMAX as the system only

allows you to capture for 3 minutes, it takes 20 minutes to reload the camera, the cameras

are very cumbersome and sound has to be recorded separately, due to the unwanted noise

created by the workings of the IMAX camera (Sciretta, 2008). This also accounts for why

there has not yet been a complete feature film captured in the process. However, logistical

problems aside, this sudden in-rush of true IMAX and IMAX upscaled films accounts for the

worldwide growth of IMAX’s brand, popularity and financial profits.

Figure 18. IMAX appears to be experiencing something of a renaissance.

78
Like The Dark Knight Rises before it, the online IMAX box office crashed when the tickets for

Star Trek Into Darkness went on sale (Enk, 2013); there appears to be a definite demand for

IMAX films, especially 70mm IMAX films and large format IMAX-like cinema experiences. In

an age where high resolution images are easily accessed on a variety of displays, IMAX

offers a level of image detail that just cannot be achieved on consumer devices or in

multiplex theatres: “given that IMAX is non-conventional and extremely immersive [I think]

you're going to have a hard time creating the same immersive experience in a home”

(Bonnick in Lowe, 2013). As such, IMAX currently holds a unique profit producing novelty

factor and it is a profit producing novelty factor the film industry very much wants to be a

part of:

“Exhibitors and critics even suggest IMAX leads the industry rebound in theatrical

revenue largely because it creates an experience that cannot be duplicated at

home. The money tells the story. In its June 2012 quarterly report, IMAX

announced 22.7 percent revenue growth over the preceding year. Moreover,

profits climbed 80 percent, reaching $15 million… IMAX tickets typically cost 30%

more than standard admission, roughly $15 or more in America’s more expensive

markets. Moreover, ticket sales for IMAX films tend to drop less week-to-week

compared to standard theatrical releases. According to a report by the U.K. firm

Dodona Research, revenue from large-format surcharges, including IMAX, will inject

an additional $850 million to total ticket sales by 2016” (Vanderhoef, 2013).

79
Figure 19. Do the immersive aspects of IMAX qualify it as hypercinema?

80
However, IMAX’s financial success is not just produced by its ability to offer the best image

quality on truly monumental screens: “usually in the range of 70 feet by 50 feet” (Solis,

2012). Beyond this, IMAX has a continuing investment in maintaining high exhibition

standards, something that the majority of multiplexes are currently falling short on:

“Right now, in the movie industry, we are at an all-time low in technical quality of

theatres. Not all theatres, some theatres are very good. But we’re taking 3D

movies; we put a filter in front of the projector to get 3D – it cuts the light in half!

You put your 3D glasses on – cuts the light in half again! So you’ve got a quarter of

the light. The average being measured out in theatres now is two and half

footlamberts of brightness – which is unbelievably dim. That’s average, that means

there are some theatres which are one footlamberts.” (Trumbull, 2012a).

IMAX compensates for the 3D filter light loss by appropriately increasing the brightness of

the image during the IMAX post-production process. Furthermore, all IMAX releases are

incredibly vivid in terms of their brightness thanks to the highly reflective screens, 15,000

watt projector bulbs and increased shutter opening times that all 70mm IMAX venues

utilise.

81
Figure 20. An IMAX performance of The Dark Knight Rises, notice the level of illumination

being reflected onto the audience.

In addition to the high image clarity, all IMAX releases have uncompressed sound that

output through IMAX’s patented surround sound system, which they claim is superior to

Dolby Atmos (Lowe, 2013). Each film has its soundtrack calibrated by the technical staff of

each IMAX venue to ensure that the film’s soundtrack is exploited to the full potential the

structural dimensions each IMAX venue can afford it. IMAX auditoriums have specially

housed cameras next to the projector to monitor the image on the screen during a

performance and this allows the projectionist to make any required adjustments (Marshall,

2013). However, probably the most significant difference is the standard geometry of an

IMAX auditorium:

“Most movie auditoriums are long and narrow, to get the most people in, with the

screen way off at the far end. The distinctive shape of an IMAX theatre is designed

82
 to bring the audience not only closer to the screen, but better-positioned in relation

to it” (IMAX, 2013a).

Figure 21. The auditorium of the BFI IMAX, London. The venue houses the largest screen in

the UK and is able to seat 500 patrons.

The stadium seating of the IMAX auditorium and the fact that the screen itself is curved

ensures that every seat offers an almost equal viewing experience: “The result is an image

that’s wider and higher than your field of view; a picture that’s immersive because you’re

not aware of where it ends. And that, in turn, is what gives you the feeling you’re part of

the action, out among the stars, not just peeking into a scene” (IMAX, 2013a).

83
Figure 22.

As was the case with Cinerama (see Appendix D), if a cinema screen can occupy your

peripheral vision it will create sensations of motion, balance and depth in your

neurobiological network (Helms, 2008).

Figure 23.

84
While an IMAX screen fills considerably less of your peripheral vision than a Cinerama

screen (146°), its increased width and curvature means it still occupies a greater degree (70°)

than a standard multiplex screen (54°). In addition to this, and unlike Cinerama’s screens, an

IMAX screen fills considerably more of your vertical peripheral vision.

Figure 24.

Cones and rods, the two types of receptors housed within the human eye, are exploited

even more so in an IMAX venue: “Cones are a part of your central vision and allow you to

focus on detail. Rods are important to your peripheral vision” (IMAX, 2013a). Therefore, the

more of your eyes’ receptors that are stimulated by the visual information on the screen

the greater the neurobiological activity there will be in your body. Together with the higher

resolution imagery that can transcend the level of detail the human visual system can

process in the real world (when viewing 70mm IMAX) and the specially calibrated,

uncompressed surround sound: “This increased sensation of motion is one of those things

that makes you believe you’re in that world you see on-screen” (IMAX, 2013b). Therefore,

when viewing the 70mm IMAX prologue to Star Trek Into Darkness as when Captain Kirk

85
(Chris Pine) and Dr McCoy (Karl Urban) leap over a cliff edge there is a reason a vertigo-

danger-falling sensation shoots through your body.

Figure 25. The first 9 minutes of Star Trek Into Darkness were screened before showings of

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Imagine experiencing this on a screen that is at least

five floors high!

While you are consciously aware that you are watching a movie, on an instinctual level,

thanks to a considerable part of your peripheral vision being occupied by the IMAX screen,

your neurobiological network gets tricked into thinking that it too is about to go over the

cliff edge: “if the edge of the cliff scene is registered by rod cells in your eye your brain cells

are going to tell your body to watch out for that cliff. This makes your experience at the

movies more than just popcorn and snacks, it's an adventure to another world” (IMAX,

2013b) – this is the IMAX experience and its innovation is a far cry from the cave-like

comfort zone. In comparison to the mediocre experiences that multiplexes are currently

offering (Pledger, 2012; see Appendix G), it is no wonder the public are willing to pay the

86
extra money for an IMAX ticket. After viewing the IMAX upscale of Skyfall (Dir. Sam

Mendes, 2012), director Sam Mendes commented: “IMAX is the most well perfected

version of watching a movie there has been thus far” (2012).

However, the type of immersive spectacle Trumbull is proposing as hypercinema goes way

beyond what IMAX is currently offering and, as Trumbull points out, it needs to transcend

IMAX because: “The problem is that all [IMAX is] doing is blowing up conventional movies

on to a larger screen. No one's still thinking about it as a different medium. I think it's a

completely new thing. And I think the audience that pays for movies is completely ready for

a new thing” (Trumbull in Leopold, 2013). To fully understand what Trumbull is envisioning,

we need to look at Showscan, hypercinema’s analogue large format precursor. Showscan

was a filmmaking process Trumbull innovated in the late 1970s and early 1980s: “A film

process whereby 65mm film is photographed at 60 frames per second, and projected using

70mm prints at the same rate. The result is unsurpassed image clarity and realism made

possible by the tremendous reduction of blurring” (Trumbull, 2010).

87
Figure 26. One of the Showscan installations built to demonstrate its proportions and to

showcase its process, notice the IMAX-like scale and geometry.

Showscan was incredibly similar to IMAX; the only major difference was that it used a

considerably higher frame rate. This was the result of a series of tests (a surprising rarity for

this field of study) Trumbull conducted to ascertain what qualified as the optimum film

viewing experience:

“We did tests at 24, 36, 48, 60, 66 and 72fps. We filmed a first person point of view

shot in a car driving down a winding road. We brought in people to look at these

movies at these frame rates, and hooked them up to an electrocardiogram [records

electrical activity in the heart], electroencephalogram [records electrical activity on

the scalp], galvanic skin response [measures electrical conductivity of skin], and

electromyogram [records electrical activity in muscles]. We found out that people’s

88
 physiological stimulation levels would rise tremendously as a result of frame rate. It

showed a perfect bell-shaped curve that peaked around 66 frames per second”

(Trumbull in Steigbigel, 2012).

These results are not surprising, if we follow Kerwin’s comment in regards to the human

brain being able to process 66 moments in every second, then it is only logical that

Trumbull’s results peaked at 66fps. Furthermore, this accounts for why Showscan: “stopped

looking like a screen and started looking like a window” (Gerrold, 2010). This window effect

was exceptionally illustrated in one of Trumbull’s experimental short films New Magic (Dir.

Douglas Trumbull, 1983). The film itself starts off as a documentary that very quickly

encounters technical problems, so the projectionist stops the film and heads around the

auditorium to the backstage area behind the screen to grab the other print of the

documentary. As the projectionist has put the lights on behind the screen, and because

cinema screens are perforated, the audience can see him fumbling around through the

screen:

“and so people like, seasoned movie professionals – like Steven Spielberg, he’s a

really good example – he’s a friend of mine – came to see my demo film. And so

when that happened, he got up out of his seat, shook my hand and said, “Doug, you

know, call me when you get it fixed”. And then he just started walking across, and I

was just waiting: “He’s going to understand this in a minute” – and he got to the

door and looked sideways to the screen and realised it was just a two-dimensional

[Showscan] movie of this Projectionist.” (Trumbull, 2012g).

89
Figure 27. From the filming of the breakdown sequence in New Magic or from when it was

projected onto the screen?

Aside from the similar instance of the Lumière’s Arrival of a Train at the Station (Dir.

Auguste Lumière et al., 1896) supposedly causing patrons to flee in fear because they

feared they were going to be run down by a train (Gunning, 1994:116), New Magic is

certainly a first for cinema – an experience where the audience were absolutely fooled into

thinking they were seeing reality. Trumbull was even able to use Showscan to hypnotise an

audience by having a hypnotist perform directly into the camera (Trumbull, 2012f).

However, the higher frame rate was not the only factor responsible for these tricks, the

increased image brightness and higher resolution of a 4-5K 70mm Showscan image would

have added to the visual authenticity of the image’s portrayal of reality. Currently IMAX

only captures and exhibits in 24fps, but it can only be imagined the type of hyperrealistic

experience that would be created if the IMAX frame rate was increased to 60fps or more

90
(see Appendix E). This is what Trumbull is proposing with hypercinema and why it can

revitalise cinema going.

In terms of its aesthetics, though, for Trumbull, hypercinema is not just about creating truly

monumental immersive experiences: “there’s plenty of the normal stuff, I want to do the

un-normal stuff” (Trumbull, 2012d), hypercinema is about making a different kind of

hypercinematic film, that fully exploits the potential of a hyper-real cinematic experience:

“No one in the industry has seen a 3D movie at 30 foot Lamberts at 120 frames per

second… What happens when you get into this hyper-real realm of a movie, that seems to

be a window onto reality, is that the entire cinematic language begins to change” (Trumbull

in Variety, 2012).

Figure 28. In Brainstorm (Dir. Douglas Trumbull, 1983) a procedure is created which allows

human perceptual experiences to be recorded and played back to be re-experienced by

91
other users. As a means of further audience immersion into the film experience, the

recorded perceptual experience segments of the film were originally going to be captured

and exhibited in Showscan. This would have made the neurobiological processes of the

spectator a much more intimate part of the film’s narrative and would have been a

progression towards a new type of cinematic language.

Cinematic language (the means by which subject matter and meaning is expressed in film

form) was refined throughout the silent film era, but has not progressed much since then,

directly as a result of the cave-like complacency: “we can’t, as an industry, say that we got it

right in 1927, don’t change a thing… at some point you have to look at ways that you can

increase that experience” (Jackson, 2012). Certainly, there is nothing wrong with the

already established cinematic language; the reason why it has lasted for so long is because,

as with basic grammar, it assigns rules and meanings that everyone can understand.

However, if filmmakers want to use a higher frame rate or they want to use 3D, those

filmmakers need to ask themselves how this will impede on the parameters of the

traditional cinematic language with which they are already familiar. Precisely one of the

reasons 3D has earned the stigma of a gimmick is because the majority of filmmakers have

not used it as a storytelling tool. In most cases, 3D has mostly been implemented as a

financial selling point that worked against the visual aesthetic and integrity of the film.

Using 3D to its full artistic potential requires a filmmaker to rethink the entire presentation

of what would otherwise be a 2D image: “It's literally a Rubik's Cube every time you go out

to design a shot, and work out a camera move, or a crane move” (Scorsese in Kermode,

2010). The same is true of a broader paradigm like hypercinema:

“It’s a new cinematic language, which calls for different kinds of camera angles and

movements, different selection of lenses, different kinds of action and framing, and

92
 a different editorial pace, because the result of 120 frames in 3D on a very bright

screen is like being inside a movie rather than looking at a movie… It’s a very

intense, participatory experience” (Trumbull, 2012c).

In addition to exploiting the scale of IMAX, the type of hypercinematic aesthetic paradigm

Trumbull is proposing would be something closer to a theme park ride: “when you get into

an immersive experience like this – it’s like you’re in the movie, not looking at a movie. You

become a participant in the movie, like in a theme park ride” (Trumbull, 2012a).

Figure 29. In 1990 Trumbull was given the challenge to create Back to the Future: The Ride,

a theme park attraction ride that: “blends breakthrough simulator technology with a

cutting-edge Omni-max 70mm film to create a total sensory experience” (Sciretta, 2007).

93
The attraction has consistently been described as: “the best ride on the planet” (Olson,

1998).

However, while it would employ a monumental theme park ride aesthetic, hypercinema

could also encourage a greater intimacy with the subject matter. In this respect Trumbull

has been experimenting with something that is akin to the television show Peep Show

(2003 – present): “It’s breaking the fourth wall, the forbidden fourth wall, which may

include… an actor actually turning to the camera and acknowledging the presence of the

audience” (Trumbull, 2012f).

Figure 30. Peep Show is a television show presented exclusively through character point of

view shots, making the spectator feel like they are the characters. Trumbull has a similar

94
vision for hypercinema: “I can hire a really beautiful actress to look in the lens and seduce

every guy in the audience” (Trumbull, 2012e).

While Trumbull is eager to ignite hypercinema as a new form of film exhibition, by no

means does he see it as replacing conventional film presentation: “I think 24 frames-per-

second movies on normal movie screens is a wonderful, beautiful, long-lasting art form that

will go into the future and it is completely appropriate for most films, actually.” (Trumbull in

Variety, 2012) Therefore, hypercinema is not a replacement of the current film exhibition

sector; in the same way that you do not have to use, colour, sound, 3D or different frame

rates, hypercinema would be just another means through which film content can be

accessed, as a much more participatory and hyperrealistic experience. As IMAX’s success

has already demonstrated, an exhibition paradigm such as hypercinema could very well

give public exhibition a new lease of life.

However, if something like hypercinema can present a hyperrealist representation akin to

New Magic, that makes the spectator a part of the spectacle, then it has larger

implications! Hypercinema will put many of the traditional assertions of film theory into

question: “No one would ever think of touching the figures of light on the film screen in

order to test in this way their degree of reality.” (Voss, 2011:142). Certainly, hypercinema’s

ability to present reality to a level of detail equivalent to how the brain processes it requires

film theory to reassess one of its most fundamental understandings of film’s status as only

being an impression of reality:

“the experience of the impression of reality in the cinema takes the form of a

benign disavowal where spectators entertain in thought that what they see is real

in a manner akin to the experience of a conscious fantasy. The difference lies in the

95
 fact that in the cinema this conscious fantasy is fully realized for the spectator in

the form of projective illusion. Thus I argue that while I know that what I see is only

a film, I can experience this film with the kind of realization that occurs in dreams”

(Allen, 1995:5).

While moving forward, the digital re-forging of cinema is reviving fundamental questions of

how to define reality. As with the bodily implications in the creation of the filmic

experience, philosophy can provide clarity in this endeavour. Regardless of whether

hypercinema becomes an actuality as Trumbull envisions it, all the new filmmaking

techniques and technologies present huge potential implications for the spectacle’s and the

spectator’s ways of being in reality (see Appendices I and J). Therefore, in light of these new

industry paradigms and fundamental questions they raise, the reassessment of film theory

and the reconfiguration of the spectator and the spectacle (see Appendix A) are all the

more warranted.

However, beyond the neurobiological implications of the spectator’s body and the

spectacle’s expansion through larger formats into hyper-cinematic commodities, the

relationship of the spectator and the spectacle in reality becomes even more problematic

when it is considered that film exhibition is not only getting bigger, but it is also getting

smaller. Crucially, we now live in an age where film content can be accessed in any context.

As Trumbull has already pointed out, while larger forms of cinema promise to dominate the

public exhibition sphere (see Appendix F), the multiplex is finding its way into our pockets

(see Appendix I). All of these innovations and diversifications of film content are further

strengthening embodiments of the fundamentally ancient truth that lies at the heart of the

film medium’s continual ways of being a dominant financial and artistic presence - a truth

of transcendence.

96
Conclusion

Deshi Basara
A Pressing Need to Understand the Ancient Language of the Spectator and
the Spectacle

Film viewership is far more than precisely that – viewing. Never in its one-hundred-and-

eighteen years of existence has film experience been a purely passive activity (Butsh,

2007:297); on some level, it has always encouraged the participation of the audience

(Nadaner, 1984:126). The only difference that exists in the current digital age of cinema is

that the participatory aspects are being encouraged even more so, due to cinematic

immersion being commoditised.

Figure 31. Belief is the key to (financial) success.

The growing trend to commoditise all types of film experience is emblematic of concurrent

questions being asked in regards to film experience – if films are about more than looking,

then what do they qualify as? What constitutes film experience? While heavily resisted, the

97
incentive to move away from the cave-like comfort zone is the result of the digital re-birth.

For eighty years, there has existed a supposedly accomplished business and aesthetic

model for the entire paradigm of the film industry. However, the ongoing digitalisation of

the film industry has exposed the inadequacies of the supposedly perfected analogue era:

“Then think what would naturally happen to them if they were released from their

bonds and cured of their delusions. Suppose one of them were let loose, and

suddenly compelled to stand up and turn his head and look and walk towards the

fire; all these actions would be painful and he would be too dazzled to see properly

the objects of which he used to see the shadows. What do you think he would say if

he was told that what he used to see was so much empty nonsense and that he was

now nearer reality and seeing more correctly” (Plato, 2003:242).

98
Figure 32. Older still than the cave paintings of the Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave in France, are

the paintings of the El Castillo cave in Spain. These paintings are 40,800 years old, the

oldest yet discovered (Than, 2010)! Cave paintings demonstrate that cavemen understood

visual representations as being about more than the process of looking. Perhaps even more

so, cavemen understood that visual presentations were also absorptions into something

bigger: “If memory is our means of preserving that which we consider most valuable, it is

also painfully linked to our transience. When we die, our memories die with us. In a sense,

the elaborate system of externalized memory [of cultural artefacts] we’ve created is a way

of fending off mortality” (Foer, 2011:19).

While we do not want to be constrained by it (McGowan, 2007:ix), the cave is still

important in formulating a larger understanding of film experience. Ultimately, film

experience is just an updated version of the cave painting and what has always been a vital

endeavour for humanity: to express a fundamentally unchanging and ancient language –

the language of human nature as entwined with narratives: “Life is cognitive, not narrative.

We need narration to understand it, but we live it cognitively” (Reygadas in Stock, 2013).

Narratives are intimately linked to the human intellect because they offer us explanations

of a world that does not make sense; through the mutual dialogue between spectator and

spectacle, narratives allow us to achieve transcendence. In a recent episode of Doctor Who,

the protagonist commented that: “The soul's made of stories, not atoms” (Dir. Farren

Blackburn, 2013). Films are currently the most successful means of expressing this ancient

language of transcendence because the film medium is currently the only art form that

comes close to mimicking the human cognitive process; hence the medium’s more intimate

connection with humanity and further validation as to how the medium can have a

profound neurobiological influence on us (see Appendix J):

99
 “Since its invention film has been compared to the mind, whether through analogy

with human perception, dreams or the subconscious. The shock of seeing a world

‘freed’ by man’s imagination caused many early writers to see a profound link

between the mind of the filmgoer and the film itself, leading them to understand

film as a mirror of mindful intent. In a sense film offers us our first experience of an

other experience… Film seems to be a double phenomenology, a double intention:

our perception of the film, and the film’s perception of its world. Thus our

understanding of our world can be informed and changed by this other way of

experiencing a world, this other view of a similar world” (Frampton, 2007:15).

Figure 33. In The Dark Knight Rises, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) readies himself to climb

out of his prison - an underground cavern supposedly impossible to escape from: “my soul

is as ready to escape as my body” (2012).

Whether it is the sensory overload of the IMAX or the intimate experience of the smart

phone, the diversifying means through which film content can now be experienced are

100
greater than ever before. These diversifications are fuelling the largest ongoing dialogue

that has ever existed between content and consumer, spectacle and spectator. The

resulting comfort zone disruptions and the intimate-technological-integration of content

into everyday life has created a scenario where the fundamental dialogue between the

spectator and spectacle is becoming more widely acknowledged. While it is not widely

understood, the dominating presence of film-like content and the increased opportunities

created for transcendental potential, now that film content can be accessed in any context

(see Appendix I), greatly intensifies the inherent religiosity of film experience:

“I believe there is a spirituality in films even if it’s one that can’t supplant faith. I

find that over the years there are many films that address themselves to the

spiritual side of Man’s nature… It is as if movies answer an ancient quest for the

common unconscious; they fulfil a spiritual need that people have to share a

common memory.” (Scorsese et al., 1995).

101
Figure 34. A film that superbly demonstrates this transcendental religiosity of the dialogue

between spectator and spectacle is Berberian Sound Studio (Dir. Peter Strictland, 2011). It is

a film in which the film itself becomes sentient and, by merging with its protagonist, folds

over into itself. The film and protagonist ascend beyond each other and the transcendental

result is the filmic experience. Ultimately, the spectator leaves the film with a unique filmic

experience that is different to the filmic experience of any other audience member,

precisely because the spectator would have been a collaborator in its creation; the filmic

experience will go on to have a continued neurobiological and cognitive existence as part of

a larger narrative, as the spectator lives his or her life (Sobchack, 1992:5; see Appendix A)!

As much as it is a result of the digitally-orientated times it was made in: “It seemed kind of

perverse in a sense that we’re making a film about analogue but by digital means”

(Strickland, 2011), Berberian Sound Studio is a highly progressive meditation on the

spectator’s relationship with the spectacle: “It’s not about understanding it so much… it’s

more about feeling it” (Strickland, 2011).

It is this type of meditation, film theory and Film Studies as a whole, would do well to

nurture. As should now be clear, the ontological, metaphysical and epistemological

attributes of film experience require philosophically-inclined minds to successfully decode

those inherent attributes of film experience:

“call it a double movement: from the disembodied but observing eye, to the

privileged but implicated gaze (and ear); from the presence of the image as seen,

felt and touched, to sense organs that become active participants in the formation

of filmic reality; from the sensory perceptual surface of film that requires the

neurological brain, to the unconscious that registers deep ambivalences in the logic

of the narrative, where rational choice or rational agency theories see merely an

102
 alternating succession of action and reaction. At the limit, film and spectator are

like parasite and host, each occupying the other and being in turn occupied, to the

point where there is only one reality that unfolds as it enfolds, and vice versa”

(Elsaesser et al., 2010:11).

As much as films go on to exist in us, we go on to exist in them.

Figure 35. His fellow prisoners urge him on: “Deshi, deshi, basara, basara. Deshi, deshi,

basara, basara” (The Dark Knight Rises, 2012), a chant of an ancient language that beats like

a pulse beneath the surface of the film. Throughout his career as Batman, Bruce Wayne has

developed a fearlessness of death: “The leap to freedom is not about strength… fear is why

you fail… you do not fear death” (ibid).

An attitude of indifference has largely found its way into Film Studies, as it puts too much

emphasis on the past, it is an academic subject that is increasingly feeling very dusty. It

does not invest enough energy into progressive thinking or into examining the practical

103
aspects of how film entities are constructed: “Film also possesses unique representational

capacities that enable it to present additional aspects of the artist’s world view. The

temporal and sequential nature of film allows it to organize images in a pattern that

simulates the pattern of the artist’s perception and thought.” (Nadaner, 1984:125).

However, this result is not surprising when it is considered that nostalgia is an integral

component of cinema: “As an audience, we are invited to relive a moment of awakening

through new eyes” (Singh, 2012:192); considering film content’s dominating presence, it is

not surprising the current age is saturated in nostalgia. The problem with nostalgia, of

course, is too much of it leads to a cave-like complacency. Like Douglas Trumbull, the

figures that have the power to make changes are few and far between, but the digital re-

birth is nurturing new champions and new paradigms. Frampton’s Filmosophy, the seminal

Film Theory: An Introduction Through the Senses (Elsaesser et al., 2010) and its championing

of the body as a unifying means through which film experience can be understood are

examples of very progressive thinking!

104
Figure 36. In Douglas Trumbull’s directorial debut Silent Running (1972) the protagonist

sacrifices everything to protect the Earth’s last forest from the destruction of a human race

that has become indifferent towards preservation. The film is about what happens when

people stop caring – we lose sight of our humanity.

In short, there is too much indifference in Film Studies. The discipline is too focused on

cave-like thinking and film theory of the past; a pantheon of knowledge that is becoming

continuously outdated and finding itself at odds with new advancements and

diversifications, such as the digital re-birth and large format hypercinema. Film scholars

have always sought to understand the spectator’s and spectacle’s mutual pursuit of

enlightenment; while they have uncovered aspects of it, there still does not exist a single

unifying explanation of the profound processes of that relationship:

“The universalizing claims about the cinematic experience made by figures such as

Sergei Eisenstein, Andre Bazin, Christian Metz and Laura Mulvey have disappeared.

Contemporary film scholars are increasingly content to make local, particular claims

about film. This focus on particularity – that is, the analysis of isolated phenomena

– completely dominates the field of film studies. Amid this contemporary

landscape, proffering a universal claim and totalizing theory of the filmic experience

seems outdated and naïve” (McGowan, 2007:ix).

We need to move beyond the particular claims and look to how a unified understanding

can be reached, because it is all very well encouraging diverse studies (see Appendix B) but

at some point they have to be unified. This is something that Elsaesser and Hagener do with

the variable of the body in Film Theory: An Introduction Through the Senses: “the inclusion

of the body in film theory is a way of overcoming the deadlocks of the representational

105
model and of calling for a more diverse set of approaches to conceptualise the cinematic

experience” (Elsaesser et al., 2010:131). Following their lead, this dissertation has

endeavoured to take their concept one step further by speculating on the wider

neurobiological influences of the heart and stomach brains. Ignorance needs to be

disbanded; Film Studies needs to move beyond wholly cave-like thinking and the study of

ideal spectators: “film studies needs to be seen as more than the analysis of film texts, or

even the study of their industrial production and of their interpretation by audiences.”

(Jancovich et al., 2003:3). In the current digital transition where many of the assumptions of

previous thought are having their validity questioned, as has already been discussed with

the potential of hypercinema, a leap into the unknown is not only inevitable, but is

required!

Figure 37. In order to gain the strength required to ascend from the pit, Bruce Wayne needs

to lose his fearlessness of death – his ignorance of life is keeping him from enlightenment.

106
He needs to change his attitude; he has to want a new lease of life: “Make the climb… as

the child is, without the rope” (The Dark Knight Rises, 2012)!

This dissertation was written for a Film Studies course entitled ‘Film and Screen Studies’

and, therein with the addition of ‘Screen’, lies an acknowledgement of the need to study a

much wider field, e.g. television, video games, internet content, etc. Therefore, while

progressive thinking is not dominant, it is something that is gradually being nurtured. The

plethora of audio-visual content that now exist means that Film Studies is no longer just

about films. It can be speculated that as Film Studies developed out of Cultural Studies, a

new discipline will develop out of Film Studies to focus on the wider areas that are much

more widely linked with the cultures of humanity. Certainly, one such academically driven

proposal already exists: Interface Studies (Dieter et al., 2010; see Appendix I).

Judging by humanity’s increasing interactions with film-like content, if Film Studies is: “a

subject that is studying a medium that [increasingly] permeates and mediates on every area

of human existence” (Mullarkey, 2009:6), then it is highly probable it will become one of

the more important academic disciplines of the twenty first century: “In order to

understand today’s world, we need cinema. Literally, it is only in cinema that we get that

crucial dimension which we are not able to confront in our real reality. If you are looking for

what is in reality, more real than reality itself, look into the cinematic fiction” (Žižek, 2006).

However, if Film Studies is ever going to stand a chance of uncovering the meaning of the

increasingly multifaceted relationship of the spectator and the spectacle, it will need to

nurture progression and it must not be afraid to ask naïve questions. Children are very good

at asking fundamental questions and a child-like curiosity is exactly what film theory

requires:

107
 “this simile must be connected throughout with what preceded it. The realm

revealed by sight corresponds to the prison, and the light of the fire in the prison to

the power of the sun. And you won’t go wrong if you connect the ascent into the

upper world and the sight of the objects there with the upward progress of the

mind into the intelligible region… the final thing to be perceived in the intelligible

region, and perceived only with difficulty, is the form of the good; once seen, it is

inferred to be responsible for whatever is right and valuable in anything, producing

in the visible region light and the source of light, and being in the intelligible region

itself controlling source of truth and intelligence. And anyone who is going to act

rationally either in public or private life must have sight of it” (Plato, 2003:244).

As an introductory speculation, this paper has endeavoured to uncover some of the hidden

aspects of the relationship of the spectator and the spectacle. Drawing on the largely

overlooked implications of the spectator’s body as a neurobiological influencer in the

creation of the filmic experience; as well as the fundamental disruptions of established

knowledge caused by large formats and hypercinema-like paradigms, this paper has gone

some way in expressing the pressing need to move away from ignorant thinking (Mullarkey,

2009:23) and has endeavoured to provide some clarity on the true complexities of what

constitutes the experiencing of a film (see Appendix A). In order to understand how the

spectator views, absorbs, receives, engages, experiences, constructs, desires, manipulates,

debates, infers, identifies, fantasises, negotiates, participates, critiques, senses,

addresses, recreates and integrates with the spectacle, and vice versa, a major

reconfiguration of thinking and attitude needs to take place.

Ultimately, our ways of being the spectator and the spectacle can reveal fundamental

truths about the realities we occupy, but only if we care enough to want to find out in the

108
first place. In order to ascend from the cave and to attain enlightenment on our true ways

of being – we need to break free from the shackles of our comfort zones and disband

ignorance. Only then we will be able to decode the intimately woven and transcendental

dialogue of the spectator’s and spectacle’s profoundly ancient language.

Figure 38. Deshi basara... also known as ‘rise’.

109
Appendix A

The Perceiving Participator and the

Spectacle Experiencing Situation
An Example of a Reclassification for the Spectator and the Spectacle

In light of this dissertation’s endeavour of highlighting a need to reconfigure the

theorisation that is concerned with the study of spectators and spectacles, it is at this point

that a speculative reclassification will be ventured: “I’ve suggested that despite the

insistence on ‘real viewers’ as distinct from the ‘subject,’ the place of the ‘spectator’ in film

studies is not easily or readily defined as ‘either’ a real person ‘or’ a position, a

construction” (Mayne, 1998:36). While this paper cannot propose a whole new language

through which film could be discussed, it will demonstrate this need by proposing new

terminologies for its primary focus: the spectator and the spectacle.

With terms like ‘spectator’, ‘viewer’ and ‘audience member’ there is too much emphasis on

passivity and the concept of gazing. Therefore, instead of ‘spectator’, something along the

lines of ‘perceiving participator’ should be used as it indicates everything Chapter One has

already ventured in regards to the function of a film spectator; through the perceptual

membrane that is the audience member’s physical body, a spectator perceives the film text

and, on a neurobiological and cognitive basis, actively collaborates in the creation of the

filmic experience. A film is unique to each audience member precisely as a result of that

active collaboration.

110
On the other hand, with terms like ‘spectacle’, ‘film’, ‘cinema’, ‘film viewing situation’, ‘film

experiencing situation’ there are a great deal of redundancies and ambiguities. Beyond

celluloid film being discontinued, does ‘film’ refer to just theatrically produced entities or

does it also refer to entities produced for television and the internet? Likewise, what is

‘cinema’ referring to: the physical cinema location, an artistic temperament or the industry

as a whole? Certainly, when dealing with audio-visual content ‘spectacle’ seems best suited

to cover both theatrically and non-theatrically released content, as all audio-visual content

is designed to create a spectacle. However, ‘spectacle’ alone does not adequately cover the

means by which a perceiving participator is able to engage with it. As such, the terms ‘film

viewing situation’ and ‘film experiencing situation’ have already been used a number of

times throughout this paper to refer to the situation (inside and outside the cinema

auditorium) where the spectator engages neurobiologically and cognitively with the

spectacle content. As has already been pointed out ‘viewing’ needs to be discarded in

favour of the broader connotation of ‘experiencing’. The filmic or spectacle experience is

something that is created from collaboration between the spectacle text and the perceiving

participator. However, the perceiving participator does not collaborate in its creation based

solely on the data provided by the primary spectacle text; rather, there are additional data

inputs, e.g. websites, adverts, filmmaker interviews, previous life experiences, original

source material, posters, repeats, memes, apps, franchises, similar spectacle texts, etc. that

are added into the mix by the perceiving participator. Ultimately, the perceiving

participator is the author of their own individual experience of a spectacle text. As such, the

spectacle experiencing situation is an ongoing experience that can begin long before the

perceptual participation with the primary spectacle text has even taken place. Likewise, its

ability to transpire at any time and in any place emphasises the use of ‘situation’, the

‘situation’ refers to the two necessary attributes: the opportunity where the primary or

secondary spectacle text data arises and the active engagement of the perceiving

111
participator. In light of this, ‘spectacle experiencing situation’ seems best suited to discuss

the situation where active cognitive and neurobiological engagement of the perceiving

participator takes place with the spectacle text.

Complicated? Yes, but so is the truth of spectator’s relationship with the spectacle and it is

only when sufficient conceptual frameworks are conceived will film theory be in an

effective position to decode the complexities of that relationship.

112
Appendix B

Fat and Sugar

The Variable of Cinema Snacking

Considering the monumental physical and financial presence they occupy, cinema snacks

are surely another empirical and body-related area crying out to be studied. Aside from the

disruptive noise these snacks produce, we have known for centuries that food can affect

our moods and physiological state. Sugary snacks create opiate-like effects in the brain

(Dailey, 2009) and fatty foods elevate our mood as well (Hurley, 2011); even more so when

they are consumed in large quantitates, as all multiplex venues encourage.

Figure 39. The gauntlet that is the multiplex food and drink counter.

113
Cinema snacking could also be one of the variables that accounts for why general audiences

tend to enjoy films that are otherwise critically panned, as Mark Kermode has commented:

“No one enjoyed Pirates at the Carribean: At World’s End… some of them may claim to

have enjoyed it. But they didn’t. Not really. They just think they did” (2011:65), or, rather,

their stomach brains (in conjunction with their larger neurobiological networks) think they

did. Beyond this speculation, it would be interesting to see how the film experience differs

between audience members who eat snacks and audience members who do not.

114
Appendix C

The Terror of the Microphone

The Introduction of Sound and the Resulting Disruptions

The ability to reproduce sound existed before the first mechanisms of cinema and it took

thirty years to bring the two mediums together in a way that offered the best logistics in

terms of technological adaptability and financially rewarding outcomes. However, even

after this had found validation in the huge commercial success of The Jazz Singer (Dir. Alan

Crossland, USA, 1927), the initial phase of sound films or ‘talkies’ are often accused of being

aesthetically regressive (Cousins, 2011). With the introduction of early sound equipment

came many restrictions for filmmakers: it created a necessity for the camera to be encased

in a soundproofed booth to eliminate the mechanical noise of the camera (crane shots and

moving camera shots in general were out of the question), the director could no longer

direct the action while a scene was being filmed, early microphones were largely immobile

requiring the performers to go the ‘hidden’ microphone on set, films lost much of their

visual action in favour of long static aural speeches and the microphone put many

prominent silent film actors out of work due to ‘undesirable’ voices (Brownlow et al.,

1980b; Bader et al., 2007).

115
Figure 40. The introduction of sound changed everything.

The fear of the microphone was born out of the fact that it so fundamentally changed the

production process and the artistic impression of a film’s final result. However, as with the

116
addition of make-up and lighting to make up for the visual inadequacies of 24fps, sound

technology was very quickly adapted into a form that not only allowed the filmmakers to

work efficiently with it, but enabled them to discover a whole new way of telling stories.

The filmmakers found a way to use sound as just another storytelling tool to add an

additional aesthetic dimension to their films (Elaesser et al., 2010:129-31; Scorsese in Stock,

2011).

117
Appendix D

Large Formats of the Past

The Logistical Downfalls of Fox Grandeur and Cinerama

Developed by the Fox Film Corporation and débuted in 1929, Fox Grandeur, a 70mm

widescreen format, marked the first time that the industry tried to establish a larger form

of cinema as a commercial venture.

Figure 41. Fox Grandeur was the first commercially available form of what is today being

referred to as 4k ultra-high definition, something that is only just becoming commercially

available.

118
Unlike the majority of analogue films from the last eighty years that captured onto and

projected from 35mm film prints, Fox Grandeur captured and projected from 70mm film

prints: 70mm has an image resolution equivalent to about a 4-5K digital image (5000

horizontal lines of resolution/pixels; see Appendix E), around four times the resolution of

current high definition television and roughly equivalent to the current resolution of higher-

end multiplex digital projection. However, the Great Depression and the cost of sound

conversion caused Fox Grandeur to be discontinued in late 1930.

Figure 42. Aside from finding a brief peak period during the 1960s and 1970s, The Master

(Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012) is a very rare example of a whole feature film being

filmed in 70mm.

In 1952, Cinerama, an image capturing process that projected onto a 146° panoramic

screen that closely mimicked the peripheral range of human sight, was introduced to

widespread enthusiasm, much critical acclaim (Strohmaier, 2002) and a great deal of

119
financial profits: “when they opened the first Cinerama theater in Hollywood called This Is

Cinerama, they made more money in that one theater in one year than in the rest of the

movie industry” (Trumbull in Variety, 2012)!

The Cinerama process was praised for its heightened immersive quality: “Since peripheral

vision is responsible for our visual perception of motion, balance, and depth, the Cinerama

picture could produce those perceptions in the audience” (Helms, 2008).

Figure 43. Cinerama was designed to match the peripheral vision range of human sight. It

was also filmed in and projected at 30 frames per second.

Originally captured on and projected from three separate strips of 35mm celluloid,

Cinerama later photographed onto a single 70mm strip of celluloid and projected from a

single 70mm strip of celluloid. This was necessitated by the technical difficulties of

photographing and projecting from three separate strips, the high costs of doing so and the

logistical problems associated with using the three strip camera: “the three-camera

Cinerama rig had plenty of limitations: an extraordinary weight (all metal – no plastic parts),

120
an excessive power source (three automobile batteries kept it running) and a single lens

that could not accommodate close-ups or zoom effects” (Hall, 2013).

Figure 44. If one of the three projectors went out of sync, the 146° illusion would be

destroyed (this was one of the technical problems that plagued analogue 3D projection).

121
The majority of Cinerama films were documentaries and travelogues, as its laborious and

costly system was not logistically appealing to the mainstream film industry. However,

there were two exceptions: The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm (Dir. George Pal et

al., 1962) and How The West Was Won (Dir. John Ford et al., 1962), these were captured in

the three strip process.

Figure 45. Filming How The West Was Won in 3-strip Cinerama created countless logistical

problems for the production team.

Ultimately, after twenty years of commercial exposure, Cinerama was discontinued due to

its high production and exhibition costs; as well as the industry’s dominating competition in

the form of its CinemaScope and VistaVision widescreen formats. Unlike Fox Grandeur and

Cinerama, the financial and logistical success of the widescreen formats enabled

widescreen to become a standard component of film exhibition.

122
Appendix E

Resolutions
Image Resolutions, Higher Frame Rates and the Standardisation of Film Exhibition

RED, a major digital camera manufacturer, recently announced their new digital camera

sensor which captures images at 6K resolution (RED, 2013), so digital cameras can now

capture images superior to conventional 70mm film. The digital camera has entered the

large format arena and, theoretically, digital cameras will one day be able to capture

images equivalent to IMAX resolution; IMAX is already developing an 8K digital camera to in

a continuing endeavour to do just that (Lowe, 2013). This current digital IMAX development

has come as a result of competition, but also of the growing attention being directed

towards higher frame rates. Higher frame rates are something true 70mm IMAX struggles

to cater for; in the 1990s, IMAX HD was a brief attempt at filming and projecting in 48fps,

but the constant ‘wear and tear’ breakdowns of the system and high costs of each reel of

film lasting half as long caused it to be largely discontinued. Therefore, IMAX can only

exhibit higher frame rates via a digital system, which at 8K resolution is considerably less

than its analogue counterpart. However, Japan’s national broadcaster NHK, the developers

of an 8K prototype television have argued: “8K is enough for the human eye. That is why we

do not need any more than 8K resolution” (BBC Click, 2012).

123
Figure 46. Resolution parameters are determined by the number of rows of pixels that run

horizontally across an image; therefore, 2K refers to 2000 lines of pixels: the more pixels,

the more resolution. 1920x1080 - current High Definition Standard for consumer displays,

2K – equivalent to 35mm film resolution, 4K – the current standard the industry is

transitioning to using, 8K (Digital IMAX) – what everyone wants to be using, 18K (70mm

IMAX) – this is off the perceptual scale! When viewing an 18K IMAX image only 12K

resolution is perceivable (Wilson, 2009).

IMAX is currently in the process of introducing its new digital laser projection system which

will mean that, in accordance with its digital camera, IMAX has to downgrade its resolution

from 12K to 8K (Lowe, 2013), at least when screening digitally. Therefore, until 8K

televisions are available on the consumer market, 8K looks set to be the standard

resolution for large format exhibition. However, the problems of 4K have to be embraced

first and industry experts have commented that, aside from digital IMAX, 8K is still a few of

years down the line for all other exhibition outlets (Shapiro, 2013).

124
Figure 47. This one of only a few 8K display prototypes that are currently in existence. It is

currently impossible to make an 8K display smaller than this!

Additionally, an 8K digital IMAX will go a long way in reducing the backlash the IMAX

Corporation is currently receiving as a result of its lieMAX installations (see Appendix F).

125
Appendix F

The Multiplex is in Trouble

The Aesthetic Downfalls of Low Standards and LieMAXes

Picturehouse, a UK based company formed: “to challenge the multiplex model and provide

cinemas that serve their communities in city-centre locations” (Picturehouse, 2009) caused

a great deal of consternation in December 2012 when they made the announcement that

they had been purchased by multiplex chain Cineworld (Pierrot, 2012). However, after the

dust settled on the announcement, the acquisition itself proved not to be the most

surprising part; rather, it was the reasons Cineworld highlighted for the acquisition, as

Cineworld's chief executive Steve Wiener commented:

"I don't want to make any changes. It's a profitable organisation and I want to leave

it alone and let it continue making a profit and entertaining the public… The

demographic profile of people that go to the cinema is getting older. They like

arthouse cinemas, and we wanted to have a piece of that” (cited in Tobin, 2012).

Cineworld's finance chief, Philip Bowcock elaborated further: "We're going to keep the

quirkiness. It's a very different customer set – a little bit older, more discerning, more

experienced. To lose that would be to lose the raison d'être of Picturehouse." (cited in

Kollowe, 2012).

126
Figure 48. Picturehouse enables each of its cinemas to operate themselves and maintain

their own distinct ‘quirky’ identities; The Little Theatre Cinema in Bath, UK is one such

cinema.

However, beyond the profits generated from Picturehouse’s customer set, further

speculation was raised after a conversation on Mark Kermode’s Twitter profile provoked

the following response from Cineworld: “Picturehouse bought by Cineworld. ‘We'll help

them grow & learn from them too!’ say @cineworld ‘Not change ..just grow’” (Kermode,

2012b). Furthermore, Cineworld’s wish to: “learn from” Picturehouse caused Kermode to

produce a video blog in which he asked his followers to comment on what they thought this

ambiguous statement meant (Kermode, 2012c).

127
Figure 49. Like all multiplex brands, each individual Cineworld cinema complex adheres to

streamlined corporate branding. The City Centre Cineworld in Glasgow, UK is currently the

world’s tallest cinema.

In contrast to the independents, IMAX exhibits films that largely cater for the whole family

and that are all very big-concept immersive spectacles. On the other hand, the small

independents are able to cater for the types of films that would not really be served in an

IMAX venue and to a level of showmanship/customer consideration that still manages to

128
transcend the multiplexes. Indeed, a grey pound film, such as Quartet (Dir. Dustin Hoffman,

UK, 2013), a film that is targeted at an older demographic (Stock, 2013a) would have been

wasted as an IMAX release.

Figure 50. “Quartet is a lovely little charm bracelet of a film, a fairy tale for the geriatric set

blessed with a wonderful cast and a carry-on attitude” (Long, 2013).

Aesthetically, it just is not the type of film that would warrant from an upscale into IMAX;

precisely because it is a small, character driven piece – the spectacle of this film is the

ensemble cast – it is an experience designed to be seen on a smaller screen. In contrast,

while it is an equally character driven film, Les Misérables (Dir. Tom Hooper, 2012)

absolutely benefitted from an upscale into IMAX because the audio and visual spectacle

created from its status as a musical gave it the impression of hyper-reality and, as such,

129
required a bigger format to showcase it: “The extraordinary power of Les Misérables and

the epic nature of the storytelling and yet the intimacy are things that IMAX do better than

anything” (Mackintosh, 2013).

However, following on from this and Trumbull’s wish to introduce a new type of hyper-

cinematic film as part of hypercinema, the types and varieties of films that can be

commoditised as offering different experiences for the spectator is gradually becoming a

major factor in the film exhibition sector. In light of the growing presence and market

domination of large format cinema, one can speculate that Cineworld’s acquisition of

Picturehouse is an investment for the future. As Trumbull elaborates: “I think 24 frames-

per-second movies on normal movie screens is a wonderful, beautiful, long-lasting art form

that will go into the future and it is completely appropriate for most films, actually”

(Trumbull in Anon, 2012). Therefore, it can be argued that what Cineworld wants to learn

from Picturehouse is how to operate as a smaller form of cinematic exhibition; to exploit

the area of the market and the types of films that would be wasted in a larger format. The

reason Picturehouse/arthouse cinema attendance is up is because in the last couple of

years they have discovered a very big niche market with the grey pound demographic

(Stock, 2013a). In addition to this, the independents are supplying a cinematic experience

that still offers a high level of showmanship/customer care, something most modern

multiplexes have made redundant:

“This is the engine of the modern multiplex: a computer programme with no

memory of the past, no human interaction, no history, no soul. We did away with

celluloid because it needed too much care and replaced it with a stream of digital

information about which no one cares. We handed the control of our ticket

purchases over to speak-your-weight machines only to discover that they were

130
 actually running the whole cinema. And while we were all so busy squinting at

pointy digital images through smudgy 3-D glasses we didn’t notice the lights going

off in the projection booth behind us…” (Kermode 2011:312).

While there have been many professional figures bemoaning the state of multiplexes, these

negative rumblings can best be summed up by a complaint an Odeon patron, Matt Pledger,

posted on Odeon’s Facebook page in August 2012 (Pledger, 2012; see Appendix G).

Bemoaning the high costs and the low quality experience, it was a complaint that very

quickly went viral and gained widespread media attention (Kelly, 2012). As of May 2013 the

compliant has received just fewer than three hundred thousand likes!

The added problem of movie piracy and film content being more widely available on a

number of diverse consumer devices thanks to services like LOVEFiLM and Netflix, the

multiplex really needs to rethink its whole approach and offer their own type of cinematic

experience that will bring the audience back. It is not that the public does not want to use

the cinema anymore, as the growth in IMAX and independent attendance has shown:

“while many people claim to prefer television to the cinema because they can watch films

in the comfort of their own homes, this preference is only a general one. Many still have a

firm commitment to going out, even if only every now and then” (Jancovich et al,

2003:232), it is just multiplexes have a lot to answer for with their low quality customer

care and presentation of films:

“The problem is not digital projection per se, but the lack of human accountability

that the rise of digital has facilitated. In the past year I have sat in a UK multiplex in

which a digital image simply froze – something which we are assured cannot

131
 happen, but an error with which many multiplexes patrons will be familiar, and

which no one was on hand to correct” (Kermode, 2011:11).

There is no doubt that the growing market presence of large format cinema is creating

ripples in the multiplex community. While it can be argued multiplexes are trying to better

understand the customer-focused approaches of the independents, multiplexes have also

begun to transition themselves into the large format arena: “The widespread take-up of

new exhibition technologies hinges not only on the seamlessness with which they are able

to assimilate the viewer into their onscreen worlds, but their cost and ease of

implementation” (Sharp, 2012). Some multiplexes have even partnered with IMAX and

offer IMAX exclusive screens. However, these IMAX installations have only added to the

multiplex’s low quality image, as much criticism has been raised against what have has

been termed ‘LieMAX’.

132
Figure 51. The Cineworld in Crawley, West Sussex, UK has a lieMAX screen. Notice how the

IMAX brand eclipses the Cineworld one.

The multiplex IMAX screens claim to offer the same IMAX experience of genuine IMAX

venues, such as the BFI IMAX, and even charge the same ticket prices. However, the

multiplex IMAX installations use digital projection and, as such, are only able to exhibit films

at 4K resolution (see Appendix E) – the same as standard multiplex projection, something

for which IMAX and the partnered multiplex companies have been heavily criticised for

(Ebert, 2009).

Figure 52. LieMAX vs. IMAX.

However, in addition to the LieMAX installations, most multiplexes have 4K projection,

every multiplex is now able to screen stereoscopic 3D, Cineworld’s cinemas are currently in

the process of having D-Box moving seat technology installed in all of its venues and Odeon

has introduced isense a large format audio-visual system that they say closely mimics IMAX

(Odeon, 2012; Young, 2012).

133
Figure 53. Is it worth the extra money?

As these new installations are still fairly recent there is not yet enough feedback to

determine whether they have been successful, but from what feedback there has been

they appear to be making a positive impression (Young, 2012; O’Keeffe, 2012; Neish,

undated). However, when speculating on how the multiplex will position itself in the

exhibition community, the safest assumption to make is that multiplexes will follow the

example set by the South Korean 4DX cinemas: “In a 4DX presentation, the film is

fundamentally the same as one can see in any other venue, albeit accompanied by chair

motions and the other environmental additions created by the CJ 4DPLEX programmers”

(Strong, 2012).

134
Figure 54. 4DX has already started to target the multiplex chains of the USA (Giardina,

2013).

Certainly, a system that puts the spectator at its centre can not be a bad thing for an

exhibition service that is being constantly criticised for its lack of consumer consideration;

whether or not this expanded format/immersive type of experience will make up for the

current aesthetic failings of the multiplex model remains to be seen. Financially, the

multiplexes are still making a profit and a steady yearly growth (Thomas, 2013), but when

considering the yearly growth and increasing market domination of IMAX (Vanderhoef,

2013), the necessity for multiplexes to rethink their strategy in the exhibition sector

becomes pressingly apparent. However, there is a key irony and a hugely significant point

to be realised at the end of all this: a major contributing factor as to why IMAX is becoming

135
a dominating exhibition presence is largely down to the profits generated from the

multiplex lieMAX installations! The multiplex is in trouble, but it is by no means dead in the

water.

136
Appendix G

A Lousy Experience
The Consumer’s Multiplex Complaint that went Viral

While there have been many professional figures bemoaning the state of multiplexes, these

negative rumblings can best be summed up by a complaint an Odeon patron, Matt Pledger,

posted on Odeon’s Facebook page in August 2012. Bemoaning the high costs and the low

quality experience, it was a complaint that very quickly went viral and gained a great deal of

media attention (Kelly, 2012). As of May 2013, Pledger’s Facebook post has received just

fewer than three hundred thousand likes:

“Dear Odeon,

I went out last night with friends to see Ted. I'd not been to the cinema for a long

time so I thought I'd treat myself and the fiancé to a film.

Firstly, £21 for 2 tickets and a medium 7UP! I don't know who you expect to get

into your cinemas but they must have more money than sense as this is ludicrous. I

could go onto Play or Amazon and buy myself about 12 DVD's for that price!

Secondly, the place was dead. I can only attribute this to your insane ticket prices.

There were more staff than paying customers. "You'll have been served quickly

then" you may ask. Well, no. There were 4 staff behind the counter, 2 of whom I

can only assume we're there to play with a cloth and talk about pointless crap with

their teenage colleagues whilst watching 4 people becoming more and more irate

137
in the queue. Even more annoying was, despite the plethora of school-drop-out

'staff' that were milling about trying to look busy and achieving the square root of

nothing, no-one came into our screen so we had to pull the doors shut ourselves.

Trivial you may think but, hey, I shelled out £20 for the 'cinema experience' so I

expect to actually get it.

Thirdly, I think it's ever so nice of Odeon to give their cinema goers 2 movies for the

price of one because, whenever there was a part in Ted that has little or no

dialogue, we were all treated to the wall shaking sound of Batman being played in

the next screen but, come on, why not charge half as much and we could SEE both

rather than watching one and hearing two.

Your little advert about piracy killing film was the final straw though. Between us in

the group we paid you over £45 so four of us could get the 'cinema experience.'

Considering the way the country is don't you think this is excessive? Especially

when I could go out, by a DVD, buy a lot of 7UP, buy everyone food and have

change for the same price, AND I could watch the DVD over and over to my hearts

content. I know that I wouldn't get the whole 'experience' but I'm sure I could pay a

spotty teenager to ignore me and leave my lounge door open so I at least feel little

like I'm in an Odeon.

If you want to see more people in your cinemas and actually put a dent in film

piracy you should really try and cut your prices, hire decent staff and forget the

600% profit margins on your food and drink.

138
You are putting plenty of nails into the cinema coffin Odeon. I won't be back in a

hurry” (2012).

139
Appendix H

Highlighting IMAX
Comparisons of Conventional and IMAX Film Posters

A further separation IMAX has from conventional exhibition is its unique advertisement

materials. The designs of these advertisements emphasize IMAX as a heightened and more

prestigious experience – the promotional materials have a special edition feel to them

designed to present a different aesthetic.

Figures 55 & 56. The Dark Knight Rises – one of the conventional multiplex posters next to

its IMAX counterpart.

140
Figure 57. Skyfall – one of the conventional multiplex posters.

141
Figure 58. Skyfall – the IMAX poster.

142
Figure 59. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – one of the conventional multiplex posters.

143
Figure 60. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – one of four IMAX character posters.

144
Appendix I

The Multiplex is in Your Pocket

The Implications of the Interfacing Relationship of the Spectator and
the Spectacle

The diversification of the spectacle through various types of content, its diverging means of

exhibition and its ever complicating relationship with the spectator extends beyond the

cinema. Smaller modes of exhibition: home cinema systems, desktop computers and

laptops, have become integral components of the consumer’s lifestyle in the last ten years.

Figure 61. “What a difference 8 years makes: St. Peter's Square in 2005 and yesterday”

(NBC News, 2013).

145
However, even smaller modes, such as the smart phone and the touch screen tablet, have

become just as integral and have even deeper implications for the spectator’s and

spectacle’s relationship; as well as film theory’s understanding of it.

Figure 62. Netflix – a new type of multiplex.

Everyone now has the ability to access a wide plethora of film content and to do so in any

location. Unlike large format cinema, the smartphone and the tablet are not about

immersion, they are more about intimacy: “Certainly the big screen fascinates, but it cannot

compete with the potential control over and immersion in favourite titles that home-based

playback technologies… afford” (Klinger, 2006:136). The frequency at which consumers use

their handheld devices in the everyday situations of their lives (frequencynews.com, 2010;

Perez, 2012) should qualify these devices as extra bodily limbs. Viewing film content and

146
any audio-visual content on these devices fundamentally changes the meaning of those film

texts:

“This is vividly illustrated by what happens when a painting is shown on a television

screen. The painting enters each viewer’s house. There it is surrounded by his

wallpaper, his furniture, his mementoes. It enters the atmosphere of his family. It

becomes their talking point. It lends its meaning to their meaning. At the same time

it enters a million other houses and, in each of them, is seen in a different context.

Because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the

spectator to the painting. In its travels, its meaning is diversified” (Berger, 1972:13).

These meanings are again diversified by the type of interface through which the spectator

experiences the content: “different media not only have different meanings but they do so

because they offer different types of experience. While a new media may become

dominant, it does not follow that it will render the experiences offered by other media

undesirable” (Jancovich et al., 2003:232). In addition to this, having the multiplex in your

pocket not only allows you to access content anywhere, but it is also offers the potential for

content customisability. The spectator’s unique filmic experience, which is the result of an

interfacing collaboration between spectator and spectacle, now has an overtly outward

expression with the promise of even more innovations for film content. In addition to the

innovations that have already been explored in regards to revitalising cinema exhibition,

trials are currently taking place for a ‘second screen’ cinema paradigm, a form of cinema

that would enable greater participation for the spectator due to the use of tablet-like

devices (Macaulay, 2013). Likewise, there are trials being done for ‘subconscious cinema’, a

cinema experience paradigm where the outcome of the film content is determined by the

147
spectator’s emotions (BBC News, 2013). Could these form additional components of

hypercinema?

However, the promise of greater diversification comes with the Google Glass, a device that

will fundamentally integrate the interface, the spectacle and spectator into the most

intimate union that has ever existed between content and consumer.

Figure 63. Google Glass is worn like a pair of glasses and projects an interface image directly

into the eye. In addition to this it is able to use the user’s skull as a conductor for sound that

the ear drums are able to pick up. The device is mostly voice controlled.

148
Figure 64. The age of the cyborg is fast approaching as the National Intelligence Council

have predicted in their 2030 Global Trends publication (2012): “Brain implants will also

allow for advanced neural interface devices — what will bridge the gap between minds and

machines” (cited in Dvorsky, 2012).

Google Glass is no work of science fiction, currently it is being trialled and should be widely

commercially available within a year: “Currently, Google Glass is only available to the hand-

picked group of testers who shelled out $1,500” (Crabbe, 2013). Google Glass is only the

first step in a new type of integrated hardware-content-spectator relationship; the

implications of this symbiosis are too vast, too speculative and too tantalising to be

149
explored here, but it is further validation as to why a major reconfiguration of thinking

needs to take place!

However, what should be realised is the inherent spiritual relationship that has always been

present between the spectator and spectacle is now becoming much more apparent

through its diversifications and greater integration into our everyday lives: “users will have

to "develop some new social etiquette" (Schmit in Crabbe, 2013).

Figure 65. Google Glass turns Human sight into an interface. Regardless of the potential this

offers for new types of immersive and participatory content, where does this position the

gaze? Where will this take the relationship of the spectator and the spectacle?

Ultimately, the modes through which content can be experienced are continuously

diversifying, as are the scales on which that content can be experienced. From the Google

Glass to the IMAX screen, the spectator and the spectacle have never had so many ways to

exist together. To say that films are just entertainment content cut off from our daily lives

150
that can not influence and explain our place in the world is cave-confined nonsense. We are

the content and the content is us, Berger elaborates:

“Adults and children sometimes have boards in their bedrooms or living-rooms on

which they pin pieces of paper: letters, snapshots, reproductions of paintings,

newspaper cuttings, original drawings, postcards… they have been chosen in a

highly personal way to match and express the experiences of the room’s inhabitant.

Logically, these boards should replace museums” (Berger, 1972:23).

Everything that has been presented throughout this paper is representative of the shift in

thinking that is slowly taking place alongside the digitalisation of cinema and needs to

continue to take place! In moving away from the cave, we have stopped viewing spectacle

content on a screen, and we now experience and interact with it via an interface. If there is

a great deal of neurobiological participation happening on the spectator’s part, then

perhaps this offers a more accurate way to talk about the process by which the spectator

interfaces with any type of film spectacle. While this section can not hope to provide many

answers to the questions it has raised, one obvious conclusion should be apparent - all

these diverging means of experiencing the world will continue to have huge implications on

our ways of being in the world.

151
Appendix J

The Overview Effect

Hypercinema’s Profound Implications for Humanity

When you consider that a system equivalent to hypercinema can fool the human

neurobiological system into thinking it is sensing reality, then the implications of the

following statement by Douglas Trumbull becomes all the more powerful:

“I’m a member of a new group called the Overview Institute [2012] – there’s a thing

called the Overview Effect, it’s a book written by a man named Frank White, who

was interviewing astronauts coming back to Earth… their minds were expanded by

looking at the Earth from Space. And they said, “Woah, we’re on this planet that’s

in the middle of nowhere, and it’s very precious, and it’s very beautiful – so why are

we having all these wars; why do we have borders; why do we fight over

everything? They just came back with this changed view of Mankind, of Earth as an

issue.

And Edgar Mitchell, who was one of the Apollo astronauts, formed this thing called

the Noetics Institute [2013], and he’s on the Board of the Overview Institute. Our

objective is to see if we can give people that kind of experience – a profound

experience of our planet as a precious jewel, in the void – and see if that will help

change people’s political views, or environmental views, or help solve global

warming, or all the other things that we’re doing to basically use up this planet”

(cited in Hannermann, 2012).

152
Figure 66. Imagine being able to view/sense the Earth in a hypercinema installation with

the same impression and level of detail as reality itself, as if you were actually looking at the

planet in the void of space. Surely, seeing the whole of your everyday reality suspended in a

single sphere would have fundamentally profound and life-changing implications on your

ways of being after that experience: "When we look down at the earth from space, we see

this amazing, indescribably beautiful planet. It looks like a living, breathing organism. But it

also, at the same time, looks extremely fragile” (Garan in Bhasin, 2013).

153
To find out more about the ongoing nature of this research project and if it is something

you would like to discuss further, please visit: www.ways2interface.com

154
Bibliography

Allen, R. (1997) Projecting Illusion: Film Spectatorship and the Impression of Reality. 2nd

edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Abel, R., Acland, C. R., Allen, R. C., Ambler, C., Butsch, R., Biltereyst, D., Doherty, T., Gaines,

J. M., Glancy, M., Gurata, A., Jancovich, M., Klenotic, J., Klinger, B., Kuhn, A., Lindvall, T.,

Maltby, R., McKenna, C. J., Morey, A., Sedgwick, J., Stokes, M., Thissen, J., Waller, G. A.,

Wasson, H. (2008) Going to the Movies: Hollywood and The Social Experience of Cinema.

Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

Ascher, S. and Pincus, E. (2007) The Filmmaker’s Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide for the

Digital Age. New York: PLUME.

Balcerzak, S. Cagle, C. Church, D. Fellemen, S. Martin, A. Morrison, J. McKim, K. Russell, C.

Pigeon, T. Spence, S. Sperb, J. Singh, G. (2012) Cinephilia in the Age of Digital Reproduction:

Film, Pleasure, and Digital Culture, Volume 2. New York: Columbia University Press.

BBC News. (2013) Subconscious cinema - film endings changed by your mood [online].

Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22436014 [accessed 08/05/2013].

Berardinelli, J. (2012) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: A Movie Review [online].

Available from: http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=2563

[Accessed 03/04/2012].

155
Berenstein, R. J. Clover, C. J. Crary, J. Friedberg, A. Gunning, T. Hansen, M. Mayne, J.

Schwartz, V. R. Sobchack, V. C. Williams, L. (1994) Viewing Positions: Ways of Seeing Film.

New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin.

Bhasin, K. (2013) Astronauts Describe The 'Overview Effect' That Transformed Their Minds

After Seeing Earth From Space [online]. Available from:

http://www.businessinsider.com/astronauts-overview-effect-2013-1 [accessed

06/05/2013].

Bordwell, D. (2009) Observations on film art: Who will watch the movie watchers? [online].

Available from: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2009/06/16/who-will-watch-the-

movie-watchers/ [accessed 02/03/2013].

Bordwell, D. (2012) The Viewer’s Share: Models of Mind in Explaining Film [online].

Available from: http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/viewersshare.php [accessed

03/03/2013].

Crabbe, L. (2013) You'll have to wait a "year-ish" for Google Glass [online]. Available from:

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/1501287165/google-glass-wait [accessed 03/05/2013].

Dieter, M., Erinc, S., Knoller, M., Lancel, K., Lino, J. A., Pérez, L., Salem, B., Shanken, E.,

Simons, J., Yomamoto-Masson, N. (2010) Interface Studies [online]. Available from:

http://www.interfacestudies.org/index.html [accessed 26/05/2013].

156
Dvorsky, G. (2012) U.S. spy agency predicts a very transhuman future by 2030 [online].

Available from: http://io9.com/5967896/us-spy-agency-predicts-a-very-transhuman-future-

by-2030 [accessed 16/12/2012].

Ebert, R. (2009) That's not the IMAX I grew up with [online]. Available from:

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/thats-not-the-imax-i-grew-up-with [accessed

02/05/2013].

Elsaesser, T. and Hagener, M. (2012) Film Theory: An Introduction Through the Senses. New

York: Routledge.

Enk, B. (2013) ‘Star Trek’ Advance Ticket Sales Crash IMAX Website [online]. Available from:

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/star-trek-advance-ticket-sales-crash-imax-

website-180938545.html [Accessed 14/04/2013].

Foer, J. (2011) Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything.

London: Penguin.

Frampton, D. (2006) Filmosophy. London: Wallflower Press.

Frequencynews. (2010) New Report on Consumer Smartphone Use [online]. Available from:

http://www.frequencynews.com/wordpress/general-discussion/new-report-on-consumer-

smartphone-use/ [accessed 10/05/2013].

Fujifilm. (2013) Discontinuation of Motion Picture Film production [online]. Available from:

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n130402.html [accessed 17/04/2013].

157
Gerrold, D. (2010) Future Tense: The Showscan Insight [online]. Available from:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/columns/future_tense_showscan_insight [accessed

07/03/2013].

Gilchrist, T. (2012) VES Honoree and Effects Guru Douglas Trumbull on How Technology,

Spectacle Can Rescue Hollywood [online]. Available from:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/ves-douglas-trumbull-peter-jackson-

james-cameron-2001-kubrick-288290 [Accessed 16/03/2013].

Giardina, C. (2012) The Hollywood Reporter: SMPTE 2012: Douglas Trumbull Urges

'Experience-Creating' Cinema [online]. Available from:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/smpte-2012-douglas-trumbull-urges-381978

[accessed 20/04/2013].

Giardina, C. (2013) CinemaCon: 4DX Targeting U.S. Market [online]. Available from:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/cinemacon-4dx-targeting-us-market-

442301 [accessed 18/04/2013].

Hall, P. (2013) The Last Days of Cinerama [online]. Available from:

http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/63673/ [accessed 07/03/2013].

Helms, H. (2008) "This Is. . . . . . Cinerama!!" [online]. Available from:

http://harryhelmsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/this-is-cinerama.html [accessed

04/03/2013].

HFRmovies. (2013) hfrmovies.com [online]. Available from: http://hfrmovies.com./

158
[accessed 07/03/2013].

Hurley, D. (2011) Your Backup Brain [online]. Available from:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201110/your-backup-brain?page=2 [accessed

17/02/2013].

IMAX. (2013a) Theatre Geometry [online]. Available from:

http://www.imax.com/about/experience/geometry/ [accessed 26/03/2013].

Institute of Noetic Sciences. (2013) noetic.org [online]. Available from: http://noetic.org/

[accessed 25/05/2013].

Jancovich, M., Faire, L., Stubbings, S. (2003) The Place of the Audience. London: British Film

Institute.

Kelly, S (2012) Going to the cinema: does this rant against Odeon strike a chord? [online].

Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/cinema-odeon-

rant [accessed 06/05/2013].

Kermode, M. (2010) Martin Scorsese: '3D is liberating. Every shot is rethinking cinema'

[online]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/nov/21/martin-scorsese-

3d-interview-kermode [accessed 23/04/2013].

Kermode, M. (2012a) The Good, The Bad and the Multiplex. London: Random House Books.

159
Kermode, M. (2012b) Picturehouse bought by Cineworld [online]. Available from:

https://twitter.com/KermodeMovie/status/276633195468951552 [Accessed 09/04/2013].

Kimble, G. (2002) How The West Was Won – in Cinerama [online]. Available from:

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2002/west/ [accessed 27/03/2013].

Klinger, B. (2006) Beyond the Multiplex: Cinema, New Technologies, and The Home.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kollowe, J. (2012) Cineworld buys Picturehouse [online]. Available from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/06/cineworld-buys-picturehouse [accessed

10/03/2013].

Kosner, A.W. (2013) The Reason Why Many Found The Hobbit At 48 FPS An Unexpectedly

Painful Journey [online]. Available from:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/01/11/the-reason-why-many-found-

the-hobbit-at-48-fps-an-unexpectedly-painful-journey/ [accessed 17/03/2013].

Leopold, T. (2013) Special-effects master pushes new movie format [online]. Available from:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/13/tech/innovation/douglas-trumbull-interview [accessed

09/05/2013].

Life magazine. (1952) “The biggest new entertainment event of the year”. Issue and page

number unknown (see Illustration Sources).

160
Long, T. (2013) Quartet Reviews [online]. Available from:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/quartet_2012/reviews/ [accessed 29/04/2013].

Lowe, M. (2013) IMAX talks the future of cinema, laser projection, doubling up 4K, camera

tech and more [online]. Available from: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/50430/imax-

interview-future-cinema-brian-bonnick [accessed 12/04/2013].

Macaulay, S. (2013) Jason Brush and Michel Reilhac Discuss the Second Screen and New

Interactive Cinema at SXSW [online]. Available from: http://networkedblogs.com/JHr61

[accessed 29/03/2013].

Marshall, B. (2013) How IMAX Works [online]. Available from:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/imax1.htm [accessed 19/04/2013].

Mayne, J. (1993) Cinema and Spectatorship. London: Routledge.

McCraty, R. (2003) The Energetic Heart: Bioelectrical Interactions Within and Between

People. United States of America: Institute of HeartMath. Available from:

http://www.ssporer.com/downloads/Energetic_Heart.pdf [e-book accessed 16/12/2012].

McGowan, T. (2007) The Real Gaze: Film Theory after Lacan. New York: State University of

New York Press, Albany.

Mosley, M. (2012) The second brain in our stomachs [online]. Available from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18779997 [accessed 18/01/2013].

161
Mullarkey, J. (2009) Refractions of Reality: Philosophy and the Moving Image. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillian.

National Intelligent Council, U.S.A. (2012) Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. A

publication of the National Intelligence Council [online]. Available from:

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf [e-book accessed

04/01/2013].

NBC News. (2013) What a difference 8 years makes: St. Peter's Square in 2005 and

yesterday [online]. Available from:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=555336131153088&set=a.162132393806799.

30950.155869377766434&type=1&theater [accessed 07/03/2013].

Nadaner, D. (1984) ‘Film and Cognition: A Critical Review of Current Theory’. Studies in Art

Education, 25 (2), pp.121-129 [online]. Available from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320950 [accessed 28/11/2012].

Neish, S. (undated) Thinking outside the D-Box – BFF goes four-dimensional [online].

Available from: http://bestforfilm.com/film-blog/thinking-outside-the-d-box-bff-goes-four-

dimensional/ [accessed 14/04/2013].

O’Connell, S. (2012) Science Explains Why The Hobbit Looks Weird In 48 Frames Per Second

[online]. Available from: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Science-Explains-Why-Hobbit-

Looks-Weird-48-Frames-Per-Second-34673.html [Accessed 06/01/2013].

162
O’Keeffe, A. (2012) The Future of Film at Dublin’s New Odeon Cinema [online]. Available

from: http://anthonyokeeffe.com/2012/05/the-future-of-film-at-dublins-new-odeon-

cinema/ [accessed 14/04/2013].

Odeon. (2012) Odeon isense [online]. Available from:

http://www.odeon.co.uk/fanatic/isense [accessed 01/03/2013].

Overview Institute, The. (2012) overviewinstitute.org [online]. Available from:

http://www.overviewinstitute.org/ [accessed 27/05/2013].

Oxford Dictionaries (2013) Definition of ‘gaze’ [online]. Available from:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gaze?q=gaze [accessed 03/02/2013].

Perez, S. (2012) 85 Percent Of Tablet And Smartphone Owners Use Devices As “Second

Screen” Monthly, 40 Percent Do So Daily [online]. Available from:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/05/nielsen-85-percent-of-tablet-and-smartphone-owners-

use-devices-as-second-screen-monthly-40-percent-do-so-daily/ [accessed 10/05/2013].

Picturehouse. (2009) Picturehouse Company Profile [online]. Available from:

http://corporate.picturehouses.co.uk/company-profile/ [Accessed 09/04/2013].

Pierrot, J. (2012) Good News for Picturehouse Cinemas [online]. Available from:

http://picturehouseblog.co.uk/2012/12/06/good-news-for-picturehouse-cinemas/

[accessed 10/03/2013].

163
Photoplay Magazine (1929) ‘The Microphone – The Terror of the Studios’. Photoplay,

December, front cover referenced (see Illustration Sources).

Photoplay Magazine (1929) ‘The Film of the Future’. Photoplay, December, page unknown

(see Illustration Sources).

Plato. Lee, D ed. (2003) The Republic. 4th Edition. London: Penguin.

Pledger, M. (2012) Matt Pledger Complaint [online]. Available from:

https://www.facebook.com/ODEON/posts/523396924342167 [06/05/2013].

Plunkett, J. (2013) Doctor Who goes 3D for 50th birthday [online]. Available from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/feb/11/doctor-who-3d-50th-birthday

[accessed 29/02/2013].

RED (2013) RED DRAGON BEGINS NOW [Online] available from:

http://www.red.com/news/red-dragon-begins-now [Accessed 12/04/2013].

Salem, M. O. (2007) The Heart, Mind and Spirit. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists

[online]. Available from:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Heart,%20Mind%20and%20Spirit%20%20Mohamed%20Sale

m.pdf [accessed 15/03/2013].

Sciretta, P. (2007) Back to The Future’s Last Ride [online]. Available from:

http://www.slashfilm.com/back-to-the-futures-last-ride/ [accessed 10/05/2013].

164
Sciretta, P. (2008) How The Dark Knight Went IMAX [online]. Available from:

http://www.slashfilm.com/how-the-dark-knight-went-imax/ [accessed 13/04/2013].

Scorsese, M. (undated) The Film Foundation: Filmmakers for Film Preservation [online].

Available from: http://www.film-

foundation.org/common/11004/default.cfm?clientID=11004&thispage=homepage

[accessed 10/05/2013].

Saper, C. (1991) ‘A Nervous Theory: The Troubling Gaze of Psychoanalysis in Media Studies’.

Diacritics, 21 (4), pp.32-52 [online]. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/465375

[accessed 01/12/2012].

Seitz, M. Z. (2011) R.I.P., the movie camera: 1888-2011 [online]. Available from:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/r_i_p_the_movie_camera_1888_2011/singleton/

[accessed 03/04/2013].

Sharp, J. (2012) 4DX: Here come the feelies [online]. Available from:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/sightsound/4dx-here-come-feelies [accessed 16/01/2013].

Sobchack, V.C. (1992) The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience.

Princton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Solis, B. (2012) The IMAX experience [online]. Available from:

http://www.washtenawvoice.com/2012/05/the-imax-experience/ [accessed 01/05/2013].

165
Steigbigel, M. (2012) Visionary Filmmaker & Inventor Douglas Trumbull Talks The Hobbit

and his Latest Incredible Invention [online]. Available from:

http://www.thecredits.org/2012/12/we-speak-with-visionary-filmmaker-inventor-douglass-

trumbull-aboutthe-hobbit-his-work-with-kubrick-spielberg-and-the-future-of-filmmaking/

[Accessed 31/03/2013].

Than, K. (2012) World's Oldest Cave Art Found—Made by Neanderthals? [online]. Available

from: http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2012/06/120614-neanderthal-cave-

paintings-spain-science-pike/ [accessed 03/05/2013].

Thomas, N. (2013) Cineworld posts blockbuster profits [online]. Available from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/9916415/Ci

neworld-posts-blockbuster-profits.html [accessed 27/05/2013].

Tobin, L. (2012) Cineworld snaps up Picturehouse [online]. Available from:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cineworld-snaps-up-picturehouse-

8390782.html [Accessed 09/04/2013].

Trumbull, D. (2010) Douglas Trumbull.com [online]. Available from:

http://douglastrumbull.com/ [accessed 10/04/2013].

Trumbull, D. (2012g) Douglas Trumbull - A Conversation [online]. Available from:

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2012/trumbull_interview/index.htm [accessed

05/04/2013].

166
Wilson, M. (2009) How Regular Movies Become “IMAX” Films [online]. Available from:

http://gizmodo.com/5250780/how-regular-movies-become-imax-films [Accessed

23/01/2013].

Vanderhoef, J. (2013) Things to Know about IMAX [online]. Available from:

http://www.carseywolf.ucsb.edu/mip/blog/things-know-about-imax [Accessed

23/03/2013].

Variety. (2012) Trumbull lights up ‘Hypercinema’ [online]. Available from:

http://variety.com/2012/digital/news/trumbull-lights-up-hypercinema-1118050369/

[Accessed 14/02/2013].

Voss, C. (2011) ‘Film Experience and the Formation of Illusion: The Spectator as ‘Surrogate

Body’ for the Cinema’. Cinema Journal, 55 (4), pp.136-150 [online]. Available from:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cinema_journal/summary/v050/50.4.voss.html [accessed

04/12/2012].

Young, G. (2012) IMAX vs isense: The eye-popping, boneshaking future of cinema in

Birmingham? [online]. Available from: http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/whats-

on/films/imax-and-isense-square-up-in-birmingham-268777 [accessed 13/04/2013].

167
Discography

Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo’s Film Reviews: 22/03/2013: Danny Boyle (2013); hosted

by Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo [Online]. Available from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/kermode [accessed 24/03/2013].

Night Waves: 14/02/2013: Did we notice the death of celluloid cinema? (2013); hosted by

Matthew Sweet [online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0153csp

[accessed 21/04/2013].

The Film Programme: 01/12/2011: Martin Scorsese on Hugo and the future of cinema

(2011); hosted by Francine Stock [online]. Available from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017mwrn [accessed 27/03/2013].

The Film Programme: 03/01/2013: The ‘Grey Pound’ (2013a); hosted by Francine Stock

[Online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r5jt/broadcasts/2013/03

[accessed 06/01/2013].

The Film Programme: 21/03/2013: In the House, Point Blank, Compliance (2013b); hosted

by Francine Stock [online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r9sl5

[accessed 25/03/2013].

168
Filmography

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968); directed by Stanley Kubrick. 141 minutes. USA and UK:

Stanley Kubrick Productions and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM).

Animal Farm (2014); directed by Andy Serkis. Duration unknown. Production companies

unknown. Project in development.

Anon. (2010) Audience Testimonials of the IMAX Experience [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8TzXQyn5Z8 [accessed 27/04/2013].

A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese through American Movies (1995); directed by

Martin Scorsese and Michael Henry Wilson. 225 minutes. United Kingdom: British Film

Institute, Miramax Films [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yuKp55cuw&list=PL7K7UEvDonQ0Y_f0jnBNZMo43K

YjXz5lP

[accessed 23/02/2013].

Arrival of a Train at the Station (1896); directed by Auguste Lumière and Louis Lumière. 1

minute. France: Lumière.

Avatar (2009); directed by James Cameron. 162 minutes. USA and UK: Twentieth Century

Fox Film Corporation, Lightstorm Entertainment in association with Dune Entertainment

and Ingenious Film Partners.

169
Back to the Black Lagoon: A Creature Chronicle. (2000) DVD; directed by David J. Skal. 40

minutes. USA: Universal Studios and Universal Home Video (2004).

BBC Click (2012) Will 8K be the ultimate TV screen? [online]. Available from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm [accessed 17/12/2012].

Berberian Sound Studio (2012) Blu-ray; directed by Peter Strickland. 92 minutes. UK: Warp

X, Illumination Films, the UK Film Council and Artificial Eye (2012).

Bowling, S. (2012) About Dolby Atmos [online]. Available from:

https://vimeo.com/40699179 [accessed 20/12/2012].

Brainstorm (1983); directed by Douglas Trumbull. 106 minutes. USA: AJF Productions,

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), SLM Entertainment and MGM/UA Entertainment Company.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2010); directed by Werner Herzog. 90 minutes. Canada, USA,

France, Germany and UK: Creative Differences, History Films, Ministère de la Culture et de

la Communication, Arte France, Werner Herzog Filmproduktion and More4.

Cinerama Adventure (2002) DVD; directed by David Strohmaier. 93 minutes. USA: Warner

Home Video and CA Productions in association with American Society of Cinematographers

(ASC) and Cinerama Productions Corp (2008).

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954); directed by Jack Arnold. 79 minutes. USA: Universal

International Pictures and Universal Pictures.

170
Doctor Who: 50th Anniversary Special (2013); directed by Nick Hurran. 90 minutes. UK: BBC

Wales, British Broadcasting Corporation.

Doctor Who: The Rings of Akhaten (2013); directed by Farren Blackburn. 44 minutes. UK:

BBC Wales, British Broadcasting Corporation.

Hollywood: A Celebration of the American Silent Film, Episode 1: The Pioneers (1980a); Dir.

Kevin Brownlow and David Gill. 60 minutes. United Kingdom: Thames Television [online].

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91G9aDyS_s [accessed 03/03/2013].

Hollywood: A Celebration of the American Silent Film, Episode 13: End of an Era (1980b);

Dir. Kevin Brownlow and David Gill. 60 minutes. United Kingdom: Thames Television

[online]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MhhuP5EpI [accessed

03/03/2013].

How it Feels [through Glass] (2013) Google [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE [accessed 29/04/2013].

How The West Was Won (1962); directed by John Ford, Henry Hathaway and George

Marshall. 164 minutes. USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Cinerama Productions

Corporation and Cinerama Releasing Corporation.

Hugo (2011); directed by Martin Scorsese. 126 minutes. USA: GK Films and Infinitum Nihil

and Paramount Pictures.

171
Interstellar (2014); directed by Christopher Nolan. Length to be confirmed (currently in

preproduction). USA and UK: Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy, Paramount Pictures and

Warner Bros.

IMAX. (2013b) IMAX 101: Theatre Geometry [online]. Available from:

http://www.imax.com/community/blog/imax-101-theatre-geometry-video/ [accessed

19/04/2013].

Jackson, P. (2012) Peter Jackson on 'The Hobbit' - Film 2012 - Episode 16 - BBC One [online].

Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypTiGpwhb7Q [accessed:

19/12/2012].

Kermode, M. (2012c) Kermode Uncut: Chain Reaction [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRX4qIPensk [accessed 09/04/2013].

Les Misérables (2012); directed by Tom Hooper. 158 minutes. USA and UK: Relativity Media,

Working Title Films, Cameron Mackintosh Ltd. and Universal Pictures.

Life of Pi (2012); directed by Ang Lee. 127 minutes. USA: Ingenious Media, Haishang Films,

Dune Entertainment and Fox 2000 Pictures.

Mackintosh, C. (2013) Les Miserables IMAX featurette (ODEON) [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4uE3rqnW8 [accessed 01/05/2013].

172
Master of Fantasy – Douglas Trumbull (1998); directed by Lee Olson. 25 minute episodes.

USA: The Sci-Fi Channel [online]. Available from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Q3B4aGrTY [accessed 10/05/2013].

Mendes, S. (2012) Skyfall IMAX Featurette #1 [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0oKwNXQRgM [accessed 14/03/2013].

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (2011); directed by Brad Bird. 133 minutes. USA:

Skydance Productions, Bad Robot, Film Works, Skillking Films, TC Productions and

Paramount Pictures.

New Magic (1983); directed by Douglas Trumbull. 23 minutes. USA and Canada: Showscan

Film Corporation.

Paul Merton’s Birth of Hollywood (2011); directed by Paul Merton. 180 minutes. UK: BBC

Bristol.

Peep Show (2003 – present); created by Andrew O’Connor, Jesse Armstrong and Sam Bain.

24 minute episodes. UK: Objective Productions and Channel 4 Television Corporation.

Prometheus (2012); directed by Ridley Scott. 124 minutes. USA and UK: Dune

Entertainment, Scott Free Productions, Brandywine Productions and Twentieth Century

Fox.

Psycho (1960); directed by Alfred Hitchcock. 109 minutes. USA: Shamley Productions and

Paramount Pictures.

173
Quartet (2013); directed by Dustin Hoffman. 98 minutes. UK: Headline Pictures, BBC Films,

DCM Productions, Finola Dwyer Productions and Momentum Pictures.

Rear Window (1954); directed by Alfred Hitchcock. 112 minutes. USA: Patron Inc. and

Paramount Pictures.

Showscan Digital. (2010) Showscan Digital from Douglas Trumbull [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg [accessed 11/05/2013].

Silent Running (1972); directed by Douglas Trumbull. 89 minutes. USA: Trumbull/Gruskoff

Productions and Universal Pictures.

Shapiro, A. (2013) Tribeca's Future of Film Live: Making Motion Pictures with 4K [online].

Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c65SrnrttUo [accessed

04/05/2013].

Skyfall (2012); directed by Sam Mendes. 143 minutes. UK: EON Productions, Danjaq, Metro-

Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and Sony Pictures International.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013); directed by J.J. Abrams. 132 minutes. UK: Skydance

Productions, Bad Robot and Paramount Pictures.

The Dark Knight (2008); directed by Christopher Nolan. 152 minutes. USA and UK:

Legendary Pictures, Syncopy, DC Comics and Warner Bros.

174
The Dark Knight Rises (2012); directed by Christopher Nolan. 165 minutes. USA and UK:

Legendary Pictures, Syncopy, DC Entertainment and Warner Bros.

The Dawn of Sound: How Movies Learned to Talk (2007); directed by Robert Bader and Tim

Prokop. 85 minutes. USA: Warner Bros. Entertainment, Sparkhill Production, Turner

Entertainment and Warner Bros. Video (online). Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk7i07t8oqw [accessed 16/03/2013].

This is Cinerama (1952); directed by Merian C. Cooper and Gunther von Fritsch. 115

minutes. USA: Cinerama Productions Corporation and Cinerama Releasing Corporation.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012); directed by Peter Jackson. 169 minutes. USA

and New Zealand: New Line Cinema, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Warner Bros. and

WingNut Films.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013); Francis Lawrence. Length to be confirmed

(currently in postproduction). USA: Color Force and Lionsgate.

The Jazz Singer (1927); directed by Alan Crosland. 88 minutes. USA: Warner Bros.

The Making of Berberian Sound Studio (2012) Blu-ray; directed by Anon. 46 minutes. UK:

Warp X, Illumination Films, the UK Film Council and Artificial Eye (2012).

The Master (2012); directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. 144 minutes. USA: The Weinstein

Company, Ghoulardi Film Company and Annapurna Pictures.

175
The Story of Film: An Odyssey (2011); directed by Mark Cousins. 900 minutes. UK:

Hopscotch Films and More4 (2012).

The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm (1962); directed by Henry Levin and George

Pal. 135 minutes. USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Cinerama Productions Corporation

and Cinerama Releasing Corporation.

Transformers 4 (2014); directed by Michael Bay. Length to be confirmed (currently in

production). USA: China Movie Channel, DreamWorks, Hasbro, Jiaflix Enterprises, Di

Bonaventura Pictures and Paramount Pictures.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009); directed by Michael Bay. 150 minutes. USA:

DreamWorks, Paramount Pictures, Hasbro and Di Bonaventura Pictures.

Trumbull, D. (2012a) The Future of Cinema with Douglas Trumbull Part 1 – Ain’t it Cool

News with Harry Knowles [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpZd-UoYWCY [accessed 05/03/2013].

Trumbull, D. (2012b) The Future of Cinema with Douglas Trumbull Part 2 – Ain’t it Cool

News with Harry Knowles [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs_ILzu1ny [accessed 05/03/2013].

Trumbull, D. (2012c) Douglas Trumbull - A Conversation [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL42O6xiuc4 [accessed 12/03/2013].

176
Trumbull, D. (2012d) Interview | Douglas Trumbull | FMX 2012 [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEwnWajSMK8 [accessed 22/04/2013].

Trumbull, D. (2012e) Berkshire International Film Festival and Filmmaker, Douglas Trumbull,

on 4D and New Cinema [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kFA4MCm8MM [09/05/2013].

Trumbull, D. (2012f) Hypnotic & Magical – Ain’t it Cool News with Harry Knowles [online].

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kFA4MCm8MM [accessed

09/05/2013].

Watzke, H. (2010) TED Talks: Heribert Watzke: The brain in your gut [online]. Available

from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkeBjP_9ZR4 [accessed 15/03/2013].

Ways of Seeing (1972); directed by Mike Dibb. 120 minutes. UK: British Broadcasting

Corporation [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUyI_LdXRnI&list=PL872405DBCBDFF922

[accessed 14/01/2013].

177
Illustration Sources

Figure 1: An illustration of Plato’s simile of the cave [online]. Available from:

http://www.litigationps.com/.a/6a01156e439be2970c01538e2889c2970b-800wi [accessed

14/03/2013].

Figure 2: A poster for Cave of Forgotten Dreams (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://cdn.mos.totalfilm.com/images/c/cave-of-forgotten-dreams-exclusive-quad-poster-

00-470-75.jpg [accessed 17/03/2013].

Figure 3: The eight-legged bison. A screen capture from Cave of Forgotten Dreams (see

Filmography). This screen capture was created on my iPad.

Figure 4: Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) looks through his peep hole. A screen capture

from Psycho (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~daorgero/images/psycho.jpg [accessed 04/03/2013].

Figure 5: John Berger demonstrates perspective. A screen capture Ways of Seeing (see

Filmography) [online]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk

[accessed 15/03/2013].

Figure 6: Jefferies (James Stewart) gazes at Lisa (Grace Kelly). A publicity photograph for

Rear Window (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0IQtUA4Hyww/TPJynwwSKgI/AAAAAAAAAU0/h4GKMXA1ILs/s4

00/rear%252Bwindow.jpg [accessed 23/03/2013].

178
Figure 7: Dolby Atmos auditorium layout schematic [online]. Available from:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1280&bih=699&tbm=is

ch&tbnid=y2Gky7n0SSqedM:&imgrefurl=http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/technolo

gy/movie/dolby-atmos-

details.html&docid=uj_ZYhHwzGi_xM&imgurl=http://www.dolby.com/uploadedImages/As

sets/US/Img/Cinema/Dolby_Atmos_Theatre_Configuration.gif&w=650&h=763&ei=eBzlUNu

cB8_Y0QX204DgBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=389&vpy=255&dur=2558&hovh=243&hovw=2

07&tx=109&ty=94&sig=106453598564333896046&page=1&tbnh=139&tbnw=115&start=0

&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:109 [accessed 16/12/2012].

Figure 8: ‘The Brain in your gut’ diagram [online]. Available from:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-

evl1gDPR3iY/TVmTC4k1htI/AAAAAAAAA_Q/2Z8W250NNis/s1600/gut.large.jpg

[accessed 08/02/2013].

Figure 9: An Illustration of 24 frames a second. A screen capture from a demonstration of

Showscan Digital (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg [accessed 26/02/2013].

Figure 10: The higher frame rate FAQ sheet for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (see

Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img5/HobbitHFRFAQSheetFUllsize599-01.jpg

[accessed 27/12/2012].

179
Figure 11: An Illustration demonstrating the 3D stereoscopic effect, featuring Creature from

the Black Lagoon (see Filmography) [online]. Available from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-

images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2010/9/1/1283365897216/3D-FILMS-006.jpg

[accessed 18/03/2013].

Figure 12: Douglas Trumbull directing an experimental test shoot [online]. Available from:

http://digitalcinemasymposium.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/dt-directs-1a2.jpg [accessed

22/04/2013].

Figure 13: An Illustration demonstrating the enormity of Cinerama, from an edition of Life

Magazine (see Bibliography) [online]. Available from:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_79TdQF9qAm4/R9KLnMkJiYI/AAAAAAAAAPE/LolxtFIBwt4/s640/

Mass+-+Boston+-+I+Was+In+Cinerama!.jpg [accessed 29/05/2013].

Figure 14: Film format and screen size comparisons. A diagram demonstrating the

differences between 70mm IMAX, conventional 70mm and 35mm [online]. Available from:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eb8WRKxaHbE/TQzattyVwFI/AAAAAAAAABg/J9zNQuyJOI0/s160

0/imax_002.jpg [accessed 04/03/2013].

Figure 15: ‘IMAX is believing’. A photograph of audience members in front of an IMAX

screen [online]. Available from: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-

ash3/541929_10151379966776639_1171262204_n.png [accessed 26/01/2013].

Figure 16: The number of films released in IMAX venues between 2009 and 2012 [online].

Available from: https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-

prn1/47683_10151387031121639_358116167_n.jpg [accessed 28/12/2012].

180
Figure 17: The IMAX poster for The Dark Knight Rises (see Filmography) [online]. Available

from: http://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2012/07/darkknightpostert752012.jpg [accessed 27/05/2013].

Figure 18: The number of IMAX venues worldwide between 2008 and 2012 [online].

Available from: https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-

snc7/578011_10151392236076639_686285762_n.jpg [accessed 28/12/2012].

Figure 19: ‘Take in a Movie or get taken into one’. ‘IMAX is believing’ advertisement poster

[online]. Available from: https://encrypted-

tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQssoDvfRbd4dwUxgsmk8YP5sZcyNZujAiXqu-

A01IVHX9PJMDe [accessed 04/03/2013].

Figure 20: A photograph of an IMAX performance of The Dark Knight Rises (see

Filmography) [online]. Available from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-

images/Film/Pix/pictures/2012/7/23/1343040706215/Imax-screening-of-The-Dar-008.jpg

[accessed 29/12/2012].

Figure 21: A photograph of the auditorium of the BFI IMAX venue [online]. Available from:

http://cdn.londonandpartners.com/asset/e050a52959f71947e94a338f5e40263c.jpg

[accessed 13/04/2013].

Figure 22: A diagram demonstrating the peripheral vision’s role in the perception of motion

[online]. Available from:

http://static.imax.com/media/filebrowser/uploads/imax_101___theatre_005.jpeg

[accessed 27/03/2013].

181
Figure 23: A diagram demonstrating the different peripheral occupation range

of IMAX and conventional cinema screens of IMAX and conventional cinema screens

[online]. Available from:

http://static.imax.com/media/filebrowser/uploads/imax_101___theatre_006.jpeg

[accessed 27/03/2013].

Figure 24: A diagram demonstrating the human eye’s rods and cones receptors and their

role in the perception of peripheral vision [online]. Available from:

http://www.imax.com/community/blog/imax-101-theatre-geometry-video/ [accessed

27/03/2013].

Figure 25: Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) jump for their lives. A

screen capture from the 9 minute IMAX preview of Star Trek Into Darkness (see

Filmography) [online]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo4RhC564MA

[accessed 25/05/2013].

Figure 26: A photograph of a Showscan installation venue [online]. Available from:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTE35F0Tm3WCXJhSJu-

6N6psLp4c0pi1aGaq_SubCYyeePPzRnnfQ [accessed 05/03/2013].

Figure 27: A photograph of the production of New Magic (see Filmography) [online].

Available from:

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2012/trumbull_interview/images/new_magic_01.jpg

[accessed 05/03/2013].

182
Figure 28: A poster for Brainstorm (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/85/MPW-42890 [accessed

06/03/2013].

Figure 29: A photograph demonstration of the in-ride experience of Back to the Future: The

Ride [online]. Available from:

http://ssheltonimages.com/img/43/434/Back_to_the_Future_The_Ride.jpg [accessed

28/04/2013].

Figure 30: Nancy (Rachel Blanchard) allures Jez (Robert Webb). A screen capture from an

episode of Peep Show (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/JQL0IWbNaWQ/hqdefault.jpg [accessed28/04/2013].

Figure 31: ‘See a movie or be part of one’. ‘IMAX is believing’ advertisement poster [online].

Available from:

https://www.empiretheatres.com/files/movies/2012/09/IMAX_Image2012.jpg [accessed

27/05/2013].

Figure 32: A hand print cave painting from the El Castillo cave in Spain [online]. Available

from: http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2012/06/120614-neanderthal-cave-

paintings-spain-science-pike/# [accessed 09/05/2013].

Figure 33: Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) prepares for his ascent from the pit. A screen

capture from The Dark Knight Rises (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXxw-zXRqOs [accessed 26/04/2013].

183
Figure 34: A poster for Berberian Sound Studio (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sq79yEUFSA0/UDIo_V2ZeuI/AAAAAAAAAj4/-

ufyz35j8VE/s1600/berberiansoundstudio.jpeg [accessed 26/05/2013].

Figure 35: Bruce Wayne climbs up the cavern. A screen capture from The Dark Knight Rises

(see Filmography) [online]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXxw-

zXRqOs [accessed 26/04/2013].

Figure 36: A poster for Silent Running (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

https://encrypted-

tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZmEJMEbEk_nM2maQO85nA6j1xnFBgyaqypTGT

m6620a81SkHN [accessed 21/04/2013].

Figure 37: Bruce Wayne contemplates his leap. A publicity photograph for The Dark Knight

Rises (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://images.fandango.com/MDCsite/images/featured/201211/Christian-Bale-in-The-

Dark-Knight-Rises.jpg [accessed 21/04/2013].

Figure 38: Bruce Wayne - risen from darkness. A screen capture from The Dark Knight Rises

(see Filmography) [online]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXxw-

zXRqOs [accessed 26/04/2013].

Figure 39: A photograph of the food and drink counter of a Vue cinema [online]. Available

from: http://www.familycomms.com/site/wp-content/uploads/cinema-image1.jpg

[accessed 11/03/2013].

184
Figure 40: ‘The Microphone – the Terror of the Studios’, the cover of Photoplay (see

Bibliography), December 1929 [online]. Available from: https://encrypted-

tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHAnxzzJ1jDVSZZewK7q6IiZ3XcoSuxI5duLTMNpX0

xNOffCWz [accessed 15/03/2013].

Figure 41: A screenshot of ‘The Future of Film’ article from Photoplay (see Bibliography),

December 1929 [online]. Available from:

http://www.criticalflicker.org.uk/pages/grandeur.html [accessed 17/03/2013].

Figure 42: A 70mm advertisement for The Master (see Filmography) [online]. Available

from: https://encrypted-

tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3RX2hpnWxb62ynwzjhUxOBhMz6RZEucQMMJR4

sOqzwndfcsV9 [accessed 17/03/2013].

Figure 43: A point of view roller coaster sequence from This is Cinerama (see Filmography).

A smile box re-creation of what the 3-strip Cinerama version of This is Cinerama would have

looked like in a Cinerama venue [online]. Available from:

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/Roller-coaster-400.jpg [accessed

27/05/2013].

Figure 44: A layout demonstration of the workings of a Cinerama theatre [online]. Available

from: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/Cinerama-setup-new-

600.jpg [accessed 27/05/2013].

Figure 45: Linus Rawlings (James Stewart) greets the native Americans. A smile box re-

creation of what the 3-strip Cinerama version of How The West Was Won (see Filmography)

185
would have looked like in a Cinerama venue [online]. Available from:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6qgeWVXWLfY/TH3ZtvAgUYI/AAAAAAAAA7A/A8gFuz6tMw4/s1

600/Cinerama.jpg [accessed 03/02/2013].

Figure 46: A diagram illustrating the parameters of different image resolutions [online].

Available from: http://www.nag.co.za/wp-

content/uploads/2012/03/resolution_comparison_chart.jpg [accessed 13/03/2013].

Figure 47: A photograph of an 8K television display [online]. Available from:

http://images.pcworld.com/images/article/2012/04/panasonic_145_tv-11353149.jpg

[accessed 17/03/2013].

Figure 48: A photograph of The Little Theatre Cinema, Bath, UK [online]. Available from:

http://www.cotswolds.info/images/Bath/buidings/little_theatre_cinema.jpg [accessed

22/03/2013].

Figure 49: A photograph of the city centre Cineworld, Glasgow, UK [online]. Available from:

http://www.scottishcinemas.org.uk/glasgow/cineworld_06_1.jpg [accessed 24/03/2013].

Figure 50: A poster for Quartet (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNeLDlOOZckrVnlwXu1xs9QGEWxKlb9Vnwur

UeZKr2YQsTBnvOQw [accessed 25/03/2013].

Figure 51: A photograph of the Cineworld in Crawley, West Sussex, UK [online]. Available

from:

186
http://www.midsussextimes.co.uk/webimage/1.4598384.1355837479!image/1588000340.

jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/1588000340.jpg [accessed 24/03/2013].

Figure 52: A resolution comparison of LieMAX and IMAX [online]. Available from:

http://www.metalsucks.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/IMAX-vs-LIEMAX.jpeg [accessed

26/04/2013].

Figure 53: An advertisement poster for Odeon’s isense [online]. Available from:

http://dubbelin.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/seat-jpg.jpg [accessed 24/03/2013].

Figure 54: A photograph of a 4DX cinema entrance hall [online]. Available from:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/4DX-2012-001-superheroes-launch.jpg

[accessed 21/04/2013].

Figure 55: A conventional poster for The Dark Knight Rises (see Filmography) [online].

Available from: http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5299/thedarkknightrisesposte.jpg

[28/04/2013].

Figure 56: The IMAX poster for The Dark Knight Rises (see Filmography) [online]. Available

from: http://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2012/07/darkknightpostert752012.jpg [accessed 28/04/2013].

Figure 57: A conventional poster for Skyfall (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-

a_q_7l6Jrwo/UJe_KBnqJAI/AAAAAAAACMw/TNYk2Zkn_xU/s1600/Laying_Quad_SKYFALL.jp

g [accessed 28/04/2013].

187
Figure 58: The IMAX poster for Skyfall (see Filmography) [online]. Available from:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-

a_q_7l6Jrwo/UJe_KBnqJAI/AAAAAAAACMw/TNYk2Zkn_xU/s1600/Laying_Quad_SKYFALL.jp

g [accessed 28/04/2013].

Figure 59: A conventional poster for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (see Filmography)

[online]. Available from: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-

ash3/p480x480/578587_10151214512681558_1487527690_n.jpg [accessed 28/04/2013].

Figure 60: One of four IMAX character posters for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (see

Filmography) [online]. Available from: http://www.liveforfilms.com/wp-

content/uploads/2012/11/Hobbit-Poster-Bilbo-IMAX.jpg [accessed 28/04/2013].

Figure 61: “What a difference 8 years makes: St. Peter's Square in 2005 and yesterday” (see

Bibliography) [online]. Available from:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=555336131153088&set=a.162132393806799.

30950.155869377766434&type=1&theater [accessed 29/03/2013].

Figure 62: Netflix account homepage. Created from my own Netflix account and screen

captured on my iPad.

Figure 63: Google Glass. A publicity photograph [online]. Available from:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-

images/Guardian/About/General/2013/3/6/1362575657501/Googles-Sergey-Brin-weari-

010.jpg [accessed 04/05/2013].

188
Figure 64: Google Glass technical schematic [online]. Available from: https://encrypted-

tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNa7cdNCVmxfWHHfe7no8Bb0t7KPHa6mJ9eVVjfE

J9ZIAqozdL [accessed 10/05/2013].

Figure 65: Glass Glass - a user’s point of view. A screen capture from How it Feels [through

Glass] (see Filmography) [online]. Available from: http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-

it-feels/

Figure 66: ‘The blue Marble’. A photograph that is currently the highest resolution image of

the Earth [online]. Available from: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723

[accessed 24/05/2013].

189
“I’m a pioneer. Okay, that’s my life, I’ll just keep doing it until I do it…”

(Douglas Trumbull, 2012h).

190