Sociology of film : studies and documents (1946)

THE ADULT AND THE CINEMA The regional distribution is perhaps the strongest indication of the representative character of the documents. Wherever we may be, the same films, for good or worse, follow us.1 Consequently, the typification of the reaction structure can hardly appear striking. I do not intend to discuss the impact on fashions, hair styles and mannerisms. In this respect the documents speak for themselves. Moreover, Professor Blumer and Mrs. Thorp have given us ample illustrations of this side of film influence. Count the Bette Davises, the Greer Garsons or David Nivens you may meet every day when you travel to your office! There are other points which are equally well documented by our contributions: The influence of films on reading (See 21, 33, 54), on musical interest (33), the entirely unexplored field of film influence on speech and vocabulary (33, 40), or the importance of colour emotions (24, 40, 53, 66). With regard to the latter problem 1 From my film diary, 7 th August 1945. Direct observations of audiences are extremely difficult. I saw to-day for the second time the film Under the Clock, directed by Vincente Minelli. This time I saw this film in Norwich whereas the first time I saw it in a West End theatre in London. There was one scene in particular where I wanted to compare the behaviour of a London with a Norfolk audience. A soldier on embarkation leave for two days meets an office girl in New York and they decide to marry (it is a fine, genuinely sentimental picture which has the great merit that two people take at least twenty-four hours before they decide to marry. Something quite unusual on the contemporary screen). Now after they have spent their first night together, we see them having breakfast. For almost five minutes they do not say a word. (She pours out coffee, he looks at her.) Now, this silence struck me very much when I saw the film in London (actually in my memory there was no music either; but there is, unfortunately, 'soft' music on the sound-track as I ascertained to-day). The London audience listened in silence to this 'silent' scene whereas in my Norfolk audience there was a considerable amount of laughing. What does this different behaviour mean in terms of audience reactions? Does the more 'sophisticated' London audience feel the subtle touch of the scene: when two lovers remain silent because they have so much to say to each other? Is the Norfolk audience — I saw the film in the early afternoon — of a cruder type? Or at least those who did laugh? It is possible. Perhaps one must live in a big city to understand the melody of loneliness and silence between people who love each other. Perhaps what is here deep for the city dweller is natural and obvious for the spectator in Norfolk. He laughs because the profondeur of the city dweller must remain unintelligible to him. His — the country dweller's — profondeur is altogether different. I continue these notes. Any such conclusions about audiences are naturally what Lord Keynes would call 'rash generalisations'. Yet they are perhaps not quite beside the point, for they may help me to lay the foundations for more specified investigations. What I said above about loneliness you may find — perhaps for the first time in Western thought? — in the famous discussion by Pascal of 'divertissement' in his Pensies (No. 139: Brunschvicg edition). I quote only the relevant first sentence: 265