EXPANDED SPECTATORSHIP: CINEMA IN THE POST-PRESCENIUM ERA

A Thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree

FILM Master of Arts In Cinema Studies

by

Oren Bonen

San Francisco, California

May 2017 Copyright by Oren Bonen 2017 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read EXPANDED SPECTATORSHIP: CINEMA IN THE POST-

PRESCENIUM ERA by Oren Bonen, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in Cinema Studies at San Francisco State University.

R.L. Rutsky, Ph.D. Associate Professor

, i ______Aaron Kerner, Ph.D. Professor EXPANDED SPECTATORSHIP: CINEMA IN THE POST-PRESCENIUM ERA

Oren Bonen San Francisco, California 2017

The more cinema technology evolves, the closer we seem to get to primitive performance models. Virtual Reality, 3D, 4D, Augmented Reality, Holograms, all return to the origins of cinema and to Tom Gunning's "Cinema of Attractions." I will explore the ways in which spectators absorb cinema in an environment of ever- changing media, discussing the current Post-Media era. My major focus will be on the following questions: Will the utilization of these new technologies create a new, more popular medium? What do we lose when we remove the traditional cinema experience to which we've become accustomed? Furthermore, could this put an end to narrative cinema?

I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction...... 1-4

The Proscenium’s Long Goodbye...... 4-11

The Origins of Expanded Spectatorship...... 11-17

Digital Spectators...... 17-20

Plugged In...... 20-23

The Immobile Apparatus...... 23-27

The Visible Apparatus...... 27-33

Artificial Simulated Cinema...... 33-38

Addicted to Affect...... 38-39

Virtual Reality Cinema...... 40-49

The Fall from Mother Earth...... 49-56

Conclusion...... 57-59

v 1

INTRODUCTION

In my essay, I will discuss the push and pull of the Millennial spectator and the cinematic distribution and conscious choices of content available for that viewer. The relationship between spectators and their viewing options is becoming increasingly complex due to the rapid pace at which technology has become enmeshed in our daily lives. We find ourselves at the beginning of the end of a milestone in cinema.

Cinema distribution and viewing is in the control of the spectator. The lines between television and film are blurring together. Tangible media is a thing of the past.

Spectators are maturing in a system that gives them an increase in control of the cinematic art form.

Due to increasing advances in technology today, cinema is expanding as it directs itself away from the traditional proscenium style theater. Until recently, the ways in which we absorbed cinema have depended entirely upon the technologies we own or have access to. As spectators, we simply utilized the options that were available to us. For example, if the community we lived in had an art-house cinema, then we were able to access smaller, more independent films as opposed to only having a mega multiplex chain theater at the nearby mall, which only screened major blockbusters.

How far away was the rental store—was it on the way home from dinner? These questions are no longer relevant, given the substantial increases in the number of people who have access to portable media devices, including ever-broadening access 2

to streaming media of all kinds. Now that all connected devices allow us to access and engage in a plethora of options with the push of a button, more people than ever before are able to have a wide range of media at their fingertips. According to newly released survey data, Pew Research Center found that in 2015, “68% of U.S. adults have a smartphone, up from 35% in 2011, and tablet computer ownership has edged up to 45% among adults.”1 In response to these shifts, the content that is being produced for various channels of cinema is being altered in order to accommodate the changing demands of the spectator.

My investigation will explore not only the Millennial generation’s complex relationship with the cinema, but the changing perspectives of spectators and their resistance to immersion within the medium. Specifically, I will critique digital spectatorship and the contrasting experiences of viewing media in a proscenium-style theater, on television, or using handheld devices. Immersion cannot be successful when competing with digital devices such as cell phones and tablets, which undoubtedly control us more than we control them. In order to truly become immersed in cinema, spectators must relinquish control and allow cinema to absorb their atmosphere entirely by utilizing new technologies such as VR. The traditional proscenium-style theater has not adapted to contemporary society and the devices that we have become accustomed to utilizing. By contrast, VR offers an immersive experience because spectators are

1 http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/ 3

isolated within the apparatus and cannot be distracted; it is full immersion to an extreme. A marching band could be walking up and down the street and, to someone who is engaged in a VR experience, their gaze does not waver. Technology governs our daily life; we have been granted unlimited, unprecedented access to cinema outside of the theater. As a result, I will argue that the contemporary spectator rejects the traditional modes of cinema experience and expresses a strong preference for utilizing new technologies. Therefore, spectators will continue to gravitate towards total immersion technology, specifically that which is offered by virtual reality.

Spectatorship has traditionally been divided into two categories; passive and active.

Rather than restricting our understanding of spectatorship to two models, we should allow for an alternate third option, which enables some level of flexibility. I will go on to discuss the redefining of a new form of expanded spectatorship, one that allows the spectator to morph from active to passive and then back again, or vice versa, in a seamless fashion, which we might refer to as “free range spectatorship.”

I will argue that due to the rise of digital screens and distractions that surround us, spectators are and will continue to gravitate towards a more immersive, less communal, medium such as virtual reality. Cinema productions are adjusting to this shift by pulling away from narrative cinema and gravitating towards affect-based and sensationalized cinema. Due to the increasing pressures in popular culture to subscribe to these new technologies, spectators accept these affect-based formats 4

as the norm. Despite the growing preference for controllable cinema experiences, I believe that the artificial enhancements of both virtual reality and 4D rob audiences and society of the opportunity to engage in an artistic dialogue with cinema; and, furthermore, that these trends are having an impact beyond that which is lost or gained by going to the theater to view cinema. Is the essence of cinema not the very exploration of the medium itself? This engagement and inquisitive practice is prevented from taking place if we are programmed to expect a synthetic experience, void of any opportunity to question or react on our own terms.

The onset of new technology has forced society away from the traditional proscenium style theater. Therefore, spectators have no choice other than to adapt to new forms of cinema, and this in turn will change the ways in which cinema is absorbed.

Likewise, filmmakers and media producers in the digital age must conform to increasing demands of the spectator, and also respond to new apparatuses through which their work will be viewed. A necessary step in this process is to bid farewell to the proscenium.

THE PROSCENIUM’S LONG GOODBYE

A proscenium is the metaphorical vertical plane of space in a theatre, usually surrounded on the top and sides by a physical proscenium arch and on the bottom by the stage floor itself, which serves as the frame into which the audience observes from a more or less unified angle the 5

events taking place upon the stage during a theatrical performance.2

Greek and Italian outdoor proscenium theaters paved the way we view cinema in a theater today. The traditional theater space morphed into the cinema space only a decade after cinema was invented. Given that audiences were accustomed to viewing theater in this way, and had been for half a millennium, it was logical to base the cinema theater on the familiar proscenium theater. The cinema involves an obvious metamorphosis from theater to film, as producers were eager to fill as many seats as possible. However, even in theater, the proscenium, with its origins in the 1500s, is not the only viewing possibility.

For over a century, the proscenium-based cinema theater has been the primary form of viewing for spectators. Theaters once used for stage plays and vaudeville acts were outfitted to show films, and the cinema-going experience came naturally to audiences accustomed to gathering together as a community to enjoy and engage in an artistic forum. Throughout this evolution, creative leaders in the field have adopted different forms of cinema by utilizing new technology and innovations and by choosing new forms of storytelling. In order to understand the transformation of the proscenium theater over the last century, we look back to its original inception.

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium 6

The "Nickelodeon" was popularized by Harry Davis and John P. Harris, who opened their small storefront theater with that name on Smithfield Street in Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, on June 19,1905. During the mid 1920s, once investors started to see the potential for making a profit in the cinema theater, they began investing in larger, higher capacity theaters in order to gross more revenue. These spaces are referred to as movie palaces, which was the introduction of the cinema theater as we know it today.

I am intrigued by the period of cinema between the advent of the nickelodeon and the movie palaces. During this time, filmmakers began to move farther away from documenting everyday life and attempted to create attractions and spectacle. Tom

Gunning coined the term “the cinema of attraction” in reference to the origins of early cinema from 1895-1905, as filmmakers such as Lumiere and Melies “present[ed] a series of views to an audience, fascinating because of their illusory power and exoticism.”3

Gunning defines the cinema of attraction as: “a cinema that displays its visibility, willing to rupture a self-enclosed fictional world for a chance to solicit the attention of the spectator.”4 He explains that cinema evolved beyond entertainment, and was

3 Tom Gunning. “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde,” Wide Angle, Vol.8 (Fall 1986). 4 Tom Gunning. “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde,” Wide Angle, Vol.8 (Fall 1986). 7

seen for the first time as an opportunity to gather an audience to present spectators

with something unique, never before seen, and distinctive. Gunning continues:

According to Eisenstein, theater should consist of a montage of such attractions, creating a relation to the spectator entirely different from his absorption in ‘illusory imitativeness.' This term partly underscores the relation to the spectator that later avant-garde practice shares with early cinema: of exhibitionist confrontation rather than diegetic absorption.5

Filmmakers gave audiences something new and seemingly magical and they were in

awe. I believe we are currently witnessing a return to this model, one where

spectators are being solicited to view a new trick—to see what Gunning describes as

an “illusion, exotic, unique.” We must attempt to understand why cinema desires to

return to an approach that Gunning traces to the infancy of cinema.

For many decades, the proscenium cinema theater was the only option available to

spectators: more recently, however, an increasing array of viewing apparatuses have

emerged. It appears that, as a result, traditional proscenium style theaters, including

IMAX and Cinerama, are on their way out. Year after year, ticket sales are down,6 and

fewer spectators are choosing the traditional cinema experience. Cinema exhibition

has taken on many different forms, adapting to the times with each iteration,

5 Tom Gunning. “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde,” Wide Angle, Vol.8 (Fall 1986). 6 http://www.businessinsider.com/movie-theater-attendance-is-declining-as-cord-cutting-becomes-more- popu la r-2 016-9 8

including widely acknowledged technological milestones such as widescreen formats,

Cinerama and 3D, and more recently expanding into multiplex theaters that house massive 70-foot I MAX screens to attract spectators.

In July 2016, the film industry reported that they are “on pace to sell the fewest U.S. tickets per person of any year since perhaps before the 1920s and the fewest total tickets in two decades.”7 The cinema industry is exploring a new spectator experience to combat this decline and to keep the cinema theater alive. This new experience expands beyond the traditional form of cinema into a new, innovative model that responds to the demands of the spectator today. Focusing on the reasons behind this shift, I will question how changes from the traditional cinema theater to new forms of cinema media such as virtual reality enhance the film for the spectator, if at all; and, above all, why these adaptations are necessary. At the core, what is the rationale behind this metamorphosis of the cinema? We must look at the core of cinema itself, and discover the intentions and motivations for this decision to expand into what is being coined as “virtual reality cinema.” Filmmaker Steven Spielberg discusses departing from the traditional cinema theater:

I believe we need to get rid of the proscenium. We’re never going to be totally immersive as long as we’re looking at a square, whether it's a movie screen or whether it’s a computer screen. We Ve got to get rid of that and we’ve got to put the player inside the experience, where no matter where you look you’re surrounded by a three-dimensional

7 https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/hollywood-has-a-huge-millennial-problem/486209/ 9

experience. That’s the future.8

Yet, in many ways, this VR future cannot help but remind us of the origins of cinema.

Users who purchase Virtual Reality hardware from Oculus Rift, currently the leading

VR company, experience their initial introduction to the technology with an experience called The Jurassic World: Apatosaurus VR Experience.9 After donning their goggle- headphone unit and immersing themselves in the experience, users thrust back and forth, contorting their bodies, curling up and even retreating into a fetal position at times - their bodies react to the illusion that they are being chased by a dinosaur.

When removing their goggles and fully unplugging from the virtual world, their hearts are still racing and they reflect on a completely overwhelming fantasy with shock and awe.10 Their minds were transported to the Jurassic period, a magic trick that would not be possible without strapping on this futuristic hardware. Oculus Rift is striving for the same goal Auguste and Louis Lumiere had when screening L'Arrivee d'un train en gare de La Ciotat. Their fifty-second film garnered quite an effect on the spectators.

Writer Hellmuth Karasek from German magazine Der Spiegel wrote:

The audience was so overwhelmed by the moving image of a life-sized train coming directly at them that people screamed and ran to the back of the room.” [The film] "had a particularly lasting impact; yes, it caused fear, terror, even panic.11

3 http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/lucas-spielberg-on-future-of-entertainment-120049624V 9 https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/1096547647026443/ 10 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-does-virtual-reality-do-to-your-body-and-mind-1451858778 11 Ein Kurzfilm wirkte besonders nachhaltig, ja er erzeugte Furcht, Schrecken, sogar Panik. 10

Virtual Reality creators are not shying away from what seems to be their ultimate goal

—to freak out their spectator and cause ‘fear, terror and panic.’ Chris Milk, founder of

Vrse.inc, a VR technology company, discussed the momentum and direction VR is heading at a Vancouver Ted Talk conference:

At the beginning of cinema they were shooting trains coming at cameras and everyone was freaking out. This is a language that has been established over many, many years. I don't know what these new stories are going to look like...but I'm creating the tools now to hopefully figure out what the language and narratives of this new evolving storytelling canvas eventually will be.12

Milk, referencing early cinema, confuses the cinema of attractions that Gunning discusses with narrative stories when in fact the films in question are far from a story or narrative. Milk admits that he is still learning from this new form of cinema. His goal seems to be the combination of an uncontrollable bodily reaction with a Houdini- esque spectator questioning the very process as to how this was achieved in the first place. We can see this trend as films of today are marketed as “never before seen,” describing and focusing on the special effects rather than the narrative. Andre Bazin reiterates this sentimental need to return to infancy and dissect the origins of cinema in order to design what lies ahead. Bazin discusses this in his essay “The Myth of

Total Cinema":

The nostalgia that some still feel for the silent screen does not go far enough back into the childhood of the seventh art. The real primitives

12 https://www.ted.com/speakers/chris_milk 11

of the cinema, existing only in the imaginations of a few men of the nineteenth century, are in complete imitation of nature. Every new development added to the cinema must, paradoxically, take it nearer and nearer to its origins. In short, cinema has not yet been invented!13

Bazin understood sixty years ago that cinema was evolving in order to find its voice.

Today, many artists are still attempting to invent a new experience for the spectator, one that now challenges the model of the proscenium style theater.

THE ORIGINS OF EXPANDED SPECTATORSHIP

For years, spectators who wished to view a film would not simply declare their desire to do so. Rather, they would rightfully state, “I am going to the movies.” It was an experience, valued above and beyond the cause for the experience itself. For the better part of the 20th century, the cinema theater was the only way one could view cinema. Following a visit to the movies, the spectator would not describe the act of viewing or the art of cinema, but instead would attempt to recapture the entire experience. That experience includes choosing to travel to, and physically experience, a cinema theater environment. Today, it seems a rare occasion that the cinema theater requires the spectator to be present to experience the art the artist is providing. For the most part, the spectator can choose to stay home and view cinema by utilizing myriad apparatuses. I believe that offering the spectator a unique

13 Andre Bazin. "The Myth of Total Cinema.” What is Cinema? (University of California Press, December 13, 2004), Page 21. 12

environment to view cinema has changed the cinema viewing experience. To follow are several historical case studies that illustrate a filmmaker’s passion to create an exclusive theater-going experience, yet force the spectator out of his/her comfort zone of proscenium-style seating.

An innovative example of expanded spectatorship can be seen in the films created by

Hale’s Tours around the turn of the century. Shortly after the kinetoscope was invented, Hale’s Tours was the largest chain of theaters exclusively showing film before 1906.14 Their films consisted of non-narrative sequences taken from moving vehicles, usually trains. The most remarkable and interesting aspect of their work was the choice to reimagine the theater itself. The theater was arranged as a train car with a conductor who took tickets, and sound effects simulating the audible click- clack of wheels and hiss of air brakes. All theaters falling under the Hale’s umbrella were impacted by the company’s decision to transform the traditional theater into that of a train car to mimic the film being shown to spectators. To create a more immersive carnival-ride experience for the spectators, Hale expanded the traditional sense of the theater.

While there were artists who experimented with the screen, such as Abel Gance and his epic three screen Napoleon in 1927, there were few attempts to engage

14 Tom Gunning. “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde," Wide Angle, Vol.8 (Fall 1986). 13

spectators in a new theater format. One notable example was Rene Clair’s Entr’acte, which was included as part of a ballet in 1924. Aside from artists experimenting with cinema theaters, there were key figures in the evolution of cinema who adjusted screen size, as well introduced Cinerama, 3D, and other forms of viewership. These examples pushed the boundaries of spectatorship and cinema itself, but audiences were still sitting in rows in a proscenium-style theater. It was not until 1960’s when the cinematic proscenium was truly challenged.

Many artists broke away from the mainstream narrative of filmmaking and chose to

“expand cinema.” These artists utilized new technologies, which both enabled them to create new types of cinema and allowed them to view cinema in this new

“expanded” way. At this time, due to video format becoming more readily available, many film artists were able to utilize multiple apparatus opportunities, allowing cinema-creators to develop and view cinema in a new way.

One significant cinematic milestone is the work of cinema artist and filmmaker Stan

VanDerBeek, who felt his work was limited by the one-screen cinema theater experience. He therefore created and built the “movie-drome,” removing the traditional proscenium. The “Movie-Drome” was a pre-fabricated dome-shaped studio where cinema-in- the-round as well as film orfilms-in-the-square both multi-projection and multi-screens would be further developed. VanDerBeek described this space as

“a prototype for a new kind of cinema-stage...researching new techniques that are 14

meant to expand cinema." In an attempt to shift away from traditional forms of

cinema and expand not only the expression of art on film but the spectators’ means

of viewing cinema itself, VanDerBeek revolutionized the overall cinema experience.

Knowing that the form of cinema he was interested in creating would require

expanding the experience for the spectator, VanDerBeek imagined a more expansive

vision of cinema:

Everything expands, in all directions, there is an interconnection between all of the arts, literally between them all, and this is what it is about. I mean, let’s say that art and life really should be one, and let’s see what happens if we really make them one.15

VanDerBeek used the tools he had available to him in the 1960’s. He did not have the endless options that filmmakers have today to create an edgy new experience for the spectator. Rather, he succeeded in creating an immersive and unforgettable

moment where his spectators questioned their experience by pushing back against the norm of the proscenium viewing style and for many this was a remarkable

success. Filmmaker Dominique Paini reminds us of the significance of VanDerBeek’s

techniques of mixing different acts within films: “The origins of film go back more to

the performances of the "expanded cinema" of a Stan VanDerBeek in the 1960s than

to the history of the classical Hollywood film.”16

15 Stan Van Der Beek. “ Film Culture, No. 40. Stan Van Der Beek Projects: Spring 1966. 16 Dominique Paini and Rosalind E. Krauss. “Should We Put an End to Projection?” October Magazine, Volume 110 (Fall 2004): 23-48. 15

VanDerBeek not only succeeded in changing the subject matter but also altering the ways in which cinema itself was being gazed upon. He caused his audience to question not only the content of his work, but also all of the rules he was breaking in his self-made “movie-drome.” Why do we desire to return to the infancy, or what Paini calls the “origins” of film? It must be because we lost something in our search for what Deleuze calls the "essence of cinema”.17 VanDerBeek found his voice and it was the same one that other groundbreaking artists found—artists that seek to push the medium into new and exciting territory.

During the same era, another artist, Jordan Belson, expanded the cinema theater experience by creating the film series Vortex. In Cindy Keefer’s article

“Raumlichtmusik,” she recalls Belson’s reflections on his contributions to the field:

Vortex is a new form of theater based on the combination of electronics, optics and architecture. Its purpose is to reach an audience as a pure theater appealing directly to the senses. The elements of Vortex are sound, light, color, and movement in the most comprehensive theatrical expression. These audio-visual combinations are presented in a circular, domed theater equipped with special projectors and sound systems. In Vortex there is no separation of audience and stage or screen; the entire domed area becomes a living theater of sound and light.18

Belson chose many different apparatus forms in order for him to create a “unique

17 Colebrook, Claire. “Cinema, Thought and Time,” Deleuze: A Guide For The Perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic: 2006. 18 Cindy Keefer. “ ‘Raumlichtmusik’ - Early 20th Century Abstract Cinema Immersive Environments." Leonardo Electronic Almanac, Vol. 16, Issue 6-7 (September 30, 2009): 1-5. 16

sensory experience”. Thirty-eight speakers and thirty projection devices crowded into one space, including the planetarium’s thirteen-foot star-field projector, kaleidoscope, rotating and zoomer projectors, strobes, slide projectors, rotating prisms, 16mm film projectors, a flicker machine, a spiral generator, and four interference pattern projectors. Belson ultimately had one vision in mind, “The combination of space, light, color, and sound creates an enveloping audio-visual experience in a completely controlled environment.”19 Belson’s films Vortex and Allures illustrate that the traditional cinema theater spectator could not achieve Belson’s intent (an enveloping audio-visual experience) unless they were able to experience his specific expanded cinema.

These sorts of expanded cinema experiences could not be replicated unless the spectator came to the location of Hale’s Tours, VanDerBeek, or Belson’s self-made theaters. Today, however, when the traditional cinema theater experience can be duplicated at home, these artists offer an important question—perhaps the spectator should only transport him/herself to a secondary location to willfully engage in an artistic experience that is unique to that specific environment. Many have suggested that new technologies such as Virtual Reality are merely expanding cinema in a new way just as VanDerBeek and Belson did. By placing your goggles on you can be transformed into an artificial atmosphere such that resembles the “Movie-Drome.”

19 Cindy Keefer. “ ‘Raumlichtmusik’ - Early 20th Century Abstract Cinema Immersive Environments." Leonardo Electronic Almanac, Vol. 16, Issue 6-7 (September 30, 2009): 1-5. 17

The code can be written so that you are surrounded by strangers mingling and absorbing cinema in an expanded way. However, physically being a part of Belson or

VanDerBeek’s experiment required one to interact with fellow spectators. It seems possible to suggest that simultaneous virtual users might be able to engage with one another as they are plugged into the same experience, allowing some form of dialogue to ensue. However, aside from feeling contrived and inauthentic, many new technologies such as virtual reality will replace the need for spectators to physically gather in a social setting. Spectators today spend obscene amounts in an attempt to mimic a theater experience. The majority of spectators cannot afford to purchase or don’t have the space for an oversized television. That thinking is of the past. More spectators are gravitating towards a simpler question, is my device charged up and am I connected?

DIGITAL SPECTATORS

Today, more and more people are connected to screens with multiple pieces of technology that surround them daily. Researchers and writers discussing the digital spectator tend to focus on the Millennial, or younger generations. William Strauss and Neil Howe are widely credited with naming the “Millennials.” This generation of people are born starting with a birth year of 1982 up until 2004 as the last birth 18

year.20 This group, also known as the Boomerang generation or Peter Pan generation,

is estimated as of 2012 at approximately 80 million in the United States.21 Based on their size and digital consumption, Millennials will continue to shape the future of cinema.

Millennials start utilizing technology at an earlier stage than any previous generation.

Before they can even crawl up to a mirror, the Lacanian mirror stage occurs in the

reflections of their parents’ cellular or tablet screens. Especially for an infant, the act of viewing one’s reflection in an apparatus that is simultaneously used to view cinema is extremely powerful. Children today learn howto utilize these devices before they can even communicate verbally. From the very first stages of their life, the on-

demand lifestyle is engrained into the developmental fabric of emerging generations.

They don't wait for Saturday morning cartoons, as waiting is not part of their ritual.

Instead, they understand and come to expect to have total control of the apparatus

and access to the unlimited possibilities that come along with that level of control.

“Cellphone ownership is common across all major demographic groups, though older

adults tend to lag behind their younger counterparts. Some 78% of adults ages 65

and older own a cellphone, compared with 98% of 18 to 29-year-olds.” In addition, a

surprising number is the increase in tablet computers. “The share of Americans who

20 Horovitz, Bruce. “After Gen X, Millennials, what should the next generation be?” USA Today (May 5, 2012). 21 Schawbel, Dan. “Millennials vs. Baby Boomers: Who Would You Rather Hire?" Time Magazine (March 29, 2012). 19

own a tablet computer has risen tenfold since 2010.” As of 2017, “45% of U.S. adults own a tablet-a substantial increase measuring tablet ownership in 2010. Then, only

4% of adults in the U.S. were tablet owners.”22 As a result, spectators have been given even more ways to view cinema apart from the traditional cinema theater or television set. Millennials are mobile and connected to the internet—they often own smartphones, tablets, netbooks, game consoles, televisions and computers-all of which offer a plethora of options through which to view cinema. Millennial viewers consume cinema in entirely new ways in comparison with previous generations. As a result, cinema has begun to adapt itself to accommodate new modes of viewing and forms of spectatorship.

Anyone coming of age following the invention of the smart phone has emerged as a young person with a cinema apparatus in one hand, and that is now widely considered to be the norm. New York Times reports in July 2016, “On average, children are getting their first smartphones around age 10, according to the research firm Influence Central, down from age 12 in 2012. For some children, smartphone ownership starts even sooner—including second graders as young as 7.”23 The technology breakthrough has enabled one single apparatus to serve as the vessel for filming, editing, distributing, and viewing cinema. As a result, spectators have the

22 http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/the-demographics-of-device-ownership/ 23 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/technology/personaltech/whats-the-right-age-to-give-a-child-a- smartphone.htm l?_r=0 20

technology and tools to generate their own cinema for their own viewing pleasure; they do so every day by recording a sunset or a baby’s first steps. The spectator might view him/herself as an artist, but in reality this is merely an exercise of control over an automatic instrument.

People from all age groups spend the majority of their day staring at different apparatus screens—sometimes in a cubicle for work, and other times for pleasure—to read the news, enjoy e-books, view media, and participate in social media. When the moment arises and spectators consciously decide to immerse themselves in the cinematic theater, they gaze upon an apparatus with a different eye, one that allows the mind and body to become fully absorbed.

PLUGGED IN

The average spectator has become accustomed to a vast array of viewing options.

Indeed, the spectator increasingly demands the ability to pick and choose what device to use in order to create the experience they strive for. Even more, the spectator expects to be able to do this in a seamless fashion among their devices.

Cinema can be viewed on cell phone screens; however, these small devices are predominantly utilized for social media. A user curates their day, minute to minute, customizing their viewing experiences and selecting what content to view and where.

It is most certainly possible to consume media on one device and finish on another in 21

a seamless fashion; however, spectators define each device by the predominant role it plays. While a cell phone might be utilized social media viewing, a tablet becomes a forum for streaming video, the television for live events, and the cinema theater for an immersive 3D-IMAX experience. Unfortunately, screens and the cinematic content they provide have become elevator music to many spectators—they keep their apparatus running all day and night to maintain a comfortable level of ambient noise.

Do spectators require the new state-of-the-art cinema theater to be a desirable a space for the ultimate form of technology—one that is 70 feet tall? Avid technology users seem to be doing the same with VR technology. Virtual reality is in a sense bigger than any screen, more immersive and most importantly new. One thing is clear: we are becoming a culture that is addicted to what might come next. Popular culture has become obsessed with creating forums to hypothesize over the next big technological secret or what the technology industry constantly refers to as a

“breakthrough technological revolutionary device.” The inanimate technological device screen excites the spectators as they wait in line for days to receive what they believe is the latest piece of technology, when in fact it is just a adjusted version of past technology. I would suggest that the spectators have developed a sexual excitement towards technology. In a world that seems to threaten our ability to control it, It is possible that we are substituting technology for other aspects of our lives that we cannot control and the very ability to make people feel in control is a valuable 22

commodity. Are they in control or is it just the illusion of control ... perhaps more importantly do spectators even aspire to be in control?

Spectators want to remain focused on the future—on a new technological innovation that will change their day to day lives and make it more interesting. What they fail to see is the resurgence of various art forms and technology that are incorporated in what they perceive as new technology, when in fact it’s very much Pastiche. Fredric

Jameson, in his essay entitled “Postmodernism and Consumer Society”, writes:

Pastiche: in a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the masks and with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum. But this means that contemporary or postmodernist art is going to be about art itself in a new kind of way; even more, it means that one of its essential messages will involve the necessary failure of art and the aesthetic, the failure of the new, the imprisonment in the past.24

Living in a time where science and technology continue to evolve at a rapid pace, it could be argued that these innovations create new forms and ideas that we were unable to fathom before the inventions of the 21st century. Many of the new technological concepts are based on recombining older ideas in different ways. Who decides when something is truly new? Spectators refuse the old or recycled, something they saw last weekend, but they demand the new, the cutting edge, the

“how did they do that?” surprise! When in fact what they perceive as new is an

24 Jameson, Fredric. "Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” Duke University Press (January 6, 1992). 23

illusion, a false sense of newness. Spectators seem to be less interested in the material itself and more interested in the way it is presented to the audience; with new forms of technology, a more spectacular apparatus, and cutting edge graphics.

The appearance of having access to the latest emerging trend is more significant to users than the content itself. The public is treating technology as fashion; just as fashion is ever-changing, but in reality, it is not changing fundamentally.

THE IMMOBILE APPARATUS

The definition of cinema has been expanded to include television as a result of the technological advances in recent years. The shift from the cinema theater to the living room has been gradually occurring for decades. Families began gathering together to watch Milton Berle in the 1950s and the ritual continued to grow more popular when Johnny Carson hosted his late-night talk show in the 1960s. Today, many homes are outfitted with large screens and surround sound systems to create a theater-like experience. Television has reinvented itself throughout the years; in fact it might be the most transformational product we have seen—not in its hardware, but in its use by spectators. Its hardware has been technologically upgraded to color, high- definition, flatscreen, plasma, LED, etc. The picture itself is much clearer but it is still a furnished object that is oftentimes the center of focus in the main living area, with the couch and other items placed around it for optimal viewing. 24

Over time, the ways in which viewers take in what we broadly refer to as “TV” have changed entirely. The days of families running to sit together in front of the single household television for Sunday night’s family film are over. Individuals are increasingly enjoying solo viewing experiences. Today, each member of the household views their favorite television show on their own personal device, removing the ritual of the group viewing experience from the home. Furthermore, with the cable box no longer being required and the increased access to a multitude of programming options via the internet and on-demand features, spectators have the means to view multiple consecutive episodes in a row and create a deep bond with the main characters as they seek out a continuing episodic adventure. Viewers can behave like zombies, watching multiple hours of a television series that used to air periodically over months or years and can now be watched in just a few days. Enabled by interactive technology that allows us to play back to back episodes, this viewing habit has been coined “binge watching.” Deleuze warns us that this repetitive form of cinema is one of laziness as new thoughts are not required for viewing. Deleuze states that:

Cinema is only cinema in its revolutionary potential, a potential to transform the ways in which perception orders its images, and thinking is only thinking when it is creative, when it does not repeat the already formed and recognized.25

25 Colebrook, Claire. “Cinema, Thought and Time,” Deleuze: A Guide For The Perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic: 2006. 25

In contrast to the revolutionary potential of cinema, the televisual apparatus runs day and night, and the on/off switch has become like other devices—unused. If you were to ask a Millennial when they last turned off their phone or computer, they will very likely not recall. The same case is being made for the television, which is left on in the background, viewed subliminally for hours on end while its viewers attempt to focus on another device, not recognizing the distraction. Some would argue that this constant passive viewing has increased one's ability to multitask, but it also seems that immersion in the cinematic sense becomes increasingly rare given the sense of distracted control that is present today.

The term interpassivity comes to mind, a word combining “interactivity" and

"passivity” that was coined by Robert Pfaller and Slavoj Zizek. Interpassivity is a

“state of passivity in the presence of the potential of interactivity.”26 This concept is relevant in the discussion of passive vs. active viewing especially with regard to the onset of digital technology within the 21st century television apparatus.

It is commonplace to emphasize how, with the new electronic media, the passive consumption of a text or a work of art is over: I no longer merely stare at the screen, I increasingly interact with it, in a dialogic relationship that goes from choosing the programs, through participating in debates in a Virtual Community, to directly determining the outcome of the plot in so-called "interactive

26 Slavoj Zizek (1998). "Cyberspace, or, How to Traverse the Fantasy in the Age of the Retreat of the Big Other", Public Culture, volume 10 issue 3, p. 483 26

narratives".27

Zizek encapsulates a typical argument; interactivity often involves, even encourages, a kind of passivity. Today digital screens lend themselves to interpassivity in so far as they allow viewers virtually unlimited access to endless and unlimited content which has enabled a new commonplace practice known as binge watching. In a sense, television has become the current version of a novel. The act of reading a novel is predominantly a solitary experience. A chapter of a book can be compared to an episode within a series—it can be picked up the following night, next week, or continued immediately. Just as the reader turns the page to get a glimpse of what happens next, so does the viewer continue on to watch the following episode. Some avid readers choose to read novels in a matter of hours or days, and we could describe them as “binge readers.” Robert Stam points out that “the classical fiction film acquired the emotional power and diegetic prestige of the realistic novel.”28 The transfer from the novel to the film as the major narrative form was the ultimate goal for Hollywood and its storytellers.

Today, however, more and more comparisons are drawn between television and the novel. Filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein discussed the correlation between the author of a novel and their direct impact on the cinema industry in the essay written in 1944,

27 Centre Georges Pompidou - Traverses, 1998 The Interpassive Subject By Slavoj Zizek 28 Stam, Robert. "Film Theory: An Introduction," The Classic Realist Text. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2000. 27

“Dickens, Griffith, and the Film Today.” “The film grammar invented by D.W.Griffith was deeply indebted to Dickens’ narrative strategies.” Dickens, he wrote, was the

“real inventor of montage.”29 Spectators enjoy television because it perpetuates the need for them to control both the media they are viewing as well as the environment they have predetermined for said viewing. Perhaps it could even be suggested that high-quality television programming has increased due to the demands of spectators to be able to view cinema wherever and whenever they choose.

THE VISIBLE APPARATUS

Immediately upon observing a VR unit, one becomes aware that the device is incredibly tangible and therefore the prior assumptions of an invisible apparatus, such as the traditional cinema theater, are challenged. However, once the VR unit is donned, complete immersion and absorption occurs by shutting out the atmosphere and the artificial world around us takes over. I argue that VR is in fact the most invisible apparatus, because the user can only hear the audio track and see the projected image, and nothing else. VR intentionally surrounds the user, and there is no escape. On the other hand, the traditional proscenium-style theater offers an invisible apparatus, which magically creates an image on the silver screen, while at the same time allowing the spectator freedom to choose to reject that immersion by

29 Eisenstein, Sergei. Film Form - Essays in Film Theory. Translated and edited by Jay Leyda. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1969. 28

altering their gaze towards any number of atmospheric distractions. At a time when we are subjected to unprecedented levels of information, it seems that spectators are becoming increasingly unable to make the choice to experience cinema in its traditional manner; and while we used to seek refuge in a theater, we have been robbed of that luxury.

The traditional proscenium theater apparatus is shielded from our view. It hides in a room above us, out of sight; all the while its mechanisms are working to project an image onto a screen. Spectators sit back, reclined, ready to absorb the film’s content.

At the same time, outside the cinema theater, spectators walk around using an apparatus that could be considered attached to their hands. Screens that we interact with such as tablets and portable phones are more tangible than ever; however, VR returns us to an invisible apparatus. While its technology is dependent upon a device that is affixed to one’s face, the full immersion within the content distinguishes VR from the experience offered by other screens. Completely shutting out the world around you, complete immersion ends up melting the apparatus away as the eyes and mind focus only on the subject matter at hand.

In his essay “The Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematic Apparatus,” Jean-Louis

Baudry describes the cinema theater: “shadowy images on the screen, the darkness of the movie theater, the passive immobility of the spectator, the womb-like sealing off of ambient noises and quotidian pressures, all foster an artificial state of 29

regression, generating, ‘archaic moments of fusion’ not unlike those engendered by dream.”30 When the cinema spectator relaxes in his/her seat in a dark theater, the apparatus allows him/her to exist in a passive, infantile role. Today, the spectator can surely duplicate the darkness of the theater in other locations. However, it seems that spectators are not as enthralled by the large-screen cinematic experience in the theater as they once were. Viewing a film in the theater presents an opportunity to escape from the tech-addicted community.

Henri Bergson, one of the first anti-technology detractors concluded that “cinema intensified a laziness of human life and thinking: we tend to see the world in simplified, static and habitual terms; we cut reality into snapshots or pre-formed static wholes.”31 Apple Computers has a motto, “Think Different” that challenges this notion. A plethora of new technologies emerge seemingly every day, and have been incorporated into the utilitarian modes of society. Prior to the onset of digital technology, spectators would have never considered the option to view a piece of cinema on a mobile device such as a 4” touchscreen cell phone. However, that

practice has become the norm today, and the public seems to have forgotten that generations of spectators were beholden to the theater in order to access cinema.

Furthermore, Bergson suggests that the use of technology enables the brain to

30 Baudry, Jean-Louis. “The Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematic Apparatus." Film Quarterly (1974-75). 31 Colebrook, Claire. “Cinema, Thought and Time," Deleuze: A Guide For The Perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic: 2006. 30

function in a “lazy and inactive way.”32 Do these innovations truly cause the masses to “think differently”? Being a passive spectator is far too comfortable, and I would argue that viewing media on a touchscreen cell phone can be far too easily interrupted and steers the spectator's focus away from the content.

The cinema theater exists to house the apparatus, which allows spectators to view images in larger-than-life formats. A primary objective of the cinema theater at the time that it was invented was to allow for the maximum number of spectators to collectively view film. The theater was the single route a spectator could take to become a participant in this new art form called ‘cinema’. However, one thing has changed—we can now replicate the cinema theater experience at home. In addition, as a society, we have endless apparatus choices and, as we continue to push forward with different types of cinema, society still retreats into the familiar—a non-immersive, passive experience in the cinema theater, which mimics the home theater with the exception of engaging a sense of community.

The single screen is king in the art form of cinema. Spectators feel more comfortable having the projector apparatus hidden from their view. However, we are surrounded by apparatus machines and utilize them throughout the day. Yet, today, we can still see similarities to Dominique Paini’s commentary on cinema:

32 Colebrook, Claire. "Cinema, Thought and Time,” Deleuze: A Guide For The Perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic: 2006. 31

In fairs or in the great international exhibitions of science and technology at the beginning of the century, the visible projection machine...created radically anti-illusionist and chaotic conditions that privileged the blurring of spatial landmarks and the feverish wandering of the spectator outside all the stability of an ideal point of vision. Basically, the art of cinema could have ceased only in dissimulating the projection machine as the condition of deviation/abduction of the spectatorial hypnosis toward the single screen. Cover this machine that I cannot stand seeing!33

Paini mentions science and technology at the beginning of the century and, as films are released today, we are constantly reminded what type of camera was used

(digital, film, 4K, IMAX, etc.). Cinema has transitioned from being strictly limited to a single screen to being available everywhere—on television, computers, and now mobile devices; ones we hold in the palms of our hands and become dependent upon on a daily basis. How does this change the way we see the theater's presentation of cinema in comparison with technological handheld devices? If we cannot have a magical experience when viewing the apparatus, then we certainly cannot have one if we are holding it in our hands as we view cinema. What makes the cinema theater unique and enchanting is the hidden device projecting an image on the screen, conjuring a sense of wonder. To view a film on the same screen that has virtually become an additional appendage for many is to remove this sense of wonder in the experience of viewing cinema. Even when we enter a traditional theater setting,

33 Dominique Paini and Rosalind E. Krauss. “Should We Put an End to Projection?" October Magazine, Volume 110 (Fall 2004): 23-48. 32

these same devices interrupt our experience with a constant stream of notifications

and obsessive distractions. The mystery of the cinema theater still exists and it is

stronger than we realize. At the same time, the internet has transformed mobile

devices into powerful cinema-viewing machines, granting them with a mysterious

power of their own. The world-wide-web is a truly extraordinary technological

breakthrough, but we also utilize this tool for work, communication, etc., and its

power to awe us decreases with each daily use.

Virtual reality throws a hurdle into the mix by introducing a fully immersive experience

and almost always requiring the spectator to be active. This shift for the spectator would be yet another major milestone in cinema. Is the spectator ready for this major adjustment—to actively shift their head around, and sway their body in order to move the story forward? Many futurists believe that virtual reality will not only be used to view cinema but will be an escape for the spectator in ways that haven’t even been

conceived yet. In 2003, Ray Kurzweil predicted “by the 2030s, virtual reality will be totally realistic and compelling and we will spend most of our time in virtual

environments...We will all become virtual humans.”34 The spectator would be able to

select their ideal environment to experience, ranging from lying on the beach and

hearing the waves crash, to sitting in a desert keeping warm by a campfire. Just as the act of entering a cinema theater may be seen as an escape to relax, VR can too

34 https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-good-and-the-bad-of-escaping-to-virtual-reality/ 385134/ 33

become an extended immersive experience, lasting far longer than a mere few minutes. In fact, a VR experience could hypothetically continue as long as the user desires. This apparatus is used in new ways that make it nearly impossible for cinema theaters to compete.

ARTIFICIAL SIMULATED CINEMA

Many questions are being asked of VR technology, and the answers are unclear.

Specifically, who will lead the way in VR content aside from multi-billion dollar industry leaders? Will the software and means for production be available to independent artists? In order for VR to not go down the wormhole of pornography and purely affect-based cinema, the industry needs to allow for others to experiment with and challenge the potential uses of the technology. Cinema, like any other art form, is constantly being reinvented and transformed into something new. With the continuous progress of science and technology and the effect it has on cinema, one can argue that the technology adopted by the artist has a direct impact on the artistic content of the film. In today’s cinema industry, that is goal of the filmmaker—to always have the spectator assume the budget will be larger, the action will be bigger, and the suspense more powerful. Yet, we must question why it is that the filmmaker of today must deliver this experience, and why the artist is failing to place his/her focus on their creative vision rather than technical innovations. 34

In the face of these changes, there is no doubt that the many stakeholders in

Hollywood’s billion-dollar film industry are concerned. They know that they must

compete with multiple other venues for cinema-viewing and they are weary that the

rate of ticket sales will continue to drop steadily as has already been documented.

“Ticket sales are down roughly 10% this summer” [2016]. Rising ticket prices, fueled

by 3D, IMAX, and other premium formats, have enabled the industry to paper over a

huge gulf in attendance.”35 In order to keep the spectator engaged, filmmakers and

producers are attempting to create what they believe is a heightened experience in four dimensions, known as 4D. This technology allows for more than just sight and sound senses to be utilized in the theater. By implementing a range of sensory

machines into the physical theater experience, industry professionals hope that the spectator will become more engrossed in the cinema. Spectators’ noses will tingle with delight as they are able to actually smell the chocolate factory, or feel the rain falling, as well as anticipate the drop of the roller coaster or the airplane taking off, with chairs that are equipped to move in conjunction with action sequences on the

screen.

The leading mind behind this 4D cinema push is Nick Baker, Senior Vice President of

AEG global partnerships. Baker writes: “We are always looking for leading-edge technology and innovative product and amenities to introduce at our entertainment

35 http://variety.com/2016/film/features/box-office-decline-summer-blockbusters-the-bfg-1201822322/ 35

destinations, and this will inspire and encourage people to descend upon L.A. Live.”36

Through an activation of all senses, including touch, smell, and taste in addition to sight and sound, the new cinema theater will succeed in immersing the spectator in ways that cannot be replicated in their home theater. What sounds like a description of a Disneyland ride is becoming the future of the cinematic experience. 4D systems are currently installed in roughly 100 auditoriums in 23 countries.37 This globalized phenomenon is a way for the industry to increase box office revenues by raising ticket prices, but it is also a way for them to create what they believe is a more powerful and enhanced experience for the spectator. However, by choosing this path for narrative feature films, filmmakers are lowering the bar for the spectator’s intellectual capacity, essentially dictating how audiences should react to every aspect of the film. This is creating a lazy and passive audience member that demands these effects that elict reactions that require less work on their behalf.

We must question whether we need the literalism of this 4D cinema experience. I would suggest that an explosion that is matched by an increase of heat in the movie theater is so literal that it would kill the poetry of the moment. It seems that filmmakers lack confidence in their work, assuming that the audience will not be satisfied without these added sensory elements. Perhaps that's the goal, to remove

36 Carolyn Giardina. "L.A. Live to Launch '4D' Cinema Experience," Hollywood Reporter (June 25, 2014). http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/la-live-launch-4d-cinema-714943 37 Carolyn Giardina. "L.A. Live to Launch '4D' Cinema Experience," Hollywood Reporter (June 25, 2014). http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/la-live-launch-4d-cinema-714943 36

poetry and ultimately impose a bodily reaction. The filmmaker becomes an affect- maker by inserting a heating device that forces the spectator to jump out of their chair, keeping them on their toes throughout this thrill ride. These tools are seen as gimmicks and are used to solicit a cheap laugh or thrill from the spectator.

These tricks are not new to cinema, as we can see in The Tingler—a film released in

1959 that was one of the first films to introduce the sense of feel by rigging audience members’ seats with electric buzzers. These parlor tricks were first introduced in the late 1950’s and have continued throughout the decades, currently being upgraded as technology has advanced. Most recently, technology has enabled theaters to retrofit and re-market this new wave of cinema as 4DX which includes motion seats, rain, wind, lights, smoke, and smells, all of which are being utilized in 2016’s Zach

Snyder’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Current ticket prices are inflated to approximately $30 for a 4D film, which is double the cost of a 3D film. The producers behind 4DX technology, South Korean company CJ 4DPLEX define 4DX as,

“Advancing the movie theater experience from watching the movie to almost living it,

4DX is the ultimate in state of the art technology delivering a fully immersive cinematic experience.”38 In an attempt by CJ 4DPLEX to, as they state, to ‘fully immerse’ the audience, many theater goers have stated that they have in fact done the complete opposite.

38 http://www.cj4dx.com/about/about.asp 37

Adam Epstein, reporter for Quartz Media, described his 4DX experience as, “I watched Batman v Superman at a 4D theater so you don’t have to." He continues on to describe the most jarring effect—simulated rain. “By rain, I mean an uncomfortable spritz of water onto your head and face. It felt as though the person sitting behind me had just released a monstrous sneeze. Every time it rained in the film, I was spritzed.”39 More importantly, he discusses the ultimate goal of a 4DX cinema and how it breaks its promise with spectators. “Here’s the worst part, though: With each water spray, everyone in the theater would erupt with surprised laughter. I didn’t blame them. That is a natural, human reaction. But the only scene I felt immersed in was that of a throng of wet filmgoers cackling in unison.”40 It is fascinating that

Epstein’s objection to 4DX was that it interfered with his passive absorption into the film. Epstein concludes that his 4DX experience was that of a theme park ride, one where the tools used to add layers of immersion were that of distraction instead.

A 4D movie takes a pickaxe to that part of moviegoing. By inflicting physical sensations upon you, it drags you out of that fugue-like state and back into the here and now. And the reality it brings you back to resembles an amusement park ride, not a movie experience. But for those seeking real immersion in a cinematic experience, 4D is at best an expensive distraction. Batman v Superman was the least immersive movie experience of my life, and all it left me with was wet hair and a sore back.41

39 https://qz.com/648849/i-watched-batman-v-superman-at-a-4d-theater-so-you-dont-have-to/ 40 https://qz.com/648849/i-watched-batman-v-superman-at-a-4d-theater-so-you-dont-have-to/ 41 https://qz.com/648849/i-watched-batman-v-superman-at-a-4d-theater-so-you-dont-have-to/ 38

This decision to implement 4D cinema across all genres of filmmaking is sure to send the art form, and potentially society at large, down a dark path. Theaters rationalize

increased admission by exciting audiences and leading them to believe that the

artificial experience of 4D cinema is a bold and innovative new way to view cinema.

However, it should cause us to question if they truly want to experience and challenge

cinema in a new way, or if are they only interested in creating a carnival ride with an

expensive price tag.

ADDICTED TO AFFECT

Just as the Lumiere brothers did over a century ago, VR cinema currently capitalizes

on the appetite for the genre of extreme cinema in society today. Recalling memories

of late 19th century cinema, when the train raced towards the cinema screen and

spectators jumped out of their seats, we recognize that we are witnessing the same

effect when users experience VR cinema. As new expanded spectatorship forms of

cinema emerge, narrative cinema moves aside making way for an era of sensational

cinema to take front stage. The goal of these emerging technologies seems to be

soliciting a physical reaction on behalf of the spectator. New mediums are emerging,

and they all have one thing in common: the goal to create an experience that the

spectator will remember, one they will share with their friends and colleagues, and

focused solely on an extremely sensational and affective user experience. Just as we 39

have seen in the past, when spectators are subject to new mediums the filmmakers and artists that produce content for them tend to rely on an affective experience in order to market it to the masses.

Extreme Cinema, or what Beugnet refers to as “Sensation Cinema,"42 is rooted in its affective nature, as directed towards the spectator. Aaron Kerner and Jonathan

Knapp pose a significant question in the last chapter of their manuscript, Extreme

Cinema: Affective Strategies in Transnational Media, asking the reader if we have arrived at "the end of extreme cinema.” If we are at the conclusion of anything, I believe it is the end of narrative extreme cinema. However, we are only now beginning the very first chapter of extreme/sensational cinema that preys upon the spectator and focuses solely on affect.

In order to more fully comprehend the direction we are going, we must discuss affective cinema, from the advent of Edison's Kinetoscope to present day. Just as we shifted from black and white to color, we are on the cusp of a form of absorption that we don’t fully understand just yet. Narrative form takes a backseat to an awe inducing visual experience. To do this we look towards Virtual Reality.

42 Martine Beugnet, "Beginnings,” in Cinema and Sensation 40

VIRTUAL REALITY CINEMA

Have we crossed the line from cinema-art to interactive entertainment? Popular virtual reality company Oculus Rift is proud to tout their trademarked virtual reality technology as a “precise, low-latency constellation tracking system that enables the sensation of presence—the feeling as though you’re actually there.”43 The cinematic experience is being adjusted and diminished when filmmakers result to utilizing these tactics. The creators of this technology dumb down their audience by having spectators anticipate the next predictable event in the film that will offer them a new sensation. We are at a dangerous shift, where audiences increasingly expect contemporary cinema to provide them with pure entertainment.

Oculus Rift’s marketing team sends audiences a very clear and somewhat compelling message, saying “You’ve never experienced immersion like this.”44 Curiosity is the victor, with a predictable outcome, and that is a dangerous course for the film industry to take. It is likely that the capacity for human laziness, combined with the

increasing prevalence of the sensory-driven cinema experience, will result in audiences beginning to demand this laboratory-like approach to cinema. This interactive spectatorship leads us to believe that the 'experience and immersion' that

Oculus is referring to is affect-based.

43 https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/ 44 https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/ 41

Oculus Rift and other virtual reality companies are on a long list of innovators that have attempted to create a new affective centralized sensational spectator experience. Surprisingly, there are many similarities between the cinema of attraction that was popular in the last century and the emerging medium of virtual reality filmmaking. Although Gunning was emphasizing cinema in a visual sense and not in a 4D or sensory experience manner, I don't believe he went far enough in defending the cinema of attraction as “a cinema that displays its visibility, willing to rupture a self-enclosed fictional world for a chance to solicit the attention of the spectator.”45

Oculus and other VR companies are not striving for 'attention' but rather I would suggest trying to produce 'affect.' Their hope is for the spectator to go on an amusement park ride and to perhaps even vomit by the end. VR filmmakers are introducing something new and seemingly magical and they are in awe. Virtual Reality users enthusiastically strap on their goggles to affectively experience what Gunning described as an “illusion, exotic, unique.”

When thinking about new technologies that focus on sensation, what can be made of

Gunning’s discussion of “Cinema of Attractions”? Gunning worries that placing emphasis on the impact of a shocking conclusion is done to the detriment of a film’s essential storyline and the extent to which the imaginary world that has been created is translatable to the audience. He states that “the cinema of attractions expends

45 Gunning, Tom. “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde,” Wide Angle, Vol.8 (Fall 1986). 42

little energy creating characters with psychological motivations or individual

personality.”46 Can we directly correlate the rise of extreme and sensationalized

cinema with the rise of action films that poke and prod spectators in their seats with forceful tools instead of integrating and valuing form and style in the art form itself?

These large budget action heavy films are rapidly removing narrative entirely to

create an over-sensationalized product.

Virtual reality is a problematic term. Perhaps the industry should consider a new term

such as 'sensational immersive experience.’ It doesn't quite roll off the tongue as

virtual reality does, but the meaning and connotations of the phrase are closer to

what is actually being produced. It could perhaps help us to understand the appeal of

these new forms. 'Reality' is coupled with perception—Christopher Nolan’s film,

Inception, provides an optimal example of this this notion. The entire film explores

notions of subjectivity, phenomenology, dreams within dreams, what it means to be a

mind, and what it means to call something real. All of those themes are in fact a

metaphor for cinema. Cinema is indeed the ultimate shared collective dream. Every

detail is finely tuned, every moment is predetermined, and it is a masterfully

orchestrated event. We enter into the world of cinema together, and it truly doesn’t

matter if the cinema is actually a manufactured reality. Virtual is defined as “not

46 Gunning, Tom. "The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde,” Wide Angle, Vol.8 (Fall 1986). 43

physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.”47 Hence, it

makes no difference if it is a simulated dream, because there is nothing virtual about virtual realities; instead it is about the reality of the virtual.

Film theorist Gene Youngblood echoes this concept in his book Expanded Cinema, stating that “cinema reflects mankind’s historical drive to manifest his consciousness outside of his mind in front of his eyes.”48 Christopher Nolan’s main character Cobb in Inception similarly observes, “The dream is real when you’re in it.” The human brain is not always capable of distinguishing between dreams and reality, especially when it comes to children or persons with any range of psychological complications.

However, human beings now recognize their ability to have “real” experiences under imaginary circumstances. We live in conceptualized realms, that is what it means to be human in the present day.

Many feature films have decided to utilize an approach whereby the spectator becomes activated as the subject, thus forcing them into the role of an active

participant in the film, heightening the sensational and affective experience.

Filmmakers accomplish this by shooting their film in what is called a first-person

point-of-view. Katherine Bigelow’s Strange Days (1995), Julian Schnabel’s The Diving

Bell and the Butterfly (2007), Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity (2013), Gasper Noe’s Enter

47 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual 48 Youngblood, Gene. “Expanded Cinema,” E.P. Dutton; 1st edition (January 1970) 44

the Void (2009), as well as Matt Reeves’s Cloverfield (2008) serve as primary examples of this technique.

The trend is growing to a point that first person point-of-view films are being created solely for the purpose of virtual reality viewing. After a successful online fundraising campaign of over $250,000, Russian film Hardcore Henry, by Ilya Naishuller, was just recently released in the Spring of 2016. It is being billed as the first ever action POV feature film. This project succeeded in the release of a narrative film based concretely on affecting the spectator at every moment. Another first person POV film,

Paranormal Activity VR, screened at Cannes Film Festival in Spring 2016; “a first person experience based on the found footage horror franchise that drops you in the silent hallways of an old house. It managed to deliver one of the most immersive— and nerve-shattering—experiences.”49 Descriptions such as this are the goal for VR creators—to present a fully immersive experience that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, not necessarily to have lasting impact. Another film screened at the same 2016 Cannes Film Festival, EWA, another first person live action narrative piece. “EWA puts you inside the body of Ewa, a young girl who grows up and fights to stay free as a woman. At times claustrophobic, this cleverly directed short pushes immersive film in the right direction, making the case for strong directorial choices in the budding world of live action, arthouse VR.”50 We can expect many more of these

49 https://www.wareable.com/vr/cannes-best-vr-films-experiences 50 https://www.wareable.com/vr/cannes-best-vr-films-experiences 45

films to be produced and released in the near future.

One of the leading minds behind the Oculus Rift VR film department, Story Studio, filmmaker Alex McDowell states, “It’s really a space that you can hardly guess where those stories and where those experiences are gonna take us. We’re really moving

rapidly to a new narrative space.” Users of VR are aware that the space is new in an

interactive sense and 360 degree viewing, yet VR experiences tend to currently fall

into the sensationalized category. Oculus Rift marketing campaign echoes this

notion: “Step into the Rift. The Rift is unlike anything you’ve ever experienced...you’ll feel like you’re really there.”51 Again we hear the sense of immersion that Oculus is

marketing; however, it truly is in the hands of the filmmaker. We can make assumptions as to what the next phase of VR cinema will be. As we shift in direction

rapidly towards this space, it’s important to remind ourselves the tendency to fall into the affect-based sensationalism that is an easy means for filmmakers to generate a

bodily reaction.

Danny Boyle’s 127 hours is an example of film that could be effectively elevated to the next level with a VR headset. Boyle’s audio design team created a track that was

specifically created to make the body cringe. Utilizing a VR headset, part of the rig

includes exterior sound cancelling headphones that encapsulates the spectator and

s/he becomes fully encased by the film’s audio. Aaron Kerner and Jonathan Knapp

51 https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/ 46

state that “the violent power of images lies not in what they represent, but in how they do it, how they elicit affect.”52 Through this statement, we can determine that form and style are the key tools that filmmakers need to use to create a sensation/ affect. They continue on to say, Boyle “does not paint a scene of a body in spasm, but instead paints the spasm itself. The painting, composed of colors and lines, is the spasm.”53 This critique rightfully causes us to question whether scenes of violence need to use all of the tools available to create an alarming affect.

Sound also plays an important role in creating affect, as can be seen in Darren

Aronofsky’s Pi, when the main character, Max, decides to remove a piece of his brain.

Aronofsky relies on camera tricks and tools that quickly force us to feel affect and writhe in pain for our protagonist. Max delicately touches the mark on his head and we hear the internal sounds that he feels, an infinite sound of piercing awful noises that immediately causes the spectator to hide in the fetal position. Would a long take in Children of Men or Amores Perros take on that role through style? How about the film style of slow cinema? Kerner and Knapp elaborate on this, asserting that the goal should to produce “a film that not only depicts screams and strives to induce them, but a film that itself screams.”54 Extreme cinema seems to lend itself to

52 Aaron Kerner Jonathan Knapp, "Hearing: With a Touch of Sound: The Affective Charge of Audio Design,” Extreme Cinema: Affective Strategies in Transnational Media 53 Aaron Kerner Jonathan Knapp, Extreme Cinema: Affective Strategies in Transnational Media 54 Aaron Kerner Jonathan Knapp, “Hearing: With a Touch of Sound: The Affective Charge of Audio Design,” Extreme Cinema: Affective Strategies in Transnational Media 47

implementation through VR technology; however, the creative capacity of the aforementioned directors to induce a truly transformative experience for their viewers is something that cannot be carried out if the objective of both creators and viewers becomes warped due to VR technology’s focus on instant gratification.

Martine Beugnet focuses on the close-up technique filmmakers use, yet the silver screen is still more than an arm’s length away. Beugnet states that close-ups are

“one of the most potent techniques through which film ‘thinks’ through the issue of the construction of the subject and object, where cinema becomes a cinema of sensation."55 Director Darren Aronofsky uses extreme close-ups when his subjects use drugs in his film, Requiem for a Dream. We see the needle hitting the skin, the pill sitting on the tongue and then we cut directly to the subjects' eye and watch how their pupils rapidly expands. As Beugnet says, we watch our subject’s eyes for sensation; it doesn’t move the story forward per se; it aligns us with the character and reminds us that drugs alter the physical self, not only one’s mental state. Just as the characters yearn for ‘sensation’ by using drugs, the audience succeeds in experiencing and feeling ‘sensation’ when the filmmaker uses tools such as a close-

up in order to align us with the character. The spectator is able to connect to

Aronofsky’s subject on a distinct level by seeing directly into their eyes. If Aronofsky chose the over-utilized first-person point of view technique predominantly used in VR

55 Martine Beugnet, “The Aesthetics of Sensation,” & “Film Bodies (Becomings an Embodiment)/’ Cinema and Sensation 48

cinema, his film would not have had the same affective experience for the spectator.

With any cinema content VR goggles may immerse the spectator to a greater extent.

However, I am hesitant to accept that VR would result in increasing the spectator’s level of sensation or cause the spectator to walk away with a heightened sense of connection to the subject matter.

Oculus Rift has announced Story Studio, an in-house production team dedicated to producing virtual reality movies. Some titles of upcoming projects include Bullfighter, in which viewers can strap on goggles and become matadors fighting bulls in an arena. The experience is apparently both terrifying and exciting as you run, jump, crouch down, and get trampled by a massive bull. Another project is more comedic in nature, as you dodge a balloon being thrown in your face countless times by a playful hedgehog called Henry.56 Both stories make us recall the origins of cinema, reminding us once again of the spectators who recoiled in their seats as the

Lumieres’ train approached. Why, though, does the spectator feel the need to return to cinema’s infancy? Kerner and Knapp discuss new digital technology that offers filmmakers higher potential to elicit affect:

The emphasis on new digital technology to capture high definition images in extreme slow motion shares certain affinities with the cinema of attractions and even proto-cinematic images—think Marey and Muybridge and their studies of movement. . . . Use of extreme close-ups, manipulation of film speed, rapid-fire editing, play between

56 http://www.theverge.com/2015/l/26/7919177/oculus-lost-virtual-reality-film-sundance 49

diegetic arid non-diegetic sound). These cinematic strategies wield the potential to elicit an affective response in the spectator, which in a number of cases aligns with Linda Williams’s conception of body genres—embodied, physical responses of the audience.57

Multiple companies are creating content for VR headsets. One notable company from

Japan, Bandai Namco, debuted “Project I can” as one of their initial forays into this

new technology. In this experience, people strap on their headsets in order to face their fears in a virtual reality world. Users are tasked with walking along a wooden

plank on the edge of a skyscraper in order to rescue a cat. Reporter Adam Westlake from Slash Gear describes his experience. “While the whole experience is virtual,

Project I Can messes with people’s sense, having them walk on a real board—one that's inside a room and only inches from the ground—and even picking up a model cat should they make it to the goal.’’58 This project shows us the potential of VR cinema creators. Just as Hale’s Tour did in 1906, we return to these infantile yet affective moments that are the core of cinema itself.

THE FALL FROM MOTHER EARTH

Many auteurs such as Stan VanDerBeek were hailed as breaking the mold.

Historically and in the present day, I question why we continue to attempt to expand

57 Aaron Kerner and Jonathan Knapp, "The End of Extreme Cinema?” Extreme Cinema: Affective Strategies in Transnational Media 58 http://www.slashgear.com/japanese-vr-experiment-helps-users-conquer-fears-by-rescuing-a-cat-02434464/ 50

cinema and what the ultimate goal is in doing so. Claire Colebrook describes the cinema spectator as one who seeks to return to the origins of cinema—to a time before “the fall.” Modernity has plunged us into this contradictory world; one where humans are making every effort to redeem themselves in an attempt put us back on track. Unfortunately, the impact is irreversible. We can clearly see that technology is shifting spectators towards affect. However, the question remains, why spectators would choose affect over informational and image-based consumption? In her essay,

“Earth Felt the Wound: The Affective Divide,” Colebrook questions the affective vs. cognitive division:

On the one hand there is a widespread consensus and diagnosis that the human sensory motor apparatus has departed from an informational, cognitive or even image-based mode of immaterial consumption to one of affect...The anxiety regarding a dominance of the merely affective or visually captivating in the face of a weakening of cognition has often blamed the externality of technological and mnemonic devices for deflecting the brain from its proper potentiality.59

Virtual Reality and other new technologies fall under a different category in regards to sensory perception. The goal of VR is to take advantage of the spectator’s capacity to

become mesmerized by the immersive nature of its irreplicable experience and to therefore wish only to consume cinema in this manner. Narrative takes a backseat to this new vantage point, one where the spectator's personal connection with the

59 Colebrook, Claire. "Earth Felt the Wound: The Affective Divide,” Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter 2011) 51

medium is closer than ever before. Beugnet discusses sensual perception and the spectators’ engagement with the medium:

To make films that willfully engage with the medium not merely as story or discourse, but as an object of perception, and to view them as such, is to run against the long-held belief that valuable experience and knowledge must necessarily come as a process of ‘enlightenment’ that distances us from the unreliable input of sensual perception.60

Yet, affect is equally unreliable. In fact, even more so in VR, the spectator reaction will differ from the sensationalized film in the theater. The marketing of new technologies seems to be solely focused on the word in Beugnet’s title: ‘sensation.’ As an addict chases their drugs, the spectator seeks sensation, returning to infancy. Beugnet continues by posing the question, “how many times have we dismissed a film because it had ‘no story’, ‘no characters’ with whom to identify, or was not ‘clear’ or

‘logical’ enough?”61 Beugnet claims that we ask ourselves if narrative is necessary, or perhaps it is a filler for what we seek in the first place—sensation and affect.

Filmmakers seem to be attempting to find a balance between the two that might be

capable of appeasing all audiences.

We know first-hand that, as technology progresses, people become ever-more

dependent upon it. The library has become a thing of the past, and instead, with a

60 Martine Beugnet, “The Aesthetics of Sensation,” & “Film Bodies (Becomings an Embodiment),” Cinema and Sensation 61 Martine Beugnet, “Beginnings,” in Cinema and Sensation 52

quick Wikipedia search, the technology can do the work for you. A middle school student studying math questions the reasons why he/she is prohibited from utilizing a calculator to allow the machine to help them solve the equation. In this machine- driven world, we often wonder how we will continue to develop as a species if we sit back and let inanimate objects do the work for us. With regard to virtual reality cinema, this is specifically what is occurring. Is that not “weakening our cognition,” as

Colebrook states? Our brains are reduced to a sluggish state, but is technology fully to blame for this? She states that:

Historical loss of individuation where systems would not be general and mechanistic but would enable ‘a’ singular time to be read for all time. It is not technology’s takeover so much as its reduction to localized stimuli at the expense of broader and more complex circuits, not so much the liberation or tyranny of digital culture as its over­ simplification.62

The literalism of fog rolling in as fog appears on the cinema screen is an example of what Colebrook calls “over-simplification.” We cannot expect cinema to evolve and expand when the actual medium of cinema is not evolving at all; these new tactics are merely effects in the theater. I concur with Colebrook’s argument for a more complex system, challenging society to guarantee that the individual is not lost in our oversized simplistic system. Technology markets and promises the masses more stimulus, yet we are motivated and encouraged less and less in this world as we walk

62 Colebrook, Claire. “Earth Felt the Wound: The Affective Divide,” Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter 2011) 53

around with technology in front of our faces, instead of looking at the world in front of

us, or (better yet) up at the sky above. The rapid pace of technology surrounding us is one we must face. However, we must question whether the forceful stimulation of virtual reality cinema will be emancipating.

Those who have power and authority in the film industry today seem to believe that

providing spectators with a heightened manufactured experience is going to result in saving the movies from extinction. I am not convinced that these advanced technology tools will succeed in heightening or intensifying the spectator experience.

Being at the beginning stages of VR, we can foresee that companies such as Oculus

Rift might expand from their current Apatosaurus demo to something as grand as the

next sequel of the Jurassic Park franchise. Experiencing such a film collectively in a

crowded theater cannot be replicated by VR software. The threat of losing a sense of

community is a greater cause for concern than any positive implications of solitary,

artificially-enhanced experiences. In fact, I believe Oculus Rift and other VR creators

will cheat spectators out of the possibility to participate in a communal discourse. Are

we digging deeper and learning more about the potential of what cinema can do or

are we just transforming it into a stimulus machine by embracing these new

technologies that have prepared and regulated spectators for a pseudo simulated

event. Colebrook consistently warns us not to create a simple world but one that is

more complex. She urges us to raise the bar for creativity and innovation, resisting 54

pressures to simplify content for the masses. The essence of cinema itself is at stake, as is our ability to preserve the precious relationship between human beings and art.

Colebrook echoes the goal for artists to continue to push new cinema forms:

The essence of cinema is what cinema might be: its power or potential. We could produce films that were adaptations of books, or that adapted the styles of other art forms. Alternatively, one could take what is singular in cinema, which is not what makes it the same in all its forms but what allows it to produce new forms, to be the essence of cinema.63

Why has our society become obsessed with having (and documenting) affective experiences? Our own experience has in fact become weakened due to this overabundance of experiences. Therefore, we attempt to compensate for it by joining

Facebook, by recording every concert we attend, and by taking hundreds of

photographs that we will never look at or print. The question remains—why is it that the concept of experience has become so exhausted? Joan Scott's essay, the

"Evidence of Experience," critiques the relationship between vision and what she calls

“knowledge/experience.” Focusing on her understanding of history, Scott provides us with a personalized account, reflecting on the legitimization of experience in present

day:

The evidence of experience works as a foundation providing both a starting point and a conclusive kind of explanation, beyond which few questions can or need be asked. And yet it is precisely the questions

63 Colebrook, Claire. “Cinema, Thought and Time,” Deleuze: A Guide For The Perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic: (2006) 55

precluded—questions about discourse, difference, and subjectivity, as well as about what counts as experience and who gets to make that determination—that would enable us to historicize experience, and to reflect critically on the history we write about it, rather than to premise our history on it.64

Scott continues on to describe the inaccuracy of history due to the reliance on personal accounts of individual experience. The issue is not what about these experiences, but rather why the word “experience" has become hijacked and attached to any art form that seeks engagement. Investigating the implications of new technology outside of the cinema realm, music could present a similar conundrum. For example, we might compare the transformative experience of listening to Jimi Hendrix’s “Star Spangled Banner” solo with headphones on versus being present for a live experience at Woodstock. Neither listener nor observer has the right to tell the other that their experience is superior. This same conversation pertains to cinema. Does a spectator viewing a film in 4DX or VR feel as if s/he is having a heightened or improved experience? In fact, Hendrix himself as an artist poses the question, “Are you experienced?" This phrase has become a complicated one as experience becomes quantified and digitalized; however, the masses increasingly use the word “experience” in a merely congratulatory way.

64 Joan Scott. "Evidence of Experience" Critical Inquiry (The University of Chicago Critical Summer 1991) 56

Using more senses does not and should not automatically define an experience as superior. This is what 4D, VR, and other new forms of cinema technology fail to recognize—that the human mind is more powerful than they realize and does not require these new over-sensationalized invented mediums. This is also true for the visual arts more generally. For the majority of its existence, the visual wonder of The

Sistine Chapel was something that could only be seen and experienced in person; today, however, art students and enthusiasts around the world are able to access digital renderings of the frescos. Seeing Michelangelo’s ceiling in person creates an experience that is unparalleled to that of looking at his art in textbooks. Contrary to that notion, some might say that the technology of viewing the images magnified in high resolution allows us to see a more detailed piece of art, especially since the art is seventy feet above your head. However, one cannot have sensory experiences without being in the Sistine Chapel, to smell or taste the air. On the other hand, if a specific smell was known to all they would describe it in detail so others could experience it without being there. For some spectators 4D and VR cinema might act

in a similar fashion. Does this heighten the art or remove mystery from it? Including

more senses does not necessarily result in an evolution of the medium itself. It would

be the equivalent of being able to move Michelangelo’s domed ceiling seventy feet

closer to the spectators’ eyes so they can see every brush stroke. However, this was

clearly not the artist’ intention. 57

CONCLUSION

As citizens of the digital age, we seem to be confronted with one ground-breaking innovation after another. We have also become increasingly reliant on personal digital devices to guide and comfort us through everyday life. As participants, the spectator’s gaze is determined by their level of control over their environment.

Spectators control the content, location, and timing of their spectatorship—they are active yet constantly distracted participants; however, their distraction is almost always a conscious decision. Spectators could choose to turn off their distractions— and yet, they do not.

In his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive

Chairman of the World Economic Forum, describes how this fourth revolution is fundamentally different from the previous three, which were characterized mainly by advances in technology.65 The Fourth Industrial Revolution can be described as a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds, and impacting all disciplines, economies and industries.66 This is very much the case when discussing cinema. As technology reshapes the way we create and view cinema, both the spectator and the artist have the means to direct cinema in the direction that continues to challenge the spectator in new ways and not revert back

65 Marr, Bernard. "Why Everyone Must Get Ready For The 4th Industrial Revolution". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-12-12. 66 Schwab, Klaus (January 11, 2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum 58

to a simplistic affect-based approach. We must remain skeptical about these new

mediums. They come with great responsibility and will have an effect on our day to

day lives and the way we engage with others. Klaus Schwab reiterates:

I am a great enthusiast and early adopter of technology; but sometimes I wonder whether the inexorable integration of technology in our lives could diminish some of our quintessential human capacities, such as compassion and cooperation.67

With the advancement of technology, cinema is adapting to what spectators want.

They expect to have the tools to form an agreement; the when, what, where, and how to view cinema. When to pause the art, whether or not to be absorbed by it, or to

have it on in the background. It seems unlikely that a cinematic auteur from previous generations would envision their art being screened in this fashion. However, the

influence of technology has been so palpable that it has and will continue to dictate the direction of cinema from this point forward. “There have always been fears

regarding the capacity for technology to weaken cognition, reducing the brain to a

mere automaton of stimulus interface.”68 Here, Colebrook admits that these fears

are in fact real and we could fall prey to a dangerous series of destructive actions. We

must stay focused and vigilant by remaining aware and continuing an active dialogue

in response to concerns expressed by experts in the field.

67 Schwab, Klaus (January 11, 2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum 68 Colebrook, Claire. “Earth Felt the Wound: The Affective Divide,” Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter 2011) 59

Cinema at rare moments displayed its true and essential power. As a technology cinema has the power to free human life from its own tendencies. The human encounter with cinema bears the possibility of liberating the human from itself.69

Gilles Deleuze acknowledges the power of cinema, and when reading this under the context of VR and interactive cinema it is more prevalent than ever. The current and coming generations’ desire for control prevents them from being willing to relinquish command in order to immerse themselves in a cinematic experience, thereby impacting and shaping the industry’s response and its creation of 21st century cinema. Spoon-feeding audiences with pre-determined reactions, and essentially making them feel, is a reckless practice, because overtime it will result in audiences losing their ability to assess and react to art independently.

69 Colebrook, Claire. "Cinema, Thought and Time,” Deleuze: A Guide For The Perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic: 2006.