A Conceptual Discussion of Experiential Film-going: from the case study of Smell-O-Vision and...

Zhengyi, QIAN University of East Anglia

-1-

A Conceptual Discussion of Experiential Film-going: from

the case study of Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama

By Qian Zhengyi

Abstract

By studying on two olfactory experiments in film history – Smell-O-Vision and

AromaRama, I conceptually discussed the phrase “experiential” in reflecting the

spectators` purpose and behavior of attending cinema. Rather than carrying out a

quantitative method based analysis of audience study, I chose critical analysis on this

subject by looking at the critical reviews and marketing materials from the historical

resources such as magazines, biographies, adverts, and film derivatives. Instead of

expressing the direct response of audience towards these two experiments, these

resources, on one hand, narrated the industrial prospects on these two sensory

experiments in cinema theatre. On the other hand, they also depicted the imagery map

of how and why Hollywood spectators attended cinema at 1950s. The later point even

initiated my thinking of experiential film-going at the second part of this essay.

Based upon revisiting these two olfactory experiments of film in history, I further

extended my discussion of the topic “experiential film-going” by analyzing

contemporary 4D systems installed in Cineplex and the fan-based immersive

engagement of spectating activities at those alternative venues. Through linking with

the contexts of film digitization and economic globalization, I specifically analyzed

how these two facts profoundly influenced contemporary film industry and film-going

culture by re-emphasizing the role of experience.

Key words: Total Cinema, Cinema of Attractions, Experiential Film-going,

Smell-O-Vision, AromaRama

DRAFT


-2-

Introduction

In the book Widescreen Cinema, John Belton once noted the motion picture as a kind

of “experiential phenomenon” that some experience-oriented technologies such as

Cinerama, express the extreme instances of cinema as “pure spectacle, pure sensation

and pure experience”1. And he also argues that “though Cinerama as such no longer

exists, contemporary commercial cinema remains in its debt, not only in terms of its

continued reliance on widescreen formats but also in terms of its transformation of the

mainstream motion picture into an ‘event,’ into an attraction which would draw

spectators out of their houses, away from their TV sets, and back into the theatre.”2

Since film is such an experiential apparatus, how to interpret the experiential aspect of

film-going has been my research interest. This essay keeps such “Event” concept of

film spectating as the inspiration. While, what this essay will focus on are spectatorial

behavior and the way it links with film experience. From studying the case of

Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama which are two famous olfactory experiments inside

of cinema theatre, I intend to decode how smell and the act of smelling give their

implication on the marketing and reception of their affiliated films and accordingly,

expand the definition of film spectatorship . On the basis of this, I plan to further

investigate how the idea of “experiential” gives its expression and implication on the

politics of film-going at contemporary sense of digital reproduction.

By reviewing Bazin`s “Myth of Total Cinema” concept, I am going to investigate how

such concept has been particularly and alternatively expressed via the

experience-oriented (experiential) film-spectating activities. Through historically

depicting and analyzing these two olfactory experiments in cinema and their critical

reception, I aim to refine and expand the traditional understanding of these two

experiments as a kind of gimmick into a deeper layer. Via the lens of film experience,

I will give attempts to answer by what means smell has challenged the way and

purpose audience watch film in cinema theatre and how such challenge will promote

the intellectual enrichment and diversification to understand the behavior of film

DRAFT


-3-

spectating.

This argument will be established on three layers of demonstrations and the analysis

will be unpacked via the investigation of three core questions: 1, what is the role

AromaRama and Smell-O-Vision played in the marketing and reception of their

affiliated films; 2, in the case of AromaRama and Smell-O-Vision, how has smell

enhanced the illusionary nature of film and then establishing film spectating politics

other than that of 3-D and widescreen mechanism in 1950s` Hollywood; 3. how has

the politics of film-going AromaRama and Smell-O-Vision initiated been inherited in

meeting and interpreting the development of film spectatorship when film in its

apparatus and medium has been largely digitized in terms of production and reception.

In answering these three questions, I aim to contribute on re-understanding these two

failed technological experiments in film history while more importantly, to give the

referential indication in understanding the experiential phenomena of contemporary

film-going practice under the context of digital reproduction. During the

demonstration, I will continuously refer to Tom Gunning`s concept “Cinema of

Attractions” as my theoretical basis of discussion because this concept confirms the

exhibitionist nature of cinema, within which I can conduct my research on the

experiential aspect of film spectatorship by weakening the influence of narrative

dominance and focusing on the spectatorial behavior itself.

Due to the limitation of historical recourses remained for access and meanwhile, the

concept of “experiential” hasn`t become a conventional topic of research in film

studies until film industry has fully embarked upon the era of digital reproduction, I

finally decide to carry out a conceptual discussion rather than a quantitative research

of audience engagement. Although film experience highly engages with the audience

reception, the scope and purpose of its investigation vary and so as the method. In this

essay, I propose to look at the concept of “experiential” rather than quantitatively

assessing the film-going experience of a large group of spectators. Hence, in

researching on these two olfactory experiments in history, my methodology will be

DRAFT


-4-

the critical reception study of historical materials such as the promotional items of the

films these two olfactory experiments took place at. Moreover, the critical reviews of

these films from both public and professional presses are also included inside of my

analysis.

Part one: Olfactory Attractions in Cinema Theatre

By the end of 1950s, there once have been two experiments that introduced smell into

cinema theatre and kept the audience receiving olfactory attractions when watching

films. The first one is named AromaRama, a process broadcasting oriental aromas at

the sequences of Chinese scenery and landscape in the Italian documentary Behind the

Great Wall (1959) which is produced by Leonardo Bonzi and directed by Carlo

Lizzarni. The second one is named Smell-O-Vision, a process dispensing a variety of

scents directly to every individual audience throughout the crime-drama Scent of

Mystery (1960) directed by Jack Cardiff and filmed in Spain.

It is important to notice few interesting facts between these two experiments: first,

they were both brought about at the end of 1950s` Hollywood by having the very

close date of premiere (Behind the Great was released in June, 1958 and Scent of

Mystery was released in 1960); second, both of the processes were claimed to be the

first time in history to realize the dimensional advancement of spectating experience,

however in fact, the idea to combine olfactory attraction with film exhibition has been

carried out long before; third, both of these two films were de-odorized (by remove

the olfactory attraction) since being distributed to the international markets. I am not

going to assess the technological debate about whether the audience at that place of

exhibition was really convinced by the effect of odors and really gained a more

advanced spectating experience or not. Rather, these three facts drove my attention to

investigate what the exact role such olfactory experiments have played in the

reception and marketing of their attached films. And moreover, by looking into the

DRAFT


-5-

case of these two olfactory experiments, how the scope of the study of film

spectatorship can be possibly enlarged. The discussion below will start with the

promotional materials of these two films, and meanwhile, will focus on the critical

reception from the reviews of professional presses and staff biographies.

Below is a poster advertisement of Behind the Great Wall (1959), which was

published in 1960`s Los Angeles` Times. In this advertisement, there is the abundance

of sensory implications throughout the literal presentation of the poster such as “the

most different adventure that ever excited your senses”, “see…smell”, “you`ve got to

breath it to believe it” and “the first motion picture with scent”. Being accompanied

with, there are some screenshots of the film revealing the iconic attractions of China

such as wild tiger, the night life of Hong Kong, a Chinese style funeral pyre and so as

forth. And finally, the name of “AromaRama” is positioned at near bottom of the

whole poster by using a very big and eye-catching font style, which is even much

larger than the title of the film and gained the absolute focus of visual concentration.

The other promotional material I put beneath is for the film Scent of Mystery (1960).

These are the front cover and back cover of the novel Scent of Mystery by Kelly Roos,

published by Dell Publishing Co.ltd in December, 1959, which is a date before the

premiere of the film. As a parallel marketing material of the main film, there has been

printed with some major promotional messages such as “Now a brilliant Michael

Todd. Jr production” and “the first motion picture ever filmed in Smell-O-Vision!”.

Similarly, some generic features of the film such as suspense and crime are

highlighted. While the interesting thing is, all these features are accompanied with the

sensory expressions such as touch, taste, look and scent. This represents a potential

anticipation that this film is about to be consumed not merely by the conventional way.

Rather, more diverse sensory experience will be provided to the audience to make

them believe the horror, excitement, murder and mystery shown on the silver screen.

Moreover, it anticipates the sense that via such sensory engagement, all these generic

attractions of the film will be realized and recognized in a more realistic way.

DRAFT


-6-

Figure 1: the advertisement of Behind the Great Wall (1959), exacted from the 1960`s Los

Angeles Times3

Figure 2: the front cover and back cover of the novel Scent of Mystery, by Kelly Roos4

DRAFT


-7-

By reviewing these marketing materials, it can be seen that smell was primarily used

and claimed to enhance the “cinematic reality”, i.e. to enhance the illusionary function

of cinema. By referencing the theory of Total Cinema by Bazin that “cinema in itself

is the fantasy”5, smell has always been part of the myth when appearing in the context

of cinema. And in the case of Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama, these two olfactory

processes, I would argue, have further reinforced the illusionary identity of the films

they attached by emphasizing and exploiting the act of spectating as the recourse for

realizing the myth of Total Cinema. To demonstrate, there have been two evidences

that will support my argument. First, it is not the smell but the act of smelling that

became the hypothesized origin of delight coming from the olfactory attractions in

cinema. Jack Cardiff, as the cinematographer of Scent of Mystery, reported in his

biography Magic Hour that,

“I took out a bottle (of the perfume samples made by Hans Laube) labelled

‘apricots’ and inhaled excitedly. It smelled of cheap eau-de-Cologne. I tried ‘sea

ozone’. That too smelled of eau-de-Cologne. Every sample smelled the same: a

third rate perfume, nothing at all like they were supposed to smell.”6

As to Jack who had the opportunity to test those scents out of the context of film, the

smell used in Scent of Mystery didn`t really correspond to their role within the plot.

That is to say, Smell-O-Vision, which is a process designed and supposed to

olfactorily convince the audience about the cinematic reality, has already lost its

identity before the screening. In this circumstance, what is the role Smell-O-Vision

plays in the marketing and reception of its attached film Scent of Mystery? This

question can be partially resolved by investigating the mechanical design of

Smell-O-Vision, which has been detailed reported in 1960`s American

Cinematographer.

There is a “smell brain” (as was shown in the figure 1), which was the central

component of the process, installed in the deep area of the theatre and directly

DRAFT


-8-

connected with the sound track. It was made of stainless metal, specially treated

rubber and glass, and contained vials of over 30 kinds of highly concentrated odour

essence. It was and activated by the electronic signals from the sound track to

dispense little amount of the odour essence (2 c.c. out of 400 c.c. a vial) each time

into the central blower, which was linked to every seat by miles of plastic pipes for

conducting the scent to the outlets installed securely between seats in back of and

below the arm of the arming rests. Being linked and motivated by the sound track, and

at the same time, under the help of the seat-based dispensing system rather than the

wide scale air conditioning system, the process was designed to function

automatically with high synchronization, precision and directionality in the scent

producing and conducting, as was described that, “The system is so precise it can

control the time period of a scent down to the split second, and one odour can follow

another almost immediately.”7

Driven by this sophisticated mechanical design talked above, Smell-O-Vision has

realized the high precision, high accuracy and high automation in dispensing the scent

within cinema theatre. Different kinds of scent were efficiently delivered to the

audience along with the shots and sequences transit. As the consequence, compared

with AromaRama which is largely relying on the air conditioning system,

Smell-O-Vision was claimed to has managed the audience catching the scent at the

exact moment of the film when they are ought to smell, i.e. the synchronization

between the visual perception and olfactory perception even though they were not

exactly having the definite equivalence or relevance. Hence, according to the fact, I

would argue that it is not the exact smell that becomes the realism-maker. Rather, this

process has induced and requested for the act of smelling, and because of this act, film

spectating has exceeded its traditional definition at 1950s from the activity of

congregative viewing experience into something marketed as more advanced, more

modernized, and meanwhile, more mythical.

Although AromaRama doesn`t have such sophistication in its olfactory design

DRAFT


-9-

compared with Smell-O-Vision, it has the similar principle of functioning in the arena

of cinema theatre and within the discourse of film-going. This can be clearly noticed

through the sales message contained in the adverts and posters of Behind the Great

Wall and Scent of Mystery, such as “you`ve got to breath it to believe it!”(Promotional

tagline of Behind the Great Wall in its poster), or “First they moved (1895)! Then they

talked (1927)! Now they smell!”(Promotional tagline of Scent of Mystery)8. By

recalling the act of smelling, film spectators in 1950s were confronted with the

unconventional and unfamiliar circumstance in which they not only experienced a

new way of watching film (this is also the key focus of marketing about the olfactory

processes) but also be given the authority and access for realizing the myth of total

cinema, which is the delight far more important than the appreciation of the aromas or

films.

Second, both of the films attached with the olfactory processes can stand alone

without smell. According to 1959`s Variety, Behind the Great Wall has “copped the

‘best film’ and ‘best photography’ awards at a Brussels Film Exposition” as a brilliant

Travelogue.9 Similarly, Scent of Mystery was tagged as “there is more than meets the

nose in the year`s great fun show” in its poster and this argument can be solidly

supported via the press reviews such as that commented by 1960`s Motion Picture

Herald,

“‘Scent of Mystery’ is a comedy-mystery broad in all its avenues. Its colour and

photography are spectacular, indicating the grand virtue of location shooting, in

this instance, in Spain. Many scenes are truly breathtaking, notably those in

which John Van Kotze`s cameras patiently pan he magnificent Spanish

countryside and coastal pains. The bull-rushing scenes shot in Pamplona are as

hearty and colourful as anything similar done before in motion pictures. The

cameras also obtain stark and beautiful effects from the air which further

intensify the action. Not to be overlooked is the use of eight-channel sound, a

process that allows pinpoint oral timing on the screen, as natural as dialogue

DRAFT


-10-

emanating from the live stage......The film is big and bright enough to do

without odors, although these do count in the run toward justice and, fortunately,

the scents do not distract from the film`s other good elements”10

Because of this fact, Scent of Mystery was even successful as a comedy-thriller after

being de-odorized and adapted into the widescreen process of Cinemara since it was

introduced into Great Britain at 1962 by being retitled as Holiday in Spain. From the

change of title, it is not hard to notice a transition of theme and selling point this film

has received from the sensory attraction to the conventional pattern of the

consumption of exoticism. In its premiere at 1960, this film was screened as the first

motion picture produced (rather than added)11 with smell. However, the olfactory

attraction was cancelled since it was put into the international market. Similarly, due

to the reception at the date beyond the premiere of Behind the Great Wall, say the

review from the 1962s Monthly Film Bulletin or the 1962`s Kine-Weekly, there has

both the indirect and overt signs indicating that olfactory attraction used in Behind the

Great Wall has been removed at the film`s later screenings. This is partly attributed to

the high cost for installing the machine of smell into cinema theatre, which becomes

the biggest hindrance in the way of its commercialization. In 1959`s Film Daily, it

was reported that,

“AromaRama was conceived and developed by Charles Weiss, public relations

executive.it has three main components: automation mechanisms for time,

developed by Industrial Timer Corp., a triggering device connected to the

projector, developed by Camera Equipment Co., and an electric odor control

mechanism, developed by the Stratonic Co., with fragrances compounded by

Rhodia, Inc., aromatic chemical concern. The scents are especially developed

(nose-tailored) for each production. Installation costs range from $7,500, at

present, to expected $3,500 when volume-produced. Reade estimates a potential

of 7,500 smell-equipped theatres.”12

As its advanced counterpart with the precise targeting odors dispensed to every

DRAFT


-11-

individual seat, the cost for installing Smell-O-Vision rose up accordingly. While

more importantly as demonstrated above, I would argue the deodorization concerns

the fact that the olfactory attraction hasn`t really become an essential and functional

component in the reception of the film it attaches while merely remains as a

subsidiary novelty that doesn`t establish the relation with other key selling points of

the film such as stars, story, the exotic visual attractions of Spain/China and other

established film technologies such as stereophonic sound or widescreen/3D process.

Although, the 1960`s American Cinematographer reported that, “……these odors

(made by Smell-O-Vision) are individually projected to each separate seat in the

theatre at the precise split-second when olfactions are vital to the plot and serve as

clues in solving the mystery”13, smell is not essential and compulsory for the story

and narration while merely functions as a fun-making device inducing the game-like

spectating engagement.

To be more specific, it can be argued that because olfactory attractions produced by

AromaRama and Smell-O-Vision have been alienated from the genre identity of the

films they attached, such attractions have failed to be interacted with the film text as

narrative apparatus and therefore, never been endowed the definition to be “cinematic”

from the very beginning. Neither the industry nor the spectators ever gave attempts at

this case of Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama to consider the possibility of integrating

smell into classical film language which is established upon narration and is the basis

of the whole film consumption culture. Just as it was pointed out within the report

from 1960`s Variety,

“Now that second “smellie” process, Smell-O-Vision, has been “unlocked,” it

appears that the new dimension will be nothing more than a passing whiff. Except

for providing a novelty value, the accompanying odors neither add nor detract to

the basic enjoyment of a motion picture.” 14

Indeed, according to historical materials, Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama have been

DRAFT


-12-

failed in terms of technology as there has no actual sensory dimension been added

onto the concept of film and film spectating held by the audience at 1950s (i.e. the

so-called “basic enjoyment of a motion picture”). Simultaneously, the smell these two

processes have produced also failed in terms of its identity supposed to be “cinematic

smell” that aiming at initiating the reformation of classic film language. All these

evidence proves the fact that neither the device of scent making nor the odors

dispensed in cinema theatre ever changed the way of receiving the film text.

Consequently, it should be bared in mind when appraising the historical and cultural

value of these two experiments that olfactory attractions in this case have not been the

fact at all of success or failure of the films they attached commercially and

aesthetically. And the same principle should be given to the evaluation of AromaRama

and Smell-O-Vision as well. Olfactory attraction hasn`t managed to brought

spectators into the next dimensional age of cinema as it was claimed. While either by

accidently or consequentially has it explored an alternative path to reach the very

myth of total cinema. It is possibly the reason why these two experiments are always

at the absence of traditional film history and mainstream film culture for quite a long

time, however, at the meantime become the fundamental thesis for organizing the

interpretation and understanding of the alternative venue of film spectatorship and the

ever-growing diversity within the film-going culture at digital era.

Part Two: Experiential Film-going and its Implication at the Era of

Digital Reproduction

Since these two evidences I illustrated above have demonstrated my argument of the

role AromaRama and Smell-O-Vision have played in the marketing and reception of

the films they attached, these two experiments along with their names have been

repeatedly misinterpreted and exaggeratedly depicted as a kind of futuristic

technological myth in film history. This even caused a kind of Cult phenomenon that

DRAFT


-13-

some B filmmakers like John Waters and Robert Rodriguez gives their referential

imitations at their own works such as Odorama in Polyester (1981) and Aroma-Scope

in Spy Kids 4D (2011). Although Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama failed in their

reception to be “cinematic”, the idea to “explore” and “exhibit” sensory experience of

the moving image to the spectators has been inherited and later on becomes one of the

key attractions in contemporary film-going practice. The concept of total cinema

always exists and the film spectators are always given the opportunities to explore

alternative act of spectating in fulfilling the original myth of cinema: the power of

re-production and re-presentation.

One example is the contemporary 4-D film processes installed in the

specially-designed hall of some mainstream Cineplex. For instance, the 4DX process

introduced by the South Korean company CJ Group has fulfilled the synchronization

and diversity of sensory attractions added into the mainstream Hollywood

blockbusters such as Avengers 2 (2015) and Jurassic World (2015). Those sensory

penetrations from time to time in forms of wind, scent, flash lights, and haptic shakes

don`t participate in corresponding to the plot. Rather, they act at the stops of narration

and interact with the scene of pure attraction and pure spectacle as the subsidiary

explanation (sometimes even aggressive) of those “artificial or non-artificial

spectacles”: an alienate creature made by CGI cannot sufficiently convince the

audience its full features by the act of merely watching the silver screen and hearing

the stereophonic sound. Hence, through those sensory penetrations added into the film

at the post-production stage, the figures made by digital illusion will be able to recall

the analogue of human`s empirical sensory experience at routine life. Such treatment

simulates the tricks used at the very infant age of cinema-“the cinema of attractions”15

in Gunning`s phrase-that highlights the exhibitionist nature of showing by engaging,

or more precisely, exploring the extra sensory engagement of film-going besides

watching and hearing. One of the most recognized stereotypes is The Hale`s Tour

when the cinema theatre itself was refurbished into the shape of a real train where

audience was conceptually put inside of scene of the film that was exhibited.

DRAFT


-14-

Unlike Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama, contemporary 4D process utilized in cinema

theatre is no longer aiming at replicating reality and the natural world. Along with the

genre development of Hollywood blockbusters, the increasing number of fantasy (or

science-fiction) dominates the market, of which a large portion originates from

comics and fantasy-fiction franchises. This is indeed an interesting transition of

dominance in genre preference from the worship of exoticism to the indulgence of

magic fantasy because it should be attributed to the fact out of the discourse of film.

The economic globalization, which has induced the trading communication across the

national boundaries, has also brought about the collapse of geographic hindrance. And

the technological and mechanical development of transportation has promoted the

ever-convenient and dynamic way of transnational tourism compared with previous

days.

As consequence, exoticism, as one of the key attractions for Hollywood filmmakers to

use, has reduced its power and altered its form and identity into something

inaccessible and imaginary to endow the myth of cinema back to the audience, just as

how it works before. As a transformed take-over, exoticism of the heterogeneous

culture and landscape of other nations has been replaced by the imagination of fantasy

and science-fiction that rooted within the surrealism and mythology, or more precisely

speaking, the “artificial reality”. This phrase is important for me to demonstrate my

argument below as the exoticism is in fact never abandoned. Rather, in the age of

digital reproduction that every scenery of reality can be digitally replicated and our

gaze towards them has been even enhanced, there should be the dreamlike experience

remained inside of the cinematic arena. Again, based upon the primary identity of

cinema as the illusion maker, exoticism has experienced a progression from being

sufficed to being advanced.

The reason that I discussed the transition of genre preference above within

contemporary market of Hollywood blockbusters is because such transition has given

DRAFT


-15-

the direct and essential impact on the prospect of film-going experience. That is to say,

compared with previous days, film-going at contemporary sense should be understood

and discussed upon the given basis and background of economic globalization. It has

broken down the hindrance of geography and film spectators have been enabled to

fulfill their prospect of exoticism by actually visiting the film setting locations via a

dynamic form of tourism. Meanwhile, they (the spectators) are still seeking the

experience of exoticism in cinema by giving their film-going prospect and preference

to the genre of science-fiction and fantasy. Consequently, such cultural politics

attribute to the blooming of market dominance of digital film production that is

largely relying on CGI and other forms of digital presentation technologies to depict a

surreal world and meanwhile, fulfill the possibility to put inside a convincible and

realistic narrative. This has been the conventional pattern of the production of

contemporary Hollywood Blockbusters in a digital way. And driven by this intention

to meet the request of the market, the industry has generated a variety of methods, one

of which is adding the sensory attractions inside of cinema theatre.

Rather than being claimed as experimental and mythical, the 4D systems installed in

the mainstream Cineplex now often work aside of other formats of exhibitions such as

ordinary 2D presentation, 3D presentation, IMAX presentation and occasionally,

IMAX 3D presentation. And via its marketing materials such as window posters and

flyers allocated in the cinema hall, it can be clearly noticed that instead of reproducing

the reality like how Smell-O-Vision or AromaRama has done before, contemporary

4D system is primarily tagged the function as projecting spectators into the scene of

film. This quite simulates and unifies the function and identity of other technologies

like 3D and mega screen processes to fulfill an enhanced immersion of viewing

experience. Since the dominant genre has requested the exoticism for surreal world,

the first and foremost thing has to do is to establish the accessibility and cognition of

the surreal. Here, sensory experience is claimed and believed solidly effective to

achieve this task and 4D system is the device of sensory experience happening. It is

the 4D system that concretizes the abstractness and surreality of the fictional world

DRAFT


-16-

and fantastic figures into something understandable, acceptable and most of all,

experiential such as calculating the flying speed of superman by the wind blew around

cinema theatre and the physical hit from the back of seat in understanding how

powerful is the punch of Hulk.

Having supported by 4D system, the reception of the genre of fantasy and science

fiction, I would argue, receives the consolidation. However, a fact should be bore in

mind that compared with the mega screen process such as IMAX or the 3D process

such as Real D 3D, the development of 4D system still remains at the pre-mature

stage as the former two have already been integrated into the production of a film and

even occasionally, become an essential part of film language. Dudley Andrew once

mentioned about Bazin`s insightful discovery of the implication of widescreen

process in promoting the long-take mise-en-scene style in the beginning of 1940s.16

And this politics is also applicable in interpreting some genius application of the

width and spatiality of widescreen (or mega screen) process at some contemporary

mainstream films. Stereotypically, the long-takes in rendering the charm of solidity

and terror in Cuaron`s Gravity (2013) can be an example. Same politics has

contemporary 3D processes sought for the homogenous purposes. To the contrary, 4D

system is of the post-production basis and doesn`t ever engage into the aesthetics of

film form or film language while merely providing the limited enhancement of

cognition towards what is visually shown on the screen. In conclusion, contemporary

4D system associates with other forms of film technologies and film exhibition

strategies to transport the world of fantasy from comics and novels into silver screen.

And along with the digital craftsmanship of CGI, 4D system fulfills the reproduction

(rather than replication) of abstractness and surreality of those sci-fi and fantasy films

into the conventional delight and expectation that largely originates from the

first-person immersion of video game experience.

To the other side, another example of experiential spectating comes from sociality.

Dudley Andrew once gave his analysis on the act of film-going based upon alternative

DRAFT


-17-

venues and he indicated that, “Fairs traveling exhibitions, Japanese Benshi, Parish and

factory screenings – these presentations make use of images within rituals of a sort

different from the Hollywood ritual of ‘going to the movie’”17. Here the difference is

stereotypically revealed at purpose and behavior. Since the ritual of going to

Hollywood blockbusters has been interpreted, synthesized, applied and even adapted

onto American mainstream film business and its imitators of other nations, the phrase

“film spectator” and its actors are often put under the hegemonic power of industry. In

confrontation with such power, the first and foremost group will be fans of a film who

are conducting various forms of spectating practices to releasing themselves from the

hegemonic control of Hollywood.

This group of spectators tries not only to “risk” their own interpretation of the films

they adore via different forms of fan-made materials and events, but even more

essentially, experimentally “risk” the access they approach to the films. I quote the

word “Risk” here due to Andrew`s fantastic argument, “To take images out of theatres

and have us encounter them elsewhere is to risk not the images but our particular way

of attending to them.”18 Indeed, the first thing for the film fans to do in fulfilling their

faith of challenging Hollywood is refusing conventional venue of Cineplex. Popcorns,

refreshments, advertisements and noises, all these points that are conventional for the

mainstream cinema theatre can be what fans reject in establishing their own politics of

film spectating. However, the biggest hindrance for the fans to reject should be choice:

they have no choice but follow the agenda of screening issued by the industry even

there seems have been lots of films at a time for the audience to choose. The taste and

aesthetics is there that by no means will the circumstance get change. Hence, by

refusing Hollywood styled venues of Cineplex, fans gain back their authority to

choose what they want to watch and more importantly, how they watch it.

In the era that mobile internet has been solidly developed and films have been highly

digitized to be portable, storable and re-editable, film spectating has already release

itself from the locational control of cinema theatre. Just as Robert C Allan noted in his

DRAFT


-18-

article Reimagining the History of the Experience of Cinema that,

“For the last 20 years, watching movies in a movie theatre has been irreversibly

declining as a normative mode of the experience of cinema in the United-States,

and in the meantime an entire generation has grown up with the earliest, most

formative and most common experiences of movies occurring in places that

Hollywood dismissively referred to as ‘non-theatrical’ exhibition sites: bedrooms,

living rooms, kitchens, automobiles.”19

However, at the meantime, the value of a single film or a single time of spectating

experience has acutely decreased compared with the situation before digitization

because of the film ownership digital technologies has brought about and the ensuing

repeated viewing experience. Consequently, the calculation of such value largely

relies on and is stereotypically conducted by the timing of premiere and the

exploitation of those derivatives rather than film itself. In reconstructing the value of

cinema, will a paradox be generated that spectators should return to the cinema theatre

with no choice? Robert Allan gives his precise sub-note about the value of theatrical

viewing of film that,

“As theatrical moviegoing becomes a thing more remembered than experienced,

we will be reminded that one of the most striking features of experience of

cinema for a hundred years was its sociality. For a century following the

demonstration of Edison`s Vitascope projector at Koster and Bial`s Music Hall in

New York on 23 April 1896, the experience of cinema in America and around the

world involved groups of people converging upon particular places to experience

together something understood to be cinema.”20

It is the sociality, I would argue, that constructed the implication of the so-called

“different ritual experience” by Dudley and it is also indeed the very nature of fandom

throughout film history. When digitization and mobile internet have indirectly isolated

each individual spectator, film fans are seeking the method to rebuild the sociality of

DRAFT


-19-

cinema and film-going. Consequently, experience-oriented viewing practice, or in my

phrase, the experiential film-going, has come into focus. Either the Cosplay shows

within ACG (animation, comic and game) discourse from Japan or the Secret Cinema

events initiated from London, these fan-based activities and cultural forms have the

homogenous nature: to construct a kind of sociality based upon the real-world

immersion of narrative and text (film/animation). It deserves the attention that when I

talk about the concept “sociality” here, it is not restricted at the real-world experience.

Actually, most of such fan-based events have simultaneously integrated the offline

and online sociality. Via the promotional activities at social websites such as Twitter

and Facebook, film fans received a highly efficient, non-hierarchical and real-timing

discussion to customize their request of preference to choose what to show and how to

show it. Disregarding whether an experiential film spectating event is organized by

fans or participated by fans or both, the purpose is the same: to rebuild sociality

within a group of specialized requests.

Essentially, within such sociality, the narration and film language are no longer at the

absolutely dominant and important position of the classic concept of film

spectatorship. As spectators have escaped from the locational control of cinema

theatre, they also have released from the “hypnotic control” (in Dudley`s word) of

Hollywood showmanship. As consequence, experiential film-going activities don`t

really engage with the theorem of cinema since the dominance of narrative collapse.

Rather, it is closer to the exhibitionist nature of film before 1907, Gunning`s “Cinema

of Attraction” concept which I mentioned before. It is no longer the attraction of film

text itself (story, imagery, stars or so) that drives the intention of experiential

film-going and its criticism. Instead, the attraction of sociality becomes the most

important measurement for spectators to appraise their film-going experience.

Therefore, within this discourse, the experiential fact of film-going is not like that in

the case of Smell-O-Vision or AromaRama, which is focusing on providing the

sensory penetration for the spectators to believe what they see on the screen. Instead, I

would argue, the concept “experiential” here should be understood within the

DRAFT


-20-

discourse of sociality and its functional nature is to provide the ambience, material,

occasion and possibility for the social networking among film fans beyond the virtual

reality of internet. By reproducing the narrative sequence and settings of a film in

real-world circumstance and locating themselves inside of it, film fans have achieved

to build a unique space for each of them to discuss, interpret and represent their

understanding and requirement for a specific subject of cinema, which could be very

detailed like how the world of Prometheus should be look like, or very abstract such

as what is exactly the hard-core sci-fi.

Conclusion

In this essay, I mainly talked about the spectatorial behavior of film-going. The idea

of experiential cinema drives me to think about the meaning of film experience via

looking at the pattern and form of film spectating. And by investigating on this issue, I

have re-interpreted and re-understood two olfactory experiments in film history –

Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama – via the lens of film spectatorship. My research

generates the finding that rather than merely acting as a gimmick, Smell-O-Vision and

AromaRama have properly enriched and extended the definition of film spectating by

inducing the act of smelling during the film exhibition. Because of this act, film

spectatorship has experienced a conceptual transformation from its conventional

definition into a pattern more avant-garde, mythical and independent from the text

(film) itself. The former two elements have inspired and promoted Cult practices in B

film industry and authorship at later decades. The last element, however, extended its

implication and application into the confrontation between film and digitization at

contemporary sense.

Via the experiential way of film spectating, not only has the conventional pattern of

spectatorial behavior been challenged but more essentially, an alternative scope for

investigating the historical, cultural, generic and political transformation of film-going

DRAFT


-21-

have been established. According to my research finding, the prevalence of

contemporary 4D system installed in Cineplex and other experiential film spectating

practices is, on one hand, generated from the transformation of genre preference in

mainstream film-going and on the other hand, grows out of the collapse of theatrical

viewing convention among the film fans. And both of the two facts, according to my

analysis, attribute to the overwhelmed trend of digitization in contemporary film

production and consumption that results in the private ownership and recreation of

film as narrative text and material. Moreover, these two facts have certain connections

with the economic globalization that the geographical and cultural hindrance of each

nation has been destroyed along with its imaginary and exotic power.

It should be noticed that experiential film-going is the phenomena and result, via

which a bigger picture of the development and transformation of film-going politics

and culture are undergoing. Therefore, this research leads to my additional thinking of

introducing praxeology into film studies. Since the spectatorial behavior of film

repeats, simulates and varies from different historical periods under different cultural

and national contexts, through the lens of film experience, the studies of the act and

behavior of film spectators will ultimately give its implications for understanding the

economic and political scenario of the historicity and cultural identity of a nation.

Reversely, it will promote a consolidated and even expanded comprehension of both

the classical and less-accessible film aesthetics and culture in history. For instance,

this re-investigation of Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama has unavoidably linked with

the existing researches of film industry and film culture in 1950s` Hollywood. Via

focusing on the spectatorial behavior rather than the response from film spectators,

the practicality of few aspects of audience study can be possibly fulfilled when this

methodology is applied on researching a historical subject that the target of resource

is of limited access.

At present, this thinking still remains as my hypothesis. As my title indicates, this

essay is a conceptual discussion. I tried to explain what is the so called “experiential”

DRAFT


-22-

and why it matters towards a better understanding of contemporary film-going

phenomena. While, more importantly, I am also purposive to emphasize the

connection between “experiential” and the long last film history. Just as I referenced

Gunning`s concept of “Cinema of Attractions”, I have given attempts in this essay to

indicate the applicability of the “experiential” concept when being adapted (or

integrated) into the conventional method of studying film and film history, especially

when it refers to the subject and place of audience.

Endnote

1 Belton, John. ‘Cinerama’ In Widescreen Cinema, Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press, p.96-97

2 Ibid. p. 111 3 Online image resource from Los Angeles Times (15 January, 1960), URL:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2010/01/lsu-dean-held-in-killing-of-professor.html

4 Roos, Kelly. Scent of Mystery, Dell Publishing Co.Ltd, December 1959 (first edition)

5 Bazin, Andre. What is Cinema, Berkley; London: University of California Press, 2004, p.17-22

6 Cardiff, Jack. Magic Hour: A Life in Movies, London: Faber & Faber Limited, 1997, p. 236-238

7 Lightman, Herb A. ‘This Movie Has Scents!’, American Cinematographer, 41,2 (February 1960): 92-93,120

8 Lumenick, Lou. ‘Elizabeth Taylor`s forgotten Smell-O-Vision adventure arrives on video’, New York Post, November 18, 2014, URL: http://nypost.com/2014/11/18/elizabeth-taylors-forgotten-smell-o-vision-adventure-arrives-on-video/

9 Gene. ‘Behind the Great Wall’, Variety (16 December 1959) 10 Ostrove, Saul. ‘Scent of Mystery’, Motion Picture Herald, 218, 2 (16 January

1960): Forum ‘Showmen`s Reviews’ 11 Here is a note by the film`s promotion to emphasize its technological distinction

from its rival player Behind the Great Wall, original sentence is in the article ‘Scent of Mystery’ by Holl, Variety (13 January 1960): “‘Scent of Mystery’ has been carefully planned to synchronize scents with action in the film. Unlike Aromarama, which hit the market (in Manhattan) first, the

DRAFT



http://nypost.com/2014/11/18/elizabeth-taylors-forgotten-smell-o-vision-adventure-arrives-on-video/

http://nypost.com/2014/11/18/elizabeth-taylors-forgotten-smell-o-vision-adventure-arrives-on-video/


-23-

“Scent of Mystery” script, written by William Roos, has been designed with the smells in mind. In the Aromarama presentation, a documentary dealing with Red China, the odors were added as an afterthought.”

12 Cunningham, James P. ‘AromaRama Process Adds Odor to Films’, The Film Daily, 116,112 (10 December 1959): 1, 7

13 Lightman, Herb A. ‘This Movie Has Scents!’, American Cinematographer, 41,2 (February 1960): 92-93,120

14 Holl, ‘Scent of Mystery’, Variety (13 January 1960) 15 Gunning, Tom. ‘The Cinema of Attraction: Early Film, Its Spectator, and the

Avant-Garde’ in Thomas Elsaesser (ed), Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative, London: BFI, 1990

16 Andrew, Dudley. ‘Film and Society: Public Rituals and Private Space’ in Exhibition, the Film Reader, Ina Rae Hark(ed). New York; London: Routledge, 2001, p.161-171

17 Ibid, p.164 18 Ibid, p.165 19 Allen, Robert C. ‘Reimagining the History of the Experience of Cinema’ In

Explorations in New Cinema History: Approaches and Case Studies, Richard Maltby, Daniel Biltereyst and Philippe Meers (ed), Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011, p. 42

20 Ibid, p.44

DRAFT


-24-

Bibliography

Arthur, Paul. ‘In the Real of the Senses: IMAX 3-D and the Myth of Total Cinema’ in

Film Comment, 32, 1 (Jan 1996)

Bazin, Andre. What is Cinema, Berkley; London: University of California Press, 2004

Belton, John. Widescreen Cinema, Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University

Press

Burton, Alan and Chibnall, Steve (ed). ‘Promotional Activities and Showmanship in

British Film Exhibition’ in Journal of Popular British Cinema, 2, 1999

Cardiff, Jack. Magic Hour: A Life in Movies, London: Faber&Faber Limited, 1997 Gaudreault, Andre. Film and Attraction: from kinematography to cinema, Urbana:

University of IIIinois Press, 2011

Gunning, Tom. ‘The Cinema of Attraction: Early Film, Its Spectator, and the

Avant-Garde’ In Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative, edited by Thomas

Elsaesser, London: BFI Publishing, 1990

Gilbert, Avery. What the Nose Knows, New York: Crown Publisher, 2008

Hark, Ina Rae (ed). Exhibition, the Film Reader, New York; London: Routledge, 2001

Jancovich, Mark. The Place of Audience: Cultural Geographies of Film Consumption,

London: BFI Publishing, 2003

Leeder, Murray. ‘Collective Screams: William Castle and the Gimmick Film’ in The

Journal of Popular Culture, 44, 4, 2011 Limbacher, James L. Fours Aspects of the Film, New York: Brussel and Brussel, 1968

Richard Maltby, Daniel Biltereyst and Philippe Meers (ed). Explorations in New

Cinema History: Approaches and Case Studies, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell,

2011

Rogers, Ariel. ‘“You Don`t So Much Watch It as Download It”: Conceptualization of

Digital Spectatorship’ in Film History, 24, 2012

Sandifer, Philip. ‘Out of the Screen and into the Theatre: 3-D Film as Demo’ in

Cinema Journal, 50, 3, 2011

DRAFT


-25-

Staiger, Janet. Media Reception Studies, New York; London: Routledge, 2005

Stocks, Melvyn and Maltby, Richard. Identifying Hollywood`s Audiences: cultural

identity and the movies, London: British Film Institute, 1999

Stempel, Tom. American Audience on Movies and Moviegoing, Lexington, Ky.:

University Press of Kentucky, c2001

Todd, Michael, Jr. and McCarthy, Susan. A Valuable Property: the life story of

Michael Todd, New York: Arbor House, 1983

Wanda Strauven, The Cinema of Attraction Reloaded, Amsterdam: Amsterdam

University Press, 2006]

Williams, Linda (ed). Viewing Position: Ways of Seeing Film, New Brunswick; New

Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1994

Klinger, Barbara. Beyond the Multiplex: Cinema, New Technologies and the Home,

Berekeley; London: University of California Press, 2006

DRAFT


-26-

Filmography

Scent of Mystery

Directed by Jack Cardiff

Genre: Mystery

Releasing Date: 6 January 1960 (Premiere)

Running Time: 125 min (USA)

Colour: Technicolor

Odorised by Hans laube

Cinematographic Process: Todd-70

Aspect Ratio: 2.59:1

Behind the Great Wall

Directed by Carl Lizzani

Genre: Documentary

Releasing Date: 8 December 1959 (USA)

Running Time: 120 min (USA)

Colour: Black and White

Cinematographic Process: Totalscope

Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1

DRAFT


-27-

Author Profile

Personal Details

Name: Qian Zhengyi (as Jeremy Qian)

Nationality: Chinese

DOB: 16/11/1988

Tel: +86 18516309718

Email: [email protected]

Contact Address: Room 504, No.13 Shangnanbacun, Pudong District, Shanghai ,

P.R.China 200126

Profile

A former postgraduate student of MA Film Studies from the University of East Anglia,

UK. Previously did the Bachelor degree`s study at Zhejiang University of Media and

Communication, China by majoring in Drama, Film and Television Literature. My

research interest covers the subjects of film attractions, sense-based film technology,

experiential film-spectatorship, and so on. I once gave paper “Cinema of Sensory

Attractions: what role sense-based technologies played in creating experiential

film-going?” at the international film conference “EXPANDED CINEMA” held at the

University of St Andrews, UK in 2013. Also known as an independent photographer

and poet.

DRAFT

mailto:[email protected]

A Conceptual Discussion of Experiential Film-going: from the case study of Smell-O-Vision and...

Documents

Transcript of A Conceptual Discussion of Experiential Film-going: from the case study of Smell-O-Vision and...