I love reading science articles and books and have since childhood. I love the rigors of science, the testing, the adherence to fact over fantasy. But sometimes science writing can drive me batty. Take this article for instance from Live Science on viewers' reactions to movies. There are many problems with the article not the least of which is a woeful lack of elaboration on the study itself. The study's conclusions, which should be immediately filed under the heading "No Shit Sherlock", are that people tend to be rather sheepish when it comes to opinions on movies and will generally go with the crowd for their reactions. When separated from the crowd, either by watching alone or by having physical barriers between themselves and other viewers, their reactions are more varied. As the fourth paragraph of this breaking news stunner says:
While people reacted differently to specific scenes, those watching together tended to evaluate a film with the same broad mood swings. This 'group-think' was not found among those who watched alone. Turns out the moviegoers were glancing at each other throughout the film, adopting the expressions they saw on others.
Okay, but here's the problem I have with the article, in the form of a question: What movie were they watching? That's very important. Hell, I'll be happy with the genre if you don't want to tell me the specific title. Was it horror, comedy, thriller, what? Was it some bizarre generic movie created specifically for the test? Was it a straightforward drama? Audience reactions are very different, and differently influential, depending on the genre. I've seen dramas where audience reaction was nil because nothing on the screen called out for it. Everyone was forced, I suppose, to make up their own mind since they couldn't judge from their fellow viewers' reactions. I've also seen comedies that seemed riotously funny in the theatre with everyone indulging in "chain-reaction" laughing only to discover on a second viewing at home that the comedy fell flat. Many film critics don't like to see movies with an audience for that specific reason. It may skew their honest reaction.
The movie viewing experience is a rich and varied one. People prefer to watch in many different 
settings. I currently prefer the intimate home setting to the theatrical viewing for most, but not all, movies. Because technology now affords the luxuries of big screen viewing in your living room this isn't as heretical a position as it used to be. But I should point out clearly that the main reason I currently prefer this is because my work and home life do not provide ample opportunity to make it out to the theatre. All things being equal, my perfect movie setting is in a theatre, at a matinee, with few, very few audience members. I almost always attend matinees and when I was seeing two or three theatrical releases a week several years back I always caught the matinee. That way I never had to worry about crowds.
Of course, with some movies crowds just aren't a problem. Albert Brooks' movies for instance. I remember going to see Lost in America when it came out with a friend. We saw a Saturday night showing on its opening weekend. We were the only two people in the theatre. At the beginning of the film a radio is playing as the credits roll. It's a Larry King interview with Rex Reed about audience reactions to comedy. King quotes Mel Brooks as saying that the only genre of film that always requires an audience is comedy. Reed disagrees (as do I). He talks about funny being funny regardless of audience and how he doesn't like crowd laughter to influence his reactions to jokes. I always felt, even at the time, that Brooks (Albert that is) put this interview at the beginning of the movie knowing that his own films weren't popular with audiences. By putting in a defense of watching comedy without a crowd he could put the viewer at ease about their own experience from the outset.
Whatever the genre, people bring themselves and all that they are to each and every viewing. What this study shows me more than anything else is that most people view movie watching as a communal experience, one in which the crowd mentality plays an important part in the experience. Everyone has experienced a moment (viewing an obscure work of art, reading an offbeat book) where you want to know what others think before you say anything. Most of us experience this with family or friends. If someone close to you is an expert on art and you view a
painting with this person, you don't want to say, "Well that's a piece of junk" for fear of either being wrong or offending. But when it's something you yourself are an expert on, or something that you dearly love, like movies, this doesn't happen. I've never held my tongue on movies and have gotten into many an argument as a result. If you're even at this page reading this post you're probably the same way. We love movies, so a study like this annoys us ("Who on earth would need to know what someone else thought to judge a movie?") but I understand people reacting the way they do in a theatre. And I understand the human mind wanting to understand this dynamic. And I further understand science trying to acquire that knowledge. What I don't understand is why they won't tell me what movie they watched. That's all I want to know and then I'll shut up. Unless of course it's a movie I don't like. Then you'd better settle in for the evening. I've got some ranting to do.
_____________________
UPDATE:
Re my comment conversation with Bill, a list of possible candidates to show during a study like this:
1. Empire
2. Sleep
3. Caligula
4. Faces of Death
5. Satyricon
Talk about forcing the audience to look at each other for a reaction. Any other suggestions?
