Expectation

 By: Konstantin Kiriakov

Introduction

               When using Saussure’s model of signs, the concept of a film or movie *1 (the signified) is different from the film itself (the signifier). Film, as a physical object; with the exceptions of prequels, sequels, remakes and adaptations, is independent and unique from one another. It can range from a variety of narrative or visual styles as well as be distributed in a variety of different ways. The film signifier can encompass the impressionistic study of light filmed on 32 mm film, to a Fantasy picture shot on a Red One camera; and be projected on a wall or streamed over the internet. A film can be self reflective or hide its inner workings, making them an invisible art. In other words, film as a physical object can be many things, and is not easily, if not impossible to describe, however, our idea of a film, is for the most part ossified and agreed upon. Film’s signified, elicits the idea of a visual representation of a story or series of events, which are psychologically motivated, that culminate and inevitably lead to an ultimate solution or catharsis. The mere fact that we have a working definition of film demonstrates this preconceived notion. Therefore, we have predisposed Attitudes or expectations towards film. A film may or may not match these predisposition's, but whether they do or not is correlated to the way in which we evaluate what we have seen. 

               When a film reaffirms these preconceived notions the audience will experience enjoyment or jouissance, however if the film operates using unexpected or foreign conventions and codes the audience will react in one of two ways; they will either negotiate this new model or reject it.*2 For example, if you expect to see a comedy film, and instead encounter a dark humoured drama dealing with heavy material, you may still enjoy the film because it used codes that you are familiar with or prefer. You may initially experience shock, but once you renegotiate the film with your overall attitude towards cinema and re-evaluate, your experience will be positive. Contrarily, If you expected to see a Romance film about a man and woman reuniting in a luxurious hotel after a year, and you see Last Year at Marienbad (1961); without any knowledge of Alain Resnais or the French New Wave, Surrealism, or Avant-Garde cinema; you would reject it because it uses codes which are contrary or unfamiliar to the ones you are programmed with, making the decoding process impossible. Put simply, we all have predisposed attitudes and expectations towards film, which have some effect on the way we evaluate films. These predisposition's includes the Definition of Film, Trends, Hype, and Judgment, all of which have a direct influence on our reasoned action towards the films we see.  

Theory

TRA (The Theory of Reasoned Action)

               In order to understand the attitudes and expectations we have towards cinema we must first understand the two major factors which develop these attitudes. According to the Theory of Reasoned Action developed by Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen, we can see that a person’s behaviour is based on the sum of their attitude and subjective norms. 

Example: 

B = (Attitude)W1 + (Subjective Norms)W2

B: Behaviour. 

Attitude: The sum of one’s beliefs toward performing a behaviour, as well as its consequences. 

SN: One's subjective norms, derived from beliefs from others as well as one’s compulsion to comply, related to performing the behaviour.

W1,2: empirically derived weight, determining the behaviour's viability based on desirability and reason. 

               Put into simple terms, an individual’s notion of a behaviour is based on beliefs developed by internal as well as external sources. This attitude has an effect on the way we perceive and evaluate the behaviour in question. Martin Fishbein stated that initially an individual responds to new information by developing or reflecting on beliefs about the object or action. If a belief already exists then it will most likely be modified. Then, the individual will assign values, according to importance, to each attribute that the belief is based on, and create an expectation or modify an existing one. Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen even go as far as to say that this model can be used to predict one’s behavioural intention (the willingness to perform a behaviour); the same way a friend can recommend a film to us, by knowing our personal taste (Attitudes and Subjective Norms). 

In the context of cinema, Martin Fishbein’s and Icek Ajzen’s model should look something like this:

Expectation = (Definition of Cinema + Judgments)W1 + (Trends + Hype)W2

Attitudes

Definition of film

               In every new art form, during its inception, there is a period in time where it grows and matures into something that can be mapped and quantified. Boundaries are placed dividing it from other forms of expression or objects. Cinema has been around for a little over a century, and has become heavily sutured into our culture as well as daily lives. It has existed before our conception, as well as the previous generation’s; making it, at least in our minds, always present. We cannot picture life without cinema or perceive cinema as a new foreign medium. Therefore, we have developed and programmed certain ideas or codes of what cinema is, as well as what it should be. If we were asked to create a facial composite of film, we would probably say something about its narrative structures, genres, and length. All of these features contribute to our attitude towards a film, regardless of whether or not we have seen it, and create mixed emotions when the face (film) does not match our composite.

Narrative Structure 

               It is human nature to attempt to find structure and meaning in all things, which is the reason why we can understand editing and montage. However, in order to obtain the preferred meaning, the one intended to be understood by the institution, the narrative must use certain codes and conventions which help us infer and decode its  meaning. So, naturally when we go to see a film, we expect to see a visual dramatization of a fictional or factual narrative, according to a specific structure which aids us in understanding its meaning. We expect to be given enough knowledge to understand the context of the events taking place, and that it is delivered in a clear and concise manner, which is not too overbearing or obvious. This is achieved through various narrative devices, such as Point of View Shots, Dialogue, Audience Surrogates,  Narration and Inter Titles, etc. 

               Every film has a register, that is to say a model of reality which it follows from beginning to end. The most common register is that of narrative reality, meaning the consistent and coherent linear chain of events which inevitably leads to some sort of conclusion. Using this model, the diegetic world must obey a set of laws or rules which the film has established, in order to give the illusion of credibility. These films may have unrealistic elements, such as aliens (E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial 1982) or magical candy (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory 1971), but as long as the characters and physics of the world follow and adhere to its own perpetuated reality, the film will be credible in the viewer’s eyes. However, in the case of films such as Man With a Movie Camera (1929), where narrative reality is purposely removed or disrupted an audience member may still accept the register (by switching to the new form of discourse) only if they are aware of its syntagmatic codes and existence. The average viewer on the other hand, will be unable to suppress this attitude because they are only versed in a single form of filmic discourse. For example, a translator can jump between conversations in different languages, even if the sentence structure and grammar may be different. While a individual versed in a single language can only understand that form of discourse, and even have trouble understand certain dialects of it. 

               We also expect to know as much or more than the character that the story revolves around. A film typically uses open or restricted narrative modes to tell the story. The open narrative mode, provides the viewer with all of the information pertaining the narrative events, creating tension, like the film Frenzy (1972) where the film reveals the murderer in the beginning of the film creating tension whenever a character comes into contact with him. The restricted narrative mode provides a limited amount of information, often matching that of the protagonist. In any case, by the end of the film we expect to know all of the information pertaining to the entire ordeal. Even in the case of a mystery film, such as Sherlock Holmes (2009). As an audience we understand that we are incapable of matching his powers of deduction. However, we expect to know just as much as him by the time the film ends, whether it is through Dr. Watson inquiring how Holmes solved the case or Holmes proving his intelligence to the villain before he apprehends them. 

(Warning this clip contains SPOILERS that may potentially ruin the film, A spoiler free example can be seen HERE)

Genres

               If the narrative structure is thought of as the center of the film then the genre can be thought of as it’s wrapper. The genre is the framework in which the filmic codes and narrative devices follow. For example, a horror film will drop the sound levels and have the character slowly approach a dark and ominous object to elicit reactions, such as tension, shock and fear. (CLIP) The Documentary film, not being limited to space or continuity, delivers a canon of knowledge through a transcendental entity or narrator. (CLIP) We understand these conventions because of our attitude towards these genres. Genres use specific conventions and narrative registers, which we have grown accustomed to, and familiar with. These conventions are used to elicit an emotional response, specific to the genre. This is why we are more or less critical with certain genres then others; we adjust our weighted values, because we are aware that the film is highlighting specific conventions all the while ignoring others. For example, when we watch an action film such as Mission Impossible (1996), we are not as concerned about realism or even quality of script, than a film like Kings Speech (2010). Now, we have established that we have preconceived notions of what we expect to see and how we expect it see it, but we also expect to see it within a certain time limit.

Time Span

               All visual media has a certain time limit which we are programmed to accept. We expect to see individual ads or commercials for 30 seconds or less, internet videos for a few minutes, Television shows and programming for 30-60 minutes, and Films for around 120 minutes. Ever since the 1960s films have been averaging around 120 minutes (2 hours) of run time, making this the standard time frame. Even though a film that is over 70 minutes long is considered to be a feature length film, encountering one may lead to disappointment since it doesn’t meet your expectation of seeing a 2 hour film. This also applies to films that are over 180 minutes (3 hours), such as Lord of the Rings (2003), Once Upon a Time in America (1984), which prolong the desired outcome, creating frustration or impatience.    
  

Judgment

               We have established the initial beliefs that we have developed about cinema, however these beliefs are constantly refined when we encounter trailers, interviews of cast members, developer diaries, etc. Our definition and attitude of film stays the same; we merely appropriate it according to additional information provided by the teaser, trailer, etc. One’s definition of cinema stays the same, but their weighted values may shift making things more or less important than before. For example, when we see the a trailer for Indiana Jones we can assess that the film will be dynamic and have plenty of action. It will also use Religious theology which may add a mystical or super natural element to some and offend others. We are also introduced to the villains (fundamentalists as well as foreign military), and Indy’s Love interest which suggests that the film will be somewhat nationalistic as well as a adopt the Medieval Romance model, where a knight (Indie) goes out and slays the Dragon (foreign military) and save the damsel in distress. (CLIP) In other words this is the stage in which we judge a book by its cover. However, sometimes the trailers are misleading, presenting a narrative or framework which is very different from the one used in the final film. For example, the trailer for In Bruges (2008) promises a Guy Richie styled gangster comedy, with crude wise-cracking criminals that engage in over the top violence which have little to no consequences in the diegetic world. (CLIP) However what the film delivers is criminals who suffer terrible consequences due to the atrocious nature of violence. As stated before the evaluation of a film comes from the culmination of expectation and experience, where being unfamiliar with the codes and conventions used in a film would ultimately lead to disappointment or confusion. However, you can also be disappointed in a film even if it uses codes that you are programmed and familiar with. If you attribute a high value on the initial judgments that you form about a movie, then your experience (your present self) will mean little because it was tainted with the strong belief of what it should have been (your Remembering Self). Now, that we have discussed the factors which form ones Attitude towards cinema, it is time to move on to the Subjective Norms which stem out of Culturally based codes as well as the influence of the other.

Subjective Norms

Trends

               Trends (the general direction in which something tends to move) can stem from and reflect our social (Racial Identity, Feminism, etc), political, aesthetic, and philosophical beliefs (Social Narratives) as well as come out of the supply and demand formula. In the past, social or meta narratives have created aesthetic movements such as Surrealism, Existentialism, and Socialist Realism all of which appear in the world of cinema (Surrealism - Luis Bunuel, Existentialism - Jean-Luc Godard, and Pier Paolo Pasolini, and Socialist Realism - Sergei Eisenstein, and Vsevolod Pudovkin). These trends develop out of the need to shift or progress human thought; which then leads to trends that are formed out of the supply and demand model. When a new or exciting work of art is created, it immediately creates a demand for more works that are similar in nature, thus leading to an increased production of similar works, forming a trend. This is evident in the increased production of films using the IMAX form factor, motion capture, and the fairly recent revival of stereoscopic images (3D), which is present in cinema today. This is also leads the overall hype about it. The trend forms the new movement while the hype creates the excitement for it. Hype can be created by arousing the interest of the public with teasers and trailers, as well as sustain it’s inertia or increase it’s momentum through Box Office Statistics. 

(Movie Poster Trends)

Hype

               The two stages of hype include, the initial anticipation of the object and the latter praise or disapproval, which either sustains the interest or diminishes it. For example, James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) developed an aura of novelty and innovation. Through the hype about the specialized technology used, as well as all the specialists (Linguists, Anatomical Experts, designers, etc) hired to develop the film; created the expectation of something new, and revolutionary. However, what people encountered was an old story wrapped in an aesthetically pleasing package. Some left the theatre disappointed,  because they attributed the plot with a higher weight than the visuals, and others left pleased because it matched their expectation. Furthermore, hype may come from a variety of sources, each weighted differently according to their importance or assumed credibility. For example, one might generally disagree with the majority of the reviews from Rotten Tomatoes. So, when they see a high or low review of a film they are interested in, it plays a smaller part in one’s attitude towards the film because they have assigned a lower value to its credibility. 

Conclusion

                In conclusion, we can see that there are a number or operations present, regarding spectatorship, that have some sort of effect on the way you receive and evaluate what you will see. The expectations we have for film come from our predisposed Attitudes and Subjective Norms which we have developed long before we have even seen the films in question. When a film reaffirms these preconceived notions  we are able to decode the meaning behind it, which ultimately gives us pleasure and enjoyment. Our expectations are not fixed, they can be transformed and expanded; as long as we engage with new modes of filmic discourse. However, we will always have some sort of idea of what cinema is, which will inevitably lead to our expectation of what it should be.

*1 The term film or movie is used deliberately not to be confused with Christian Metz’s theory of the Cinema’s Signifier visible in “Loving the Cinema; Identification, Mirror; Disavowal, Fetishism” from The Imaginary Signifier.

*2 The concept of Dominant, Negotiated, and Oppositional Stances refer to Stewart Hall's Theory Of Encoding and Decoding meaning from "Encoding, Decoding"

Bibliography

Works Cited

Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Print.

Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1975. Print.

Hall, Stuart. "Encoding/Decoding" Critical Visions in Film Theory: Classic and Contemporary Readings. By Timothy Corrigan, Patricia White, and Meta Mazaj. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 77-88. Print.

Metz, Christian. "Loving the Cinema; Identification, Mirror; Disavowal, Fetishism." Critical Visions in Film Theory: Classic and Contemporary Readings. By Timothy Corrigan, Patricia White, and Meta Mazaj. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 17-33. Print.

Raymond Bellour, "The Obvious and the Code" aka, "L'Evidence et le code," in Cinema: theorie, lectures, ed. Dominiquc Noguez (Paris: Ed. Klincksieck, 1973