Cinematic sociology: Narrative assessments of the audience practices

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The relevance of the issue under consideration is determined by at least two circumstances: first, leading representatives of cinematic sociology point to a sharp reduction in the number of empirical studies of films due to the “lack of proper informational and sociological support for the Russian cinema” [3. P. 74; 22. P. 152]; second, the narrative turn continues, “emphasizing the textual nature of all social practices” [24. P. 48] and the temporal characteristics of films. The authors, having conducted surveys of Tyumen moviegoers, which were ordered by the cinema owners in the spring of 2024 (N = 2502), use narrative analysis to explain moviegoers’ practices based on the rhetorical-functionalist theory of narrativity [19] and other relevant scientific approaches. Three groups of respondents were questionned: two target samples structured by gender, age, income and place of residence (582 people in cinemas using personal interviews; 438 people from the cinemas’ customer base using telephone interviews), and 1462 residents of Tyumen, and this sample was stratified by gender and age taking into account the characteristics of the cinemas’ target audience. The comparative historical method of narrative analysis was also used - the collected data were compared with materials on similar issues obtained by E. Altenloh 110 years ago [11; 12]. The article presents some empirical data with the results of analysis which included both formal procedures and those based on systematization of specialized literature and media discourses. The authors make the following conclusions: first, films that refer to famous plots, favorite characters and current narratives become especially popular with the mass audience; second, new interpretations of old stories have become key factors in the development of the contemporary film industry which largely sacrifices the semantic content for new aesthetic technologies.

About the authors

E. V. Andrianova

University of Tyumen; West-Siberian Branch of FCTAS RAS

Author for correspondence.
Email: e.v.andrianova@utmn.ru
Volodarskogo St., 6, Tyumen, 625003, Russia; Sverdlova St., 5, bldg. 2, Tyumen, 625003, Russia

V. A. Davydenko

University of Tyumen

Email: v.a.davydenko@utmn.ru
Volodarskogo St., 6, Tyumen, 625003, Russia

References

  1. Alekseenok A.A., Nalivaiko K.V., Polyakov A.A. Sotsiologichesky analiz vliyaniya kinematografa na dukhovnuyu zhizn sovremennoj molodezhi [Sociological analysis of the cinematic influence on the spiritual life of the contemporary youth]. Izvestiya TulGU. Gumanitarnye Nauki. 2023; 3. (In Russ.).
  2. Bagrova A. Fond kino i WCIOM obrisovali portret posetitelya rossijskogo kinoteatra [Cinema Fund and WCiOM outlined a portrait of the Russian moviegoer]. Byulleten Kinoprokatchika. 2017. February. (In Russ.).
  3. Vanke A.V. et al. Kak sobrat dannye v polevom kachestvennom issledovanii [How to Collect Data in the Qualitative Field Study]. Moscow; 2021. (In Russ.).
  4. Gotlib A.S. Kachestvennoe sotsiologicheskoe issledovanie: poznavatelnye i ekzistentsialnye gorizonty [Qualitative Sociological Research: Cognitive and Existential Horizons]. Moscow; 2019. (In Russ.).
  5. Darmaeva K.A. Razvitie teoreticheskih podkhodov v sotsiologii kino [Development of theoretical approaches in cinematic sociology]. Vostochny Vektor: Istoriya, Obshchestvo, Gosudarstvo. 2023; 3. (In Russ.).
  6. Zhabsky M.I. Sotsiologiya kino [Cinematic Sociology]. Moscow; 2020. (In Russ.).
  7. Zhabsky M.I., Tarasov K.A. Rossijskaya sotsiologiya kino v kontekste razvitiya obshchestva [Russian cinematic sociology in the context of social development]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya. 2019; 11. (In Russ.).
  8. Zhabsky M.I., Zhidkov V.S., Khrenov N.A. Kino i kollektivnaya identichnost [Cinema and Collective Identity]. Moscow; 2013. (In Russ.).
  9. Korte G., Dreksler P., Rodenberg G.-P., Tile J. Vvedenie v sistemny kino-analiz c primerami issledovanij na materiale filmov “Zabriskie Pojnt” (Antonioni, 1969), “Misery” (Rajner, 1990), “Spisok Schindlera” (Spilberg, 1993), “Romeo and Juliet” (Lurman, 1996) [Introduction to the Systematic Film Analysis with Research Examples Based on the Zabriskie Point (Antonioni, 1969), Misery (Rainer, 1990), Schindler’s List (Spielberg, 1993), Romeo and Juliet (Luhrmann, 1996)]. Moscow; 2020. (In Russ.).
  10. Martynenko T.S. Kino kak predmet sotsiologicheskogo analiza: osobennosti sovremennogo kinematografa [Movie as an object of sociological analysis: Features of the contemporary cinema]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 18: Sotsiologiya i Politologiya. 2023; 29 (2). (In Russ.).
  11. Kaspe I. “Ya est!”: pozdnesovetskoe kino cherez prizmu relyatsionnoj sotsiologii Harrisona Whitae (et vice versa) [“I still exist!”: Late Soviet cinema through the prism of the relational sociology of Harrison White (et vice versa)]. Russian Sociological Review. 2017; 16 (3). (In Russ.).
  12. Petrova A.P. Kulturny geroj i ekranny geroj: sushchnostnye kharakteristiki obraza [Cultural hero and screen hero: Essential characteristics of the image]. Khudozhestvennaya Kultura. 2021; 1. (In Russ.).
  13. Polukhina E.V. et al. Praktiki analiza kachestvennyh dannyh v sotsialnyhx naukah [Practices of Analysis of Qualitative Data in Social Sciences] Moscow; 2023. (In Russ.).
  14. Poluekhtova I.A., Ovchinskaya E.V. Televidenie v periody obshchestvennyh krizisov [Television in times of social crises]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. 2023; 3. (In Russ.).
  15. Radaev V. Smotrim kino, ponimaem zhizn: 20 sotsiologicheskih ocherkov [Watching Movies, Understanding Life: 20 Sociological Essays]. Moscow; 2023. (In Russ.).
  16. Subbotina M.V. Primenenie metoda neokonchennyh predlozhenij v izuchenii ponyatij so slozhnymi konnotatsiyami: konceptualizatsiya geroizma i spravedlivosti [Application of the unfinished sentences technique in the study of concepts with complex connotations: Conceptualization of heroism and justice]. Obshchestvo: Sotsiologiya, Psikhologiya, Pedagogika. 2021; 5. (In Russ.).
  17. Subbotina M.V. Negeroicheskie geroi: dva podkhoda k analizu medijnyh obrazov [Non-heroic heroes: Two approaches to the analysis of media images]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2021; 21 (3). (In Russ.).
  18. Trotsuk I. Diskursivnoe konstruirovanie sotsialnoj realnosti: kontseptualnye osnovaniya i empiricheskie priemy razoblacheniya “skvernyh” praktik [Discursive construction of social reality: Conceptual foundations and empirical devices for unmasking the “abominable” practices]. Russian Sociological Review. 2014; 13 (2). (In Russ.).
  19. Trotsuk I.V., Subbotina M.V. Otsenka vliyaniya kinematografa na sotsialnye predstavleniya o geroizme: aprobatsiya odnogo podkhoda [Assessment of the cinematographic influence on social representations of heroism: Approbation of an approach]. Kommunikologiya. 2018; 6 (4). (In Russ.).
  20. Trotsuk I.V., Subbotina M.V. Schastie i geroizm, lichnoe i kollektivnoe kak osnovnye elementy “svetlogo budushchego” v sovetskoj (ne) utopii [Happiness and heroism, personal and collective as main elements of the ‘bright future’ in the Soviet (non) utopia]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2019; 19 (4). (In Russ.).
  21. Sharkov F.I. Genezis sotsiologii mediaprostranstva [Genesis of sociology of media space]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2021; 21 (3). (In Russ.).
  22. Altenloh E. Zur Soziologie des Kino. Heidelberg Sophie Digital Library; 1914.
  23. Altenloh E. A sociology of the cinema: The audience. Screen. 2001; 42 (3).
  24. Andrew D.J. The Major Film Theories. An Introduction. Oxford; 1976.
  25. Andrew D. Concepts in Film Theory. Oxford; 1984.
  26. Andrew D. The core and the glow of film dtudies. Critical Inquiry. 2009; 35 (4).
  27. Bartmanski D. I conicity. Inglis D., Almila A.-M. (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Cultural Sociology. Sage; 2018.
  28. Boardman F. Film ontology: Extension, criteria and candidates. Carroll N., di Summa Knoop L., Loht Sh. (Eds.). The Palgrave Handbook for the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. London; 2019.
  29. Herman D. Basic Elements of Narrative.‎ Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
  30. Keating P. Narrative and the moving image. Carroll N., di Summa Knoop L., Loht Sh. (Eds.). The Palgrave Handbook for the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. London; 2019.
  31. Nannicelli T. The television medium. Carroll N., di Summa Knoop L., Loht Sh. (Eds.). The Palgrave Handbook for the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. London; 2019.
  32. Prinz J. Affect and motion pictures. Carroll N., di Summa Knoop L., Loht Sh. (Eds.). The Palgrave Handbook for the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. London; 2019.
  33. Stepanov B. “Coming soon?”: Cinematic sociology and the cultural turn. Russian Sociological Review. 2020; 19 (4).
  34. Sinnerbrink R., Stevens K. Cinematic experience: From moving images to virtual reality. The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory. Oxford; 2022.
  35. Trotsuk I. When methodology beats techniques; or, why we prefer discourse and narrative analysis to interpret textual data. Russian Sociological Review. 2015; 14 (3).
  36. Trotsuk I. “To trust or not to trust” is not the question; “How to study trust” is much more challenging task. Russian Sociological Review. 2016; 15 (4).
  37. Tudor A. Sociology and film. Hill J., Gibson P.C. (Eds.). The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford–New York;‎ 1998.
  38. Tudor A. Decoding Culture: Theory and Method in Cultural Studies. Sage; 1999.
  39. Wejbert-Wąsiewic E. Film and cinema as a subject of sociological study: Between tradition and the present. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Sociologica. 2020; 73.

Copyright (c) 2024 Andrianova E.V., Davydenko V.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies