![Bar Briefs€¦ · 2019-12-08 · Annemarie Lepore [2021] (586) 783-3300 Susan Chrzanowski [2021] (586) 801-3558 Chase Robl [2021] (586) 954-9500 Dana Freers [2022] (586) 795-4150](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/607201618a3f731bbf429df7/bar-briefs-2019-12-08-annemarie-lepore-2021-586-783-3300-susan-chrzanowski.jpg)
586. Noordegraaf-(Not) Going to the Movies-586 · 2019-04-12 · (Not) Going to the movies: a...
3
(Not) Going to the movies: a geospatial analysis of cinema markets in The Netherlands and Flanders (1950-1975) Julia Noordegraaf [email protected] University of Amsterdam, Netherlands Jolanda Visser [email protected] University of Amsterdam, Netherlands Jaap Boter [email protected] VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands Daniel Biltereyst [email protected] Ghent University, Belgium Philippe Meers [email protected] University of Antwerp, Belgium Ivan Kisjes [email protected] University of Amsterdam, Netherlands Introduction Cinema as a new cultural industry at the dawn of the twentieth century has had a significant impact on the social, cultural and economic infrastructures of modernizing societies. Although cinema from its first emergence was widely adopted, the penetration of cin- emas on the exhibition market (number of cinemas, at- tendance figures) has shown remarkable differences between European countries. Considering the density of cinema theatres and attendance figures as a marker for market penetration, in particular The Netherlands and Belgium stand out: while Belgium abounded in cinemas and film attendance, cinema density and at- tendance in the Netherlands were traditionally low (Biltereyst and Meers, 2007). Several scholars have attempted to explain these differences in market penetration, yet no comprehen- sive, satisfactory explanation has hitherto been found. The low cinema density and attendance in The Neth- erlands has been explained from the organization of society in various religious and ideological ‘pillars’ (pillarization) that, until at least the 1970s, compart- mentalized the social, cultural, economic and political spheres of society but that excluded the cinema mar- ket, that operated ‘neutrally’ (Dibbets, 2006). How- ever, in similarly compartementalized Flanders a pil- larized cinema landscape was successfully created (Biltereyst and Meers, 2007). Others have pointed out that class might have been a possible factor (Thissen and Van der Velden, 2009). Finally, the organization and economics of the industry have been identified as influencing the distribution of cinema theatres (Dib- bets, 2006; Boter and Pafort-Overduin, 2009). Central question In the context of the research project CINEMAPS the authors aim to map cinema markets in the Nether- lands and Flanders in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s in a comparative study, combining a geospatial analysis of cinema density in both areas with data on pillarization, class and the organization and economics of industry. By projecting these data on historical maps in QGIS, the geographical distribution of different types of cin- emas can be compared with patterns in cinema-going and local governmental policies in both countries. This multi-layered, international map functions as a heuris- tic tool to identify those areas that are interesting for further, in-depth analysis of the factors that explain the differences in market penetration. As such, the project will provide an answer to the core question of how the development of the cinema, as a specific cul- tural industry, interrelates with the social and cultural dimensions of modern public life in The Netherlands and Flanders, in particular pillarization, class and or- ganization and economics of the industry. In this short paper we discuss our approach and method and pre- sent the first results. Method In the past decade, the use of GIS mapping technol- ogies has proven a productive tool for analyzing the geo-spatial dimensions of cinema culture (Horak, 2016). The use of mapping is coherent with recent spa- tial orientations in film-historical scholarship, which “focuses on cinema as social experience, conditioned by factors such as transportation networks, ethnicity,
Transcript of 586. Noordegraaf-(Not) Going to the Movies-586 · 2019-04-12 · (Not) Going to the movies: a...
(Not) Going to the movies: a geospatial analysis of cinema markets in The Netherlands and Flanders (1950-1975) [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],Amsterdam,NetherlandsDanielBiltereystdaniel.biltereyst@ughent.beGhentUniversity,Belgium [email protected],Belgium [email protected],Netherlands
Introduction Cinemaasanewcultural industryat thedawnof
thetwentiethcenturyhashadasignificantimpactonthe social, cultural and economic infrastructures ofmodernizingsocieties.Althoughcinemafromitsfirstemergencewaswidelyadopted,thepenetrationofcin-emasontheexhibitionmarket(numberofcinemas,at-tendance figures)has shown remarkabledifferencesbetweenEuropeancountries.Consideringthedensityofcinematheatresandattendancefiguresasamarkerformarketpenetration,inparticularTheNetherlandsand Belgium stand out: while Belgium abounded incinemasand filmattendance,cinemadensityandat-tendance in the Netherlands were traditionally low(BiltereystandMeers,2007).
Several scholars have attempted to explain these
differencesinmarketpenetration,yetnocomprehen-sive,satisfactoryexplanationhashithertobeenfound.ThelowcinemadensityandattendanceinTheNeth-erlandshasbeenexplained from theorganizationofsociety in various religious and ideological ‘pillars’(pillarization)that,untilat leastthe1970s,compart-mentalizedthesocial,cultural,economicandpoliticalspheresofsocietybutthatexcludedthecinemamar-ket, that operated ‘neutrally’ (Dibbets, 2006). How-ever, insimilarlycompartementalizedFlandersapil-larized cinema landscape was successfully created(BiltereystandMeers,2007).Othershavepointedoutthatclassmighthavebeenapossiblefactor(ThissenandVanderVelden, 2009). Finally, theorganizationandeconomicsoftheindustryhavebeenidentifiedasinfluencing thedistributionof cinema theatres (Dib-bets,2006;BoterandPafort-Overduin,2009).
Central question In the context of the research project CINEMAPS
theauthorsaimtomapcinemamarketsintheNether-landsandFlandersinthe1950s,1960sand1970sinacomparativestudy,combiningageospatialanalysisofcinemadensityinbothareaswithdataonpillarization,classandtheorganizationandeconomicsofindustry.By projecting these data onhistoricalmaps inQGIS,thegeographicaldistributionofdifferenttypesofcin-emascanbecomparedwithpatternsincinema-goingandlocalgovernmentalpoliciesinbothcountries.Thismulti-layered,internationalmapfunctionsasaheuris-tictooltoidentifythoseareasthatareinterestingforfurther, in-depth analysis of the factors that explainthe differences in market penetration. As such, theprojectwillprovideananswertothecorequestionofhowthedevelopmentofthecinema,asaspecificcul-turalindustry,interrelateswiththesocialandculturaldimensionsofmodernpublic life inTheNetherlandsandFlanders,inparticularpillarization,classandor-ganizationandeconomicsoftheindustry.Inthisshortpaperwediscussourapproachandmethodandpre-sentthefirstresults.
Method Inthepastdecade,theuseofGISmappingtechnol-
ogieshasprovenaproductive tool for analyzing thegeo-spatial dimensions of cinema culture (Horak,2016).Theuseofmappingiscoherentwithrecentspa-tial orientations in film-historical scholarship,which“focusesoncinemaassocialexperience,conditionedbyfactorssuchastransportationnetworks,ethnicity,
andsocialgroupaswellascinemaarchitecture,ticketprices,andthechangingpatternsofworkandleisure.”(Hallam and Roberts, 2014: 20) Such a comprehen-sive,spatialapproachcanhelptounderstandhowcin-emawasexperiencedinthepastandhowcinema-go-inginfluencedtheconstructionofsocialidentity.
TheuseofGIStechnologyallowsustostudythein-terrelationbetweencinemalocationandthesocialandeconomicdimensionsofcinemacultureatanunprec-edented scale. For the comparative research on TheNetherlandandFlanders,weadoptathree-tieredap-proach. First, we map all the cinemas according totheir typologies, distinguishing between permanenttheatres,theatreswithoccasionalscreeningsandtrav-ellingcinemas.Second,whileacknowledgingthefactthatcartelssuchas theNetherlandsCinemaAlliance(hereafter:NBB) extended a strong control over thecinemamarket(VanOort,2016),wealsoincludelocalgovernmentdataonthemap,toacknowledgethein-fluenceofpillarizedmunicipalpolicyonlocalcinemacultures.Finally,wemap(expected)audiencesinrela-tiontotheirpoliticalideology,religiousdenominationandincomeorclass.Inordertoaccountforthelimita-tionsofgeospatialtechnologiesinexplainingcomplexhumanculturalinteraction(Verhoevenetal.,2009),inthenextphaseofourresearchwewillusethesemapstoidentifycasestudiesforfurther,in-depthanalysis.
Mapping cinema density in its socio-economic context - first results
Thedatasetsused (censusdata, dataon religiousdenomination,localelectionresults,theCinemaCon-textandVerlichteStadcinemadatabases)partlyhadtobedigitized,andallofthemhadtobeharmonized.Theharmonizationprocessesconsistsofequalingthegranularityof comparisonbothnationally and inter-nationally (e.g., comparing municipalities and can-tons), the classification of categories (typologies ofcinemas, political parties, and religious denomina-tion), and solving discrepancies in periodization be-tween thedifferentdatasets. For somedatasetshar-monizationmodelsareavailable(e.g.,forreligiousori-entation),forotherstheyneedtobecreated.Thedataon cinema locations in Flanders are currently beinggeoreferenced and combined with the harmonizedcensusdataandothersocialdatasets.
Since the Dutch dataweremost complete, in thefirstphaseoftheprojectwefocusedonmappingcin-emadensityintheNetherlands.ThemapinFigure1showsthegeographicaldistributionofDutchcommer-cialcinemasinrelationtotheexpectedcinemaattend-ance.Ingeneral,wecanconcludethatthedistribution
of cinemas correlateswith the level of expected cin-ema attendance: many permanent theatres in areaswithahighexpectedattendance,mostlytravellingcin-emasinareaswithalowexpectedattendance.ThisisnotthecasefortheareainthemiddleandEastofthecountry (cities of Apeldoorn and Enschede), whichcoupleshighattendance to lowcinemadensity.Thisinvites further research into the particularities ofthoseareas.
Besidestheinfluenceoftheorganizationandeco-
nomicsof the industryon thedistributionofcinematheatresbytheNBB,thelocalmunicipalpolicieswereanothermajorinfluenceoncinemasandfilmscreen-ings. Municipalities issued or refused permits foropeningcinemas.Besides,theycouldprohibitcertainfilm titlesbyarguing that theypresenteda threat tolocalorder.Lastly,municipalitiescouldimpose(high)localtaxesoncinemascreenings.Inshort,thishithertoignoreddataprovidesinsightsontheinfluenceofpil-larizationonthedistributionofcinemas.
ThemapinFigure2showsacorrelationbetween
protestant municipalities (known for discouragingcinema attendance) and low cinema density, whilstCatholicmunicipalitiesshowahighernumberofcine-mas.Thissuggeststhatreligiousorientationdidinflu-encecinemamarketpenetration, inspiteof thesup-posedneutralizingroleoftheNBB.
Conclusions and future work The first geospatial analysisofDutch cinemacul-
ture yielded a number of preliminary conclusions.First,whenidentifyingthedataonDutchcinemaloca-tions,itturnedoutthatpreviousstudieshadignoredthelargenumberofcommercialcinemascreeningsinplacesfrequentedbytravellingcinemas(310in1949).Although these cinema screenings constitute only asmallpercentageofthetotalcinemaattendance(1%),thepresenceofthesetravellingcinemasdoesgiveriseto revisit the assumption that cinemadensity in theNetherlandswasextremelylow.Second,insomeareasweseeahighlevelofexpectedcinema-going,butveryfewcinematheatres - thiscanberesearched furtherby combining the analysiswith data on income andclassof theexpectedaudience,aswellas further in-depthcasestudyanalysis.Third,themappingofcin-
emadensityinrelationtoreligiousorientationques-tionedtheassumptionthatpillarizationwasnotrele-vantbecauseoftheneutralizingroleoftheNBB.Thesefindingsinviteamorefine-grainedstudyoflocalpoli-ciesaswellasfilmprogramming.InthenextphasewewillextendthisstudybycomparingtheDutchcinemamarkettotheBelgianoneandusethiscomparativere-search to identify case studies formore in-depth re-searchoflocalspecificitiesof(not)goingtothemov-ies.
Bibliography
Biltereyst,D.,andMeers,P.(2007).Deverlichtestad:eengeschiedenisvanbioscopen,filmvertoningenenfilmcul-tuurinVlaanderen.Leuven:LannooCampus.
Boter, J., and Pafort-Overduin, C. (2009). “Comparte-
mentalisationanditsinfluenceonfilmdistributionandexhibition in theNetherlands,1934-1936.” InRoss,M.,Grauer,M.andFreisleben,B.(eds.),DigitalToolsinMe-diaStudies:AnalysisandResearch:AnOverview.Biele-feld:Transcript,pp.55–68.
Dibbets,K.(2006).“HettaboevandeNederlandsefilmcul-
tuur:neutraalineenverzuildland.”TijdschriftVoorMe-diageschiedenis,9(2):46–64.
Hallam,J.,andRoberts,L.(eds)(2014).LocatingtheMov-
ingImage:NewApproachestoFilmandPlace.Indianap-olis:IndianaUniversityPress.
Horak,L.(2016).“Usingdigitalmapstoinvestigatecinema
history.”InAcland,C.R.andHoyt,E.(eds.),TheArclightGuidebooktoMediaHistoryandtheDigitalHumanities.Falmer:ReframeBooks,pp.65–102.
Oort,T.van(2016).“Industrialorganizationoffilmexhibi-
tors in the low countries: comparing the NetherlandsandBelgium,1945–1960.”HistoricalJournalofFilm,Ra-dio and Television, online first, published March 17:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01439685.2016.1157294(accessed1September2016).
Thissen,J.andVelden,A.vander(2009)."Klassealsfactor
in de Nederlandse filmgeschiedenis." Tijdschrift voorMediageschiedenis,12(1):50-72.
Verhoeven, D., Bowles, K. and Arrowsmith, C. (2009)
“Mappingthemovies:reflectionsontheuseofgeospatialtechnologiesforhistoricalcinemaaudienceresearch.”InRoss, M., Grauer, M. and Freisleben, B. (eds.), DigitalToolsinMediaStudies:AnalysisandResearch:AnOver-view.Bielefeld:Transcript,pp.69–82.
