on cinema going and talking at the movies

on this and that, #1 March 2026
by Helena Williams

I say it all the time, but being a film student is synonymous with being a wanker, as hard as I try, it’s unavoidable (apologies to all film students). Despite living in share houses for years, I think I can count on one hand the number of times I have engaged in a “collective viewing experience”, aka watching a movie altogether, with the most memorable being the Twilight saga. I hate interruptions, and I despise conversations mid-film (except for very specific exceptions like, for example, the Twilight saga) – I recognise that I am the one with the problem here, so to avoid this, I typically revert to the solo viewing experience via the laptop medium. The ONLY time I watch something with other people is, you guessed it, at the movies. I’ll start by defining two facets of  ✋cinema🤚, which for the purposes of this article will be place, the physical cinema location itself, and space, the socially constructed “cinema-going” (Massey 2005). 

Inspired by my own repressed rage at a screening last week, I sought to explore the latter cinema space, argue with my own self-righteousness and in doing so redefine my understanding of cinema etiquette, in what is essentially a glorified am I the asshole reddit thread. 

***disclaimer imo no one person can define cinema etiquette, so let’s all calm down and take what I say with a large grain of salt please***

In the digital age, the internet is crawling with desperate attempts to revitalise IRL connection, with concepts like “third spaces” and “being a villager” (definitions below) popularising our feeds. In the context of cinema-going, postdoctoral researcher Lies Van de Vijver argues, “There are clear unspoken rules about cinema-going behaviour; talking is described as bothersome and eating noises are cited as disturbing the screening. This is because the architecture of the multiplex [cinema] is designed as a shared space, yet paradoxically, acoustically it is engineered for individualised, subjectivised listening within an immersive, electrically mediated soundscape.” The ladies audibly responding to the film we were watching did (in my humble opinion) not adhere to my socialised understanding of cinema-going, but in doing so, they were exercising their right to consume media in the ‘shared space’ that distinguishes cinema from watching something at home. 

So who is correct? Me? Or my lovely (and again I reiterate very audible) viewing acquaintances?

In favour of my opposition, three lovely ladies (whom I have no right to be this mad at), I’d like to highlight Émile Durkheim’s concept of Collective Effervescence. Collective Effervescence (CE) is defined as a state of intense shared emotional activation and a sense of unison that emerges during instances of collective behaviour, like demonstrations, rituals, ceremonies, celebrations, etc. For the purposes of this article, I’ll relate it to attending le cinema, and in doing so confidently say it’s something I for one have experienced firsthand (exhibit a, Aftersun… need I elaborate). 

Each and every one of us abides by social constructs every day. In the case of the cinema, everyone has socially committed to sit in a dark room, full of complete strangers, for however long the film is (unless you’re me, watching The Substance, which I promptly walked out of #tooscary). Where things get hairy is the audience participation aspect that some people, like my lovely lady friends, like to engage in, and some people, like myself, don’t. 

Coming from a live performing arts background (are you surprised? No), I always loved the predictability and consistency of filmmaking as a medium. I loved that you could press play and the exact same thing would happen every. goddamn. time. No matter how nervous you are to share your work, at the end of the day, all you have to do is press the play button, and your nerves will have no effect on the film’s ability to play back. Anyways, I use the past tense, however, because my previous admiration for consistent engagement has been squandered by my recent acknowledgment that (to an extent) we show up as different people every moment of every day, and thus our viewing experience hinges on what version of us, an amalgamation of our unique lived experiences, how our day went, how we are feeling in that moment etc, shows up to the cinema screening. For example, watching The Notebook fresh off a breakup (is masochistic) is a very different experience from watching it fresh into a relationship. 

Due to ongoing frontal lobe development (and possibly lots of reading), I have changed my mind and decided that, audible reactions or not, audience members are active participants in the viewing of the film, and at the risk of sounding too meta, the outcome of the film itself. Is a film a film if nobody is watching it? Reminds me of that tree falling in the woods thing, but I digress. If I truly believe that it takes two to tango (two being the film itself and the audience), do the audible reactions of the lovely ladies add to the unique viewing experience of a film that I, admittedly, had seen previously? 

Did they expand on that specific moment of viewership and enhance the beautiful uniqueness of that screening? 

Did they make my hard-earned money well spent on seeing a film outside of my preferred laptop in bed medium? 

Did they force me to experience heightened collective effervescence at one of my favourite films? 

Perhaps.

But unfortunately for me (and now you), the version of me that showed up for that screening was an amalgamation of sleep deprivation, heartache, and stress and thus, too grumpy to appreciate the reactions of the lovely audible ladies.

I leave you with a video of perhaps my favourite example of collective effervescence at the cinema.

References

ACN Labs. (2023, June 20). Lights, camera, action: How going to the cinema can improve your well-being. ACN Labs Blog.https://www.acnlabs.co.uk/blog/lights-camera-action-how-going-to-the-cinema-can-improve-your-well-being

Grosz, E. (2024, June 27). Why we go to the movies. e-flux notes.https://www.e-flux.com/notes/6783382/why-we-go-to-the-movies

Van de Vijver, L. (2017). The cinema-going experience of the 1950s in Ghent, Belgium: A memory-curation of cinema-going as an object of memory. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 14(1), 136–152.https://www.participations.org/14-01-08-van-de-vijver.pdf

Definitions

A third space is a social environment, separate from home ("first place") and work/school ("second place"), that fosters community, relaxation, and conversation. Coined by sociologist Ray Oldenburg, these informal, accessible locations—such as cafes, libraries, parks, or community centres—are essential for building social connections, mental well-being, and a sense of belonging.

Being a "villager" means actively participating in a supportive, interconnected community by contributing time and effort to help others without expecting immediate rewards. It involves prioritizing shared, connections over convenience, fostering local relationships, and showing up for others, often requiring personal sacrifice.