Abstract

From the very earliest days of public cinema (moving pictures), there has been consideration about how odors and scents might influence the viewer’s experience. While initially this was primarily a concern with how to eliminate the malodor of the cinema-goers themselves, in more recent times, there have been a number of well-publicized attempts to add synchronized pleasant (and, on occasion, also unpleasant) scents to “enhance” the cinema experience. While early solutions such as AromaRama and Smell-O-Vision were beset by technical challenges, low-tech scratch and sniff (Odorama) and, more recently, Edible Cinema-type solutions (where the audience get to consume flavourful, and often aromatic, morsels in time with the events on screen) have proved somewhat more successful. Nevertheless, there are a number of key psychological factors that will likely inhibit the uptake of scented cinema in the future, even should the technical and financial issues (associated with retrofitting cinemas, and providing the appropriate fragrances) one day be satisfactorily resolved. These include the phenomenon of “inattentional anosmia” as well as the “fundamental misattribution error,” whereby people (who are, by-and-large, visually-dominant) tend to attribute their enjoyment to the action seen on screen, rather than to smell, and hence are unlikely to pay a premium for the latter.

Highlights

  • The artistic use of scent and fragrance has a long history in theatrical and, to a lesser extent, operatic productions, as well as, on occasion, musical productions (e.g., Macdonald, 1983; Sebag-Montefiore, 2016)

  • Early high-tech solutions to scented cinema appeared to have failed because of problems with calibrating the intensity of scent delivery, problems with clearing, or neutralizing, the scent once released, and the ensuing problem of a lack of synchronization between what the audience was smelling at a particular moment and the action shown on the big screen

  • One of the problems with Odorama-type solutions, where viewers are given a hint to scratch by the numbers appearing on screen referencing which scent to scratch and sniff, risks taking people out of their engagement/immersion in the action, as John Waters himself recognized when talking to Avery Gilbert (2008): “I ask Waters if movie smells can be anything other than a gimmick? ‘You mean for real in a drama? No, I think it will always be a gimmick, because it takes you out of the movie’” (p. 167)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The artistic use of scent and fragrance has a long history in theatrical and, to a lesser extent, operatic productions (see Banes, 2001; Banes & Lepecki, 2007), as well as, on occasion, musical productions (e.g., Macdonald, 1983; Sebag-Montefiore, 2016). Early high-tech solutions to scented cinema appeared to have failed because of problems with calibrating the intensity of scent delivery, problems with clearing, or neutralizing, the scent once released, and the ensuing problem of a lack of synchronization between what the audience was smelling at a particular moment and the action shown on the big screen (see Levine & McBurney, 1986; McCartney, 1968; Vlahos, 2006).

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.