Critical Analysis: Ben Singer's Essay on Nickelodeon Audiences

Ben Singer's essay, Manhattan Nickelodeons: New Data on Audiences and Exhibitors is a piece that implores the reader to reconsider everything they have learned about early 20^th century nickelodeons. As seen in the article's title, the main emphasis is on examining nickelodeons of Manhattan, NY (mostly from 1907-1909) and determining what kind of audiences attended them. Along with this, the locations of Manhattan nickelodeons are also considered. These ideas are then correlated with the entrepreneurial side of the business, helping us to develop a better idea of what the exact motives were that helped spur the nickelodeon boom of the early 20^th century.

Two things are important to consider when looking at this essay. First of all, it is a piece from the Cinema Journal, which would suggest that it is written for a specific type of reader-namely, one who has interest in cinema. That fact that it is from a scholarly journal would also bring about an assumption that those reading it would have academic credentials in the area of film history. In fact, at several instances, Singer makes assumptions that show us he is expecting a certain level of film history familiarity from the reader. An example of this is seen early in the article, where he says, "Because Manhattan's nickelodeon boom has played such a prominent role in shaping our conception of early film history". Ask a random person on the street to give their opinion about Manhattan's nickelodeon boom after the turn of the 19^th century, and you can expect a lengthy period of awkward silence. When Singer says, "our conception", he is speaking to a learned crowd. His writing style is also reflective of this. It is very academic and information-packed, sometimes to the point of being overwhelming. For example, though the maps are certainly essential as references to Singer's explanations, they contain too much information to be of any extensive use. Names, streets, and scattered dots all start to look alike after the third map, which can lead to confusion. Though admittedly, my lack of experience with New York streets most certainly a factor in this.

The second thing that is important to remember-Singer is not trying to rewrite film history and impose his view (at least, not consciously). Before delving into his research, he asserts, "This essay aims to reopen the discussion." Singer feels that the history of film has been melded into a sort of 'history mold' that does not objectively search for more clues to deepen our understanding. Through his research, Singer hopes to bring more thoughts to the table and better develop our understanding of the movie theater's infancy.

I feel it is only right to start off by giving Singer his due credit. His research is very in-depth. The ideas he presents are well thought out. His sources are, for the most part, spectacular; using first-hand sources such as Trow's Business Directory of Greater New York and ledgers of building permits from the time puts a lot of weight behind his words. However, one source that was unclear to me was the memo from the New York police commissioner of 1908. Singer says that it's important because it suggests a much higher number of nickelodeons in existence during this time than previously thought, and I agree. He also says that since there is no way to verify the commissioner's final count of 315 theaters in Manhattan, one cannot simply "turn to [it] as the basis for research into the early theater." Again, I agree. The question is, does Singer agree with himself? In his section on the "Italian Thesis", after estimating the number of nickelodeons in Little Italy, he includes a parenthetical that suggests the number would probably be higher "since our list of nickelodeons is only about 70 percent complete". The only way I can see him getting this number is by dividing his earlier professed total of 221 by the police commissioner's memo of 315 alleged nickelodeons-the result is 70 percent. By stating that his current list is only 70 percent of what is should be, it would seem that he is, in fact, using the commissioner's memo as a basis for research, which he told us should not be done. Given this, it is worth wondering if this perception on his part has tainted anything else in the article, and if Singer is molding his research around the assumption that there were definitely at least 315 nickelodeons in 1908.

I feel that the article's strongest section was the portion with the subtitle, "Who Went to the Movies?: Ethnic Composition and Variation in Movie-going". In this section, Singer attempts to see if certain ethnic group made up larger portions of nickelodeon audiences; not only that, he also looks deeper to see if the varying values, beliefs, cultures, and attitudes of ethnic groups played a role in who was interested in movies, and who wasn't. This approach is what Jean-Louis Comolli would refer to as ideological analysis, and represents a very striking method of looking at history that involves understanding the mindset of the time. Using this approach, Singer makes several intriguing statements. One example is when he suggests that "upright" German immigrants may have looked down on the nickelodeons of the East Side because of its appeal to Italians and East European Jews.

Later on in this section, however, I feel that Singer overlooks some ideology that might have further shed light on his research. When talking about Little Italy in his "Italian Thesis", Singer says that it "strikes one as counterintuitive" that underpaid, overworked immigrants would be indifferent to "the nickelodeon's compensatory pleasures." Not only does his style of writing suddenly become a bit more elaborate; one also senses a hint of personal bias. But what really surprised me comes right afterwards. Singer says that an aforementioned "thrifty immigrant" hypothesis does not explain the lack of theaters in Italian areas. He supports this by showing that male-to-female was almost half and half in Little Italy. Only 30 percent of the area's population was foreign born males, and only a portion of them would rather save money then go to a cheap theater for entertainment (which is an assumption). I feel that Singer forgot to consider one important thing-how many of the foreign-born males were married? Did they have children? If enough of them were married, and had several children, then together we have a much higher percentage of the total population of Little Italy. At this point, the ideological approach comes in. The man would most likely be the head of the family, as was a common ideology of the time, and therefore would be in control of the finances. Therefore, though the man may desire to be entertained at the local nickelodeons, taking care of his family would become his first priority. I could also imagine that in these segregated city sectors, communities of immigrants might band together and take after one another, so that family-oriented ideas would become part of the community 'culture', although I admit this is just speculation on my part. All in all, it surprised me that Singer did not seem to consider the effect of marriage in explaining the situation of Little Italy immigrant men.

Singer's weakest section in the article is titled "Why Were Nickelodeons Where They Were?" It is a short section thankfully, as it is riddled with unclear phrases, bias, and statements I feel he did not think out fully. One example is when he says, "The constant stream...in commercial districts like Union Square, Herald Square, 23^rd Street, and 125 Street obviously accounts for the abundance of nickelodeons..." Really? Earlier, we saw Singer warn us about how it was a mistake to mold film history around familiar social. Yet now, we're told that a large number of theaters were on these certain streets because, obviously, there were many potential customers. This throws any analysis of ethnicity, class, and ideology out the window. He also says that areas not meeting certain minimum requirements contained only a few nickelodeons. But since Singer seems to feel that his list is 30 percent incomplete, as we examined before, is it unreasonable to consider the possibility of there having been more nickelodeons in these areas at the time? This would turn his "minimum requirements" argument on its head. Lastly, this section does not really seem to make any clear claims. A large amount of 'maybes' are presented, and no clear connection is made in explaining the location of certain nickelodeons, especially when you consider the other problems presented earlier. Overall, the article is very informative and gives the reader a lot of material to consider. I feel that, overall, Singer is successful in his central endeavor to "reopen the discussion". I do, however, wish he had engaged in more analysis of ideology, since the few sections where this aspect is discussed appear to be the strongest. The article is more geared towards the 'industrial' approach, in my opinion. Singer puts a lot of focus on the placement of nickelodeons and looks at everything through the filter of business practice. The article closes with a section on how Trow's Business Directory shows the instability of the nickelodeon business, suggesting that investing in such a business was a real gamble. Most of the analysis of ethnicity, immigration, and class are all related to the number of nickelodeons in an area, which is again putting focus on the business and not on the people. Supplementing the aforementioned with an analysis of the ideology that helped to bring about these developments would have really lent cohesiveness to Singer's overall message, and made an already good article something spectacular.