102
Clara Pafort-Overduin, John Sedgwick, Lies Van de Vijver
Identifying Cinema Cultures and Audience
Preferences: A Comparative Analysis of
Audience Choice and Popularity in Three
Medium-Sized Northern European Cities
in the Mid-1930s
Abstract
For this study we have adopted a comparative approach to better understand the regularities
and differences of cinema markets and cultures. Our subject is the film preferences and
choices of audiences in the cities of Ghent (Belgium), Utrecht (Netherlands) and Bolton (United
Kingdom) in 1934 and 1935. Saturday, January 5th, 1935 serves as a pivotal date and the starting
point for analysis of the film programming data of these three cities. Our findings show that by
adopting a comparative approach it is possible to detect ‘unique’ titles that reflect the peculiarities
of the local film culture. The data confirms that audiences in Bolton, Ghent, and Utrecht
were attracted strongly to films originating in their own or neighbouring countries, particularly
if they contained elements of song and dance.
Keywords: film popularity, film preferences, cinema cultures
Introduction
The cinema culture of the 1930s has been the subject of much recent research. Lies Van de
Vijver and Daniel Biltereyst examine the balance of American versus European film screenings
in Ghent and the social significance of this, both in terms of language and broader class/sectarian
divisions in the city.1 John Sedgwick, Clara Pafort-Overduin and Jaap Boter identify and
explain the peculiarities of the Dutch cinema market by comparing it to that of the UK and in
doing this conjecture reasons for the restrained development of the Dutch market.2 Joseph
Garncarz has collected an impressive quantity of secondary data that allows him to compare
multiple European national film markets.3 Finally, Sedgwick has co-authored investigations into
the American, Australian and British markets concerning the distribution of films and film
popularity during this decade.4 Taken as a whole, the research suggests that while the shape and
function of cinema markets can be explained through economic principles, audience preferences
as manifest in the listings of the most popular films is very much a cultural phenomenon.
Clara Pafort-Overduin, John Sedgwick, Lies Van de Vijver 103
In this paper we add to the knowledge of film preferences by taking a comparative approach
based on local film programming data.
Central to the experience of cinemagoing during the period of this investigation was a succession
of films, which appeared and then disappeared from the screens of cinemas as part of a
well-practiced and understood routine. For the most part films were enjoyed but not perceived
as being particularly special, having a short exhibition life. Such films stand in contrast with a
much smaller body of films that were special in that they attracted huge audiences and were
commonly regarded as ‘must see’: films that were so popular with audiences that as ‘giants’ they
specifically contributed to cinema culture as well as in some way being a reflection of it. These
films can be identified by their position on the far right of the right tail of the statistical distribution
of revenues generated by audiences at the box-office. They were giants in relation to the
average. Although from year to year the films that made up the distribution were always different,
this statistical pattern was not. It constituted an ever-present phenomenon: an empirical
regularity.
This paper makes clear that this phenomenon can be observed in the mid-1930s in the
three cities of comparable size that form the subject of this study – Bolton, Ghent and Utrecht,
with populations respectively of 180,000, 170,000 and 160,000 inhabitants. However, the
paper also makes clear that many of the films that were ‘giants’ in 1934-1935 were not only
­particular to time but also place; meaning they were not shared. Through their choice behaviour,
audiences in each city established a series of ‘hit’ films made by domestic production companies
that were not common to the audiences in the other two cities. The earlier mentioned
studies of British, Dutch, European and Australian Cinema during the same period uncovers a
similar pattern in that some domestically produced films were perceived as being special but
only in their own market, while remaining largely unseen in other territories. Thus, it would
appear that audiences exhibited a cultural preference for films that were home grown, or from
territories that bordered culturally with them (German films in the Netherlands, French and
German films in Belgium, British films in Australia), and were largely indifferent towards films
made elsewhere. The exception to this rule, of course, was Hollywood, whose films were able to
transcend what business historians term the ‘liability of foreignness’.5 Indeed, the major studios
of Hollywood not only produced and distributed a sizeable proportion of films screened in
these territories but also contributed many of the ‘hits’ of the day: in this, it is apparent that
Hollywood films were integral to cinema culture, not just in these cities and countries, but
everywhere.
Comparative work on Dutch and British cinema during the mid-1930s identifies clear differences
in the kinds of films Dutch and British audiences enjoyed, pointing to particular cultural
preferences. Thus, during the mid-1930s the Dutch Top 10 comprised humorous song and
dance films with a distinctive class perspective that depicted middle and working/lower class
characters in a more sympathetic light than those emanating from the upper classes. Also,
female characters in these films challenged confessional social norms. In contrast, the British
Top 10 contained many films that had historical dimensions, dealing in various combinations
with war, adventure, biography and the British Empire.6
Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis - 21 [1] 2018104
In comparing the films that audiences saw in the cities of Bolton, Ghent and Utrecht in the
­mid-1930s, this study contributes to the literature on transnational cinema. In mapping out the
networks through which films were distributed, it is clear that a symbiotic relationship exists
between the supply side of the industry (distribution and exhibition) and the demand side
­(audience preferences) that resulted in audiences getting to choose between films. Our focus is
the film preferences of audiences in these three cities. In doing this, attention is drawn to the
principal characteristics of those films that proved to be most popular, as well as the national
origin of the films supplied and consumed. Combined these findings illustrate differences in
the cinema cultures of the three cities.
Our discussion begins with the exposition of an analytical framework for understanding
the choice behaviour of audiences. This is followed by an account of our methods for establishing
audience preferences based upon the POPSTAT Index of film popularity. Derived from the
film programmes of cinemas in each of the three cities our findings are described through a
series of tables and charts. In this, attention is drawn to the peculiar institutional arrangements
prevalent in each of the cities. Finally, in the conclusion, we maintain that a comparative
approach to film cultures allows us to better understand the exceptions and the regularities of
different cinema markets and cultures in the mid-1930s.
The matter of choice
That audiences make choices is implicit to understanding cinema as an economic and cultural
form within a market economy. Choice encompasses many facets. Shaped by past social, institutional,
legal and economic arrangements, different societies face different possibilities and
make different choices.7 The films that are screened both reflect and affect these cultures. ‘New’
audiences position themselves towards these films and find them strange, funny, interesting,
abject, not worth the money, exciting or any other qualification one can think of. We can get an
understanding of what audiences liked by analysing the choices they made.
However, understanding and explaining the choices made by historical audiences is not
an easy task. Theoretically speaking, as choices are inherently personal there can be as many
explanations as there are filmgoers. One of the specificities of film consumption is that when
buying a ticket, consumers can never be certain that their expectations will be met. They necessarily
incur risk. Once the choice is made and the money spent, the experience that results,
is irreversible. Rationally, depending on their personal degree of appetite for risk, film consumers
will try to make the right choice – a choice in which high expectations are formed,
met, or even exceeded – by gathering information about the films available to them.8 It is this
part of the decision process that the marketing departments of distributors are so interested
in: their function is to secure as large an audience as possible by providing persuasive information
to potential consumers. This interdependency has created a system in which stars (be
they actors or directors), styles, stories and genres are used as signals by the film industry to
sell tickets, and by film consumers to form expectations: a system in which box-office and the
anticipation of psychic pleasure coalesce.
Clara Pafort-Overduin, John Sedgwick, Lies Van de Vijver 105
Reflecting differences in the attitude of audiences to risk, Leo Handel in his formative work
on film audience research distinguished between three types of audience: non-selective, selective,
and those who follow recommendations.9 In their study on film choices of Philadelphia
audiences in 1935-1936, John Sedgwick and Michael Pokorny produced evidence to show that
‘hit’ films can only be understood in terms of the selective choices made by audiences, and
working from the same dataset Catherine Jurca and John Sedgwick indicate that it was not just
first and second-run audiences that were selective, but also that audiences attending third and
fourth-run cinemas demonstrate distinct film preferences.10
The outcome of choice – the appeal of particular films – is measured by the box-office performance
and attendance figures of films. In aggregation these numbers take the form of a long
right tail statistical distribution, in which ‘hit’ films appear as extreme events in relation to the
median film. High marketing budgets and shrewd marketing tactics are not sufficient to explain
relative box-office performance. Rather, the relationship between film budgets and marketing
costs and box-office is best described by the idea of variance, caused by the unpredictable nature
of audience behaviour: an irreducible element of idiosyncrasy is associated with the choices
made by audiences.
Thus, in taking box-office, or in this case a proxy of it, as a given, this paper investigates
underlying preferences of particular audiences, separated by place, country, language, history,
and culture. We conclude that the conceptual intersection between audience preferences and
film characteristics holds the key as to why some films have the potential to attract selective
audiences of size and others not. In studying this intersection, we will not only identify those
films that proved most popular in Bolton, Ghent and Utrecht during the mid-1930s but also
the characteristics that they shared, as well as those they did not.
Methods
In the absence of cinema attendance figures or box-office ledgers, film programmes are a source
of information, which when aggregated can serve as a proxy estimate of film popularity. Applying
Sedgwick’s POPSTAT methodology, the relative popularity of any particular film among a population
of films is determined by box-office potential of the cinemas at which it was screened,
the length of its run and billing status – films screened on a double bill film programme attract
half the weight of those screened as single billings.11 The basic assumption is that films with
more screenings in large cinemas draw greater audiences and higher box-office than films that
have fewer screenings in smaller theatres. When available, price information is also included in
the calculation. Furthermore, taken together, film programmes reveal actual practices of distribution
and exhibition, allowing the researcher to chart the life cycle of films as they pass in time
and space through a locality.
Through this bottom-up approach to film culture, we first investigate the array of movies
screened on the evening of Saturday 5 January 1935 in the three cities. This cross-section will
reveal some films being screened for the final time, while other are being premiered. Moving
beyond the record of what was screened on a single day to assessing the popularity of what was
Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis - 21 [1] 2018106
being screened involves instituting a time frame: in this case the said day represents a mid-point
Saturday in a time frame that is taken back to 1 January 1934 to forward to 31 December 1935.
Essential to our method is the idea that films moved through time and space in a manner
designed to maximize their revenues. That is to say that institutional impediments to the free
movement of films were minimal and that distributors and exhibitors cooperated in getting
films to audiences who were willing to pay for them. In the absence of this condition, film
­popularity has no meaning. While in all three cities institutional arrangements and societal
attitudes with respect to films differed, our research shows that in each some films were diffused
more widely than others, getting longer screenings in first-run cinemas and more screenings
outside of the first-run. Such films were evidently more popular.
Programming statistics
Table 1 shows the distribution of film programmes for the years 1934 and 1935 in the three
cities. Altogether, 2,726 individual films were screened in the cinemas of the three cities during
the course of 1934 and 1935, with single bill programmes dominating. Given that they had similar
populations, the difference in the velocity of film programming is striking, with the number
of distinct programmes in Bolton twice that of Ghent, and an astonishing five times that of
Utrecht, providing a strong indication of the relative social importance of cinema culture in the
three cities.
Further evidence of the disparity between the three cities and their respective nations can
be found in Table 2, indicating that the Dutch film market was very much less intense than
that of Great Britain and Belgium. Not only were there fewer cinema seats in the Netherlands
compared with Great Britain and Belgium (respectively by multiples of 4 and 3) but also annual
admissions per head were much lower (respectively by multiples of 5.5 and 2.5). Based on
these numbers it can be supposed that habitual, non- selective, cinemagoing in the Netherlands
was a rarity.
Table 1. Film programmes in the dataset. Sources: For Bolton, The Bolton Evening News; For Ghent, De Gentenaar;
Vooruit; La Cinégraphie Belge; Revue Hebdomadaire. For Utrecht, Utrechts Nieuwsblad and K. Dibbets, Cinema
Context. Film in the Netherlands from 1896, an encyclopedia of film culture, online database, viewed 20 May 2016,
http://www.cinemacontext.nl.
  Bolton Ghent Utrecht Total
1934
No. of films screened 684 700 325 1709
Single Bill programmes 1078 439 210 1727
Double Bill programmes 461 299 98 858
Total number of film programmes 1934 1539 738 308 2585
1935
No. of films screened 590 629 299 1518
Single Bill programmes 918 489 232 1639
Double Bill programmes 402 391 87 880
Triple Bill programmes 0 6 0 6
Total number of film programmes 1935 1320 886 319 2525
Clara Pafort-Overduin, John Sedgwick, Lies Van de Vijver 107
If we compare the seating capacity in the three cities the differences in the intensity of
cinema culture becomes even more evident. Bolton and Ghent have about the same number of
cinemas, respectively seventeen and nineteen, but the total number of cinema seats is much
higher in Bolton, as is the average seating capacity of those cinemas. Eight of Bolton’s theatres
had 1,000 seats or more; four had more than 1,500 seats; and one of them over 2,000 seats
(Regal with 2,380 seats). The five remaining cinemas had a seating capacity ranging from 580
to 944. In conjunction with the turnover of cinema programmes presented in Table 1, the existence
of so many large theatres points to cinema as a very regular activity for the people of
Bolton. Although numerous, the cinemas of Ghent were much smaller than those in Bolton –
indeed of a similar size to those in Utrecht. Nevertheless, the ratio of seats to population is of
the same order as in Bolton, suggesting a thriving cinema culture but as we shall see, one more
fragmented. In Utrecht, the low number of cinemas (high number of inhabitants per seat) suggests
a far less intense cinema culture among its population. Patrons could frequent only one
cinema with over 1,000 seats (Rembrandt with 1,320 seats) – the rest ranged between 350 and
652 seats. Of the six cinemas, Scala (632 seats) had the most distinctive programming policy
based on premiering German films (many of them being UFA films).
The films shown on 5 January 1935
So, what did we find out about the films screened on 5 January 1935? Table 3 shows that filmgoers
in Bolton had nineteen films to choose between, spread over sixteen film programmes, of
which only five were double bills. Of these nineteen individual titles two appeared twice on a
programme. Born to be Bad (1934, USA, George Nichols Jr. and Wanda Tuchock) was shown as
a single bill at the Palladium and paired with Finishing School (1934, USA, Lowell Sherman) as
a double bill at the Majestic, while Finishing School was programmed as a double bill with
Table 2. Comparative descriptors of the size and intensity of the cinema market in Great Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands
in 1934-1935. Sources: 1) C. Feinstein, Statistical Tables of National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United
Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) tab. 55; De Toekomst, 3 March 1935; Centraal Bureau voor de
Statistiek (CBS), Bevolkingsdichtheid der gemeenten van Nederland op 1 januari 1935 (The Hague: Trio, 1936); 2 & 3)
S. Rowson, “A Statistical Survey of the Cinema Industry in Great Britain in 1934,” Royal Statistical Society 99 (1936):
67-129; CBS, Statistiek van het bioscoopwezen (The Hague: Rijksuitgeverij, 1937); 4) Kino Weekly, 26 August 1937; 5)
K. Dibbets, “Het Bioscoopbedrijf tussen twee wereldoorlogen,” in Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse film en bioscoop tot
1940, ed. K. Dibbets and F. Van der Maden (Houten: Wereldvenster 1986), 245.
Country & City inhabitants 1 Total number
of cinema’s 2
Total seating
capacity 3
Average
seating capacity
Population
per seat 4
Average
number of
cinema tickets
per head 5
Great Britain 46.666.000 4.305 3.872.000 899 12 19
Bolton 180.000 17 20.392 1.200 9 not known
Belgium 8.299.940 1.128 not known not known 16 9
Ghent 171.000 19 13.060 687 13 not known
Netherlands 8.392.101 333 174.145 533 48 4
Utrecht 159.895 6 3.819 637 42 not known
Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis - 21 [1] 2018108
Stingaree (1934, USA William A. Wellman) at the Theatre Royal. Audiences in Ghent were also
offered nineteen film titles in fourteen programmes, of which five were double bills and one
was a triple bill. The double bill programme of Broken Melody (1934, UK Bernard Vorhaus) and
Fraulein Hoffman’s Erzählungen (1933, DE, Carl Lamac) was screened at both the Forum and
Ideal cinemas. In comparison only seven films spread over six programmes were screened in
Utrecht, including one double bill.12
Of the 43 films screened in the three cities on 5 January 1935, only six were programmed in
cinemas in all three cities at some point within the two-year time frame from 1 January 1934 to
31 December 1935. This indicates a separation of film cultures along the lines suggested earlier.
Of the six films, five were Hollywood productions (Table 4a). The films that emanated from
Hollywood crossed borders most frequently. This is confirmed in part b of Table 4 which shows
a breakdown of the national origins of the films and the cities they surfaced in, with 28 of the
43 films produced in Hollywood. Perhaps not so surprising, but nevertheless telling, is absence
of foreign language films screened in Bolton: these did not cross the North Sea. By way of
­contrast, the taste for German films seemed to have been shared by Ghent and Utrecht audiences,
while French films were particular to Ghent. We will come back to this later.
The three POPSTAT columns in Table 4a provide a clue to the relative popularity of these
films in each of the three markets. Derived from the two-year time frame, index numbers based
upon the median film in each city taking the value of 100 show all six films to have been highly
popular in Bolton and Ghent, while Utrecht audiences were less persuaded by three of them.
As an illustration of the varied mix of characteristics that comprised major film attractions
at the time, two of the six films common to all three cities have been selected. The British
International Picture (BIP) production Blossom Time, presents a European focus. This operetta
in the then popular Viennese-style starred the Austrian tenor Richard Tauber. It tells the story of
a young woman whose father would like to see her married into the Viennese upper class, while
their neighbour, the composer Franz Schubert, desperately in love, pursues her without revealing
his true feelings.13 The film mixes music and song, romance, and humour in equal
measure.
By way of contrast, Tarzan and his Mate is a film in which virile male behaviour is foregrounded,
manifest in the tension and excitement caused by the chase and thrill of Tarzan’s
spectacular just-in-time rescues of Jane. The film is set in the jungle and comprises a succession
of exciting life-threatening situations with wild animals or warriors from other tribes, in
which Tarzan always triumphs. Throughout, Tarzan demonstrates a loving devotion to Jane.
Table 3. Overview of the programmes audiences could choose from on 5 January 1935. Notes: In Bolton and Ghent two films
were screened in two separate cinemas. Not all cinemas offered a programme on that day, or at least did not advertise it. In
Bolton no screenings were found for the Embassy. In Ghent no programme information was found for Cameo, Familiekinema,
Nord1, Nord II and Oud Gend. In Utrecht the programme information was complete.
Place Single bill programs Double bill programs Triple bill programs Individual films
Bolton 11 5 0 19
Ghent 8 5 1 19
Utrecht 5 1 0 6
Clara Pafort-Overduin, John Sedgwick, Lies Van de Vijver 109
Both Tarzan and Jane know how to ‘fly’ the lianas and their moves through the jungle look like
spectacular circus acts. These stunts allow them to expose their bodies in the process, culminating
in an underwater swimming duet of Tarzan with a naked Jane.14 Across the three cities
Tarzan and his Mate was highly popular, particularly so in Ghent, generating a POPSTAT score
of over five times that of the median film.
The Distribution of Films
Expanding the investigation from the films screened on 5 January 1935 to the two-year period
within which the films screened on that particular Saturday were in circulation, 75 have been
identified as having been screened in all three cities, almost all of which (93 per cent) were
­produced in Hollywood (see Figure 1).15 This, of course, is testament to the reach of Hollywood’s
distributors and the ubiquity of their in-house films. But it is also an illustration of the centrality
of Hollywood to European film culture. These films were screened to European audiences
because they were willing-to-pay for the pleasure.
However, the other side of this coin is just as revealing. The fact that no film of Dutch or
Flemish origins and hardly any from France and Germany were screened in Bolton cinemas
(Figure 2), while British films were comparatively rarely screened in Ghent and Utrecht cinemas
(Figures 2 and 3), seems to suggest that those films did not travel because of their cultural
Table 4a-c. Films shown on 5 January 1935 in Bolton, Ghent and Utrecht (100 = median film).
4a. Details of the six films in common
Film Year Country Director Production
Company
POPSTAT
Bolton
POPSTAT
Ghent
POPSTAT
Utrecht
Mean
POPSTAT
Blossom Time 1934 GB Stein, Paul L. British
International
Pictures
426 319 124 290
Tarzan and his
Mate
1934 US Gibbons,
Cedric
Metro-Goldwyn-
Mayer
334 539 362 412
Only Yesterday 1933 US Stahl, John M. Universal Pictures 300 368 100 256
Viva Villa! 1934 US Conway, Jack Metro-Goldwyn-
Mayer
275 312 362 316
Cleopatra 1934 US DeMille,
Cecil B.
Paramount
Pictures
237 166 124 176
Way to love,
The
1933 US Taurog,
Norman
Paramount
Pictures
184 173 198 185
4b. National origins of the 43 films
Nationality Number
of films
Bolton-
Ghent-
Utrecht
Bolton-
Ghent
Bolton-
Utrecht
Ghent-
Utrecht
Bolton Ghent Utrecht
USA 28 5 3 4 2 9 4 1
British 6 1 2 0 0 1 1 1
French 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
German &
Austrian
5 0 0 0 3 0 1 1
Dutch 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 43 6 5 4 5 10 9 4
4c. Circulation within the
three cities between 01 January
1934 and 01 January 1936
Location Circulation
All three cities 6
Bolton-Ghent only 5
Bolton-Utrecht only 4
Ghent-Utrecht only 5
Bolton only 10
Ghent only 9
Utrecht only 4
Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis - 21 [1] 2018110
specificity. This is to argue that audiences are strongly attracted to films which evoke a feeling
of what is called ‘cultural nearness’ – reflecting prevailing cultural affinities. The assumption
here is that indigenous producers usually find a way of incorporating cultural specificities into
the content of their films.16 For this reason, a producer/writer/director who is engaged in
making a film targeted at, say, a Dutch audience, recognises the unlikelihood of it attracting
audiences outside of the Dutch/Flemish speaking world. Accordingly, by identifying those films
Figure 1. National origin of the 75 films in the dataset shown in all three cities.
DE
2%
GB
5%
US
93%
Figure 2. National origin of all 983 films shown only in Bolton, 1934-1935.
GB
29%
FR
0%
DE
1%US
66%
EU
0%
other
0%
not known
4%
Clara Pafort-Overduin, John Sedgwick, Lies Van de Vijver 111
that were screened in one city only, attention is drawn to the distinctiveness of each of the three
film cultures.
Figures 2, 3, and 4 support this thesis. In these charts each locality generates a distinctive
pattern of preferences: In Bolton, audiences did not see German or French films; in Utrecht
audiences saw only a very small proportion of French and British films; and in Ghent, when
compared to Utrecht, a much smaller proportion of German films were screened, with British
Figure 3. National origin of all 1023 films shown only in Ghent, 1934-1935.
BE
0%
FR
25%
DE
20%
GB
2%
US
19%
EU
2%
other
0%
not
known
32%
Figure 4. National origin of all 305 films shown only in Utrecht, 1934-1935.
NL
4%
GB
3%
FR
5%
DE
46%
US
36%
EU
5%
other
0%
not known
1%
Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis - 21 [1] 2018112
films again poorly represented. Indeed, in contrast to the other two cities, almost equal shares
of American, German and French films were shown in Ghent, although the large proportion of
films that we have not been able to trace (32 per cent) somewhat weakens this result. The high
market share of French films in Ghent can be explained by the presence of a substantial French
speaking community: speaking the French language was seen as a source of social distinction.17
This was especially the case for two of the larger cinemas in the centre of Ghent (the Savoy and
Capitole) that primarily programmed films in French without Dutch subtitles. The ready
­availability of German films in Ghent and Utrecht indicates the popularity of particular German
genres; in particular musical romances and comedies featuring acting singers such as Richard
Tauber, Jan Kiepura, Willy Frost and Martha Eggerth.18
Film Popularity
Earlier in the paper, the POPSTAT method was introduced as a means of estimating consumer
demand for particular films. By ranking films from first to last according to their POPSTAT
Index values, it is possible to generate a statistical distribution of film popularity that can be
used for comparative purposes.
These distributions are depicted in Figures 5, 6 and 7. All three are strikingly similar, taking
the form of a long right-tail distribution, in which a few top-ranking films generate very high
POPSTAT scores in relation to the median, after which the curve flattens as marginal differences
between consecutive ranks diminish. The similarity between the three curves suggests
that across the three cities the market operated by allowing those films that were most popular
with audiences to be screened much more frequently than films that were not so popular:
­popular films were made less scarce than unpopular films. The higher POPSTAT values
recorded by the top-ranking films in Ghent and Utrecht reflect a greater inequality in the statistical
distribution caused by the extraordinary performance of a small number of ‘hit’ films in
relation to the median film.
Figure 5. POPSTAT Index Values of films screened in Bolton, 1 January 1934 to 31 December 1935. Note: the
median film takes the POPSTAT Index value of 100.
0
200
400
600
800
1 201 401 601 801 1001 1201
POPSTATIndex,
Rank order of films from first to last
Bolton: the ranked order of POPSTAT Index values
Clara Pafort-Overduin, John Sedgwick, Lies Van de Vijver 113
In Table 5 the country origins of the films in the Top 10, 20 and 50 are presented. From this
we can read a similar pattern to that of the composition of films screened in one city only
(Figures 2, 3 and 4). The Bolton lists are dominated by US films and completed with domestic
productions, with the share of British films rising to a third in the Top 20 and Top 50 categories.
In Ghent and Utrecht, the picture differs markedly. Audiences in both these, show marked
­preferences for European productions, especially in Ghent where US films contribute only eight
(16 per cent) of the Top 50 berths. The preference for German and Austrian films is common to
both cities, but the high number of French films in these lists is distinctive to Ghent.
In Table 6, the Top 10 films of the three cities are listed. These are the ‘giants’ of their day.
All three lists show an emphatic liking for particular films that relate to the cultural context of
their local audience. In Bolton the two top films feature Gracie Fields, the famous 1930s British
comic actress singer who, coming from a poor Lancashire family, was strongly associated with
Figure 6. POPSTAT Index Values of films screened in Ghent, 1 January 1934 to 31 December 1935. Note: the
median film take the POPSTAT Index value of 100.
0
500
1000
1500
1 201 401 601 801 1001 1201
POPSTATIndex
Rank order of films from first to last
Ghent: the ranked order of POPSTAT Index values
Figure 7. POPSTAT Index Values of films screened in Utrecht, 1 January 1934 to 31 December 1935. Note: the
median film takes the POPSTAT Index value of 100.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1 101 201 301 401 501 601
POPSTATIndex,
Rank order of films from first to last
Utrecht: the ranked order of POPSTAT Index values
Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis - 21 [1] 2018114
Northern working-class culture. Her film persona was the embodiment of self-sacrifice and
consensual behaviour.19 In Sing as We Go (1934), Fields plays the role of a working class ‘lass’
bravely standing up for the rights of cotton mill factory workers who are being made redundant,
while in Love, Life and Laughter (1935) she graciously accepts that her loving prince cannot marry
a plebeian girl. Her popularity in Bolton, where she was the number one star, was exceptional
but not replicated nationally. Indeed, based on programme data collected for the years 1932 to
Table 5. The representation of films of national origin in popularity charts.
  Bolton Ghent Utrecht
National
origins
Films in
Top 10
Films in
Top 20
Films in
Top 50
Films in
Top 10
Films in
Top 20
Films in
Top 50
Films in
Top 10
Films in
Top 20
Films in
Top 50
USA 8 13 34 0 4 8 2 5 21
British 2 7 16 1 1 2 0 0 0
German &
Austrian
0 0 0 4 6 16 2 6 19
French 0 0 0 2 6 19 0 1 1
Dutch 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 8 10
Belgium 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 6. Top 10 of the most popular films in each of the three cities.
City Film Title Year Country POPSTAT Index
(median =100)
Bolton Sing as we go 1934 GB 630
Bolton Love, Life and Laughter 1934 GB 606
Bolton The Lives of a Bengal Lancer 1935 US 528
Bolton One Night of Love 1934 US 506
Bolton The House of Rothschild 1934 US 479
Bolton Roman Scandals 1933 US 479
Bolton David Copperfield 1935 US 474
Bolton Footlight Parade 1933 US 456
Bolton Merry Widow, The 1934 US 448
Bolton Babes in Toyland 1934 US 445
Ghent Maître de forges, Le 1933 FR 953
Ghent Alleen voor U 1935 BE 923
Ghent Misérables, Les 1934 FR 890
Ghent Leise flehen meine Lieder 1933 DE 878
Ghent I Was A Spy 1933 GB 845
Ghent Witte, De 1934 BE 808
Ghent Frasquita 1934 AT 799
Ghent Wenn du jung bist, gehört dir die Welt 1934 AT 798
Ghent Jantjes, De 1934 NL 782
Ghent Liebelei 1933 DE 745
Utrecht Jantjes, De 1934 NL 1715
Utrecht Vier Mullers, De 1935 NL 747
Utrecht Malle gevallen 1934 NL 724
Utrecht Familie van mijn vrouw, De 1935 NL 724
Utrecht Episode 1935 AT 724
Utrecht Viktor und Viktoria 1933 DE 678
Utrecht Op hoop van zegen 1934 NL 619
Utrecht Queen Christina 1933 US 543
Utrecht Merry widow, The 1934 US 537
Utrecht Big van het regiment, De 1935 NL 525
Clara Pafort-Overduin, John Sedgwick, Lies Van de Vijver 115
1937 from London and British provincial city first-run cinemas, these films, enjoyed so much by
Bolton audiences, did not make the annual Top 20 listings for 1934 and 1935, being placed
respectively 37th and 65th.20 Derived from the same dataset, she is ranked 86th in a list of stars
appearing on British screens: a list headed by Clark Gable.21
The other eight Top 10 entries are Hollywood productions, two of which, interestingly, are
based on episodes in British nineteenth-century history reflecting aspects of Britain’s pre-­
eminent position as an imperial and financial power, respectively The Lives of a Bengal Lancer
and House of Rothschild. Indeed, Except for Babes in Toyland (a Laurel and Hardy film) and
Footlight Parade, the remaining Hollywood films in the Bolton Top 10 have a European dimension
either in their story and or setting. Again, it appears that film audiences prefer films that
demonstrate ‘cultural nearness’. Finally, the prevalence of song and dance in these films is
apparent, with half the films exhibiting these generic characteristics.
In stark contrast with Bolton none of the Top 10 films in Ghent is from the US. With two
French films, two Belgian and one Dutch film, the bi-lingual French- and Dutch-speaking
(Flemish) composition of the city is reflected. All films in the Top 10 are made and set in Europe,
with the only British film in the listing based upon the story of a Belgium nurse working as a
spy during the First World War. The second listed film is the Belgium (Flemish language)
romantic operetta Alleen voor U (1935), designed to replicate the sentiment and success of its
very popular predecessor De Witte (1934) also in the Top 10 – both involving director Jan
Vanderheyden and leading star Willem Benoy.22 In Belgium, as in the Netherlands, national
film production was very small – only fifteen films were produced in the two years 1934 and
1935 – making the success of these two films highly significant as far as film tastes are concerned.
Like Bolton, musical and operetta films were popular, taking five of the Top 10 berths.
Particularly striking is the dominant position of Dutch films among the filmgoers of
Utrecht: six of the films in the Top 10 are domestic productions. This is especially noteworthy,
given the very small number of films produced annually in the Netherlands. Indeed, during the
years 1934 to 1936 only 27 Dutch features were made.23 However, unlike the partial popularity
of the two Gracie Fields films in the British market, the popularity of indigenous cinema in
Utrecht reflected a nationwide liking for Dutch films. In particular the extremely high POPSTAT
Index score garnered by De Jantjes (1934), was repeated across the Netherlands. It was based on
a very popular theatrical production play that had been reprised many times, featuring songs
that were widely known. This cleverly made film, with a laugh and a tear, was marketed as a
Dutch film with a Dutch heart. A study into the reception of the film teaches us that Dutch
audiences flocked to see the film because it was culturally familiar. Set in Amsterdam and
spoken and sung in their own language, meant Dutch audience members understood it as their
own. It marked the beginning of a short Dutch wave of successful films.24 Furthermore, the
film also did very well in Ghent where it reached a position in the Top 10. Given how few films
were made in Flemish, language is likely to have played a role here as well, as Dutch is very
similar to Flemish.
In addition, the Utrecht list features two German language films and two US films.
Similar to Bolton, both Hollywood productions have a European setting and in the case of
Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis - 21 [1] 2018116
Queen Christina starred Greta Garbo as the Queen of Sweden. Again, films with song and dance
have a strong presence (five out of ten films).
In short, this brief characterization of the most popular films in each of the three cities
clearly shows a shared preference for musicals and operettas as well as films that generated a
sense of ‘cultural nearness’ be it local, national or maybe even as broad as European, in contrast
to Hollywood films set in the United States. The films listed in Table 6 were highly attractive to
audiences within each of the cities, but as was the case of the Gracie Fields films in Bolton and
the Flemish language film in Ghent, not necessarily as popular elsewhere in the country.
Conclusion
By comparing the programming data of the three cities of Bolton, Ghent and Utrecht we have
shown similarities and differences between cinema cultures. In this analysis, the ubiquity of
Hollywood productions is a given, serving as a testament to the availability of Hollywood films
through their in-house distribution organisations as well as their general popularity. They thus
serve as a backdrop to the particular findings presented here. Although having similar sized
populations, the size and intensity of the three city markets differed markedly, with the people
of Utrecht sharing the general indifference to cinema found throughout the Netherlands. Even
so, the statistical distribution of audience preferences in all three cities takes the same long right
tail form – an indication that distributors were able to supply audiences with the films they
wanted to see.
To identify specific audience preferences, data have been collected and analysed from three
different starting points. We began with a particular date, identifying films that were shown in
all three cities on 5 January 1935. Of the six films identified, five were American. Two of the six
were highlighted to illustrate the varied nature of the choices facing audiences at the time, with
Blossom Time suggesting a cultural affinity European audiences had for European subjects,
while the Tarzan and His Mate film offered audiences an altogether different entertainment in
which action and adventure set in the exotic backdrop, centred upon a strong male/female
relationship.
Extending the time frame one year back and forward from this date, analysis was conducted
on the national origins of films screened in just one of the three cities: whereas 75 films were
screened in all three cities, the number of films screened in one city but not the other two was
983 in Bolton, 1023 in Ghent and 305 in Utrecht. From the large number of films screened in
one city only we deduce the existence of distinct cinema cultures, the key to which we term
‘cultural nearness’ (see Figures 2,3 and 4). For the Netherlands the major supplier of films was
Germany: for Belgium, France and Germany; and for Great Britain, the United States.
However, these analyses are based on crude supply numbers. By introducing film popularity
into the analysis, it is possible to reflect what audiences actually went to see. Applying the
POPSTAT methodology for all films screened in each of the three cities, it is apparent that only
two of the Top 10 films screened in one city were common to the other two. Taken together, our
findings again support the cultural nearness argument, confirming a clear liking for films of
Clara Pafort-Overduin, John Sedgwick, Lies Van de Vijver 117
national origin, or films of proximate cultural affinity. Clearly, this was not true of all films with
such characteristics, but it is true that among the very most popular, films that manifest these
‘nearness’ characteristics are very well represented. Furthermore, many of the Top 10 American
films screened in Bolton, Ghent and Utrecht had European subjects that were of immediate
interest to audiences.
The inclusion of the films that were only shown in one city raises questions about the role
of distribution. It is conceivable that Dutch and Belgian distribution channels were not sufficiently
developed to extend to Great Britain. However, this would not be the case with German
distributors who had very well-developed distribution channels in much of mainland Europe.
Yet, German films carried by these distributors by and large did not reach Great Britain either.
Evidently, the structure of the market does not explain the specific local preferences we
observed. For that we need to delve more thoroughly into the characteristics of the films that
were popular among audiences and those who made them. Nevertheless, from this study of
the national origins of films screened in three distinctive small European cities, it is possible
to identify distinctive film cultures both in terms of the intensity of filmgoing and the choices
made by audiences. Ultimately, this is to argue that the films that audiences went to see are
integral to understanding film cultures.
Notes
1.	 Lies Van de Vijver and Daniel Biltereyst, “Hollywood versus lokaliteit. Het (on)gelijke aanbod van Amerikaanse
en Europese films in de jaren dertig in Gent,” Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis 13, no. 2 (2010): 60-79.
2.	 Clara Pafort-Overduin, “Distribution and Exhibition in the Netherlands, 1934-1936,” in Explorations in New
Cinema History. Approaches and Case Studies, ed. R. Maltby, D. Biltereyst and P. Meers (Malden and Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 125-139; Clara Pafort-Overduin, “Watching Popular Films in the Netherlands, 1934-36,”
in: Watching Films. New Perspectives on Movie-going, Exhibition and Reception, ed. K. Aveyard and A. Moran (Bristol
and Chicago: Intellect, 2013), 331-349; John Sedgwick, Clara Pafort-Overduin and Jaap Boter, “Explanations for
the Restrained Development of the Dutch Cinema Market in the 1930s,” Enterprise & Society: The International
Journal of Business History, 13, no. 3 (2012): 634-671.
3.	 Joseph Garncarz, Wechselende Vorlieben. Über die Filmpräferenzen der Europäer 1896-1939 (Frankfurt am Main and
Basel: Stroemfeld, 2015).
4.	 John Sedgwick, Michael Pokorny and Peter Miskell, “Hollywood in the World Market – Evidence from Australia
in the mid-1930s,” Business History 56, no. 5 (2014): 689-723.
5.	 J. Johanson and J. Vahlne, ‘The Uppsala Internationalization Process Model Revisited: From Liability of
Foreignness to Liability of Outsidership’, Journal of International Business Studies 40 (2009): 1411–1431.
6.	 Sedgwick, Pafort-Overduin and Boter, “Explanations for the Restrained Development”.
7.	 Douglass North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990).
8.	 John Sedgwick, Popular Filmgoing in 1930s Britain. A Choice of Pleasures. (Exeter: University of Exeter Press,
2000), 25-38.
9.	 Leo Handel, Hollywood Looks at its Audience (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1950).
10.	 John Sedgwick and Michael Pokorny, “Film Consumer Decision-Making: The Philadelphia Story, 1935-36,”
Journal of Consumer Culture 12, no. 3 (2012): 323-346; Cathy Jurca and John Sedgwick, ”The Film’s the Thing:
Moviegoing in Philadelphia, 1935–36,” Film History 26, no. 4 (2014): 58-83.
11.	 Put formally
	 1
POPSTAT a b lit jt ij ijt
j
n
∑= × ×
=
Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis - 21 [1] 2018118
	where, n is the number of cinemas in the sample set, ajt is a weighting factor for cinema j during period t, reflecting
the relative revenue generating potential of cinema j; bijt reflects the exhibition status of film i at cinema j
during period t. That is, bijt takes on the value 1 if film i is presented as a single bill programme, 0.8 if it is the
main attraction of a double bill programme, 0.5 if it is an equal of part of a double bill, 0.2 if it is the minor
attraction of a double bill programme, and 0 if it is not shown at cinema j; and lijt is the length of exhibition of
film i at cinema j during period t, measured to the nearest half week.
12.	 For Bolton and Ghent, two films being screened simultaneously in two different cinemas explains why the number
in the Individual Film column does not tally with the number of films suggested by the billing information.
13.	 Stephen Guy, “Calling All Stars: Musical Films in a Musical Decade,” in J. Richards ed., The Unknown 1930s. An
Alternative History of the British Cinema, 1929-1939 (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 1998), 99-118.
14.	 Because of this, as well as a scene in which a random killing takes place, the Dutch censors initially forbade the
film. A second ruling permitted its screening for audiences over the age of eighteen but demanded nine cuts
(www.cinemacontext.nl).
15.	 Undoubtedly, as the time dimension of distribution was not uniform across the three cities, the number of films
common to the three cities would have been greater had our datasets gone further back and forward in time.
16.	 Vivian Barrera and Denise D. Bielby, “Places, Faces and Other Familiar Things: The Cultural Experience of
Telenovela Viewing among Latinos In the United States,” Journal of Popular Culture 34, March (2001): 1- 18. Peter
Miskell tried to explain differences in the popularity of Hollywood films abroad by identifying the foreign orientation
of the films. He created a measure for the foreign orientation index based on the nationality of the director,
scenario writer, writer original source, actors, two main characters and the setting. He found that in the 1930s,
Hollywood films with high foreign orientation were more likely to generate high profits abroad than films with
a low foreign orientation. Peter Miskell, “International Films and International Markets: The Globalisation of
Hollywood Entertainment, c.1921–1951,” Media History 22, no. 2 (2016): 174-200, DOI:10.1080/13688804.2016
.1141044; see also Garncarz, Wechselende Vorlieben, 142-146.
17.	 E. Langendries, “Nu naar de Vlaamsche Hoogeschool! De laatste fase van de strijd voor vernederlandsing van de
universiteit” in Interbellum in Gent, ed. A. Capiteyn (Ghent: Stad Gent, Stadsarchief and Museum Arnold Vander
Haeghen, 1995), 139-151.
18.	 Van de Vijver and Biltereyst, “Hollywood versus lokaliteit,” 73-74; Pafort-Overduin, “Distribution and Exhibition
in the Netherlands,” 136.
19.	 Jeffrey Richards, The Age of the Dream Palace, (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1984), 169-190; Stephen C.
Shafer, British Popular Films 1929-1939. The Cinema of Reassurance. (London and New York: Routledge, 1997),
193-219.
20.	Sedgwick, Popular Filmgoing in 1930s Britain, 120.
21.	 Ibidem, 191.
22.	 Roel Vande Winkel and Dirk Van Engeland, Edith Kiel & Jan Vanderheyden, pioniers van de Vlaamse film, (Brussels:
Cinematek, 2014).
23.	 Pafort-Overduin, “Distribution and Exhibition in the Netherlands,” 128.
24.	 Ibidem, 128.
Biography
Clara Pafort-Overduin is lecturer and researcher within the department of Media and Culture Studies and the
Institute for Cultural Inquiry at Utrecht University. She is a founding member of the HoMER network (History
of Moviegoing Exhibition and Reception). She works on popular film and published several book chapters and
articles on the popularity of national (Dutch) films. Together with Douglas Gomery she wrote the student handbook
Movie History: A Survey. (Routledge, 2012).
John Sedgwick is a Visiting Researcher at Oxford Brookes University. He researches into the business and
economic history of film and is particularly interested in the ontological characteristics of film as a commodity
and measures of film popularity and what these tell us about comparative audience preferences and industry
structure.
Lies Van de Vijver is a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Cinema and Media Studies at Ghent University
working on historical screen culture, film programming and cinema experience in Ghent. She is currently the
co-investigator and project manager for European Cinema Audiences (2018-2021).