BCM240 Task Two: The Review

My blog has progressed considerably since the start of the semester in many ways. In addition to keeping up a stream of content for many of my subjects, I’ve endeavored to remedy the main complaint given as feedback. Linking my rhetoric to more substantial research and theory allows me to to operate as a more effective media researcher. On top of this, I’ve made efforts to follow other blogs and interact with my peers, whilst ensuring that my own blog is organised and searchable.

My feedback for task one stated that while there was interesting ‘personal research conducted’, I could improve these posts beyond just storytelling and instead ‘explicitly link your research to academic literature’ so there’s more critical thinking taking place. So, this was my first priority to improve upon in later posts. The first of which, after the pitiful cinema turn out (love you guys), I made sure to not completely omit the autoethnographic style retelling and extracting, but ensure it was backed up with congruent research on the challenges faced by cinemas in this time and place.

‘..Thankfully, cinemas are able to avoid the second of Hägerstrand’s concerns with multiple screenings, spread across different days and times (matinee, baby friendly sessions) often for weeks if the content is popular enough. Furthermore, there’s a definite cultural understanding that you don’t have to be at the cinema at the allotted time; the box office in the foyer will be glad to sell you tickets even after the scheduled time has passed.This might be fortuitous if you wish to avoid the advertisements (such as the above), which is an aspect of many people’s movie going habits.

In this example, I’ve evoked the second of Hägerstrand’s constraints (coupling) and appropriated it to the cinema situation. I believe that this combination of retelling and further research (both academic and popular) elevates my writing substantially from what it was in earlier weeks. Additionally, I made a conscientious effort to display my further reading via simple hyperlinks but going beyond and embedding media rich sources like YouTube videos:


In each of my posts, I’ve made strides to generate reader engagement by a few measures. First, I send it to a couple close friends that give it a read (while formally commenting however), Tweet about it and other BCM240 related things, and most importantly I try and engage the reader in a dialogue in each of the four posts I’ve made since getting my feedback:

Week 5: ‘Do you have any too-annoying-for-cinemas habit? Leave a comment!’

[View the story “BCM240 Tweet examples” on Storify]

Week 6: ‘If you have had any experience with someone asking you why you’re photographing them/asking you to delete it, tell me in the comments how you reacted!’

Week 8‘How did you conduct this task and what were your results? Let me know in the comments!’

Week 9: ‘What are your thoughts? Do you think that Australian adult gamers are treated with as much respect as film goers? Why/why not? Tell me in the comments!’

To further ensure my blog posts are as professional as manageable, I established a basic, clean Harvard-style referencing section in each blog post for consistency’s sake. The crisp aesthetic and spacing makes it easy to read and convey information while easily discerning who (in bold) authored the text.

Another important addition to accessibility, is my newly refined drop down menu which is not only sorted both alphabetically and numerically, but functions correctly and is no longer broken as it was earlier in the semester. Impressive, I know.


These attempts at reader engagement have meant that I’ve experienced a healthy amount of traffic and gained a few followers along the way. If I want to maintain interest, I need to both keep doing what I’m doing and think about what else I could do to draw people towards my blog.


The servers aren’t exactly crashing, but it’s still appreciated.

On reflection, this got me thinking about the best ways to maximize audience and reach. I spent my time trying to spread myself out across multiple channels and didn’t get a rousing response from any in particular. As reinforced by WordStream, they suggest that finding your ‘Audience’s Nest’ is the best way to get a regular following on your blogs. If I were to specialize in a particular type of blog, perhaps the video game industry, then my self promotion would be much more effectively distributed in those circles instead of my current strategy of simply shouting in the wind on multiple avenues. For example, specific sub-reddits (e.g. /r/Gamingthoughts) would be an ideal place to post about a particular genre of video game that I have an interest in, as the majority of people there would be interested in what I have to say on that topic.

A study by ‘Social Bakers‘ suggests that just be directly asking readers to engage I could maximize exposure. Regarding Twitter in particular, your audience is much more likely to re-tweet something if you just upfront say ‘RT’ in the tweet, where an average of 73 re-tweet when asked as apposed to just 2 when this is omitted. I do somewhat doubt this would be as effective when combined with the advice of WordStream however, as if you’re catering to a niche then you mightn’t want it shared to unappreciative randoms. It isn’t enough for me to just follow other peoples blogs and expect of them the same. Directly giving other blogs exposure is mutually beneficial.

Ultimately, I think I’ve made great strides in both the presentation of my work and the quality of it during the second half of this semester. In addition to having improved upon the given feedback, ensuring my blog is a great resource of research and insight, I have improved upon the functionality of the website to ensure it’s an easily navigable experience.

What did you think of this review? Did you appreciate my efforts to engage with others? Was my writing contrived and lacking, or did it successfully bridge the gap between research and narrative? Let me know in the marking criteria!



Carr, C 2016, ‘Bad Mom’s’, pfft, more like BAD CLASSMATES’, blogpost, CarrOfTheOverflow, created 24 August 2016, viewed 4/10/16, <https://carroftheoverflow.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/bad-moms-pfft-more-like-bad-classmates/&gt;

Carr, C 2016, ‘BCM240 Tweet examples’, Storify, created 4 October 2016, viewed 4/10/16, <https://storify.com/OfTheOverflow/bcm240-tweet-examples&gt;

Marrs, M 2015, ‘How To Increase Blog Traffic: 5 Easy Steps to Stardom’, WordStream, created 10 July, 2015, viewed 4/10/16, <http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2015/01/27/increase-blog-traffic&gt;

Staff Writer 2013, ‘Do Calls To Action Work on Twitter?’, SocialBakers, created 27 August, 2013, viewed 4/10/16, <https://www.socialbakers.com/blog/1883-do-calls-to-action-work-on-twitter&gt;

Couret, J 2016, ‘Refuse to lose’, image, JohnCouret.com, created 22 February, 2016, viewed 4/10/16, <http://www.johncouret.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/img_0220.jpg&gt;






Media Regulation in a Place and Space

Tasked with describing an instance of media regulation that I’ve experienced, I can’t help but think back to last year with one of the most frustrating instances I can think of.

In June of 2012, after years of campainging,  Australian gamers were finally bestowed the right to be treated like an adult by the Australian Classification Board with the introduction of an R18+ rating for video games. Previously, Australia had been widely known as a country with overly protective classification. For example, Bethesda’s Fallout 3 (2008) was briefly refused classification (RC) here due to a violation of the clause stating that drug use mustn’t be used for “advocatory manner”. The violation was for the use of morphine after a battle to dull the characters pain, which I believe isn’t an inexcusable depiction. To meet classification guidelines, the developers simply changed the descriptor of ‘morphine’ to ‘Med-X’ which legitimized the game for MA15+, but didn’t morally address the concerns that the Board had despite being granted classification. Clearly, there was a malfunction in the classification process that required an ‘adult’ rating.


Well overdue.

With this new legislation introduced, 42 years after it was for movies, many assumed that we could now make the choice ourselves if we’d like to access content that most of Western world similarly could. This illusion was shattered, however, when many games post R18+ continued to be RC’d. The drug clause was still effectively the same, a game couldn’t show drugs as ‘incentives and rewards’, which would still fundamentally prohibit ‘morphine’ in the previous example. Violence could still not be ‘frequently gratuitous, cruel, exploitative and offensive’ as subjectively determined by the Board, and sexual violence is permitted only to the extent that it’s “necessary to the narrative” and “not exploitative” or “not shown in detail”.


“What ‘The Man’ doesn’t want you to see.”

Despite this, on January 15, 2015 we learnt that the highly anticipated Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number would not be classified due to a violation of this sexual violence clause. This ruling was no doubt reactionary and arguable even on the terms with which it could be depicted. Despite offering no legal recompense, the game includes a disclaimer and option to avoid the scene in question.


As someone heavily versed in the lore of the two games, it was pretty obvious that the scene in question didn’t depict actual sexual violenceEven viewing ten seconds of the footage, it’s quite clear that it’s an in-universe production of a snuff film of sorts. It depicts the game characters as consenting adult actors performing a rape scene, which is a slanderous take on the events of the first game’s protagonist who helped save a women and they began a consenting relationship over time. Clearly, this fake rape scene (which lasts all of a couple of seconds) is critical to the story and not at all exploitative.

The need to police an adult, R18+ rating is a clear indication that, unlike movies which are a real medium for adults, video games are for an audience that is ignorant of the distinction between what’s on screen and what’s acceptable in the real world. Referring to a previous engagement with this subject, I stated:

‘Detractors point to the element of interactivity; of participation, that the viewer has and argue that this must have an effect on the behavior of children, but independent investigation have time and time proven that if any link is to be drawn from these findings to a child’s behavior, it’s beneficial. Drs. Ferguson and Olson in their study determined ‘a very slight calming effect on youths with attention deficit symptoms… [reducing] aggressive and bullying behavior.’ The study also notes the ‘sanctioned’ context from studies finding opposite results, criticizing the unprofessional practices undertaken.’

A classification system, as reinforced in this weeks lecture, serves two purposes. Primarily, they’re established to maintain control of an industry and the distribution of its products in a country. Secondly, they act as a moral beacon expected to be the forerunners of what our society deems behaviorally acceptable. The ability to refuse classification says two things: the values presented in your product are reprehensible, and you cannot sell this product here in this space, at this time. Arguably, this practice hurts local businesses, as online there’s little enforceable regulation or restrictions. The aforementioned Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number title avoided the RC, because the developers and publisher simply told us to pirate it instead, completely circumventing our Classification Board’s control of space while they lost profit as a result.

I feel that the current operation of the rating system, particularly for games, is still affected by prejudice and devalued despite the newer R18+ classification, affecting us as consumers and our ability to access content locally and legally. What are your thoughts? Do you think that Australian adult gamers are treated with as much respect as film goers? Why/why not? Let me know in the comments!



Carr, C 2015, ‘Watch, but don’t touch! Play, but don’t buy.’, blog post, posted March 27, 2015, viewed 27/9/16, <https://carroftheoverflow.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/watch-but-dont-touch-play-but-dont-buy/&gt;

Hill, J 2011, ‘The long campaign for R18+ games’, Sydney Morning Herald, posted July 25, 2011, viewed 27/9/16, <http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/blog/screenplay/the-long-campaign-for-r18-games-20110722-1htkg.html&gt;

Australian Classification Board, ‘R18+ rating logo’, image, created 2012, viewed 27/9/16,<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#/media/File:OFLC_large_R18%2B.svg&gt;

Serrels, M 2015, ‘The Creator of Hotline Miami 2 Tells Australians: “Just Pirate It”‘, Kotaku Australia, January 15, 2015, viewed 27/9/16, <http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/01/the-creator-of-hotline-miami-2-to-australians-just-pirate-it/&gt;

Wikipedia 2016, ‘Australian Classification Board: Film and video game classifications’, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., last updated 27 September 2016, viewed 27/9/16, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications&gt;

 Wikipedia 2016, ‘Australian Classification Board: Video Games‘, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., last updated 27 September 2016, viewed 27/9/16, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Video_games&gt;
Kevkas 2011, ‘Med-X Morphine Re-Texture’, Nexus Mods, last updated February 8, 2013, viewed 27/9/16, <http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout3/mods/15934/?&gt;
YurtTheSilentChief 2015, ‘Hotline Miami 2 Wrong Number Tutorial, YouTube, uploaded 10 March 2015, viewed 27/9/16, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvfIP8TgMU&feature=youtu.be&t=43&gt;

Carr, C 2015, ‘‘Back In My Day: Video Games, A New Age Scapegoat For Aging Anxieties’’
‘, blog post, posted March 15, 2015, viewed 27/9/16, <https://carroftheoverflow.wordpress.com/2015/03/15/back-in-my-day-video-games-a-new-age-scapegoat-for-aging-anxieties/&gt;

The Allure of Choice

In the modern, digital age we are presented with many different facilities and opportunities to access information and participate in its flow on the internet. With an abundance of hardware  to access this information on, and even more different software platforms to interact with, this dilutes our focus from any one particular task or source of entertainment and instead fractures it across many.

I, for example, am writing this on my desktop computer while my phone charging next to me. There’s a pleasing blue light blinking seductively, telling me that someone, somewhere, has reached out to me. Maybe it’s just to say hi, or maybe it’s a long-lost sibling desperate to make contact. The point is, I will never know until I observe myself and I feel a deep compulsion to quickly shift to that medium. At the expense of physics students telling me I woefully misunderstand; this is a classic Schrodinger’s Smart-Phone-Notification thought experiment.


Soon my pretty…

To observe this effect, I enlisted the help of my girlfriend to act as the subject and I simply observed how often she would switch between devices in the space of a few hours and record her saying why she had, but eventually she just notified me each time she had done so.

The results were expected of someone with her impressive work ethic. In the morning, there was the customary checking of Messenger which I’m sure many do; catching up with conversations that had continued without her over the night. After some time focusing on this one task, the multi-tasking began. She opened her ‘cat game’ and this occupied some of her attention while waiting for responses. This was expanded to additionally monitoring email and Facebook proper notifications.


The subject

After some time she also began work on her tablet by going on PDFs of lecture material, switching attention between this and her phone. At about midday, to avoid distraction she left her phone on a table away from her work desk. This is a worthwhile strategy I suspect, because she engages in periods of just work and then brief breaks ‘checking up’ with her phone. In a moment of weakness this dissolved though and the phone commanded her attention once again. During lunch, while watching TV, the phone presented a constantly accessible and distracting influence, splitting her attention between the two sources of entertainment with the laptop ready to go at a moment’s notice at the work table.


Not us, but you get the idea.

The Q&A abstract from a paper by York University on ‘Laptops as a classroom distraction’ suggests some potentially fruitful ideas which would be interesting to implement. Namely, laptop users sitting in rows behind those using traditional pen and paper to ensure their screens aren’t distracting anyone but themselves. The advisory members suggest a ‘no phones’ rule too, with the assumption they’re much more likely a distraction. I use a pen and paper with my phone as a research tool, so this would impede on my work ability.


Research by Google suggests that the use of multiple screens makes us feel more efficient and adaptable to challenges due to the ability to quickly switch devices. It also found that different activities tend to be delegated to specific devices as a form of ‘sequential screening’ (2012, p.2). This is conducive to my observations and testimony from my subject. What I got in addition to the observations was her reasoning for operating in the manner she did was justified by the use of specific devices for specific purposes.

  • Her phone is used as a communication tool primarily, used to talk to friends and group assignment members where necessary. It also is her main means of entertainment and distraction, so when it’s work time, she leaves it out of her reach and goes to her work desk to concentrate. Phone is the “free time device”.
  • Her tablet functions as a research and work companion. Out of necessity, and the fact that the WiFi receivers within it ‘is garbge anyway’, instant messaging isn’t a staple of her recreational tablet usage (not that she uses tablets recreationally, okay I’ll stop now). The tablet is brought to lectures and used to take notes on the downloaded PDFs, or similarly aiding her project work.
  • The laptop is the device where most of her work is done; programming and document creation mainly. Not used for entertainment, that is left to;
  • The TV. The primary source of entertainment, can be used in conjunction with the above.

These findings are congruent with Google’s; devices serve a particular purpose and can be switched to and from quick rapidly for different purposes with fluctuation levels of attention invested in each at any given time (p.15).

How did you conduct this task and what were your results? Let me know in the comments!


Hoffman, B 2013, ‘Nexus 4 notification LED’, photo, published on 25 March, 2013, viewed 29/9/16, <http://www.howtogeek.com/141346/put-your-android-phones-notification-led-to-use-with-light-flow/&gt;

Colevile R, 2016, ‘Gen A’, photo, created 5 March 2016, viewed 29/9/16, <http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/generation-a-the-young-londoners-helping-to-shape-the-world-one-gif-at-a-time-a3193186.html&gt;

Sana F & Weston T & Wiseheart M, 2014, ‘Laptops hinder classroom learning for both users and nearby peers’, York University, updated 13 December, 2014, viewed 29/9/16

IPSOS 2012, ‘The New Multi-Screen World’, Google Inc., created August 2012, viewed 29/9/16, <https://ssl.gstatic.com/think/docs/the-new-multi-screen-world-study_research-studies.pdf&gt;





Conscientious Public Photography

The topic of photography in public is an interesting one which many people harbor misconceptions about. I asked some friends and family what they assumed the law was in regards to taking someone’s photo in a public space and I got a range of results which fell into these categories:

  • It’s your legal right, there aren’t really any consequences and/or;
    • But they also have the right to ask you to delete the photo or;
  • It’s illegal without their explicit permission beforehand and/or;
    • It’s illegal without their explicit permission afterwards or;
    • It’s illegal without censuring their faces or;
  • Only need permission of people that are ‘the focus’ of picture, people ‘in the background’ are excusable.

The photo that I selected from my brief engagement with public photography was chosen because of its unique depiction of work, downtime and the public sphere on private property. The photograph (above), taken at the Wollongong Mall’s food court illustrates co-workers studiously working over some form of paper work. I thought that this was interesting as such a thing is usually a private affair, but this was a quiet afternoon in a usually very public place. Save for a few wanderers, it was mostly deserted. As stated within the Street Photographers Rights 2016 guide by the Arts Law Centre of Australia, my photograph is legal because “a person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed” (p.1). This doesn’t, however, make it necessarily morally upstanding.

Joerg Colberg argued in his commentary on the recent criticism of street photographer Garry Winogrand’s work by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, that perhaps the practice should be held more accountable to its subjects. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it is morally justified, to which he points out the often despicable behavior of the infamous ‘paparazzi’. He goes on to state that ‘the onus is on photographers and not on the public’ and photographers should embrace and respect the opinions of the public, as it is their actions that potentially upset people. My photographing of the subjects did momentarily draw their attention, but it was just a curious glance before they returned to their activity.

Returning again to the Street Photographers Rights document, it’s made clear that public photography for a commercial purpose requires a ‘model release form’ signed by the subjects stating that you have permission to sell that photograph. If we’re being pedantic, a security guard could have told me that I’m on private property owned by the GPT Group and their rules prohibit photographer of their patrons other than via their own security systems. If this were the case, I’d have to comply. However, assuming that such a prohibition doesn’t exist and I didn’t just get lucky, I was well within my rights. The Rights document makes it clear that you don’t even legally have to comply with a police officer’s request to ‘explain or justify your photographic activities’ even if you are arrested (although you might be exercising your rights far enough by then).


‘I shouldn’t have photographed his dorky helmet…’


As it stands, unless for whatever reason your photograph falls under ‘personal information’ under the Privacy Act (1988), and businesses and agencies which publish that photo would be breaching that law, or it’s for the purpose of some kind of ‘record’. These concerns are invalid, though, when the photographer is acting in a ‘private’ capacity and so can basically photograph whoever he wants in public.

I’ve come to the realization that, unless for one of the express purposes listed above, I don’t think you’re obligated to delete photos of someone even if they asked you to (as long as you’re doing so privately). This is a principle that I believe you shouldn’t adopt though, regardless of how legally safe you are. As a researcher especially, you have a duty to respect your participants and treat them in an ethical manner. This could mean providing for them your work thus far, explaining explicitly what their contribution is to that work, and ensuring that they’re in control of it should they revoke their permission. Ethically, I believe my photograph (primarily) of the two individuals is sound. I’ve not knowingly breached private property rules nor did the subjects object once they noticed they were being photographed. Next time though, I will learn from Colberg and go beyond the lawful obligations by gaining the subjects explicit permission to appear on my blog.

If you have had any experience with someone asking you why you’re photographing them/asking you to delete it, tell me in the comments how you reacted!




Arts Law Centre of Australia 2016, ‘Street Photographer’s Rights Information Sheet’, viewed 9/9/16,  <http://www.sfchronicle.com/art/article/Garry-Winogrand-s-uneasy-eye-4377685.php&gt;

‘Steve’ 2016, ‘Coffee shop’, photo, created May 12, 2016, viewed 9/9/16, <http://www.smallbizlabs.com/2016/05/why-people-work-in-coffee-shops-and-why-this-means-coworking-will-continue-to-grow.html&gt;

Colberg, J 2013, ‘The Ethics of Street Photography’, Conscientious Extended, created April 3, 2013, viewed 9/9/16, <http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/the_ethics_of_street_photography/&gt;

LV Criminal Defense, photo, ‘Right of person arrested to make telephone call’, LV Criminal Defense, viewed 9/9/16, <https://www.lvcriminaldefense.com/nevada-criminal-process/procedure-in-criminal-cases/proceeding-to-commitment/arrest-by-whom-and-how-made/right-of-person-arrested-to-make-telephone-call/&gt;

Australian Law Reform Comission, ‘Particular Privacy Issues Affecting Children and Young People’, ALRC Report 108 (tabled August 2008), viewed 9/9/16, <http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/69.%20Particular%20Privacy%20Issues%20Affecting%20Children%20and%20Young%20People/taking-photographs-an&gt;



‘Bad Mom’s, pfft, more like bad CLASSMATES.

With that petty/uninspired remark out of the way, I thought I would talk about my ‘failed’ cinema experience. To describe this unmitigated tragedy in perhaps a more sensible fashion, I’ll apply Torsten Hägerstrand’s three key constraints on our daily activities to frame and illustrate both the plight experienced by cinema owners and my moving going experience as a patron.

Having put my hand up look-up movie times and conduct a poll on Twitter with the choice, one clear winner emerged:


So bad…

That would be Bad Moms (2016).

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t particularly like these kinds of movies. The spelling of ‘Moms’ soured me from the get go. Perhaps there is already an argument for the realization of Hägerstrand’s first constraint: This trailer exceeded my biological or physical limits and I would simply be unable to overcome my repulsion. That might be laying it on a bit thick, but you get the idea. Hägerstrand identified, and we can relate to, the inability to participate in something due to ‘factors such as the need to sleep or to eat’, or the necessity of monetary funds or resources. In the case of my class mates who failed to attend, this was a common excuse occurrence. Some were too tired, some didn’t want to brace the wind and rain to drive all the way to Warrawong, then climb all the way up the seemingly endless steps to the cinema like some ordained, spiritual quest. Some mightn’t have access to a vehicle, and some justifiably couldn’t practically afford it.

As a cinema, there are numerous ways that the restraints on capability for patrons can be a problem. There are, however, some solutions. In order to facilitate  people with physical debilitation, many cinemas account for ‘reasonable adjustments‘. This might mean the inclusion of ramp access, allowing carers to be present, and construction of lifts to multi-level complexes.  At others, such as the Event Cinema chain, visually impaired individuals are accommodated for with earpieces and headsets that have an additional spoken commentary. Despite having never seen them myself, probably as I’ve never attended with someone needing the device, Event has solutions for the hearing impaired in the form of a ‘personal device, with a high contrast display and privacy screen’ in addition to the infrared and closed loop technologies. These ensure that patrons falling within Hägerstrand’s ‘capability’ clause are accounted for.

Others fell into the category of Hägerstrand’s second constraint; ‘coupling’. wrong-time

These individuals have a fundamental conflict with the dimension of time. Either through a misinterpretation of it, or scheduling conflicts realized too late. Thankfully, cinemas are able to avoid the second of Hägerstrand’s concerns with multiple screenings, spread across different days and times (matinee, baby friendly sessions) often for weeks if the content is popular enough. Furthermore, there’s a definite cultural understanding that you don’t have to be at the cinema at the allotted time; the box office in the foyer will be glad to sell you tickets even after the scheduled time has passed.This might be fortuitous if you wish to avoid the advertisements (such as the above), which is an aspect of many people’s movie going habits.


The third Hägerstrand-hassle, would be the authoritative constriction. This can take many forms for the average movie goer. The age certificate the film carriers, for example, prohibits audiences under a certain age from viewing the content. By my own sensibilities I wish that film had been R19+ so as to assure my non-attendance. Online, the savvy teenager can ogle at whatever French art-house shower scene they want, albeit illegally, but there’s no practical way of enforcing this.


“She’s faking it.”

That reminds me; cinemas must also make concessions to satisfy the majority of attendees. Most groups, especially the government, wouldn’t appreciate somebody leisurely smoking during the film. Others like to be able to check their phones, perhaps even live-tweet their experience like I did that fateful night. These are practices which many find unsavory but can be indulged in the comfort of their own homes. Do you have any too-annoying-for-cinemas habit? Leave a comment!


My cinema visit impeached upon Hägerstrand three constraints; my cars fuel and phones battery restricted me in a ‘capability’ capacity. My last-minute realization that the agreed time was that night posed a ‘coupling’ threat that clashed with my prior arrangements, and my desire to Tweet away my pain while viewing the film was scorned by my co-watcher  in an authoritative capacity. It’s easy to understand dwindling cinema attendance with such constrictions, and my experience was pretty frustrating as a result.


I regret nothing.





Hoste, J 2012, ‘Constraints’, Human Geography Knowledge Base, 10th October 2012, viewed 24/8/16, <http://geography.ruhosting.nl/geography/index.php?title=Constraints&gt;

Groves, D 2015, ‘Cinemas raise prices while attendances shrink’, IF Intermedia, 28th July 2015, viewed 24/8/16, <http://if.com.au/2015/07/28/article/Cinemas-raise-prices-while-attendances-shrink/PKAYUTGTET.html&gt;

UK Cinema Association 2010, ‘Disability and access’, UK Cinema Association, viewed 24/8/16, <http://www.cinemauk.org.uk/key-issues/disability-and-access/cea-card/&gt;

Cinema Nova 2014, ‘FAQ’, Cinema Nova, viewed 24/8/16, <http://www.cinemanova.com.au/news.php&gt;

Event Cinemas 2016, ‘Accessibility’, Event Cinemas, viewed 24/8/16, <https://www.eventcinemas.com.au/promotions/accessibility&gt;

Village Cinemas, ‘Baby Friendly Sessions’, Village Cinams, viewed 24/8/16, <http://villagecinemas.com.au/offers/baby-friendly-sessions&gt;