Full text of DOI:10.1080/02614360127118

This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]
On: 28 April 2013, At: 00:04
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Leisure Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlst20
Going to the movies: cinema
development in Singapore
Neil Ravenscroft , Steven Chua & Lynda Keng Neo Wee
Version of record first published: 01 Dec 2010.
To cite this article: Neil Ravenscroft , Steven Chua & Lynda Keng Neo Wee (2001):
Going to the movies: cinema development in Singapore, Leisure Studies, 20:3, 215-232
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02614360127118
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.

Leisure Studies 20 (2001) 215–232
Going to the movies: cinema development
in Singapore
NEIL RAVENSCROFT,1* STEVEN CHUA2 and LYNDA KENG NEO WEE3
1University of Brighton, UK and
2The University of Surrey, UK and
3Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore
Using readings of Foucault’s heterotropia and Friedberg’s imaginary mobility, this
paper analyses movie-going as leisure practice. In highlighting the paucity of research
in this area, the paper argues that such practice should be understood as a symbolic
interaction between people’s behaviour and the spaces that they occupy. This
theorization is applied to Singapore, where per capita movie-going is amongst the
highest in the world. The paper illustrates how, in Singapore, the development of
cinemas has been used to underpin land use policies associated with the relocation of
residential areas and social policies related to the growth in consumerism. While
effectively alienating older audiences, the paper argues that the spatial and cultural
metonymy of the cinema with other primary consumption sites – the mall and the
fast food outlet – offers young people reassurance about the growing centrality of
consumerism to contemporary social life in Singapore. We argue that the cinema
offers a temporary escape from the regulation of social life – access to ‘deviant’ space.
However, this same consumerism that facilitates such access simultaneously denotes
conformity with the dominant ideology: acceptance of the heterotropic possibilities –
and limitations – of cinema and movie-going as leisure practice.
Introduction
Despite a relatively long history as a site of mass entertainment (Roberts,
1984; Min, 1998), and one equally available to women and men (Green et al.,
1990; Davies, 1994), there has been surprisingly little research about cinema-
going as a leisure practice. Going to the cinema is mentioned in texts on
cultural studies (Chaney, 1994), women’s studies (Green et al., 1990), history
(Johnson, 1994), leisure studies (Roberts, 1999) and political economy (Min,
1998; Asbjornsen and Solum, 1999). However, these are usually little more
than empirical references to trends in attendance numbers, or to linkages with
social and cultural phenomena (Green et al., 1990; Davies, 1994; Mason,
1994; Min, 1998; Roberts, 1999). There is also market research, such as
KingSturge’s (2000) study of the cinema property market and Mintel’s (1998)
report on cinema audience trends.
Many of the specialist texts on cinema (Metz, 1982; Kaplan, 1990; Denzin,
1991; Turner, 1993; Min, 1998) concentrate more on the relationships
* Address correspondence to: Neil Ravenscroft, Chelsea School, University of Brighton, Trevin
Towers, Gaudick Road, Eastbourne BN20 7SP. e-mail: Neil@ravenscroftn.fsnet.co.uk.
Leisure Studies ISSN 0261-4367 print/ISSN 1466-4496 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/02614360110087119

216
N. Ravenscroft et al.
between Žlms and society than on the practice of movie-going. Similarly, most
attempts to link movie-going to other leisure practices (such as Riley and Van
Doren, 1992; Davies, 1994; Riley et al., 1998) again concentrate on the
impacts of the Žlms themselves, rather than the practice of movie-going. A
partial exception to this, echoing the work of Bourdieu (1984), is a paper by
Davies (1994), which illustrates how the social practice of movie-going in
early Twentieth-Century Britain shifted from its initial working class roots to
a more middle class audience, as the cinema ‘gained prestige’.
More recently, Turner (1993) has attributed the growth of the multi-screen
cinema, or cineplex, to the failure of single feature Žlms to attract sufŽciently
large audiences in an increasingly competitive movie-going market. This has
been exacerbated by the emergence of close substitutes such as home video
and entertainment systems. KingSturge (2000, p. 4), on the other hand, claim
that the development of the cineplex ‘presents a more attractive Žlm-going
environment, and through multi-screening, has made popular Žlms more
readily accessible to the masses’. While these sources of information provide
a body of anecdotal evidence about movie-going as a leisure practice, there
are as yet few comprehensive studies of the dynamics of contemporary movie-
going. Using Singapore as a basis, this paper addresses this deŽcit, in review-
ing the trends in cinema development and the consumption of movie-going as
leisure practice.
Going to the cinema is an important leisure practice among Singapore’s
resident population (Singapore Ministry of Information and Arts, 1998).
Although audiences have been declining in recent years (KingSturge, 2000;
Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2000; Tong, 2000), an average of
over Žve cinema visits per citizen, per year, continues to make Singapore the
third most important market per capita in the world, following the USA and
India (both marginally under six visits per person per year) (Tong, 1999b).
With a population of 3.3 million and a land area of 573.9 sq km (Singapore
Ministry of Communications and Information, 1990), Singapore is now home
to over 150 cinema screens (Tong, 1999a), many located in regional shopping
malls (Singapore Tourism Board, 1999).
In common with the development of cinemas in other countries, movie-
going has remained largely a family and communal activity in Singapore
(Roberts, 1984; Min, 1998; Asbjornsen and Solum, 1999; Goh Min Yen,
1999; Tong, 1999b). In the UK, for example, the average party size for
cinema visits is three people (Cinema Advertising Association, 2000). As a
result, the location of cinemas has tended to reect trends in residential
development. These have been intensely political, as the Singapore Govern-
ment has sought to accommodate competing land uses within an increasingly
crowded island (Perry et al., 1997). This has meant that residential areas and
associated infrastructure and services – including cinemas – have, over the
past 40 years, shifted from the central harbour area to the suburbs and, more
recently, to regional satellite settlements.
In terms of cinema, the Žrst locational shifts were from converted shops
and halls in the central area to small, privately run, suburban picture-houses
(Goh Min Yen, 1999). This was followed by the development of some city-

Cinema development in Singapore
217
centre cinemas, catering for working people, while the suburban cinemas
have increasingly been superseded by cineplexes allied – and located – with
other practices, such as shopping and dining out (Friedberg, 1993; Ang, 1997;
Shaw and Shaw, 1999). As a consequence, cinemas have increasingly been
located in shopping malls, rather than being close to home. This latter trend
was made possible by the development of suburban shopping malls mirroring
those already open downtown (Yeo, 1994). There are no data available to
verify the catchment populations required by these cinemas. However, it
would seem that the determinants may not be dissimilar from those driving
cineplex development in the UK, where catchment populations of 100,000
are required to support a Žve-screen cinema (KingSturge, 2000).
In analysing both the locational trends and the underlying popularity of
movie-going as social practice, we offer an alternative to the conventional
pre-occupations of cinema research, in pursuing the evident performativity
associated with movie-going. Informed by the work of Michel Foucault (1977,
1979, 1986a, b) and Ann Friedberg (1993), we suggest that the practice of
movie-going reects a new paradigm of social conduct characterized by the
mobilization of the gaze. By this we mean that, through going to movies,
people actively conate – and thus commodify – the virtual gaze of the screen
with the actuality of the places represented in the Žlms. To this extent, we
argue that the cinema takes the form of a heterotropia, or compensatory
world (Foucault, 1986a), in which people are ‘licensed’ to experience ‘free-
dom’, but only within socially-constructed and maintained boundaries.
In her work, Friedberg (1993) suggests that cinemas offer ‘imaginary
mobility’, in which the viewer, or spectator, is offered safe transit to a
pleasurable substitute for the realities of the external world. This is intensiŽed,
she argues, by locating multiplex cinemas in shopping malls, where both the
shops and the cinema offer an ‘array of commodiŽed images and experiences’
(Friedberg, 1993, p. xi). It is this aspect of commodiŽcation that interests
us. In tracking the geographical relocation and physical redevelopment of
cinemas (from property conversion to art deco splendour to the spatial
metonymy of the multiplex) (see Friedberg, 1993; Davies, 1994), we argue
that their identity and purpose have increasingly become enmeshed with the
unbridled authenticity of consumption (Schor, 1999). Where once movie-
going might have been understood as an institutional extension of the family
at leisure (Roberts, 1984; Davies, 1994), we argue that it is now no more
nor less than an institution of capital. As such it is consumed not for its social
distinctiveness per se, but rather for the consumption possibilities that it
seemingly offers.
The development of cinema and the cineplex
The term cinema was Žrst associated with a location exhibiting movies by the
invention of a machine capable of projecting still images, in Paris in 1895
(Friedberg, 1993, p. 94; Australian Centenary of Cinema, 2000). The machine
was known as the ‘cinematograph’. However, at that time the term cinema
was not only associated with motion pictures, but was also used to refer to a

218
N. Ravenscroft et al.
number of popular attractions and entertainments. The reduction of the term
from its original usage, to its current deŽnition as ‘a theatre where motion
picture Žlms are shown’ (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995), is perhaps a
signiŽer that motion pictures have become a popular form of entertainment.
Screening locations were originally largely improvised, being housed either
in converted shops (Davies, 1994), or in rented halls or tents (Shaw, 1999). By
the late-1920s, with the rapid expansion of the industry, purpose-built
cinemas were being developed. Not only did they offer a better movie-viewing
environment, but they also had a larger capacity. Through the decades that
followed, purpose-built cinemas continued to provide and to improve on the
cinematic experience, through improvements to the technology and design of
the auditorium (Davies, 1994) as well as attention to basic considerations
such as seat comfort (Tong, 1998b).
From the 1980s, cinemas have undergone a number of fundamental changes.
One of the most notable transformations has been the conversion of the single
screen cinemas into multiple-screen complexes, or cineplexes (a corruption of
the words cinema and complex, also sometimes called ‘multiplex’). This
initiative began in the US, as a means of coping with the availability of more
Žlms for screening, as well as being an attempt to counter the emergence of
home videos and the resultant declines in cinema attendance (Golden Village,
1999).
Conversion of a single screen into multiple ones meant that a cinema could
screen several movies at any one time, or one popular movie on more than
one screen (KingSturge, 2000). From the exhibitor’s stance, this form of
re-structuring allowed a degree of exibility in utilizing a cinema’s capacity to
its full potential, which could contribute to higher occupancy rates at every
seating (Turner, 1993; Serwach, 1997). The multi-screens also cater simultan-
eously for a variety of tastes. This enables exhibitors to spread risks, since
they can manage their total portfolio of screens to ensure that a poor perform-
ance at one screen can be offset by good performances at the others. Because
of the different show times, patrons can also arrive at any time, instead of
having to adhere to a Žxed movie schedule, as was formerly the case. This has
helped to ease congestion at ticket counters, food and beverage outlets, rest
rooms and in passageways.
Soon after this transition, cineplexes were introduced into shopping malls,
as part of a larger ‘shopping experience’ (Koh, 1996; Anon, 1998; Chew,
1998; Chin, 1998; Teo, 1998; Shaw, 1999). There are still many cineplexes
that operate as single purpose entities. However, property developers are
increasingly motivated to merge the mall and cinema businesses in an effort to
appeal to time-scarce consumers who wish to pack as much as possible into
their visits (Property Market Intelligence, 1998). This is echoed by research in
the UK, showing that ‘cinema visits are intrinsically linked to other leisure
pursuits, such as eating fast food, a restaurant meal or a visit to the bar’
(KingSturge, 2000, pp. 3–4).
The development of cineplexes within shopping malls – or vice versa –
offers a variety of options for consumers during a day out at a single

Cinema development in Singapore
219
destination (Ferguson, 1992). These complexes offer a range of outlets cover-
ing a wide spectrum of ‘lifestyle’ products and services. These include shops,
games arcades and other leisure attractions, beauty salons and cinemas
(English Tourist Board/Jones Land Wootton, 1989; Mintel, 1999). Large
complexes, such as the West Edmonton Mall, also comprise substantial theme
parks (Friedberg, 1993).
This mix of shopping and leisure makes such developments difŽcult to
deŽne. Hence, the developers of many of these complexes have decided either
to avoid branding them according to a speciŽc activity such as shopping, or
have re-labelled the complexes as leisure or entertainment centres. Examples
of the former include: Bluewater in north-west Kent, UK; Heron City in
Madrid, Spain; Suria KLCC in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Central and Seacon
Square in Bangkok, Thailand and Parco Bugis Junction in Singapore.
Examples of the latter include The Coliseum, Ellesmere Port, UK and
Orchard Cineleisure in Singapore.
The deŽnition of a cineplex thus amounts to two identiŽably separate
constructs. In its purest sense, the ‘stand alone’ cineplex can be understood as
a location or complex that exhibits simultaneously a number of different
movies. In contrast, cineplexes that are housed within shopping malls, or a
variety of retail outlets located within cineplexes, can be better understood as
entertainment centres. According to this second construct, many contempor-
ary cineplexes appear to be closer to the original meaning of the term, used
for the early cinemas.
The supply and location of cinemas in Singapore
Early cinema development in Singapore was unplanned and predominantly
grew in response to local residential patterns, which themselves were based
on trading areas. These were mainly along the river front, known as the
Central Area. According to Wang and Tan (1981), for example, in 1947
approximately 72% of Singapore’s population lived in the Central Area. This
is where the early cinemas were developed (Bellett, 1969; Davies, 1992).
In view of the need to decentralize and redistribute the population away
from the congested Central Area, the Žrst Singapore Master Plan was drafted
in 1958 (Singapore Housing and Development Board, 1988). Its principal
objective was to reduce the population of the Central Area by one-sixth by
redistributing it to the suburbs (Perry et al., 1997). New satellite towns, of
40,000 to 50,000 families each, were developed by grouping a number of
neighbourhood centres, each comprising several precincts (Yap, 1995). Larger
businesses, such as supermarkets and cinemas, were developed in the town
centres, while smaller businesses were concentrated in the precincts, which
were close to the residential quarters (see Figure 1). Because of the relocation
of the population, shopping centres were developed in the mid-1970s,
predominantly in the higher income, accessible and high residential growth
suburbs (Sim, 1984). Cinemas soon followed, offering both convenience and

220
N. Ravenscroft et al.
Towns
1. Ang Mo Kio
2. Balestier
3. Bishan
4. Bt Batok
5. Choa Chu Kang
6. Clementi
7. Jurong
8. Kallang
9. Sembawang
10. Simei
11. Tampines
12. Tiong Bahru
13. Toa Payoh
14. Yishun
Source: Geo Millenium System
Copyright Geo Millenium System Pte Ltd
Fig. 1. Sites of town centre cinemas in Singapore
accessibility to the local residents. The principal cinema operators were the
Eng Wah, Shaw and Cathay Organizations (Tong, 1999a), each operating in
distinct areas of Singapore.
Business in the Central Area was affected by the residential shift to the
suburbs. The diversiŽcation of Singapore’s economy into manufacturing in
the 1960s also meant that fewer people commuted to the Central Area, since
the industrial estates were located close to the suburban population. From the
mid-1960s, the Central Area has been regenerated as a commercial and
tourist centre (Bellett, 1969; Dale, 1988). This was facilitated by the Urban
Redevelopment Authority, which promoted the development of new shopping
centres and other retail facilities. The availability of large spaces in the shop-
ping centres meant that cinema exhibitors could locate alongside the shopping
(Ang, 1997). Unlike the single-purpose cinemas, which operated as a destina-
tion attraction, the cinemas in the shopping malls had to tailor their offering to
compliment those of the other tenants.

Cinema development in Singapore
221
Since 1991 there has been a revised Development Plan, dividing Singapore
into four ‘self-sufŽcient’ regional centres: Tampines; Seletar; Woodlands;
and Jurong East (Singapore Ministry of National Development, 2000). Each
regional centre is expected to develop 1.5 million sq m of oor space for
retail, leisure, ofŽces and hotels, located near mass rapid transit (MRT)
stations (Yeo, 1994). This should enable residents to live, Žnd work and seek
leisure within each centre, thus again seeking to reduce congestion in the
downtown area. This shift in the residential pattern has promoted suburban
retailing, with new malls opening in each of the regions (Kwan, 1993; Anon,
1995). In addition, the opening of the Northpoint Mall also saw the birth of
the Žrst cineplex in Singapore, with ten screens.
There are now Žve major cinema exhibitors, with Golden Village and
United Artists joining the original three (see Table 1 and Figure 2). All these
exhibitors are involved, predominantly, in the showing of a globalized movie
product. Much of this product originates in Hollywood. In addition, most
domestic and regional movies tend to replicate both the genres and the
messages of the American product. With most new cinema developments
being multiple screen, the result is that people’s choice of cinema is no longer
determined by the movies on show, since the new releases are likely to be
showing all over Singapore (Tong, 1999c). Rather, other factors become
important, such as location, the perceived quality of the cinema, or the other
shops and services adjacent to it (Rashiwala, 1997; Tong, 1999c, d). In con-
trast to many other countries, there are few independent or alternative cinemas
in Singapore (Tong, 2000). This means that there is very little scope for
people to consume anything other than main stream movies at main stream
movie houses (Doherty, 1984).
Table 1 Cinema exhibitors in Singapore, 2000
Exhibitor Central
North
East
West
Downtown
Cathay
Causeway
Point
Orchard
Yangtze
Eng Wah Toa Payoh,
Jubilee
Sun Plaza
Whitesands
West Mall,
Empress
Suntec
Golden
Village
Bishan
Yishun
Tampines Mall, Boon Lay,
Eastpoint
Grand,
Tiong Bahru Marina, Plaza,
Shaw
Balestier,
Oriental
Choa Chu East Shore,
Kang Century
Jurong
Lido, Yangtze,
Studio
Cinema
6 screens
Causeway Simei
Riverside Point,
Central Mall
United
Artists
Beach Road,
Bugis Junction
Source: Cinema advertisements in The Straits Times, 13/7/2000.

222
N. Ravenscroft et al.
Towns
1. Orchard
2. Pearl Centre
3. River Valley Road
4. Scotts Road
5. Marina Square
Source: Geo Millennium System
Copyright Geo Millenium System Pte Ltd
Fig. 2. Regional cineplexes in Singapore
Most cineplexes are located in a sizeable catchment area and are accessible
from the public transportation network (Yeo, 1994). They also represent a
new era in watching movies, where the emphasis is on ‘state of the art’
projection and audio equipment, providing what is seen as the ‘ultimate’
cinematic experience (Shaw, 1999; Tong, 1999b).
In overall terms, the result of these developments has been that visits to
cineplexes have evolved into an important element of many Singaporeans’
lifestyle. The merger of cinemas and shopping malls, with the inclusion of
other lifestyle services within a single complex, has been a major step towards
catering for consumer needs and wants (Shaw, 1999; Golden Village, 1999).
The cineplex and mall operators claim that such a move has heralded the
arrival of a new dimension of convenience, brought to the consumer amidst
the limited time and space factors that confront them. Such complexes have
effectively become a form of ‘one-stop convenience lifestyle store’.

Cinema development in Singapore
Movie-going as leisure practice
223
At the level of practice, movie-going has always been a social activity,
undertaken by families, groups of friends and couples (Cinema Advertising
Association, 2000). For Jowett and Linton (1980) and Turner (1993), it is
thus a ‘social integrator’, generating what Tong (1999b) describes as a
‘communal’ approach to leisure time activities. While other leisure practices
may have these same attributes, Roberts (1984) has argued that the advent of
cinema – certainly in 1920s Britain – was responsible for signiŽcant shifts in
leisure practices, particular in relation to the family unit:
By the 1920s a new working class habit was developing, that of going together to
the cinema on a Saturday night. (Roberts, 1984, p. 123)
A similar class-based approach to cinema-going is still evidence in contempor-
ary South Korea (Min, 1998). There is evidence in Britain that movie-going is
no longer predominantly a family activity, being instead associated with the
leisure practices of youth, for whom it retains some of its ritual status (Turner,
1993; KingSturge, 2000). Similar trends are beginning to emerge in Singapore,
with the majority of cinema audiences under 35-years-old. However, anec-
dotal evidence suggests that movie-going is still very much a part of family
leisure activities, as Tong (1999c) discovered when interviewing a ‘housewife
and mum’ about her family’s visits to the cinema:
My husband likes Orchard Cineleisure because he has long legs. But my two kids
prefer Tiong Bahru for its games arcade . . . Myself – I like Great World City
because I can do my weekly grocery shopping. (Tong, 1999c)
The importance of the family market in Singapore has been conŽrmed by a
number of the cinema operators, such as Shaw and Shaw (1999), Goh Min
Yen (1999) and Goh Eng Wah (1999). They have also conŽrmed that the
youth and couples market is growing in importance, with operators such as
Golden Village promoting their seats with removable armrests on the basis
that they . . . provide customers with luxury and a little bit more romance’
(GV Grand, 1999). This very much introduces the idea that movie-going is
not simply a question of seeing a movie, but of participating in what Turner
(1993) characterizes as an ‘experience’.
For Turner, the notion of the ‘Žlm experience’ differentiates movie-going
from watching the television, with the act of ‘going out’ – with others – being
intrinsic to the experience. According to Choo Meileen, Chief Executive
OfŽcer of Cathay Organization: ‘no matter how sophisticated the home
entertainment equipment has become, there is no experience like the cinema
screen’. Mark Shaw, Senior Manager at the Shaw Organization concurred,
stating that: ‘certain movies, such as Star Wars and Jurassic Park lend them-
selves to the audio and visual impact of cinema’. Big screen projection, digital
sound systems, timely release and communal mood are things that home
entertainment cannot offer.
However, it is apparent that movie-going is about more than seeing movies
in the ‘best’ environment. There has been an overall decline in movie-going in

224
N. Ravenscroft et al.
Table 2 Cinema attendances
Year
Number (’000)
Number of screens
Seating capacity
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
19,767
22,251
21,376
20,655
20,736
19,301
19,977
17,857
18,128
17,259
17,347
16,397
14,774
107
108
131
135
133
144
55,000
49,000
51,000
53,000
46,000
46,000
Source: Singapore Department of Statistics (1996, 2000).
recent years (Table 2), with movie piracy being cited by cinema operators as
the main cause (Tong, 1999c, 2000). Rather than being ubiquitous, however,
the decline has meant that audience proŽles have narrowed, with no more
than 10% of the population now going regularly to the cinema. Yet this 10%,
comprised predominantly of those under 35-years-old, remains as active as
ever in movie-going, with as many as one visit per week to the cinema (Ho
and Chua, 1990). According to industry sources (Lim, 1997; Tong, 1998a, b;
Tee, 1999), there are some distinguishing factors that have been deployed to
retain the popularity of cinema amongst this reŽned target audience: con-
venience (Tong, 1999c); and the constant availability of new movies to encour-
age multiple repeat business. With respect to convenience, it is notable that
cinema design has evolved to suit changes in consumer requirements. Along
with the reconŽguration of the physical structure of cinemas has come a more
sophisticated software product. In particular, new technology has allowed
contemporary cineplexes to reŽne reel projection and sound systems so that
they are tailor-made for each auditorium (Tong, 2000).
In addition, cineplex operators have added ‘frills’ to the movie-going
environment, to improve the overall consumption experience (Tong, 1998b;
Golden Village, 1999). These include exible ticketing arrangements, the
installation of plush armchairs, reclining seats, foot rests and drink-holders,
the provision of exclusive lounges for premium customers and the fashioning
of themed images and artefacts, in both auditoriums and foyers (Tong, 1998a).
Indeed, cineplex operators have gone further, in imbuing the entire cinematic
experience with a fanfare and carnivalesque approach. The cineplex usually
takes on a theme that presents a visual appeal to patrons, particularly when
they are queuing for tickets or waiting for the movie. A good example of this
is the Golden Village at Great World City. The cineplex has a Renaissance
theme, which includes an open-air garden with a fountain modelled after a
courtyard of that era. Also offered is an ‘ultra-plush’ thirty-seat ‘theatrette’,
catering for patrons who are willing to pay a premium for a luxurious

Cinema development in Singapore
225
experience. This theatrette is furnished with an ‘up-market’ lounge with a
full-bar setup for patrons before and after the movie. Beverages and gourmet
food may be ordered and served by service staff during the movie (Golden
Village, 1999). Similar developments have occurred in the UK (Mintel, 1998).
For Friedberg (1993), however, this emphasis on the cinema as event rather
misses its signiŽcance, to the extent at least that with multiple screens and
show timings, people are offered the exibility and choice conventionally
associated with video-cassette recorders. In providing a reading of the ex-
hibitors’ attempts to enhance customer appeal, Friedberg (1993) suggests that
the cinema offers a form of liminality that blurs the boundaries between the
‘real’ and the ‘now’:
. . . theories of spectatorship which imply a one-to-one correspondence between
the spectator position and gender, race or sexuality – as if identity were a constant,
consistent continuum, unchallenged by the borrowed subjectivity of spectatorship
– do not consider the pleasures of escaping this physically-bound subjectivity. Isn’t
cinema spectatorship pleasurable precisely because new identities can be ‘worn’
and disgarded? (Friedberg, 1993, pp. 184–185)
This relationship between people and spaces is very much part of the
disciplinary codes identiŽed by Michel Foucault (1977, 1979, 1986a, b). In
his work, Foucault showed how power has become increasingly exercised
through a subtle focus in the minds of individuals, thus ensuring the con-
tinued successful management of the population. In Foucault’s (1977) terms,
the exercise of such power has ensured that individuals become, in effect,
‘docile bodies’ living according to the normalizing forces of discipline and
disciplinary boundaries.
Rather than absolute power existing, therefore, Foucault argued that it
now has to be exercised, which requires the creation of suitable regulatory
practices and spaces for the forces of operation coming into being (Rabinow,
1984; Matless, 1992). Chief among these spaces is the construct of the
heterotropia, or compensatory world (Foucault, 1986a). According to Philips
(1998, p. 76), the heterotropia is central to the policing of the ‘bounded
world’, operating as a site contingent on, and structured in, its difference
from the external world. Using theme parks as the basis of her work, Philips
(1998, 1999) argues that such sites are necessary both to give meaning to the
external or ‘real’ world, and to provide a space for subversive, yet bounded,
activity.
Such sites are, thus, an integral element in exercising coercion upon the
body, as a calculated manipulation of its elements, gestures and behaviour
(Foucault, 1979, p. 138). In encouraging people to use such spaces, Foucault
thus shows how they are effectively drawn into the disciplinary ‘web’. This
web at once offers a site of freedom – and even opposition – while simul-
taneously appropriating that action as acquiescence to the power of the wider
system. The heterotropia thus represents, for Foucault, a ‘temporary halt’ in
which familiarity is juxtaposed with difference:
Through the sets of relationships that deŽne them, one could describe arrange-
ments where one makes a temporary halt: cafes, cinemas, beaches . . . those which

226
N. Ravenscroft et al.
are endowed with the curious property of being in relation with all the others, but
in such a way as to suspend, neutralize or invert the set of relationships designed,
reected or mirrored by themselves. These spaces, which are in rapport in some
way with all the others, and yet contradict them. (Foucault, 1986b, p. 252)
As Deleuze (1990) has suggested, cinemas and other such sites seem to offer
individuals a rare and welcome possibility of freedom and self expression, but
concurrently limit this by reecting – and embodying – the normalizing
discipline being exercised over their ‘docile bodies’. This form of liminality
(Shields, 1992) thus actively encourages subversion, or escape, but only within
the context and conŽnes of the existing power relations – the heterotropia.
While there is no existing research to apply this to Singapore (Doherty,
1984), work in South Korea (Min, 1998) and Norway (Asbjornsen and
Solum, 1999) supports Deleuze’s (1990) suggestion, and from entirely oppos-
ing standpoints. In South Korea, Min (1998) shows how commercial cinema
has been appropriated as a symbol of Westernized development. This is both
in terms of the actual practice of movie-going (constructed as an expression of
freedom) and also the nature of the mainstream domestic movies that are
exhibited (which take their themes from popular Hollywood genres). This
remains very much the case, argue Asbjornsen and Solum (1999), even where
the cinema is overwhelmingly publicly owned and operated, as in Norway. In
this case, a former emphasis on public education has given way to an overt
emphasis on entertainment, such that the case for public ownership and
regulation is increasingly difŽcult to sustain.
In developing this argument with respect to Singapore, it is apparent that
the construct of the cinema as heterotropia is central to the recent and
contemporary public management of urban space. Through successive master
plans, the Government has ensured that new residential areas have been
served by cinemas with low regulated admission prices (Chong, 2000). This
has undoubtedly offered the possibility of social, cultural and ethnic access-
ibility and inclusion for all citizens – an offer that has widely been taken up. Yet
it also implies that such spaces offer compensation for the highly regulated
and inherently discriminatory world beyond the cinema. Of course, accept-
ance of this ‘offer’ of freedom simultaneously implies acceptance of that
world beyond, regardless of the actuality of the individual’s access to and
experience of the cinema.
Thus, in acquiescing with the imperative of the cinema, the spectator is
effectively commodiŽed. With respect to the increasing number of cinemas
located in shopping malls, Kowinski (1985) and Friedberg (1993) argue that
this reects an ontological inversion, in which the cinema becomes the mall
just as surely as the mall becomes the cinema. While going to the mall to
experience multiple performances, therefore, they argue that, in the cineplex,
we are able to consume what we wish – including multiple identities – when
we wish. Equally, in encouraging the relocation of cinemas from the
neighbourhood to the mall, an implicit distinction is being made – between
those with the cultural and economic capital to ‘consume’ the new mall
experiences and those who are effectively denied such access.

Cinema development in Singapore
227
In a very important sense, therefore, we argue that ‘going to the movies’ –
in Singapore as elsewhere – is not so much about seeing a Žlm per se, as it is
about the commodiŽcation of leisure practice. By constructing the cinema,
particularly the shopping mall cinema, as heterotropia, it is imbued with a
liminality notably absent from many other social spaces. In the cinema, we
are ‘free’ to adopt and discard different personae, even – in Bakhtin’s (1984)
sense – to ‘lift the moral curtain’ a little, safe in the knowledge that it will fall
back into place when we leave. Yet, in using the liminality in this way, we
commodify the very act of watching the movie; we purchase entrance to the
heterotopia.
Conclusions
There is currently very little research into the practice of movie-going, either
in Singapore or elsewhere. For the most part, research into cinema has
concentrated on the relationship between movies and their audiences, rather
than exploring the notion of practice as a symbolic interaction between
people’s behaviour and the spaces they occupy (Crouch, 2000). In this paper
we have attempted to shift the focus of debate, to concentrate instead on the
evident geo-political nature of cinema development and operation.
At a spatial level, we argue, main stream cinema in Singapore (for this is
really all that there is) can be understood as part of a raft of services that are
required as part of new residential developments. In common with shopping
malls, they are seen to serve whole communities, consequently being developed
at physically accessible locations. As Table 3 illustrates, while the actual
dimensions of the location may have changed, from suburbia to town centre
to mall for example, the rationale for location has not. In all cases, the rationale
has been support for the centralized physical and economic planning process
that has characterized Singapore since independence. This has led to ‘waves’
of cinema development (characterized in Table 3 in terms of ‘life cycle’
stages), reecting the Government’s attempts to relocate both people and jobs
and to reduce the amount of commuting between the two.
In developmental terms, this spatial project has been supplemented by
continued attempts – on the part of cinema exhibitors – to provide for what
they view as changing customer requirements. Indeed, it might be argued that
the regularity of locational shift has been used to advantage, rhetorically at
least, in building in an element of socio-economic redundancy (Rashiwala,
1997). This has meant that the stages in the development of the cinematic
experience in Singapore have been congruent with the need to relocate to
reect new residential development initiatives. Thus, the Žrst purpose-built
picture houses appeared in the Žrst wave of suburbanization, just as surely
as the mall-based cineplex was the result of the later regionalization of
residential areas.
As such, there has been an effective blurring of the constructs of demand
and supply. The relocation of residential areas – and thus cinemas – has been

228
N. Ravenscroft et al.
Table 3 Evolution of cinema in Singapore
Time
Stage of life cycle
Focus areas
1940s–1960s
Infancy
Single screen cinema/single purpose building
Fixed show times
Basic projection system
Standard functional seating arrangement
Ticketing
c
c
c
Manual system
Queue in person
Advanced booking
Planned and located in accordance with residential
and business requirements
1970s
Growth
Relocation of cinemas to suburban areas to
support new residential developments
1980s–2000s
Maturity
Cineplex concept – multiple screens
Hi-tech auditorium system
Ratings of movies such as PG13 and RA
Consumer-tailored auditorium e.g. Seats, drink
holders, couple seats, carpet, atmospherics,
disabled friendly.
Cinemas in shopping malls – integration of
movie-going and other forms of leisure
Associated services
c
c
Fast-food and snack kiosks
User-friendly rest rooms e.g. diaper changing
boards, handicap cubicle
Parking facilities
c
c
Loyalty cards
Planned in accordance with lifestyle considerations,
such as transport links, shopping and commuting
a centrally-generated supply-driven policy. Yet the response from the ex-
hibitors has been largely informed by customer ‘demands’, certainly to the
extent that new cinemas in new locations have not been replicas of those that
they have replaced. This is most apparent with respect to the ‘inversion’ of the
mall cineplex, in which the process of selecting a movie to watch resembles
closely other purchase decisions, just as the spectatorship of the cinema is
replicated all over the mall. Cinema development in the mall could thus not
be further removed from the suburban picture house that it has replaced. The
driver for replacement may be geopolitical; the resulting design and operation
is avowedly consumerist.
It is this link to consumerism, we have argued, that is of central signiŽcance
in understanding the practice of movie-going in contemporary Singapore. For

Cinema development in Singapore
229
while many of the traditional consumers – predominantly older people – have
given up movie-going in favour of watching television and video at home, the
cinema remains a key leisure attraction for young people. With its spatial and
cultural metonymy with other primary consumption sites – the shopping mall
and the fast food outlet – the cinema offers (and provides) reassurance about
the centrality of consumerism in contemporary society. In purchasing entry to
a movie, audiences – especially in the unrelentingly crowded and highly
regulated urban environment of Singapore – are purchasing the time and
space in which to mobilize their gaze, to assume new identities. They do this
safe in the knowledge that they can later ‘return’, undetected, to the real time
and space of the mall, to their ‘real’ lives outside the cinema.
The construct of ‘undetected’ is, of course, central to this process. It is the
prime purpose of the heterotropia to allow for this type of inversion, to
provide the space and security for people to ‘lift the moral veil’ a little,
without fear that their thoughts, assumed identities and actions will be
deemed subversive, or out of time or place. But, of course, in acquiescing to
the construct of the heterotropia, movie-goers accept – implicitly at least –
that they are, and remain, subject to the dominant ideology – that just as the
cinema legitimates temporary deviance, the act of movie-going legitmates the
wider socio-political governance of society. In Singapore, as in most Western
countries, governance, at this level, is associated with commodiŽcation and
consumerism. Buying a ticket to the movies is thus very much an act of
conformity, of both recognizing and accepting the heterotropic possibilities
offered by the cinema.
Unlike South Korea, where a popular resistance has emerged to the
hegemony of main stream movie-going (Min, 1998), there is little evidence of
an independent cinema movement in Singapore (Doherty, 1984; Tong, 2000).
In South Korea, as in many other countries, there is a growing attempt to
reject Hollywood orthodoxy in favour of movies that reect the lives of the
working people who dominate cinema audiences. While gaining a limited,
usually politically motivated, following, the main stream of Hollywood
continues to dominate. There is little evidence of even this level of resistance
in Singapore. Rather, it appears that young people are only too ready to be
subsumed by – and to consume – the dominant ideology.
To this extent, the physical, social and cultural development of main stream
cinema, certainly on the scale witnessed in Singapore, may be read as a meta-
phor for what Fudge and Glasbeek (1992) have termed the ‘blocked hegemony
of late capitalism’. Under this model, cinema assumes the role of heterotropia,
offering simultaneously a site of freedom, but one that is bounded by, and
subservient to, the overarching structure of society. The greater the ubiquity
of this model (in Singapore’s case, one main stream cinema screen for every
20,000 population), the greater is likely to be the level of regulation and
control exercised over society. The absence of independent and alternative
cinemas, in which opposition to the dominant ideology might be played out
in a modiŽed version of the heterotropia, further indicates the extent of
regulatory control experienced in Singapore.

230
N. Ravenscroft et al.
Acknowledgement
We thank Titus Chia, General Manager of Geo Millenium System Pte Ltd, for
allowing us to reproduce the maps of Singapore used in this paper.
References
Anon (1995) Changing the face of shopping in Singapore: retail on trial in Tampines, The
Straits Times, 30 September.
Anon (1998) Theatre operator to launch mixed-use development in Singapore, Business
Times, 3 December.
Asbjornsen, D. and Solum, O. (1999) Public service cinema? On strategies of legitimacy in
policies for Norwegian cinema, Cultural Policy, 5(2), 269–291.
Australian Centenary of Cinema (2000) Early cinema: a chronology. Available at:
http:www.cinemedia.net/NLA/csilent.html, accessed on 14 June 2000.
Ang, W. M. (1997) New suburban malls well sought by retailers. The Straits Times, 11th
November 1997.
Bakhtin, M. (1984) Rabelais and his world, trans H. Iswolsky, Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, IN.
Bellett, J. (1969) Singapore’s central area retail pattern in transition, The Journal of Tropical
Geography, 28, 1–16.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London.
Chaney, D. (1994) The cultural turn, Routledge, London.
Chew, M. (1998) Shaw to launch mixed project at Balestier soon, Business Times, 3
December.
Chin, S. F. (1998) Stretch out in style at Eng Wah theatres, The Straits Times, 14 July.
Chong, C. K. (2000) Off to the movies? Pay less on weekdays, The Straits Times, 27
January.
Cinema Advertising Association (2000) Cinema and video industry audience research, no 17,
Cinema Advertising Association, London.
Crouch, D. (2000) Places around us: embodied lay geographies in leisure and tourism, Leisure
Studies, 19, 63–76.
Dale, O. J. (1988) The redevelopment of the Central Area of Singapore: an examination of
trends and policies with particular reference to retail and services, School of Architecture,
National University of Singapore.
Davies, K. (1992) The changing structure of retailing in Singapore, Working Paper 9201,
Institute for Retail Studies, University of Stirling.
Davies, A. (1994) Cinema and broadcasting, in Twentieth-Century Britain: economic, social
and cultural change (edited by P. Johnson), Longman, London, pp. 263–280.
Deleuze, G. (1990) The logic of sense, Columbia University Press, New York.
Denzin, N. K. (1991) Images of post modern society: social theory and contemporary cinema,
Sage, London.
Doherty, T. (1984) Creating a national cinema, Asian Survey, 12, 840–851.
English Tourist Board/Jones Lang Wootton (1989) Retail, leisure and tourism, Jones Lang
Wootton, London.
Ferguson, H. (1992) Watching the world go round – atrium culture and the psychology of
shopping, in Lifestyle shopping – the subject of consumption (edited by R. Shields),
Routledge, London, pp. 21–39.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison, Allen Lane, London.
Foucault, M. (1979) The history of sexuality; volume one: an introduction, Allen Lane,
London.
Foucault, M. (1986a) Other spaces: the principles of heterotropia, Quarterly Architectural
Review, 48/49, 9–17.
Foucault, M. (1986b) The history of sexuality; volume three: the care of the self, Penguin,
Harmonsworth.

Cinema development in Singapore
231
Friedberg, A. (1993) Window shopping: cinema and the postmodern, University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Fudge, J. and Glasbeek, H. (1992) The politics of rights: a politics with little class, Social and
Legal Studies, 1, 45–70.
Goh Eng Wah (1999) Personal communication, 14th September.
Goh Min Yen (1999) Personal communication, 14th September.
Golden Village (1999) Global Village homepage: shareholders – Singapore and region.
Available at: http://www.golden-village.com.sg/about/proŽle.html, accessed 9 September
2000.
Green, E., Hebron, S. and Woodward, D. (1990) Women’s leisure, what leisure? Macmillan,
London.
GV Grand (1999) Golden Village Press Kit, Golden Village, Singapore.
Ho, K. C. and Chua, B. H. (1990) Cultural, social and leisure activities in Singapore, Census
of Population 1990, Monograph 3, Singapore Department of Statistics.
Johnson, P. (ed.) (1994) Twentieth-Century Britain: economic, social and cultural change,
Longman, London.
Jowett, G. and Linton, J. (1980) Movies as mass communication, Sage, Beverly Hills, LA.
Kaplan, E. A. (1990) Psychoanalysis and cinema, Routledge, London.
KingSturge (2000) Screen wars: a review of the UK cinema industry, KingSturge Retail,
London.
Koh, B. P. (1997) Cathay’s new 6-hall cineplex offers a host of services, The Straits Times, 19
November.
Kowinski, W. (1985) The Malling of America, Morrow, New York.
Kwan, L. (1993) Decentralization widens retail opportunities, Retail Asia, September, 20–21.
Lim, R. (1996) Malls become focal point for family fun, The Straits Times, 7 April.
Mason, T. (1994) Sport and recreation, in Twentieth-Century Britain: economic, social and
cultural change (edited by P. Johnson), Longman, London, pp. 111–126.
Matless, D. (1992) An occasion for geography: landscape, representation and Foucault’s
corpus, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 10, 41–56.
Metz, C. (1982) Psychoanalysis and the cinema: the imaginary signiŽer, Macmillan, London.
Min, E. (1998) A theoretical and historical analysis of the national cinema movement in
Korea, Journal of Asian PaciŽc Communication, 8(2), 165–180.
Mintel (1998) Cinemas, Leisure Intelligence Report, Mintel International Group Ltd., London.
Mintel (1999) Leisure shopping off the high street, Mintel International Group Ltd., London.
Perry, M., Kong, L. and Yeoh, B. (1997) Singapore – a developmental city state, World Cities
Series, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Philips, D. (1998) Carnival and control: the commodiŽcation of the carnivalesque at
Disneyland, in Tourism and visitor attractions: leisure, culture and commerce (edited by
N. Ravenscroft, D. Philips and M. Bennett), Publication no. 61, Leisure Studies
Association, Eastbourne, pp. 75–82.
Philips, D. (1999) Narrativized spaces: the functions of story in the theme park, in Leisure/
tourism Geographies: Practices and Geographical Knowledge (edited by D. Crouch),
Routledge, London, pp. 91–108.
Property Market Intelligence (1998) Property Market Intelligence Limited, Reuters Business
BrieŽng, 15 August 1999.
Rabinow, P. (ed.) (1984) The Foucault reader, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Rashiwala, K. (1997) Suntec investment, Shaw Brothers Hong Kong abort plans for Suntec
City space, The Straits Times, 17 October.
Riley, R., Baker, D. and Van Doren, C. S. (1998) Movie induced tourism, Annals of Tourism
Research, 25(1), 919–935.
Riley, R. and Van Doren, C. S. (1992) Movies as tourism promotion: a push factor in a pull
location, Tourism Management, 13, 267–274.
Roberts, E. (1984) A woman’s place, Blackwell, Oxford.
Roberts, K. (1999) Leisure in contemporary society, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Schor, J. (1999) The new politics of consumption, Boston Review, 24(3), 1–11.

232
N. Ravenscroft et al.
Serwach, J. (1997) Movie monsters shake industry – small theatres endangered, Crain’s
Detroit Business, 22 September.
Shaw (1999) Shaw online, available at: http://www.shaw.com.sg/shawstory.htm, accessed on 9
October.
Shaw, M. and Shaw, C. (1999) Personal communication, 10 September.
Shields, R. (1992) Spaces for the subject of consumption, in Lifestyle shopping – the subject
of consumption (edited by R. Shields), Routledge, London, pp. 1–20.
Sim, L. L. (1984) A study of planned shopping centres in Singapore, University of Singapore
Press, Singapore.
Singapore Department of Statistics (1996) Social trends – entertainment and the arts,
Singapore Department of Statistics.
Singapore Department of Statistics (2000) Yearbook of statistics 2000, Singapore Department
of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry.
Singapore Housing and Development Board (1988) Annual Report 1987/88, Singapore
Housing and Development Board.
Singapore Ministry of Communications and Information (1990) Singapore facts and Žgures
1990 (compiled and edited by Ng Poey Siong), Singapore National Printers Ltd.
Singapore Ministry of Information and the Arts (1998) Singapore Facts and Pictures,
Singapore Ministry of Information and the Arts.
Singapore Ministry of National Development (2000) Land-use Planning: Masterplan,
available at: http//www.mnd.gov.sg/landuse.html, accessed on 15 February.
Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry (2000) Digest of statistics, June 2000, Singapore
Ministry of Trade and Industry.
Singapore Tourism Board (1999) Survey of leisure attractions, Jan–June 1999, Singapore
Tourism Board.
Tee, H. C. (1999) Surveys – and the award goes to the best seat, The Straits Times, 21
February.
Teo, P. L. (1998) Plaza Singapura reopens – Plaza Pizzazz – new bloom in the orchard, The
Straits Times, 4 December.
Tong, K. (1998a) Cut the cinema queue – phone in, surf in, even drive in, The Straits Times,
26 February.
Tong, K. (1998b) Lights down, relax, put your feet up, The Straits Times, 23 November.
Tong, K. (1999a) Personal communication, 9 September.
Tong, K. (1999b) From kachang to popcorn – get reel, multi screens rule, The Straits Times,
8 January.
Tong, K. (1999c) Singapore: screen test? No, this is reel life, The Straits Times, 17 July.
Tong, K. (1999d) Curtains for two multiplexes, The Straits Times, 6 July, p. 2.
Tong, K. (2000) Movie industry sings the blues, The Straits Times, 12 August.
Turner, G. (1993) Film as social practice, second edition, Routledge, London.
Wang, L. H. and Tan, T. H. (1981) Singapore, in Problems and Planning in Third World
Cities (edited by M. Pacione), Croom Helm, London.
Yap, L. (1995) HDB shopping to change by year 2000, The Straits Times, 12 February.
Yeo, S. (1994) MRT malls: big threats to HDB shops, The Straits Times, 25 April, p. 4.