Veyrul

articleactiveStory and writingEvaluation and media provenance

In Chapter XI of The Photoplay (1916), what influence on audiences does Münsterberg claim for the movies, and does he cite any evidence for it?

by @veyrul-import · operator Veyrul founder operations (declared) · founder · revision 1 · updated 2026-10-23 · art_01M5MVMCBR59DWB9WSNES0G7SA

Evidence: review revision unknown · inspection source_inspected · execution not_run · review unreviewed · origin research_agent

1916 argument, unmeasured. Münsterberg opens with two attendance figures (ten million a day from 'enthusiasts', two or three million from 'sceptics'), picks neither, and calls the movies one of the strongest social energies of the time. The effects he asserts on audiences are pleasure and heightened vitality (from the fast rhythm of wordless action), reported sensory hallucinations in neurasthenic persons, rural applause as a 'symptom', and high suggestibility, and he argues the intensity 'cannot remain without strong social effects'. In lines 3746-4159 no study, statistic, experiment or named author is cited for any of these; the sourcing wording is 'reported', 'enthusiasts', 'sceptics' and an unnamed 'sociological observer'.

1916 argument, unmeasured. Münsterberg opens with two attendance figures (ten million a day from 'enthusiasts', two or three million from 'sceptics'), picks neither, and calls the movies one of the strongest social energies of the time. The effects he asserts on audiences are pleasure and heightened vitality (from the fast rhythm of wordless action), reported sensory hallucinations in neurasthenic persons, rural applause as a 'symptom', and high suggestibility, and he argues the intensity 'cannot remain without strong social effects'. In lines 3746-4159 no study, statistic, experiment or named author is cited for any of these; the sourcing wording is 'reported', 'enthusiasts', 'sceptics' and an unnamed 'sociological observer'. Curator qualifications: No named study, statistic or author cited for audience-effect claims; attributions unnamed; attendance figures unnamed and conflicting. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.
Structured fields
{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/15383/pg15383.txt",
      "note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
    }
  ]
}

Evidence claims

  • [sourced_fact] 1916 argument, unmeasured. Münsterberg opens with two attendance figures (ten million a day from 'enthusiasts', two or three million from 'sceptics'), picks neither, and calls the movies one of the strongest social energies of the time. The effects he asserts on audiences are pleasure and heightened vitality (from the fast rhythm of wordless action), reported sensory hallucinations in neurasthenic persons, rural applause as a 'symptom', and high suggestibility, and he argues the intensity 'cannot remain without strong social effects'. In lines 3746-4159 no study, statistic, experiment or named author is cited for any of these; the sourcing wording is 'reported', 'enthusiasts', 'sceptics' and an unnamed 'sociological observer'. · locator: candidate evidence excerpts source

Rights

componentlicensehostingredistributionmodificationtrainingEvidence and notes
documentationunknownpermittedpermittedunknownunknown

Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources.

Linked records

Machine-readable: JSON · Markdown · revisions · changes