Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Blog #2
Clip #1: George Melies, "A Man of Heads" (1898)
Clip #2: Lumiere Brothers, "Arrival of a Train" (1895)
"As for the scenario, the 'fable,' or 'tale,' I only consider it at the end. I can state that the scenario constructed in this manner has no importance, since I use it merely as a pretext for the 'stage effects,' the 'tricks,' or for a nicely arranged tableau."
-George Melies in Tom Gunning's "The Cinema of Attractions Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde"
The films of George Melies and the Lumiere Brothers are often cited as foundational of two distinct tendencies in the cinema. The realistic tendency is characterized by the Lumiere's use of non-studio/outdoor settings, non-actors and a documentary-like approach to their subject matter. The formative tendency can be seen in Melies' exploration of the medium through trick photography and staged movement in non-realistic settings.
However, according to Tom Gunning, in what ways are the early films of Melies and the Lumiere Brothers similiar? Using the two films posted above as your examples, explain Gunning's concept of the cinema of attractions. According to Gunning, what is the relationship between this early mode of cinema and avant-garde practices that developed in the first half of the 20th century?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
After reading Gunning’s article and watching the two videos, there are some similarities drawn between the two. Visually the films aren’t similar at all, but it’s the atmosphere that movies bring to the audience, which ties into Gunning’s “cinema of attraction”. When referring to cinema of attraction Gunning says that it’s not even about the movies necessarily, but its about seeing the latest technology and being exposed to something that is bigger than us. People didn’t even go to movies back then so they could watch what’s on screen, it’s much more of a tourist attraction. Much like how people don’t visit the Great Wall of China for historical value, but to say that they’ve been there and not take it for what its true aura embodies. In reference to the change early mode cinema and avant-garde cinema, we’re looking at the part where movies become more of a show as opposed to showing off our newfound technology. The avant-garde practices brought more plot and depth into movies and starting taking the audience on more of a ride in a new direction. They were no longer just there to experience what a movie theater had to offer, instead members of the audience were exposed to new methods of acting and directing, which would eventually shift the entire cinema experience.
After Watching the two videos and reading through Gunning's article, the similarity that comes to mind immediately is the fact that neither clip is driven by any type of story or narrative. With the Melies' clip focusing primarily special affects and nothing more and the Lumiere Bros. clip simple being a single shot of a train arriving at station. As Gunning points out, "Nor should we ever forget that in the earliest years of exhibition the cinema itself was an attraction." Gunning compares early film to that of amusement parks that were built around the same time such as Coney Island. Film has broken away from earlier art forms such as theater and literature and has now developed as a technology which would be showed off. Gunning then explains that this type of filming never disappeared, but moved into an primarily Avant-Garde Underground movement.
According to Gunning, the Melies and Lumiere films are similar because they are a product of the same era. In the early days of cinema, films were made specifically to show off the "magical" technology that made the films possible. The cinema was a spectacle of filmmaking, not storytelling. The films usually didn't have a plot or story, but were just as entrancing and enticing as if they did, drawing the audience in with action. They made direct contact with the audience through devices such as breaking the fourth wall - direct glances and gestures made at the camera. This is in contrast with the narrative films that came after, in which an illusion of voyeuristic reality was kept at all times, and breaking the fourth wall was seen as breaking the illusion. So, even though the Melies and Lumiere films appear at first glance to be completly different in tone, theme, and subject, the actual subject of both is the camera and the wonders of technology contained within it.
Bethany Davey
According to Tom Gunning the films of both Melies and Lumiere are similar in the sense that they both establish contact with the audience in order to "show something." Gunning says that rather than considering their distinctive tendencies as opposing that they both thrive on this notion of "illusory power," whether it be magical or realistic.
Gunning defines the cinema of attractions as exhibitionist cinema. Offering a number of visual and on special occasion sonic "spectacles" the film exists only to entertain and present a unique experience. He further describes this concept as the act of "the recurring look at the camera by actors."
We can observe in Melies' short that the man is clearly addressing us as his audience, gaining our full attention. This is one form of attraction. Another example that is illustrated in Lumiere's "Arrival of a train" is the positioning of the camera relative to its subject. The increasingly approaching train isn't used as a narrative device, but rather as the attraction in of itself and nothing more. These techniques are used only to attract and amaze the viewer.
The relationship that gunning is referring to between early cinema and avant-garde practice was the interest of this medium as a means of interactive confrontations rather than passive observation. Early cinema had no narratives and forced the viewer to participate more intimately with the work - that is what attracted the avant-garde artists. This was a freedom from the obligation of the linear story allowing the artist to directly stimulate his audience. This idea was new to the masses and the reasoning behind the movement.
- david o
in what ways are the early films of Melies and the Lumiere Brothers similiar?
They are similar in that the goal of each of the movies is to show the audience something.
Using the two films posted above as your examples, explain Gunning's concept of the cinema of attractions.
In The George Melies piece the "attraction" is most obviously the effect of the multiple heads. The actor in the movie even makes eye contact and gestures at the camera as if to say to us "hey, look at this"
In the Lumiere Brothers' film the "attraction" is more in the mere presence of the camera and cinemas ability to bring things, like the arrival of a train, out of the real world and into the theater environment to be scrutinized by an audience.
So in both of these works people are drawn in by the "attractions" and in both cases these attractions are tied directly to the camera itself. In the first example it is the cameras ability to manipulate reality and in the second it is the cameras ability to capture reality.
According to Gunning, what is the relationship between this early mode of cinema and avant-garde practices that developed in the first half of the 20th century?
The similarity is that "mainstream" cinema adopted the idea of narrative from theater and literature while in the avant-gard the importance remained primarily on the image itself and the attractions of the camera that I discussed above.
-Johnathon Olsen
According to Tom Gunning Melies and Lumiere shared a same basis in their films. They both set up the same types of relations to the audience. Gunning throws the idea of looking at films as a way of telling stories when he makes this analysis. Instead he looks at film as presenting a set of continuous aspects to the viewer. Gunning calls this kind of filmmaking before 1906 "the cinema of attractions." The aspect that the viewing experience is an illusion itself. In Lumiere's "Arrival of the Train" the aspect of seeing the train on the screen is a realistic illusion and that in Melies' "A Man of Heads" the magical illusion of the man's head disappearing is the common thread that Gunning is getting at which defines his "Cinema of Attractions."
The relationship that Gunning gives to the early "Cinema of Attractions" and avant-garde practices is in the premises. Gunning calls it, "the tradition of contemplative subjectivity." This aspect of the "cinema of attractions" is alive in avant-garde however is driven underground from the rising popular entertainment.
- Jacob Rengstorf
While reading through Gunning's article and watching the two clips a similarity is that neither of the two clips really show any sort of narrative. In both of the videos the audience is very aware of the fact they're watching a film. It doesn't really bring the audience into it. It's almost as if its supposed to be something you've just come across in an everyday situation. Its as if it is some sort of an "attraction" gunning say that early film was in a way, similar to an amusement park. It is interesting to see the evolution of film throughout the years as it has progressed from a simple "attraction" to its own art form. These two films are similar because they were both created in a time where film wasn't really thought of as its own art form quite yet. Only years later would film become more sophisticated, allowing for story arcs, character development, etc.
The films of Melies and the Lumiere brothers were similar in several ways, one the time period they came in, the late 1800’s and more particularly right before films started to shift to a narrative focus, which happened around 1906ish. They were also similar in the concept that Gunning brings up of the cinema of attractions. The cinema of attractions was the idea of the film becoming aware of its own existence to the spectators to be more attention grabbing or as Gunning quotes a “willing to rupture a self-enclosed fictional world for a chance to solicit the attentions of the spectator” (Gunning 57). Both of these films were non-narrative and were more made to be spectacles to the viewers, for example in the late 1800’s a video of a man takings his head off multiple times would have been very interesting to early cinema viewers. What we saw going into the first half of the 20th century was an idea of creating narrative films but at times still making them visually appealing to the spectators, with trick photography like slow motion and etc.
-Andrew Fleckenstein
The films of Lumiere and Melies are similar because they share a common goal. Unlike the movies of today which aim to tell a story, these films simply attempt to show the audience something. When created, they aimed to display a new technology. These movies can be grouped into the Cinema of Attractions because the Cinema of Attractions demands attention from the audience by showing something special and new. In the case of these two clips, the thing that grabs people is the trick photography used by Melies and the new technology of film used by Lumiere. These early films unintentionally helped to establish film techniques used by early avant-garde film makers. For example, when the first close-up shot was used, it was used to display the ability to enlarge an image. It was not used to accent or express the narrative like in films of today.
Nick LaVake
According to Tom Gunning, the early films of Melies and the Lumiere Brothers are similar in that both are ‘telling stories’ more than a way of presenting a series of views to the audience. Both share, in Gunning’s words, a ‘common basis’ in their individual film despite that one is made particularly for fictional entertainment and the other is more of documentary film.
The two films posted exemplify Gunning’s concept of the cinema of attractions in that they both portray some type of movement or action that hold the audience’s attention because it is has the ‘ability to show something’. May it be magic, or people’s daily lives shown on screen, if it has the ability to capture the audience’s attention, it succeeds in the ability to show something; a live show in a sense, captured in film, projected on the screen for all to witness.
The relationship between early mode of cinema and avant-garde practices developed in the first half of the 20th century was that both offered a new sort of entertainment. The attracting audience responded tremendously to this new invention that film had to offer that was outside the original entertainment in that time, such as vaudeville, operas, and plays.
Jean Yang
Section 33074
Brent Coughenour
At first glance the Lumiere Brother's film and that of Melies seem totally different, except for perhaps the grainy black and white footage. while Melies utilizes physical comedy and trick photography the Lumiere brother's use of mundane everyday events to create the action of their film. Seemingly so different, both films fall into the category of "cinema of attraction" as described by Tom Gunning, "cinema of attraction expends little energy creating characters with psychological motivations or individual personality." a formula both films follow. These films had no intention of telling a story, they only intended to show off the new and quickly developing new technology of moving images. When the Avant-guard crowd began making films this changed. This new group of filmmakers made films with stories to be told and plot lines. Cinema began to look more and more like theatre. While the days of "cinema of attraction" had changed, it clearly influenced the new avant-guard. The tricks and tactics used by the "cinema of attraction" filmmakers were used in a new way. Where they were once used to awe and show off new technologies, they were now used to tell the story and create dramatic effect for the narrative films.
It was my impression that in Tom Gunnings mind, the two videos were similar for several different reasons. An example of their similarity being that these movies were not meant to be a narrative or a dramatic work as they are in this modern age. Both films merely demonstrated something. Or "the cinema of attraction" according to Gunning. The first movie showed a man doing magic tricks made possible by video editing, the second showed a busy street scene. These were made for pure entertainment purposes, not to tell a story. They also are similar in the sense that they were marketed to a middle class audience. They were exhibited at Vaudeville which had no distinct narrative. The "cinema of attraction" according to Gunning is more or less the early films being a novelty act that were just there to demonstrate an act or portray a scene. It was marketed as an attraction, not a story or narrative. The relationship between this early mode of cinema and avant-garde practices that developed in the first half of the 20th century are that, similar films produced post 1906 became the new avant garde because the cinema of attraction had been replaced by narrative story telling. They were the same type of films, now just called differently because narrative story telling became the standard in filmmaking.
While the two videos do not share similar content, they have a similar purpose in so much as they show the viewer something they've not seen before. This may no longer hold true today, but at the time of their creation, many people had still never been on a train and I'm sure that the terms and ideas of "special effects" or movie "magic" was not well known. In terms of "cinema of attraction", these films showed the viewers something new and fascinating which they would not have otherwise been able to see.
The earliest forms of film were all created to attract the viewer, to titillate and surprise them. This eventually led to avant-garde cinema which still held to the idea of showing that which is not understood (or makes no sense). However it was not intended to demonstrate or explain anything as it's cinematic predecessor had been trying to do.
Kelly Pelot
Melies films of magic tricks, and humor may seem different from the Lumiere Brothers films of trains, and machines. However, according to Tom Gunning, these films are similar because “one can unite them in a conception that sees cinema less as a way of telling stories than as a way of presenting a series of views to an audience, fascinating because of their illusory power” (Gunning 57). Both Melies and the Lumiere Brothers present a non-narrative film with the purpose of entertaining. The cinema of attractions is the ability to show something. [It] “expends little energy creating characters with psychological motivations or individual personality. Making use of both fictional and non-fictional attractions, its energy moves outward towards an acknowledged spectator rather than inward towards the character-based situations essential to classical narrative” (Gunning 59). The Lumiere Brothers do this by filming fictional attractions, such as a train, new technically advance machines. Some theaters would recreate a train setting in the theater by collecting tickets and stimulating click clack sounds of wheels or the hiss of air brakes. These types of attractions were similar to the fairground with its all around experience. Melies creates a humorous attraction with the use of magic tricks, and comedians. Melies film’s connects with its spectators by “the recurring look at the camera by actors” (Gunning 57). Melies films were also shown as a way to show off the many magical possibilities of filming and editing. Gunning concludes that although the 20th century brought more narrative films, with it’s “elements of expression, entries into the psychology of character and the world of fiction” (Gunning 60) the cinema of attractions still remains embedded in film-making.
Alexandra Keck
Post a Comment