What I find interesting is the various methods by which cinema and the aesthetic of attraction has changed over time. It went from being a majority of addressing the audience in a very direct way, for example in the early train films, an exaggerated confrontation in the form of experiencing the train flying directly at you, to narrative action and empathy with characters, their worlds, and their situations. I feel that a huge focus of today's cinema is getting viewers lost in the fictional world and its narrative, whereas past cinema might have had mechanisms to make the viewer aware that they are still watching a film. It has become about the viewers connection to the world.
A prime and really cool example of this modern sort of structure of film is the video below, a really cool sort of compilation of the filmography of 2012, enjoy.
-Daniel Francis
Daniel! Glad to finally see you on the blog (you have a lot of catching up to do, though). Just to correct you on your reading of the Gunning, Gunning's argument is actually a refutation of the belief in the naive, or incredulous spectator. This is one of those instances where the author lays out what has been the dominant myth or belief and then proceeds to poke holes in it. The idea of the cinema of attractions is precisely that viewers at the turn of the last century did have other experiences to call upon, with which to interpret this new moving image (e.g. magical theater or magic lantern shows). That doesn't mean they weren't shocked or awed, but it does mean they were conscious of the technology and eager to be thrilled.
ReplyDelete