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)
21 comments:
In Gunning’s article, he expresses the pre-1906 world of Film and mentions two early filmmakers popular at this time, Melies and the Lumiere Brothers. While films from each are quite different, they have similarities other than the obvious lack of a narrative. Gunning states that both filmmakers share the concept of making film as an illusionary power. The films made are driven by the desire to bring life to the audience or in Melies case, showing the “magical” scenarios a camera can create. He calls this power to draw audiences “the cinema of attractions”. The cinema of attractions, as Gunning says, is the simple ability to show something, which contrasts to the “voyeuristic” style of filmmaking that took over after 1906. Instead of actors pretending to be ignorant of the screen, in a cinema of attractions, the actors create a scene that lets the audience know they are there by smiling towards the camera, and motioning gestures and winks towards the crowd. In all, the early days of cinema relied on the audiences desire to see visual actions displayed instead of fictional narrative and stories. Although, spectacle films did not end with the introduction of narrative cinema, in fact, the two coincide together in movies like Ben Hur where the theater would outline the moments for the films spectacle marvels (Gunning). Overall, the visually appealing aspect’s of narratives continue to draw audiences and keeps the cinema of attractions alive through this day.
Mitch Keller
TA: Caroline Kastelic
[FILM 114 Garrett Katerzynske]
Melies and Lumier were tied together by the cinema of attractions (interested in presenting multiple series of views to an audience rather than a story). Both filmmakers were fascinated with the potentials of film as a medium and thus produced films that demonstrated the magical or illusionary capabilities of film. Their films were both plot less and purely visual.
These statements are exemplified in both George Melies, "A Man of Heads" (1898)
and Lumiere Brothers, "Arrival of a Train" (1895). In "A Man of Heads", the illusionary power of film is experimented with by cleverly editing and superimposing footage to create a rather impressive spectacle. "Arrival of a Train" demonstrates the magical power of film in a different way; by capturing a real life scene and projecting it onto a wall in motion. While this may sound simple and unimpressive, one can see the gravity of this film by using the historical perspective. During the advent of film, many like Maxim Gorky, who had never seen a moving picture, were in awe of viewing a living scene taken out of its place and time and projected onto a wall. In this way, and by both being plot less and purely visual, both films fit perfectly into the cinema of attractions as described by Tom Gunning.
Gunning also describes how early film’s cinema of attractions appealed to avant-garde with its “freedom from the creation of diegesis”. Avant –garde focused on addressing its audience with the same pure spectacle seen in the cinema of attractions and encouraged them to join in the action. The way avant-garde addressed audience relates to the showmanship in the cinema of attractions represented by looking at the camera.
Melies and Lumiere both utilize the capacities of the camera whether it is simply taking a segment of the lives of ordinary people, or editing the film to create a somewhat out of body experience. They test and contradict what people think of the norm, and in some ways push the limits as to what is plausible and impossible. In addition, the both bring together the Tom Gunning’s principle’s of the cinema of attractions.
The films establish contact with the audience, whether it is a passenger on the train getting a glance at the camera with his cigar, or the entertainer taking off his head and appealing to the humor of the audience looking them as if in the eye. It as as thought the viewers are part of a different life. They are looking through a window at a picture into different worlds showing that these are both “display[ing] [their] visibility, [and] willing[ness] to rupture a self-enclosed fictional world for a chance to solicit the attention of the spectator.”
In addition, the films instill curiosity, excitement, and suspense (even though they are plotless), in the viewers through a “unique event, whether fictional or documentary.” Taking a look a Lumiere’s “Arrival of a Train,” who would have thought that a simple train stop could seem so interesting leaving a footprint of time in the lives of us today, and just a segment of life in the past. In Melies’ “A Man of Heads,” the viewers are taken aback and left wondering how it can be done, can that really happen, and who though up of this “magic” that is shown on the screen.
With the characteristics of the cinema of attractions, it is no doubt why this is considered to have been attracted to the avante-garde with its grasping out to to audience to pull them into another world, showing them a different viewpoint and questioning what they know. According to Gunning, this is because of the film’s “freedom from the creation of a diegesis, its accent on direct simulation.”
Dan Gorchynsky
TA: Caroline Kastelic
According to Tom Gunning’s concept of the cinema of attractions, the two films above are alike in the sense that they have an incredible ability to show something. In George Melies’s “A Man of Heads,” he wows the audience with the use of special effects and photographic trickery, displaying actions and images never before seen and impossible to accomplish in real life. The Lumiere Brothers, on the other hand, do not engage in the slightest use of trickery, so much so that they do not even employ the use of actors in their film, “Arrical of a Train.” The Lumiere Brothers instead show the arrival of a train and its passengers emptying and boarding for the next passage. They show real life people in real life situations. Some are about to embark on a journey while others may be just ending their own. The two films sound extraordinarily different and seem to be incomparable but it is the idea of the cinema of attractions that establishes the connection between the two, their abilities to show something, whether it is visual trickery and illusions or the simple showing of humans in their habitat.
Early films, like the works of George Melies and the Lumiere Brothers, were intended to excite audiences. Altough Melies produced trick films and the Lumiere brothers typically gathered scenes from reality, the men set out to entertain people. Gunning's "cinema of attractions" concept compares cinema's development, rather than ways of telling a story or proving a point, such as depicting new experiences of the generation we live in. People have said this concept much applies to the modern fad YouTube because people post videos just looking for an audience to view them. I believe the relationship between the early modes of cinema and avant-garde is that they were both out to make a visual illusion for the audience. Their main goal was to make the audience's cinema experience magical.
Derek Reilly
The Lumiere Brothers’ “Arrival of a Train” and George Melies’ “A Man of Heads” represent two different types of early cinema. The Lumieres’ film shows an actuall event, unchanged, documentary style. Melies’ film, on the other hand, is more fantastical, using trick shooting and editing to show something not possible in the real world. While they appear completely different, they are similar because of what Tom Gunning calls “The Cinema of Attractions.” Both films are “fascinating because of their illusionary power” Gunning says. The basic difference is in what kind of “illusionary power” each film has, with the Lumieres’ being more “realistic” and Melies’ being “magical.”
Gunning goes on to say it was the “exhibitionist quality” of these early films that appealed to the avant-garde. He thinks that “its freedom from the creation of a diegesis, its accent on direct simulation” is what made it so attractive. In other words, these early films and the avant-garde movement over the next few decades are connected by the fact that they are more about the spectacle and not so much about a narrative or story.
William Ingebretsen
Though these films seem to be very different films since one is about magic and one is about a train. but they are similar when it come to the cinema of attraction theory. They both show one specific topic that captures the audiences attention. In the first video,"man of head", he uses special affects to captivate the audience. These kinds of special affects were probably brand new at the time, and were probably very impressive to people of that era. The other film, "Arrival of a train", showed actors doing things that really people do everyday. And though this might sound boring in today's standers. Back then it was most likely very impressive. Though these films are very different in what they show. They both do a very good job at showing one important thing. Or you could say they both use "the cinema of attractions."
Zach Cosby
Caroline k
The “cinema of attractions” in film is very simply described by Tom Cunning in his article as, “…its ability to show something.” If the description is really as simple that, the idea should be able to be applied to any film, but the thought of seeing things live on screen with no aid of actors and props was enough to baffle and entertain the people at the turn of the century. The Lumiere Brothers were big in to making their films about real life events, while Melies was more of a fiction or comical filmmaker. Both of these styles were praised simply due to the fact that they were very entertaining to people who had never seen films before, or because they had such “real” qualities.
The cinema of attractions was what really segued in to the basis for avant-garde films in the 20th century. People saw this new medium as a way to temporarily escape from life and be drawn in to new worlds by way of film. “Freedom from the creation of a diegesis, its accent on direct simulation” is the way that Cunning tries to explain this in his article, but I think it can be put in much similar terms like telling a friend that work sucked, and asking them if they want to go check out a film of something we would never possibly see in the real world.
Jason Edwards
Film 114
Tom Gunning believed that they both had the similar experience of being films that people would be interested in seeing. Films that people will see because they have elements that aren't in other films of their time period.
The Lumiere Brothers were known for showing how people interact in real life. This is an interaction that the audience could not have at the time period. The same goes for George Melies effects during his time period.
Kyle Arpke
TA: Ms. Kastelic
In the article by Gunning, he states that the films made by Lumiere and Mielies "had a common basis" that he refers to as "the cinema of attractions" (57). Gunning states that 'the cinema of attractions' is a "cinema that bases itself on... its ability to show something" (57). One thing Gunning found to be incorporated into early cinema was the fact that the actors held a relationship with the audience. For example in both "A Man of Heads" and "Arrival of a Train" the participants in the films can be seen looking directly into the camera therefore "establishing contact with the audience" (57). Early cinema also "incit[ed] visual curiosity" (58). In the film "A Man of Heads", the filmaker uses trick film to keep it visually interesting to the viewer. The 'cinema of attractions' can be compared to avant-garde practices that took place in the early 20th century. Spectators at these shows often felt "directly addressed by the spectacle" and they really felt as though they were a part of the production (59). This helped to keep audiences entertained as they would join in "sining along, heckling the comedians" (59).
Sara Nesbitt
Caroline Kastelic
The Lumiere Brothers, "Arrival of a Train" and George Melies, "A man of Heads" are making a connection with the audience which is what both films are trying to do. Tom Gunning's Idea of "Cinema Attraction" is what makes both of these films relatable even though very different. The Lumiere Brothers approach was to create films of real people doing every day things, in hopes to capture an audience. This probably attracted the audience because it was relatable. It was probably something that the audience had doe in the past, considering trains was one of the major ways of transportation in the 1800s. George Melies film is doing something out of the ordinary and using certain editing techniques that might not have been used in the past to attract an audience. Magic and mystery were common forms of attraction, so seeing a film with magic in it just enticed the audience to watch.
Amber Blanchard
TA:Caroline Kastelic
These two clips of film were according to gunning similar in the sense of "cinema of attractions. Both films were made intending people to come to the cinema and watch these films. Also neither of these clips had plots or real actors. These two clips are perfect examples of Gunning's ideas and that is the development of the cinema due to other reasons than story lines, but for things such as magic created by film tricks or things people can relate to such as riding on trains. early film was there for viewers to come and escape from everyday life and think they are in the film and sometimes be addressed to by the actors on film. Now this later avant-garde film still relates to viewers but in a different fashion. Now they are just seeing things that they have done before or illusions that play tricks on their minds.
While I viewed the two clips, “A Man of Heads” and “Arrival of a Train,” I found the clips to be completely different – besides the fact that they are from the same time period. In Tom Gunning’s The Cinema of Attractions, he compares Melies and Lumiere by saying “one can unite them in a conception that sees cinema less as a way of telling stories than as a way presenting a series of views to an audience.” He is claiming that both films allowed spectators to become interested in theaters and enjoy the presentations whether they are entertaining or documentary-like. When Gunning uses the term “cinema of attractions” he is referring to the ability of a film to have spectacle. The difference between these early films and films developed in the first half of the twentieth century is that early films have little trace of plot or characterization. The avant-garde practices have more of a narrative sense to them yet still include the “tricks” of early cinema.
Alison Korth
TA: Caroline Kastelic
The films by Lumiere Brothers and Melies at first seem to have nothing in common, but looking at them from Gunning’s perspective of the “cinema of attractions” where “energy moves outward towards an acknowledged spectator rather than inward towards the character-based situations…” We can see this attribute in both films by Melies and the Lumiere Brothers. During the illusions of decapitation in Melies “A Man of Heads”, the viewer is drawing in by the extraordinary ability of the headless body to produce more and multiple heads and then just as easily get rid of them. The Lumiere Brothers “Arrival of a Train” does not use magical tricks to command the viewer’s attention but lets the viewer be drawn in by a familiar seen of everyday activity that they are allowed to view in detail and find relatable aspects in the people they see boarding the train that make fleeting eye contact with the seemingly out of place camera. This direct eye contact with the viewer is also a prominent part in Melies’ film as all the heads are simultaneously looking into the camera. These first films began to push the limits of what film was considered to be and began opening the door for more experimental avant-garde filmmakers in the first half of the 20th century.
Lanae Smith
TA Caroline Kastelic
Even though the films of Melies and the Lumiere Brothers dealt with different subject mattes, they are not completely unlike each other. While Melies used tricks and special effects and the Lumiere Brothers focused on the aspects and events of real life, both kinds of film present an illusionary sight for audiences to view. It’s not the way that the stories are told but how they are able to be shown to spectators, what Gunning referred to as the ‘cinema of attractions.’ The cinema of attractions period gave people exciting spectacles that connected directly with the viewing audience. Unlike film today, these earlier films did not overly concern themselves with a set plot or storyline. They also included contact with the public by different ways, like having actors address the audience. This concept was also adapted by the avant-garde practices that encouraged audience participation that was different from viewing traditional art.
Tanisha Richter
TA: Caroline Kastelic
Tom Gunning describes the world of film in the beginning of the twentieth century and highlights two important filmmakers of the time, Melies and the Lumiere Brothers. While the content of these filmmaker’s separate films is quite different, there are many similarities, aside from the fact that neither film uses narrative, which Gunning points out in his article. Although Melies’s film is staged and the Lumiere Brothers’ film is more documentary-like, they are similar in that they are both a “way of presenting a series of views to an audience” using “illusory power […] and exoticism” (Gunning 57). This technique, which allows the audience to relate to the film, is what Gunning refers to as “the cinema of attraction.” He goes on to write that the cinema of attraction is simply the ability of a film to “show something” (57). Melies’s short and the Lumiere Brothers’ short unite under Gunning’s definition of the cinema of attractions because in both, the actors (or rather, in the Lumiere Brothers’ film, the passersby) repeatedly look at the camera. This “displays [a film’s] visibility” (57) to the audience, captures their attention, and effortlessly draws them in. Both films acknowledge the spectator, demonstrating what Gunning refers to as an outward energy. This outward energy combined with an interesting subject matter attracts spectators whether or not the film is fictional or documentary. From 1907-1913, narrative cinema was popularized, but this did not end the spectacle film- rather, it combined the two in well-known movies such as Ben Hur. Even today, the cinema of attraction “remains an essential part of popular film-making” (60), capturing the attention of the audience without fail.
Bryn Unger
[Film 114]
TA- Caroline Kastelic
Gunning points out in his article that there is a clear difference between films made before 1906 and films made after that year for the rest of the first half of the twentieth century. There is, however, a distinct connection between these two time periods: the "cinema of attractions."
The "cinema of attractions" is an exhibitionist mode of film-making. In other words, the purpose is to provide a show. And unlike modern cinema, where a voyeuristic atmosphere is inevitably created because of a desire for realism, the show should include the audience. For example, in George Melies' "A Man of Heads" the actor onscreen is aiming his attention directly at the audience, much like an actor would do in a play.
In addition, films that employ the style of the "cinema of attractions" exhibit a lack of narrative structure. The focus is purely visual, not to be disrupted by a storyline. "Arrival of a Train," by the Lumiere Brothers is a good example of a plot-less film. However, it does not contain the spectacle of "A Man of Heads." Rather, the style can be interpreted as more of a ponderous observation of human activity.
Although the period of cinema prior to 1906 was the most notable time for the "cinema of attractions," this style of film-making continues even today. After 1906, and particularly attributed to D.W. Griffith, the narrative structure evolved to be dominant focus of cinema. But the spectacle of the "cinema of attractions" has never faded away, and is now tied inseparably to the common narrative construction of modern films.
The two films featured in the blog post, "A Man of Heads" (1898) by George Melies and "Arrival of a Train" (1895) by the Lumiere Brothers both have their differences in narrative film-making, but they also have some great similarities which can unite the two into being more than a difference in style. Tom Gunning notes that these film share a ‘Cinema of Attractions’, which is the ability to show something in cinema. For Meiles’ film, he is showcasing the ‘magical’ illusionary power he can make using film. In the Lumiere Brothers’ film, they show the world exactly as it is, not using actors or trick photography. Both of these films are united because they are showcasing something to the audience, not just telling stories using different forms of narrative. Gunning was right when he stated, “The enthusiasm of the early avant-garde for film was at least partly an enthusiasm for a mass culture that was emerging at the beginning of the century, offering a new sort of stimulus for an audience not acculturated to the traditional arts” (59). The cinema was a new escape for people, which would draw them by the masses to experience a new form of entertainment and easy enjoyment.
Mark Scholbrock
TA: Caroline Kastelic
According to Tom Gunning, the early films of Melies and the Lumiere brothers 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…”(57)
Gunnings concept of the cinema of attractions was that it was basically cinema that peaked curiousity and was visually appealing, attracting attention. Melies film peaked curiosity because it portrays a man removing his head and placing it on a table multiple times. This is done to wow the audience and make them curious. The second film by the Lumiere Brothers, portrayed and actual event in which a train rolls into the station, and passengers enter/exit. These films are alike because they are meant to visually please the audience and attract people to see them.
Nick Stoehr
806
Post a Comment