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)
18 comments:
The moving picture was of course, extremely revolutionary at its birth, and quickly became incredibly popular among the masses. Tom Gunnings cinema of attractions concept states that audiences react and view moving picture films almost as an escape from their world into another, one which exists in a different space and time and provides an intriguing and almost shocking experience. At its earliest time, films did not reach the area of plot line and story development, but instead were intended for amusement park type entertainment. Popular films of this type were by the Lumiere Brothers, who filmed that of the real world with no use of special effects, actors, or special lighting. They displayed marvelous camera perspectives, notably that of the locomotive speeding towards the camera. These provided audiences with a sense of near-impending doom, shock, and awe, as they found themselves looking into what seemed like another world. They could experience dangerous and frightening situations through the film itself while actually remaining in a safe, reassuring theater.
Another popular attraction of the time was the work of George Meliees, who often shot short films which showcased interesting stage effects, tricks, and body movements. These films, while not like the pre-rollercoaster visions of Lumiere, offered a magical perspective of the many possibilities of what a motion picture can be. The humorous, coordinated movements and actions displayed a completely unique art form. According to Gunnings, these simple films have set the marker where the avant garde has expanded.
Despite the differences in filmmaking in that the Lumière Brothers made more realistic films and Méliès made fictional-type films, Tom Gunning pointed out that their styles were actually more similar than one might think. They both focused on the visual aesthetics rather than developing stories for their films. This created a different film-viewer relationship than what we have with films today. It was more to exhibit the new technology of cinema and what it could do rather than entertain through storytelling. This is what Gunning refered to a ‘cinema of attractions.’ In ‘cinema of attractions’, the film’s relationship with the viewer was more direct, like an act at an amusement park that draws you in with curiosities, like in Méliès “A Man of Heads.” It also offered a new way of looking at things, like with the train coming at the viewer in Lumière Brothers “Arrival of a Train.” The attraction could have been seeing a train speeding at you without having to get out of the way, which was an angle that many probably hadn’t seen a train from before. According to Gunning, this early cinema offered inspiration for avant-garde because it wasn't traditional and was accessible to more people than just the rich. This meant that the average audience wasn’t necessarily expecting traditional art, which offered more creative freedom for the artists. They didn’t have to follow the rules of traditional art and could create their own.
Andrew Megow-
Melies and the Lumiere bros had of course their differences. But their similarities have to deal the time period from which they came. Between like 1895-1907 Movies/cinema was considered to many as a novelty which is why this period is considered "The Cinema of Attractions". People would go to see this new invention that was cinema and it was used as amusement for them. You could see documentary-style images of real life (like the Lumiere Bros. film of train pulling up to the station) or the art of 'magic' that cinema had to offer (for instance melies' "A Man of Heads"). What's interesting about cinema during these period was the fact that narrative and storylines were minimal at most. Nobody thought cinema would become what it has today which is deep plots and character development. What we saw in that period was more sketches or clips. The thrill of the fact that a picture was moving was still fresh in people's heads. So eventually film was taken to a whole new level when narration came about. No longer was cinema considered a novelty and instead became one of the best ways to tell a story and show it in the process. What was to become of the cinema of attraction? Well it seemed that it had to go underground but in the end influenced a whole new era of cinema taking it's concept of attraction, narrative-less, films. Avant-Garde films would be developed to keep the idea of an attraction alive in the world of cinema. Avant-Garde movies starting in the 20's and made-popular in the 60's and tons are made even to this day. Silent Comedy stars as well took the concept to heart. Indeed the narrative-films may have taken over but the "cinema of Attractions" I feel has never left.
Tom Gunning argues that there existed a Cinema of Attractions that "directly solicits spectator attention, inciting visual curiosity, and supplying pleasure through an exciting spectacle... that is of interest in itself".
At first glance, the films above seem very different from one another, however, Gunning argues that the very spectacle that they are creating, the idea of "a show", is what makes them similar. The Melies clip creates astounding and hilarioius images, made for the sole purpose of laughter, while the Lumiere film creates a terryfing visual spectacle.
Both clips are there to entertain and show the audience something new an exciting. It was the very idea of the cinema itself that made the films interesting.
This concept of new and unique, what is interesting, what defies conventions is what we refer to as avant-garde. These early films are avant-garde in the sense that there was really nothing before them. Film had no prior conventions. Before film shifted towards storytelling, there are many examples gunning cites foreshadowing this narrative approach. (The Great Train Robbery 1903, Personal 1904)
These films foreshadow the narrative theatrical ideas that dominate film today.
Andrew Tolstedt
On the surface, the films of Melies and Lumiere Brothers are different types of films. Melies’ films are composed of magical acts and camera tricks. Lumiere’s films are contrasting in that they are focused more on real-world situations, such as a train rolling by the camera. Although these two filmmaker’s have different styles of movies, they both base their films around a simple concept. The concept is that people are drawn to films that attract based on simple thrills. People are excited to see things in a movie that are entertaining, while not being too deep in storyline. “What precisely is the cinema of attractions? First, it is a cinema that bases itself on the quality that Leger celebrated: its ability to show something,” (Gunning 57). Both Melies and the Lumiere brothers created cinema of attractions. Which as Gunning put, are meant to show the audience what they want to see. The films are attractive in that they promise to entertain the audience through the visuals of film.
According to Gunning, the films of attraction from the times of Melies and Lumiere, are connected with the avant-garde film practices in the first half of the twentieth century. The avant-garde film practices are connected in that they too are based upon being attractive to viewers. These avant-garde films use different effects during the movies in order to initially attract and then entertain the audience. The films attract the audience in much that same way that a carnival does, much like the early cinema of attraction films do.
According to Gunning the two artists were similar in the way that presented "a series of views to an audience: fascinating because of there illusionary power." Basically saying that both Non-fiction and Narrative showed people something extraordinary that they couldn't believe they were seeing. Such as "The Arrival of a Train". There is nothing mystical about a train pulling into a station and getting off. But to see that in a theatre for the first time is. People of the time might have seen that in real life, but to see it in a theatre a moving train in the theatre, that was the real magic. The same goes for "A Man Of Heads" which takes trick photography to show the illusion of a man taking off his head, placing it on a table, than sprouting a new one. This mystifies audiences such as the train arriving into a theatre. This is what makes these two films similar.
Gunning says that the Cinema of Attractions is the ability to show something. Meaning that it is "an exhibitionist cinema". Early films just showed modern advances in science, such as the invention of the X-Ray. Just seeing this amazed people because it showed them something that before they would only read about in the paper. That was the magic of it, and why it was considered an attraction. This is how all films were in early cinema. They showed the audience something they had not yet seen or something they had seen and showed it to them in a new way. In the theatre.
Both of these films permit the spectator thier own unlimited perception to whats in front of them. There are no plots, or main characters, or story lines in either film making the brief screening open to a variety of possible ideas or purposes as to why the film maker chose what they chose to shoot. These short films present to you a general idea and it's up to the spectator to take it and make an interpretation of it. The concept of Tom Gunnings "Cinema of Attractions" is that the earlier films didn't really require any scripts or actors because the art of film was one of the actual main focuses along with the creativity of the film maker. Cinema in the earlier times focused more on the technique of filming and experimenting with different ideas of capturing an object or objects, and not so much on what or who was in the film. Earlier films that featured special effects concentrated on the primary affect it would have on the spectator and more so the magical feeling of displaying new techniques. The whole magical idea also continued with film in the first half of the 20th century as well, there's something mysterious and apealing when it comes to special effects on camera. It kind of places the film maker in the position of a magician, being able to manipulate and control what the spectator will see and at the same time bringing the spectator a significant amount of amazement.
Venise Watson
The pioneer of the era of cinema, Méliès and the Lumière brother use cinema in the following similar attitude as Tom Gunning summarizes: in that period, they uses this powerful machine less as a way of telling stories than presenting illusory powers, whether is the realistic illusion demonstrated in Lumière’s Arrival of Train or the magical illusion demonstrated in Méliè’s attractive trick films. Unlike in the later history of cinema, Griffith’s demonstration of narrative film, the exhibitionist attraction is developed purely by the cinema machine rather than another category of art such as literature’s intervention.
This is defined the Cinema of Attraction by Gunning. In his theory, the most distinctive attraction is the exhibitionist characteristic. The power of exhibition associates directly with spectator. Audience involved in the tricks played by the machine or the live train station presented by cinema, rather than a story through the film medium.
Gunning also thinks this early attraction stimulates the later avant-garde practices through the embrace of their audience. A brand new entertaining medium discard the conventional art brings the audiences’ enthusiasm, and it enlightens the spirit of avant-garde. Depicted by Gunning, it is the “freedom from the creation of a diegesis, its accent on direct stimulation.”
Both “A Man of Heads” and “Arrival of a Train” display the characteristics that Tom Gunning believes early film displayed. Gunning took a notice to the visual intensity present in this era of cinema. He notes “Its unique power was a ‘matter of making images seen’.”
In George Melies’ film, it takes a more literal approach. Nothing about this clip is voyeuristic. It is direct entertainment, and the viewer is made to acknowledge they’re in a place where they would usually be-in the audience. It is also very obvious what Melies wants attention to be drawn to.
The Lumiere Brothers’, “Arrival of a Train” takes on more of a documentary feel than anything else. It is extremely realistic, and pushes the viewer to notice what they are seeing on the screen, without being sucked into a dream-like state.
Both of these films take on more of an exhibitionistic view, as opposed to a voyeuristic one. This is the cinema of attraction: they both show something instead of guiding the viewer to just ‘watch’. These two types of Cinema put the viewer in an entirely different place in each instance. It forces the viewer to become detached from their object of interest, by portraying it more like a showcase. But although there are contrasts, both of these clips focus more directly on the visual aspect of film.
-Heidi Sherwood
While watching the two short clips by George Melies and the Lumiere Brothers, I could see almost no similarities between to the two besides the time era. However, after reading Tom Gunnings perspective in his article, I can understand why the films have a common base which he names "Cinema of Attractions". Both films use their own unique way to show something to an audience. Gunning describes this as using "illusory power, whether the realistic illusion of motion or magical illusion." In "A Man of Heads" we can clearly see the use of magic to show the man losing his head, whereas in the Lumiere Brothers film the uses a first person point of view to see the motion of people at the train station. Gunning also explains how this early type of cinematography sticks with the new 20th century films by being and underlying component in the new age of storytelling and narrative films.
“The Arrival of a Train” and “Man of Heads” are two films that are widely considered to be the beginnings of the two cardinal directions of modern filmmaking: Narrative and Documentary. However, Tom Gunning argues otherwise in his article “The Cinema of Attractions.” In this article Gunning makes a case for a common thread in early filmmaking that differs greatly from either narrative or documentative filmmaking, a unique look at film that purely respects its power to convey images. The concept of an attraction is outlined as a spectacle that captivates an audience without alienating it. Today, the concept of a movie brings with it the diegetic world we are familiar with, either in documentary or formative film. A film today has been “infected”, so to speak, with the storytelling impulses of both film and theater, and Gunning states that in the infancy of film this was not so. Both the magic tricks of Méliès and the image transposition of the Lumières seek not to transport their audience from one world to another of their own creation, but to shock and affect their audience purely on the merit of visual stimulation; something yet unheard of in art. An indicator of this is the lack of a fourth wall--an influence derived from theater. In early film the actor, or main subject performs directly for the camera, and thus the audience with no reservations or illusions about the audiences place as a spectator. It was this aspect in particular that appealed to the avant-garde movement of the early 20th century. The ability to present something to an audience that was fresh and new in the art world, purely for its spectacle was irresistible. It however, failed to hold in the surge of narrative film that followed, and although it was always a part of filmmaking--see vaudeville, cartoon, newsreel, etc--it never became the forefront of new media the avant-garde saw within it.
Tom Gunning states that the films of the Lumiere Brothers and that of George Melie's are similar because they both present a series of views to the audience. Gunning’s goes on to call this, "the cinema of attractions". The cinema of attractions is cinema that bases itself on its ability to show something. This was prominent up until about 1906.
In Melie's film, "A Man of Heads", they are trying to showcase all of the optical illusions that they have been able to develop. Another way that the film connects with the audience is that they have the magician look straight at the camera and acknowledge that it is there.
The way that Lumiere's film, "Arrival of a Train" connects with the audience is the angle that the camera it at. They positioned the camera in just the spot so that it seemed as though the train was headed straight towards you.
The films from Melie's and Lumiere's time to the films of the early 20th century are connected through the sense that they both want to attract an audience. The early cinema used what appealed to the audience of their time, which was "the cinema of attractions". Those films were also foreshadowing the narrative films to come.
Tom Gunnings idea of "the cinema of attraction" is easily identified when it comes to defining both short clips. The object of George Melies, "A Man of Heads" and the Lumiere Brothers, "Arrival of a Train" are made to entertain the viewer, much like an amusement park. The ideas of story telling and plotlines didn't come until later, so the popular film was usually all about entertainment.
The concept of the cinema of attraction is simple : before there was plotline, people needed excitement. The works of many film-makers, including Melies and the Lumiere Brothers, were very simple in their design but fufuilled their purposes completely. The main goal of these films were to show audiences things they could not normally see or experience, usually things that were completely unbelievable and amazing, and that is the entire idea of the cinema of attractions. Tom Gunning’s theory is that people went to the cinema to be amazed and allow them to escape the dealings of everyday life.
Early cinema, according to Tom Gunning primary goal was provide visual entertainment like a circus on a screen. Whether it be the realistic style of Lumiere Brothers, placing the viewer up front in the hustle and flow of everyday life; or the fantasy of primitive special effects and illusion used by Goerge Melies, "the cinema of attraction," as Gunning described it, did not rely on traditional story telling, but offered a spectacle - a show in the audience were offered the illusion the characters on the screen knew they were being watched by a live audience.
Elements of early filmmaking as spectator art form my still remain as influences in elements of today's popular film and occasionally predominantly, such as modern musicals, but for the cinema evolved to push the viewer aside, watching from an detected distance. To find examples of the spectacle in filmmaking beyond the early twentieth century, one can find its influence remains in experimental and avant garde genres.
Tom Gunning is trying to say that film in the late 1800's and early 1900's was all primarily used as exhibition value. While the Lumiere Brothers made a movie about a train arriving at a station, that isn't necessarily why they filmed it. They filmed it mainly to show that they could film trains, that they had the capability to show you what a train arriving at a station in the late 1800's was like.
The same can be said about the Melies piece. No one would pay money to see a movie about a man with five different heads; who spends all day just taking them off, putting them on tables, and then waving his hands for the fun of it. The entire thing was to show people that Melies knew how to make it look like there was a guy with five different heads (and I thought that even by today's standards, he did a pretty good job).
The reason these two movies are similar is, as said, because they weren't meant to be watched for any form of story or narrative or because they were generally good films. They were basically meant to drag in the families and passers by to the nickelodeon to watch a guy take his head off or to watch a train pull up to the station. While these things could easily been seen in real life (well, hopefully not the first one), it was mainly for people to be marveled at how far moving pictures had come.
When comparing Melies, "A Man of Heads", to the Lumiere brothers', "Arrival of a Train" one may find cerain similarities. Both exploited a new technology and a infantile audience in order to create simple one man acts or recreate everyday scenes. This worked for this audience simply because they didn't have anything better to compare it to; the technology hadn't yet matured to that point. When the Lumiere brother's first played the arrival of a train people were terrified they would be run over in the theatre. It didn't take much to impress an audience.
The main relationship between avant-garde cinema and early cinema lies in their collective goals as well as their stylistic or artistic choices. In the end every film ever constructed was meant to be viewed. All of this depends not on fate or content even; but rather, its audience and their interpretation of it.
The relationship between this mode of cinema and the avant-garde practice, is that we are still trying to fulfill the audience's expecations. In this sense the audience always expects something new and better. This can mean attractions, stunts, effects, or styles; depending on the director. Directors will always look for new ways to attract the audience. Sometimes violent, sometimes revolutionary; these new attractions have the potential to explode or fail misrebly. Even production companies have attempted to bring a new standard to the screen (some examples include IMAX, smellovision, and 3-D cinema. But in the end each is attempting to increase revenue and/or attendance.
Post a Comment