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)
19 comments:
According to Gunning, both Melies and the Lumiere Brothers are similar by means that the films are used for entertainment and to attract viewers.
In the Melies film there is an actor performing with dramatic expression in a non factual manner. The Lumiere Brothers film does not consist of an actor performing, yet there is a sense of unreality in the film by viewing the whole event from a omniscient point of view. Both films were made to be viewed as entertainment and create 'tricks' to the audience to create the cinema of attractions.
Both forms of cinema focus on cinema attraction or entertainment.
Gunning states that early cinema can't be compared with documentation films.
The early films of Melies and the Lumiere Brothers are very similar in many ways. First they both involve the act of 'showing and exhibition. They make images 'seen'. Things that are not always easily accessible can now be witness first hand, of course through a motion picture though. Second they both have illusionary power, and they present a series of views to an audience rather than just give them a straight story. Neither one is a narrative. The trick film has no plot, Gunning states: “ Many trick films are in effect, plot less, a series of transformations strung together with little connections and certainly no characterization.” The cinema of attractions, according to Gunning “is a cinema that bases itself on the quality that Leger celebrated: its ability to show something.” The early mode of cinema and avant garde are both one in the same because they're “cinema of attractions”. They share similar ideas, and goals in wanting to grab the spectators attention. They give spectacles, and unique events, hoping to incite the viewer to a certain amount of curiosity as well as pleasure.
Val Danculovich
September 14, 2008
Film 116
TA: D. Moses
Tom Gunning identifies what he calls “Cinema of Attractions” as an element of early films and extending into present cinema. Cinema of Attractions relates to the filmmaker’s method of engaging the spectator through theme park or magical images. An example is Melies’ film, “A Man of Heads”, in which the character deliberately looks at the camera and gestures to the audience, engaging them in the actor’s actions. He acknowledges that he is not portraying a role and not living the action. This is in contrast to a narrative form where the actor seems to try to play a part within a fictional world, trying to convince the spectator that it is truth rather than fiction. Lumiere’s “Arrival of a Train” does not really represent this narrative format. The film portrays real people in a real situation and although there is no single individual “acting”, Lumiere attracts the audience more subtly than Mellies. Gunning refers to the “non-actuality” film which still differs greatly from the narrative style of traditional theatre. Gunning views each of these filmmakers’ approaches as more similar than different. They each try to compel the viewer by presenting what he calls “illusory power”. I think Gunning’s “illusory power” and his terms “spectacle”, “fascination” and “magic” refer to one very important concept in the film industry and that is “entertainment”. Each of these filmmakers is not trying to tell a story or educate the audience. In fact, they were appealing to a new, mass audience that had not embraced the traditional arts up until that time. They and the other early filmmakers were presenting a new experience to the audience. One that involved the excitement of new technology and, the story lines, as Melies’ points out, had less importance than the stage or visual effects.
Lumiere and Melies shared similar filming methods, even though they were done in different viewpoints. According to Tom Gunning (CR) he states that “Rather, one can unite them in conception that sees cinema less as a way of telling stories than as a way of presenting a series of views to an audience.” This means that they wanted to have the audience be attracted to something that fascinated the audience, like different sounds, or even difference views going on in the film. A good example of these sounds was mechanical sounds from machinery and an example of views were done from a women exposing her legs.
In the two films they are both demonstrating the two points that Lumiere and Melies is trying to give out to us as the audience. One they are both trying to give out the point that the view is one standing camera shot. The entertainment is happening in front of the lens and that there is no change in angle or depth. The second point that is shown in this film that strikes my attention is that they are both “attention grabbers.” In the first film with the comedian artist, he is demonstrating his multiple heads and taking them off his body and what not. The second one is the people waiting for a train to come. I noticed my attention was brought to two different parts one the idea of the train coming closer and closer, and two the reaction of the people, The last mini point is that the idea of the relationship between this early mode of cinema and avant-garde practices that developed in the first half of the 20th century. According to the last 2 paragraphs in the reading, it seems to state that “We seem far from the avant-garde premises with which this discussion of early cinema began”. Continuing on, it states that far years down the road which is around our time, is when the avant-garde seems to be occurring.
In Tom Gunning’s article “The Cinema of Attractions” he observes the trend of “new cinema” during the early 20th century. His focus revolves around two styles of cinema, the reality and non-actuality, which are defined by their creators Lumiere and Melies. Lumiere’s work is defined by its reality, the idea of taking a camera into the real world and capturing its essence, contrary to Melies who’s style is characterized by it’s “trickery” in the editing process. Gunning, aware of these differences, goes on to say how these two films are similar in that they both propose the “cinema of attraction.”
He writes, “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 and exoticism.’ (57) This is to say that the films both hold their own power and illusion because they both attract and entertain the audience. It is easy to see then how the mode of cinema and the avant-garde of cinema will compliment one another in artistry in that the audience may know the difference between documentary and illusion films, but still remain attracted to the ascendancy of the screen.
Film 114, Section 801
Li Wang
The "A Man of Heads" is a typical trick film of George Melies. In this film, a man seemed to perform some magic by playing with his head. The background behind the man was in the dark intending to generate an illusory effect. But it is obviously that the movie lacks of logical connection between the scenes. As the Melies himself stated, these non-narrative films are actually plotless and no characterization, merely showing the magical attractions of the cinema.
The Lumiere Brothers’ "Arrival of a Train" is a short narrative film that simply documents the actual story of a train’s arrival. As its name indicates, the film begins with the arrival of the train, and then ends with people boarding and departure the train. Although the film last less than one minute, the logical connection or the arrangement of the scenes clearly demonstrates its nature as a realistic film.
Although the two films seem very different from each other, they should not be thought as the opposite sides of each other. One main reason is that people value the cinema in that it is able to show something. To the audience in the early 20th, both of Melies and Lumiere’s films can present the magic views to them despite their abilities of telling story. According to Gunning, the character of cinema of providing fascinating views is the attraction of cinema. This conception dominated the cinemas in the early 20th century. Even now, the cinema of attractions goes underground both the avant-garde and the narrative films instead disappear.
Gunning’s analyses show that storytelling or narrative approaches in films were not the dominant venues of early films produced during 1890-1906. The films by George Melies (1898) and Lumiere Brothers (1895) are examples of these early films. Lumiere’s film entitled “Arrival of a Train”shows exactly what the title implied – a train coming into a station and passengers arriving and embarking onto the train. The train is directed straight toward the camera. The film is a depiction of an event and not a narrative. The trick film displayed in Melies’ “A Man of Heads” creates an illusionary effect through film manipulations of an individual capable of separating his head from his body and still allowing the head to function. Gunning uses the term “cinema of attraction” to describe these types of films that “show something”. Characteristics of these films include the person or action looking at the camera and establishing contact with the audience. The energy of the film is directed toward the audience and their curiosity is peaked because of the unique events occurring in the film. These films represent a distinct approach in film production.
Gunning quite clearly states that “the cinema of attractions directly solicits spectator attention, inciting visual curiosity, and supplying pleasure through an exciting spectacle -- a unique event, whether fictional or documentary, that is of interest in itself”. In the two video examples we find exactly that, a visual curiosity for the audience to view. The lack of story forces the audience to pay more attention to what is happening on the screen, instead of focusing on why the events are happening. No one wonders why that gentleman is taking his head(s) off, instead the audience is captivated by the sight of someone removing their head. The same goes for “Arrival of a Train”, no audience member is curious why the train is arriving. All that matters is that you are watching the train arrive. There is also an acknowledgement of the audience by these films. “A Man of Heads” breaks the ’fourth wall’ by directing the audiences attention to each dismembered head and looking directly into the camera. “Arrival of a Train” does this also by allowing the passengers to look at the camera that is filming them. Gunning contributes this acknowledgement of the audience to the relationship between early cinema and avant-garde practices as, “that of exhibitionist confrontation rather than diegetic absorption”. He continues with, “I believe that it was precisely the exhibitionist quality of turn-of-the-century popular art that made it attractive to the avant-garde -- its freedom from the creation of a diegesis, its accent on direct stimulation”.
Matt Dwyer
Film 114 Section 33088
Gunning answers the question of the two filmmakers’ similarities for me: the cinema of attractions. Although the Lumiere Brothers and Melies present different attractions, they still serve the same purpose. To collect a gathering of people all for the same purpose: to experience the cinema together. Lumiere present an imaginary space within magic occurs while Melies decide to present a real train station. Yet the audience watching the two films have been to neither but still get the experience of truly being present in these locations. “The scenario constructed in this manner has no importance,” it is the experience of the scenario that matters.
The cinema of attractions helped build the foundation for the avant-garde of the early 20th century by giving a norm to rebel against. Having the preconceived notion of what a movie was gave them a change to create beyond the boundaries set by what “worked” to gain an audience. But once again all this different types of films accomplish the same goals, they gather a large group to experience an event together.
Sam Furseth
Film 114 Section 801
The early films of George Melies and the Lumiere Brothers are similar in that they both commit to the idea of Tom Gunning's "Cinema of Attraction". It is simply the "ability to show something" (57) Gunning summarizes the cinema of attraction by saying it "directly solicits spectator attention, inciting visual curiosity and supplying pleaseure through an exciting spectracle - a unique event, whether fictional or documentary." (58) Melies, "A man of Heads" is an example of the fictional film used to lure in the attention of the viewers. The Lumiere Brothers is an example of a documentary. They both are different types of film, but share the same unique ways of presenting themselves. The films use their illusory power to lure in the audiences. Gunning talks about earlier cinema and getting connected with the audience. The avant garde in the earlier stages of film was more used to help build the audience and the response from people that were not into the traditional arts. It was to help build the entertainment industry. The realistic tendency of Lumiere's "Arrival of a Train" and the formative tendency of Melies' "A man of Heads" have helped to identify what the cinema of attraction is all about.
Tom Gunning states on p.56 that cinema is a "matter of making images seen." With this statement in mind, "A Man of Heads" and "Arrival of a Train" are similar because they, as Gunning says, they are used as "a way of presenting a series of views to an audience." In addition, cinema has the power "to show something." Also, the actor(s) in the film can connect with the viewing audience.
Both movies show something to attract the audience, yet they both do not have any plots, nor are they narratives. Films were made to "be a spectacle." "A Man of Heads" is an example of what Gunning says about trick films, that they don't have any plots. On P.60, Gunning explains "the devices of cinema are transformed." He goes on to say they were first "playful tricks" and then became "elements of dramatic expression" in the first half of the 20th century. Finally, according to Gunning, we have distanced ourselves from the idea of avant-garde since the first half of the 20th century.
Erik Wagner
Section 801
T.A. Dayna Moses
Gunning's main idea is that both Melies and the Lumiere's use early film as a means of entertainment and showmanship. However, Melies film is purely and quite obviously made for the entertainment of the audience. The Lumiere brothers' film aims more at the technology and the illusion of the train actually traveling towards the audience. I think the main concept of this film is more along the lines of visual artistry and meant to be a new concept in viewing. The viewer, if he or she pleases can watch the train arrive as many times as they want to, and everytime it looks the same as the real thing. This is where the entertainment of the film lies. The Melies film is entertaining yes, but does not aim to the same audience.
I believe that in a way they are both similar because they explore the boundaries of their respective style. While Melies’ short film explored how far he could go using “stage effects” and “tricks”; the Lumiere brothers were seeing how much of the real world they could bring to an audience. A quote that I think puts this idea into perspective is, “The potential of the new art did not lie in the ‘imitating the movements of nature’ or in ‘the mistaken path’ of its resemblance to theater. Its unique power was a ‘matter of making images seen’’. Both films are showing something completely different, yet are fulfilling the same purpose. Melies does some rather amusing tricks, by taking off his head and putting it back on. In doing so he is attracting an audience who wishes to be entertained. The Lumiere Brothers showing a train arrival and departure, this could be entertaining as well for people who have never seen a train before, or it can be seen as a realistic film, simply made to inform and explore the boundaries of early film. Towards the end of the essay Gunning seems to say that Avant-Garde film has never really been the most popular form of entertainment, however it could still be sensed in modern film, as it was sensed in early film.
Antonio Vargas
Section 801
Gunning wrote “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 and exoticism." He is talking about the way that separate processes of film can be put together. The Milies film uses special effects to create an interesting and funny video. Lumiere's more documentary view of the film created the visual effects of being at a train station and viewing people getting on and off. With the visual effects of both the videos draw in the viewers to make people keep wanting to watch.
Kaitlyn Murray
TA Dana Moses
In reality, both films are used for purely entertainment purposes. Even if they are using settings, or as Gunning puts it, "pretexts" which are entirely different, the only thing that makes a difference to the viewer is the end result of the film.
Regardless of whether or not the film is using realistic looking settings or an outrageous actor doing ridiculous things with his "heads," the reality of the film is an illusion, since the projection is outside of the context of the time and place of the event, and therefore suspending reality.
The similarities Gunning talks about between Melies and Lumiere were that both of these filmmakers would both fascinate the audiences with the power of the images they presented to the audience. Though their styles of storytelling were different, they both attracted audiences to the power the film images have on a person, whether it be narrative of non-narrative.
The two films that were posted fall into Gunning’s category of “The Cinema of Attractions.” This is because the tricks and visuals they presented attracted audiences who weren’t necessarily interested in a story but just the effects. These would be considered part of early cinema. As time would progress film makers would try to create some sort of narrative to go along with the “effects” that attracted people to the theaters in the past. The avant-garde style of filmmaking was similar because it did include elements from Gunner’s concept of “The Cinema of Attraction,” but it also added some sort of narrative to attract the audience, which early film usually did not have.
they used trick photography such as slow motion, fast motion, reverse and close up. This was meant to create a "unique event" to entertain the audience. The cinema of attractions is meant to acknowledge the spectator through theatrical display. The films were meant to entertain people.
Post a Comment