Wednesday, September 10, 2008
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)
20 comments:
“…[O]ne 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.” (Gunning 57)
In Melies “A Man of Heads” (1898) a man removes his head numerous times using trick photography and places them on the two tables beside him. In this way we see many views combined to form one. Not only have numerous images been put together to form the illusion, but the many heads (with many sets of eyes) can be seen as a metaphor for this since the same man sees many angles on screen just as the audience does. Similarly, in the Lumiere Brothers’ “Arrival of a train” (1895) numerous views can be seen upon the screen. The camera being placed among the people awaiting the train puts the viewer in the position of being within the scene, and as the train passes, the natural reflection of the people awaiting it can be seen on the sides of the train cars as well. Thus, numerous views are shown in one image again. With the combination of images into one, the cinema of attraction does exactly as Gunning suggests, it “…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.” This early mode of creating a spectacle was not lost as narrative film became mainstream. Early chase films had narrative and moments within it to show something visually exciting. Gunning suggests that even in modern cinema the avant-garde of Melies can be sensed within the narrative spectacle. It is almost as though all of these modes have combined in a way similar to the views on screen contained within the two films to further the history of film.
Robert Francis Curtis
Section 802
Douglas J Mellon
Section 802
Gunning's notion of “the cinema of attraction” is the creator’s ability to show something. Melies and the Lumiere Brother’s films are vastly different but they do have their similarities. Melies’ “A Man of Heads” (1898) and Lumiere’s “Arrival of a Train” (1895) both have a stationary camera that helps create illusions. Melies puts forth a magical illusion; with the use of trick photography the man in the film removes his head multiple times and then puts it back on his body. Your view of the man and stage is what it would be if you were there with an audience. Lumiere’s illusion is the illusion of motion, that the train is actually passing by you. Again the viewer could feel that they are actually there waiting for a train. As for the relationship between these films and avant-garde films Gunning states “ ...the cinema of attractions does not disappear with the dominance of narrative, but rather goes underground, both into certain avant-garde practices and as a component of narrative films, more evident in some genres than others.” (57) So these manners or modes are being combined creating even more modes.
Danny D'Acquisto
Section 401
Gunning claims that the two films are similar in that they both have their own way of portraying certain views to their respective audiences. In his article, Gunning claims that, “One can unite them [the two films] in a conception that sees cinema less as away of telling stories than as a way of presenting a series of views.” For example, what Gunning is saying is that although both films are very different, they both have their own way of reflecting a human perspective. On one hand, while Melies’ film is far more abstract in that there is very limited context or narrative purpose to what is happening it also is a great portrayal of how the mind seemingly works. It’s very deceptive. It’s as though the character has different heads, doing different things, for different reasons. It may not be narrative but it still points to a human perspective or view. On the other hand, the Lumiere film is far more candid. It is a far more realistic and natural representation of life. It has a feel similar to something you would see in a documentary. Although this is also not narrative, it does have a way of showing a particular human perspective or view in that it is very introspective and life like. Gunning’s “cinema of attraction” is in reference to this era’s tendency for films to be less narrative and more illusionary. With the emergence of narrative film the cinema of attractions seemingly faded out is now nearly exclusive to the avant-garde scene. The mainstream has since transitioned to almost completely being narrative.
Danny D'Acquisto
Film 114 Section 401
Gunning claims that the two films are similar in that they both have their own way of portraying certain views to their respective audiences. In his article, Gunning claims that, “One can unite them [the two films] in a conception that sees cinema less as away of telling stories than as a way of presenting a series of views.” For example, what Gunning is saying is that although both films are very different, they both have their own way of reflecting a human perspective. On one hand, while Melies’ film is far more abstract in that there is very limited context or narrative purpose to what is happening it also is a great portrayal of how the mind seemingly works. It’s very deceptive. It’s as though the character has different heads, doing different things, for different reasons. It may not be narrative but it still points to a human perspective or view. On the other hand, the Lumiere film is far more candid. It is a far more realistic and natural representation of life. It has a feel similar to something you would see in a documentary. Although this is also not narrative, it does have a way of showing a particular human perspective or view in that it is very introspective and life like. Gunning’s “cinema of attraction” is in reference to this era’s tendency for films to be less narrative and more illusionary. With the emergence of narrative film the cinema of attractions seemingly faded out is now nearly exclusive to the avant-garde scene. The mainstream has since transitioned to almost completely being narrative.
Gunning explains that the films of Melies and the Lumiere Brothers are similar because of the fact that both films are constructed in a way that they are representing a series of views or images to the audience rather than a way of breaking down stories to the particular audience. Gunning explains it thoroughly in this section of the article, "Rather, 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."(p.57) Gunning, goes on to explain that both films are similar because of their illusory power, whether it be realistic (Lumiere Brothers) or magical (Melies). Gunning explains how the cinema of attractions was used in both of these films quite well. He explains how the cinema of attractions is highlighted by, "It's ability to show something."(p.57)
Clearly both of these films are using the cinema of attractions to get your attention and captivate you from the start. In "A Man of Heads" Melies uses trick photography to create the image that a man is actually removing his head and then putting it back on. In "Arrival of a Train" the Lumiere Brothers use a realistic image but create the illusion of constant motion with the train. Whether it is realistic or magical both films are connected through this concept as Gunning summarises in his article, "...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." (p.58) I felt that the relationship between the cinema of attractions and the avant-garde practices that came later on, was the fact that both of these styles were used as a component in narrative films (mainly the music genre). Gunning talks about how how cinema of attractions does not necessarily go away with the dominance of narrative but rather "goes underground" (p.57), into types of avant-garde practices and as components of narrative films.
Connor Murray
Section 802
The way that these two films are similar besides the fact that they share an audience with a sense of humar and muturity. Melies "A Man of Heads" takes his head of three times and it looks so real, but is obviously fake, which he uses a trick kind of photagraphy. The stationary camera really helps putting this clip into perspective and understanding what is going on. As for Lumiere’s “Arrival of a Train” it feels like real life, and that what you see really occured, or you may even feel like the train is whipping by you and you are waiting for it to stop and see somebody you know come out. Both have cameras that make you ask yourself alot of questions. For instance "Why do I feel like his head is really off, why does it look so real?" Or you may ask yourself "Why is the train feel like its next to me"? Thats what these scenes do to you.
Avant-grade- A group active in the invention and application of new techniques in a given field, especially in the arts. This definition makes me feel like Melies and the Lumiere Brothers did this to test something, or maybe to finish an answer to a question. Can you make something feel so alive when its completely dead?
Now a days everything has changed to narrative and now we can understand why and see for ourselves if that is a better thing or not.
Lucy Derickson
Section 802
Though the two films listed, George Melies, "A Man of Heads" (1898) and Lumiere Brothers, "Arrival of a Train" (1895) , are very different in context and visual imagery, after further consideration these films do have many similarities regarding the filmmakers approach. “It is the direct address of the audience in which an attraction is offered to the spectator by a cinema showman, that defines this approach to film making.” (Gunning, 59) Both films leave the camera in one position and allow the viewer to become a part of the scene. In “Arrival of a Train” The illusion created is realistic and places the view at in the scene, as if a part of it. We see the train come from the same viewpoint as the other people who are in the film. This illusion ties us to the scene, even though the narrative aspect of the film is minimal. In “A Man of Heads” the illusion is more surrealist. It stresses the nonrational significance of the scene, yet still, as Gunning mentions, allows the audience to interpret a series of views, rather then telling a story. (Gunning, 57). What Gunning calls the cinema of attractions, is about engaging the spectators imaginations and moving the energy of the film into the minds of the audience rather then into the personalities of the actors. In this way these to films are similar, because both engage the audience whether through tricks or through realism, and spend little or no time on narrative.
Though the differences of The Lumiere Brothers film manner to that of George Melies may be quite obvious, Tom Gunnings helps us to see the similarities between there monumental work. He points out that the substance of the film is unimportant by considering 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,..." He goes on to point out that they are "...fascinating because of there illusory, and exoticism."
What seems like a contradiction to the liking comparison of the two works Gunnings explains that "cinema of attractions" is simply the relationship the cinema has on it's viewer, and although this bond is constantly mutating at transforming, it is always there. Gunnings goes through and educates us on the attractions viewers had on film throughout it's existence in movements and styles. That the appeal of cinema is what unites all cinema itself.
George Melies, "A Man of Head" (1898) has a magical characteristic that intrigues our imagination and alters our sense of reality. It appeals to us in all it's mystic and wonder, while the Lumiere Brothers, "Arrival of a Train"(1895) is reality brought to us. It's an everyday actuality than has been unaltered and brought to us for our visual enjoyment. It stimulates our mind in our own experiences and ability to relate. Though very different pieces very similar in theory.
sorry this is late, my roomates buddy urinated on our couch and so we've been cleaning it all day.
The cinema of attractions is described by Tom Gunning in The Cinema of Attractions on page 57 as, "a way of presenting a series of views to an audience." What he means by this is that the films of Melies and the Lumiere brothers had something in common and that "it differs form the primary specter relations set up by narrative film after 1906 (Gunning 57)." A similarities between the two films is that they both focus on peoples actions, whether they are predetermined actions like pretending to pop of your head, or simple everyday actions like getting of a train. The cinema of attractions also does anything in its power to gain the attention of the viewer--like having the people in the screen look directly into the audience. A powerful tool in either documentary or fiction films. This was one of the relationships between it and the avant-garde films that came later. The ability to confront viewers with something that is out of the ordinary.
Travis Torok
Section 802
According to Tom Gunning the films of Melies and Lumiere are similar in their relation to the spectator. They both are categorized into the “Cinema of Attractions” which differs from narrative film in that cinema of attraction films are films that, “display their visibility, willing to rupture a self-enclosed fictional world for a chance to solicit attention of the spectator” (Gunning, 57). Narrative films focus within themselves into a fictional world with characters and psychological motives and the cinema of attractions focuses it’s energy “towards an acknowledged spectator” (Gunning, 59). Both the Melies and Lumiere films can be grouped into the cinema of attractions because they both use elements of exhibitionism where the cinema itself is the attraction. According to Gunning the relationship to early cinema and avant-garde of the 20th century was “precisely the exhibitionist quality of the turn-of-the-century popular art that made (early cinema) attractive to the avant-garde” (Gunning, 59). The freedom of early cinema from a narrative and it’s focus on direct stimulation made it easy to influence the avant-garde movement of the early twentieth century.
Although the film making styles of George Melies and the Lumiere Brothers are very different they are still alike in many ways. When viewed as a way of presenting a series of views to an audience instead of a way to tell stories both Melies and Lumiere filmmaking depends on the same idea. As Gunning says these “images are fascinating because of their illusory power.”(p.57) This is known as the cinema of attractions. Gunning goes on to explain that the cinema of attractions depends on a films “ability to show something.”(p.57) George Melies demonstrates this in “A Man of Heads” by having the actor connect with the viewer without worrying that it may ruin the realistic illusion of the film. Rather the actor smiles at and interacts with the viewer through gestures and movements. The Lumiere Brothers do this in a slightly different way. Rather than trying to tell a story the Lumiere Brothers document natural occurrences. In doing this they are showing something to the viewer. “Arrival of a train” is an example of the cinema of attraction because of its great illusory power, which is shown through the fast paced illusion of motion that is offered to audiences. Early modes of cinema and avant-garde share a relationship because they both embrace the cinema attraction. Avant-garde filmmakers embraced the cinema of attraction because of its accent on direct stimulation.
Alyssa Holly
Section 802
When talking about the two films Gunning says, “Rather, one can unite them in a conception that sees cinema less as a way of telling stories then as a way of presenting a series of views to an audience, fascinating because of their illusory power (whether the realistic illusion of motion offered to the first audiences by Lumiere, or the magical illusion concocted by Melies), and exoticism.” “A Man of Heads” has a more vaudeville like scenario, in which a man appears to be entertaining an audience with what some might have considered to be cheap tricks. “Arrival of a Train” seems to have a more “legitimate “scenario of using cinematography to display an illusion to an audience that is more based on what one would expect to find in real life. Even though it disassociates from the “sleaziness” of night club entertainment, the main attraction of “Arrival of a Train” is the fact that the camera has the ability to show the arrival of a train even though the audience was not actually present at a train station. And the main attraction of a man of heads is to show a man remove his head, even though he is not really removing his head. So both films have the explicit point of showing off the ability of the technology of the cinema. Even Buster Keaton films and Vertov’s “Man with a Movie Camera”, two seemingly contrasting films, both serve the purpose of demonstrating the ability of cinema to convey tricks for an audience. Finally, Gunning says that the cinema of attractions has been somewhat replaced by a more narrative structure. However, today’s avant-garde style still demonstrates similarities to cinema of attractions in that they can be based off of showing the abilities of cinema to convey an illusion.
Joe Steigerwald
802
Cassie Hutzler
Section 401
The two films are quite different on a literal sense, but they are also similar because they both show to an audience things they’ve never seen before. Certainly the ‘Arrival of a Train’ (1895) scene is something people had seen, but never on a screen where a train wasn’t present and they weren’t standing in front of it. The same is with ‘A Man of Heads’ (1898), which was a piece was more for entertainment’s sake and not so much observant. Both, however, represent a new technology where near anything is possible. Gunning’s ‘Cinema of Attractions’ explains that it’s not the content that’s really important in these examples, but the ability to do them. There is no great story or idea, only moving images. The attraction is not in narrative then, but in new and interesting ways of viewing film and stimulating entertainment.
Gina Waggoner
Section 802
When discussing how Melies’ and the Lumiere Brothers’ films are alike, Gunning says, “… [They use] cinema less as a way of telling stories than as a way of presenting a series of views to an audience,” (p. 57). In the film “A Man of Heads” (1898) by Melies, he shows a series of illusions that he is removing his head and placing it on a table next to him and is able to make a new head appear. The audience is able to see several of Melies’ heads on the tables simultaneously while still being able to see Melies’ body. With the Lumiere Brothers’ film “The Arrival of a Train” (1895), the audience is able to see the train coming and it passes them as if the audience was actually waiting for the train themselves. They’re able to watch the train approaching, the train coming to a stop, the people walking up to the train, and the people getting off, which explains Gunning’s statement of multiple views and the concept of illusion. Gunning further explains, “…the cinema of attractions directly solicits spectator attention, inciting visual curiousity…” (p. 58). After watching the two films, the audience will wonder “how did he/they do that”, which will invoke their ‘visual curiosity’ like Gunning mentioned. As for the relationship of early cinema and avant-garde practices of the early 20th century, I believe Gunning is saying that the avant-garde practices take more of a narrative approach while early cinema is about the visual/illusionary aspect.
Nelson Schneider
Section 401
The early films of George Melies and the Lumiere Brothers are very different from one another in many ways, but they both share an important concept. The ultimate goal of their films is to solicit the audience’s attention. Melies attempts to grab the audience’s attention by showing everyday events on film, whereas the Lumiere Brothers have you focus on the film by experimenting with the film and doing camera trick to amuse the audience and give them “How did they do that?” moments. Both also acknowledge the audience and make eye contact with as though to tear down the forth wall. This is what Tom Gunning refers to as The Cinema of Attraction. This concept of exhibitionist cinema is the forefront of film practices until 1906-07 when more narrative driven films became increasingly popular. This cinema of attraction never truly and completely disappeared; it simply just went underground to become what we now refer to as avant-garde.
Their editing style and their camera work is what makes them simular. Though Man With Hands does have some (crude) special effects, it really doesn't have any editing. It is documenting the situation much like Arrival of the Train.
Both films use wide shots that are just wide enough to show all the detail of the film. Both films are trying to document reality, one in a sincere way and one in a comical way.
The Cinema of Attractions is an "exhibitionist cinema," or the peculiar way a filmmaker shows something to an audience. Gunning posits that this type of cinema, a sort of avant-garde with touches of narrative, was prominent until about 1906 or 1907, when purely narrative films became dominant. The Lumiere Brothers and George Melies both made films that were based on exhibitionism, not necessarily stories. They were just showing the audience something interesting and unique (like the floating heads or the rocket-eyed moon of George Melies), or something realistic and life-like (the train of the Lumiere Brothers), instead of letting the camera work disappear into the story. Even though films like these were replaced (in the mainstream) by narratives, the influence of the Cinema of Attractions was felt in many films of the 20th century, and indeed, even today. For instance, a lot of the effects pioneered by Melies aided the stories of narrative film, whereas in Melies’ films, they were there as a sort of peep show (like the magician’s show in Man of Heads). Also, films using chase scenes, fight scenes, or dance scenes find heavy influence from the Cinema of Attractions. Even though most films - and, unfortunately, many filmgoers – focus only on the story, the Cinema of Attractions is still in use today, and in greater numbers than ever: YouTube.
Kurt Raether
Section 802
"..a new sort of stimulus for an audience not acculturated to the traditional arts."
To us these images are basic we are familiar with what film can do. A train driving into a station, this film is interesting to us because it is old and shows us a different time. If we were to watch video of a plane landing, or car driving it wouldn't mean the same to us as it did them. To the audience of that time and place it was an everyday event which they got to see on this screen, it was a preserved moment in time and this was the main drawn to them.
In Melies' films he a spectacle directly addressing the audience. HE knows that people are watching and is performing for them. He is a magician and instead of using slight of hand and 'real' time illusions, as some of the other magician like Houdini were soing at the time, he used the camera and film to produce visual tricks on screen to entertain the audience.
Both of these films were made to draw a crowd. To visually entertain the spectators and to introduce them to the new era of Film technology.
Gunning states that Miles and the Lumiere brothers are studied as early contributors to the history of narriative storytelling in film. Unfortunately though, it is often overseen that early cinema was not centered around developing narrations but focused on putting on a show for the audience. Gunning categorizes these films before 1906 under the cinema of attractions. This term describes that the films main goal was to show the audience something. They did not bother with narratives or drawing the audience into the characters psychological worlds, but rather took that energy and places it out onto the viewers.
Melies was known for creating “trick” films full of slow and reverse motion, substitution and multiple expose, while the Lumiere brothers took more of a documentary approach to film making by bringing the real world to the audience. Even though they both had different subjects, these filmmakers share the qualities of cinema of attractions. Lumiere never wanted to have the viewers escape reality. His goal was to bring it to them. Melies had the same intentions of bringing entertainment to the audience with his stage effects.
The similarities between the cinema of attractions and the avant-garde practices is that they are both purely exhibitionist. The early avant-garde artists wanted to create something that was completely separate from the norm and never seen before. They took inspiration from the early cinema because they so different from the modern and mainstream narrative film culture.
Molly Waddington
802
Gunning says that lumiere and melies shouldn’t represent the opposition between narrative and non-narrative filmmaking. He thinks that both of the filmmakers should represent their era of filmmaking rather than being compared to eachother. He says that they both have the “illusory” power; lumiere brothers with realistic illusion, melies with magical illusion. He believes that they have common basis, that doesn’t connect with the films made after 1906 which had a relationship between the spectator and the narrative. So he puts melies and lumiere brothers in this era before 1906 which he also calls cinema of attractions. In this sense both a man of heads and arrival of a train has “the ability to show something” They both establish a contact with the audience by looking at the camera; in “the arrival of a train” the man getting out of the train makes an eye connection with the camera, and in “a man with heads” melies himself makes the eye connection with the audience. This causes the spectator to get self conscious, and it makes it a cinema: the cinema of attractions to display its visibility, “willing to rupture self-enclosed fictional world for a chance to solicit the attention of the spectator”
Nazlı Dinçel
Post a Comment