cinema of attractions
28 Mart 2007′de yazdığım makaleyi buraya aynen aktarıyorum efendim.
CINEMA OF ATTRACTONS
Every concept is subjected to change over time, and the meaning of “cinema of attractions” changed over time. “We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art”.(Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction). Was not it the effect of the cinema on the people who live in the beginning of 1900; an amazing change in our notion of art. The technology, which made movies, was so new to the people, they had nothing to do but to wonder and attracted to it
As Gunning stated in his article; in the early times of the cinema, people were mostly attracted by the pioneering mechanism of the cinema and the technical inventions it brought. “It was the Cinématographe, the Biograph, or the Vitascope that were advertised on the variety bills in which they premiered, not The Baby’s Breakfast or The Black Diamond Express.” said Gunning in his article.(Gunning, The Question Of Realism). It shouldn’t surprise us that the people who saw the birth of the cinema was firstly impressed by the innovation and the possibilities brought by it.
As time proceeds, the more the art of cinema improved, the more the possibilities of cinema were discovered. Cinema became a story telling medium like theatre and literature as the directors like Melies used different techniques and told stories through moving images. At this point, we can add that Melies used stories to show tricks and create illuisions, contrary to my prior belief that he used tricks to tell interesting stories before reading the article. So in “Voyage Dans La Luna/ A Trip to the Moon; the story about the space travel was creating an appropriate base for special features end effects.
I used to think that films are separated into two categories: one; the films made for projecting the reality to audience, the way which always associated to Lumiere brothers’ cinema, two; the films made for telling stories, creating fictions, the way which associated with Melies. They are two different and opposite courses also known as narrative and non-narrative but with this article, I reviewed my knowledge because of what Melies said. Now I think whether to show something real to attract the audience or to show something fictitious to attract the audience, it is always about impressing the audience. Films are always about showing something to the audience; something to attract them.
This attraction power of cinema later was recognized by directors like Eisenstein and they used films to impress audience, effect their minds, change their thoughts and psychology through projecting edited images and narratives. Again, the meaning of “cinema of attractions” changed and this time, its purpose changed.
Eisenstien used films to educate people on Russia through editing the “pictures in motion”. Like in his film “Battleship of Potemkin”. Lenin believed that the cinema is the most powerful tool to take attention of people and transfer consciousness on sociopolitical and ideological issues of the country.
Since the day the film production born, it meant to be a mass production and therefore an industy that is profitable to invest. This undeniable fact triggered producers’ desires to make movies, pull people into cinema saloons/cafes, in order to gain profit. It was “cinema of attraction” all along the way, which made the filmmaking, possible to become an industry. Even though “cinema of attraction” supports the film making as a sector, thanks to film makers who sees films more than a profitable industry rather a true art form, which can reach people’s minds and feelings.
My point is; whether your film is a pure artwork free of profit making, or just a movie to meet financial gain, your film has to have an “attraction” to be seen by audience. Cinema is a form of attraction by nature. Therefore, this conclusion leads me to my categorization of films: The movies, in respect of “atraction” concept, independent from the changing meanings of the word and the purpose of the films, meet in one category, which is cinema of attractions rather than being two opposite categories as narrative and non-narrative.
The lines, which separate the films from being Lumiere style or Melies style, are not thin red lines. It is now, the hardest time in separating the narrative/fictitious from non-narrative/reality than ever. Benjamin also said that “the new age’s technological inventions are very capable of reproducing or imitating the reality” even though he states that these imitations lack spirit of truth, he made it clear that it is more harder to separate reality from the fiction.(Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction)
Especially in our day, where attraction can be acquired through the help of visual and sound effects, the new techniques can easily pull people to theatres. They go to see the highest technologic improvements on cinema and these innovations attract audience in the real meaning of the word. Like many people who went to theaters to see “Matrix” and the technological advancements it brought in 1999, we will be watching newer and technological films in the future. We will be still captivated by the improvements and attraction of cinema.
As the cinema evolves, attraction will remain as one of the primary characteristic of the seventh art and “cinema of attraction” (probably will be in a different form and meaning in the future) will hold the pulse of the industry. Although I can’t help myself asking how furhter can the technology improve, I usually get my answer in the fragmans of the coming films in theatres like new animation or science-fiction films, even musicals.
Bibliography
1- Tom Gunning, “The Cinema Of Attractions”, The Question Of Realism.
2- Walter Benjamin (1936),The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
Leave a Reply