MAR 23: short paper 1 due: a short written assignment (5pp max.

) discussing a

topic covered by the syllabus. IS YOUTUBE THE NEW "CINEMA OF ATTRACTIONS"? Some authors have recently asked if Youtube could be the new "cinema of attractions". For this assignment, you are to do a comparative review of 2 articles posing this question (plus Tom Gunning's article where the "cinema of attractions" concept is defined). You are expected to assess each author's arguments, how they relate to Gunning's original article, and finally try and provide your own answer to the question. The 3 articles are part of reading packet 1, available at the FCSH copy centre. List of articles to review:
1. GUNNING, Tom, The cinema of attractions: early film, its spectator and the avantgarde, in Early Cinema. Space, Frame, Narrative, ELSAESSER, Thomas (ed.) (London: BFI, 1990 [1984]), 56-62. 2. RIZZO, Teresa, Youtube: the new cinema of attractions, Scan: Journal of media arts culture, vol. 5, nr. 5 (May 2008). 3. BROEREN, Joost, Digital attractions: reloading early cinema in online video collections, in The Youtube Reader, SNICKERS, Pelle and VONDERAU, Patrick (eds.) (Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, 2009), 154-165.

Cinema of attractions Youtube: My opinion: I like narrative cinema and television. You Tube is too difficult to sift through, anyone can post and some are pointless and completely lack attraction at all. You Tube is also a networking sight of sorts connecting people all around the world 1. Gunnings article: a. Fernand Leger defines this new art as having a {paraphrased} power of making images seen (Gunning 56). b. There are differences between the films of Lumiere and Melies but the differences shouldnt represent the opposition between narrative and non-narrative filmmaking, instead the differences can be a unity of conception that sees cinema less as a way of storytelling and more of a way to present a series of views to an audience. The films are related by being cinema of attractions (Gunning, 57). c. Cinema of attractions dominates cinema until 1906-1907 (Gunning, 57). d. Cinema of attractions defined (Gunning, 57 paragraph 2): contrast to narrative cinema; an aspect of early cinema; exhibitionist cinema (Christian Metz); the recurring look at the camera by actors (spoiling the realistic illusion of cinema); a cinema that displays its visibility; willing to rupture a self-enclosed fictional world for a chance to solicit the attention of the spectator; 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 (Gunning 58); The direct address of the audience is what defines this approach to film making (58); C of A expends little energy creating characters with psychological motivations or individual personality. Making use of both fictional and non-fictional attractions, its energy moves outward towards an acknowledged spectator rather than inward towards the character-based situations essential to classical narrative e. Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein on attraction: an attraction aggressively subjected the spectator to a sensual or psychological impact (Gunning 59). According to Eisenstein, theatre should consist of a montage of such attractions, creating a relation to the spectator entirely different from his absorption in illusory depictions. f. Cinema of attractions as compared to Vaudeville: (Gunning last paragraph pg 59) g. Cinema of attractions in Nickelodeons: in the nickelodeons that were emerging at the end of this period, these short films always appeared in a variety format, trick films sandwiched in with farces, actualities, illustrated songs, and, quite frequently, cheap vaudeville acts. i. Russell Sage Survey of popular entertainments found vaudeville depends upon an artificial rather than a natural human and developing interest, these acts having no necessary and as a rule, no actual connection (Gunning 60). In other words, no narrative. A night at the variety theater was like a ride on a streetcar or an active day in a crowded city, according to this middle-class reform group, stimulating an unhealthy nervousness. It was precisely such artificial stimulus that Marinetti and Eisenstein

wished to borrow from the popular arts and inject into the theatre, organizing popular energy for radical purpose (Gunning 60). h. What happened to the cinema of attractions? : The period from 1907-1913 represents the true narrativization of the cinema, culminating in the appearance of feature films which radically revised the variety format (Gunning 60). i. Just as the variety format in some sense survived in the movie palaces of the 20s (with newsreel, cartoon, sing-along, orchestra performance, and sometimes vaudeville acts subordinated to, but still coexisting with, the narrative feature of the evening), the system of attraction remains an essential part of popular filmmaking (60). j. Donald Craftons study of slapstick comedy (Gunning 61): shows the way that slapstick comedy did a balancing act between the pure spectacle of gag and the development of narrative. Likewise, the traditional spectacle film proved true to its name by highlighting moments of pure visual stimulation along with narrative. The 1924 version of Ben Hur was shown at a Boston theatre with a timetable announcing the moment of its prime attraction! (I think this is nuts personally) k. Concept of previews: The Hollywood advertising policy of enumerating the features of a film, each emblazoned with the command, See! shows this primal power of the attraction running beneath the armature of narrative regulation (Gunning 61). l. Clearly in some sense recent spectacle cinema has reaffirmed its roots in stimulus and carnival rides, in what might be called the Spielberg-Lucas-Coppola cinema of effects (Gunning 61).

Broeren Article: Broeren argues that You Tube is directly connected to early cinema, specifically Cinema of Attractions, because of historical connections, for example . Broeren makes the connection that since Gunning includes forms of attraction outside of cinema, for example carnival rides, roller coasters, and the Spielberg-Lucas-Coppola cinema of effects, then attractions including genres similar to television commercials and music videos should also fall into the Cinema of Attractions category. If music videos and television commercials are considered Cinema of Attractions, Boren argues that, the attraction resurfaces in its fullest form in streaming-video websites such as You Tube. Broeren discusses this modern media form as a way of displaying the original objects themselves (early film fragments) as well as the context in which these were shown, albeit in modified form (Broeren 155). Broeren includes that Charles Musser felt that early cinema differed from cinema following not because of the distinction between narrative and non-narrative, but in the

locus of narrative control (Broeren 156). Musser s argument criticizes Gunning s because Musser feels that there are examples of narrative in early cinema and because of periodization which this article describes as two periods in time, the first being the era of attractions, and the second being the time period from 1908-1917, or the transitional era in which this attractional mode slowly gave way to the classical Hollywood system (Broeren 157). Broeren includes an interesting view by Frank Kessler that more or less disagrees with Musser s argument and supports Gunning s. Kessler states that cinema of attractions is defined by its mode of address-by the way it enters into a relationship with its audience (Broeren 157). It is with Kessler s proposition that these forms of cinema be defined as the terms cinema of narrative integration and cinema of attractional display, that Broeren analyzes Gunning s concepts. Kessler, like Gunning, notes that there are characteristics of cinema of attractions which include the gestures of actors to the audience and the camera, their gaze and gestures of actors the temporality, the frontality (Broeren 158). Kessler continues his argument and includes the concept of these characteristics being present in online video today. It is easy to agree that You Tube is in fact a modern form of cinema of attractions after Kessler s comparison. Kessler explains that both You Tube clips and early cinema were short in length, You Tube clips are on average only three or four minutes and early film was limited by many factors to short lengths. It is thought that You Tube clips are short not because of technological limitations, but instead because of personal choice. You Tube clips are frequently shot ((((((SEE BROEREN PG 159))))for a definition and expansion on examples of You Tube having Cinema of Attractions characteristics))))))) As the article concludes Broeren begins to summarize that a digital age, and a new medium result in an attractional quality and often viewers who watch a clip on You Tube rarely only watch one clip, but instead of string of related clips just as historically early films were not shown independently but as programs (Broeren 162). Finally, (((())))))))