Discuss the different modes of death in films or televisual texts. How is death linked to consumptive market practices in screen media today?

The life of the dead is placed in the memory of the living.
(Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC

We are simultaneously scared and excited by death. Death you might say consumes us, or rather, we consume death. Death has become a commodity. We live in a world, which is dominated, and even controlled largely by mass media, what Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer call the culture industries (1993: 1). In today’s society, this has become a visual domain consisting of television, cinema, advertising, pop fiction and the Internet, simultaneously reflecting and influencing society, exemplifying a ‘commodity culture’. Death is visually fascinating, whether it is the dying, the dead, or fear of dying- war, terrorism, or even apocalypse, death is seen as a sight of spectacle and voyeurism in our society. In a post 9/11 world (assuming this as a massive rupture in Western societies view of death and destruction) we have become sadly fascinated with images of death. However, it isn’t necessarily within the war machine, it is the sublime and tragic death in recent natural disasters, as well as a fascination with dead celebrities, or even the execution of Saddam Hussein (Foltyn 2008: 7). I wonder if it is purely just a sick fascination and reality check, or if rather it is the fact that we cannot imagine or comprehend our own death, so we seek to shock ourselves with the death of others. We have become desensitized to visual images of death, therefore we constantly seek further into this taboo to try wake ourselves up, to realize death becomes us. Within this paper, I seek to explore the representation of death in the films Southland Tales (Richard Kelly, 2006) and No Country for Old Men (Joel Coen, 2007) and how death linked to the body and furthermore the corpse, has become a commodity in our culture, extorted not just through its simulated versions on film, but also through a wide range of mass media, which capitalizes on it, rendering the dead body an ‘infotainment’ commodity (Foltyn 2008: 4).

…Our own death is indeed quite unimaginable, whenever we make the attempt to imagine it we [only] really survive as spectators. At the bottom nobody believes in [their] own death… in the unconscious every one of us is convinced of [our] own immortality (Freud 1953, 304-5).

Death is seen in Southland Tales, as a post 9/11, post-apocalyptic American society. Which has become consumed by fear and capitalism, as the Bush administration has put cyberspace under government control, through USIDent, as the World goes into WW3.

This is a time not so far removed from the reality of today, perhaps even a tragic look into the future, there is a drastic fuel crisis, the war on terror has spread to Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea, and America has become governed by a totalitarian regime. Fear of ‘ Big Brother’ in the guise of USIDent, an identification and tracking system controlled through televisual screens, rendering people as disposable identities. Life is taken at will, and the only real escape, if only short lived is through drugs or suicide. It’s bleak, Neo-Marxist underground groups seek to abolish the governments capitalist regime, and juxtaposed to this is an environmental crisis, prompting the development of an alternative energy source. Fluid Karma, developed by the company Treer, is this new energy source, which works by quantum entanglement the pull of the oceanic tides. Tested as a drug on soldiers in the Iraq war, run by a cult-like Baron who is not only obsessed with Fluid Karma, but also with sex, linked both to consumption and the machine. Death is exemplified in Southland Tales through biblical references to an apocalypse, death in war, suicide, and the government’s sinister right to shot at will. The death of the physical body, as a disposable everyday occurrence, is shown firstly through the nuclear attacks on Texas, which wipe out two whole cities during July 4th celebrations. This is shown using a hand-held camera documenting a suburban street and house hold enjoying family festivities, when the ground is shattered by a large bang, proceeding to the vision of an atomic mushroom, and screen thus fades to light, signifying an end to life.

This is how the film opens, followed by television screens of the present day, three years or so after the attacks. The use of the hand held camera offers a realistic home video style sequence, the realism making the images even more shocking.

The mushroom cloud, within our society signifies significantly the horrific attack on Hiroshima, which can be seen as sublime, as it is beyond our minds comprehension. Jean-Francois Lyotard states that, in the sublime there is a crisis where we realize the failure between the relationship of our imagination and that of the faculty of reason (Appignanaesi et al. 2004: 22). Sublimity, Lyotard says occurs in the unrepresentable, the instance; ‘the now,’ not ‘what is happening?’ but instead rather ‘is it happening?’ the sublime he states is beyond cognition, ‘presenting the existence of something beyond representation’ (Silverman 2002: 228-229). Death of the individual body due to sickness we understand, but larger scale terrorist attacks, mass murders and death in war is harder to fully comprehend unless we are physically apart of it. Private Pilot Abilene can be seen as the films prophet, he is the all seeing narrator, physically scared by a ‘friendly fire’ in the war, his scar resembling a looking glass around his left eye, which can perhaps be seen as a symbol of his all seeing power.

…This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a whimper, but with a bang. (Private Pilot Abilene, Southland Tales)

This scene shows Private Pilot Abilene (Justin Timberlake) have a drug induced hallucination due to injecting Fluid Karma into his blood stream. We see Abilene (also worth noting he shares the name of the city in Texas which was blown up) in a hyper real moment, fringed with a sense of absurdity, loaded with satire, against America, consumerism and the war on terror. The girls dancing are like pornographic simulations of Marilyn Monroe, objectifying their bodies, in latex nurse costumes. The camera follows Abilene has be stumbles his way through the girls dance, drinking Budweiser and all the while singing to The Killers song, ‘All The Things That I Have Done.’ What is important about this scene, is the way it represents death, Abilene is making a statement about his place within the war, he is singing the lyrics “I’ve got soul, but I’m not a Soldier…” What’s significant is he has blood down his chest and back, like a religious shield almost, and the fact that he is drinking Budweiser is significant, because Budweiser, along with Hustler is sponsoring the war on terror. So Abilene is saying basically F*** the war on terror, consumerism and America. the lyrics exemplify the social construction of identity, what we do and look like has become who we are. furthermore Abilene is saying he is not a ‘soldier’ because that is just a social construction, and the only real identity we need is empathy, a ‘soul’ beneath the social ‘armor. This scene can be seen therefore as exemplifying a social death (Hallam et al. 2001:63), Abilene doesn’t want to be a soldier, and doesn’t want to be apart of a war which has become just another capitalist machine (Bogue 1989: 100-103). He has witnessed Fallujah, been scared both physically and emotionally and now in this drug induced karmic moment, realizes he wants to follow ‘The Road Not Taken‘ (Frost 1916).

Southland Tales not only emulates our anxiety of the death of the body, through the terrorist attacks on Texas, as well a death of our social identity, it is also represented through the threat of suicide. This is referenced four times, when a character feels life is worth ending. What’s interesting is why the use of guns to the head becomes the ultimate way out. This perhaps creates a dualism between the gun culture as a commodity in America, and also the war on terror. Another important element is the fact they live in a society run by surveillance cameras, which not only watches their every move, but has snipers ready and waiting to shoot to kill, if needed. So surely the idea of putting a gun to the head- quick and relatively easy, is far more appealing than being shot by someone else? It is also worth exploring the quote ‘I’m a pimp and pimp’s don’t commit suicide’ which is repeated throughout the film, through different characters. It can be understood according to Kelly in terms of America’s depiction of pimps, as ‘tough guys’ and suicide represents a sense of giving up, defeat, so the quote ‘I’m a Pimp, and Pimp’s don’t commit suicide’ can be seen as saying ‘I’m a tough guy, and we don’t give up’ (apparently in an EMPIRE interview 2006). Finally the most obvious representation of death within Southland Tales is represented through the biblical apocalyptic death, as Abilene says …This the way the world ends, not with a whimper but with with a bang.

Another way of viewing death is exemplified through the article ‘The Body in Death’ (2001) Hallam et al. explores the relationship between social identity and the body. Drawing from theories regarding the body in crisis (Shilling 1993; Featherstone 1991) they seek to challenge the limitations of previous social theories regarding the body. Featherstone and Shilling argue that appearance, “gesture and bodily demeanour” become representational of that individuals identity (Featherstone 1991: 189; Shilling 1993: 1). This idea is juxtaposed to earlier theory, which saw identity through the mind, and the body only as a ‘container’ (Hallam et al. 2001: 63). I would argue that the body is a social construction (Shilling 1993: 62), and our true identity lies within the people who know us; furthermore we live on in their memories, even without a body. Using the death of a celebrity for example, we can see that they are immortalized in death, so much so, that fans will pay to see their grave site, or buy their biography, thus companies turn their death into a commodity: pumping out documentaries, books, bio-pics, memorabilia…the list goes on. The body can be seen therefore as a socially constructed identity, and a critical key to our existence (Hallam et al. 2001: 71). Juxtaposing however is the idea that a person can undergo a social death, so a loss of social identity, yet still be physically alive. This can usually occur when a person’s body is not in its prime. Society seems to only place a full sense of identity on the physically sound, even perfect body; thus the sick, the old and the overweight become outcast, and can socially die (Mulkay 1993 sighted by Hallam et al. 2001: 63).

In No Country for Old Men, the representation of death doesn’t just occur in the literal sense, but also in the haunting images, and in the persona of the killer, who can be seen to represent ‘Death’ in entirety. Set in Texas in 1980, it is the story about an ex Vietnam War veteran, Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a contract killer Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), and a Sheriff- Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Moss (the films protagonist) is out hunting when he stumbles across a scene of a mass murder, a drug deal gone wrong. The darkness in this scene is exemplified through the Coen’s visually confronting cinematography- broken glass, bullet-ridden cars, bodies of humans and even a dog lies decaying in the Texan heat. A pick-up truck, which is full of heroin, sits conflictingly as a symbol of foreboding. Tracking his way out further into the harsh Texan Landscape, Moss goes in search of the drug money, discovering it next to a dead body, decaying under a tree- and it is his for the taking; regardless of the dangerous consequences. What’s important about this scene, and many of the scenes to follow, is the use of visual motifs, the landscape, the tree, the dead dog, these all set up an ideological critique on mortality. It’s what is said in the images and not in the dialogue, as the images tell us everything- sweeping shots of the vast Texan landscape, harsh and remote, a boot-scuffed floor that added a more horrific element to the already graphic death scene; the crack of light beneath a door blotted out by Chigurh’s menacing shadow.

The most important element is the fact the film reaffirms what we already know, humans are not immortal we will die. However, when Moss, our leading hero is killed, we are shocked, as Hollywood doesn’t usually kill the ‘good guy’ especially not the leading protagonist. We are suddenly drawn attention to the fragility of life. Moss’s death shows us something more real about life, and it terrifies us. It’s the moments off screen, and the lingering emptiness of some of the images that tell us far more about death. The fact that Moss is, or was, an ex Vietman Soldier, shows us his apt ability at facing death, he has seen it, and so has Chigurh and Bell, the filming is cultural, we live in a world dominated by these images of death, yet we cannot comprehend our own mortality, we struggle with this concept, and it surrounds us. Ultimately No Country for Old Men is telling us that violence, and death, is nothing new to our society, there is a war on terror, and its closer to home then we comprehend (Mellen 2008: 8). Another representation of death within No Country for Old Men is Chigurh’s method of a ‘coin toss’ in order to gamble between life and death, this is not an unusual concept, but it is a terrifying one, as we are unable to comprehend our own death as it, thus when we are asked to choose between a possible life or death, we realize just how inherently fragile our bodies are. Whilst in Southland Tales death is threatened through the use of a gun, and through ultimate apocalypse, in No Country for Old Men, death is seen brutally through Chigurh- who is quoted as being in line with ‘the bubonic plague’ and not only is he a representation of death itself, but also his weapon of choice is a cattle air compression gun, which shoots a hole through through the head.

Death is everywhere. It is not only there on the screen, but it is there in society. It is about the body, and about the mind. As seen through the example of celebrity, identity can be immortal, our bodies however are not. We are both fascinated and petrified of death, we cannot comprehend our own death, so we seek pleasure and/or shock in seeing death, and in seeing dead, dying, and decayed bodies. What the mass media does however, is capitalize on death, death has become the new social taboo; we are no longer shocked by sex in our society, in fact we live in an overly saturated sexed up commodity culture. Southland Tales and No Country for Old Men represent death as we know it, although both films draw no illusions to immortality, they simply state we are mortal, and death is imminent. If your lucky, you will live on in the memories of those left behind, and perhaps in a history book…but then it won’t really matter will it? The basic fact is, your death will become a commodity.

Bibliography

Elizabeth Hallam, Jenny Hockey & Glennys Howarth (2001), ‘The Body in Death’, in Contested Bodies, Eds. Ruth Holiday and John Hassard. London and New York: Routledge: 63-77

Chris Shilling (1993), ‘The Socially Constructed Body’ in The Body and Social Theory, London: Sage: 1, 62

Hugh. J Silverman (2002) ‘ The Suspense’ in Lyotard: Philosophy, Politics and the Sublime, ed. Hugh J Silverman. New York, Routledge: 228-229

Joan Mellen (2008 ) ‘Spiraling Downward: America in Days of Heaven, In the Valley of Elah, and No Country for Old Men’ in Film Quarterly, 61(3) spring: 8

Jacque Lynn Foltyn (2008 ) ‘Dead famous and dead sexy: Popular culture, forensics, and the rise of the corpse’, in Mortality, 13(2): 4, 7

Michael Featherstone (1991), ‘The Body in Consumer Culture’, in The Body. Social Process and Cultural Theory, Eds. M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth and B.S. Turner. London: Sage: 189

Richard Appignanesi, Chris Garratt, Ziauddin Sardar and Patrick Curry (1995), Introducing Postmodernism, Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd: 22-23

Ronald Bogue (1989), ‘Desiring Machines, the body without organs, and the nomadic subject’ in Deleuze and Guattari, London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group: p100-103

Robert Frost (1916) Mountain Interval, New York: Henry Holt & Company.

Sigmund Freud (1953), ‘Thoughts for the Times on War and Death’ In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. IV. London: Hogarth Press: 304-5

Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer (1993), ‘The Culture Industry: enlightenment as mass deception’, in The Cultural Studies Reader, ed. Simon During. London and New York: Routledge: 1

Filmography

No Country for Old Men, Joel Coen, 2007

Southland Tales, Richard Kelly, 2006/2007

“This is Sparta” a Contemporary Cinema of Attractions

How applicable is Gunning’s argument about the cinema of attractions to contemporary special effects cinema? With close reference to examples, discuss the ways such a model problematizes the notion of the passive spectator and classical narration.

The cinema of attractions was a concept created by Tom Gunning and Andre Gaudreault in the eighties, in order to try and undo previous primitive assumptions regarding early cinema history. This paper seeks to argue that Gunning’s model of the cinema of attractions is relevant to contemporary special effects cinema, and perhaps can thus be referred to as a platform for a contemporary cinema of attractions; as well as explore the consequential breakdown of the passive spectator and classical narration. With special effects, the filmic apparatus becomes an experience, a display of technological grandness, provoking awe, and tantalizing our senses, thus challenging our acceptance of reality. Using early cinematic examples such as The Great Train Robbery (Edwin Porter, 1903) and The Conjurer (George Melies, 1899) to exemplify Gunning’s argument on the cinema of attractions. This paper will then address the development of this model into contemporary special effects cinema, with the graphic novels turned films 300 (Zack Snyder, 2006) and Sin City (Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, 2005) in order to highlight the spectacle of the cinema of attractions as a normative in contemporary special effects cinema.

In the article “NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T”: The Temporality of the Cinema of Attractions (1993), Tom Gunning discusses the revision of early cinema history; which had previously been labeled ‘primitive’, a basic beginning for which later styles evolved out of (3:1993). This was the first of three assumptions which inevitably lead to the same idea; the first as explained is the evolutionary assumption, the second can be seen as a development from the first, the cinematic assumption- believing that through cinematography cinema discovered its own essence, and its freedom to be artistic (3:1993). The third assumption was a reworking of the second, by Christian Metz, who believed that cinema only really emerged when it discovered through cinematic essence, the importance of narrative (3:1993). Andre Gaudreault along with Tom Gunning introduced the concept of the cinema of attractions in order to try to break away from these previous assumptions and rewrite the history of early cinema:

…Other scholars and I began to envision early cinema as less a seed bed for later styles than a place of rupture, a period that showed more dissimilarity than continuity with later film style (3:1993)

… We were trying to undo the purchase these assumptions had on conceptualizing early film history … (4:1993).

According to Gunning early cinema makes far more sense when a purpose other than the narrative is more prominent. Cinema as an ‘attraction’ is exemplified in early films, from scenes of every day life, to slap stick comedies, vaudeville, and even magic tricks, such as the films of George Melies; it wasn’t narrative progression, argues Gunning, but the ‘gesture of presentation’ and the technological means of display that highlighted a spectators initial fascination with cinema (4:1993). In Melie’s short film The Conjurer (1899) this idea of display and spectacle for which Gunning refers to can be seen through the magicians magic tricks, as he makes his assistant disappear- turning into him, and then he turns into her, and vice versa- it becomes a spectacle of Melie’s ability as an illusionist to entertain and astonish. It is not so much about the story but the magic itself, he is inviting the spectators to be amazed, and thus is acknowledging their existence:

The attraction invokes an exhibitionist rather than a voyeuristic regime. The attraction directly addresses the spectator, acknowledging the viewer’s presence and seeking to quickly satisfy a curiosity. This encounter can take on an aggressive aspect, as the attraction confronts audiences and even tries to shock them (Gunning: 5:1993).

This idea of the attraction not only addressing the audience but confronting them in a sometimes-aggressive way in order to provoke and shock, can be seen in The Great Train Robbery (1903). Which although for most of the film follows a narrative progression, towards the end colour starts to appear on women’s dresses, and then in the firing of guns, a spectacle of colour bursts out into a disco of gunshots. This however is nothing in comparison to the final scene, when a gun is pointed at the audience, and fires. This moment of aggression, shocks and engages the audience at the same time, placing them within the filmic world of the attraction, here one minute and gone the next:

Whilst the cinema of attractions places emphasis on exhibitionism and active spectatorship, what occurs within later cinema styles however is the classical Hollywood paradigm of the passive spectator, and classical narration, which places its emphasis firstly on narrative and secondly on the spectator as passive. What occurs in contemporary cinema, especially that of special effects cinema, and the new era of a cinema of attractions, is that this notion of a passive spectator can no longer exist; as for classical narrative structure, well this also becomes problematic, as special effects, end up as a spectacle which takes priority over the narrative, using the narrative to connect one spectacle to the next (Gunning: 10:1993).

Often within the cinema of attractions, the body becomes the form of spectacle, whether it is eroticized and sexually taboo, or physically deformed, or even just the way it moves, such as dancing for example; it’s the idea of display, the spectacle, from magic to action, to movement which Gunning argues becomes the attraction (5,6:1993). The spectacle of the body is exemplified further in contemporary special effects cinema, as it becomes a visual form of action, violence, and pleasure. Sin City is a prime example of a contemporary cinema of attractions, as it uses special effects technology to the hyper real sense that the spectator is rendered completely aware and engaged with the film in every scene; it becomes less about the narrative and more about the visual. It is graphically violent, aggressive, sexual and blood thirsty, every scene is a spectacle of this kind bashing through the senses, and astonishing us with its comic book aesthestic:

Whilst Gunning refers to the cinema of attractions as being temporal (6:1993); it seems perhaps, that contemporary special effects cinema has taken the notion of the spectacle, and found its place along side classical narrative cinema. What it then becomes is a contemporary cinema of attractions, which emphasizes more of a constant spectacle, with only a few outbursts of extreme visual spectacles. This can be seen in any of the fight scenes in Sin City and again in 300 .

300 in comparison to Sin City is a montage of spectacle, as the story, although not limited, places more emphasis on the spectacle. Within this cinema of attractions is the fetishized body, the men wearing next to nothing, with their hugely muscular bodies, fighting in slow motion in scenes of extreme visual spectacles, actively highlighting the use of digital effects and its astonishing visual display:

Not all gestures of display need to be so violent or shocking but the shock effect highlights the attraction’s disjunctive temporality. Such disjunction could also be used to an erotic effect, as the scopophilia implied by this mode becomes thematized (Gunning: 8: 1993).

Like Sin City, 300 also uses moments of eroticism, this is clearly seen in the Spartan’s bodies, as well as in the illicit sex scene between King Leonidas (Gerald Butler) and the Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) which seeks to erotize Queen Gorgo’s body:

Furthermore erotic Fetishism as spectacle is exemplified when Leonidas is forced to consult the Oracle (Kelly Craig) as to whether or not he can go to war against Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro); this becomes a spectacle of eroticism, as a beautiful woman (the oracle) withers almost naked, fetishized images of her body- lips, breasts, nipples, legs, quiver and beckon; as the grotesque body of a deformed priest places his ear to her lips:

This scene seems to function purely for the spectator’s amusement, as the narrative erupts purely to shock and astonish, this form of spectacle exemplifies the applicability of Gunning’s concept of the cinema of attractions as a rupture in the narrative, for means of spectacle and display.

…virtuosity of sfx [special effects] as an additional narrative to that of the diegesis equal a performance that invites the audience to become engaged in the processes of its construction NOT passive spectatorship or classic realist text typical of analysis of the classical Hollywood paradigm…(Ndalianis: Lecture Notes week 6: 2008 )

Tom Gunning’s concept the cinema of attractions, has redefined the history of early cinema. Gunning argues that rather than simply viewing earlier cinema as ‘primitive’ due to lack of narrative and technology, it should be seen rather in terms of display. Spectator’s of that era wanted to be astonished, and marvel at the cinematic apparatus and all of its new found capabilities; Thus the emphasis was on exhibitionism and active spectatorship, as seen in the films by Melie’s and Porter. This however, is juxtaposed to later cinema styles, which placed emphasis rather on classical narration and voyeurism, and the passive spectator. In contemporary cinema, there is perhaps freedom to divert away from this traditional Hollywood paradigm, and experiment with new technology. With this liberation and development of technology comes the age of special effects cinema, and a reemergence of the cinema of attractions. With the development of digital technology cinema has found new ways to entertain; it has become more about spectacle, as audiences want to be shocked and astonished. In the film’s Sin City and 300 they get their wish; loaded with violence, eroticism, and spectacular special effects, these films focus on display, exemplifying an astonishing visual experience. Whilst technology has obviously developed significantly since the beginning of early cinema, Gunning’s argument of the cinema of attractions is still very relevant to contemporary special effects cinema; as contemporary cinema, also seeks to engage with the spectator through new found technology, with emphasis on the visual spectacle and less on classical narration- it is not the story that entertains us most, but the graphic moments of surprise in between that seek to shock and astonish us.

Bibliography:

Angela Ndalianis: Sin City, Lecture Notes. May 14th, 2008

Geoff King “Narrative vs Spectacle in the Contemporary Blockbuster”, in New Hollywood Cinema: an Introduction, I.B. Taurus, London, 2002, ch.6

Tom Gunning, “Now You See It, Now You Don’t: the Temporality of the Cinema of Attractions”, The Velvet Light Trap, No. 32, Fall, 1993, pp 3-12

Filmography

The Conjurer, George Melies, 1899

The Great Train Robbery, Edwin Porter, 1903

Sin City, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, 2005

300, Zack Snyder, 2006

Frank Miller’s Sinful treat

In the article “NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T”: The Temporality of the Cinema of Attractions, Tom Gunning discusses the revision of early cinema history; saying that there are three main assumptions that were used in reference to understanding early cinema. these main assumptions “unpinned what [he] calls the continuity model.” This model sees early cinema as the seed for later film styles, cinema in its infancy stage, simply beginning ( Gunning: 3: 1993). Andre Gaudreault along with Tom Gunning introduced the term ‘The Cinema of Attractions’ in order to try to break free of these previous assumptions and rewrite the history of early cinema:

… we were trying to undo the purchase these assumptions had on conceptualizing early film history…(Gunning:4:1993)

The three assumptions…

1. The evolutionary assumption- is seen as the most natural assumption and thus appeared the earliest. This is a very basic assumption as it sees early cinema, dating before WW1 as primitive. It is through this assumption that later cinema styles are seen as the ‘natural norm’ which early cinema had predicted but wasn’t capable of producing due to lack in technology and wealth (Gunning: 3:1993).

2. The cinematic assumption- develops on from the evolutionary assumption, giving it more specificity and awareness; Seeing the development of film “as coming from a discovery and exploration of its true cinematic essence.” Thus Gunning says “early cinema makes the mistake of simple reproduction and theatricality, but then dramatically discovers its own nature (3:1993).”

3. The final assumption had been reworked by Christian Metz from ‘a natural cinematic essence’ to that of ‘the narrative function.’ Believing that ‘cinema only appeared when it discovered the mission of telling stories (Gunning:3:1994).’

According to Gunning early cinema makes far more sense when a purpose other than the narrative- i.e story telling, is more prominent. Cinema as an ‘attraction’ is exemplified in early films, from scenes of every day life, to slap stick comedies , vaudeville, and even magic tricks, such as the films of George Melies; it wasn’t the narrative progression, but the ‘gesture of presentation’ and the technological means of representation that highlighted a spectators initial fascination with cinema (Gunning:4:1993).

My emphasis is on display rather than storytelling

Attractions, Gunning says foreground the role of the spectator, as they address the spectator in a specific way. Traditional narrative cinema however, cultivates the spectator’s interest and even desire by posing an engima- a dilema. The spectator however remains passive, and can be seen in the classical hollywood paradigm as ‘a voyeur.’ The scenes do not acknowledge the spectator’s presence; thus the classical world of the film relies not only on basic elements of coherence and stability but predominately on the lack of acknowledgment of the spectator (Gunning:5:1993). Attractions however are completely the opposite, they create active spectatorship; the ‘attraction does not hide behind the pretense of an unacknowledged spectator.’ It instead provokes a sense of display- exhibitionism rather than voyeurism. It seeks to shock, threaten, excite and to ultimately arouse curiosity that is ‘satisfied through surprise rather than narrative suspense (Gunning: 6: 1993). As the title of his article says “Now you see it, now you don’t” it is the element of temporality, surprise and shock which the cinema of attraction facilitates.

How Applicable is Gunning’s argument about the Cinema of Attractions to contemporary special effects cinema? Discuss the ways such a model problematizes the notion of the passive spectator and classical narration.

As seen above in Tom Gunning’s article on ‘The Cinema of Attractions’‘ the spectator is no longer rended passive, as special effects provoke the spectator into surprise and shock, and ultimate excitement; no longer is the notion of the classical hollywood paradigm of the passive voyeur relivant; attractions cinema deliberately engages with the spectator, whereas the traditional narrative cinema refuses to acknowledge the spectator. Classical narration simply links one effect, or spectacle to the next one- constantly surprising and elliciting a reaction: ‘Now you see it, now you don’t‘

In terms of whether Gunning’s argument is applicable to contemporary special effects cinema, it very much is, as attractions and special effects are only technologically different, obviously cinema has progressed dramatically in technology now, and with the digital age, special effects cinema will keep on surprising us, and because of this it can also be refered to as ‘The cinema of Attractions.’

Frank Miller’s Sin City (2005) directed by Miller and Robert Rodriguez is a prime example of the cinema of attractions, as it uses special effects technology to the hyper real sense that the spectator is rendered completely aware and engaged with the film in every scene. It is a graphically violent, aggressive, sexual and bloody hyper reality, where everything is so comic book like that the spectator is desensitized by its violence. Its an enthrawlling experience, full of surprise, shock and awe from one scene to the next.

“…virtuosity of sfx as an additional narrative to that of the diegesis = a performance that invites the audience to become engaged in the processes of its construction i.e. NOT passive spectatorship or classic realist text typical of analysis of classical Hollywood paradigm…(Ndalianis: Lecture Notes week 6)“

The cinema of attractions, and the contemporary special effects cinema becomes focused on the spectators active experience, a cinema of sensations, thoughts, surprise- it astounds us, and it thus becomes an entertainment experience, highlighting brilliant technology. It has become less about the narrative and more about the effects. However, if you see a film with both, like Sin City, then that really is a valuable experience.

..

The Social Sitcom

The working class television show Shameless, highlights life in a manchester estate, where the main character Frank Gallagher and his six children, battle day to day life. the show is non-moralistic, non judgemental in oh so many ways progressively battling against the social norms created by television, and intercepting it the ‘real’. from issues to do with social wellfare to homosexuality, mental disorders from Tourettes disorder through to Agoraphobia; alcoholism, drug addiction, sex, violence, incest, this show has it all.

‘Shameless’ uncovers issues for which society faces on a day to day basis, however which is kept hidden; but it it doesn’t trivalize, it shows empathy, and normalizes issues which other television shows have never yet managed. everything that takes place is within the Chatsworth estate, therefore there is no interference with the morals of the outside world, no class struggles, as everyone within the diegesis of the show belong to the working class, excluding Frank who is on the dole, and Steve from the first two series who is a middle class car thief.

Between all the lurid language and humor, there is moments of respect and love, between the family and also other residents of Chatsworth Estate. it really is a family drama with so much realness, humor, sincerity and heart.

In contrast to Shameless, is the Australian television series Kath & Kim, which to be honest in my opinion is absolutely no comparison to Shameless; as it really is just a ocker piss take of suburban living. Yes it deals with real issues, but in such an over the top, mocking way- its not supposed to be serious, it doesn’t really address issues about class, only that they simply ‘have no class.’ But they arn’t exactly a poor working class family, they have a big enough house, a nice car, etc, just no taste. Shameless doesn’t even attempt to buy into consumerism within its characters, it purely focus’s on the issues taking place within their lives. Kath and Kim in juxtaposition, is all about the ‘latest fad’ I don’t know, but this show really makes me cringe, it conveys an ugly boganish Australian society, and there are no doubts that this class doesn’t exist, I just feel the show doesn’t give any sensitivity to suburban life.

I guess I will have to view it with some more sensitivity… hmmm

Lets talk CLASS

Culture Industries?

A term used to label the organizations that produce popular culture. Such as television, radio, books, popular music and films. Replacing the concept ‘Mass Culture.’ Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895-1973) in their essay: ‘The Culture Industry: enlightenment as mass deception’ developed the term ‘Culture Industry’ in order to exemplify popular culture as nothing more than a capitalist machine, producing uniform cultural commodities which manipulate the public into meekness. They argue that consumerism creates a sense of contentment, no matter what the economic circumstances might be. This is a little problematic, as the capitalist machine must also create discontent for people without means to consume.

What perhaps more importantly Adorno and Horkheimer saw is that the ‘Culture Industries’ encouraged false needs and desires to the masses, which were created by and satisfied by capitalism; thus losing touch with genuine individual creative expression found in higher art, and needs such as freedom and love.

Adorno and Horkheimer were members of the Frankfurt School, which from now on I will call ‘FS.’ They originated as followers of Marx, who believed that the dominant class in society not only owned the means of producing commodities, but also controls the construction of societies dominant ideas and values; thus ideology as the tool of the dominant classes, to mislead the masses. A + H examined the industrialization of mass produced culture as well as the economic essentials behind what they called the ‘Culture Industries.’

A+H believe that there is a ‘loss of the individual’ because of mass production. The capitalist machine eradicates the individual, producing a mass society that only accepts pseudo-individuality– false individuality. Society is seen in terms of class, as said previously- it is the wealthy against the masses, primarily using commodification as the means in which to control. Through advertising, media and other forms of the ‘Culture Industry’ such as mass communication, capitalist modernity has succeeded in dominating the individual, and hence controlling the dominant ideologies, which govern the masses.

The ‘Culture Industry’, A+H believed to be the reason for societies passivity and blind satisfaction. Sucked in by false desires, and commodity fetishism– wanting something because of how much it costs, and what it represents. Hence cultivating a consumerist society that has no interest in over-throwing the capitalist system.