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.