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.

..