26
FROM THE CINEMA OF ATTRACTIONS TO THE CINEMA OF NARRATIVE INTEGRATION, PART 1 Lecture 4

From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

  • Upload
    kalona

  • View
    77

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1. Lecture 4. How and why did filmmaking practice shift from a cinema of attractions in the pre-1908 period to a cinema of storytelling in the post-1908 period?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FROM THE CINEMA OF ATTRACTIONS TO THE CINEMA OF NARRATIVE INTEGRATION,

PART 1

Lecture 4

Page 2: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

How and why did filmmaking practice shift from a cinema of attractions in the pre-1908 period to a cinema of storytelling in the post-1908 period?

Page 3: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

In order to answer that question we need to understand the following:

a) What constitutes, at the level of form, the cinema of attractions?

b) What constitutes, at the level of form, the cinema of narrative integration?

c) What historical and economic factors explain the shift ?

d) Why does the shift occur around 1908?

Page 4: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 1: FROM 1895-1903FROM THE SINGLE SHOTS TO MULTIPLE SHOTS,

FROM STILL CAMERA TO MOVING CAMERA

• Single shots– Actualities, direct address, violate “the fourth wall”

• Ex: Lumière, Edison

• Moving camera (tracking and panning)– The “phantom” ride films (tracking)

• Ex: Lumière: “Leaving Jerusalem” 1896– Multi-shot “phantom” ride (tracking)

• Ex: G.A. Smith: “The Kiss in the Tunnel” 1899– Panning

• Ex: Porter: “Life of an American Fireman” 1903• Ex: Porter: “The Great Train Robbery” 1903

Page 5: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 2:• Multi-scene films– Shot transitions

• Dissolve– Ex: Méliès: “A Trip to the Moon” 1902

• Straight cut– Ex: Williamson: “Stop, Thief!” 1901

• Vertical wipe– Ex: G.A. Smith: “Mary Jane’s Mishap”

• Pull focus– Dream transition

» Ex: G.A. Smith: “Let me Dream Again” 1900

– Scene Dissection • Cut-in, masking, point of view shots

– Ex: G.A. Smith: “Granma’s Reading Glass” 1900• Camera repositioning

– Ex: G.A. Smith: “The Sick Kitten” 1903– Ex: G.A. Smith: “Mary Jane’s Mishap” 1903

Page 6: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 3:• Multi-scene films (cont.)– Screen direction• Ex: Méliès: “A Trip to the Moon” 1902

– Mental subjectivity (rendering interiority)• Dreaming and visions

– Set within a set» Ex: Zecca: “History of a Crime” 1901

– Photographic superimposition» Ex: Porter: “Life of an American Fireman” 1903» Ex: “Mary Jane’s Mishap” 1903

– Perceptual subjectivity (creating ‘sensual impact’)• Ex: Hepworth: “How it feels to be run over” 1900

Page 7: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 3: PERCEPTUAL SUBJECTIVITY:HEPWORTH: “HOW IT FEELS TO BE RUN OVER”

Page 8: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 4

• Multi-scene films (cont.)– Tricks• Stop motion substitution

– Ex: Méliès: “A trip to the moon”– Ex: Hepworth: “Explosion of a motor car”– Ex: Porter: “The Great Train Robbery”

• Ex: Williamson: “The Big Swallow”

Page 9: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Context for understanding trick films

• Issue of theatricality (see Tom Gunning 1991)– Theatricality IS NOT THE SAME AS attractions• Features of theatricality:

– Invocation of the proscenium stage– Distance between camera and filmed action (i.e. long shots)– Frontality– Artificial sets– No scene dissection; each scene corresponds to a single shot

Page 10: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Theatricality

A Trip to the Moon, 1902

Page 11: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Theatricality

Nero. Or the Fall of Rome, 1909

Page 12: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Context for understanding trick films

• Issue of theatricality (see Tom Gunning 1991)– Theatricality IS NOT THE SAME AS attractions or

“cinematic spectacle”• Méliès case (see André Gaudreault 1987)– narrative cinema does not begin with Méliès; he

should not be considered the “father” of narrative cinema

– Méliès was not a theatrical filmmaker– Méliès exemplifies the cinema of attractions

Page 13: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Méliès wrote in 1932:

“In this type of film (fantasy films, flights of imagination, artistic, diabolical, fantastical or magical films), the most important thing lies in the ingeniousness and unexpectedness of the tricks, in the picturesque nature of the décors, in the artistic lay out of the characters and also in the main ‘hook’ and the grand finale. Contrary to what is usually done, my procedure for constructing this sort of film consisted in coming up with the details before the whole; the whole being nothing other than the ‘scenario’” (quoted in Gaudreault, 1987)

Page 14: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 4: MÉLIÈS

Page 15: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 4: MÉLIÈS

Page 16: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 4: MÉLIÈS

Page 17: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 4: TRICKS: HEPWORTH “EXPLOSION OF A MOTOR CAR” 1900

Page 18: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 4: TRICKS: PORTER “THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY”

Page 19: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

FORMAL INNOVATIONS 4: TRICKS

Page 20: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Formal innovation 5: Cross-cutting and storytelling

• Temporality and simple succession editing (e.g. chase film)• How to indicate the idea of “meanwhile” in film?– Gaudreault argues there are four ways:

1. Simultaneous action occurring in the same field (requires a wide shot)2. Simultaneous action existing in the same frame

a) Ex: opening shot “Life of an American Fireman”

3. Simultaneous actions presented in successiona) Ex: “Life of an American Fireman” (repeated action edits, a.k.a. temporal

overlap)b) Ex: “Rescued by Rover”c) Ex: “The Great Train Robbery”: cross-cutting or simultaneous action in

succession?

4. Cross-cutting of simultaneous action

Page 21: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Simultaneous action occurring in the same field

Nero. Or the Fall of Rome, 1909

Page 22: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Simultaneous action existing in the same frame

Page 23: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Simultaneous actions presented in succession

Page 24: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Simultaneous actions presented in succession

Page 25: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Simultaneous actions presented in succession

Page 26: From the cinema of attractions to the cinema of narrative integration, part 1

Simultaneous actions presented in succession