[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]Gunning then also mentions Lucas, Spielberg, and some other director (I forgot).
How is the logic and narrative different? I didn’t understand what you meant there.
Film is primarily a visual medium, and should be treated as such.[/quote]
Did her mention them ? Cause in the original text, I think he didn’t. Oh but I read the original paper and he then published it in a book too. I don’t know.
My point was : Gunning coined the term for silent films cause there was a whole tradition behind it. First of all, by attractions, he also meant that films were at that time screened in funfairs. The challenges was different cause you had to get people’s attention more than a regular theater screening. Plus “attraction” also meant that people were attracted or surprised by the early cinema cause they never had seen such moving pictures before (like that so-called myth as if they were afraid of the train coming out of the screen), so there was this notion of illusion and magic.
Of course, you could say, nowadays blockbusters and other films can be like cinema of attraction, cause basically, special effects tend to the same “wow” effect and the same scopic pleasure. Though I meant the logic is a bit different cause we’re not that surprised anymore, we’re not illusioned by the tricks on screen for most movies. Even though the CGI are stunning. The commodification of CGI kinda broke the illusion and the magic. The audience certainly reacts different to the new films and audience back then with early films.
Maybe the 3D is the real cinema of attractions. I don’t know. But the effect would probably be closer to the real early cinema of attractons, with people touching the “3D effect” in the air like people wanted to touch the screen to check out the effect in the early cinema.
What do you think ?
Requiem For a Dream 4/5
One of the weirdest movies i’ve ever seen.
The Exorcist (rewatch) 4.5/5
Still not scary but very funny.
Alice Doesnt Live Here Anymore 5/5
Very enjoyable to watch. Martin Scorsese is a great director.
[quote=“Mr.Pink”]Requiem For a Dream 4/5
One of the weirdest movies i’ve ever seen.
[/quote]
I second that. The durgs part aren’t much disturbing but all the sex/perverse thing is very much so. Especially the end. I don’t like feel like watching this movie again that soon.
[quote=“cyber-lili”][quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]Gunning then also mentions Lucas, Spielberg, and some other director (I forgot).
How is the logic and narrative different? I didn’t understand what you meant there.
Film is primarily a visual medium, and should be treated as such.[/quote]
Did her mention them ? Cause in the original text, I think he didn’t. Oh but I read the original paper and he then published it in a book too. I don’t know.
My point was : Gunning coined the term for silent films cause there was a whole tradition behind it. First of all, by attractions, he also meant that films were at that time screened in funfairs. The challenges was different cause you had to get people’s attention more than a regular theater screening. Plus “attraction” also meant that people were attracted or surprised by the early cinema cause they never had seen such moving pictures before (like that so-called myth as if they were afraid of the train coming out of the screen), so there was this notion of illusion and magic.
Of course, you could say, nowadays blockbusters and other films can be like cinema of attraction, cause basically, special effects tend to the same “wow” effect and the same scopic pleasure. Though I meant the logic is a bit different cause we’re not that surprised anymore, we’re not illusioned by the tricks on screen for most movies. Even though the CGI are stunning. The commodification of CGI kinda broke the illusion and the magic. The audience certainly reacts different to the new films and audience back then with early films.
Maybe the 3D is the real cinema of attractions. I don’t know. But the effect would probably be closer to the real early cinema of attractons, with people touching the “3D effect” in the air like people wanted to touch the screen to check out the effect in the early cinema.
What do you think ?[/quote]
yeah, I only read the version that he published in a book, he takes his concept and applies it to modern cinema. I think the 3rd Indiana Jones movie, and the 3rd Star Wars movie are prime examples of the Cinema of attractions, 3D or no 3D. To me it’s an approach to cinema, one where the visual, the style and mise-en-scene stand above the narration and the story-level.
what’s interesting to me is this:
theatre was, by many, only considered good and worthwile when it imitated literature. (especially in germany/france)
After that, many conservative people only considered those kind of movies worthwile, which were close to theatre or books.
Today, good videogames are the ones that imitate movies.
All bullshit if you ask me. Each medium has it’s own strength and should be confident in itself.
Kill Bill Vol.1 is one of the greatest movies ever made, and I would say that it is impossible to actively dislike it if you are a true fan of film.
And Transformers 2 kicks ass too.
I liked how Tarantino admired AVATAR, and even said that it’s a great ride, the kind that he was going for in Kill Bill.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
theatre was, by many, only considered good and worthwile when it imitated literature. (especially in germany/france)[/quote]
That still is somehow the case, I think. French are afraid of true popular, entertainment movies. See the last big success, Bienvenu chez les Ch’ti, people attributed it to the kind of audience who usually don’t go much to the cinema and intellectuals hated it.
About Gunning, well I do understand how the concept can be transferred to modern cinema, it certainly IS a cinema of attraction. I should read the book then to see how he adapts the logic. But the illusion/magic/surprise effect doesn’t work much more to me then.
(Ahah, we don’t discuss much cinema theory here, it’s great to finally do it).
[quote=“cyber-lili”][quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
theatre was, by many, only considered good and worthwile when it imitated literature. (especially in germany/france)[/quote]
That still is somehow the case, I think. French are afraid of true popular, entertainment movies. See the last big success, Bienvenu chez les Ch’ti, people attributed it to the kind of audience who usually don’t go much to the cinema and intellectuals hated it.
About Gunning, well I do understand how the concept can be transferred to modern cinema, it certainly IS a cinema of attraction. I should read the book then to see how he adapts the logic. But the illusion/magic/surprise effect doesn’t work much more to me then.
(Ahah, we don’t discuss much cinema theory here, it’s great to finally do it).[/quote]
“the illusion/magic/surprise effect”:
it’s been a while since I’ve read the text, but as I remember it, those things were not the only points. I think they made up…maybe the first third of the text. the rest was about how cinema is defined though the visual aspect, how movies can be a “ride”, like a rollercoaster ride, etc. etc. AVATAR subscribes to that approach. Hollywood very often does.
What I’ve heard about the French and movies is that very often they LOVE movies that are overly american. Like Westerns, Burt Reynolds and Chuck Norris movies. Europeans look at “Smokey and the Bandit” from a different perspective. And look at how the french dug Death Proof!
I guess there are two kinds of people from the non-US: Those who enjoy movies that show the US confident in it’s image and culture, and those who despise the same thing.
I for one dug the scene where Spider-Man slings past the american flag, even though I am from Austria. Others thought it was “overly patriotic” and stupid.
I’ve digressed, sorry. ;D
Well Kenneth, it’s cool for me to know non-americans like you exist. Even if you are outnumbered.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
What I’ve heard about the French and movies is that very often they LOVE movies that are overly american. Like Westerns, Burt Reynolds and Chuck Norris movies. Europeans look at “Smokey and the Bandit” from a different perspective. And look at how the french dug Death Proof!
[/quote]
Yeah the ride effect was part of the early films screened in funfairs too cause they used these animation platform you, so that your seats shake during the film too, ahah. To gte the ride impression. I should read the book, really, cause it was only about early cinema in the article.
And double yeah, Kenneth IS more patriotic than most of american while he's not american, ahah.
About the French situation. We love the US auteurs (like Tarantino) and classic US movies like the westerns, (not Chuck Norris though or just people staying all day in front of their TV), films noirs, John Ford, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Lynch, The Coens and all. Cause it's part of this Nouvelle Vague cinephilia reinvented by Les Cahiers du Cinéma, Godard, Truffaut that got all into classics again. Les Cahiers du Cinéma even called Judd Apatow an auteur ! Ahah.
But mainstream cinema, blockbusters, hum, divided camp, those who love without shame, those who love auteur cinema and that's all.
Ahah that’s awesome about Cahiers calling Apatow an auteur - I love Apatow! Knocked Up is one of the best movies ever made, imo.
Huge fan of camp movies/TV too.
It’s a common effect for foreigners to dig a culture/country that is not their own. Especially when it’s as hip and sweet as US culture. ;D
Though I am not as blindly patriotic as my YouTube videos may make you think I am 
Much of that is for fun.
I watch every single episode of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Not sure if you wanted to know that, but there.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
It’s a common effect for foreigners to dig a culture/country that is not their own…[/quote]
I dig the UK! Everything about it (aside from the politics) is super appealing to me. I'd also like to check out the rest of western europe, especially the Netherlands. But I can die happy when I finally make it to Britain.
Every foreigners might wish to visit the US, and every american might wish to visit Europe, that’s funny. My dream would be to do a road trip all over the USA, for like three weeks or a month. I’d love that. But I have no idea how much it’d cost. Say, like, how expensive is a train ticket from NYC to Philadelphia, Geoi ?
Btw Les Cahiers can call Apatow an auteur here cause he hasn’t much success. If he was this big commercial machine as in the US, it’d be different. But pretty much every intellectual critics, except from Les Cahiers, dig him now sicne Funny People but the reviews were pretty common for The 40 y.o. Virgin and Knocked Up.
Judd Apatow being called an auteur after making Funny People, his weakest film by far is ironic to me.
I hope he refocuses on well written entertaining comedies instead of the whine fest Funny People was.
This is precisely NOT ironic from Les Cahiers point of view and any intellectual. Non success from a mainstream director might indicate a risk taken and then an “auteur” position They didn’t care much about his previous movies precisely cause they were regular comedies. They all discussed the “non-funny comedy” style he adopted on purpose in Funny People (I didn’t like, don’t ask me if I agree with the theory). They made it themselves on purpose not funny and never tried to understand if actually it wasn’t funny cause it was a bad comedy and not some serious comedy. You know what I mean (I’m afraid to be confused, ahah) ?
Yeah I think I know what you mean. Your point is that Knocked Up and 40YOV are too “obvious” as comedic movies to raise interest from Les Cahiers and those kind of reviewers. Although they liked Funny People, as it was less obviously funny and tried something else (and failed at it).
I see where you’re coming from, the exact same thing happened with Erik & Ramzy (a french comedic duo, I doubt foreigners know them). Les Cahiers said “at the time La Tour Montparnasse…was released, we said they were going to release a truly great movie someday. Steak proved us right.”, or something very similar. O0
Yeah, everybody dissed La tour Montparnasse (I love it if you want to know) but everybody called them “auteurs” with Steak.
But about the non-funny comic in Funny People, Les Cahiers thinks it actually didn’t fail. They loved it.
Funny People failed commercially, that much is for sure.
Artistically, it was a HUGE success, imo. I for one love the movie, and when Tarantino, Cahiers and the Austrian Film Geek all agree that the movie is great, you know you’re in for a good one!
Seriously though: I LOVE the mix of drama and comedy (some people are calling this “dramedy”), the only minor gripe I have is that the director’s cut is very long.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]Funny People failed commercially, that much is for sure.
Artistically, it was a HUGE success, imo. I for one love the movie, and when Tarantino, Cahiers and the Austrian Film Geek all agree that the movie is great, you know you’re in for a good one!
Seriously though: I LOVE the mix of drama and comedy (some people are calling this “dramedy”), the only minor gripe I have is that the director’s cut is very long.[/quote]
Damn! Can’t believe I missed that auteur discussion.
Funny People is the only one of his that stands up to more than a couple of viewing. It only gets better the more I see it. I doubt we’re ever gonna get a better of the R-rated comedies that have been the trend.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]Seriously though: I LOVE the mix of drama and comedy (some people are calling this “dramedy”).[/quote]
I usually love this mix too. But it didn’t work on me in this case. Plus I think it’s a very male-male cinema, the whole Apatow band, more difficult for a girl to get into penis jokes all the time and women only good for home and cooking.
[quote=“cyber-lili”][quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]Seriously though: I LOVE the mix of drama and comedy (some people are calling this “dramedy”).[/quote]
I usually love this mix too. But it didn’t work on me in this case. Plus I think it’s a very male-male cinema, the whole Apatow band, more difficult for a girl to get into penis jokes all the time and women only good for home and cooking.[/quote]
Yeah, but usually I like Apataow’s films a lot. I wasn’t talking about the commercial success of Funny People when I said it failed. I was talking about my personal entertainment. I don’t care if QT liked it (I really don’t understand why he did though), I remember writing a huge rant about how much I disliked that movie right here on the board after I watched it, and my opinion didn’t change after that. It really is a failed attempt at trying to add some more brain to those comedies.
I’d rank it in my personal 5 worst movies of 2009 list.
The problem with Funny People: Its a great movie, everybody just hates Adam Sandler.
I hope ‘Get him to the Greek’ is better than ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’, cause that movie blows.
I saw Shutter Island yesterday applaud. I love to hate, hate to love this movie. It is a good movie at being a bad movie. Top Tip: Don’t go on the board “Teddy Daniels is sane theory” on imdb. It will totally blow all your faith in mankind, if you had any.
Much of that is for fun.