Discussing the differences between the cinema of attraction and the narrative films that followed, I believe that both provide its audience with realism, but from opposite ends of the realism spectrum. That is to say that the cinema of attraction draws upon realism in its visuals while narrative films utilize realism via psychology and through character motivation. To clarify, I am definitely not stating that all of the cinema of attraction’s visual are purely grounded in realism. Melies’ illusions and camera tricks attempt to defy a degree of realism. They attempt to awe and encourage us. as an audience, to marvel at the ingenuity behind its inner-workings. What I want to say is that the visuals can be deemed  realistic due to their attention to detail. An even better example than Melies’ illusions is a Lumiere actuality entitled Baby’s Lunch. In the background of this actuality (if I remember correctly), one can see the subtleties of leaves swaying with the wind. It is those details, the barely perceptible yet pristine motion, and the newness of film as a medium that astonished viewers and maintained their engagement and convinced them of film’s realism. With the arrival of narrative, on the other hand, the importance of visuals diminishes. The subtleties of everyday life may make their way into the frame in these narrative films, but they are no longer the focus of the film but instead an ancillary element augmenting another type of realism: an internal realism that is dependent upon characters and their goals.