Author Archives: Mary-Caitlin Hentz

Fuller, Chapter One…

Ah the thrill of the traveling picture show!

What intrigues me most about Fuller’s account of film in the country before the depression is how well integrated into the vaudevillian arts it became, and how this integration was an inherent impulse of the cultural movement. Early film it seems, was initially thought, both by the traveling proprietors and audiences alike, to be better off sandwiched between and supplemented by other forms of art and entertainment than stand-alone. This choice can be dissected in a number of fascinating ways:

1) As a continuation of Vaudeville and Circus like entertainment

2) As a replication/imitation of theater

3) As the foundations of the quest for a perfected, fully sensory cinema

In many ways, the moving picture shows of Harris and Cook and the like incorporate all three concepts of the medium.  The films were short because of technology, yet also due to the fear of the audiences untrained attention spans. By the same token, the films were varied in subject matter because they sought to appeal to the masses,  the very same reason they incorporated song and slide show into their acts –  the only knowledge of a film audience came from other similar audiences, consequently, adapting the tastes of vaudeville audiences and theater goers was valid research and provided at least some semblance of a cultural foundation for the medium.

However, what I find more compelling, is the idea supported by certain film theorists whose names seem to escape me… is that perhaps film has always been searching to become a three dimensional all inclusive sensory experience. If so, this would this explain the inherent desire for painted frames and sound effects, for early musical scores and now 3-D… the quest for a perfect cinema.

Gunning: “The Aesthetic of Astonishment” and the “Cinema of Attractions”

Tom Gunning is stalking me. No, seriously.

I have somehow managed to read “The Aesthetic of Astonishment” and the “Cinema of Attractions” every year I have attended this fine institution of learned-ness. Now this is NOT a bad thing. Far from it, instead, each time I have re-read the aforementioned works, I have furthered my understanding of the evolution of the medium, and conversely the nature of its inherent unchangeable core.

I keep reading Mr. Gunning’s works because not only are they spot on to the specific era he targets, but they are perpetually relevant even within an ever changing and evolving medium.

Reflecting on my most recent encounter with Gunning, I’ve come to the conclusion that we really aren’t all that different from the earliest of audiences. The “big summer blockbuster” is powered by the reliability of spectacle: the explosions, the blood… the sex.We as an audience may be growing perpetually harder to shock and awe, but we still react the same way when the hero gets the girl and they kiss under the fireworks, we still value the grandeur of opulent costumes and convincing makeup and now CGI.We pay an extra four dollars at the movie theater to see things in 3-D, we wait in line dressed as Wizards and Witches for Harry Potter premieres, we shout at Rocky Horror, we watch to feel and to be made to feel.

Yes spectacle may have evolved, but the central core, the feelings of astonishment are there, we just have higher expectations.

Yet conversely, as a side effect of living in a perpetually post-modern society, we find ourselves rediscovering the wonders and spectacles of dated cinema. Perhaps this comes from my niche and narrow film major perspective, but the astonishment of the past is relived by generation after generation… those who know “You’ve Got Mail” or “Billy Madison” to be the norm can frequentl appreciate the spectacle of yesteryear’s “Spartacus” as well.

Just because something becomes briefly outdated doesn’t mean it loses its grandeur forever. After all, isn’t that the appeal of vintage clothes? Recycled theatricality?