The period known as the “Cinema of Attractions” as been one that I have discussed in many of my film classes.  That said, while in all of those classes we looked at the type of film and what made it a cinema of attraction this is the first time when I am really thinking about the audience.  I know what makes a film an “attraction film” but I guess I never really examined the audience motivation for those characteristics (or maybe I just forget doing it…).

What was interesting about these Gunning readings was that, unlike my previous discussions of cinema of attractions where I interpreted the evolution of moving pictures as the evolution of the filmmakers learning how to use a new art form, these two articles focus on the evolution of the audience.  I think that the example of the audience fleeing from the image of the oncoming train illustrates an audience that was new to the attraction and was willing to believe the impossible.  The films were geared towards the audience, whether it be a train coming right at you, a wink from an actor, or a filmed burlesque/magic show aimed at an audience.  I think the difference between these early audiences and the audiences of today is that we are no longer willing to accept those actions geared towards us.  We are aware of a camera and what it can do and while many of the films of today are filled with plenty of attractions, we need the narrative that was lacking in the films of pre-1906 in order to hook us in.  We are no longer relying purely on the aesthetics of the visual but we also need to story and the mental in order to connect us to the film.

Question: Is Gunning giving early audiences too much credit or not enough?  He confused me there.