Before reading these articles and thinking about the various films that I have seen, both American and non-American, I thought it would be simple to summarize those experiences as basic entertainment, and nothing more. But when I recount the amount of times where I have referenced a movie line, or felt as though a movie scene has been reenacted before my eyes, I consider such encounters as being dreamlike. Even the notion of déjà vu occasionally causes a struggle when distinguishing between which event was part of a dream I may have previously had, and which actually happened in true life. Looking back during our first section meeting, when we all recounted our interaction with media, it was interesting to note how some people believed that their thoughts were not actually their own because of the films that they have seen. The idea that movies somehow penetrate into our subconscious is a very real phenomenon.
The Kracauer article breaks down film into the categories of effects and gratifications. He argues that “film images affect primarily the spectator’s senses, engaging him physiologically before he is in a position to respond intellectually” (Kracauer 158). Essentially, by engaging people’s senses through moving images, the film can then begin to attack the intellectual aspect of people’s minds. I feel like the appeal to our senses is also caused by a lowered consciousness, which he later describes. One of the moviegoers explained how “I am no longer in my own life, I am in the film projected in front of me” (Kracauer 159). To me, this becomes all the more true when thinking of the avenues that we now have when watching movies. IMAX and 3D movies are very prevalent, which all draw upon the viewer’s ability to be enveloped by a film. Taking this idea a step further, I can recount the mini films at Hersheypark or Disneyland that that spray a scent of chocolate in the room when a Hershey’s Kiss appears on the screen, squirt water at you when a character sneezes, or have machines in the seats to make it feel as though bugs are crawling underneath you when ants flee from a mound. All of this adds to the dreamlike sense of movies.
Also, it is straightforward to think of people taking on a specific role as the only actors of film. But, it was unique to think of the “landscape as an actor”, which was touched upon by the Pandian article. This takes me back to the first of such articles where the citizens of Tamil, as the audience, proposed that their lives could be created into a grand movie. Because the majority of movies were shot in “the urban middle-class households and neighborhoods of Chennai, and the rural villages and landscapes of the western and southern Tamil countryside” (Pandian 54), it would be reasonable for anyone to think that this feat is possible. However, the idea of dreams is aroused in this article with the inclusion of song and dance sequences, which often interrupt heightened moments of a the film. The extreme shift in mood causes a brake between the reality of the audience and that of the actors.
All of these articles draw upon the idea of music and sound as an integral part of the film. I now wonder if I could see myself in the days of silent movies. Do you think that you would have the same physical reactions to our current films if all sound is excluded? Would you feel still feel satisfied by the movie’s message, relying on the “mimetic experience as a mode of perception” (Rutherford 169) that Rutherford describes in her article? For me, certain noises cause anticipation, which results in me being frightened before the scary element actually appears on the screen. A lack of sound, in this case, may cause me to be more engaged and involved with the film in order to offer the same results.
Reading over these articles made me stop and think about documentaries. Documentaries do not usually have the same graphic manipulations as mainstream movies, because they are reporting on factual events and circumstances. Therefore, what could one argue is the reason that these films capture people? I would presume that the sentiments over the topic would be the main cause. I think it is worthy to note that when it comes to documentaries, since Kracauer claims that “films look most like dreams when they overwhelm us with the crude and unnegotiated presence of natural objects” (Kracauer 164), what we would be dreaming is in fact reality.
5 comments:
Similar to the lead blog post, I also thought back to our first section meeting when we all recounted what interested us most about media- and many suggested their love of cinema and film. This is what makes this week's discussion so very interesting, current, and fun to talk and think about. I am a movie person. A lot of us can say this I think, and it is mostly true since so many of use quotations from movies and form humor and other emotions from cinema. Throughout all of the readings, I found myself identifying with the content and agreeing with the points being made about cinema.
The Kracauer article, like the other post, discusses film in terms of it 'luring' us in and how it 'renders the world in motion'. I can definitely attest to this because like Kracauer says, I am often so drawn into a movie, and I lose control of my thoughts and senses due to being so 'into' the movie. Ask my mom, she has to hit me to get me to listen or respond when I am watching TV or a movie. This personal experience of film allows me to agree that a moviegoer is very similar to a hypnotized person. One of my favorite quotes from this article was the one of 'film is a dream, which makes dream'.
Also like the previous post, I was amazed by the point made in the Pandian article of landscape as an actor as well as the sensations and movement created by music. Having watched all of the movies I have now, none of them have been silent films and I do not think I would be able to appreciate them after establishing the love I have for song and music in cinema. Also, although I did not quite understand the Nowhere to Hide clip we saw in class, I appreciated the stylistic breakthroughs after reading about the genre its maker created. When I was reading the Rutherford article it completely hit home when it said that part of the inspiration for the movie came from a comic strip. For some reason, I could totally see that factor in the movie.
Overall these articles were extremely engaging and expanded my knowledge about the different aspects of making and viewing cinema.
I agree with both previous blog posts about the importance of music and sound in films. As I was reading, I could not help but think of movies that I have seen recently that are almost defined by their musical scores. For example, I definitely do not think I would have had the same experience watching a movie like Titanic if it wasn’t for the instrumental music dictating where my emotions should lie during a certain scene or visual sequence. The music and sound definitely help to engage viewers into films and, in my opinion, helps to catalyze the “loss of consciousness” that Kracauer addresses in his article. I think I identified most with this point in his article because I feel so invested in the lives of the characters of movies that I watch that it almost takes me out of my own self and places me into the fictional world of the film. This also relates to the point made in the lead blog post about the people in the Pandian article saying their lives could be made into a movie because I feel the same way at times.
I also realized a connection to Kracauer’s loss of consciousness argument while watching the clip of Nowhere to Hide in class. When I was watching, I felt extremely confused trying to determine the relation of the happy sounding song and the violent images that it was paired with. When I read Rutherford’s article, it made much more sense that the disconnect between the music and the visuals of the film was done intentionally to create confusion within the members of the audience. I found that it was the disconnect itself that was the most intriguing about the film and through the confusion that was created I was drawn into the film even more than I had expected I would have been from the starting sequence.
I thought these articles were extremely interesting and they certainly helped me to understand the intentions that go into making a film to draw certain reactions from the audience.
This week’s readings about cinema made me realize why movies have been such a huge part of our culture for so long. As discussed in Kracauer’s article, movies put viewers “in a state between waking and sleeping which favors hypnagogic fantasies.” Movies allow people to escape from their everyday lives and immerse themselves into an alternate reality. To slip into that sub-conscious sate and take in the movement of the images can evoke different kinds of emotions moviegoers long for. Whether it is love or excitement, the emotions that movies bring up in its viewers can be addicting if the viewer does not feel that emotion in everyday life. The Pandian article and the Rutherford article, described different ways in which movie goers can attain this semiconscious state. Where one is about dance, song, and color, the other is about random images and scenes to engage the viewer. These are just a few ways out of many that movies can captivate the reader’s attention.
Another thing I found interesting about the Kracauer’s article is that movies have the ability to both surprise us and yet satisfy our expectations. It is seen in the Rutherford article that even with the random images, from the first couple of minutes you can tell this is an action movie about crime fighting. It is seen in pretty much any movie today that the boy will get the girl at the end or the sports team will win the championship. Satisfying viewer’s expectations while surprising them at the same time allows for hundreds of love films or sports films so be made and still have people go to the movies.
Referring back to the first section meeting, I think the Kracauer article perfectly summarizes why movies have such an incomparable effect on our lives when compared to other forms of media. Kracauer writes that “Once the spectator’s organized self has surrendered, his subconscious or unconscious experiences, apprehensions and hopes tend to come out and take over” (Kracauer, 165). A well-made movie engages the spectator on a personal level and to some extent allows the “illusion of vicariously partaking of life in its fullness” (169). This engaging, personal experience between the spectator and what is being shown on the screen cannot be created without characters and actions that engage both the landscape and the accompanying music. I particularly enjoyed Pandian’s description of the filmmakers desire to “remake resonant environments” (Pandian, 72). I agree that the power of most movies lies in their ability to engage the spectator first in the fictional world, before engaging the spectator with the characters involved. If a setting fails to engage the senses, plot, characters, music, and all else that goes into a movie, inevitably fail. I think this is one of the things that made the short clip of Nowhere to Hide so interesting. Even though I was unaware of what the movie was actually about for the most part, I was still engaged by what I was watching because the various techniques used were able to create an energetic, rhythmic environment that was visually satisfying.
-Daniel Gergen
I find myself agreeing with a lot of the statements mentioned above. The most striking part of the reading for me was the section in Kracauer’s article “Hunger for Life”. Kracauer introduces Hugo von Hofmannsthal’s statement, where he identified the crowd of moviegoers with “empty minds because of the kind of life which society enjoins on them”. He later goes on to describe how “moviegoers find the fuller life in which society denies to him. He has dreamed of it in his childhood days, and the cinema is a substitute for those dreams” (167). This goes in line with the notion of “dreaming through film” that was mentioned in previous responses and of how cinema provides the viewer with an opportunity to slip into a sub-conscious, almost drone-like state. The film might provide a more exciting life, with intimate relationships, exciting new locations, and even supernatural experiences. Pandian’s article touches upon this notion of being consumed by the film by “placing oneself where one is not of, becoming someone or something one is not” (52). I agree that the cinema can provide us with a view of a world that we would otherwise not be a part of. What I don’t agree with is Kracauer’s statement that cinema is a substitute for the dreams we had as children, especially when I think about the film Nowhere to Hide that was shown in class and talked about in the Rutherford reading. Sometimes we attracted to certain movies because of their shock value. Why else would so many people enjoy horror films? It is not because everyone that enjoys those movies dream of being psychopaths or murdered! Instead, horror films trigger visceral responses in our bodies that excite us. Fear, love, hate, rage, all these emotions are projected from film onto us and lead us to feel those same emotions in our own bodies. That is why people become so involved in story lines, hate villains, fall in love with characters and cry when a tragedy occurs on screen. The shock value of films and the emotions they evoke on us is one of the reasons cinema is so popular.
Post a Comment