SCREEN-L Archives

June 1998, Week 3

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Boris Vidovic <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 15:11:30 +0300
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
hi!
 
i would like to suggest a broader use of tom gunning's notion of "cinema of
atracitons". if you want to take action films as genre, then i would suggest
to think about it not as a narrative structure, but as a means of holding
viewer's attention. action is, first and foremost "attraction". of course,
there is usually some narrative holding the pieces of action together, but i
would consider retarded anyone who watches films like PREDATOR or
CLIFFHANGER (or for that matter JURASSIC PARK or INDEPENDENCE DAY) because
of the engaging story.
 
the fact is that most of the today's box-office hits have more to do with
atractions than with narration. and "action as attraction" has been very
succesful. there are other attractions, of course (stars like leonardo
dicaprio in TITANIC, just to name one of the freshest examples), and they
are almost always non-narrative. but the fact is that action, like music in
musicals (but also in other genres) or costumes and settings, is something
that draws attention to itself without being attached to a speciffic genre.
 
these are just some of my ad-hoc thoughts on the subject. i would be glad to
get some response on this.
 
cheers,
 
boris vidovic
finnish film archive
helsinki
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2