Hi all. Adamo here.
First off, I missed last weeks lecture — so I enjoyed your postings on The Electric Message. I agree with many of your points, however, what i found most fascinating was the ways in which in “Heard Over the Phone…”, technology redefines time and space within narrative. After relating it to the Cinema of Attractions, it seemed to me that editing between conversations over the phone, or even the use of split screens, performed a dual purpose: a) to surprise people by objectively showing them the very distance a telephone line travels; as well as b) forwards the narrative. Its almost as if the spectator is surprised and astonished by the editing and the way in which the narrative makes sense of this eliminations of space and time. To me personally, it represented the idea (which many of the articles in the course have touched upon) that cinema of attractions was never replaced but istead pushed undeground, acting as a current beneath new dominant structures. Overall, I very much saw the duality of spectacle and narrative in the articles thesis. As you may notice, I am very interested in the cinema of attractions (my first assignment is on the articles that discuss Cinema of Attractions) partly because up until this semester I had never even heard of it (if you can believe that) and also because it represents the theme of the course — that early cinema was not primitive, nor, as Tamara noted in her response, a transitional period…but instead a completely autonomous movement which still presents itself in the modern cinematic experience. For example, we discussed in class some weeks back the very effects in modern cinema; i watched the Matrix the other day on TV and thought, how much is this a spectacle about what we can now do with technology? Therefore, everything we see today is rooted in yesterday.
In relation to this weeks readings, its seems technology is the central theme. The running question is, in the Traffic of Souls article, hows does technology allow for narrative in feature length films, especially during the teen years where the concept of narrative really came to life? The article presents the many strategies employed to make narrative coexist with reel length, including “coincidences” and epilouges and titles seperating breaks. It seems narrative devices were shaped around technology. Its almost as if narrative was a current going against technological capabilities — if only the reel could be longer, or the breaks shorter. Do you think technology, including its capabilites and limitations, shaped the ways in which we tell stories, or did we just attempt to adapt classical ways of story telling (from fables and books) to a new technology — even if it took a while to get it right? E.g. did we always have the same arcs, and breaks (chapters) and ellipses in time etc.
Over all, I believe the problems reel length presented set at least a few standards for narrative — for example, ellipses which shaped elliptical editing in a way that made the diagetic time longer than the reel or real time. Standards like this, and, as previously discussed, the cinema of attractions, can be seen today in modern narratives. To me, it truly seems that early cinema is not so much primitive as it is a precursor to everything we see today.
PS. I saw “There Will Be Blood” this weekend. My verdict — beautiful. To describe why would be to long, all I will say is: the film provides an experience, not just entertainment. And for its ability to do just that makes it beautiful.
Cheers,
Adamo Ruggiero
