What I found most fascinating from this selection of Tom Gunning was how well he assessed the psychology of audiences at different points in cinema's lifespan. It amazes me how early audiences could not possibly imagine moving pictures, yet in the modern day there are few inventions that take us by surprise in such a startling sense. Audiences' transformation from awe-struck novices to the self-supposed critics of today who frequent theaters today shows a sharp contrast. Regardless of their answer, if you ask someone if a movie is good or bad they generally have an answer. Early audiences were terror-stricken by the concept of an image of a train moving towards them - there was no chance to evaluate its merit, only to experience it.
I find that in my choreography for dance it is very easy for me to identify my audience and use that as a guidepost as to how to construct the environment. Movement is such an ancient medium that the guidepost remains fairly stable. As a dancer, when I experience incredibly emotional moments in my own life, I take keen observations of my body's reactions, and find ways to replicate them or otherwise take advantage of these fundamental human reactions. The audience will in turn react, as they have also had emotional responses throughout their lives. With film, the concept of the frame is so rooted within the public's mind that it's hard to determine which direction to lean towards in terms of letting the frame exist independently. On one hand, the cleanliness and manipulation of what lies within the frame is yet another tool in the cinematographer's grasp, yet on another, the environments should be allowed to exist freely and let their capture be genuine. I honestly don't have an answer - but perhaps it's just a question of "style."
No comments:
Post a Comment