I do not believe Gunning's theory of rejecting the original responses by spectators to the then new technology of film, such as in Lumiere's Arrival of a Train at the Station when historians recall what Gunning describes and denotes to "the myth of initial terror," in regards to audiences reactions to the portrayal of the train coming towards them on the screen.
Although I do accept that Gunning is correct in the way that this is not the sole basis for film's existence and people's fascination with it, I still also believe that the optical enhancement of film has been derived from this specific value for watching hyperrealism on a screen, and draws people in by how illusive it can be.
If that is not the case, then why is it that box offices have made fortunes from action packed movie "available in 3-D" that gives modern viewers the same thrills as spectators viewing a film for the first time? It's the sheer fact that people want to get lost in a film, and animators know people want computer graphic effects to look as realistic as possible, for the sake of falling for the illusiveness.
Yes, I also agree with Gunning that the more timeless the viewer, the more understood that it is all an illusion. Often when we are children, we believe what we watch in movies as real, until mature and grow older and realize everything is a set, that's not really a house of a flying saucer, and then if you further your education in film, you figure out how animators and set makers create these hyperrealistic movies such as Avatar. Credit is due where credit is due, and if this initial shock value was worthless, technology today would not have built on it for the viewers' pleasure.
No comments:
Post a Comment