How Has the Experience of Cinema-Going Changed over the Past Century

During the course of this essay it is my intention to discuss the differences between Classical Hollywood and post-Classical Hollywood. Although these terms refer to theoretical movements of which they are not definitive it is my goal to show that they are applicable in a broad way to a cinema tradition that dominated Hollywood production between 1916 and 1960 and which also pervaded Western Mainstream Cinema (Classical Hollywood or Classic Narrative Cinema) and to the movement and changes that came about following this time period (Post-Classical or New Hollywood). I intend to do this by first analysing and defining aspects of Classical Hollywood and having done that,

In “A Century of Cinema”, Susan Sontag explains how cinema was cherished by those who enjoyed what cinema offered. Cinema was unlike anything else, it was entertainment that had the audience feeling apart of the film. However, as the years went by, the special feeling regarding cinema went away as those who admired cinema wanted to help expand the experience.

Article Three – Author: David Bordwell / Title of Article: The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film

This essay explores the popularity of Australian film, both locally and internationally and asks the question: Is there a crisis in the Australian Film Industry? This essay will go through the current issues the Australian Film Industry and will demonstrate examples of those problems.

Although the best reasons for “going to the movies” are to be entertained and eat popcorn, understanding a film is actually quite complex. Movies are not only a reflection of life, they also have the capability of shaping our norms, values, attitudes, and perception of life. Through the media of film, one can find stories of practically anything imaginable and some things unimaginable. Movie-makers use their art to entertain, to promote political agendas, to educate, and to present life as it is, was, or could be. They can present truth, truth as they interpret it, or simply ignore truth altogether. A movie can be a work of fiction, non-fiction, or anything in-between. A film is an artist’s interpretation. What one takes away from a film depends upon how one interprets what has been seen and heard. Understanding film is indeed difficult.

It has been observed that many movies have gained or lost its reputation over the years. The values, attitudes and actions of people have changed as years have gone by, which is reflected in their changing opinions and expressions; the changing society behavior is responsible for the gain or loss of reputation of a particular movie over a period of time.

“The point of theatre is transformation: to make an extraordinary event out of ordinary material right in front of an audience 's eyes. Where the germ of the idea came from is pretty much irrelevant. What matters to every theatre maker, I know, is speaking clearly to the audience 'right now. '” This quote by English playwright and screenwriter, Lee Hall, from an essay he published in the Times of London, is central to the connection between theatre and motion picture technology. Since the rise of film in the early twentieth century, these elements have been influencing each other, and working together, to elevate the storytelling and experience of each medium and, in turn, better connecting them to the modern audience. The collaboration of these two mediums has resulted in a new form of theatre, known as digital theatre, that shows “theatrical entertainment does not have to be either purist (involving only ‘live’ actors on stage), or be consumed by the dominant televisual mass media, but can gain from the strengths of both types of communication.”(Masura). Throughout this paper, the intersection of theatre and motion picture technology will be explored through their effect on each other, in storytelling and experience, and the product of their collaboration—digital theatre.

“The biggest mistake we have made is to consider that films are primarily a form of entertainment. The film is the greatest medium since the invention of movable type for exchanging ideas and information, and it is no more at its best in light entertainment than literature is at its best in the light novel.” - Orson Welles

Early cinema is often referred to as a progression to narrative cinema, Tom Gunning would argue that it was not a progression but had its own purpose and coined the term The Cinema of Attractions in his essay ‘Now you see it, Now you don’t’. This is the concept that a large quantity of the first film makers produced films that were more about the spectacle, most of the films leading up to 1900 reflected the fascination with technology and how things happened rather than why. Gunning noted that there were three assumptions of film; the general ideas that people had about the timeline of film and where it would end up. There is the cinematic assumption, the idea that film was ‘restricted to the technological reproduction of theatre’ (Gunning T.1993) early cinema was primitive and only a practice for what was to come. The narrative assumption is that film is ‘only important as it is a predecessor to a more engaging and effective form of film,’ (Gunning T. 1993) this suggests that narrative cinema is the natural form of film. The final assumption is the idea that ‘cinema only truly appeared when it discovered its mission of telling stories.’ (Metz C. 1974) These assumptions all encompass the idea that narrative is the end form of film. In this essay I am going to discuss Tom Gunning’s theory of The Cinema of Attractions and the differences between them and narratively driven films.

According to (Bates 665), “Cinematic society refers to the 20th century societal formation that recognizes itself via cinematic apparatus,” he points to the chief place that films hold in

What makes for a classic Hollywood film? Increasingly, films have evolved to the point where the standard by which one calls a “classic Hollywood film” has evolved over time. What one calls a classic film by yesterday’s standards is not the same as that of today’s standards. The film Casablanca is no exception to this. Although David Bordwell’s article, “Classical Hollywood Cinema” defines what the classical Hollywood film does, the film Casablanca does not exactly conform to the very definition that Bordwell provides the audience with in his article. It is true that the film capers closely to Bordwell’s definition, but in more ways than not, the film diverges from Bordwell’s definition of the typical Hollywood film.

The film industry has always been somewhat of a dichotomy. Grounded firmly in both the worlds of art and business the balance of artistic expression and commercialization has been an issue throughout the history of filmmaking. The distinction of these two differing goals and the fact that neither has truly won out over the other in the span of the industry's existence, demonstrates a lot of information about the nature of capitalism.

The notion that film functions rhetorically is hardly novel, and, indeed, there is a long tradition of film criticism within rhetorical studies.5 Historically, the rhetorical criticism of film has tended to focus on the representational aspects of cinema, attending to how films compel audiences at a cognitive rather than corporeal level. But more recently, scholars in an array of fields (Kennedy, 2000; MacDougall, 2006; Massumi, 2002; Shaviro, 1993; Sobchack, 1995, 2004) have begun to consider how cinema appeals directly to the senses, how it sways viewers somatically as well as symbolically. Attention to the body corresponds closely to the affective (re)turn in rhetorical studies,6 for conceptualizing rhetoric as embodied necessarily “reflects a merger of reason and emotion” (McKerrow, 1998, p. 322; see also Johnson, 2007). Rhetorical

“What precisely is the cinema of attractions? First it is a cinema that bases itself on the quality that Leger celebrated: its ability to show something.”

The BBFC has commissioned me to undertake research as part of a project to ascertain to what degree films can be regarded as powerful within contemporary society. In this assignment, I will comprehensively explain the relationship between audiences and films with well explained examples. I refer to the different sectors relating to the topic that include the following: