[Posted here due to technical issues--Rod.]
It is interesting to note the differences between early American and European cinema.
In comparing the films of Thomas Edison to the films of Georges Melies, or the Lumiere brothers, we find Edisons’ to be voyeuristic and crass. There is very little plot in his films, instead, he uses violence and shock to gain the viewers attention. He steps outside the everyday bounds of morality and uses the thrill element to stimulate the viewer, this still holds true today as we have a morbid fascination for things that shock. His work is very different from the theatricality, and technique of, for example, George Melies’ Black Imp. Even further from Edison is quiet beauty of The Weavers of Avdela by Yannakis and Militiadis Manaki.
Without wanting to generalize, we tend to find even in modern cinema that the Europeans are less obviously sensational, American cinema still wants to appeal to the mass audience and in certain genres is becoming more and more shocking. It rather reminds me of the Roman Games, how far will they have to go to achieve a reaction as the public becomes more and more inured to the slash movies of today ?
Given your invocationof the Roman games, I wonder what you make of the European genealogy to the slasher genre, or at least the logic to greater and greater shocks you see in Edison's cinema versus the apparently less sensational European cinema? Is the European cinema turning its back on its violent entertainment past? Is there something of the violent and body-threatening in, say, Melies's cine-magic?
ReplyDelete