Hi everyone! Here's what I'd like you do. First, read http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/11/youtube_and_the_vaudeville_aes.html . Then, read the Tom Gunning article in the course reader ("An Aesthetic of Astonishment: Early Film and the (In)credulous Spectator"). The syllabus has the wrong title for the article, by the way.
Next, choose a YouTube video that works well with the aesthetic of vaudeville and the aesthetic of attractions. Respond to BOTH of the following:
Using 2 quotations from the Jenkins article, explain how your video expresses the aesthetic of vaudeville. Using 2 quotations from the Gunning article, explain how your video expresses the aesthetic of attractions. Use specific aspects of your video as evidence to support your argument. Please include the URL of your video, as well.
For your viewing pleasure, here's the video Jenkins talks about in his article:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
68 comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkGExH0O7Xg&feature=related
I chose a video of illusionist Criss Angel “diving through” a person during a show at his theater in Las Vegas. I believe this video is a prime example of both the aesthetic of attractions and the aesthetic of vaudeville. As Gunning stated, in the cinema of attractions, “The spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of curiosity and fulfillment” (121). The Criss Angel video embodies this perfectly, as Angel does not use his theater to create deep, character-driven performances, but rather uses it to excite and bewilder his audience. As Gunning also stated, “The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis on the thrill itself-the immediate reaction of the viewer” (122). It is though Gunning is addressing the Criss Angel video directly, as the whole point behind this performance is to illicit the immediate shock of the audience.
Criss Angel’s performance also corresponds well with the aesthetics of vaudeville. As Jenkins points out, “Vaudeville performances were short modular units” and worked under the guiding principle of “get in, score big, get off.” This video features an awe-inspiring illusion, even though it is only thirty-five seconds long. And, since this video comes from Angel’s television series, he addresses both the audience in the theater itself and the viewing audience. This corresponds with Jenkin’s assertion that “Filmed vaudeville performances were performed directly to the camera with the performers actively courting the attention and approval of the viewer.”
Joseph Otterson
TA: Laura Bennett
The video that I chose is the music video for ‘Deli’ by Mor ve Ötesi. (The URL for the version with English subtitles is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FCtRkAYbWA ). It fits several points in Jenkins’ argument about the resemblance between vaudeville and YouTube. For example, Jenkins said that in vaudeville the “performer tried above all else to be memorable”. You can tell in the whole performance that they were trying to be memorable, what with their almost theatrical movements and the guitarist spinning around and jumping all over the place. Another aesthetic of vaudeville that the video illustrates really well is the fact that it brings “people and traditions from exotic parts of the world to America”. The band is from Turkey, and while you may not be able to tell this just by looking at them, it’s easier to see that it’s foreign in the beginning where all the statues are shown, especially when looking at what the one is wearing at 0:29.
The video also expresses the aesthetics of attractions. Cinema of attractions is different from narratives in that “[t]he aesthetic of attraction addresses the audience directly” (Gunning 121). This is apparent during the various times when the singer looks directly at the camera as if looking right at the viewer as well. It also fits the aesthetics of attractions in that it is concise. It “performs its act of display and fades away” (Gunning 122). We see the curiosity (the mysterious statues), they perform and show us how the got there and then it’s over.
Katrina Schwarz
TA: Kate Brandt
The video I chose that relates very well to the two articles is The Evolution of Dance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCT3MIUTc3o.
According to Jenkins, the video I chose expresses the aesthetic of vaudeville in many ways. First, this was “an actor-centered mode of production...a form which [places] a high premium on virtuosity - the ability of the performer to impress the spectator with their mastery.” In a mere six minutes, this traveling comedian, as heard by the tape, is adored and revered by the audience, as well as the viewers of the video by his interpretation of dances from the past few decades. Similarly to the previously said, the performance was done “directly to the camera with the performer actively courting the attention and approval of the viewer.”
In relation to the Gunning article, this videos also adheres to the aesthetic of attractions as well because it “addresses the audience directly.” The man in the video is indeed performing for a live audience, as well as the YouTube audience viewing him everyday. In addition, this video embodies the idea of the aesthetic of attractions by “address[ing] and hold[ing] the spectator...deliver[ing] a generally brief dose of scopic pleasure.” In a mere six minutes, this man was able to hold and capture the interest and pleasure of the audience, keeping their senses and interest at a high, resisting a sense of becoming tired and bored.
Dan Gorchynsky
TA: David Witzling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG9cSlslEWU
I decided to use a video of dance artist David “Elsewhere” Bernal performing at a liquid dance competition. The aspects that make this video like a vaudeville performance is it’s brevity. As Jenkins stated, “vaudeville performances were short modular units, . . .get in, score big, and get off, . . . emphasis on the immediate emotional impact”. Jenkins continues, “It was a form which placed a high premium on virtuosity - - on the ability of the performer to impress the spectator with their mastery“. Bernal shows the audience his talent and gets their approval in about one minute. Bernal’s unique talent could bring to mind what Gunning referred to as Augustine’s Curiositas. “Curiositas draws the viewer towards unbeautiful sights, such as a mangled corpse”. It is debatable if Bernal’s dancing resembles a mangled corpse, but his movements are a demonstration of the human body’s dexterity. When Bernal begins, the viewer is amazed by the fluid motion of his solid limbs and as the performance continues, the movements become more elaborate. Gunning states that, “The viewer’s curiosity is aroused and fulfilled through a marked encounter, a direct stimulus, a succession of shocks”. Halfway through the performance, Bernal switches from a very fluid motion to a twitching motion making it seem a strobe light has been turned on. The variety of Bernal’s dance performance certainly keeps the audience on it toes.
Nathan Irish
TA Kate Brandt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVDRZxGFNbo
My YouTube selection is Will Farrell doing Harry Caray. This skit demonstrates the aesthetics of vaudeville in a number of areas. According to Jenkins’ article, “…vaudeville performances were short modular units”…with “…no time for elaborate characterization or plot development.” (Jenkins) This SNL skit is an excerpt from the “Weekend Update” portion of “Saturday Night Live”. It is a very short skit that stands alone and, from the start, pokes fun at Harry Caray and his mannerisms. There is no particular plot, and in fact, at some points, it appears that Will Farrell is improvising for the audience. This is another criteria of vaudeville, according to Jenkins’ article, “…a sense of spontaneity which played up the liveness of the staged experience.” Colin Quinn, the straight man on the skit, has totally given up control of the so-called interview and simply reacts to the apparent ad libbing of Will Farrrell. This also ties in with what Jenkins described when he wrote the “…individual performer tried above all else to be memorable, which typically meant a strong reliance on spectacle and a desire to intensify emotional effects.” Farrell’s ad libbing seems to feed on the response of the audience and sends him off in a direction which neither the cast nor crew anticipated he would go.
This skit also demonstrates what Gunning describes as Aesthetic of Attraction. The emphasis Gunning made was the importance of the audience involvement which could only be obtained by grabbing their attention in some manner. “The aesthetic of attraction addresses the audience directly…” in order to solicit “…a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer’s curiosity.” (Gunning 121) Farrell engages the audience immediately by his over the top mannerisms and then by directing his remarks right to the audience rather than to the character sitting beside him. He clearly gauges the audience’s response to his act and adjusts accordingly with his ad libs. This leaves Colin Quinn’s character at a loss which further separates Farrell from the skit and inserts him into the audience. Farrell’s caricature of Harry Caray is outrageous and the audience knows that but the entertainment value of his portrayal captures them. As Gunning points out, “This cinema addresses and holds the spectator, emphasizing the act of display. In fulfilling this curiosity, it delivers a generally brief dose of scopic pleasure.” (Gunning 121).
TA: K. Brandt
In many ways YouTube is the second coming of both Vaudeville perforce and the Cinema of Attractions. The similarities between YouTube and the two have been dissected by scholars and they have come to the conclusion that many of the traits, circumstances, and prominent features are inherently similar. I would like to further examine this topic through a YouTube video I have found: Melting Steel with Solar Power.
The cinema of attractions was full of short shocking videos that were purely spectacular. A direct address of the audience was frequently used to add suspense and emphasize the shock value of the performance. “[The Cinema of Attractions] explicitly acknowledge their spectator, seeming to reach outwards and confront…the viewers curiosity is aroused and fulfilled through a marked encounter, a direct stimulus, a succession of shocks.” In the case of Melting steel with solar Power the viewer is instantly intrigued by the title and desires to know more. This curiosity is accentuated by the narrator of the program who, like a showman of The Cinema of Attraction, entices the viewer and builds suspense for the inevitable spectacle of solar power melting steel. The Cinema of Attractions also extorts the intellectual/visual curiosity and desire for novelty referred to as the “lust of the eyes”. The Cinema of Attractions “draws the viewer towards unbeautiful sights…and anything out of the ordinary are put on show… led not only to fascination with seeing, but a desire for knowledge in its own sake.” The spectacle of steel being melted by solar power is not only extraordinary and spectacular but also a show of technological achievement. Thus, the viewer’s intellectual curiosity is peaked and their desire to see, experience, and learn is fulfilled.
Vaudeville Theatre is also predominantly parallel to YouTube. “[Vaudeville theatre] represented a grab bag of the full range of cultural interests and obsessions of an age marked by dramatic social, cultural, and technological transformations. In the course of an evening, one might watch a Shakespearean actor do a soliloquy, a trained dog act, an opera recital, a juggler or acrobatic turn, a baggy pants comedian, an escape artist or magician, a tap dance performance, and some form of stupid human tricks.” In the case of this video, it is a part of YouTube’s grab bag of diverse short clips in our own age of technological achievement and constant transformation. In particular, the video itself portrays the technological achievement of harnessing solar power. Since Vaudeville theatre was comprised of so many different performances “the individual performer tried above all else to be memorable, which typically meant a strong reliance on spectacle and a desire to intensify emotional effects.” This video follows suit with that philosophy. The video was made popular (with over 85,000 views) by standing out as a spectacular sight that one would not ordinarily see. It is that same aspect of the unbelievable that was ever prevalent in Vaudeville and begs the video to be shared and viewed.
Wath the YouTube video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tt7RG3UR4c
[Garrett Katerzynske]
[David Witzling]
In his article The Aesthetics of Astonishment: Early Film and the Credulous Spectator, Tom Gunning states “confrontation rules the cinema of attractions in both the form and its films and their modes of exhibition.” YouTube is an example of constant confrontation in that the performer in a video is purposely connecting with the audience in order to seek out its approval. This is different than the voyeuristic styles of narrative film. “The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis in the thrill itself – the immediate reaction of the viewer.” (Gunning 122)
Similarly, Henry Jenkins writes on his weblog in the entry titled YouTube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic, “Actors chose their own material, refined their own skills, and lived and died entirely on the basis of their ability to connect one on one with the audience.” This also allowed for certain stylistic trends in the transition of vaudeville to film including long takes of elaborate stunts, solidifying the facts that one performer committed a seemingly impossible act. Jenkins says, “In a context of constant variation, the individual performer tried above all else to be memorable, which typically meant a strong reliance on spectacle and a desire to intensify emotional effects.” This transitions to YouTube fairly well. The act of refining one’s own material and displaying it in a venue where all of the world can immediately judge it for quality harks back to vaudeville and vaudevillian film by utilizing the same aesthetics and principals to make one performer memorable.
In the video entitled Evolution of Dance, comedian Judson Laipply has created a spectacle in one long shot proving that it is indeed him performing every aspect of the six minute routine. He is positioned center stage facing the camera (or the audience) thus directly confronting the situation and seeking out a form of approval. Laipply then presents a diverse piece of material which spans decades, trends, and facets of culture. This allows him to create the emotional connection with the audience that vaudevillian performers strove for. There is no question as to if the performer has made himself memorable which is evident in his overall views which currently ranks his video as the second most viewed video on YouTube. Utilizing the sheer awe of impossibility, with a mix of comedy and refined skill, Laipply has created a video that in every way expresses the aesthetics of attractions according to both Gunning and Jenkins.
The video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg
Robert Curtis
TA: Stephen Wetzel
For this blog response I chose a video called Operation Taco Bell. Believe it or not, this video actually stars me about 3 years ago as I run through a Taco Bell drive-thru and steal food. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n1OvMFVbLw&feature=related
I think this video actually relates well to both the aesthetic of vaudeville and the aesthetic of attractions. Vaudeville says that “The best Youtube content is so unbelievable that it has to be shared.” I think that this video is something that is not seen out of the ordinary and at one point my video was very widespread over the internet even to the point where it was shown on VH1’s Webjunks Top 20. Also, Vaudeville says that “The Youtube performer stages “realness” and in the process, much that is “fake” passes as real. The funny part about my video is most people believe that I am actually stealing food from a random person in a drive-thru, when in fact it is my friend who is in the car. (Not to say that the workers at Taco Bell knew anything about it still.) So there is a real aspect to the video while at the same time it is completely fake.
This video also relates to the aesthetic of attractions. When Gunning is explaining the Cinema of attractions, he says that “This Cinema addresses and holds the spectator, emphasizing the act of display. In fulfilling this curiosity, it delivers a generally brief dose of scopic pleasure.” He also says that “the bulk of film production” is made up by “films consisting of a single shot”. Both of these quotes relate to my video because my video is all about display. It has no narrative and it fulfills this display by giving pleasure and entertainment to the viewers. It also consists of a single shot in which most early films in the cinema of attractions had.
Kyle Probst
Laura Bennett
In his article, Jenkins makes a pretty strong case that the modern day YouTube has some striking resemblances to the late 19th century, early 20th century Vaudeville Aesthetic. When talking about YouTube he noted that, “In theory, [the] content [of a given clip] can be of any length. In reality, the stuff that gets passed around the most is short and streamlined.” This principle clearly applies to a great number of early films that documented short and interesting spectacles like the Lumiere Brothers “Demolition of a Wall” which runs no more than a couple minutes long in its entirety. Videos much like “Demolition of a Wall” can now be found all over YouTube. People are daily uploading videos of short and interesting events they’ve video taped. Take this video for example: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6ozDMv7xG0) in which a boy documents his use of a “works bomb.” The video lasts only 47 seconds and shows nothing more than a bottle exploding.
Jenkins also makes a great point about the types of performances found in both vaudeville aesthetic cinema and YouTube videos. He mentions that, “Filmed vaudeville performances were performed directly to the camera with performers actively courting the attention and approval of the viewer.” The same principle applies to a great deal of YouTube videos. There is vast array of videos on YouTube in which the performers are attempting to capture the viewers attention by acting to the camera and subsequently the viewer. The widespread popularity of private webcam musical performances may come to mind when trying to parallel the two mediums in this area.
In Tom Gunnings article he talks in great detail about the aesthetic of attractions. He notes that in the early days of film, “freak shows and other displays of curiosities were described as instructive and informing.” I couldn’t help but connect this statement to the plethora of videos found on YouTube intended to shock their viewers by simply presenting something extremely unusual. Take, for example, this video: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwmt3eJEAVQ&eurl=http://www.snarkygossip.com/2007/04/27/crazy-youtube-of-the-day-two-foot-tall-and-pregnant/) which shows a news coverage of a dwarfed woman who got pregnant. I would imagine that the only reason this video has almost 500,000 hits is because it’s not everyday you see a pregnant midget.
Gunnings also made another great point concerning the aesthetics of attraction that also applies to YouTube. He noted that, “The spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the variety of formal means, the images of the cinema of attractions rush forward to meet the viewer.” Both the aesthetics of attractions of early cinema and YouTube are full of examples of clips that—unlike narrative cinema—aren’t suppose to bring their viewers into a fictional world. If you look back on both of my previous YouTube examples they both take place in the real world. All of this leads me to believe that the characteristics of the past have made a strong return since video has become so accessible and viral through both consumer technology and the internet.
Danny D'Acquisto
TA- Steve Wetzel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtZpedwHqzE
In the YouTube clip, “Interactive Card Trick” there are many characteristics of what Jenkins and Gunning had to say of the aesthetics of vaudeville and attraction. First of all, this film is very short; a little over 30 seconds after you select you card, and in Jenkins article he says, “Vaudeville performances were short modular units”. The performer wants to keep the attention of his viewers and show of his talents quickly. People want spectacle and they want it right away, so there is no time for a plot. “A form which placed a high premium on virtuosity--on the ability of the performer to impress the spectator with their mastery” is what Jenkins believes of the aesthetics of vaudeville, which is exactly what this guy plainly shows. In his title he calls it a card trick, and that is all that happens in his film.
This YouTube clip also shows what Gunning describes as the aesthetic of attraction. The title clearly states, “Interactive Card Trick” which is telling the audience, a.k.a the viewers watching from a computer, that they are about to interact with a guy to play a card trick. Gunning states, “The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis on the thrill itself-the immediate reaction of the viewer.” It is merely just a card game the audience is about to play. There is nothing else to it like a plot or a development of the attraction. Gunning also says, “Rather than being an involvement with narrative action or empathy with character psychology, the cinema of attractions solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer’s curiosity.” The viewers know that the film was made for them to watch.
Carly Rieder
TA: David Witzling
Andrew Megow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0HSD_i2DvA
"Filmed vaudeville performances were performed directly to the camera with the performers actively courting the attention and approval of the viewer." These are the words of Henry Jenkins in his blog "Youtube and the Vaudeville Aesthetics". I use this quote to refer to the video I chose for this blog. The video is the music video "Around The World" by Daft Punk. The video is simple and basic. You have five sets of four actors. Each set is dressed in an unusual way, and each set of actors is placed on a platform (Complete with stairs on each side) a certain way. The song is a 5 layered house-techno song of which the layers include: Bass, Beat, Keyboard, Guitar, and vocal. "The vaudeville act might also strive for a pattern of theme and variation -- choosing some everyday space or activity and then playing with all different permutations of it." (Jenkins) Each set of actors dances to the rhythm of their selected layer. (Example: The vocal actors only move when the vocals are being sung Etc.) The actors obviously choreographed the dance to the beat and the video is played to be one continuous dance performance such as a vaudeville act just as the quote about actors specifies.
The video also leads us away with the absence of narration. "Rather than be an involvement with narrative action or empathy with character psychology, the cinema of attractions solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer's curiosity." (Gunning 121) Although some narration was present for some vaudeville acts, most didn't include it to keep the audiences interests, which is a big thing in today's world of music videos and MTV. My video makes no haste to tell us a story or make a point, it is simply for our enjoyment whenever we want. Lastly I want to look at the aesthetically pleasing imagery of my video. "In fulfilling this curiosity, it delivers a generally brief dose of scopic pleasure" (Gunning 121) There's a lot of flashing lights and the actors are dressed differently to A: give distinct personalities to the specific set of actors and B: attract attention to the sets. One set is dressed like swimmers, one set is aliens, and another is a set of mummy's and so on. It's all here to make a weird, interesting act or film and all in all, it's merely for amusement and to please an audience which is what the vaudville acts were all about. I'd also like to note that the director of my video was Michel Gondry who was extremely influenced by the performing arts of the early 20th century and that influence is seen in many of his other videos.
TA: Laura Bennet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHcUTNre2oI
The Youtube video that I watched for this blog response was titled “Unbelievable Horse” and is a three and a half minute long video following around two men and their horse that rides in the car, eats hamburgers, sleeps in a bed, fetches beers from the fridge and even answers the phone. Like vaudeville, this video is kept short. In Jenkins’ article, he explain this in saying that vaudeville performances had to be short because they were a reflection of the economy of the time and “it’s get in, score big, and get off” mentality. He connects this to the age of Youtube by saying “YouTube viewers get restless if anything lingers too long”. We live in an age of constantly changing technology and Youtube allows us to immediately access or disconnect from anything we find interesting or dissatisfying. The “Unbelievable Horse” video immediately begins with the horse climbing into a car and throughout the next three and a half minutes the video is edited to be constantly showing the horse performing ridiculous and unbelievable acts, the action is continuous because if there were a lull in the action and spectacle, one might simply chose another video to view. While I had never seen this particular video before, I had heard of it. Jenkins defines this phenomenon by stating “The best YouTube content is content that is so unbelievable that it has to be shared”. People obviously found this video to be shocking, silly, funny, and obviously a little unbelievable, therefore they sent it along to their friends. Similarly to the days of Vaudeville, the performers had a strong desire to be remembered and ensured their place in the viewers memory by relying “on spectacle and a desire to intensify emotional effects”, just as this horse and his many talents did to me.
Tom Gunning describes the Aesthetic of Attractions in his article as “an essential element of early cinema” that “addresses the audience directly, sometimes…exaggerating this confrontation”. The “Unbelievable Horse” video certainly upholds this characteristic. While the horse can perform the acts in the video, he is being coaxed by his owner to execute them on demand. By having the horse’s owner ask the horse to perform on demand, instead of simply following the horse around until her decides to tuck himself into bed, the video is “engaging the viewer’s curiosity” and the “spectator does not get lost in a fictional world”. Also, in his article Gunning referred to “the act of display” as an element of aesthetic of attraction, this is represented in the “Unbelievable Horse” because the owner is displaying the horse’s many strange talents to the camera. Another main characteristic of aesthetic of attraction is the direct acknowledgment of the viewer. In this Youtube video the viewer is addressed directly throughout. We are not only watching a horse get his owner a beer from the fridge but the act is being carried out purely for our entertainment.
Lisa Casper
TA: Steve Wetzel
Elizabeth,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQd1EvOb7I
Vaudeville performances were short modular units usually lasting less than 20 minutes in length. Vaudeville was an actor-centered mode of production. This means that actors were the center of attention. The you tube video I chose was as well a Criss Angel video. I chose a video where he brings a manikin to life. Criss does this in such a short period of time, and they portray the manikin as being the center of attention, because people pass it and look at it. Now they really have something to look at. “…confuses the image for its reality”. This quote tells us that the manikin is confusing, because it looks life like, but it’s not until Criss does his magic on the manikin. Another quote that seems important for the aesthetic of attraction is the cinema. “I have called the cinema of attractions, which envisioned cinema as a series of visual shocks”. The visual shock in this video is the idea of turning the manikin human. It seems amazing to me how people are talented enough in magic to do such magic as turning a manikin into a human. There’s a movie that reminds me much of this trick, and that is “The Illusionist”. Throughout the movie the illusionist does marvelous and mind bending tricks for your entertainment. However, the trick you find out about at the very end of the movie is the most mind blowing trick I’ve ever heard of.
Elizabeth Miller
T.A. Kate Brandt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKoB0MHVBvM
For this weeks blog I chose the video of the "scientists" doing their experiments with Diet Coke and Mentos. It shows two men putting Mentos into 2Liter bottles of Diet Coke in a variety of ways. It is only 2:58 long, as vaudeville performances were "short modular performances" which had "no time for elaborate characterization or plot development" (Jenkins). This video is merely two men doing something that is dazzling to the audience, it has no purpose or place in society. They are almost an exact definition of vaudeville, because this video is, as Jenkin's states, "performed directly to the camera with the performers actively courting the attention and approval of the audience." They are not doing this for themselves, but for the viewer, otherwise they would have shown every experiment, but instead show their most successful attempt.
The real purpose of this video is not for it to be compared to or considered to be a film, but rather as something that "addresses and holds the spectator, emphasising the act of display" (Gunning, 121). There is no plot or story behind it, just some men who set up a series of mechanisms that are vidually pleasing to the audience. This is the basis of the "cinema of attractions" as stated by Tom Gunning. This video can be seen as "a series of shocks" (116) by the viewer if they are not aware of how this is being done, scientifically.
Steve Ball
T.A. David Witzling
I chose to write on a YouTube video called "kid gets owned by dad" in which a young boy completes an internet maze game and is rewarded with a ridiculously loud and obnoxious image that "owns" him. The dad setting up and subsequently completing this prank functions as an expressive form that can be used to illustrate the going-ons of a person's daily life, magnify and share the important occurrences, much in the same way that "YouTube is a space of individualized expression", as written by Jenkins, the father is presenting to us the characteristics of his son in a state of terror. The clip is a very short illustration that focuses on a quick novelty in a way that resembles vaudeville.
The video is representational of the majority of YouTubian cinema in it's reliance on shock and spectacle, another way in which (according to Jenkins) YouTube is remnant of vaudeville. We are presented with the child's over-the-top actions, and our obsession with the spectacle is exponentially increased with his experience of the spectacle. Jenkins argues that "In a context of constant variation, the individual performer tried above all else to be memorable...the YouTube performer wants to be so spectacular that you feel compelled to pass their content along to your friends." In this case, it is the father who wants (and succeeds in creating) a spectacle that is pronounced and entertaining.
"Kid gets owned by dad" also substantially represents the attention grabbing aspect of what Tom Gunning refers to as the Cinema of Astonishment. Gunning characterizes the Cinema of Astonishment as one that "addresses the audience directly", in this case, the video is made for the sole purpose of entertaining by presenting the kid's act of "getting owned". The direct address is the curiosity that is formed while we watch the kid and wait for him to get owned. Gunning writes, "By tapping into a visual curiosity and desire for nevelty, attractions draw upon what Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century, called curiositas in his catalogue for "the lust of the eyes". Our eyes lust for the moment in which we experience the shock of seeing the kid get owned.
Andrew Tolstedt
TA: David Wetzling
First off I would like to say I really enjoyed the YouTubes of OK Go and WC Fields. I am a huge fan of WC and have seen most of his movies, which use various bits of his vaudeville acts, but not a lot of his actual vaudeville routines so that was great to see.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtrmbfS_Vuc
I strongly agree with Jenkins argument of YouTube being the new vaudeville of the 21st century. There are many connections between the two. Jenkins talks about how, even though, in theory, you tubes can be any length, the shorter clips are the ones that are tossed around the web from viewer to viewer, as well as many other connections.
The video I chose, to further support Jenkins claims, is the music video “Mr. Krinkle” by Primus. In this bizarre video it has the musicians of Primus playing their song in the foreground and then a bunch of random actions going on in the background for the entirety of the video.
Jenkins said “the variety stage was based on the principle of constant variation and diversity. It represented a grab bag of the full range of cultural interests…” The range of actions that happen in the background is great. You have a man walking by on fire, a four armed man, a Chinese dragon, a lady contortionist, a tight rope walker, a man on stilts, fire breathers and all types of different people that in an act of their own could be considered a classic vaudeville act, so in a sense this is multiple vaudeville acts combined into one. Like the OK Go music video this all happens in one shot. Jenkins goes into how “…it encourages certain stylistic choices which preserve the integrity of individual performances -- so there is a tendency toward the long take so we can see for sure that the performer actually did what is being represented on the screen.” So having it be one single shot of this warehouse give us the feeling of classic vaudeville.
Gunning says that the early aesthetics of attractions had “films explicitly acknowledge their spectator, seeming to reach outwards and confront.” This is also true in the music video. The man wearing the pig mask and playing the upright bass is constantly looking into the camera, as well as the guitarist who comes right up to the camera and gives us the devil horns rock symbol pointing right at the screen/you. Gunning talks about Augustine and his take on curiositas or something that draws a viewer to look at “unbeautiful sights”. “Curiositas led not only to a fascination with seeing but a desire for knowledge for it own sake, ending in the perversions of magic and science.” This music video, I believe, evokes a lot of curiosity. You want to know what all these people are doing and why other than it just to look cool.
Douglas Mellon
TA: Steve Wetzel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKoB0MHVBvM
The video I chose was the popular “Diet Coke + Mentos” routine. It is a very short performance based on a chemical reaction developed from liters of Diet Coke and packages of Mentos mints. Two men dressed in white lab coats and safety goggles put together an elaborate display of this reactions. I believe this video coincides perfectly with Henry Jenkin's description of the vaudeville aesthetic and Tom Gunning's aesthetic of attractions. In his article, “Youtube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic” Henry Jenkins says of vaudeville performances, “There was no time for elaborate characterization or plot development. Every element had to pull its own weight.” (para. 5) Such is the “Diet Coke + Mentos” video. There is no semblance of narrative or plot. Only the continuous development of the chemical reactions is addressed. The viewer is looking for nothing more. The escalating bizarreness and elaborateness of the stunts is enough to entertain. While applying characteristics of vaudeville to the OK GO music video Jenkins states, “Part of what impresses me about this video is that this elaborate set of stunts is performed in a single take so that any screw up will require the performers to start over from scratch.” (para. 7) The same characteristic applies to the “Diet Coke + Mentos” routine. Although the video consists of two shots the first is relatively large leaving the emphasis on the second which consists of the more elaborate stunts. The single shot not only emphasizes the performers' skill but also creates an atmosphere of viewing which is much like a vaudeville act. The viewer sees all the strings being pulled, in this case literally, and knows what is going on while they wait for the next succession of the act.
Tom Gunning says this about the aesthetics of attractions, “The spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of curiosity and its fulfillment.” (page 121) This description applies to the aesthetics of the video I chose. The “Diet Coke + Mentos” act does not introduce any fictional worlds or drama. Its purpose is to entertain the viewer, keep their attention, and hopefully inspire the viewer to pass it along to a friend. It keeps the viewer curious by continually introducing a more impressive display as the video progresses, leaving the viewer to wonder what they can do to top the last stunt. Gunning elaborates, “The viewer's curiosity is aroused and fulfilled through a marked encounter, a direct stimulus, a succession of shocks.” (page 124) The shocks of the “Diet Coke + Mentos” act are sustained in the bursts of Diet Coke streaming in the air and succeeded by a more impressive display of similar streams. This escalating repetition gives the video the type of attraction Tom Gunning talks about and is very common in the Youtube archives.
Nathaniel Winter
TA: Laura Bennet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeWy1BGveFI&feature=related
It has been over a hundred years since films were first seen for entertainment by the public. Well the movies of today may seem vastly different from the first ones shown at the last turn of the century, upon closer examination movies like Jackass and the medium of YouTube, specifically the video “ježíš kristus”, retain many aspects of the aesthetics of vaudeville and the aesthetics of attractions that were dominant over a hundred years ago. Like the early vaudeville films, “ježíš kristus” is short and to the point with an “emphasis on the immediate emotional impact” (Jenkins). There are several parts that are intended for emotional impact in this movie that is only a minute and ten seconds long. The first impact comes when Jesus starts singing only 17 seconds in and then is followed by him stripping down to a dipper and walking down the street. At this part, the actor playing Jesus is walking towards the camera and singing directly to the viewer, connecting with them one-on-one, much like vaudeville performers who also “performed directly to the camera with the performers actively courting the attention and approval of the viewer” (Jenkins).
The aesthetics of attraction are also clearly present in this video. The video starts out with a saintly pretext but then goes in an unexpected direction with Jesus dancing and singing much like how the cinema of attractions was about “a series of visual shocks” (Gunning). Seen in the early films of trains coming at the viewer, “the aesthetic of attraction addresses the audience directly” (Gunning) just like in “ježíš kristus” when Jesus is dancing down the street and singing right to the camera. The simplicity of the subject and plot in this YouTube clip is the same as the early films of the cinema of attraction which also “does not allow for elaborate development” of a plot and both rely on “instants, rather than developing situations” (Gunning). When the viewer is just getting settled into watching Jesus dance down the street he is suddenly hit by a bus, keeping “the viewer’s curiosity…aroused and fulfilled through a marked encounter, a direct stimulus, a succession of shocks” (Gunning). The early vaudeville films, the cinema of attraction films, and now YouTube all tap “into a visual curiosity and desire for novelty” (Gunning) which seems to be inherent to the human race and will thus perpetuate these type of films for a long time to come.
Lanae Smith
TA: David Witzling
The video I’ve chosen is “You can watch this 100 times and still laugh,” found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQlgA68z_L4 . This extremely short video is of a soccer goalie getting hit in the face after the ball bounces off the post. It’s hilarious.
When reading Jenkins’ article this was the first video that I thought of. It is “short and streamlined,” obviously, with the video being only four seconds long. There is nothing unnesescary shown, and I can’t imagine anyone getting bored with it, even if they didn’t like it. You would just take four seconds to watch it then move on to the next video. And there is certainly an “immediate emotional impact,” at least for me, and judging by the five star rating most other people think so too.
This video also “wants to be so spectacular that you feel compelled to pass their content along to your friends.” I know I’ve shown it to plenty of people, who in turn have probably shown it to many more people. It is the perfect video for that: short, funny and (at least slightly) original.
Gus Ingebretsen
TA: David Witzling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kl9tdu7qRA&feature=related
Although not very original, I chose a video of David Blaine performing his controversial "Street Magic." In this video Blaine appears to turn a cup of coffee into a cup of change, for a homeless man. Referring to the article by Henry Jenkins, he explains the aesthetic of vaudeville and how important certain aspects are, "There was no time for elaborate characterization or plot development. Every element had to pull its own weight. Nothing that wasn't necessary for the overall emotional impact could survive." Jenkin's explanation of this component of vaudeville can be seen quite well in this video of Blaine. There is nothing very elaborate about the subject matter and Blaine gets directly to root of what he is trying to do in only 53 seconds. You are immediately drawn into what is happening in the video and you want to see what happens next, as soon as possible. Another quote from Jenkin's explains the very essence of what vaudeville is, "Actors chose their own material, refined their own skills, and lived and died entirely on the basis of their ability to connect one on one with the audience… on the ability of the performer to impress the spectator with their mastery." This quote describes how Blaine uses the aesthetic of vaudevilee perfectly. Blaine knew that he had to refine his skills of magic perfectly in order for this trick to work and impress people. In my opinion Blaine does exactly that (even though I know its fake). Blaine excels in his ability to connect one on one with the viewer, by doing this trick on the street for a real person. He continuously pulls us in, and even lets us know when something important is going to happen. For instance right before he changes the coffee to change he calls out, "Look, as God as the witness...!"
The entire clip emphasizes the key aspects of vaudeville, because Blaine has to impress the spectator with his "mastery" of magic. And based on the fact that the clip has been viewed over 4 million times, with a 5 star rating I would say he accomplished just that. A quote from Gunning's article truly explains how film can affect people, "...It's ability to convince spectators that the moving image was, in fact, palpable and dangerous, bearing towards them with physical impact." (115) This certainly relates to the Blaine video because although the outcome was different based on emotion, the homeless man was clearly affected by the apparent "magic" that Blaine performed. After seeing the trick he was moved to hugging Blaine and singing his praises (literally). As Gunning explains, the myth of the illusion forced the man to react in some way physically and emotionally. Another quote explains the reaction of every person who watches this clip, "...this inner credulous viewer supplies the motive power for Metz's understanding of the fetishistic viewer, wavering between the credulous position of believing the image and the repressed, anxiety-causing, knowledge of its illusion." (115-116) Clearly every person who sees this clip, either dismisses it immediately as fake and stupid or amazing and unbelievable (i.e. the homeless man). And then a fair amount of people waver in-between these two extremes as Gunning talks about and that is the beauty of the aesthetic of attraction.
Connor Murray
TA: Katherine Brandt
The video I found that I believe relates well to the two articles is Mutemath’s music video to their popular song “Typical.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNlZ4QFt7FU).
This video expresses the aesthetic of vaudeville in many ways that Jenkins speaks of in his article. Vaudeville acts are showy and exciting; they catch a viewer’s eye and hold it. YouTube picks up the aesthetic of vaudeville, but it is different from early vaudeville acts in that it can be shared. This is the performer’s intent when posting a video to YouTube. This music video fulfills this aesthetic because it “is so unbelievable that it has to be shared.” In a short time—the length of a song—Mutemath catches the viewer’s eye, performs an exciting routine that looks amazing (mostly because it is humanly impossible, but that is beyond the point), and wraps it up with a feeling of excitement. Another way that this YouTube video is like the early acts of vaudeville is that it is entirely about the performers doing crazy stunts. Viewers “watch breathlessly to see what [the performers] will do next and if they can pull off a high risk performance,” and as the video closes, viewers feel satisfied and entertained.
This video also expresses the aesthetic of attractions that Gunning talks about in his article. The performers “address the audience directly” just as the early films of the cinema of attractions did. Clearly, they are performing to please an audience, and they please YouTube viewers numerous times. The video keeps viewers attention, “emphasizing the act of display. In fulfilling this curiosity, it delivers a generally brief dose of scopic pleasure,” as Gunning explains in his article. Because the performers keep the audience mesmerized, this film successfully displays the aesthetic of attraction and entertains viewers.
Bryn Unger
TA: Laura Bennett
Henry Jenkins’ article compares vaudeville and the current phenomenon of YouTube. As Vaudeville shows were made completely from the creativity of the performer and cultural connection to the audience, “YouTube is a space of individualized expression”(Jenkins). These videos can be about anything, but share have the common purpose of entertainment. The music video ‘Lay Down Your Weapons’ by Scissors For Lefty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VVqgV7pUxs) is an example of engaging visual media and may also be seen as a metaphor for the life of cinema.
The video begins with a young boy encountering a strange looking figure. The boy is seemingly a Boy Scout, so can be associated with following the rules and used to traditional ideals. Frightened, he is chased until he comes across the narrator, or singer, of the music video’s song. Perhaps supposing to be an older version of the boy, embracing the attention and film equipment around him, the singer casually and almost calmly confronts with him as if there is nothing to fear. The whole time we see the singers, they are aware of the cameras and interact with them. Eventually the figure catches up with the boy and takes him into another world, changing him. The boy stops being afraid of the being that was chasing him and together they dance to the music of the band. The video is transported through the television of the younger children who watch it and they become aware that the figure is in the room with them, waiting to dance with them too. The music, the film, is everywhere now. “Some YouTube content also involves spectacular use of technology” (Jenkins). Not only is the video on YouTube a form of technology, but highlights the use of technology inside it with the film equipment and spreading the images through television.
This idea is further expressed in Tom Gunning’s ‘An Aesthetic of Astonishment Early Films and the (In)Credulous Spectator’. As the young Boy Scout, “The first audiences, according to this myth, were naïve, encountering this threatening and rampant image with no defenses, with no tradition by which to understand it” (Gunning 114). The ‘myth’ is that of the frightened spectators at the first viewing of Arrival of a Train, fearing for a moment that the train was real and was actually coming towards them. In the video, the singer and his band were portrayed as knowing about the stranger and having not fear, but a curiosity about him. They were already in tune with the music and free movement of him. They could possibly represent the future of the young boy after he’s been adopted into the new media world. The audience then will identify with the band; they’re the new hip versions of people, as opposed to the older Boy Scout era. As Gunning states, ‘We don’t believe in the screen image in the manner that they did”. We can separate ourselves from that original fear that the train audience might have had, and instead critique film for its message and aesthetics.
Cassie Hutzler
TA Steve Wetzel
After reading An Aesthetic of Astonishment: Early Film and the (In)Credulous Spectator by Tom Gunning and Youtube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic by Henry Jenkins, I searched YouTube my self to see if I could find a video that both represented the aesthetic of vaudeville and the aesthetic of attraction. At first I didn’t know how to search for the best video to us in my analysis so I clicked on ‘Most Viewed, All Time.’ What I found was mostly hip hop music videos, but the second video in the list was entitled ‘Evolution of Dance’, and after watching the video for the first time I thought that it was perfect. The video is a six-minute clip of Judson Laipply as he performs for a large group on a stage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg
According to Jenkins on the wonderment of vaudeville “Actors chose their own material, refined their own skills, and lived and died entirely on the basis of their ability to connect one on one with the audience.” This is very true for Judson Laipply who is the inspirational comedian performing, as far as I know his own original act, in front of a live audience. Because we are seeing and hearing a live recording we can hear the great feedback that he is getting for his performance, and his great ability to connect one on one with the audience. Along with connecting to the audience the performer (Laipply) wants to be memorable, hoping that members of the audience will tell their friends or show them the YouTube video. “…[T]he individual performer tried above all else to be memorable, which typically meant a strong reliance on spectacle and a desire to intensify emotional effects. …[T]he YouTube performer wants to be so spectacular that you feel compelled to pass their content along to your friends” (Jenkins).
Likewise Tom Gunning talks about another type of non-narrative dominated cinema in the cinema of attractions. “The aesthetic of attraction addresses the audience directly, sometimes, as in these early train films, exaggerating this confrontation in a experience an assault… the cinema of attractions solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer’s curiosity” (Gunning 121). The performance done by Laipply does directly address the audience, as he dances around the stage he looks right at them and points. “Unlike psychological narrative, the cinema of attractions does not allow for elaborate development; only a limited amount of delay is really possible” (Gunning 122). This is very true in the Evolution of Dance we don’t know any story, plot, or reason for the video but we watch because it is entertaining.
Kirk McCamish
T.A. Steve Wetzel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPx266rGw3E
The video that I chose for this blog is "Strange Faces and Noises I Can Make III". This video depicts a man who makes strange faces and noises in order to entertain the audience in a direct way. This video connects with both the aesthetics of vaudeville and the aesthetics of attractions. The man in the video acts purely for entertainment purposes with no real substance or storyline. Henry Jenkins says that, "Filmed vaudeville performances were also performed directly to the camera with the performers actively courting the attention and approval of the viewer." The person in this video does this exactly by performing solely for the viewer and no one else. He is directly entertaining the viewer for the purpose of pure entertainment. This youtube video is also Vaudville in that it is produced in short segments. "Second, vaudeville performances were short modular units -- usually less than 20 minutes in length, (Jenkins). There are multiple videos in this series, but they are all considerably short.
This video also connects with the aesthetics of attractions. This video does not pull the viewer into a deep, compelling storyline, but merely provides a brief entertaining video. Gunning comments on this, "the spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of its curiosity and its fulfillment." In this Youtube video, the man is directly confronting the viewer. He is presenting his funny faces in an attempt to entertain and draw in the viewer. This is an element of attraction. “Confrontation rules the cinema of attractions in both the form of its films and their mode of exhibition. The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis on the thrill itself—the immediate reaction of the viewer.” (Gunning).
Charlie Ripple
T.A. Kate Brandt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKoB0MHVBvM
The video that I chose for this blog post was the Diet Coke & Mentos duo. The video presents two men wearing lab coats putting together the explosive combo of Diet Coke and Mentos in order to create a fountain like spectacle. All of this is done outside, recorded from a long shot, and added together with music in the end. It makes up for one exciting three minute long video on youtube.
According to Henry Jenkins, this video exemplifies the aesthetics of a vaudeville performance for two reasons. First, Jenkins states, “Vaudeville performances were short modular units -- usually less than 20 minutes in length -- and much was written about how the demands of economy -- get in, score big, and get off -- impacted the aesthetic choices made. There was no time for elaborate characterization or plot development. Every element had to pull its own weight”. This video did exactly that; it was only three minutes long and presented exactly what was intended to be seen, the spectacle of two men and their soda fountains. There was no character development and no plot, to be seen. The men went on screen, presented their gig, and went off. Finally, Jenkins states, “There was no director who could build an ensemble piece. Actors chose their own material [and] refined their own skills”. This element of vaudeville was perfectly presented in the you tube video. The camera was static, meaning no one was moving it according to how their performance played out. It was just the two men and their idea to create such a soda fountain. From what we know, there was no outside director, just the men who became famous for making such a great spectacle on youtube.
According to Tom Gunning, this video is a great example of the aesthetic of attractions. For example, Gunning states, “The spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of curiosity and its fulfillment” (121). Much like the Jenkins said, this means that this video was purposely designed without dialogue, character, and story in order to draw attention, curiosity and excitement to the spectacle they were presenting. Gunning also states, “Confrontation rules the cinema of attractions in both the form of its films and their mode of exhibition. The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis on the thrill itself-the immediate reaction on the viewer. The film lecturer focuses attention on the attraction, sharpening viewer curiosity” (122). This means that the video only presents one important thing to its audience: the simple act of two men dropping mentos into bottles of coke in order to create fountains of soda. The directness of the one, simple thing being presented helps put emphasis on the act itself, adding to the excitement and curiosity of what is being viewed on screen.
Mark Scholbrock
TA: Kate Brandt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiCwfK3AgWY&feature=related
Freaks were popular during the early 20th century. Before the films became popular, there were circus and freak shows. According to Gunning, " the repulsive was frequently rationalised by appealing to that impulse which Augustine found equally dubious, intellectual curiosity. Like the early film exhibitions, freak shows and other displays of curiorities were described as instructive and informing" (p. 124). The audience is curious about things, despite their gruesome or ugliness. Films are something new during the early 20th century but now in 21st century, the content of the film changes. Freaks shown on films are still a thrill and a curiosity for the viewers. The viewers have "unquenchable desire to consume the world through images" (p.125). The world has a desire to see something new going on around in other parts of the world. This kind of desire has not changes for many centuries. The desire may be for different oddities and forms but the desire and curiosity hasn't changed. We all have the desire for something odd or curious everyday.
Many youtube users surf over a variety of short videos because they are curious about what is out there. At the same time, the older users are not as impressive as new users are. The reason for this difference may be related to how each of them is aware of what is real and what is not. According to Jenkins, "many videos are carefully staged to look spontaneous and unrehearsed. There is not necessarily a push towards aliveness, but there is a push towards "realness" -- towards the idea that you can't believe that what you are seeing really happened." It is similar to freak shows in the early 20th century. The viewers cannot believe that the freaks are real or how it happened but seeing is believing that it did happen. The idea of youtube is to be able to manipulate what is real and what is not. The video I chose for this is part of freak happened today and the viewers cannot determine if it is real or not. It is happening in a hospital with a doctor. The question is how can it be prove that it is a real hospital and a real doctor, not a rehearsal.
Also, when things are gruesome and there is a desire to share with other people to show how gruesome it is. That is the meaning of curiosity and everyone has that. We can not help ourselves to want to share our curiosity and learning experiences with others. Jenkins mentioned in his article, "the individual performer tried above all else to be memorable, which typically meant a strong reliance on spectacle and a desire to intensify emotional effects." If it weren't for the viewers' curiosity, there won't be youtube available. youtube is there because of our intenseness of curiosity to see things in the world right at home, school, somewhere else that will not take you to the location where the video is happening. The film makers who made videos for youtube have to achieve that curiosity of the viewers to be able to distribute the work around the world. If it is not interesting or curious enough, it won't get around very far.
I choose the youtube video "Very Funny Man Dancing" to respond to, which can found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEXXkKqaiM. In the video a man preforms about a hundred different dance moves that have been connected to famous songs from the past fifty years. The idea of this whole video is to draw on people's experiences and memories of these songs and the dance moves connected with them. A sort of display of the spectacles associated with the dances. The same way the aesthetics of vaudeville work. As Jenkins said in his article about vaudeville, "the individual performer tried above all else to be memorable, which typically meant a strong reliance on spectacle." Another aspect of this video that also draws on the aesthetics of vaudeville is how it shows many variations of the same thing: the movie shows a lot of dance moves that in a very condensed period of time. In Jenkins words, "[the] act might also strive for a pattern of theme and variation." Like vaudeville, this youtube movie tries to maximize its impact on the viewer through these things.
The video also shows connections to the aesthetics of attractions. In Gunning's articles he says, "the cinema of attractions solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer's curiosity." This happens in the dance video as well. The movies is all about cliched moves, having a comedic effect. Also, Gunning says that the aesthetics of attraction are "a series of shocks." The video always continues to shock because we see throughout the film a new dance move every few seconds and it. It's more about the spectacle, not narrative like the cinema of attractions is.
Travis Torok
TA:Steve Wetzel
In the YouTube video “NVIDIA: Adam & Jamie draw a MONA LISA in 80 milliseconds!” there are clear elements of both vaudeville performance and the cinema of attractions. To exemplify the vaudeville aspects I would ask readers to follow the URL to the YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKK933KK6Gg
The basic elements are all present. In this case, the entertainers or actors are Adam and Jamie from The Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters. The focus is entirely on what they are presenting to the audience, an important aspect Henry Jenkins mentions in his article, “It was a form which placed a high premium on virtuosity -- on the ability of the performer to impress the spectator with their mastery.” The entire fascination of this act is not a detailed story but instead the unbelievable thought that these two men created a machine that creates the Mona Lisa out of paintballs. Another vaudeville aspect involves Jenkins’ discussion on vaudeville in the cinema. In the early years, when these acts were being filmed, it was important to maintain the integrity of the piece. Jenkins says, “There is a tendency towards the long take so we can see for sure that the performer actually did what is being represented on the screen.” By not cutting the camera, the majesty of the act is not jeopardized and the viewer is lead to believe the actuality of the performance. In comparison to the provided video, the viewer can witness only two cuts in the Mona Lisa section. However, these cuts are merely to preserve time (another aspect of vaudeville) and have no affect on the outcome of the act. To show a specific, when the Mona Lisa is “painted” the camera stays consistent and does not pan away. The viewers all witness 1,110-paintball guns fire to create a stunning representation of the famous dame. Yet, this clip does not only belong to the vaudeville genre but also to cinema of attractions.
As Tom Gunning puts it, the cinema of attractions is the desire or the director to show something and for the viewer to see something unique. In the case of Adam and Jamie’s Mona Lisa clip, the object that the viewers want to see is the machine itself. Thus, Adam and Jamie are not actors or part of a plot line but simply narrators. They confront the audience (both the viewing audience on YouTube and the physical audience at the theater) as to hype up the anticipation for the true act. Gunning says, “Confrontation rules the cinema of attractions… The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis on the thrill itself—the immediate reactions of the viewer.” As seen in the YouTube clip, we are hidden from the machine until the end. Then the viewer sees the amazing production from the large machine. It is then that the YouTube watcher experiences the true cinema of attractions. We are not to be drawn in by the presentation but by the shock. This directly relates to what Gunning says, “The viewer’s curiosity is aroused and fulfilled through a marked encounter, a direct stimulus, a succession of shocks.” It is the final Mona Lisa that attracts us to this online video clip. The desire and anticipation to see something presented to us, not at us.
In all, YouTube as a whole fulfills both the aesthetic attractions of film and the vaudeville genre as well. It is as if our computer screens are the stage and every new video is the next act coming up at a vaudeville show, of course driven idea of confrontation and attraction.
Mitchell Keller
TA: Laura Bennett
"Get in, score big, get off. There is no time for elaborate characterization or plot development." That is what Henry Jenkins believes YouTube is all about. Showing off a small bit of something that's primary purpose is delight. One of the "Tactics" used to accomplish this (according to film theorist Tom Gunning) is that the "attraction addresses the audience directly." Gunning is also quick to recognize that "pleasure is the issue", that pleasure is the purpose of these types of films.
The YouTube video I chose was the "Chubby Cuppy Cake Boy". This perfectly illustrates the points these to gentlemen are making. It's a cute little chubby kid lipsyncing a children's song and making weird little facial expressions. The video clocks in at 44 exciting seconds and the kid looks right into the camera. We know that he is right there, speaking to us. We have no clue where the kid is from, or what he is like (other than we believe he eats a lot) and the video is for pleasure purposes. Whether it just lightens up your day by the kids cuteness, or makes you laugh at his appearance. This video has gained a million and a half views in ten days. Why? Because it fulfills the true aesthetics of YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysqh1uzqGrc
Kyle Arpke
The video I chose was the video entitled “‘I’ve got a crush…On Obama’ by Obama Girl.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU. In many ways, this video relates to the aesthetics of 20th century vaudeville. As Henry Jenkins explains in his article “Youtube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic,” “Vaudeville was an actor-centered mode of production. There was no director who could build an ensemble piece. Actors chose their own material, refined their own skills, and lived and died entirely on the basis of their ability to connect one on one with the audience.” It is easy to tell that this amateur video was done with little, if any, help from a director or producer. In the Obama Girl video, the woman showcases her singing talent, as well as her love for Obama, in a comedic way. Because she is mixing politics with romanticism, a rare combination, many viewers are drawn to the video. Achieving popularity is and was a goal of both vaudeville and YouTube performers. Jenkins quotes, “In a context of constant variation, the individual performer tried above all else to be memorable, which typically meant a strong reliance on spectacle and a desire to intensify emotional effects…The best YouTube content is content that is so unbelievable that it has to be shared.” With over ten million views on YouTube, Obama Girl was one of the most played videos of 2007.
My video can also be related to the aesthetics of the cinema of attractions. People would visit the cinema of attractions to receive excitement from the new film technology and obscene subjects presented. On YouTube viewers are always trying to find the most absurd and outrageous video. As Tom Gunning states, “This attraction to the repulsive was frequently rationalized by appealing to that impulse which Augustine found equally dubious, intellectual curiosity.” In the Obama Girl video, it is peculiar and a little disturbing as to why the young woman has a “crush on Obama,” but, this is also why it attracts many hits. The viewer, also, does not necessarily believe that Obama Girl has an unhealthy crush for Barack Obama, nor do they believe that she and Obama actually have relations (as she portrays when she leaves a message on Obama’s answering machine). Similar to the aesthetics of attractions, Gunning writes, “The spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of curiosity and its fulfillment.” It is the same curiosity that was presented by the viewers of the cinema of attractions that attracts viewers to videos on YouTube.
Alison Korth
T.A. Laura Bennett
The video that I chose was a salsa dance instruction video. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxMtdHj9tQ
The aesthetics of vaudeville are that the videos have a full range of cultural interests, they are shorter than 20 minutes, and the actor is in the center and performs directly to the camera. With the video that I chose it works wonderfully. The full range of interests is for anyone who wants to learn how to salsa dance and these people could be into anything, like dominos, hula hoping, or collecting stamps and they also could be black, white, yellow, purple, orange, or multicolored. It don’t matter, if they wanna dance, then let them dance! Jenkins says in his article that “Youtube brings together an equally eclectic mix of content drawn from all corners of our culture and lays it out as if it were of equal interest and importance.” To all the people that want to view this video to learn how to salsa dance, the video is of equal interest and importance because without this video they won’t know how to salsa and to them, it’s important.
The video is less than 2 minutes, and the instructors stay right in front of the camera to be captured by the camera, because at the moment it was filmed they were performing for the camera as there was no audience. Jenkins also says “Actors chose their own material, refined their own skills and lived and died entirely on the basis of their ability to connect one on one with the audience.” With the salsa video, the two people are professional dancers (hopefully) and they know how to break down dances step by step to teach others. This is what they chose to learn and they wanted to teach others so they had to learn how to connect with their students/audience.
In lieu to Gunning article, the aesthetics of astonishment are also like the vaudeville aesthetics, except more exaggerating and shocking to the audience. With the salsa dance video, it isn’t shocking to the audience, but the steps are very exaggerated to show each of the moves. The aesthetics of astonishment are also in the presentation of the video or “The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis on the thrill itself.” In the video I chose, the directness of how the people are teaching the dance steps emphasize each movement and create an inner thrill in the viewer as they are learning the steps. Finally Gunning also relates to the length of the films by stating, “The cinema of attractions persists in later cinema, even if it rarely dominates in the form of a full feature film.” And the video I chose was less that 2 minutes long, which is no where near a length of a feature film.
Kaitlyn Murray
TA Kate Brandt
The viral videos of today harkens back days of vaudeville and the cinema of attractions. Many similarities exist between the two, despite having around one hundred-year difference in time. The YouTube video I chose is a video of a series of shots of a guy throwing sunglasses at his friend who then catches them on his face in increasingly extraordinary situations. This video is pretty short; it gives the video just enough time to get its spectacle across with no time to get to know the characters involved. “In theory, content can be of any length. In reality, the stuff that gets passed around the most is short and streamlined. YouTube viewers get restless if anything lingers too long. And there is thus a similar emphasis on the immediate emotional impact.” (Jenkins) The two gentlemen open acknowledge the camera throughout the video. The forth wall is as thick as a sheet of paper in this video. They look directly at the viewer as though to say, “Look at us, we’re amazing.” “Again, there is no question of the camera here being part of an invisible fourth wall unobserved by the people on screen: these guys are performing for us and working their pants off to get our approval.” (Jenkins) You may notice that this video makes no attempt to draw you into their world; it is merely a spectacle for you to enjoy and get on with your life. “The spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of curiosity and its fulfillment.” (Gunning 121) The video opens with one of the men looking into the camera with the sunglasses on his face, he then turns to his friend and takes off his sunglasses and motions to him, building suspense, and then tosses the glasses which his friend catches on his face. “The film lecturer focuses attention on the attraction, sharpening viewer curiosity. The film then performs its act of display and fades away.” (Gunning 122) After the final throw has been made, they friends congratulate one another as the action winds down and fades to black.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-prfAENSh2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkNedNBeqvI&feature=related
The video I chose was the “The Fresh Prince Mix” which features the intro to the TV show Fresh Prince of Bell Air for about the first minute in a half and then the Joker from Batman appears on the screen and performs his own version of the Fresh Prince intro. “In a context of constant variation, the individual performer tried above all else to be memorable, which typically meant a strong reliance on spectacle and a desire to intensify emotional effects” In this video the Joker and Will Smith are memorable, Will Smith because while he’s rapping about a new stage in his life we see him and a few other characters act it out. In the Joker’s section of the video we see the same thing and the fact that the Joker always appear to be emotionally unstable, crazy the viewer can’t really forget who’s on the screen. Both of these characters also have colors that stand out; Smith with the whole set of the show’s intro and Joker’s colorful face. Jenkins says,” It brought people and traditions from exotic parts of the world to America and it staged the cultural differences which shaped the immigrant experience.” This video brings the fans of Will Smith /Fresh Prince together with Joker/Batman fans, globally.
Gunning states, “the aesthetic of attraction can still be sensed in periodic doses of non-narrative spectacle given to audiences.”(p.122) In this video this film is a narrative, there’s a story being told but it’s being sung and it’s comically dramatized to emphasize the situation of these two characters, the singing and comical aspect are a part of the cinema of attractions because these characters are trying to make the viewer laugh trying to bring out an immediate reaction from the viewer. He also says,” Unlike psychological narrative, the cinema of attractions does not allow for elaborate development.”(p.122) When Fresh prince and the Joker begin to sing their stories to the viewer the jump from scenario to scenario which gives the viewer a brief amount of time to understand each one. We see the Joker singing while he’s walking down the street in one clip and the next shot we see him singing out of a car window. The constant change in scenes keeps the viewers focused.
Venise Watson
David Witzling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeYg9VZCTwI
I chose a video of motorcycles in a cage at the circus. I believe this video demonstrates Jenkin's aesthetic of Vaudeville and Gunning's aesthetic of attractions very good. The video i picked displays Gunning's idea of attractions by “preforming its act of display.”(122) This films act of display is these motorcyclists riding the bikes in a cage turning and criss-crossing about. It creates “visual curiosity,” (124) by making the viewer wanting to see more because it is a dangerous exhilarating stunt. It also involves a “climatic moment,” starting off doing what looks easier and finishing by doing harder and harder stunts by crossing each other going upside down at high rates of speed.
This video does a good job representing Jenkin's idea of Vaudeville by the “ability of the performer to impress the spectator with their mastery.” This video is “performed directly to the camera with the performers actively courting the attention and approval of the viewer.” Meaning that it is visually appealing and exciting for the viewer or camera man watching the act. It is also a short clip that is solely based on the characters in the scene and not the director.
Brad Schiefelbein
TA: Laura Bennett
I chose a video that a friend of mine made as a Red Bull commercial. This video is a perfect example of Henry Jenkins’s article “YouTube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic” In this video, it is, like vaudeville, "an actor-centered mode of production." Meaning that the video is the entire actor and not so much the bells and whistles of movie making. It relies on dialogue and classic comedy methods of showing something funny. Such as the main actor drinking four Red Bulls at once. The video is also short which is similar to the vaudeville because "vaudeville performances were short modular units". This means that people wouldn't want to sit on YouTube or in a vaudeville theatre and watch long drawn out productions, the people who seek out this type of entertainment want to see something short and entertaining.
In Jenkins’s article, he mentions Tom Gunning's article "An Aesthetic of Astonishment: Early Film and the (In) credulous Spectator". In this article Gunning describes how early cinema was a "cinema of attractions" meaning that the cinema "solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer's curiosity." Now the examples of the cinema of attractions didn't really tell a story, unlike this Red Bull ad, yet the ad does do this. The ad is presented in a way that doesn't draw you in to buy into the story, it is presented on a website that is used to see things like this that do not draw you in to believing it, but more to make you laugh and to show you an attraction. Why you might ask yourselves do we watch these YouTube videos? Well Gunning says we do this because of the "lust of the eyes" for us to see new things like this. We have all seen ads, but videos like this add a funny view to the ad. That is why we watch things like this.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVETYptcVgg
TA:Kate
I was searching around you tube looking for Simon Peg and Nick Frost stuff, which I tend to do now and then, and decided that this little clip would demonstrate the aesthetics of both articles. The clip was entitled Semi-nude Fuzzcast which can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opEmiafycFw. It fits the vaudeville aesthetic (according to Jenkins) in many ways. First it is very short in time and to the point. In absolutely no time at all Nick, Simon, and I think Edgar were half naked running around with their pants around their ankle while on the phone taking a few interviews about their latest movie Hot Fuzz. This also displays the aesthetic gunning described as “a cinema of instants, rather than developing situations”.
Jenkins also described this vaudeville aesthetic as being “an actor centered mode of production”. Part of the whole attraction of this piece is because of who is in it and how they are screwing around. Nick Frost is especially known for doing these short skits with him being the centerpiece of the clips. But, in this clip we have three actors at the center of the piece pulling their pants down and spanking each other, and this brings me to another idea of Gunning’s that it is “a cinema of instants, rather than developing situations. I don’t think it necessary to explain here why pulling ones pants creates a developing situation, except for maybe the build up at the end when the woman walks into the room. And, the last of Gunning’s ideas I will touch on is “The aesthetic of attraction addresses the audience directly”. We are addressed directly in the way that the speaker on the other end of the phone line can’t see what is going on, but we surely can and that relationship right there presents why this directly addresses the viewer.
Nicholas Lawrence
TA Laura
The video I chose to use is a clip from the show Mythbusters. In this clip from Youtube, the hosts, Adam and Jaime, build what is known as a Rube Goldberg Machine, as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCYg_gz4fDo. It is a complex set up of random items that ultimately ends up doing a simple task. For example, the two men build a machine to make a crash test dummy fall off a chair. This video expresses two ideas of vaudeville. First, as Jenkins states, the video "represented a grab bag of the full range of cultural interests and obsessions of an age marked by dramatic social, cultural, and technological transformations (Jenkins)." We have become used to technological innovations and have neglected the idea of keeping things simple. We tend to over complicate a situation to get a result. This video exemplifies that idea. Second, Jenkins states, "vaudeville performances were short modular units -- usually less than 20 minutes in length (Jenkins)." This holds true with this video. It is well under 20 minutes, running for 4 minutes and 4 seconds. It starts right away with capturing the viewer's attention and keeps their attention until the end, in part because the length of the video was kept to a minimum without taking out any important parts.
In addition to following the idea of Jenkins, the video also expresses the aesthetic of attractions. As Gunning states, "Rather than being an involvement with narrative action or empathy with character psychology, the cinema of attractions solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer's curiosity (Gunning, 121)." The hosts of the show address the camera and the viewers to engage their curiosity. They even become excited about what they are doing, sometimes even more so than the viewer's at home. Second, "the cinema of attractions does not allow for elaborate development (Gunning, 122)." While the machine in the video is complicated, it uses simple, everyday devices and objects. In addition, even though the set up may have been redone several times due to error, there was not much room for those errors. If the viewers were to see those errors, they would not be captivated, or at least for a long period of time. That is why the video only shows the flawless shot of the machine from beginning to end. YouTube videos will remain popular and keep the audience wanting more after viewing these videos that express the ideas of vaudeville and the aesthetic of attractions.
Erik Wagner
T.A. Steve Wetzel
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=M7YShocj_Ww
I chose a video by popular Australian video blogist frezned and his video “Canadian Porridge” to represent the aesthetic of vaudeville and the aesthetic of attractions. In the Jenkin’s article he states that “filmed vaudeville performances were also performed directly to the camera with the performers actively courting the attention and approval of the viewer.” Video blogists like frezned depend solely on the viewers. The point of their videos is to express their thoughts and feelings to an audience. Also, the video maker fully acknowledges and talks directly to the camera as if he’s directly talking to a person. This characteristic also fits in with the aspect of attraction. In the Gunning article he talks about J. Stuart Blackton early films where he “directly addresses the audience, meditating between it and the film and stressing the actual act of display.” Another way the video shows the aspects of vaudeville is the short time length. “…vaudeville performances were short modular units – usually less than 20 minutes in length…there was not time for elaborate characterization or plot development.” The video’s length is only fifty-one seconds and gets the opinions and thoughts of the maker across quickly. Also, this video expresses the aspect of attractions by being like “when a showman lecturer presented the views to the audience. This cinema addresses and holds the spectator, emphasizing the act of display.” The video maker is presenting his views about porridge to the audience without any kind of effects or illusions; simply talking.
Tanisha Richter
TA: David Witzling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osUNhg8uQ1Q
I chose to watch the video I had seen made by kids from my area. The video incorporates culture in American with comedy, an exact recipe Jenkins uses in his article to describe the aesthetic of vaudeville. “YouTube brings together an equally eclectic mix of content drawn from all corners of our culture and lays it out as if it were of equal interest and importance, trusting the individual user to determine the relative value of each entry.” This describes the use of McDonalds as part of our American culture that is commonly known, thus making the song use its slogan of smiling at McDonalds. In Jenkins second point in the article, he states, “There was no time for elaborate characterization or plot development. Every element had to pull its own weight.” This part of the aesthetic of vaudeville is shown with the short, conciseness of the video, not developing characters and forcing viewers to gain interest in the comedy of the song.
In Gunning’s article about the aesthetics of attraction, the McDonald’s drive thru video shows how the lack of narrative is shown to bring out the viewers since of curiosity of a short clip showing our fast food culture today. Gunning’s idea that, “Rather than being an involvement with narrative action or empathy with character psychology, the cinema of attractions solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer’s curiosity.” This clip can cause an audience to watch from the idea that almost everyone in modern day society has been through a drive thru. This makes people wonder what can make this situation “extreme” and continue to watch and get a laugh out of the unusual ordering fashion. Gunning also says, “ The directness of this act of display allows emphasis on the thrill itself—the immediate reaction of the viewer.” This statement relates back to the Jenkins article which talks about the film maker to seek approval from the audience. If people were to watch this video and find it boring, pointless, and stupid, the kids making it would probably be done and not achieved their goal of making a unique spectacle through a song and a McDonald’s drive thru.
Matt Prekop
TA: Kate Brandt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbaxv69OpF4
The video I choose was a dance done by a teenager known on YouTube as Fred doing a dance he made up to the song “Nobody’s perfect”. This video came to mind after a lot of thought and searching YouTube. Although this video doesn’t appeal to my senses a friend of mine showed it to me and in fact tried to recreate this video. In this video three young teenagers preform a dance that they created to the Hannah Montana song Nobody's Perfect. Like vaudeville performances this video is short lasting no longer than the song that is being danced to. In this video “The YouTube performer stages "realness" and in the process, much that is ‘fake’ passes as real” (Jenkins). like the OK Go video this video accomplishes the same thing but appealing to a much younger audience making it appear as if this is a quick little dance that these children thought up and preformed in front of a camera. Yet in fact this video probably took several takes for them to get it right. Like vaudeville shows the performers or “Actors chose their own material, refined their own skills, and lived and died entirely on the basis of their ability to connect one on one with the audience” (Jenkins). Meaning that Fred and his two friends put together this dance based on their own talents and the idea to connect to fans similar to themselves. They kept the dance rather simple probably because that’s all they could accomplish but also because their audience would be very similar in age to them making this video appeal to them, feeding on their want to try out this ridiculous dance. Also accomplishing it by “choosing some everyday space or activity and then playing with all different permutations of it” (Jenkins). This dance is performed in a simple living room. It can easily connect to any user and their own home.
This video also accomplishing pulling off the aesthetic of attractions. The teenagers "addresses and holds the spectator, emphasizing the act of display" (Gunning, 121). They do this by dancing to a song that was very popular for very young youth. They remain in one frame of shot and the video has no cuts at all. They are very aware of their audience and are preforming directly two them. They are displaying their interpretation of what the dance would appear to be. "The film then performs its act of display and fades away” (Gunning, 122). They don’t directly act out what they believe the words mean making this not so much as a music video but a performance. They start where the song begins and stop when the song ends, their is no explanation of their interruption or their reasoning behind this they simply preform. The aesthetic of attractions are very specific about the films ability to shock its viewers and strike curiosity in them and this is done when you start watching the video you question what exactly is going on when they appear, unaware of what they are about to do. The shock comes when you see what the dancers are wearing and the actual moves that are being done. I have heard over and over by my female friends how Fred can move his hips better than even most girls. This is one of hundreds of thousands of videos on YouTube that captivate their audience through ridiculous skits and performances.
Zachery Holder
TA: Laura Bennett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ffwDYo00Q
The video that i chose was of a series called Simon’s Cat. The short videos depict everyday situations and common personality traits and quirks of cats, which is what makes them enjoyable to anyone who owns a cat because they’ll know these traits all to well. Jenkins states in his article “The vaudeville act might also strive for a pattern of theme and variation -- choosing some everyday space or activity and then playing with all different permutations of it”. The video here shows an every day activity (sleeping) and people who have cats know how annoying they can be when they want you to wake up. Jenkins also goes on to say “In a context of constant variation, the individual performer tried above all else to be memorable, which typically meant a strong reliance on spectacle and a desire to intensify emotional effects”. This is accomplished in the video by adding a more over the top element to it, by having the cat physically hit the man with a baseball bat.
As far as the aesthetics of attraction goes, Gunning stated "the spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of its curiosity and its fulfillment." The viewer is always aware of the outside world because the video consistently makes references to it, by adding common personality traits of cats. Such as the constant meowing and hitting the face with the paw to try and wake up the owner. “The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis in the thrill itself – the immediate reaction of the viewer.” The directness is that they’re referring to the audience by showing them things they can relate to, the article in particular is very relatable which is why it creates such a reaction.
Nick Aldrich
TA David Witzling
"Confrontation rules the cinema of the attractions in both the form of its films and their mode of exhibition. The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis on the thrill itself- the immediate reaction of the viewer."(Gunning, 122) This quote for me conjured our discussion earlier in the semester on the modes of delivery- namely the iphone vs. the billboard. One of the key differences between vaudeville and youtube- is that vaudeville could only be experienced in a crowd, as a member of an audience, whereas YouTube videos are most typically viewed by individuals. There is a simulated sense of community, however, with the ratings being posted below each video along with viewer comments.
The first video that came to mind when I was thinking or Gunning's article contextualized with the Jenkin's piece can be seen below-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFf-kW1E0Tc&feature=rec-fresh
Notice how the man in this video directly addressed the audience (similar to vaudeville). The other man in the video serves as a foil, a man to incite the incident and create conflict. The video plays a very basic premise and appeals to the curiosity of the myth that consuming diet coke and mentos candy at the same time will cause death. The entire drama unfolds in 1:21. Making it perfect fodder to become viral.
I'm also interested in the title of the video, "Diet Coke + Mentos = Human Experiment: EXTREME GRAPHIC CONTENT. The capitalized bit at the end appeals to the viewer's desire to see something new and fresh- something that allegedly has yet to play out ever before anywhere- and was the same type of ploy used to generate buzz for old-timey vaudeville acts.
Another point to consider from Jenkins article volume and variety. There must be hundreds of thousands of videos on YouTube- that hundreds of thousands of both individuals (non-actors) and actors vying for our attention. The spectrum of performers combined with the near exhaustive inclusion of all things searchable makes YouTube an ideal parallel to vaudeville.
The video that I chose from YouTube is a music video I created last May for a final exam in telecommunications. I think it definitely fits both Gunning's and Jenkins' descriptions they have in their articles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4jCkvrG9HM
The video is of a character, Spaghetti Girl, that a few classmates and I created for our school video announcements. Like vaudeville performances, this video is a "short modular unit." At exactly one minute long the video is short and to the point. It doesn't drag on and it stops at what I believe to be an appropriate time. Also there is "constant variation and diversity" present in the video. While it is mostly of me as the character Spaghetti Girl, the shots and angles vary.
The video I chose can also be described in relation to Gunning's article. I "address the audience directly" in the video as though I am speaking to them and not simply the camera; the rap is directed right at the viewer. It is also "a cinema of instants, rather than developing situations." We do not get to see the full story of Spaghetti Girl unfold, only bits and pieces. Her situation does not get a chance to develop.
Sara Nesbitt
TA: Kate Brandt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2rZxCrb7iU
I chose to analyze the famous YouTube video of two chinese guys lip-syncing to the Backstreet Boys song, I Want It That Way. I chose this video because it is completely obvious that it fits all of the characteristics of Vaudeville and the Cinema of Attractions.
One of the reasons why this video fits the the characteristics of Vaudeville is because the whole video is made of one continuous unedited shot. As stated by Jenkins, this is done to "preserve the integrity of individual performances". In other words, the creators of this video wanted the viewer to know that they had to learn the song and practice it to the point where they could perform it flawlessly all the way through. Another reason why this video fits the characteristics of Vaudeville is because it tries to be so over the top that we, the viewer, feel the need to show others. Similar to Vaudeville, "...the Youtube performer wants to be so spectacular that you feel compelled to pass their content along to your friends." (Jenkins) This enthusiasm can be seen in the video when the performers make intensely over-exaggerated emotional gestures at climatic points during the song.
This video also fits the Cinema of attractions because the performers look directly into the camera and thus make a direct connection with the viewer. Gunning describes the cinema of attractions in the same way when he states, "...these early films explicitly acknowledge their spectator." Another way this video fits the cinema of attractions is the way that we're attracted to watch it because of our heightened curiosity. Our curiosity is fulfilled the second the video starts playing and we realize that it is in fact a video of two chinese guys lip-syncing to corny boy band music. Similar to how this YouTube video satisfies our curiosity, "the Cinema of Attractions fulfills the curiosity it insights."(Gunning 126).
Nick LaVake
T.A. Laura Bennett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbEei0I3kMQ
According to Jenkins, the vaudeville aesthetic had to do with the variety of diversions that an audience could be subjected to in short acts. The video that I chose is of a magician doing an interactive magic trick. Jenkins noted the importance “emphasis on the immediate emotional impact” as part of the vaudeville aesthetic and it also works well with this video. The viewer is supposed to conjure up a reaction by the time the trick it is over. The viewer can be impressed by the trick or not. With this short video, “there is no time for elaborate characterization or plot development”. This video ‘s purpose is to simply show the trick. We do not receive any further information about the magician.
With regards to the Gunning article, the video I chose relates to the aesthetics of attractions by speaking directly to the viewer, the audience. “The aesthetic of attraction addresses the audience directly...exaggerating this confrontation in an experience of assault”. It can be said that the magician “assault” the viewer by challenging him to a game of logic with his trick. This video is clearly not a narrative which is another way that it expresses the aesthetic of attractions. “ The aesthetic of attraction can still be sensed in periodic doses of non-narrative spectacle given to audiences”.
Marisela Rodriguez Gutierrez
TA: Steve Wetzel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su_zrW9WBVk&feature=related
The video I chose represents the newer wave of vaudeville. Though I know I didn't hit the nail exactly on the head with this video (seeing how the animation makes it video clearly fake), I think it fits many aspects of vaudeville and the cinema of attractions. The link I posted will take you to Kanye West's music video for "Good Life". Throughout the video, Kanye moves in and out of scenarios and scenes built completely by animation. At times, the lyrics to the song will actually be presented on the screen, coming out of his mouth or portrayed in his glasses. I have never really seen anything like this, and this video instantly popped into my head while reading Jenkin's article. He states, "The magician was an early adopter and adapter of technologies, using the sense of wonder that surrounded new mechanisms to astonish and baffle their patrons. Not surprisingly, then, something like vaudeville is resurfacing during another moment of rapid technological development and deployment." Leave it to Kanye to be the magician. This video represents a new wave of technology. Some music videos seem to tell stories, many of them not having a single scene of the artist speaking directly to the audience, but Kanye is looking at the camera/audience almost every time you see him. This is also a point that Jenkin's made, when discussing vaudeville. "Filmed vaudeville performances were also performed directly to the camera with the performers actively courting the attention and approval of the viewer. "
This video also shares many important qualities of The cinema of attraction. As I mentioned above, the basis of this video, the animation, makes it clearly unreal. This is fine, and actually plays into Gunning article quite nicely. Gunning states "The spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of curioustiy and its fulfilment." I really enjoy this video, because nothing is repeated. Every scene come with a new artistic way to visually replicate the lyrics and melody of the song. So much happens, I am still to this day excited to watch the video because I can never think of what is going to happen next, though I've seen it over and over. The animation is very clever and springs toward the viewer on beat with crisp deliverance. "Through a variety of formal means, the images of the cinema of attractions rush forward to meet their viewers," says Tom Gunning. These images (and artists too), many times literally, rush toward the viewer when watched.
Garrett Hopkins
TA: Kate Brandt
I chose to use the video, “Daft Hands” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cYWfq--Nw)
In his article, Henry Jenkins explains how he came to the realization that YouTube is today’s vaudeville. One of the important elements of Vaudeville, and also YouTube, is “the ability of the performer to impress the spectator with their mastery.” This video definitely displays the mastery of the performer. Like OKGO’s treadmill video, this video was done in one take and probably required a lot of practice. The quickness of the hands, especially near the end, impresses me every time I watch this video. The performer truly is a master at singing along with Daft Punk’s “Harder Better Faster Stronger.” Although it goes kind of slow at the beginning, when they get to that point halfway through the song when both hands are going at once and they’re all over the place, that’s really amazing. The performer cranked it up a notch, which is another key aspect of Vaudeville; “the context of constant variation, the individual performer tried above all else to be memorable.” The performance was varied and at some times unexpected. It kept the viewer interested. And it was definitely memorable. Before this video, I don’t think there was anything like it on YouTube, and I’d never seen anything like it in real life. If you want to have a popular video on YouTube, it has to be memorable, something new and exciting.
In Gunning’s article, he discusses the aesthetics of the attraction. YouTube is a collection of attractions and the videos there hold the same principles of attractions that Gunning describes. When you watch “Daft Hands” you can’t help but be amazed by the mastery of the performer, it’s so interesting, and it keeps your attention for the whole video. You might even look to see if the performer has posted any more videos because your curiosity has been peaked. Gunning says that “the solicitation of the viewer and its fulfillment by the brief moment of revelation” is what makes attractions popular. The viewer wants to know that they haven’t wasted their time watching the video, they want to be fulfilled and interested in what they’re watching and attractions fulfill those wishes. “Daft Hands” is a good example of this because it keeps your attention just long enough to throw a new trick at you and peak your interest again. And toward the end when the hands are going really fast, you realize that this performance takes a lot of skill and that you can’t do that. Gunning also states that, “This is a cinema of instants, rather than developing situations.” This video doesn’t have a narrative or a drawn-out storyline. It’s a whole bunch of movements in instants that combine to form a performance. The creator is just performing to the song in the way that OKGO does while playing on treadmills.
Megan Linner
TA:Laura Bennett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfZItov1BUo
The video I chose was “Ghost Caught on Tape.” This video illustrates the points of Tom Gunning and the cinema of attractions in that it promises to show a miraculous occurrence on film with a sense of suspended disbelief when seeing a ghost. In reality however, the video tricks the viewer with an unexpected jolt of fright when an actor dressed as a zombie appears in the middle of the screen and rushes toward the unsuspecting spectator causing them to jump back in fear. “…a basic aesthetic of early cinema I have called the cinema of attractions envisioned cinema as a series of visual shocks.” “…There is no question that a reaction of astonishment and even a type of terror accompanied many early projections.” The curiosity behind the paranormal is what compels people to click on this video, and it drives them to watch intensely waiting for the ghost to make itself known to the camera. The focus that the viewer gives the video is what sets the stage for the scare tactic. After a viewer has been scared by the video, they are compelled to share this experience with their friends so as to share in the embarrassment that comes from being tricked by the video. The runtime of the video is twenty two seconds which backs up Jenkin’s theory that a video must be short in order for people to share it. “In reality, the stuff that gets passed around the most is short and streamlined. YouTube viewers get restless if anything lingers too long.” The video does a good job of sticking to the main point, it keeps the viewer engaged with its simplicity. As Jenkins states, “There was no time for elaborate characterization or plot development. Every element had to pull its own weight. Nothing that wasn't necessary for the overall emotional impact could survive.”
Jack Kirby
TA Laura Bennet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkGExH0O7Xg&feature=relate
I chose a video of someone using their hands to display the words of the song "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" (if this description is confusing, just watch the video).
This video is a good example of the aesthetic of attractions and the aesthetic of vaudeville. In Henry Jenkins online article about the aesthetic of vaudeville, he talks about the actors themselves, saying that "Actors chose their own material, refined their own skills". This is exactly what is happening in this popular homemade YouTube video. The actor in this video is also the producer, the videographer, the director, the set designer and the editor. The actor did everything themselves to record and get this video on the web.
As vaudeville went to film, long takes where a characteristic of the films.
"As vaudeville goes to film, it encourages certain stylistic choices which preserve the integrity of individual performances -- so there is a tendency towards the long take so we can see for sure that the performer actually did what is being represented on the screen." (Jenkins)
This YouTube video is all done in one take, and is very amateur; giving it a sense of 'realness' and making the viewer really believe that this took place. Jenkins talks about this in his article when he says "there is a push towards 'realness'" when talking of vaudeville films.
In talking of the cinema of attractions that Gunning references to in his article, I think this video and others like it on YouTube have become the cinema of attractions of the 21st century. In his article, Gunning talks about how "The spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of curiosity and its fulfillment."
This video is doing just that - capturing the viewer not by any sort of plot - but by what is actually happening on the screen. Watching this movie is, in a way, like the first showing of "The Arrival of the Train" by Lumiere. Gunning talks about how the film would start out with a still image, tricking the audience into thinking that is all there was. Gunning quotes Georges Melies in his reaction to the first showing of the film. Melies turns to his neighbor and says
"They got us all stirred up for projections like this? I've been doing them for over ten years."
But as the still frame turned into a moving image, everyone was awe-struck. In the same way, this YouTube film builds up slowly, not really seeming to be anything impressive until halfway through - and keeps building until the end of the film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg7LHuEQvm4
This is a video of the outtakes of and angry RV salesman. It is a relatively good example of both attractions of aesthetic and aesthetic of vaudeville. It represents attractions of aesthetic because it never takes the viewer to a fantasy world. Instead the viewer knows what there looking at and never gets pulled out of reality. They watch it because its funny and entertaining. It also corresponds with aesthetic of vaudeville because as Jenkins says is made to "get in, score big, get off." Meaning that its short gets the job done(making people laugh) and then ends. There is no plot development or anything. It also fits into that category because the RV salesman is directly talking to the audience why he is trying to sell the RV. He also yells at the camera crew a lot witch is pretty funny.
^
Zach Cosby
TA: Laura
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tWP6aYwi5M
“There was no time for elaborate characterization or plot development. Every element had to pull its own weight.” Is what Jenkins said about Vaudeville, and now this is being performed on the big stage by the Blue Man Group, every little detail counts and adds so much to the performance, the pure obliviousness of the Blue Men make it all the more exciting and fun. “Vaudeville was an actor-centered mode of production.” And that’s exactly how the Blue Man Group kept it. The rock band in the background didn’t appear until the Blue Men enticed the crowd enough to a climax of pure Rock!
Gunning focuses the statement “At the Turn of the century this tradition used the latest technology, such as focused electric light and elaborate stage machinery to produce apparent miracles.” The Blue Man Group has done the exact same thing. They stun their audience with surprise tactics and beautiful aesthetic, creating a swelling emotion of suspense. “The realism of the image is at the service of a dramatically unfolding spectator experience.” Which is the significance of the Blue Man Groups show, to stun and awe.
Nick Edmonds
TA Laura Bennett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkYZ6rbPU2M
My video is one of this group called Improv Everywhere singing a musical about wanting a napkin in a mall food court. Improv everywhere performs strange acts in random places. They once flooded a best buy with about 50 people dressed as workers. They perform these acts to entertain people. They entertain not only the people they perform in front of, but primarily the youtube viewers that watch their videos.
This video is characteristic of vaudeville acts in the sense that the video itself is very short; only 3 minutes and 44 seconds. "Vaudeville performances were short modular units" according to Jenkins. The musical performance took place in an ordinary setting, a mall food court, but the performers did something unordinary in that context. Jenkins says that "the vaudeville act might also strive for a pattern of theme and variation -- choosing some everyday space or activity and then playing with all different permutations of it."
The cinema of attractions was considered "a series of visual shocks" by Gunning. This video is representative of that in the sense that they are constantly adding new characters to the performance, and you are surprised each time by who is added. We are especially surprised when the security guard is added since we generally see them as authority figures and are sometimes fearful of them, and don't expect them to break out in song and dance in a food court. Gunning added that the cinema of attractions is "aware of the act of looking, the excitement of curiosity and its fulfillment."While watching the video, we are constantly wondering what is gonna happen next. Whether or not security will stop them, and so on.
Dawn Borchardt
TA: Steve Wetzel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfnCmv9eV1U
Tina Chen shocked America with her ruthless and unflinching covers of today's hottest pop stars. She became the laughing stock of YouTube as she tore apart hits from various artists such as the Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, and High School Musical. Many of her videos began with her making a short speech and then singing the song. "Vaudeville performances were short modular units -- usually less than 20 minutes in length...there was no time for elaborate characterization or plot development. " Tina doesn't make the videos to explain to the viewer about her life or to tell a story, she makes them to entertain people. She didn't have anyone there helping her make the videos. She had nobody to tell her what song to sing or how to edit the videos. "Actors chose their own material, refined their own skills, and lived and died entirely on the basis of their ability to connect one on one with the audience."
The aesthetic of attractions explains the strive to woo the viewer by their stunt. Tina Chen set out to impress her audience by her singing capabilities, when she really became famous for how awfully bad of a singer she really was. "The aesthetic of attraction addresses the audience directuly, sometimes as in these early training videos, exagerating these confrontations..." People have become more and more attracted to the weirdness out there in the world. These most popular videos out there on YouTube involve people acting outrageous, usually in silly costumes. "The aesthetic of attractions developed in fairly conscious opposition to an orthodox identification of viewing pleasure with the contemplation of beauty."
Derek Reilly
TA: Laura Bennett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HImIseD6xNc
Inside of Henry Jenkins article “Youtube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic” he comments on the art of aesthetic performances stating that there is “not time for elaborate characterization” (4th paragraph). The way aesthetic presentations are structured is for the act to bring attention among its viewers. This consists of flattering the audiences through imagery or simply camera tricks. Characterization is not as important within the aesthetic presentation. Time plays a factor being that it is limited within an aesthetic presentation. In the time you have to entertain your viewer it is to be done in a visually attractive manner. For example in the 1977 Levi commercial one witnesses the elements used in the frame. Stop-motion is a technique that is used throughout the entire commercial. The two characters in the commercial are competing against each other in a magician like fashion. Some animation is used such as the objects being conveyed by the two character figures. As Jenkins continues to express his opinions of aesthetic choices being made by filmmakers he states how the art “encourages stylistic choices”. Stylistic choices that were presented in the Levi commercial were forms of art that were fresh and popular during its period. I believe the moving of images involved in stop-motion like films are unique that it doesn’t rely on the acting performance of a human figure.. The idea of moving an object or person with editing techniques can expand ones art craft, creativeness, and imagination. Of Tom Gunnings article he speaks on the aesthetic of attractions. Attractiveness being used in a way to persuade consumers is what I felt Gunnings main points focused on. Gunning believes that the aesthetic of attraction should “address the audience directly”. Gunning would use examples such as the train films that would create feelings of collisions being made between the screen and its viewers. The stop animation and soundtrack in the Levi 77 commercial is composed in a way to bring attention. The sound byte in Levi commercial is looped for marketing purposes. The stop animation is used in a time passive fashion. The figures within the frame do not disappear until the Levi logo is flagged. I am using the term flagged in a way to comment on how aesthetic performances “performs its act of display and fades away” (268). This is because the small amount of time available to hypnotize the viewer. The 77 levi commercial is edited in a style to allow the viewer to catch a quick glimpse of the clothing and apparel being presented. This small amount of time is used symbolically to tease its viewers and prep them for more fashions to become available.
Dee Griffin
TA. David Wetzling
The video I chose is Lykke Li’s music video, I’m Good, I’m Gone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngd45o-M_M4
This video is an example of the vaudeville aesthetic because it is made up of several different kinds of performances, just like a variety show. We see live people dancing and singing, people moving through stop-motion photography, and even bodybuilders displaying their physiques. Jenkins says, “The variety stage was based on the principle of constant variation and diversity. It represented a grab bag of the full range of cultural interests and obsessions of an age…” This video is also an example of the vaudeville aesthetic because it tries very hard to be memorable. It’s a very unique, quirky, eccentric piece of art, and it’s obviously trying to get our attention. Jenkins comments that, when watching these YouTube pieces that are so similar to vaudeville, “We watch breathlessly to see what they will do next and if they can pull off a high risk performance.”
This video is an example of the aesthetic of attractions in that it uses technology to make “visible something which could not exist, of managing the pay of appearances in order to confound the expectations of logic and experience” (Gunning, 116-117). The video does this mostly through stop-motion photography, making people “move” through the frames without actually moving. It also shows the aesthetic of attractions because many of the actors look directly at the camera. Lykke Li herself does this almost constantly, addressing us directly. Gunning says of the aesthetic of attractions, “[It] addresses the audience directly…Rather than being an involvement with narrative action or empathy with character psychology, [it] solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer’s curiosity” (121). This film definitely does that, making it a spectacle worthy of the cinema of attractions.
Bethany Davey
TA: Kate Brandt
Post a Comment