I think the key ideas from both readings include aspects of films that can be easily overlooked. Both author’s insight in films is intriguing and fresh, thus there is a lot to pick up from these readings.
Barthes’s reading personally gave me an interesting perspective on cinema experiences. The word “hypnosis” felt bizarre at first but when comparing my cinema experience to the text, his metaphors were undeniably accurate. Personally, I agree what makes cinemas stand out from the current short video formats (ex. Youtube, TikTok, Instagram stories etc.) is the overwhelming darkness and light. Mainly it serves to block the surroundings from disturbing the flow, giving the immersive, “hypnotic” film experience but it also helps the audience feel like a part of the film – what Barthes refers to as “naturalness”. Out of the many things I’ve learned, whether current short videos can give the audience the same deep experience may be worth discussing.
Rachel Gayoung Kim 3035812165
It would be great to develop more on what you’d like to discuss on the viewing experience on short videos and a film. You’ve mentioned the atmospheric distraction absorbed by darkness at movie theatres, that contributed in what Barthes described as a “hypnosis”; what are the other elements that differentiates film from short videos? does the time matter? does the content matter? You may wish to include your reading of what Barthes noted in your argument – “the Real knows only distances, the Symbolic knows only masks; the image along (the image-repertoire) is close, only the image is “true” can produce the resonance of truth.” (1986, 348).