Barthes’ article outlines the linkage between architecture and film. Unlike watching films on television, the dark environment of the movie theater and the film as the only light source creates a concentrated atmosphere for viewing. Moreover, while the film entirely controls the audience’s mood as they watch, they would experience other emotions when they leave the cinema. Walking through the long corridor decorated with fancy carpets and posters creates the ideal environment for thinking back about the film. The busy outside world strongly contrasts reality and the movie world. As the “after-movie” experience is so important, I developed an idea that there could be potential methods to promote this experience. For example, employing theater workers to deliver some items present in the film or dress like the movie protagonist and interact with the audience: somewhat combining drama where there is more audience interaction, with movies that generally only exist as pictures and sounds, as criticized by Benjamin in reading two. Using Benjamin’s words, this could create an “aura” where the film becomes alive through audience interaction. Duplicability and cost are concerns for this idea to become true, but there should be a potential balance between the “aura” and commercialization.
Sorry I forgot to put my name and university number ><
Lin Ting 3035952642
I appreciate your expanded discussion of how to strengthen film engagement. Also, it is great to associate film-watching with Benjamin’s writing. Benjamin argued that ‘even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: Its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. He referred to this unique cultural context i.e. “its presence in time and space’ as its “aura.” So, I would like to hear a more detailed reflection on “aura” through the lens of “after-movie.”