In his essay, Benjamin highlighted that aura – the “here and now” of an original artwork, is diminishing with the rise of technological reproduction. Despite lamenting the loss in artworks’ cultural value this caused, Benjamin, as a socialist, was supportive of this as it allowed the masses, instead of only the bourgeoisie, to appreciate artworks, reminiscent of how films were created for the masses. Benjamin saw political potential in films – a democratized medium which lacked an ‘original copy’ and aura.
Yet, this was merely a potential, as even today, capitalists strived to insert aura into films. Studios release ‘Extended Cut’ versions of popular films (e.g. Zack Snyder’s Justice League, being almost 2 hours longer than the normal version) and try to convey the idea that they are the ‘original copies’. To boost financial gains, studios lock them behind paid streaming services or limited time screenings (e.g. Anita Mui Director’s Cut, featuring an hour of unused footage, offered exclusively to Disney+ subscribers), attracting audiences with the illusion of authenticity and scarcity. It echoes Benjamin’s prediction that unless film has freed itself from capitalist exploitation, it brings no political advantage. Art might be shackled again, not to rituals but to dollars.
— Chung Chi Yui, UID: 3036002808
Very good understanding of Benjamin’s idea and its context. Your personal reflection of the potential of film in trascending the “aura” and how that contradicts with the capitalistic nature of the film industry is insightful and supported well with solid examples. The interpretation of these producer’s of art using authenticity and rarity as an illusory device is interesting. I appreciate your precise and affective language.