This document discusses the concept of "attractions" in cinema from several perspectives across different time periods from 1917 to 1930. It defines attractions as aggressive or sensual/psychological aspects of theater that produce calculated emotional shocks in spectators. The "Montage of Attractions" manifesto from 1923 describes attractions as elements that subject spectators to impacts to perceive the ultimate ideological conclusion. Later discussions focus on how attractions can produce useful class-conditioned reflections aligned with social principles rather than just exciting unconditioned reflexes. The concept evolves to see attractions as totally presented facts or actions combined to condense spectator emotion in a specific ideological direction.

1. From fascination to the “final
ideological conclusion”. The
cinema of attractions and the
emotional shock

2. Ostranenie 1917, Viktor Sklovsky
Related with the poetic image, consists in putting the object off its usual
context in order to locate it in an unexpected one. As a result, the operation
returns to the displaced set (not only the element) the perceptibility that its
stereotyped use took from it, and, consequently, the facts are presented to
the perception as a “vision” (as if they were being seen for the first time)
instead of being presented as recognition.
See definition at Oxford Reference Dictionary.

3. Alexei Kruchenykh, "dyr bul shchyl" (in Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. Source: Mosaic. Journal of Music
Research.

4. 1923, Literature & Cinematography
We do not feel the world in which we live, just as we do not feel the clothes
we wear. We fly through the world as Jules Verne's heroes fly "through the
atmosphere in a cannonball". But our cannon ball has no windows. The
Pythagoreans used to say that we cannot hear the music of the spheres
because it plays continuously. Thus those who live by the sea do not hear
the waves, but we do not even hear the words we speak. We speak the
wretched language of uncompleted words. We look at each other face to
face, but we do not see each other.

5. The “Montage of Attractions”
(theatrical manifest appearing in the Lef magazine in 1923)
“[From a theatrical point of view] An attraction is any aggressive aspect of
the theatre; that is, any element of the theatre that subjects the spectator to
a sensual or psychological impact, experimentally regulated and
mathematically calculated to produce in her/him certain emotional
shocks which, when placed in their proper sequence within the totality of
the production, become the only means that enable the spectator to
perceive the ideological side of what is being demonstrated -the
ultimate ideological conclusion”.

6. FEKS / circus-influenced attraction

7. FEKS / circus-influenced attraction

8. Attractions / stimuli-mechanical motivated response /
pathos

9. 1925
“Just as we shouldn’t speculate on the topicality of the attractive
feature, we should remember that the acceptable ideological use of
the neutral or occasional attraction can’t only serve to the
excitement of the unconditioned reflexes, that we don’t need as
such, but that will be producing useful class-conditioned reflections
that we wish to connect to the defined aims of our social principle”.

10. Attractions / Pathos

11. Attractions / Pathos

12. Attractions / Pathos / Ecstasy

13. • 1930
“The attraction (...), as we conceive it, is a totally shown fact (action,
object, phenomena, combination, conscience, etc.); everything is known
and is verified, –conceived as a pressure producing a specific effect
on the spectator, and combined by other facts having the ability to
condense his / her emotion in a specific direction, established by the aims of
the spectacle.
From this point of view, the film cannot be accomplished by just
presenting, showing events –their confrontation–, but it’s also a
nuanced selection of them; one exempted from tasks intimately
related to the matter, operating accordingly to the whole's ideological
aim: a proper conformation of the audience”.