Until the 1980s in the West, early cinema was seen as "immature babblings" within a linear approach to film history.1 The view was that "primitive" cinema matured into "classic" cinema, exemplified worldwide by Hollywood. Scholars such as Thomas Elsaesser, Robert C. Allen, Noel Burch, Andre Gaudreault, Tom Gun­ning, and Miriam Hansen have since transformed our view of early cinema, claiming it represents an alternative, not primitive, approach to filmmaking. Elsaesser calls this "a new archaeology of the art:'2 Within this new archaeology, Gunning's work on early American cinema is one of many areas that have been extended to other cinemas, including Chinese. Gunning rejects the realist prejudice that disparages early cinema as theatrical and, therefore, somehow not really cinematic at all. He recasts it as "a cinema of attractions" that aggressively addresses the spectator, akin to vaudeville. Gunning states, "To summarize, the cinema of attractions directly solicits spectator attention, inciting visual curiosity, and supplying pleasure through an exciting spectacle-a unique event, whether fictional or documentary, that is of interest in itself. The attraction to be displayed may also be of a cinematic nature, such as the early close-ups .... Theatrical display dominates over narrative absorption;'3