In comparison, I found that the experience at the Cinémathèque Méliès exhibit was more experiential and had more modern connections than the LACMA City of Cinema show. These differences stem from the fact that one institution strives to preserve early cinema while the other is a traditional art museum. One is not better than the other — they are both striving to achieve different objectives — however; I found the shows interesting to compare. 
     The most attractive quality of the Méliès exhibit was how immersive it was. From handling the magic lantern to turning the circle of gulls, I found myself thinking more deeply about the objects in the context of the 19th century and really got a sense of how the apparatuses worked. Specifically, I was excited to see the animations come to life with my help from physically turning the wheel of the magic lantern — I likely endured the same excitement kids derived from this domestic toy. This is a quality I believe that the LACMA show was lacking. Of course, there were more obstacles like budget constraints and COVID (not to mention you run the risk of breaking such apparatuses by allowing all visitors to handle them); however, I think the show would have benefited from having more opportunities to operate the toys as their functions are not completely obvious to the average viewer. It's not to say LACMA completely abandoned this element as the Théâtre Optique is operated on the weekends and visitors can see how the contraption works to produce an animation film, but after having been to the Cinémathèque, I think the average LACMA visitor would have gotten more out of the exhibit if they were able to interact with the devices themselves. Now, this must be done carefully so LACMA does not suddenly turn into a kid's museum but even adding just one more experiential component would have drawn connections for visitors essential to understanding the show as a whole. 
         The Méliès exhibit had many modern examples of his influence on the world of Cinema. From Hugo to Star Wars, viewers were able to draw from films they know and love to see why Méliès is accredited as ‘the father of special effects.’ Specifically, I loved seeing the three videos about composition, creatures, and backgrounds as they provided a modern film example of special effects and then showed how that stemmed from Méliès's work. This element was quite enjoyable; however, I do not think that including modern elements would have served the LACMA show well. As an art museum, the LACMA show did exceptional at letting the art speak for itself. Viewers were able to draw on the different pieces, objects, and films to understand the narrative of 19th-century Paris. Including modern film posters and cameras, for example, would have been a diversion for the goal of the show which was to understand how Paris in the 19th century was a city of spectacle which allowed technological innovations, such as cinema, to emerge. 
       The effectiveness of including modern elements in these two shows speaks to the varying objectives. The Cinémathèque finds it important to study the history of film because it is often disregarded, while LACMA looks at art in a traditional way. Understanding the goals of each show reveals that not all museums are the same. In fact, knowing the context and functions of a museum are useful to get the most out of an exhibit. This is an element that I have gained from this class and will take with me whenever entering the museum: Who is showing the exhibit? What is their mission? How does that affect the goal of the exhibit? What do the curators want me to walk away with after having viewed their exhibit?