Introduction. The History of Film History

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Keyword(s):  
Film History ◽  
History Of

Cinema Expanded

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Walley
Keyword(s):  
New Media ◽  
Film History ◽  
Video Art ◽  
Experimental Film ◽  
Art World ◽  
Film Culture ◽  
Moving Image ◽  
Avant Garde ◽  
Expanded Cinema ◽  
History Of

Cinema Expanded: Avant-Garde Film in the Age of Intermedia is a comprehensive historical survey of expanded cinema from the mid-1960s to the present. It offers an historical and theoretical revision of the concept of expanded cinema, placing it in the context of avant-garde/experimental film history rather than the history of new media, intermedia, or multimedia. The book argues that while expanded cinema has taken an incredible variety of forms (including moving image installation, multi-screen films, live cinematic performance, light shows, shadow plays, computer-generated images, video art, sculptural objects, and texts), it is nonetheless best understood as an ongoing meditation by filmmakers on the nature of cinema, specifically, and on its relationship to the other arts. Cinema Expanded also extends its historical and theoretical scope to avant-garde film culture more generally, placing expanded cinema in that context while also considering what it has to tell us about the moving image in the art world and new media environment.

scholarly journals A Few Issues Surrounding Research into the General History of Chinese Film

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-99
Author(s):  
Yaping Ding
Keyword(s):  
Film History ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
History Writing ◽  
Chinese Film ◽  
Comprehensive View ◽  
Broad Scope ◽  
History Of

Abstract The practice of film history highlights the value and significance of the researcher. A more comprehensive view of the situation of film history raises several issues. General research into the history of film is directly related to the production of film history. The question of how to reinvent general film history research is necessarily connected to ideologies, cultures, systems and concepts, as well as the broad scope and complexity of film history. Writing a general history of Chinese film demands a combination of innovation and continuing tradition, with an emphasis on the construction of a rational and scientific discipline of film history and historical empiricism. The aim should be a more rational history. The paper expresses my own thoughts and efforts with respect to relevant issues and attempts to deepen and open up general research into the history of Chinese film.

Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in American Film

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Carr
Keyword(s):  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
East Coast ◽  
Cultural Practices ◽  
Film History ◽  
Future Research ◽  
American Film ◽  
Racial Identities ◽  
History Of ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Film Texts

The rise of the American motion picture corresponds to the influx of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Just as many of these immigrants initially settled in East Coast and Midwest cities, both movies and movie audiences emerged there as an urban phenomenon. Rather than view this phenomenon only in terms of the images that films of this era offered, this chapter proposes to move beyond a “reflection paradigm” of film history. Of course, film texts reflected immigrant, ethnic, and racial identities. But these identities also existed beyond the text, across movies and movie-going, and embedded within diffuse, multiple, and overlapping networks of imagined relationships. Using Bakhtin’s concept of the chronotope, this chapter recounts some preliminary case studies involving race, ethnicity, and immigration to explore how future research in this area might probe the cultural practices of movie-going among diverse audiences during the first half of the twentieth century.

Charles Chaplin

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Kornhaber
Keyword(s):  
Film History ◽  
Charlie Chaplin ◽  
Feature Films ◽  
Short Films ◽  
Charles Chaplin ◽  
History Of ◽  
Marked Decline ◽  
Andre Bazin ◽  
Film Stars ◽  
Sound Technology

Charles Chaplin (b. 1889–d. 1977), better known as Charlie Chaplin, was one of the greatest film stars of the 20th century and one of the most important filmmakers in the history of the medium. Born into poverty in London to a family of music hall performers, Chaplin grew up in destitution with his mother, who suffered from periods of insanity. He joined the prestigious Karno stage company while a teenager and from there was recruited to the fledgling Keystone Studios, famous for its raucous brand of slapstick films. Chaplin excelled at Keystone, quickly developing the “Tramp” character that would become his mainstay and graduating to directing his own short films after only weeks on the job. He left Keystone within a year for a series of more lucrative contracts, quickly becoming one of the highest-paid figures in the film industry and creating a classic body of short films. By 1919 Chaplin had amassed a large enough fortune to start his own film studio and co-founded United Artists to distribute his works, leaving him all but free from outside influence or interference. Throughout the 1920s he created the feature films that would help define his legacy but struggled with the advent of sound technology, refusing to include spoken dialogue in his films for nearly a decade. Chaplin’s first full talkie, The Great Dictator (1940), offered a scathing parody of fascist dictatorship and marked a newfound political mode in his filmmaking. Chaplin’s leftist politics, coupled with a scandalous and protracted paternity suit in the mid-1940s, soon led to a marked decline in his popularity, such that when he left for a worldwide publicity tour for Limelight (1952) he was denied reentry to the country. Chaplin lived the remainder of his life in Switzerland, returning to America only in 1972 to accept an honorary Academy Award. Critical appraisal of Chaplin’s body of work has varied over the decades. Hailed as a genius from early in his career, he saw his critical fortunes fall with his transition to talking pictures. Yet Chaplin always had a coterie of dedicated critical supporters, including such illustrious figures as André Bazin and Andrew Sarris, and the critical estimation of his work has only grown since his death. He remains today one of the most lauded and beloved figures in film history.

Argentine Cinema

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Stites Mor ◽  
Nicolas Poppe
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
New Media ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Film History ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Imperialism ◽  
Political Cinema ◽  
History Of ◽  
Media Politics

The field of Argentine cinema studies can be said to have begun in earnest with the publication of film journalist Domingo Di Núbila’s landmark two-volume history of Argentina’s film history in 1959 and 1960, Historia del cine argentino (Buenos Aires, Argentina: Cruz de Malta). A work of tremendous range and scope, Di Núbila’s history not only provided a synopsis and critique of an abundance of individual films but also examined the influence of professional associations and industry, more broadly speaking. Perhaps due to the comprehensiveness of these volumes, minimal scholarly publishing on Argentine cinema followed until the 1970s, when interest in political cinema propelled Argentine cinema into the global spotlight. Scholarly writing about Argentine film in Europe, the United States, and, to a certain extent, Cuba during this period of heightened Cold War tensions tended to focus on questions of the political and the techniques of radical cinema. Writers from outside Argentina focused predominantly on films being made contemporaneously that engaged questions of colonialism, violence, social movements, and revolution. However, by the late 1970s and early 1980s, filmmakers themselves took on the task of building a new media studies that centered on Latin American cinema with interests in questions of industry, cultural imperialism, and consumption at the core of their inquiry. By the 1980s and early 1990s, growing interest in Argentine filmmaking among academic audiences both at home and abroad culminated in the emergence of a local film studies culture in Argentina that was finally dominated by scholars rather than biographers or filmmakers. This wave of scholarship converged around questions related to the 1976–1983 dictatorship and the subsequent democratic opening. Since 2001, a new wave of interest in Argentine film following the financial crisis has pushed scholarship beyond political questions to engage more seriously with aesthetic and conceptual aspects of national films. However, booming grassroots documentary production in the new digital era captured the interest of nontraditional film scholars interested in media politics, social movements, gender and sexuality, and film as a mode of communication more broadly.

scholarly journals Theory, Post-theory, Neo-theories: Changes in Discourses, Changes in Objects

2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 33-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Casetti
Keyword(s):  
Performing Arts ◽  
Film Theory ◽  
Film History ◽  
Social Recognition ◽  
Open Approach ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Cinema Studies ◽  
History Of ◽  
Object Of Study ◽  
Modern Era

Abstract Over the past ten years, film theory has been openly challenged by the tenets of film history, cultural studies, aesthetics and philosophy. The decline of so called “Grand Theory” has made possible the emergence of a new paradigm. This relative eclipsing of film theory is the sign of a three-fold problem within cinema studies. First, film in its new formats and with its new supports is no longer a unique and consistent object which can be subjected to specific forms of research. Film theory’s weakness is thus a sign that “film,” as an object, is now dispersed. Second, cinema has always been at the crossroads of a great number of different fields. Its history is an amalgam of the history of media, the performing arts, visual perception, modern forms of subjectivity, etc. Film theory’s weakness is symptomatic of the urgent need to rethink a history that was never unique or unified. Third, in our post-modern era any recourse to rationality seems to be a trap, the object of study itself being refractory to any kind of schematization. Film theory’s weakness is indicative of the need to maintain an open approach to the subject. Through these three issues, we are witnessing the emergence of a new theory, both informal and dispersed, which is manifested in a variety of discourses that are content to gloss the phenomenon in order better to understand the cinema and facilitate its social recognition.

Methodological aspects of studying the history of Soviet cinema in the 1930s

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 17-28
Author(s):  
Sultan I. Usuvaliev
Keyword(s):  
Film Studies ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Film History ◽  
Soviet History ◽  
Soviet Film ◽  
Soviet Cinema ◽  
History Of ◽  
Russian Film ◽  
Russian Cinema ◽  
Methodological Aspects

The article is devoted to the history of the Russian film studies and methodology of film history as science using the example of the Introduction of History of the Soviet Film Art by Nikolai Iezuitov (18991941), one of the founders of the national film studies. Since the manuscript of History of the Soviet Film Art the first history of the Soviet cinema has not yet been published and introduced into scholarly use, the author pays special attention to archival sources. Despite a number of essays and discussions about film history and its methodology, a fundamental scholarly work on the historiography of the history of Soviet and Russian cinema has not yet been written. The relevance and novelty of the article is that it is based on the study of archival manuscripts of Nikolai Iezuitov. The exploration of early approaches to the study of the history of the Soviet cinema is important both historically and pedagogically. One of the most important sources of the concept of film history at an early stage of the national film studies is Iezuitov's Introduction to History of the Soviet Film Art. The Introduction is valuable because: 1) it is a rare evidence of reflection on the foundations of film history as scholarship and its methodology; 2) it is given by the author of the first history of the Soviet cinema; 3) it is represented by the author not as a separate abstract essay but as a part of the history itself. The Introduction defines the scholarly tasks and content of film history; overviews foreign books on the history of cinema; emphasizes specific periods of Soviet film history; and indicates the principles of work with relevant sources. Iezuitovs main principles in relation to film history are established in connection, firstly, with Soviet history scholarship; and secondly, with the vision of film history as the history of film art. Thus, film history, according to Iezuitov, is the unity of Marxist understanding of history and art-historical (stylistic) analysis of films and the main film movements in Soviet cinema.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document