The purpose of this paper is to explore and document the development of the Cinema from scientific curiosity and child’s toy to a narrative and communicative medium.
Terms, regarding the mechanics of cinematography, will be presented and defined. The earliest devices will be examined and explained, along with their inventors, in a condensed ‘Prehistory of the Cinema.’ Principles of related technologies such as photography, optics, light projection, showmanship and performing will be discussed and explained as to how they were important elements in the ongoing history of cinematography. Key innovators and how they elevated the art of cinematography to an art form as well as to the start of a burgeoning industry will be discussed. These innovators are; Louis and August Lumiere, who were the first to present moving pictures as a commercial enterprise; Georges Melies, Motion Picture history’s premier Cinema auteur and Alice Guy-Blache, who, along with Melies, recognized the infant motion picture medium for its narrative and communication potential.Last will be a discussion of two points: 1st - How all of this began a major technological movement of development and innovation, which was to ultimately become the global motion picture industry. 2nd - How this technological advancement is, and will continue to be, an ongoing process.
In the early stages of the history cinematography (the 1880s to 1900), all of the talented men and women involved in its long and arduous development were true pioneers. They had no rules to follow, nor means to physically learn the skills and principles involved with working with a concept that would eventually become the milieu of the Motion Pictures. Through trial and error, as well as triumph and failure, an infant industry began. Through perseverance, it grew and – ultimately - thrived. These early innovators experimented and honed their craft, taking it as far as they were able to take it. This created a snowball effect of creativity, reaching into and drawing from many diverse fields of the arts, mechanical skills, applied sciences and business.
Also in these earliest days, none could foresee where this new medium was going. All were fascinated, to the point of obsession, with the mechanical and chemical means of ‘pictures that move.’ Such a novelty did not require a story. Public showings appeared. The curious attended. However, the novelty quickly wore off as these early audiences tired of what they were watching. The early entrepreneurs now felt that interest in what they were offering would soon cease to be. They were prepared to move on to some other realm of business venture. The task of re-energizing interest in early film programs fell on the shoulders of others. These others, not obsessed merely with the concept of ‘pictures that move,’ saw the narrative and communicative potentials. Thus began the unsolicited, unanticipated and ultimately necessary marriage of the technical and the artistic that would emerge as the Cinema.
Development of the mechanics of cinematography is yet happening. Each year, for the past 100-plus years, has seen an advance in the physical means of presenting a motion picture. For as long as creative men and women choose to be involved with the media, technical advances will continue to happen. One absolute rule of filmmaking is often forgotten; technique does not necessarily make a good film. Often, in today’s motion picture entertainment market, emphasis is not on an involving storyline or engaging performances by competent performers conveying sympathetic characters. There will always be a major portion of the theatergoing population primarily interested in viewing the random assault of images that make up many contemporary feature films. This major portion consists of the under-25 crowd (with a heavy emphasis on teenagers) whose interest in going to the movies is to get out of the house, hanging out with friends and watching a film containing plenty of action. This gave birth to the multiplex movie theaters. If the running time of a film is filled with glitzy, hi-tech, computer-generated special effects, theater attendance will climb. As chemical/mechanical cinematography gives way to higher tech electronic cinematography, it will greatly expand the physical means of what will appear on the screen. One can be sure that the ‘absolute rule of filmmaking’ will remain largely ignored.
Witnesses to a unique entertainment offered by the Lumiere Brothers to the curious of Paris in the closing years of the 19th Century included an accomplished magician/showman and a young secretary of a camera manufacturing company accompanying her boss. These two particular interested patrons were George Melies and Alice Guy-Blache. Although contemporaries and living in the same city, they were not aware of each other’s existence. The unique entertainment? ‘Pictures that move.’ All functioning at essentially within the same time frame, it is the divers and independent activities of this small unrelated group of people - brothers Louis and Augustus Lumiere, George Melies and Alice Guy-Blache - that started a long and arduous string of events. These events transformed what was considered a mere ‘scientific curiosity’ and ‘child’s toy’ into the largest and fastest growing art form of the 20th Century.
The Lumieres were on the opposite side of the fence than Melies and Guy-Blache. They saw the entity of these ‘pictures that move’ as something for the here and now. It would cease to be a mere curiosity and soon cease to be, or so they were convinced. Having a firm grip on business, they were marginally interested in artistry - at least not beyond its immediate marketability. Melies and Guy-Blache were endowed with a gifted insight and saw the future of the Movies. True visionaries, they instinctively knew that it would not, as the Lumieres falsely predicted, simply be a passing fad. They were convinced it would indeed grow, develop and become an industry as well as an arts medium. They would become true auteurs, long before the term was ever invented. How far it would ultimately grow (and will continue to grow), no one could imagine.
In the seminal days of an industry that Melies and Guy-Blache were helping to propagate, they would artistically reach their peaks and then go into a decline. Unforeseen, but inevitable, personal problems also contributed. They would spawn imitators. These imitators, and others, would ultimately surpass their artistry. Times would change, as did audiences’ interests and tastes. Being products of the 19th century, they could not follow suit and would be left behind. Yet, in their final days, one would receive recognition for his contributions while the other would not. Melies passing was noted by the media of the day, the late 1930s. Guy-Blache’s passing was virtually ignored. Later generations would rediscover and re-evaluate their work and contributions. A true, non-partial and comprehensive re-evaluation in this area is yet to be done.
The biggest controversy concerning Melies and Guy-Blache is the question; who, indeed, of these two directed the first narrative film? The record is definitely hazy. More evidence points to Melies and his LE MANOIR DU DIABLE from 1896 as truly the first film with a beginning, middle and an end planned and produced in such a way. Others will argue that Guy-Blache’s LA FEE AUX CHOU was the first, also (allegedly) from the year 1896. This film more than likely appeared a few years later instead of shortly before the Melies film. More evidence, scant as it is, does place its appearance as late as 1900. Without ‘hard evidence,’ such as an actual surviving print of film that can accurately be dated, Cinema history must depend on vague and idealized recollections.
Much has been written on the life and times of Melies. Less has been written about Guy-Blache. What does exist is fragmented. Certain writers, mostly feminists, will insist that Guy-Blache was the first to tell a story through cinematic means. An interesting concept for sure, but, again, the ‘hard evidence’ does not support it. More research is needed. In my own research, I have found that little has been presented on the combined contributions of the both of these people in a time when no one saw a future of the Motion Pictures as an industry. I have always involved myself in such ongoing research. Although a great possibility of any ‘hard evidence’ - such as actual original prints of films - has long since ceased to exist due to their unstable nature and the ravages of time, one must continue to delve. My research will continue after this paper is finished as a possible project for a doctorate.
The Persistence of Vision is the ability of the human eye to retain an image for a fraction of a second after the image is removed from view. It is because of this physical trait – or ‘phenomenon,’ if you will – that motion pictures exist.
The physical motion of Motion Pictures is intermittent motion. This means a regular photographing and projection of a ‘stop, go, stop, go’ action. At the speed of 24 frames per second, as is the standard to this day, the running time is 90 feet per minute for 35mm film. A series of 24 separate transparencies of images in successive stages of movement are quickly flashed on the screen to produce the illusion of one second’s worth of action. To achieve this, a pull-down claw mechanism inserts into socket holes that run down the side of the entire length of motion picture film. It then pulls it down and positions one frame of film in front of what is known as the gate. When it is in position a shutter behind the gate opens and allows light to pass through and project onto a screen. The shutter then closes as the pull-down claw again moves the next frame into position in front of the gate. One frame is stopped and in position when the shutter opens for less than 1/48th of a second. The shutter then closes, blocking the light for a fraction more than 1/48th of a second. Because of the ‘phenomenon’ of the persistence of vision, the normal, unaided human eye perceives only the series of less than 1/48th of a second projected images and not the in-between darkened screen. In actuality, his means that when viewers are watching a motion picture that runs for approximately 2 hours, they are staring at a totally dark screen for more than half that time. In the silent days, the speed of motion pictures was between 16 and 18 frames per second. This was the slowest that a film could run before the flickering action would be too noticeable. To most viewers, however, that flicker was definitely there. The movies became popularly known as ‘The Flickers,’ or ‘The Flicks.’ Even today one would refer to a film as ‘A Flick.’ The faster projection speed of 24 frames per second became the standard when sound films were regularly being produced in the late 1920s. The faster running speed was necessary for a better reproduction of sound.
First introduced in the cinema publication Cahiers du Cinema in the 1950s was the Auteur Theory. Its basis was the claim that a filmmaker should be considered in the light of thematic consistency and development throughout the work. Its great virtue was that it allowed a serious consideration to be given to many Hollywood directors previously outside the pale of the ‘cinema as art’ school of criticism. French directors active during this period, Truffaut, Goddard, Rohmer and Chabrol, developed this theory to embrace the Hollywood directors they particularly enjoyed and whose work was to influence their own films. For this paper I have adapted this term, decades before its introduction, in the sense that a film’s artistic director should be considered the main creator of the work. Even though much creative input occurs from others during the production of a particular film, the director is the main driving force who gives the film it’s indelible stamp…hence the Auteur.
The word Cinematograph was derived from the Kinematograph, ‘kine’ (kinesis) for ‘movement’ and ‘mato + graph’ for a form of created illustration. By the mid 1890s the focus on the early development and growing popularity of the medium was happening in France. Since the French generally do not use words that began with the letter ‘K’ in their closely guarded language, the ‘K’ became a ‘C.’ Consequently, the ‘ke’ sound also morphed into the ‘ess’ sound. Kine became Cine. Eventually the ‘ma’ was retained while the ‘tograph’ was dropped.