“Welcome to Manchester”: Heritage, Urban Regeneration, and Michael Winterbottom’s 24 Hour Party People

Mutability is the epitaph of worlds
Change alone is changeless
People drop out of the history of a life as of a land
Though their work or their influence remains

Isabella Banks, The Manchester Man (1876)

“Everything [except Joy Division’s music] is merchandising. Merchandising of memory.”
Peter Saville (2007)

Isabella Banks’ 1876 novel The Manchester Man irrevocably ties the fortunes of its Mancunian protagonist Jabez Clegg to those of his native city during the first half of the nineteenth century, the rags-to-riches journey personifying Manchester’s own rapid transformation from manorial township into what Peter Hall notes was “without a challenge, the first and greatest industrial city in the world”.[1] The passage from The Manchester Man cited above, in which Banks reflects upon the legacies of both individuals and wider historical forces, can also be found on the headstone of the Manchester-based “broadcaster and cultural catalyst”[2] Anthony H. “Tony” Wilson (1950-2007). Against a backdrop of “absolute [socioeconomic] decline” in the city wrought by large-scale deindustrialisation,[3]  Wilson became an active champion of local creative talent, co-founding both the Factory Records music label and The Haҫienda nightclub: Manchester institutions which would form key focal points for the development of British popular culture between the late 1970s and early 1990s.

Given that subsequent urban regeneration efforts in the city have often sought to seize upon the prestige of Manchester’s “vibrant contributions to popular music”,[4] it is perhaps unsurprising to find that by the time of his death, the association between Wilson and the transformation of his beloved city seemed cemented by obituaries which mourned the loss of “Mr Manchester”.[5] The excerpt from The Manchester Man is appropriate then, as, in threading together the themes of socioeconomic mutability and the legacy of influential figures, it captures the sense in which regional accounts of upheaval and transformation continue to be understood through the memorialised and mythologised lives of specific individuals. Moreover, as contemporary pressures exerted upon post-industrial cities like Manchester to maintain global economic competitiveness[6] lead to the valorisation of local and regional heritage, these “epitaphs of worlds” become rife with tensions, their narratives not just functioning as urban myth, but fuel for –and products of– the neo-liberal cultural industries: the “merchandising of memory”, as Peter Saville, former graphic designer for Factory Records and current Creative Director for the city of Manchester, puts it.[7]

“Mutability is our Tragedy, but it’s also our Hope”

Michael Winterbottom’s 2002 film 24 Hour Party People, a comic re-telling of the Factory Records story, constitutes one such potential site of tension. Like Jabez Clegg in The Manchester Man, the professional and personal fortunes of Tony Wilson (played by Steve Coogan) become the lens through which Manchester’s recent history is refracted and distorted. Unlike The Manchester Man, however, the placement of Wilson as protagonist and narrator ironically comments upon the credit often solely attributed to “Mr. Manchester” with regards to the city’s regeneration, and nods towards the affectionate hostility that was traditionally directed towards “wanker” Wilson by his fellow Mancunians.[8]  Alongside an account of Wilson’s tumultuous television career and strained personal relationships, the film depicts his early championing of the Sex Pistols in 1976; the creation of Factory Records and signing of post-punk band Joy Division in 1978; the suicide of their lead singer Ian Curtis and subsequent transformation into New Order in 1980; the success of the Haçienda and Happy Mondays at the height of the “Madchester” acid-house boom in the late 1980s; and Factory’s financial implosion in 1992.

Indeed, the well-worn narrative device of channelling historical mutability though the life of the individual is explicitly acknowledged in the film when Wilson encounters a homeless man (Christopher Eccleston) claiming to be the medieval philosopher Boethius. Expanding on his concept of the Wheel of Fortune (in a thick Salford accent, nonetheless) the vagrant philosopher opines “It is my belief that history is a wheel […] good times pass away, but then so do the bad. Mutability is our tragedy, but it’s also our hope”. Appropriately, given the film’s exaggerated portrayal of Wilson as pretentious intellectual, he responds to this philosophical advice with a nonchalant “I know”. Of course, Wilson’s riposte is also directed at the audience, trashing the symbolism of the scene in order to establish that the film’s creators are fully aware of the pitfalls of this very narrative device, but are choosing to use it anyway.

This article is concerned with these tensions between cinematic fiction, urban legend and historical fact. Moreover, in establishing a sense of 24 Hour Party People’s overall contribution to the ever-expanding Factory mythos, this article aims to place the film in relation to what Steve Quilley has termed the “Manchester script”: the PR narrative, espoused by local authorities and property developers alike, that “the city has been reborn as a postmodern, post-industrial and cosmopolitan city, standing in Europe’s ‘premier league’”.[9] To do this, the article will firstly explore the issues surrounding Manchester’s culture-led regeneration in more detail, with particular interest in both how the Factory legacy has, willingly or otherwise, been implicated in such schemes. In exploring the promotion ofthe film and its relationship with some of Factory’s key figures, the article will then consider the ways in which the film appears to reinforce the Manchester script. However, in interrogating the film’s reflexive, playful dealing with historical fact and personal account, the article will also aim to highlight the ways in which 24 Hour Party People can be read as a sardonic subversion of this script and its attendant top-down, neo-liberal narratives, in keeping with the anarchic tradition of Factory Records and the Haҫienda.

“Excess of Civic Pride”

For those sympathetic to the spirit of the city’s sub-cultural heritage, the half-complete image painted by the Manchester script raises pivotal concerns, as it obscures the very socioeconomic issues which played a key role in fuelling Manchester’s now mythologized creative achievements. As former Haҫienda DJ and Manchester historian Dave Haslam argues, much of the spectacular creativity of Factory and its creative contemporaries consisted of cathartic and transcendent ways of dealing with the city’s “disintegration” during the period of Thatcherite restructuring.[10] Indeed, this notion of a holding out against wider economic forces informs the 1976 film essay Joy Division: a Film by Malcolm Whitehead; a riposte to neo-liberalism which figures footage of the band rehearsing in a disused factory as a symbolic form of “resistance through art and culture”.[11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXYsu4do3Go&t=24m10s

Joy Division: a Film by Malcolm Whitehead

The neo-liberal landscape of Manchester in the early 2000s, however, would make such acts of resistance appear futile. At the same time as acid house, the collectivist hedonism with which the Haҫienda sought to counter the “individualistic thrust of Thatcherism”, reached its creative peak in the late 1980s, Manchester City Council had confirmed its abandonment of municipal socialism in favour of a “pragmatic strand of interventionist neo-liberalism” which Peck and Ward summarise as “talking up, making over and trickling down”. [12] While they argue that this approach meant that Manchester city centre “has been comprehensively reconstructed, both physically and culturally, in ways that would have been hardly imaginable 15 or 20 years ago”, it remains the case that, for all of the visible fruits of regeneration, “many of the city’s underlying social and economic problems have been displaced rather than solved”.[13]

As Matthew Wilson notes in his account of the city’s transformation, these concerns prove even more pressing when one considers how “once marginal cultural entrepreneurs” such as Peter Saville “have become central in the regeneration process, many now holding significant positions of authority within the governing structures of the city”. [14] As local authorities grew increasingly wise as to how the efforts of bottom-up enterprise had revalorised inner city property, and created a network of jobs in the creative and night time economies, they “began to see the benefit in co-opting wider cultural forms” and their progenitors into public-private regeneration schemes like Marketing Manchester. When describing the motivation behind transforming the Factory offices depicted in 24 Hour Party People into the nightclub FAC251, for example, former Joy Division and New Order bassist and Haҫienda co-owner Peter Hook echoes this official line, arguing that such projects use “the past as a stepping stone into the future”.[15]

Irony, heritage, and the contemporary night time economy at Peter Hook’s FAC251

Not all commentators share this optimistic interpretation of the role of Factory in Manchester’s culture-led regeneration. For Owen Hatherley, the Factory-themed cocktails on offer in the luxury bar of the Beetham Tower, and Urban Splash’s transformation of the working-class Salford terraces razed by the New Labour Pathfinder Initiative into homes for affluent first-time buyers, are indicators of the gentrifying demands of private capital which shape planning policy in the neo-liberal era.[16] Indeed, Hatherley might have added the transformation of the Haҫienda into “iconic office space”, which forced 24 Hour Party People’s producers to build a facsimile nightclub interior on the other side of the city, even if they did manage to shoot exterior shots at the original Whitworth Street location (see Fig. 1). Revealingly, the film’s simulacra dance floor appears to contradict Wilson’s claim, made in 1998 when the Haҫienda was sold to property developers, that he did not care for “museum culture”.[17] With this in mind, it is worth taking seriously Hatherley’s charge that 24 Hour Party People is mere “Mancunian auto-hagiography” which, like culture-led urban regeneration more generally, duly empties cultural products of their oppositional content.[18]

Figure 1: The former site of the Haҫienda night club in Manchester, April 2011. Photograph taken by the author.

Evoking “heritage” when discussing British cinema does, of course, require some qualification. The focus of this article is the relationship between 24 Hour Party People and the very specific narratives at work within the cultural industries of contemporary Manchester, and while the notion of cinema evoking, reiterating, and deconstructing a particular local heritage is central to this focus, that is not the same to claim that 24 Hour Party People is to be considered “heritage cinema”. As Claire Monk notes, “heritage cinema” is a deeply problematic term which can only be “most usefully understood as a critical construct rather than as a description of any concrete film cycle or genre”, [19]  and as such, this article will refrain from mapping such a potentially unproductive label onto 24 Hour Party People. In the same essay, however, Monk points towards Moya Luckett’s work on an “‘alternative canon’” of British cinema which includes Quadrophenia (Franc Roddam, 1979) and Get Carter (Mike Hodges, 1971); work which is perhaps more relevant in its concern for bottom-up appraisals of cinematic cites of regional identities. [20] Pivotally, Luckett locates the construction of identities in these films in the context of New Labour’s own attempts to construct an entrepreneurial national identity which, as Tony Blair outlined in a Design Council report, should “use the strengths of our history and our character, and built on them for the future”.[21] As Toby Miller notes, New Labour’s “modernisation” of the British film industry shared the same “commerce-culture relationship” dilemma that characterised much of its Third Way policies.[22] Of course, it is this same tension, between supply-side imperative and cultural credibility, which define both Manchester’s own culture-led regeneration and 24 Hour Party People.

As a production, the filmis marked by these tensions. On the one hand, it is an independent labour of love (“modern history existing for its own sake” [23]); funded by director Michael Winterbottom’s own company, Revolution Films, in association with Coogan’s Baby Cow, Film Four, the Film Consortium and the Film Council, and which, according to IMDb.com, failed to gross more than a £1 million in the UK between April and December 2002.[24] However, the film is also an unabashed vehicle for a plethora of recognisable Mancunian and British comic actors, going some way to confirm Miller’s notion of how cinematic treatments of cultural heritage can also be opportunities for contemporary British image making. In addition to Manchester-native Coogan, the film features Smug Roberts, Peter Kay, Ralf Little, John Tompson, and Fiona Allen, all from the Greater Manchester area; Coronation Street’s Elizabeth Dawn; and prominent roles for well known British character actors and comedians Paddy Considine, Andy Serkis, Simon Pegg, Rob Brydon, Keith Allen, and Dave Gorman. The cumulative effect of this rapid succession of famous faces is that of an advert for regional and national comedy talent, mapping an image of Manchester’s entrepreneurial present onto a depiction of the entrepreneurial efforts of figures from Manchester’s recent past.

At a superficial textual level, 24 Hour Party People appears to display similar moments of tourist-friendly nostalgia. In one sequence, Wilson moves through a sea of clubbers, and, as they rave in slow motion, he turns to the camera to provide some historical context for the proceedings:

Manchester. The birthplace of the railways, the computer, the bouncing bomb. But tonight, something equally epoch-making is taking place. They’re applauding the DJ. Not the music, not the musician, not the creator, but the medium. This is it: the birth of rave culture. The beatification of the beat. The Dance Age. This is the moment when even the white man starts dancing. Welcome to Manchester.

Even if scriptwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce pushes the portentous overtones of the speech towards absurdity, the scene nevertheless exudes the tone of tour-guide, one which is duly accompanied by illustrative footage and stills of the bouncing bomb and the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine, the first stored-program computer built at the Victoria University of Manchester in 1948, nicknamed ‘the Baby’ (see Fig. 2). Just as 24 Hour Party People built its own Haçienda, so too was a replica Baby built for Manchester’s “Digital Summer” 1998, the multimedia festival devised by Marketing Manchester to celebrate the creative and scientific heritage of the city.[25] Furthermore, interviews with figures like Haslam, Saville, Shaun Ryder and Bez, included as extras on the DVD release of the film, are characterised by a similar tension between demotic pluralism and authoritative lecture: do the talking heads offer contradictory accounts to further complicate the attempt to reduce Factory to tourist-friendly myth, or do they reinforce the process? While, in the case of these interviews, it is much closer to the former, the same cannot always be said for the film’s account itself. Towards the end of the film, when Wilson reflects on Factory’s financial woes, the tone of his monologue approaches the elegiac. Accompanying an aerial shot of Manchester by night, Wilson’s voiceover intones:

Most of all, I love Manchester. The crumbling warehouses, the railway arches, the cheap abundant drugs. That’s what did it in the end. Not the money, not the music, not even the guns. That is my heroic flaw: my excess of civic pride.

Underscored by the solemn plainchant of Paul Oakenfold’s remix of the Happy Mondays’ “Hallelujah”, Cottrell Boyce’s script wavers from playful irony to a tone of spiritual reverence appropriate for an alleged auto-hagiography. Furthermore, the speech appears to compound several of the clichéd Manchester narratives observed by commentators. The monologue itself returns to two familiar media images of the city: dilapidated Victoriana and “Gunchester” gang warfare,[26] while the contrast between these twin images of material and social urban decay and the fiery red lights of nocturnal Manchester, suggest a “Phoenix from the Ashes” metaphor of economic and technological progress which echoes the triumphalism of the Manchester script. In such instances, it becomes difficult to entertain film-critic Xan Brooks’ suggestion that Cottrell Boyce is ‘just honouring its narrator’s self-mythologising tendencies’; in these moments, the film appears to suspend ironic distance to actively make its own contribution to the myth.[27] Taken together, the Oakenfold soundtrack and knowing-yet-reverent comments become an example of what Urbis[28] co-founder Justin O’Connor terms the “moral and political bankruptcy of the post-rave urban growth coalition”, for whom Wilson “represents its saddest failures”.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Of course, it would be mistaken not to acknowledge the self-awareness that underpins, and perhaps even undermines, the instructional, promotional and triumphalist tendencies of 24 Hour Party People. However, as the promotional material for the film suggests, this rubbishing humour can also be seen as making this heritage more palatable and attractive: not merely neo-liberal “talking up”, but reassuringly ironic “talking down”. The theatrical poster for the film is indicative of this portentous-yet-coy approach to selling cultural heritage. The poster consists of a triptych featuring the Happy Mondays vocalist Shaun Ryder (Danny Cummingham), Ian Curtis (Sean Harris), and Wilson, the respective captions for the three Mancunian figures reading: “Poet. Genius. Twat” (see Fig. 4). Again, the crux of this punch line returns to the film’s self-aware refraction of Manchester’s history through the life of an individual. “Poet” and “Genius” are epithets attributed to the unreliable narrator (the “Twat”), and as such, are to be dismissed as pretentious indulgence. Suggestions for beatification, instead, are deferred to an abstract, chaotic notion of the Manchester cultural scene as a whole: the eponymous 24 Hour Party People of the film’s title. That the film was issued with a prestigious Factory Records categorisation number (FAC 451), and starred many real life Mancunian musical figures[29] further conveys the sense in which these cinematic subjects tacitly offer their blessing of the film’s account, enabling a kind of self-perpetuating reinforcement of the text’s authority and authenticity. Indeed, the real-life Wilson himself appears in a cameo as a television producer (an appearance immediately pointed out to the audience by Coogan-as-Wilson) Despairing at the pretentious fictional Wilson for regurgitating Boethius’s sage words on individual fate while presenting the aptly titled game show, Wheel of Fortune, the real-Wilson’s appearance as “a minor character in my own story” simultaneously rubbishes and authenticates 24 Hour Party People’s account.

Figure 4: Poster. Image used with the kind permission of http://www.cerysmaticfactory.info.

“Have You Never Heard of Situationism, or Postmodernism?”

The reflexivity of 24 Hour Party People and its implications for the Factory myth, however, cannot be overlooked. Indeed, in the existing scholarly work which makes reference to 24 Hour Party People, it is this very reflexivity that is most frequently commented on, particularly with a general gesture towards the tropes of literary postmodernism. James Leggott notes how the film draws “satirical energy” from the collision between Wilson the “self-conscious intellectual” and the “working-class authenticity” usually associated with popular culture (and, one could extrapolate, its on-screen depictions),[30] while Alan Kirby finds a historical location for the film in the “halcyon days of high postmodernism”.[31] Indeed, postmodernism, Situationism, and “the free play of signs and signifiers” are all name-checked in the film itself when Wilson is forced to defend Joy Division’s Nazi-inspired name, while later in the film, he addresses the camera to confirm that he is “being postmodern. Before it was fashionable”. 24 Hour Party People’s propensity towards such tropes, however, can also be understood more specifically as stemming from its relationship with the Factory mythology.

Rather than the readings of Leggott and Kirby, then, 24 Hour Party People can be seen as using the very same postmodern devices which informed the syndicalist spirit of Factory to undermine the sense of “icy authority” often attributed to its public aesthetic.[32] Indeed, the real Wilson is keen to locate Factory’s soul as firmly opposed to both the dirigiste urban planning of post-war Labourism,[33] and the monetarist economics of neo-liberal champion and Conservative minister Sir Keith Joseph,[34] a war on two fronts against top-down politics of the mainstream centre left and right which Haslam similarly identifies in the creative communities of the period.[35] As such, the film’s historical unreliability becomes its source of vitality. Only when the Manchester script is scrawled with postmodern graffiti –the extra diegetic captions, the freeze frames, the computer generated UFOs– does it become the 24 Hour Party People script. These considerations of oppositional narratives become all the more relevant when considered in relation to Winterbottom’s subsequent film projects. In an interview about his film adaptation of The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein’s 2009 critique of neo-liberalism as political project, Winterbottom explained:

Naomi’s argument is against what she perceives as the dominant narrative, the dominant idea. The events she picks out span my adult life. For me it was about making people see them in a different light […] Milton Friedman seemed extreme at the time of Thatcher’s election, but the last Labour government seemed to be living under the same ideology as Thatcher. It is important to show alternatives.[36]

While it would be conjecture to suggest that this notion of showing alternative narratives to neo-liberalism informed 24 Hour Party People, it is nevertheless important to note that Winterbottom is more generally concerned with challenging political orthodoxy by offering contentious counter-narratives (consider the controversial The Road to Guantanamo, 2006, for example). With this in mind, it is worth considering 24 Hour Party People’s narrative and stylistic techniques in more detail.

The comic intercutting of archive footage allows 24 Hour Party People to maintain an ironic distance from the history it depicts. When Wilson attends the influential Sex Pistols gig at the Lesser Free Trade Hall on 4 June, 1976, the scene is constructed from a combination of re-enactment and actual concert footage. Journalist Ryan Letts (Rob Brydon) wields a Super 8 camera (see Fig. 5), and as he turns to film the stage, the camera pulls away and cuts to a long shot of actors portraying the Sex Pistols. For the inevitable close- up, however, actual footage is inserted. While this flourish of editing adds a sense of historical spontaneity (the real concert footage is particularly shaky) and perhaps even a sense of documentary authority, it also proves something of an in-joke for aficionados of pop music lore, given that the number of individuals who have claimed to have been at the concert has steadily and implausibly grown over the years.[37] Rather than make a similarly compromised claim at historical accuracy, the film instead frames concert footage within the diegesis: as Letts’ Super 8 camera suggests, this is history through the deliberately twisted eyes of 24 Hour Party People.

 A flurry of real concert footage ensues, with Coogan’s flustered Wilson comically inserted into the pogoing audiences of Iggy Pop, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Jam, and The Stranglers. This is, of course, a cinematic device perhaps most notably deployed in Forest Gump (Robert Zemeckis, 1994), whereby Gump, the narrator-protagonist, is digitally integrated into historical footage of twentieth century US icons like JFK and Richard Nixon. As Tiso Giovanni notes, the act of viewing these moments is marked by an “ontological paradox whereby the seamlessness of the insertion from the point of view of its photographic realism should be – but isn’t – negated by the fact that spectator is fully aware of the deception. Or, to put it another way: we admire how real those images look precisely because we know that they have been forged, and the manner in which they have been forged.”[38]

This paradox is constructed in a much less sophisticated manner in 24 Hour Party People. Coogan is not pasted into the same frame as Iggy Pop, nor is John Lydon digitally manipulated to speak Cotttrell Boyce’s script; part of the comic appeal of these scenes is their crude construction, and the notion that anyone would accept their ontological veracity is deliberately risible. Indeed, just as Wilson-the-Narrator is the postmodern prophet to Gump’s ignorant messiah, self-consciously commentating on pop culture history rather than unwittingly inspiring it, so too does 24 Hour Party People represent the ambiguous, sarcastic riposte to Forest Gump’s assured, deeply reactionary negation of popular struggle in America.[39]

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

 While linear plot exposition is not necessarily a prerequisite of the authoritative biopic, neither is anachronism a typically desired feature of the historical account. Again, 24 Hour Party People willingly exploits the distancing effects of chronological play, having Ian Curtis and Martin Hannett appear at the final night at the Haçienda when it had already depicted both of their funerals, and leaving its supposedly 1970s mise en scène littered with anachronistic satellite dishes and car registration plates. When Wilson is depicted filming a filler interview with an elderly former canal worker for Granada news in the late 1980s, these themes of memory, wilful anachronism, and postmodern historicising become subtly intertwined. Hoping to tease out a series of nostalgic Victorian images which, as this article has previously explored, typically litter media coverage of the city, Wilson asks his interviewee “what do you remember about the canals in those days?”. Unexpectedly, the man replies: “Very little”. His hopes for stereotypical recollection shattered, Wilson asks his camera man whether any of the footage is salvageable. As 24 Hour Party People’s own camera operator pans to show the diegetic Granada camera man, with Wilson declaring that “I don’t think we’re going to be able to use much of this”, the Merchants Bridge, built in 1995 and thus jarringly anachronistic, becomes clearly visible. The apparent contrast in the standards of Wilson’s diegetic film project and those of 24 Hour Party People again initiates an ironic dialectic with its audience, warning them not to take the film’s truth claims too seriously, given that they apparently cannot even be bothered to check for basic continuity errors.

Figure 8

These deliberate conflations of urban myth, retrospective accounts, obscure in-jokes and wilful invention reach their alienating zenith following the depiction of a sexual encounter between Buzzcocks/Magazine vocalist Howard Devoto and Wilson’s wife in the toilets of the Russell Club, the site of the inaugural Factory gig. As the camera tracks away from the toilet cubicle, the real Howard Devoto, dressed as a janitor, addresses the camera to admit “I definitely don’t remember that happening.” (see Fig. 7). A freeze frame occurs, as Wilson, via a voice-over, explains to the audience what has just happened, and relays Devoto’s insistence that the affair is a work of fiction; at this juncture, the text undermines both its portentous narrator and itself, warning the audience that no detail in its account of the past can be completely trusted.

Figure 9

In drawing his history of Manchester’s contribution to popular culture to a close, Haslam argues for the “urgent need to find a less glamorous but more profound definition of ‘regeneration’” centred around the needs of social groups that have been typically air-brushed out of most PR-friendly urban renewal initiatives.[40] While a commercial endeavour like 24 Hour Party People shares little of this bottom-up imperative –the cinematic resistance in the radical tradition of Malcolm Whitehead’s Joy Division, perhaps– it nevertheless displays an ambivalence towards the triumphalist Manchester script to the extent that it does not quite meet Hatherley’s charge of “egregious” auto-hagiography.[41] Instead, 24 Hour Party People is marked by a contradiction between its affection for Factory’s oppositional ingenuity, and its own contribution to the on-going culture-led regeneration of Manchester which ultimately acquiesces to the neo-liberal forces that Wilson originally attempted to resist. 24 Hour Party People’s depiction of drug-related violence in what is implicitly understood to be the Moss Side district of the city perhaps captures this tension most saliently. As Haslam has noted, Moss Side and areas like it are conspicuously absent from accounts of Manchester’s regeneration; when they do receive media attention, it is invariably in the form sensationalist and reductive accounts of gang violence.[42]

Indeed, when 24 Hour Party People engages with these issues, they remain marginal: drug gangs as comic irritant for Wilson and the Haҫienda, and as such, South Manchester council estates and their residents are only gleaned as part of a brief montage of drive-by shootings and late night drug buys, before the film’s gaze returns to Wilson’s ramshackle regeneration. The blurred, obscured cinematography of these fleeting shots proves unintentionally symbolic, capturing the sense in which 24 Hour Party People ultimately shies away from a truly critical representation of Manchester’s culture-led regeneration. Whether it follows that the film is a hagiography is debatable. However, what is certain is that, while the film’s ironic distance from Mancunian myth-making goes some way to distinguish it as an artefact set apart from neo-liberalism’s crassest eviscerations of local heritage, this same aloofness ultimately finds 24 Hour Party People silent on exactly the subject matter that Wilson and his contemporaries would no doubt be very loud.

Bibliography:

Anon. “Peter Hook’s Guided Tour of Manchester”, Manchester Evening News.co.uk  28 January 2011, accessed 20 August 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPXABHKA8es&feature=related

Anon. “Box Office/Business for 24 Hour Party People”, accessed 13 August 2012, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274309/business.

Brooks, Xan. “24 Hour Party People” Sight and Sound, May 2002, 55-56.

 Byers, Thomas B.. “History Re-Membered: Forrest Gump, Postfeminist Masculinity, and the Burial of the Counterculture”, Modern Fiction Studies 42.2 (1996): 419-444.

Hall, Peter. Cities in Civilisation: Culture, Information and Urban Order. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1998.

Haslam, Dave. Manchester, England. London: Fourth Estate, 1999.

Hatherley, Owen. “From Rock to Rubble: How Manchester Lost its Music”, The Guardian Online, 9 August 2010, accessed 12 August 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc3-1U1ZxHA

Jones, Martin. and Gordon Macleod, “Regional Tensions: Constructing Institutional Cohesion?, City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester, ed. Jamie Peck and Kevin Ward, 276-189. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.

Kirby, Alan. Digimodernism: How New Technologies Dismantle the Postmodern and Reconfigure Our Culture, London: Continuum, 2009.

Leggott, James. Contemporary British Cinema: From Heritage to Horror. London: Wallflower, 2008.

Luckett, Moya. “Image and Nation in 1990s British Cinema”, British Cinema of the 90s, ed. Robert Murphy, 88-99. London: British Film Institute, 2000.

Miller, Toby. “The Film Industry and the Government: ‘Endless Mr Beans and Mr Bonds’?”, British Cinema of the 90s, ed. Robert Murphy, 37-47. London: British Film Institute, 2000.

Monk, Claire. “The Heritage Film Debate Revisited”, British Historical Cinema, ed. Claire Monk and Amy Sargeant, 176-198. London: Routledge, 2002.

Peck, Jamie. and Kevin Ward, “Placing Manchester,”, City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester, ed. Jamie Peck and Kevin Ward, 1-8. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.

Quilley, Steve. “Entrepreneurial Turns: Municipal Socialism and After”, City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester, ed. Jamie Peck and Kevin Ward, 76-94. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.

Robson, Brian. “Mancunian Ways: the Politics of Regeneration,”, City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester, ed. Jamie Peck and Kevin Ward, 34-49. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.

Tiso, Giovanni. “How to be a Retronaut”, Bat, Beam, Bean, 7 November 2011, accessed 13 August 2012, http://bat-bean-beam.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/how-to-be-retronaut.html.

Trilling, Daniel. “The Film Interview: Michael Winterbottom”, New Statesman, 18 June 2010, accessed 13 August 2012, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/cultural-capital/2010/06/michael-winterbottom-killer-violenc.

Wilson, Matthew. Pills, Thrills, and Property Development: the Role of Pop-Cultural Entrepreneurs in the Regeneration of Manchester City Centre (Slide Rule Press, 2012) Kindle DX version.

Filmography:

24 Hour Party People DVD. Directed by Michael Winterbottom (2002; London: Pathé, 2003)

Joy Division: a Film by Malcolm Whitehead. Footage reproduced in Joy Division: Their Own Story in Their Own Words DVD. Directed by Malcolm Whitehead (1979; Universal City, California: Universal, 2007)

Joy Division: Their Own Story in Their Own Words DVD. Directed by Grant Gee (2007; Universal City, California: Universal, 2007).


[1] Peter Hall, Cities in Civilisation: Culture, Information and Urban Order (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1998), 310.

[2] Wilson’s occupation according to his headstone.

[3] Jamie Peck and Kevin Ward, “Placing Manchester,”, City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester, ed. Jamie Peck and Kevin Ward (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 1.

[4] Brian Robson, “Mancunian Ways: the Politics of Regeneration,” City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester, 37-8.

[5] Bonnie Malkin, “Mr Manchester Tony Wilson Dies,” The Telegraph, 11 August, 2007; Anon, “Tributes Paid to ‘Mr Manchester”, BBC NEWS, August 11, 2007, accessed 6 August 2012, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6941716.stm.

[6] Martin Jones and Gordon Macleod, “Regional Tensions: Constructing Institutional Cohesion?,” City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester.

[7] Joy Division: Their Own Story in Their Own Words DVD. Directed by Grant Gee (2007; Universal City, California: Universal, 2007).

[8] Bonus material, Joy Division: Their Own Story in Their Own Words DVD.

[9] Steve Quilley, “Entrepreneurial Turns: Municipal Socialism and After”, City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester, 91.

[10] Dave Haslam, Manchester, England (London: Fourth Estate, 1999), 164.

[11] Joy Division: Their Own Story in Their Own Words DVD. Directed by Grant Gee (2007; Universal City, California: Universal, 2007).

[12] Peck and Ward, “Placing Manchester,”, 12.

[13] Ibid., 5.

[14] Matthew Wilson, Pills, Thrills, and Property Development: the Role of Pop-Cultural Entrepreneurs in the Regeneration of Manchester City Centre (Slide Rule Press, 2012) Kindle DX version. Chapter 5, paragraph 8.

[15] “Peter Hook’s Guided Tour of Manchester”, Manchester Evening News.co.uk  28 January 2011, accessed 20 August 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPXABHKA8es&feature=related.

[16] Owen Hatherley,  A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain (London: Verso, 2010), 137, 149-150.

[17] Haslam, Manchester, England, 266.

[18] Owen Hatherley,  A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain, 120.

[19] Claire Monk, “The Heritage Film Debate Revisited”, British Historical Cinema, ed. Claire Monk and Amy Sargeant (London: Routledge, 2002), 183.

[20] Moya Luckett “Image and Nation in 1990s British Cinema”, British Cinema of the 90s, ed. Robert Murphy (London: British Film Institute, 2000), 88.

[21] Ibid., 90.

[22] Toby Miller, “The Film Industry and the Government: ‘Endless Mr Beans and Mr Bonds’?”, British Cinema of the 90s, 44.

[23] Xan Brooks, “24 Hour Party People” Sight and Sound, May 2002, 55-56.

[24] “Box Office/Business for 24 Hour Party People”, accessed 13 August 2012, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274309/business. Unfortunately, no other sources are available to verify this figure. No information is available as to the film’s budget.

[25] Haslam, Manchester, England, 256.

[26]Ibid.,ix.

[27] Brooks, “24 Hour Party People” Sight and Sound.

[28] Urbis, now housing the National Football Museum, is an exhibition space built as part of the regeneration project following the 1996 IRA bombing, whose construction was funded by the Millennium Commission and Manchester City Council. Its exhibition remit previously accommodated several exhibitions that drew upon Manchester’s industrial and cultural heritage.

[29] Besides Wilson himself, these include: Paul Ryder and Roweta of the Happy Mondays, Mark E. Smith of the Fall, Mani of The Stone Roses, Howard Devoto of The Buzzocks and Magazine, Clint Boon of Inspiral Carpets, Vini Reilly, Haҫienda DJs Jon DaSilva, Mike Pickering and Dave Haslam.

[30] James Leggott, Contemporary British Cinema: From Heritage to Horror (London: Wallflower, 2008), 90.

[31] Alan Kirby, Digimodernism: How New Technologies Dismantle the Postmodern and Reconfigure Our Culture (London: Continuum, 2009), 48.

[32] Brooks, “24 Hour Party People” Sight and Sound.

[33] Wilson, 24 Hour Party People, 53-54

[34] Ibid., 132.

[35] Haslam, Manchester, England, xxi-xxix, 171, 228, 275-6.

[36] Daniel Trilling, “The Film Interview: Michael Winterbottom”, New Statesman, 18 June 2010, accessed 13 August 2012, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/cultural-capital/2010/06/michael-winterbottom-killer-violenc, emphasis added.

[37] Haslam, Manchester, England, 110.

[38] Giovanni Tiso, “How to be a Retronaut”, Bat, Beam, Bean, 7 November 2011, accessed 13 August 2012, http://bat-bean-beam.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/how-to-be-retronaut.html.

[39] Thomas B Byers, “History Re-Membered: Forrest Gump, Postfeminist Masculinity, and the Burial of the Counterculture”, Modern Fiction Studies 42.2 (1996), 421.

[40] Haslam, Manchester, England, 275.

[41] Owen Hatherley,  A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain, 120.

[42] Haslam, Manchester, England, 240.

Joe Barton is a Ph.D. student in the School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics at Newcastle University. His thesis explores the effects of digital technology on filmmaking and the relationship between cinema and wider digital culture. His other research interests include British comedy, satire, and representational politics. Contact email: j.f.barton@ncl.ac.uk.

Frames # 2 BAFTSS 21-11-2012. This article © Joe Barton. This article has been blind peer-reviewed.

Film and Moving Image Studies: Re-Born Digital? Some Participant Observations

A Thumbnail Sketch from Catherine Grant on Vimeo.

[C]inematic and electronic screens differently demand and shape our ‘presence’ to the world and our representation in it. Each differently and objectively alters our subjectivity while each invites our complicity in formulating space, time, and bodily investment as significant personal and social experience. [Vivian Sobchack, 2000] (1)

The time is now ripe to join the insights of decades of film and media studies with the new modes of information management, visualization, and dissemination that digital technologies are enabling. Who better to reimagine the relationship of scholarly form to content than those who have devoted their careers to studying narrative structure, representation and meaning, or the aesthetics of visuality? [Tara McPherson, 2009] (2)

Vast numbers of feature-films and other cinematographic productions [now] exist as digital footage […]. [R]ecording and editing devices […] are available for everyone. When it comes to working with this treasure, the pertinent questions are analogous or even identical to those [that people who make films or videos about films] are confronted with: Which elements of an existing movie can I work with? What can be used, what am I allowed to use? What is a citation, what is a copy, what is a transmission? What is —in the broadest sense—legally or even morally interesting or possible, what is aesthetically interesting or possible in the working-with or the deictical gestures (the showing)? And who should watch all this? To be more specific: What is the difference between digital footage found on the net and the tangible footage collected in movie archives or found in the dustbin of history? What is algorithmic and what is intellectual indexicalization? [Stefan Pethke et al, 2009] (3)

[The Virtual Window Interactive] suggests that the digital format is not at its best in building a complex argument; it works by accretion, by juxtaposition, by comparative assemblage. It is rhizomatic. [Anne Friedberg, 2009] (4)

While the coincidence between the cinema’s centenary and the arrival of digital technology created an opposition between the old and the new, the convergence of the two media translated their literal chronological relationship into a more complex dialectic [which] produces innovative ways of thinking about the complex temporality of cinema and its significance for the present moment in history. As the flow of cinema is displaced by the process of delay [achieved at the press of a button in electronic viewing] spectatorship is affected, re-configured and transformed so that old films can be seen with new eyes and digital technology, rather than killing the cinema, brings it new life and new directions. [Laura Mulvey, 2011] (5)

Film and moving image scholars have clearly been thinking for some time about the advantages and disadvantages for our subjects of the affordances of digital technology. Their views on this matter, like those cited above, have always been rather mixed. In her most recently published work, (6) leading writer on media theory N. Katherine Hayles applies to contemporary digital media her understanding of technogenesis—the idea that the human species has co-evolved with its tools and technologies. She argues that, in recent decades, as a result of the computational turn in human culture, ‘our brains have increasingly been rewired around a hyper-attentive framework’, (7) one ‘characterized by switching focus rapidly between different tasks, preferring multiple information streams, seeking a high level of stimulation, and having a low tolerance for boredom’. (8) It’s the kind of mind-set almost certainly responsible for the aesthetic approach of the above-embedded video accompaniment to this introduction. (9)

Hayles doubts ‘[w]hether the synaptic reconfigurations associated with hyper attention are better or worse than those associated with deep attention’ or, indeed, whether such a question can be answered at all in the abstract. (10) Yet one of the most important elements of her argument is its implied reminder that continued human cognitive ‘progress’ is not only far from inevitable, but that it is a profoundly exceptionable concept to begin with. Evolution, with technological tools or without them, is commonly understood to lead only to the ‘survival’ of those most suited to their contingent circumstances. As Hayles argues, while a ‘case can be made that hyper attention is more adaptive than deep attention for many situations in contemporary developed societies’, (11) this cognitive framework is unlikely always to lead to the production of, say, the deepest, most meaningful or, indeed, most critical academic, or pedagogic, work that human civilization has ever known. So, as ever, when we use tools, technologies and methodologies, digital or otherwise, in our critical and creative practices—as researchers, as teachers, as film and video makers— it is important that we understand as fully as possible (not only biologically and perceptually, but critically, politically and ethically, too) what is at stake in using them—what we might gain, and what we might lose (12) —all the while knowing that, in so many ways, we really aren’t free to choose our cognitive circumstances, or, indeed, our adaptations to these.

I turn my own hyper attention, now, to my chosen subject (13) as honoured guest editor of this inaugural issue of the online journal Frames. (14) In this capacity, I invited 39 fellow film and moving image scholars (including established and emergent film scientists, archivists, publishers, and film and video makers), (15) all of them digital-participant-observers of one kind or another, to contribute their responses in a variety of forms (16) to a semi-rhetorical question: ‘have film and moving image studies been “re-born” digital?’ (17) In other words, what can we do now that we couldn’t before—and what can we no longer do as well—as a result of our increasing take up of particular digital scholarly technologies? Is a language of ‘re-vitalization’ an appropriate one to describe digital developments in our subjects? (18

Despite the reference to (re-)birthing, my desire to pose this question at this point was not prompted by a belief that the applications of digital technologies to film studies should be considered especially new-born, even as some of them may still be novel. Indeed, my scholarly generation and its adjacent ones are composed of very well adapted digital immigrants, by and large. (19) The entirety of my own academic career to date, for example, has been very happily lived out in an era of bits and bytes. During the academic year 1990-1991, I submitted the doctoral thesis that I had nicely composed and printed out on my first suite of personal computer equipment, purchased two years earlier. This was also the year in which I took up my first proper lecturing post at a university in which email was just about to become, very rapidly, the main form of intra-and inter-collegiate communication. Perhaps less typically, I even co-wrote my first academic website in .html back in 1996, (20) inspired by the pioneering online work of scholars like Daniel Chandler and Sarah Zupko, and curious, as I still am, about the possibilities that they were exploring of hyperlinking to further scholarly resources. (21) The below ‘timeline’ (22) ­—which, somewhat partially, plots digital film studies developments as I remember them from my perspective as a (mostly) English-language focused scholar following them avidly­—shows just how ‘long-established’ some of the applications I am talking about actually are.


Figure 1 (23A slide from my presentation ‘Film and Moving Image Studies: Re-Born Digital?’ University of Sussex, February 24, 2012 (24)

Just as digital technology is hardly a recent addition to film scholarly culture, the present collection of essays is certainly not the first substantial volume of work to ask important methodological questions of our studies as they have been performed digitally. USC scholars Tara McPherson and Steve Anderson, two genuine innovators in this field, are co-founders and co-editors of, among other online and digital initiatives, Vectors: Journal of Culture and Technology in a Dynamic Vernacular, launched in 2005. (25) The first journal to overcome the principal obstacle to media scholarship that combines text, images, sound, and film (that there was almost nowhere to publish it), Vectors focused its investigations ‘at the intersection of technology and culture’, and not only in relation to its thematics. As Anderson and McPherson write,

Rather, [the journal] is realized in multimedia, melding form and content […].  Vectors features submissions and specially-commissioned works comprised of moving- and still-images; voice, music, and sound; computational and interactive structures; social software; and much more. Vectors doesn’t seek to replace text; instead, we encourage a fusion of old and new media in order to foster ways of knowing and seeing that expand the rigid text-based paradigms of traditional scholarship. Simply put, we publish only works that need, for whatever reason, to exist in multimedia. In so doing, we aim to explore the immersive and experiential dimensions of emerging scholarly vernaculars across media platforms. (26)

Vectors’ experiments in multimedia and multimodal digital praxis were only possible, at least prior to the popularity of video sharing sites like YouTube in the mid 2000s, or to the founding in the late 2000s (also by Steve Anderson) of Critical Commons, an excellent media studies video archive, because McPherson and Anderson took the political and practical decision to work with web designers and programmers in order to create and host their own technological and scholarly infrastructure. They also applied for, and deservedly received, substantial grant funding to do this. It is perhaps because of the significant costs, and on-going commitment and expertise necessary for such endeavours, that the Vectors model has not been taken up more widely by many of the other experiments in scholarly film and moving image publishing, either before or since. (27)

In 2009, though, McPherson put some of Vectors’ forms and methods on the mainstream Film and Media Studies map (28) when she edited a dossier on ‘Digital Scholarship and Pedagogy’ for the U.S. Society of Cinema and Media Studies’ periodical Cinema Journal. (29) In her introduction, presenting articles by seven fellow scholars at the cutting edge of these practices, (30) McPherson took the pulse of their shared multimodal methods:

[Their] multiperspectival quality (as well as the new visualization processes that can render it meaningful) also has possibility for scholarly knowledge production. […T]he role of computation in the humanities is about much more than building robust archives that scholars then write about in traditional ways (as rich as that work can be); it is also about navigating new pathways through scholarly materials that can transform the questions scholarship might ask.

Beyond the database, emerging and existing computing technologies allow us to imagine very different scholarly “outputs” at the surface of the screen—we might create powerful simulations, visualize space and time in compelling ways, or structure data that the user can then play like a video game, richly annotate on the fly, or capture and represent in interesting new ways. Exploring database thinking and creating new genres of argument produce new relationships for scholars: to our objects of study, our methodologies, and our potential collaborators. They also reconfigure our understandings of technology’s role in the humanities (and vice versa), and, often, to broader publics in and outside of the academy. (31)

Around three years on, this issue of Frames has set out to revisit, with the undoubted benefit of much greater ‘digital era’ hindsight, many of the affordances that McPherson can, in part, only imagine in this passage, as well as elsewhere in her introduction. Indeed, looking back at it now, the Cinema Journal dossier feels as much a work of important speculation as of reflection. In the intervening years, a great deal more digital film studies work has actually been produced, or is in the process of being developed, so this present edited collection has the luxury of being able to focus even more on our medium (and disciplinary) specificities than the earlier volume was able to. (32) Furthermore, as Frames exists purely as an online journal it can afford to devote much more space to this discussion, and is able to offer its readers an openly accessible as well as timely critical engagement with the topics discussed in the issue (all the contributors have submitted their essays during the last five months). Perhaps most importantly, however—like Vectors, but not (yet) Cinema Journal (33) —Frames can both explore and represent in media res the particular methodologies of the audiovisual film and moving image studies that are increasingly appearing online. Around half of its contents addresses those matters.

This strong focus on videographic studies will come as no surprise to anyone remotely familiar with my own work in recent years. I have been researching the development of online and digital film scholarly and pedagogic forms in a systematic way since 2008 when I launched my blog Film Studies For Free. Three years ago, I began to make, as well as seriously to curate, film studies videos, very much inspired by the kinds of work appearing around that time in online cinephilic and film critical culture. (34) My deep attachment to this form is not only due to its highly compelling qualities as a scholarly object, one that can easily be published and disseminated in innovative ways, but also because of its great potential as a research tool and process. Non-linear video editing programmes provide an excellent adaptable platform for audiovisual exploration of digitised film material, of highly beneficial forms of instrumental, as well as usefully non-instrumental, forms of looking and listening, as I argue in my own video contributions to the P.O.V. section of this issue.

The scholars and critics whose videos, or written essays about this form, are published here are working in, at times, similar but also strikingly different ways to one another. Fortunately, so far, the forms of these critical artefacts have not become fixed yet: we can still very productively argue about them, as Adrian Martin and Janet Bergstrom do brilliantly in their respective contributions to the issue, and as Cristina Álvarez López also does her in her highly compelling reconsideration of her own video essay on films by Krzysztof Kieślowski and David Lynch, Double Lives, Second Chances.

In a reminder that we are not only dealing with elite, small circulation forms when we examine online scholarly moving image culture, contributions by two essayists, whose videos deservedly went ‘viral’, are published in this issue: those by Matthias Stork (Chaos Cinema) and Erlend Lavik (Style in The Wire). Both of them consider the video essay form from different angles in two essays each for Frames: Stork’s shorter contribution also includes a new video on Sergio Leone’s cinematic style. Two further videos appear online for the first time in this issue: one by the most prominent, prolific and inventive online video essayist in the world, filmmaker and critic Kevin B. Lee. Lee uses the work of Harun Farocki to explore the graphical user interfaces of old and new audiovisual essayism, including his own practices in this form. Meanwhile film and digital media scholar-practitioner Richard Misek offers us his new work ‘Mapping Rohmer’, part of an exciting new trend in online ‘cartographic film studies’. (35)

Three separate discussions of different forms of film and media studies teaching practice using video essays are included (with very useful examples) by Christian Keathley, who has made some excellent video essays himself, by Kelli Marshall, and by Janet Bergstrom and Matthias Stork in their usefully detailed dialogue (their discussion also took in Bergstrom’s own very ‘high end’ video essay practice for prestigious DVD collections, alongside her other digital work). On the related form of the remix, film scholar (and curator-blogger) Katherine Groo explores (and hails) the scholarly possibilities of this form with reference to Aitor Gametxo’s video dissection of D.W. Griffith’s 1912 The Sunbeam in her important contribution to film historiographical debates, which opens the issue. To exemplify the work of scholars across a broad range of contexts we also publish two further remixes, both (different) kinds of research films based, in part, on French cinema: ‘Snakes and Funerals’, the digital video element of an offline installation by Emily Jeremiah, James S. Williams and Gillian Wylde, part of the Queer, the Space research project—also a beautifully askew meditation on Jean-Luc Godard’s 1963 film Le Mépris; and Joanna Callaghan’s associative digital video sketching in her philosophical ‘MASHING UP Derrida and Film’ experiment, part of the Ontological Narratives (Arts and Humanities Research Council funded) project led by Callaghan in collaboration with Professor Martin McQuillan.

All of the above mentioned video projects inevitably raise important, indeed pressing, questions of fair use or fair dealing for non-commercial, scholarly and critical purposes and contexts. While it was not possible, within the timescale of the production of this issue, to obtain research or views on these matters beyond the U.S.A., two brilliant and highly original contributions to the issue—by Steve Anderson, on ‘Fair Use and Media Studies in the Digital Age’, and by Jaimie Baron, on ‘The Image as Direct Quotation: Identity, Transformation, and the Case for Fair Use’—employ knowledge and understanding of the U.S. legal situation, with regard to audio, visual and audiovisual scholarly quotation, in order to raise many philosophical, ethical and political issues of international relevance.

Not all online videos of interest to film scholars take the critical, historical, theoretical, or phenomenological forms of the essays above. So Frames also wanted to flag up the important work in evidence on the Internet in relation to new documentary forms and technologies. Contributions follow as a result by world leading academic writers and practitioners in this field: Patricia Aufderheide gives an important overview of the hugely exciting developments in ‘Open Video Documentary’, Michael Chanan discusses his highly impactful video blogging practice in ‘Video Rising / Remarks on video, activism and the web’, and Alexandra Juhasz, author of the first open video book published by a university press on film and media studies, waxes multimodal about her highly original online work in ‘You Get the Picture’. (36)

Another substantial area of interest in assembling the work for this collection is, unsurprisingly, the broad field of online film and moving image studies publishing. Leading film theorist and historian, prolific on- and offline author, and accomplished video essayist Kristin Thompson headlines the P.O.V. section with her reflections ‘Not in Print: Two Film Scholars on the Internet’. Renowned blogger and now co-editor, with Adrian Martin, of the new online film journal LOLA, Girish Shambu elegantly raises the pleasures of cinephile micro-publishing and digital ‘sharing’ in his short essay ‘A Universe of New Images’. There are further reflections on different scholarly modes of blogging by Glen W. Norton who looks back at his truly pioneering and inspiring online work at Cinema=Godard=Cinema, by Nick Redfern on his online Film Studies research, and by Frames’ editor Fredrik Gustafsson on ‘Blogging and Tweeting in an Age of Austerity’. Andrew Myers also brilliantly dissects the issues involved in innovative, open access and multimedia journal publishing as he weighs up his experience as current Editor-in-Chief at Mediascape in ‘Click Here To Print This Video Essay.’

In a witty and detailed discussion of her ‘Proto-Scholastic Musing’ practice at her widely read blog Celebrity Gossip, Academic Style, Anne Helen Petersen flags up issues which connect very well with ones raised by the highly distinguished film scholar Pam Cook in her research article for the issue, ‘Labours of Love: In Praise of Fan Websites’. Both these participant observers draw attention to the remarkable resources that have grown up online in the informal collections of fan websites.

Informal archives or assemblages, such as the ones Cook is discussing, join with formal archives and databases to form one of the other main digital film studies points of focus for this issue of Frames. In her article ‘Sparking Ideas, Making Connections:  Digital Film Archives and Collaborative Scholarship’, Sarah Atkinson presents her fascinating research on SP-ARK, an interactive online project based on the multimedia archive of filmmaker Sally Potter. Having previously shared online her remarkable research into special and digital effects, internationally renowned film scholar Barbara Flueckiger presents her new database research for Frames in her piece ‘Analysis of Film Colors in a Digital Humanities Perspective’. Meanwhile Dominic Leppla compellingly discusses his work for the important translation and archive project The Permanent Seminar on Histories of Film Theories; and St Andrews Film Studies scholar Tom Rice valuably sets out his experience of ‘Opening the Colonial Film Archive’. Two further, recently established, online film archives of interest to visit, and to compare with the above projects, include the Media History Digital Library (37) and the The Turconi Project. (38)

A number of the archives, open video projects, and databases covered in numerous contributions to this issue of Frames, are already experimenting with forms of crowd sourcing, tagging and machine readability, along with other digital affordances. These seem almost certain to begin to challenge, not only in purely formal ways, some of the long-held tenets of film and moving image studies as much as, or possibly even more than, earlier challenges in, and to, film theory have done. (39) This brings us on to the emergent field of cultural analytics and digital metrics. Three further research articles focus on these matters (and Atkinson’s above-mentioned article explores them in detail, too). Joshua McVeigh-Schultz discusses the critical film-tagging project he is working on (alongside that veritable digital-film-studies lynchpin, Steve Anderson): ‘Movie Tagger Alpha’. A team of computer scientists—represented here by Matthias Zeppelzauer, Dalibor Mitrović and Christian Breiteneder, all working with the Austrian Film Museum to analyse film material from the Dziga Vertov collection—present their work in ‘Archive Film Material – A Novel Challenge for Automated Film Analysis’. Daniel Chávez Heras analyses two important digital film studies endeavours (the Cinemetrics project, and the DIEM Project) from a constructively critical standpoint in his research work on ‘The Malleable Computer: Software and the Study of the Moving Image’. In ‘Thirteen Notes: A Poetics of Cinematic Randomization’, influential academic writer and critic Nicholas Rombes succinctly explores the marvellous practice he invented of randomly selecting (or having a computer programme randomly select) a certain number of images or frames from a digitized film as the basis of interpretation and inquiry.

Finally, in the two last (but not least) of the contributions to the P.O.V. section of Frames, screenwriter and academic Andrew Gay creatively and compellingly applies web 2.0 principles to the teaching of the digital screenplay, and Adelheid Heftberger, one of the highly esteemed collaborators from the Austrian Film Museum in the Dziga Vertov project (with Zeppelzauer et al), asks ‘….not what your web can do for you – ask what you can do for your web!’, as she speculates engagingly, and significantly, about Film Studies in the age of the Digital Humanities.

I intend it to be obvious, from the variety of the above contents, that one of the guiding principles in the composition of the present collection of work was, as far as possible, a commitment to theoretical and methodological pluralism, and genuine interdisciplinarity. (40) So the methods and assumptions of natural science and information science rub digital shoulders with those of creative critical practice and interpretative work. My belief is that film and moving image studies publications ought to be capacious and confident enough to create conversations between discourses and methods that are often kept apart politically and intellectually. (41) Indeed, in this issue, I want to represent what I see as a very healthy spectrum— along which all this work may be located—between the explanatory and poetic modes, as Christian Keathley has very suggestively argued of the film critical video essay form. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t real tensions at either end of the spectrum, between those who only seek to explain and those who only wish to perform their critical insights poetically. But, in the space of this collection, I choose strategically not to foreclose on what may be, and what are, very productive points of contact.

One such point may be the interest in almost all of this work on visualization, on the new forms of ‘visibilities’ and ‘luminosities’—as Daniel Chávez Heras puts it in his contribution—that are afforded by digital technology. When I gaze upon the images created through the data science of cultural-analytics art projects like Brendan Dawes’ work (Figure 2, below), I can’t help but be reminded of the earlier visual analytics of much twentieth-century art and avant-garde culture. I’m even inspired, using my computer’s proprietary software, to create my own imperfect cubisms (42) to pore over (Figure 3, below). These may, of course, incorporate interpolated frames in their amateur capture processes (unlike earlier pre-digital generations of illustrative frame stills). But, because of this, they are capable of raising interesting, and philosophical, questions about digital quotation. And because I can produce them, they can become an even more integral part of my research processes, rather than if I simply commission their production.

Figure 2. A slide from my presentation ‘Film and Moving Image Studies: Re-Born Digital?’ University of Sussex, February 24, 2012 (43

)

Figure 3. D.I.Y. cultural analytics

One of the prominent online practitioners of his own version of Cinemetrics, Frederick Broderick, describes some of his work as ‘an experiment to find out if the data that is inherent in the movie can be used to make something visible that otherwise would remain unnoticed.’ (44) Surely this compulsion is a not so distant digital relative of Walter Benjamin’s ‘unconscious optics’: the idea that the invisible is present inside the visible, and can be revealed to us using new forms of technology—as achieved by the movie camera, in Benjamin’s lifetime:

Evidently, a different nature opens itself to the camera than opens to the naked eye — if only because an unconsciously penetrated space is substituted for a space consciously explored by man. Even if one has general knowledge of the way people walk, one knows nothing of a person’s posture during the fractional second of a stride… Here the camera intervenes with the resources of its lowerings and liftings, its interruptions and isolations, its extensions and accelerations, its enlargements and reductions. (45)

I began my essay by suggesting that digital tools and the new methodologies to which they give birth do make important (sometimes unforeseen, often unwilled) perceptual, indeed phenomenological differences in the ways we experience our familiar scholarly objects, whether these differences turn out to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for us. As Steve Anderson puts it,

Once you start thinking in terms of tagging movies in real time, you don’t ever really go back. My mental model for movie watching for the past year has been the construction of metadata schemes and cognitive databases for all media that I take in. (46)

The debates about the changes that digital technologies are making are clearly taking place against the backdrop of an ever more heightened anxiety (since the centenary of cinema’s actual birth, in Mulvey’s view) (47) about the death of cinema itself. (48) In the middle of all the murders, or manslaughters, that the digital is bringing about, the discussions in this issue mostly focus on useful talk of births and marriages, even if some of the latter turn out to be ones of convenience As I survey this work, and glance out at the digital horizons that lie beyond it, I find very encouraging evidence of the vitality of film and moving image studies, newly energised by their convergent connections with other old and new media studies, with science, and with avant-garde and cinephilic artefacts and communities. Online and digitally, as Mark Betz writes in his excellent study of an older, earlier stage in our disciplines, ‘the repressed film culture that gave rise to film studies has returned with a vengeance.’ (49)

Acknowledgments

I’d like to thank above all Fredrik Gustafsson, founding editor of Frames, for inviting me to guest edit the inaugural issue, as well as for his tireless work to realize the almost impossible vision conjured by that invitation. His expertise and his sense of humour were very good companions in the editorial process. Thanks to Matthew Holtmeier for his invaluable technical assistance with this issue, too.

Warm thanks, also, to all the contributors—at once experts in and participant observers of the digital forms and methods under investigation—for so generously sharing their valuable research and points of view.

Thanks a lot for their patience and support during the editing of this collection to my colleagues at Sussex, and my friends (in particular, JSW). Finally, I’d like to express my deep gratitude, as always, to my partner and the rest of our family for all they do to enable my work, not least to CP on this occasion, for her much-appreciated Photoshop expertise and very kind assistance.

Endnotes:

(1) Vivian Sobchack, ‘The Scene of the Screen: Envisioning Cinematic and Electronic “Presence”’, Electronic Media and Technoculture, ed. John Thornton Caldwell (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2000): 138.

(2) Tara McPherson, ‘Introduction: Media Studies and the Digital Humanities’, Cinema Journal, 48.2, Winter 2009: 120.

(3) Stefan Pethke, Michael Baute, Volker Pantenburg, Stefanie Schlüter and Erik Stein, ‘Films About Films and the Internet’: Programme Description of “The Art of Mediation” Session on Internet ‘Films about Films and the Internet’, cited by Kevin B. Lee, Shooting Down Pictures, April 16, 2009 http://alsolikelife.com/shooting/2009/04/shooting-down-pictures-is-berlin-bound/.

(4) Anne Friedberg, ‘The Digital Scholar’, Cinema Journal, 48.2, Winter 2009: 153.

(5) Laura Mulvey, ‘Passing Time: Reflections on the Old and the New’, in Critical Cinema: Beyond the Theory of Practice, ed. Clive Meyer (New York: Wallflower Press, 2011): 80. Also see Mulvey, Death 24x a Second (London: Reaktion, 2006) regarding the move, enabled by digital technology, from Mulvey’s notion of ‘possessive spectatorship’ (‘fetishistically absorbed by the image of the human body’ Death 24x a Second: 11) to Bellour’s ‘pensive spectatorship’ (‘engaged in reflection on the visibility of time in the cinema’), Mulvey, ibid.

(6) This work has just been published in book form: N. Katherine Hayles, How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).

(7) Scott Rodgers, ‘Hayles: technogenesis, distributed cognition and hyperattention’, PubliclySited, March 8, 2010 http://www.publiclysited.com/hayles-technogenesis-distributed-cognition-and-hyperattention/.

(8) N. Katherine Hayles, ‘My article on hyper and deep attention’, Media Theory for the 21st Century, January 17, 2008 http://media08.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/my-article-on-hyper-and-deep-attention/.

(9) Also see Matthias Stork’s video essays on Chaos Cinema which are embedded and discussed in this issue of Frames, and which take up issues of ‘intensified continuity’ in relation to contemporary action cinema. Also see David Bordwell, ‘Intensified Continuity Revisited’, Observations on Film Art, May 27, 2007 http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2007/05/27/intensified-continuity-revisited/.

(10) Hayles, ‘My article on hyper and deep attention’.

(11) Hayles, ‘My article on hyper and deep attention’.

(12) Anne Friedberg argues this throughout her contribution to the Cinema Journal dossier on Media Studies and the Digital Humanities: ‘The Digital Scholar’, Cinema Journal, 48.2, Winter 2009.

(13) Much of my discussion in this introduction to the Frames issue was rehearsed in a number of invited lectures I gave on digital film studies between 2010 and 2012, including at the University of Nottingham on September 14, 2010, the University of St. Andrews on March 23, 2011, the University of Warwick on November 16, 2011, the British Film Institute on November 21, 2011, and the University of Sussex on February 24, 2012. The slides for the most recent event may be accessed below. Thanks to audiences at all these talks for their generative questions and feedback.

‘Re-Born Digital? Film and Moving Image Studies’ by Catherine Grant

[scribd id=82943520 key=key-qjkckdbtlrctjk22bdm mode=list]

(14) Set up and run by resourceful Film Studies graduate students out of the University of St. Andrews, the third oldest university in the English-speaking world.

(15) I actually invited around 100 scholars from all around the world to participate, including from continents which turn out not to be represented at all in the completed collection. I hope to rectify this unfortunate dearth in future examinations of digital film studies – but, in the meantime, some indications of important multinational and regional work can be found at Film Studies For Free using geographical search tags.

(16) From the peer-reviewed, performative and/or theoretical written and audiovisual work in the opening Feature Articles section through to the multifarious, sometimes more personal, texts and videos in the P.O.V. section.

(17) The focus in this issue is predominantly on Film Studies, but there are also important discussions of television and video.

(18) Thanks to Aristea Fotopoulou for making me think through the languages of ‘vitality’ often attached to ‘Born Digital’ discussions.

(19) Rather than utterly digital natives. See Marc Prensky, ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’, From On the Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001. Online at: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf.

(20) Long offline now, it was a website for the postgraduate programme in Women’s Studies (including feminist film and media studies) at the University of Strathclyde, co-created with Magdalene Ang-Lygate.

(21) I now run a website that continues to be inspired by their work: Film Studies For Free. Below, you can read Charalambos Charalambous’s 2010 study of this site, which contains excerpts from an interview that he conducted with me about it.

WEB 2_Charalambous_Film Studies for Free

(22) See the full set of lecture slides, from which Figure 1 was excerpted, embedded above in footnote 13.

(23) The information about the Video On Demand and movie download sites CinemaNow, Cinero and MovieFlix was taken from Stuart Cunningham and Jon Silver, ‘Appendix 1: Timeline – On-line Distribution of Feature Films’ in eds. Dina Iordanova and Stuart Cunningham, Digital Disruption: Cinema Moves On-line (St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies, 2012): 189.

(24) See endnote 13 for further slides.

(25) Vectors is mentioned in the Figure 1 timeline. McPherson founded it with Steve Anderson one of the contributors to this issue of Frames, and also the Principal Investigator on the Movie Tagger project discussed in this issue by Joshua McVeigh-Schultz.

(26) ‘About Vectors’, Vectors: Journal of Culture and Technology in a Dynamic Vernacular: http://www.vectorsjournal.org/journal/index.php?page=Introduction.

(27) There are some promising and prominent initiatives on the horizon, however. See Dan Cohen, ‘Introducing PressForward’, Dan Cohen, June 22, 2011: http://www.dancohen.org/2011/06/22/introducing-pressforward/.

(28) In the meantime, they had already been taken up to some degree by innovative, U.S. based graduate film and media studies journals such as Mediascape (from 2005), Flow (from 2004; relaunched in 2007 when it became more multimedia-rich), In Media Res (from 2006), and Antenna (from 2009).

(29) ‘In Focus: Digital Scholarship and Pedagogy’, Cinema Journal, 48:2, 2009: 119-160. See McPherson’s ‘Introduction: Media Studies and the Digital Humanities’: 119-123.

(30) By Sharon Daniel, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Anne Friedberg, John Hartley, Alexandra Juhasz, Christopher Lucas and Avi Santo. See Juhasz’s contribution to this issue of Frames.

(31) McPherson, ‘Introduction’: 121-122.

(32) Note how much of McPherson’s introduction was framed as a discussion of the Digital Humanities more broadly.

(33) The 2012 SCMS conference in Boston brought the announcement that the appointment of Will Brooker as the new Cinema Journal editor from next year will herald a raft of collaborations with existing U.S. based online and open access websites, including a number of those listed above in endnote 28. For further information, see the video uploaded here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rct64zZDyyU.

(34) See Catherine Grant, ‘Video Essays: A Multiprotagonist Manifesto’, Film Studies For Free, July 11, 2009 http://filmstudiesforfree.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/video-essays-on-films-multiprotagonist.html. See also Scott Balcerzak and Jason Sperb (eds), Cinephilia in the Age of Digital Reproduction: Film, Pleasure and Digital Culture Vol. 1 (London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2009) for an excellent study of online cinephile culture in general. By far the best (and, to date, only offline) discussion of film critical video essays is Christian Keathley’s ‘La Caméra-Stylo: Notes on Video Criticism and Cinephilia’, in Alex Clayton and Andrew Klevan, (eds), The Language and Style of Film Criticism (London: Routledge, 2011). I have an essay in the next issue of Mediascape (Spring/Summer, 2012) entitled ‘Déjà-Viewing? Videographic Experiments in Intertextual Film Studies’.

(35) See, for instance, the remarkable work of University College London film scholar Roland-François Lack at his website The Cinetourist http://www.thecinetourist.net/.

(36) See also Jason Mittell’s innovative, open scholarly book-in-progress, Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Storytelling, pre-publication edition (MediaCommons Press, 2012) http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/complextelevision/.

(37) The Media History Digital Library is a ‘non-profit initiative dedicated to digitizing collections of classic media periodicals that belong in the public domain for full public access.’

(38) See Luke McKernan’s detailed discussion of the Turconi database, ‘The Turconi project’, The Bioscope, October 17, 2011 http://thebioscope.net/2011/10/17/the-turconi-project/.

(39) None of the following studies raised in any sustained way issues of technology, even as they spoke of, or bespoke, a ‘post-theoretical’ methodological crisis at the heart of Film Studies at, or after, the time of the centenary of cinema: Deborah Knight, ‘Reconsidering Film Theory and Method’, New Literary History 24, no. 2 (1993): 321-38; David Bordwell and Noël Carroll (eds), Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996); Christine Gledhill and Linda Williams (eds), Reinventing Film Studies (London: Arnold, 2000); Lee Grieveson and Haydee Wasson (eds), Inventing Film Studies (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2008).

(40) This kind of pluralism is very much the guiding principle in my curatorial work at Film Studies For Free, too.

(41) I refer here to the occasional ‘jockeying for position’ in film and moving image studies, between, say, approaches descended from ‘continental theories’ and Anglo-American philosophical approaches, or between cognitive film studies and semiotic film studies.

(42) As a fellow Latin Americanist, I particularly like Michael Chanan’s conclusions, in his essay for this issue, about ‘imperfect cinema’. This seems to me an entirely apposite notion to connect with that of an ‘imperfect Digital Humanities’, that is to say, amateur and lo-fi digital manifestations which choose to break with the commodification of corporate-funded technological research and commercial academic publishing, enabling mere ‘spectators’ to become ‘agents’. Michael Chanan, Video Rising: Remarks on Video, Activism and the Web’, Frames # 1, 2012, https://framescinemajournal.com/videorisingremarks.

(43) See endnote 13 for further slides.

(44) Frederic Brodbeck, 2011 bachelor graduation project at the Royal Academy of Arts (KABK), Den Haag http://cinemetrics.fredericbrodbeck.de/. Also see Valentina de Filippo on The Shining http://www.valentinadefilippo.co.uk/portfolio/the-shining/.

(45) Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, in Illuminations (New York: Schocken, 1969): 236-237. Bill Nichols touches on ‘unconscious optics’ indirectly in his 2000 chapter, ‘The Work of Culture in the Age of Cybernetic Systems’: it is very important Benjaminian reading for today’s digital film scholar. In Caldwell (ed.), Electronic Media and Technoculture, op. cit.: 90-114. Thanks to Caroline Bassett for alerting me to this work.

(46) Cited by Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, ‘Movie Tagger Alpha: Critical Tagging in Emerging Methods of Media Scholarship’, Frames # 1, 2012 https://framescinemajournal.com/movietaggeralpha.

(47) Laura Mulvey, ‘Passing Time: Reflections on the Old and the New’, op. cit.

(48) See David Bordwell’s highly compelling discussion of these matters in Pandora’s Digital Box (Madison: self-published ebook, 2012) http://www.davidbordwell.net/books/pandora.php.

(49) Mark Betz, ‘Little Books’, in Lee Grieveson and Haydee Wasson (eds), Inventing Film Studies (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2008), 319-341.

Frames # 1 Film and Moving Image Studies Re-Born Digital?, 2012-07-02. This article is licensed by Catherine Grant under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.

Bonus Tracks: The Making of Touching the Film Object and Skipping ROPE (Through Hitchcock’s Joins)

Skipping ROPE (Through Hitchcock’s Joins)

AUDIO COMMENTARY ON/OFF

Skipping ROPE from Catherine Grant on Vimeo.

AUDIO COMMENTARY ON/OFF

Skipping ROPE with AUDIO COMMENTARY from Catherine Grant on Vimeo.

Bonus Track: Transcription of Commentary 

 

Touching the Film Object

AUDIO COMMENTARY ON/OFF

TOUCHING THE FILM OBJECT? from Catherine Grant on Vimeo.

AUDIO COMMENTARY ON/OFF

Touching The Film Object with AUDIO COMMENTARY from Catherine Grant on Vimeo.

Bonus Track: Transcription of Commentary 

Frames # 1 Film and Moving Image Studies Re-Born Digital?, 2012-07-02. This article (including the videos embedded above) is licensed by Catherine Grant under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.

Introducing Frames

The Film Studies Department at the University of St Andrews prides itself on its engagement with the frontline of cinema studies, with interests and specialisms in film-philosophy, film and ethics, film and transnationalism, and on and offline Film Studies publishing, among others. Following its other successful web initiatives (including, the Deleuze Cinema and Cinema St. Andrews projects) it was, of course, only a matter of time before the Department started its own open access cinema journal, to create a forum for the examination of relatively underexplored and emergent topics in film studies. So, here it is: we call it Frames.

In this, its inaugural issue, Frames is exploring the question: ‘Have Film and Moving Image Studies been Re-Born Digital?’. This topic emerged following our annual St Andrews’ Study Day in March 2011, on Open Access Film Studies, an event organised by the Film Studies department and its PhD students. We asked the keynote speaker that day, Catherine Grant, of the University of Sussex, and curator of the open access campaigning website Film Studies For Free, to be our launch-issue guest editor.

Through her dedicated work Frames is privileged to have received contributions from distinguished scholars and critics from all over the world. It has been a conscious effort from the beginning to get a wide variety of pieces to represent as many aspects of this exciting field as possible. Contributions to the P.O.V. section were encouraged to take varied and innovative forms, and these sit in our journal alongside the peer-reviewed research papers of the Feature Articles section. There are also a large number of highly innovative entries in video formats, including in one of the peer-reviewed essays. Hopefully the issue will prove to be both enlightening and thought provoking.

Acknowledgements:

Making Frames come alive has been a collaborative effort. I am writing on behalf of the editorial board, which also includes Andrew Dorman and Matthew Holtmeier, as well as our book editor Sarah Soliman. But there are many others who have been very important in the process of setting up the journal: Professor Dina Iordanova (Dean of Graduate Studies) and Professor Robert Burgoyne (Head of the Department and Centre for Film Studies) for providing moral (and financial) support. Dr. Alex Marlow-Mann and Dr. Tom Rice for their valuable liaison work between the PhD candidates and the department, and for their helpful advice, and the distinguished members of our editorial-advisory board. And of course our guest editor Dr. Catherine Grant. I have been working closely with her for these last couple of months and it has been a pure delight.

Fredrik Gustafsson

Frames Cinema Journal 

Notes on Editors and Contributors

Editorial board

Fredrik Gustafsson is a third year Ph.D. candidate at University of St Andrews. He has submitted his thesis about Swedish cinema of the 1940s and 1950s, with a special emphasis on the filmmaker Hasse Ekman.

Matthew Holtmeier is a third year Ph.D. candidate at the University of St Andrews. He is writing a thesis about the political importance of Minor Cinemas for audiences in several global sites of filmmaking.

Andrew Dorman is also a third year Ph.D. candidate at the University of St Andrews. He is writing a thesis about contemporary Japanese cinema (and specifically films that have been exported successfully to Western markets in recent years) as a case study with which to explore the transnational status of national cinema.

Book editor

Sarah Soliman is a first year Ph.D. candidate at the University of St Andrews.

Contributors

Cristina Álvarez López lives in Barcelona, Spain. She is a co-founder and co-editor of the Spanish online film journal Transit: Cine y otros desvíos. Her critical writing and audiovisual essays have appeared in the following international publications: Transit, LOLA, Shangri-la, Contrapicado, Lumière, Blogs & Docs, De Filmkrant and La Furia Umana. She holds a Diploma in Cinematographic Theory and Criticism from the Observatorio de Cine de Barcelona (2007), and teaches courses in film study at La Casa del Cine in Barcelona. With Adrian Martin and Covadonga G. Lahera, she presented the audiovisual lecture “Scream Presence” at the International Congress of European Cinema in Barcelona, June 2012.

Steve Anderson is an Associate Professor and Founding Director of the Ph.D. program in Media Arts & Practice at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts. He is also the co-editor of the interdisciplinary electronic journal Vectors and the creator of Critical Commons, a fair use advocacy site and online media archive. He is the author of Technologies of History: Visual Media and the Eccentricity of the Past (Dartmouth 2011) and is currently completing a critical public archive and media essay examining representations of technology on film and television titled Technologies of Cinema.

Sarah Atkinson is Principal Lecturer in Broadcast Media at the University of Brighton. She is also an audiovisual arts practitioner, undertaking practice-based explorations into new forms of fictional and dramatic storytelling in visual and sonic media. She is particularly interested in multi-linear and multi-channel aesthetics, her own multi-screen interactive cinema installation ‘Crossed Lines’ has been exhibited internationally. Sarah has an Open University SCORE (Support Centre for Open Resources in Education) Fellow since 2011, working with the Sally Potter archive SP-ARK to explore its pedagogic potential as an Open Educational Resource in the film and media curriculum, and to expand upon and inform its future development.

Patricia Aufderheide is University Professor in the School of Communication at American University and Director of the Center for Social Media there. She is the co-author with Peter Jaszi of Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright (University of Chicago Press, 2011), and the author, among other books, of Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2007).

Jaimie Baron is an Assistant Professor of Film Studies at the University of Alberta. Her research interests include film and media theory, practices of appropriation, historiography, documentary film, experimental film, and the transformation of experience through technology. Her work has been published in The Velvet Light Trap, Eludamos, Maska, Spectator, and several anthologies, and she is working on a book tentatively entitled The Archive Effect: Archival Documents and the Experience of History through Film, Video, and Digital Media. She is also the director of the Festival of (In)appropriation, an annual international festival of short experimental found footage films.

Janet Bergstrom, Professor of Cinema and Media Studies, UCLA, specializes in archivally based, cross-national studies of émigré directors such as Murnau, Renoir, Lang and Sternberg.  She pursues the same approach in her roles as Associate Editor of Film History, curator (Cinema Ritrovato, Bologna), and creator of visual essays, such as Murnau’s 4 Devils: Traces of a Lost Film (Twentieth Century Fox 2003), Murnau and Borzage at Fox – The Expressionist Heritage (Editions Filmmuseum 2008) and Sternberg’s Underworld: How It Came to Be (Criterion 2010).  She also writes about contemporary French/Francophone directors Claire Denis and Chantal Akerman. She published Endless Night: Cinema and Psychoanalysis, Parallel Histories and co-founded Camera Obscura: A Journal of Feminism and Film Theory.

Christian Breiteneder is full professor at the Vienna University of Technology, Austria. His research interests include interactive media systems, content-based multimodal information retrieval, and augmented and mixed-reality systems. Breiteneder has a PhD in computer science from the Vienna University of Technology, Austria. Contact him at breiteneder@ims.tuwien.ac.at.

Joanna Callaghan is a filmmaker and a Senior Lecturer in Video Production at the University of Bedfordshire. She sits on the executive of the U.K.’s Media, Communication and Cultural Studies Association as Chair of Practice. Since 2003 she has been making a series of films each addressing a philosophical idea (Thrownness [2004] on Heidegger’s notion of ‘Geworfenheit’; A mind’s eye [2008], funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) considered Plato’s World of Forms; DO NOT READ THIS [2012] on Derrida’s writing and difference). Other work includes the documentary “I melt the glass with my forehead”, an analysis of the state of UK higher education, which featured in Times Higher Education. She has curated screen-based programs, including the international touring project Artists vs. Hollywood, and has organized symposia on practice led research. Her work has been shown in galleries and festivals in London, Sydney, Berlin, Mexico City, Lisbon and Milan, and published in The Sunday Times, Art Monthly and Studio International.

Michael Chanan is a seasoned documentarist, writer and Professor of Film and Video at the University of Roehampton, London. His books include studies of early cinema, Cuban cinema, the social history of music, the history of recording, and most recently, The Politics of Documentary (BFI, 2007). As a filmmaker, he started out making films on music for BBC2 in the early 1970s, and went on to direct several documentaries on Latin America in the 1980s, mostly for Channel Four. Since 2000, his films have either been academically funded, or zero-budget video blogs. In 2011 he made a series of video blogs for the New Statesman, which he brought together in a long documentary, ‘Chronicle of Protest (2011). His latest title is ‘ (2012). He blogs as Putney Debater.

Daniel Chávez Heras currently works as an independent researcher and curator in Mexico City. Having trained as a graphic designer, he has experience in print and digital media as well as broadcast television. In 2010, he was co-funded by the Fundación/Colección Jumex art foundation in Mexico and the School of Arts and Humanities of King’s College London to study for a Master’s in Film Studies. The ‘Digital Companion’ to his dissertation work for this degree can be accessed online. Daniel is also the founder and editor of Recaspita!, a Spanish-language website on film and digital visual culture.

Pam Cook is Professor Emerita in Film at the University of Southampton. She has published numerous books and articles and is editor of The Cinema Book (Third Edition, 2007). She is author of Baz Luhrmann (2010) and Nicole Kidman (2012), and has just completed an article on Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette for a new collection on biopics.

Barbara Flueckiger is Professor of Film Studies at the University of Zurich, since 2007. She worked internationally as a film industry professional before her studies in film theory and history in Zurich and Berlin. Her research focuses on the interaction between technology and aesthetics, especially in the digital domain. She has published two standard textbooks on sound design and visual effects, and many articles in renowned books and peer-reviewed journals. Her current research project investigates the digitization of archival film. In Fall 2011 she was a research fellow at Harvard University where she explored material and aesthetic aspects of historical film colors. Her website is at http://www.zauberklang.ch.

Andrew Kenneth Gay is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the School of Visual Art and Design at the University of Central Florida, where he teaches screenwriting, film business, and theories of film production to graduate students in the school’s MFA program in Entrepreneurial Digital Cinema. He is also an independent writer/director/producer whose films have won multiple awards and have screened in over fifty festivals in the United States, Canada, and Australia. His first feature-length film, A Beautiful Belly, made its world premiere at the 20th Annual Florida Film Festival in 2011, and is currently being prepared for web distribution.

Catherine Grant, invited guest-editor of the inaugural issue of Frames, is senior lecturer in Film Studies at the University of Sussex, UK. Her research on film authorship and auteurism, film adaptation and intertextuality, post-dictatorship films, and world cinema has been published in numerous journals and books. In 2008, she founded the open access, scholarly website Film Studies For Free and, in 2011, she created Audiovisualcy, an online curatorial forum for audiovisual film and moving image studies. An article about her own, experimental, videographic film studies will be published later in 2012 in the online journal Mediascape. Her film studies videos are archived online here.

Katherine Groo is a Lecturer in Film and Visual Culture at the University of Aberdeen.  Her research interests include early visual ethnography; orphan, handmade, and minor cinema; and film historiography and archival theory.  She is currently completing a book entitled Bad Film Histories: Ethnography and the Early Archive. Her website is Half/Films.

Fredrik Gustafsson, a founding editor of Frames cinema journal, is a film historian who has worked at the Swedish Film Institute, and at the Ingmar Bergman Archives. He has organized festivals of Bergman’s work all over the world. He has taught film studies at the University of St Andrews where he just completed his Ph.D. thesis on Swedish cinema of the 1940s and 1950s, with a special emphasis on the work of director Hasse Ekman. His website is Fredrik on Film.

Adelheid Heftberger holds MA degrees in Slavic studies (Russian) and comparative literature from the University of Innsbruck, Austria. She is currently a PhD candidate there with a thesis on “Data mining and the Visualisation of Filmic Structures in the Films of Dziga Vertov”. Since 2007 she has been employed as a researcher and archivist at the Austrian Film Museum in Vienna. She was a key researcher in the interdisciplinary project Digital Formalism (2007-2010) and is now, among other responsibilities, curator of the Film Museum’s Vertov Collection. Before that she worked as a chemical engineer for more than 10 years in an environmental laboratory, responsible for Quality Control and Quality Management.

Emily Jeremiah is Lecturer in German at Royal Holloway, University of London. She is the author of Troubling Maternity: Mothering, Agency, and Ethics in Women’s Writing in German of the 1970s and 1980s (2003) and Nomadic Ethics in Contemporary Women’s Writing in German: Strange Subjects (forthcoming in 2012 with Camden House). With Frauke Matthes she is currently co-editing Ethical Approaches in Contemporary German-Language Literature and Culture (Edinburgh German Yearbook VII, forthcoming in 2013). Emily is also a prize-winning translator of Finnish poetry and fiction.

Alexandra Juhasz is Professor of Media Studies at Pitzer College, U.S.A., where she teaches media production, history and theory. She has written numerous articles and four books on feminist, fake, and AIDS documentary, and on YouTube, and other more radical uses of digital media. Juhasz produced the feature films, The Owls, and The Watermelon Woman, as well as many educational documentaries on feminist issues. Her innovative “video-book,” Learning from YouTube, was published by MIT Press in 2011. Her earlier digital effort was Media Praxis: A Radical Web-Site Integrating Theory, Practice and Politics. She is co-editor, with Alisa Lebow, of the forthcoming Blackwell Companion to Film Studies volumes on Documentary and Documentary Histories. She blogs at www.aljean.wordpress.com.

Christian Keathley is Associate Professor in the Film and Media Culture Department at Middlebury College, Vermont.  He is the author of Cinephilia and History, or The Wind in the Trees (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2006).

Erlend Lavik finished his PhD thesis, “Changing Narratives. Five Essays on Hollywood History”, in 2007 at the Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen. He is currently working as a postdoc on “Of Authorship and Originality” (http://www.heranet.info/oor/index), a project that lies at the intersection between law and the humanities. It explores the feasibility of using theories about originality, creativity, and authorship from aesthetics in order to rearticulate how the same terms are conceptualized in copyright law. His website is at http://erlendlavik.blogspot.no/.

Kevin. B. Lee is a film critic and award-winning filmmaker. He is Editor-In-Chief of Press Play at Indiewire, a website built around original video essays as well as critical writing about film and media. Lee also serves as VP of Programming and Education for dGenerate Films, the only specialty distributor of Chinese independent cinema in the U.S.  Kevin has written on film for Time Out, Cinema-scope, Cineaste and Senses of Cinema. He has made hundreds of film critical video essays, many published at his blog, as well as at Press Play. Lee recently co-curated ‘Film Studies in Motion – A Web Series in 7 Episodes‘ for the 2012 Oberhausen International Short Film Festival.

Dominic Leppla is a doctoral student in Film and Moving Image Studies at the Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema of Concordia University in Montreal, Québec, where he wears a red square on his lapel with pride. He serves as coordinating online editor for the Permanent Seminar on Histories of Film Theories. His research interests include reconsideration of the melodramatic mode in cinema, Marxist discourses and alternative public spheres in the digital age. Dominic received an MA in Film History and Visual Media at Birkbeck, University of London, and he has also done several short stints at the British Film Institute.

Kelli Marshall is a lecturer in Media and Cinema Studies at DePaul University. Her current research interests span two rather disparate fields: Shakespeare in film and popular culture, and the film musical, specifically the star image and work of Hollywood song-and-dance man Gene Kelly. Kelli’s scholarly work may be found in traditional print journals like Literature/Film Quarterlyand the Journal of Popular Film and Television as well as in online publications like Flow TV, In Media Res, Bright Lights Film Journal, and her own website.

Adrian Martin is Associate Professor in Film and Television Studies, and Co-Director of the Research Unit in Film Culture and Theory, at Monash University (Melbourne, Australia). A practicing film critic since 1979, he is the author of six previous books (Phantasms, Once Upon a Time in America, Raúl Ruiz: sublimes obsesiones, The Mad Max MoviesQué es el cine moderno?, Last Day Every Day) and A Secret Cinema (forthcoming from open access publisher re:press in 2013), as well as several thousand articles and reviews. He is co-editor of the on-line film journal LOLA and the book Movie Mutations: The Changing Face of World Cinephilia (British Film Institute, 2003).

Joshua McVeigh-Schultz is a designer, scholar, media maker, and PhD Candidate in the Media Arts and Practice PhD program in the School of Cinematic Arts. His dissertation work explores the intersections of interactivity design and rituals of audience participation. He has also researched metadata analysis of film, lifelogging, fandom and civic engagement, animism, the Internet of Things, ambient storytelling, and mobile design. He completed an MA in Asian Studies at UC Berkeley and an MFA in UC Santa Cruz’s Digital Arts and New Media program. He is a designer in the Mobile and Environmental Research Lab, a researcher in the Movie Tagger project, and a member of the Civic Paths research group.

Richard Misek is a filmmaker and lecturer in digital media at the University of Kent, UK. His work has been screened at numerous festivals, and broadcast in the UK, USA and Australia. He is the author of Chromatic Cinema (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).

Dalibor Mitrović has a PhD from the Vienna University of Technology, Austria. His research interests include audio and multimodal information retrieval. Contact him at mitrovic@ims.tuwien.ac.at.

Andrew Myers is the co-editor-in-chief of MEDIASCAPE. He is currently a Ph.D. student in Critical Studies at the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts, where his primary research interests include media industries and production culture, archival film and television history, documentary, and digital media. He also serves as Post-Production Editor for the Media History Digital Library, an extensive online archive of media history periodicals.

Glen W. Norton is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English and Film Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University.  His research interests focus on phenomenological approaches toward the study of the cinematic experience. He has published in numerous journals, including Studies in French Cinema, Post Script, Senses of Cinema, Film- Philosophy and Cinema Scope. He has been the curator of Cinema=Godard=Cinema since its inception in 1996.

Anne Helen Petersen is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Media Studies at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington.  She received her Ph.D. from the University of Texas-Austin, where she wrote her dissertation on the industrial history of celebrity gossip.  You may find her blog Celebrity Gossip, Academic Style, along with links to open access publications, at annehelenpetersen.com.

Nick Redfern studied Film and History at the University of Kent, and completed his Ph.D. on regionalism in contemporary British cinema at Manchester Metropolitan University in 2006. He has published articles on regional film policy in the United Kingdom and the representation of the UK’s regions in cinema in The Journal of British Cinema and Television, Cyfrwng: Media Wales Journal, The Journal of European Popular Culture, and Transnational Cinemas. He has taught film studies at Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Central Lancashire, specializing in British cinema, Hollywood cinema, film analysis, and film theory. He is the author of the Research into Film blog.

Tom Rice is a Lecturer in Film Studies at the University of St Andrews. He previously worked as the senior researcher on the ‘Colonial Film: Moving Images of the British Empire’ project. He continues to publish on colonial and world cinemas, most recently in two edited collections, Empire and Film and Film and the End of Empire (London: BFI, 2011). He has also written extensively on the racial politics of early American cinema, with articles in Film History (20:3) and The Journal of American Studies (42:1). He is currently developing a monograph from his doctoral thesis, which was entitled ‘Life after Birth: The Ku Klux Klan and Cinema, 1915-1928′.

Nicholas Rombes is author of Cinema in the Digital Age (Columbia University Press / Wallflower Press, 2009), whose organizing structure both performs and resists the randomizing logic of the digital era. He is Chair and Professor of English at the University of Detroit Mercy in Detroit, Michigan. His 10/40/70 project captures film frames from the 10, 40, and 70-minute points of films as the basis for criticism, in hopes that this constraint allows for an element of surprise. In addition, his year long Blue Velvet Project at Filmmaker Magazine and the ongoing DO NOT SCREEN project experiment with randomization and chance as potential methods of creative research.

Girish Shambu teaches at Canisius College in Buffalo, New York, and runs a community-oriented film-culture blog called girish. He and Adrian Martin co-edit the online cinema journal LOLA.

Matthias Stork is a Masters student in the Cinema and Media Studies program at the University of California – Los Angeles, USA. He researches the intersections of film and digital media, especially the synergies between films and video games, as well as questions of authorship, auteurism, and intertextuality, the aesthetics of digital marketing, and the forms of digital film studies. His three-part video essay series Chaos Cinema was published on the indiewire blog PressPlay in 2011. He is editor of the Meta section of the journal MEDIASCAPE.

Kristin Thompson received her Ph.D. in film studies from the Department of Communication Arts, the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her most recent books are The Frodo Franchise: The Lord of the Rings and Modern Hollywood (University of California Press, 2007) and, with David Bordwell, Minding Movies: Observations on the Art, Craft, and Business of Filmmaking (University of Chicago Press, 2011). With David Bordwell, she is also the co-author of two textbooks, Film Art: An Introduction (McGraw-Hill, 10th edition, 2012) and Film History: An Introduction (McGraw-Hill, 3rd edition, 2009). Together they blog on Observations on Film Art.

James S. Williams is Professor of Modern French Literature and Film at Royal Holloway University London. He is the author of (among others) The Erotics of Passage: Pleasure, Politics, and Form in the Later Work of Marguerite Duras (1997) and Jean Cocteau (2006), as well as co-editor of The Cinema Alone: essays on the work of Jean-Luc Godard 1985-2000 (2000), For Ever Godard: the cinema of Jean-Luc Godard (2004), Jean-Luc Godard. Documents (2006) (commissioned for the 2006 exhibition Voyage(s) en Utopie at the Centre Pompidou, Paris), Gender and French Cinema (2001), and Gay Signatures: Gay and Lesbian Theory, Fiction and Film, 1945-1995 (1998). He recently recorded an audio commentary on Orphée for the new 2011 Criterion Collection edition, and a book entitled Space and Being in Contemporary French Cinema is forthcoming in 2013 with Manchester University Press.

Gillian Wylde is an artist and Senior Lecturer at University College Falmouth incorporating Dartington College of Art. Recent projects have been made for Transmodern Live Art Action Festival Baltimore, Lounge Gallery London, Midlands Art Centre & Eastside Projects Birmingham, Alytus Biennial Lithuania, Tao Scene Norway, GeekFest, Dorset, South Hill Park, Bracknell, Ptarmigan & TEAK Helsinki Finland and CCA Gallery Glasgow.

Matthias Zeppelzauer is a postdoctoral researcher at the Vienna University of Technology, Austria. His research interests include audio and video content-based analysis, automatic film analysis, multimodal retrieval, and data mining. Zeppelzauer has a PhD from the Vienna University of Technology, Austria. Contact him at zeppelzauer@ims.tuwien.ac.at.

 

Snakes and Funerals

Snakes&Funerals (colour, 14 mins, 2012) was made as part of Queer, The Space, a project that ran between September 2011 and May 2012. Inspired by the work of such queer theorists as Sara Ahmed and Judith Halberstam, (1Queer, The Space brought together artists, academics, activists, performers and writers in one space, the Centre for Creative Collaboration (c4cc) in London, to engage with questions of spatiality and orientation. The resulting collaborative works took the form of text, image, sound, performance, and a combination of these forms. (2) They were presented to the public at a showcasethat took place on 24th May 24, 2012.

Taking Jean-Luc Godard’s canonic film Le Mépris / Contempt (1963) as a starting-point, Snakes&Funerals set out to explore the queer possibilities of image and sound, especially of colour and of ‘straight’ repetition. Sound and image were developed separately and then brought together in an encounter between and across languages, landscapes, cultures, aesthetics – an encounter characterised by chance, indeterminacy and a refusal of the ‘natural’ and the ‘logical’. (The title refers to a dismissive comment made early on in Le Mépris by Fritz Lang, playing himself: ‘CinemaScope — it’s only good for snakes and funerals!’) In this queer deconstruction of a work by one of cinema’s most aggressively heterosexual directors, the orchestral theme Camille by Georges Delerue (the pathos of which Godard never took seriously) meets a Finnish folk song (The sky is blue and white, sung by Emily Jeremiah), (3) ground supplants figure, and the fatal narrative and noise of the modern couple is propelled into a new kind of silence and void.

The film of Snakes&Funerals formed part of a continuous loop for an installation that occupied an entire room of the c4cc. (4) The two images below emphasise the immersive nature of this site-specific work, as well as its deframing of the standard set-up of projection. With the screen positioned at an angle, the projected image exceeds its assigned place and frontality and seeps into the surrounding white space peopled by outsize speakers.

Endnotes:

(1) See for example the following work: Sara Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2006) and Judith Halberstam, In a Queer Time and Place Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives (New York: New York University Press, 2005)

(2The project, co-organised by Sarah Barnsley (Goldsmiths, University of London) and Emily Jeremiah (Royal Holloway, University of London), was funded by The Culture Capital Exchange.  Further details of the project can be found online at http://www.queerthespace.org/, which comprises an archive of the May showcase. Snakes&Funerals is also archived online at http://www.youtube.com/user/GLLNWYDE?feature=mhee.

(3) The sky is blue and white

and filled with little stars. (x2)

So my young heart is filled

with thoughts. (x 2)

And I don’t tell others

of my heart’s sorrows. (x2)

The gloomy forest, the bright sky –

they know my cares. (x2)

(Trans. Emily Jeremiah)

(4Thanks to John Walsh, Helen Pritchard and Damien Sanville for their technical assistance.

Copyright:

Frames #1 Film and Moving Image Studies Re-Born Digital? 2012-07-02, this article © Emily Jeremiah, James S. Williams and Gillian Wylde

Archive Film Material – A Novel Challenge for Automated Film Analysis

[Note: The varied image content of this article means that it is best published as a PDF. Please click on the link below the Introduction to access the full item]

Automated indexing and searching of videos has become an important requirement, due to the availability of large amounts of media in that form held, for example, by broadcasting companies, museums, and on the Internet. The field of content-based video retrieval focuses on the analysis of a video’s content, making it automatically searchable by computers. Typical tasks in video retrieval are the automated detection of shot boundaries and scene boundaries, and the detection of highlights. Most research in video retrieval focuses on particular types of video, such as news broadcasts, sports videos and commercials. Compared to the retrieval of these types of video content, the retrieval of film has received little attention by the research community. Archive films have been especially widely neglected in content-based retrieval. The automated analysis of archive films is more difficult than the analysis and retrieval of contemporary video and film material for several reasons. First, archive film is usually black and white, and thus colour information cannot be exploited by automated analysis techniques. Second, archive film material usually has a lower material quality due to its old age, which impedes automated analysis. Third, archive film may exhibit stylistic aspects that are very different from contemporary material.

We have participated in the interdisciplinary research project Digital Formalism that focused on the automated analysis and retrieval of historic film material. The project was a joint-effort between film scholars, archivists, and computer scientists. The project partners were the Department for Theatre, Film and Media Studies at the Vienna University, the Austrian Film Museum, and the Interactive Media Systems Group at the Vienna University of Technology. (1)

The goal of the project was to gain insights into the highly formalized style of filmmaking of the Soviet filmmaker Dziga Vertov (1896-1954). The film scholars at Vienna University provided their knowledge on the work of Vertov and his films. They manually analyzed the films and identified important stylistic aspects that should later be retrieved automatically from them. The Austrian Film Museum (2) provided the project with the historic film material and supported the partners in material-specific questions. The archivists generated comprehensive film annotations that later served as a basis for the quantitative evaluation of the developed retrieval methods. Furthermore, the archivists formulated requirements for the automated analysis from an archive’s point of view. The responsibility of the computer scientists at the Vienna University of Technology (our team) was the development of automated retrieval methods based on the requirements of the film scholars and archivists in order to enable efficient access to the material and to support film scientists and archivists in their work. We first collected a comprehensive list of requirements at the beginning of the project and then evaluated the feasibility of the required tasks of analysis in the context of automated retrieval. The result of this process is a set of novel retrieval methods for the extraction of differently complex stylistic aspects in the investigated films. The resulting set of retrieval methods includes techniques for shot boundary detection, scene segmentation, intertitle detection, and the analysis of visual composition and motion composition. During the work on these tasks, we learned that both the complex stylistic attributes in the films as well as the low material quality (artifacts) significantly impede the automated analysis.

In this article, we present the characteristics of the film material from the perspective of computer science. Thereby, we set two emphases. First, we present stylistic aspects that characterize the films to point out the high complexity of the films at the syntactic level (montage) as well as at the semantic level (composition). Second, we demonstrate the state of the film material and overview the artifacts present in the film material that particularly impede automated analysis and retrieval. Finally, we discuss the challenges for content-based retrieval that result from the novel film material and draw conclusions from our work on the project.

archivefilmmaterial.pdf  [8.1 mb]

Endnotes:

(1) We, the authors of this article, are all based at the latter institution.

(2) The Austrian Film Museum team included Adelheid Heftberger who has also contributed an essay to this issue of Frames. See also her publicatoons about the Digital Formalism project: Heftberger, Adelheid, ‘Do Computers Dream of Cinema? Film Data for Computer Analysis and Visualisation’, In David M. Berry (ed.), Understanding Digital Humanities (London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), and Heftberger, Adelheid, ‘Zerschnittene Bilder. Die drei Fassungen von Dziga Vertovs Tri pesni o Lenine (1934/35, 1938 und 1970)’, In Georg Gierzinger, Sylvia Hölzl, Christine Roner (eds.), Spielformen der Macht. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf Macht im Rahmen junger slawistischer Forschung (Innsbruck: Innsbruck university press, 2011), 259–275).

Frames # 1 Film and Moving Image Studies Re-Born Digital?, 2012-07-02, this article © Matthias Zeppelzauer, Dalibor Mitrović and Christian Breiteneder. This article has been blind peer-reviewed.

Film Studies with High Production Values: An Interview with Janet Bergstrom on Making and Teaching Audiovisual Essays

Q: When and why did you decide to offer a seminar that focuses on the production of DVD essays?

Janet Bergstrom: I offered the first seminar of this kind in winter 2004, after I had made a visual essay myself, for Fox. The idea was to provide a workshop-seminar where students could take advantage of our recent ability to “quote” audio-visual media in (audio)visual essays they make themselves, research essays burned to DVD, and to discuss what was possible in that format compared to the advantages and disadvantages of print essays. Gaining the experience to do both changes the relationship to research as well as to writing. I had been given the opportunity to contribute to Fox’s special edition DVD of Murnau’s Sunrise (1927), a project coordinated by the head of their archive, Shawn Belston, not by the Home Entertainment division, as would usually have been the case. (1) Fox had not released a single silent film on DVD; they didn’t think they would sell. However the studio wanted to create a prestige item in connection with the 75th anniversary of the Academy Awards, and Sunrise had won three Academy Awards the first year they were given out. Fox had recently carried out a high profile restoration of Sunrise, in partnership with the Academy Film Archive and the British Film Institute, (2) which was the cornerstone for the DVD. Shawn wanted to add historically important supplements. He happened to read an essay I had written about the production history of 4 Devils and City Girl, the two films Murnau made for Fox after Sunrise, that I was circulating in manuscript before publication. (3) He got a copy from Berlin film archivist Martin Koerber, who was in LA for the Berlin Film Festival, which was coincidentally dedicating the next annual historical retrospective to Murnau.(4) Schawn emailed that he was planning a special Sunrise DVD and asked if I’d like to discuss contributing something on 4 Devils – a film that is 100% “lost” as far as we know. I said: “Yes!”

I had no experience doing anything like a visual essay, and I had never made a film. I had in mind Yuri Tsivian’s visual essay on Ivan the Terrible (Criterion 2001), which is probably still the best visual essay I have seen: original research, argument and visuals combined in an engaging, thought-provoking way. I was inspired by what he did, but I didn’t want to imitate that piece per se. I had a different kind of historical argument and different kinds of documentation. I had spent two years researching 4 Devils and City Girl, starting from the Fox Archives at UCLA. I knew the documentation by heart; I literally had it memorized. I knew I could get cooperation from the Berlin Film Museum, from Fox, obviously, and from the Academy (the Margaret Herrick Library), all of which had wonderful materials.

I did NOT want to try to “recreate” Murnau’s lost film. I was explicit because I had recently seen Rick Schmidlin’s version of Todd Browning’s 100% lost film London after Midnight, using production stills and the final cutting continuity from the MGM Collection at USC [University of Southern California]. (That film is in permanent rotation on TCM; I just noticed that a tantalizing few moments of Browning’s film are now on YouTube.)  The continuity has a numbered list of every shot in the film, with indications like “long shot” or “close-up”, and includes the text of every intertitle. New, rather heavy music was added to help continuity and connote horror. But the lighting in the production stills was too bright and too far from what the film must have been like, and I was distracted by constant zooming movements or isolating faces to simulate close-ups and shot/reverse shots. I saw it at the Pordenone Silent Film Festival, where it was much debated. I did not want to attempt that kind of recreation in the first place, and I knew I had access to unusual materials. I knew I could construct a collage. I could move fragments around in my image program to work out a structure — photographs, quotations from the different scripts, art director Robert Herlth’s drawings, original programs, preview responses, many other elements from the time the film was made. I wanted to foreground the documents, which were all period-specific, to valorize them, unlike documentaries designed to make you forget them. I wanted viewers to feel like detectives, like I did, piecing together fragments in search of something. I also wanted to create an homage to Murnau. During production I remember a discussion about the lead-in titles in which I explain where Murnau was in his career when he made 4 Devils and, briefly, what happened afterwards. I was asked: why are you talking about the rest of Murnau’s career when this is about 4 Devils? It was important to me to situate the film in that context. I wanted the film to stand on its own, and it has. 

I have made four commercial projects so far. At the very beginning, I always know the first shot and the last shot, and whether it is a moving image or a still image.  Although I didn’t plan it deliberately, the four visual essays have a similar structure. There is a turning point about halfway through when the direction changes. In the 4 Devils piece, although I state in the titles — which I read, to double the effect I hope — that I am not pretending to present a recreation of this “lost film”, during the first half it can seem like I am telling the story of the movie, through my voice-over and various kinds of documents. At a certain point, I think when I am talking about the circus background of the film and the actors training with trapeze artist Alfredo Codona, I move toward more of the production history, how there were several versions of the film, and how Murnau left Fox before the part-talking version was shot. I was very lucky to be working with Fox and in particular with Schawn.  He took the project to CCI, a boutique post-production house where I worked with an excellent graphic designer, sound engineer and editors as well as Schawn, who saw the production through. The production values had to be up to Fox’s standards. When your budget goes down, you have all kinds of problems. It is not easy to gather together people who can work at the level of quality that I want at a relatively low cost.

“Murnau’s 4 Devils: Traces of a Lost Film” turned out to be 40 minutes long; it is on every version of the Sunrise DVD internationally.  To my surprise, it was very successful on its own. It benefitted from wonderful promotion. It was screened — as a film — as part of the Berlin Film Festival’s 2003 Murnau retrospective, in partnership with the Berlin Film Museum/Deutsche Kinemathek, which housed important Murnau documents they had allowed us to use. They really wanted something on 4 Devils. Murnau experts and archivists and all kinds of curators and programmers came to the screening. I didn’t know how they would react, but the reception was warm and lively. They asked great questions. I talked for another 40 minutes after the screening. It was wonderful. Then I was invited to present the film at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York by Peter Scarlet, director of the festival, who was in the audience. He had no idea that what he had just seen was made for a DVD. The Bologna film festival, Cinema Ritrovato, was the most nerve-wracking screening, with all the silent film experts in the room. Fortunately, it went well and it was energizing because of all the questions afterwards. Every time I was asked to present it somewhere, in maybe ten cities, I got very different questions, always thought-provoking. That gave me a lot of confidence in the idea that you can get people interested, that you can — and I believe that you have to — build an audience.

An analogous situation for audience-building arises with an archival restoration of a film that is incomplete, usually because one reel or more has been lost to deterioration. Given the vast numbers of films that need to be preserved, some archivists believe they should pass over incomplete films because they won’t be able to screen them, audiences won’t accept them. But there are interesting examples of restorations of silent films in which gaps have been filled one way or another and screened with success.  The first one I saw was Borzage’s The River (made for Fox around the time of 4 Devils, by the way), restored by Hervé Dumont and the Cinémathèque Suisse and shown in Pordenone. More recently, Jim Hahn created a fascinating restoration of the Academy Award-winning film Sorrell and Son (1927) at the Academy Film Archive. It had been a “lost film” for a long time. When it was found, it was “incomplete” because of deterioration. Jim Hahn wrote about these issues and the choices he made in restoring the film for an issue of Film History that I edited, devoted to the year 1927. (5) I agree with him that such films require an informed in-person presentation, and that this practice — restoration and special programming — should be actively encouraged.  There is an audience! This was not a visual essay, of course, but similar conceptual problems need to be resolved: you are working with something that is incomplete and you try to piece it together in a way that will appeal to an audience, get them to pay attention, become absorbed and enjoy learning.

Q: Did the seminar develop and evolve over time considering technological changes, student input, or new teaching concepts?

JB: The first time I offered this class, the students were asked to collaborate on a single “Virtual DVD”. It was a PhD film analysis/methodology seminar with five students. We had no technology at all aside from a DVD player and a tape recorder. We didn’t have access to computer facilities or software or a tech assistant. The basic requirements were these: the students needed to agree on a film they wanted to work on together that was available on DVD, for which there was no voice-over commentary and for which they could find significant primary documentation, most likely at the Academy Library. Exactly as in the seminar today, they would gain experience learning how to do research, how to use primary documentation, experience how one thing can lead to another and how exciting that gets. It is always important to have a constraint.  In that case the constraint was to create a voice-over commentary in sync – time-coded – with the film. Just try it if you think that’s easy!  There are points in the film where you have a lot to say, but the scene has changed, it’s gone.

We did a couple of preliminary exercises unrelated to the final project that I still use, for instance: choose a three minute clip from a film of your choice, write a voice-over and read it in class as your clip is playing. I love that exercise. You can never imagine which films people will be drawn to. It’s a very good learning exercise for rhythm and timing. Being required to read your text in front of others, even if it is not recorded, means that you will hear yourself in a different way. One person typically talks much too fast to try to cram the text into three minutes, another is sparing with commentary, willing to have a few moments of silence here and there. That takes more courage. It’s the greatest departure from the written essay that students are used to, moving in the direction of audio-visual thinking. The exercise also brings up the choice of clips. Will the clip have dialogue? If so, does the dialogue need to be understood, or, how much of it?  Will it interfere with the voiceover? You benefit from seeing how others meet the challenges.

We discussed research techniques and the film for the final project. One of the two Hitchcock films they were most interested in was eliminated because they could not find primary documentation. They agreed on the second version of The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), and, over time, they decided they would interweave their voiceovers throughout the course of the film. Each one had a different methodological perspective. One was especially interested in gender relations, another in post-colonialism, considering that the film was shot in North Africa, another in theories of the voice, especially the mother’s voice, which was crucial to the plot of this version of the film. The students timed their commentaries and practiced in advance. When we had our Premiere Potluck party, which is still the format for the final seminar meeting, we were in my living room. I turned on the DVD player and the film never stopped. The students took turns reading their commentaries, and I recorded the audio with a tape recorder. It was a live voiceover commentary. That was the low-tech, low-res way to do it. They did not learn how to edit a visual essay on a computer and burn it to DVD, but they did learn how to do the same kind of research, how to work with constraints of time, and how to engage an audience.  They performed their research. It was fun, and I think everyone learned a lot.

When writing a research paper for a conference or for print publication, it is not typical to learn the art of engaging an audience. With a visual essay or a voiceover commentary you NEED to engage your audience.  No one has to tell you that. You realize it. Then the question becomes, how best to do it? Going through the experience of creating a DVD commentary or a visual essay makes you a better writer and presenter in any other medium or venue, in my opinion.

My first visual essay or DVD essay seminar, properly speaking, was made possible because I had a wonderful tech assistant named Nima Rasfar, who, alas, left us after several years to become a lawyer. If you have only eleven weeks, like my classes, and if you are asking students to carry out original research as well as learn how to use the most basic functions of the essential software to make their projects — in our case, working with PCs, that means scanning, Photoshop (image manipulation), Premiere (editing) and Encore (DVD authoring or construction/burning) — you need to build a tech assistant into the equation from the outset.  The course should be equally possible for beginners who need a lot of assistance and for people who have some experience editing.  Every time I have offered the course, I have at least one self-identified technophobe — even now when everyone says that students have been editing since grade school.

Nima and I worked together to create a handbook of how-to techniques, using a handful of examples from Tsivian’s Ivan the Terrible essay, which everyone had seen. Nima became very good at empowering students to learn more image enhancement and editing themselves, at their own speed, or in other words to graduate from asking him to do something for them that he knew they were capable of doing themselves. He researched trouble-shooting on-line, given that new technical glitches would arise since the software was continually changing and students wanted to combine clips from American and international DVDs and/or VHS tapes or laserdiscs. Such problems typically were not visible until after a sequence had been compressed, burned to DVD and played back on a DVD player — like wavy lines in photographs or a font breaking up or sound dropping out here or there for no apparent reason. Back then, it also took forever to render a timeline. Nima wrote in the handbook that when you render the timeline, you can take a nap or go eat dinner. We started with equipment that was slow and software that was not user-friendly as it has become today since software companies decided to go prosumer. And this year, thanks to Dean Teri Schwartz, we have powerful computers, up-to-date software and a larger space. Students in the past three classes have also been able to work with a wonderfully helpful professional sound engineer, Mike Simpson, who records their narration in the Department’s sound studio. He ordinarily works with the production students. After the screenings at the Premiere Potluck party, which is typically when the students have the most brilliant insights into their work and the process is still vivid in their mind, I ask them what gave them the most trouble, what they would do differently the next time, how the sequence of the course might be improved. Every time, the students told me that they wanted more burn exercises, that they learned the most from them. 

It is very important to me that these exercises are burned to DVD rather than being designed for the Internet. I don’t care if DVDs are supposedly disappearing. If they are, another format will appear. If you prepare something for a high resolution DVD, of course you can also put it on the Internet, but the reverse isn’t necessarily true. For me it is very important to have high production values. I saw my visual essay on 4 Devils projected at the LA County Museum on a gigantic screen, looking like a film should. Less expensive or caring productions often regard DVD bonus materials, as they are unfortunately called, as cheap, quick extras that don’t need the same quality considerations as the feature, especially for editing, sound and compression. Designing for the web means making a work that is “light”, that loads quickly; in principle, the image will remain small enough to look good without the same level of high definition. I want students to come away from that class with a DVD in hand to give to their parents and friends. You want to know what I am doing in school? Here, it only takes 15 minutes to watch it on your DVD player or computer, at your leisure. One of our students needed special access to an archive in Tokyo for dissertation research. Her DVD essay proved to be an excellent demonstration of the seriousness of her research and showed why she needed images from original paper copies of magazines from the 20s. You cannot explain that very effectively, but people are convinced when they see the images. There is a tremendous difference between a color scan of an original document and a black-and-white xerox, or worse, a copy of an image taken from microfilm. I try to get everybody to be period-specific. That’s what original research makes you want to do.

I see more and more visual essays appearing. I go out of my way to see those that come out on DVDs in the US, the UK, France, Germany, sometimes elsewhere. I realize now that only specialists can perceive which parts of your visual essay represent original scholarship. I believe in public education, whether it’s on television, the Internet or a DVD. I think there is a big audience and it can become bigger. I come out of the 70s, where the idea of building an audience was everywhere. I always include things that specialists appreciate, regardless of whether anyone else will realize it. When a specialist asks me how I knew about a particular magazine or an unusual document I included, I try to explain the chain of circumstances that led me from one thing to another. In the most recent DVD essay I made, “Underworld: How It Came to Be”, for Criterion’s 2010 Sternberg boxed set, I wanted to show Paramount’s ambivalence toward both Sternberg and this first big production of his for the studio. Underworld turned out to be a huge success and launched his career as one of their top directors. I was going to the Academy Library day after day to research the Paramount files and to find visuals; three or four specialized librarians were helping me. I kept asking if they could think of anything else they had from Paramount from the spring of 1927. Lo and behold, they had one issue of a luxury booklet that Paramount had made for their national sales convention to lure the first-run exhibitors into renting their films for the coming season. There turned out to be a lot in it that was relevant to Sternberg, some of it unknown to me before then. Of course, viewing my film, only a specialist would realize how rare those images were and how much knowledge was necessary to interpret their significance. I was gratified by Leonard Maltin’s generous review, where he drew attention to an ad from the New York Times I included (an easy-to-find PDF download, by the way), showing that, just as Sternberg and many others had repeated, Underworld had indeed made a theater stay open all night because of public demand. Documents like that make history come alive in the vernacular of the day (language and the graphics) in the series of ads that Paramount ran.

I think it’s essential that you create visual essays and publish print essays pretty much concurrently. There are things you can do in print that you cannot do in a visual essay because you do not have enough time and you cannot annotate in the same way.

Q: What is the overarching purpose of your seminar? Do you have specific goals that you intend to achieve each year?

JB: The seminar has a dual purpose. On the one hand, the seminar is research-oriented. Students need to do original research and are encouraged to go to special collections in the libraries of Los Angeles. LA has so many underexplored special collections, with more added all the time, it’s endless. People think they know the classics, there’s nothing left to be said!  There are so many things we don’t know about the classics, much less films that haven’t received much if any attention.  On the other hand, the course is designed to give students basic training, not expertise, but something usable, in the programs I mentioned. The research dimension is critical.  It includes formulating a research hypothesis for a visual essay that can be accomplished within a 15-20 minute format. Then we have a number of exercises designed to be small and incremental, building skills and practice. Students gain confidence that they can accomplish more than they thought they could or wanted to, culminating in the final project which is a standalone 15-20 minute visual essay, burned to DVD, with minimally a rudimentary menu that works and will play. If students want to, they can work with the technician the way you would work with an editor professionally, where you tell the editor what you want and the editor does it for you. But the learning curve is very fast.  The students feel excited when they learn things and then can practice and experiment on their own or in pairs or whatever works for them.

My other goal extends beyond the course per se. Afterwards, a good number of Teaching Assistants have designed short demonstrations for their discussion sections, such as, this a tracking shot, this is a close-up, look at the rear-projection in these shots. Their students will ask, did you do that? And they can say, yes I did that for you. Many of our students have presented their visual essays at academic conferences. Likewise, they are asked how they created their work because it looks so professional. This kind of audio-visual presentation of research is obviously appealing at a conference.

Q: Do you have a standard of quality that your students have to meet with their essays? What do the essays have to display in order to qualify as ‘good’? How can you evaluate and grade creative work?

JB: I always take into consideration how hard the student is trying, as I do in all my seminars. If I think the student is doing his or her best, that’s what’s important. And they have to meet the deadline; it’s essential. A production deadline is different than other deadlines. When we have the Premiere potluck, and everyone gets to see how their neighbor’s project turned out, usually a few glitches turn up; some minor fixes should be made. Maybe the sound level is off somewhere or an image is unstable. That could be fixed in the next few days, ideally. Usually the timeline needs one more detailed check to be perfect and one more burn. Some students do that. There is so much discussion all the way through the class, and I give so much feedback about the research dimension from the beginning, including when I think that someone’s thesis is not yet viable in view of the documentation, that I am confident that things will turn out in an interesting way that benefits all concerned. Grades are not very important to me.  

Q: What do you see as the benefits of a DVD essay in a predominantly text-driven academic environment? Can the audiovisual form become an established source of film scholarship?

JB: Every time I have seen someone present an audiovisual essay, the audience has been impressed. It is interesting to see what people can do now with a combination of PowerPoint and DVD clips. But I have witnessed so many PowerPoint disasters, especially if they incorporate clips. I like to burn a DVD, with a backup just in case. I think this is the way to go and it looks more professional. I have created a number of lecture DVDs for myself where I want to show something similar to a visual essay but speak “live”.  I assemble my assets (as they are called in editing lingo) and burn them to DVD, whether they are documents, images or clips. I build in a chapter point at every single new element. And I have a print-out of all my images to keep track of where I am. If I am running behind, I can easily skip ahead by hitting the space bar on my computer or the chapter advance on a DVD player’s remote control. It’s easy to do this kind of assembly yourself. It’s obvious to the audience that it’s not a PowerPoint, so people come up afterwards and ask how I did it and if I did it myself. Whether it’s a DVD visual essay or a live lecture DVD, I can see that nobody gets bored, everyone looks attentive. I have been at conferences where half the people in the room look like they are falling asleep when panelists are reading papers.

To get back to your question, will visual essays become a more acceptable research form? I think yes because more and more researchers will want to do them. And whether they put them online for free or whether they put them on a commercial project, like a DVD, or whether they manage to get them on television, you get an audience. You get people’s attention and then people can learn in a different way. There are people who are very interested in stylistic analysis and comparisons. Visual essays are perfect and can be convincing in a way that print essays cannot be. But other approaches, besides historical studies or stylistic studies, can also be very effective. For instance Michael Potterton’s essay for our class could be described as a theoretically-driven stylistic essay on a particular use of sound in The Birds. So much has been written about that film, it is not easy to say something new and provocative, especially about the use of sound. But he did and his argument is convincing because it is an audiovisual essay. He could, and should, publish an article in print as well, but it would not have the same impact because he would not be able to demonstrate sound. What I aspire to, and what I wish American publishers would aspire to, is to publish a book with a DVD in it so that you could go back and forth between them. This is being done more and more in Europe. American publishers have been resistant. The reason I keep hearing is that this was tried with CD-ROM and it failed. CD-ROM was a long time ago.

That said, within the academy, there is little support for faculty advancement for doing this kind of work. Even if colleagues take the time to look at it, it is difficult to evaluate where the original research comes in unless they are specialists in the subject.

Q: What are some of the past projects students explored in your seminar? Do any of them come to mind?

JB: Please see the appendix to this interview. The titles alone are fascinating, so many different interests. And they give you ideas.

Q: In terms of the institutionalization of visual essays, do you think that they should become a long-form format, similar to a documentary, or is there room for shorter, experimental pieces?

JB: Any length. The important thing is that the subject fits the length you choose and can be achieved in view of your technical constraints. If you have a subject that takes two minutes, why not? We can only talk about that casually now because the means of production have become so easy to access and inexpensive. When we started, it was not easy. We have more and more delivery platforms as well. Our projects are now made in HD, working with the highest resolution elements we can get; they should look very good projected on a large theater screen.  But if you want to, you can down-res and show your work on a telephone.

I need to talk about the significance of cooperation with librarians, especially those in charge of special collections. If documents have been xeroxed from special collections, and your understanding with the library is that they may not be reproduced without permission, then they cannot be put it online (or reproduced in print form) without an agreement from the library without jeopardizing your relationship with the library. This has nothing to do with worrying about being sued for copyright infringement. It is crucial to maintain a professional relationship of trust with the libraries you work with, if you want to continue to work there. You need the librarians to want to help you. The integrity of your project goes hand in hand with research integrity. If you are using unique visuals that are protected, you need to ask permission. It may well be possible to obtain permission if you explain that you want to publish a visual essay containing scans of specific documents in an academic online context, comparable to an academic print journal, say for instance, in our Department’s online journal Mediascape. You would have to ask whether this would be allowable; it might not be, in which case a substitution would need to be made. To take the Hitchcock example, because the Hitchcock collection at the Academy is protected by an agreement with the Hitchcock estate, then if you could enlist the help of the librarian you worked with, it is possible that the Hitchcock estate would allow that particular use. The DVD of your visual essay is probably your best argument. You would provide both the library and the Hitchcock estate with a copy (with the stamped copyright provision visible on the documents). If they like it, which they probably would since it is clearly serious, innovative research and it doesn’t take long to view it, they might agree. You need to get advice at the library and then follow the steps carefully, including publication of permissions in your credits if you gain authorization.  

Q: Audiovisual essays have emerged as a new form of film criticism and commentary on the Internet. They are a widespread phenomenon, with a plethora of different iterations and approaches. How do you personally define the DVD or visual essay in your seminar? What are its defining characteristics?

JB: I try to show examples that I have been struck by myself in some way, that find ways to show a clear, logical argument appropriate to the subject at hand. Actually, I continually ask myself a somewhat different question, which is relevant to the screening tonight of Chris Marker’s film on Tarkovsky. Most of Marker’s films that I have been able to see I could call visual essays. He calls them essay films; I think everyone does. But they can also be called documentaries, maybe personal documentaries. He does what Thom Andersen does. There is an argument. That is what I require. The visual essay needs to have a thesis, a structure, original research; using audiovisual tools, it should become an audiovisual work that will be absorbing and that you can learn from, with pleasure.

Q: As a renowned archival scholar of early cinema, how do you perceive the increasing digitization of primary documents?

JB: I love it. I just contributed $200, via Domitor, to the project David Pierce is spearheading, the Media History Digital Archive that digitized the Film Daily and Photoplay, among many other wonders, particularly from the 20s. There are other sites as well — this is a movement that will continue.  The documents are free, full-text searchable, downloadble as PDFs or in other formats, and appear as perfect color facsimiles, high-quality scans from paper copies of the originals, not microfilm. The most important French site, which is much larger, is called Gallica, from the Bibliothèque de France .The Gallica scans of periodicals I have seen were made from microfilm, like the journals available through Proquest here, but they are likewise free, full-text searchable and (mostly) downloadable.  Huge numbers of books and journals of all kinds can be searched at the same time. As a research tool it is fabulous, as long as the paper originals have been preserved; paper copies might be located later for images that ought to be photographed. You can use digitized image data for visual essays. 

Q: Which role does the Internet play in your seminar? How do you ensure a productive use of its sources?

JB: I cannot ensure anything! The digitization of documents I just mentioned speeds up research and can also stimulate research by offering documentation that may have been unknown. But some students just do not get interested in documents or maybe they haven’t yet figured out how or what kind of documentation can add dimension to their thinking and their projects. They may already be good at film analysis and want to create visual essays that allow them to do that in an audio-visual medium. I prefer that students learn how to explore possible sources of documentation, whether on the Internet or elsewhere — ordinarily it is a combination — to foreground HOW you know about something beyond the films themselves. But I come out of textual analysis and I am very interested in people who are really good at demonstrating comparisons and showing why they are important. It is not so obvious how to do that well. Whether the moving image materials, in particular, come from the Internet or whether they come from a higher-resolution source has to do with quality. There are lazy ways to do things, or that you do when you are out of time, or when you can’t find a better source — but a better source might become available later. Maybe the aspect ratio is off and maybe the resolution isn’t as good. At least it’s something. I call that a placeholder. I don’t forget about them, I try my best to get a high-res copy with the correct aspect ratio. I’m a purist. We still have “old technology” operative in the Digital Lab, for instance a Laserdisc player and a multi-standard VHS player. We can capture, transcode and use images from those formats that cannot be found on DVD. Jason Gendler, who is currently writing his dissertation, created an excellent visual essay devoted to a mise-en-scene and thematic analysis of three films by Johnnie To.  While he was at it, he created an a-v demonstration of differences in aspect ratios of the same film on VHS, Laserdisc and DVD that showed image information being cut off or distorted sometimes; he burned it to DVD for us, like the exercises everyone was doing in class. He showed why you should worry about aspect ratio. I was impressed by a passage in Pedro Costa’s documentary on Straub and Huillet (Où gît votre sourire enfoui?, 2001) while they were re-editing their film Sicilia! (I believe it was Costa who said after the screening that the Straubs always edit their films three times.)  He was filming them sitting at their editing table in near-darkness. At one point, we see the editing screen with them as Danièle Huillet says to Straub something like: “Look — that’s the frame when the air is leaving [the actor’s] chest, we need to cut just after that, with his breathing.” That’s the kind of attention to detail, and the time and concentration it takes, to do things well.

Q: Are you familiar with any online, web-based video essays? How do they align with or differ from the essays that are produced in your class?

JB: I watched your essays on Chaos Cinema! (6) Like the essays created in my classes, you put forward a clear argument, using strong examples. You mount a polemic about the kinds of films all around us that I never see. One of the nice things about the visual essay is that you can afford to spend fifteen minutes or half an hour watching something you don’t know anything about. Your essays were captivating, they drew me in. I don’t spend time on the web looking for visual essays or sampling blogs, but I happened to see a short visual essay by Kristin Thompson the other night on YouTube. She always does good work, and it makes sense for her and for David Bordwell to put more of their work online in this format, given their love of stylistic analysis.  They are already posting many of their print publications on their website for download. Doubtless there are lots of interesting visual essays online that I don’t know about (whatever they might be called), just as there are lots of hand-done music video “commentaries”. There are lo-res ways to do that that do not require learning the higher end software we use in class or learning how to output to DVD without losing quality. I want the students in my classes to think of their work as stand-alone high-resolution audio-visual essays that can be projected theatrically and that are meant to last, comparable to a printed research essay in that respect. That’s where original scholarship comes in, in-depth analysis thought through for an audio-visual medium that has become amazingly accessible. You can almost feel that passion for research, even though non-specialists won’t know exactly how original the work is. Our visual essays should be engrossing for everyone.

Endnotes:

(1) Schawn is currently Senior Vice President, Library and Technical Services at Fox Filmed Entertainment.

(2) See Rachel K. Bosley, ‘A New Dawn for Sunrise,’ American Cinematographer (June 2003).

(3) Subsequently published as “Murnau, Movietone and Mussolini” in Film History 17: 2-3 (fall 2005), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/film_history/toc/fih17.2.html .

(4) Martin Koerber is currently head of the film archive at the Deutsche Kinemathek in Berlin.

(5) James Hahn, “Sorrel and Son: Difficult Viewing”, Film History 17: 2-3 (fall 2005).

(6) Online at: http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/video_essay_matthias_stork_calls_out_the_chaos_cinema. Also see Stork’s essay – on making Chaos Cinema, and on audiovisual essays generally – published in this issue of Frames.

Copyright:

Frames #1 Film and Moving Image Re-Born Digital? 2012-07-02 this article © Matthias Stork and Janet Bergstrom

The Malleable Computer: Software and the Study of the Moving Image

[O]ne can imagine, if still only hypothetically, that one day, at the price of a few changes, the film will find something that is hard to express, a status analogue to the book or rather to that of the gramophone record with respect to the concert. If film studies are still done then, they will undoubtedly be more numerous, more imaginative, more accurate and more enjoyable than the ones we carry out in fear and trembling, threatened continually with the dispossession of the object. [Raymond Bellour] (1)

A computer is a medium that can dynamically simulate the details of any other medium, including media that cannot exist physically. It is not a tool, though it can act like many tools. It is the first metamedium, and as such it has degrees of freedom for representation and expression never before encountered and as yet barely investigated. [Lev Manovich] (2)

As digital technologies permeate every aspect of the production, distribution and consumption of imagery, academic discourses in all related areas are increasingly under pressure to reconfigure their intellectual standpoints in order to accommodate these new developments in a coherent manner.  In this respect the so-called digital turn has brought to the fore debates of ontology, in the case of Film Studies pertaining to what seems to be the inevitable downfall of celluloid as the material vehicle of cinema. It is not surprising, then, that Bellour’s essay The Unattainable Text is being summoned back from the 1970s as a sort of harbinger of the issues of virtuality that surround film theory today.

In the quotation above, the French critic hints at a hypothetical instrument with which to engage this virtual image, an instrument in the broad sense of the term, which not only comprises an actual machine or device but that also, crucially, implies a certain “status” of the filmic image, a state or condition, let us say, that allows film to be simulated, and not only accessed through the interfaces of language, technologies of reading and writing that Bellour deems beholden to what he calls “the comparative backwardness of film studies”. (3) These observations eventually lead him to a radical conclusion: “We might change our point of view completely […] and ask if the filmic text should really be approached in writing at all.” (4) A daunting question, perhaps too daunting in 1975 for the then incipient academic discipline of Film Studies, whose very call for institutional recognition was made in the form of written outputs, and which thus validated itself through the currency of language.

Meanwhile, around the same time in California, two core elements of the digital upheaval were developed: the microprocessor and the GUI (graphical user interface), both of which laid the foundations for the wide adoption of personal computers during the later part of the twentieth century. The second quotation above refers to the ideas behind these developments in the work of computer pioneer Alan Kay who, according to Lev Manovich, conceived the computer as a device capable of simulating all other media under the logic of a unified environment, one that –through its virtuality – would render all media identical at the level of its numerical register, thus enabling algorithmic manipulations through the use of software that were previously impossible. (5)

If we are inquiring about the consequences of the irruption of digital technologies in the academic study of the moving image, we must, in my view, explore the place that the computer occupies within the variegated practices of film and media scholarship, the beliefs and expectations scholars place upon this novel instrument as evinced by the functions they entrust to it. In what follows I set out to address these beliefs and expectations by examining two instances of software currently used to study film: the Cinemetrics project, and the DIEM Project. Both of these initiatives stem from neoformalist traditions of film scholarship, and are indebted quite directly to the approach favoured by David Bordwell and Noël Carroll. (6)

I will argue, however, that a close interrogation of each project’s deployments of software, and the intellectual assumptions behind its design, show that the computer is indeed soft enough to accommodate a wider range of intellectual frameworks and their concomitant styles of knowledge about cinema. I am referring here to approaches to the study of film whose epistemological basis are not granted by the methods of empirical research and causal explanation, but rather by the exploration of modalities of interpellation that create new concepts and re-arrange existing ones. (7) In other words, traditions within film studies that do not follow natural scientific epistemological models, but thread instead through the less quantifiable grids of psychology, race, gender, embodiment, and political and cultural subjectivity, often under the auspice of philosophical enquiry; some of the approaches directly indebted to Deleuze for example. (8) The arguments hereby presented are thus engulfed in the larger task of claiming the computer as a broad instrument for/of philosophical thought in the humanities, a contestation, I will go on to suggest, whose intellectual stakes can help to frame Bellour’s concerns against the digital onslaught.

Image to Data and Data to Image

In spite of their ubiquity in nearly all spheres of contemporary life (including scholarship), computers as an instrument, and computing as a method, occupy a relatively marginal space in the academic study of film. To be sure, the so-called new technologies are a recurring topic in film scholarship, but they are mostly discussed as such, as a topic; that is, they are discussed in relation to their consequences for films, in terms of production, distribution, exhibition or reception, in the debates concerning CGI, video on demand, or YouTube, for example. Very rarely do these technologies come up in discourse as scholarly instruments, and therefore their place in this respect remains still rather unclear. This is not to say that computers are not used to do film studies, as they undoubtedly are. But the focus of this piece is how they are being used, what our assumptions about them are, and what place we have given to them in our methodologies of film research. To understand this place, and to question these assumptions, let us examine one instance of software currently used in film studies: the Cinemetrics program. (9)

Cinemetrics is a small piece of software created by film scholar Yuri Tsivian in collaboration with statistician and computer scientist Gunars Civjans. It basically consists of an interface that allows the user to capture in real time the shot length of a given film as it is being watched (Figure 1). Shown in the screenshot is an advanced version of the interface that also allows the user to simultaneously capture the shot scale; as the film and the software are running, the user inputs (clicks) the buttons labelled with the different available types of shot according to what she or he sees onscreen (e.g. full shot, long shot, close up). Meanwhile, the program records, calculates, updates and displays this collected data so as to indicate the total number of shots, the average shot length, and the length of the last recorded shot. Also displayed is a timer, which can be stopped and resumed if the user wants to have a break. Finally all the captured data from a session is collected into a file and can be submitted via the Cinemetrics website to a freely available database. The gathered information can then be compared to that of other films, usually in terms of authorship attribution, chronology, genre classification, etc. (10)

This type of stylometrics is indeed familiar to neo-formalist approaches in film studies. For example, David Bordwell’s arguments about what he calls “intensified continuity” are supported to a great extent by measurements of a number of style variables, including average shot length.(11) Barry Salt is another scholar who takes this approach. In his statistical analysis of film style Salt collects data relating to variables over which he considers film-makers to have more control: shot length, shot scale and camera movement, for instance. He then analyses the collected data using familiar statistical tools such as standard deviation so as to detect patterns and anomalies in any given corpus of films. (12) Using celluloid prints (as Salt did when he started measuring his variables more than thirty years ago) demands a lot of patience and considerable skill – not to mention access to the prints – and in this sense software like Cinemetrics has made the whole process considerably easier.

It is not my intention to asses whether this statistical style of analysis is more accurate or, as Warren Buckland argues, “more systematic and rigorous” (13) than its non-statistical counterparts, nor am I interested at this moment in the question of the Cinemetrics program’s effectiveness or lack thereof with regard to measuring film style. I want to examine instead the assumptions behind its creation in terms of the tradition of film scholarship that has engendered it. In principle it should not be very surprising that neo-formalism is, of all scholarly approaches to film, the one that most quickly embraced the use of software. After all, Salt was quantifying, collecting and processing data from films even before computers came along, and in this sense software presented him with a logical instrument for the continuation of his project. But beneath this deceivingly fitting marriage lie assumptions about software being an intrinsically rigid and exact instrument, befitting of the natural sciences inasmuch as it is “best suited” for quantitative analysis, and thus “better” deployed by the narrowly focused empirical approach championed by Bordwell and Carroll.

The Cinemetrics program was indeed created under this logic, developed as a measuring tool, a mechanism to alleviate the painstaking technical tasks involved in the collection and processing of data; hence it used the computer for its automation and precision capabilities. Underpinning this organization is the epistemological structure that assumes film style to be a phenomenon that needs to be measured in order to gain knowledge about it, and thus that the more accurate the measurement is, the better the knowledge. On this account, conceived as a measuring instrument, the computer would seem of no use, or at least inadequate, to frameworks that, either, do not base their claims on quantification, or that consider images to be immeasurable; in other words, frameworks whose methods are based in philosophical rather than scientific enquiry.

But to what extent are these assumptions about both images and computers justified? Is it not the case that this role assigned to computing is also a historical construction and that, as such, it too can be challenged? In my view, it is the place given to software in our intellectual frameworks that is responsible for its inadequacy and not vice versa. The order implied by the Cinemetrics program is image-to-data, but suppose that we reversed this logic and imagined a piece of software whose order was data-to-image, and that instead of having the computer counting our images to collect data, we asked it instead to create images out of our data. How would this reversal shift the position of computing as an instrument in the study of film? To pursue this thinking, we first need to explore and reconsider some of our assumptions about software.

Soft Machines

One of the first issues that arise when confronting software is inter-disciplinary resistance: its purpose and language seem at first glance foreign to the arts and humanities’ own purposes and vocabularies. To bridge this gap it is convenient to frame the issue of software from the perspective of humanities computing, a practice that informally started more than three decades ago but that has only recently gained institutional recognition in the field now known as digital humanities. (14) Since their early beginnings as infrastructural tools for digitisation and indexing, functioning as a replacement for index cards in museums, archives and libraries, computers have become one of the central loci of interest for many of the humanities disciplines, and it is this very transformation that is both echoed and effected by the digital humanists. A way of expressing this conceptual shift is to understand the overarching project of this young discipline as one of rethinking computing by removing its instrument – the computer – from its behind-the-scenes role as a cybernetic assistant for the humanities disciplines and placing it on the centre plateau of humanist intellectual discourse. This is a promotion described below by David M. Berry with reference to a lecture by Willard McCarty:

The digital humanities themselves have had a rather interesting history, starting out as “computing in the humanities”, or “humanities computing”, the early days were very often seen as a technical support role to the work of the “real” humanities scholars who would drive the projects. This was the application of the computer to the disciplines of the humanities, what has been described as treating the “machine’s efficiency as a servant” rather than “its participant enabling of criticism”. (15)

Parallel to this reconsidering of computers lies the second problem: software and the study of images. If, on the one hand, there is this pretended promotion of the computer from a tool in the service of humanist thought to a device with which to think the humanities, on the other it needs to be noted that the addition of the tag “digital” has not de facto erased the hierarchies inherited from the regular, non-digital, humanities, and especially not the hierarchy that orders verbal and visual representation. Johanna Drucker succinctly frames this second issue in genealogical terms:

Critics trained in or focused on the modern tradition (in its twentieth-century form and reaching back into eighteenth-century aesthetics) have difficulty letting go of the longstanding distinction between textual and visual forms of representation – as well as of the hierarchy that places text above image. (16)

This hierarchy is exercised through the structure of humanities scholarship and reaches all the way down to the textual output of humanities research. It is precisely in this instance that the digital humanities prove their worth, for at its most provocative, this emergent discipline is putting pressure on these structures, on this regime of knowledge founded on the dichotomy between the sayable and the showable. “Can scholarship show as well as tell?” asks Tara McPherson in her introduction to Media Studies and the Digital Humanities, arguing in a bold gesture that humanists must “rethink our allegiance to print as the only (or even primary) outcome of our scholarly endeavours”. Computing technologies, she goes on to argue, “allow us to imagine very different scholarly ‘outputs’ at the surface of the screen.” (17)

Consequently, to understand software in these terms means to locate it in an evolving space of negotiation created at the encounter between the quantitative-qualitative vis-à-vis the verbal-visual. Moreover, it means to historically trace its movement through this space, as for example do Schnapp and Presner in their conceptualisation of a second wave of digital humanities:

The first wave of digital humanities work was quantitative, mobilizing the search and retrieval powers of the database, automating corpus linguistics, stacking hypercards into critical arrays. The second wave is qualitative, interpretive, experiential, emotive, generative in character. It harnesses digital toolkits in the service of the Humanities’ core methodological strengths: attention to complexity, medium specificity, historical context, analytical depth, critique and interpretation. (18)

Using these coordinates we can map Bellour’s concerns onto the shifting computing models of the digital humanities. In so doing we expose software as a site of contention. Can we ask the computer to do something other than indexing and labelling (counting and naming)? This second wave of the digital humanities, as manifested in the works of Berry, Drucker, McPherson, Schnapp and Presner, amongst others, suggests that we can, and further suggests that software is indeed soft enough to accommodate the demands of qualitative frameworks. Drucker, for instance, examines these possibilities under an approach she calls “speculative computing”, which she bases upon three main strategies: (19)

a)     Generative aesthetics – concerned with form-giving instead of its assessment.

b)      ‘Pataphysics – a concept attributed to Alfred Jarry by which emphasis is shifted from finding norms that describe phenomena to finding exceptions, or unique cases.

c)     Quantum methods – which consider phenomena to be indeterminate, and posit the observer as the determining entity, the creator of the phenomena.

It is not my intention to examine these strategies in depth; instead I will use the first one as a departure point, and just touch on the second in order to get to the last one. In this order of ideas, we can begin by asking: what can software do apart from counting and naming? Aside from assessing and categorising images, the computer can give form to images. This is indeed one of its most powerful capabilities, and yet, it is also the one whose potential, when it comes to scholarly deployments, is most often overlooked.

This form giving appears around us in the instant rendering of all sorts of images: from the blockbuster at the cinema, to the moving charts of the stock market. At the same time, while ubiquitous in nature, this becoming of images is rarely seen, mainly because its rendering processes are usually concealed from us. Therefore what occurs at the point where information is given a shape is often taken for granted and considered automatic, and the shapes created are presented as natural or even inevitable. The computer in this respect plays an increasingly important part in contemporary regimes of the visible. It allows some images to exist while simultaneously keeping others from existing, even when in many cases this crucial rendering process goes unnoticed in the black box of intangible software, deployed in silence, at ever-increasing speeds and through an algorithmic mode of expression that shields it from social scrutiny. (20)

Drucker’s generative aesthetics are provocative insofar as they draw out software’s elusive capacities in the configuration of visibilities, thereby suggesting a different place for computing in the study of the visual. However, although the terms of the question have changed, it still remains unanswered: is it possible to harness these capacities in the service of film scholarship? It is one thing to render a graph that plots the ratio between two distinct quantifiable variables, and quite another to render an image with which to think another image. Can the computer live up the high expectations placed upon it by this second wave of digital humanists? How do we go from the Cinemetrics program to Drucker’s quantum digital environment of “plasticine that remains malleable, receptive to the trace of interpretative moves”? In order to help frame this transition let us now take a look at the DIEM Project.

The Dynamic Images and Eye Movements (DIEM) project is based on a sophisticated cybernetic system consisting of two parts: a hardware component (Eyelink 1000) that tracks the eye movements of a human subject, and a software component (Computational and Algorithmic Representation and Processing of Eye-movements, or CARPE) that turns the collected data into a visualisation. Researchers at the Visual Cognition Lab of the University of Edinburgh have applied these two systems to a total of 250 participants watching 85 different videos, from a Wimbledon tennis match, to a clip of a landscape in Antarctica, to a segment of The Simpsons. According to the DIEM website, this setup is designed to investigate the “way we look” and how this looking may influence our perception, memory and feeling of images: “Our goal is to develop a comprehensive theory of active visual perception and cognition.” (21)

The hardware in this case collects the data of a physiological response (the eye movements), while the software renders it into a visualisation of this response. The result is a sort of gaze-tracking video in which the data from the bodily response is mapped onto the original clip so as to indicate where exactly onscreen the participants are actually fixating their gaze, the specific areas of interest that command their attention at any given point during the clip’s playback. (22)

The researchers quickly ran into a peculiar problem: while their piece of hardware collected the physiological data from the viewing subjects very accurately, in its data form (as the numerical locations plotted in X and Y every thousandth of a second and for every participant) this information was quite useless; dissociated from the image that prompted the eye movements in the first place, the gathered data could not serve its intended purpose, namely, to show the gaze’s fixation points. To address this issue a complementary system was designed (the CARPE software) that would map the data sets onto their corresponding videos. The software renders such mapping as follows: for every frame of the video, the point (X and Y location) of each viewer’s gaze is represented using a circle, and the size of the circle is calculated in relation to how long the eyes of this viewer have fixated on this specific point. The same process is then repeated for all the viewers involved and all the resulting circles are then superimposed back onto the video frame by frame. The result rendered by the CARPE software is a visualisation of the gaze of the participants, which to some extent allows us to see how they see (Figure 2).

In its experimental arrangement, as well as in its design and purpose, the DIEM project might seem closer to Bordwell than to Deleuze, especially since it originates within the framework of cognitive psychology favoured by the former. It is also true that the outcome of this project has been enthusiastically welcomed by Bordwell, who had previously written about gaze-tracking, and who saw in the visualisations a way of confirming his own postulations about film, and crucially also about methodology. In fact, one of the pilot tests conducted by Tim Smith of the DIEM project took off precisely from Bordwell’s analysis of a scene of the film There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2008). The scene in question unfolds early on in the film (18′ 47”). Oil prospector Daniel Plainview, his assistant Fletcher Hamilton and Daniel’s son HW receive an unexpected visit from Paul Sunday, who assures Plainview there is oil in his family’s property and who wants to sell to the oilman the location of his family’s ranch. As they agree on the price, the four men gather around a map and, in a single long take, Sunday points them in the right direction. This last take is the one analysed by Bordwell; broadly speaking he argues that, even though there is no editing, the director Paul Thomas Anderson carefully stages the scene so as to tightly direct our attention (Figure 3). (23)

These observations about staging were then picked up by Smith, who compared them to his eye-tracking visualisation of the same clip: “Is David right in predicting that, even in the absence of other compositional techniques such as lighting, camera movement, and editing, viewer attention during this sequence is tightly controlled by staging?” asks Smith. He concludes that Bordwell is right, using the gaze visualisations as proof and thus offering what Bordwell would later deem “almost unprecedented in film studies […] an effort to test a critic’s analysis against measurable effects of a movie”. (24)

I am not interested in either validating or discrediting Bordwell’s analysis, nor indeed his claims about Anderson’s staging technique (which for the most part I agree with). Instead, it is the experiment itself that I want to explore: the way visualisations are used, how they are produced and, furthermore, their existence in the first place. Let us first consider the use. Smith regards the gaze-tracking visualisations as a sort of scientific evidence, and in a sense they do prove Bordwell right no less than they prove him wrong. Seeing the circles change position and size, one gets the impression that there is so much more going on with the gaze: faces are indeed focal points and command our attention, most of the time supported by dialogue and movement, but simultaneously the gaze wanders off all the time to random places in the frame. In the same scene from TWBB, for example, as Paul enters the room and halts, there is a point at which there are as many gazes directed at the light as there are directed at his face; a couple of frames later two viewers quickly examine another light source in the very top right corner of the frame (Figure 4), and right before Paul moves on, one of these wandering viewers sets his eye on an object on the wall behind. Similarly, as Paul moves into the next room, turning his back to the camera and revealing Daniel sitting at his desk, most viewers focus on the illuminated face of the oil prospector; but as he speaks, the lamp next to him also receives some attention, and most interestingly, there are some viewers who direct their gaze towards dark, objectless and even remote areas of the screen, as if expecting something to emerge from the blackness (Figure 5). Finally, as Paul leaves this scene ends, but the next scene is equally interesting in terms of gaze tracking. It consists of a pan and then a tracking shot that follows Daniel’s car behind a train platform; as the car approaches from the distance it becomes the main focal point (although the gazes of some viewers wander to the train tracks) (Figure 6). The camera follows the car through the whole take, but as the vehicle goes behind the platform and is no longer visible viewers are put in a peculiar position: on the one hand the camera keeps moving as it tracks the car, but on the other a number of objects on the platform also call for attention (a dolly, a red box, a bench and even a dog). At this point the invisible (but moving) car and the visible (but static) objects compete for the viewers’ attention, and this produces a far less coherent scenario for gaze tracking (Figures 7.1 and 7.2).

All these anomalies are left out of Smith’s analysis, first because he focuses on a scene with relatively few objects, four human faces and almost no camera movement. But another and more important reason is that Smith uses what he calls “a little visualisation trick” which consists of asking the CARPE software to render a “peekthrough” heat-map that, instead of all the circles, shows only a condensed area where most viewers’ gazes converge by blocking out everything else. (25) From a cognitive-formalist stance, this is the obvious gambit, but we need to consider the logic behind this usage: the heat-map visualisation is reduced, as it grants visibility to the most common cases by selectively erasing the exceptional ones; in other words it favours the normal at the expense of the deviant, and thus the resulting image presents itself as univocal and coherent. And not only are the exceptional gazing moments erased, the gazers themselves are no longer individually represented; by switching from eleven circles (one for each gazer) to a single heat-map, the viewers involved in the experiment are all condensed into one anonymous gazer. So if previously we did not know their race, gender, age or anything else for that matter, in this visualisation we know nothing even about their individual gazing, which is subsumed into a unifying focal point (and sometimes lost altogether) (Figures 8.1 and 8.2).

It is not hard to see from this perspective the deep implications of the process by which data is given form. Of course this does not mean there is no knowledge to be gained from the peek-through visualisation, or that this knowledge is necessarily less valuable, but it does mean that we must recognise that implicit in this rendering is an epistemological regime founded on the principle of normalisation. But what if we turned to a different regime – a ‘pataphysical one for example? We could then ask the CARPE software to render a visualisation that erased the fixation moments in order to see the instants of exploration, of indecision, to see where we see when we are not seeing what we are supposed to be seeing. As we can see in the following screenshot, the CARPE software offers these selective capabilities already (Figure 9). Furthermore, there is information that appears to be absent, such as blinking: in the circles visualisation, when a viewer blinks, her or his circle simply disappears for a frame or two (Figures 12 and 13), while on the heat-map, because the viewers are not distinguishable from one another, we cannot tell when someone has blinked. But it is important to note that this information, while seemingly absent, does exist, and is still information; it emerges as the “negative” data when compared to the “positive” data. Consequently we could even ask the software to erase everything other than the instants we missed by blinking, thereby producing an uncanny new visibility: a visualisation of the unseen. This is something that, this time, is far closer to Deleuze than it is to Bordwell.

This experiment might indeed be unprecedented in film studies, in its scholarly form at least, but not because of the reasons posited by Bordwell. These visualisations might have been created following the principles of cognitive psychology – as Smith puts it, “Reducing complex processes down to simple, manageable, and controllable chunks” (26) – but something unexpected happened: the simple, manageable and controllable chunks that can be counted and named were in this case so small and so spatialised that they became impossible to unbind from their image. As a result, researchers had to ask the software to put all the chunks back together, to give this information a form. In the process the data became once again complex and unmanageable, unquantifiable and to a certain extent unnameable; it became another image.

Information is in this way revealed to be bound to its visual representation rather than existing independently from it, and the form-giving process undertaken by software is also revealed to be a site of dispute, producing different visibilities on the face of different regimes of knowledge, or in other words, determining phenomena by observing them in a specific way. This notion brings us back to Drucker’s quantum aesthetics, but it also reminds us of Deleuze’s luminosities:

Visibilities are not to be confused with elements that are visible or more generally perceptible […] [Visibilities] are not forms of objects, not even forms that would show up under a light, but rather forms of luminosity which are created by the light itself and allow a thing to exist only as a flash, sparkle, or shimmer.” (27)

The predominant luminosity in the study of the moving image institutionalised as Film Studies has been writing. This luminosity has rendered certain visibilities, many of which have been, and still are, undoubtedly valuable. But if we are after new visibilities, and seek a glimpse or a shimmer of that which is still unseen and which by its invisibility is yet unthought, we must turn our attention to other luminosities. Therefore, key to these reflections about the DIEM project is the question of its method, fundamentally the fact that before the image is verbally described, it is accessed in the first instance through another image: a metapicture. Admittedly, this metapicture is again updated by language in Smith’s analysis, and in mine, but this order reversal is hardly a minor alteration; on the contrary, it enables the possibility of a far-reaching epistemological shift whose strategies do not assume that films need to be translated into writing, and that opt instead to formulate visual énoncés as their primary task, in other words: visualisations of the visual.

Moving image studies as discipline can then become removed from its ontological anchor; it is neither the film nor the metapicture that constitutes the object of study, but the simulation involved in the picturing process. Consequently, the intellectual stakes of such luminosity lie not only in what we can picture, but, most importantly, in what we can think of picturing and how. In this sense the use I suggest for the computer is closer in its purpose to the avant-garde than it is to cognitive psychology; it is through the process of conceiving the image, by performing its design and subjectively manipulating its simulation, that images can be used to investigate other images.

We have grown accustomed to think of computers in binary terms, operating under the inflexible logic of ones and zeros that is often cited as its structural core at the hardware level. But a careful examination of software reveals computing as site of symbolic dispute: its sophisticated algorithmic system is not at all foreign to notions of infinity, contingency, or paradox, which in turn suggests its deployment is no more natural to science than it is to philosophy. In my view, this re-thinking of the computer as an instrument with which to think cinema is one of the great possibilities afforded by a digital re-birth of film studies as a discipline. Perhaps the day that Bellour anticipated, in which the filmic text could be approached not only through writing, is closer than we think, and paradoxically, it might be the utter dispossession of the filmic object that enables this possibility.

Endnotes:

(1) Raymond Bellour, “The Unattainable Text”, Screen 16, no. 3 (1975), 19.

(2) Lev Manovich, Software Takes Command (Digital book draft; Software Studies Initiative, 2008), 71 (PRC version).

(3) Bellour, “The Unattainable Text”, op. cit., 19.

(4Ibid.

(5) Manovich, Software Takes Command, 21-35.

(6) See: David Bordwell and Nöel Carroll, Post-Theory : Reconstructing Film Studies (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996).

(7) For a clear and concise discussion of these approaches and their specific methodological strategies see: D. N. Rodowick, “An Elegy for Theory*”. October. 1 (122): 91-109.

(8) One example of these approaches is the work on cinema and the senses of Laura. U. Marks, whose embodied spectatorship theory served as a sort of counterpoint to Bordwell for the purposes of this piece. See: Laura U. Marks, The skin of the film: intercultural cinema, embodiment, and the senses (Durham: Duke University Press, 2000).

(9) Cinemetrics Ver. 1.0, Yuri Tsivian and Gunars Civjans, Chicago (2010).

(10) When version 1.0 of Cinemetrics was released at the end of 2006 it had 500 submissions. Version 2.0 is scheduled for 2011 and as of July 2011 there were 7444 measurements submitted to the database. Gunars Civjans, e-mail to author, July 19, 2011.

(11) David Bordwell, “Intensified Continuity: Four Dimensions” in The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style in Modern Movies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 121-137.

(12) Barry Salt, Moving into Pictures: More on Film History, Style, and Analysis (London: Starword, 2006). See also Salt’s notes about his methods on the Cinemetrics website: www.cinemetrics.lv/salt.php.

(13) Thomas Elsaesser and Warren Buckland, Studying Contemporary American Film: A Guide to Movie Analysis (London; New York: Arnold; Oxford University Press, 2001), 116.

(14) Joseph Raben, “Introducing Issues in Humanities Computing”, Digital Humanities Quarterly 1, no. 1 (2007).

(15) David M. Berry, “Digital Humanities: First, Second and Third Wave”, in Stunlaw: A Critical Review of Politics, Arts and Technology (2011): http://stunlaw.blogspot.com/. Accessed on July 7, 2011.

(16) Johanna Drucker (and Bethany Nowviskie), “Speculative Computing: Aesthetic Provocations in Humanities Computing” in A Companion to Digital Humanities, ed. Susan Schreibman, Raymond George Siemens, and John Unsworth (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 434.

(17) Tara McPherson, “Introduction: Media Studies and the Digital Humanities”, Cinema Journal 48, no. 2 (2009), 120, 122.

(18) Jeffrey Schnapp and Todd  Presner, “Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0” (2009): http://manifesto.humanities.ucla.edu/. Accessed on July 14, 2011. (Emphasis in the original.)

(19) Drucker, “Speculative Computing”, op. cit., 434.

(20) See Joseph Raben’s “Blackboxing” in “Introducing Issues in Humanities Computing”, op. cit.

(21) “Dynamic Images and Eye Movements”: http://thediemproject.wordpress.com/. Accessed July 14, 2011.

(22) See the videos at http://vimeo.com/visualcognition.

(23) David Bordwell, “Hands (and Faces) across the Table” in Observations on Film Art, ed. Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell (2008): http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2008/02/13/hands-and-faces-across-the-table/. Accessed July 1, 2011.

(24) Tim Smith, “Watching You Watch There Will Be Blood” in Observations on Film Art, ed. Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell (2011): http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2011/02/14/watching-you-watch-there-will-be-blood/. Accessed July 1, 2011.

(25Ibid.

(26Ibid.

(27) Gilles Deleuze and Seán  Hand, Foucault (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), 45.

Copyright:

Frames # 1 Film and Moving Image Studies Re-Born Digital? 2012-07-02, this article © Daniel Chávez Heras

Analysis of Film Colors in a Digital Humanities Perspective

In just under 120 years of film history several hundred cinematic colour processes have emerged, many of which had their roots in nineteenth century still photography. To date, though, we still lack a comprehensive research publication that connects the technical foundations of these processes to their respective contemporary reception and their aesthetic or narrative uses.

Globally, the knowledge is there, but it is distributed in books, papers, in the holdings of archives and in the heads of their curators. Now more than ever, at the threshold of film’s complete digital conversion, we need access to this knowledge in order to set up work-flows and standards that can help govern the digitization process of historical film material. With only a very few cinemas relying completely on analogue projection, with the major camera suppliers having cancelled the production of analogue technology, with Kodak having filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February 2012, we have passed the tipping point already. Thus these are very urgent matters indeed.

To date, with some notable exceptions, (1) Film Studies as a discipline has barely reacted to this fundamental change. Yet it not only affects contemporary film production and distribution, but also our perception of the cinematic past. My research team and I became aware of this fact while we were working on an applied research project for the development of a scanning and semi-automatic restoration unit. Together with Franziska Heller I set out to develop an additional project (2) to investigate the changing perception of our cinematic past in the digital age. One of the most pressing topics in this regard is the perception and transformation of film colours as a result of their digitization.

To offer solid information, I have developed a database of historical film colours to document the various associated processes that have emerged in the course of film history. As of April 2012, this database consisted of 290 entries. It is being published online as an open access timeline that connects historical and bibliographical information with primary resources from several hundred original papers and more than 400 scanned frames provided by archives and scholars from all over the world.

This database has been conceived to serve as the starting point for a more collaborative endeavour to gather and connect detailed information on each of these processes as well as further illustrative material, filmographies, and downloads of seminal texts. In addition, this platform would be supported by a system for the computer-assisted analysis of film colours in a digital humanities 2.0 tradition, with collaboration among scholars on a global scale. I have reflected on the methodological and epistemological foundations of this project in my 2011 article “Die Vermessung ästhetischer Erscheinungen” (The Measurement of Aesthetic Phenomena). (3)

Many renowned scholars from universities and archives have already contributed to the collection of material, among others Paolo Cherchi Usai from the George Eastman House, Nicola Mazzanti from the Cinémathèque Royale of Brussels, Laurent Mannoni of the Cinémathèque française, the Cineteca di Bologna, the Library of Congress, and many more.

We are currently working on a crowd-funding campaign to support the project with the necessary financial means.

The database may be accessed online here: http://zauberklang.ch/colorsys.php.

Endnotes:

(1) See, for example, Rodowick, David N. (2007): The Virtual Life of Film. Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press. Or Fossati, Giovanna (2009): From Grain to Pixel. The Archival Life of Film in Transition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

(2) “Film History Re-mastered”, see http://www.research-projects.uzh.ch/p15584.htm

(3) “Die Vermessung ästhetischer Erscheinungen” (The Measurement of Aesthetic Phenomena)” Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft, no. 5 (2/2011), pp. 44–60.

Copyright:

Frames # 1 Film and Moving Image Studies Re-Born Digital? 2012-07-02, this article © Barbara Flueckiger