Florence Turner

What did it mean to be a film star in the second decade of film’s existence, at a time when the idea of film stardom itself was just beginning to take shape? The career of Florence Turner offers an illuminating opportunity to consider this question, especially as she has been identified as one of the two “first big movie stars” (the other being Florence Lawrence) by no less an authority than Eileen Bowser (Bowser 1994). Aside from sharing the same first name, Turner and Lawrence both found themselves initially identified with the companies producing their motion pictures: Lawrence came to be known as “the Biograph Girl” while Turner gained fame as “the Vitagraph Girl.” The two were also among the first actors to make personal appearances in promotion of their films, ushering in an era when performers were enlisted to publicize themselves, thereby aiding in the emergence of cinema as an institution

Late 1920s film theory and criticism as a test-case for Benjamin’s generalizations on the experiential effects of editing

This article investigates Walter Benjamin’s influential generalization that the effects of cinema are akin to the hyper-stimulating experience of modernity. More specifically, I focus on his oft-cited 1935/36 claim that all editing elicits shock-like disruption. First, I propose a more detailed articulation of the experience of modernity understood as hyper-stimulation and call for distinguishing between at least two of its subsets: the experience of speed and dynamism, on the one hand, and the experience of shock/disruption, on the other. Then I turn to classical film theory of the late 1920s to demonstrate the existence of contemporary views on editing alternative to Benjamin’s. For instance, whereas classical Soviet and Weimar theorists relate the experience of speed and dynamism to both Soviet and classical Hollywood style editing, they reserve the experience of shock/disruption for Soviet montage. In order to resolve the conceptual disagreement between these theorists, on the one hand, and Benjamin, on the other, I turn to late 1920s Weimar film criticism. I demonstrate that, contrary to Benjamin’s generalizations about the disruptive and shock-like nature of all editing, and in line with other theorists’ accounts, different editing practices were regularly distinguished by comparison to at least two distinct hyper-stimulation subsets: speed and dynamism, and shock-like disruption. In other words, contemporaries regularly distinguished between Soviet montage and classical Hollywood editing patterns on the basis of experiential effects alone. On the basis of contemporary reviews of city symphonies, I conclude with a proposal for distinguishing a third subset – confusion. This is an original manuscript / preprint of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Early Popular Visual Culture on 02 Aug 2016 available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17460654.2016.1199322

Narration in the Transitional Cinema: The Historiographical Claims of the Unauthored Text

Though our knowledge of the transitional era has increased substantially over the last few decades, incorporating studies of pivotal institutions, exhibition and reception contexts, and forces of regulation and circulation, formal analysis of the period’s films is still indebted to the singular example of D.W. Griffith, identified as the instigator of the “narrator system” in Tom Gunning’s influential book, D.W. Griffith and the Origins of the American Narrative Film. But the historical accident that resulted in Griffith’s films surviving when those of his contemporaries largely disappeared has defined most historians’ approach to charting a history of narrational changes during the pivotal years of 1908-1913. Rather than challenge Griffith’s importance as an enterprising and influential filmmaker, historians require the means to better contextualize Griffith’s contributions, rewriting in the process a formal history that can incorporate authorship without being defined by it as a governing principle. To this end, this essay will use the opportunity provided by the ongoing restoration and distribution of Thanhouser films from 1910-1913 to investigate how the “unauthored text” from this period can aid in our endeavours to expand the contours of the historiography of the transitional era.Notre connaissance de l’histoire du cinéma entre 1908 et 1913, cette période dite « de transition », s’est considérablement accrue depuis quelques décennies, notamment grâce aux études qui ont été menées sur les institutions-clés de cette transition, mais aussi sur différents sites d’exhibition et de réception des films, de même que sur certaines instances de régulation et de diffusion. Malgré ces avancées, l’analyse formelle des films de cette période repose largement sur un seul exemple, celui de D.W. Griffith, que Tom Gunning qualifie d’instigateur du « système narratif » dans son important ouvrage D.W. Griffith and the Origins of American Narrative Film. C’est pourtant un accident historique — lequel a voulu que les films de Griffith survivent, contrairement à ceux de ses contemporains — qui a façonné l’approche des historiens souhaitant retracer le développement des procédés narratifs durant cette époque charnière allant de 1908 à 1913. Plutôt que de mettre en doute l’importance de Griffith en tant que réalisateur avant-gardiste et influent, les historiens doivent chercher à mieux contextualiser l’apport de Griffith, récrivant par là même une histoire formelle capable d’accueillir la dimension de l’auteur, sans qu’elle y agisse comme principe directeur. À cet égard, le présent article profitera du projet actuel de restauration et de distribution des films Thanhouser produits entre 1910 et 1913, afin d’expliquer comment les « textes sans auteur » de cette période contribuent à étoffer l’historiographie de la période dite de transition

The Avant Garde + Primitive Cinema

The authors discuss how avant-garde filmmakers from 1970 to 1985 refered to non-narrative films from before 1908, and thus helped to retrieve "Primitive Cinema" from its debased position in film history. 23 bibl. ref

Editing and the Institutionalization of Cinema, 1913-1917

How was editing imagined during the transitional period, as cinema became an institution? How closely did the trade press’s representation of editing, as a formal system subject to change, align with trends apparent on the screen? Did commentators of the day register editing’s changing functions? To what degree can we detect an “editing consciousness” within the trade press, and how did it operate in the crucial years of 1913-17? To better answer these questions, this essay looks at the terminology that writers employed when writing about editing during these years, the advisories that they issued, and the factors that may have influenced their conceptions of editing. These observations will help us define with more precision how the industry reconciled itself to editing’s ascendancy and reaffirm the uneven contours of the process of institutionalization.Comment imaginait-on le montage au cours de la période de transition, alors que le cinéma devient une institution ? Dans quelle mesure la représentation du montage en tant que système formel sujet au changement que l’on trouve dans la presse spécialisée de l’époque correspondait-elle aux tendances qui apparaissent à l’écran ? Les commentateurs avaient-ils remarqué les fonctions changeantes du montage ? À quel point peut-on détecter une « conscience du montage » dans la presse spécialisée, et comment opérait-elle au cours des années cruciales de 1913 à 1917 ? Pour mieux répondre à ces questions, cet article examine la terminologie employée par les auteurs pour écrire au sujet du montage durant cette période, les avis qu’ils ont émis et les facteurs qui peuvent avoir influencé leurs conceptions du montage. Ces observations permettent de définir plus précisément la manière dont l’industrie s’est réconciliée avec l’ascension du montage et de réaffirmer les contours inégaux du processus d’institutionnalisation