Cinema Before Cinema: The Origins of Scientific Cinematography 0901299758, 9780901299758

Citation preview

Hon hl,torle• of the clnem, u,11 u, that it began with the flrst public screening of the Cinematogrnphe Lumii,.re In Part, on 28 December 1895. This d;,..;c book, publi,hed for the first time in Engll,h. •rgues for another history of cinema. one whlch had Its ongins in the re,earch need., of nlne,eenth-cenwry scientfru. ln,,.,,tlgator, ,uch as Etienne-Jules Han,y. Ge,orge, Demeny, Jules Janssen.Albert loo de. Ottomar Amchiit:z 311d the maverick Eadwun:I Muybridge were keenly Interested In the analysl• of motion through photogrnphy.TrHeJr t""'1nolog1cal breakthrough• led to die cinema we know today. but their true Inheritors were no, the producers of cinema as spect.1cle, but a dedicated band of scientists, doctors. anthropologists and natura.li,ts lnsplred by their work wfla e,t.1bli$hed the art of scientific dnema,ogrnp!,y.

Onema 11,,fi,r,:, Onema is an es,end•I text for all tho,e interened In the hisi:ory of cinema. the hisi:ory of photogr;phy. and the appllc:ttion of moving images to the needs of educ:ttian and s.clence, Originally published u !I cirtema prim dj Lum/ere, now u~ated and with new chapter.

"If one looks for o comprehensive history of the origins of scJentlfJc film and the quest for Its praetlcal oppf/catlons, Vlrg/1/o Tosl's work stiff stands out os the truly Jndlspen,oble work on the subject. ... Paolo Cherchl Uni Virgilio To,i ha, bMn a documentary filmmaker. a lecrnrer, and a film historian. He was a consultant at UNESCO and the lstitu,o Luce, president of the International Sclentlflc film Association and the Italian Scienti~c Film As,ociatlon, and Research Director for the Centro Spenmentale di Cinematografia and RAI TV. His books Include fl

=epi film (/970), Orn,mmogrophy

and Sdenlifi in any way cast a shadow on lhe glory of Edison, even some who had never even 1hough1 of putting U1emselves forward as a potential candidate as the inventor of the cinema1ic experience. Ramsaye's book was even taken as reliable by such well-known scholars as the French historian Georges Sadoul. He. however, had the excuse thal he was writing during the Second World War and U1crefore did not have direct access to American sources or the possibility lo double check some of the inform:,lion that Ramsaye passed off as focL. Only in the last few years has it been possible for researchers lo pull down the house of cards buih by the brilliant journalist. clearly with his own agenda. to tl1e J,,'T'eater glory of Edison.• Unfor 1u11ately there are many examples of this kind of chauvinistic alleration of the history of ll1e birth of cinema, and they include many different counu·ies. Wl1elher ii is the British who claim thaL Ihe true inventor is Friese-Greene or thc:Americans who use the strangesl ways 10 insist lhal the birth of cinema was in the USA. 1he examples arc really too many to cile herc. 1•'niere is even one writer who says, seemingly will1out fear or rhetoric and partiality of information. thal 'thl" lialians were the r,,..,, w address scientifically the problems of projecting images.' 'l11is. we are 1old, is because 'll1e analytic description of the so-called "camera

II

MYTHOLOGY obscura ·· by the immortal author of the Mo11a Lisa is the starting point of the long journey that after four centuries of hopeful research wiU bring the decisive discovery by the Lumieres.' 11 The literature from France is clearly very rich and present.~ a number of cases which border on the paradoxical, when its historians. not content simply to sing the praises of the Lumieres to foreigners, end up attacking each other over other possible candidates. albeit still French ones. We shall return to this aspect later on. For now. let us limit ourselves to a quote from an author who entitled his book's chapter 'Ou Soleil a Lumicres· claiming that 'science and history march side by side certifying the French invention·. and who closed his book with the fateful words: 'it is incontestable and oot contested that photography and the ci11emalographe are and will for ever re111ai11 glorious sons of /lie French natio11 ....., 3. The mythology of the cinematic spectacle Among the various histories under consideration. one can extrapolate a group that, with respect to the issue of the birth or invention of cinema. represents a legitimate diversion: those that maintain an interest not in the birth of cinema as a mechanical fact, but as the birth of the art of film. A typical example of Anglo-Saxon pragmatism comes from an AmeriC'illl historian who writes:

The art of film. depending on the instrument. had to wait for the invention of the device. The machine. however. wasn't invented to make art possible. it was created essentially as a device to record and iUus1ra1e movement." The exaggerated idealism of many Europeans can be represented by the Italian writer who states (with reference to Chinese shadows). that 'cinematic expression certainly preceded the relative technical means.'" II can also be seen in the work of the famous French critic Andre Bazin who wrote: The cinema is an idealistic phenomenon. The idea that men had of it was already well established in their brains like the Platonic sky, and what is noteworthy is the way that the material resisted the idea. rather tl1an tl1e technical influence on the imagination of the inventor. Similarly. the cinema owes next to nothing to the scientific spirit Its fathers are not scientists ... " A more down to earth writer. a Belgian who taught film history in Italy, bas made a few interesting admissions: Originally. the cinema was an experiment by a few researchers motivated, predominantly, by scientific reasons. At that time they could not have foreseen the unique impact that their discoveries, with tl1e passage oftime. would have had on the analysis and synthesis of movement. born from an imperfection in the human eye ... For ourselves we have addressed studies from the point of view of the formation and evolution of film as a wholly original form of artistic e.xpression. 16

■

MYTHOLOGY

'TI1e same author, in a subsequent chapter, writes that the cinema is 'the natural result of a series of studies, discoveries, oi various kinds of experiences: scientific, optical, chemical, mechanical.' Al no point does he even remotely ask the question as to why these studies, ext,eriences and discoveries were made; for him the cinema is just the 110/rtral consequence of all this. With the traditional at1itucle of the sufficiency of idealistic rulture, he concludes: 'One will not be amazed, therefore, if we have reduced to its base essentials our look at the origins. which belong first of all in the technical arena.'" Another scholar, referring to the eighteenth century physicist-aeronaut in Paris who terrified audiences with his phantasmagorias, writes: Robertson is the real ancestor of the cinematic art. the Melies of the 1700s. and even if after him and before the inventions of the Lumiere brothers, studies in movement led to core important scientific discoveries, his figure looms large in the history or cinema. inasmuch as he was the firsl instinctively to lay clown the elemcnl~ of a new aesthetic sensibility. In Lhe same way as Robertson can be seen as 1he direct precursor of the more fanwticaJ and cxpres.~ive clements in cinema, so Plateau should be considered the forefather or its mechanical dimension." Many historians try to bypass the whole issue of the scientific origins of cinema by taking refuge behind a phrase attributed to Louis Lumiere while he was speaking to Georges Mclics. Trying Lo dissuade him from buying one of their camera• projectors, Lumiere is reported to have said 1hat his invention would only have curiosity value for a while and that its commercial prospects were negligible. Whether it was said in good faith or not, the phrase is of no real help in addressing the issues of the true significance of the birth of cinema. In a few isolated cases some authors, whether by chance or by a fortunate combination of words, although without the necessary historical documentation, have managed to get to tl1e heart of the matter. One such author is Arthur Knight, who stated: 'If subsequently the cinema has been accepted as one of the recognised arts. i1 cannot be denied that it remains a child of science.' Another is the English author Eric Rhode, who refers to the development of the cinema as a phenomenon !hat grew out of the indu~trial revolution. in which the interests of the showmen played a secondary role since the cinematic spectacle in essence developed as a byproduet of more important interests. as represented by scientific research. Even the British writer and dotumeniary lilmmaker Basil Wrigh1, in a book not actually about the history of cinema, defines the cinema itself as 'son of the laboratory and the machine', pointing out that the research and experiments that led IO its develo~ mcnt came from the work of scientists who were analysing movement. 19

•

HISTORIOGRAPHY

4. The historiography of the origins ·11, e [ollowing will consider histories of cinema Ihal give particular crnphasis lo ils origins and those few lexls that have concentrated c·xclusively on this particular topic. Shortly after the initial inlernalional success of the lirsl Cinematographe screenings, books s tar ted 10 appear which attempted lo describe ihe process by which cinema came into being, some even in a serious. methodical and well-documented [ashion. In 1899 Hopwood, an Englishman, published a book some chapters of which it is still possible lo read with great interest"' Being so close lo the lime of the events. he is able 10 b1ing a broad range of information. details anrl anecdotal episodes to some of the issues surrounding the s tudies of 1he pen;is1ence of vision that look place in l11e first haU of the nineteenth cenmry. He describes Muybriclge's method (i.e. laking a series of stills with a number of cameras) as one lhat ·was not successful in its fight for survival' against the other 1cchniques that followed i1, while still appreciating i1s scientific value." In lhe final chapter, he underlint's again the impor1,mce that scientific uses of the cinematograph will have, though when dealing with the po1en1ial fathers of Lhe invention, he is an early vicl im of Ihose who limit the mselves by only considering those tha1 con1ribu1ed s ignificantly to cinema spectacle. In the 1920s two imponant works were published in France, all hough both seem affected by a disl inclly nationalistic spiriL The firs! is a history of the cinema 'from !he origins to the present day' (1925) by G.-M iche l Coissac, al the lime well known in cinema circles. bu1 also a journalist on ~cienliJk issues. Unfortunal\'ly, 1he importance of the information and documents assembled is oc(·asion,~ly undermined by its rather chauvinisl ic stance,,., 'Ilic other book looks exclusively at 1he origins. hs author. Georges Potonniee, was a unique source of information as he was for many years the librarian of 1he Societe Fran~aise de Photographic, an organisation that. as we shall see, was an impor1a n1 presence U1roughout the decades which saw tJ1e developme n1 of scien• tific cine ma and the cinematic spectacle.- Potonniee is above all a his torian of pholography and Georges Sadoul (who stales thal he is in his debt for many delltils) considers him 'one of !he best historians on the invention of cine ma."" It has lo be said that Potonniee's book does contain some i111eres1ing historical points on the precursors of cinema. With regards 10 his self-confessed pro-Lumii:re s tance it is wor lh rett~ling something he said during the rlebates in 1924 on the invention of cine ma: Po1onniee 'expresses in the e nd 1he fear Iha! the United Stales, the United Kingdom and Germany, nll I)[ which claim to have invented cinematography, will take advanL1ge of our disagrecmcms 10 deny our counlry 1he c redit Jor this discovery and s uggest one of their own ins tead. It is Lo be hoped 1ha1 w,• in Frnnce will rea,·h an agreement and come lo a shared opinion.'-"' As for Coissac, it s hould be noted Ihm his work is a notable and delailed tr!'atisc

■

HISTORIOGRAPHY

that also considers the scientific aspects of the preLiminary rese:orch which led to the invention or cinema. Naturally. since the premise of the book is the establish• ment of Lumiere as the sole inventor. there is a constant effort to establish the limits or the oilier contributors. Coissac, however, also g ives great emphasis to the role of cinema in teaching and dedicates the last section of the book to this. It is therefore Jariing the insistence with which. right from the rhetoric in the introcluct.ion. he claims that the credit for giving humanity this invention be given to France, just as it seems frankly excessive that in another book Coissac tries to pass off as mere Nazi propaganda the work or tl,e German pioneer Skladanowsky. whom he insists on refer,ing to as Kladanowsky.' 1• lo the years immecliately after the Second World War. Georges Sadoul. whom we have already mentioned, came to dominate the bibliographic history of the cinema. His work. as a ·full Lime' mm histoiian. has appeared internationally in many pubLica• tions, which have been published over the years in new editions and in new versions aimed at a broad range of readers. His two main works are the already mentioned J-listoire gh,erale. a multi-volume specialist work. the first volLLme of which was entirely dedicated Lo lhe invention of cinema (1837-1897): and the Histoire du cinema 111011dial des origi11es a nous jours. aimed at a broader readership." Sadoul. like many others. started with the intention of writing a history of the arts and of the cinema. but his Marxist oriental.ion lead him Lo give particular weight 10 ll1e economic and instrumental aspects or lhe cinema phenomenon. As far as it concerns us. Sacloul can be seen as the first general histoiian of the cinema 10 look at tJ1e issues surrounding its invention in terms of a social process and technological development Shrinking from the mythologising of the lone inventor. the shadow of which hangs over all otJ,ers. he tried to maintain. so to speak. a certain international spirit to underline tbe vaiiety of its contributors. Particularly s ignificant is the final phrase of the first volume of the Histoire ge11era/e: Plateau and Stampfer. therefore, established the ptinciples. Muybridge undertook the urst filming. Marey invented u,e first film camera, Reynaud gave life to the flrst shows of animated projections, Edison perfected the first film. about ten inventors tried 10 project it on a screen aod Louis l..umiere was more successful at it than all the others. Shortly after Melies. adapting films to the way of theatre. transformed cinema. which before him had been a scientific cuiiosity, into a true cntcrtalnmenl 2" Here one finds brought together the positive results. albeit somewhat schematic and not entire ly correct, of the histoiical research of Sadoul. and at the san1e time its limits. Even he does not address the main question of why these scientists and technicians. from many different countries and of dillering orientations. thought lo construct and make functional machines that could record and reproduce the

HISTORIOGRAPHY

phases and dynamics of movement. RefPrring to Stampfer, Sacloul us...-$ " phrasewhich would not be followed u11 in the formulation of s ubsequent developments: •First s1uuering of scientific cinema :111plicd to tca(·hing.'" ' L"1 us 1101 forget that he was referring 10 experiments and clemonslralions that took place in 1832. Photography had barely been invented (if we accept Niepce as its inve ntor) and was still largely unknown. Brielly to leave behind the French language bibliogrnphy (which is undoubtedly the richest). let us look at an important German contribution (although it contains a few errors) on Ihe reconstruction of the period of the origins of cinema. F von Zglinicki·s Der Weg des Films is particularly valuable for its precise information on the activities of German pioneers and for its attempt lo provide a detailed international bibliography.•• TI1e basic layout re m:tins a traditional one. however. and the same can be said for a s ubsequent work by Jacques Deslandes that forms part of an ambitious if s lightly pretentious Histoire romparee du ci11e111a. which after lhe publication of the second volume remained unfinished. The first volume (De la ci11e111atique au ci11e111atographe. 1826-1896) looks al U1e history ol the origins starling from a basically scienlific premise. looking al optical illusions and the illusion of movernenl 1hal lies at the heart of Ihe dynamic e ffect of cinema. The aulhor provides details and clarifications that were the result of original research, much of ii in-depth. Given the comparative character of tl1e work. Deslandes in many cases tried lo establish a synoptic view in relation lo questions of priority. Deslandes, however. was mo1iva1ecl by a highly polemical perspectiv,· on Sadoul"s earlier works. and although he was able to dispute some of his facts and opinions. the ofteo biller tone and personal attacks have the effect of diminishing the perspective on the subject under con· sicleration. On the other hand. even he, both in his premise and in his conclusions, repeatedly makes the point that his chronicle of the history of cinema is only meant to function as an introduction to the his tory of the Art. with a capital a. He almost apologises for l he fact that the first volume •will deal much more wilh machines than with films. more wilh mechanics than with aesthetics."'' He gives great weight to the disputes among the various inventors. but he docs not ask himself the n~ason behind so mani• inventions. Remaining in ll1c French lao!fuage and in the 1960s. ll1ere was another multivolume work, this time by Jean Mitry. a university lecturer in film history. which despite its stated period (18!l5-19J.l) looked in broad terms al the preceding period. even casting its net as far bark as prchi~to1ic caves."' TI1e tremmc111 is the traditional one and s1.a1es that il will not look at how cine ma came into being. 17,e 1rea1 mcn1 is fairly precise, if somewhat didactic. and in it thererime11t ill the Film."' Despite some interesting sections. nothing is added to the historiography of the 01igins of cinema. not even in the text by Joh.n Maddison (one of the cofounders of the Scientific Film Association in 1947). which under the title 'Experi• menl in the Scientific Film' quickly and superficially dismisses the historical theme, concentrating instead on recent developments in scientific cinematography. Some original ideas can be found, amid much second•hand material derived mainly rrom Sadoul. in a book by Kenneth MacGowan.36 1be author was an unusual figure in the American cinema: starling off as a film critic during tl1e First World War, he then became a film producer in Hollywood during ihe early sound years, and after the Second World War he dedicated himself to selling up the film studies programme al UCLA and 10 the study of film history. Among the book's illustra• Lions is a reproduction of a flier announcing that on 22 February 1895 there would be the screening or 'Le Roy's Marvellous Cinemaiographe' in a theatre in Clinton, New Jersey (whkh later turned out lo be non existent). MacGowan describes how. following research by Gordon Hendricks. one of the best•known scholars on the ori!:ins of American cinema, it was established that the flier was in fact a fake created many years later by independent producers 10 try and protect themselves against Edison ·s lawyers during Ihe patent wars. 1bis episode is indicative or how. for political reasons and clue to economic interests. some reached the point of manipulating and even inventing events during the origins of cinema, and of how much work still remains to be done in the field of historical research.31 To conclude this review of the literature on the subject we need to look at four very different, but particularly important, publications. foremost among them is Ei11e Archiiologie des Ki11us (Archaeology oftlie Cinema) by C.W. Ceram. which was dedicated to ou r subject m:mer at hand and which was widdy clistributed throughout the world."'1l1is popular and exu·emely readable volume only deals in part with the origins of cinema and for the most part treats i1 accurately. However. there are a rew notable omissions (for example it ignores the contribution made by the

II

HISTORIOGRAPHY

astronomer Janssen). and it presents itself always in the conteXl or an industry thar will give birth 1.0 the most popular entertainment medium in the world. The book is none the less extremely inieresting for its iconographic documentation that dominates the text proper."' The second publication is a small German book. Als Ma11 Anfi11g w Filme11, that can only have had a limited distribution but which must have in large part influenced Cerarn's work, The publishing and educational branch of the famous UFA production company published this semi-educational book by Hans Traub.'" The author had already published a pan1phlet by the same title in 1935 but in this new publication he emphasises what he claims lO be the fundamental importance of the historical work by Llesegang, to whom we will return later. Traub's book comes close lo a scientific look at the issues surrounding the birth of cinema. He starts by looking al how images were used to study behaviour and the11 presents the development of sequential images. combining Muybriclge, lvforey and in part Anschutz with the Skladanowsky brothers. He concludes with a section on moving images (Das Laujbiltf) and 1he contributions made by Le Prince, Demeny, Lumiere, Messler, Edison and Reynaud, presenting them in a rather odd order of appearance. 111e third pubLication is a pamphlet from the Science Museum in London cataloguing their collection of documents and devices on the origins of cinema:" Th e author (the curator of that part of the museum) produced 'an introductory booklet on the prehistory of cinema· Despite a slight tendency to privilege Edison and some British inventors, il provides a useful historical survey within the con1ext of providing a broad look al the basis for what is not simply a type of entertainment but also a form of art. an educational tool and a scientific iastrumenl Finally, Jean Vivie, a his1orian and lecturer on cinematic technique, in the first volume of his treatise compiled a sadly little known but none the less notable summary on the birth of cinema seen from the point of view of the development of technical equipmenl' 2 The occasional lapse or omission takes nothing away from the importance of this general and comparalive look that is constructed with both precision and clarity. His ex1>0sition. given the technical character of his treatise, has a fairly rigorous methodological basis. even though the 1ext is ratl1er a condensed one. Initially it might seem strange, even convadictory, that Vivie should place his description of the historical developments relating to the synthesis of movement ahead of those relating to its analysis. One must not forget. though, that his funda• mental perspective remains that of a historian studying the birth and development of the techoiques of the film entertainment industry. 111us a comment made by Vivie can be considered as a specific indicalion and starting point for the work we are undertaking here: 'cinematographic recording was born from the requirements of scientific research.'"

m

BIRTH OF CINEMA

5. What ca used the birth of cinema? All 1ha1 remains now is to rc•view those few works, the mos1 specialist in nature. which deal directly with scientific cinema and which relate to the birth of cinema itsclL Beyond the small number of U1ese texts one also bemoans. with the odd exception. the only limited interest shown in the fact U1at sciemific cinema clearly predates e ntenainmenl cinema. This can be ex11lainecl by the power of the wide acceptance of the ideolo1,,y behind the cinema as the most popular en1crtain111cnl in the world. This myth reqttires the removal of ,tnything that might tend to contradict it, especially if it precedes it. Georges Mareschal, in his preface to one of the first books dedicated Lo scientific cinema. was the amazed interpreter of 1his point of

view: It is rather cw·ious to note how 1he cinematographic machine. created to assist in the s tudy of movemeDL. becomes an object of curiosity when used in this way on the screen:" Jacques Oucom. the author o[ this practical treatise on cinematography, first published in 1911, was the assistant projectionist for the first public screenings of Lhe Cinematographe Lumicre in Paris. His duties were to regulate the lamp in the machine and lo rewind the Jilm back on lhc spools: later on he wol'ked, s till as a technician, in Gaumont's first workshop in Paris. His book is thoroughly mediocJ'e and written in the s tyle of a second-rate pol-boiler. The main section of the first chapter consists for the most pal'l of the full text of a conference held by Georges Oemeny on I February 1909 nt lhe Ligue Franvaise de l'Enseigncment, on the 'origins or the cinematograph.' We will consider Demeny's own contributions later on and will lhcrefore discuss this conference a1 that point- Ducom limits himself lo commenting 1ha1 the inven1ors of cinema were basically good and simple scien1ists who did not concern U1e111selves wiU1 ·u,e moral responsibility that they were assuming in giving 10 the world this mr,chine for reproducing external manifestations which so s uccessfully interpreted the innermost emotions of that organised and thinking being U1a1 we are.' He bizarrely concludes the chapter thus: The universal cinemmograph will become. we hope, the most powerful machine inve nted by man. to help him fight against barbarity and ignorance ... Happy those that will be able to profit from it financially." llie book published and partly written by Franz Paul Licscgang in 1920 is of a much higher order." He was a physicist specialising in photography and projection techniques: the actual scientific treatise which he co-authecified that Polimanti was 'representative or a branch of science that for the first lime used film as a technical instrument, that used this research method in the most successful way and which drew the most benefit from it.' He points out the ways in which the Italian scientist used cinematographic methods in his research, thus making him particularly qualified to wrote on the scientiiic applications of cinema." Liesegang does not deal directly in the text with the origins of cinema, but on the otl1er hand. with the rigorous approach befitting a manual. he takes as his sole object the st11dy of film as a technical process and its scientific applications. '!nose that brought cinema as entertainment into being, from Lumiere and Edison to Skladanowsky and others are referred to with reference to particular discoveries and the technical innovations of their equipment. A number of chapters look not only at the more specific aspects of scientific cinema (micro and high-speed photography. X-ray photography), but also at projection systems, iss ues of colour and stereoscopic cinema: throughout the whole book there appears 10 be no mention of fiction films. In its detailed description or camera technique one finds allu• sions to the final objective in shooting film: according to Liesegang (and most modern writers on scientific cinema) this can be for research purposes, leaching and popular dissemination.'8 Naturnlly within the individual chapters the au1J1or traces the history leading up to the latest developments. and in this regard his technical documentation as well as his descriptions of Lhe tools and results of early film pioneers is particularly valuable. Among those mentioned most frequently by him is Marey, the French pbysiologisL" ln bis historical introductions. Poiimanti also avoids tJ,e questions over the origins of scientific cinema. taking tJ,em as a given. In his briei s ummary on tl1e main contributors. he mentions in passing the Lumiere brothers who 'popularised luminous living images' (die lebende11 Lichtbilder). tlien moves on to detailed descriptions of those that pioneered the use of lilm in various aspects of scientific research.'° In tl1e 1920s a disciple of Marcy named Lucien Bull (to whom we wiU return later for his pioneering efforts) published wbaL one might call the French equivalent of Llesegang's book.51 The book was grounded as a scientific treatise on the subject, dealing with s uch topics as the origins of cinema through the graphic description of movement; chronophotography and the synthesis of movement tl1e technical description of equipment and materials; a discussion of the issues surrounding cine• matic 'illusions'; colour and relief; the application of cinema to scientific research and documentation. In the Cina! chapter there is a reconstruction of the invention of

II

BIRTH OF CINEMA

cinema. In the preface. Bull claimed Lhat 'cinema was born in th e s till of the laboratory', admitting that he only wrote the last chapter following the various arguments that had arisen. 111is. he said, was noL to deny where credit was due (a comment that implicitly refers to the Lumieres). but because it wou ld have been unfair 'not to give at least equal recognition to those that did the preliminary work before its creation.' In any evenL in this serious and detailed work. Bull presents without undue e mphasis the view that current cinematic equipment derived from Marey·s prototypes, while at the same time acknowledging the imperfections oi the latter. In his conclusion, he claims that the astronomer Janssen was the first to undertake 'experiences ayant un caractere cinem:,tographique', with Marey and Muybridge later dPveloping a true scientific cinema without considering its potential as an entertainment medium. since their primary concern was with the study of movement" Among che few publications that have dealt with the birth of cinema as a scientific phe nomenon, tl1ere is Ci11ematograft11 P medici11a, a monograph published as an issue of a medical journal by a multinational pharmaceutical company." The text was almost entirely tht, work of a doctor from Zurich, Dr Nicholas Kaufmann , apart from a brief chapter provided by a biologist working for the company itself. Although principally aimed at Lhose in tl1e medical profession, tl1is brief work is notable for its very effective summary and a fairly rich documentation. Kaufmann writes that, 'th e birth of cinema is closely tied to physiological research. This is demonstrated by 1he very definition of "ch.ronophotography" by the International Congress of Photography (Paris, 1889). which called it a combination of the scientific study of human and quadruped movement, the flight of birds and insects and U,e movemenL of fish. not to mention the fall and vibration of inanimate objects.'" In his enthusiasm he pushes at U,e edges of historical reality, c.laiming that 'Marey handed over the results of his research to the Lumicrc brothers'. trying to make this sound more persuasive by e mphasising th.at Auguste l.umiere was a physician."' Le cinema scienti/ique fra 11fais is dedicated lo French scientific cinema and its history and remains an important boo,< in many respects. but is nonetheless disappointing from our point of view."' One would have thought that such a specialist work would state, and then show, how scientific cinema, especially in France, had been born and subsequently been developed well before the establishment of cinema as entenainment The authors begin with the sacrosanct claim that ' the analytical s tudy of rapid movement is. historically. the objective of the first cinematographic research': proving th emselves 10 be unaffected by nationalistic pride, they write at length about Muybridge as a precursor lo Marey." When faced with the controversies, which pitted supporters of the Lumiere brothers against tl1ose of Marcy, they state t11at they find themselves unable to come t.o a firm conclusion on the maller, claiming instead that the de bate is outside the slated parnmeLers of their

II

BIRTH OF CINEMA

work In the end they ~onclude tha1 Marey, like Muybridge 'was already makin!( films without knowing it.'" In this context, such a s tatemPnl is extraordinary and incompre hensible. and l'fmnol be excused by the hastP with which Lhe book was written. A volume or documents on scientific cinema published in the Federal Republic or Germany (as iL then was) by tl1e governmPni in Bonn and edited by the director of the J,VF of Gollingen (one of lhe mos1 important international centres for the production of specialised scientific films) is also jus t as disappointing in its, albeit brief, look at the origins of film. In it one finds the following phrase: 'One parent comes from the sciences: the other, it cannot be denied. from U1e carnival boo1hs.' It then goes on to insist on a marriage between the analyser and the illusionis1. Finally let us look at Research Films i11 Biology, A11tlzropo/ogy, Psyclzology a11d Medicine, an important work by Anthony R. Michaelis. a British academic."' The author dedicated the book to the memory of Marey, 'U1c originator of the research film'. and to the many scien1is1s that have ·ennobled the cinema.' In the 1ext he restates that, ' ii is 100 of1en one forgets that cinema1ography for scientific research purposes originated with the great French physiologist Marey.''" For so specialised a book, ii is surprising that the brief look al the 01igins of cinema is so broad and so full of errors, relying as ii does on some questionable general lexls, the limils of some of which we have already queslioned. 'n,is therefore is the stale of the literature based on our research and knowledge on our main theme: how his1ories give birth lo lhe cinema.•• We have seen that whal is missing, above all else. is an answer 10 the question as 10 why lhe cinema was born. On the historiographic plane we note 1ha1 previous attempts by numerous writers, from many countries and backgrounds. faithfully 10 recreate from objective sources the true cvems that led to the birth of U1e cinema phenomenon were frequently led astray, sometimes wi1houl even realising it, by 1he dominant ideologies of the eniertainmenl cinema. We shall now attempt to go down the route of the true birth of cinema once again. thanking 1hose that came before us. even if on occasion we have criticised them harshly. for their contributions and for the stimulus they have provided for our own work.

Ill

Part II

The pre-history of scientific cinema

The term 'pre-history', as gt'nerally understood, refers 10 the period thal precedes history proper. what we term 'history' is tl1c period defined and dated from when accounts of actual events are. to one degree or another, documented. Pre-history therefore has a certain indetem1ina1e quality LO it. a sense oi looking back with hindsight. one which may have to be undenaken with evidence that is not always strictly historiographic, but which may however be able to provide the details and the direction for historical interpretation. It is in this direction that we wish to Lake this chapter. 111e pre-history of scientific cinema therefore means that we will be looking for the events and the people who insti~atcd. discovered. interpreted. hypothesised and created it. They constiiute the necessary first indication. even if not a conscious one at the time, of what will later develop into the historical process of the birth and development of scientific cinema. 111is section will not give the description of specific events. dates or persons to indicate that these were the first, even if they are the true prehistoric progenitors of scientific cinema, as so many others have endeavoured to do before. One must not give in 10 the temptation to go 100 far back in the past or 10 try and categorically fix the precise year and day of the begin11i11g•., Rather. it is important to identify the historical moment and the cultural conditions under which the necessary element.~. human and material. came together. in addition to that element of chance (which is often found but whose importance is difficult 10 determine}, which mark a qualitative leap and a significant step forwards in relation to later developments. 111e historical momem is poised somewhere between l820 and 1840. There is a beautiful r>assage by Georges Sadoul, which frames it 111e first locomotives chug along the railroads. lo capitals the night is illuminated by trembling names of gas, recently discovered. By the light of gauzed Davy lamps, miners descend lo underground depths. Steam engines set in motion weaving and spinning mills. For 1wemy years paddle boats have been ploughing the Atlantic Ocean. In chimney stacks coal is re1>lacing wood. In England the number of mechanical weavers is ar>proaching that of manual ones. British collon and coal dominate the world. In France factories are mutliplying. and are being built in Germany and the USA In the suburbs of Lyons and London unknown forces have their first tremors. while electricity and

II

LONDON

chemistry. in the firs! laboratory stages. are no! yet industries. 171e telegraph uses Chappe's optical signalling wit h mobile arms while its e lectrifica1ion is s till in experiment;~ phase. The first s ulphur matches- and the firs! cigarettes - are considered curioisiti1akistisropr."' Nonc1hdcs". he had clearly seen the difference bclWerfect answer as to the reasons for the interest of nineteenth century scientists in analysing movement: In particular circumst.inces, furtl,e rmore. the material possibilities precede 1l1c progress or human culture: while in others, scientists (or a wide range of people) can readily imagine inventions which it is not yet possible lo turn into reality through technical limitations.

fl

VIENNA

A little later. at the end of a chaple,. not by chance entitled "T11e prophets of dnema', he adds: Techniques and t'conomics thus blocked turning animated photographs into reality, even though this had already been clearly envisaged by illustrious forerunners. WiU1 their research and 11atcots they had demonstrated that filming was possible. but the delicacy and difficuhies or the complicated systems then available would only allow 1h~m to be realised as tl1e subsidised rei;earch of scientists or 1he costly pastime of rich amateurs."' As can be seen, Sudoul comes close to what we believe to be the correct interpretation of the true origins of cinema. But instead or finding ourselves among presumed prophets or entertainment cinema. we arc actually in the pre-history of scientific cinema. his interesting to note how the usual disagreements over procedure and jealousy over citations arise among research academics. Maving said that, L11ese are not in L11e same league as the patent wars that exploded noisily among scientists once commercial interests, either real or perceived, raise their heads. Chronicles of who first thought u1> and then built the Phenakistiscopc or the Stroboscope have already been made and so we wnuld suggest that those interested in developing this argument. which is mainly or slight historical worth, look to these sources, as well as perhaps suggesting a more in-depth motivation behind the research.'" As for Roget, who also entered into argument over who was the first 10 construct machines such as the Phenakistiscope, he clain1ed lo have built some in advance or 01her claimants and lo have shown them LO his friends, but not to have published on this owing to his 'more serious activities and interests.' Returning lo lhe pre-history of cinema, which we left when discussing Stampfer's stroboscopic discs, we now recall an event that confirms that the psychogenetic line of development of tl1ought at tha1 lime was essentially that of analysing movement for scientific ends, to visualise the invisible, and still not to reproduce movement artificially for the purposes of entertainmenl In 1832, possibly earlier than Plateau or Siarnpfer, or else al the same time, there was another scientist inspired by Faraday's experiments to study bodies in motion and analyse their condition in both qualitative a nd quantitative terms. In that year, the French physicist ~varl demonstrated that a fine trickle of water falling is not made up of a stablt: continuum, but instead comprises a swelling and 1hinning, rather like drops dragged and linked IO one another. The technique behind his experiment was inspired by Faraday and he repeated the trial using ihc band and ring as usecl by Rogel (but putting white ver1ical bands on a black background), He even made use of the spark illumination technique as pioneered by Wheatstone.'7 Savan specialised in sound and Savart's Wheel was used as an instrument to measure quantitatively the vibration of a chord emiltiag sound.

11

OAEDALEUM

In the )•ears following the inven1ion of Stampfer's Stroboscope there is news of the use of lhis apparatus 10 present dynamic demonslr.ttions of various types of work by Professor J. Muller in Fre iburg."" llistoriographic research un the direct scientific application of the instrnmenls and on their didactic use has been overlooked for so long but there is probably still a great deal lo be discovered and specified. Much more widely dissemina1cd, however, have been the imprec.:ise and sometimes conlradictory details regarding the applications of the stroboscopic principle of 1.he Phenakisliscope 10 games (since we cannot yet Lalk about entertainment). 9. A 'd aeda leu m' full of Inventors

All histories of the cinema include references to William George Horner {17861837). also a mathemalician by profession, who in l&'l3, only a few months after the publications by Plateau and Stampfer. constructed an ingenious machine 1.hm he named the Daedaleum. Horner describes a series of drawings placed between equidistant. slits which were then ... placed cylindrically round lhe edge of a revolving disc. Any drawings which are made on the interior surface in the inle rvals of the aperlures will be visible through the opposite apertures, and if execuled on 1.he same principle of graduated action, will produce the same surprising play of relative motions as the common magic disk does when spun before a mirror. The phenomenon may be displayed with full effect to a numerous audience."' TI,e major advantage of Homer's invention, ar>art from i1s use by a number of persons al a 1ime, witl1in certain limits, was that an infinite replaceable series or drawings on s heets of paper could be substituted inside the cylinder. This has led those excitable cinema historians to see in it the foreshadowing of cinema Dim. In addition, the Daedaleum had tl1e positive feature th:,1. under strict conditions, each observer could see each figure or image in movement, whereas sint'e bot.h 1he Phenakistiscope and the Stroboscope wc•rc normally used with a mirror, in practice these showed all the drawn figures al the same time making the same 111ovemen1s. We do nol know what drove Horner to rm,ke !his new version of a machine for watching apparen1 111ovcmcn1 on a strip of paper; what we do know is that as a mathematician he was known for his discovery of a method for solving multiple equations."' In the decades tl1a1 followed, Horner's Daedaleu m was discovered by various people, who sold it in 111any countries under a variety of names from lhe Zoe1rope (perhaps because most of the drawings for it were of animals) 10 'magic drums' to the 'wheel of life' - the same thing had alre,,dy happened with Plateau and Stampfer's machines.

II

THE HEART BEATS

In !he IS60s. d~signers in Euro1>e lried 10 pateni a type of ioe1ro1>e. bul ii was nol until 1867 when W.E. Lincoln pa1c111ed the 'Zoeu·opc' in America that ii really look off. 111c fi~11 historian MacGowan recalls his youthful enthusiasm when, al Lhe end of the nineteenth century, he was given one of 1he111 as a Christmas presenL"

10. The heart beats to a didactic end To conclude this series of portraits, all of scientists, and all of which in my opinion belong lo the pre-hislory of scienlific cinema, it is now necessary to add a name that has, until now, been ignored by international cinematograph historians. IL is the noted Bohemian physiologist Jan Evangelista Purkyne (1787-1869). best known Loday 10 nil doctors Lha1have Lo study the brain cells and cardiac fibres Lhat still bear his name. Righi from his university years he dedicated himself to the study of visual perception and he graduated in 1818 with a 1hesis on this argument." Jn 1840 Purkyne perfected Stampfer's Slroboscc,pe, by placing the pictures and Lhe slots onto two separate disks bu1 bolh on the same axis, From a practical poim of view this allowed for a quick and simple substitution of the disk for the images, making it usable for an unlimited number of cycles of movement. h was also, from a iechnic:al standpoint. a specific application of the rotating shutter that improved the visual quality of Lhe movment."' PLLrkyne's first machine was named the Phorolyt and it Wt'lll on sale in the 1840s, mainly in Breslau (now Wroclaw) in Poland, where he was teaching. At a conference he even suggested replacing the drawings with three-dimensional figures, a technique he dubbed 'phorografia.' Some of the first discs that Purkync, with the help of a painLer. made for his Phorolyt. showed Lhe movements of micro-organisms, a buuerOy and a lizard. As one can see there is a clear emphasis on the educational/scientific use of the machine, though in toyshops there were also series of discs showing acrobats, dancers and other optical effects. Purkyne returned 10 Bohemia on 1850 10 found and direct the Institute of Physiology al the University of Pra/,'lle, He con1inuecl 10 use his machine (or classroom demonstrations. I le also developed two important discs on the circula1ory system and on the heartbeat. Wi1h 1hc help of Durst, an optician from Prag\1e. he continued to develop the Phoroly1. re-naming i11 he Kincsiskop. In a coruemporary prim showing Purkyni.' in his studio, prominently placed on his desk with his microscope. is his machine for creating anima1ed images. In tl1e 1860s Purkyne made two more developments which, irrespective of issues of priority which are always clifJicult 10 ascenain :md which in any event should be related to the quality of the result, arc worthy o( note. His 'beating hean·. presented 10 the Royal Academy of Science in 1861, was magnified and projectho1ographic images. Janssen enthusiastically uphPld the importance of the discovery of photography and. in particular. ii, sci~ntific applications. lie was to become President of the Sociele f'ran,;aise de Photographie. "" A definition of his became famous: 'Pholography is tl1e retina of 1he sl'icntist.'1"' This modern unders tanding of the applical ion of new techniques to recording images and the knowledge of tl1eir

El

RETINA

intrinsic possibilities. led him to develop a method, with its relative technological ins ~·umentation, that allowed him to investigate, clarify and document a proble m re lative to his own specific field of research. The trans it or the JJlanel Vcnug in front of the sun was to be visible from Japan in 187,J. From 1873 J;mssen prepared to record this event as it occurred, editing it into its various phases at shori . regular intervals. In this way, it would be possible lo follow the phenomenon in all its dynamic evolution, but above all ii wou ld be possible lo isolate the basic moments of Ihe passing of a celestial body in front of another. highLighLing the importance of the contacts between the disc of Venus and the s un in relation to the revelation and observation of the solar corona. In a communication to the Academie des Sciences. almost s ix months before the event took place. Janssen set out his scientiGc aim:

11 is well known 1ha1 observation or coniact will have a primary role in observing the transit or Venus ... It is understandable. however. what greal interest there is in fixing these contacts photographically ... I have it in mind to c reate, from the moment when the contac1 is about 10 1,1ke place. a series of photographs at very s horl and regular intervals, so that the phocographic image of the moment of contact is necessarily included in the series and, at the same Lime, g ives U1c precise instant or the phenomenon. I have been able 10 resolve the problem by using a rotating disk."" Once his mission was completed, Janssen telegraphed from Nagasake: 'Venus observed on corona before contact. demonstrating the existence of the corona!' Camille F'lammarion. the famous astronomer and populariser. commenting on the news, wrote:

'This observation of the passing of Venus ;,, fro111 of lite solar coro11a that surrounds the day star and is not visible except during fu II eclipses of the s un. is very important. bccau;,e it proves definitively that this corona is not due lo an e ffect of refraction in the earthly .umosphere. but belongs precisely lo the sun. The inge nious astronomer had been preparing for this de monsiration s ince last year. He has s ucceeded, and is the only person who has done so."" Janssen had started on the concept. experimentation and cons tructive design of his 'photograJJhic revoh•er' in 1873. entrusting its final construction to the RecLier technicians, father and son. ·n,e curious name of the apparatus, if one thinks that ics external appearance is more similar 10 a cannon or a howi1zer Ihau a revolver. referred to the revolving barrel pistol invented by the American, Colt. in 1837. 'The pholographic revolver was described as follows by Janssen himself: TI1e a1>paratus is essentially made up of a plate on which 1he sens itive sheet is put; the plate is placed in a round box fixed to the focal surface of a lens or of the apparatus giving the real image of the phenomenon to be reproduced. 11,e plate

II

RETINA

is cogged and e ngages with a pinion wilh isolated teelh, which transmits lO it .in alternative angular movemelll of the s ize of lhe image to be reproduced. In front of the box. and fixed on the same axis holcLing the pbte. is a disk perforated with small slots (with an adjustable aperture) and which turns continuously; each time one of lhe s lots on Lhe disk passes in front of the one on tl,e cover of the box. an equal portion of the sensitive sheet is uncovered and records an image. It is unnecessary 10 add that the movements arc regulated in such a way that tl1e sensitive sheet s tops when a slot, wilh its passing. determines lhc production of an image.'~ The whole was regulated and moved by a clockwork mechanism. The s hutter disk made a complete turn in eighteen seconds, while the wheel holding the sheet was geared four-to-one; that is, il completed a full turn in seventy-two seconds, but in fact moved only at intervals, when the shutter was closed and it was necessary to move Lhe section of sheet already recorded LO bring a new section to be recorded in front of the sloL 10' A difficulty Janssen had LO resolve must be borne in mind; not only did dry gelatine-bromide plates not exis t at that time. it would have been difficult to use even a common wet collodion plate, seeing that the rotating movement of the ve rtical plate could have caused the running and, therefore , lhe distortion of the collodion layer. He therefore used Dague rreotype plates. which were less sensitive, but could not be deformed. The images would not be perfect, but sttfficie nt 10 documem the phenomenon with scientific precision. On his return to Paris. in fact. Lhe images would be reinforced and redesigned. Janssen had placed his apparatus in a room. 1>ositioning a wooden telescope in front of lhe machine. i.e. a large hori?.Ontal tube containing the optical system. directed, through a hole in a wall. towards a heliostat: that is. a mirror moved by another clockwork mechanism that followed the movement of lhe s un. In the images of the Daguerreotype sheet, in fact, can be seen a slice of the sun and its crown and the round mark of Venus in transit. On the temporal dynamic of the functions of the photographic revolver, there is information that is contradictory and with parts missing. 17,is is a further demonstration of the need to develop historical studies to reconstruct in detail the phases of developme nt of scientific ,md technological research in the nineteenth century. 17,e most important discrepancy concerns the duration of 1he cycle of s hots. Janssen. in his scientific communications (to the Academic des Sciences and to the Sodete Fran,aise de Photographie), spoke always in general terms of tl1t> need for 'images that must be taken at momems very do!le to each other· for which ·a special instrument is required. making it possible to take a large numbe r of pictures without changing the plate.' Janssen wrote;

II

RETINA

The photographic n·volvcr I have lhe honour of presenting, creates the following conditions: a) the instrument curremly gives forty-dght imai:es and this number could probably be doubled or even trebled: b) the Lime of an exposure is de1ermined by the same insu·umcm and can be regulaled; c) the interval sq,arating 1.he images tan bC' increased or dccreast'cl al will: d) the ins1rument is automatic, i.e. it creates the series of images on ils own, with no inte rve ntion rN1uired by the operator; e) if desired, 1lw instrumcnl c.111 be controlled manually ancl in this case crcale the images at those intervals of 1ime 1ha1 are judged to bP ;1ppropria1c. "" However, Flammarion dt>scribes Janssen's apparatus in an even more ckiailecl way, adding the tcchnirnl de1ails of i1s functioning lhat WI.' have ah\'.idy given. The :\luscum of the Conscrv:,toire National des Arts et l\lctiers (CNAM) in P,u·is. which ass. for example, all the interest. for s uch an obscure problem as

II

PHOTOGRAPHER that of the Oight of birds. which a series of photographs would have, representing the different movemems of a wing during flight. At the current time, the main difficulty would be with Lhe inertia of our sensitive s w·faces with respect to the very brief posing time required in order to obtain these images. But science wiU certainly eliminate these difficulties.'" In addition to trust in technological progress Lhal would be made possible by scientific developmem. we should like to highlight the exact indication (by an astronomer!) of the sector of human and animal physiology that could draw an inrn1ediate, importan1 advantage from using the first technique of scientific 'cinema• tography' created by his photographic revolver. Jus t a few years later and precisely in the field indicated by Janssen. the work of Muybridge and, above all, of Marcy, appeared, which would broaden and deepen the identifica1ion of IJ1ose great possibili1 ies furnished by scientific cinema in the study of dynamic phenomena. Twenty years after his astronomical photography in Japan, Janssen was among the guests of honour al one oft he preview screenings, as we would say nowadays, of the cinematographer Lumiere. ln June 1895 in Lyons (the city where the Lumiere firm had its head office). the congress of the French photographic clubs took place. The participants were shown eight short films. including the famous SOR11E DE L'USINE LUMIERE and 1;ARROSEUR ARROSE. Janssen. chair of the meeting. did not fail to emphasise in his speech at the closing banquet that 'the great event of this session has been the result obtained in the photography animated by Messrs Lumiere'; he also added to 1his recognition an affable criticism regarding the need for 'a final perfecting of their method', to have the persistent stuttering of the images clisappear. Above all, however. he chose lo make a fundan1cntal distinction between sdemific 'cinema' and the cinema of spectacle: referring to the screening of the Lumieres·, he proposed 'calling it animated photography, in order to distinguish it from the analytical photography of movements.''" 15. The adventurous pho tographer

Eadweard J. Muybridge (1830-1904) was without doubl a personality in the history of the birth of scientific cinema. but he was also a personality in his own right. with his extravagant and adventurous imai:e. In the first half of the twentieth century, Muybridge was known lo a restricted circle of researchers in the field of the history of photography, where he was spoken of as a controversial figure who had even been in prison for the premeditated murder of his wife's lover. For cinema his101ians. Muybridgc was the man who, with a seiies of photographic machines. had shot the various positions of a galloping horse. And this he had done to meet lhe terms of a be1 of no less tl1an twenty-five thousand dollars between two rich stable owners. As can be seen. there is enough to awaken curiosity and demand anen1ion.

m

PHOTOGRAPHER

111c name Muybridge itsdf was the result of a series of allcrations that reflected the dynamism of the tim1•s. from the Industrial Revolution in England to 1he conquest of the American West. Muybridgc. an Englishman by birth, sl)l'nt most of his life in 1hc USA: as a rc~ult, both countries, wlwn they rind it conwni,•n1. consider him one or their national m•asures. lie was born Edward James Muggeridgc. liuwcv(c'r, when he was :1bou1 twenty year.< old, the coronation ,tone· of the Saxon kings was discoverl"d in his native town (Kingston•upon-Thamc;;), i){'aring the name Eadwcard. Later in lif,;, around 1880. he would adopt it as his own. A few yhs of the inside and outside of their new luxurious hill lop reside nce which overlooked the bay of the city. Muybridge, for his part, carried out a complex photographic operation with a series of plates making up a circular panorama of the city of San Francisco. 111is initiative brought him economic s uccess. while with other photographs of country scenes he obtained an award al an international competition in Vienna. His relaOonship with Stanford now allowed him to take the initiative and to explore with his rich patron the possibility or carrying oul an organic programme of ex,,eriments with serial photographs 10 analyse the movement of horses. II was at this point that Muybridgc came on lhe scene as a personality in scientific cinema. Before discussing it in detail. we must return lo what we were saying al the beginning of this chapter. of the relatively small fome of Muybridge in the first half of the twentieth CE'nlury. ·11ie inlernational resonance that his figure and work had obtained in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, rapidly disappeared after his death in 1904. and it is not difficult to guess the causes in view of a public opinion (including lhal of specialis ts) clis1racled by lh e invention of the cinematograph as a spectacle, and by the polemics arising over who originated the

invention. Things changecl [or Muybridge srnrting in the 1950s. In 1955 and 1957, two of his most s ignificant collections of photographic series, 77,e H11ma11 Figure i11 Motio11 and A11imals i11 Motio11, which hacl been difficult to find for over a quarter of a century, were re-published in New York.",. ln 1%9. still in New York. the first volume came out (with the series 1>hotographs of nude male figures) of what could be considered the oprm 011111ia of Muybridge's studies of movement, Animal LocomotionP In 1962. with an article and in 1968 with a book. Aaron Scharf analywd the importance these photographic series had had upon the work of numerous painters of the period ancl today (from Degas to Bacon).'·" Ln 1972, al the Stanford University Museum of Ari at Palo Alto (California) . an exhibition entitled. 'Eadwcard Muybridge - 111e Stanford Ye.irs, 1872-1882' was organised. of which the valuable and rigorous catalogue, 1oge1her with its essays and documents, formed a kind of critic,~ re-launch of the work of Muybridge.''" In the same year. a curious book by Kevin MacOonnell was published, dedicated 10 Eadweard M11y-

II

PHOTOGRAPHER

counLrysidc and picturesque people, renewing his professional fame, buL also letting Lhc co111men1s and polemics on his acquittal die down in the social drdes of San Francisco (where Major Larkyns, his victim, had been well known), While Muybridge was travelling, his wife (lo whom he had re fused a divorce and alimony) diccl of an illness at only twenty-four years of age.'25 Back in San Francisco, he made a gift of a splendid album of his exotic photographs to his lawyers (who had recievcd no money for their legal representation al his trial). to the widow of Pendegast (who had ,1lso died), lo Mrs Stanford, and to Lhc magnatE.-s secretary, The Stanfords commissioned another series of photographs of tl1c inside and outside of Lheir new luxurious hill 1op residence which overlooked the bay of the city. Muybridge, for his part. carried ouLa complex photographic 01>eration wiLh a series of plates making up a circular 1>anorama of the city of San Francisco. TI1is initiative brought him economic s uccess. while with oLher photographs of country scenes he obiained an award at an international competition in Vienna. His relationship with Stanford now allowed him to take the initiative and to explore with his rich patron the possibility of carrying out an organic programme of experiments with serial photographs to analyse the movement of ho,·scs. It was at this point that Muybridge came on the scene as a personality in scientific cinema. Before discussing it in detail. we must return lo what we were saying at the beginning of this chapte r. of the relatively s mall fame of Muybridge in the first ha!( of the twentieth century. 171e imernational resonance that his figure and work had obtained in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. rapidly disappeared after his death in 1904, and it is not difficult 10 guess the causes in view of a public opinion (including thaL of specialists) distracted by the inve ntion of the cinematograph as a spectacle. and by tl1e polemics arising over who originated the invention. Things changed for Muybridgestarting in the 1950s. In 19S5 and 1957. two of his most significant collections of photographic series, -n,e H11111a11 Figure in Motion and Animals i>r J\.101io11, which had been difficulL to find for over a quarter of a century, were re-published in New York."" In 1969. still in New York, the first volume came out (with the sc,ies photographs of nude male figures) of what could be considered Lhe opera om11ia of Mui•bridge·s $tudics of movement. A11i111a/ loco111otio11.'" In 1962, with an article and in 1968 with a book. Aaron Scharf analysed the impo,·tance these photol(raphic series had had upon the work of numerous painLers of the 1>eriod and today (from Degas to Bacon)."'" In 1972. at the Stanford University Museum of Art at Palo Alto (California), an exhibition entitled, 'Eadwe,trcl Muybridge -171e Srnnford Years. 1872-1882' was organised, of which the valuable and rigorous cat.~ogue, togeLher with its essays and documents, formed a kind of critical re-launch of the work of Muybridge."1 Jn the same year. a curious book by Kevin MacDonnell was published, dedicated to Eadweard Mu:r

II

PHOTOGRAPHER

bridge, the Ma11 wlto b1ue11ted the Mouillg Picture (the author was presented as an ex-photo-journalist and ex-Hritish secret agent) .' ~' Attractive in presentation, but fragmentary and incomplete in content, this biography was subsequently re-evaluated because of the lack of documentation, and the alterations and inaccuracy of reproduction of the photographs. On the plus side, however. specific attention was given to the technical asl)C{·ts of Muybridge's work. In 1975-76 two scientifically rigorous works were published, which now make il possible lo give Muybridge the place he is due, with all his light and shade. without running the risk of serious under-valuing or unjustified mythologising. There is still space in tJ1e Muybridgean bibliob>T;iphy for scholars who wish 10 investigate the existing evidence further; however, a general. comprehensive picture was established with the publications of Gordon He ndricks and Robert Bartlett Haas. 131 These two authors had the great advantage, compared 10 the somewhat discon• tinuous commitment of MacDonnell. of Living in the USA and thus having easy access to the sources still largely unexplored in the Californian and Pennsylvanian archives, as well as the George Eastman House museum at Rochester. where the materials by and on Muybridge were waiting to be researched. Hendricks declares that he dedicated fifteen years to his research on Muybridge and it should be noted that this interest of his must be placed in the larger context of his other, much appreciated works on problems and personalities linked to the birth of cinema.'" Haas, for his part. goes even further, announcing that he worked twenty years to prepare his book; and he does not hide his privileged position as Director of the Department of Arts al the University of California. Furthermore. his great-grandfather was a friend of Muybridgc: and, finally, he had received valuable and unpublished documentation from the daughter of tJ1e aforementioned lawyer Pendegast, who had dedicated all her life 10 re-establishing the accuracy oflhe infor• mation concerning the many twisted Muybridgc legends. Haas was also co-author of that important catalogue, mentioned above, of the 1972 exhibition at Stanford University. At the same time as ll1ese biob>Taphies, a film was made about him. EADWEARD MUYBRJDGE, ZOOPRAXOGRAPHER, by ·1110111 Andersen. a stuclcnt al the University of California.'" 'lne film is a biographical documemary based on documents and photographs, but also contains sequences animating. by means of an optical printer, some of Muybridge's photographic scl"ies of the movement of men and animals. The dynamic images resulting from ll1is are so rine that they would convince a non-technician that cinema ,,!ready existed, when, instead, Muybridge was still photographing with wet collodion plates. These studies of Muybridgc and the re-publication of many of his photographihs from that time, such as his beautiful panoramas of Yosemite Valley, we can clearly see 1hat the water of the waterfalls is blurred and undefined: the amount of time needed for a good exposure was still too great. One should remember 1ha1 a galloping horse can cover e leven mt'tres in less tl1an a second. Research has not so far unear1hccl tl1e original photographs that Muybridge claims 10 have taken in 1872 and which prob.ibly cons isted of a mere silhouette of a horse exposed on a wet collodion plate. Beyond his claims. there is also an article published on 7 April 1873 in MacCrellis l,-s paper that reported on the various

II

PHOTOGRAPHER

.ittempts by Muybridge, even giving Lhe lel·hnical details of the shooting: an aperture of I/8th of an inch for 5/ IOOths of a second. IL also says thaL the spokes of the small gig did not appear to roLale. ln 1873 a colour lithograph was made by a well known equestrian artist 1ha1 showed the same horse thaL was apJlarently photographed, a favourite sporting champion called '1l1e Californian Wonder: Pictured in mid-race, the horse has aU four legs off l he ground at the sam\" time. It has been suggested that Lhe drawing was inspired by Muybriclgc's plates. buL it is certain that these early aue111pts were not s ufficient to show the disagreements over animal locomouon and of Lhe usefulness of photographs as defensive and incontrovertible documentary evidence. We already know why Muybridge was not able to continue with his experiments. We have to remember though, beyond mailers relaung to his private life and professional affairs, other elemems appeared in the cultural and technical process which influenced developments in the scientir.c s tudy of movement. In 1872 the photographer 0.G. Rejlander had made a theoretical proposal for the study of animal movement, especially that of horses. fixing the various positions in photographs taken with a series of cameras.'" A few years earlier in 1869, the astronomer Sir John Herschel wrote of his proposal 'which might seem like a dream'. but which he believed 10 be possible: lo create s tereoscopic photographs taken in rapid succession at 1/!0lh of a second 10 reconstruct Lhe development of the action taken by a Phenakistiscope. ·u they were in colour' he added 'the illusion would be complete:m Outside of intelligent scientific prcdicuon, one must note the publicalio□ in 1873 of EJ. t.l!arey's book /,a 111achi11e a11i111ale which was published in English the following year. 'l11ere seems LO be liulc doubt that the results obtained by the French physiologist s timulated the interests of the part-time horse breeder Leland SL-inford. who continued in his attempts to obtain photographic evidence or equestrian locomotion.'"' Muybridge was called again to photograph 'Occident', the favourite thoroughbred of Stanford. ll is the summer of 1877. Again. neither a negative, a prim on paper, nor a glass plate or even a s lide for a magic lantern has yet to be found. Newspapers al the lime, however. talked of them as a triumph in the progress of photographic art. Muybridge himself wrote that the photographic exposure was of less but I/1000th of a second ('I believe lit I to have been more rapidly execu1ed U1an any ever made hitherto') while the horse was running at an approximate speed of eleven metres per second. The camera was 1>lacccl thirteen metres from the racecourse. Sending a positive print of the photograph, he said that it had been touched up 'as is the custom these days for every first class photographer."'" In any event the photographic rcproducuon of a wat('rcolour by John lhs !hen followed on 19 October) and lo Nature (14 December 1878).""' Muybridge started to sell the series of s ix prints by subscription al $15 each and received orders from all around the world. Marey, whose physiological s1udies of ll1e movement of horses were probably what star ted Stanford's ink res1 in the first place, wrote 10 Gaston Tissander, a friend as well as 1hc editor of /.,a Nature, after seeing Muybridge's plalcs: ·1 am impressed by the instantaneous phologrnphs by Mr Muybridge which you have published ... could you put me in conL1c1 with the author.' In the same letter. he mentioned tha1 Muybridgc might supply some good images for use in a Zoetrope and pointed out that for artists this was truly revolutionary as many would have at their disposal real positions from movement. tor which a model could never pose. The Scic11tiftc American, which also suggested that Muybridge's work could be used in a Zoe trope, returned to the argument of these instantaneous photographs. 151 It pointed out 1ha1 they appeared to be ·a physical demonstration of 1he 1ru1h which mathematics establishes' and therefore ·1he first visible demonstration of the much disputed fact that the lop of a wagon wheel, when running along the ground, moves faster ll1an the bollom.' The evidence was deduced from the clarity of ll1e photographic image in which the one lhird of the lower part of the wheel seemed to be immobile while 1hc upper pan was dearly in motion.'" 111:it same year Mui•bridge staned 10 exploit his first s uccessful results financially, with a series of paid lectures in which he showed s lides using two magic la111erns simultaneously. One was used lo show close-ups, almost life-size enlargements of particular positions of ll1e horses; or else placed next to photographs of sculptures and oilier types of graphical representation to s how viewers the artistic interpretation as compared to Lhe scientific value or his work. On a wave of inlerest and success, Muybridge co111inued lo develop his eiq>eri• ments. Always at S1anford's ex1>ense, the series of cameras reached 1wen1y,four in number.''" The photographs were 1101 limited lo horses. but extended 10 domestic animals. as well as ath letes from a San Francisco club. shown in various sporting activities. ll is interesting lO nrne. however, what Muybridge wrote on 7 May 1879

II

TWENTY-FOUR CAMERAS

to ·niomas Eakins, partner and teacher at the Academy of Aris in Philadelphia. who was also directly interested in the s tudy of movement through chronophotography. Describing his curre nt expe,·iments, he assured Eakins lhat after every photographic session a map of the course was made lo mark the 1>rin1s of the horse's hooves to corroborate the photograph. as if to say that ii was good lo have faith but it was even better lo have proof. Ln fact. one of the aspects thm gained mosi aLtenlion from both the public anrl spccialisls (scientists. artists. sportsmen) . was the implausibility and apparent absurdity of some of U1e positions shown by photographs taken al a 1/IOOOth of a second. The important and widely distributed French pc1iodical l'/1111slratio11. in its edition of 25 January 1879, included a long article on Muybridge by Colonel Duhoussel. a noled equestrian expert. 11,e lexl. illustrated by a number of 'facsimiles' taken from the original photographs. pointed out that those images showed 'nature caplurcd in the act' and that documents of such importance 'constitute for artists a precious complement to the interesling works of graphic physiology on locomotion by Marey.'

i\.,

&-n.

1179.._____

(

Muybndge·, photogl".1ph, 'lela,..d Sanford Jr on hb Pony'. P.a.Jo Alto. Mi1r 1879

II

TWENTY-FOUR CAMERAS

The periodical returned to this argument on 19 April. 1>0mtmg om that the photographs were taken 'according IO natu re', but lhal ·some moverne nlti seem so unlikely that we thought it would be interesting to prove their accuracy.' In short, they provided as a special offer 10 the ir subscribers paper s trips showing the phases of the trot and at the gallop (taken from Muybridge). Wit h these, via a Zoetrope. offe red at the special price of ten francs. 'one sees the horse gallop, which is the absolute proof of the accuracy of our silhouettes.' Wh ile in Europe people still comemed themselves with tracing by hand for the ,ylinder of the ·anirn;itor' (or Zoe1rope). or the disc of 1he old Phenakistisco1:ie. Muyblidge perfected a new machine, based on pre-existing models and principles. Afte r various attempts (with a variety of names given 10 the s uccession of machines) he presented the Zoopr:,xiscope in 1he autumn of 1879 to a specially invited group at th e house of his sponsor, Stanford. The Zoiipraxiscope used both the properties of optic.ii toys and the magic lantern.''' Practically speaking. it was made up of a magic lantern projector in which. between the light source and the lens. two concentric discs were placed which turned in opposite directions. One of tJ1e discs. metallic and equipped with small slits, functioned as a s huuer, wh ile the other one, made of g lass. carried th~ source of images which went through a complete cycle in a s ingle rotation. As we can see, even al an e mbryonic level and within the limits of which its author e nvisaged, the Zoopraxiscope really did pre figure the modem film projector. In 1898 Muybridge wrote: It is the firs t apparatus ever used, or constructed, for synlheticaUy demonstrating movements analytically photographed from life, and in its resulting effects is the prototype of all the various instruments which, under a variety of names. arc used for a similar purpose at the present day.'" Muybridge himself described what happened at Stanford's home at the first public screening by invitation.,,. Muybridge told the master of the house and the guests that, as the Zoiipraxiscope started working, I.hey were now watching the horse Hawthorn galloping. A few seconds later however Stanford exclaimed, ·1 think you must make a mistake in the name of the animal; that is certainly not the gait of Hawthorn. but that of Anderson.' Muybridge checked his notes and insisted on his version but Stanford remained unconvinced. ·111e following day the traine r revealed that it actually was Hawthorn and not Ancle rson. Muybridge concluded: Al the moment he fell more disappointed at the inaccuracy of his regisu·y than gratified with the perfect manner in which the Zoiipraxiscope had perfom1ed its duties."' One s hould also keep in mind that the images being projected were not of the photographic originals, but drawings (a later series was coloured). copied onto the

II

TWENTY-FOUR CAMERAS

glass of the disc from the photographs. According to Muybridge, after many experiments he sought to dilate 1he figures horizontally to correc1 the seeming vertical lengthening oi the animals provoked by the fact that they were viewed through the narrow slils of the shuller disc. 171e Zoopraxiscope was not palented. Th is might seem strange if we consider that Muybridge had so completely taken on board the American view that 'business is bus iness·. ll1a1 when he had sought the palem for his system for photography in series he had included the backdrop with its vertical and horizontal co-ordinates and reference numbers. ilS if they were his own innovation. In 1he use of th e projection equipment, however. it was clear I hat its various e lements were made up of parts already known and in use. It was rather a case of a new way of using them all togell1er, which did not warrant a patenL Despite this, according to llendricks. Muybridge did u·y to get one and was he lped. without success. by S1anford's lawyers.'"' 171eirs was an unlikely partnership, where one (the rich patron) was happy for his idea lo be realised vicariously, putting up large amounts of money and using his influence lo get what was needed. while the other (the adventurous photographer) was happy to work just for the greater glory-in the sense that apart from exposure, he received no salary from Stanford. 159 Nevertheless, it laid the fou ndation for a discrete business since, with th\' tacit approval of the patron, he placed his copyright on all the photographs sold, patented the photographic technique. and commercially exploited the results of his efforts as a photographe r, making personal apJlCarances at conferences. an activity he would con1inue to exploit for almost twenty years, accompanied of course by his projection equipment.'"' In 1881. the Stanford-Muybriclge partne rship reached its apex witl1 1he conclusion of a cycle of experiments. the resu lts of which are written into ll1e first pages of ll1e history of scientific cinema. 171e following year saw the end of the relationship between those two very different men, and as is so often the case, it e nded in acrimony. with lawyers and disagreements. 1ne two events that marked that year were ll1e publication of Muybridge's album 77te Attitudes of Animals in Motion and the trip to Europe undertaken by Stanford and Muybridge. The album (of which fewer than twenly copies are known lo exist) can be seen in effect as a kind of final report on the research undertaken. After the title. it reads: A Series of Photographs Illustrating the Consecu tive Positions Assumed by Animals in Performing Various Movements executed al Palo Alto, California. in 1878 and 1879. copyrighl 1881. by Muybridge.

It was made up of203 prints in albumen of approximately 17 x 24 centimetres, from wet collodion negative plates. Each copy was made up of original positives printed by Muybridge and some copies included an inu·oduction by hirn and a,1 index of the iUustrations. llie photographs bore only the copyright details, while the intro-

II

TWENTY-FOUR CAMERAS

duel ion includt.'d llw captions from 1he rirs1 pho1ogra1Jhs. which showed. jusl as is done in Lhe case of a research report. lhe expe,·imcmal equipmen1. from the panoramic view of Lhe Palo Aho ranch. lo details of the 'elec1ro-shullers·, and the techniques used. In lhe rirst line it says that the pholographs were tak~n 'by instructions of Governor 1.elaucl Stanford.' In the copy that Muybriclge gave to his patron. il bears a hanclwriacn note thai more or less repeats this acknowleclgemenL Perhaps Stanford was expecting (or even deserved?) something more."' ·me album collects series pho1ographs of various horses running and walking, as well as of other animals and athletes. A 11laie entitled Athlete swingi11g a pick shows Muybridge himself. nude, with a pipe in his mouth. TI1ere are various examples of shols taken al an ,111gle and in perspective. denoting the simultaneity of the cameras in the experimental track and with other mobile equipment. The European tri1> of the two men was not directly linked lo the publica1ion of these materials. hu1 il increased their importance and would haw serious and definitive consequences for 1hcir relationship. Many of the cleiails relating to the events that followed still remain unclear and so make ii harder to explain 1he Irue significance of 1hcir lrip Lo Europe or the origin of the disagreement that eventually would bring lhcm to court.

II

TWENTY-FOUR CAMERAS

Srnnforcl was already in Europe with his family by the summer of 1881. It is said that he had the imention of personally presenting the results of the Palo Alto experiments Lo a number of scicntiiic and artistic circles."" One of the specific: reasons for the trip to Europe (a common one for rich Americans of the period) was to get his portrait painted by a famous French artist, something that he had already arranged for his wife a few years earlier. Since 1879 he lrnd wanted to be immortalised on canvas by the hand of Meissonnier. the official painter renowned for his great historical paintings. one of which shows Napoleon on his horse. 1lowever, the French painter initially refused. Stanford eventually managed to get the J>Ort.rait after discovering that the painter was interested in studies on animal locomotion.1'a ·n1ey entered into dis• cussion on the matter and Stanford showed him the first photographs of ·Occident'. with the result that the portrait incorporated a perspective view of Muybridge·s The Attitudes of A11imols in Motio11. which Stanford must have brought with him 10 Paris. It is possible thM it was during the lengthy sittings for the portrait ((or which he paid $10.000) Lhat Meissonnier persuaded him into asking Muybriclge to come 10 Europe to expound on Lhe results of his photogrnphs of animals in molion. 11~ By Lhe time the ex-governor left for Europe, the experiments al Palo Alto had come to an end. The equipment had been dismantled and handed over Lo Muybridge. Obviously Ihere had been an initi,~ agreement or a unilateral decision on Stanford's parl to give the equipment 10 him. In practice this was a kind of settlement or their affairs. In a photograph from 1915 which shows the remains of the wooden construction that in 187~79 had housed the ba11cry of c,uncras, one can see the remains of the rest of Lhe equipment. including at least one of the famous 'electro-shullers· and a few of what were probably ll1e ball1s for developing the plates.'"' Still on Stanford's instruclions. Muybridge was paid the lump s um of $2,000. Was this payment for services rendered, an act of generosity, or money towards I.ravel expenses to Europe? Not even the punctilious acts of Jlique and reciprocal objections that the two would raise against each other in court shortly afte rwards helped to find Lhc true facl~. Muybridge crossed the Atlantic ,md. after a brief stay in England. arrived in Paris. On ll1e evening of 26 September 1881, Marey invited many famous people LO his new home at the Trocadero to meet Muybridge and to see his photographs. Stanford was not there. Among Ilic invitees. celebrated guests included scien1ists such as He lmholtz and Bjerknes. Professor Govi of the Univers ity of Naples. professors from the Sorbonne and the College de France, Colonel Duhousset and Gaston Tissandier (the latter were of course Lhc first in Eu rope 10 present Muybridge's work) ancl the pho1ogra1>her Nadar. The next day. the newspaper Le Globe dcclica1ccl a long article 10 the event under Lhe headline ·t;, photographie instanlanee·. and presented Muyb1idgc as an

II

TWENTY-FOUR CAMERAS

American sdentist. 1"' 17,e soir