Rediscovering Early Non-Fiction Film

Author(s): Stephen Bottomore

Source: Film History, Vol. 13, No. 2, Non-Fiction Film (2001), pp. 160-173
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3815423 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 00:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Film History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rediscovering
early
non-fiction film
StephenBottomore
In recent years a rediscovery of early non-fiction
film has been taking place. I have always been
an enthusiast for these first 'documentaries', so
in principle I should welcome an airing for more
of these rarely seen films. Yet I have a number of
misgivings about how such films have been exhibited
since the 1990s. It seems to me that some of the
screenings have been planned and executed with
littlereference to the context in which such films were
originally shown in the years when they were made.
Early non-fiction has been programmed in these
modern 'retrospectives' much as fiction films from a
later era are programmed, despite being a very
different filmic genre. While I applaud the intention in
trying to bring some of these films before a modern
audience, I have some suggestions about how the
films might be programmed more sensitively in the
future.
Beyond the documentary as art
For many years the early non-fiction film has been
sadly neglected by film historians. This type of film
was largely ignored during the first period of reawak-
ened interest in early cinema, exemplified by the
Brighton conference in 1978, which covered only
early fiction films.1 Even as late as 1995 at pre-
screenings for the Domitor (early film association)
conference, out of 139 films shown, only five or six
were non-fiction.
There are several reasons for this long-stand-
ing neglect of early and silent non-fiction, the first
being simply that historically the fiction film has
enjoyed greater popularity than its factual brother.
Another reason is lack of basic research: even quite
accessible sources such as trade journals are rela-
tively rarely consulted for information on non-fiction
films and filmmakers, while one of the best secon-
dary sources, Krows' 'Motionpictures - not for thea-
tres', is scarcely known by most film historians and
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FilmHistory,Volume 13, pp. 160-173, 2001. Copyright? John Libbey
ISSN:0892-2160. Printedin Malaysia
archivists.2 But I suggest that a more deep seated
reason for the eclipse of the factual film is the influ-
ence of a particularmodel of film history.
That model might be summed up in the title of
RudolfArnheim'sbest knownbook, TheFilmAs Art
of 1932.3 This phrase has been the often unspoken
assumption underlying most forms of film study
since the 1930s - that at its best cinema can be an
art form, and indeed that it is probably only worth
studying and writing about if that is the case. Most
writers on film from the 1930s onwards have been
largely concerned with fiction film, but this desire to
uncover the 'art of film' has also filtered into docu-
mentary studies. Paul Rotha's best known film book,
TheFilmTillNow certainlyfollowedthis 'art'agenda,
and his book, DocumentaryFilmof 1936, carried
over his concern with film as art into the non-fiction
realm. In particular he made a claim for the origins
of the documentary film:
... documentary may be said to have had its
real beginnings with Flaherty's Nanook in
America (1920), Dziga Vertov's experiments in
Russia (round about 1923), Cavalcanti's Rien
Que les Heures in France(1926), Ruttmann's
Berlinin Germany(1927) and Grierson'sDrift-
ers in Britain(1929).4
I submit that this model has dominated most
discussion and writing about non-fiction film up to
the present day, notably by implying that the docu-
mentary is art or it is nothing; and, essentially derived
from this, that no 'real' documentaries were made
before 1920. According to Rotha's view, certain non-
Stephen Buttomoreis a documentaryproducerand
an independent film historianspecialising in early
cinema.Correspondenceto: 27 RoderickRoad,Lon-
don NW32NN, UK.
[E-mail:sbottomore@dial.pipex.com]
Rediscoveeria_l^1
W,
161
. . .
.

fiction films, beginning with Nanook were accounted

'real'documentaries, while others, even though they
,lhe trues' and mosi oApict'ure wilh more drama, greater
might have come before, were not. Thus, all the human story of thb thri, and stronger ae/ion than
travelogues, industrial, interest, advertising, scien- qreal While Snows any picture you eversaw.
tific, and other films made from the 1890s were
suddenly consigned to the outer darkness, for Rotha
only considered films which had a certain 'personal'
vision to be real documentaries.
This has contributed to a skewing in scholarly
work on the history of documentaries, with far more
interest in the exceptional productions, major 'art'
documentaries, fiction/non-fiction hybrids, etc, and
less interest in the workaday travelogues, industrial
and advertising films.5 Look at the best known pub-
lished books on documentary, such as those by
Barsam and Barnouw, and the compilations edited
by Rosenthal and MacDonald.6 Most of these not
only skate over the early period, but in their main
coverage from the 1930s onwards they very much
focus on the exceptional films of the non-fiction
genres: those that were noticed, that caused contro-
versy, that were made by major film-makers. There
is little coverage in these sources of the typical
non-fiction film. The vast majorityof workaday trave-
logues, industrial, interest films are virtuallyignored,
as are their modern counterparts: average television REVILLON
FRERES
PAESEENT
."Y
documentaries. Even Charles Musser, who has done
so much to rehabilitate early non-fiction cinema, in
his well-crafted essay on silent non-fiction makes no
reference, for example, to mainstream industrialfilm-
making, even though this was a major sector of film
production by the teen years.7
This is not a criticism of these authors, for they
deliberately set out to signal the highlights of the A STORYOF LIFEAND LOVEIN THEACTUALARCTIC
history of non-fiction, the 'remarkable' films of the OROBT
J. F TY
ROBERT J. FLAHERTY. F.P.G.S.
F
Pafhenlicure
periods they cover. Fine collections like Rosenthal's
_- =- =

deal with some of the most noticed films, and most :. -,::::. X.:;:::::: . ..... .........?';;'::::.:
I
.<:.
.
..........:;. . "~
',t:.: :: <iy::iFF:i

controversial issues in documentary. But Iam simply

arguing that additional work needs to be done: in
studying the non-fiction film in general, and estab-
lishing some more statistical data on the genre and
its historical development. The problem is that a
conventional 'canon' has been established which
only takes in a few high points, including the Lu-
mieres, Nanook of the North, the Kino-Eye school,
Drifters,etc (the old familiar list), while more run-of-
the-mill non-fiction films have been ignored. In this
way film history has only seen the tip of the iceberg
of non-fiction, while much that lies beneath the sur-
face has been overlooked.
This focus on documentary 'highlights' has
some parallel in the study of the fiction film. Foryears Fig. 1. Nanook
the most common way to study feature film produc- oftheNorth
tion was through auteur theory, looking at the great (Robert Flaherty,
creators of the cinema and little else. Dozens of 1920)- thefirst
'real'
major studies appeared about particular directors, documentary?
such as Hawks and Hitchcock, Eisenstein and
Renoir. Variations of auteur theory add in the other
creative talents in filmmaking, and so an equivalent
avalanche of people-focused books have appeared
(and continue to appear) on stars, screenwriters,
even cameramen and make-up artists. And just as
with the current focus in documentary studies on
certain outstanding films, this approach to fiction

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162
filmmakingconcentratedon certaingreat films,the
CitizenKanes and Birthof a Nations of the filmic
firmament.
Itwas onlyinthe 1970s thata more'historically
neutral'approachsaw the lightof day, withthe use
of statisticalstyle analysis by BarrySalt, and the
meticulousworkof TheClassicalHollywoodCinema.
The latterin particularwent beyond the 'greatman'
school of Hollywoodhistory,and for the firsttime
took a randomlyselected group of Hollywoodfilms
and analysedallkindsof variablesincludinglighting,
editing, and story themes. In this way one could
appreciate how the Hollywoodsystem manufac-
tured movies, in many ways this system acting as
more of an auteurthanthe individualhumanbeings
who workedon particular films.(Andallthiswas not,
obviously,to deny that certainfilms rise above the
plainof the typical,northatthereare worksof cine-
maticgenius).
As faras non-fictiongoes, whilethis statistical
approach has not yet appeared, historianshave
startedto overturnRotha'srigidideas on whatwere
the firstdocumentaries,and have begun to examine
some of the earliernon-fictionfilms in the world's
archives.8The high water markin the 'rediscovery'
of early non-fictionwas the mid-1990s.The theme
was initiatedwhen the NederlandsFilmmuseumor-
ganised a workshopon silent non-fictionin 1994.
Then the following year Bologna's 'Cinema
Ritrovato' organiseda programmeentitled'11 non-fic-
tion dal 1900 al 1914', and in the same festival
screened several silentfilmsof expeditions.InSep-
tember 1995 the Haus des Dokumentarfilmsin
Stuttgartalso mounted an event concerned with
silent non-fiction.9And in the autumnof 1995 the
Pordenone festival ran a major non-fictionpro-
gramme.These events have allowedlargenumbers
of the survivingcorpus of these early films to be
seen, so givingfilmhistoriansa cleareridea of what
typicalearlynon-fictionfilmswere like,and starting
to move us beyond the Rotha-esquecanon of great
documentaries.
However, I submit that aspects of Rotha's
ideas on 'documentaryas art'havecontinuedto hold
sway,especiallyininfluencingthe informational con-
text in whichthese filmsare screened, and in deter-
mining how they are grouped and programmed
together.10InwhatfollowsImakesome suggestions
about where I feel recent screenings of non-fiction
films have gone wrong. No doubt many people will
disagree; I hope they willnot take offence. We are
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Stephen Bottomore
rediscoveringearlynon-fictionfilm(as well as early
film in general), and I feel a vibrantdiscussion of
these issues can do nothingbut good.
Collecting versus programming
Inmost projectsto exhibitcreatedwork- whetherin
an art gallery, a cinema, or anywhereelse - the
questionof choice is the primaryone: 'whichworks
should one put on display?' In art exhibitionsthe
primarycriterionof selection is often 'who created
the works?','who was the artist?'On this basis we
might have an exhibitionof Rembrandt'spaintings
orHenryMoore'ssculptures.Thisartist-basedselec-
tion is used partlybecause there may be few other
obvious ways to group the works,and because we
consider that one particularcreative individual
played a more importantrole than others. So for
example, while it is perfectlyreasonableto present
an exhibitionof Rembrandt'spaintings,it mightbe
considered somewhat perverseto present a selec-
tion of them based on who made the frames that
enclose the paintings.
Whileselection based on the artistis probably
the most common way of organisingan artexhibi-
tion, it is not the only one. Another reasonable
methodmightbe to choose paintingsof a particular
historicalperiod or with a particulartheme, e.g.
'Modernism'or 'war'.Inall cases the ultimateaim is
to select a series of workswithsomething in com-
mon.
This notion of 'collectingthe similar'has its
analogue inthe worldof cinemainthe 'retrospective'
or 'season'. This involves collecting together and
screeningina 'season' severalexamplesof the work
director('auteur'),star,writerorstudio.
of a particular
This approach has also been used for screening
early films at festival venues such as Bologna or
Pordenone:a numberof filmswithsome connection
- such as comingfromthe same studioor the same
country- are screened as a group, to (as it were)
showcase the 'artisticcorpus'. Thiswas also to be
the approach taken in presenting the non-fiction
programmes shown at the Pordenone festival in
1995.
Pordenone's non-fictionyear was by any
standards a majorshowcase for early non-fiction,
withhoursworthof filmsbeing shownoverthe week.
Myownreactionwas that,whileIwas gratefulto have
such a chance to view earlynon-fictionfilms,some-
thingwas wrong.Thefailure,in myview,was simply
thatthisstandardprogrammingmodelof the 'collec-
Rediscoverin earl non-fiction film 163

tion'or'retrospective' didn'twork.The'retrospective' TYKE ~~~~~~~~THIS

WEEK,NEXTWEEK,
system makes considerablesense as faras screen- FILM RELEASES.
FDILM
RELEASES. AFTER.
AND THE WEEK
(June 16th to July 7th.)
ing fictionfilms fromthe feature period,where the
ABBraVIATIONS: B r, BuriesrIn; C Corn, Comic; ?, Drama; Educa
Comedy;, Des, Descriptive; E,
tliona; F, Fantasy; G, Gymastc; H, Hitorical; Int, I,Industrial;
Melodrama; Interest; M, NH Natural
Hstory; P, Pathetic; R, Romance; S, Scenic; Sn Scientific; Spec, Spectacular; Sp, Sporting; T, Travel, Tr, Trick;
films are shown singly over a period of days or Ambrosio,
Top, Topical.
Biograph,
weeks. Itworks because each long filmis more or See Agency, 83, Shattesbury Avenue, W.
Oerrarad un. ltuaelms, London.
Den. Feet. 'Date.
M.P. Sales Agency, 86, WardonurStreet, W.
City 64n Bloselig, London.
less a programmein itself,and a modernscreening Friscot's Now Occupation................Comrn 475 June 16
Alonigthe Simplon Road........................T 380 - 20 Help! help:.........................................C
De. Feet. Date
498 June
ProaperityFeunced on Anot-her'sRuin..- 1253 - 23 The Female of the Species..................... 99 -
is largelyreproducingwhat audiences of the time Tweedledum'a Sweet Wife.................Comrn 546 - 23
Festivals in India...............................Int 490 - 27
Just Like a Woman ............................D
The Restoration........................... D
98 - 20
64 -
16

A Hcneymoon Journey........................CD 1203 - 27

wouldhave seen. Tweedledum Income .......................Corn 673 - 30
What's Your Hurry?.........
One is Buaine, the Other Crime....
403 -
998 - 23
0
Ih I were a King ....:..............................D 574 July4 Won By a Fish......... ...........................C 633 - 23
ButIwouldargue thatthis 'collection'system The Ship............................................D
Harried Lovers
Married Levere.............................
...................................C
1647 -
.C 65605 --
7
77
The Brave Hunter
h Leaner
The' ^r Evil....................................D
r r r :::D
C 466 - 27
1009
10 - 30
5
is ofteninappropriate forthe one-reelera, especially American
Film Cempany,
Tyler Hcene.t
Standard,
Limited, Film W
The Fickle Spaniard.............................C
The Light that Came............................D
456 - 30
998 July 4
C,ereardw
TFCRm.
('
997,e,-md imeL, The Old Actor......................................D 1020 - 4
fornon-fiction,because itmeans showingseveralof Love Will Find a Way...........................C~~TyAtm.ALedr4.
Let Us Be Divorced..............................C
1060 June 16
916 - 20
A Lodging for the Night.......................D
A Midnight Adventure..........................C
1018 -
633 -
7
7
the same type of filmone afterthe otherinthe same Mamie Bolton ......................................C
Do Your Duty.. .................................
965 - 0
905 July 78. Crtng C
Cine,
Rod, W.C.
sitting,whichwouldneverhave been practisedat the il West,p,
American Wild conica im. Ro.eicine, Londo.
Ame.
icnie
(G. M~Iles, N WYel
N.Y.) Poor George.........................................C 1000 June 19
J. P. Brocklilu,.4., New Compton Street, W.C. Mr. Stout's Adventures.....................Comrn 833 - 19
timethe filmswere made. Gatheringtogetherseveral Gerrardiet.
Her Spoiled Boy.................. ................D
ntanilm.l,oinedn.
1015 June 15
Tontolini's Quid................................Com
Bibbie's Revenge..................................D
449 - 22
1017 - 22
Great Heart of the West........................ D 1000 - 22 Siena and Vicovaro...............................T 478 - 22
short films (and in the early teen years most films Cowboyversus Tenderfoot..... ................D
The Spur of Necessity........................... D 1000 July 6
1006 - 2 The Debt Paid.....................................D
Saved .................................................D
1656 - 26
1587 - 29
were under15 minutesduration)by the same maker B. and C.
M.P. Sales Agncy, 98, Wardenr Street, W.
Eclipse of the Sun.................................E
Reunited ............................................D
285 - 29
921 - 29
The Police Sergeant..............................D 1295 July 3
or studio,whileusefulforhistoriansand academics, City Au& Bloeelig.
BattalioenShot......................................D
Two Bachelor Girls..............................R
Lt.don.
890 June
900
16 Mona Lisa with a Moustache.................C
Dolly's Savings .....................................D
633 -
630 -
3
6
20
is often profoundlydullforthe viewer.Particularly so Smuggler's Daughter of Anglesey ........D 1090 -
The lheAdventre
Pedlar ofo Penmaenmawr.................D
Senarie D 860 -
86
23 l',,'ssio Play in Southern Italy............Int
The Wrong Hat................................Com
670 -
670 -
6
6
The Adventuires PekT
upn:
of Dick Turpin: ..........,Series
I., The Fox Hunt.......................................C 436 - 6
in the case of non-fiction. The King of Highwaymen............D 1132 July 7
12. Charing Crn
Clarendon,
Broncho. Road. W.C.
At each screening in Pordenoneseveral non- Western Import Co., Ltd., 7, Rupert
WsrIptC,Streetd,
W. SueredtMind
Court, Rupert entre7H20.
the Paint................................Com
ClariGfim,Ltnd6n.
475 June 16
.iorr,rd 8000. . Weqlm, Sharp Practice................... ................. D 838 - 23
oStreet.
fictionfilmswere shown one afterthe other,mainly For a Western Girl.............................. D1' 539 June
Ikey Mo's Dream............... ..............Corn 410 -
19 Mr. Diddlem's Will.............................C
22 Sheepskin Trousers; or, Not in Theao...Bur 720 July 7
375 -

in the minorof two venues of the festival.The vast Young Deer's Return...........................D
Mr. Deooley'sHoliday........................Co
588 - 26Crick
KinemaographOne.
& Martin,
l, Wrdo Street W
The Red Men's Bravery.........................D 556 July 6 ityoerae. Biloeeq, Londone.
numberof films that were shown overallseemed, Film
Cosmopolitan,
QGrrardStreet, W.
Cold Steel............................................D
How Smiler ' Raised the Wind .........Corn
825 June 20
750 - 22
llHns,
paradoxically,to suggest some lack of confidence Gerrardn8M.
What the Window Cleaner Saw.............-
'he Curse of Avarice...........................-
540 June
1000 -
Constable Smith in Command............Tr C 440 - 27
16 The Farmer's Daughter........................ D 975 - 29
16 Muggins, V.C.................................. .... 865 July 4
in the entire enterprise,as if it were a desperate Syracuse .............................................T
His Besetting Sin............... .................D
395 -
1000' -
20 On an English Farm...........................Int
20Empire,
345 - 6
The'Race of Mountain Climbers.........Comrn 450 - 23 t P Siles Agency86, Wrdur Street, W.
attemptto get the unwelcomecreatureof non-fiction Blazing the Trail.................................D
The Test of Truth.................................D
2100 -
1000 -
23 City 48.
27 Views in Durban...................................T
Bi-sellg,l,ondn.
260 June 16
entirelydone and out of the way with in that single The Making of a Soldier........................E
Feeding Time......................................
375 -
F 275 -
27 Father's Forty Winks3.......................
30 Making Gelf Clubs...............................1
330
330 - 30
The Clown ..........................................D 1250 - 0 Among.the Ferns and Waterfalls of the Blue
year. And this was indeed to prove the case, for The Crisis .......................................... 2,000 July 7 tountains, N.S Wales T 245 July

non-fictionas such has never raised its uglyface at

Pordenoneagain, and Isuspect thatthisexperiment Fig.2. (above)
Sometradejournalslisted
was seen as a failureby the festivalorganisers.But newfilmreleases
withanabbreviationnext
I suggest that the failurewas in the programming whattypeoffilmitwas.
toeachtoindicate
model, ratherthan in the films, for this 'collecting' (Incidentally aninteresting
giving insight
aesthetic goes rightagainst the grainof how such intothoughts genreinthisera).
about
[The 20June1912.]
Bioscope
filmswere originallymeantto be presented.
The pointis thatearlycinemagoers neversaw
a collectionof similarfilms screened together;they
almost always saw a mixedprogramme.Even into
the 1920s a programmewas the norm-'an eve-
ning's entertainment',to quote the title of Richard
Koszarski'sbook on Hollywood'ssilentfeatureera.
Inessence thiswas the movietheatre'sequivalentof
the varietyformat.Inthe earlyperioda programme
of a half a dozen to a dozen short films was the
I '
standardexhibitionformat- a mixof everythingfrom
dramasand comedies to traveloguesand news. The
trade press, in listingfilmsavailablefor purchaseor
FIRST
BEST.
ted
\ Fig.3. (left)Boards
displayedoutside
likethiswere
cinemastoshowthe
rentalwouldoften indicatethe genre of each film,so The Original Cinema Letter Combination. orderoffilmsintheprogramme (and
the exhibitoror rentercould put together a mixed NEATEST and CHEAPEST sometimes, ashere,toindicate
the'genre'
Programme Outfit. ofeachfilmtoo).Thetitleofeachfilmwas
programmewithoutactuallyseeing each film. IMITATEDbut UNAPPROACHED in ona slat,which wasslotted
intotheboard.
Findingout what was includedin typicalcin- EFFECT, DURABILITY
and PRICE.
[TheBioscope 19March 1914.]

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164
ema programmesfromthe pre WorldWarOne era
is notquiteas easy as one mightsuppose. Relatively
few were listed in trade journals,for the very good
reason thatthe programmewas often decided and
compiled by the local showmanfor his one cinema
alone, or sometimes it came fromthe local renter,
readycompiled.Butprogrammelistingsmaysome-
times be seen in survivingprintedprogrammesand
in theatreadvertisementsin local newspapers. Pro-
grammes of filmsmay also be seen in some surviv-
ing photographs of the fronts of picture palaces,
where a list of filmsto be shown was advertisedon
a special slatted programmeboard near the en-
trance.Hereis a sample programmeof filmsfroma
Britishpicturepalace in 1910:
TheHonorof his Family(Biographdrama)
ChurchParade(factual)
Military
WinterSports,Copenhagen(travelogue)
Accompaniedon the Tom Tom ('a rollicking
Englishscreamer',i.e. comedy)
Wanteda Mummy('refinedhumour')
Sorry,Can'tStop ('excitingcomic')
TheEgyptianMaid('magnificentcoloured
production')
Daughter of the Sioux ('sensational Indian
picture')11
Note the mixof comedies and drama,along
withtwo non-fictiontitlesamong the totalof 8 films.
The arrangementand make-upof the programme
changed over the years: for example, a cinema in
Poplarin 1907 offereda greaternumber(of shorter)
films than the example above, and also a greater
proportionof non-fiction- 7 or 8 titles out of 18 in
all.12Allprogrammesfromthis era that I have seen
entaila similarmixingof genres, withnon-fictionfilms
almost always included. Cinema managers in the
early period understood how this mixed program-
mingformatworked,and certainlyknewthatmaking
up a programmeof all the same type of filmswas
not a good idea. A well knownearly exhibitor,T.J.
West, noted in 1914:
As faras the 'makeup'of an idealprogramme
is concerned, the best possible selection of
pictures for an average audience is, to my
mind,one which has varietyas its keynote.It
should include dramas, comedies, scenic,
educationaland scientificsubjects.13
Insuch a programmea comedy would alter-
natewithan educational,a dramamightbe followed
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Stephen Bottomore
by a travelogue.(Westdidn'tmentionnewsreels,but
these were also frequentlypartof the programme).
Some exhibitorsalso realisedthat differenttypes of
filmshad differingemotionaleffectson the audience,
and interweavingthe diversityof genres helped to
regulatethe pace of the exhibition.Thiswas partof
the significanceof non-fictionwithinthe programme
(See Appendix).
Despite the 'rediscovery'of silent cinema in
recentyears, the newlyfoundfilmshave rarelybeen
presentedinsuch a mixedprogrammeformatat any
of the silent filmvenues. The strategy has almost
invariablybeen to show a collectionof filmsby one
person or productioncompany,and this approach,
while satisfying academic rigour, I would argue
sometimes results in tediumfor the viewer.This is
especiallytrueof non-fiction,for,withsome excep-
tions, non-fictionfilmshave alwaysbeen supporting
films, not main attractions.They either helped to
make up a programmein whichfictionwas the key
attraction,orwere used in non-theatricalcontextsas
educational,commercialor promotionaltools. Totry
to runa complete programmeof non-fictionwould
have been consideredan act of sheer follyby most
exhibitorsof the silentera.
Equally,though, to runa programmewithout
any non-fictioncomponent- such as newsreels or
travelogues- would have been almost equallyun-
usual.Inthissense myargumentcuts bothways, for
an all fictionprogrammecan be just as tedious as
an all non-fictionone. Certainlyviewersin the silent
periodwouldneverhave sat throughfive Eclairdra-
mas on the trot,as Pordenoneviewerswere invited
to do duringanotheryearof the festival.Isubmitthat
this screening philosophybased on 'collectingthe
similar'is unfairto these films, and weakens their
impactthroughbeingpresentedina contextthatwas
neverintended.
Whilethere have been few ifany programme-
based screenings of early films in recent years in
festivals or conferences, one rare and interesting
experimentalong these lines has been takingplace
at the NFTVAfor the past several years (and con-
cluded in 2000). Everymontha dozen or so viewing
copies of Britishfilmsmade before1915 wereshown
in an Archiveviewingtheatre.They were selected
alphabetically,each monthprogressingthroughthe
alphabet. Thus one monthwe would see all titles
betweenABoldVenture(Hepworth,1912)and British
Columbia:Loggingin Winter(Urban,1908) and the
next monthall titles between a BritishDentalAsso-
Rediscovering early non-fiction film
ciation instructionalfilm and a Lewin Fitzhamon
comedy of 1907, The Busy Man. Inthis accidental
way a mixed 'programme'of fictionand non-fiction
was created, which was as similar to the pro-
grammes of films of the pre-featureperiod as any
screenings in recentyears. Forthe viewerthe result
was an entertainingmix, in which every taste was
catered for, and no-one had time to get bored with
any one type of film.
I suspect that in coming years there will be
increasing interest in this 'authentic'style of pro-
gramming.Atthe Amsterdamworkshopon 'colonial
cinema' in 1998, whilethe conventional,retrospec-
tive programmingformatwas used - withblocks of
similarfilms being shown - an alternativewas pro-
posed at the very end of the event by historian
NicholasHiley,who suggested thatthe originalpro-
gramme model that I have described might have
some appeal as a way of showing earlynon-fiction
to modernviewers:
I thinkthatthis questionof how can we show
these images to generalcinema audiences is
an enormously importantone. It's also an
enormouslydifficultone... Itmightbe neces-
saryto go backto the solutionthattheyfound,
which was to put these pieces of film into a
programmethat was predominantlya fiction
programme.Andalthoughyou can use these
films in researchcontexts, to make particular
historicalpoints, I think it's worth thinking
about feeding them back into the main pro-
grammeof exhibition.Infact,some of the most
interestinguses I'veseen of old newsreels is
to put itback intothe cinema programmewith
filmsof the same date. Letthe audience see
that there were differentways of filmmaking,
differentmodes of address, and styles of pres-
entationat the same time as that majorfilm
that they've gone to see. Itwas always said
that the newsreelwas somethingyou got for
free when you paid to see the mainfeature.It
may be that you have to start programming
this material,using thatsame solution.14
The obvious objectionto all this is to ask why
we should re-establishan authentic,originalpro-
gramme formatwhen we are screening films in a
modern,verydifferentcontext.Afterall, most mod-
ern spectators of earlyand silentfilmsare academ-
ics, archivistsand historianswho may preferto see
films in themed sections to keep their academic
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
165
categories firmlyseparated. Such viewerscome to
Pordenoneor othervenues preciselybecause they
want to see, for example, all of Griffith's1909 films
in one place and at one time,allowingthemto chart
a director'sdevelopmentover time. These festival-
goers do not care that it is not an 'authentic'experi-
ence, and they do not necessarily experience the
tediumthataudiences of the timewouldhave felt in
seeing reams of similarfilms. They are there as
historians,and collectorsof information.
No doubttheywouldarguethatthe 'collection'
formatplays a similarpartin filmhistoryas the art
gallerydoes in painting.Inan artgallery,the pictures
are usuallyarrangedby period, school and artist.
Few exhibitionorganiserswouldsuggest thata vari-
ety formatwouldbe appropriatefor paintings,with,
for example, a Warholsharing wallspace with a
Vermeerand a Turner.Likeshould be placed with
like, they would say, to allow the galleryvisitorto
study severalworksby a particularartistor school.
On the other hand the essential difference
betweenartin a galleryand filmsin a cinema is that
one can go at one's own pace in a gallery,studying
particularpicturesat leisureforsome time,while'fast
forwarding'throughanotherdullertwenty pictures
witha quicklook roundand a swiftwalkto the next
galleryspace. But no Pordenoneattendee has yet
suggested to my knowledge that the relentlessly
calculated16 or20 framepersecond rateforscreen-
ing silentfilms should be upped to 'fastforward'in
the case of unusuallytedious reels.
Perhapsa moreappropriatecomparisonto be
made withscreening a filmwould be another'real-
time'artform:music. As concerthalldirectorshave
knownforgenerations,a concerthas to be carefully
programmedto attractand hold an audience. The
most popularprogrammewouldprobablycombine
a varietyof differentstyles and composers. So if a
venue put on a concert consisting exclusivelyof
Kreutzer'ssonatas, or nothingbut Mozart'sallegro
movements,fewwouldexpectaudiencesto be lining
the streets to attend such exercises in academic
rigour.Thisis a metaphorworthpursuing,foranyone
who has ever made a filmwillknowthatof allthe arts
it is music which filmmost resembles. Musicis all
about developmentof mood over time,withchang-
ing speeds, rhythms,orchestrationsand volumes,
allcontributingto a completeexperiencethatkeeps
the audience interestedforthe couple of hoursthat
a concert mightlast. (Asymphony,of course, likea
featurefilm,has varietybuiltintoit.)

TIlE KINEMATOGRAPH e LANTERN WEEKLY.
Fig. 4. Short And surely the point about cinema is that it has
travelorinterest always been a popular artform, appealing to millions
filmswere of people, where audiences were less concerned
frequently with who made a film than with (pace Hiley again)
includedin
an entertaining couple of hours in a cinema.
cinema having
programmes. In short, cinema has always been as much about
[Kinematograph exhibition as it has been about production.
andLantern Yet film archives and retrospective festivals
Weekly8 often behave as if production and the companies
February 1912.] and individuals who produced the films were the only
side of the coin. Film archives spend vast amounts
of time and effort in restoring films as they suppos-
edly were when originally produced. These restora-
tions are presented with great fanfare as 'authentic'
versions, or 'directors' cuts'. Yet as far as the exhibi-
tion side is concerned, authenticity is sometimes
allowed to go out of the window. Films are presented
in an inauthentic setting, utterly shorn of the pro-
gramme which once gave these films life and con-
text, a setting which allowed particularfilms to shine,
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Stephen Bottomore
but also to balance and react against other kinds of
films. Film showmen discovered the magic of pro-
gramming in the early years of the twentieth century,
or more likely inherited it from the vaudeville/music
hall programme. It ill behoves us alleged silent film
lovers to forsake their insights today.
Aesthetics versus information
I have argued above that one effect of the 'filmas art'
aesthetic has been to discourage the programme
format and encouraged the themed retrospective.
But 'filmas art' has not only influenced current festi-
val exhibition practice, it has also influenced how
films are critically studied by film historians and
students. If films are regarded as art objects they
may be seen as having intrinsic aesthetic value,
somewhat apart from the context of their making,
and may be studied merely as a series of images
with no particularhistory. Jacques Aumont has pro-
posed this 'aesthetic approach' as one way of study-
ing film. Inhis keynote statement at the Domitor 1994
conference Aumont suggested that, as well as the
more conventional historical approach to early film
study (which examines the circumstances and man-
ner of film production and exhibition), there is also
room for a purely aesthetic response. In this form of
studying film we do not necessarily need to know
much about the historical background to a particular
film, but can appreciate it merely for its aesthetic
qualities. Eric de Kuyper has taken a similar line in
his study of Alfred Machin's films.15
This aesthetic approach also seems to have
influenced the thinking behind the Amsterdam film
study workshops, notably that of 1994 on non-fiction
film, and the workshop on colonial film four years
later. The 1994 workshop gathered together a
number of film historians, filmmakers and other in-
terested parties to watch and comment on several
sessions of early non-fiction films, beautifully pre-
served by the Nederlands Filmmuseum. We viewed
a rich selection of travelogues and industrials from
about the first twenty five years of the cinema. The
workshop aimed to stimulate scholarly reactions to
these rarely seen reels, in areas such as the visual
style and technique of individual films, and vari-
ation/evolution between films.
However, it soon became apparent that these
aims would prove problematic. After a couple of
days of viewings, Ben Brewster delivered the devas-
tating blow. He pointed out that he had noticed a
distinct lack of year-on-year stylistic evolution in
Rediscovering early non-fiction film 167

these earlynon-fictionfilms.This,he suggested was THE BIOSCOPE. 19li. Fig.5. The

inmarkedcontrastto fictionfilmswhichwerechang- newsreel item
ing informratherrapidlyinthis period,and he noted wasa programme
The Ladies! ' initself,often
it is often possible to date earlyfictionfilmsto within ofa
consisting
a couple of years by stylisticfeaturesalone.16 dozenbriefnews
Was he right?Is silent non-fictionsomething 1)~
Please them by exhibiting fop their benefit I
stories,
of a PeterPanfigureinthe familyof filmtypes? Isthis frequently
a filmgenre thatfailedto growup, orat least showed
relativelylittledevelopmentfor a numberof years?
ITHE PARIS iB including
fashion
a
item.
We need to pickourperiodsverycarefullyhere. Ifwe [TheBioscope 4
are talkingabout the veryearliestyears of filmpro- FASHIONSI August1910.]
duction - the 1890s - it is possible to make the whichappeareveryweekin
contraryclaim:thatcertaintechniquessuch as pan-
ning,cameramovementand multi-shotconstruction Pathe'sAnimated
Gazette.
were probablyfirst used in non-fiction.But when
They frtem a featureof te Gazettewhiclis
fictionwas takingoverfromnon-fictioninimportance appeciated
thoroeughly
at atatinees, ande weaeare constaltly receivicng expres-

from about 1903, the position was apparentlyre- aSinS of iegret fromoaur custoners that tlis particular item is not
of greater length.
|

versed, with more rapid stylistic innovationin the

Those who have not yet commenced to exhibit the Gazette, should
former.And the non-fictionfilmsviewed at Amster- j* bear this fact in mind.

dam that Brewsterwas primarily referringto were in

this second-stage era of early cinema from about
1905 to 1920. WhileIwouldarguethatsome stylistic
developmentis discerniblein non-fictionin this era, is 41 -:
^fi^F-' CrX i' XL iii
there does seem to be much less change than in
fiction films, where editing, lighting,performance, ~:'i::'J? } "'!7
;'
31.33CharinSgCrossRoad 0 L N 0ONN
and various other aspects of film style were all in |,y= 4t!W=tv*====^=====s^=a= ^t-t.

rapidevolutionupto and beyondthe FirstWorldWar.

Inaddition,a move to featureswas takingplace in
fictionfilmsinthis period,leavingnon-fictionfilmsas
usuallythe shortestitemson the programme.Bythe
second decade of cinema then, non-fictionmay
indeed be regardedas a relativelystagnantgenre in
termsof filmstyle and technique.
Itwas my impressionthat Brewster'sremark,
moreor less accepted by all present,putsomething
of a damper on proceedings at the Amsterdam
non-fictionworkshop.Iftherewas littledevelopment
in style, that took away a whole possible area for
analysisand discussion. Certainlya lackof technical
developmentmeantthatthe BarrySaltand Classical
HollywoodCinemaapproachesto filmstyle analysis
mentionedabove (lookingat such variablesas edit-
ing and lighting),were likelyto be fruitless.The
Amsterdamworkshopwouldhaveto concentrateon
a narrowertype of aesthetic analysis,less based on
stylisticdevelopment.
Fortunately,aesthetic approaches did not
prove entirelywithoutvalue, and in the discussion
sessions the participantscame up withsome inter-
esting points: Tom Gunning spoke of the 'vues'
aesthetic of the films of this period,while Thomas
Elsaesser noted the filmmakers'evidentfascination
with recordingentiremanufacturing'processes'. A
number of other interestinggeneralisationswere
also made, and anotherby-productof the workshop
was instimulatingthe writingof severalusefulessays
whichthe Filmmuseumpublished.17
Butduringthe workshopitselfthis lightsouffle
of stylisticanalysis was not enough to satisfy the
pangs of factualhungerof some in the group. Ed-
ward Buscombe observed pointedlythat we had
been offeredlittlehardinformation aboutthe majority
of the films being viewed. Whywas this, he won-
dered? Was it because no-one knew, or that the
information was being deliberatelywithheld'inorder
to encourageus to thinkforourselves'?Isuspect that
partof the reason was indeed the latter:the organ-
isers thoughtthat stylisticanalysis alone mightwell
illuminatethese films,and thattoo muchinformation
about theirproductionand content mightget in the
way of such analysis.The hope was apparentlythat,
without informationalbaggage, each participant
could view these little-knownfilms with a 'tabula-
rasa'of a mind- and thereforebe forcedto analyse
the filmsin a moreoriginalway.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168
As I'vesuggested, this approachdid lead to
some interestingcommentsand furtherstudies, but
ultimatelymyfeelingwas thatmanyparticipants(not
only Buscombe) found the 'information-light. view-
ing experiencesomewhatfrustrating.18 Itis interest-
ingto reflectthatsuch a fact-freeenvironmentwould
not have been toleratedforfictionfilms.A screening
of fictionfilms in which basic information was with-
held- aboutdirectors,cast and plots,forexample-
wouldsimplyhave been unacceptableto a modern
scholarlyaudience. So is therea good argumentfor
screening non-fictionin an informational vacuum?
The firstthing to say is that in many cases
furtherbackgroundinformationwas probablynot
knownfor the films shown at Amsterdam,and in
general there are major problems in discovering
such information, or even in identifyingearlynon-fic-
tion. This was made clear to me a couple of years
beforethe Amsterdamworkshop.ScholarJeannine
Baj was then studying early films held in the
CinemathequeRoyale in Bruxelles,and sent me a
listingof abouta hundredtitlesof their'documentary'
films. Mostof these (allbut about 15 titles)had the
dreaded bracketsaroundthe title.As all filmarchi-
vists know, brackets often indicate a title that the
archivehas attributedto the film,in the absence of
knowingthe original,real title. Most of the films, in
otherwords, had not been identified,and the case
of the Bruxellesfilmsis probablynotatypicalof other
film archivecollections, which also contain a high
numberof non-fictionfilmswhere even such basic
details as the productioncompany are not known.
Whilefictionfilms may often be identifiedthrough
theirtitles and cast lists, whichoften surviveor can
be deduced, in non-fictionthere are no performers
to recognise, and few 'creativestaff',such as cam-
eramen,were ever credited.19So researchingnon-
fictionis morecomplicatedthan researchingfiction,
and it must be said that many film archivistsand
historiansare not used to checking background
details on the places and historicalevents and per-
sons whichmay help elucidatethese films.
Yet it is possible to findout information about
early non-fictionfilms, and some archivesand film
historians have started filling in the gaps. The
NFTVA'snon-fictioncatalogues often reveal much
informationabout the archive'sfilms, found partly
throughresearchingnon-filmsources. The research
departmentof the NederlandsFilmmuseumhas also
been notablysuccessful inthiswork,withtheirBiog-
raph holdings for example. In some cases a more
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Stephen Bottomore
detailedanalysisof filmedge markingsand inter-ti-
tles, as well as checking on dateable events might
tie an unidentifiedfilmto descriptionsin the trade
press or elsewhere, and therefore allow positive
identification,perhaps even includingsuch details
as filminglocationand creativestaff.20
Australia'searlyfilm historyis predominantly
non-fiction,and film historianChrisLong has long
been digging into the writtenrecords, which are
frequentlythe onlyway to identifysurvivingfilmcop-
ies, fictionor non-fiction.Longpointsout:
One thing is clear fromour workto date: the
fullsignificanceof earlyfilmmaterials- gener-
ally lacking credits and titles- is rarelyre-
vealed by the films alone. Plumbing their
significancedemands patientprimaryhistori-
cal researchand the endless posing of often
straightforwardbut specific questions such
as: Whomade the films?Whereand howwere
they produced? Who funded them? Why?
Whereand how were they shown?Whowere
the audiences and how were they brought
together? What productions have survived
and why?... Archivalpreservationand identifi-
cation can proceed effectivelyonly on the
basis of wide ranging,detailedprimaryhistori-
cal research. The two must proceed in tan-
dem.21
Thisprocess of fillingin backgroundinforma-
tion sometimes relies on unusualor raresources. I
was recentlylookingat the collectionof cameraman
EmileLauste,held at the SouthEast Filmand Video
Archivein Brighton.Lauste,the son of sound-on-film
experimenterEugene Lauste,was an importantpio-
neer in his own right,and shot a numberof non-fic-
tion films in the early years of the 20th century.
Among his collection are a series of photographs
showing a northern,snow-covered location,witha
group of explorersin distinctivefurcostumes, and
using equallydistinctivevehicles. A few days laterI
happened to be viewing some films at the NFTVA
and saw the same distinctivebackgroundsand peo-
ple in a particularly well shot film of the Wellman
Expedition(1906). thanksto the Brightonstillswe
So
now suspect that this filmwas shot by Lauste,and
to judge fromthis example,he was a cameramanof
some talent.
As wellas helpingin identification, extrainfor-
mationreallyis vitalinbetterappreciatingnon-fiction
films(andhereIwoulddefinitively partcompanywith
Rediscovering
~ ~ early
:BBB&BBb<WEX2a; ~ non-fiction
- -...... ."..' ' film
the 'aesthetic' school). Indeed it can sometimes be
the only way of giving any significance or importance
to otherwise dull and meaningless pieces of celluloid
held by film archives. As any documentary filmmaker
will testify, there is often nothing inherently interest-
ing or uninteresting in a shot, apart from production
informationor lack of it invested in that shot. A piece
of film found in an archive showing troops marching
through a muddy field may seem quite uninteresting.
But if it can be dated and identified the significance
increases, and if it turns out that it was shot during a
key historical period in a certain country's history,
then its value to that country increases enormously,
even if the film itself is in aesthetic terms quite
'uninteresting'. In other words, in the realm of non-
fiction film, aesthetics is often of less significance
than background information. Whata film is is more
importantthan how it is.
Even in the early days of non-fiction filmmak-
ing this crucial importance of background informa-
tion was understood. When a cameraman went on a
filming expedition he was expected to note down
details of the place or event that he had shot, and to
describe what was going on - information that was
not necessarily clear from the images alone. As early
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
169
Fig. 6.
Cameramen like
thesefrom
Pathe'snewsreel
wouldmake
detailednotes
aboutwhatthey
hadshoton
location,so that
post-production
staffcouldmake
senseoftheir
rushes.
[PatheCinema
Journal 4 April
1914.]
as 1908 film executive Thomas Clegg described the
qualities expected of a film cameraman in the field.
In addition to his technical and diplomatic skills, a
good operator should have a 'capacity for descrip-
tive comment', for he needed to write down 'copious
notes', with the details of who and what he had shot
(in addition to recording technical informationabout
light conditions, lens stop used, etc).22 This was in
order that back at head office the significance of the
images could be understood, and they could be
edited together (along with intertitles) to create an
accurate and interesting travelogue or news film.
Clegg related the sad case of one otherwise
'brilliantoperator', a cameraman who 'fearlessly ven-
tured into situations of grave peril ... and secured his
pictures', but who had one failing: he 'could give
simply no information respecting the situation'. In
other words, he would never provide a good written
description of what he had shot, and the only details
he supplied were of the vaguest kind: 'That's a hill-
the other is an elephant. In the distance is a
mosque.'23 Such vague notes were too imprecise to
guide the process of post-production, in which ap-
parently meaningless shots taken on location would
be shaped into a filmstory, about the particularplace
170
or event, using informationrecorded during the film-
ing process. This information was used to write
intertitleswhich would contextualise the film images
for the audience, or to provide details for a verbal
description in cases where a lecturer would accom-
pany the films (especially likely for longer 'feature'
documentaries - such as the Kinemacolor Durbaror
Rainey's AfricaHunt).
For audiences of the time, most non-fiction
films without such added background informationin
the form of intertitles would have been indigestible
to say the least. For viewers today one might argue
that even more information is required, for they of
course know so much less about the world of the
early 20th century. The pre World War One viewers
were already mired in the events of their time. For
such viewers, watching the capture of the Bonnot
gang in 1912, for example, would have been a real
thrill, for in all probability they had already been
reading about these notorious characters and the
crimes they had been committing. But there is no
reason why a modern audience, without such fore-
knowledge, should have any emotional connection
with these gray shadows from a formerage. A 'purely
aesthetic' experience of such images, if it is possible
at all, must surely be a very impoverished one. Ifwe
do not understand what something is, we will also
have a much reduced appreciation of any aesthetic
qualities it might have.
On this basis I would hope that for future
screenings of early non-fiction, background informa-
tion should be researched and programme notes be
provided, or introductoryon-screen titles be added,
aiming to offer the audience the same level of infor-
mation, or higher, as is already de rigeur in present-
ing fiction films.
Conclusion
Itseems to me that the major 'retrospectives' of early
non-fiction in recent years have moved too far away
from the exhibition practice of the era in which the
films were produced and shown. Firstly,by program-
ming many similarfilms together as a block, flying in
the face of the mixed programming formatwhich was
always their original context. And secondly by tend-
ing to present the films as aesthetic objects, often
shorn of the background factual information which
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Stephen Bottomore
would give the images significance and interest. I
have argued above that both of these presentation
decisions may be traced back to the 'film as art'
movement, in which films are seen as having intrinsic
visual worth, and should be grouped together, as in
an art gallery, to be better studied.
But, while some early non-fiction films can
stand up to such high standards of artistic scrutiny,
sadly many do not, and never did. Likeso many other
examples from the history of the moving image,
these were programme-fillers: workaday strips of
celluloid, with no particularclaim to art. Served up in
moderation they meant something to audiences of
the time, as part of a mixed programme of drama,
comedy, non-fiction and news. But there is little
reason to suppose that all of these same films should
mean anything special to audiences, or indeed
scholars, of today. We would certainly be right to
assume that a block of five early travelogues and
contextless news reports shown together is just as
likelyto bore a modern festival audience as it would
be guaranteed to have patrons of The Bijou Dream
in 1913 demanding their money back.
But happily I do see some evidence that
change is coming in the practice of presenting silent
films. Witness the imaginative way that the Film-
museum in Amsterdam has organised their 300 Bi-
ograph films into programmes, which to some extent
mix up the genres. The Pordenone festival is also
improving in this respect in that the different strands
of the festival programme are often broken up into
shorter, 'bite-size' sections than used to be the case,
thus in effect introducing more of a variety feel.
But my suggestion would be to extend these
welcome developments in silent film programming,
especially for showing early non-fiction. I would ar-
gue that the way to give non-fiction films life and
significance is to offer them in small doses and with
appropriate information. Rather than presenting
large groups of scientific or travel films one after the
other, it would be better to show them in smaller
numbers. One way to do this would be to re-establish
a certain number of mixed-genre film programmes,
more or less as they were at the time of the films'
original release. I believe that these kind of presen-
tations would improve the viewing experience, and
allow a new audience to appreciate these living
records of a former century.
Rediscovering early
.. I.. .. ..
non-fiction film 171

262
Fig.7. This
THE BIOSCOPE,
APRIL24, 1913. a
invention,
onthe
variation
There is no need to ask "What's On ?" programme
THE - notonly
board,
THE i I showed theentire
LATEST ! AUTOGRAMME programme, but
which
highlighted
FINEST!! (PATBNTED) filmwasshowing
BEST!! TELLS ateachmoment.
[TheBioscope24
EVERYBODY PR 1913.]
April
N0 v
ANY Number THAT.
workedby ONE
Switch under the , BeautifullyFinished
Control of the c
for Inside and Out-
Operator. . . . : side Positions. :
I
The Autogramme TH
gives a Finish to
: yourTheatre.:
For particulars and
orcall
prices,write,wire
& CO.,
GRUNDY
68, VictoriaStreet,
Westminster, s.w. I
fill-
II III III /11 ~I iiUli

Appendix mind interestinghabits, industriesand cus-

Programming non-fiction in the
1910s
Whileit is clearthatnon-fictionfilmswere unlikelyto
be the actual 'draw'on a cinema programmein the
teen years, it seems that in limiteddoses such films
were greatlyappreciatedby audiences. In 1911 Ki-
nematographand LanternWeeklysuggested that a
certaintype of spectator 'likesto see the realthing
occasionally,and not to be surfeitedwiththe stagey
film'.Thejournalwent on to ask whysuch filmswere
liked by so many spectators. Was it, perhaps to
providesome stimulationforthe mind,incontrastto
the easy-viewing,vacuous comic and melodramatic
films? Quite the reverse according to the 'Kine',
whichclaimedthatfactualsprovideda kindof 'rest'
in the programme:
Thereare manybusy commercialmen whose
brainsare taxed to the utmostlimitallday and
to such thereis somethingrestfuland pleasant
in seeing projectedscenes conveyingto the
toms of othercountries.The brainis given a
rest,forlittlementalactivityis requiredto prop-
erlyappreciatesuch subjects, indeed, an in-
telligentman sufferingfrombrain'fag'derives
considerable enjoyment by witnessing pic-
tures of this description.24
On the other side of the Atlanticthis idea of
educationalsas 'rest'was also being argued. Per-
haps the king of exhibitionin Americaby the teen
years was Samuel L. Rothapfel,manager of the
Strandtheaterin NewYork.In1914 'Roxy',as he was
laterknown,described his exhibitionphilosophyto
the Moving Picture World, explaining that the
lynchpinwas the programme:
The programmust representsomethingas a
whole, it mustbe a fittingprogram,a program
withan atmosphereof its own.25
To this end, a careful selection and skilful
combinationof the elements was crucial.A drama
should be selected based on its 'powerof tugging

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172 Stephen Bottomore

at the heartstringswithoutcausing the disagreeable 'educationals',out of bitsof existingfilms,especially

effectof a severe strain'.Comediesshouldbe 'clean'
(thoughin Rothapfel'sviewthis did not ruleout 'slap
stick' or 'roughhouse'). News filmswere also very
importantat the Strand.Knownas 'topicalreviews',
these were specially compiled by the Strandstaff,
and were, as Rothapfelnoted, verypopularwiththe
theatre's higherclass patrons, 'who wait for these
reviewswitha child'senthusiasmforthe coming of
Santa Claus'.
'Educationals'(as non-newsfactualfilmswere
sometimes called in the earlyfilmera) were a key
buildingblock of a Rothapfelprogramme.He had
often noticed 'the deep interest which holds our
audiences when the "educational"partof the pro-
gram is being displayed on the screen'. Rothapfel
attributedthe same strategicroleto these non-fiction
films in regulatingpace as the Britishwriterquoted
above, theirfunctionbeing 'to rest the audience'. In
a two hourprogrammespectatorswouldnotwantto
be continuallystimulatedby exciting dramas, and
withno intervalin the show (unlikein the theatre),a such appeal. An authorin the Worldsuggested that
factual film could introducea differentmood be-
tween the emotionalfictionfilms:
Take your audience at the conclusion of a
strongclimaxof a strongdrama.Icannotthink mainreasonfor
of catapultingan audiencethus set to thinking
and lifted out of itself, into a ripe, roaring
comedy. I therefore show them something
whichdelightsthe eye and soothes the mind
without touching any emotional chords.
Scenes of beautifulfountains or waterfalls,
dainty bits of animal life, scenes from the
beautifulcountriesof the world,monumentsof
architecture,glimpses of foreign lands and
foreignnationsmost admirablyfillthe interval it is
which ought to come between the dramatic
and the comic.
Interestingly,as with news films, Rothapfel's gramme,and such filmscontinuedto be produced
theatre seems to have custom-assembled its own and shown formanyyears to come.+
coloured or tinted scenes, and incorporatingele-
mentsof the dramaticorcomic (inpicturesof animal
life,for example).Theyassembled the elements so
thatthe strongestscene was usuallythe last.
Rothapfelwas not particularly in favourof the
growingmove in the 191Ostowardslonger'feature'
films.He stressed thateveryfilmof whateverlength
in one of his programmeshad its own strengths:
Qualityis the only real featurein my eyes. It
has happenedtimeand againthatthe feature,
so called, on my programhas been dwarfed
by some otherpartof the entertainment.By a
splendidscenic forinstancewithbeautifulmu-
sic, by a particularlyappropriatetopicalreview
or by some otheritemon my weeklyoffering.
I do not thinkit is sound policyto relyon just
one partof yourprogramand trustto itto pull
throughthe rest.
Not everyone thought that factual films had
these films were positivelydisliked by audiences,
and that'theleast welcome of the educationalseries
are the scenics' (largelybecause they needed a
lecturer,he thought).Thiswritersuggested thatthe
includingsuch filmsina programme
was entirelycynical:
It is picturesof the educationalseries, then,
which give tone to an exhibition;not only im-
partlifeand characterbut they drawthe best
people, encouragethe attendanceof children,
make censorship less necessary, and defy,
yea, even destroycriticism.26
Butthiswriterwas probablyin a minority,and
that most showmen, certainlyin Britain,
likely
were with Rothapfel in believing that audiences
genuinely liked a few non-fictionfilms in the pro-

Notes
1. Thisdespite the effortsof DavidFrancis,who suggested that earlyfactualfilmsmighthave had a greaterinfluenceon laterfilmstyle
thanearlydramaticfilms.See HistoricalJournalof Film,Radioand Television11/3, (1991):280.
2. ArthurEdwinKrows'series of articles,'Motionpictures- notfortheatres'appearedin TheEducational Screen betweenSeptember1939
and 1944. The articleshave not been reprinted,and I had to chase up runsof the journalin three librariesbeforeI could locate every
history.Highlyanecdotalthoughit is, this is the most completehistoryof industrialand sponsoredfilmmakingin
issue of this multi-part
Americaup to the 1930s thatexists, fullof names of companiesand individualswhowere involvedin a thrivingindustrythatfilmhistory
has all but forgotten.AnthonySlide is aboutthe onlyfilmhistorianwho has made use of Krows'work:see Slide's usefulbook, Before
Video: a Historyof the Non-TheatricalFilm (NY/London:Greenwood Press, 1992).

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rediscovering early non-fiction film 173

3. RudolfArnheim'soriginaltitlewas FilmAlsKunst(Berlin:E. Rowohit,1932).Itappearedin Englishas simplyFilm(London:Faber,1933).

4. PaulRotha,DocumentaryFilm(London:Faberand Faber,1936):77.
5. On 'hybrids'in particularsee: BillNichols,BlurredBoundaries:Questionsof Meaningin Contemporary Culture(Bloomington:Indiana
UniversityPress, 1994) and CharlieKeil,'Steel engines and cardboardrockets:the status of fictionand non-fictionin earlycinema',
Persistenceof Vision,no.9, (1991):37-45.
6. AlanRosenthal,New ChallengesforDocumentary(Berkeley:University of California
Press, 1988) KevinMacDonaldand MarkCousins,
ImaginingReality:the FaberBookof the Documentary(London:Faber,1996).
7. CharlesMusser,'Documentary' in GeoffreyNowell-Smith,
ed., TheOxfordHistoryof WorldCinema(Oxford:OUP,1996).
8. Note forexamplethe workof AlisonGriffiths, RolandCosandeyand JenniferPeterson.
9. Moregenerallyone detects an increasinginterestin non-fictionof all periods,witnessed,forexampleby the foundingin 1994 of the
IDA/AMPASA DocumentaryCenterat the Academy.See 'News fromthe Affiliates',Journalof FilmPreseivation48, (1994): 18. The
indexingof Britishnewsreelsby the BUFVCand the BritishPath6archiveshouldalso stimulatethis interest.
10. Allthis is not to deny thatNanookof the Northwas a pioneeringeffort,principally because itwas a narrative-led filmaboutone family,
in contrastto the less personalstudies of places and activitiesof most previousnon-fictionfilms.
11. TheBioscope (Bios)(10 March1910):20.
12. 'Representativekinematograph shows: 1. AnexamplefromPoplar',Kinematograph and Lanter Weekly(KLW) (11 July1907):142.
13. LetterfromT.J.West, 'Whatthe publicwants',Bios (26 February1914):955.
14. The proceedingsof the AmsterdamFilmmuseum'sthirdWorkshopare accessible on its website:www.filmmuseum.nl. Thisworkshop,
entitled'Theeye of the beholder:colonialand exoticimages',was heldinthe Summerof 1998.ThequotationfromHileyis fromthe end
of the finalsession, session 6. Muchof Hiley'sworkhas focused on the audience in the silentand earlysound eras, and he has also
discussed the rationaleof the cinemaprogramme.
15. EricDe Kuyper,AlfredMachin(Bruxelles:Cin6mathequeroyalede Belgique,1995).
16. See Daan Hertogsand Nicode Klerk,eds., Nonfictionfromthe Teens (Amsterdam: StichtingNederlandsFilmmuseum,1994):32.
17. See Daan Hertogsand Nico de Klerk,eds., UnchartedTerritory: on
Essays Early Nonfiction Film(Amsterdam:StichtingNederlands
Filmmuseum,1997).
18. Thisfeelingwas encapsulatedin AlisonGriffiths' remarkat the end of one of the sessions of the Amsterdamcolonialismworkshop:
'Groundingsome of these issues in primaryevidencewouldbe a veryusefulmethodologicalapproach.'
19. I suspect thatforsome filmhistorians,comingfroma humanitiesbackgroundwherethe 'author'of the text is of centralconcern,the
paucityof names maycontributeto theirlackof interestin non-fiction.
20. Forexamplesome of the BruxellesfilmswhichI mentionedmightbe identifiedinthese ways, such as Une Eruption de I'Etna.
21. ChrisLong, 'World'sfirstgovernmentfilm production?'in Ken Berryman,ed., Screeningthe Past: Aspects of EarlyAustralianFilm
(Canberra: NFSA,1995):37. Forthose who liketo puta nameto a thing,earlyfilmhistorianThierry Lefebvrehas calledthissupplementary
information the 'paratexte'of a film.
22. CameramanEmileLauste'ssmall ledgerwithsuch technicaldetails noted on location,survivesin the LausteCollectionin the South
East Filmand VideoArchive,Brighton.
23. See ThomasClegg, 'Afascinatingindustry',KLW(15 October1908):547.
24. 'Use of educationalfilms',KLW(31 August1911):907. Thoughthe journaladded thatthe un-professionalclasses of spectatormight
preferotherkindsof films.
25. W.Stephen Bush, 'Theartof exhibition',MovingPictureWorld(MPW)(17 October1914):323.
26. 'Thepictureswhichgive tone to an exhibition',MPW(11 May1912):506.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.202 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:47:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions