Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:48:27.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hands of the Projectionist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2011

Lisa Cartwright
Lisa Cartwright*
Affiliation:
University of California at San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

This essay considers the work of projection and the hand of the projectionist as important components of the social space of the cinema as it comes into being in the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth. I bring the concept of Maurice Merleau-Ponty on the place of the body as an entity that applies itself to the world “like a hand to an instrument” into a discussion of the pre-cinematic projector as an instrument that we can interpret as evidence of the experience of the work of the projectionist in the spirit of film theory and media archaeology, moving work on instrumentation in a different direction from the analysis of the work of the black box in laboratory studies. Projection is described as a psychological as well as a mechanical process. It is suggested that we interpret the projector not simply in its activity as it projects films, but in its movement from site to site and in the workings of the hand of its operator behind the scenes. This account suggests a different perspective on the cinematic turn of the nineteenth century, a concept typically approached through the study of the image, the look, the camera, and the screen.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Cinematography, Seriality, and the Sciences , September 2011 , pp. 443 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Babin, Angela. 1991. “Nitrocellulose Film Hazards in Conservation.” Center for Safety in the Arts. Typescript. Accessed 4 April 2011. <http://www.uic.edu/sph/glakes/harts1/HARTS_library/nitroflm.txt>>Google Scholar
Barnes, Arthur Stapylton. 2003. Holy Shroud of Turin. Whitefish MT: Kessinger.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. Translated by Howard, Richard. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. [1970] 1986a. “Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus,” In Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology, edited by Rosen, Philip, 281–298. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Baudry, Jean-Louis. [1975] 1986b. “‘The Apparatus’: Metapsychological Approaches to the Impression of Reality in Cinema.” In Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology, edited by Rosen, Philip, 299–318. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bergson, Henri. [1911] 2008. Creative Evolution. Translated by Mitchell, Arthur. Project Gutenberg. eBook. Accessed 29 March 2011. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26163/26163-h/26163-h.htm>>Google Scholar
Booth, Michael. 1991. Theatre in the Victorian Age. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, Marta, 1992. Picturing Time: The Work of Étienne-Jules Marey (1830–1904). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bruno, Giuliana. 2009. “Film, Aesthetics, Science: Hugo Münsterberg's Laboratory of Moving Images.” Grey Room 36:88–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, Michel and Latour, Bruno. 1981. “Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so.” In Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-sociologies, edited by Knorr-Cetina, Karin and Cicourel, Aaron V., 277–303. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Canales, Jimena. 2009. “Captured by Cinematography.” In A Tenth of a Second: A History, by Canales, Jimena, 117–155. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Lisa. 1992. “Experiments of Destruction”: Cinematic Inscriptions of Physiology.” Representations 40:129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Lisa. 1995. Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine's Visual Culture. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Lisa. 2008. Moral Spectatorship: Technologies of Voice and Affect in Postwar Representations of the Child. Raleigh NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Lisa and Goldfarb, Brian. 1992. “Radiography, Cinematography, and the Decline of the Lens, 1920–1970.” In Incorporations (Zone 6), edited by Crary, Jonathan and Kwinter, Sanford, 190–201. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Lewis Gregory. 1912. “The Gastric Motor Phenomena Demonstrated with the Projecting Kinetoscope.” American Journal of Roentgenology 3 (4):1–11.Google Scholar
Comolli, Jean-Louis. 1980. “Machines of the Visible.” In Apparatus, edited by de Lauretis, Teresa and Heath, Stephen, 121–143. New York and London: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Comolli, Jean-Louis. [1971] 1986a. “Technique and Ideology: Camera, Perspective, Depth of Field (Part One).” In Movies and Methods, Vol. II, edited by Nichols, Bill, 40–57. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Comolli, Jean-Louis. [1971] 1986b. “Technique and Ideology: Camera, Perspective, Depth of Field (Parts Three and Four).” In Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology, edited by Rosen, Philip, 421–443. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Curtis, Scott. 2005. “Scientific Films.” In Encyclopedia of Early Cinema, edited by Abel, Richard, 567–8. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Curtis, Scott. 2009. “Images of Efficiency: The Films of Frank B. Gilbreth.” In Films that Work: Industrial Film and the Productivity of Media, edited by Hediger, Vinzenz and Vonderau, Patrick, 85–99. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Didi-Huberman, Georges. 1984. “The Index of the Absent Wound” (Monograph on a Stain). October 29:63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doane, Mary Ann. 2003. The Emergence of Cinematic Time: Modernity, Contingency, the Archive. Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Doane, Mary Ann. 2007. “The Indexical and the Concept of Medium Specificity.” differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 18 (1):128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, James, Friedberg, Anne, and Marcus, Laura. 1998. Close up, 1927–1933: Cinema and Modernism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Friedberg, Anne. 1982. “‘And I Have Learned to Use the Small Projector’: H.D. Woman, and Recognition.” Wide Angle 5:26–31.Google Scholar
Friedberg, Anne. 1983. “Writing about Cinema: Close up, 1927-33.” Ph.D. diss. New York University.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. [1915] 1957. Instincts and their Vicissitudes. In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIV (1914–1916): On the History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement, Papers on Metapsychology and Other Works, translated and edited by Strachey, James, 109–140. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. [1911] 1959. “Psycho-Analytic Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia (Dementia Paranoides).” In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XII (1911–1913): The Case of Schreber, Papers on Technique and Other Work, translated and edited by Strachey, James, 1–82. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. [1920] 1961. Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Translated by Strachey, James. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. [1894] 1962a. “The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence.” In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume III (1893–1899): Early Psycho-Analytic Publications, translated and edited by Strachey, James, 41–61. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. [1896] 1962b. “Further Remarks on the Neuro-Psychoses of Defence.” In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume III (1893–1899): Early Psycho-Analytic Publications, translated and edited by Strachey, James, 157–185. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Gayken, Oliver. 2005. “Devices of Curiosity: Cinema and the Scientific Vernacular.” Ph.D. diss. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
H. D. 1927a. “Projector.” Close Up 1 (1):46–51.Google Scholar
H. D. 1927b. “Projector II (Chang).” Close Up 1 (4):34–44.Google Scholar
Huhtamo, Erkki. 2007a. “Twin-Touch-Test-Redux: Media Archaeological Approach to Art, Interactivity and Tactility.” In Media Art Histories, edited by Grau, Oliver, 71–102. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huhtamo, Erkki. [2006] 2007b. “On Art, Interactivity and Tactility.” NeMe Text 662. Accessed June 2009. <http://www.neme.org/main/662/shaken-hands-with-statues>Google Scholar
Huhtamo, Erkki and Parikka, Jussi, eds. 2011. Media Archaeology: Approaches, Applications, and Inplications. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IATSE (International Alliance of Theater and Stage Employees). n.d. “The Limelight.” Accessed 6 April 2011. <http://www.iatse354.com/354/354html/limelight.htm.Google Scholar
Kevles, Bettyann. 1997. Naked to the Bone: Medical Imaging in the Twentieth Century. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Kuntzel, Thierry. 1976. “A Note Upon the Filmic Apparatus.” Quarterly Review of Film Studies 1:266–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2005. “Cellular Features: Microcinematography and Film Theory.” Critical Inquiry 31 (4):903–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2007. Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. “Opening Pandora's Black Box.” In Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, 1–20. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel. [1987] 1993. Outside the Subject. Translated by Smith, Michael B.. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael and Woolgar, Steve, eds. 1990. Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mandel, Charlotte. 1987. “H.D.'s “Projector II” and Chang, a Film of the Jungle.” The H.D. Newsletter 1.2:42. Reprinted by Imagists.org. 27 December 2001. Accessed 6 April 2011. <http://www.imagists.org/hd/hdcm12.html>' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mandel,+Charlotte.+1987.+“H.D.'s+“Projector+II”+and+Chang,+a+Film+of+the+Jungle.”+The+H.D.+Newsletter+1.2:42.+Reprinted+by+Imagists.org.+27+December+2001.+Accessed+6+April+2011.+>Google Scholar
Malkames, Don. 1967. “Early Projector Mechanisms.” In A Technological History of Motion Pictures, edited by Fielding, Raymond, 97–104. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Marey, Étienne-Jules. 1902. “History of Chronophotography.” Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.Google Scholar
Martinet, Alexis, ed. 1994. Le cinéma et la science. Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1964. The Primacy of Perception. Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. [1945] 2002. The Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by Smith, Colin. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Metz, Christian. [1977] 1982. The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema. Translated by Britton, Cecilia, Williams, Annwyl, Brewster, Ben, and Guzzetti, Alfred. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Anthony R. 1955. Research Films in Biology, Anthropology, Psychology, and Medicine. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nichtenhauser, Adolf. ca. 1950. A History of Motion Pictures in Medicine. Unpublished manuscript. The Adolph Nichtenhauser History of Medical Motion Pictures Collection, MS C 380, Archives and Modern Manuscripts. History of Medicine Division, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda MD.Google Scholar
Ostherr, Kirsten. 2005. Cinematic Prophylaxis: Globalization and Contagion in the Discourse of World Health. Durham NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, Raymond N. 2005. “Studies on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin.” Thermochimica Acta 425:189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Root, Marcus Aurelius. 1864. The Camera and the Pencil, or, the Heliographic Art. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
Saunders, Barry. 2008. CT Suite: The Work of Diagnosis in the Age of Noninvasive Cutting. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, John Beldon. 2003. Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ruin in Turin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Select Committee. 1892. Volume 3: Report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Laws Governing Theatres and Places of Public entertainment with minutes of evidence, appendices and index. British Parliamentary Papers. Irish University Press.Google Scholar
Talbot, William Henry Fox. [1844–46] 2010. The Pencil of Nature. Ebook. Gutenberg Press. April 2010. Accessed 23 March 2011. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/52583004/William-Henry-Fox-Talbot-The-Pencil-of-Nature>Google Scholar
Thévenard, Pierre and Tassel, Guy. 1948. Le Cinéma scientifique français. Paris: La Jeune Parque.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, Alan. 1990. Reading American Photographs: Images as History, Matthew Brady to Walker Evans. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Trutat, Éugene. 1899. La photographie animée. Paris: Gautier-Villars.CrossRefGoogle Scholar