Modern Kinesis: Motion Picture Technology, Embodiment, and Re
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MODERN KINESIS: MOTION PICTURE TECHNOLOGY, EMBODIMENT, AND RE- PLAYABILITY IN THE LATE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES by Amy Elizabeth Borden B.A., Carleton College, 1997 M.A., The University of Iowa, 1999 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2010 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Arts and Sciences This dissertation was presented by Amy Elizabeth Borden It was defended on May 14, 2010 and approved by Lucy Fischer, Distinguished Professor of English/Film Studies Adam Lowenstein, Associate Professor of English and Film Studies Giuseppina Mecchia, Associate Professor of French and Italian Dissertation Advisor: Marcia Landy, Distinguished Professor of English/Film Studies ii Copyright © by Amy Elizabeth Borden 2010 iii MODERN KINESIS: MOTION PICTURE TECHNOLOGY, EMBODIMENT, AND RE- PLAYABILITY IN THE LATE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES Amy Elizabeth Borden, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2010 When new technologies are integrated with older media, potential viewers are introduced to these changes in extra-filmic contexts that make this transition visible. In four case studies I argue that the human body acts as a visible interface between machine and images in these moments to create an interactive mode of spectatorship. This is a process manifest in two forms: as a machine-body interaction that places the human body within the mechanisms of image- creation and as a means of intervention to make new technologies and new images familiar by asserting the spectator’s physical presence in their plane of being. This assertion is an insertion, a comingling of the body of the image with the body of the spectator in a kinetic relationship. My first two case studies use late 19th- and early 20th century American periodicals to argue that kinetoscope images, motion picture images, and x-ray images, all described as shadow pictures in the popular press, were discursively used as models of thinking via representations of the way the human body and mind were integrated with machines to capture thought. The images produced suggest that moving images functioned as a form of evidence for the unseeable not only in their ability to represent the unseen, but also in representations of thinking that reflect similar kinetic properties. Based on the context I sketch in my first two case studies, I conclude iv my work in the silent era by considering how Hugo Münsterberg’s neo-Kantian idealism coupled with his work in experimental psychology considers the human body as a form of evidence for the unseeable. This highlights how the origins of American film theory worked within a negotiation between materialism and idealism via recourse to the human body as a primary site from which to consider the mechanisms of cinematic style. Moving to the twenty-first century in my final case study, I argue that, like the discursive materials surrounding early-cinema, Michael Haneke’s films represent a corporeality that is joined with the apparatus via the use of video technology that portrays a shortened divide between spectator and on-screen actor by engendering the ability to replay events. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE……………………………………………………...………………………………....ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………1 1.1 ‘MECHANICAL ADVANTAGES’ IN TRANSITION………...……….12 1.2 ‘EMBODIMENT, PERMEABILITY AND INTERACTIVITY……..…16 2.0 FROM STILLNESS TO MOTION: ‘BLURRED IMPRESSIONS IN LATE- NINETEENTH CENTURY AMERICAN PERIODICALS………..……...……………………27 2.1 ‘A MANIA OF MAGAZINE STARTING’………………………..…....33 2.2 ‘BLURRED IMPRESSIONS’…………….…………………...…..…….40 2.3 INTERACTIVE DRIFT……………….………………………….....…..59 3.0 SHADOWS, SCREENS, BODIES, AND LIGHT………………………………...…..63 3.1 SHADOW BOXING…………………………………..............…….…..66 3.2 CORPOREAL PERMEABILITY AND THE SHADOW……..………..74 3.3 CORPOREAL PERMEABILITY AND THE X-RAY…...……………..80 3.4 EXUBERANT PERMEABILITY……..……………………………..…86 4.0 MÜNSTERBERG’S SHADOW…………………………………………………....…97 4.1 THOUGHT MACHINES…………………………………………….....99 4.2 CORPOREAL EMANCIPATION…………………………………......106 4.3 MÜNSTERBERG’S SHADOW…………………………………….....125 vi 4.4 SURFACES……………………………………………………………143 5.0 ACCESSING THE RE-PLAYABLE: INTERACTION, MICHAEL HANEKE, AND CONTEMPORARY MEDIA TEMPORALITY…………...………………………147 5.1 ACCESSING THE CINEMATIC BODY…………………………......149 5.2 FRAGMENTATION AND MOTION PICTURE TEMPORALITY.....158 5.3 WHEN IS A FRAGMENT NOT A FRAGMENT? WHEN IT IS “PLAYABLE”………………………………………………………………………….....169 5.4 ACCESS………………………………………………………………..186 NOTES………………………………………………………………………………………….190 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………229 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Long Distance Wireless Photography (1908)…………………………….….................4 Figure 2. Magic Bricks (1908)………………………………………………………….................5 Figure 3. Magic Bricks (1908)…………………………………………………………………….5 Figure 4. Magic Bricks (1908)………………………………………………………….................6 Figure 5. X-Ray (1896)…………………………………………………………………………..19 Figure 6. Scientific American 17 April 1897, Cover...…………………………………………..30 Figure 7. Scientific American 17 April 1897…………………………………………………….40 Figure 8. "Clay Pigeon Shooting," "Sandy Hook," Scientific American 17 April 1897…………41 Figure 9. "Facing Pages, Scientific American 17 April 1897……………………...…………….44 Figure 10. "Catchem Stuffem's Sausage Factory," Scientific American 17 April 1897…………45 Figure 11. "The Fencers," The Century June 1894………………………………………………52 Figure 12. "Hear Me Norma," The Century June 1894………………………………………….55 Figure 13. "The Barber Shop," The Century June 1894…………………………………………56 Figure 14. Uncle Josh at the Moving Picture Show (1902)……………………………………...92 Figure 15. Uncle Josh at the Moving Picture Show (1902)……………………………………...93 viii PREFACE This project began in such a different iteration that I can hardly believe I have returned to questions about the visibility of the material of the photochemical film medium that first interested me when I began my work in film studies as an undergraduate at Carleton College and as a new graduate student at The University of Iowa. At Carleton I was encouraged to pursue my interest in the material nature of photochemical film, even if it just seemed strange and slightly Luddite at the time. While at Iowa Dudley Andrew and Lauren Rabinovitch’s emphasis on the materials of historical research helped me to develop my concerns with materiality as a research methodology. I can’t thank Marcia Landy enough; she is the perfect dissertation advisor. She understood that I needed both time and distance to figure out how to become a historian. Writing alone in my office, I was only occasionally summoned by Carol via phone with the chilling message: “Marcia would like to see you tomorrow.” I appreciated the freedom Marcia provided to develop this project on my own terms, and during those conversations I equally appreciated the rigorous questions she posed. The suggestions she provided were given with grace and patience and became indelible aspects of my dissertation. As my second reader Lucy Fischer was often the voice in my head pushing me to clarify and explain my ideas in greater detail. She once told me that she felt sorry that she was in my head – I wasn’t. Adam Lowenstein was ix gracious enough to join my committee although we’d never worked together prior to this project. I loved working with Adam because I felt completely respected and that we spoke the same language about film and history. As such, he provided me with a huge amount of confidence as I continued my work. Finally, Giuseppina Mecchia was the best professor with whom I ever audited a class. She animated the idea of history and context as a theoretical force in a way I never quite considered before. During my defense she framed my dissertation in a way that allowed me to see it in a whole new light, which makes me so incredibly happy that I had the chance to work with her. Finally, Vern Bailey was an incredible mentor to me both as a researcher and as a teacher while I was at Carleton. He was also a great friend. From my time at Iowa I‘d also like to thank David Depew for his seminar on rhetoric and the history of science, Natasa Durovicova, Prakash Younger, Chris Babey, Alison Latendresse, Jason Livingston, and Charlie Michael. I have to thank the members of the dissertation reading group at Pitt: Amanda Klein, Kara Andersen, Kristen Strayer, Tara Lockhart, Christine Feldman, and Brenda Glascott. Perhaps the most important person in my life as I wrote this (and after) is Brenda. She’s my best friend, which is a good thing since we’re nearly always together. I can’t believe I get to spend my life with her. Without Brenda I could never have finished this dissertation. Thanks, chicks. x 1.0 INTRODUCTION The rapid crowding of changing images, the sharp discontinuity in the grasp of a single glance and the unexpectedness of onrushing impression: these are the psychological conditions which the metropolis creates. With each crossing of the street, with the tempo and multiplicity of economic, occupational and social life, the city sets up a deep contrast with small town and rural life with reference to the sensory foundations of psychic life. -- George Simmel, “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” 1902-3 One has dim foresight of hitherto uncomputed mechanical advantages who rides on the rail-road and moreover a practical confirmation of the ideal philosophy that Matter is phenomenal whilst men & trees & barns whiz by you as fast as the leaves of a dictionary. As our teakettle