Screening Spaces

Series Editor

Pamela Robertson Wojcik Department of Film, Television, and Theatre University of Notre Dame , USA Screening Spaces is a series dedicated to showcasing interdisciplinary books that explore the multiple and various intersections of space, place, and screen cultures.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14491 Lawrence • Lury Editors The and Screen Media

Images of Exhibition and Encounter Editors Michael Lawrence Karen Lury School of Media, Film and Music School of Culture and Creative Arts University of Sussex University of Glasgow Brighton, UK Glasgow, UK

Screening Spaces ISBN 978-1-137-54342-4 ISBN 978-1-137-53561-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-53561-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016948111

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub- lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Cover illustration: Cover image © VPC Travel Photo / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Nature America Inc. INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER

The zoo, like the cinema, is a space designed with exhibition in mind. 1 The history and the diversity of media images that exploit the zoo and its ani- mals are unsurprisingly extensive—from the earliest fi lms of the Lumière brothers (such as Lion. Zoological Garden , 1895) to the fi rst YouTube video (‘Me at the zoo’ was uploaded at 8:27 p.m. on Saturday 23 April 2005 by the site’s cofounder Jawed Karim). 2 The zoo appears in over a century of audio-visual imagery, which continues into the twenty- fi rst century with 24-hour data streaming provided by ‘zoo-cams’ now a familiar aspect of many ’ on-going promotional activities. In ‘Why Look at Animals?’ (1977) John Berger reminds us: ‘Public zoos came into existence at the beginning of the period which was to see the disappearance of animals from daily life’. As Berger famously claims: ‘The zoo to which people go to meet animals, to observe them, to see them, is, in fact, a monument to the impossibility of such encounters’. The modern zoo, he argues, is ‘an epitaph to a relationship which was as old as man’ (2009: 30). Many authors in this volume share the sentiments of Berger’s polemical essay, but this anthology also tests this assumption, tracing different modes of exhibition (different zoos and the different modes of cinema and media through which these zoos are captured) whilst also refl ecting upon the possibility of encounter(s) between zoo animals and visitors to the zoo, between zoo animals and visitors and spectators in the cinema, or between individuals at their computer consoles and the often evasive animals under surveillance. While not a history of the zoo per se, this collection explores multiple intersections between zoological spaces and moving image media as both of these have changed over the

v vi INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER last 120 years. 3 The essays collected here contribute to the growing inter- est in zoos within the academy, felt across the humanities and the social sciences, as well as to the recent explosion of interest in the non-human animal within philosophy, literary and cultural studies, and fi lm and media studies. 4 As the zoo itself is necessarily selective, this collection fails to provide a complete “taxonomy” of zoos and their media representation; nonethe- less, in this initial foray we cover a great deal of ground, with chapters examining the zoo as it is depicted, employed and imagined across a wide range of fi lm and media texts and technologies. 5 Across the four sections of this book—we hesitate to call these themes, to avoid mimicking the con- temporary ‘Disneyization’ of the zoo, in which animals and landscapes are arranged as if in the eponymous theme parks (Beardsworth and Bryman 2001)—particular ideas and fantasies inspired and staged by the zoo recur but the picture of zoos that emerges is necessarily contradictory: whilst the zoo is a convenient spectacle, apparently and inherently dramatic—even romantic—it is also troubling, despotic and dismal. Implicitly or explicitly we are certainly now— more often than not—conscious that in nearly all instances the non-human animals at the zoo suffer—they are incarcerated and incapacitated, enraged or comatose. As Raph R. Acampora argues: ‘From empire to circus to museum or ark, the zoo has been organized according to anthropocentrist and arguably androcentrist hierarchies and designs’ (2005: 70, following Mullan and Marvin 1987). Even human animals, confi ned mostly (but not always) to the role of visitors or specta- tors, are often subject to confl icting emotions at the zoo—to wonder, pity, amusement and disgust. In the following chapters, all of these emotions are revealed and the ambivalence this provokes exposed. In the fi rst section, Archives, we explore the zoo as it is depicted in fi lms, photography and digital media catalogued and recorded for various zoo, fi lm and photographic archives. In ‘“A Constellation of Incongruities”: The Amateur Film and the Trip to the Zoo’, Karen Lury examines a range of amateur fi lms made at Zoo and considers in particular rep- resentations of ’ tea parties, in order to explore how amateur fi lms stage fantasies of civilisation and models of , and refl ect the zoo’s shifting concerns, from the display of civic pride and colonial supe- riority to an emphasis on families and conservation. Drawing on the work of Anat Pick, Lury argues that anthropocentric hierarchies are dissolved in this rawest mode of fi lm production: amateur fi lms, she suggests, empha- sise the creaturely being shared by human and non-human animals alike. INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER vii

In his chapter, ‘Capturing the Beasts: Zoo Film and Interspecies Pasts’, Andrew J. P. Flack looks to archival footage from Bristol Zoo Gardens to trace histories of human-animal entanglements associated with captive ani- mal life. For Flack, such footage is of signifi cant value due to its depiction of the liveliness of the zoo animals and the varieties of captive behaviour and interactions with visitors, and the legacy or the memorialisation of species and individuals that fi lm permits. Katherine Groo, in ‘The Human Zoo and Its Double’, considers the relationship between photography and fi lm by looking at the still and moving images of the 1931 Exposition Coloniale in (including its human zoo) that were produced for the Archives de Planete. Groo argues that the rigid hierarchies of difference subtending both projects— and the colonial epistemologies structuring their displays of human subjects—are productively dismantled via the pro- cesses of repetition, reiteration and re-presentation she tracks through the archival images. In ‘ZooTube: Streaming Animal Life’, Andrew Burke considers how and why the zoo-cam has emerged as a pedagogical and promotional tool for zoological institutions. Burke argues that while the zoo-cam may draw on established modes of representing animals, such as documentaries, it nevertheless constitutes a profound transforma- tion of the way zoo animals are depicted on screens and offers novel and unexpectedly innovative ways of looking at (zoo) animals. In Hollywood we explore ways in which the zoo and its “wild” ani- mals have been used and pictured in the commercial cinema industry. In a chapter exploring the cinema industry’s employment of the zoo as part of its production process—‘Animal Empire: Thrill and Legitimation at William Selig’s Zoo and Jungle Pictures’—Sabine Haenni discusses Selig’s operations in Los Angeles in the 1910s and specifi cally the production of ‘wild animal pictures’ made possible by the Selig Zoo. Selig’s animal fi lms present the human-animal encounter as malleable and unstable, and yet serve an American cinematic empire grounded in the rhetoric of legitimacy and , an empire whose power, Haenni argues, depends on its capacity to incorporate such instability. Explicitly addressing this collec- tion’s interest with relations of space, Jacob Smith’s ‘A Tour of Zoo in Budapest ’ focuses on the 1933 fi lm Zoo in Budapest (Rowland V. Lee) to explore the synergy between Hollywood fi lm production and zoological exhibition and refl ect upon the intertwined history of Hollywood cinema and the zoological garden. Smith teases out the three-way relationship between the fi lm’s set, the design of modern zoos and the cartography of the fi lm itself, spaces linked by a geometry of social relations best described viii INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER through reference to Erving Goffman’s study of ‘total institutions’, and focuses on the cross-species sociality and collaborative performances that take place in both zoos and fi lm studios. In ‘“Out There, In the World”: Representations of the Zoo and Other Spaces in the Trilogy’, Brett Mills discusses how Madagascar (Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, 2005) and its two sequels represent the zoo as a place that animals might want to escape from but also one they might want to return to, and which they commonly refer to as their “home”. He argues that while the tril- ogy does not engage in the explicitly human politics of the ethics of and necessity for zoos, it aims instead to offer a depiction of that debate from the point of view of the animals. For the animated animal characters, the zoo is a contradictory space and becomes even more so once they return having left it; the Madagascar trilogy asks the question: what might a zoo be like for the animals that live in it? Despite these fi lms’ explicit focus on spectacle and exhibition they insist on representing the animals as having both subjectivity and agency, and that these can be shaped by circum- stances and drawn upon as resources. Next, we address the resonance and relevance of the zoo for what has emerged as its most important and potent audience—Families and Children . In ‘Placing Children at the Zoo: The Zoo as Mythical Landscape of Childhood’, Pamela Robertson Wojcik considers the rela- tionship between the zoos and children and the assumptions about zoos or about childhood that make them seem compatible. Wojcik considers two mid-twentieth century texts that present children in part by affi liating childhood and the zoo: the British TV episode Seven Up ! (Paul Almond, 1964) and the American independent fi lm Lovers and Lollipops (Morris Engel and Ruth Orkin, 1956). The zoo in these respective texts is not central to the narrative and neither explores the zoo in any depth, but both use the zoo as a stage for the performance of childhood. In each, scenes at the zoo serve to produce different conceptions of childhood that compare children to animals but from very different perspectives. In each fi lm, the zoo scenes serve as a metonym and are used to articulate, to vary- ing degrees of explicitness, specifi c views of childhood. In ‘Family Matters: Tales of and Tapirs at Dublin Zoo’, Gwenda Young addresses sto- ries of Dublin Zoo’s animal entertainers and human workers, and the marketing of the zoo as a familial site, and focuses on the television series about the running of the zoo. She demonstrates that perversely perhaps, it is the centrality of the human, which is essential to the series’ success. While part of the mission of the show, and of Dublin Zoo itself, is to INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER ix

promote the message of conservation (and thus legitimise both the enter- prise of zoo keeping and the decision by the national broadcaster to screen a series devoted to it), the strategies used are invariably anthropocentric: the appeal of the show lies in the presentation, framing and management of these animal activities by the humans that we are encouraged to “get to know” and identify with as they observe, facilitate and explain for us the behaviour of animals. This emphasis on the keepers has helped ensure that the series has found a wide audience, while simultaneously underlining the familial discourse so essential to the Dublin Zoo brand. In ‘Photographs and Families in We Bought a Zoo and Our Zoo ’, Michael Lawrence consid- ers the relationship between zoos, families and photography, by examin- ing the presence of photographic images, practices and technologies in two recent family-oriented representations of family-managed zoos, the Hollywood feature fi lm We Bought a Zoo (Cameron Crowe, US, 2011) and the BBC television series Our Zoo (2014). Both the fi lm and the television series seek to minimise or eliminate entirely any ‘bad zoo feelings’ (Uddin 2015) their audiences might experience. While concern for the well-being of the nonhuman animals in the zoos is apparently privileged in the fi lm and the television series, this is compromised by their various allusions to and representations of photographic images, practices and technologies— from slideshows to screensavers—which reveal troubling correspondences between the production and purpose of family photographs and the col- lection and captivity of animals in zoos, and expose the zoo’s relationships with colonial cultures of “protection” and “preservation”. Finally, we conclude with a section in which chapters address the potential of the zoo as an arena for artistic, architectural and ecologi- cal Experiments. In ‘László Moholy-Nagy at the : Animal Enclosures and the Unleashed Camera’, Richard Hornsey discusses The New Architecture and the London Zoo , a short silent fi lm by the Hungarian artist László Moholy-Nagy about the modernist structures then recently built for the Zoological Society of London’s sites at Regent’s Park and Whipsnade, and specifi cally Berthold Lubetkin’s celebrated Penguin Pond and House, foregrounding once again the collection’s underpinning interest in the space and place of the zoo and its relation- ship with the fi lm form. Hornsey considers the ideological confl uence between architectural modernism and the new biology that dominated the Society in the 1920s and 1930s, and the active and unfolding dia- lectic between these forms and zoological display. Moholy-Nagy’s fi lm, however, reveals a fundamental tension between the allied projects of x INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER modernist architecture and fi lmmaking: unstable shifts between the human, technological and animal gazes made The New Architecture and the London Zoo curiously ambiguous. Similarly exposing the ambivalent emotions and ontological unease inspired by the zoo, Laura McMahon’s chapter, ‘Dead Funny: Laughter, Life and Death in Philibert’s Nénette and Un Animal, des animaux ’, considers Nicolas Philibert’s 2010 docu- mentary Nénette , about a 40-year-old living in the in the Jardin des Plantes in Paris, and Un animal, des animaux (1996), which documents the renovation of the nearby National Natural History Museum’s zoology gallery, principally comprising a vast taxidermy collec- tion. Drawing on Henri Bergson’s theory of laughter as a negotiation of boundaries between the human and the animal, and between the animate and the inanimate, McMahon reads the zoo animal in Nénette as inextri- cably bound up with the taxidermied animal in Un animal . She suggests that in comparing two fi lms, we can confi rm that there is always some- thing deathly about the live animal and always something lively about the dead animal. Nénette and Un animal suggest cinema as a privileged space of refl ection on life, death and temporality: humour in Philibert’s two fi lms marks a series of moments in which the boundaries between the living and the dead, and the human and the animal, become especially porous. The collection concludes with Rhiannon Harries’ interview with the British artist-fi lmmaker Phillip Warnell, who spent six days construct- ing a set and shooting footage in one of the enclosures at the Isle of Wight Zoo for his experimental documentary Ming of : Twenty One Storeys in the Air (2014), inspired by the news coverage a decade earlier of a 400-pound tiger named Ming and a fi ve-foot Caiman alliga- tor called Al being raised in a high-rise New York apartment by Antoine Yates. Warnell discusses his collaboration with Zoos and zookeepers, the logistics of fi lming Zoo animals, and the organisation and representation of zoological and cinematic space and time. Throughout this anthology, the zoo emerges as a system that relies upon and indeed celebrates and orchestrates the power of one species over others, and is therefore an institution entirely appropriate to what is newly coined as the age of the anthropocene. This power, once identifi - able through the zoo’s use of bars for cages and shackles for the animals, is now more commonly manifest or articulated through the direction and management of “looking”. In that sense, the zoo’s resonance with cinema and other audio-visual media, whether as a subject for fi lms, YouTube clips or television documentaries, or in relation to its status as a very similar INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER xi vehicle for the organisation of power relations through the structuring of the gaze, is entirely unsurprising. Indeed, as Beardsworth and Bryman suggest, the close relationship between this “zoo” gaze and the patriar- chal gaze orchestrated for classical cinema—as fi rst identifi ed by Laura Mulvey (1975) and a central theoretical concept for the study of audio- visual media thereafter—is clear (2002). Thus the parallel rise of both institutions at the turn of the twentieth century now seems, in hindsight, almost inevitable. In relation to the wider theme of this anthology—in a series exploring the relations of space and place—the zoo and cinema resonate once more. Not just, as we have suggested, since they are both sites of and for the exhibition of human and non-human animals but also because they offer visitors/spectators opportunities in which relationships and encounters blur the separation between public and private, between others and the self. Whilst, as many of the following chapters demonstrate, the zoo has increasingly been identifi ed—one might say tamed—through its associa- tion with children and family life, it is also often an eroticised space in which private desires, thoughts and emotions are projected, confused and heightened by its apparent and sometimes precarious status as a safe place in which many dangerous, “wild” animals may be encountered without physical risk. In terms of this kind of eroticised imaginary it is diffi cult not to think, for instance, of the recent Internet sensation of Shabani—a male gorilla kept in ’s Higashiyama Zoo who inspired a twitter storm of apparently ardent (human) admirers. Equally, key sequences in fi lms we do not cover in detail in the collection have previously demonstrated that however fake the setting—or however impossible the encounter may actually be between the human animal and the zoo creatures—the space of the zoo allows for the active fantasy of impossible relationships and for the playing out of messy desires and hybrid identities. We might think, for example, of the illicit encounter between Mr Baines and his mistress, covered or enabled by a “trip to the zoo” for the young boy protago- nist, Philippe, in Carol Reed’s masterpiece of repressed erotica, Fallen Idol (1948). And more obviously still, the overheated and sensational use of the zoo as a backdrop in Cat People (Jacques Tourneur, 1942) and the captive big cats that serve as the instigation for the tortured sexual awak- ening/bestial possession of the young heroine, Irena. As demonstrated in many of the chapters included here, the zoo ( pictured and actual) developed into its present form over the twenti- eth century. As a historical site it bears the traces of the wider social and xii INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER

cultural changes of that period—the dissolution of Empires, the rise of the child as a central and emotive political fi gure, and the concern for and understanding of the importance of the environment (and for other species). Again, over this period, the zoo was obliged to negotiate its role as a didactic form and a commercial entity—balancing entertainment and education, science and carnival; in doing so, it mirrored the key media and associated institutions of the twentieth century—Hollywood, world cin- emas and increasingly television. The zoo, as suggested and much like the memories of the twentieth century are proving to be, is revealingly con- tradictory: shockingly perhaps, it presents the dismaying layering of func- tions of the pre-eminent symbols—the spaces and places—of that period: for the zoo is at once a garden, a work place, a museum, a shopping mall and a concentration camp. The distinction it has however, as opposed to institutions of earlier periods, is that it is fi lmed, recorded, preserved, re- animated and here we hope, exposed to a challenging and critical gaze.

WORKS CITED Acampora, Ralph (2005), ‘Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices’, Society & Animals , Vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 69–88 Baratay, Eric and Elisabeth Hardouin-Fugier (2002), Zoo: A History of Zoological Gardens in the West , trans. Welsh (London: Reaktion Books) Beardsworth, Alan and Alan Bryman (2001), ‘The Wild Animal in Late Modernity: The Case of the Disneyization of Zoos’, Tourist Studies , Vol. 1 no. 1, pp. 83–104 Berger, John (2009 [1977]), ‘Why Look at Animals?’, Why Look at Animals? (London: Penguin), pp. 12–37 Braverman, Irus (2011), ‘Looking at Zoos’, Cultural Studies , Vol. 25 no. 6 (November), pp. 809–42 Franklin, Adrian (1999), ‘The Zoological Gaze,’ Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity (London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage), pp. 62–84. Frost, Warwick (2011), ‘From Winnie-the-Pooh to Madagascar : Fictional Media Images of the Zoo Experience’, in Warwick Frost (ed.), Zoos and Tourism: Conservation, Education, Entertainment? (Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Channel View Publications), pp. 217–26 INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER xiii

Hancocks, David (2001), A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press) Hanson, Elisabeth (2002), Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) Hoage, R. K. and William A. Deiss (eds.) (1996), New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press) Horowtiz, Helen Lefkowitz (1981), ‘Seeing Ourselves through the Bars: A Historical Tour of American Zoos’, Landscape , Vol. 25 no. 2, pp. 12–19 Malamud, Randy (1998), Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals in Captivity (New York: New York University Press) Montgomery, Scott L. (1995), ‘The Zoo: Theatre of the Animals’, Science as Culture , Vol. 4 no. 4, pp. 565–600 Mullan, Bob and Gary Marvin (1987), Zoo Culture (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson) Mulvey, Laura (1975), ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Screen , Vol. 16 no. 3 (Autumn), pp. 6–18 Murray, Robin L. and Joseph K. Heumann (2014), ‘Hatari Means Danger: Filmic Representations of Animal Welfare and Environmentalism at the Zoo’, Quarterly Review of Film and Video , Vol. 31, pp. 621–34 Nessel, Sabine (2012), ‘The Media Animal: On the Mise-en-scène of Animals in the Zoo and Cinema’, in Sabine Nessel et al (eds.), Animals and the Cinema: Classifi cations, Cinephilias, Philosophies (Berlin: Bertz and Fischer), pp. 33–48 Ritvo, Harriet (1987), The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press) Rothfels, Nigel (2002), Savages and Beasts: The Birth of the Modern Zoo (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press) Rothfels, Nigel (2009), ‘Zoos, the Academy, and Captivity’, PMLA , Vol. 124 no. 2 (March), pp. 480–6 Stott, R. Jeffrey (1981), ‘The Historical Origins of the Zoological Park in American Thought’, Environmental Review , Vol. 5 no. 2 (Autumn), pp. 52–65 Uddin, Lisa (2015), Zoo Renewal: White Flight and the Animal Ghetto (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press) Willis, Susan (1999), ‘Looking at the Zoo’, The South Atlantic Quarterly , Vol. 98 no. 4 (Fall), pp. 669–87 xiv INTRODUCTION: IMAGES OF EXHIBITION AND ENCOUNTER

NOTES 1. Sabine Nessel has discussed the ‘common precedents’ of the zoo and the cinema in the nineteenth century, and suggests they ‘are part of the cul- tural history of putting living things on display’ (2012: 36–7). For Nessel, the zoo and the cinema share ‘presentational confi gurations’: ‘The fram- ing, boundaries, and interiors of zoo architecture and scenography, as well as the framing, editing, or composition of a fi lm organize our percep- tion of animals’ (46). Horowtiz offers a further point of connection when she writes: ‘The animal displayed in a building in a landscaped park is an actor in a drama. The setting shapes our sense of its value’ (1981: 12). 2. Karim created an account on YouTube the same day. The 19-second video was shot by Yakov Lapitsky at the San Diego Zoo and features Karim standing in front of the elephant enclosure, professing his inter- est in their ‘really, really, really long trunks’. 3. For a full history of the zoological garden, see Hoage and Deiss (1996), and Baratay and Hardouin-Fugier (2002); for a history of the modern zoo, and specifi cally the infl uence of , see Rothfels (2002); for the history of the zoo in Victorian England, see Ritvo (1987); for the development of the zoo in the USA, see Horowitz (1981), Stott (1981), Hanson (2002) and Uddin (2015); for a refl ec- tion on the future of zoos, see Hancocks (2001). 4. Key cultural studies of the zoo include Mullan and Marvin (1987) and Malamud (1998). Recent work that develops out of the line of inquiry opened by Berger’s landmark essay includes Montgomery (1995), Franklin (1999), Willis (1999) and Braverman (2011). Rothfels offers the following rationale for the academic study of zoos: ‘Just as it would be limiting today to conceive of human history and thought without acknowledging the encounter with nonhuman selves, we do not accom- plish much by dismissing as culturally insignifi cant, anachronistic, or per- haps simply disappointing the presence of zoological gardens and other venues where people—where we—come into contact with unusual, if not entirely nondomestic and certainly not wild, creatures’ (2009: 481). 5. Sabine Nessel considers a number of fi lm and television texts—from Hitchcock’s Sabotage (1936) to Aardman Animations’ Creature Comforts (1989)—in her discussion of ‘the mise-en-scene of animals in the zoo and cinema’ (2012). Other discussions of popular media representations of zoos include Frost (2011) and Murry and Heumann (2014).

Michael Lawrence Karen Lury CONTENTS

Part I Archives 1

1 ‘A Constellation of Incongruities’: The Amateur Film and the Trip to the Zoo 3 Karen Lury

2 Capturing the Beasts: Zoo Film and Interspecies Pasts 23 Andrew J. P. Flack

3 The Human Zoo and Its Double 43 Katherine Groo

4 ZooTube: Streaming Animal Life 65 Andrew Burke

Part II Hollywood 85

5 Animal Empire: Thrill and Legitimation at William Selig’s Zoo and Jungle Pictures 87 Sabine Haenni

xv xvi CONTENTS

6 A Tour of Zoo in Budapest 111 Jacob Smith

7 “Out There, in the World”: Representations of the Zoo and Other Spaces in the Madagascar Trilogy 137 Brett Mills

Part III Families and Children 153

8 Placing Children at the Zoo: The Zoo as Mythical Landscape of Childhood 155 Pamela Robertson Wojcik

9 Family Matters: Tales of Tigers and Tapirs at Dublin Zoo 173 Gwenda Young

10 Photographs and Families in We Bought a Zoo and Our Zoo 197 Michael Lawrence

Part IV Experiments 221

11 László Moholy-Nagy at the London Zoo: Animal Enclosures and the Unleashed Camera 223 Richard Hornsey

12 Dead Funny: Laughter, Life and Death in Philibert’s Nénette and Un animal , des animaux 247 Laura McMahon

13 ‘The Wild Inside’: An Interview with Phillip Warnell on Ming of Harlem 269 Rhiannon Harries

Index 287 CONTRIBUTORS

Andrew Burke is an Associate Professor in the Department of English at the University of Winnipeg where he teaches screen studies and critical theory. His recent articles on cinema and memory, electronic music and the essay fi lm have been published in Screen , Popular Music and Society and Historical Materialism . He is currently completing a book provisionally titled The Past Inside the Present: Cultural Memory and the Canadian 70s. Andrew Flack is a Teaching Fellow in Modern History at the University of Bristol. He has published on the phenomenon of celebrity animals and modes of acquisition and display at Bristol Zoo in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has forthcoming pieces on the subjects of animal agency, gendered animal repre- sentations, and the relationship between wildlife exhibition and automobility. He has also curated an on-line exhibition on the subject of animals and the British Empire. His emerging interests include the role of animals in mass media and the entangled histories of animals and travel technologies in tourism. Katherine Groo is Assistant Professor of Film and Media Studies at Lafayette College. Her writing has appeared in Cinema Journal, Framework and Frames , as well as several edited collections . She is currently completing a book entitled Bad Film Histories: Ethnography and the Early Archive (University of Minnesota Press, forthcoming), which explores the metahistorical effects of early ethnographic cin- ema. She is also co-editor of New Silent Cinema (Routledge/AFI, 2016). Sabine Haenni is Associate Professor in the Department of Performing and Media Arts and Director of the American Studies Program at Cornell University. She is the author of The Immigrant Scene: Ethnic Amusements in New York, 1880–1920 (University of Minnesota Press, 2008) and co-editor, with John White, of Fifty Key American Films (Routledge, 2009), and with Barrow and John White, of The Routledge Encyclopedia of Films (Routledge, 2015).

xvii xviii CONTRIBUTORS

Rhiannon Harries is a Junior Research Fellow at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where she recently completed a PhD on time, ethics and politics in recent European documentary fi lm. Her work has appeared in the New Review of Film and Television Studies and Parasites: Exploitation and Interference in French Thought and Culture (Peter Lang, forthcoming 2017). Richard Hornsey is Lecturer in Modern British History at the University of Nottingham and the author of The Spiv and the Architect: Unruly Life in Post-war London (Minnesota University Press, 2010). He is currently working on a new book about the impact of mass production on interwar British culture. This chap- ter develops his long-term interests in constructions of visual perception and in modernist biotechnic architecture. Michael Lawrence is Reader in Film Studies at the University of Sussex. He is the author of Sabu (BFI, 2014) and the editor of Indian Film Stars (BFI, forthcom- ing, 2017). He is the co-editor, with Laura McMahon, of Animal Life and the Moving Image (BFI, 2015). Karen Lury is Professor of Film and Television Studies at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Her most recent monograph was The Child in Film: Tears, Fears and Fairytales (2010). Much of her recent work has been drawn from her AHRC funded project ‘Children and amateur media in Scotland’ and she is cur- rently completing a joint authored monograph based on the project, Show and Tell: Children and Amateur Media , with Dr Ryan Shand. Laura McMahon is a College Lecturer in French at Gonville and Caius College, University of Cambridge. She is the author of Cinema and Contact (Legenda, 2012), editor of ‘The Screen Animals Dossier’ ( Screen , 2015) and co-editor, with Michael Lawrence, of Animal Life and the Moving Image (BFI, 2015). Her cur- rent research explores representations of animal life in contemporary fi lm and philosophy. Brett Mills is a Senior Lecturer in Television and Film Studies at the University of East Anglia, UK. He is the author of The Sitcom (BFI, 2005), Television Sitcom (Edinburgh University Press, 2009) and Animals on Television (Palgrave, forth- coming), and co-author of Reading Media Theory (Pearson, 2009/2012) and Creativity in the British Television Comedy Industry (Routledge, 2016). His research on animals in media has been published in Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies , Environmental Communication , European Journal of Cultural Studies , M/C Journal , Critical Studies in Television and Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies , and he has been profi led in The Journal of Wild Culture . CONTRIBUTORS xix

Jacob Smith is Associate Professor in the Department of Radio-Television-Film and Director of the MA in Sound Arts and Industries at Northwestern University. He has written several books, including Vocal Tracks: Performance and Sound Media (2008), Spoken Word: Postwar American Phonograph Cultures (2011) and Eco-Sonic Media (2015, all from the University of California Press), and he has published articles on media history, sound and performance. Pamela Robertson Wojcik is Professor of Film at the University of Notre Dame. She is author of The Apartment Plot: Urban Living in American Film and Popular Culture, 1945 to 1975 (Duke University Press 2010), Guilty Pleasures: Feminist Camp from Mae West to Madonna (Duke University Press 1996) and Fantasies of Neglect: Imagining the Urban Child in American Film and Fiction (Rutgers University Press 2016). Gwenda Young is Lecturer in Film Studies and Co-Head of Film and Screen Media at University College Cork, Ireland. Her work has appeared in a variety of international journals and collections. Most recently she co-edited a collection titled Amateur Filmmaking for Bloomsbury (2014). Her monograph on American director Clarence Brown will be published in 2017 by University Press of Kentucky.

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1 The Scottish National Zoological Park (1931/32) 9 Fig. 1.2 Zoo Year ( 1965 ) 12 Fig. 1.3 Jeen Family Film (No. 3) (c. 1932) 16 Fig. 1.4 Jeen Family Film (No. 3) (c. 1932) 17 Fig. 2.1 Fighting Polar Bears, in Historical Footage, c. 1935 (BZS Archive) 29 Fig. 2.2 ‘Feeding Time for the Lions at London Zoo’, Punch (19 November 1849) 30 Fig. 2.3 ‘Rosie giving rides’, Historical Footage, c. 1958 (BZG Archive) 32 Fig. 2.4 ‘Alfred and Ralph Guise’, Historical Footage, c. 1935 (BZG Archive) 35 Fig. 4.1 Panda Cam. Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington, DC 66 Fig. 4.2 ‘Panda Playtime for Tian Tian at RZSS Edinburgh Zoo’, Edinburgh Zoo. Edinburgh, Scotland 74 Fig. 4.3 Sea Otter Cam. Vancouver Aquarium. Vancouver, Canada 79 Fig. 5.1 Entrance to the Selig Zoo, Postcard. Author’s collection 92 Fig. 5.2 ‘A Diamond-S Potpourri’, Motography , 1 November 1913 93 Fig. 5.3 ‘Great Selig Enterprise’, The Moving Picture World, 10 July 1915 96 Fig. 5.4 Olga Celeste posing with leopards at the Selig Zoo, c. 1912, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 98 Fig. 6.1 Zoo in Budapest ( 1933 ) 112 Fig. 6.2 Zoo in Budapest ( 1933 ) 118 Fig. 6.3 Zoo in Budapest ( 1933 ) 125 Fig. 7.1 Madagascar (2005) 138 Fig. 7.2 Madagascar ( 2005 ) 144

xxi xxii LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 8.1 Seven Up ! (1964) 160 Fig. 8.2 Seven Up ! (1964) 161 Fig. 8.3 Lovers and Lollipops (1956) 163 Fig. 8.4 Lovers and Lollipops (1956) 164 Fig. 9.1 Tiger physiotherapy: Dublin Zoo Keeper Gerry Creighton and Sumatran tiger cub, Wanita. The Zoo . 187 Fig. 9.2 New love: Marmaduke and Rio meet, as matchmakers/ keepers observe. The Zoo . 191 Fig. 10.1 We Bought a Zoo (2011) 207 Fig. 10.2 Our Zoo ( 2014 ) 215 Fig. 11.1 The new Gorilla House at London Zoo. Here the southern perimeter wall is partially removed. Photograph by Dell and Wainwright, 1933 (RIBA) 227 Fig. 11.2 Two penguins “inspect” an architectural maquette of the new Penguin Pond, London Zoo. Photograph by John Havinden, 1934 (RIBA) 233 Fig. 11.3 The New Architecture and the London Zoo ( 1936 ) 242 Fig. 12.1 Nénette (2010) 252 Fig. 12.2 Un animal , des animaux ( 1996 ) 263 Fig. 12.3 La Jetée (1962) 264 Fig. 13.1 Ming of Harlem (2014) 270 Fig. 13.2 Ming of Harlem (2014) 278