2013Early Popular Visual CultureRequires access

From inventor to renter: The middleman, the production crisis and the formation of the British film industry

Simon Brown

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

The concept of the ‘second birth of cinema’ developed by André Gaudreault offers a new model for thinking about the development of early cinema. By proposing a new paradigm for the relationship between ‘pre-cinema’, early cinema and the formation of cinema as an institution, Gaudreault calls into question both our understanding of this crucial developmental period in cinema history, and our understanding of what cinema is, harking back to André Bazin’s question, ‘What is cinema?’ Gaudreault’s thesis is partly predicated on the acceptance that there is such a thing as the ‘institution of cinema’, and that the formative parts of this institution coalesced around the same time; hence the second birth of cinema. Such an idea is echoed in other theories of cinema’s development, including Noel Burch’s ‘institutional mode of representation’ and Tom Gunning’s ‘cinema of narrative integration’. Yet these are stylistic concepts, suggesting therefore that the ‘institution of cinema’ marks a moment of aesthetic development and standardization and implies that industrial developments ran concurrently with that of style. The early history of the British film industry problematizes this idea, since while the wider cinema industry grew, the production sector declined. This article explores a formative period of development for the British film industry from 1908–1911. It examines the crisis in British production and the rise of the rental and foreign sales sectors of the industry in the light of Gaudreault’s paradigm, and assess how this idea of cinema’s second birth can help our understanding of this key moment in British film history.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The concept of the ‘second birth of cinema’ developed by André Gaudreault offers a new model for thinking about the development of early cinema. By proposing a new paradigm for the relationship between ‘pre-cinema’, early cinema and the formation of cinema as an institution, Gaudreault calls into question both our understanding of this crucial developmental period in cinema history, and our understanding of what cinema is, harking back to André Bazin’s question, ‘What is cinema?’ Gaudreault’s thesis is partly predicated on the acceptance that there is such a thing as the ‘institution of cinema’, and that the formative parts of this institution coalesced around the same time; hence the second birth of cinema. Such an idea is echoed in other theories of cinema’s development, including Noel Burch’s ‘institutional mode of representation’ and Tom Gunning’s ‘cinema of narrative integration’. Yet these are stylistic concepts, suggesting therefore that the ‘institution of cinema’ marks a moment of aesthetic development and standardization and implies that industrial developments ran concurrently with that of style. The early history of the British film industry problematizes this idea, since while the wider cinema industry grew, the production sector declined. This article explores a formative period of development for the British film industry from 1908–1911. It examines the crisis in British production and the rise of the rental and foreign sales sectors of the industry in the light of Gaudreault’s paradigm, and assess how this idea of cinema’s second birth can help our understanding of this key moment in British film history.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The concept of the ‘second birth of cinema’ developed by André Gaudreault offers a new model for thinking about the development of early cinema. By proposing a new paradigm for the relationship between ‘pre-cinema’, early cinema and the formation of cinema as an institution, Gaudreault calls into question both our understanding of this crucial developmental period in cinema history, and our understanding of what cinema is, harking back to André Bazin’s question, ‘What is cinema?’ Gaudreault’s thesis is partly predicated on the acceptance that there is such a thing as the ‘institution of cinema’, and that the formative parts of this institution coalesced around the same time; hence the second birth of cinema. Such an idea is echoed in other theories of cinema’s development, including Noel Burch’s ‘institutional mode of representation’ and Tom Gunning’s ‘cinema of narrative integration’. Yet these are stylistic concepts, suggesting therefore that the ‘institution of cinema’ marks a moment of aesthetic development and standardization and implies that industrial developments ran concurrently with that of style. The early history of the British film industry problematizes this idea, since while the wider cinema industry grew, the production sector declined. This article explores a formative period of development for the British film industry from 1908–1911. It examines the crisis in British production and the rise of the rental and foreign sales sectors of the industry in the light of Gaudreault’s paradigm, and assess how this idea of cinema’s second birth can help our understanding of this key moment in British film history.

Key concepts: Movie theater, Film industry, Institution, Narrative, Film studies, Sociology, Aesthetics, Media studies

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
From inventor to renter: The middleman, the production crisis and the formation of the British film industry — Research Paper | ScholarLens