Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:14:55.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science and Cinema

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2011

Janina Wellmann
Janina Wellmann*
Affiliation:
The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This issue of Science in Context is dedicated to the question of whether there was a “cinematographic turn” in the sciences around the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1895, the Lumière brothers presented their projection apparatus to the Parisian public for the first time. In 1897, the Scottish medical doctor John McIntyre filmed the movement of a frog's leg; in Vienna, in 1898, Ludwig Braun made film recordings of the contractions of a living dog's heart (cf. Cartwright 1992); in 1904, Lucien Bull filmed in slow motion a bullet entering a soap bubble. In 1907 and 1908, respectively, Max Seddig and Victor Henri recorded Brownian motion with the help of a cinematograph (Curtis 2005). In 1909, the Swiss Julius Ries was one of the first to film fertilization and cell division in sea urchins (Ries 1909). In that same year in Paris, Louise Chevroton and Frédéric Vlès used a film camera to observe cell division in the same object (Chevroton and Vlès 1909). As early as 1898, the Parisian surgeon Eugène-Louis Doyen began filming several of his operations, among them the spectacular separation of the Siamese twins Doodica and Radica (Bonah and Laukötter 2009). And in England, the scientist and zoologist Francis Martin Duncan produced an array of popular-scientific films for Charles Urban: “The unseen world: A series of microscopic studies” was presented to the public in the Alhambra Theatre in London for the first time in 1903 (see Gaycken in this issue).

Type
Introduction
Information
Science in Context , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Cinematography, Seriality, and the Sciences , September 2011 , pp. 311 - 328
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

Bazin, André. 1980. “The Ontology of the Photographic Image.” In Classic Essays on Photography, edited by Trachtenberg, Alan, 237–243. New Haven: Leete's Island Books.Google Scholar
Bazin, André. 2000. “Accidental Beauty.” In Science Is Fiction: The Films of Jean Painlevé, edited by McDougall, Marina, Bellows, Andy Masaki, and Berg, Brigitte, 145–147. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bellows, Andy Masaki, McDougall, Marina and Berg, Brigitte eds. 2000. Science Is Fiction: The Films of Jean Painlevé. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bonah, Christian, and Laukötter, Anja. 2009. “Moving Pictures and Medicine in the First Half of the 20th Century: Some Notes on International Historical Developments and the Potential of Medical Film Research.” Gesnerus 66 (1):121–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boon, Timothy. 2008. Films of Fact: A History of Science in Documentary Films and Television. London: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Braun, Marta. 1992. Picturing Time. The Work of Etienne-Jules Marey (1830–1904). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Canales, Jimena. 2002. “Photogenic Venus. The ‘Cinematographic Turn’ and Its Alternatives in Nineteenth-century France.” Isis 93:585–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Lisa. 1992. “‘Experiments of Destruction’: Cinematic Inscriptions of Physiology.” Representations 40 (Special Issue: Seeing Science):129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Lisa. 1995. Screening the Body. Tracing Medicine's Visual Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
Chevroton, Louise, and Vlès, Frederic. 1909. “La cinématique de la segmentation de l'oeuf et la chronophotographie du développement de l'oursin.” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences 149:806–809.Google Scholar
Curtis, Scott. 2004. “Still/Moving. Digital Images and Medical Hermeneutics.” In Memory Bytes. History, Technology, and Digital Culture, edited by Rabinovitz, Lauren and Geil, Abraham, 218–254. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Curtis, Scott. 2005. “Die kinematographische Methode. Das ›Bewegte Bild‹ und die Brownsche Bewegung.” Montage/av 14 (2):23–43.Google Scholar
Curtis, Scott. 2009. “Between Observation and Spectatorship: Medicine, Movies and Mass Culture in Imperial Germany.” In Film 1900: Technology, Perception, Culture, edited by Ligensa, Annemone and Kreimeier, Klaus, 87–98. New Barnet: John Libbey.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
Dagognet, François. 1987. Etienne-Jules Marey. La passion de la trace. Paris: Hazan.Google Scholar
Doane, Mary Ann. 2002. The Emergence of Cinematic Time: Modernity, Contingency and the Archive. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Douard, John W. 1995. “E.-J. Marey's Visual Rhetoric and the Graphic Decomposition of the Body.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 26 (2):175–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenstein, Sergej[Eyzenshteyn, Sergey]. 1988. “The Montage of Attractions.” In Selected Works, 1: Writings 1922–1934, edited by Richard Taylor. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
Elkins, James. 1995. “Art History and Images that are not Art.” Art Bulletin 77 (4):553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frizot, Michel. 2001. Etienne-Jules Marey Chronophotographe. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Gaycken, Oliver. 2002. “‘A drama unites them in a fight to the death’: Some Remarks on the Flourishing of a Cinema of Scientific Vernacularization in France, 1909–1914.” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 22 (3):353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunning, Tom. 1989. “An Aesthetics of Astonishment: Early Film and the (In)credulous Spectator.” Art and Text 34:31–45.Google Scholar
Gunning, Tom. 1990. “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-garde.” In Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative, edited by Elsaesser, Thomas, 56–62. London: BFI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hediger, Vinzenz, and Vonderau, Patrick, eds. 2007. Filmische Mittel, industrielle Zwecke. Das Werk des Industriefilms. Texte zum Dokumentarfilm. Berlin: Vorwerk 8.Google Scholar
Jung, Uli, and Loiperdinger, Martin, eds. 2005. Geschichte des dokumentarischen Films in Deutschland. Band 1: Kaiserreich 1895–1918. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2005. “Cellular Features: Microcinematography and Film Theory.” Critical Inquiry 31 (4):903–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2006. “Microcinematography and the History of Science and Film.” Isis 97:121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2007. Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landecker, Hannah, and Kelty, Christopher. 2004. “A Theory of Animation: Cells, L-systems, and Film.” Grey Room 17:30–63.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Thierry. 1993a. “Contribution à l'histoire de la microcinématographie: de François-Franck à Comandon.” 1895 14:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, Thierry. 1993b. “The Scientia Production (1911–1914). Scientific Popularization through Pictures.” Griffithiana 16:137–155.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Thierry, ed. 1995. “Images du réel. La non-fiction en France (1890–1930).” 1895 18.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Thierry, Malthête, Jacques and Mannoni, Laurent, eds. 2004. Sur les pas de Marey: science(s) et cinéma. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan [and SEMIA].Google Scholar
Liesegang, Paul. 1920. Wissenschaftliche Kinematographie. Einschließlich der Reihenphotographie. Düsseldorf: Liesegang.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Blodwen, ed. 1948. Science in Films, 1: A World Review and Reference Book. London: Sampson.Google Scholar
Mannoni, Laurent. 1999. Etienne-Jules Marey. La mémoire de l'œuil. Milano: Mazzotta.Google Scholar
Marey, Etienne-Jules. [1894] 1895. Movement. Translated by Pritchard, Eric. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Mayer, Andreas. 2006. “Faire marcher les hommes et les images. Les artifices du corps en mouvement.” Terrain 46:33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Métraux, Alexandre. 2005. “Das eidetische Pferd. Wie Bertalan Székely Bildanimationen konstruierte.” In Kunstmaschinen. Spielräume des Sehens zwischen Wissenschaft und Ästhetik, edited by Mayer, Andreas and Métraux, Alexandre, 61–100. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Anthony R. 1955. Research Films in Biology, Anthropology, Psychology and Medicine. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prodger, Philip. 2003. Time Stands Still: Muybridge and the Instantaneous Photography Movement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ries, Julius. 1909. “Kinematographie der Befruchtung und Zellteilung.” Archiv für mikroskopische Anatomie 74:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Joel. 1998. “Visualization and Visibility.” In Picturing Science. Producing Art, edited by Caroline, A. Jones and Galison, Peter, 379–397. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tanner, Jakob. 2009. “Populäre Wissenschaft: Metamorphosen des Wissens im Medium Film.” Gesnerus 66 (1):15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thévenard, Pierre, and Tassel, Guy. 1948. Le cinéma scientifique français, “Les Sciences et leurs applications.” Paris: La Jeune Parque.Google Scholar
Tsivian, Yuri. 1996. “Media Fantasies and Penetrating Vision: Some Links between X-rays, the Microscope, and Film.” In Laboratory of Dreams: The Russian Avant-Garde and Cultural Experiment, edited by Matich, Olga and Bowlt, John E., 81–99. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Weiser, Martin. 1919. Medizinische Kinematographie. Dresden: Theodor Steinkopff.Google Scholar