MlCIIACl lTRBl R UniversifJ' nf New HmnjJshire contiguous with the machinc; an observcr

the nux and

p;uticipatc in \'isual

ninctcenth-ccntury modd. lkcausc

Donald Crafton, Emile Cold, Can·cature,

illust.

As the cinema's ccntcnarv is '"-'hat perhaps nceds. to

is just how ignorant we its origins. Such ignorancc is no ac-cidcnt, connccted as il is to a ccrtain indil1Crencc filmmakers do not have the gravitas or writers, and films may havc a cult status, bm do not quitc

Chardin and Turner each gct a !Cw visual, or having nothing tu do with tllt'

that to attributc film teclm(J!ogy and film furm to othcr thcir history is a lutil•" cn<1cavou<·.

VVhcthcr th~ publications to be

is no secrct lO film studems that scholar­ship in what h;ts comc to bc known as the 'new film history' has to fcar

mation not usually found in filmo­Cra!lon, an art historian

at Yale and 110\'\' Dircctor of thc \Visconsin Ccntrc for Filn1 and Thcatel

thc animatcd fllm' has in a sense done disscrvice to thc rcst of his crcativc

since it did not save old agc nor his films

from virtual oblivion. ln Cohl

was by no means

thc manifest destiny, one can study thc I"Clation of thc emcrgcnl film industt·y, of

graphy and computcr animation and today's tcchni­cal wiz.an.lry in thc art or visualization ßut Cohl's work intcrsects with another

strips to dada artcbcts

and visual punning. Cold thc caricaturist was esscntially

self-taught, becrJmi<Jg apprc,_ll;ccd

or thc most

modest income as a stamp collcctcw and

dealet In this siiUation, thc film industry

für no dcar di\'idc separatcd the film~

JTtaker as 'autcur' from thc commcrcial artist. How Cuhl first maclc contact with

286 REVIEWS

accurate rcgistratiun and thc illusion of smoothness or movcmcnl. \Vhat made

!:um: of a canoonist mcant vcry littlc),

Almost aH of Cohl's work at Fort Lee

Amcrican films, such as The Vegeiarian's Dream, and did thc animation ,,.;ork for

too expensive, \Vith the American imports introduced ;mimated cartoons to Amcr~ ica, Cohl had to stand by <ts Amcrican

v·:hen critics bcgan to thc dominancc-: of

on French scrccns, did the spatlight f::tll on Cohl again, as a namc that could help wavc the flag with which

the troops: it was a

pasliehe ur chauvinistic nostalgia Oll thc part of highbro\\. critics

l'acoc•d w·ith this •:lile<nma, the histürian

tü try and construct f(w Cühl's ocu\'rc the scm~

blance of a cohcrcnce, dcflncd by some-

bascd on tlw contributions to this svm~ posium. \Yhethcr al! tlw cssays in thc

that

time not by film hiswrians or art histur- its first scction point among otlwr f:tctur:-; but by film makers, video to the or thc dh·-

makcrs animators - a flttiug tributc thc to someonc \Vho owes his contaCl with thc cincma to having bccn and

,,..,,.,,."IIV<<'<'n" to in the which t!w titlc :1\so is, however, still rek:vant for our historical analysis

Thus it was une of thc points of THOMAS ELSAESSER criticism ofthc exhibition thc

Universiteil van Amsierdam art produced in tbc lw 1warlv Oll<' hundred