André Gau­dreault, pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­sité de Mon­tréal, holds the Cana­da Research Chair in Film and Media Stud­ies (2015–2022) – the first lev­el 1 research chair ever award­ed in the field of cin­e­ma stud­ies by the Cana­da Research Chairs Pro­gram. Under the aegis of this Chair, he found­ed the Lab­o­ra­toire CinéMé­dias in 2016.

The mis­sion of the Cana­da Research Chair in Film and Media Stud­ies is to inter­ro­gate the role of tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion in the devel­op­ment of cin­e­ma forms and prac­tices, and more pre­cise­ly by pay­ing spe­cial atten­tion to the two extrem­i­ties of the his­tor­i­cal con­tin­u­um: the advent of cin­e­ma prop­er­ly speak­ing at the turn of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, and, a cen­tu­ry lat­er, the irrup­tion of the dig­i­tal into the media land­scape. Since 2018, this man­date has broad­ened by open­ing up the inter­dis­ci­pli­nary research car­ried out at the Lab­o­ra­toire CinéMé­dias to the cross-fer­til­iza­tion of ideas and exper­tise through new col­lab­o­ra­tions between schol­ars in media stud­ies and those work­ing in the health sci­ences and in pure and applied sci­ences. These col­lab­o­ra­tions between cin­e­ma stud­ies schol­ars and schol­ars in the fields of neu­rol­o­gy, bio­me­chan­ics, physics and psy­chol­o­gy seek make it pos­si­ble to con­jec­ture and car­ry out exper­i­ments in the man­ner of the “hard” sciences.

 

André Gau­dreault’s offi­cial website

Fields of Research

The epistemology of cinema techniques and technologies

This field of research seeks to study dis­cours­es on cin­e­ma tech­niques and tech­nolo­gies as they have been for­mu­lat­ed by insti­tu­tions which con­vey cul­tur­al knowl­edge (muse­ums, film archives, schools, mag­a­zines, libraries, etc.) by exam­in­ing their evo­lu­tion from the advent of cin­e­ma to the dig­i­tal age.

While this field of research inevitably con­tributes to refin­ing a still-frag­men­tary tech­no­log­i­cal his­to­ry of cin­e­ma, the main goal of this tem­po­ral tele­scop­ing is not to make a sim­plis­tic con­nec­tion between two peri­ods pro­found­ly influ­enced by the arrival of a major new tech­nol­o­gy (pho­to­chem­i­cal cin­e­ma and dig­i­tal cin­e­ma). In fact, while it is a giv­en in research into ear­ly cin­e­ma that it is nec­es­sary to incor­po­rate an under­stand­ing of dig­i­tal media, it should not be con­ceived as an autonomous object but rather as a man­i­fold object, at the inter­sec­tion of sev­er­al cul­tur­al series, tech­nolo­gies and insti­tu­tions. The archae­ol­o­gy of media does not con­ceive his­to­ry in bina­ry or genealog­i­cal terms, but seeks to cre­ate new con­ti­nu­ities by dig­ging into often neglect­ed sources. This field of research is thus not inter­est­ed in the strict­ly “mate­r­i­al” dimen­sion of tech­nol­o­gy, but rather in this epis­te­mo­log­i­cal dimen­sion, and will seek out in var­i­ous forms of dis­course cer­tain recur­ring motifs which make it pos­si­ble to account for the role of tech­nol­o­gy in the way cin­e­ma is con­ceived and taught and the way its his­to­ry is written.

The tech­ni­cal ques­tion, although it was cen­tral to the ear­li­est writ­ers on cin­e­ma, declined in inter­est dur­ing cinema’s insti­tu­tion­al­i­sa­tion process, to the point of yield­ing to oth­er issues such as the films them­selves, their authors and film move­ments. Lim­it­ed to the milieux of col­lec­tors and prac­ti­tion­ers (film­mak­ers, edi­tors, direc­tors of pho­tog­ra­phy, teach­ers, etc.), tech­ni­cal con­cerns appeared to have dis­ap­peared from schol­ar­ly dis­cours­es on cin­e­ma. It was not until the arrival of the dig­i­tal that tech­nol­o­gy reap­peared with force in dis­cours­es on cin­e­ma. Indeed in the wake of the dig­i­tal, cam­eras, pro­jec­tors, dis­sem­i­na­tion media, spe­cial effects and oth­er objects have once again become wor­thy of inves­ti­ga­tion. What accounts for this resur­gence? Can it be that tech­nol­o­gy is the epis­te­mo­log­i­cal cat­e­go­ry which best embod­ies the idea of inno­va­tion and that, in this respect, it makes it pos­si­ble to give form more eas­i­ly to the fears and aspi­ra­tions which accom­pa­ny every major change? With ref­er­ence to the mod­el of the dou­ble birth of media, do these dis­cours­es on tech­nol­o­gy play a nec­es­sary role in the new medium’s pas­sage from its peri­od of inte­gra­tion to that of its insti­tu­tion­al auton­o­my? What was in the ear­li­est dis­cours­es on the impact of cin­e­ma tech­nolo­gies on the for­ma­tion of a dis­ci­pli­nary approach and on the teach­ing prac­tices of this approach? In this sense, the Chair will explore dis­cours­es com­ment­ing on the impact of tech­nol­o­gy on already estab­lished cul­tur­al prac­tices, as well as those dis­cours­es, in an appre­hen­sive or utopi­an vein, which fore­tell their future impact.

Cinema’s identity from a post-media perspective

This field of research seeks to lift the veil on the thorny ques­tion of cinema’s iden­ti­ty, at a time when the dis­tinc­tion between media is increas­ing­ly fad­ing away. Will cin­e­ma pre­serve a degree of speci­fici­ty even if it is increas­ing­ly invest­ed by oth­er media and for oth­er ends than those for which it was known in the clas­si­cal cin­e­ma era? Is the “grow­ing dig­i­tal­is­ing of cin­e­ma” the main fac­tor account­ing for today’s upheavals? These the­o­ret­i­cal ques­tions require us to exam­ine the chang­ing role of movie the­atres and the impact of new modes of dis­tri­b­u­tion and dis­sem­i­na­tion asso­ci­at­ed with dig­i­tal plat­forms, in order to jux­ta­pose them with cinema’s so-called “clas­si­cal” practices.

This inves­ti­ga­tion will focus on the most recent devel­op­ments in the medi­um, prin­ci­pal­ly with respect to the “non-film” – screen­ings of cul­tur­al and sport­ing events which take place in movie the­atres – and to “non-cin­e­ma” – trans­mis­sions of films on per­son­al dig­i­tal plat­forms. These two cat­e­gories exem­pli­fy per­fect­ly the per­me­abil­i­ty and mobil­i­ty of media con­tent in the dig­i­tal age and are at the heart of the cur­rent iden­ti­ty cri­sis. Two spe­cif­ic exam­ples in par­tic­u­lar dri­ve this research. First, that of filmed operas – such as live broad­casts on movie screens by the New York Met­ro­pol­i­tan Opera, an orig­i­nal re-appro­pri­a­tion of the tra­di­tion­al movie the­atre. One of the ear­li­est non-filmic cul­tur­al man­i­fes­ta­tions to elbow their way into mul­ti­plex cin­e­mas, filmed operas rad­i­cal­ly altered the “base appa­ra­tus” of the movie the­atre and the clas­si­cal spec­ta­to­r­i­al pos­ture. In addi­tion, these events ben­e­fit­ed from a sig­nif­i­cant pro­mo­tion­al effort and exten­sive press cov­er­age, facil­i­tat­ing their close study. Sec­ond, “mobiloscopy”, mean­ing view­ing audio­vi­su­al con­tent on small, porta­bles devices, is for its part at the heart of think­ing about “non-cin­e­ma”. At issue here, among oth­er things, is the study of the con­sump­tion of films com­pared to the con­sump­tion of the oth­er con­tent offered by video stream­ing ser­vices (Net­flix, Hulu, etc.) and eval­u­at­ing how this affects our under­stand­ing of cin­e­ma as a spe­cif­ic medium.

This research will ben­e­fit from a num­ber of infra­struc­tures (online data­base and Ency­clopae­dia of Cin­e­ma Tech­niques and Tech­nolo­gies) being devel­oped as part of the inter­na­tion­al part­ner­ship for research into cin­e­ma tech­niques and tech­nolo­gies, TECHNÈS (2015–2022). In this way we will con­tin­ue to car­ry out the schol­ar­ly obser­va­tion put in place while writ­ing The End of Cin­e­ma? in order to iden­ti­fy in dai­ly news­pa­pers and the spe­cialised press the lat­est forms of this new film genre. This time, how­ev­er, our atten­tion will be focused more on the two above­men­tioned top­ics, filmed operas and mobiloscopy. In addi­tion to the texts iden­ti­fied in this way and indexed in our data­base, we will col­lect the per­son­al sto­ries of var­i­ous pro­fes­sion­als work­ing in the field of dis­sem­i­nat­ing dig­i­tal con­tent. The goal of these inter­views is to enhance the Ency­clopae­dia of Cin­e­ma Tech­niques and Tech­nolo­gies with com­men­tary com­ing direct­ly from the media indus­try, there­by pro­vid­ing essen­tial mate­r­i­al to the sec­ondary sources consulted.

Editing and technological change

This field of research is the log­i­cal exten­sion of the research into cinema’s epis­te­mol­o­gy and iden­ti­ty, because it exam­ines a con­crete exam­ple which high­lights cer­tain key issues in the his­to­ry of cinema’s tech­nol­o­gy and iden­ti­ty. The choice of edit­ing is not for­tu­itous: it has been a research top­ic of major inter­est through­out André Gaudreault’s career. It is also a cru­cial con­cept in the way we con­ceive of cinema’s speci­fici­ty. This field of research seeks to gauge the impact of tech­nol­o­gy on the ways in which films are seg­ment­ed, frag­ment­ed and assem­bled, but also, by exten­sion, to describe the con­nec­tion between tech­nol­o­gy and film aes­thet­ics and nar­ra­tive structure.

Once again, a con­nec­tion between ear­ly cin­e­ma and dig­i­tal cin­e­ma will be attempt­ed in order to lay the the­o­ret­i­cal foun­da­tions of a new mod­el for think­ing about edit­ing, one root­ed in a pan-his­tor­i­cal approach. The Chair seeks to eval­u­ate, on the one hand, how tech­no­log­i­cal advances encour­aged the devel­op­ment of nar­ra­tive edit­ing in the first decade of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry and, on the oth­er, the blaze of insti­tu­tion­al edit­ing prac­tices in the first decade of the twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry – but also to inter­ro­gate, con­verse­ly, the way in which artis­tic and indus­tri­al con­tin­gen­cies encour­aged tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment. In fact tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion and artis­tic inno­va­tion are part of a process of mutu­al exchanges and adap­ta­tions. This is why we will exam­ine both the tech­nolo­gies them­selves and the tech­ni­cal, pro­fes­sion­al and pop­u­lar dis­cours­es sur­round­ing them in such a way as to high­light this spe­cif­ic dynamic.

For many years the work of André Gau­dreault has con­tributed to clar­i­fy­ing the his­to­ry of edit­ing, but nev­er from the per­spec­tive of tech­nol­o­gy. Today’s resur­gence of tech­nol­o­gy as a top­ic of study, how­ev­er, prompts a revis­it­ing of this his­to­ry by pay­ing clos­er atten­tion to the many tech­nolo­gies which are relat­ed or periph­er­al to edit­ing. To what extent do cinema’s new appa­ra­tus­es tru­ly affect edit­ing prac­tices, and do they meet the needs for­mu­lat­ed by prac­ti­tion­ers? Sim­i­lar ques­tions arise with respect to the arrival of non-lin­ear edit­ing. First, in order to con­firm var­i­ous wide­spread asser­tions which have nev­er been exam­ined close­ly from a his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive, such as those which advance that nar­ra­tive causal­i­ty is erod­ing or that there is a resur­gence of “attrac­tion­al” tech­niques typ­i­cal of ear­ly cin­e­ma (loops, appear­ance-sub­sti­tu­tion, long takes) in films edit­ed in a non-lin­ear man­ner. Sec­ond, jux­ta­pos­ing the past and present will make it pos­si­ble to flesh out and lend weight to the con­cep­tu­al mod­el towards which, more­over, all of the Chair’s work is direct­ed. The entire orig­i­nal­i­ty of this mod­el, in fact, resides in the con­nec­tions it will make it pos­si­ble to estab­lish between the past and present his­to­ry of editing.

Publications

Pub­li­ca­tion of the 3rd edi­tion of the book Le réc­it cinématographique

André Gau­dreault and François Jost, Armand Col­in, 2017

 

For this new edi­tion, film ref­er­ences have been updat­ed, the study of nar­ra­tive has been extend­ed to tele­vi­sion series and analy­ses of sequences from films and tele­vi­sion series have been added to illus­trate the use to which the book’s con­cepts can be put.

The End of Cin­e­ma? A Medi­um in Cri­sis in the Dig­i­tal Age

André Gau­dreault and Philippe Marion
(trans­lat­ed by Tim­o­thy Barnard), Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2015

 

Is a film watched on a video screen still cin­e­ma? Have dig­i­tal com­posit­ing, motion cap­ture, and oth­er advanced tech­nolo­gies remade or oblit­er­at­ed the craft? Root­ed in their hypoth­e­sis of the “dou­ble birth of media,” André Gau­dreault and Philippe Mar­i­on take a pos­i­tive look at cinema’s ongo­ing dig­i­tal rev­o­lu­tion and reaf­firm its cen­tral place in a rapid­ly expand­ing media landscape.

La fin du ciné­ma? Un média en crise à l’ère du numérique

André Gau­dreault and Philippe Mar­i­on, Armand Col­in, 2013

 

The End of Cin­e­ma? A Medi­um in Cri­sis in the Dig­i­tal Age

André Gau­dreault, Philippe Mar­i­on, Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2015, trans­lat­ed by Tim­o­thy Barnard

Sub­merged by the break­ing dig­i­tal wave that is rad­i­cal­ly con­fus­ing media bound­aries (cin­e­ma, tele­vi­sion, graph­ic nov­els, the Inter­net, smart phones, etc.), cin­e­ma, it is said, is dying: the warmth of pho­to­chem­i­cal film has giv­en way to cold pix­els while satel­lite trans­mis­sions of non-film enter­tain­ment have begun to over­run movie the­atres. And yet cin­e­ma is every­where, on new devices and new screens. Nev­er­the­less, we might ask our­selves whether a film on DVD, shown on a video screen, is still cin­e­ma, or whether the encod­ed images of dig­i­tal com­posit­ing and motion cap­ture are also still cinema.

Bas­ing them­selves on their hypoth­e­sis of the “dou­ble birth of media,” the authors of The End of Cin­e­ma? exam­ine the con­vul­sions cinema’s iden­ti­ty is going through today and offer keys to under­stand­ing the impact of dig­i­tal tech­nol­o­gy on today’s media galaxy. Are we wit­ness­ing cinema’s third birth?

Film and Attrac­tion : From Kine­matog­ra­phy to Cinema

André Gau­dreault (Trans­lat­ed by Tim­o­thy Barnard), Uni­ver­si­ty of Illi­nois Press, 2011

 

Estab­lish­ing a new vision for film his­to­ry, Film and Attrac­tion: From Kine­matog­ra­phy to Cin­e­ma urges read­ers to con­sid­er the impor­tance of com­plex social and cul­tur­al forces in ear­ly film. André Gau­dreault argues that Edi­son and the Lumières did not invent cin­e­ma; they invent­ed a device. Explain­ing how this device, the kine­mato­graph, gave rise to cin­e­ma is the chal­lenge he sets for him­self in this vol­ume. He high­lights the for­got­ten role of the film lec­tur­er and exam­ines film’s rela­tion­ship with oth­er visu­al spec­ta­cles in fin-de-siè­cle cul­ture, from mag­ic sketch­es to fairy plays and pho­tog­ra­phy to vaudeville.

Ciné­ma et attrac­tion. Pour une nou­velle his­toire du cinématographe

André Gau­dreault, CNRS Édi­tions, 2008

 

To return to the thresh­old of cin­e­ma: that is the chal­lenge of this vol­ume. Going beyond tra­di­tion­al film his­to­ries, André Gau­dreault demon­strates that in 1895 the Lumière broth­ers invent­ed a device which made it pos­si­ble to project ani­mat­ed pic­tures, the Ciné­matographe, but in no way invent­ed cin­e­ma. Cin­e­ma was not “invent­ed” and there was no patent to file; rather, it was insti­tut­ed grad­u­al­ly and col­lec­tive­ly. André Gau­dreault offers us a new approach in this well-doc­u­ment­ed book. He brings back to life a hid­den world, with its bon­i­menteur, or film lec­tur­er, the accom­plice of the “vile exhibitor” or man­ag­er of the film pro­jec­tion venue. He reveals to us the bon­i­menteur’s sources of inspi­ra­tion, from the­atre to the cir­cus and pho­tog­ra­phy. The work of Méliès is stud­ied here in all its abun­dance and at every stage of its cre­ation, par­tic­u­lar­ly in his stu­dio. A new look at cin­e­ma, an indis­pens­able study fol­lowed by a crit­i­cal edi­tion of the famous text “Kine­matographic Views” by Georges Méliès (1907).

.

From Pla­to to Lumière : Nar­ra­tion and Mon­stra­tion in Lit­er­a­ture and Cinema

André Gau­dreault (Trans­lat­ed by Tim­o­thy Barnard), Uni­ver­si­ty of Toron­to Press, 2009

 

Build­ing a the­o­ry of nar­ra­tive on sources as diverse as Pla­to, The Ara­bi­an Nights,and Proust, From Pla­to to Lumière chal­lenges nar­ra­to­log­i­cal ortho­doxy by posit­ing that all forms of nar­ra­tive are medi­at­ed by an “under­ly­ing nar­ra­tor” who exists between the author and nar­ra­tive text. In this work, Gau­dreault exam­ines the prac­tices of nov­el­ists, play­wrights, and film­mak­ers and applies his the­o­ry to the ear­ly cin­e­ma of the Lumière broth­ers and more recent films. He also enhances our under­stand­ing of how nar­ra­tive devel­ops visu­al­ly with­out lan­guage – mon­stra­tion – by detail­ing how the evo­lu­tion of the medi­um influ­enced nar­ra­tives in cinema.

Du lit­téraire au filmique. Sys­tème du récit

André Gau­dreault, Armand Col­in, 1999

 

There are a thou­sand and one ways to tell a sto­ry. One kind of sto­ry is told by a tex­tu­al agent, the nar­ra­tor, while anoth­er appears on the con­trary to have been dis­tilled by the very same per­son who com­posed it, the author. Going against nar­ra­to­log­i­cal ortho­doxy in the mat­ter, the nar­ra­tive sys­tem on which this vol­ume is based posits that what­ev­er the case at hand there is an inter­me­di­ary agent, the mega-nar­ra­tor, locat­ed between the author and his or her nar­ra­tive text. This mega-nar­ra­tor is fun­da­men­tal­ly respon­si­ble for nar­ra­tive com­mu­ni­ca­tion. The nar­ra­tive prac­tices of nov­el­ists, play­wrights and film­mak­ers are exam­ined from the per­spec­tive of a “nar­ra­tol­ogy of expres­sion” in order to cast new light on the most impor­tant nar­ra­tive prin­ci­ples. A re-read­ing of Plato’s Repub­lic and a re-exam­i­na­tion of cer­tain now clas­si­cal nar­ra­to­log­i­cal “cas­es” (from The Ara­bi­an Nights to Proust’s In Search of Lost Time) make it pos­si­ble to define the two fun­da­men­tal modes of nar­ra­tive com­mu­ni­ca­tion: nar­ra­tion and mon­stra­tion. Using these con­cepts, the book lays the ground­work for a nar­ra­to­log­i­cal the­o­ry of cin­e­ma, applied in the first instance to ear­ly cinema.

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO COLLECTIVE VOLUMES (2015 TO 2020) :

 

« Les vues ciné­matographiques selon Segun­do de Chomón ou Propo­si­tions pour une approche dif­férente, dif­féren­ciée et dif­féren­tielle du “mage espag­nol”», dans Réjane Hamus-Val­lée, Jacques Malthête et Stéphanie Salmon (dir.), Les mille et un vis­ages de Segun­do de Chomón : truqueur, col­oriste, ciné­matographiste… et pio­nnier du ciné­matographe, Vil­leneuve d’Ascq/Paris, Press­es uni­ver­si­taires du Septentrion/Fondation Jérôme Sey­doux-Pathé, 2019 (arti­cle issu d’une com­mu­ni­ca­tion présen­tée au col­loque con­sacré à Segun­do de Chomón qui s’est tenu à Paris en 2017).

 

« Résilience du mot “ciné­ma” et per­sis­tance du média», Anais do V Simpósio Inter­na­cional de Inovação em Mídias Inter­a­ti­vas, 2019, (ver­sion très large­ment aug­men­tée d’une com­mu­ni­ca­tion inti­t­ulée « La résilience du “ciné­ma” » trans­mise par vidéo­con­férence le 11 mai 2018 au 5e Sym­po­sium inter­na­tion­al sur l’innovation dans les médias inter­ac­t­ifs (SIIMI), organ­isé par le Media Lab de l’Universidade Fed­er­al de Goiás, à Goiâ­nia, au Brésil). En anglais « The Resilience of the Word “Cin­e­ma” and the Per­sis­tence of the Media », dans Richard Grusin et Joce­lyn Szczepa­ni­ak-Gillece (dir.), Ends of Cin­e­ma, Min­neapo­lis, Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta Press, à paraître en 2020. PDF

 

« The Sub­lime Spit­tle of the Opera Singer» (avec Philippe Mar­i­on), dans Rossel­la Catanese, Francesca Scot­to Lav­ina et Valenti­na Valente (dir.), From Sen­sa­tion to Synaes­the­sia in Film and New Media, New­cas­tle upon Tyne, Cam­bridge Schol­ars Pub­lish­ing, 2019, p. 58–71 (arti­cle issu d’une com­mu­ni­ca­tion inti­t­ulée « La sub­lime bave du chanteur d’opéra… », présen­tée en 2014 dans le cadre de l’International Film Stud­ies Spring School, à Gorizia, en Italie).

 

« The Dou­ble Birth Mod­el Test­ed against Pho­tog­ra­phy» (avec Philippe Mar­i­on), dans Simone Natale et Nico­let­ta Leonar­di (dir.), Pho­tog­ra­phy and Oth­er Media in the Nine­teenth Cen­tu­ry, Uni­ver­si­ty Park, Penn State Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2018, p. 191–204. « Le mod­èle de la dou­ble nais­sance à l’épreuve de la pho­togra­phie », arti­cle inédit en français, qui reprend dans une nou­velle per­spec­tive cer­tains élé­ments du chapitre 5 de La fin du ciné­ma? (2013).

 

«  W. Grif­fith et l’émergence du mon­tage alterné » (avec Philippe Gau­thi­er), Cana­di­an Jour­nal of Film Studies/Revue cana­di­enne d’études ciné­matographiques,vol. 26, no 2, automne 2017, p. 1–30. En anglais « D. W. Grif­fith and the Emer­gence of Cross­cut­ting », dans Char­lie Keil (dir.), A Com­pan­ion to D. W. Grif­fith, Hobo­ken, John Wiley & Sons, 2018, p. 107–136.

 

« La sto­chas­tique des cristaux d’halogénure d’argent : l’histoire mou­ve­men­tée des procédés ciné­matographiques de resti­tu­tion du mou­ve­ment » (avec Solène Secq de Cam­pos Vel­ho),  Revue d’histoire du ciné­ma, n82, 2017, p. 35–52 (arti­cle issu d’une com­mu­ni­ca­tion inti­t­ulée « Les images mou­vantes ou l’“animage”, du tableau mou­ve­men­té aux images en mou­ve­ment » présen­tée à Lau­sanne, en 2014, au col­loque inter­na­tion­al Le mou­ve­ment du ciné­ma. Théories et pra­tiques : his­toire et his­to­ri­ogra­phie).  

 

« La punaise, le châs­sis et le piv­ot! L’“arrangement matériel” du film selon Pathé», dans Jacques Malthête et Stéphanie Salmon (dir.), Recherch­es et inno­va­tions dans l’industrie du ciné­ma. Les cahiers des ingénieurs Pathé (1906–1927), Paris, Édi­tions de la Fon­da­tion Jérôme Sey­doux-Pathé, 2017, p. 75–94 (arti­cle issu d’une con­férence inti­t­ulée « Pra­tiques du mon­tage chez Pathé entre 1906 et 1930 : organ­i­sa­tion du tra­vail et “com­po­si­tion” des films », don­née dans le cadre des journées d’étude Les cahiers de recherche Pathé (1904–1930), à Paris en 2015). En anglais « The Tack, the Frame and the Spin­dle! The “Mate­r­i­al Arrange­ment” of the Film at Pathé », dans Diego Cav­al­lot­ti, Simone Dot­to et Leonar­do Quares­i­ma (dir.), A His­to­ry of Cin­e­ma with­out Names/2. Con­texts and Prac­ti­cal Appli­ca­tions, Milan, Mime­sis Inter­na­tion­al, 2017, p. 101–113.

 

« T’interpeller d’entrée de jeu par ton patronyme», dans Rug­gero Eugeni et Maria­grazia Fanchi (dir.), La galas­sia Caset­ti. Let­tere di ami­cizia, sti­ma, provo­cazione, Milan, Vita e Piensero, 2017, p. 123–126.

 

« Le ciné­matographe Lumière : inven­tion du ciné­ma ou nais­sance d’un mythe? », dans Jean-Noël Jeanneney et Jeanne Guérout (dir.), L’histoire de France vue d’ailleurs, Paris, Édi­tions des Arènes, 2016, p. 384–395.

 

« Les sources inédites de la notion de “plan” en ciné­matogra­phie : un coup du (de?) théâtre!», dans Vin­cent Amiel, Gilles Mouël­lic et José Moure (dir.), Le découpage au ciné­ma, Rennes, Press­es uni­ver­si­taires de Rennes, 2016, p. 41–62 (arti­cle issu d’une com­mu­ni­ca­tion présen­tée en 2013 au col­loque de Cerisy Le découpage au ciné­ma, enjeux théoriques et poé­tiques).

 

« Défense et illus­tra­tion de la notion de série cul­turelle» (avec Philippe Mar­i­on), dans Diego Cav­al­lot­ti, Fed­eri­co Gior­dano et Leonar­do Quares­i­ma (dir.), A His­to­ry of Cin­e­ma with­out Names: A Research Project, Milan, Mime­sis Inter­na­tion­al, 2016, p. 59–71 (arti­cle issu d’une com­mu­ni­ca­tion présen­tée au 22e col­loque inter­na­tion­al Film Forum, à Udine, en 2015). En anglais « Defence and Illus­tra­tion of the Con­cept “Cul­tur­al Series” », dans Char­lie Keil et Robert King (dir.), The Oxford Hand­book of Silent Cin­e­ma, Oxford, Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press, à paraître en 2020.

 

« Le spec­ta­teur de ciné­ma. Une espèce en pleine muta­tion face à un média en perte de repères», dans Jean Château­vert et Gilles Delavaud (dir.), D’un écran à l’autre, les muta­tions du spec­ta­teur, Paris/Bry-sur-Marne, L’Harmattan/INA Édi­tions, 2016, p. 321–330. En anglais « The Cin­e­ma Spec­ta­tor: A Rapid­ly-Mutat­ing Species View­ing a Medi­um That Is Los­ing Its Bear­ings », dans Alber­to Bel­trame, Giuseppe Fidot­ta et Andrea Mar­i­ani (dir.), At the Bor­ders of (Film) His­to­ry, Udine, Forum, 2015, p. 191–197.

 

« De la fil­molo­gie à la sémi­olo­gie : fig­ures de l’alternance au ciné­ma» (avec Philippe Gau­thi­er), Ciné­mas, vol. 25, nos 2–3, print­emps 2015, p. 159–173, et « Chris­t­ian Metz, le mon­tage et les formes de l’alternance » (avec Philippe Gau­thi­er), Ciné­mas, vol. 26, no 1, automne 2015, p. 95–108 (arti­cle en deux par­ties issu d’une com­mu­ni­ca­tion présen­tée en 2013 à Zurich au col­loque Le par­a­digme sémi­ologique et la pen­sée « ciné­matographique » de Chris­t­ian Metz). En anglais « Chris­t­ian Metz, Edit­ing, and Forms of Alter­na­tion », dans Margrit Tröhler et Gui­do Kirsten (dir.), Chris­t­ian Metz and the Codes of Cin­e­ma: Film Semi­ol­o­gy and Beyond, Ams­ter­dam, Ams­ter­dam Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2018, p. 201–226.

 

Com­plete list here.

Major lectures presented by the Chair

As part of its pro­gram of major lec­tures, the Cana­da Research Chair in Film and Media Stud­ies (2015–2022) reg­u­lar­ly organ­is­es encoun­ters with some of the top spe­cial­ists in the field.

You can view filmed record­ings of the fol­low­ing major lectures:

 

La Neu­rog­no­sis. Unir les arts et les sci­ences par la con­nais­sance du cerveauVladimir Hachin­s­ki (West­ern Uni­ver­si­ty), 2 mai 2019, Uni­ver­sité de Montréal.

 

Les séries, pro­lon­ga­tion du film? Jean-Pierre Esque­nazi, (Uni­ver­sité Lyon 3), 26 mars 2018, Uni­ver­sité de Montréal.

 

Inter­ac­tion, Algo­rith­mic Assem­bly, Embod­ied Mon­tage: Orga­niz­ing Sequence and Time in New Media Set­tingsWilliam Urri­chio (Mass­a­chu­setts Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy), 4 mai 2017, Ciné­math­èque québécoise.

 

Win­sor McCay Per­forms Ger­tie (1914) : Live­ness and Ani­ma­tionDon­ald Crafton (Uni­ver­si­ty of Notre Dame), 28 sep­tem­bre 2016, Uni­ver­sité de Montréal.

 

Instances ciné­pho­biques dans la cul­ture ciné­matographique des pre­miers temps, Francesco Caset­ti (Yale Uni­ver­si­ty), 28 sep­tem­bre 2016, Uni­ver­sité de Montréal.

Archives