ICH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/

https://home.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r3.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_India

https://filmykeeday.com/list-of-film-industries-in-india-based-on-languages/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44145908

https://theculturetrip.com/asia/india/articles/the-top-indian-films-based-on-classic-literature/

https://pib.gov.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid=170197

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls063771441/

Introduction:

“Cinematography is the illusion of movement by

the recording and subsequent rapid projection of
many still photographic pictures on a screen.” It
is a product of the19th-century scientific
endeavour, looking at the facts no one person
has invented cinema. In the 21st century cinema
has become a medium of mass entertainment and
communication, and today it is a multi-billion-
dollar sector.

WHO INVENTED CINEMA?

In 1891 the Edison Company successfully demonstrated a prototype
of the Kinetoscope, which enabled one person at a time to view
moving pictures.

The first public Kinetoscope demonstration took place in 1893. By

1894 the Kinetoscope was a commercial success, with public
parlours established around the world.

The first to present projected moving pictures to a paying audience

were the Lumière brothers in December 1895 in Paris,
France. They used a device of their own making, the
Cinématographe, which was a camera, a projector and a film printer
all in one.

WHAT WERE EARLY FILMS LIKE?

At first, films were very short, sometimes only a few minutes or less. They were shown at
fairgrounds, music halls, or anywhere a screen could be set up and a room darkened. Subjects
included local scenes and activities, views of foreign lands, short comedies and newsworthy
events.

The films were accompanied by lectures, music and a lot of audience participation. Although
they did not have synchronised dialogue, they were not ‘silent’ as they are sometimes
described.

THE RISE OF THE FILM INDUSTRY

By 1914, several national film industries were established. At this time, Europe, Russia and
Scandinavia were the dominant industries; America was much less important. Films became
longer and storytelling, or narrative, became the dominant form.

As more people paid to see movies, the industry which grew around them was prepared to
invest more money in their production, distribution and exhibition, so large studios were
established and dedicated cinemas built. The First World War greatly affected the film
industry in Europe, and the American industry grew in relative importance.

The first 30 years of cinema were characterised by the growth and consolidation of an
industrial base, the establishment of the narrative form, and refinement of technology.

ADDING COLOUR
Colour was first added to black-and-white movies through hand colouring, tinting, toning and
stencilling.

By 1906, the principles of colour separation were used to produce so-called ‘natural colour’
moving images with the British Kinemacolor process, first presented to the public in 1909.

Kinemacolor was primarily used for documentary (or ‘actuality’) films, such as the epic With
Our King and Queen Through India (also known as The Delhi Durbar) of 1912, which ran
for over 2 hours in total.

The early Technicolor processes from 1915 onwards were cumbersome and expensive, and
colour was not used more widely until the introduction of its three-colour process in 1932. It
was used for films such as Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz (both 1939) in
Hollywood and A Matter of Life and Death (1946) in the UK.

ADDING COLOUR
Frames of stencil colour film
Science Museum Group Collection
 Kinemacol
or cine camera made by Moy and Bastie to Charles Urban’s design, 1909Science Museum
Group Collection
Advertisement for With Our King and Queen Through India, 1912
Science Museum Group Collection
Advertisement for Kinemacolor, c.1911Science Museum Group Collection
Technicolor cine cameraScience Museum Group Collection

ADDING SOUND

Science Museum Group Collection

Vitaphone disc, 1930.
Science Museum Group CollectionImage sourcefor Vitaphone disc
The first attempts to add synchronised sound to projected pictures used phonographic
cylinders or discs.

The first feature-length movie incorporating synchronised dialogue, The Jazz Singer (USA,
1927), used the Warner Brothers’ Vitaphone system, which employed a separate record disc
with each reel of film for the sound.

This system proved unreliable and was soon replaced by an optical, variable density
soundtrack recorded photographically along the edge of the film, developed originally for
newsreels such as Movietone.

CINEMA’S GOLDEN AGE

By the early 1930s, nearly all feature-length movies were presented with synchronised sound
and, by the mid-1930s, some were in full colour too. The advent of sound secured the
dominant role of the American industry and gave rise to the so-called ‘Golden Age of
Hollywood’.

During the 1930s and 1940s, cinema was the principal form of popular entertainment, with
people often attending cinemas twice a week. Ornate ’super’ cinemas or ‘picture palaces’,
offering extra facilities such as cafés and ballrooms, came to towns and cities; many of
them could hold over 3,000 people in a single auditorium.

In Britain, the highest attendances occurred in 1946, with over 31 million visits to the cinema
each week.
Science Museum Group Collection
Cinema audience, 1932, James Jarché.
Science Museum Group CollectionImage sourcefor Large cinema audience in auditorium

WHAT IS THE ASPECT RATIO?

Thomas Edison had used perforated 35mm film in the Kinetoscope, and in 1909 this was
adopted as the worldwide industry standard. The picture had a width-to-height relationship—
known as the aspect ratio—of 4:3 or 1.33:1. The first number refers to the width of the
screen, and the second to the height. So for example, for every 4 centimetres in width, there
will be 3 in height.

With the advent of optical sound, the aspect ratio was adjusted to 1.37:1. This is known as the
‘Academy ratio’, as it was officially approved by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences (the Oscars people) in 1932.

Although there were many experiments with other formats, there were no major changes in
screen ratios until the 1950s.

HOW DID CINEMA COMPETE WITH

TELEVISION?
 Cinerama Inc.
Promotional image for Cinerama, 1952.
Cinerama Inc.
The introduction of television in America prompted a number of technical experiments
designed to maintain public interest in cinema.

In 1952, the Cinerama process, using three projectors and a wide, deeply curved screen
together with multi-track surround sound, was premiered. It had a very large aspect ratio of
2.59:1, giving audiences a greater sense of immersion, and proved extremely popular.

However, Cinerama was technically complex and therefore expensive to produce and show.
Widescreen cinema was not widely adopted by the industry until the invention of
CinemaScope in 1953 and Todd-AO in 1955. Both processes used single projectors in their
presentation.

The Sound of Music on the museum’s curved screen, 2019.

CinemaScope ‘squeezed’ images on 35mm film; when projected, they were expanded
laterally by the projector lens to fit the screen. Todd-AO used film with a width of 70mm. By
the end of the 1950s, these innovations had effectively changed the shape of the cinema
screen, with aspect ratios of either 2.35:1 or 1.66:1 becoming standard. Stereo sound, which
had been experimented with in the 1940s, also became part of the new widescreen
experience.
Specialist large-screen systems using 70mm film were also developed. The most successful
of these has been IMAX, which as of 2020 has over 1,500 screens around the world. For
many years IMAX cinemas have shown films specially made in its unique 2D or 3D formats
but more recently they have shown popular mainstream feature films which have been
digitally re-mastered in the IMAX format, often with additional scenes or 3D effects.

Science Museum Group Collection

Installation of IMAX screen at the museum, 1983.
Science Museum Group Collection

HOW HAVE CINEMA ATTENDANCE FIGURES

CHANGED?
While cinemas had some success in fighting the competition of television, they never
regained the position and influence they held in the 1930s and 40s, and over the next 30 years
audiences dwindled. By 1984 cinema attendances in Britain had declined to one million a
week.
The Point multiplex cinema, Milton Keynes.
Image sourcefor The Point multiplex cinema, Milton Keynes
By the late 2000s, however, that number had trebled. The first British multiplex was built in
Milton Keynes in 1985, sparking a boom in out-of-town multiplex cinemas.

Today, most people see films on television, whether terrestrial, satellite or subscription video
on demand (SVOD) services. Streaming film content on computers, tablets and mobile
phones is becoming more common as it proves to be more convenient for modern audiences
and lifestyles.

Although America still appears to be the most influential film industry, the reality is more
complex. Many films are produced internationally—either made in various countries or
financed by multinational companies that have interests across a range of media.
HISTORY OF CINEMA IN INDIA
REFER TO DAV UNIVERSITY PDF

CINEMA AND CLUTURE

#1. The cinema is a captivating, if complex, route to the past. As a popular art, set
in the economic, cultural and political spheres, film inevitably bears the birthmarks
of its passage into light. As a technological art, crucially defined by its capacity for
the automatic registration of sights and sounds, it is composed of pieces of the
culture it represents. In order to recover the full discourse that films advance,
therefore, the student of film must be at once a historian and an interpreter of art,
able to shift constantly between the objective examination of the context of a film
and the subjective immersion in the experience it offers.

#2. Paintings, music, poetry and films are part of our present in a way no peace
treaty, court record, or standard historical artifact ever is. Yet works of art affect us
in part because they are of another time and lace, because they come freighted with
the unknown even while they appear so wonderfully knowable.

#3. What freight do films bring with them onto the screen? They bring their own
private histories, to be sure, but beyond these birthmarks, one can sense the
obsessions of an age. In French films of the 1930s, the group that particularly
interests me, for example, images of exotic lands, of Africa especially, remind us
that France still thought itself a tough colonial power. But pictures of forlorn exiles
in these lands (Alerme in La Petite Lise or Gabin in Pepe le Moko) more
poignantly define the depths of France's self-image. In Pepe le Moko (Julian
Duvivier, 1937), we confront an image of pure nostalgia and hopeless desire.
Gabin, French expatriate and master criminal who has become king of the Casbah,
utterly loses his self-possession when faced with the elegant Gaby, a seductress
from Paris. Giving up his kingdom in exile, he follows the lure of her perfume,
only to watch her sail out of sight. Surrounded by police on the wharf, Gabin stabs
himself, victim of a longing for Gaby and for the France she represents, which
itself has receded from him into the past. The lawless exoticism in the labyrinthine
alleys of the Algerian ghetto with its multiracial swarm runs up against the elegant
but equally lawless Parisienne Gaby. We are overwhelmed by the mood that
results: No one, not even Jean Gabin, can recover a lost world.

#4. An examination of contemporary French editorials and political speeches,

which betray the fear of a people believing themselves the last free country in
Europe as their neighbors fall one by one to fascism, assigns a more specific
character to the nostalgia and helplessness evoked by the film. A similar cornered,
emotional state pervades the novels of Drieu or MacOrlan. The study of film, then,
requires both a subjective appreciation of a film's emotional message and an
objective refinement of this message through the examination of other expressions
of the culture's sensibility.

#5. In the case of these films, this approach takes us swiftly to the full arena of
social life in the thirties in order to understand not so much their literal truth (on
the whole they avoided the great issues of the day), but their need to speak in the
way they chose. What pressures, competitions, passions forced the French
filmmakers of the thirties away from the experimental avant-garde to popular
material? Jean Vigo, Rene Clair, Marcel Carne, Jean Gremillon, Claude Autant-
Lara and many others who had experimented with surrealist and impressionist
styles in the late twenties, began creating blatant melodramas. More puzzling than
these successes are the failures of the great heroes of the 1920s: Abel Gance
(Napoleon), Jean Epstein, and Marcel L'Hubier. Why did their work in the thirties
become so conventionally theatrical?

#6. For some filmmakers the change marked a defeat by the new technology of
sound; for others, it was a response to the growing social concern of artists in the
face of the Depression. Sound impaired Gance's visual imagination, while it freed
Clair and Vigo to create wonderful rhythms. The huge cost of making sound films
initially stifled the independent avant-garde, but as first, Clair, then Renoir
discovered, larger budgets brought to their films a serious interest in quality by
those producing them. These producers, for their part, could not ignore the
pervasive Hollywood presence on European screens. Some succumbed to pure
emulation of this international style, while others hoped to profit through product
differentiation. Marcel Pagnol's Marseilles dramas thwarted the sophistication not
only of American movies but of Paris's attempt to imitate America.

#7. Outside the circle of immediate influences on film production lie the spheres of
cultural and political pressure. The films of the thirties partake of the populist turn
of Gide, Malraux, and St. Exupery as these men came to terms with the Depression
and the lures of fascism and communism. Although few films take up directly the
social and political crises of the day, the change in tone from the chic twenties to
the populist thirties reflects a new sensibility.

#8. Cinema is not only a good index of culture, but better, perhaps, than painting,
music, or poetry, because it visibly partakes of the stuff of cultural life. Moreover,
the solutions it arrives at in the artistic struggle to represent that life can be trusted
as broadly social solutions, tied to groups who lived through the era, rather than to
the private comprehension of the gifted, but inevitably more isolated, individuals
who dominated these other arts. The very compromises and business decisions
leading to the production of a film ensure that it be related to its era.

#9. How does a film exist in culture and culture in film? As satisfying as is the /p.
25 metaphor of movie screen as cultural mirror, the power of the camera to set the
scene of culture is a power much stronger than that of mere reflection. The cinema
literally contributes to a culture's self-image, inflecting, not just capturing, daily
experience.

#10. In 1936 Jean Renoir teamed up with Jacques Prevert to produce The Crime of
M. Lange, a delightful fantasy about the establishment of a workers' collective. Its
lightness and wit, its clever meditation on the collective spirit necessary for its own
existence, and its fondness for all its characters, keep this film in our classrooms
today, a treasured product of another age. But in that age, in 1936, it provided more
than diversion to a depressed populace, for it was meant to foster, by representing,
the conditions of a "popular front" against the privileged class and ultimately
against Hitler. This program was part of the film's appeal in a year that saw
France's first elected socialist government. In a very real sense Renoir and Prevert
produced the culture they wanted to address, by telling a story that was vaguely a
part of the common experience of the day, a story, it must be added, that had been
drowned out until then by the brassier theatrical productions against which it had to
compete.

#11. The Crime of M. Lange is too perfect an example of the cinema in its dual role
as index and motor of culture. Until that film, Renoir's works were ignored by the
populace and Prevert was a marginal and whimsical anarchist. Neither was listed in
"those to watch" by Film Daily Yearbook in its 1935 survey of foreign competition.
Should we then devalue Renoir's earlier work? Of course not. If films do not
contribute to, as well as reflect, their eras, this relationship is anything but direct,
and the competition to be heard is not of the sort that a study of the marketplace
(with its criteria of box office receipts and even of critical reception) is likely to
comprehend. Purely economic studies shade one's eyes from the scintillating
visions expressed in important films, especially in those films ignored or
misapprehended in their own day. This is precisely a problem of "phasure," of the
lack of coincidence of a representation with the conditions under which it might
best come to life. When Jean Vigo's Zero for Conduct was resurrected a few years
after his death at a communist party rally, and when film enthusiasts continued to
demand to experience this vision that failed in its own era to find an audience, we
pronounced him prophetic.

#12. While Vigo and Renoir surely hungered for contemporary success, they just
as surely aimed to change the rules of artistic discourse so that their films could be
received by a culture ready for them. If it took years for these changes to come into
effect, if Rules of the Game is often cited today as the greatest French film,
although Renoir madly recut it to help stave off the utter disdain with which it was
received in 1939, we cannot say that such films are not of their times.

#13. This is hardly a new problem in the history of art, but it is a problem the
cinema raises most insistently, and raises, I think, in a way that can be treated. We
are accustomed to histories of art or literature that wander from lone genius to lone
genius, isolating the stylistic glories each was able to achieve. Style here is the
personal, nontransferable character of a discourse. Its opposite, in Roland Barthes's
famous scheme, is language, the bare rules of discourse that force themselves on
all who would be heard. In art history we can think of language as the ruling
systems or conventions at play in various epochs. Thus Rubens was a shining
genius, twisting the language of the baroque to his own design. The same holds
true in literature where we treat Wordsworth as an inimitable soul who gave to the
romanticism of his age a peculiar sound and feel.

#14. The film history I have been discussing cannot be understood in this heroic
manner but needs an intermediate term, one akin to Barthes's "ecriture," to insist
upon the struggle, rather than the products of history. The very business of cinema,
with its problems of distribution, censorship, limited production, and collaborative
labor, makes us see it as the site of fights over the nature of representation, over the
right to represent experience in a particular way. This social struggle involves
genius, no doubt, but genius that can hardly be termed "lone." In 1933 Andre Gide
supported a kind of cinema that would result in a popular, poetic realism by
helping his friends Colette and Marc Allegret realize their adaptation of Vicki
Baum's Lac aux Dames. This same year he joined an association of artists against
fascism, the AIER, that many historians feel made possible the popular front. Did
his presence inspire Prevert, Renoir, Carne, and others? It certainly contributed to
the prestige of an emerging "ecriture," one that would turn the best French films
away from their theatrical heritage and toward the recit or short novel. Gide and
Renoir, who are as close as we might come to geniuses in their time, were defined
by, as they helped define, the culture of the thirties. So it is with the cinema as a
whole.

#15. In sum, a cultural history of cinema must reconstruct the temper of the times,
neither through the direct appreciation of its products nor through the direct
amassing of "relevant facts," but through an indirect reconstruction of the
conditions of representation that permitted such films to be made, to be
understood, even to be misunderstood, controversial, or trivial. More than this, as
certain key films attest, the movies create as well as display a culture's imagination.

FILM INDUSTRY IN INDIA

The Cinema of India consists of motion pictures produced in India, which had a large effect
on world cinema since the late 20th century.[7][8] Major centers of film production across the
country
include Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Kochi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Bhubaneswar
-Cuttack, and Guwahati. Delhi and Pune are also Prominent Cities For Film Shoots In Bollywood
Movies [details 1] For a number of years the Indian film industry has ranked first in the world in terms
of annual film output.[28] In terms of box office it ranked third in 2019, with total gross of
around ₹220 billion (US$2.7 billion).[5][29][30]
Indian cinema is composed of multilingual and multi-ethnic film art. In 2019, Hindi
cinema represented 44% of box office revenue, followed by Telugu and Tamil film industries,
each representing 13%, Malayalam and Kannada film industries, each representing 5%.[31]Other
prominent languages in the Indian film industry
include Bengali, Marathi, Odia, Punjabi, Gujarati and Bhojpuri. As of 2020, the combined revenue
of all other language film industries has surpassed that of the Mumbai-based Bollywood Hindi
film industry.[30] As of 2022, Telugu cinema leads Indian cinema's box-office revenue.[

ALL TYPE OF FILM INDUSTRIES IN INDIA

REFER TO https://filmykeeday.com/list-of-film-industries-in-india-based-on-
languages/
Movies highlighting Indian culture

1. Slumdog Millionaire: Made by a ‘foreigner’, this movie shows how life

can be so cruel in the slums of india, but there is always hope.
2.Passage to India (1984)

Nothing shows culture better than a historical documentary movie. The next film
on our list is a classic that takes its inspiration from another classic written by E.M.
Forster. In this film, you will see the real relationship between the people of India
and their British colonizers. The movie, which is set before the independence of
India, examines the sufferings of the people and how independence came to be.
Passage to India explores India through the lens of Mrs. Moore, a fictional
character in the movie, and what she believes is the true India.
3.
Lagaan
Lagaan means “tax” — the tax paid by Indian subjects to their British overlords; and
the film Lagaan, set during the Victorian era, is about a tax revolt by overburdened
villagers. The tax revolt crisis leads to a cricket match challenge between the villagers,
who have never played the game before — led by Aamir Khan, in the role that
propelled him to stardom — and the British. It’s a feel-good movie on a grand scale
about national pride. Made by the same director as Jodhaa Akbar, Ashutosh
Gowariker, but earlier in his career. It’s great to watch post-colonial people taking
pride in their culture and history, even if it means playing up stereotypes and
formulaic plot lines. Aamir Khan is awesome. As usual.

WHAT YOU LEARN: Cricket may have came from England, but India has taken it
to heart.

4. Amar Akbar Anthony (1977)

Unity in diversity is one of the most fundamental mottos India runs on, and this hilarious
comedy from the ’70s is an ode to the country’s religious diversity told via the tale of three
brothers separated at birth and raised separately as Hindu, Christian, and Muslim. The film
follows their reunion several years later and combined effort to avenge those who
separated them in the first place.

5.
Road, Movie (2009)
India may be a country of great extremes and disparities, but among several things that
unite all across the spectrum is a common quest for happiness—even if it is momentary.
Following an indifferent young man tasked with transporting an old touring cinema truck
across the arid Thar desert, this film looks at a range of issues, from drought and poverty
to India’s incomparable love for cinema.

NATIONAL MOVEMENTS THROUGH INDIAN CINEMA

What are the three phases of the history of the Indian national movement?
The first phase of the movement is called the Early Nationalist Era. The second
phase was called the Assertive Nationalism Era, which was prevalent in the years
from 1905 to 1919. The final phase of the freedom struggle was called the Mahatma
Gandhi Era, this was between the years of 1919 and 1947.

 Language nationalism.
 2.2 Religious nationalism.
 2.3 Post-colonial nationalism.