Document généré le 21 nov.

2023 09:20

Cinémas
Revue d'études cinématographiques
Journal of Film Studies

Are We in the Movies Now ?

Stacey Johnson

Volume 8, numéro 3, printemps 1998 Résumé de l'article

La popularité du 8mm à titre de film de famille atteignit un niveau
Cinélekta 2 remarquable pendant la période de l'après-guerre et durant les années
cinquante, à un point tel que les caméras 8mm trouvèrent à cette époque leur
URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/024762ar utilisation la plus répandue au sein des familles nord-américaines. Cet article
DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/024762ar explore l'apogée de cette production du film de famille d'après-guerre tout en
établissant un lien avec les précédents culturels de la popularisation, la
photographie de la fin du XIXe siècle, et de la façon dont la production et la
Aller au sommaire du numéro
consommation de la culture visuelle se sont développées elles-mêmes dans les
familles.

Éditeur(s)
Cinémas

ISSN
1181-6945 (imprimé)
1705-6500 (numérique)

Découvrir la revue

Citer cet article

Johnson, S. (1998). Are We in the Movies Now ? Cinémas, 8(3), 135–158.
https://doi.org/10.7202/024762ar

Tous droits réservés © Cinémas, 1998 Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des
services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique
d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.
https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/

Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.

Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de
l’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à
Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche.
https://www.erudit.org/fr/
 Are We in the Movies Now ?l

Stacey Johnson

RÉSUMÉ
La popularité du 8mm à titre de film de famille atteig-
nit un niveau remarquable pendant la période de
l'après-guerre et durant les années cinquante, à un
point tel que les caméras 8mm trouvèrent à cette
époque leur utilisation la plus répandue au sein des fa-
milles nord-américaines. Cet article explore l'apogée de
cette production du film de famille d'après-guerre tout
en établissant un lien avec les précédents culturels de la
popularisation, la photographie de la fin du XIXe siècle,
et de la façon dont la production et la consommation
de la culture visuelle se sont développées elles-mêmes
dans les familles.

ABSTRACT
The popularity of 8mm, home movie making swelled
to notable proportions in the postwar period and
throughout the 1950s, at which point 8mm movie
cameras were in their widest, popular use in North
American families. This paper explores the rise to ubiq-
uity of postwar home movie production by tracing its
cultural precedent to the mass-popularization of pho-
tography in the late-nineteenth century, and the ways
in which a producing and consuming visual culture es-
tablished itself in the family.

T h e popularity of h o m e movie making swelled to notable

proportions in the postwar period and throughout the 1950s.
Popular magazines, camera manufacturers and their " ad men "
waxed sentimentally over the production and consumption of
home movies as integral companions to family history. Indeed,
if one truly wanted to assure the memory of baby's first steps,
 what better way to preserve these precious gestures than by
capturing them on film, and in movement. Although seemingly
a baby boom novelty, home movie production was by no means
a new phenomenon in the 1950s. In 1923, 16mm had been vet-
ted as the North American amateur standard. Shortly thereafter
in 1932, 8 m m , the infinitely more inexpensive and family-
friendly format, was introduced. Due to its perceived social and
technical accessibility, and the ever-expanding association of
1 6 m m production with television, documentary, educational,
and semi-professional production, 8 m m became the m e d i u m
syphoned off to unskilled amateurs, an association which was
directly proportionate to the formats overwhelming appropria-
tion in families.
It is the caliber of 8 m m film's slated appropriation in family
contexts which is at the heart of the present inquiry. In the most
comprehensive and critical institutional and historical account of
these practices to date, Patricia Z i m m e r m a n n has argued that
" [...] not only do economic, aesthetic, political, and familial
power relations construct the category of amateur film but a neg-
ative, compensatory relation to professional film also inscribes its
discourse. " (p. xii) Zimmermann foregrounds the discourses and
institutional alliances which, by establishing unequivocal terms
for professional practice and technical standards, simultaneously
functioned to subordinate amateur production and its technical
gadgetry to the institutionally, and technically superior pursuits
of professional cinematic practice. By her account, instructional
and professional discourses — the amalgam of h o m e movie
manuals, related popular literature, parenting advice, and Holly-
wood promotion — represented the " industry's " attempt to im-
pose an " official " culture of film making practice on the " popu-
lar " culture of family movie making; in other words, the cultural
dominant disciplines its subordinate.
Amateur film making in the context of the family, however,
seems to beg a richness of analysis which exceeds its discursive
subordination as a pseudo-professional craft. It would appear
that home movies, and photographs for that matter, are mean-
ingful precisely because we s u m m o n them to fill the volatile
spaces of memory, often dismissing the technics of their produc-

136 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3

tion in favour of the expectation of their consumption. T h e pro-
fessional discourses which attempted to align family image mak-
ing practices with professionalism also anticipated the home as a
site for privatized spectatorship and for past-looking. Arguably,
the same discourses which championed professional technique
also championed the necessity for history. While we may intuit
from instructional literature a certain wishful delivery of film
making style and aesthetics on the part of the producers of this
literature, one question lurks in the b a c k g r o u n d here : are
" home movies, " their production and consumption, analyzable
as movies :
Although circumscribed in the illegitimate shadows of profes-
sional film's legitimacy, h o m e movie making practices were
shaped as m u c h (if not more) by the mass-popularization of
photographic practices across the social landscape, and their in-
auguration in turn of the century bourgeois family life. Photog-
raphy as a family history practice wedged itself between an in-
creasing cultural fascination with the privatization of temporal
experience, and the homogenization of public temporal experi-
ence, both cultural effects of the electric age. 2 W h a t needs to be
articulated in a discussion of moving image production in the
family, then, are its social and communicative relations to the
precursory productive and consumptive effects of popularized
family photography.
I would like to insist upon a radical specificity of image mak-
ing practices as they have been appropriated, performed, and
braided into the fabric of family memory. H o m e movie mak-
ing's legacy is in part wedded to its subordination to the profes-
sional realm ; however, there is a pre-history here which hinges
on the representation of personal historical consciousness, and
the location of the personal in popular history. I do not wish to
argue that the home and the social institution of the family are
impermeable where professional and prescriptive discourses are
concerned ; image making, after all, is a cultural as well as a per-
sonal phenomenon. Rather, my aim is to search the shadows for
home movie making's relationship to the development and on-
going refinement of a visual culture in the home and family. In
this respect, h o m e movie making's historical location in the

Are We in the Movies Now ?

137
 family is more prismatic than its comparison to professional
film discourse is equipped to reveal. Thus, I would like to elasti-
cize the boundaries of Patricia Zimmermann's evaluation of
home movie making practices as predominantly practices which
were discursively produced vis-à-vis professional codes and pre-
scriptions. In so doing, I would like to reconsider home movie
making's genealogy as the feigned and ineffectual copy of pro-
fessional film, and situate it more emphatically as a representa-
tional practice nurtured and sustained by an already ensconced
visual culture in the home and family.
Methodologically, this paper explores the comparative and
analytical structure of home movie making's discursive origins as
those which are historically tied to the social and industrial phe-
n o m e n o n of necessitating image making as a family practice,
and not exclusively as a film history one. Historically, and even
technologically and ideologically speaking, this might at first
glance appear to be a bit messy in that the analysis comparative-
ly mixes media. I maintain, however, that this is a strategic
move. I would like to clarify that what propels my inquiry is
first and foremost a belief that when it comes to family photos,
family films, or even family videos for that matter, what differ-
entiates these artifacts may be their individual media forms, but
more importantly what pulls them together in an analysis is the
way in which each underscores the representation of family his-
tory, and the reproduction of family memory, aesthetically and
nostalgically. This analysis draws, as has Z i m m e r m a n n , from
popular instructional, promotional, and corporate materials,
and uses these materials to blaze a somewhat different historical
trail. In particular, I wish to draw attention to the assumptions
and interventions made on the part of industrialists like George
Eastman, memorialized as both pioneer and father of popular
image making, about how the production and consumption of
images would fit into day to day life. 3 I seek specifically to iso-
late a historical m o m e n t in which mechanical image making be-
came accessible and practical, wherein there was the potential
for the widest, popular use of image making technologies, espe-
cially with respect to documenting family and home life. T h e
fact that image making practices are appropriated in the family

138 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3

precisely to indulge the telling of privileged moments of our
personal histories suggests there is more at stake here than sim-
ply the poorly choreographed aping of professional practice. Are
we in the movies, or are we ensconced in (and obsessed by) the
visual representation of our lives and ancestry ? H o w then has
the moving image been inserted into the recitation of family
history, and the fabrication of glorious pasts ?

Reel Families
Reel Families : A Social History of Amateur Film takes as its ob-
ject a domain of inquiry identified by visual anthropologists as
the " home mode. " A In this work Patricia Zimmermann interro-
gates the assemblage of power relations which has produced the
category of amateur film, its production and consumption. She
maps amateur film practices onto a discursive grid composed of
industrial, professional, and familial power relations in order to
shatter an analysis of these practices as innocent and Utopian ex-
amples of individual creativity, and personal media empower-
ment. Reel Families, then, culls home movie making and ama-
teur film from expert discourses traced to popular magazines,
instruction, publicity, and the film industry itself. With atten-
tion to distinct historical periods, Z i m m e r m a n n takes profes-
sional film discourses underwritten by economic and aesthetic
rationales, and uses them to understand how amateurs are eval-
uated based on the production and technological choices they
make. Reel Families begins at the level of the professional and
the official in order to invent its object of inquiry, amateur film,
wherein a pronounced divide between the professional and the
amateur punctuates and steers the analysis.
T h e comparative time line used to compel this argument is
not an arbitrary one, and zeroes in on a developmental period of
amateur film making exclusively. She distinguishes three distinct
periods of amateur film development. These are: 1897-1923
during which a definition of amateur film was offset by 1) the
establishment of 3 5 m m as the professional standard, and 2) the
N o r t h American standardization and introduction of 1 6 m m
e q u i p m e n t as strictly an amateur format in 1 9 2 3 ; next, the
i n t e r w a r p e r i o d in w h i c h 1 6 m m a n d 8 m m t o g e t h e r were

Are We in the Movies Now?

139
 emphasized for amateur use including family appropriation 3 ;
and, finally, the postwar period in which 16mm graduated from
family p r o d u c t i o n and became associated almost exclusively
with semi-professional practices (hobbyists, film artists), and
documentary, educational, and training film production. 6
8 m m became synonymous with activities of families and less
so with diversely creative and artistic pursuits. 7 Its popularity in
family scenarios is explainable in terms of a giddy return to re-
production in the postwar period and 1950s; renewed excite-
ment around image making, cultivated in large part by the pro-
d u c e r s of i m a g e m a k i n g p a r a p h e r n a l i a w h o w e r e b u s y
reconverting their wartime production machine to fit with a
peacetime economy ; and, finally, the availability and variety of
inexpensive gadgetry, and, eventually, the disposable incomes
necessary to bring them home. Notions of social and familial ac-
cessibility, however, were already at the forefront in 1932. Faith-
ful to the same tried and true policy upon which it staked its
claim to popular photography in the late-nineteenth century,
Eastman Kodak pitched 8 m m movie cameras as technologies
that would place " home movies within the means of all ; " less-
expensive than the Ciné-Kodak, the Ciné-Kodak 8's purchase
was in its ability to double the image making capacity of a
16mm reel of film, an innovation Eastman Kodak was careful
not to associate with depression-era thinking. 8
Such a pitch on the part of Eastman Kodak played into pop-
ular and rampant discourses about the democratic possibilities
for the media, and especially for film. It also went one step fur-
ther to emphasize how keeping memories on film could also be
democratized and put into the hands of the people : the ongoing
technological stimulation of personal historical consciousness,
and its dissemination in terms of the moving image. W i t h its
emphasis on family image conservation in the forms of first
photograph and photographic negative albums, and later film
duplicates and film humidors, Eastman Kodak pushed the need
for the image as the vessel of family memory. Hardly a challenge
to the snapshot, the new technological practice of keeping mov-
ing image records intensified image making in the family as a
personal historical imperative. T h e social and memorial func-

140 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3

tion of personal movie making in the family, therefore, eased
comfortably into the grooves of popular photographic amuse-
ment to further enhance the representation of family / personal
time.
This is where I would like to take a path different from, yet
influenced by the one proposed by Zimmermann, to see what
" other " trajectories home movie making might pronounce. T h e
negotiation of home movie practices in the shadows of profes-
sional cinematic discourse indeed eludes the fact that home mo-
vie making and consumptive practices could be sustained in the
family precisely because the mechanisms for a familial visual
culture were already in place. Jean-Louis Comolli, for one, has
emphasized the cinema's function as a social machine, and is
worth noting here. 9 He has argued that the conditions for a de-
velopment of the cinema were anticipated by social arrange-
ments of the nineteenth century — in particular the social for-
m a t i o n and circulation of large groups of people in public
spaces for the purposes of engaging in spectatorial pleasure. Cul-
tural conceptions of time, leisure and new modes of recreation,
as well as social accessibility helped to create an amicable current
for the flow of photographic image making practices into social,
and certainly family life.
Culturally speaking, the popularization of photographic im-
age making practices represented a node in the modern bifurca-
tion of temporal experience. Stephen Kern has argued that two
contrasting cultural views about time (public and private) were
u n d e r consideration d u r i n g the period 1 8 8 0 - 1 9 1 8 . (Kern,
p. 33) An artistic and intellectual Zeitgeist " [...] affirmed the
reality of private t i m e " and juxtaposed itself against the " [...]
massive, collective force of uniform public time. " (Kern, p. 64)
Durkheim, for example, insisted upon the social relativity of
time ; Freud used therapy and the case studies to enable and
interpret the individuals search for a personal past ; and Joyce
endeavored to represent the fusion of time and space, a social
and cultural by-product of telegraphy, by merging past, present,
and future time together on the page. 10 It is not by accident,
then, that the representation of personal experience in terms of
image production coincided with such temporal distinction.

Are We in the Movies Now ? 141

 T h e social accessibility and dissemination of photographic im-
age making practices, a phenomenon prodded by innovations in
roll film and newly affordable and portable apparatuses, extend-
ed to a burgeoning middle class the possibility for representing
personal time and social time which could bypass formal photo-
graphic studio practices, and hitherto laborious image produc-
tion and processing procedures. By the late-nineteenth century
advertizing had begun to chart a national and transnational
course in popular print media. Advertisements for photographic
materials simultaneously individualized and consolidated the fa-
milial and bourgeois prominence of image making, especially
with respect to babies and children. In the figure of the child, as
both photographic subject and camera operator, lay the promise
of the future as well as the privilege of personalizing history in
photographic images amidst the homogeneous march of time.
New modes of recreation offered fertile terrain upon which to
sow the pleasures of image production and consumption. We
might, for example, see popular image making's relationship to
the bicycle, another form of" new recreation " at the close of the
nineteenth century, as offering up some clues as to how the pop-
ular phenomenon of image making literally began to circulate
among other social phenomena : transportation and visual com-
munication. T h e photographic m o u n t which could be integrat-
ed into bicycle frames illustrates nicely the fusion between lei-
surely (and upward) mobility and image making. C o m b i n e d
cycling and photographic interest and a popular literature to go
along with it, for example, popped up in the United States and
England at century's close. In London, the journal Cycle and
Camera, addressed these two popular recreations together by
providing touring and photographing advice, news from ama-
teur cyclist / photographers around the world, as well as infor-
mation about products that would be of interest to a growing
middle-class for w h o m leisure and these two new popular recre-
ations were accessible. 11 Cycling and photography for turn of
the century middle to upper-class women were indeed fashion-
able in which it was not uncommon for aristocratic ladies " [ . . . ]
to seat themselves on a bicycle or stand by it when they are hav-
ing their pictures taken. " 12 Photographing one's family, home,

142 Cinemas, vol. 8, n" 3

and social escapades were all considered affable for virtuous la-
dies of leisure. ]] Popular photography as a recreational activity,
however, was not without social resistance. Opposed to its un-
bridled popularization were those who had claimed image mak-
ing as a " dignified " art and skillful practice, and who feared
that the practice could only be debased by the new photograph-
ic technologies which removed social barriers to photography by
accommodating anyone who wanted to make images. 14

You Take the Picture...

Eastman Kodak 15 was one of the first to begin looking to per-
sonal and domestic relations as sites wherein cameras would
have useful applications. W h a t Kodak needed to make such a
pursuit possible was a camera that would be easy to use and
portable, and one that could bypass the use of the debilitating
and chemically messy plate process. T h e No. 1 Kodak (1888),
the first hand-held, portable, roll film camera conceived of for
amateur and family use, did the trick. " You push the button, we
do the rest " was the slogan which instituted the practice of no-
fuss, popular photography. This mantra suggested more than a
departure from the drudgery of cumbersome technology and
plate processes ; it juxtaposed the possibility for the personal and
"photo-realist" documentation of public events, with the per-
sonal and " photo-realist " documentation of private ones, there-
by incorporating expressions of personal time into popular time.
Eastman was wise to begin hocking his wares nationally (and
very soon after transnationally) just six months after introducing
the No. 1 Kodak. In the company's first national advertizing cam-
paign, Eastman specifically requested that the Kodak be shown in
use " for every possible purpose. " In a letter to one of his graphic
designers, Eastman, overseer of Eastman Kodaks advertizing af-
fairs for most of his time as president and C E O , ordered a series
of pen sketches depicting individuals and families out and about
with Kodaks in a variety of activities which included sports (use
on a bicycle), travel, family leisure, parties, and so on. 16 Mobility,
activity, and family accessibility were significant denominators for
Eastman's campaign, as were women. Soon after in correspon-
dence with a different designer Eastman wrote, " [ . . . ] we want a

Are We in the Movies Now?

143
 Publicité caméra Kodak 8 mm
Collection Cinémathèque québécoise

drawing of the figure of a lady stylishly and suitably dressed with

a Kodak case slung over her shoulder and a Kodak in her hand in
position to make an exposure. " 17 This corporate ideology suggest-

144 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3

ed a looking-inward to personal life as both a refuge from, and a
means by which to insert oneself into standardized and public
temporality. The potential use of these cameras also suggested a
means by which to personalize experience, and to further differ-
entiate it according to gender, and, of course, generation.
It was Eastman's intention from the beginning to make the
Kodak a household word, and more importantly to make the
camera a ubiquitous technology, both succeeding in revolution-
izing the practice of popular photography, and, in fact, fashion-
ing it. KS It would be short-sighted to wholly attribute the success
of popular photography to one individual and the psychology
behind advertizing campaigns. However, what we must recog-
nize in Eastmans contributions are more subtly the know-how
to bring together in popular imaginations already-existing pop-
ular recreations and practices, family and home, sentimentality
and history, the social accessibility of memory, and socially ac-
cessible technologies. He might not have " caused " the craze,
but he certainly intended to.
To promote the Brownie in 1900, the every persons and eve-
ry child's box, dollar camera, Eastman pilfered the product's
name 19 and caricatures for its package design from contempo-
rary and well-known, children's book author Palmer Cox's pop-
ular storybook characters, " T h e Brownies. " 20 Eastman explicit-
ly appropriated the iconography from one popular cultural
artifact to champion the popularization of another. And so it
was written : " plant the Brownie acorn and the Kodak oak will
grow." 2 1 In other words, start them young and you will have
customers for life. To further illustrate Eastman Kodak's interest
in the picture-making youth (and an interest in capital procure-
ment), in honour of the company's 50th anniversary in 1930 it
gave away 500 000 Brownie cameras in the U.S. and 50 000
Brownies in Canada to children aged 12. To push the promo-
tion, Eastman Kodak called on c o n t e m p o r a r y " experts " in
child education, representatives from the Girl and Boy Scouts,
and the former First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Calvin
Coolidge to extol the virtues of image making for children. 2 2
Image making, a gender inclusive pursuit, had also been dissem-
inated and declared as a generationally inclusive one.

Are We in the Movies Now?

145
 Cameras and promotional jargon went hand in hand with in-
structional and other popular discourses. A glut of popular pho-
tographic literature very quickly became available, the individu-
al titles of which pointed to the diverse textual communities of
amateur photographers who rallied around them. Of these, Ko-
dakery, Eastman Kodak's publication for amateur photogra-
phers, and Better Photos, put out by Sears, Roebuck in which
they promoted their own line of cameras, circulated widely and
were written to appeal to the largest common denominator of
users. Both debuted in 1913. W h a t this literature did was to re-
iterate over and over again the possible uses for cameras in the
family and home, and while out and about. Calendars and pho-
to greeting cards were regular features. T h e art and craft of cal-
endar making enlivened the incorporation of personal images
and representations of private time into the yearly march of
time. T h e motif of the personalized photo calendar emphasized
different notions of time by fusing the personal past (images)
with narratives of the present and future, all against the back-
drop of public and ritualized time. Vacation picture books, al-
b u m s , and picture diaries could and should be shared with
friends and relatives : the repetition of shared experiences ; the
solidification of family history. Impromptu home pictures of the
children would yield variety in such chronicles, variety and di-
versity being virtues all album keepers should strive for.
T h e home was singled out early on as a site for the consump-
tion of images, especially since the technological limitations of
early cameras could not always facilitate the production of im-
ages in the inadequately lit spaces of the household without ei-
ther being by a window in the light of day, or with the aid of
light-giving gadgets. This literature highlighted the decorative
spaces of the household as sites of display and consumption.
Later, this household consumption would eventually be realized
in notions of privatized spectatorship and the decorative con-
soles which a u g m e n t e d the h o m e movie set-up. In the mid
teens, the Kodiopticon, a projection device which could be used
to show lantern slides produced from Kodak negatives, offered
users the option of living " Kodak days in the open with Kodi-
opticon evenings in the home. " 2 3 This was early evidence of

146 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3

projection in domestic enclaves, and the ongoing promise of the
image's ability to allow for the reliving of cherished moments.
" Expressions " of the home in its architectural and decorative
splendor, especially as improved film stocks, flash papers, and
later flashlights became available, not only singled out the home
as an image source, but also demonstrated the diversification of
image making and its consumption in the domestic space, and
the strengthening of a visual culture therein.
As popular use of the camera intensified so did the discourses
espousing its historical function and indispensability as marker
of time, and " impartial historian. " " Kodak pictures will settle
controversies as to how we did look, " boasted one contributor
to Kodakery, a d d i n g that with the C i n é - K o d a k the records
would become even more realistic. (Ellery, 1925, p. 18) Dis-
courses of verisimilitude, the historical value of the image, and
the Utopian function of image making in the family as an all-
inclusive activity and "moveable feast" were transferred to the
production of moving images in the family. A longing for the
future matched with the visual ownership of time past, and the
willful claim to its narratives were reinforced as the family image
archive grew. O f course the producers of photographic para-
phernalia shared big stakes in this memory game, George East-
man for one having financed the construction of a mansion and
a healthy philanthropic portfolio on other people's memories.
W h a t had entered the social and cultural landscape as popular
leisure in 1888 had become, for those with the resources to do
so, a familial historical imperative in which the perpetuity of the
image reproduced desires to juxtapose " then " and " now. "

Making " Movies "

W h e n 16mm cameras were introduced in 1923, the necessity
for exciting any new image making interests in the family was
by no means contingent upon technology, and perhaps even less
so was it the umbilical cord cut from professional film practice.
T h a t is, the precedents for a " historical consciousness " vis-à-vis
image making and family documentation had already been an-
ticipated. H o m e movie m a k i n g practices glided alongside.
H o m e movie making advice and literature continued to bracket

Are We in the Movies Now ?

147
 family events, children, holidays and travel as ripe for film pro-
duction and image consumption throughout the fifties and be-
yond. Movie making literature also attempted to incite in ama-
teur film makers the desire to film subject matter outside the
scope of so-called social realist depictions of family life ; creatively
invested amateur / family movie makers not unlike photogra-
phers could also develop into long-term producers and consu-
mers of images, and, more importantly, consumers of accessories.
Personal film libraries and film humidors functioned much like
the family album : image depositories for family memorabilia, as
well as collections of professionally-made films p u r c h a s e d
t h r o u g h film clubs and libraries. A conservation imperative
reared its head in the discourse around family film / memory
conservation in much the same way as photography. " For the
beauty and refinement of the living room, " pseudo, leather-
bound book units aptly disguised film files, and at the same time
hinted at the potential textuality of moving images, not unlike
the photo albums textual consolidation of photographic images
into leather-bound books of days, months, and years.
W h a t Z i m m e r m a n n distinguishes as a divisive move on the
part of cinema professionals and experts to corral amateur prac-
tice, had, with respect to home movie making, already settled
into routinized family practices of social realist documentation
across generations and gender. T h e well-advertized imperatives
to conserve and store film reels as if they were books imagined
the incorporation of films into the family library and family his-
tory, as was the case with photo albums. These family film con-
servation practices proffered distinct temporal and spatial ef-
fects. While not apt to change existing attitudes toward family
image production, consumption, and conservation, home movie
discourses were certainly poised to nuance them.
Spatially, home movie making discourses continued to set up
the home as a viable production venue and as a venue for the
consumption of images, something that photographic discours-
es had already shaped with the idea of the home as both site and
content of production, its walls and furniture surfaces the sites
of consumption and display. T h e home movie took this one step
further by anticipating the home as a moving image (and even-

148 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3

 Un projecteur Kodak
Collection Cinémathèque québécoise

tually sound and moving image) entertainment centre. 24 As ear-

ly as the 1920s and 1930s, Ciné-Kodak Salesman advised retail-
ers to design in-store projection rooms / mock living rooms for
silent screenings in order to lure prospective customers. Mean-
while, Bell & Howell compared their line of " [...] motion pic-
ture console cabinets, " to " [...] the finer radio and phonograph
consoles " available at the time. 2 5 " W h y should we make it more
difficult to flick on the projector than the radio or T V set ?, "
asked Popular Photography s Leendert Drucker (p. 119) in 1963
in a response to his own anxiety over the " ever-readiness " of the
hi-fi. By the early- to mid-1960s, home movie making did not
reap the same popularity as it had in the decade previous. To
breathe life into this waning family activity in the 1960s, the
Keystone Camera Company attempted to sell consumers on the
instantaneity of h o m e movie viewing by promising that with
their self-threading projector and table-top monitor, movie
viewing would be as " easy as watching TV. " 2 6

Are We in the Movies Now ? 149

 T h e home movie, not unlike the photo album, marshaled a
family historical imperative wherein reels everlasting could rep-
resent for friends and family the select aspects of family history
in movement, and not surprisingly the more edited versions of
family history: weddings, parties, high holidays, birthdays, va-
cations, and children. Countless advertisements for home movie
making equipment from the 1920s and well into the 1950s,
when movie cameras were in their widest popular use in North
American families, vaunted claims regarding the necessity for
marking time, for capturing family members in moving action
before such precious m o m e n t s and family m e m b e r s passed
away, for indeed any moment could and would be history, mov-
ing picture history. T h e photographic image, still and moving, if
not a means by which to beat the clock, might certainly have
been able to compensate for its cruel lashes. Such a desire for
history, personal history, and a deed to individualizing the past
created an excitement around the home movie more so than any
dreamworld of ersatz Hollywood production ever could.
Different from the photograph, however, the moving image
presented the opportunity for the narration of family moments.
Likewise, it roused the potential to dramatize even the most
m u n d a n e of family activities, keeping in mind that there were
distinctions made between " social realist " types of production
(fdming yard work, the children at play, opening Christmas
gifts), and differently creative narration (fictional characters,
costumes, scripts). Movie making columns and magazines from
the 1920s well into the 1960s were big on offering narrative
strategies for their readers, and would publish narrative contri-
butions from readers as a means by which to set up a communi-
cative space between active and potential family movie makers,
and those of varying degrees of skill and interest. Different from
photography in the home in which " realist " depiction ruled the
literature, movie making advice attempted to inculcate amateur
movie makers into regular practices of scripted histrionics, and
also to sway them away from undisciplined camera use. (see
Z i m m e r m a n n ) Journals such as Movie Makers, Home Movies,
Popular Photography (Chicago), Filmo Topics (Bell & Howell),
Ciné-Kodak News (Eastman K o d a k ) , and Parents Magazine

150 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3

intervened as creative brokers in moving image p r o d u c t i o n .
W i t h the exception of Parents, which advised parents about the
trials and tribulations of raising children, these journals catered
to a diverse range of movie making interests : from amateurs
interested in exploring film making beyond the subject matter
of the family, to those for w h o m making movies meant concen-
trating on the family, both in terms of creative production and
keeping family records. For this latter category of producers the
single most important reason for having a camera would have
been to chronicle the children, and not to aspire to great film
making, despite the instructional discourses which punctuated
narrative and narration as goals of amateur and family movie
making.
Taking family pictures and making family movies could only
cavalierly be construed as authentic responses to the industry's
suggestive campaigns. Perhaps more accurately, family produc-
tion was realized in the cross-fertilization of industry prodding
in the form of publicity, instruction and magazine discourses,
and the a m a t e u r practices themselves which over time and
across family generations established their own codes for pro-
duction. Lesley Johnson, on early Australian radio and the mag-
azine literature which circulated about it, has argued that the
role of magazine literature and letters-to-the-editor was not to
provide an authentic indication of listener response, b u t to
" close the circle : "
[Letters to the editor] supplemented the publicity lan-
guage working to produce a powerful sense of - an u as
if" - listeners, broadcasters and families of radio serials
who [sic] all shared the same orientation - of the " hu-
man, " the everyday-ordinary and the centrality of fam-
ily (p. 100)

Likewise, the literature and advice which grew up around

family photography and movie making practices also " closed
the circle. " In this " closing, " home movie discourses extended
family photographic subject matter into the production of mov-
ing images in the family. Yesterday's snapshooters would become
tomorrow's home movie makers. For as much as home movie
instruction and promotion drew upon the popular imagery of

Are We in the Movies Now ?

151
 Hollywood and later television, its motors with respect to family
production were memory and nostalgia, and a belief in the per-
sonal and historical necessities for capturing day to day life. This
was never more pronounced than during the postwar period
when " making up for lost time, " in terms of both the con-
sumption of image making materials and the reunification of
families, was configured in photography / film journals and
publicity as a collective necessity. It is not completely unfound-
ed, then, that the imagined and practical uses of photographic
cameras would reproduce themselves in literature and practice
with respect to moving image cameras. Family movie making
culminated in what had already existed as a popular social and
cultural practice of recording family history, and of interpreting
family history in images. We could think of this " will to histo-
ry " in terms of the relentless interpellation of the family as pro-
ducer and consumer by the photographic and film materials in-
dustry; however, this would award far too much credit to the
suppliers and manufacturers of this equipment. T h e image mak-
ing industry did not invent a personal historical imperative ;
however, it did insinuate itself on the bourgeois nuclear family's
desire for one.
In the 1950s, Roy Pinney {Parents Magazine) wrote endlessly
about narrative opportunities which could be met around every
corner by homemaker / moms with time on their hands, whose
mothers and grandmothers were quite possibly the virtuous la-
dies of leisure and home photography of the turn of the century.
Pinney's image making opportunities often involved labour-
intensive planning and shooting to turn a day in the life of baby
into a series of engaging events, (p. 146) T h e kids at play track-
ing m u d through the kitchen, father's arrival after work, and the
children madly rushing to meet him at the door (filmed first
with noses pressed against the picture window) are proof that
even the most mundane of domestic activities could be potential
narrative compositions, and that the domestic labourer should
incorporate into her duties the documentation of child's play.
Popular Photography contributor, Helen Ainsworth, advised that
homemakers could keep themselves busy at home by filming the
children at play, or their husbands on the golf course. 27 " Take a

159
I y L Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3
Kodak with you, " one of the company slogans at the turn of the
century, could very well have been changed to " keep a Kodak
w i t h y o u , " for the 1950s h o m e m a k e r / m o t h e r , and i n d e e d
echoed the " keep it ready, keep it loaded " advice of Kodakery
staff writer, Madge Ellery. (1929, p. 13) Hardly exclusive to
home movie making practices, these narrative suggestions tran-
scended the moving image and extended back in time to give a
nod to earlier family photographic imperatives, as well as to
confirm women's eternal appointment as domestic labourers /
keepers of family history.
Christmas records, the kids playing at home, birthdays, and
vacations — still and moving image — all emphasized the repe-
tition of personal time in the recurring march of public time.
While the movie camera appeared to set in motion what the
p h o t o g r a p h i c camera could only capture in a fraction of a
movement, its intervention in the family did little to radically
change the representation of family history. T h e moving image
camera, however, did affect the consumption of family history, a
matter intensified by home videos and their publicity on syndi-
cated programs like the c o n t e m p o r a r y "America's Funniest
H o m e Videos. "
T h e family in this slice of image making history has been con-
ceived of as a precious constant, which points more to how tech-
nologies have been disseminated to families and the domestic
scene than to the nature of families themselves. Likewise, dis-
courses around image making in the family, ironically, shaped it
into a timeless practice, but one with overtly temporal concerns.
While wrongheaded to argue that film is the linear extension of
photography, the quality of this statement changes with respect
to the appropriation of these practices, their production and con-
sumption in the family in history. It is such consistency which is
most interesting and not wholly nor independently explainable
in terms of either symbolic behaviour, or industry influence.
From this perspective, home movie making is less the failed emu-
lation of film making professionalism, and more the culmination
of a desire for memory and a longing for family history in images
meshed together with the personalization of temporal experi-
ence, and the increasing privatization of spectatorship.

Are We in the Movies Now ?

153
 However creatively and aesthetically crafted, h o m e movies
are, more poignantly, relics of family history. Ideas about profes-
sionalism in film making quite possibly influenced the produc-
tion of moving images in some families, but by no means was
this the norm. T h e more challenging matter, as I have attempt-
ed to chip away at here, has not been to ascertain how profes-
sional film practices and discourse attempted to inform home
movie production (which may after all have just been a promo-
tional ploy), but to understand how a distinct visual culture es-
tablished itself in the home and family, and how the family real-
ized and edited its own history in terms of the image. T h e codes
for family movie production, and this is the crux of the matter,
preceded the popularization of film in the family. They were an-
ticipated, as I have argued, by the popularization of p h o t o -
graphic practices in the family vis-à-vis their entrenchment as
technologies which could be used to d o c u m e n t and, in fact,
could be used to reconfigure the representation of family histo-
ry. Discourses of professional film production did attempt to
colonize the production of home movies, but nowhere is the sig-
nificance of these reels more pronounced than in the interstices
of memory and history, select family history, something that the
appropriation of photography in the family pushed forth. T h e
home in this narrative, while not uniquely the site of produc-
tion, most certainly became the site of image consumption, an
archival nerve centre for family past-looking.
As a postscript, I recently sat down with my family, four gen-
erations in all, to participate in past-looking. We viewed our
family films (1957-1968) which were recently transferred to
video. Some family members had long since passed away; some
events had been completely forgotten, while others bore no rec-
ollection at all, their production significance having escaped
their longevity as moments on a reel of film. This all seemed to
defy the importance of the image and drew attention to the lim-
itations of memory, no thanks to the image, a matter which
made my m i n d wander to 1920s' h o m e movie publicity dis-
course about the memorial potency of images. Watching these
privileged " m o m e n t s " of family history drove home just how
much their production was not about film making, nor was our

154 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3

consumption of them predicated on simulating any cinematic
experience. Even the most stirring pans of desolate 1950s North
American city and landscapes could not quell the expression of a
parental longing for more images of the children : the persistent
infantilization of family history and the promise of the future
trapped in the past. Just what that experience of viewing was I
can not quite put into words, but it did make us all want to
make and consume more images. We never were " in the m o -
vies, " but as this family viewing well showed, the movies, home
movies that is, are in us.

McGiIl University

NOTES
1 This paper is drawn from my doctoral dissertation, "Taking Pictures, Making
Movies, and Telling Time : Charting the Development of a Producing and Consum-
ing Visual Culture in the Family, " Graduate Program in Communications, McGiIl
University, forthcoming.
2 This latter point is discussed in Stephen Kern, The Culture of Time and Space :
1880-1918 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983).
3 The case study in this paper focuses exclusively on Eastman Kodak precisely be-
cause the company is the first to simplify image making processes for the widest pop-
ular use. Second, Eastman Kodak is the first to introduce a line of standardized ama-
teur film making equipment (16mm) in North America, followed very soon after by
Bell & Howell. Both companies were members of the Motion Picture Patents Com-
pany and worked together to develop amateur film.
4 See for example Richard Chalfen Snapshot Versions of Life (Bowling Green,
Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1987); Christopher Musello,
" Studying the Home Mode : An Exploration of Family Photography and Visual
Communications," Studies in Visual Communication, vol. 6, n° 1 (1980), p. 23-42.
5 In 1924, the Ciné-Kodak outfit (camera, tripod, projector, splicer, and screen)
was sold for $ 335 in the United States, a considerable amount of money. See Brian
Coe, The History of Movie Photography. Westfield (New Jersey : Eastview Editions,
1981, p. 167). In 1953, the Kodak Brownie (Kodaks bottom of the line model) re-
tailed for approximately $ 43 in the United States (Eastman Kodak advertizing copy,
Popular Photography, volume 32, n° 3). In 1951, the average yearly income for a Cana-
dian household was $ 2 367 (Census of Canada, 1951, Table 1, p. 1). Keeping in mind
that product lines and prices varied based on gadgetry, the Brownie represented ap-
proximately one-quarter of a Canadian monthly income, more or less depending on
Canadian retail prices. Needless to say, the costs of this equipment were prohibitive.
6 With the exception of the period between bracketed by 1923 and 1932, 16mm
had always appeared as a format associated with the committed hobbyist, and with
respect to this period families who had a considerable amount of money to spend on
such gadgets. 16mm film had wide applications to educational and training film pro-
duction prior to the postwar period, and very early on was diversified beyond travel

Are We in the Movies Now ?

155
 and family films. A Utopian and educational discourse pervades the most popular and
worldly available of amateur movie making journals, Movie Makers (the journal of the
Amateur Cinema League) from its introduction in 1926. The proliferation of film li-
braries in the twenties with circulation in Canada as well as the United States (Koda-
scope Libraries (Eastman Kodak), Filmo Library (Bell & Howell) Empire Films,
Home Film Libraries, Neighbourhood Film Libraries), whose catalogues included an
abundance of educational titles, indicates how 16mm was poised for educational and
training film (public service) purposes. Louis M. Bailey, regular columnist for Movie
Makers, wrote frequently about the use of film for educational purposes ; for example,
" The Movies Win for Welding, " Movie Makers, vol. 4, n" 3 (1929) ; " News of Visual
Education in Schools and Homes," Movie Makers, vol. 4, n" 5 (1929); "Forward
with Medical Films, " Movie Makers, vol. 4, n" 10 (1929), to name a few.
7 There are, however, exceptions. Please see Jonas Mekas, Movie Journal: The Rise
of the New American Cinema, 1959-71 (New York: Collier Books, 1972). In this col-
lection of Mekas's articles, he discusses the Kuchar brothers' interests in 8mm film
(" Kuchar 8mm Manifesto") and Stan Brakhage's acclaimed and experimental use of
8mm to produce his family's home movies (" Brakhage Buys 8mm Camera ").
8 The advertising copy for the new Ciné-Kodak 8 begins : " This has nothing to
do with hard times... nothing to do with depression prices or depression thinking. "
See "Ciné-Kodak Salesman Advertizing Insert," The Ciné-Kodak Salesman, vol. 2,
n" 8 (1932), p. 3.
9 See Jean-Louis Comolli, " Machines of the Visible, " in Teresa de Lauretis and
Stephen Heath (eds), The Cinematic Apparatus (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980).
10 See Stephen Kern, The Culture of Time and Space : 1880-1918 (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), especially the chapter one entitled "The Na-
ture of Time. "
11 See Cycle and Camera (London : Robert L. Jefferson and Walter D. Welford.
First Edition, May 22, 1897). See also Jay Ruby, " T h e Wheelman and the Snap-
shooter or, the Industrialization of the Picturesque", in Kathleen Collins (éd.), Shad-
ow and Substance : Essays on the History of Photography (Bloomfield Hills, Michigan:
The Amorphous Institute Press, 1990). Even George Eastman was said to have been
an avid cyclist. See Elizabeth Brayer, George Eastman: A Biography (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1996).
12 See Cycle and Camera, vol. 1, n" 13 (August 14, 1897), p. 393.
13 See for example, D. J. Tapley, The New Recreation, Amateur Photography : A Prac-
tical Instructor (New York: Husrt & Co., 1884) ; Diane Galusha and Karen Marshall,
Through a Woman's Eye: Pioneering Photographers in Rural Upstate (Hensonville, NY:
Black Dome Press Corp, 1994) ; Jane C. Cover, The Positive Image: Women Photogra-
phers in Turn of the Century America (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1988); Madelyn Moeller, "Ladies of Leisure: Domestic Photography in the Nine-
teenth Century," in Kathryn Grover (éd.), Hard at Play: Leisure in America 1840-
1940 (Amherst, MA and Rochester, NY : The University of Massachusetts Press and
The Strong Museum, 1992, p. 139-160).
14 See " The Present Aspect of Amateur Photography, " The American Amateur Pho-
tographer, vol. 1, n" 1 (1889), p. 5.
15 There are several corporate name changes here. The Eastman Kodak Company
wasn't the official company name until 1892. Prior to this time the company did
business under the names The Eastman Company (1889), The Eastman Dry Plate
and Film Company (1884), and The Eastman Dry Plate Company (1881). For all in-
tents and purposes the paper uses the 1892 name, by which we know the company
today.

156 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3

16 See the letter of George Eastman (GE) to C. W. Sumner, August 15, 1888,
George Eastman Correspondence (GBC), George Eastman House, International Mu-
seum of Photography and Film, Rochester, New York.
17 This design was for Harpers Bazaar. GE to C.K. Darrow & Brothers, October
17, 1888 (GEC). This is also the likely origin of Kodak Girl, the title given to a suc-
cession of models who promoted Kodak products from the 1890s up until the 1960s.
18 To Frank Brownell, the inventor of the Kodak Brownie, colleague and good
friend, Eastman wrote: "You will perhaps recollect that when we were working on
the first models of the Kodak that I told you that I proposed with that instrument to
change the very name of photography. A perusal of the accompanying book (Mrs.
Collis' Alaska) will show you that this prophesy if not already fulfilled is in a fair way
to be. When the writer of such a book entirely unknown to us says she 'Kodaked' a
subject in the preference to 'photographed' it, it shows that the word has got in its
work. " (GE to Brownell, January 15, 1891, GEC).
19 The Brownie was not a derivative of inventor Frank Brownell's name.
20 Palmer Cox, an ex-patriot Canadian living and working in the United States un-
til his retirement and return to his birthplace, Granby, Ontario, published numerous
books chronicling the adventures of his impish characters. Cox's Brownies were al-
ways involved in contemporary activities and had individualized personas, which like-
ly contributed to making him one of the most popular writers for children in the last
two decades of the nineteenth century. Aside from publishing books, Cox's illustrated
narratives appeared as a standard feature in the Ladies' Home Journal, a regular carrier
of Eastman Kodak advertisements. On Palmer Cox, see Dictionary of Literary Biogra-
phy, vol.42, p. 133-138.
21 This pledge in the form of a corporate mantra first appeared in Kodak Trade Circu-
lar (which was amalgamated with Kodak Salesman in 1930), vol. 1, n" 6 (May, 1900).
22 See "They Say: Eminent People Applaud the Anniversary Plan," The Kodak
Salesman, vol. 16, n" 3, p. 11.
23 Eastman Kodak advertizing copy from Kodakery, vol. 1, n" 5 (1914).
24 Interestingly, amateur movie discourse of the 1920s and 1930s considered any
movie shown in the home to be a home movie. In other words, films rented from
film libraries and those made in the family and viewed there, although differentiated
from each other, were all considered home movies by virtue of their viewing location
in the domestic space; it was not until the postwar and 1950s that the term "home
movies " exclusively referred to family documents and memoirs.
25 See "News of the Industry, " Movie Makers, vol. 3, n" 8 (1928), p. 536.
26 See Popular Photography, vol. 54, n" 4 (1964), p. 47.
27 See Helen Ainsworth, " For Women Only, " Popular Photography, vol. 40, n" 3
(1957).

WORKS CITED
Ellery, Madge. "An Impartial Historian — T h e Kodak." Kodakery, vol. 13, n" 11
(1925), p. 18.
Ellery, Madge. "The One I Missed, " Kodakery, vol. 17, n° I (1929), p. 13.
Johnson, Lesley. The Unseen Voice: A Cultural Study of Early Australian Radio. Lon-
don: Routledge, 1988.
Kern, Stephen. The Culture of Time and Space: 1880-1918. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press, 1983.

Are We in the Movies Now ?

157
 Pinney, Roy. "Family Camera Corner." Parents Magazine, vol. 30, n" 10 (1955),
p. 146.
Zimmermann, Patricia. Reel Families : A Social History of Amateur Film.. Bloomington :
University of Indiana Press, 1995.

158 Cinémas, vol. 8, n" 3