1
VACHEL LINDSAY AND THE UNIVERSAL FILM MUSEUM
We must realize that the halls and art objects are but the container, whose content is formed by the visitors. It is the content that distinguishes a museum from a private collection. A museum is like the lung of a great city; each Sunday the crowd flows like blood into the museum and exits purified and fresh.
âGeorges Bataille, âThe Museumâ (1930)
But it will take a heap of reviewing [i.e., revising] to make [The Art of the Moving Picture] the same oracular Moses in the Mountain deliverance of two tablets of stone I want to make it.
âVachel Lindsay to Harriet Moody (1915)
ONE OF THE first ways anyone imagined cultural institutions embracing film was in the form of a collection, often described as a film library or film museum. Indeed, all the collaborations discussed in this book entailed some form of film collection. The first theorists of film collecting responded to the suggestion that film was a new universal medium: a purveyor of universal truths and an envoy for universally intelligible images, or, more commonly, a new universal language. Advisers to presidents and monarchs viewed the universal dimension of film as a threat to state or institutionally authorized history. They quickly saw the need to contain the production and circulation of film documents, and calls for public film collectionsâeither state-owned or open to the publicâemerged out of a desire to control filmâs power to present realistic and indisputable evidence of important events. The scattered discussions of public film collections before World War I were, almost without exception, tied to attempts to control visual documentation of national narratives.
Within this one-note doctrine of containment, the poet Vachel Lindsay stands out as the prescient de Tocqueville of film collecting. The consolidation of the American film industry in Hollywood in the mid-1910s stirred Lindsay to imagine the cinema as a singular national institution on an unprecedented scale. When speculating about an ideal film collection, Lindsay focused less on films themselves and more on the technologies of cataloging and display. Like other theorists, he began with the premise that film was a new universal language, but, more importantly, he thought film theaters could be made into all-inclusive venues for yielding universal consensus. Lindsay looked to nineteenth-century public libraries and museums to find models for a new film institution that would forge, for the first time, a truly democratic American national identity.
Lindsayâs vision was first published in The Art of the Moving Picture in 1915 and revised in 1922. As we will see in later chapters, Lindsayâs vision ignited early university and museum projects, which sought to take film out of the commercial sphere, and his book was read in Europe, by Iris Barry and others, as a harbinger of the Americanization of the world. This chapter recovers the context of Lindsayâs musings and clarifies what often reads like a conglomeration of personal interests marshaled in an attempt to claim film as art. His case for the art of film, however, served another goal: to claim cinema as a civic institution that might implement American democracy on a universal scale.
NATIONALISM AND FILM COLLECTING FROM EDISON TO LINDSAY
As early as 1895 Thomas Edisonâs assistant, W. K. L. Dickson, envisioned a national film collection in a book cowritten with his sister Antonia. The authors concluded their self-serving commemoration of Edisonâs innovations by speculating about the educational uses of cinema. They foresaw a film collection that preserved history free of the historianâs cant and with greater precision than written texts: âInstead of dry and misleading accounts, tinged with the exaggerations of the chroniclersâ minds our activities will be enriched by the vitalized pictures of great national scenes, instinct with all the glowing personalities that characterized them.â1 All at once, this sentence presents film as inherently truthful; it demonstrates filmâs usefulness as a national tool; and it represses the commercial system of film production that was increasingly controlled by Edison. The Dicksonsâ image of an unbiased historical collection restricted to bringing into one place âgreat national scenesâ is perhaps evidence of little more than a corporate attempt to place a patriotic face on its monopolization of the emerging film industry. It is apt, in this context, that W. K. L. Dicksonâs other important contribution to the history of film collecting was also both incidental and commercially motivated; Dickson inaugurated the largest extant collection of pre-Hollywood film when in 1893 he started to deposit âpaper printsâ of Edison films at the Library of Congress for copyright purposes.2 The Dicksonsâ inclination to imagine a historical film collection of national importance, however, is emblematic of early visions of film collecting. As we will see, that vision gained momentum because it appealed, for different reasons, to civic reformers, government officials, and filmmakers who, like the Dicksons, were attempting to replace the impression that films and the film industry were harmful to society with an image of cinema as a civic institution. To be sure, some proponents of film collecting sincerely hoped to transform the cinema itself and not just its public image.
Just a few years after the publication of the Dicksonsâ book, a Polish cinematographer in Paris, Boleslas Matuszewski, submitted an editorial to Le Figaro (March 25, 1898) in an attempt to create a new career for himself. Matuszewskiâs editorial made the case for a French national film collection, and one canât help notice how his powerful description of a film collection both resembled and amplified the nationalistic image of the Dicksonsâ projected collection. Matuszewski repeated the familiar invocation of film as a historical recorder superior to the âuseless torrents of inkâ as well as celebrating filmâs direct, evidential access to empirical facts:
Animated photography ⊠will give a direct view of the past. ⊠How many lines of vague description in books intended for young people will be rendered unnecessary, the day we unroll in front of a classroom in a precise, moving picture the more or less agitated aspect of a deliberative assembly; the meeting of Heads of State about to ratify an alliance; a departure of troops or squadrons; or even the changing, mobile physiognomy of the city!3
If this seems typical of the celebrations of what Annette Michelson has called filmâs âepistemological implications,â4 its ability to yield knowledge of the world, it is important to remember that public film collections were born out of a desire to control rather than facilitate this power.
Matuszewski, for instance, did not limit himself to a positivist stance toward visual documentation. He qualified his vision of a film collection, suggesting that film prints contained momentary, skewed views of events rather than straightforward, objective historical records. For Matuszewski, a film was a âpiece of historyâ as well as a âhistoric document.â As a result, he insisted on the use of partisan documentary filmmakers, âaiming [their] lens[es] the same way a soldier does his gun.â Moreover, he insisted on a âcompetent committeeâ to determine the veracity of film documents. In the end, Matuszewski, like the Dicksons, called for a film collection limited to national interests. Such a collection, he continued, would âof necessity be restricted in the beginningâ until filmmakers turned, properly, to capturing âslices of public and national life.â5 This was the dilemma shared by many early theorists of the film collection: how to preserve filmâs power to represent history while keeping its interpretation within a nationalâreally a nationalistâframework.
Matuszewski, like many of his successors, argued that the national film collection necessitated two new jobs: a trained cinematographer like himself and a curator. The changing job description of the film curator, we will see, is the battleground on which the design of the national film collection was fought. Matuszewski, for his part, left the description of the curator to the readerâs imagination. He was much more interested in the job of cinematographer, for which he was preemptively applying. To highlight his qualifications for the job, Matuszewski carefully timed his appeal to the Parisian reading public to follow an incident in which one of his own short films helped France avoid international embarrassment. His article reminded readers that in his previous post as official cinematographer for Russiaâs Tsar Nicholas II, Matuszewski made a film of French president François Faureâs visit to St. Petersburg. Simply recording a state visit, the film inadvertently absolved Faure of accusations that he had not tipped his hat at an appropriate official moment.6 In addition to boosting his candidacy, this story further corroborated Matuszewskiâs picture of the film collection as a necessary tool of national security able to contain and control filmâs potent ability to represent historic events.
In contrast to the national collections invoked by the Dicksons or Matuszewski, individual private collectors found a variety of uses for film collections, including experiments in visual historiography, scientific study, and personal enjoyment. A Swiss Jesuit priest, Abbé Joye, acquired a collection of over two thousand films by 1910, which he used, most likely, for teaching in the school he started in Basel. One of the largest early private collections belonged to a wealthy French intellectual, Albert Kahn. Kahn created a utopian documentary archive of everyday life that he hoped would be used to promote international peace and understanding, although it was viewed only by a small circle of friends. Of course, there is no telling how many other archives have been lost to history.7
In discussions of public film collections, however, state leaders and their advisers persistently echoed Matuszewskiâs call for officially sanctioned film collections. Early examples include Franz Goerke lobbying Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1912 (and possibly as early as 1897) to begin a German national film collection; French undersecretary of education and the arts LĂ©on BĂ©rardâs 1913 call for a French national cinemathĂšque; and U.S. president Warren Hardingâs 1923 plan to store film records of nationally significant events in the White House basement.8 Not surprisingly, discussions of national film collections have typically proliferated and intensified during periods of military conflict. The most significant film collection to appear during World War I, the collection of the British Imperial War Museum, was explicitly nationalist in purpose. The museumâs first film archivist, E. Foxon Cooper, had pretensions to universal representation that included gathering and preserving every scrap of footage from newsreels to reenactments (or âfaked scenesâ). But despite Cooper's ambitions, the museumâs staff selectively organized its film collection from the outset, and four years after the end of the war a committee of museum trustees and naval officers convened to reevaluate the collection and discard infelicitous material.9 Shortly after that, the Imperial War Museumâs selective collection was mined for a series of documentaries celebrating Britainâs triumphs during the war, including Ypres (1925), Mons (1926), and The Battles of the Coronel and Falkland Islands (1927).10 By the time of World War II, Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, and the United States were all engaged in a struggle to design or redesign archives in the service of national ideologies (a period discussed in chapter 5).
All these plans and collections, despite the common rhetoric of objective or universal documentation that surrounded them, barely concealed their nationalistic ambitions. As repositories of facts, the calls for state collections generally emphasized preservation of evidence and elided questions of access and use. But not all collections with nationalistic objectives have sought to imbue their objects with the inert quality of historicity. In 1915, for example, we find two instances in which national film collections were imagined in liberal-democratic terms, and appeals to nationalist historiography were replaced byâor at least mixed withâthe desire to provide universal access to collections, making their venues into civic training grounds. One example is D. W. Griffithâs brief but vivid account of a future public library and the other is Vachel Lindsayâs extended and more complex prognostications in The Art of the Moving Picture. In these models, built on the examples of public libraries and museums, the viewing space became more important than the objects themselves. Films were valued for their ability to represent history to a mass public rather than as uncanny historical documents. As a result, containment of evidence became less of a problem than the proper method of display and consumption. The new placement of the collection in the hands of the people rather than the state, however, couldnât entirely conceal the still strong nationalist program of the film collection, now imagined as a library or museum.
Griffith began his sketch for a film library by reiterating the image of a historical collection superior to written histories in both accuracy and completeness:
Imagine a public library of the near future, for instance, there will be long rows of boxes or pillars, properly classified and indexed, of course. At each box a push button and before each box a seat. Suppose you wish to âread upâ on a certain episode in Napoleonâs life. Instead of consulting all the authorities, wading laboriously through a host of books, and ending bewildered, without a clear idea of exactly what did happen and confused at every point by conflicting opinions about what did happen, you will merely seat yourself at a properly adjusted window, in a scientifically prepared room, press the button, and actually see what happened.
There will be no opinions expressed. You will merely be present at the making of history.
But then he took it all back:
All the work writing, revising, collating, and reproducing will have been carefully attended to by a corps of recognized experts, and you will have received a vivid and complete expression.11
Griffith, like the other early advocates of film collecting, concluded that filmâs exceptional ability to represent the past presented a problem of containment. He proposed a solution to the problem that entailed replacing one set of expertsâthe historians, who guarded information and confused the general readerâwith another set of experts who would present history clearly to all.
Many calls for state film collections explained the need for containment as a necessity of national security and assumed that state-authorized experts would supervise collections. But the experts-curators in Griffithâs sketch were not state employees, and their role was not to eliminate unwanted footage. In Griffithâs account, the promise of unlimited access was to be expedited by generic experts who were there merely to sift through the overwhelming number of documents. Griffithâs experts provided the assurance that viewersâ access to the past wouldnât be hampered by the burden of making choices themselves. Griffithâs film library, in short, appears to put the experts directlyâif condescendinglyâat the service of the people rather than the state.
But when put in context, Griffithâs vision appears to be another attempt to transform the film collection into a national technology. As a film producer-director, Griffith made claims for filmâs educational potential that were clearly the result of a combination of commercial and nationalist motivations, as were Matuszewskiâs and the Dicksonsâ in different ways. Written in direct defense of Griffithâs controversial racist epic, The Birth of a Nation (1915), this palpable image of filmâs historiographical usefulness was intended, as Miriam Hansen has shown, to bolster the claims of objectivity made by his revisionist account of the Civil War and Reconstruction.12 Ironically, where Griffithâs claims for a...