Rinella Cere

To collect or not to collect

Introduction

To collect or not to collect. Explore the compelling history and psychology of film collecting, from pioneer archivists to filmmakers. Examine tensions between creators and preservers, featuring Langlois, Truffaut, Lucas, and Bill Douglas.

Abstract

In the history of cinema, the collector is often described as a pioneer, a dubious term, but which nonetheless describes individuals whose passion and tenacity was often realised in the birth of cinema’s museums and archives. This paper intends to look at two aspects of the affective state of collecting cinema; the first connected with tensions which surfaced at times between filmmakers’ view of their craft and the collectors’ view. The second connected with contexts where the filmmaker is also a collector, an increasingly widespread contemporary phenomenon with American filmmakers, from Lucas to Scorsese to Spielberg but also visible in filmmakers who were collectors/archivist of their own work, such as Andrzej Wajda and Stanley Kubrick. A well-known example of the first aspect, and its affective fall out, is the ‘spat’ between Henri Langlois and François Truffaut, part of the history of The Cinémathèque FrançaiseMusée du Cinéma. Langlois’ insatiable acquisitions of ‘all things’ cinema had undoubtedly a compulsive nature, but it also had an underlying anxiety about loss, which reminds us of Benjamin’s ‘fate of the object’. The second aspect examined of collectors’ affective state is a consideration of Bill Douglas, a British filmmaker whose extensive collection of ‘all things’ cinema went on to form the eponymous museum at the University of Exeter in Southern England. Bill Douglas unlike Truffaut did not consider the filmmaking craft exclusive of collecting, he was clearly steeped in both. This paper will consider these opposing views, that of the compulsion to collect and hence the desire to transfer the film-object and its pluralistic interpretation into the ‘magic circle’, and that of viewing the film-object in its singular and specific ‘non-collectable’ moving essence.

Review

This paper proposes a compelling exploration into the "affective state" of collecting cinema, a timely and critical topic in film studies and archival practice. By tracing the historical lineage of collectors as foundational figures in the establishment of cinema museums and archives, the abstract effectively sets the stage for a nuanced examination of this often-overlooked dimension of film culture. The decision to bifurcate the analysis into two distinct yet interconnected aspects – the inherent tensions between filmmakers and collectors, and the increasingly prevalent phenomenon of filmmakers as collectors themselves – promises a rich and multi-faceted inquiry into the motivations, ideologies, and emotional investments that underpin the impulse to collect film. The abstract outlines a robust methodological approach, grounding its theoretical propositions in specific and illustrative case studies. The 'spat' between Henri Langlois and François Truffaut at the Cinémathèque Française serves as a poignant example of the affective fallout arising from differing views on film preservation and collection, framed evocatively through Walter Benjamin's concept of the "fate of the object" and Langlois' "anxiety about loss." Furthermore, the paper's consideration of prominent American filmmakers such as Lucas, Scorsese, and Spielberg, alongside figures like Wajda and Kubrick, who self-archived their work, introduces a contemporary and self-reflexive dimension. The comparison of Bill Douglas, a filmmaker deeply embedded in collecting, with Truffaut, offers a critical lens through which to examine the paper's central dichotomy: the compulsion to collect and transfer the "film-object" into a "magic circle" versus viewing cinema as a singular, "non-collectable" moving essence. This paper holds significant promise for contributing to discussions on film historiography, archival theory, and the philosophy of film. Its strength lies in its proposed engagement with specific historical and contemporary examples to illuminate the complex psychological and ideological underpinnings of cinematic collection. To further enhance its impact, the paper could benefit from a more explicit definition of "affective state" within its theoretical framework and perhaps delve deeper into the specific nature of the "magic circle" concept. Moreover, given the contemporary shift towards digital cinema, a brief consideration of how these affective states and collecting compulsions manifest or transform in the digital realm could enrich the discussion and broaden the paper's relevance beyond the analog film object.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.