Résumés
Abstract
This contribution examines how the discourse of “the primitive,” as an institutional point of reference developed by the philosopher Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (1857-1939), influenced the establishment of the Institute of Filmology at the University of Paris in 1948. Filmology, a term introduced by Gilbert Cohen-Séat, is described as a positive science with its own strategy of systematizing the study of film as object and institution with its own series of emerging methods. The present article describes the formulation of the “filmic fact” as a positive science indebted to Durkheimian methods, but also as a means of engaging with the multiple strands of “primitivism.” On the one hand, this article elaborates upon the significance of Lévy-Bruhl’s discussion of “primitivism” as an effective cosmology for causation and related inferences which asserts a space of difference to be further explored, and on the other, it explains how “primitivism” has been used to designate historical and psychological attributes within the institution of cinema as an emerging structure of producing meaning.
Résumé
Ce texte s’interroge sur la manière dont le discours sur le « primitif », tel que défini dans la pensée du philosophe Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (1857-1939), a influencé la création de l’Institut de filmologie à l’Université de Paris en 1948. Ainsi baptisé par Gilbert Cohen-Séat, la filmologie est décrite comme une science positive visant à systématiser l’étude du cinéma, à la fois en tant qu’objet et institution, tout en mettant en oeuvre un ensemble de méthodes nouvelles. L’élaboration de la notion de « fait filmique » procéderait ainsi d’une science positive inspirée de la méthode durkheimienne, mais permettrait également d’examiner les différentes facettes du « primitivisme ». D’une part, cet article cherche à dégager la pertinence des propos de Lévy-Bruhl sur le « primitivisme » en tant que cosmologie capable d’appréhender la causalité et les inférences qui lui sont associées, permettant ainsi d’aménager un espace de débat riche en réflexions. D’autre part, il vise à comprendre comment le « primitivisme » a été utilisé afin de qualifier des attributs historiques et psychologiques au sein de l’institution cinématographique, conçue comme une structure émergente de production de sens.
Parties annexes
Bibliographical References
- Adorno 1991: J. M. Bernstein, ed., Theodor W. Adorno: The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, London and New York, Routledge, 1991.
- Andrew 2000: Dudley Andrew, “The Changing Profession: The ‘Three Ages’ of Cinema Studies and the Age to Come,” PMLA, Vol. 115, no. 3, 2000, pp. 341-51.
- Bloom 2008: Peter J. Bloom, French Colonial Documentary: Mythologies of Humanitarianism, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
- Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson 1985: David Bordwell, Janet Staiger and Kristin Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960, New York, Columbia University Press, 1985.
- Burch 1990: Noël Burch, “A Primitive Mode of Representation,” Life to those Shadows, edited and translated by Ben Brewster, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990, pp. 186-201.
- Carey 1996: James W. Carey, “The Chicago School and Mass Communication Research,” in Everette E. Dennis and Ellen Wartella (eds.), American Communication Research—The Remembered History, Mahwah, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, pp. 21-38.
- Cesareo 1978: Giovanni Cesareo, “The new series of Ikon,” Ikon: Revista dell’Istituto A. Gemelli, Vol. 1-2, 1978.
- Chimisso 2000: Christina Chimisso, “The mind and the faculties: the controversy over ‘primitive mentality’ and the struggle for disciplinary space at the inter-war Sorbonne,” History of the Human Sciences, Vol. 13, no. 3, 2000, pp. 47-68.
- Cohen-Séat 1946: Gilbert Cohen-Séat, Essai sur les principes d’une philosophie du cinéma, Paris, Presses Universitaire de France, 1946.
- Cohen-Séat 1963: Gilbert Cohen-Séat, “Preliminary Proposals,” Ikon, Vol. 13, no. 46, 1963, pp. 11-13.
- Cooper and Packard 1997: Frederick Cooper and Randall Packard (eds.), International Development and the Social Sciences, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1997.
- Elsaesser 1990: Thomas Elsaesser (ed.), Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative, London, BFI Publishing, 1990.
- Gutting 2001: Gary Gutting, French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
- Hansen 1991: Miriam Hansen, Babel and Babylon: Spectatorship in American Silent Film, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1991.
- Horkheimer and Adorno 2002: Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, translated by Edmund Jephcott, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2002, pp. 94-136.
- Larkin 2008: Brian Larkin, Signal and Noise: Media, Infrastructure, and Urban Culture in Nigeria, Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2008.
- Lévy-Bruhl 1925: Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, “L’Institut d’Ethnographie de l’Université de Paris,” Revue d’Ethnographie [et des traditions populaires], nos. 23-25, 1925, pp. 233-36.
- Lowry 1982: Edward Lowry, The Filmology Movement and Film Study in France, Ann Arbor, UMI Research Press, 1982.
- Maddison 1948: John Maddison, “Le cinéma et l’information mentale des peuples primitives,” Revue Internationale de Filmologie, Vol. 1, nos. 3-4, 1948, pp. 305-09.
- Metz 1974: Christian Metz, Language and Cinema, The Hague, Mouton, 1974.
- Metz 1991: Christian Metz, Film Language: A Semiotics of Cinema [1974], Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1991.
- Nichols 1976: Bill Nichols (ed.), Movies and Methods, Vol. I, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1976.
- Nichols 1985: Bill Nichols (ed.), Movies and Methods, Vol. II, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1985.
- Parodi 1919: Dominique Parodi, Philosophie contemporaine en France, Paris, Alcan, 1919.
- Roudinesco 1990: Elisabeth Roudinesco, Jacques Lacan & Co.: A History of Psychoanalysis in France, 1925-1985, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1990, pp. 67-71.
- Rosen 1986: Philip Rosen (ed.), Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology, New York, Columbia University Press, 1986.
- Schrempp 1989: Gregory Schrempp, “Aristotle’s Other Self: On the Boundless Subject of Anthropological Discourse,” in George W. Stocking, Jr. (ed.), Romantic Motives: Essays on Anthropological Sensibility, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1989, pp. 10-43.
- Smyth 1979: Rosaleen Smyth, “The Development of British Colonial Film Policy, 1927-1939, with special reference to East and Central Africa,” Journal of African History, Vol. 20, no. 3, 1979, pp. 437-50.
- Smyth 1988: Rosaleen Smyth, “The British Colonial Film Unit and Sub-Saharan Africa, 1939-1945,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Vol. 8, no. 3, 1988, pp. 285-98.
- Smyth 1992: Rosaleen Smyth, “The Post-War Career of the Colonial Film Unit in Africa: 1946-1955,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Vol. 12, no. 2, 1992, pp. 163-77.
- Smyth 2004: Rosaleen Smyth, “The Roots of Community Development in Colonial Office Policy and Practice in Africa,” Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 38, no. 4, 2004, pp. 418-36.
- Wallon 1947: Henri Wallon, “Qu’est-ce que la filmologie?” La Pensée, no. 15, 1947, pp. 29-34.
- Wallon 1947a: Henri Wallon, “De quelques problèmes psycho-physiologiques que pose le cinéma,” Revue Internationale de Filmologie, Vol. 1, no. 1, 1947, pp. 15-18.
- Wallon 1963: Henri Wallon, “Introduction to the Symposium of Filmology: 13th International Congress of Psychology (Stockholm, 1951),” Ikon, Vol. 13, no. 46, 1963, pp. 15-26.