Talk:Newsreel

From Dead Media Archive
Revision as of 18:15, 28 February 2010 by Elisaverna (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Alethea here! I threw in some of my discoveries and notes in bold in response to some of the questions posed or noted by Tyler. Maybe it can inspire more thinking along similar lines.

Newsreels - Tyler's notes and ideas from group meeting February 22, 2010 - Re-written in no particular order


We should start watching some newsreels...

NEWS ON PARADE 1940 & 1941 FREE LIMTED TIME ONLY NEWS REELS

NEWS REELS 1944 & 1945 19min FREE LIMITED TIME RARE EXCITING - ALLIES LIBERATE FRANCE!

Movietone News - 1940s

1930 DEPRESSION WILL ROGERS THE NRA PARADE FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT

Black Dahlia Newsreel

Vintage Nazi Propaganda Newsreels - Part One - Feature length!

Tacoma Narrows Newsreel

Edison Newsreels: San Francisco Earthquake aftermath (1906)

Newsreels before sound

Rudolf Heß; Russian Victories; Japans Treachery; etc 1941/12/24

Nazi Germany Invades Russia 1941/6/23

Barbarossa Jun - Dec1941 (Part 2/5) - Documentary

Operation Barbarossa (German Invasion of Russia) - Battle remediated through video games


Notes from Class Meeting

- Newsreels as dramatizations of newspaper news reporting

- The sensationalist quality of the reporting, which seems to accompany the 'actual' pictures of the news. - i.e. "And here are pictures! from the front of the War in Europe!"

- Although newsreels were made I guess as early as 1929, they seem to have taken mainstream form during World War 2. A lot of battle footage, interestingly...

- Questions of "mode of address": who is this narrator, and who is the audience he is speaking to? His narration, in a sense, 'creates' a public to hear it.

- A news 'anchor' is not present visually, just aurally. Seems all the more 'impersonal' because of this, as if representative of an unseen public.

- We might tie in Benedict Anderson's discourse on Imagined Communities here, i.e. how newspapers created for readers a sense of 'nation.' There seem to be strong parallels here.

- Were the events portrayed in newsreels actually the events described? for the most part from what I've discovered, this seems to be true. However, they wrote the 'script' for the newsreel based on whatever notes they may have gotten from the cameraman. In other words, the collector of the footage was completely disconnected from the people who turned that raw footage into a story.

- If events were not captured, were events re-enacted? I found one old newspaper article explaining how they reenacted a flight so that newsreels could record the footage. I also found a number of newspaper articles about a newsreel cameraman being accused of asking a Frenchman to shoot an Algerian so he could have a good story.

- Newsreels seem more like a 'genre' than a 'technology.' They were made on film, and shown before films in theaters. Is this true? Perhaps, how might they be read as either? It is true. There was usually a 10 or so minute long newsreel shown before new films. It seems most companies produced newsreels twice a week. One article I found suggests that Universal intended to produce a daily newsreel for sometime, but I haven't found evidence that actually happened. In addition, some theaters were dedicated newsreel theaters that showed about an hour of content that included newsreels from the various newsreel makers along with some cartoons and recordings of musical performances.

- If they can be considered a genre, did they influence other genres or styles of moviemaking? I think they most explicitly influenced television news. Although I'm interested in old newspaper articles that suggest that newsreel producers were completely independent of TV newspeople. I found a brief article that suggested some of the differences between TV and film news including more close-ups in the former. Also, film newsreels had to compete with television's faster speed (although I'm not sure why it was so much faster).

- This 'nonfiction' text as implicitly contrasting with the characteristically 'fiction' text of the movie following it I'm fascinated by some of what I've read in terms of reception of newsreels. I've found a lot of criticisms trashing newsreels and others praising their quality. I also found one editorial of a guy talking about how much better newsreels used to be 'back then'.

- What was the relation to other shorts shown also before the film, i.e. cartoon shorts?

- How current was the news? How long would news reels be shown for, i.e. 1-3 weeks, shorter or longer? An implication seems to be that the news had to be somewhat 'general,' in order to not go out of date too quickly. Nevertheless, it still 'seemed' immediate on reception I found one article suggesting the time lapse between filming footage at the invasion on Normandy and it appearing in theaters was about a week. Although some articles talk about how amazing and speedy newsreels are. Apparently some could be produced within a few hours for delivery to some theaters. I found a really interesting article from 1928 about a plane that was outfitted with everything required for filmmaking. So all the footage could be processed, mixed and edited in the time it took the plane to get from point A to point B. I also found an old article discussing the process of producing newsreels that said five weeks was the average lifespan.

- Questions of alliances between movie studios and news agencies? Was the news exclusive to their distribution partners? One description of a newsreel theater seemed to suggest that they compile newsreels from various studios... that's how they fill their hour of programming.

- Newsreels continued to be distributed (apparently) long after TV was widely distributed, far into the 1960's. Was this a 'theater' experience that people were still interested to witness after TV?

- How does the era of the news reel compare, socially, with our current era of 24 hour news? The newsreel theaters seemed to offer a kind of situation similar to 24 hour news. According to one article, it offered people the opportunity to partake of the amusement of going to the theater without the worry of walking into a narrative mid-story.

- How might questions of audience reception be relevant?


Other interesting questions that come to my mind (Tyler):

- Since we so often associate newsreels with war footage, what other subjects did they report on, i.e. before or after WW2? - For example, did they report on the economic growth in the US and concurrent suburbanization; The Marshall Plan in Europe? There seemed to be discussions of women's topics (apparently some of these were narrated by women), sporting events and stories of oddities like an Italian man that bit a dog.

- It seems the discourse in newsreels implicitly supports a narrative of 'Western progress'. Is this borne out? I think this depends on which country's newsreels you're watching.

- Did other countries produce newsreels, and what were they like? Were they 'vessels' for propaganda during WW2? One of the coolest articles I read was about how America made newsreels in other languages for distribution in other countries right as they were being liberated. They produced films outlining the exiled government's efforts in the war. They also distributed American features.

- Why did news reels 'die'? Did it have more to do with changing social circumstances ("the times they are a-changing" (1963)), or technological changes such as the prevalence of television programming? Along with TV news, I also read there was an increased expense of newsreels. Although I don't know what makes newsreel production cost so much more than TV production.

- Was there anything that took their place?

- Do we see 'echoes' of news reel tone today? Either in news coverage, or in other places? i.e. Is it seen as constitutive of social norms of its time more generally, as it might influence the Cold War culture following WW2, the particular qualities to culture we associate with the 1950's?

- Is the footage ever re-used, and how? An article, news about the newsreel discusses that the sounds they used were mixed in later often from very different sources, and sometimes, because of the high cost (at least initially) of lugging around sound equipment, often they would dub dialogue over the footage. - i.e. Is the news re-used in documentaries, film or television, such as Ken Burns' film "The War" or documentaries on the History Channel? for at least a brief time there was a show on TV Yesterday's Newsreels That was just repurposing newsreels based around a similar theme, in one case telling the story of film star Mary Pickford through various newsreels about her.

- If so, does the textual interpretation change on re-contextualization? Should we see these documentaries, in a sense, as 'writing history' in a more final way than is said of journalism as 'the first draft of history'? I really like this question.

- How were news reels actually shot? Were 'journalists' embedded with soldiers, or did soldiers actually shoot the footage? Bureaus would send out cameramen, sometimes on specific assignments. They also had relationships with foreign bureaus. Occasionally amateur cameramen would sell footage to the studios, and if they had something really good the studios would pay a lot to make sure they had the scoop.

- How are news reels different from "stock footage"? Were news reels considered 'public domain,' or were they copyrighted? Did 'stock footage' enter the public domain? Newsreels were definitely owned by the studios who either sold off their collections or donated them when they shut down their newsreel divisions.

- Seems the original video was unnarrated. Was sound recorded during or after when the footage was shot, and what was the process for this? If unnarrated, did journalists need to interpret what the pictures were about, if they received them by mail? Totally unnarrated. All the editors had to inform them of what the footage even was were dope sheets where the cameraman would type of notes explaining what the footage was and attach it to the film for it to be shipped to the editors (1938).

- What actually were the news sources for newsreels? I.e. was news collected by wire (telegraph), or was it written and transmitted along with the film? People may have read it in newspapers and gone to get pictures of it or it was a planned event and they would specifically send cameramen, but all they would do was get footage. It was up to the scriptwriter and the editor to decide what to keep and what to throw and to actually turn it into a story. I find it interesting that it is referred to as a script. Very telling, I think.

- Like film, newsreels seem to be shot on film. So they did not have the status of television or radio, which are 'ephemeral' mediums that must be recorded to be re-shown. What were the consequences of this? They could be used in year in review programs or compiled and re-aired elsewhere (like on TV). It also means they were able to be doctored... you know... remixing sounds, recutting it in strange ways.

- Were newsreels generally destroyed when they were out of date, or were they archived, like newspapers have been archived? It seems newsreels from the axis were often destroyed when they were found by the allied powers.

- How do newsreels change over time, during the 40 years or more that they were distributed?

- Are their interpretations of historical events different from conceptions we may now hold?

- We should remember that, during wars, the outcome was uncertain. In this way, newsreels seemed, in a way, to 'remediate' the war, to show it almost as a movie, but a movie with 'real-life' drama!

- There seem to be discourses of realism that attach to documentaries of WW2. Rebecca Salaszek, for example, wrote a paper about how the History Channel constructs their documentaries as if the viewer was 'actually there,' 'immersed' in the action. This seems to be a historical view looking back. Surely people at the time did not want to be there. In a sense, film was the perfect medium to 'transport' the viewer to the battlefield.

- This seems to support the connection to nationalism. Viewers 'safe' in movie theaters could watch 'our boys' out on the front...

- If newsreels 'died' in the 1960's, what was their impact on news reporting during the Vietnam War? Reporting during that war was famously varied. There were many independent journalists, just 'guys with a camera' who were down 'in the shit.' If this reporting attempted for realism, for example, did it construct this in response to the apparent ideological or even propoganda tone of newsreels?

- Would be interesting to look at the connection with propaganda. Were newsreels 'vehicles' for propaganda messages from the US government? As Americans, we may not 'see' the propaganda in newsreels, if it can be argued to be present. One article I found suggested that the newsreels' focus on WWII before the US joined projected a tone that US involvement in the war was inevitable. Also, it seems there was an official film board overseas and there was a lot of talk about censorship of newsreels for various reasons. Additionally, newsreels were most definitely used for purposes for propaganda in Germany and perhaps other parts of Europe.

- Did the US government encourage certain types of reporting, or restrict others? - i.e. Were newsreels very violent, did they show human casualties? There was a Gallup Poll asking people whether they would like to see images of casualties during the war. Some argued it was important Americans knew what was going on over there. Others argued it was distressing for people to realize the horrors their friends and brothers were facing. The state of Ohio did censor certain newsreels early in the 1930s because they considered them to be anti-Nazi.

Along those lines I think it's interesting to consider how much the film industry censored things. For much of history the only censoring body for television have been the networks themselves seeking not to lose audiences or cause controversy. How much were the studios concerned with public perception? Or was getting the best footage the fastest more important?

My idea for how we might want to organize the wiki. This is just my idea. I'm interested in hearing what other people are finding/noticing/interested in looking further into.

ORIGINS -How was the newsreel invented? How did it become differentiated from features? What was the first newsreel company? When did they start? When did they become more or less mainstream?

PRODUCTION - What was the process of putting together a story? How did it change after sound was added? What about after color was added? How did the production differ from television or newspapers?

TYPES OF STORIES - pretty self-explanatory

DISTRIBUTION - Where could people see newsreels? How long were they shown in theaters? How long did it take for them to get to theaters? Were there any regional or local newsreels? Could you see them anywhere other than theaters?

CENSORSHIP AND PROPAGANDA - In both the US and abroad, was there censorship or propaganda?

COMPETITION WITH TELEVISION AND DEATH OF THE MEDIUM - What was the relationship between the two different media competitive with each otehr? Did newsreels see TV as a threat? When did they stop being produced?

NEWSREELS TODAY - What is the lasting legacy of newsreels? Here can include the current uses of newsreels (for documentaries or in period movies, etc.) as well as people’s generic understanding and perception of newsreels.

Elisa's notes from 2/27

“The Unforgettable 50s: Newsreels from the 1950s.” 1996. Video.

Title frame for each segment includes the film studio (usually Universal), title of the segment, and sometimes the voice of the narrator.

“Human Interest” Kids of the 50s. -Story about new child for a family. Perhaps a small town? Doesn’t specify. -Triplets convention in NJ. -Families taking children on a plane to Tokyo. -Junior Miss California. -Children boxing.

All of these aren’t legitimate news, but “fluff” stories, if that. Focus on images, the commentary is empty and not necessary, lots of bad jokes. People want to see cute pictures of kids. Upbeat, happy music accompanies the “news.” They show mostly white children, one segment on children in “Chinatown,” and a group of boy scouts that visit an “authentic” Native American reservation. Segments report “news” from all of the world, but mostly the U.S. The U.S. segments are mostly pro-American (i.e. a teen altering his birth certificate to serve in he army).

“Animals of the 50s” -Zonkey: half zebra half donkey. -Lots of baby animals (awwww). -Even a story on pet skunks, the animals are called “cute.” -Ostrich rides. -Dolphins referred to as “caged cuties.” -Dogs water skiing. -Horse roller skating -Other ridiculousness.

Lots of bad puns and alliteration. Relating animals to humans, giving them human characteristics, especially when talking about families. The narrator gives the animals voices, creates silly dialogue. Talk about dogs in the Korean war, show soldiers playing with puppies.

“Ladies of the 50s” -Mostly beauty competitions. -Female spaghetti-eating contest. They’re all wearing bathing suits (?). -Women are constantly described as “on parade.”

Generally sexist, focusing on bodies.

“Fun in the 1950s” Stories include: -Women canoeing down snowy hills. -Elephant parade in NYC -Teens playing with “trendy” yo-yos. -Water fight set up by volunteer fire departments. -Carnival in Brazil.

Same formula as the other categories. All spectacle, nothing really important, just cute stories to entertain the public.

How did people decide what to film? I’m assuming Universal bought footage from all over depending on quality, entertainment value, etc.


These notes are from the dissertation/book I read, plus some extra stuff at the end on YT videos of newsreels I watched.

“A History of the American Motion Picture Newsreel” by Raymond Edwin Fielding A Dissertation Presented to the faculty of the graduate school of the University of Southern California in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Degree Doctor of Philosophy (Communication-Cinema) June, 1961.

“Actualities” – Early films that depicted actual events, early documentaries.

“Melies…exploited the popularity of early ‘actualities’ with his ingenious theatrical ‘re-creations’ of major news evens, including the assassination of President McKinley, the sinking of the Maine, and the coronation of Edward VII. It was not until some years later that fictional dramatizations of any complexity began to challenge the appeal of the actuality-films” (Fielding, 20).

It wasn’t until around 1902, the introduction of the “first permanent motion picture theaters,” when “’actualities’ or news-films…were as frequently viewed by individuals in peep-shows as by audiences on screens” (21-22).

“…early Edison films helped to establish a market for scenes of newsworthy celebrities, other films, particularly from abroad, created a demand for motion picture coverage of famous events and world-wide scenic attractions” (23).

“…the production of very early news-fims in the united States centered around prize fight events. One of the earlies of such prize-fight news-films was photographed in July, 1984 under the combined auspicies of Thomas Edison, Gray and Otway Latham, Enoch Rector, and Samuel Tilden, Jr…The fight, although a genuine match, was staged for the camera and enacted in Edison’s daylight-lighted ‘Black Maria’ studio in West Orange, NJ” (28). The majority of the rounds were filmed with an Edison Kinetoscope that photographed up to 150 feet of film in one take. The film was shown at a New York Kinetoscope parlor in August of 1894. One round of fight was show per kinetoscope machine.

“from 1869 to 1900…the two most prolific news-film producers, Edison and Biograph, copyrighted at least 141 news-films” (45).

In the late 19th century in the U.S., fake news-films fell into one of 4 categories: 1. “Theatrically staged re-creations of famous events, based roughly upon the original, but not intended or likely to fool audiences” 2. “Realistically staged re-creations of famous events, based upon reliable information and duplicating insofar ad possible the location, participants, and circumstances of the original. There were generally designed to deceive audiences.” 3. “Rough re-creations of famous events, made without attempting to duplicate known particulars of the original. These were generally designed to deceive audiences.” 4. “Outright manufacture of unverifiable activities alleged to have been associated with famous events. Always intended to deceive audiences” (all 4 60-61).

“As one 1911 writer put it, ‘…cinematography cannot be made to lie, it is a machine that merely records what is happening.’ It took a number of years for this notion to die. Fortunately for early producers there were a number of factors working for the believability of fake news-films. First, the motion picture medium was sufficiently novel so that audiences had little or no film-going experience to guide them in their appraisal of film content. Second, the quality of camera registration, optics, and films were so poor during the first ten years of the cinema that even the poorest re-creation could sometimes fool not too bright viewers. Third, the length of such films, at least during the first few years, was so short…that insufficient time was provided for even the sharpest-eyed patrons to detect flaws, errors, and crudities. Fourth, the lack of extensive pictorial coverage of newsworthy events, by both still and motion picture cameramen rendered the release of many early fakes relatively safe from immediate exposure and criticism. Without a variety of photographs at hand for comparison purposes, audiences and critics had no way of knowing how the original event may have appeared. Finally, some types of fakes were virtually impossible to detect and expose without evidence and testimony from the participants in the production” (70).

“’On March 17, 1899, the Windsor Hotel in NY burned and forty-five persons lost their lives. Blackton and Smitch covered the fire with their camera, getting short bits of film showing the burning ruins. Probably for the first time the motion picture camera pictures news in the process of happening” (72).

1905 – first nickelodeon in the U.S. established by David and Harris (105).


End of the newsreel – 1967, beginning/mid of U.S. involvement in Vietnam war. Newsreels were still used, but perhaps died because of lack of support for the war, as opposed to upbeat, patriotic newsreels of the 40s/WWII. YT video of anti-war protest in 1967. Narrator has a negative tone, somewhat sarcastic. Anti Anti-war? 1967 Vietnam War Newsreel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_LB0ECt28E


Goofytone Newsreel, 1930s, Spoof on newsreels: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2oRVRluxlI&feature=related