CHAPTER 6 / Part 1


Table of Contents

Table of Contents




In his the movies in the age of innocence, American scholar Edward Wagenknecht recalls that when he was a regular at Chicago’s Family Electric Theater in the years between 1906 and 1909,


            Pathé Title with Red Roosters, 1908

all the films . . . were French Pathé, and if I loved the posters I loved the titles and subtitles even more. They were always tinted red, with enormous lettering, and there were two of the famous Pathé roosters at the bottom of each title, one at the right and the other at the left.[1]

Ironically, in an era when consumer demand for movies was booming in America, the supply was being filled by foreign producers, especially Pathé-Frères, rather than by American companies such as Edison, Biograph, Vitagraph, or Lubin. To explain this situation, we must first note the explosion in the United States of small, often makeshift moving picture theaters called nickelodeons. The first nickelodeon opened in mid-1905, and by February 1910, there were more than 10,000 such theaters in the United States.[2] In the same year, 26 million Americans—a number equal to 20 percent of the population—patronized nickelodeons,[3] and the domestic industry was too disorganized to meet the tremendous demand for film subjects. (The nickelodeon era is discussed in Chapter 7.2.)

Charles Musser identifies six factors in the general “disarray” into which the production end of the American industry had fallen in the years 1906 and 1907:[4]

  1. Because opening theaters and film exchanges was much simpler than setting up operations for producing films, a disproportionate share of the money available to the industry was attracted to exhibition and distribution.
  2. Hoping to cash in on the boom, experienced production personnel began leaving established producers to open their own firms.
  3. Building new studio facilities—which were necessary to increase production—siphoned energy and resources away from the actual production of films (see Figure 6.1 [5]).
  4. Because there were greater profits in selling multiple positive prints of each picture, some firms, notably Edison, devoted their resources to printing and selling copies of existing films instead of increasing their output of new ones.
  5. Edison’s aggressive legal policies generated uncertainty throughout the industry: as long as the courts continued to support Edison’s patent-infringement claims, investment was risky at precisely the same time as the exhibition end of the industry—and thus demand for new film subjects—was booming.
  6. The characteristic methods of production in the American industry did not lend themselves to rapid and efficient expansion. As we’ll see, this was a particular shortcoming that French competitors were in a position to exploit.

                 Kleine Optical Ad, 1914

As Table 6.1 shows, the supply of film “subjects” to American exchanges and exhibitors increased in the period from late 1906 to mid-1907.[6] (The average film subject ran the length of a standard 1,000-foot reel—about 15 minutes.) But note the increase of 100 percent between February and March 1907. This jump reflects not an increase in domestic production, but rather an influx of foreign films, most of them imported and distributed by the Kleine Optical Company of Chicago. By 1907, onetime Edison sales agent George Kleine had become the American selling agent for several French producers, including Méliès, Pathé, Gaumont, and Eclipse.[7] In that year, 1,200 films were released in the United States; only 400 of these were American made,[8] and the market share commanded by Kleine and a handful of other agents who distributed foreign films was proportionately large.

“We Prefer the Foreign Films”

As we’ve suggested, the success of the European foray into the American market was a direct result of the inability of U.S. producers to satisfy domestic demand. As early as 1904, Edison and other U.S. producers had routinely purchased French films in London and shipped them back to the United States, where they were then duped and distributed without concern for proprietary niceties. Georges Méliès tried unsuccessfully to counter this practice by copyrighting his films, and the response of Pathé-Frères, the world’s largest producer, was only slightly more effective. After opening its first U.S. sales office in early 1904, Pathé began marketing its films in the United States before releasing them in Britain or elsewhere in Europe. Such strategies failed because demand for foreign films remained extremely high. “We prefer the foreign films,” admitted one U.S. exhibitor in 1906, “especially the Pathé.”[9] Quite simply, Pathé films boasted higher quality and greater variety, and more importantly, they were available in sufficient numbers to satisfy the growing demand of American exhibitors. Pathé films were so popular with American audiences that Edison, Lubin, and others found it highly profitable to sell duplicates of already circulating films that they purchased directly from Pathé’s New York office.[10]

Burgeoning demand resulted not only from the proliferation of theaters, but from rapidly increasing rates of program change—from two to three times per week in November 1906 and from three to six by the spring of 1907.[11] Again, only a flow of foreign films allowed exhibitors to take advantage of constantly increasing consumer demand for variety as well as quantity. Because European producers did not enjoy exploding exhibition sectors in their home markets, they depended more heavily on foreign markets than did American producers. Consequently, however, they put their expansion efforts into production, and as a result, they were prepared to satisfy the American demand for product. By October 1906, Pathé alone was exporting 12 films per week to the United States and selling 75 copies of each one.[12] Pathé maintained sales offices from London to Shanghai, but “the American market by itself,” recalled company founder Charles Pathé, “amortized the costs . . . of our negatives. . . . The columns of American receipts represented a net profit or nearly so.”[13]

In 1907, 60 percent of all moving pictures released in the United States were foreign made. Not until the end of 1909 would that number fall to less than 50 percent, but even then, French producers reported that for every five prints reserved for France and 40 for the rest of Europe, 150 would be struck for export to the United States.[14] Pathé alone supplied about one third of the entire U.S. market, distributing approximately twice as many titles and twice as much footage—about 200 copies of each film—as Edison and Vitagraph.[15] (In the same year, American producers supplied 30 percent of all films released in Great Britain, French producers 40 percent.[16])


In the beginning (or shortly thereafter), there were four major producers in France.[17] The first, of course, was the Société Antoine Lumière et fils (see Chapter 2.2). By 1896, Louis Lumière had already delegated the responsibility for shooting films to hired professional photographers, and in the summer of that year, he also began dispatching agents around the world. Their job was threefold: to exhibit films from the Lumière catalogue, to record newsworthy subjects, and to sell the cinématographe to local entrepreneurs. By the end of 1897, the “Messrs. Lumière Brothers” had introduced “living photographic pictures in life-sized reproductions” into Great Britain (see Figure 6.2 [18]), Italy, Russia, and even India and Japan. By 1898, production on some scale was under way in these countries as well as in Sweden, the Czech province of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Mexico, Australia, and elsewhere. Lumière’s strategy succeeded in establishing a global market for his firm’s equipment and film stock, and the company had completely abandoned film production by 1905.

Georges Méliès’ Star-Film (see Chapter 3.2), after reaching the peak of its success in 1903-1904, declined because the formulas for its original successes—elaborate décors and expensive, time-consuming special effects—prevented Méliès from producing enough footage to meet the mass production quotas set by such cartel agreements as the Congrès International des Fabricants de Film (International Congress of Film Producers) in Europe and the Motion Picture Patents Company in the United States. Méliès’ costly hand-colored spectacle films soon became too expensive for the fairground showmen who were once his chief customers, and he had effectively ceased production by 1913.

The Two Usines aux Images: New Models of Organizational Practice

Although neither would long survive the economic debacle of World War I, two other French companies were largely—though by no means solely—responsible for the production capacity of the French film industry in the first decade of the century. That capacity resulted directly from organizational practices that would ultimately serve as a model for early motion-picture production and distribution throughout the world. By the middle of the decade, Gaumont et cie and Société Pathé-Frères had developed into veritable usines aux images—“image factories” at the center of corporate complexes devoted to the making and marketing of motion pictures.


                 Léon Gaumont

Gaumont et cie: Vertical Integration and the Development of the Director-Unit System
  An inventor, seller of photographic equipment, and onetime assistant to Alexandre Eiffel, Léon Gaumont (1864-1946) founded L. Gaumont et cie in 1895 and began manufacturing motion-picture equipment in 1896.[19] In the same year, the company introduced its first camera-projector, a 60mm machine, and an improved 35mm chronographe was introduced in 1898 (see Figure 6.3 [20]).

Gaumont had entered a market for motion-picture apparatus already dominated by manufacturers who produced films primarily as a means of selling hardware and film stock. Obliged to pursue the same strategy, he entrusted his secretary, a young woman named Alice Guy (1873-1968), with the task of producing short films, mostly for promotional purposes. Gaumont himself concentrated on developing an image-sound-synchronization system that he finally introduced in 1902 (see Figure 6.4). When efforts to commercialize his “chronophone” system failed, he turned to increased film production as a means of sustaining revenues. Guy was soon specializing in story films, particularly historical dramas and comic sketches filmed on real locations.[21] The company prospered, and in 1905, Gaumont constructed at Buttes-Chaumont a “glass cathedral” studio ten times the size of Méliès’ facilities at Montreuil (see Figure 6.5). In December 1906, the firm reorganized as a corporation, so that, unlike Lumière and Méliès, Gaumont was in a position to finance his company’s growth through sources other than revenues.


                Louis Feuillade

Gaumont et cie continued to grow rapidly between 1906 and 1912. International expansion began in 1907, with operations extending into the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Russia. In the same year, the company introduced the first automatic process for printing film stock and was thus able to fill purchase orders of 15,000 meters per day. In 1907, too, a writer-director named Louis Feuillade (1873-1925) succeeded Guy as head of production, and with Gaumont, he developed a “director-unit” system in which filmmakers worked consistently with the same small teams of casts and cameramen to produce more or less independent series of films.[22] Before long, Gaumont was able to supply exhibitors with six new releases every week. To provide facilities for its rapidly growing coterie of production units, Gaumont opened a new studio in Nice in 1913, turning out period dramas, crime films, and, especially, comedy series. A weekly newsreel, Gaumont-Actualités, had appeared in 1912 (see Figure 6.6 [23]). The company opened its first Paris cinema in the summer of 1908, and in 1911, Gaumont renovated a spacious Paris arena as the largest motion-picture theater in the world, the 3,400-seat Gaumont Palace (Figure 6.7 [24]).

Up until 1909, Gaumont had sold films directly to exhibitors—a popular policy that increased market share among fairground showmen. In 1909, however, adopting policies recommended by the Congrès International des Fabricants de Film in Paris, Gaumont established a separate distribution arm that rented weekly programs in return for fixed percentages of exhibitor receipts. Essentially, the system constituted an early form of block-booking: along with profitable features and other subjects, exhibitors were obliged to take indifferently mass-produced films that they would otherwise have rejected.[25]

Meanwhile, Léon Gaumont continued his technical research, remaining one of the industry’s most fervent believers in the promise of sound. He demonstrated his improved Chronophone system at the Gaumont Palace in 1911, and a color-film process, Chronochrome-Gaumont, was introduced in 1912. Although the firm survived through the 1920s, L. Gaumont et cie ultimately succumbed to the economic collapse of the European industry caused by World War I and the subsequent ascendancy of American films in Europe. Léon Gaumont retired in 1929, shortly after a portion of his firm had been acquired as a distribution arm by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The English branch of the company, founded in 1898, had severed connections with its French parent in 1927 and been rechristened Gaumont British. As such, it continued to function as a producer and distributor of foreign films in England until 1932, when it merged with Gainsborough Pictures. The combined company continued production until 1936.[26]


                 Charles Pathé

Société Pathé-Frères: The Commitment to Expansion
  In all of these practices—especially in the move toward decentralization and greater dependence on distribution and exhibition—Gaumont et cie typically followed the lead of Pathé-Frères. In 1894, Charles Pathé (1863-1957) began charging audiences at fêtes foraines (fairgrounds) for the privilege of listening to counterfeit models of Thomas Edison’s phonograph.[27] Business was so good that he started importing phonographs and selling them from a store in Vincennes, and within two years, his expanded firm was also selling authorized Edison motion-picture projectors. Pathé soon tried his hand at imitating the modest productions of Louis Lumière, and with his three brothers, he founded Société Pathé-Frères in 1896. In December 1897, Pathé-Frères incorporated as Compagnie générale des cinématographes, phonographes, et pellicules. Like Gaumont et cie, then, Pathé-Frères had access to outside capital to finance the expansion of its operations (see Figure 6.8).


               Ferdinand Zecca

For several years, the phonograph division contributed 90 percent of the firm’s total revenue, but by 1900, Pathé, who had been focusing on the manufacture of equipment and film stock, started full-scale film production. In the same year, he hired a young producer director named Ferdinand Zecca (see Chapter 6.3 and Biographical Sketch 6.1), and in 1902, Pathé built a studio in Vincennes, where the company was soon turning out one and sometimes two films per day, or nearly 8,000 meters of negative film stock per year. The first Pathé foreign branch opened in 1903, and by 1908, with offices, studios, and other facilities located not only across Europe but in such far-flung bases as Kiev, Calcutta, Singapore, and New Jersey, Pathé-Frères was an international power in the film industry and easily the world’s largest producer. In fact, by 1908, Pathé distributed twice as many motion pictures in the United States as all American companies combined.[28]

Pathé moved to build a near monopoly over the European industry by expanding its production of raw film stock and motion-picture equipment (see Figure 6.9 [29]), building more laboratories and studios, and opening more permanent theaters. Meanwhile, the company also patented a color-film process (Pathé-Color) and launched the first weekly newsreel (Pathé-Journal). World War I, however, had a catastrophic effect on the French film industry, creating financial and raw material shortages and closing down many producers with less wherewithal than the giant concerns of Gaumont and Pathé.


          Pathé Studio for Making “American Films,”

              Bound Brook, New Jersey, ca. 1910

Zecca had already gone to New Jersey to manage Pathé Exchange, the company’s U.S. operations, in 1913, and Charles Pathé joined him there, hoping to ride out the war and shore up his American franchise, in 1914. When he returned to France in 1917, Pathé found escalating production costs and an influx of foreign films, mostly American. Efforts to compete with the American product by imitating it failed, and in 1918, Pathé began divesting his holdings. He retired in 1929, and the remnants of his U.S. operations were bought by RKO in 1931.[30]

The Age of Pathé; or, How to Industrialize the Cinema

In his Histoire générale du cinéma (1947-1951), French film historian Georges Sadoul calls the period 1903-1909 the “Age of Pathé.” In order to appreciate the appropriateness of this designation, we need a more complete picture of the process by which Pathé-Frères pioneered a model of organization that soon characterized the business of producing, distributing, and exhibiting motion pictures around the world. As Charles Pathé himself once said, “I may not have invented the cinema, but I did industrialize it.”[31]

According to American film historian Richard Abel, Pathé succeeded in “exploiting the cheap costs of early film production, establishing the first worldwide network of film distribution, taking advantage of the proliferating American nickelodeons, and monopolizing the French fêtes foraines.” Between 1904 and 1907, reports Abel, Pathé then “sought to establish a near monopoly within the French industry by dividing his corporation into more or less separate sectors of film production, distribution, and exhibition.” He thus extended the structure of Pathé-Frères “vertically” in order to exercise control over every stage from the production to the consumption of films.[32]

Exploiting Mass Production and Economies of Scale
  As of 1900, Pathé-Frères was still what Abel describes as “little more than a workshop of artisans.”[33] Charles Pathé, however, saw the commercial value of finished films and devised a strategy of mass-producing them for sale to exhibitors working the fêtes foraines. By 1901, the first year of Zecca’s tenure as production head, output had surpassed even that of Méliès, and in 1902, with investment underwritten by debt financing, Pathé built his “glass house” studio in Vincennes (see Figure 6.10). He built another studio in 1904, then two more studios and a complex of factories at nearby Joinville-le-pont, where crews of workers perforated, developed, printed, and spliced film stock. The company’s largest facility was soon erected in Méliès’ own backyard at Montreuil.


       Workers Leaving the Pathé Factory, 1911

By 1907, Pathé-Frères employed 1,200 people. The company also exploited economies of scale that emerged after 1905, when the cost of printing a meter of film stock, both negative and positive, was standardized at one third of the price that a meter of finished film commanded from exhibitors. Costs were further capped by an efficient production system in which a growing number of experienced filmmakers specialized in different “genres.” As of 1905, this “director-unit” system was turning out one new title per week—a number that had skyrocketed to six or seven by the next year. Standardized production also held down costs for salaries, construction materials, and studio overhead. Abel reports that while Méliès was spending 30 to 50 francs for a meter of completed film, Zecca—who now functioned largely as a supervisor of filmmaking teams—was able to stay within budgets of 14 or 15 francs.[34]

The Cinema and “Mass-Produced Culture”
  Abel also points out that various director-unit specialties at Pathé corresponded to the kinds of “acts” that comprised “fairground and music-hall programs.” In France at the turn of the century, a rising “leisure class” was changing the nature of cultural pursuits that had once been determined by the aristocratic class. At the same time, a working-class culture emerged in the cities, and the growth of these markets fostered the development of a “mass-produced culture”—including daily newspapers, illustrated magazines, color posters and postcards, and department store catalogues—that, as Abel puts it, “steadily penetrated and ‘colonized everyday life.’” The entertainment equivalents of these new mass-culture media consisted of “urban-oriented spectacle entertainments” that included theaters for melodrama, café concerts (or music halls), fairgrounds, wax museums, trade shows, and even tours of the Paris morgue. By 1898, short films were common on the programs of urban café concerts, and in terms of programming, organization, and atmosphere, they were the immediate predecessors of the cinema in France.


            Fête foraine de la république, 1910

Catering to the Fairground
  The fairgrounds, or fêtes foraines, carried popular culture to rural France on annual or semiannual tours. Fairground theaters combined short films with magic-lantern slide shows and a variety of live acts, but the popularity of the cinema—as in the cities—far outstripped that of other items on the program, and by 1902, nearly every fairground boasted at least one cinema. According to Abel, Charles Pathé, who had started out as a fairground showman, recognized the fêtes foraines as “the broadest, most integrated market for exhibiting films”[35] and so targeted them as the key to his company’s expansion in about 1902. Powered by the marvel of electricity, circuits of fairground cinemas rapidly became so popular that some eventually settled into small town squares as the French equivalent of nickelodeons. Pathé (and, to a lesser extent, Gaumont) furnished reliable equipment and, more importantly, a supply of films extensive enough for exhibitors to change whole progrms every week. By 1905, Pathé commanded 75 percent of the fairground cinema business (a profitable segment of the European as well as French market—see Figure 6.11).[36]

Building an Urban Audience
  In July 1906, the French National Assembly passed a law granting every French citizen one day off from work every week. The concept of le week-end—and of regular weekend entertainment—had arrived in France, and in November, Charles Pathé moved to capture the urban white-collar and middle-class audience by launching a chain of permanent cinema theaters throughout the country. By summer 1907, there were 50 new or converted cinemas in Paris; by 1909, there were 100, 20 of them run by Pathé, whose national chain then totaled 200. The popularity of fairground cinemas—Pathé’s first distribution outlet—remained high through 1907-1908, but urban theaters rapidly took over their market share.

In addition, dedicated cinema theaters began to supplant music halls as the most popular urban entertainment (as in America, a major factor was price). Many music halls responded by adding matinee moving-picture shows and then by switching entirely to film programs. By 1911, moving-picture attendance in Paris had reached 3 million—nearly equaling the figure for all music halls and similar entertainments combined.

The Holding-Company Concept
  In July 1907, Pathé sought to capitalize further on the rapidly expanding market created by the permanent cinema. He announced that his films would no longer be sold outright to exhibitors, but rather would be rented as weekly programs to be distributed by a chain of regional agencies allied with the parent firm. In 1909, the Congrès International des Fabricants de Film ratified Pathé’s policy as standard practice in most of Europe. Because producers would now be paid according to the amount of footage that they supplied, the new system encouraged mass production and, of course, standardization of the product (see Figure 6.12). Pathé realized that his dominance over the industry depended on his control over the distribution and exhibition functions of his business, not merely on its capacity to produce films. As a result, Société Pathé-Frères gradually evolved into a parent company for numerous subsidiaries.

See excerpts


   Germinal, Albert Capellani, SCAGL, 1913

The company also developed a similar model to structure its production operations.[37] Its own “director units,” for example, grew increasingly independent, with filmmakers specializing in such genres as comedy series, féeries and trick films, theatrical adaptations and contemporary dramas, and period dramas and historical films. More importantly, Pathé soon began passing on the risks entailed by production to a network of what Abel calls “quasi-independent affiliates,” all of them “medium-” or “small-sized companies.”[38] A company called Comica , for instance, turned out a series of extremely popular comedies for Pathé, while another, Films Valetta, furnished Pathé with “modern pictures.” Foreign affiliates in Belgium and Holland supplied both shorts and features, and the Société cinématographique des auteurs et gens de lettres (SCAGL) was formed in 1908 to lend “respectability” to the Pathé brand—indeed to the cinema itself as a form of artistic entertainment—by adapting films from the works of reputable writers.

A Name Synonymous with the Cinema
  By 1911, Pathé-Frères controlled production companies whose films, through Pathé distribution agencies, reached 500 million people worldwide. American film historian Roberta Pearson observes that before the end of the first decade of the century, the “firm’s name [was] practically synonymous with the cinema in many Third World countries.”[39] The holding-company structure by which Pathé controlled its own operations and domestic affiliates was also customized to accommodate foreign operations. In Russia, for example, Pathé-Frères essentially created the market for motion pictures by selling films and equipment to traveling showmen and other exhibitors. Like Lumière, Pathé made it a policy to commission products of national interest from host country affiliates, and when the Russian press began calling for “native” films, Pathé readily provided such titles as Peter the Great (1909), Anna Karenina (1911), and Shield Yourself with the Sign of the Cross, O People of the Orthodox Faith (1911). Pathé russe—the company’s first foreign production unit—opened in Moscow in the spring of 1909 and prospered in a country which, by 1911, boasted as many motion-picture theaters as France itself.

See the moving picture


            Il Re Lear, Gerolamo Lo Savio,

                 Film d’Arte Italiana, 1910

The same strategy worked in Belgium (where Belge-Cinéma-Film was set up to operate as a smaller scale Pathé russe). In Italy, where there was already a strong indigenous industry, adjustments were necessary. Pathé founded Film d’Arte Italiana (FAI) in 1909 to compete with domestic companies specializing in costume and historical films. Although such titles as Othello, Salomé, Lucrezia Borgia, and Il Re Lear (King Lear—all produced in 1909-1910) were reasonably successful, it was Pathé’s distribution system, modeled on its French operations, that made it competitive in Italy, not its production activities.

Reading 6.1, “In Theory: Modes of Producing Auteurism and the New Wave,” takes a detailed look at the differences in the evolution of modes of production—the set of work practices that develop within production systems—in the film industries of France and the United States. It also examines the effect of decentralized production on the development of French film culture between the 1920s and the 1960s.)


[1] The Movies in the Age of Innocence (1962; rpt. New York: Ballantine, 1971), p. 12.

[2] Russell Merritt, “Nickelodeon Theaters 1905-1914: Building an Audience for the Movies,” in The American Film Industry, ed. Tino Balio (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1976), p. 62.

[3] Merritt, “Nickelodeon Theaters,” p. 63.

[4] See The Emergence of Cinema: The American Screen to 1907 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1990), pp. 449-66.

[5] For Figure 6.1, see Musser, The Emergence of Cinema, pp. 459-61; Musser, Before the Nickelodeon: Edwin S. Porter and the Edison Manufacturing Company (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: Univ. of California Press, 1991), Ch. 11, at (accessed June 24, 2016).

[6] Data come from Musser, The Emergence of Cinema, p. 450.

[7] On Kleine and the Kleine Optical Co., see esp. Joel Frykholm, George Kleine and the American Cinema: The Movie Business and Film Culture in the Silent Film Era (London: Palgrave, 2015); Michael Glover Smith and Adam Selzer, “George Spoor, George Kleine, and the Rise of the Nickelodeon,” Flickering Empre: How Chicago Invented the U.S. Film Industry (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2015), Ch. 6.

See also: Luke McKernon, “George Kleine,” Who’s Who of Victorian Cinema (British Film Institute, 2016), at (accessed June 24, 2016); Richard Abel, The Red Rooster Scare: Making Cinema American, 1900-1910 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1999), pp. 25, 90-93; Scott Curtis, “A House Divided: The MPPC in Transition,” in American Cinema’s Transitional Era: Audiences, Institutions, Practices, ed. Charlie Keil and Shelley Stamp (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 2004), esp. pp. 247-48. On Kleine’s highly successful collaborations with the newly emergent Italian film industry, see Gene Zonarch, “Dawn of the Diva,” 11 East 14th Street, at (accessed June 24, 2016). Musser provides lists, by producers, of all the films purchased for distribution by Kleine Optical from 1904 to 1907: see “Appendix B: Kleine Optical Company Accounts,” Before the Nickelodeon, pp. 482-83, at (accessed June 24, 2016).

[8] Roberta Pearson, “Transitional Cinema,” in The Oxford History of World Cinema, ed. Geoffrey Nowell Smith (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996), p. 24.

[9] Quoted by Musser, The Emergence of Cinema, p. 488.

[10] See The Emergence of Cinema, p. 412. See also Abel, “‘Pathé Goes to Town’: French Films Create a Market for the Nichelodeon,” Cinema Journal 35:1 (Autumn 1995), pp. 3-26.

[11] The Emergence of Cinema, p. 450.

[12] The Emergence of Cinema, p. 488.

[13] Quoted by Musser, The Emergence of Cinema, p. 488.

[14] Eileen Bowser, The Transformation of Cinema 1907-1915 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1990), p. 23.

[15] Richard Abel, The Ciné Goes to Town: French Cinema 1896-1914 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1994), p. 44.

[16] Robert Sklar, Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies (1975; rpt. New York: Vintage, 1976), p. 29.

[17] This material is drawn largely from Abel, The Ciné Goes to Town, pp. 9-58. See also Abel, French Cinema: The First Wave (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1984); Abel, “French Silent Cinema,” in Oxford History, ed. Nowell-Smith, esp. pp. 112-14; Rémi Fournier Lanzoni, French Cinema: From Its Beginnings to the Present (New York: Continuum, 2002), Ch. 1.

[18] For Figure 6.2, see John Barnes, The Beginnings of the Cinema in England (London: David & Charles, 1976), pp. 83-92; Roy Armes, A Critical History of the British Cinema (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978), pp. 19-20; “London’s Earliest Cinema Will Return,” Moving Image Archive News, July 16, 2012, at (accessed June 24, 2016); Barnes and Stephen Herbert, “Félicien Trewey,” Who’s Who of Victorian Cinema (British Film Institute, 2016), at (accessed June 24, 2016).

[19] See Abel, The Ciné Goes to Town, esp. pp. 11-13, 19-20, 31; Alan Williams, Republic of Images: A History of French Filmmaking (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1992), pp. 53-57; François Garçon, Gaumont: A Century of French Cinema (New York: Henry N. Abrams, 1994).

[20] Consulted for Figure 6.3: Charl Lucassen, “Georges Demenÿ,” Chronophotographical Projections, at (accessed September 7, 2004).

[21] See esp. Alison McMahan, Alice Guy-Blaché: Lost Visionary of the Cinema (New York: Continuum, 2002), pp. 10-23. See also Luke McKernon, “Alice Guy” (2015), Who’s Who of Victorian Cinema (British Film Institute, 2016), at (accessed June 24, 2016).

[22] See Abel, The Ciné Goes to Town, pp. 22.

[23] For Figure 6.6, see Erik Barnouw, Documentary: A History of the Nonfiction Film (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1974), p. 26. Also consulted: “The Twentieth Century on Film,” The Gaumont Newsreels, at (accessed August 26, 2001).

[24] For Figure 6.7, see Ian Christie, The Last Machine: Early Cinema and the Birth of the Modern World (London: British Film Institute, 1994), pp. 54-56; and Abel, The Ciné Goes to Town, pp. 31-34.

[25] See Abel, The Ciné Goes to Town, p. 33.

[26] See Sue Harper, “Gaumont-British Picture Corporation,” Screenonline (BFI Screenonline, 2003-14), at (accessed June 24, 2016). Also consulted: Casion Analytics, “ Media Profile: Pathé, Gaumont, Seydoux,” at (accessed July 29, 2014).

On Léon Gaumont’s equipment-related activities, see Stephen Herbert, “Gaumont, Léon Ernest (1864-1946),” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, ed. John Hannavy (New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 572-73; Laurent Mannoni and Alison McMahan, “Chronophone Gaumont,” in Encyclopedia of Early Cinema, ed. Richard Abel (New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 118, at (accessed June 24, 2016). Gaumont wrote a posthumously published article detailing the development of his Chronochrome color process: “Gaumont Chronochrome Process Described by the Inventor” (1959), in A Technological History of Motion Pictures and Television, ed. Raymond Fielding (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1967), pp. 65-67, at (accessed June 24, 2016).

[27] See Jon Silver,“The First Global Entertainment Company: Explaining Pathé’s Dominance in the pre-Hollywood Film Industry,” in Entertainment Industries: Entertainment as Cultural System, ed. Alan McKee et al. (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), pp. 79-97. See also: Abel, The Ciné Goes to Town, esp. pp. 14-15, 20-21, 34-35, 48-49; Abel, “In the Belly of the Beast: The Early Years of Pathé-Frères,” Film History 5:4 (1993), pp. 363-85; Williams, Republic of Images, pp. 41-44, 51-53. On the development of Pathé projector technology, see Paul Van Someren, “9.5,” Cinerdistan (2014), at (accessed June 24, 2016).

[28] Pearson, “Transitional Cinema,” p. 14.

[29] For Figure 6.9, see David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1985), pp. 266-67.

[30] On the decline of the French film industry in the wake of World War I, see Jens Ulff-Møller, Hollywood’s Film Wars with France: Film-Trade Diplomacy and the Emergence of the French Film Quota Policy (Rochester, NY: Univ. of Rochester Press, 2001), pp. 9-17, at (accessed June 24, 2016); Gerben Bakker, “The Decline and Fall of the European Film Industry: Sunk Costs, Market Size and Market Structure,” Economic History Review 58:2 (2005), pp. 310-51, at (accessed June 24, 2016).

See also: Martin F. Norden, “The Pathé Frères Company during the Trust Era,” Journal of the University Film Association 33:3 (Summer 1981), pp. 15-32; Bill Grantham, “America the Menace: France’s Feud with Hollywood,” World Policy Journal 15:2 (Summer 1998), pp. 58-66, at (accessed June 24, 2016); rpt. in The Contemporary Hollywood Reader, ed. Toby Miller (Abington, UK, and New York: Routledge, 2009), pp. 536-43. Susan Hayward, “A Brief Ecohistory of France’s Cinema Industry 1895-2004,” in French National Cinema, 2nd ed. (1993; rpt. London and New York: Routledge, 2005), esp. pp. 19-22, 76-84.

On Pathé Exchange, see Richard Lewis Ward, When the Cock Crows: A History of The Pathé Exchange (Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 2016). On Pathé’s New Jersey branch, see Marina Dahlquist, “Becoming American in 1910?: Pathé Frères’ Settlement in New Jersey,” Quaterly Review of Film and Video 22:3 (2005), pp. 251-62.

[31] Quoted by Abel, The Ciné Goes to Town, p. 9.

[32] The Ciné Goes to Town, pp. 22-23, 29.

[33] The Ciné Goes to Town, p. 20.

[34] The Ciné Goes to Town, pp. 22-23.

[35] The Ciné Goes to Town, p. 17.

[36] The Ciné Goes to Town, pp. 24-25; Williams, Republic of Images, pp. 48-51.

[37] The Ciné Goes to Town, pp. 34-35. See also Abel, “French Silent Cinema,” pp. 112-13.

[38] The Ciné Goes to Town, pp. 41, 49.

[39] “Early Cinema,” in Oxford History, ed. Nowell Smith, p. 14.

Back to Top

Return to CHAPTER 5/Part 2

Go to CHAPTER 6/Part 2