I dunno, from what I saw on this page it looks like their little films would just stop. This question is proving much harder to answer than I ever imagined. You'd think somebody would know why they used to do it ...
I dunno, from what I saw on this page it looks like their little films would just stop. This question is proving much harder to answer than I ever imagined. You'd think somebody would know why they used to do it ...
I don't know, it's one of these things, like how fairy tales start with "Once upon a time" and end with "and they lived happily ever after" (or, in the French version "and they lived happily and had many kids" often parodied as "and they lived happily even though they had many kids").
I'd still love an answer on that but right now I'm content considering one of these things people did simply because of some tradition.
That means "The End" in French. Either it was a French movie, or they took it from French movies for some reason (the cinema was invented by the Lumière brothers, who were French, so the first movies were French.)
EDIT: by "invented the cinema" I meant "invented the cinematographe" (cinema is short for cinematographe).
This is somewhere between somewhat misleading and outright false. The French are pretty proud of their Lumière brothers, and rightly so. But we have to look at Edison's company for the first motion pictures, with the Kinetoscope. The word "Cinema" actually is derived from a Greek word that translates to "movement", which by the way basically makes the Kinetoscope and the Cinematographe have the same name. The Cinamatographe was named as such because it captured and displayed movement(if I'm correct, the Lumière Cinematographe was both a camera and a projector), and films are part of cinema due to the same root word for movement.
One can argue that the Lumières invented cinema as art rather than simple sideshow attraction, but even then their actualités were more about applying the art of photography to moving images rather than doing anything specifically special with film itself(this is my personal opinion and assessment, and I'm sure if I was in a room of film history buffs I could find someone to argue the point, or that the point itself is moot).
It's possible THEY put "fin" in the end of their movies and are to blame for that silly idea.
This is somewhere between somewhat misleading and outright false.
Didn't know that. I mean, when we say "going to the cinema", we use it for short of "going to the cinematographe". At least in French. I realise the words has roots and everything, and that it's how it was constructed, but I thought saying "cinema" was restricting it to the cinematographe, while saying "motion pictures" included all types of, well, motion pictures.
And I thought the cinematographe was the thing we still use nowadays, with the projectors and stuff. History has never been my strong point.
And at no point was I trying to say that they were the only people who developed devices for motion pictures. I just thought they were the first to make actual movies and show them, making the invention well known. But whenever you have an invention, there are lots of steps, other inventions leading to it and, most of the time, a fair amount of people all having similar ideas around the same time.
The inventions before the Kinetoscope are generally considered film "pre-history". Some can, and some do, argue that objects as far back as the Zoetrope, or Muybridge's horse photography experiment are claims to "first motion picture", but conventional thought on the matter states that these aren't close enough to the "film camera" and its capabilities to really qualify.
Didn't know that. I mean, when we say "going to the cinema", we use it for short of "going to the cinematographe". At least in French. I realise the words has roots and everything, and that it's how it was constructed, but I thought saying "cinema" was restricting it to the cinematographe, while saying "motion pictures" included all types of, well, motion pictures.
And I thought the cinematographe was the thing we still use nowadays, with the projectors and stuff. History has never been my strong point.
Though I enjoy a lot of early French cinema(Jean Renoir continues to be one of my favorite filmmakers of all time), and I enjoy the odd modern-day French film, I'm actually fairly in the dark about how the French view and talk about films. In English, and amongst US film history buffs, "Cinematographe" generally refers to the Lumière brothers' advancement of the film camera, and a few other French cameras that descend directly from that one. So it's still used in French as a catch-all for projectors and theaters? Maybe cameras? Fascinating. Are you certain there's a difference between "Cinematographe" and "Motion pictures" have different meanings? What cultural perspective am I looking at here? French-Canadian, most likely, but would you know if there's any difference in France? I'm really curious.
And at no point was I trying to say that they were the only people who developed devices for motion pictures. I just thought they were the first to make actual movies and show them, making the invention well known. But whenever you have an invention, there are lots of steps, other inventions leading to it and, most of the time, a fair amount of people all having similar ideas around the same time.
I'm guessing your school had heavy French influence? The French may want to lay claim on the invention of the motion picture, and they may be more likely to label the Kinetoscope under pre-history. It's probably similar to the US states North Carolina and Ohio having differing interpretations of the claim to the invention of flight. Still, the point is somewhat arguable in France's favor, considering they combined a good number of ideas from a few different inventors with the expertise of master photographers to create something that most closely resembles the modern film experience.
Or worse, I had to watch them in school and it obviously didn't make a very strong impression :P
Now that's just terrible! Those films were really ahead of their time, as was the camera itself, and they set the foundation for French filmmaking arguably up until the modern day!
Now that's just terrible! Those films were really ahead of their time, as was the camera itself, and they set the foundation for French filmmaking arguably up until the modern day!
Have you seen "Lumière et compagnie"? 40 directors were given a Lumière camera to film a short under only the conditions available at the time of the Lumière's heyday. I'm partial to David Lynch's vignette, but they are all worth seeing.
Have you seen "Lumière et compagnie"? 40 directors were given a Lumière camera to film a short under only the conditions available at the time of the Lumière's heyday. I'm partial to David Lynch's vignette, but they are all worth seeing.
Never even heard of it, but that just sounds incredibly awesome. That is a name that I'll have to remember and look up real soon.
Are you certain there's a difference between "Cinematographe" and "Motion pictures" have different meanings? What cultural perspective am I looking at here? French-Canadian, most likely, but would you know if there's any difference in France? I'm really curious.
I was actually born and raised in France. My husband is Canadian. I'm in the process of becoming Canadian so you could say I will be French AND Canadian, but I'm not French Canadian.
When I was in school, we learned a lot of "full words". There are lots of French words that are commonly used that are only shortened versions. Among these, we learned that "cinéma" is short for "cinématographe" (since then it has been re-shortened to "ciné"), "métro" for "métropolitain" and "micro" for "microphone", for instance.
So I just took it for granted ever since that "cinema" was always short for "cinematographe".
It's my first time ever having to discuss different methods of making pictures move, so I wasn't too sure about the nuances. Usually the word "cinéma" in French is used for "movie theater" and the word "film" for the movies themselves.
I'm guessing your school had heavy French influence?
Oh, quite :P I understand every country will focus on "their" inventions or discoveries (and possibly twist facts, conveniently forgetting to mention Marie Curie wasn't born French for instance), but it can get tiresome that we hear more about how "velcro" comes from "velour-crochet" and was invented by a French guy before it became an American brand than we hear about the discovery of electricity, just because it was made somewhere else.
But I'm sure you'll understand what I hear about is what I'm more likely to remember, as inaccurate and/or franco-centric as it might be.
Now that's just terrible! Those films were really ahead of their time, as was the camera itself, and they set the foundation for French filmmaking arguably up until the modern day!
That doesn't mean they're thrilling to watch when you're a kid. Well, depends on the kid, I guess. But really, anything that could be incredibly amazing, be it books, movies, songs, you name it, tends to become boring and uninteresting when placed in the context of school.
Oh, quite :P I understand every country will focus on "their" inventions or discoveries (and possibly twist facts, conveniently forgetting to mention Marie Curie wasn't born French for instance), but it can get tiresome that we hear more about how "velcro" comes from "velour-crochet" and was invented by a French guy
Who was actually Swiss
I also think it's interesting that cinematograph as interpreted from the original Greek actually means "Recorded Motion", so may make more sense to apply to the film itself than the place that shows the film (although it might actually be more a case of a synecdoche having the original "part" being later renamed, since the word "film" seems to have been borrowed from English).
And still, nobody knows why films used to say "The End" at the end?
(although it might actually be more a case of a synecdoche having the original "part" being later renamed, since the word "film" seems to have been borrowed from English).
Well, the word "film" predates the word cinema, though. It dates back from photography at least.
I think it's possible cinema was the machine, and it's now used as the place that has the machines.
Oh, yeah, the Swiss and Belgian do get their credit stolen.
Usually the reply to that is "well, I meant that (s)he spoke French".
Like it changes anything >.>
woah woah woah woah... I don't remember approving this. You can be a king amongst women if you want, but you definitely can't be a Queen amongst anything other than other Queens. It's house rules. I don't make them, I just enforce them.
Well, the word "film" predates the word cinema, though. It dates back from photography at least.
I think it's possible cinema was the machine, and it's now used as the place that has the machines.
Here's a definition and etymology of the word film itself. You can see from that, that while the word "film" did exist before cinemas, the meaning we attributed to it did not. There were what we would call photographs before the Lumiere brothers, but they were daguerreotype, which were not on film.
I'm not sure when photographic film became common, but I'm guessing it was around the same time for both photos and movies.
You can see from that, that while the word "film" did exist before cinemas, the meaning we attributed to it did not.
I stand partially corrected. However, the word "film" as "thin layer of something" did already exist, and that word too is the same in French. So what I mean is that the word "film" for "movie" wasn't necessarily taken from English in French. It might have, or the meaning of "film", which already existed in both language, just got wider.
(Although I'm not sure I quite get your point. The page you linked to states that "film" in photography was used from "1890–95" and "film" for movies was used from "1900–05", which is ten years later.)
Oops, I didn't notice that the "film" used in photography is different from that first used in movie cameras! Missed the "tri" there. My bad And I had assumed that "film" was borrowed from English since it was from Middle English film. Old English filmen which I assumed was from fell, from the Germanic or Gothic, but I don't know that for a fact, sorry.
I think "film" in French was indeed borrowed from English, but prior to it being used for movies. Therefore it makes sense to use a word that already existed, see what I mean?
Comments
I don't know, it's one of these things, like how fairy tales start with "Once upon a time" and end with "and they lived happily ever after" (or, in the French version "and they lived happily and had many kids" often parodied as "and they lived happily even though they had many kids").
I'd still love an answer on that but right now I'm content considering one of these things people did simply because of some tradition.
One can argue that the Lumières invented cinema as art rather than simple sideshow attraction, but even then their actualités were more about applying the art of photography to moving images rather than doing anything specifically special with film itself(this is my personal opinion and assessment, and I'm sure if I was in a room of film history buffs I could find someone to argue the point, or that the point itself is moot).
You obviously haven't watched Lumière films.
So... What'cha guys talkin' about?
1877: Praxinoscope
1879: Zoopraxiscope
1888: Kinetoscope
I win!
Didn't know that. I mean, when we say "going to the cinema", we use it for short of "going to the cinematographe". At least in French. I realise the words has roots and everything, and that it's how it was constructed, but I thought saying "cinema" was restricting it to the cinematographe, while saying "motion pictures" included all types of, well, motion pictures.
And I thought the cinematographe was the thing we still use nowadays, with the projectors and stuff. History has never been my strong point.
And at no point was I trying to say that they were the only people who developed devices for motion pictures. I just thought they were the first to make actual movies and show them, making the invention well known. But whenever you have an invention, there are lots of steps, other inventions leading to it and, most of the time, a fair amount of people all having similar ideas around the same time.
Anyway, sorry if I mis-wrote, wasn't y intention.
Or worse, I had to watch them in school and it obviously didn't make a very strong impression :P
I'm guessing your school had heavy French influence? The French may want to lay claim on the invention of the motion picture, and they may be more likely to label the Kinetoscope under pre-history. It's probably similar to the US states North Carolina and Ohio having differing interpretations of the claim to the invention of flight. Still, the point is somewhat arguable in France's favor, considering they combined a good number of ideas from a few different inventors with the expertise of master photographers to create something that most closely resembles the modern film experience.
Now that's just terrible! Those films were really ahead of their time, as was the camera itself, and they set the foundation for French filmmaking arguably up until the modern day!
Have you seen "Lumière et compagnie"? 40 directors were given a Lumière camera to film a short under only the conditions available at the time of the Lumière's heyday. I'm partial to David Lynch's vignette, but they are all worth seeing.
I was actually born and raised in France. My husband is Canadian. I'm in the process of becoming Canadian so you could say I will be French AND Canadian, but I'm not French Canadian.
When I was in school, we learned a lot of "full words". There are lots of French words that are commonly used that are only shortened versions. Among these, we learned that "cinéma" is short for "cinématographe" (since then it has been re-shortened to "ciné"), "métro" for "métropolitain" and "micro" for "microphone", for instance.
So I just took it for granted ever since that "cinema" was always short for "cinematographe".
It's my first time ever having to discuss different methods of making pictures move, so I wasn't too sure about the nuances. Usually the word "cinéma" in French is used for "movie theater" and the word "film" for the movies themselves.
Oh, quite :P I understand every country will focus on "their" inventions or discoveries (and possibly twist facts, conveniently forgetting to mention Marie Curie wasn't born French for instance), but it can get tiresome that we hear more about how "velcro" comes from "velour-crochet" and was invented by a French guy before it became an American brand than we hear about the discovery of electricity, just because it was made somewhere else.
But I'm sure you'll understand what I hear about is what I'm more likely to remember, as inaccurate and/or franco-centric as it might be.
That doesn't mean they're thrilling to watch when you're a kid. Well, depends on the kid, I guess. But really, anything that could be incredibly amazing, be it books, movies, songs, you name it, tends to become boring and uninteresting when placed in the context of school.
Who was actually Swiss
I also think it's interesting that cinematograph as interpreted from the original Greek actually means "Recorded Motion", so may make more sense to apply to the film itself than the place that shows the film (although it might actually be more a case of a synecdoche having the original "part" being later renamed, since the word "film" seems to have been borrowed from English).
And still, nobody knows why films used to say "The End" at the end?
Well, the word "film" predates the word cinema, though. It dates back from photography at least.
I think it's possible cinema was the machine, and it's now used as the place that has the machines.
Oh, yeah, the Swiss and Belgian do get their credit stolen.
Usually the reply to that is "well, I meant that (s)he spoke French".
Like it changes anything >.>
woah woah woah woah... I don't remember approving this. You can be a king amongst women if you want, but you definitely can't be a Queen amongst anything other than other Queens. It's house rules. I don't make them, I just enforce them.
Here's a definition and etymology of the word film itself. You can see from that, that while the word "film" did exist before cinemas, the meaning we attributed to it did not. There were what we would call photographs before the Lumiere brothers, but they were daguerreotype, which were not on film.
I'm not sure when photographic film became common, but I'm guessing it was around the same time for both photos and movies.
I stand partially corrected. However, the word "film" as "thin layer of something" did already exist, and that word too is the same in French. So what I mean is that the word "film" for "movie" wasn't necessarily taken from English in French. It might have, or the meaning of "film", which already existed in both language, just got wider.
(Although I'm not sure I quite get your point. The page you linked to states that "film" in photography was used from "1890–95" and "film" for movies was used from "1900–05", which is ten years later.)