In the past thirty years, a growing community has emerged to advocate for the preservation and recognition of home movie collections based on their historical significance. Despite the significant cost of preserving and providing access to these collections and the myriad challenges they pose to archivists and researchers, no substantive research exists that evaluates their actual scholarly use or impact. Through a publication analysis and a survey of the Association of Moving Image Archivists, I sought to determine if there is a difference between whom archivists think should be using home movie collections and who is actually them. Though my findings suggest that home movies have yet to impact the scholarly work of historians, I offer recommendations for future research and professional development that may encourage increased scholarly use as well as increased collaboration between archivists and historians. / text

A partire dagli anni Venti, in Italia come all'estero, iniziano a diffondersi nuovi dispositivi tecnologici per la produzione e la visione di film amatoriali. Analizzando dieci collezioni italiane di film privati e film di famiglia, realizzati da alcuni cineamatori tra il 1926 e il 1942, la ricerca si focalizza sia sui codici linguistici della rappresentazione, sia sulle pratiche sociali di realizzazione e fruizione di tali film. In particolare, lo studio della cinematografia amatoriale come pratica culturale di conservazione della memoria privata consente di aprire alcuni percorsi di ricerca, dal punto di vista teorico e semiotico. In questo senso, il concetto di memoria filmica si pone come asse di intersezione tra una problematizzazione storiografica di un settore degli studi cinematografici, che solo recentemente ha coinvolto gli studiosi, e una riflessione teorica sui processi di elaborazione di una memoria intima e familiare, che si imprime sulla pellicola cinematografica. / In Italy as abroad, the Twenties saw the establishment of new technological devices for the production and vision of amateur films. Analysing ten Italian collections of private films and home movies, made by cine-amateurs between 1926 and 1942, my research examines both the linguistic codes of representation and the social practise of realisation and reception of these films. In particular, it addresses amateur cinematography as a cultural practise of conservation of private memory. Following both a theoretical and semiotic approach, I use the concept of filmic memory as THE intersection for this new historiography. In this sense, I am establishing a new field of cinematic research, whilst offering a theoretical reflection upon the inscription of the intimate and familiar memory into film.

Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2017-04-17T14:30:48Z No. of bitstreams: 1 anaclaracamposdossantos.pdf: 2421025 bytes, checksum: a66b288e631c56bfe4337f7f9cac56ab (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2017-04-18T13:43:02Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 anaclaracamposdossantos.pdf: 2421025 bytes, checksum: a66b288e631c56bfe4337f7f9cac56ab (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-04-18T13:43:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 anaclaracamposdossantos.pdf: 2421025 bytes, checksum: a66b288e631c56bfe4337f7f9cac56ab (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-02-07 / O objetivo geral desta dissertação é analisar de que maneira as pessoas costumavam filmar e aparecer em filmes de família na década de 1970, período em que não havia tanta facilidade, como hoje, em registrar a vida privada. A pesquisa bibliográfica abrange estudos sobre memória e vida privada, com autores como Paul Thompson, Philippe Ariès e Anne MartinFugier, acerca do filme de família, cujos principais autores que utilizamos são Roger Odin, Elizabeth Czach e Thaís Blank, e sobre mise-en-scène, com base nos conceitos de Jean-Louis Comolli, Jacques Aumont e Fernão Pessoa Ramos. Uma das metodologias utilizadas foi a das entrevistas de história oral, feita com dois cinegrafistas: um fotógrafo (Márcio Assis) e uma funcionária pública aposentada (Eliana Tolentino), apontando-se as semelhanças e diferenças entre duas pessoas com trajetórias e estilos de filmagem distintos. Após observação atenta de seus filmes, podemos definir o realizador de filmes de família como cinegrafista participante: trata-se de um sujeito que é personagem secundário da ação filmada e registra os eventos de forma testemunhal, a partir de seu próprio ponto de vista; por vezes, não tem a intenção de interferir no que está acontecendo, por outras, age como “diretor” e demanda a interpelação dos personagens. Para estudar a encenação de si (auto-mise-en-scène) no filme doméstico, foram selecionadas cerca de duas horas de filmes domésticos em Super 8 digitalizados que compõem nosso corpus. A análise fílmica foi feita, principalmente, com base em conceitos definidos por Carlos Gerbase sobre enquadramentos, movimentações da câmera, etc. Com este estudo, foram criadas sete categorias de encenação das personagens: fotográfica (personagem imóvel), normal (aparentemente não percebe a câmera), simulada (sabe da filmagem, mas age “naturalmente”), esquiva (tenta se esconder da câmera), encabulada (demonstra vergonha ao ser filmado), gestual (personagem faz um gesto para a câmera) e espetacular (atuação feita aparentemente em função da câmera). Com esta investigação pretende-se colaborar, especialmente, com os estudos sobre filmes de família – escassos no Brasil – e sobre a auto-mise-en-scène no cinema. / The general objective of this dissertation is to examine how people used to film and appear in family films in the 1970s, when it was not as easy as today to record private life. The literature review covers studies on memory and private life, with authors such as Paul Thompson, Philippe Ariès and Anne Martin-Fugier, about home movies, whose authors are Roger Odin, Elizabeth Czach and Thaís Blank, and about mise-en-scène, based on the concepts of Jean-Louis Comolli, Jacques Aumont and Fernão Pessoa Ramos. One of the methodologies used were oral history interviews with two moviemakers: a photographer (Márcio Assis) and a public servant who is retired (Eliana Tolentino), pointing to similarities and differences between two people with distinct trajectories and filming styles. After a careful observation to their movies, we are able to define the family filmmaker as a participant camera: he/she is a subject who is a secondary character of the filmed action and records the events in a testimonial way, from his/her own point of view; sometimes he/she does not intend to interfere in what is happening, sometimes he/she acts as a "director" and demands interpellation from characters. In order to study self-mise-en-scène in home movies, we selected about two hours of digitized Super 8 home movies that make up our corpus. The film analysis was made, mainly, based on concepts defined by Carlos Gerbase about framing, camera movements, etc. With this study, seven categories of self-mise-en-scène were created: photographic (immobile character), normal (apparently does not perceive a camera), simulated, elusive (tries to hide from the camera) and spectacular (performance made apparently for the camera). This research intends to collaborate, especially, with studies on family films – which are scarce in Brazil - and on self-mise-en-scène in cinema.

Ce mémoire veut démontrer que le film de famille ainsi que ses conditions de réception empruntent, et ce de façon instinctive, au fonctionnement communicatif et rassembleur de la tradition orale. La parole, l’oralité, devrait être considérée comme le catalyseur de la mise en commun du souvenir que le film de famille suscite. Elle est le véhicule de l’interprétation du message du film de famille en tant que discours familial. D’ailleurs, si l’on compare l’influence des deux registres sensoriels présents dans le médium cinématographique (le visuel et l’oralité), le film de famille reprend davantage les modalités de l’oralité. Conséquemment, son contenu, sa forme et sa finalité correspondent à la définition d’un cinéma de l’oralité, un cinéma de la parole défini par Germain Lacasse. En raison d’une absence de travaux portant spécifiquement sur le sujet, l’objectif de cette recherche est de rapprocher et de définir davantage ces liens qui se sont tissés entre la tradition orale et le film de famille. Dans ce dessein, l’approche théorique développée est basée sur les théories de la tradition orale, sur la théorie de la mémoire collective de Maurice Halbwach et sur les rapports entre le cinéma et l’oralité. Ainsi, les aspects suivants sont abordés : Le rôle de l’oralité dans la constitution de la mémoire familiale, l’apport de l’oralité dans les médias stimulateurs de mémoire familiale et finalement, la forme et le contenu du film de famille en tant qu’aspects distinctifs du cinéma oral. Quatre extraits de films de famille québécois des années 20 à aujourd’hui y sont également analysés. / This research wants to demonstrate that the home movie and his reception context seem to be deeply marked by oral tradition and it’s communicative and social system. Orality should be considered as the family remembrance catalyst in home movies. This spoken word is the main transporter of the interpretation of home movie message as the family discourse. In fact, if we try to evaluate which one of the sensory mediums is more important for family communication (visual or oral medium), we would find out that orality plays a bigger part. Consequently, its form, content and finality correspond to the “oral cinema” definition of Germain Lacasse. Because of an actual lack of literature on this specific subject, the purpose of this study is to connect and define theories of oral tradition and home movie. The theoretical approach developed is based on oral tradition theory, Halbwach’s collective memory theory and on the relations between cinema and orality. Therefore, several aspects will be discussed : the contribution of orality in domestic memory constitution, the orality involvement in family memory stimulators or medias, and finally, the analysis of home movie’s form and content as an oral cinema. In addition, four sequences of Quebec made home movies since the twenties until our days are studied.

Ce mémoire veut démontrer que le film de famille ainsi que ses conditions de réception empruntent, et ce de façon instinctive, au fonctionnement communicatif et rassembleur de la tradition orale. La parole, l’oralité, devrait être considérée comme le catalyseur de la mise en commun du souvenir que le film de famille suscite. Elle est le véhicule de l’interprétation du message du film de famille en tant que discours familial. D’ailleurs, si l’on compare l’influence des deux registres sensoriels présents dans le médium cinématographique (le visuel et l’oralité), le film de famille reprend davantage les modalités de l’oralité. Conséquemment, son contenu, sa forme et sa finalité correspondent à la définition d’un cinéma de l’oralité, un cinéma de la parole défini par Germain Lacasse. En raison d’une absence de travaux portant spécifiquement sur le sujet, l’objectif de cette recherche est de rapprocher et de définir davantage ces liens qui se sont tissés entre la tradition orale et le film de famille. Dans ce dessein, l’approche théorique développée est basée sur les théories de la tradition orale, sur la théorie de la mémoire collective de Maurice Halbwach et sur les rapports entre le cinéma et l’oralité. Ainsi, les aspects suivants sont abordés : Le rôle de l’oralité dans la constitution de la mémoire familiale, l’apport de l’oralité dans les médias stimulateurs de mémoire familiale et finalement, la forme et le contenu du film de famille en tant qu’aspects distinctifs du cinéma oral. Quatre extraits de films de famille québécois des années 20 à aujourd’hui y sont également analysés. / This research wants to demonstrate that the home movie and his reception context seem to be deeply marked by oral tradition and it’s communicative and social system. Orality should be considered as the family remembrance catalyst in home movies. This spoken word is the main transporter of the interpretation of home movie message as the family discourse. In fact, if we try to evaluate which one of the sensory mediums is more important for family communication (visual or oral medium), we would find out that orality plays a bigger part. Consequently, its form, content and finality correspond to the “oral cinema” definition of Germain Lacasse. Because of an actual lack of literature on this specific subject, the purpose of this study is to connect and define theories of oral tradition and home movie. The theoretical approach developed is based on oral tradition theory, Halbwach’s collective memory theory and on the relations between cinema and orality. Therefore, several aspects will be discussed : the contribution of orality in domestic memory constitution, the orality involvement in family memory stimulators or medias, and finally, the analysis of home movie’s form and content as an oral cinema. In addition, four sequences of Quebec made home movies since the twenties until our days are studied.

No description available.