The article is devoted to Schulz’s connections to the cinema, both as a viewer and as a writer. Since we do not know much about his experiences as a moviegoer from his art or letters, the author tries to recreate it on the basis of the collective experience of Schulz’s generation which was often heavily influenced by the cinema. The second part of the article focuses on Schulz’s cinematic writing. The author tries to prove that Schulz’s peculiar literary imagination which, according to many scholars and critics, takes its root in the image, not the word, was to some extent inspired by the early cinema or the cinema of attractions. The conclusion is that the interpreter of Schulz’s work has the right to treat his older brother’s movie theater in Drogobych as an important part of Schulz’s private mythology.
The text describes the backstage of the legendary International Experimental Film Competition in Brussels, which accompanied the Expo-58 Exhibition at a turning point of the political thaw in Eastern and Central Europe. The most important representatives of avant-garde cinema and auteur animation of three generations took part in this event. The Grand Prix was awarded to The House of Walerian Borowczyk and Jan Lenica. The prize became the ticket to a European career for these two young filmmakers. The competition was also remembered as a symbolic beginning of the “Polish school of animation” (or the so-called “Polish school of experimental film”) on the global film market. The author of the article also writes about a difficult return to Poland, about a cash prize that caused many problems, about the successes of Polish films in Brussels, and about the reception of The House in Poland and abroad. Finally, he tries to demonstrate why this bleak and difficult to understand film, which builds opposition to the optimism of Expo Exhibitions, won the main prize, beating over 300 competitors from around the world.
Scientist and Wizard. The Vicissitudes of Maestro Starewicz The article is devoted to Władysław Starewicz (aka Ladislas Starewitch or Starevich), an animated film pioneer and independent filmmaker of Polish origin working for Russian, French and German cinematographies. The author attempts to explain why this multitalented artist and one of the most signifi cant puppet animators in film history did not achieve the commercial success he deserved, and shortly aft er WWII was almost totally forgotten. The article focuses on three aspects of Starewicz’s biography: his struggles with twentieth-century history, his fight for artistic and financial independence, and his eccentric personality. Finally, he is presented as a tragic figure who represents a model biography of an animator in Eastern Europe trying to achieve success in the Western world before 1945.
The plot of the “Sanatorium under the Sign of an Hourglass” resembles that of the most famous film of the German expressionism – The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari (1920) by Robert Wiene. In fact, similarities go beyond the plot and can be discovered also in the expressionist manner of creating the presented world and characters, the mysterious atmosphere, and many important details discussed in the essay. Is it likely that Bruno Schulz saw the film about the demonic hypnotist and his medium, which inspired him to write the story about doctor Gotard’s sanatorium?
When a researcher deals with a film audience, it is easier to study the one that exists and is still active. In this case, social sciences and the humanities supply practical tools and relatively easy access to all kinds of data. It is much more difficult to capture experiences, emotions, and rituals of the audiences from many decades ago, working with an impermanent human memory, unreliable personal or press sources. The article discusses the basic methodological problems related to the researching film audiences that no longer exist (especially from the pre-WW2 years). It turns out that the difficulties are not only in how to read the sources and how to evaluate the data. The cinema historian confronts more serious challenges. Do we have access to other people’s experiences without personal contact? Can research focused on subjective and mediated feelings capture an objective image at all? What may result from research with so many unknowns? The article, based on the author’s many years of experience in researching cinema-going, is a proposal on how to respond to all these questions.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.