Giorgio Avezzti, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano Film History and “Cartographic Anxiety” ‘This paper examines the cartographic paradigm in recent film historiography and criticism. In particulas, it focuses on a concept that can also be useful in film studies: “cartographic anxiety” This catchy expression has alveady been used with reference to cinema by Giuliana Bruno in her Atlas of Emotions, essentially o signify the typically modernist cartographic obsession, as interpreted by early cinema, in particular.' While Bruno's reasoning goes far beyond a discussion of this concept's exact meaning, it should be noted that “cartographic anxiety” originally meant something more specific and quite different. Indeed, the expression was coined by cultural geographer Derek Gregory as the title of a chapter in his 1994 book Geographical Imaginations: In turn, “cartographic anxiety” follows the expression “Cartesian anxiety” intro- duced by American philosopher Richard Bernstein? Cartesian anxiety denotes an epistemological anxiety about the existence of something that the deep structures of Reason are unable to illuminate, Both Descartes and Kant described the powers of Reason using metaphors of space, exploration, travel and conquest, and for Gregory this characterization legtimates an explicitly cartographic formulation of a similar anxiety* Therefore, cartographic anxiety should not be equated with the modernist obsession of striving to fill ll the blank spaces con the world map. Rather, it articulates an unsettling disorientation caused by the emergence of new cifficul ties regarding the geographical xepresentability of the world, about the regimes of truth of geography and the effectiveness of its configurations of knowledge and power, Cartographic anxiety concerns the limits of a pro- ject of knowledge, the limits of our ability to know and understand the world. Geography is not only about describing the surface of the earth, but it also, and above all, entails inferring (and ‘even somehow determining) the way the world functions as a whole, from a socio-political, economical and informational standpoint, starting from the world map. What Gregory highlights is a widespread embarrass ment that recent cartographic theory has often noted. It is a problem of representation: the dissolution and dematerialization of the geographical object that caused what Franco Farinelli calls the “crisis of cartographic reason.” Post-industralism, globalization and digitization, says Farinelli, have introduced a new invisibility into 423Film History and ‘Cartographic Anxiety” the circulation of all the most valuable things today, forcing the world to withdraw into a space beyond repre- sentation — a space that indeed is even beyond the traditional logics of space.’ This phenomenon also under- pins the difficulties of cognitive mapping discussed by Fredric Jameson: late capitalism and its “hidden social order” are too complex to be adequately described, and they take the form of an unimaginable, unmappable, decentred, infinite global network that “can never be perceived with the naked eye." If that is cartographic anxiety, how can the concept be projected onto cinema? There are at least two ways of doing so. First, we can study how cinema, a medium with an ancient cartographic vocation incorporating. a strong mapping impulse, as Teresa Castro would say, deals with and comments on the ctisis of cartographic rea- son — of ifs own cartographic reason — in the filmic texts themselves, especially in those particular enunciative configurations that Castro calls “cartographic shapes.”” That is, we can examine how contemporary films con- sider their own geogeaphicity as a problem in a now-altered media system and how they view cartography itself as an exhausted paradigm of thought now unable to make sense of the world — which is something that we have tried to do elsewhere.® But itis also possible to trace the symptoms of cinema’s cartographic anxiety in film his. toriography and criticism, and we aim to do so in outline here, ‘To highlight some radical “visual problems” in contemporary film history, we need to consider film history as a “way of seeing,” and even history itself as a sort of disposit implying a particular gaze and a specific place for the observer. It is no coincidence that the founder of the Annales school, Mare Bloch, was said to have discov: ered the importance of the long durée from the vantage point of a plane while serving as an intelligence officer during World War One ~ a viewpoint that had to be completed by the one from the ground, from the trenches.? Similarly, in his posthumous book on the theory of historiography, History: The Last Things before the Last, Siegfried Kracauer drew a parallel between history and cine-photographic media ~ indeed, he saw the work as a sort of addition to his Theory of Filo (in that history entails scopic regimes and is also a spectacle). Kracauer, too, resorts more than once to an analogy between the historian’s “point of view” and “visual field” and the elevated vantage point of aerial photography: Moreover, he, 100, believes that the writing of history consists in a dialectic between “extreme long shots” and “close-ups” (his terms) over and within the historical scenario." This continuous merging and shifting between two scopic attitudes — from above and from below ~ recalls the integration of two techniques of visually representing the world that underpins the discipline of geography: the somewhat contradictory integration of planar projection and linear perspective, which constitutes what geog- rapher John Pickles has called the “cartographic paradox.""" Indeed, according to Christian Jacob, itis pre- cisely a similar ability to 200m in and out at different scales that constitutes the cinematographicity of geogra- phy, in particular that of the atlas, “a device that can reconcile the desire for an overview and for detail [...1, that leads from global vision to partial images."!? If history, as well as geography, is “cinematic,” itis not surprising if film history sometimes seems to incorpo- rate something of the medium’s geographicity. In fact, as we have partially anticipated, we could consider two complementary aspects of the relationship between geography and cinema. First, cinema is geographical because of its realism and its ability 4o represent the (whole) world, since every film contributes to the great archive of the visible, to the cinematic description of the earth. Second, cinema is geographical because of the specific regional and national way in which it is produced and distributed; in other words, because it can be represented as if it were the world, in an atlas of sorts, by film history and criticism.” A thetorical and aesthetic correspondence, or osmosis, between cartographic cinema and cartography of cinema can also be traced in some recent approaches to the study of film history. We believe and shall try to demon- strate that these approaches show some reactionary trait if seen in light of the “crisis of cartographic reason.” In other words, we believe that the cartographic paradigm in recent film history attempts to overcome a crisis of representation: it has a symptomatic and compensative quality in contemporary (film) culture. 424Giorgio Avezxi Let us consider the “world cinema” approach advocated by Dudley Andrew, among others. It champions an all-encompassing overview of global cinema production and distribution, promoting the virtues of a distant reading similar to what Franco Moretti proposed for literary history ~ and which, indeed, Moretti also used in relation to cinema. This perspective ean convey the interconnection between the elements ~ films, cultures and economies ~ and their relationships, shapes and patterns, which is also described in the form of graphs and maps. Andrew pro poses an atlas of world cinema: This is the pedagoxcal promise of world cinema, « manner of treating foreign films systematically, transcending the vagaries of taste; taking the measure of “the foreign” in what is literally a freshly recognized global dimension. Such an approach examines overriding factors, then zeroes in on specific “cinema sites” — provides coordinates for navigating this world of world cinema. Ie is easy to see the cinematographicity of Andrew's proposed atlas, in the sense in which Jacob considers every atlas “cinematic,” in the ability that it offers to zoom in and out ~ on the world cinema map, in this case. World cinema “methodology” in film history not only conveys a complex and ideologically ambiguous geo graphical shetoric but also has an aesthetic aspect in the strictly visual sense of the expression. World cinema's ‘cartographic and worldist aesthetics is iconographically encapsulated by the logo on the back cover and before the title page in the Tauris World Cinema Series books edited by Liicia Nagib; it sin fact @ world map. To be precise, it is the highly popular and controversial “egalitarian” projection by Arno Peters lentally, it may be of interest that Arno Peters earned a Ph.D. with a thesis on cinema and propaganda in 1945 in Berlin. What is wrong with the “worldview,” the “larger vision,” the “all-encompassing vocation” of world cinema, as advocated by Andrew, Nagib and many others? Surely the global is a situated construction, However, we do not mean that it would bring a neocolonialist approach to the study of cinema, because its proponents are always very prudent and believe in a “polycentric” methodology. Our point is that we should consider the fun damental reason behind this approach’s success: cartographic anxiety, we assert. In other words, the pervasive and unconfessed fear that the attempts to draw a complete map of world cinema today are doomed to failure. ‘World cinema’s cartographic preoccupation may call to mind the modernist project obsessively striving to cover and to enframe the whole world, Is there really a “nomadic” cinema that can defy attempts to map it? Not at all, says Andrew, noting that the recent availability of Nigerian videos previously considered “unmentionable, unviewable, unmappable” seems to contest such a claim. Nothing is unattainable to the scholar; nothing is con demned to be obscured by clouds forever. However, we can begin to suspect that this cartographic approach to the study of cinema history is trying to strategically reimpose an order on something that is slipping out of control. Tei interesting to read between the lines of another of Andrew's crucial comments: “Today, amidst digital con- fections tempting filmmakers and audiences to escape into the air of the virtual, world cinema brings us back to the earth, this earth on which many worlds are lived and perceived concurrently.”"* We believe that the uncom fortable awareness of the virtualization of cinema and of the audiences ~ of both filmic texts and theie distrib ution and reception ~ is exactly the ghostly presence lurking behind this approach. This also explains the great emphasis that world cinema places on realism: a similar nostalgia for geography, for a cinema that maps and that can be mapped, can be explained by considering that digital production can pose = or be perceived as ~ a threat to cinema’s referentiality. As an example among the many publications on “glob- al neorealism,” etc., Tiago de Luca's recent ‘Tauris World Cinema Series book considers a new “realist tenden cy [that] as surfaced on the world cinema map” from Iran to Thailand, Mexico, Philippines, Hungary, Taiwan, 425Film History and “Cartographic Anxiety” Argentina, China, Russia, USA, Portugal, Turkey and Spain that uses location shooting, non-professional actors, depth of field and long takes."” Here again, the confusion berween cartographic cinema and cartography of cin- ema is apparent. Despite “digital technology's ability to elicit manipulation and simulation,” which can call into question the “previously straightforward relationship with the real,” “cinematic realism is alive and well,” says de Luca, and can be found in all corners of the globe. “It is revealing,” he adds, “that this cinematic tendency has emerged at the very moment that digital technology has the potential to obliterate film’s indexicality.”"* Incidentally, we do not believe that it is important whether this is true: someone perceives it to be true, and that is enough for our discussion. However, in our opinion, the real problem that cinema has to face concerns not the indexicality of the image but, rather, the ‘ndicabiity of the world, The problem originates from the world — from the invisibility of the contemporary world system, as Jameson says ~ not from the image. On closer inspection, the celebration of this “new global realist” tendency in de Luca’s book seems linked to another aspect ~ the very one that we spotted in Andrew's revealing sentence quoted above: the virtualization of the audiences. ‘The emergence of sensory realism: in world cinema would seem to respond not only to simulation processes but also to the profound changes which the video, and more recently the digital have introduced into film viewing babits, increasingly displaced onto the private sphere of home and the mobile sereens of electronic devices According to de Luca, recent realist “world” cinema (a “slow” cinema that reacts to the contemporary “culture of excess” and “overstimulation” of “our globalized, mobile and digitized world”) would need a “sealed-off auditorium,” a gigantic screen, a surround sound system, silence, immobility and darkness. All those factors provide an “experiential dimension [that] is compromised in the abstracted sphere of home or on the mobile screens of portable devices.” This aversion to the recent phenomenon of the relocation of cinema®® and a similar insistence on the importance of film-theatre screening are compelling insofar as they also seem typical of another recent kind of film — or maybe cinema ~ historiography that adopts the cartographic paradigm. We are referring to the approach illus trated by the essays collected in the 2011 book Explorations in New Cinema History edited by Richard Maltby, Daniel Biltereyst and Philippe Mcers. The “emerging trend” in cinema history that the book celebrates gocs beyond the study of filmic texts, preferring to focus on cinema attendance, circulation and consumption. It is both microbistorical and macrohistorical in its method ~ “each ‘local history’,” says Maltby, “contributes to a larger picrure.”2! That approach aims to “describe patterns,” “rhythms” and “movements” of the social and cultural experience of cinema, relying heavily on databases, quantitative research, empirical data, spatial analy- sis, geovisualization and GIS, Charts, tables, plots and graphs ~ in a word: geography. The geographicity of this approach to cinema history study is even more explicit in the 2013 collection Locating the Moving Image? However, what is mapped in these cases is essentially classical public moviegoing, because the film theatre is considered the only experiential context that had embodied some authentic civic and social values during the last century of cinema history The Sanborn Fire Insurance maps used in the “Going to the Show” project, in which Robert Allen is engaged, might enable us to see not only how big a theatre was and whether it had a bal- cony or stage, but also the social dimension of the moviegoing experience: “going to the movies was a part of the experience of the spaces of downtown social, cultural, commercial and consumer life.” Hence, itis impor- tant to observe the proximity between movie theatres and the civic, social, religious and commercial buildings around them2* Among the contributors to Explorations in New Cinema History, Jeffrey Klenotic is one of the keenest cartog- raphy and geovisualization enthusiasts: “This exploration would require using the full range of panning, zoom: 426Giorgio Avezxi ing, identification, searching, thematic mapping, hyperlinking and other GIS tools.”® Interestingly he also lists some features that digital cartography imported from cinema, in another cinematic cartography of cinema of sorts. Klenotic proposes to consider “cinema history as a history of spatial relations.” His words reveal a firm belief in what has been called cartographic reason: the possibilty to infer the correlation between phenomena and their deeper meanings from their mutual spatial relationships. When using, a map to note the interdepen- dence between cinemas and railways in New Hampshire in 1936, Klenotic is adopting 2 typical argument of ‘cartographic reason, which deduces how the world works from what is materially visible: the railway track tra ditionally indicates (or had indicated) a corresponding social reality. Everything happens through space and is inscribed on the land, and is therefore readable, mappable, He says, “Almost everything that interests a histo rian ~ goods and services, capital and labor, ideas and innovations, fashions and epidemics ~ moves from one place to another.” So too the sociality of cinema and its economic dimension: GIS allows us to trace, to visu lize, to map social, cultural and economic networks. And movie theatres represent the tangible materialization of these networks, Klenotie’s and Allen’s work, with all its captivating geographical fascination, can be read symptomatically. Without the authors’ saying so, their endeavor is deeply motivated by the crisis of cartographic reason, by the sceret consciousness of a new impossibility of inferring the invisible from the visible. Not everything is mappable today; not everything is material and can be represented in tabular form, especially not the most valuable things, such as money and information ~ this is what contemporary theorists of geography such as Gunnar Olsson and Franco Farinelli insistently repeat. And capital and labour, as Jameson says, are also unrepresentable. The strong desire to geographically acae film history originates, we believe, from an awkward feeling of impo- tence in the face of the disintegration of traditional filmic texts and the multiplication and decentralization of the sites where films are experienced. A similar unease becomes apparent when authors make occasional wry remarks, such as Allen’s evocation of contemporary moviegoing from the perspective of a teenager, reluctant about wearing pants and shoes, traveling to some other place, paying nearly the equivalent of buying a DVD to see a film once in ¢ dark room without wireless internet connectivity with strangers at a time determined by someone else's schedule, seated upright in chairs bolted to the floor, limited in the range of comestible accompaniments to criminally overpriced popcorn, candy and soft drinks, discouraged from tabking, singing along, and walking around, unable to pause, replay or fast-for- sword, deprived of director's commentary track, and absent alternative endings, outakes, deleted scenes, bloopers, inter- views with actors, directors and screemeriter, and "the making of featurette?” In these words, and in general in this “new historical” approach, as inthe chapter by de Luca discussed above, ‘we see a nostalgia or @ reactionary desire for a well-isciplined dspositif, an old-fashioned “authentic” specte- torial geometry often deemed irremediably lost today ~ although it probably never actualy existed in these terms If the “sealed-off auditorium” is the materialization of film culture, then film culture is mappable. We believe that cartogcaphic anxiety motivates this geographic approach ~ an anxiety about the snmappability of conten porary film distribution and reception, which rarely reaches a similar level of visibility. Shadow Economies of Cinema by Ramon Lobato deals with precisely this theme: although it does not refer to the recent debates in the geographical discipline, itis a book on the crisis of cartographic reason applied to mapping film disteibu- tion today. Film-theatre screening, says Lobato, is no longer the epicentre of cinema culture, Films are often distributed elsewhere, in the messy digital ecology but also in street markets, bazaars and grocery stores, Its peculiar social 427Film History and ‘Cartographic Anxiety” dimension, from handshake deals to digital piracy, is not easily mappable, Informal film distribution is “paral- lel” and “subterranean;” it bypasses traditional institutions, and defies conventional measurement. Informal media flows, he says, “fall through the cracks of the measurement system and are rendered invisible.” It is a problem of knowabiliy: itis hard to find reliable data in order to monitor and measure the grey area of infor- mal production and exchange, which is so important today, nor are box office data useful. “Informal distribu- tion is usually nvisible — or at least less visible than its formal counterparts - in the industrial indexes and data that constitute our empirical knowledge of media flows." Lobato is saying that the “map of world cinema” today cannot but omit many things that lie beyond the limits of our traditional means of knowing about cinema culture. Straight-to-video films are not eligible for Oscar nomination, while online peer to peer services have no nerve centre and are difficult to control and shut down: film history discourse needs normalized objects, but the cultural extent of what escapes its interpretive grid is increasing. From this perspective any attempt to formalize the informal, athough legitimate and excusable, is mere self-deception. Take, for example, the typical attempt (which Andrew thinks is desirable, as we have seen above) to “take the measure” of, or size up, the Nigerian video industry, making a nontheatrical film culture more manageable, obedient and amenable to the Western film schola’s exploring, cartographic skills, even though large parts of it are empirically invisible. It is, again, an optical deficiency: informal distribution is “rendered invisible by the lens” of film analysis and film history, and would need us to recalibrate our research paradigms to include the “unmeasured,” the “unreg. ulated,” the “extra-legal” — it would be a perspective “from below,” as Lobato recommends, and not just “from above.” Actually, Maltby also made the suggestion to “write cinema history from below;”* however, we believe that some of the essays in Explorations in New Cinema History, as we have seen, take quite the opposite approach. Indeed, a similar method relies on the revelatory qualities of the bird’s eye view - that is, on the abil: ity to infer something from a vantage point that is now probably obsolete. James Clifford has said, “There is no longer any place of overview (mountaintop) from which to map human ways of life, no Archimedian point from which to represent the world.” Or, in Farinel’s terms, an observer on a hilltop looking down at the sunlit val- ley could once (e.g. in New Hampshire in the thirties) positively deduce the functional relationship berween things — the city, the coal mine, the factory, the railway, the way the world functioned. Nowadays, though, from the same place, no observer could identify any material trace to judge the interdependence between the things they see, because “today, the power of sight reveals almost nothing about the inner mechanisms that regulate how the world’s activities reproduce." fo conclude, we have tried to explain why we find “cartographic anxiety” to be secretly at work behind certain kinds of contemporary film historiography facing the complexity of the cinematic landscape today. History has always involved optics, which always makes history theoretical, even when it does not claim to be so or when deems itself “post-theoretical.” Indeed, itis well known that ‘theory’ etymologically relates to a particular way of seeing, of “holding the world at a distance.” Because of the opacity, the complexity and the obscurity of film culture (and indeed of the contemporary world as a whole, itis especially difficult today to shift from the view from above to the view from below. That is something that even Kracauer, in History: The Last Things before the Last considered ultimately impossible. Like geography, (film) history is a practice of discipline and naming, which puts names on a map, and it requires its objects to conform to a particular framework, while it cannot but exclude what is not isomorphic and cannot be adequately accommodated. The cartographic paradigm in recent film history's attempts to locate cinema culture, showing neutrality but hiding nostalgia silently but symptomaticaly tells us about these difficulties in attempting to grasp the whole picture of the world in order to master it intellectually: it tells of its own (our own) scopic problems and cartographic limits, the limits of our imagination, 428Giorgio Avezsi Notes * See Giuliana Bruno, Ades of Emotion: Jouneys x Art, Architecture and Fl, Nerso, New York 202, pp. 106-108, 2 See Derek Gregory, Gevgrephica! Imaginations, Blackwell, Cambridge Oxford 1994, pp. 70-205 » Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objcetvm and Relativism Science, Hermenente, and Praxis, University ‘of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 1985, p. 16 + See ako Gunnar Olson, “Towards a Critique of Cartographical Reason,” in Ethics, Place and Environment, 0h. 1, 00.2, 1998, pp. 5-155. > See Franco Farineli, Geografis. Un intradecione a madelldel mondo, Einaudi, Torino 2003 and I, Le ors della regione certografica, Pinaud, Torino 2008. © See Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, on The Cultural Logic of Late Capitation, Vero, London-New York 1991, and Id, The Geopolitical Aesthetic Cinema and Space in the World System, Indiana Univenity Press BF, Bloomington Indianapolis Landon 1995, 1 *Formes carographiques” see Teresa Castro, La Pens carfograpigue des images. Cina ete ‘re viele, Alga, Lyon 2011, p. 36, A cated spprosch, more focused on diegetic map, i cha of ‘Torn Conley, in Cartographic Cinema, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapelis-London 207 My Ph.D. thesis, ent The Gongrapbic Anxiety of Cinema, Poritnce and Crisis ofthe Cartographic Reason in Contemporary Fain (supenisor: Prof. Ruggero Eugenil i mainly about this topic. ° See the paragraph “The Aerial View from the Annales School to Esty Film Theory” in Pala Amad, CounterArcive: Film, te Everyday, and Albert Kab’ Archives de a Plante, Columbia University ress, New York 2010, pp. 273-278, " See Siefied Kracawer, Histon: The Last Things Before the Last, Oxford Univesity Press, New York 1968, On Kracauer’ book, historiography and opis see Carlo Ginabur, Patio prim pant, micro als In marine a wlio di Siegfried Kracaucr, in dy fl ke trace. Vero fas fant, Feline, Milano 2006, pp. 225-240, and alo Id, Micmstoi: deo tre cose ce sod ein Idem, pp. 241-269. "John Pickles, A History of Spaces: Cartographic Reson, Mapping, and the Geocoded World, Routledge, London-New York 2004, p. 89. The earographic paradox has alo been extensively di cussed regarding the relations between film and cartography in Chris Lukinbeal, “Mobilizing the Cartographic Paradox: Tracing the Aspect of Cartography and Prospect of Cinema,” in Digital Thematic Edation, vl. 11, no. 2,210, pp. 132. "2 Christian Jacob, The Sovereign Map: Theoretical Approaches in Cartography throughout History, Univesity of Chicago Press, Chicago 2006, p 67 The intermingling of these two aspects can be discerned even in Kino wed Erdkade by Hermann, ‘Hier, Volksverens-Verlag GmbH, M. Gladbach 1914, probably the fist book onthe subject: lms are geographical because of their photographic basi, but they can provide the necessary view of the ‘whole world (Well only when inserted in a global framework by the scholar. Ths amphiboy in the connection between cinema and geography aso evident in the ro seminal series of ates edit ced by the British Fm Academy’s first director, Roger Manvel, published in The Geographical -Magszite ofthe Royal Geographical Society from 1953. While the ist series comprises several art: cles on national cinemas (e. cinema asthe object of cartography, the second analyzes how docu ‘mentay film has been used to describe the British Commonwealth tetitories and the United States (Ge, cinema asthe subject of cartography, and the world as the object of cinematic cartography), On the “distant reading” see Franco Moret, Graph, Mops, Tees: Abstract Models fore Literary 429Film History and "Cartographic Anxiety" History, Nero, London-New York 2005. With regard to cinema, see Id, “Planet Hollywood,” in New eft Review, no. 9, 2001, pp. 9-101. " Dudley Andrew, “An Ailas of World Cinems,” in Fremework, vl. 45, no. 2, 204, pp. 923, pp. 9-10, "6 Idem p. 21 (emphasis added "Tiago de Luca, Realism ofthe Senses: Tendency in Contemporary Word Cinema, in Licia Nasi, ‘Chris Perviam, Rajinder Dudeah (eds), Theoriing World Cinema, LB. Tauts, London-New York 2012, pp. 183-205, p. 185. The article was followed by the book I, Realion ofthe Senses in World Cinema: The Experience of Pbysca! Reality, LB, Tauis, London-New York 2014. "8 Idem, p15; ° Idem, p. Wand pp. 24-255. 2 Francesco Cast has written extensively on the “relocation” of cinema, For example, see Ka, ‘Back tothe Motherland: The Film Theatre inthe Postmedia Age,” in Soren, vol 52,0. 1, 2011, pp. 1-12, and Id, “The Relocation of Cinema,” in Nees, vol. 1,n0. 2, 2012, pp. 534. 2! “With common data standards and protocols to ensure interoperability, comparative analysis across rego, nao and eotinental bounds bocotes pole a cach Tod stor’ antes to {linger picture and more complex understanding of ..] he infrastructure of cll M’* Richard Maltby, New Cinema Histories, in Id., Daniel Biltereyst, Philippe Meers (eds.), Explorations in New Ginema History: Approaches and Case Studies, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden 2011, pp. 3-39. 2 juli Hallam, Lex Robe (ds), Loctng be Moving mae: New Approaches to Film ond Pl, India Univeny Pres, Booming indians ® See, for example, the first paragraph (and note 1) of Robert Allen, Reimagining the History of the Esxtrone of Cie na Past Moiegrng Ag, nich Mak Dan Bley, Pipe Mees (eds.), Explorations in New Cinema History: Approaches and Case Studies, cit., pp. 41-57. See also 1d., Gating "Gang othe Sho”, Jia al, Lex Robers es), Ltn he Moning Image: New Approaches to Fills and Place, cit., pp. 31-43. * Richard Maly, New Cine Hite cp. Se Rober Alm, Reimann he itor ofthe Experience of Cinna no Post Move ge, ch ® Jeffrey Klenotic, Putting Cinema History on the Map: Using GIS to Explore the Spatiality of Cinema, in Richard Maltby, Daniel Biltereyst, Philippe Meers (eds.), Explorations in New Cinema History: Approaches and Case Studies, cit., pp. 58-84, p. 75. * dom. 7 Robert Allen, Reimagining ihe History of the Experience of Cinema tn a Post-Moviegoing Age, cit., p-43-4. The conscience of an “epochal die” in the history of movigoing pervades both the ai cles by Allen that we have quoted. > Ramon Labato, Sndne Eomonies of nena: Mapping Informal Fi Diaraton BL Pave Macmillan, London 2012p. 1. Te quoted sentence refers to “fl ke Left Bein,” but an be ‘extended to the whole subject of Lobato’s book. > Hom p44 » Richard Maltby, “On the Prospect of Writing Cinema History from Below,” in Tiidscbrift Voor Metiseschideia vl 9, 0.22005 pp. 74% §! James Clifford, Introduction: Partial Trutbs, in J. Clifford, George E, Marcus (eds.), Writing Culture: ‘the tics and Pos of Echogrply, University of Califomia Pres, Bley Les Angee London 1986. 126». 22. * Franco Farinelli, Geografia. Un'introduzione ai modelli del mondo, ci pp. 52.53 (my translation) 430