[PDF Download] The zoo and screen media: images of exhibition and encounter 1st edition michael lawr
Michael Lawrence
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/the-zoo-and-screen-media-images-of-exhibition-andencounter-1st-edition-michael-lawrence/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Lasting Screen Stars: Images that Fade and Personas that Endure 1st Edition Lucy Bolton
Pamela Robertson Wojcik Department of Film, Television, and Theatre
University of Notre Dame
Chicago, USA
Screening Spaces is a series dedicated to showcasing interdisciplinary books that explore the multiple and various intersections of space, place, and screen cultures.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14491
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Nature America Inc. New York
I NTRODUCTION : I MAGES OF E XHIBITION
AND E NCOUNTER
The zoo, like the cinema, is a space designed with exhibition in mind.1 The history and the diversity of media images that exploit the zoo and its animals are unsurprisingly extensive—from the earliest films of the Lumière brothers (such as Lion. London Zoological Garden, 1895) to the first YouTube video (‘Me at the zoo’ was uploaded at 8:27 p.m. on Saturday 23 April 2005 by the site’s cofounder Jawed Karim).2 The zoo appears in over a century of audio-visual imagery, which continues into the twentyfirst century with 24-hour data streaming provided by ‘zoo-cams’ now a familiar aspect of many zoos’ on-going promotional activities.
In ‘Why Look at Animals?’ (1977) John Berger reminds us: ‘Public zoos came into existence at the beginning of the period which was to see the disappearance of animals from daily life’. As Berger famously claims: ‘The zoo to which people go to meet animals, to observe them, to see them, is, in fact, a monument to the impossibility of such encounters’. The modern zoo, he argues, is ‘an epitaph to a relationship which was as old as man’ (2009: 30). Many authors in this volume share the sentiments of Berger’s polemical essay, but this anthology also tests this assumption, tracing different modes of exhibition (different zoos and the different modes of cinema and media through which these zoos are captured) whilst also reflecting upon the possibility of encounter(s) between zoo animals and visitors to the zoo, between zoo animals and visitors and spectators in the cinema, or between individuals at their computer consoles and the often evasive animals under surveillance. While not a history of the zoo per se, this collection explores multiple intersections between zoological spaces and moving image media as both of these have changed over the
last 120 years.3 The essays collected here contribute to the growing interest in zoos within the academy, felt across the humanities and the social sciences, as well as to the recent explosion of interest in the non-human animal within philosophy, literary and cultural studies, and film and media studies.4
As the zoo itself is necessarily selective, this collection fails to provide a complete “taxonomy” of zoos and their media representation; nonetheless, in this initial foray we cover a great deal of ground, with chapters examining the zoo as it is depicted, employed and imagined across a wide range of film and media texts and technologies.5 Across the four sections of this book—we hesitate to call these themes, to avoid mimicking the contemporary ‘Disneyization’ of the zoo, in which animals and landscapes are arranged as if in the eponymous theme parks (Beardsworth and Bryman 2001)—particular ideas and fantasies inspired and staged by the zoo recur but the picture of zoos that emerges is necessarily contradictory: whilst the zoo is a convenient spectacle, apparently and inherently dramatic—even romantic—it is also troubling, despotic and dismal. Implicitly or explicitly we are certainly now— more often than not—conscious that in nearly all instances the non-human animals at the zoo suffer—they are incarcerated and incapacitated, enraged or comatose. As Raph R. Acampora argues: ‘From empire to circus to museum or ark, the zoo has been organized according to anthropocentrist and arguably androcentrist hierarchies and designs’ (2005: 70, following Mullan and Marvin 1987). Even human animals, confined mostly (but not always) to the role of visitors or spectators, are often subject to conflicting emotions at the zoo—to wonder, pity, amusement and disgust. In the following chapters, all of these emotions are revealed and the ambivalence this provokes exposed.
In the first section, Archives, we explore the zoo as it is depicted in films, photography and digital media catalogued and recorded for various zoo, film and photographic archives. In ‘“A Constellation of Incongruities”: The Amateur Film and the Trip to the Zoo’, Karen Lury examines a range of amateur films made at Edinburgh Zoo and considers in particular representations of chimpanzees’ tea parties, in order to explore how amateur films stage fantasies of civilisation and models of evolution, and reflect the zoo’s shifting concerns, from the display of civic pride and colonial superiority to an emphasis on families and conservation. Drawing on the work of Anat Pick, Lury argues that anthropocentric hierarchies are dissolved in this rawest mode of film production: amateur films, she suggests, emphasise the creaturely being shared by human and non-human animals alike.
In his chapter, ‘Capturing the Beasts: Zoo Film and Interspecies Pasts’, Andrew J. P. Flack looks to archival footage from Bristol Zoo Gardens to trace histories of human-animal entanglements associated with captive animal life. For Flack, such footage is of significant value due to its depiction of the liveliness of the zoo animals and the varieties of captive behaviour and interactions with visitors, and the legacy or the memorialisation of species and individuals that film permits. Katherine Groo, in ‘The Human Zoo and Its Double’, considers the relationship between photography and film by looking at the still and moving images of the 1931 Exposition Coloniale in Paris (including its human zoo) that were produced for the Archives de Planete. Groo argues that the rigid hierarchies of difference subtending both projects— and the colonial epistemologies structuring their displays of human subjects—are productively dismantled via the processes of repetition, reiteration and re-presentation she tracks through the archival images. In ‘ZooTube: Streaming Animal Life’, Andrew Burke considers how and why the zoo-cam has emerged as a pedagogical and promotional tool for zoological institutions. Burke argues that while the zoo-cam may draw on established modes of representing animals, such as wildlife documentaries, it nevertheless constitutes a profound transformation of the way zoo animals are depicted on screens and offers novel and unexpectedly innovative ways of looking at (zoo) animals.
In Hollywood we explore ways in which the zoo and its “wild” animals have been used and pictured in the commercial cinema industry. In a chapter exploring the cinema industry’s employment of the zoo as part of its production process—‘Animal Empire: Thrill and Legitimation at William Selig’s Zoo and Jungle Pictures’—Sabine Haenni discusses Selig’s operations in Los Angeles in the 1910s and specifically the production of ‘wild animal pictures’ made possible by the Selig Zoo. Selig’s animal films present the human-animal encounter as malleable and unstable, and yet serve an American cinematic empire grounded in the rhetoric of legitimacy and imperialism, an empire whose power, Haenni argues, depends on its capacity to incorporate such instability. Explicitly addressing this collection’s interest with relations of space, Jacob Smith’s ‘A Tour of Zoo in Budapest’ focuses on the 1933 film Zoo in Budapest (Rowland V. Lee) to explore the synergy between Hollywood film production and zoological exhibition and reflect upon the intertwined history of Hollywood cinema and the zoological garden. Smith teases out the three-way relationship between the film’s set, the design of modern zoos and the cartography of the film itself, spaces linked by a geometry of social relations best described
through reference to Erving Goffman’s study of ‘total institutions’, and focuses on the cross-species sociality and collaborative performances that take place in both zoos and film studios. In ‘“Out There, In the World”: Representations of the Zoo and Other Spaces in the Madagascar Trilogy’, Brett Mills discusses how Madagascar (Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, 2005) and its two sequels represent the zoo as a place that animals might want to escape from but also one they might want to return to, and which they commonly refer to as their “home”. He argues that while the trilogy does not engage in the explicitly human politics of the ethics of and necessity for zoos, it aims instead to offer a depiction of that debate from the point of view of the animals. For the animated animal characters, the zoo is a contradictory space and becomes even more so once they return having left it; the Madagascar trilogy asks the question: what might a zoo be like for the animals that live in it? Despite these films’ explicit focus on spectacle and exhibition they insist on representing the animals as having both subjectivity and agency, and that these can be shaped by circumstances and drawn upon as resources.
Next, we address the resonance and relevance of the zoo for what has emerged as its most important and potent audience—Families and Children. In ‘Placing Children at the Zoo: The Zoo as Mythical Landscape of Childhood’, Pamela Robertson Wojcik considers the relationship between the zoos and children and the assumptions about zoos or about childhood that make them seem compatible. Wojcik considers two mid-twentieth century texts that present children in part by affiliating childhood and the zoo: the British TV episode Seven Up! (Paul Almond, 1964) and the American independent film Lovers and Lollipops (Morris Engel and Ruth Orkin, 1956). The zoo in these respective texts is not central to the narrative and neither explores the zoo in any depth, but both use the zoo as a stage for the performance of childhood. In each, scenes at the zoo serve to produce different conceptions of childhood that compare children to animals but from very different perspectives. In each film, the zoo scenes serve as a metonym and are used to articulate, to varying degrees of explicitness, specific views of childhood. In ‘Family Matters: Tales of Tigers and Tapirs at Dublin Zoo’, Gwenda Young addresses stories of Dublin Zoo’s animal entertainers and human workers, and the marketing of the zoo as a familial site, and focuses on the television series about the running of the zoo. She demonstrates that perversely perhaps, it is the centrality of the human, which is essential to the series’ success. While part of the mission of the show, and of Dublin Zoo itself, is to
promote the message of conservation (and thus legitimise both the enterprise of zoo keeping and the decision by the national broadcaster to screen a series devoted to it), the strategies used are invariably anthropocentric: the appeal of the show lies in the presentation, framing and management of these animal activities by the humans that we are encouraged to “get to know” and identify with as they observe, facilitate and explain for us the behaviour of animals. This emphasis on the keepers has helped ensure that the series has found a wide audience, while simultaneously underlining the familial discourse so essential to the Dublin Zoo brand. In ‘Photographs and Families in We Bought a Zoo and Our Zoo’, Michael Lawrence considers the relationship between zoos, families and photography, by examining the presence of photographic images, practices and technologies in two recent family-oriented representations of family-managed zoos, the Hollywood feature film We Bought a Zoo (Cameron Crowe, US, 2011) and the BBC television series Our Zoo (2014). Both the film and the television series seek to minimise or eliminate entirely any ‘bad zoo feelings’ (Uddin 2015) their audiences might experience. While concern for the well-being of the nonhuman animals in the zoos is apparently privileged in the film and the television series, this is compromised by their various allusions to and representations of photographic images, practices and technologies— from slideshows to screensavers—which reveal troubling correspondences between the production and purpose of family photographs and the collection and captivity of animals in zoos, and expose the zoo’s relationships with colonial cultures of “protection” and “preservation”.
Finally, we conclude with a section in which chapters address the potential of the zoo as an arena for artistic, architectural and ecological Experiments. In ‘László Moholy-Nagy at the London Zoo: Animal Enclosures and the Unleashed Camera’, Richard Hornsey discusses The New Architecture and the London Zoo, a short silent film by the Hungarian artist László Moholy-Nagy about the modernist structures then recently built for the Zoological Society of London’s sites at Regent’s Park and Whipsnade, and specifically Berthold Lubetkin’s celebrated Penguin Pond and Gorilla House, foregrounding once again the collection’s underpinning interest in the space and place of the zoo and its relationship with the film form. Hornsey considers the ideological confluence between architectural modernism and the new biology that dominated the Society in the 1920s and 1930s, and the active and unfolding dialectic between these forms and zoological display. Moholy-Nagy’s film, however, reveals a fundamental tension between the allied projects of
modernist architecture and filmmaking: unstable shifts between the human, technological and animal gazes made The New Architecture and the London Zoo curiously ambiguous. Similarly exposing the ambivalent emotions and ontological unease inspired by the zoo, Laura McMahon’s chapter, ‘Dead Funny: Laughter, Life and Death in Philibert’s Nénette and Un Animal, des animaux’, considers Nicolas Philibert’s 2010 documentary Nénette, about a 40-year-old orangutan living in the menagerie in the Jardin des Plantes in Paris, and Un animal, des animaux (1996), which documents the renovation of the nearby National Natural History Museum’s zoology gallery, principally comprising a vast taxidermy collection. Drawing on Henri Bergson’s theory of laughter as a negotiation of boundaries between the human and the animal, and between the animate and the inanimate, McMahon reads the zoo animal in Nénette as inextricably bound up with the taxidermied animal in Un animal. She suggests that in comparing two films, we can confirm that there is always something deathly about the live animal and always something lively about the dead animal. Nénette and Un animal suggest cinema as a privileged space of reflection on life, death and temporality: humour in Philibert’s two films marks a series of moments in which the boundaries between the living and the dead, and the human and the animal, become especially porous. The collection concludes with Rhiannon Harries’ interview with the British artist-filmmaker Phillip Warnell, who spent six days constructing a set and shooting footage in one of the tiger enclosures at the Isle of Wight Zoo for his experimental documentary Ming of Harlem: Twenty One Storeys in the Air (2014), inspired by the news coverage a decade earlier of a 400-pound tiger named Ming and a five-foot Caiman alligator called Al being raised in a high-rise New York apartment by Antoine Yates. Warnell discusses his collaboration with Zoos and zookeepers, the logistics of filming Zoo animals, and the organisation and representation of zoological and cinematic space and time. Throughout this anthology, the zoo emerges as a system that relies upon and indeed celebrates and orchestrates the power of one species over others, and is therefore an institution entirely appropriate to what is newly coined as the age of the anthropocene. This power, once identifiable through the zoo’s use of bars for cages and shackles for the animals, is now more commonly manifest or articulated through the direction and management of “looking”. In that sense, the zoo’s resonance with cinema and other audio-visual media, whether as a subject for films, YouTube clips or television documentaries, or in relation to its status as a very similar
vehicle for the organisation of power relations through the structuring of the gaze, is entirely unsurprising. Indeed, as Beardsworth and Bryman suggest, the close relationship between this “zoo” gaze and the patriarchal gaze orchestrated for classical cinema—as first identified by Laura Mulvey (1975) and a central theoretical concept for the study of audiovisual media thereafter—is clear (2002). Thus the parallel rise of both institutions at the turn of the twentieth century now seems, in hindsight, almost inevitable.
In relation to the wider theme of this anthology—in a series exploring the relations of space and place—the zoo and cinema resonate once more. Not just, as we have suggested, since they are both sites of and for the exhibition of human and non-human animals but also because they offer visitors/spectators opportunities in which relationships and encounters blur the separation between public and private, between others and the self. Whilst, as many of the following chapters demonstrate, the zoo has increasingly been identified—one might say tamed—through its association with children and family life, it is also often an eroticised space in which private desires, thoughts and emotions are projected, confused and heightened by its apparent and sometimes precarious status as a safe place in which many dangerous, “wild” animals may be encountered without physical risk. In terms of this kind of eroticised imaginary it is difficult not to think, for instance, of the recent Internet sensation of Shabani—a male gorilla kept in Japan’s Higashiyama Zoo who inspired a twitter storm of apparently ardent (human) admirers. Equally, key sequences in films we do not cover in detail in the collection have previously demonstrated that however fake the setting—or however impossible the encounter may actually be between the human animal and the zoo creatures—the space of the zoo allows for the active fantasy of impossible relationships and for the playing out of messy desires and hybrid identities. We might think, for example, of the illicit encounter between Mr Baines and his mistress, covered or enabled by a “trip to the zoo” for the young boy protagonist, Philippe, in Carol Reed’s masterpiece of repressed erotica, Fallen Idol (1948). And more obviously still, the overheated and sensational use of the zoo as a backdrop in Cat People (Jacques Tourneur, 1942) and the captive big cats that serve as the instigation for the tortured sexual awakening/bestial possession of the young heroine, Irena.
As demonstrated in many of the chapters included here, the zoo (pictured and actual) developed into its present form over the twentieth century. As a historical site it bears the traces of the wider social and
cultural changes of that period—the dissolution of Empires, the rise of the child as a central and emotive political figure, and the concern for and understanding of the importance of the environment (and for other species). Again, over this period, the zoo was obliged to negotiate its role as a didactic form and a commercial entity—balancing entertainment and education, science and carnival; in doing so, it mirrored the key media and associated institutions of the twentieth century—Hollywood, world cinemas and increasingly television. The zoo, as suggested and much like the memories of the twentieth century are proving to be, is revealingly contradictory: shockingly perhaps, it presents the dismaying layering of functions of the pre-eminent symbols—the spaces and places—of that period: for the zoo is at once a garden, a work place, a museum, a shopping mall and a concentration camp. The distinction it has however, as opposed to institutions of earlier periods, is that it is filmed, recorded, preserved, reanimated and here we hope, exposed to a challenging and critical gaze.
WORKS CITED
Acampora, Ralph (2005), ‘Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices’, Society & Animals, Vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 69–88
Baratay, Eric and Elisabeth Hardouin-Fugier (2002), Zoo: A History of Zoological Gardens in the West, trans. Oliver Welsh (London: Reaktion Books)
Beardsworth, Alan and Alan Bryman (2001), ‘The Wild Animal in Late Modernity: The Case of the Disneyization of Zoos’, Tourist Studies, Vol. 1 no. 1, pp. 83–104
Berger, John (2009 [1977]), ‘Why Look at Animals?’, Why Look at Animals? (London: Penguin), pp. 12–37
Braverman, Irus (2011), ‘Looking at Zoos’, Cultural Studies, Vol. 25 no. 6 (November), pp. 809–42
Franklin, Adrian (1999), ‘The Zoological Gaze,’ Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity (London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage), pp. 62–84. Frost, Warwick (2011), ‘From Winnie-the-Pooh to Madagascar: Fictional Media Images of the Zoo Experience’, in Warwick Frost (ed.), Zoos and Tourism: Conservation, Education, Entertainment? (Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Channel View Publications), pp. 217–26
Hancocks, David (2001), A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press)
Hanson, Elisabeth (2002), Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
Hoage, R. K. and William A. Deiss (eds.) (1996), New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press)
Horowtiz, Helen Lefkowitz (1981), ‘Seeing Ourselves through the Bars: A Historical Tour of American Zoos’, Landscape, Vol. 25 no. 2, pp. 12–19
Malamud, Randy (1998), Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals in Captivity (New York: New York University Press)
Montgomery, Scott L. (1995), ‘The Zoo: Theatre of the Animals’, Science as Culture, Vol. 4 no. 4, pp. 565–600
Mullan, Bob and Gary Marvin (1987), Zoo Culture (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson)
Mulvey, Laura (1975), ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Screen, Vol. 16 no. 3 (Autumn), pp. 6–18
Murray, Robin L. and Joseph K. Heumann (2014), ‘Hatari Means Danger: Filmic Representations of Animal Welfare and Environmentalism at the Zoo’, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, Vol. 31, pp. 621–34
Nessel, Sabine (2012), ‘The Media Animal: On the Mise-en-scène of Animals in the Zoo and Cinema’, in Sabine Nessel et al (eds.), Animals and the Cinema: Classifications, Cinephilias, Philosophies (Berlin: Bertz and Fischer), pp. 33–48
Ritvo, Harriet (1987), The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press)
Rothfels, Nigel (2002), Savages and Beasts: The Birth of the Modern Zoo (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press)
Rothfels, Nigel (2009), ‘Zoos, the Academy, and Captivity’, PMLA, Vol. 124 no. 2 (March), pp. 480–6
Stott, R. Jeffrey (1981), ‘The Historical Origins of the Zoological Park in American Thought’, Environmental Review, Vol. 5 no. 2 (Autumn), pp. 52–65
Uddin, Lisa (2015), Zoo Renewal: White Flight and the Animal Ghetto (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press)
Willis, Susan (1999), ‘Looking at the Zoo’, The South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol. 98 no. 4 (Fall), pp. 669–87
NOTES
1. Sabine Nessel has discussed the ‘common precedents’ of the zoo and the cinema in the nineteenth century, and suggests they ‘are part of the cultural history of putting living things on display’ (2012: 36–7). For Nessel, the zoo and the cinema share ‘presentational configurations’: ‘The framing, boundaries, and interiors of zoo architecture and scenography, as well as the framing, editing, or composition of a film organize our perception of animals’ (46). Horowtiz offers a further point of connection when she writes: ‘The animal displayed in a building in a landscaped park is an actor in a drama. The setting shapes our sense of its value’ (1981: 12).
2. Karim created an account on YouTube the same day. The 19-second video was shot by Yakov Lapitsky at the San Diego Zoo and features Karim standing in front of the elephant enclosure, professing his interest in their ‘really, really, really long trunks’.
3. For a full history of the zoological garden, see Hoage and Deiss (1996), and Baratay and Hardouin-Fugier (2002); for a history of the modern zoo, and specifically the influence of Carl Hagenbeck, see Rothfels (2002); for the history of the zoo in Victorian England, see Ritvo (1987); for the development of the zoo in the USA, see Horowitz (1981), Stott (1981), Hanson (2002) and Uddin (2015); for a reflection on the future of zoos, see Hancocks (2001).
4. Key cultural studies of the zoo include Mullan and Marvin (1987) and Malamud (1998). Recent work that develops out of the line of inquiry opened by Berger’s landmark essay includes Montgomery (1995), Franklin (1999), Willis (1999) and Braverman (2011). Rothfels offers the following rationale for the academic study of zoos: ‘Just as it would be limiting today to conceive of human history and thought without acknowledging the encounter with nonhuman selves, we do not accomplish much by dismissing as culturally insignificant, anachronistic, or perhaps simply disappointing the presence of zoological gardens and other venues where people—where we—come into contact with unusual, if not entirely nondomestic and certainly not wild, creatures’ (2009: 481).
5. Sabine Nessel considers a number of film and television texts—from Hitchcock’s Sabotage (1936) to Aardman Animations’ Creature Comforts (1989)—in her discussion of ‘the mise-en-scene of animals in the zoo and cinema’ (2012). Other discussions of popular media representations of zoos include Frost (2011) and Murry and Heumann (2014).
Michael Lawrence
Karen Lury
6 A Tour of Zoo in Budapest
7 “Out There, in the World”: Representations of the Zoo and Other Spaces in the Madagascar Trilogy
8 Placing Children at the Zoo: The Zoo as
9 Family Matters: Tales of Tigers and Tapirs at Dublin Zoo
László Moholy-Nagy at the London Zoo:
Hornsey
Dead Funny: Laughter, Life and Death in Philibert’s Nénette and Un animal, des animaux
13 ‘The Wild Inside’: An Interview with Phillip Warnell on
C ONTRIBUTORS
Andrew Burke is an Associate Professor in the Department of English at the University of Winnipeg where he teaches screen studies and critical theory. His recent articles on cinema and memory, electronic music and the essay film have been published in Screen, Popular Music and Society and Historical Materialism He is currently completing a book provisionally titled The Past Inside the Present: Cultural Memory and the Canadian 70s.
Andrew Flack is a Teaching Fellow in Modern History at the University of Bristol. He has published on the phenomenon of celebrity animals and modes of acquisition and display at Bristol Zoo in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has forthcoming pieces on the subjects of animal agency, gendered animal representations, and the relationship between wildlife exhibition and automobility. He has also curated an on-line exhibition on the subject of animals and the British Empire. His emerging interests include the role of animals in mass media and the entangled histories of animals and travel technologies in tourism.
Katherine Groo is Assistant Professor of Film and Media Studies at Lafayette College. Her writing has appeared in Cinema Journal, Framework and Frames, as well as several edited collections. She is currently completing a book entitled Bad Film Histories: Ethnography and the Early Archive (University of Minnesota Press, forthcoming), which explores the metahistorical effects of early ethnographic cinema. She is also co-editor of New Silent Cinema (Routledge/AFI, 2016).
Sabine Haenni is Associate Professor in the Department of Performing and Media Arts and Director of the American Studies Program at Cornell University. She is the author of The Immigrant Scene: Ethnic Amusements in New York, 1880–1920 (University of Minnesota Press, 2008) and co-editor, with John White, of Fifty Key American Films (Routledge, 2009), and with Sarah Barrow and John White, of The Routledge Encyclopedia of Films (Routledge, 2015).
Rhiannon Harries is a Junior Research Fellow at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where she recently completed a PhD on time, ethics and politics in recent European documentary film. Her work has appeared in the New Review of Film and Television Studies and Parasites: Exploitation and Interference in French Thought and Culture (Peter Lang, forthcoming 2017).
Richard Hornsey is Lecturer in Modern British History at the University of Nottingham and the author of The Spiv and the Architect: Unruly Life in Post-war London (Minnesota University Press, 2010). He is currently working on a new book about the impact of mass production on interwar British culture. This chapter develops his long-term interests in constructions of visual perception and in modernist biotechnic architecture.
Michael Lawrence is Reader in Film Studies at the University of Sussex. He is the author of Sabu (BFI, 2014) and the editor of Indian Film Stars (BFI, forthcoming, 2017). He is the co-editor, with Laura McMahon, of Animal Life and the Moving Image (BFI, 2015).
Karen Lury is Professor of Film and Television Studies at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Her most recent monograph was The Child in Film: Tears, Fears and Fairytales (2010). Much of her recent work has been drawn from her AHRC funded project ‘Children and amateur media in Scotland’ and she is currently completing a joint authored monograph based on the project, Show and Tell: Children and Amateur Media, with Dr Ryan Shand.
Laura McMahon is a College Lecturer in French at Gonville and Caius College, University of Cambridge. She is the author of Cinema and Contact (Legenda, 2012), editor of ‘The Screen Animals Dossier’ (Screen, 2015) and co-editor, with Michael Lawrence, of Animal Life and the Moving Image (BFI, 2015). Her current research explores representations of animal life in contemporary film and philosophy.
Brett Mills is a Senior Lecturer in Television and Film Studies at the University of East Anglia, UK. He is the author of The Sitcom (BFI, 2005), Television Sitcom (Edinburgh University Press, 2009) and Animals on Television (Palgrave, forthcoming), and co-author of Reading Media Theory (Pearson, 2009/2012) and Creativity in the British Television Comedy Industry (Routledge, 2016). His research on animals in media has been published in Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, Environmental Communication, European Journal of Cultural Studies, M/C Journal, Critical Studies in Television and Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies, and he has been profiled in The Journal of Wild Culture
Jacob Smith is Associate Professor in the Department of Radio-Television-Film and Director of the MA in Sound Arts and Industries at Northwestern University. He has written several books, including Vocal Tracks: Performance and Sound Media (2008), Spoken Word: Postwar American Phonograph Cultures (2011) and Eco-Sonic Media (2015, all from the University of California Press), and he has published articles on media history, sound and performance.
Pamela Robertson Wojcik is Professor of Film at the University of Notre Dame. She is author of The Apartment Plot: Urban Living in American Film and Popular Culture, 1945 to 1975 (Duke University Press 2010), Guilty Pleasures: Feminist Camp from Mae West to Madonna (Duke University Press 1996) and Fantasies of Neglect: Imagining the Urban Child in American Film and Fiction (Rutgers University Press 2016).
Gwenda Young is Lecturer in Film Studies and Co-Head of Film and Screen Media at University College Cork, Ireland. Her work has appeared in a variety of international journals and collections. Most recently she co-edited a collection titled Amateur Filmmaking for Bloomsbury (2014). Her monograph on American director Clarence Brown will be published in 2017 by University Press of Kentucky.
L IST OF F IGURES
Fig. 1.1 The Scottish National Zoological Park (1931/32) 9
Fig. 1.2 Zoo Year (1965) 12
Fig. 1.3 Jeen Family Film (No. 3) (c. 1932) 16
Fig. 1.4 Jeen Family Film (No. 3) (c. 1932) 17
Fig. 2.1 Fighting Polar Bears, in Historical Footage, c. 1935 (BZS Archive)
Fig. 2.2 ‘Feeding Time for the Lions at London Zoo’, Punch (19 November 1849)
Fig. 2.4 ‘Alfred and Ralph Guise’, Historical Footage, c. 1935 (BZG Archive)
29
30
32
35
Fig. 4.1 Panda Cam. Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington, DC 66
Fig. 4.2 ‘Panda Playtime for Tian Tian at RZSS Edinburgh Zoo’, Edinburgh Zoo. Edinburgh, Scotland 74
Fig. 4.3 Sea Otter Cam. Vancouver Aquarium. Vancouver, Canada 79
Fig. 5.1 Entrance to the Selig Zoo, Postcard. Author’s collection 92
Fig. 5.2 ‘A Diamond-S Potpourri’, Motography, 1 November 1913 93
Fig. 5.3 ‘Great Selig Enterprise’, The Moving Picture World, 10 July 1915 96
Fig. 5.4 Olga Celeste posing with leopards at the Selig Zoo, c. 1912, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Fig. 6.1 Zoo in Budapest (1933)
98
112
Fig. 6.2 Zoo in Budapest (1933) 118
Fig. 6.3 Zoo in Budapest (1933) 125
Fig. 7.1 Madagascar (2005) 138
Fig. 7.2 Madagascar (2005) 144
Fig. 8.1 Seven Up! (1964)
Fig. 8.2 Seven Up! (1964)
Fig. 8.3 Lovers and Lollipops (1956)
Fig. 8.4 Lovers and Lollipops (1956) 164
Fig. 9.1 Tiger physiotherapy: Dublin Zoo Keeper Gerry Creighton and Sumatran tiger cub, Wanita. The Zoo 187
Fig. 9.2 New love: Marmaduke and Rio meet, as matchmakers/ keepers observe. The Zoo 191
Fig. 10.1 We Bought a Zoo (2011)
Fig. 10.2 Our Zoo (2014)
Fig. 11.1 The new Gorilla House at London Zoo. Here the southern perimeter wall is partially removed. Photograph by Dell and Wainwright, 1933 (RIBA) 227
Fig. 11.2 Two penguins “inspect” an architectural maquette of the new Penguin Pond, London Zoo. Photograph by John Havinden, 1934 (RIBA) 233
Fig. 11.3 The New Architecture and the London Zoo (1936) 242
Fig. 12.1 Nénette (2010)
Fig. 12.2 Un animal, des animaux (1996)
Fig. 12.3 La Jetée (1962)
Fig. 13.1 Ming of Harlem (2014)
Fig. 13.2 Ming of Harlem (2014) 278
PART I Archives
CHAPTER 1
‘A Constellation of Incongruities’: The Amateur Film and the Trip to the Zoo
Karen Lury
A chimpanzee tea party presented to its audience a constellation of incongruities: animal/human, child/adult, proscribed behavior/prescribed behavior, wild/tame, improvised/scripted performance. Although simple in execution, the chimps’ tea party was a complex entertainment. (Allen et al. 1994: 25)
Like the chimps’ tea party, amateur films are at once apparently simple in terms of their execution, yet perhaps surprisingly complicated in their effects. This chapter will touch on the long heritage of the representation of the zoo and the “chimps’ tea party” within amateur film and I will use, as a case study, Edinburgh Zoo. Initially, my focus will be on the way in which the self-conscious alliance of chimps and children can be seen to evolve during the twentieth century so that the initial ambitions for the zoo to represent the aspirations of an adult “bourgeois elite”, concerned with the display of civic pride and colonial superiority, is later superseded by an insistence on the importance of (the human and non-human) family and its conservation, leading to a situation where, according to Nigel Rofthels, ‘propagation has become the final and apparently all-convincing register of both animal happiness and the importance of zoos’ (2002a: 216).
K. Lury ( )
Film and Television Studies, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
The Edinburgh Zoological Park (1913-), as I will show, has a particularly interesting history in terms of the staging of an alliance between animals and children. Edinburgh Zoo’s original landscape architect was Patrick Geddes. Geddes’ belief in the civilising mission of the Zoo was informed by evolutionary theories familiar from Haeckel, and specifically, that ‘ontology recapitulates phylogeny’—meaning that children and nonhuman animals represented particular stages within, as well as an opportunity to enact and enforce, the history and pedagogy of “civilization” and evolution. Geddes’ vision is articulated in the journey or “trips” these films invariably represent and which, intentionally or not, replicate his ambition for the Zoo, which in its initial design closely adhered to his developing concept of the ‘valley section’. Whilst the valley section was never really perfected as a model, Edinburgh Zoo represents Geddes’ attempt to demonstrate, through the exposure of visitors to a specific spatial organisation, that the increasing domestication of animals, and the ultimate emergence of the city, represent the culmination of civilisation. As Catherine Ward Thompson has argued, Geddes had a particular focus on the immersion of children within the zoo-as-valley section, so that it might then serve a kind of pedagogic model that would allow them to better understand their place (and different animals’ placing) within the natural order (2006:85). Thus the landscape of Edinburgh Zoo and the films which depict it tighten the ideological knot into which children and non-human animals are tied, presenting a fantasy of civilisation and a model of evolution in which the hierarchies between species (and ages) are naturalised.
Finally, however, following the arguments of Anat Pick (2011), and her desire to seek out and identify the potential of a ‘zoomorphic cinema’, I argue that the apparently simple but actually quite complex effects of the home movie as cinematic form allow us to unravel the assumptions that underpin Geddes’ concept of civilisation and the anthropocentric hierarchies which inform this fantasy. By returning to scenes in the home movie in which non-human animals and children appear together, and the many other scenes in which these films treat their human subjects as “events” rather than as individuals, the hierarchy of the species is dissolved in this rawest mode of film production. Home movies, I suggest, provide a cinema in which children, adults and non-human animals are all captured and exhibited as if they were moving across a ‘a zoomorphic stage that transforms all living beings—including humans—into creatures’ (Pick 2011: 106).
A ‘ZOOMORPHIC’ CINEMA?
Pick proposes the concept of a zoomorphic cinema as the logical conclusion to Andre Bazin’s realist approach to film, which means
abandoning the distinctions of—and more importantly the narrative conventions attached to—the identity and hierarchy of species. The result is the absorption of the human figure within the leveled plain of the photographed world (2011: 106).
Home movies facilitate this alternative form of viewing because they very often overturn the spectator’s conventional understanding of what it is to look at a film and, just as crucially, how “looking” itself is understood. When viewed as historical films, within the archive, their value or interest to spectators in the present day is often not in relation to their apparent content or narrative qualities, but for the incident, the figures and places they have captured (deliberately or not) for posterity. In that sense, such films are already well placed to invert the expected relations between figure and ground and between the presumed hierarchies of the different species within the same image. When viewing a commercial film, most viewers expect to be directed to what is meant to be significant in the frame— whether this is the central character, the important gesture or the compelling qualities of the visual spectacle. In most instances and in most genres, spectators would expect to focus first, or predominantly, on humans rather than other non-human animals. In the home movie, however, the viewer who is a stranger to the family, animals and events depicted is freer from these conventions and may choose to look at, or concentrate on, the dog rather than the man, the child rather than the adult, prefer the bus to the tram, or remark on the antiquated clothes worn by the variety of figures on screen, rather than paying attention to what these figures do, or who they are. As Gian Maria Tore suggests, the amateur status of the amateur film means that
Questions of technique, project, alternatives, etc. are not pertinent in this case. With the “amateur” image, first the game of scholarly identification is played, in order subsequently to play directly and more freely, the game of affective or cognitive effectiveness (2012: 18).
By this she is suggesting that as the amateur image is defined only by what it is not (i.e. it is not professional) this releases the spectator (once the
‘game of scholarly identification’ is complete) to view and respond to the film more freely, ignoring the conventions and the dictatorial (one might also say directorial) intent of the filmmaker and/or the other participants in the film. Neither the game of identification nor affect can really be comprehensively detached from one another in the process of viewing, but the home movie is particularly susceptible, as Tore suggests, to the possibility that ‘other things are going to be seen in this same image’ (2012: 19, emphasis in original).
Of course, another way of understanding the democratising effect of the home movie would be to understand that everything within the frame is potentially as uninteresting as every (or any) thing else. Indeed, one of the struggles for the non-professional filmmaker is how to make the unremarkable remarkable. In a short article from one of the many home movie advice magazines published in the earlier part of the twentieth century (in this instance an American publication, Home Movies), Lars Moen makes the following suggestion,
Who’s Zoo—Not all members of your family are interesting to your friends, but they will be if you introduce them on film with companion shots of their animal counterparts! The local zoo has a walrus that looks surprisingly like Uncle Arthur, Sister and her girlfriends will be mad, but everyone else will be mad about the shots of cackling geese you took at the local farm. The zoo will also provide you with a good-looking wolf with the habits of Junior. And, of course, Mom is a deer! (1949: 622).
Moen identifies the purpose or function of the local zoo in an entirely conventional way and encourages his readers to construct a stereotypical montage that relies upon the joke of anthropomorphism. My argument will be that the similarity assumed in the anthropomorphic association between humans and non-human animals is, in the home movie, intensified by more than a superficial resemblance. In numerous home movies’ endless reiterations of “trip(s) to the zoo” the estranged viewer is susceptible to the banality of an exhibitionism shared across both domains (the film and the zoo), and the zoo’s function as an event without purpose becomes increasingly evident since this mirrors the redundancy of the home movie. As one of many repeated events in the home movie—others would include birthday parties, adventures in the snow, a day at the beach—the “trip to the zoo” represents an internal, uncanny mirror to the eventful banality of the home movie itself, in which humans are captured, archived and artificially
reanimated, producing a zoomorphic realm that ultimately dissolves the distinction between the human and non-human animal on screen.
The Scottish National Zoological Park (1931/1932)
The Scottish National Zoological Park (Douglas G. Russell 1931–32) was made just 18 years after Edinburgh Royal Zoological Park opened in 1913. Archive papers held by the National Library of Scotland’s Moving Image Archive indicate that the film was made, by an “advanced amateur” (Russell was a stalwart of the Edinburgh cine club) at the request of the zoo directors and was to be screened at an international zoological meeting in Paris. The film self-consciously reflects contemporary ambitions for the zoo to become a source of civic pride. The opening shots show a tram heading for the zoo with a seemingly wealthy clientele on board, such as well-dressed men in hats and suits, and women wearing fur coats. Once through the gates of the zoo, the film edits together a journey through the exhibits beginning with sea lions, moving on to exotic birds, penguins, and then proceeding to shots of polar bears and brown bears, who are seen on their hind legs, “begging for buns”. Later scenes picture wolves and large cats: a tiger and lions. The lions are featured in the distinctive rocky enclosures that serve as the majority of the zoo’s larger animal displays and they are therefore situated at some distance from the camera and the onlookers. The film is silent but inter-titles boast of the zoo’s construction of these and other “natural” enclosures, and the architectural design of these habitats are clearly inspired by the innovation of Carl Hagenbeck’s ‘Animal Park’ which opened in 1907 in Stellingen, Hamburg, and where the animals on display were separated from their human spectators by wide moats, thereby dispensing with the need for bars (see Rothfels 2002b: 143–89). In its evident desire to place the zoo within the city, along with the picturing of well-dressed adult patrons and its emphasis on the modern innovation in terms of its choice of animal display and habitat, the film situates the zoo at the juncture between earlier nineteenth century bourgeois zoos in which “civilized man” had an exalted place in a world of beasts and the modern, twentieth century zoo represented by the Hagenbeck revolution in which the zoo became more akin to a kind of benevolent panorama in which ‘the structure of the zoo disappeared and the animals lived beside one another in peace’ (Rothfels 2002a: 211). What is striking for the viewer today, when zoos are more commonly recognised as educational and recreational sites for family outings, is
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
1/5 BATTALION EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT
Officers
V.C. Smith, 2nd Lieut. A. V.
Clare, Lt.-Col. O. C., D.S.O. and Bar, M.C.
Hodge, Capt. A., D.S.O., M.C.
Murray-White, Lt.-Col R. S., D.S.O.
Acton, Maj. W. M., D.S.O.
Dick, Capt. W. H., D.S.O.
Reed, J., M.C. and Bar.
Wintle, M.C. and Bar.
Worswick, Capt. H. B., M.C. and Bar.
Hoxey, Lt.-Col. J. P., M.C.
Baxter, Capt. W. H., M.C.
Britcliffe, Capt. F., M.C.
Curl, Capt. C., M.C.
Kay, Capt. G. B., M.C.
Rawcliffe, Capt. J. M., M.C.
Bolton, Lieut. G. G. H., M.C.
Cooke, Lieut. S. D., M.C.
Dunkerley, Lieut. W., M.C.
Dunlop, Lieut. G. H., M.C.
Elliott, Lieut. A. C., M.C.
Lancaster, Lieut. P. G., M.C.
Little, Lieut. W. B., M.C.
Cookson, 2nd Lieut. W., M.C.
Gledhill, 2nd Lieut. A., M.C.
Holdsworth, 2nd Lieut. H., M.C.
Pacey, 2nd Lieut. S. W., M.C.
Smith, 2nd Lieut. A. V. (F.).
Other Ranks
Houston, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. D., D.C.M. and Bar.
Birkett, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Cooke, Pte. J. L., D.C.M.
Entwistle, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Evans, Sgt. H. E., D.C.M.
Gowers, Sgt. G. W., D.C.M.
Greenhalgh, Cpl. W., D.C.M.
Hargreaves, Cpl. T., D.C.M.
Harrison, Pte. J., D.C.M.
Harrison, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J. H., D.C.M.
Haslam, R. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Jolly, Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Jones, Pte. E., D.C.M.
Kehoe, Pte. W. H., D.C.M.
Kinsella, Sgt. W., D.C.M.
Marshall, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Pratt, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. W. H., D.C.M.
Spiers, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Steele, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. R. J., D.C.M.
Stezaker, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. A., D.C.M.
Swarbrick, Cpl. W., D.C.M.
Waterworth, Pte. A., D.C.M.
Whitehead, L.-Cpl. G., D.C.M.
Whittaker, Pte. F., D.C.M.
Wilkinson, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Littlewood, Sgt. R., M.M. and Bar.
Airey, Pte. G. F., M.M.
Baldwin, Pte. E., M.M.
Bannister, Pte. H., M.M.
Baxter, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. E., M.M.
Berry, L.-Cpl. H., M.M.
Brierley, Pte. E., M.M.
Brindle, Sgt. T., M.M.
Brotherton, Pte. T., M.M.
Burnett, Pte. W., M.M.
Cain, Pte. M. H., M.M.
Chadwick, Pte. E., M.M.
Clarke, Pte. J. T., M.M.
Cole, Pte. R., M.M.
Connolly, Pte. J., M.M.
Cooper, Pte. G., M.M.
Cox, Pte. H., M.M.
Farrell, Pte. J. A., M.M.
Gillibrand, Pte. G., M.M.
Gorse, Pte. E., M.M.
Green, Pte. J., M.M.
Greenhalgh, L.-Cpl. A., M.M.
Gregson, Sgt. G., M.M.
Haffner, Sgt. G. C. A., M.M.
Hardman, Pte. G., M.M.
Hargreaves, Pte. D. E., M.M.
Hargreaves, Sgt. W., M.S.M., M.M.
Hartley, Pte. W., M.M.
Higgins, Pte. J., M.M.
Horne, Pte. H., M.M.
Hurley, Sgt. J., M.M.
Kneale, Pte. J. W., M.M.
Lewis, Pte. A., M.M.
Livesey, L.-Cpl. C., M.M.
Longworth, Pte. H., M.M.
Maloney, Pte. J., M.M.
McGlynn, L.-Cpl. T., M.M.
Moden, Sgt. A. W., M.M.
Partington, Pte. J., M.M.
Patefield, Pte. W., M.M.
Potter, Pte. H. G., M.M.
Sarginson, Pte. H., M.M.
Singleton, Pte. J. H., M.M.
Smith, Pte. G., M.M.
Steele, Sgt. R. J., M.M.
Sullivan, Pte. J., M.M.
Ward, L.-Cpl. C., M.M.
Whittaker, Sgt. A., M.M.
Wilson, Pte. J., M.M.
Yegliss, Pte. H., M.M.
Yoxall, Pte. W., M.M.
Hudson, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. H., M.S.M.
Oliver, Sgt. W. J., M.S.M.
Stezaker, R.Q.M.S. W., M.S.M.
Haffner, C.Q.M.S. G. C. A. (F.).
Hargreaves, Cpl. T. (F.).
Harrison, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J. M., D.C.M. (F.).
Jones, Pte. A. H. (F.).
Marshall, Pte. F. (F.).
1/9 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT
Officers
V.C. Forshaw, Lieut. W. T.
Lloyd, Lt.-Col E. C., D.S.O. and Bar.
Connery, Q.M. and Hon. Maj. M. H., M.C.
Stephenson, Capt. D. B., M.C.
Wood, Lieut. R. G., M.C. (F.).
Cooke, 2nd Lieut. C. E., M.C.
Hunt, 2nd Lieut. G., M.C.
Sutton, 2nd Lieut. O. J., M.C.
Howorth, Maj. T. E. (F.).
Nowell, Maj. R. B. (F.).
Welbon, Capt. F. W. (C.F.), M.C.
Bayley, Cpl. S., D.C.M.
Other Ranks
Christie, R. Sgt.-Mjr. J. C., D.C.M.
Davies, L.-Cpl. A., D.C.M.
Grantham, Sgt. H., D.C.M.
Greenhalgh, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Hibbert, Pte. J., D.C.M.
Horsfield, Sgt. J., D.C.M., M.M.
Latham, Pte. A., D.C.M.
Littleford, Pte. S., D.C.M.
May, Cpl. R., D.C.M.
Moss, Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Pearson, L.-Cpl. S., D.C.M.
Pickford, Pte. T., D.C.M.
Sylvester, L.-Cpl. G. J., D.C.M.
Thickett, Sgt. F., D.C.M.
Holden, Pte. J., M.M. and Bar.
Adshead, Pte. A., M.M.
Allen, Sgt. G., M.M.
Atherton, Sgt. J., M.M.
Byrom, Pte. T. H., M.M.
Chadderton, Pte. H., M.M.
Chadderton, Pte. W., M.M.
Eastwood, Cpl. A., M.M.
Garside, Pte. H., M.M.
Gorman, Pte. F., M.M.
Hall, Cpl. R., M.M.
Horton, Pte. A., M.M.
Howard, Pte. T. M., M.M.
Kinsella, Pte. J., M.M.
Longson, Pte. J., M.M.
Metcalfe, Sgt. H., M.M.
O’Donnell, Cpl. R., M.M.
Pemberton, Pte. F., M.M.
Price, L.-Cpl. R., M.M.
Radcliffe, L.-Cpl. F. D., M.M.
Ratcliffe, Pte. F. E., M.M.
Roberts, L.-Sgt. H., M.M.
Shelmerdine, Pte. J., M.M.
Simister, Pte. N., M.M.
Tipton, L.-Sgt. T., M.M.
Vause, Pte. J., M.M.
White, Pte. F., M.M.
Howard, Cpl. J., M.S.M.
Andrew, L.-Cpl. R. (F.).
Christie, R. Sgt.-Mjr. J. A., D.C.M. (F.).
Horsfield, Sgt. J., D.C.M. (F.).
Sheekey, Pte. W. (F.).
1/10 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT
V.C. Mills, Pte. W
Officers
Robinson, Brig.-Gen. G. W., C.B.
Peel, Lt.-Col. W. R., 2 Bars to D.S.O.
Wilde, Maj. L. C., D.S.O.
Taylor, Capt. J. A. C., D.S.O., M.C. and Bar.
Bletcher, Capt. T., M.C.
Butterworth, Capt. A., M.C.
Hampson, Capt. H. J., M.C.
Hardman, Capt. F., M.C.
Cook, Lieut. F. E., M.C.
Howarth, Lieut. F., M.C.
Shaw, Lieut. W. D., M.C.
Hassall, 2nd Lieut. H., M.C.
Whitehead, 2nd Lieut. J. B., M.C.
Williams, 2nd Lieut. W., M.C.
Other Ranks
Toogood, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. K., D.C.M. and Bar.
Ayre, L.-Cpl. C., D.C.M.
Baddeley, L.-Cpl. F., D.C.M.
Brown, Sgt. D., D.C.M.
Darby, Pte. E., D.C.M.
Haskey, Sgt. M., D.C.M.
Langley, Sgt. C., D.C.M.
Lees, Sgt. S. R., D.C.M., M.M.
Leigh, Cpl. R., D.C.M.
Lloyd, Cpl. O., D.C.M.
Owen, L.-Cpl. E., D.C.M.
Revell, L.-Cpl. W., D.C.M.
Rigby, Cpl. R., D.C.M.
Schofield, Pte. F., D.C.M.
Seddon, L.-Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Spedding, Cpl., D.C.M.
Sugden, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Taylor, Pte. T., D.C.M.
McNamara, Pte. W., M.M. and Bar
Ashurst, Pte. W., M.M.
Bradbury, Sgt. M. R., M.M.
Bradshaw, L.-Cpl. J., M.M.
Bridge, Pte. J., M.M.
Brimelow, Pte. J. L., M.M.
Brookes, Cpl. H., M.M.
Butterworth, Sgt. E., M.M.
Carroll, Cpl. H., M.M.
Clutton, Sgt. T. H., M.M.
Cooke, Pte. H., M.M.
Creswell, Sgt. F., M.M.
Critchley, Pte. F., M.M.
Davies, Pte. J., M.M.
Dukenson, Pte. G. R., M.M.
Fisher, Cpl. A., M.M.
Hancock, Pte. A., M.M.
Hayes, Pte. J., M.M.
Hayes, Pte. J. R., M.M.
Heslop, Pte. R. W., M.M.
Hulme, Pte. S., M.M.
Hutchins, Pte. E., M.M.
Matthews, Pte. F., M.M.
Milner, Sgt. J., M.M.
Newton, Sgt. H., M.M.
Nicholson, Pte. W., M.M.
Parker, L.-Cpl. W., M.M.
Radcliffe, Pte. W., M.M.
Robinson, Cpl. B. B., M.M.
Silverwood, Pte. T., M.M.
Smith, Pte. G. A., M.M.
Smith, Sgt. R. S., M.M.
Spink, Pte. E., M.M.
Squires, Sgt. W., M.M.
Stockton, Cpl. E., M.M.
Storey, Pte. J., M.M.
Sugden, Sgt. J., M.M.
Ward, Pte. R. B., M.M.
Weston, Pte. T., M.M.
Whittaker, Pte. H., M.M.
Dransfield, Cpl. J., M.S.M.
Gartside, Sgt. J., M.S.M.
Hollingsworth, Sgt. J. E., M.S.M.
Keighley, Cpl. J. H., M.S.M.
Robinson, L.-Cpl. B. B., M.S.M.
Scholes, Cpl. J., M.S.M.
Trevitt, R.Q.M.S. J. P., M.S.M.
Coulson, Pte. J. (F.).
Hammond, Pte. J. (F.).
Haslam, Sgt. S., (F.).
McHugh, Sgt. M. (F.).
Whitehead, L.-Cpl. R. (F.).
Wilde, Pte. S. (F.).
127th INFANTRY BRIGADE
1/5 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT
V.C. Wilkinson, L.-Cpl. A.
Officers
Darlington, Lt.-Col. H. C., C.M.G.
Cronshaw, Lt.-Col. A. E., D.S.O.
Woods, Capt. W. T., D.S.O.
Welsh, Lieut. R. H., D.S.O.
Simpson, Lt.-Col. A. W. W., O.B.E.
Frost, 2nd Lieut. C. E., M.C. and Bar.
Bryan, Maj. J. L., M.C.
Bryham, Maj. A. L., M.C.
Fletcher, Maj. B. L., M.C.
Burrows, Capt. E. J., M.C.
Burrows, Capt. M. K., M.C.
Clayton, Capt. P. C., M.C.
Dickson, Capt. S., M.C.
Douglas, Capt. R. A., M.C. (U.S.A.)
Ellis, Capt. R. R., M.C.
Frost, Capt. M., M.C.
Greer, Capt. J. M., M.C.
Just, Capt. L. W., M.C.
Sanders, Capt. J. M. B., M.C.
Woods, Capt. W. T., M.C.
Fletcher, Lieut. P. C., M.C.
Fox, Lieut. J., M.C.
Taylor, Lieut. S., M.C.
Barker, 2nd Lieut. J. P., M.C.
Bootland, 2nd Lieut. F. R., M.C.
Lockyer, 2nd Lieut. H. R., M.C.
Rourke, 2nd Lieut. T., M.C.
Cronshaw, Lt.-Col. A. E. (F.).
Darlington, Lt.-Col. H. C. (F.).
Simpson, Lt.-Col. A. W. W. (F.).
Other Ranks
McCartney, Sgt. J., D.C.M. and Bar.
Andrews, Pte. F., D.C.M.
Barnes, Sgt. C., D.C.M.
Bent, Pte. R., D.C.M.
Blythe, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. G., D.C.M.
Casey, Cpl. A. E., D.C.M.
Chadwick, Cpl. F., D.C.M.
Christy, R.Q.M.S. W. H., D.C.M.
Davies, Pte. A., D.C.M.
Greensmith, Sgt. W., D.C.M.
Gregory, Cpl. R., D.C.M.
Grimshaw, L.-Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Hibbert, Pte. J., D.C.M.
Hills, Pte. S. L., D.C.M.
Hilton, Pte. A., D.C.M.
Lever, C.Q.M.S. J., D.C.M.
McCarty, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. T., D.C.M.
Moore, Pte. W., D.C.M.
Morrisin, R. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Oldham, Cpl. A., D.C.M.
Seddon, Pte. T., D.C.M.
Smith, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Stockton, Cpl. S., D.C.M.
Stott, L.-Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Stridgeon, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Trousdale, L.-Cpl. F., D.C.M.
Ward, Pte. R. W., D.C.M.
Cunningham, L.-Sgt. J., M.M. and Bar.
Abrahams, Pte. J. W., M.M.
Atherton, Sgt. J., M.M.
Barker, Cpl. J., M.M.
Barker, Cpl. J., M.M.
Bevan, L.-Sgt. J., M.M.
Bowers, Pte. J., M.M.
Brennan, Pte. F., M.M.
Britton, Pte. E., M.M.
Carroll, Pte. J., M.M.
Carter, Pte. W., M.M.
Chadwick, Pte. A., M.M.
Coogan, Pte. H., M.M.
Creed, Pte. J., M.M.
Drouthwaite, Sgt. T., M.M.
Flavill, Cpl. H., M.M.
Florendine, Cpl. J., M.M.
Hamer, Sgt. F., M.M.
Hayes, L.-Cpl. H., M.M.
Hewitt, Pte. J., M.M.
Hooley, Pte. H., M.M.
Hosler, Pte. T., M.M.
Kane, Pte. R., M.M., M.S.M.
Lee, Pte. F., M.M.
Lee, L.-Cpl. J. E., M.M.
Lomas, Pte. W., M.M.
Lowe, Pte. T., M.M.
Melling, Cpl. J., M.M.
Millward, Pte. H. S., M.M.
Molyneux, Pte. C., M.M.
Morgan, Pte. G., M.M.
Newcombe, Pte. C., M.M.
Parrott, Pte. W., M.M.
Pattison, Pte. C., M.M.
Penkethman, Cpl. H., M.M.
Poole, Pte. E., M.M.
Radcliffe, Pte. W., M.M.
Ralphs, Pte. T., M.M.
Reynolds, Pte. J., M.M.
Roberts, L.-Sgt. H., M.M.
Rooke, Pte. J., M.M.
Rowe, Pte. A., M.M.
Smith, Cpl. J., M.M.
Stamper, C.Q.M.S. P. A., M.M.
Stuart, Sgt. T., M.M.
Teague, Pte. A. E., M.M.
Turner, Pte. J. H., M.M.
Valentine, Pte. H., M.M.
Walsh, L.-Sgt. S., M.M.
Webb, Pte. J., M.M.
Whitehead, Pte. J., M.M.
Whittle, Pte. W., M.M.
Wilde, Pte. W., M.M.
Hyde, Pte. T., M.S.M.
Jones, Cpl. R., M.S.M.
Leake, Sgt. G., M.S.M.
Owen, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J., M.S.M.
Seddon, Cpl. W., M.S.M.
Stone, Sgt. H., M.S.M.
Taylor, C.Q.M.S. F., M.S.M.
Gill, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. G. (F.).
Grimes, Pte. J. (F.).
Dandy, Pte. H. (F.).
Lomas, Pte. W. (F.).
1/6 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT
Officers
Pilkington, Lt.-Col. C. R., C.M.G.
Holberton, Capt. and Adjt. P. V., to be Brevet Major.
