Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:04:57.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Creeping, Drinking, Dying: The Cinematic Portal and the Microscopic World of the Twentieth-Century Cell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2011

Hannah Landecker
Hannah Landecker*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Film scholars have long posed the question of the specificity of the film medium and the apparatus of cinema, asking what is unique to cinema, how it constrains and enables filmmakers and audiences in particular ways that other media do not. This question has rarely been considered in relation to scientific film, and here it is posed within the specific context of cell biology: What does the use of time-based media such as film coupled with the microscope allow scientists to experience that other visualization practices do not? Examining three episodes in the twentieth-century study of the cell, this article argues that the apparatus of microcinematography constitutes what might be thought of as a technical portal to another world, a door that determines the experience of the world that lies on the other side of it. In this case, the design of apparatuses to capture time-lapsed images enabled the acceleration of cellular time, bringing it into the realm of human perception and experience. Further, the experience of the cellular temporal world was part of a distinct kind of cell biology, one that was focused on behavior rather than structure, focused on the relation between cells, and between the cell and its milieu rather than on cell-intrinsic features such as chromosomes or organelles. As such, the instruments and technical design of the microcinematographic apparatus may be understood as a kind of materialized epistemology, the history of which can elucidate how cinema was and is used to produce scientific knowledge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Cinematography, Seriality, and the Sciences , September 2011 , pp. 381 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abercrombie, Michael. 1961. “The Bases of the Locomotory Behaviour of Fibroblasts.” Experimental Cell Research 8 (Supplement 1):188–198.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, Michael. 1977. “Concepts in morphogenesis.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 199 (1136):337–344.Google ScholarPubMed
Abercrombie, Michael. 1980. “The Croonian Lecture, 1978: The Crawling Movement of Metazoan Cells.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 207 (1167):129–147.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, Michael and Heaysman, Jane E. M.. 1953. “Observations on the Social Behaviour of Cells in Tissue Culture: I. Speed of movement of chick heart fibroblasts in relation to their mutual contacts.” Experimental Cell Research 5 (1):111–131.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, Michael, Heaysman, Jane E. M., and Pegrum, Susan. 1970. “The Locomotion of Fibroblasts in Culture I. Movements of the leading edge.” Experimental Cell Research 59 (3):393–398.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, Michael and Dunn, Graham. 1975. “Adhesions of fibroblasts to substratum during contact inhibition observed by interference reflection microscopy.” Experimental Cell Research 92:57–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anon. 1930. “Hydrophagocytosis.” Journal of the American Medical Association 95:1509.Google Scholar
Anon. 1933. “Cinematographic Demonstration of Living Tissue Cells.” British Medical Journal 1 (3764):333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anon. [1957] 2004. “Medical Film Review.” Journal of the American Medical Association 165 (15).Google Scholar
Baird, Davis. 2004. Thing Knowledge: A Philosophy of Scientific Instruments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William. 2006. Discovering Cell Mechanisms: The Creation of Modern Cell Biology. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bellairs, Ruth, Curtis, Adam, and Dunn, Graham, eds. 1982. Cell Behaviour: A Tribute to Michael Abercrombie. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bergson, Henri. 1911. Creative Evolution. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Bessis, Marcel. 1955a. “Analytical Review: Phase Contrast Microscopy and Electron Microscopy Applied to the Blood Cells.” Blood 10 (3):272–286.Google Scholar
Bessis, Marcel. 1955b. “Cytologic Aspects of Immunohematology: A Study with Phase Contrast Cinephotomicrography.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 59 (5):986–995.Google Scholar
Bessis, Marcel. 1964. “Studies on Cell Agony and Death: An Attempt at Classification.” In Ciba Foundation Symposium on Cellular Injury, edited by Knight, Julie and de Reuck, A.V.S., 287–328. London: J. & A. Churchill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessis, Marcel and Ter-Pogossian, Michel. 1965. “Micropuncture of cells by means of a laser beam.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 122:689–694.Google Scholar
Brauckmann, Sabine. 2004. “The virtue of being too early: Paul A. Weiss and ‘axonal transport’.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (3–4):333.Google Scholar
Braun, Marta. 1994. Picturing Time: The Work of Etienne-Jules Marey (1830–1904). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Canti, Ronald. 1928. “Cinematograph demonstration of living tissue cells growing in vitro.” Archiv für experimentelle Zellforschung 6:86–97.Google Scholar
Carrel, Alexis. 1931. “Physiological Time.” Science 74 (1929):618–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cartwright, Lisa. 1995. Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine's Visual Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Cavell, Stanley. 1979. The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Charney, Leo and Schwartz, Vanessa, eds. 1995. Cinema and the Invention of Modern Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comandon, Jean. 1932. “Le Cinématographie et les Sciences de la Nature.” In Le Cinéma, des origines à nos jours, edited by Fescourt, Henri, 313–322. Paris: Éditions du Cygne.Google Scholar
Curtis, Adam. 1964. “The Mechanism of Adhesion of Cells to Glass.” Journal of Cell Biology 20 (2):199–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daston, Lorraine, ed. 2000. Biographies of Scientific Objects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter. 2007. Objectivity. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Do O'Gomes, Isabelle. 1996. “Le cinéma scientifique: L'oeuvre de Doyen, Thèvenard et Comandon.” Gazette des archives (173):183–189.Google Scholar
Doane, Mary Ann. 2002. The Emergence of Cinematic Time: Modernity, Contingency, the Archive. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Doane, Mary Ann. 2007. “The Indexical and the Concept of Medium Specificity.” Differences 18 (1):128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Graham and Jones, Gareth. 1998. “Michael Abercrombie: The Pioneer Ethologist of Cells.” Trends in Cell Biology 8 (3):124–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Earle, Wilton. 1943. “Production of Malignancy in vitro. II. Photomicrographic equipment.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 4:135–145.Google Scholar
Fell, Honor. 1958. “The Cell in Culture.” British Medical Journal 11 (6):489–494.Google Scholar
Fleck, Ludwik. 1981. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1994. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. Translated by Sheridan Smith, A. M.. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Gey, George O. 1933. “An Improved Technic for Massive Tissue Culture.” American Journal of Cancer 17;752–756.Google Scholar
Huxley, Thomas. 1869. “The Physical Basis of Life.” Fortnightly Review 5:129–145.Google Scholar
Ihde, Don. 1998. Expanding Hermeneutics: Visualism in Science. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Kazeef, W. N. 1938. “Moving Photomicrography.” In The Smithsonian Report for1937, 323–338. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Kelty, Chris and Landecker, Hannah. 2004. “A Theory of Animation: Cells, L-systems, and Film.” Grey Room 17:30–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Stephan. 1983. The Culture of Time and Space, 1880–1918. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2003. “On Beginning and Ending with Apoptosis: Cell Death and Biomedicine.” In Remaking Life and Death: Toward an Anthropology of the Biosciences, edited by Franklin, S. and Lock, M., 23–59. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2004. “The Lewis Films: Tissue Culture and ‘Living Anatomy,’ 1919–1940.” In Centennial History of the Carnegie Institute Department of Embryology, edited by Maienschein, Jane, Glitz, Marie, and Allan, Garland E., 117–144. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2005. “Cellular Features: Microcinematography and Film Theory.” Critical Inquiry 31 (4):903–937.Google Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2006. “Microcinematography and the History of Science and Film.” Isis 97:121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2007. Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2011. “The Life of Movement: From Microcinematography to Live Cell Imaging.” Journal of Visual Culture, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2000. “On the Partial Existence of Existing and Nonexisting Objects.” In Biographies of Scientific Objects, edited by Daston, Lorraine, 247–269. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leake, Chauncey D. and Pomerat, Charles. 1958. “Transport of Molecules into Cells against a Concentration Gradient.” Science 127 (3290):162–163.Google Scholar
Lecomte du Noüy, Pierre. 1937. Biological Time. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Thierry. 2003. “Jean Comandon et les débuts de la microcinematographie.” La Revue du Praticien 53 (13):1502–1505.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas. 1966. The Magic Mountain. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Medawar, Peter. 1980. “Michael Abercrombie. 14 August 1912–28 May 1979.” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 26:1–15.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Anthony. 1956. Research Films in Biology, Anthropology, Psychology and Medicine. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mitman, Gregg. 1999. Reel Nature: America's Romance with Wildlife on Film. Cambridge UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, Natasha. 2006. “Animating Mechanism: Animation and the Propagation of Affect in the Lively Arts of Protein Modeling.” Science Studies 19 (2):6–30.Google Scholar
Myers, Natasha. 2008. “Molecular embodiments and the body-work of modeling in protein crystallography.” Social Studies of Science 38 (2):163.Google Scholar
Noüy, Pierre Lecomte du. 1937. Biological Time. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pauly, Philip. 1991. “Modernist Practice in American Biology.” In The Origins of American Social Science, edited by Ross, Dorothy, 272–289. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerat, Charles. 1959. “Rhythmic contraction of Schwann cells.” Science 130:1759.Google Scholar
Pomerat, Charles. 1961. “Cinematography, indispensable tool for cytology.” International review of cytology 11:307.Google Scholar
Pomerat, Charles and Leake, Chauncey. 1954. “Short term cultures for drug assays: General considerations.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 58 (Tissue Culture Technique in Pharmacology):1110–1128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1992. “Experiment, Difference, and Writing: I. Tracing protein synthesis.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23 (2):305–331.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2010. On Historicizing Epistemology: An Essay. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rodowick, David. 2007. The Virtual Life of Film. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roux, Pascal, Münter, Sylvia, Frischknecht, Freddy, Herbomel, Philippe and Shorte, Spencer L.. 2004. “Focusing light on infection in four dimensions.” Cellular Microbiology 6 (4):333–343.Google Scholar
Sanford, Katharine, Earle, Wilton and Likely, Gwendolyn. 1948. “The growth in vitro of single isolated tissue cells.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 9 (3):229.Google Scholar
Schickore, Jutta. 2007. The Microscope and the Eye: A History of Reflections, 1740–1870. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schloegel, Judy Johns and Schmidgen, Henning. 2002. “General physiology, experimental psychology, and evolutionism: unicellular organisms as objects of psychophysiological research, 1877–1918.” Isis 93 (4):614–645.Google Scholar
Scott, Matthew, Gunderson, Carl, Mateescu, Eduard M., Zhang, Zhongge and Hwa, Terence. 2010. “Interdependence of Cell Growth and Gene Expression: Origins and Consequences.” Science 330 (6007):1099–1102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharp, Lester. 1934. Introduction to Cytology, 3rd ed.New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Waymouth, Charity. 1965. “Construction and Use of Synthetic Media.” In Cells and Tissues in Culture: Methods, Biology and Physiology, edited by Willmer, E. N., vol. 1, 99–142. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wells, Herbert G. 1979. “The New Accelerator.” In H G Wells: Selected Short Stories, 339–352. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Wilson, Catherine. 1995. The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Duncan. 2005. “The Early History of Tissue Culture in Britain: The Interwar Years.” Social History of Medicine 18 (2):225.Google Scholar
Wise, M. Norton. 2006. “Making Visible.” Isis 97 (1):75–82.Google Scholar
Yang, W., Strasser, F., and Pomerat, Charles. 1965. “Mechanism of drug-induced vacuolization in tissue culture.” Experimental Cell Research 38 (3):495–506.Google Scholar