Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
264 In the scenario just described, the divide between observer and
observed appears to be clearly marked. The exchange of looks in the
film frames produced by Regnault, however, belies any simple polarity
of subject and object. There is, for example, a Frenchman, dressed in
a city suit and hat, who accompanies the woman as she walks, never
taking his eyes off her. His walk, meant to represent the urban walk,
is there as a comparative point of reference to what Regnault terms
the woman’s “savage” locomotion.2 He also acts as an in-frame sur-
rogate for the western male gaze of the scientist. There are also two
other performers visible at frame left, watching the Frenchman watch
the woman. Finally, a little girl, also West African, stares alternately
at the group being filmed and the scientist and his camera. She appears
to break a cinematic code already established in fin-de-siitcle time
motion studies: she looks at the camera. In this scenario of comparative
racial physiology, the little girl has not learned how properly to see or
be seen. At the nexus of this exchange of looks is the Wolof woman.
She, however, is not the agent of a look. Rendered nameless and
faceless, it is her body that is deemed the most significant datum: she
is doubly marginalized as both female and A f r i ~ a n . ~
This description of the chain of looks is taken from chronophotogra-
phy by the physician Filix-Louis Regnault, a series of time motion
studies considered by many to be the earliest example of ethnographic
film.4 The images are artifacts of a time when medical doctors in the
name of science were feverishly engaged in narrativizing human history
as a linear evolution from darker to lighter-skinned peoples. This
fascination with race characterized much of early cinema and remains
prevalent today. It is no coincidence that issues of race are as essential
to popular films such as D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of the Nation
(1915),as to documentaries such as Robert Flaherty’s Nunook ofthe
North (1922). Cinema was, and is, intimately linked with the evolu-
tionary ideology that posits race as the predominant means of explain-
ing human difference.
Although Regnault’s images have been largely ignored by film his-
torians, visual anthropologists eager to establish a lineage for their
endeavors now claim Regnault’s films as precursors.’ Like much of
what is now termed early “ethnographic” cinema, Regnault’s films
seem to have no narrative. I contend, however, that there is a narrative
implicit in these films, a narrative which, in fact, is implicit in ethno-
graphic film.6 The narrative is that of evolution.
This essay is thus about “seeing” anthropology. Johannes Fabian
argues convincingly that anthropology situates the people that it stud-
ies in the “there and then,” in spatial and temporal dimensions distinct
from the present time of the anthropologist. He explains that anthro-
the perfect index to measure and classify race, prominent anthropol- 267
ogists James Prichard and Paul Broca both admitted to the constructed
nature of race, as did their predecessor, Count Buffon. After thousands
of skulls had been measured and endless statistical analyses performed,
no one could agree on what race was or how to measure it. If “race”
could not be scientifically proven, however, the narrative of racial
difference with its evolutionary premise proved ideologically powerful.
The narrative was repeated and consumed in a deluge of late nine-
teenth-century visual technologies displaying the body of the “Primi-
tive,” in the form of museum collections of skulls, dioramas with wax
or plaster figures, photography, expositions, and film. Both anthro-
pology, infused with the taxonomic imagination of natural history,
and popular culture, as I will show later, incessantly visualized race.
Regnault’s writings provide ample examples of this visual obsession:
he saw evidence of race and the pathological in virtually every visual
medium conceivable. At first, Regnault embraced craniology as the
supremely objective method to understand the body. In his thesis of
1888 on cranial deformations in rickets patients, Regnault praised
Broca’s method of craniology for its mathematical exactitude, one that
eliminated “le facteur personnel.” l4 Besides crania, Regnault diagnosed
the body through art. Regnault even insisted on the descriptive truth
of art, using it as evidence of evolutionary mental development as well
as physical posture and movement.’’ Each race, he believed, has a
predominant and particular posture when at rest and when in motion:
he could thus “see” race in art.16 In his evolutionary study of the
development of body posture, a study he would later call anthro-
pographie or physiologie ethniques comparkes, he traced mankind
from the Savage, who squats, kneels, carries loads, and climbs trees in
specific ways, to the Civilized, who sits in chairs.” Everywhere, he saw
visual clues to race and evolutionary development. For Regnault, the
Savage not only squats as children do, he represents the “childhood”
of Civilized man’s “adulthood.”18
In studying race and evolution through crania, art, photography and
so on, Regnault found one essential ingredient missing-movement.
The surgical eye could dissect the corpse but could not understand
how it moved. In searching for an index for race-the unfashioned
clue-Regnault chose to explore movement, that which is “in between”
culture and nature, acting and being. In the eyes of French anthropol-
ogists, the movement of the Savage was pathological. For example, L.
Bkrenger-Fkraud, the chief medical officer of Senegal, wrote that it
appeared to be more natural for Wolof women to walk on all fours
due to the angle of their pelvic and backbones. He also stated that the
big toes of Africans were large and more capable of independent
In spite of its imperfections, its weaknesses and vices, the white race, semitic
and indo-european holds, certainly for the present the head in the “stee-
plechase” [sic] of human groups.20
270 with ridiculous costumes, and no one has taught them a role in advance.
These negroes live as they do in their country, and their customs are
faithfully respected, easy to see.
May this exposition serve as a model for future expositions!2’
1820s in conjunction with geography, and denoted the study of peoples 271
and their relation to the environment, thus embodying the idea that
one could map human groups just as one maps mountains and river^.^'
By the late nineteenth century, in the popular imagination, the word
“ethnographic” had taken on the connotation of “exotic” and “pic-
turesque.” In art, the “ethnographic” manifested itself in a genre called
“la peinture ethnographique,” which referred to painting so detailed
that it seemed to portray the scientific observation of “exotic” customs
(Jean-Lion GCrGme, with his photographic-like detail, was a master
of this genre).28Likewise the use of the term exposition ethnographique
conjured up an image of overabundant detail set forth in photographic
clarity such as those contained in Gir6me’s paintings of slave markets
and snake charmers. The “ethnographic” for both science and popular
culture evoked the image of the encyclopedic tableau vivant depicting
the life of indigenous peoples.
The ethnographic detail coalesced in the spectacularizing construc-
tion of the “ethnographic.” Detail is meant here in three senses. The
first sense is detail as document: Regnault writes of the exposition as
the site of authentic scientific detail. The second sense is detail as
ornament. A good example of this notion was outlined in Adolf Loos’s
“Ornament as Crime”: exotic, ornamental detail was aligned with
decadence, the criminal element, and the Savage.29 The third sense is
detail as index; the anatomical and physiological details of the body
became the classificatory index of race both for anthropologists and
for viewers of ethnographic spectacle.
The work of defining and establishing boundaries between science
and fantasy, truth and fiction, was a major theme in almost all of
Regnault’s writings, and he looked to detail to distinguish the authentic
from the unauthentic. Detail also promised to flesh out the classifica-
tory outline of race.3o In his review of the 1895 ethnographic exposi-
tion, Regnault began by painstakingly describing the different physical
and cultural details of the various ethnic groups at the fair. Immediately
following this lengthy description of ethnic differences, however, he
again invokes the idea of race: he calls the performers “nitgres.”
Difference is articulated, only to be erased by use of the flattening label
“nitgre.” He refers to all the performers, moreover, including those of
Arab ethnicity, as black and ~hildlike.~’ Detail, which possibly could
have led to an understanding of cultural differences, is subsumed by
the ideology of race.
The way in which Regnault distances himself from the performers
when he invokes the anthropological rhetoric of race is indicative of
an extraordinary version of “us versus them” mentality. This mentality
was reinforced at the exposition in the form of voyeurism, and sanc-
fair where one could “straddle the fence”: the viewed could also remark 273
upon the French body, there were places where the “specimens” could
not be viewed at all (the mosques), and the very act of voyeurism was
undermined by the constant haranguing by the performers for “un
SO US.''^^ Second, since constructions of the Ethnographic or Savage
embodied all that was taboo to Western society-nakedness, polyg-
amy, fetishism, and cannibalism-white visitors could view at the fair
all that was forbidden, flirting with the boundaries of Self and Ethno-
graphic Other, while at the same time maintaining a distance. The
Ethnographic body also represented biological danger, that which must
be attacked in its very ~orporeality.~’ That threat could be contained
by racial visualization.
The narrative of evolution that slots humans in color-coded catego-
ries, placing the white race at the lead, was scientifically illustrated
through the live, dead, and skeletal bodies of indigenous nonEuropeans
displayed at fairs and museums. History is obfuscated: the native is
shown as being without history, and is described in terms borrowed
from zoology. The history of the circulation of African bodies as
enslaved persons, and the histories of the entwinement of French and
West African politics and economics is erased, replaced by another
form of circulation, that of anthropological spectacle.
Yet there was also the fear of degeneration, fear that the white man
had reached the pinnacle with nowhere to go but down. The “native”
was perceived by science and by popular culture as authentic man,
closer to nature: Regnault, as I explain in the next section, used his
films of West Africans, who were seen as hardier and more agile, in
order to improve the French military march. The Ethnographic was
both biological threat and example of authentic humanity: both aspects
would be essential to cinema’s form of visualizing anthropology.
When the exhibiting of “native villages” was discontinued due to
prohibitive cost, world wars, and the end of imperialism, cinema took
over many of its ideological functions. Cinema, after all is a much less
expensive way of circulating nonwestern bodies in “situ” than is
circulating reconstructed “villages.” Early cinema showed a fascination
for the subject of indigenous, nonEuropean peoples in its proliferation
of travelogues, scientific research films, safari films, scripted narrative
films, and colonial propaganda films. Like ethnography, cinema is also
a topos for the meeting of science and fantasy. Cinema also eliminated
the potentially threatening return-gaze of the performer, offering more
perfect scientific voyeurism. Films about the “customs and manners of
the peoples of X” emphasized the family unit and habitat, as the fair
did. The fence of the fair was now the movie screen, and the subject
positioning of the European viewer was reaffirmed. Finally, cultures
Gesture precedes speech. Thus humanity was divided into not only
276
those who sit and those who squat, but those who have language and
those who gesticulate. In many films, the subjects are rendered as mere
silhouettes, pictographs of the langage par gestes. Their faces are
unimportant: it is the body that is the necessary data. And thus
Regnault writes, the “savage” has no real language: the scientist will
inscribe his language-a language par gestes common to all “sav-
ages”-into film. They become hieroglyphs for the language of science:
race is written into film.
In Regnault’s films, bodies are made abstract and mechanized. Detail
is very well-managed. The subjects enter the frame at right and exit
at left, often with a chronometer in front and a white screen in the
back [Figures 3 and 41. The fact that Regnault filmed movements from
different perspectives-the subject is seen from the right, then left, and
then back-reflects the codes of anthropometric photography that
were already well established in the late nineteenth century. For films
of walking and running, Regnault and his colleague Charles Comte
often used a chronometer and a painted scale on the ground to measure
the duration of the subject’s step. Diagrams translating the movements
into oscillating curves were used to test the efficacy of the marche en
flexion, a gait in which one ran o r walked with knees greatly bent, the
body leaning forward in “la marche primitive de l ’ h ~ m a n i t k . ’ ’The
~~
use of the chronometer, the painted scale at the bottom of the film, 277
and the tightly controlled entrance and exit of each moving subject
attests to Regnault’s belief that chronophotography was a mathemat-
ical and scientific means of studying movement. The camera maintains
a distance, and yet observes from all angles.
Regnault also filmed French military officers walking, running, and
climbing trees. The link between Regnault’s films of French military
officers and those of West Africans is Regnault’s claim that the walk
of the Savage was en flexion-with torso bent forward and knees
278
indistinct. Although the performers walk in the foreground, they often 279
appear to be behind a screen, like shadow puppets. If we compare
these films of West Africans to one of a French man running, we see
that the costume and mise-en-sche are different: the French subject is
dressed in a suit and beret, and is shown running with large steps; his
clothes, body, and face are clearly filmed. His body is substantially
rendered.47
Racial identity is also signified by who gazes at whom. Performers
d o not look at the camera, but the gaze of the scientist is often
acknowledged, if sometimes inadvertently. In two examples, a tall man
in shorts walks from right to left, but the lighting is such that his body
is so dark it becomes a silhouette. On closer examination, however,
one sees a man in a suit, possibly Regnault or an assistant, behind the
screen that serves as the films’ background. The reader of the film is
thus provided with a mirror image: he or she is also in the position of
the s ~ i e n t i s t . ~ ~
In another example, Regnault himself waves at the camera as he is
carried in a palanquin by four Malagasy men [Figure 51. The image
of the French colonizer in a palanquin was a ubiquitous one, especially
in 1895 during the colonization of Madagascar by the French. This
particular film was used as evidence for Regnault’s theories on the en
flexion gait, which he thought to be the natural walk of Savages.
Regnault the scientist tips his hat to the camera, and to the viewer: he
tips his hat to his own power to record these movements of recently
colonized people on film, while the men whose movements are filmed
do not look into the camera. The scientist is both colonizer and
researcher.
In the film entitled “Docteur Regnault marche” [Figure 61, however,
we see a rather unassuming man, head down, wearing a body suit,
whose features are as hard to identify as those of any of the West
African subjects. Cinematically there is little difference between this
example and that of a West African man walking: the scientist himself
has become a specimen. The ideological difference of course is that we
know Regnault’s name and biography; he is not rendered into a
nameless specimen of some anthropological category known as the
Negro or the Savage. Thus the textual accompaniment of the film is
absolutely essential to the interpretation (as were explanatory inter-
titles, and the authoritative voiceover in later ethnographic film).
Although anthropology clearly emphasizes the practice of observa-
tion-the anthropologist observes the cultures of indigenous peoples-
it is above all a signifying practice that deals with words and narrative1
strategies to convince the reader of its ethnographic authority. Images
however are a little more slippery: although the image must contain
280
4. Conclusion
“Amnesia, Error, Indifference, Omission, Uncivil”-subverting the
writing of race is powerfully manifested in the work of certain con-
temporary artists of color like the African-American photographer
Lorna Simpson [Figure 71.” I began this essay by showing how the
“ethnographic” in film works to deny the voice and individuality of
the indigenous subject. The performers in Regnault’s films are meant
to represent not only a typical West African body, but a body typical
of what anthropology called Primitive. Their names and history are
not given: the fact that they are performers from a fair, the colonial
nature of France’s relation to West Africa, etc. Emptied of history,
their bodies are raciafized. The raciafized body in cinema is a construc-
tion denying people of color historical agency and psychological com-
plexity. Individuals are read as metonyms for an entire category of
people, whether it be ethnic group, race, or Savage/Primitive/Third
282 World. Regnault is both informed by and informs the scientific and
popular circulation of the image of the “ethnographic. ’’ Thus scientific
cinema teaches us how to read bodies: the “ethnographic” squats,
climbs trees differently, carries the colonialist in a palanquin, performs
animal sacrifices, and goes about her affairs bare-breasted. A similar
iconography of race is at work in the construction of Hollywood
cinema stereotypes like the black Mammy or the Chinese dragon lady,
but the racialization that occurs in ethnographic film is particularly
pernicious because it is “scientifically” legitimized, and the subjects of
the film are tied to the evolutionary past.
Figure 7. Mixed art piece, Easy For Who To Say (Lorna Simpson, 1989,
courtesy of the Josh Baer Gallery).
NOTES
286 16. “Des attitudes du repos dans les races humaines,” Revue Encycfope‘dique
(1896):9.
17. FClix Regnault, “Classifications des sciences anthropologiques,” Revue
anthropofogique (1931): 122. See for example, “Les attitudes de repos
dans Part sino-Japonais,” La Nature 23 (15 July 1895): 105-106;
“Prisentation d’une hotte primitive,” Buffetins de fa Socikte‘
d’anthropofogie de Paris 3 (21 July 1892): 4 7 1 4 7 9 ; and “Statuettes
Ethnographiques,” La Nature 22 (2 June 1894): 49-50.
18. Regnault wrote extensively on “primitive art,” a subject I deal with in my
dissertation. For Regnault on race see, for example “Pourquoi les nZgres
sont-ils noirs? (Etudes sur les causes de la coloration de la peau),” La
Me‘decine Moderne (2 October 1895): 606-607. In later years, however,
Regnault refined his notion of race, developing the idea of ethnie or
language and cultural group as an important index along with race, a
belief which put him at odds with Georges Montandon, a well-known
antisemitic anthropologist and supporter of the Vichy regime in the late
1930s. As early as 1902 he defined ethnie as “une union psychique a
opposer a la resemblance anatomique donnie par le mot race.” “Discus-
sion,” Buffetinsde fa Socie‘te‘de I’Anthropofogie de Paris 3 (3 July 1902):
680-68 1. Also see Jean-Loup Amselle, “Ethnie,” Encycfopoedia Uni-
versafis 8 (Paris: Encyclopoedia Universalis France S.A., 1990): 1971.
19. L. J. B. BCrenger-FCraud, Peuplades 2 4 , quoted in William B. Cohen,
The French Encounter with Africans: White Responses to Blacks, 1530-
1 880 (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1980) 24 1;
and FClix Regnault, “De la fonction prihensile du pied,” La Nature ( 9
September 1893): 229-231. That the ethnographic body was linked to
other marginal elements in society such as criminals may be seen in the
fact that Regnault’s findings were used by the laboratory of the criminal
anthropologist Cesare Lombroso. See “Le pied prihensile chez les aliinis
et les criminels,” La Nature 1065 (28 October 1893): 339.
20. Charles Letourneau, Sociofogie d’apris f’Ethnographie (Paris: Reinwald,
1880) 4, quoted and translated in Harvey 139.
2 1. FClix Regnault, “Exposition Ethnographique de I’Afrique Occidentale au
Champ-de-Mars a Paris: SCnCgal et Soudan Franqais,” La Nature 23 (17
August 1895): 186.
22. “Un Village ntgre au Champ de Mars,” L’llfustration 2729 (15 June
1895): 508.
23. PetitJournafJune 5, July 14, July 26, August 15, 1895, quoted in William
H. Schneider, An Empire For the Masses: The French Popular Image of
Africa, 1870-1 900 (Westport and London: Greenwood Press, 1982) 169.
24. Paul Greenhalgh, Ephemeral Vistas: The Expositions Universeffes,Great
Exhibitions and World’s Fairs, 1851-1 939 (Manchester, U.K.: Manches-
ter University Press, 1988) 89; and Paul Greenhalgh, “Education, Enter-
tainment and Politics: Lessons from the Great International Exhibitions,” 287
The New Museology, ed. Peter Vergo (London: Redaktion Books, 1989)
74-98.
25. Cohen 281.
26. The story of the display of indigenous ethnic peoples is incomplete: there
is little written record of the thoughts of the performers, and little record
concerning the biography and aspirations of the promoters of the show.
There are however the accounts of the mass illustrated press, which shed
some light on the general public response to the exhibitions, and the
accounts by scientists such as those of FClix-Louis Regnault.
27. Williams 139.
28. Patricia Mainardi, Art and Politics of the Second Empire: The Universal
Expositions of 1855 and 1867 (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1987) 169.
29. See Adolf Loos, “Ornament as Crime,” The Architecture of Adolf Loos,
eds. Yehuda Safran and Wilfried Wang (London: Arts Council of Great
Britain and the Authors, 1908). On the detail see Naomi Schor, Reading
in Detail: Aesthetics and the Feminine (New York and London: Methuen,
1987). On the detail and historical film see Phil Rosen, “From Document
to Diegesis: Historical Detail and Film Spectacle,” in the forthcoming Past,
Present: Theory, Cinema, History.
30. Religion could be explained in medical and scientific terms. Regnault
suggested, for example, that Jesus was a hysteric. See Hypnotisme, Reli-
gion (Paris: Schleicher Frkres, Editeurs, 1897).
3 1. Regnault, “Exposition Ethnographique” 184.
32. Regnault, “Les DahomCens” 372.
33. Ella Shohat gives a survey of cinema, gender, and colonialism in “Imaging
Terra Incognita: The Disciplinary Gaze of Empire,” Public Culture vol.
3 (1991 Spring): 41-70.
34. “Un Village nttgre” 508.
35. Regnault, “Les DahomCens” 372.
36. The throwing of money by visitors to performers in native villages was a
popular activity. If one imagines a day at the 1895 ethnographic exhibition
one immediately adopts the viewpoint of a French or an African: the fair
addressed viewers as national and racial subjects. But what about those
visitors of mixed heritage who came to the fair, or those performers who
stayed on after the expositions and settled down in Europe or North
America? One wonders about the visitors who were the children of French
colonialist fathers and West African mothers, and who had been sent to
be educated in France. I have no records of their observations, but one
might suppose that if asked to choose, they would have identified with
288 the French and the Eiffel Tower technology. It is a sad fact that the
exhibitions were so demeaning to Africans that a person of mixed blood
would have had little choice but to identify himself or herself as a French
subject.
37. Frantz Fanon explained the representation of people of African descent
by white society in these terms. See Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White
Masks: The Experiences of a Black Man in a White World, trans. Charles
Lam Markmann (New York: Grove Press, 1967) 163-165.
38. Many of the themes of the fair transferred to film: for example, one finds
several early films showing young nonEuropean children in harbors diving
for money. In addition, films of the world’s fairs were made by practically
all the major commercial film companies like Edison and Pathi.
39. Felix Regnault, “L’Histoire du cinkma, son r61e en anthropologie,” Bul-
letins et me‘moires de la Socie‘te‘d’Anthropologie de Paris 3 (6 July 1922):
65.
40. Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, trans. Rich-
ard Howard (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981) 80.
41. Regnault, “L’Histoire du cinema” 64.
42. Regnault, “L’Histoire du cinema” 64.
43. Lajard, and Felix Regnault, “Poterie crue et origine du tour,” Bulletins
de la Socie‘te‘d’anthropologie de Paris 6 (19 December 1895): 734-739.
44. Felix Regnault, “Le langage par gestes,” La Nature 1324 (15 October
1898): 315-317.
45. Felix Regnault, “Des diverses mkthodes de marche et de course,”
L’Illustration (22 February 1896): 155.
46. Thus Regnault’s films must also be considered a form of applied anthro-
pology: one of his principal reasons for filming West Africans and French
soldiers was to prove his theories on how to best ameliorate the French
military walk. One of the main impetuses behind the promotion of this
walk seems to have been the Franco-Prussian War. Regnault claimed that
the German goosestep turned soldiers into automatons because i t was too
fatiguing: the marche en flexion was less tiring, and hence allowed the
soldier to think clearly. See Regnault, “Des diverses methodes de marche
et de course” 155; Regnault and De Raoul, Comment on marche;
Regnault, “La locomotion chez I’homme (Travail de 1’Institut Marey)”
Journal de physiologie et de pathologie ge‘ne‘rale15 (January 19 13):46-6 1.
The CinCmathGque FranCaise has films from the Marey Institute of De
Raoul as well as of other soldiers performing the marche en flexion which
must be classified as the work of Regnault. The titles for the films were
reportedly given by Lucien Bull, Marey’s assistant and director of the
Institut Marey. It is my contention that the above films as well as all of
the H n (Homme negre) series were by Regnault with the help of Charles
Comte and Commandant de Raoul. Other films by Regnault are in the 289
Collection Jean ViviC at the Archives du Film.
47. This example is “Run with Large Steps” (1895), cat. no. Hn 22
(CinCmath2que Franqaise). It is not reproduced here.
48. These examples belong to the collection of Jean Vivii and are housed at
the Archives du Film, cat. nos. 193 and 197. They are not reproduced
here.
49. “Les MusCes des films,” Biologica 2 (1912): XX; and “Un Musie de
films,” Bulletins et rne‘rnoires de la Socie‘te‘d’anthropologie de Paris 6 (7
March 1912): 95.
50. See Lion Azoulay, “L’Ere nouvelle des sons et des bruits. Musies et
archives phonographiques,” Bulletins de la Socie‘te‘ d’anthropologie de
Paris 1 (3 May 1900): 172-178; and “Liste des phonogrammes compos-
ant le musCe phonographique de la sociiti d’anthropologie de Paris,”
Bulletins de la Socie‘te‘d’anthropologie de Paris 3 (3July 1902): 652-656.
51. As quoted from Lorna Simpson’s Easy For Who To Say (1989),a won-
derful counterpoint to Regnault’s writing of race.