Evolution of Turkey’s Cinematic Landscape and the Role of the Institut français
p. 255-266
Texte intégral
“In the middle of Istanbul movie houses, My mother won’t hear of my exile” (Orhan Veli1, 2)
1Today’s audiences are admittedly faced with a massive amount of film releases to choose from, as well as a plethora of screening venues. Spectators thus feel more or less lost all over the globe. However, this sentiment appears to be even more pronounced when it comes to Turkey’s cinematic landscape, which is based on a two-tier system. For one thing, only a handful of domestically produced films enjoy the lion’s share of cinema attendance. Conversely, the vast majority of films are undervalued and even marginalized. Not only are operational structures highly monopolized, but distribution structures are as well. Similarly, not only are there substantially more ticket sales for certain films, but also for one certain kind of venue: multiplexes located in shopping centers.
2The current cinematic landscape partly explains, on the one hand, the proliferation of film festivals and alternative screening venues in Turkey. The Institut français plays a crucial role in this sense. The following article will focus less on these establishments and deal more with the reason why they are so desperately needed. A brief historical overview of attendance at Turkish cinemas will first be discussed. This will be followed by a subsequent analysis of data concerning key film production, cinema programming and box-office indicators since the 2000’s, which all point towards the film industry beginning to grow in the country.
Attendance levels in Turkey: a historical overview
3When the Republic of Turkey was founded on October 29, 1923, cinema had already been introduced to the country. There were cinemas not only in İstanbul and the newly established capital of Ankara, but also in cities like İzmir and Trabzon. The first Turkish production company (Kemal Film) had been founded in 1922 and fifteen domestic films had already been made by that point.3 After a series of reforms, the young Republic entered into a period of rapid modernization. In its efforts to move away from its Ottoman past, the country aimed to build a sense of Turkish national identity. This was especially the case in the early 1930’s following the reform of the alphabet when the names of cinemas (i.e., the Orientaux [1911], the Central [1912], the Gaumont [1913] and the Éclair [1914]), which had previously reflected the Francophile spirit of their time, were changed to become more Turkish.4 To commemorate the victory of the Turkish War of Independence, the Grande Rue de Péra, which was home to most of the above mentioned theaters, was renamed İstiklal Caddesi (or Independence Avenue). The Emek Theater (emek meaning “labor” in Turkish) was first opened on this street in 1924 under the name Melek (or “angel”), and was likely one of the first cinemas to have a Turkish name before the language was officially reformed. Until its controversial and hugely protested demolition in 2013,5 this was the only cinema on İstiklal Avenue where the glory of movie palaces of the past could still be admired.
4By the end of 1929, Turkey had a total of about 150 cinemas.6 The “cinema rendezvous” column in Holivut magazine (Holivut is “Hollywood” written as it is read in Turkish) clearly show how cinemas were an integral part of social life in the 1930’s. An unidentified woman wrote to a Mr. Rıfkı: “I will be at the Majik Theater at 4:30 this Sunday. I hope this time you won’t wear too much lavender perfume and give me a headache.” A woman named Mübeccel informs Mr. Server from Yeşilköy that she will be in İstanbul this Friday: “I’m going to go to the Elhamra Cinema in the evening. I will keep the seat on the balcony next to me for you until 9:30. I will wait for you.”7
5In the 1940’s, the number of open-air cinemas started to increase significantly, the first of which was opened in Şişli in 1913.8 In a time when cinema programming was still very dependent on foreign film productions, Ömer Lütfi Akad’s domestically produced film Vurun Kahpeye (Strike the Whore) was shown at the Taskim Theater in Beyoğlu for five weeks straight in 1949, breaking the box-office records of its time. At that time, İstanbul experienced a major wave of internal migration that not only transformed the urban landscape, but also the cultural landscape of a city that was in the process of industrializing.9 The request for films increased in all major cities, from 20 million spectators going to the cinema in the late 1940’s to 60 million in 1968-1959.10 Audiences’ preferred genre turned out to be melodrama, the genre on which the Golden Age of Turkish cinema was built. This period was known as the Yeşilçam era and lasted from 1960 to 1970.
6The number of films made in Turkey has increased considerably since 1960. 68 domestic films were produced in Turkey that year, and as many as 178 films were made there in 1964, followed by 238 films in 1966, and finally 299 films in 1972.11 In terms of film production, Turkey has ranked among the top five film-producing countries in the world. In 1966, more than 50 million movie theater tickets were sold in İstanbul alone.12
7Hasan Akbulut13 interviewed seventy-eight spectators who patronized cinemas in Turkey during this period. He reported that going to the cinema is viewed as the cheapest and most popular “inter-classist”14 form of entertainment in Turkey, and that people regularly go there without knowing what is screening beforehand. Gülengül Altıntaş15 also studied the relationship between audiences and cinemas in Turkey, specifically in eastern Turkey. She noted that in cities such as Mardin and Diyarbakır, going to the cinema is not just a major form of entertainment, but is the only place dedicated to socialization. Furthermore, these local cinemas act as both instigators of modernity and extensions of the home. They are places where people often go to meet up during the day for reasons other than going to see a film. Altıntaş concludes that up until the 1980’s (when the theater-going experience was no longer remembered as a “lovely collective memory”), the limits of the private sector were not defined by the home but by the community.
8The Yeşilçam era relied on a film production and distribution system unique to the Turkish film market. This structure consisted of “specific ‘operations’ for each of the seven distribution ‘regions’ and for each funding circumstance. Distributors and theater owners financed film producers (based exclusively in İstanbul) according to the needs of local audiences.”16 Producers started to make different films for different regions. At times, three different films would be shot on the same set, using the same actors all within the span of just a few days. The total number of films made in Turkey did not decrease until 1975. Starting in the early 1970’s, the method of making films at a low cost and en masse, which had been so successful over the course of the last decade, ultimately resulted in a decline in quality. Repetitive film narratives that always told the same story led to a considerable lack of interest among film-going audiences, who now had televisions at home. In 1970, 50,000 televisions were documented on file, and this number increased to 1.000.000 by 1976 and to about 3.5 million by 1983.17 Between 1970 and 1979, attendance had decreased by 170 million spectators.18 Around this time, Arab and pornographic films invaded cinemas, and the 1980 military coup d’état delivered the final blow to theaters. Established in 1965, the Turkish Cinematheque had to close its doors around the same time due to the military coup.
9During these difficult years, the only positive development for İstanbulite cinephiles was the creation of the International İstanbul Film Days by the İstanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (the İstanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfı, or İKSV) in 1983. Today, the festival is known as the İstanbul International Film Festival. Renamed the İstanbul Film Festival in 1989, it was at that time the only way to see European, classic and arthouse films. It was also a major source of inspiration for a generation of cinephiles and filmmakers. It is important to note that the Institut français has been a key partner of the festival since its creation.
10In the 1980’s, the production and distribution systems in place were replaced by an extensive home video market. The size of the market was mostly due to the demand of Turkish immigrants living in Europe. It was also, however, a source of income for Turkish film productions.19 Yet, this new source of income, which depended on pre-purchases by video companies, was far from offsetting the negative impact of the crisis happening within Turkish cinema as a whole. By the end of this period, major American film studios (Warner Brothers at first, followed by United International Pictures [UIP])20 expanded to locations in Turkey and had complete control over film programming in the country. Once again these international companies became major driving forces in renovating and redesigning cinemas in Turkey.21 Starting in the 1990’s, large theaters that had already begun to be split up into multiplexes were being replaced by more modern facilities. At the same time, the film industry in Turkey continued to suffer from a loss of audience interest in movie theaters and in cinema overall. In 1993, 82 films were made in Turkey, but only 11 ended up being distributed.22
The current state of the Turkish film industry
11The 1990’s were marked by a major film crisis, in which the number of Turkish films made (and above all, the number of films theatrically distributed) decreased dramatically. Following this turbulent decade, Turkish cinema in the 2000’s was making a name for itself. There is a tendency to credit such growth within the industry to the artistic success of certain films at prestigious international film festivals, beginning with Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s Palme d’Or winner Uzak (Distant, 2002). It should be noted that while such awards may bring attention to, gain international recognition for and add symbolic value to the Turkish film industry, they do not translate into box-office success. However, within the socio-economic sphere, another aspect of the booming Turkish film industry emerges: there was a remarkable increase not only in the number of films made, but more notably in the box-office earnings of domestically produced films.
12The increase in the number of Turkish films released in theaters (see Figure 1 below) was, first of all, compatible with the worldwide film production movement. Stephen Follows23 underlines that the total number of films screened worldwide doubled between 2000 and 2010. This number continues to increase, and as one festival director explained, the amount of films made increases much faster than the amount of people who want to watch films.
Figure 1. Number of Turkish and foreign films released.

Source: Tolga Akıncı, http://boxofficeturkiye.com.24
13In fact, the increasing number of Turkish productions seems small when compared to the number of films made by the European film industry. In terms of domestic film production overall, Turkey ranks eighth in Europe and its films make up only 6% of all European film productions. It should also be noted that there is a very low rate of co-production in Turkey.25 However, as has been previously mentioned in regard to its film industry, Turkey has few international equivalents when it comes to the ratio of spectators who prefer to see domestically produced films.
Figure 2. Ticket sales for domestic and foreign films in Turkey

Source: Tolga Akıncı, http://boxofficeturkiye.com; Data for 2000–2005 by Deniz Yavuz, http://www.antraktsinema.com.26
14The above figure shows that the growth curve for domestic film ticket sales has increased eightfold since 2000, whereas ticket sales for foreign films increased fairly regularly, varying slightly between 5 and 10 million. By 2013, the amount of tickets sold for Turkish films surpassed the total number of all tickets sold in 2005. In 2016, Turkish films made up a national market share of nearly 60%. This substantial percentage also meant that Turkey held the largest share in its own film market compared to the rest of Europe, and was among the top ten countries with the highest domestic market shares worldwide. Among the countries that outperformed Turkey in this category was, of course, the United States – the leader of the global film market. Following the US were India (given the influence of Bollywood), Egypt, Japan, China and finally South Korea (whose demographic, structural, political, economic and cultural characteristics inevitably cause a clear shutoff from the rest of the world in terms of its film industry).
Table 1. European country rankings according to domestic film market share.
| 1 | Turkey | 56.80% |
| 2 | UK | 44.50% |
| 3 | France | 35.50% |
| 4 | Finland | 29.90% |
| 5 | Denmark | 29.80% |
| 6 | Germany | 27.50% |
| 7 | Italy | 21.30% |
| 8 | Sweden | 20.70% |
| 9 | Norway | 20.50% |
| 10 | Spain | 19.20% |
Source: Martin Kanzler & J. Talavera Milla, “Focus 2016: World Film Market Trends,” European Audiovisual Observatory, October 7–14, 2016.
15When considering that in 1995 the market share of domestic films in Turkey was only 1%, the question quickly arises: how did this come about? In order to explain audiences’ increased interest in seeing a particular type of film in theaters (in this case, domestically produced films), the issue must be approached as a matter of taste. Obviously this does not mean looking into the “black box” of spectators’ decision-making processes, one of the great mysteries of audience research studies. It also does not mean that the intrinsic qualities of Turkish films should be determined. Rather, the public’s preference for domestically produced films should be understood, as should the economic valorization that results from such a preference. As Laurent Creton explains:
“Typical economic analysis is based on the myth that supply responds to demand. Of course this is not entirely false, at least not in the short-term. For the most part, however, supply shapes demand in the long-term and plays a role in consumption patterns, ways of life, specific kinds of urban development and ways of existing in society.”27
16It could be argued in this respect that television, the usual suspect behind the decline of going to the cinema in the 1990’s, instead sowed seeds for appreciating the aesthetic and narrative aspects of domestically produced films. In Turkey, the rise of television shows beginning in 1990 redefined the rules and boundaries of the film industry in an economic and technical sense. Producers could now invest in cinema by means of investing in television, and the television industry inevitably became more professionalized. By 2018, Turkey’s television shows had a total business volume of more than 300 million dollars and were exported to more than 140 countries, making up 32% of all imported series. The nation has become, after the United States, the second-largest exporter of television series in the world.28 Moreover, Turkey has produced a new generation of audiences who previously did not go out to the cinema, but who now wants to see their favorite celebrities on the big screen in familiar narratives.
17The huge success of films such as the Recep İvedik series (Togan Gökbakar, 2008-2009-2010-2014-2017) and the Düğün Dernek series (Nuptials and Merriments, Selçuk Aydemir, 2013–2015), which are direct spinoffs of television characters and cast the same lead actors as the hit shows, attests to this phenomenon. Uğur Tanrıöver29 furthermore explains that in this respect the old Hollywood “star system” which left its mark on the Golden Age of Turkish cinema between 1960 and 1970, has given way in the 2000’s to a new television-based star system.
18With the arrival of new audiences who view the nationality of a film as the best way to choose what to see and as a guarantee of quality, cinema attendance records have been broken time and time again. In 2010, the total number of tickets sold in Turkey exceeded 40 million for the first time. In 2013, this total increased to 50 million, then to 60 million in 2014, and finally as many as 70 million tickets were sold in Turkish cinemas in 2017 (see Figure 3 below). Unsurprisingly, Turkish productions dominated the list of the top ten films which had the largest ticket sales. This is quite unusual compared to other European countries, where typically no more than three domestically produced films rank within the top ten ticket sales.
Figure 3. Total number of tickets sold in Turkey.

Source: Tolga Akıncı, http://boxofficeturkiye.com.
19Such uniqueness in admission trends is promising. The Turkish film market, unlike other Eastern European film markets, does not appear to be oversaturated and instead has a rather bright outlook. However, one must be cautiously optimistic before any tangible results are achieved. First and foremost, with less than one ticket sold per citizen annually, Turkey’s attendance rate ranks among the lowest in Europe.30 Secondly, this relatively low attendance rate is concentrated on a very small number of films. Table 2 below shows that in a “record” admissions year like 2013, with 50 million tickets were sold overall, the ten most viewed Turkish films made up almost half of all domestic ticket sales. Comparing these figures with Germany and France reveals the gravity of such a problem.
20It is important to note that such polarized admission rates do not apply to just one year. The data for 2016 presented in Table 3 below is striking firstly for its lack of “mid-level” films that are neither “arthouse” nor entirely popular. Such films were nonetheless profitable with a decent number of ticket sales ranging between 100,000 and 500,000. Films that sold less than 10,000 tickets in theaters were much more prevalent than films which brought in more than 100,000 ticket sales. The story was the same for box-office behemoths, who only made up a minority of the film market but nonetheless overshadowed the majority of local, phantom films. The existence of such films is never certain (which is why I have chosen to call them “phantoms”) since they may be in theaters one week and gone the next, leaving no trace of their existence.
Table 2. Market share of the top ten and top five most viewed films in Turkey, Germany and France in 2013.
| Turkey | Germany | France | ||
| Market share of all ticket sales | Market share of ticket sales for Turkish films | Market share of all ticket sales | Market share of all ticket sales | |
| Top 10 | 43.6% | 75.6% | 28.1% | 19.8% |
| Top 5 | 29.8% | 51.6% | 16.8% | 11.1% |
Source: Tolga Akıncı, http://boxofficeturkiye.com; Facts&Figures for German Cinema, 2013; 2013 Review, Les dossiers du CNC.
Table 3. Breakdown of Turkish ticket sales for domestically produced films in 2016
| Number of films | |
| More than one million | 11 |
| 500.000–999.000 | 4 |
| 100.000–499.000 | 22 |
| Less than 10,000 | 62 |
| TOTAL | 139 |
Source: Tolga Akıncı, http://boxofficeturkiye.com.
21The brief overview provided in this article first of all shows that the Turkish film industry is based on a two-tier system. It therefore suffers from, to use Forest’s terminology, a “podium effect.”31 Distribution and operations networks are also highly monopolized. Ticket sales are not only concentrated on certain types of films, but also certain types of facilities: multiplexes.
22Multiplexes first appeared in Europe in the United Kingdom during the mid-1980’s, and to this day they remain widely criticized.32 However, it should be noted that in addition to common criticisms, multiplexes in Turkey contribute towards the modern crisis of changing cities. They introduce shopping malls to the cityscape, as they are generally found there. According to data from Antrakt, by 2018 multiplexes located in shopping malls made up 67% of all cinemas and 82% of all seats in theaters in Turkey. Unlike shopping centers in Europe, that are usually located in the suburbs, most shopping centers in Turkey (especially in İstanbul) are constructed in city centers and sometimes lead to the destruction of historic districts. This is why the transformation of cinemas in İstanbul city center (according to Orhan Veli’s 1945 poem quoted at the beginning of this article) into modern shopping malls (which inevitably contain multiplexes) reflect broader geographic, political, economic and cultural issues.
23Admittedly multiplexes do not imply the same type of relationship for small cities as they do for major cities. In fact, İstanbul has transformed into a closed-off, transparent box of sorts, where going to a local cinema does not mean the same thing as it used to. It is true that audiences today are faced with an overwhelming number of film releases, as well as many places and screens to choose from. Audiences feel more or less lost all around the world. However, as this article has attempted to explain, this feeling seems to be more profound in cinematic landscapes like Turkey, where all films except domestic productions and Hollywood blockbusters are undervalued and even marginalized. Certain types of films leave commercial theaters and are relocated along with their audiences.
24For Francesco Casetti, such relocation is tied to “all of the symbolic processes that require a removal, a change over, a restructuration or a widening of the field.”33 This is why relocation as a general concept can serve as a guide for studying cinema migration. Far from being a rigid and immovable entity, cinema is constantly evolving and is “always in transition,” to quote Jonathan Rosenbaum.34 Relocation as it is described by Francesco Casetti is not only a reality, but a fundamental necessity in Turkey. Festivals, events and alternative screening venues are desperately needed by people not only to see the cinema they love, but also to meet others who love the same type of cinema.35 And voilà, the Institut français itself and with all of its partners are part of this experience economy. They play a role in beloved venues that revive, if not architecturally at least socially, the glamor of temple-like movie palaces of the past where people come together around a sense of community.
Notes de bas de page
1 Acknowledgements: This work in this article was supported by Galatasaray University research funding [grant number 19.300.007]. I am grateful for this opportunity.
2 Verses from the poem “The Song of İstanbul” (1945) by the Turkish poet Orhan Veli, in: I, Orhan Veli, translated from Turkish by Murat Nemet-Nejat, Hanging Loose Press, New York, 1989.
3 Tunç, Ertan, Türk Sinemasının Ekonomik Yapısı (1896–2005), Doruk Yayımcılık, İstanbul, 2012, p. 31.
4 Scognamillo, Giovanni, Cadde-i Kebir’de Sinema, Agora Kitaplığı, İstanbul, 2008, p. 13.
5 Until it closed in 2009, the Emek Theater was, in all its splendor, the home of the İstanbul International Film Festival. In the so-called “renovation“ project of the Cercle d’Orient building, the historic theater was to be relocated to the fourth floor of an eight-theater multiplex. Despite a number of protests against the project (which increased in intensity in early 2013 when the whole building was surrounded by a protective cage), despite all of the criticism from filmmakers, writers, journalists and artists, despite all of the international support backing the movement, the Emek Theater was demolished on May 20, 2013. The legal battle over the fate of the cinema had not yet been completed. During one of the last protests that took place on April 7, 2013, law enforcement responded with tear gas and water hoses. Filmmaker Costa-Gavras, guest of honor at the İstanbul International Film Festival that year, was also in the crowd. A month and a half after the last demonstrations to save the Emek took place, the Gezi Park protests began.
6 Tunç, Ertan, op. cit., p. 49. It should be noted that Tunç collected data on the number of cinemas and audience members in Turkey up until 1990 in not only books on cinema, but also in reports and documents produced by consulates, official government representatives and foreign businesses around that time. Nevertheless, the accuracy of such figures is always doubtful and occasionally statistics contradict one another.
7 Akçura, Gökhan and Dert Ortağım Benim, in G. Akçura & M. Turan (ed.s), Yüzyıllık Aşk. Türkiye’de Sinema ve Seyirci İlişkisi (pp. 113–119), İstanbul Modern, İstanbul, 2014, p. 113.
8 Open-air cinemas were referred to as “summer cinemas.” According to Evren, there were 20 such theaters in İstanbul in 1949, 103 such theaters in 1958, 122 in 1960, 143 in 1964, 159 in 1966, 184 in 1967 and 188 in 1969. Evren, Burçak, Eski İstanbul Sinemaları. Düş Şatoları, AD Yayıncılık AŞ, İstanbul, pp. 116-118.
9 Tül Akbal, Zeynep, İstanbul’un Sinema Macerası, İstanbul, No. 10, 1994, p. 53.
10 Tunç, Ertan, op. cit., p. 75–76.
11 Idem, p. 103.
12 As shown below, for the first time since 1989 the total number of cinema spectators in Turkey exceeded 50 million in 2013. Erkılıç, Hakan, Türk Sinemasının Ekonomik Yapısı ve Bu Yapının Sinemamıza Etkileri (unpublished PhD thesis for a Doctorate of Arts), under the direction of Alev İdrisoğlu, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, 2003, p. 116.
13 The findings cited here are those that Akbulut himself presented on 5/10/2014 at the 15th “New Directions in Turkish Film Studies” conference hosted by Kadir Has University.
14 It is clear that the “inter-classism” that exists in cinemas does not outright exist. Even if cinemas are more open to all kinds of social groups in comparison to other performance venues (such as playhouses and opera halls, which are inevitably more expensive), there is always a divide between city center cinemas and village center cinemas, between theaters that only project Turkish films and those that project international films. The focus on the “inter-classism” of cinemas recounted by the collective memory of audiences can thus be attributed instead to nostalgia, to a sense of a loss of community (lost throughout the 1980’s) that is found in most oral history research.
15 The findings cited here are those that Altıntaş herself presented on 5/10/2014 at the 15th “New Directions in Turkish Film Studies” conference hosted by Kadir Has University.
16 Uğur Tanrıöver, Hülya, “Le cinéma turc : analyse d’un succès artistique et commercial,” in J. Marcou, & F. Türkmen (eds), Vingt ans de changement en Turquie (1992-2012) (pp. 123-142), L’Harmattan, Paris, 2013, p. 125.
17 Erkılıç, Hakan, op. cit., p. 124.
18 Tunç, Ertan, op. cit., p. 127.
19 Idem, p. 142.
20 The liberal economic model implemented by the Özal government following the coup d’état opened the door for major distributors who wanted to expand into the Turkish market. As part of a series of measures taken in order to integrate Turkey into the global economy, Warner Brothers entered the Turkish video market in 1987 and then the film distribution market in 1989. That same year, UIP also entered the Turkish film market. During the 1990’s, the first private television stations were established in the country, and Turkey became a member of Eurimages. Uğur Tanrıöver, Hülya, op. cit., p. 127.
21 Idem, pp. 125–126.
22 Tunç, Ertan, op. cit., p. 186.
23 Follows, Stephen, “Genre trends in global film production,” published on 2/12/2018 on the website https://stephenfollows.com/.
24 Due to a lack of independent public institutions that collect information pertaining to cinema, Boxofficeturkiye.com was created in 2008 by industry professional Tolga Akıncı. The website has proven to be the most useful database for information within the field. For the purposes of this article, all of the data related to the Turkish film industry has for the most part been taken from this site.
25 Talavera Milla, Julio, “Film production in Europe. Production volume, co-production and worldwide circulation,” European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, 2017.
26 The official provider to the European Audiovisual Observatory for data on Turkish films, Antrakt is a private, film market intelligence company.
27 Creton, Laurent, “Modes de consommation et enjeux de la diffusion,” G. Cladel, K. Feigelson, J.-M. Gévaudan, C. Landais & D. Sauvaget (eds), Le cinéma dans la cité (pp. 69-82), Éditions du Félin, Paris, 2001, p. 80.
28 Atay, Reyhan, “L’âge d’or des séries turques dans le monde,” published on 2/8/2018 on the website http://tvmag.lefigaro.fr.
29 Uğur Tanrıöver, Hülya, op. cit., p. 129.
30 Follows, Stephen, “Are cinema box-office takings rising or falling?,” published on 1/29/2018 on the website https://stephenfollows.com/.
31 Forest, Claude, “Les films, stratégie de l’offre,” in G. ladel, K. Feigelson, J.-M. Gévaudan, C. Landais, & D. Sauvaget (eds), Le cinéma dans la cité (pp. 57-68), Éditions du Félin, Paris, 2001, p. 57.
32 Pinto, Aurélie, Les salles de cinéma d’art et essai : Sociologie d’un label culturel entre marché et politique publique (Unpublished PhD thesis in sociology), under the direction of Frédéric Lebaron, University of Picardie Jules Verne, 2012, p. 252.
33 Casetti, Francesco, “The Last Supper in Piazza della Scala,” Cinéma&Cie, 11, 2008, pp. 8–9.
34 Rosenbaum, Jonathan, Goodbye Cinema, Hello Cinephilia: Film Culture in Transition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2010.
35 Ethis, Emmanuel, “Le cinéma, cet art subtil du rendez-vous,” Communication et langages, 154, 2007, p. 18.
Auteur
-
Ece Vitrinel
Galatasaray University
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Régie théâtrale et mise en scène
L'Association des régisseurs de théâtre (1911-1939)
Françoise Pélisson-Karro
2014
L'avenir de la mémoire
Patrimoine, restauration et réemploi cinématographiques
André Habib et Michel Marie (dir.)
2013
Les archives de la mise en scène. Hypermédialités du théâtre
Jean-Marc Larrue et Giusy Pisano (dir.)
2014
Pour un cinéma léger et synchrone !
Invention d'un dispositif à l'Office national du film à Montréal
Vincent Bouchard
2012
