bplist00�_WebMainResource� ^WebResourceURL_WebResourceFrameName_WebResourceData_WebResourceMIMEType_WebResourceTextEncodingName_?file:///Users/uedamayu/Downloads/hirai-article-2011-sample.htmlPO�G CineMagaziNet! no.18 Yutaka Kubo The Function of the Semi-Private Sphere in Home Moviemaking and Exhibition

The Function of the Semi-Private Sphere in Home Moviemaking and Exhibition

Yutaka Kubo


   Home moviemaking on family trips has been a popular leisure activity since the introduction of the Pathé Baby system. In Japan from 1939 to the early 1950s, home moviemaking was extremely difficult due to a lack of sufficient equipment and films.[1] After the Occupation, it re-flourished around 1957 and enjoyed great popularity among Japanese families until the mid-1970s as Japan experienced rapid economic growth.[2] One of the landmark events in the early history of home moviemaking was the emergence of Fujica Single 8 camera and projector.[3] This new apparatus seems to have made a no small contribution to the popularity of home moviemaking on family trips. But what characteristics of home moviemaking motivated families to choose family trips as a location for their movies? How did families make home movies in crowded, public places? This paper examines certain types of film techniques through which family members establish a relationship of the filmmaker and the subject.
   The history of home movie studies is so young that there seems to be a large number of problems left for consideration. Among other things is how home moviemaking plays a significant role in an audio-visual representation of family affection on trips.[4] Visual anthropologist Richard Chalfen has proposed that we should label home movies shot on family trips as the “away-from-home” category (64). It has since served as a useful starting point for succeeding scholar. However, as far as we know, no attempt has been made to explain why these “away-from-home” home movies evoke a profound sense of familial affection in the spectators. This paper treats in particular Kitamura Tatsuhiko’s Osaka banpaku to kazoku[5] (Osaka Expo with Family, 1970) as a case study. Osaka banpaku to kazoku is not an artistically sophisticated film. But its representation of familial affection helps us understand why a sense of being “at home” is indispensable from home moviemaking and exhibition. Borrowing German philosopher Hannah Arendt’s concept of the private and the public spheres, this paper not only hypothesizes the semi-private sphere as a third realm but also examines how interactions between the filmmaker and the subject create the semi-private sphere in the frame of home movie camera when families make home movies in public.

I. Defining the Semi-Private Sphere
   The differences between the public and private spheres[6] have long been discussed since the publication of Arendt’s The Human Condition in 1958. In this book she makes a clear distinction between these realms. Although home moviemaking was already a popular leisure as well as domestic activity at the time of its publication, it does not discuss home movies at all. Nevertheless, her definition of the public and the private spheres helps us identify their function in home movie culture. Before discussing Arendt’s ideas in detail, let us first see how the Pathé Baby system was advertised in Japan in 1924.
   Banno Shouten’s advertisement of the Pathé Baby system appeared in Asahi Newspaper on November 22, 1924 (Figure 1 and 2). Figure 1 depicts a woman—probably a mother—filming two children playing in the field. It seems to indicate two things. One is easiness to handle the Pathé Baby camera—even a beginner can use it. The other is its portability. For the latter reason, we can presume that Banno Shouten encouraged people to perform home moviemaking outside home from the earliest days of their business in Japan. It is no wonder that Banno Shouten advertised this way because it was still technically difficult to get enough light exposure inside home.[7] From its very beginning, home moviemaking has been linked to the public sphere outside home.
   By contrast, home movie exhibition has always been associated with the private sphere of home since 1924. Figure 2 depicts a scene of home movie exhibition at home. The postures of children in Figure 1 and 2 are exactly the same. The home provides the darkness necessary for home movie exhibition. Thus this advertisement might have had shown that the private and the public spheres had each role in home movie culture.
   So far, we have looked at how the Pathé Baby system was publicized in 1924. It appears that Banno Shouten’s advertisement distinguished the role of the public and private spheres, focusing on technical aspects of the system. But it does not seem to explain how these spheres function in terms of a representation of family identity and familial affection in home movie culture. Arendt’s theories will help us to further our discussion.
   Home moviemaking in public becomes a means to form a strong sense of family identity. Common subjects for home movies shot in public include, among others, school sports day, picnics, local festivals, child rituals such as shichigosan, and family trips. According to Arendt, the public sphere is “the space of appearance [that] comes into being wherever men are together in the manner of speech and action” (199). The public sphere is an open space where one recognizes differences between him/her and others through such interactions as exchanging greetings. Arendt also points out that “everything that appears in public can be seen and heard by everybody and has the widest publicity” (50). In home movies shot at public locations, we constantly see others occupying the same space where family members are being filmed. They do not exclude the others from the frame. By doing so, it seems that the existence of others in the same space and frame construct our identity as a family.
   On the contrary, Arendt defines a private realm as “a sphere of intimacy” in which one feels “the warmth of the hearth” under the protection “from the harsher light of the public realm” (38; 51). We consider home as a basis of the private sphere in which family members practice domestic activities together. Common subjects for home movies shot at home are birthdays, family parties, child rituals such as okuisome, and everyday activities.[8] While strangers crowd the public sphere, the private sphere is kept for family members and familiar individuals who make “their regular, if infrequent, appearance ‘at home’”(Chalfen 59). Arendt goes on to point out that four physical walls of home hide us from eyes and ears of others, help retain the balance between the private and public, and enrich our human lives (71). The exclusiveness of home against the openness of the public means nothing negative. Instead, it assures affection and protection of a family, which create an environment for home movie exhibition at home.
   Arendt’s definition of the public and private has helped us see how each sphere has a different role in the home movie culture. However, more than a simple binary opposition of the private and public is necessary for a better comprehension of how the frame of home movie camera functions during home moviemaking on family trips. In what follows, we are going to explain the overview of the semi-private sphere in home moviemaking by employing a fence metaphor (See Table 1).
   In Idea to seido, Taga Shigeru discusses the history of a garden from a linguistic point of view. He points out that a word for a garden in many European languages has derived from an original meaning in “surrounding” and “protection” (161). Historically, we have created our own garden by cultivating the land around a house. But the garden’s naked state still belongs to the public realm, implying that anyone can invade it and cause dangers. Thus we have invented a fence to surround the garden. It metaphorically extends the private sphere beyond the boundary of the physical four walls of the house. The fence then becomes not only the border but also protection.
   Moreover, the garden surrounded by the fence is a mixture of the public and private spheres. It means that the garden still belongs to the public sphere yet somehow gives a sense of the privacy. Therefore the fence helps create the semi-private sphere within the public realm. When we make home movies on family trips, the frame of home movie camera becomes the semi-private sphere which functions just like the fence.
   There are, however, two major differences between the fence and the frame of home movie camera. That is, the frame of home movie camera benefits from 1) portability unlike the fence tied to the house, and 2) evokes a sense of familial affection in addition to protection. In Table 1, home indicates the private sphere, and the circle in the public sphere represents where a family trip takes place. Within this circle, family members and strangers coexist. The square inside the circle is the frame of home movie camera that will become the semi-private sphere. By placing the family members within the frame, we create the semi-private sphere through a representation of interactions between the filmmaker and the subject. We will discuss how Kitamura Tatsuhiko’s Osaka banpaku to kazoku succeeds in the creation of the semi-private sphere.

II. The Construction of the Semi-Private Sphere in Osaka Banpaku To Kazoku
   In August 1970, Kitamura Tatsuhiko, his family (wife and daughter), and his colleagues from work went on a two-night-three-day trip to Osaka. Consisted of forty-eight shots in total, Osaka banpaku to kazoku portrays two days he and his family spent at Osaka World Expo.[9] While he films a variety of pavilions and attractions at the Expo, his focus is always on his family. Kitamura’s home movie shows how crowded the Expo was even five months after the opening. Kitamura’s family was one of the thousands of families there. How did Kitamura distinguish his family from the others? How did he show his relationship with his wife and daughter? We will examine how his home movie successfully creates the semi-private sphere in the frame of his home movie camera by focusing on a specific use of film techniques.
   Centering the subjects in the frame helps the filmmakers keep their focus when making home movies in crowded public places. Employed in painting and still photography, this technique is not a trait unique to the home movie. As seen in Louis Lumière’s Repas dé bébé in which the focus—the baby—is placed in the center, it has been commonly used throughout the development of cinema since its embryotic phase. Thus it is no wonder this technique is widely used in home movies too.[10] In Osaka banpaku to kazoku, his family—his wife and daughter wearing the same yellow dress and white pairs of shoes—is always centered in the frame. It seems to function as an essential means to make the subject of the home moviemaker’s gaze clear to the audience.
The combination of long, full, and medium shots makes the presence of other people apparent. Richard Chalfen’s analysis of the “code characteristics” of home movies may be of some help to us.

The majority of shots in home movies were “long” and “medium” shots. Close-ups were rare, but are more common in more recent films. The tendency is to draw back from the subject matter leaving the central concern of the shot (person, place, thing, etc.) rather small in the overall picture. Standard composition most often included a great deal of “empty” space around the objects of central concern. (65)
Osaka banpaku to kazoku contains few close-ups of family members. Kitamura constantly uses long, full, and medium shots, thus making his subject—his family—occupy only a small amount of the frame. However, instead of leaving “a great deal of ‘empty’ space around the objects of central concern,” Kitamura includes his family and other people in the same frame. This creates an environment where others can observe his family as well, which we know is one of the characteristics of the public sphere as defined by Arendt.
   Including others in the same frame is an act of strengthening our family identity. In the words of Arendt, “the public realm, in other words, was reserved for individuality; it was the only place where men could show who they really and inexchangeably were” (41). Through an inclusion of other people around the subjects, home moviemakers consciously separate their own families from others and re-recognize that their families are one and only. In shot 5 of Osaka banpaku to kazoku (Figure 3), Kitamura’s family is centered in the frame while others occupy the rest of the frame. People constantly pass by before the camera even when the camera pans to follow the family. Despite the constant interruption of the camera’s view, however, no sign of irritation on the part of the cameraperson (Kitamura) is visible. Regarding how the home movie camera reacts to the disturbance of view by others, Chalfen suggests:
The camera seems to tolerate the ‘other’ people in scenes of crowded places (especially beach and amusement parks). However the camera does not attend to unknown people as well as it does the central characters of the home movie community. (59)
Toleration is the key here. Instead of excluding others from the frame, home moviemakers use their presence purposely to strengthen family identity in family-trip home movies.
   The two techniques we have discussed so far show the focus on the subjects from the home moviemakers’ point of view. Another technique indispensable to the establishment of the semi-private sphere in the frame of home movie camera is the subjects’ awareness of being filmed. In other words, they acknowledge the presence of the home moviemaker behind the camera in the same location. Film scholar Liz Czach has pointed out a tendency among home moviemaking magazines to take it for granted that the subjects’ awareness and recognition of the camera is detrimental to the making of a good movie (162). That is, people should never look into the camera when making home movies. Chalfen explains where this tendency has originated:
[How-To-Do-It manuals for home moviemaking] attempt to persuade home moviemakers to adopt attitudes, techniques, and conventions of professional filmmaking, by outlining a set of prescriptive guidelines on how to do it “right” and how to avoid “mistakes.” (49)
Because classical Hollywood movie grammar is traditionally believed to discourage actors from staring at the camera, most of the handbooks of home moviemaking naturally follow its supposed example.[11] Yet many home movies do actually refuse to follow such Hollywood norms. To explain this refusal, we must think about the link between early cinema and home movies.
   If one considers Louis Lumière’s Repas dé bébé as one of the first home movies in world film history, the history of home movie is longer than that of classical Hollywood cinema. It is possible to believe that some of the techniques used in home movies today are a remnant of early cinema. According to Tom Gunning, the use of the gaze of the actor turned directly towards the camera was already quite popular in early cinema, contributing to the establishment of the relationship of the observer and the observed (230). If so, it may be safe to conclude that home movies have been a kind of natural heir to the legacy of early cinema and have kept its inheritance as their core traits. Home movies are generally found “’primitive,’ ‘naive,’ [and] ‘non-professional’” (Chalfen 50). This kind of reception may be seen as an indirect evidence to show how home movies has preserved and employed valuable qualities of early cinema. The awareness of the camera by the subject is just an example of such qualities that have contributed to the longevity and attraction of home movies.
   Now that we have discussed the historical origin of home movies’ traits, let us now turn our attention back to the function of awareness in home moviemaking. The subject’s awareness of the camera indicates that home moviemaking cannot be completed without the relationship of the observer (the filmmaker) and the observed (the subject). Shot 9 of Osaka banpaku to kazoku (Figure 4) is the first moment in which the wife and daughter acknowledge the camera by directly looking at it. This shot shows them waiting for an airplane attraction to start. The wife notices that her husband is filming them and smiles at him (Figure 4). Next she takes the daughter’s left arm and waves it towards the camera, though the daughter only keeps staring at the camera (Figure 5). In these two shots, the relationship of the observer and the observed is built through an exchange of gazes. In “Homemade Travelogues: Autosonntag,” Alexandra Schneider claims: “…in the case of the home movie, it is only when the subject makes contact with the camera that the illusion of being part of a filmic reality may be produced” (160). Schneider’s argument applies to Kitamura’s home movie. It clearly exemplifies the subject’s active participation in home moviemaking. It indicates not only the awareness of the camera but also that both the filmmaker and subject belong to the same filmic reality.
   These three elements are the key to construct the semi-private sphere in the frame of home movie camera. As four walls of the house provide protection to a family in the private sphere, the rectangular shape of the home movie camera’s frame literally surrounds the family to give imaginative protection. The subject of protection is identified through a placement of the family in the center of the frame. Camera movements become a metaphor for the continuity of imaginary protection. Because the frame of home movie camera cannot physically exclude other people, home moviemakers use their presence in order to strengthen a sense of family identity. Lastly, interactions between the filmmaker and the subject lead to an awareness of the camera. When these three components are intertwined, the frame of home movie camera becomes the semi-private sphere.

III. Representation of Familial Affection
   Our discussion has focused on a specific combination of film techniques that creates the semi-private sphere, providing a sense of protection and strengthening family identity. However, in order for us to prove that the semi-private sphere is a metaphorical extension of the private sphere of home, we need to examine another aspect of the semi-private sphere: affection. Film scholar Patricia Zimmerman states: “the word amateur derives from the Latin word amare—to love” (278). In the context of home moviemaking among family members, the filmmaker’s gaze towards the subject seems to imply affection. Yet since the filmmakers are likely to have a different emotional attachment to each subject, it is possible to see various kinds of affection in home movies. In what follows, we will point out three kinds of familial affection depicted in the semi-private sphere in Osaka banpaku to kazoku: 1) affection for a family as a whole, 2) affection for a child, and 3) affection for a spouse.[12]
   A gaze of protection functions as affection for a family in shot 9 where the wife and the daughter are waiting for the airplane attraction to start. We have already looked at this shot as an example of the moment in which the relationship of the observer and the observed is established. This is one of the few shots in Kitamura’s movie where both the wife and daughter look at the camera to acknowledge their husband/father in the same space. In addition to her gaze, that the wife waves the daughter’s hand at him contributes to creating an intimate, smiling moment for this family. Although the daughter’s blank stare seems to imply that she is scared about this ride, the knowledge of her father’s protective gaze seems to make her feel safe. As the attraction begins (shot 9), the father attempts to follow its movement, but he fails to do so because he probably had no experience of filming anything moving at a fast speed. But he somehow manages to get a whole picture of his family on the ride and centers them in the frame. The frame of the home movie camera as the semi-private sphere here provides imaginary protection to the family (Figure 6). This is made possible because the filmmaker is the affectionate father.
   Affection for a child has two meanings: protection and recognition of bodily growth. It is common that home moviemakers concentrate their attention on children. Kitamura’s home movie, however, has only a few shots where Kitamura dedicates the camera’s focus to his child. In shot 36, the mother is holding the daughter’s hand but lets it go before walking down the steps (Figure 7). As the mother partially frames out, he centers the daughter in the frame. Looking a bit nervous, she slowly walks down the steps towards the father who is filming her at the bottom of the steps. Unlike shot 9 where the mother purposely places the daughter’s attention at the camera, in this shot she is aiming at the camera—or rather at her father—of her own will. Considering how small she is, her gaze seems to indicate a high level of anxiety and want for protection. As if watching her first steps, Kitamura observes her movement with an intimate gaze of protection. This amateur’s gaze towards his daughter is, as Zimmerman suggests (amateur means love), filled with affection. And his intimate gaze also means how proud he is of her growth. Though temporarily, she is walking without any assistance. The father’s recognition of her growth is a cause of his intimate gaze on her.
   Unlike the other two kinds of affection, affection for a spouse not only indicates intimacy but also has sexual implication. Affection for the wife most clearly appears in the shot where she becomes a central concern of the frame (Figure 8). Hannah Arendt states that one remarkable difference between the private and public spheres is that sexual interactions take place only in the private sphere: “the private realm of the household was the sphere where the necessities of life, of individual survival as well as of continuity of species, were taken care of and guaranteed” (45). The way the wife looks at the camera seems to show the high degree of comfort and intimacy she feels with her husband. Otherwise she probably will not make a face like that or allow him to film it.
   In the last shot where the mother and daughter appear, an intimate relationship between the filmmaker (husband) and the subject (wife) is shown most clearly. At the beginning of this shot, we can see her only above her thighs (Figure 8). Some people walk by the camera, and the daughter and mother slowly walk towards the camera. They pretend as if they do not recognize the camera or the husband. The daughter frames out, and the mother stays in the frame. The camera now films her above the waist. She looks at the camera and lifts her chin a little and makes a face at the camera as if to send a kiss (Figure 9). Her smile seems to indicate her embarrassment, for she looks away as she walks by the camera. But right before she frames out, she quickly glances directly at the camera again (Figure 10). This time, her gaze is not meant for the camera but rather for her husband. The gaze captured in the frame at this very moment is the most affectionate gaze that anyone has shown in this movie. It can be seen as a testimony to the sexual harmony between the wife and husband. As she fills the frame and garners his attention, her gaze proves how comfortable she feels about being filmed in his frame. In the semi-private sphere, she expresses a kind of intimacy that she fosters with her husband in the private sphere of home.

IV. Home Movie Exhibition: the Merging of the Semi-Private Sphere with the Private Sphere
   Home movie exhibition at home is significant part of home movie culture because it offers an opportunity to everyone in the family to share memories about family trips. As we have discussed previously, the semi-private sphere in the frame of home movie camera is only established when a certain combination of film techniques meets a collaborating relationship between filmmaker and subject. Through such a process, various kinds of affection are born, represented within the semi-private sphere, and kept in film reels. It is our contention that such interactions among family members as sharing their memories of family trips are the key to the merging of the semi-private sphere with the private sphere of home (See Table 2).
   Any comment given by family members during the screening invites their semi-private selves to be part of their private selves. Hungarian independent filmmaker Péter Forgács argues that “one of the sources of understanding for family films lies within the context of screening—specifically the role of narration or commentaries offered by the family while viewing the films” (48). During this process of “metanarration,” the family gains a chance to share their experiences, thoughts, and feelings to supplement the film with the information that seems to have escaped the eyes of the filmmaker (Forgács 48). Also, the metanarration helps the family distinguish individuals who truly belong to the semi-private sphere formed in the frame. Therefore we may conclude that the process of metanarration excludes other people in the frame and then brings their family identity to a stronger level.[13]
   Metanarration between the filmmaker and the subject helps the merging of familial affection represented in the semi-private sphere into the private sphere. During home movie exhibition, family members learn how the filmmaker has depicted them. They will laugh and enjoy conversations; they may even get angry at the way they have been portrayed. But all of these is a fun part of home movie exhibition and produce more interactions. Eventually family members will accept their home-movie selves and kinds of affection associated with them in the films. It may be because the semi-private sphere cannot be created without collaborations from the subjects. The frame of home movie camera forms the semi-private sphere when it senses an exchange of gazes and other interactions. In other words, the semi-private sphere can only exist in home moviemaking when both the filmmaker and the subject desire it—consciously or not. Moreover the kinds of affection represented in home movies originate from kinds of affection the family already has at home. The semi-private sphere in home movies merges with the private sphere of home through the process of metanarration during home movie exhibition.
   Then, what happens to the semi-private sphere if the private sphere does not have any room for it? What if affection does not exist even at home? Is the semi-private sphere possible? It may be impossible to establish the semi-private sphere in the first place if the family has not been able to establish an intimate relationship in the private sphere. The semi-private sphere can only exist on the premise that the private sphere already provides affection, protection, and intimacy to the family.

   Home movies give us private and intimate impressions. These impressions are not necessarily restricted to home movies made at home. We get these impressions also from home movies shot in public where the camera is likely to include other people. It may be because private and intimate moments among family members can happen in public too. Unlike the fence around the house that excludes those who do not belong to the private sphere, the frame of home movie camera metaphorically mingles the family with the others together yet still emphasizes the family’s presence in the public realm. In order to establish the semi-private sphere, the filmmaker and the subject must collaborate. Through a specific use of film techniques, the filmmaker lays the foundation of the semi-private sphere. An exchange of interactions between the filmmaker and the subject completes the process. Once these elements intertwine with each other, the semi-private sphere that represents a various kinds of familial intimacy is built in the frame of home movie camera.
   The home movie forms a film category that depicts an interpersonal and intimate relationship of the family. With remarkable traits of the semi-private sphere, they become a fluid form of a family representation that intertwines the public and the private.

[1] After the opening of the Shino-Japanese war in 1937, the control on the flow of the import and export gradually became strict. Treaty of Amity and Commerce between Japan and the U.S. went invalid in 1939 due to economic sanctions, which banned the import of Eastman Kodak’s products such as film stocks, cameras, projectors, library movies, and any sort of equipment and accessories. Kodak Japan Limited also closed by the time World War II broke out. Thus during the war, amateur filmmakers had to rely on films and equipment by domestic companies such as Sakura, though they were not satisfied with the quality. See Tomita.

[2] In 1957, film magazine Kinema Junpo held a special symposium on the boom of 8mm small-gauge filmmaking in Japan. See Tsukamoto.

[3] Film magazine dedicated to amateur filmmaking, Kogata Eiga, started to issue in 1956. Kogata Eiga on its October 1982 Issue included a chart that showed how the sale of 8mm home movie cameras revived in 1957 and continued to increase until 1975 (72-73).

[4] It is said that studies on home movies started with the publication of a special issue of The Journal of Film and Video on home movies in 1986.  

[5] Osaka banpaku to kazoku is included in Kotoshi no Ippon DVD 2011 (Tokyo: FPS, 2011. DVD).

[6] In our constantly changing world, a binary opposition of the public and private spheres may not be enough to explain the complex relation that we have with another human being and society. Nonetheless, for the sake of this paper’s discussion, we rely on Arendt’s definition.

[7] Notice how Lumière brothers’ home movie, Repas dé bébé, was also shot outside where a lot of light was available.

[8] Kobe Planet Archive’s collection of 9.5mm home movies by families in Ashiya, Kobe, from the early 1930s often includes scenes of such domestic activities as preparing meals. While it is surprising to see such mundane activities were filmed when the cost of cinefilms must have been quite expensive, it gives us valuable, visual information from which we can learn about a food culture of a specific area of Japan.

[9] In our study, we could not figure out exactly how many home movies were made at Osaka World Expo in 1970. However, it was certainly a place that attracted a large number of amateur filmmakers.

[10] In his home movie, Alfred Hitchcock Home Movie 1929-71, Hitchcock also starts with a shot in which his daughter is centered in the frame. Throughout it, Hitchcock keeps his central concern in the center. His home movie is part of The Great British Home Movie available at British Film Institute.
   Hitchcock used home movie footage also in a commercial film, Rebecca (1940). For a detailed analysis of the footage, see Kato.

[11] Even in classical Hollywood cinema, there have been films that do not observe this grammar. In Vincent Minnelli’s The Pirate (1948), for instance, Gene Kelly looks directly at the camera and clearly and loudly acknowledges the audience at movie theaters.

[12] Admittedly, it is only for convenience of explanation that we will limit our discussion to these three kinds of familial affection.

[13] The process of metanarration seems to be a dying part of home movie culture in today’s digital age. During our research, we had a chance to interview Yoshioka Hiroyuki, a film technician who professionally restores damaged films. The interview was conducted on September 3, 2013. According to Yoshioka, free and easy conversations have always been a significant part of home movie exhibition. However, after the mid-1970s when home movie cameras that could record sound at the same time appeared, it seemed that conversations started to fade away from exhibition, for families concentrate their attention on getting the aural and visual messages of the film. They have no time left for running commentaries.
   Moreover today’s technologies that let us easily record our daily lives on our smartphones or small digital cameras, an experience of home movie exhibition is heading from a collective act to an individual one. A study on how we perceive home movies will be as important as a study on how we experience commercial movies in a movie theater or at home.

Works Cited
・Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. 1958. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
・Chalfen, Richard. Snapshot Versions of Life. Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1987.
・Czach, Liz. “Acting and Performance in Home Movies and Amateur Films.” Theorizing Film Acting. Ed. Aaron Taylor. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012. 152-166.
・Forgács, Péter. “Wittgenstein Tractaus: Personal Reflections of Home Movies.” Mining the Home Movie: Excavations in Histories and Memories. Ed. Karen L. Ishizuka and Patricia R. Zimmerman. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. 47-56.
・Gunning, Tom. “The Cinema of Attraction: Early Film, Its Spectator, and the Avant-Garde.” Film and Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Robert Stam and Toby Miller. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. 229-235.
・Osaka banpaku to kazoku. Dir. Kitamura Tatsuhiko. 1970. Tokyo: Film Preservation Society, 2011. DVD.
・Pathé Baby projector and camera. Advertisement. Asahi Shinbun. 22 November 1924. Print.
・Schneider, Alexandra. “Homemade Travelogue: Autosonntag.” Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel. Ed. Jeffrey Ruoff. Duke University Press, 2006. 157-173.
・Taga, Shigeru. Idea to seido [Idea and Institution]. Aichi: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai, 2008.
・Zimmerman, Patricia R., “Morphing History into Histories: From Amateur Film to the Archive of the Future.”Mining the Home Movie: Excavations in Histories and Memories. Ed. Karen L. Ishizuka and Patricia R. Zimmerman. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. 275-288.

・“8miri kamera eishaki kokunai hanbai suii 1956-1981 [“Transition of Sales of 8mm Cameras and Projectors”].”Kogata Eiga. October 1982: 72-73. Print.
・Kato, Mikiro. Hyosho to hihyo: Eiga, animeeshon, manga [Representation and Criticism: Film, Animation, and Manga]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2010.
・Tomita, Mika. “Senzen kogata eiga shi Movie Makers ni miru amerika no nihon imeiji [“Images of Japan from an American Perspective in Small-Gauge Film Magazine Movie Makers.”].” Art Research. 13 vol. March 2013. 37-48.
・Tsukamoto, Koji. “Zadankai 8miri buumu wo megutte [“Symposium on the Boom of 8mm Small-Gauge Film”]. Kinema Junpo May 1957. 43-48. Print.

   This is a revised version of Chapter 3 of my master’s thesis submitted to Kyoto University in January 2014.

Notes on Transliteration
   Throughout the paper, I have followed the practice of writing Japanese names with the family name preceding the given name.
   Translations from Japanese are all mine unless otherwise indicated.


Ytext/htmlUUTF-8 (7N`v����"�, �2