C h tis to ph erG i tt i n g s
112
in dreams and myths and phantasies," As quoted in Heath 77. See also
Sigmund Freud, "The Uncanny," St4ndard Edition, vol. XVII, 231.
The Introduction of the
Lumiere Cinematograph in Canada
Andre Gaudreault
Germain Lacasse
26. Heath,79.
Heath, 82.
k h I h .
For a discussion of feminist counter·discoursesto the ey 0 e s ot ~
28.
cinema see Judith Mayne, "The Woman at the Keyhole: Women ~
Cinema and Feminist Criticism," in M.A. Doanne, P., Mellencamp, an .
L. Williams Eds.Revision: Essays in Feminist Film Crit~ctsm. (Los A~gel.ese.
The American Film Institute Monograph Series/Umverslty Publications
27.
of America,
1984),49·66.
29. See Morris, 219.
30. Armatage, 44.
31. See Heath, 88.
Christopher Gittings teaches Film, Literature an~ CUltur~l Studies
. in the Department ofAmerican and Canadtan Studtes at the
University ofBirmingham, England.
(Translated by Madeleine Beaudry)
Thanks to the cinematograph, our great orators, our great singers, our
great declaimers-whose fleeting talents can only serve as models through
tradition-will live among us. They will5urvive like other artist5 who leave
tangible works, and will serve as true modeh,
unmodified by inferior5 who
.
.
can only ape them .... From now on, man, like his works, is imperishable.
Jean Badreux [pseudonyme of Henry Roullaud], "L'Immortalite
conquise", LeMonde, Montreal,June 29,1896.
(
of the cinema has come and gone, in Quebec at
T least,Centennial
even though it might be argued, given the choiCe of dates,
he
that what was celebrated was not so much the centennial of the
cinema itself as the centennial of the Cinematographe Lumiere. 1 The
situation might be a little less complicated in Canada than in France,
in the United States or in England since we had nothing to do with
this famous invention. AmeriCans were inclined to start celebrating
as soon as 1993, singling out the arrival on the market of Edison's
kinetoscope, whose influence on the Lumiere brothers is well known.
But the kinetosocope was a "viewing machine" that did not project
and was designed for a single viewer. It definitely showed "moving
picture!!", but these did not have the legitimacy ofbeing "magnified"
(in the literal sense of the word) on a screen. That is why the French
have been more vocal in pressing the claim of the Lumiere brothers
as the inventors of the cinema than the Americans have Edison's. As
for the english, wishing no doubt to distance themselves from the
other coutries of a Europe to which they remain less than
wholeheartedly committed, they chose toce1ebrate their centennial
of the cinema in ... 1996, one hundred years afterthe arrival on British
D
Canadi4n}lIllmalllfFllm Shuliu/Rmle canadlenne d'etude$ cinbnatographlqlles Vol S N Z
to
114
Andre Gaudreault/Germain Lacasse
soil of the Lumiere brothers' apparatus (February 1896), and the first
public showings by the British "inventors" of the cinema: Robert
William Paul and Birt Acres. Yet, it should not be assumed that there
were no dissident voices in France. There as elsewhere, the primacy-or the supremacy-of the Lumieres remains a bone of
contention. Some make out a case for Demeny who might have shown
projected motion pictures before the Lumieres, or for Skladanowski,
a German whose experiments might have come first. Still others think
that, in the whole precedence debate, Marey, whose "appareil
chronophotographique" showed the way, is quite unjustly the big
loser.
In Quebec, even though we were not involved in the invention
ofthe cinema, the Centennial dates were nota unanimous choice, The
Comite de coordination et de promotion du Centenaire du cinema first
decided in 1995, even ifit meant celebrating aftenvards the centennial
of the first cinematographic projection held in Canada (in Montreal,
inJune, 1896 as will be seen below). Then the Committee changed its
mind and decided to run the Centennial without interruption until the
end ofJune 1996.2 We should add that Montreal had already held a
first Centennial celebration in 1992. In June of that year, the Cinema
Paralle-Ie celebrated its own 25th anniversary with a series of activities
(a viewing marathon, outdoor showings, an installation, etc.) marking
two other concurrent anniversaries: the 350th of the founding of
Montreal and the... 100th ofthe invention of the cinema. Whereas no
one casts any doubts on the number of years that separate us from the
founding of Montreal, the celebration in 1992 of the centennial of an
invention generally associated with the year 1895 is puzzling, even if
there was talk ofhonoring the memory ofLouis Leprince, an inventor
who died before he could bring to public attention a machine he had
built around 1890.
What should we celebrate a hundred years later? The advent of
moving images? Then we're too late; we should have done it in... 19321
"Images in motion" first came into prominence in 1832 with such
ingenious and quaintly named devices as the "phenakistiscope", the
"zootrope" and sundry "praxinoscopes". However, those were drawn
images viewed directly on their support (or through a mirror), non
projected. What, then? The centennial ofthe first photographic images
in motion? That would have been 1989; it was in 1889 that Edison
invented his "kinetoscope". How about the first projection on a screen
of images in motion? Missed again. That centennial would have been
The Introduction 0 the Lumiire Cinemato "h in Canada... 115
zwwmrr
116
I
fiC'fFiM
And r eG au d rea u It / G e r m a i n Lac ass e
around 1980-81 since it was in 1880 or 1881 that Emile Reynaud
invented his "praxinoscope a projections." But, you will say, that was
no more than a toy, doomed to projecting a simple loop of images,
drawn images at that. How about the first public projection for pay of
moving images? Now we're getting close: the centennial would have
been in 1992., with the same Reynaud's "optic theatre" whose first
performance washe1~ in 1892 (but which was patented three y~ars
earlier in 1889). Ag;,lin however,Reynaud's device could only project
drawn images.
.
We could go on. For example, even though 1895 is indeed the year
when the Lumiere brothers developed and patented the apparatus they
called the "Cinematograph", and which they used to stage on December28, 1895, what seems to have been the first pay public projection of
movingphotographic images (each term in that word chain is important!),
there had actliallybeen before them, in France and in a few other
countries, projections of moving images of all kinds.
."
In fact, there is probably no right answer to the questton Who
invented the cinema?" That is because the question itself is wrong.
What do we mean exactly by "inventing" the cinema? How can we
put specific names and dates on a collectiveinvent~on that e~olved
over a period of time? Actually, cinema was not mvented, It was
developed, adjusted, and more and more finely tuned through a
process that involved many people. The Lumiere br?thers de~igned
a "viewing machine" equipped with a brilliant mechamsm of their own
device that went down in history, but they are not the only ones who
deserve the gratitude of today's viewers.
.
COI,ltroversies over dates are a common phenomenon 10 the
history ofcinema, even when the subject involved is a specific event
that could only have happened once (and thus should be datable r Such
is the case with the introduction of cinema in this cvuntry; Canadian
and Quebecois historians from sea to sea still disagree on that point.
The debate has a certain air of deja vu to it: until quite recently,
English-Canadians tended to believe that the American Edis?ri was t~e
one who had shown the first motion pictures in Canada (10 Ontano
at that), whereas Quebecois have argued for some time now, proof
in hand, that the Lumiere brothers were here first (in Quebec, of
course ....)
The Introduction ofthe Lumiire Cinematograph in Canada...
117
Ottawa (JUly 1896) or Montreal (June 1896)1
This remains an underlying controversy in most English- and
F.rench-language publications on the history of Canadian and Quebec
cmema. In 1944, the historian Hye Bossin wrote in Canadian Filmweekly
that the first showing on Canadian soil was put on in Ottawa onJuly
21, 1896 by the Edison Vitascope dealers, the Holland brothers. In
March 1976, Gary Evans wrote in No. 26 of Cinema Canada that a
presentation in Montreal of the Lumiere Cinematograph might have
~eate~ the Ottawa ~ho~ingto the wire. (Notice in passing the resumptlOn, 10 Canada this time, of the competition between Edison and
Lumiere.) Evans based his argument on the sole testimony of the
Quebec cinema pioneer, Ernest Ouimet. All his life, Ernest Ouimet
maintained that he had attended a shOWing of the Lumiere Cinematograph in Montreal in May 1896. Two years later, in 1978, Ouimet's
~ephew and b.iographer, Leon Belanger, took up the argument.} Again
10June 1976, 10 answer to Gary Evans' article published the previous
month, Peter Morris wrote in Cinema Canada that his long resl;:arches
had brought him to the conclusion that the first cinematographic
presentation in Canada had indeed been the one in Ottawa, as no other
was mentioned in the archives and newspapers in other cities. Morris
repeated this'conclusion in a book published in 1978. 4
Pinally in 1984, the knot was apparently untangled (the meaning
of "apparently" will become clear further on) when one ofthe authors
ofthis article, Quebec researcher Germain Lacasse, uncovered the first
conclusive piece ofevidence that Montreal had indeed been the scene
of a series of public cinematographic showings as ofJune 27, 1896-a
month pefore the one in Ottawa. s This was an account in La Presse of
such an event, set up by two of the emissaries the Lumiere brothers
had sent to the four corners of what would soon become a "global
village", thanks in part to the worldwide circulation of filmed images.
On June 15th, 1896, twelve days before their premiere, Louis
Minier, the Canadian franchise holder for the Lumiere Cinematograph,
and his assistant Louis Pupierb arrived in Montreal, at the same time
a~Felix Mesguich was setting up shop in New York to introduce the
Lumiere Cinematograph in that city. Leading all their competitors,
they took nearly two weeks to prepare a first showing for journalists
and V.l.Ps, including the mayor ofthe city, Richard Wilson Smith. This
premiere, which was held at the Palace Theatre, 78 St. Laurent (now
at the corner of Viger St., in a building still standing) was apparently
not a public shOWing for pay, as attendance was by invitation only.
118
Th~ Introduction
Andre G a u d re au 1t /G e r m a i n Lacasse
However, accoding to articles published afterwards in Montreal
newspapers, the Lumiere Cinematograph had a two-month run at that.
theatre.
.
(Minier and Pupier went round the press offices and visited City
Hall and the Archbishop's Palace with invitations to their" demonstration" of Saturday, june 27th (the same date as Mesguich's New York
premiere). The purpose ofthese preliminary approaches was presumably to gain the interest and support ofthe local authorities. The event
received wide coverage in the Montreal press, in the French-language
newspapers at least. Most of these had sent a reporter to the Montreal
premiere of the Lumiere Cinematograph.7 Curiously, there was no
mention of it in the english-language newspapers. The La Presse
journalist though was quite taken by the projected images:
We were shown, as in some strange phantasmagoria, scenes from different
places in France. First there was the arrival of a train at the Lyon-Perrache
station...you could clearly see each individual. Is was most lifelike: you really
were at the station. The train left and everythiqg disappeared.... And the
sea? We saw it, not immobile, but rolling its waves. Is was most striking.
R
"How refreshing!" cried a jocular fellow.
Minier and Pupier may have restricted their invitations to the
French-speaking community. This would explain-at least in
part-the silence of English-language newspapers. In truth though,
Montreal's English newspapers had very little to say about other
showings held a few months later with other machines. Anglophone
reporters probably considered such entertainments of little inte.res~.
The success of the Lumiere machine was truly remarkable: It ran
for two months9 at that one venue, where all other shows ran a week,
two when they were really successful. Faced with such brilliant results,
the dealer and his assistant decided to spend several months in Canada,
and presumably to carry out the programme they had already set by
june 29th, which was "to photograph typical scenes ofthe c{)untry and
your Northern landscapes in particular" .10 They left Que~ec at the e~d
of August to fulfill an engagement in Toronto for H.J. Hill, an Dntano
operator who wanted to introduce the Lumiere Cinematograph at the
Toronto Exhibition" l Minier and Pupier then came back to Quebec
for the Montreal Exhibition from the 10th to the 23rd of September.
Its success was slightly dampened by unforeseen factors: several exhibitors set up their stand very late, after the official opening, and the
Exhibition remained dosed in the evening because, according to the
ofthe Lumiire Cinem4tograph in Camula ... 119
organizers, electric lighting was too expensive. And so the public did
not come in droves.
. ~oreover, Minier and Pupier were probably affected by competitlOn 10 Montreal: faced with the Lumiere firm's success Montreal
~:npresa:'i.os .hurrie~ly put under contract all other "~aphs" and
scopes 10 Sight (Kinematograph, Cinematoscope, Phantascope, etc.).
That may have been what prompted the Lumiere representatives to
tour the province.
.
September 1896: the Cinematograph in Quebec City
In QuebecCity, the first showing of the Lumiere Cinematograph
occurred on September 30th, 1896, in the St. Roch Quarter, at the
Labyrinthe, which seems to have been a kind ofancestor ofour games
arcades. The programmes included films like L'Arrivee d'un train, Charge
de cavalerie, Demolition d'un mur, Sortie en mer. On top of regular public
representations, "arrangements were available for school principals
and other people wanting private showings," The newspapers L'Electeur
and L'Evenement advertised the shows at the Labrinthe, but there were
no reviews. 12
November 1896: the Cinematograph in Trois-Rivieres
In Trois-Rivieres, the first showings were held in November 1896.
It was carefully noted that the show was "recommended by the clergy
and the leading figures ofeach town" even though the event occurred
in a second- or third-category hall, the old National restaurant. The
representations were very popular, and the local newspaper used the
occasion to publish long articles explaining how the machine worked
and stressing its "educational and moral value", adding that "the
takings must have been good". 13
December 1896: the Cinematograph in Sherbrooke
.
The Cinematograph was shown in Sherbrooke for about ten days
December 1896 at the Salle des Arts, always according to the same
formula: continuous showings all afternoon and in the evening. The
features included L'Arrivee d'un train, Charge de cavalerie, Sortie en mer. 14
The Lumiere brothers envoy, Louis Pupier, managed the show with
the help of a man named jackson. Apparently, Minier was not there.
10
120
Andre Gaudreault/Germain Lacasse
February 1897: the Cinematograph introduced to the English at last
Strangely enough, it was only in February 1897, probably between
two stops on the Quebec tour, that the Lumier~ Cinematograph was
officially in~roduced to the Montreal English-speaking community,
through a strategy similar to the one used for the French-speaking run
by Jackson who was identified as "the proprietor:' It was held at 2266
St. Catherine Street, in the English part of town, in the afternoon of
February 10th. The Montreal Daily Star reviewed the event the
following day, the reporter relating the peculiar experience he went
through sitting in front of the Cinematograph screen:
As tpe changing landscape ofvalley and hill and water, with buildings now
in the distance, now at the very verge of the track, moves by, one cannot
resist the feeling that he is really on l).oard a moving train. The whole was
most entertaining."
It may be that an anglophone was put in charge of the first
showing ofthe Lumiere Cinematograph in an English setting because
Minier and Pupier were not fluent in English. It is as ifthey had to wait
until they could speak freely with the" authorities" before they could
launch the invention in the English-speaking community.
March 1897: the Cinematograph In St. Jean
Minier's name resurfaces with the introduction of the Cinematograph in St. Jean (now St-Jean-sur-Richelieu) in March 1897 at the Black
. Opera. In the newspapers, he explained that the invention of the
Cinematograph and other similardevices was wrongly attributed to
Edison: "the real inventor is Lumiere, the well-known Lyon electrician
[sic] .... The instrument for which Mr. Minier holds the dealership is
the most sophisticated, and the 20 or 30 subjects shown are the most
gripping."16 The programme included a boxing match, a huge crowd
favorite; a piano player accompanied the presentations. Minier was
quick to adjust to local customs: in St. Jean, he announced that "all
Iberville residents who buy their tickets from the guard at the bridge
will be allowed free passage both ways". And the tour continued:
Farnham in March, Sherbrooke again in April '7 and St. Hyacinthe a
few weeks later!·
Then Minier abandoned his career and went back to France. He
came back to Canada some time later as a professor (apparently at
Laval University) and stayed a while in Quebec. '9 His pioneer work
The Introduction ofthe Lumiire Cinematograph in Canada... 121
alongside Pupier andJackson in establishing motion pictures in Quebec
was to have long-lasting effects. ObViously, the Lumiere pictures fired
up the imagination of our grandparents; one only has to read the
comments ofa man named Jean Badreux, whose work was regularly
features in Le Moude:
Thanks to the cinematograph, our great orators, our great singers, our great
declaimers-whose fleeting talents can only serve as models through
tradition-will live among us. They will survive like other artists who leave
tangible works, and will serve as true models, unmodified by inferiors who
can only_ape them.... From now on man, like his works, is imperishable!"
We might add, "and his stubborness is imperishable!" In spite of
the overwhelming proof provided in 1984 by Germain Lacasse, the
primacy of Montreal over Ottawa is still not recognized by all. Thus
in a fairly recent publication Gerald G. Graham sounds a discordant
note. 21 The author suggests that the Montreal representation was a
private showing only and that no public ones followed: "Hopefully,
ourfllm industry will pause to give proper recognition to the enterprising [Holland] brothers on 21 July 1996, which will mark the first
century of Canadian motion pictures," Let us hope this is but a momentary lapse.
.
The discrepancies in the reporting ofthis event are a good example
ofwhat more and more historians have come to acknowledge: history
is also-is mostly-a discourse, sometimes biased, made to serve
interests and ideas. For our part, we have tried throughout our
research not so much to nail down "firsts" as to retrace how and in
what circumstances motion pictures began in Canada. We can only
hope that the discourse in this paper manages to rise above our own
biases.
.
NOTES
1.
This paper is a totally revised and augmented version ofa text published
in the magazine 24 imagr:s, No. 62-63. Montreal, September-October 1992,
pp. 71-76. [tnow appears as Chapter 1 of Au pays dr:s r:nnr:mis du Quebec.
Pour une nouvelle histoire des debuts du cinema au Quebec, by Andre Gaudreault, Germain Lacasse and Jean-Pierre Sirois-Trahan, Quebec, Nuit
Blanche editeur, 1996, p. 21-31.
vr
t"
I
I
to
l~
r
ft
w·;·
~!
if
~:
ZT
xc
122
The Introductiotl oftke Lumiire Cinem4tograph in Canada... 123
Andre Gaudreault"IGermain Lacasse
2. Co-chaired by Andre Me1an\on and Micheline Lactot, the Comite de
coordination et de promotion du Centenaire du cinema was run most
skillfully, with warmth and enthusiasm, by Lucette Lupien.
3. Leon-H. Belanger, Les Ouimetoscopes, Leo-Ernest Ouimet et les debuts du
cinema quebecois, Montreal, VLB publishing, 1978. The importance ofthis
work'must be emphasized; historians ofthe following generation have
made numerous corrections to it, but Leon Belanger was the first to take
an interest in the subject, and the only one who recorded the memories
of his pioneer uncle.
4. Peter Morris, Embattled Shadows, History ofCanadian Cinema 1896-1939,
Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press, 1978.
[Editor's Note: Morris acknowledges in the preface of the 1992 edition of
Embattled Shadows (xi.) the work offilm historians, like Lacasse, whose
significant contributions would have necessitated appropriate corrections would
it have been possible to revise his book for a second edition.]
5. Germain Lacasse's discovery first appeared in an English-Canadian
publication. See Germain Lacasse, "Cultural Amnesia and the Birth of
film in Canada", Cinema Canada, No. 108, Toronto, 1984, pp. 6-7. For
more information, see also Germain Lacasse (with Serge Duigou),
L'Historiographe (Les debuts du spectacle cinbnatographique au Quebec),
Montreal, Cinematheque quebecoise, 1985; and Germain Lacasse,
Histoires de scopes/Le cinema muet au Quebec, Montreal, Cinematheque
quebecoise, 198B.
6. Anonymous, "Une merveille", La Presse, Montreal, june 15, 1896.
7. The showing on june 27th was covered in La Patrie, Le Monde, Le Soirand
Les Nouvelles. The last of these mentioned it again in its August 16 and
23 issues, announcing that the operators would be going to the Toronto
Exhibition and would be back in Montreal in September, as was the case.
8. Anonymous, "Le cinematrographe. Une des merveilles de notre siecle",
La Presse, Montreal, june 29, 1896.
9. Anonymous, "Chronique des theatres", Les Nouvelles, Montreal, August
16, 1896.
10. Anonymous, "Une nouvelle invention", LeSoir, Montreal,june 29,1896.
11. Ivanhoe, "Chronique des theatres", Les Nouvelles, Montreal, August 23,
1896.
"
12. Advertisement, "Le Cinematographe Lumiere, L'E!venement, Quebec,
September 29, 1896.
13. Anonymous, "Echos de la ville", Le TriJluvien, Trois-Rivieres, November
17, 1896.
14. An\?nymous, "A travers la ville", Le Pionnier, Sherbrooke, December 4,
1896.
15. Anonymous, "The Cinematograph", Montreal Daily Star, February II,
1897.
16. Anonymous, "Une attraction toute nouvelle", Le Courrier de St-jean,
March 12, 1897.
18. Advertisement, u Le cinematographe", Le CourTier de St-Hyacinthe, St.
Hyacinthe, April 15, 1897.
19. Readers who would like to find out more about Minier's career in
Quebec, and about various Luiniere events in Quebec and Canada can
refer to the paper given by Germain Lacasse to the Congres Lumiere held
in Lyon injune 1995 to mark the Centennial ofthe Cinema. See Germain
Lacasse, "Le spectacle Lumiere, premiere institution cinematographique
au Quebec", to be published in the minutes of the Congress.
20. jean Badreux, "L'lmmortalite conquise", Le Monde, june 29, 1896.
21. Gerald G. Graham, Canadian Film Technology, 1896-1986, Associated
University Presses, Mississauga, 1989.
Andre Gaudreault is professor at the Departement d'histoire de
l'art de l'Universite de Montreal, and heads GRAFICS
(Groupe de recherche sur l'avenement et la fonnation des
institutions dnematographique et scenique). His most recent
book (in collaboration with Gennain Lacasse andJean-Pierre
Sirois-Trahan) is Au· pays des ennemis du cinema, Pour
une nouvelle histoire des debuts du cinema au Quebec.
c
Gennain Lacasse also teaches at the Departement d'histoire de
l'art de l'Universite de Mont1:eal, and member ofGRAFICS.
He is a doctoral candidate in comparative literature, His work
on early cinema has appeared in journals, and in L'Historiographe, Les debuts du spectacle cinematographique au
Quebec (1985), Marie de Kerstrat l'aristocrate du cinematographe (1987), Histoires de scopes. Le cinema muet au
Quebec(1989); and Au pays des ennemis ducinema, Pour
unenouvelle histoire des debuts du cinema au Quebec,
in collaboration with Andre Gaudreault and Jean-Pierre
Sirou-Trahan (1996),