American and French cityscape documentaries in the 1920s


The “city film” or “city symphony” was a genre of films introduced in 1920’s in the wake of the release and distribution of Manhatta, a silent documentary film by Paul Strand and Charles Sheeler (Barnow : 1993 : p73). This genre focused on a number of characteristics typical of urban environments: buildings and architecture, people (typically, in large numbers), transportation, street scenes, business and commerce, “cityscapes,” and urban vignettes. Two films representing this “city symphony” film genre are Manhatta (see above) released in 1921 and A Propos de Nice by Jean Vigo and Boris Kaufman released in 1930. While both of these films can easily be classed within the genre of “city film” or “city symphony,” they are, different in style, cinematography, and subject matter. Analysis of these two films, their backgrounds and content will provide a better understanding of the genre of “city films” in documentary film making, their filmmakers, and the qualities and characteristics of documentary films in general.


 To begin with, there is a distinction that requires clarification in regard to the genre of “city films.” Theoretically, both Manhatta and A Propos de Nice could be considered to be “experimental” or “documentary” films. However, there is a difference between these two approaches to film making that affects the specific classification of these two films as documentaries rather than experimental films. Of course, in 1920, when Manhatta was made, all film making was, in a sense, “experimental” because the technology itself was still relatively new and its use was in development. However, there is a difference between experimentation with the new technology and the genre of “experimental films.” One definition of the genre of experimental films defines them in terms of their uniqueness: experimental films are films that try to be new, unusual, and different in unexpected ways. On the other hand, documentary films take reality as their subject content and present it from a distinctive viewpoint.


  Thus, the difference between experimental and documentary film making is that documentary films are focused on recording actual subject matter presented as it exists in reality while experimental film making represents a use of the film medium to create content that is fictional in some way, presenting reality that has been manipulated in varying ways. In the terms of the definition and this explanation, then, Manhatta and A Propos de Nice are considered to be documentary films because they are pictorial representations of the actual subject matter of urban environments as they exist in reality. These two films are non-fiction films that capture realities of urban environments.


 These two genres of experimental and documentary films share the characteristics that they both focus on content that is, in some way or another, a presentation of filmed content related to reality. Experimental films manipulate reality, but documentary films present reality. Both genres use the medium of film to depict their content. Both rely on the creativity of the filmmaker to determine their particular characteristic depictions of reality. These two genres of film are opposed in their representations and depictions of reality: experimental film manipulates reality in any number of ways to present it in a new and original way, but documentary film presents reality through the vision of the filmmaker but it remains essentially as it is in reality.


 As a subject for documentary film making, the city and urban environments arose as content of interest to filmmakers in the 1920s and later due to the distinctive but highly diverse qualities and characteristics of cities and urban environments. Of course, urban environments were not new in the early years of the 20th century, but the concept of the “metropolis,” the mega-city with particular “modern” characteristics had become a focus of interest for artists and filmmakers, one example of which is Metropolis by Fritz Lang in 1927. In this film, the super-city was presented as, futuristic, artistically designed, and aesthetically pleasing. The diversity of elements of the urban environment, the contrasts between a teeming population and soaring architecture, commercial and artistic activity and other aspects of modern city life attracted the interest and attention of filmmakers is it did for other artists in the early 20th century. The urban landscape and “super city” became a subject of interest to filmmakers, first, as the background for the early films that were filmed in cities, but later, as the content for documentary films focused on the city itself as a distinctive subject.

Spawned by these interests in the city by documentary filmmakers, the genre of the “city symphony” arose. This documentary genre focuses a variety of elements of urban landscape with special emphasis on images of architecture, mechanization, transportation, industrialization, and people, but not as individuals but as parts of human masses in motion (Barnow : year : pp73-74). The “city symphony” was a specific type of documentary film that presented the urban environment as a complexity of images depicting a wide and diverse array of typical aspects of cities. In addition to merely presenting the images of the cities, the city symphony sought to impart some additional poetic or artistic viewpoints on the images presented and in their juxtaposition: representations of pace in modernism and the experience of modern city life. The urban environment was depicted as particular elements, such as architecture, movement of people, forms of transport, demonstrating internal rhythmic qualities and edited to create a rhythmic representation (Barnow : year : pp73-74), and in dynamic compositions and edited juxtapositions. Both Manhatta and A Propos de Nice demonstrate these distinctive characteristics of the city symphony genre of documentary film. Other films in this genre were Rien que les heures [Nothing But Time], Alberto Cavalcanti; 1926; Moscow, Mikhail Kaufman, 1927; Berlin: Symphony of a City, 1927; La Tour [The Eiffel Tower], René Clair, 1928; Etudes sur Paris [Studies of Paris], André Sauvage, 1928; Berliner Stillleben [Berlin Still-life], Lászlo Moholy-Nagy, 1929; Images d’Ostende [Images of Ostend], Joris Ivens, 1930; City of Contrasts, Irving Browning, 1931; and, Bronx Morning, Jay Leyda, 1931. (Barnow : year : pp74-77).

Inspired in some way by the experience of painters of the early 20th century who began to depict cityscapes and pictures of elements of urban environments in their paintings, the city symphonies sought to use the interest in the city scenes but express them in ways using the motion picture camera that the painters could not with their static images (Barnow : year : p73). The city itself was a locus of interest because of its uniquely developing characteristics (not really different from previous cities of the past, but with the addition of technology, mechanization, and modernism). Pastoral scenes and landscape paintings represented the past, but cityscapes and their characteristic elements demonstrating technology, mechanism, and modernism were the environments of the present and future. Further, the motion picture camera itself was one significant invention demonstrating, again, the important elements of technology, mechanization, and modernism, so it was logical that it should be applied to the depiction of the environment which spawned its invention. Paint was for the past, landscapes and pastoral scenes, but the motion picture camera required equally modern subject matter. Thus, for many early documentary filmmakers, cities became fascinating storehouses for subject matter and content.

Typical subject matter for the cityscape or city symphony films were: modes of transportation in, out, and through the city; the general urban architecture of buildings, but especially buildings demonstrating height and engineering perfection and excellence; modes of modern long-distance transportation, trains, boats, and airplanes; images of the city and buildings from a distance as if a mirage; huge bridges and other architectural non-building “wonders”; masses of people in motion; facades of buildings dwarfing human beings; men working on constructing the city; factories and industrial activity; and street scenes from great heights making the people on the street look like miniatures or like ants. Contrasted with these subjects were occasionally small vignettes of city life, clothes hanging out to dry, a cat or dog in the street, children playing in the street, all adding some element of humanity, but in an impersonal way.

In specific regard to the two films, Manhatta and A Propos de Nice, they share some of the typical urban elements described above, but these two films also differ importantly in their subject matter. Manhatta, as its title indicates, depicts New York City, with a focus on business and industry. On the other hand, A Propos de Nice takes as its subject matter the Mediterranean city of Nice by the sea where the main industry is tourism. The closeness of the Atlantic ocean is also depicted in Manhatta, but it is a working waterway with tugboats, barges, and ocean liners. In Nice, the sea is a focus for leisure time activities, beaches, people walking and sitting on piers and boardwalks. The people in New York City are going to work in mass movements, out of ferry boats, down sidewalks, and in and out of buildings. The people in Nice are leisurely walking, sitting, sightseeing, sailing.

Not only are the subjects of these two films different while remaining withing the genre of city symphony, but so are the ways they are depicted: In New York City, most of the photography is static shots without a moving camera. In Nice, there are many shots with a moving camera, moving among people, for example. In New York City, the shots are often taken from heights, from other buildings. In Nice, there are shots, particularly at the beginning of the film from an airplane flying overhead with the camera looking straight down. In Nice, there are toy models and trees used occasionally instead of real people, but there is no use of such elements in Manhatta. Nude models also appear in A Propos, but not in Manhatta. The waves of the ocean depicted are used as a rhythmic element occasionally in Nice, but in New York, the chief rhythmic element is the editing, not the subject matter. Thus, while both of these films are classified as city symphonies, they are, nevertheless, very different.

In structure and rhythm, Manhatta is more rapid paced, and while there is occasionally differing forms of rhythmic elements depicted, such as the people surging from the ferry boat, the boats on the water, most interestingly, the steam and smoke venting from buildings forms a kind of leitmotif that goes throughout the whole film, providing a unique form of rhythmic element. Other than the unifying steam and smoke billowing, the cutting provides a substantial portion of the rhythm in the film. In A Propos de Nice, the rhythm is provided by the flow of architecture seen on the ground from the airplane, the waves on the shore, and the movements of the people. The overall structure for Manhatta is provided by the words of the poem on the screen before each sequence which roughly describes the content of the following shots. Thus, there is a kind of narrative providing continuity and structure for the film. As for A Propos, one critic has its divided the structure into four sections: “Welcome to Nice,” “The Idling Rich,” “Two Worlds Apart,” and “The Whole Doomed to Die.” Each of these sections contains content generally relevant to its section title: “Welcome” showing the aerial views of the city; “Idling Rich” depicting the people milling on the boardwalk, relaxing, eating and drinking, playing cards, sleeping; ”Two Worlds” contrasts the pastimes of the rich with the commonplace life of poor and working people; and, “Doomed to Die” depicting decay, artificiality, and the cemetery (“On the Subject of Documentary: year : pp21-27.).Thus, these two films are structured thematically but also entirely differently on the basis of different internal and external elements.

Key themes and motifs demonstrated in these two films are focused, once again, on the subject for the city symphony film genre as a whole, but with some particularities for each film. The themes and motifs for Manhatta are mechanization, modern architecture, transportation, construction, and people representing mass social movement, not individuals. The additional motif in Manhatta is its efforts to pictorially represent aspects of the poetry identifying each section. In A Propos, the themes and motifs are seascapes, urban landscapes, leisuretime activities, people as representative of the leisure enjoyment of the city and seaside settings, and people as individuals. The additional motif of A Propos is the social class consciousness imposed on the settings and the people depicted, the theme of revelation, as demonstrated by the segments of nudity, and the transitoriness of the life and activities in the settings.

Thus, generally speaking, one can identify the major differences between Manhatta and A Propos de Nice: Manhatta depicts an authentic urban environment, setting, and atmosphere while A Propos depicts a semi-urban environment setting and atmosphere. More dominating in A Propos than the urban setting and atmosphere is the leisure time elements of the environment: the picturesque ocean for bathing and sailing, the boardwalk with people relaxing, eating, drinking, reading, and sleeping. These elements are interspersed with other content relating to work, social class, and with an imposition of an assertion of mortality. Therefore, while these two films are both classed in the city symphony genre, they are really very different in content.

In regard to the interface between experimental films and the documentary, each of these two films is a documentary, that is they present reality rather than fictional contexts, but they are conceived and photographed using techniques for the depiction of reality that were “experimental” for their times, as has been acknowledged for Strand and Sheeler (Horak 270). Therefore, in a sense, particularly in regard to cinematography and editing, they represent connections between the documentary and the experimental films. Thus, these two films refined my understanding of both genres dus to the fact that, in these films, I saw how they can interface and be connected.

Jean Vigo described A Propos de Nice as “ documented point of view.” This was, more than likely, said before the term “documentary” was “invented” for this genre. Thus, Vigo’s use of the term “documented” was ahead of its time. As for Manhatta, while today, it is acknowledged as a significant film in the development of the genre of the documentary, it has also been identified as a significant example in the development of experimental film (Suarez 86). Thus, in the early days of its development, in 1920 and 1921, when Manhatta was filmed and released, it was identified as “experimental,” but, by 1927, when A Propos de Nice was released, the identification of a unique designation for its type of file genre had been recognized by Jean Vigo as “documented,” or a “documentary.” This genre term has been used to identify these types of films, and others taking the same approach to the depiction of reality, ever since. This term, I believe, is a valid term to use to describe films that depict reality in various non-fictional ways.

Knowledge of the social and cultural contexts in which these two films were made is significant, although the political context is of secondary importance. Although working class people and activities are depicted in both films, and there is also the element of class distinctions in A Propo, but the political context is not dominant. The films were made in the pursuit of social, cultural, and artistic trends of the time, and they presented aspects of the social and cultural world and which they were a reaction to. Therefore, knowledge of the social and cultural context is useful in understanding the intent and focus for the content of the documentaries. One does not necessarily “need” to know this background information in order to appreciate these two documentaries, however, because without any such background, the documentaries can be appreciated alone for their pictorial, technical, and aesthetic values.

Historical contextualism is, no doubt, highly pertinent to the study of documentary films as such an approach and informative background contributes to the understanding of the content of the documentaries, providing information usually not necessary or significant in fictional films. In some fictional films, such as a film about a particular battle in World War II, for example, historical contextualism would be useful and informative to aid in the understanding and validity of the film’s treatment of the background historical event. Ordinarily,

however, historical contextualism would not contribute significant necessary or useful information to the content of a fictional film.

Therefore, this analysis of the genre of the documentary, city symphony documentaries, Manhatta and A Propos de Nice has been informative into the origin and development of the documentary film genre, the rise and development of the city symphony sub-genre, the background of each of the films in regard to historical and artistic context, technology, presentation, and aesthetics. Analysis of these two films, their backgrounds and content has provided a better understanding of the genre of “city films,” documentary film making, their film makers, and the qualities and characteristics of documentary films in general.


Using Format