As Professor Schwartz explains in her section “On the Move: Seeing the world in Early Transport Films” of City of Cinema, there was a “spirit of rapid-fire globe-trotting” in the 19th century (125). Advances in transportation such as the Suez Canal expedited this fascination with exploration. Cinema had a unique role in this phenomenon as it allowed individuals to understand distant places without being there physically. In my opinion, this is one of the most valuable qualities of film — despite the fact that at the time, “cinema did not initially stand out as the innovation that would define a new art form” (128). As discussed in the article “Deserted Histories: The Lumiere Brothers, the pyramids and early film form,” film served as a magnet that drew the world closer together. Through Alexandre Promio’s journey, he was able to most notably capture the pyramids and the Sphinx. This exemplifies that just by viewing cinema, a viewer in Paris, for example, can be transported to Egypt and watch that moment in time. This is valuable because, unlike paintings, film “preserves the images… embalming them in time” (168). From this, spectators gain valuable insight not just about that moment, but also how it relates to their reality — highlighting key differences and similarities of the culture being captured. Schwartz further elaborates “that past, present, and future could be contained within the moving picture” (132). So not only does cinema offer a window into a specific time, but it also remains relevant for centuries to come because individuals are able to see how the world has changed. After all, we are studying films from the 19th century right now because as time prevails, new insights can be drawn. We touched on the human desire to capture memories in class, but I also think that the same reasoning in the 19th century underlies modern phenomenons like home videos. They are so important for families since, like Promio’s film, they embalm a moment in time and when watched back, the evolution of time and people becomes so apparent.

Next, as discussed in the “Deserted Histories” article, paintings and drawings reveal different truths that are informed by historical reference. Specifically, David Roberts paints the scene that Promio filmed. Although there are factual differences, like the sphinx being faced the wrong way, the painting is significant because it is “derived from the stories and traditions that made them meaningful” (164). The fact that the painting and film of the sphinx vary is ironically useful as it shows how different mediums can tell the same “story” in different ways and provide a more nuanced understanding when understood in conjunction with each other.
 
Overall, film and paintings have different functions. In the 19th century, cinema helped contextualize different parts of the world and paintings restored images that were historically relevant. Both mediums provide valuable insights that give viewers a more well-rounded perspective that encapsulates truthful context and understanding.

Questions that arise from the readings mentioned above include: Why might an artist choose to “preserve time” through film over “restoring” an image informed by previous knowledge through a painting or sketch (and vice versa)?  Why do you think 19th-century people were not that impressed by cinema? To what extent did transport films shape global perspectives in the 19th century — in what ways does this reveal a limitation of cinema?