I’m guessing that’s Leni Reifenstahl’s Olympia.
For early porn, you can get a used copy of Dirty Movies: An Illustrated History of the Stag Film, 1915-1970, by Al Di Lauro, Gerald Rabkin.
It’s both serious and seriously illustrated.
Eadward Muybridge (aka Ed Muggeridge) was an extremely early pioneer in filmmaking - technically, he worked before movies were even invented. His work often featured full male and female nudity, shot in clear detail, so that viewers could appreciate the range of motion of his subjects. At least that was the story.
That does sound like a useful resource, though I’m thinking more of sexual imagery and nudity in mainstream films. Here’s the thing: I think the way sexual imagery percolates into mass media tells you something about the culture, and also about the way sex is dealt with in mainstream culture. Frex, if there’s practically no bondage imagery outside “damsel in distress” scenes (i.e., scenes where characters are bound and/or gagged for reasons having to do with stuff like bank robberies, kidnappings for ransom, owlhoots jumping claims, etc., you can figure that the topic of sexual bondage is completely “under the radar” as far as mainstream culture is concerned. To the extent that imagery associated specifically with sexual bondage is used in D.I.D. scenes (ballgags and whatnot) you can figure that it’s emerging into the mainstream, and of course if the topic is dealt with directly (as in films like “Story of O” and “Secretary”) you can figure it’s out there.
Porn films, for most of their history, won’t give you these insights into mainstream culture because they deal directly with sexual topics. The only interesting thing would be at what point bondage films started showing up in porn films generally.
In the U.S. it also ran as the two-word version.
I may well be conflating early photography with early cinematography here. I thought the technology was sold all over the place. Did Edison have total control over the technology? I mean, Melies was in France, and the 1914 epic Cabiria was Italian, and I recall some other efforts as well. What you are saing is that prior to 1902 there was only Edison and Biograph, was there an explosion of films after that? Did Edison’s patents run out, or did he decide to open the market to others? Was the technology so expensive that it could only be used as part of a well-financed operation?
Melies might not have made stag films, but he did make nudies, I guess, though undoubtedly pretty mild compared with what else was out there. The bondage imagery I referenced earlier could easily have occurred … stocks in a short set in medieval time, chains in a story about slavery, Roman or American, ropes and gags in a story about a kidnapping – with or without nudity. Prolly without nudity, but one can hope. “Rape of the Sabines” anyone?
In the Southeast it ran as “Blowed Up.”
“Hey, Skeeter, ya’ll seen thet new Mike Antonioni flick playing down at the Bijou?”
“You mean Blowed Up? Did it have a lots of splosions and such?”
“No, but there was nekked women innit.”
“Awright! But was there some good symbolism?”
“It sure weren’t no Il Deserto Rosso.”
“Dang. Maybe I’ll jest go catch the new Kurosawa flick at the Palace. I heared it’s a touching story about a young man’s passage to adulthood. Plus it’s got some kung fu.”
Edison controlled 35mm through his patents, leaving Biograph to invent its own cameras and projectors that used a 68mm film. In March 1902, a court decision found Edison’s 35mm patents overexclusive, and required him to rewrite the patents. The decision for the first time allowed other filmmakers to use 35mm legally, without getting a license from Edison (Edison did license 35mm to British and French producers, like Méliès, who released through him).
And yes, there was a notable increase in American filmmaking after that court decision. For example, S. Lubin was a Philadelphia-based producer and distributor that was probably too small for Edison to bother with over patent violations. In 1901, it released only 48 films. In 1903, it released over 600.
By my definition, and certainly the era’s definition, nudies were stag films.
[Neely O’Hara] “Art films? Nudies! That’s all they are—nudies!” [/Neely O’Hara]
That of course should read “down ta the Bijou…”