Author: Zlatina Nikolova

by John Ellis, Royal Holloway University of London

Originally published on https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/viewfinder/articles/adapt-how-television-used-to-be-made/

Suddenly it is hard to avoid an encounter with TV material created using analogue technologies.

• BoB contains several thousand analogue-originated programmes

• Organisations as diverse as Kaleidescope, BBC Archive, Ident Central, Talking Pictures TV and Network Distributing are all actively engaged in making old programming available

• YouTube contains vast amounts of analogue TV, much of it posted informally from private collections of VHS tapes

• The substantial amounts of ITN news material, once curated by Learning on Screen for Jisc, is now available again through Proquest’s Alexander Street subsidiary

Thanks to widespread digitisation programmes, huge amounts of archive are now available. Digitisation makes old programming visible, but at the same time it obscures how those programmes were made.

How TV got made in the analogue era has now become an urgent question for anyone wanting to understand or use this footage, whether for teaching, historical research or enjoyment, or even for its value as data. To make TV used to be a rare and difficult activity. TV production required expensive and cumbersome technologies that needed teams of skilled individuals to work them, and the resources of large organisations with the funding to afford them. The TV footage we have from the last century (and the earlier years of this century) are profoundly determined by the affordances of analogue technologies and the production systems that went with them. TV tended to record what was convenient or accessible, and in forms that were manageable and predictable. This has determined the nature of the visual record of that time: what was chosen to be shown and how it was shown.

So how can we find out how TV used to be made? There’s only so much that you can learn from looking at old equipment, and even less from photos of them. The archives themselves contain very few programmes explaining how TV used to work. Fortunately, many of the professionals from the fifties onwards are still around, and there is an international network of collectors who still maintain “obsolete” equipment in working order. It is a miracle that this equipment still works, and this is entirely thanks to these dedicated private collectors

For the ADAPT research project, we seized this time-limited opportunity to reunite working equipment with the professionals who once used it. We challenged them to make a programme as they used to. We used contemporary ‘fixed rig’ video methods (14 cameras for one shoot) to produce over 160 videos in all. They show how TV professionals in the UK filmed and edited using both video and 16mm film. The processes of both video and film as explained at www.adapttvhistory.org.uk, and all the videos can be downloaded from the repository at https://figshare.com/collections/ADAPT/3925603

We have extraordinary revelations: how quickly and economically a film crew used to work; the sheer difficulty of getting a live show on air; the crucial importance of repair and maintenance; the time and effort it took to line up cameras. We see how the 16mm Éclair camera and Nagra sound tape recorder revolutionised what was possible. We see how one (energetic) person can run an entire film lab. Our footage enables a comparison between film and videotape editing, as well as an appraisal of AVID’s early digital system. It shows the combination of many different items of equipment that were required to make the simplest of sound and image material, the heavy cables, the cumbersome tapes, the long waits for equipment to warm up.

We concentrated on the everyday production of everyday TV, to present examples that were as typical as possible. The equipment used is mainly British or European and the professionals involved had all once worked for the BBC. But the work routines and the basic arrays of equipment were similar even then. Many of the crews interact in ways that are startlingly similar to those reported by Beth Bechty in her ethnographic studies of US freelance film crews in the early 2000s. They show the same rituals of exaggerated politeness and mutual respect. The biggest difference is in the social composition of the professional group we were calling on: they were overwhelmingly male and white.

The equipment (and some of the attitudes) may be from another era, but this work is no exercise in historical recreation akin to a Civil War battle recreation. Instead it is a combination of hands on history and memory work. These professionals recall past actions that, more often than not, are deeply embedded in body memory. The additional challenge to create again brings forward all their professional skills. The participants are ‘playing’ their younger selves, encountering long abandoned equipment: “Come to Daddy” says one of the cinematographers, unselfconsciously, on picking up the Éclair camera.

Our videos are edited to different lengths: a bitesized two minutes that can be used in a lecture; a medium length for seminar use and full length versions for research and concentrated study. Taken together they show clearly why archival TV is as it is: they reveal the strengths and limitations of a whole, lost, era of television production. It was an era when filming was not the commonplace activity it is now. As it involved scarce resources, large expenditure, and highly specialized skills, the decision to film was a weighty one that involved considerable planning. When you watch these professionals at work, and see their demonstrations of the equipment they wrestled with, it seems remarkable that they achieved so much.

In the next few months, a series of publications will appear relating directly to the project: articles in the online peer reviewed journal VIEW using some of the videos, and a book Hands on Media History (Ed. N.Hall and J.Ellis, Routledge 2018), including essays on the methods we adopted from video director Amanda Murphy and project researcher Nick Hall. This material can serve as a guide for those students and researchers fortunate enough to have access to hands on collections of old equipment. There is a growing network of ‘hands on history’ collections which allow students to handle old equipment, to better understand its limitations and capabilities. This is not yet common in the UK, but there are interesting initiatives at Groningen, Colorado and Humboldt universities.

The ADAPT videos stand on their own as a vivid witness to the analogue era. Used together with hands on collections they can help decode the relationship between different items of equipment and the mysteries of circuitry. They also reveal the common industry work-arounds that kept the show on the road. Museum display equipment may look spectacular, but if it is not maintained, it loses not only its ability to function, but also its ability to speak to us. Old footage can be valuable historical evidence, but only if the conditions of its production are properly understood. Old entertainment, drama and documentary are essential for understanding our past as well as in their own right as texts, but this can only really be achieved by understanding their own history as artefacts. The ‘How Television Used to be Made’ website and the ADAPT video collection are designed to provide the missing element of ‘equipment as it was used’ and so enable those understandings.

by John Ellis, Royal Holloway University of London

Originally published on http://iamhist.net/2019/03/hands-tv-history/

Huge amounts of TV material are now becoming available for historical researchers, thanks to digitization. Digitization makes old programming visible, but at the same time it obscures how those programmes were made. As access gets easier, understanding the footage as source material is getting harder.

The proliferation of potential sources range from the carefully curated to the anarchy of YouTube:

• Learning on Screen’s Box of Broadcasts (BoB) contains thousands of hours of analogue-originated programmes
• The substantial amounts of ITN news material, once curated by Learning on Screen for Jisc, is now available again through Proquest’s Alexander Street subsidiary: https://alexanderstreet.com/products/mediaplus 
• Organisations as diverse as Kaleidescope, BBC Archive, Ident Central, Talking Pictures TV and Network Distributing are all actively engaged in making old programming available
• Europeana, the European Digital Library has over a million TV items from the EUscreen project
• National broadcaster archives, inspired by the vast resources of France’s INA, are increasingly making their factual material visible to academic or even public users
• YouTube contains vast amounts of analogue TV, much of it posted from digitized VHS tapes

How TV got made in the analogue era has now become an urgent question for anyone wanting to understand or use this footage, whether for teaching or historical research or even for its value as data. Making TV used to be a rare and difficult activity. It used expensive and cumbersome technologies that required teams of skilled individuals to work them, and the resources of large organisations with the funding to afford them. The TV footage we have from the last century (and the earlier years of this century) are profoundly determined by the affordances of analogue technologies and the systems that went with them. TV tended to record what was convenient or accessible, and in forms that were manageable and predictable. This has determined the nature of the visual record of that time: what was chosen to be shown and how it was shown.

So how do we find out how TV used to be made? The television industry itself provides only clues. There’s only so much that you can learn from looking at old equipment, and even less from photos of them. Broadcaster archives contain very few programmes explaining how TV used to work. Fortunately, many of the professionals from the fifties onwards are still around, and there is an international network of collectors who still maintain “obsolete” equipment in working order.

For the ADAPT research project, funded by the European Research Council, we seized this time-limited opportunity to reunite working equipment with the professionals who once used it. We challenged them to make a programme as they used to. We used contemporary ‘fixed rig’ video methods (14 cameras for one shoot) to produce over 160 videos in all. Our  promotional video gives a good idea of the scope of this work.

They show how TV professionals in the UK filmed and edited using both video and 16mm film. The processes of both video and film are explained at www.adapttvhistory.org.uk, and all the videos can be downloaded from the repository at https://figshare.com/collections/ADAPT/3925603

We have extraordinary revelations: how quickly and economically a film crew used to work; the sheer difficulty of getting a live show on air; the crucial importance of repair and maintenance; the time and effort it took to line up cameras.

We see how the 16mm Éclair camera and Nagra sound tape recorder revolutionised what was possible. We see how one (energetic) person can run an entire film lab. Our footage enables a comparison between film and videotape editing, as well as an appraisal of AVID’s early digital system.  

It shows the combination of many different items of equipment that were required to make the simplest of sound and image material, the heavy cables, the cumbersome tapes, the long waits for equipment to warm up.

We concentrated on the everyday production of everyday TV, to present examples that were as typical as possible. The equipment used is mainly British or European and the professionals involved had all once worked for the BBC. But the work routines and the basic arrays of equipment were similar even then. Many of the crews interact in ways that are startlingly similar to those reported by Beth Bechty in her ethnographic studies of US freelance film crews in the early 2000s. They show the same rituals of exaggerated politeness and mutual respect. The biggest difference is in the social composition of the professional group we were calling on: they were overwhelmingly male and white.  

The equipment (and some attitudes) may be retro, but this work is no exercise in historical recreation akin to a Civil War battle recreation. Instead it is a combination of hands on history and memory work. These professionals recall past actions that, more often than not, are deeply embedded in body memory. The additional challenge to create again brings forward all their professional skills.   The participants are ‘playing’ their younger selves, encountering long abandoned equipment: “Come to Daddy” says one of the cinematographers unselfconsciously on picking up the Éclair camera.

Our videos are edited to different lengths: a bitesized two minutes that can be used in a lecture; a medium length for seminar use and full length versions for research and concentrated study. [See the playlist on YouTube here]. Taken together they show clearly why archival TV is as it is: they reveal the strengths and limitations of a whole, lost, era of television production. It was an era when filming was not the commonplace activity it is now: it involved scarce resources, large expenditure, individuals with highly specialized skills. The decision to film was a weighty one that involved considerable planning. When you watch these professionals at work, and see their demonstrations of the equipment they wrestled with, it seems remarkable that they achieved so much.    

This material can serve as a guide for those students and researchers fortunate enough to have access to hands on collections of old equipment. There is a growing network of ‘hands on history’ collections which allow students to handle old equipment, the better to understand its limitations and capabilities. This is not yet common in the UK, but there are interesting initiatives at Groningen, Colorado and Humboldt universities. 

The videos can help decode the mysteries of circuitry and reveal the industry work-arounds. It is also a miracle that this equipment is still in working order, and this is due to the dedicated private collectors, the owners and maintainers. Museum display equipment may look spectacular, but if it is not maintained, it loses its ability to speak to us. Our material is intended to restore at least some of that ability, to bring the  back to life.

The ADAPT project received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 323626).

by John Ellis, Royal Holloway University of London

Originally published on http://mediacommons.org/imr/content/bringing-old-equipment-back-life

Curator’s Note

How did TV get made in the analogue era? Now that huge amounts of archival TV have been digitized, this has become an urgent question. There’s only so much that you can learn from looking at old equipment, and even less from photos of it. The archives themselves contain very few programmes explaining how TV used to work. Fortunately, many of the professionals from the fifties onwards are still around, and there is an international network of collectors who still maintain “obsolete” equipment in working order.

For the ADAPT research project, we seized this time-limited opportunity to reunite working equipment with the professionals who once used it. We challenged them to make a programme as they used to. We used contemporary ‘fixed rig’ video methods (14 cameras for one shoot) to produce over 160 videos in all. They show how TV professionals in the UK filmed and edited using both video and 16mm film. The processes of both video and film are explained at www.adapttvhistory.org.uk, and all the videos can be downloaded from the repository at https://figshare.com/collections/ADAPT/3925603

We have extraordinary revelations: how quickly and economically a film crew used to work; the sheer difficulty of getting a live show on air; the crucial importance of repair and maintenance; the time and effort it took to line up cameras. We see how the Éclair camera and Nagra sound tape recorder revolutionised what was possible with 16mm filming. We see how one (energetic) person can run an entire film lab. Our footage enables a comparison between film and videotape editing, as well as an appraisal of AVID’s early digital system. It shows the combination of many different items of equipment that were required to make the simplest of sound and image material — the heavy cables, the cumbersome tapes, the long waits for equipment to warm up.

We concentrated on the everyday production of everyday TV, to present examples that were as typical as possible. The equipment used is mainly British or European, and the professionals involved had all once worked for the BBC. But around the world, the work routines and the basic arrays of equipment were similar even then. Many of the crews interact in ways that are startlingly similar to those reported by Beth Bechty in her ethnographic studies of US freelance film crews in the early 2000s. They show the same rituals of exaggerated politeness and mutual respect. The biggest difference is in the social composition of the professional group we were calling on: they were overwhelmingly male and white.  

The equipment (and some attitudes) may be retro, but our work is no exercise in historical recreation akin to a Civil War battle recreation. Instead it is a combination of hands-on history and memory work. These professionals recall past actions that, more often than not, are deeply embedded in body memory. The additional challenge to create again brings forward all their professional skills. The participants are ‘playing’ their younger selves, encountering long abandoned equipment: “Come to Daddy” says one of the cinematographers unselfconsciously on picking up the Éclair camera.

Our videos are edited to different lengths: bitesized two minutes that can be used in a lecture, medium lengths for seminar use, and full length versions for research and concentrated study. Taken together they show clearly why archival TV is as it is: they reveal the strengths and limitations of a whole, lost, era of television production. It was an era when filming was not the commonplace activity it is now: it involved scarce resources, large expenditure, individuals with highly specialized skills. The decision to film was a weighty one that involved considerable planning. When you watch these professionals at work, and see their demonstrations of the equipment they wrestled with, it seems remarkable that they achieved so much.

This material can serve as a guide for those students and researchers fortunate enough to have access to hands-on collections of old equipment. They can help decode the mysteries of circuitry and reveal the industry work-arounds. It is also a miracle that this equipment is still in working order, and this is due to the dedicated private collectors, the owners and maintainers. Museum display equipment may look spectacular, but if it is not maintained, it no longer works and loses its ability to speak to us. Our material is intended to restore at least some of that ability, to bring the retro back to life.

by John Ellis, Royal Holloway University of London

Originally published on http://blog.euscreen.eu/2018/11/how-television-used-to-be-made/ 

Digitisation has enabled archive footage to travel far and wide, but this has created a new problem. It’s easy to misunderstand the origins of that footage. How do we explain how television used to be made? We invited John Ellis, professor of media arts at Royal Holloway, University of London, to tell us about his research project ADAPT which investigates and documents the history of British broadcast television technology between 1960 and the near-present. The outcome of a project is a website which will help archives everywhere to help explain their audiovisual holdings.

How Television Used to be Made shows both the 16mm film and the broadcast video methods of creating TV. It is the gateway to a collection of 160 videos, created by reuniting the old equipment and the people who used to use it. Retired television professionals were brought together with “obsolete” equipment that they last saw thirty or forty years ago. They set about making new programme material using the working routines that were once their everyday practice. They demonstrated how everything worked, showing the sheer difficulty involved in making even the simplest of TV material.

For both film and video, there are examples of all the major stages of planning, rigging, shooting and editing – even including the workings of a film laboratory, telecine and video graphics. We have one-inch video and 16mm film, a Steenbeck cutting room in action, joyful reunions with an Éclair camera (“the best camera ever made”), and a cavalcade of video editing equipment from U-Matic tape to an early Avid digital platform. We have a first generation PAL colour video truck coaxed back into action and a vivid demonstration of the astonishing power of Quantel’s Paintbox.

The videos are all downloadable and cleared for a Creative Commons CC-BY license. Almost all of them come in three versions of different lengths:

• ‘bitesize’ for an overall impression, a couple of minutes or less
• ‘medium’ for a conventional narrative edit with time elisions
• ‘long’ to show the entire process in more or less real time.

Our intention was to enable many different uses: from public display, for example using the short versions to contextualise museum items, to providing detailed information for serious archival researchers.

The videos were made using a major research grant from the European Research Council. The vintage equipment used was not sourced from museums but from private collectors who spend long hours maintaining their equipment in working order. Most of the crew members we filmed are now retired, but some still work: the director of our outside broadcast reconstruction, Geoff Wilson, is still contracted to the BBC to direct the coverage of royal funerals.

Our filming of their work was done using multiple cameras, some fixed and some operated by students or professionals. The most ambitious shoot, about live outside broadcast TV, involved 4 days shooting using a fixed rig of twelve cameras with two additional roving cameras and 20 microphones. It generated almost 11TB of material.

We hope that the website and the videos will be used as widely as possible, as the go-to place for anyone interested in the materiality of archival television material. The footage is mainly of former BBC equipment and staff, so is currently in English only, and allowances will have to be made for the major differences between BBC standards and those of other major broadcasters. However, the BBC was a technical reference point for broadcasters in many European countries, and the working practices shown were relatively standard, as far as I know. Apart from the group discussions and interviews about working practices, much of the demonstration material can be appreciated by viewers with little or no knowledge of English.

We would love to know more about any experiences using this material, as well as suggestions for how we could present it better. Please email john.ellis@rhul.ac.uk with all feedback.

Finally, such ‘hands on history’ methods of media archaeology have many applications. In December 2017, some of the privately held collectors’ equipment was used for a two-day live demonstration of how live TV used to be made at the UK National Science and Media Museum in Bradford. Our retired participants had enjoyed the experience of reawakening the old equipment so much that they wanted to do it all over again. The equipment responded admirably: there was just one minor camera fire over the two days and that was immediately dealt with as part of the show. This demonstration provided many opportunities for (controlled) hands-on experience for members of the public. It became clear that ‘how television used to be made’ is a subject that excites much public curiosity and can create exciting events.

Image credits – ADAPT project.

Originally published on http://wp.unil.ch/tvelargie/nos-articles/how-television-used-to-be-made-rencontre-avec-john-ellis-autour-de-la-production-televisuelle/

Le séminaire « Dispositifs audiovisuels, industries de l’imaginaire et professionnels de l’écran » a accueilli, le 24 octobre 2017, John Ellis, professeur à la Royal Holloway University de Londres. Dans le cadre de sa conférence « How television used to be made? », ce chercheur et ancien producteur de télévision a présenté le projet de recherche ADAPT qui vise à étudier les techniques et pratiques de la production télévisuelle en Grande-Bretagne avant la généralisation du numérique.

Par Roxane Gray

“How television used to be made?”. Le titre de la conférence prononcée par John Ellis résume tout autant la recherche d’une meilleure compréhension du fonctionnement de la production télévisuelle que les questionnements auxquels font face les chercheurs/euses en histoire des médias pour y parvenir. La production télévisuelle, parent pauvre des recherches sur les médias, demeure mal connue. Cette situation favorise une mauvaise compréhension des conditions de production de télévision au sein des recherches académiques, concernant notamment le rôle des technologies et des professionnels dans le processus des productions des émissions. Retour, par le prisme des expériences et projets menés par John Ellis, sur quelques modalités d’approche de l’histoire de la télévision.

Un parcours à la croisée des mondes médiatique et académique

Le parcours professionnel de John Ellis, à la croisée des milieux académique, télévisuel et cinématographique, est un exemple probant des possibilités d’interactions entre ces différents mondes. En 1982, le spécialiste des médias publie Visible Fictions, ouvrage dans lequel il compare les modes de production et de réception du cinéma et de la télévision. Partisan d’une analyse conjointe de ces médias, l’universitaire dispose néanmoins d’une expérience et d’une connaissance différenciées de ces deux univers. S’il est membre de plusieurs organisations de cinéma telles que l’association des réalisateurs indépendants ou le magazine Screen consacré à l’industrie du cinéma, son expérience de la télévision se résume, quant à elle, à celle d’un téléspectateur : “I approach broadcast TV from a more common position, as one of its anonymous and fragmented audience.” (Visible Fictions).

Son engagement au bureau de production du British Film Institute – établissement public chargé d’encourager et de promouvoir le développement de la télévision et du cinéma au Royaume-Uni – conjugué aux mutations du paysage audiovisuel britannique, lui ouvrent néanmoins, au début des années 1980, l’accès à la production télévisuelle. En 1982, cette institution participe en effet à la mise en place de Channel 4, une chaîne privée créée afin de rétablir l’équilibre d’un paysage audiovisuel occupé par les deux chaînes publiques de la BBC et la chaîne privée détenue par ITV. La structure originale de Channel 4, qui ne produit pas en interne mais finance des programmes produits par des structures extérieures, amène John Ellis à fonder, avec deux producteurs de télévision, la boîte de production Large Door. De 1982 à 1985, celle-ci produira pour la chaîne nouvelle-née le magazine télévisé Visions consacré… au cinéma !

Premier extrait du sujet « Cinema in China » de Visions diffusé en 1983 sur Channel 4:

D’abord observateur extérieur de la télévision, John Ellis en découvre ensuite les modalités de production, ses règles et spécificités ; expérience qu’il mettra à profit dans ses recherches, à l’instar de la réédition augmentée de Visible Fictions, publiée en 1992. L’apprentissage du métier de producteur de télévision exercé durant près de vingt ans a donc nourri son approche de chercheur et a contribué à changer sa vision de la production. John Ellis fait converger son regard de chercheur et l’œil du praticien de la télévision sur son objet d’étude tout en soulignant la difficulté d’approcher le monde télévisuel sans la maîtrise de ce double langage :

“I realized that I can talk as a professional. I know the kind of way of speaking. I can understand the assumption which is driving somebody to make the statement they are making. I think it is a major problem for anybody which has no the experience (…) It must be very difficult for a person without experience to be able to adopt a position when you know enough in order not asking stupid questions but also not too much to ask questions which require no answers.” (Entretien avec John Ellis, 24 octobre 2017)

Pour une meilleure compréhension de la production télévisuelle : l’exemple de Visions

L’étude de la production télévisuelle pose en effet aux chercheurs/euses de nombreuses interrogations. Quels outils et approches adopter pour appréhender les conditions de production d’une émission télévisée dans une perspective historique ? Comment limiter la formulation de jugements inappropriés sur le fonctionnement de la production à la télévision ? En bref, quels rapports entretenir avec ce terrain d’étude ? L’expérience de production télévisuelle telle qu’elle est racontée par John Ellis offre de nouveaux cadres d’analyse aux chercheurs/euses.

Le point de vue du professionnel de télévision incite, avant tout, à ne pas négliger les caractéristiques matérielles du média. Celles-ci influent en effet sur les choix opérés en termes de production. John Ellis explique, à cet égard, que les formats utilisés par le magazine télévisé Visions sont en grande partie déterminés par des contraintes de temps et d’argent : “We planned mixture of cheap and expensive” (Entretien avec John Ellis). Les premiers sujets de l’émission, des revues de cinéma basées sur l’interview d’une dizaine de minutes d’un invité, reposaient en fait sur une pratique flexible et peu coûteuse.

Le récit de la production de Visions rend également attentif les chercheurs/euses au caractère résolument pratique, non déterminé voire parfois improvisé du processus de production. « I think I understood how difficult it is, what an incredible achievement to get to make a film and what a risk it is, when everything fall together and makes a film or a television program, which is exceptional.” (Entretien avec John Ellis)

Le cas de Visions souligne enfin l’influence de l’institution télévisuelle et de ses différentes parties prenantes sur la production de l’émission. Channel 4 devait en effet répondre aux objectifs fixés par un mandat d’engagement de service public : être innovante et créative tant dans la forme que dans les contenus de ses programmes. La série Visions a, dans ce sens, abordé le cinéma anglais et international par le biais de formats diversifiés : montage de clips, critiques, interviews, portraits, ou encore reportages sur un événement particulier. L’originalité de la série Visions, conjuguée à sa programmation irrégulière sur la chaîne, n’a néanmoins pas su constituer un rendez-vous familier pour ses téléspectateurs.

Ces quelques remarques méthodologiques trouvent leurs échos dans le courant de recherche anglo-saxon des media industry studies qui s’intéresse aux modalités de production des médias ainsi qu’à leur aspect industriel et matériel. L’intérêt longtemps dévolu aux rapports entre la signification d’une œuvre et son auteur a laissé place à des interrogations diversifiées sur les contextes institutionnels, économiques et industriels dans lesquels le produit s’inscrit, sur les modalités d’organisation des entreprises médiatiques et sur ses interactions avec ses parties prenantes.

Le projet ADAPT : une approche novatrice de l’histoire de la production télévisuelle

Vidéo promotionnelle des simulations de tournages de films en 16 mm:

Les recherches récentes sur la télévision invitent à lier une histoire des métiers et des techniques afin de développer la compréhension des programmes télévisés par une approche plus pragmatique et matérielle. Cette focale sur les pratiques au travail est le parti-pris du projet de recherche ADAPT, fondé en 2013 et financé pour une durée de cinq années par le Conseil européen de la recherche. Ce projet, qui met en contact des anciennes technologies télévisuelles, aujourd’hui obsolètes, et leurs utilisateurs de l’époque, présente un véritable intérêt historique puisqu’il dévoile les processus de production du média avant l’arrivée du numérique. Ces simulations de travail collectif ont été filmées dans des configurations particulières (le tournage d’un film en 16 mm, le tournage en extérieur) et ont été complétées par la réalisation d’entretiens individuels et collectifs au cours desquels ces professionnels sont revenus sur leurs pratiques de travail.

Cette approche novatrice offre au chercheur/euse de nouvelles manières d’interagir avec les professionnels et d’analyser le fonctionnement de la production télévisuelle. ADAPT ouvre aussi de nouvelles perspectives à l’utilisation de l’histoire orale, moins centrée sur les récits de vie mais davantage sur les modalités d’utilisation de la technique. La présence physique de l’objet technique permet en effet de visualiser ses modalités de mise en œuvre et d’utilisation par les professionnels de télévision.

“Even having the piece of machinery in the room with you, the person talks differently. You can ask him to show you something, the presence of the physical objects. A lot different kinds of memories come and different ways of speaking and analyzing. You’re breaking through”. (Entretien avec John Ellis)

Simulation de l’installation d’un plateau de tournage pour une interview réalisée avec une caméra Eclair et un magnétophone Nagra:

Les interactions entre les spécificités des techniques de télévision et leurs usages par les professionnels ont permis de comprendre d’une manière pratique le fonctionnement de la production télévisuelle. Les simulations d’ADAPT ont en effet démontré les difficultés quotidiennes liées à la production de contenus télévisuels : chaque situation de tournage apporte ses propres défis et défaillances mécanique ou électronique. Si les capacités des technologies fixent des limites sur ce qui peut être réalisé ou non dans le contexte physique du lieu de tournage, le cadre institutionnel lui-même, en exigeant une utilisation fiable et répétée de ces techniques, influence leurs modalités d’utilisation par les professionnels.

Les équipes de télévision mettent donc en place des routines et disciplines de travail afin de réduire les difficultés techniques et de rendre plus efficace le processus de production. Celui-ci apparaît donc plus que jamais comme le fruit d’un travail collectif, au sein duquel de nombreux techniciens, aux cultures professionnelles diversifiées et aux rôles spécifiques dans le processus de production, travaillent ensemble pour fournir, à chaque situation de tournage, une réponse adaptée. Loin d’être des formations stables et préétablies, les industries médiatiques sont, au contraire, le fait d’activités hybrides et le fruit d’un travail collectif sans cesse renouvelé.

Cette rencontre avec John Ellis a apporté un nouveau regard sur le milieu télévisuel et son histoire, en soulignant notamment l’importance des caractéristiques techniques de la télévision, la variabilité du processus de production et la diversité des acteurs impliqués en son sein. En somme, un regard de chercheur éclairé par une pratique de la production télévisuelle. John Ellis « sait parler les deux langages » et le grand apport du projet ADAPT qu’il dirige, en plus du renouvellement historiographique qu’il promeut, consiste à (re)créer cette mise en contact ; cette opportunité, pour le chercheur, de s’approprier ce langage brut, inséparable de la réalité matérielle dans lequel il s’inscrit, et ainsi, de faire évoluer ses propres cadres d’analyse. Ce cadre de recherche, propice à la mise au contact et à la compréhension du langage de l’autre pourrait, par ailleurs, ouvrir des pistes de recherche fécondes en termes de comparaison internationale.

Références

Entretien avec John Ellis le mardi 24 octobre 2017 suivi de sa conférence « How television used to be made ? »

John Ellis, Visible Fictions, Routledge, Londres, deuxième édition, 1992.

John Ellis, “Visions: a Channel 4 experiment 1982-85” in Laura Mulvey et Jamie Sexton (dir), Experimental British Television, Manchester University Press, 2007.

Le site et la chaîne Youtube du projet ADAPT Television History