Skip to main content
Select Source:

cinematography and the body

cinematography and the body It is difficult today to imagine a world in which we could not record the human image in movement. Yet this was a goal which frustrated many inventors, until in the early 1890s Thomas Edison and others succeeded in devising a practical form of serial photography using strips of celluloid, which could then be viewed and reproduced. The result seemed little short of a miracle. Early reviews of moving picture shows in 1895 spoke of ‘bringing the dead back to life’, while the experiments that preceded this success solved long-standing questions about, for instance, how horses' legs moved while galloping ( Eadweard Muybridge) or how athletes performed intricate actions ( Etienne-Jules Marey). By the end of the century, what had started as mainly a scientific quest was already becoming a familiar entertainment, sandwiched between live acts in variety programmes. Soon it became the dominant leisure activity of the twentieth century — watching images of remote humans and animals perform while sitting in a darkened room.

But if lifelike reproduction of movement was the first aim, this was soon overtaken by the realization that cinematography could make the impossible seem credible. Georges Méliès was a French magician turned film-maker who specialized in fantasy from 1898 to 1912, creating images such as his own head appearing to expand like a balloon and explode, and of every kind of grotesque transformation or mutilation of the body. Several basic techniques pioneered by Méliès have remained standard: stop-action permits remarkable transformations; reverse action negates normal causality; overprinted or ‘matted’ images place the familiar in unrelated settings. The result of these techniques, later reinforced by computer generated images (CGI), has been to create a screen world in which almost any action, however impossible or bizarre, appears convincingly real.

Alongside this largely unforeseen by-product of cinematography, its use as a recording medium contributed to both scientific research and popularization of science from an early stage. The French surgeon Etienne-Louis Doyen had his pioneering operations filmed in 1898, proposing to colleagues that this would teach students more efficiently, but discovered the pitfalls of cinema in 1902 when his film of the separation of Siamese twins was pirated and sold to fairground freak shows. Such occasional scandals did not impede the steady growth of scientific uses of film, which spread to the social sciences as ethnographers became enthusiastic recorders of tribal customs and vanishing ways of life. Explorers also soon realized that film of their exotic adventures could help fund expeditions, as was the case with Captain Scott's tragic Antarctic expedition of 1911–12. Herbert Ponting's record of Scott before he left base camp was actually being shown in London after its subject had died — an eerie reminder of film's ‘resurrectionary’ quality. Ten years later, Robert Flaherty's portrait of an Inuit hunter and his family, Nanook of the North, enjoyed a world-wide success and helped launch the new genre of ‘documentary’ film.

Much controversy has since arisen from the claim that documentary is or should be truthful. Flaherty did not scruple to teach his subjects how to perform their own forgotten ‘traditional’ customs, but many other documentarists believe that the camera can either reveal what the unaided human observer would not see (Vertov), or what is provoked by its presence (the Maysles brothers; Rouch). Both of these amount to a claim that film offers a privileged view of human behaviour, although whether this can be regarded as ‘objective’, given the manipulation of editing, remains highly controversial. What is certain is that much of our information about how ‘real’ people appear and behave is channelled through the conventions of television news and documentary.

From its beginnings, cinema has also been a powerful source of fictionalized images, of performances intended to entertain, amuse, seduce, and inspire. Erotic display, whether in the form of exotic dances, or a prolonged close-up kiss (which formed the entire action of a 1900 Edison film), or frankly pornographic scenes, were an early source of voyeuristic appeal. This trend arguably helped to shape twentieth-century personal behaviour patterns, replacing national customs with a new international etiquette learned from the screen. Early film stars, such as Asta Nielsen in Europe or Mary Pickford in America, created new ideals of female appearance — essentially slimmer and more athletic — which quickly became global as cinema-going became a universal pastime by the eve of World War I. The male body was also transformed by such popular stars as the dapper Max Linder and Charlie Chaplin's Tramp, both of whom shaped the growth of a balletic slapstick as the main genre of film comedy until the coming of sound in the 1930s.

This period saw the emergence of a genre in fiction cinema that has since become vitally important in popularizing the idea of ‘bionic’, or mechanically modified, bodies. Although there had been many previous gothic and technological fantasies, the series of ‘horror’ films produced by Universal in the 1930s launched a new vogue; and in particular the make-up devised for Boris Karloff as the monster in Frankenstein (1931) set a pattern which, while often played for laughs, also leads to such conceptually more sophisticated composites as the humanoid ‘replicants’ of Blade Runner (1982), or the eponymous RoboCop (1987), or the self-repairing ‘cyborgs’ of Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991). Through increasingly elaborate special effects, the image of the human body in contemporary cinema can now routinely appear super-human, and can apparently withstand devastating injury. What effect this near-universal entertainment idiom has on our idea of actual bodies, and on attitudes to medical treatment and research, is surely an important, yet under-researched topic. More common is a recurring undercurrent of moral concern about the likelihood of imitative behaviour, often expressed in relation to the portrayal of violence or drug-taking, or the dangerous appeal of extreme thinness, fashionable among film stars, as a role model for young women susceptible to anorexia.

There is, however, renewed research interest in how we perceive and interpret moving images. Historically, four main paradigms in this field can be distinguished. The first, dating from the 1910s, conceived moving pictures broadly as a new form of pictorial language, potentially related to hieroglyphic or ideogrammatic languages, or to primitive sign systems. A second wave of theory challenged this view in the 1920s, inspired by the kinetic editing of Eisenstein, Pudovkin, and other exponents of Soviet Russian ‘montage’ cinema. Two important influences on this were Ivan Pavlov's study of reflexes and Lev Vygotsky's investigation of ‘inner speech’: the spectator's response to a film was conceived in terms of conditioned reflexes to visual stimuli, or as a process of linking seemingly unconnected images by means of pre-cognitive associations such as those involved in metaphor. During the early decades of synchronized-sound cinema, such theories were largely forgotten and most theoretical reflection was based on either the principles of mimesis or generic convention. Thus, it was claimed, we understand film images because they ‘model’ the world as we ordinarily perceive it; and we grasp the conventions of film narrative because these follow other forms of visual and verbal narrative.

During the 1970s, a new wave of film theory emerged which drew upon semiotics, or the study of sign-systems, and a revisionist psychoanalysis identified with French analyst Jacques Lacan. This identified mainstream cinema as an ‘apparatus’, which effectively conditions its spectators to believe that they are privileged witnesses of a seamless reality and idealized characters on the screen. But there is also a ‘mirroring’ effect, similar to that which, according to Lacan, marks a crucial stage in the formation of the individual's sense of self. So, in the cinema we ‘recognize’ the process of acquiring subjectivity — which is also a misrecognition, an illusion. Through such reasoning, 1970s film theory radically revised traditional theories of ‘identification’, introducing a sophisticated view of gender relations between viewer and actor, but also encouraging the view that the film ‘text’ produces its spectator's orientation towards it.

Psychoanalytic spectatorship theory has always been as controversial as psychoanalysis itself, and yet it became something of an orthodoxy in academic film studies during the 1980s and 1990s, and began to influence critical approaches in other media, such as literature and the visual arts. But an opposing paradigm emerged during the 1990s which seems to be gathering strength. Often known loosely as ‘cognitivism’, this attempts to return to a ‘realist’ view of what happens when we watch a film. Thus, for example, the philosopher Greg Currie claims that films are actually moving pictures, rather than illusions, that they are realistic, and that they encourage us to imagine the events portrayed taking place — all common sense views, but ones that raise issues of definition. This in turn has led to a considerable amount of philosophical interest in explaining what we mean by such claims and descriptions. It has also prompted some film scholars to turn to experimental physiology and psychology to gain a better understanding of what ‘really’ happens when we watch and understand films. In this latest, and equally controversial, stage of film theory, the moving image has perhaps returned to its origins, as a by-product of mid-nineteenth-century enthusiasm to explore perceptual phenomena and of technology's ability to exploit them. Meanwhile, the total manipulation of digital image and sound and their use in the simulation of ‘virtual reality’ promises a new era in which cinema may become a purely historical term.

Ian Christie

Bibliography

Clover, C. (1992). Men, woman and chain saws: gender in the modern horror film. Princeton, Princeton NJ.
Hill, J. and Gibson, P. C. (ed.) (1998). The Oxford guide to film studies. Oxford University Press. Especially section on ‘The film text: theoretical frameworks’.
Williams, L. (ed.) (1995). Viewing positions: ways of seeing film. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.


See also photography; spectator.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"cinematography and the body." The Oxford Companion to the Body. . Encyclopedia.com. 26 Jul. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"cinematography and the body." The Oxford Companion to the Body. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 26, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cinematography-and-body

"cinematography and the body." The Oxford Companion to the Body. . Retrieved July 26, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cinematography-and-body

Film Industry

Film Industry

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Since the last years of the nineteenth century, filmmaking, distribution, and exhibition have been a major cultural activity around the world. The usual disciplines associated with the social sciencesincluding political science, geography, history, law, psychiatry, psychology, and sociology have been used to study the influence of the film industry. But at its core, any film industry consists of economic institutions that seek to maximize profits. These corporations produce the first copy of a film, make copies in various forms for distribution, and then rent (as in theaters) or sell copies (as in home videos). There is a small film community independent of Hollywood in the United States, as well as large and small industries in nations around the world.

Yet, since the early 1920s Hollywood has dominated the worlds film industry. In 1915 Adolph Zukor combined his production company (Famous Players Lasky) with Paramount distribution, and after World War II he began to acquire a chain of theaters, mostly in major U.S. cities, some outside the United States. Adroit competitors quickly followed: Loews/MGM, Fox, Warner Bros., and the Radio-Keith-Orpheum (RKO). All owned production, worldwide distribution, and vast chains of theaters. The so-called Big Five permitted minor companies to survive, hoping the U.S. government would not sue them for antitrust violations, but in May 1948 the U.S. Supreme Court forced the production-distribution divisions to sell theater divisions.

From 1965 to 1975, led by agent-turned-mogul Lew Wassermann, the Hollywood industrial system reinvented itself as a series of media conglomerates. Today television production provides a steady base of revenues, and the cinema blockbusterthe first being Wassermans Jaws in 1975can pay off in billions. Other media business divisions synergizemeaning they cross-promote films with other productsas with Disneys theme parks. Although film revenues from cinema attendance plunged, Hollywood companies prospered by selling videos in the 1980s and DVDs since the late 1990s. By 2000, theatrical revenues in the United States had fallen to an average of only 15 percent of the profits of an average Hollywood film; the bulk came from revenues associated with watching films on TV (including VHS, DVD, via cable, satellite, and broadcast).

The Hollywood industry still dominates world film revenues while making fewer films than India or Hong Kong. The Hollywood firms of Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner Bros. represent an exceptional oligopoly; although these six corporations are competitors, they also cooperate on many things, including issuing ratings to inform viewers on the appropriateness of film content for children and keeping open international distribution by working closely with the U.S. Department of State. Indeed, the agency they have fashioned for cooperationthe Motion Picture Association of America ranks as one of the top lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

By the late twentieth century, although still called a film industry, Hollywood knew it was in the television business. In the United States each of the major studios (except Sony) is allied with a major television network: Disney-ABC, News Corporations Fox TV network, Viacoms [Paramount] CBS, Warners CW, and General Electrics Universal-NBC. They thus make television stories and series for their networks on the same lots where they make feature films. Indeed, some films, called made-for-TV films, premiere on television.

The Hollywood film industry has spanned the globe since the 1920s. Only Paramount has a Hollywood address, and it and its rivals distribute their films over the entire world, so although India and Hong Kong produce more movies, more Hollywood films are seen in more places than is any typical film from Asia. Indeed, all developed nations have film industries of their own, but all are limited in their globalization.

In addition, although Hollywood is the center of instudio production and the final creative steps in film production, feature films are regularly shot away from Hollywood, on location. All states in the United States and most nations around the world are willing to subsidize production in their territories. For example, many Hollywood movies are filmed in Canada, which has fought to draw film production north of the United States. More often than not, a film set in New York City is really shot in Toronto or Vancouver, where it is cheaper to make. And although films are typically finally cut in studios in and around Los Angeles, the final decisions about which films will be made, which will be distributed, and in what forms they will be seen are made inside offices located in and around New York City.

Hollywood is also the most unionized industry in the United States today, because with a six-member oligopoly, unions face a common foe. Their membersfrom directors to the men and women who push sets and equipmentall are represented by guilds, or unions. Regularly, Hollywoods six members sign a basic agreement with each union, and occasionally a guild will go on strike. This most often happens with the Writers Guild of America. These Hollywood-based unions are growing, bucking a trend of falling union membership in the United States.

Hollywood certainly has the most far reaching and profitable film industry in the world, but two other centers need to be singled out. Indias film industry is mostly concentrated in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), and is commonly referred to as Bollywood, an amalgamation of Bombay and Hollywood. The Indian film industry is multilingual and the largest in the world, producing more than 1,000 films per year as compared to Hollywoods 200. The industry is supported mainly by a vast film-going Indian public (the largest in the world in terms of annual ticket sales), and Indian films have been gaining increasing popularity in the rest of the worldparticularly in countries with large numbers of expatriate Indians.

Hong Kong is a filmmaking hub for the Chinese-speaking world (including the worldwide diaspora) and East Asia in general. For decades it was the third-largest motion picture industry in the world (after India and Hollywood) and the second-largest exporter (after Hollywood), principally with kung-fu action films dubbed into English and other languages. Despite an industry crisis starting in the mid-1990s, and Hong Kongs return to Chinese sovereignty in July 1997, Hong Kong film has retained much of its distinctive identity and continues to play a prominent part on the world cinema stage. Unlike many other film industries, Hong Kong has enjoyed little to no direct government support, through either subsidies or import quotas. It has always been a thoroughly commercial cinema, concentrating on crowd-pleasing genres such as comedy and action, and heavily reliant on formulas, sequels, and remakes. As is typical of commercial cinemas, its heart is a highly developed star system, which in this case also features substantial overlap with the pop music industry.

The dominance of the industries in Hollywood, Bollywood, and Hong Kong has made it hard for the film industry to include independent filmmaking and documentaries. Yet these genrestruly independent filmmaking and filmed documentariesturned to video in the late twentieth century; they were not shot on film, but on Beta video, then were premiered on TV networks, both privately owned and state-owned. Indeed, in most small nations of the world the few films made are subsidized by the government, and more and more often shot on video to lower costs. This is where the TV industry meets the film industry.

The much-anticipated coming of high-definition television (HDTV) at the beginning of the twenty-first century seemed to signal the end of the film industry. Yet, as HDTV standards develop, so does the quality of film. Thus, film remains easily the highest resolution of all movie making. HDTV may look like film, but engineers agree that the film image offers more information than any as yet developed or standardized high-definition image. As the twenty-first century began, if one wanted to see the highest definition, one still should attend a wellrun cinema.

SEE ALSO Bamboozled; Birth of a Nation; Entertainment Industry ; Gone with the Wind; Stepford Wives; Wizard of Oz

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bordwell, David. 2000. Planet Hong Kong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ganti, Tejaswini. 2004. Bollywood. New York: Routledge.

Gomery, Douglas. 1992. Shared Pleasures: A History of Movie Presentation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Gomery, Douglas. 2006. The Hollywood Studio System: A History. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jackel, Anne. 2004. European Film Industries. London: British Film Industry.

Variety Web site. http://www.variety.com.

Douglas Gomery

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Film Industry." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. . Encyclopedia.com. 26 Jul. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"Film Industry." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 26, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/film-industry

"Film Industry." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. . Retrieved July 26, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/film-industry

film industry

film industry. Cinematography, on which many experiments were made in various countries, became feasible after the advent of celluloid film in 1889 and subsequent innovations in the motion film camera and the projector during the early 1890s. Following rapidly on the first public film show in Paris in 1895, the first commercial showing in Britain in 1896 caught public imagination to such an extent that films were soon being shown in halls, music-halls, and theatres. Later many of these buildings were converted into cinemas and by the early 1900s cinematography was becoming widespread. The first major custom-built picture house, the Alpha, opened in St Albans in 1908. A tremendous boom in cinema building and conversion took place during the next few years and continued unabated until the First World War, by which time there were about 3,500. The Cinematograph Act, 1909, sought among other requirements the safety of the audience.

There was a corresponding growth in film-making and for the first decade British producers were very successful, establishing an important export market, particularly to the USA. Nevertheless only 15 per cent of films released in Britain were of British origin, with France and the USA accounting for 36 and 28 per cent respectively in 1910.

The main characteristic of the British film industry in the decade following the war was the dominance of American companies. This had reached such a degree of saturation that by 1926 British films occupied less than 5 per cent of British screen-time. The Cinematograph Films Act of 1927 attempted to counter this situation by setting quotas to combat the ‘Hollywood invasion’. The Films Act became the cornerstone of Board of Trade film policy, recognizing the propaganda value of film and its increasing economic importance, and going some way to assisting British film production. A golden era for the film industry began with the arrival of the talkies in 1927–8, and, despite the depression, cinema building accelerated, no fewer than 715 new cinemas being built 1927–32. There was a boom in British production 1933–6, but in attempting to emulate Hollywood's lavish output, costs of film-making escalated dramatically. The international success of Alexander Korda's The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933) was exceptional.

The Moyne Committee, reporting in 1936, suggested major reforms, including a Films Commission and a quality test, but the Films Act of 1938, rather than addressing the financial and production problems of the industry, mainly reiterated the quotas of 1927. However, the Films Council was established in 1938. By 1939 the post-war structure of the industry was evolving and the aims and limitations of state intervention were clear. The propaganda value of the medium can readily be appreciated by viewing documentary and feature films of the war years.

After 1945 there were belated efforts to assist the British film industry, mainly through the National Film Finance Corporation, but such success as this brought in the 1950s and early 1960s was consistently overshadowed by American imports. As television became more widely available there was a steady decline in cinema attendances and British film production suffered. After a period of painful rationalization, when even more production and acting talent was lost to the USA, increased government support assisted revival. Despite the overwhelming American challenge many British productions achieved international acclaim and cinema-going recovered dramatically during the 1980s.

The development of film has been promoted by the British Film Institute, founded in 1933, and in Scotland by the Scottish Film Council. The National Film Archive has an extensive international collection of books, periodicals, scripts, stills, posters, and over 200,000 films and television programmes, many of considerable historical interest. The Museum of the Moving Image at the South Bank traces the history of film and television. The Scottish Film Council, based in Glasgow, administers the Scottish Film Archive.

See also cinema.

Ian Donnachie

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"film industry." The Oxford Companion to British History. . Encyclopedia.com. 26 Jul. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"film industry." The Oxford Companion to British History. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 26, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/film-industry

"film industry." The Oxford Companion to British History. . Retrieved July 26, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/film-industry

cinematography

cin·e·ma·tog·ra·phy / ˌsinəməˈtägrəfē/ • n. the art of making motion pictures. DERIVATIVES: cin·e·ma·tog·ra·pher / -fər/ n. cin·e·mat·o·graph·ic / -ˌmatəˈgrafik/ adj. cin·e·mat·o·graph·i·cal·ly / -ˌmatəˈgrafik(ə)lē/ adv.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"cinematography." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. . Encyclopedia.com. 26 Jul. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"cinematography." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 26, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/cinematography-0

"cinematography." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. . Retrieved July 26, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/cinematography-0

cinematography

cinematography Technique of taking and projecting cine film, the basis of the cinema industry. Based on the experiments and inventions pioneered during the 1880s and 1890s by Thomas Edison in the United States and the Lumière brothers in France, cinematography was applied professionally to the taking and showing of films soon after the turn of the century.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"cinematography." World Encyclopedia. . Encyclopedia.com. 26 Jul. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"cinematography." World Encyclopedia. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 26, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cinematography

"cinematography." World Encyclopedia. . Retrieved July 26, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cinematography

cinematograph

cinematograph XIX. — F. cinématographe, f. Gr. kī́nēma, -mat- movement, f. kī́neīn move; see -GRAPH. Abbrev. cinema XX (after F. cinéma). Comb. form cine- XIX; cf. F. ciné.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"cinematograph." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. . Encyclopedia.com. 26 Jul. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"cinematograph." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 26, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/cinematograph

"cinematograph." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. . Retrieved July 26, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/cinematograph

cinematography

cinematography: see motion picture photography.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"cinematography." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.. . Encyclopedia.com. 26 Jul. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"cinematography." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 26, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cinematography

"cinematography." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.. . Retrieved July 26, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cinematography

cinematography

cinematographydaffy, taffy •Amalfi •Cavafy, Gaddafi •Effie •beefy, Fifi, leafy •cliffy, iffy, jiffy, Liffey, niffy, sniffy, spiffy, squiffy, stiffy, whiffy •salsify •coffee, toffee •wharfie •Sophie, strophe, trophy •Dufy, goofy, Sufi •fluffy, huffy, puffy, roughie, roughy, scruffy, snuffy, stuffy, toughie •comfy • atrophy •anastrophe, catastrophe •calligraphy, epigraphy, tachygraphy •dystrophy, epistrophe •autobiography, bibliography, biography, cardiography, cartography, chirography, choreography, chromatography, cinematography, cosmography, cryptography, demography, discography, filmography, geography, hagiography, historiography, hydrography, iconography, lexicography, lithography, oceanography, orthography, palaeography (US paleography), photography, pornography, radiography, reprography, stenography, topography, typography •apostrophe •gymnosophy, philosophy, theosophy •furphy, murphy, scurfy, surfy, turfy

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"cinematography." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. . Encyclopedia.com. 26 Jul. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"cinematography." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 26, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/cinematography

"cinematography." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. . Retrieved July 26, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/cinematography