Mozgó fényképek. The scandal and debate around moving images in early Hungarian cinema

References

• Aubert, Michelle, and Jean-Claude Seguin, eds. 1996. La production cinématographique des Frères Lumière. Paris: Bibliothèque du Film, Diffusion, CDE.
   Google Scholar
• Balme, Christopher. 2014. The Theatrical Public Sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bán, András, ed. 1982. A fotográfozásról. Budapest: Múzsák Közművelődési Kiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Barbas, Samantha. 2012. “The Laws of Image.” New England Law Review 27 (1): 23‒92.
   Google Scholar
• Blumenthal, Oscar, and Gustav Kadelburg. 1897. Number Nine, or the Lady from Ostend. A Comedy in Three Acts. Translated by F. C. Burnand and Augustin Daly. New York: Richard Dorney.
   Google Scholar
• Blumenthal, Oscar, and Gustav Kadelburg. 1898. Mozgó fényképek. Bohózat három felvonásban. Translated by Jenő Heltai. Budapest: Lampel R.
   Google Scholar
• Bonnell, Andrew. 2005. The People’s Stage in Imperial Germany: Social Democracy and Culture 1890 -1914. London: I.B. Tauris. doi:10.5040/9780755623105.
   Google Scholar
• Bottomore, Stephen. 2012. “Introduction: The First Film Fiction.” Film History 24 (4): 368–370.
   Google Scholar
• Esposito, Roberto. 2011. Immunitas: The Protection and Negation of Life. Translated by Zakiya Hanafi. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Finnegan, C.A., and J. Kang. 2004. “’Sighting the Public’: Iconoclasm and Public Sphere Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (4): 377‒402. doi:10.1080/0033563042000302153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füzi, Izabella. 2020. “'Filmet írni': Karinthy és Molnár Ferenc kinemaszkeccsei.” Apertúra 15 (2): 1–39. ( Winter 2020). doi:10.31176/apertura.2019.15.2.10.
   Google Scholar
• Gajdó, Tamás. 2001. “A Vígszínház.” In Magyar színháztörténet II. 1873-1920, edited by Tamás Gajdó. Budapest: Magyar Könyvklub ‒ Országos Színháztörténeti Múzeum és Intézet. http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02065/html/2kotet/25.html.
   Google Scholar
• Gaudreault, André, and Philippe Marion. 2015. “A Medium is Always Born Twice….” In The End of Cinema? A Medium in Crisis in the Digital Age, edited by Timothy Barnard, 104‒126. New York: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/columbia/9780231173575.003.0005.
   Google Scholar
• Gunning, Tom. 1986. “The Cinema of Attraction. Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde.” Wide Angle 8 (3–4): 63‒70.
   Google Scholar
• Gunning, Tom. 1996. “Tracing the Individual Body: Photography, Detectives, and Early Cinema.” In Cinema and the Invention of Modern Life, edited by Leo Charney and Vanessa R. Schwartz, 15–46. University of California Press. doi:10.1525/9780520916425-003.
   Google Scholar
• Gunning, Tom. 2004. “Pictures of Crowd Splendour: The Mitchell and Kenyon Factory Gate Film.” In The Lost World of Mitchell and Kenyon. Edwardian Britain on Film, edited by Vanessa Toulmin, Simon Popple, and Patrick Russell, 49‒58. London: BFI.
   Google Scholar
• Gunning, Tom. 2016. “Before Documentary. Early Nonfiction Films and the ‘View’ Aesthetic.” In The Documentary Film Reader. History, Theory, Criticism, edited by Jonathan Kahana, 52‒56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jókai, Mór. 1893. “Budapesti élet.” In Az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia írásban és képben, edited by Mór Jókai, 119‒168. Vol. III. Budapest: Magyar Királyi Államnyomda.
   Google Scholar
• Kitchner, Tom W. [1897] 2012. “The Victimograph.” Film History 24 (4): 377–379.
   Google Scholar
• Laczkó, Géza. 1908. “A Vígszínházban.” Nyugat 1 (20). https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00022/00019/00428.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Magyar, Bálint. 2003. A magyar némafilm története. Budapest: Palatinus.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, Vanessa, and Martin Loiperdinger. 2005. “Is It You? Recognition, Representation, and Response in Relation to the Local Film.” Film History 17 (1): 7‒18. doi:10.2979/FIL.2005.17.1.7.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan, Dai, ed. 1999. “The Aesthetics of Ambiguity.” In For Documentary. Twelve Essays, 54‒83. Los Angeles ‒ London: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, Gwendolyn. 2012. “’Half Real ‒ Half Reel’. Alternation Format Stage-And-Screen Hybrids.” In Companion to Early Cinema, edited by André Gaudreault, Nicolas Dulac, and Santiano Hidalgo, 360‒380. Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118274453.ch19.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, Samuel, and Louis Brandeis. 1890. “The Right to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review 4 (5): 193‒220. doi:10.2307/1321160.
   Google Scholar
• Whitman, Paul. 2004. “The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity versus Liberty.” The Yale Law Journal 113 (6): 1151–1221. doi:10.2307/4135723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, Paul. 2006. The Cinema Dreams Its Rivals. London ‒ Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Journal articles written by unidentified authors
   Google Scholar
• (a.z.). “Mozgó fényképek.” Pesti Napló, April 26, 1898.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. “Mozgó fényképek.” Az Újság, June 15, 1907.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. “Mozgó fényképek.” Vasárnapi Újság, 8 May, 1898b.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. “Két német szerző.” Budapesti Napló, October 18, 1898a.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. “The New Play at Daly’s Theatre is a Very Fragile Farce from the German.” New York Times, December 8, 1897.
   Google Scholar
• M−s. “Mozgó fényképek.” Budapesti Napló, April 30, 1898.
   Google Scholar
• R.M. “Mozgó fényképek.” Hazánk, April 30, 1898.
   Google Scholar