The People in Arms in the Peoples Entertainment: Cinema and Political Propaganda in Portugal (1916-1917)
This article seeks to contribute to the historiographical debate on First World War propaganda in Portugal. The fact that it was precisely during this war that the first official body concerned with film production appeared (the Photographic and Cinematographic Section of the Army, SFCE) is a strong indication that the First Republic kept pace with the most innovatory aspects of this conflict in the various belligerent countries. In fact, it was precisely at this time that official bodies devoted to cinema appeared in countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany. We start by studying the pioneering experiment in film which made the people in arms the protagonists in the peoples entertainment, in the context of a military and propaganda exercise conducted by the Minister of War, Norton de Matos, in the summer of 1916. The success of this first film was so great that the captain who produced it was asked to set up the SFCE, in time to film the embarkation of the first troops for France, in January 1917. As well as clarifying the origins, objectives and more institutional aspects of the SFCE, which previously had remained obscure, the article presents data about the exhibition and the public reception of films produced by this unit.
A produção e programação audiovisual pelo exército português no contexto das guerras coloniais (1965-1973). A imagem como elemento difusor e construtor de um regime politico-colonial
Starting from the analysis and understanding of what were the ideological and political foundations of the Portuguese “Estado Novo”, we investigate how cinema, especially the one programmed and produced by the military, contributed to the construction of a colonial image. By analyzing the cinema that was programmed and produced in a colonial context, we search for the idea, or its absence, that was intended to be built through its exhibition as part of the general purpose of motivating for the war and spreading the cardinal items of colonial propaganda. Characterizing what were the psychosocial actions carried out by the army in the context of colonial wars and the images, particularly cinematographic, that were produced and / or used in this context, we thrive to understand their contribution to the creation of a community imagined according to the canons of colonial ideology. Having as methodology looking beyond the point of view of official cinematography, searching for other framings, reviewing in slow motion, analyzing the materiality of the film product itself, its forms and distribution circuits, etc., we look for hidden symptoms that betray the ideological and racial construction and its hidden structures of power. In proposing a way of reading in order to perceive the connection between Fascist mass rhetoric, Nazi aesthetics, "politics of the spirit" and Lusotropicalism (especially in its iconic, symbolic elements and consequent semiotic discourse) we suggest how this was translated to the colonial imaginary. As final conclusions emerge the fact that the military where full aware of the importance of cinema in the propaganda process, and, as so, in the construction of the colonial image imagined by the regime, mainly widely using the iconic elements of Lusotropicalism, but with a strategy that has been mostly inconsequent.
Italian Influence on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism
THIS ARTICLE TRIES to show that the rise of Calvinist scholasticism, which was the most important development in Calvinist theology during the second half of the sixteenth century, stemmed largely from several converging Italian influences, particularly from the writings of Peter Martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi. Here Calvinist theology refers not only to the personal thought of John Calvin but also to the teachings of the founders of the Reformed or Calvinist tradition as it spread out from Geneva and Switzerland to France, Germany, England, Scotland, Poland, and the Low Countries. In this context Calvin emerges as the brightest star in a galaxy of Reformed theologians which includes Heinrich Bullinger, Pierre Viret, Theodore Beza and Wolfgang Musculus as well as Martyr, Zanchi and others. These theologians were often more influential than Calvin himself at a given place or time or on a given point of doctrine. Bullinger, Martyr, and Martin Bucer were all more important for spreading Calvinist ideas to Edwardian England than was John Calvin. Early Elizabethan Protestantism looked more to Zurich than to Geneva, as did early Polish Calvinism. German Calvinism owed more to Heidelberg than to Geneva.' These leaders developed their theologies sometimes in mutual dependence, sometimes with surprising independence. By no means was their relation to Calvin simply that of disciple to master, for each gave a personal nuance to his style of Calvinism. Thus the sixteenth century Jesuit Cornelius Schulting states on the opening page of his five volume polemic against Calvin and Peter Martyr that Martyr was clearer and far more learned than Calvin.2 Recently John Bray has pointed out that research in seventeenth century Calvinism leads "to the conclusion that the impact of Calvin upon the Calvinistic movement has been greatly over-rated. It may well be that some of