The Buddhist Institute at Phnom Penh,the International Council of Women,and the Rome International Institute for Educational Cinematography: intersections of internationalism and imperialism, 1931–1934

This article explores the intersection of aspects of imperialism and internationalism in discussion of cinematography at the League of Nations, at the International Council of Women (ICW), and as they played out in the imperial, national and local flows around educational cinematography in the work of Suzanne Karpelès at the Institute of Buddhist Studies in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. It focuses on the 1931 ICW cinematograph conference organised by Laura Dreyfus-Barney at the League’s Rome International Institute for Educational Cinematography (IIEC) and on the IIEC’s 1934 cinematography congress, when Dreyfus-Barney fed Karpelès’ ideas about educational film into the congress. The article looks at the notion of rapprochement (of nations) within internationalism as this became articulated at both the League and the ICW with notions about mentalities within imperialism. It also traces the intersection of rapprochement and mentalities in Karpelès’ promotion of educational cinematography from her base in Phnom Penh. The article concludes that various elements around the cinematic at the League, the ICW and at Phnom Penh illustrate articulations of internationalism in the domains of nationalism and imperialism as well as articulations of the national and imperial in the domain of the international.     

Kinematics and kinetics of the drive off the front foot in cricket batting

A cinematographic analysis of the drive off the front foot (D) and the forward defensive stroke (FD) was undertaken to establish the kinematic and kinetic factors involved in playing these strokes against medium-fast bowling. Fourteen provincial cricket batsmen were filmed at 100 Hz while batting on a turf pitch with a specially instrumented bat. Results for the drive off the front foot revealed that the movement and stroke pattern were generally supportive of the coaching literature, with the forward defensive stroke forming the basis of the drive. Certain mechanical differences, although non-significant, were evident to facilitate the attacking nature of the front foot drive and included a higher backlift (FD = 0.65 m; D = 0.74 m), later commencement of the stride (FD = 0.64 s pre-impact; D = 0.58 s pre-impact) and downswing of the bat (FD = 0.38 s pre-impact; D = 0.36 s pre-impact), a shorter front foot stride (FD = 0.72 m; D = 0.68 m) with the front foot placement taking place later (FD = 0.14 s pre-impact; D = 0.06 s pre-impact), and the back foot dragging further forward at impact (FD = 0.05 m; D = 0.10 m). The front upper limb moved as a multi-segmental series of levers, which resulted in the drive showing significantly greater (P < 0.05) peak bat horizontal velocity at 0.02 s preimpact (FD = 3.53 ± 3.44 m . s -1 ; D = 11.8 ± 4.61 m . s -1 ) and 0.02 s post-impact (FD = 2.73 ± 2.88 m . s -1 ; D = 11.3 ± 4.21 m . s -1 ). The drive showed a significantly greater (P < 0.05) bat-ball closing horizontal velocity (FD = 24.2 ± 4.65 m . s-1; D = 32.3 ± 5.06 m . s -1 ) and post-impact ball horizontal velocity (FD = 6.85 5.12 m . s -1 ; D = 19.5 ± 2.13 m . s -1 ) than for the forward defensive stroke. The point of bat-ball contact showed nonsignificant differences, but occurred further behind the front ankle (FD = 0.09 ± 0.17 m; D = 0.20 ± 0.13 m), with the bat more vertical at impact (FD = 62.6 ± 6.53 ; D = 77.8 ± 7.05). Significant differences (P < 0.01) occurred between the grip forces of the top and bottom hands for the two strokes, with the principal kinetic finding that the top hand plays the dominant role during the execution of the drive with the bottom hand reinforcing it at impact. Similar grip force patterns for the two strokes occurred during the initial part of the stroke, with the drive recording significantly greater (P < 0.05) forces at 0.02 s pre-impact (top hand: FD = 129 ± 41.6 N; D = 199 ± 40.9 N; bottom hand: FD = 52.2 ± 16.9 N; D = 91.8 ± 41.1 N), at impact (top hand: FD = 124 ± 29.3 N; D = 158 ± 56.2 N; bottom hand: FD = 67.1 ± 21.5 N; D = 86.2 ± 58.2 N) and 0.02 s postimpact (top hand: FD = 111 ± 22.2 N; D = 126 ± 28.5 N; bottom hand: FD = 65.5 ± 26.9 N; D = 82.4 ± 28.6 N).