Iniciativa německé Spolkové
kulturní nadace
kulturní nadace
The Aesthetics of Rationalization: The Media Network in the Baťa Company and the Town of Zlín
by Petr Szczepanik
Text ke stažení (pdf)
In May 1937, Jan Antonín Baťa returned from what he called ‘a journey around the world’. During this four-month trip, he visited foreign branches of his company and studied markets on the four continents. Shortly after landing back in Zlín, he visited a test screening of a documentary film shot during this trip. The whole journey was originally supposed to have been documented by the most skilled of Baťa’s filmmakers, Alexandr Hackenschmied, who after the Second World War became an important protagonist of the American film avant-garde. However, Hackenschmied separated from the official delegation after two weeks to shoot his own documentary material about everyday life in India and Ceylon. In 1939, Hackenschmied left Czechoslovakia and the raw footage was re-cut by Hackenschmied’s Zlín colleague Elmar Klos. The resulting three documentary films were later praised as great examples of sociallycritical film art, supporting the interpretation that Baťa’s filmmakers worked as autonomous artists aiming at self-expression and using politically subversive discourses with no ideological and formal connection to their commissioner, Baťa, as if the aesthetics was in direct opposition to industrial production. But in reality, Baťa was personally involved in shooting and editing the original movie about the journey, later called Baťa Flies Around the World (see image p. 205).
Especially the genesis of the film Baťa Flies Around the World exemplifies Baťa’s actual ideological control and involvement in the filmproduction process. The film structure is described in a protocol from the test screening that took place in October 1937. The footage covered business meetings, quasi-tourist snapshots, monuments, production processes in factories, transportation systems, methods of processing raw materials, and everyday street life. The most interesting aspect of the screening, however, is the thorough way Baťa intervened in the process of editing the footage and compiling the commentary. He discussed changes in specific cuts, sequencing of shots and subtitles and gave orders to the filmmakers to implement the changes. He spent most of the time explaining the intended meanings of individual shots. For example, this is what he said about the pictures of Rangoon streets: ‘Pay attention to the passionate and fanatic facial expressions of the people. This man believes in what he does. You wouldn’t convince him to change his mind. You need to adjust to him as a customer’, or: ‘The rickshaw runner earns 1.80 Czechoslovak crowns in a day. You have to cut the prices for him to buy anything’ (see MZA, BA: I/4). From these kinds of comments it is clear that Baťa ascribed concrete economical and ideological meanings to individual shots and even montage sequences of what seems to be just neutral documentary footage.
Baťa creates a Medienverbund
Most of what has so far been written about the use of media by Baťa concerns film production at Baťa’s own film studios in terms of the artistic values and authorial approaches of the Zlín filmmakers. The involvement of the industrial company, as the body that commissioned the films, was considered nothing more than the inevitable prerequisite for the emergence of a unique island of cinematic creativity which surpassed most of the conventional feature production in Prague. Zlín cinema was thus incorporated into the history of Czechoslovak national cinema (see e.g. Navrátil 2002: 82; Klos and Pinkavová 1984: 46; Stejskal 1972: 34).
My approach is different in terms of the logic of industrial production and international business as the primary sources and subjects of Baťa’s media infrastructure, of which cinema was just one part. Film has to be reincorporated into the complete network of media used by the company to record, archive, and teach its production techniques and promote its developments, products, public services, and the social welfare it provided to its employees. The aim of this network was mainly to build a system of internal and external communication integrating the employer and the workers, customers and the brand, the parent industrial branch and affiliates, as well as the centre of Zlín and dozens of satellite cities, subsidiaries at home and abroad, and hundreds of shops worldwide as well. Thomas Elsaesser and Vinzenz Hediger have proposed calling this kind of chain or network of media a Medienverbund (media ensemble): the media are interconnected around certain urban or industrial complexes and are employed as the components of a broad and effective multimedia strategy to complement each other and fulfil different functions for different occasions and at different moments (Elsaesser 2005).
The company used film in its first important trade-fair exhibit in 1924: within the exhibit itself there were three projectors constantly showing ‘images of our products, life, and production techniques’ (Pag. 1924b). But the film medium was also used to record the first day of Baťa’s exhibition and to play this movie the following day at the cinemas in all large Czech cities (ibid. 1924a). In 1934, Jan A. Baťa commissioned a special screening space next to pedicure cabins so that visitors could watch his industrial films and advertisements while they were getting a pedicure (V. 1934, see image p. 206). This perhaps inspired Le Corbusier, who – in his unrealized project for Baťa’s trade-fair pavilion, proposed during his visit to Zlín in 1935 – designed special chaises longues for a pedicure salon from which the visitors were supposed to watch films projected onto the ceiling (Karfík 1993: 122). At the World Exhibition in Paris in 1937, where Alexandr Hackenschmied’s and Elmar Klos’s advertisement for Baťa tyres, The Highway Sings, won a special prize, Baťa started experimenting with a series of slides or photos supplemented by Baťa slogans and arranged according to the principles of cinematic montage – the technique called ‘suggestive exposition montage’ (Anon. 1937).
The media network used by Baťa in its factories included print, telegraphy, telephone, photography, slide projections, cinema, gramophone, radio, teletypewriter, phototelegraphy, pneumatic tubes, and potentially television as well. Although not all of these media were integrated into one system in a strict sense, they can still be considered components of a whole – if we focus on industrial production as their main source and subject. Many other intersections and links existed among these media: quotations and cross-references between media texts (radio inviting listeners to the cinema, films referring to radio and telephone, the company’s journal publishing Baťa’s radio programmes, gramophone apparatuses recording important telephone exchanges, gramophone discs being played on the company radio etc.), multimedia advertisement campaigns, education (film, slides, journals in schools), and archiving (special archives of written documents, photographs, films), all working together in a centralized communication network (see image p. 207).
Apart from this, all the media were closely related to the logic of industrial production. The efficiency of production, distribution, and also exhibition of films was analysed in terms of metres produced, rented, or screened, often without listing any concrete titles, in the same purely quantitative way that the company talked about the production of shoes or tyres: ‘The efficiency of the film department could be demonstrated by the fact that, since 1 May of this year, it shot 30,000 metres of film, of which 20,000 are still being exhibited at 1,100 cinemas around the Republic’ (Anon. 1930). Dozens of articles written about radio and telephone also focused on statistical data like the numbers of radio listeners, speakers, telephone numbers, and calls connected:
Fifteen hundred telephones have been installed in our factory and they are used for 200,000 calls every day! If only one minute were wasted in each individual call, the total loss would reach 3,000 per day, which means 138 days, i.e. more than a quarter of the year. How big the loss in money per year would be – that’s impossible to calculate. (Anon. 1938c)
These statistics were used to promote exceptional progressiveness at the factory: Baťa’s main company journal was the biggest in Europe; more prints of its film newsreels were distributed than all other newsreels in the country combined; it had the first private automatic telephone exchange office in ‘Films were screened during pedicures’, from Zlín páteční (The Zlín Friday Paper), 16 March 1934. 207 the country, the first private telephone lines, the biggest cinema in central Europe, the first company radio in the country, the first private teletypewriter connection, etc. Media did not only advertise the company as channels transmitting promotional content: they themselves became advertisements.
Nonetheless, the more proper way to describe the interdependence of factory, city, and media in the case of Baťa would be to foreground the communication processes connecting different components of the corporation with the centre and the company with the public, and also the functioning of media in a broader dispositif of industrial production in the sense of a spatiotemporal regime creating certain positions for each member of this communication network.
Media in a dispositif of serial production
The dispositif of Baťa’s production was a highly sophisticated and complex disciplinary system based on precise division of time and space, high specialization, measurement, and surveillance, its main goal being to set everybody at the proper place and rhythm in relation to the overall organization of work. At the same time, however, it included certain structural components that exceeded the classical disciplinary mode: it aimed to give everybody a feeling of being a potential shareholder or even a self-sufficient entrepreneur who did not need to be watched because he watched himself for his own benefit. In this way, even private life and leisure time became functions of the factory, organized and controlled by the company. This position, based on a subtle interplay between emancipation and homogenization, could be illustrated by Baťa’s insistence on building family houses (instead of apartment buildings) as a means of control because they separated and localized the workers in their leisure time, gave them a sense of comfort, which made them more loyal, and above all prevented them from forming disruptive political bodies in pubs or on the streets.
As Baťa claimed, ‘Every worker should feel like a servant collectively, but like a king individually’ (Setnička 1927: 5). This position corresponded strikingly to that described in classic theories of cinematic dispositif: a fixed position ascribed to the spectator, who is optically and socially isolated and who undergoes the process of psychic regression, decreasing his or her critical ability to test reality, but who simultaneously adopts the privileged position of the central vantage point. Thus, it is worth stressing the key spatial position of the cinema in Baťa’s industrial city and in Zlín itself, where the Grand Cinema with its originally 2,500 seats occupied the central position at Labour Square (náměstí Práce), the main part of the ‘new’ Zlín, just opposite the factory’s main entrance.
The dispositif had a radial structure, with the centre occupied by the ‘chief’ (the term used by employees to address or refer to Baťa), who not only supervised the factory, but also the town and its inhabitants, like a master helping the masses become modern industrial citizens. The central position of the dispositif had a special medial arrangement: it was not static or bound to one place (as in Bentham’s panopticon), but rather mobile and potentially omnipresent. Jan A. Baťa’s famous mobile office was placed in a special elevator that could move among 15 storeys in his largest skyscraper, the main administrative building, Building No 21 (see Bergmann and Pastrnek, this volume). The quasi-cinematic vertical and horizontal movement of the optical point of view was combined with concentric communication channels: not only telegraph, telephone, radio, and teletypewriter, but also a system of light and sound signals and special instruments of surveillance. Using radio, Baťa could address all the workers at once. But he could also eavesdrop on his employees’ telephone calls.
Baťa’s desire to fully control all the communication channels can clearly be seen in the long-term campaign against non-efficient telephone communication, which strove to discipline the behaviour of all telephone users according to the principles of the rationalization of production. Already in the early 1920s, Baťa forbade the use of the word ‘hello’ (Anon. 1921; 1923). Numerous articles from company journals and radio transmissions through the 1920s and 1930s analysed improper telephone behaviour and criticized users for being too loud, too fast, too repetitive, talkative, incoherent, for forgetting to hang up, etc. (MZA, BA: II/8). The most extreme method of controlling telephone usage was a gramophone recorder installed in the telephone exchange that could deliver evidence of telephone misuse. The elaboration of the telephone campaign is documented by Baťa’s plan to establish special school lessons of telephony (Škoda 1931) and also a film about proper telephone technique, characteristically entitled Time Is Money (1938).
The media were responsible for building channels for feedback between factory work, education, housing, shopping, social welfare, and amusement. The town became an industrial garden city; the citizens became the industrial men. The main examples of this function are radio and cinema. Daily broadcasting was established in 1938, and a typical programme consisted of two parts. The first was usually a rhythmic march played from a disc from 6:30 a.m. to 6:45 a.m., when workers were entering the factory. The second, the main 10-minute programme, started at 9:00 a.m. during the break and was composed of short musical fragments at the beginning, followed by news from the factory and city life, educational slogans, and finally a lecture about the organizational and ethical problems of work in factories, about security issues, health care, or an advertisement for Baťa’s cinema. Both of these regular broadcasts served the function of coordinating the masses of workers at the moments when they assembled in one place (see image right). Up to 2,000 speakers were installed in all the factory’s workshops and departments, the main satellite town of Otrokovice-Baťov, and also the largest hotel in Zlín, in the hospital, dormitories, community centre, department store, and at times at the city’s main square as well (Anon. 1938a; 1941; Handzel 1941).
Baťa’s methods concerning rationalization of production and the division of labour were inspired by Taylorism and Fordism. At the same time, however, they differed from classic mechanistic models by providing the workers higher standards of social welfare, stressing their continuous education and mobility, dividing the factory into semi-autonomous economic units, giving selected employees a ‘share of the profits’, and also by the rhetoric of cooperation between employees and employer – similar to Fayolism.1This strategy demanded a special industrial labour psychology to measure the abilities and skills of the workers and their dispositions for certain jobs. In 1938, the following was claimed in the company’s journal in an article subtitled ‘The Future of Industrial Man’ (Anon. 1938b): ‘The good worker should be educated technically and morally: this purpose is accomplished by a psychological technique in the service of industry. The proper assignment of the proper man to the proper task is the main principle of all work.’ The person responsible for the psychological state of the workers and for transfers from one to another workplace was the so-called ‘social inspector’. The social inspector used the company’s journals and radio to deliver educational lectures and warnings concerning not only professional affairs, but also private problems involving housing, family finances, health care, etc.
The social services provided by Baťa were promoted in numerous exhibitions and especially industrial films in which the whole city served as a showcase of successful production methods. Instead of exploiting a cheap labour force, Baťa decided to educate the local people not only in new production methods, but also in a new lifestyle, and pay them above-average wages, which would help him establish closer ties between them and the company. Film, radio, and journals were the tools of fast transformation from ‘old’ village peasants into new citizens, a more efficient labour force with specific skills and ambitions like flexibility and entrepreneurial spirit. Therefore, the company needed to extend the scope of its films from internal issues to broader social and cultural contexts and later even to the production of feature fiction films, which would promote the company’s lifestyle and morality more indirectly. The company’s film studio was built in 1936, when Jan A. Baťa started his campaign to gain more skilled workers for his advertising department and provide Zlín with a feeling of real city culture by establishing a new infrastructure of cultural life: the gallery, public educational institute, community centre, art school, etc. (see memories of Elmar Klos, one of the key Baťa filmmakers, in Klos and Pinkavová 1984: 38).
By 1945, Baťa had produced and commissioned approximately 170 films plus three periodical newsreels and many versions in foreign languages (see Stejskal 1972). The most important group are the representation or image films among them, showing the production processes and social life in the town of Zlín. These include two special periodical film series, the quarterly Baťa Newsreel (Baťův žurnál, 1927-31) and the weekly Window onto the World (Okno do světa, 1937-8).
Some of the industrial films fulfilled a primarily internal function, others an external one; many of them served both functions simultaneously or in succession. The internal function was explicitly defined in a compilation film about the history of Baťa’s film production called We Will Say It through Film (Řekneme to filmem; dir. Bořivoj Zeman, 1941):
They [the films intended for internal purposes at the factory] illustrated the advantages of newly designed machines, or showed the work techniques in slow motion. Thus, they solved the problem of maintaining the same pace of technical modernization at different plants, the problem of training new employees, and the coordination of work processes under the conditions of high decentralization at the company, which has been building new branches in other, often unindustrialized regions.
The internal functions of the industrial films circulating on the inner routes within factories and between branches and satellite towns were above all information, training, and standardization. Many were nevertheless used for external promotional purposes as well.
The first surprising fact about the circulation of these films was that they were distributed in far larger numbers than usual for features and newsreels in the former Czechoslovakia. They reached most domestic cinemas and were often exhibited in foreign versions in many other countries. Apart from this, they were presented at trade fairs, film festivals, free screenings for the workers during lunch breaks, at shops, schools, and the weekly internal meetings of company representatives (see Novotný 1993: 4; Stejskal 1972: 56.).
In particular the second periodical newsreel mentioned above, the weekly 16 mm Window onto the World (1937-8), deserves closer attention. One hundred and twenty prints, Czech or German versions, were regularly sent to 800 of Baťa’s shops. The newsreels were exhibited via special self-service endless-loop projectors with rear projection, activated by the customer pushing a button. The 60 m reels contained reports on the factory’s progress or life in Zlín and advertisements, but also general information about current technological inventions, economic affairs, social and sporting events (Klos 1984: 5; Stejskal 1972: 57; Štábla 1990: 492). The periodical newsreel was unique in the way that it built a dense network of exhibition points connected to one centre, sometimes also including Zlín’s satellites abroad: East Tilbury in Britain, Best in the Netherlands, Hellocourt in France, Borovo in Croatia, Möhlin in Switzerland, etc. (MZA, BA: I/4). It also succeeded in competing with normal newsreel productions because it had a much larger number of prints and faster distribution, even to the small towns. The strategy of simultaneously addressing as many people as possible and using seemingly neutral informative messages like world news or surveys of new inventions for publicity purposes was a common denominator of Baťa’s films, radio, and journals, although each of them differed in their concrete techniques of distribution and the way they targeted the audience.
The industrial image films strove to present shoe production as part of the broader project of technical, economic, and social modernization, of demographic and urban planning with a wide national and international impact; these broader social contexts then in turn served to advertise shoe production. The constant linking of social and industrial issues – of working time and leisure, of the efficiency of the machines and the aesthetics of the workplace – is not a matter of connecting two separate and distinct spheres: instead, social matters – the ‘production’ of ‘new industrial men’ – are considered to be an integral part of the production process. One example is Modern Production of Shoes (Moderní výroba obuvi, 1930), a typical industrial film depicting the entire process of shoe manufacturing, from processing of the raw material, through cutting and sewing, to the final packaging and distribution. But between the stages of sewing and inspection of the finished shoes, we see detailed descriptions of the workplace and living conditions, which are clearly incorporated into the manufacturing process. The film montage itself thus expresses the thesis that social services function as an integral step in industrial production and that the automation of an assembly line is socially beneficial. The relationship between man and machine is not of a fragmentary and alienating nature, which is often the case in industrial films as a generic category: a man is pictured as a creative individual, with his entire body being visible, capable of his or her own facial self-expression.
Like the Functionalist architecture in Zlín, Baťa’s films from the late 1930s provide an example of a symbiosis between avant-garde form, the rationalism and positivism of industrial production techniques, and the educational discourse: a comprehensive overall structure based on repetition and variation, rhythmic montage and varied framing (from the excessive use of aerial shots to macro details), clear composition and often complicated camera movements – all of them corresponding to Baťa’s sense of the organization of space, distribution of light, taste for movement, change, and speed, or more concretely to devices of motorized workshops, conveyors, high-rise factory buildings, or a passion for aviation.
To summarize the arguments about the dispositif of industrial production and the related Medienverbund, we could claim that Baťa’s organization of work and the respective media infrastructure were not typical examples of a disciplinary dispositif of surveillance in the Foucauldian sense, just as they were not a pure application of mechanistic models of management (Taylor, Ford). Baťa was already partly exceeding the disciplinary mode and moving toward what Deleuze (1992) called ‘societies of control’. He successfully replaced the factory with the corporation, and the subject of his dispositif was supposed to be mobile in space, flexible in time, highly adaptive to new technologies and techniques, exposed to permanent training and retraining (through journals, film, and radio), able to cross the borders between traditional spaces of enclosure, and thus become a student (or spectator) at work and a self-sufficient worker at school (or the cinema).2 At the same time, this regulated emancipation was counterbalanced by new strategies of controlling minds and bodies in a much more precise and extensive way than before, transforming everything into functions of the factory, including families and houses. The media technologies of mass address or synchronous communication, be they telephone, radio, or film, enabled the coordination and regulation of these moving subjects and helped construct the ideal industrial cities and ideal industrial men without being bound to any concrete enclosed place or branch. In terms of the media themselves, this tendency toward control meant a new level of multi-functionality of all media content: the industrial film could become an educational film if it crossed the border between factory and school, a newsreel could turn into an advertisement if it crossed the border between cinema and shop, etc. Baťa’s media strategy was an extreme example of the broader tendency in media industries in the late 1920s and early 1930s: horizontal integration of all possible channels within multimedia corporations, leaving passages open for media content and formats to travel from one channel to the other, using one to advertise for the other.
1 Henri Fayol (1841-1925) stressed more the organic harmonization of the relationship between capital and labour and coordination and communication between individual departments of the company, and he also discussed the idea of profit-sharing. For period comment on Baťa and Fayol, see Jandík (1938). Fayol’s key work Administration Industrielle et Générale was published in Czech in 1931.
2 I am referring not only to the practice of using different media as a means to inform and train the workers, even if they are at the hospital or on the street, or to the practice of frequent transfers of the employees to other positions or to satellites abroad (often very quickly and by plane), but also to Baťa’s strategy of employing the students of his training institutions to make them economically self-sufficient and thus more submissive to his ideology and less to that of their families.
A brief chronology of Baťa's Medienverbund
Print (journals)
1918 – Founding of the weekly Sdělení (Message), which became the company’s main journal
1926 – Establishment of the joint-stock company Tisk, whose main goal was to print and publish journals, books, and advertisement posters, and to run a cinema
1930 – Sdělení renamed Zlín
1932 – Zlín published three times a week Apart from this, Baťa published approximately 15 other, more specialized journals, some of them in foreign languages.
Telephone
1925 – Fully automatic telephone exchange office (Western Electric, for 300 numbers)
1929 – Two private telephone lines connect Baťa factories in Zlín with Brno and Prague
1929-30 – Baťa offers free telephone usage for promotional purposes in its Prague shop as well as in its trade-fair exhibit
1933 – Telephone exchange for 1,000 numbers
1938 – Conference call system for 10 simultaneous callers
1938 – Baťa’s film about proper telephone usage, Time Is Money
Film
1928 – Establishment of the film unit (as a part of the advertising department) to commission, copy, and distribute films, though not to produce them
1927-31 – Baťa Newsreel – the first of Baťa’s periodical films, usually released quarterly Early 1930s – Separate film department, which began to produce some of its own films
1928-37 – The second periodical newsreel: regular reports on May Day celebrations
1932 – Construction of the Grand Cinema with 2,500 seats
1935 – New team of young filmmakers, including avantgardist Alexandr Hackenschmied; adoption of the new film-production plan
1936 – New sound-film studio and laboratory
1937-8 – The third periodical newsreel: Window onto the World, a weekly, distributed mainly to Baťa’s shops
1939-40 – Rental of HOST studios in Prague for the purpose of producing feature fiction films
1940 – The first Czech film festival, Film Harvest (Filmové žně), in Zlín
1941 – Film Harvest II
1941 – Beginning of animated film production
1942 – Takeover of Baťa’s studio by the German company Descheg
1945 – Film studio taken over by the state (as a part of nationalization of the Czechoslovak film industry)
Photo telegraphy
1930 – The first radiotelegraphic transmission of a picture
1936 – The first phototelegram
Teletypewriting
1931 – Teletypewriting connection between Zlín (Baťa factory) and Prague
Gramophone
1930 – Baťa’s inexpensive gramophones put on the market (this information has been confirmed by some sources but questioned by others)
1932 – Production of a special sound recording which included sound montage of aviation noises in memory of the death of Tomáš Baťa in an airplane crash
1938 – Implementation of gramophone systems for recording telephone calls and broadcasting music via company radio
Pneumatic tube
1934 – Installation of the tubing and the central office of a pneumatic-tube system
Radio
1931 – Radio broadcasting used at Baťa’s airport
1937 – Film for joint advertising campaign of Baťa and Czechoslovak Radio, entitled 999 999
1938 – Beginning of daily radio broadcasting at Baťa’s factory
Television
1936 – Attempts to buy a television system in the US and Great Britain and to install it in an administrative building
1937 – Jan Baťa orders the construction of a TV transmitter (which never took place)
Filmography:
999 999 (1937)
Baťa Newsreel (Baťův žurnál; 1 927-31; series, usually quarterly)
The Highway Sings / Die Straße singt (Silnice zpívá; dir. Elmar Klos, 1937)
Modern Production of Shoes / Moderne Schuherzeugung (Moderní výroba obuvi, 1930)
Poor People (Chudí lidé; dir. Alexandr Hackenschmied – Elmar Klos, 1940)
Time Is Money (Čas jsou peníze; dir. František Gürtler, 1938)
Window onto the World / Fenster in die Welt (Okno do sveˇta, 1937-8; weekly per 3 min)
We Will Say It through Film / Durch den Film gesprochen (Řekneme to filmem;
dir. Bořivoj Zeman, 1941)
References:
Anon. (1921). ‘Jak telefonovat’, in Sdělení, vol. 4, 6 August. Zlín: Baťa.
Anon. (1923). ‘Jak se správně telefonuje’, in Sdělení, vol. 6, no 36. Zlín: Baťa.
Anon. (1930). ‘Filmové oddělení Baťových závodů’, in Zlín páteční, vol. 13, no 39. Zlín: Baťa.
Anon. (1937). ‘Zlín na světové výstavě v Paříži’, in Zlín pondělní, vol. 7, no 10. Zlín: Baťa.
Anon. (1938a). ‘Denní rozhlas pro naše spolupracovníky’, in Zlín páteční, vol. 21, no 12. Zlín: Baťa.
Anon. (1938b). ‘Nová tvář zlínského pracovního máje. Budoucnost průmyslového člověka’, in
Zlín, no 18. Zlín: Baťa.
Anon. (1938c). Zlín páteční, vol. 21, no 13. Zlín: Baťa.
Anon. (1941). ‘1800 amplionů pro přenos. Závodní rozhlas Baťových závodů’, in Národní
kovodělník, 22 January. Sdružení kovoprůmyslového dělnictva v republice Česko-
Slovenské.
Deleuze, G. (1992). ‘Postscript on the Societies of Control’, in October, no 59. Cambridge,
Mass.: Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, 3-7.
Elsaesser, T. (2005). ‘Die Stadt von Morgen: Filme zum Bauen und Wohnen in der Weimarer
Republik’, in Kreimeier, K., Ehmann, A. and Goergen, J. (eds.), Geschichte des
dokumentarischen Film in Deutschland, Band 2: Weimarer Republik (1918-1933).
Ditzingen: Reclam, 381-410.
Fayol, H. (1931). Zásady správy všeobecné a správy podniků. Prague: Orbis (first published in 1916).
Handzel, J. (1941). ‘Závodní rozhlas v Baťových závodech’, in Organisace, 15 February. Prague.
Jandík, S. (1938). Železní tovaryši. Sociologická reportáž o zrození nového věku. Prague: Volné
myšlenky, 280-303.
Karfík, V. (1993). Architekt si spomína. Bratislava: Spolok architektov Slovenska.
Klos E. and Pinkavová, H. (1984). Historie gottwaldovského filmového studia v pohledu
pamětníků, očima současníků a v dokumentech. Texty Čs. filmového ústavu, no 22.
Prague: ČFÚ.
Klos, E. (1984). ‘Kronika Kudlovské stodoly’, in Klos and Pinkavová (1984), 1-34.
Moravský zemský archiv, pracoviště Zlín, fond Baťa, a.s. Zlín (MZA, BA: I/4), k. 45 - Příkazy J.A.
Bati, D. Čipery, J. Hlavničky.
Moravský zemský archiv, pracoviště Zlín, fond Baťa, a.s. Zlín (MZA, BA: II/8), k. 165, 166,
Telefon - telegraf - rozhlas.
Navrátil, A. (2002). Cesty k pravdě či lži. 70 let československého dokumentárního filmu.
Prague: AMU.
Novotný, J. (1993). ‘Zapomenuté šedesátiny’, in Prostor Zlín, vol. 1, no 7-8. Zlín: Rinkan, 4-5.
Pag. (1924a), ‘Naše firma na P. V. V., 21.-28. září 1924 (pokrač.)’, in Sdělení, vol. 7, no 40. Zlín: Baťa.
Pag. (1924b). ‘Naše firma na P. V. V., 21.-28. září 1924’, in Sdělení, vol. 7, no 39. Zlín: Baťa.
Setnička, J. (1928). ‘Stavební činnost a bytová péče Baťových závodů’, in Stavitel, no 11-12: 1-5.
Škoda, M. (1931). ‘Strach z telefonu’, in Zlín páteční, vol. 14, no 2. Zlín: Baťa.
Štábla, Z. (1990). Data a fakta z dějin čs. kinematografie 1896-1945, vol. III. Prague: ČSFÚ.
Stejskal, J. (1972). ‘Zlínská filmová výrobna’, Ph.D. thesis. Brno: UJEP.
V. (1934). ‘Pražské vzorkové veletrhy otevřeny. Pavilon Baťových závodů na veletrhu’, in Zlín
páteční, vol. 17, no 10. Zlín: Baťa.
This text is a slightly modified abridged version of Szczepanik, P. (2009). ‘Modernism, Industry, Film: A Network of Media in the Bata Corporation and the Town of Zlín in the 1930s’, in Hediger, V. and Vonderau, P. (eds.), Films that Work. Industrial Film and the Productivity of Media, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 349-76.
Tento text je převzat z publikace „A Utopia of Modernity : Zlín“. Publikace Zipp - česko-německé kulturní projekty. Vyd. Katrin Klingan ve spolupráci s Kerstin Gust. Berlín : JOVIS Verlag, 2009.
© autorská práva: autor a Zipp/relations e.V.
Tiráž / Tisk