is illuminating for understanding Graham’s work: while the notion of the film screen can be linked to Graham’s cinema, this linkage does not consist in the strategy suggested by Baudry. The strategy instead rather refers historically back to a cinema architecture that Graham himself offers as a typological precedent for his «Cinema«: Johannes Duiker’s Handelsblad Cineac in Amsterdam, 1934. This is also a cinema building located on a street corner that offers the observer on the street a glimpse of the cinema’s functioning mechanism, but with a decisive difference. While Duiker makes the projection booth visible from the outside around the cinema entrance, Graham places the relationship of the cinema audience to the projection screen at the center of critical observation. Duiker’s Handelsblad Cineac clearly corresponds to Baudry’s ideal apparatus, undertaking its own demystification by displaying its technological means. A visual unveiling of the apparatus like that of Duiker’s Cineac or Vertov’s film only makes sense, can only go beyond a mere utopian metaphor, if there is a hope historically that the technological means of production will in fact be placed in the hands and at

the service of the public. That Graham does not share this hope is made clear by the fact that his «Cinema» is conceived as part of a corporate headquarters or office building, that is, an overarching anonymous power structure.

But Graham’s conception of the film screen as a mirror can also not simply be equated with Baudry’s notion. Graham instead refers to Metz, who explained: «Thus film is like the mirror. But it differs from the primordial mirror in one essential point: although, as in the latter, everything may come to be projected, there is one thing and one thing only that is never reflected in it: the spectator's own body. In a certain emplacement, the mirror suddenly becomes clear glass.« [14] From this critique Baudry concluded that film theory needs to look to a state prior to the mirror stage, making even more archaic forms of subjectivity responsible for the psychological operation of the cinematic apparatus. [15] He referred to the maternal breast as a primordial «dream screen,» and linked various concepts to this notion in order to construct a general film theory: Freud’s analysis of the oral phase, the theory of dream work, and—in a reductionist