Film as an artefact has long been the subject of study by “film historians,”  whether in terms of stylistic authenticity, genre specificity, or “high theory” analysis. Conversely, film history has been written as if films had no audiences (Biltereyst et al, 2012, p. 693). This kind of filmic-textual research tendency lies at the heart of the legacy of film studies discipline. In 1973, Jean Mitry proposed an ideal of film history as simultaneously, a history of its industry, its technologies, its systems of expression (or, more precisely, its systems of signification), and aesthetic structures, all bound together by the forces of the economic, psychosocial and cultural order (Maltby, 2006, p. 80). Humanities-based film studies were first re-conceptualized by the initiatives of International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF), during its 1974 and 1978 conferences. Drawing on the methodological stance of the French Annales school’s  histoire totale, participants at the 1974 FIAF conference agreed on new historiographical methodologies for all rather than linear national cinema histories. In 1990, American historian Robert Sklar brought forward three types of “cinema historians” in which only second sub-type might be labeled as ‘film historian’ which has been emerged from one of the following disciplines: art history, philosophy, literary studies.