Hollywood Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art 0691125279, 9780691125275

Citation preview

RHollywood Highbrow

PRINCETON

STUDIES

I N CULTURAL

SOCIOLOGY

Paul J . DiMaggio, Michele Lamont, Robert J . and Viviana A. Zelizer, Series Editors

Wuthnow,

A list of titles in this series appears at the back of the book.

Hollywood Highbrow F R O M ENTERTAINMENT TO ART

Shyon Baumann

P R I N C E T O N

U N I V E R S I T Y

P R I N C E T O N

A N D

O X F O R D

P R E S S

Copyright © 2007 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 3 Market Place, Woodstock, Oxfordshire O X 2 0 1SY All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Baumann, Shyon, 1971Hollywood highbrow : from entertainment to art / Shyon Baumann. p. cm. — (Princeton studies in cultural sociology) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-691-12527-5 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Motion pictures—United States—History. 2. Motion pictures—Aesthetics. 3. Film criticism—United States—History. I. Title. PN1993.5.U6B319 2007 791.430973—dc22 2007018558 British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available This book has been composed in Sabon Printed on acid-free paper. °° press.princeton.edu Printed in the United States of America 10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

This book is dedicated to Josee, my favorite person

Contents

List of Figures

ix

List of Tables

xi xiii

Acknowledgments CHAPTER

I

I n t r o d u c t i o n : D r a w i n g the Boundaries o f A r t

1

The Central Argument How Do We Know What Art Is? American Film History The Social Construction of Art The Creation of Artistic Status: Opportunity, and Ideology Outline of the Chapters

3 4 7 12 Institutions, 14 18

CHAPTER 2

The Changing O p p o r t u n i t y Space: Developments i n the W i d e r Social C o n t e x t The First World War and Urban-American Life: Two Disparate Influences on Film Attendance in Europe and the United States Post-World War I I Changes in the Size and Composition of American Film Audiences Summary

21

23 32 51

CHAPTER 3

Change f r o m W i t h i n : N e w P r o d u c t i o n and C o n s u m p t i o n Practices

53

Film Festivals Self-Promotion of Directors Ties to Academia United States, England, Germany, Italy, and France: Changes in the Industrial and Social History of Film Purification through Venue: From Nickelodeons to Art Houses Prestige Productions The Ebb of Censorship and the Coming of Art The Crisis of the 1960s Forced Hollywood down New Paths Summary

54 59 66 76 88 92 97 105 108

viii

•

Contents

CHAPTER

4

T h e Intellectualization o f F i l m Early U.S. Film Discourse The Intellectualization of Film Reviews: 1925-1985 Film Reviews Approach Book Reviews: A Comparison with Literature 1960s Advertisements Incorporate Film Review Foreign Film: A Pathway to High Art for Hollywood Cultural Hierarchy, the Relevance of Critics, and the Status of Film as Art Summary CHAPTER

111 113 117 133 137 148 155 159

5

M e c h a n i s m s for C u l t u r a l V a l u a t i o n Why a Middlebrow Art? Film Consumption as Cultural Capital An Emphasis on Intellectualizing Discourse Integration of Factors The Study of Cultural Hierarchy

161 163 169 171 173 174

Notes

179

References

203

Index

217

Figures

2.1.

Total Enrollment i n Institutions of Higher Education, 1925-1985 2 . 2 . Percentage o f 18- t o 24-Year-Olds E n r o l l e d i n I n s t i t u t i o n s of Higher Education, 1925-1985 2.3. W e e k l y U.S. Theater Attendance, 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 8 5 2.4. W e e k l y U.S. Theater Attendance, Television Sets i n Use, Births per 1,000 W o m e n 15 t o 4 4 , a n d Passenger Vehicle Ownership, 1925-1985 2.5. W e e k l y U.S. C i n e m a Attendance versus R a d i o O w n e r s h i p , 1925-1985 3 . 1 . N u m b e r o f U.S. F i l m Festivals 3.2. N u m b e r o f English-Language Books o n F i l m i n W o r l d C a t Catalog, 1 9 2 5 - 1 9 8 5 3.3. N u m b e r o f A l l Books Published versus Books o n F i l m as a Percentage o f A l l Books 3.4. A l l Books versus Books f r o m Three Fields 4 . 1 . N u m b e r o f Specialized Terms D i v i d e d by T o t a l N u m b e r o f Review W o r d s : 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 8 0 4.2. " H i g h A r t " a n d " C r i t i c a l " Terms i n F i l m a n d B o o k Reviews: 1 9 3 0 , 1 9 4 0 , 1 9 6 0 , 1970 4 . 3 . N u m b e r o f Specialized Terms D i v i d e d by T o t a l W o r d s i n F i l m and B o o k Reviews: 1 9 3 0 , 1940, 1 9 6 0 , 1970 4.4. Percentage o f F i l m a n d B o o k Reviews w i t h Three o r M o r e Specified Techniques: 1 9 3 0 , 1940, 1 9 6 0 , 1970 4.5. Percentage o f F i l m Advertisements Referring t o " M a s t e r s , " etc., a n d t o D i r e c t i o n : 1 9 3 5 - 1 9 8 5

33 34 38

40 42 57 70 71 73 122 134 135 136 141

List of Tables

2.1.

3.1. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7.

4.8.

4.9.

4.10.

4.11.

Prais-Winsten T i m e Series Regression o f Influence o f Television, the B i r t h r a t e , a n d Vehicle O w n e r s h i p o n Cinema Attendance T h e C a t h o l i c Church's E v a l u a t i o n o f French a n d American Films: 1930-1935 N u m b e r o f " H i g h A r t " a n d " C r i t i c a l " Terms: 1925-1985 N u m b e r o f " H i g h A r t " a n d " C r i t i c a l " Terms D i v i d e d by Total Film Review Words: 1925-1985 Percentage o f Reviews U s i n g Specific C r i t i c a l Tech­ niques: 1 9 2 5 - 1 9 8 5 N u m b e r o f " H i g h A r t " a n d " C r i t i c a l " Terms i n First a n d Later F i l m Reviews o f T w e n t y Films Percentage o f Reviews U s i n g Specific C r i t i c a l Techniques i n First a n d Later Reviews o f the Same T w e n t y Films C o m p a r i s o n o f Special T w e n t y Reviews w i t h O t h e r Reviews f r o m T w o T i m e Periods Three Measures o f the I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f F i l m Review: Percentage o f Advertisements w i t h at Least One Q u o t e , M e a n N u m b e r o f Quotes, a n d N u m b e r o f W o r d s per Q u o t e i n F i l m Advertisements: 1 9 3 5 - 1 9 8 5 Coefficients for Three Regression M o d e l s o f the I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f F i l m Review i n t o Advertisements o n Square Inches o f A d v e r t i s i n g Space a n d Year Coefficients f r o m the Regression o f Three Measures o f I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f F i l m Review o n A d v e r t i s i n g Space a n d T i m e Period Three Measures o f the I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f F i l m Review: Percentage o f Advertisements w i t h at Least One Q u o t e , M e a n N u m b e r o f Quotes, a n d N u m b e r o f W o r d s per Q u o t e i n F i l m Advertisements at Least Four Square Inches: 1 9 3 5 - 1 9 8 5 Coefficients f r o m the Regression o f Three Measures o f I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f F i l m Review o n A d v e r t i s i n g Space a n d T i m e Period

43 101 120 121 127 129 130 131

139

143

144

145

146

xii

•

4.12.

4.13.

4.14.

List of Tables Trends i n the I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f C r i t i c s ' Quotes: C o m p a r i s o n o f Advertisements f o r Books a n d for Films: 1 9 3 5 , 1 9 4 0 , 1960, 1970 N u m b e r o f " H i g h A r t " a n d " C r i t i c a l " Terms a n d Three o r M o r e C r i t i c a l Techniques: Reviews o f EnglishLanguage versus Foreign-Language Films: 1 9 2 5 - 1 9 8 5 English-Language versus Foreign-Language: Three Measures o f the I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f F i l m Review: Percentage o f Advertisements w i t h at Least O n e Q u o t e , M e a n N u m b e r o f Quotes, a n d N u m b e r o f W o r d s per Q u o t e i n F i l m Advertisements at Least F o u r Square Inches: 1 9 3 5 - 1 9 8 5

148

151

153

Acknowledgments

T H I S S T U D Y was supported by a Social Sciences a n d H u m a n i t i e s Research C o u n c i l o f Canada D o c t o r a l F e l l o w s h i p , as w e l l as by research funds f r o m the U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o . I a m grateful t o have benefited f r o m the advice, guidance, w o n d e r i n g s , conversations, criticisms, a n d encouragement o f m a n y helpful friends a n d colleagues: Susan D u m a i s , Seema Jayachandran, M i l e s Beller, Sara M i c h a l a k , Steve M o r g a n , Z i a d M u n s o n , Irene B l o e m r a a d , A n d y A n d r e w s , a n d R o n Gillis. There were m a n y other peers at H a r v a r d , p a r t i c u l a r l y participants i n the 3 0 6 R seminar where graduate students presented their w o r k i n progress, w h o p r o v i d e d constructive c r i t ­ icism a n d g o o d ideas for h o w t o best e x p a n d the project. I n the early stages o f this w o r k , Aage Sorensen's u n f a i l i n g l y wise a n d insightful c o m ­ ments helped sort o u t key issues, a n d the s t i r r i n g nature o f his feedback made me a l l the m o r e m o t i v a t e d t o c o n t i n u e w i t h the project (just w h a t he was t r y i n g t o d o ) . I hope he w o u l d have a p p r o v e d o f the final p r o d u c t . G w e d o l y n D o r d i c k ' s feedback is also gratefully a c k n o w l e d g e d , as is the help o f Peter M a r s d e n , w h o really k n o w s h o w research can be i m p r o v e d a n d is generous w i t h his k n o w l e d g e . I n the later stages o f the project, A l e x H i c k s p r o v i d e d a terrific set o f suggestions for i m p r o v e m e n t . The later stages were also helped a l o n g by the excellent research assistance o f Tara H a h m a n n , A f s o o n H o u s h i d a r i , Sasmita R a j a r a t n a m , a n d Tara M c M u l len. I also w i s h t o t h a n k I a n M a l c o l m a n d J i l l H a r r i s at Princeton U n i v e r ­ sity Press for a l l their h a r d w o r k ; i t is greatly appreciated. A b o v e a l l others, there are t w o people whose efforts deserve p a r t i c u l a r r e c o g n i t i o n . Stanley Lieberson advised me o n this project f r o m its incep­ t i o n t o the p o i n t where i t was accepted i n p a r t i a l fulfillment o f the require­ ments for the degree o f d o c t o r o f p h i l o s o p h y i n the subject o f sociology. T h e basic structure o f the argument a n d the a l l - i m p o r t a n t l i n k s between t h e o r y a n d evidence were developed under his m e n t o r s h i p . I d o n ' t t h i n k there's anyone w h o can better sort o u t the r i g h t w a y t o analyze a n d inter­ pret data. I a m t h a n k f u l for the m a n y intellectual c o n t r i b u t i o n s , large a n d small, he has made t o this study. I n the later stages o f the project, as i t expanded i n t o b o o k f o r m , the intellectual leadership o f Paul D i M a g g i o was e x t r a o r d i n a r y . I f I were t o go a b o u t things correctly, every page w o u l d have at least one footnote t h a t reads, " I a m t h a n k f u l t o Paul D i ­ M a g g i o for this idea." For the sake o f readability, I ' l l leave these o u t a n d just say here t h a t his i m p r i n t is a l l over this b o o k . T h r o u g h several drafts, his feedback steered me clear o f pitfalls, gave me useful directions for

xiv

•

Acknowledgments

where t o go next, p r o v i d e d valuable factual i n f o r m a t i o n ( h o w does he k n o w a l l t h a t stuff?), a n d suggested ways t o say w h a t I w a n t e d t o say clearly a n d concisely. Everyone s h o u l d be so l u c k y as t o have Stanley Lieberson a n d Paul D i M a g g i o c o n t r i b u t e t o their scholarship. I c o u l d n o t have asked for m o r e . I w a n t t o say thanks t o m y m o t h e r for her m o r a l support. She's always t o l d me I c o u l d d o a n y t h i n g . A l t h o u g h that's n o t true, i t made me confi­ dent t h a t I c o u l d at least w r i t e a b o o k . A n d so I have. Finally, I w a n t t o t h a n k Josee and B r a m , for p r o v i d i n g a l l the comforts a n d joys o f h o m e , a place where I c o u l d w o r k h a r d t o r e t u r n t o every day.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: D r a w i n g the Boundaries of A r t

A L T H O U G H F I L M S occupy a central place i n A m e r i c a n p o p u l a r c u l t u r e , t h a t place is also, p a r a d o x i c a l l y , difficult t o understand a n d characterize. W a t c h i n g movies has been a m a j o r leisure a n d c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y f o r A m e r i ­ cans for m o r e t h a n a h u n d r e d years. B u t for nearly the entire d u r a t i o n o f their history, there has been an active debate about the movies a n d their merits. T h e y have been criticized as dangerous, demeaning, d u m b , a n d derivative, as regressive, blasphemous, sexist, racist, ageist, a n d r i d i c u ­ lous, a m o n g other things. B u t they have also been praised as e n r i c h i n g , enlightening, a n d enjoyable, as g l o r i o u s , spectacular, ingenious, m o v i n g , a n d i m a g i n a t i v e . B o t h the detractors a n d supporters o f films have made their arguments w e l l k n o w n . T h e c o n t i n u i n g disagreement concerning the place o f films i n A m e r i c a n culture is a legacy o f a n u m b e r o f m o n u m e n t a l changes i n the A m e r i c a n film w o r l d over the last century. Some o f these changes i n v o l v e the m e t h ­ ods o f film p r o d u c t i o n , w h i l e others i n v o l v e the nature o f the films t h e m ­ selves; still other changes i n v o l v e the audiences for films. T h e p r i m a r y subject o f this b o o k is the m a j o r h i s t o r i c a l change i n the perception o f films. By this I a m n o t referring t o revised o p i n i o n s about p a r t i c u l a r films, t h o u g h such revisions are also o f interest. Instead, I mean the creation of an understanding of the medium of film as a legitimate and serious artistic medium, and of a body of film works as being legitimate and serious works of art. M o r e o v e r , i n a d d i t i o n t o this change i n the perception o f the m e d i u m o f film, this b o o k focuses m o r e specifically o n the changing perception o f H o l l y w o o d films. O v e r t i m e , a segment o f the U.S. p o p u l a ­ t i o n developed a n d p u t f o r t h a c o n v e n t i o n a l (to them) understanding that m a n y H o l l y w o o d films were serious w o r k s o f art. T h i s understanding stood i n stark contrast t o the p r i o r c o n v e n t i o n a l w i s d o m a b o u t the funda­ m e n t a l nature o f H o l l y w o o d films, as a w h o l e , as light entertainment. It is thanks t o this e v o l u t i o n i n the perception o f H o l l y w o o d films that w e can n o w find a m o n g certain groups i n society a willingness t o intellec­ t u a l l y engage w i t h H o l l y w o o d films a n d t o experience t h e m as art. For example, the f o l l o w i n g paragraph led the review i n the New Yorker for the film Mystic River: C l i n t E a s t w o o d has directed g o o d movies i n the past ( " U n f o r g i v e n , " " A Perfect W o r l d " ) , b u t he has never directed a n y t h i n g t h a t haunts

2

•

Chapter 1

one's dreams the w a y " M y s t i c R i v e r " does. T h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y f i l m , an o u t b u r s t o f tragic realism a n d grief, was shot i n C a t h o l i c working-class Boston, a landscape o f f o r l o r n streets a n d b r o w n shingle houses a n d battered cars. Yet there's n o t h i n g depressing about " M y s t i c R i v e r " as an experience o f art. T h e m o v i e has the bitter c l a r i t y a n d the heady e x h i l a r a t i o n o f n e w perceptions achieved after a l o n g struggle, a n d one enjoys i t n o t o n l y for itself—it's fascinating f r o m first shot t o last—but as a b r e a k t h r o u g h for E a s t w o o d , w h o , at the age o f seventy-three, m a y be just h i t t i n g his peak as a director. Based o n a fine, scrupulous Dennis Lehane novel, " M y s t i c R i v e r " offers n o t h i n g less t h a n a l u c i d d e t a i l i n g o f malaise, a sense o f f a t a l i t y t h a t s l o w l y and stealthily expands its grasp t h r o u g h o u t a c o m m u n i t y — a f o u l b l o o m t a k i n g over a garden. (Denby 2 0 0 3 : 1 1 2 ) F i l m critic D a v i d D e n b y was n o t alone i n his praise for the film Mystic River, n o r was he o u t o f step w i t h his approach t o the film as a serious w o r k o f art. H e was i n agreement w i t h m a n y other film critics as w e l l as w i t h m a n y audience members. W h a t makes this s i t u a t i o n interesting historically, aesthetically, a n d so­ ciologically is t h a t there was a t i m e w h e n such a perspective w o u l d have been w i d e l y r i d i c u l e d by critics and p u b l i c alike. Consider as examples the f o l l o w i n g passages. I n a 1936 essay o n the state o f A m e r i c a n films, W i l l i a m A l l e n W h i t e w r o t e a b o u t the place o f movies i n A m e r i c a n society: T h e best books, the best plays, the best music and the best p o e t r y are w r i t t e n f r a n k l y for the discerning and the wise. The best i n a l l other arts is conceived, p r o d u c e d , sold and lives or dies solely a n d w i t h b r u t a l frankness for the a p p r o v a l o f the intelligent: i n a l l the arts except i n the movies. There, n o artists, n o directors, n o w r i t e r s , n o theatres a n d n o producers are set apart t o please people o f understanding. T h e Scarlet M u s e o f the silver screen sees o n l y money, big money, q u i c k money, the d i r t y money o f her dupes. . . . [ I ] n a l l the m o v i e w o r l d n o place is p r o ­ v i d e d where persons o f w i t or g u m p t i o n m a y go t o find screen entertain­ m e n t that is directed at the d i s c r i m i n a t i n g . ( W h i t e 1 9 3 6 : 5 - 6 ) I n a d d i t i o n t o its alleged lack o f intelligence, the film i n d u s t r y was also condemned as the cause o f A m e r i c a n society's m o r a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n . " T h e movies t o d a y are the most i m p o r t a n t single destructive force i n o u r c i v i l i ­ z a t i o n " (Freeman 1 9 2 6 : 1 1 5 , q u o t e d i n Beman 1931:86), claimed an au­ t h o r i n the pages o f Educational Review. I t was the responsibility o f art t o ennoble. The movies, however, c o r r u p t e d y o u t h and m o l d e d society according t o lascivious, shallow, vulgar, a n d materialistic standards a n d morals: "Socially p a t h o l o g i c a l conditions are the result" ( Y o u n g 1 9 2 6 : 1 4 8 ) , w r o t e one social scientist.

Drawing the Boundaries of A r t

•

3

D u r i n g the early decades o f the t w e n t i e t h century, there was a pervasive v i e w o f H o l l y w o o d resting near the b o t t o m o f a r i g i d l y defined c u l t u r a l hierarchy. Clearly, at some p o i n t the perception o f H o l l y w o o d t o o k a drastic t u r n . U n d e r s t a n d i n g the reasons f o r this t u r n a n d its t i m i n g is the g o a l o f this b o o k .

T H E CENTRAL ARGUMENT

T h e central argument o f this b o o k is t h a t the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d f i l m as art occurred m a i n l y d u r i n g the 1960s a n d was a process d r i v e n by three m a i n factors. First, changes i n A m e r i c a n society over the course o f the t w e n t i e t h century opened u p an o p p o r t u n i t y space ( D i M a g g i o 1992) i n w h i c h an art w o r l d f o r f i l m c o u l d develop. These changes occurred outside the field o f f i l m a n d include such social phenomena as the c u l t u r a l consequences o f the w o r l d wars a n d demographic, educational, a n d tech­ n o l o g i c a l change w i t h i n A m e r i c a n society. T h e net effect o f these develop­ ments was t o create a social climate i n w h i c h the c u l t u r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s o f film's claims t o a r t were reduced a n d filmgoing c o u l d be practiced as an act o f artistic a p p r e c i a t i o n . Second, change f r o m w i t h i n the H o l l y w o o d film w o r l d b r o u g h t t h a t w o r l d m o r e closely i n line w i t h other, established art w o r l d s . Some o f the m o s t significant changes were the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f resources dedi­ cated t o film as art, such as the establishment o f film festivals, the creation o f the field o f film studies, a n d the p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f directors i n activities t h a t advanced their standing as artists. O t h e r c r u c i a l developments i n ­ v o l v e d the e v o l u t i o n i n film p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s u m p t i o n practices such as a shift a w a y f r o m the studio system o f p r o d u c t i o n t o a director-centered system, the g r o w t h o f art house theaters, a n d the r e l a x a t i o n o f film censor­ ship. As a result o f these changes, the p r o d u c t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , teaching, a n d c o n s u m p t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d film came t o bear m a n y i m p o r t a n t simi­ larities t o those o f other legitimate art w o r l d s . T h i r d , the art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d film needed intellectual viability, a n d this requirement was met t h r o u g h the creation o f a discourse o f film as art a n d disseminated t h r o u g h film reviews, w h i c h were invented s h o r t l y after the i n v e n t i o n o f the cinema itself. B u t early film reviews e m p l o y e d a discourse o f film i n w h i c h reviewers evaluated films based o n their enter­ t a i n m e n t value. D u r i n g the 1960s, however, film reviewers began t o em­ p l o y a discourse o f film as art t h a t was characterized by a v o c a b u l a r y a n d a set o f c r i t i c a l devices t h a t p r o v i d e d a w a y t o t a l k a b o u t film as a sophisticated a n d p o w e r f u l f o r m o f artistic c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n fits squarely w i t h i n the sociological perspective o n art t h a t emphasizes the social a n d collective nature o f artistic p r o d u c t i o n a n d

4

•

Chapter 1

c o n s u m p t i o n . I n this view, m o s t strongly associated w i t h the p i o n e e r i n g w o r k o f H o w a r d Becker ( 1 9 8 2 ) , the place o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n s i n soci­ ety a n d their status as art are dependent o n the development, t o v a r y i n g degrees o f robustness, o f an art w o r l d . T h a t is n o t t o say t h a t the artistic content o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n s does n o t p l a y a p a r t — c o n t e n t does m a t t e r a n d n o t a l l c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n can succeed as the basis f o r an a r t w o r l d . B u t i t is also t o say t h a t the relative merits o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n s d o n o t become the basis f o r assessing artistic status w i t h o u t the collective c o n t r i b u t i o n o f an art w o r l d . W h a t this case study o f H o l l y w o o d film adds t o o u r understanding o f art w o r l d s is t h a t their development is c o n ­ nected t o the o p p o r t u n i t i e s offered by the w i d e r social c o n t e x t . Further­ m o r e , a l t h o u g h i t is w e l l u n d e r s t o o d t h a t art w o r l d s are o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l achievements, this case study demonstrates t h a t they are also intellectual achievements. Because art is an intellectual field, there m u s t be a set o f ideas t o e x p l a i n a n d justify filmic p r o d u c t i o n s as legiti­ mate art. F i l m c r i t i c i s m , therefore, is a key t o understanding h o w H o l l y ­ w o o d films c o u l d be accepted as art.

How

Do

W E K N O W W H A T A R T IS?

Before w e can go any further i n answering the question o f h o w H o l l y ­ w o o d film became art, w e first need t o discuss the d e f i n i t i o n o f art. N o one has yet f o u n d a w a y t o settle every dispute over this question. I n some cases there is widespread agreement—classical music, Impressionist paintings, I t a l i a n opera. I n m a n y other cases there is disagreement, as w i t h handcrafted pottery, rap music, a n d B r o a d w a y musicals. I n each case, however, there is an absence o f clear a n d precise principles f o r m a k i n g a j u d g m e n t , a n d n o a m o u n t o f consensus can hide t h a t fact. A r t , by its very nature as an essentially aesthetic construct, is difficult t o define. T h i s difficulty is reflected i n legal rulings i n free-speech cases. A r t is a f o r m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a n d so m u s t be protected as a f o r m o f speech. B u t o b ­ scenity is h a r m f u l , a n d c o m m u n i t i e s deserve p r o t e c t i o n f r o m i t . Some p h o t o g r a p h s , literature, sculptures, a n d films c o n t a i n m a t e r i a l o r mes­ sages t h a t some people t h i n k are obscene. W h o is t o say w h i c h o f these c u l t u r a l products are art a n d w h i c h are not? As a defining p r i n c i p l e " I k n o w i t w h e n I see i t " is clearly inadequate because w e a l l see i t differently. I n fact, w e often leave decisions a b o u t w h a t is art t o " c u l t u r a l ex­ perts"—critics, academics, a n d other intellectuals, g r a n t i n g t h e m a certain a m o u n t o f a u t h o r i t y . H o w e v e r , they do n o t always agree w i t h one an­ other. Each g r o u p o f critics can t r y t o convince the other t o see the m a t t e r as i t does, b u t i n the end, f r o m a logical standpoint, there is n o f o o l p r o o f w a y t o decide w h o is r i g h t . T o further complicate matters, even i n cases

Drawing the Boundaries of A r t

•

5

w h e n critics d o agree, there is n o guarantee t h a t the w i d e r p u b l i c w i l l accept their j u d g m e n t . A b s t r a c t art, for example, is clearly art i n the m i n d s o f aestheticians a n d art critics. I n the m i n d s o f m a n y citizens, t h o u g h , abstract art is f r a u d u l e n t a n d w o r t h l e s s — i t is p a i n t i n g , b u t i t is n o t art. T h e question o f h o w w e decide w h a t is art, then, becomes h o w c u l t u r a l experts decide w h a t is art, a n d w h y their judgments are accepted o r re­ sisted by the w i d e r p u b l i c . Before w e address this question for the case o f H o l l y w o o d films, w e need first t o describe a n d understand exactly w h a t film g o t trans­ f o r m e d i n t o . H o w d o w e understand the category o f art? W h a t makes art special a n d w o r t h y o f o u r a d m i r a t i o n a n d o f prestige? W h a t is the defini­ t i o n o f art? T h i s question has been debated by aestheticians for m a n y centuries. T h e debate has generated a n u m b e r o f definitions, none o f w h i c h , i t turns o u t , has been free f r o m devastating c r i t i c i s m . Nevertheless, w e can gain some insight i n t o the core concerns o f art by r e v i e w i n g the debate. A n early definition was p u t f o r t h by Leo Tolstoy (1995 [ 1 8 9 8 ] , p . 4 0 ) i n one o f his p h i l o s o p h i c a l w r i t i n g s , What Is Art?: " A r t is t h a t h u m a n activity w h i c h consists i n one man's consciously conveying t o others, by certain external signs, the feelings he has experienced, a n d i n others being infected by those feelings a n d also experiencing t h e m . " T h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e a n d e m o t i o n a l elements o f art are clearly i m p o r t a n t , b u t they d o n o t p r o v i d e an a i r t i g h t definition. For instance, Tolstoy's definition seems t o exclude those w o r k s t h a t w o u l d inspire i n audience members emotions u n i n ­ tended by the artist. I t w o u l d also exclude w o r k s t h a t were never e x h i b ­ ited t o an audience—it appears t h a t the p o t e n t i a l for c o m m u n i c a t i o n is n o t sufficient for Tolstoy. Such exclusions d o n o t seem t o square w i t h i n t u i t i v e n o t i o n s o f w h a t art is. 1

M o r e recently, p h i l o s o p h e r Stephen Davies (1991:1) has distinguished between definitions t h a t h i g h l i g h t w h a t art does ( " f u n c t i o n a l i s t " defini­ tions) a n d those t h a t h i g h l i g h t the process by w h i c h art is created ("proce­ d u r a l " definitions). As he puts i t succinctly, " T h e functionalist believes that, necessarily, an a r t w o r k performs a f u n c t i o n or functions (usually, t h a t o f p r o v i d i n g a r e w a r d i n g aesthetic experience) distinctive t o art. By contrast, the proceduralist believes t h a t an a r t w o r k necessarily is created i n accordance w i t h certain rules a n d procedures." T o illustrate the differ­ ence, w e can take the c o m m o n reaction t o the Sistine Chapel as the heart o f the functionalist definition. T h e awe, a d m i r a t i o n , a n d even reverence t h a t i t inspires i n audiences are characteristic o f art. Because i t provides this f u n c t i o n , i t qualifies as art. T h e example par excellence o f the proce­ duralist definition is M a r c e l D u c h a m p ' s Fountain. S u b m i t t i n g for e x h i b i ­ t i o n a ready-made u r i n a l as art i n 1 9 1 7 , D u c h a m p upended artistic con­ ventions a b o u t w h a t art s h o u l d be. T h e key t o its status a n d the status o f

6

•

Chapter 1

other pieces like i t as art is t h a t they "are created by artists o r others w h o have earned the a u t h o r i t y t o confer art status; they are discussed by critics; they are presented w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f the A r t w o r l d as objects for (aes­ thetic/artistic) appreciation; they are discussed by art historians; a n d so forth" (41). 2

I n a d d i t i o n t o the p h i l o s o p h i c a l approaches, the essence o f art is v a r i ­ ously claimed t o be related t o the b i o l o g i c a l aspects o f its a p p r e c i a t i o n (see, e.g., A i k e n 1998) a n d t o psychological aspects o f its a p p r e c i a t i o n (see, e.g., A r n h e i m 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e upshot o f decades o f w o r k o n n a i l i n g d o w n a precise definition o f art has been summarized by p h i l o s o p h e r N i g e l W a r b u r t o n ( 2 0 0 3 : 1 2 6 ) : " W e s h o u l d p r o b a b l y stop w a s t i n g o u r t i m e o n the p u r s u i t o f some all-encompassing definition—there are better ways o f spending a life, a n d the p u r s u i t is almost certainly a futile one." L u c k y for us, w e are n o t seeking t o m a k e a definitive statement o n art as a category, n o r are w e seeking t o m a k e an a i r t i g h t case t h a t H o l l y w o o d films are art. O u r task is m u c h different. We begin w i t h the fact t h a t a certain b o d y o f A m e r i c a n film w o r k is w i d e l y recognized as legitimate art. Therefore, o u r understanding o f art for the purposes o f this b o o k is t h a t very same understanding p u t f o r t h by the intellectuals a n d supporters o f H o l l y w o o d films. Despite the fact t h a t m o s t films are considered enter­ t a i n m e n t , there is a b o d y o f H o l l y w o o d o u t p u t t h a t is consecrated o n account o f a set o f characteristics t h a t sets i t apart as genuine art. D i f f e r e n t film scholars have v a l o r i z e d H o l l y w o o d films for m y r i a d reasons. I n m y reading o f the literature, the perspective o f those w h o have supported the v i e w o f H o l l y w o o d films as art can be characterized i n the f o l l o w i n g way. W h a t makes these films art is their beauty ( i n a p u r e l y aesthetic, a n d largely visual, sense); their i n n o v a t i o n w i t h o r perfection o f filmic conven­ tions (dealing w i t h a l l aspects o f creation, such as e d i t i n g , cinematogra­ phy, art d i r e c t i o n , screenwriting, acting, etc.); their c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f messages (advocating p o l i t i c a l views or philosophies o f life, o r raising questions); and their status as the expressive products o f specific artists (mostly directors). T h e y are art, therefore, because they succeed o n one o r m o r e levels, concerning their aesthetic characteristics, their r e l a t i o n s h i p t o other films, their c o m m u n i c a t i v e d i m e n s i o n , or their place w i t h i n a recognized oeuvre. T h e acknowledgement o f some H o l l y w o o d films as art is an act t h a t transforms t h e m i n t o a special f o r m o f culture deserving h o n o r a n d pres­ tige. T h i s category has a t w o f o l d relationship t o h i g h status. O n the one h a n d , h i g h status is a characteristic t h a t art possesses. O n the other h a n d , h i g h status is also something t h a t art bestows o n its creators a n d a u d i ­ ences. K n o w l e d g e o f a n d a p p r e c i a t i o n for g o o d art can generate h i g h sta­ tus f o r i n d i v i d u a l s . T h a t is t o say, art lends itself t o f u n c t i o n as c u l t u r a l capital (Bourdieu 1 9 8 4 ) . I t is this special a n d p o w e r f u l categorization o f

Drawing the Boundaries of A r t

•

7

culture t h a t H o l l y w o o d films can n o w aspire t o , even i f they often fail t o achieve i t . T h e core question at this p o i n t is, How d i d a b o d y o f H o l l y w o o d films ( t h o u g h n o t all) gain this r e c o g n i t i o n as art? Depending o n one's intellec­ t u a l leanings, this question m i g h t be largely p h i l o s o p h i c a l or sociological. F r o m a p h i l o s o p h i c a l standpoint, the question encourages a focus o n the logical f o u n d a t i o n for a categorization o f H o l l y w o o d films as art. T h e q u a l i t y o f the films, therefore, is central t o the e x p l a n a t i o n o f their status as art. I n contrast, a sociological standpoint encourages a focus o n the social conditions o f the p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s u m p t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d films. T h e social context, rather t h a n the q u a l i t y o f the films, is privileged i n the sociological e x p l a n a t i o n o f their status as a r t . There is n o denying t h a t the changing characteristics o f H o l l y w o o d films are relevant t o understanding h o w an art w o r l d developed for t h e m i n the 1960s. Nevertheless, this b o o k presents a sociological perspective, a r g u i n g t h a t the coalescence o f a novel perspective a m o n g a large g r o u p o f people is a social process t h a t lends itself m o r e readily t o sociological analysis t h a n aesthetic analysis. To e x p l a i n h o w an art w o r l d developed for H o l l y w o o d films, w e need t o consider the l o n g - t e r m e v o l u t i o n i n the social conditions o f film p r o d u c t i o n and c o n s u m p t i o n . Rather t h a n an e x a m i n a t i o n o f a snapshot i n t i m e , w e are l o o k i n g instead f o r the story o f film's v a l o r i z a t i o n as art, and that is a story that spans the full record o f c o m m e r c i a l cinema i n the U n i t e d States. 3

AMERICAN F I L M HISTORY

I n order t o e x p l a i n the r e c o g n i t i o n o f art i n H o l l y w o o d films, this b o o k w i l l d r a w o n evidence f r o m the entire h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d o f A m e r i c a n m o v ­ ies. Because o f its y o u t h relative t o most other art forms, there are advan­ tages t o t a k i n g film as a case study t o address the question o f h o w w e decide w h a t is art. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n available for film is m o r e complete ( t h o u g h certainly n o t entirely complete) t h a n for other, older art forms. T h i s brief description o f film history w i l l p r o v i d e a t i m e line o f some o f the most i m p o r t a n t events i n the film w o r l d t o give the reader an idea o f the t i m e p e r i o d under review and the l o n g - t e r m nature o f the development o f artistic status. M o s t sources trace the beginning o f c o m m e r c i a l cinema t o 1 8 9 6 , the year w h e n T h o m a s Edison first projected m o t i o n pictures f o r the p a y i n g public's c o n s u m p t i o n i n N e w Y o r k C i t y (for descriptions o f the beginning o f cinema see M a s t 1 9 8 1 , Pearson 1996; Rhode 1976; Sklar 1 9 9 4 ) . T h e m a n y devices necessary for m o t i o n pictures h a d s l o w l y developed over the previous decades, w i t h i n n o v a t i o n s c o m i n g f r o m b o t h sides o f the 4

8

•

Chapter 1

A t l a n t i c . Yet i t was E d i s o n w h o secured the key patents t h a t a l l o w e d h i m t o p r o f i t f r o m the use o f this n e w technology for p u b l i c e x h i b i t i o n s . Just as i n n o v a t i o n s were s l o w i n c o m i n g before c o m m e r c i a l cinema, the nature o f c o m m e r c i a l cinema, at b o t h the levels o f technology a n d film content, evolved incrementally over the next few decades. O n e o f the first m a j o r developments i n the film w o r l d o c c u r r e d i n the r e a l m o f e x h i b i t i o n . There was an e x p l o s i o n i n the n u m b e r o f places o f e x h i b i t i o n as p u b l i c d e m a n d increased i n the first several years o f the t w e n t i e t h century. M a n y small stores a n d restaurants were converted by their owners i n t o nickelodeons, whose name came f r o m the n i c k e l price o f admission. For reasons t h a t w i l l be explained later, n i c k e l ­ odeons were most c o m m o n i n working-class a n d i m m i g r a n t neighbor­ hoods, as filmgoing started o f f as a p r i m a r i l y working-class leisure activ­ ity. D e m a n d o u t s t r i p p e d supply o f the one-reel films t h a t the hundreds o f i n d i v i d u a l producers were m a k i n g , often w i t h just a h a n d f u l o f technical a n d creative w o r k e r s . By the second decade o f the t w e n t i e t h century, certain groups, such as religious organizations a n d w o m e n ' s associations, were concerned a b o u t the p o t e n t i a l for films t o c o r r u p t p u b l i c morals. T h e p o p u l a r i t y o f the i n d u s t r y h a d c o n t i n u e d t o increase, a n d the p o w e r o f visual imagery lent a sense o f urgency t o the m o v e m e n t t o regulate the k i n d o f m a t e r i a l the p u b l i c consumed. T h e first calls for censorship came f r o m these groups w h o demanded t h a t a l l films be screened a n d a p p r o v e d before g a i n i n g license for e x h i b i t i o n . I n the first legal challenge t o film censorship i n 1 9 1 5 , the Supreme C o u r t determined t h a t films d i d n o t m e r i t First A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t i o n , classifying t h e m w i t h shows a n d spectacles a n d outside o f the r e a l m o f free speech. I n order t o gain some measure o f c o n t r o l over the inevitable censorship, the film industry, w h i c h h a d begun t o coalesce i n t o a smaller n u m b e r o f m a j o r studios, offered t o self-regulate its content. By the early 1920s the i n d u s t r y created the M o ­ t i o n Pictures Producers a n d D i s t r i b u t o r s Association, a semi-autonomous o r g a n i z a t i o n charged w i t h ensuring t h a t films w o u l d c o n f o r m t o a range o f m o r a l strictures. M e a n w h i l e , film content h a d evolved significantly. W h i l e the earliest films were short, often ten minutes o r less, a n d h a d the purpose o f s h o w ­ i n g images as a spectacle, films soon became lengthier a n d began t o tell a story. D a v i d W a r k G r i f f i t h is most often credited w i t h h a v i n g created a " f i l m grammar," a set o f technical i n n o v a t i o n s a n d d r a m a t i c techniques (e.g., the closeup shot a n d cross-cut editing) w i t h his 1915 film The Birth of a Nation. By the 1920s the d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r i n filmmaking h a d become extensive. T h e technical expertise a n d financial c a p i t a l r e q u i r e d c o m p l e x organizations t o create efficiently a n d effectively the large n u m b e r o f films the m a r k e t demanded. T h e studio system, w h i c h managed the large

Drawing the Boundaries of A r t

•

9

a m o u n t o f r e q u i r e d technical a n d creative expertise w h i l e keeping costs d o w n , developed as the d o m i n a n t m o d e o f film p r o d u c t i o n . D u r i n g this same decade the idea t h a t film was a legitimate artistic me­ d i u m became p o p u l a r a m o n g a large n u m b e r o f E u r o p e a n intellectuals. T h i s sentiment was m o s t intensively a n d w i d e l y h e l d i n France, w h e r e i t was disseminated t o the w i d e r p u b l i c . T h e acceptance at t h a t t i m e o f film, specifically E u r o p e a n films, as art was facilitated b y the c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s u m p t i o n i n Europe. These c o n d i t i o n s bore m a n y sim­ ilarities t o those g o v e r n i n g other art f o r m s there. Such was n o t the case i n the U n i t e d States, w h e r e c o n d i t i o n s o f film p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s u m p ­ t i o n were s t r i k i n g l y dissimilar t o those o f h i g h c u l t u r e . F i l m started o u t as the n e w entertainment for the masses—it was inexpensive a n d concen­ t r a t e d i n u r b a n areas, often i n working-class a n d i m m i g r a n t neighbor­ hoods. W h i l e there was l i m i t e d r e c o g n i t i o n a m o n g a s m a l l n u m b e r o f A m e r i c a n intellectuals t h a t E u r o p e a n films c o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d as art, this favor was n o t extended t o H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n s . T h e d o m i n a n t discourse o f A m e r i c a n film a p p r e c i a t i o n was u n e q u i v o c a l — f i l m s were f u n , b u t n o t challenging. T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f sound i n t o theaters i n 1928 o n l y added t o the p o p ­ u l a r i t y o f the cinema. Average w e e k l y attendance estimates f o r t h a t t i m e generally range f r o m 7 0 t o 90 m i l l i o n . F i l m g o i n g h a d become m o r e c o m ­ m o n a m o n g the m i d d l e class, b u t the audience was still m o s t l y w o r k i n g class. Attendance d r o p p e d d u r i n g the Depression, b u t b y the end o f the 1930s was back i n the range o f 9 0 m i l l i o n per week. T h i s level was m a i n ­ t a i n e d u n t i l the end o f W o r l d W a r I I . D u r i n g the 1930s s m a l l advances i n the status o f H o l l y w o o d films were made as the m a j o r studios a t t e m p t e d t o " u p g r a d e " their p r o d u c t — t h r o u g h o p u l e n t theaters a n d t h r o u g h pres­ tige, epic p r o d u c t i o n s — i n order t o appeal t o m o r e o f the m i d d l e class. These efforts helped t o r e p o s i t i o n H o l l y w o o d film as sometimes eligible for m i d d l e b r o w artistic status. By the 1950s the A m e r i c a n film i n d u s t r y was u n d e r g o i n g enormous changes. Partly because o f the g r o w i n g p o p u l a r i t y o f television, a n d p a r t l y because o f changing lifestyles associated w i t h the baby b o o m , the a u d i ­ ence f o r film was q u i c k l y s h r i n k i n g a n d w o u l d continue t o d o so, irrevers­ ibly, f o r the n e x t t w e n t y years. T h i s economic crisis for the film i n d u s t r y was c o m p o u n d e d b y a significant legal development. I n 1948 the Supreme C o u r t h a d f o u n d t h a t the vertical i n t e g r a t i o n o f the industry, w h e r e b y five m a j o r studios p r o d u c e d , d i s t r i b u t e d , a n d e x h i b i t e d most o f the c o u n t r y ' s films, i m p e d e d c o m p e t i t i o n . T h e studios were forced t o divest themselves o f their theater chains, a change t h a t was t o have far-reaching conse­ quences for h o w films were made a n d financed over the f o l l o w i n g de­ cades. I n 1952 the Supreme C o u r t decided a case i n the film i n d u s t r y ' s favor w h e n i t reversed its 1915 censorship decision a n d declared t h a t film

10

•

Chapter 1

was indeed a f o r m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n protected by the First A m e n d m e n t . O v e r the n e x t fifteen years, w i t h help f r o m a variety o f c o u r t cases a n d f r o m changing mores, the strict censorship g o v e r n i n g A m e r i c a n f i l m p r o ­ d u c t i o n eroded, resulting i n the basic labeling scheme t h a t exists today. A l s o i n the 1950s, French intellectuals w h o were already c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h understanding f i l m as art applied this aesthetic d i s p o s i t i o n t o H o l l y ­ w o o d films. T h e y h a d developed a t h e o r y f o r e x p l a i n i n g a n d e v a l u a t i n g film, auteur theory, a n d e m p l o y e d i t t o analyze H o l l y w o o d films. T h i s t h e o r y holds t h a t the d i r e c t o r is the d r i v i n g artistic force b e h i n d film p r o ­ d u c t i o n . I n the early 1960s auteur t h e o r y a n d other elements o f artistic analysis were i m p o r t e d i n t o A m e r i c a n film discourse. T h e i m p o r t a t i o n o f auteur t h e o r y was one o f a large n u m b e r o f r a d i c a l changes i n the A m e r i c a n film w o r l d i n the 1960s. I t was a t i m e o f eco­ n o m i c uncertainty, w h e n attendance was decreasing d r a m a t i c a l l y a n d w h e n the t r a d i t i o n a l p r o d u c t i o n methods were being discarded as the film studios l o o k e d for w a y s t o regain profitability. I t was also a p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h the films being made changed, as they t o o k o n some E u r o ­ pean sensibilities a n d also reflected the social upheavals o f A m e r i c a n society. T h e 1960s were a crucial p e r i o d o f r a p i d a n d extensive g r o w t h o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films. F i l m scholarship is v i r t u a l l y u n a n i ­ m o u s i n describing t h a t decade as the t i m e w h e n the idea t h a t H o l l y w o o d films c o u l d be art gained w i d e currency. T h i s r e c o g n i t i o n meant t h a t A m e r i c a n films deserved t o be approached w i t h an open m i n d , n o t dis­ missed o u t o f h a n d . A r t i s t s c o u l d w o r k w i t h i n the m e d i u m o f film t o create w o r k s o f art t h a t were due the respect a n d h o n o r accorded t o the fine arts. W r i t i n g for the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Theatre O w n e r s , Bar­ bara Stones describes the t r a n s i t i o n i n perceptions o f film: " F o r m o s t o f the p u b l i c , movies were pure entertainment, a chance t o get o u t , relax a n d share i n some on-screen excitement. Beginning i n the 1960s a w h o l e ­ sale shift i n attitude a b o u t A m e r i c a n films occurred. M o v i e s were some­ h o w t a k e n m o r e seriously a n d elevated t o the status o f ' f i l m l i t e r a t u r e ' " ( 1 9 9 3 : 2 0 1 ) . I t is the " s h i f t " or "change i n a t t i t u d e , " a g r o w i n g agreement o n w h e t h e r film c o u l d be art, t h a t needs t o be explained, a n d i t is the " s o m e h o w " t h a t needs t o be specified as factors t h a t can be s h o w n t o have b r o u g h t a b o u t the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . T h e perception o f E u r o p e a n films as art h a d already t a k e n h o l d , a n d I argue t h a t they led the w a y f o r the intellectualization o f H o l l y w o o d films. W h e n the g r o w t h o f television a n d other factors caused a d r a m a t i c decline i n filmgoing, a "status v a c u u m " was created. T h e strong l i n k s t o the w o r k i n g a n d m i d d l e classes were weakened, and films were available f o r c u l t u r a l redefinition. T h e t i m e was r i g h t f o r their consecration as art, a n d i t was i n the 1960s t h a t an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films developed i n the U n i t e d States. T h e perception t h a t H o l l y w o o d films c o u l d be art gained

Drawing the Boundaries of A r t

•

11

currency a m o n g certain segments o f the p u b l i c at t h a t t i m e . M o r e o v e r , the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f a fine-art v i e w o f film created a feedback effect w h e r e b y filmmakers—and the studios t h a t u n d e r w r o t e films—were en­ couraged t o m a k e the k i n d s o f films t h a t w o u l d w i n a p p r e c i a t i o n w i t h i n the art w o r l d f o r film. T h e incentive structure h a d become m o r e favorable for the p r o d u c t i o n o f artistic films a n d was also self-reinforcing. T h e size o f the film audience stabilized by 1970 at a p p r o x i m a t e l y 17 t o 2 0 m i l l i o n average w e e k l y attendances. A l t h o u g h the a r t w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d film was still v i b r a n t i n t o the m i d - 1 9 7 0 s , i t was also at t h a t t i m e t h a t film p r o d u c t i o n entered the " b l o c k b u s t e r " era, w h e n the pre­ d o m i n a n t strategy i n v o l v e d spending vast sums o f m o n e y t o m a k e a smaller n u m b e r o f films i n a gamble t h a t one i n c r e d i b l y successful film c o u l d m a k e enough p r o f i t t o m o r e t h a n compensate f o r the unsuccessful films. Despite the u n c e r t a i n t y a n d change t h a t the film i n d u s t r y has experi­ enced i n recent decades, a n d especially i n recent years, the blockbuster strategy still serves film studios, i f n o t film e x h i b i t o r s , quite w e l l . T w o factors t h a t have helped the film i n d u s t r y are favorable m a r k e t regulations a n d technological advancements. D u r i n g the 1990s, media regulations i n the U n i t e d States were relaxed t o a l l o w f o r greater concen­ t r a t i o n o f o w n e r s h i p . W h i l e studio o w n e r s h i p by conglomerates is n o t n e w — G u l f + W e s t e r n ( n o w defunct) b o u g h t P a r a m o u n t Pictures (since sold) i n 1966—the i n d u s t r y w i d e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f media p r o d u c t i o n i n t o a few enormous media c o r p o r a t i o n s is a m o r e recent p h e n o m e n o n . M o r e ­ over, these media giants have g l o b a l reach. As one o f the m o s t profitable a n d i m p o r t a n t A m e r i c a n e x p o r t industries, media producers have success­ fully l o b b i e d the federal government t o negotiate advantageous interna­ t i o n a l trade agreements. T h e p r o t e c t i o n i s t strategies o f previous decades, designed b o t h t o bolster domestic film industries a n d t o defend n a t i o n a l cultures, are largely eroded a n d n o longer impede H o l l y w o o d profits. Re­ cent figures f r o m the M o t i o n Picture A s s o c i a t i o n o f A m e r i c a ( M P A A ) ( M o t i o n Picture A s s o c i a t i o n W o r l d w i d e M a r k e t Research 2 0 0 6 ) indicate t h a t domestic box-office receipts were $9.49 b i l l i o n i n 2 0 0 6 , a n d interna­ t i o n a l box-office receipts were over $ 2 5 . 8 2 b i l l i o n . G l o b a l i z a t i o n appears t o be w o r k i n g w e l l f o r the film studios. There is considerable uncertainty a b o u t the future health o f theatrical e x h i b i t i o n o n account o f the technological i n n o v a t i o n s t h a t have i n ­ creased home film v i e w i n g . T h e g r o w t h o f V C R o w n e r s h i p i n the 1980s i n i t i a l l y p r o v o k e d fear a n d suspicion a m o n g the m a j o r film studios. A l ­ t h o u g h they h a d been afraid t h a t w a t c h i n g o f videocassettes at h o m e w o u l d erode theatrical admissions, they eventually f o u n d t h a t the homevideo m a r k e t added t o , rather t h a n detracted f r o m , their profits. T h e mar­ ket for D V D s has p r o v e d t o be m o r e profitable yet, a n d w h i l e theatrical admissions appear t o be d e c l i n i n g — p r o b a b l y for the l o n g t e r m — t h e reve-

12

•

Chapter 1

nues f r o m licensing films f o r the home-entertainment m a r k e t n o w p r o v i d e the m a j o r i t y o f profits for the studios (Epstein 2 0 0 5 : 1 9 ; W e i n b e r g 2 0 0 5 : 1 6 6 ) a n d have made studios m o r e profitable t h a n before ( M a n l y 2 0 0 5 ) . So, w h i l e some exhibitors are encountering financial difficulties, l i k e l y due t o consumers' increasing reliance o n other modes o f film v i e w ­ i n g such as V H S , D V D , a n d cable television, the film studios appear t o be benefiting f r o m an increase i n the ways t h a t consumers can see films. T h i s beneficial relationship w i t h technological advances does n o t h o l d , o f course, for those technologies t h a t a l l o w viewers t o break intellectual p r o p e r t y laws. F r o m counterfeit D V D s t o theatrical camcorder p i r a c y t o illegal d o w n l o a d i n g over the Internet, there are m a n y ways t h a t viewers can see films w i t h o u t the studios receiving any revenue. There studios are n a t u r a l l y gravely concerned, a n d they are v i g o r o u s l y fighting p i r a c y t h r o u g h copy p r o t e c t i o n technologies, successful l o b b y i n g for s t r o n g i n ­ tellectual p r o p e r t y laws, a n d aggressive prosecution o f companies a n d i n d i v i d u a l s w h o test the boundaries o f those laws. I n a d d i t i o n , they are p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n new online business ventures t o p r o v i d e legal d o w n l o a d s o f movies. I f these ventures are successful, they w i l l have t a k e n a poten­ t i a l l y threatening technology a n d t u r n e d i t i n t o a p o w e r f u l t o o l t o c o n t r i b ­ ute t o revenues. F i g h t i n g piracy has risen t o the t o p o f the agenda o f the M o t i o n Picture Association o f A m e r i c a . W h i l e the challenges presented by p i r a c y are significant, the M P A A clearly believes t h a t the m o v i e business can re­ m a i n viable for its member studios i f they continue t o protect their reve­ nue streams.

T H E SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF A R T

Social c o n s t r u c t i o n i s m is a perspective t h a t holds t h a t the categories a n d definitions w e use t o perceive a n d t o understand the w o r l d are m o l d e d by c u l t u r a l forces. Rather t h a n objectively representing e n d u r i n g t r u t h s a n d realities, the concepts w e r o u t i n e l y e m p l o y t o organize o u r thoughts a n d t o communicate are shaped t h r o u g h social processes. T h i s v i e w is n o t t a n t a m o u n t t o a denial o f objective reality. T o say t h a t art—the concept t h a t this b o o k happens t o be about—is socially c o n ­ structed is n o t t o question whether i t t r u l y exists. A r t exists; there are things i n the w o r l d t h a t are art a n d things i n the w o r l d t h a t are n o t art. T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n , however, between art a n d non-art is frequently under­ stood as obvious a n d is t a k e n for granted. T h e fact t h a t Shakespeare's Othello, for example, is real art is a given for us, as is the given t h a t the messages inside store-bought greeting cards are n o t art.

Drawing the Boundaries of A r t

•

13

A social constructionist perspective t h r o w s i n t o question the taken-forgranted status o f Othello as art a n d greeting cards as n o n - a r t . I t encour­ ages us t o question w h y w e d r a w the line where w e d o . Is d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between art a n d n o n - a r t as simple as recognizing Othello's innate q u a l i ­ ties as inherently superior? Few w o u l d dispute t h a t Othello has m a n y qualities t h a t are superior t o a greeting card. H o w e v e r , the j u d g i n g o f qualities as better o r worse is a n o r m a t i v e exercise, n o t a logical one. Something is better t h a n something else o n l y i n reference t o a set o f stan­ dards, a n d the p a r t i c u l a r standards w e e m p l o y t o judge c u l t u r e are a r b i ­ trary. A n d so w e judge Othello t o be art i n p a r t because i t makes smart a n d sophisticated comments a b o u t h u m a n nature i n language t h a t shows a f o r m i d a b l e mastery o f poetic conventions. B u t must these be the stan­ dards for identifying art? C o u l d w e n o t just as easily insist o n others? The accessibility o f the greeting c a r d a n d the precision o f its mechanical p r o d u c t i o n generate negative evaluations, b u t w h y c o u l d w e n o t just as easily v i e w these qualities as positive instead? There is n o logical reason w h y n o t , b u t the fact is, o u r culture a r b i t r a r i l y assigns a negative value t o these qualities i n order t o distinguish art f r o m non-art. The m e r i t o f the social constructionist v i e w p o i n t is clear w h e n w e t r y t o understand w h y art is different across space a n d t i m e . T h e line between art a n d n o n - a r t is d r a w n i n very different places i n different societies, a n d at different times w i t h i n a single society. These different understandings o f art reflect different standards for distinguishing art f r o m n o n - a r t . W h e n European explorers first encountered t r i b a l masks i n A f r i c a , they d i d n o t consider t h e m art. T o d a y there is a v i b r a n t m a r k e t for A f r i c a n art as a fine art genre (Rawlings 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e art d i d n o t change, b u t the stan­ dards d i d . To take a social constructionist v i e w p o i n t at a l l times w o u l d be men­ t a l l y exhausting. Everyday t h i n k i n g w o u l d be unbearably inefficient be­ cause w e w o u l d be caught u p i n e x a m i n i n g the various possible alterna­ tive ways t h a t w e c o u l d be t h i n k i n g a b o u t the w o r l d . For the sake o f efficiency, then, the concepts w e use every day assume the guise o f objec­ tive reality. I t then becomes very easy t o forget t h a t the ways w e under­ stand the w o r l d are n o t perfect reflections o f an independent t r u t h . W h e n w e e m p l o y a concept like " a r t , " i t is useful f o r h o w i t distinguishes those relatively few things i n the w o r l d t h a t are art f r o m the vastly larger n u m ­ ber o f things t h a t are n o t . I t is the difference w e focus o n , a n d w e ignore the fuzziness o f the boundary. W i t h a social constructionist v i e w p o i n t i t is relatively easy t o p u t the focus back o n the fuzziness. T h e average storeb o u g h t greeting c a r d , f o r example, is n o t art, b u t w h a t i f the c a r d quotes a r h y m i n g couplet f r o m Shakespeare? O r w h a t i f the f r o n t o f the card reproduces one o f M o n e t ' s paintings? W h a t i f the card is handmade rather t h a n mechanically produced?

14

•

Chapter 1

A c o r o l l a r y o f a social constructionist v i e w o f art is t h a t c u l t u r a l hierar­ c h y — o r the divisions between h i g h b r o w , m i d d l e b r o w , a n d l o w b r o w c u l ­ ture—is also socially constructed. O u r concept o f art is c o m p l e x enough t o a l l o w for these rankings, b u t these distinctions are equally a r b i t r a r y . T h e i r existence begs the question o f h o w various c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n s are r a n k e d . W h y is opera h i g h b r o w w h i l e comic books are l o w b r o w ? To answer the question o f h o w rankings are created a n d m a i n t a i n e d , i t is necessary t o l o o k past the content o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n s t o the c o n d i ­ tions under w h i c h art is created, d i s t r i b u t e d , evaluated, a n d consumed. T h i s stance w i t h i n the sociology o f art is called the " p r o d u c t i o n perspec­ t i v e " (Peterson 1 9 9 4 ) . O n l y by e x a m i n i n g artistic p r o d u c t i o n a n d recep­ t i o n as social processes can w e understand the socially constructed nature o f c u l t u r a l hierarchy a n d o f artistic status. D i M a g g i o puts i t succinctly: "even t h o u g h systems o f c u l t u r a l classification present themselves as based o n n a t u r a l and e n d u r i n g judgments o f value, they are p r o d u c t s o f h u m a n action, c o n t i n u a l l y subject t o accretion and erosion, selection a n d change" ( 1 9 9 2 : 4 3 ) .

THE

C R E A T I O N O F A R T I S T I C STATUS: O P P O R T U N I T Y ,

INSTITUTIONS, A N D I D E O L O G Y

W i t h the above intellectual o r i e n t a t i o n i n m i n d , w h a t is the e x p l a n a t i o n for h o w an art w o r l d for film developed? Previous research o n c u l t u r a l hierarchy and artistic status provides a starting p o i n t for e x p l a i n i n g film's redefinition as art, or w h a t Peterson ( 1 9 9 4 : 1 7 9 ) w o u l d call film's "aes­ thetic m o b i l i t y . " I propose a f r a m e w o r k for e x p l a i n i n g the creation o f artistic status for film t h a t is based o n a synthesis o f findings f r o m an array o f previous studies. W i t h i n this literature I identify three m a i n factors t h a t sociologists o f culture rely o n t o e x p l a i n the public acceptance o f a c u l ­ t u r a l p r o d u c t as a r t — ( 1 ) an o p p o r t u n i t y space, ( 2 ) i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d re­ sources and activities, and ( 3 ) intellectualization t h r o u g h discourse. T h e first factor is the creation of an opportunity space through social change outside the art world in question. D i M a g g i o ( 1 9 9 2 : 4 4 ) contends t h a t whether a c u l t u r a l genre succeeds i n earning r e c o g n i t i o n as art "has depended o n the shape o f the o p p o r t u n i t y space (the existence o f c o m p e t i ­ tors, c o m m e r c i a l substitutes, or publics and patrons o f n e w w e a l t h ) a n d the p o i n t i n t i m e at w h i c h such projects take shape, w h i c h determines the preexisting discursive a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l resources available f o r i m i t a ­ t i o n . " H e applies the concept o f o p p o r t u n i t y space t o the case o f theater, opera, and the dance. I n the case o f theater, D i M a g g i o claims t h a t the advent o f film altered the m a r k e t conditions for d r a m a t i c entertainment. F i l m q u i c k l y g r e w i n t o a p o p u l a r f o r m o f d r a m a , a role the theater h a d

Drawing the Boundaries of A r t

•

15

served. W i t h the increased c o m p e t i t i o n at the l o w b r o w end o f the spec­ t r u m , theater was encouraged t o change its f o r m a t a n d t o serve as a higher f o r m o f d r a m a , a change that was facilitated by the presence o f the models established by operas, museums, a n d symphonies available for e m u l a t i o n . D i M a g g i o acknowledges t h a t an e x p l a n a t i o n for aesthetic m o b i l i t y m u s t consider n o t o n l y events w i t h i n an art w o r l d , b u t also events t h a t occur outside an art w o r l d , for the t i m i n g o f these events helps t o define w h a t an art w o r l d can accomplish. O t h e r authors have cited the i m p o r t a n c e o f a favorable o p p o r t u n i t y space, created by events outside o f art w o r l d s , i n e x p l a i n i n g the aesthetic m o b i l i t y o f opera a n d Shakespearean plays (Levine 1 9 8 8 ) , literature (Beisel 1 9 9 2 ) , a n d "serious" classical music i n V i ­ enna (De N o r a 1991) a n d the U n i t e d States ( M u e l l e r 1 9 5 1 ) . I n the case o f H o l l y w o o d film, the o p p o r t u n i t y space for an art w o r l d for film g r e w e n o r m o u s l y d u r i n g the 1960s. Just as the advent o f film changed the o p p o r t u n i t y space f o r d r a m a t i c theater, the advent o f televi­ sion d i d the same f o r film. Television t o o k o n the mantle o f the entertain­ m e n t for the masses t h a t h a d previously been w o r n by film. M o r e o v e r , television siphoned o f f d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y h i g h numbers o f the w o r k i n g class audience for film. M a n y audience members also abandoned film w h e n the baby b o o m began i n the 1940s a n d c o n t i n u e d i n t o the 1960s. Some audience members d r o p p e d o u t w h i l e they e x p l o i t e d other leisure options made available t h r o u g h rising n a t i o n a l levels o f prosperity. A t the same t i m e , the n u m b e r o f y o u n g people i n college was g r o w i n g r a p i d l y , p r o v i d i n g a p o o l o f h i g h l y educated patrons w h o w o u l d become the " f i l m generation." T h r o u g h these changes outside the film w o r l d , a n e w c o n t e x t for film appreciation emerged. By the 1960s, filmgoing was n o longer just an easy w a y t o pass the evening hours. Because society h a d evolved i n certain w a y s , f i l m g o i n g h a d become a significant c u l t u r a l activity. The second o f these factors is the institutional arrangements underlying the production, exhibition, and appreciation of art, as well as the various activities and practices carried out in those institutional settings. Perhaps the best i l l u s t r a t i o n o f such factors can be f o u n d i n Becker's (1982) t h o r ­ o u g h analysis o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f organizations a n d n e t w o r k s i n art w o r l d s . H e views the creation o f art as collective a c t i o n . For art t o suc­ ceed, a c o o r d i n a t e d effort is necessary o n the p a r t o f a large n u m b e r o f people p e r f o r m i n g different functions. W h i l e the artist is at the center o f the art w o r l d , the p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f collaborators o f m a n y different k i n d s is essential for art t o m a i n t a i n its status as art. For example, a novelist's w o r k is edited by an editor, p r o m o t e d by a publisher, reviewed by b o o k reviewers, a n d t a u g h t by literature professors. I n this l i g h t , he explains the creation o f an art w o r l d as an instance o f successful collective a c t i o n . " T h e h i s t o r y o f art deals w i t h innovators a n d i n n o v a t i o n s t h a t w o n orga­ n i z a t i o n a l victories, succeeding i n creating a r o u n d themselves the appara-

16

•

Chapter 1

tus o f an art w o r l d , m o b i l i z i n g enough people t o cooperate i n regular ways t h a t sustained a n d furthered their idea" (Becker 1 9 8 2 : 3 0 1 ) . A n u m b e r o f authors have f o u n d t h a t creating institutions a n d m o b i l i z ­ i n g resources are integral t o art w o r l d f o r m a t i o n . Levine (1988) argues t h a t the establishment o f separate groups o f performers a n d separate the­ aters a n d halls for d r a m a , opera, a n d s y m p h o n i c music was a necessary step i n the elevation o f these entertainments t o the status o f art. D i M a g g i o (1982) argues t h a t a g r o u p o f " c u l t u r a l entrepreneurs" i n nineteenth-cen­ t u r y Boston acted o n behalf o f the upper a n d upper-middle classes t o create a h i g h c u l t u r e o f s y m p h o n i c music, p a i n t i n g , a n d sculpture separate f r o m p o p u l a r c u l t u r e . T h r o u g h trustee-governed n o n p r o f i t enterprises, the Boston S y m p h o n y Orchestra a n d the M u s e u m o f Fine A r t s , these w e l l placed " c u l t u r a l capitalists" a n d artistic "experts" achieved the organiza­ t i o n a l separation o f h i g h f r o m p o p u l a r culture. D i M a g g i o also argues t h a t the m o d e l established by classical music a n d the visual arts was a d o p t e d b y practitioners a n d patrons o f theater, opera, a n d aesthetic dance ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Each genre embraced the trustee-governed n o n p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f o r m . W h i t e a n d W h i t e (1965) argue t h a t the development o f a n e w system o f artistic d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d appreciation, t h a t o f dealers a n d critics i n o p p o s i ­ t i o n t o the existing "academic system," enabled the ascendance o f the Impressionist m o v e m e n t i n France. I n a similar fashion, the art w o r l d for A m e r i c a n film was f o u n d e d o n a c o m p l e x arrangement o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l supports, film p r o d u c t i o n , a n d c o n s u m p t i o n practices. T h i s arrangement organized the A m e r i c a n film w o r l d i n t o a field where film c o u l d be p r o d u c e d a n d e x h i b i t e d as an art f o r m i n its o w n r i g h t . For example, the economic pressures t h a t led t o the creation o f hundreds o f small, independent art-house theaters helped t o n u r t u r e avant-garde a n d controversial film p r o d u c t i o n . T h e establishment o f film festivals i n the 1960s such as the N e w Y o r k F i l m Festival a n d the Chicago I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m Festival p r o v i d e d prestige a n d v i s i b i l i t y f o r film as art. L i k e w i s e , the creation o f academic programs o f study at such places as N e w Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y a n d U C L A p r o v i d e d status a n d resources for f r a m i n g film as art. M o r e o v e r , the changing economics o f film p r o d u c ­ t i o n i n the 1960s shifted the m o d e o f filmmaking away f r o m the assembly line o f b i g studio p r o d u c t i o n s t o w a r d a director-centered m o d e l t h a t re­ sembles the p r o d u c t i o n o f other art f o r m s . W h i l e i n s t i t u t i o n b u i l d i n g is an activity c o m m o n t o a w i d e range o f fields, the t h i r d a n d final m a i n factor I identify is specific t o c u l t u r a l or s y m b o l - p r o d u c i n g fields. T h i s factor is the grounding of value and legiti­ macy in critical discourse. Ferguson (1998) makes the case for the c r u c i a l role o f the i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n o f a c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i n the development o f a c u l t u r a l field. T h e e x p l a n a t i o n for the role o f i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n relies o n Bourdieu's (1993) concept o f a " f i e l d " o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n , w h i c h 5

6

Drawing the Boundaries of A r t

•

17

focuses o n the relations between c u l t u r a l producers a n d consumers, w h o are sometimes one a n d the same. A c u l t u r a l field (also applicable t o i n t e l ­ lectual endeavors outside the boundaries o f art) comes i n t o being w h e n c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n begins t o enjoy a u t o n o m y f r o m other existing fields i n terms o f the type o f c a p i t a l available t o c u l t u r a l producers. I n any given field, actors engage i n c o m p e t i t i o n for c a p i t a l . T o the extent t h a t there is a distinct f o r m o f s y m b o l i c c a p i t a l available t o consecrate c u l t u r a l p r o d ­ ucts o f a p a r t i c u l a r genre, the field is a u t o n o m o u s . For example, the liter­ ary field has achieved a h i g h degree o f a u t o n o m y ; i t offers prestigious prizes a n d critical success t h a t constitute the symbolic c a p i t a l t h a t m a y serve as an alternative t o economic c a p i t a l f o r authors. Ferguson ( 1 9 9 8 : 6 0 0 ) persuasively argues t h a t i t is t h r o u g h texts t h a t the field o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n is extended " w e l l b e y o n d immediate producers a n d consumers" a n d is t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o an " i n t e l l e c t u a l p h e n o m e n o n . " T h e development o f a field-specific aesthetic b o t h provides a rationale for ac­ cepting the d e f i n i t i o n o f a c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t as art a n d offers analyses f o r particular products. T h e ideological c o m p o n e n t o f the creation o f artistic status is cited by some o f the same authors w h o recognize the i n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d organiza­ t i o n a l factors. B o t h Levine (1988) a n d D i M a g g i o ( 1 9 8 2 ; 1992) argue t h a t academics a n d aesthetes developed a sacralizing ideology t o legitimate various forms o f h i g h c u l t u r e . Peterson ( 1 9 7 2 ) a n d Lopes (2002) b o t h cite the development o f a g r o u p o f professional jazz critics a n d academic students o f jazz as a d r i v i n g factor b e h i n d the elevation o f jazz. W h i t e a n d W h i t e (1965) argue t h a t the development o f a n e w system o f artistic d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d a p p r e c i a t i o n enabled the ascendance o f the Impressionist m o v e m e n t i n France. A system o f dealers a n d critics arose t o challenge the existing academic system. T h e critics p r o v i d e d a n e w ideology f o r evaluating the careers o f Impressionist painters t h a t legitimated claims o f genius i n their w o r k . D e N o r a (1991) contends t h a t an ideology o f "seri­ ous" classical music was f o r m u l a t e d by the Viennese aristocracy w h e n the bourgeoisie became w e a l t h y enough t o threaten the aristocracy's m o n o p ­ o l y o n classical music concerts. I n each o f these studies, there is a c o m p e l l i n g argument t h a t intellectual­ i z a t i o n by c u l t u r a l specialists helps t o legitimate c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t s t h a t entertain as art. H o w e v e r , there is very little systematic data evinced t o support these arguments. Such evidence w o u l d take the f o r m o f a content analysis o f the ideas a n d language t h a t intellectuals and art experts em­ p l o y t o e x p l a i n a n d interpret the c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t s under study. T h i s evi­ dence is available f o r film, a n d the analysis offered b e l o w w i l l s h o w h o w film critics i n the 1960s adopted a discourse t h a t treated film as art. T h e intellectualization o f film i n v o l v e d referring t o select directors as "mas­ ters" o f film, i n t e r p r e t i n g the messages inherent i n even the m o s t p o p u l a r

18

•

Chapter 1

o f films, a n d c o n t e x t u a l i z i n g the evaluation o f films t h r o u g h genre or oeuvre comparisons, as w e l l as other linguistic a n d critical devices. Elements o f the t r i p a r t i t e e x p l a n a t o r y f r a m e w o r k o u t l i n e d above—op­ p o r t u n i t y space, i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d resources and activities, a n d intellectualizing discourse—can be f o u n d i n previous case studies o f transitions f r o m entertainment t o art. H o w e v e r , n o author has previously articulated a general schema t h a t can be w i d e l y applied t o cases o f the creation o f artistic status. I call the above schema the legitimation framework and I argue t h a t i t can e x p l a i n the artistic l e g i t i m a t i o n o f n o t o n l y H o l l y w o o d film b u t o f other artistic media as w e l l . T h e a i m o f this b o o k , however, is t o e x p l a i n h o w H o l l y w o o d films became w i d e l y v i e w e d as art. T h e significance o f the l e g i t i m a t i o n frame­ w o r k is t o organize the h i s t o r i c a l forces at play so t h a t w e can understand their respective c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d film. As a researchable p h e n o m e n o n , the perceptions o f film over the century, like m a n y h i s t o r i c a l events and developments, are c o m p l e x i n o r i g i n a n d their changes i n v o l v e reference t o a w i d e array o f developments, actions, a n d events. T h e l e g i t i m a t i o n o f film as art involves n o t s i m p l y a shift f r o m entertainment t o art, b u t several related social processes. These include u p w a r d status m o b i l i t y o f the entire genre o f film; the retrospective canon­ i z a t i o n o f o l d H o l l y w o o d ; the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f various strains o f p r o d u c ­ t i o n (European, serious H o l l y w o o d , experimental, blockbuster); a n d the creation o f c r i t i c a l c o m m u n i t i e s a r o u n d restricted " c u l t " genres. T h i s b o o k seeks t o tell as complete as possible a story o f the m o s t i m ­ p o r t a n t developments i n the social h i s t o r y o f film as f o u n d i n film h i s t o r y scholarship. There is b o u n d t o be disagreement over w h i c h elements o f A m e r i c a n film h i s t o r y s h o u l d be accorded the greatest significance i n help­ i n g chart a course t o w a r d acceptance as art. Nonetheless, I hope readers find the p l o t o f this story, t o b o r r o w the terms o f the i n d u s t r y itself, o r i g i ­ n a l , c o m p e l l i n g , a n d , most o f a l l , c o n v i n c i n g .

O U T L I N E OF T H E CHAPTERS

There are m a n y ways t o tell a story, c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y being the m o s t c o m ­ m o n because i t corresponds t o everyone's personal experiences—we live chronologically. H o w e v e r , i t is n o t always the best w a y t o make a convinc­ i n g argument, especially w h e n the argument is c o m p l i c a t e d . Because I w a n t t o show h o w various factors were i m p o r t a n t t o the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f film i n very different ways, this b o o k tells the story o f the art w o r l d for A m e r i c a n film according t o an analytical sequence, specifically a l e g i t i m a ­ tion framework.

Drawing the Boundaries of A r t

•

19

T h e first p a r t o f the analysis, presented i n chapter 2 , considers the his­ t o r i c a l events t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d t o the changing o f the o p p o r t u n i t y space for film. D r a w i n g o n the large b o d y o f film h i s t o r y scholarship, c o m p a r i ­ sons are d r a w n between the A m e r i c a n c o n t e x t a n d several E u r o p e a n contexts. A m o n g the cases I review, there is c o v a r i a t i o n between the t i m ­ i n g , o n the one h a n d , o f the acceptance o f film as art, a n d , o n the other h a n d , o f key developments outside the field o f film. T h e evidence suggests t h a t these changes i n o p p o r t u n i t y space influenced the p e r c e p t i o n o f film as art. T h e a r g u m e n t also relies o n i n f o r m a t i o n gained f r o m h i s t o r i c a l statistics. T h e focus i n this chapter is o n developments outside the film w o r l d , p a r t i c u l a r l y the development o f c o m p e t i t o r s t o a n d substitutes for filmgoing, the g r o w i n g p o o l o f educated film viewers, a n d changing intellectual currents. T h e study continues i n the t h i r d chapter w i t h a review o f the changing i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements a n d practices t h r o u g h w h i c h film was created, e x h i b i t e d , a n d evaluated. D r a w i n g again o n b o t h film h i s t o r y scholarship a n d h i s t o r i c a l statistics, a n d also c o m p i l i n g statistics f r o m electronic ar­ chives, chapter 3 focuses p r i m a r i l y o n changes w i t h i n the film w o r l d . T h e m a j o r changes e x a m i n e d are film p r o d u c t i o n practices, e x h i b i t i o n venues, censorship restrictions, film festivals, ties t o academia, a n d directors' selfp r o m o t i o n . T h i s chapter also draws comparisons between the A m e r i c a n case a n d several E u r o p e a n cases and capitalizes o n the differences be­ t w e e n t h e m t o better understand the influence o f specific changes w i t h i n the film w o r l d . T h e f o u r t h chapter examines the role t h a t intellectuals, p r i m a r i l y film critics, played i n the redefinition o f film as art. T h i s issue encourages a different m e t h o d o l o g i c a l strategy. C o n t e n t analyses o f film a n d b o o k re­ views a n d film a n d b o o k advertisements p r o v i d e systematic data f o r as­ sessing the influence o f critics o n c o m m o n understanding o f film as w e l l as f o r i d e n t i f y i n g a n d measuring the c o n s t i t u t i v e elements o f an i n t e l l e c t u alizing discourse. C o m p a r i s o n s between film a n d literature help us t o see h o w discourse can influence artistic status by justifying aesthetic claims a n d conventions t o the w i d e r p u b l i c . By p r o v i d i n g the v o c a b u l a r y a n d analytic techniques, film critics made an artistic a p p r o a c h t o H o l l y w o o d films possible for the reading p u b l i c . T h e final chapter sets o u t the argument i n an integrated fashion a n d t h e n explores the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this study f o r several strands o f research i n the sociology o f c u l t u r e . First, i t points t o key concerns f o r the social c o n s t r u c t i o n o f artistic status a n d offers an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r w h y film does n o t enjoy the same degree o f legitimacy as h i g h b r o w genres such as opera or p a i n t i n g . Second, i t discusses film c o n s u m p t i o n practices as a f o r m o f c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l , l i n k i n g film a p p r e c i a t i o n and class politics. T h i r d , i t elaborates o n the significance o f an intellectualizing discourse i n artistic

20

•

Chapter 1

l e g i t i m a t i o n . F o u r t h , i t d r a w s together the causal factors, w h i c h were a r t i ­ ficially disentangled f o r the sake o f analysis, i n H o l l y w o o d ' s l e g i t i m a t i o n . F i f t h , i t discusses the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f the lessons learned here f o r under­ standing processes o f l e g i t i m a t i o n i n other c u l t u r a l realms, such as science a n d law. Last, i t evaluates theories o f c u l t u r a l hierarchy a n d the dynamics o f c u l t u r a l fields i n l i g h t o f the findings f o r film. I argue t h a t the redefini­ t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d films m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d as a p r o d u c t o f b o t h the focused activities o f p a r t i c u l a r actors a n d larger s t r u c t u r a l change. Part o f the e x p l a n a t i o n for the changing status o f H o l l y w o o d films lies w i t h the concerted (and sincere) efforts t o change people's m i n d s a b o u t w h e t h e r H o l l y w o o d films were art. B u t the e x p l a n a t i o n must also be f o u n d w i t h a c o m p l e x course o f events t h a t were unrelated t o questions o f the status o f H o l l y w o o d films. I n essence, h i s t o r i c a l accidents are key t o understand­ i n g the story. T h r o u g h film h i s t o r y scholarship, m u c h is k n o w n a b o u t the h i s t o r i c a l facts o f A m e r i c a n film p r o d u c t i o n a n d reception. T h i s b o o k adds l i t t l e t o o u r k n o w l e d g e o f facts a n d so i t is n o t a w o r k o f h i s t o r y per se. Rather, i t is a w o r k o f analysis—the m a j o r goal is t o uncover the significance o f already k n o w n facts a n d t o fashion an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the question o f h o w films became art. T h i s b o o k , t h e n , explores the relationships between these facts a n d c u l t u r a l hierarchy. Some h i s t o r i c a l w o r k was r e q u i r e d , however. T h e investigation o f changes i n film reviews a n d advertisements r e q u i r e d a r c h i v a l w o r k w i t h p r i m a r y sources. T h i s data c o l l e c t i o n was necessitated by the need f o r systematic samples for q u a n t i t a t i v e analysis. A l l other parts o f the analysis were accomplished t h r o u g h reference t o the vast b o d y o f existing film h i s t o r y scholarship. Despite this r o b u s t a n d fascinating literature, the sociology o f art i n general has neglected the social h i s t o r y o f A m e r i c a n film a n d film c r i t i c i s m . T h i s b o o k is an effort t o increase, f r o m a sociological perspective, o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the classification o f film i n the U n i t e d States over the past c e n t u r y a n d hence t o understand the ideological a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n s o f the v a l u a t i o n o f art.

CHAPTER 2

The Changing Opportunity Space: Developments i n the Wider Social Context

T H E S A M E A C T I O N t a k e n at t w o different times can have quite different meanings a n d consequences. T h i s is true f o r t r i v i a l events, such as a greet­ ing, as w e l l as for actions i n v o l v i n g large numbers o f people a n d the m o b i ­ l i z a t i o n o f vast resources. T e m p o r a l c o n t e x t matters. We c a n n o t under­ stand h o w the actions o f groups a n d i n d i v i d u a l s b r i n g a b o u t social change w i t h o u t e x a m i n i n g h o w the social e n v i r o n m e n t helped o r hindered t h a t change. M o r e o v e r , l o n g - t e r m changes i n the larger social c o n t e x t suggest an e x p l a n a t i o n for the t i m i n g o f those actions. C h a n g i n g social c o n d i t i o n s tell us n o t o n l y w h y the actions o f groups a n d i n d i v i d u a l s are effective, but also w h y they happened w h e n they d i d . A p p l y i n g this line o f reasoning t o the case o f the change i n status o f H o l l y w o o d films, i t is clear t h a t w e need t o t h i n k about h o w A m e r i c a n culture a n d society influenced the development o f an art w o r l d for f i l m . I n particular, given t h a t w e k n o w t h a t the art w o r l d for film developed i n the 1960s, w e need t o identify those general features o f A m e r i c a n society t h a t m i g h t have w o r k e d against this development before the 1960s. I n a d d i t i o n , w e need t o understand h o w changing social c o n d i t i o n s i n the 1960s c o u l d have opened an o p p o r t u n i t y space for the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d films. H o w d i d the w i d e r society change d u r i n g the 1960s i n ways t h a t made possible the consecration o f A m e r i c a n film as art? I n this chapter w e focus o n the i n t e r a c t i o n between the film w o r l d a n d the w i d e r social space, i n c l u d i n g broader intellectual a n d aesthetic trends, w i t h i n w h i c h the film w o r l d operated. I n d o i n g so w e see h o w the legitima­ t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d film was facilitated by events t h a t were seemingly far r e m o v e d f r o m the film industry. I identify several key h i s t o r i c a l events a n d circumstances t h a t each helped t o shape the o p p o r t u n i t y space for the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d films i n the 1960s. Earlier events a n d con­ ditions h a d s h r u n k t h a t space i n the U n i t e d States a n d enlarged i t i n v a r i ­ ous European countries. T h i s difference is reflected i n the earlier legitima­ t i o n o f film as an artistic m e d i u m i n Europe. Later events then opened the o p p o r t u n i t y space i n the U n i t e d States i n the 1960s. A m o n g the early h i s t o r i c a l states o f affair a n d events o f m o s t i m p o r ­ tance are (1) World War I a n d its economic, p o l i t i c a l , a n d social ramifica­ tions, w h i c h were n a t u r a l l y m a r k e d l y different i n the U n i t e d States a n d

22

•

Chapter 2

i n Europe; a n d (2) A m e r i c a n u r b a n c o n d i t i o n s , b o t h demographic a n d geographic. Later developments o f significance include (1) World War I I a n d its economic, p o l i t i c a l , a n d social ramifications; (2) t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s t h a t created competing leisure options-, (3) the p o s t - W o r l d War I I increase in the birthrate i n t h e ' U n i t e d States; (4) rising levels of education i n the general p o p u l a t i o n ; a n d (5) changing intellectual cur­ rents—most i m p o r t a n t l y the Pop A r t m o v e m e n t — t h a t favored c o n ­ secration o f p o p u l a r c u l t u r a l f o r m s . I argue t h a t each o f these develop­ ments, independently a n d i n concert, influenced perceptions o f film i n surprising a n d unforeseen w a y s . W h i l e subsequent chapters are p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h the i n t e r n a l w o r k i n g s o f the film w o r l d , a focus o n the o p p o r t u n i t y space for H o l l y w o o d film turns o u r a t t e n t i o n a w a y f r o m the film w o r l d t o events i n the w i d e r society a n d especially t o events i n other c u l t u r a l realms. T h i s chapter first discusses the various n a t i o n a l circumstances i n the U n i t e d States, E n g l a n d , Germany, Italy, and France i n the first several decades o f the t w e n t i e t h century t h a t influenced the nature of film audi­ ences. As w i l l be discussed, the status o f art is i n t i m a t e l y — t h o u g h n o t exclusively—tied t o the status o f its patrons. The early patronage b y E u r o ­ pean intellectuals a n d upper-middle-class filmgoers facilitated the legiti­ m a t i o n o f the relatively small film industries i n Europe. I n the U n i t e d States, the working-class nature o f film attendance a n d intellectuals' aver­ sion t o H o l l y w o o d m i l i t a t e d against l e g i t i m a t i o n . T h r o u g h comparisons w i t h several E u r o p e a n film industries, w e w i l l see h o w certain features o f A m e r i c a n society p r o m o t e d trends i n filmgoing t h a t were s t r i k i n g l y divergent f r o m trends i n Europe. These trends were tied t o the conse­ quences o f W o r l d W a r I i n Europe, a n d t o the characteristics o f a w o r k i n g class u r b a n i m m i g r a n t lifestyle i n the U n i t e d States. T h e h i s t o r i c a l evi­ dence shows t h a t social c o n d i t i o n s i n Europe were m o r e amenable t o the development o f an art w o r l d for film t h a n they were i n the U n i t e d States. T h e chapter progresses t o a discussion o f the circumstances t h a t led t o the opening o f the o p p o r t u n i t y space for film as art i n the U n i t e d States i n the 1960s. T h e nature a n d size o f the A m e r i c a n film audience were altered by a confluence o f technological, demographic, a n d c u l t u r a l fac­ tors. T h e dramatic p o s t - W o r l d W a r I I decrease i n the p o p u l a r i t y o f film i n the U n i t e d States created n e w possibilities for the v a l u a t i o n o f film w i t h i n the c u l t u r a l hierarchy. T h e core idea o f the o p p o r t u n i t y space is that at certain times h i s t o r i c a l events become m o r e l i k e l y t h r o u g h the emergence o f a favorable setting. T h e set o f social forces t h a t composed the o p p o r t u n i t y space were i n f l u ­ ential despite seeming t o have been distantly related t o the p h e n o m e n o n itself. Causally speaking, the o p p o r t u n i t y space is necessary a l t h o u g h n o t sufficient. A full accounting o f the story o f t h a t l e g i t i m a t i o n needs t o ex1

2

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

23

p l a i n the c o n n e c t i o n between the elements o f t h a t space a n d H o l l y w o o d films' status as a r t . 3

THE

FIRST W O R L D W A R A N D U R B A N - A M E R I C A N LIFE:

Two

DISPARATE INFLUENCES O N F I L M ATTENDANCE

I N E U R O P E A N D T H E U N I T E D STATES

Social c o n d i t i o n s i n France, Italy, Germany, a n d , t o a lesser extent, E n ­ g l a n d made available a p o o l o f patrons w h o c o u l d effectively s u p p o r t the idea t h a t f i l m was a legitimate m e d i u m for artistic expression. T o v a r y i n g degrees, European audiences i n c o r p o r a t e d intellectuals a n d p r o p o r t i o n ­ ately m o r e m i d d l e - a n d upper-middle-class members. T h e affiliation w i t h these segments o f society p r o v e d beneficial for film's prestige a n d legiti­ macy i n Europe. T h e early European s u p p o r t for f i l m as a r t is an i m ­ p o r t a n t h i s t o r i c a l precedent because i t p r o v i d e d an example a n d a r a t i o ­ nale for the claims t h a t were t o f o l l o w for H o l l y w o o d films as art. T h e social c o n d i t i o n s i n the U n i t e d States, however, created an audience for f i l m t h a t was neither o f the best size n o r o f the best composition for the development o f an art w o r l d . I n the U n i t e d States, the p r e d o m i n ­ ant affiliation o f f i l m g o i n g w i t h the w o r k i n g class w o r k e d against film's consecration. The Composition of Film Audiences: The United States, England, Germany, Italy, and France, 1900-1930s C o n t e m p o r a r y audience analysis involves a sophisticated measuring o f an array o f demographic variables. Such analyses help the p r o f i t - o r i e n t e d culture industries t o m o r e effectively produce a n d m a r k e t their products. These studies, however, d i d n o t exist d u r i n g the first decades o f the t w e n t i ­ eth century. Even after their i n v e n t i o n , the film i n d u s t r y was relatively s l o w i n a d o p t i n g t h e m , r e l y i n g m o r e often t h a n n o t o n c o n v e n t i o n a l w i s ­ d o m u n t i l a p p r o x i m a t e l y the 1960s. As a result, data o n the c o m p o s i t i o n o f early film audiences is based o n l y rarely o n quantitative assessments o f demographics. Instead, the best evidence t o characterize these audiences comes f r o m qualitative h i s t o r i c a l studies. Based o n such studies, a c o m ­ p a r i s o n o f the A m e r i c a n film audience w i t h the audiences o f E n g l a n d , Germany, Italy, a n d France i n the p e r i o d p r i o r t o W o r l d W a r I I illustrates the significant differences that existed. F r o m the beginning, c o m m e r c i a l films were extremely p o p u l a r w i t h the w o r k i n g classes i n the U n i t e d States (Stones 1993:22). Critics o f the film i n d u s t r y i n the U n i t e d States called film "the cheap s h o w for cheap peo­ ple" (quoted i n H a m p t o n 1970:61). F i l m g o i n g was indeed inexpensive,

24

•

Chapter 2

costing o n l y a nickel i n i t i a l l y , t h e n a d i m e , a n d averaging less t h a n a quar­ ter by the end o f the 1930s ( B r o w n 1 9 9 5 : C h . 2 ) . Ross ( 1 9 9 8 : 1 5 ) explains the economics t h a t u n d e r l a y the association between f i l m g o i n g a n d the w o r k i n g classes: " W i t h m i l l i o n s o f people effectively excluded f r o m ex­ pensive entertainments, c u l t u r a l entrepreneurs created a n alternative w o r l d o f cheaper amusements a i m e d largely at blue-collar audiences a n d the r a p i d l y e x p a n d i n g ranks o f l o w - l e v e l w h i t e - c o l l a r w o r k e r s . " T h e re­ sult is t h a t m a n y working-class people w e n t t o enjoy one o f the few f o r m s o f entertainment t h a t they c o u l d a f f o r d . Ross (1998:19) reports t h a t a survey o f M a n h a t t a n audiences i n 1 9 1 0 " f o u n d t h a t 72 percent o f a u d i ­ ences came f r o m the blue-collar sector, 25 percent f r o m the clerical w o r k ­ force, a n d 3 percent f r o m w h a t surveyors called the 'leisure class.' " A n d w h a t effect d i d this strong class association have for stereotypes a b o u t films and filmgoing? Snobbery a b o u t films was prevalent. M a s t (1981:4) reports t h a t the w e a l t h y o r well-educated viewed filmgoing as an o p p o r t u n i t y t o go " s l u m m i n g " b u t generally " s h u n n e d " films, w h i l e H . L . M e n c k e n called films "the appropriate attainment o f the A m e r i c a n ' b o oboisie.' " Generally speaking, educated or w e a l t h y people felt disdain f o r films because they saw i n t h e m a lack o f sophistication or aesthetic value. Similes l i n k i n g movies w i t h tastelessness, a n d m o v i e patrons w i t h m o r o n s , c o n t i n u a l l y p o p p e d u p i n fiction a n d articles o f the 1920s a n d 1930s. F i l m g o i n g was f r o w n e d u p o n , a n d so the status-conscious stayed away. 4

Tackiness, however, was n o t the o n l y image p r o b l e m facing movies. T h e y were also characterized as c o r r u p t i n g and i m m o r a l , an " u r b a n v i c e " (de Grazia and N e w m a n 1982:8), by religious authorities a n d some intel­ lectuals and social commentators. T h i s charge was based o n the content o f films, w h i c h , a l t h o u g h quite tame by today's standards, was relatively v i o l e n t and risque i n early twentieth-century A m e r i c a . These concerns were greatly heightened by fear that m o v i n g images h a d a p o w e r f u l i n f l u ­ ence o n people—especially working-class people, c h i l d r e n , a n d ethnic m i ­ norities (Butsch 2 0 0 1 ) — p r o v o k i n g antisocial or c r i m i n a l behavior. Sklar (1994:18) claims t h a t for "respectable" society films "belonged i n the same class as brothels, g a m b l i n g dens a n d the hangouts o f c r i m i n a l gangs." T h e film i n d u s t r y was further denigrated by the u n c o m f o r t a b l e , u n ­ seemly, a n d sometimes hazardous ( f r o m a p u b l i c health perspective) c o n ­ d i t i o n s o f the nickelodeons ( U r i c c h i o a n d Pearson 1 9 9 3 : 3 0 ) . T o meet the f a s t - g r o w i n g d e m a n d for movies, m a n y store a n d restaurant o w n e r s c o n ­ verted their establishments i n t o small m o v i e houses. These nickelodeons represented an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r large profits w i t h a m i n i m a l c a p i t a l invest­ m e n t . As H a m p t o n describes i t , " [ m ] a n y o f the store-show owners were i m m i g r a n t s w h o h a d been o p e r a t i n g cheap l u n c h r o o m s a n d restaurants, candy a n d cigar stores, a n d s i m i l a r s m a l l retail shops w h e n the film frenzy began t o inundate A m e r i c a " ( 1 9 7 0 : 5 8 ) .

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

25

N i c k e l o d e o n s q u i c k l y g r e w i n number. G o m e r y (1992:21) attributes the speed o f their g r o w t h first t o a healthy n a t i o n a l e c o n o m y at the t i m e o f their i n t r o d u c t i o n , a n d second t o a r a p i d l y e x p a n d i n g p o p u l a t i o n base. T h e p o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h was largely fueled by i m m i g r a t i o n , a n d these n e w i m m i g r a n t s were largely u r b a n , poor, a n d able t o enjoy early film, w h i c h was silent a n d d i d n o t d e m a n d fluency i n English. As T h o m p s o n a n d B o r d w e l l (1994:36) e x p l a i n , the movies offered a constellation o f objectionables—the content, the audience members, a n d the venues. N i c k e l o d e o n s were "sinister" i n their p o t e n t i a l t o socialize y o u t h t o lives o f d e p r a v i t y a n d c r i m e . N o t i n c i d e n t a l t o the discussion is the fact t h a t a large n u m b e r o f nickel­ o d e o n owners a n d patrons were i m m i g r a n t s . U n l i k e i n E u r o p e a n c o u n ­ tries o f the t i m e , the d y n a m i c o f a W A S P establishment t h a t l o o k e d d o w n w i t h condescension o n a poor, u r b a n i m m i g r a n t class was w o v e n i n t o perceptions o f the place o f film i n A m e r i c a n society. A n d t h a t place was w i t h the i m m i g r a n t s themselves, near the b o t t o m o f the social hierarchy. M o r e o v e r , some film historians have d o c u m e n t e d t h a t the e t h n i c i t y o f films' producers, i n a d d i t i o n t o films' consumers, played a p a r t i n generat­ i n g a n t i p a t h y t o w a r d the industry. M a n y early filmmakers a n d film execu­ tives were Jewish, i n c l u d i n g executives w i t h i n the m a j o r studios. A m o n g the various dimensions o f anti-Semitism existed the idea t h a t "the enter­ t a i n m e n t Jew p o l l u t e d h i g h c u l t u r e " (Carr 2 0 0 1 : 3 4 ) , and t h a t H o l l y w o o d was i n essence a Jewish o l i g o p o l y (Vaughn 1 9 9 0 : 4 0 ) . A m o n g social critics w h o b o t h decried H o l l y w o o d a n d h e l d anti-Semitic views, the p r e d o m i ­ nant v i e w o f the consequence o f Jewish influence o n H o l l y w o o d was t h a t the film i n d u s t r y generated profits t h r o u g h appealing t o society's basest instincts a n d impulses—such was the m o d u s o p e r a n d i o f Jews (Gabler 1 9 8 9 : 2 7 8 ) . There is ample h i s t o r i c a l evidence t h a t p a r t o f the prestige p r o b l e m i n the early decades o f H o l l y w o o d was a result o f the transfer o f antagonistic attitudes t o w a r d the filmmakers t o the films themselves a n d the entire film industry. H a m p t o n argues t h a t p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f nickelodeons i n the U n i t e d States started the film i n d u s t r y o f f o n a different trajectory f r o m w h a t was t o occur i n Europe. Rather t h a n creating inexpensive makeshift theaters f r o m stores a n d restaurants, European films "became a p a r t o f variety theater a n d m u s i c - h a l l p r o g r a m s , " w i t h prices similar t o those other forms o f entertainment ( 1 9 7 0 : 6 2 ) . Consequently, there were far fewer outlets f o r e x h i b i t i o n , w h i c h i n general was m o r e expensive f o r p o p u l a ­ tions w i t h less disposable income. Hence, cinema was n o t a mass enter­ t a i n m e n t p h e n o m e n o n t o the same degree t h a t i t was i n the U n i t e d States. T h e d i s p a r i t y was exacerbated d u r i n g W o r l d W a r I , w h e n p r o d u c t i o n i n European countries fell sharply.

26

•

Chapter 2

T h e loss o f the A m e r i c a n m a r k e t , c o m b i n e d w i t h the absence o f cheap theaters, b r o u g h t the i n d u s t r y i n Europe face t o face w i t h economic c o n d i t i o n s t h a t never o b t a i n e d here. Some o f the producers w i t h d r e w f r o m the business. Others proceeded o n entirely different lines, t u r n i n g their energies t o the m a k i n g o f p h o t o p l a y s for the classes rather t h a n the masses, and thereby i n i t i a t e d a development w h i c h has been w h o l l y different f r o m the course o f the A m e r i c a n m o v i e . (1970:63) O f the European countries, film patronage most resembled t h a t o f the U n i t e d States i n E n g l a n d , where the rate o f attendance was higher t h a n elsewhere i n Europe a n d was m o s t l y a working-class activity. I n a d d i t i o n , "films c o n t i n u e d t o be despised by intellectuals" i n t o the 1920s (Armes 1 9 7 9 : 5 8 ) . However, N a p p e r maintains t h a t intellectuals became inter­ ested i n films i n the late 1920s a n d t h a t serious film c r i t i c i s m g o t its start i n E n g l a n d i n 1 9 2 7 w i t h the i n c e p t i o n o f the j o u r n a l Close Up ( 1 9 9 7 : 3 7 ) . A drive f o r respectability a n d middle-class a n d upper-middle-class p a t r o n ­ age began i n the 1930s t h r o u g h the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f the aesthetic conven­ tions a n d talents i n the L o n d o n theater, w h i c h enjoyed a great a m o u n t o f c u l t u r a l prestige (Armes 1 9 7 9 : 5 9 ) . 5

I n contrast, b y the 1920s filmgoing i n G e r m a n y was c o m m o n a m o n g a l l classes. A b r a m s w r i t e s t h a t the w o r k i n g class " f o r m e d the vast m a j o r i t y o f cinema audiences at least u n t i l the 1920s, w h e n m o v i e - g o i n g became m o r e respectable" ( 1 9 9 6 : 6 4 8 ) . A t t h a t t i m e , " [ c l u s t e r s o f d o w n t o w n pre­ miere cinemas appeared i n m a j o r G e r m a n cities . . . where films p r e m i e r e d before Germany's social a n d p o l i t i c a l e l i t e " (Saunders 1 9 9 4 : 2 1 ) . T h e i n ­ telligentsia o f the t i m e was attentive t o the role o f cinema i n society a n d engaged the cinema "at a h i g h level o f intellectual a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l so­ p h i s t i c a t i o n " (Elsaesser 1 9 9 6 : 1 4 4 ) . W h a t is m o r e , G e r m a n intellectuals h a d s h o w n interest i n films, w r i t i n g a b o u t t h e m a n d p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the m a k i n g o f l i t e r a r y adaptations, even before the 1920s (Saunders 1 9 9 4 : 2 3 ) . Sklar w r i t e s t h a t w h i l e i n G e r m a n y theaters p l a n n e d as i m ­ p o r t a n t w o r k s o f architecture h a d helped b r i n g i n the m i d d l e a n d leisure classes since 1 9 1 1 , o p u l e n t theaters were n o t constructed regularly i n the U n i t e d States u n t i l m u c h later ( 1 9 9 4 : 4 5 ) . T h e G e r m a n film scholar Sieg­ fried Kracauer ( 1 9 8 7 : 9 1 - 9 2 ) w r o t e i n the 1920s a b o u t Berlin's film " p a l ­ aces" t h a t " t o call t h e m movie theaters (Kinos) w o u l d be disrespectful. . . . T h e architecture o f the film palaces has evolved i n t o a f o r m t h a t avoids stylistic excesses. Taste has presided over the dimensions a n d has spawned costly i n t e r i o r f u r n i s h i n g inspired by a refined artisanal fantasy. T h e G/oria-Palast presents itself as a baroque theater. T h e c o m m u n i t y o f w o r s h i p ­ pers, n u m b e r i n g i n the thousands, can be content, for its gathering places are a w o r t h y abode." 6

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

27

F i l m g o i n g i n I t a l y also crossed class barriers, a n d i t h a d been t a k e n seriously as an a r t f o r m a n d p a t r o n i z e d by intellectuals. " T h e r e h a d been l i t t l e i n t e l l e c t u a l snobbery a b o u t silent cinema w h i c h . . . attracted the interest o f leading w r i t e r s ( D ' A n n u n z i o ) a n d was by the 1920s the object o f a t t e n t i o n i n a w i d e range o f specialized p e r i o d i c a l s " (Buss 1989:10). I n France, t o o , i n the very first years o f the cinema, a large p o r t i o n o f the audience was w o r k i n g class. I t was n o t l o n g , t h o u g h , before e x h i b i t o r s a n d producers began t o target m i d d l e - a n d upper-middle-class audience members t h r o u g h advertising a n d p u b l i c i t y t h a t featured these classes as audiences a n d t h a t emphasized the " m o r a l l y u p l i f t i n g nature o f the f i l m p r o g r a m m e " (Ezra 2 0 0 4 : 7 9 ) . These efforts were successful at b r i n g i n g i n the targeted audiences w h o were subsequently socialized t o behave i n m o v i e theaters as they d i d w h e n w a t c h i n g live theater o r f o r m a l music concerts (Ezra 2 0 0 4 : 7 9 ) . F o l l o w i n g W o r l d W a r I , French intellectuals t o o k a tremendous a m o u n t o f interest i n the m e d i u m ( K n i g h t 1 9 5 7 : 9 3 ) . Beginning i n the 1920s, the French art w o r l d f o r f i l m flourished as intellectuals w r o t e a n d spoke a b o u t the art o f f i l m a n d developed organizations t o w e l c o m e a n d n u r t u r e an educated audience. France became the m o d e l f o r an art w o r l d f o r f i l m (Crisp 1 9 9 3 : 2 1 4 ) . M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h French f i l m producers w o u l d have appreciated a mass m a r k e t f o r their films, they were m o r e effective at developing an audience for f i l m as art. T h i s process began m u c h earlier a n d was m u c h m o r e systematic i n France t h a n elsewhere. Basically the audience concerned was the m i d ­ dle-class intellectual a n d c u l t u r a l elite; they saw themselves as w o r k i n g for the defense o f French cinema a n d o f cinema as a c u l t u r a l f o r m ; a n d their means o f o p e r a t i o n were the cine-club, congresses a n d study groups, the concept o f the cinematheque, a separate theater c i r c u i t c o m m i t t e d t o a r t films, a n d c r i t i c a l j o u r n a l s o f a m o r e reflective k i n d . (Crisp 1 9 9 3 : 2 2 6 - 2 7 ) I t was R i c c i o t t o C a n u d o w h o f o u n d e d the C l u b des A m i s d u Septieme A r t , the first cine-club, i n 1 9 2 1 (Temple a n d W i t t 2 0 0 4 : 1 4 ) . I t was an i m p o r t a n t catalyst f o r the cinephile m o v e m e n t , as cine-clubs sought t o "educate" the tastes o f mass audiences a n d f r o m the early 1920s t h r o u g h the 1930s g r e w i n size a n d n u m b e r t h r o u g h o u t France. I n sum, i n the m a j o r E u r o p e a n f i l m - p r o d u c i n g nations, f i l m g o i n g was p o p u l a r a m o n g the m i d d l e a n d upper classes a n d accepted b y intellectuals by the 1920s o r 1930s. I n contrast, f i l m g o i n g was p r i m a r i l y a w o r k i n g class a c t i v i t y i n the U n i t e d States u n t i l at least the 1950s. W h i l e the differ­ ences i n patronage between countries d o n o t tell the w h o l e story, there is

28

•

Chapter 2

a close parallel between the k i n d s o f audiences associated w i t h cinema attendance a n d attitudes t o w a r d the place o f film i n the c u l t u r a l hierarchy. A s w i l l be discussed further i n chapter 3, the r e c o g n i t i o n o f film as art occurred far earlier i n E u r o p e . T h e a p p r e c i a t i o n o f film as an a r t f o r m was m o s t prevalent i n France, where film audiences also i n c l u d e d a larger p r o p o r t i o n o f intellectuals invested i n p r o m o t i n g film as an a r t f o r m . France was also the source o f the m o d e o f film analysis t h a t was eventually t o be a d o p t e d i n the U n i t e d States. Intellectuals were v i r t u a l l y absent f r o m A m e r i c a n film audiences. W h a t is m o r e , A m e r i c a n audiences were also m u c h m o r e a v i d filmgoers. A l t h o u g h reliable statistics f o r attendance i n G e r m a n y d u r i n g the i n t e r w a r p e r i o d are l a c k i n g , the best estimates are t h a t , a m o n g those over eighteen years o f age, Germans w e n t t o the cinema o n average a p p r o x i ­ m a t e l y between 6.6 t o 13 times a n n u a l l y (Saunders 1 9 9 4 : 2 4 ) . A n even l o w e r level o f cinema attendance existed i n France, w h e r e , C r i s p reports, per capita attendance was 3.6 per year i n 1 9 1 9 , a n d h a d risen t o 6 per year b y 1 9 3 7 . These figures represented perhaps a E u r o p e a n n a d i r : "the filmgoing p u b l i c was still grotesquely small b y i n t e r n a t i o n a l standards a n d i n c o m p a r a b l y small f o r a m a j o r film-producing c o u n t r y . " W h i l e per capita a n n u a l attendance was m u c h higher i n E n g l a n d , 3 0 , the rate i n the U n i t e d States was o n e - t h i r d higher yet, 4 0 attendances per person per year. O n e figure r e p o r t e d i n 1929 c l a i m e d t h a t i n France " 7 % o f the p o p u ­ l a t i o n goes t o the cinema, whereas i n the U n i t e d States, 7 5 % o f the p o p u ­ l a t i o n goes" (Crisp 1 9 9 3 : 1 2 - 1 3 , 2 1 3 ) . 7

A further possible c o m p l i c a t i o n t o the relationship between audience c o m p o s i t i o n a n d film's status arises f r o m the relative ethnic h o m o g e n e i t y o f E u r o p e a n audiences. I n the absence o f m u c h i m m i g r a t i o n , E u r o p e a n w o r k i n g classes were e t h n i c a l l y similar t o their m i d d l e - a n d upperclass counterparts. A r e s u l t i n g greater c u l t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y m i g h t have a l ­ l o w e d respective E u r o p e a n n a t i o n a l cinemas t o produce relatively m o r e sophisticated films, engaging t r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r a l themes, m e t a p h o r s , ideas, a n d issues o f n a t i o n a l history. I n contrast, because o f the c u l t u r a l diversity o f the A m e r i c a n i m m i g r a n t w o r k i n g class, films needed t o be relatively less sophisticated i n their appeal t o a w i d e audience. Such a difference w o u l d have been a further disadvantage for an a r t w o r l d f o r film i n the U n i t e d States. T h e historical evidence paints a clear p i c t u r e o f the differences between U.S. a n d European film audiences, b o t h i n their size a n d i n their c o m p o s i ­ t i o n . I n a variety o f w a y s , audience characteristics were related t o the p o t e n t i a l f o r art w o r l d development i n the countries studied above, a n d those characteristics favored film as art i n Europe a n d film as entertain­ m e n t i n the U n i t e d States.

The Changing Opportunity Space Modernism, Nationalism, and Early Intellectual Involvement

•

29

European

I n 1 9 3 1 Jean-Paul Sartre w r o t e , " I s u b m i t t h a t the cinema is a n e w art f o r m w h i c h has its o w n rules a n d u n i q u e practices, t h a t i t c a n n o t be reduced t o a f o r m o f theater, a n d t h a t i t o u g h t t o be as useful t o c u l t u r a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g as Greek a n d p h i l o s o p h y are" (quoted i n A b e l 1 9 8 8 : x i ) . As an eminent French intellectual, Sartre was p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the intellec­ t u a l i z a t i o n o f film. H e was n o t the first o f his c o u n t r y m e n t o p r o - c l a i m film an art f o r m o n equal f o o t i n g w i t h the other h i g h arts. B u t as w e have seen, i n m a k i n g the above statement he h a d g o o d c o m p a n y i n France t o share his view, as he h a d i n G e r m a n y (Kaes 1 9 8 7 : 9 ) , Italy, a n d other E u r o p e a n countries as w e l l . Nevertheless, he w o u l d have been desper­ ately o u t o f synch w i t h the A m e r i c a n intellectual d i s p o s i t i o n w h e n i t came t o film. T h e question is raised, W h y were E u r o p e a n intellectuals w i l l i n g t o perceive a n d discuss film as art so m u c h earlier t h a n t h e i r A m e r i c a n counterparts? There are t w o related p r i m a r y reasons for this early i n v o l v e m e n t . N e i t h e r reason is based o n a perception t h a t E u r o p e a n films were m o r e artistic t h a n A m e r i c a n films. T h e first reason is based, rather, o n the pre­ v a i l i n g intellectual climate i n Europe f o l l o w i n g the devastation o f the First W o r l d War. A f t e r W o r l d W a r I , w i t h i n E u r o p e a n art w o r l d s there was a w i d e l y held belief t h a t existing conventions a n d aesthetic values needed t o be discarded. I t was w i t h this "tone o f a n x i e t y a n d pessimism" (Davies, 1 9 9 6 : 9 5 2 ) t h a t M o d e r n i s t values i n art a n d c u l t u r e a r r i v e d i n Europe t o b r i n g a r a d i c a l aesthetic shift. M o d e r n i s m ' s a r r i v a l was at least p a r t i a l l y facilitated by the h o r r o r s o f w a r ; artists a n d other intellectuals w o r k i n g i n an array o f fields (visual arts, music, l i t e r a t u r e , theater, etc.) a d o p t e d themes a n d conventions t h a t were d r a m a t i c a l l y different f r o m p r e w a r practices. 8

E u r o p e a n c u l t u r a l life i n the p o s t w a r p e r i o d , then, was characterized by a w i t h d r a w a l f r o m aesthetic t r a d i t i o n s a n d a search for alternative models. I n this climate, where a generation was " i n search o f n e w c u l t u r a l m o d e l s " (Saunders 1994:41) a n d " c u l t u r a l elites t r i e d t o m o v e b e y o n d the p o s t w a r atmosphere o f d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t , cynicism, a n d resentment" ( H a k e 2 0 0 2 : 2 6 ) , film c o u l d be readily embraced as a s y m b o l o f a n e w c u l t u r a l order. Kaes (1987:21) maintains t h a t i n G e r m a n y " [ t ] h e collapse o f the W i l h e l m i n e Reich i n W o r l d W a r I b r o u g h t an end t o the bourgeois value system based o n idealism a n d h u m a n i s m . A m e r i c a n mass culture c o u l d thus charge o n t o the disintegrating c u l t u r a l field unopposed—espe­ cially since A m e r i c a also played a d o m i n a n t role i n politics a n d c o m ­ merce." T h e intellectual e n v i r o n m e n t a l l o w e d artists a n d intellectuals w i t h an interest i n film t o indulge t h a t interest relatively easily as there

30

•

Chapter 2

was a generalized acceptance o f new modes o f artistic p r o d u c t i o n w h i l e the o l d were jettisoned. A t the same t i m e , because the film industries o f Europe h a d fallen apart d u r i n g the war, i t was A m e r i c a n film t h a t occu­ pied the vast m a j o r i t y o f E u r o p e a n screens. T h i s fact leads t o the second i m p o r t a n t reason w h y intellectuals i n E u ­ rope became i n v o l v e d i n film earlier t h a n their A m e r i c a n c o u n t e r p a r t s — the close l i n k between n a t i o n a l cinemas a n d n a t i o n a l identities (see, e.g., de Grazia 1998; Ezra a n d H a r r i s 2 0 0 0 ; L e w i s 2 0 0 3 ; Reich 2 0 0 2 ) . H a y (1987:11) quotes the I t a l i a n critic C o r r a d o P a v o l i n i , w h o w r o t e i n l 9 3 0 , " C i n e m a is n o t a t r a n s p o s i t i o n o n t o the screen o f a bourgeois theater t h a t is equally shared a m o n g every civilized c o u n t r y ; instead i t is the o n l y m o d e r n expression o f a n a t i o n a l collectivity, a n d therefore p r o f o u n d l y different f r o m one people t o another." U r i c c h i o (1996:67) argues t h a t this l i n k was a direct result o f W o r l d W a r I . 9

N a t i o n a l cultures are o f special significance t o c u l t u r a l c o m m e n t a t o r s , a n d this was especially so d u r i n g the i n t e r w a r p e r i o d o f increasing n a t i o n ­ alism i n m a n y European countries. T h e r a p i d g r o w t h o f the cinema at t h a t t i m e focused a t t e n t i o n o n the p o t e n t i a l influence o f vast quantities o f i m p o r t e d A m e r i c a n c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t . Films, i n particular, were believed t o be e n o r m o u s l y p o w e r f u l i n their a b i l i t y t o shape p u b l i c attitudes, v a l ­ ues, a n d beliefs. T h e fear was that, a l o n g w i t h A m e r i c a n films, E u r o p e a n audiences were subtly being A m e r i c a n i z e d . Kaes (1987:21) argues t h a t the cinema "was the most i m p o r t a n t factor i n the European process o f A m e r i c a n i z a t i o n i n the p e r i o d o f relative stabilization between 1 9 2 4 a n d 1 9 2 9 . " T h i s belief was w i d e l y enough held t o m e r i t legal sanctions, n o t o n l y t o protect native film industries, b u t also t o protect the native mentalite. T h e Bavarian state government held at the t i m e t h a t " a n y foreign film was a threat t o G e r m a n c u l t u r e " ( M o n a c o 1 9 7 6 : 4 4 ) . H a y (1987:66) reports t h a t the " a l i e n " values t h a t films disseminated were seen at the t i m e t o have " c o r r u p t e d the t r a d i t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n o f I t a l i a n c u l t u r e . " These reports reflect the emerging c o n t e m p o r a r y v i e w o f film as "a na­ t i o n a l resource" (Saunders 1994:9). T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f a belief i n the cinema's transformative effects, a belief i n the cinema's a b i l i t y t o "convey the c r u c i a l concept o f the n a t i o n " (Buss 1989:26), and the fact o f the r a p i d A m e r i c a n i z a t i o n o f E u r o p e a n film e x h i b i t i o n created a special circumstance that called for the a t t e n t i o n o f c u l t u r a l commentators. Intellectual i n v o l v e m e n t was encouraged by the perceived need for I t a l y t o "preserve a n d at times assert its o w n c u l ­ t u r a l i d e n t i t y " ( H a y 1987:67) t h r o u g h film; i n G e r m a n y this translated i n t o "a concerted c a m p a i g n by the trustees o f G e r m a n Kultur t o adapt the m o t i o n picture t o their social a n d p o l i t i c a l purposes" (Saunders 1994:23); a n d d u r i n g the 1920s " a n unspoken o p p o s i t i o n t o the A m e r i -

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

31

can cinema n o w fueled something close t o a collective effort t o establish d i s t i n c t l y French theories o f c i n e m a " ( A b e l 1 9 8 4 : x v i i ) . I t appears, t h e n , t h a t the First W o r l d W a r created an e n v i r o n m e n t for the reception o f f i l m i n Europe t h a t was d r a m a t i c a l l y different f r o m t h a t i n the U n i t e d States, a n d t h a t this different e n v i r o n m e n t can help e x p l a i n w h y f i l m was intellectualized earlier i n Europe. W h i l e the U n i t e d States d i d participate i n W W I , i t d i d n o t experience f i r s t h a n d the death a n d devastation o n a n a t i o n a l scale t h a t was t y p i c a l i n m u c h o f Europe. T h e A m e r i c a n f i l m i n d u s t r y became d o m i n a n t after the war, such t h a t i n t e r n a t i o n a l trade i n f i l m was o v e r w h e l m i n g l y one-way. There was n o crisis o f A m e r i c a n n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y a n d n a t i o n a l c u l t u r e l i n k e d t o f i l m . There was so l i t t l e foreign content o n A m e r i c a n screens t h a t there was n o c o n n e c t i o n i n the m i n d s o f intellectuals o r the p u b l i c between cinema a n d n a t i o n a l i s m . F i l m p r o d u c t i o n was at the t i m e the backbone o f A m e r i ­ can c u l t u r a l i m p e r i a l i s m a n d was b o t h a source a n d expression o f A m e r i ­ can solipsism. W h i l e I argue t h a t the M o d e r n i s t m o v e m e n t a n d the l i n k between na­ t i o n a l i s m a n d f i l m p r o d u c t i o n are the keys t o understanding early E u r o ­ pean i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n o f f i l m , i t w o u l d be disingenuous t o completely deny the i m p o r t a n c e o f differences i n f i l m content. A l t h o u g h there are m o r e similarities t h a n differences i n the content o f A m e r i c a n a n d French, I t a l i a n , a n d G e r m a n films o f the i n t e r w a r p e r i o d , i t is true nonetheless t h a t p r o d u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s differed sufficiently t o p e r m i t an early differ­ e n t i a t i o n o f film p r o d u c t . Kaes (1987:17) notes t h a t G e r m a n filmmakers "made use o f h i g h - b r o w literature as subject matter i n order t o gain c u l ­ t u r a l l e g i t i m a t i o n , " resulting i n the a d o p t i o n o f a h i g h - b r o w / l o w - b r o w d i c h o t o m y ( 1 9 8 7 : 1 8 ) . Saunders supports this characterization, n o t i n g t h a t "the line between h i g h a n d l o w cinema c u l t u r e r e m a i n e d f l u i d " (1994:34). 10

N o film h i s t o r i a n p o i n t s t o an analogous differentiation o f film i n the U n i t e d States i n the i n t e r w a r p e r i o d , a l t h o u g h some rather unsuccessful attempts t o differentiate film were made. T h e early existence o f an aes­ thetic v a n g u a r d i n G e r m a n a n d other E u r o p e a n cinemas was another fac­ t o r t h a t facilitated intellectual i n v o l v e m e n t . H o w e v e r , i t s h o u l d be empha­ sized here t h a t such an aesthetic development i n film content was i n n o w a y necessary f o r i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n t o take place. W h i l e some k i n d s o f content are m o r e readily intellectualized, i t is clear t h a t there is o n l y a loose relationship between c u l t u r a l substance a n d the c r e a t i o n o f a v a l ­ i d a t i n g discourse. T h e content o f early European films c a n n o t e x p l a i n h o w they became regarded as a r t w h i l e A m e r i c a n films d i d n o t . As w e w i l l see, the retrospective i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n o f early A m e r i c a n films renders suspect any assertion t h a t content is the answer.

32

•

Chapter 2

P O S T - W O R L D W A R II CHANGES I N T H E SIZE A N D COMPOSITION OF AMERICAN F I L M AUDIENCES

W h i l e the differences between A m e r i c a n a n d European film audiences were large p r i o r t o W o r l d W a r I I , i n the f o l l o w i n g decades A m e r i c a n a u d i ­ ences came t o m o r e closely parallel their European counterparts. I n the f o l l o w i n g sections w e w i l l review the various social forces t h a t changed the place o f filmgoing i n A m e r i c a n society, a n d the c o n c o m i t a n t changes i n the c o m p o s i t i o n a n d size o f A m e r i c a n audiences. A further significant source o f change was e v o l u t i o n i n the larger intellectual e n v i r o n m e n t o f the 1960s. T h i s development was central i n b r i n g i n g i n the intellectual c o m p o n e n t o f the audience t h a t h a d o n l y previously been a p a r t o f E u r o ­ pean filmgoing.

Rising

Educational

Levels

and the New Film

Generation

I n a m i d - 1 9 9 0 s article assessing the state o f the A m e r i c a n film industry, Susan Sontag (1996) recalls o f the late 1960s, " I t was at this specific m o ­ m e n t i n the 100-year h i s t o r y o f cinema t h a t g o i n g t o movies, t h i n k i n g a b o u t movies, t a l k i n g a b o u t movies became a passion a m o n g uni ver s i t y students a n d other y o u n g people. Y o u fell i n love n o t just w i t h actors b u t w i t h cinema itself." T h e reference t o university students is i m p o r t a n t — t h e role o f higher education is central t o understanding h o w f i l m audiences changed i n the 1960s. H i g h e r education has greatly expanded over the course o f this century. Particularly large gains were made after W o r l d W a r I I w h e n r e t u r n i n g veterans w e n t o n t o college, a n d further gains were made as baby boomers entered college i n the 1960s. Figure 2 . 1 shows the t o t a l e n r o l l m e n t i n institutions o f postsecondary education i n the U n i t e d States, a n d figure 2.2 shows the percentage o f eighteen- t o twenty-four-year-old people en­ r o l l e d i n postsecondary education. B o t h graphs show u p w a r d trends be­ g i n n i n g i m m e d i a t e l y after W o r l d W a r I I a n d c o n t i n u i n g t h r o u g h t o the end o f the t i m e p e r i o d under study. By the end o f the 1940s, television was q u i c k l y g r o w i n g i n p o p u l a r i t y a m o n g m i d d l e - and l o w - i n c o m e households. B o d d y quotes f r o m a 1949 Business Week article t h a t c l a i m e d t h a t " T V is becoming the p o o r man's theater," a n d cites a study o f 1950 TV-set owners t h a t showed t h a t " o w n ­ ership declined w i t h incomes a n d educational levels b e y o n d moderate lev­ els" ( B o d d y 1998:27). Simultaneously, film declined i n p o p u l a r i t y , a n d film's shrunken audience was less heavily w o r k i n g class. Sklar notes t h a t studios first became aware i n the late 1940s t h a t educational a t t a i n m e n t was positively correlated w i t h cinema attendance ( 1 9 9 4 : 2 7 0 ) , a n d t h a t

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

33

rear

Figure 2 . 1 . Total Enrollment in Institutions of Higher Education, 1925-1985 (dotted lines indicate missing data)

1960s film audiences, students w h o were " p r i m e d for artistic r e b e l l i o n , " became k n o w n as the " f i l m generation" ( 1 9 9 4 : 3 2 5 ) . W r i t i n g for the New York Times Magazine i n 1 9 6 9 , film critic R i c h a r d Schickel (1969:32) c o m m e n t e d o n recent survey results t h a t showed t h a t m o v i e audiences were d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y y o u n g a n d t h a t those w h o attended most fre­ quently were either college students or college graduates. Schickel hy­ pothesized t h a t the most frequent attenders a m o n g h i g h school students were those w h o p l a n n e d t o go o n t o college. T h e film h i s t o r y literature is rife w i t h assertions t h a t the audience for film i n the 1960s was q u a l i t a t i v e l y different f r o m previous decades. S o l o m o n maintains t h a t filmgoing became less o f a f a m i l y activity i n the 1960s a n d t h a t studios then h a d t o satisfy "a narrower, m o r e sophisti­ cated, a n d m o r e p a r t i c u l a r audience" ( 1 9 8 8 : 1 4 8 ) . C o o k (1998:12) c o n ­ curs, w r i t i n g t h a t the A m e r i c a n film audience i n the late 1960s a n d later "was younger, better-educated, a n d m o r e affluent t h a n H o l l y w o o d ' s t r a ­ d i t i o n a l audience." T h e film h i s t o r y scholarship is clear a b o u t the matter o f the changing nature o f film audiences. H a v i n g established this h i s t o r i c a l t r e n d , the question becomes, H o w is this qualitative difference significant for the 11

12

13

14

34

•

Chapter 2

Figure 2.2. Percentage of 18- to 24-Year-Olds Enrolled in Insitutions of Higher Education, 1925-1985 (dotted lines indicate missing data)

changing status o f H o l l y w o o d films as art? There are at least three mecha­ nisms t h r o u g h w h i c h the increase i n postsecondary e d u c a t i o n influenced the status o f f i l m as art. First, as D i M a g g i o ( 1 9 8 2 ; 1992) a n d Levine (1988) have n o t e d , associations w i t h the status o f audience members have i n m a n y cases c o n t r i b u t e d t o the rise a n d fall i n prestige o f v a r i o u s a r t f o r m s . B o t h authors argue t h a t the development o f the existing c u l t u r a l hierarchy i n the U n i t e d States occurred i n the nineteenth a n d early t w e n t i ­ eth centuries and t h a t those art forms t h a t are at o r near the t o p o f the hierarchy benefited f r o m s t r o n g associations w i t h the upper a n d upperm i d d l e classes. Similarly, w h e n the c o m p o s i t i o n o f f i l m audiences began t o include fewer members f r o m l o w e r socioeconomic strata a n d relatively m o r e f r o m higher socioeconomic strata, f i l m itself m a y have experienced " s y m b o l i c enhancement" (Lieberson 2 0 0 0 : 1 2 6 - 3 0 ) f r o m the association w i t h a higher status audience. Consequently, claims o f film's artistic status c o u l d enjoy m o r e c r e d i b i l i t y w i t h the increase i n the prestige o f f i l m . 15

T h e second mechanism posits an increase i n the audience's capacity t o treat f i l m i n a sophisticated manner, as a r t rather t h a n as entertainment. T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n is i n f o r m e d by the t h e o r y o f c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l t h a t claims t h a t arts appreciation is t r a i n e d b o t h t h r o u g h educational i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d t h r o u g h f a m i l i a l socialization ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 8 4 ; D i M a g g i o a n d Useem 1 9 7 8 ) . These authors c l a i m t h a t a taste f o r h i g h arts is facilitated by the educational system t h a t teaches i n d i v i d u a l s h o w t o a p p r o a c h a n d t o u n -

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

35

derstand h i g h art. T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y true o f postsecondary education. T h r o u g h extensive intellectual a n d experiential t r a i n i n g , i n d i v i d u a l s learn h o w t o decode a n d m a k e sense o f the sophisticated aesthetics o f h i g h art. I t is plausible, however, t h a t once this t r a i n i n g has occurred, i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l b r i n g i t t o bear n o t o n l y o n h i g h art, b u t o n a l l forms o f culture t h a t they consume. T h e acts o f analysis a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l n o t s i m p l y manifest themselves as activities t i e d t o h i g h c u l t u r a l experiences, b u t w i l l be expressed as a general d i s p o s i t i o n t o w a r d a l l culture. B o u r d i e u makes this argument e x p l i c i t l y w h e n he writes t h a t the legitimate d i s p o s i t i o n . . . comes t o be extended t o other, less legiti­ mate w o r k s , such as avant-garde literature, or t o areas enjoying less academic r e c o g n i t i o n , such as the cinema. T h e generalizing tendency is inscribed i n the very p r i n c i p l e o f the d i s p o s i t i o n t o recognize legitimate w o r k s , a propensity a n d capacity t o recognize their legitimacy a n d per­ ceive t h e m as w o r t h y o f a d m i r a t i o n i n themselves. (1984:26) The proper audience, then, first h a d t o be constituted before f i l m c o u l d succeed as art. R a c h l i n (1993) argues that the f o r m a t i o n o f an audience w i t h a preference for (disposition t o w a r d ) particular genres o f literature and other arts was a prerequisite for the success o f the nouvelle vague cinema i n France. Similarly, i t m i g h t have been the case i n the U n i t e d States that the success o f an artistic approach t o f i l m i n general first required the f o r m a t i o n o f a receptive audience that was appropriately predisposed. I t is n o t , however, necessary t o accept the argument t h a t higher educa­ t i o n fundamentally shapes one's aesthetic disposition. T h e t h i r d mecha­ n i s m t h a t m a y account for the i m p a c t o f changing educational levels i n f i l m audiences is the desire o f an e x p a n d i n g m i d d l e class t o be i n f o r m e d a b o u t current c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g . Halle's (1993) w o r k , for instance, casts d o u b t o n the t h e o r y t h a t the h i g h l y educated actually experience art i n a fundamentally different w a y f r o m the less educated and suggests instead t h a t the h i g h l y educated have a g o o d sense o f w h a t tastes are suitable for people o f their social positions. Instead o f experiencing culture i n a differ­ ent way, perhaps i n d i v i d u a l s h a d , t h r o u g h the educational process, come t o expect t h a t there s h o u l d be some c r i t i c a l c o m m e n t , b e y o n d the descrip­ tive i n t o the r e a l m o f analysis, o f w h i c h i t was i m p o r t a n t t o be aware. A p r o p o n e n t o f this v i e w is Gans ( 1 9 9 9 ) , o r i g i n a l l y w r i t i n g i n 1 9 7 4 , w h o argues t h a t an " u p p e r - m i d d l e taste c u l t u r e " has become prevalent i n the U n i t e d States. Taste cultures are shared o r c o m m o n aesthetic values a n d standards o f taste. Aesthetic is used broadly, referring n o t o n l y t o standards o f beauty a n d tastes b u t also t o a variety o f other e m o t i o n a l a n d intellectual values t h a t people express o r satisfy w h e n they choose content f r o m a taste culture. . . .

36

•

Chapter 2

Users w h o make similar choices a m o n g a n d w i t h i n taste cultures [are] taste publics [emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ] . ( 1 9 9 9 : 6 - 7 ) Gans identifies five publics a n d cultures: h i g h culture, upper-middle c u l ­ t u r e , l o w e r - m i d d l e c u l t u r e , l o w c u l t u r e , a n d quasi-folk l o w c u l t u r e (1999:ch.2). I t is the upper-middle taste p u b l i c , Gans suggests, t h a t has g r o w n fastest since W o r l d W a r I I due t o the expansion o f higher educa­ t i o n . T h i s taste p u b l i c "relies extensively o n critics a n d reviewers" t o cate­ gorize culture and t o validate its tastes, "goes t o see foreign films a n d the 'independent' p r o d u c t i o n s t h a t n o w come o u t o f H o l l y w o o d , " a n d can be identified as the source o f "the great p o p u l a r i t y o f f o r e i g n films" ( 1 9 9 9 : 1 0 9 ) . W h i l e some o f Gans's e m p i r i c a l observations m a y seem o u t o f date (hardly surprising as they were o r i g i n a l l y made t h i r t y years ago), his analysis can still be helpful i n establishing the c o n n e c t i o n between the g r o w t h o f college-educated audiences w h o were a t t u n e d t o c r i t i c a l a p p r o b a t i o n o f foreign a n d independent films o n the one h a n d , a n d the increasing acceptance o f film as art o n the other. T h i s line o f argument raises questions a b o u t the source o f the artistic a p p r o a c h t o film. Rather t h a n o r i g i n a t i n g w i t h audiences themselves, an intellectualizing discourse o n film was developed by critics, filmmakers themselves, a n d other intellectuals w h o were members o f the film w o r l d . T h e h i s t o r y o f A m e r i c a n film c r i t i c i s m a n d the development o f a l e g i t i m a t ­ i n g ideology o f film as art are discussed i n depth i n chapter 4 . G i v e n t h a t film critics were w r i t i n g reviews t h a t increasingly discussed films as art, the g r o w t h o f an audience increasingly attuned t o c r i t i c i s m a n d intellec­ t u a l w r i t i n g o n film meant t h a t large numbers o f people were a d o p t i n g the v i e w t h a t there was art i n film. T h e second a n d t h i r d mechanisms, those proposed by B o u r d i e u a n d by Gans, are alternate conceptions o f w h a t was happening a m o n g audiences. T h a t does n o t mean, t h o u g h , t h a t they are m u t u a l l y exclusive. I t is possi­ ble t h a t b o t h mechanisms are o p e r a t i n g simultaneously. T h e aesthetic dis­ positions o f the audience m a y have genuinely changed, as Bourdieu's anal­ yses w o u l d suggest, at the same t i m e t h a t they developed a heightened concern for critical o p i n i o n s , as Gans w o u l d argue. Such a v i e w seems t o be supported by M a s t , w h o , o r i g i n a l l y w r i t i n g i n 1 9 7 1 , notes h o w film audiences have changed over t i m e . O n l y recent A m e r i c a n audiences, the t h i r d generation o f movie-goers, expect the film t o be art a n d n o t f o r m u l a i c e n t e r t a i n m e n t . . . . T h e pres­ ent m o v i e audience takes its movies as seriously as i t does the p r o d u c t s o f the novelist a n d poet. T h e n e w influence o f the intellectual m o v i e critics, w h o n o w exert m o r e p o w e r a n d attract m o r e a t t e n t i o n t h a n the critics o f any other art, is merely a s y m p t o m o f these n e w expectations. (1981:4-5)

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

37

A l t h o u g h w e d o n o t have the evidence necessary t o arbitrate between these three alternative mechanisms t h a t l i n k the changing nature o f film audiences w i t h the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d films, w e can nevertheless assert w i t h reasonable confidence t h a t this change i n w h o was seeing films was h i s t o r i c a l l y significant. A m o n g the m y r i a d social forces at play, the m a k e u p o f the film audience must be acknowledged.

Leisure Substitutes, Technological Innovations, The Shrinking of American Film Audiences

and

Demography:

W h i l e the nature o f the film audience evolved, so d i d its size—it shrank dramatically. T h i s section analyzes the relationship between the i n t r o d u c ­ t i o n o f c o m p e t i n g a n d substitute leisure-time options a n d the drastic re­ d u c t i o n i n the scale o f the p o s t - W o r l d W a r I I A m e r i c a n film industry. T h i s m o n u m e n t a l change meant t h a t film lost its standing as the m o s t p r o f i t ­ able a n d c o m m o n f o r m o f entertainment i n the U n i t e d States a n d c o u l d be evaluated w i t h i n a very different c o n t e x t o f c u l t u r a l o p t i o n s . A l t h o u g h authors o f the h i s t o r y o f the A m e r i c a n cinema generally ac­ k n o w l e d g e t h a t m a n y statistics concerning the film i n d u s t r y before the 1950s are c o n t r a d i c t o r y o r unreliable, there is widespread agreement a b o u t the most significant trends i n cinema attendance. Soon after its i n t r o d u c t i o n as a recreational activity, m o v i e w a t c h i n g became enor­ m o u s l y popular. Ross (1998:7) reports, " B y 1910, nearly o n e - t h i r d o f the p o p u l a t i o n flocked t o m o v i e theaters each week; a decade later, nearly h a l f the p o p u l a t i o n d i d s o . " A c c o r d i n g t o figures f r o m B r o w n (1995) a n d f r o m the 1996 e d i t i o n o f International Motion Picture Almanac, there were o n average 50 m i l l i o n cinema attendances per week i n the U n i t e d States i n 1 9 2 6 , the earliest figure reported by these sources (see figure 2.3). W e e k l y attendances then rose sharply t o 90 m i l l i o n before falling back t o 60 m i l l i o n i n the early 1930s, the t i m e o f the Depression. By 1945 w e e k l y attendances again reached 90 m i l l i o n . A l t h o u g h there m a y be some question as t o the accuracy o f these numbers, especially concerning yearly differences, they are generally i n agreement w i t h n u ­ merous accounts (e.g., M a s t 1 9 8 1 ; Rhode 1976; Schatz 1996; Sklar 1994) o f the enormous p o p u l a r i t y o f films d u r i n g t h a t t i m e p e r i o d . 16

T h e decrease i n average w e e k l y attendances f o l l o w i n g W o r l d W a r I I was p r e c i p i t o u s — i n 1946 average w e e k l y attendances fell t o 78.2 m i l l i o n , i n 1 9 4 7 t o 70.5 m i l l i o n , i n 1948 t o 65.8 m i l l i o n , i n 1949 t o 60.9 m i l l i o n , a n d i n 1950 t o 58 m i l l i o n . I t was the beginning o f a l o n g p e r i o d o f decline. By 1960 average w e e k l y attendances were 2 5 . 1 m i l l i o n , a n d by 1970 17.7 m i l l i o n . Attendances rose moderately thereafter, reaching 20.3 m i l l i o n i n 1985.

38

•

Chapter 2

A n a t u r a l place t o begin l o o k i n g for an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the great de­ crease i n filmgoing is w i t h the m a j o r c o m p e t i t o r for d r a m a t i c entertain­ ment—television. As m a n y f i l m historians have n o t e d , the advent o f televi­ sion h a d a large negative i m p a c t o n f i l m g o i n g (see, e.g., B a l i o 1 9 8 7 ; B r o w n 1995; H i r s c h h o r n 1 9 8 3 ; M a s t 1 9 8 1 ; Sklar 1 9 9 4 ; S o l o m o n 1 9 8 8 ; Stones 1 9 9 3 ) . I n fact, t h r o u g h o u t the literature o n f i l m history, the de­ cline i n cinema attendance is a t t r i b u t e d t o television's rise m o r e t h a n t o any other factor. Similarly, historians o f A m e r i c a n television l e n d s u p p o r t t o the n o t i o n t h a t television negatively affected f i l m attendance ( B o d d y 1 9 9 8 ; Kisseloff 1995; W i n s h i p 1 9 8 8 ) . After beginning a r o u n d the t u r n o f the century, television t e c h n o l o g y t o o k several decades t o develop. C o m m e r c i a l television services were first offered i n E n g l a n d by the B B C i n 1 9 3 6 , a n d i n the U n i t e d States b y N B C i n 1939 ( W i n s h i p 1 9 8 8 : c h . l ) . A t t h a t t i m e , television v i e w i n g was an ex­ tremely l i m i t e d p h e n o m e n o n . N o t o n l y was the p r o g r a m m i n g scarce, b u t there were few manufacturers o f television sets, w h i c h were inconve­ n i e n t l y large i n size a n d h a d discouragingly h i g h prices (Kisseloff 1 9 9 5 : 1 2 0 ) . Before advances c o u l d be made t o change this s i t u a t i o n , p r o g ­ ress was halted w h e n researchers were required t o w o r k o n r a d a r a n d other m i l i t a r y developments ( W i n s h i p 1 9 8 8 : 1 7 ) . 17

F o l l o w i n g the war, however, researchers for companies such as N B C , CBS, R C A , a n d D u M o n t made real progress i n b r i n g i n g m o r e manage­ ably sized a n d somewhat less expensive sets t o consumers. I n 1948 s i x t y -

The Changing Opportunity Space

• 39

six companies were p r o d u c i n g television sets (Boddy 1 9 9 8 : 2 7 ) . T h e i n ­ crease i n the n u m b e r o f companies w o r k i n g o n television t e c h n o l o g y meant a n increase i n the n u m b e r o f sets p r o d u c e d a n d a c o n c o m i t a n t decrease i n prices. A s N B C , CBS, a n d D u M o n t (and later A B C as w e l l ) began t o offer m o r e i n the w a y o f regular p r o g r a m m i n g , d e m a n d i n ­ creased further. W i n s h i p relays a j o u r n a l i s t i c account f r o m the late 1940s t h a t reports t h a t " [ s ] h o w s like M i l t o n Berle's Texaco Star Theater were e m p t y i n g city streets o n Tuesday nights. A m o v i e house manager i n O h i o p l a c e d a sign o n his theater d o o r : C L O S E D T U E S D A Y — i W A N T T O SEE B E R L E

T O O ! " (1988:17). There is some dispute w i t h i n the literature concerning just h o w expen­ sive television sets were a n d w h o c o u l d a f f o r d t h e m . D i M a g g i o a n d C o h e n ( 2 0 0 3 : 5 7 , n . 3 ) cite Survey o f Consumer Finance data t h a t estimate the m e d i a n price at $ 4 2 8 i n 1 9 4 8 a n d 1 9 4 9 , a n d $325 i n 1 9 5 0 . T h e y note t h a t these prices w o u l d have made a television a very expensive purchase at t h a t t i m e . A n o t h e r study b y G o m e r y (2001:123) o f television's early audiences finds slightly different figures—$400 o n average i n 1 9 4 7 , b u t a sharp decline t o b e l o w $ 2 0 0 i n 1 9 4 8 , w i t h further declines thereafter. G o m e r y argues t h a t a l t h o u g h the very earliest television owners were members o f the upper-middle class, t h a t s i t u a t i o n r a p i d l y changed as m i d ­ dle-class families splurged f o r televisions t h a t h a d also become m o r e af­ fordable. Because television was a one-time expense, the savings o n tickets for movies, sports, theater, a n d other live events were often h o w families economically r a t i o n a l i z e d the purchase. Despite the discrepancies f o u n d i n the h i s t o r i c a l statistics, i t is nonetheless clear t h a t b y the early 1950s televisions were t o be f o u n d i n a l l b u t the m os t privileged o f homes, i n ­ c l u d i n g m o s t working-class homes. 18

The Statistical History of the United States from Colonial Times to the Present, p u b l i s h e d b y the D e p a r t m e n t o f Commerce a n d the Bureau o f the Census, first reports figures f o r television use f o r 1 9 4 6 , i n w h i c h year a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8,000 television were i n use. There were 3.9 m i l l i o n televi­ sions i n use i n 1 9 5 0 , a n d just one year later, there were 10 m i l l i o n . I n 1960 4 6 m i l l i o n televisions were i n use a n d 61.5 m i l l i o n i n 1 9 7 0 , w h e n 89.9 percent a n d 95.3 percent respectively o f A m e r i c a n households c o n ­ tained a television {Statistical Abstract of the United States). T h e coincidence o f television's rise i n p o p u l a r i t y a n d the decrease i n the rate o f filmgoing suggests strongly t h a t television helped t o erode the c o m m e r c i a l success o f the film i n d u s t r y (see figure 2 . 4 ) . Just as film stole mass audiences a w a y f r o m theater, television l u r e d mass audiences a w a y f r o m film. Stones w r i t e s t h a t "[beginning i n the 1950s H o l l y w o o d re­ trieved a n d r e w o r k e d existing technology t o give moviegoers a n experi­ ence they c o u l d n ' t replicate w i t h t e l e v i s i o n " ( 1 9 9 3 : 1 6 5 ) . These i n n o v a -

40

•

Chapter 2

Figure 2.4. Weekly U.S. Theater Attendance (in millions), Television Sets in Use (in millions), Births per 1,000 Women 15 to 44, and Passenger Vehicle Ownership (in millions), 1925-1985

tions i n c l u d e d color, wide-screen p r o j e c t i o n , a n d 3 - D p r o j e c t i o n . Despite these efforts, " m o v i e attendance c o n t i n u e d t o decline" (Stones 1 9 9 3 : 1 7 9 ) . A l t h o u g h a n u m b e r o f authors have l i n k e d decreases i n f i l m g o i n g w i t h television's rise, there is a slight discrepancy i n the t i m i n g o f the t w o t r e n d s — f i l m g o i n g decreases significantly i n 1 9 4 6 , before television o w n ­ ership is widespread enough t o account for the decrease. T h i s fact is n o t e d by Sklar ( 1 9 9 4 : 2 7 4 ) , w h o p o i n t s t o the c o m m i t m e n t o f " t i m e a n d m o n e y t o h o m e a n d f a m i l y b u i l d i n g " t h a t the baby b o o m necessitated. I n a d d i t i o n t o television data, figure 2.4 a l l o w s us t o compare cinema attendance w i t h the b i r t h rate per 1,000 w o m e n aged fifteen t o forty-four. T h e historical statistics s u p p o r t Sklar's assertion t h a t an increase i n b i r t h s c o n t r i b u t e d t o a decrease i n f i l m g o i n g . T h e increase o c c u r r e d i n 1 9 4 5 , u p o n r e t u r n f r o m W o r l d W a r I I o f a large n u m b e r o f m i l i t a r y personnel. T h e l i n k between the f o r m a t i o n o f n e w families a n d a change i n cinema attendance habits seems c l e a r — w i t h very y o u n g c h i l d r e n t o take care of, m a n y y o u n g couples were less disposed t o go o u t o f the h o m e f o r their

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

41

entertainment. T h i s is because the difficulty o f caring f o r very y o u n g c h i l ­ dren, o r p a y i n g f o r a babysitter, w o u l d have made a t r i p t o the cinema less appealing. F u r t h e r m o r e , because o f s t r o n g n o r m s against m a k i n g dis­ r u p t i v e noise i n a theater, the prospect o f b r i n g i n g infants t o the cinema w o u l d have been u n a t t r a c t i v e t o m a n y couples. Such obstacles were irrelevant i n the case o f television. I t appears t h a t the changing demographic reality b o t h prevented m a n y y o u n g people f r o m m a i n t a i n i n g their habits o f g o i n g o u t t o see films a n d facilitated the a d o p t i o n o f television as a n e w source o f entertainment. W h e n the b i r t h rate abates i n the 1960s, there is n o change i n cinema attendance, w h i c h remains fairly stable at a l o w level. A t t h a t p o i n t television has become yet m o r e popular, a n d i t appears t h a t habits o f television v i e w i n g have largely supplanted filmgoing. A n expectation t h a t cinema attendance s h o u l d r e b o u n d w h e n the b i r t h rate declines is unreasonable. Such an expectation w o u l d assume a s y m m e t r i c a l causal relationship (Lieberson 1985:ch.4). I n this case, after the increase i n the b i r t h rate, the n e w leisure h a b i t o f television v i e w i n g obscured the need or desire f o r people t o go t o theaters, so t h a t even w h e n the b i r t h rate declined there was n o drive for increased cinema attendance. There was, therefore, an i n t e r a c t i o n o f social forces—the coincidence o f the b e g i n n i n g o f the baby b o o m w i t h the g r o w t h i n television w a t c h i n g — c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the decline i n filmgoing. W h i l e the t i m i n g suggests t h a t television alone d i d n o t cause a decrease i n filmgoing, the sheer a m o u n t o f t i m e television w a t c h i n g consumes f o r the average A m e r i c a n suggests t h a t i t detracts f r o m filmgoing. Television has been fingered as a c u l p r i t i n the decline o f A m e r i c a n g r o u p - j o i n i n g a n d civic life ( P u t n a m 2 0 0 0 : c h . l 3 ) , a n d the same reasoning applies t o movies: t o paraphrase P u t n a m , a strong c o m m i t m e n t t o television is i n ­ c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a s t r o n g c o m m i t m e n t t o g o i n g o u t t o the movies, such as the A m e r i c a n p u b l i c used t o have. 19

I n a d d i t i o n t o television a n d b i r t h rates, another m a j o r development i n A m e r i c a n society also m i g h t have helped t o decrease the rate o f filmgo­ ing—the creation o f n e w leisure o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h r o u g h vehicle o w n e r s h i p . Crisp ( 1 9 9 3 : 6 9 - 7 0 ) argues t h a t the c o m m e r c i a l success o f the film indus­ t r y i n France was greatly hampered by an increase i n the p r o p o r t i o n o f the p o p u l a t i o n o w n i n g a m o t o r vehicle. M o t o r vehicle o w n e r s h i p increased leisure o p p o r t u n i t i e s — i t became possible t o attend m a n y m o r e events a n d t o visit m a n y m o r e locations. Films were therefore neglected i n favor o f substitute leisure o p t i o n s . T h e data o n passenger vehicle o w n e r s h i p i n the U n i t e d States s u p p o r t the v i e w t h a t a s i m i l a r relationship existed here (see figure 2 . 4 ) . W h i l e a u t o m o b i l e o w n e r s h i p was m o r e c o m m o n i n the U n i t e d States t h a n i n France o r elsewhere i n Europe before W o r l d W a r I I , there was stronger g r o w t h i n o w n e r s h i p i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g the war. T h e u p t u r n i n o w n e r s h i p parallels the d o w n t u r n i n cinema attendance. I n fact,

42

•

Chapter 2

l i k e the increase i n the b i r t h rate, the coincidence appears closer t h a n does the case f o r television a n d attendance. A c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the h i s t o r y o f another i m p o r t a n t electronic mass m e d i u m , r a d i o , does n o t p r o v i d e c o m p e l l i n g evidence for a substantial influence o f t h a t m e d i u m o n cinema attendance. Some f i l m historians c l a i m t h a t the f i l m i n d u s t r y suffered f r o m c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h r a d i o (see, e.g., Baxter 1 9 9 3 : 2 7 ) . Figure 2.5 shows t h a t r a d i o o w n e r s h i p g r e w at a fairly constant rate f r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f the data set, 1 9 2 5 , t o the end o f the data set, 1 9 8 5 .

20

There is, however, n o coincidence between the

g r o w t h i n r a d i o o w n e r s h i p a n d the p o i n t at w h i c h cinema attendance begins t o decline. T h e apparent lack o f an effect o n cinema attendance m i g h t be surprising f o r those w h o w o u l d p o i n t t o the vast p o p u l a r i t y o f m a n y d r a m a t i c , n a r r a t i v e r a d i o p r o g r a m s , some o f w h i c h were even transferred t o television later o n .

2 1

A l t h o u g h visual inspections o f graphed data are quite useful f o r specu­ l a t i n g a b o u t causal influences, a time-series regression analysis can better determine the relative i m p o r t a n c e o f c o m p e t i n g causal forces. Table 2 . 1

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

43

TABLE 2.1.

Prais-Winsten Time Series Regression of Influence of Television, the Birthrate, and Vehicle Ownership on Cinema Attendance

P

S.E.

P

Television

-1.05

0.40

Birthrate

-0.40

0.15

0.008

0.21

0.43

0.62

Radio

-0.07

0.42

0.87

1936 Break

12.02

5.92

0.05

1957 Break

-1.81

6.37

0.78

Constant

98.40

18.87

Vehicles

0.012

0.000

R : 0.67 Durbin-Watson: 1.29 2

provides the results o f such an analysis. O n e o f the p r o b l e m s w i t h as­ sessing the effects o f the b i r t h rate o n cinema attendance, however, is the fact t h a t the b i r t h rate makes significant changes i n d i r e c t i o n d u r i n g the t i m e p e r i o d i n question. I n 1936 the b i r t h rate b o t t o m s o u t a n d t h e n increases u n t i l 1 9 5 7 , w h e n i t reverses again a n d begins t o d r o p . I n order t o c o n t r o l statistically f o r these reversals, t w o d u m m y variables are i n t r o ­ duced i n t o the e q u a t i o n , one f o r 1936 a n d one f o r 1957. 22

O f m o s t substantive interest is the fact t h a t the coefficients f o r television o w n e r s h i p a n d the b i r t h rate are b o t h negative a n d h i g h l y l i k e l y t o have a real l i n k t o cinema attendance. T h e time-series analysis supports the argument t h a t these t w o factors j o i n t l y caused a decrease i n filmgoing. I n contrast, the coefficients f o r vehicle o w n e r s h i p a n d r a d i o o w n e r s h i p are h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t o have real associations w i t h cinema attendance i n this analysis. For the case o f automobiles, one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this finding is t h a t cars p r o v i d e d b o t h alternative leisure o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d an alterna­ tive m o d e for filmgoing i n d r i v e - i n theaters. As f o r r a d i o , i t appears t h a t w h e n r a d i o o w n e r s h i p grew, people managed t o fit i n t o t h e i r schedules w i t h o u t influencing t h e i r filmgoing habits. T h e variables analyzed here are p r o b a b l y n o t the o n l y alternatives t h a t people t u r n e d t o i n lieu o f filmgoing. T h e y are however, some o f the m o s t i m p o r t a n t developments i n A m e r i c a n society o f the t w e n t i e t h century, a n d so are l i k e l y the m o s t i m p o r t a n t w i t h respect t o cinema attendance. Nonetheless, further entertainment options t h a t m i g h t have also i n f l u ­ enced cinema attendance include sports. Sklar ( 1 9 9 4 : 2 7 4 ) , however, cites a study o f p o s t w a r recreation a n d entertainment expenditures t h a t " i n d i -

44

•

Chapter 2

cates t h a t spending o n spectator a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n sports was less, o n a percentage basis, i n 1953 t h a n i n 1 9 4 6 . " T h i s decrease m i g h t be expected because m a n y people purchased televisions i n order t o w a t c h sports. I n this way, sports m i g h t have h a d an influence o n cinema attendance, b u t this effect is represented by television o w n e r s h i p . T h e evidence strongly suggests t h a t the p o p u l a r i t y o f film is influenced by the existence o f a substitute c u l t u r a l o p t i o n — t e l e v i s i o n — a n d the a c t i v i ­ ties t h a t come w i t h b u i l d i n g families. I n this way, events a n d develop­ ments t h a t were w e l l outside the film w o r l d influenced some i m p o r t a n t features o f t h a t w o r l d . As w e w i l l see, these features were i m p l i c a t e d i n the g r o w t h o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films. T h e f o l l o w i n g section discusses h o w the changing nature o f film audiences can best be inter­ preted as an arena for the i n t e r p l a y o f class politics a n d c u l t u r a l politics. Audience

Gentrification

A n y analysis o f the determinants o f c u l t u r a l hierarchy m u s t pay close a t t e n t i o n t o the role o f art c o n s u m p t i o n i n creating a n d m a i n t a i n i n g social status. A n a x i o m o f this perspective o n c u l t u r a l hierarchy is t h a t h i g h status groups are loathe t o risk s y m b o l i c c o n t a m i n a t i o n t h r o u g h c o n ­ s u m p t i o n o f c u l t u r a l goods associated w i t h lower-status groups. T h e ex­ c e p t i o n t o this rule occurs w h e n the gap between h i g h a n d l o w groups is sufficiently large t h a t n o confusion results regarding the distinctions between the groups. For example, high-status groups t e n d t o enjoy the music o f specific musicians w h o are relatively u n k n o w n . Those w h o are w i d e l y p o p u l a r a m o n g the general p u b l i c , the m i d d l e classes, are l i k e l y t o be avoided by higher-status groups. Examples o f p o p u l a r singers a n d musicians w h o tend n o t o n l y t o be avoided b u t derided by high-status groups include Celine D i o n a n d K e n n y G . These musicians m a k e easylistening p o p music, a " m i d d l e A m e r i c a " genre. Because o f the p o w e r t h a t o u r tastes have t o represent o u r identity, expressing a taste for easylistening p o p puts one at risk o f being identified as a member o f the anony­ m o u s m i d d l e - A m e r i c a n mass. N o such danger exists, t h o u g h , for high-status g r o u p members w h o express a taste for musical forms associated w i t h low-status s u b c u l t u r a l groups o f w h i c h they c o u l d never p l a u s i b l y be members. T h i s distance a l l o w e d upper-middle-class whites t o enjoy jazz w h e n i t was p r e d o m i ­ n a n t l y a disreputable, A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n musical genre. A l t h o u g h Lopes (2002:174) focuses o n the enthusiasm for jazz o f the " m o s t l y w h i t e , male, college educated, a n d m i d d l e t o upper class" g r o u p he calls "the righteous elite," I w o u l d argue t h a t the status distance between t h e m a n d blacks i n the 1930s helped t o fuel t h a t enthusiasm. Lopes ( 2 0 0 2 : 1 3 5 ) also cites N e i l

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

45

Leonard's 1962 argument t h a t early w h i t e jazz musicians saw themselves as " r o m a n t i c outsiders" whose i n v o l v e m e n t i n jazz was a w a y o f o p t i n g o u t o f the conservative middle-class c u l t u r e . A g a i n , choosing t o affiliate w i t h a low-status subgroup, w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g an obvious distance f r o m t h a t subgroup, i n order t o be an outsider o f an undesirable m i d d l e g r o u p makes sense f r o m a perspective t h a t views c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n ­ s u m p t i o n i n terms o f concerns about status. T h i s same c o n c e p t i o n o f the l i n k between status concerns a n d taste i n f o r m s Gans's ( 1 9 9 9 : 1 3 6 ) c l a i m regarding " c u l t u r a l s t r a d d l i n g . " C u l ­ t u r a l s t r a d d l i n g can be u p w a r d , as i n the case o f lower-status g r o u p m e m ­ bers' attendance at art museums w h e n inspired by a sense o f c u l t u r a l duty. Status-seeking purposes can likewise be the r o o t o f d o w n w a r d c u l t u r a l s t r a d d l i n g . High-status groups are l i m i t e d i n the extent t o w h i c h they can d o w n w a r d straddle because t o o m u c h c u l t u r a l b o r r o w i n g risks b l u r r i n g the c u l t u r a l distinctions t h a t they otherwise u p h o l d . Gans (1999:136) notes h o w this has played a role i n the art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d f i l m : "Because status considerations are i m p o r t a n t , higher culture publics fre­ quently take u p p o p u l a r culture o n l y after i t has been d r o p p e d by its o r i g i n a l users; d u r i n g the 1960s a n d 1970s, f o r instance, the films o f H u m ­ phrey Bogart a n d the H o l l y w o o d musicals o f Busby Berkeley were p o p u ­ lar w i t h higher culture p u b l i c s . " I n this w a y the c o m m e r c i a l failures o f H o l l y w o o d were a l l o w e d t o become artistic successes. T h e difference w i t h the case o f jazz is t h a t jazz was closely tied t o a low-status s u b c u l t u r a l g r o u p . T h r o u g h a f o r m o f reverse snobbery, high-status groups c o u l d ben­ efit f r o m their o w n taste for jazz. I n the case o f H o l l y w o o d films, h i g h status groups were instead p i c k i n g u p a d r o p p e d f o o t b a l l a n d r u n n i n g w i t h i t . W h e n H o l l y w o o d films were the default dramatic entertainment for the masses (not a low-status subculture as for jazz), before the 1960s, high-status groups w o u l d have risked a status d e m o t i o n by a r t i c u l a t i n g a belief i n the artistic value o f H o l l y w o o d films. T h i s risk was d i m i n i s h e d , however, by the mass a b a n d o n m e n t o f H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n , m a k i n g t h e m safe for high-status sponsorship. Such sponsorship, as discussed ear­ lier, is a key mechanism f o r c u l t u r a l m o b i l i t y , a n d an i m p o r t a n t factor i n the g r o w t h o f the art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d f i l m s . 23

T h e h i s t o r y o f the audiences for H o l l y w o o d films is a story o f collective behavior a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y o f c o n f o r m i t y t o g r o u p n o r m s a b o u t class a n d status. T h e l e g i t i m a t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d films as art c o u l d never s i m p l y be a b o u t l e g i t i m a t i n g the culture o f the masses, because t h a t w o u l d mean elevating the masses themselves relative t o higher-status groups, w h i c h by definition cannot occur. Instead, the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d films was precisely a b o u t the perpetuation o f audience segregation by class. C u l ­ t u r a l gems can o n l y l o o k like lost treasure i f they are n o t c u r r e n t l y being w o r n by those w h o are t h o u g h t t o have bad taste.

46 Film,

•

Chapter 2 Television,

and Social

Functions

T h e advent and g r o w t h o f television influenced film i n another w a y t h a t was n o t mediated by the nature o f their audiences. T h e image o f film is affected by w h a t film does—its social function—as m u c h as by w h o its audience is. For several decades film served the social f u n c t i o n o f default dramatic entertainment, even as a time killer, especially w h e n cinemas were one o f the few places one c o u l d find a i r - c o n d i t i o n i n g i n the 1930s a n d 1940s (discussed further i n chapter 3). Films were the p r i m a r y source o f amusement for the p o p u l a t i o n . Because o f this f u n c t i o n , even those films t h a t t r i e d t o serve a different, higher f u n c t i o n w e n t largely unrecognized. B u t television altered film's social f u n c t i o n . W h e n television became the default entertainment m e d i u m a n d the p r i m a r y source o f amusement, film was eligible for redefinition a n d also c o m p a r e d favorably t o television as an art f o r m . A m o n g the m a n y other factors at w o r k , the status o f film was i n p a r t dependent o n its assessment relative t o this other, similar o p t i o n .

The Weakening

of Cultural

Hierarchy

and the Fop Art

Movement

T h i s chapter has so far dealt w i t h demographic, technological, p o l i t i c a l , a n d social change i n Europe a n d the U n i t e d States t o s h o w h o w such changes facilitated the g r o w t h o f an A m e r i c a n art w o r l d for film i n the 1960s. I n the final section o f this chapter the focus is o n another, perhaps m o r e crucial, feature o f the o p p o r t u n i t y space—the e v o l u t i o n o f aesthetic ideals i n the broader c u l t u r a l r e a l m . T h i s t o p i c sets the stage for the analy­ sis t h a t comes i n the f o u r t h chapter i n w h i c h I show h o w film was effec­ tively intellectualized as a sophisticated m e d i u m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Such intellectual w o r k was i n i t i a l l y discouraged by a hostile aesthetic climate t h a t reinforced r i g i d distinctions between legitimate, h i g h b r o w genres o n the one h a n d and low-status, f o l k or p o p u l a r genres o f culture o n the other. The erosion o f these distinctions was aided by n e w l y emerging aes­ thetic ideas and intellectual currents outside the film w o r l d . These devel­ opments, perhaps most clearly e m b o d i e d by the Pop A r t m o v e m e n t cen­ tered i n N e w Y o r k , h a d i m p o r t a n t consequences for the consecration o f H o l l y w o o d films. The boundaries o f art, w h i l e dependent o n m a n y different factors, are p a r t i c u l a r l y susceptible t o the influence o f artistic experts. T h e c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y o f critics a n d intellectuals is expressed i n the p r o n o u n c e m e n t s they make concerning artistic value. W h e n critics a n d intellectuals i n the U n i t e d States began t o find artistic value i n film, they made i t m u c h

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

47

m o r e l i k e l y t h a t the general p u b l i c w o u l d begin t o see f i l m as a r t f o r t w o reasons. First, t h e i r c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y , w h i c h was related t o the i n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y o f the organizations a n d p u b l i c a t i o n s w i t h w h i c h they were affiliated, made their o p i n i o n s generally persuasive. Second, the discourse they espoused p r o v i d e d the reading p u b l i c w i t h a n a l y t i c a l tools t h a t the p u b l i c c o u l d itself use t o t h i n k a n d c o m m u n i c a t e c r i t i c a l l y a b o u t f i l m as art. For these reasons, i t was i m p o r t a n t for critics t o p a r t i c i ­ pate i n the development o f the a r t w o r l d f o r f i l m . A n d yet, p r i o r t o the 1960s, intellectuals f o r the m o s t p a r t shunned the f i l m w o r l d . T h e p o o l o f c u l t u r a l experts w h o were p r o m o t i n g f i l m as art i n the U n i t e d States was quite small u n t i l the late 1950s ( M a s t 1 9 8 1 : c h . l ) . H o l l y w o o d was intellectually declasse. I n this view, the cinema was d e v o i d o f intellectual value a n d therefore a waste o f t i m e . A l t h o u g h , as w i l l be discussed i n d e p t h i n chapter 4 , later intellectuals were able t o find m a n y examples o f true a r t a m o n g A m e r i c a n films made i n the first h a l f o f the t w e n t i e t h century, intellectuals w r i t i n g before the 1960s were generally quite dispar­ aging o f the entire genre. W h y were intellectuals so reticent t o take f i l m seriously? Seeing as so m a n y H o l l y w o o d classics have since been identified, the answer c a n n o t be t h a t there were n o films w o r t h y o f t h e i r notice. T h e answer instead is t h a t film was at the w r o n g end o f the c u l t u r a l hierarchy, the end t h a t i n c l u d e d other forms o f popular, mass, o r f o l k c u l t u r e . K a m m e n (1996:89) notes t h a t " m a n y intellectuals i n the Progressive era—ranging f r o m W o o d r o w W i l s o n t o Jane A d d a m s — d i d n o t care f o r p o p u l a r c u l t u r e because i t l o o k e d t o be at odds w i t h their r e f o r m agenda: i t seemed so­ cially degrading rather t h a n m o r a l l y u p l i f t i n g , a n d f o r the older Progres­ sives, especially, m o r a l u p l i f t remained the key t o progress." O n e need n o t have been a Progressive t o l o o k d o w n o n p o p u l a r c u l t u r e , o f course. Peterson (1997:86) notes t h a t " [ c o n s e r v a t i v e h u m a n i s t intellectuals w r i t ­ ing i n the 1940s a n d 1950s . . . reaffirmed a belief i n the redeeming q u a l i ­ ties o f fine art a n d vilified l o w c u l t u r e . " I n the first h a l f o f the t w e n t i e t h century, i t was taken f o r g r a n t e d t h a t the differences between h i g h a n d l o w art were real a n d e n d u r i n g . A n y attempts (and there were attempts) t o intellectualize film were suppressed by the p r e v a i l i n g p e r c e p t i o n o f p o p u l a r or mass culture as i n h e r e n t l y infe­ r i o r t o h i g h art. C r i t i c i s m o f mass culture was i n p a r t fueled by the techno­ logical nature o f film, still p h o t o g r a p h y , a n d recorded music. These n e w media d i d n o t c o n f o r m t o the conventions o f serious art. H o w e v e r , even those critics w h o were intellectually open t o the goals a n d methods o f these n e w c u l t u r a l f o r m s c o u l d be emphatic detractors o f mass c u l t u r e . T h e c r i t i c i s m was f o u n d e d o n a p r o f o u n d d i s a p p o i n t m e n t w i t h the p r o d -

48

•

Chapter 2

ucts o f the entertainment industry. Perhaps the most influential t e x t i n this vein is M a x H o r k h e i m e r a n d T h e o d o r A d o r n o ' s Dialectic of Enlight­ enment (1972 [ 1 9 4 4 ] ) . H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o , o r i g i n a l l y w r i t i n g i n the 1940s, argued t h a t the culture i n d u s t r y t h a t m a n u f a c t u r e d f o r m u l a i c mass entertainment failed u t t e r l y t o f u n c t i o n as art. T h e culture i n d u s t r y served t o generate profits a n d h a d n o concern for the p r o m o t i o n o f s p i r i t u a l o r intellectual needs a m o n g audiences. Rather t h a n c a p i t a l i z i n g o n the artis­ tic p o t e n t i a l o f the n e w technologies t o u p l i f t a n d enrich audiences, mass culture was stupefying t h e m , a n d H o l l y w o o d studio p r o d u c t i o n e m b o d ­ ied the w o r s t o f mass c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n . A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y the m i d c e n t u r y m a r k , new t h i n k i n g a b o u t art a n d aesthetics was gaining g r o u n d i n the U n i t e d States. O n e strain o f t h o u g h t t h a t helped t o w e a k e n the c r i t i q u e o f mass culture was p o s t m o d e r n i s m . A postmodernist v i e w p o i n t n a t u r a l l y applies t o m o r e t h a n aesthetics; however, one o f its i m p l i c a t i o n s was a n e w perception o f the role a n d value o f art, i n c l u d i n g the contestation o f the t r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r a l hierar­ chy a n d the c h a m p i o n i n g o f the aesthetics a n d culture o f the everyday life o f the average i n d i v i d u a l . 24

25

T h e p o s t m o d e r n challenge was sufficiently serious t o w a r r a n t a defense o n the p a r t o f those w h o w a n t e d t o g u a r d the sanctity o f h i g h c u l t u r e . Bernard Rosenberg ( 1 9 7 1 [ 1 9 6 8 ] : 6 ) was one o f those guardians, a n d his arguments were representative o f one side o f the "mass c u l t u r e " debate. T o reject "mass-cult" a n d " m i d - c u l t " is t o espouse h i g h c u l t u r e — a n d t o do t h a t is t o be p u t d o w n i n certain circles as a snob. Very w e l l , there are worse epithets. Shakespeare really does seem t o me t o be a better p l a y w r i g h t t h a n A r t h u r M i l l e r a n d a better w r i t e r t h a n M i c k e y Spillane. T h a t they—and H o m e r a n d F a i t h B a l d w i n — a r e a l l p o p u l a r is as i n c o n ­ t r o v e r t i b l e as i t is irrelevant. Such enormous qualitative differences sep­ arate t h e m t h a t n o c o m m o n frame o f reference is b r o a d enough t o encompass their w o r k s . I f t o h o l d such a v i e w is p r o o f o f snobbery, so be i t If, as Jeremy B e n t h a m insisted, p u s h p i n (that is, p i n b a l l ) brings greater happiness t o a greater n u m b e r o f people t h a n does poetry, a n d i f there is no other w a y t o compare p o e t r y and p u s h p i n , i t f o l l o w s t h a t the slaves o f the Nielsen ratings are h o m e free. T h e n by any objective standard The Beverly Hillbillies are as g o o d as—in fact d e m o n s t r a b l y better t h a n — M r . L e i n s d o r f a n d the Boston Symphony. T o prefer Shake­ speare t o Spillane becomes mere eccentricity, a n d t o p u b l i s h Valley of the Dolls i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f one's o w n better taste becomes a sort o f p h i l a n t h r o p y — a little self-interested, perhaps, b u t p l a i n l y benign. If, o n the other h a n d , Othello is absolutely better t h a n Bonanza, t h e n the Nielsen ratings are n o t so m u c h a justification as an i n d i c t m e n t , a n d

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

49

i t makes n o difference h o w m a n y people at any given m o m e n t t h i n k otherwise. I n t h a t case there have t o be persuasive arguments for de­ scribing The Beverly Hillbillies—without apology—as c u l t u r a l garbage a n d the people w h o present the Hillbillies as c u l t u r a l garbagemen. Such a v i e w o f mass culture clings t o a n a r r o w evaluative f r a m e w o r k , one t h a t judges p o p u l a r culture according t o the standards invented t o appraise h i g h culture. A l l a n B l o o m ' s (1987) The Closing of the American Mind still has resonance f o r m a n y intellectuals today, i n d i c a t i n g the con­ t i n u e d significance o f critiques o f p o p u l a r culture a n d the c o n t e m p o r a r y relevance o f c u l t u r a l hierarchy. Despite such defenses, however, critiques o f c u l t u r a l hierarchy have been e n o r m o u s l y influential i n intellectual cir­ cles since the 1960s. Just as w i t h a l l forms o f p o p u l a r culture, H o l l y w o o d films became legitimate candidates for v a l o r i z a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n t o the elevation o f p o p u l a r culture, a different, yet comple­ mentary, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f c u l t u r a l standards g r a d u a l l y t o o k place i n the U n i t e d States i n the decades s u r r o u n d i n g the m i d d l e o f the t w e n t i e t h cen­ tury. T h i s aesthetic r e v o l u t i o n is i l l u m i n a t e d by Lopes ( 2 0 0 2 : 2 7 0 ) , whose h i s t o r y o f jazz documents n o t o n l y the process by w h i c h jazz was conse­ crated, b u t also the changing historical c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h a t consecration t o o k place: "Jazz music, for example, was n o t s i m p l y m o v i n g u p the hier­ archy f r o m l o w t o h i g h . Rather the jazz art w o r l d a n d jazz music threat­ ened t o dissolve the very boundaries o f l o w , m i d d l e , a n d h i g h b r o w c u l ­ t u r e . " T h a t is t o say, d u r i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y the m i d d l e o f the t w e n t i e t h century, as jazz was b e c o m i n g established as an art f o r m , t h a t very change h a d the effect o f w e a k e n i n g the existing boundaries between h i g h a n d l o w culture. A s Lopes (ibid.) notes, other authors have examined the changing U.S. social c o n d i t i o n s for art, i n c l u d i n g j o u r n a l i s t Russell Lynes's descrip­ t i o n o f b o r r o w i n g s across the lines o f h i g h b r o w , m i d d l e b r o w , a n d l o w ­ b r o w , a n d h i s t o r i a n M i c h a e l K a m m e n ' s argument t h a t A m e r i c a n culture h a d democratized at the m i d d l e o f the t w e n t i e t h century. T h i s d e m o c r a t i ­ z a t i o n entailed n o t o n l y b o r r o w i n g s across levels o f culture b u t also a w a n i n g i n the significance o f the f o r m e r l y p o w e r f u l d i s t i n c t i o n s . T h i s is n o t t o say t h a t c u l t u r a l hierarchy has eroded a w a y t o insignificance, o f course. Rather, the distinctions between higher a n d l o w e r c u l t u r a l forms are n o t as sharp or i m m u t a b l e as they were once w i d e l y believed t o be. T h i s p a r t i a l erosion o f the boundaries occurred alongside—probably w i t h some m u t u a l causal influence—the reshuffling o f the c u l t u r a l hierarchy. Perhaps the best k n o w n a n d most influential aesthetic manifestation o f p o s t m o d e r n i t y was the Pop A r t movement, w h i c h emerged p r i m a r i l y i n N e w Y o r k i n the late 1950s. Pop A r t is most clearly associated w i t h p a i n t ­ i n g , sculpture, a n d p h o t o g r a p h y , a n d the artists most often cited as central t o the m o v e m e n t include A n d y W a r h o l , R o b e r t Rauschenberg, Jasper 26

50

•

Chapter 2

Johns, James Rosenquist, a n d Claes O l d e n b u r g . T h o u g h Pop A r t itself was n o t p r i m a r i l y a cinematic i n n o v a t i o n , this m o v e m e n t nevertheless h a d i m p o r t a n t consequences for the c r i t i c a l reception o f film, as i t h a d for a l l artistic genres. Perhaps the m o s t salient characteristic o f the Pop A r t m o v e m e n t was its i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f elements o f f o l k art, p o p u l a r c u l t u r e , a n d everyday, m a t e r i a l goods. Pop A r t can be considered b r o a d l y as t h a t art o f the sixties w h i c h repre­ sents or interprets mass-produced c o m m o n objects a n d subjects culled f r o m c o m m e r c i a l a r t — t h a t is, the signs o f things a n d people. . . . Pop A r t can also be considered n a r r o w l y , as art t h a t represents images se­ lected f r o m c o m m e r c i a l art—signs o f objects and signs o f signs—and, equally i m p o r t a n t a n d m o r e r a d i c a l , art t h a t utilizes the mechanical, a n d thus i m p e r s o n a l , techniques o f c o m m e r c i a l art . . . (Sandler 1988:144-45) 27

Because the rationale g r o u n d i n g Pop A r t was the identification o f art i n objects o f everyday life a n d the extension o f artistic methods t o "me­ c h a n i c a l " techniques, film, especially film o f the H o l l y w o o d t r a d i t i o n w i t h its p o p u l i s t legacy, was ideally p o s i t i o n e d t o benefit f r o m these n e w ideological currents. As Crane (1987:71) notes, Pop A r t " a t t e m p t e d t o redefine the relationship between h i g h culture a n d p o p u l a r culture by re­ vising conventions concerning subject matter and technique t h a t h a d served t o m a i n t a i n the distinctions between t h e m " a n d " u n d e r m i n e d the prestige o f the aesthetic t r a d i t i o n t h r o u g h its veneration o f p o p u l a r c u l ­ t u r e . " The change i n the intellectual climate extended b e y o n d the art w o r l d s themselves as t r a d i t i o n a l boundaries i n academic t r a d i t i o n s w e a k ­ ened (Heiss 1 9 7 3 : 8 6 - 9 8 ; R u d o l p h 1 9 7 7 : 2 4 8 ) . As w i l l be discussed i n chapter 3, developments i n academia played an i m p o r t a n t role i n legiti­ m a t i n g film as art t h r o u g h the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f film courses a n d programs. Yet another tenet o f Pop A r t facilitated the intellectualization o f films— a broadening o f the ideology o f authenticity. W h i l e M a r c e l D u c h a m p ' s famous Fountain h a d already stretched the boundaries o f art m a n y de­ cades earlier t h r o u g h the use o f ready-made sculpture, Pop A r t expanded the boundaries still further. A c o m m o n technique o f Pop Artists was t o assemble or recombine existing images, so, like D u c h a m p , they were n o t always the creators o f a l l the elements o f their w o r k s . Such b o r r o w i n g helped t o redefine a u t h e n t i c i t y i n art (Genocchio 2 0 0 3 ) . Such a v i e w o f artists made i t easier t o accept directors, w h o likewise were n o t the sole creators o f the final w o r k s , as artists as w e l l . Pop A r t facilitated the art w o r l d for film, t h e n , by h e l p i n g t o soften, o r even reverse, the stigmas o f i n d u s t r i a l p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o m m e r c i a l i z a t i o n .

The Changing Opportunity Space

•

51

H o l l y w o o d films i n p a r t i c u l a r benefited f r o m Pop A r t ' s success i n a sec­ o n d w a y as w e l l . W h i l e the t r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r a l hierarchy h a d been f o u n d e d o n a sense o f E u r o p h i l i a , Pop A r t was a quintessentially A m e r i ­ can m o v e m e n t , a n d i t was a celebration o f A m e r i c a n c u l t u r e . E d w a r d s ( 2 0 0 1 : 8 9 ) , c i t i n g a r t critic J o h n Coplans, argues t h a t Pop A r t was "a m o v e i n art practice f r o m Europe t o A m e r i c a " whose devices derived " t h e i r force i n g o o d measure f r o m the fact t h a t they have v i r t u a l l y n o association w i t h a E u r o p e a n t r a d i t i o n . " " I n s h o r t , " contends E d w a r d s , " i t is the 'Americanness' o f Pop A r t t h a t sets i t a p a r t . " W h i l e f i l m as a w h o l e was further l e g i t i m a t e d as a r t t h r o u g h the premises o f Pop A r t , the latter's focus o n A m e r i c a n c u l t u r e i n p a r t i c u l a r benefited the art w o r l d f o r H o l l y ­ w o o d films by freeing U.S. intellectuals t o l o o k for art a w a y f r o m E u r o ­ pean p r o d u c t i o n s a n d t o w a r d domestic films. Pop A r t changed c r i t i c a l n o t i o n s a b o u t the definition o f art i n precisely a w a y t h a t facilitated a v i e w o f H o l l y w o o d films as art. A s an a r t w o r l d m o v e m e n t , those w h o were m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y affected by the m o v e m e n t were critics a n d others central t o the a r t w o r l d for f i l m . As w i l l be dis­ cussed i n greater d e p t h i n chapter 4 , t h r o u g h the dissemination o f a legiti­ m a t i n g discourse, this g r o u p can have a great influence o n audience per­ ceptions concerning artistic boundaries. W i t h an ideological f o o t h o l d p r o v i d e d by the dictates o f the Pop A r t m o v e m e n t , f i l m c r i t i c i s m was able t o flourish as a respectable intellectual endeavor. T h i s development o f a g r o u p o f c u l t u r a l experts devoted t o f i l m , t h e n , was one step t o w a r d film's r e c o g n i t i o n as art a m o n g the w i d e r p u b l i c . A t the same t i m e , w e m u s t be careful n o t t o overstate the case— a l t h o u g h the hierarchical nature o f c u l t u r e i n the U n i t e d States is n o t as r i g i d as i t once was, the prestige o r d e r i n g has n o t disappeared entirely. Indeed, such a t o t a l disappearance w o u l d negate o u r purpose here, w h i c h is t o e x p l a i n h o w H o l l y w o o d films achieved the status o f art. T h e distinc­ t i o n between a r t a n d n o n - a r t is still w i t h us, a n d i t is still a p o w e r ­ ful d i s t i n c t i o n . W e have become m o r e catholic i n o u r ideas o f w h a t constitutes art, b u t w e have n o t lost o u r sense o f the potency a n d a u t h o r i t y o f art.

SUMMARY

T h e o p p o r t u n i t y space f o r the g r o w t h o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films has been analyzed i n t w o phases. I n earlier decades the A m e r i c a n social c o n t e x t was less conducive t o the c r e a t i o n o f an a r t w o r l d f o r film c o m p a r e d t o the E u r o p e a n contexts. W o r l d W a r I influenced these c o u n ­ tries i n countless w a y s , o f course, ways m u c h m o r e i m p o r t a n t a n d l o n g lasting t h a n the p e r c e p t i o n o f film as art. B u t t h a t w a r a n d the demo-

52

•

Chapter 2

graphic, geographic, a n d economic characteristics o f early t w e n t i e t h century u r b a n A m e r i c a facilitated divergent a r t w o r l d tendencies. A rec­ o n c i l i a t i o n o f t h a t divergence was t h e n assisted b y changes i n A m e r i c a n society f o l l o w i n g W o r l d W a r I I . T h e size a n d nature o f U.S. film audiences responded t o broader social forces t h a t i n t u r n caused film p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s u m p t i o n t o occur i n a manner m o r e consistent w i t h expectations a b o u t the nature o f art. A t the same t i m e , aesthetic t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s outside the film w o r l d r e v o l u t i o n i z e d ideas a b o u t the nature o f a r t i n w a y s t h a t reversed n o r m s concerning the artistic v i a b i l i t y o f H o l l y w o o d productions. A l t h o u g h w e are far f r o m h a v i n g answered the question o f w h y a n art w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d films developed, w e have a g o o d idea o f h o w c o n ­ t e x t mattered. M u c h o f the previous w o r k has focused o n h o w a r t w o r l d s are created f r o m w i t h i n o r o n h o w c u l t u r a l hierarchy is influenced b y c u l t u r a l entrepreneurs i n s u p p o r t o f v a r i o u s h i g h art f o r m s . B u t an expla­ n a t i o n o f a causally c o m p l e x case study needs t o be as comprehensive as reasonably possible. A n d w h i l e there are p r o b a b l y other elements o f the o p p o r t u n i t y space f o r H o l l y w o o d films as art, I w o u l d argue t h a t a l l the elements for w h i c h a s t r o n g causal argument can be made are i n c l u d e d here. W e can n o w m o v e o n t o examine h o w change was created f r o m w i t h i n . Chapter 3 explores the e v o l v i n g structure a n d logic o f H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n a n d e x h i b i t i o n over the first seven decades o f the t w e n t i e t h century as w e l l as the focused efforts o f film-world p a r t i c i p a n t s t o endorse a n d advance film as art.

CHAPTER 3

Change from W i t h i n : New Production and Consumption Practices

As T H E P R E V I O U S C H A P T E R has argued, t i m i n g matters. T h e changing so­ cial e n v i r o n m e n t can influence the chances for successful r e c o g n i t i o n as art. T h e focus i n this chapter, however, takes us a w a y f r o m the broader c o n t e x t a n d t o w a r d the f i l m w o r l d itself. Such a focus makes i n t u i t i v e sense. We need t o l o o k at w h a t is g o i n g o n inside an art w o r l d t o under­ stand h o w t h a t w o r l d is successfully constructed. W i t h i n t h a t w o r l d , there are t w o m a j o r categories o f developments. T h e first category, as suggested by Becker, consists o f those events a n d activities t h a t can be identified as u n d e r t a k e n p r i m a r i l y i n order t o further the g o a l o f p r o m o t i n g film as art. W i t h i n this category are (1) the creation o f film festivals, (2) the academic study o f film, a n d (3) film directors' selfpromotion as artists. T h i s n a r r o w e r focus is i n f o r m e d by Becker's (1982) persuasive argument t h a t art w o r l d s are the result o f focused, i n s t r u m e n ­ tal l a b o r by m a n y dedicated participants. I n almost a l l cases, there needs to be a n e t w o r k o f actors cooperating i n various capacities—the p r o d u c ­ t i o n , e x h i b i t i o n , e v a l u a t i o n , a n d preservation o f art are m o r e w o r k t h a n artists alone can undertake. I n a similar vein, D i M a g g i o (1992) has made a strong case for the i m p o r t a n c e o f s t u d y i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l change. T o ex­ p l a i n h o w d r a m a t i c theater, opera, a n d m o d e r n dance were l e g i t i m a t e d as art he points t o the emergence o f " i n s t i t u t i o n s w i t h the p o w e r t o establish a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y the value o f different forms o f c u l t u r e " a n d argues t h a t these i n s t i t u t i o n s solidified "boundaries a m o n g forms o f c u l t u r a l prac­ tice," meaning h o w the art was created a n d consumed ( 1 9 9 2 : 2 1 ) . Just as w i t h other social phenomena (e.g., social movements), the i n s t i t u t i o n a l ­ i z a t i o n o f resources is a key t o achieving g r o u p goals. I n the second category are those developments w i t h i n the film w o r l d that occurred p r i m a r i l y for economic or legal reasons b u t t h a t nonetheless facilitated the g r o w t h o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films. W i t h i n this category are (1) the changing mode of film production, (2) the economic push t o w a r d art houses, (3) the economics o f "prestige productions," (4) changing censorship practices, and (5) substantive changes i n 1960s films. Some o f these developments exist w i t h i n the realm o f film p r o d u c t i o n a n d others i n that o f film c o n s u m p t i o n . Taken together, they constitute the major factors f r o m w i t h i n the film w o r l d t h a t helped t o create an art w o r l d

54

•

Chapter 3

for f i l m . I t is also necessary t o note t h a t a l t h o u g h these factors are dis­ cussed i n t u r n , their analytical separation here is n o t meant t o i m p l y t h a t these various developments are unrelated t o one another i n h i s t o r i c a l fact. T h e h i s t o r y o f the U.S. f i l m i n d u s t r y reveals an organic e v o l u t i o n i n w h i c h a complicated set o f events are causally related. This i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l be n o t e d t h r o u g h o u t a n d m o r e fully discussed i n the c o n c l u d i n g chapter.

F I L M FESTIVALS

F i l m festivals come i n m a n y varieties a n d serve a w i d e range o f purposes. T o d a y there are thousands o f f i l m festivals across the globe, a l l o w i n g a h i g h degree o f specialization. W i t h i n the U n i t e d States alone, f i l m festivals exist t o showcase, for example, films f r o m certain countries, films made by w o m e n , films made by members o f ethnic groups, films w i t h specific themes, films o f p a r t i c u l a r genres, a n d there are even festivals dedicated t o the films o f certain directors o r o f certain actors. Some festivals are one-time events, w h i l e others, the m o s t famous ones, are h e l d annually. Yet another d i s t i n c t i o n exists between those t h a t seek t o p r o v i d e a venue for films a n d those t h a t offer a c o m p e t i t i o n for w h i c h v a r i o u s prizes are available. F o r m o s t legitimate art f o r m s , awards exist as an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f the a r t w o r l d . I n l i t e r a t u r e , an example o f a h i g h l y developed a r t w o r l d w i t h w i d e l y recognized legitimacy, there are m a n y awards available t o authors. Perhaps the most prestigious o f a l l o f t h e m is the N o b e l Prize i n L i t e r a t u r e . I n the U n i t e d K i n g d o m , the m o s t prestigious a w a r d for literature is the B o o k e r Prize, i n Canada the G o v e r n o r General's A w a r d , a n d i n the U n i t e d States, there are the N a t i o n a l B o o k A w a r d a n d the Pulitzer Prize. T h e prizes are decided by experts i n the field, a n d they are a reliable signal o f artistic m e r i t . For real a r t — t h a t is, h o w w e really k n o w i f s o m e t h i n g is good—the experts deem i t so. T h a t is because for real a r t the other m o s t c o m m o n measure, p o p u l a r i t y , is t h o u g h t t o be a p o o r i n d i c a t o r o f q u a l i t y (or, f o r some, perhaps an excellent i n d i c a t o r o f the lack o f q u a l i t y ) . A n d so i t is w i t h films. C o m p e t i t i v e film festivals are effective i n d e m o n ­ s t r a t i n g the artistic w o r t h o f p a r t i c u l a r films. Because they are c o m p e t i ­ t i v e , a n d because prizes are a w a r d e d by juries w h o have some c l a i m t o expert status i n their field, festivals have a u t h o r i t y i n b e s t o w i n g artistic m e r i t . W i n n i n g the Palme d ' O r f r o m Cannes o r the J u r y Prize at Sun­ dance, for example, is a m a r k e r o f q u a l i t y t h a t most audience members w o u l d recognize as legitimate. F i l m festivals can also c o n t r i b u t e t o the artistic v a l i d a t i o n o f certain films just t h r o u g h i n c l u s i o n . Festival organiz­ ers m o s t often screen s u b m i t t e d films a n d e x h i b i t o n l y those t h a t they find

Change from Within

•

55

w o r t h y . I n this w a y , being screened at a well-regarded festival can act as a type o f a w a r d . G i v e n their r o l e i n creating r e c o g n i t i o n o f artistic m e r i t , the h i s t o r y o f f i l m festivals i n the U n i t e d States is o f p a r t i c u l a r relevance t o the m a t u r a ­ t i o n o f the art w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d films. T h e Venice I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m Festival bills itself as the w o r l d ' s oldest film festival, first h e l d i n 1 9 3 2 . O f course, as a E u r o p e a n festival, its influence o n perceptions o f film as a r t i n the U n i t e d States was attenuated, a n d there were n o film festivals i n the U n i t e d States i n 1 9 3 2 . There were, however, a w a r d s t o be w o n — the A c a d e m y A w a r d s . Perhaps the m o s t concerted a n d effective studio effort t o m a n i p u l a t e p u b l i c perceptions o f the film i n d u s t r y was the cre­ a t i o n o f the A c a d e m y o f M o t i o n Picture A r t s a n d Sciences. I n 1 9 2 7 m e m ­ bers o f the film i n d u s t r y created the Academy, w i t h its a w a r d s f o l l o w i n g a year later. T h i s happened at a m u c h earlier p o i n t i n t i m e t h a n the p u b l i c acceptance o f H o l l y w o o d films as art i n the 1960s. T h i s m o r e t h a n t h i r t y year discrepancy can be e x p l a i n e d by n o t i n g the s t r i k i n g difference be­ t w e e n the o r i g i n a l purpose o f the A c a d e m y A w a r d s a n d the 1960s func­ t i o n o f film festivals. Far f r o m p r o m o t i n g H o l l y w o o d films as h i g h c u l t u r e comparable t o opera or serious theater, the A c a d e m y A w a r d s were invented t o p r o m o t e the i n d u s t r y as ethical a n d seemly. Shale quotes f r o m the Academy's 1929 Annual Report concerning the impetus b e h i n d the n e w o r g a n i z a t i o n : " B u t m o r e t h a n this a n d o f greater i m p o r t a n c e as some o f us v i e w e d i t , the screen and a l l its people were under a great a n d a l a r m i n g c l o u d o f p u b l i c censure a n d c o n t e m p t . . . . Some constructive a c t i o n seemed i m p e r a t i v e t o h a l t the attacks a n d establish the i n d u s t r y i n the p u b l i c m i n d as a respectable, legitimate i n s t i t u t i o n , a n d its people as reputable i n d i v i d u a l s " ( 1 9 9 3 : 2 ) . Part o f the reason t h a t such steps were necessary was t h a t the industry's r e p u t a t i o n h a d suffered f r o m a n u m b e r o f w e l l - p u b l i c i z e d sex and d r u g scandals i n the early 1920s. These i n c l u d e d the t r i a l o f the very p o p u l a r Roscoe " F a t t y " A r b u c k l e , w h o h a d been i m p l i c a t e d i n the death o f a w o m a n i n his h o t e l r o o m ; the m u r d e r o f d i r e c t o r W i l l i a m D e s m o n d T a y l o r a n d revelations o f a lifestyle centered o n drugs a n d sex; the death o f actor Wallace R e i d f r o m d r u g c o m p l i c a t i o n s ; a n d the hasty divorce o f M a r y P i c k f o r d a n d her unseemly r a p i d remarriage t o D o u g l a s Fairbanks (Black 1 9 9 4 : 3 0 - 3 1 ) . A l l this hap­ pened w h i l e the i n d u s t r y was under constant c r i t i c i s m f o r p r o d u c i n g films t h a t c o n t a i n e d t o o m u c h violence a n d sex, t h a t g l a m o r i z e d u n e t h i ­ cal behaviors, a n d t h a t were possibly t u r n i n g c h i l d r e n i n t o delinquents a n d misfits. T h e A c a d e m y A w a r d s , t h e n , d i d n o t carry the same c o n n o t a ­ tions t h a t they d o today. T h e h i g h c u l t u r e aura t h a t is sometimes attached t o the m a j o r awards, such as best director a n d best p i c t u r e , is i n fact as m u c h a result o f the development o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films as i t is a cause o f t h a t art w o r l d . D u r i n g their early decades, the a w a r d s 1

56

•

Chapter 3

served t o m a k e the i n d u s t r y seem decent a n d t h e n g l a m o r o u s , n o t h i g h art. B u t as the art w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d films developed, the A c a d e m y A w a r d s f o u n d a n a t u r a l place there a n d began t o fulfill the f u n c t i o n o f signaling artistic q u a l i t y . T h e A c a d e m y A w a r d s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , the g r o w i n g art w o r l d f o r H o l ­ l y w o o d films h a d a pressing need for e x t r a c o m m e r c i a l assessments, a w a y for true believers i n the artistry o f the films t o express their preferences a n d t o canonize the best w o r k s . T h i s need was met t h r o u g h film festivals, a n d an e x a m i n a t i o n o f w h e n the festivals were founded suggests t h a t they were integral t o the development o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films. I t must first be said, however, t h a t i t is a difficult task t o p r o v i d e a complete h i s t o r y o f A m e r i c a n film festivals. There is n o single source t h a t has cataloged film festivals o n a yearly basis, so i t is necessary t o piece together the h i s t o r i c a l evidence f r o m various sources. A t the same t i m e , because some festivals last o n l y one or a few years, a n d others are quite modest i n scope, they m i g h t leave little o r n o m a r k o n the h i s t o r i ­ cal r e c o r d . Despite these l i m i t a t i o n s , i t is nonetheless possible t o create a reason­ able picture o f the g r o w t h over t i m e i n U.S. film festivals. Figure 3.1 provides i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t w o types o f sources: (1) a c o m b i n a t i o n o f post-1985 i n d u s t r y directories a n d (2) a comprehensive festival d i r e c t o r y published i n 1 9 7 0 . T h e obvious difficulty w i t h using c u r r e n t lists is t h a t festivals t h a t n o longer occur are excluded. T h e 1970 data go p a r t w a y i n c o r r e c t i n g for this p r o b l e m , a n d the m a r k e d s i m i l a r i t y i n the overall patterns i n the 1 9 7 0 a n d the post-1985 data boost o u r confidence i n their v a l i d i t y . A c c o r d i n g t o post-1985 sources, a few festivals were o n the leading edge i n being f o u n d e d i n the 1950s, the earliest, i n these sources, the C o l u m b u s I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m a n d V i d e o Festival, held for the fifty-third t i m e i n 2 0 0 5 a n d f o u n d e d i n 1 9 5 2 . A c c o r d i n g t o these sources, the vast m a j o r i t y o f film festivals i n the U n i t e d States were f o u n d e d p o s t - 1 9 6 0 . T h e San Francisco I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m Festival was f o u n d e d i n 1 9 5 8 , the N e w Y o r k F i l m Festival i n 1 9 6 3 , the Chicago I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m Festival i n 1 9 6 5 , the Seattle I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m Festival i n 1 9 7 4 , a n d the B o s t o n F i l m Festival i n 1 9 8 5 . O n l y 3 o f the 2 7 6 current festivals i n the sources predate the 1960s, a n d none o f t h e m was founded earlier t h a n the 1950s. T h e fact t h a t film festivals i n m a j o r cities were a l l f o u n d e d n o earlier t h a n the 1950s is significant. Being c u l t u r a l centers, i t is u n l i k e l y t h a t cities such as N e w Y o r k , Chicago, a n d San Francisco, some o f the earliest festivals i n the dataset, w o u l d have lagged b e h i n d other parts o f the c o u n ­ t r y i n o r g a n i z i n g film festivals. F r o m these data w e can date the emergence o f a f o r m a l l y organized effort t o celebrate the artistic p o t e n t i a l o f film i n a very p u b l i c manner. 2

3

Change from Within

•

57

Figure 3.1. Number of U.S. Film Festivals

I n contrast t o the post-1985 sources, the 1 9 7 0 d i r e c t o r y lists a festival d a t i n g back t o 1 9 3 0 — t h e P h o t o g r a p h i c Society o f A m e r i c a / M o t i o n Pic­ ture D i v i s i o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l A m a t e u r s F i l m F e s t i v a l — w h i c h is n o w k n o w n by the name A m e r i c a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m a n d V i d e o Festival. I t began as a n d continues t o be a festival f o r amateur f i l m m a k e r s , considering o n l y those films t h a t are n o n c o m m e r c i a l . A second early f i l m festival n o t i n ­ cluded i n the post-1985 sources is the Ten Best o f the West festival, estab­ lished i n 1956 a n d also exclusively for e x h i b i t i n g amateur (as separate f r o m "independent") films. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d , however, t h a t the stated purpose o f each festival, at least as i t was r e p o r t e d i n 1 9 7 0 , lacks any reference t o art. Whereas a g o o d n u m b e r o f other festivals e x p l i c i t l y state t h a t their purpose is t o encourage a p p r e c i a t i o n o f f i l m m a k i n g as an art f o r m , the 1930 festival's purpose was " T o recognize the best o f n o n - p r o ­ fessional films" ( Z w e r d l i n g 1 9 7 0 : 2 2 ) , a n d the 1956 festival's purpose, " T o encourage q u a l i t y a n d expert craftsmanship i n filmmaking b y the amateur filmer." 4

T h e m a j o r difference between the i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m the 1 9 7 0 d i r e c t o r y a n d the post-1985 sources is t h a t the n u m b e r o f film festivals is r e p o r t e d t o have begun t o g r o w i n the late 1950s a n d , at a faster rate, over the 1960s. T h e m a j o r s i m i l a r i t y between the t w o data sources is t h a t , aside

58

•

Chapter 3

f r o m a single m a r g i n a l festival, film festivals began i n the late 1950s a n d g r e w d u r i n g the 1960s, s u p p o r t i n g the argument t h a t film festivals were an integral c o m p o n e n t o f the g r o w t h o f a 1960s art w o r l d for film. I n a d d i t i o n t o considering their numbers, i t is i n f o r m a t i v e t o also take i n t o account the nature o f these film festivals. I t should be n o t e d t h a t the festivals i n the dataset are diverse i n character a n d f u n c t i o n . Some o f the newer festivals are m o r e a b o u t entertainment t h a n art, l i k e N e w Y o r k ' s A s i a n F i l m Festival, w h i c h described itself i n 2 0 0 3 i n this w a y : 5

N e w Y o r k ' s BEST c o n t e m p o r a r y A s i a n film festival brings 2 2 o f the latest and greatest f r o m K o r e a , H o n g K o n g , Japan, I n d i a , T h a i l a n d a n d T a i w a n t o the A n t h o l o g y F i l m Archives for 12 days o f unrelenting enter­ tainment. Whereas most film festivals s h o w sleepy arthouse snoozers t h a t c o u l d n ' t get a theatrical release i f their lives depended o n i t , A S I A N F I L M S A R E G O ! ! ! brings the blockbusters, the newsmakers, the t r e n d ­ setters, and the scandalous releases f r o m thousands o f miles away, r i g h t t o N e w Y o r k , just t o entertain y o u . (http:lIwww.subway cinema .com!frames/archives/nyaff03/nyaff03home.htm) (accessed December 19, 2006) O t h e r festivals are quite p o l i t i c a l i n nature: I n r e c o g n i t i o n o f the p o w e r o f film t o educate a n d galvanize a b r o a d constituency o f concerned citizens, H u m a n Rights W a t c h decided t o create the H u m a n Rights W a t c h I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m Festival. H u m a n Rights Watch's I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m Festival has become a leading venue for distinguished fiction, d o c u m e n t a r y a n d animated films and videos w i t h a distinctive h u m a n rights theme. T h r o u g h the eyes o f c o m m i t t e d a n d courageous filmmakers, w e showcase the heroic stories o f activists a n d survivors f r o m a l l over the w o r l d . T h e w o r k s w e feature help t o p u t a h u m a n face o n threats t o i n d i v i d u a l freedom a n d d i g n i t y , a n d celebrate the p o w e r o f the h u m a n spirit and intellect t o p r e v a i l . W e seek t o e m p o w e r everyone w i t h the k n o w l e d g e that personal c o m m i t m e n t can make a very real difference, (http://hrw.org/iff/2006/about.html) (accessed December 19, 2 0 0 6 ) A n d still other festivals are for film purists w h o w o u l d consider o n l y inde­ pendent p r o d u c t i o n s w o r t h y o f e x h i b i t i o n a n d define H o l l y w o o d outside the art w o r l d for film: Since 1 9 8 1 , the a n n u a l B l a c k M a r i a F i l m a n d V i d e o Festival, an inter­ n a t i o n a l j u r i e d c o m p e t i t i o n a n d a w a r d tour, has been f u l f i l l i n g its m i s ­ sion t o advocate, e x h i b i t a n d r e w a r d c u t t i n g edge w o r k s f r o m indepen­ dent film a n d v i d e o m a k e r s . . . . T o d a y the w o r k s e x h i b i t e d b y the

Change from Within

•

59

Black M a r i a F i l m a n d V i d e o Festival e x p l o r e the h u m a n c o n d i t i o n as w e l l as the creative p o t e n t i a l o f the m e d i u m . T h e y offer a mosaic o f a r t i s t i c a l l y conceived film a n d video f o r m s (documentary, e x p e r i m e n ­ t a l , a n i m a t i o n a n d n a r r a t i v e ) b u t w i t h an emphasis o n c u t t i n g edge sensibility. T h e Festival T o u r e x h i b i t s the w i n n i n g w o r k s i n v a r i o u s t h e m a t i c a n d artistic configurations t a i l o r e d t o diverse audiences at venues w h i c h are c o n d u c i v e t o the genuine a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the w o r k . (http://www.blackmariafilmfestwal.org) (accessed December 19, 2006) There exist, nonetheless, festivals t h a t seek t o find the art i n H o l l y ­ w o o d . Consider the f o l l o w i n g h i s t o r i c a l facts about the Chicago Interna­ t i o n a l F i l m Festival: Founded i n 1964 by a w a r d w i n n i n g filmmaker a n d graphic designer M i c h a e l K u t z a , the Festival's goals were the same then as they are n o w : t o discover a n d present n e w filmmakers t o Chicago, a n d t o acknowledge a n d a w a r d these filmmakers for their artistry. The first Festival opened i n 1965 at the Carnegie Theater, where directors K i n g V i d o r , Stanley Kramer, a n d actress Bette Davis were h o n o r e d for their c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o A m e r i c a n cinema. Since then, the Festival has g r o w n t o become a w o r l d r e n o w n e d annual event, (http://www.chicagofilmfestival.org/cgi-bin/ Web Objects/CIFFSite. woa/wa/31 pages/History) (accessed December 19, 2 0 0 6 ) K i n g V i d o r , Stanley Kramer, a n d Bette Davis were a n y t h i n g b u t H o l l y ­ w o o d outsiders i n need o f discovery. T h e N e w Y o r k F i l m Festival was s i m i l a r l y friendly t o H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n s f r o m its beginning, as was the San Francisco I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m Festival. T o d a y the m a j o r festivals such as Cannes a n d T o r o n t o e x h i b i t m a n y H o l l y w o o d films. M a j o r festi­ vals such as these have done m o r e t h a n benefit i n d i v i d u a l films o r the careers o f i n d i v i d u a l actors a n d directors. T h r o u g h the news a n d p u b l i c i t y t h a t they have generated, they have also created an atmosphere i n w h i c h film as a m e d i u m c o u l d enjoy increased prestige.

SELF-PROMOTION OF DIRECTORS

I n his h i s t o r y o f " N e w H o l l y w o o d " — H o l l y w o o d f o l l o w i n g large-scale reorganization o f p r o d u c t i o n practices (the a b a n d o n m e n t o f the studio system) f r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y the late 1960s—Peter B i s k i n d (1998:15) claims t h a t r a d i c a l changes i n ideology a n d p r o d u c t i o n procedures trans­ f o r m e d H o l l y w o o d i n the late 1960s. B i s k i n d points t o m a n y factors i n H o l l y w o o d ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , b u t he names directors, as a g r o u p , as lead-

60

•

Chapter 3

ers o f the r e v o l u t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o B i s k i n d ( 1 9 9 8 : 1 5 ) , directors w i e l d e d increased p o w e r a n d prestige, a n d u n l i k e their studio-era predecessors w h o v i e w e d themselves as skilled craftsmen a n d mere storytellers, this n e w generation o f directors were eager t o p r o m o t e their films as personal expressions and t o "assume the mantle o f the artist." T h i s contrast fits w e l l w i t h w h a t w e expect t o find i n the development o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d film i n the 1960s. D i r e c t o r s , as the n e w center o f a t t e n t i o n , h a d an active role i n changing p o p u l a r perceptions a b o u t the artistic status o f film by p r o m o t i n g themselves as artists. Before accepting this characterization at face value, however, w e s h o u l d verify i t w i t h the available h i s t o r i c a l evidence. F i l m scholarship touches o n this issue p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h interviews w i t h directors o r t h r o u g h film analyses t h a t attempt t o l i n k conclusions a b o u t specific films t o the p u b l i c l y or p r i v a t e l y stated expectations a n d goals o f the films' directors. T h e selection o f directors t o review for this section was d r i v e n by t w o criteria: (1) Was the director significant as deter­ m i n e d by the w i n n i n g o f an A c a d e m y A w a r d o r by h a v i n g directed a m o v i e t h a t appears o n the A m e r i c a n F i l m Institute's list o f one h u n d r e d best A m e r i c a n films? (2) C a n evidence a b o u t this director's self-promot i o n as an artist or lack thereof be located? T h e questions I pose are, H o w have directors characterized themselves? H a v e the same directors characterized themselves differently over time? H a v e directors w h o have w o r k e d m o r e recently characterized themselves differently f r o m those w h o w o r k e d i n earlier decades? A b r o a d o v e r v i e w o f the evidence supports the v i e w t h a t s e l f - p r o m o t i o n by A c a d e m y A w a r d - w i n n i n g best directors i n the 1960s strengthened per­ ceptions o f H o l l y w o o d films as art. Directors o f the late 1960s a n d the 1970s embraced the discourse o f film as art. I n contrast, A c a d e m y A w a r d w i n n i n g a n d other o f the b e s t - k n o w n directors o f earlier decades f o r the m o s t p a r t eschewed t h a t discourse i n favor o f s e l f - p r o m o t i o n as craftsmen o r entertainers. Consider, for example, Biskind's c l a i m t h a t J o h n F o r d a n d H o w a r d H a w k s , directors w h o made films i n the studio era, regarded themselves as technical w o r k e r s m o r e t h a n as artists. There is, i n fact, g o o d s u p p o r t for this characterization. Davis (1995:4) writes o f F o r d ( w h o w o n Oscars i n 1935 for The Informer, 1940 for The Grapes of Wrath, 1 9 4 1 f o r How Green Was My Valley, a n d 1952 for The Quiet Man), " T h e director l i k e d t o pose as a folksy anti-intellectual w h o merely d i d 'a j o b o f w o r k ' a n d saw n o need t o analyze h o w i t was accomplished. D i f f i c u l t t o interview, F o r d p r o v e d consistently evasive a b o u t his craft, w h i c h he refused t o call art, a n d safeguarded himself b e h i n d sarcasm, lies, a n d even a guise o f illiteracy." H e goes o n t o quote F o r d : " ' I t is w r o n g t o l i k e n a director t o an author,' he argued. ' H e is m o r e like an architect.' I f the director is 6

Change from Within

•

61

creative, he puts 'a predesigned c o m p o s i t i o n o n film' " (1995:6). W i t h regard t o the genre for w h i c h F o r d is m o s t r e n o w n e d , " W h e n someone called h i m the greatest poet o f the Western saga, he replied, T a m n o t a poet, a n d I d o n ' t k n o w w h a t a Western Saga is, I w o u l d say t h a t is horseshit' " ( 1 9 9 5 : 1 2 ) . A n d e r s o n (1981:85) reports a similar quote f r o m F o r d : " T hate pictures. . . . W e l l , I like making t h e m o f course. . . . B u t it's n o use asking me t o t a l k a b o u t art.' " F o r d b u i l t his career d u r i n g a t i m e w h e n there was little i n s t i t u t i o n a l support for p o r t r a y i n g himself as an artist, and w h e n the discourse t o represent himself i n t h a t w a y was u n ­ common in Hollywood. Just like F o r d , H o w a r d H a w k s was a successful studio-system director. U n l i k e F o r d , t h o u g h , H a w k s never w o n a best director Oscar. Still, he directed classics such as Bringing Up Baby ( 1 9 3 8 ) , Scarface ( 1 9 3 2 ) , a n d His Girl Friday ( 1 9 4 0 ) , a n d he was a w a r d e d an h o n o r a r y Oscar i n 1975. H a w k s began d i r e c t i n g i n the 1920s, a n d t h r o u g h o u t his active career, he presented himself as a craftsman and entertainer rather t h a n an artist, as one w o u l d expect o f a p r e - a u t e u r theory director. Nevertheless, his cause was taken u p i n the pages o f Cahiers du cinema i n the 1950s, where his oeuvre was assessed as a collection o f masterpieces. T h e principles o f aut e u r i s m p r o v e d t o o foreign for H a w k s , however, and he showed himself t o be set i n his pre-auteur ways even d u r i n g the b o o m times o f the art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films. I n a 1970 discussion at the Chicago Interna­ t i o n a l F i l m Festival the f o l l o w i n g exchange t o o k place: Q : Y o u say t h a t y o u are an entertainer, b u t the French critics i n the last few years have been treating y o u as something m o r e t h a n that. D o y o u t h i n k they're right? A : O h , I listen t o t h e m , and I get o p e n - m o u t h e d a n d w o n d e r where they find some o f the stuff that they say a b o u t me. A l l I ' m d o i n g is telling a story. I've very g l a d that they like i t , and I ' m very g l a d t h a t a l o t o f t h e m are c o p y i n g w h a t I d o , b u t they find things. . . . I w o r k o n the fact that i f I like somebody and t h i n k they're attractive, I can m a k e t h e m attractive. I f I t h i n k a thing's funny, then people l a u g h at i t . T h e y give me credit for an a w f u l l o t o f things t h a t I d o n ' t pay any a t t e n t i o n t o . (quoted i n M c B r i d e 1972:24) Ford's and H a w k s ' s resistance t o s e l f - p r o m o t i o n i n the 1960s a n d 1970s surely indicates t h a t they were n o t c u l t i v a t i n g the image o f themselves as artists i n earlier decades. The Third Man (1949) is p r o b a b l y the film o f C a r o l Reed's m o s t ad­ m i r e d by critics. Reed began m a k i n g films i n the 1930s, t h o u g h he w o n the 1968 Oscar for Oliverl I n 1950 Reed gave a d i s t i n c t l y pre-auteur

62

•

Chapter 3

account o f his role a n d the r o l e o f films generally, as described b y W a p shott ( 1 9 9 0 : 3 0 5 - 3 0 6 ) : I n a New York Times i n t e r v i e w i n 1950 he c o m m e n t e d : " I d o n ' t believe the cinema is a place for little lectures o n h o w everybody s h o u l d live. I d o n ' t t h i n k audiences w a n t t h e m either, unless they are very o r i g i n a l a n d s t r i k i n g . Personally I dislike the infusion o f amateur p o l i t i c s i n t o films. Certainly t h a t is n o t the director's j o b . " H e d i d n o t m u c h like politics i n a n y t h i n g . . . . H e h a d little n o t i o n o f " a r t " a n d considered his trade something done as a business. A great film-maker was above all one w h o pleased his audience. . . . H e once s u m m e d u p his attitude t o film-making a n d t o films: " T h e most i m p o r t a n t purpose o f the c o m ­ mercial film-maker is t o produce entertainment w h i c h w i l l d r a w the largest possible n u m b e r o f the p a y i n g p u b l i c i n t o the cinema, a n d (this is a most i m p o r t a n t c o n d i t i o n ) keep t h e m there." By a n d large, directors o f the studio era reflected the p r e v a i l i n g percep­ tions o f themselves a n d o f film as existing outside the r e a l m o f art. W i l l i a m W y l e r was a prolific director o f dozens o f successful films a n d w o n the best director Oscar i n 1942 for Mrs. Miniver, i n 1946 for The Best Years of Our Lives, a n d i n 1959 f o r Ben-Hur. W y l e r has his critics a m o n g film scholars, b u t his films have also inspired h i g h praise f r o m some leading scholars such as A n d r e Bazin (Stein 2 0 0 2 ) . Yet W y l e r himself "never claimed t o be an 'auteur' " ( H e r m a n 1 9 9 5 : 2 1 2 ) . Instead, W y l e r character­ ized himself as at the service o f w r i t e r s , saying " I t ' s like the music w o r l d ; I a m n o t the composer, b u t the c o n d u c t o r " (Anderegg 1979:preface). B i l l y Wilder, best director i n 1945 for The Lost Weekend a n d i n 1960 for The Apartment, was even m o r e emphatic i n rejecting an intellectual conception o f the artist for himself. I n a 1960 interview, w h e n asked a b o u t his art, he replied L o o k here, m y friend. I d o n ' t w a n t t o t a l k about A r t . I a m an artist b u t I a m a m a n w h o makes m o t i o n pictures for a mass audience, I a m m a k i n g pictures o n a l l levels. T o be a mechanic w o r k i n g i n a back-alley garage, t i n k e r i n g a w a y for years a n d c o m i n g o u t w i t h the one little a u t o m o b i l e , t h a t is one t h i n g , b u t t o w o r k o n an assembly line a n d come o u t w i t h a C a d i l l a c — t h a t is something else. T h a t is w h a t I a m t r y i n g t o do here. ( H o r t o n 2 0 0 1 : 3 2 ) Wilder, t h e n , c o u l d go a l o n g w i t h the idea t h a t he made a r t — w e l l - c r a f t e d a n d smart film w o r k — b u t n o t the k i n d o f art t h a t film critics were m o s t l y w r i t i n g about: h i g h b r o w , theoretically i n f o r m e d , a n d ideologically perme­ ated cinema. I n a 1970 i n t e r v i e w W i l d e r again expressed his resistance t o being p o r t r a y e d as t h a t type o f artist: " T o begin w i t h , I d o n ' t w a n t y o u to think that I a m imbued w i t h m y o w n importance. T h a t I a m a

Change from Within

•

63

very h i g h - b r o w e d , auteur-de-cinema type. I a m a craftsman, I t r y t o do i t as w e l l as I s i m p l y c a n " ( H o r t o n 2 0 0 1 : 6 4 ) . I t is interesting t o see t h a t i n 1970 W i l d e r was f a m i l i a r w i t h auteur t h e o r y b u t u n w i l l i n g t o a d o p t i t . T h i s o p p o s i t i o n p r o b a b l y reflects the fact t h a t W i l d e r h a d w o r k e d i n H o l l y w o o d for m o r e t h a n t h i r t y years p r i o r t o the U.S. a d o p t i o n o f auteur theory, b y w h i c h t i m e his ideas a b o u t himself a n d his w o r k were well formed. T h a t seems also t o have been the case w i t h George C u k o r , director o f Adam's Rib ( 1 9 4 9 ) , The Philadelphia Story ( 1 9 4 0 ) , a n d My Fair Lady (1964). C u k o r was clearly reluctant t o accept the auteur label. W h e n asked i n a 1972 i n t e r v i e w i f there h a d been a n y t h i n g specific he h a d w a n t e d t o say i n his films, he replied, O h no\ I f y o u do y o u r w o r k , y o u do everything. Y o u express yourself, y o u get p a i d , y o u d o everything. A l l this a t t i t u d i n i z i n g is peripheral. A n d I defy y o u t o d o a g o o d j o b a n d n o t get m o n e y for i t . ( O f course some s h r e w d people m a k e a hell o f a l o t m o r e m o n e y t h a n the rest, a n d I d o n ' t despise that.) B u t w h e n they t a l k a b o u t freedom t o express y o u r o w n ideas, t o f o l l o w y o u r i n s p i r a t i o n u n t r a m m e l l e d by c o m m e r c i a l considerations, a n d so o n , I t h i n k they're t a l k i n g a b o u t a fantasy. ( L o n g 2001:75) Such self-characterizations by some o f the most r e n o w n e d a n d re­ spected directors n o w seem o d d l y self-deprecating a n d strangely t o belittle their chosen m e d i u m . B u t these directors likely d i d n o t i n t e n d t o be de­ meaning. Instead they were s i m p l y using the discourse o f the f i l m w o r l d that was familiar t o t h e m . F u r t h e r m o r e , for those early directors w h o d i d n o t shy a w a y f r o m the w o r d " a r t , " the c o n t e x t o f their comments shows t h a t they were still n o t quite conversant i n or embracing o f the fully theorized h i g h - a r t account o f film. One such director was M i c h a e l C u r t i z , w h o directed his first H o l ­ l y w o o d film i n 1926 a n d later directed The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) a n d Casablanca ( 1 9 4 2 ) . Rosenzweig (1982:11) reports t h a t C u r t i z once said, " I p u t a l l the art i n t o m y pictures I t h i n k the audience can stand." Rosenzweig (1982:173) also notes t h a t C u r t i z c o u l d be a strong p r o p o n e n t o f the artistic p o t e n t i a l o f film: " [ M ] o t i o n pictures are n o t a pure art. T h e y are the composite o f a l l five arts: literature, p a i n t i n g , archi­ tecture, music a n d s c u l p t u r i n g . " T h i s belief i n film as art, however, d i d n o t manage t o translate i n t o s e l f - p r o m o t i o n as an artist. K i n n a r d a n d V i t o n e (1986:7) p r o v i d e an account C u r t i z gave o f his goals as a director: " T o make the best pictures I can t h a t w i l l give audiences their money's w o r t h ; t o please myself as m u c h as I can w i t h o u t forgetting t h a t the plea­ sure o f m y audiences comes first. T h u s o n l y do I t h i n k I can make any substantial c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the art o f m o t i o n pictures." So a l t h o u g h C u r -

64

•

Chapter 3

tiz c o u l d accept film as art (perhaps a reflection o f his European origins), he nonetheless presented himself as w o r k i n g t o please an audience, some­ t h i n g t h a t true artists d o n o t d o . A r t for art's sake precludes c o m m e r c i a l considerations. T h e contrast w i t h H o l l y w o o d directors w h o began t o w o r k s h o r t l y be­ fore or after 1960, w h i l e n o t absolute (studio-era A c a d e m y A w a r d - w i n ­ ners F r a n k Capra a n d Elia K a z a n frequently referred t o themselves as artists), is conspicuous. Consider J o h n Schlesinger, best director w i n n e r for Midnight Cowboy ( 1 9 6 9 ) , whose c o m m e n t o n his w o r k accurately reflects the major premise o f auteur theory: " I t is inevitable t h a t a direc­ tor's o w n attitudes w i l l subconsciously creep i n t o his films . . . despite the fact t h a t m o v i e - m a k i n g involves c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h so m a n y other art­ ists" (Phillips 1 9 8 1 : 1 7 9 ) . L i k e w i s e , T o n y R i c h a r d s o n , best director for Tom Jones ( 1 9 6 3 ) , keenly supported the auteur theory's elevation o f the director as the u n i f y i n g artistic source i n the cinema. Welsh a n d Tibbets (1999:88) characterize R i c h a r d s o n i n the f o l l o w i n g w a y : "Part o f the irresistible allure o f the cinema t o h i m was the possibility o f being the p r i m a r y creative force a n d h a v i n g complete c o n t r o l over the w o r k . I n an article t h a t he w r o t e for Granta i n 1962, he argues forcefully t h a t 'the impress o f the director's personality u p o n his m a t e r i a l constitutes his style.' " I n a 1965 interview, R i c h a r d s o n reiterated this view, saying " I feel I just w a n t t o go o n w o r k i n g i n the cinema always. T h e director i n the cinema is a real creative force, w h i l e i n the theater he's just an interpreter o f the t e x t " (Welsh a n d Tibbets 1999:89). N e w H o l l y w o o d directors were clear a b o u t the director's privilege t o self-expression i n movies. M a r t i n Scorcese said, " W h a t matters t o me is t h a t I get t o make the pictures—that I get t o express myself personally s o m e h o w " (Pye a n d M y l e s 1 9 7 9 : 1 9 4 ) . H o l l y w o o d directors i n the late 1960s a n d i n the 1970s r o u t i n e l y articulated auteurist principles i n c o n ­ nection w i t h themselves a n d their w o r k . C o n v e y i n g their message became a central m o t i v a t i o n t o w o r k at all. I n the studio era, producers h a d clearly been i n c o m m a n d , so i t was w i t h a u t h o r i t y that H a r r y W a r n e r o f W a r n e r Bros, c o u l d say, " W e ' l l m a k e the pictures; let Western U n i o n deliver the messages" ( Z i e r o l d 1 9 9 1 : 2 4 6 ) . B u t the p o w e r t o send messages h a d be­ come the directors', a n d they were n o t afraid t o say so, as T e r r y G i l l i a m has done : " I d o n ' t send m y messages via Western U n i o n ; I send t h e m by cinema. Twelve Monkeys is k i n d o f a w a r n i n g shot across the b o w o f h u m a n i t y . It's the ever-presence o f nature a n d nature t a k i n g its revenge" (Emery 2 0 0 0 : 3 2 2 ) . These directors' s e l f - p r o m o t i o n a l efforts, however self-aggrandizing, were w a r m l y received a n d even encouraged by the mass media. For e x a m ­ ple, a 1968 interviewer for Playboy asked Stanley K u b r i c k :

Change from Within

•

65

M u c h o f the controversy s u r r o u n d i n g 2001 deals w i t h the m e a n i n g o f the metaphysical symbols t h a t a b o u n d i n the film—the polished black m o n o l i t h s , the o r b i t a l c o n j u n c t i o n o f E a r t h , M o o n a n d Sun at each stage o f the m o n o l i t h s ' i n t e r v e n t i o n i n h u m a n destiny, the s t u n n i n g final kaleidoscopic m a e l s t r o m o f t i m e a n d space t h a t engulfs the s u r v i v i n g astronaut a n d sets the stage for his r e b i r t h as a "star c h i l d " d r i f t i n g t o w a r d E a r t h i n a translucent placenta. One critic even called 2001 "the first Nietzschean film," c o n t e n d i n g t h a t its essential theme is Nietzche's concept o f man's e v o l u t i o n f r o m ape t o h u m a n t o superman. W h a t was the metaphysical message o f 2001 ? (reprinted i n Phillips 2 0 0 1 : 4 7 ) K u b r i c k can h a r d l y be faulted for responding at an equally intellectual level o f analysis: It's n o t a message t h a t I ever i n t e n d t o convey i n w o r d s . 2001 is a n o n v e r b a l experience; o u t o f t w o hours a n d nineteen minutes o f film, there are o n l y a little less t h a n f o r t y minutes o f d i a l o g . I t r i e d t o create a visual experience, one t h a t bypasses verbalized p i g e o n h o l i n g a n d d i ­ rectly penetrates the subconscious w i t h an e m o t i o n a l a n d p h i l o s o p h i c content. T o c o n v o l u t e M c L u h a n , i n 2001 the message is the m e d i u m . I intended the film t o be an intensely subjective experience t h a t reaches the viewer at an inner level o f consciousness, just as music does; t o " e x p l a i n " a Beethoven s y m p h o n y w o u l d be t o emasculate i t by erecting an artificial barrier between conception a n d appreciation, (reprinted i n Phillips 2 0 0 1 : 4 7 ) O n the one h a n d , directors' s e l f - p r o m o t i o n as artists m i g h t be p a r t i a l l y explained as a n a t u r a l response t o a definition t h a t was imposed o n t h e m by the rest o f the developing art w o r l d . O n the other h a n d , a self-comparison t o Beethoven can o n l y be seen as a willingness t o fully e x p l o i t this definition. So a l t h o u g h directors were n o t s i m p l y f a b r i c a t i n g the idea t h a t they were artists, their enthusiasm t o p l a y t h a t role c o n t r i b u t e d t o the further development o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d film. Particularly w e l l documented are A l f r e d H i t c h c o c k ' s efforts at self-prom o t i o n . Kapsis's study o f the b u i l d i n g o f H i t c h c o c k ' s r e p u t a t i o n as a film master documents an array o f art w o r l d forces, a n d H i t c h c o c k ' s o w n efforts were n o t the least o f t h e m ( 1 9 9 2 : see especially p p . 7 3 - 9 3 ) . These efforts occurred p r i m a r i l y i n the 1960s, a n d one such effort was the coach­ i n g o f studio executives t o issue press releases t h a t played u p the h i g h art angle. Kapsis (1992:93) quotes f r o m the official press k i t f o r Mamie t h a t m e n t i o n e d t h a t the M u s e u m o f M o d e r n A r t h a d e x h i b i t e d a selection o f H i t c h c o c k ' s films, labeled H i t c h c o c k a "creative genius" a n d a " M a s t e r o f Cinematic A r t , " a n d alluded t o the reverence t h a t French audiences h a d for H i t c h c o c k ' s art. 7

8

66

•

Chapter 3

I n the m a i n , the evidence shows t h a t directors i n the 1960s a n d later actively engaged i n c o n s t r u c t i n g artistic status for themselves b y p a r t i c i ­ p a t i n g i n art w o r l d activities a n d by p u b l i c l y characterizing themselves as artists i n conversations a n d interviews t h a t were made p u b l i c . I t is possi­ ble t h a t some o f these A m e r i c a n directors t o o k their cues f r o m E u r o p e a n directors (to name a few, Bernardo Bertolucci, I n g m a r Bergman, L u i s B u fiuel, a n d , o f course, the nouvelle vague directors such as Eric Rohmer, Claude C h a b r o l , Francois T r u f f a u t , A l a i n Resnais) w h o readily p a r t i c i ­ pated i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f their o w n reputations as A r t i s t s . As K i n g (2002: 88) a n d others have noted, another w a y o f understand­ i n g the different behavior o f directors i n N e w H o l l y w o o d ( K i n g uses the label "brats") is t o p o i n t t o the different t r a i n i n g t h a t the directors re­ ceived—namely, that they studied film i n an academic setting. I n contrast, the t y p i c a l career p a t h o f earlier directors h a d begun w i t h on-the-job t r a i n ­ i n g t h r o u g h apprenticeships, m o s t l y w i t h i n the studio system, t h o u g h for those whose careers began i n the 1950s, some g o t their start i n t e l e v i s i o n . T h e evidence, then, supports Biskind's (1998) assertion t h a t earlier d i ­ rectors d o w n p l a y e d their reputations as serious artists w h i l e N e w H o l l y ­ w o o d directors capitalized o n auteur t h e o r y t o p r o m o t e themselves, a t h e o r y they often learned i n academic p r o g r a m s . T h e t r a i n i n g o f directors is just one w a y i n w h i c h universities helped i n the creation o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films. As the next section explores, the g r o w t h o f film studies figures p r o m i n e n t l y i n the U.S. art w o r l d for film. 9

10

TIES TO ACADEMIA

T o v a r y i n g degrees, universities have i n s t i t u t i o n a l legitimacy. W h a t this means is t h a t i f an intellectual subject gets t a k e n seriously b y the academic c o m m u n i t y , i t w i l l l i k e l y get t a k e n seriously by the rest o f the p u b l i c , p a r t i c u l a r l y those w h o have postsecondary degrees, as w e l l . T h e increas­ i n g academic i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h film h a d i m p o r t a n t consequences for the status o f film as art. Previous authors have argued t h a t ties t o academia, t h r o u g h publications a n d i n c l u s i o n i n c u r r i c u l a , have helped t o legitimate opera, dramatic theater, a n d dancing as h i g h art ( D i M a g g i o 1 9 9 2 ) , as w e l l as symphonic music a n d the plays o f Shakespeare (Levine 1 9 8 8 ) , jazz (Peterson 1972), a n d Impressionist p a i n t i n g ( W h i t e a n d W h i t e 1 9 6 5 ) . F i l m has benefited similarly. University

Curricula

As anyone w h o has h a d a n y t h i n g t o d o w i t h designing a c u r r i c u l u m k n o w s , the process o f deciding w h a t is i n c l u d e d a n d excluded is h i g h l y

Change from Within

•

67

p o l i t i c a l . There is never consensus a b o u t w h a t is most w o r t h y o f being t a u g h t t o y o u n g m i n d s . T h i s is true i n the sciences, as w e have seen w i t h e v o l u t i o n a r y theory, as w e l l as i n the arts, as w e have seen w i t h the e v o l u ­ t i o n i n the l i t e r a r y c a n o n t o w a r d greater gender a n d ethnic inclusivity. T h e result o f c u r r i c u l u m decisions can be interpreted as the o u t c o m e o f a struggle for i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n . I n this w a y art benefits f r o m a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h universities a n d colleges. Just as w i t h film festivals, academic study bestows artistic w o r t h o n its object. T h e f o u n d i n g o f film studies departments began i n the 1960s a n d has c o n t i n u e d t o g r o w . T h e College Blue Book series, beginning i n 1 9 2 3 , provides listings o f a l l i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education a n d details the p r o g r a m s they offer. F r o m this source i t is possible t o discern t h a t the n u m b e r o f degree p r o g r a m s t h a t are i n some w a y connected t o the study o f film has steadily increased since the late 1960s. P r i o r t o t h a t t i m e n o degree p r o g r a m s related t o the study o f film c o u l d be f o u n d . 11

There is agreement w i t h i n the literature o n the h i s t o r y o f film studies t h a t the vast m a j o r i t y o f film departments were founded after the p o s t W o r l d W a r I I g r o w t h i n higher education. A l l e n a n d G o m e r y (1985:iii) c l a i m i n their w o r k o n film h i s t o r y t h a t university courses o n film were rare a n d came o n l y f r o m those few "brave academics whose love for the movies p r o m p t e d t h e m t o w r i t e a n d teach film ' o n the side,' w h i l e t o d a y [ 1 9 8 5 ] such courses are prevalent i n universities." I n film departments f o u n d e d p r i o r t o 1960 (e.g., the U n i v e r s i t y o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a a n d C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y ) , the purpose o f the p r o ­ grams offered was t o teach filmmaking. I t was o n l y i n the 1960s a n d 1970s t h a t film departments began t o focus o n the study o f film h i s t o r y a n d theory. I t is useful t o examine the f o u n d i n g dates o f some o f the m o s t r e n o w n e d departments (as rated by U.S. News & World Report). C a r r o l l (1998:1) writes t h a t the p r o g r a m at N e w Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y (number 1 o n U.S. News & World Report's list) was one o f the first academic departments o f film h i s t o r y a n d t h e o r y i n the U n i t e d States. I t was still i n the process o f being f o r m e d i n 1 9 7 0 , n o t h a v i n g progressed as far as h a v i n g its P h . D . p r o g r a m accredited. T h e A m e r i c a n F i l m Institute's graduate p r o g r a m (number 4 o n the list) was f o u n d e d i n 1 9 6 7 , w h i l e the p r o g r a m at the C a l i f o r n i a Institute o f the A r t s (number 5) was created i n 1 9 7 1 . C o l u m b i a University (number 6 ) , a l t h o u g h i t h a d earlier established a film depart­ ment, first offered a master o f fine arts i n film, r a d i o , a n d television i n 1966. F l o r i d a State's p r o g r a m (number 9) began o n l y i n 1 9 8 9 , a n d the cinema department at San Francisco State U n i v e r s i t y (number 15) "was founded a m i d the p o l i t i c a l activism a n d artistic e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n o f the 1960's." Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y (number 17) began t o offer its master o f fine arts i n film studies i n 1 9 7 6 . I n sum, there appear t o have been few o r 12

13

14

68

•

Chapter 3

perhaps n o academic departments offering degrees i n the c r i t i c a l study o f f i l m t h e o r y a n d h i s t o r y p r i o r t o the 1960s. Rather, a w a v e o f n e w depart­ ments o f f i l m studies began i n the 1960s, a n d the n u m b e r o f departments has c o n t i n u e d t o g r o w . M o r r i s o n , i n a research study sponsored by the Carnegie C o m m i s s i o n o n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , arrives at a similar picture o f the academic h i s t o r y o f film i n the U n i t e d States ( 1 9 7 3 : 1 5 - 2 1 ) . A m o n g M o r r i s o n ' s m a i n find­ ings is t h a t the first m a j o r i n film studies was offered by the U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a i n 1 9 3 2 . H o w e v e r , the "first full-fledged scholarly film p r o ­ g r a m w i t h a P h . D . was established by N e w Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y i n 1 9 7 0 " ( 1 9 7 3 : 1 5 ) . T h e n u m b e r o f courses s t r o n g l y concerned w i t h film i n any academic c o n t e x t s t o o d at 86 i n 1 9 4 6 , 113 i n 1 9 4 9 , 1 6 1 i n 1 9 5 3 , 2 7 5 i n 1957, a n d 305 i n 1 9 5 9 . Despite the presence o f film-related courses i n the 1940s, M o r r i s o n asserts t h a t the " m a j o r g r o w t h i n film, however, oc­ c u r r e d i n the sixties; film i n the university is basically a p r o d u c t o f this decade" ( 1 9 7 3 : 1 6 ) . W h i l e o n l y 10 undergraduate m a j o r p r o g r a m s existed i n 1 9 5 9 , i n 1 9 7 1 there were 4 7 ; w h i l e there were 8 5 0 courses offered i n 1964, there were 2 , 4 0 0 i n 1 9 7 1 . M o r r i s o n ' s findings are solidly i n agreement w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n available elsewhere c o n c e r n i n g the i n c o r ­ p o r a t i o n o f film i n t o university c u r r i c u l a . 15

There are several arguments t o make regarding the i m p o r t a n c e o f film p r o g r a m s i n the development o f an art w o r l d for film i n the U n i t e d States. M u c h o f the discourse o n film as art was developed i n academic settings (the c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f this discourse are the focus o f chapter 4 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , film p r o g r a m s have t r a i n e d a n u m b e r o f H o l l y w o o d directors, w h o were t h e n able t o b r i n g an academic perspective t o their w o r k (discussed b e l o w i n this chapter) a n d self-presentation. Perhaps most i m p o r t a n t o f a l l has been the i n s t i t u t i o n a l legitimacy t h a t universities have extended t o the film w o r l d . I n a d d i t i o n t o a general a f f i r m a t i o n o f films as w o r t h y o f study, universi­ ties also p l a y a role i n c a n o n f o r m a t i o n . I n every art w o r l d , there are certain w o r k s t h a t are w i d e l y accepted as the best o f the genre a n d certain artists w o r t h y o f revisiting a n d teaching t o successive generations. Paint­ ing has its canonized figures such as Picasso, G o y a , K a n d i n s k y , a n d R e m ­ b r a n d t . These a n d other painters are p a r t o f the c a n o n i n large p a r t because they have been the focus o f academic study. T h i s a t t e n t i o n w i t h i n universities is the means by w h i c h claims are made a n d substantiated f o r the artistic w o r t h o f o n l y a small p o r t i o n o f the artists a n d a r t w o r k s i n a genre. T h e existence o f a c a n o n is i m p o r t a n t for m a i n t a i n i n g the coher­ ence a n d legitimacy o f a genre because canonical w o r k s serve as exem­ plars f o r defining a n d defending artistic value. Every art w o r l d needs a n d has a canon.

Change from Within

•

69

D i M a g g i o (1992) argues t h a t the i n s t i t u t i o n a l legitimacy o f universities played a role i n establishing canons i n d r a m a t i c theater, opera, a n d dance. Corse a n d G r i f f i n ( 1 9 9 7 ) m a k e a m o r e detailed argument for the role t h a t universities p l a y i n c a n o n c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h r o u g h h i r i n g faculty members a n d creating fellowships t h a t target specific genres or w o r k s , universities selectively focus a t t e n t i o n a n d influence the a m o u n t o f scholarship t h a t is p r o d u c e d . By m a k i n g these positions available, universities likewise p r o ­ vide the basis for the networks o f scholarship t h a t are necessary t o make an i m p a c t . University libraries a n d presses also directly influence the phys­ ical a v a i l a b i l i t y o f materials for future study. F i l m studies p r o g r a m s , then, w o r k e d n o t o n l y t o legitimate film as a m e d i u m , b u t also t o canonize p a r t i c u l a r cinematic w o r k s . Those films a n d directors t h a t r e g u l a r l y appear o n course syllabi a n d i n t e x t b o o k s represent great w o r k s a n d great artists, w i t h the most regularly t a u g h t films being closer t o the core o f the canon. A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f five p o p u l a r i n t r o d u c t o r y t e x t b o o k s reveals a l o n g list o f films a n d directors t h a t ap­ pear t o have canonical status. A m o n g the directors most frequently ap­ pearing i n the tables o f contents o f these books are a g r o u p o f the usual suspects: Buster K e a t o n , A l f r e d H i t c h c o c k , D . W . G r i f f i t h , Satyajit Ray, Louis B u n u e l , Ernst L u b i t s c h , F. W . M u r n a u , O r s o n Welles, L e n i Reifenstahl, I n g m a r Bergman, Federico Fellini, R o b e r t Bresson, a n d M i c h e l a n ­ gelo A n t o n i o n i . A w i d e r survey o f t e x t b o o k s w o u l d , o f course, fill o u t this list w i t h m a n y other directors whose films are the subject o f academic attention. 1 6

Publishing A n o t h e r measure o f the increase i n academic a t t e n t i o n given t o film is the n u m b e r o f texts p u b l i s h e d i n the field o f film c r i t i c i s m a n d the aesthetics o f film. A n ideal data source for a measure o f the n u m b e r o f books p u b ­ lished o n these subjects i n a given year is W o r l d C a t , w h i c h is the o n l i n e catalog o f the w o r l d ' s largest l i b r a r y c o n s o r t i u m . Figure 3.2 displays the results f r o m a search f o r books dealing w i t h the analysis o f films. First, there is a sharp increase i n the n u m b e r o f books o n film aesthetics or c r i t i c i s m beginning i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 9 6 6 , a n d this increase continues t o the end o f the t i m e p e r i o d e x a m i n e d , 1 9 9 0 . Second, before 1 9 6 5 , the n u m b e r o f books o n film aesthetics o r c r i t i c i s m was extremely small. There were o n average 2 books published a n d theses w r i t t e n per year between 1925 a n d 1 9 6 4 under subject headings c o n t a i n i n g the w o r d s ( m o t i o n pictures) a n d (aesthetics or criticism). Figure 3.2 strongly sup­ ports the argument t h a t the 1960s were a decisive p e r i o d i n the creation o f an art w o r l d for film, a n d is consistent w i t h the assertion by A l l e n a n d G o m e r y (1985:26) t h a t " [ t ] h e vast m a j o r i t y o f books a n d scholarly a r t i 17

70

•

Chapter 3

Figure 3.2. Number of English-Language Books on Film in WorldCat Catalog, 1925-1985. Note: From subject keywords (motion pictures)—(aesthetics or criticism).

cles o n A m e r i c a n f i l m h i s t o r y have been w r i t t e n since 1 9 6 0 . " F r o m these data, i t appears t h a t the p r o d u c t i o n o f academic w o r k o n the subject o f the cinema i n the 1960s altered perceptions a b o u t the worthiness o f f i l m as a t o p i c f o r serious discussion a n d analysis. We m i g h t ask w h e t h e r these results are an artifact o f the w a y the W o r l d C a t l i b r a r y w o r k s o r o f h o w the cataloging was done. T o answer this question I p e r f o r m e d a search w i t h the same l i m i t s w i t h i n the catalog o f the L i b r a r y o f Congress. F r o m t h a t catalog a similar p a t t e r n emerges, especially concerning the t i m i n g o f the increase. T o further test the possi­ b i l i t y t h a t the W o r l d C a t catalog is idiosyncratic, I p e r f o r m e d a search for books o n aesthetics o r c r i t i c i s m o f literature and c o m p a r e d the o u t c o m e to the same search o f the L i b r a r y o f Congress catalog. A g a i n , the patterns were the same. I t is therefore u n l i k e l y t h a t the t r e n d f o r b o o k s o n f i l m analysis is merely a result o f h o w the cataloging was done. I n order t o fully understand w h a t these p u b l i s h i n g data represent, h o w ­ ever, i t is necessary t o understand the h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t for p u b l i s h i n g i n general over the t i m e p e r i o d o f interest. H o w do the results f o r b o o k s o n f i l m analysis compare t o other k i n d s o f books? T h e Statistical Abstract of the United States provides data o n the n u m b e r o f a l l n e w b o o k s p u b ­ lished each year f r o m 1 9 5 0 . D a t a p r i o r t o 1950 are available i n a resource

Change from W i t h i n

•

71

Figure 3.3. Number of A l l Books Published versus Books on Film as a Percentage of A l l Books

created by the U n i t e d States D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e and the Bureau o f the Census ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Together these c o n f i r m t h a t b o o k p u b l i s h i n g ex­ panded i n the 1960s (see figure 3.3). Between 1925 a n d 1 9 9 0 there was an increase i n the n u m b e r o f books published i n the U n i t e d States, f r o m 9,574 t o 4 6 , 7 3 8 . W h i l e the o v e r a l l n u m b e r o f books has greatly increased, the t i m i n g o f the increase is o f p a r t i c u l a r interest. There was a very s m a l l a n d g r a d u a l increase i n the n u m b e r o f books published u n t i l the end o f the 1950s; f o l l o w i n g 1 9 6 0 there were m u c h greater year-to-year increases. T h i s d e p i c t i o n o f the h i s t o r y o f p u b l i s h i n g i n the U n i t e d States is e x p l a i n e d by Coser et alia as influenced by increases i n literacy and college gradua­ t i o n rates, the expansion o f the higher e d u c a t i o n system, g l o b a l increases i n k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c t i o n , a n d g r o w t h i n the p o p u l a r culture industries (1982:25). Tebbel (1987:440) paints a similar picture o f the history o f p u b l i s h i n g , a t t r i b u t i n g major changes i n p u b l i s h i n g t o "the unprecedented expansion of education, propelled at the upper level by the millions o f servicemen w h o were enabled t o go t o college by the G I b i l l , and at the l o w e r level a little later by the baby b o o m . " I n a d d i t i o n , Tebbel cites progress i n i n f o r m a ­ t i o n technology as also h a v i n g c o n t r i b u t e d t o the increase i n p u b l i s h i n g . 18

19

72

•

Chapter 3

Because there were m o r e o f a l l b o o k s being published, a question arises concerning h o w t o understand the observed increase i n English-language b o o k s o n f i l m c r i t i c i s m o r aesthetics after 1 9 6 5 . Is the increase i n film b o o k s , then, merely a consequence o f this overall expansion i n p u b l i s h i n g rather t h a n a measure o f a real increase i n academic a t t e n t i o n t o film? Several ways o f e x a m i n i n g the data indicate t h a t the increase i n film b o o k s is a real increase i n academic a t t e n t i o n t o film. First, the increase i n the n u m b e r o f books o n film outpaces the m o r e general increase i n p u b l i s h i n g . As Figure 3.3 shows, w h e n the n u m b e r o f books o n film is d i v i d e d b y the n u m b e r o f a l l b o o k s , the u p w a r d t r e n d beginning i n the late 1960s re­ mains. Even w h e n c o n t r o l l i n g for the overall increase i n p u b l i s h i n g , the p u b l i c a t i o n o f film b o o k s increased. Second, the t i m i n g o f the increase f o r film b o o k s is slightly after the general increase. T h e increase i n film b o o k s appears t o occur a p p r o x i m a t e l y six years after the increase f o r a l l b o o k s . T h e lag for film b o o k s supports the n o t i o n t h a t there are other factors i n v o l v e d a n d t h a t books o n film m a y have increased f o r reasons other t h a n the general expansion i n p u b l i s h i n g . Comparisons o f the b e g i n n i n g o f the increase f o r film books w i t h the beginnings f o r literature a n d m a t h s u p p o r t this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (see figure 3.4). For each field, the increase occurs closer i n t i m e t o the general expansion i n p u b l i s h i n g , a n d i n each case the increase appears t o predate the increase i n film b o o k s . A t h i r d angle for v i e w i n g the data provides s u p p o r t f o r the assertion t h a t the diffusion o f the perception o f film as art was tied t o the g r o w t h i n the p r o d u c t i o n o f academic w o r k o n film studies. A c o m p a r i s o n o f n o t relative differences b u t rather absolute differences between film a n d the related art f o r m o f theater (or drama) highlights the fact t h a t an extremely small n u m b e r o f books o n film aesthetics or c r i t i c i s m was p u b l i s h e d p r i o r t o the 1 9 6 0 s . Books o n d r a m a o r theater aesthetics o r c r i t i c i s m were p l e n t i f u l ; the average yearly o u t p u t between 1925 a n d 1965 was just over 100 n e w books or n e w editions. T h i s figure contrasts w i t h 2 b o o k s per year for film analysis over the same p e r i o d . For further c o m p a r i s o n , o n average over 4 0 9 books o n literary aesthetics o r c r i t i c i s m were p u b l i s h e d each year between 1925 a n d 1 9 6 5 . These differences are consistent w i t h the idea t h a t b o t h literature a n d theater o r d r a m a have been established as art forms since at least the beginning o f the dataset—1925 (cf. D i M a g ­ gio 1 9 9 2 ; Leary 1 9 7 6 : c h . l ; Levine 1 9 8 8 ) . T h e increase i n the 1960s i n books o n film, then, s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as h a v i n g a different significance t h a n the increases for other fields. U n l i k e i n literature or theater, p u b l i c a t i o n s o n film aesthetics o r c r i t i c i s m were almost nonexistent p r i o r t o the 1950s a n d quite scarce u n t i l the m i d 1960s. T h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the creation o f artistic status are different i n a case where there is an increase f r o m some established level t o an even greater level, t h a n i n a case where there is an increase f r o m nearly zero t o 20

Change from Within

•

73

a moderate level. P r i o r t o the 1960s there was n o real b o d y o f academic w o r k o n f i l m c r i t i c i s m o r aesthetics. I n contrast, thousands o f b o o k s o n the aesthetics o r c r i t i c i s m o r literature a n d the aesthetics o r c r i t i c i s m o f theater o r d r a m a h a d been published. T h e increase i n f i l m b o o k s , there­ fore, a l t h o u g h m i r r o r e d by increases elsewhere, was significant f o r the diffusion o f the idea o f film as art. T h e figures o n p u b l i c a t i o n s p e r t a i n t o the art w o r l d for film generally, rather t h a n f o r H o l l y w o o d films per se. W h i l e some o f the p u b l i c a t i o n s were specifically a b o u t H o l l y w o o d , m a n y were n o t . I n the same w a y , aca­ demic courses a n d p r o g r a m s o n film covered film b o t h inside a n d outside H o l l y w o o d . T h e evidence a b o u t the l i n k t o academia is still relevant, h o w ­ ever, because i n the U n i t e d States the g r o w t h o f an art w o r l d f o r H o l l y ­ w o o d films closely f o l l o w e d the g r o w i n g awareness o f any film as art. I n the U n i t e d States, interest i n film as art g o t a k i c k - s t a r t f r o m an artistic interest i n E u r o p e a n films, b u t the b r o a d e n i n g o f t h a t interest led quite q u i c k l y t o acceptance o f the art i n H o l l y w o o d . T h i s l i n k between accep­ tance o f the E u r o p e a n films as art a n d acceptance o f H o l l y w o o d films was facilitated by the fact t h a t French theorists h a d already made the case f o r H o l l y w o o d films as art.

74

•

Chapter 3

I n a d d i t i o n t o the increases i n film study programs a n d i n books o n film aesthetics o r c r i t i c i s m , film scholars c l a i m t h a t the legitimacy o f film stud­ ies w i t h i n the academy has steadily g r o w n (Blades 1 9 7 6 ; Byw a t e r a n d Sobchak 1989; Easton 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e academic study o f film has become n o t o n l y m o r e prevalent i n recent decades, b u t also m o r e h i g h l y respected. Such respect is b o t h representative o f a n d contributes t o the acceptance o f film as a v a l i d f o r m o f art. As centers o f c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y , universities were an i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f the n e w field o f film insofar as they p r o v i d e d legitimacy for the intellectualization o f a f o r m o f entertainment. The American

Film Institute

(AFI)

T h e l o n g - t e r m success o f art w o r l d s requires the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f resources t o preserve, disseminate, instruct, a n d advance art f o r m s . Such i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n can come i n various f o r m s . For instance, art museums often p e r f o r m these functions for p a i n t i n g a n d sculpture. N o n p r o f i t opera companies p r o v i d e the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l support required t o p u t o n expen­ sive opera p r o d u c t i o n s . Dance studios must be established i n order t o t r a i n dancers i n the techniques o f m o d e r n dance. I n the same w a y , H o l l y ­ w o o d films required i n s t i t u t i o n a l support. W h i l e film scholarship a n d t r a i n i n g h a d begun t o occur i n universities, the art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films benefited f r o m the creation o f organizations devoted specifically t o advancing the art o f A m e r i c a n film. T h e most i m p o r t a n t effort outside a university c o n t e x t t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l ­ ize resources devoted t o the intellectual study o f A m e r i c a n film has been the A m e r i c a n F i l m Institute. There is some historical debate regarding the credit due t o some o f the figures i n v o l v e d , b u t plans f o r the A F I were announced by L y n d o n Johnson w h e n he signed the N a t i o n a l A r t s a n d H u m a n i t i e s A c t o n September 2 9 , 1 9 6 5 . T h a t A c t also established the N a t i o n a l E n d o w m e n t for the A r t s ( N E A ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e d m o s t o f the f u n d i n g for the A F I as an independent, n o n ­ p r o f i t n o n g o v e r n m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . As Johnson signed the legislation t h a t enacted the N E A , he said, " W e w i l l create an A m e r i c a n F i l m I n s t i t u t e , b r i n g i n g together leading artists o f the film industry, o u t s t a n d i n g educa­ tors, a n d y o u n g m e n a n d w o m e n w h o w i s h t o pursue this twentieth-cen­ t u r y art f o r m as their life's w o r k " (quoted i n Yoffe 1 9 8 3 : 1 6 ) . A c c o r d i n g t o M c B r i d e (1983:1), the stated goals o f the A F I were t o "advance the understanding and r e c o g n i t i o n o f the m o v i n g image as an art f o r m , t o help preserve film a n d video for future generations, a n d t o develop new talent." As w i t h most y o u n g i n s t i t u t i o n s , the A F I h a d difficult beginnings, a n d as w i t h most y o u n g i n s t i t u t i o n s , the difficulties h a d t o d o w i t h f u n d i n g . W h i l e the A F I served t o reinforce the needs o f an art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d

Change from W i t h i n

•

75

films, its very existence first required a baseline level o f f a i t h i n an a r t w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films. F u n d i n g for arts, as n o w , was spotty enough for the m o s t established o f t h e m ; for film i t was still worse. Nevertheless, there was enough f a i t h t o get the A F I r u n n i n g , a n d its first director was George Stevens Jr. A l t h o u g h the A F I , like other arts institutes, d r e w funds f r o m agencies such as the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f the A r t s , the F o r d F o u n d a t i o n , a n d the N a t i o n a l E n d o w m e n t f o r the A r t s , i t was fortunate t o have i n d u s t r y sources t o rely o n , such as the M o t i o n Picture Association o f A m e r i c a . A d d i t i o n a l f u n d i n g has come f r o m i n d i v i d u a l members o f the film c o m ­ m u n i t y as w e l l as the m a j o r studios. A p r i m a r y justification for the A F I was film preservation. Because a l l films shot before 1950 used nitrate film stock, the o r i g i n a l negatives o f A m e r i c a n films were at r i s k o f being lost forever due t o d i s i n t e g r a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , w i t h o u t a central repository for films, m a n y were lost due t o mismanagement or lack o f interest. I n fact, there was little interest i n film preservation f r o m the i n d u s t r y itself d u r i n g the first several decades o f c o m m e r c i a l cinema. D u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d , p r i o r t o television o r h o m e video, the o n l y revenue t o be gained f r o m films was t h r o u g h their i n i t i a l t h e a t r i ­ cal release ( K i n g 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e archives o f m a n y m a j o r studios are far f r o m complete, a n d the o r i g i n a l negatives o f m a n y o f H o l l y w o o d ' s most fa­ m o u s a n d w e l l - l o v e d p r o d u c t i o n s are lost ( K i n g 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e A F I , then, facilitates the a r c h i v i n g a n d cataloging o f films i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h other organizations such as the L i b r a r y o f Congress, a n d i t has been i n s t r u m e n ­ t a l i n the preservation o f thousands o f historic films. T h e t r a i n i n g o f film artists was another justification for the A F I . After the dissolution o f the studio system, there were far fewer o p p o r t u n i t i e s for directors, p a r t i c u l a r l y , t o apprentice a n d t o learn o n the j o b . A l t h o u g h i t h a d n o t been clear at the outset w h a t f o r m the educational a r m o f the A F I w o u l d take, the A F I i n 1969 established the Center f o r A d v a n c e d F i l m Studies, w h i c h M c B r i d e (1983) reports was intended as a graduate school. T h e educational mission o f the A F I ostensibly sought t o foster the talent a n d v i s i o n o f y o u n g film artists, b u t realistically i t also needed t o teach the practical skills the i n d u s t r y r e q u i r e d as w e l l as t o i n i t i a t e useful i n d u s t r y contracts. T o d a y the p r o g r a m is called the A F I Conservatory a n d i t offers master o f fine arts degrees i n six disciplines: cinematography, d i r e c t i n g , e d i t i n g , p r o d u c i n g , p r o d u c t i o n design, and screenwriting. T h e tension between the artistic and c o m m e r c i a l goals o f the A F I were also evident i n the Institute's other major g o a l , t h a t o f film scholarship. As Callenbach (1971) notes, there has been controversy since the beginning s u r r o u n d i n g the degree t o w h i c h the A F I s h o u l d focus o n scholarly re­ search a n d p u b l i c a t i o n . T h e i n d u s t r y f u n d i n g o n w h i c h the A F I came t o rely was rarely dedicated t o serious intellectual w o r k as defined by the

76

•

Chapter 3

standards o f art h i s t o r y o r c u l t u r a l studies scholarship. B u t i n the early years o f the A F I , there were m a n y serious and w e l l - p u b l i c i z e d efforts t o p r o m o t e f i l m as art. For example, seminar series i n w h i c h directors p a r t i c ­ i p a t e d t o discuss t h e i r films as art were h i g h profile. A l s o , film screenings helped t o raise awareness o f film classics a n d t o c o n t r i b u t e t o the develop­ m e n t o f the A m e r i c a n film canon. I t is n o t an easy task t o p r o m o t e the art o f H o l l y w o o d i n an e n v i r o n ­ m e n t so clearly focused o n r e t u r n i n g profits o n m u l t i m i l l i o n d o l l a r invest­ ments. As w i l l be discussed i n chapter 5, the tension between disinterested a r t a n d commerce has always been an i m p o r t a n t l i m i t a t i o n i n the degree t o w h i c h H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n s can be consecrated as h i g h art. A l l the same, the A F I has h a d a h a n d i n h e l p i n g w i n b r o a d acceptance o f the idea t h a t H o l l y w o o d films can be art.

U N I T E D STATES, E N G L A N D , G E R M A N Y , I T A L Y , A N D F R A N C E : CHANGES I N T H E INDUSTRIAL A N D SOCIAL HISTORY OF F I L M

T h e creation o f film festivals a n d ties t o academia, a n d the s e l f - p r o m o t i o n o f directors are film w o r l d developments that were intended t o advance the legitimacy o f H o l l y w o o d films as art. Just as w i t h any a r t f o r m , i t takes m a n y participants serving i n various capacities t o first o f a l l p r o d u c e the art (and film is one o f the m o s t collective o f art forms t o produce) a n d t h e n t o e x h i b i t a n d evaluate the art i n ways that are a p p r o p r i a t e f o r art. I t takes true believers i n the m e r i t o f film as art t o do the w o r k t h a t is necessary for the w i d e r p u b l i c t o understand h o w and w h y film is art. I n a d d i t i o n t o these focused activities, there were other changes w i t h i n the film w o r l d t h a t were n o t designed t o advance film as art, b u t neverthe­ less c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h a t effort. T h e f o l l o w i n g sections o f this chapter ex­ amine several m a j o r changes i n the film w o r l d and discuss h o w they i n f l u ­ enced perceptions o f the artistic nature o f filmmaking. T h e c u r r e n t section compares the h i s t o r i c a l c o n d i t i o n s o f film p r o d u c t i o n i n the U n i t e d States a n d those countries t h a t i n i t i a l l y led European p r o d u c t i o n — E n g l a n d , Germany, Italy, a n d France. T h i s c o m p a r i s o n is a n a l y t i c a l l y useful be­ cause i t a l l o w s us t o judge h o w p r o d u c t i o n practices v a r i e d w i t h accep­ tance o f film as art. T h e h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d shows t h a t instead o f fitting t w o discrete categories, i t appears t h a t there was a c o n t i n u u m i n the degree t o w h i c h p r o d u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s encouraged the acceptance o f film as art a m o n g the countries. W h i l e c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the film w o r l d i n the U n i t e d States strongly m i l i t a t e d against film as art, c o n d i t i o n s i n E n g l a n d were s o m e w h a t less o f an obstacle, a n d those i n Germany, Italy, a n d especially France were m o r e encouraging.

Change from Within Pre-World

War I I Production

•

77

Conditions

I n b o t h Europe a n d the U n i t e d States, the definition o f w h a t art is depends p a r t l y o n an o p p o s i t i o n between creative a n d c o m m e r c i a l activities. Ide­ ally, artists are u n i q u e l y talented i n d i v i d u a l s m o t i v a t e d t o create art by a need t o express themselves (Becker 1 9 8 2 : c h . l ) . Profit seeking is t h o u g h t t o detract f r o m the n o b i l i t y inherent i n the artistic process. As B o u r d i e u (1993:ch.3) argues, o n l y the p u r s u i t o f n o n m a t e r i a l success is considered " l e g i t i m a t e " i n the field o f artistic p r o d u c t i o n . C o m m e r c i a l activities are, o n the surface, incongruent w i t h the aims o f an art w o r l d a n d m o r e i n line w i t h entertainment a n d amusement. These n o r m s s u r r o u n d i n g c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n have i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s for the status o f film as art a n d can help t o e x p l a i n w h y film achieved that status earlier i n Europe t h a n i n the U n i t e d States. 21

22

A l t h o u g h d u r i n g the first decade o f the t w e n t i e t h century the film indus­ tries i n France a n d I t a l y h a d been larger t h a n the i n d u s t r y i n the U n i t e d States, W o r l d W a r I altered the s i t u a t i o n substantially. " A f t e r 1914 those countries directly engaged i n the w a r drastically c u r t a i l e d their film p r o ­ d u c t i o n : celluloid a n d h i g h explosives are made f r o m the same i n g r e d i ­ ents. The I t a l i a n , French, and English studios suffered a subsequent de­ cline t h a t was t o last a generation or m o r e " ( K n i g h t 1 9 5 7 : 5 1 ) . There is some debate a b o u t whether Germany's studios declined, as Sklar (1994:46) reports, or whether "the G e r m a n film i n d u s t r y expanded dur­ i n g the w a r " (Elsaesser 1996:139), b u t there is nonetheless agreement t h a t after several years, the G e r m a n film i n d u s t r y was i n a stronger p o s i t i o n t h a n the industries i n the other European countries (Saunders 1994:5). Despite this strength w i t h i n Europe, the i n d u s t r y was economically w e a k i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h H o l l y w o o d . A r m e s (1985:71) compares H o l l y w o o d a n d G e r m a n p r o d u c t i o n : " W h a t is p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g is the contrast i n tactics adopted by the t w o giants: the one seeking supremacy t h r o u g h the sheer q u a n t i t y o f films produced for immediate local p r o d u c t i o n w h i l e the other sought successfully t o create a prestige p r o d u c t t h a t c o u l d be m a r k e t e d w o r l d w i d e . " A small n u m b e r o f prestige p r o d u c t i o n s c o u l d never be as profitable as a large n u m b e r o f p r o d u c t i o n s for mass consump­ t i o n . I t was clear by the end o f W o r l d W a r I t h a t the A m e r i c a n film indus­ t r y d o m i n a t e d the w o r l d m a r k e t ( K n i g h t 1957:107) a n d "was said t o p r o ­ duce some 85 percent o f the films s h o w n t h r o u g h o u t the w o r l d a n d 98 percent o f those s h o w n i n A m e r i c a " (Sklar 1994:47). A m e r i c a n p r o d u c ­ t i o n consistently far o u t s t r i p p e d that o f France (Crisp 1 9 9 3 : 1 1 ) , E n g l a n d ( H a r t o g 1 9 8 3 : 5 9 ) , G e r m a n y (Saunders 1994:10), a n d I t a l y (Buss 1989:2). T h o m p s o n a n d B o r d w e l l (1994:85) p r o v i d e the f o l l o w i n g figures: T h r o u g h o u t the silent era, i n d u s t r y experts believed t h a t French p r o ­ d u c t i o n was i n a crisis. I n 1929, for instance, France made 68 features,

78

•

Chapter 3

w h i l e G e r m a n y p r o d u c e d 2 2 0 a n d the U n i t e d States 5 6 2 . Even i n 1 9 2 6 , the w o r s t pre-Depression year for E u r o p e a n p r o d u c t i o n , G e r m a n y h a d managed 2 0 2 films t o France's 5 5 , w h i l e H o l l y w o o d o u t s t r i p p e d b o t h w i t h about 7 2 5 . I n 1 9 2 8 , one o f the best years for the Europeans, France made 94 films, c o m p a r e d w i t h 2 2 1 for G e r m a n y a n d 6 4 1 f o r the U n i t e d States. By the 1920s, then, H o l l y w o o d h a d become a g l o b a l c a p i t a l f o r f i l m ­ m a k i n g . T h e city itself came t o represent an emergent i n d u s t r y t h a t was perceived t o epitomize b o t h w e a l t h a n d glamour. F i l m m a k i n g i n the U n i t e d States was a lucrative mass culture industry. I n contrast, the f i l m i n d u s t r y i n European countries was characterized by financial difficulties a n d v a r y i n g degrees o f government stewardship a n d subsidization. N o w e l l - S m i t h et alia c l a i m t h a t " I t a l i a n f i l m p r o d u c t i o n between 1905 a n d 1 9 3 1 can h a r d l y be described as an industry" ( 1 9 9 6 : 1 , italics i n o r i g i n a l ) . I n p r e w a r decades w h e n the n u m b e r o f films p r o d u c e d rose steadily, this expansion "was d r i v e n by motives other t h a n p r o f i t , " a n d f i l m m a k i n g "was often associated w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l systems o f artistic patronage ( n u ­ merous I t a l i a n aristocrats subsidised early f i l m s ) " ( N o w e l l - S m i t h et a l . 1996:1). I n a d d i t i o n , the " I t a l i a n i n d u s t r y d i d n o t have enough o f a h o m e audience t o support either a comprehensive star system or a studio system f o u n d e d o n m a m m o t h p r o d u c t i o n for the p o p u l a r m a r k e t " (Buss 1 9 8 9 : 7 ) . Consequently, the domestic f i l m - p r o d u c t i o n i n d u s t r y collapsed. Usai ( 1 9 9 6 : 1 2 3 ) provides some sobering numbers about I t a l i a n f i l m p r o d u c ­ t i o n : " I n 1912 an average o f three films a day were released ( 1 , 1 2 7 i n t o t a l , a d m i t t e d l y m a n y o f t h e m short); i n 1 9 3 1 o n l y t w o feature films i n the entire year." Similar predicaments faced the industries o f Germany, E n g l a n d , a n d France. A l t h o u g h o u t p u t increased i n G e r m a n y f o l l o w i n g W o r l d W a r I , "the i n d u s t r y never rested o n a f i r m financial basis" ( O t t 1 9 8 6 : 2 6 ) . D u r ­ ing the t i m e o f the W e i m a r Republic, m u c h o f the o u t p u t f r o m producers "was e x p e r i m e n t a l " (discussed further b e l o w ) " a n d lacked solid c o m m e r ­ cial u n d e r p i n n i n g s " (Saunders 1994:12). English p r o d u c t i o n was likewise h o b b l e d ; "there was n o c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n t o r i v a l H o l l y w o o d , the i n d u s t r y as a w h o l e was under-capitalized. . . . [T]alent was n o t r i c h l y r e w a r d e d i n the w a y t h a t i t was i n H o l l y w o o d . . . . as a result there was a steady stream o f B r i t i s h acting talent across the A t l a n t i c t o H o l l y w o o d " (Armes 1979:32). I n France, t o o , the native i n d u s t r y suffered f r o m a s m a l l native m a r k e t , as w e l l as p o o r o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t caused widespread f i ­ nancial hardship (Bardeche a n d Brassilach 1 9 3 8 : 2 2 6 ) . France, however, was the o n l y European film-producing c o u n t r y where the government d i d n o t p r o v i d e assistance t o the i n d u s t r y before the 1930s ( K n i g h t 1 9 5 7 : 9 3 ) . T h e creation o f the largest a n d most p r o d u c t i v e

Change from Within

•

79

film studio i n Germany, U n i v e r s u m F i l m A . G . , was achieved t h r o u g h co­ o p e r a t i o n between the g o v e r n m e n t a n d p r i v a t e firms. T h e i n d u s t r y bene­ fited f r o m the extension o f loans a n d subsidies t o various firms i n Ger­ m a n y d u r i n g the 1920s ( M o n a c o 1 9 9 6 : 3 1 ) , a n d g o v e r n m e n t sponsor­ ship a n d frequent d i r e c t i o n o f the i n d u s t r y increased i n the 1930s under the N a z i regime. T h e I t a l i a n i n d u s t r y was shaped t o a still greater extent t h r o u g h n a t i o n a l p u b l i c , economic, a n d c u l t u r a l p o l i c y accompa­ n y i n g the rise t o p o w e r o f Fascism i n 1 9 2 2 ( N o w e l l - S m i t h et a l . 1 9 9 6 : 3 ) . A t t h a t t i m e the state "set u p an infrastructure for the I t a l i a n cinema i n d u s t r y t h a t was t o p r o v i d e a solid basis f o r its post-war development by creating the I s t i t u t o L U C E , the Ente N a z i o n a l e Industrie C i n e m a t o grafiche, E N A I P E (the state b o d y f o r i m p o r t i n g films), film clubs, Cinecitta a n d the Venice F e s t i v a l " ( i n 1932) (Buss 1 9 8 9 : 1 2 ) . G o v e r n m e n t as­ sistance i n B r i t a i n came i n the f o r m o f legislation restricting the n u m b e r o f A m e r i c a n i m p o r t s (Armes 1 9 7 9 : 7 3 ) . V a r i o u s forms o f restrictions were eventually legislated i n Germany, France, a n d I t a l y as w e l l t o bolster d o ­ mestic p r o d u c t i o n . I n sum, the E u r o p e a n film industries p r o d u c e d fewer films f o r fewer people, often r e q u i r i n g g o v e r n m e n t assistance t o d o so. A n d as w e saw i n chapter 2 , w h i l e film was sometimes a mass entertainment i n E u r o p e , it was also frequently enjoyed b y intellectuals a n d higher SES audiences. I n contrast i t was m a i n l y p o p u l i s t i n the U n i t e d States. T h e end result was t h a t i n Europe there was a weaker l i n k between domestic film­ m a k i n g o n the one h a n d a n d the creation o f w e a l t h a n d the o p e r a t i o n o f an oligarchical system o f studios o n the other. I n A m e r i c a , however, this l i n k was strong a n d salient i n the p u b l i c m i n d thanks t o the g l a m o r o u s image o f H o l l y w o o d . Because f i l m m a k i n g i n the U n i t e d States was a large scale a n d profitable business r u n b y a few large studios, i t was also, under these c o n d i t i o n s , similar t o assembly-line p r o d u c t i o n . Staiger (1985) describes the h i s t o r i ­ cal e v o l u t i o n o f modes o f p r o d u c t i o n i n the A m e r i c a n film industry. Be­ t w e e n 1896 a n d 1 9 0 7 , films were made a c c o r d i n g t o the " c a m e r a m a n " system o f p r o d u c t i o n , the defining q u a l i t y o f w h i c h was the l o c a t i o n o f b o t h c o n c e p t i o n a n d execution o f the film f r o m start t o finish i n one per­ son. Between 1 9 0 7 a n d 1 9 0 9 , the p r e d o m i n a n t m o d e o f p r o d u c t i o n was the " d i r e c t o r " system, i n w h i c h "one i n d i v i d u a l staged the a c t i o n a n d another person p h o t o g r a p h e d i t " (117). A t this p o i n t the terms " p r o ­ ducer" a n d " d i r e c t o r " were used synonymously, as there was very little d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r i n the filmmaking process. T h e director was responsible for m a n a g i n g v i r t u a l l y a l l aspects o f the film. F r o m 1909 t o 1 9 1 4 , as d e m a n d f o r films greatly increased, the p r e d o m i ­ nant m o d e o f p r o d u c t i o n became the " d i r e c t o r - u n i t " system. T o meet the increased d e m a n d , p r o d u c t i o n was systematized so t h a t " a l l the c o m p o -

80

•

Chapter 3

nents t o produce a f i l m resided w i t h i n a predictable set o f employees" (Staiger 1985:121) whose w o r k was n o w separated a n d s u b d i v i d e d " i n t o departmentalized specialities w i t h a s t r u c t u r a l h i e r a r c h y " ( 1 2 4 ) . Profit m a x i m i z a t i o n goals, w i t h an emphasis o n efficiency a n d "scientific m a n ­ agement," encouraged a shift t o a " c e n t r a l p r o d u c e r " system i n 1 9 1 4 , w h i c h "centralized the c o n t r o l o f p r o d u c t i o n under the management o f a p r o d u c e r " (128) whose j o b was " p l a n n i n g the w o r k a n d e s t i m a t i n g p r o d u c t i o n costs, t h r o u g h a detailed s c r i p t " ( 1 3 5 ) . T h e w o r k o f the p r o ­ ducer a n d the director was n o w split, a n d a great deal o f c o n t r o l over h o w films were made rested w i t h the producer. A shift t o the " p r o d u c e r - u n i t " system i n 1 9 3 1 meant t h a t producers w o u l d give m o r e specialized a t t e n t i o n t o o n l y a few films at any one t i m e , necessitating an increase i n the n u m b e r o f producers w o r k i n g f o r a s t u d i o . Producers c o u l d t h e n m o r e closely observe a n d c o n t r o l day-to-day opera­ tions a n d costs f o r the movies under their j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h e "produceru n i t " system stayed i n place u n t i l a p p r o x i m a t e l y the m i d - 1 9 5 0 s . As w i l l be discussed i n greater d e p t h , this m o d e o f p r o d u c t i o n contrasts w i t h the m o d e c o m m o n i n European industries as w e l l as t o the one t h a t was t o f o l l o w i n the A m e r i c a n industry, w h i c h was t o be m o r e conducive t o per­ ceiving the p r o d u c t i o n o f f i l m as an artistic process. A m o n g the m a j o r E u r o p e a n studios, the mode o f p r o d u c t i o n i n B r i t i s h studios was m o s t s i m i l a r t o the A m e r i c a n , and the French m o d e the least so. T h e studio system, where a p p r o x i m a t e l y five t o eight m a j o r studios p r o d u c e d the vast m a j o r i t y o f films, n o t o n l y i n the c o u n t r y b u t also i n the w o r l d , was u n i q u e t o the U n i t e d States. Beginning i n the late 1920s, the English i n d u s t r y came t o m o r e closely resemble the A m e r i c a n i n d u s t r y insofar as a relatively h i g h percentage o f the films p r o d u c e d ( a l t h o u g h there were far fewer i n t o t a l ) came f r o m a small n u m b e r o f p r o d u c i n g companies (Ryall 1 9 9 7 : 2 8 ) . H a w k r i d g e (1996:136) notes t h a t " B y the end o f the 1920s the B r i t i s h film i n d u s t r y was t r a n s f o r m e d . T h e shift t o vertical i n t e g r a t i o n established a stronger i n d u s t r i a l base, a n d . . . the p r o ­ tective legislation i n t r o d u c e d i n 1 9 2 7 d i d also lead t o an e x p a n s i o n o f the i n d u s t r y . " T h e G e r m a n film i n d u s t r y was m o r e decentralized t h a n the B r i t i s h . I n Germany, a l t h o u g h the n u m b e r o f films p r o d u c e d declined f r o m 6 4 6 i n 1921 t o 228 i n 1 9 2 5 , the n u m b e r o f p r o d u c i n g companies rose f r o m 1 3 1 i n 1918 t o 2 3 0 i n 1 9 2 0 , 3 6 0 i n 1 9 2 2 , a n d t o 4 2 4 i n 1929 ( O t t 1 9 8 6 : 2 9 ) . M a n y companies p r o d u c e d o n l y one or t w o films i n a year, a n d some fewer t h a n that. Before the 1920s, I t a l i a n p r o d u c t i o n was also h i g h l y decentralized. H o w e v e r , the n u m b e r o f studios declined d r a m a t i c a l l y after W o r l d W a r I , f r o m a height o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y five h u n d r e d ( N o w e l l - S m i t h et a l . 1 9 9 6 : 1 ) . T h i s can be accounted for by the decline i n film p r o d u c t i o n ,

Change from W i t h i n

•

81

w h i c h d r o p p e d t o fewer t h a n fifteen films n a t i o n a l l y per year (Buss 1 9 8 9 : 8 ) . L i k e w i s e i n France, "instead o f a h a l f dozen o r so large studios g r i n d i n g o u t a year's supply o f pictures for their affiliated theaters, m o s t o f the studios were s m a l l , their facilities rented by p r o d u c t i o n firms often set u p specifically t o m a k e a single p i c t u r e " ( K n i g h t 1 9 5 7 : 9 3 ) . T h o m p s o n a n d B o r d w e l l (1994:86) p r o v i d e a detailed e x p l a n a t i o n for the decentral­ ized structure o f the French f i l m i n d u s t r y i n the 1920s, p o i n t i n g t o " d o ­ mestic business t r a d i t i o n s " w h e r e i n French i n d u s t r y i n general was d o m i ­ nated by smaller companies rather t h a n larger c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r m e d t h r o u g h mergers. T h e y also p o i n t o u t t h a t the vast m a j o r i t y o f theaters a n d p r o d u c t i o n firms were p r i v a t e l y o w n e d by i n d i v i d u a l s . T h o m p s o n a n d B o r d w e l l argue t h a t the tendency t o w a r d small p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a ­ nies was self-perpetuating: as an inherently r i s k y business endeavor, p r o ­ d u c t i o n companies h a d often struggled, a n d this h i s t o r y o f h i g h risk dis­ couraged the large investments o u t o f w h i c h large companies c o u l d be created. T h e y note t h a t i n the late 1920s the budget o f the average French f i l m was one-tenth the budget o f the average H o l l y w o o d f i l m . Crisp (1993:37) notes t h a t the French i n d u s t r y was h i g h l y disorganized w e l l i n t o the 1930s a n d lacked "the legislative f r a m e w o r k o r any strong i n t e r n a l professional r e g u l a t i o n " t h a t c o u l d have developed the i n d u s t r y b e y o n d its " p a t c h w o r k " nature. There are m a n y ways t o m a k e a f i l m . As a c o m p l e x p r o d u c t o f a c o m p l e x p r o d u c t i o n process, films i n v o l v e an enormous a m o u n t o f decision-making a n d collaborative i n p u t . T h e na­ ture o f t h a t cooperative effort, however, is shaped by the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o d u c t i o n . I n H o l l y w o o d ' s studio system, the director's o p i n i o n was subordinate t o the producer's, a n d the p r o ­ ducer was responsible for h i r i n g the director a n d m a n a g i n g his, a n d every­ one else's, w o r k (Staiger 1 9 8 5 : 1 3 6 ) . As a consequence, i n the 1920s direc­ tors were v i r t u a l l y u n k n o w n t o the p u b l i c a n d were s i m p l y assigned by studios t o w o r k o n pictures ( K n i g h t 1 9 5 7 : 1 3 0 ) . I n contrast, the French m o d e o f p r o d u c t i o n " a l l o w e d for a h i g h degree o f d i r e c t o r i a l c o n t r o l over the p r o d u c t i o n process" (Crisp 1 9 9 3 : 3 0 7 ) such t h a t "the least regarded director i n France enjoyed the degree o f c o n t r o l a n d decision m a k i n g enjoyed by the m o s t favored 1 0 - 1 5 % o f directors i n H o l l y w o o d " (Crisp 1 9 9 3 : 3 0 9 ) . W h a t is m o r e , u n l i k e i n the U n i t e d States, an " o v e r w h e l m i n g percentage o f the directors h a d fine arts or u n i ­ versity t r a i n i n g " ( C r i s p l 9 9 3 : 1 5 9 ) . 23

I n G e r m a n y a n d Italy, as w e l l , the role o f the director was m o r e sub­ stantial t h a n i t was i n H o l l y w o o d , w h i l e i n E n g l a n d a large a m o u n t o f c o n t r o l and responsibility i n film p r o d u c t i o n rested w i t h the producer (Armes 1 9 7 9 : C h . 5 ) , a s i t u a t i o n m o r e s i m i l a r t o the A m e r i c a n m o d e o f production.

82

•

Chapter 3

T h e very different p r o d u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s a n d backgrounds o f directors can be cited as leading t o the s t r i k i n g l y different paths t a k e n by E u r o ­ pean a n d H o l l y w o o d directors. G e r m a n Expressionism, French Impres­ sionist f i l m , and the I t a l i a n neorealist cinema t h a t was t o come i n the 1940s represent trends i n f i l m m a k i n g t h a t were avant-garde, m o r e ex­ p e r i m e n t a l , a n d less c o m m e r c i a l t h a n the various H o l l y w o o d t r a d i t i o n s (Rees 1996:96). I n sum, the p r e - W o r l d W a r I I A m e r i c a n f i l m i n d u s t r y was the m o s t o u t o f line w i t h expectations concerning the nature o f artistic p r o d u c t i o n . T h e m o d e a n d scale o f p r o d u c t i o n i n E n g l a n d was somewhat less so, a n d those i n G e r m a n y a n d I t a l y c o n f o r m e d rather w e l l w i t h expectations concerning artistic p r o d u c t i o n . I t was c o n d i t i o n s i n France t h a t most closely resem­ bled those o f established art w o r l d s , as indicated by its relatively l o w levels o f c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , c o r p o r a t i z a t i o n , a n d centralization, a n d its h i g h level o f o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d d i r e c t o r i a l c o n t r o l over p r o d u c t i o n .

The Transition from the Studio System to Director-Centered Production U n t i l the 1950s, H o l l y w o o d films were made according t o the studio sys­ tem whereby directors (as w e l l as actors) were signed t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h a studio t h a t o b l i g e d t h e m t o make the films that the studios, w h i c h re­ tained a great deal o f creative c o n t r o l , were interested i n h a v i n g made (Tuska 1 9 9 1 i n t r o d u c t i o n ) . T h e studio system began t o dissolve f o l l o w i n g the 1948 Supreme C o u r t r u l i n g that the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d e x h i b i t i o n facilities was m o n o p o l i s t i c ( M o r d d e n 1 9 8 8 : 3 6 7 ) . T h e studios were forced t o divest themselves o f their theater holdings. " W i t h n o guar­ antee o f e x h i b i t i o n , fewer movies c o u l d be m a d e " ( M o r d d e n 1 9 8 8 : 3 6 8 ) . Faced w i t h legal troubles o f vertical c o n t r o l , s h r i n k i n g p o t e n t i a l profits, a n d uncertain o f w h i c h films t o make, the studios changed their p r o d u c ­ t i o n m e t h o d by leasing studio space t o independent directors t o m a k e their o w n films (Phillips 1990:16). T h e significance o f this change i n the w a y films were made is t i e d t o notions about the nature o f art and artists. T h e new m e t h o d o f p r o d u c t i o n a l l o w e d directors t o foster an image o f independence. As m e n t i o n e d , i n earlier decades directors were largely u n k n o w n a n d perceived as technical w o r k e r s i n the process o f f i l m p r o d u c t i o n . As a result, the m a j o r studios based their m a r k e t i n g efforts o n the actors and attached n o i m p o r t a n c e to the p u b l i c i t y p o t e n t i a l o f directors ( K n i g h t 1 9 5 7 : 1 3 0 ) . 24

I n the years f o l l o w i n g the a b a n d o n m e n t o f the studio system, a n e w school o f t h o u g h t regarding f i l m was i m p o r t e d t o the U n i t e d States f r o m France. F i l m criticism i n Europe, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n France i n the Cahiers du cinema, h a d developed a l o n g different lines. I n the m i d - t o late 1950s the

Change from Within

•

83

French nouvelle vague elaborated an a p p r o a c h t o the appreciation o f f i l m t h a t by the 1960s h a d stimulated a n e w f o r m o f A m e r i c a n f i l m c r i t i c i s m (Sarris 1 9 6 8 ) . As m e n t i o n e d , this a p p r o a c h was auteurism, w h i c h posits t h a t i t is the director w h o is the d r i v i n g artistic force i n f i l m m a k i n g , a n d t h a t t o understand a f i l m correctly requires p a y i n g close a t t e n t i o n t o ef­ fects o f the director's creative choices o n a film's content. T h e director is responsible for i n t e g r a t i n g "the c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f cast a n d crew i n t o a u n i ­ fied w h o l e " (Phillips 1 9 9 0 : 1 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , the theory notes t h a t auteurs are recognizable for their a b i l i t y t o shape films according t o their personal visions w i t h i n the economic a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l confines o f p r o d u c t i o n . T h e i m p o r t a t i o n o f auteurism was set i n m o t i o n by a 1962 seminal essay by A n d r e w Sarris, " N o t e s o n the A u t e u r T h e o r y . " By the late 1960s there existed "a c r i t i c a l mass o f influential journalistic reviewers w h o i n the years t o come w o u l d prove t o be staunch supporters o f the auteur perspective" (Kapsis 1 9 9 2 : 1 0 1 ) . A u t e u r i s m eventually enjoyed general, t h o u g h n o t complete, acceptance a m o n g journalistic w r i t e r s o n film a n d also h a d m a n y supporters a m o n g academic c r i t i c s . A n i m p o r t a n t i m p l i ­ c a t i o n o f the a d o p t i o n o f auteurism is t h a t film criticism was p r o v i d e d a p o w e r f u l t o o l for connecting w i t h existing beliefs about the nature o f art and artists ( Z o l b e r g 1990:7). By emphasizing the a u t o n o m y a n d i n d i v i d u ­ ality o f the director, auteurism conforms t o R o m a n t i c i s t n o t i o n s about art a n d t o the " ' c h a r i s m a ' ideology w h i c h is the u l t i m a t e basis o f belief i n the value o f a w o r k o f a r t " ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 8 0 : 2 6 3 ) . True art requires the i n p u t o f a unique genius. Bywater a n d Sobchak (1989:53) w r i t e , " O n e of the aims, then, o f auteurism, is t o justify an intellectual interest i n an area t h a t h a d previously been considered s i m p l y mass c u l t u r e , the products o f w h i c h , like paperback romances a n d detective fiction, were f o r m e r l y beneath intellectual scrutiny. W h e r e there's an artist, there must be an a r t . " 25

W h i t e a n d W h i t e ( 1 9 6 5 ) , i n their study o f the t r a n s i t i o n f r o m the aca­ demic t o the dealer-critic system o f the p r o d u c t i o n o f paintings i n nine­ teenth-century France, argue t h a t just such an ideology m o v e d the recog­ n i t i o n o f genius f r o m a q u a l i t y o f the p a i n t i n g t o a q u a l i t y o f the painter. Critics, w h o were interested i n establishing their reputations as influential intellectuals, were successful i n p r o m u l g a t i n g this theory i n p a r t because i t was i n h a r m o n y w i t h other themes concerning the role o f painters a n d other artists. W h e n film reviewers focused o n the film as a w h o l e , there was little familiar g r o u n d for g r o u p i n g film w i t h the other arts. I f n o true genius c o u l d be specifically located (the actor? cameraman? editor? producer?), then i t was difficult t o m a i n t a i n t h a t a f i l m c o u l d be a w o r k of a r t . I t was a large-scale c o l l a b o r a t i o n p r o d u c e d by specialized w o r k ­ ers, as w i t h an a u t o m o b i l e . 26

84

•

Chapter 3

W h a t is m o r e , film's technological nature a n d its o r g a n i z a t i o n as an i n d u s t r y w o r k e d against i t , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n influential F r a n k f u r t School thinkers were h i g h l y c r i t i c a l o f "mass c u l t u r e " o n b o t h p o l i t i c a l a n d aesthetic grounds (see chapter 2 ) . A u t e u r i s m , however, p r o v i d e d a rationale for f i l m as art t h a t b o t h countered mass culture objections a n d corresponded t o p o p u l a r n o t i o n s o f the relationship between an artist/ genius a n d the w o r k o f art. Films were n o w safe t o appreciate because they were perceived t o be the creation o f artists rather t h a n the p r o d u c t s o f an industry. T h e i m p o r t a t i o n o f auteurism t o the U n i t e d States i n the 1960s closely f o l l o w e d major changes i n the s t r u c t u r i n g o f the m o t i o n picture industry. T h i s restructuring p r o v i d e d directors w o r k i n g i n H o l l y w o o d w i t h n e w ­ f o u n d independence. Europe h a d its auteurs (e.g., Jean Renoir, Sergei Eisenstein, Rene Clair, G . W . Pabst) as early as the 1920s a n d 1930s. O f course, the f i l m i n d u s t r y i n Europe h a d never been fully oriented t o w a r d c o m m e r c i a l interests, a n d filmmakers h a d never been constrained by a studio system. Yet they were available as a m o d e l for h o w directors s h o u l d be perceived. A u t e u r theory, w i t h its claims for artistic status for directors a n d their w o r k , became a viable perspective t o a p p l y t o films, b o t h new and old.

How Conditions of Artistic Production Perceptions of Artistic Legitimacy

Influence

T h e U . S. f i l m i n d u s t r y was the w o r l d leader i n f i l m p r o d u c t i o n f o l l o w i n g W o r l d W a r I w h i l e also receiving n o government subsidies. T h e size o f the A m e r i c a n audience supported a f i l m m a r k e t o f several h u n d r e d p r o d u c ­ tions per year, w h i c h i n t u r n encouraged the e v o l u t i o n o f a studio system. I n this system i t was difficult t o h o l d u p examples o f a u t o n o m o u s , freely creative artists. There was, therefore, a disjuncture between h o w films were made a n d the need for p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n o f artists i n order t o v i e w their products as art. To v a r y i n g degrees, p r o d u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s differed i n E u r o p e a n c o u n ­ tries. There were the m o s t similarities between the A m e r i c a n a n d B r i t i s h film industries and i n the social c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h they operated. There were far fewer similarities between A m e r i c a n p r o d u c t i o n a n d the G e r m a n a n d I t a l i a n industries. T h e French film i n d u s t r y was least s i m i l a r t o the A m e r i c a n , a n d can be seen t o represent a set o f c o n d i t i o n s t h a t was relatively conducive t o the p r o m o t i o n a n d diffusion o f the idea t h a t film was a p r o p e r l y artistic m e d i u m . W i t h the m a j o r legal a n d economic changes t h a t t u r n e d the i n d u s t r y o n its head i n the p o s t w a r p e r i o d , the p r o d u c t i o n practices o f A m e r i c a n studios changed drastically. D i r e c t o r -

Change from Within

•

85

centered p r o d u c t i o n b r o u g h t the A m e r i c a n i n d u s t r y m u c h closer t o E u r o ­ pean modes o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d m o r e consistent w i t h p u b l i c expectations concerning artistic p r o d u c t i o n . W i t h i n the sociology o f c u l t u r e , the most detailed a n d systematic analy­ sis o f the u n d e r l y i n g mechanisms o f artistic legitimacy is Bourdieu's (1993) w o r k o n fields o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n . T h i s w o r k provides a useful set o f terms a n d concepts t o articulate the causal l i n k s between changing p r o d u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s for film a n d its increasing artistic legitimacy. As discussed i n chapter 1, Bourdieu's concept o f a " f i e l d " o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n focuses o n the relations between c u l t u r a l producers a n d con­ sumers. T h r o u g h the concept o f field, B o u r d i e u has e x a m i n e d c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n i n an effort t o e x p l a i n , a m o n g other things, the dynamics o f c u l t u r a l consecration a n d the process w h e r e b y certain c u l t u r a l products a n d practices legitimately gain a n d r e t a i n h i g h status. A field is "a separate social universe h a v i n g its o w n laws o f f u n c t i o n i n g independent o f those of politics a n d the economy . . . a n d w h i c h is constituted as i t establishes its a u t o n o m y " ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 9 3 : 1 6 3 ) . T h e concept o f field is especially useful for analyzing intellectual endeavors, a n d one can speak o f a large n u m b e r o f fields—literary, p h i l o s o p h i c a l , educational, j u r i d i c a l , medical, and so f o r t h . 27

Fields, then, are separate, w i t h a u t o n o m y a n d their o w n laws, a n d they are f u n c t i o n a l l y differentiated. H o w are such characteristics m a n i ­ fested? Perhaps the best w a y t o conceptualize a c u l t u r a l field is t o imagine ourselves i n the shoes o f an artist. Let us take the case o f a film director i n the 1960s, one w h o is sincere about m a k i n g films i n order t o express personal messages, create beauty, a n d experiment w i t h aesthetic c o n ­ ventions. I f an artist is w e l l integrated i n t o a field, he or she w i l l be aware o f a c o m p l e x system o f evaluation f o r art w o r k s i n t h a t field; the w a y films are evaluated, for instance, w i l l be different f r o m the w a y theater is evaluated. T h e first difference is i n the substance o f the art. There are certain canonic film w o r k s whose characteristics can act as touchstones f r o m w h i c h e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n s h o u l d take place. I n this way, there is a film v o ­ cabulary a n d grammar. Birth of a Nation ( 1 9 1 5 ) , i n w h i c h D . W . G r i f f i t h invented m a n y o f the standards for narrative storytelling i n film, is one such touchstone. Citizen Kane (1941) is another. A film artist needs t o be conversant i n the conventions o f film for successful e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n t o take place. A second difference is i n the sources o f r e c o g n i t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n t o k n o w i n g the language o f film conventions, a film artist w i l l be familiar w i t h the field's specialized system f o r recognizing excellence. A r t i s t i c m e r i t w i l l be bestowed by w i n n i n g the r i g h t awards at the r i g h t film festi­ vals; by being o f interest t o a n d a p p r o v e d by the r i g h t film scholars;

86

•

Chapter 3

by being w e l l reviewed by the r i g h t critics; a n d by r e c o g n i t i o n f r o m other h i g h l y regarded film artists. A film artist w i l l seek this s y m b o l i c c a p i t a l . T o the extent t h a t sources f o r o b t a i n i n g this s y m b o l i c c a p i t a l exist, the field is independent. B u t independent o f w h a t ? T h e answer is t h a t the field is m o r e independent f r o m the r u l i n g logic o f the rest o f society: the marketplace. I n consumer society, economic c a p i t a l is the u l t i ­ mate g o a l . T h r o u g h o u r p r o d u c t i o n activities, o u r labor, w e seek the capi­ tal t h a t is available i n the field o f economic p r o d u c t i o n — m o n e y . T h e eco­ n o m i c field is the larger field o r the c o n t e x t w i t h i n w h i c h other, m o r e specific ones operate. T h i s is w h a t makes c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n special. L e g i t i m a t e a r t is created w i t h i n fields o f p r o d u c t i o n whose logic strays f r o m t h a t o f the m a r k e t ­ place. A r t i s t s seek n o t economic c a p i t a l , b u t symbolic c a p i t a l , w h i c h moreover, is field specific. W i n n i n g the B o o k e r Prize is n o t m e a n i n g f u l t o a film director; i t is an i n a p p r o p r i a t e currency i n the field o f film. T h e field o f film has its o w n awards. So the seeking o f these awards, a n d s y m b o l i c c a p i t a l f r o m other sources w i t h i n the field, is w h a t film artists d o . N o w t h a t w e see h o w fields o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n i n general operate, we can m o v e o n t o a m o r e subtle d i s t i n c t i o n between different k i n d s o f fields o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n . I n Bourdieu's (1993:ch.3) analysis, a n a t u r a l d i v i s i o n exists w i t h i n fields o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n between large-scale a n d restricted p r o d u c t i o n . I n fields o f restricted p r o d u c t i o n , c u l t u r a l goods are p r o d u c e d for an audience whose members are p r i m a r i l y c u l t u r a l p r o d u c ­ ers themselves. T h i s is a relatively small audience w i t h a great deal o f c u l t u r a l capital available f o r appreciating art. I n contrast, fields o f largescale p r o d u c t i o n are organized t o create c u l t u r a l goods t h a t w i l l appeal to nonproducers o f c u l t u r a l goods a n d as large a m a r k e t as possible. These t w o categories represent ends o f a c o n t i n u u m a l o n g w h i c h a l l c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n can be classified. Symbolist p o e t r y is a g o o d example o f a field o f restricted p r o d u c t i o n . T h e audience for Symbolist p o e t r y is s m a l l (even smaller t h a n the audience f o r p o e t r y i n general), a n d the audience m e m ­ bers are quite often poets or authors themselves. R o c k music is a g o o d example o f a field o f large-scale p r o d u c t i o n . A m a j o r goal o f the producers o f r o c k music is t o appeal t o as m a n y people as possible, the vast m a j o r i t y o f w h o m are n o t musicians a n d w h o require little c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l t o ap­ preciate the music. B o u r d i e u argues t h a t there is a f u n d a m e n t a l o p p o s i t i o n between the logic o f restricted fields a n d the logic o f large-scale fields. I n the m o s t restricted fields, there is an u n w a v e r i n g focus o n the enhancement o f a c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t ' s s y m b o l i c value. C r i t i c a l success t r u m p s economic suc­ cess or p o p u l a r success. F o r w o r k s t h a t consistently find audiences f o r decades—"classics" t h a t were never blockbuster successes—there is some added value i n the l o n g - t i m e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f economic c a p i t a l because

Change from W i t h i n

•

87

" s t a n d i n g the test o f t i m e " is one o f the most prestigious c r i t e r i a for a w a r d i n g s y m b o l i c c a p i t a l . I n this w a y , economic capital still has a place i n restricted fields o f p r o d u c t i o n . C o n t r a r i l y , the generation o f c a p i t a l i n fields o f large-scale p r o d u c t i o n is focused o n q u i c k returns o n invest­ ments, just as i n other, n o n c u l t u r a l , fields o f p r o d u c t i o n t h a t f o l l o w eco­ n o m i c principles m o r e directly. Adherence t o these principles makes largescale fields, i n an a n a l y t i c a l as w e l l as i n a real sense, dependent o n the economic field. Restricted fields enjoy m u c h m o r e a u t o n o m y because they develop their o w n c r i t e r i a for the p r o d u c t i o n , c o n s u m p t i o n , a n d evalua­ t i o n o f their p r o d u c t s . A l l c u l t u r a l fields o f p r o d u c t i o n can be located o n a c o n t i n u u m w i t h restricted p r o d u c t i o n at one end a n d large-scale p r o d u c t i o n at the other. T h e purpose o f describing here Bourdieu's analysis o f fields o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n is t o understand h o w changing modes o f film p r o d u c t i o n are related t o the increased legitimacy o f H o l l y w o o d films as art. I t is i m ­ p o r t a n t t o recognize, t h e n , t h a t those fields o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n t h a t f u n c t i o n i n a manner closer t o the restricted end o f the c o n t i n u u m (e.g., p a i n t i n g , sculpture, poetry, opera) produce goods t h a t are m o r e readily acceptable as art. T h i s acceptance reveals a c u l t u r a l bias t h a t is derived f r o m R o m a n t i c i s t n o r m s concerning the role o f artists a n d w h a t art p r o p ­ erly is. True art is inspired by genius a n d by innate talent. I n fields o f large-scale p r o d u c t i o n the e x p l i c i t focus o n profits is i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h these R o m a n t i c i s t n o t i o n s . T h e c u l t u r a l products o f large-scale p r o d u c ­ t i o n are therefore suspect as art (e.g., p o p u l a r music, television shows, romance n o v e l s ) . 28

H o l l y w o o d filmmaking has never a n d w i l l never occur o n the restricted scale o n w h i c h p o e t r y occurs. Nevertheless, i t is i m p o r t a n t t o recognize the v a r i a t i o n i n the k i n d o f p r o d u c t i o n t h a t was t a k i n g place b o t h i n the film w o r l d i n general a n d w i t h i n H o l l y w o o d . M a n y E u r o p e a n p r o d u c ­ tions o f earlier decades ( a l t h o u g h n o t c u r r e n t l y ) c o u l d be characterized as operating w i t h i n a field o f restricted p r o d u c t i o n . Take, for example, the Impressionist films o f 1920s French directors such as Jean Epstein a n d Germaine D u l a c . These directors made films w i t h t i n y budgets a n d sought t o experiment w i t h film as art, even i f they d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y d i s a v o w p r o f i t p o t e n t i a l . Some o f their films veered t o w a r d the m a i n s t r e a m o f French cinema enough t o see some p r o f i t , i n contrast t o the Surrealist school, whose films " c o u l d never reconcile p o p u l a r a n d intellectual a u d i ­ ences" ( L a n z o n i 2 0 0 2 : 4 9 ) . Nevertheless, their expressed purpose was ar­ tistic success a n d r e c o g n i t i o n f r o m other artists and knowledgeable a u d i ­ ence members. T h i s was n o t the blockbuster f o r m u l a . H o l l y w o o d films have always been p r o f i t oriented. B u t one o f the most significant changes i n H o l l y w o o d f o l l o w i n g the studio era is the percep­ t i o n t h a t some directors were w o r k i n g under c o n d i t i o n s similar t o re-

88

•

Chapter 3

stricted p r o d u c t i o n . W h e n the o l d f o r m u l a s h a d begun t o f a i l , w h e n direc­ tor-centered p r o d u c t i o n became the n o r m , w h e n T V became the default d r a m a f o r the masses, studios d i d n o t k n o w w h a t t o d o . A n d so they gave directors freedom t o seek their o w n artistic v i s i o n , a n d these directors discussed their freedom t o make the films they w a n t e d t o m a k e like i t was an inalienable r i g h t . T h e y played d o w n the i n d u s t r y expectations t h a t the freedom was meant t o translate i n t o g o o d b o x office, a n d instead played up t h e i r o w n expectations t h a t the freedom w o u l d translate i n t o artistic success. T h e y were n o t m a k i n g films i n order t o pack theaters o n opening w e e k e n d . T h e y w a n t e d r e c o g n i t i o n f r o m t h e i r peers a n d f r o m the critics (the ones w h o were f a i r - m i n d e d , a n y w a y ) . D i r e c t o r s p u t f o r t h a fantasy image o f f i l m m a k i n g as a field o f restricted p r o d u c t i o n , an image t h a t film reviewers a n d the press p a r t i c i p a t e d i n c o n s t r u c t i n g , n o t because any o f these groups w a n t e d t o deceive, b u t rather because they a l l w a n t e d i t t o be true. I n reality, the economics o f film p r o d u c t i o n h a d n o t changed so drastically. Profits were still p a r a m o u n t t o the a b i l i t y o f filmmakers t o continue t o find w o r k , a n d film was still a field o f mass p r o d u c t i o n . B u t this reality was d o w n p l a y e d i n order t o project an alter­ nate image t h a t better m a t c h e d emerging values a n d preferences. 2 9

PURIFICATION THROUGH VENUE: F R O M NICKELODEONS TO ART HOUSES

I n t i m a t e l y tied t o the changing economic c o n d i t i o n s o f the i n d u s t r y was the m o d e o f e x h i b i t i o n for films. As Levine (1988) a n d D i M a g g i o ( 1 9 8 2 ; 1992) have argued, the nature o f the physical space for artistic e x h i b i t i o n has i m p l i c a t i o n s for the status i m p u t a t i o n s t h a t audience members w i l l m a k e . Decisions concerning where t o e x h i b i t a c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t can i n ­ fluence b o t h the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the audience a n d the k i n d o r genre o f culture t h a t is i n c l u d e d — a n d by extension the culture t h a t is e x c l u d e d — for e x h i b i t i o n . I n the cases discussed by Levine and D i M a g g i o , the desig­ n a t i o n o f separate theaters for legitimate d r a m a , o f museums f o r p a i n t i n g a n d sculpture, o f opera houses separate f r o m venues for other f o r m s o f musical theater, and o f s y m p h o n y halls separate f r o m other venues f o r p o p u l a r music, a l l c o n t r i b u t e d t o the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f these c u l t u r a l p r o d ­ ucts as art. Similarly, Peterson argues t h a t the performance o f jazz i n " c o n ­ cert halls, academic w o r k s h o p s , a n d r e c o r d i n g studios" c o n t r i b u t e d t o the creation o f a fine art element i n jazz ( 1 9 7 2 : 1 4 6 ) . Between the t u r n o f the century a n d the late 1960s, the e x h i b i t i o n o f A m e r i c a n cinema experienced a s i m i l a r t r a n s i t i o n . W h i l e the i n i t i a l m o d e o f e x h i b i t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d t o impressions o f film as disreputable a n d unsa-

Change from Within

•

89

vory, developments i n the 1950s a n d 1960s helped t o m o r e clearly isolate a h i g h a r t element i n film f r o m w h i c h the status o f the m e d i u m o f film as a w h o l e benefited. T h e beginnings o f e x h i b i t i o n i n nickelodeons have been detailed i n chapter 2 . Thereafter, the i n d u s t r y m o r e aggressively sought t o w i d e n its audience. T h e p r i m a r y strategy for achieving this goal was n o t t o change the nature o f the films being s h o w n , b u t instead t o change the nature o f film e x h i b i t i o n . By the 1920s the largest studios h a d begun t o b u y a n d construct theaters f o r s h o w i n g their films as p a r t o f a business p l a n t h a t sought t o vertically integrate the companies, g i v i n g t h e m f u l l c o n t r o l over p r o d u c t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , a n d e x h i b i t i o n . M a n y o f the n e w theaters were p a l a t i a l (Stones 1 9 9 3 : 3 5 ) . T h e y were often e n o r m o u s , seating several t h o u s a n d people, a n d they c o m m o n l y h a d exotic decor (e.g., T h e Egyp­ t i a n , T h e O r i e n t a l ) . T h e n e w theaters were constructed w i t h exacting at­ t e n t i o n t o detail a n d l u x u r i o u s l y outfitted. T h e strategy w o r k e d . As Sklar describes, " w o r k i n g - c l a s s people ap­ preciated amenities as m u c h as anyone else: the larger a n d m o r e preten­ tious the theaters, the greater numbers they d r e w " ( 1 9 9 4 : 4 5 ) . A n d yet, the n e w theaters also managed t o "expunge the working-class n e i g h b o r h o o d character f r o m the m o v i e g o i n g experience t o make i t m o r e respectable i n the eyes o f the m i d d l e class" (quoted i n Baxter 1 9 9 3 : 2 5 ) . T h e " m o v i e palaces" o f the 1920s b o t h broadened the socioeconomic base f o r the film audience a n d helped t o increase the t o t a l size o f t h a t audience. M a n y theaters were still small and n o t l u x u r i o u s , especially i n r u r a l areas. H o w e v e r , the m a j o r i t y o f filmgoers were g o i n g t o d o w n t o w n the­ aters i n large cities, a n d these tended t o be the n e w l y constructed " m o v i e palaces." Such palaces were step one i n a c h a i n o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i n film e x h i b i t i o n . T h e first step d i d n o t achieve the goal o f m a k i n g H o l l y w o o d films believable as art. Rather, i t made t h e m m o r e respectable. I n the case o f film, the j o u r n e y t o w a r d art f o l l o w e d the p a t h o f increasing respectabil­ ity. D i M a g g i o ( 1 9 9 2 ) a n d Levine (1988) trace similar h i s t o r i c a l paths for the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f the arts they study. T h e n e x t m a j o r change i n the nature o f film e x h i b i t i o n came i n the 1930s. A s described by Gomery, the subsequent strategy e m p l o y e d by film e x h i b i t o r s t o increase their m a r k e t was the i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a i r - c o n d i t i o n ­ i n g . " M o v i e theaters were one o f the few p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s i n w h i c h the middle-class a n d p o o r citizens o f the U n i t e d States c o u l d indulge i n c o o l , dehumidified c o m f o r t u n t i l w e l l i n t o the 1950s. . . . T h e c o m p a r a t i v e ad­ vantage o f air c o n d i t i o n i n g t o m o v i e e x h i b i t i o n i n the U n i t e d States d u r i n g the 1930s a n d 1940s c a n n o t be overestimated" ( 1 9 9 2 : 7 6 ) . L i k e the previous strategy, this one successfully increased the t o t a l size o f the audience. B u t i t also further entrenched the practice o f e x h i b i t i n g

90

•

Chapter 3

films o f every genre w i t h i n the same theaters. I t created m o r e i n t e g r a t i o n a n d w o r k e d against audience segregation by class. T h e next major change i n the w a y audiences v i e w e d films was the p o s t W o r l d W a r I I p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f d r i v e - i n theaters. I n 1946 there were 102 drive-ins i n the U n i t e d States, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1,000 i n 1 9 4 9 , m o r e t h a n 3,000 i n 1 9 5 4 , a n d 4 , 0 0 0 i n 1958 ( S t o n e s l 9 9 3 : 1 8 6 ) . T h i s t r e n d was clearly related t o s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n . F o l l o w i n g W o r l d W a r I I , theaters m o v e d along w i t h a p o r t i o n o f the p o p u l a t i o n t o the suburbs. D r i v e - i n s were p o p u l a r p a r t l y because they were n o v e l a n d p a r t l y because o f the conveniences they offered. P a r k i n g was, obviously, n o t difficult, u n l i k e w i t h m o s t u r b a n theaters; there was n o need t o dress u p , as was c o m m o n for a t r i p t o the cinema; staying i n the car made t a k i n g c h i l d r e n a n d i n ­ fants easier; a n d for m a n y audience members, the o u t d o o r theaters were closer a n d easier t o get t o (Stones 1 9 9 3 : 1 8 3 - 9 4 ) . The p o p u l a r i t y o f d r i v e ins d i d n o t represent an increase i n the p o p u l a r i t y o f filmgoing, b u t rather a shift i n where audiences saw films. There was a sharp decrease i n filmg o i n g d u r i n g the 1950s. H o w e v e r , this decrease m i g h t w e l l have been m o r e d r a m a t i c i n the absence o f drive-ins. Moreoever, the n a t i o n a l statis­ tics m i g h t obscure significant regional v a r i a t i o n s — i t c o u l d be the case t h a t filmgoing decreased less i n w a r m e r regions where drive-ins w o u l d have been m o r e feasible year-round. O v e r a l l , this change i n the m o d e o f e x h i b i t i o n d i d n o t affect the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the audience; i t merely re­ flected changing residential patterns. T h e next major development i n film e x h i b i t i o n was most influential o n the status o f film as art. C h a n g i n g economic realities again altered the w a y t h a t audiences were t o v i e w films. T h i s was the art house m o v e m e n t , w h i c h began s l o w l y i n the 1950s a n d accelerated i n the 1960s. Stones states t h a t " i n its purest definition, an 'art house' is a theater t h a t caters t o a specialized audience o f film lovers, those w h o embrace movies as a serious art f o r m a k i n t o dance or l i t e r a t u r e " ( 1 9 9 3 : 1 9 9 ) . W h i l e art houses can be defined i n terms o f the audiences w h o patronize t h e m a n d the types o f films they show, the art house m o v e m e n t must be explained i n reference t o the economic c o n d i t i o n s o f the A m e r i c a n film industry. W h i l e art houses, specializing i n s h o w i n g foreign language (almost exclusively European) films, have existed since the 1920s, they were few i n n u m b e r a n d generally unsuccessful. G o m e r y argues t h a t the m a n y art house failures clearly demonstrate t h a t audiences w o u l d n o t respond t o a film-as-art p o l i c y a n d t h a t "case after case" shows t h a t art houses c o u l d n o t r e m a i n i n business for l o n g ( 1 9 9 2 : 1 7 4 ) . The o n l y exceptions were theaters located i n ethnic neighborhoods s h o w i n g films f r o m the native countries o f the local residents. T h i s s i t u a t i o n changed drastically f o l l o w i n g the divorce o f the m a j o r studios f r o m their theater chains. T h e 1948 r u l i n g against t h e m by the Supreme C o u r t , k n o w n as the Paramount

Change from Within

•

91

case, f o u n d t h a t they h a d fixed admission prices a n d forced smaller e x h i b i t o r s t o take a l l o f their o u t p u t i n order t o get the " A " m a t e r i a l , a n d by 1954 they h a d sold o f f a l l their theaters ( P u t t n a m 1 9 9 7 : 1 7 1 ) . T h i s decision was m o n u m e n t a l , a n d the literature o n the h i s t o r y o f the film i n d u s t r y c o m m o n l y remarks t h a t i t drastically altered the business models o f b o t h the studios a n d the theater owners. These n e w l y indepen­ dent theaters still needed t o e x h i b i t films. I t was precisely d u r i n g the 1950s, however, t h a t the decline i n cinema attendance a n d r i s i n g p r o d u c ­ t i o n costs forced the m a j o r A m e r i c a n studios t o c u r t a i l the n u m b e r o f films they made. 30

W i t h m o r e freedom n o w t o choose where their films came f r o m , a n d a shortage o f domestic supply, m a n y theaters l o o k e d t o Europe for films t o e x h i b i t . Smaller theaters, i n particular, were less able t o a f f o r d the h i g h rental cost o f first-run m a j o r studio p r o d u c t i o n s , a n d so were m o r e l i k e l y t o e x h i b i t foreign films. Rather t h a n responding t o a preexisting strong d e m a n d for European films, theater owners were merely enacting a busi­ ness strategy o f p u t t i n g something o n the screen. T h e y became venues for European films t o a v o i d g o i n g o u t o f business even t h o u g h they " r a r e l y espoused film as a r t " ( G o m e r y 1 9 9 2 : 1 8 1 ) . By 1956 the n u m b e r o f art cinemas h a d reached t w o h u n d r e d ; ten years later i t was five h u n d r e d ; by the late 1960s ( i n c l u d i n g film societies pre­ senting the best o f the European art cinema) the t o t a l exceeded one t h o u ­ sand ( G o m e r y 1 9 9 2 : 1 8 1 ) . T h e art house served b o t h the manifest f u n c t i o n o f e x h i b i t i n g n o n - H o l ­ l y w o o d films a n d the latent f u n c t i o n o f p u t t i n g f o r t h an example for U.S. audiences o f h o w film c o u l d be art ( T w o m e y 1956). U n t i l this t i m e , recog­ n i t i o n o f any film as art was l i m i t e d m a i n l y t o intellectuals w h o valued the better European p r o d u c t i o n s . A r t house practices enhanced the status o f film t h r o u g h the creation o f a cinema experience t h a t was m u c h differ­ ent f r o m the t r a d i t i o n a l experience. T h e art house, b o t h i n name a n d i n f u n c t i o n , embodied the idea o f film as art i n its purest f o r m . By s h o w i n g o n l y n o n - H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n s , art houses a l l o w e d audiences t o have a clear perspective o f exactly w h a t constituted cinematic art. By being able t o refer t o a b o d y o f w o r k as artistic, the idea t h a t film c o u l d be art was m o r e c o n v i n c i n g . By catering t o p r i m a r i l y w e l l - t o - d o a n d educated audiences w h o were also likely t o attend other artistic performances ( G o m e r y 1992:189), film as a genre c o u l d benefit by association f r o m symbolic enhancement (Lieberson 2000:126-30). 31

32

Over t i m e art houses began t o e x h i b i t controversial H o l l y w o o d films as w e l l . I n the 1960s the line between foreign films a n d H o l l y w o o d films was b l u r r e d rather t h a n m a i n t a i n e d by art houses. B u t art houses h a d served the useful f u n c t i o n o f increasing a n d broadening r e c o g n i t i o n o f an

92

•

Chapter 3

a r t w o r l d for European film. F r o m there i t was a short step t o d o i n g the same for H o l l y w o o d films. T h e economics o f the i n d u s t r y h a d a n i m p o r t a n t yet i n d i r e c t i m p a c t first o n the status o f film as a genre a n d second o n the status o f H o l l y w o o d films, mediated t h r o u g h the m o d e o f e x h i b i t i o n . W i t h o u t the t h o u g h t o f m a n i p u l a t i n g definitions o f film as art, studios a n d e x h i b i t o r s d i d just t h a t . I n the early decades o f the century, their efforts, i f a n y t h i n g , discour­ aged a redefinition o f film as art. E x h i b i t i o n needs resulted i n l u m p i n g audiences a n d genres together. After the P a r a m o u n t decision b r o u g h t an end t o vertical i n t e g r a t i o n a n d t o the s t u d i o - o w n e d chains, c o m b i n e d w i t h s h r i n k i n g audiences a n d a revived E u r o p e a n industry, economic realities resulted i n a mode o f e x h i b i t i o n t h a t encouraged a r e d e f i n i t i o n o f film as a r t t h r o u g h the separation o f audiences a n d genres.

PRESTIGE P R O D U C T I O N S

T h e actions o f the A m e r i c a n film industry's most i m p o r t a n t players, the m a j o r film studios, have c o n t r i b u t e d i n various ways t o the c h a n g i n g sta­ tus o f film. Earlier i n this chapter I e x a m i n e d the influence o f the changing m o d e o f p r o d u c t i o n at the m a j o r studios. W h i l e p r o d u c t i o n methods are influential, they do n o t represent an a t t e m p t o n the p a r t o f studios t o alter perceptions concerning the status o f film as art. T h e y represent an effort t o m a x i m i z e profits, a n d the resulting change i n artistic status was quite u n i n t e n t i o n a l and i n d i r e c t . H o w e v e r , d u r i n g the first several decades o f c o m m e r c i a l film, the stu­ dios needed t o counteract d a m a g i n g stereotypes a n d widespread disap­ p r o v a l o f the film industry. U n d e r such c o n d i t i o n s , the studios were c o m ­ pelled t o produce films t h a t c o u l d help t o cleanse the genre o f its r e p u t a t i o n as a m e d i u m o f p o o r quality, as cheap, sensationalistic specta­ cle. A n y given film is p r o d u c e d w i t h the express purpose o f creating a p r o f i t , n o t t o elevate the status o f an i n d u s t r y i n w h i c h a studio's c o m p e t i ­ tors are also operating. H o w e v e r , the r e c u r r i n g need t o appeal, t h r o u g h m o r e reputable products, t o a segment o f the p o p u l a t i o n t h a t was repelled o r displeased by the p r e d o m i n a n t i n d u s t r y image, eventually h a d an i n ­ fluence o n the o v e r a l l nature a n d perception o f the industry. Such efforts c o n t i n u e d for a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h i r t y years a n d facilitated the success o f later efforts by studios t o m a k e film n o t o n l y respectable b u t also presti­ gious. A l t h o u g h there is little evidence t h a t studios were concerned w i t h p u b l i c perceptions o f w h e t h e r film was p o p u l a r l y defined as " a r t " per se, studios were interested i n m a k i n g a certain p r o p o r t i o n o f their films o f higher technical quality, w i t h respectable themes, a n d often l i n k e d t o w e l l k n o w n w o r k s i n other genres. T h e studios' efforts at m a k i n g prestigious

Change from Within

•

93

films, a l t h o u g h m o t i v a t e d by a search for higher profits, t h e n facilitated the acceptance o f the claims o f f i l m as art being made by others i n the film w o r l d . As detailed earlier, the f i l m i n d u s t r y h a d an inauspicious beginning i n the U n i t e d States. I n response t o these problems w i t h respectability, i n the first decade o f the t w e n t i e t h century the f i l m studios i m p o r t e d f i l m adaptations o f classic novels a n d stage plays, starring established stage actors, such as those made by the French p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n y F i l m D ' A r t ( M a s t 1 9 8 1 : 4 3 ) . T h e s h o w i n g o f Queen Elizabeth, starring the famous stage actress Sarah Bernhardt, "handed the movies a tremendous up-mar­ ket boost. H i t h e r t o regarded as a pastime for the i g n o r a n t masses, the m o t i o n picture became socially respectable" (Eames 1985:8). I t is perhaps an overstatement t o say t h a t the i m p o r t a t i o n o f the F i l m D ' A r t films altered perceptions o f the film genre single-handedly. U r i c c h i o a n d Pearson (1993) recount the troubles the i n d u s t r y h a d d u r i n g the first t w o decades o f the century w i t h its image as j u n k entertainment. To change this image, the film i n d u s t r y i n the first t w o decades o f the t w e n t i ­ eth century t r i e d t o a l i g n itself w i t h m o r e esteemed entertainments a n d c u l t u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . T o do so, the i n d u s t r y as a w h o l e p r o d u c e d films dealing w i t h literary, h i s t o r i c a l , a n d b i b l i c a l subjects i n order t o "reposi­ t i o n itself i n A m e r i c a n society as a mass entertainment acceptable t o a l l social f o r m a t i o n s rather t h a n a cheap amusement" ( 1 9 9 3 : 4 1 ) . Para­ m o u n t Pictures w e n t far t o raise the status o f some o f its p r o d u c t i o n s by creating a label f o r a p r o d u c t i o n w i n g , Famous Players i n Famous Plays, w h i c h w o u l d focus o n "Class A " pictures ( M a s t 1 9 8 1 : 9 8 ) . Just as the label suggests, these films w o u l d feature w e l l - k n o w n stage actors i n w e l l k n o w n plays, l i n k i n g these films t o the respect accorded t o legitimate the­ ater (Eames 1985:8). 33

Universal studios e m p l o y e d a similar tactic. D u r i n g the 1920s i t p r o ­ duced expensive adaptations o f The Hunchback of Notre Dame a n d o f The Phantom of the Opera. For each, the m e t h o d o f e x h i b i t i o n was r o a d s h o w i n g , i n w h i c h the film was s h o w n at o n l y one large theater a n d t r a v ­ eled t o different cities, a n d the price o f admission was higher t h a n average ( H i r s c h h o r n 1 9 8 3 : 1 4 ) . Similar t o Paramount, Universal created a sepa­ rate label, Super-Jewel Productions, for its prestige pictures ( H i r s c h h o r n 1983:15). I n terms o f their p r o d u c t i o n values, studios c o n t i n u e d t o strive t o gain respect f o r themselves a n d the films they p u t o u t . Warner Brothers's pres­ tige films o f the 1930s were meant t o establish the studio as a competent p r o d u c t i o n house a n d t o make an example o f itself as a "respectable" a n d " c u l t u r a l l y p r o p e r " H o l l y w o o d studio ( R o d d i c k 1 9 8 3 : 2 3 3 - 3 4 ) . T h e movies were adapted f r o m well-regarded l i t e r a r y a n d theatrical w o r k s , were expensively made, h a d l o n g r u n n i n g times, a n d h a d a glossy, p o l -

94

•

Chapter 3

ished l o o k . Warner Brothers was n o t u n l i k e other studios i n m a k i n g some o f its films according t o these specifications. A t C o l u m b i a Pictures i n the 1940s the segmentation o f p r o d u c t i o n was i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d w i t h the " q u a l i t y " film at the apex a n d the "series" film at the base ( D i c k 1 9 9 2 : 1 0 ) . A n excellent example o f a studio's efforts t o generate prestige f o r a film is the case o f W a l t Disney's Fantasia. L u c k e t t (1994:218) describes the studio's tactics, w h i c h i n c l u d e d a great deal o f p u b l i c i t y concerning the film's i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f classical m u s i c a n d an endorsement f r o m I g o r Stravinsky, whose The Rite of Spring was featured i n the film. L u c k e t t (1994:219) notes t h a t the a i m o f the p u b l i c i t y was n o t t o sell the film as a w o r k o f art: 34

Advance p u b l i c i t y o f this k i n d clearly attempted t o r e w o r k the c u l t u r a l p o s i t i o n o f Disney, b u t rather t h a n placing Disney i n the p o s i t i o n o f disseminating h i g h art i n the guise o f mass culture, this p u b l i c i t y seemed t o p o s i t i o n Fantasia as a p r o d u c t w o r t h y o f the elite. Efforts t o b u i l d Disney's c u l t u r a l capital indicated t h a t Fantasia w o u l d be o f interest t o an audience new t o Disney ( w h o needed t o be i n f o r m e d a b o u t the film). T h e creation o f prestige p r o d u c t i o n s was essentially concerned w i t h b r o a d e n i n g the audience for film a n d therefore b r i n g i n g i n a larger p r o ­ p o r t i o n o f the p o t e n t i a l m a r k e t . Ironically, another i m p o r t a n t tactic em­ p l o y e d by Disney i n the case o f Fantasia was t o restrict access t o the film. S h o w n o n l y i n a few large cities at any one t i m e , i t was m o r e difficult for audiences t o see the film, " h e l p i n g t o construct its e x h i b i t i o n as a special event" ( 1 9 9 4 : 2 2 8 ) . T o a v o i d missing o u t o n profits, the e x h i b i t i o n runs were extended w h i l e "last-chance-to see-it" advertisements urged a u d i ­ ences t o see the film m o n t h s before the r u n was planned t o end. By the late 1940s audiences h a d come t o expect the professionalism a n d craftsmanship o f prestige p r o d u c t i o n s i n a l l films. " B " q u a l i t y enter­ t a i n m e n t c o u l d be h a d for free o n television. As H i r s c h h o r n expresses i t , " M i n d l e s s escapism was a l l very w e l l b u t at 4 0 cents a t h r o w i t h a d t o have a l o o k o f q u a l i t y a b o u t i t " ( 1 9 8 3 : 1 5 6 ) . A l t h o u g h q u a l i t y was a concern, " a r t " per se was n o t . Prestige p r o d u c ­ tions were p r i m a r i l y designed t o increase the size o f the audience. A l ­ t h o u g h some i n d i v i d u a l filmmakers m a y have been m o t i v a t e d by artistic impulses i n w o r k i n g o n these p r o d u c t i o n s , the a i m o f the studios was clearly t o generate p r o f i t . Redmonds a n d M i m u r a describe the s i t u a t i o n at Paramount: " U n d e r [Barney] Balaban, P a r a m o u n t h a d been almost entirely free o f any concept b e y o n d pure entertainment. W i t h the excep­ t i o n o f Lost Weekend i n 1 9 4 4 , the c o m p a n y h a d f o u n d t h a t films w i t h social significance d i d n o t pay o f f at the b o x office" ( 1 9 8 0 : 2 4 3 ) . Studio decisions were i n e v i t a b l y based o n a c a l c u l a t i o n o f w h a t w o u l d sell t i c k ­ ets. I n a 1950 i n t e r v i e w w i t h Time magazine, D a r r y l Z a n u c k , vice presi-

Change from W i t h i n

•

95

dent i n charge o f p r o d u c t i o n at T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y - F o x , said, "People w i l l accept enlightenment i f i t is s k i l l f u l l y served t o t h e m . T h e y w i l l n o t go t o the theater f o r enlightenment a l o n e " ( 1 9 5 0 , June 12:72). I n other w o r d s , because intellectual subject matter does n o t appeal t o large audiences, i t m u s t be presented i n an entertaining manner. Creative decisions, t h e n , are n o t made w i t h o n l y artistic concerns i n m i n d , lest the resulting p r o d u c t i o n not b r i n g i n large audiences. D u r i n g the 1950s a n d 1960s, studios remained interested i n c a p t u r i n g m o r e h i g h l y educated audience members t h r o u g h enhancing the prestige o f their films. T h i s interest was amplified by the economic r e a l i t y t h a t the size o f the f i l m audience was declining r a p i d l y w h i l e the audience m a k e u p shifted. T h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f the audience changed (see chapter 2) as m o r e working-class audience members stayed h o m e t o w a t c h television a n d m o r e h i g h l y educated patrons began o r c o n t i n u e d t o go o u t t o see films. Perceiving this n e w audience as m o r e sophisticated, studios m a r k e t e d their films appropriately. R o a d s h o w i n g , as a m e t h o d o f e x h i b i t i o n , i n ­ creased i n the 1950s a n d 1960s. R o a d s h o w i n g became especially appeal­ ing t o studios f o l l o w i n g the divestiture o f their theater chains, w h e n "the emphasis shifted t o the m a r k e t i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l f i l m titles . . . [t]he most prestigious films were the 'roadshows,' those high-profile, star-filled pic­ tures t h a t played exclusively i n one theater i n each m a j o r m a r k e t " (Stones 1 9 9 3 : 1 4 0 ) . T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y - F o x i n p a r t i c u l a r w o u l d release " i m ­ p o r t a n t " films t o certain theaters t h a t became prestige houses a n d r a n o n l y roadshows o n a reserved-seat basis ( S o l o m o n 1 9 8 8 : 1 3 5 ) . T h i s prac­ tice aligned filmgoing w i t h attendance at live theater, a n d was conceived b o t h t o set o f f certain films as h i g h q u a l i t y a n d t o make a t r i p t o the cinema a special event w o r t h choosing over television. Because the audience for films was s h r i n k i n g d u r i n g the 1950s a n d 1960s w h i l e p r o d u c t i o n costs were simultaneously increasing, the f u n c t i o n of film p r o m o t i o n changed. Balio describes the necessary shift studios made t o heavy m a r k e t i n g o f specific films t o m a r k e t niches ( 1 9 8 7 : 1 9 7 201). Using documents f r o m the archives o f U n i t e d Artists, Balio d e m o n ­ strates h o w advertising campaigns " h a d the goal o f delineating a n d c o n ­ t r o l l i n g h o w the picture s h o u l d be perceived a n d interpreted. By devel­ o p i n g appropriate language and image, U n i t e d Artists h o p e d t h a t the media w o u l d 'read' the picture i n a predetermined w a y " ( 1 9 8 7 : 2 0 1 ) . Pres­ tige p r o d u c t i o n s were m a r k e t e d as i m p o r t a n t and exciting events t o appeal to p o t e n t i a l patrons o f higher socioeconomic status. However, Balio is clear o n the studio's intent, q u o t i n g a U n i t e d Artists executive i n Europe: I t is clear t o the m i n d o f d i s t r i b u t o r s w h o the audience is f o r their pic­ tures. T h e y d o n o t have any intellectual pretentions [sic] a b o u t film as art. T h e y are selling film as entertainment t o a mass audience. T h e y

96

•

Chapter 3

hype the a c t i o n , the sensational elements, the elements o f the pictures t h a t w i l l grab an audience f r o m the ages o f f r o m a b o u t 16 t o a r o u n d 3 0 . (1987:219) T h e f i l m studios' prestige p r o d u c t i o n s , a n d the p r o d u c t i o n o f prestige, progressed over t i m e f r o m a general effort t o ameliorate the image o f the i n d u s t r y o r the entire studio's w o r k t o focused m a n i p u l a t i o n o f percep­ tions concerning the q u a l i t y o f p a r t i c u l a r films. I n d o i n g so, the studios were responding t o changing needs defined by e v o l v i n g c u l t u r a l , social, a n d economic contexts. W h e n the i n t e g r i t y a n d respect o f the i n d u s t r y were i n d o u b t , prestige p r o d u c t i o n s were useful t o w a r d o f f accusations t h a t films were debased a n d a threat t o legitimate c u l t u r e . T h e first line o f defense for the studios was t o l i n k their products t o other established art forms by a d a p t i n g w e l l - k n o w n novels a n d stage p r o d u c t i o n s . T h e other p r i m a r y means by w h i c h certain p r o d u c t i o n s were designated as prestigious was t h r o u g h d e v o t i n g a great deal o f a d d i t i o n a l expense i n order t o ensure t h a t those films appeared w e l l crafted. T h e s o u n d needed t o be clear, the l i g h t i n g correctly i l l u m i n a t i n g , the e d i t i n g s m o o t h , a n d the sets a n d costumes visually appealing. O f course, such changes can p a r t l y be explained by the advancement o f technology. H o w e v e r , even the best technology can be i m p r o p e r l y e m p l o y e d w i t h o u t due effort a n d a t t e n t i o n t o detail. I t is fitting t h a t the studios were n o t i n t e n d i n g t o convince the p u b l i c , t h r o u g h added expense a n d enhancing the glossiness o f p r o d u c t i o n v a l ­ ues, t h a t certain films were art. I n fact, expense and glossiness accentuated the extent t o w h i c h film was a collaborative venture a n d a big-business venture. As discussed previously, perceptions o f w h a t a r t p r o p e r l y is are at odds w i t h the role o f commerce i n c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n . I t is precisely those films t h a t do n o t appear t o be studios' most expensive a n d fussed over products, films t h a t are m o r e directly the expression o f an i n d i v i d u a l artist, t h a t resonate as art for audiences. A l t h o u g h these expensive p r o ­ ductions d i d not redefine film as art, they were a precursor t o such a redefinition. As S o l o m o n notes, the studios advertised w i t h the phrase " m i l l i o n s i n the m a k i n g " i n an effort t o equate cost w i t h q u a l i t y ( 1 9 8 8 : 1 0 7 ) . " Q u a l i t y " c u l t u r a l products can be t e r m e d m i d d l e b r o w , a n d m i d d l e b r o w status m o v e d film one step a w a y f r o m l o w b r o w a n d one step t o w a r d h i g h b r o w . By raising the status o f film t o a reputable c u l t u r a l r e a l m , rather t h a n shoddy j u n k entertainment, these p r o d u c t i o n s made the later leap t o film as art easier t o accept for the general p u b l i c . By the 1950s and 1960s, the film i n d u s t r y i n general h a d established its value. T h e development o f prestige products focused o n m a r k e t i n g partic­ ular films t o a broader audience, t o d r a w i n audience members o f higher socioeconomic status. The m o s t i m p o r t a n t w a y i n w h i c h certain films were 35

36

Change from Within

•

97

packaged as prestigious was t h r o u g h an exclusive mode o f e x h i b i t i o n . R o a d s h o w i n g , a l t h o u g h i n use for prestige productions since the 1920s, became a c o m m o n w a y o f setting o f f cinema attendance as a c u l t u r a l event. I n these three ways—linkage t o established arts, expensive p r o d u c t i o n , and exclusive e x h i b i t i o n — s t u d i o s generated prestige for their products. A l t h o u g h the studios were n o t a i m i n g t o p o s i t i o n their products as art, and d i d n o t do so t h r o u g h these means, these actions can be seen as having c o n t r i b u t e d t o the eventual redefinition o f f i l m as an artistic genre.

THE

EBB OF CENSORSHIP A N D T H E C O M I N G OF A R T

One o f the most i m p o r t a n t developments i n the f i l m w o r l d t h a t facilitated a redefinition o f film as art was the r e l a x a t i o n o f censorship. Before the 1950s, the A m e r i c a n film i n d u s t r y was subject t o stringent regulations, m o s t l y self-imposed, concerning the content o f the films p r o d u c e d . A l ­ t h o u g h censorship o f films existed i n Europe, t h a t censorship v a r i e d de­ p e n d i n g o n changing p o l i t i c a l regimes a n d , u n l i k e i n the U n i t e d States, was n o t based o n the characterization o f film as degenerate a n d danger­ ous. F o l l o w i n g legal decisions t h a t w o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n for film under the First A m e n d m e n t i n the 1950s, censorship b o t h f r o m w i t h i n a n d w i t h o u t the i n d u s t r y abated i n the U n i t e d States. T h e consequences o f this e v o l u t i o n i n the nature o f censorship are t w o ­ f o l d . First, the legal decisions served t o reinforce a n d institutionalize char­ acterizations o f the nature o f film. Second, the resulting r e l a x a t i o n o f cen­ sorship p e r m i t t e d an e v o l u t i o n i n the content o f A m e r i c a n film p r o d u c t i o n t h a t i n t u r n b r o u g h t films m o r e i n line w i t h p r e v a i l i n g n o r m s concerning the role a n d thematic concerns o f art. Censorship

in the United

States and Europe,

1900-1952

The h i s t o r y o f censorship i n the A m e r i c a n film i n d u s t r y is almost as o l d as the i n d u s t r y itself. As early as 1 9 0 7 , the city o f Chicago enacted a l a w to censor i n a p p r o p r i a t e film themes (Couvares 1996:2). M a y reports t h a t o n Christmas D a y 1 9 0 8 , a l l o f the a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 5 0 theaters a n d n i c k e l ­ odeons i n N e w Y o r k C i t y were forced t o close. T h e city's mayor, M c C l e l lan, ordered the closures i n response t o "the call o f every Protestant de­ n o m i n a t i o n i n the c i t y " t o protect the m i n d s o f c h i l d r e n f r o m c o r r u p t i o n ( 1 9 8 0 : 4 3 ) . Theater owners, v i r t u a l l y a l l o f w h o m were recent i m m i g r a n t s , protested. " T h e controversy smacked o f an older c u l t u r a l w a r between native Protestants a n d ethnic A m e r i c a n s " ( M a y 1980:44). I n 1909 N e w Y o r k e x h i b i t o r s encouraged the creation o f a B o a r d o f Censorship t o prescreen a l l films s h o w n i n the city i n order t o avert h a v i n g their theater

98

•

Chapter 3

licenses revoked for e x h i b i t i n g indecent or objectionable m a t e r i a l . By 1914 the B o a r d h a d evolved i n t o the N a t i o n a l B o a r d o f Censorship o f M o t i o n Pictures. N e a r l y a l l film producers, most o f w h o m were based i n N e w Y o r k , v o l u n t a r i l y s u b m i t t e d t o the Board's a u t h o r i t y t o a v o i d nega­ tive p u b l i c i t y and p o l i t i c a l o p p o s i t i o n ( C z i t r o m 1 9 9 6 : 3 4 - 3 5 ) . By this t i m e , i n m a n y cities across the n a t i o n local authorities i n s t i t u t e d censor­ ship committees t o prevent the e x h i b i t i o n o f i m m o r a l a n d indecent m o ­ t i o n pictures (Black 1 9 9 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) . I t was i n this c u l t u r a l climate that the U . S. Supreme C o u r t decided i n 1915 t h a t films d i d n o t m e r i t p r o t e c t i o n under the First A m e n d m e n t . I n the case o f Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, the C o u r t upheld the r i g h t o f states t o enact statutes p r o v i d i n g for the censorship o f films p r i o r t o their e x h i b i t i o n . As J o w e t t argues, this deci­ sion " w o u l d affect the course o f the m o t i o n picture i n d u s t r y i n the U n i t e d States for the next 35 years, and have a p r o f o u n d effect o n the nature o f the content w h i c h this n e w m e d i u m w o u l d be a l l o w e d t o e x p l o r e " ( 1 9 8 9 : 5 9 ) . The reasoning o f the c o u r t is t e l l i n g regarding the d o m i n a n t perspective o n the film i n d u s t r y at the t i m e : 37

38

I t cannot be p u t o u t o f v i e w t h a t the e x h i b i t i o n o f m o v i n g pictures is a business pure and simple, originated and conducted for p r o f i t , like other spectacles, n o t t o be regarded by the O h i o c o n s t i t u t i o n , w e t h i n k , as p a r t o f the press o f the c o u n t r y or as organs o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n . T h e y are mere representations o f events, o f ideas and sentiments published a n d k n o w n , v i v i d , useful and entertaining n o d o u b t , b u t , as w e have said, capable o f evil, h a v i n g p o w e r for i t , the greater because o f the attractiveness and m a n n e r o f e x h i b i t i o n , (quoted i n J o w e t t 1989:68) I t is i m p o r t a n t t o note t h a t this r u l i n g d i d n o t set film apart f r o m other forms o f art i n terms o f whether censorship was c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . L i t e r a t u r e was also subject t o censorship. The legal status o f film i n 1915, therefore, is n o t evidence that film was " s h o r t c h a n g e d " as an art f o r m relative t o other art forms. (Evidence o f the v a l u a t i o n [or devaluation] o f film as art can be f o u n d instead i n c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s [see chapter 4 ] ) . T h e legal p o s i t i o n o u t l i n e d above is m o r e t e l l i n g o f the p r e d o m i n a n t views o f the v a l i d i t y o f censorship i n 1915. The r u l i n g belies a conception o f free speech t h a t is greatly dissimilar t o current ideas concerning freedom o f expression. Because they were v i e w e d as just another c o m m e r c i a l activity, films were denied the status o f speech and hence were denied the freedom granted t o the press (de Grazia a n d N e w m a n 1982:5). W h i l e film d i d n o t differ f r o m other media i n legal p r i n c i p l e , the need for censorship o f films was felt t o be more pressing. T h i s p u b l i c perception was based o n film's i m ­ mense p o p u l a r i t y and o n the r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t film's visual nature made i t an exceptionally influential m e d i u m . U n l i k e literature, films were subject

Change from W i t h i n

•

99

t o prescreening b y licensing boards, depending o n the l o c a t i o n , at either the m u n i c i p a l o r state level o r b o t h ( R a n d a l l 1 9 6 8 ) . F o r other m e d i a , censorship c o u l d o n l y be enacted after a p r o d u c t h a d been successfully brought to market. L a c k i n g any legal p r o t e c t i o n against censorship, the i n d u s t r y c o u l d see t h a t there was a significant risk o f strict g o v e r n m e n t oversight o f the c o n ­ tent o f their p r o d u c t s . T h e y m u c h preferred self-censorship, over w h i c h they w o u l d have some degree o f c o n t r o l , t o g o v e r n m e n t censorship. M o r e o v e r , catering t o the objections o f a l l the various r e g i o n a l l y based censorship boards was h a r m f u l t o profits (Smith 2 0 0 1 : 2 7 5 ) . W h i l e the N a t i o n a l B o a r d o f R e v i e w was already i n place t o censor films, i t was organized by the i n d u s t r y itself, a n d its influence declined as the N e w Y o r k studios w h o h a d orchestrated i t disappeared a n d n e w H o l l y w o o d studios appeared. H o w e v e r , its legacy was the establishment o f the "basic t e r m s " o f a v o l u n t a r y censorship t h a t w o u l d be t a k e n u p s h o r t l y b y the n e w m a j o r players i n the f i l m i n d u s t r y ( C z i t r o m 1 9 9 6 : 3 7 ) . 39

I n 1922 the m a j o r H o l l y w o o d studios created the M o t i o n Pictures Pro­ ducers a n d D i s t r i b u t o r s A s s o c i a t i o n i n order t o fight o f f n a t i o n a l censor­ ship a n d t o create a p o l i c y o f self-censorship ( K n i g h t 1 9 5 7 : 1 1 2 ) . W i l l H . H a y s resigned as postmaster general t o head the A s s o c i a t i o n , a n d his name came t o represent the A s s o c i a t i o n , w h i c h was k n o w n as the H a y s Office (Sklar 1 9 9 4 : 8 3 ) . T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the H a y s Code (see Bardeche a n d Brasillach 1 9 3 8 : 2 0 8 - 2 0 9 for a s u m m a r y o f the Code) drastically re­ duced the n u m b e r o f themes, story lines, a n d actions t h a t films c o u l d depict. N o t o n l y d i d the code e x p l i c i t l y f o r b i d specific c o n t r o v e r s i a l topics such as adultery a n d c r i t i c i s m o f r e l i g i o n , b u t i t also used vague language t o preclude the i n c l u s i o n o f " v u l g a r i t y " a n d "obscenity." Films t h a t ques­ t i o n e d p r e v a i l i n g m o r a l a n d p o l i t i c a l views were n o t t o be made. T h e H a y s Code o f 1 9 2 2 was superceded by the H a y s P r o d u c t i o n Code o f 1 9 3 0 , w h i c h u p d a t e d the Code t o a p p l y t o t a l k i n g films (see Black 1 9 9 4 : 3 0 2 - 3 0 8 for a draft o f the P r o d u c t i o n Code), a n d i t was m o r e strictly a p p l i e d f o l l o w i n g strenuous d e m a n d f r o m C a t h o l i c a n d other groups i n 1 9 3 4 . T h e effect o f such i n t e r d i c t i o n s was " t o p r o h i b i t a vast range o f h u m a n expression a n d experience. . . . I t is unnecessary t o bela­ b o r the obvious p o i n t t h a t the code cut the movies o f f f r o m m a n y o f the m o s t i m p o r t a n t m o r a l a n d social themes o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d " (Sklar 1 9 9 4 : 1 7 4 ) . A couple o f examples demonstrate h o w the Code c o u l d strictly l i m i t the possibilities for artistic expression. I n the r e a l m o f g o v e r n m e n t a n d justice: " T h e courts o f the l a n d s h o u l d n o t be presented as unjust. T h i s does n o t mean t h a t a single c o u r t m a y n o t be represented as unjust, m u c h less t h a t a single c o u r t official must n o t be presented this w a y . B u t the 40

41

100

•

Chapter 3

c o u r t system o f the c o u n t r y m u s t n o t suffer as a result o f this presenta­ t i o n " (quoted i n Black 1 9 9 4 : 3 0 5 ) . I n the r e a l m o f sexuality: D a n c i n g i n general is recognized as an A r t a n d as a beautiful f o r m o f expressing h u m a n e m o t i o n s . B u t dances w h i c h suggest o r represent sexual actions, w h e t h e r p e r f o r m e d solo or w i t h t w o o r m o r e , dances intended t o excite the e m o t i o n a l reaction o f an audience, dances w i t h m o v e m e n t o f the breasts, excessive b o d y movements w h i l e the feet are stationary, violate decency a n d are w r o n g , (quoted i n Black 1 9 9 4 : 3 0 8 ) Such was the p r e - W W I I s i t u a t i o n i n the U n i t e d States c o n c e r n i n g the l i m i t s o f w h a t the cinema was able t o d o . Comparisons w i t h the degree o f censorship i n E u r o p e a n countries, where notions o f f i l m as a r t were i n place earlier, s h o w t h a t films there were far less restricted i n the m a t e r i a l available t o t h e m . Censorship i n E n g l a n d was the responsibility o f the B r i t i s h B o a r d o f F i l m Censors, w h i c h was v o l u n t a r i l y created by producers i n 1 9 1 2 . T h e censors were guided by a set o f rules t h a t banned treatment o f i m m o r a l topics (e.g., p r o s t i t u t i o n , e x t r a m a r i t a l sex, w h i t e slavery, seduction, etc.) as w e l l as the treatment o f p o l i t i c a l l y sensitive subjects (e.g., c r i t i c i s m o f the m o n a r c h y , the police, or r e l i g i o n , etc.). C o m p a r e d t o Germany, Italy, a n d France, censorship i n E n g l a n d was quite similar t o t h a t i n the U n i t e d States, t h o u g h perhaps slightly less restrictive due t o the o p p o s i t i o n o f a vocal l e f t - w i n g intelligentsia (Richards 1 9 9 7 : 1 6 7 - 7 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , C o r r i gan reports that the censors were never greatly concerned w i t h m o r a l i t y , focusing o n l y o n p o l i t i c a l l y sensitive films ( 1 9 8 3 : 2 9 ) . B o t h G e r m a n and I t a l i a n cinema h a d been freer yet f r o m censorship t h a t sought t o ban any a n d a l l suggestions o f i m m o r a l i t y i n films. There were n o analogous i n d u s t r y - l e d boards o r associations t o prevent films dealing w i t h sexual themes or other u n c o n v e n t i o n a l or m o r e risque topics. State censorship for such purposes d i d exist i n G e r m a n y ( O t t 1 9 8 6 : 2 6 ) . H o w e v e r , u n t i l the end o f the 1920s, o n l y one per cent o f a l l films re­ v i e w e d by the G e r m a n state censors failed t o gain a p p r o v a l ( A b r a m s 1 9 9 6 : 6 5 0 ) . Censorship for p o l i t i c a l reasons was o n the rise i n I t a l y begin­ n i n g i n the late 1920s due t o the concerns o f the Fascist g o v e r n m e n t there (Buss 1989:12). Similarly, censorship o f p o l i t i c a l themes a n d issues p e r t i ­ nent t o N a z i - p a r t y interests increased i n G e r m a n y i n the 1930s. Censorship influenced f i l m p r o d u c t i o n the least i n France. C r i s p reports t h a t the few French advocates o f a m o r a l code were " i n e f f e c t u a l " a n d t h a t the " i n d u s t r y h a d clearly n o t seen itself as under serious pressure f r o m this m o r a l discourse t o m o d i f y the nature o f its p r o d u c t " ( 1 9 9 3 : 2 5 8 ) . As a result, " [ i ] t was precisely i n France, where c u l t u r a l t r a d i ­ tions a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s resisted the m o r a l strictures o f a censorship system, t h a t sexuality a n d deviance c o u l d be freely e x p l o r e d . " ( 1 9 9 3 : x i i ) .

Change from Within

•

101

T A B L E 3.1.

The Catholic Church's Evaluation of French and American Films: 1930-1935 A (general exhibit)

B (adults only)

C (to be avoided)

U.S.

50%

40%

10%

French

20%

25%

55%

Source: Crisp (1993:259).

A g o o d measure o f the different effect o f censorship i n A m e r i c a a n d France o n the content o f their films can be f o u n d i n f i l m ratings by the Centrale C a t h o l i q u e d u Cinema (Catholic Cinema Center), organized by the C a t h o l i c C h u r c h i n France t o direct audiences t o acceptable films. Table 3.1 shows t h a t a m o n g the films reviewed by the Center between 1930 a n d 1935, 50 percent o f A m e r i c a n films were suitable for general e x h i b i t i o n , 4 0 percent were suitable for adults only, and 10 percent were to be avoided. A m o n g French films, however, o n l y 2 0 percent were suit­ able for general e x h i b i t i o n , 25 percent were suitable for adults, w h i l e 55 percent were t o be avoided. T o a greater extent t h a n A m e r i c a n films, French films appear t o have e x p l o r e d a range o f topics considered by the C a t h o l i c C h u r c h t o have been controversial o r inherently i m m o r a l . Altogether, censorship i n E n g l a n d , Germany, Italy, a n d France existed to a lesser degree t h a n i n the U n i t e d States. I n the same w a y t h a t the mode a n d scale o f p r o d u c t i o n differed f r o m the A m e r i c a n case, l a x European censorship m o r e easily facilitated the acceptance there o f film as a r t . 4 2

43

Censorship

in the United

States: After the M i r a c l e

Decision

F o l l o w i n g W W I I the s i t u a t i o n i n the U n i t e d States s l o w l y began t o change a n d t o m o r e closely resemble the looser restrictions i n Europe. T h e first m a j o r p o s t - W W I I development i n the U . S. concerning film censorship was the U n i t e d States Supreme C o u r t decision i n the Burstyn v. Wilson case i n 1 9 5 2 . T h i s was the first case concerning film censorship t h a t the Supreme C o u r t h a d agreed t o hear since the 1915 Mutual case. T h e spe­ cific case before the C o u r t was an appeal by a N e w Y o r k film d i s t r i b u t o r , Joseph B u r s t y n , o f the decision made by the N e w Y o r k State censors ( W i l ­ son was the commissioner o f education a n d a member o f the censorship board) t o revoke the license for e x h i b i t i o n o f the I t a l i a n film The Miracle. I n w h a t has come t o be k n o w n as the Miracle decision, the Supreme C o u r t declared t h a t state laws a l l o w i n g for censorship o f "sacrilegious" films were u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because they abridged free speech a n d free press. I t stated t h a t 44

102

•

Chapter 3

I t cannot be d o u b t e d t h a t m o t i o n pictures are a significant m e d i u m for the c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f ideas. T h e y m a y affect p u b l i c attitudes a n d behavior i n a variety o f ways, r a n g i n g f r o m direct espousal o f a p o l i t i c a l or social doctrine t o the subtle shaping o f t h o u g h t w h i c h characterizes all artistic expression, (quoted i n J o w e t t 1996:265) W h i l e the C o u r t d i d n o t p r o v i d e absolute p r o t e c t i o n f r o m censorship, starting w i t h this case a n d c o n t i n u i n g over the next several years, i t deter­ m i n e d t h a t censorship o f "sacrilegious," " h a r m f u l , " or " i m m o r a l " films was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . I n Roth v. United States ( 1 9 5 7 ) , a l t h o u g h the case dealt w i t h p r i n t mate­ rials, the Supreme C o u r t advanced legal t h i n k i n g a b o u t the nature o f o b ­ scenity (Riley 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e C o u r t determined that obscene m a t e r i a l d i d n o t deserve c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n and c o u l d therefore still be censored by state laws. B u t the C o u r t also adopted a n a r r o w e r v i e w o f w h a t c o u l d be deemed obscene; t h a t "sex and obscenity are n o t s y n o n y m o u s , " t h a t " p o r t r a y a l o f sex, e.g., i n art, literature a n d scientific w o r k s , is n o t itself sufficient reason t o deny m a t e r i a l the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n o f freedom o f speech," and t h a t o n l y m a t e r i a l t h a t appeals t o the p r u r i e n t interest, w i t h o u t "even the slightest redeeming social i m p o r t a n c e " a n d g o i n g be­ y o n d " c o n t e m p o r a r y c o m m u n i t y standards" can be considered obscene (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pU*court=us&vol=354& invol-476, accessed December 19, 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e consequence o f Roth v. United States for the film industry, then, was support for the i n c l u s i o n o f treatments o f sex a n d n u d i t y i n films t h a t were tempered by concern for c o m m u n i t y standards a n d a redeeming context. T h i s n a r r o w i n g o f obscenity gave filmmakers increased legal p r o ­ t e c t i o n for m a k i n g films t h a t treated sex, as w e l l as other controversial topics that m i g h t have been labeled obscene such as a b o r t i o n a n d a d u l ­ tery. A n d because the c u l t u r a l r e v o l u t i o n o f the 1960s p r o v i d e d the incen­ tive t o make such films, H o l l y w o o d studios m o v e d i n this d i r e c t i o n . The struggle t o reduce censorship was n o t over, t h o u g h , and c o n t i n u e d t h r o u g h o u t the 1960s. The p o w e r o f communities t o censor films p r i o r t o their release was u p h e l d i n the 1 9 6 1 case o f Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, under the argument that the prevention o f the utterance o f obscene speech was constitutionally w a r r a n t e d . I n a l l o w i n g local censorship, the C o u r t d i d n o t explain w h y films should be treated differently f r o m any other m e d i u m . I n reaction, Bosley Crowther, film critic for the New York Times, w r o t e , "The effect is t o continue the ancient stigma o f m o t i o n pictures as a second-class, subordinate a r t " (quoted i n Jowett 1996:270). T h a t effect, however, was n o t t o last. Despite the Times Film Corp. v. Chicago r u l i n g , w i t h i n the next several years censorship at the state and city levels q u i c k l y disappeared. I n part this was because further rulings required licensing

Change from Within

•

103

boards t o r e f o r m their decision-making processes t o be quicker and t o involve j u d i c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . But i n part i t is also likely that a d i m i n u t i o n of public pressure for censorship c o n t r i b u t e d t o the decline. These developments i n the legal sphere are i m p o r t a n t n o t o n l y f o r the statements they made concerning the role o f f i l m i n A m e r i c a n society. T h e y also sparked change i n the f i l m industry's o w n methods for manag­ ing censorship issues. I n terms o f the effect o n the content o f films, change i n the i n d u s t r y was m o r e i m p o r t a n t because the b u l k o f censorship i n the film i n d u s t r y was self-censorship. The P r o d u c t i o n Code, established i n 1930, was i n effect u n t i l 1 9 6 6 , despite the d i s m a n t l i n g o f legal founda­ tions for censorship i n the 1950s. T h e incentive for m a i n t a i n i n g the Code, t o a v o i d negative p u b l i c i t y , remained, and i t was the w e l l - f o u n d e d fear o f protests, often f r o m C a t h o l i c organizations t h a t w o u l d target offending studios a n d theaters w i t h precision, that forced the studios t o m o s t l y abide by the Code. However, the reasons for discarding the Code were becoming increas­ ingly salient, a n d a l t h o u g h the Code was i n effect, by the 1960s the studios were f o l l o w i n g the letter o f its l a w b u t n o t the spirit. As far back as 1 9 4 9 , D a r r y l Z a n u c k at T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y - F o x expressed i n a c o m p a n y m e m o t h a t there was clearly a segment o f the audience that w o u l d pay t o see m o r e sex i n their films. H o w e v e r , there was n o w a y t o meet this demand i n the face o f the P r o d u c t i o n Code ( S o l o m o n 1 9 8 8 : 7 8 ) . 45

I n the 1960s the studios developed a m e t h o d for b o t h c o m p l y i n g w i t h the P r o d u c t i o n Code a n d c i r c u m v e n t i n g i t . T h e m e t h o d was t o acquire a subsidiary d i s t r i b u t i n g company, p a r t i c u l a r l y one specializing i n i m ­ p o r t i n g European films. Balio (1987) describes h o w C o l u m b i a Pictures acquired a r t - f i l m d i s t r i b u t o r K i n g s l e y - I n t e r n a t i o n a l i n order t o distribute a film starring B r i g i t t e B a r d o t , And God Created Woman. C o l u m b i a k n e w t h a t the film w o u l d have been denied a P r o d u c t i o n Code seal, a n d its agreement w i t h the M o t i o n Picture Association o f A m e r i c a forbade i t f r o m d i s t r i b u t i n g a film w i t h o u t a seal o f a p p r o v a l . The agreement, h o w ­ ever, d i d n o t specify w h a t a subsidiary m i g h t have done, a n d so C o l u m b i a c o u l d benefit f r o m d i s t r i b u t i n g controversial films w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o ac­ cept any negative consequences. Balio ( 1 9 8 7 : 2 2 6 - 2 7 ) argues that the same m o t i v a t i o n compelled U n i t e d Artists t o acquire L o p e r t Films. The i m p o r t a t i o n o f these foreign-made films was encouraged by the changing economics o f domestic film p r o d u c ­ t i o n . First, p r o d u c t i o n costs were rising rapidly. After the guarantee o f e x h i b i t i o n was t a k e n away, the studios made far fewer films, c u t t i n g the " B " p r o d u c t i o n a n d concentrating o n " A " p r o d u c t i o n , w h i l e at the same time salaries were " s k y r o c k e t i n g " t o secure the best talent ( S o l o m o n 1988:146). I n a d d i t i o n , "there was no guarantee o f first-run p l a y dates

104

•

Chapter 3

u n t i l after the picture h a d been completed a n d previewed, a n d n o idea o f t o t a l bookings u n t i l after the first-run r e t u r n s " (Sklar 1 9 9 4 : 2 8 7 ) . This meant t h a t i t became m u c h m o r e difficult t o k n o w w h i c h films w o u l d have large audiences. I t became more c o m m o n t o experience huge losses o n expensively p r o d u c e d films w h i l e reaping enormous profits o n less expensively made films. T h e purchasing o f rights t o a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f finished p r o d u c t i o n s was one w a y the studios learned t o help deal w i t h this uncertainty. These were always less expensive t h a n m a k i n g their o w n films at a time w h e n p r o d u c t i o n costs were rising and c o u l d p r o v i d e higher percentage returns o n their investments. T h e purchasing o f European p r o ­ ductions i n particular was encouraged by the g r o w t h i n "a narrower, m o r e sophisticated, a n d m o r e p a r t i c u l a r audience" (Solomon 1988:148) (see also chapter 2 ) , a m a r k e t the studios were unable t o fully e x p l o i t w i t h their o w n p r o d u c t i o n s , hampered as they were by the P r o d u c t i o n Code. T h e historical scholarship o n the film i n d u s t r y is consistent w i t h Hirsch's (1972) characterization o f c u l t u r e - p r o d u c i n g organizations a n d the strategies they e m p l o y t o manage their high-risk e n v i r o n m e n t . H i r s c h (1972:654) argues t h a t c u l t u r e - p r o d u c i n g organizations (1) deploy contact m e n t o organizational boundaries, (2) overproduce a n d differentially p r o ­ mote new items, and (3) co-opt mass media gatekeepers. I n particular, Hirsch's finding t h a t such organizations deploy contact m e n t o organiza­ t i o n a l boundaries, as links t o artistic communities where they locate n e w c u l t u r a l items, is reflected i n the studios' connections t o independent a n d European d i s t r i b u t o r s . T h e o v e r p r o d u c t i o n and differential p r o m o t i o n o f c u l t u r a l items describes the m e t h o d t h a t the studios adopted w h e n they began t o invest m o r e heavily i n certain films i n the hope t h a t they w o u l d become blockbuster hits. Because the "star system" a n d p o p u l a r i t y o f films i n general generated publicity, mass-media gatekeepter c o - o p t a t i o n was never as i m p o r t a n t an issue for the film i n d u s t r y as for b o o k p u b l i s h i n g or record p r o d u c i n g . Nonetheless, as a response t o declining attendance, film studios began t o advertise m o r e extensively i n the 1960s (see chapter 4 ) . D u r i n g the course o f the 1960s the standards concerning w h a t was permissible i n films changed d r a m a t i c a l l y ( R a n d a l l 1 9 6 8 : 2 3 0 ) . By the m i d l 9 6 0 s , rather t h a n t r y i n g t o c i r c u m v e n t the Code, the studios began t o c o n f r o n t and defy i t . T h e y h a d gained a legal f o o t h o l d for challenging the Code after the 1952 Miracle decision, and because they were catering t o a n a r r o w e r and better-educated audience, there was m o r e t o g a i n f r o m challenge t h a n compliance. W h a t is m o r e , the rising profile o f f o r e i g n , especially European, filmmaking heightened the H o l l y w o o d studios' awareness t h a t their i n a b i l i t y t o take o n controversial issues was a c o m ­ petitive disadvantage (Jowett 1 9 9 0 : 2 2 ) . As a result o f changing values a n d standards, a n d the example o f for­ eign films, d u r i n g the 1960s, H o l l y w o o d studios advocated f o r a large n u m b e r o f changes t o the Code i n order t o gain seals o f a p p r o v a l for the

Change from Within

•

105

films. I n p a r t these actions were necessary t o differentiate their products f r o m the entertainment available o n television. A 1 9 6 7 article i n Time magazine n o t e d t h a t " [ b ] y n o w , television has a l l b u t t a k e n over H o l l y ­ w o o d ' s f o r m e r f u n c t i o n o f p r o v i d i n g placebo entertainment" (December 8:67). I n 1966 the Code was d r a m a t i c a l l y liberalized, w h i c h further en­ couraged the treatment o f controversial themes. T h e Code was super­ seded i n 1968 by an age classification system devised a n d applied by the i n d u s t r y itself. W h i l e the specific labels for classifying films have changed somewhat, this system is still i n place today. T h e change i n censorship b o t h reflected a n d c o n t r i b u t e d t o changing ideas about the role o f film i n A m e r i c a n society. T h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n the Supreme C o u r t rulings between 1915 a n d 1952 represents p r i m a r i l y a move t o w a r d intolerance o f censorship i n society. I n each case, the rulings were applicable t o artistic media other t h a n film, and so cannot be t a k e n as indicators o f changing perceptions o f film. However, the rulings are significant insofar as each played a different role i n d e t e r m i n i n g the boundaries o f the content o f films e x h i b i t e d i n the U n i t e d States, and they therefore helped shape the nature o f films t h a t were made i n H o l l y w o o d . T h i s influence is p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t because there is an overlap be­ tween those characteristics t h a t are o f interest t o censors a n d those c o m ­ m o n l y associated w i t h art. After the 1952 r u l i n g , H o l l y w o o d films gradu­ ally began t o incorporate m o r e controversial m a t e r i a l a n d t o address these topics i n a variety o f ways t h a t d i d n o t merely reiterate the clearly defined m o r a l dictates o f the P r o d u c t i o n Code. I n so d o i n g , the b o d y o f w o r k p r o d u c e d by the film i n d u s t r y c o u l d m o r e closely c o n f o r m t o existing definitions o f art. O f course, r e l a x a t i o n o f censorship likewise a l l o w e d H o l l y w o o d t o p r o ­ duce its share o f j u n k , films t h a t e x p l o i t e d themes o f sex a n d violence i n degrading and mindless ways. T h e n as n o w , audiences needed t o differen­ tiate the g o o d f r o m the bad. B u t film scholars have identified a n d made the case for a large n u m b e r o f films t h a t capitalized i n a positive w a y o n the increased permissiveness regarding content i n the 1960s. Films such as Bonnie and Clyde ( 1 9 6 7 ) , Midnight Cowboy ( 1 9 6 9 ) , The Wild Bunch ( 1 9 6 9 ) , a n d Psycho (1960) were controversial w h e n first released. B u t they are examples o f the k i n d s o f films t h a t have been u p h e l d as H o l l y ­ w o o d ' s artistic o u t p u t , a n d they w o u l d never have been released w i t h o u t the r e l a x a t i o n o f censorship restrictions.

T H E C R I S I S O F T H E 1960S F O R C E D H O L L Y W O O D D O W N N E W PATHS

T h e c o n t r a c t i o n o f the A m e r i c a n film i n d u s t r y detailed i n chapter 2 cre­ ated a set o f responses at the level o f film content. These responses were aimed at restoring profits under conditions o f great uncertainty. As i t hap-

106

•

Chapter 3

pens, some o f these responses also facilitated the g r o w t h o f the a r t w o r l d for film, p r o f i t o r i e n t a t i o n n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g . I w i l l briefly o u t l i n e three k i n d s o f responses t o financial u n c e r t a i n t y t h a t shaped the n e w d i r e c t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d ' s o u t p u t — e x p e r i m e n t a l i s m , differentiation, a n d p l a y i n g t o audience segmentation. A l l three responses reinforced one another a n d w o r k e d h a r m o n i o u s l y as separate rationales for achieving similar results—productions t h a t pushed aesthetic a n d n o r ­ m a t i v e boundaries. L i k e any other industry, the H o l l y w o o d film i n d u s t r y was a l a r m e d by the financial crisis b r o u g h t o n by the defection o f audiences t o other forms o f recreation. A m o n g the m a n y strategies open t o the industry, e x p e r i m e n ­ t a l i s m was one course o f a c t i o n t h a t some film producers chose. By experi­ m e n t a l i s m I a m referring t o the rejection o f the best k n o w n a n d m o s t reliable film conventions i n favor o f a d o p t i n g u n t r i e d characteristics. T h e m o t i v a t i o n is simple t o understand: the existing f o r m u l a s d o n o t w o r k , so something n e w m u s t be t r i e d . As a c o m p l e x , multifaceted c u l t u r a l p r o ­ d u c t i o n , there were m a n y film elements w i t h w h i c h t o e x p e r i m e n t , such as characterization, camera techniques, e d i t i n g techniques, acting conven­ t i o n s , subject matter, a n d the l i k e . Some o f this e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n was tech­ n i c a l i n nature, t o capitalize o n the visual a n d a u d i o advantages o f the theater experience over television. B u t H o l l y w o o d also experimented w i t h the aesthetics a n d subject matter o f films. Playing w i t h established conven­ tions a n d pushing aesthetic a n d m o r a l boundaries is an expected charac­ teristic o f art. Such e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n was v i r t u a l l y absent d u r i n g earlier periods w h e n filmgoing was the default recreational a c t i v i t y o f the m a j o r ­ i t y o f the p o p u l a t i o n a n d the i n d u s t r y was financially healthy. F r o m the perspective o f studio executives, p u s h i n g boundaries h a d been unneces­ sarily risky. E x p e r i m e n t a t i o n is further encouraged by the c o m p l e x i t y a n d difficulty o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n . H a v i n g complete k n o w l e d g e a b o u t w h a t does n o t w o r k implies n o t h i n g a b o u t w h a t does w o r k . As studies o f c u l t u r e - p r o ­ d u c i n g organizations have s h o w n , creating c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t s t o effectively meet the tastes o f audiences is tremendously difficult. T h e p r o d u c t i o n methods employed by such organizations reveal that even the best p r o d u c ­ ers have a h i g h l y imperfect grasp o f h o w best t o meet the c h a n g i n g tastes o f audiences. As a result, c u l t u r e - p r o d u c i n g organizations engage i n v a r i ­ ous strategies t o m a x i m i z e profits under c o n d i t i o n s o f h i g h u n c e r t a i n t y (Bielby a n d Bielby 1 9 9 4 ; H i r s c h 1 9 7 2 ) . I m i t a t i o n , i n particular, is a n a t u ­ r a l a n d c o m m o n w a y f o r organizations t o replicate past successes w h e n they d o n ' t fully understand the mechanisms for success. H o l l y w o o d h a d relied heavily o n i m i t a t i o n i n previous decades. H o w e v e r , w h e n i m i t a t i o n a n d reliance o n established methods resulted i n d r a m a t i c losses i n the 1950s, H o l l y w o o d was open t o m o r e r a d i c a l departures f r o m established

Change from Within

•

107

t r a d i t i o n s . A t t h a t p o i n t , n o t o n l y c o u l d the studios n o t understand w h a t audiences w a n t e d , b u t f i l m p r o d u c t i o n was (and still is) also so u n p r e d i c t ­ able a n d difficult a process t h a t they c o u l d n o t reliably produce the k i n d s a n d q u a l i t y o f films they were a i m i n g for. E x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , t h e n , is en­ couraged n o t o n l y because producers are n o t sure o f w h a t audiences w a n t b u t also because, even i f audience desires are k n o w n , the h i g h l y c o m p l e x p r o d u c t i o n process is sufficiently u n c o n t r o l l a b l e t h a t e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n i n ­ creases the odds t h a t at least some o f the final products w i l l satisfy those desires. Some o f the m o r e m e m o r a b l e H o l l y w o o d films t o have success­ fully experimented w i t h conventions were 2001: A Space Odyssey ( 1 9 6 8 ) , Bonnie and Clyde ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d Easy Rider ( 1 9 6 9 ) . 46

T h e second t h r u s t o f the response t o financial crisis was t o differentiate the p r o d u c t f r o m the biggest competitor. P r i o r t o the i n v e n t i o n o f televi­ sion, the closest c o m p e t i t o r for film audiences was r a d i o . I n fact, the t w o media were sufficiently different t h a t the c o m p e t i t i o n was n o t clearly d i ­ rect. Just as i t can be today, listening t o music c o u l d be a w a y t o spend t i m e t h a t supplanted a t r i p t o the movies, b u t i t c o u l d n o t substitute for the act o f w a t c h i n g something. Similarly, there was neither an effective w a y t o respond t o the c o m p e t i t i o n posed by r a d i o , n o r an effective need. By offering a visual d i m e n s i o n t o entertainment, films essentially filled a different recreational niche. Television, however, occupied the same niche for visual, d r a m a t i c entertainment. W h e n faced w i t h such close c o m p e t i ­ t i o n , H o l l y w o o d needed t o p r o v i d e audiences w i t h a rationale f o r choos­ i n g their p r o d u c t over television. Films needed t o be sufficiently different so t h a t audiences h a d a reason for g o i n g o u t t o theaters instead o f w h a t became the default o p t i o n , staying i n t o w a t c h television. T h e television m a r k e t was u n d e r s t o o d as the n e w mass m a r k e t — m a k e the p r o d u c t b l a n d so as n o t t o alienate anyone. W i t h films, the strategy t u r n e d t o differentiation f r o m television a n d blandness. T h i s drive t o dif­ ferentiate dovetailed w i t h the impetus t o experiment. Television was rap­ i d l y expanding—there was g o o d reason for television p r o d u c t i o n n o t t o experiment b u t rather t o m a i n t a i n the status q u o a n d i m i t a t e successful p r o d u c t i o n s . H o l l y w o o d needed t o q u i c k l y a n d decisively s h o w h o w i t was n o t o n l y different f r o m b u t also better t h a n television. The t h i r d response t o s h r i n k i n g audiences was a n e w c o n c e p t i o n o f w h o the audience members were a n d thoughts a b o u t h o w t o better attract a n d retain p o t e n t i a l audience members. A g a i n , this strategy c o m p l e ­ mented the others. By p l a y i n g t o audience segmentation, H o l l y w o o d rec­ ognized t h a t the v a r y i n g interests and expectations o f different demo­ graphic groups, some o f w h o m w a n t e d a change f r o m the t r a d i t i o n a l H o l l y w o o d fare their parents h a d consumed so heavily. M a l t b y (2003:168) explains t h a t this r e c o g n i t i o n was already under w a y d u r i n g the 1950s so t h a t " H o l l y w o o d ' s willingness t o c o m b i n e serious social

108

•

Chapter 3

subjects w i t h v a r y i n g degrees o f sensation appeal i n ' a d u l t ' d r a m a s " was "one sign t h a t H o l l y w o o d was g r a d u a l l y recognizing t h a t the mass a u d i ­ ence h a d fragmented." W i t h television p r o v i d i n g the standard o p t i o n , H o l l y w o o d needed t o target various groups, p a r t i c u l a r l y y o u n g adults. T h e w a y t h a t H o l l y w o o d targeted y o u n g adults was t o include f i l m c o n ­ tent t h a t appealed t o their engagements a n d interest i n the social changes of the 1960s: the sexual r e v o l u t i o n , the a n t i w a r m o v e m e n t a n d other p o ­ l i t i c a l protests, a n d race relations (Schatz 2 0 0 3 : 2 2 ) . E x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , differentiation, a n d targeting o f audience segments were three methods for achieving the one g o a l o f m a k i n g n e w a n d differ­ ent films t h a t w o u l d w i n back audiences. These changes i n studio m e n t a l ­ i t y were necessary. T h e i n d u s t r y was u n p r o f i t a b l e , a n d so i t needed t o radically change d i r e c t i o n . T h e result was t h a t i t started t o produce c o n ­ tent t h a t was m o r e i n tune w i t h accepted n o tions o f w h a t art s h o u l d be a n d w h a t art s h o u l d d o . H o l l y w o o d n o longer slavishly f o l l o w e d the dic­ t u m t h a t p o p u l a r films needed t o be as inoffensive as possible. M a x i m i z ­ ing profits meant t h a t efforts needed t o be made t o push aesthetic a n d m o r a l l i m i t s . C e r t a i n l y m a n y films i n the 1960s, such as The Sound of Music ( 1 9 6 5 ) , were conceived along the o l d lines o f t h i n k i n g a n d were still meant t o be f o r M i d d l e A m e r i c a . B u t o n l y i n the 1960s, w h e n the i n d u s t r y was desperate, d i d the i n d u s t r y also f o l l o w a different p r o d u c t i o n logic t h a t veered, at times, closer t o art.

SUMMARY

T h i s chapter has presented evidence for the relationship between changes i n a large n u m b e r o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements a n d practices o f p r o d u c ­ t i o n a n d c o n s u m p t i o n o n the one h a n d , a n d the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f H o l l y ­ w o o d f i l m as art o n the other. A m a jo r lesson t o be learned f r o m s t u d y i n g U.S. f i l m h i s t o r y is t h a t the causal p a t h t h a t led t o an art w o r l d for H o l l y ­ w o o d films was largely i n d i r e c t a n d unpredictable. W h i l e seeking profits, m a n y o f the p r i n c i p a l actors w o r k i n g w i t h i n the f i l m w o r l d f o u n d their w a y t o art. T h e u n i n t e n t i o n a l effect o f c o n t r i b u t i n g t o an art w o r l d was serendipitous. Yet other developments i n U.S. f i l m h i s t o r y were directly a n d predict­ ably focused o n n u r t u r i n g the art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films. T h e groups a n d i n d i v i d u a l s b e h i n d these developments are the art w o r l d participants described by Becker ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T h e y are the peripheral members o f t h a t w o r l d w h o p e r f o r m the necessary acts o f e x p l a n a t i o n , preservation, a n d e x h i b i t i o n t h a t are expected o f real art. T h e h i s t o r i c a l comparisons w i t h several European film industries p r o ­ vide a g o o d deal o f analytical leverage t o e x p l a i n h o w A m e r i c a n p r o d u c -

Change from Within

•

109

t i o n a n d c o n s u m p t i o n practices i n i t i a l l y constrained a H o l l y w o o d art w o r l d , a n d t h e n later assisted i t . A t the same t i m e , evidence a b o u t E u r o ­ pean cinema reveals t h a t a r t w o r l d development there p r o v i d e d a p a t h w a y for l e g i t i m a t i n g H o l l y w o o d film. M o r e evidence a b o u t this l i n k , a n d the necessary sequence o f Europe first a n d H o l l y w o o d second, w i l l be ex­ p l o r e d i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter. A l t h o u g h the g r o w t h o f an art w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d films occurred i n the 1960s a n d 1970s, i t is w o r t h n o t i n g h o w m o r e recent developments i n the U.S. film w o r l d — n a m e l y , the g r o w t h o f independent cinema—have been shaped by t h a t setting. T h e perception o f H o l l y w o o d as a viable h o m e for filmmakers t o m a k e m e a n i n g f u l films was m o s t w i d e l y a n d strongly held i n the 1970s. H o w e v e r , d u r i n g the 1980s, as the blockbuster f o r m u l a dictated m o r e a n d m o r e o f the decision-making o f the studios, t h a t perception began t o w a n e . T h e blockbuster strategy, after a l l , meant the r o u t i n i z a t i o n o f the p r o d u c t i o n process i n order t o m a x i m i z e studios' profits, a n d i t r e q u i r e d decisions t h a t p u t risk r e d u c t i o n a n d m a r k e t i n g a n d licensing o p p o r t u n i t i e s ahead o f a l l else. D u r i n g the 1980s, t h e n , there were s h r i n k i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n H o l l y ­ w o o d t o make films t h a t c o n t i n u e d i n the t r a d i t i o n o f the 1970s. There was n o shortage o f interested filmmakers, however. There have always been independent film producers i n the U n i t e d States, independent mean­ i n g n o t affiliated w i t h one o f the m a j o r H o l l y w o o d studios, b u t their o u t ­ p u t has been m i n o r i n the q u a n t i t a t i v e sense. I n the 1980s a n u m b e r o f n e w independent d i s t r i b u t o r s a n d producers grew w h o d i s t r i b u t e d and/ or made films t h a t were m o r e i n n o v a t i v e , m o r e avant-garde, o r m o r e c o m ­ m e r c i a l l y r i s k y t h a n w h a t the H o l l y w o o d studios were t y p i c a l l y w i l l i n g t o invest i n . These were companies such as Vestron, I s l a n d , C i n e c o m , a n d M i r a m a x (Perren 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e 1980s, t h e n , c o u l d be characterized as a t i m e w h e n a l t h o u g h there were still occasional w o r k s o f a r t perceived t o be c o m i n g f r o m H o l l y w o o d studios, the general p e r c e p t i o n was t h a t the art w o r l d f o r film i n the U n i t e d States h a d shifted t o independent p r o d u c t i o n s . T h e questioning o f the aesthetic possibilities o f film h a d l o n g passed; the premise t h a t films c o u l d be art was t a k e n f o r granted. B u t H o l l y w o o d was perceived t o have largely forsaken its golden age. I n the 1990s, however, the i n d u s t r y saw a b l u r r i n g o f the boundaries between the m a j o r studios a n d independent distributors/producers. Either t h r o u g h a c q u i s i t i o n (such as Disney's p u r ­ chase o f M i r a m a x i n 1993) or t h r o u g h the creation o f affiliated studios (such as Sony Pictures Classics) the m a j o r studios co-opted the indepen­ dent film m o v e m e n t i n the U n i t e d States (Epstein 2 0 0 5 : 2 0 ) . A l t h o u g h the studios' actions were e c o n o m i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d — i f anyone was g o i n g t o be p r o f i t i n g f r o m these films, they w o u l d be the ones—this b l u r r i n g has helped t o sustain the idea t h a t H o l l y w o o d films can be art.

110

•

Chapter 3

W h i l e chapter 2 e x p l o r e d the significance o f events a n d developments outside the film w o r l d , this chapter presented evidence o f actions t a k e n by art w o r l d members, some o f w h o m w o r k e d closer t o the core o f t h a t w o r l d , a n d others o f w h o m were m o r e peripheral. As argued i n chapter 2, the same actions t a k e n at t w o different points i n t i m e can have very different effects a n d meanings. Therefore, w e can o n l y understand h o w the historical evidence presented i n this chapter bears a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p to H o l l y w o o d art w o r l d g r o w t h i n l i g h t o f the larger c o n t e x t i n w h i c h i t occurred. T h e positive changes t o w a r d art w o r l d g r o w t h f r o m w i t h i n the film w o r l d coincided i n the 1960s w i t h the creation o f a m u c h m o r e favor­ able o p p o r t u n i t y space outside the film w o r l d . Coincidence m i g h t n o t be the best concept t o describe t h a t t i m e , as the changes f r o m outside a n d w i t h i n were surely m u t u a l l y reinforcing. These linkages w i l l be discussed further i n chapter 5. I n the U n i t e d States i n the 1960s, the t i m e was r i g h t f o r the changes i n the film w o r l d t o take h o l d a n d t o change perceptions. B u t the f u l l story o f the diffusion o f a perception o f film as art requires reference t o yet another factor. T h e diffusion o f the theory b e h i n d w h y film is art is the subject o f chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4

The Intellectualization of Film

I N T H E P R E V I O U S C H A P T E R w e saw h o w an array o f events a n d actions w i t h i n the f i l m w o r l d helped t o generate a widespread definition o f H o l l y ­ w o o d films as art. T h i s chapter is a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h a t analysis. Here we examine yet another development w i t h i n the f i l m w o r l d , b u t one o f a special nature t h a t w a r r a n t s a separate investigation. T h i s development is the creation a n d dissemination o f a discourse of film as art. We can see examples o f this discourse i n m a n y places, such as i n books o n films, like the B r i t i s h F i l m I n s t i t u t e M o d e r n Classics series. Here are excerpts f r o m the back covers o f t w o o f the volumes i n the series: W i t h its p a i r i n g o f a perverse, invasive anti-hero a n d a questing, selfsearching heroine, The Silence of the Lambs is a narrative o f p u r s u i t at several levels. I n this study Yvonne Tasker explores the w a y the f i l m weaves together g o t h i c , h o r r o r a n d t h r i l l e r conventions t o generate b o t h a distinctive v a r i a t i o n o n the cinematic p o r t r a y a l o f insanity a n d crime, a n d a fascinating i n t e r v e n t i o n i n the sexual politics o f genre. jaws exerts an e x t r a o r d i n a r y p o w e r over audiences. A p p a r e n t l y sim­ plistic a n d m a n i p u l a t i v e , i t is a f i l m t h a t has d i v i d e d critics i n t o t w o b r o a d camps: those w h o dismiss i t as infantile a n d sensational—and those w h o see the shark as freighted w i t h c o m p l e x p o l i t i c a l a n d psychosexual m e a n i n g . A n t o n i a Q u i r k e , i n an impressionistic response, argues t h a t b o t h interpretations obscure the film's success simply as a w o r k o f art. I n Jaws Spielberg's a b i l i t y t o blend genres c o m b i n e d w i t h his precocious technical s k i l l t o create a genuine masterpiece, w h i c h is underrated by many, i n c l u d i n g its director. H o w d i d w e get t o the p o i n t where the analysis o f the shark is perhaps m o r e frightening t h a n the shark itself? M o r e i m p o r t a n t , w h a t is the sig­ nificance o f how we talk about films for understanding changes i n percep­ tions o f f i l m as art? We can begin by a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t accepting H o l l y w o o d films as art was a struggle. Because art is a special category o f c u l t u r e , one t h a t be­ stows h o n o r a n d prestige, i t is l i m i t e d . There is some risk associated w i t h labeling culture as art i f there is n o consensus o n the appropriateness o f t h a t labeling. T h a t risk is the revealing o f a lack o f c u l t u r a l k n o w l e d g e . We are therefore reluctant t o apply the label except conservatively. T h e

112

•

Chapter 4

difficulty for H o l l y w o o d films, then, was i n e x p l a i n i n g w h y this c r o w d pleasing, s t i m u l a t i n g , a n d f u n c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n s h o u l d be so h o n o r e d . Such a c l a i m needed t o be rendered legitimate. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines legitimacy as " C o n f o r m i t y t o law, rule, o r p r i n c i p l e ; lawfulness; c o n f o r m i t y t o s o u n d reasoning, logicality." T h i s definition makes i t clear t h a t central t o the n o t i o n o f legitimacy is justification through conformity to a rationale. I n order t o qualify as legitimate, t h a t w h i c h is being evaluated m u s t be i n accordance w i t h an a p p r o p r i a t e standard f o r differentiating between le­ gitimate a n d illegitimate. T h e legitimacy o f H o l l y w o o d films as art, there­ fore, was dependent o n c o n f o r m i t y t o a set o f genre-specific conventions for defining and evaluating art. A n d h o w are w e supposed t o k n o w w h a t these are? These conventions are p r o v i d e d by the discourse o f art experts, whose j o b i t is t o create a n d engage i n discourse a b o u t art. T h a t ' s s i m p l y w h a t they d o . Becker's (1982) analysis o f h o w art w o r l d s f u n c t i o n relies heavily o n the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f resources. B u t Becker also views the g r o w t h o f c r i t i c a l c o m m e n t a r y as a c r u c i a l step i n the creation o f any art w o r l d . Subsequent t o the creation o f a n e t w o r k o f cooperative groups a n d i n d i ­ viduals, " a l l t h a t is left t o d o t o create an art w o r l d is t o convince the rest o f the w o r l d t h a t w h a t is being done is art, a n d deserves the rights a n d privileges associated w i t h t h a t status.. . . W o r k that aspires t o be accepted as art usually must display a developed aesthetic apparatus a n d media t h r o u g h w h i c h critical discussions can take place" (339). As w i t h the rest o f his argument, Becker's analysis applies t o H o l l y w o o d films. T h e next step for us, then, is t o find the w r i t i n g s o f f i l m experts. T h e obvious place t o l o o k is i n f i l m reviews. F i l m reviews, o f course, are n o t the same as a record o f audience members' interpretations a n d impres­ sions o f films. T h e y d o n o t p r o v i d e us w i t h the definitive readings a n d understandings o f films. A vast b o d y o f w o r k i n c u l t u r a l studies makes clear t h a t meanings are never so easily determined ( D u r i n g 1 9 9 9 ) . N e v e r ­ theless, the c l a i m for the p o w e r o f f i l m experts being made here is n o t t h a t they p r o v i d e meanings f o r audiences. Rather, I argue t h a t f i l m experts i n f o r m people t h a t there are meanings t o be f o u n d , a n d p r o v i d e a set o f tools for i n t e r r o g a t i n g films. F i l m critics teach audiences h o w t o t h i n k a b o u t films (Poe 2 0 0 1 : 9 3 ) a n d p r o v i d e the discursive elements t h a t people are supposed t o use t o t a l k a b o u t films (Jankovich 2001-.37). I n this chapter I first r e v i e w i n anecdotal fashion the h i s t o r y o f U.S. f i l m discourse. Early examples s h o w h o w standards o f f i l m discourse assumed a c o m m o n definition o f f i l m as j u n k culture. A l t h o u g h the idea o f f i l m as h a v i n g artistic m e r i t enjoyed some c i r c u l a t i o n , U.S. w r i t e r s m o s t often derided this view, a fact t h a t was a c k n o w l e d g e d by supporters o f f i l m as art. T h e second task o f this chapter is t o p r o v i d e reliable, e m p i r i c a l evi1

The Intellectualization of Film

•

113

dence concerning the role o f discourse i n creating an art w o r l d for H o l l y ­ w o o d films. T h i s is accomplished t h r o u g h an analysis o f a sample o f f i l m reviews f r o m large-circulation, m i d d l e b r o w p u b l i c a t i o n s . T h e content analysis o f f i l m reviews provides an integral piece o f the e x p l a n a t o r y puz­ zle regarding H o l l y w o o d film as art, a n d i t also redresses an i m p o r t a n t gap i n the sociology o f art m o r e generally. E m p i r i c a l evidence for the development o f a c r i t i c a l discourse is almost entirely absent i n the litera­ ture o n c u l t u r a l hierarchy. T h o u g h m a n y authors stress the i m p o r t a n c e o f the development o f a l e g i t i m a t i n g ideology, n o previous study e m p i r i c a l l y documents change over t i m e i n the constitutive elements—the v o c a b u l a r y a n d critical techniques—of such an ideology. I a i m t o do so here. T h i s chapter t h e n addresses the issue o f the link between cultural ex­ perts and the general public. T h e u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f this b o o k c o n ­ cerns the acceptance o f H o l l y w o o d films as art a m o n g a large segment o f the p u b l i c , p a r t i c u l a r l y ( t h o u g h n o t exclusively) those w i t h postsecondary education. I n order t o make a strong case for the i m p o r t a n c e o f discourse i n e x p l a i n i n g t h a t acceptance, i t is necessary t o p r o v i d e evidence o f a l i n k between the creation o f t h a t discourse a n d reception o f t h a t discourse by the p u b l i c . T h i s l i n k is f o u n d i n the analysis o f film advertisements. Be­ cause advertisements m u s t appeal t o the p u b l i c , changes i n the nature o f advertisements can be t a k e n t o correspond t o changes i n w h a t people find appealing. T h e appearance i n film advertisements o f c r i t i c a l discourse a b o u t films shows w h e n this discourse began t o matter t o at least a consid­ erable p o r t i o n o f the p u b l i c . Finally, this chapter examines the relationship between the critical ap­ p r e c i a t i o n o f foreign-language a n d English-language films. T h e evidence f r o m reviews shows t h a t the perception of foreign films as art acted as a pathway for the legitimation of the art world for Hollywood films.

EARLY U.S. F I L M DISCOURSE

A t the t u r n o f the century, w h e n m o v i n g pictures were n o t m u c h m o r e t h a n flashes o f j o l t i n g images o r j a u n t y vignettes, the discourse a b o u t film was s i m p l y descriptive. I n general, Americans t a l k e d a b o u t film as a c u r i ­ osity a n d as an amusement. There was n o need to have reviews o f such films, w h i c h were w o r t h seeing for their novelty. As films g r e w i n length a n d adopted the narrative f o r m a t , i t became possible t o discuss the stories t h a t were t o l d a n d the acting as w e l l . By the second decade o f the t w e n t i e t h century, film reviews began t o c o m m e n t o n the q u a l i t y o f the film as a w h o l e as w e l l as its various c o m p o ­ nents. T h e most basic assessment began w i t h the technical competencies t h a t c o u l d be expected o f a g o o d film, t h o u g h film technology was still

114

•

Chapter 4

rather r u d i m e n t a r y . I n a d d i t i o n , because there were several h u n d r e d films released every year, there was a substantial b o d y o f w o r k w i t h w h i c h a film c o u l d be compared. T h e use o f the film m e d i u m f o r d r a m a t i c enter­ t a i n m e n t h a d become the n o r m . Everyone k n e w t h a t that's w h a t a film was supposed t o be. T h e acting, the story, the p r o d u c t i o n values, a n d the o r i g i n a l i t y c o u l d a l l be evaluated relative t o other films. A l t h o u g h nickelodeons became w i d e l y p o p u l a r i n the last few years o f the nineteenth century, there was a lag o f several years before newspapers a n d magazines began t o regularly p u b l i s h film reviews. T h e New York Times, for instance, published its first film review i n 1 9 1 3 . (Variety began t o p u b l i s h film reviews as early as 1 9 0 7 , b u t t h a t p u b l i c a t i o n is w r i t t e n for the entertainment i n d u s t r y itself, rather t h a n for a general audience.) W h i l e the conventions o f films themselves stabilized, so d i d the conven­ tions o f film reviews. E a r l y film reviews i n the New York Times were humorlessly descriptive a n d h a d a p l o d d i n g and distanced tone. T h i s style was either shared o r i m i t a t e d by other early reviewers for other news­ papers. T h e most i m p o r t a n t aspect o f these reviews for the question at h a n d is the approach they t o o k t o w a r d understanding films: t h a t o f film as entertainment. T h i s d o m i n a n t perspective o f film, however, was already being chal­ lenged i n the second decade o f the t w e n t i e t h century. T h e idea o f film as art, w h i l e g r o w i n g a n d g a i n i n g w i d e currency i n Europe, was t a k e n u p by some avant-garde or aesthetically adventurous A m e r i c a n intellectuals. O n e o f the earliest A m e r i c a n efforts t o legitimate H o l l y w o o d films as art is f o u n d i n the w o r k o f G i l b e r t Seldes, whose 1924 b o o k The Seven Lively Arts was an impassioned plea for r e c o g n i t i o n o f the genius o f the best o f p o p u l a r culture i n an array o f media. Seldes e x p l i c i t l y advocated a perception o f film—the best films, n o t a l l o f them—as art, a n d he sup­ p o r t e d this v i e w w i t h film analyses. Seldes was w e l l p o s i t i o n e d a n d re­ spected a m o n g p u b l i c intellectuals i n the 1920s and 1930s, a n d so his b o o k influenced the t h i n k i n g o f some intellectuals a n d a p o r t i o n o f the reading public. Nevertheless, Seldes d i d n o t alter w i d e r attitudes a b o u t film as entertainment. Buhle (1987) characterizes the l o n g - t e r m reception o f the b o o k : " f o r m o r e t h a n t h i r t y years, critic G i l b e r t Seldes's The Seven Lively Arts (1924) stood alone as a sympathetic treatment o f p o p u l a r culture, recognized b u t n o t t a k e n p a r t i c u l a r l y seriously" (quoted i n K a m men 1996:117). I t is n o t quite accurate t o characterize The Seven Lively Arts as h a v i n g s t o o d alone i n its treatment o f p o p u l a r c u l t u r e . I n fact, the perception o f film as art was shared by enough c u l t u r a l commentators t h a t they repre­ sented a p o s i t i o n t h a t c o u l d be attacked by m a i n s t r e a m w r i t e r s . A g o o d example o f the tension t h a t existed between the positions can be f o u n d i n the f o l l o w i n g 1 9 3 1 New Yorker film review o f City Lights. ( Di r ect ed

The Intellectualization of Film by C h a r l i e C h a p l i n , City Lights artistic value.)

•

115

is c u r r e n t l y considered a "classic" o f great

Occasionally, y o u k n o w , strange a n d u n f o r t u n a t e things occur t o per­ sons o f such acclaimed place w h e n they settle back for a w h i l e t o enjoy their t r i u m p h s . There is the constant headiness, a n y h o w , o f the great public's applause, a n d also so m a n y excited little articles appear i n v a r i ­ ous select j o u r n a l s spiced r i c h l y w i t h such terms as "genius" a n d " a r t ­ i s t " t h a t the reading o f t h e m m a y cast a sad spell over the subject. T o be sure such journals have a small c i r c u l a t i o n as a rule, yet I suspect t h a t the persons so dealt w i t h usually c o n t r i v e t o u n e a r t h t h e m a n d ponder o n their arguments. T h e results m a y be disastrous. There g r o w s an i n c l i n a t i o n t o be m o r e d r a m a t i c a l l y an artist, one w i t h a mission, a significant message, an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a n d t h a t aspiration has k i l l e d m a n y a delightful talent. . . . I m i g h t w a x eloquent a b o u t the m e a n i n g o f his c l o w n i n g , its r e l a t i o n t o the roots o f h u m a n instincts, h a d I at a l l the official v o c a b u l a r y for t h a t k i n d o f t h i n g , and d i d I n o t suspect t h a t it t i r e d m a n y people the w a y i t does me. (February 21:52) T h e reviewer's comments c o n f i r m t h a t the idea o f film as art existed i n 1 9 3 1 , b u t t h a t this idea was m a i n l y confined t o avant-garde j o u r n a l s , w i t h a " s m a l l c i r c u l a t i o n " w a i t i n g for filmmakers t o " u n e a r t h " t h e m . T h e m o r e m a i n s t r e a m o p i n i o n , as represented by this New Yorker reviewer, is one o f o p p o s i t i o n t o the notions t h a t Charlie C h a p l i n c o u l d be an " a r t ­ i s t , " t h a t w o r d s such as " a r t i s t " a n d "genius" c o u l d be applied t o a film­ maker, a n d t h a t films s h o u l d attempt t o convey a message o r a l l o w for i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Films, the reviewer is saying, do n o t serve t h a t purpose, a n d are better for i t . We can usefully contrast this near embarrassment o f confusing C h a p l i n ' s films w i t h art w i t h the p r e d o m i n a n t intellectual bent o f French a n d G e r m a n w r i t e r s o f the 1920s. H a k e ( 1 9 9 0 : 8 8 - 8 9 ) documents the " l o v e affair between C h a p l i n a n d an entire generation o f G e r m a n leftliberal intellectuals" t h a t began i n the 1920s a n d describes C h a p l i n ' s i n i ­ t i a l reception by French critics: After years o f p o l i t i c a l t u r m o i l , i n the m i d s t o f great social change a n d at the outset o f a veritable r e v o l u t i o n i n the c u l t u r a l sphere, G e r m a n intellectuals first learned a b o u t C h a p l i n t h r o u g h I v a n G o l l ' s cinemap e o m , Die Chapliniade ( 1 9 2 0 ) . G o l l h a d fallen under C h a p l i n ' s spell d u r i n g the late teens w h e n his films were first s h o w n i n Paris a n d w h e n the " l i t t l e t r a m p " emerged as the new hero o f the l i t e r a r y avant-garde, leaving traces o n the w o r k o f such diverse w r i t e r s as L o u i s Dellus, Blaise Cendrars, L o u i s A r a g o n , a n d Jean Cocteau. W h a t they perceived i n C h a r i o t , as he was affectionately called, was the Utopian v i s i o n o f a

116

•

Chapter 4

cinema free o f the constraints o f filmic realism a n d devoted solely t o e x p l o r i n g the aesthetic qualities o f the n e w m e d i u m . . . . [ M ] o s t French critics praised C h a p l i n f o r the expressive beauty o f his gestures a n d movements, rather t h a n for the p o r t r a y a l o f h u m a n struggle a n d social injustice i n his stories. T h e i n c o n g r u i t y between mainstream A m e r i c a n perceptions o f C h a p l i n , as represented i n the New Yorker, and mainstream European perceptions o f C h a p l i n is clear. I n an extensive study o f Chaplin's career, M a l a n d ' s ( 1 9 8 9 : 1 5 5 - 5 6 ) description o f U.S. critics i n the 1930s helps t o clarify the boundaries o f the opposing schools o f t h o u g h t alluded t o i n the New Yorker review. M a l a n d sees a g r o w i n g rift i n 1930s views o n C h a p l i n . O n one h a n d are reviewers such as Kate C a m e r o n whose " r e v i e w i n the New York Daily News typified the first g r o u p : ' I t h a d been h i n t e d t h a t C h a p l i n h a d gone serious o n us a n d t h a t he h a d a message o f serious social i m p o r t t o deliver t o the w o r l d i n M o d e r n Times. N o such t h i n g has happened, t h a n k goodness.. . . There is n o t h i n g o f real significance i n Chaplin's w o r k except his earnest desire, and his great ability, t o entertain.' " M a l a n d ar­ gues t h a t this first g r o u p was politically a n d aesthetically conservative. O n the other h a n d are the " m o d e r n liberal a n d social radical critics" w h o w r o t e for publications such as New Masses, New Theater, a n d Partisan Review (though a very few also c o u l d be f o u n d i n large-circulation, m a i n ­ stream publications), and w h o n o t o n l y praised Chaplin's leftist politics b u t also hailed h i m as a "creative genius." W h i l e there was some debate about the r i g h t w a y t o appreciate C h a p l i n , those w h o saw C h a p l i n as an artist were small i n n u m b e r a n d less likely t o be w r i t i n g for mainstream publications, and, more i m p o r t a n t , they were often quite reluctant t o extend this critical disposition t o the rest o f A m e r i ­ can cinema. C h a p l i n was exceptional. T h a t is t o say, even a m o n g those w h o w o u l d call C h a p l i n an artist, the idea that H o l l y w o o d films were art was specious because Chaplin's w o r k was set apart f r o m the rest o f H o l l y ­ w o o d production. Chaplin's reception by A m e r i c a n film c o m m e n t a t o r s , t h e n , is m o s t use­ ful as an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the extreme p o l a r i z a t i o n i n early film discourse. T h e vast m a j o r i t y o f film w r i t i n g , t h o u g h , was firmly anti-art, a n d fre­ quently anti-intellectual. Time magazine is one m a i n s t r e a m p u b l i c a t i o n t h a t e x h i b i t e d these t end­ encies i n its film r e v i e w i n g . T h e f o l l o w i n g t w o excerpts come f r o m sepa­ rate reviews published i n 1940 t h a t are fascinating because they n o t o n l y take a n a r r o w v i e w o f films as entertainment, b u t also openly deride the perception o f H o l l y w o o d films as art. T h e first is f r o m a r e v i e w o f Bala­ laika, a film a b o u t a f a m i l y l i v i n g t h r o u g h the Russian R e v o l u t i o n . T h e second is f r o m a review o f My Son, My Son! a b o u t an English novelist a n d his son w h o dies i n W o r l d W a r I . 2

The Intellectualization of Film

•

117

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , H o l l y w o o d has n o w got the idea t h a t "social signifi­ cance" has something t o d o w i t h the amusement business. (January 1:29) Class picture is a trade t e r m for films w i t h a better t h a n average cast, a resolutely esthetic director, and u p l i f t . T h e y are aimed at people w h o w a n t ideas w i t h their entertainment. O f t e n they are made f r o m secondrate novels w i t h a purpose. Usually they are bores, frequently they are flops. ( A p r i l 1:70) T h e staunch o p p o s i t i o n t o the i n c l u s i o n o f "social significance" or "ideas" i n H o l l y w o o d films t h a t is seen i n Time i n 1940 l o o k s bizarre t o o u r eyes. T h a t is because i n the meantime o u r standard understanding o f H o l l y w o o d films evolved t o make social significance a n d ideas h a l l m a r k s o f g o o d filmmaking. I n fact, the f o l l o w i n g appeared i n a 1980 film review i n Time o f The Stuntman: " T h e m o v i e delights i n the play o f ideas a n d i n its o w n unsuspected a b i l i t y t o play fast, loose and f u n n y w i t h t h e m . I t is refreshing t o see a m o v i e t h a t sends ideas instead o f autos crashing heado n " (Sept 1:58). I n short, early U.S. film discourse is different f r o m m o r e recent U.S. film discourse. T h i s is n o t t o say that the w h o l e idea o f H o l l y w o o d films as art is a recent i n v e n t i o n . T h a t is n o t the case. Instead, the success o f this idea, as measured by its w i d e r acceptance a m o n g a segment o f the p u b l i c , is the recent i n v e n t i o n . I t was o n l y after w i d e r acceptance t h a t w r i t e r s d i d n o t have t o apologize for their extreme, fanciful perception o f films, as R a y m o n d Chandler d i d i n a 1948 article he w r o t e for the Atlantic Monthly i n w h i c h he argued t h a t despite a l l the flaws w i t h H o l l y w o o d , i t often t u r n e d o u t genuine w o r k s o f art. Still, he c o u l d n o t make this c l a i m w i t h o u t a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t i t made h i m vulnerable t o derision. W h i l e e x p l a i n i n g his p o s i t i o n t h a t H o l l y w o o d films can be art, he averred, " I say this w i t h a very small voice. I t is an inconsiderable statement and has a h a r d t i m e n o t s o u n d i n g a little l u d i c r o u s " (1948, M a r c h , p . 2 4 ) . Just w h e n , then, d i d the change i n U.S. film discourse occur, so t h a t i t n o longer sounded ludicrous t o w r i t e a b o u t the best H o l l y w o o d films as art? W h a t does the t i m i n g o f t h a t change i m p l y for the influence o f dis­ course o n perceptions o f film as art? A n d w h a t are the specific elements o f U.S. film discourse?

T H E INTELLECTUALIZATION OF F I L M REVIEWS: 1925-1985

There is an obvious source o f i n f o r m a t i o n about the details o f film dis­ course: film reviews p r o v i d e accessible, l o n g - t e r m evidence for the evolu­ t i o n o f an intellectualizing discourse i n the film w o r l d t h a t was readily available t o the general p u b l i c i n p o p u l a r periodicals. 3

118

•

Chapter 4

I n this section w e w i l l explore the results o f a content analysis o f reviews i n order t o identify the i m p o r t a n t elements o f an ideology o f as art a n d t o locate the p e r i o d w h e n f i l m discourse began t o s u p p o r t legitimate f i l m as art. T h e results s h o w t h a t a substantial change i n discourse occurred i n the late 1960s.

film film and film

T h e film-review sample consists o f reviews beginning i n 1925 a n d end­ ing i n 1985. T h e year 1925 is an a p p r o p r i a t e starting date because at a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h a t t i m e films began t o resemble their c u r r e n t f o r m . F i l m technology a l l o w e d filmmakers t o make films t h a t were l o n g enough t o m a i n t a i n a narrative structure a n d t h a t h a d sufficiently g o o d p i c t u r e q u a l ­ i t y f o r reviewers t o focus o n i n t e r p r e t i n g the films as art rather t h a n as merely technical w o r k s . T h e year 1985 is a suitable ending date because i t a l l o w s ample t i m e for f o l l o w i n g the a l t e r a t i o n o f the o p p o r t u n i t y space (see chapter 2) for critics t o develop a n e w f i l m aesthetic. T h e first f i l m reviewed f r o m each m o n t h for every fifth year i n the pe­ r i o d , starting w i t h 1 9 2 5 , f r o m three different p o p u l a r periodicals (the New York Times, the New Yorker, a n d Time) was selected. These p e r i o d i ­ cals were selected for several reasons: they are three o f a very s m a l l n u m ­ ber t h a t published f i l m reviews c o n t i n u o u s l y d u r i n g the t i m e p e r i o d under study; they are mass-circulation periodicals w i d e l y available t o a large p u b l i c ; a n d they are considered influential trendsetters, a n d hence other reviewers are likely t o a d o p t the practices o f the critics for these p u b l i c a ­ tions. I n a d d i t i o n , the second reviews published each m o n t h f o r the years 1 9 5 0 t o 1975 were also selected a n d analyzed. The rationale for these was t o get a clearer picture o f the k i n d s o f changes t h a t were o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g a n d s u r r o u n d i n g the p e r i o d o f most interest according t o the his­ t o r i c a l evidence f r o m the previous chapters. T h i s m e t h o d generated 13 t i m e periods, w i t h 36 reviews i n 1925 t o 1945 and 1980 a n d 1 9 8 5 , a n d 64 reviews i n 1950 t o 1 9 7 5 . T h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f reviews is 6 8 4 . W h i l e there is an enormous a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t can be gleaned f r o m film reviews, the content analysis hones i n o n t w o variables i n order to measure w h e n a n d h o w film discourse evolved. First, specific terms associated w i t h artistic c r i t i c i s m i n other h i g h b r o w artistic genres are c o u n t e d , a n d second, the use o f critical devices a n d concepts t h a t facilitate an analytical, interpretive approach t o film, rather t h a n a facile, entertain­ m e n t - m i n d e d approach are enumerated. M o r e description o f these v a r i ­ ables is given below. 4

Changing

Language

O n e o f the perils o f d o i n g h i s t o r i c a l w o r k is t h a t i t is difficult t o step outside the present-day frame o f m i n d . There is a risk t h a t w e w i l l see historical evidence very differently f r o m h o w i t was seen by c o n t e m p o r a r -

The Intellectualization of Film

•

119

ies. W h e n dealing w i t h discourse, the hazard comes f r o m the fact t h a t language is always changing. A p p l y i n g today's perspective t o reviews w r i t t e n i n 1925 can create misunderstandings. For this reason, generating a list o f " a r t discourse" terms t o measure the degree t o w h i c h critics discussed film as art requires first s a m p l i n g reviews f r o m the New York Times, the New Yorker, a n d Time o f classical music performances a n d recordings a n d o f p a i n t i n g e x h i b i t i o n s f r o m the year 1925. U s i n g b o t h the first music review a n d the first p a i n t i n g r e v i e w f r o m each m o n t h , a p r i m a r y list was c o m p i l e d for each p u b l i c a t i o n (only the first six m o n t h s were available f o r music reviews for the New York Times, w h i c h d i d n o t pose a significant p r o b l e m since music reviews were, o n average, t w i c e as l o n g as i n Time). Each p r i m a r y list consisted o f any t e r m t h a t was considered characteristic o f h i g h b r o w art c r i t i c i s m f r o m its respective p u b l i c a t i o n . A secondary list o f terms was created by i n c l u d i n g any t e r m t h a t was o n at least t w o p r i m a r y lists, t h a t is, w h i c h appeared i n at least t w o p u b l i c a t i o n s ' reviews o f p a i n t i n g and/or music i n 1 9 2 5 . T h i s list was t h e n pared d o w n t o include those w o r d s t h o u g h t t o have the strongest " a r t discourse" c o n n o t a t i o n s . 5

W i t h o u t a safeguard against a m o d e r n d a y bias i n the reading o f re­ views, the selection o f terms t h a t resonate w i t h a c o n t e m p o r a r y k n o w l ­ edge o f critical t e r m i n o l o g y w o u l d have led t o finding m o r e " a r t dis­ course" terms i n later periods independent o f any change or lack o f change i n the nature o f film reviews. By confining the terms t o those f o u n d i n 1925 reviews, any bias w o u l d w o r k against finding these terms i n later periods. I n a d d i t i o n t o the terms f o u n d i n this way, three m o r e terms p e r t a i n i n g t o the interpretive analysis o f a narrative structure were added: "genre," " i r o n y , " "metaphor." T w o other terms were also counted: a p r o p e r name f o l l o w e d by the suffix " i a n " (e.g., H i t c h c o c k i a n ) o r by the suffix "esque" (e.g., Felliniesque), as an i n d i c a t i o n o f an academic tone. The terms were then counted by their appearance i n the film review sam­ ple. Accurate counts were achieved by scanning the reviews i n t o M i c r o s o f t W o r d t h r o u g h the use o f optical-character-recognition software and then using the " f i n d " function. Each review was corrected for spelling errors that occurred i n the scanning process. A l l variants o n a t e r m were also counted. For instance, " a r t , " "artist," "artistry," "artistic," and "artisti­ c a l l y " w o u l d each qualify t o be counted as " a r t . " A t e r m was counted o n l y if i t was used i n a sense that relates t o art commentary. I f a film as a w h o l e or some aspect o f the film was described as " b r i l l i a n t , " the t e r m " b r i l l i a n t " was counted. I f a b r i g h t light, something shiny, or any concrete object was described as b r i l l i a n t , the t e r m was n o t counted. The t e r m " w o r k " was counted only i f i t applied t o the film as a p r o d u c t i o n , n o t i f i t was being used t o denote labor o r any other nonartistic sense, and so o n . The terms were divided i n t o t w o groups based o n their rhetorical functions. 6

120

•

Chapter 4

TABLE 4.1.

Number of "High A r t " and "Critical" Terms: 1925-1985

Total Number of "Critical" Terms

Total Number of "High Art" and "Critical" Terms

Year

Total Number of "High Art" Terms

1925

15

4

1930

16

2

18

1935

21

0

21

1940

1

4

5

1945

12

9

21

1950

12

2

14

1955

13

7

20

1960

31

12

43

1965

36

15

51

1970

109

47

156

1975

66

41

107

1980

65

38

103

1985

47

31

78

19

Note: The 1950 to 1975 time periods rely on seventy-two film reviews per year, double that of the other time periods.

T h e first g r o u p is designated as consisting o f " h i g h a r t " terms t h a t i m p l y an erudite assessment a n d expert j u d g m e n t i n the c o n t e x t o f the evaluation o f culture. These w o r d s are: " a r t , " " b r i l l i a n t , " "genius," " i n ­ s p i r e d , " " i n t e l l i g e n t , " "master," a n d " w o r k . " T h e second g r o u p is desig­ nated as consisting o f " c r i t i c a l " terms, w o r d s t h a t are used i n the analysis o f texts. These w o r d s are: " c o m p o s i t i o n , " "genre," " i r o n y , " " m e t a p h o r , " "satire," " s y m b o l , " a n d " t o n e . " Table 4 . 1 presents the c o u n t o f " h i g h a r t " terms, " c r i t i c a l " terms, a n d the t o t a l o f the t w o . T h e counts are n o t adjusted for the different n u m b e r o f reviews analyzed i n the 1 9 5 0 - 7 5 p e r i o d , w h e n 72 reviews are sampled rather t h a n the 36 i n other periods. I n order t o d r a w any conclusions a b o u t the trends f o u n d i n the results, w e must first account for the greater sampling a r o u n d the p e r i o d o f interest. Table 4.2 does this by first pre­ senting the i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o standardize the counts by t i m e p e r i o d . T h e second c o l u m n presents the t o t a l n u m b e r o f w o r d s w r i t t e n i n the reviews. T h e t h i r d c o l u m n then presents the mean n u m b e r o f w o r d s per review by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l w o r d s by 36 i n 1 9 2 5 - 4 5 a n d 1 9 8 0 - 8 5 , a n d by 72 i n 1 9 5 0 - 7 5 .

The Intellectualization of Film

•

121

T A B L E 4.2.

Number of " H i g h A r t " and "Critical" Terms Divided by Total Film Review Words: 1925-1985

Year

Total Number of "High Art" and "Critical" Terms

Total Number of Words in Reviews

Mean Number of Words per Review

Number of Terms Divided by Total Review Words

1925

19

12140

337

0.0016

1930

18

14250

396

0.0013

1935

21

14903

414

0.0014

1940

5

12206

339

0.0004

1945

21

15626

434

0.0013

1950

14

26164

363

0.0005

1955

20

25638

356

0.0008

1960

43

28243

392

0.0015

1965

51

28632

398

0.0018

1970

156

50214

697

0.0031

1975

107

54521

757

0.0020

1980

103

40761

1132

0.0025

1985

78

34215

950

0.0023

.74**

.67**

Spearman's rho * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 (one-tailed tests)

T h e results o f this c a l c u l a t i o n are interesting because they c o n f i r m the expectation that critics w h o are t a k i n g film seriously w i l l w r i t e lengthier reviews. Longer reviews a l l o w t h e m t o p r o v i d e in-depth, fully elucidated analyses, as opposed t o the m o r e superficial treatments o f earlier periods. T h e fewest w o r d s were w r i t t e n i n 1925, w h e n a review averaged 3 3 7 w o r d s . T h i s n u m b e r remained relatively constant u n t i l 1 9 6 5 . After 1965 the mean n u m b e r o f w o r d s increased dramatically, peaking i n 1980 at 1,132, a n d then decreasing somewhat i n the final t i m e p e r i o d t o 9 5 0 . The question that n a t u r a l l y comes t o m i n d is whether the increase i n " h i g h a r t " and " c r i t i c a l " terms is a result o f the increase i n the length o f the reviews. M o r e o f these terms m i g h t be present because longer reviews p r o v i d e a greater o p p o r t u n i t y for t h e m t o appear by chance. To answer this question we need t o calculate the r a t i o o f the number o f " h i g h a r t " and " c r i t i c a l " terms appearing i n a l l the reviews o f a given year t o the t o t a l number o f w o r d s i n a l l reviews. This r a t i o is presented i n the final c o l u m n and provides evidence that the increase i n special terms is n o t merely a

122

•

Chapter 4

Figure 4 . 1 . Number of Specialized Terms Divided by Total Number of Review Words: 1930-1980 (Moving Average)

reflection o f longer reviews. Between 1925 and 1960 the r a t i o does n o t exceed .0016. I n 1965 the r a t i o rises t o .0018 and i n 1970 i t is . 0 0 3 1 . P r o p o r t i o n a l l y , there is a sharp increase i n the density o f the specialized vocabulary between 1965 and 1970. There is a break i n the data f o l l o w i n g 1965 t h a t is sustained u n t i l the end o f the data set. Table 4.2 also includes the results o f a statistical test o f the strength and d i r e c t i o n o f the associa­ t i o n between the counts o f terms and year. The test results strongly support the assertion that the reported increases i n the mean n u m b e r o f w o r d s per review and i n the density o f the specialized vocabulary represent real increases and n o t r a n d o m variations due t o sampling errors. M o r e o v e r , there is a break between the 1965 and 1970 t i m e periods— after 1965 the t o t a l c o u n t stays higher—that is more easily observed graphically. Figure 4 . 1 presents the m o v i n g average (three periods) o f the c o u n t o f b o t h " h i g h a r t " a n d " c r i t i c a l " terms d i v i d e d by the mean n u m b e r o f w o r d s per review. I t is a visual depiction o f the density o f the specialized vocabulary. The m o v i n g average smoothes the t r e n d line. For 1930, for instance, the data p o i n t reported is the average for 1 9 2 5 , 1 9 3 0 , a n d 1935, a n d so o n for all the data points. I n this way, the figure is less influenced by single t i m e periods and m o r e representative o f the general t r e n d . I n this case, the t r e n d is u p i n the 1960s a n d remains there. T h e data, therefore, d o n o t support the idea t h a t the increase i n the specialized v o c a b u l a r y is 7

8

The Intellectualization of Film

•

123

merely a reflection o f the increase i n the length o f reviews. Instead, the data suggest t h a t the increase i n the n u m b e r o f " h i g h a r t " a n d " c r i t i c a l " terms is the effect o f the nascent tendency t o treat f i l m as an art f o r m , a n d that the desire t o utilize a specialized vocabulary necessitated c o n t e x t u a l ization a n d greater explanations, resulting i n lengthier reviews. There is an alternative e x p l a n a t i o n — t h a t editors demanded increased o u t p u t f r o m reviewers, a n d t h a t reviewers then filled t h a t space w i t h a h i g h b r o w artistic v o c a b u l a r y by chance. I t c o u l d have been the case t h a t critics changed their reviews merely as an attempt t o fill a "news h o l e " generated by e d i t o r i a l decisions. T h i s c o m p e t i n g e x p l a n a t i o n needs t o be addressed. 9

I f there were an increasing concern w i t h c u l t u r a l coverage i n general, w h i c h m a y have been manifested i n longer film reviews, t h e n perhaps the change i n style o f film review is an artifact o f this e d i t o r i a l concern, unre­ lated t o ideas a b o u t the artistic possibilities o f film. There are three possi­ ble responses t o a larger news hole. Reviewers c o u l d w r i t e longer reviews, m o r e reviews, o r b o t h . There is some evidence t o argue t h a t longer re­ views are n o t merely a result o f a larger news hole. W e m a y use the years 1935, w e l l before the p e r i o d o f change, a n d 1975, after the change, as benchmarks. I n 1935 the n u m b e r o f film reviews published i n the first m o n t h l y issue o f Time a n d the New Yorker, a n d i n the first seven days o f each m o n t h i n the New York Times, averaged 5.2. I n 1975 the three periodicals published an average o f 2.9 film reviews i n the first issue/first seven days. T h i s represents a decrease o f m o r e t h a n 4 0 percent i n the n u m b e r o f reviews published a n d is h a r d t o square w i t h an argument t h a t an increasing news hole accounts entirely for the longer reviews. Further­ m o r e , B r o w n (1995) reports t h a t w h i l e there were 7 6 6 films released i n the U n i t e d States i n 1 9 3 5 , there were 6 0 4 domestic releases i n 1 9 7 5 , enough for m o r e t h a n 11 film reviews per week a n d far i n excess o f the average o f 2.9 f o u n d i n the three periodicals. Clearly, the n u m b e r o f films available for review cannot e x p l a i n the r e d u c t i o n i n the n u m b e r o f re­ views published. W h i l e i t m a y be true t h a t editors w a n t e d m o r e film re­ views i n t o t a l , perhaps i n response t o reader demand, i t surely is signifi­ cant t h a t reviewers responded by w r i t i n g i n greater d e p t h a b o u t fewer films, rather t h a n s i m p l y r e v i e w i n g a larger n u m b e r o f films. I t seems t h a t critics were electing t o review films i n an entirely different m o d e — i n d e p t h analysis o f a few, rather t h a n a larger n u m b e r o f descriptive reviews.

Changing

Techniques

and

Concepts

The second measure o f the change i n film review is the use o f critical devices a n d concepts. These devices a n d concepts are the comparisons and distinctions t h a t critics use a n d the t h o u g h t modes t h a t critics e m p l o y

124

•

Chapter 4

w h e n r e v i e w i n g films. T h i s analysis includes data gained t h r o u g h c o d i n g o f b o t h manifest a n d latent i n f o r m a t i o n ( H o l s t i 1 9 6 9 ) . Before t u r n i n g t o the data, I w i l l describe the eight techniques t h a t were c o u n t e d a n d p r o ­ vide a justification for each. 1. Positive and negative commentary. I t is characteristically t h o u g h t t h a t h i g h art is c o m p l e x a n d does n o t lend itself t o easy i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r appreciation. Rather, i t is difficult t o understand or t o like o r dislike categorically. The first technique I c o u n t is the appearance o f b o t h positive a n d negative c o m m e n t a r y i n the same reviews. Reviews t h a t address film as art expected t o have a m o r e c o m p l e x , i n - d e p t h approach t o film i n v o l v ­ i n g e v a l u a t i o n o f m a n y aspects o n different levels, resulting i n m o r e m i x e d reviews. Such a m i x t u r e o f c o m m e n t a r y exists, for example, w h e n a re­ viewer praises the actors for their interpretations o f their lines b u t also finds fault w i t h the tone t h a t the director decided t o give t o the m a t e r i a l . 10

2 . Director named. T h e second technique is reference t o the director by name. Serious art forms require r e c o g n i t i o n o f the artists by name, a n d i n the case o f film, this means the director ( B l e w i t t 1993). F u r t h e r m o r e , this technique i n p a r t i c u l a r is expected t o increase i n the 1960s, due t o the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f auteurism, t o A m e r i c a n film c r i t i c i s m . 3. Comparison of directors. T h e t h i r d technique i n the content analysis is the c o m p a r i s o n o f the director t o another director. Discussion o f h i g h art very often places the w o r k i n the c o n t e x t o f other w o r k s so t h a t the w o r k can be evaluated i n a m o r e sophisticated a n d i n f o r m e d manner (Eitner, 1 9 6 1 ) . 4 . Comparison of films. For the same reason, c o m p a r i s o n o f the film t o another film is expected t o increase. M a k i n g connections between dif­ ferent w o r k s can a l l o w critics b o t h t o justify their analyses a n d t o display their cinematic e r u d i t i o n . 5. Film interpreted. A supposed defining characteristic o f " a r t , " as op­ posed t o " e n t e r t a i n m e n t , " is t h a t i t is t h o u g h t - p r o v o k i n g a n d i n some w a y a f o r m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h r o u g h metaphor. Examples include, " I t seems reasonably clear t h a t she means her m o v i e t o be a w r y a n d some­ times anguished parable o f p o l i t i c a l c o r r u p t i o n a n d b e t r a y a l " (Time, Oc­ tober 6, 1975, 65) or "she bends this m a t e r i a l o n t o a statement a b o u t h o w w o m e n are t r a p p e d a n d self-entrapped i n o u r society" (New York Times, N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 7 5 , 17:1). Such statements are n o t p l a i n l y factual; they are subject t o debate a n d require creative inference o n the p a r t o f the critic. I n his b o o k , Making Meaning, D a v i d B o r d w e l l considers the role o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n film c r i t i c i s m : N o w m o r e t h a n ever, scholars take the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f i m p l i c i t a n d s y m p t o m a t i c meanings t o be central t o understanding the a r t s . . . . T h i s search has shaped the h i s t o r y o f film t h e o r y a n d c r i t i c i s m i n i m p o r t a n t

The Intellectualization of Film

•

125

ways. W h e n f i l m study b r o k e a w a y f r o m j o u r n a l i s m o n the one side a n d f a n d o m o n the o t h e r — w h e n , t h a t is, i t became academic—it c o u l d have become a subdivision o f sociology o r mass c o m m u n i c a t i o n stud­ ies. I t was instead ushered i n t o the academy by humanists, chiefly teach­ ers o f literature, d r a m a , a n d art. A s a result, cinema was n a t u r a l l y sub­ sumed w i t h i n the interpretive frames o f reference t h a t rule those disciplines. ( 1 9 8 9 : 17) B o r d w e l l asserts t h a t "interpretation-centered" c r i t i c i s m prevails i n f i l m studies due t o its eventual association w i t h other types o f c u l t u r a l criticism. 6. Merit in failure. V i e w i n g the same aspect o f a f i l m i n opposite ways is indicative o f a c o m p l e x , multifaceted approach t h a t is t y p i c a l for h i g h ­ b r o w art t h a t relies o n resolving tensions between beauty a n d harshness to achieve its effect (Eitner 1 9 6 1 ) . A n example o f this e v a l u a t i o n o n t w o levels is, " I f Pontecorvo's f i l m is flawed t h r o u g h o u t , i t is nevertheless an amazing f i l m , intensely controversial even i n its failures" (New Yorker, N o v e m b e r 7, 1 9 7 0 , 1 5 9 ) . 11

7. Art versus entertainment. Posing a scheme o f art versus entertain­ ment, o r serious versus c o m m e r c i a l f i l m is the seventh technique. Critics can be expected t o develop a canon, a n d they must justify w h y some f i l m is g o o d (or serious art) a n d some f i l m bad (or c o m m e r c i a l entertainment). A fault can be expected t o appear between "real a r t " a n d f i l m t h a t is m o t i v a t e d by profit o r o b v i o u s l y a n d i n t e n t i o n a l l y oriented t o w a r d a mass m a r k e t ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 8 3 ; 1 9 8 0 ) . "There are times w h e n the m o v i e teeters on the edge o f c o m m e r c i a l cuteness" (Time, February 3, 1 9 7 5 , 4) is an example o f the d r a w i n g o f such a d i s t i n c t i o n . A n o t h e r can be f o u n d i n the f o l l o w i n g closing lines: " 'The Baby M a k e r ' is the first p i c t u r e James Bridges has directed, a n d i t is customary t o be k i n d o n the occasion o f a d i r e c t o r i a l debut, b u t this debutant has, w i t h his first step, entered the o l d H o l l y w o o d society o f commerce. There is n o t a single one o f the carefully p l a n t e d 'sensitive' nuances i n the picture t h a t I felt meant a n y t h i n g t o James Bridges or t o l d the t r u t h a b o u t any e m o t i o n he has ever h a d " (New Yorker, O c t o b e r 10, 1 9 7 0 , 137). D i s t i n g u i s h i n g between " p o p u l a r " f i l m a n d "serious" f i l m a l l o w s critics t o define a c a n o n t h a t excludes standard H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n s . One o f the effects o f creating a c a n o n is the de­ l i n e a t i o n o f a subgroup o f the art f o r m t h a t critics can refer t o as represen­ tative o f their ideas concerning w h a t is g o o d art ( D i M a g g i o 1 9 9 2 ) . I t provides a set o f e x e m p l a r y w o r k s t o w h i c h critics can appeal t o defend their ideological g r o u n d . T h e identification o f these "serious" w o r k s also allows critics t o dismiss other films as essentially a different k i n d o f c i n ­ ema, thereby m a i n t a i n i n g the artistic i n t e g r i t y o f " r e a l " cinema. 12

126

•

Chapter 4

8. Too easy to enjoy. A similar d i s t i n c t i o n can be expected m o r e often i n later periods based o n a "disgust at the facile" ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 8 4 : 4 8 6 ) . Real art requires effort t o be appreciated a n d cannot be enjoyed merely o n a superficial level (Canaday 1 9 8 0 ) . T r e a t i n g f i l m as art encourages disdain f o r films t h a t are " t o o i m m e d i a t e l y accessible a n d so discredited as ' c h i l d i s h ' or ' p r i m i t i v e ' " ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 8 4 : 4 8 6 ) , w h i l e f i n d i n g value i n c o m p l e x i t y a n d subtlety. A negative e v a l u a t i o n o f "cuteness" is another w a y t h a t this d i s t i n c t i o n is d r a w n , as indicated i n the f o l l o w i n g example f r o m a 1975 review f r o m Time o f the f i l m Touch and Go: " E v e n m o r e drastic, the f i l m has an i n s i n u a t i n g cuteness, like De Broca's much-cher­ ished King of Hearts. De Broca w o r k s h a r d at being likable, a n d makes i t , finally, altogether t o o easy" (June 2 , 5 0 ) . T w o reviews appearing forty-five years apart i n the New Yorker s h o w h o w critics at different times differed i n h o w they held films t o this standard: I d o n ' t like movies a b o u t people w h o w o r k , a n d I d o n ' t like movies a b o u t people w h o have things the matter w i t h t h e m . ( I w o r k a n d a l l m y friends w o r k , a n d w e a l l have things the matter w i t h us. We go t o movies t o forget.) ( A p r i l 6, 1935, 77) I d o n ' t mean i t as a c o m p l i m e n t w h e n I venture . . . t h a t i t w i l l prove t o be her most p o p u l a r picture so far. I t is an easy m o v i e t o enjoy, w h i c h is the w h o l e t r o u b l e . ( M a r c h 3, 1 9 8 0 , 112) Table 4.3 presents the percent o f reviews t h a t include at least one o f each o f the techniques by year, together w i t h a measure o f h o w steadily the techniques increase over t i m e . Despite differences i n the frequency o f use a n d i n the m a g n i t u d e o f increase, the b i g picture t h a t emerges is t h a t these techniques increased i n use across the b o a r d , a n d the largest i n ­ creases occurred r o u g h l y between the late 1950s a n d early 1970s. W h i l e each o f these devices can i n d i v i d u a l l y c o n t r i b u t e t o an intellec­ t u a l , sophisticated a p p r o a c h t o film review, the use o f m u l t i p l e techniques changes the nature o f reviews t o a greater extent. C o l u m n 9 presents the percent o f reviews i n w h i c h at least three o f the techniques were u t i l i z e d . U n t i l 1960 o n l y a very small p o r t i o n o f reviews used at least three o f the c r i t i c a l devices. A t t h a t t i m e the p r o p o r t i o n steadily rose, reaching its highest value i n 1 9 8 0 o f 8 1 percent. I t is apparent t h a t critics were concen­ t r a t i n g the use o f these c r i t i c a l concepts a n d techniques i n their reviews beginning i n the 1 9 6 0 s . C o l u m n 10 shows that, despite w r i t i n g lengthier reviews, critics were also using these devices at a greater rate o n a w o r d b y - w o r d basis i n later t i m e periods. C o l u m n 10 shows the percentages i n c o l u m n 9 d i v i d e d by the t o t a l n u m b e r o f w o r d s i n a l l reviews for a given t i m e p e r i o d . There is a considerable difference between the pre- a n d 13

14

The Intellectualization of Film

•

127

T A B L E 4.3.

Percentage of Reviews Using Specific Critical Techniques: 1925-1985 Technique Year

(V

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1925

36

47

3

8

3

1930

33

33

3

8

3

(10)

(7)

(8)

0

11

0

8

0.02

0

0

0

3

0.01

(9)

1935

53

19

0

17

14

0

3

3

6

0.01

1940

33

50

0

6

17

0

3

0

6

0.02

1945

53

36

3

6

25

0

6

0

6

0.01

1950

60

42

0

17

21

3

13

13

15

0.04

1955

46

47

1

10

19

4

13

14

17

0.05

1960

63

72

1

14

33

7

8

17

38

0.10

1965

57

82

1

18

43

7

18

15

49

0.12

1970

61

88

14

36

74

21

22

19

69

0.10

1975

58

86

15

38

68

8

15

19

67

0.09

1980

78

100

11

42

69

25

19

8

81

0.07

1985

53

100

17

28

56

6

22

14

50

0.05

Spearman s rho

.68** 87***

.58*

.81**'

.74**

.90* * :- j

93*** .88*** .85**

s

4* *

Note: 1 = presence of both positive and negative commentary in review; 2 = director is named; 3 = director is compared with another director; 4 = film is compared with another film; 5 = presence of an act of interpretation; 6 = merit is seen in failure; 7 = opposition drawn between serious vs. commercial film or art vs. entertainment; 8 = film is criticized for being "easy," or for lacking subtelty; 9 = percent of reviews in which at least 3 techniques are used; 10 = column 9 divided by mean words per review. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 (one-tailed tests)

post-1960 t i m e periods, w i t h a large increase o c c u r r i n g i n the later p e r i o d . T h i s n o w familiar p a t t e r n attests t o the changes t h a t occurred i n the 1960s i n the field o f f i l m c r i t i c i s m . The content analysis demonstrates i n a structured fashion the subtly changing goals a n d methods o f f i l m review between 1925 a n d 1 9 8 5 . T h e most c o m m o n technique, n a m i n g the director, seemingly became a neces­ sity by the 1980s. I n fact, Time magazine began t o include the name o f the director under the title o f each f i l m being reviewed o n l y i n the 1970s. Since the 1930s i t h a d been listing the name o f the studio a n d film's title. The New York Times changed its practice i n the 1970s as w e l l . F r o m the 1920s t o the 1960s each review was prefaced w i t h the title o f the f i l m a n d a list o f credits. A l t h o u g h there was some v a r i a t i o n i n order, before the 1970s the director was never listed first. I n reviews f r o m 1925 a n d 1 9 3 0 , 15

128

•

Chapter 4

the actors were listed first, usually f o l l o w e d by the a u t h o r o f the story a n d perhaps the screenwriter, then the director. I n reviews f r o m 1935 t o 1 9 5 5 , the actors were listed last. O r i g i n a l authors a n d screenwriters were listed first, usually f o l l o w e d by the director a n d i n t u r n the producer. H o w e v e r , i f the film was a musical, the director c o u l d be listed after the songwriter. I n reviews f r o m 1970 o n w a r d , the director was always listed first. T h e greater emphasis o n the role o f the director is consistent w i t h the accep­ tance o f the idea that the director was central i n understanding the artistic qualities o f film. Taken together, the c r i t i c a l techniques a n d specialized v o c a b u l a r y measured here are an i n d i c a t i o n o f the change i n the late 1960s i n the intellectual p o s t u r i n g o f the reviewers a n d i n the overall tone o f the re­ v i e w s . A l t h o u g h some early reviews d o i n c o r p o r a t e some o f the special­ ized v o c a b u l a r y and techniques, these instances are deviations f r o m the general t r e n d . 16

17

Is Change in Film Reviews

a Reflection

of Change in

Films?

N o w t h a t w e are reasonably certain t h a t film reviews have changed i n p a r t i c u l a r ways, w e need t o t h i n k m o r e a b o u t w h a t drove the change. I have been advocating the thesis t h a t the changes were p a r t o f the develop­ m e n t o f an art w o r l d for film. As c u l t u r a l experts adopted the idea t h a t films were art, this idea was reflected i n their w r i t i n g . There is an obvious c o u n t e r p o i n t t o be made here. T h i s analysis w i l l directly address the m a i n alternative hypothesis concerning changing film reviews a n d w i l l help t o establish whether critics were merely responding to the changing qualities o f film. M y argument begs the question o f whether the relationship between the w o r k o f critics a n d the status o f film is a spurious one. D o b o t h result f r o m a shift i n the nature o f films themselves? I f films became m o r e artistic, i t m a y have caused b o t h a shift i n the content o f reviews a n d an elevation i n the status o f film. U n f o r t u ­ nately, I a m unable t o p r o v i d e an objective measure o f w h e t h e r films be­ come m o r e artistic over t i m e . H o w e v e r , i t is possible t o a n a l y t i c a l l y c o n ­ t r o l for the extent t o w h i c h films are artistic t h r o u g h an e x a m i n a t i o n o f reviews f r o m t w o different t i m e periods for the same set o f films. T h e first v o l u m e o f the Film Review Index ( H a n s o n a n d H a n s o n 1 9 8 6 ) , a resource for film scholars, provides references for film reviews f r o m a variety o f sources for films made before 1 9 5 0 . I collected a sample c o n ­ t a i n i n g a l l films for w h i c h t w o reviews f r o m p o p u l a r periodicals c o u l d be located, one f r o m the year the film was released i n the U n i t e d States a n d the second f r o m n o earlier t h a n I 9 6 0 . M o s t often, these pre-1950 films earned a second review because they were being s h o w n at a film festival or because i t was the anniversary o f the film's o r i g i n a l release. O t h e r times 18

1 9

The Intellectualization of Film

•

129

T A B L E 4.4.

Number of " H i g h A r t " and "Critical" Terms in First and Later Film Reviews of Twenty Films

Total Number of "High Art" and "Critical" Terms

Mean Number of Words per Review

Number of Terms Divided by Mean Words per Review

First review (1915-1950)

20

503

0.0020

Later review (1960-1982)

103

1500

0.0034

Period

Note: Counts allow for variants of the terms, e.g., "masterpiece" "masterful" "masterwork," etc.

the second review indicated t h a t the f i l m deserved t o be discussed because i t h a d been neglected the first t i m e a r o u n d . Popular periodicals were de­ fined as h i g h - c i r c u l a t i o n newspapers a n d magazines w r i t t e n for general audiences a n d n o t focusing solely o n film or art. T h i s m e t h o d generated t w e n t y films whose o r i g i n a l reviews were published between 1915 a n d 1 9 5 0 a n d whose later reviews were published between 1960 a n d 1 9 8 2 . 20

21

Table 4.4 shows h o w the language o f first reviews as a g r o u p compares to t h a t o f the later reviews as a g r o u p . T h e former contained 17 " h i g h a r t " terms a n d 3 " c r i t i c a l " terms. The latter contained 84 " h i g h a r t " terms a n d 19 " c r i t i c a l " terms. T h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f film-review w o r d s i n the t w e n t y o r i g i n a l film reviews was 10,064, w h i l e the t o t a l n u m b e r i n the t w e n t y later reviews was 2 9 , 9 9 3 (not i n table). For first reviews, the t o t a l n u m b e r o f " h i g h a r t " a n d " c r i t i c a l " terms d i v i d e d by the t o t a l n u m b e r o f film review w o r d s is . 0 0 2 0 . For later reviews, the figure is . 0 0 3 4 . T h u s the p a t t e r n f o u n d i n the larger sample repeats; n o t o n l y d i d later reviews c o n ­ t a i n m o r e o f a specialized vocabulary, b u t critics were also m o r e l i k e l y t o utilize this v o c a b u l a r y o n a p e r - w o r d basis. T h i s finding is i m p o r t a n t be­ cause i t demonstrates t h a t the same films were reviewed w i t h a different v o c a b u l a r y at different points i n t i m e . Table 4.5 compares the t w o groups according t o the techniques used i n r e v i e w i n g . Several i m p o r t a n t similarities a n d differences f r o m the p r e v i ­ ous sample are apparent. Just as i n the larger sample, c o m p a r i n g the direc­ tor t o another director a n d c o m p a r i n g the film t o another film are strongly associated w i t h later t i m e periods. A l s o , e x p l i c a t i n g i m p l i c i t m e a n i n g i n the films j u m p s f r o m 30 percent i n first reviews t o 85 percent i n later ones. A l t h o u g h there was m o s t often n o effort t o find a message i n the films w h e n they were first reviewed, i t became almost standard t o treat the films as a f o r m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n .

130 TABLE

•

Chapter 4

4.5.

Percentage of Reviews Using Specific Critical Techniques in First and Later Reviews of the Same Twenty Films Reviews from 1915-1950

Reviews from 1960-1982

(1) Presence of both positive and negative commentary in review

40

55

(2) Director is named

Technique

85

90

(3) Director is compared with another director

0

35

(4) Film is compared with another film

0

75

(5) Presence of an act of interpretation

30

85

0

5

15

20

(8) Film is criticized for being "easy," or for lacking subtlety

5

0

(9) A t least three of the techniques are used

20

75

(6) Merit is seen in failure (7) Opposition drawn between serious/art vs. commercial/entertainment film

Usage o f some o f the other techniques is n o t , however, as strongly linked to time period. Using mixed commentary and drawing a distinction between serious art a n d c o m m e r c i a l entertainment are o n l y slightly m o r e likely t o be p a r t o f a later review, as is finding m e r i t i n failure, a l t h o u g h i t appears o n l y once. F i n d i n g fault w i t h an easy or obvious f i l m also ap­ peared o n l y once, a l t h o u g h , unexpectedly i n the earlier t i m e p e r i o d . Inter­ estingly, seventeen o f the t w e n t y f i l m reviews i n the early p e r i o d n a m e d the director, w h i l e eighteen o f the reviews i n the later p e r i o d d i d so. I t is possible t h a t those films made by r e n o w n e d directors are m o r e likely t o survive over time t o be re-reviewed. T h e t w o groups o f reviews differ greatly i n the use o f at least three o f the enumerated techniques. Whereas o n l y 2 0 percent o f first reviews use at least three techniques, 75 percent o f the later ones do so. T h i s f i n d i n g is i m p o r t a n t because i t illustrates the change i n overall style a n d g o a l . T h e same films received a c r i t i c a l treatment m u c h different i n nature i n the post-1960 era. To further o u r understanding o f the meaning o f these results w e can refer t o a c o m p a r i s o n o f the t w e n t y first a n d later reviews t o the larger sample o f reviews, b r o k e n i n t o t w o t i m e periods. T h e early g r o u p o f t w e n t y reviews o f the same films was published between 1915 a n d 1 9 5 0 ; these are compared t o a l l reviews f r o m the years 1925 t o 1 9 5 0 . T h e later

The Intellectualization of Film TABLE

•

131

4.6.

Comparison of Special Twenty Reviews w i t h Other Reviews from Two Time Periods Same Twenty Films

General Sample

Terms

Devices

Terms

Early

0.002

20%

0.0011

7%

Later

0.0034

75%

0.0024

54%

Period

Devices

g r o u p o f t w e n t y reviews o f the same films was published between 1960 a n d 1982; these are c o m p a r e d t o a l l reviews f r o m the years 1 9 6 0 t o 1985. I n table 4.6 w e see t h a t the reviews o f the t w e n t y early films appear m o r e likely t o c o n t a i n a specialized v o c a b u l a r y a n d technique t h a n other reviews o f the p e r i o d . H o w e v e r , the magnitude o f the increase i n the use o f the v o c a b u l a r y a n d the techniques between the early a n d later periods is nearly identical f o r b o t h the t w e n t y reviews o f the same films a n d for the general reviews. O n e possible e x p l a n a t i o n for w h y the t w e n t y reviews o f the same films differ f r o m the general reviews is t h a t there is a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f reviews o f foreign-language films a m o n g the t w e n t y reviews o f the same films. As w i l l be discussed below, reviews o f foreign films contained a specialized v o c a b u l a r y a n d specialized techniques earlier t h a n d i d reviews o f English-language films. O v e r a l l , the c o m p a r i s o n o f reviews o f the same films lends support t o the argument t h a t the observed changes i n f i l m review are n o t merely a reflection o f an increase i n the artistic nature o f films, b u t instead repre­ sent an e v o l u t i o n i n c r i t i c a l practices. Critics were acting as influencers rather t h a n as m i r r o r s . T h i s is n o t t o say t h a t reviewers can w r i t e any­ t h i n g they w i s h , b u t rather t h a t there are o p t i o n s open t o reviewers i n h o w they c r i t i q u e culture. I n the p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g the creation o f a m o r e favorable o p p o r t u n i t y space, f i l m reviewers chose to treat f i l m as an art f o r m rather t h a n as mere entertainment. A m o n g the t w e n t y films reviewed t w i c e , the Disney animated f i l m Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs provides an excellent example o f a f i l m that was approached i n a r a d i c a l l y different w a y the second t i m e a r o u n d . T h e review f r o m the New Yorker after the film's premiere i n 1 9 3 8 , a l t h o u g h a c k n o w l e d g i n g the film's appeal for adults, treated the f i l m as a simple c a r t o o n . T h e entire review is 3 0 7 w o r d s l o n g , a n d the conclusion reads: 22

H e has perhaps overdone the w i c k e d stepmother, and just for a m o m e n t or t w o has t i n t e d the f i l m w i t h t o o l u r i d a t o u c h . I n one other element, too, I t h i n k M r . Disney's j u d g m e n t has erred. The language o f the dwarfs is funny, b u t i t must be called a little t o u g h . I t smacks t o o m u c h

132

• Chapter 4

o f the language o f the streets, and i n a f i l m like this i t s h o u l d be most literate, p u n c t i l i o u s , a n d p o l i t e . N o nice d w a r f , M r . Disney, ever says " a i n ' t . " (January 15,52) I n contrast, the A u g u s t 2 , 1 9 7 3 , review i n the Village Voice began w i t h the assumption that the f i l m operates o n m u l t i p l e levels a n d therefore s h o u l d be carefully analyzed w i t h i n the context o f Disney's oeuvre: Disney is for c h i l d r e n as m u c h as C h a p l i n and K e a t o n are, by w h i c h I mean t h a t c h i l d r e n understand the broadest aspects o f these artists— the lowest slapstick comedy and, i n the case o f Disney, t h e t e r r o r — b u t little else. " B a m b i , " for example, w i t h its subtle m o o d studies, its deliberate lack o f story-line and identification figures, left the largely children's audience I saw i t w i t h restless. . . . O n a narrative level this sense o f the past and emphasis o n f a m i l y relationships m a k e the films, like fairy tales, fertile g r o u n d for Freudian analysis. As i n the G r i m m o r i g i n a l , " S N O W W H I T E A N D T H E S E V E N D W A R F S " centers a r o u n d a sex­

ual jealousy between a n overweeningly v a i n queen a n d her innocent step-daughter. T h i s excerpt is just a small p o r t i o n o f the m u c h longer review, b u t i t is t y p i c a l o f the tone, p o s t u r i n g , language, and technique f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t the review. T h i s same i n c o n g r u i t y between t i m e periods can be f o u n d i n reviews o f foreign-language films as w e l l , as they t o o , like H o l l y w o o d films, were i n i t i a l l y defined by most U.S. intellectuals as entertainment. H o w else t o e x p l a i n the New Yorker reviewer's refusal t o engage Jean Renoir's The Rules of the Game as a serious w o r k ? The Rules of the Game is one o f the most acclaimed films o f a l l t i m e . Sight and Sound's (of the British F i l m Institute) p u b l i c a t i o n o f its once-a-decade p o l l o f crit­ ics has f o u n d the f i l m near the t o p o f the list o f best films since 1 9 5 2 . Here is the entire New Yorker review ( A p r i l 2 2 , 1950, 105): " T h e Rules o f the G a m e " is a Jean Renoir picture t h a t was made i n France before the war. I t is an extremely d u l l description o f a weekend i n the country, f u l l o f aimless p h i l a n d e r i n g and general slapstick. L o r d k n o w s w h a t M . R e n o i r h a d i n m i n d w h e n he confected this one, b u t i t certainly reveals none o f the skill t h a t w e n t i n t o " G r a n d I l l u s i o n . " Except for a c o m p a r i s o n o f the f i l m w i t h another f i l m b y Renoir, this review neglects t o engage w i t h the f i l m according t o any o f the conven­ tions that were later i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o r e v i e w i n g . By c r i t i c i z i n g the f i l m as " d u l l " w i t h o u t any a c k n o w l e d g m e n t that the f i l m m i g h t have h a d other artistic goals, the review also i m p l i c i t l y reinforces an approach t o films as entertainment. Consider, by w a y o f contrast, the Village Voice's closing lines i n a 1 9 6 1 (January 2 6 , 12) review:

The Intellectualization of Film

•

133

Renoir's f o r m a l c o m m a n d o f his film is beautiful. D u r i n g the last p a r t o f the p i c t u r e , the camera moves a b o u t almost like another guest. I t m u s t be some q u a l i t y o f Renoir's t h a t makes his camera lens seem a l ­ ways a witness a n d never a voyeur. T h e witness here communicates a p o w e r f u l m i x t u r e o f amusement a n d disquiet. "Rules o f the G a m e " was made i n 1 9 3 9 , after a l l ; i t is n o t o n l y a w o n d e r f u l piece o f filmmak­ i n g , n o t o n l y a great w o r k o f h u m a n i s m a n d social comedy i n a perfect rococo frame, b u t also an act o f h i s t o r i c a l testimony. T h e findings f r o m the analysis o f the t w o sets o f reviews o f the same films are congruent w i t h Becker's (1982) expectation a b o u t w h a t actors i n a developing art w o r l d w i l l d o . H e w r i t e s , "aspirants [ t o the status o f art] construct histories w h i c h tie the w o r k their w o r l d produces t o already accepted arts, a n d emphasize those elements o f their pasts w h i c h are most clearly artistic, w h i l e suppressing less desirable ancestors" ( 3 3 9 ) . T h e act o f analyzing a n d sacralizing older w o r k s w i t h i n an art w o r l d has the effect o f creating a c a n o n o f "classics" a n d a coherent aesthetic regarding an art f o r m . I m p o r t a n t l y , the c a n o n i z a t i o n occurs retrospectively rather t h a n w i t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t . 2 3

F I L M REVIEWS APPROACH B O O K REVIEWS: A COMPARISON W I T H LITERATURE

We n o w have a g o o d sense o f h o w film reviews changed i n the 1960s. B u t a l t h o u g h the trends are fairly clear concerning the changing nature o f film review, w e need t o better understand w h y these trends are o c c u r r i n g . A c o m p a r i s o n w i t h trends i n literature can help t o answer some questions t h a t arise, such as, are changes i n film review a result o f changes i n artistic review i n general? D o these changes really represent a m o v e m e n t t o w a r d a " h i g h a r t " m o d e o f review? Reviews o f fiction p r o v i d e a suitable basis for c o m p a r i s o n because literature, especially t h a t w h i c h is advertised i n the p u b l i c a t i o n s e x a m i n e d here, was w e l l established as an artistic me­ d i u m l o n g before the t i m e p e r i o d under study (Leary 1 9 7 6 : c h . l ) . I n a d d i ­ t i o n , b o t h art forms generally i n v o l v e a narrative, a n d neither involves a live performance i n the presence o f an audience. T h e convergence o f trends i n film review a n d b o o k review w o u l d s u p p o r t the argument t h a t the f u n c t i o n o f critics i n the film w o r l d was c o m i n g t o resemble the func­ t i o n o f critics i n other established art w o r l d s . So as t o compare film reviews a n d b o o k reviews i n as objective a m a n ­ ner as possible, further content analysis is i n order. T h e b o o k - r e v i e w sam­ ple consists o f reviews o f fiction f r o m the same three periodicals f r o m w h i c h the film-review sample was d r a w n (the New York Times, the New

134

•

Chapter 4

Figure 4.2. "High A r t " and "Critical" Terms in Film and Book Reviews: 1930, 1940,1960,1970

Yorker, and Time). I n order t o economize o n labor, four t i m e periods were chosen t o illustrate h o w the t w o sets o f reviews compare i n i t i a l l y (1935 a n d 1940), just p r i o r t o the major changes i n the f i l m w o r l d ( 1 9 6 0 ) , a n d immediately f o l l o w i n g the major changes i n the f i l m w o r l d ( 1 9 7 0 ) . T h e first available review f r o m each m o n t h f r o m the three periodicals p r o ­ v i d e d t h i r t y - s i x reviews for each o f the f o u r selected years ( N = 1 4 4 ) . T h e content analysis here replicates the analysis o f film reviews, first c o u n t i n g the use o f specific t e r m s , and then c o u n t i n g the use o f c r i t i c a l devices. Figure 4.2 illustrates h o w the t o t a l counts o f " h i g h a r t " a n d " c r i t i c a l " terms f o u n d i n the b o o k reviews compare t o the counts i n the film reviews. The totals o f all terms for each t i m e p e r i o d i n the b o o k reviews are fairly stable. The t o t a l i n 1970 o f 93 terms is quite close t o the t o t a l o f 87 i n 1935. T h i s contrasts w i t h the t o t a l terms for film reviews, w h i c h lag far behind i n 1935 and 1 9 4 0 , increase moderately i n 1960, a n d then increase d r a m a t i c a l l y i n the final t i m e p e r i o d . T h i s c o u n t o f " h i g h a r t " a n d " c r i t i ­ c a l " terms demonstrates a convergence i n the specialized v o c a b u l a r y o f film a n d b o o k review. Figure 4.3 then shows t h a t the same trends o b t a i n after t a k i n g i n t o account the length o f the b o o k and film reviews. T h i s figure represents 24

25

The Intellectualization of Film

•

135

Figure 4.3. Number of Specialized Terms Divided by Total Words in Film and Book Reviews: 1930, 1940, 1960, 1970

the n u m b e r o f specialized terms d i v i d e d by t o t a l review w o r d s . W h a t is n o t directly represented i n the figure is the fact t h a t the n u m b e r o f w o r d s used t o compose the average b o o k review increased f r o m 7 1 7 t o 1,012, an increase o f 4 1 percent over the i n i t i a l p e r i o d . However, despite this lengthening, f i l m reviews were m u c h m o r e similar t o b o o k reviews i n 1970 t h a n i n any o f the earlier t i m e periods. W i t h the average film review h a v i n g 4 1 4 w o r d s i n 1 9 3 5 , film reviews were 73 percent shorter t h a n b o o k reviews. T h e difference between t h e m shrank t o 13 percent i n 1 9 7 0 . D i v i d i n g the " h i g h a r t " a n d " c r i t i c a l " terms by the t o t a l review w o r d s gives us the density o f the specialized vocabulary. A l t h o u g h the density o f the v o c a b u l a r y for b o o k reviews changes o n l y slightly over t i m e , for film reviews i t f o l l o w s the same p a t t e r n as the n u m b e r o f w o r d s o v e r a l l , con­ verging w i t h b o o k reviews i n t h a t last p e r i o d . T h e o v e r a l l picture t h a t emerges, as represented i n figures 4.2 a n d 4.3, is one where b o o k reviews p r o v i d e a fairly stable standard for the v o c a b u ­ lary o f artistic discourse, a n d the v o c a b u l a r y o f film review approaches this standard, p a r t i c u l a r l y post-1960, after i n i t i a l deficits. 26

Figure 4.4 provides further evidence o f the convergence i n b o o k a n d film reviews. T h i s figure shows t h a t the percent o f film a n d b o o k reviews using three or m o r e o f the specified techniques f o l l o w s the same p a t t e r n .

27

136

•

Chapter 4

Figure 4.4. Percentage of Film and Book Reviews with Three or More Specified Techniques: 1930, 1940, 1960, 1970

A g a i n , b o o k reviews e x h i b i t stability w h i l e f i l m reviews i n i t i a l l y lag a n d t h e n catch u p i n the final t i m e p e r i o d . A l t h o u g h i t is n o t presented, one o f the most salient findings is the consistency w i t h w h i c h authors are m e n t i o n e d i n b o o k r e v i e w s — 1 0 0 per­ cent i n each t i m e p e r i o d . T h i s is n o t a surprising result; i t is n a t u r a l t o discuss the a u t h o r w h e n r e v i e w i n g literature. H o w e v e r , literature c o n ­ trasts w i t h film insofar as the credit for the final w o r k o f art is focused o n an i n d i v i d u a l . T h i s contrast, t h o u g h , has faded over t i m e as the d i r e c t o r has emerged w i t h i n film t h e o r y as m o r e central t o the artistic process t h a n all others i n v o l v e d i n filmmaking. A n o t h e r interesting finding is t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f b o o k reviews inter­ pret the meaning o f the b o o k s i n every t i m e p e r i o d . F i l m reviews, however, offer an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n a m i n o r i t y o f cases i n 1 9 3 5 , 1 9 4 0 , a n d 1 9 6 0 , a l t h o u g h the p r o p o r t i o n is highest i n 1 9 6 0 . I n 1970 69 percent o f film reviews interpret the films, a p r o p o r t i o n t h a t is s i m i l a r t o t h a t f o r b o o k reviews (67 percent). T h e content analysis as a w h o l e , t h e n , paints a picture o f i n i t i a l differ­ ences f o l l o w e d by convergence between the characteristics o f film r e v i e w a n d b o o k review. There are t w o i m p o r t a n t points t o be made r e g a r d i n g

The Intellectualization of Film

•

137

these results. First, i t appears t h a t insofar as literature is representative o f h i g h a r t , the observed trends in film review reflect a movement toward a high art mode of review. T h i s is reassuring—we have m o r e confidence t h a t w e are d r a w i n g the r i g h t conclusions a b o u t the film review results. Second, the data do not support the idea that the observed trends in film review are a result of more widespread changes in artistic reviewing. A g a i n , this is reassuring. I t helps t o discredit a m a j o r alternative interpre­ t a t i o n o f the film-review findings. 28

1960s A D V E R T I S E M E N T S I N C O R P O R A T E F I L M R E V I E W

T h i s chapter has so far been concerned w i t h d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t U.S. film discourse changed d u r i n g the 1960s. T h e changes i n discourse reveal a n e w attitude o n the p a r t o f critics, an attitude t h a t i t was correct a n d a p p r o p r i a t e t o analyze, interpret, a n d evaluate films as art. T h e objective o f this b o o k , however, is t o e x p l a i n h o w this perception became w i d e ­ spread a m o n g a p o r t i o n o f the A m e r i c a n p u b l i c . C r i t i c a l discourse, there­ fore, is o n l y relevant i f a case can be made t h a t i t resonated w i t h a n d was adopted by a w i d e r segment o f the p u b l i c . I t u r n n o w t o the second m a j o r goal o f this chapter, w h i c h is t o p r o v i d e e m p i r i c a l support for the assertion t h a t the critics' l e g i t i m a t i n g ideology for film was received a n d t a k e n u p by a w i d e r audience. T h i s argument rests o n a key observation concerning the nature o f ad­ vertisements, w h i c h , because strategically designed t o be appealing t o au­ diences, necessarily i n c o r p o r a t e characteristics t h a t are i m p o r t a n t a n d o f interest t o audiences concerning w h a t is being advertised. I n the case o f film, then, by e x a m i n i n g changes i n film advertisements over m a n y years, w e can see w h a t has become m o r e or less i m p o r t a n t t o a n d interesting for audiences regarding film. I n this way, advertisements e m b o d y the changing expectations a n d preferences o f audiences. W i t h respect t o the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f film review as a fundamental characteristic o f film adver­ tisements, w e have c o m p e l l i n g e m p i r i c a l evidence regarding h o w m u c h w e i g h t film audiences have given t o critics. T h e p r i m a r y e m p i r i c a l result presented i n this section is t h a t critical success increasingly served as a selling p o i n t for films i n newspaper advertisements, w i t h a large increase o c c u r r i n g i n the late 1960s. The sample consists o f advertisements, between 1935 a n d 1 9 8 5 , f r o m the first Tuesday and Friday i n January for every fifth year f r o m the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, a n d f r o m the first Tuesday a n d Friday i n July for every fifth year f r o m the Detroit News, the Washington Post, a n d the Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal. A l l tables i n this section are based o n the resulting N o f 2,553. These periodicals serve a 29

30

31

138

•

Chapter 4

diverse set o f audiences; any advertising trends that emerge can be assumed t o represent the expectations and preferences o f a diverse p o p u l a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , advertisements come f r o m summer and winter, a n d weekends a n d weekdays. T h r o u g h a strictly objective manifest c o d i n g scheme, I re­ corded several variables. Beginning w i t h the date and source o f the adver­ tisement, I then recorded whether there was at least one "critic-quote p a i r " (e.g., " A magnificent film"—New York Times). U n a t t r i b u t e d quotes are indistinguishable f r o m the general self-promotion that is advertisement, a n d were therefore n o t counted. N e x t , I recorded the t o t a l n u m b e r o f criticquote pairs i n the advertisement, the n u m b e r o f w o r d s q u o t e d i n each critic-quote pair, a n d the length and w i d t h o f each advertisement, r o u n d e d t o the nearest quarter inch, used t o calculate the area o f each advertise­ ment. Finally, I coded for references t o the direction o f the film and the use o f the w o r d "master" or its variants i n the critic-quote pairs. T h e content analysis as a w h o l e provides an i n d i c a t i o n o f the changing value o f critical discourse as a t o o l for creating a positive impression o f films.

Trends

in the Use of Criticism

in

Advertisements

Table 4.7 reports three measurements o f the degree t o w h i c h film r e v i e w has been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o film advertisements. (These are baseline mea­ sures; the changing size o f advertisements is dealt w i t h later.) T h e first c o l u m n addresses the basic question o f w h a t percent o f advertisements have at least one c r i t i c - q u o t e pair. T h i s measurement can be considered a baseline t h r e s h o l d for the extent t o w h i c h film reviews are i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o advertisements. A t the beginning o f the t i m e p e r i o d , the percentage is quite l o w : o n l y 7 percent o f advertisements c o n t a i n at least one criticquote pair. T h i s percentage increases g r a d u a l l y w i t h each t i m e p e r i o d u n t i l 1 9 6 5 , w h e n a large increase o f nearly 2 0 percentage p o i n t s occurs be­ t w e e n 1965 a n d 1 9 7 0 . After a very small decrease, the percentage is stable u n t i l another large increase occurs between 1980 a n d 1 9 8 5 . Advertisements, t h e n , became m o r e l i k e l y t o include at least one quote f r o m a film review. T o clarify w h a t was happening w i t h film advertise­ ments, a n d t o s u p p o r t this i n i t i a l finding, w e can also l o o k at h o w m a n y quotes were used i n the average advertisement a n d h o w l o n g the average quote was. C o l u m n s 2 a n d 3 p r o v i d e this i n f o r m a t i o n a n d i n d o i n g so reinforce the findings o f c o l u m n 1. The m e a n n u m b e r o f critic-quote pairs per advertisement g r a d u a l l y increases u n t i l 1 9 6 5 , w h e n a larger increase occurs, t h e n s t a b i l i z a t i o n u n t i l a second j u m p between 1 9 8 0 a n d 1 9 8 5 . As f o r the mean n u m b e r o f w o r d s per quote, this measure takes a substan­ t i a l j u m p between 1935 a n d 1 9 4 0 , rises moderately u n t i l 1 9 6 5 , a n d t h e n takes another substantial j u m p between 1965 a n d 1 9 7 0 , after w h i c h t i m e i t appears t o plateau.

The Intellectualization of Film

•

139

T A B L E 4.7.

Three Measures of the Incorporation of Film Review: Percentage of Advertisements w i t h at Least One Quote, Mean Number of Quotes, and Number of Words per Quote in Film Advertisements: 1935-1985

Year

Percentage of Advertisements with at Least One Quote

Mean Number of Quotes per Advertisement

Mean Number of Words per Quote

7

0.1

1940

9

0.1

6.1

1945

14

0.2

5.6

1935

2.8

1950

15

0.3

6.4

1955

22

0.4

7.1

1960

25

0.4

9.6

1965

27

0.5

8.1

1970

46

1.1

12.6

1975

44

1.2

11.3

1980

47

1.3

13.3

1985

70

2.2

Spearman's rho

99***

13.5

1.00***

97* * *

*** p < .001 (one-tailed tests)

C o l u m n s 2 a n d 3 a d d t o our understanding o f the trends i n the i n c o r p o ­ r a t i o n o f film review. W h i l e c o l u m n 1 shows t h a t an increasing p r o p o r t i o n o f advertisements utilized critical commentary, columns 2 a n d 3 s h o w t h a t those advertisements using critical c o m m e n t a r y d i d so m o r e a n d m o r e intensively. A m o n g those advertisements q u o t i n g critics, there was a statistically significant increase i n the use o f m u l t i p l e c r i t i c - q u o t e pairs a n d t o quote larger passages f r o m film r e v i e w s . T h e increases i n the 1 9 6 5 - 7 0 p e r i o d clearly stand o u t a n d are consis­ tent w i t h the larger e x p l a n a t i o n o f changes i n film discourse. H o w e v e r , the increases i n the 1 9 8 0 - 8 5 p e r i o d are somewhat p u z z l i n g . A plausible e x p l a n a t i o n is t o p o i n t t o a technological development t h a t caused the film i n d u s t r y grave concern at t h a t t i m e : the g r o w t h i n h o m e video play­ ers. W h e n the h o m e video m a r k e t began, the film i n d u s t r y believed t h a t the theatrical m a r k e t for films was critically threatened. T h e i n i t i a l indus­ t r y reaction was t o take legal action against manufacturers o f h o m e video players, based o n c o p y r i g h t concerns, i n order t o preserve the theatrical m a r k e t . I t is possible t h a t another i n d u s t r y reaction was t o heighten the 32

140

•

Chapter 4

appeal t o audiences for seeing films i n theaters. T h u s , the intensification o f the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f c r i t i c a l c o m m e n t a r y i n film reviews m i g h t have been a m a r k e t i n g strategy t o ensure against a d o w n t u r n i n theater admis­ sions. Interestingly, the measure o f the mean n u m b e r o f w o r d s per quote does n o t substantially increase between 1980 a n d 1985. I t c o u l d be t h a t advertisers recognized t h a t excerpts are ideally n o t t o o l o n g , as readers m i g h t be less likely t o read longer excerpts o r t o remember t h e m . By several measures, t h e n , advertisements increasingly relied on critical discourse as a way to market movies. I t was especially i n the late 1960s t h a t studios decided t h a t w h a t critics were saying was i m p o r t a n t enough t o audiences t h a t this discourse c o u l d f u n c t i o n as a m a r k e t i n g t e c h n i q u e . W i t h o u t audience interest i n critical commentary, there w o u l d have been n o p o i n t i n i n c l u d i n g excerpts f r o m r e v i e w s . 33

34

35

A n a t u r a l question t o pose at this p o i n t concerns the content o f the excerpts. Just w h a t k i n d s o f critical c o m m e n t a r y d i d studios t h i n k reso­ nated w i t h audiences? I t is difficult t o summarize q u a n t i t a t i v e l y the nature o f these excerpts, b u t before w e move o n t o a m o r e q u a l i t a t i v e assessment w e can l o o k at t w o measures t h a t p r o v i d e a small w i n d o w . T h e percentage o f advertisements c o n t a i n i n g at least one m e n t i o n o f the " d i r e c t i o n " o r using the w o r d "master" o r its variants is p o r t r a y e d i n figure 4 . 5 . Refer­ ences t o b o t h increase over t i m e at statistically significant levels. So w h e n excerpts i n general became m o r e c o m m o n , w i t h b i g increases i n the late 1960s, the kinds o f excerpts chosen also increasingly reflected concern a b o u t the artistic nature o f film. These t w o measures alone d o n o t give a complete d e p i c t i o n o f the na­ ture o f the critical c o m m e n t a r y t h a t was being i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o film re­ view. H o w e v e r , these findings are consistent w i t h the changing nature o f film review itself, a n d they s u p p o r t the larger argument o f this chapter. N a m i n g the director a n d using the t e r m "master" a n d its variants were t w o features o f film review t h a t became m o r e c o m m o n i n the 1960s. D i s ­ cussion o f the d i r e c t i o n o f films a n d the identification o f "masters" (or "masterpieces," etc.) appear t o have resonated w i t h film audiences. Fur­ t h e r m o r e , the largest increases i n these t w o measures coincide w i t h the p e r i o d o f greatest change i n film reviews a n d film advertisements i n gen­ eral. As film discourse changed t o legitimate film as art i n the 1960s, i t was reaching the reading U.S. p u b l i c a n d i t meant something t o t h e m . These tables q u a n t i f y trends t h a t are readily apparent t o an observer w h o reads even a small n u m b e r o f advertisements f r o m the t i m e periods i n question. The overall appearance o f advertisements for films was c o n ­ t i n u o u s l y changing. H o w e v e r , the advertisements o f the 1930s, 1940s, a n d , for the most p a r t , 1950s, e m p l o y e d a f o r m a t t h a t appears quite dated f r o m today's perspective. D u r i n g the 1960s a n d i n t o the 1970s, t h o u g h , advertisements adopted a f o r m a t t h a t is essentially similar t o c u r r e n t 36

37

The Intellectualization of Film

•

141

Figure 4.5. Percentage of Film Advertisements Referring to "Masters," etc., and to Direction: 1935-1985

trends. Extensive listing o f credits was one feature t h a t became standard. A n d whereas i n earlier t i m e o n l y the lead actors were consistently named, it became c o m m o n p l a c e d u r i n g the 1960s t o list the director, producer, screenwriter, a n d others, usually g r o u p e d at the b o t t o m o f the advertise­ ment. A l s o d u r i n g this t i m e critics' reviews began t o be i n c o r p o r a t e d , re­ sembling current practice. We see a great increase i n the reliance o n c r i t i c a l success t o m a r k e t films between 1960 a n d 1 9 7 0 . A close l o o k at a series o f advertisements for famous films provides a clear i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the change. Take, for instance, the advertisements for Casablanca (1942) a n d for The Grapes of Wrath (1940) t h a t appeared i n the New York Times s h o r t l y after their respective premieres. By today's standards, w h e n quotes f r o m critics are eagerly i n c o r p o r a t e d whenever possible, the advertisements for Casablanca a n d The Grapes of Wrath are startlingly barren. B o t h are relatively small a n d include n o quotes f r o m critics. These are films t h a t were w e l l received. Studios w i s h i n g t o find quotes t o p u t i n the advertisements c o u l d have easily done so. A n d the films were m a j o r p r o d u c t i o n s that w a r r a n t e d substantial p r o m o t i o n . M o r e o v e r , the advertisement for The Grapes of Wrath mentions the p r o ­ ducer b u t n o t the director, J o h n F o r d , w h o has since been canonized as one o f the greatest A m e r i c a n directors. Gone with the Wind was an enor-

142

•

Chapter 4

mous cinematic event i n 1 9 3 9 , a n d the advertisements t h a t appeared i n the New York Times f o l l o w i n g its premiere i n December o f 1939 are quite revealing. T h e advertisements for this f i l m evolved i n f o r m a t a n d content i n the weeks f o l l o w i n g the premiere, b u t the various versions have i n c o m ­ m o n an absence o f quotes f r o m c r i t i c s — a l l the m o r e s t r i k i n g because the advertisements for Gone with the Wind were quite large, sometimes a quarter the size o f the page, w i t h a great deal o f b l a n k space. I n contrast t o these earlier films, advertisements for The Godfather (1972) a n d Chinatown (1974) are composed primarily o f critics' quotes. A d m i t t e d l y , these films were exceptionally w e l l received, a n d so the adver­ tisements are above average for their p e r i o d i n the n u m b e r o f w o r d s they quote f r o m critics. H o w e v e r , Casablanca, The Grapes of Wrath, a n d Gone with the Wind h a d a l l received positive reviews as w e l l , a n d yet the New York Times advertisements for these films q u o t e d n o critics. T h e contrast between the advertisements for Gone with the Wind a n d The Godfather a n d Chinatown shows t h a t there is flexibility i n the choice o f h o w t o fill a given a m o u n t o f space. Gone with the Wind's advertise­ m e n t contains open space a n d i n f o r m a t i o n about show times a n d prices, whereas advertisements for The Godfather a n d Chinatown contain al­ most n o open space o r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t show t i m e or prices. Further­ m o r e , the font size o f title a n d names o f actors is generally larger i n earlier advertisements a n d therefore occupies a greater p r o p o r t i o n o f the avail­ able space. The greater available space i n m o r e recent periods, generated by o m i t t i n g nonessential i n f o r m a t i o n , s h r i n k i n g the typesetting, a n d i n ­ creasing the t o t a l size o f advertisements, is filled w i t h c r i t i c a l o p i n i o n s . M a n y o f the excerpts are n o t concerned w i t h evaluating the films o n the level o f art. However, m a n y are. M o r e o v e r , the often lengthy excerpts f o u n d i n m a n y advertisements i n the late 1960s and t h r o u g h o u t the 1970s are s t r i k i n g l y serious a n d w e i g h t y f r o m a c o n t e m p o r a r y perspective. Rather t h a n merely telling audiences whether a f i l m was w o r t h the price o f admission, the quotes offered comparisons w i t h other films, directors, a n d actors, and o p i n i o n s a b o u t m a n y different components o f the films. M o s t i m p o r t a n t , the increase d u r i n g the 1960s i n the presence o f c r i t i c a l o p i n i o n is evidence t h a t critics h a d begun t o play a larger role i n the recep­ t i o n a n d appreciation o f film a m o n g A m e r i c a n audiences.

Controlling

for Changes in Advertising

Space

Before t u r n i n g t o an analysis o f the trends, i t is necessary t o consider the possibility t h a t the observed increases i n the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f film reviews i n t o advertisements is n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n the result o f an increase i n adver­ tising space. I f there is e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t for this alternative e x p l a n a t i o n o f the observed trends, then the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f advertisements as i n d i c a ­ tive o f a l i n k between critics a n d the reading p u b l i c loses credibility. There

The Intellectualization of Film

•

143

T A B L E 4.8.

Coefficients for Three Regression Models of the Incorporation of Film Review into Advertisements on Square Inches of Advertising Space and Year Dependent Independent Variable Advertising space Year 1940 Year 1945 Year 1950 Year 1955 Year 1960 Year 1965 Year 1970 Year 1975 Year 1980 Year 1985 Number of cases

Variable

At Least One Quote

Number of Quotes

.06 *** (.01) .24 (.48) .84 » (.42) .88 * (.41) 1.38 ** (.40) 1.53 *** (.40) 1.57 *** (.40) 2.21 *** (.39) 2.08 *** (.40) 2.12 *** (.39) 3.14 *** (.40) 2553 .1553

.07 *** (.00) .07 (.18) .14 (.17) .21 (.16) .30 (.16) .32 * (.16) .35 * (.16) .65 *** (.16)

a

74 *** (.17) .76 *** (.16) 1.57 *** (.17) 2553 .2364 b

Number of Words ^ Yj * * * (.05) .83 (2.44) 1.47 (2.24) 1.79 (2.14) 2.37 (2.16) 3.57 (2.17) 2.55 (2.18) 7.54 *** (2.16) 6.76 ** (2.25) 9.36 *** (2.20) 20.14 *** (2.26) 2553 .2875

Notes: Coefficients for the measure of whether there was at least one quote were obtained through logistic regression. Standard errors are in parentheses. The 1935 time period is the omitted category. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 (one-tailed tests) Pseudo R-squared Adjusted R-Squared a

b

is indeed an increase i n the average size o f an advertisement, f r o m 2.86 square inches i n 1935 t o 10.84 square inches i n 1985. H o w e v e r , changes in advertising space cannot account for changes in the content of film advertisements, w i t h respect t o the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f critical commentary. Table 4.8 reports the coefficients for regressions o f the three measures o f the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f film review i n t o advertisements o n advertising space and d u m m y variables for t i m e periods, o m i t t i n g the first p e r i o d . By i n c l u d i n g the size (in square inches) o f each advertisement i n the regres-

144

•

Chapter 4

T A B L E 4.9.

Coefficients from the Regression of Three Measures of Incorporation of Film Review on Advertising Space and Time Period Measurement of Incorporation of Film Review Independent Variables

At Least One Quote

Number of Quotes

Number of Words

.64*** (.01)

.07*** (.00)

(.02)

1970-1985

1.20*** (.42)

.66*** (.06)

3.61*** (.30)

Number of cases

2553 .1283

2553 .2150

2553 .2061

Advertisement size

a

b

29* * *

b

Notes: Coefficients for the measure of whether there was at least one quote were obtained through logistic regression. Standard errors are in parentheses. The 1935-65 time period is the omitted category. *** p < .001 (one-tailed tests) Pseudo R-squared Adjusted R-squared a

b

sions, w e can detect w h e t h e r there was a tendency t o i n c o r p o r a t e f i l m review t h a t was independent o f the tendency t o place larger advertise­ m e n t s . T h e first c o l u m n o f coefficients was obtained t h r o u g h logistic regression. T h e second a n d t h i r d c o l u m n s were o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h O L S regression. The three analyses p r o v i d e very similar results. C o n t r o l l i n g for advertising space, the coefficients for the t i m e periods increase fairly steadily f r o m earliest t o m o s t recent. I n each case, there is a noticeable j u m p between 1965 a n d 1 9 7 0 . T h e statistical significance o f the coeffi­ cients varies between the three c o l u m n s . H o w e v e r , the overall p a t t e r n is for coefficients for m o r e recent t i m e periods t o enjoy greater statistical significance. For each measure, the coefficients for the t i m e periods f r o m 1970 a n d beyond are significant at the . 0 0 1 level. These results strongly suggest t h a t the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f film review i n t o advertisements is n o t an artifact o f the tendency f o r studios t o purchase m o r e advertising space. I n order t o test m o r e directly the hypothesis t h a t there is an i m p o r t a n t d i s c o n t i n u i t y i n the late 1960s, table 4.9 presents the same three regres­ sions w i t h the d u m m y variables for each t i m e p e r i o d replaced by one d u m m y variable for the 1 9 7 0 - 8 0 p e r i o d . T h e results s h o w the c o m p a r i ­ son o f this later p e r i o d w i t h the pre-1970 t i m e p e r i o d . For each filmreview measure, w h i l e c o n t r o l l i n g for advertising space, the post-1970 g r o u p differs f r o m the pre-1970 g r o u p at the . 0 0 1 level o f statistical sig38

The Intellectualization of Film TABLE

•

145

4.10.

Three Measures of the Incorporation of Film Review: Percentage of Advertise­ ments w i t h at Least One Quote, Mean Number of Quotes, and Number of Words per Quote in Film Advertisements at Least Four Square Inches: 1935-1985 Percentage of Advertisements with at Least One Quote

Year

Mean Number of Quotes per Advertisement

Mean Number of Words per Quote

1935

14

0.1

4.0

1940

5

0.2

5.3

1945

3

0.1

3.5

1950

28

0.9

8.1

1955

36

1.0

8.6

1960

37

0.8

17.9

1965

36

1.0

9.6

1970

55

1.6

13.8

1975

60

1.9

11.9

1980

52

1.7

14.7

1985

80

2.8

14.6

.92***

.92***

.82***

Spearman's rho

*** p < .001 (one-tailed tests)

nificance. These results clearly justify the identification o f the late 1960s as a t u r n i n g p o i n t i n the practice o f using f i l m reviews t o m a r k e t films. A Minimum

Threshold

I n any given advertisement, a n u m b e r o f requirements mus t be met. T h e title o f the f i l m m u s t be stated, a n d nearly every advertisement tells the audience w h o the stars o f the f i l m are. O t h e r features are also often i n ­ cluded, such as a p i c t u r e or d r a w i n g o f the stars, or the names o f the people w h o p r o d u c e d , directed, a n d were otherwise i n v o l v e d i n the f i l m . Because advertisements cannot consist o n l y o f quotes, the i n c l u s i o n o f such necessarily occurs less often i n smaller advertisements. T h e obvious question then becomes, d o the same trends o b t a i n w h e n l o o k i n g o n l y at advertisements b i g enough t o easily have r o o m for quotes? To answer this w e can measure the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f f i l m r e v i e w i n t o those advertisements i n the sample t h a t are four square inches o r larger i n size ( N = 8 8 4 ) . Table 4.10 reports the same three measurements o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f f i l m review i n t o advertisements as table 4 . 7 , n o w re39

146

•

Chapter 4

T A B L E 4.11.

Coefficients from the Regression of Three Measures of Incorporation of Film Review on Advertising Space and Time Period Measurement of Incorporation of Film Review Independent Variables 1970-1985 Number of cases

At Least One Quote

Number of Quotes

Number of Words

1.43*** (.16)

127*** (.17)

6.42*** (.75)

884 .0754*

884 .0601

884 .0751

b

b

Notes: Coefficient for the measure of whether there was at least one quote was obtained through logistic regression. Standard errors are in parentheses. The 1935-65 time period is the omitted category. * * * p < .001 (one-tailed tests) Pseudo R-squared Adjusted R-squared a

b

stricted t o large advertisements. T h e results here are quite similar t o those for a l l advertisements. T h e presence o f at least one quote i n an advertise­ m e n t steadily increases, p e a k i n g w i t h 80 percent i n 1 9 8 5 . T h e h i g h per­ centage o f advertisements w i t h quotes i n later periods provides assurance t h a t the t h r e s h o l d o f four square inches was n o t set t o o l o w . T h e results for the mean n u m b e r o f quotes per advertisement a n d the m e a n n u m b e r o f w o r d s per quote are also similar t o the results for a l l advertisements. Large advertisements increasingly i n c o r p o r a t e d m o r e f i l m review. The three regressions p e r f o r m e d o n the entire sample f o r table 4.8 were r u n o n this sample o f large advertisements, this time o m i t t i n g the variable o f advertising space. These regressions tell us whether the post-1960s t i m e p e r i o d is, o n the w h o l e , different f r o m the pre-1970s t i m e p e r i o d . Once again, the findings reinforce those f o r a l l advertisements. I n sum, tables 4.10 a n d 4 . 1 1 demonstrate t h a t even among only largersized advertisements, film review was utilized as a marketing technique in the post-1960s era more extensively than before. A l t h o u g h advertising space is a n i m p o r t a n t variable, i t cannot e x p l a i n the change i n the nature o f f i l m advertisements i n the late 1960s.

Controlling for General Trends in the Incorporation Advertisements: A Comparison with Fiction Book

of Reviews in Advertisements

O n e further possible e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the observed increase i n the use o f critical c o m m e n t a r y i n f i l m advertisements is t h a t this t r e n d merely re-

The Intellectualization of Film

•

147

fleets a m o r e general t u r n t o w a r d critics i n advertising. I n this explana­ t i o n , f i l m advertisements used critics' quotes n o t because o f the g r o w t h i n an art w o r l d for f i l m , b u t rather because advertising i n general was becoming m o r e r e l i a n t o n experts as a m a r k e t i n g technique. Perhaps ex­ pert o p i n i o n was increasingly sought by the A m e r i c a n p u b l i c for c o n ­ s u m p t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o f contexts. D a t a o n advertisements for novels, however, suggests this was n o t the case. Rather, just as happened w i t h b o o k reviews a n d f i l m reviews, the trends f o r b o o k a n d f i l m advertisements converge i n the late 1960s. T h e data o n b o o k advertisements come f r o m t w o sources, the New York Times Book Review a n d the New Yorker. A l l advertisements f o r novels f r o m the first t w o weeks o f January a n d the first t w o weeks i n July i n the New York Times Book Review were coded. Because the New Yorker contains far fewer b o o k advertisements, a greater n u m b e r o f issues was selected. A l l advertisements f r o m every second m o n t h were coded, beginning w i t h February. T h e same f o u r t i m e periods f o r w h i c h reviews were c o m p a r e d were chosen t o illustrate h o w the t w o sets o f advertise­ ments compare i n i t i a l l y , just p r i o r t o the m a j o r changes i n the f i l m w o r l d , a n d i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g the m a j o r changes i n the f i l m w o r l d . 40

Table 4.12 reports four measures o f the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f b o o k reviews i n advertisements. T w o findings are evident. First, there seems t o be a tendency for advertisements for b o t h books a n d films t o increasingly rely o n c r i t i c a l success as a selling p o i n t . C r i t i c a l success is m o r e relevant f o r b o t h genres i n 1970 t h a n i n 1 9 3 5 . H o w e v e r , the second a n d m o r e salient finding is t h a t the trends are p r i m a r i l y characterized by their convergence. B o o k advertisements incor­ p o r a t e d critical c o m m e n t a r y f r o m the earliest periods i n the sample, at a t i m e w h e n the practice was extremely u n c o m m o n i n f i l m reviews. A l l three measures s h o w great disparities between b o o k a n d f i l m advertise­ ments i n 1935 a n d 1 9 4 0 . These disparities are greatly reduced or, i n the case o f the mean n u m b e r o f critic-quote pairs per advertisement, reversed by 1 9 7 0 . W h i l e b o o k advertisements were m o r e t h a n 6 times m o r e l i k e l y to include at least one quote i n 1 9 3 5 , they were o n l y 1.37 times m o r e l i k e l y t o d o so i n 1 9 7 0 . M o r e o v e r , the average quote i n a b o o k advertise­ m e n t contained almost 4 times as m a n y w o r d s as a quote i n a f i l m adver­ tisement i n 1 9 3 5 . I n 1970 the quotes i n b o o k advertisements contained 1.46 times as m a n y w o r d s . T h e relevance o f f i l m critics, as reflected i n advertisements, w h i l e i n i t i a l l y m u t e d , increased by 1970 t o resemble the relevance o f literary critics. B o o k advertisements changed over t i m e t o m o r e extensively i n c o r p o r a t e b o o k reviews i n 1970 t h a n i n 1 9 3 5 , a n d substantial differences w i t h f i l m reviews remained. H o w e v e r , f i l m adver­ tisements changed t o a greater degree over t i m e , a n d they came t o resem­ ble b o o k advertisements i n the extent t o w h i c h they q u o t e d critics far

148

•

Chapter 4

TABLE 4.12.

Trends in the Incorporation of Critics' Quotes: Comparison of Advertisements for Books and for Films: 1 9 3 5 , 1 9 4 0 , 1 9 6 0 , 1 9 7 0 1935

1940

1960

1970

Percentage of advertisements containing at least one quote Books Films

45 7

44

53

63

9

25

46

0.70

0.76

1.06

0.13

0.39

1.11

14.73

18.44

9.56

12.56

Mean number of quotes per advertisement Books Films

1.00 0.07

Mean number of words per quote Books Films

10.89 2.75

17.4 6.11

Number of cases Books Films

83 116

180

147

87

141

262

287

m o r e i n 1970 t h a n i n 1 9 3 5 . Just as publishers believed t h a t reading audiences were interested i n w h a t b o o k critics t h o u g h t a b o u t books a n d i n w h a t those critics t h o u g h t books h a d t o say, so studios believed t h a t f i l m g o i n g audiences were concerned w i t h w h a t f i l m critics t h o u g h t a b o u t films. T h e convergence o f trends i n b o o k a n d f i l m advertisements supports the argument t h a t the f u n c t i o n o f critics i n the f i l m w o r l d was c o m i n g t o resemble the f u n c t i o n o f critics i n other art w o r l d s .

F O R E I G N F I L M : A PATHWAY T O H I G H A R T F O R H O L L Y W O O D

It reminds one not so much of other movies about movie­ making as it does of those blends of action and philosophy that the French intellectual adventurers used to put out. It may not be Andre Malraux, but it certainly is on the level of Romain Gary—and all the more remarkable and amusing for bearing a M A D E I N U.S.A. stamp. (Time, September 1 , 1 9 8 0 , 5 8 )

T h i s chapter has so far elided the d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t was emphasized i n p r e v i ­ ous chapters between H o l l y w o o d a n d n o n - H o l l y w o o d films. Because the a i m o f this b o o k is t o e x p l a i n h o w H o l l y w o o d films i n p a r t i c u l a r became

The Intellectualization of Film

•

149

accepted as art, this d i s t i n c t i o n must be addressed i n this chapter. T h i s section e m p i r i c a l l y demonstrates t h a t f i l m discourse served t o consecrate H o l l y w o o d films i n particular, separately f r o m foreign films. I n so d o i n g , the data also reveal an i n t r i g u i n g facet o f the historical reception o f films. Just as w i t h other forms o f art, domestic p r o d u c t i o n has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been devalued relative t o foreign p r o d u c t i o n . European p r o d u c t i o n s , espe­ cially, were m o r e readily legitimated as art for the simple reason t h a t they were European. T h i s prejudice i n favor o f Europe w o r k e d t o soften the prejudice against the m e d i u m o f f i l m . T h e data strongly suggest t h a t for­ eign films were a p a t h w a y for the consecration o f H o l l y w o o d films as art. A l t h o u g h the genre o f " f i l m " maintains a large degree o f coherence, there is nonetheless widespread r e c o g n i t i o n o f i m p o r t a n t divisions w i t h i n i t , for instance the extent t o w h i c h they emphasize " a r t i s t i c " versus " c o m ­ m e r c i a l " qualities. Films are c o m m o n l y classified according t o whether they are " H o l l y w o o d " products or "independent" films. A t first glance, this d i s t i n c t i o n seems t o contradict the premise o f this b o o k . T h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n , however, is n o t as substantial as i t first appears for t w o reasons. First, i t is n o t the premise o f this b o o k t h a t a l l H o l l y w o o d films are art, b u t , rather, that a l l H o l l y w o o d films are eligible t o be per­ ceived as art, and t h a t a certain b o d y o f t h e m are w i d e l y acknowledged as such. To c l a i m t h a t a l l H o l l y w o o d films are accepted as art w o u l d be t o unwisely e x p a n d the conception o f art t o refer t o a l l things c u l t u r a l . Fortunately, t h a t is n o t necessary. Second, as i m p l i e d by the first reason, the seeming c o n t r a d i c t i o n arises o u t o f confusion a b o u t w h a t people mean w h e n they use the label " H o l l y ­ w o o d films." I n the strictest o f terms, i t applies t o Citizen Kane, The God­ father, Psycho, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and hundreds o f classics o f the early decades o f cinema. These are a l l " H o l l y w o o d films," and are also b r o a d l y accepted as real w o r k s o f art. W h e n most people d r a w a contrast between " H o l l y w o o d " and " a r t " films, they are using sloppy s h o r t h a n d t o refer t o the least respected H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n s . I f there is any con­ t r a d i c t i o n , i t resides i n the t e r m " H o l l y w o o d films" itself, for i t carries conflicting meanings. T h e pejorative sense coexists w i t h r e c o g n i t i o n o f the legitimacy o f H o l l y w o o d artistry. " H o l l y w o o d " a n d " a r t " are by n o means m u t u a l l y exclusive categories. F u r t h e r m o r e , there is an argument t o be made t h a t the d i s t i n c t i o n be­ tween H o l l y w o o d a n d art films t h a t c u r r e n t l y signifies a d e n i g r a t i o n o f the former has become sharper and m o r e corrosive since the early 1970s. T h e late 1960s a n d early 1970s are w i d e l y v i e w e d by film historians as the golden days o f art i n H o l l y w o o d , w h e n the mode o f p r o d u c t i o n m o s t closely resembled the auteur conditions i n Europe. Since then, as the blockbuster mode came t o predominate (Stringer 2 0 0 3 ) , the d i c h o t o m i z a t i o n between the terms " H o l l y w o o d " and " a r t " has increased. N o n e t h e -

150

•

Chapter 4

less, c o n t e m p o r a r y usage s h o u l d n o t obscure the fact o f the premise— t h a t " H o l l y w o o d " is n o t a n t o n y m o u s w i t h " a r t . " T o further m u d d l e the supposed distinctions, just as there is a r t i n H o l ­ l y w o o d , there is schlock i n Europe. It's just t h a t i t is almost never d i s t r i b ­ u t e d i n the U n i t e d States. A n d then there is also the independent A m e r i c a n f i l m industry, t h o u g h t t o be m o r e artistic t h a n H o l l y w o o d . Despite these complexities, there is a long-standing understanding o f European films as being artistic (see chapter 3 ) . A n d , as the excerpt f r o m the r e v i e w o f The Stunt Man at the beginning o f this section shows, there is a long-standing sense o f i n f e r i o r i t y regarding H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n s .

Foreign-Language and English-Language Data from Reviews and Advertisements

Productions:

I n a d d i t i o n t o describing h o w film discourse h i s t o r i c a l l y treated foreignlanguage films apart f r o m English-language films, data o n film r e v i e w a n d advertisements can help t o answer an i m p o r t a n t e m p i r i c a l question: A r e the observed trends i n reviews a n d advertisements an artifact o f an i n ­ crease i n the A m e r i c a n m a r k e t for foreign films? T h i s question is i m ­ p o r t a n t because film h i s t o r y scholarship shows t h a t foreign films gained i n p o p u l a r i t y i n the U n i t e d States i n the 1960s. I t is possible, therefore, t h a t a l e g i t i m a t i n g ideology for film d i d n o t first develop i n the U n i t e d States i n the 1960s. Instead, i t is possible t h a t foreign films h a d always been discussed at the level o f art i n the U n i t e d States, a n d t h a t the data d o n o t d o c u m e n t the development o f a l e g i t i m a t i n g ideology f o r a l l film, b u t rather reflect the fact t h a t foreign films became m o r e p o p u l a r i n the 1960s. I n order t o assess this e x p l a n a t i o n , t h e n , w e need t o examine the data f o r foreign-language films separately f r o m those for English-lan­ guage films. I t turns o u t t h a t this comparison provides powerful evidence that the growth of a discourse of foreign film as art served to legitimate Hollywood film as art. T h e first r o w o f table 4.13 reports the n u m b e r o f reviews o f Englishlanguage a n d foreign-language films, p o o l e d across three t i m e periods t o generate sufficiently large bases for c o m p a r i s o n . As expected, the n u m ­ ber o f reviews o f foreign-language films relative t o English-language films does indeed increase over t i m e . A r e the trends reported for reviews o v e r a l l d r i v e n by the increased representation o f reviews o f foreign-language films? A c o m p a r i s o n between t i m e periods o f English-language film re­ views alone, however, undermines the argument t h a t the o v e r a l l trends i n film review are a result o f a greater n u m b e r o f foreign films i n the sample. By every measure, w e can see t h a t reviews of English-language films evolved as drastically, or even more so, than did reviews of foreign-lan­ guage films. T h e c o m p a r i s o n o f the use o f " h i g h a r t " a n d " c r i t i c a l " terms 41

The Intellectualization of Film TABLE

•

151

4.13.

Number of " H i g h A r t " and "Critical" Terms and Three or More Critical Techniques: Reviews of English-Language versus Foreign-Language Films: 1925-1985 1945- -60

1925-40 English

Foreign

English

1965- -85

Foreign

English

Foreign

125

19

212

40

209

79

Number of words

47241

6258

79977

15694

158360

49983

Mean number of words per review

378

329

377

392

758

633

" H i g h art" and "critical" terms

Number of reviews

44

9

69

29

392

103

"High art" and "critical" terms / Total review words

0.0009

0.0014

0.0009

0.0018

0.0025

0.0021

Percentage of reviews w i t h three or more techniques

6

5

19

30

62

63

i n reviews for English-language a n d foreign-language films shows t h a t foreign-language films were somewhat m o r e l i k e l y t o use this specialized v o c a b u l a r y i n the 1 9 2 5 - 4 0 p e r i o d . We need t o l o o k at the n u m b e r o f these terms d i v i d e d by t o t a l review w o r d s , as there were nearly eight times as m a n y w o r d s w r i t t e n a b o u t English-language films as a b o u t foreignlanguage films. I n the 1 9 4 5 - 6 0 p e r i o d , the density o f the v o c a b u l a r y i n foreign-language film reviews increased, w h i l e i t remained constant i n E n ­ glish-language film reviews. I n the 1 9 6 5 - 8 5 p e r i o d , the density for b o t h types o f reviews increased, b u t m u c h m o r e for English-language film re­ views, so t h a t these contained m o r e o f the specialized v o c a b u l a r y o n a p e r - w o r d basis. T h e percent o f reviews w i t h three o r m o r e o f the critical techniques (refer back t o table 4.3 for a list o f the eight critical techniques i n film reviews) was quite l o w for b o t h English-language a n d foreign-language film reviews i n 1 9 2 5 - 4 0 . There is a slightly different pattern here i n the f o l l o w i n g pe­ r i o d insofar as there is an increase for English-language film reviews. H o w ­ ever, there is a similarity insofar as there is an even sharper increase for foreign-language film reviews. A n d there is a further similarity i n the sharp increase observed for b o t h types o f reviews i n the final p e r i o d . 42

Finally, i t is w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t the increase i n the mean n u m b e r o f w o r d s per review is s m a l l between the first t w o t i m e periods a n d then large be­ tween the final t w o t i m e periods. I t is interesting t h a t English-language

152

•

Chapter 4

f i l m reviews are even longer t h a n foreign-language f i l m reviews. F o r the m o s t p a r t , this p a t t e r n reflects the other patterns f o u n d i n this table. I n a d d i t i o n t o the s t r i k i n g changes i n reviews o f English-language films, the table also reveals a key difference between the t w o types o f reviews. T h e differences between English-language a n d foreign-language films are greatest i n the 1 9 4 5 - 6 0 t i m e p e r i o d . T h e patterns described here suggest t h a t foreign-language films were intellectualized earlier t h a n were E n ­ glish-language films. D a t a f r o m advertisements are consistent w i t h the finding t h a t foreign films were reviewed differently, m o r e i n line w i t h art, f r o m an earlier t i m e . Just as they were intellectualized earlier, so i t appears t h a t c r i t i c a l o p i n i o n was relevant t o the m a r k e t i n g o f foreign films before this was the case for English-language films. Table 4 . 1 4 breaks d o w n the measures o f the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f reviews i n t o advertisements according t o w h e t h e r the film advertised was English language o r foreign language. Before 1 9 7 0 , i n n o year d i d m o r e t h a n 2 0 percent o f advertisements for English language films c o n t a i n at least one critic's quote. Thereafter, the p r o p o r t i o n j u m p s sharply, rising t o 72 percent i n 1985. I n contrast, the p r o p o r t i o n o f advertisements for foreign-language films w i t h at least one critic's quote begins at 6 7 percent i n 1935 ( a l t h o u g h t h a t year's result is based o n a very small N ) a n d fluctuates between 35 percent a n d 65 per­ cent t h r o u g h o u t the rest o f the t i m e span. I n c o m p a r i n g the t w o trends, w e see t h a t advertisements for English-language films rise t o a n d converge w i t h advertisements for foreign language films i n the late 1 9 6 0 s . N e a r l y the same p a t t e r n prevails w h e n measuring the m e a n n u m b e r o f quotes per advertisement. T h e m a i n difference is t h a t advertisements f o r foreign-language films experience an increase over t i m e i n this measure. O t h e r w i s e w e see a basic s i m i l a r i t y : the measure is higher f o r foreignlanguage films u n t i l the 1960s, w h e n advertisements for English-language films experience a sharp increase. Thereafter there is a convergence i n the trends, f o l l o w e d by English-language films actually surpassing foreignlanguage films i n the final t i m e p e r i o d . T h e final measure o f the mean n u m b e r o f w o r d s per quote is less tel­ l i n g a b o u t the relationship between the advertisement o f foreign-language a n d English-language films. For this measure, b o t h increase consistently, a l t h o u g h the j u m p for English-language films between 1965 a n d 1 9 7 0 is greater. T h e overall picture t h a t emerges f r o m the data o n reviews a n d adver­ tisements is that a l e g i t i m a t i n g ideology for film developed first for for­ eign-language films, m o s t strongly i n the p e r i o d 1 9 4 5 - 6 0 . O n e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f these data is t h a t foreign film provided a pathway for the intellectualization of American films. I t m a y have been t h a t foreign films better c o n f o r m e d t o preexisting n o t i o n s o f w h a t k i n d o f c u l t u r e c o n 43

The Intellectualization of Film TABLE

•

153

4.14.

English-Language versus Foreign-Language: Three Measures of the Incorporation of Film Review: Percentage of Advertisements with at Least One Quote, Mean Number of Quotes, and Number of Words per Quote in Film Advertisements at Least Four Square Inches: 1935-1985

Number of Cases Foreign

Percentage of Advertisements with at Least One Quote English

Foreign

Mean Number of Quotes per Advertisement English

Foreign

Mean Number of Words per Quote

Year

English

English

1935

110

6

4

67

.04

.67

3.5

2

1940

123

18

2

50

.02

.89

6.0

6.1

Foreign

1945

197

21

11

38

.13

.52

5.8

5.1

1950

259

31

12

35

.23

.58

6.2

7.2

1955

238

33

16

64

.28

1.00

6.7

7.8

1960

221

41

19

56

.32

.76

9.6

9.4

1965

207

46

18

65

.42

.91

8.2

7.9

1970

259

28

45

54

1.00

1.61

12.9

10.5

1975

196

28

44

43

1.21

1.36

12.0

7.3

1980

227

37

44

62

1.28

1.41

13.7

11.4

1985

210

17

72

53

2.31

.82

13.5

15.1

.00

99* * *

.60*

.96***

Spearman's rho

.95***

g9* * *

*** p < .001 (one-tailed tests)

stitutes art. For instance, foreign films m a y have been less "accessible" t o A m e r i c a n audiences because they dealt w i t h less f a m i l i a r themes a n d because subtitles or d u b b i n g presented barriers t o easy enjoyment. A r t is, stereotypically, m o r e difficult t h a n entertainment. I n a d d i t i o n , European films m a y have been intellectualized because o f a tendency t o m o r e readily recognize a l l o f European culture as h i g h art compared t o A m e r i c a n p r o ­ d u c t i o n s . M o r e o v e r , a d i s t i n c t i o n between English-language a n d for­ eign-language films f r o m an A m e r i c a n perspective compares o n l y the best o f the latter w i t h nearly the w h o l e b o d y o f the former. As is the case today, o n l y the m o s t respected foreign-language films were offered t o the A m e r i c a n m a r k e t . Sklar argues t h a t the consequence o f the e x h i b i t i o n o f o n l y select E u r o p e a n films was " [ t j h a t the art-house audience w h i c h developed i n the 1950s was convinced t h a t o n l y Europeans u n d e r s t o o d the cinema as an art. There was very little i n d a i l y or w e e k l y film r e v i e w i n g that c o u l d help t h e m t h i n k otherwise, a n d critical w r i t i n g o n A m e r i c a n movies was almost nonexistent" ( 1 9 9 4 : 2 9 4 ) . I t m a y have therefore been 44

154

•

Chapter 4

m o r e likely t h a t a l e g i t i m a t i n g ideology developed a r o u n d foreign-lan­ guage films first, a n d t h a t this was t h e n extended t o English-language films, post-1965. I n this w a y w e can see h o w the appreciation o f f o r e i g n films affected the a p p r e c i a t i o n o f A m e r i c a n films. I t s h o u l d be emphasized, however, t h a t , just as w i t h H o l l y w o o d films, the r e c o g n i t i o n o f foreign films as art was a struggle. T h e prejudice against the m e d i u m o f film was deeply i n g r a i n e d i n U.S. intellectual n o r m s . T h e f o l l o w i n g t w o examples s h o w h o w even as late as 1 9 6 0 there was dis­ agreement a m o n g reviewers a b o u t w h e t h e r t o approach f o r e i g n film as art o r entertainment. I n 1 9 6 0 the New Yorker (September 10, 80) p r i n t e d this review o f the A r g e n t i n e a n film La casa del angel, w h i c h was released under the title End of Innocence a n d is n o w recognized as a "classic" (Chanan 1996:434) o f A r g e n t i n e a n cinema. " E N D O F I N N O C E N C E , " an A r g e n t i n e film, tells o f h o w A n a Castro (Elsa D a n i e l ) , the youngest daughter o f a w e a l t h y Buenos Aires aristocrat, is infected w i t h P u r i t a n i s m b y her devout C a t h o l i c m o t h e r a n d , i n her terrible innocence a n d fear o f sin, is raped by a friend o f her father's— an experience t h a t reduces her t o the m u m b l e s for the rest o f her life. T h e treatment o f this fine o l d seventeenth-century theme is a r t y : the camera scuttles over the g r o u n d , peering d o w n at socks o r u p at giants; flies over vast courtyards; scrutinizes pores; tilts t o the r i g h t a n d left; a n d , w h e n a l l else fails, goes o u t o f focus. I t appears t o be n i g h t t h r o u g h ­ out the picture, and, accordingly, the acting consists largely o f h i g h ­ lighted cheekbones, w h i t e eyes, a n d deep-shadowed chins. T h a t is the entire review. T h e critic clearly scorns the film's d e v i a t i o n f r o m H o l l y w o o d ' s style o f entertaining audiences i n s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d fashion. T h e artistry is rejected. There is a stark contrast, however, w i t h the r e v i e w o f the same film t h a t was p r i n t e d i n Time ( 1 9 6 0 , September 5, 4 3 ) . H e r e are a couple o f excerpts f r o m t h a t review: The End of Innocence (Argentine Sono F i l m ; Kingsley) is a shadowed, subtle, intense study o f p u r i t y , sin a n d degeneracy.. . . D i r e c t o r N i l s s o n has t r i e d , w i t h considerable success, t o express i n 76 minutes m u c h m o r e t h a n can be stated e x p l i c i t l y i n t h a t t i m e . H i s film bears a heavy l o a d o f s y m b o l i s m , o f scenes such as the one i n w h i c h s w i n i s h revelers set fire t o one lavish a p a r t m e n t a n d t h e n reel o f f d r u n k e n l y t o another. Visions o f a society's d y i n g past a n d c o r r u p t present u n f o l d themselves l o n g after the film is over. T h e critic for Time embraces the film's c l a i m t o art at a t i m e w h e n i t was still n o t w i d e l y accepted practice, even for foreign films. T h e contrast between the t w o reviews makes an i m p o r t a n t p o i n t a b o u t the social c o n ­ s t r u c t i o n o f artistic status. T h e redefining o f film as art happened t h r o u g h

The Intellectualization of Film

•

155

contestation a n d challenge. I n w r i t i n g o f films as art, a critic was asserting himself o r herself as m o r e knowledgeable t h a n previous critics. T o c o n t r a ­ dict the w o r k i n g assumptions o f one's field is t o affirm one's o w n assump­ tions a n d perceptions as m o r e v a l i d . T h r o u g h the discursive acts o f the a c k n o w l e d g e d experts i n the field—those w h o h a d the i n s t i t u t i o n a l au­ t h o r i t y o f respected p u b l i c a t i o n s b e h i n d themselves—this n e w reality was validated a n d the o l d i n v a l i d a t e d . B u t this process happens g r a d u a l l y a n d unevenly, and o n l y after a critical mass o f participants i n the art w o r l d a n d then the w i d e r society "see" things the same w a y does the challenge become the c o n v e n t i o n a l p o i n t o f view.

CULTURAL HIERARCHY, T H E RELEVANCE OF CRITICS, A N D T H E S T A T U S O F F I L M AS A R T

Perhaps as a consequence o f a m o r e sophisticated f o r m o f r e v i e w i n g , the generation o f f i l m critics t h a t was w r i t i n g for mass p u b l i c a t i o n s i n the 1960s became the first f i l m critics t o be known as f i l m critics. I n contrast, their predecessors were p r i m a r i l y journalists w h o also reviewed films. Consider, for example, the account o f one o f the first f i l m critics for the New York Times a b o u t h o w he a r r i v e d at his role: I n 1915 I was assistant d r a m a t i c editor a n d critic o f the New York Times. I was o n space, w h i c h translated means, I was p a i d f o r a n y t h i n g I w r o t e t h a t was published at so m u c h per c o l u m n , a n d t o a d d t o m y income I a p p o i n t e d myself m o v i e critic . . . a n d so w h i l e n o one i n au­ t h o r i t y h a d suggested t h a t I become its m o t i o n - p i c t u r e critic, none t o l d me t o desist. (Pemberton 1936:153) By the 1960s o n l y those w i t h some c l a i m t o expertise specifically i n f i l m h i s t o r y a n d analysis were considered qualified t o w r i t e f i l m c o l u m n s i n m a j o r periodicals. These experts o n f i l m achieved a degree o f influence, prestige a n d even celebrity t h a t earlier critics never h a d (Sarris 1 9 6 8 ; W o l c o t t 1 9 9 7 ) . Blades (1976) notes t h a t i n 1973 Newsweek p u b l i s h e d an article entitled " C r i t i c as Superstar." W h e n associated w i t h names such as Pauline K a e l , Stanley K a u f f m a n n , a n d V i n c e n t Canby, f i l m reviews c o u l d often play a large p a r t i n a film's success o r failure. Such stature was granted t o f i l m critics o n l y after their reviews became lengthy, a n a l y t i c a l l y sophisticated critiques. T h e data f r o m film advertisements shows the p r o ­ gression o f critics' influence. I t cannot be s h o w n whether critics h a d their o w n interests i n m i n d w h e n they changed their mode o f review a l t h o u g h i t must be n o t e d t h a t they stood t o gain i n prestige by being the arbiters not o f mass entertainment b u t o f an art f o r m .

156

•

Chapter 4

Recent w o r k o n the relationship between critics a n d the status o f art provides insight i n t o the significance o f the increase i n the prestige o f f i l m critics. I n contrast t o explanations focusing o n audience c o m p o s i t i o n a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements, S h r u m (1996) develops an a r g u m e n t t h a t specifies a mechanism for c r i t i c a l influence w h e r e i n he states t h a t the dis­ t i n c t i o n s between h i g h a n d p o p u l a r art exist because o u r o p i n i o n s a b o u t art forms are shaped by very different modes o f c o n s u m p t i o n . For p o p u l a r culture, audiences consume, evaluate, a n d understand c u l t u r a l products directly, w i t h o u t any recourse t o c u l t u r a l experts. Audiences believe t h a t they understand the " r u l e s " o f p o p u l a r c u l t u r e , and so are qualified a n d capable o f f o r m i n g their o w n o p i n i o n s . For h i g h art, o n the other h a n d , audiences participate i n discursive m e d i a t i o n . T o participate i n h i g h art is t o forgo the direct and u n m e d i a t e d percep­ t i o n o f the a r t w o r k itself. T h e p r i n c i p a l consequence is the dependence o f one's o w n j u d g m e n t o f artistic q u a l i t y o n the j u d g m e n t o f others. . . . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n h i g h art forms involves a status bargain: g i v i n g u p p a r t i a l rights o f c o n t r o l o f one's o w n j u d g m e n t t o experts i n exchange for the higher status t h a t competent t a l k a b o u t these a r t w o r k s provides. T h e status bargain, then, is an exchange of prestige for opinion rights. (Shrum 1996:9; italics i n o r i g i n a l ) T h e response t o evaluation is the crucial factor distinguishing h i g h a n d p o p u l a r culture. I f an art f o r m is associated w i t h secondary discourse concerning its meaning a n d quality, i t is considered h i g h art. Those a r t forms n o t associated w i t h any such discourse, or for w h i c h such discourse is disregarded, are considered p o p u l a r culture. As the providers o f the discourse, critics play a role i n m a i n t a i n i n g the c u l t u r a l hierarchy. W i t h some c o r r e c t i o n for its strict d i c h o t o m i z a t i o n , Shrum's argument can be applied quite effectively t o the case o f film. W h e n film's status as art was increasing i n the 1960s, there was a c o n c o m i t a n t increase i n es­ teem for film critics whose o p i n i o n s were n e w l y recognized as valuable a n d t o w h o m audiences m a y have ceded their o p i n i o n rights. There was, then, an intellectual fit between h i g h l y esteemed film critics a n d the idea t h a t film was a legitimate art f o r m . I t w o u l d , o f course, be an overgenerali z a t i o n t o c l a i m t h a t audiences felt they h a d t o accept c r i t i c s ' o p i n i o n s wholesale i n place o f their o w n , especially for the m o s t devoted a n d knowledgeable audience members. Rather t h a n argue t h a t film audiences "exchanged" their o p i n i o n rights, I w o u l d argue that they s i m p l y agreed t o acknowledge t h a t critical o p i n i o n s were relevant a n d s h o u l d help t o i n f o r m their o w n views. T h e data o n b o o k reviews a n d advertisements are also supportive o f Shrum's argument t h a t c r i t i c a l o p i n i o n s are relevant for h i g h b u t n o t p o p ­ ular art. Because literature's status as an art f o r m has l o n g been estab-

The Intellectualization of Film

•

157

lished, c r i t i c a l success was relevant t o the e v al uat i on o f literature i n the earliest t i m e periods e x a m i n e d here. Shrum's argument can help us under­ stand the coincidence between the treatment o f film as art a n d the increas­ i n g relevance o f critics f o r audiences. T h r o u g h the p r o v i s i o n o f a legitimat­ i n g ideology, critics helped film achieve the status o f art. Because there was an available c r i t i c a l c o m m e n t a r y t o acknowledge, a n d because film was plausibly categorizable as art, appreciation o f film i n v o l v e d reference t o critical discourse o n the subject. T h e skeptical reader m i g h t p o i n t t o today's newspaper a n d argue t h a t m y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f evidence f r o m film advertisements is misguided. Does the fact t h a t the advertisements for Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle included quotes f r o m critics mean t h a t the film must be considered art? T h i s question is w a r r a n t e d b u t o f f the m a r k because o f its a p p l i c a t i o n o f a c o n t e m p o r a r y perspective o n a h i s t o r i c a l p h e n o m e n o n . T h e perspective i n question is the c o m m o n understanding o f the mean­ i n g o f quotes f r o m critics. T h i s understanding has changed a great deal i n the last t h i r t y years. I n short, reliance o n film critics as a m a r k e t i n g technique has been inflated t o the p o i n t t h a t its m e a n i n g a n d effectiveness has practically vanished. I n 2 0 0 1 Sony Pictures was sued by the state o f Connecticut for i n v e n t i n g blurbs a n d falsely a t t r i b u t i n g t h e m t o an i n ­ vented critic a n d t h e n using these fictionalized quotes i n film advertise­ ments. T h i s case is emblematic o f the current state o f affairs regarding the m a r k e t i n g technique o f q u o t i n g f r o m critics. First, studios believe t h a t every film m u st have such i n order t o be effectively m a r k e t e d . Second, studios apparently believe t h a t audiences d o n o t bother t o discriminate between g o o d a n d b a d sources o f quotes. Q u o t i n g f r o m critics t o d a y is n o t evidence t h a t audiences are r e l y i n g o n experts t o i n f o r m their o w n o p i n i o n s . Instead, the role o f these quotes is m o r e similar t o recommendations f r o m Consumer Reports—they act as a spending guide. I n a sense, m o v i e studios k i l l e d the goose t h a t l a i d the golden egg. By overusing quotes f r o m critics a n d cheapening the k i n d s o f quotes they use, the studios have rendered q u o t i n g an essentially w o r t h ­ less m a r k e t i n g technique. H o w can w e be so sure t h a t the s i t u a t i o n t o d a y is so different f r o m t h a t o f t h i r t y years ago? We need t o k n o w t h a t i t was different i f w e are t o accept the evidence f r o m film advertisements as relevant t o e x p l a i n i n g h o w H o l l y w o o d films became v i e w e d as p o t e n t i a l art. There is n o decisive measurement f o r h o w audiences u n d e r s t o o d q u o t i n g f r o m critics. H o w ­ ever, a review o f film advertisements f r o m the late 1960s a n d early 1970s s h o u l d convince even skeptical readers t h a t the understanding o f the i n ­ clusion o f quotes f r o m critics then h a d a l o t m o r e t o d o w i t h art t h a n i t does n o w . G o i n g back t o the 1972 advertisement for The Godfather, f o r example, the critic f r o m Newsweek is q u o t e d l a u d i n g M a r l o n Brando's

158

•

Chapter 4

performance: " N o w the k i n g has r e t u r n e d t o r e c l a i m his t h r o n e . L i k e a l l great actors, H e shows us w h a t i t is t o be h u m a n . I t is his gift t o us." T h i s is loftier discourse t h a n is c o m m o n l y f o u n d i n today's f i l m advertisements. B r o w s i n g t h r o u g h newspaper archives for f i l m advertisements, one finds countless examples t h a t indicate t h a t the art w o r l d for f i l m was m o r e r o b u s t i n the 1970s t h a n i t is n o w . H e r e is a quote f r o m New York maga­ zine t h a t was featured i n the advertisement for the f i l m The Conversation: A M O D E R N H O R R O R F I L M ! " T h e C o n v e r s a t i o n " is exactly t h a t , a dis­ t i l l a t i o n o f the p r i m e h o r r o r o f the Watergate affair t h a t was yet t o come. U n d e r C o p p o l a ' s d i r e c t i o n i t succeeds o n a variety o f levels, as sheer thriller, as psychological study, as social analysis, a n d as p o l i t i c a l c o m m e n t . Gene H a c k m a n gives his best performance i n years. Seldom has a professional been so ruthlessly e x a m i n e d o n f i l m a n d b r o u g h t t o such t o t a l exposure. " T h e C o n v e r s a t i o n " stands n o t o n l y as a s t r i k i n g a n d i m p o r t a n t w o r k b u t also as a c o n f i r m a t i o n o f its creator's enor­ mous talent! I t is a beautifully made f i l m , the r h y t h m absorbing! (Wash­ ington Post, A p r i l 12, 1 9 7 4 , B I O ) I n the same advertisement, several m o r e critics are q u o t e d , a m o n g t h e m Pauline Kael: i WAS F A S C I N A T E D B Y T H E F I L M ! It's a h o r r o r f i l m centering o n technol­ ogy, o n a m a n w h o ' s so i n v o l v e d i n technology t h a t he's f o r g o t t e n w h a t it's for, a n d w h a t it's a b o u t . A n d that's a great m o d e r n theme, it's a sort o f m o d e r n K a f k a . . . a h o r r o r f i l m . E x t r a o r d i n a r i l y elegantly struc­ t u r e d . It's as i f C o p p o l a were i n c o n t r o l o f every single element. I t h i n k it's p r o b a b l y the best performance Gene H a c k m a n has ever given. I L O V E D T H E WAY T H I S M O V I E L O O K S ! I L O V E T H E WAY I T W O R K S !

N o t a l l quotes i n 1970s f i l m advertisements l o o k so different f r o m t o ­ day's. T h e advertisement for Serpico (1973) p r o m i n e n t l y displays the four-star r a t i n g i t gets f r o m the Daily News a n d quotes f r o m several televi­ sion reviewers, a m o n g t h e m Gene Shalit o f W N B C . B u t u n l i k e n o w , these quotes were often placed beside, o r were themselves quotes t h a t struck an academic tone, such as the f o l l o w i n g f r o m V i n c e n t C a n b y o f the New York Times about the same f i l m : MOST PROVOCATIVE, A REMARKABLE RECORD OF O N E MAN'S REBELLION A G A I N S T T H E SORT O F SLEAZINESS A N D S E C O N D - R A T E D N E S S T H A T H A S

A F F E C T E D so M U C H A M E R I C A N L I F E . " S e r p i c o " is a d i s q u i e t i n g a n d gal­

vanizing f i l m . . . galvanizing because o f A l Pacino's splendid perfor­ mance i n the title role a n d because o f the tremendous intensity t h a t M r . L u m e t brings t o this sort o f subject. I t reflects the q u a l i t y o f Detective Serpico's outrage, w h i c h i n o u r society comes t o l o o k like an obsession b o r d e r i n g o n madness.

The Intellectualization of Film

•

159

I t is i n the content o f the quotes, t h e n , t h a t the case can be made f o r advertisements as evidence f o r the c r e a t i o n o f an art w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d films. T h e c u r r e n t m a r k e t i n g o f films, w i t h n o pretensions f o r artistic sta­ tus a n d w i t h heavy i n p u t f r o m reviewers, s h o u l d n o t dictate o u r views o f 1960s a n d 1970s m a r k e t i n g practices. W e need t o interpret the evidence f r o m a h i s t o r i c a l l y i n f o r m e d perspective.

SUMMARY

T h i s chapter has demonstrated the i m p o r t a n c e o f critical discourse i n the creation o f an a r t w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d films i n the late 1960s. T h e great­ est challenges i n a c c o m p l i s h i n g this task are, first, collecting data o n f i l m discourse over a sixty-year t i m e span, a n d , second, p r o v i d i n g reassurances t h a t the data are c o r r e c t l y interpreted. L i k e m u c h social science data, the indicators chosen i n this case t o mea­ sure the dependent variable (film discourse) are n o t above c r i t i c i s m . O n the one h a n d , f i l m reviews are ideal sources f o r d o c u m e n t i n g the changing nature o f f i l m discourse. O n the other h a n d , as products t i e d t o organiza­ tions t h a t act i n accordance w i t h a variety o f i n t e r n a l a n d external c o n ­ straints a n d pressures, f i l m reviews m i g h t , i n fact, reflect m o r e t h a n pure discourse. T h a t is t o say, they are influenced by changes i n the p u b l i c a t i o n s sampled, i n the p u b l i s h i n g w o r l d m o r e generally, a n d by changes i n A m e r ­ ican society. For this reason, c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence is r e q u i r e d t o bolster the favored i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the evidence. To recount the m a j o r findings o f this factor, the most i m p o r t a n t discov­ ery was the increased usage o f a specialized v o c a b u l a r y a n d c r i t i c a l tech­ niques between 1925 a n d 1 9 8 5 , especially i n the 1960s. O v e r t i m e , critics a d o p t e d a v o c a b u l a r y a n d a set o f devices t h a t indicate an a p p r o a c h t o f i l m as a r t rather t h a n entertainment. Further analysis s t r o n g l y suggests t h a t this change was n o t caused by the changing qualities o f f i l m s — e a r l y films were r e v i e w e d w i t h a m o r e artistic discourse i n the 1960s t h a n at the t i m e o f their release. F u r t h e r m o r e , a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h b o o k reviews indicates t h a t the observed changes i n film r e v i e w i n g t r u l y represent a m o v e t o w a r d artistic discourse. These results u n d e r p i n the p r i m a r y c o n t r i b u t i o n o f this chapter—to p r o v i d e e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t f o r the assertion t h a t c u l t u r a l experts create an intellectualizing discourse i n the f o r m a t i o n o f an art w o r l d . T h e greater c l a i m t h a t this discourse influenced the perception o f H o l l y w o o d films a m o n g a segment o f the p u b l i c requires another data source. These data are f o u n d i n film advertisements. D u r i n g the late 1960s, c r i t i c a l success, as reflected i n newspaper advertisements, increased d r a m a t i c a l l y as a selling p o i n t f o r films. C o u n t s o f b o t h the n u m b e r o f quotes f r o m critics a n d

160

•

Chapter 4

the n u m b e r o f w o r d s excerpted f r o m film reviews increase, even w h e n c o n t r o l l i n g for the t o t a l a m o u n t o f advertising space. T h e observed trends reflect significant i n i t i a l differences f r o m the trends observed f o r litera­ t u r e , an established artistic genre, f o l l o w e d b y later convergence. F r o m the finding t h a t critical success became m u c h m o r e i m p o r t a n t t o the m a r ­ k e t i n g o f films i n the late 1960s, one can infer t h a t audiences were b o t h f a m i l i a r w i t h a n d w i l l i n g t o accept the c r i t i c a l discourse t h a t served as a rationale f o r film's p r o p e r status as art. Finally, the data f r o m reviews a n d advertisements were analyzed t o sup­ p o r t a hypothesis t h a t is generated by the historical c o m p a r i s o n o f the A m e r i c a n a n d various E u r o p e a n film industries. T h e earlier f o r m a t i o n o f a r t w o r l d s for film i n Europe suggests t h a t E u r o p e a n films m i g h t have been m o r e readily accepted as art i n the U n i t e d States, a n d t h a t this legiti­ m a t i o n o f European film helped t o break d o w n prejudices against domes­ tic film p r o d u c t i o n . T h e final finding o f this chapter is s u p p o r t f o r the idea t h a t foreign films, perhaps as " i d e a l t y p e " examples, p r o v i d e d a p a t h w a y for the intellectualization o f H o l l y w o o d films. W h i l e a l l films were m o s t s t r o n g l y intellectualized b e g i n n i n g i n the late 1960s, a l e g i t i m a t i n g i d e o l ­ ogy o f foreign film as art appears t o have developed i n the 1940s a n d 1950s i n the U n i t e d States. T h e extension o f this intellectualizing dis­ course t o A m e r i c a n films i n the late 1960s f o l l o w s other i m p o r t a n t devel­ opments i n the film w o r l d a n d i n A m e r i c a n society. As has been the case w i t h other art f o r m s , critics have p l a y e d an i m ­ p o r t a n t role i n creating a l e g i t i m a t i n g discourse f o r film as art. T h e y have influenced h o w film was v i e w e d a n d u n d e r s t o o d , a n d w h e t h e r i t c o u l d a p p r o p r i a t e l y be discussed as art w h e n they began t o use a sophisti­ cated, interpretation-centered discourse i n film review t h a t e m p l o y e d a v o c a b u l a r y a n d techniques resembling those used i n other h i g h b r o w artistic c r i t i c i s m . These were t h e n available t o audiences f o r t h e i r o w n use i n t a l k i n g a b o u t the films they saw. Because the discourse c o n s t i t u t e d the means f o r e x p l a i n i n g w h y H o l l y w o o d films c o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d as art, t a l k o f H o l l y w o o d films as such was the key t o m a k i n g this idea believable, acceptable, a n d eventually n o r m a l , u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l , a n d u t ­ terly conventional.

CHAPTER 5

Mechanisms for Cultural Valuation

T H E A C C O U N T O F T H E PROCESS t h r o u g h w h i c h H o l l y w o o d films were accepted as art i n the late 1960s has relied o n an e x p l a n a t o r y f r a m e w o r k w i t h three parts—an o p p o r t u n i t y space, p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s u m p t i o n practices, a n d a l e g i t i m i z i n g discourse. Films were entertainment oddities w h e n first invented, b e c o m i n g m o r e technologically sophisticated a n d developing c o n v e n t i o n a l f o r m s d u r i n g the first t w o decades o f the t w e n t i e t h century a n d at the same t i m e becom­ ing p a r t o f A m e r i c a n p o p u l a r culture. Before the First W o r l d War, m a n y foreign films were s h o w n i n the U n i t e d States, b u t after t h a t w a r r u i n e d European film industries, few foreign films were i m p o r t e d w h i l e H o l l y ­ w o o d films were frequently e x h i b i t e d i n Europe. F i l m m a k i n g a n d filmgo­ ing occurred o n a smaller scale i n Europe, under economic c o n d i t i o n s m o r e distanced f r o m the free m a r k e t t h a n was the case i n the U n i t e d States. I n Europe generally, a n d i n France especially, film as a r t was a c u l t u r a l ideal carried o u t i n b o t h filmmaking a n d filmgoing. P r o d u c t i o n and c o n s u m p t i o n practices i n H o l l y w o o d , however, were similar t o those o f other mass culture industries a n d dissimilar t o those o f h i g h art w o r l d s . I n t o the 1940s, the studio system created films t h r o u g h an efficient and standardized p r o d u c t i o n process. A n d i n t o the 1950s, filmgoing was p o p u l a r w i t h working-class audiences and shunned by elites. T h e 1960s were the t i m e o f greatest change f o r the U.S. film w o r l d . I t was i n this decade t h a t changes w i t h i n U.S. society altered the o p p o r t u n i t y for H o l l y w o o d films t o be perceived a n d experienced as an art f o r m . Tele­ vision's q u i c k ascendancy as the most p o p u l a r f o r m o f d r a m a t i c entertain­ m e n t shrank film's audiences a n d p r o v i d e d a f o i l t o h i g h l i g h t the artistic advantages o f films. T h e b a b y - b o o m generation swelled the p o o l o f peo­ ple w i t h college educations a n d made available m a n y h i g h l y educated film patrons. A t the same t i m e , intellectual currents w i t h i n U.S. c u l t u r e , d r i v e n i n large p a r t by the Pop A r t m o v e m e n t , evolved t o make the boundaries between h i g h a n d l o w c u l t u r e m o r e permeable. W h i l e distinctions be­ t w e e n art a n d entertainment remained, the g u l f between t r a d i t i o n a l h i g h culture a n d p o p u l a r c u l t u r e was greatly d i m i n i s h e d . M a n y changes f r o m w i t h i n the U.S. film w o r l d likewise c o n t r i b u t e d t o the n e w v i e w o f H o l l y w o o d films as genuine art, the most i m p o r t a n t o f w h i c h i n v o l v i n g the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f resources dedicated t o p r o m o t -

162

•

Chapter 5

i n g o r experiencing H o l l y w o o d films as art. These developments i n c l u d e d the establishment o f film festivals a n d the creation o f the academic field o f film studies. The s e l f - p r o m o t i o n o f w e l l - k n o w n directors as artists dur­ i n g the 1960s, quite rare i n previous decades, also helped t o shape p u b l i c perceptions o f H o l l y w o o d films as art. O t h e r film-world changes t h a t made a difference were economic i n na­ ture. T h e economic problems b r o u g h t a b o u t by the s h r i n k i n g audience for films, i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h an end t o the industry's vertical i n t e g r a t i o n i n 1 9 4 8 , led t o a r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f p r o d u c t i o n processes so t h a t the studio system gave w a y t o director-centered p r o d u c t i o n . T h e smaller audience, w i t h the attendant decrease i n the a m o u n t o f H o l l y w o o d o u t p u t , led m a n y theaters t o become e x h i b i t o r s o f h i g h - q u a l i t y E u r o p e a n p r o d u c ­ tions, l a u n c h i n g the art-house m o v e m e n t . A n d i t was the censorship o f a European film t h a t led t o one o f the most i m p o r t a n t legal decisions—the Miracle i n 1 9 5 2 - a n d p r o v i d e d movies w i t h First A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t i o n a n d eventually helped relax governmental censorship powers a n d end the restrictions o f the P r o d u c t i o n Code i n the m i d - 1 9 6 0 s . H o l l y w o o d films gained the freedom t o address difficult themes. Intellectual fields have b o t h an i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure a n d a field-spe­ cific discourse. A specialized set o f concepts, understandings, a n d v o c a b u ­ l a r y is required for discussing a field's products i n a h i g h l y a n a l y t i c a l fash­ i o n a n d for p r o v i d i n g the rationales for calling those p r o d u c t s art. Between cinema's i n v e n t i o n at the t u r n o f the century a n d the 1960s, the U.S. film w o r l d h a d an i m p o v e r i s h e d set o f tools for analyzing a n d c o m m u n i c a t i n g a b o u t film. For decades there were few efforts t o develop these tools because few o f film's appreciators sought t o discuss film as art. I n the 1960s, however, U.S. film discourse adopted some o f the v o c a b u ­ l a r y a n d techniques o f other art w o r l d s , a l o n g w i t h ideas i m p o r t e d f r o m French film c r i t i c i s m . T h r o u g h film reviews, the v o c a b u l a r y a n d these techniques f o u n d their w a y f r o m film experts t o a w i d e r reading p u b l i c . W i t h the preexisting bias for finding value i n European p r o d u c t i o n s , the discourse was first applied t o foreign films before being extended t o H o l l y ­ w o o d films as w e l l . T h e preceding chapters have reviewed the relevant h i s t o r y o f the U.S. film w o r l d . I n this chapter w e consider h o w this h i s t o r i c a l process can be analyzed t o address i m p o r t a n t questions w i t h i n the sociology o f art. I n d o i n g so, w e can also fine-tune some o f the concepts e m p l o y e d thus far as w e l l as some o f the conclusions d r a w n . H e r e , w e address five m a i n questions raised by the case study o f H o l l y ­ w o o d films as art. First, where does film stand i n the hierarchy o f art, a n d w h y ? T h e idea o f a d i c h o t o m y between art a n d entertainment misrepre­ sents the c u l t u r a l spectrum i n the U n i t e d States t h a t validates certain

Mechanisms for Cultural Valuation

•

163

genres as m o r e serious or m o r e legitimate forms o f art t h a n others. H o w legitimate an art f o r m are H o l l y w o o d films c o m p a r e d t o other genres? Second, w h a t role d i d class interests play? T h e role o f c u l t u r a l c o n s u m p ­ t i o n i n processes o f stratification is a m a j o r vein o f sociological research. W h a t can the h i s t o r y o f film a d d t o o u r understanding o f h o w the arts are i m p l i c a t e d i n class politics? T h i r d , h o w has the e m p i r i c a l study o f a l e g i t i m a t i n g discourse added t o previous w o r k o n c u l t u r a l hierarchy? Should the argument f o r the key role o f a l e g i t i m a t i n g discourse f o r film revise o u r views o n studies o f other art w o r l d s ? F o u r t h , h o w d i d the fac­ tors leading t o the a r t w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d film interact, a n d h o w does this alter o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the roles these factors played? T h e factors i n v o l v e d i n the e v o l u t i o n o f the reception o f H o l l y w o o d films have been treated as a n a l y t i c a l l y distinct so far f o r the purposes o f e x p l a n a t i o n . H o w e v e r , the i n t e r a c t i o n o f the factors m u s t be described t o correctly understand the causal processes t h a t were at w o r k . Finally, this b o o k is a case study o f the c r e a t i o n o f an art w o r l d . I t offers an understanding o f h o w c u l t u r a l hierarchy is created a n d m a i n t a i n e d for this case. W h a t does the evidence here i m p l y f o r theories o f c u l t u r a l hierarchy t h a t have been proposed by others? C a n i t help t o reconcile apparent differences between these theories?

W H Y A M I D D L E B R O W ART?

Despite the r e c o g n i t i o n o f a r t i n H o l l y w o o d films, as a class o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t they, like film m o r e generally, d o n o t enjoy the same h i g h b r o w legitimacy accorded t o m o r e established arts such as opera, sculpture, a n d p a i n t i n g . I n fact, there is ambivalence a b o u t the proper place o f film. T h e insights o f b o t h Becker (1982) a n d B o u r d i e u ( 1 9 9 0 [ 1 9 6 5 j ) o n the m i d d l e g r o u n d between h i g h b r o w a n d l o w b r o w can clarify o u r understanding o f the c u r r e n t status o f H o l l y w o o d films. T h e u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t w h e t h e r H o l l y w o o d films can t r u l y be art is re­ flected i n the w a y various members o f the film w o r l d a n d the p u b l i c t a l k a b o u t films. D i r e c t o r s a n d actors sometimes t a l k a b o u t t h e i r " c r a f t . " Becker (1982:ch.9) provides an i l l u m i n a t i n g discussion o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between art w o r l d s a n d craft w o r l d s a n d the m o b i l i t y t h a t sometimes occurs between t h e m f o r specific k i n d s o f w o r k . The n o t i o n s o f " a r t s " a n d "crafts" are b r o a d , v a r i e d , a n d overlap i n c o m m o n usage, so t h a t i t is n o t possible t o speak o f t h e m as a n a l y t i c a l l y distinct. Nevertheless, by conceiving o f the ideal types o f art a n d craft w o r l d s , Becker is able t o identify the p r i n c i p a l differences between t h e m i n the standards a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h each is evaluated. Crafts are evaluated according t o t h e i r a b i l i t y t o fulfill a f u n c t i o n , the v i r t u o s o s k i l l i n v o l v e d i n their c r e a t i o n , a n d their

164

•

Chapter 5

beauty. A r t s , however, are evaluated a c c o r d i n g t o the creativity, expres­ siveness, a n d uniqueness t h a t they e x h i b i t as w e l l as their a b i l i t y t o engage a relevant set o f conventions. Becker ( 1 9 8 2 : 2 7 7 - 7 8 ) explains t h a t sometimes art w o r l d s develop o u t o f segments o f craft w o r l d s . H i s description o f t h a t process is w o r t h q u o t ­ ing at length for its a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o the case o f f i l m : We m i g h t imagine the differentiation o f craftsmen a n d artist-craftsmen as a t y p i c a l h i s t o r i c a l sequence. A craft w o r l d , whose aesthetic empha­ sizes u t i l i t y and v i r t u o s o s k i l l a n d whose members produce w o r k s ac­ c o r d i n g t o the dictates o f clients o r employers o p e r a t i n g i n some extracraft w o r l d , develops a n e w segment (Bucher, 1 9 6 2 ; Bucher a n d Strauss, 1 9 6 1 ) . T h e n e w segment's members a d d t o the basic aesthetic an emphasis o n beauty a n d develop some a d d i t i o n a l organizations, w h i c h free t h e m o f the need t o satisfy employers so completely. These artist-craftsmen develop a k i n d o f a r t w o r l d a r o u n d their activities, a " m i n o r a r t " w o r l d . T h i s w o r l d contains m u c h o f the apparatus o f f u l l fledged m a j o r arts: shows, prizes, sales t o collectors, teaching positions, a n d the rest. I n the case o f f i l m , I w o u l d argue t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o an emphasis o n beauty per se, an aesthetic o f message—expression o f the director's per­ sonal v i s i o n a n d ideas—was the a d d i t i o n t h a t helped create an a r t seg­ m e n t . T h e focus i n reviews o n messages suggests t h a t this standard was m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h a t o f beauty, a n d is possibly related t o film's narra­ tive d i m e n s i o n , something n o t t r u l y present i n arts such as p a i n t i n g a n d sculpture. I n a fascinating case study, B o u r d i e u ( 1 9 9 0 [ 1 9 6 5 ] ) explains w h y p h o ­ t o g r a p h y i n France i n the 1960s was a m i d d l e b r o w art. L i k e jazz, cinema, a n d chansons, p h o t o g r a p h y belonged t o the sphere o f the l e g i t i m i z a b l e , between the "sphere o f l e g i t i m a c y " a n d the "sphere o f the a r b i t r a r y " ( 9 6 ) . P h o t o g r a p h y was n o t a legitimate o r h i g h art because, u n l i k e the h i g h arts, i t was shut o u t o f consideration by the a u t h o r i t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s ca­ pable o f b e s t o w i n g the highest s y m b o l i c c a p i t a l . L i k e jazz, cinema, a n d chansons, n o a u t h o r i t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n was teaching audiences i n a me­ t h o d i c a n d systematic manner h o w t o experience p h o t o g r a p h y as a p a r t o f legitimate h i g h c u l t u r e ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 9 0 : 9 6 ) . W i t h o u t a set o f n o r m s o f evaluation, audiences d o n o t feel " f o r c e d t o a d o p t a dedicated, ceremonial a n d ritualized a t t i t u d e " ( B o u r d i e u 1990:95) as they d o w i t h legitimate culture. B o u r d i e u also notes t h a t there are specific characteristics o f p h o t o g r a ­ phy t h a t w o r k e d against its acceptance by the guardians o f h i g h c u l t u r e . For one t h i n g , the mechanical nature o f p h o t o g r a p h y was at odds w i t h the nature o f legitimate c u l t u r e . T h e c o m m o n perception was t h a t the

Mechanisms for Cultural Valuation •

165

camera d i d the w o r k a n d r e q u i r e d little t r a i n i n g ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 9 0 : 5 ) , a n d so "the p h o t o g r a p h i c act i n every w a y contradicts the p o p u l a r representa­ t i o n o f artistic c r e a t i o n as effort a n d t o i l " ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 9 0 : 7 7 ) . T h i s ab­ sence o f serious t r a i n i n g (at least the perception o f i t ) , a n d the fact t h a t cameras were affordable by most people, meant t h a t p h o t o g r a p h y was n o t e c o n o m i c a l l y exclusive, w h i c h further w o r k e d against its l e g i t i m a t i o n (Bourdieu 1990:7). O n the other h a n d , p h o t o g r a p h y was n o t at the b o t t o m o f the hierarchy either. U n l i k e the basest o f arts, television f o r example, p h o t o g r a p h y ' s practitioners a n d p r o p o n e n t s h a d developed an aesthetic. C e r t a i n canons o f taste h a d emerged, f r o m amateur p h o t o g r a p h y clubs a n d c r i t i c a l w r i t ­ i n g i n magazines, by w h i c h p h o t o g r a p h y c o u l d be judged separately f r o m i t social functions as a r e c o r d i n g device ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 9 0 : 7 - 8 ) . Some o f the components o f a h i g h a r t w o r l d , t o use Becker's (1982) terms, were i n place f o r p h o t o g r a p h y . I n this way, Bourdieu's t h e o r y takes account o f the role o f agency i n e x p l a i n i n g the c u l t u r a l value o f p h o t o g r a p h y ; the genre h a d its p r o p o n e n t s whose actions elevated i t . H i s t h e o r y also incor­ porates an i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s t d i m e n s i o n , as he recognizes h o w c u l t u r a l legiti­ m a c y flows f r o m the a u t h o r i t y a n d resources o f i n s t i t u t i o n s . These analyses are useful f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g the h i s t o r y a n d present c u l t u r a l classification o f film. E u r o p e a n a r t w o r l d s f o r film p r o b a b l y de­ veloped independent o f a craft phase, a n d they clearly developed early o n . I n H o l l y w o o d , this phase was p r o v o k e d by the e n d u r i n g financial difficulties t h a t h a d started i n the 1940s a n d h a d reached a n a d i r i n the 1960s, a crisis t h a t was b r o u g h t o n by the d o w n t u r n i n m o v i e g o i n g . A t the outset o f the d o w n t u r n , studios reacted conservatively, a n d r i s k averse executives retained m u c h c o n t r o l over the creative process. H o w ­ ever, after m a n y years i t became clear t h a t t h a t strategy was n o t w o r k i n g as m o v i e g o i n g c o n t i n u e d t o decline. T h e p r o l o n g e d nature o f the crisis made the studios o p e n t o a n e w m o d e o f p r o d u c t i o n , w h i c h saw the independence a n d a u t h o r i t y o f the d i r e c t o r increase, just w h e n a u t e u r i s m h a d been i m p o r t e d (see chapter 3 ) . By the 1960s, the l o n g d u r a t i o n o f the financial crisis w o r k e d t o decrease constraints o n directors a n d there was m u c h m o r e r o o m f o r t h e m t o f o l l o w their o w n dictates. Previously their w o r k h a d been j u d g e d by its a b i l i t y t o fulfill the f u n c t i o n as defined by the s t u d i o s — t o entertain a n d t o m a k e a p r o f i t . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f an a r t w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d films was precisely the assertion o f an alter­ native s t a n d a r d f o r e v a l u a t i o n — t h a t they be j u d g e d by t h e i r beauty, by w h a t they h a d t o c o m m u n i c a t e , a n d b y h o w they related t o a relevant body of w o r k . W h y , t h e n , is film n o t at o r near the t o p o f the c u l t u r a l hierarchy? A n d w h y are H o l l y w o o d films yet further f r o m the top? There are several i m ­ p o r t a n t reasons. Interestingly, the l o w e r r a n k i n g o f film is n o t due t o a

166

•

Chapter 5

lack o f sponsors a m o n g intellectuals. A t various times certain intellectuals have hailed f i l m as the pinnacle o f artistic p o t e n t i a l : " M o r e recently, the thesis t h a t a l l the arts are leading t o w a r d one art has been advanced by enthusiasts o f the cinema. T h e candidacy o f f i l m is f o u n d e d o n its being so exact and, potentially, so c o m p l e x — a r i g o r o u s c o m b i n a t i o n o f music, literature, a n d the i m a g e " (Sontag 1 9 6 9 : 1 1 9 - 2 0 ) . Yet m o r e c o m m o n is the argument t h a t f i l m deserves r e c o g n i t i o n at least alongside the other h i g h arts. Consider the f o l l o w i n g excerpt f r o m a 1980 New York Times f i l m review o f Wise Blood, a n d adapted f r o m the n o v e l by Flannery O ' C o n n o r : M o v i e s aren't a lesser f o r m o f art, b u t because they are decidedly differ­ ent, most o f us are inclined t o be i m p a t i e n t w i t h attempts t o translate some piece o f great fiction i n t o a f o r m for w h i c h i t was never intended. I t is as f o o l h a r d y as an o p e r a t i o n designed t o t u r n a L a b r a d o r retriever i n t o a Siamese cat. T h e o p e r a t i o n seldom succeeds a n d because i t sel­ d o m succeeds, even great movies are d o w n g r a d e d a n d o u r expectations o f a l l movies are d i m i n i s h e d . T h i s is t o o b a d because w h e n the very g o o d , m u c h m o r e t h a n adequate screen a d a p t a t i o n comes a l o n g , i t often goes, i f n o t unrecognized, n o t fully appreciated. ( M a r c h 2 , 11:19:1) G i v e n t h a t there is a cadre o f c u l t u r a l experts w h o w o u l d s u p p o r t film's f u l l artistic legitimacy, w h y , then, do w e t h i n k o f film as still n o t quite as prestigious o r serious a m e d i u m as, for instance, p a i n t i n g o r literature? W h y do even the most legitimated films n o t enjoy the c u l t u r a l reverence accorded t o Ulysses, Mona Lisa, or the Goldberg Variations? Perhaps the m o s t i m p o r t a n t reason is t h a t there has not been a purification of genres as there has been i n , f o r example, music or musical theater. I t is easy t o see h o w w i t h o u t a clear d i s t i n c t i o n between " o p e r a " a n d "musicals," t w o genres t h a t have m a n y similarities, opera m i g h t n o t be so prestigious. L i k e w i s e , the segregation o f classical f r o m other forms o f music serves as a clear example o f h o w music can be art. T h e p o p u l a r c o n c e p t i o n o f film is m o r e inclusive a n d fails t o sharply differentiate those p r o d u c t i o n s seeking t o belong i n the art w o r l d a n d those seeking t o belong i n the craft w o r l d . To a l i m i t e d extent there has been p u r i f i c a t i o n ; for example, f o r e i g n films are often set above domestic films, a n d independent films are often considered different as w e l l . B u t these distinctions are t o o often b l u r r e d t o f u n c t i o n as determinants o f art a n d n o n - a r t . M a n y H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c ­ tions are self-consciously artistic—even t o d a y (e.g., The Man Who Wasn't There, Being John Malkovich). A n d m a n y foreign a n d independent p r o ­ ductions entertain w i d e audiences a n d t u r n a p r o f i t (e.g., Life Is Beautiful, The Blair Witch Project). M o r e o v e r , the presentation o f "serious" H o l l y -

Mechanisms for Cultural Valuation

•

167

w o o d dramas i n the same theaters w i t h lighter H o l l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n s further i n h i b i t s a clear conception o f film as art. I n order t o achieve h i g h art prestige, films like American Beauty need t o be exclusively e x h i b i t e d i n different locations f r o m films like American Pie. I n general, this does n o t happen. Ironically, the awards t h a t are an integral p a r t o f the art w o r l d for film a d d t o the genre confusion t h a t w o r k s against artistic legitimacy. For the general p u b l i c , the b e s t - k n o w n a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t awards, such as the A c a d e m y A w a r d s a n d those conferred by the N e w Y o r k F i l m Critics Circle, often go t o big-budget, entertainment-oriented H o l l y w o o d films. T h i s s i t u a t i o n tends t o reinforce the inclusive n o t i o n o f film as a single genre—films m a y differ i n h o w g o o d they are, b u t they a l l belong i n the same category. I t seems t h a t there is confusion a b o u t h o w t o interpret these awards. W h e n Gladiator w o n the best picture Oscar f o r 2 0 0 0 , was this an a f f i r m a t i o n o f the film's a r t i s t r y o r its craftsmanship? T h i s a m b i ­ g u i t y tempers the effectiveness o f film awards as a means f o r v a l i d a t i n g film as art. W h e n art house theaters were m o r e n u m e r o u s , i n the 1960s a n d 1970s, they facilitated the redefinition o f film as art i n precisely this way. T h e d i s t i n c t i o n , however, was apparently n o t meant t o last. W i t h the availabil­ i t y o f classics a n d l i m i t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n features first o n video a n d n o w o n D V D as w e l l , t o d a y art house theaters are few i n number. M a n y H o l l y ­ w o o d films are e x p l i c i t l y entertainment w i t h o u t pretensions t o art. T h e c u r r e n t lack o f genre d i s t i n c t i o n suppresses artistic claims f o r those H o l l y ­ w o o d films t h a t d o seek t o be seen as art. T h e category " H o l l y w o o d film" includes t o o m a n y films t h a t d o n o t possess the qualities t h a t audiences believe are characteristic o f art, i n t h a t they are n o t challenging, difficult, or i n n o v a t i v e . I t is often argued t h a t art benefits f r o m the prestige o f its audience ( D i M a g g i o 1 9 8 2 , 1 9 9 2 ; Levine 1 9 8 8 ) . A strong connection t o h i g h SES audiences can legitimate culture as art. As filmgoing became increasingly p o p u l a r w i t h college-educated audiences i n the 1960s, this association helped t o elevate the film's prestige. H o w e v e r , the confusion s u r r o u n d i n g genres again w o r k e d t o obscure the f u l l p o t e n t i a l benefit o f prestige by association. So w h i l e i t m i g h t have been true t h a t different k i n d s o f a u d i ­ ences were seeing different films (Gans 1 9 7 4 ) , the lack o f an i n s t i t u t i o n a l ­ ized a n d clearly a r t i c u l a t e d d i s t i n c t i o n between serious H o l l y w o o d films a n d lighter m a t e r i a l prevented b r o a d acknowledgement o f audience seg­ m e n t a t i o n . T h e status o f art is clearly n o t solely a f u n c t i o n o f the status o f its patrons. H o w e v e r , i t is a factor t h a t plays i n t o c u l t u r a l hierarchy. I f there were strong audience segmentation t o accompany genre segmenta­ t i o n , as there is w i t h classical a n d p o p u l a r music, for example, serious H o l l y w o o d films w o u l d have a m u c h stronger c l a i m t o artistic legitimacy. 1

2

168

•

Chapter 5

Finally, w h a t has damaged the claims o f those w h o w o u l d consecrate H o l l y w o o d films as art, perhaps m o r e t h a n any other factor, is the perva­ sive image o f film as business—and f o r g o o d reason. U n l i k e art t h a t is under the d i r e c t i o n o f trustee-governed n o n p r o f i t organizations, p r o f i t o r i e n t e d studios a n d executives are deeply a n d conspicuously i n v o l v e d i n film p r o d u c t i o n a n d p r o m o t i o n . Even independent filmmakers are often p o p u l a r l y p o r t r a y e d as v i t a l l y concerned w i t h securing large box-office results f o r m i n i m a l financial investments. A r t i s t s need t o profess a degree o f "disinterestedness" i n economic matters t o enjoy c r e d i b i l i t y ( B o u r d i e u 1 9 9 3 : 3 9 ) . I n the 1960s, the recent shift a w a y f r o m the studio system h i g h ­ l i g h t e d the n e w independence o f directors, m a n y o f w h o m were seen as e c o n o m i c a l l y disinterested artists. T h i s impression jibed w i t h the p r e d o m ­ i n a n t r o m a n t i c i d e o l o g y o f art. F i l m scholarship has s h o w n , however, t h a t the m i d - 1 9 7 0 s were a t u r n ­ i n g p o i n t f o r H o l l y w o o d . I t was t h e n t h a t the i n d u s t r y shifted t o the " b l o c k b u s t e r strategy," w h e r e m o r e financial resources are devoted t o fewer films as a gamble t h a t the o v e r a l l p a y o f f w i l l be higher (Baker a n d Faulkner 1 9 9 1 ; Schatz 2 0 0 3 ) . I t w o u l d require a separate study t o fully investigate the causes a n d consequences o f the retrenchment o f the art w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d films. Schatz ( 2 0 0 3 : 2 6 - 2 8 ) argues t h a t various forces acted i n concert t o b r i n g o n the blockbuster era: the increasing n u m b e r o f theaters i n s h o p p i n g malls, " s h i f t i n g m a r k e t patterns a n d [a] c h a n g i n g c o n c e p t i o n o f y o u t h c u l t u r e , " the "increasing influence o f H o l ­ l y w o o d ' s t o p agents a n d talent agencies," the e l i m i n a t i o n o f t a x loopholes a n d write-offs w h i c h h a d p r o v i d e d incentives for investors, especially those financing independent films, "the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f television-based m a r k e t i n g , " and the c r e a t i o n o f the h o m e video m a r k e t , w h i c h vastly expanded p r o f i t p o t e n t i a l . T h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t the blockbuster f o r m u l a has w o r k e d against an ethos o f film as art, b o t h i n terms o f the content i t encourages a n d the p u b l i c i t y i t generates t h r o u g h business practices i n v o l v i n g hundreds o f m i l l i o n s o f dollars. T h i s is n o t t o say, however, that the blockbuster strat­ egy has e l i m i n a t e d the p o t e n t i a l for film art. N o t a l l H o l l y w o o d films are made according t o the blockbuster f o r m u l a , o r at least its extreme f o r m , a n d independent films are exempted by definition. M o r e o v e r , there are those w h o w o u l d argue t h a t some blockbuster p r o d u c t i o n s are true art. Nevertheless, the cliche t h a t certain well-regarded films o f the 1960s a n d 1970s w o u l d n o t be made under today's f u n d i n g p r i o r i t i e s certainly holds some t r u t h . T h i s is l i k e l y the result o f the shift away f r o m t a r g e t i n g y o u n g adults t o w a r d targeting teenagers w h o have i n recent decades become the mainstay o f the theatrical film m a r k e t . A t the same t i m e t h a t w e have m o v e d f r o m the golden era o f 1960s a n d 1970s H o l l y w o o d a n d i n t o the blockbuster era, m a n y argue there has 3

Mechanisms for Cultural Valuation

•

169

been a shift i n the f u n c t i o n o f film critics. A l t h o u g h still p o p u l a r a n d w e l l published, critics i n general c l a i m t h a t they n o longer have the a b i l i t y t o set the aesthetic agenda f o r audiences, a n d they decry their d e c l i n i n g relevance for h o w people t h i n k a b o u t films (Denby 1 9 9 8 ; W o l c o t t 1 9 9 7 ) . H a b e r s k i (2001) argues t h a t the d i m i n u t i o n o f the c u l t u r a l influence o f film critics is a result o f the decline o f c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y i n general. Be­ cause w e live i n an age o f aesthetic r e l a t i v i s m , where audience preferences are just as " l e g i t i m a t e " as critics' preferences, the role o f critics has been significantly n a r r o w e d . I n a d d i t i o n , critics were influential f o r audiences i n their c h a m p i o n i n g o f an u n d e r d o g c u l t u r a l f o r m . N o w t h a t the fight for r e c o g n i t i o n o f films as art, especially the H o l l y w o o d films t h a t m a n y people actually saw, has been w o n , there is inherently less interest i n w h a t critics have t o say ( H a b e r s k i 2 0 0 1 : 1 8 9 ) . I f i t is true t h a t critics are less relevant, then w e have evidence i n strong s u p p o r t o f Shrum's thesis t h a t the d i s t i n c t i o n between art a n d entertain­ m e n t is correlated w i t h the relevance o f expert o p i n i o n . M o r e o v e r , this helps us better understand the observed trends i n the characteristics o f film review discussed i n chapter 4 . For most measures w e saw decreases i n the final t i m e p e r i o d — f i l m reviews were using less o f an artistic dis­ course t h a n i n the 1 9 7 0 - 8 0 p e r i o d . I n the blockbuster era, since the peak o f the art w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d films, film critics have relinquished the art discourse t h a t was once d o m i n a n t . I n p a r t this is because the films decreasingly lent themselves t o t h a t discourse. B u t i n p a r t this is also be­ cause audiences n o longer l o o k e d t o critics t o expand their perspective o n films, t o explore meanings a n d ways i n w h i c h films b u i l t o n past w o r k . Instead, they began t o l o o k merely f o r endorsements—critics became the Consumer Reports o f films, as w e l l as cogs i n the H o l l y w o o d m a r k e t i n g machine. W h i l e some serious c r i t i c i s m still gets w r i t t e n , there are n o w a great m a n y " h a c k critics . . . h a n d i n g o u t rave quotes like free candy o n the streets" ( D e n b y 1998:94).

F I L M C O N S U M P T I O N AS C U L T U R A L C A P I T A L

This study has f o u n d t h a t the h i s t o r y o f film has m a n y similarities t o other c u l t u r a l genres t h a t were legitimated as art. For example, after the i n t r o ­ d u c t i o n o f film as an alternative f o r m o f dramatic entertainment, theater appeared m o r e artistic because i n m a n y ways i t was m o r e i n line w i t h prevailing conventions concerning the characteristics o f real art ( D i M a g ­ gio 1992). I n a d d i t i o n , o n the average the audience further experienced an u p w a r d shift i n socioeconomic status as working-class audiences attended films m o r e often. These developments were paralleled by the changes that occurred i n the field o f film f o l l o w i n g the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f television.

170

•

Chapter 5

A n o t h e r s i m i l a r i t y exists between opera a n d film. The creation o f opera houses exclusively for the staging o f classical opera helped p u r i f y the genre o f vaudeville a n d other musicals, w h i c h were m o r e often at odds w i t h n o t i o n s o f h i g h art. T h e creation o f art houses for films f u n c t i o n e d i n a similar fashion for film, a l t h o u g h less effectively so. I n studies o f other art f o r m s , the research has d r a w n strong l i n k s be­ t w e e n artistic c o n s u m p t i o n a n d class p o l i t i c s . Does film c o n s u m p t i o n have a similar tie t o class politics? T h a t is t o say, does k n o w l e d g e a b o u t a n d well-developed taste for films serve as c u l t u r a l capital? A c c o r d i n g t o D i M a g g i o ( 1 9 8 2 ) , one o f the key features o f the c r e a t i o n o f the c u l t u r a l hierarchy i n the U n i t e d States d u r i n g the last h a l f o f the nineteenth century is t h a t i t served class interests. D i M a g g i o (1982:47) argues t h a t the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f fine art ( p a i n t i n g a n d sculpture) a n d s y m p h o n i c music f r o m entertainment i n B o s t o n was accomplished by " c u l t u r a l capitalists." These members o f the Boston elite t o o k a c t i o n t o s y m b o l i c a l l y segregate themselves a n d t o bolster their c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y at a t i m e o f p o l i t i c a l a n d economic challenges f r o m the r i s i n g m i d d l e classes a n d i m m i g r a n t s . T h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f the B o s t o n B r a h m i n s i n an exclusionary h i g h culture t r a n s f o r m e d t h e m " f r o m an elite i n t o a social class" ( D i M a g g i o 1 9 8 2 : 4 9 ) . Levine (1988:176) makes a s i m i l a r argument regarding the impetus f o r the v a l o r i z a t i o n o f Shakespearean d r a m a a n d other h i g h art genres. Pro­ cesses o f u r b a n i z a t i o n , i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , a n d i m m i g r a t i o n were threaten­ i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l social order. Elites i n m a j o r cities developed i n s t i t u t i o n s for creating a n d e x h i b i t i n g h i g h c u l t u r e , a l o n g w i t h an etiquette f o r c u l ­ t u r a l appreciation. One result o f the c r e a t i o n o f legitimate h i g h art i n the U n i t e d States was t o p r o v i d e a social space t o w h i c h elites c o u l d retreat: " c u l t u r e free o f i n t r u s i o n , free o f d i l u t i o n , free o f the insistent demands o f the people and the marketplace; culture t h a t w o u l d ennoble, elevate, p u r i f y ; culture t h a t w o u l d p r o v i d e a refuge f r o m the t u r m o i l , the feelings o f a l i e n a t i o n , the sense o f impotence t h a t were becoming a l l t o o c o m m o n " ( 2 0 6 ) . D e N o r a describes another example o f the elevation o f a c u l t u r e as a means t o defend class privilege ( 1 9 9 1 ) . She argues t h a t Viennese aristo­ crats h a d t r a d i t i o n a l l y been u n i q u e l y able t o afford t o p r o v i d e classical music concerts for themselves a n d one another. W h e n the r i s i n g b o u r g e o i ­ sie began t o i m i t a t e t h e m , they created an ideology o f "serious" classical music, a taste for the r i g h t composers shared o n l y by t h e m . W i t h o u t the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l means for separation, they t u r n e d t o i d e o l o g i c a l means t o style themselves as "aristocrats o f taste" ( 3 3 7 ) . T h e p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f music they selected was then sacralized as "great" music. T h e h i s t o r y o f film evinces b o t h similarities a n d differences w i t h these other case studies regarding the use o f c u l t u r e t o bolster class differences. O n the one h a n d , the h i s t o r y o f film differs i n ways t h a t are i m p o r t a n t l y

Mechanisms for Cultural Valuation •

171

related t o t i m i n g . T h e creation o f the art w o r l d for film happened m u c h later t h a n the other cases described. I n the U n i t e d States, the contours o f social stratification h a d been clearly established a n d l i n k e d t o c u l t u r a l c o n s u m p t i o n patterns for m a n y decades by the 1960s. F i l m as art, there­ fore, existed i n contrast t o earlier h i g h arts. As discussed i n chapter 2 , the expansion o f the boundaries o f art t o include previously l o w b r o w a n d f o l k genres was an intellectual a n d aes­ thetic shift t h a t fully b l o o m e d i n the 1960s. T h i s shift, o r " a t t a c k " (Pe­ terson 1 9 9 7 : 8 5 ) , o n h i g h b r o w snobbery h a d i m p o r t a n t class i m p l i c a t i o n s . I t occurred i n concert w i t h s w i f t l y rising educational levels a n d the i n ­ creasing i m p o r t a n c e o f education for o c c u p a t i o n a l outcomes. T h e collegeeducated, the core o f the n e w film generation, were o n their w a y t o becom­ i n g members o f the upper-middle class. B u t rather t h a n merely i m i t a t e the high-status c o n s u m p t i o n patterns o f p r i o r classes, they relied o n n e w c u l t u r a l signals t o s y m b o l i c a l l y set themselves apart f r o m their predeces­ sors (Brooks 2 0 0 0 ) . F i l m — g o o d films, the best European a n d then H o l l y ­ w o o d films—served this f u n c t i o n . K n o w i n g the current discourse a b o u t film became c u l t u r a l capital—a high-status c u l t u r a l cue. T h e c o r o l l a r y o f t h a t use o f film k n o w l e d g e is t h a t film became accepted as art. I t was t h o u g h t o f as a m o r e democratic, less snobbish art t h a n the stuffy h i g h culture o f opera a n d m u s e u m g o i n g , b u t i t was t o some extent p u t t o the same uses—as a status marker. T h i s f u n c t i o n o f film was viable o n l y after film audiences shrank a n d became less clearly w o r k i n g class. I n the same w a y as established h i g h arts, once the products were less " c o n t a m i n a t e d " t h r o u g h appreciation by low-status audiences, they became useful as markers.

A N EMPHASIS O N INTELLECTUALIZING DISCOURSE

This study differs f r o m previous studies o f artistic l e g i t i m a t i o n i n its heav­ ier emphasis o n the role o f a l e g i t i m a t i n g ideology. T h e reason for this emphasis is w e l l articulated i n a 1964 article i n the Journal of Philosophy by A r t h u r D a n t o . T h e recent emergence o f the Pop A r t m o v e m e n t , w h e r e i n artists inserted everyday objects i n t o artistic contexts a n d labeled t h e m art, h i g h l i g h t e d for D a n t o the role o f t h e o r y i n creating art. W h a t i n the end makes the difference between a B r i l l o b o x a n d a w o r k o f art consisting o f a B r i l l o B o x is a certain t h e o r y o f art. I t is the t h e o r y t h a t takes i t u p i n t o the w o r l d o f art, a n d keeps i t f r o m collapsing i n t o the real object w h i c h i t is ( i n a sense o f is other t h a n t h a t o f artistic identification). O f course, w i t h o u t the theory, one is u n l i k e l y t o see i t as art, a n d i n order t o see i t as p a r t o f the a r t w o r l d , one must have

172

•

Chapter 5

mastered a g o o d deal o f artistic t h e o r y as w e l l as a considerable a m o u n t o f the h i s t o r y o f recent N e w Y o r k p a i n t i n g . I t c o u l d n o t have been a r t fifty years ago. B u t t h e n there c o u l d n o t have been, e v e r y t h i n g being equal, flight insurance i n the M i d d l e Ages, o r Etruscan t y p e w r i t e r eras­ ers. T h e w o r l d has t o be ready for certain things, the a r t w o r l d n o less t h a n the real one. I t is the role o f artistic theories, these days as always, t o m a k e the a r t w o r l d , a n d art, possible. I t w o u l d , I s h o u l d t h i n k , never have occurred t o the painters o f Lascaux t h a t they were p r o d u c i n g art o n those w a l l s . N o t unless there were n e o l i t h i c aestheticians. (581) T h e passage makes clear h o w o u r perceptions o f w h a t is a r t are influenced by the presence o f a t h e o r y t o a p p l y t o p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t s . W i t h ­ o u t a set o f conventions t o measure films against, there w o u l d have been n o w a y t o see the a r t i n t h e m , f o r art is defined by its r e l a t i o n t o conven­ t i o n s , adhering t o some a n d p l a y i n g w i t h others. T h e l e g i t i m a t i n g i d e o l ­ ogy espoused i n the film w o r l d a r t i c u l a t e d those conventions i n the f a m i l ­ iar v o c a b u l a r y o f artistic a p p r e c i a t i o n a n d applied t h e m t o p a r t i c u l a r cases so audiences c o u l d see f o r themselves w h y a film was art. A n a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f the c r u c i a l role o f a l e g i t i m a t i n g i d e o l o g y per­ m i t s us t o recognize h o w c u l t u r a l experts fit i n t o a concept o f p u b l i c legiti­ macy. As recognized a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e i r pronouncements can influence p o p u l a r perceptions. Previous authors have n o t clearly e x p l a i n e d h o w legitimacy a m o n g experts relates t o legitimacy a m o n g the w i d e r p u b l i c . I n the case o f film, the m a r g i n a l idea t h a t film was an a r t f o r m was enter­ t a i n e d by relatively few c u l t u r a l experts f o r several decades before the r a p i d f o r m a t i o n o f a near consensus o n the matter i n the 1960s. Pre­ v i o u s l y there h a d been a f a i r l y h i g h consensus that film was n o t a n a r t f o r m . A l t h o u g h n o t the o n l y factor, such consensus a m o n g experts c o n ­ t r i b u t e d t o an enhanced v i e w o f film as a r t a m o n g the p u b l i c . I n a d d i t i o n t o a greater emphasis o n the role o f a l e g i t i m a t i n g ideology, this study differs f r o m previous ones i n the p r o v i s i o n o f data c o n c e r n i n g t h a t discourse. W h i l e m a n y scholars have p o i n t e d t o the key role o f a l e g i t i m a t i n g ideology, none has e m p i r i c a l l y documented a n d analyzed its emergence. M y analysis provides a m o r e general m o d e l f o r the analysis o f discourse i n other c u l t u r a l a n d intellectual fields. W h e n they began t o use a sophisticated, interpretation-centered discourse i n film review, c r i t ­ ics influenced h o w film was v i e w e d a n d u n d e r s t o o d , w h e t h e r film c o u l d a p p r o p r i a t e l y be discussed as art, a n d v o c a b u l a r y resembling t h a t used i n other h i g h b r o w artistic c r i t i c i s m . N o critic w o u l d c l a i m t h a t a l l films m e r i t the status o f art. H o w e v e r , by d e v o t i n g serious a t t e n t i o n a n d analyses a n d a specialized discourse i n t h e i r w r i t i n g o n film for a p o p u l a r audience, critics asserted t h a t i t was possible t o search for, a n d find, artistic value i n films. I t is i m p o r t a n t t o note, however, t h a t w h i l e they were the p r i m a r y 4

Mechanisms for Cultural Valuation

•

173

disseminators o f the discourse, they were n o t its o n l y creators. T h e legiti­ m a t i n g i d e o l o g y f o r f i l m as a r t was the p r o d u c t o f a range o f f i l m - w o r l d p a r t i c i p a n t s i n c l u d i n g critics, academics, f i l m m a k e r s , a n d other intellectu­ als i n v o l v e d w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f festivals, p r o g r a m s , a n d institutes. T h e focus o n f i l m review is justified because its p o p u l a r i t y ensured t h a t the discourse o f f i l m a p p r e c i a t i o n was disseminated t o the w i d e r p u b l i c . H o w e v e r , because o f the c o m m u n i c a t i o n between critics, academics, a n d other thinkers o n f i l m , i t was n o t the sole site f o r the development o f this ideology.

INTEGRATION OF FACTORS

I n order t o assess the role played by the various social forces a n d factors described here, they have been separated a n d studied i n t u r n . H i s t o r y , o f course, does n o t progress i n a n a l y t i c a l l y distinct units. I t w o u l d be w r o n g to present an analysis t h a t discusses each factor i n i s o l a t i o n f r o m the o t h ­ ers a n d n o t t o acknowledge the inevitable i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e m . T h e s t r o n g emphasis here o n the 1960s as the t u r n i n g p o i n t i n the a r t w o r l d for H o l l y w o o d f i l m , a n d hence the s i m u l t a n e i t y o f m a n y o f the factors, suggests t h a t there were a n u m b e r o f reciprocal relationships o c c u r r i n g . T h e various elements o f the art w o r l d f o r H o l l y w o o d f i l m interacted i n ways t h a t increased the m o m e n t u m o f t h a t w o r l d . I n the m o s t general sense, the c r e a t i o n o f a m o r e favorable o p p o r t u n i t y space i n the 1960s must have been, at some level, perceptible t o those w h o w o u l d c h a m p i o n H o l l y w o o d films' status as art. T h i s perception, t h e n , w o u l d have encour­ aged the m o v e m e n t t o treat film as art. T o be m o r e specific, the enormous g r o w t h i n the n u m b e r o f college-educated people w o u l d have been t a k e n i n t o consideration by those w h o w r o t e a b o u t film. K n o w i n g they h a d a p o t e n t i a l audience w i t h w h o m they c o u l d c o m m u n i c a t e , film c o m m e n t a ­ tors must have been spurred o n t o take up the task. Similarly, those w h o were establishing film festivals w o u l d have h a d reasons t o be m o r e o p t i ­ mistic a b o u t t h e i r endeavors. A n d , m o s t directly, the g r o w t h i n film stud­ ies i n the universities themselves w o u l d have been greatly facilitated by g r o w i n g numbers o f students t o teach. Further connections can be made between the financial factors cited and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f film resources. T h e financial troubles o f A m e r i c a n studios caused by the p o p u l a r i t y o f television a n d by i n d u s t r y restructuring i n the 1950s a n d 1960s a l l o w e d festivals t o p l a y a larger role i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h films and directors succeeded i n the U n i t e d States ( M a s t 1 9 8 1 : 3 3 3 ) . F i l m festivals granted prestige a n d exposure t o m a n y foreign and independent films whose p o p u l a r i t y h a d increased a m o n g a m o r e educated audience at a t i m e o f decreased H o l l y w o o d o u t p u t .

174

•

Chapter 5

T h e g r o w i n g taste f o r E u r o p e a n films also coincided w i t h H o l l y w o o d ' s business difficulties. F i n a n c i a l l y t r o u b l e d H o l l y w o o d studios, eager t o participate i n a n d p r o f i t f r o m the t r e n d , h i r e d m a n y foreign directors t o m a k e films f o r A m e r i c a n d i s t r i b u t i o n . T h e f i l m companies further facili­ tated a v i e w o f f i l m as art by entering festivals and p r o m o t i n g t h e i r films as artistic products. Perhaps the strongest interdependence a m o n g the factors m e n t i o n e d was the l i n k between academic film study and the intellectualization o f film i n reviews. The g r o w t h i n the n u m b e r o f academic courses a n d p r o g r a m s o n film not o n l y added legitimacy t o the idea o f film as art, b u t also aided i n the development o f a m o r e sophisticated language and style o f reviews. W h i l e most o f the critics w r i t i n g for major publications i n the 1960s a n d 1970s (including those w r i t i n g for the publications sampled here) attended college before the emergence o f film programs and so d i d n o t have aca­ demic backgrounds i n film, they h a d the o p p o r t u n i t y t o read academic w o r k and communicate w i t h l i k e - m i n d e d admirers o f film. A developing art w o r l d gathers its o w n m o m e n t u m ; c o o p e r a t i o n begets further coopera­ t i o n , and the seizing o f opportunities creates further o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

T H E STUDY OF CULTURAL HIERARCHY

A l t h o u g h there have been m a n y excellent case studies o f the v a l o r i z a t i o n o f c u l t u r a l objects, I a m aware o f o n l y one sociologist w h o has a t t e m p t e d t o theorize c u l t u r a l hierarchy i n general terms. Pierre B o u r d i e u ' s ( 1 9 9 3 ) analysis o f the field o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n posits t h a t i t operates ac­ c o r d i n g t o a logic t h a t is i n v e r t e d relative t o the economic logic o f society. U n l i k e the literal currency o f the economy, the c u l t u r a l field's m o s t v a l u ­ able currency is s y m b o l i c . Symbolic c a p i t a l is bestowed selectively u p o n w o r k s , artists, a n d genres b y legitimate authorities o f l e g i t i m a t i o n , namely universities a n d artistic academies. Bourdieu's analysis, i l l u s t r a t e d t h r o u g h reference t o the French l i t e r a r y field, focuses o n the finer distinctions between the most h i g h l y l e g i t i m i z e d a n d consecrated genres a n d w o r k s o f art ( w i t h i n fields o f restricted p r o ­ d u c t i o n ) a n d other forms o f m i d d l e b r o w o r bourgeois a r t ( w i t h i n fields of large-scale p r o d u c t i o n ) . T h e principles he posits t o account f o r prestige distinctions can be extended t o shed l i g h t o n the d i s t i n c t i o n between a r t a n d entertainment. For B o u r d i e u , the defining feature o f c u l t u r a l p r o d u c ­ t i o n is the role p e r m i t t e d for the d i s a v o w a l o f c o m m e r c i a l interests, w h i c h strongly contrasts w i t h the p r e v a i l i n g m o d e o f o p e r a t i o n i n the economic field. Disinterest i n the a c c u m u l a t i o n o f economic c a p i t a l is replaced i n legitimate art by interest i n the a c c u m u l a t i o n o f symbolic c a p i t a l . T h i s is m o s t true f o r those genres situated i n a field o f restricted p r o d u c t i o n , 5

Mechanisms for Cultural Valuation •

175

w h i c h demonstrate their authenticity as art by clearly s h o w i n g disinterest i n extra-artistic concerns such as money. T h i s logic also operates i n fields o f large-scale p r o d u c t i o n , b u t less so because the p u r s u i t o f economic capital is n o t as t a b o o . Intellectuals a n d other c u l t u r a l producers grant symbolic capital t h r o u g h r e c o g n i t i o n . Eco­ n o m i c success is granted by mass audiences a n d detracts f r o m the v i a b i l i t y o f claims t o disinterestedness. A r t i s t i c legitimacy, then, exists f o r genres i n p r o p o r t i o n t o the consecration by " s y m b o l i c bankers" ( 1 9 9 3 : 7 7 ) , those w i t h the prestige, r e p u t a t i o n , a n d a u t h o r i t y — s y m b o l i c c a p i t a l — t o invest i n p a r t i c u l a r w o r k s or genres. T h e conflict between earning b o t h s y m b o l i c a n d economic capital is historically r o o t e d i n the belief t h a t art a n d commerce are r i g h t l y opposed. I t is necessary for artists, therefore, t o cultivate a n d m a i n t a i n an image o f disinterestedness i n economic success. O n l y they are eligible for conse­ c r a t i o n by legitimate authorities. L i k e w i s e , the most legitimate genres o f a r t are those t h a t are m o s t fully consecrated by the academic a n d profes­ sional authorities w i t h i n art w o r l d s : p a i n t i n g , theater, sculpture, music, a n d literature. I n m a n y ways this study affirms the principles b e h i n d Bourdieu's analy­ sis o f c u l t u r a l hierarchy. B o u r d i e u has n o t , however, traced the trajectory o f a p a r t i c u l a r a r t f r o m a l o w p o i n t i n the c u l t u r a l hierarchy t o a higher p o i n t . There is m u c h t o be learned a b o u t the nature o f c u l t u r a l hierarchy as a process by s t u d y i n g cases o f "aesthetic m o b i l i t y " (Peterson 1 9 9 4 : 1 7 9 ) . Lopes's (2001) study o f the aesthetic m o b i l i t y o f jazz h i g h ­ lights the significance o f m a n y o f the same a r t - w o r l d features identified by others; the role o f c u l t u r a l entrepreneurs a n d critics interested i n g a i n i n g prestige for jazz; the development o f p u b l i c a t i o n s a n d clubs a n d the cre­ a t i o n o f concerts t o institutionalize resources a n d practices devoted t o jazz as art; a n d the e v o l v i n g relationship between jazz a n d the w i d e r w o r l d s o f b o t h A m e r i c a n music a n d A m e r i c a n society generally. W i t h i n these m u s i ­ cal a n d social contexts, the meaning o f jazz evolved as its connections t o audiences segmented by race a n d class evolved. Jazz's place w i t h i n the A m e r i c a n c u l t u r a l hierarchy was influenced by the role i t played i n the i d e n t i t y politics o f high-status audience segments w h o were able t o capi­ talize o n its status as a genre o f music n o t o n l y outside the established high-culture c a n o n b u t also associated w i t h groups whose outsider status c o n t r i b u t e d t o their a u t h e n t i c i t y a n d c r e d i b i l i t y as artists. T h i s occurred over the course o f several decades w h e n the t r a d i t i o n a l barriers between h i g h a n d l o w culture were b l u r r i n g , w i t h the rise o f jazz a c o n t r i b u t i n g factor t o the b l u r r i n g o f these boundaries. T h e analysis i n this b o o k combines the strength o f h i s t o r i c a l analysis w i t h the insights o f Bourdieu's analysis o f c u l t u r a l fields a n d c u l t u r a l hier­ archy i n particular. T h e analysis here also incorporates various insights

176

•

Chapter 5

f r o m an array o f p r i o r e m p i r i c a l case studies o f c u l t u r a l hierarchy t o b u i l d an argument t h a t explains the v a l o r i z a t i o n o f H o l l y w o o d films i n terms t h a t are useful for understanding c u l t u r a l hierarchy m o r e generally. F o r any c u l t u r a l genre, its status w i t h i n a hierarchy should be analyzed ac­ c o r d i n g t o the h i s t o r i c a l features o f its o p p o r t u n i t y space, its a r t - w o r l d institutions a n d practices, a n d the features o f the discourse t h a t frame a n d interpret the genre. W i t h i n this f r a m e w o r k , there are several key insights a b o u t c u l t u r a l hierarchy t h a t must be emphasized. First, c u l t u r a l v a l o r i z a t i o n has m u c h t o d o w i t h status seeking. Status has associative properties, m e a n i n g t h a t people g a i n status t h r o u g h association w i t h high-status things. I t is also a sociological t r u i s m t h a t people are status seeking. B o t h c u l t u r a l p r o d u c ­ ers a n d c u l t u r a l consumers are m a k i n g decisions t h a t have consequences for t h e i r status w h e n they produce a n d consume. T h e shape o f the c u l t u r a l hierarchy is influenced by the o u t c o m e o f c u l t u r a l politics w h e r e different genres are supported by their sponsors. T h i s m i g h t seem clearer i n the case o f the most consecrated artistic genres, b u t i t is equally true i n the case o f H o l l y w o o d films. Second, c u l t u r a l hierarchy is always m u l t i c a u s a l . I t is an academic c l i ­ che t o posit t h a t t w o o r m o r e seemingly c o m p e t i n g theories are i n fact complementary. Nevertheless, w h e n i t comes t o p r i o r research o n c u l t u r a l hierarchy, the cliche is apt. Take, for example, the apparent c o n t r a d i c t i o n between " c o m p o s i t i o n a l " a n d "discursive" approaches t o understanding the status o f culture. Gans's (1974) influential w o r k o n taste cultures a n d taste publics posits a causal c o r r e l a t i o n between the status o f c u l t u r a l genres a n d the status o f audience members. A t the same t i m e , "the m a j o r source o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between taste cultures a n d publics is socioeco­ n o m i c level or class" ( 1 9 7 4 : 7 0 ) . T h e i m p l i c i t argument here is t h a t c u l ­ t u r a l v a l o r i z a t i o n is a result o f g r o u p solidarity. Elite groups p r o v i d e h i g h status t o the c u l t u r a l forms w i t h w h i c h they are strongly identified. S h r u m ( 1 9 9 6 : c h . l 0 ) , o n the other h a n d , argues t h a t distinctions between art a n d p o p u l a r culture are f o u n d e d o n differences i n discursive practices. U n m e diated c u l t u r a l c o n s u m p t i o n , where critical i n p u t is deemed irrelevant, b o t h signals that the c u l t u r e is p o p u l a r a n d is n o t art a n d reinforces t h a t classification by leaving n o r o o m for a t h e o r y o f art t o p l a y a r o l e . I n contrast, those genres for w h i c h c r i t i c i s m is deemed relevant are signaled a n d reinforced as art. I t is, o f course, unnecessary t o v i e w c u l t u r e o n l y as art o r non-art; c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n s are situated along a spectrum o f v a l o r i z a t i o n . T h i s f l e x i b i l i t y makes i t easy t o recognize t h a t there is n o need t o argue that o n l y one determinant o f status m a y be o p e r a t i n g . C u l ­ t u r a l v a l o r i z a t i o n is influenced by both the existence o f "status bargains" and other factors such as the status o f audience members. A c u l t u r a l f o r m t h a t has an audience entirely o f h i g h socioeconomic status a n d a t r a d i t i o n

Mechanisms for Cultural Valuation •

177

o f c r i t i c a l m e d i a t i o n w i l l m o r e l i k e l y find legitimacy as art t h a n a c u l t u r a l f o r m w i t h an audience o f l o w or m i x e d socioeconomic status o r l a c k i n g a t r a d i t i o n o f m e d i a t i o n . T h e case o f film is supportive o f Shrum's a r g u ­ m e n t b u t is also consistent w i t h a c o m p o s i t i o n a l approach. I t appears t h a t the increase i n the relevance o f critics closely f o l l o w e d the r e c o g n i t i o n o f film as art. A t the same t i m e however, the c o m p o s i t i o n o f film's audience shifted t o include relatively m o r e members o f h i g h socioeconomic status. As discussed, the rise o f an educated audience was indispensable f o r creat­ i n g a readership f o r the critics, so the t w o developments were i n t i m a t e l y related t o each other as w e l l as t o the outcome for film, namely the en­ hancement o f film's legitimacy as art. T h i r d , the beliefs a n d values o f Western societies deem c o m m e r c i a l i n ­ terests antithetical t o the legitimacy o f art. The R o m a n t i c n o t i o n o f art prevails, connecting artistic legitimacy w i t h the noble activities o f rare geniuses. T h e case o f film conforms t o this as w e l l . U n l i k e the genres studied by D i M a g g i o ( 1 9 8 2 , 1992) a n d Levine (1988)—fine art, opera, d r a m a , m o d e r n dance, a n d t h e a t e r — f i l m i n the U n i t e d States has almost entirely been created by large, p r o f i t - o r i e n t e d c o r p o r a t i o n s . Yet i t also managed t o achieve a certain degree o f legitimacy as art. I t is p r o b a b l y true t h a t i t w o u l d be even m o r e w i d e l y accepted as art i f i t were solely i n the hands o f n o n p r o f i t organizations. B u t the h i s t o r y o f film still supports the logic b e h i n d the argument t h a t n o n p r o f i t organizations can legitimate c u l t u r a l products as art. P r o d u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s for film i n i m p o r t a n t ways resembled, at least t o outsiders, the c o n d i t i o n s o f n o n p r o f i t p r o d u c t i o n a n d so p a r t i a l l y resolved the tension between the o p p o s i n g exigencies o f art a n d entertainment. M o s t significant, the director-centered p r o d u c t i o n system placed an emphasis o n p o r t r a y i n g the director as largely unfettered by c o m m e r c i a l interests o r constraints. I t is p r o b a b l y m o s t accurate t o say t h a t a small n u m b e r o f directors were a l l o w e d a measured a m o u n t o f greater creative f l e x i b i l i t y d u r i n g the studios' financial crises i n the 1960s. H o w e v e r , the image o f a director as an a u t o n o m o u s artist was w i d e ­ spread, a n d i t was t h r o u g h this perception t h a t the shift t o director-cen­ tered p r o d u c t i o n m o s t influenced the acceptance o f H o l l y w o o d films as art. I n this way, the director was film's analog t o the a u t h o r i n literature, the p l a y w r i g h t i n theater, a n d the composer i n music a n d opera. Foreign films, especially, were c o n v i n c i n g l y n o n c o m m e r c i a l , most often p r o d u c e d w i t h small budgets a n d strongly identified w i t h a star auteur director. Finally, artistic l e g i t i m a t i o n is an essentially intellectual enterprise re­ q u i r i n g c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y . A r t w o r l d s are, o f course, collectively created a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d by everyone f r o m the artist h i m - o r herself t o the factory w o r k e r s w h o make the chairs the audience members occupy. B u t there is a special role for c u l t u r a l experts i n artistic fields, where q u a l i t y and achievement are tremendously difficult t o objectively measure. I n v i r -

178

•

Chapter 5

t u a l l y every c u l t u r a l field, q u a l i t y a n d success almost always i n v o l v e some subjectivity t o their measurement, n o m a t t e r whether the field is science, sports, law, j o u r n a l i s m , o r finance. B u t the degree t o w h i c h q u a l i t y a n d success i n art resist objective measurement exceeds t h a t i n any other field. Q u a l i t y a n d success are therefore m o r e influenced by experts w i t h c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y i n art t h a n i n other fields. Because discourse is the means b y w h i c h experts participate i n art w o r l d s , a special a t t e n t i o n t o discourse is essential f o r understanding c u l t u r a l hierarchy.

Notes

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: DRAWING T H E BOUNDARIES OF A R T

1. The differences between musical genres provide a good example of how some genres are widely seen as art while the artistic status of other is contested. In their analysis of musical tastes as status markers, Peterson and Simkus find "that there is general agreement among Americans that classical music anchors the upper end of the taste hierarchy," while "there is less and less consensus on the ranking as one moves down the hierarchy of taste" (1992:168). The ranking of musical genres begins w i t h classical, followed by folk, jazz, "middle-of-theroad," big band, rock, religious, soul, and finally country. While Peterson and Simkus were looking at prestige rather than artistic status per se, because art is an honored category, those genres that are more prestigious are also more readily viewed as art. 2. Two of the best known proponents of proceduralist viewpoints are George Dickie (1974), who proposed an institutional theory of art, and Arthur Danto (1964), who focused on art's relationship to the theory of an art world. 3. M u c h has been written about the quality of Hollywood production between the late 1960s and the late 1970s. Among film scholars there is debate about the extent to which the films of this era were literally better and more deserving of being called art (King 2002:13). Even i f one were to agree that the films were better, the question remains as to why recognition of these films as art became widespread. After all, not all culture that could conceivably qualify as good art is widely seen as such. Moreover, the quality of films i n the 1960s and 1970s does not explain how many forgotten classics of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s were reinterpreted as art during that period after having been dismissed. 4. Competing histories give more credit to the Lumiere brothers of France for some of the key inventions involved in the creation and exhibition of motion pictures. 5. In addition, while the first and second factors are both helpful for under­ standing how a product, idea, or practice can become popular or commonplace, the third is needed to explain the creation of legitimacy—the shifting of a bound­ ary between categories. 6. In recent w o r k Ferguson (1998) has argued for a distinction between the similar notions of "field," elaborated by Bourdieu (1993), and " w o r l d , " devel­ oped by Becker (1982), as they pertain to cultural production. She characterizes an art world by its "cooperative networks," which "can exist only in fairly circum­ scribed social or geographical settings endowed w i t h mechanisms that promote connection" (635-36). A field, on the other hand, offers "the acute consciousness of positions and possibilities for social mobility in a circumscribed social space" (634), and is "structured by a largely textual discourse that continually (re)negoti-

180

•

Notes to Chapter 2

ates the systemic tensions between production and consumption" (637). I contend that the differences between field and world are of degree rather than type. For instance, Bourdieu (1993) illustrates his concept of field through a study of the French literary field—fields, too, need to be bounded geographically and socially to be analytically useful. Moreover, Becker (1982) identifies the role that reputa­ tion (ch. 11) and "critical discussions" (339) play in art worlds. While they are not central, they are nonetheless important to the dynamics of an art world. Fergu­ son seems to emphasize the ideological foundation of a field and the organiza­ tional foundation of a world. However, in their original formulations both field and world allow for both ideological and organizational elements, albeit to vary­ ing degrees. I use both terms interchangeably. Ferguson argues that we know rela­ tively little about how cultural fields originate. I would argue that if we accept the analogy between an art world and a cultural field , we know more than Ferguson claims about the origins of cultural fields. Some of the literature reviewed here can be interpreted as explaining antecedents of cultural fields.

CHAPTER 2 T H E C H A N G I N G O P P O R T U N I T Y SPACE: D E V E L O P M E N T S I N T H E W I D E R SOCIAL CONTEXT

1. In discussing opportunity space, DiMaggio (1992) also places a heavy em­ phasis on the imitation of cultural genres. In the cases he studies, the institutional support for the genres was modeled on existing organizational forms of highart sponsorship. Therefore, the timing of the transformation in prestige for those cultural genres is significant precisely because it allows for imitation. For D i M a g ­ gio, the concept of an opportunity space takes into account the existence of mod­ els available for imitation. I argue that actors in the film world likewise created institutions and organizational forms that were sometimes based on existing highart models. However, these actions are analytically separate from the influences connected with the opportunity space as defined by the existence of competitors or substitutes and the availability of patrons. The influence of institutionalized resources and practices is discussed in the following chapter. 2. There is a partial analogy between my analysis of the legitimation of Holly­ wood film and Stinchcombe's explanation of the relationship between social struc­ ture and the founding of organizations: "The organizational inventions that can be made at a particular time in history depend on the social technology available" (1965:153). As an example, Stinchcombe writes that "railroads perhaps could not be 'invented' until the social forms appropriate to an inherently very largescale enterprise had been invented" (1965:160). The variables that determine the state of "social technology" that Stinchcome focuses on are literacy and advanced schooling, urbanization, a money economy, political revolution, and density of social life (1965:150). Similarly, i f one views the creation of an art w o r l d for film as a much dispersed type of organization, one can argue that its creation awaited the appropriate "social technology" discussed in this chapter. 3. There is a large degree of similarity between the concept of an opportunity space and that of a "niche," as it has been developed in the population ecology

Notes to Chapter 2

•

181

paradigm by biologists studying plants and animals. It has since been applied to the study of organizations (see e.g., Hannan and Freeman 1988; Hannan and Freeman 1987; Hannan and Freeman 1977). I f this case is conceptualized as a competition between different "species" of cultural products for Americans, the development of television can be seen as having "crowded out" the niche for pop­ ular dramatic entertainment. Film was not sufficiently competitive for the re­ sources (audience members) within that niche. Similarly, if this case is conceptual­ ized as a competition between different "species" of leisure-time options, then the increase in the birth rate can be seen as having greatly limited the availability of resources (audience members) necessary for the survival of film within the niche of America's dominant leisure-time activity. The increase in the number of highly educated audience members, on the other hand, can be seen as having "opened up" a niche by making available resources (audience members) within a niche for film as art. The concept of an opportunity space is meant to refer to both the competitors and the availability of patrons as resources. 4. A n observant reader might notice that the class breakdown of this audience was probably not so far off from the general population. Although it is not clear from the source how "leisure class" is defined, it is most likely only meant to describe a small proportion of the population, the high end of the socioeconomic scale. Nevertheless, the breakdown provides an interesting contrast w i t h the case of an established high-culture activity, opera attendance. While only a minority of the upper or upper-middle class attend opera, audiences for opera are nonetheless almost entirely elite (Blau 1986). Other high-culture audiences are disproportion­ ately elite. It would seem that, insofar as association w i t h the status of audience members matters, the status of culture is quite sensitive to "class contamination." High culture is associated w i t h a "purification" of audiences, not merely a repre­ sentative sample of high SES members. 5. Sklar finds evidence for a difference in the class character of American and British film audiences from a very early period. He quotes from a 1910 handbook for theater managers and operators in the United States that states that workingclass neighborhoods are ideal locations, and wealthy neighborhoods or neighbor­ hoods with many churchgoers would not provide business or would interfere w i t h business. I n contrast, a similar handbook from the same period i n Great Britain advised that a location among the "artizan or middle classes" was advantageous relative to working-class areas (1994:16). I n the main, there appears to be more evidence that film audiences i n Great Britain were primarily working class until at least the 1930s. 6. Kracauer was, ultimately, pointing to the distinctions between high art and the cinema, including the differences in the acts of high-art reception and "distrac­ t i o n " of mass art for which the new "palaces" were created. Nevertheless, what is significant here is the phenomenon of a high-art sheen on film theaters in Berlin in the 1920s. 7. Since filmgoing is more common among youth, inclusion of all teen­ agers may boost the annual attendance rate. However, supposing that the inclu­ sion of those aged thirteen to seventeen doubled overall attendance, however un­ likely, German annual per capita attendance would still lag far behind American attendance.

182

•

Notes to Chapter 2

8. See Adler (1976) for a discussion of the relationship between moments of social or political change and aesthetic innovation. 9. The German film industry was the exception. Uricchio (1996:66) notes that through centralized authority and the work of leading industrialists, the German industry strengthened. However, U.S. market penetration in Germany remained high through much of the war (Uricchio 1996:70). 10. See Schluepmann (1986) for a discussion of a 1913 attempt by German filmmakers to link film w i t h highbrow literature. 11. Crisp, in writing about the French audience for film after the development of television, provides a way to characterize the behavior of the American audi­ ence for film. Crisp writes that filmgoing became the provenance of "that bour­ geois audience still willing to 'go out to the cinema,' as it expected to go out to the opera, to a concert, or to a play" (1993:73). This feature of filmgoing, namely leaving the home and making an occasion out of a film, likewise may have contrib­ uted to a culture of filmgoing as artistic experience among certain audiences in the United States. 12. I t is also possible that young people in the 1960s became the film genera­ tion in part because they had acquired a familiarity w i t h a large number of old films through television broadcasts. Such exposure would not have been possible for earlier audiences. It is true that film studios initially resisted broadcasts of old movies because they were concerned about the negative effects of television on cinema attendance. They eventually, however, permitted the networks access to their archives once they had established that the financial benefits outweighed the costs. 13. Although data correlating college plans and cinema attendance are not readily available, one doubts that a similar comment could be made today. 14. Richard Maltby (2003) reviews data on film audiences from several de­ cades. Interestingly, he finds that in addition to changing educational levels, audi­ ences that were originally majority female were either no longer so or were major­ ity male by the 1960s. He writes that [s]urveys in the 1920s and early 1930s supported the industry assumption that women formed the dominant part of its audience, and all the evidence from the trade press and other industry sources makes clear that during those decades the motion picture industry assumed that women were its primary market, both through their own attendance and through their roles as opin­ ion leaders, influencing the males w i t h whom they attended. (20) However, "[i]n the 1960s, the movie industry gradually came to the conclusion that its principal target viewer had changed gender" (21). The gender association is interesting as a matter of symbolic contamination (Lieberson et al. 2000:1285). In such an analysis, film may have initially been accorded lower status through association w i t h women, much the same way that feminized occupations have lower status. Regarding education levels, Maltby notes the following: Audience research in the 1950s began to suggest that as Hollywood's audi­ ence declined, its social composition also changed. In 1941 Gallup had sug­ gested that the great majority of movie tickets were purchased by people on

Notes to Chapter 2

•

183

low or average incomes. Surveys in the 1950s, by contrast, indicated that people in higher socioeconomic brackets attended more frequently than did others. N o t until the early 1960s, however, did the industry begin to recon­ sider its idea of its principal target viewer, and the process was not complete until the late 1960s. (21) 15. Shrum refers to this argument as the "compositional approach" (1996:8). As w i l l be discussed in greater depth in chapter 4, Shrum contends that cultural hierarchy cannot be explained by the status of the patrons of art. 16. For further reference on sources documenting the size of early film audi­ ences, see Ross (1998:283, n.7). 17. Crisp notes the connection in France and Germany, citing studies that find that in the Lille region of France and the Ruhr area of Germany, where television penetrated more households earlier than elsewhere in the respective countries, cinema attendances shrank even earlier (1993:72). Data similarly based on a natu­ ral experiment are cited by Solomon: "Figures did not lie, and a Singlinger survey showed that when The Wizard of Oz (1939) was aired on television for the first time on November 1, 1956, national box-office receipts dropped by $2 million" (1988:119). 18. Gomery (2001:123) also notes that working-class people who could not afford televisions began to go to taverns and bars where they could watch. This period was rather short-lived, however, as prices dropped further and even the working class could afford to have televisions in their homes. 19. Changing residential patterns brought on by suburbanization are another consideration and are discussed in chapter 3. 20. The first year for which a statistic is reported for radio ownership by Inter­ national Historical Statistics: The Americas 1750-1993 is 1922. That year 60,000 radios are reported in use. 2 1 . While it is somewhat surprising that radio appears to have had no effect on cinema attendance, this finding—that an additional narrative and dramatic medium could be accommodated by filmgoers—is consistent with the argument that television alone did not cause the drop in filmgoing. 22. As indicated by the Durbin-Watson statistic, there is first-order serial corre­ lation in this time series: a good predictor for any given year's cinema attendance is the attendance in the previous year. Because this condition violates an assumption under which generalized least-squares regression operates, a correction is needed (Prais-Winsten). 23. There is an interesting parallel here to the role of tastes as explored by Lieberson et alia (2000). In an examination of first-name selection, the authors tap into pure taste mechanisms to demonstrate how concerns over symbolic con­ tamination can influence tastes. The authors find that tastes in names that are used for both boys and girls reflect a pattern of avoidance—as a name becomes increasingly common for girls, parents often stop using that name for their boys. The motivation is simple: "the advantaged have a greater incentive to avoid hav­ ing their status confused w i t h the disadvantaged" (Lieberson et al.:2000:1285). Taste patterns in names reflect society's gender biases. Furthermore, status con­ cerns result in taste segregation that can be modeled in the same way as residential

184

•

Notes to Chapter 3

segregation. Whereas residential patterns are shaped by collective behavior that conforms to group norms about race and status, naming, in the case of androgy­ nous names, is collective behavior that conforms to group norms about gender and status. 24. German intellectuals and academics took a serious approach toward film from an early point in film's history, and so the disdain of the Frankfurt School— being German—seems curious. This disparity results from Horkheimer and Adorno's condemnation specifically of Hollywood and the studio system, as part of the entertainment industry, while early German scholars were more welcoming of early German filmmaking, which was less profit driven and formulaic than the studio system. 25. There is a lack of consensus over the distinction between postmodernism and postmodernity, and also over which ideas are represented by those terms. For example, the idea that postmodernity is the era that has followed the modern era has been criticized for overstating the differences between these time periods; many aspects of modernity are still w i t h us, and the very label of postmodernity elides this overlap. For my purposes, I adopt Harrington's (2004:177) distinction of postmodernity as "the thesis of the end of modernity's ideals, struggles, prob­ lems and 'grand narratives' of historical development. 'Postmodernism' may be defined as the articulation of this thesis in a diffuse body of motifs, images and discursive constructions in late twentieth-century culture." 26. Similarly, Peterson (1997:85) argues that the blurring of brow levels was facilitated by broader social change: "The social dislocations, flirtations w i t h Communism, and cultural mixing driven by the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Second World War of the 1940s increased the elite's fascination w i t h folk and working class-based popular culture forms." 27. Sandler makes the case for Pop Art's legitimation of photography as a fine art: In fact, one of the most important innovations of Warhol was to make com­ mercial photography and print-making central to his art, ushering in the use of media that became central to art in the sixties. (This led to the elevation of fine photography, long considered a minor art, to the "high art" status of painting and sculpture). (1988:145)

CHAPTER 3 C H A N G E F R O M W I T H I N : N E W P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N PRACTICES

1. The M o t i o n Picture Association of America introduces itself in the follow­ ing way: Founded in 1922 as the trade association of the American film industry, the M P A A has broadened its mandate over the years to reflect the diversity of an expanding industry. The initial task assigned to the association was to stem the waves of criticism of American movies, then silent, while sometimes ram­ bunctious and rowdy, and to restore a more favorable image for the motion

Notes to Chapter 3

•

185

picture business. (http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUs.asp) (last accessed Decem­ ber 19, 2006) 2. The post-1985 data come from three sources—Compact Variety, a CDR O M entertainment database published by Variety, which is the leading trade publication of the entertainment industry; that same publication's online listing of film festivals; and a list supplied by the American Film Institute. The 1970 directory—Film and TV Directory (Zwerdling 1970)—attempted to comprehen­ sively catalog all film festivals (as well as television festivals) and provided their founding dates and stated purposes. It billed itself as "the first complete compila­ tion that has ever been attempted" (Zwerdling 1970:vii), based on t w o years of research. 3. On its Web site, the festival describes its founding: Since its inception, the object of the Film Council has been to encourage and promote the use of 16mm motion pictures and, subsequently, video tape in all forms of education and communication, not only in the local community but throughout the world. During these many years of continuous operation, the Festival has honored thousands of film and video producers. The Festival has grown in scope, becoming international in 1972, in the late 80's adding video, and in 1997 adding the CD R O M format, (www.chrisawards.org/ pages/about/about.html) (accessed December 19, 2006) 4. The directory included information about film festivals that bear little resem­ blance to the kind of festivals of interest here. For example, the Annual National Safety Film Contest was established in 1937 with the stated purpose, "To select the outstanding films on Accident Prevention and to recognize film excellence through an awards program" (Zwerdling 1970:3) Festivals that were solely con­ cerned with narrowly defined, nonartistic goals (e.g., educational films, business communication films, and public service films) were excluded from my accounting of festivals. 5. This characterization of the time when film festivals grew in number and importance in the United States is consistent w i t h the retrospective impressions conveyed in film scholarship (e.g., Chin 1997:61). 6. It makes sense to focus only on the most renowned directors from both the studio and "New H o l l y w o o d " periods. N o t only is more evidence available for such directors, but those w i t h the most renown will have had the greatest potential influence on public perceptions. 7. Hitchcock does not quite fit the same pattern as the other directors because he had been making films since the 1920s. His self-promotion as an artist, how­ ever, mainly occurred in the 1960s. 8. Kapsis (1992:70) finds that, although Hitchcock's reputational development was in part a result of self-promotion, it was in fact multicausal, and the adoption of auteurism by U.S. critics was the key factor: "More important than either indi­ vidual sponsorship or self-promotion, this broad shift in film aesthetics proved to be the deciding factor in reshaping Hitchcock's reputation." 9. John Cassavetes is less well known than some of his peers because his films were less commercially successful. He did not w i n an Oscar and his films do not

186

•

Notes to Chapter 3

appear on the AFI's 100 best list. Nonetheless, his fame and status among film scholars (for films such as Husbands [1970] and A Woman under the Influence [1974]) are sufficient that his self-presentation is worth noting. Carney (1985:9) relays the following anecdote that qualifies as a high-art cliche: What other director, while being interviewed by Pauline Kael for The New Yorker and its half-million influential, ticket-buying readers, would have dared to break off the interview halfway through (actually throwing Kael out of the restaurant where they were talking) because, according to him, she showed insufficient appreciation of the "artistic side" of his work? It can also be expected that great artists w i l l speak somewhat cryptically about their art. Carney (1985:17) quotes from a 1971 interview in which Cassavetes said, " I had fallen in love with the camera, w i t h technique, with beautiful shots, w i t h experimentation for its own sake. . . . It was a totally intellectual film, and therefore less than human." A n d great artists also damn the marketplace. Carney (1985:63) quotes Cassavetes from the introduction to the published (1970) screenplay of his film Faces (1968): " I looked back at my accomplishments and I could find only two that I considered worthwhile, Shadows and Edge of the City. A l l the rest of my time had been spent playing games—painful and stupid, falsely satisfying and economically rewarding." 10. In addition, in order to explain those few early directors who did conceive of themselves as artists we can point to the fact that many of them came from Europe or the New York theater world, rather than having worked their way up within Hollywood. Willingness to self-promote as an artist, then, would be linked to the director's occupational origins. In European film and in New York theater, the director as artist would have been an unproblematic concept. 11. The organization of the Blue Book changed over time, making it difficult to confirm this. Furthermore, the categorization of different programs under a common rubric can be troublesome. Grouping film studies with media studies or w i t h visual arts makes it difficult to get an accurate count. 12. Decherney's (2000) work reveals the details of the process by which film "studies" made its way into Columbia's curriculum. In the 1910s and 1920s, film executives who were eager to boost the social standing of film lobbied Columbia to maintain a collection of film scripts and to teach courses on screenwriting. Columbia did so, but in the adult education division of Columbia's Extension School. As Decherney shows, Columbia was careful to segregate courses on film. While the film executives achieved a boost in legitimacy through an Ivy League affiliation, Columbia was able to achieve several goals. The courses on film formed part of a larger, populist and practical curriculum within the Extension School, through which Columbia could serve the public interest by educating immigrants and others who lacked a postsecondary education. But this particular model for doing so protected the prestige of the elite college and was profitable as well. Belief in the artistic value of film was not a serious consideration. 13. U.S. News & World Report no longer rates film programs, and so the pro­ grams investigated come from the list it compiled in the late 1990s. 14. Information on these departments comes from their Web sites or from cor­ respondence with departmental administrators. Among the departments on the

Notes to Chapter 3

•

187

U.S. News & World Report list, of which there were nineteen in total, those whose founding date was not listed on their respective Web sites were contacted. The departments not listed above either were not able to provide the information or did not respond to a written inquiry. 15. It should be noted that Morrison relies in part on unpublished data from another author. 16. Other institutions that can help to shape the film canon in the United States include libraries and the American Film Institute. Among libraries, the M O M A in New York has probably been most influential in canonizing films, due to the early start of its film collection (1935) and to that museum's strong reputation. See Allen and Lincoln (2004) for an in-depth discussion of the role of the AFI in creating a canon for American film. 17. The catalog contains over 62 million records and allows users to exten­ sively tailor their searches. I n general, searches in WorldCat returned a larger num­ ber of records than searches in the catalog of the Library of Congress, the largest single library collection in the world, and a larger number of records than searches in the catalog of the Harvard University library system, the largest university l i ­ brary in the world. The data on books about film were collected using the follow­ ing limits: format = books; language = English; keyword in subject = (motion pictures) and (aesthetics or criticism); publication date = year. This search distin­ guishes books that were concerned w i t h the analysis of films from more generalinterest film books. 18. Data from the two sources overlap for the period 1950-1970. During this period the figures match exactly between the two sources. The data include both new books and new editions with substantial changes. The inclusion of new edi­ tions does not present a problem for comparison with the data from the library catalog. I n the library data, new editions are listed as separate records. 19. Tebbel does not make it clear what specific effects this technology had or whether they were direct or indirect. 20. Detailed data on theater are not reported for the sake of parsimony but are available from the author on request. 2 1 . Bourdieu distinguishes between types of cultural production. For some cul­ tural production, the pursuit of economic success is explicit and legitimate. This distinction, between restricted and large-scale fields of production, is discussed in more depth later in this section. 22. Film in the United States has evolved to incorporate both standing as art and commercial success. However, as w i l l be discussed below in this chapter and in chapter 5, this combination results in a compromised degree of artistic legitimacy. 23. Such a difference in the backgrounds of French and American directors can perhaps explain a great deal about the different perceptions of film in each coun­ try. The typical American director was not likely to have had formal artistic train­ ing. Consequently, the backgrounds of French and American directors were likely not only to have found distinct forms of expression in the films that they made, but were also likely to have influenced the degree to which each sought recognition as an artist. Further research on systematic differences between the t w o groups of directors is warranted.

188

•

Notes to Chapter 3

24. H o w much control directors had under the studio system and whether they truly gained from its collapse is debatable (see, e.g., Sklar and Zagarrio 1998). While they surely gained some amount of autonomy, it is equally important that directors now enjoyed the appearance of a significant amount of freedom and autonomy. 25. Pauline Kael, for example, was a well-known detractor of auteurism, and the complex question of authorship still inspires academic debate. For many inter­ esting investigations on the theme of authorship, see Gerstner and Staiger (2003). The following review, of the film While the Sun Shines, published in the New York Times in 1950 (July 1, 9:2) provides a clear example of how the credit for filmmaking was attributed prior to the adoption of auteurism, namely by elevating the contribution of the writer: One of those curiously likable British pictures—meaning a film that plays poorly most of its length, but still has a certain amount of charm which can't be ignored—arrived yesterday at the Trans-Lux Theater in East Seventy-sec­ ond Street. It is called "While the Sun Shines" and, as a play, had a brief run on Broadway back in 1944. Terence Rattigan is the author, and he is a man who can write some very funny dialogue when the spirit moves him. Unfortu­ nately his pen was only spasmodically inspired in composing this treatise on romantic misunderstandings. The principal characters in "While the Sun Shines" are a young Earl who is just a plain jack-tar in His Majesty's Navy; his titled fiancee, who has been demoted from sergeant to corporal in the W.A.A.F for having misplaced some important document; a breezy American entertainer; a meddlesome, roman­ tic French youth; a worldly little blonde and an impoverished duke. They are all nice people in their way and when the occasion permits, quite entertaining. After Lady Elisabeth meets the Yankee acrobat she isn't quite sure that she wants to go through w i t h her marriage to the Earl of Harpenden and this disturbs her titled father no end, since he is looking forward to embracing a rich son-in-law. The Earl takes the bad news quite casually—he still has the blonde on the string, you see—and Mr. Rattigan skillfully maneuvers the relationship of all concerned from that point through a series of complica­ tions aimed for both visual and oral amusement. The fun may not be consis­ tent enough to add up to more than halting divertissement, but the author does come up w i t h some cute tricks, including a scene where the three men in Lady Elisabeth's tangled love life shoot a game of craps to decide who w i l l be first to propose to her. Ronald Howard is very likable as the Earl, Bonar Colleano Jr. is aggressive as the American, Brenda Bruce is bouncy as the blonde, Barbara White is attractive as Lady Elisabeth, Ronald Squire is dryly amusing as her perplexed father and Michael Allan is effusive as the Frenchman. Anatole de Grunwald joined Mr. Rattigan in writing the screenplay of "While the Sun Shines," but he apparently was not able to help out very much when M r . Rattigan, who was the sole author of the play, ran out of bright dialogue. As the director, Anthony Asquith saw to it that the actors kept moving about, which was helpful anyway.

Notes to Chapter 3

•

189

26. I n the case of the few major movie moguls who were high-ranking studio executives and simultaneously actively involved in producing films, the producer was sometimes identified as the artistic force behind a film. Behlmer presents an example from a 1945 memo from Darryl Zanuck, who was vice president in charge of production at Twentieth Century-Fox for approximately thirty years. The memo is to director George Cukor (an established director who would later win an Academy Award for best director) conerning a proposed adaptation of Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge: This is the only picture that I am going to put my name on as an individual producer this year. . . . I feel justified in saying that i f something goes wrong with it I will be primarily the one who is left holding the bag. They may complain about Maugham's dialogue, and they may criticize [Lamar] Trotti's adaptation, or lambast your direction, but in the final analysis i f i t turns out to be a dud I know that I w i l l be the one whom the critics and the industry w i l l pounce on and hold primarily responsible. (1993:95) A producer's assertion that the critics w i l l hold him primarily responsible for the film's quality is in sharp contrast with contemporary notions of how films should be evaluated. 27. As w i l l be discussed in greater depth in chapter 4, the changing perceptions of film within the United States were affected by distinct attitudes toward foreign films. It would be instructive to compare the perceptions within European coun­ tries of differences in artistic status between European and American films. 28. Elsaesser makes the claim in the opposite direction for an earlier time pe­ riod. He writes of the 1930s, the decade which witnessed an unprecedented economic expansion of the film-industries in Europe and America also saw critics only too willing to conclude that popularity automatically spelled aesthetic nullity. The new art of the talking picture came to be written off as irredeemably "commercial," peddling to nothing but escapist entertainment, or worse still, pernicious demagogy. (1975:201) 29. Moreover, previous claims about the commonality or banality of film had obscured the artistic potential of films. But in the 1960s one had only to point to television to highlight film's relative artistic value. As Dick (1992:23) and Solo­ mon (1988:158) write, television fulfilled the function of providing the " B " mate­ rial that film studios ceased producing in the late 1950s. Patrice Petro (1986:6) argues that the prestige of film has benefited from the introduction of television and notes the irony of this situation: "What is surprising is that some film scholars assign a place to television outside the domain of legitimate culture, outside the arena of academic respectability, particularly since this was (and in some cases, continues to be) precisely the 'place' assigned to cinema by educators, intellectu­ als, and artists." Only after economic capital in film was overtaken in television could the act of bestowing symbolic capital assume a central role. 30. See Orbach (2004) for a thorough review of the details of the case. 31. There are discrepancies in the estimates of the number of art houses in the United States. Stones reports that in 1952 there were 470 art houses, and 600 by

190

•

Notes to Chapter 3

1966. Sklar cites a figure of four or five dozen art houses, in the early 1950s (1994:293), Gomery reports 200 in 1956 and over 1,000 i n the late 1960s (1992:181), while Balio states that there were 83 art-house theaters i n 1950 and 664 in 1966 (1987:224). These discrepancies likely result from variance i n the definition of an art-house theater. The higher estimates of the 1950s likely count theaters that were independent (neither owned by studios nor part of a theater chain) and that devoted some of their screen time to non-Hollywood films. The lower estimates likely count only those independent theaters that exhibited foreign and/or small budget, non-Hollywood films exclusively. Regardless of the exact number, film historians agree that the number grew during the 1950s, peaked i n the 1960s, and was never more than a small proportion of all theaters. Moreover, there is agreement that art houses were small, neighborhood theaters located i n university towns or large cities (Balio 1987:224; Sklar 1994:293; Stones 1993:200). 32. Although there was likely a great deal of variation i n the characteristics of art-house theaters, Gomery draws a general picture of the art house as a place where the food was more refined than popcorn, where proper audience etiquette was observed, and where prices could be higher than in regular theaters (1992:186). 33. Over time the film industry became heavily dependent on "pre-tested" ma­ terial, both literary and theatrical. Maltby notes that by the end of the 1920s studios relied on adaptations for more than half of their productions (1996:103). While not all of this "pre-tested" material was meant to elevate the status of film, prestige productions were based on literary and theatrical w o r k that had gained critical approbation and had high art connotations that could elevate those partic­ ular productions. 34. The strategy of elevating an art form's status by juxtaposing it w i t h classi­ cal music had been employed for dance several decades earlier by Isadora Duncan. 35. Randall puts it concisely: " I f there is a touchstone of the art film it is proba­ bly that of a modest budget and a director of originality" (1968:219). 36. It is perhaps true that genuine aesthetes would have preferred that film remain junk before picking it up as high art. Nevertheless, the general public would have found that more difficult to swallow. I n general, good art is expected to show technical proficiency. While theorists would expect more, namely for art to show experimentation w i t h convention, they are not the crowd whose accep­ tance of Hollywood films as art we are trying to explain. 37. The Board's name was changed in 1915 to the National Board of Review (Jowett cites a date of 1916 [1989:66]), which exists today although it was to lose its censorship functions by the end of that decade. It lost its power because (1) it had been closely tied to and supported by the M o t i o n Pictures Patent Company (composed of the ten major film manufacturers holding important film and cam­ era patents) (Mast 1982:102), which was dissolved by 1917 due to a string anti­ trust and other lawsuits (Sklar 1994:144), and (2) Hollywood replaced N e w York as the heart of the film industry (Czitrom 1996:37). 38. Maltby offers an alternative view on the determinants of motion picture content during the period of heavy self-censorship from the early 1920s to the mid-1960s (1996). He maintains that the film industry did not have to be actively

Notes to Chapter 3

•

191

censored i n the 1920s and 1930s because the studio executives did not want to make controversial movies. Through the consensus of the film studios, moral entrepreneurs, and audiences alike, controversy was agreed to be the provenance of books and plays. Movies were made to entertain and to affirm traditional American values. It was easy for film studios to uphold this idea because adherence to it brought in the largest audiences. From this perspective, the Hays Office and the Production Code were merely safety mechanisms to ensure that there were no mistakes. 39. This disparity between film, and the other visual medium of television, continues today. Film industry and television network self-censorship has no real analog in radio, print, theater, or on the Internet. 40. Doherty (1999) argues that the lax application of the Production Code between 1930 and 1934 resulted in a relatively free and open American cinema, containing far more risque elements than what was to come between 1934 and the mid-1960s. While Doherty provides convincing evidence that many films in this four-year period invoke themes that were later censored, the extent to which they do so is minimal compared to the cinema of the 1960s. 4 1 . Dick writes of the Production Code, "Under such a system, it would seem that art would wither; yet the 1930s and 1940s were the glory years of the Ameri­ can film" (1993:145). Whether this is true or not is debatable. Nevertheless it is clearly revisionist, as the prevailing views during the 1930s and 1940s held that the Production Code was appropriate precisely because film was not an art. Real art would have been freer from such strict regulations. 42. These data may be misleading i f there were a systematic bias i n the kind of American films that were selected for import to France. Just as American dis­ tributors import only those European films that they believe to be of highest qual­ ity, it is possible that French distributors were selecting American films i n a way that made them less objectionable to the Catholic Church. Such a dynamic would, however, function in the opposite way from the case in the United States, where imports were clearly more risque than the domestic product. It is more likely that the data represent the more "sanitized" nature of American films, although with­ out information concerning how films were selected for import, this conclusion is speculative. 43. This stifling effect of censorship on the development of film as art i n the United States was recognized i n a 1936 book chapter by William Allen White: Given ten or twenty million dollars—no large sum when one considers what it would achieve i n American life—a theater would be chartered i n every country town of more than twenty-five thousand inhabitants where the m i ­ nority that loves truth i n art could find it i n the movie. . . . That does not mean "clean, wholesome plays"—nothing like it. That means, rather, a selec­ tive reality i n the presentation of life that makes truth rise and shine in a picture. It does not mean salacious plays—quite the contrary. It means sex would not be snubbed or repressed, but also neither emphasized nor ex­ ploited, but take its place candidly as a part of life and its motives. . . . This all means that the motion-picture industry might develop an art, as writing and painting and sculpture and the drama have developed arts, without

192

•

Notes to Chapter 4

the accursed censorship of the aesthetically lame and the halt and the blind forever snuffing out the fire of truth in the movie as ignorance puts out the divine fire. (9) 44. The following three paragraphs on the evolution of the legality of film cen­ sorship draw on the account of Jowett (1996). 45. Roth, citing legal scholar Angela Campbell, recounts five primary causes behind the erosion of the Production Code: (1) a post-World War I I increase in the demand for realism in film; (2) competition from television; (3) a decrease in the major studios' control over the industry following the antitrust decision of 1948; (4) an increase in independent film production; and (5) the conferral of First Amendment protection to filmmakers in 1952 (2000:10). To this, Roth adds the "cultural revolution of the 1960s" and the economic pressure from falling theater admissions as reasons why the Production Code was abandoned (2000:10). This reasoning is consistent w i t h all the arguments of this book. 46. In addition to the financial imperatives encouraging experimentation, an­ other source for experimentation can probably be found in the cultural milieu of the 1960s. As a period of more general cultural rebellion in the popular culture industries, confidence among decision-makers waned as cultural currents flowed quickly and in unforeseeable directions. This was particularly true in the field of popular music, where artists (who previously had to follow the instructions of record-company artists and repertoire men as to what they recorded and how they recorded it) experienced several years of unprecedented creative autonomy. This might also have been true to an extent in the film world as well.

CHAPTER 4 T H E INTELLECTUALIZATION OF F I L M

1. The search for an instructive discourse that shaped the thoughts of audience members necessarily leads to the field of social constructionism. As has been ar­ gued in the first chapter, the process whereby the view of Hollywood films gained legitimacy as art is more social than aesthetic. The socially constructed nature of legitimacy has been explored with regard to a variety of phenomena, including professional jurisdictions (Abbott 1988; Zhou 1993), the authority of physicians (Starr 1982), legal order and change (Stryker 1994), gender roles (Lorber 1991), corporate takeovers (Hirsch 1986), illnesses (Hacking 1995; Hepworth 1999), scientific knowledge (Latour and Woolgar 1986), and informal interpersonal hier­ archies (Ridgeway et al. 1995). Such studies are investigations into the social con­ struction of the very categories used for talking about social phenomena as well as into the application of those categories. Building on prior w o r k in the sociology of knowledge, Berger and Luckmann helped to make social constructionism more widely known and examined in sociology w i t h their book The Social Construction of Reality (1967 [first published in 1966]), in which they explain how all the social institutions upon which societies are based emerge, consolidate, and are legitimated as objective reality. For them, all "the institutional world requires le-

Notes to Chapter 4

•

193

gitimation, that is, ways by which it can be 'explained' and justified" (1967:61). Berger and Luckmann distinguish between four levels of legitimation. Incipient legitimation is present as soon as a system of linguistic objectifications of human experience is transmitted. For example, the transmission of a kinship vocabulary ipso facto legitimates the kinship structure. The funda­ mental legitimating "explanations" are, so to speak, built into the vocabu­ lary. (94) The second level of legitimation contains theoretical propositions in a rudi­ mentary form. Here may be found various explanatory schemes relating sets of objective meanings. These schemes are highly pragmatic, directly related to concrete actions. Proverbs, moral maxims and wise sayings are common on this level. (94) The third level of legitimation contains explicit theories by which an institu­ tional sector is legitimated in terms of a differentiated body of knowledge. Such legitimations provide fairly comprehensive frames of reference for the respective sectors of institutionalized conduct. Because of their complexity and differentiation, they are frequently entrusted to specialized personnel who transmit them through formalized initiation procedures. (94-95) Symbolic universes constitute the fourth level of legitimation. These are bod­ ies of theoretical tradition that integrate different provinces of meaning and encompass the institutional order in a symbolic totality ( 9 5 ) . . . . In this way, the symbolic universe order [sic] and thereby legitimates everyday roles, pri­ orities, and operating procedures by placing them sub specie universi, that is, in the context of the most general frame of reference conceivable. (99) Any social institution may be legitimated at each of these levels. Legitimation, however, must emerge and be maintained over time, and it is possible to identify who performs this function. Reality is defined. But the definitions are always embodied, that is, concrete individuals and groups of individuals serve as definers of reality. To under­ stand the state of the socially constructed universe at any given time, or its change over time, one must understand the social organization that permits the definers to do their defining. (116) Although this study does not explain the creation and maintenance of artistic status in the terms employed by Berger and Luckmann, the analysis here is consis­ tent w i t h their analysis of social institutions in general. As this chapter w i l l discuss, legitimation of the experience of film as art involved explicit theories that ex­ plained film, as such, by critics and other intellectuals. 2. Despite the acceptance of Chaplin among a portion of the intellectual elite, Maland (1989:179) notes that in general the place of film in the cultural hierarchy effectively limited what even Chaplin could do cinematically. He writes, Although the critics respected and were intrigued by what he attempted in [The Great Dictator], many felt the film engaged too directly with politics.

194

•

Notes to Chapter 4

Because of the ideology and aura of "entertainment" deeply embedded in the classical Hollywood system of filmmaking, overt treatment of controversial political issues was taboo. When a filmmaker violated that taboo, even in order to attack an ideology like fascism that was being widely assailed i n the country at the time the film was released, the filmmaker was certain to alien­ ate a substantial number of critics and to make many viewers uneasy. 3. The distinction between critics and criticism on the one hand and reviewers and reviewing on the other has been made before (see, e.g., Engel 1976; Titchener 1998:ch.l). The distinction is usually between the more serious, experienced, spe­ cialized critics and the less intellectual, less sophisticated reviewers. The time-sen­ sitive nature of reviewing makes it difficult to maintain the standards to which critics hold themselves. I feel that it is misleading to characterize the w o r k of critics and reviewers as dichotomous; indeed, their work can be classified on a continuum w i t h critics tending to write for a more serious and scholarly audience. This tendency coexists, however, with significant overlap between criticism and reviewing. Rather than drawing arbitrary lines, I prefer to use the terms inter­ changeably while recognizing that there is wide variability in the nature of film reviews/criticism. 4. Discourse analysis is a versatile research method that can effectively extract key concepts and trends from vast amounts of data. See Phillips and Hardy (2002) for an excellent discussion and illustration of the strengths of discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is a necessary first step to performing an insightful content analysis of film reviews. Content analysis involves the counting of manifest and/ or latent elements of texts. However, in order to know what is w o r t h counting, it is first necessary to do the conceptual work of identifying how film reviews embody attitudes about film as art. Film reviewers have only rarely made explicit state­ ments about their perceptions of film as art. Instead, such perceptions needed to be teased out of often complex exegeses on film, which is what discourse analysis achieves. A t the same time, the indicators of the reviewers' perceptions needed to be specified with enough precision as to be countable and acceptable to the objec­ tive reader as reliable and accurate indicators. Only through reading a vast num­ ber of reviews for different kinds of art can one develop a sense of the kinds of words and analyses that these cultural experts employ to engage w i t h culture as art. It is in the use of these words and analyses that a discourse is made and can then demonstrate the artistic worth of the cultural productions under review. 5. The original terms were: "achievement," "amazing, art, beauty, bold, bril­ liant, composition, delicate, distinction, distinguished, genius, genre, the greatest, important, inspired, intelligent, irony, magnificent, master, masterpiece, meta­ phor, powerful, remarkable, reveal, satire, school, simple, strength, striking, sub­ tle, suggest, symbol, technique, tone, work, ian/esque." 6. Because not all issues of the New Yorker for 1925 were available to me, the sample includes reviews from several of the same months for that year i n order to get twelve reviews. 7. I n writing longer reviews in more recent periods, reviewers may have avoided using precisely the same words repeatedly for stylistic reasons. There­ fore, the measure of the number of terms divided by the total review words may

Notes to Chapter 4

•

195

underestimate the prevalence of an intellectualizing discourse for film present in the reviews. 8. Spearman's rho is a measure of association ranging from -1 to + 1 , and it is similar to the Pearson product moment correlation, except that the values of the variables are first converted to ranks. There are two popular ways of computing Spearman's rho. The first is to use the formula for Pearson's product moment correlation. This is the method used by the statistical software package Stata, and is the one used in this chapter. The second way to compute Spearman's rho is with the formula r = l - X D / N ( N - 1), where D = (rank x) - (rank y) and N = the number of ranked pairs. The two methods provide similar results. I n this chapter I use one-tailed tests of significance as I have a directional hypothesis concerning the relationship between year and rank order of the counts. The specific hypothe­ sis being tested is not whether the ranks are ordered at all, but rather whether they increase over time. 9. Because the sample is based on only three publications, the possibility exists that one of the three is alone driving the increases we observe. The following table reports the results of a comparison of the three publications. Because there are only twelve or twenty-four reviews sampled from a publication in each year, it is necessary to pool several years. The table provides the ratio of "high art" and "critical" terms together to the total number of words in the reviews. The data show that similar increases are experienced in each publication. The rate of terms in the 1945-60 period is only slightly higher for each publication than the rate in the 1925-40 period. I n addition, the rate is similar across publications. The rate in the final 1965-85 period more than doubles for each publication. These results show that the overall results are not driven by increases in only one or two of the publications sampled. 2

2

Number of "High A r t " and "Critical" Terms Divided by Total Review Words, by Source: 1925-1985 Year 1925-40 1945-60 1965-85

New

Yorker

.0009 .0008 .0021

Time .0013 .0012 .0029

New York Times .0013 .0011 .0026

10. I n general, the selection of techniques was based on the assumption that just as the goals and methods of film as art would follow those of other high art forms, so the development of film criticism would be heavily influenced by other forms of high art criticism. Carney (1985:11) notes, Up to twenty or thirty years ago . . . American films largely escaped the bur­ den of being High A r t , and the best American movies were largely free of such cultural grandiosity. But whether through the influence of European cinema or of film schools on a new generation of writers and directors, that seems to have changed. Film, even American film, has become A r t , and the

196

•

Notes to Chapter 4

assumption seems to be that it should emulate the techniques of other major modern art forms. 11. Gomery argues that the development of an interpretive framework for film criticism grew out of the changing nature of films: Since the art cinema stressed ambiguity, the meaning of a film was not as explicit as in a straightforward classical Hollywood tale. Some apparatus had to be set up to interpret art films though such publications as the New York Times and the Saturday Review. The task of the Hollywood reviewer had been to serve as an extension of the industry to promote films and stars. During the 1960s film critics were expected to explain the meaning of films. (1992:189) This book, of course, disagrees with the idea that the reason reviewers began to interpret films was tied to the nature of films being made in the 1960s. As we w i l l see, the tendency to interpret films has been retrospectively applied to classics of earlier decades, and they are the site of contested meanings. I f the classics are available for multiple interpretations, then the argument that reviewers began to interpret films because of the content of 1960s films falls apart. 12. See Verdaasdonk (1983) for a discussion of the importance critics place on the mutual incompatibility of commercial and artistic values and the consequences for aesthetic legitimacy as applied to the literary field. Verdaasdonk refutes the validity of this dichotomy. 13. In 1980 only 50 percent of reviews contained at least three of the tech­ niques. Some of the other measures in the content analysis drop off in the final time period. Although the declines do not bring reviews back in line w i t h the pre1960 levels, they do warrant discussion and are addressed in the next chapter. 14. There is a contrast between the measurement of the vocabulary and of the techniques. The vocabulary words were counted according to each appearance, so long as each was in the appropriate context. It was important to count each appropriate instance of the vocabulary words because the reviews lengthened over time. The appropriate measure of the specialized vocabulary involves a compari­ son with the increase in total words used in reviews. It was not possible to do the same with the techniques. For instance, the presence of negative and positive commentary can only be a binary measure. The same is true of the decision to mention the director, and such a decision has much more significance than the decision to mention the director a second or more times. Therefore, the techniques are counted according to whether they were present at least once in a review. For this reason, we must interpret column 10 with caution. The expectations for more techniques to occur in lengthier reviews is tempered by the method of counting not all instances of the use of the techniques but only the first. Therefore, as re­ views lengthen, the denominator in the ratio reported in column 10 continues to grow even though the measure of the techniques has plateaued. Therefore, the measure of the percent of reviews having three or more techniques divided by the mean review words may underestimate the prevalence of an intellectualizing discourse for film present in more recent reviews. The declines in the ratio in

Notes to Chapter 4

•

197

the final time periods reflect the fact that reviews are getting very long relative to earlier periods. 15. Logistic regression provides a final test of the value of conceptualizing the 1960s as the turning point in the use of these techniques in film reviews. The dependent (dummy) variable is whether a review has at least three techniques, and the independent variable is whether the review appeared pre-1970, or in 1970 or later. (The N is 684.) The resulting odds ratio is 8.02, w i t h standard error 1.48, and p < 0.000. This highly significant result lends credence to the claim that the post-1960s era should be conceived as meaningfully different from what came before. 16. Content analysis relies on quantitative indicators that are designed to be precise and reliable measures of key features rather than to provide an exhaustive representation. The indicators are limited, for example, because they do not mea­ sure certain aspects of film discourse—for instance, calling a film a "study," or an "exercise," or an "inquiry"—that could not be a part of the content analysis be­ cause they were not present in the 1925 reviews. The indicators, however, do make it clear to all readers exactly what findings the argument is based on. Similarly, the significance tests give us a more objective means for concluding that the differ­ ences we find in the numbers really mean something. 17. I n order to add to our confidence in the findings, we can look for more assurance that the observed changes are not merely an artifact of the data. Because the sample is composed mostly of lead reviews, one concern a reader might have is that the data are possibly distorted by a tendency for publications to em­ phasize the importance of the lead review in more recent periods. I f so, then the characteristics of the reviews in the sample would not be representative of film review in general. Let us consider again data from 1935 and 1975. Between these two times there does not appear to have been a stronger emphasis on the lead review in the later period. I n 1935 the lead review of each month was on average 79 percent longer than the second review published each month. I n 1975 the lead review was on average 73 percent longer than the second review published each month. Furthermore, second reviews in 1975 were 37 percent longer than lead reviews in 1935, and 145 percent longer than second reviews in 1935. It does not appear that the data are significantly distorted by the prominence of the lead re­ view. The disparity between the lead and second review seems constant over time. Therefore, there is little danger that the observed change in film review is an arti­ fact of a change in orientation toward lead reviews rather than toward film review as a whole. 18. There are t w o important impediments to the objective measurement of ar­ tistic quality. First, there is far too much disagreement over what constitutes the essential components of art. Second, and equally important, whatever those com­ ponents are, they are bound to change over time. The reason for this is tied to the very nature of art, which is defined by its relation to a set of field-specific conven­ tions. To be part of an art world, a work of art must engage the appropriate conventions. Engagement entails not only incorporating the conventions but also playing w i t h and changing to some degree those conventions. A r t that merely replicates existing conventions is dismissed as uninteresting. Therefore, works of

198

•

Notes to Chapter 4

art at time-2 w i l l exhibit a set of characteristics that differ from those works of art at time-1 because, as art, they have been required to break the conventions. 19. The restriction of second reviews to popular periodicals enforces a strin­ gent standard of comparison. The Film Review Index lists a large number of re­ views for each film. The comparison was originally executed by taking the first pre-1950 and first post-1960 reviews listed. Most frequently this produced a re­ view from a publication that was film-specific and written by a cinema scholar for consumption by other cinema scholars. The original reviews all came from popular periodicals, as there were virtually no film studies journals before 1950 in the United States. The differences between the two time periods, therefore, were even greater than those reported here between first and later reviews from popular periodicals. However, because I want to provide a stronger test of how reviews changed over time, I have chosen to present only the most closely comparable cases from popular periodical in both time periods. 20. The most recent review in the sample is the one published for The Rules of the Game, a 1939 French film that was released, and therefore reviewed, in the United States in 1950. 2 1 . The films that comprise this sample of twenty films are: A Woman of Paris, Best Years of Our Lives, Casablanca, City Lights, Fantasia, Gone with the Wind, Modern Times, Napoleon, Olympiad, Orphans of the Storm, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, That Hamilton Woman, The Birth of a Nation, The Emperor Jones, The Grapes of Wrath, The Great Dictator, The Last Will of Dr. Mabuse, The Rules of the Game, The Ten Commandments, and Zero Conduite. 22. The question of whether critics influence or reflect the opinions of their audience has been addressed as it pertains to whether people see films that are recommended by critics (Eliashberg and Shugan 1997). This is a separate ques­ tion, however, from whether critics influence or reflect their audience's perception of film as an art form. Influence or reflection in one case does not imply the same function for critics in the other case. 23. Sklar's description of the discrepancy between contemporary reception of silent films and their later reevaluation supports the notion that canonization through reevaluation of older works is part of art-world development: The almost undiluted commercialism of motion-picture production was a constant source of exasperation to critics and reviewers in the silent era, who looked, most often vainly, for redeeming aesthetic value in the stream of fea­ ture films pouring out of Hollywood at the rate of nearly two a day. . . . Posterity, however, has found it easier to recognize enduring artistry in Ameri­ can silent films. In a world-wide poll of critics published in 1972 by the British Film Institute in its quarterly, Sight and Sound, some twenty American silent features were named at least once on the various critics' lists of the top ten motion pictures on world cinema. . . . In all thirty-five silent films received mention. (1994:87) 24. The method of data collection was identical to that used for the film re­ views. Using optical character recognition software, the book reviews were scanned and read as Microsoft Word files. Accurate counts were then achieved

Notes to Chapter 4

•

199

using the "find" function and examining each term in context to verify its intended meaning. 25. I n order to present a more orderly comparison, the comparison of book and film reviews is based on an equal number of reviews. For those time periods (1960 and 1970) for which there are seventy-two film reviews in the sample, the thirty-six first reviews are used for each. This congruity simplifies the presentation. 26. A difference of proportions test (Agresti and Finley 1986:167-71) reveals that the increase i n the density of terms in film reviews between 1935 and 1970 is statistically significant at a 99 percent confidence level. I n contrast, the difference in the density of terms i n book reviews, which decreases, is not statistically signifi­ cant at a 95 percent or above confidence level. I n 1935 and 1940, the density for film reviews is considerably lower than that for book reviews. After a moderate increase in 1960, the density jumps in 1970 to surpass that for book reviews. It is not clear why film reviews would contain a higher density of the specialized vocab­ ulary, although it is quite possible that the difference is the result of sampling error. Difference of proportions tests show that the difference in the density of "high art" and "critical" terms between film and book reviews is statistically significant at a 99 percent confidence level i n 1935 and 1940, while the differences i n 1960 and 1970 are not statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level or above. 27. The same techniques were coded w i t h minor alterations. While mention of the director in film reviews was coded, it was necessary to code for mention of the author in book reviews. I n addition, comparisons between authors and between books were coded in lieu of comparisons between directors and be­ tween films. 28. There surely is variance i n the degree to which the literature i n the sample is "artistic." However, a sample that is taken from first reviews seems to be biased toward weightier fiction, albeit consistently throughout the time periods under study. The sample includes at least one book by a Nobel Prize winner from each of the four years (Ivan Bunin i n 1935, William Butler Yeats i n 1940, Salvatore Q u a s i m o d o in 1960, and N a d i n e G o r d i m e r i n 1970).

29. To be precise, advertisements are a measure of what the studios believed to be important to audience members. A better measurement would be survey data of audiences of that time. I n the absence of such data, advertisements serve reasonably well because the studios were in the business of knowing and catering to audience preferences. 30. Because the results from the preceding section indicated that the period of change in film discourse was the 1960s, data collection began in 1935 rather than 1925. This economizes on data collection while still allowing for observation of trends prior to the period of interest. 3 1 . Only the first advertisement was coded for films w i t h multiple advertise­ ments. I n addition, to be considered an advertisement, it was necessary that more information than merely the title and show time be present. The presence of any additional information, such as the studio, one of the actors, a graphic, was suffi­ cient for inclusion. 32. Because means are sensitive to extreme values, it is useful to verify the trends w i t h a different measurement. The 75th percentile values of each of the three variables have not been reported in order to save space. However, they do

200

•

Notes to Chapter 4

not provide useful new information as they reveal trends in the data that are nearly identical to those reported by the means. 33. This question deserves further historical research; however, one can specu­ late about other possible reasons why the use of critical commentary increased in the 1980s. For example, an increase i n the presence of critical commentary in advertisements might have been the result of increases in advance screenings, i n the number of cities in which films were opening, or simply i n the number of reviewers working. Such increases would have made more early reviews available for quotations. On the studio side, it is possible that a change in strategy occurred where well-reviewed films received increases i n their advertising budgets, thus in­ creasing the likelihood that advertisements would have critical quotes. 34. It is worth noting as well that it appears that change i n critical language preceded change in advertising by approximately five years (see figure 4.1). The picture drawn by the t w o data sets is that the nature of film reviews changed first, and this development of the art world for films was picked up by the Hollywood studios shortly thereafter. Because the data are spaced in five-year intervals, it is not possible to provide a more precise figure for the lag, but the best guess based on these data is about five years. 35. Staiger's (1990) research on the history of film advertising reveals that since the 1930s film advertising has been nationally coordinated by the major studios. Although earlier film advertising was locally controlled by exhibitors, as advertis­ ing became more sophisticated and research driven, it fell to the major studios. This is a significant piece of information because it means that the observed incor­ poration of critical commentary into film advertisements i n the 1960s was not a result of a shift in who was arranging the advertising. 36. Only quotes that used the words "direct," "director," "direction," and so forth, or referred to the director by name were counted. 37. One may question whether these t w o features were used more frequently on a quote-by-quote basis. Controlling for the mean number of quotes per adver­ tisement is not appropriate, however, because there likely is a tendency for an advertisement to have quotes that are relevant to different aspects of the film. It would be a better marketing strategy to emphasize a variety of the film's strengths, not only the direction. Also, overuse of "master" and its variants would detract from the strength of the term's meaning. This latter point is also relevant to under­ standing why only a very small minority of film advertisements include reference to "master" and its variants. Film reviews themselves employ the terms sparingly, and so were only rarely available for excerpting in advertisements. Nevertheless, later usage is frequent relative to earlier usage. 38. Up to this point, rank order correlations and difference of proportions tests have provided evidence of statistical significance. Regression is more appropriate here because of the need to control for a third variable and to take advantage of the large sample size. 39. The threshold of four square inches is chosen as a compromise. A compari­ son of the largest advertisements is preferable. However, because there were few advertisements in the earlier periods of larger sizes, a threshold of five or six square inches would not preserve enough advertisements from early periods for comparison. A size of four square inches is small enough to allow a comparison

Notes to Chapter 5

•

201

of a large number of advertisements and still large enough to easily accommodate critics' quotes. 40. N o fiction book advertisements appeared in 1935 in the New Yorker. As such, the sample relies on the advertisements from the New York Review of Books only for that year. Time did not contain a substantial number of advertisements for fiction books. 4 1 . The foreign-language films in the sample come from a variety of European countries as well as Japan, Argentina, Mexico, Senegal, Israel, and China. Euro­ pean films represent the vast majority of the foreign-language films. 42. The measure of the use of these techniques divided by total review words would paint a different picture. However, as explained in footnote 14, dividing by the total number of review words "handicaps" the measure of the presence of these techniques since they were recorded for whether they occurred at least once. Therefore, whether a director is mentioned once is important, but as reviews lengthen, dividing by the total number of words produces a lower ratio. In effect, the practice of measuring these techniques by whether they occurred at least once is incompatible w i t h standardizing by length of review. 43. We might wonder i f the reason that advertisements for foreign-language films relied on quotes from critics was that those films lacked well-known (to American audiences) actors and therefore needed to include information from critics as a selling point that was usually provided by the name recognition of the stars. This interpretation cannot be ruled out entirely, but the explanation it puts forth to explain the incorporation of film review into advertisements is not consis­ tent w i t h the bulk of the evidence. For instance, i f the role of critics' quotes is to substitute for star power, then we would not expect to see examples such as figures 4.10 and 4.11 which rely heavily on reviews for films w i t h very famous actors. This practice was commonplace in the 1970s. In addition, that view of the role of reviews in advertising cannot explain the drastic change in the late 1960s in advertisements for English-language films. Although the celebrity status of the actors was not coded, it is my impression that the films advertised following the late 1960s were as reliant on big-name actors as the previous productions. A l ­ though a quantitative measure of the fame of the actors in the movies advertised is needed, my sense of the correlation between big stars and reliance on critics is that it was strongly positive rather than negative, as this alternative interpretation would imply. 44. Sklar claims that this perspective bore directly on film: "Since it was widely believed in universities and intellectual circles that art came to America from Eu­ rope, there was a predisposition to imagine that cinema as art would stem from across the Atlantic, t o o " (1994:292).

CHAPTER 5 M E C H A N I S M S FOR C U L T U R A L V A L U A T I O N

1. A n argument can be made that multiplex theaters have helped to make more artistic films economically feasible. Because theaters with many screens need var­ ied content, they w i l l exhibit films with smaller budgets that would normally lose

202

•

Notes to Chapter 5

out to the exhibition of blockbuster movies. Such a contribution to the economic feasibility of artistic films would help to elevate the artistic status of film overall while also blurring the lines between artistic films and mass entertainment films. 2. The conditions that shape our perception of film as a middlebrow art are largely present for literature as well, and yet they are not nearly as crippling to literature's status. I would argue that the most important reason for this discrep­ ancy is that, for most people, the primary and secondary educational systems inculcate a respect for literature and largely ignore film. The teaching of literature in elementary and high school creates a firm foundation for literature as art i n our popular culture. 3. According to M o t i o n Picture Association Worldwide Market Research (2006), younger (12-24 years old) moviegoers account for more admissions than any other age group. 4. It is a separate, though interesting, question to ask why they have authority and how this authority is maintained. 5. I n addition, Bourdieu is interested in understanding the qualitative features of cultural genres as products of the demands, cultural capabilities, and social backgrounds of cultural producers and consumers. This aspect of his w o r k is not dealt w i t h here.

References

Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Abel, Richard. 1988. French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. . 1984. French Cinema: The First Wave, 1915-1929. Princeton, NJ: Prince­ ton University Press. Abrams, Lynn. 1996. "From Control to Commercialization: The Triumph of Mass Entertainment in Germany 1900-1925?," pp. 642-65 in Perspectives on German Cinema, edited by Terri Ginsberg and Kristin Moana Thompson. New York: G. K. Hall and Co. Adler, Judith. 1976. " 'Revolutionary' A r t and the ' A r t ' of Revolution: Aesthetic Work in a Millenarian Period." Theory and Society, vol. 3, no. 3:417-35. Agresti, Alan, and Barbara Finlay. 1986. Statistical Methods for the Social Sci­ ences. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Dellen Publishing Company. Aiken, Nancy E. 1998. The Biological Origins of Art. Westport, CT, and London: Praeger. Allen, Michael Patrick, and Anne Lincoln. 2004. "Critical Discourse and the Cul­ tural Consecration of American Films." Social Forces 82:871-94. Allen, Robert C , and Douglas Gomery. 1985. Film History Theory and Practice. New York: M c G r a w - H i l l . Allyn, John. 1978. "Double Indemnity: A Policy That Paid Off." Literature/Film Quarterly 6:116-24. Anderegg, Michael. 1979. William Wyler. Boston: Twayne Publishers. Anderson, Lindsay. 1981. About John Ford. London: Plexus. Aries, Philippe. 1962. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. Translated by Robert Baldick. New York: Knopf. Armes, Roy. 1985. French Cinema. London: Seeker and Warburg. . 1979. A Critical History of the British Cinema. London: Seeker and Warburg. Arnheim, Rudolf. 1986. New Essays on the Psychology of Art. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Baker, Wayne E., and Robert R. Faulkner. 1991. "Role as Resource in the Holly­ wood Film Industry." American Journal of Sociology 97:279-09. Balio, Tino. 1987. United Artists: The Company That Changed the Film Industry. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Bardeche, Maurice, and Robert Brassilach. 1938. The History of Motion Pictures. Translated by Iris Barry. New York: W. W. N o r t o n and Company. Basinger, Jeanine. 1994. American Cinema: One Hundred Years of Filmmaking. New York: Rizzoli Press. Baxter, Peter. 1993. Just Watch! Sternberg, Paramount and America. London: British Film Institute Publishing.

204

•

References

Becker, Howard. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press. Behlmer, Rudy. 1993. Memo From Darryl F. Zanuck: The Golden Years at Twenti­ eth Century-Vox. New York: Grove Press. Beisel, Nicola. 1992. "Constructing a Shifting M o r a l Boundary: Literature and Obscenity in Nineteenth-Century America," pp. 104-27 in Cultivating Differ­ ences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by Michele Lamont and Marcel Fournier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beman, Lamar T., ed. 1931. Censorship of the Theater and Moving Pictures. New York: The H . W. Wilson Company. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Real­ ity: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books. Bielby, William T., and Denise Bielby. 1994. " ' A l l Hits Are Flukes': Institutional­ ized Decision Making and the Rhetoric of Network Prime-Time Program Devel­ opment." American Journal of Sociology 99:1287-1313. Biskind, Peter. 1998. Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock'n Roll Generation Saved Hollywood. New York: Simon and Shuster. Black, Gregory D . 1994. Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Blades, Joseph Dalton Jr. 1976. A Comparative Study of Selected American Film Critics 1958-1974. New York: Arno Press. Blau, Judith. 1986. "The Elite Arts, More or Less de Rigeur: A Comparative Anal­ ysis of Metropolitan Culture." Social Forces 64:875-905. Blewitt, John. 1993. "Film, Ideology and Bourdieu's Critique of Public Taste." British Journal of Aesthetics, 33:367-72. Bloom, Allan David. 1987. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. Boddy, William. 1998. "The Beginnings of American Television," pp. 23-37 in Television: An International History, edited by Anthony Smith w i t h Richard Paterson. New York: Oxford University Press. Boggs, Joseph. 1978. The Art of Watching Films: A Guide to Film Analysis. Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company. Bordwell, David. 1989. Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpre­ tation of Cinema. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. 1986. Film Art. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press. . 1985. "The Market of Symbolic Goods." Poetics 14:13-44. . 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Richard Nice, trans. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. . 1980. "The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Sym­ bolic Goods." Media, Culture and Society 2:261-93. Brooks, David. 2000. Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. New York: Touchstone. Brown, Gene. 1995. Movie Time: A Chronology of Hollywood and the Movie Industry from Its Beginnings to the Present. New York: Macmillan. 3

References

•

205

Bucher, Rue. 1962. "Pathology: A Study of Social Movements within a Profes­ sion." Social Problems 10:40-51. Bucher, Rue, and Anselm Strauss. 1961. "Professions in Process." American Jour­ nal of Sociology 66:325-34. Buhle, Paul, ed. 1987. Popular Culture in America. Minneapolis, M N : University of Minnesota Press. Buss, Robin. 1989. Italian Films. London: Anchor Press. Butsch, Richard. 2001. " A History of Research on Movies, Radio, and Televi­ sion." Journal of Popular Film and Television 29(3): 112-20. Bywater, Tim, and Thomas Sobchak. 1989. An Introduction to Film Criticism: Major Critical Approaches to Narrative Film. New York: Longman. Callenbach, Ernest. 1971. "The Unloved One: Crisis at the American Film Insti­ tute." Film Quarterly Summer, vols. 22-24:42-54. Canaday, John Edwin. 1980. What Is Art? An Introduction to Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. New York: Knopf. Canby, Vincent. 1971. "Introduction," New York Times Film Reviews, v. 1. New York: New York Times. Carney, Raymond. 1985. American Dreaming: The Films of John Cassavetes and the American Experience. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of Califor­ nia Press. Carr, Steven Alan. 2001. Hollywood and Anti-Semitism: A Cultural History Up to World War II. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, Noel. 1998. Interpreting the Moving Image. New York: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Chanan, Michael. 1996. "Cinema in Latin America," pp. 427-35 in The Oxford History of World Cinema, edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chandler, Raymond. 1948. "Oscar Night in Hollywood." Atlantic Monthly vol. 181, no. 3 pp 24-27. Chin, Daryl. 1997. "Festivals, Markets, Critics: Notes on the State of the A r t Film." Performing Arts Journal 19, 1:61-75. Cook, David A.. "Auteur Cinema and the 'Film Generation' in 1970s Holly­ wood," pp. 11-37, in The New American Cinema, edited by Jon Lewis, 1998, Durham, N C , and London: Duke University Press Corrigan, Philip. 1983. "Film Entertainment as Ideology and Pleaure: Towards a History of Audiences," pp. 24-35 in British Cinema History, edited by James Curran and Vincent Porter. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Corse, Sarah M . , and Monica D . Griffin. 1997. "Cultural Valorization and Afri­ can American Literary History: Reconstructing the Canon." Sociological Forum 12:173-203. Coser, Lewis A., Charles Kadushin, and Walter W. Powell. 1982. Books: The Cul­ ture and Commerce of Publishing. New York: Basic Books. Couvares, Francis G. 1996. "Introduction," pp. 1-15, in Movie Censorship and American Culture, edited by Francis G. Couvares. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press. Crane, Diana. 1987. The Transformation of the Avant-Garde: The New York Art World, 1940-1985. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

206

•

References

Crisp, Colin. 1993. The Classic French Cinema, 1930-1960. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Czitrom, Daniel. 1996. "The Politics of Performance: Theatre Licensing and the Origins of Movie Censorship in New York," pp. 16-42 in Movie Censorship and American Culture, edited by Francis G. Couvares. Washington and Lon­ don: Smithsonian Institution Press. Danto, Arthur. 1964. "The A r t w o l d . " Journal of Philosophy 61:571-84. Davies, Norman. 1996. Europe: A History. New York: HarperPerennial. Davies, Stephen. 1991. Definitions of Art. Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press. Davis, Ronald L . 1995. John Ford: Hollywood's Old Master. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. De Grazia, Edward, and Roger K. Newman. 1982. Banned Films: Movies, Cen­ sors and the First Amendment. New York and London: R. R. Bowker Company. De Grazia, Victoria. 1998. "European Cinema and the Idea of Europe, 1925-95," pp. 19-33 in Hollywood and Europe: Economics, Culture, National Identity: 1945-95, edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith and Steven Ricci. London: British Film Institute. Decherney, Peter. 2000. "Inventing Film Study and Its Object at Columbia Univer­ sity, 1915-1938." Film History 12, 4:443-60. Denby, David. 1998. "The Moviegoers: Why Don't People Love the Right Movies Anymore?" New Yorker April 6:94-101. DeNora, Tia. 1991. "Musical Patronage and Social Change in Beethoven's V i ­ enna." American Journal of Sociology 97:310-46. Dick, Bernard F. 1993. The Merchant Prince of Poverty Row: Harry Cohn of Columbia Pictures. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. . 1992. Columbia Pictures: Portrait of a Studio. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. Dickie, George. 1974. Art and the Aesthetic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DiMaggio, Paul. 1992. "Cultural Boundaries and Structural Change: The Exten­ sion of the High Culture Model to Theater, Opera, and the Dance, 1900-1940," pp. 21-57, in Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, Michele Lamont and Marcel Fournier, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. . 1982. "Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston: The Creation of an Organizational Base for High Culture in America." Media, Cul­ ture and Society 4:33-50. DiMaggio, Paul, and Joseph Cohen. 2003. "Information Inequality and Network Externalities: A Comparative Study of the Diffusion of Television and the In­ ternet." Working Paper # 3 1 , Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. DiMaggio, Paul, and Michael Useem. 1978. "Social Class and Arts Consumption: The Origins and Consequences of Class Differences in Exposure to the Arts in America." Theory and Society 5:141-61. Doherty, Thomas. 1999. Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934. New York: Columbia University Press. During, Simon, editor. 1999. The Cultural Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.

References

•

207

Eames, John Douglas. 1985. The Paramount Story. London: Octopus Books Limited. Easton, John. 1997. "Reel Scholarship." University of Chicago Magazine. 89: 26-31. Edwards, Jim. 2001. "The Confluence of East and West Coast Pop," pp. 89-109 in Pop Art: US/UK Connections 1956-1966, edited by David E. Brauer, Jim Edwards, and Walter Hopps. New York: Hatje Cantz Publishers. Eitner, Lorenz. 1961. Introduction to Art: An Illustrated Topical Manual. Minne­ apolis: Burgess Publishing Company. Eliashberg, Jehoshua, and Steven M . Shugan. 1997. "Film Critics: Influencers or Predictors?" Journal of Marketing 61:68-78. Elsaesser, Thomas. 1996. "Germany: The Weimar Years," pp. 136-51 in The Ox­ ford History of World Cinema, edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. . 1989. New German Cinema: A History. London: Macmillan Education Ltd. . 1975. "Two Decades in Another Country: Hollywood and the Cinephiles," pp. 199-216 in Super culture, edited by C.W.E. Bigsby. London: Paul Elek. Emery, Robert J. 2000. The Directors—Take Two: In Their Own Words. New York: Media Entertainment. Engel, Lehman. 1976. The Critics. New York: Macmillan. Epstein, Edward Jay. 2005. The Big Picture: Money and Power in Hollywood. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks. Ezra, Elizabeth. 2004. "The Cinemising Process: Filmgoing in the Silent Era," pp. 74-81 in The French Cinema Book, edited by Michael Temple and Michael Witt. London: British Film Institute Publishing. Ezra, Elizabeth, and Sue Harris, eds. 2000. France in Focus: Film and National Identity. Oxford and New York: Berg. Ferguson, Priscilla Parkhurst. 1998. " A Cultural Field in the Making: Gastron­ omy in Nineteenth-Century France." American Journal of Sociology 104:597641. Freeman, Bernadine. 1926. N o title. Educational Review 72:115. Gabler, Neal. 1989. An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Holly­ wood. New York: Doubleday. Gans, Herbert. 1999. Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evalua­ tion of Taste. New York: Basic Books. Genocchio, Benjamin. 2003. "When 'Delinquents' Infiltrated A r t . " New York Times, M a y 1 1 , Late Edition (East Coast), p. 14NJ.9 Gerstner, David A., and Janet Staiger (Editors). 2003. Authorship and Film. New York and London: Routledge. Giannetti, Louis. 1981. Masters of the American Cinema. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Gomery, Douglas. 2001. "Finding TV's Pioneering Audiences." Journal of Popu­ lar Film and Television 29, 3:121-29. . 1992. Shared Pleasures: A History of Movie Presentation in the United States. Madison: University Press of Wisconsin Press.

208

•

References

Haberski, Raymond J. 2001. It's Only a Movie!: Film and Critics in American Culture. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky. Hacking, Ian. 1995. Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hake, Sabine. 2001. German National Cinema. London and New York: Routledge. . 1990. "Chaplin Reception in Weimar Germany." New German Critique Autumn N o . 5 1 , 87-111. Halle, David. 1993. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. Chi­ cago: University of Chicago Press. Hampton, Benjamin B. 1970 [1931]. History of the American Film Industry from Its Beginnings to 1931. New York: Dover Publications. Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman. 1988. "The Ecology of Organizational Mortality: American Labor Unions, 1836-1985." American Journal of Sociol­ ogy 94:25-52. . 1987. "The Ecology of Organizational Founding: American Labor Unions, 1936-1985." American Journal of Sociology 92:910-43. . 1977. "The Population Ecology of Organizations." American Journal of Sociology. 82:929-64. Hanson, Patricia King, and Stephen L . Hanson, eds. 1986. Film Review Index. Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Press. Harrington, Austin. 2004. Art and Social Theory. Maiden, M A : Polity Press. Hartog, Simon. 1983. "State Protection of a Beleaguered Industry," pp. 59-73 in British Cinema History, edited by James Curran and Vincent Porter. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Hawkridge, John. 1996. "British Cinema from Hepworth to Hitchcock," pp. 130-36 in The Oxford History of World Cinema, edited by Geoffrey NowellSmith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hay, James. 1987. Popular Film Culture in Fascist Italy: The Passing of the Rex. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Heiss, Ann M . 1973. An Inventory of Academic Innovation and Reform. Berke­ ley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Hepworth, Julie. 1999. The Social Construction of Anorexia Nervosa. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Herman, Jan. 1995. A Talent for Trouble: The Life of Hollywood's Most Ac­ claimed Director. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Hirsch, Paul M . 1986. "From Ambushes to Golden Parachutes: Corporate Take­ overs as an Instance of Cultural Framing and Institutional Integration." Ameri­ can Journal of Sociology 91:800-37. . 1972. "Processing Fads and Fashions: A n Organization-Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems." American Journal of Sociology 77:639-59. Hirschhorn, Clive. 1983. The Universal Story. London: Octopus Books Limited. Holsti, Ole R. 1969. Content Analyses for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley. Horkheimer, M a x . 1982. " A r t and Mass Culture," pp. 273-90 i n Critical Theory: Selected Essays, Matthew J. O'Connell, trans. New York: Continuum Publishing.

References

•

209

Horkheimer, M a x , and Theodor Adorno. 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Translated by John Camming. New York: Herder and Herder. Horton, Robert, editor. 2001. Billy Wilder Interviews: Conversations with Film­ makers Series. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. Jancovich, M a r k . 2001. "Genre and the Audience: Genre Classifications and Cul­ tural Distinctions in the Mediation of The Silence of the Lambs," pp. 33-45 in Hollywood Spectators hip: Changing Perceptions of Cinema Audiences, edited by Melvyn Stokes and Richard Maltby. London: BFI Publishing. Jowett, Garth. 1996. " ' A Significant Medium for the Communication of Ideas:' The Miracle Decision and the Decline of M o t i o n Picture Censorship, 19521969," pp. 258-76, in Movie Censorship and American Culture, edited by Francis G. Couvares. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press. . 1989. " A Capacity for Evil: The 1915 Supreme Court M u t u a l Decision." Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 9, 1:59-78. . 1976. Film: The Democratic Art. Boston: Little, Brown. Kaes, Anton. 1987. "The Debate about Cinema: Charting a Controversy (19091929)." New German Critique 40:7-33. Kammen, Michael. 1996. The Lively Arts: Gilbert Seldes and the Transformation of Cultural Criticism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. Kapsis, Robert E. 1992. Hitchcock: The Making of a Reputation. Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press. King, Geoff. 2002. New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. London, New York: I . B. Tauris Publishers. King, Susan. 2002. "Rescuing the Classics: Computers Do the Nitty-Gritty Work; 'Sunset Boulevard' and 'Roman Holiday' Are Stunning on D V D , but the Restor­ ers Came Close to Pulling the Plug." Los Angeles Times (home edition). Los Angeles: Nov. 26, p. E.6. Kinnard, Roy, and R. J. Vitone. 1986. The American Films of Michael Curtiz. Metuchen, NJ, and London: The Scarecrow Press. Kisseloff, Jeff. 1995. The Box: An Oral History of Television, 1920-1961. New York: Penguin Books. Knight, Arthur. 1957. The Liveliest Art. New York: New American Library. Kracauer, Siegfried. 1987 [1926]. "Cult of Distraction: On Berlin's Picture Pal­ aces." Translated by Thomas Y. Levin. New German Critique Winter, no. 40, 91-96. Lang, Gladys Engel, and Kurt Lang. 1988. "Recognition and Renown: The Sur­ vival of Artistic Reputation." American Journal of Sociology 94:79-109. Lanzoni, Remi Fournier. 2002. French Cinema: From Its Beginnings to the Pres­ ent. New York, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construc­ tion of Scientific Facts. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Leary, Lewis. 1976. American Literature: A Study and Research Guide. New York: St. Martin's Press. Levine, Lawrence W. 1988. Lowbrow/Highbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hi­ erarchy in America. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Lewis, Glen. 2003. "The Thai Movie Revival and Thai National Identity." Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 17:69-78.

210

•

References

Lieberson, Stanley. 2000. A Matter of Taste: How Names, Fashions, and Culture Change. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. . 1985. Making It Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Lieberson, Stanley, Susan Dumais, and Shyon Baumann. 2000. "The Instability of Androgynous Names: The Symbolic Maintenance of Gender Boundaries." American journal of Sociology 105:1249-87. Long, Robert Emmet. 2001. George Cukor: Interviews. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Lopes, Paul. 2002. The Rise of a Jazz Art World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lorber, Judith. 1991. The Social Construction of Gender. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Lounsbury, M y r o n Osborn. 1973. The Origins of American Film Criticism 19091939. New York: Arno Press. Luckett, Moya. 1994. "Fantasia: Cultural Constructions of Disney's 'Master­ piece,' " pp. 214-36, in Disney Discourse: Producing the Magic Kingdom, ed­ ited by Eric Smoodin. New York: Routledge. Lynes, Russell. 1973. Good Old Modern: An Intimate Portrait of the Museum of Modern Art. New York: Atheneum. Maland, Charles J. 1989. Chaplin and American Culture: The Evolution of a Star Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Maltby, Richard. 2003. Hollywood Cinema, 2nd ed. Maiden, M A : Blackwell Publishing. . 1996. "To Prevent the Prevalent Type of Book: Censorship and Adapta­ tion in Hollywood, 1924-1934," pp. 97-128, in Movie Censorship and Ameri­ can Culture, edited by Francis G. Couvares. Washington and London: Smith­ sonian Institution Press. Manly, Lome. 2005. "Doing the Hollywood M a t h : What Slump?" New York Times. December 1 1 , 2.15. Mast, Gerald. 1981. A Short History of the Movies. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. May, Lary. 1980. Screening Out the Past: The Birth of Mass Culture and the Motion Picture Industry. New York: Oxford University Press. McBride, Joseph. 1983. Filmmakers on Filmmaking: The American Film Institute, Seminars on Motion Pictures and Television. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher. . (editor). 1972. Focus on Howard Hawks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Monaco, Paul. 1976. Cinema and Society: France and Germany during the Twen­ ties. New York: Elsevier. Mordden, Ethan. 1988. The Hollywood Studios: House Style in the Golden Age of the Movies. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morrison, Jack. 1973. The Rise of the Arts on the American Campus. New York: McGraw-Hill. M o t i o n Picture Association Worldwide Market Research. 2006. www.mpaa.org/ researchStatistics.asp.

References

•

211

Mueller, John. 1951. The American Symphony Orchestra: A Social History of Musical Taste. Bloomington: University Indiana Press. Murray, Edward. 1975. Nine American Film Critics: A Study of Theory and Prac­ tice. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co. Napper, Lawrence. 1997. " A Despicable Tradition? Quota Quickies in the 1930s," pp. 37-47 in The British Cinema Book, edited by Robert Murphy. London: BFI Publishing. N o well-Smith, Geoffrey, James Hay, and Gianni Volpi. 1996. The Companion to Italian Cinema. London: BFI Publishing. Orbach, Barak. 2004. "Antitrust and Pricing in the M o t i o n Picture Industry." Yale Journal on Regulation 2 1 , 2:317-67. Ott, Frederick W. 1986. The Great German Films. Seacaucus, NJ: Citadel Press. Pearson, Roberta. 1996. "Early Cinema," pp. 13-23, in The Oxford History of World Cinema, edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Pemberton, Brock. 1936. " A Theatrical Producer's Reaction to the Movies," pp. 153-65 in The Movies On Trial, edited by William J. Perlman. New York: The Macmillan Company. Perren, Alisa. 2001. "sex, lies, and marketing: Miramax and the Development of the Quality, Indie Blockbuster." Film Quarterly 55, 2:30-39. Peterson, Richard A . 1997. "The Rise and Fall of Highbrow Snobbery as a Status Marker." Poetics 25, 75-92. . 1994. "Cultural Studies through the Production Perspective: Progress and Prospects," pp. 163-89, in The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, Diana Crane, ed. Cambridge, M A : Blackwell Publishers. . 1972. " A Process Model of the Folk, Pop and Fine A r t Phases of Jazz," pp. 135-51 in American Music, edited by Charles Nanry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Peterson, Richard A., and Albert Simkus. 1992. " H o w Musical Tastes M a r k Oc­ cupational Status Groups," pp. 152-86 in Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by Michele Lamont and Mar­ cel Fournier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Petro, Patrice. 1986. "Mass Culture and the Feminine: The 'Place' of Television in Film Studies." Cinema Journal 25'(3):5-21. Phillips, Gene D . (editor). 2001. Stanley Kubrick: Interviews. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. . 1990. Major Film Directors of the American and British Cinema. London and Toronto: Associated University Presses. . 1981. John Schlesinger. Boston: Twayne Publishers. Phillips, Nelson, and Cynthia Hardy. 2002. Discourse Analysis: Investigating Pro­ cesses of Social Construction. Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Re­ search Methods, vol. 50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Phillips, Patrick. 2000. Understanding Film Texts: Meaning and Experience. Lon­ don: British Film Institute. Poe, G. Tom. 2001. "Historical Spectator ship around and about Stanley Kramer's On the Beach," pp. 91-102 in Hollywood Spectatorship: Changing Perceptions

212

•

References

of Cinema Audiences, edited by Melvyn Stokes and Richard Maltby. London: BFI Publishing. Prigozy, Ruth. 1984. "Double Indemnity. Billy Wilder's Crime and Punishment." Literature/Film Quarterly 12:160-70. Putnam, Robert D . 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Shuster. Puttnam, David. 1997. The Undeclared War: The Struggle for Control of the World's Film Industry. London: Harper Collins. Pye, Michael, and Linda Myles. 1979. The Movie Brats: How the Film Generation Took Over Hollywood. London: Faber and Faber. Quart, Leonard, and Albert Auster. 1984. American Film and Society Since 1945. London: Macmillan. Rachlin, Seth. 1993. "Anatomy of a Film Revolution: The Case of the Nouvelle Vague." Poetics 21:429-42. Randall, Richard. 1968. Censorship of the Movies: The Social and Political Con­ trol of a Mass Medium. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Rawlings, Craig M . 2001. " ' M a k i n g Names': The Cutting Edge Renewal of Afri­ can A r t in New York City, 1985-1996." Poetics 29:29-54. Redmonds, I . G., and Reiko M i m u r a . 1980. Paramount Pictures and the People Who Made Them. San Diego, New York: A. S. Barnes. Reich, Jacqueline. 2002. "Mussolini at the Movies: Fascism, Film, and Culture," pp. 3-29 in Re-viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943, edited by Jacque­ line Reich and Piero Garofalo. Bloomington and Indianaopolis: Indiana Univer­ sity Press. Rhode, Eric. 1976. A History of the Cinema from Its Origins to 1970. New York: H i l l and Wang. Richards, Jeffrey. 1997. "British Film Censorship," pp. 167-77 in The British Cinema Book, edited by Robert Murphy. London: BFI Publishing. Ridgeway, Cecilia, David Diekema, and Cathryn Johnson. 1995. "Legitimacy, Compliance, and Gender in Peer Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 58:298-311. Riley, Gail Blasser. 1998. Censorship. New York: Facts on File. Roddick, Nick. 1983. A New Deal in Entertainment: Warner Brothers in the 1930s. London: British Film Institute. Rosenberg, Bernard. 1971 [1968]. "Mass Culture Revisited," pp. 3-12 in Mass Culture Revisited, edited by Bernard Rosenberg and David Manning White. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Rosenzweig, Sydney. 1982. Casablanca and Other Major Films of Michael Curtiz. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Research Press. Ross, Steven J. 1998. Working-Class Hollywood: Silent Film and the Shaping of Class in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Roth, Chris. 2000. "Three Decades of Film Censorship . . . Right before Your Eyes." The Humanist 60, 1:9-13. Rudolph, Frederick. 1977. Curriculum: A History of the American Undergradu­ ate Course of Study since 1636. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ryall, Tom. 1997. " A British Studio System: The Associated British Picture Corporation and the Gaumont-British Picture Corporation i n the 1930s," pp.

References

•

213

27-36 in The British Cinema Book, edited by Robert Murphy. London: BFI Publishing. Sandler, Irving. 1988. American Art of the 1960s. New York: Harper and Row. Sarris Andrew. 1968. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions 19291968. New York: Dutton. Saunders, Thomas J. 1994. Hollywood in Berlin: American Cinema and Weimar Germany. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schatz, Thomas. 2003. "The New Hollywood," pp. 15-44, in Movie Blockbust­ ers, edited by Julian Stringer. London and New York: Routledge. . 1996. "Hollywood: The Triumph of the Studio System," pp. 220-234 in The Oxford History of World Cinema, edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Schickel, Richard. 1969. "Don't Go to the Movies to Escape—The Movies Are N o w High A r t . " New York Times Magazine January 5, pp. 32-44. Schluepmann, Heide. 1986. "The First German A r t Film: Rye's The Student of Prague (1913)," pp. 9-24 in German Film and Literature: Adaptations and Transformations, edited by Eric Rentschler. New York and London: Methuen. Seldes, Gilbert. 1924. The Seven Lively Arts. New York: Harper &c Brothers Publishers. Shale, Richard. 1993. The Academy Awards Index: The Complete Categorical and Chronological Record. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Shrum, Welsey. 1996. Fringe and Fortune: The Role of Critics in High and Popu­ lar Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sinyard, Neil. 1985. Directors: The All-Time Greats. London: Columbus Books. Sklar, Robert. 1994. Movie-Made America. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage Books. Sklar, Robert, and Vito Zagarrio. 1998. Frank Capra: Authorship and the Studio System. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Smith, J. Douglas. 2001. "Patrolling the Boundaries of Race: M o t i o n Picture Cen­ sorship and Jim Crow in Virginia, 1922-1932." Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 2 1 , 3:273-91. Solomon, Aubrey. 1988. Twentieth Century-Fox: A Corporate and Financial His­ tory. Metuchen, NJ, and London: Scarecrow Press. Sontag, Susan. 1969. Styles of Radical Will. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Staiger, Janet. 1990. "Announcing Wares, Winning Patrons, Voicing Ideals: Thinking about the History and Theory of Film Advertising." Cinema Journal 29, 3:3-31. . 1985. "The Hollywood Mode of Production to 1930," pp. 85-153 and "The Hollywood Mode of Production, 1930-1960," pp. 309-64 in The Classi­ cal Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960, David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Starr, Paul. 1982. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic Books. Stein, Elliott. 2002. " O l d Hollywood's Sure Thing." Village Voice, New York; Sep. 11-Sep. 17, vol. 47, Iss. 37, p. 110.

214

•

References

Stinchcombe, Arthur L . 1965. "Social Structure and Organizations," pp. 14293 in Handbook of Organizations, edited by James G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally. Stones, Barbara. 1993. America Goes to the Movies: One Hundred Years of Mo­ tion Picture Exhibition. N o r t h Hollywood, CA: National Association of The­ atre Owners. Stringer, Julian, editor. 2003. Movie Blockbusters. London and New York: Rout ledge. Stryker, Robin. 1994. "Rules, Resources, and Legitimacy Processes: Some Impli­ cations for Social Conflict, Order, and Change." American Journal of Sociology 99:847-910. Sultanik, Aaron. 1986. Film: A Modern Art. Cranbury, NJ: Rosemont Publishing and Printing Corporation. Tebbel, John. 1987. Between Covers: The Rise and Transformation of Book Pub­ lishing in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Temple, Michael, and Michael Witt. 2004. "Hello Cinema!" pp. 9-17 in The French Cinema Book, edited by Michael Temple and Michael W i t t . London: British Film Institute Publishing. Thompson, Kristin, and David Bordwell. 1994. Film History: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill. Titchener, Campbell B. 1998. Reviewing the Arts. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ, and Lon­ don: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Tolstoy, Leo. 1995 [1898]. What Is Art? Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. London: Penguin Books. Tuska, Jon. 1991. Encounters with Filmmakers: Eight Career Studies. New York: Greenwood Press. Twomey, John E. 1956. "Some Considerations on the Rise of the Art-Film The­ ater." Quarterly of Film, Radio and Television 10, 3:239-47. Uricchio, Willam. 1996. "The First World War and the Crisis in Europe," pp. 6 2 70 in in The Oxford History of World Cinema, edited by Geoffrey NowellSmith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Uricchio, William, and Roberta Pearson. 1993. Re framing Culture: The Case of the Vitagraph Quality Films. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Usai, Paolo Cherchi. 1996. "Italy: Spectacle and Melodrama," pp. 123-30 in The Oxford History of World Cinema, edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vaughn, Steven. 1990. "Morality and Entertainment: The Origins of the M o t i o n Picture Production Code." The Journal of American History 77:39-65. Verdaasdonk, H . 1983. "Social and Economic Factors in the Attribution of Liter­ ary Quality." Poetics 12:383-95. Wapshott, Nicholas. 1990. The Man Between: A Biography of Carol Reed, Lon­ don: Chatto and Windus. Warburton, Nigel. 2003. The Art Question. London and New York: Routledge. Watson, Robert. 1990. Film and Television in Education: A n Aesthetic Approach to the Moving Image. London: Falmer Press. Weinberg, Charles B. 2005. "Profits Out of the Picture: Research Issues and Reve­ nue Sources beyond the N o r t h American Box Office," pp. 163-97 in A Concise

References

•

215

Handbook of Movie Industry Economics, edited by Charles C. M o u l . Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Welsh, James M . , and Tibbetts, John C. (eds). 1999. The Cinema of Tony Richard­ son: Essays and Interviews. Albany: State University of New York Press. White, Harrison C , and Cynthia A. White. 1965. Canvases and Careers: Institu­ tional Change in the French Fainting World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. White, William Allen. 1936. "Chewing-Gum Relaxation," pp. 3-12, i n The Mov­ ies on Trial, William J. Perlman, ed. New York: Macmillan Company. Winship, Michael. 1988. Television. New York: Random House. Wolcott, James. 1997. "Waiting for Goddard." Vanity Fair 440:124-34. Yoffe, Emily. 1983. "Popcorn Politics." Harper's Magazine 267:16-22. Young, Donald. 1926. "Social Standards and the M o t i o n Picture." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 128:146-50. Zhou, Xueguang. 1993. "Occupational Power, State Capacities, and the Diffusion of Licensing in the American States: 1890 to 1950." American Sociological Review 58:536-52. Zierold, Norman. 1991. The Moguls: Hollywood's Merchants of Myth. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press. Zolberg, Vera. 1990. Constructing a Sociology of the Arts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Zwerdling, Shirley. 1970. Film and TV Festival Directory. N e w York: Back Stage Publications.

Index

Abbot, Andrew, 192nl Abel, Richard, 29,31 Abrams, Lynn, 26, 100 abstract art, 5 Academy Awards, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 64, 167, 185n9, 189n26 Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 55 Adam's Rib, 63 Addams, Jane, 47 Adler, Judith, 182n8 Adorno, Theodor, 48, 184n24 Adventures of Robin Hood, 63 advertising and film, 19, 20, 104, 113, 137-60, 199nn29 and 31, 200nn33, 34, 35, 37, and 39, 201n43 aesthetic mobility, 14-15 African American music, 44 African art, 13 Agresti, Alan, 199n26 Aiken, Nancy, 6 Allen, Michael, 187nl6 Allen, Robert, 67, 69 amateur film, 57 American Beauty, 167 American Film Institute (AFI), 60, 67, 74-76, 185nn2 and 9, 187nl6 American Pie, 167 Anderegg, Michael, 62 Anderson, Lindsay, 61 And God Created Woman, 103 Annual National Safety Film Contest, 185n4 anti-Semitism, 25 Antonioni, Michelangelo, 69 Apartment, The, 62 Aragon, Louis, 115 Arbuckle, "Fatty," 55 Argentinian cinema, 154 Armes, Roy, 26, 77, 78, 79, 81 Arnheim, Rudolf, 6 art, definition of, 4-7 art houses, 3, 16, 53, 88-92, 162, 167, 170, 189n31, 190n32 art worlds, 163-64, 166

Asian Film Festival (New York), 58 Atlantic Monthly, 117 audience: the nature of, 22-45, 95, 106, 107, 108; composition of, changes in, 32-52, 171, 177; size of, changes in, 32-52,162,171 auteur theory, 10, 61-66, 83-84, 149, 177, 185n8, 188n25 automobile ownership and film, 41-42, 43 baby boom, 15, 22, 32, 40, 41, 161 Baby Maker, 125 Baker, Wayne, 168 Balaban, Barney, 94 Balalaika, 116 Baldwin, Faith, 48 Balio, Tino, 38, 95-96, 103, 189n31 Bambi, 132 Bardeche, Maurice, 78, 99 Bardot, Brigitte, 103 Baumann, Shyon, 182nl4, 183n23 Baxter, Peter, 42, 89 Bazin, Andre, 62 Becker, Howard, 4, 15, 16, 53, 77, 108, 112, 133, 163, 164, 165, 179n6 Beethoven, 15 Behlmer, Rudy, 189n26 Being John Malkovich, 166 Beisel, Nicola, 15 Beman, Lamar, 2 Ben Hur, 62 Bentham, Jeremy, 48 Berger, Peter, 192nl Bergman, Ingmar, 66, 69 Berkeley, Busby, 45 Berle, Milton, 39 Berlin, 26 Bernhardt, Sarah, 93 Bertolucci, Bernardo, 66 Best Years of Our Lives, 62, 198n21 Beverly Hillbillies, 48, 49 Bielby, Denise, 106 Bielby, William, 106 Birth of a Nation, 8, 85, 198n21 Biskind, Peter, 59-60, 66

218

•

Index

Black, Gregory, 55, 98, 99, 100 Black Maria Film and Video Festival, 58-59 Blades, Joseph, 74, 155 Blair Witch Project, 166 Blau, Judith, 181n4 Blewitt, John, 124 blockbuster, 11,18, 58, 86, 87, 109,149, 168, 169, 201nl Bloom, Allan, 49 Blue Book, 1 8 6 n l l Boddy, William, 32, 38, 39 Bogart, Humphrey, 45 Bonnie and Clyde, 105, 107 Booker Prize, 54, 86 Bordwell, David, 25, 77, 124-25 Boston, 2, 16, 48, 170 Boston Film Festival, 56 Boston Symphony, 48 Bourdieu, Pierre, 6, 16-17, 34, 35, 36, 77, 83, 85-87, 125, 126, 163, 164, 165, 168, 174, 175, 179n6, 187n21, 202n5 Brando, Marlon, 157-58 Brassilach, Robert, 78, 99 Bresson, Robert, 69 Bridges, James, 125 Bringing Up Baby, 61 British Board of Film Censors, 100 British Film Institute, 111, 132, 198n23 Brooks, David, 171 Brown, Gene, 24, 37, 38 Bucher, Rue, 164 Buhle, P a u l , 14 Bunel, Luis, 66, 69 Bunin, Ivan, 199n28 Bureau of the Census (US), 39, 71 Burstyn, Joseph, 101 Burstyn v. Wilson, 101 Business Week, 32 Buss, Robin, 27, 30, 77, 78, 79, 81, 100 Butsch, Richard, 24 Bywater, Tim, 74, 83 Cahiers du cinema, 61, 82-83 California Institute of the Arts, 67 Callenbach, Ernest, 75 cameraman system of production, 79 Cameron, Kate, 116 Campbell, Angela, 192n45 Canaday, John, 126 Canby, Vincent, 155, 158 Cannes, 54, 59

Canudo, Ricciotto, 27 Capra, Frank, 64 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 68 Carnegie Theater (Chicago), 59 Carney, Raymond, 185n9, 195nl0 Carr, Steven, 25 Carroll, Noel, 67 Casablanca, 63, 141, 142, 198n21 Cassavetes, John, 185n9 Cendrars, Blaise, 115 censorship, 3, 8, 9-10, 19, 53, 97-110, 162, 190n38, 191nn39, 40, and 43, 192n44; and the Catholic Church, 1013; in European films, 97-110 (passim) Center for Advanced Film Studies, 75 Central Catholique du Cinema, 101 central producer system of production, 80 Chabrol, Claude, 66 Chanan, Michael, 154 Chandler, Raymond, 117 Chaplin, Charlie, 115-16, 193n2 charisma ideology, 83 Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, 157 Chicago, 56, 97, 102 Chicago International Film Festival, 16, 56, 59, 61 Chin, Daryl, 185n5 Chinatown, 142 Cinecitta Studios, 79 Cinecom, 109 Citizen Kane, 85, 149 City Lights, 114-15, 198n21 Clair, Rene, 84 Close Up, 26 Closing of the American Mind, 49 Club des Amis du Septieme Art, 27 Cocteau, Jean, 115 Cohen, Joseph, 39 College Blue Book, 67 Columbia Pictures, 94, 103 Columbia University, 67, 186nl2 Columbus International Film and Video Festival, 56 communication: art as, 4, 5; film as, 3, 6, 10, 102, 129, 165 Connecticut, 157 Consumer Reports, 157,169 consumption practices, 19, 53-110 (pas­ sim); changes in, 161, 169-71 contraction of film industry, 32-52, 105; re­ sponses to,105-110

Index Conversation, The, 158 Cook, David, 33 Coplans, John, 51 Coppola, Francis, 158 Corrigan, Philip, 100 Corse, Sarah, 69 Coser, Lewis, 71 Couvares, Francis, 97 craft worlds, 163-63, 166 Crane, Diana, 50 Crisp, Colin, 27, 28, 41, 77, 81, 100, 1 8 2 n l l , 183nl7 critic-quote pair, 138, 139 critics/criticism, 3, 4, 19, 83, 112, 137, 169, 173, 194n3; influence of, 198n22; relevance of, 155-59, 169, 172; task of, 196nll "Critic as Superstar," 155 Crowther, Bosley, 102 Cukor, George, 63, 189n26 cultural capital: art as, 6, 86; film as, 19, 34, 86-88, 169-71 cultural entrepreneur, 16, 52 cultural fields, 16-17, 20, 85-88, 175, 178, 179n6 cultural hierarchy, 3, 14-18, 20, 22, 4 4 52, 113, 155-59, 163, 165, 167, 170, 174-78, 193n2 cultural production, 16, 17, 85-88, 104, 106, 174-78, 179n6, 194n4, 202n5 Curtiz, Michael, 63-64 Czitrom, Daniel, 98, 99, 190n37 Daily News, 158 Danto, Arthur, 171-72, 179n2 Davies, Stephen, 5, 29 Davis, Bette, 59 Davis, Ronald, 60 De Broca, Philippe, 126 Decherney, Peter, 186nl2 de Grazia, Edward, 24, 30, 98 Dellus, Louis, 115 Denby, David, 1-2, 169 DeNora,Tia, 15, 17, 170 Department of Commerce (US), 39, 71 Depression, 9, 37, 78 Detroit News, 137 Dialectic of Enlightenment, 48 Dick, Bernard, 94, 189n29, 191n41 Dickie, George, 179n2 die Chapliniade, 115 Diekema, David, 192nl

•

219

DiMaggio, Paul, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 34, 39, 53, 66, 69, 72, 88, 8 9 , 1 2 5 , 1 6 7 , 1 6 9 , 170, 177, 180nl Dion, Celine, 44 director-centered, 3, 10, 16, 82-84, 88, 136, 162, 177 director self promotion, 3, 19, 53, 59-66, 76, 162 director system of production, 79 director-unit system of production, 79 discourses of art, 14, 16-18, 19-20, 178 discourses of film, 3, 18-20, 47, 68, 11160, 161, 163; changes in, 199n30; criti­ cal techniques of, 3, 19, 162, 172; his­ tory of, 113-17; intellectualizing of, 19, 117-33, 171-73; polarization in, 116; specialized concepts of, 162, 172; vocab­ ulary of, 3 , 1 9 , 1 1 8 - 2 3 , 162,172 Disney, Walt, 94, 131-32 Disney Studios, 109 Doherty, Thomas, 191n40 drive-in theaters, 90 Duchamp, Marcel, 5, 50 Dulae, Germaine, 87 Dumais, Susan, 182nl4, 183n23 Duncan, Isadora, 190n34 During, Simon, 112 DVDs and film, 11-12, 167 Eames, John, 93 Easton, John, 74 Eastwood, Clint, 1-2 Easy Rider, 107 Edge of the City, 185n9 Edison, Thomas, 7, 8 Educational Review, 2 education level and film, 19, 22, 32-37, 161, 167, 171, 173, 177 Edwards, Jim, 51 Eisenstein, Sergei, 84 Eitner, Lorenz, 125 Eliashberg, Jehoshua, 198n22 Elsaesser, Thomas, 26, 77, 189n28 Emery, Robert, 64 End of Innocence, 154 Engel, Lehman, 194n3 English films, 22, 23-31 (passim), 76-82 (passim), 84, 100, 101; censorship in, 100, 101 Ente Nazionale Industrie Cinematografiche (ENAIPE), 79 Epstein, Edward, 12, 109

220

•

Index

Epstein, Jean, 87 European films, 9, 10, 18, 19, 21-31 (pas­ sim), 46, 51, 55, 73, 76-82 (passim), 84, 87, 90, 91, 92,103,104, 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 , 1 4 9 55 (passim), 160, 161-62, 165, 171, 174, 186nl0, 189n28, 191n42, 195nl0, 201n41; censorship in, 97-101 (passim) Expressionism, 82 Ezra, Elizabeth, 27, 30 Faces, 185n9 Facism (Italian), 79, 100 Fairbanks, Douglas, 55 Famous Players in Famous Plays, 93 Fantasia, 94, 198n21 Faulkner, Robert, 168 Fellini, Federico, 69,119 Ferguson, Priscilla, 16, 17, 179n6 fields of production, 85, 174-75 film audience. See audience film book publishing, 69-74 Film D'Art, 93 film festivals, 3, 16, 19, 53, 54-59, 67, 76, 128, 162, 173, 174, 185nn3 and 4 film generation, 15, 32-37, 171, 182nl2 film history, American, 7-12, 21-52 film literature, 10, 47, 53, 66-69, 74, 76 Film Review Index, 128, 198nl9 film reviews, 3, 19, 20, 112-60, 172-74, 194n4; and advertising, 19, 137-48; and book advertising, 19, 146-48; and book reviews, 19, 133-37, 159, 199n27, 201n40; critical techniques of, 19, 12328, 130-37, 149-55, 159-60, 174, 196nl4, 201n42; and foreign film re­ views, 19, 149-55, 160; intellectualization of, 19, 117-37, 174; specialized vo­ cabulary of, 19,118-23,128,129-37, 149-55,159-60, 172, 174, 196nl4 film studies, 3, 16, 19, 125, 162, 173, 174, 186nl2 Film and TV Directory, 185n2 film vocabulary, 8, 85-86 Finlay, Barbara, 199n26 First Amendment, 8, 10, 97, 98, 162, 192n45 Florida State University, 67 Ford, John, 60-61, 141 Ford Foundation, 75 foreign films, 36, 112, 113, 148-55, 161, 166, 173, 174, 177, 189nn27 and 28,

201n41; advertising for, 201n43; reviews of, 131, 149-55 Fountain, 5, 50 Frankfurt School, 84 Freeman, Bernadine, 2 Freeman, John, 180n3 French critics/criticism, 61, 73, 82-83, 174 French films, 9, 10, 16, 17, 22, 23-31 (pas­ sim), 35, 41, 65, 76-82 (passim), 83, 84, 87, 93, 100, 101,115, 116, 148, 162; censorship in, 100, 101 Gabler, Neal, 25 Gans, Herbert, 35, 36, 45, 167, 176 Gary, Romain, 148 Genocchio, Benjamin, 50 German films, 22, 23-31 (passim), 76-82 (passim), 84, 100, 101; censorship in, 100,101 Gerstner, David, 188n25 GI bill, 71 Gilliam, Terry, 64 Gladiator, 167 globalization and film, 11, 78 Gloria-Palast, 26 Godfather, 142, 149, 157-58 Goldberg Variations, 166 Goll, Ivan, 115 Gomery, Douglas, 25, 39, 67, 69, 89, 90, 91, 183nl8, 189n31, 190n32, 1 9 6 n l l Gone With the Wind, 141, 142, 198n21 Gordimer, Nadine, 199n28 Gorelick, Kenneth ("Kenny G"), 44 government assistance of film production, 78-79 Governor General's Award (Canada), 54 Goya, Francisco, 68 Grand Illusion, 132 Granta, 64 Grapes of Wrath, 60, 141, 142, 198n21 Great Dictator, 193n2, 198n21 Griffin, Monica, 69 Griffith, David, 8, 69, 83 Gulf-Western, 11 Haberski, Raymond, 169 Hacking, Ian, 192nl Hackman, Gene, 158 Hake, Sabine, 29, 115 Halle, David, 35 Hampton, Benjamin, 23, 24, 25-26 Hannan, Michael, 180n3

Index Hanson, Patricia, 128 Hanson, Stephen, 128 Hardy, Cynthia, 194n4 Harrington, Austin, 184n25 Harris, Sue, 30 Hartog, Simon, 77 Hawkridge, John, 80 Hawks, Howard, 60-61 Hay, James, 30, 78, 79, 80 Hays, Will, 99 Hays Code/Office, 99, 190n38 Heiss, Ann, 50 Hepworth, Julie, 192nl Herman, Jan, 62 Hirsch, Paul, 104, 106, 192nl Hirschhorn, Clive, 38, 93, 94 His Girl Friday, 61 Hitchcock, Alfred, 65, 69, 119, 185nn7 and 8 Holsti, Ole, 124 home entertainment market, 11, 12 Homer, 48 home video market, 139, 167, 168 Horkheimer, Max, 48, 184n24 Horton, Robert, 62, 63 How Green Was My Valley, 60 Human Rights Watch International Film Festival, 58 Hunchback of Notre Dame, 93 Husbands, 185n9 Impressionism, 4, 13, 16, 17, 66, 82, 87 independent films, 36, 57, 109, 149, 166, 168, 173 Informer, 60 institutionalization of resources: in art, 14, 15-16, 17, 18, 19, 112; in film, 11, 19, 53, 74-76, 53-110 (passim), 161-62, 173 Instituto L U C E , 79 intellectual fields, 162 intellectualization: of art, 14, 16-18, 1920; of film, 3, 10, 19, 74, 111-60; of film discourse, 171-73, 194n7, 196nl4; of film reviews, 117-33 International Historical Statistics: The Americas, 1750-1993, 183n20 International Motion Picture Almanac, 37 Island Films, 109 Italian films, 4, 22, 23-31 (passim), 76-82 (passim), 84, 100, 101; censorship in, 100, 101

•

221

Jankovich, Mark, 112 Jaws, 111 jazz, 17, 44-45, 49, 66, 88,164,175, 179nl Johns, Jasper, 49 Johnson, Cathryn, 192nl Johnson, Lyndon, 74 Journal of Philosophy, 171 Jowett, Garth, 98,102, 104, 190n37, 192n44 Jury Prize (Sundance), 54 Kadushin, Charles, 71 Kael, Pauline, 155, 158, 185n9, 188n25 Kaes, Anton, 29, 30, 31 Kafka, Franz, 159 Kammen, Michael, 47, 49, 114 Kandinsky, Wassily, 68 Kapsis, Robert, 65, 83, 185n8 Kauffmann, Stanley, 155 Kazan, Elia, 64 Keaton, Buster, 69, 132 King, Susan, 66, 75, 179n3 King of Hearts, 126 Kingsley-International, 103, 154 Kinnard, Roy, 63 Kisseloff,Jeff,38 Knight, Arthur, 27, 77, 78, 81, 82, 99 Kracauer, Siegfried, 26, 181n6 Kramer, Stanley, 59 Kubrick, Stanley, 64-65 La casa del angel, 154 Lanzoni, Remi, 87 Last Will of Dr. Mabuse, 198n21 Latour, Bruno, 192nl Leary, Lewis, 72, 133 legitimation: framework of, 18-20; levels of, 192nl Lehane, Dennis, 2 Leonard, Neil, 44-45 Levine, Lawrence, 15, 16, 17, 34, 66, 72, 88, 89, 167, 170, 177 Lewis, Glen, 30 Library of Congress, 70, 75, 187nl7 Lieberson, Stanley, 34, 41, 91, 182nl4, 183n23 Life Is Beautiful, 166 Long, Robert Emmet, 63 Lopert Films, 103 Lopes, Paul, 17, 44-45, 49, 175 Lorber, Judith, 192nl

222

•

Index

Los Angeles Times, 137 Lost Weekend, 62, 94 Louisville Courier-Journal, 137 Lubitsch, Ernst, 69 Luckett, Moya, 94 Luckmann, Thomas, 192nl Lumiere, Auguste, 179n4 Lumiere, Louis, 179n4 Lynes, Russell, 49 Making Meaning, 124 Maland, Charles, 116, 193n2 Malraux, Andre, 148 Maltby, Richard, 107, 182nl4, 190nn33 and 38 Manhattan, 24 Manly, Lome, 12 Man Who Wasn't There, 166 Mamie, 65 mass culture, 29, 47-49 Mast, Gerald, 7, 24, 36, 37, 38, 47, 93, 173, 190n37 Maugham, Somerset, 189n26 May, Larry, 97 McBride, Joseph, 74, 75 McLuhan, Marshall, 65 Mencken, H . L . , 24 Midnight Cowboy, 64, 105 Miller, Arthur, 48 Mimura, Reiko, 94 Miracle decision, 101, 104, 162 Miramax, 109 Modernism, 29-31 Modern Times, 198n21 Monaco, Paul, 30, 79 Mona Lisa, 166 Monet, Claude, 13 Mordden, Ethan, 82 Morrison, Jack, 68, 187nl5 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), 11, 12, 75, 103, 184nl Motion Picture Association Worldwide Market Research, 202n3 Motion Pictures Patent Company, 190n37 Motion Pictures Producers and Distribu­ tors Association, 8, 99 movie palaces, 89 Mrs. Miniver, 62 Mueller, John, 15 Murnau, F. W , 69 Museum of Modern Art, 65

Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 98, 101 My Fair Lady, 63 Myles, Linda, 64 My Son, My Son!, 116 Mystic River, 1-2 Napoleon, 198n21 Napper, Lawrence, 26 National Arts and Humanities Act, 74 National Association of Theater Owners, 10 National Board of Censorship (US), 97-98 National Board of Review, 99 National Book Award (US), 54 National Council of the Arts, 75 National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), 74, 75 nationalism and film, 29, 30-31 Nazi party (German), 100 neorealist cinema, 82 "New Hollywood," 59, 64, 66, 185n6 Newman, Roger, 24, 98 New Masses, 116 Newsweek, 155, 157 New Theater, 116 New York City, 7, 46, 49, 56, 558, 97, 98, 99, 101, 172 New Yorker, 1-2, 114-15, 116, 118-37 (passim), 147, 154, 185n9, 194n6 New York Film Critics Circle, 167 New York Film Festival, 16, 56, 59 New York magazine, 158 New York Times, 33, 62, 102, 114, 11838 (passim), 140, 141, 155, 158, 166, 188n25, 1 9 6 n l l New York Times Book Review, 147 New York University, 16, 67, 68 nickelodeons, 8, 24-25, 85-89 Nielsen ratings, 48 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 65 Nobel Prize in Literature, 54, 199n28 "Notes on the Auteur Theory," 83 nouvelle vague, 35, 66, 83 Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey, 78, 79, 80 O'Connor, Flannery, 166 Ohio, 39, 98 Oldenburg, Claes, 50 Oliver I, 61 Olympiad, 198n21

Index

•

223

opportunity space, 14-15, 18, 19, 21-52, 110, 161, 173, 176, 180nl Orbach, Barak, 189n30 Orphans of the Storm, 198n21 Oscars. See Academy Awards Othello, 12-13, 48 Ott, Frederick, 78, 80,100

Puttnam, David, 91 Pye, Michael, 64

Pabst, G . W., 84 Pacino, Al, 158 Palme d'Or (Cannes), 54 Paramount case, 90-91, 92 Paramount Pictures, 11, 93, 94 Partisan Review, 116 Pavolini, Corrado, 30 Pearson, Roberta, 7, 24, 93 Pearson product moment correlation, 195n8 Perfect World, 1 Pemberton, Brock, 155 Perrin, Alisa, 109 Peterson, Richard, 14, 17, 47, 66, 88, 175, 179nl, 184n26 Petro, Patrice, 189n29 Phantom of the Opera, 93 Philadelphia Story, 63 Phillips, Gene, 64, 65, 82, 83 Phillips, Nelson, 194n4 Photographic Society of America/Motion Picture Division International Amateurs Film Festival (American International Film and Video Festival), 57 photography as art, 164-65, 184n27 Picasso, Pablo, 68 Pickford, Mary, 55 Playboy, 64 Poe, G. Tom, 112 Pontecorvo, Gillo, 125 Pop Art, 22, 46-51, 161, 171, 184n27 postmodernism, 48, 49, 184n25 Powell, Walter, 71 prestige productions, 53, 92-97 producer-unit system of production, 80 Production Code, 103-5, 162, 190n38, 191nn40 and 41, 192n45 production practices, 19; changing modes of, 53-111, 161; systems of, 79-80, 84 Progressive era, 47 Psycho, 105, 149 Pulitzer Prize, 54 Putnam, Robert, 41

Rachlin, Seth, 35 radio ownership and film, 42-43, 183n21 Randall, Richard, 99, 104, 190n35 Rauschenberg, Robert, 49 Rawlings, Craig, 13 Ray, Satyajit, 69 Razor's Edge, 189n26 Redmonds, I. G . , 94 Reed, Carol, 61 Reich, Jacqueline, 30 Reid, Wallace, 55 Reifenstahl, Leni, 69 Rembrandt, 68 Renoir, Jean, 84, 132-33 Resnais, Alain, 66 Rhode, Eric, 7, 37 Richards, Jeffrey, 100 Richardson, Tony, 64 Ridgeway, Cecilia, 192nl Rite of Spring, 94 roadshows, 95-97 Roddick, Nick, 93 Romanticism, 83, 87, 177 Rosenberg, Bernard, 48 Rosenquist, James, 50 Rosenzweig, Sydney, 63 Ross, Steven, 24, 37, 183nl6 Roth, Chris, 192n45 Rudolph, Frederick, 50 Rules of the Game, 132, 133, 198nn20 and 21 Ryall, Tom, 80

Quasimodo, Salvatore, 199n28 Queen Elizabeth, 93 Quiet Man, 60 Quirke, Antonia, 111

Sandler, Irving, 50, 184n27 San Francisco International Film Festival, 56, 59 San Francisco State University, 67 Sarris, Andrew, 83, 155 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 29 Saturday Review, 1 9 6 n l l Saunders, Thomas, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 77, 78 Scarface, 61 Schatz, Thomas, 37, 108, 168

224

•

Index

Schickel, Richard, 33 Schlesinger, John, 64 Schluepmann, Heide, 182nl0 Scorcese, Martin, 64 Seattle International Film Festival, 56 Seldes, Gilbert, 114 Serpico, 158 Seven Lively Arts, 114 Shadows, 185n9 Shakespeare, 12-13,15, 48, 66, 170 Shale, Richard, 55 Shalit, Gene, 158 Shrum, Wesley, 156-57, 169, 176-77, 183nl5 Shugan, Steven, 198n22 Sight and Sound, 132, 198n23 Silence of the Lambs, 111 Simkus, Albert, 179nl Sistine Chapel, 5 Sklar, Robert, 7, 24, 26, 32, 37, 38, 40, 43-44, 77, 89, 99, 104, 153, 181n5, 188n24,189n31, 190n37, 198n23, 200n44 Smith, J. Douglas, 99 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 131-32,198n21 Sobchak, Thomas, 74, 83 social constructionism, 12-14, 192nl Solomon, Aubrey, 33, 38, 95, 96, 103, 104, 183nl7, 189n29 Sontag, Susan, 32, 166 Sony Pictures, 109, 157 Sound of Music, 108 Spearman's rho, 195n8 Spielberg, Steven, 111 Spillane, Mickey, 48 Staiger, Janet, 79, 80, 81, 188n25, 200n35 Starr, Paul, 192nl star system, 78, 104 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 39, 70 Stein, Elliott, 62 Stevens, George Jr., 75 Stinchcombe, Arthur, 180n2 Stones, Barbara, 10, 23, 38, 39, 40, 89, 90, 95,189n31 Strauss, Anselm, 164 Stravinsky, Igor, 94 Stringer, Julian, 149 Stryker, Robin, 192nl

studio system of production, 3, 8-9, 16, 59, 60, 61, 64, 78, 80, 82-84, 87,161, 162,184n24,188n24 Stuntman, 117, 150 Super-Jewel Productions, 93 Supreme Court, 8, 9, 82, 90, 98, 101-2, 105 Surrealism, 87 Symbolism, 86 Syracuse University, 67 taste cultures, 35-36 Taylor, William Desmond, 55 Tebbel, John, 7 1 , 1 8 7 n l 9 technological developments and film, 11-12, 2 2 , 4 8 , 1 0 6 , 1 3 9 television and film, 32, 38-44, 95, 105, 106, 107, 161, 169, 173, 183nnl7 and 18,189n29 Temple, Michael, 27 Ten Best of the West Festival, 57 Ten Commandments, 198n21 That Hamilton Woman, 198n21 Third Man, 61 Thompson, Kristin, 25, 77, 81 Tibbits, John, 64 Time, 94, 105, 116, 117, 118-37 (passim), 148, 154 Times Film Corp v. Chicago, 102 Titchener, Campbell, 194n3 Tolstoy, Leo, 5 Tom Jones, 64 Toronto Film Festival, 59 Touch and Go, 126 Truffaut, Francois, 66 Tuska, Jon, 82 Twelve Monkeys, 64 Twentieth Century-Fox, 95, 103, 189n26 Twomey, John, 91 2001: A Space Odyssey, 65, 107, 149 Ulysses, 166 Unforgiven, 1 United Artists, 95, 103 Universal Studios, 93 University of California, 16, 68 University of Southern California, 67 Universum Film A . G . , 79 Uricchio, William, 24, 30, 93, 182n9 Usai, Paolo, 78 Useem, Michael, 34 U.S. News & World Report, 67, 186nl3

Index Valley of the Dolls, 48 Variety, 114, 185n2 Vaughn, Steven, 25 V C R s and film viewing, 11, 167 Venice International Film Festival, 55 Verdaasdonk, H . , 196nl2 Vestron Films, 109 V H S and film viewing, 12 Vidor, King, 59 Vienna, 15, 17, 170 Village Voice, 132 Vitone, R. J . , 63 Volpi, Gianni, 78, 79, 80 Wapshott, Nicholas, 62 Warburton, Nigel, 6 Warhol, Andy, 49 Warner, Harry, 64 Warner Brothers, 64, 93, 94 Washington Post, 137, 158 Weimar Republic, 78 Weinberg, Charles, 12 Welles, Orson, 69 Welsh, James, 64 Western Saga, 61 What Is Art?, 5 While the Sun Shines, 188n25 White, Cynthia, 16, 17, 66, 83 White, Harrison, 16, 17, 66, 83 White, William, 2, 191n43 Wild Bunch, 105

•

Wilder, Billy, 62, 63 Wilhelmine Reich, 29 Wilson, Woodrow, 47 Winship, Michael, 38, 39 Wise Blood, 166 Witt, Michael, 27 Wizard ofOz, 183nl7 Wolcott, James, 155 Woman under the Influence, 185n9 Woman of Paris, 198n21 Woolgar, Steve, 192nl WorldCat, 69-70, 187nl7 World War I, 21, 33, 23-31 (passim), 77-82 (passim), 116, 51-52; post-, 84-85; pre-, 41 World War II, 9, 22, 23; post-, 22, 32-52 (passim), 67, 90, 101; pre-, 41, 77-82, 100 Wyler, William, 62 Yeats, William Butler, 199n28 Yoffe, Emily, 74 Young, Donald, 2 Zagarrio, Vito, 188n24 Zanuck, Darryl, 94, 103, 189n26 Zero Conduite, 198n21 Zhou, Xueguang, 192nl Zierold, Norman, 64 Zolberg, Vera, 83 Zwerdling, Shirley, 57, 185nn2 and 4

225

PRINCETON

STUDIES

I N CULTURAL

SOCIOLOGY

Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Sphere in Early-Modern England by D a v i d Z a r e t Bearing Witness: Readers, by W e n d y G r i s w o l d

Writers,

Gifted Tongues: High School by G a r y A l a n Fine Offside: Soccer and American a n d Steven L . H e l l e r m a n

and the Novel

Debate

Nigeria

and Adolescent

Drug

Culture

by A n d r e i S. M a r k o v i t s

Exceptionalism

Reinventing Justice: The American by James L . N o l a n , Jr.

in

Public

Court

Movement

Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement by M i t c h e l l L . Stevens Blessed Events: Religion and Home by Pamela E. Klassen

Birth in

America

Negotiating Identities: States and Immigrants in France and by R i v a K a s t o r y a n o , translated by Barbara H a r s h a v Contentious American Community:

Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism Public Schools by A m y J. Binder Pursuing

the Dream,

Living

the Reality

Germany

in by Suzanne Keller

The Minds of Marginalized Black Men: Making Sense of Mobility, Opportunity, and Future Life Chances by A l f o r d A . Y o u n g , Jr. Framing Europe: Attitudes and the United Kingdom Interaction

Ritual

Chains

to European Integration in Germany, by Juan Diez M e d r a n o by R a n d a l l Collins

Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market Contemporary Art by O l a v Velthuis Elusive Togetherness: America's Divisions Religion Hollywood

and Family Highbrow:

Spain,

Church Groups Trying by Paul L i c h t e r m a n in a Changing

Society

From Entertainment

to

for

Bridge

by Penny Edgell to Art by Shyon B a u m a n n