Sociology memo

Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American Films Author(s): Michael Patrick Allen and Anne E. Lincoln Source: Social Forces, Vol. 82, No. 3 (Mar., 2004), pp. 871-893 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3598360 Accessed: 12-03-2019 06:03 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3598360?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American Films*

MICHAEL PATRICK ALLEN, Washington State University ANNE E. LINCOLN, Washington State University

Abstract

This research examines the effects of contemporaneous critical, professional, and popular recognition, as well as the effects of the extent of subsequent critical discourse aboutfilms and their directors, on the retrospective cultural consecration of American films. Specifically, it examines a sample of 1,277films released from 1929 to 1991 that received three or more major Academy Award nominations or were selected among the ten bestfilms of the year by either the New York Times or the National Board of Review or were among the top ten films in terms of box-office revenues in a given year. The analysis focuses on the characteristics of those films that were retrospectively consecrated either by inclusion among the 100 greatest films by the American Film Institute or by inclusion in the National Film Registry. Contemporaneous professional and recognition of the director of a film is especially important in determining the likelihood of retrospective consecration. In addition, the extent of critical discourse both about a film and about its director is important in determining the likelihood of retrospective consecration. Overall, the findings confirm that the retrospective consecration of films is affected by the discourse produced by film critics and scholars who function, in effect, as reputational entrepreneurs. However, this discourse is influenced by the availability of certain cultural schemas. Specifically, the ascendancy of "auteur theory" as a discourse of value within film studies serves to privilege the director as the primary creative agent in film production. It also serves to privilege certain directors over others.

In 1989, when the National Film Preservation Board selected the first 25 films

to be included in the National Film Registry, one of the films chosen was The

* The authors are indebted to John Campbell, Mary Blair-Loy, Paul DiMaggio, Denise Bielby, William Bielby, John Mohr, Michael Schudson, Gary Alan Fine, Tom Rotolo, Greg Hooks, Amy Wharton, and the members of the Social Inequalities Workshop at Washington State University for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Please direct all correspondence to Michael P. Allen, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164- 4020. E-mail: [email protected].

? The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March 2004, 82(3):871-894

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

872 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

Searchers, a western directed by John Ford. Nine years later, the American Film

Institute included it among the "100 greatest American films of all time." The consecration of this film by these two cultural institutions from the tens of thousands of American films produced over the past century was paradoxical on a number of counts. Although The Searchers was one of the top ten films of 1956 in terms of box-office income, it did not garner any professional awards or much critical acclaim when it was released. It was not among the 28 American films that were nominated for major Academy Awards that year. Moreover, it was not included among the ten best films selected by either the New York Times or the National Board of Review in 1956. Last but not least, it

did not receive any awards from the New York Film Critics Circle. In the words

of the reviewer for Variety, the major trade publication of the film industry, The Searchers was "repetitious" and "overlong." Similar unfavorable criticisms were expressed by Bosley Crowther of the New York Times, the most influential film critic in America at the time. Nevertheless, the consecration of The Searchers four decades after its release is important because it illustrates some of the intricacies of the process of cultural consecration.

Sociologists have devoted considerable attention to the manner in which the reputations of cultural producers and their products are created and perpetuated (Becker 1982; Corse & Griffin 1997; DeNora 1995; Dowd et al. 2002; Kapsis 1992; Lamont 1987; Lang & Lang 1988), but they have paid much less attention to more formal processes of retrospective cultural consecration (Bourdieu 1991; Zolberg 1990). This lack of attention to formal processes of cultural consecration is somewhat surprising given the fact that the conferring of honors, awards, and prizes is a pervasive and highly visible aspect of everyday

life (Goode 1978; Levy 1990). There have been a number of historical studies of the processes by which scientists receive Nobel Prizes (Feldman 2000) or athletes are elected to the Hall of Fame (James 1994). However, these studies have been largely descriptive and atheoretical. There have been no systematic analyses of more formal processes of cultural consecration. Specifically, cultural consecration occurs whenever distinctions are imposed that serve to separate individuals and achievements that are worthy of admiration and respect from those that are not. According to Bourdieu (1991:119-20), cultural consecration is an act of "social magic" that produces "discontinuity out of continuity." Of course, the most important distinctions are those that are imposed by cultural institutions that can legitimately claim that function (DiMaggio 1992).

Consecration is especially important within the field of cultural production,

where cultural producers struggle primarily for legitimacy rather than profits (Bourdieu 1993). Ironically, the process of cultural consecration is often more formalized in those fields of cultural production that are less autonomous from the field of economic production. Writers whose books are popular may be ignored by critics, scholars, and other writers. However, they are more difficult to ignore if their works have won important awards and prizes (Todd 1996).

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 873

In many cases, cultural producers and their products are consecrated retrospectively rather than contemporaneously. In the field of fine art, the ultimate form of cultural consecration is to be the subject of a retrospective exhibition by a major museum (Heinich 1996). Indeed, cultural organizations and institutions sometimes endeavor to establish the legitimacy of a field of cultural production by identifying the most exemplary achievements by cultural producers within that field over a prolonged period of time. These acts of retrospective consecration are based on the premise that only the most legitimate cultural producers and cultural products survive the "test of time" (Becker 1982:365). This assumption was explicit in the retrospective consecration projects conducted by both the National Film Registry and the American Film Institute.

Previous studies of artistic reputations have consisted primarily of qualitative analyses of the historical processes by which certain individuals have established their reputations as artists. Very few studies (Lang & Lang 1988) have examined historical changes in the reputations of different cultural producers and products over time. None of these studies has examined the more formal process of retrospective cultural consecration. This research proposes a theory of retrospective cultural consecration and examines the empirical adequacy of this theory as it applies to American films. To this end, it examines the implicit criteria employed by both the American Film Institute and the National Film Registry in selecting films for retrospective consecration.

The analysis is based on a sample of 1,277 films released from 1929 to 1991 that received popular, professional, or critical recognition at the time of their release. It examines those factors that affect the likelihood of a film being retrospectively consecrated, including the extent of its contemporaneous recognition, its age, and the extent of critical discourse about the film and its director. Finally, it examines the extent to which cultural schemas, which frame the discourse about films and their directors, affect the retrospective consecration of American films.

The Cultural Consecration of Films

The process of cultural consecration can be seen as one aspect of the more general and pervasive process of cultural valorization. Cultural valorization involves the use of aesthetic judgment to assign cultural value to cultural producers and products. Consecration, however, is a distinct form of valorization inasmuch as it imposes discrete distinctions between those cultural producers and products that deserve admiration and respect and those that do not. Valorization imposes distinctions among cultural producers and products, but these distinctions are typically continuous rather than discrete. Consecration, to the contrary, produces "discontinuity out of continuity" by

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

874 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

separating the great from the merely good. The study of cultural consecration and its effects is central in the work of Bourdieu (1984; 1993; 1996). His appropriation of the term consecration, with its religious connotations surrounding the "magical" separation of the sacred from the profane, is deliberate. In the introduction to Distinction (Bourdieu 1984:6), he proclaims that "cultural consecration does indeed confer on the objects, persons and situations it touches a sort of ontological promotion akin to transubstantiation."

It is important to note that cultural value is distinct from economic value. Sociologists typically view cultural value in terms of cultural legitimacy. In particular, Bourdieu asserts (1993:50-51) that there are three primary forms of legitimacy: "specific" legitimacy, which is conferred by other cultural producers, "bourgeois" legitimacy, which is conferred by the agents and institutions of the dominant class, and "popular" legitimacy, which is based on public acclaim. Moreover, to the extent that a field of cultural production becomes autonomous from the field of economic production, cultural producers become more concerned with the specific legitimacy conferred upon them by other producers and less concerned with popular legitimacy or even bourgeois legitimacy, which emanate from outside the field of production. In this sense, an autonomous field of cultural production represents "an economic world turned upside down" (Bourdieu 1996:81). Cultural consecration is important because it involves granting cultural legitimacy to certain cultural producers and their products and, by implication, denying it to other producers and their products.

Formal rites of cultural consecration are typically conducted by organizations. These consecration projects usually involve the presentation of honors and awards that recognize achievements of excellence within a field of

cultural production. Typically, an award is given to a cultural producer in recognition of their achievement in producing a particular cultural product. Of course, one of the purposes of any award or honor is to provide others with incentives to emulate those exemplary achievements (Goode 1978). However, these consecration projects also achieve another purpose. In recognizing exemplary achievements within a field, these cultural organizations promote the legitimacy of the entire field of cultural production. This is clearly the case, for example, with the Pulitzer Prizes. Joseph Pulitzer, who was denounced during his lifetime for engaging in "yellow journalism," established these prizes in order to recognize excellence in the nascent profession of journalism. Pulitzer felt that the competition for these awards might foster higher standards among journalists. He also believed that these awards would help establish the cultural legitimacy of journalism as a profession and a field of cultural production.

Any formal consecration project entails an assertion on the part of an or- ganization that it possesses the institutional legitimacy to consecrate certain cultural producers and their products as legitimate. Bourdieu (1988:259) re-

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 875

fers to this process as "consecration through contagion." Moreover, the legiti- macy of both the organization and its consecration project are based on the perceived legitimacy of its procedures. For example, the legitimacy of the Pulitzer Prizes derives from the legitimacy of the Pulitzer Prize Committee and the procedures it employs in awarding these prizes. Indeed, as Bourdieu (1991:120) argues, "the distinctions that are the most efficacious socially are those which give the appearance of being based on objective differences." For- mal cultural consecration is especially important in the field of film produc- tion because films are both an art form and an industrial commodity. Indeed, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was established in 1927 by a group of actors, writers, directors, and producers for the express purpose of improving the reputation of films as an art form. The Academy Awards were created the following year in order to recognize "outstanding achievements in the arts and sciences of motion pictures" (Sands 1973:46).

To some extent, the recognition that any cultural product or its producer receives from cultural organizations and institutions immediately following its production represents a form of contemporaneous cultural consecration. For instance, in selecting the "ten best" films of the year, the National Board of Review

is imposing a distinction between the best films and all the other films released

in that year. In this sense, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the New York Times, the National Board of Review, and the New York Film Critics

are each engaged in their own contemporaneous cultural consecration projects. However, contemporaneous consecration does not typically impart the same cultural legitimacy as that derived from retrospective consecration. In general, retrospective cultural consecration projects are more selective in terms of the number of cultural products and producers that are consecrated. Moreover, retrospective cultural consecration projects often claim that their results are valid because these cultural producers and products have survived the "test of time."

Recently, two established cultural institutions have engaged in the retrospective consecration of American films. These formal consecration projects were part of larger efforts by these institutions to confirm the legitimacy

of film as an art form (DiMaggio 1992). One institution, the National Film Registry, was created by the U.S. Congress in 1988. As part of this legislation, the librarian of Congress is required to identify and preserve films of "cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance." Every year since 1989, the librarian, in consultation with the 18 members of the National Film Preservation Board and

the staff of the Motion Picture Division of the Library of Congress, has selected

25 films for inclusion in the National Film Registry. Only those films that are at least ten years old are eligible for inclusion in this registry. In the past 14 years, the National Film Registry has chosen 350 films, including documentaries. The other institution, the American Film Institute, was created by the U.S. Congress in 1965. According to its charter, one of its missions is to increase the

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

876 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

"recognition and understanding of the moving image as an art form." In conjunction with the centennial of the film industry in 1995, the American Film Institute initiated a project to identify the 100 greatest American films of the century. To this end, it recruited an expert panel of 1,500 film professionals, critics, and scholars to select the "100 greatest American films of all time" using a list of 400 films compiled by its staff. The American Film Institute (1997) suggested that these films be selected on the basis of such criteria as critical recognition, historical significance, and cultural impact.

These and other retrospective cultural consecration projects proceed from the common assumption that the best art is "what lasts" over time (Becker 1982:365). Indeed, it does appear that many cultural products and their producers fail to survive the "test of time." One explanation is that the reputations of artists and their works are often eroded by a process of social aging (Bourdieu 1996:254). Specifically, Bourdieu asserts (1966:253) that artists and their works are subject to "banalization" as audiences become increasingly familiar with the artistic conventions associated with particular artists and genres. As a result, films that received professional or critical acclaim when they

were released decades ago may seem conventional and unexceptional by contemporary standards. Indeed, some film scholars (Ray 1985) argue that, as a result of repetition, the cinematic and thematic conventions of classical Hollywood films from the 1930s and 1940s have become "transparent" and, therefore, less compelling to modern film audiences.

The effects of social ageing may explain why many films that were once considered exceptional, as witnessed by the professional and critical recognition they received at the time of their release, have not been retrospectively consecrated. A case in point is The Country Girl, which received seven major Academy Award nominations and was chosen as one of the ten best films of 1954 by both the New York Times and the National Board of Review. Bosley Crowther, who reviewed the film for the New York Times, proclaimed it to be "one of the fine and forceful pictures of the year." It was also one of the top ten films in terms of box-office income that year. Despite this professional, critical, and popular recognition, The Country Girl was not included among the films retrospectively consecrated by either the American Film Institute or the National Film Registry. However, the process of social aging does not explain why many of the films that have been retrospectively consecrated were not viewed as being all that exceptional when they were first released. As indicated earlier, a case in point is The Searchers, which was chosen by both the American

Film Institute and the National Film Registry, even though it did not garner any professional or critical acclaim when it was released.

In their search for artists and works that "last," retrospective consecration projects inadvertently ignore the fact that the process of collective memory has profound effects on the reputations of those artists and their works. As Becker (1982:365) observes, "what lasting consists of is not very clear."

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 877

Researchers in the field of collective memory have shown that the cultural representations of public figures and historical events often shift over time in response to changing social conditions as well as the efforts of individuals and groups (Ducharme & Fine 1995; Schwartz 1991; Wagner-Pacifici & Schwartz 1991). Specifically, Fine (1996) argues that the reputations of historical figures are often shaped by the discourse produced by "reputational entrepreneurs" who possess the requisite institutional and rhetorical resources to produce and disseminate this discourse. This same process undoubtedly affects the reputations of cultural products and producers as well. It is likely that film critics and film scholars, who possess both the institutional and rhetorical resources to produce this discourse, are able to shape, to some extent, the reputations of films and those who produce them. For example, a seminal study of American film directors (Sarris 1968) identified John Ford, the director of

The Searchers, as a "pantheon director" but completely ignored George Seaton, the director of The Country Girl. Similarly, there have been eight books published about John Ford but only one about George Seaton.

Researchers who have examined the formation of cultural fields have also

pointed to the importance of intellectual discourse in the form of texts (Baumann 2001; Ferguson 1998; Santoro 2002). As Ferguson (1998:635) puts it, "in cultural fields, there is no getting around words." It is apparent that discourse is also important in the process of cultural consecration within these fields. Specifically, Shrum (1996:35) asserts, "quality standards and quality judgments are ultimately created within the contexts of discourse." Indeed, cultural theorists (Frow 1995; Smith 1983) argue that aesthetic judgments about cultural products are invariably generated within the context of particular "discourses of value" that regulate the social practice of valorization within different groups. This implies, of course, that different groups, employing various discourses, may value cultural producers and their products differently.

The existence of competing discourses of value may explain why films that receive professional recognition from other cultural producers are not always the same films as those that receive critical recognition from critics and scholars.

Within film studies, the predominant discourse of value over the past several decades has been auteur theory (Sarris 1968). This theory, which was first articulated in a series of articles published in the French film journal Cahiers du Cinema beginning in 1956 (Hillier 1985), was important to the legitimation of film studies as a field of academic study (Haberski 2001). This theory also had the effect of elevating commercial Hollywood films directed by certain directors to the status of art (Mukerji 1978). Although film scholars have developed a number of other discourses for interpreting films (Andrew 1984), auteur theory still enjoys widespread popularity because it provides a convenient and accessible discourse for evaluating the artistic merits of films (Haberski 2001). In brief, auteur theory asserts that directors are the primary

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

878 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

creative agents in the production of films. It also asserts that certain directors are able to transcend the commercial limitations imposed by the film industry and impart their own unique and personal artistic visions in their films (Stoddart 1995).

It is important to note that discourses of value can be viewed as cultural schemas. According to DiMaggio (1997:267), cultural schemas are "knowledge structures that represent objects or events and provide default assumptions about

their characteristics, relationships, and entailments." These cultural schemas, in turn, determine which "frames" are employed in particular instances of discourse (Bielby & Bielby 1994). More specifically, auteur theory, as a cultural schema, encourages film critics and scholars, as reputational entrepreneurs, to frame their discourse about a film in terms of the contributions of its director.

Undoubtedly, the discourse produced by film critics and scholars is important in the creation and maintenance of the reputations of both films and their directors. However, much of their cultural authority derives from their ability to frame their aesthetic judgments about films and directors within the context

of an established cultural schema such as auteur theory. In fact, Baumann (2001) found that retrospective reviews of films often focused on the identities

of their directors. Moreover, auteur theory celebrates some directors and ignores others. Films directed by auteur directors are considered to possess greater artistic merit than films by directed by other directors, who are often seen as nothing more than highly skilled technicians.

On the basis of these observations, it is possible to formulate a preliminary theory of retrospective cultural consecration, especially as it applies to films. To begin with, it is anticipated that the extent of professional, critical, and even

popular recognition that a film receives at the time of its release has a positive effect on its likelihood of being retrospectively consecrated. However, since older films are more subject to banalization, the effects of contemporaneous recognition are likely to be eroded by the effects of age. In addition, it is anticipated that the extent of critical discourse produced about a film has a positive effect on its likelihood of being retrospectively consecrated. Indeed, given the ascendancy of auteur theory as a cultural schema in film studies, it is also anticipated that the extent of discourse associated with the director of a film has a positive effect on its likelihood of being retrospectively consecrated. Auteur theory privileges the contributions of directors over the contributions of other creative artists in the production of a film, but it also privileges some directors over others. Consequently, films directed by directors identified as auteurs by film critics and scholars are more likely to be retrospectively consecrated than other films.

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 879

Research Design

The basic theoretical issues posed by this research require an examination of those characteristics that lead to the retrospective consecration of certain films over others. It is not feasible, of course, to analyze all the tens of thousands of films produced in the U.S. in the past one hundred years. However, it is possible to examine the characteristics of a large sample of films that received professional, critical, or popular recognition at the time of their release. After all, these films are more likely to be retrospectively consecrated than less contemporaneously recognized films. For analytical purposes, it is necessary to impose certain restrictions on such a sample. First, the sample employed in this study does not include silent films because they are not generally as available or accessible to modern audiences as sound films. Consequently, the analysis includes only sound films released since 1929. Second, the analysis also excludes films released after 1991 because the National Film Registry does not include any films that are not at least ten years old. Third, the sample does not include animated or documentary films because they are not strictly comparable to live-action narrative films in terms of the forms of professional recognition employed in this analysis.

Professional recognition is bestowed upon artists and their works by other artists. One of the most important forms of professional recognition within the

film industry is a nomination for an Academy Award (Levy 1990). These nominations are an important measure of peer recognition because only the members of each individual branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences can nominate films in a given category. For example, only members of the Directors Branch can nominate directors for an Academy Award. As a general rule, the academy has permitted only five nominations in any category (Sands 1973). The sample of films examined in this analysis includes every American film that received three or more major Academy Award nominations between 1929 and 1991. For the purposes of this analysis, major nominations include those in the categories of best picture, best director, best actor or actress,

best supporting actor or actress, best screenwriter, best cinematographer, best editor, best production designer, and best musical director. Of course, a film can receive more than one nomination in the acting categories. In all, 553 American films received three or more major Academy Award nominations between 1929 and 1991.

In contrast to professional recognition, critical recognition is bestowed on artists and their works by critics and scholars rather than other artists. The sample of films examined in this analysis includes those films that received important critical recognition at the time of their release. Specifically, it includes all the American films selected as one of the ten best films of the year

by the New York Times. The New York Times serves, in effect, as the national newspaper of record and its reviews have an inordinate impact on the critical

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

880 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

reception of films. From 1929 to 1991, the New York Times selected a total of 428 Americans films among its ten best films of the year. Similarly, the sample includes all the American films selected as one of the ten best films of the year

by the National Board of Review. The National Board of Review was created by the film industry in 1916 as a censorship body. However, once this function was rendered obsolete by the imposition of the Production Code in 1927, it began publishing reviews that advocated that films represented "a new type of art" (Haberski 2001:49). According to one film historian (Koszarski 1994: 209), the National Board of Review "set the agenda for serious film study in this period." From 1929 to 1991, the National Board of Review selected a total of 528 American films among its ten best films of the year.

Finally, a film may receive popular recognition even if it does not receive professional or critical recognition. The popular recognition of a film is best measured by how many people paid to see the film at the time of its initial theatrical release. The only reliable measure of audience attendance is the box- office revenue of a film. Box-office revenue is equal to the total box-office receipts minus the exhibition fees charged by theater owners. Using the available

data, it is possible to identify the ten most popular films each year from 1940 to 1991. However, for the period from 1929 to 1939, it is possible to identify only the six most popular films each year. In general, the data on box-office revenue were obtained from annual compilations published by either Variety or the Hollywood Reporter, the two major trade publications of the motion picture industry. Although data on actual box-office revenue were available for most films, it is difficult to compare these data over time due to the effects of

inflation. Consequently, the sample of films included in this analysis includes the top six to ten films, in terms of box-office revenue, each year. From 1929 to 1991, there were 582 popular films that ranked among the top six to ten films in terms of their box-office revenue. There is, of course, considerable

overlap between these samples. The final sample, which could conceivably include a total of 2,092 films, actually contains 1,277 films.

This analysis seeks to identify those characteristics that contribute to the retrospective consecration of films. Consequently, information was compiled for each of these films on a number of variables. First and foremost, this analysis examines the effects of contemporaneous professional recognition on the retrospective consecration of films. The analysis measures not only the total number of major Academy Award nominations received by each film at the time of its release but also the types of nominations it received. This research also examines the effects of contemporaneous critical recognition on the cultural consecration of films. Specifically, the analysis identifies those American films that were selected as being among the ten best films of the year by the New York Times or among the ten best films of the year by the National Board of Review. In addition, the analysis identifies those American films that received annual awards from the New York Film Critics Circle for best picture, best actor

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 881

and actress, and best director. There are, of course, other important film awards

but they do not span the time period encompassed by this research. Indeed, since the New York Film Critics Circle did not issue any awards prior to 1935, any analysis involving this variable is limited to those films released since then.

Finally, the analysis identifies those films that received contemporaneous popular recognition in that they were among the top ten films in terms of box- office revenue in a given year.

The analysis also examines the extent of critical discourse both about each film and its director. For the purposes of this analysis, the extent of critical discourse about each film is measured by the number of times that it has been discussed at length in film anthologies. This information was compiled from a comprehensive index of film anthologies (Bowles 1994). Of the 1,277 films in the sample, 489 were featured in at least one film anthology. Of these, 142 were

featured in three or more film anthologies. Similarly, the extent of critical discourse about directors is measured by the number of books published about them. The 1,277 films included in the sample were directed by 411 directors. Of these, 142 directors were the subject of at least one book and 60 were the subject of at least three books. The books about each director were identified using the WorldCat database, an electronic version of the Union Catalog database that includes information on the holdings of all major libraries in the U.S. Only books published in English are included in the analysis. Finally, given the fact that both of these measures of critical discourse have highly skewed distributions, they are subjected to square-root transformations in all the statistical analyses.

Of the 1,277 films in the sample, 83 were selected for inclusion among the 100 greatest films by the American Film Institute and 131 were selected for inclusion in the National Film Registry. The American Film Institute, included only seven narrative films released from 1929 to 1991 that were not among the 1,277 films in the sample. However, the National Film Registry includes 68 narrative films released between 1929 and 1991 that were not included in the

sample. This disparity arises because the National Film Registry employs selection criteria that are purposely more eclectic than those employed by the American Film Institute. For example, the National Film Registry includes 16 inexpensive but historically significant "B" films, such as Gun Crazy and The Night of the Living Dead. It also includes 13 equally inexpensive but innovative independent films, such as Shadows and The Return of the Secaucus Seven. In all, only 29 of these 68 narrative films were major feature films. They include such diverse films as Duck Soup and The Manchurian Candidate.

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

882 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

Results

The analysis examines the effects of the different forms of contemporaneous recognition and critical discourse associated with 1,277 films released over a period of six decades on their likelihood of being retrospectively consecrated by either the American Film Institute or the National Film Registry. Since the dependent variable is simply whether a film is retrospectively consecrated, the most appropriate statistical technique for this analysis is logistic regression. In view of the fact that the parameters of logistic regression models are not easy to interpret directly, this analysis presents the odds ratios obtained from the exponentiated coefficients of these models. An odds ratio greater than 1 implies that there is a positive relationship between an independent variable and the odds that a film was retrospectively consecrated (Bishop, Fienberg & Holland 1975). An odds ratio less than 1 implies that there is a negative relationship between an independent variable and the odds of retrospective consecration. The analysis first examines the effects of the various forms of popular, professional, and critical recognition that a film receives at the time of its release, as well as its age, on its likelihood of being retrospectively consecrated. Next, it examines the effects of the significant forms of contemporaneous recognition in conjunction with the extent of discourse about a film and its director on its odds of being retrospectively consecrated.

The results of five logistic regression analyses of the effects of various sets of variables on the likelihood of a film being selected as one of the 100 greatest films of all time by the American Film Institute are presented in Table 1. Model

1 includes only the age of a film and the extent of its popular recognition as independent variables. It reveals that being among the top ten films of the year in terms of box-office revenue has a positive effect on the odds of consecration.

Model 2 includes the age of a film and the forms of professional recognition as independent variables. This model reveals that receiving an Academy Award nomination for best director and, to a lesser extent, receiving nominations for best editor and best musical director have positive effects on the odds of consecration. Model 3 includes the age of a film and forms of critical recognition as independent variables. It reveals that being selected among the ten best films of the year by the New York Times and the National Board of Review and receiving awards from the New York Film Critics for best picture and best actor have positive effects on the likelihood of retrospective consecration by the American Film Institute. The age of a film has no effect on the likelihood of retrospective consecration in any of these models.

Model 4 in Table 1 includes the age of a film and all these various forms of popular, professional, and critical recognition as independent variables. When these variables are considered simultaneously, only being among the top ten films of the year in terms of box-office revenue and receiving an Academy Award nomination for best director have significant positive effects on the odds

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 883

TABLE 1: Logistic Regression Analyses (Odds Ratios) of the Effects of Professional, Critical, and Popular Recognition, Age, and Extent of Discourse on the Selection of Films As One of the 100

Greatest Films by the American Film Institute, 1929-1991

Model Model Model Model Model

1 2 3 4 5

Age of film 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Top ten box office 2.97** 3.74** 6.26** Best picture nomination 1.91 1.38 Best director nomination 9.05** 10.49** 21.97**

Best actors nomination 1.23 1.81

Best screenwriter nomination 1.84 1.75

Best cinematographer nomination 1.03 1.05 Best editor nomination 2.01* 1.50

Best art director nomination 0.83 1.05

Best musical dir. nomination 1.80* 1.83t 2.25* New York Times 10 best 2.32** 1.70

Nat. Board of Review 10 best 1.92* 0.85

N.Y.F.C. best picture 2.59* 0.88 N.Y.F.C. best director 2.24t 2.40t 2.27t N.Y.F.C. best actors 1.98* 1.14

Books about director (square root) 1.43** Anthology entries (square root) 3.70**

X2 21.9 211.8 77.9 228.3 318.3 Pseudo R2 .035 .345 .135 .395 .551 N 1,277 1,277 1,162 1,162 1,162

tp<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01

of retrospective consecration. However, receiving an Academy Award nomination for best musical director and receiving a New York Film Critics award for best director also have marginally significant positive effects on the odds of consecration. Finally, model 5 includes all these variables as well as the two measures of critical discourse as independent variables. It reveals that both the number of books about the director of a film and the number of anthology entries about a film have significant positive effects on the odds of retrospective consecration by the American Film Institute. Moreover, being among the top ten films of the year in terms of box-office revenue and receiving Academy Award nominations for best director and best musical director also have

significant positive effects on the likelihood of retrospective consecration. The results of parallel logistic regression analyses of the effects of these same

sets of variables on the likelihood of a film being selected for inclusion on the National Film Registry are presented in Table 2. As before, model 1 includes

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

884 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

TABLE 2: Logistic Regression Analyses (Odds Ratios) of the Effects of Professional, Critical, and Popular Recognition, Age, and Extent of Discourse on the Selection of Films for Inclusion in National

Film Registry, 1929-1991

Model Model Model Model Model

1 2 3 4 5

Age of film 1.01** 1.02** 1.02** 1.02** 1.01 Top ten box office 1.17 1.35 Best picture nomination 2.09** 1.86* 1.58 Best director nomination 2.26** 1.94* 1.64

Best actors nomination 1.13 1.06

Best screenwriter nomination 2.12** 2.11** 2.00*

Best cinematographer nomination .88 .91 Best editor nomination 1.16 .98

Best art director nomination 1.34 1.55' 1.41 Best musical director nomination .86 .87

New York Times 10 best 2.45** 1.84** 1.35

National Board of Review 10 best 1.64* 1.14

N.Y.F.C. best picture 1.48 .72 N.Y.F.C. best director 3.06** 2.76* 2.36*

N.Y.F.C. best actors 1.71t 1.18

Books about director (square root) 1.20* Anthology entries (square root) 3.03**

X2 9.0 133.4 90.8 150.3 250.9 Pseudo R2 .011 .159 .118 .195 .325

N 1,277 1,277 1,162 1,162 1,162

t p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01

only the age of a film and popular recognition as independent variables. This model reveals that only age of film has a positive effect on the odds of consecration. Model 2 includes the age of a film and various forms of professional recognition as independent variables. It reveals that the age of a film and receiving Academy Award nominations for best picture, best director and best screenwriter have positive effects on the odds of consecration. Model 3

includes the age of a film and various forms of critical recognition as independent variables. This model reveals that the age of a film, being selected among the ten best films of the year by the New York Times and the National Board of Review, and receiving an award from the New York Film Critics for best director have positive effects on the likelihood of retrospective consecration by the National Film Registry.

Model 4 in Table 2 includes the age of a film and all these various measures of popular, professional, and critical recognition as independent variables.

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 885

When these variables are considered simultaneously, only age of film, receiving Academy Award nominations for best picture, best director, and best screenwriter, being selected among the best ten films of the year by the New York Times, and receiving a New York Film Critics award for best director have significant positive effects on the odds of consecration. However, receiving an Academy Award nomination for best art director has a marginally significant positive effect on the odds of consecration. Finally, model 5 includes these variables as well as the two measures of critical discourse as independent variables. Once again, it reveals that both the number of books about the director of a film and the number of anthology entries about a film have significant independent effects on the odds of retrospective consecration by the National Film Registry. Moreover, receiving an Academy Award nomination for best screenwriter and receiving a New York Film Critics award for best director also have positive significant effects on the likelihood of retrospective consecration.

These results of these analyses require further explication on two points. First, the fact that the effects of receiving an Academy Award nomination for best director and best picture are not statistically significant in the final model for retrospective consecration by the National Film Registry can be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that these two measures of professional recognition are highly correlated (0.614). If either variable is deleted from this model, the other becomes statistically significant. Indeed, the correlation between these two measures of professional consecration suggests that even members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences associate the excellence of a film with the achievements of its director. Second, it must be noted that the extent

of critical discourse received by a film is undoubtedly affected by the popular, professional, and critical recognition that it receives at the time of its release. The final models in both Table 1 and Table 2 examine only the direct effects of these independent variables. The total effects of these variables, including their indirect effects through the critical discourse variables, are more substantial and significant than their direct effects. Indeed, that is the reason why the effects of these independent variables are examined separately in these models.

As one might expect, there are a number of similarities between the results presented in Table 1 and those presented in Table 2. In both sets of analyses, it is apparent that the contemporaneous recognition received by the director, either in terms of Academy Award nominations for best director or New York Film Critics awards for best director, has a positive effect on the odds of retrospective consecration. The extent of critical discourse about a film, in terms of the number of anthology entries, and the extent of critical discourse about its director, in terms of the number of books about the director, also have a positive effect on the odds of retrospective consecration. However, there are important differences between these two analyses as well. Popular recognition,

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

886 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

TABLE 3: Mean Number of Books about Director and Mean Number of

Entries in Film Anthologies for Contemporaneously Recognized Films and Retrospectively Consecrated Films, 1929-1991

Mean Number Mean Number

of Books about of Entries in

Number Director Anthologies

All films among top ten in box-office revenue each tear 582 2.8 0.9

All films with 3 or more

Academy Award nominations 553 4.0 1.5

All Films selected by National Board of Review 582 3.8 1.3

All Films selected by New York Times 482 4.8 1.6

Films selected by National Film Registry 131 7.0** 4.2**

Films selected by American Film Institute 83 8.2** 5.3**

Films selected by both American Film

Institute and National Film Registry 65 9.2 6.3**

**p<.01

in the form of being among the top ten films in a given year in terms of box- office revenue, has an effect on the likelihood of being retrospectively consecrated by the American Film Institute but not by the National Film Registry. Indeed, the odds ratios suggest that receiving an Academy Award nomination for best director has a much greater effect on the odds of retrospective consecration by the American Film Institute than it has on the odds of retrospective consecration by the National Film Registry.

A comparison of the goodness-of-fit statistics for these two models indicates that the variables used in this analysis account for the selections of the American Film Institute better than they account for the selections of the National Film Registry. Overall, the similarities between these two analyses suggest that the implicit criteria employed in these retrospective consecration projects are similar but not identical. Indeed, it is possible to measure directly the association between the results of these two independent retrospective consecration projects. As noted earlier, the 1,277 contemporaneously recognized films in the sample include 131 of the 202 narrative sound films selected for the National Film Registry and 83 of the 93 narrative sound films selected by the American Film Institute. Altogether, there are 65 films that are on both lists. The Yule's Q for the association between the list of best films identified by the American

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 887

Film Institute and the list of best films identified by the National Film Registry

is 0.958. In short, prior knowledge of whether films are on one list reduces the errors in predicting whether they are also on the other list by 95.8 percent (Bishop, Fienberg & Holland 1975:387-89). By this criterion, it is apparent that these two retrospective consecration projects yield very similar results.

It can be argued that the accumulation of extensive critical discourse about a film and its director contributes to the formation of a consensus that it is

worthy of retrospective consecration. Table 3 presents the mean number of books about the directors and the mean number of entries in film anthologies for the films in the sample. It is apparent that those films that are consensus selections for retrospective consecration, those selected by both the American Film Institute and the National Film Registry, have significantly more books about their directors and more entries in film anthologies than films selected by only one of these two institutions. Moreover, those films that were selected either by the American Film Institute or the National Film Registry have significantly more books about their directors and more entries in film anthologies than films that received only contemporaneous popular, professional, or critical recognition. In short, those films that are consensus selections for retrospective consecration are the objects of much more critical discourse than other films. Indeed, the 65 films that were consensus selections

for retrospective consecration had four times as many entries in anthologies as did other contemporaneously recognized films. Similarly, the directors of these films had twice as many books written about them as did the directors of the other films in the sample.

Finally, the theory proposed in this study argues that the particular discourse of value applied to films has a differential effect on their likelihood of being retrospectively consecrated. The ascendancy of auteur theory as a cultural schema in films studies serves not only to privilege the contributions of directors over those of other collaborators in the production of films, it also

serves to privilege some directors over others. Although there is no definitive directory of auteur directors, they have generally been the subjects of more books by film scholars than other directors. Table 4 presents a list of the 29 directors who had two or more films selected for retrospective consecration, at least one by the American Film Institute and at least one other by the National Film Registry. It also presents the number of Academy Award nominations received by these directors and the number of books written about them. The number of books written about each of these 29 directors is closely related to the number of their films selected by either the American Film Institute (r = 0.381) or the National Film Registry (r = 0.414). Although the number of Academy Award nominations received by these directors is also closely related to the number of their films selected by the American Film

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

888 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

TABLE 4: Number of Retrospectively Consecrated Films, Number of Academy Award Nominations, and Number of Books about Director for 27 Directors with Two or More Retrospectively Consecrated Films, 1929-1991

Name of AFI NFR Best Director Books about Director List List Nominations Director

Alfred Hitchcock 4 5 5 42

John Ford 3 6 5 8

Steven Spielberg 5 3 4 19 Billy Wilder 4 4 8 10 William Wyler 3 4 12 5 Martin Scorsese 3 4 3 14

Francis Ford Coppola 3 4 4 9 Stanley Kubrick 3 3 4 12 Frank Capra 3 3 6 16 George Stevens 3 3 5 1 John Huston 3 3 5 10 Howard Hawks 1 5 1 9

Michael Curtiz 2 4 4 4

George Cukor 2 3 5 9 Elia Kazan 2 3 5 12

David Lean 3 2 7 6

Robert Wise 2 3 3 1

Vincente Minnelli 1 4 2 6

George Lucas 2 2 2 7 Orson Welles 1 3 1 21

Woody Allen 1 2 6 23 Robert Altman 1 2 4 9

Sam Peckinpah 1 2 0 5 Milos Forman 2 1 3 3

Fred Zinneman 2 1 7 2

Lewis Milestone 2 1 5 2

Leo McCarey 1 2 3 1 Franklin Schaffner 1 1 1 1

Victor Fleming 1 1 1 0

Institute (0.533), it is not closely related to the number of their films selected by the National Film Registry (0.178). Given the ascendancy of auteur theory, it is not surprising to find that many

of the retrospectively consecrated films were directed by auteur directors. The two directors with the most retrospectively consecrated films, John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock, have been the subjects of several books and were identified by one influential proponent of auteur theory (Sarris 1968) as "pantheon directors." Indeed, two other "pantheon directors" on this list, Orson Welles and Howard Hawks, have both been the subjects of several books even though

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 889

they each received only one best director nomination during their careers. At the same time, however, there are directors who are associated with several

retrospectively consecrated films despite the fact that they have been the subjects of relatively few books. For example, neither George Stevens nor Michael Curtiz is generally considered to be an auteur director even though they received several Academy Awards nominations for best director during their careers. In these cases, the particular films directed by these directors were

retrospectively consecrated because the films themselves received contemporaneous professional and critical recognition and have been the subjects of considerable discourse in the form of entries in film anthologies. For example, George Stevens directed A Place in the Sun and Michael Curtiz directed Casablanca. Both of these films garnered Academy Award nominations for both best picture and best director and are routinely mentioned in film anthologies.

Conclusions

This research provides considerable empirical confirmation for the theoretical propositions advanced by this study concerning the process of retrospective cultural

consecration, especially as it applies to films. In general, the extent of professional and critical recognition received by the director of a film has substantial positive effects on its likelihood of being retrospectively consecrated. In addition, the extent of subsequent critical discourse about a film and its director has significant positive effects on its odds of retrospective consecration.

Indeed, the fact that older films have often been the subject of more articles and books than newer films may account for the finding that age does not have any effect on the retrospective consecration of films. Moreover, despite the fact

that the National Film Registry has a slightly broader mandate than did the American Film Institute in selecting films of cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance, the two retrospective consecration projects achieved very similar results. Those narrative films selected by one institution were very likely to be chosen by the other. However, films that received popular recognition at the time of their release were more likely to be retrospectively consecrated by the American Film Institute than they were by the National Film Registry.

In general, these findings confirm the argument that the valorization and retrospective consecration of cultural producers and products is influenced, at least to some extent, by the activities of reputational entrepreneurs who are responsible for producing much of the discourse within a field of cultural production (Fine 1996). With the emergence of film studies as an academic discipline, a large volume of discourse, in the form of articles and books about films and their

directors, is produced each year. Film critics and scholars are able to act as reputational entrepreneurs by choosing to study some directors and their films

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

890 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

and ignore other directors and their films. At the same time, however, these findings suggest that the cultural authority exercised by these film critics and scholars is constrained by the cultural schemas employed in this discourse. Given the ascendancy of auteur theory as a discourse of value within film studies, critics and scholars are often compelled to frame their aesthetic judgments of films in terms of the contributions of their directors. Moreover, once certain directors have been identified as auteurs, it is difficult for film

critics and scholars to ignore them or their films. The fact that John Ford is considered as an auteur director and George Seaton is not may be the primary reason why The Searchers was retrospectively consecrated and The Country Girl was not.

The results of these analyses also reveal some of the limitations of auteur theory. Auteur directors, those who have been subjects of numerous books, are more likely to have their films retrospectively consecrated than other directors.

The films of less celebrated directors may be retrospectively consecrated but only if they received sufficient professional, critical, and popular recognition at the time of their release. Moreover, this theory does not explain why some directors and their films were the subjects of more books and articles than other

directors and their films. Some very accomplished directors, who have received considerable professional or critical recognition, have not been the subjects of very many articles or books. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to explain why some directors are considered auteurs by film scholars and critics while others are dismissed as mere technicians. There is some evidence that the

original proponents of auteur theory favored those directors who were seen to possess a distinct and consistent cinematic style (Hiller 1985). In short, these theorists argued that auteur directors, by their characteristic use of lighting, camera, and staging, left an identifiable imprint on their films (Bordwell & Thompson 1993). Whatever the criteria, this discourse produced by the early contributors to the French film journal Cahiers du Cinema and later American proponents of auteur theory (Sarris 1968) has had a profound effect on the artistic reputations of certain directors and their films.

In recent years, auteur theory has been supplemented by a number of other film theories, such as genre theory and feminist theory. These alternative cultural schemas, which are more interpretative than evaluative in nature, have enabled film scholars to examine the historical and cultural influences on both

film production (Schatz 1988) and audience reception (Jenkins 1995). However, auteur theory remains the predominant discourse of value with respect to films (Corrigan 1991; Dudley 1993). Its appeal can be attributed, in part, to the romantic assumption that one person, namely the director, is ultimately responsible for the aesthetic merits of a film. Moreover, auteur theory is popular as an evaluative theory because it invites comparisons among the films directed by the same director. Finally, unlike most of the other cultural schemas applied to films, auteur theory is both simple and accessible. At the

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 891

same time, the ascendancy of auteur theory as the dominant form of discourse in film studies and film criticism has served to privilege the contributions of directors over those of other creative artists involved in the production of those

films (Crofts 1998; Schatz 1988). The problem of ascertaining the contributions of various creative artists to a given film is complicated by the fact that accomplished directors typically collaborate with other accomplished actors, screenwriters, and cinematographers (Faulkner & Anderson 1987).

The results of this study have implications for the development of more general theories of cultural valorization and consecration that are applicable to other fields of cultural production. In particular, these results indicate that theories of collective memory are relevant to the process of retrospective cultural valorization and consecration. Specifically, the fact that certain cultural producers have achieved the status of brand labels contributes to the likelihood that their products will be valorized and consecrated (Lang & Lang 1988). These results also confirm that cultural valorization and consecration are

greatly affected by the intellectual and critical discourse surrounding certain cultural products and their producers (Shrum 1996). Critics and scholars, who produce this intellectual and critical discourse, may serve as reputational entrepreneurs, but their intellectual authority is derived from their ability to frame their aesthetic judgments within the context of specific cultural schemas

(Beisel 1993; DiMaggio 1997). Finally, the results of consecration projects are important because they provide valuable insights into the cultural schemas employed by various groups and organizations. In so doing, they reveal both the strengths and the limitations of various discourses of value.

References

American Film Institute. 1997. "AFI Launches Major Celebration of the 100th Anniversary of American Movies." Press Release (November 19, 1997).

Andrew, Dudley. 1984. Concepts in Film Theory. Oxford University Press.

Baumann, Shyon. 2001. "Intellectualization and Art World Development: Film in the United States." American Sociological Review 66:404-26.

Becker, Howard. 1982. Art Worlds. University of California Press.

Beisel, Nicola. 1993. "Moral versus Art: Censorship, the Politics of Interpretation, and the Victorian Nude." American Sociological Review 58:145-62.

Bielby, William T., and Denise D. Bielby. 1994. "'All Hits Are Flukes': Institutionalized Decision Making and the Rhetoric of Network Prime-Time Program Development." American Journal of Sociology 99:1287-1313.

Bishop, Yvonne M.M., Stephen E. Fienberg, and Paul W. Holland. 1975. Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. MIT Press.

Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. 1993. Film Art: An Introduction. McGraw-Hill.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

892 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004

. 1988. Homo Academicus. Polity Press.

. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.

1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Columbia University Press.

? 1996. The Rules ofArt: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University Press.

Bowles, Stephen E. 1994. The Film Anthologies Index. Scarecrow Press.

Corrigan, Timothy. 1991. Cinema without Walls: Movies and Culture after Vietnam. Rutgers University Press.

Corse, Sarah M., and Monica D. Griffin. 1997. "Cultural Valorization and African-American

Literary History: Re-Constructing the Canon." Sociological Forum 12:173-203.

Crofts, Stephen. 1998. "Authorship and Hollywood." Pp. 310-24 in The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, edited by John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson. Oxford University Press.

DeNora, Tia. 1995. Beethoven and the Construction of Genius: Musical Politics in Vienna, 1792- 1803. University of California Press.

DiMaggio, Paul. 1992. "Cultural Boundaries and Structural Change: The Extension 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, edited by Michele Lamont and Marcel Fournier. University of Chicago Press.

.1997. "Culture and Cognition." Annual Review of Sociology 23:263-87.

Dowd, Timothy J., Kathleen Liddle, Kim Lupo, and Anne Borden. 2002. "Organizing the Musical Canon: The Repertoires of Major U.S. Symphony Orchestras, 1842 to 1969." Poetics 30:35- 61.

Ducharme, Lori, and Gary Alan Fine. 1995. "Nonpersonhood, Demonization, and Negative Commemoration: Constructing the 'Traitorous' Reputation of Benedict Arnold." Social Forces 73:1309-31.

Dudley, Andrew. 1993. "The Unauthorized Auteur Today." Pp. 77-85 in Film Theory Goes to the Movies, edited by Jim Collins, Hilary Radner, and Ava P. Collins. Routledge.

Faulkner, Robert R., and Andy B. Anderson. 1987. "Short-Term Projects and Emergent Careers: Evidence from Hollywood." American Journal of Sociology 92:879-909.

Feldman, Burton. 2000. The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige. Arcade Publishing.

Ferguson, Priscilla Parkhurst. 1998. "A Cultural Field in the Making: Gastronomy in Nineteenth Century France." American Journal of Sociology 104:597-641.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1996. "Reputational Entrepreneurs and the Memory of Incompetence: Melting Supporters, Partisan Warriors, and Images of President Harding." American Journal of Sociology 101:1159-93.

Frow, John. 1995. Cultural Studies and Cultural Value. Cambridge University Press.

Goode, William J. 1978. The Celebration of Heroes: Prestige As a Social Control System. University of California Press.

Haberski, Raymond J. Jr. 2001. It's Only a Movie: Films and Critics in American Culture. University of Kentucky Press.

Heinich, Nathalie. 1996. The Glory of Van Gogh: An Anthropology of Admiration. Princeton University Press.

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 893

Hillier, Jim. 1985. Introduction to Cahiers du Cinema: The 1950s - Neo-Realism, Hollywood,

New Wave, edited by Jim Hillier. Harvard University Press.

James, Bill. 1994. Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame? Baseball, Cooperstown, and the Politics of Glory. Simon & Schuster.

Jenkins, Henry. 1995. "Historical Poetics." Pp. 99-122 in Approaches to Popular Film, edited by Joanne Hollows and Mark Jancovich. Manchester University Press.

Kapsis, Robert E. 1992. Hitchcock: The Making of a Reputation. University of Chicago Press.

Koszarski, Richard. 1994. An Evening's Entertainment: The Age of the Silent Feature Picture, 1915- 1928. University of California Press.

Lamont, Michee. 1987. "How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of Jacques Derrida." American Sociological Review 93:584-622.

Lang, Gladys Engel, and Kurt L. Lang. 1988. "Recognition and Renown: The Survival of Artistic Reputation." American Journal of Sociology 94:78-109.

Levy, Emanuel. 1990. And the Winner Is...: The History and Politics of the Oscar Awards. Continuum.

Mukerji, Chandra. 1978. "Artwork: Collection and Contemporary Culture." American Journal of Sociology 84:348-65.

Ray, Robert B. 1985. A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema, 1930-1980. Princeton University Press.

Sands, Pierre Norman. 1973. A Historical Study of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (1927-1947). Arno Press.

Santoro, Marco. 2002. "What Is a 'Cantautore?' Distinction and Authorship in Italian (Popular) Music." Poetics 30:111-32.

Sarris, Andrew. 1968. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. Dutton.

Schatz, Thomas. 1988. The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era. Pantheon.

Schwartz, Barry. 1991. "Social Change and Collective Memory: The Democratization of George Washington." American Sociological Review 56:221-36.

Shrum, Wesley M., Jr. 1996. Fringe and Fortune: The Role of Critics in High and Popular Art. Princeton University Press.

Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. 1983. "Contingencies of Value." Critical Inquiry 10:1-35.

Stoddart, Helen. 1995. "Auteurism and Film Authorship Theory." Pp. 37-57 in Approaches to Popular Film, edited by Joanne Hollows and Mark Jancovich. Manchester University Press.

Todd, Richard. 1996. Consuming Fictions: The Booker Prize and Fiction in Britain Today. Bloomsbury.

Wagner-Pacifici, Robin, and Barry Schwartz. 1991. "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Commemorating a Difficult Past." American Journal of Sociology 97:376-420.

Zolberg, Vera L. 1990. Constructing a Sociology of the Arts. Cambridge University Press.

This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:03:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms