CDA-Cultural Consecration of American Filmes_Patrick_Lincoln

8/2/2019 CDA-Cultural Consecration of American Filmes_Patrick_Lincoln

1/24

Social Forces, University of North Carolina Press

Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American FilmsAuthor(s): Michael Patrick Allen and Anne E. LincolnReviewed work(s):Source: Social Forces, Vol. 82, No. 3 (Mar., 2004), pp. 871-893

Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598360 .

Accessed: 19/04/2012 07:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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].

Oxford University Press and Social Forces, University of North Carolina Press are collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3598360?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3598360?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/24

CriticalDiscourseandtheCulturalConsecrationofAmericanFilms*MICHAELPATRICK LLEN,WashingtonState UniversityANNEE. LINCOLN,Washington tateUniversity

AbstractThis researchexamines the effects of contemporaneous critical,professional, andpopular recognition,as well as theeffectsof the extentofsubsequentcriticaldiscourseaboutfilms and theirdirectors,on theretrospectiveultural consecrationofAmericanfilms. Specifically, t examines a sample of 1,277films releasedfrom 1929 to 1991that received three or more major Academy Award nominations or were selectedamong the ten bestfilms of theyear by either the New York Times or the NationalBoard of Reviewor wereamong the top tenfilms in termsof box-officerevenuesina given year. The analysis focuses on the characteristicsof those films that wereretrospectively onsecratedeither by inclusion among the 100 greatestfilms by theAmerican Film Institute or by inclusion in the National Film Registry.Contemporaneousprofessionaland recognitionof the directorof a film is especiallyimportant in determiningthe likelihoodof retrospectiveconsecration.In addition,the extent of criticaldiscourse both about a film and about its director s importantin determining the likelihood of retrospectiveconsecration. Overall, the findingsconfirm that the retrospectiveconsecration of films is affected by the discourseproduced by film critics and scholars who function, in effect, as reputationalentrepreneurs.However, this discourse is influenced by the availability of certaincultural schemas. Specifically,the ascendancyof "auteurtheory"as a discourseofvalue withinfilm studiesservestoprivilegethe directoras theprimarycreativeagentin film production. It also servestoprivilegecertain directorsover others.

In 1989, when the National Film Preservation Board selected the first 25 filmsto be included in the National Film Registry, one of the films chosen was The* Theauthorsare indebted to John Campbell,MaryBlair-Loy,Paul DiMaggio,Denise Bielby,WilliamBielby,John Mohr,MichaelSchudson,GaryAlan Fine, TomRotolo,GregHooks,AmyWharton,and the membersof theSocialInequalitiesWorkshop t WashingtonStateUniversityfor their commentson earlier versionsof this manuscript.Please directall correspondenceoMichaelP.Allen,Department of Sociology,WashingtonState University,Pullman,WA 99164-4020. E-mail: [email protected].? TheUniversity f North CarolinaPress SocialForces,March2004,82(3):871-894


3/24

872/ SocialForces82:3,March 004Searchers, westerndirectedby JohnFord.Nine years ater, he AmericanFilmInstitute ncludedit amongthe "100greatestAmerican ilms of all time."Theconsecration of this film by these two cultural institutions from the tens ofthousandsof Americanfilmsproducedover the past centurywasparadoxicalon a number of counts.AlthoughTheSearchers as one of the top ten filmsof1956 in terms of box-office income, it did not garneranyprofessionalawardsor much critical acclaim when it was released. It was not among the 28American films that were nominated for major AcademyAwardsthat year.Moreover,t was not includedamongthe ten best films selectedby either theNew YorkTimesor the National Boardof Review n 1956. Lastbut not least,itdid not receiveanyawards rom the NewYorkFilmCriticsCircle. n the wordsof the reviewerfor Variety,he majortradepublicationof the film industry,The Searcherswas "repetitious"nd "overlong." imilarunfavorable riticismswereexpressedby BosleyCrowtherof the New YorkTimes, he most influentialfilm critic in America at the time. Nevertheless, the consecration of TheSearchersour decadesafterits release s importantbecause t illustrates omeof the intricaciesof the processof cultural consecration.Sociologistshave devoted considerableattentionto the manner in whichthe reputations of cultural producers and their products are created andperpetuated(Becker1982;Corse& Griffin 1997;DeNora 1995;Dowd et al.2002;Kapsis1992;Lamont1987;Lang&Lang1988),but theyhavepaidmuchless attention to more formalprocessesof retrospective ulturalconsecration(Bourdieu1991;Zolberg1990). This lack of attention to formalprocessesofculturalconsecration s somewhatsurprisinggiventhe fact that the conferringof honors, awards,andprizes s apervasiveandhighlyvisibleaspectof everydaylife (Goode 1978;Levy1990). There have been a numberof historicalstudiesof the processesby which scientists receive Nobel Prizes (Feldman2000) orathletes are electedto the Hall of Fame(James1994). However, hese studieshavebeen largelydescriptiveand atheoretical.There have been no systematicanalysesof more formalprocessesof culturalconsecration.Specifically,ulturalconsecrationoccurs whenever distinctionsare imposedthat serveto separateindividualsand achievements hat areworthyof admirationand respectfromthose that arenot.According o Bourdieu(1991:119-20),culturalconsecrationis an act of "socialmagic" hat produces"discontinuity ut of continuity."Ofcourse,the most importantdistinctionsarethose thatareimposed by culturalinstitutions that can legitimatelyclaim that function (DiMaggio 1992).Consecration s especially mportantwithin the fieldof culturalproduction,where culturalproducersstruggleprimarily or legitimacyratherthan profits(Bourdieu 1993).Ironically,he processof culturalconsecration s often moreformalizedn those fields of culturalproduction hat are essautonomousfromthe field of economic production.Writerswhose books are popular may beignored by critics,scholars,and other writers.However, hey are more difficultto ignore if their workshavewon importantawardsand prizes (Todd 1996).


4/24

The CulturalConsecrationf American ilms 873In many cases, cultural producers and their products are consecratedretrospectivelyrather than contemporaneously.In the field of fine art, theultimate form of cultural consecration s to be the subjectof a retrospectiveexhibitionby a majormuseum (Heinich1996). Indeed,culturalorganizationsand institutionssometimesendeavor to establish the legitimacyof a field ofculturalproductionby identifying he mostexemplary chievements y culturalproducerswithin that field over a prolonged period of time. These acts ofretrospective consecration are based on the premise that only the mostlegitimateculturalproducersand culturalproductssurvivethe "testof time"(Becker 1982:365). This assumption was explicit in the retrospectiveconsecrationprojectsconductedby both the National Film Registryand theAmerican Film Institute.Previous studies of artistic reputations have consisted primarily ofqualitative nalysesof thehistoricalprocessesbywhich certain ndividualshaveestablishedtheir reputationsas artists.Veryfew studies (Lang& Lang 1988)have examined historical changes in the reputations of different culturalproducersand products over time. None of these studies has examined themore formal process of retrospectivecultural consecration. This researchproposes a theory of retrospectiveculturalconsecration and examines theempiricaladequacyof this theoryas it appliesto American ilms. To this end,it examinesthe implicitcriteriaemployedby both the AmericanFilmInstituteandthe NationalFilmRegistryn selecting ilms forretrospectiveonsecration.The analysis s based on a sampleof 1,277 films releasedfrom 1929 to 1991that receivedpopular,professional,or criticalrecognitionat the time of theirrelease. It examines those factors that affect the likelihood of a film beingretrospectively consecrated, including the extent of its contemporaneousrecognition, ts age, and the extent of criticaldiscourseabout the film and itsdirector.Finally,t examines he extent to which culturalschemas,which framethe discourse about films and their directors, affect the retrospectiveconsecrationof American films.

The Cultural Consecration of FilmsThe process of cultural consecrationcan be seen as one aspect of the moregeneraland pervasiveprocess of culturalvalorization.Culturalvalorizationinvolves the use of aesthetic judgment to assign culturalvalue to culturalproducers and products. Consecration, however, is a distinct form ofvalorization nasmuchas it imposesdiscretedistinctionsbetweenthose culturalproducersand products that deserve admirationand respectand those thatdo not. Valorization imposes distinctions among cultural producers andproducts,but these distinctionsaretypicallycontinuous ratherthan discrete.Consecration, o the contrary,produces "discontinuityout of continuity"by


5/24

874 SocialForces82:3,March 004separatinghe greatfromthe merelygood. The studyof culturalconsecrationand its effects is central in the work of Bourdieu (1984; 1993; 1996). Hisappropriation of the term consecration,with its religious connotationssurrounding the "magical"separation of the sacred from the profane, isdeliberate. n the introductionto Distinction Bourdieu1984:6),he proclaimsthat "culturalconsecration does indeed confer on the objects, persons andsituations t touchesa sort of ontologicalpromotionakin to transubstantiation."It is important o note that culturalvalue is distinct from economic value.Sociologists typicallyview cultural value in terms of culturallegitimacy.Inparticular,Bourdieu asserts(1993:50-51)that there are three primaryformsof legitimacy: "specific"legitimacy, which is conferred by other culturalproducers, "bourgeois" legitimacy, which is conferred by the agents andinstitutionsof the dominantclass,and"popular"egitimacy,which is basedonpublic acclaim. Moreover,to the extent that a field of culturalproductionbecomes autonomous from the field of economic production, culturalproducersbecome moreconcernedwith the specific egitimacyconferreduponthem by otherproducersand less concernedwith popularlegitimacyor evenbourgeois legitimacy,which emanatefrom outside the field of production.Inthissense,an autonomousfield of culturalproductionrepresents aneconomicworld turned upside down" (Bourdieu 1996:81). Cultural consecration isimportantbecause it involvesgrantingculturallegitimacyto certainculturalproducersandtheirproductsand,by implication,denying t to otherproducersand their products.Formal rites of cultural consecration are typically conducted byorganizations.Theseconsecrationprojectsusuallyinvolvethe presentationofhonors and awards hatrecognizeachievementsof excellencewithin a field ofculturalproduction. Typically,an awardis given to a cultural producerinrecognitionof their achievement n producinga particularculturalproduct.Of course,one of the purposesof anyawardor honor is to provideotherswithincentivesto emulate those exemplaryachievements Goode 1978).However,these consecration projects also achieve another purpose. In recognizingexemplaryachievementswithin a field, these culturalorganizationspromotethe legitimacyof the entire fieldof culturalproduction.This is clearly he case,for example, with the Pulitzer Prizes.Joseph Pulitzer,who was denouncedduringhis lifetime forengaging n "yellowournalism,"stablished heseprizesin order to recognize excellence in the nascent profession of journalism.Pulitzer elt that thecompetitionfor theseawardsmightfosterhigherstandardsamongjournalists.He alsobelieved that these awardswouldhelp establish hecultural legitimacy of journalism as a profession and a field of culturalproduction.Any formal consecrationprojectentails an assertionon the partof an or-ganizationthat it possessesthe institutionallegitimacyto consecrate certainculturalproducersand their productsas legitimate.Bourdieu(1988:259)re-


6/24

TheCulturalConsecrationf American ilms 875fersto this processas "consecrationhrough contagion."Moreover, he legiti-macy of both the organizationand its consecrationprojectarebased on theperceived legitimacy of its procedures. For example, the legitimacy of thePulitzerPrizesderives rom the legitimacyof the PulitzerPrizeCommitteeandthe procedures it employs in awarding these prizes. Indeed, as Bourdieu(1991:120)argues,"thedistinctionsthat are the most efficacioussociallyarethosewhich give the appearanceof beingbasedon objectivedifferences."or-mal culturalconsecration s especially mportantin the field of film produc-tion becausefilms are both an artform and an industrialcommodity.Indeed,the Academyof Motion PictureArts and Scienceswas established n 1927bya groupof actors,writers,directors,and producers or the expresspurposeofimprovingthe reputationof films as an art form. The AcademyAwardswerecreated he following yearin orderto recognize"outstandingchievementsn theartsand sciences f motionpictures"Sands1973:46).To some extent,the recognitionthat any culturalproductor its producerreceives rom culturalorganizationsand institutions mmediately ollowingitsproduction representsa form of contemporaneousculturalconsecration.Forinstance,n selecting he "tenbest" ilmsof theyear, he NationalBoardof Reviewis imposinga distinctionbetweenthe best filmsand allthe otherfilmsreleasedin that year.In this sense,the Academyof Motion PictureArts and Sciences,the New YorkTimes,he NationalBoardof Review, nd the NewYorkFilmCriticsareeachengaged n their own contemporaneous ulturalconsecrationprojects.However,contemporaneousconsecrationdoes not typicallyimpartthe samecultural egitimacyas that derivedfromretrospective onsecration. n general,retrospective ulturalconsecrationprojectsare more selective n termsof thenumber of culturalproductsand producersthat are consecrated.Moreover,retrospectivecultural consecrationprojectsoften claim that their results arevalid because these culturalproducersand productshave survivedthe "testof time."Recently, two established cultural institutions have engaged in theretrospective consecration of American films. These formal consecrationprojectswerepartof larger ffortsbythese institutions o confirm helegitimacyof film as an art form (DiMaggio 1992). One institution,the National FilmRegistry,was createdby the U.S. Congress n 1988. As partof this legislation,the librarianof Congress s required o identifyandpreserve ilms of "cultural,historical,or aesthetic significance."Everyyear since 1989, the librarian, nconsultationwith the 18 membersof the NationalFilmPreservationBoardandthe staffof the Motion PictureDivisionof the Library f Congress,has selected25 films for inclusionin the NationalFilm Registry.Only those films that areat least ten yearsold are eligiblefor inclusion in this registry.In the past 14years, he NationalFilmRegistry as chosen 350films, ncludingdocumentaries.The other institution, the AmericanFilm Institute,was createdby the U.S.Congress n 1965.According o its charter, ne of its missions is to increase he


7/24

876 / Social Forces 82:3,March2004"recognitionand understandingof the moving image as an art form." Inconjunctionwith the centennialof the film industryin 1995, the AmericanFilm Institute initiateda projectto identifythe 100 greatestAmerican filmsof the century. To this end, it recruited an expert panel of 1,500 filmprofessionals,critics,and scholars to select the "100 greatestAmerican filmsof all time"using a list of 400 films compiled by its staff. The AmericanFilmInstitute (1997) suggestedthat these films be selected on the basis of suchcriteriaas criticalrecognition,historicalsignificance,and cultural mpact.These and otherretrospective ulturalconsecrationprojectsproceedfromthe common assumption that the best art is "what lasts" over time (Becker1982:365). Indeed, it does appear that many cultural products and theirproducers fail to survive the "test of time." One explanation is that thereputationsof artists and their works are often erodedby a processof socialaging(Bourdieu1996:254).Specifically, ourdieuasserts 1966:253) hatartistsand their worksaresubject o "banalization"s audiencesbecome increasinglyfamiliar with the artistic conventions associated with particularartistsandgenres.As a result, ilms that receivedprofessionalorcriticalacclaimwhentheywere released decades ago may seem conventional and unexceptional bycontemporary tandards. ndeed,some film scholars(Ray1985) arguethat,asa result of repetition, the cinematic and thematic conventions of classicalHollywood films from the 1930s and 1940s have become "transparent"nd,therefore, ess compellingto modern film audiences.The effects of social ageing may explainwhy many films that were onceconsideredexceptional,aswitnessedbytheprofessionaland criticalrecognitionthey received at the time of their release, have not been retrospectivelyconsecrated.A case in point is TheCountryGirl,which receivedsevenmajorAcademyAwardnominations and was chosen as one of the ten best films of1954by both the New YorkTimesand the National Board of Review.BosleyCrowther,who reviewed he film for the New YorkTimes,proclaimed t to be"one of the fine and forcefulpicturesof the year." t was also one of the topten films in terms of box-office income that year.Despite this professional,critical,andpopularrecognition,TheCountryGirlwasnot includedamongthefilms retrospectivelyonsecratedby eitherthe AmericanFilm Institute or theNationalFilmRegistry.However, he processof social aging does not explainwhy many of the films that have been retrospectivelyconsecratedwere notviewed asbeingall thatexceptionalwhen theywere first released.As indicatedearlier, casein point is TheSearchers, hichwaschosenbyboth the AmericanFilm Instituteand the National Film Registry, ven though it did not garnerany professionalor criticalacclaimwhen it was released.In their search for artists and works that "last,"etrospective onsecrationprojectsinadvertently gnore the fact that the process of collective memoryhas profound effects on the reputationsof those artists and their works. AsBecker (1982:365) observes, "what lasting consists of is not very clear."


8/24

TheCulturalConsecrationfAmerican ilms 877Researchers n the field of collective memory have shown that the culturalrepresentations f public figuresand historicalevents often shift over time inresponseto changingsocialconditions as well as the efforts of individualsandgroups (Ducharme& Fine 1995;Schwartz1991;Wagner-Pacifici& Schwartz1991).Specifically, ine (1996) argues hat the reputationsof historical iguresare often shaped by the discourseproducedby "reputational ntrepreneurs"who possessthe requisite nstitutionaland rhetorical esources o produceanddisseminate this discourse. This same process undoubtedly affects thereputationsof culturalproductsand producersas well. It is likely that filmcritics and film scholars,who possess both the institutional and rhetoricalresourcesto produce this discourse, are able to shape, to some extent, thereputationsof filmsandthose who producethem.Forexample,a seminalstudyof Americanfilm directors(Sarris1968) identifiedJohn Ford,the directorofTheSearchers,s a "pantheondirector" ut completely gnored GeorgeSeaton,the director of The CountryGirl. Similarly, there have been eight bookspublishedabout JohnFord but only one about GeorgeSeaton.Researcherswho have examinedthe formationof culturalfields have alsopointed to the importance of intellectual discourse in the form of texts(Baumann2001;Ferguson1998;Santoro2002). As Ferguson(1998:635)putsit, "in cultural fields, there is no getting around words."It is apparentthatdiscourse s alsoimportant n the processof culturalconsecrationwithin thesefields. Specifically,Shrum (1996:35) asserts,"qualitystandards and qualityjudgments are ultimately created within the contexts of discourse." ndeed,cultural heorists Frow1995;Smith1983)argue hat aesthetic udgmentsaboutculturalproducts are invariably generatedwithin the context of particular"discoursesof value"that regulatethe social practiceof valorizationwithindifferent groups. This implies, of course, that different groups, employingvariousdiscourses,mayvalue culturalproducersand theirproductsdifferently.The existence of competing discoursesof value may explain why films thatreceiveprofessionalrecognitionfrom other culturalproducersare not alwaysthe same films as those that receive critical recognition from critics andscholars.Within film studies, the predominant discourse of value over the pastseveraldecadeshas been auteurtheory (Sarris1968).This theory,which wasfirst articulatedin a series of articlespublished in the French film journalCahiersdu Cinemabeginning in 1956 (Hillier 1985), was important to thelegitimationof film studiesas a fieldof academicstudy(Haberski2001). Thistheoryalso had the effect of elevatingcommercialHollywood films directedby certain directors o the statusof art (Mukerji1978).Althoughfilm scholarshave developeda number of other discoursesfor interpreting ilms (Andrew1984), auteurtheorystill enjoyswidespreadpopularitybecauseit providesaconvenientand accessiblediscoursefor evaluating he artisticmeritsof films(Haberski2001). In brief,auteurtheoryasserts hat directorsarethe primary


9/24

878 / Social Forces 82:3,March2004creativeagentsin the productionof films. It also asserts hat certaindirectorsare able to transcend he commercial imitations mposedby the film industryand impart their own unique and personal artistic visions in their films(Stoddart 1995).It is importantto note that discoursesof value can be viewed as culturalschemas.According o DiMaggio(1997:267),culturalschemasare"knowledgestructureshatrepresent bjectsor eventsandprovidedefaultassumptions bouttheir characteristics,elationships,and entailments."These culturalschemas,in turn, determine which "frames"are employed in particularinstances ofdiscourse(Bielby&Bielby1994).Morespecifically, uteur heory,as a culturalschema,encourages ilm critics and scholars,as reputational ntrepreneurs,oframetheirdiscourseabout a film in termsof the contributionsof its director.Undoubtedly, he discourseproducedby film criticsand scholars s importantin the creation and maintenance of the reputationsof both films and theirdirectors.However,much of their culturalauthorityderivesfrom theirabilityto frametheir aesthetic udgmentsabout films anddirectorswithin the contextof an established cultural schema such as auteur theory. In fact, Baumann(2001) found thatretrospective eviewsof films often focusedon the identitiesof their directors. Moreover,auteur theory celebrates some directors andignores others. Films directedby auteur directors are consideredto possessgreaterartisticmerit than films by directedby other directors,who are oftenseen as nothing more than highly skilledtechnicians.On the basisof theseobservations,t is possibleto formulatea preliminarytheoryof retrospectiveculturalconsecration,especiallyas it appliesto films.Tobeginwith, it is anticipatedhat the extentof professional, ritical,and evenpopularrecognition hat a film receivesat the time of its releasehas a positiveeffect on its likelihood of being retrospectivelyconsecrated.However,sinceolder films are more subjectto banalization, he effects of contemporaneousrecognition are likely to be eroded by the effects of age. In addition, it isanticipatedthat the extent of criticaldiscourseproducedabout a film has apositive effect on its likelihood of being retrospectively onsecrated.Indeed,giventhe ascendancyof auteurtheoryas a culturalschemain film studies,itis also anticipated hat the extent of discourse associatedwith the directorofa film has a positiveeffecton its likelihoodof beingretrospectivelyonsecrated.Auteurtheoryprivileges he contributionsof directorsoverthe contributionsof other creativeartists n the productionof a film,but it alsoprivileges omedirectorsover others.Consequently, ilms directedby directors identified asauteurs by film critics and scholars are more likely to be retrospectivelyconsecrated han other films.


10/24

The CulturalConsecration f American ilms 879ResearchDesignThe basic theoretical ssues posed by this researchrequirean examinationofthose characteristicshat lead to the retrospective onsecrationof certainfilmsover others. It is not feasible,of course,to analyzeall the tens of thousandsoffilmsproduced n the U.S.in thepastone hundredyears.However,t is possibleto examine the characteristics of a large sample of films that receivedprofessional,critical,or popularrecognitionat the time of their release.Afterall, these films are more likely to be retrospectivelyconsecrated than lesscontemporaneously ecognized ilms.Foranalyticalpurposes, t is necessary oimpose certainrestrictionson such a sample. First,the sample employedinthis study does not include silent films because they are not generallyasavailableor accessible o modernaudiencesas sound films.Consequently,heanalysis ncludesonly sound films released ince 1929.Second,the analysisalsoexcludesfilmsreleasedafter1991becausethe NationalFilmRegistrydoes notinclude any films that are not at least ten yearsold. Third, the sample doesnot include animated or documentary films because they are not strictlycomparable o live-actionnarrative ilms in terms of the formsof professionalrecognition employedin this analysis.Professionalrecognition s bestowedupon artistsand theirworksby otherartists.One of the most important ormsof professional ecognitionwithin thefilm industry is a nomination for an AcademyAward(Levy 1990). Thesenominations are an importantmeasure of peer recognitionbecauseonly themembersof eachindividualbranchof theAcademyof Motion PictureArtsandSciencescan nominate films in a givencategory.Forexample,only membersof the Directors Branchcan nominate directors or an AcademyAward.As ageneralrule,the academyhaspermittedonly fivenominations n anycategory(Sands 1973). The sample of films examined in this analysisincludes everyAmerican ilmthat received hree or moremajorAcademyAwardnominationsbetween 1929 and 1991.Forthe purposesof this analysis,majornominationsincludethosein thecategoriesof bestpicture,bestdirector, est actororactress,best supportingactoror actress,best screenwriter, est cinematographer,esteditor,best production designer,and best musicaldirector.Of course,a filmcan receive more than one nomination in the acting categories.In all, 553American films receivedthree or more major AcademyAwardnominationsbetween 1929 and 1991.In contrastto professionalrecognition,criticalrecognition s bestowedonartistsand their works by critics and scholars ratherthan other artists.Thesample of films examined in this analysisincludes those films that receivedimportant critical recognition at the time of their release. Specifically,itincludesall the American ilmsselectedas one of the ten best films of the yearby the New YorkTimes.The New YorkTimesserves,in effect,as the nationalnewspaperof record and its reviewshave an inordinate mpacton the critical


11/24

880 / Social Forces82:3,March2004receptionof films. From1929to 1991,the New YorkTimesselected a total of428 Americans ilms amongits ten best films of the year.Similarly,he sampleincludesall the American ilms selectedas one of the ten best films of the yearby the NationalBoardof Review.The NationalBoardof Reviewwas createdbythe film industry n 1916as a censorshipbody.However,once this functionwas renderedobsolete by the imposition of the ProductionCode in 1927, itbeganpublishingreviews hat advocated hat filmsrepresented a new type ofart" Haberski2001:49).Accordingo one film historian(Koszarski 994:209),the National Boardof Review "setthe agendafor serious film study in thisperiod."From 1929to 1991,the NationalBoardof Review selecteda total of528 American ilms among its ten best films of the year.

Finally,a film may receivepopularrecognitioneven if it does not receiveprofessionalor criticalrecognition.The popular recognitionof a film is bestmeasuredby how many people paid to see the film at the time of its initialtheatrical elease.Theonly reliablemeasureof audienceattendance s the box-office revenue of a film. Box-office revenue is equal to the total box-officereceiptsminusthe exhibition eeschargedbytheaterowners.Usingtheavailabledata,it is possibleto identifythe ten most popularfilms eachyearfrom 1940to 1991.However, or the period from 1929to 1939,it is possibleto identifyonly the six most popularfilms eachyear.In general,the data on box-officerevenuewere obtainedfrom annualcompilationspublished by either Varietyor the HollywoodReporter,he two majortradepublications of the motionpicture ndustry.Althoughdataon actualbox-officerevenuewere available ormost films, it is difficultto comparethese data overtime due to the effects ofinflation.Consequently,he sampleof films includedin this analysis ncludesthe top six to ten films, in termsof box-officerevenue,eachyear.From 1929to 1991, there were 582 popularfilms that rankedamong the top six to tenfilms in terms of their box-office revenue.There is, of course, considerableoverlapbetween these samples. The final sample, which could conceivablyinclude a total of 2,092 films, actuallycontains 1,277films.This analysisseeks to identifythose characteristicshat contribute to theretrospective onsecrationof films. Consequently,nformationwas compiledfor each of thesefilms on a numberof variables.Firstandforemost, hisanalysisexamines the effects of contemporaneous professional recognition on theretrospectiveconsecrationof films. The analysismeasures not only the totalnumber of major AcademyAwardnominations receivedby each film at thetime of its releasebut also the typesof nominationsit received.This researchalso examines the effects of contemporaneous critical recognition on theculturalconsecration f films.Specifically,heanalysisdentifies hose Americanfilms that were selected as being among the ten best films of the year by theNew YorkTimesor amongthe ten best filmsof the year by the National Boardof Review. n addition, he analysis dentifies hoseAmerican ilms that receivedannualawards rom the New YorkFilm CriticsCircle or bestpicture,best actor


12/24

The CulturalConsecrationf American ilms 881andactress,andbestdirector.Thereare,of course,otherimportant ilm awardsbut they do not span the time period encompassedby this research.Indeed,since the New YorkFilmCriticsCircledid not issueanyawardspriorto 1935,any analysis nvolvingthis variable s limited to those filmsreleased ince then.Finally, the analysis identifies those films that received contemporaneouspopularrecognition n thattheywereamongthe top ten films in termsof box-office revenue n a givenyear.The analysisalso examinesthe extent of criticaldiscourseboth about eachfilm and its director.For the purposesof this analysis,the extent of criticaldiscourseabouteach film is measuredby the number of times that it has beendiscussedat lengthin film anthologies.This informationwascompiledfromacomprehensivendex of film anthologies(Bowles1994). Of the 1,277films inthe sample,489 were featured n at least one filmanthology.Of these,142werefeaturedin three or more film anthologies. Similarly,the extent of criticaldiscourseabout directors s measuredbythe numberof bookspublishedaboutthem. The 1,277films includedin the samplewere directedby 411 directors.Of these, 142 directorswere the subjectof at least one book and 60 were thesubjectof at least three books. The books about eachdirectorwere identifiedusing the WorldCatdatabase,an electronic version of the Union Catalogdatabase hat includesinformationon the holdingsof allmajor ibrariesn theU.S.Onlybookspublished n Englishareincluded n the analysis.Finally, iventhe fact that both of these measuresof critical discourse have highly skeweddistributions, they are subjectedto square-root transformations in all thestatisticalanalyses.Of the 1,277films in the sample,83 were selected for inclusionamongthe100 greatestfilms by the AmericanFilm Institute and 131 were selected forinclusionin the NationalFilmRegistry.The AmericanFilmInstitute, ncludedonly seven narrative ilms released from 1929 to 1991 that were not amongthe 1,277films in the sample.However, he National FilmRegistryncludes 68narrative ilms releasedbetween 1929 and 1991that were not includedin thesample. This disparity arises because the National Film Registryemploysselectioncriteria hat arepurposelymore eclectic than those employedby theAmericanFilm Institute.Forexample,the National Film Registry ncludes 16inexpensivebut historicallysignificant"B" ilms, such as Gun Crazyand TheNight of theLivingDead.It also includes 13 equally nexpensivebut innovativeindependentfilms, such as Shadowsand TheReturnof the SecaucusSeven.Inall, only 29 of these 68 narrative ilms weremajorfeaturefilms.They includesuch diversefilms as DuckSoupand TheManchurianCandidate.


13/24

882 / SocialForces 82:3,March2004ResultsThe analysisexaminesthe effects of the differentforms of contemporaneousrecognitionand criticaldiscourseassociatedwith 1,277 films releasedover aperiodof six decades on their likelihoodof being retrospectively onsecratedby either the AmericanFilmInstituteor the National FilmRegistry.Since thedependentvariable s simplywhether a film is retrospectivelyonsecrated,hemost appropriate tatistical echniquefor this analysis s logisticregression. nview of the fact that the parametersof logistic regressionmodels arenot easyto interpretdirectly, his analysispresentsthe odds ratios obtained from theexponentiated oefficientsof these models. An oddsratiogreaterhan1 impliesthat there is a positive relationshipbetween an independentvariableand theodds that a film was retrospectivelyonsecrated Bishop,Fienberg& Holland1975). An odds ratio less than 1 impliesthat there is a negativerelationshipbetween an independentvariableand the odds of retrospective onsecration.The analysis first examines the effects of the various forms of popular,professional,and critical recognition that a film receives at the time of itsrelease,as well as its age,on its likelihood of beingretrospectivelyonsecrated.Next, it examines the effects of the significant forms of contemporaneousrecognitionin conjunctionwith the extent of discourseabout a film and itsdirector on its odds of being retrospectively onsecrated.The results of five logisticregressionanalysesof the effectsof various setsof variableson the likelihood of a filmbeingselectedasone of the 100greatestfilms of alltimebytheAmericanFilmInstitutearepresented n Table1.Model1 includesonly the age of a film and the extent of its popularrecognitionasindependentvariables. t reveals hatbeing amongthe top ten films of theyearin terms of box-officerevenuehas a positiveeffect on theoddsof consecration.Model 2 includesthe age of a film and the forms of professionalrecognitionas independentvariables.Thismodel reveals hatreceivinganAcademyAwardnomination for best directorand, to a lesserextent,receivingnominationsforbest editor and best musical director have positive effects on the odds ofconsecration. Model 3 includes the age of a film and forms of criticalrecognitionas independentvariables. t reveals hatbeing selectedamongtheten best films of the yearby the New YorkTimesand the National BoardofReviewand receivingawards rom the New YorkFilmCritics for best pictureand best actor have positive effects on the likelihood of retrospectiveconsecrationby the AmericanFilm Institute.The age of a film has no effecton the likelihood of retrospective onsecration n any of these models.Model4 in Table1 includesthe ageof a film andall thesevariousforms ofpopular,professional,and criticalrecognitionas independentvariables.Whenthese variablesare consideredsimultaneously,only being among the top tenfilms of the year in terms of box-office revenueand receivingan AcademyAwardnominationforbest directorhavesignificantpositiveeffectson the odds


14/24

The Cultural Consecrationof American Films/ 883TABLE 1: Logistic Regression Analyses (Odds Ratios) of the Effects ofProfessional, Critical, and Popular Recognition, Age, and Extentof Discourse on the Selection of Films As One of the 100

Greatest Films by the American Film Institute, 1929-1991Model Model Model Model Model

1 2 3 4 5Ageof film 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99Toptenbox office 2.97** 3.74** 6.26**Bestpicturenomination 1.91 1.38Bestdirectornomination 9.05** 10.49** 21.97**Bestactorsnomination 1.23 1.81Best screenwriter omination 1.84 1.75Bestcinematographer omination 1.03 1.05Besteditornomination 2.01* 1.50Best artdirectornomination 0.83 1.05Best musicaldir.nomination 1.80* 1.83t 2.25*New YorkTimes10 best 2.32** 1.70Nat. Boardof Review 10best 1.92* 0.85N.Y.F.C. est picture 2.59* 0.88N.Y.F.C.best director 2.24t 2.40t 2.27tN.Y.F.C. est actors 1.98* 1.14Books about director(squareroot) 1.43**Anthology entries(squareroot) 3.70**X2 21.9 211.8 77.9 228.3 318.3PseudoR2 .035 .345 .135 .395 .551N 1,277 1,277 1,162 1,162 1,162tp


15/24

884 / SocialForces 82:3,March2004TABLE 2: Logistic Regression Analyses (Odds Ratios) of the Effects ofProfessional, Critical, and Popular Recognition, Age, and Extentof Discourse on the Selection of Films for Inclusion in National

Film Registry, 1929-1991Model Model Model Model Model1 2 3 4 5

Ageof film 1.01** 1.02** 1.02** 1.02** 1.01Topenboxoffice 1.17 1.35Bestpicture omination 2.09** 1.86* 1.58Bestdirector omination 2.26** 1.94* 1.64Bestactors omination 1.13 1.06Best creenwriteromination 2.12** 2.11** 2.00*Best inematographeromination .88 .91Best ditornomination 1.16 .98Bestartdirector omination 1.34 1.55' 1.41Bestmusical irector omination .86 .87NewYork imes 0best 2.45** 1.84** 1.35NationalBoard f Review 0best 1.64* 1.14N.Y.F.C.estpicture 1.48 .72N.Y.F.C.estdirector 3.06** 2.76* 2.36*N.Y.F.C.estactors 1.71t 1.18Booksaboutdirectorsquareoot) 1.20*Anthologyntriessquareoot) 3.03**X2 9.0 133.4 90.8 150.3 250.9PseudoR2 .011 .159 .118 .195 .325N 1,277 1,277 1,162 1,162 1,162t p


16/24

The CulturalConsecrationfAmerican ilms 885When these variablesareconsidered imultaneously, nly ageof film,receivingAcademy Award nominations for best picture, best director, and bestscreenwriter, eing selectedamong the best ten films of the yearby the NewYorkTimes,andreceivinga New YorkFilm Criticsaward or best directorhavesignificantpositiveeffects on the odds of consecration.However,receivinganAcademyAwardnomination for best art directorhas a marginally ignificantpositive effect on the odds of consecration.Finally,model 5 includes thesevariables as well as the two measures of critical discourse as independentvariables.Once again, it reveals that both the number of books about thedirector of a film and the number of anthology entries about a film havesignificant independenteffects on the odds of retrospectiveconsecrationbytheNationalFilmRegistry.Moreover, eceivinganAcademyAwardnominationfor best screenwriterand receivinga New YorkFilm Critics awardfor bestdirectoralso havepositivesignificanteffects on the likelihoodof retrospectiveconsecration.These results of these analysesrequirefurtherexplicationon two points.First,the fact that the effectsof receivingan AcademyAwardnomination forbest directorandbestpictureare not statisticallyignificant n the finalmodelfor retrospective onsecrationby the NationalFilmRegistrycan be attributed,at leastin part,to the fact thatthese two measuresof professionalrecognitionarehighlycorrelated 0.614). If either variable s deletedfromthis model, theother becomes statistically ignificant.Indeed,the correlationbetween thesetwo measuresof professionalconsecrationsuggeststhat even members of theAcademyof Motion PictureArts and Sciencesassociate he excellenceof a filmwith the achievementsof its director.Second, t must be noted that the extentof criticaldiscoursereceivedby a film is undoubtedlyaffectedby the popular,professional,and criticalrecognitionthat it receivesat the time of its release.The final models in both Table1 and Table2 examineonly the direct effectsof these independentvariables.The total effects of these variables, ncludingtheir indirect effects through the critical discourse variables, are moresubstantialand significant han their direct effects.Indeed,that is the reasonwhythe effectsof theseindependentvariablesareexaminedseparatelyn thesemodels.As one might expect,there area numberof similaritiesbetween the resultspresented n Table 1 and those presented n Table2. In both sets of analyses,tis apparentthat the contemporaneousrecognitionreceivedby the director,eitherin termsof AcademyAwardnominationsforbest directoror New YorkFilm Critics awardsfor best director,has a positive effect on the odds ofretrospectiveonsecration.Theextentof criticaldiscourseabouta film,in termsof the numberof anthologyentries,and the extentof criticaldiscourseaboutits director, n termsof the numberof books about the director,also have apositive effect on the odds of retrospectiveconsecration.However, here areimportantdifferencesbetweenthese two analysesas well.Popularrecognition,


17/24

886 / Social Forces82:3,March2004TABLE 3: Mean Number of Books about Director and Mean Number of

Entries in Film Anthologies for Contemporaneously RecognizedFilms and Retrospectively Consecrated Films, 1929-1991MeanNumber MeanNumberofBooksabout of EntriesnNumber Director Anthologies

All ilmsamongopten nbox-officeevenueach ear 582 2.8 0.9All ilmswith3 or more

Academy ward ominations 553 4.0 1.5AllFilms elected yNationalBoard f Review 582 3.8 1.3AllFilms elected yNewYork imes 482 4.8 1.6Films elected yNationalFilmRegistry 131 7.0** 4.2**Films elected yAmericanFilm nstitute 83 8.2** 5.3**Films elected ybothAmerican ilm

Institute ndNationalFilmRegistry 65 9.2 6.3****p


18/24

The CulturalConsecrationf American ilms 887FilmInstituteand the list of best films identifiedby the National FilmRegistryis 0.958. In short,priorknowledgeof whetherfilmsareon one list reducestheerrorsin predictingwhether they are also on the other list by 95.8 percent(Bishop,Fienberg&Holland 1975:387-89).Bythis criterion, t is apparent hatthese two retrospectiveconsecrationprojectsyield very similarresults.It canbe argued hat the accumulationof extensivecriticaldiscourseabouta film and its director contributes to the formation of a consensus that it isworthy of retrospectiveconsecration. Table3 presentsthe mean number ofbooks aboutthe directorsand the mean numberof entries n film anthologiesfor the films in the sample.It is apparent hat those films that areconsensusselectionsfor retrospective onsecration, hose selectedby both the AmericanFilm Instituteand the National Film Registry,have significantlymore booksabout their directorsand more entriesin film anthologiesthan films selectedby only one of these two institutions.Moreover,hose films that were selectedeither by the American Film Institute or the National Film Registryhavesignificantly more books about their directors and more entries in filmanthologies than films that received only contemporaneous popular,professional,or criticalrecognition.In short, those films that are consensusselectionsfor retrospective onsecrationarethe objectsof much more criticaldiscourse han other films.Indeed,the 65 filmsthat were consensusselectionsfor retrospectiveconsecrationhad four times as many entries in anthologiesas did other contemporaneouslyrecognizedfilms. Similarly, he directorsofthese films had twice as many books written about them as did the directorsof the other films in the sample.Finally, the theory proposed in this study argues that the particulardiscourse of valueappliedto films has a differential ffecton their likelihoodof being retrospectivelyconsecrated.The ascendancyof auteur theory as aculturalschemain films studies serves not only to privilege he contributionsof directorsover those of other collaborators n the productionof films, it alsoserves to privilegesome directorsover others.Althoughthere is no definitivedirectoryof auteur directors,they have generallybeen the subjectsof morebooks by film scholars than other directors.Table4 presentsa list of the 29directorswho had two or more films selectedfor retrospectiveconsecration,at least one by the American Film Institute and at least one other by theNational Film Registry. It also presents the number of Academy Awardnominationsreceivedbythese directorsand thenumberof bookswrittenaboutthem. Thenumber of books writtenabout each of these 29 directors s closelyrelated to the number of their films selected by either the American FilmInstitute (r = 0.381) or the NationalFilmRegistry(r = 0.414). Althoughthenumber of AcademyAwardnominations receivedby these directorsis alsoclosely related to the number of their films selected by the AmericanFilm


19/24

888 / SocialForces 82:3,March2004TABLE4: Number of Retrospectively Consecrated Films, Number of

Academy Award Nominations, and Number of Books aboutDirector for 27 Directors with Two or More RetrospectivelyConsecrated Films, 1929-1991

Nameof AFI NFR BestDirector BooksaboutDirector List List Nominations DirectorAlfredHitchcock 4 5 5 42JohnFord 3 6 5 8Steven pielberg 5 3 4 19BillyWilder 4 4 8 10WilliamWyler 3 4 12 5Martin corsese 3 4 3 14Francis ordCoppola 3 4 4 9StanleyKubrick 3 3 4 12FrankCapra 3 3 6 16George tevens 3 3 5 1JohnHuston 3 3 5 10HowardHawks 1 5 1 9MichaelCurtiz 2 4 4 4GeorgeCukor 2 3 5 9EliaKazan 2 3 5 12DavidLean 3 2 7 6RobertWise 2 3 3 1VincenteMinnelli 1 4 2 6GeorgeLucas 2 2 2 7OrsonWelles 1 3 1 21WoodyAllen 1 2 6 23RobertAltman 1 2 4 9SamPeckinpah 1 2 0 5MilosForman 2 1 3 3FredZinneman 2 1 7 2LewisMilestone 2 1 5 2LeoMcCarey 1 2 3 1Franklin chaffner 1 1 1 1VictorFleming 1 1 1 0Institute (0.533), it is not closely related to the number of their films selectedby the National Film Registry (0.178).Given the ascendancy of auteur theory, it is not surprising to find that manyof the retrospectively consecrated films were directed by auteur directors. Thetwo directors with the most retrospectively consecrated films, John Ford andAlfred Hitchcock, have been the subjects of several books and were identifiedby one influential proponent of auteur theory (Sarris 1968) as "pantheondirectors." Indeed, two other "pantheon directors" on this list, Orson Wellesand Howard Hawks, have both been the subjects of several books even though


20/24

The CulturalConsecrationfAmerican ilms 889they eachreceivedonly one best directornomination duringtheir careers.Atthe same time, however,there are directorswho are associatedwith severalretrospectivelyconsecrated films despite the fact that they have been thesubjects of relativelyfew books. For example, neither George Stevens norMichael Curtiz is generallyconsideredto be an auteur directoreven thoughthey received severalAcademyAwardsnominations for best directorduringtheir careers. nthesecases,theparticularilmsdirectedbythesedirectorswereretrospectively consecrated because the films themselves receivedcontemporaneous professional and critical recognition and have been thesubjectsof considerablediscoursein the form of entriesin film anthologies.For example,GeorgeStevens directedA Placein the Sun and Michael CurtizdirectedCasablanca. othof thesefilmsgarneredAcademyAwardnominationsfor both best pictureand best director and are routinelymentioned in filmanthologies.

ConclusionsThis researchprovidesconsiderable mpiricalconfirmation or the theoreticalpropositions dvanced ythisstudyconcerningheprocessofretrospectiveulturalconsecration, especially as it applies to films. In general, the extent ofprofessionaland critical recognition receivedby the director of a film hassubstantial ositiveeffectson its likelihoodof beingretrospectivelyonsecrated.In addition, the extent of subsequentcritical discourse about a film and itsdirectorhassignificantpositiveeffectson itsoddsof retrospectiveonsecration.Indeed,the fact that older films have often been the subjectof more articlesand booksthannewer filmsmayaccount for the findingthatagedoesnot haveanyeffect on the retrospective onsecrationof films.Moreover,despitethe factthat the National Film Registryhas a slightlybroader mandatethan did theAmericanFilm Institutein selectingfilms of cultural,historical,or aestheticsignificance, he two retrospective onsecrationprojectsachievedverysimilarresults.Those narrative ilms selectedby one institutionwerevery likelyto bechosen by the other.However,films that receivedpopularrecognitionat thetime of their releaseweremore likelyto be retrospectivelyonsecratedby theAmericanFilm Institute than they wereby the NationalFilmRegistry.In general,these findingsconfirmthe argument hat the valorizationandretrospectiveonsecrationf cultural roducers ndproductss influenced, t leastto someextent,bythe activities f reputational ntrepreneursho areresponsibleforproducingmuch of the discoursewithin a field of culturalproduction(Fine1996).With the emergenceof film studies as an academicdiscipline,a largevolume of discourse, n the form of articlesand books about films and theirdirectors,is producedeach year.Film critics and scholars are able to act asreputational ntrepreneurs y choosingto studysome directorsandtheirfilms


21/24

890 SocialForces82:3,March 004and ignore other directorsand their films. At the same time, however,thesefindings suggestthat the culturalauthorityexercisedby these film critics andscholarsis constrainedby the cultural schemasemployed in this discourse.Given the ascendancyof auteur theory as a discourse of value within filmstudies, critics and scholars are often compelled to frame their aestheticjudgmentsof films in terms of the contributionsof theirdirectors.Moreover,once certain directors have been identifiedas auteurs,it is difficult for filmcritics and scholarsto ignore them or their films. The fact that JohnFord isconsideredas an auteurdirectorandGeorgeSeaton s not maybe the primaryreasonwhy TheSearchers asretrospectivelyonsecratedand TheCountryGirlwas not.

The results of these analysesalso reveal some of the limitationsof auteurtheory.Auteurdirectors,hose who havebeen subjectsof numerousbooks, aremorelikelyto havetheir filmsretrospectivelyonsecratedhanother directors.The films of less celebrateddirectorsmay be retrospectively onsecratedbutonly if they receivedsufficientprofessional,critical,and popularrecognitionat the time of their release.Moreover,his theorydoes not explainwhy somedirectorsandtheir films were the subjectsof more booksandarticles hanotherdirectorsandtheir films. Someveryaccomplisheddirectors,who have receivedconsiderableprofessionalor criticalrecognition,have not been the subjectsofvery many articlesor books. It is beyond the scope of this analysis o explainwhy some directorsare considered auteursby film scholars and criticswhileothers are dismissed as mere technicians. There is some evidence that theoriginalproponents of auteurtheoryfavoredthose directorswho were seento possessa distinctand consistentcinematicstyle(Hiller1985).In short,thesetheoristsarguedthat auteurdirectors,by their characteristicuse of lighting,camera,and staging, left an identifiableimprint on their films (Bordwell&Thompson 1993).Whatever he criteria, his discourseproducedby the earlycontributors o the French ilmjournalCahiersdu CinemaandlaterAmericanproponents of auteurtheory (Sarris 1968) has had a profound effect on theartisticreputationsof certain directors and their films.In recentyears,auteur heoryhas beensupplementedby a number of otherfilm theories, such as genre theory and feminist theory. These alternativecultural chemas,which are moreinterpretativehanevaluativen nature,haveenabled ilm scholars o examinethe historicaland cultural nfluenceson bothfilm production (Schatz 1988) and audience reception (Jenkins 1995).However,auteur theory remains the predominant discourse of value withrespectto films (Corrigan1991;Dudley 1993).Its appealcan be attributed,npart, to the romantic assumption that one person, namely the director,isultimately responsible for the aesthetic merits of a film. Moreover,auteurtheory s popularas an evaluative heorybecause t invitescomparisonsamongthe films directedbythe same director.Finally,unlikemost of the other culturalschemasappliedto films, auteurtheoryis both simpleand accessible.At the


22/24

The Cultural Consecrationof American Films / 891same time, the ascendancy of auteur theory as the dominant form of discoursein film studies and film criticism has served to privilege the contributions ofdirectors over those of other creative artists involved in the production of thosefilms (Crofts 1998; Schatz 1988). The problem of ascertaining the contributionsof various creative artists to a given film is complicated by the fact thataccomplished directors typically collaborate with other accomplished actors,screenwriters, and cinematographers (Faulkner & Anderson 1987).The results of this study have implications for the development of moregeneral theories of cultural valorization and consecration that are applicableto other fields of cultural production. In particular, these results indicate thattheories of collective memory are relevant to the process of retrospectivecultural valorization and consecration. Specifically,the fact that certain culturalproducers have achieved the status of brand labels contributes to the likelihoodthat their products will be valorized and consecrated (Lang & Lang 1988).These results also confirm that cultural valorization and consecration aregreatly affected by the intellectual and critical discourse surrounding certaincultural products and their producers (Shrum 1996). Critics and scholars, whoproduce this intellectual and critical discourse, may serve as reputationalentrepreneurs, but their intellectual authority is derived from their ability toframe their aesthetic judgments within the context of specific cultural schemas(Beisel 1993; DiMaggio 1997). Finally, the results of consecration projects areimportant because they provide valuable insights into the cultural schemasemployed by various groups and organizations. In so doing, they reveal boththe strengths and the limitations of various discourses of value.

ReferencesAmericanFilmInstitute. 1997."AFILaunchesMajorCelebrationof the 100thAnniversaryofAmericanMovies."PressRelease November 19, 1997).Andrew,Dudley.1984.Conceptsn Film Theory.OxfordUniversityPress.Baumann,Shyon.2001. "Intellectualizationand ArtWorldDevelopment:Film in the UnitedStates." mericanSociologicalReview66:404-26.Becker,Howard. 1982. Art Worlds.Universityof CaliforniaPress.Beisel, Nicola. 1993. "Moral versus Art: Censorship,the Politics of Interpretation,and theVictorianNude."AmericanSociologicalReview58:145-62.Bielby,WilliamT.,and Denise D. Bielby.1994."'AllHits AreFlukes': nstitutionalizedDecisionMakingand the Rhetoricof NetworkPrime-TimeProgramDevelopment." merican ournal

of Sociology 9:1287-1313.Bishop,YvonneM.M., StephenE.Fienberg,and Paul W. Holland. 1975. DiscreteMultivariateAnalysis:Theoryand Practice.MIT Press.Bordwell,David, and KristinThompson. 1993. Film Art:AnIntroduction.McGraw-Hill.Bourdieu,Pierre.1984.Distinction:A SocialCritique f theJudgement fTaste.HarvardUniversityPress.


23/24

892 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004. 1988. Homo Academicus.PolityPress.. 1991.LanguageandSymbolicPower.HarvardUniversityPress.1993. TheFieldof CulturalProduction.ColumbiaUniversityPress.?1996. The RulesofArt:Genesisand Structureof theLiteraryField.StanfordUniversityPress.

Bowles,StephenE. 1994. The FilmAnthologiesndex.ScarecrowPress.Corrigan, Timothy. 1991. Cinema without Walls:Movies and CultureafterVietnam.RutgersUniversityPress.Corse,SarahM., and Monica D. Griffin. 1997. "CulturalValorizationand African-American

LiteraryHistory:Re-Constructing he Canon."SociologicalForum 12:173-203.Crofts,Stephen. 1998."Authorship nd Hollywood."Pp. 310-24 in TheOxfordGuide to FilmStudies,editedby JohnHill and Pamela Church Gibson. OxfordUniversityPress.DeNora,Tia. 1995.Beethovenand theConstruction f Genius:MusicalPolitics n Vienna,1792-1803.Universityof CaliforniaPress.DiMaggio,Paul. 1992."CulturalBoundariesand StructuralChange:The Extensionof the HighCultureModel to Theater,Opera, and the Dance, 1900-1940."Pp. 21-57 in CultivatingDifferences: ymbolicBoundariesand theMakingofInequality, ditedby MicheleLamontand Marcel Fournier.Universityof ChicagoPress.

.1997. "Cultureand Cognition."AnnualReviewof Sociology 3:263-87.Dowd,TimothyJ.,KathleenLiddle,KimLupo,and Anne Borden.2002."OrganizingheMusicalCanon:TheRepertoires f MajorU.S.SymphonyOrchestras,1842 to 1969."Poetics30:35-61.Ducharme, Lori,and GaryAlan Fine. 1995."Nonpersonhood, Demonization, and NegativeCommemoration: Constructingthe 'Traitorous'Reputationof Benedict Arnold."SocialForces73:1309-31.Dudley,Andrew. 1993."TheUnauthorizedAuteurToday." p.77-85 in FilmTheoryGoes otheMovies,edited by JimCollins,HilaryRadner,and Ava P.Collins.Routledge.Faulkner,RobertR.,andAndy B.Anderson.1987."Short-TermProjectsandEmergentCareers:Evidence romHollywood."American ournalofSociology 2:879-909.Feldman,Burton.2000. TheNobel Prize:A Historyof Genius,Controversy,ndPrestige.Arcade

Publishing.Ferguson,PriscillaParkhurst. 998."ACulturalField n the Making:Gastronomy n NineteenthCenturyFrance." merican ournalofSociology104:597-641.Fine,GaryAlan. 1996."ReputationalEntrepreneursndthe Memoryof Incompetence:MeltingSupporters,PartisanWarriors,and Images of PresidentHarding."AmericanJournalof

Sociology 01:1159-93.Frow,John.1995. CulturalStudiesand CulturalValue.CambridgeUniversityPress.Goode,WilliamJ.1978.TheCelebrationofHeroes:PrestigeAs a SocialControlSystem.Universityof CaliforniaPress.Haberski,RaymondJ.Jr.2001. It'sOnlyaMovie:Filmsand Critics n AmericanCulture.Universityof KentuckyPress.Heinich, Nathalie. 1996. The Glory of VanGogh:An Anthropologyof Admiration. PrincetonUniversityPress.


24/24

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 893Hillier,Jim. 1985.Introduction to Cahiersdu Cinema:The1950s- Neo-Realism,Hollywood,New Wave,edited by JimHillier. HarvardUniversityPress.James,Bill. 1994. WhateverHappened o the HallofFame?Baseball,Cooperstown,nd thePoliticsof Glory.Simon & Schuster.Jenkins,Henry.1995. "HistoricalPoetics."Pp.99-122 in Approaches oPopularFilm,editedbyJoanneHollows and MarkJancovich.ManchesterUniversityPress.Kapsis,Robert E. 1992.Hitchcock:TheMakingofa Reputation.Universityof ChicagoPress.Koszarski,Richard.1994.AnEvening's ntertainment: heAge ofthe SilentFeaturePicture,1915-1928.Universityof CaliforniaPress.Lamont,Michee. 1987."Howto Become a Dominant FrenchPhilosopher:TheCase of JacquesDerrida." mericanSociologicalReview93:584-622.Lang,GladysEngel,and KurtL.Lang.1988."RecognitionandRenown:The Survivalof ArtisticReputation." merican ournalof Sociology 4:78-109.Levy,Emanuel. 1990. And the Winner Is...: The History and Politics of the OscarAwards.Continuum.Mukerji,Chandra. 1978."Artwork:Collection and ContemporaryCulture."AmericanJournalofSociology 4:348-65.Ray,Robert B. 1985. A Certain Tendencyof the Hollywood Cinema, 1930-1980. Princeton

UniversityPress.Sands,PierreNorman. 1973.A HistoricalStudyoftheAcademy fMotionPictureArtsandSciences(1927-1947).Arno Press.Santoro,Marco.2002. "What s a'Cantautore?' istinctionandAuthorship n Italian(Popular)Music." oetics 0:111-32.Sarris,Andrew.1968. TheAmericanCinema:DirectorsandDirections,1929-1968. Dutton.Schatz,Thomas. 1988. The Geniusof the System:Hollywood Filmmaking n the StudioEra.Pantheon.Schwartz,Barry.1991."SocialChangeand CollectiveMemory:The Democratizationof GeorgeWashington." mericanSociologicalReview56:221-36.Shrum,WesleyM., Jr.1996. Fringeand Fortune:The Roleof Critics n High and PopularArt.PrincetonUniversityPress.Smith,BarbaraHerrnstein.1983."Contingenciesof Value."CriticalInquiry10:1-35.Stoddart,Helen. 1995. "Auteurismand FilmAuthorship Theory."Pp. 37-57 in Approaches oPopularFilm,editedbyJoanneHollows and MarkJancovich.ManchesterUniversityPress.Todd, Richard. 1996. ConsumingFictions: The BookerPrize and Fiction in Britain Today.Bloomsbury.Wagner-Pacifici, Robin, and Barry Schwartz. 1991. "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial:

Commemoratinga Difficult Past."American ournalofSociology 7:376-420.Zolberg,VeraL. 1990.Constructing Sociologyof theArts.CambridgeUniversityPress.

Documents

CDA-Cultural Consecration of American Filmes_Patrick_Lincoln