You are on page 1of 24

Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American

Films*
Allen, Michael Patrick.
Lincoln, Anne E.

Social Forces, Volume 82, Number 3, March 2004, pp. 871-893 (Article)

Published by The University of North Carolina Press


DOI: 10.1353/sof.2004.0030

For additional information about this article


http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sof/summary/v082/82.3allen.html

Access Provided by Southern Illinois University @ Edwardsville at 01/10/11 9:15PM GMT


The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 871

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
about films and their directors, on the retrospective cultural consecration of American
films. Specifically, it examines a sample of 1,277 films released from 1929 to 1991
that received three or more major Academy Award nominations or were selected
among the ten best films 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: allenm@wsu.edu.
© The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March 2004, 82(3):871-894
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).
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
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-
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
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.”
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 Cinéma 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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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* 1.83† 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 2.24† 2.40† 2.27†
N.Y.F.C. best actors 1.98* 1.14
Books about director (square root) 1.43**
Anthology entries (square root) 3.70**
␹2 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
† p < .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
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 1.71† 1.18
Books about director (square root) 1.20*
Anthology entries (square root) 3.03**
␹2 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
† 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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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 Cinéma 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
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.
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 of Art: 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 Michèle 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.
The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 893
Hillier, Jim. 1985. Introduction to Cahiers du Cinéma: 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, Michèle. 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.

You might also like