Social Forces, University of North Carolina Press

Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American Films Author(s): Michael Patrick Allen and Anne E. Lincoln Reviewed work(s): Source: Social Forces, Vol. 82, No. 3 (Mar., 2004), pp. 871-893 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

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

Discourseandthe Cultural Critical Consecration of American Films*

MICHAEL PATRICK ALLEN,Washington State University

ANNEE. LINCOLN, State University Washington

Abstract This research examines the effects of contemporaneous critical, professional, and popular recognition,as well as the effectsof the extent of subsequentcriticaldiscourse culturalconsecrationof American aboutfilms and their directors,on the retrospective it examines a sample of 1,277films releasedfrom 1929 to 1991 films. Specifically, that received three or more major Academy Award nominations or were selected among the ten bestfilms of the year by either the New York Times or the National Board of Review or were among the top ten films in terms of box-office revenues in a given year. The analysis focuses on the characteristics of those films that were retrospectivelyconsecratedeither by inclusion among the 100 greatestfilms by the American Film Institute or by inclusion in the National Film Registry. Contemporaneousprofessional and recognitionof the directorof a film is especially important in determining the likelihood of retrospectiveconsecration.In addition, the extent of critical discourseboth about a film and about its directoris important in determining the likelihood of retrospectiveconsecration. 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 servesto privilege the directoras the primary creativeagent in film production. It also serves to privilege certain directorsover 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, WilliamBielby,John Mohr,Michael Schudson,GaryAlan Fine, TomRotolo, GregHooks,Amy at State University Wharton,and the membersof the Social InequalitiesWorkshop Washington to for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.Please direct all correspondence State University, Michael P. Allen, Department of Sociology,Washington Pullman, WA 991644020. E-mail:allenm@wsu.edu. ? The University North Carolina Press of March2004,82(3):871-894 SocialForces,

872/ Social Forces82:3,March 2004 a Searchers, westerndirectedby JohnFord.Nine yearslater,the AmericanFilm Instituteincluded it among the "100 greatestAmericanfilms of all time."The consecration of this film by these two cultural institutions from the tens of thousandsof Americanfilms produced over the past centurywas paradoxical on a numberof counts. Although TheSearchers one of the top ten films of was 1956 in terms of box-office income, it did not garnerany professionalawards or much critical acclaim when it was released. It was not among the 28 American films that were nominated for major AcademyAwardsthat year. Moreover,it was not included among the ten best films selectedby either the New York Timesor the NationalBoardof Reviewin 1956. Lastbut not least, it did not receiveany awardsfrom the New YorkFilm CriticsCircle.In the words the of the reviewerfor Variety, major trade publication of the film industry, was The Searchers "repetitious" "overlong." and Similarunfavorablecriticisms were expressedby BosleyCrowtherof the New York Times,the most influential film critic in America at the time. Nevertheless, the consecration of The four decadesafter its releaseis importantbecauseit illustratessome Searchers of the intricaciesof the process of culturalconsecration. Sociologistshave devoted considerableattention 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; Kapsis1992;Lamont 1987;Lang& Lang 1988), but they have paid much less attention to more formal processesof retrospectiveculturalconsecration (Bourdieu 1991; Zolberg 1990). This lack of attention to formal processesof culturalconsecrationis somewhatsurprisinggiven the fact that the conferring of honors, awards,and prizesis a pervasive highlyvisibleaspectof everyday and life (Goode 1978;Levy 1990). There have been a number of historicalstudies of the processesby which scientists receive Nobel Prizes (Feldman 2000) or athletes are elected to the Hall of Fame (James 1994). However,these studies have been largelydescriptiveand atheoretical.There have been no systematic cultural analysesof more formalprocessesof culturalconsecration. Specifically, consecrationoccurs wheneverdistinctionsare imposed that serve to separate individualsand achievementsthat are worthy of admirationand respectfrom those that are not. Accordingto Bourdieu(1991:119-20),culturalconsecration Of is an act of "socialmagic"that produces"discontinuity of continuity." out course,the most importantdistinctionsare those that are imposed by cultural institutions that can legitimatelyclaim that function (DiMaggio 1992). Consecration especiallyimportantwithin the field of culturalproduction, is where culturalproducersstruggleprimarilyfor legitimacyratherthan profits the (Bourdieu 1993). Ironically, processof culturalconsecrationis often more formalizedin those fieldsof culturalproductionthat areless autonomousfrom the field of economic production. Writerswhose books are popular may be ignoredby critics,scholars,and other writers.However,they are more difficult to ignore if their works have won important awardsand prizes (Todd 1996).

TheCultural Consecration American of Films/ 873 In many cases, cultural producers and their products are consecrated retrospectivelyrather than contemporaneously.In the field of fine art, the ultimate form of cultural consecrationis to be the subject of a retrospective exhibitionby a majormuseum (Heinich 1996). Indeed, culturalorganizations and institutions sometimes endeavorto establishthe legitimacy of a field of culturalproductionby identifyingthe most exemplary achievements cultural by within that field over a prolonged period of time. These acts of producers retrospective consecration are based on the premise that only the most legitimate culturalproducersand culturalproducts survivethe "test of time" (Becker 1982:365). This assumption was explicit in the retrospective consecrationprojects conducted by both the National Film Registryand the American Film Institute. Previous studies of artistic reputations have consisted primarily of qualitative analysesof the historicalprocessesby which certainindividualshave establishedtheir reputationsas 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 empiricaladequacyof this theory as it appliesto Americanfilms. To this end, it examinesthe implicit criteriaemployedby both the AmericanFilm Institute and the NationalFilm Registryin selectingfilms for retrospective consecration. The analysisis based on a sample of 1,277 films releasedfrom 1929 to 1991 that receivedpopular,professional,or criticalrecognitionat 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 criticaldiscourseabout the film and its director.Finally, examinesthe extentto which culturalschemas,which frame it the discourse about films and their directors, affect the retrospective consecrationof Americanfilms.

The Cultural Consecration of Films The process of cultural consecration can be seen as one aspect of the more general and pervasiveprocess of cultural valorization. Culturalvalorization involves the use of aesthetic judgment to assign cultural value to cultural producers and products. Consecration, however, is a distinct form of valorizationinasmuchas it imposes discretedistinctionsbetweenthose cultural producers and products that deserve admiration and respect and those that do not. Valorization imposes distinctions among cultural producers and products, but these distinctionsare typicallycontinuous ratherthan discrete. Consecration,to the contrary,produces"discontinuityout of continuity"by

874/ Social Forces82:3,March 2004 separatingthe greatfrom the merely good. The study of culturalconsecration 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 introductionto Distinction(Bourdieu 1984:6),he proclaims that "culturalconsecration does indeed confer on the objects, persons and situationsit touchesa sort of ontologicalpromotionakinto transubstantiation." It is importantto note that culturalvalue 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 institutionsof the dominantclass,and "popular" which is based on legitimacy, public acclaim. Moreover,to the extent that a field of cultural production becomes autonomous from the field of economic production, cultural producersbecome more concernedwith the specificlegitimacyconferredupon them by other producersand less concernedwith popular legitimacyor even bourgeois legitimacy,which emanatefrom outside the field of production.In this sense,an autonomousfield of culturalproductionrepresents economic "an world turned upside down" (Bourdieu 1996:81). Cultural consecration is importantbecause it involves grantingculturallegitimacyto certain cultural producersand theirproductsand,by implication,denyingit to otherproducers and their products. Formal rites of cultural consecration are typically conducted by organizations.These consecrationprojectsusuallyinvolve the presentationof honors and awardsthat recognizeachievementsof excellencewithin a field of cultural production. Typically,an award is given to a cultural producer in recognition of their achievementin producing a particularculturalproduct. Of course,one of the purposesof any awardor honor is to provideotherswith incentivesto emulatethose exemplaryachievements(Goode 1978). However, these consecration projects also achieve another purpose. In recognizing exemplaryachievementswithin a field, these culturalorganizationspromote the legitimacyof the entirefield of culturalproduction.This is clearlythe case, for example, with the Pulitzer Prizes. Joseph Pulitzer,who was denounced established these prizes duringhis lifetime for engagingin "yellowjournalism," in order to recognize excellence in the nascent profession of journalism. Pulitzerfelt that the competitionfor these awardsmight fosterhigherstandards among journalists.He also believedthat these awardswould help establishthe cultural legitimacy of journalism as a profession and a field of cultural production. Any formal consecrationproject entails an assertionon the part of an organization that it possesses the institutional legitimacy to consecratecertain culturalproducersand their products as legitimate.Bourdieu (1988:259) re-

TheCultural Consecration American of Films/ 875 fers to this process as "consecration Moreover,the legitithrough contagion." of both the organizationand its consecrationproject are based on the macy perceived legitimacy of its procedures. For example, the legitimacy of the PulitzerPrizesderivesfrom the legitimacyof the PulitzerPrizeCommitteeand the procedures it employs in awarding these prizes. Indeed, as Bourdieu (1991:120) argues,"the distinctions that are the most efficacioussocially are those which give the appearanceof being based on objectivedifferences." Formal culturalconsecrationis especiallyimportant in the field of film production because films are both an art form and an industrialcommodity.Indeed, the Academyof Motion PictureArts and Scienceswas establishedin 1927 by a group of actors,writers,directors,and producersfor the expresspurpose of improvingthe reputationof films as an art form. The AcademyAwardswere achievements the in createdthe followingyear in orderto recognize"outstanding of artsandsciences motionpictures" (Sands1973:46). To some extent, the recognitionthat any culturalproduct or its producer receivesfrom culturalorganizationsand institutionsimmediatelyfollowing its production representsa form of contemporaneousculturalconsecration.For instance,in selectingthe "tenbest"filmsof the year,the NationalBoardof Review is imposing a distinctionbetweenthe best films and all the other films released in that year.In this sense, the Academyof Motion PictureArts and Sciences, and the New York the Times, NationalBoardof Review, the NewYorkFilmCritics culturalconsecrationprojects. are each engagedin theirown contemporaneous However,contemporaneousconsecrationdoes not typicallyimpart the same consecration.In general, culturallegitimacyas that derivedfrom retrospective culturalconsecrationprojectsare more selectivein terms of the retrospective number of cultural products and producersthat are consecrated.Moreover, retrospectivecultural consecrationprojects 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 projectswerepartof largereffortsby theseinstitutionsto confirmthe legitimacy of film as an art form (DiMaggio 1992). One institution, the National Film was createdby the U.S. Congressin 1988.As part of this legislation, Registry, the librarianof Congressis requiredto identifyand preservefilms of "cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance." Everyyear since 1989, the librarian,in Boardand consultationwith the 18 membersof the NationalFilm Preservation of the staffof the Motion PictureDivision of the Library 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 has years,the NationalFilmRegistry chosen 350 films,includingdocumentaries. The other institution, the American Film Institute, was created by the U.S. one Congressin 1965.Accordingto its charter, of its missions is to increasethe

876 / SocialForces 82:3,March2004

"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 greatestAmericanfilms of the century. To this end, it recruited an expert panel of 1,500 film professionals,critics, and scholarsto select the "100 greatestAmerican films of all time" using a list of 400 films compiled by its staff. The AmericanFilm Institute (1997) suggested that these films be selected on the basis of such criteriaas criticalrecognition, historical significance,and culturalimpact. These and other retrospectiveculturalconsecrationprojectsproceed 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 reputationsof artists and their works are often eroded by a process of social Bourdieuasserts(1966:253)that artists aging (Bourdieu1996:254).Specifically, and their works are subjectto "banalization" audiencesbecome increasingly as familiar with the artistic conventions associated with particularartists and genres.As a result,films that receivedprofessionalor criticalacclaimwhen they were released decades ago may seem conventional and unexceptional by contemporarystandards.Indeed, some film scholars(Ray 1985) arguethat, as a result of repetition, the cinematic and thematic conventions of classical and, Hollywood films from the 1930s and 1940s have become "transparent" less compelling to modern film audiences. therefore, The effects of social ageing may explain why many films that were once consideredexceptional,as witnessedby the professionaland criticalrecognition they received at the time of their release, have not been retrospectively consecrated.A case in point is The CountryGirl,which receivedseven major AcademyAwardnominations and was chosen as one of the ten best films of 1954 by both the New YorkTimesand the National Board of Review.Bosley who reviewedthe film for the New York Crowther, Times,proclaimedit to be "one of the fine and forcefulpictures of the year." was also one of the top It ten films in terms of box-office income that year. Despite this professional, Girl critical,and popularrecognition,TheCountry was not includedamong the films retrospectively consecratedby either the AmericanFilm Instituteor the National Film Registry.However,the process of social aging does not explain why many of the films that have been retrospectivelyconsecratedwere not viewed as being all that exceptionalwhen they were first released.As indicated a which was chosenby both the American earlier, case in point is TheSearchers, Film Institute and the National Film Registry,even though it did not garner any professionalor criticalacclaimwhen it was released. In their searchfor artistsand works that "last," retrospectiveconsecration projects inadvertentlyignore 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."

TheCultural Consecration American Films/ 877 of Researchersin the field of collective memory have shown that the cultural of representations public figuresand historicalevents often shift over time in to changingsocial conditions as well as the effortsof individualsand response & groups (Ducharme & Fine 1995; Schwartz1991;Wagner-Pacifici Schwartz Fine (1996) arguesthat the reputationsof historicalfigures 1991). Specifically, are often shaped by the discourse produced by "reputationalentrepreneurs" who possess the requisiteinstitutionaland rhetoricalresourcesto 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 reputationsof films and those who producethem. Forexample,a seminalstudy of Americanfilm directors(Sarris1968) identified John Ford, the directorof TheSearchers, a "pantheondirector" completelyignoredGeorgeSeaton, as but 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 culturalfields have also to the importance of intellectual discourse in the form of texts pointed (Baumann2001; Ferguson1998;Santoro2002). As Ferguson(1998:635)puts it, "in cultural fields, there is no getting around words."It is apparent that discourseis also importantin the processof culturalconsecrationwithin these fields. Specifically,Shrum (1996:35) asserts, "quality standards and quality judgments are ultimately created within the contexts of discourse."Indeed, culturaltheorists(Frow1995;Smith 1983) arguethat aestheticjudgmentsabout cultural products are invariablygenerated within the context of particular "discoursesof value"that regulate the social practice of valorization within different groups. This implies, of course, that different groups, employing variousdiscourses,may value culturalproducersand theirproductsdifferently. The existence of competing discourses of value may explain why films that receive professionalrecognition from other culturalproducersare 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 severaldecades has been auteur theory (Sarris 1968). This theory,which was first articulated in a series of articles published in the French film journal Cahiersdu Cinema beginning in 1956 (Hillier 1985), was important to the legitimationof film studies as a field of academicstudy (Haberski2001). This theory also had the effect of elevating commercial Hollywood films directed by certaindirectorsto the status of art (Mukerji1978).Althoughfilm scholars have developed a number of other discoursesfor interpretingfilms (Andrew 1984), auteur theory still enjoys widespreadpopularitybecause it provides a convenient and accessiblediscourse for evaluatingthe artisticmerits of films (Haberski2001). In brief, auteur theory assertsthat directorsare the primary

878 / SocialForces 82:3,March2004

creativeagents in the production of films. It also assertsthat certaindirectors are able to transcendthe commerciallimitationsimposed by the film industry and impart their own unique and personal artistic visions in their films (Stoddart 1995). It is important to note that discoursesof value can be viewed as cultural schemas.Accordingto DiMaggio (1997:267),culturalschemasare"knowledge that about structures represent objectsor eventsandprovidedefaultassumptions their characteristics, These cultural schemas, relationships,and entailments." in turn, determine which "frames"are employed in particular instances of discourse(Bielby& Bielby 1994). More specifically, auteurtheory,as a cultural to schema,encouragesfilm criticsand scholars,as reputationalentrepreneurs, frametheir discourseabout a film in terms of the contributionsof its director. the Undoubtedly, discourseproducedby film critics and scholarsis important in the creation and maintenance of the reputations of both films and their directors.However,much of their culturalauthorityderivesfrom their ability to frametheir aestheticjudgmentsabout films and directorswithin the context of an established cultural schema such as auteur theory. In fact, Baumann reviewsof films often focused on the identities (2001) found that retrospective of their directors. Moreover, auteur theory celebrates some directors and ignores others. Films directed by auteur directors are considered to possess greaterartisticmerit than films by directedby other directors,who are often seen as nothing more than highly skilled technicians. On the basis of these observations,it is possibleto formulatea preliminary theory of retrospectiveculturalconsecration,especiallyas it applies to films. To begin with, it is anticipatedthat the extent of professional,critical,and even popularrecognitionthat a film receivesat the time of its releasehas a positive effect on its likelihood of being retrospectivelyconsecrated.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 anticipatedthat the extent of critical discourse produced about a film has a consecrated.Indeed, positive effect on its likelihood of being retrospectively given the ascendancyof auteur theory as a culturalschema in film studies, it is also anticipatedthat the extent of discourseassociatedwith the directorof a film has a positiveeffecton its likelihoodof being retrospectively consecrated. Auteurtheory privilegesthe contributionsof directorsover the contributions of other creativeartistsin the productionof a film, but it also privilegessome directorsover others. Consequently,films directed by directorsidentified as auteurs by film critics and scholars are more likely to be retrospectively consecratedthan other films.

TheCultural Consecration American of Films/ 879 Research Design The basic theoreticalissues posed by this researchrequirean examinationof those characteristics lead to the retrospective that consecrationof certainfilms over others. It is not feasible,of course, to analyzeall the tens of thousandsof films producedin the U.S. in the past one hundredyears.However, is possible it to examine the characteristics of a large sample of films that received professional,critical,or popular recognitionat the time of their release.After all, these films are more likely to be retrospectively consecrated than less contemporaneously recognizedfilms. For analytical purposes,it is necessaryto impose certain restrictionson such a sample. First, the sample employed in this study does not include silent films because they are not generally as availableor accessibleto modern audiencesas sound films. Consequently, the includesonly sound films releasedsince 1929.Second,the analysisalso analysis excludesfilms releasedafter 1991 becausethe National Film Registrydoes 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 comparableto live-actionnarrativefilms in terms of the forms of professional recognition employed in this analysis. Professionalrecognitionis bestowed upon artistsand their worksby other artists.One of the most importantforms of professionalrecognitionwithin the film industry is a nomination for an Academy Award (Levy 1990). These nominations are an important measure of peer recognitionbecause only the membersof each individualbranchof the Academyof Motion PictureArtsand Sciencescan nominate films in a given category.For example,only members of the DirectorsBranchcan nominate directorsfor an AcademyAward.As a generalrule, the academyhas permittedonly five nominationsin any category (Sands 1973). The sample of films examined in this analysis includes every Americanfilm that receivedthree or more majorAcademyAwardnominations between 1929 and 1991. For the purposesof this analysis,majornominations includethose in the categoriesof best picture,best director, best actoror actress, best supportingactor 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 AcademyAwardnominations between 1929 and 1991. In contrastto professionalrecognition,criticalrecognitionis 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 Americanfilms selectedas one of the ten best films of the year by the New YorkTimes.The New YorkTimesserves, in effect, as the national newspaperof record and its reviewshave an inordinateimpact on the critical

880 / SocialForces 82:3, March2004

Timesselected a total of receptionof films. From 1929 to 1991, the New York the 428 Americansfilms among its ten best films of the year.Similarly, sample includes all the Americanfilms selectedas one of the ten best films of the year by the National Board of Review.The National Board of Reviewwas created by the film industryin 1916 as a censorshipbody. However,once this function was renderedobsolete by the imposition of the Production Code in 1927, it "a began publishingreviewsthat advocatedthat films represented new type of 1994:209), art"(Haberski2001:49).Accordingto one film historian(Koszarski the National Board of Review "set the agenda for serious film study in this period."From 1929 to 1991, the National Boardof Reviewselected a total of 528 Americanfilms among its ten best films of the year. Finally,a film may receivepopular recognition even if it does not receive professionalor criticalrecognition.The popular recognition of a film is best measuredby how many people paid to see the film at the time of its initial theatricalrelease.The only reliablemeasureof audienceattendanceis the boxoffice revenue of a film. Box-office revenue is equal to the total box-office by receiptsminus the exhibitionfees charged theaterowners.Using the available data, it is possible to identifythe 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 revenuewere obtained from annual compilationspublishedby either Variety the or the HollywoodReporter, two major trade publications of the motion data on actualbox-office revenuewere availablefor pictureindustry.Although most films, it is difficultto comparethese data over time due to the effectsof the inflation. Consequently, sample of films included in this analysisincludes 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, actuallycontains 1,277 films. that contribute to the This analysis seeks to identify those characteristics of films. Consequently,informationwas compiled retrospectiveconsecration Firstand foremost,this analysis for each of these films on a numberof variables. examines the effects of contemporaneous professional recognition on the retrospectiveconsecrationof films. The analysismeasuresnot only the total number of major AcademyAwardnominations receivedby each film at the time of its releasebut also the types of nominations it received.This research also examines the effects of contemporaneous critical recognition on the the of culturalconsecration films.Specifically, analysisidentifiesthoseAmerican films that were selected as being among the ten best films of the year by the New York Timesor among the ten best films of the yearby the NationalBoard of Review.In addition,the analysisidentifiesthose Americanfilms that received annualawardsfrom the New YorkFilm CriticsCirclefor best picture,best actor

TheCultural Consecration American of Films/ 881 Thereare,of course,other importantfilm awards and actress,and best director. but they do not span the time period encompassedby this research.Indeed, since the New YorkFilm CriticsCircledid not issue any awardsprior to 1935, any analysisinvolvingthis variableis limited to those films releasedsince then. Finally, the analysis identifies those films that received contemporaneous popularrecognitionin that they were among the top ten films in terms of boxoffice revenuein a given year. The analysisalso examinesthe extent of criticaldiscourseboth about each film and its director.For the purposes of this analysis,the extent of critical discourseabout each film is measuredby the number of times that it has been discussedat length in film anthologies.This informationwas compiled from a comprehensiveindex of film anthologies (Bowles 1994). Of the 1,277 films in the sample,489 were featuredin at least one film anthology.Of these, 142 were featured in three or more film anthologies. Similarly,the extent of critical discourseabout directorsis measuredby the numberof books publishedabout them. The 1,277 films included in the sample were directedby 411 directors. Of these, 142 directorswere the subjectof at least one book and 60 were the subjectof at least three books. The books about each directorwere identified using the WorldCat database, an electronic version of the Union Catalog databasethat includesinformationon the holdings of all majorlibrariesin the U.S. Only books publishedin Englishareincludedin the analysis. given Finally, the fact that both of these measuresof critical discoursehave highly skewed distributions, they are subjected to square-root transformations in all the statisticalanalyses. Of the 1,277 films in the sample, 83 were selectedfor inclusion among the 100 greatestfilms by the American Film Institute and 131 were selected for inclusion in the NationalFilm Registry. The AmericanFilm Institute,included seven narrativefilms released from 1929 to 1991 that were not among only the 1,277 films in the sample.However,the NationalFilm Registryincludes68 narrativefilms releasedbetween 1929 and 1991 that were not included in the sample. This disparity arises because the National Film Registry employs selection criteriathat are purposelymore eclectic than those employedby the AmericanFilm Institute.For example,the National Film Registryincludes 16 inexpensivebut historicallysignificant"B"films, such as Gun Crazyand The Night of the LivingDead. It also includes 13 equallyinexpensivebut innovative Seven.In independentfilms, such as Shadowsand The Returnof the Secaucus all, only 29 of these 68 narrativefilms were major featurefilms. They include such diversefilms as DuckSoupand TheManchurian Candidate.

882 / SocialForces 82:3,March2004

Results The analysisexamines the effects of the differentforms of contemporaneous recognition and critical discourse associatedwith 1,277 films releasedover a consecrated period of six decades on their likelihood of being retrospectively either the AmericanFilm Instituteor the National Film Registry. Since the by variableis simply whether a film is retrospectively consecrated,the dependent most appropriate statisticaltechniquefor this analysisis logistic regression.In view of the fact that the parametersof logistic regressionmodels are not easy to interpretdirectly,this analysispresents the odds ratios obtained from the exponentiatedcoefficientsof these models.An odds ratiogreaterthan 1 implies that there is a positive relationshipbetween an independentvariableand the odds that a film was retrospectively consecrated(Bishop, Fienberg& Holland An odds ratio less than 1 implies that there is a negative relationship 1975). between an independentvariableand the odds of retrospectiveconsecration. 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 consecrated. release,as well as its age, on its likelihoodof being retrospectively Next, it examines the effects of the significant forms of contemporaneous recognition in conjunction with the extent of discourse about a film and its directoron its odds of being retrospectively consecrated. The results of five logistic regressionanalysesof the effects of various sets of variableson the likelihoodof a film being selectedas one of the 100 greatest films of all time by the AmericanFilm Institutearepresentedin Table1. Model 1 includes only the age of a film and the extent of its popular recognition as independentvariables.It revealsthat being among the top ten films of the year in terms of box-officerevenuehas a positiveeffecton the odds of consecration. Model 2 includes the age of a film and the forms of professionalrecognition as independentvariables. This model revealsthat receivingan AcademyAward nomination for best directorand, to a lesser extent, receivingnominationsfor 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 recognitionas independentvariables.It revealsthat being selectedamong the ten best films of the year by the New YorkTimesand the National Board of Review and receivingawardsfrom the New YorkFilm Criticsfor best picture and best actor have positive effects on the likelihood of retrospective consecrationby the AmericanFilm Institute. The age of a film has no effect on the likelihood of retrospectiveconsecrationin any of these models. Model 4 in Table1 includesthe age of a film and all these variousforms of popular,professional,and criticalrecognitionas independentvariables.When these variablesare consideredsimultaneously,only being among the top ten films of the year in terms of box-office revenue and receiving an Academy Awardnominationfor best directorhavesignificantpositiveeffectson the odds

The CulturalConsecrationof AmericanFilms / 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 1 1.00 Age of film ten box office 2.97** Top Bestpicturenomination Best directornomination Best actorsnomination Bestscreenwriter nomination Best cinematographer nomination Besteditor nomination Best art directornomination Best musicaldir.nomination New York Times10 best Nat. Boardof Review 10 best N.Y.F.C. best picture N.Y.F.C. best director N.Y.F.C. best actors Books about director (squareroot) Anthology entries (squareroot) X2 PseudoR2 N 21.9 .035 1,277 Model 2 1.00 1.91 9.05** 1.23 1.84 1.03 2.01* 0.83 1.80* 2.32** 1.92* 2.59* 2.24t 1.98* Model 3 1.00 Model 4 0.99 3.74** 1.38 10.49** 1.81 1.75 1.05 1.50 1.05 1.83t 1.70 0.85 0.88 2.40t 1.14 Model 5

6.26** 21.97**

2.25*

2.27t 1.43** 3.70**

211.8 .345 1,277

77.9 .135 1,162

228.3 .395 1,162

318.3 .551 1,162

tp<.10

*p<.05 **p<.01

of retrospective consecration. However, receiving an Academy Award nomination for best musical director and receiving a New York Film Critics award for best director also have marginally significant positive effects on the odds of consecration. Finally, model 5 includes all these variables as well as the two measures of critical discourse as independent variables. It reveals that both the number of books about the director of a film and the number of anthology entries about a film have significant positive effects on the odds of retrospective consecration by the American Film Institute. Moreover, being among the top ten films of the year in terms of box-office revenue and receiving Academy Award nominations for best director and best musical director also have significant positive effects on the likelihood of retrospective consecration. The results of parallel logistic regression analyses of the effects of these same sets of variables on the likelihood of a film being selected for inclusion on the National Film Registry are presented in Table 2. As before, model 1 includes

884 / Social Forces 82:3,March2004 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 1 1.01** Ageof film ten 1.17 Top boxoffice Bestpicture nomination Bestdirector nomination Bestactors nomination nomination Bestscreenwriter nomination Bestcinematographer Besteditor nomination nomination Bestartdirector director nomination Bestmusical 10 NewYork Times best Board Review best of 10 National N.Y.F.C. picture best best N.Y.F.C. director N.Y.F.C. actors best Booksaboutdirector root) (square entries(square root) Anthology X2 Pseudo R2 N t p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 9.0 .011 1,277 Model 2 1.02** 2.09** 2.26** 1.13 2.12** .88 1.16 1.34 .86 2.45** 1.64* 1.48 3.06** 1.71t Model 3 1.02** Model 4 1.02** 1.35 1.86* 1.94* 1.06 2.11** .91 .98 1.55' .87 1.84** 1.14 .72 2.76* 1.18 Model 5 1.01 1.58 1.64 2.00*

1.41 1.35

2.36* 1.20* 3.03**

133.4 .159 1,277

90.8 .118 1,162

150.3 .195 1,162

250.9 .325 1,162

only the age of a film and popular recognitionas independentvariables.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 professionalrecognition as independentvariables.It revealsthat the age of a film and receivingAcademyAwardnominations for best picture,best director havepositiveeffectson the odds of consecration. Model 3 and best screenwriter includes the age of a film and various forms of critical recognition as independentvariables.This model revealsthat the age of a film, being selected Timesand the National among the ten best films of the year by the New York Board of Review,and receivingan awardfrom the New YorkFilm Criticsfor consecration best directorhavepositiveeffectson the likelihoodof retrospective the National Film Registry. by Model 4 in Table2 includesthe age of a film and all these variousmeasures of popular, professional, and critical recognition as independent variables.

of TheCultural Consecration American Films/ 885 When these variablesare consideredsimultaneously, 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 and receivinga New YorkFilm Criticsawardfor best directorhave Times, significantpositive effects on the odds of consecration.However,receivingan AcademyAwardnomination for best art directorhas a marginallysignificant 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 retrospectiveconsecrationby the NationalFilm Registry. Awardnomination Moreover, receivingan Academy for best screenwriterand receiving a New York Film Critics award for best directoralso have positive significanteffectson the likelihood of retrospective consecration. These results of these analysesrequire further explication on two points. First,the fact that the effects of receivingan AcademyAwardnomination for best directorand best picture are not statistically significantin the final model for retrospective consecrationby the National Film Registrycan be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that these two measuresof professionalrecognition are highly correlated(0.614). If either variableis deleted from this model, the other becomes statisticallysignificant. Indeed, the correlationbetween these two measuresof professionalconsecrationsuggeststhat even members of the Academyof Motion PictureArts and Sciencesassociatethe excellenceof a film with the achievementsof its director.Second,it must be noted that the extent of criticaldiscoursereceivedby a film is undoubtedlyaffectedby the popular, professional,and criticalrecognitionthat it receivesat the time of its release. The final models in both Table 1 and Table2 examine only the direct effects of these independentvariables.The total effects of these variables,including their indirect effects through the critical discourse variables, are more substantialand significantthan their direct effects. Indeed, that is the reason in why the effectsof these independentvariablesare examinedseparately these models. As one might expect,there are a number of similaritiesbetweenthe results presentedin Table1 and those presentedin Table2. In both sets of analyses,it is apparentthat the contemporaneous recognition received by the director, either in terms of AcademyAwardnominations for best directoror New York Film Critics awards for best director, has a positive effect on the odds of The extentof criticaldiscourseabouta film, in terms consecration. retrospective of the number of anthology entries, and the extent of criticaldiscourseabout its director,in terms of the number of books about the director,also have a positive effect on the odds of retrospectiveconsecration.However,there are between these two analysesas well. Popularrecognition, importantdifferences

886 / SocialForces 82:3,March2004 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 of Booksabout Director Mean Number of Entries in Anthologies 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.6 4.2** 5.3** 6.3**

Number Allfilmsamong tenin top revenue tear box-office each Allfilmswith3 ormore Award nominations Academy AllFilms selected National by Board Review of AllFilms Times selected NewYork by Films selected National Film by Registry Films selected American by FilmInstitute Films selected bothAmerican Film by FilmRegistry Institute National and
**p<.01

582 553 582 482 131 83 65

2.8 4.0 3.8 4.8 7.0** 8.2** 9.2

in the form of being among the top ten films in a given year in terms of boxoffice 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 AcademyAward nomination for best director has a much greater effect on the odds of retrospectiveconsecrationby the AmericanFilm Institute than it has on the odds of retrospective consecrationby the National Film Registry. A comparisonof the goodness-of-fitstatisticsfor these two models indicates that the variables used in this analysisaccountfor the selectionsof the American Film Institutebetter than they account for the selectionsof the National Film Registry.Overall,the similaritiesbetween these two analysessuggest that the consecration implicitcriteria employedin theseretrospective projectsaresimilar
but not identical. Indeed, it is possible to measure directly the association

between the results of these two independent retrospective consecration the projects.As noted earlier, 1,277 contemporaneously recognizedfilms in the include 131 of the 202 narrativesound films selectedfor the National sample Film Registryand 83 of the 93 narrativesound films selectedby the American Film Institute.Altogether,there are 65 films that are on both lists. The Yule's Q for the associationbetween the list of best films identifiedby the American

TheCultural Consecration American of Films/ 887 Film Instituteand the list of best films identifiedby the NationalFilm Registry is 0.958. In short, prior knowledgeof whetherfilms are on one list reducesthe 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 apparentthat these two retrospectiveconsecrationprojectsyield very similar results. It can be arguedthat the accumulationof extensivecriticaldiscourseabout a film and its director contributesto the formation of a consensus that it is worthy of retrospectiveconsecration. Table 3 presents the mean number of books about the directorsand the mean number of entriesin film anthologies for the films in the sample. It is apparentthat those films that are consensus selections for retrospectiveconsecration,those selectedby both the American Film Institute and the National Film Registry,have significantlymore books about their directorsand more entries in film anthologiesthan films selected those films that were selected by only one of these two institutions.Moreover, 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 selectionsfor retrospectiveconsecrationare the objectsof much more critical discoursethan other films. Indeed,the 65 films that were consensusselections for retrospectiveconsecrationhad four times as many entries in anthologies as did other contemporaneouslyrecognized films. Similarly,the directorsof 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 discourseof value appliedto films has a differentialeffect on their likelihood of being retrospectivelyconsecrated. The ascendancy of auteur theory as a culturalschema in films studies servesnot only to privilegethe contributions in of directorsover those of other collaborators the productionof films, it also serves to privilegesome directorsover others. Although there is no definitive directory of auteur directors, they have generallybeen the subjects of more books by film scholars than other directors.Table4 presents a list of the 29 directorswho had two or more films selected for retrospectiveconsecration, 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 nominationsreceivedby these directorsand the numberof books writtenabout them. The number of books written about each of these 29 directorsis 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 AcademyAwardnominations received by these directors is also closely related to the number of their films selected by the American Film

888 / SocialForces 82:3,March2004 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 Nameof Director Alfred Hitchcock JohnFord Steven Spielberg Wilder Billy William Wyler Martin Scorsese Francis FordCoppola Kubrick Stanley Frank Capra Stevens George Huston John Hawks Howard Michael Curtiz Cukor George EliaKazan David Lean Wise Robert Vincente Minnelli Lucas George Orson Welles Allen Woody Robert Altman SamPeckinpah MilosForman Zinneman Fred Lewis Milestone LeoMcCarey Franklin Schaffner Victor Fleming AFI List 4 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 NFR List 5 6 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 BestDirector Booksabout Nominations Director 5 5 4 8 12 3 4 4 6 5 5 1 4 5 5 7 3 2 2 1 6 4 0 3 7 5 3 1 1 42 8 19 10 5 14 9 12 16 1 10 9 4 9 12 6 1 6 7 21 23 9 5 3 2 2 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

Films/ 889 TheCultural Consecration American of they each receivedonly one best directornomination during their careers.At the same time, however,there are directorswho 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 generallyconsidered to be an auteur director even though they received severalAcademyAwardsnominations for best director during films directedby these directorswere their careers.In these cases,the particular retrospectively consecrated because the films themselves received contemporaneous professional and critical recognition and have been the subjects of considerablediscourse in the form of entries in film anthologies. For example, George Stevens directedA Place in the Sun and Michael Curtiz directedCasablanca. Both of these films garnered Awardnominations Academy for both best picture and best director and are routinely mentioned in film anthologies.

Conclusions This researchprovidesconsiderableempiricalconfirmationfor the theoretical advanced thisstudyconcerning processof retrospective the cultural propositions by 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 consecrated. positiveeffectson its likelihoodof being retrospectively In addition, the extent of subsequent critical discourse about a film and its directorhas significantpositiveeffectson its odds of retrospective consecration. the fact that older films have often been the subject of more articles Indeed, and books than newerfilms may accountfor the findingthat age does not have consecrationof films. Moreover, any effect on the retrospective despitethe fact that the National Film Registryhas a slightly broadermandate than did the AmericanFilm Institute in selecting films of cultural,historical, or aesthetic significance,the two retrospectiveconsecrationprojectsachievedvery similar results.Those narrativefilms selectedby one institutionwere very likely to be chosen by the other. However,films that receivedpopular recognition at the time of their releasewere more likely to be retrospectively consecratedby the AmericanFilm Institutethan they were by the National Film Registry. In general,these findings confirm the argumentthat the valorizationand of consecration cultural and is at retrospective producers products influenced, least to some extent,by the activities reputational of who areresponsible entrepreneurs for producingmuch of the discoursewithin a field of culturalproduction(Fine 1996). With the emergenceof film studies as an academicdiscipline, a large volume of discourse,in the form of articlesand books about films and their directors, is produced each year. Film critics and scholars are able to act as reputationalentrepreneurs choosing to study some directorsand their films by

890/ Social Forces82:3,March 2004 and ignore other directorsand their films. At the same time, however,these findings suggest that the culturalauthorityexercisedby these film critics and scholars is constrainedby 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 judgmentsof films in terms of the contributionsof their directors.Moreover, once certain directorshave been identified as auteurs, it is difficult for film critics and scholarsto ignore them or their films. The fact that John Ford is consideredas an auteurdirectorand GeorgeSeatonis not may be the primary reasonwhy TheSearchers retrospectively was consecratedand TheCountry Girl was not. The results of these analysesalso revealsome of the limitations of auteur theory.Auteurdirectors,those who havebeen subjectsof numerousbooks, are more likelyto have their films retrospectively consecratedthan other directors. The films of less celebrateddirectorsmay be retrospectively consecratedbut if they receivedsufficient professional,critical,and popular recognition only at the time of their release.Moreover,this theory does not explainwhy some directorsand theirfilmswerethe subjectsof more books and articlesthan other directorsand their films. Some very accomplisheddirectors,who have received considerableprofessionalor criticalrecognition,have not been the subjectsof very many articlesor books. It is beyond the scope of this analysisto explain why some directorsare consideredauteursby film scholarsand critics while others are dismissed as mere technicians. There is some evidence that the original proponents of auteur theory favored those directorswho were seen to possessa distinctand consistentcinematicstyle (Hiller 1985). In short,these use theorists argued that auteur directors,by their characteristic of lighting, and staging, left an identifiable imprint on their films (Bordwell & camera, Thompson 1993). Whateverthe criteria,this discourseproducedby the early contributorsto the Frenchfilm journalCahiers Cinemaand laterAmerican du of auteur theory (Sarris 1968) has had a profound effect on the proponents artistic reputationsof certain directorsand their films. In recentyears,auteurtheoryhas been supplementedby a numberof other film theories, such as genre theory and feminist theory. These alternative culturalschemas,which are more interpretative than evaluativein nature,have enabledfilm scholarsto examinethe historicaland culturalinfluenceson both film production (Schatz 1988) and audience reception (Jenkins 1995). However, auteur theory remains the predominant discourse of value with respectto films (Corrigan1991;Dudley 1993). Its appealcan 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 theoryis popularas an evaluativetheorybecauseit invitescomparisonsamong the films directedby the same director. unlikemost of the other cultural Finally, schemas applied to films, auteur theory is both simple and accessible.At the

The CulturalConsecrationof AmericanFilms / 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. "AFILaunchesMajor Celebrationof the 100th Anniversaryof American Movies."PressRelease(November 19, 1997). Andrew,Dudley. 1984. Conceptsin Film Theory.Oxford UniversityPress. Baumann, Shyon. 2001. "Intellectualizationand Art World Development: Film in the United States." AmericanSociological Review66:404-26. Becker,Howard. 1982. Art Worlds. Universityof CaliforniaPress. Beisel, Nicola. 1993. "Moral versus Art: Censorship, the Politics of Interpretation, and the VictorianNude."AmericanSociological Review58:145-62. Bielby,William T., and Denise D. Bielby.1994."'AllHits Are Flukes':InstitutionalizedDecision American Journal Makingand the Rhetoricof NetworkPrime-TimeProgramDevelopment." 99:1287-1313. of Sociology Bishop, Yvonne M.M., Stephen E. Fienberg,and Paul W. Holland. 1975. DiscreteMultivariate MIT Press. Analysis:Theoryand Practice. McGraw-Hill. Bordwell,David, and KristinThompson. 1993. FilmArt:An Introduction. A Harvard Bourdieu,Pierre.1984.Distinction: SocialCritique theJudgement Taste. of of University Press.

892 / Social Forces 82:3, March 2004 . 1988.HomoAcademicus. Polity Press.

. 1991.Languageand SymbolicPower.HarvardUniversityPress.
1993. TheField of CulturalProduction.Columbia UniversityPress. Field. StanfordUniversity ?1996. TheRulesofArt: Genesisand Structureof the Literary Press. Index.ScarecrowPress. Bowles, Stephen E. 1994. TheFilm Anthologies Corrigan, Timothy. 1991. Cinema without Walls:Movies and Cultureafter Vietnam. Rutgers UniversityPress. Corse, SarahM., and Monica D. Griffin. 1997. "CulturalValorizationand African-American Forum12:173-203. LiteraryHistory:Re-Constructingthe Canon."Sociological and Hollywood."Pp. 310-24 in The OxfordGuide to Film Crofts, Stephen. 1998. "Authorship Studies,edited by John Hill and Pamela ChurchGibson. Oxford UniversityPress. DeNora, Tia. 1995. Beethovenand the Construction Genius:MusicalPoliticsin Vienna,1792of 1803. Universityof CaliforniaPress. Boundariesand StructuralChange:The Extensionof the High DiMaggio,Paul. 1992."Cultural Culture Model to Theater,Opera, and the Dance, 1900-1940."Pp. 21-57 in Cultivating Differences: SymbolicBoundariesand the Makingof Inequality,edited by Michele Lamont and MarcelFournier.Universityof Chicago Press. AnnualReviewof Sociology 23:263-87. .1997. "Cultureand Cognition." the Dowd, TimothyJ.,KathleenLiddle,Kim Lupo,and Anne Borden.2002. "Organizing Musical Canon:The Repertoiresof MajorU.S. SymphonyOrchestras,1842 to 1969." Poetics30:3561. Ducharme, Lori, and Gary Alan Fine. 1995. "Nonpersonhood, Demonization, and Negative Commemoration: Constructing the 'Traitorous'Reputation of Benedict Arnold."Social Forces73:1309-31. Pp. Dudley,Andrew.1993."The UnauthorizedAuteurToday." 77-85 in Film TheoryGoesto the Movies, edited by Jim Collins, Hilary Radner,and Ava P. Collins. Routledge. RobertR., and Andy B. Anderson. 1987."Short-Term Faulkner, Projectsand EmergentCareers: Evidencefrom Hollywood." American 92:879-909. Journalof Sociology and Arcade Feldman,Burton.2000. TheNobel Prize:A Historyof Genius,Controversy, Prestige. Publishing. 1998."ACulturalFieldin the Making:Gastronomyin Nineteenth Ferguson,PriscillaParkhurst. American Journalof Sociology104:597-641. CenturyFrance." and Fine, GaryAlan. 1996."Reputational Entrepreneurs the Memory of Incompetence:Melting AmericanJournalof Supporters, PartisanWarriors,and Images of President Harding." 101:1159-93. Sociology Frow,John. 1995. CulturalStudiesand CulturalValue.CambridgeUniversityPress. As Goode,WilliamJ. 1978. The Celebration Heroes: of Prestige a SocialControlSystem. University of CaliforniaPress. in Culture. Haberski, University RaymondJ.Jr.2001.It'sOnlya Movie:Filmsand Critics American of KentuckyPress. Heinich, Nathalie. 1996. The Glory of Van Gogh:An Anthropologyof Admiration.Princeton UniversityPress.

The Cultural Consecration of American Films / 893 Hillier, Jim. 1985. Introduction to Cahiersdu Cinema:The 1950s - Neo-Realism,Hollywood, New Wave,edited by Jim Hillier. HarvardUniversityPress. and James,Bill. 1994. Whatever Happenedto theHall of Fame?Baseball,Cooperstown, thePolitics of Glory.Simon & Schuster. to Jenkins,Henry. 1995. "HistoricalPoetics."Pp. 99-122 in Approaches PopularFilm, edited by Joanne Hollows and MarkJancovich.ManchesterUniversityPress. The Kapsis,Robert E. 1992. Hitchcock: Makingof a Reputation.Universityof Chicago Press. Richard.1994.An Evening's Entertainment: Age of the SilentFeature The Koszarski, Picture,19151928. Universityof CaliforniaPress. Lamont,Michee. 1987."Howto Become a Dominant FrenchPhilosopher:The Case of Jacques Derrida." AmericanSociological Review93:584-622. Lang,GladysEngel,and KurtL. Lang. 1988."Recognitionand Renown:The Survivalof Artistic American 94:78-109. Journalof Sociology Reputation." Levy, Emanuel. 1990. And the Winner Is...: The History and Politics of the Oscar Awards. Continuum. Collection and ContemporaryCulture." AmericanJournal Mukerji,Chandra. 1978. "Artwork: 84:348-65. of Sociology Ray, Robert B. 1985. A Certain Tendencyof the Hollywood Cinema, 1930-1980. Princeton UniversityPress. Artsand Sciences Sands,PierreNorman. 1973.A Historical Studyof theAcademyof MotionPicture (1927-1947). Arno Press. Distinction and Authorshipin Italian (Popular) Santoro,Marco.2002. "WhatIs a 'Cantautore?' Poetics30:111-32. Music." Sarris,Andrew. 1968. TheAmericanCinema:Directorsand Directions,1929-1968. Dutton. Schatz, Thomas. 1988. The Genius of the System:Hollywood Filmmakingin the Studio Era. Pantheon. Schwartz,Barry.1991."SocialChangeand CollectiveMemory:The Democratizationof George AmericanSociological Review56:221-36. Washington." Shrum, Wesley M., Jr. 1996. Fringeand Fortune:The Role of Criticsin High and PopularArt. PrincetonUniversityPress. CriticalInquiry10:1-35. Smith, BarbaraHerrnstein.1983."Contingenciesof Value." Stoddart, Helen. 1995. "Auteurismand Film Authorship Theory."Pp. 37-57 in Approachesto ManchesterUniversityPress. PopularFilm, edited by JoanneHollows and MarkJancovich. 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: American 97:376-420. Journalof Sociology Commemoratinga Difficult Past." a Zolberg,VeraL. 1990. Constructing Sociologyof theArts.CambridgeUniversityPress.