Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of Ameri.docx

Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American
Films
Author(s): Michael Patrick Allen and Anne E. Lincoln
Source: Social Forces, Vol. 82, No. 3 (Mar., 2004), pp. 871-893
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3598360
Accessed: 12-03-2019 06:03 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3598360?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked
references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access
to Social Forces
This content downloaded from 172.113.250.229 on Tue, 12 Mar
2019 06:03:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration
of American Films*
MICHAEL PATRICK ALLEN, Washington State University
ANNE E. LINCOLN, Washington State University
Abstract
This research examines the effects of contemporaneous critical,
professional, and
popular recognition, as well as the effects of the extent of
subsequent critical discourse
aboutfilms and their directors, on the retrospective cultural
consecration of American
films. Specifically, it examines a sample of 1,277films released
from 1929 to 1991
that received three or more major Academy Award nominations
or were selected
among the ten bestfilms of the year by either the New York
Times or the National
Board of Review or were among the top ten films in terms of
box-office revenues in
a given year. The analysis focuses on the characteristics of
those films that were
retrospectively consecrated either by inclusion among the 100

greatest films by the
American Film Institute or by inclusion in the National Film
Registry.
Contemporaneous professional and recognition of the director
of a film is especially
important in determining the likelihood of retrospective
consecration. In addition,
the extent of critical discourse both about a film and about its
director is important
in determining the likelihood of retrospective consecration.
Overall, the findings
confirm that the retrospective consecration of films is affected
by the discourse
produced by film critics and scholars who function, in effect,
as reputational
entrepreneurs. However, this discourse is influenced by the
availability of certain
cultural schemas. Specifically, the ascendancy of "auteur
theory" as a discourse of
value within film studies serves to privilege the director as the
primary creative agent
in film production. It also serves to privilege certain directors
over others.
In 1989, when the National Film Preservation Board selected
the first 25 films
to be included in the National Film Registry, one of the films
chosen was The
* The authors are indebted to John Campbell, Mary Blair-Loy,
Paul DiMaggio, Denise Bielby,
William Bielby, John Mohr, Michael Schudson, Gary Alan
Fine, Tom Rotolo, Greg Hooks, Amy
Wharton, and the members of the Social Inequalities Workshop
at Washington State University

for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Please direct all correspondence to
Michael P. Allen, Department of Sociology, Washington State
University, Pullman, WA 99164-
4020. E-mail: [email protected]
? The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March
2004, 82(3):871-894
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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).

2019 06:03:47 UTC
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
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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-
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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

2019 06:03:47 UTC
"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."
2019 06:03:47 UTC
Researchers in the field of collective memory have shown that
the cultural

representations of public figures and historical events often
shift over time in
response to changing social conditions as well as the efforts of
individuals and
groups (Ducharme & Fine 1995; Schwartz 1991; Wagner-
Pacifici & Schwartz
1991). Specifically, Fine (1996) argues that the reputations of
historical figures
are often shaped by the discourse produced by "reputational
entrepreneurs"
who possess the requisite institutional and rhetorical resources
to produce and
disseminate this discourse. This same process undoubtedly
affects the
reputations of cultural products and producers as well. It is
likely that film
critics and film scholars, who possess both the institutional and
rhetorical
resources to produce this discourse, are able to shape, to some
extent, the
reputations of films and those who produce them. For example,
a seminal study
of American film directors (Sarris 1968) identified John Ford,
the director of
The Searchers, as a "pantheon director" but completely ignored
George Seaton,
the director of The Country Girl. Similarly, there have been
eight books
published about John Ford but only one about George Seaton.
Researchers who have examined the formation of cultural fields
have also
pointed to the importance of intellectual discourse in the form
of texts

(Baumann 2001; Ferguson 1998; Santoro 2002). As Ferguson
(1998:635) puts
it, "in cultural fields, there is no getting around words." It is
apparent that
discourse is also important in the process of cultural
consecration within these
fields. Specifically, Shrum (1996:35) asserts, "quality
standards and quality
judgments are ultimately created within the contexts of
discourse." Indeed,
cultural theorists (Frow 1995; Smith 1983) argue that aesthetic
judgments about
cultural products are invariably generated within the context of
particular
"discourses of value" that regulate the social practice of
valorization within
different groups. This implies, of course, that different groups,
employing
various discourses, may value cultural producers and their
products differently.
The existence of competing discourses of value may explain
why films that
receive professional recognition from other cultural producers
are not always
the same films as those that receive critical recognition from
critics and
scholars.
Within film studies, the predominant discourse of value over
the past
several decades has been auteur theory (Sarris 1968). This
theory, which was
first articulated in a series of articles published in the French
film journal
Cahiers du Cinema beginning in 1956 (Hillier 1985), was

important to the
legitimation of film studies as a field of academic study
(Haberski 2001). This
theory also had the effect of elevating commercial Hollywood
films directed
by certain directors to the status of art (Mukerji 1978).
Although film scholars
have developed a number of other discourses for interpreting
films (Andrew
1984), auteur theory still enjoys widespread popularity because
it provides a
convenient and accessible discourse for evaluating the artistic
merits of films
(Haberski 2001). In brief, auteur theory asserts that directors
are the primary
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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.

2019 06:03:47 UTC
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
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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.
2019 06:03:47 UTC

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

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
2019 06:03:47 UTC
TABLE 1: Logistic Regression Analyses (Odds Ratios) of the
Effects of
Professional, Critical, and Popular Recognition, Age, and
Extent
of Discourse on the Selection of Films As One of the 100
Greatest Films by the American Film Institute, 1929-1991
Model Model Model Model Model

1 2 3 4 5
Age of film 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Top ten box office 2.97** 3.74** 6.26**
Best picture nomination 1.91 1.38
Best director nomination 9.05** 10.49** 21.97**
Best actors nomination 1.23 1.81
Best screenwriter nomination 1.84 1.75
Best cinematographer nomination 1.03 1.05
Best editor nomination 2.01* 1.50
Best art director nomination 0.83 1.05
Best musical dir. nomination 1.80* 1.83t 2.25*
New York Times 10 best 2.32** 1.70
Nat. Board of Review 10 best 1.92* 0.85
N.Y.F.C. best picture 2.59* 0.88
N.Y.F.C. best director 2.24t 2.40t 2.27t
N.Y.F.C. best actors 1.98* 1.14
Books about director (square root) 1.43**
Anthology entries (square root) 3.70**
X2 21.9 211.8 77.9 228.3 318.3
Pseudo R2 .035 .345 .135 .395 .551
N 1,277 1,277 1,162 1,162 1,162
tp<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01
of retrospective consecration. However, receiving an Academy

Award
nomination for best musical director and receiving a New York
Film Critics
award for best director also have marginally significant
positive effects on the
odds of consecration. Finally, model 5 includes all these
variables as well as the
two measures of critical discourse as independent variables. It
reveals that both
the number of books about the director of a film and the
number of anthology
entries about a film have significant positive effects on the
odds of retrospective
consecration by the American Film Institute. Moreover, being
among the top
ten films of the year in terms of box-office revenue and
receiving Academy
Award nominations for best director and best musical director
also have
significant positive effects on the likelihood of retrospective
consecration.
The results of parallel logistic regression analyses of the
effects of these same
sets of variables on the likelihood of a film being selected for
inclusion on the
National Film Registry are presented in Table 2. As before,
model 1 includes
2019 06:03:47 UTC

TABLE 2: Logistic Regression Analyses (Odds Ratios) of the
Effects of
Professional, Critical, and Popular Recognition, Age, and
Extent
of Discourse on the Selection of Films for Inclusion in National
Film Registry, 1929-1991
Model Model Model Model Model
1 2 3 4 5
Age of film 1.01** 1.02** 1.02** 1.02** 1.01
Top ten box office 1.17 1.35
Best picture nomination 2.09** 1.86* 1.58
Best director nomination 2.26** 1.94* 1.64
Best actors nomination 1.13 1.06
Best screenwriter nomination 2.12** 2.11** 2.00*
Best cinematographer nomination .88 .91
Best editor nomination 1.16 .98
Best art director nomination 1.34 1.55' 1.41
Best musical director nomination .86 .87
New York Times 10 best 2.45** 1.84** 1.35
National Board of Review 10 best 1.64* 1.14
N.Y.F.C. best picture 1.48 .72
N.Y.F.C. best director 3.06** 2.76* 2.36*

N.Y.F.C. best actors 1.71t 1.18
Books about director (square root) 1.20*
Anthology entries (square root) 3.03**
X2 9.0 133.4 90.8 150.3 250.9
Pseudo R2 .011 .159 .118 .195 .325
N 1,277 1,277 1,162 1,162 1,162
t p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01
only the age of a film and popular recognition as independent
variables. This
model reveals that only age of film has a positive effect on the
odds of
consecration. Model 2 includes the age of a film and various
forms of
professional recognition as independent variables. It reveals
that the age of a
film and receiving Academy Award nominations for best
picture, best director
and best screenwriter have positive effects on the odds of
consecration. Model 3
includes the age of a film and various forms of critical
recognition as
independent variables. This model reveals that the age of a
film, being selected
among the ten best films of the year by the New York Times
and the National
Board of Review, and receiving an award from the New York
Film Critics for
best director have positive effects on the likelihood of
retrospective consecration
by the National Film Registry.

Model 4 in Table 2 includes the age of a film and all these
various measures
of popular, professional, and critical recognition as
independent variables.
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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,
2019 06:03:47 UTC

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
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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
2019 06:03:47 UTC

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
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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
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
2019 06:03:47 UTC

and ignore other directors and their films. At the same time,
however, these
findings suggest that the cultural authority exercised by these
film critics and
scholars is constrained by the cultural schemas employed in
this discourse.
Given the ascendancy of auteur theory as a discourse of value
within film
studies, critics and scholars are often compelled to frame their
aesthetic
judgments of films in terms of the contributions of their
directors. Moreover,
once certain directors have been identified as auteurs, it is
difficult for film
critics and scholars to ignore them or their films. The fact that
John Ford is
considered as an auteur director and George Seaton is not may
be the primary
reason why The Searchers was retrospectively consecrated and
The Country Girl
was not.
The results of these analyses also reveal some of the
limitations of auteur
theory. Auteur directors, those who have been subjects of
numerous books, are
more likely to have their films retrospectively consecrated than
other directors.
The films of less celebrated directors may be retrospectively
consecrated but
only if they received sufficient professional, critical, and
popular recognition
at the time of their release. Moreover, this theory does not
explain why some

directors and their films were the subjects of more books and
articles than other
directors and their films. Some very accomplished directors,
who have received
considerable professional or critical recognition, have not been
the subjects of
very many articles or books. It is beyond the scope of this
analysis to explain
why some directors are considered auteurs by film scholars and
critics while
others are dismissed as mere technicians. There is some
evidence that the
original proponents of auteur theory favored those directors
who were seen
to possess a distinct and consistent cinematic style (Hiller
1985). In short, these
theorists argued that auteur directors, by their characteristic
use of lighting,
camera, and staging, left an identifiable imprint on their films
(Bordwell &
Thompson 1993). Whatever the criteria, this discourse
produced by the early
contributors to the French film journal Cahiers du Cinema and
later American
proponents of auteur theory (Sarris 1968) has had a profound
effect on the
artistic reputations of certain directors and their films.
In recent years, auteur theory has been supplemented by a
number of other
film theories, such as genre theory and feminist theory. These
alternative
cultural schemas, which are more interpretative than evaluative
in nature, have

enabled film scholars to examine the historical and cultural
influences on both
film production (Schatz 1988) and audience reception (Jenkins
1995).
However, auteur theory remains the predominant discourse of
value with
respect to films (Corrigan 1991; Dudley 1993). Its appeal can
be attributed, in
part, to the romantic assumption that one person, namely the
director, is
ultimately responsible for the aesthetic merits of a film.
Moreover, auteur
theory is popular as an evaluative theory because it invites
comparisons among
the films directed by the same director. Finally, unlike most of
the other cultural
schemas applied to films, auteur theory is both simple and
accessible. At the
2019 06:03:47 UTC
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.
2019 06:03:47 UTC
. 1988. Homo Academicus. Polity Press.
. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University
Press.
1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Columbia University
Press.
? 1996. The Rules ofArt: Genesis and Structure of the Literary
Field. Stanford University
Press.
Bowles, Stephen E. 1994. The Film Anthologies Index.
Scarecrow Press.
Corrigan, Timothy. 1991. Cinema without Walls: Movies and
Culture after Vietnam. Rutgers
University Press.

Corse, Sarah M., and Monica D. Griffin. 1997. "Cultural
Valorization and African-American
Literary History: Re-Constructing the Canon." Sociological
Forum 12:173-203.
Crofts, Stephen. 1998. "Authorship and Hollywood." Pp. 310-
24 in The Oxford Guide to Film
Studies, edited by John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson. Oxford
University Press.
DeNora, Tia. 1995. Beethoven and the Construction of Genius:
Musical Politics in Vienna, 1792-
1803. University of California Press.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1992. "Cultural Boundaries and Structural
Change: The Extension of the High
Culture Model to Theater, Opera, and the Dance, 1900-1940."
Pp. 21-57 in Cultivating
Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of
Inequality, edited by Michele Lamont
and Marcel Fournier. University of Chicago Press.
.1997. "Culture and Cognition." Annual Review of Sociology
23:263-87.
Dowd, Timothy J., Kathleen Liddle, Kim Lupo, and Anne
Borden. 2002. "Organizing the Musical
Canon: The Repertoires of Major U.S. Symphony Orchestras,
1842 to 1969." Poetics 30:35-
61.
Ducharme, Lori, and Gary Alan Fine. 1995. "Nonpersonhood,
Demonization, and Negative
Commemoration: Constructing the 'Traitorous' Reputation of
Benedict Arnold." Social

Forces 73:1309-31.
Dudley, Andrew. 1993. "The Unauthorized Auteur Today." Pp.
77-85 in Film Theory Goes to the
Movies, edited by Jim Collins, Hilary Radner, and Ava P.
Collins. Routledge.
Faulkner, Robert R., and Andy B. Anderson. 1987. "Short-Term
Projects and Emergent Careers:
Evidence from Hollywood." American Journal of Sociology
92:879-909.
Feldman, Burton. 2000. The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius,
Controversy, and Prestige. Arcade
Publishing.
Ferguson, Priscilla Parkhurst. 1998. "A Cultural Field in the
Making: Gastronomy in Nineteenth
Century France." American Journal of Sociology 104:597-641.
Fine, Gary Alan. 1996. "Reputational Entrepreneurs and the
Memory of Incompetence: Melting
Supporters, Partisan Warriors, and Images of President
Harding." American Journal of
Sociology 101:1159-93.
Frow, John. 1995. Cultural Studies and Cultural Value.
Cambridge University Press.
Goode, William J. 1978. The Celebration of Heroes: Prestige
As a Social Control System. University
of California Press.
Haberski, Raymond J. Jr. 2001. It's Only a Movie: Films and
Critics in American Culture. University
of Kentucky Press.

Heinich, Nathalie. 1996. The Glory of Van Gogh: An
Anthropology of Admiration. Princeton
University Press.
2019 06:03:47 UTC
Hillier, Jim. 1985. Introduction to Cahiers du Cinema: The
1950s - Neo-Realism, Hollywood,
New Wave, edited by Jim Hillier. Harvard University Press.
James, Bill. 1994. Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?
Baseball, Cooperstown, and the Politics
of Glory. Simon & Schuster.
Jenkins, Henry. 1995. "Historical Poetics." Pp. 99-122 in
Approaches to Popular Film, edited by
Joanne Hollows and Mark Jancovich. Manchester University
Press.
Kapsis, Robert E. 1992. Hitchcock: The Making of a
Reputation. University of Chicago Press.
Koszarski, Richard. 1994. An Evening's Entertainment: The
Age of the Silent Feature Picture, 1915-
1928. University of California Press.
Lamont, Michee. 1987. "How to Become a Dominant French
Philosopher: The Case of Jacques

Derrida." American Sociological Review 93:584-622.
Lang, Gladys Engel, and Kurt L. Lang. 1988. "Recognition and
Renown: The Survival of Artistic
Reputation." American Journal of Sociology 94:78-109.
Levy, Emanuel. 1990. And the Winner Is...: The History and
Politics of the Oscar Awards.
Continuum.
Mukerji, Chandra. 1978. "Artwork: Collection and
Contemporary Culture." American Journal
of Sociology 84:348-65.
Ray, Robert B. 1985. A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood
Cinema, 1930-1980. Princeton
University Press.
Sands, Pierre Norman. 1973. A Historical Study of the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
(1927-1947). Arno Press.
Santoro, Marco. 2002. "What Is a 'Cantautore?' Distinction and
Authorship in Italian (Popular)
Music." Poetics 30:111-32.
Sarris, Andrew. 1968. The American Cinema: Directors and
Directions, 1929-1968. Dutton.
Schatz, Thomas. 1988. The Genius of the System: Hollywood
Filmmaking in the Studio Era.
Pantheon.
Schwartz, Barry. 1991. "Social Change and Collective Memory:
The Democratization of George
Washington." American Sociological Review 56:221-36.

Shrum, Wesley M., Jr. 1996. Fringe and Fortune: The Role of
Critics in High and Popular Art.
Princeton University Press.
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. 1983. "Contingencies of Value."
Critical Inquiry 10:1-35.
Stoddart, Helen. 1995. "Auteurism and Film Authorship
Theory." Pp. 37-57 in Approaches to
Popular Film, edited by Joanne Hollows and Mark Jancovich.
Manchester University Press.
Todd, Richard. 1996. Consuming Fictions: The Booker Prize
and Fiction in Britain Today.
Bloomsbury.
Wagner-Pacifici, Robin, and Barry Schwartz. 1991. "The
Vietnam Veterans Memorial:
Commemorating a Difficult Past." American Journal of
Sociology 97:376-420.
Zolberg, Vera L. 1990. Constructing a Sociology of the Arts.
Cambridge University Press.
2019 06:03:47 UTC
Contentsimage 1image 2image 3image 4image 5image 6image
7image 8image 9image 10image 11image 12image 13image
14image 15image 16image 17image 18image 19image 20image
21image 22image 23Issue Table of ContentsSocial Forces, Vol.
82, No. 3, Mar., 2004Front Matter [pp. 894 - 1246]Critical
Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American Films [pp.
871 - 893]Structured Ignorance and Organized Racism in the
United States [pp. 895 - 936]Sources of Mexico's Migration

Stream: Rural, Urban, and Border Migrants to the United States
[pp. 937 - 967]Sources of Durability and Change in Market
Classifications: A Study of the Reconstitution of Product
Categories in the American Mutual Fund Industry, 1944-1985
[pp. 969 - 999]Love Thy Neighbor? Moral Communities, Civic
Engagement, and Juvenile Homicide in Rural Areas [pp. 1001 -
1035]Collective Benefits, Exchange Interests, and Norm
Enforcement [pp. 1037 - 1062]Symbolic Gender Politics,
Religious Group Identity, and the Decline in Female Genital
Cutting in Minya, Egypt [pp. 1063 - 1090]What Happened to
the "Long Civic Generation"? Explaining Cohort Differences in
Volunteerism [pp. 1091 - 1121]Volunteerism during the
Transition to Adulthood: A Life Course Perspective [pp. 1123 -
1149]Gender and Marital Decision Making: Negotiating
Religious Ideology and Practice [pp. 1151 - 1180]Temporary as
Compared to Permanent High School Dropout [pp. 1181 -
1205]Book Reviewsuntitled [pp. 1207 - 1209]untitled [pp.
1209 - 1211]untitled [pp. 1211 - 1212]untitled [pp. 1213 -
1214]untitled [pp. 1214 - 1216]untitled [pp. 1216 -
1244]untitled [pp. 1244 - 1245]Errata: S/He's a Rebel: Toward
a Sequential Stress Theory of Delinquency and Gendered
Pathways to Disadvantage in Emerging Adulthood [pp. 1247 -
1248]Back Matter
TransporTaTion & LogisTics Trends
W O R L D T R A D E 1 0 0 M a r c h 2 0 1 424

he U.S. economy grew at a 3.2 percent
annual rate in the last quarter of 2013, lead-
ing to speculation that 2014 could see the
strongest growth since the end of the cur-
rent recession. Supporting that, a report by
the Institute of Supply Management (ISM)
says manufacturing revenues are expected
to increase 4.4 percent in 2014 and non-manufacturing
revenues by 3.6 percent.
Respondents to surveys that make up part of the ISM
report cited some challenges, however. Nearly a third
(32 percent) pointed to challenges in obtaining domes-
tic sales growth, and 18 percent see similar challenges
in growing international sales. Overall, the ISM report
concluded, “Expectations are for a continuation of the
economic recovery that began in mid-2009.”
Indeed, recovery from the 2007-2008 recession has
been more gradual than most had anticipated. “The
slow recovery from the recession is a reason why there
hasn’t been as much opportunity to raise prices for
goods,” says Chris O’Brien, senior VP of C.H. Robinson
Worldwide Inc., a third party logistics provider. “When
prices go up, more commitments can be made to trans-
portation and logistics, and wages can rise.”
In the face of this, respondents to the ISM survey
reported that their goals were to improve their overall
supply chain management practices in 2014 — with a
focus on strategic sourcing and supply base rationaliza-
tion; process and information systems improvements;
supplier relationship management; inventory manage-

ment and control; and improved cross-functional plan-
ning and scheduling. Part of the effort is committed to
improving corporate performance in areas like transpor-
tation and logistics.
Changing TransporTaTion:
From Drivers to Data
As businesses recover from the recession, part of their focus is
on improving transportation and logistics performance.
by mary shackLeTT
T
024Feature2-FromDriverstoData.indd 24 2/20/14 9:06 AM
w w w . w o r l d t r a d e w t 1 0 0 . c o m 25
What does this portend for transportation and
logistics?
“The trend is shifting from supply chain modeling
with optimized distribution centers and vendors to a
new frontier where the supply chain is made safer,” says
O’Brien. “Included in this initiative are efforts to make
supply chains more redundant, and to locate inventory
in different areas of the world so that a worldwide event
like a tsunami occurring in one area of the world doesn’t
shut down an entire supply chain.”
O’Brien continues, “Examples of areas where com-
panies are striving for greater efficiencies in their supply
chains and logistics include looking at routings of goods,
and which routings are most effective. The goal for tran-

sit times is that they should be as short as possible.
“Inventory is also being optimized so that it is strate-
gically located in areas of the world where maintaining
an inventory is critical. Companies are also looking at
which individual SKUs are needed in inventory instead
of stocking all inventory items. In this way, they are
reducing their inventory carrying costs.”
Changing Times in Transportation
Like their shipper customers, transportation and logis-
tics providers also look for efficiencies in operations and
effective methodologies that move goods from point to
point on a timely basis and at least cost. After this shared
goal, however, the shippers and logistics providers
diverge because there are individuated challenges that
each must focus on.
“We consider trucking company bankruptcies, which
accelerated in the third quarter of 2013. If they do the
same in the fourth quarter, things could get a little more
interesting in 2014,” says O’Brien. “At the same time, the
cost of new truck equipment mandated by regulators has
gone up. This has made it a tough environment for truck-
ing companies. We’ve seen an inflection point between
supply and demand. Pricing is up in the long term and
this should help the marketplace limit bankruptcies.”
In trucking, as in the overall transportation sector, con-
solidations and mergers are likely to continue in 2014. It
is a way that individual organizations can achieve greater
scale and also position themselves as players in a global
economy. Ultimately, this consolidation process reaches
far beyond the simple fact of companies merging.

Shippers will continue to see their transportation and
logistics providers present more “merged” (or inter-
modal) shipping models for the transport of goods that
meet delivery times with a combination of shipping by
rail, ocean, air and truck. To facilitate the “best practice”
shipping of goods, logistics providers will rely on end-
to-end, highly integrated transportation management
systems (TMS) that are capable of globally managing
all of their traffic and also of assisting them in provid-
ing shipper-customers intermodal truck-rail-air-ocean
alternatives that yield the best routings at the best cost
in order to attain specific delivery times.
From the logistics provider’s standpoint, especially if
it is heavily concentrated in trucking, the focus on inter-
modal transport could not come at a better time. This is
because there is, and will continue to be, demand for truck
drivers, brought on by an aging (and soon to be retiring)
workforce of truckers, coupled with the inability of truck-
ing companies to attract a new corps of younger workers,
who see other employment options more appealing.
One way to address the driver shortage is to look at
shorter routes that allow drivers to be at home at night.
Operating close to home is also an area where truckers
can capitalize, because of the continued demand for
effective “last mile” transportation that gets goods to the
Technology Roadmap: The Internet of Things
Te
ch
n
o

lo
g
y
R
e
a
ch
RFID tags for facilitating
routing, inventorying, and
loss prevention
Surveillance, security,
healthcare, transport,
food safety, document
management
Locating people and
everyday objects
Teleoperation and
telepresence: Ability
to monitor and control
distant objects
Demand for
expedited logistics
Cost reduction leading to
diffusion into 2nd wave of

applications
Supply-Chain Helpers
Vertical-Market Applications
Ubiquitous Positioning
Physical-World Web
Ability of devices located
indoors to recieve
geolocation signals
Miniaturization, power-
efficient electronics, and
available spectrum
Software agents and
advanced sensor fusion
Source: SRI Consulting Business Intelligence
2000 2010 2020
doors of consumers and retailers. “Last mile” services
will continue to flourish for smaller trucking companies
with a local presence, since the larger carriers don’t
always fully participate at the local level.

Greater Visibility and Better Results
From the shipper’s perspective, all of these logistics
focuses are good — provided they can produce the
best shipment options at the least cost while facilitat-
ing supply chain efficiency, reliability, agility, safety and
reduced risk.
“This means modeling your supply chain network
so you always know where freight is coming and going
between your various supply chain points of origin and
destination, and obtaining granularity in your visibil-
ity that goes all the way down to the SKU level,” says
O’Brien. “This is where all of the larger companies are
focused with their supply chains. They continue to opti-
mize their supply chains and their orders. These internal
corporate initiatives, together with the advancements we
have seen in TMS technology that can now easily facili-
tate efficient routing decisions, have made a difference.”
O’Brien notes that he is often asked by clients to
describe the “shipper of choice,” and what this ship-
per’s attributes are. Among the attributes cited are the
ability to let carriers in and out in order for carriers to
maximize their capacity, favorable payment terms, and
driver amenities. “Smart shippers have specific strategies
for transportation and logistics, and also value that they
expect,” says O’Brien. “Many of them use scorecards
for their transportation and logistics providers to ensure
that they meet their goals.”
Sears is one company that opted to build a transpor-
tation scorecard system several years ago. “Globally, we
were using almost 700 reports, generated from Access to
Excel to legacy systems, you name it,” says Sears spokes-

A
t its 5th Annual Transportation and
Logistics Conference, analysts of Stifel
Research Department’s transportation
and logistics practice offered insights on
industry developments and direction.
A good starting point for any discussion of
the transportation industry is the impact of
the direction of the U.S. economy on freight
volumes. Here, the analysts found differing,
if not contradictory, views.
They reported many in the industry viewed
a tighter supply-demand dynamic as an indi-
cation the economy was on the rise. Others
were more cautious, saying the combination
of lower inventories, a shorter holiday shop-
ping window, weather, and an acute driver
shortage were factors in the supply/demand
balance and these would dissipate once the
winter season began to fade and inventories
were replenished.
Other factors affecting the truck sector
included intermodal diversions. The analysts
did not offer an opinion whether these too
would melt away with the snow. If the experi-
ence of 2013 Alliance Award recipient Macy’s
is any indication, it will not (see “The Right
Dialogue,” World Trade 100, January 2014,
pg. 24). The retailer successfully introduced
intermodal into its transportation mix and
has seen its use grow based on performance

metrics and cost benefits.
There is room for con-
tinued growth of rail inter-
modal. While shippers like
Macy’s are changing their
attitude based on improved
service, truckload carriers
are openly embracing rail
intermodal and becoming
some of the railroads’ big-
gest customers. For those
who remember J.B. Hunt
announcing that company’s
adoption of rail intermodal,
his vision was clearly on
target, and many who were
his critics at the time have
now followed his lead.
Among all of the cau-
tion expressed by the Stifel analysts, they
admitted two strong categories are hydraulic
fracturing-related shipments and cross-border
trade among NAFTA partners.
For investors, railroads and specialty carri-
ers are probably the bright spot. Shippers may
take a different view of the pricing optimism
there. The Stifel analysis pegged railroads at
“inflation-plus pricing” while temperature-
controlled truckload indicated an expected 3
percent to 5 percent rate increase likely in
2014. Dry van truckload and less than truck-
load (LTL) suggested more modest levels of 3

to 5 percent and 2 to 3 percent, respectively.
But, even with these cautious views, the
analysts and the industry seem unsure of the
pricing picture for 2014. Much will depend
on the economy taking any dramatic swings
up or down and the actual impact on produc-
tivity of federal regulations. And that leads
right into the ongoing discussion of labor
supply.
Solution
s to a tight driver supply are
both expensive and slow. Increased pay, more
training, better working conditions and oper-
ations changes — the proposed solutions are
now as well known as the issues they address.
Eyes on the Consumer
WT100 analyzes the analysts and finds much to be optimistic
about.
By perry a. Trunick

w w w . w o r l d t r a d e w t 1 0 0 . c o m 27
man Brad Fisher. According to Fisher, this ultimately
led to a first phase scorecard that condensed all of the
transport information into a single, summary dashboard
that allowed users to get an immediate view of how their
logistics providers were performing.. Using a scorecard
system also equips shippers with metrics that they can
use in their discussions about performance with their
logistics partners.
Logistics providers see the importance of results-
oriented scorecards, too. Companies like DHL speak
about “balanced” scorecards that take into account the
entire enterprise logistics and supply chain network,
balancing results by assessing areas as diverse as finan-
cial performance, perspectives of the customer, internal
business processes, and learning and development. In
its Discover Logistics course, DHL notes, “Conven-
tional systems of key indicators generally relate to past
events and concentrate on short-term financial value
creation. The balanced scorecard, on the other hand,
goes a step farther. It is designed to help determine the

critical factors of a company’s long-range success. With
the balanced scorecard, strategies are implemented in
the operational business.”
Central to the process is an integrated network that
can see end-to-end across supply chains and their sup-
porting logistics. To attain this, shippers and logistics
provides alike must look to technology as both a strate-
gic and an operational enabler.
Technologies Facilitating Change
To attain more integrated supply chains, greater ability
to use analytics and the ability to intervene in supply
chain and logistics situations before they escalate into
crises, shippers and logistics providers are employing
new technologies that are capable of overcoming age-old
barriers to visibility, performance measurement, time to
market and system resiliency and agility.
Technologies with key transformational roles in trans-
portation and logistics are:
Cloud-based solutions
A growing number of software-as-a-service providers
are selling supply chain networks that give organizations

expanded visibility of their end-to-end supply chains,
and the ability to rapidly onboard new suppliers as they
diversify their supplier bases as part of their overall risk
management strategies.
These supply chain networks in the cloud feature
common data repositories that all parties use, which
prevents the propagation of different types of data that
describe the same thing differently, thereby creating
confused communications. Logistics providers also
participate in these cloud-based networks, so there is
integration of transportation and logistics into other
day-to-day supply chain business functions.
Some of these cloud solutions are TMS’s, and others
are offerings that come directly from the logistics provid-
ers. The logistics cloud offerings give companies the ability
to monitor their goods on a step by step basis throughout
the entire shipping process, down to the level of monitoring
(and receiving) alerts on environmental and safety factors
regarding containers and other types of packages.
Modernized TMS’s
New TMS capabilities better position shippers and their
logistics providers to use informed logistics with a high

Collaboration, an overworked term over the last
decade, seems to be developing as an actual strategy,
or at least a tactic; Stifel’s analysts report more shippers
collaborating with each other and more carriers doing so
as well. The result is better efficiency (which includes
cost in most cases), but it also has a consequence of
driving deeper relationships. In their own recounting of
verbatim comments, the Stifel analysts reflect industry
views that more companies are reducing the number of
suppliers as they go deeper with their core logistics pro-
viders. Even smaller companies are getting into the act
as they increase their outsourcing in order to achieve
some of the same efficiencies.
The Stifel analysts have offered a multitude of invest-
ment recommendations based on their view of the econ-
omy, the logistics industry, and the factors affecting
both. Looking at their report from the perspective of
the customers or users of the transportation and logis-
tics services provided by the well-managed companies
they monitor, there is little “extreme” in the comments.
There are no dire warnings about fuel cost volatility or
dramatic regulatory action. These and the other major
factors they have highlighted still need to be watched,

but for now, it appears, all eyes are on consumers. If
consumers stop buying, the economy slows and the
transportation supply/demand equation shifts to supply.
If consumer demand gains strength, all of the drivers
affecting cost and availability of transportation and
logistics services get amplified.
If there is a conclusion from all of this, it is that
the issues aren’t going away, nor should the efforts
to develop and implement long-term solutions. The
Stifel report cites a lot of collaboration. It’s important
to note that these trends are strongest at the best-
managed companies — the ones Stifel monitors — and
at the top customers of those companies. This is a view
from the leading edge of the bell-shaped curve. There is
plenty of opportunity (and a lot of work) to move these
best practices to the center of the bell-shaped curve.
The slow recovery from the
recession is a reason why
there hasn’t been as much
opportunity to raise prices
for goods.
– Chris O’Brien

degree of visibility into logistics processes “Since the last
four or five years have been about bringing down costs,
shippers also want ‘single point’ visibility from their pro-
curement technology solutions,” says O’Brien. “To get
this, they are bringing in smart systems.” One fairly new
capability TMS’s are delivering is mapping technology
that connects to the TMS system, and is able to auto-
matically track and report on where everything is at a
given point in time in the supply chain.
Researcher ARC Advisory Group reported in 2013
that TMS’s have been growing at double digit rates over
the past few years, with the trend set to continue. ARC
notes freight planning and execution were delivering
strong ROI (return on investment) to companies.

“The simple, bottom line is that TMS can save com-
panies money by lowering their freight spend,” says
Steve Banker, who heads ARC’s supply chain manage-
ment as service director. Banker reports that the ARC
survey revealed over 40 percent of respondents felt that
if they were forced to give up their TMS and go back to
more manual processes for planning and
execution, their total freight costs would
increase by 5-10 percent. “In fact, 23
percent felt their total freight costs under
the control of the TMS would increase by
over 10 percent if they were to stop using
it,” he adds.
TMS also now has automated pro-
cesses that assess how transportation
efficiencies can best be gained. These
processes feature real-time dashboards
that give “live” visibility of transportation
performance. The dashboards enable
quicker and better decision making. They
also automate many communications
tasks that can’t be adequately addressed

with traditional methods like phones,
faxes, and spreadsheets. These TMS’s are
designed for the global market. They are
able to automate many areas of logistics
planning and tactical execution.
Analytics
As a central part of system automation
and informed decision making, business
analytics and the use of big data will play
a major role in supply chain and logis-
tics management. Today, the Internet of
Things (IoT), with its sensors recording
information along the points in the supply
chain, can alert managers of situations
requiring immediate attention. A case in
point is a shipment that moves in a sealed
container which must be maintained at
a certain temperature. A sensor inserted
into the container can transmit the status
of the various environments and issue an
alert if the seal on the container is broken,
or if the container’s temperature controls
fail, or if the container is opened.

From supply chain and logistics risk
management standpoints, business ana-
lytics can also be used to assess suppliers
that are risky to deal with (e.g., they have
appeared on a country restricted trade
party list), or areas of the world where
the weather conditions are likely to be
extremely volatile.
This advance intelligence enables
companies to avoid regulatory penalties,
threats to reputation, and failure to deliver
Brenda Daniels
Manager, Economic Development
800.768.7697, ext. 6363
[email protected]
www.electricities.com
BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS: Economic Development

Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of Ameri.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of Ameri.docx

Similar to Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of Ameri.docx (20)

More from AASTHA76

More from AASTHA76 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of Ameri.docx