Terms of Enjoyment

Film Classification and Critics’ Discourse in Comparative Perspective

Annemarie Kersten
This dissertation research was conducted as part of the VICI-project
Cultural Classification Systems in Transition, funded by the Netherlands
Organization for Scientific Research (NWO-project 277-45-001) and
with the support of the Erasmus Trust fund.

ISBN: 978-90-76665-00-9
Publisher: ERMeCC, Erasmus Research Centre for Media,
Communication and Culture
Printing: Ipskamp Drukkers
Cover design: L.E. van den Berg

©2012 Annemarie Kersten

2
 Terms of Enjoyment

Film Classification and Critics’ Discourse in Comparative Perspective

***

Voorwaarden van vermaak

Filmclassificatie en kritisch discours in vergelijkend perspectief

Thesis
to obtain the degree of Doctor from the
Erasmus University Rotterdam
by command of the
rector magnificus
Prof.dr. H.G. Schmidt

and in accordance with the decision of the Doctorate Board

The public defense shall be held on
Thursday 22 November 2012 at 11:30 hours

by
Annemarie Kersten
born in Zierikzee

3
Doctoral committee:

Promoter: Prof.dr. M.S.S.E. Janssen

Other members: Prof.dr. A.M. Bevers

Prof.dr. T.J. Dowd
Prof.dr. G.M.M. Kuipers

Co-promoter: Dr. M.N.M. Verboord

4
 Contents

Acknowledgments 7
Tables and Figures 9

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 The Construction of Value and Taste 11
1.2 The Field of Film Production 16
1.3 Four Studies on the Social Valuation of Film 24

Chapter 2
Boundaries between Prestige and Popularity of Film:
Film Art and the Commercial Movie in Cross-National Perspective, 1955-2005
2.1 Introduction 29
2.2 Field Theory and Film 30
2.3 The Legitimation of Film 32
2.4 Boundaries in Cross-National Perspective 34
2.5 Data and Methods 38
2.6 Findings 41
2.7 Conclusion 47

Chapter 3
Dimensions of Conventionality and Innovation in Film:
The Cultural Classification of Blockbusters, Award Winners, and Critics’ Favorites
3.1 Introduction 51
3.2 Classification of Film 53
3.3 Innovation and Convention in Hollywood 54
3.4 Data and Methods 58
3.5 Findings 62
3.6 Conclusion 69

5
Chapter 4
Film Discourse on the Praised and Acclaimed:
Reviewing Criteria in the United States and United Kingdom
4.1 Introduction 73
4.2 Film Criticism Today 74
4.3 Aesthetic Position and Cultural Goods 75
4.4 Data and Methods 78
4.5 Findings 80
4.6 Conclusion 91

Chapter 5
National Cultural Repertoires of Evaluation in a Global Age:
Film Discourse in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States
5.1 Introduction 93
5.2 Cultural Repertoires of Evaluation 95
5.3 Cultural Circumstances 97
5.4 Data and Methods 99
5.5 Findings 101
5.6 Conclusion 110

Chapter 6
Conclusions
6.1 Recapturing the Results 113
6.2 Discussion and Implications 119

References 127
Appendices 137
Dutch summary 145
Curriculum vitae 151

6
 Acknowledgements

Although only my name is on the cover of this dissertation, many more people contributed to its
development and materialization over the years. They did so in many different ways. Some people
were by my side during the entire whirlwind adventure, others came and went. I would like to
thank all of them, however their support was manifested.

I am especially grateful to my promoter Susanne Janssen; for taking a chance on me in the first
place, for guiding, teaching, and criticizing me, but moreover for her never failing faith in me. Next, I
thank my co-promoter Marc Verboord for the continuous time and effort he put into making me
write the best dissertation I could, for pushing me as hard as he did, and always being there. I am
thankful to Denise Bielby for her support, our discussions, and the opportunity to work together.

For their service on my doctoral committee, I thank Shyon Baumann, Ton Bevers, Denise Bielby,
Tim Dowd, Giselinde Kuipers, and Stijn Reijnders. I’d like to express my gratitude to many of my
colleagues, who have made writing this dissertation not only easier and less daunting, but more
enjoyable on a day-to-day basis as well. Thank you to Pauwke Berkers, Jiska Engelbert, Femke van
Hest, Joyce Neys, Sharon van Noord, David Novak, Mijke Slot, the members of the ERMeCC PhD
Club, and all the others. For their help in a variety of matters, I want to thank Theresa Oostvogels
and Manon Bakker-de Rooij.

Despite the appreciation I have for supervisors, committee members, and colleagues, home is
where the heart is. For unconditional love and understanding, I thank my sister and Daan, my
mother and Theo, and my father. I thank Roos and Bas for bringing pure joy. Thanks to Eveline for
being a darn good friend. And finally, I am ever grateful to Laurens for standing by me through rain
and shine, and being an optimist, ultimately.

7
8
 Tables and Figures

Tables

2.1 Percentage of film items focusing on director 42

2.2 Percentage of film items devoted to films by director-screenwriters 43

2.3 Percentage of film items devoted to movies by award winning directors 44

2.4 Percentage of film items devoted to films by directors with success

at the box office in past decade 45

2.5 Percentage of film items devoted to films with popular and

professional recognition 46

3.1 Types of recognition 60

3.2 Component loadings of 2 main dimensions 63

3.3 Differences between films with popular, critical and professional

recognition in two dimensions of material production value 65

3.4 Differences between films with popular, critical and professional

recognition in four dimensions of symbolic affordances 66

3.5 The influence of different types of recognition and material film traits

on symbolic film traits 68

4.1 Distribution of use of themes across all 194 reviews as percentages

by type of film recognition 82

4.2 Obliquely rotated component loadings for fifteen themes 88

4.3 Percentages of reviews linked to factors by type of film recognition 90

5.1 Film production per country in 2009 99

9
5.2 Obliquely rotated component loadings for fifteen themes 102

5.3 Multiple OLS regression analyses on prominence of discourse components 104

Figures

2.1 Pool of successful directors 40

3.1 Interplay of two dimensions of material practices 64

10
 Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 The Construction of Value and Taste

“The work of art is an object which exists as such only by virtue of the (collective) belief
which knows and acknowledges it as a work of art.”
Pierre Bourdieu (1993: 35)

Film as a cultural genre commands great popularity and exercises influence over today’s
Western culture in no small way (Bordwell & Thompson, 1997; McDonald & Wasko, 2008).
As such, film is also a sizeable global industry that annually churns out hundreds of new
movies in many different countries. The enormous supply contains commercial movies for
large mainstream audiences and art films for the specialized few (Tudor, 2007) in an array
of genres, subgenres, and styles (Cook, 2007). Film audiences may emerge from
preferences for particular directors, actors, screenwriters, composers, genres, styles, series,
formulas, or themes. Further, audiences differ with regard to expertise and seek different
viewing experiences; movies may meet the need for escapism or provide intellectual
challenges (Silvia & Berg, 2011). For example, fans of the romantic comedy genre aim for
submersion in an emotionally resonating story, while admirers of director David Lynch’s
surrealism look for analysis and interpretation. In other words, they employ different
terms of enjoyment.
In order to find the movies that meet their tastes, audiences need to make sense of
the mound of choices presented to them. Classification of, or bringing order to, the
industry’s supply ensues from audiences exchanging viewpoints and experiences, setting
up standards, and applying criteria (DiMaggio, 1987). This dissertation is concerned with
the dynamics of value assignment in the film world, here presented in a nutshell, in various
national contexts. As elegantly put by Bourdieu (1993) (quoted at the beginning of this

11
chapter), value is not inherent to a cultural product and then measured according to
existing standards. Value is assigned to it, only in existence by the grace of the social
consensus that results from discussion. Terence Malick’s Tree of Life (2011) is generally
given more merit than David Yates’ Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2011) because
audiences agree its features are more valuable, not because the film in itself dictates it. The
former was honored with symbolic value (prestige or honor) in the shape of a Golden Palm,
the award for the best picture of the year at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival, while the
latter, being the highest grossing movie of its release year, mainly reveled in economic
value (financial resources or the means to obtain them).
Likewise, tastes are constructed rather than natural features. Taste is acquired and
determined by one’s level of cultural capital - i.e. someone’s collection of cultural and social
knowledge, skills, experiences, beliefs, and habits, and acquired through socialization and
education (Bourdieu, 1984; 1993). Different groups in society represent different levels of
such capital and therefore express different tastes. The process of classifying films thus
involves various taste groups. One could also say that it implicates different institutions
that take up different roles in the film world. A selection of such agents is generally
regarded as most crucial in the valuation and classification of film, consisting of general
audiences, peer filmmakers, and professional critics (Allen & Lincoln, 2004). These groups
vary in their levels of cultural capital, therefore their positions and statuses differ, and
consequentially their opinions or consensus are valued differently (Bourdieu, 1993).
Since appreciation by mainstream audiences is not necessarily a function of
expertise on moviemaking or specialist intellectual scrutiny, and mainly leads to raised
ticket sales and grown market shares, it is primarily categorized as providing films with
economic value. Peer filmmakers who have expertise regarding film production practices
are considered better suited to separate the mediocre from the good films. Their approval
does not necessarily sell tickets but does add prestige. As professional film critics specialize
in analyzing and evaluating film, and their job consists of informing and advising audiences,
they are expected to exceed their public in expertise (Becker, 1982; Janssen 1997; 1999,
Van Rees, 1983; Verboord, 2010). Critical recognition adds honor and prestige to the
movie, but does not generally result in economic success. The legitimate (highbrow art)
taste of critics is informed by high levels of cultural capital, and is therefore traditionally
12
dominant in processes of classification. As tastes differ across various institutional agents,
the films appreciated by these respective groups supposedly vary too. Popular films
require less cultural capital from their audiences than their prestigious counterparts do.
This leads to the Bourdieusian (1993) distinction between art film and commercial movie,
produced in the opposing “fields of restricted and large-scale film production”.
Whereas the functioning of the different valuating agents in the field of film has
been studied in past years (e.g. Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Hicks & Petrova, 2006; Zuckerman &
Kim, 2003), it remains unclear whether the value they assign is delivered to films that are
in fact inherently different from each other – do these film types display variation in terms
of production or content characteristics, and are they perceived as different by audiences?
Furthermore, there is the question of how these film types fit into the much-employed
dichotomy between art film and commercial movie (Tudor, 2007). This is a particularly
relevant issue in a time in which the two seem ever more difficult to define, and the
boundaries between them appear to be at stake (Hesmondhalgh, 2006; Janssen, 2005;
Prior, 2005). Studies have shown different valuating agents to increasingly value the same
products whereas their respective positions suppose differentiation (Allen & Lincoln, 2004;
Schmutz, 2005). Also, the institutional logics – i.e. the practices, assumptions, values,
beliefs, and rules that frame production (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999) - that govern the
discerned fields of film production seem to increasingly intertwine, resulting in
resemblances between popular and prestigious films.

1.1.1 Research Focus: The Role of Film Criticism

This research focuses on professional film criticism, an institution that offers guidance to
audiences in their search for films that they might enjoy. Critics play an important role in
the social valuation of film as they function as intermediaries between producers and
consumers, and strongly influence overall film discourse (Becker, 1982; Bourdieu, 1993).
Previous research shows that film criticism has grown into a prominent element of arts and
culture coverage of elite newspapers in Western countries over the twentieth century
(Janssen et al., 2008; 2011). This study addresses the matters of which types of film are
covered over time and the manner in which they are discussed.

13
 Film criticism has proven an important factor in film’s overall status in the cultural
realm; Baumann’s analysis of the composition of American film criticism between the
1920s and 1980s demonstrates that the intellectualization of film discourse during the
1960s was partially realized by critics. They introduced highbrow aesthetic criteria that
allowed for analysis and interpretation, thereby enabling recognition of artistic merit in
film (Baumann, 2001; 2007). This change was instrumental to film’s emancipation from
mere entertainment to a cultural genre with artistic potential in the United States (U.S.).
This dissertation extends Baumann’s valuable research in terms of both the examined time
period and cultural context. Since the 1980s, trends of commercialization and globalization
have gained influence on the international film world, which is bound to affect its discourse
(McDonald & Wasko, 2008). Secondly, the American case is not necessarily representative
for the Western society as a whole, as the European film worlds, their classification
practices, and their film discourses have developed along different lines (Bordwell &
Thompson, 1997). The inclusion of other Western countries in investigations of film
discourse is likely to result in a broader, more specified overview of film classification and
criticism. Also, as evaluation schemas and tastes are dependent on their cultural
surroundings (Liebes & Katz, 1993), studying film discourse across countries allows for
exploring the sustenance of cross-national differences in the way film is evaluated (Janssen
et al., 2011). In times of ubiquitous cultural globalization (Crane et al., 2002), exemplified
by the predominance of the Hollywood movie in the Western film world (Barthel-Bouchier,
2011; Lee & Waterman, 2007), national cultural repertoires of evaluation, i.e. culturally
determined collections of valuating schemas that people apply in a variety of situations and
which orders their assessments on all kinds of matters (Lamont and Thévenot, 2000), seem
difficult to maintain but may yet prove to still differentiate film discourse. Furthermore,
while the overall film discourse has become more intellectual (Baumann, 2001), this may
not undividedly apply to the range of film types that critics encounter. Hence, it is
important to take the differentiation of reviewed films into account.
This dissertation builds on previous studies as it examines film criticism, its
relations to other institutional agents involved in the valuation of film products, and the
alteration of its appearance across time periods, national contexts, and film types. It
investigates the types of films appreciated most by mainstream audiences, peer
14
filmmakers, and critics, the boundaries between these film types, and the discourse
surrounding them. The main research question of this book about the social valuation of
film is the following:

In what ways and to what extent can the films appreciated most by the audience, the
film industry, and professional critics be distinguished, and how do film critics in various
cultural contexts across the Western world classify and make sense of this range of films?

This thesis considers the development of the boundaries between art films and commercial
movies against the backdrop of various trends in the Western film world between 1955
and 2005. It investigates which types of films professional film critics in Dutch, French,
German, and U.S. newspapers discussed in this time period, and to what extent these films
qualify as “popular” or “prestigious”. The broader trends in film classification lead to
inquiry into the particularities of such classifications. One of the questions addressed in the
thesis concerns the qualities of the movies presently appreciated most by mainstream
audiences, peer filmmakers, and professional critics across various Western countries. It
examines whether “popular”, “professional” and “critical” tastes are in fact related to film
types that vary according to production and content features. Shifting focus to film
discourse, the research addresses whether present-day film criticism can be differentiated
according to film type. Are the movies that are valued most by the public, the film industry,
and the critics appraised by similar or different criteria? The examination of film discourse
employed by critics is then continued with an eye on cross-national similarities and
differences. On the one hand, evaluation schemas have been found to vary across national
contexts, but on the other hand, trends of cultural globalization have been argued to induce
homogeneity. Hence, the question posed is whether film discourses in France, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom (U.K.), and the United States can presently be
differentiated and typified. The answers to the dissertation’s various questions are
recaptured in the final chapter, where their consolidation and revisiting the literature
result in a response to the main research question.

15
1.1.2 A Triad of Comparative Research
Inspired by various calls for comparative research on cultural production and consumption
(Janssen & Peterson, 2005; Peterson, 2005), my research offers a three-folded comparative
perspective. It highlights differentiation in various ways and delivers a nuanced and
detailed view on the subject matter. First of all, the study features a longitudinal approach
(Chapter 2), which allows for the charting of changes in film coverage in national
newspapers under influence of successive trends in the film world and the media
industries surrounding it. Secondly, I employ a cross-national perspective throughout the
book, regarding these nations as distinct cultural contexts that shape the practices of
cultural valuation. In Chapters 2 and 5, the cross-national comparison is central to my
research; these chapters focus on film classification and discourse across Western national
contexts that display many similarities concerning (film) culture as well as distinguishing
features. In Chapters 3 and 4, the cross-national perspective is subordinate to the
investigation of other differentiations. However, here, the inclusion of various national or
cultural contexts fortifies the conclusions drawn, as certain findings appear to be robust
across different national settings. Finally, my research takes the variety within the overall
film supply into account. The analysis of film valuations focuses on possible differences
between film types by drawing comparisons between films that are valued most by
mainstream audiences, peer filmmakers, and professional critics. In particular, I investigate
whether these film types receive more or less attention in newspaper coverage of film, how
these film types can be qualified, and whether criticism takes on different shapes with
regard to these film types.
Before I specify the dissertation’s four empirical studies, and the particular
comparative perspectives they employ, I briefly discuss the main theoretical concepts and
notions that support this research.

1.2 The Field of Film Production

A much-employed framework for studies within cultural sociology is found in Pierre
Bourdieu’s field theory. Bourdieu’s (1993) model of the “field of cultural production”
presents the domains in which cultural products (e.g. books, paintings, photographs, music,
film) are produced as “fields of struggles”. Various institutional agents compete in order to
16
obtain or improve their positions and thus influence the existing hierarchy of producers
and their creations within the field. Power enables one to impose norms on the cultural
field; norms to which the powerful themselves comply best, which causes their output to be
regarded as most valuable. These ongoing power struggles render the field of cultural
production subject to constant change, during which the standards of production (e.g. of
conventionality and innovativeness) are continually redefined. Such pliability makes for
variation in cultural fields across cultural, social, or political contexts (Bevers, 2005;
DiMaggio, 1987; Janssen et al., 2008; 2011); the battles that are fought are shaped and
restrained by their (institutional) surroundings.
According to Bourdieu (1984), the existing social class hierarchy within society is
reflected in the varying levels of cultural capital present in different layers of a population.
Cultural capital can be defined as a collection of cultural and social knowledge, skills,
experiences, beliefs, and habits that one has required through socialization and education.
Traditionally, the higher one’s position in socio-economic regard, the more advanced one’s
socialization and education, and the more cultural capital one disposes of. Only persons
who possess a high amount of cultural capital have the ability to appreciate art, decipher
the codes inherent to art (Prior, 2005), and thus express legitimate taste (Bourdieu, 1984).
People who lack the required amount of cultural capital are seen to express illegitimate
taste and mostly consume products from the “field of large-scale production” (Bourdieu,
1993).
This “field of large-scale (or mass) production” opposes its subfield of “small-scale
(or restricted) production”. The field of large-scale production produces for the general
mainstream public. It functions according to straightforward economic principles, is
commercially driven, and thus aims to obtain profit and big market-shares (economic
capital). The restricted field of production supplies cultural goods to a specialist public of
peer producers and experts, it is more autonomous from economic structures, denies
economic principles, and pursues artistic worth and prestige (symbolic capital). Generally,
the large-scale field aims at appealing to audiences with average levels of cultural capital at
their disposal, while the restricted field targets those that have acquired considerably more
cultural expertise and experience. Following, since their goals are far apart, the
institutional logics that govern a cultural field differ between the two field segments.
17
Scholars in organizational studies define institutional logics as socially constructed
packages of practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules that provide a framework in
which production is organized and business is conducted (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999).
Culture producers thus frame their enterprises in different manners; they have different
tactics to satisfy their various audiences, e.g. they differ regarding the incorporation of
innovative features (Crane, 1976; Dowd, 2004). While these logics can remain stable for
long periods of time, they have been seen to go through various phases. Ways of operating
may be innovative at first, evolve into notions that are “commonsense”, and finally fade
away (Dowd, 2011).
Applied to the film world, Bourdieu’s theory (1993) would position the blockbuster,
the Hollywood studios, and like-minded producers opposite the art(house) film and (more)
independent filmmakers (Bordwell & Thompson, 1997; McDonald & Wasko, 2008). Indeed,
this distinction, whether operationalized through differences in film content, film
audiences, or the discourse employed (Kapsis, 1989), is very common in studies on the
workings of the film field (Gemser et al., 2006; Heise & Tudor, 2007; Holbrook & Addis,
2008; Tudor, 2005). However, various scholars have pointed out that this strict dichotomy
is difficult to maintain when confronted with today’s cultural industries (Hesmondhalgh,
2006; Prior, 2005). Bourdieu’s studies concerned high arts in a particular time and place,
and did not address the modern-day large-scale field of cultural production that is
dominated by multimedia conglomerates (Hesmondhalgh, 2002). Current trends like
commercialization, globalization, and declassification offer circumstances that put
Bourdieu’s ideas on the dynamics of cultural fields to the test (Janssen, 2005). In this
research, the analysis of the film world is structured by Bourdieu’s model of the field of
cultural production, while simultaneously exploring the theory’s applicability in different
contexts, across time and place.

1.2.1 Classification and Recognition of Film

While cultural producers might compete which each other for success and the authority to
set standards, the value of their work and the positions these producers can claim in the
field are not just for the industry itself to decide. Cultural classification plays a key role in
the structuring of a cultural field (Dowd, 2011). Classification processes involve describing,
18
interpreting, labeling, and evaluating products according to the particular field’s logics, and
implicate the various agents in the field (DiMaggio, 1987; Janssen et al., 2011). Three
agents or institutions are often perceived as most central to the valuation of cultural
products: public, critics, and peers (Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Hicks & Petrova, 2006; Lampel &
Nadavulakereb, 2009; Schmutz, 2005; Van Rees, 1983). They reward cultural products
with, respectively, popular recognition, critical recognition, and professional recognition. In
the case of film, popular recognition equals the popularity a film has among mainstream
audiences, and may be operationalized as box office results or the number of tickets sold.
Critics express critical recognition or acclaim as they pay attention to a film, praise it, or
place it on the annual shortlists of their outlets. Professional recognition tends to be
articulated through (nominations for) prestigious awards and placement on prominent
film festivals’ programs. These three types of recognition signal various types of value
being assigned to products at the time of their release. Further, the interplay of types of
recognition results in the positioning of cultural products between their contemporaries
and predecessors. Such cultural consecration follows from the value assigned by the
various agents and shapes canons of cultural works generally accepted as containing
artistic merit (Schmutz, 2005).
Film audiences play an important role in the valuation of films. The industry’s hit-
or-miss logic and the sizeable financial investments that filmmaking requires make a
production’s estimated commercial success a crucial factor in a studio’s decisions
regarding which projects to set forth (Bielby & Bielby, 1994). Moreover, popular
recognition, a movie’s success in terms of box office returns, seems crucial to the position
its maker can claim in the industry (Allen & Lincoln, 2004). Filmmaking peers accord
professional recognition as they reward nominations and prizes set in prestigious
ceremonial settings, e.g. the annual Academy Awards ceremony and Cannes Film Festival.
Such institutions representing (segments of) the film industry have both grown in numbers
and gained prominence in the film world since the 1960s, a time in which film emancipated
to a form of art in the United States (Baumann, 2007; English, 2005). The competition that
film festivals and award ceremonies generate does not only enable distinctions within the
film world, but also adds value to the cultural genre as a whole. In fact, the more general
trend of institutionalization of film’s practices and resources in this period was shown to
19
have been instrumental in furthering film’s position on the cultural ladder, e.g. the rise of
film studies departments at universities and professional film schools (Baumann, 2007).
Similarly, film criticism was transformed into a professional occupation; one that was no
longer practiced on the side by newspaper journalists, but required specific expertise.
Professional critics gained influence and as the industry became more aware of the
potential effect of reviews on consumers, movie-marketing strategies increasingly
contained the appropriation of critics’ appraisal (Baumann, 2002). Film critics assign value
to films by paying attention to them in their publications, by doing so in a positive manner,
by placing films on publications’ or personal annual shortlists, or by rewarding critics’
prizes (most notably the international Golden Globes).
These three types of recognition show overlap (Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Lampel &
Nadavulakereb, 2009). Various institutions in the film field seem to award merit to the
same films or filmmakers, whereas their respective positions in the field suggest a
differentiation of classifications. Of course, this also casts doubt on the alleged opposition
between the fields of restricted and large-scale cultural production. Apparently, some films
produced within large-scale production nevertheless receive large critical acclaim, in the
long run (e.g. The Exorcist (1973)), in the short run (e.g. Avatar (2009)) or large esteem by
peers (e.g. The Dark Knight (2008)). Alternatively, some films intended for the circuit of
restricted production become ultimately recognized by audiences (e.g. Lost in Translation
(2003)). In addition, films that receive highly regarded Oscar nominations and/or awards
seem to gain popular appeal and perform better at the box office in the weeks after the
announcements or ceremony (Nelson et al., 2001).
These findings are in line with research that shows that classification systems have
grown less hierarchical due to a multitude of developments in Western society (Janssen et
al., 2008; 2011). In a “universe of declassification” cultural classification seem to be more
complex than the dichotomy between art and commercial culture suggests (Prior, 2005). If
various valuating institutional agents make the same choices, the question arises whether
films rewarded with popular, professional, and critical recognition are still being
distinguished as inherently different. While previous research shows that public, peers, and
critics to a large extent appreciate and enjoy the same movies, this research examines
whether this appreciation follows from discussions within similar discourses or whether
20
the terms of appreciation diverge and the negotiations on artistic worth take place along
different lines.

1.2.2 Film Discourse and Aesthetic Systems

The focus of this research lies on film criticism, as this is regarded as a central institution
with regard to value assignment in cultural fields (Janssen, 1997; 1999; Van Rees, 1983).
Critics traditionally serve as important gatekeepers; they wield the power to make or break
artists and art works (Becker, 1982). Further, they protect the field of restricted production
from subsiding to a field of commercial (mass) culture production by admitting certain
producers, while excluding others (Bourdieu, 1993). Above all, critics function as
intermediaries between culture producers and consumers as they inform and advise the
public about the supply offered (Verboord, 2010). As such, their way of talking about a
cultural genre, their discourse, is of influence on the entire field. Moreover, while critics
protect cultural fields from degrading by keeping standards in place, they can also help to
lift them to higher levels by intellectualizing their discourse and developing legitimizing
ideologies to inform that discourse (Baumann, 2007). The status of a cultural genre is not
static but can change over time as “aesthetic mobility” allows for development (Bourdieu,
1993).
The way that cultural products are talked about is so influential that the evolution of
a cultural genre from a form of entertainment to an art genre can become apparent in a
changing discourse (DeNora, 1991; DiMaggio, 1982; Janssen, 1997; 1999; Shrum, 1996). In
fact, the development of a legitimating ideology is crucial in the process of a cultural genre
becoming a genre that can be viewed as a form of art (Baumann, 2001; 2007; Janssen,
2006). The presence of field-specific aesthetic criteria serves as a rationale by which in this
case the cultural genre of film can be recognized as art. As the value of cultural products is
assigned rather than assessed and thus quite subjective, socially constructed sets of criteria
are needed to make consistent distinctions. Not only do these criteria provide the film field
with a justifying logic for the legitimacy of film as art, they also provide the film world with
tools for classifications within (Baumann, 2001). The transformation of a cultural field does
not solely depend on its discourse; there are various factors that facilitate a change in

21
symbolic valuation (Peterson & Anand, 2004), but is has been shown to be a crucial factor
(DeNora, 1991; DiMaggio, 1982; 1992; Ferguson, 1998; Lopes, 2002; Regev, 1994).
The idea that discourses on cultural products can be differentiated can be traced
back to Bourdieu’s writings on the field of cultural production (1993) as well as on taste
and audiences (1984). In these studies, the aesthetic disposition and the popular aesthetic
are discerned; two systems of criteria wielded by different, more or less culturally
legitimate, socially defined taste groups. An aesthetic disposition is required to truly
appreciate a work of art, to decipher the codes inherent to art (Prior, 2005), and thus
express legitimate taste (Bourdieu, 1984). This aesthetic disposition entails a focus on form
rather than function, a so-called “pure gaze” that implies disconnecting from ordinary life,
and the rejection of anything too human, common, or easy. The aesthetic disposition
transcends mundane matters and creates distance between the work of art and its
observer. It inspires a “disinterestedness” that refers to the Kantian aesthetic that
separates “that which pleases” from “that which gratifies” (Bourdieu, 1984). Exertion of
this disposition is the prerogative of people who possess high levels of cultural capital.
In contrast, a popular aesthetic is defined in relation to its viewer, wherein the
distance between audience and cultural good evaporates. This aesthetic system can be
defined as the “naïve gaze”, wherein the affirmation of continuity between everyday life
and art or culture is central, and function rules over form. Those who employ a popular
aesthetic seek participation or interaction with the observed. Matters of logic, familiarity,
and easy identification are preferred to formal experimentation, symbolism, and
ambiguousness in culture (Bielby & Bielby, 2004; Van Venrooij & Schmutz, 2010). As the
popular aesthetic emphasizes the continuity between the cultural good and the everyday
life of the audience, this manner of appreciating art does not necessitate much cultural
capital and is regarded by Bourdieu as expressing illegitimate taste (Bourdieu, 1984).
The importance of differentiated discourses that are characterized by distinct
aesthetic systems has already been illustrated in the case of film. In the United States, in
contrast to European countries, film had the standing of rather simple-minded mass
entertainment during its first decades. However, a number of developments both within
and outside the film field led to film’s evolution to a cultural genre that can be related to as
art (Baumann, 2001; 2007). A co-called “changed opportunity space” for film allowed the
22
cultural genre to reposition itself; e.g. the growing popularity of television and the
emancipation of film audiences enabled film to be re-assessed in relation to other cultural
genres and audience segments. At the same time, as discussed earlier, an
institutionalization of film practices and resources took place, professionalizing and
legitimating various elements of the film field. Meanwhile, critics were partially responsible
for the intellectualization of the film world as their discourse shifted to a more analytic and
interpretive mode and they erected aesthetic standards. Content analysis of film reviews
published between 1925 and 1985 shows that reviews increasingly contained high art
terms and critical concepts (Baumann, 2001), pointing towards the appliance of the
aesthetic disposition. While changes in the film world, developments in its wider societal
context and the founding of a legitimizing ideology have resulted in the possibility of film to
be regarded as art, this does not mean that all films now belong to that category. Rather,
the establishment of film art has supplemented the American large-scale film field with a
restricted field of film production (Bourdieu, 1993).
These developments in the film world mainly took place in the 1960s and early
1970s. Since then, many things have changed in the international film field yet again,
especially since the blockbuster mode of film production became popular in the mid-1970s
(Bordwell & Thompson, 1997) and conglomeration started to characterize the cultural
industries in this same period (Hesmondhalgh, 2002). Commercialization has rendered
filmmaking an evermore-risky endeavor; the “hit or miss” logic (Bielby & Bielby, 1994) of
the field makes business models increasingly complex and expensive. The eminence of the
blockbuster movie, whose popularity rose exponentially after the release of Jaws (1975)
and Star Wars (1977), makes the commercial film world one that is ruled by multi-million
dollar budgets, movie stars, special effects, all-round marketing campaigns (Bordwell &
Thompson, 1997; Drake, 2008), and synergy with other cultural products (McDonald &
Wasko, 2008; Wasko, 2001). Making movies in this field of production has become the
prerogative of multi-media conglomerates. Meanwhile, despite (or maybe due to) the
pervasiveness of commercialization, the lines between commercial and art film production
are fading. Major film companies have tapped into the more artistically inspired film genres
by forming subdivisions or subsidiaries (Schatz, 2009) such as Fine Line Cinema (Time
Warner) and Castle Rock Entertainment (Warner Bros.). These developments prompt the
23
question whether changes within and without the film world since 1985 have been met by
shifts in film discourse once more. How can film discourse be qualified today? And are all
films regarded in the same manner or is there a differentiation according to film types?
These questions are addressed in this research.
Another development that likely affects film classification and discourse is the
expanded international exchange of cultural products. Processes of cultural globalization
have resulted in cultural fields that more strongly resemble each other across national
contexts (Janssen et al., 2008; 2011; Kuipers, 2011; Kuipers & De Kloet, 2009; Sapiro,
2010). The film world is particularly susceptible to such trends, as film production is
governed by a handful of global conglomerates (Barthel-Bouchier, 2011). Hollywood
movies prevail on import markets around the world, resulting in seemingly homogenized
film fields in which blockbuster series like Harry Potter and Spiderman dominate
(boxofficemojo.com). However, whereas global audiences consume the same cultural
products to a large degree, they do not necessarily make sense of them in the same manner
across nations (Liebes & Katz, 1993). Tastes and evaluation schemas are socially
constructed (Lamont & Thévenot, 2000), therefore reception of cultural objects can vary
according to a number of context characteristics (Cheyne & Binder, 2010; Daenekindt &
Roose, 2011). Following, national contexts can bear influence on tastes and the assignment
of value to cultural products. As various environmental factors increase the probability of
individuals making sense of their surroundings in a particular way (Lamont, 1992), global
audiences may consume the same movies, but culturally diverse groups across the globe
may still interpret and ascribe meaning to these movies in a variety of ways (Liebes & Katz,
1993). Cultural surroundings can differentiate national cultural repertoires of evaluation
despite the influence of globalization (Lamont & Thévenot, 2000). This is another issue
considered in this thesis.

1.3 Four Studies on the Social Valuation of Film

Now that the key theoretical concepts and previous studies have been addressed, the stage
is set for the research that comprises this dissertation. Works on the dynamics of social
valuation of film have left particular aspects of film classification and discourse to be
investigated, which this research aims to bring to light. The dissertation consists of four
24
empirical studies, which, taken together, address in what ways and to what extent films
enjoyed most by the three main valuating institutional agents in the film field can be
distinguished, and how critics in various cultural contexts across the Western world
classify and make sense of this range of films.

1.3.1 Boundaries between Prestige and Popularity of Film

The first study assesses the state of the boundaries between the fields of restricted and
large-scale film production over time and in various national contexts through the analysis
of film reporting in Western national newspapers. The main question reads: How and to
what extent does the alleged shifting of the boundaries between the restricted and large-scale
fields of film production between 1955 and 2005 become apparent in the film criticism
published in French, German, Dutch and U.S. newspapers? In order to perform a quantitative
content analysis of film coverage, data was collected on films that were covered in the
newspapers in the reference years 1955, 1975, 1995 and 2005. The types of film receiving
attention over the years and across national contexts are charted, distinguishing movies
according to the type of recognition received (professional or popular) – i.e. their command
of symbolic or economic capital (Bourdieu, 1993). The former is operationalized as
prestige in the shape of prestigious awards for the relevant films as well as for the
responsible director, the latter as the relevant film’s popularity expressed in yearly box
office reports and the director’s prior commercial success. The study demonstrates the
shifts in classifications made by professional critics, and changes in the dynamics between
critics, audiences, and peer filmmakers via a range of statistical analyses.

1.3.2 Dimensions of Conventionality and Innovation in Film

Whereas Chapter 2 considers film classification in a broader sense, Chapter 3 zooms in on
the film preferences expressed by the film field’s three main valuating agents. This study’s
central query reads: How do films that are bestowed with popular, professional, and critical
recognition differ with regard to their material practices and symbolic affordances, and what
is these attributes’ relative importance in the various processes of film classification?
This research question is addressed through the analysis of production traits and
viewers’ classifications of the movies appreciated most by public, peers, and critics in 2007
25
in four Western countries, with an emphasis on the conventionality and innovativeness of
these features. The data consists of film titles rewarded with the most popular,
professional, and critical recognition in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and
the United States in 2007 (measured as, respectively, commercial success, winning or being
nominated for prestigious film awards, and placement on yearly shortlist or awards
handed out by critics’ associations, quality newspapers or specialist magazines). Material
practices are operationalized through a number of production attributes, underlying
patterns therein are uncovered, and the eminence of these patterns in the three film types
is established. The symbolic affordances of the sampled films are examined by means of a
questionnaire in which regular film viewers assessed the conventional and/or innovative
nature of the titles via four predefined dimensions, which are then put across film types as
well. Finally, the interaction of material and symbolic film traits in different film types is
tested via multivariate analyses.

1.3.3 Film Discourse on the Praised and Acclaimed

Chapter 4 investigates whether the film types examined in the previous chapter
differentiate today’s film discourse. How can present-day film criticism be characterized and
understood? Are films that are ultimately consecrated by popular, professional, and critical
recognition appraised by similar or different aesthetic criteria? This research consists of
inductive content analysis of film reviews published by four newspapers of record in the
United States and the United Kingdom in 2007. It concerns reviews written about the film
corpus that was constructed for Chapter 3. All reviews were coded in terms of the topics
they addressed; these codes are distributed into themes, of which the prominence per film
type is tested. Factor analysis clusters together the fifteen themes into fundamental
discourse components. Subsequently, the respective prominence of the discourse
components in reviews of movies with popular, professional, and critical recognition is
explored.

1.3.4 National Cultural Repertoires of Evaluation in a Global Age

Having gained understanding of current film discourse in Chapter 4, the last empirical
study explores the differentiation of this discourse across various Western societies. The
26
question posed is: To what extent can national cultural repertoires of evaluation be
differentiated in present-day Western film discourse? This research comprises of inductive
content analysis of film reviews published in elite newspapers in four national contexts
(France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States). It extends the data
used in the previous chapter to include film criticism from the France and the Netherlands.
The study considers the variety of film types that was scrutinized in Chapter 3. Film
reviews were coded for the topics they attended to, which are then collapsed into more
general themes. Following, factor analysis establishes four fundamental discourse
components. The respective eminence of those discourse components in the four national
cultural repertoires of evaluation is then examined by means of a multivariate analysis. The
analysis controls for review lengths and for film types.

27
28
 Chapter 2
Boundaries between Prestige and Popularity of Film:
Film Art and the Commercial Movie in Cross-National Perspective,
1955-2005

2.1 Introduction
Melancholia (2011) versus The Hangover (2009); Das Weisse Band (2009) versus Eat Pray
Love (2010): all comparably well-known films released in recent years. Yet, each falls on
one of two sides of a central division in the international film world, which separates the
work of film art and the commercial film product. Despite the widely accepted idea that
film can be viewed as art (Baumann, 2007), and filmmakers as artists, far from all movies
and directors are granted these titles. In fact, the art film and the blockbuster movie seem
to represent two opposing paradigms in one cultural field. This notion is in line with
Bourdieu’s (1993) model of the “field of cultural production”, which clearly distinguishes
between cultural fields that are concerned with producing either mainstream commodities
for mass audiences or works of artistic worth for the selected few. The differences between
these “restricted” and “large-scale” fields comprise production processes, goals, ideologies,
audiences, and the ways in which products are evaluated and valued (Bourdieu, 1983;
1984).
Due to the ongoing power struggles that characterize the dynamics of cultural-
production fields, the film field is an ever-changing entity that shape-shifts over time. In the
twentieth century, for example, film experienced periods of both intellectualization
(Baumann, 2001; 2007) and commercialization (Bordwell & Thompson, 1997; McDonald &
Wasko, 2008). This fluidity also results in film fields varying across national, social, cultural
and political contexts (DiMaggio, 1987; Janssen et al., 2008; 2011). Accordingly, the
relation between restricted and large-scale film production is subject to change and
variation. The extent to which either film art or popular movies impose norms on
producers throughout the film world (Bourdieu, 1993) can vary considerably from one

29
period and one national context to another, and may affect the field’s entire structure. As
such, the boundary between these two categories of film is at stake. On the one hand, as
film develops along artistic lines, this boundary is likely to become more clearly defined,
thus adding prestige to the cultural genre. On the other hand, as commercialization takes
hold of both the film world and the media landscape surrounding it, the distinction
between artistic and popular film is likely to become more blurred.
The aim of this study is to assess the state of the boundaries between the restricted
and large-scale film production fields over time and in different national contexts. In order
to achieve this, an analysis is performed of film reporting in national quality newspapers
from several Western countries. Such newspapers constitute a platform on which the
struggle between commercial and artistic forces is clearly manifested. Whereas previous
research demonstrates film’s growing eminence within arts and culture coverage over the
years (Heilbrun, 1997; Janssen, 1999, Janssen et al., 2011) and the intensified international
orientation of film coverage (Janssen et al., 2008), this study intends to clarify which types
of film are reported on over time. Prior studies also provide insight into the development of
an art world for film (Baumann, 2001), the distinction between artistic and commercial
filmmaking (Barthel-Bouchier, 2011), and the dynamics of value attribution to both (Allen
& Lincoln, 2004; Heise & Tudor, 2007; Hicks & Petrova, 2006; Zuckerman & Kim, 2003).
Building on these studies, this study examines the development of the boundary between
the two fields of film production. We study the types of film that receive attention in film
reviews in Dutch, French, German, and U.S. quality newspapers between 1955 and 2005 in
order to answer the question: How and to what extent do the boundaries between the
restricted and large-scale fields of film production between 1955 and 2005 become
apparent in film coverage in Dutch, French, German, and U.S. newspapers?

2.2 Field Theory and Film

Bourdieu (1993) regards cultural production fields as being characterized by struggles, in
which producers battle for powerful positions and subsequent influence on the existing
hierarchy. Each field is divided into two segments; the field of large-scale (or mass)
production, opposed by its subfield of small-scale (or restricted) production. The two are
distinguished by the degree to which they are autonomous from the “field of power”
30
(Bourdieu, 1993: 38), i.e. a set of dominant power relations in society, or the “ruling
classes”. The large-scale field is strongly dominated by the field of power, is driven by
regular economic logics, and is concerned with obtaining the largest market-share possible.
The relatively autonomous restricted field is characterized by a denial of economic
principles and considers artistic worth as its goal. In other words, the former field is
directed at gaining public acclaim, while the latter strives for recognition from peer
producers and experts. Both of these segments offer distinct rewards to cultural producers.
Large, mainstream audiences provide producers with economic capital (money). However,
high levels of economic capital (Bourdieu, 1993) tend to come at the cost of much lower
levels of symbolic capital (accumulated prestige, consecration, and honor), which is
obtained by appealing to specialist audiences (Zuckerman & Kim, 2003). Following on from
this, a clear distinction between restricted and mass production of cultural goods becomes
apparent in the prominence of different ways of valuing these goods: symbolic capital is
found in nominations, prizes, honors, and acclaim that add prestige, whereas economic
capital is acquired from high revenues and large market shares. To give in to commercial
pressure would mean acquiring more economic power but a loss of the symbolic capital
that characterizes (or even upholds) the restricted field of production. Surrendering to
market forces would blur the boundary between the large-scale and small-scale fields.
Equally, the field boundary would become less clear if commercial fields were to adapt
strategies used in the restricted field.
Several authors have pointed out the limitations of Bourdieu’s work when applied to
contemporary cultural production (Hesmondhalgh, 2006; Prior, 2005), arguing that the
focus on the high arts and literature make it less adaptable to the cultural industries that
are paramount in the current cultural landscape. Hesmondhalgh (2006) suggests that the
application of a Bourdieusian analysis to today’s television and other media may
demonstrate that large-scale production is more nuanced, with relations between
heteronomy and autonomy being more complex, and popularity and prestige not
contradicting each other as much as claimed (Zuckerman & Kim, 2003). Nevertheless, the
dichotomy between film art and commercial movies has been employed in much scholarly
work on the film field (e.g. Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Barthel-Bouchier, 2011; Heise & Tudor,
2007; Hicks & Petrova, 2006; Holbrook & Addis, 2008). Tudor (2005: 138) explains the
31
difficulty in doing so, stating, “[…] with late modern fragmentation the structuring
opposition between art and commerce is not the force that it once was. In a multiplex
culture, art is commerce, and the art-movie has become yet another niche product on the
shelves of the cultural supermarket.” In this article we aim to qualify this alleged shifting of
boundaries.

2.3 The Legitimization of Film

Currently, the idea that film can be appreciated as a serious art form is widely recognized.
However, this has not always been the case (Baumann, 2007). In the U.S. in the early 20 th
century, film was generally seen as a form of light entertainment for the working-class
masses, not as a cultural product of potentially artistic merit (Baumann, 2001). It was not
until the 1960s that circumstances allowed film to be promoted as art. In contrast, the idea
of film as art was accepted at an early stage in Europe (Elsaesser, 2005; McDonald &
Wasko, 2008). In other words, Europe had a restricted field of film production before the
U.S. did. Baumann (2007) stresses three major developments crucial to the realization of
this legitimate art world for film: changing opportunity space, institutionalization of
practices and resources, and the founding of a legitimating ideology.
The intellectualization of the film world was consequential to the aesthetic
standards critics put in place (Baumann, 2001). As the “auteur theory” traveled from
France to the U.S., a new form of American film criticism called “auteurism” became
influential. This theory recognizes the film director as the sole creative force from whose
genius the entire production sprouts (Sarris, 1962). In Europe, this rationale had been
deployed since the 1920s, when directors were already largely regarded as auteurs. The
growing importance of auteurism in the American film field has become apparent through
the increased prominence of directors in film coverage (Baumann, 2001) and serves as an
indicator of the emergence of a restricted film field.
As the overall film field evolved and the outlines of a restricted sector of the field
became visible, the struggles over who and what belonged to that sector became full-
blown. What is film art and what is not? Most sociologists of the arts have accepted the idea
that the legitimization of cultural products results from the interaction between the various
actors in a particular field (Becker, 1982; Bourdieu, 1993). Commonly, three main
32
institutional agents can be identified when it comes to the valuation of cultural products:
public, critics and peers (Allen & Lincoln, 2004). Their perceptions, selections, judgments
and discourses with regard to particular products may be more or less similar, resulting in
comparable or very distinct classifications of cultural products according to their alleged
meaning, style, quality, effects or other properties. The types of recognition awarded by
public, critics, and peers can be defined as, “popular recognition, critical recognition, and
professional recognition,” respectively (Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Schmutz, 2005).
Film audiences are all-important in the commercial field of film production; by
buying tickets they grant a movie the popular recognition it aimed to achieve. Moreover, a
movie’s success in terms of box office returns is crucial to the position its maker can claim
in the field (Allen & Lincoln, 2004), as reputation is key in the field’s risky “hit or miss”
business model (Bielby & Bielby, 1994; Kapsis, 1989). Since commercial filmmaking
requires such large financial investments, predictions about a project’s success may make
or break the deal. High levels of economic capital are needed to enter and then stay in the
mass production film field.
Likewise, symbolic capital is crucial to filmmakers who strive to be considered part
of the restricted film field, and continuing to earn symbolic capital is required so as not to
be spat back out into the mainstream field. Appealing to various agents within the film art
domain may satisfy this aspiration. As professional critics tend to serve as gatekeepers
(Becker, 1982; Bourdieu, 1993; Janssen, 1999; Shrum, 1996) who protect the restricted
field from “degrading” to a field of mass culture by embracing some artists while excluding
others, their approval serves as an important source of acclaim. This acclaim may take the
form of attention paid to particular products, positive valuations, nominations and prizes,
or positions on periodic shortlists.
Symbolic capital may also be awarded to films and their makers within the
filmmaking community; peer movie professionals are part of artful films’ target audience of
experts (Bourdieu, 1993). They reward films with merit through film festivals and award
ceremonies (Baumann, 2007; De Valck, 2007; English, 2005), e.g. the Cannes Film Festival
and the Academy Awards. Prizes serve as a claim to authority, providing “an institutional
basis for exercising, or attempting to exercise, control over the cultural economy, over the
distribution of esteem and reward on a particular cultural field – over what may be
33
recognized as worthy of special notice.” (English, 2005: 51) Moreover, the prize is a tool in
establishing the overall cultural field as one that deserves esteem.
Previous research (Allen & Lincoln, 2004) into the dynamics of popular,
professional and critical recognition of film concludes that different agents and institutions
in the American film field appear to increasingly make similar choices and award merit to
the same films or filmmakers. Such a picture also emerges from comparable studies in the
fields of literature and music (Janssen, 1997; Rosengren, 1987; Schmutz, 2005). Strikingly,
these findings are at odds with the alleged opposition between the fields of restricted and
large-scale cultural production. According to Bourdieu’s model, different agents that
construct various types of value in distinct manners characterize the two domains.
However, this does not seem to be, or no longer seems to be the case.

2.4 Boundaries in Cross-National Perspective

The film field has witnessed further changes since the emergence of the U.S. art world for
film in the 1960s (Baumann, 2007). In the last few decades of the twentieth century,
commercialization forced the large-scale film field to continuously come up with new and
elaborate strategies to appeal to larger audiences to help them break box office records
(McDonald & Wasko, 2008). The expensive blockbuster mode of film production has
proven its profitability and remains strong in the 21st century (Baker & Faulkner, 1991;
Bordwell, 2006). Making movies has become the business of major media conglomerates
with multi-million dollar budgets that allow for state of the art special effects, the inclusion
of star actors, and an array of possibilities for synergy (Wasko, 2001). As no-one is able to
predict which of these expensive films will become hits, playing it safe and staying within
the borders of mainstream commercial film is often regarded the best option. Independent
producers of artistic films struggle to get their risky films financed and distributed. This
commercialization also takes place in the wider cultural and media landscape in Western
societies (Hesmondhalgh, 2002); newspapers, television broadcasters and other media
increasingly have to adjust to the preferences of the public in order to sustain their market
share. This means that, in turn, the newspapers reporting on the commercialized film
world encounter a working environment that is ever more concerned with appealing to the
largest possible audiences.
34
 Meanwhile, the hierarchies between and within cultural genres are seen to crumble
(Janssen et al., 2008; 2011), as audiences become more omnivorous in their cultural tastes
(Peterson & Kern, 1996; Van Eijck & Knulst, 2005). These trends of commercialization and
declassification (Hesmondhalgh, 2006; Prior, 2005) combined result in the exchange of
filmmaking strategies and principles between the fields of art film and blockbuster movie.
Over time, novelties from the restricted sector make their way to the mainstream
filmmakers. Art-house cinema lends strategies, in particular marketing strategies, from the
commercial producers in order to survive the increasingly tough economic climate in the
cultural industries (Drake, 2008). As a result, several films from the restricted film field
have succeeded at the box office in recent years (e.g. Black Swan (2010)), while commercial
movies have reached critical acclaim in more than one case (e.g. Avatar (2009)). Here, we
encounter the phenomenon of the cultural fields’ differing valuating institutional agents
expressing appreciation of the same products.
Another phenomenon leaving an imprint on the film field is the growing cultural
globalization (Crane et al., 2002; Tomlinson, 1999). The increased international exchange
of cultural products is most visible in Hollywood’s domination of the global film world. The
sizable American film industry functions as the barely challenged provider of movies in
Western society, as the industries of Western Europe can hardly compete with its size and
scope (Bordwell & Thompson, 1997; Elsaessar, 2005; Scott, 2000). The European
industries lack Hollywood’s capability to attract large audiences which results from the
enormous and diverse home market the studios have always served. This unequal power
balance can be seen in the increasingly similar box office lists across the West. At the same
time, media in general tend to become more internationally oriented (Janssen et al., 2008).
Newspapers in most Western countries are now more inclined to pay attention to foreign
art and culture than they were in the past.
We expect to find both similarities and differences when it comes to the boundaries,
and shifts in the boundaries, between the restricted and large-scale film fields in France,
Germany, the Netherlands, and the U.S. While these four societies have a lot in common,
they also have their own social structural and cultural particularities (Bevers, 2005;
DiMaggio, 1987; Janssen et al., 2008; 2011; Lamont, 1992), which have shaped and
continue to influence their cultural fields.
35
 The opportunity space (Baumann, 2001) for film as art was quite different in Europe
from the start; social conditions made a group of patrons available who could effectively
promote film as art. European film audiences were more diverse than their American
counterparts, as not only members of the working-class but also of the middle-class and
upper-middle class as well as intellectuals attended the movies (Baumann, 2007). In
addition, the European audiences were much smaller; film was not the mass entertainment
phenomenon it was in the U.S. Being situated in the cultural market along with theater and
music programs instead of cheap nickelodeons, film did not have the inferior image it did in
the U.S. Nor has it ever been as commercially driven; the European film industries have
never been as financially healthy or organized after WWII, and have never had the
advantage of a huge home market due to the European linguistic and cultural diversity
(Baumann, 2007; Scott, 2000). The European countries, however, saw the development of
an art world for film as early as the 1920s, when intellectuals were already involved in a
discourse on film as art.
Another main difference between the European and American film fields is found in
the modes of production; whereas Hollywood was mainly focused on producing an
impressive quantity of films, the European film industries aimed to produce smaller
numbers of more prestigious pictures (Elsaesser, 2005; Jäckel, 2003). Consequently, film in
Hollywood earned economic capital in a large-scale film field, while the more restricted
film field in Europe was rewarded with symbolic capital. European film production was not
characterized by a studio system; alliances between production companies were formed
for projects initiated by directors with specific ideas. This is still illustrated by the division
of property rights and final say in film production in France and the U.S. (Baker & Faulkner,
1991; Scott, 2000). Under French law, the director has control over the final cut of the film
and is the owner of its intellectual property rights, which, in the U.S., belong to the
production company. The different appropriation of the director’s role shows and was
reinforced by the early habit of European directors to be educated in the arts, whereas
American directors learned on the job, employed by the studios.
Finally, film criticism had taken an entirely different shape in Europe, especially in
France. There, movies were approached and appreciated by the nouvelle vague as art works
made by true artists; emphasis was on formal elements and interpretation. Auteurism
36
already influenced European film worlds, but would not arrive in the U.S. until the 1960s
(Baumann, 2007; Kapsis, 1992; Sarris, 1962; Tudor, 2005).
Considering these cross-national differences, we anticipate stronger boundaries
between restricted and large-scale film fields in the European countries than in the U.S., as
well as more dramatic boundary shifts in France, Germany, and the Netherlands because of
their different points of departure with regard to commercialization and globalization. We
expect the boundary between restricted and large-scale film production to be weaker in the
Dutch than in the German and French film fields because of the Netherlands’ small size, the
associated limitations of the Dutch cultural (film) industries and the resulting openness to
cultural products from abroad (Janssen et al., 2008; 2011). The French and German film
industries are substantially larger than the Dutch industry and can thus respond
themselves to the demand for film to a greater extent. In addition, these two larger
European countries are characterized by a more stratified social structure and stricter
hierarchy.
Taking stock of the various (contrasting) trends the film world has seen in the
twentieth century, the boundaries between the restricted and large-scale film fields are
likely to have shifted between 1955 and 2005. Whereas events in the 1960s led to the
maturity of the idea of film as art and thus to a more clearly defined restricted film field,
commercialization, declassification and globalization might well have affected this
restricted field from the 1980s onwards and thus take away from its autonomy. We
propose that these shifts can be charted by analyzing film coverage in national quality
newspapers, as they present a platform on which the currents of the world are displayed
and discussed, including fluxes in the cultural world. The press serves as a crucial
institution in matters of legitimacy; its contents give an impression of what a society deems
legitimate at a certain point in time (Baumann, 2007; Ferree et al., 2002; Janssen et al.,
2008). Our expectations with regard to the visibility of film’s changing boundaries are
specified as follows:

37
Hypothesis 1
1a. Between 1955 and 1975, the boundaries between the restricted and large-scale fields of
film production become more clearly defined due to the greater autonomy of the art world
for film. This will be apparent in our data in two ways:
 The film director is more often the principal feature in the film review, as film is now
regarded as the work of an artist, an auteur.
 More newspaper coverage of films by prestigious directors.
1b. This trend is most clearly visible in France and Germany, less so in the Netherlands and
the least in the U.S.
Hypothesis 2
2a. Between 1975 and 2005, the boundaries between the restricted and large-scale film
fields become less clearly defined due to the growing influence of commercialization and
globalization. This will be apparent in our data by an increase in newspaper coverage of
films by popular (commercially successful) directors.
2b. This trend is most clearly visible in the U.S., less so in the Netherlands, and the least in
France and Germany.

2.5 Data and Methods

For our study of the boundaries between the restricted and large-scale fields of film
production in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S. between 1955 and 2005, we
collected data on films that were covered in the newspapers in four reference years; 1955,
1975, 1995, and 2005.1 Film coverage in Western national newspapers is considered to
reflect the state of the boundary between the domains of film art and commercial movies.
We aim to chart the types of film receiving attention over the years and across national
contexts, distinguishing movies according to the responsible directors’ command of

1 Obviously, the year 1965 would also have been an interesting and valuable reference year, in view of the major changes
the (American) film field went through in this decade. But given limited resources, we preferred to cover a longer time
period, meaning that we had to settle for longer intervals between reference years. While data from newspapers in 1965
might have shown dramatic changes in critical discourse, thus potentially demonstrating the development of the art
world for film, it also could have shown an exaggerated peak in trends that we want to chart more generally over time.
We expect to see the turbulent times in the (American) film field reflected in the developments between 1955 and 1975.
The changes we can track between these two reference years will show trends that have proven to be more persistent.

38
symbolic or economic capital (Bourdieu, 1993). The former is identified as prestige in the
form of prestigious awards, the latter as popularity expressed in annual box office reports.
We selected newspapers that are primarily read by the intellectual and cultural elite
because these papers determine to a considerable extent whether and how subjects are
discussed within other media and the wider community, and thus fulfill a key role in
processes of cultural valorization. Within this category of newspapers, we selected those
with a national or supra-national distribution, which had the largest paid circulation and
appeared during the entire period studied here: Le Monde and Le Figaro for France;
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung for Germany; NRC Handelsblad and
De Volkskrant for the Netherlands; and The New York Times for the U.S.. We focused on four
weeks in order to avoid the distortion of our data by the inclusion or exclusion of certain
days of the week or seasonal influences. Our data consisted of 1,902 articles about film in
total. All articles were then allocated a code for a wide range of variables (the ones relevant
to the present analysis will be discussed below). In addition to the sample of newspaper
articles, online film databases such as the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB.com) and Box
Office Mojo (boxofficemojo.com) served as important sources of information.
Regarding film directors as the central figures in film production, we focused on the
symbolic and economic capital they provide their productions with. We measured a
filmmaker’s symbolic capital (or prestige) as the amount of film awards and award
nominations the director received in the decade prior to the relevant reference year. We
included prestigious international awards as well as national film awards of the four
countries in our analysis: the Academy Awards (or Oscars, 1929), the prizes of the Cannes
Film Festival (1946), the French César Awards (1974), the Deutscher Filmpreiser (1951)
and the Dutch Gouden Kalveren (1981). We included only the three most prestigious prize
categories in our analysis: Best Picture, Best Director and Best Foreign (Language) Film.2
The directors’ economic capital (or commercial success) was measured by their previous
films’ performance on annual box office lists in the decade prior to the relevant reference

2 We note that directors were only allocated a code for awards and nominations received in the capacity of director.
Unlike all other awards, the Oscar for Best Picture is awarded to a film’s producer, not the director. As we are interested
in the prestige of the directors, we allocated them a code for awards or nominations for the films they directed. If a
director directed a film that won the Oscar for Best Picture (only the prize is officially awarded to the producer), in our
data he/she won that award. In addition, if a director received awards or nominations in the capacity of producer in the
past, these are not included in our data.

39
year. We allocated codes for whether the movies these directors made in this period were
listed in the American and French box office top 20 in the years of their release 3. In our
research period, the pool of unique successful directors does not show much fluctuation in
either respect (see Figure 2.1). The numbers of filmmakers responsible for the largest film
hits remain similar, apart from a rise in numbers between the first two periods that is most
likely due to the collapse of Hollywood’s Studio System, which allowed directors who were
not under contract with one of the major studio’s to make films. Likewise, the numbers of
directors who made the most prestigious films (according to the various academies and
festival juries) do not change dramatically, despite showing the same increase after the
1950s.

Figure 2.1 Pool of successful directors France and the United States (N=1498)4

300
250
200 Hit directors
150
100 Prestigious
50 directors
0 Overlap

As this pool of successful directors remains more or less constant, any shifts in attention for
either prestigious or commercially successful filmmakers can be regarded as signaling
changes in the dynamics between the restricted and large-scale fields.

3Box office lists for Germany and the Netherlands were not available to us for all the reference years.
4The figure shows the numbers of directors who were responsible for the box office top 20 lists in France and the United
States in the ten years before the reference years; the numbers of directors who were nominated for Academy Awards or
Cannes Film Festival prizes in the categories Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Foreign Language Film; and the overlap
between these two groups. Data has been abstracted from online sources boxofficemojo.com, boxofficereport.com, and
Wikipedia.

40
2.6 Findings

We present our results according to our sequential hypotheses, which are composed
chronically within our research period. Before doing so, we give a short overview of the
overall data sample according to the variables country, and journalistic genre.
Our data sample of the film coverage in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the
U.S. between 1955 and 2005 consisted of a total of 1,902 newspaper articles. The French
newspapers had the largest share of articles in all reference years except for 1955, when
The New York Times published almost 50% of all articles; in all other years this paper takes
second place. German papers show the least interest in film throughout our research
period. They do, however, tend toward the Dutch papers in their share of the total film
coverage.
Overall, the most prominent journalistic genre in film coverage is the review (see
Appendix A). Only in 1955 did another genre, the news report (often featured in The New
York Times in this period), take up the highest percentage of articles. Reviews are prevalent
in all countries throughout the rest of the period studied here; other journalistic forms
employed are news reports, announcements, background articles and interviews. About
90% of all articles dealt with new films. Below, we will only consider the 1,662 articles
concerned with new releases, but include all types of articles.

2.6.1 The Strengthening of Boundaries (Hypothesis 1)

According to our first hypothesis the strengthening of the boundaries between restricted
and large-scale fields of film production becomes apparent in the greater prominence of the
director in the articles and increasing coverage of films by prestigious directors in the elite
newspapers.

41
Focus on Director

From the 1970s onwards, the director features as the principal feature in a high percentage
of the articles.5 Between 1955 and 1975, the proportion of film items focusing on the film
director greatly increases (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Percentage of film articles focusing on director

A: Differences across
1955 1975 1995 2005 N Χ2
time
All countries 25,5 63,6 55,6 67,3 1,662 ***

France 32.3 73.6 50.0 76.0 601 ***

Germany 47.1 76.7 80.0 77.1 220 **
Netherlands 37.2 54.4 70.1 63.2 327 ***
U.S. 14.7 52.2 37.8 48.5 514 ***
N 470 250 367 575
B: Cross-national
1955 1975 1995 2005
differences
All countries *** ** *** ***
FR – GE <.09 ns *** ns
FR – NL ns ** ** *
FR – US *** ** * ***
GE – NL ns * ns *
GE – US *** * *** ***
NL – US *** ns *** *

Note: FR = France; GE = Germany; NL = Netherlands; US = United States.

*p <.05; **p<.01; ***p < .001; ns: not significant (two-tailed chi-square tests).

Despite a clear peak in the 1975 editions of the American newspaper, this trend is most
apparent in the European newspapers. In the 1995 and 2005 film articles of the NY Times,
the director is significantly less prominent than in the European articles.

Focus on Director-Screenwriters
In view of the increased centrality of the film director in critical discourse, we took a closer
look at the director’s position. As film increasingly became regarded as the expression of
directors’ ideas, expectations regarding screenplays also changed; such “personal” artistic
vision is less likely to be expressed through adaptations of existing screenplays or cultural

5All articles were coded for the person or entity primarily focused on, if any (e.g. actors, directors, production companies,
screenwriters).

42
products. To live up to the idea of the individual auteur, directors increasingly wrote their
own material. Indeed, our data shows that the covered films feature a “director-
screenwriter” to a growing extent. Whereas in 1955 only 15.1% of all discussed films were
written and directed by the same individual, by 1975 this percentage had risen to 39.6%
(Table 2.2). The frequency of articles about adaptations or remakes of existing material
such as novels, plays, musicals and operas drops throughout the years, consistent with the
rise of the director-screenwriter.

Table 2.2 Percentage of film items devoted to films by director-screenwriters (N = 1559)

A: Differences across
1955 1975 1995 2005 N Χ2
time
All countries 17.1 42.3 37.4 43.6 1,559 ***

France 24.1 45.5 30.4 44.3 570 ***

Germany 23.1 40.7 44.8 43.8 206 ns
Netherlands 25.4 45.9 45.5 44.1 305 *
U.S. 9.7 34.5 37.5 42.1 478 ***
N 415 234 350 560
B: Cross-national
1955 1975 1995 2005
differences
All countries ** ns ns ns

Note: FR = France; GE = Germany; NL = Netherlands; US = United States.

*p <.05; **p<.01; ***p < .001; ns: not significant (two-tailed chi-square tests).

Although the more prominent position of the film director is a logical explanation for the
merging of the director and screenwriter role, the rise of the blockbuster mode of film
production during the 1970s and 1980s also contributed to this development. The
blockbuster led to the consolidation of artistic roles (Baker & Faulkner, 1991), as a popular
tactic for minimizing the risks of multi-million dollar productions was using proven talent.
In this way successful directors and screenwriters had the power to bargain for the best
deals that left them in control of both aspects of expensive projects. We therefore have to
consider the possibility that the eminence of the director-screenwriter in the last few
decades of the twentieth century is not necessarily a sign of a more artistic approach to
film. It may point towards the exact opposite trend – that of the prominence of the
blockbuster and thus the commercialization in the film world in these years.

43
Coverage of Prestigious Directors
As a means of measuring their prestige, we allocated a code for directors of the sampled
films who won or were nominated for prestigious awards in the decade prior to the
relevant reference year. The percentage of film items devoted to movies by award-winning
directors doubles between 1955 and 1975, staying at around 30% of all articles in the
following decades (see Table 2.3). This increase in attention for films by prestigious
filmmakers indicates the growing importance of the criteria set by the restricted film field
and thus a strengthening of the boundary with the commercial film world. This trend is
more salient in European papers than in the NY Times, which shows no significant shifts
between the four sample years. However, the NY Times, unexpectedly, does start out with a
higher percentage of articles on movies by prestigious filmmakers in 1955. The attention
for movies by acclaimed directors generally reaches its peak in the 1970s (with the
exception of the French newspapers) and declines slightly afterwards. Nevertheless, this
inclination to review films from prestigious directors appears to have taken root and
remains present in film criticism throughout the years.

Table 2.3 Percentage of film items devoted to movies by award-winning directors

A: Differences across
1955 1975 1995 2005 N Χ2
time
All Countries 15.2 (63) 33.8 (79) 28.3 (99) 28.8 (161) 1,559 ***

France 12.1 (14) 22.7 (20) 36.2 (50) 28.5 (65) 570 ***
Germany 7.7 (2) 40.7 (11) 31.0 (18) 25.3 (24) 206 *
Netherlands 6.0 (4) 47.5 (29) 18.2 (12) 36.0 (40) 305 ***
U.S. 20.9 (43) 32.8 (19) 21.6 (19) 25.4 (32) 478 ns
N 416 235 350 560
B: Cross-national
1955 1975 1995 2005
differences
All Countries ** * * ns
(one or more awards/nominations in past decade)

Note: FR = France; GE = Germany; NL = Netherlands; US = United States. Between brackets: absolute numbers.
*p <.05; **p<.01; ***p < .001; ns: not significant (two-tailed chi-square tests).

44
2.6.2 The Weakening of Boundaries (Hypothesis 2)
Our second hypothesis is in contrast with the former and presumes that the weakening of
the boundaries between the restricted and large-scale film fields will appear in the
newspapers as an increase in the coverage of films by popular directors in the third quarter
of the twentieth century (cf. Hypothesis 2). We therefore assessed whether the filmmakers
responsible for the reviewed films succeeded in producing films that appeared in the
annual French and American box office top 20 in the decade prior to the reference year.

Coverage of Films by Directors with Success at the Box Office

Unexpectedly, we find that the relative attention for movies by commercially successful
directors diminishes after 1955, despite an increase in the total absolute numbers (c.f.
Table 2.4). In fact, the percentages tend to be halved between 1955 and 2005. This trend is
salient in the newspapers of all four countries. In addition, the data show no significant
cross-national differences, apart from the difference displayed in 1995 due to the very low
number of films by popular directors in German newspapers.

Table 2.4 Percentage of film items devoted to films by directors with box-office success in the past decade
A: Differences across
1955 1975 1995 2005 N Χ2
time
All countries 39.0 29.5 18.0 18.2 1,559 ***
(162) (69) (63) (102)

France 39.7 (46) 26.1 (23) 23.2 (32) 19.3 (44) 570 **
Germany 26.9 (7) 29.6 (8) 5.2 (3) 13.7 (13) 206 **
Netherlands 32.8 (22) 31.1 (19) 13.6 (9) 16.2 (18) 305 **
U.S. 42.2 (87) 32.8 (19) 21.6 (19) 21.4 (27) 478 ***
N 162 69 63 102
B: Cross-national
1955 1975 1995 2005
differences
All countries ns ns * ns

Note: FR = France; GE = Germany; NL = Netherlands; US = United States.

*p <.05; **p<.01; ***p < .001; ns: not significant (two-tailed chi-square tests).

Films by commercially successful filmmakers do not gain prominence in film coverage in

France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the U.S. Thus, our data do not give evidence of the
anticipated weakening of the boundaries between art and commercial film (H2).

45
Coverage of Popular and Prestigious Films
Now that we have looked at the newspaper coverage of popular and prestigious film
separately, we turn our attention to these types of film in relation to each other. Are films
by directors with either popularity or prestige more often reviewed in the newspapers?
And what does the presence of both forms of valuation mean in terms of critical attention?
In order to answer these questions, we combined the variables for the symbolic and
economic capital of the reviewed films’ directors. Table 2.5 provides an overview of the
reviewed films whose makers were awarded for neither form of valuation, prestige only,
popularity only, and both prestige and popularity.
In the overall dataset, prestigious films have a larger share than their commercial
rivals from 1975 onwards. Films whose directors have obtained prestige as well as
commercial success take third place in the newspapers, closely behind box-office hits. In
1955, film coverage proportions show the opposite trend.
If we compare the importance of prestige versus popularity across countries, in all
European newspapers films by acclaimed directors appear to be more prominent than
films by those with commercial success. Attention for movies by popular and prestigious
filmmakers is quite evenly divided in The New York Times.

Table 2.5 Percentage of film items devoted to films with popular and professional recognition (N = 1,559)

A. Entire Sample 1955 1975 1995 2005 Χ2

Neither popular nor 60.0 51.3 63.8 62.0
professional recognition
Popular recognition 24.8 15.0 8.3 9.3
Professional recognition 1.0 19.2 18.6 19.8
Both popular and 14.2 14.5 9.7 8.9
professional recognition
N 415 234 350 560 ***
B. France
Neither popular nor 57.8 61.4 52.9 61.4
professional recognition
Popular recognition 30.2 15.9 10.9 10.1
Professional recognition 2.6 12.5 23.9 19.3
Both popular and 9.5 10.2 12.3 9.2
professional recognition
N 116 88 138 228 ***

46
C. Germany
Neither popular nor 73.1 37.0 69.0 66.7
professional recognition
Popular recognition 19.2 22.2 - 8.3
Professional recognition - 33.3 25.9 19.8
Both popular and 7.7 7.4 5.2 5.2
professional recognition
N 26 27 58 95 **
D. Netherlands
Neither popular nor 67.2 42.6 72.7 57.7
professional recognition
Popular recognition 26.9 9.8 9.1 6.3
Professional recognition - 26.2 13.6 26.1
Both popular and 6.0 21.3 4.5 9.9
professional recognition
N 67 61 66 111 ***
E. U.S.
Neither popular nor 57.3 51.7 69.3 63.5
professional recognition
Popular recognition 21.8 15.5 9.1 11.1
Professional recognition 0.5 15.5 9.1 15.1
Both popular and 20.4 17.2 12.5 10.3
professional recognition
N 206 58 88 126 ***

Note: FR = France; GE = Germany; NL = Netherlands; US = United States..

*p <.05; **p<.01; ***p < .001; ns: not significant (two-tailed chi-square tests).

2.7 Conclusion
This study set out to extend our understanding of the shifting of boundaries between the
fields of film art and commercial movies in Western society in the second half of the
twentieth century. Whereas the inclusion of more countries, reference years, more
publications and a greater range of publications would have presented us with an even
more elaborate overview, our analysis of the developments in film coverage in French,
German, Dutch and U.S. newspapers between 1955 and 2005 has provided significant
insight into the effects that trends like intellectualization and commercialization have on
such boundaries.
We anticipated a strengthening of the boundaries between restricted and large-
scale film fields in the 1960s and 1970s to appear in film criticism in two ways, firstly,
increased attention for directors and for films by prestigious directors (H1). From the
47
1970s onwards, the newspapers paid a lot of attention to film directors; they became the
principal feature in the majority of film items. Simultaneously, these directors were
increasingly the sole creative talent in charge of these film productions because of the
consolidation of the roles of director and screenwriter. The percentage of film coverage
devoted to movies by acclaimed directors doubled between 1955 and 1975, staying at
around 30% of all articles in the following decades. This trend is more salient in the
European papers than in the U.S. and confirms our hypothesis.
Secondly, we hypothesized that the boundaries between the domain of the art film
and the territory of the commercial film became less clearly defined between 1975 and
2005. However, we found that the attention for films by commercially successful directors
decreased in the four countries’ quality newspapers, while the pool of commercially
successfully directors remained more or less constant over the years. This trend appears in
all four countries and does not show significant differences across nations. Thus, our
second hypothesis is rejected.
These findings have several theoretical implications. Indeed, while Bourdieu’s
model (1993) presents a useful way of framing the various strands of film production, its
application to the late twentieth century film field does reveal the need to further specify
the dynamics between restricted and large-scale cultural production. Our analysis supports
Baumann’s (2001; 2007) claim that film went through a phase of emancipation during the
1960s; this applies not only to the U.S. film field, but also to the Dutch, French, and German
fields. Film gained legitimacy as a cultural product with artistic merit; the ideology
supporting this stance, the auteur theory, is found to have been ubiquitous in film criticism
ever since. As such, we can state that the power struggles that Bourdieu (1993) deems
inherent to a cultural field have resulted in the restricted field of film production’s ability to
impose its norms onto the wider film world. Not only has the art film obtained more
prominence in film discourse, the aesthetic standards originating in the film art world reign
in discourse on more commercial movies as well. Furthermore, these norms seem to hold
despite the occurrence of trends that are likely to undermine them; the rise of the
blockbuster appears not to have changed the power balance with regards to film discourse.
The boundary between film art and commercial movie is not seen to shift despite
commercialization, globalization, or supposed declassification. This does not mean those
48
trends are fictitious or that they do not show up in film discourse in any way, but more
qualitative analysis is needed to gain insight into the ways in which films are discussed (see
Chapter 4 and 5).
Leading newspapers in all four countries appear to discuss artistic and commercial
movies side by side throughout our research period, implying that both segments of film
production have their place in film discourse across place and time despite changing power
balance. It does therefore seem safe to say that the dynamics between the restricted and
large-scale fields of production in the film industry and by extension the other cultural
industries are more complex than Bourdieu (1993) portrayed, and the boundaries, and
shifts in the boundaries, are more difficult to capture. Prestige and popularity do not
necessarily exclude each other, as they both shape discourse and occasionally show overlap
(Zuckerman & Kim, 2003). The boundary between film art and commercial movies is not so
much renewed with every new phase in the global film world, but evolves without
completely shedding its former appearance. Meanwhile, despite the influential processes of
globalization (Crane et al., 2002), the boundaries between artistic and commercial film
fields are demonstrated to still differentiate across various Western countries. The
described differences between the U.S. and European film worlds render the U.S. boundary
to remain the weakest, while Europe, to various extents, tends to uphold stricter
distinctions.

49
50
 Chapter 3

Dimensions of Conventionality and Innovation in Film:

The Cultural Classification of Blockbusters, Award Winners, and Critics’
Favorites

3.1 Introduction*

In the contemporary film field, the “art house hit” is no longer an oxymoron, as typical art
house films like Amélie (2001) and Little Miss Sunshine (2006) have done very well at the
box office in the past decade. Today’s complex and intertwined film world thus seems to
upset the dual structure that corresponds with Bourdieu’s (1993) influential
categorization of “restricted” and “large-scale” fields of cultural production. Traditionally,
film have often been divided into commercial blockbusters versus works of art as specific
forms of production seemed to match with specific forms of content (Tudor, 2005). This
homologue relationship may be subject to significant changes – resulting in different
perceptions of what constitutes valuable film – or, put more generally, culture.
Cultural classification processes – which involve describing, interpreting, labeling
and evaluating products according to the particular field’s underlying logics – have evolved
in the course of time (cf. Janssen et al., 2011). Not only is there a multitude of institutional
agents that offer some form of recognition in the field, their respective positions seem to
increasingly overlap. Whereas the functioning of agents such as critics and compilers of all-
time greatest films lists has been studied extensively the past years (e.g. Allen & Lincoln,
2004; Hsu, 2006; Zuckerman & Kim, 2003), it is less clear what kind of films receive
recognition by relevant agents in the field. This paper examines how films that are
bestowed with popular, professional, and critical recognition differ with regard to their
production characteristics and content, and what these attributes’ relative importance is in
the various processes of film classification.

* A prior version of this research article has been accepted for publication in Cultural Sociology.

51
 Cultural sociologists have studied the range of classifications of cinema made by
public, peers, and critics who offer, respectively, popular, professional, and critical
recognition (Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Hicks & Petrova, 2006). These various institutional
agents’ different positions in the field result in different criteria and diverged preferences.
Recognition is thus likely to be rewarded to inherently different types of film.
Simultaneously, film scholarship provides an array of studies on, among others, narrative,
genres, national cinema’s, movie stars, film experiences, and ideology in film (e.g. race,
class, sexuality, feminism) as well as work on specific directors, film schools, and era’s
(Bordwell, 2006; Buckland, 2009; Cook, 2007; Mast et al., 1992). Studies on the intersection
of film traits and artistic/commercial success from a sociological or economic perspective
often restrict themselves to gauging production costs and star power (e.g. Holbrook &
Addis, 2008). We bring the two paradigms in dialogue to examine how films’ attributes
relate to cultural classification practices beyond the traditional blockbuster - art house
movie divide. We argue that the production logics, which propel the way films are
classified, are more fine-tuned than that. On the one hand, film production comprises a
material process in which key elements that affect the public’s and critics’ perception (e.g.
setting, time, familiarity theme, narrative complexity) are carefully deliberated. On the
other hand, despite their reliance on formatting, pre-screenings, and other risk aversion
strategies, film producers cannot fully anticipate how viewers respond in terms of
interpretation and valorization (Friedland & Alford, 1991). However fervently producers
attempt to control a film’s reputation and performance, they cannot govern how much
symbolic capital the film will achieve.
By analyzing production traits and viewers’ classifications of the top films of 2007
according to three forms of institutional recognition (public, peers, critics), this study
explores the possible convergence of movie stereotypes and film’s institutional framework.
To increase the reliability of our research, we study successful films in four countries:
France, the Netherlands, the U.K. and the U.S. While cultural classification systems have
repeatedly been shown to differ across countries due to varying social, political, economic,
and cultural contexts (Bevers, 2005; Janssen et al., 2008; Lamont & Thévenot, 2000), such
comparison is not the aim of this article. Still, by sampling films from countries that vary in
their global market share, in production output, and in the status within film history from
52
an artistic perspective, we offer more insight in the internationally oriented film field. In
particular, we can analyze the transnational nature of different types of recognition.

3.2 Classification of Film

Today, the film field is highly differentiated: the supply shows great variation in terms of
genres and subgenres, but also with regard to films’ artistic or commercial orientations.
Whereas the idea of film as art has become widely accepted (Baumann, 2007), certainly not
all movies are rewarded such a position within the dominant classification system
(DiMaggio, 1987; Janssen, 1999); a large portion of the film industry’s output still belongs
with popular culture. As the small-scale field of film as art and the large-scale field of
commercial film answer to different principles (Tudor, 2005), filmmakers (and viewers) in
these realms show strongly diverging opinions on what is a “good” movie. In the small-
scale field accumulation of symbolic capital (or artistic value) is pursued, while the field of
large-scale production is more concerned with obtaining economic capital (material value)
(Bourdieu, 1993). These respective goals not only prescribe two dispositions that differ
greatly - satisfying the “right” aesthetic criteria versus appealing to the largest possible
audience – they also impose expectations on production traits. Whatever forms of
recognition filmmakers aspire to achieve, they seek the approval of relevant institutions
that are legitimized to attribute this recognition.
Building on sociological analyses of how different forms of value are created in
cultural fields (DiMaggio, 1987; Van Rees, 1983; Shrum, 1996), Baumann (2007) has
outlined the institutionalization of the film field since the mid-1930s and its consequences
for film classification. Over time, various forms of institutional recognition have given
weight to a more artistic perspective on film in comparison to the traditional notion of film
as entertainment.
Miscellaneous institutional arrangements now generate forms of recognition that
cater to the aspirations of all kinds of filmmakers. Yet three forms of recognition still
appear to stand out: popular recognition by the public (e.g. box office success), critical
recognition by critics (e.g. film reviews) and professional recognition by peers (e.g. film
awards) (Lampel & Nadavulakereb, 2009; Schmutz, 2005). There is no clear-cut distinction,
however, as was shown by analysis of how films get retrospectively consecrated (Allen &
53
Lincoln, 2004): various institutions in the American film field seem to award merit to the
same films or filmmakers whereas their respective positions in the field suggest a
differentiation of classifications. Of course, this also casts doubt on the alleged opposition
between the fields of restricted and large-scale cultural production. Apparently, some films
emanating from the large-scale production field nonetheless receive large esteem by peers
(e.g. The Dark Knight (2008)), and/or critical acclaim in either the long or short run (e.g.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)). Alternatively, some films originating from the circuit
of restricted production are ultimately recognized by audiences (e.g. Lost In Translation
(2003)). In addition, films that receive highly regarded Oscar nominations seem to gain
popular appeal and perform better at the box office in the weeks after the announcements
(Nelson et al., 2001).
In an era of globalization, commercialization and digitization, Bourdieu’s concepts
thus tend to be stretched (Hesmondhalgh, 2006). In a “universe of declassification” (Prior,
2005: 124), cultural classification seems to supersede the dichotomy between art and
commercial culture. The institutional logics – the material practices and symbolic
affordances guiding the behaviors of institutional agents (Dowd, 2004) - that govern the
film field have become increasingly complex due to processes of product differentiation,
audience segmentations (Hesmondhalgh, 2002; Schatz, 2009; Tudor, 2005) and declining
authority of experts (Keen, 2007; Lupo, 2007). The increased complexity of the present-day
audiovisual industry results in hybrid cultural products that combine traits originating
from both art and entertainment sectors. A fitting illustration of this trend is found in
Hollywood majors that now run subdivisions focusing on art films and regard art film as a
new lucrative niche market; this appears to be such “production on the boundaries”
(Hesmondhalgh, 2006: 222) between restricted and large-scale fields of film production.

3.3 Innovation and Convention in Hollywood

Institutional logics – “socially constructed packages of practices, assumptions, values,
beliefs, and rules that provide a framework in which production is organized and business
is conducted” (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999: 804) -- alter when economic and social contexts
change. Factors as changes in competition, new views on legitimacy, and upcoming
technologies may put pressure on a prevailing logic. For example, the music industry saw a
54
change from a logic of centralized production managed in a highly concentrated top-down
manner, to a logic of decentralized production in which semi-autonomous divisions are in
tune with the latest trends and adaptable to innovation (Dowd, 2004). Described
developments in the film field make it plausible to suppose a comparable shift in dominant
institutional logics in the second half of the twentieth century.
The concept of innovation features as a central point of interest when discussing
classifications of art and popular culture. As said, public, peers, and critics evaluate films
with varying levels of cultural capital, and so a reoccurring theme in academic discourse on
how culture is classified by these various institutions concerns their appreciation of
innovation (Crane, 1976). The study of the fine arts is centered on uniqueness; high art is
often based on convention “mixed with inventions of great genius” (Cawelti, 2001: 206).
Preferences expressed in popular, professional, and critical recognition presumably answer
to different mixtures of conventions and innovation as these agents have particular
measures of expertise and thus distinct ideas of conservatism and inventiveness (Ferguson,
2009). The higher appreciation of innovation with peers and critics signals the ubiquity of
cultural capital, the cultivated aesthetic disposition also described as “aesthetic fluency”
(Bourdieu, 1984). An inclination for more conventional content indicates an audience with
less cultural capital, and a popular aesthetic. Following, the diverging positions public,
peers and critics hold in the film field are consequence to what is old or new to them. For
all agents, the realization of innovative movies means a negotiation between conventional
and unconventional elements.

3.3.1 Maintained Conventions

Innovation in cultural production thus implies the continuous trade-off between following
previous successes and developing new product traits to find new markets, audiences
and/or the approval of institutional experts with the ability to ascribe symbolic value. This
process partly concerns material practices: decisions on the allocation of resources
affecting both the production itself (e.g. actors, story, special effects) (Bordwell, 2006) as
well as its market visibility (marketing, public relations) (Drake, 2008).
Hollywood’s dominance in commercial film production points, firstly, to the
importance of material resources in this industry. Conventional film requires big budgets
55
that allow for much spectacle, elaborate film universes, special effects, and the
participation of big movie stars (Faulkner & Anderson, 1987; Wallace et al., 1993), which
makes it mainly the business of major conglomerates. Such large investments require films
to achieve high revenues, which prompts studios to produce movies that potentially attract
large audiences.
Following, film contents in terms of theme, place, and time are affected accordingly.
Since the film conventions that Hollywood established regarding the industry’s material
practices are extended to the entire Western world, issues of filming location and language
relate to conventionality as well. As the prevailing movie majors “attack the global market
by creating films that present universal themes and that rely on sense-stimulating appeal”
(Barthel-Bouchier, 2011: 4), mainstream consumers are accustomed to films originating
from the U.S. or other (Western) countries of close cultural proximity (Straubhaar, 2007),
filmed in familiar settings, spoken in English and focusing on universal themes.
A film’s human capital presents another aspect of material production that
influences its degree of innovativeness. Being collaborative productions, all films are
unique in terms of the collection of contributors, who may vary in talent, experience,
artistic legitimacy, and “star power”. Famous actors and directors particularly enable
filmmakers and audiences to form reasonable expectations on the basis of the reputations
built in prior work, an important feature in this risky cultural industry (Baker & Faulkner,
1991; Rossman et al., 2010).
Finally, positions on the innovation-convention continuum are actively constructed
through interplay with established field-specific traditions. Such cultural classification tools
comprise genre labels, formulas, adaptation of other cultural products, and development of
series. Because genre divides the film supply into compartments and genre conventions are
common knowledge, genre signifies meaning in cultural products (Griswold, 1987). Genre
gives boundaries to what the audience can expect a film to entail (Lena & Peterson, 2008),
while providing producers with a rationale to follow (Bielby & Bielby, 1994) and an
incentive for a film’s exportability and revenue potential (Barthel-Bouchier, 2011). The
alleged homogeneity in popular culture products is often related to the use of formulas
(Peterson & Berger, 1975) – i.e. more specific blueprints of how to tell a story that have
proven successful in previous films. An example is the “meet cute” (Neale, 2007); a formula
56
frequently used in romantic comedies, prescribing two potential lovers to meet in an
unusual way.
In the volatile movie industry, another frequently applied strategy is to adapt
successful products from other cultural fields (Schatz, 2009), e.g. bestselling novels (Eat
Pray Love (2010)), video games (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)), television
series (The A-Team (2010)), and historical/biographical material (The King’s Speech
(2010)). Producers may also choose to exploit narratives or characters from previous film
hits (Hesmondhalgh, 2002) by creating sequels or prequels (the X-Men series), or spin-offs
(Puss in Boots (2011)). Other tactics imply creating variations of hit films (e.g. various
romantic comedy’s succeeded Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)); or trying out new
concepts (e.g. 3D technology in Avatar (2009)).

3.3.2 Perceived Innovation

Producers do not simply make use of cultural classification in their publicity and
marketing; they must labor for the intended interpretations of classifications to come
across. Put more generally, innovation should be perceived as such to be truly called
innovative, just like creativity is only that when publicly recognized to some extent
(Plucker et al., 2009). Beside material practices, institutional logics also incorporate
symbolic affordances by relevant social agents (Friedland & Alford, 1991). The symbolic
aspect of innovation in cultural production not only constrains producers’ material
practices, it also informs manners of movie classification amongst experts and regular
viewers.
As mainstream film consumers’ standards of what film should be about or look like
are stipulated by Hollywoodian aesthetic and technological reference points (McDonald &
Wasko, 2008), conventions lie with production values that command mass appeal. Film
conventions thus have a strong affiliation with the commercial goal of major studios. This
implies a rather homogeneous supply of movies that express “a quite restricted range of
sentiments in conventionalized ways” (Peterson & Berger, 1975: 163) by means of a
limited collection of cultural, social, or psychological themes (Cawelti, 2001). Such themes
generally concern everyday life and exert familiarity (Van Venrooij & Schmutz, 2010).
Growth of innovation’s prominence in the production logic eminent in the film field then
57
results in the exploration of more diverse and socially informed themes (Peterson &
Berger, 1975) that are more abstract and remote to the viewer. Since novelty uncovers the
limitations of one’s cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984), innovative elements require more
interpretation and complicate the film audience’ apprehension of meanings expressed.
Various degrees of familiarity of thematic film content lead to distinct viewing experiences;
movies may require more or less from their audience’s cognitive skills. Film can fulfill the
need to submerge oneself in entertainment seeking escapism, or to take on an artistic
expression that requires concentration span and analysis (Silvia & Berg, 2011). The ease
with which one watches a movie can thus vary strongly.

3.3.3 Expectations
In line with the supposed relation between filmmakers’ pursuit of commercial viability and
degrees of innovation in film, we anticipate films that were praised by the general public to
uphold a higher level of conventionality while professionally or critically acclaimed films
contain more innovative elements. Specifically, popular film is expected to abide by
Hollywood production rules, heavily utilize genre and formula to reduce complexity of
narratives, display familiarity in thematic content, and oblige the audience’s cognitive
skills. Film with critical recognition will find itself at the other end of this continuum.
Further, film with professional recognition likely finds an intermediate position as peer
filmmakers may appreciate novelty as connoisseurs while highly regarding filmmakers
with a talent for achieving mass appeal.

3.4 Data and Methods

This study examines whether a typology of films with popular, professional, and critical
recognition can be drafted with regard to film’s material practices and symbolic value. The
data consist of film titles rewarded with the most popular, professional, and critical
recognition in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 2007.6

6 Films with various forms of recognition were redistributed into either the critical or popular recognition category as the
strongest distinctions appeared to exist between these two types. Any combination of types of recognition that included
popular recognition was re-coded as “popular”, combinations including critical recognition were coded as “critical”, and in
combinations containing “popular” as well as “critical” recognition the eventual category was set to “popular”. The latter
decision was based on the general prevalence of commercial influences over aesthetic ones in the film field at large.

58
These countries were chosen because they represent different film fields. The United States
has a large film production with a strong focus on (the export of) commercial films
(Hollywood). While not as successful as the U.S., the British film industry is rather
successful in producing films that can cross borders but still undergoes a lot of influence of
Hollywood (Heise & Tudor, 2007; Lampel & Nadavulakereb, 2009). France has, within
Europe, a relatively large and successful film industry – also because of the protective
cultural policies of the French government (Scott, 2000) – and is traditionally known for its
film art. The Netherlands have a very small national industry and the Dutch are very
susceptible to Hollywood film. Selecting twenty film titles per category resulted in 60 film
titles per country, overlap between countries and film categories lead to a final sample of
113 film titles. This modest sample size restrains generalization but serves the purpose of
getting the clearest possible outline of the differences between film types – i.e. distinctions
are most visible in the extremes.
This study concerns feature films that the Motion Pictures Association of America
has declared rated PG-13, NC-17, or R and that have been released in theatres in the
relevant countries.7 Popular recognition was measured as commercial success; the twenty
best-selling feature films were selected for each country. Winning or being nominated for
prestigious film awards was used as the parameter for professional recognition. This was
first done on a national level (César Awards, Cannes Film Festival, Gouden Kalveren, BAFTA
Awards, British Independent Film Awards, Sundance Festival, Academy Awards) and if this
method did not provide twenty titles, the most internationally influential film awards, the
Academy Awards, were used to fill the gap. Due to the very obvious “winner takes all”
principle (English, 2005), there tends to be a small number of films that receive most of the
awards.
Critical recognition is rewarded when a critics’ association, quality newspaper or
specialist magazine places a film in a yearly shortlist or hands out awards. The sample of
films in this category was selected on a national level (Syndicat Français de la Critique de
Cinema, Cahiers du Cinema, Kring van Nederlandse Filmjournalisten, De Volkskrant, NRC

7 This excludes the children’s film or family film, which answers to rather distinct criteria.

59
Handelsblad, The British Film Critic’s Circle, The Times, The Guardian, New York Film
Critics, Los Angeles Film Critics, The New York Times, and Los Angeles Times) and when
these shortlists didn’t provide enough film titles, the most prestigious internationally
oriented critics’ awards (Golden Globe Awards) were used to complete the list. An
overview of the complete film sample is found in Appendix B, the distribution over film
types is displayed in table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Types of recognition

Type of recognition: Frequency: Percentage:

Popular 33 29%
Professional 24 21%
Critical 37 33%
Popular/professional 2 2%
Popular/critical 2 2%
Professional/critical 11 10%
Popular/professional/critical 4 3%
Total: 113 100%

In line with our theoretical framework, our empirical analysis consists of two parts, for
which different measurements and analyses are performed. Material practices are
operationalized through a number of production attributes that are extracted from online
resources like the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), Box Office Mojo, and The Numbers.
Where needed, we recoded variables to fit our inductive statistical analysis.
For every film, we retrieved the production budget, consisting of four categories: (1) less
than $999,999, (2) $1-$20 million, (3) $20-$100 million and (4) more than $100 million.
We operationalized film contents via the dominant location in the narrative (Place, at the
country level), the dominant historical period in the narrative (Time) and the dominant
theme of the film. Place contains three categories: (1) U.S., (2) Europe and (3) else. Time
also has three categories: (1) current times (2000s), (2) 1950-2000 or recent history, and

60
(3) remote periods.8 The film’s theme was constructed in four steps via an inductive
process. First, we extracted for each film the two most prominent key words from IMDb’s 9
Plot key words and Plot synopsis —that is: key words that seemed to express the film
content most accurately. Second, we summarized these key words into a more general
theme (we found 30 different themes) as well as a context in which the theme is played out.
Thirdly, we looked for similarities among these general themes by grouping them together
and deleting redundancies. In the fourth and final step we collapsed the themes in each
group to an even more abstract level, resulting in 4 overarching themes: “Good vs. evil”,
“Portrait of an individual”, “Human relations” and “Social issues”. For instance, key words
for Rush Hour 3 (2007) were “murder” and “police”. These key words were summarized
into the general theme “Crime” played out in the context “murder”, while the general theme
“crime” ultimately was placed under the overarching theme “Good vs. evil”.
The human capital of a film was measured via two variables: the star power wielded by,
respectively, the leading actor and the director. To this end, we used the Starmeter feature
in IMDb as measurement tool; this feature translates the number of searches in IMDb on an
actor’s or director’s name in a given week into a periodical ranking. For each film, we
charted the ranking of the two leading actors and the director a month before the relevant
film’s release via the Starmeter archive. Recoding led to both actors’ star power and
director’s star power to consist of three categories: top ranking (1-1000), middle ranking
(1001-50,000) and low ranking (50,001 and beyond).
Finally, we operationalized cultural classification characteristics by establishing the genre
of the film and whether the film concerned an adaptation of another cultural product,
and/or a serial format. Genre was established using IMDb. We distinguish three main
categories here: (1) drama, (2) comedy, and (3) action/suspense, since alternative genres
like musical, fantasy, and science fiction were hardly found in our sample.10 Adaptation
contains three categories: (1) no adaptation/original script, (2) adaptation of a popular

8 This category contains all time periods before 1950 and in the future – i.e. all time periods beyond most viewers’ own
living experience.
9 The Internet Movie Database figures as an authoritive source since it is one of the largest, and most popular film

databases that cater to an international audience. Researchers have come to utilize it as a respected source on film
attributes (e.g. Barthel-Bouchier, 2011; Rossman et al., 2010).
10 Animation and documentary were excluded from this study, since these genres have such specific characteristics.

61
culture product (e.g. comic, musical, TV show), and (3) adaptation of high culture product
(e.g. novel, play). Serial format is simply coded as applicable or not.
Whereas material practices are regarded as concrete outcomes of decisions within
the filmmaking process, the symbolic affordances that guide film producers are
operationalized via film viewers’ perceptions. We asked six regular film viewers to fill out a
questionnaire in which they were invited to assess the conventional and/or innovative
nature of our film corpus. Each viewer received a subset of 40 films with a small
description (based on IMDb synopsis) and was asked to rate each film (on a scale from 0 to
4) on four attributes. These represented four dimensions of the continuum between
conventionality and innovation in movies: (a) Conformation to Hollywood production
norms, (b) Complexity of narrative, (c) Familiarity of thematic content, and (d) Difficulty of
viewing experience.11 Subsequently, we calculated the mean ratings per film for each
dimension. Reliability analyses showed that the assessments for each dimension were
highly consistent: .91 (a), .87 (b), .75 (c) and .89 (d).

3.5 Findings

3.5.1 Material Practices

We first conducted a Categorical Principal Components Analysis (CATPCA) to find
underlying patterns in the “material” film attributes. We report the two-dimension solution
since imposing a third dimension on the data decreased the interpretation of the results
(possibly because of the small N). Table 3.2 shows the variables’ contributions to the
distinguished dimensions. Clearly, dimension 1 (Eigenvalue=3.4) mainly differentiates
films based upon budget, star power, genre and theme. Dimension 2 (Eigenvalue=1.6)
signals differences in time and adaptation. In Figure 3.1, the quantifications per category in
these variables facilitate an easier interpretation of the dimensions. Here, we see that films
of the suspense/action genre, with high budgets, high ranking actors and directors, and
content within the “Good vs. evil” theme have lower object scores than their counterparts.

11The first, third and fourth variable are scaled as increasingly innovative (that is, less conforming, less familiar and more
difficult); the second was originally scaled as decreasingly complex, but was reversed for the sake of interpretation.

62
Dimension 1 thus indicates the difference between films that show many of the
characteristics of mainstream movies versus films from the domain of small-scale
production. Films in our sample score between -2.24 (very mainstream) and 1.45 (very
small-scale).
On the other hand, dimension 2 differentiates between films set in a remote time
period (the distant past or future) that are based upon popular and high culture products
on the one hand, and more contemporary situated films that are not adaptations.
Apparently, many historical (e.g. 300 set in classical Greece and Elizabeth: The Golden Age
set in the 16th century) but also futuristic films (e.g. I Am Legend) are adaptations from
books or historic/biographical material. Here, films in our sample score between -1.95
(very contemporary) and 1.69 (large time distance).

Table 3.2 Component loadings of 2 main dimensions (N=113)

Dimension 1 Dimension 2
Mainstream to small-scale More remote time +
adaptation
Budget (ord) -.890 .024
Place (nom) .531 .227
Time (nom) -.108 .832
Theme (nom) .745 .174
Star power actors (ord) .816 -.120
Star power director (ord) .613 -.329
Part of series (nom) -.436 -.301
Adaptation (nom) -.197 .773
Genre (nom) -.718 -.252
Eigen value 3.425 1.649

63
Figure 3.1 Interplay of two dimensions of material practices

Having established two underlying dimensions within material production values, we

tested whether the films recognized by audiences, critics and professionals differ on these
dimensions by conducting an ANOVA analysis. The object scores of the Categorical
Principal Components Analysis were saved and then, for the sake of interpretation,
transformed to a scale ranging from 0 to 4. Table 3.3 shows that films that received
predominantly popular recognition are significantly more conventional (M=1.59) than the
other two film types (M=2.81 and M=3.08). While they also seem to be slightly more often
contemporary without adaptation, this difference is not significant. Interestingly, we find
no difference between films with critical and professional recognition.

64
Table 3.3 Differences between films with popular, critical and professional recognition in two dimensions of
material production value (mean and s.d.)

Dimension 1 Results Dimension 2 Results post-

(> small-scale) post-hoc (> distant time / hoc test
test adapt)
Cri Pro Cri Pro
Popular recognition (N=41) 1.59 (1.02) *** *** 1.90 (1.19) n.s. n.s.

Critical recognition (N=48) 2.81 (.86) n.s. 2.44 (1.03) n.s.

Professional recognition 3.08 (.69) 1.96 (.98)

(N=24)

F-value (between groups) 29.02 *** 3.13 *

Post-hoc test was Games-Howell test. Significance: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05.

3.5.2 Symbolic Affordances

Symbolic aspects of institutional logics were measured via four predefined dimensions,
which capture how film viewers perceive the films in terms of conformation to Hollywood
norms, narrative complexity, theme familiarity and difficulty of viewing experience.
The results, as presented in Table 3.4, all point in the same direction: films which
received popular recognition are conceived as considerably more conventional – and thus
less innovative -- on all four dimensions than films recognized by critics or professionals.
That is, they are more in line with Hollywood norms, have less complex narratives, have
more familiar themes and grant easier viewing experiences. Similar to the results for
material practices, no significant differences are found between films that were recognized
by critics and professionals.

65
Table 3.4 Differences between films with popular, critical and professional recognition in four dimensions of
symbolic affordances (mean and s.d.)

Not in line with Results Complex Results post-hoc

Hollywood norms post-hoc narratives test
test

Cri Pro Cri Pro

Popular recognition (N=41) 1.04 *** *** 1.04 *** ***

Critical recognition (N=48) 2.86 n.s. 2.61 n.s.

Professional recognition 2.55 2.24

(N=24)
F-value (between groups) 44.39 *** 42.96 ***

Themes not Difficult viewing

familiar experience

Popular recognition (N=41) 1.49 *** *** .94 *** ***

Critical recognition (N=48) 2.77 n.s. 2.53 n.s.

Professional recognition 2.50 2.23

(N=24)
F-value (between groups) 38.79 *** 49.71 ***

Post-hoc test was Games-Howell test. Significance: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05.

3.5.3 Interaction of Material and Symbolic Film Traits

A final step in our analysis of how films are classified and perceived concerns the
interaction of material and symbolic film traits. Here we turn to multivariate analyses in
which we analyzed the influence of types of recognition as well as material practices on
symbolic affordances by film viewers. While we do not claim to establish “true” causal
effects, we argue that both the way producers position their products in the market and the
recognition of critics and professionals precede symbolic affordances (as the survey was
held in 2011). Also, it is not unlikely that viewers notice such characteristics, which then
affects their perceptions of the films. Our analysis mainly tries to provide a more detailed
yet exploratory account of how the two sides of institutional logics interact.

66
 Table 3.5 presents the outcomes of four OLS regression analyses. In each analysis,
we first estimated a basic model containing only the three types of recognition. The results
of these models are in line with the ANOVAs presented in the previous sections: films with
popular recognition are in all facets less innovative than films with professional
recognition. There are no significant differences between professionally and critically
acclaimed films, albeit the latter seem to be slightly more complex in their narratives. Note
that for all dimensions a relatively high percentage of about 40% of the variance is
explained.
In model 2 we add a selection of material film traits to the model; variables that
added no explained variance were excluded, also to obtain a more parsimonious model
given the low N. The absence of effects of these characteristics is, of course, an outcome of
its own. The model further discloses several relevant findings. First, we observe that all
differences between films with popular recognition and professional recognition disappear,
while some differences come into play between critically and professionally recognized
pictures. This is mainly the effect of the film budget. Keeping the budget constant shows
that critically acclaimed films are considered more innovative (except for the familiarity of
themes) than professionally recognized films, and that the alleged differences between the
professionally and popular recognized films should be attributed to budget. However, this
decrease is not solely the result of variation in film budget. Regarding all four dimensions,
some small differences remain (unreported analyses); yet disappear completely after
introducing the themes of the film (see model 2). Films revolving around the theme “Good
vs. evil” and “Human relations” are considered less innovative than films with the theme
“Social issues”. Thus, the films’ overarching themes are significantly connected to how
viewers perceive the symbolic potential of the film and this seems to neutralize all
differences in recognition between the popular and the professional. These significant
effects of budget and particularly theme are the second relevant finding of the analyses
since they quite precisely demonstrate the interaction between material and symbolic
attributes. Rather than aspects like serial format, adaptation, or star power, it is the
thematic content of the film that seems to structure the way film viewers perceive its
innovation.

67
 Thirdly, we find some modest differences between the four symbolic dimensions of
the film’s conventionality or innovativeness. Clearly, the degree to which movies conform
to Hollywood norms has the highest level of explained variance, which can mainly be
attributed to the film budget. The extent to which a film contains familiar themes is the
most difficult to explain; model 2 only renders the presence of particular themes
significant. Budget does not affect the familiarity of themes. Genre hardly influences
viewers’ perceptions; only drama is associated with less conformity to Hollywood norms
and more difficult viewing experiences.

Table 3.5 The influence of different types of recognition and material film traits on symbolic film traits
(beta’s)(N=113)

Model Ind. variables Dependent variables

Less More Less familiar More difficult
Hollywood complex themes viewing
norms narratives experience

1 Popular recognition -.583 *** -.537 *** -.531 *** -.589 ***
Critical recognition .122 .172 ~ .143 .142
Professional recognition Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Explained variance (Adj.R2) 43.7% 42.8% 39.0% 46.5%

2 Popular recognition -.078 -.079 -.196 -.137

Critical recognition .190 * .221 * .155 .187 *
Professional recognition Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Budget -.418 *** -.216 *** -.014 -.192 *
Genre = drama .162 ~ .116 .128 .204 *
Genre = comedy .060 -.102 -.092 -.024
Genre = suspense/action Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Star power director .098 .082 .011 .086
Theme = good vs. evil -.219 *** -.326 *** -.367 *** -.303 ***
Theme = portrait -.090 -.143 * -.152 ~ -.155 *
Theme = human relations -.162 * -.196 * -.259 ** -.224 **
Theme = social issues Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Explained variance (Adj.R2) 68.9% 56.9% 47.0% 62.1%

Star power actors, time, place, series and adaptation were excluded from the model as they did not yield extra
explained variance. Types of recognition, genre and themes are made into dummies. Significance:
***p<.001,**p<.01, *p<.05, ~p<.10.

68
Finally, we tested whether films that were sampled in one, two, three, and four countries
differed on the two dimensions found with regard to material practices and the four
symbolic traits by conducting an ANOVA analysis. The results show that films that were
sampled in the France, the Netherlands, the United States and the United Kingdom are
significantly more conventional than films that occur in fewer samples. Not only are films
sampled in all four countries produced along more conventional lines (Dimension 1.
M=1.44) than films sampled in one or two countries (M=2.86 and M=2.08), they are also
perceived as most conform to Hollywood standards (M=1.51 against M=2.41 and M=2.00).
The internationally successful films were also seen to contain less complex narratives and
more familiar themes, and to offer an easy viewing experience, but the samples did not
differ significantly on these dimensions.

3.6 Conclusion
This article examined how movies in contemporary film fields in France, the Netherlands,
the United States, and the United Kingdom are classified in terms of production
characteristics and content. More specifically, it seeks to understand how the recognition
that films can receive – from public, peers, or critics – is related to the way films are
produced, their intrinsic elements (material practices), but also the way they are
interpreted by audiences (their symbolic affordances). Within a cultural landscape in which
hierarchical differences are declining (Janssen et al., 2008; 2011), audiences become
increasingly omnivorous (Peterson & Kern, 1996), and marketing divisions are gaining
power in most cultural genres, the interactions between the “symbolic” and the “material”
side of cultural production as well as “innovation” and “convention” need to be analyzed in
more detail.
Based upon samples of the 20 most successful films in three different institutional
domains in four countries, we conducted an empirical analysis of how movies with large
popular, professional and critical recognition differ regarding conventionality and
innovation in the late 2000s. In terms of material practices, the traditional distinction
between commercial and artistic movies still holds – although rather continuous than
discrete. The production budget, star power of the director, genre and thematic content
still make a difference. Popular films mostly answer to Hollywood’s traditional profit-
69
oriented logic (multi-million dollar budgets, major movie stars, well known directors,
clearly signaling genres, and comprehensible themes), whereas professionally and critically
recognized films fit this conventional profile far less. Furthermore, we examined film’s
symbolic affordances; film viewers’ perception of conventionality and/or innovation in film
became apparent in four dimensions. Popular film was perceived as most conventional;
these titles were judged to be most conform to Hollywood norms, hold little narrative
complexity, represent familiar themes, and offer an easy viewing experience. Films with
professional or critical recognition scored in opposite direction on these dimensions.
Previous research shed light on the prominence of narrative complexity and
comprehensibility in relation to viewers’ interest and pleasure in films (Silvia & Berg,
2011); expertise facilitates aesthetic experience, decreases confusion, and generates
interest. Our findings are in keeping with such conclusions and offer insight into the
distinction that remains between mainstream and art house film despite the field’s further
differentiation in past decades. However, this distinction proves a gradual rather than a
dichotomous one. Commercially successful and critically acclaimed films present the
extremes of a continuum between conventionality and innovation. Particularly the films
with professional recognition represent the blurring of boundaries. While being
consecrated through awards and prizes, they not solely resemble the art(istic) movie. Much
of the distinction with popular movies lay in the budget differences and the themes that
were presented. Apparently, the intertwining of small-scale and large-scale film fields
(Bourdieu, 1993) cannot be perceived as straightforward loss of distinction or an overall
shift of production logics (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999), but rather as the so-called
“production on the boundaries” (Hesmondhalgh, 2006) in which filmmakers combine
production logics to cater to audiences with various levels of aesthetic fluency.
In line with previous research, films that become successful in more than one country tend
to be more conventional (cf. Barthel-Boucher, 2011) than those that attract only one
particular audience; the French, Dutch, British, and American contexts were least difficult
to circumvent for films that were only moderately innovative.
Since the explorative character of our study and its modest sample size restrain
generalizations, future research is needed to construct more elaborate measures of film’s
attributes. Furthermore, the expansion of the data sample in a longitudinal manner would
70
greatly benefit research on the conventionality or innovativeness of film types. However,
this dialogue between cultural sociology and film studies does add nuance to the traditional
picture of mainstream versus artistic film. It appears that not just Hollywood’s signature
large production budgets and star power determine a film’s classification: the impact of
thematic content presents a complex dynamic between material practices and symbolic
affordances. Whereas the commercial blockbuster does still appear to oppose the art house
film, the distinction proves to be a gradual slide from conventionality to innovation. All in
all, the results of this paper suggest that due to increasing complexity of the film field, the
legitimizing power of institutional agents has leveled, which makes it increasingly difficult
for single individuals and organizations to put a mark on classification processes.

71
72
 Chapter 4
Film Discourse on the Praised and Acclaimed:
Reviewing Criteria in the United States and United Kingdom

4.1 Introduction*

In present-day western society, film appears as art and as entertainment, serves cinephiles
and escapists alike, and can be divided into many genres, subgenres, and niches. This
differentiation did not always exist; during film’s early decades in the United States motion
pictures were regarded as mere entertainment for the masses (Bordwell & Thompson,
1997). Nevertheless, this cultural form evolved into one that can be approached and
appreciated as art, following European example. Cultural analysts have concluded that the
intellectualization of film discourse by professional critics played a major role in film’s
ascent on the cultural ladder. In seminal work on this transition, Baumann (2001, 2007)
found that a legitimizing intellectual ideology for film’s higher standing, coupled with
critics’ utilization of devices, concepts, and vocabulary traditionally belonging to discourses
associated with highbrow art, assisted film in attaining a new status, that of a product with
artistic potential and merit. Also paving the way for the development of film as art were a
changing opportunity space for film production from an open field to a more restricted one
(Bourdieu, 1993), and the institutionalization of industry resources and practices such as
festivals and awards that conveyed value to its goods (English, 2005).
A great deal has changed in media industries since Baumann’s important work on
film’s evolution. First, expanded commercialization, alongside globalization, and
digitization have extended the opportunity space for film production and consumption and
shifted the institutionalization of its resources since his analysis, which covered films
produced only through the mid-1980s (Anderson, 2006; Keen, 2007; McDonald & Wasko,
2008; Wasko, 2001). Second, ever-more complex business strategies have been devised to
maximize film’s revenue-generating potential, including a deeper reliance upon selected

* A prior version of this research article is set to be published in Popular Communication in the fall of 2012.

73
release dates and diverse viewing platforms, publicity campaigns to enhance opening
weekend box-office revenue, productions targeted to particular audience niches and
demographics, and word-of-mouth efforts among audiences and industry members (De
Vany & Lee, 2001; Horn, 2011). Third, research (Allen & Lincoln, 2004; English, 2005) has
shown that a triad of institutional agents – public, peers, and critics – influence the
recognition, merit, and position a film can claim, albeit from different vantage points;
however, the interests of these agents may vary even as the selections they attend to
overlap. Given these developments, how can present-day film criticism be characterized
and understood? In particular, are films that are ultimately consecrated by popular,
professional, and critical recognition appraised by similar or different criteria?

4.2 Film Criticism Today

Critics function as cultural intermediaries between artistic goods and their audiences not
only because of their central role as cultural authorities who enact aesthetic standards but
because of their ability to transform those standards and contribute to elevating (or
lowering) entire fields of cultural goods, as was demonstrated in Baumann’s (2007)
analysis. Not only did Baumann’s research clarify that over time film critics have
emphasized an increasingly analytical, interpretive approach to film over a more facile,
entertainment-minded one, it also ascertained that their expanding vocabulary of critical
devices and concepts in the context of a new ideology for film allowed, in turn, for a more
complex discussion of a film’s achievements. These developments led to an even more
nuanced appraisal of film, including recognizing its positive and negative elements, merit in
failure, and whether it was too easy to enjoy, as well as its meaning and significance,
location in the overall film canon, placement within a category of films, and contribution
artistically versus experientially. This growing vocabulary coincided with and was
bolstered by the expanding adoption of auteurism, the increased focus upon the naming of
the director as creative artist and originator of serious film (Sarris, 1962).
Nevertheless, while changes in the film world, developments in its wider societal
context, and the founding of a legitimizing ideology have resulted in the possibility of film
to be regarded as elite art, of course not all films are. Bourdieu (1993) proposed that a field
of cultural production contains a restricted portion in which artistic merit and prestige is
74
aimed for and a large-scale portion in which financial gain is goal. Although there is now
compared to a century ago a more restricted field of film production (e.g., Lars and the Real
Girl; 4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile: Le Scaphandre et le papillon) with an elite discourse to
match, for the most part the film industry remains relentlessly oriented to its goal of
producing commercial products that achieve widespread popular appeal (e.g., Harry Potter
and the Order of the Phoenix; Spider-Man 3; American Gangster), and not all filmmakers aim
to produce films with artistic merit. Therefore, a question remains whether the prevailing
dichotomy between art and commerce still reflects the emerging complexity of 21st century
cultural industries (Heise & Tudor, 2007; Hesmondhalgh, 2006; Prior, 2005; Tudor, 2005),
or whether a more nuanced understanding of film criticism is called for. Are contemporary
changes within the film industry once again being met by shifts in critical discourse that
can be understood as reflecting ongoing developments in the field?

4.3 Aesthetic Position and Cultural Goods

The idea that criticism of cultural forms may be regarded in distinctive manners can be
traced back to Bourdieu’s writings on the field of cultural production (1993) and on taste
and audiences (1984). According to Bourdieu, an aesthetic disposition is required to truly
appreciate a work of art, a disposition that translates into a detached manner of observing
and evaluating the form, of distancing oneself from the artwork and the mundane of
everyday life. This disposition entails a focus on form rather than function, a so-called
“pure gaze” that rejects all things too human, common, or easy, and refers to the Kantian
aesthetic that separates “that which pleases” from “that which gratifies” (Bourdieu, 1984).
This stance is distinct from a popular aesthetic in which a cultural good is appreciated in
the here-and-now, positioned in everyday life, and remains close to the audience (Bielby &
Bielby, 2004; Van Venrooij & Schmutz, 2010). The popular aesthetic is defined in relation to
its viewer, wherein the distance between audience and cultural good is minimized.
Regarded as the “naïve gaze”, this aesthetic recognizes continuity between everyday life
and art, which implies function over form. Because participation matters in the popular
aesthetic, familiarity and easy identification are preferred to formalism, symbolism, and
ambiguity. These two dispositions – embodied in the pure and the naïve gazes – represent

75
distinct systems of criteria wielded by different, albeit more or less culturally legitimate,
socially defined taste groups.
Although Bourdieu’s distinctions provided considerable clarity for differentiating
elite from non-elite art and audiences, it is uncertain to what extent his classification
reflects the complexity of contemporary cultural consumption and appraisal. Over a decade
ago audiences were found to be more omnivorous than traditionally presumed, particularly
among elites (Hesmondhalgh, 2006; Peterson & Kern, 1996), and while the media have
expanded coverage of popular culture in order to keep pace with the preferences of the
general public (Janssen, 1999; Janssen et al., 2008; 2011), one can only speculate how the
film industry’s ongoing evolution may have further complicated reviewers’ as well as
filmgoers’ tastes.
At least three trends have had a potential impact on the field of film in recent
decades that may be of some consequence to contemporary film criticism. First, while the
emergence of a restricted art world for film resulted in more differentiation in the film
field’s overall output, its commercial large-scale counterpart developed evermore
strategically creative ways to satisfy the popular tastes of the general public. This has
meant developing production strategies that rely upon narrative sequels of box office hits
and adopting proven concepts from other media, as well as devising marketing and
distribution strategies designed to appeal to large numbers of moviegoers, all in order to
sustain the expensive, blockbuster mode of film production that took over the film industry
in the 1970s (Baker & Faulkner, 1991; Bordwell, 2006). However, these developments,
which are clearly designed to generate the largest possible audience, do not preclude the
potential for artistic originality in popular films; indeed, novelty is just as important to
popular art forms as it is to elite ones (Cawelti, 1973).
Second, cultural globalization – “the growing international diffusion, exchange, and
intermingling of cultural goods and media products” (Janssen, et al., 2008: 720) – is
increasingly noticeable in the film field. Although American dominion of the Western
market has been developing steadily ever since WWII, a global event that undermined
European film industries and caused some to stagnate (Bordwell & Thompson, 1997; Scott,

76
2000),12 cultural globalization has transformed many national industries into international
enterprises, increasing their tendency to resemble if not altogether mirror each other’s
organizational structure, products, and appeal (Janssen, et al., 2008). As a result, film critics
now work in a context of global culture in which locally produced films may resemble
products from other parts of the globe while at the same time benefit from potential cross-
fertilization of proven artistic elements. This would suggest modes of reviewing that result
from the incorporation of traits of international film discourse rather than discourse
strictly differentiated by the dichotomy between the art house film and the blockbuster.
Third, the digitization of media has introduced different modes of production as
well as different outlets for film work (McDonald & Wasko, 2008), and the resulting
democratization of access to media production and consumption has brought with it new
challenges to choosing what to watch (Hesmondhalgh, 2002; Keen, 2007). Named blogs, e-
commerce websites, and amateur critics now publicly compete with the professional critic
in offering recommendations and advice about cultural products, often while lacking
requisite expert knowledge (David & Pinch, 2006). While audiences can, of course, still
discerningly choose where to seek information about movies, the impact of user-generated
content on film criticism has not been examined in depth, although studies into online
review systems in other cultural fields have pointed to the pervasiveness of their influence
(Chatterjee, 2001; David & Pinch, 2006; Tancer, 2008; Verboord, 2010). Debates about the
effect of these changes upon the valuation of arts and culture range from fear of the
destruction of Western economy, culture, and values (Keen, 2007) to anticipation of an
unprecedented cultural richness (Anderson, 2006).
To what extent these trends may have affected the ways in which contemporary
critics appraise film remains unknown. At the very least, Bourdieu’s notion of analytical
detachment versus immersion in the familiar may be too limited, as was found to be the
case in the television industry when industry transformation created an opportunity space
for artier television (Bielby et al., 2005). Because of the many changes the film field has
seen in recent decades, our study relies upon an exploratory analysis to determine the
extent to which film criticism may have become more differentiated in the 21st century.

12 For a discussion of the U.S. film industry’s dominance in the international market see Barthel-Bouchier (2011).

77
We anticipate finding that the components that comprise contemporary film criticism
retain the complex discursive elements found in earlier scholarship but that contemporary
film reviewing has also been further complicated by the interests of the multiple agents in
and sources of critical opinion on film.

4.4 Data and Methods

Given our interest in cultural globalization generally, and how the U.S. and the U.K. are
central contributors to a vigorous linguistically-defined region in the global media
marketplace (Bielby & Harrington, 2008), our sample encompassed reviews from four
newspapers of record in these two countries to allow for an international comparison of
film discourse with the English language as a constant factor. The newspapers we sampled
from were The Times, The Guardian, The New York Times, and Los Angeles Times, which
were chosen because they employ professional film critics, have wide-ranging national and
international readerships, and, as elite newspapers with middle- to highbrow readerships,
play a leading role in present-day discourse on artistic and popular culture.
In order to capture the range of factors that affect contemporary film criticism, we
drew our sample from all films released in 2007 rated as PG-13, NC-17, or R by the Motion
Picture Association of America that were consecrated through popular, peer, and critical
recognition. The twenty highest revenue-generating movies formed the sample of films
with popular recognition. The winners and nominees of the most prestigious categories of
the BAFTA Awards, British Independent Film Awards, Sundance Festival Awards, and
Academy Awards were selected for professional recognition.13 The movies with the most
critical recognition were made up of films most highly regarded by the London Film Critics
Circle, The Times, The Guardian, the New York Film Critics Circle, The New York Times, the
Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the Los Angeles Times, and the Golden Globe Awards of
the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Our final sample is presented in Appendix C,
which lists 50 unique titles for both the U.K. and the U.S. For each film title in each country,
we analyzed two reviews from two national newspapers. Because not all movies were

13 Prize categories of institutes rewarding professional and critical recognition were, in this order: Best Picture, Best
Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Foreign Language
Film, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Best Actress in a Supporting Role, and Best Newcomer.

78
reviewed in all papers, and because of overlap between film categories, we ended up with a
sample of 194 film reviews.
We conducted an inductive content analysis of all film reviews in our sample using
ATLAS.ti. Each film review was divided into text segments; in general there were five to six
segments per review. Total word count per review varied between nearly 100 and 1300.
While the length of reviews did not show significant differences among film types, reviews
of films with critical recognition tended to be longest. A total of 1,245 quotations were then
examined to determine the topics they addressed. Topics included, for example, discussion
of the director’s accomplishments or career, the actors’ performances or trademarks,
interpretation of the film’s plot, and the film’s special effects or its screenplay.14,15 We then
merged or split the topics to eliminate redundancies, resulting in 137 separate codes. The
analysis of relations among codes led to their distribution into fifteen overarching code
groups, or themes. All codes belong to only one theme, and all themes addressed a
particular question or issue. After establishing the fifteen themes, we then observed for
their respective prominence within reviews of popularly, professionally, and critically
acclaimed films. Films that received popular recognition comprised 41% (n=79) of our
sample of film reviews, those with critical recognition 38% (n=74), and those with
professional recognition 21% (n=41). Finally, we factor analyzed the fifteen themes using
oblique rotation to ascertain which ones clustered together into fundamental review
components, and then, how those essential components were associated with each type of
film recognition.

14 A ten percent random sample of reviews was coded by an independent third party in order to provide a measure of
validity and reliability. Comparing these recoded reviews with our initial coding proved that the codes were well defined.
15 Because some films received critical as well as professional recognition, or popular recognition as well as professional

recognition, or, in some instances, all three types of validation, we inductively re-evaluated and reassigned overlapping
categories in order to execute an unambiguous comparison among review practices. Final assignments were determined
by evaluating the overall focus of a review. The overlap between professional and critical recognition was largest. Any
combination of types of recognition that included popular recognition was re-coded as “popular”, combinations including
critical recognition were coded as “critical”, and in combinations containing “popular” as well as “critical” recognition the
eventual category was set to “popular”. The latter decision was based on the general prevalence of commercial influences
over aesthetic ones in the film field at large.

79
4.5 Findings

4.5.1 Criticism’s Elements

With our goal being to ascertain the composition of contemporary film criticism our first
basic question is: What do critics focus on in their reviews? Overall, film reviews present a
balanced evaluation of a film’s principal features through positive and negative
commentary in which specific details as well as the general picture are considered.
Consistent with the conventions of interpretive practitioners whose central activity is to
disclose implicit meanings (Bordwell, 1989), our content analysis found that critics attend
to that goal through consideration of the following fifteen themes: “Actors”,
“Complexity/Depth”, “Context/Background”, “Credibility”, “Director”, “Film as product”,
“Film content”, “Film experience”, “Film material”, “Formal/Filmic elements”,
“Interpretation”, “Mood”, “Novelty”, “Position in art/entertainment”, and “Position in film
context/canon”. When discussing an aspect, critics generally drew upon a readily
observable illustration within a film and couched its discussion syntactically in
parenthetical phrases, visual adjectives that were combined with an active voice, and other
rhetorical strategies in order to analytically elevate description to meaning, significance,
and interpretation. For example, the codes assembled for the theme of Credibility contain
information with regard to the believability of a film’s plot and characters. Credibility does
not necessarily mean that the film’s storylines could have come to pass in real life and are
therefore believable, but points toward the believability of the film in itself, within its
suspension of disbelief: Can the audience buy into the story? Accordingly, the plot receives
the most attention, as was illustrated in the Los Angeles Times review of The Bourne
Ultimatum, a film that achieved popular recognition in both countries as well as critical
recognition in the U.K.:

“In other words, the series has always felt remarkably true-to-life for something as
defiantly far-fetched. But as long as Damon keeps his focused intelligence and
Greengrass continues to stay away from flaming CGI fireballs, Bourne will be able to

80
 continue to walk away unscathed from car crashes that could pulverize a rhino at half
the speed with his credibility intact. They've earned it.”
Los Angeles Times

Evidence of a direct effect of an expanded opportunity space for film production and
consumption – such as the influence of the wider social context in which a film was made,
creative access brought about by changing production technology, or the impact of
Hollywood’s hypercompetitive business climate – was not prominently reflected in our
data. In fact, evidence of such considerations seldom occurred even as the film industry has
become increasingly attentive to the tastes of expanding ethnic audiences (McClintock,
2011), the appeal of evermore sophisticated graphic effects (Fritz, 2010), and the relevance
of distribution strategies designed to grab public attention (Horn, 2011). Thus, it would
appear that, as of now, such matters are still regarded by critics as more relevant to the
marketing of a finished product than as aspects pertinent to the creative vision that went
into a film. Instead, critics remain primarily focused upon appraising the integrity of a
film’s narrative and its creative execution overall, as well as the artistic contributions of
individual project members, and they pay less attention to the relevance of factors that
shape the selection of projects, even as these factors play an increasing role in film
production. We return to a discussion of this finding in greater detail below.
Following identification of the corpus of themes that critics focus on, we were
interested in how individual themes vary across reviews of films that received the three
types of recognition – popular, professional, and critical – so we calculated the distribution
of the use of each theme within and across this triad. These results, which are reported as
percentages in Table 4.1, reveal that eight of the fifteen themes do not vary much in
application across type of recognition; that is, they were equally important to reviewers
regardless of a film’s potential recognition. These consistently appearing themes are:
“Actors”, “Complexity/Depth”, “Credibility”, “Film content”, “Film experience”, “Mood”,
“Novelty”, and “Position in film context”. The remaining seven themes –
“Context/Background”, “Director”, “Film as product”, “Film material”, “Formal elements”,
“Interpretation”, “Position in art/entertainment” – show modest to significant variation
across the types of recognition. Below, we describe, first, some of the consistently deployed
81
themes to illustrate how their use regularizes a foundation for interpretation within
contemporary film criticism, followed by a discussion of those that show variation across
types of recognition. Taken together, these findings reveal how the types of film a critic
addresses – with our concern being those types merited by different consecrating
constituencies – affects the content of criticism in systematic ways.

Table 4.1 Distribution of use of themes across all 194 reviews as percentages by type of film recognition

Popular Professional Critical N Χ2

Theme recognition recognition recognition
Actors ns
0 1 2 4 5
1–5 56 68 53 111
6+ 43 30 43 78
Complexity/Depth ns
0 38 41 36 74
1–5 62 59 61 118
6+ - - 3 2
Context/Background *
0 35 61 39 82
1–5 64 38 55 106
6+ 1 1 6 6
Credibility ns
0 49 58 61 108
1–5 51 42 39 86
6+ - - - -
Director *
0 19 20 8 29
1–5 75 63 68 135
6+ 6 17 24 30
Film as product **
0 30 61 54 89
1–5 66 39 45 101
6+ 4 - 1 4
Film content ns
0 6 2 - 6
1–5 82 81 80 157
6+ 12 17 20 31
Film experience ns
0 14 27 7 27
1–5 84 71 91 162
6+ 2 2 2 5
Film material ***
0 22 22 21 42
1–5 76 73 53 129
6+ 2 5 26 23
Formal elements *
0 11 20 5 21
1–5 66 63 57 120

82
6+ 23 17 38 53
Interpretation ***
0 33 24 9 43
1–5 65 51 57 114
6+ 2 25 34 37
Mood ns
0 19 20 9 30
1–5 79 80 81 155
6+ 2 - 10 9
Novelty ns
0 35 39 32 68
1–5 65 61 65 124
6+ - - 3 2
Position in ***
art/entertainment
0 52 34 20 70
1–5 48 66 77 122
6+ - - 3 2
Position in film ns
context
0 5 10 13 18
1–5 79 80 76 151
6+ 16 10 11 25
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; ns: not significant (two-tailed chi-square tests).

4.5.2 Consistencies in Use of Themes

We randomly selected three examples from among the eight consistently used themes in
order to illustrate the topics that register as equally important to critics in their reviewing
practices regardless of the type of film discussed. One central theme is Actors, who are an
important box-office draw. The credibility of their characterizations, which establishes
resonance with audiences, as well as assessment of an actor’s particular skills or talents,
holds a key position in film criticism, as we see in this excerpt from a review of There Will
Be Blood:

“When Day-Lewis gives his first speech, a quiet, faintly impatient peroration to a
crowd of smallholders on why they should trust him as a real “oil man,” it is mesmeric
for no reason other than the actor’s natural charismatic presence. Day-Lewis’s
virtuoso displays of technique, occasionally denounced as hamminess, are for me all
the more superbly enjoyable for being so rare in an age of naturalism. He has also

83
 found a remarkable walk: a slow purposeful scuttle, bow-legged. Maybe it’s because of
a terrible fall we saw in the first reel – or perhaps, well, it’s just a great actor’s walk.”
The Guardian

Another consistently used theme is Complexity/Depth, which addresses the extent to

which the writer or director has explored and thought through the film’s material, and it
raises questions about whether the filmmaker has an eye for narrative contradictions,
consequences, and complications. Films that present events with less complexity than the
plot or characters call for are criticized for not doing so, as seen in this review of Into the
Wild:

“’If you want something in life, reach out and grab it’, Chris says to Tracy (Kristen
Stewart), a teenage girl who develops a crush on him, collapsing Self-Reliance into
something like an advertising slogan. But the movie’s theme, thankfully, is not so
simple or so easily summed up in words. […] Into the Wild is, on the contrary, alive to
the mysteries and difficulties of experience in a way that very few recent American
movies have been.”
The New York Times

A final example reveals that reviewers consistently assign films a comparative location in
the existing film field, which is captured by the theme of Position in film context/canon.
Placement occurs on various dimensions that include other films by the same director,
within a genre, and within the overall film canon, and it displays the critic’s knowledge of
the medium of film and its history. Positioning a film within the canon signals to the
audience what to expect, as is demonstrated in this review of Notes on a Scandal:

“With some audacity, the spirits of both Hitchcock and Nabokov are invoked in this
delectable adaptation of Zoe Heller's Booker-shortlisted novel.”
The Guardian

84
Among the eight consistently used themes identified by our content analysis, there were
two others, Mood and Film experience, that registered as equally important to reviewers
but upon closer inspection revealed some subtle differences in their use across the three
types of recognition, with each showing up as more prevalent in films that ultimately
received critical recognition. Mood – the tone of voice in which a story is told – may be
described with terms as simple as funny or full of suspense or with more interpretative and
abstract ones such as brooding, haunting or unassuming, and it is mostly viewed as
determined by the director. Mood is understood as a film’s particular feel, and critics expect
just the right balance between drama and emotion. In contrast, the theme of Film
experience – the emotional effects of viewing a film – contributes to understanding the
significance and depth of a film’s narrative – its cultural resonance. Although it, like the
others discussed so far, is used consistently across all three kinds of recognition a film may
receive, we had anticipated that this theme would belong almost exclusively to the
discourse of popular recognition given the close relationship between emotional
experience, emotional authenticity, and popular culture (Bielby & Bielby, 2004). But that
was not the case, and just as interesting is that it is least pronounced in reviews of films
that were rewarded by industry peers. We view this particular pattern of variation as
suggesting a different level of attention to critics’ search for the elements that contribute to
a film’s implicit meanings in criticism attended to by industry peers.

4.5.3 Differences in Use of Themes

In contrast to the themes that were used consistently across film recognition categories,
the findings reported in Table 4.1 show that three among the remaining seven revealed
highly statistically significant differences in use by critics: “Film material”, “Interpretation”,
and “Position in art/entertainment”. Taken together, these three themes address a film’s
quality and significance, and they were most heavily used in reviews of films that received
critical recognition. When considered as a group, these themes reveal the important role
film critics play not only as arbiters and interpreters of culture but their important
constitutive role in its construction. We discuss each of these three themes in turn.
The first, Film material, focused attention on scripts or screenplays and adaptations
of existing material; screenwriters are often named, and attention gets paid to their
85
accomplished reputations and oeuvres, as seen in the following example, a review of The
Diving Bell and the Butterfly:

“As for Schnabel, it is an exhilarating breakthrough, and for screenwriter Ronald

Harwood the movie is another triumph of responsive, creative intelligence.”
The Guardian

The second theme, Interpretation, which was pronounced in reviews of films with
professional as well as critical recognition, reveals the meanings the reviewer uncovers,
which can be presented as a coherent whole or as separate aspects. Developing skill with
this particular theme figures centrally in scholarly training on film criticism. We find an
example of its use in the Los Angeles Times review on 4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile:

“Set in 1987 in the last days of the Ceausescu dictatorship […], the film demonstrates
with off-handed power how complete a corrupt society can dehumanize its citizens
and almost destroy those trapped in it.”
Los Angeles Times

The third theme, Position in art/entertainment, captures the characteristics of and

opposition between artistic and popular film, and it appears most often in critically
rewarded movies and to a lesser extent in professionally recognized ones. This theme
serves to insulate critics’ favorites from the lower ranks of entertainment through
testimonies of artfulness and use of intellectual terminology:

“Syndromes and a Century is a poem on screen: a film of ideas and visual tropes that
upends conventional narrative expectations, not out of a simple desire to disconcert
but to break through the carapace of normality, to give us the knight's-move away
from reality that the Russian formalists said was the prerogative of art.”
The Guardian

86
More modestly statistically significant differences occurred in the remaining themes –
“Director”, “Formal elements”, “Film as product”, and “Context/Background”. Not
unexpectedly, the Director is considerably more prominently featured in reviews of films
that received critical acclaim, as the emphasis on auteurism in film would predict.
Discussion often focuses on a director’s career path, unique trademarks, and
accomplishments in the film under review, and the film is often described as the director’s
property or accomplishment, signified by use of possessive pronouns. Formal elements,
which also figured prominently in reviews of critically acclaimed films, encompassed
appraisal of a film’s technical elements, and included attention to casting, costume design,
dialogue, editing, form, photography, runtime, score, special effects, and the like. A most
important aspect of this theme is plot development, because, as has already noted, critics
pay a lot of attention to the ways stories are told.

Reviews of popular, ultimately commercially successful films tend to address Film

as a product that generates revenue. Comments within this theme point toward budgets,
franchises, box office results, brands, distribution, product placement, and intended
audiences. Context/Background contains commentary that refers to the film field or wider
society in which the film was made. Mostly, these are remarks on the film industry at large,
today or in the past. The workings of Hollywood are discussed, as are the response to a film
in society or the private lives of actors or directors. This is where direct evidence of the
expanded opportunity space for film production and consumption appears, but as was
noted earlier, the codes that comprise it did not occur very often in reviews.

4.5.4 Critics’ Essentials

With fifteen different themes to account for, we conducted a factor analysis to extract the
essential components of film criticism that would more accessibly reveal the focus of
contemporary critics. This analysis revealed four influential factors, shown in Table 4.2.
Four of the fifteen themes loaded heavily onto Factor 1, which we named “Auteurism”:
Director, Film content, Interpretation, and Mood. This factor focuses on the universe of the
director as creative visionary. The second factor, named “Experience”, includes the themes
of Film experience, Novelty, and Position in art/entertainment; these touch upon aspects of
87
what one experiences while watching a film, either literally, in relation to other film
experiences, or as something typical of art or entertainment more generally. Three themes
loaded into Factor 3, which we dubbed “Processes”: Actors, Film material, and Formal
elements. These themes mostly consider creative processes that went into making a film
and the manner in which the storylines, characters, or look of the movie came about. The
last factor, which we dubbed “Context”, contains the themes Context/Background,
Credibility, Film as product, and Position in film context; this factor points to
considerations that link a film to contexts both within and beyond the film world, either as
a commodity or insofar as the film’s content is concerned. When taken together, these four
factors reveal the dominant substantive considerations contemporary film critics as a
whole engage in their work.

Table 4.2 Obliquely rotated component loadings for fifteen themes (N=194)

Auteurism Experience Processes Context

Component 1 2 3 4
Actors .283 .065 .747 .428
Complexity .416 .246 .426 .273
Context/Background .149 .477 .115 .683
Credibility .089 -.094 .262 .653
Director .648 .547 .445 .257
Film as product -.366 .468 .164 .514
Film content .596 .050 .534 .305
Film experience .214 .672 .404 .154
Film material .188 .157 .774 .123
Formal elements .216 .575 .660 .243
Interpretation film .837 .292 .196 .233
Mood .673 .411 .351 .272
Novelty .206 .638 .107 .245
Position art/entertainment .448 .671 .151 .240
Position film context .312 .299 .232 .686
Eigenvalues 4.725 1.451 1.283 1.021
Percentage of total variance 31.501 9.677 8.550 6.805
(In bold: relevant loadings onto factor.)

Given our interest in the relationship of contemporary criticism to popular culture and
communication, we then analyzed the extent to which these four factors vary across
reviews of films ultimately consecrated by popular, professional, and critical
constituencies. The results, which are reported in Table 4.3, reveal that there was
systematic variation in their use across the three different types of recognition – a finding

88
that is consistent with the results reported above – but they also reveal that their use varies
more in degree than kind. In short, all four factors were present regardless of the kind of
recognition a film ultimately received, but their prevalence depended on the particular
constituency that engaged their work.
For example, whereas comments related to Auteurism are encountered in reviews
of all kinds, this factor proved to be significantly more prominent in reviews of films that
received critical recognition. Specifically, criticism that focuses on the director as creative
visionary and the interpretation of the universe he or she presents is used the least in
reviews of popular films, more so in those of professional prizewinners, and most in
reviews of films that achieve critical acclaim.16 At the same time, the distribution of the
factor Experience, which consists of critical appraisal of the quality of the emotional
engagement of a film, is also significantly more pronounced in reviews of films with critical
recognition.17 While one might have expected this component to be more consistently used
in reviews of films that call for a naïve gaze or popular aesthetic, instead it is deployed to a
large extent in reviews of all film types but mostly in those that are critically acclaimed; this
is an important finding that reveals that contemporary film criticism incorporates aesthetic
considerations that draw from popular interests as well elite ones. The factor of Processes
shows slightly significant variation among review types but is stronger in reviews of films
with both popular and critical recognition and less so in those that achieve professional
awards.18 This finding also reveals the complexity of contemporary film criticism, in which
the same criteria are applied differentially to films that are differently valuated. Finally, the
finding of the statistically significant difference in the use of Context can be accounted for
by the greater likelihood of this component appearing in reviews of films that receive

16 Results of the analysis of variance for Auteurism are F(11,9) = 13.55, p = <.001. Post hoc analyses using the Games-
Howell criterion to assess the difference in use between critical recognition and the other two forms found the greatest
difference to lie between critical and popularly recognized films (p = <.001) and a marginal difference to exist between
critical and professional ones (p = <.10). There was no significant difference in use of the factor between professionally
and popularly recognized films. For an overview of the ANOVA with post hoc analyses see Appendix D.
17 Results of the analysis of variance for Experience are F(4,7) = 9.06, p = <.001. Post hoc analyses found the greatest

difference to lie between critical and professionally recognized films (p = <.001), and a smaller difference to exist between
critical and popular ones (p = <.01). There was no significant difference in use of the factor between professionally and
popularly recognized films.
18 Results of the analysis of variance for Processes are F(11,3) = 4.30, p = <.05. Post hoc analyses found the only difference

in the use of this factor to lie between critical and professional recognition.

89
popular recognition.19 That is, the anticipated shift in contemporary criticism to include
reflection on contexts of production – the social and industrial milieux – shows up, but
(still) mostly in reviews of films that are granted popular recognition. In sum, reviews of
various kinds of film reveal similar approaches to criticism but those of movies that receive
popular and critical recognition appear to share particular elements to a stronger degree,
whereas those of films with professional recognition occupy an intermediate position.

Table 4.3 Percentages of reviews linked to factors by type of film recognition

Popular Critical Professional N Χ2

recognition recognition recognition
Auteurism ***
0 4 - - 3
1–5 20 12 27 36
6- 10 39 19 17 52
11 – 15 24 19 20 41
16 < 13 50 37 62
Experience ns
0 3 1 5 5
1–5 70 51 73 123
6 – 10 21 38 20 54
11 – 15 5 8 2 11
16 < - 1 - 1
Processes **
0 - - 2 1
1–5 17 18 24 36
6 – 10 29 28 39 60
11 – 15 35 15 20 47
16 < 19 39 15 50
Context **
0 - 8 5 8
1–5 39 45 66 91
6 – 10 35 34 27 64
11 – 15 19 12 - 24
16 < 6 1 2 7
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; ns: not significant (two-tailed chi-square tests).

19 Results for the analysis of variance for Context are F(6,3) = 7.89, p = <.001. Post hoc analyses found the greatest
difference to lie between professionally and popularly recognized films (p = <.001), and a smaller difference to exist
between critical and popular ones (p = <.05). There was no significant difference in the use of the factor between
critically and professionally recognized films.

90
4.6 Conclusion
We aimed to clarify the criteria that contemporary film critics deploy to review films.
Relying upon seminal work on how the transformation of film as a product of mass appeal
to one that is an art form was aided by the evolution of film criticism though its expanded
discursive complexity, we went beyond that foundational scholarship to understand how
recent changes in the film industry have affected contemporary film criticism. To
encompass the varied agents of public and peers that now comprise the critical community
alongside professional critics, we identified the top films in three established categories of
film recognition – films that have achieved top ranking at the box office, those that are
recognized as recipients of top honors in industry awards, and those that achieve the most
critical acclaim. We found that reviews consist of four essential components, Auteurism,
Experience, Processes, and Context, and that while all four are present in reviews of films
that garner different kinds of recognition, we also found that the components are utilized to
different degrees, depending on the kind of recognition a film ultimately receives. Critically
acclaimed films tend to be appraised with a strong emphasis on auteurism as well as with
an eye for the culturally meaningful viewing experience. The finding that reviews of films
that end up receiving popular and critical acclaim share many of the same substantive
considerations is equally interesting, because it reveals that film criticism is not bound by a
strictly detached or pure gaze even as film has become a more elite art form, and similarly,
that the appraisal of films that ultimately achieve popular recognition is not constrained by
a solely naïve aesthetic. The intermediate position of criticism of films that achieved
professional recognition points to the possibility of less distinctive properties of such
reviews, but we also note that the fewer number of reviews in this category may have made
their distinctiveness more difficult to discern. Further research should provide greater
clarity on this matter.
Our interest in conducting this exploratory research was motivated by our broader
concern about the ways in which scholars rely upon cultural classification schemes
alongside other social constructions that, when left unexamined intensify, if not outright
reify social distinctions that may be only minimally present, or that may have been more
extensive at some point but have begun to shift, transform, or collapse in ways that should
be taken into account in order to reach a deeper understanding of contemporary cultural
91
classification. Given the now recognized complexity in cultural consumption reported over
a decade ago (Peterson & Kern, 1996), which exists alongside the impact of more recent
shifts in the changing production and cultural contexts of film making, the question
remains to what extent cultural arbiters like film critics have begun to expand the scope of
their interpretative focus in light of these changes. Critics are cultural intermediaries who
contribute in important ways to public discourse about popular culture, and in so doing
continue to play an important role in popular communication about socially influential
media like film. While the role of film critics, which is to ascertain film’s “implicit and
symptomatic meanings” (Bordwell, 1989: p. 17; Scott, 2010), has not changed, the
substance and form of their criticism is bound to shift if they are to continue to reach the
audiences they aim to speak to.

92
 Chapter 5

National Cultural Repertoires of Evaluation in a Global Age:

Film Discourse in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the
United States

5.1 Introduction

“There may not have been consensus by Day 4 of the Cannes Film Festival — no movie
has yet been universally loved, loathed or violently debated — but the critics have
staked out their positions and fired up their thumbs. The British are keen on the British
film We Need to Talk About Kevin […] while the French are less impressed. The
reviewer at Cahiers du Cinéma anointed it with an unsmiley face […], a perfect
representation of what sometimes seems to be the default critical attitude here.”
The New York Times

While the film world is now a global industry with a worldwide audience, this quote by The
New York Times film critic Dargis (2011) illustrates that nationality is still perceived to be a
factor of influence with regard to critics’ evaluations; apparently the British and French
have different ideas about what constitutes a good film. Furthermore, the latter are
described as having a particular approach to films under review. Does this assumption of
cross-national or cross-cultural differentiation with regard to cultural evaluation still make
sense in today’s highly globalized world?
Evaluation schemes and tastes are socially constructed (Griswold, 1987; Kuipers,
2006) and depend on, amongst other factors, cultural surroundings (Lamont & Thévenot,
2000; Liebes & Katz, 1993). Following, the reception of cultural objects varies according to
audience characteristics, and across historical eras and national contexts (Cheyne & Binder,
2010; Daenekindt & Roose, 2011). However, the strongly expanded international exchange

93
of culture and media products has caused cultural fields in the Western world to resemble
each other across countries more than ever before (Janssen et al., 2008). This would mean
that we all increasingly read the same bestseller books, listen to the same popular music,
and watch the same Hollywood blockbusters, regardless of whether we live in Amsterdam,
Paris, London, or New York.
Research has shown that art and culture coverage in European national newspapers
has grown far more internationally oriented over the past decades (Janssen et al., 2008).
Related, forms of popular culture have gained importance at the cost of traditional high art
forms (Janssen et al., 2011), which means media across countries pay attention to the same
internationally popular culture products to a growing extent. The newspaper coverage of
film, an extremely popular cultural genre and a massive worldwide industry (McDonald &
Wasko, 2008), proved the most extensive and internationalized (Janssen et al., 2008). This
process of globalization is in line with the predominance of the American movie industry in
the Western film world (Lee & Waterman, 2007). Hollywood films prevail on import
markets around the world; this concentration of supply has resulted in film fields that are
increasingly homogenized across nations (Chung, 2011; Fu, 2006). Consequently, the
French, Dutch, British, and American box office hit lists of 2010 all contain films like Harry
Potter, Shrek Forever After, Alice in Wonderland, Inception, Toy Story, and Twilight
(boxofficemojo.com).
Whereas audiences across nations consume the same movies to a large degree
(Barthel-Bouchier, 2011), and national newspapers cover the same international cultural
products (Janssen et al., 2008), this does not mean that films are made sense of in the same
manner across contexts (Chon et al., 2003). Different perspectives may lead to variation in
the appropriation of films by various cultural groups. For example, a film’s appraisal can
result from its formal features (e.g. photography, plot development) or the viewing
experience it offers its audiences. As professional critics function as intermediaries
between cultural producers and consumers (Bourdieu, 1993; Hesmondhalgh, 2006), their
assessments are especially telling with regard to the ways in which films are understood
and valued in particular cultural surroundings.
Whereas studies have so far given insight into which cultural products critics across
countries pay attention to, and shown how these products are increasingly alike and
94
internationally oriented (Janssen et al., 2008; 2011), less is known about the possible
similarity or differentiation in the ways in which cultural products are appreciated across
nations. Cross-national studies have concentrated on the appropriation of high arts
(Lamont, 1992; Lamont & Thévenot, 2000) in a set of cultural contexts, on the evaluation of
a popular culture genre (television) within a single country (Bielby et al., 2005) or
regarding a particular product, e.g. the soap opera Dallas (Liebes & Katz, 1993), and the
movie The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Kuipers & de Kloet, 2009). Whereas
these studies all provide important insights in the reception of culture, they are
constrained by a focus on one particular paradigm, country, cultural genre, or cultural
product. The aim of this study is to deliver broader knowledge on the diverse cultural form
of film. More specific analysis of overall film discourse was carried out with a sole focus on
high art aesthetic criteria and limited to a time period ending in the 1980s (Baumann,
2001). The current research fills several voids in this somewhat fragmented field of
research, as it closely examines present-day evaluation of a most globalized cultural genre.
It does so by studying reviews published in elite newspapers in as much as four national
contexts (France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States), considering
a very diverse selection of film titles. By combining both quantitative and qualitative
methods, this study aims to answer the question: To what extent can national cultural
repertoires of evaluation be differentiated in present-day Western film discourse? As such,
this research adds to the understanding of the consequences of globalization in national
contexts.

5.2 Cultural Repertoires of Evaluation

Despite societies’ reverence for particular historical works of art (e.g. Van Gogh’s
Sunflowers or Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa) and adoration of its makers, cultural products don’t
possess inherent characteristics that make them recognizable as art. Artistic value is not
measured according to existing standards but conferred to a work after social consensus
allows it; value is assigned to a product rather than assessed (Bourdieu, 1993). As
assignment of value to cultural products is socially fabricated (Griswold, 1987), it is
determined by cultural surroundings (Liebes & Katz, 1993). Cultural repertoires of
evaluation -- collections of valuating schemas that people apply in a variety of situations
95
and which orders their assessments on all kinds of matters (Lamont & Thévenot, 2000) --
pre-exist individuals, but are transformed and made salient by them. Taste in music, books
or films is not inherent to the products or even our specific personalities, but subordinate
to social categories, e.g. class, age, gender, education level, ethnicity, and social
environment (Cheyne & Binder, 2010; Daenekindt & Roose, 2011; Van Eijck & Knulst,
2005; Van Rees & Van Eijck, 2003).
National contexts bear influence on tastes and the assignment of value to cultural
products as well. Various environmental factors increase the probability of individuals
making sense of their surroundings in a particular way (Lamont, 1992). This would signify
that, while we all live in a global age in which the same or similar (popular) culture
products are predominantly consumed, culturally diverse groups across the globe interpret
and ascribe meaning to such products in a variety of ways (Liebes & Katz, 1993). For
instance, readers from the West Indies, Britain, and the United Stated were demonstrated
to lend diverging meanings to the same set of fictional novels (Griswold, 1987). Manners of
evaluation are set of by different appropriations of contents from the start; the retelling of
stories can take many shapes. People of various cultural groups may understand stories
differently (Liebes & Katz, 1993) and thus evaluate the same Hollywood blockbuster in
completely different ways.
Research has shown that the national cultural repertoires of evaluation in the
United Stated and France are informed by strongly diverging notions of what is valuable of
worthy of acclaim (Lamont, 1992; Lamont & Thévenot, 2000). A clear illustration is found
in the differentiation in films that receive acclaim at the two countries’ most prestigious
film award ceremonies; the Oscars are hardly ever granted to the same movies as the
Golden Palms. The French and American wield very different stances on a large variety of
subjects, from moral and political topics to the cultural sphere (Lamont & Thévenot, 2000).
Evaluation practices in that cultural sphere are chiefly characterized by two aesthetic
systems (Bourdieu, 1984; 1993): the “aesthetic disposition” and the “popular aesthetic”.
The aesthetic disposition, typically ascribed to high art domains, stresses a detached
manner of assessment; it demands distance from the artwork, and focuses on form rather
than function. The opposing popular aesthetic signifies appreciation of cultural goods in
everyday contexts: it brings together audience and cultural good, and focuses on function
96
instead of form. Highbrow evaluation criteria of film -- criteria that typify the aesthetic
disposition -- position films between predecessors and contemporaries, discuss a movie as
the artistic output of a sole genius, interpret its narrative, and relate it to its wider societal
contexts (Baumann, 2001). Evaluation schemas that answer to a popular aesthetic
emphasizes the film’s participatory experience, emotional authenticity and performance as
commercial commodity (Bielby & Bielby, 2004; Bielby et al., 2005; Van Venrooij & Schmutz,
2010). The appliance of these two aesthetic systems tends to show variation across
nations. In contrast to the French, American consumers of culture tend to “deemphasize the
properly formal and intellectual aspect of the aesthetic activity to stress its emotional and
experiential dimensions” (Lamont, 1992: 122). Cultural repertoires of evaluation in France
are characterized by emphasis on aestheticism and intellectualism, while those in the
United States are informed by pragmatism (which is also seen to inform Dutch repertoires)
(Janssen et al., 2011; Lamont, 1992). This would mean, as critics most clearly exemplify
cultural repertoires of evaluation, that American reviewers direct more attention towards
the spectacle movies provide the audience with while the French focus on form and
interpretation.

5.3 Cultural Circumstances

National cultural repertoires of evaluation appear to grow more parallel in Western
countries due to the homogenizing influences of cultural globalization (Appadurai, 1996;
Hesmondhalgh, 2002). This trend supposes that national differences found in the past are
subsiding (Lamont, 1992); major corporations target global mainstream audiences with
the same expensive cultural commodities. The “growing international diffusion, exchange,
and intermingling of cultural goods and media products” (Janssen et al., 2008: 720) results
in media ownership being in the hands of a few global conglomerates (McDonald & Wasko,
2008) and thus leads to cultural fields’ tendency to resemble each other. Since effects of
cultural globalization proliferate in the realm of recorded culture distributed through mass
media (Janssen et al., 2008), national film discourses -- the manners in which film is
primarily discussed in national contexts -- are especially vulnerable to assimilation.
Already, film coverage in national newspapers is more internationally oriented than
coverage of other cultural genres. The strongly globalized realm of film criticism thus
97
provides an appropriate field to test the resistance of national cultural repertoires of
evaluation to forceful homogenizing trends.
However, susceptibility for global influences varies across countries and may be
regarded as a condition that allows or refuses particular evaluative principles to dominate
cultural repertoires (Liebes & Katz, 1993). Whereas France, the Netherlands, the United
Kingdom, and the United States all reside in the Western cultural domain, their particular
characteristics differentiate their openness to influences from beyond their borders
(Janssen et al., 2008). The extents to which they can sustain national cultural repertoires of
evaluation in a time of globalization thus vary (Lamont, 1992). Such country characteristics
include its size, social make-up, centrality, policy, and cultural proximity (Janssen et al.,
2008; Straubhaar, 2007). Further, the magnitude of commercial and state influences on
media systems that facilitate national cultural repertoires renders them more or less
receptive.
Considering these elements, the susceptibility of cultural repertoires of evaluation
of film in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States can be
approximated. The American film field is directed inwards due to the country’s large size
and centrality in the film world. The small and peripheral Netherlands have stimulating
rather than restricting policies with regard to culture, and are very receptive to foreign
(mainly Hollywood) film. Both France and the United Kingdom find themselves in-between
these two extremes with regard to size and centrality. French cultural policy is known for
its protectionist measures that contain foreign influences (Barthel-Bouchier, 2011; Scott,
2000). Whereas cultural proximity would assist cohesion amongst European countries, the
U.K.’s cultural proximity to (as well as language kinship with) the U.S. also proposes high
levels of cultural exchange (Bennett et al., 2009).
Finally, national film fields may characterize evaluation repertoires regarding
movies. The American film industry dominates the Western film world as it has the highest
output and largest market share at home and abroad (Barthel-Bouchier, 2011; Trumpbour,
2008) – e.g. in 2009, it produced 677 films and claimed a 92% national market share (see
Table 5.1). The commercial attitude, industrial infrastructure and powerful star system
that benefits the American industry finds no match in Europe (Bordwell & Thompson,
1997; Elsaesser, 2005; McDonald & Wasko, 2008); here, film was traditionally approached
98
as the “seventh art”. Whereas the French film field is seen to exhibit the most discrepancy
with Hollywood (Augros, 2008) due to its traditionally artful approach and protectionist
policy (Elsaesser, 2005; Scott, 2000), it does command the largest, most successful
domestic film industry in Western Europe. The Dutch film industry is, despite an upsurge in
recent years, rather small and generates hardly any export (Van de Kamp, 2009). The
intertwining of the British film industry with Hollywood (subsidiaries) has resulted in the
hybrid “British Hollywood film” exemplified by the James Bond series (Elsaesser, 2005;
McDonald, 2008) but the strictly national industry is quite modest.

Table 5.1 Film production per country in 2009

Country Output in film titles Domestic market share in %

France 230 37
Netherlands 52 17
United Kingdom 116 17
United States 677 92
(Source: European Audiovisual Observatory)

These considerations prompt the assumption that the American and French cultural
repertoires of evaluation on film are most likely to persevere. Evaluation schemas in the
Netherlands and the U.K. are expected to experience more effects from global trends and
thus be less distinct.

5.4 Data and Methods

Societies’ professional critics exemplify cultural repertoires of evaluation; as evaluation is
their core business, they provide the clearest patterns of evaluation schemas. Specifically,
cultural critics traditionally function as intermediaries between producers and consumers,
and therefore fulfill a key role in fields of cultural production (Bourdieu, 1993;
Hesmondhalgh, 2006). Focusing on film criticism is thus appropriate for the purpose of
examination of national cultural repertoires of evaluation. The data sample encompassed
film reviews from elite newspapers in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and
the United States, regarding those as institutions key to the sustenance of distinct
evaluation schemas. The sample included Le Figaro and Le Monde for France, NRC

99
Handelsblad and de Volkskrant for the Netherlands, The Times and The Guardian for the
U.K., and The New York Times and Los Angeles Times for the U.S., which were chosen
because they employ professional critics, have large national circulation, and play a leading
role in discourse on artistic and popular culture (Chapter 4).
In order to obtain a sample of reviews that encompasses a wide range of film types,
the sample was drawn from all films released in 2007 that were highly regarded by public,
peer filmmakers, and critics in the relevant countries.20 As these three institutional agents
can be pinpointed as most crucial in the valuation of cultural products (Allen & Lincoln,
2004; Schmutz, 2005), popular, professional, and critical recognition were used as
indicators for different types of film. The twenty highest revenue-generating movies
formed the sample of films with popular recognition. The winners and nominees of the
most prestigious national film awards were selected for professional recognition. The
movies with the most critical recognition were made up of films most highly regarded by
critics’ associations and quality newspapers.21 As this article is not concerned with the
differentiation of discourse with regard to film type, I refer to Chapter 4 for details.
However, film type is controlled for in the analysis, using a more nuanced indicator (to be
explained shortly). Due to missing reviews and overlap between film categories, the sample
consisted of 397 film reviews. These cases were evenly distributed over the four countries.
Word counts per review averaged 529 words (SD=285); the American reviews were
significantly (F=78.42, p=0.000) longer than the French, Dutch, and British reviews.
All reviews were subjected to an inductive content analysis using ATLAS.ti.22 Each
film review was divided into text segments or quotations, averaging five to six segments
per review. A total of 2555 quotations were coded on the topics they addressed, which
varied from the prior achievements of star actors to the interpretations of perceived
metaphors. After coding, the quotations were aggregated back into complete reviews for
the analyses – i.e. the reviews served as research units. The large variety of topics found
was considered carefully and codes were adjusted where needed, resulting in 137 final

20 The sample only contained films rated as PG-13, NC-17, or R by the Motion Picture Association of America; this
excluded children’s or family films, which are likely to be evaluated according to different criteria altogether.
21 For a list of all sampled films see Appendix B.
22 The French reviews were translated into Dutch by a professional third party before coding.

100
separate codes. The analysis of associations between codes led to their distribution into
fifteen code groups, or themes. All codes belong to only one theme, and all themes
addressed a particular question or issue (see Chapter 4). Following, an obliquely rotated
factor analysis clustered together the fifteen themes and established four fundamental
discourse components. The respective eminence of those discourse components in the four
national cultural repertoires of evaluation was then examined by means of a multiple OLS
regression analysis, in which the sample countries appeared as dummy variables with the
United States serving as baseline. As length of reviews could account for longer or more
varied elaborations on film aspects, the analysis controlled for review lengths in word
counts. Additionally, as more artistic or mainstream film might induce different evaluative
approaches, the analysis controlled for film types. The latter was done by positioning the
reviewed films on a scale between mainstream and art film that was based upon material
practices and thematic content, as a result from Categorical Principal Components Analysis
(CATPCA) (Chapter 3). This control variable indicates the differences in evaluations of
films that show many of the characteristics of mainstream movies or of more
artistic/highbrow films. Films in our sample score between -2.24 (very mainstream) and
1.45 (very artistic).
The examination of film criticism in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom,
and the United States enables to typify film discourses across these countries. Different
characterizations of such discourses, and variety in the proliferation of different aesthetic
systems would indicate the sustenance of distinct national cultural repertoires of
evaluation despite the ubiquity of processes of globalization.

5.5 Findings

5.5.1 Evaluative Schemas in Film Discourse

A first step in the examination of evaluation repertoires on film concerns the assessment of
themes that film critics address on the whole. Critics in all four countries deployed the
same fifteen themes (see Table 5.2) that were found in the analysis of film criticism in the
United States and United Kingdom in Chapter 4, but their relative importance varied per
country. The distribution of themes over national cultural repertoires presented a complex
101
picture in which many different combinations of elements of aesthetic systems occurred.
Providing a clearer overview of film discourse components, factor analysis revealed four
influential factors with an Eigenvalue greater than one, shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Obliquely rotated component loadings for fifteen themes (N=397)

Artistic value Context Reality Experience

Component 1 2 3 4
Director’s accomplishments and trademarks .769
Description of plot and characters .634
Formal qualities, e.g. style, photography .589
Interpretation/meaning of film (elements) .818
Classification as art or entertainment .487
Context of film content or production process .697
Film as commercial enterprise or commodity .769
Position within film canon .626
Actors’ performances and trademarks .770
Credibility of plot and characters .498
Screenplay, script, and adaptation .613
Complexity of storylines and characters .499
Viewing experience .624
Mood, atmosphere or ‘feel’ .587
Level of originality or novelty .629
Cronbach’s alpha .723 .617 .415 .526
Eigenvalues 3.812 1.648 1.223 1.052
Percentage of total variance 25.416 10.987 8.156 7.012

Factor analyzing this larger international sample of reviews resulted in four discourse
components that slightly diverged from the ones found in Chapter 4. The loadings on the
four factors varied compared to those presented in table 4.2, leading to different
interpretations of these components. The factor “Artistic value” represents a reviewing
mode in which the film is regarded as the expression of an artist; it has concern for the
film’s formal qualities and emphasizes analysis and interpretation. This discourse
component strongly resembles the aesthetic disposition (Bourdieu, 1993) and signifies the
most artful approach to film found in the data. The factor presents a most distinct way of
discussing movies that borrows from discourses on highbrow cultural genres. Not
surprisingly, this factor explains the most variance of all four.
The factor “Context” considers film in relation to its contexts both within and
beyond the film world. This discourse component appears to be rather ambiguous as it
combines the appreciation of the cultural product within the canon (a mechanism

102
prevalent in the valuation of art) with the assessment of film as a commodity or
commercial enterprise.
The way in which the factor “Reality” addresses a film’s reality is twofold: it includes
both filmmaking processes and the credibility of a film’s content within its suspension of
disbelief – i.e. it tests the believability or plausibility of a narrative within the premises of
the product or medium. Following, this discourse component signals the effectiveness of a
popular aesthetic in two ways, both relating the reviewed film to its actual surroundings.
Elaborations on production processes indicate a rather pragmatic stance on film that
focuses on the everyday reality of filmmaking; this is in strong contrast with approaching a
film as meaningful cultural entity resulting from the creative genius of a director. The
emphasis on credibility of what a film portrays shows the reviewer’s lack of distance from
the film and his stressing of (emotional) authenticity (Bielby & Bielby, 1994). This search
for unity between cultural good and audience (Bourdieu, 1993) is very telling with regard
to the aesthetic system underlying a particular discourse.
The factor “Experience” contains the various ways in which reviewers discuss the
experience a film brings about. The prominence of such a participatory experience unveils
deployment of a popular aesthetic (Van Venrooij & Schmutz, 2010). However, this
discourse component simultaneously displays a more artful dimension as consideration of
levels of complexity and novelty generally indicates a highbrow perspective (Baumann,
2001). Here, these aspects are directly connected to the viewing experience; simplicity
either enhances enjoyment or prompts boredom, while originality generates interest and
predictability diverts attention. At the same time, complexity understood as nuance that
reflects reality’s complicity appears to increase a film’s ability to draw in the audience.

5.5.2 Film Discourse across Borders

The four discourse components can be regarded as schemas of evaluation that occur in
cultural repertoires in all four countries, but whose prevalence differs in France, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Multiple OLS regression analyses
that controlled for word counts and film types give insight into the schemas’ relative
eminence in national cultural repertoires (see Table 5.3).

103
Table 5.3 Multiple OLS regression analyses on prominence of discourse components (N=397)

Artistic value Context

Variable B SE B ß B SE B ß
Word count 0.02 0.00 0.86*** 0.01 0.00 0.61***
Film displays more art features 1.32 0.23 0.18*** -1.25 0.15 -0.33***

Sample France 11.28 0.82 0.60*** 1.62 0.55 0.17**

Sample Netherlands 9.69 0.80 0.54*** 3.00 0.53 0.33***
Sample United Kingdom 1.75 0.78 0.10* 0.18 0.52 0.02
Sample United States Ref. Ref.
R2 .66 .42
Reality Experience
Variable B SE B ß B SE B ß
Word count 0.01 0.00 0.43*** 0.01 0.00 0.54***
Film displays more art features -0.64 0.16 -0.16*** 0.06 0.12 0.02

Sample France -2.27 0.58 -0.23*** -0.33 0.44 -0.05

Sample Netherlands -1.91 0.57 -0.20*** -0.29 0.42 -0.04
Sample United Kingdom -2.93 0.55 -0.30*** -1.11 0.41 -0.16**
Sample United States Ref. Ref.
R2 .40 .35
Significance: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05.

With regard to discourse component Artistic value, the model explains 66% of variance.
The model displays a positive relation to film type; this means that the more art film
characteristics the film contains, the more eminent the discourse component. The sample
country of the reviews appears to be the most deciding factor here. French reviewers
employ this evaluation schema to a much larger degree than their American counterparts.
The Dutch reviews resemble the French in this respect, while the British reviews contain
Artistic value far less.
The model encompasses 42% of the variation found in the use of discourse
component Context. Its use increases with higher word counts as well as with films’
exhibiting more mainstream features. Dutch reviewers tend to discuss a movie’s context
within or without the film world to the largest extent, followed by the French, and then the
British and American.
The variation in prominence of discourse component Reality is explained for 40%
by the model’s variables. As for all evaluation schemas, the longer the review, the more it
gets used. The prevalence of mainstream characteristics in the reviewed films prompt more
emphasis on films’ relations to their actual environments. This discourse component is

104
accentuated far more in the American newspapers than in those in France, the Netherlands,
and the U.K., with the Dutch reviews showing the least divergence.
The final discourse component, Experience, shows the least variance, the model
covering 35% of variance found. Lengthier reviews enable deliberations on viewing
experiences but they do not depend on film type. While all European critics talk about
experience somewhat less than the Americans do, the only significant difference is found
between the United Kingdom and United States.
Whereas discourse is constructed with the same schemas of evaluation in all
countries studied, French, Dutch, British, and American cultural repertoires on film can be
distinguished by their relative prominence.

5.5.3 American Film Discourse

American film critics are least inclined to review a film according to its artistic value; they
deemphasize formal and intellectual aspects of film as expected. The American discourse
demonstrates a strong emphasis on film’s reality; the product under review is positioned in
its actual context in a variety of ways. Especially the stressing of filmmaking processes fits
well with the notion of American evaluating repertoires traditionally being strongly
characterized by a sense of pragmatism (Lamont, 1992). Additionally, as these processes
include actors’ practices and performances, this finding underscores the relative
importance of (star) actors compared to directors here (McDonald & Wasko, 2008). Actors
have a considerably more prominent position in American discourse than in other
countries (on average, U.S. reviews contain 6.61 remarks on the theme Actors’ performances
and trademarks, F=44.27, p=0.000), where the director represents a focus point. This is
another indication of an approach to film that resembles that of a product resulting from
accumulated professional craftsmanship, instead of one that regards film as the outcome of
one person’s creative vision. Furthermore, emotional and experiential dimensions were
once again proven prevalent in American repertoires of evaluation.

“Much of the film […] was shot in New Mexico by the Coens' long-time
cinematographer, Roger Deakins. Essential atmospheric exteriors, however, were shot
in West Texas at the insistence of costar Jones, a native of the Lone Star state. "He
105
 yelled at us that [New Mexico] would be a mistake," Ethan Coen said at the film's
Cannes debut. […] Just as the picture demanded those West Texas exteriors, the role of
Ed Tom Bell demanded Jones, who gives one of the great performances of his career
[…]. Though the Coens liked the idea of Jones' tartness in the good-guy role […] both
the filmmakers and the actor worried that his taking on this part was too obvious a
pick. In truth, however, it's hard to think of anyone who could've brought McCarthy's
impeccable ear for regional speech so convincingly to the screen. When the sheriff's
deputy says, 'It's a mess, ain't it?", it's pure pleasure to hear Jones handle the rejoinder
-- "If it ain't, it'll do until the mess gets here" -- with trademark aplomb.”
Los Angeles Times

This excerpt of a review on No Country for Old Men is a good illustration of American film
criticism as it addresses the various filmmaking processes, credibility, and viewing
experience. Not only does the critic discuss filming locations and acting performances, the
review includes information on the decision-making processes the directors dealt with.
Quoting directors, producers, or actors on the production process of a reviewed film is an
often-applied method here. Notably, the experience a film offers is regarded as the result of
many different factors; here focus lies with Jones’ acting performance. It is, however, not
uncommon for other, less obvious factors to be shown to influence a film’s impact, like the
score in the case of There Will Be Blood.

“Making "Blood's" story even more disturbing is the troubling score by Radiohead's
Jonny Greenwood, powerful, brooding new music that is critical to the film's impact,
creating pervasive uneasiness and letting us know that, appearances to the contrary,
we're not watching a conventional story.”
Los Angeles Times

In general, the emphasis of American film discourse lies with the products’ relation to or
function in everyday life. Due to the eminence of both film’s reality and its experience, the
American film discourse can be typified as stressing a popular aesthetic and by its
serviceability to audiences. The length of film reviews in U.S. newspapers facilitates
106
elaboration and description. Large size of reviews is generally seen to indicate a serious
approach (Baumann, 2001), which rings true here since the American film industry is such
an important source of export (McDonald & Wasko, 2008). However, it might also point
towards the value given to informing the public.

5.5.4 French Film Discourse

French film criticism underlines cinema’s artistic value; critics behold films as meaningful
cultural entities that require interpretation. French reviewers downplay a film’s reality in
any sense, keeping clear of comments on filmmaking processes. As such, French film
discourse is not concerned with film’s actual surroundings or practices, but solely with the
work itself as an expression to be analyzed. Furthermore, the stressing of formal qualities
demonstrates the distance kept between cultural product and its audience, which enables
such analysis. In this review of Das Leben der Anderen (see Appendix E for translation), the
critic assigns meaning to a film by analyzing its various elements as well as the film as a
whole; the development of one character is related to the film’s overall theme, while the
setting in which the story takes place is another aspect crucial to the sense-making process.
The form is seen as integral to the film’s (plot) development and meaning. The critic’s
interpretation bestows the film with merit as the meaning is seen to provide human worth
and depth to the production.

“Ce qu'il raconte, c'est l'histoire d'une conscience qui se réveille, d'une rédemption qui
se profile; une remontée des enfers pour un individu qui en a orchestré quelques
descentes. Avec une mise en scène froide et impeccable, le film démonte le mécanisme
d'un complot sordide en offrant une porte de sortie à un salaud obéissant, changé en
héros révolté. Ainsi, sur une dramaturgie classique, le suspense rebondit subtilement,
non plus sur des situations, mais sur la métamorphose d'un individu. Ce qui donne
valeur et profondeur humaines à un pamphlet politique sur l'histoire récente de
l'Allemagne de l'Est.”
Le Figaro

107
However, French film reviews also exhibit concern for the viewing experience films bring
about. Nevertheless, even when discussing film experience, the French preserve a certain
distance to the film; they behold enjoyment as an intellectual activity in some regard.

“Elle tient aussi à l'art avec lequel il use de l'ellipse, de la digression, du suspense, de la
scène dilatée et de la cascade de récits romanesques enchâssés pour savourer le plaisir
du conte et le mélange du réalisme et du lyrisme, du social et du sentimental, de la
comédie et du drame, du trivial et du métaphysique.”
Le Monde

In this review on Le Graine et le Mulet, enjoyment of the film is described as rendered from
a mixture of complexity, meaningfulness, emotion and profoundness instead of as the
result of being swept away into a “high-octane joy ride”, a description found in a Los
Angeles Times review on I Am Legend.
The French evaluative repertoire on film maintains an aesthetic disposition to a high
degree; the aestheticism and intellectualism France is known for remains a defining feature
(Lamont, 1992). Within this highbrow discourse, the experience a film offers its audience is
seen to have considerable importance, despite the typical use of the component. This
distinct characterization of the French discourse is fortified by the complex and quite
literary style full of ornate language that French reviews tend to be written in.

5.5.5 Dutch Film Discourse

As anticipated, the Dutch and British film discourses find middle ground between the
extremes that those in France and the United States present. The constitution of the Dutch
cultural repertoire resembles that of the French much more in that artistic value is
highlighted while film’s reality is downplayed. However, the Dutch emphasis on film’s
context, specifically it’s functioning as commercial commodity (Dutch reviews contain, on
average, 1.40 remarks on this theme, which resembles the U.S. but strays far from the other
European countries, F=5.88, p=0.000), appears to indicate deployment of a popular
aesthetic (Bielby et al., 2005).

108
 “Nu de financiële rol van The Lord of the Rings-trilogie op bioscoop- en dvd-gebied
grotendeels is uitgespeeld, achtte productiemaatschappij New Line Pictures de tijd rijp
voor een nieuwe mythische melkkoe. Zo simpel is het. Zij werd gevonden in Philip
Pullmans Noorderlicht (His Dark Materials)-boeken. Erg bekend zijn ze nog niet in
Nederland, maar daar zullen de eerste film en de spiksplinternieuwe filmeditie van de
jeugdromans ongetwijfeld verandering in brengen. Verwacht echter geen Harry
Potter-hysterie of Lord of the Rings-magie. Daar kan zelfs een opgeklopt relletje over
de al dan niet blasfemische inhoud van de verhalen niet toe bijdragen.”
NRC Handelsblad

This excerpt of a review on The Golden Compass gives insight into Hollywood’s commercial
logics, explaining how the studio’s previous fantasy film series has run its financial course
and needs to be succeeded by a comparable formula. Furthermore, some context with
regard to the original material of the film is provided, and the film is positioned in the film
canon as comparisons with other films are made.
The prominence of contextual information in Dutch reviews typifies the principally
highbrow approach to film as one that is considerate of the industrial framework that
surrounds it and therefore presents a rather down to earth state of mind. Such level-
headedness might be a more precise characterization of Dutch evaluating repertoires than
the aforementioned pragmatism, as it significantly differs from the American repertoire
that focused on actual filmmaking processes. This is mirrored in the fairly straightforward
manner in which critics offer judgment of (elements of) films; compared to critics in the
other three countries, Dutch reviewers are very upfront about their assessments. The used
excerpt provides a good illustration of such forward opinions as it makes it abundantly
clear that nothing can make this film as successful as The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.
Dutch critics consider film experience to about the same amount as their French
counterparts, but do not employ their quite intellectual style.

5.5.6 British Film Discourse

British film critics address artistic value more than the Americans but still far less than
reviewers in the other European countries. This implies the prevalence of a popular
109
aesthetic. However, the Brits do not place emphasis on films’ reality, context or viewing
experience; in this regard, they resemble the French and Dutch reviewers. This would
mean that, as none of the evaluating schemas really typifies British film discourse, it
presents the most evenly balanced combination of the aesthetic disposition and a popular
aesthetic. British cultural repertoires of evaluation are then informed by several notions
and cannot be easily characterized. However, the style of British film criticism is striking;
the reviews are laced with humor and written in a rather cynical tone of voice.

“Here, via a plot that repeatedly mistakes incessant convolutions for depth and
intrigue, our protagonists are bounced around the known and unknown worlds in a
vague attempt to rescue Captain Sparrow from a Sisyphean afterlife of encroaching
madness, to recruit the nine international Pirate Lords (don't ask) in a battle against
the evil East India Trading Company, to reunite Will Turner with his father Bootstrap
Bill, to punish the murderous Davy Jones, to satisfy the ambitions of Captain Barbossa
and to, well, it just goes on and on. […] "Do you think he plans it all out or just makes it
up as he goes along?" asks a stupefied sailor, as Sparrow swings to safety after another
one of the movie's many interminable skirmishes. He might have been discussing
director Gore Verbinski's film-making skills.”
The Times

Neither the movie business nor its products are taken too seriously, ridiculing of film
elements is very common, as read in the review on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
above. This makes British discourse confoundedly different from the serious, lyrical French
analyses, the pragmatic American elaborations, and the Dutch levelheaded assessments.

5.6 Conclusion
While a multitude of resemblances have been established, the film discourses in France, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States can certainly be typified on the
basis of particular characteristics. Film discourses in all four countries contains the
discourse components or evaluation schemas “Artistic value”, “Context”, “Reality”, and
“Experience”, but their different emphases set them apart. American film discourse’s
110
emphasis lies with the film’s relation to or function in everyday life. The eminence of film’s
reality and experience typifies this evaluation repertoire as being informed by pragmatism
and stressing a popular aesthetic. French film criticism underlines cinema’s artistic value;
informed by aestheticism and intellectualism, critics approach directors as artists, and their
products as meaningful cultural entities that require interpretation. The prevalence of the
aesthetic disposition further shows in the distance kept from cultural products. The Dutch
and British discourses on film are less distinct and more difficult to typify. Dutch film
criticism is characterized chiefly by a highbrow approach to film, with a particular level-
headedness and emphasis on (industrial) context. As none of the evaluating schemas really
typifies British film discourse, this presents the most evenly balanced union of the aesthetic
disposition and a popular aesthetic. The British style further distinguishes this national
cultural repertoire; humor and cynicism put film into perspective.
The appearance of the same schemas of evaluation across countries demonstrates
that there is some conformity, which signals the influence of globalizing processes that
disseminate both aesthetic systems. Not only do we see the proliferation of elements of the
popular aesthetic in the Western world; admittance of aspects of the aesthetic disposition
(Bourdieu, 1993) into discourses traditionally not prone to emphasize artistic value
persists. The widespread concurrent usage of both aesthetic systems is telling for the
qualification of film as a cultural genre: it illustrates its ambiguity as both art form and
commercial commodity (Barthel-Bouchier, 2011).
This duality also surfaces in the constructed model: films’ characterization as
mainstream or art film proved to bear significant influence on the composition of reviews.
It appears critics concurrently employ several modes of reviewing; a mode for more artful
films presenting an intellectual challenge (e.g. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) and a mode
reserved for mainstream films that provide mesmerizing spectacle or emotional fulfillment
(e.g. 300, Music and Lyrics). Adjusting the reviewing mode to the movie under review shows
the serviceability of today’s critics; they focus on what particular films have to offer
audiences, not on what they personally believe film should be. This service-based criticism
can thus be differentiated into modes that are typified by either an aesthetic disposition or
a popular aesthetic, and oppose each other as the former focuses on artistic value whereas
the latter regards film within its everyday reality. The discourse component “Experience”
111
exists outside this opposition; the experiential or emotional dimension of film surfaces in
all cultural repertoires, regardless of film type.
Indeed, the distinct national cultural repertoires of evaluation that The New York
Times’ film critic Manohla Dargis (2011) referred to in her cited article (see Introduction)
were demonstrated to exist beside each other, despite their partial overlap. Thus, whereas
the art and culture coverage of the national press in Western countries is seen to
increasingly concern popular culture from abroad (Janssen et al., 2008; 2011), this
coverage can still be differentiated across countries according to its composition and style.
Further, this different appropriation of cultural goods is not limited to high arts (Lamont,
1992; Lamont & Thévenot) or specific products from the realm of popular culture (Liebes &
Katz, 1993; Kuipers & de Kloet, 2009). This study has shown that Western countries have
distinguishing features that particularize their manner of meaning making. These
repertoires may currently all experience similar effects of global phenomena to some
extent, culture-specific notions of what is valuable or worthy nonetheless enable the
sustenance of international diversity of discourses. The effects of globalization on national
cultural repertoires of evaluation should therefore not be overestimated but require
careful further examination in an array of cultural fields across a multitude of countries.
The cultural differences existent in national contexts may yet prove more influential than
often supposed in an era in which globalization is ubiquitous.
Clearly, while this article adds to our understanding of the consequences of cultural
globalization, it has limitations and thus requires additional research. Follow up studies
might include a larger sample of film titles on the basis of which film criticism is examined.
This would bring further nuance to the differentiation of discourse across film types. Also,
the inclusion of more popular newspapers would give a more complete overview of
evaluation schemas employed in various national contexts. Naturally, the broadening of
this research with more sample countries is another way to test current findings. Further,
whereas this article gives insight into which components make up film discourse, future
research should qualify how they are employed. Finally, supplementing this study with
analysis of reviews by regular film viewers (user generated criticism) would solidify the
found distinctions between national cultural repertoires of evaluation.

112
 Chapter 6
Conclusions

6.1 Recapturing the Results

“Every great film should seem new every time you see it.”
Roger Ebert

Film is among the most popular cultural genres in today’s Western society. Since its
ascension in the early twentieth century, it has emancipated into a highly diverse cultural
form that includes art and entertainment, and an array of genres and styles. How do
audiences bring order to and make sense of the vast supply of movies the global film
industry annually produces? What is a good film? Renowned film critic Roger Ebert
captured his terms of enjoyment in a single sentence, quoted above. Whereas his statement
reveals an interesting take on film quality, it also prompts additional questions: If a great
film seems new every time you see it, what are the features that induce this repeated
viewing experience? Is this logic applicable to all types of film? Do critics generally adhere
to this view? If so, how does this perspective relate to that of general audiences or of the
film industry itself?
I address matters of film classification and critics’ discourse in a variety of ways in
this research. The dynamics of classification processes between critics, peer filmmakers,
and public are studied, as well as the actual classifications made by these institutional
agents. I investigate the film world with equal attention to the artistic small-scale and
commercial large-scale fields of film production, and differentiate film types according to
three types of institutional recognition (popular recognition, professional recognition, and
critical recognition). Film critics’ discourse is examined through in-depth analysis, making
comparisons across film types and across national contexts.
The dissertation’s empirical studies provide insight into the practices of film
classification and the properties of film discourse in the international film world – they

113
improve understanding of longitudinal developments but mostly of current dynamics. This
final chapter first gives an overview of the findings generated by the four studies. Then, the
answers to their respective research questions are consolidated in the discussion, where
the thesis’ main query and theoretical implications are addressed.

6.1.1 Boundaries between Film Art and Commercial Movies

The second chapter is directed by the research question: How and to what extent do the
boundaries between the restricted and large-scale fields of film production between 1955
and 2005 become apparent in the film coverage of Dutch, French, German, and U.S.
newspapers? The examination regards the types of film that received attention in quality
newspapers in these countries over time, focusing on whether films can be typified as
prestigious or popular productions.
Due to processes both within and beyond the film world that intensified film’s claim
to art status, the extent to which the field of film art could impose norms on the overall film
field was anticipated to grow in the 1960s and 1970s. This strengthening of the boundary
between film art and commercial movie is indeed shown, as film coverage increasingly
focused on the film director from the 1970s onwards. Additionally, auteur-directors serve
as the sole creative force behind film productions to growing extents, as adaptations of
existing material make way for original scripts by these auteurs. Furthermore, the
emphasis on film art principles in film coverage appears in the data as devotion to movies
by prestigious directors. The boundary strength is stronger in the European countries; the
trend is less salient in the United States.
Despite trends of commercialization, globalization, and declassification, the
boundaries between the domain of the art film and the territory of the commercial film
appear not to have weakened between 1975 and 2005, since the attention for films by
commercially successful directors is seen to decrease in the four countries’ quality
newspapers, while the pool of commercially successfully directors remains more or less
constant over the years. This trend appears in all four countries and does not show
significant differences across nations. Not only has the art film gained in prominence in film
discourse, but the aesthetic standards originating there are also employed in discourse on

114
more commercial movies. Furthermore, these norms seem to hold despite the occurrence
of trends that are likely to undermine them.

6.1.2 Film Conventionality and Innovation Uncovered

Having mapped trends in film classification over time, the research turns to current
classification processes. I first focus on the differentiation of film products that are
classified in various ways. Public, peers, and critics reward films with popular,
professional, and critical recognition, and thereby influence overall value assignment to
movies (Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Schmutz, 2005). This study examines whether these
different types of recognition are in fact related to distinguishable film types. It
encompasses the analysis of production traits and viewers’ classifications of the movies
appreciated most by public, peers, critics in 2007 in France, the Netherlands, the United
Kingdom and the United States, and focuses on the conventionality and innovation these
features display.
The traditional distinction between commercial and artistic movies proves to
endure with regard to material practices, but appears to be continuous rather than
discrete. For the most part, popular film still complies with Hollywood’s traditional profit-
oriented institutional logic, which prescribes productions to make use of multi-million
dollar budgets, major movie stars, well known directors, clearly signaling genres, and
comprehensible themes. Films that received professional and critical recognition fit this
conventional profile far less. The analysis of movies’ symbolic affordances presents a
similar picture. Film viewers’ perception of conventionality and innovation in film is
captured in four dimensions. Again, popular films are deemed most conventional; they are
judged to conform to Hollywood norms to the largest extent, hold little narrative
complexity, represent familiar themes, and offer easy viewing experiences. Professionally
and critically recognized films score in opposite direction on these dimensions.
These findings demonstrate that commercially successful and critically acclaimed
films present the extremes of a continuum between conventionality and innovation, while
films with professional recognition are found to reside in between the two. The boundaries
between the film types appear rather more fluid than concrete. In this distinction, budget
differences and presented themes turn out to be the most discerning film features.
115
Furthermore, the findings show that films that become successful in more than one country
tend to be more conventional than those that only attract audiences in one particular
national context.

6.1.3 Considering the Praised and Acclaimed

The research then returns to film coverage in the media, informed by the foregoing
investigation into differentiation of film products. As the global film world is confronted
with trends of commercialization, globalization, and digitization (Hesmondhalgh, 2002;
McDonald & Wasko, 2008), the question whether the prevailing dichotomy of artistic
versus popular forms of criticism (Bourdieu, 1993) still apprehends its complexity is
prompted. Given these developments, how can present-day film criticism be characterized
and understood? In particular, are films that are ultimately consecrated by popular,
professional, and critical recognition appraised by similar or different criteria? This
research comprises 200 reviews published in four quality newspapers in the United
Kingdom and the United States of films released in 2007, which received the utmost
popular, professional, and critical recognition.
Qualitative content analysis (and quantitative processing of the findings) shows that
today’s reviews consist of fifteen themes that range from actors’ performances and plot
credibility to the director’s trademarks, and interpreted meanings. The fifteen themes are
collapsed into four essential discourse components through factor analysis: “Auteurism”,
“Experience”, “Processes”, and “Context”. All four are present in reviews of all film types,
but the components are utilized to different degrees. The component Auteurism focuses on
the universe of the director as creative visionary. It proves to be significantly more
prominent in reviews of films that received critical recognition, and least so in those on
popular movies. The component Experience consists of various aspects of the experience a
film offers its audiences. It is deployed to a large extent across reviews of all film types, but
most in those on the critically acclaimed. The component Processes addresses the array of
processes that went into making a film. It shows slightly significant variation among
review types; it is more eminent in reviews of films with both popular and critical
recognition. Finally, the component Context consists of links to a film’s contexts both
within and beyond the product itself. The significant difference in the use of Context is
116
accounted for by the greater likelihood of this component appearing in reviews of popular
films.
In sum, reviews of various kinds of film reveal similar approaches to criticism but
those of popular and critically recognized movies appear to be more pronounced in their
employment of particular elements, whereas those of films with professional recognition
occupy an intermediate position. Critically acclaimed films are reviewed with an emphasis
on the responsible director, and with an eye for culturally meaningful viewing experiences.
The finding that reviews of other (less prestigious) film types employ these same elements
despite different compositions reveals that overall contemporary film criticism
incorporates aesthetic considerations that draw from both popular and more highbrow
discourses, regardless of either the norms that film art imposes or the pressures current
trends put on film discourse.

6.1.4 Dissection of National Cultural Repertoires

Overall, today’s film discourse proves more complex than traditionally assumed, but does
discourse differentiation solely rest with the type of product discussed? Chapter 2 shows
that the boundaries between film art and commercial film discern across Western nations;
such variation may also exist with regard to the negotiations that go into value assignment.
Whereas audiences across nations consume the same movies to a large degree (Barthel-
Bouchier, 2011), and national newspapers cover the same international cultural products
(Janssen et al., 2011), this does not mean that films are made sense of in the same manner
across contexts (Lamont & Thévenot, 2000; Liebes & Katz, 1993. This study answers the
question: To what extent can national cultural repertoires of evaluation be differentiated in
present-day Western film discourse? It does so by studying film reviews published in elite
newspapers in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For
this purpose, the data collection used in Chapter 4 is extended with film reviews from
France and the Netherlands.
Content analysis reveals the employment of fifteen themes across critics in all four
countries, with their relative importance varying per country. The complex picture of
theme distribution is unraveled with a factor analysis, as is done in Chapter 3. However, as

117
the themes load differently onto the four factors, the discourse components are slightly
altered in this cross-national analysis.
The factor “Artistic value” represents a reviewing mode in which the film is
regarded as the expression of an artist; it has concern for the film’s formal qualities and
emphasizes analysis and interpretation. The factor “Context” considers film in relation to
its contexts both within and beyond the film world. The way in which the factor “Reality”
addresses a film’s reality is twofold: it includes both filmmaking processes and the
credibility of a film’s content within its suspension of disbelief. The factor “Experience”
contains the various ways in which reviewers discuss the experience a film brings about.
The four discourse components are regarded as schemas of evaluation that occur in
cultural repertoires in all four countries, but whose prevalence differs in France, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Multivariate analyses that account
for word counts and film types give insight into the schemas’ relative eminence in national
cultural repertoires.
Film discourses in all four countries are demonstrated to contain the four main
evaluation schemas, but their different emphases set them apart. American critics’
emphasis lies with the film’s relation to or function in everyday life. The eminence of film’s
reality and experience typifies this evaluation repertoire as stressing a popular aesthetic.
French film criticism underlines cinema’s artistic value; critics approach directors as
artists, and their products as meaningful cultural entities that require interpretation. The
Dutch and British discourses on film are less distinct and more difficult to typify. Dutch film
criticism is characterized chiefly by a highbrow approach to film, with a particular level-
headedness and emphasis on (industrial) context. As none of the evaluating schemas really
typifies British film discourse, this presents the most evenly balanced union of the aesthetic
disposition and a popular aesthetic.
These findings, like those of Chapter 2, show that while film classification and
discourse are under influence from the same trends of cultural globalization,
commercialization, and digitization in various Western Countries, they still demonstrate
differences regarding how and where to draw the line between film art and commercial
movie.

118
6.2 Discussion and Implications
Below, I return to the literature discussed in Chapter 1 and contemplate the answers the
dissertation’s four studies have provided, thereby laboring to answer the overall research
question:

In what ways and to what extent can the films appreciated most by the audience, the film
industry, and professional critics be distinguished, and how do film critics in various cultural
contexts across the Western world classify and make sense of this range of films?

Further, since this research exposes avenues for further investigation, this chapter offers
suggestions for future studies.

6.2.1. The Film Field in Longitudinal Perspective

This dissertation’s four empirical studies provide insight into the distinguishable domains
of film art and mainstream movies, the diversity of their products and the value assigned to
it, as well as the ways in which they are regarded in film criticism. The research starts off
with an examination of the practices of film classification over time (Chapter 2) as the film
world has experienced a number of developments in its short lifespan. I study whether
Bourdieu’s (1993) manner of structuring a field of cultural production remains appropriate
in investigating modern day cultural industries.
The analysis affirms Baumann’s (2007) claim that film went through a phase of
emancipation during the 1960s. Film has gained legitimacy as a cultural product with
artistic merit; the ideology supporting this stance, the auteur theory, is found to have been
ubiquitous in film criticism ever since. This lasting ubiquity points towards the great
influence a legitimizing ideology may have in a cultural genre’s classification system and
aesthetic mobility (Bourdieu, 1993). Furthermore, the enduring prominence of auteur
theory shows that the power struggles that Bourdieu (1993) deems inherent to a cultural
field have resulted in the restricted field of film production’s ability to impose its norms
onto the wider film world. However, whereas field theory proves to still be current in this
regard, the research also uncovers its limitations with regard to a realm like the film field,
showing the overlap between domains of artistic and commercial culture and touching
119
upon the fluidity of distinctions made (Hesmondhalgh, 2006; Prior, 2005). Not only have
film art principles obtained more prominence in film discourse, the aesthetic standards
originating in the film art world reign in discourse on more commercial movies as well.
Likewise, discourse on popular music also originates in both the aesthetic disposition and a
popular aesthetic, resulting in a varied set of criteria applied to the entire genre (Van
Venrooij, 2009). The outcomes of Bourdieu’s (1993) power struggles thus appear to be less
forthright in modern-day cultural industries like those of film or popular music.
Leading newspapers in all four countries appear to discuss artistic and commercial
movies side by side throughout the research period, implying that both segments of film
production have their place in film discourse across place and time. Whereas the separate
restricted and large-scale fields of production can certainly be differentiated with regard to
film, the dynamics between the two sections are more complex than Bourdieu (1993)
would have held them to be. The film field still finds a framework in the dichotomy
between artistic and commercial value, but this dichotomy is more ambiguous than often
presumed. Past development have muddied the water, as opposing twentieth century
developments like intellectualization (Baumann, 2001) and commercialization (Drake,
2008; Schatz, 2009) now both typify present-day movie production and reception. One
does not exempt the other; the current state of the film world might deliver it to highly
commercialized media majors, but is still partly defined by film art principles (e.g.
auteurism) that stem from decades ago.
Moreover, the traditional distinction between commercial and artistic movies
emerges from this dissertation as one that is gradual rather than strictly dichotomous; in
Chapter 3 differentiation appears alongside a scale between conventionalism and
innovativeness. Today’s perceived intertwining of small-scale and large-scale fields of
cultural production (especially in the cultural industries) should therefore not be seen as
straightforward declassification (Prior, 2005) or an overall shift in dominant production
logics (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999) over time, but rather as ”production on the boundaries”
(Hesmondhalgh, 2006).
The longitudinal portion of this research spans between 1955 and 2005 as this time
period contained a number of important developments in the international film world.
While consequences of the digitalization that is paramount in today’s Western society are
120
taken into account in this research, other trends that result from it still require more
attention. As Web 2.0 applications now enable and encourage cultural consumers to voice
their opinions online, the ubiquity of consumer reviews further complicates the division of
roles in value assignment as the public takes the critic’s seat. Research has shown that
consumers’ online information-retrieval practices do not necessarily undermine the
legitimacy of professional critics (Verboord, 2010), but user created criticism has become
such a substantial part of the overall discourse on cultural products that its inclusion in
future research will be required to further extend understanding of current dominant
discourses, the aesthetics therein employed, and the role of the underlying cultural capital.

6.2.2 Classification and Discourse across Film Types

The next question prompted is whether the agents involved in classifying movies in fact
favor films that can be differentiated according to their various features. I examine the
movie preferences of the three main institutional agents involved in value assignment to
film (Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Hicks & Petrova, 2006; Lampel & Nadavulakereb, 2009;
Schmutz, 2005). Public, peers, and critics are positioned on the gradual distinction between
film art and blockbuster according to the capital they represent (Bourdieu, 1984; 1993).
The general public is, with the lowest level of cultural capital, least able to appropriate
innovative film, which is why films that are predominantly recognized by the mass
audience are found on the conventional pole of the continuum. Critically acclaimed films
present the other extreme. Trained to dissect movies, critics have an inclination for
innovation in film. The production on the boundaries between art and entertainment is
particularly evident in the films with professional recognition, which tend to find middle
ground between conventionality and inventiveness. As said, the differentiation of films
with popular, professional, and critical recognition turns out to be gradual instead of
discrete. The distinction proves to be a quite delicate one, as prior research on both the film
world (Allen & Lincoln, 2004) and the domain of popular music (Schmutz, 2005) also
states. The roles of various agents in processes of cultural classification (DiMaggio, 1987) in
today’s cultural industries appear confused.
This research shows that the various types of value assigned to film are related to
inherently different types of film, with the variation between conventionality and
121
innovativeness being continuous rather than discrete. However, in spite of the current
feasibility of this differentiation between films rewarded with different types of
recognition, various agents in the film field are seen to increasingly make the same value
judgments whereas their disposal of cultural capital incites to expect variety. In recent
years, both artistic films like Black Swan (2010) and commercial films like Avatar (2009)
have succeeded in obtaining prestigious awards as well as drawing sizable audiences into
the theatres. This suggests the blurring of the film field’s boundaries as a result from
globalizing and commercializing trends (Hesmondhalgh, 2002), but might also point
towards the emancipation of film audiences or the changed position of film criticism.
Furthermore, it should be taken into account that this study concerns films that were
released several years before the research was conducted. Part of the research considers
film viewers’ perception of the film sample but this perception is unlikely to be completely
unspoiled by prior knowledge of the films’ content, conventions, and/or context. An
interesting approach in follow-up research would be to examine audience perceptions of
films that are truly new and free of context to the participants.
Over the course of the twentieth century, film has grown up to be a mature, multi-
faceted cultural realm with commercial as well as artistic potential. It is not unlikely that
the audience has matured alongside the cultural genre as watching movies features as a
highly popular pastime in Western societies. Film is by now completely engrained in our
cultural life and audiences in general might have gained enough experience in deciphering
film’s codes to make a shift to enjoying more innovative film. On the other hand, as the
mainstream public voices its take on newly released films via blogs, social network sites,
online reviewing platforms, and commercial websites, the voice of the professional critic
might be in danger of being drowned out (Keen, 2007; Verboord, 2010).
Meanwhile, a conflict of interest complicates the position of peer filmmakers as
valuating agents too. Situating professional recognition in processes of cultural
classification proves a complex task. The Academy Award ceremony might be intended as a
prestigious event to celebrate the industry’s greatest accomplishments, but it has also
evolved into a highly commercial event that garners a lot of attention in all sorts of
worldwide media. Thus, there is also a commercial interest in garnering prestige. In fact,
marketing campaigns nowadays make use of a film’s prestige, be it in the shape of positive
122
remarks by critics in elite publications (blurbs), programming in highbrow film festivals, or
nominations for well-known film prizes (Baumann, 2002; Drake, 2008). The ambiguity of
peer recognition appears in this research as awarded films display the most moderate
levels of both conventionality and innovation. Secondly, discourse about these movies
seems to be the most balanced between high art and popular aesthetics. It is, in my opinion,
highly likely that the boundary between film art and commercial movies will become more
blurred in the foreseeable future, film types will grow increasingly hybrid, and valuating
agents will be less easily discerned. However, as cultural contexts are seen to maintain
influence on classification systems, the extent to which these trends will determine film
fields will vary across Western countries.

As the dissertation’s focus shifts to film discourse as employed by professional critics, the
differentiation of more or less conventional or innovative films is taken into account.
Today’s film discourse is found to comprise a set of essential components, which originate
in more than one aesthetic system. Film criticism is not bound by a strictly detached or
pure gaze even as film has become a more elite art form, nor has the domination of
commercial Hollywood resulted in discourse that is constrained by a solely naïve aesthetic.
Whereas Bourdieu (1993) supposed a separation of the two sets of aesthetic criteria as
they belonged to populations with varying degrees of cultural capital (1984), both the
aesthetic disposition and popular aesthetic come to the front in today’s film discourse. This
exemplifies the complex dynamic of value assignment of culture, and demonstrates the
misfit between the hybrid modern cultural industries and Bourdieu’s quite rigid categories.
However, the composition of film discourse can be discerned according to the film
types under discussion. The components that typify evaluation as either art or
entertainment do occur to various extents in discourse on films with popular, professional,
and critical recognition (Allen & Lincoln, 2004). This signifies that even while the valuating
agents increasingly appreciate the same movies, they might still come to their value
assignments via different routes, using different criteria. As such, discourse is as
differentiated as film production, and might in fact be highly adaptive to the state of the
film world. On the other hand, adjusting the used reviewing mode to the movie under
review shows the serviceability of today’s critics. This service-based criticism can thus be
123
differentiated into modes that are typified by either an aesthetic disposition or a popular
aesthetic, which are deployed according to what a film and its aimed for audiences require
(Blank, 2007). Maybe critics now function as intermediaries in the sense that they match
movie and audience by adjusting their discourse accordingly; when the film offers an
experience to be appreciated through the operation of a popular aesthetic by a mainstream
audience, the critic may choose to write in that style for that public. When a film requires
an aesthetic disposition to be appreciated, critics might aim for those with the cultural
capital to do so.
The traditional, more hierarchical role that is supposed to be the critic’s in relation
to his readership (Becker, 1982) can be seen to have changed; the critic does not tell us
what we are supposed to like but gives direction in the mound of choices that is the film
supply. As gatekeepers of the restricted film field (Bourdieu, 1993), their tactics have
shifted from strict inclusion and exclusion in the realm of good or valuable film to
indicating differentiations and the worth of several categories of film. This means
distinction is still exerted but in a changed, milder manner. Films tend to be appreciated for
what they are, in the category of movies they serve, e.g. as means of escapism, or vehicles
for intellectual endeavors. Further (qualitative) research into the professional practices of
film critics is needed to affirm this conclusion. Also, while this research has scrutinized
critical recognition, future studies are still required into the specific workings of both
popular and professional recognition.
This research covers a variety of film products; it gives insight into the
differentiation of movies according to preferences expressed by public, peers, and critics,
and then compares critical discourses concerning these discerned film types. This element
of the dissertation greatly contributes to the comprehension of dynamics in the film fields,
particularly the classification systems at work; it modifies our outlook on film as a cultural
genre. Extending this particular study in a longitudinal fashion seems appropriate. Further,
in this research the preferences expressed in popular, professional, and critical recognition
are limited to specific groups or measures. Naturally, the differentiation of movies and their
audiences could be operationalized in a number of other ways. Further research might
include DVD’s and downloads into measuring popular recognition, more or different film

124
awards and film festivals into measuring prestige, and a wider range of (more specialized)
publications into measuring critical acclaim and investigating film discourse.

6.2.3 Terms of Enjoyment in Cross-National Perspective

The analysis of film discourse in cross-national perspective shows that the same schemas
of evaluation (Lamont & Thévenot, 2000) appear in film discourse across various Western
countries, demonstrating a certain level of conformity. This signals the influence of
globalizing processes that disseminate both the aesthetic disposition and the popular
aesthetic (Bourdieu, 1993). The widespread concurrent usage of both aesthetic systems
suits film’s ambiguity as both art form and commercial commodity well (Barthel-Bouchier,
2011). More importantly, it adds nuance to the general idea that globalization in the film
world consists of Hollywoodian norms gaining influence overseas – i.e. within overall film
discourse, aspects of the popular aesthetic that stem from Hollywood are counterbalanced
by European notions of auteurism that shape the aesthetic disposition towards film. There
is a definite mutual exchange of ideas on film as art and film as entertainment, despite the
imbalance in the power structure between the American and European film industries
(Baumann, 2007; Bordwell & Thompson, 1997; Elsaesser, 2005; Scott, 2000).
Stated similarities notwithstanding, distinct national cultural repertoires of
evaluation (Lamont & Thévenot, 2000) of film can still be differentiated across countries
according to emphasis, composition and style. These repertoires may currently all
experience similar effects of global phenomena to some extent, culture-specific notions of
what is valuable or worthy nonetheless make for the sustenance of international diversity
of discourses (Liebes & Katz, 1993). National context still provides a frame within which
culture is appreciated; not only does it stipulate which aspects are more or less important,
it also prescribes a general attitude, a tone of voice. We might all watch the same
blockbusters, award winners, and critics’ favorites, but we do maintain our own ways of
making sense of them. Future studies should aim to capture the development of these
national cultural repertoires in the years to come, as well as extend this research by
including more (non-Western) countries to give yet more insight into the influence of
national or cultural context on evaluative schemas. Also, this research addresses what is
discussed in present-day film discourse, but not how topics in film criticism were applied or
125
qualified - the normative character of film criticism requires further study. My research
provides insight into the composition of discourse, and the relative importance of
evaluative schemas. Future investigations should shed light on how exactly critics judge the
various film elements in order to lay bare the complex workings of film classification.
All the tendencies uncovered in the social valuation of film point towards the
(increasingly) complex dynamics of fields of cultural production that include both art and
entertainment, simultaneously answer to various highbrow and lowbrow aesthetic
systems, and involve various institutional agents. While straightforward dichotomies
appeared less appropriate for distinctions in culture, several fields of tension are left to
explore further. What does the power division between public, peers, and critics exactly
look like, and how will it develop in today’s convergence culture? Which role do
conventionality and innovation precisely play in processes of classification? How are
various components in critics’ discourse appropriated in user generated criticism and will
national cultural repertoires be sustained? Studies that address these questions are
required to come to full understanding of today’s terms of cultural enjoyment.

126
 References

Allen, M. & Lincoln, A. (2004). Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American
Films. Social Forces 82(3): 871-894.

Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail. How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand.
London: Random House Business Books.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Augros, J. (2008). France: A Story of Love and Hate. In McDonald, P. & Wasko, J. (Eds.) The
Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry (232-239). Malden: Blackwell.

Baker, W. & Faulkner, R. (1991). Role as Resource in the Hollywood Film Industry.
American Journal of Sociology 97(2): 279-309.

Barthel-Bouchier, D. (2011). Exportability of Films in a Globalizing Market: The

Intersection of Nation and Genre. Cultural Sociology 6(1): 75-91.

Baumann, S. (2001). Intellectualization and Art World Development: Film in the United
States. American Sociological Review 66(3): 404-426.

Baumann, S. (2002). Marketing, cultural hierarchy, and the relevance of critics: film in the
United States, 1935-1980. Poetics 30(4): 243-262.

Baumann, S. (2007). Hollywood Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Becker, H. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bennett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E., Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M. & Wright, D. (2009). Culture, Class,
Distinction. New York: Routledge.

Bevers, T. (2005). Cultural education and the canon: A comparative analysis of the content
of secondary school exams for music and art in England, France, Germany, and the
Netherlands, 1990-2004. Poetics 33: 388-416.

Bielby, D. & Bielby, W. (2004). Audience aesthetics and popular culture. In Friedland, R. &
Mohr, J. (Eds) Matters of Culture: Cultural Sociology in Practice (295-317). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Bielby, D. & Harrington, C. (2008). Global TV: Exporting television and culture in the world
market. New York: NYU Press.

127
Bielby, D., Moloney, M., & Ngo, B. (2005). Aesthetics of Television Criticism: Mapping
Critics' Reviews in an Era of Industry Transformation. In Jones, C. & Thornton, P. (Eds.)
Transformation in Cultural Industries (1-43). Oxford: Elsevier.

Bielby, W. & Bielby, D. (1994). “All Hits Are Flukes”: Institutionalized Decision Making and
the Rhetoric of Network Prime-Time Program Development. American Journal of
Sociology 99(5): 1287-1313.

Blank, G. (2007). Critics, Ratings, and Society. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bordwell, D. (1989). Making meaning: Inference and rhetoric in the interpretation of cinema.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bordwell, D. (2006). The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style in Modern Movies. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Bordwell, D. & Thompson, K. (1997). Film Art: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bourdieu, P. (1983). The Field of Cultural Production or the Economic World Reversed.
Poetics 12: 285-487.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London:

Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Buckland, W. (2009). Film Theory and Contemporary Hollywood Movies. New York:
Routledge.

Cawelti, J. (2001). The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature. In

Harrington, C. & Bielby, D. (Eds.) Popular Culture: Production and Consumption (203-
209). Malden: Blackwell.

Chatterjee, P. (2001). Online Reviews: Do Consumers Use Them? Paper presented at the
Association for Consumer Research. Provo, UT.

Cheyne, A. & Binder, A. (2010). Cosmopolitan preferences: The constitutive role of place in
American elite taste for hip-hop music 1991–2005. Poetics 38(3): 336-364.

Chon, B., Barnett, G. & Choi, Y. (2003). Clustering Local Tastes in Global Culture: The
Reception Structure of Hollywood Films. Sociological Research Online 8(1).

Chung, J. (2011). Mapping International Film Trade: Network Analysis of International Film
Trade Between 1996 and 2004. Journal of Communication 61(4): 618-640.

128
Cook, P. (2007). The Cinema Book. London: British Film Institute.

Crane, D. (1976). Reward Systems in Art, Science, and Religion. American Behavioral
Scientist 19(6): 719-734.

Crane, D., Kawashima, N., & Kawasaki, K. (2002). Global culture: media, arts, policy, and
globalization. New York: Routledge.

Daenekindt, S. & Roose, H. (2011). A Mise-en-scene of the Shattered Habitus: The Effect of
Social Mobility on Aesthetic Dispositions Towards Films. European Sociological Review
published online (May).

Dargis, M. (2011). At Cannes, Synergy but Not Consensus. The New York Times, May 15.

David, S. & Pinch, T. (2006). Six Degrees of Reputation: The Use and Abuse of Online Review
and Recommendation Systems. First Monday 6.

DeNora, T. (1991). Musical Patronage and Social Change in Beethoven’s Vienna. American
Journal of Sociology 97: 310-346.

De Valck, M. (2007). Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

De Vany, A. & Lee, C. (2001). Quality signals in information cascades and the dynamics of
the distribution of motion picture box office revenues. Journal of Economic Dynamics &
Control 25: 593-614.

DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston. Media,

Culture & Society 4: 33-50.

DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in Art. American Sociological Review 52(4): 440-455.

DiMaggio, P. (1992). Cultural Boundaries and Structural Change: The Extension of the High
Culture Model to Theater, Opera, and the Dance, 1900-1940. In Lamont, M. & Fournier,
M. (Eds.) Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dowd, T. (2004). Concentration and Diversity Revisited: Production Logics and the U.S.
Mainstream Recording Market, 1940-1990. Social Forces 82(4): 1411-1455.

Dowd, T. (2011). Production and Producers of Lifestyles: The Fields of Popular and
Classical Music in the United States. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie 63 (Special Issues 51): 113-138.

129
Drake, P. (2008). Distribution and Marketing in Contemporary Hollywood. In McDonald, P.
& Wasko, J. (Eds.) The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry (63-82). Malden:
Blackwell.

Elsaesser, T. (2005). European Cinema: Face-to-Face with Hollywood. Amsterdam:

Amsterdam University Press.
English, J. (2005). The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural
Value. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

European Audiovisual Observatory (2010). Focus 2010: World Film Market Trends.
Retrieved from http://www.obs.coe.int/

Faulkner, R. & Anderson, A. (1987). Short-Term Projects and Emergent Careers: Evidence
from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology 92(4): 879-909.

Ferguson, B. (2009). Creativity and Integrity: Marketing the “in Development” Screenplay.
Psychology and Marketing 26(5): 421-444.

Ferguson, P. (1998). A Cultural Field in the Making: Gastronomy in 19th Century France.
American Journal of Sociology: 597-641.

Ferree, M., Gamson, W., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse:
Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Friedland, R. & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and
Institutional Contradictions. In Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.) The New
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (232-263). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Fritz, B. (2010). 3-D proves its value. Los Angeles Times, December 28.

Fu, W. (2006). Concentration and Homogenization of International Movie Sources:

Examining Foreign Film Import Profiles. Journal of Communication 56: 813-835.

Gemser, G., van Oostrum, M. & Leenders, M. (2006). The impact of film reviews on the box
office performance of art house versus mainstream motion pictures. Journal of Cultural
Economics 31: 43-63.

Griswold, W. (1987). A Methodological Framework for the Sociology of Culture. Sociological

Methodology 17: 1-35.

Griswold, W. (1987). The fabrication of meaning: literary interpretation in the United

States, Great Britain, and the West Indies. American Journal of Sociology 92(5): 1077-
1117.

130
Heilbrun, J. (1997). The Competition between High Culture and Popular Culture as Seen in
the New York Times. Journal of Cultural Economics 21: 29–40.

Heise, T. & Tudor, A. (2007). Constructing (Film) Art: Bourdieu’s Field Model in a
Comparative Context. Cultural Sociology 1(2): 165-187.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2002). The Cultural Industries. London: Sage.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2006). Bourdieu, the Media and Cultural Industries. Media, Culture and
Society 28(2): 211-231.

Hicks, A. & Petrova, V. (2006). Auteur Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American
Films. Poetics 34: 180-203.

Holbrook, M. & Addis, M. (2008). Art versus Commerce in the Movie Industry: a Two-Path
Model of Motion-Picture Success. Journal of Cultural Economics 32: 87-107.

Horn, J. (2011). Finding just the right platform. Los Angeles Times, January 6.

Hsu, G. (2006). Evaluative Schemas and the Attention of Critics in the US Film Industry.
Industrial and Corporate Change 15(3): 467-496.

Jäckel, A. (2003). European Film Industries. London: British Film Institute.

Janssen, S. (1997). Reviewing as social practice: institutional constraints on critics'

attention for contemporary fiction. Poetics 24(5): 275-297.

Janssen, S. (1999). Art Journalism and Cultural Change: The Coverage of the Arts in Dutch
Newspapers 1965-1990. Poetics 26(5): 329-348.

Janssen, S. (2005). Het soortelijk gewicht van kunst in een open samenleving: de
classificatie van cultuuruitingen in Nederland en andere Westerse landen na 1950.
Sociologie 1(3): 292-315.

Janssen, S. (2006). Fashion reporting in cross-national perspective 1955-2005. Poetics 34:

383-406.

Janssen, S., Kuipers, G. & Verboord, M. (2008). Cultural Globalization and Art Journalism.
The International Orientation of Arts and Culture Coverage in American, Dutch,
French, and German Newspapers, 1955-2005. American Sociological Review 73(5):
719-740.

Janssen, S., Kuipers, G. & Verboord, M. (2011). Comparing Cultural Classification. High and
Popular Arts in European and U.S. Elite Newspapers, 1955-2005. Kölner Zeitschrift für
Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 63 (Special Issues 51): 139-168.

131
Janssen, S. & Peterson, R. (2005). Comparative Research on Cultural Production and
Consumption. Poetics 33(5-6): 253-256.

Kapsis, R. (1989). Reputation Building and the Film Art World: The Case of Alfred
Hitchcock. The Sociological Quarterly 30(1): 15-35.

Keen, A. (2007). The Cult of the Amateur. How Blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the Rest of
Today’s User-generated Media are Destroying Our Economy, Our Culture, and Our
Values. New York: Doubleday.

Kuipers, G. (2006). Television and taste hierarchy: the case of Dutch television comedy.
Media, Culture & Society 28(3): 359-378.

Kuipers, G. (2011). Cultural Globalization as the Emergence of a Transnational Cultural

Field: Transnational Television and National Media Landscapes in Four European
Countries. American Behavioral Scientist 55(5): 541-557.

Kuipers, G. & de Kloet, J. (2009). Banal cosmopolitanism and The Lord of the Rings: The
limited role of national differences in global media consumption. Poetics 37(2): 99-
118.

Lamont, M. (1992). Money, Morals and Manners: the culture of the French and American
upper-middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lamont, M. & Thévenot, L. (2000). Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of

Evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lampel, J. & Nadavulakereb, S. (2009). Classics Foretold? Contemporaneous and

Retrospective Consecration in the UK Film Industry. Cultural Trends 18(3): 239-248.

Lee, S. & Waterman, D. (2007). Theatrical Feature Film Trade in the United States, Europe,
and Japan Since the 1950s: An Empirical Study of the Home Market Effect. Journal of
Media Economics 20(3): 167-188.

Lena, J. & Peterson, R. (2008). Classification as Culture: Types and Trajectories of Music
Genres. American Sociological Review 73: 697-718.

Liebes, T. & Katz, E. (1993). The Export of Meaning: Cross-cultural Readings of Dallas.
Cambridge: Polity Press.

Lopes, P. (2002). The Rise of a Jazz Art World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

132
Lupo, J. (2007). Accounting for Taste: Film Criticism, Canons, and Cultural Authority 1996-
2006. Unpublished dissertation. University of Massachusetts.

Mast, G., Cohen, M. & Braudy, L. (1992). Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings.
New York: Oxford University Press.

McClintock, P. (2011). The Hispanic effect. The Hollywood Reporter, January 26.

McDonald, P. (2008). Britain: Hollywood UK. In McDonald, P. & Wasko, J. (Eds.) The
Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry (220-231). Malden: Blackwell.

McDonald, P. & Wasko, J. (2008). The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry. Malden:
Blackwell.

McLuhan, M. (2001). Understanding media: the extensions of man (2nd edition). New York:
Routledge Classics.

Neale, S. (2007). Comedy. In Cook, P. (Ed.) The Cinema Book (3rd edition) (270-272).
London: British Film Institute.

Nelson, R., Donihue, M., Waldman, D. & Wheaton, C. (2001). What’s An Oscar Worth?
Economic Inquiry 39(1): 1-16.

Peterson, R. (2005). Problems in comparative research: The example of omnivorousness.

Poetics 33(5-6), 257-282.

Peterson, R., & Anand, N. (2004). The Production of Culture Perspective. Annual Review of
Sociology 30.

Peterson, R. & Berger, D. (1975). Cycles in Symbol Production: The Case of Popular Music.
American Sociological Review 40(2): 158-173.

Peterson, R. & Kern, R. (1996). Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore.
American Sociological Review 61(5): 900-907.

Plucker, J., Kaufman, J., Temple, J. & Qian, M. (2009). Do Experts and Novices Evaluate
Movies the Same Way? Psychology and Marketing 26(5): 470-478.

Prior, N. (2005). A Question of Perception: Bourdieu, Art and the Postmodern. British
Journal of Sociology 56(1): 123-139.

Regev, M. (1994). Producing Artistic Value: The Case of Rock Music. Sociological Quarterly
35(1), 85-102.

Rosengren, K.E. (1987). Literary Criticism: Future Invented. Poetics 16 (3-4): 295-326.

133
Rossman, G., Esparza, N. & Bonacich, P. (2010). I’d Like to Thank the Academy, Team
Spillovers, and Network Centrality. American Sociological Review 75(1): 31-51.

Sapiro, G. (2010). Globalization and cultural diversity in the book market: The case of
literary translations in the US and in France. Poetics 38(4): 419-439.

Sarris, A. (1962). Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962. Film Culture 27.

Schatz, T. (2009). New Hollywood, New Millennium. In Buckland, W. (Ed.) Film Theory and
Contemporary Hollywood Movies. New York: Routledge.

Schmutz, V. (2005). Retrospective Cultural Consecration in Popular Music. Rolling Stone’s

Greatest Albums of All Time. American Behavioral Scientist 48(11): 1510-1523.

Scott, A. (2000). French Cinema. Economy, Policy and Place in the Making of a Cultural-
Products Industry. Theory, Culture and Society 17(1): 1-38.

Scott, A.O. (2010). A Critic's Place, Thumb and All. The New York Times, March 31.

Shrum, W. (1996). Fringe and Fortune: the Role of Critics in High and Popular Art.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Silvia, P. & Berg, C. (2011). Finding Movies Interesting: How Appraisals and Expertise
Influence the Aesthetic Experience of Film. Empirical Studies of the Arts 29(1): 73-88.

Straubhaar, J. (2007). World Television: from Global to Local. Los Angeles: Sage.

Tancer, B. (2008). Click: What We Do Online and Why it Matters. United Kingdom: Harper
Collins.

Thornton, P. & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of
Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing
Industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology 105(3): 801-843.

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trumpbour, J. (2008). Hollywood and the World: Export or Die. In McDonald, P. & Wasko, J.
(Eds.) The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry (209-219). Malden: Blackwell.

Tudor, A. (2005). The Rise and Fall of the Art (House) Movie. In Inglis, D. & Hughson, J.
(Eds.) The Sociology of Art: Ways of Seeing (125-138). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

134
Van de Kamp, M. (2009). Where Corporate Culture and Local Markets Meet: Music and Film
Majors in the Netherlands, 1990-2005. Unpublished dissertation, Erasmus University
Rotterdam.

Van Eijck, K. & Knulst, W. (2005). No More Need for Snobbism: Highbrow Cultural
Participation in a Taste Democracy. European Sociological Review 21(5): 513-528.

Van Rees, C. (1983). How a Literary Work Becomes a Masterpiece: On the Threefold
Selection Practiced by Literary Criticism. Poetics 12: 397-417.

Van Rees, K. & van Eijck, K. (2003). Media repertoires of selective audiences: the impact of
status, gender, and age on media use. Poetics 31(5-6): 465-490.

Van Venrooij, A. (2009). Classifications in Popular Music: Discourses and Meaning Structures
in American, Dutch and German Popular Music Reviews. Unpublished dissertation,
Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Van Venrooij, A. & Schmutz, V. (2010). The Evaluation of Popular Music in the United
States, Germany and the Netherlands: A Comparison of the Use of High Art and
Popular Aesthetic Criteria. Cultural Sociology 4(3): 395-421.

Verboord, M. (2010). The Legitimacy of Book Critics in the Age of the Internet and
Omnivorousness: Expert Critics, Internet Critics and Peer Critics in Flanders and the
Netherlands. European Sociological Review 26(6), 623-637.

Wallace, W., Seigerman, A. & Holbrook, M. (1993). The Role of Actors and Actresses in the
Success of Films: How Much is a Movie Star Worth? Journal of Cultural Economics
17(1): 1-27.

Wasko, J. (2001). Understanding Disney: the Manufacture of Fantasy. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Zuckerman, E. & Kim, T. (2003). The Critical Trade-Off: Identity Assignment and Box-Office
Success in the Feature Film Industry. Industrial and Corporate Change 12(1): 27-67.

135
136
 Appendices
Appendix A.

Film items (%) by type of newspaper article, 1955-2005 (N=1605, missing 57)

A. Entire sample 1955 1975 1995 2005 N

Reviews 26.6 63.4 52.6 51.8 745

Background 2.8 4.1 10.5 14.9 141
Interviews 2.4 5.3 8.5 8.5 100
Announcements 19.7 14.4 13.1 14.0 249
News Items 48.5 12.8 15.3 10.8 370
N 466 243 352 544 1605

B. France 1955 1975 1995 2005

Reviews 23.0 59.8 34.0 45.5

Background 0.8 5.7 9.0 16.2
Interviews 4.8 4.6 16.7 12.2
Announcements 12.7 20.7 15.3 21.2
News Items 58.7 9.2 25.0 5.0

N 126 87 144 222

C. Germany 1955 1975 1995 2005

Reviews 67.6 58.6 67.8 68.1

Background 14.7 3.4 11.9 13.8
Interviews 0 3.4 1.7 6.4
Announcements 5.9 10.3 8.5 2.1
News Items 11.8 24.1 10.2 9.6

N 34 29 59 94
D. Netherlands 1955 1975 1995 2005

Reviews 61.3 64.2 69.2 45.1

Background 4 1.5 7.7 9.2
Interviews 0 6.0 6.2 4.6
Announcements 25.3 11.9 1.5 24.8
News Items 9.3 16.4 15.4 16.5

N 75 67 65 109
E. United States 1955 1975 1995 2005

Reviews 11.3 70.0 60.7 57.1

Background 1.7 5.0 14.3 18.5
Interviews 2.2 6.7 1.2 6.7
Announcements 23.8 10.0 21.4 0
News Items 61.0 8.3 2.4 17.6

N 231 60 84 119

137
Appendix B.

Sample films with popular recognition

France The Netherlands United Kingdom United States

1. Spider-Man 3 1. Alles is Liefde 1. Harry Potter and the 1. Spider-Man 3

Order of the Phoenix
2. Harry Potter and the 2. Harry Potter and the 2. Pirates of the 2. Transformers
Order of the Phoenix Order of the Phoenix Caribbean: At World’s
End
3. Pirates of the 3. Pirates of the 3. Spider-Man 3 3. Pirates of the
Caribbean: At World’s Caribbean: At World’s Caribbean: At World’s
End End End
4. La Vie en Rose 4. I Am Legend 4. The Golden Compass 4. Harry Potter and the
Order of the Phoenix
5. Taxi 4 5. Moordwijven 5. I Am Legend 5. I Am Legend
6. The Golden Compass 6. Ocean’s Thirteen 6. The Bourne Ultimatum 6. The Bourne Ultimatum
7. I Am Legend 7. Spider-Man 3 7. Transformers 7. 300
8. Live Free or Die Hard 8. The Golden Compass 8. Hot Fuzz 8. Wild Hogs
9. Transformers 9. The Bourne Ultimatum 9. Stardust 9. Knocked Up
10. Le Coeur des hommes 10. Transformers 10. Live Free or Die Hard 10. Juno
2
11. 300 11. Live Free or Die Hard 11. 300 11. Rush Hour 3
12. Un secret 12. Blood Diamond 12. Ocean’s Thirteen 12. Live Free or Die Hard
13. Ocean’s Thirteen 13. Das Leben der 13. St. Trinian’s 13. American Gangster
Anderen
14. The Bourne 14. American Gangster 14. Atonement 14. Superbad
Ultimatum
15. le Prix a payer 15. 300 15. Run Fatboy Run 15. I Now Pronounce You
Chuck and Larry
16. American Gangster 16. Music and Lyrics 16. P.S. I Love You 16. Blades of Glory
17. Das Leben der 17. Norbit 17. Rush Hour 3 17. Ocean’s Thirteen
Anderen
18. Dialogue avec mon 18. Atonement 18. American Gangster 18. Ghost Rider
jardinier
19. Rocky Balboa 19. I Now Pronounce You 19. The Pursuit of 19. Norbit
Chuck and Larry Happyness
20. Blood Diamond 20. Saw III 20. Music and Lyrics 20. The Bucket List

138
Sample films with professional recognition

France The Netherlands United Kingdom United States

1. La Graine et le mulet 1. Alles is Liefde 1. This is England 1. Sangre de Mi Sangre

2. The Diving Bell and the 2. Het Zusje van Katja 2. Atonement 2. Rocket Science
Butterfly
3. La Vie en Rose 3. Dunya & Desie 3. No Country for Old 3. Grace is Gone
Men
4. Das Leben der Anderen 4. Bloedbroeders 4. Juno 4. Teeth
5. Les temoins 5. Het Echte Leven 5. There Will Be Blood 5. Four Sheets to the
Wind
6. Un secret 6. Skin 6. La Vie en Rose 6. No Country for Old
Men
7. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 7. TBS 7. Das Leben der Anderen 7. Juno
2 Days
8. Auf der Anderen Seite 8. Tiramisu 8. The Diving Bell and the 8. There Will Be Blood
Butterfly
9. Izgnanie 9. Vox Populi 9. Michael Clayton 9. La Vie en Rose
10. Milyang 10. No Country for Old Men 10. Control 10. Die Falscher
11. No Country for Old 11. Juno 11. Notes on a Scandal 11. Michael Clayton
Men
12. Juno 12. There Will Be Blood 12. Eastern Promises 12. Atonement
13. There Will Be Blood 13. La Vie en Rose 13. Die Falscher 13. The Diving Bell and
the Butterfly
14. Die Falscher 14. Die Falscher 14. Lars and the Real Girl 14. Lars and the Real Girl
15. Michael Clayton 15. Michael Clayton 15. The Savages 15. The Savages
16. Atonement 16. Atonement 16. Sweeney Todd: The 16. Sweeney Todd: The
Demon Barber of Fleet Demon Barber of Fleet
Street Street
17. Lars and the Real Girl 17. The Diving Bell and the 17. In the Valley of Elah 17. In the Valley of Elah
Butterfly
18. The Savages 18. Lars and the Real Girl 18. Elizabeth: The Golden 18. Eastern Promises
Age
19. Sweeney Todd: The 19. The Savages 19. Away From Her 19. Elizabeth: The Golden
Demon Barber of Fleet Age
Street
20. In the Valley of Elah 20. Sweeney Todd: The 20. Beaufort 20. Away From Her
Demon Barber of Fleet
Street

139
Sample films with critical recognition

France The Netherlands United Kingdom United States

1. La Graine et le mulet 1. Das Leben der Anderen 1. No Country for Old Men 1. No Country for Old
Men
2. Das Leben der Anderen 2. Atonement 2. There Will Be Blood 2. There Will Be Blood
3. Pan’s Labyrinth 3. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 3. Das Leben der Anderen 3. Away From Her
Days
4. Paranoid Park 4. Pan’s Labyrinth 4. The Bourne Ultimatum 4. Das Leben der Anderen
5. Death Proof 5. The Diving Bell and the 5. La Vie en Rose 5. Gone Baby Gone
Butterfly
6. Inland Empire 6. Alles is Liefde 6. Atonement 6. The Savages
7. Still Life 7. Tussenstand 7. Away From Her 7. La Vie en Rose
8. La France 8. Wolfsbergen 8. Michael Clayton 8. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and
2 Days
9. Zodiac 9. Duska 9. Control 9. Before the Devil Knows
You’re Dead
10. Les amours d’Astree et 10. Blind 10. Syndromes and a 10. Atonement
de Celadon Century
11. Honor de cavalleria 11. Red Road 11. Silent Light 11. The Diving Bell and
the Butterfly
12. Avant que j’oublie 12. I’m Not There 12. Zodiac 12. Once
13. I Don’t Want to Sleep 13. Little Children 13. Climates 13. Into the Wild
Alone
14. Ne touchez pas la 14. Away From Her 14. Inland Empire 14. Lady Chatterley
hache
15. Syndromes and a 15. Control 15. Apocalypto 15. Zodiac
Century
16. Atonement 16. Lust, Caution 16. The Painted Veil 16. Sweeney Todd: The
Demon Barber of Fleet
Street
17. Le Scaphandre et le 17. Still Life 17. 4 Months, 3 Weeks 17. I’m Not There
papillon and 2 Days
18.No Country for Old 18. Bamako 18. Babel 18. Starting Out in the
Men Evening
19. There Will Be Blood 19. Adam’s Apples 19. 12:08 East of 19. Colossal Youth
Bucharest
20. Away From Her 20. Flandres 20. Letters From Iwo Jima 20. Lars and the Real Girl

140
Appendix C.

Film sample – United States

Popular recognition Critical recognition Professional recognition

1. Spider-Man 3 1. No Country for Old Men 1. Padre Nuestro

2. Transformers 2. There Will Be Blood 2. Rocket Science
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: At 3. Away From Her 3. Grace is Gone
World’s End
4. Harry Potter and the Order of 4. Das Leben der Anderen 4. Teeth
the Phoenix (The Lives of Others)
5. I Am Legend 5. Gone Baby Gone 5. Four Sheets to the Wind
6. The Bourne Ultimatum 6. The Savages 6. No Country for Old Men
7. 300 7. La Vie en Rose 7. Juno
8. Wild Hogs 8. 4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile 8. There Will Be Blood
(4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days)

9. Knocked Up 9. Before the Devil Knows You’re 9. La Vie en Rose

Dead
10. Juno 10. Atonement 10. Die Fälscher
(The Counterfeiters)
11. Rush Hour 3 11. Le Scaphandre et le papillon 11. Michael Clayton
(The Diving Bell and the
Butterfly)

12. Live Free or Die Hard 12. Once 12. Atonement

13. American Gangster 13. Into the Wild 13. Le Scaphandre et le papillon
(The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)

14. Superbad 14. Lady Chatterley 14. Lars and the Real Girl
15. I Now Pronounce You Chuck 15. Zodiac 15. The Savages
and Larry
16. Blades of Glory 16. Sweeney Todd: The Demon 16. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber
Barber of Fleet Street of Fleet Street
17. Ocean’s Thirteen 17. I’m Not There 17. In the Valley of Elah
18. Ghost Rider 18. Starting Out in the Evening 18. Eastern Promises
19. Norbit 19. Juventude Em Marcha 19. Elizabeth: The Golden Age
(Colossal Youth)
20. The Bucket List 20. Lars and the Real Girl 20. Away From Her

141
Film sample - United Kingdom

Popular recognition Critical recognition Professional recognition

1. Harry Potter and the Order of 1. No Country for Old Men 1. This is England
the Phoenix
2. Pirates of the Caribbean: At 2. There Will Be Blood 2. Atonement
World’s End
3. Spider-Man 3 3. Das Leben der Anderen 3. No Country for Old Men
(The Lives of Others)
4. The Golden Compass 4. The Bourne Ultimatum 4. Juno
5. I Am Legend 5. La Vie en Rose 5. There Will Be Blood
6. The Bourne Ultimatum 6. Atonement 6. La Vie en Rose
7. Transformers 7. Away From Her 7. Das Leben der Anderen
(The Lives of Others)
8. Hot Fuzz 8. Michael Clayton 8. Le Scaphandre et le papillon
(The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)

9. Stardust 9. Control 9. Michael Clayton

10. Live Free or Die Hard 10. Sang sattawat 10. Control
(Syndromes and a Century)
11. 300 11. Stellet licht 11. Notes on a Scandal
(Silent Light)
12. Ocean’s Thirteen 12. Zodiac 12. Eastern Promises
13. St. Trinian’s 13. Iklimler 13. Die Fälscher
(Climates) (The Counterfeiters)
14. Atonement 14. Inland Empire 14. Lars and the Real Girl
15. Run Fatboy Run 15. Apocalypto 15. The Savages
16. P.S. I Love You 16. The Painted Veil 16. Sweeney Todd: The Demon
Barber of Fleet Street
17. Rush Hour 3 17. 4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile 17. In the Valley of Elah
(4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days)

18. American Gangster 18. Babel 18. Elizabeth: The Golden Age
19. The Pursuit of Happyness 19. A fost sau n-a fost? 19. Away From Her
(12:08 East of Bucharest)
20. Music and Lyrics 20. Letters from Iwo Jima 20. Beaufort

142
Appendix D.

One-way Independent ANOVA test linkages factors to reviews of film types (N=194)

Mean F Sig Post-Hoc Test

(Games-Howell)
Auteurism 11,9 13.55 **** Pop Prof
Popular recognition 9,3
Professional recognition 11,8 ns
Critical recognition 14,8 **** *

Experience 4,7 9.06 ****

Popular recognition 4,2
Professional recognition 3,6 ns
Critical recognition 5,9 *** ****

Processes 11,3 4.30 **

Popular recognition 11,1
Professional recognition 9,1 ns
Critical recognition 12,7 ns **

Context 6,3 7.89 ****

Popular recognition 7,7
Professional recognition 4,7 ****
Critical recognition 5,8 ** ns

* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01; **** p < .001; ns: not significant

143
Appendix E.

Translations of French and Dutch review excerpts, in chronological order:

‘The story concerns the awakening of a conscious, the development of redemption; hell
wins ground with someone determined to evade it. Due to the bleak and fantastic mis-en-
scène, the film unravels the system of a vicious plot, and provides an obedient bastard
turned mutinous hero with an emergency exit. […] It is no longer about situations, but
about an individual’s metamorphosis. This confers human worth and depth to this political
pamphlet on Eastern Germany’s recent history.’ - Le Figaro

‘This enables full enjoyment of the story’s amusement and the mixture of reality and
lyricism, of the social issues and emotion, of the comedy and the drama, of triviality and
profundity.’ - Le Monde

‘Now that the Lord of the Rings-trilogy has basically played its financial part with regard to
both box office numbers and DVD sales, production company New Line Pictures figured the
time is right for the next mythical cash cow. It’s as simple as that. She was found in Philip
Pullman’s His Dark Material-novels. While not very well known in the Netherlands just yet,
the first film adaptation and the books’ brand new film edition are sure to change that
shortly. However, don’t anticipate Harry Potter-hysteria or The Lord of the Rings-magic. Not
even inflated jabber about the stories’ alleged blasphemous contents could invoke it.’ -
NRC Handelsblad

144
 Dutch summary

Voorwaarden van vermaak

Film classificatie en kritisch discours in vergelijkend perspectief

Samenvatting
Film is een erg populair cultureel genre dat een niet geringe invloed uitoefent op de huidige
Westerse cultuur (Bordwell and Thompson, 1997; McDonald and Wasko, 2008). In
overeenstemming met deze populariteit beschikt film over een omvangrijke industrie die
een wereldwijd publiek bedient door jaarlijks honderden films op de markt te brengen. Het
enorme aanbod bestaat uit talloze soorten films, van commerciële films die het
massapubliek naar de bioscoop trekken tot kunstzinnige cinema die slechts door het meer
kieskeurige arthouse publiek wordt gewaardeerd (Tudor, 2007). Het aanbod wordt verder
verdeeld door genres, subgenres en filmstijlen (Cook, 2007). De bioscoopbezoeker dient
zich een weg te banen door de vele keuzemogelijkheden. De benodigde classificatie van
filmproducten komt tot stand doordat het publiek meningen, gezichtspunten en ervaringen
uitwisselt, criteria hanteert en maatstaven bepaalt (DiMaggio, 1987). Deze dissertatie
betreft dit proces van waardetoekenning, hier in een notendop gepresenteerd, in
verschillende contexten. Hierbij wordt smaak beschouwd als een sociaal construct dat
iemand niet van nature bezit maar verwerft door middel van socialisatie en educatie
(Bourdieu, 1984). Het “cultureel kapitaal” dat iemand bezit is hierbij van groot belang;
hieronder verstaat Bourdieu het geheel van sociale en culturele kennis, vaardigheden,
ervaringen, overtuigingen en gewoontes (Bourdieu, 1984; 1993) waarover men beschikt.
Filmclassificatie impliceert verschillende groepen in de samenleving wier culturele kapitaal
sterk kan verschillen. Een drietal groepen wordt hierbij als cruciaal beschouwd, namelijk
het algemene publiek, vakgenoten en professionele critici (Allen & Lincoln, 2004). Deze
groepen verschillen wat betreft de hoeveelheid cultureel kapitaal en dus wat betreft positie
en status in de filmwereld, waardoor de geuite waardeoordelen ook verschillend worden
gewaardeerd (Bourdieu, 1993). De erkenning van het algemene publiek is van groot belang
in de filmwereld omdat dit de grote financiële investeringen die de producties vereisen kan

145
rechtvaardigen, en leidt tot kaartverkoop en groeiende marktaandelen. Dit publiek heeft
niet noodzakelijk heel veel cultureel kapitaal tot haar beschikking. De filmvakgenoten
hebben wel expertise op het gebied van film (maken) en zijn dus beter in staat om
onderscheid te maken tussen middelmatige en goede films. Hun waardering leidt niet
noodzakelijkerwijs tot kaartverkoop maar geeft een film wel prestige. Filmcritici kunnen
gezien worden als degenen met het hoogste gehalte van cultureel kapitaal, aangezien zij
zich gespecialiseerd hebben in het analyseren en interpreteren van films en in staat
worden geacht om het publiek van advies te voorzien (Becker, 1982; Janssen 1997; 1999,
Verboord, 2010). Kritische erkenning leidt tot eer en prestige, maar niet per definitie tot
economisch succes. De “highbrow” of legitieme smaak van critici wordt als leidend ervaren
in processen van classificatie. Aangezien smaakvoorkeuren van de verschillende groepen
variëren, is er ook verscheidenheid in de films die door deze groepen het meest
gewaardeerd worden. Populaire films vragen minder cultureel kapitaal van het publiek dan
hun prestigieuze tegenpolen, dit leidt tot het onderscheid tussen filmkunst en commerciële
film. Deze worden geproduceerd in de elkaar tegenstellende “velden van kleinschalige en
grootschalige filmproductie” (Bourdieu, 1993).
Dit proefschrift besteedt aandacht aan het publiek, de industrie en de kritiek, maar
legt de nadruk op de filmkritiek als een centrale institutie in het proces van
filmclassificatie. Critici, beschikkend over veel cultureel kapitaal, functioneren
traditiegetrouw als bemiddelaars tussen producenten en consumenten, en drukken hun
stempel op het discours over film (Becker, 1982; Bourdieu, 1993). In dit onderzoek wordt
filmkritiek op verschillende manieren bekeken. De verhouding tussen kritiek, algemeen
publiek en de industrie in het classificatieproces wordt onderzocht in verschillende
nationale contexten en door de tijd heen. Daarnaast wordt er gekeken wat de
filmvoorkeuren van deze drie partijen precies inhouden en of de meest waardevol geachte
films ook inhoudelijk vallen te onderscheiden. Vervolgens wordt het hedendaagse discours
van professionele filmcritici geanalyseerd met oog voor productdifferentiatie en nationale
context. De hoofdvraag van dit onderzoek luidt:

146
 Hoe kunnen de films die het meest gewaardeerd worden door het publiek, de
filmindustrie en de professionele critici onderscheiden worden, en hoe wordt deze
verscheidenheid door critici in verschillende culturele contexten in de Westerse wereld geduid
en van betekenis voorzien?

De dissertatie bestaat uit vier empirische studies, allen in een apart hoofdstuk
gepresenteerd. Het eerste artikel betreft de grenzen tussen commerciële en artistieke film
onder invloed van een reeks ontwikkelingen in de twintigste eeuw. Onderzocht is welke
typen films er door critici in Amerikaanse, Duitse, Franse en Nederlandse kwaliteitskranten
besproken worden tussen 1955 en 2005, en of deze gecategoriseerd kunnen worden als
populair of prestigieus. Door ontwikkelingen zowel binnen als buiten de filmwereld werd
de claim voor film als kunstvorm (in plaats van alleen als vorm van entertainment) sterker
in de jaren zestig en zeventig van de twintigste eeuw. Hierdoor werd de mate waarin het
kleinschalige veld van filmproductie de normen van het gehele filmveld kon bepalen groter.
Dit komt in de data naar voren als meer aandacht voor de regisseur als het creatieve brein
achter de productie. Ook wordt zichtbaar dat de kranten in deze periode meer films van
prestigieuze regisseurs bespreken, het percentage artikelen komt terecht op ongeveer
veertig procent en blijft daar tijdens de rest van de onderzoeksperiode op hangen. Trends
van commercialisering, globalisering en declassificering deden verwachten dat de aandacht
voor commerciële film zou stijgen tussen 1975 en 2005. Echter, het percentage artikelen
over films van commercieel succesvolle regisseurs neemt af in de laatste decennia van de
twintigste eeuw. Geconcludeerd wordt dat de velden van filmkunst en commerciële film
nog steeds onderscheiden kunnen worden, maar dat die scheiding minder strikt is dan
voorgesteld. Principes van populaire en prestigieuze film bestaan naast elkaar en
beïnvloeden beiden de classificaties die kranten hanteren.
Dit kwantitatieve onderzoek naar bredere trends in filmclassificatie leidt tot een
exploratie van de typen films die bij verschillende classificaties horen. De tweede studie
gaat in op de karakteristieken van de films die door, respectievelijk, het publiek, de
industrie en de kritiek als het best worden aangemerkt. Gekeken wordt of de
smaakvoorkeuren die deze groepen uitspreken ook daadwerkelijk van toepassing zijn op
inherent verschillende films die van elkaar te onderscheiden zijn met betrekking tot
147
inhoudelijke en productiekenmerken. De films met de meeste erkenning van het publiek,
de industrie en de kritiek in Frankrijk, Nederland, het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de Verenigde
Staten worden gecodeerd op een reeks eigenschappen die meer of minder conventioneel of
innovatief kunnen zijn. Het onderzoek laat zien dat populaire films (erkend door het
publiek) zich het sterkst conformeren aan de productielogica van het commercieel
georiënteerde Hollywood en dus op alle fronten het minst innovatief zijn. Deze films
beschikken over hoge productiebudgetten, beroemde filmsterren, bekende regisseurs,
duidelijke genrekenmerken, weinig narratieve complexiteit en begrijpelijke thema’s, en dus
bieden ze consumenten een makkelijke kijkervaring. De films die door de industrie en de
kritiek als het best worden aangemerkt passen veel minder goed in dit conventionele
plaatje; vooral kritisch erkende films vertonen meer innovatieve elementen. De
belangrijkste conclusie van het onderzoek is dat het publiek, de industrie en de kritiek wel
andere filmtypen prefereren; voorkeuren kunnen geplaatst worden op een continuüm
tussen conventie en innovatie.
De aandacht wordt vervolgens in Hoofdstuk 4 verlegd naar het discours van
filmcritici over deze verschillende typen film – hoe ziet filmkritiek er vandaag de dag uit en
welke criteria gelden voor welke films? De kwalitatieve analyse van filmrecensies uit
Amerikaanse en Britse kranten laat zien dat de onderwerpen die filmcritici bespreken in
vijftien thema’s zijn samen te vatten. Deze thema’s worden met behulp van een
factoranalyse tot vier componenten van het filmdiscours gecomprimeerd: “Auteurisme”,
“Ervaring”, “Processen” en “Context”. Alle componenten zijn aanwezig in recensies van alle
soorten films maar in verschillende mate. De component Auteurisme legt de focus op de
wereld die door de regisseur als artistieke visionair is gecreëerd: dit wordt het meest
gebruikt in besprekingen van films met kritische erkenning en het minst in recensies van
populaire films. De component Ervaring bestaat uit verschillende aspecten van de
kijkervaring die een film het publiek biedt. Deze component komt in recensies van alle
soorten films veel voor, maar het meest in degenen over films die gewaardeerd worden
door critici. De component Processen omvat een scala aan processen die het maken van
een film vereist. Het wordt iets meer gebruikt in beschouwingen van films met erkenning
van publiek en kritiek. De component Context verbindt de besproken film op verschillende
manieren aan diens omgeving, zowel binnen als buiten de filmwereld. De component wordt
148
aanzienlijk meer benadrukt in recensies van populaire films. Deze studie concludeert dat
filmdiscoursen over verschillende soorten films uit dezelfde elementen bestaan maar een
andere compositie krijgen aangemeten. Er worden criteria gehanteerd die kenmerkend zijn
voor hoge kunst en populaire cultuur, in verschillende samenstellingen naargelang de film
dat vereist.
De kwalitatieve analyse van dit discours wordt voortgezet in de laatste empirische
studie, waarin de nadruk komt te liggen op overeenkomsten en verschillen in verschillende
culturele contexten. Aangezien evaluatiecriteria sociale constructies en dus afhankelijk van
hun omgeving zijn, maar alomtegenwoordige trends van culturele globalisering
homogenisering veronderstellen, stelt dit hoofdstuk de vraag of filmdiscoursen in
Frankrijk, Nederland, het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de Verenigde Staten van elkaar
gedifferentieerd kunnen worden. De thema’s die in het vorige hoofdstuk werden
blootgelegd komen ook hier weer naar voren. De factoranalyse die deze thema’s tot de
discourscomponenten comprimeert resulteert hier in vier ietwat gewijzigde elementen:
“Artistieke waarde”, “Context”, “Realiteit” en “Ervaring”. De componenten Context en
Ervaring zijn hetzelfde gebleven als in hoofdstuk 4. De component Artistieke waarde
betreft de beschouwing van een film als expressie van een artiest, aandacht voor de
formele aspecten van een productie, en de analyse en interpretatie van de filminhoud. De
component Realiteit adresseert de realiteit van een film op twee manieren; enerzijds de
productieprocessen die eraan vooraf gegaan zijn en anderzijds de geloofwaardigheid van
de inhoud binnen het door de film voorgestelde universum. Multivariate analyse laat zien
dat, ondanks dat alle componenten in de Amerikaanse, Britse, Franse en Nederlandse
filmkritieken voorkomen, de filmdiscoursen wel onderscheiden kunnen worden naar
nationale culturele context. In recensies uit de Verenigde Staten ligt de nadruk op de relatie
tussen de besproken film en het alledaagse leven van de kijker, of de functie die de film
hierin heeft. De Franse filmcritici besteden vooral veel aandacht aan de artistieke waarde
van films en de interpretatie van de filminhoud. De Britse en Nederlandse filmdiscoursen
zijn minder onderscheidend en moeilijker te kenmerken.
De dissertatie concludeert uiteindelijk dat de films die als het meest waardevol
worden aangemerkt door het algemene publiek, de industrie en de professionele kritiek
vallen te onderscheiden aan de hand van de mate van conventionaliteit en innovatie die de
149
inhoudelijke en productiekenmerken ten toon spreiden. Deze verscheidenheid aan films
wordt door critici geduid en van betekenis voorzien door het hanteren van
evaluatiecriteria die voortkomen uit zowel een esthetische dispositie en een populaire
esthetiek. Het discours wordt aangepast aan tijdgevoelige trends, nationale culturele
contexten en productdifferentiatie.

150
 Curriculum Vitae

Annemarie Kersten was born in 1983 in the province of Zeeland, the Netherlands. She
obtained a bachelor degree in Arts and Culture Studies at the Erasmus University
Rotterdam in 2005. She then completed a master program in Media Studies at the same
institution in 2006 with the thesis “I Couldn’t Help But Wonder…” which investigated the
extent to which a television program can function as a cultural forum through narrative
analysis on the HBO sitcom Sex and the City. Shortly after graduating, she began work as a
research assistant for Professor Susanne Janssen in the large-scale international research
project Cultural Classification Systems in Transition. She remained affiliated with this
research project during her PhD research, which focuses on film classification and
discourse across national contexts, time periods, and product differentiations. Currently,
Annemarie Kersten works as a lecturer at the Erasmus School of History, Culture and
Communication. Her main research interests include cultural sociology as well as media
studies.

151