American Film as American Culture

7/29/2019 American Film as American Culture

1/22

Beyond Visual Aids: American Film as American Culture

Author(s): Vivian C. SobchackSource: American Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 3 (1980), pp. 280-300Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712451 .

Accessed: 28/08/2013 10:40

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:40:46 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2712451?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2712451?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/22

BEYOND VISUAL AIDS:AMERICAN FILM ASAMERICAN CULTUREVIVIAN C. SOBCHACK

SouthernllinoisUniversityt Carbondale

EXPLORING THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AMERICAN STUDIES AND FILMStudies sratherike tandingefore he onfluencef heMississippindOhio Rivers.The observer s confrontedith henecessityfsteppinginto worivers t once or notgetting et t all.Film tudies s as integrala part fAmericantudies s American tudies sa part fFilm tudies;the separate urrentsre so commingledttheirmeeting oint hat hewaters anno onger eclearly istinguished.lookthroughhe onven-tionprograms ftheAmerican tudiesAssociationnd the Society orCinemaStudiesrevealshowfrequentlyhe twodisciplines onvergentheir ubjectmatter,nterests,nd methods.1 mericantudies ndFilmStudies re differentiatedy their espective oals and emphases; heformer ouldpotentiallytudyll thatsAmericanincludinghe rt ndartifact hich s Americanilm),while he atterwould tudy ll that scinematicincluding,nthe ase ofAmerican ilm, he esthetic,ultural,andhistoricalontext fAmericanxperience). owever, he imilaritiesthat hedisciplineshare ar utweighheir ifferences.oth re unruly,broad,fluid.Both are synthetic,nd, as such,facesimilar roblemsflegitimacy,cope,philosophy,heory,nd thedemandsftheirnterdis-ciplinaryature.Aswell,bothhave alwaysbeen highlyependent pon

1The Society forCinemaStudies s the nationalorganization or cholars and teachers nFilm Studies and the publisherof Cinema Journal. Membership nformationmay be ob-tained from he Society's Secretary,Daniel J.Leab, at 121 E. 78th Street,New York, NewYork 10021.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/22

Film as American Culture 281otherdisciplines or heirmethodsndmodelsofinquiry,uch as theparadigmsnd modelscurrentlyrovided y semiotics,tructuralism,psychoanalyticheory,henomenology,ndhermeneutics.hus,whenthebestscholarsn thetwodisciplinesocusonAmerican ilm s theirsubject,t s oftenmpossibleandhappilynnecessary)otell hem part.Withinheirwork, hedisciplinesmerge.American ilm ndAmericanculture re consideredmutuallynterdependent,ach illuminatingndproviding context or he other.During he last decade therehas been increasingvidenceof con-cerned, ogent, nd cinematicallyiterate cholarshipelating ilm oAmericantudiesn iterature,opular ulture,ociology,nthropology,and history. iterature/Filmuarterly, heJournalof Popular FilmandTelevision, and Film and Historyare all relativelynew journals whosepagesareregularlyhared yscholarswith iverse cademic rigins ndintellectualorizons.2herehas also beenan increasingumber f m-pressive ooks bout ilmythosewhose nitialllegianceayoutside hecinema.The disciplines f iteraturendpopular ulture ave givenuskey workslike JenniCalder's There Must Be a Lone Ranger and JohnCawelti'sTheSix-GunMystique, oth fwhich ealwith heWesternnits iteraryndcinematicorms s ritual rt nimatinghemost nduringAmericanmyths. Frank McConnell's The Spoken Seen: Film and theRomanticmaginationinks ilmo tsnineteenth-centuryiterarynces-try,ndMichaelWood'sAmerica ntheMovies sa sensitivendsubjec-tivepsycho-socialxplorationfAmericanilms rom 930-1963.3Sociology asgiven s IanJarvie'sMovies ndSociety, n investiga-tionofthecinema s a socialphenomenon,s one institutionmongmany.Garth owett's ilm:TheDemocratic rt s a sociologists istoryof a mass mediumna masssociety, nd WillWright'six Guns andSociety s one ofthefirsttructuralpproaches o a film enre nd its

2 LiteraturelFilmQuarterly an be obtained fromSalisbury State College, Salisbury,Maryland 21801; The Journal of Popular Film and Television fromthe Popular CultureCenter,BowlingGreen StateUniversity, owlingGreen, Ohio 43403; andFilm and Historyfrom he HistoriansFilmCommitee, /oHistoryFaculty,New Jerseynstitute f Technol-ogy,Newark, New Jersey 7101. Particular ttention s also directed o thespecial "Filmand American Studies" issue of American Quarterly, 1 (Winter 1979),edited by Peter C.Rollins, which features range of articlesdemonstratinghe approaches suggested n thisessay.

3 JenniCalder, ThereMustBe a Lone Ranger (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1974); JohnCawelti, The Six-GunMystique Bowling Green,Ohio: Popular Press, 1971); FrankMcCon-nell, The Spoken Seen: Film and the Romantic Imagination (Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniv. Press, 1975); MichaelWood, America n theMovies; or "Santa Maria, It had SlippedMy Mind" (New York: Basic Books, 1975).



4/22

282 AmericanQuarterlyvariantorms hich arallelhangesncontemporarymericanociety.4Anthropologyas shapedEdmundCarpenter's h, What BlowThisPhantomGaveMe, an introspectivendprovocativeiarywhich pecu-lateson thenature fthemovinghotographicmage nd tsmagicalndphilosophicalmplicationsor rimitivend civilizedman.Anthropologyhasalso contributedignificantlyothedevelopmentf new pproachobothfilm nd ethnographictudies n Sol Worth nd JohnAdair'sThrough avajoEyes,which ecordshe ttempto discover owpeoplestructureeality y teachinghem herudimentsf cinematographyothat heymay serveas their wnethnographers.5And,finally,hedisciplinef historyas lentfilm tsrigor ndwide-ranginguriosity,oth fwhich averesultednthemeticulouscholar-ship of works like Thomas Cripps' Slow Fade to Black: The Negro inAmericanFilms,1900-1942 and itscompanionBlack Film as Genre; andLawrence uid's historicaledemptionf previouslygnoredilm enrein Guts and Glory:Great American War Movies. Despite its action-packedtitle, his atterworkcarefullyevealsthehistoryf relationsbetween ollywoodndtheDepartmentfDefense ince1925 s demon-stratedn theproductionistoryf overthirty eature ilms.John .O'Connor, ndMartin . Jackson's rucial ollection fessays,Ameri-can History/Americanilm: InterpretingheHollywoodImage, bringsfilms ndhistoriansnto lluminatingonfrontation.nd specialmentionmust be made of RobertSklar's pioneeringhistory,Movie-MadeAmerica.Withintspages,theHollywood eature ilm s seen as thenexus of ideological,economic,cultural, nd social forcesshapingAmericanudiences n the first alfofthetwentiethentury.6

I Ian Jarvie,Movies and Society New York: Basic Books, 1970); GarthJowett, ilm: TheDemocratic Art Boston: Little,Brown, 1976); Will Wright, ix Guns and Society: A Struc-tural Study of the Western Berkeley: Univ. of CaliforniaPress, 1975). The term enre asused here and as commonly pplied to film escribes the classification f films n the basisof similar ontent s well as on similarities f formal tructure.Westerns nd musicals aregenres, whereas narrative, nimated, or documentary ilm re seldom spoken of in thisfashion. See, for example, Barry K. Grant, ed., Film Genre: Theory and Criticism(Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1977); Stuart M. Kaminsky AmericanFilm Genres:Approaches to a CriticalTheory f Popular Film (Dayton, Ohio: Pflaum,1974);and StanleyJ. Solomon, Beyond Formula: AmericanFilm Genres New York: Harcourt, 1976).5 Edmund Carpenter, Oh, What a Blow This Phantom Gave Me (New York: Holt,Rinehart ndWinston,1973); Sol Worth nd JohnAdair,ThroughNavajo Eyes: An Explora-tion nFilm Communication nd AnthropologyBloomington: ndiana Univ Press, 1972).6 Thomas Cripps, Slow Fade to Black: The Negro in American Films, 1900-1942 NewYork: OxfordUniv. Press, 1977) and Black Film as Genre (Bloomington: ndiana Univ.Press, 1978); Lawrence Suid, Guts and Glory: Great American War Movies (Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley,1978); JohnE. O'Connor and MartinA. Jackson, ds., AmericanHistorylAmerican ilm: Interpreting he Hollywood Image (New York: Ungar, 1979);Robert Sklar, Movie-Made America:A CulturalHistoryofAmerican Movies (New York:Random House, 1975).



5/22

Film as American Culture 283These importantontributionso bothAmerican tudies and FilmStudieswere madeby scholarswhorecognizehat hemedium ndthe

culture re inextricablynd significantlyoundtogether. utfarmorefrequentlyilmsregardeds littlemore han visual id,as aninterest-ing rentertainingarnish othemore ubstantialndtraditionalare fresearchhdpedagogy. ilmoften uffersromheprejudices fthosewhobelieve.n the primacy f thewritten ord and from hecasualattitude f thosewho treat t too familiarly.ndeed,outsideof FilmStudies, seriousconsideration f Americanfilm s American rt,criticism,istory,deology,nd cultures inhibitedycommonttitudeswhichpromoteinematiclliteracy.n literature,ilm s regarded s ir-relevant rtreated s a medium hich cavenges rimary orks ocreateimitationsralterationsfthem. hus, hevalueofAmericaninema othehistorynd lifeofAmerican rtsand letters s seen as primarilyillustrative.nhistory,ilms alsoregardeds beside hepoint-ofdubi-ous use as either primaryocument r an interpretationfAmericanhistoryndculture,r ofpossible alue olely s anentertainingootnotetothemain usiness f raditionalcholarship. hether ade sfictionrdocument,ilmsmaybe treateds artifactsythehistorian,ut hey rerarelyreated s history,s interpretingistory,s making istory. ostimportant,cholarswho use film n research nd teachingAmericanStudies enerallyocus ncontentnd gnoreheforce fcinematican-guage ndform.Movies re seen as revealing omore han hey vertlysay throughhesimplest spectsoftheirnarrativeevelopment,heirdialogue rnarration,r theirmimetichotographicurfaces. hus,asliterature,s history, s significantulture, s rhetorical iscourse,American ilmshave forthemost partbeen abused or neglected yAmerican tudies.They havebeenconsidered nworthyf thesamemeticulousescriptionnd detailednalysis ffordedoetryrhistoricaldocuments. hey havenotenjoyed he status warded hosearts, r-tifacts,nddocumentsmost asily"read" andilluminatedyscholarstrainednthe omplexitiesfverbalanguage utuntutorednthe quiva-lent omplexitiesf inematicanguage.f,for xample, necontrastshecommon se of film nboth research nd teachingwith hesyntheticapproachesuggestednJohn tuart atz'sPerspectivesnthe tudy fFilm, it becomes obvious thatthemedium'srelevance o AmericanStudies s both he ext ndthe ontextfAmericanulture ndhistoryhashardly eenrecognized,etalone realized.7

I John tuartKatz, Perspectiveson the Studyof Film (Boston: Little,Brown,1971).Thisis a collectionof essays whichfocuses on film tudy ndeducation,onfilm s an art nd oneof the humanities, nd on film s communication, nvironment, nd politics.



6/22

284 American QuarterlyFILM LANGUAGE AND FILM THEORY

Myintention as not been to suggest hat hissuperficial egard orfilmis purelywillful.Citizen Kane notwithstanding, merican filmshaverarely nnouncedtheir wn complexity.8 ntilrecently,most have had atendency ohide their wndevices. Indeed, American ilms ave been themosttechnically nd structurallyeamless of nationalcinemas. Exceptforthe maverick cinema of the American underground,which has de-voted itself o testing he boundaries of form s well as content,9mostAmerican movies have avoided the reflexiveness and distancingtechniquesso oftenfound n European cinema. Instead theyhave optedforan illusionismwhichhas been so successfulthattechnique and formseem either nvisible r simple ndundemanding f theviewer. The needto "read" or "decode" mostAmericanfilms ften ppearspretentious,fnot unnecessary. Learning cinematic anguage and filmtheoryhardlyseems crucial to a discussionof BusbyBerkeleymusicals as one form fcultural amusement in Depression America.10The creaky romances,back-stageplots, lavish spectacle, and strange, urreal visionofbodieschoreographedn space are obvious intheir ejection fthe social realityoutside the movie theater. Or so it first ppears. A formal nalysis ofBerkeley's rhetorical se of themovingcamera (its acts of penetrationand voyeurism) nd his literalization f sexual metaphors an illuminatethe dance director's visual exploitationof women, an exploitationnotalways apparent n the narrative evel." As well,someoneattuned o thevisual and formal lementsofBerkeleytexts might ind hefilmdeologi-cally complex. For example, the uses of space and performersn the

8 Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, RKO, 1941). Since films re primary exts,theywill becitedas such: notation rovides he director, tudio, nd year of release. For rental nforma-tion, the reader s directedto James Limbacher, ed., Feature Films on 8mm,16mm, ndVideotape, Sixth Edition (New York: R.R. Bowker, 1979).9The American avant-garde ilmmovement fterWorldWar II was influenced y theartisticupheavals in Europe duringthe first-decadesof the century. See, forexample,StandishD. Lawder, The CubistCinema (New York: New York Univ. Press, 1975); and Artin Cinema: A Symposiumof theAvant-GardeFilm, ed. by Frank-Stafiffacher1947; rpt.New York: Arno Press, 1968). For a specificallyAmericanfocus; see Sheld6nRenan,AnIntroduction o theAmericanUnderground ilm (New York: EP. Dutton,1967);P. AdamsSitney,Visionary ilm: TheAmericanAvant-Garde 943-1978,2nd ed. (New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 1974); and theperiodicalsFilm Culture nd Millennium.AmosVogel's Film asa Subversive Art (New York: Random House, 1974) is also highlyrecommendedfor tsprovocative summaries f ust how "alternative" cinema form nd contentmay become.10 ee AndrewBergman,We're in the Money: Depression America and Its Films (NewYork: Harper and Row, 1971). For a volume whichpictorially onveys the avishsurrealismof Berkeley's work, see Tony Thomas and JimTerry, with Busby Berkeley,The BusbyBerkeleyBook (New York: New York Graphic Society, 1973).11Lucy Fischer, "The Image ofWomanas Image: The Optical PoliticsofDames," FilmQuarterly,30 (Fall 1976), 2-10.



7/22

Film as American Culture 285dance numbers tressand value symmetry, echanicalmovement, uan-tity, onformity,nd uniformity. ne might dvance thehypothesis hatBerkeleyfilmsvisualize a totalitarian estheticresponsiveto the popularyearning ororderand leadership n the chaotic and uncertainworldout-side the theater.12Although uch an interpretation ight e difficult o"prove" (involving ormal nd content nalyses ofthe films nd historicaland sociological research),the hypothesiswould probablynothave beenarticulated o initiate uch an inquirywere the scholar unaware of filmlanguage. 3Far too often, uch ight, antastic, nd superficiallyransparent meri-can filmshave been dismissed or given only cursory ttention n Ameri-can Studies. And more mimetic ilmshave hardlyfaredbetter; lthoughtheir urfaces have been taken seriously as a mirror f the world, theirillusionof realismhas been so successful hat hey eemopaque, offeringup only content, heirform nd technique hidden by theirphotographicpersuasiveness. In Semiotics of Cinema, perhaps the most valuable andclear overview of film anguage available, Jurij Lotman identifies heproblem which analysis of the cinematic mage always entails:

Cinematographyesemblesheworldwhichwe see.... But his imilaritysasunreliables thewords fa foreignanguagewhich ound ikewords fourown. Thatwhich s differentretendso be identical. he illusion f com-prehensions createdwhere o genuine omprehensionxists.Only yunder-standinghe inema anwe beconvincedhat t s not slavish opy f ife, utanactive ecreationnwhich imilaritiesnddifferencesre assemblednto nintegral,ension-filled-sometimesramatic-process fperceivingife.'4The ways in whichfilmsuse the rectangular paces of theframe, on-struct nddeconstruct ime hroughmovementndediting, xpressmean-ing and attitude through ighting, olor, composition, shiftsof angle,sound of all kinds,and thecomplementarityr counterpoint f all theseelementspresentedto the viewermake the need forcinematic iteracyobvious. Films,after ll,areprimaryexts ndit s theability o readthemwhich s crucial despitethebibliographic mphasisofthepresent ssay).

12 It would be fascinating o screen a Berkeley musical ike Dames (Berkeley,Warners,1934) withLeni Riefenstahl'sTriumph f the Will (Riefenstahl, 1936), the Germanfilmrecording nd apotheosizing he symmetrynd styleofNazi spectacle at the 1934Nurem-bergRally.

13 I am using the term "filmlanguage" extremely oosely. The question whetherfilmactuallyhas or is a language s inconstantdebate amongfilm cholars. Here it s meanttorefer o the formal lements nd devices of filmwhich re used in and across givenworks.14 Jurij otman,SemioticsofCinema, trans.by MarkE. Suino, Michigan lavic Contribu-tions (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1976), 4.



8/22

286 AmericanQuarterlyAs Lotman emphasizes: "Cinematic meaningis meaning expressedbythe resources of cinematic anguage, and it is impossible outside thatlanguage. 15Thefirst askfor heAmerican tudies cholar s to achieve t leastsomedegree ffamiliarityith ilmanguage,nd to achieve t quickly.This s bestaccomplished,erhaps, y first eading otman's emioticsof Cinema,which voidstechnicalanguage nd provides brief, ro-vocativeoverview f film s a "concentratedenter fcomplexlyr-ganized nformation."'6ext, specific etnontechnicalnderstandingof inematiclementsndhow hey recombinednfilmsan be obtainedby readingt leastone ofthemany vailable ntroductoryorks nfilmaesthetics.Generallyntendeds texts, hese ntroductionsendto bemoreholistic ndless idiosyncraticn approach hanmight e foundnanalogous rade esthetics; ecommendedreRichardM. Blumenberg'sCritical Focus: An Introduction o Film, David Bordwell and KristinThompson'sFilmArt: An Introduction,AllanCasebier's Film Apprecia-tion,Louis D. Gianetti'sUnderstandingMovies, JamesMonaco's How toRead a Film, nd Thomas obchack nd VivianC. Sobchack'sAn ntro-duction oFilm.17And toprovide n historicalontextwithin hich oground knowledgeffilm anguage, ne should lso become wareoftheprocess nd progress ffilmheory. . DudleyAndrew's heMajorFilm Theories:AnIntroductionhronologicallynd critically resents heideasofcinema'smost nfluentialhinkers,sefullysolatingheir espec-tiveviews f hose ntologicalndepistemologicaluestionsddressedna lessorderlyashionntheprimaryorks hemselves.18wo anthologiesof selected heory nd criticismre particularlyine, ach servingocomplementhe other.GeraldMastand Marshall ohen'sFilm Theoryand Criticism: ntroductoryReadings provides many selections from

15 Ibid., 42.16 Ibid.,94.17 RichardM. Blumenberg,ritical Focus: An Introductionto Film (Belmont, a.:Wadsworth,975);David Bordwell nd Kristin hompson, ilmArt An Introduction(Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley,979);AllanCasebier, ilmAppreciationNewYork:Harcourt, 976);Louis D. Gianetti,Understandingovies (EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1976);JamesMonaco,How to Read a Film: The Art,Technology, anguage,Historyand Theoryof Film and Media (New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 1977); Thomas

Sobchacknd Vivian . Sobchack, n ntroductiono Film Boston:Little, rown, 980).Althoughhese exts over imilarmaterial,ow to Reada Film xtendsnto thermediaand dealsmore han therswith echnology,othCritical ocus andAn ntroductionoFilm spend ome sizeable paceon the esthetics f documentaryndexperimentalilm,and An Introductiono Film s the only ext o explore he aestheticsnd structurefAmericanenre ilms.18 J.DudleyAndrew, he Major Film Theories:An Introduction NewYork: OxfordUniv. Press, 1976).



9/22

Film as American Culture 287those raditionalndcontemporaryheoristsntroducedyAndrew s thecinema'skey thinkers, hileBillNichols' Moviesand Methods ffersmaterial hich eflectshemost ecentdeological ndformalhoughtnfilm heoryndcriticism.9A basicknowledgeffilmanguage ndtheorywillenable theAmerican tudies cholar o considerAmerican ilmnnew relations o those morefamiliar,f alwaysawkward, ivisions fAmericanulture: rtsand letters,nd social andpolitical istory.

FILM AND ARTS AND LETTERSMost film cholarshipnAmerican tudieshas concentratedn the

medium'sdaptationf iteraryources. ffilm as beenconsiderediter-ature, t has beenmost ften secondaryerivativeiterature-onec-cordedneitherndependenttatus s literaturewhethers adaptationr"original"work)noras literaryriticismas an interpretiveeading fliterature). ntil ecently,ommon ractice mong iterarycholars asbeen to illustrate merican iction ith ilm daptations. omplex ndprovocativeworks ike von Stroheim'sGreed adapted fromNorris'McTeague), von Sternberg'sAn American Tragedyand GeorgeSteven'sAPlace inthe un both dapted rom heDreiser ovel), ndGeorgeRoyHill'sSlaughterhouse-Fiveadapted rom onnegut's ovel) recertainlycited ndoften raised.Most f he iterarycholar's nergy, owever,sspent hastisingasy targets. merican ilm s accusedofdilutingndvulgarizing merican iction y substitutinghemetaphoric iththeridiculouslyoncretee.g., thewhitewhale nHuston'sMobyDick),andcompressinghe eisurelyndcontemplativefferingsf iteraturentoquick ndenergeticwohourswhich tress ction t theexpense f thesource's heme nd tructuree.g.,adaptions f ister arrie, lmerGan-try,The Sound and the Fury, andDeliverance). The nuance and subtletyfound nthefilm ersionsof Dodsworth orMiss Lonelyhearts re forgot-tenfor he bvious ndemptydaptationsfTheGreatGatsby.20 orthemost art and not lwaysundeservedly),ilmdaptationsffictionaveenjoyed hesamestatus s ClassicComics.

19GeraldMast and Marshall Cohen, Film Theory nd Criticism:ntroductory eadings,2nded. (New York: Oxford niv.Press, 1979);Bill Nichols,Movies nd Methods Ber-keley:Univ.of Californiaress, 1977).20 GreedErichvonStroheim, GM, 1924);An America ragedyJosef onSternberg,Paramount, 1931) and A Place in the Sun (George Stevens, Paramount, 1951);Slaughterhouse-FiveGeorgeRoyHill,Universal, 972);Moby ick John uston, nitedArtists, 956);Carrie WilliamWyler, aramount,952); lmerGantryRichard rooks,UnitedArtists, 960);TheSound nd theFuryMartin itt, ox, 1959); eliveranceJohnBoorman,Warners, 972); odsworthWilliamWyler, oldwyn, 936);MissLonelyhearts(Vincent .Donehue, nited rtists,959); heGreatGatsbyHerbertrenon, aramount,1926;ElliottNugent, aramount,949; nd JackClayton, aramount,974).



10/22

288 AmericanQuarterlyAdaptationsof drama have fareda bitbetter-perhaps because thereare fewerof them,perhaps because they preservethe sanctityof the

verbal text which is theirsource, perhaps because they have a parallelmode of performancewithina determinate ime frame. However, al-thoughmorerespectable and less criticized, he dramatic daptation salso seen as primarilyllustrative,s a substitute or he iveperformanceof a dramawhich s somehowunaffected y the new form hroughwhichit is presented. The similarities hatfilm nd drama share have led to acriticalneglect f theirmost nterestingifferences. astly,film as rarelybeen considered n ts relationship opoetry, erhapsbecause films arely"adapt" poems (Charge of the Light Brigade notwithstanding),butmost likelybecause of the general lack of cinematic knowledgewhichwould enable the literary scholar to identify he similar syntacticalstrategies,uses of rhythm,nd ways of creatingmetaphorwhich linkcinema nitsvarious forms opoetry.One workwhichdoes considerfilmin relation o both poetry nd drama as well as to the novel) is RobertRichardson'sLiteratureand Film.22To date, themost diverse and imaginative pproaches to the intersec-tionof film nd literature ppear in JohnHarrington's xcellent anthol-ogy,FilmAnd/As iterature.23 lthoughtclearlypositionsfilm arrativeinrelation o a literarymodel, it is the only available anthologywhich stheoretical in emphasis and extremelybroad in scope. It not onlyexamines film n respect to, and as, particular iterary enres,but alsoexplores key aesthetic nd critical ssues under such chapterheadings s"Authorship nd Auteurship,"24Message, Medium,and LiteraryArt,"and "Film's Literary Resources." There are, of course, other usefulworkswhichtreatfilm nd itsrelationshipither o a single iterary enre(most usually the novel), or to the work of a particular iterary igurewhich has been adapted or influenced y the cinema. The mostwidely-knownof these is George Bluestone's Novels Into Film: The Metamor-phosis of Fiction nto Cinema.25 Finally available inEnglish, Claude Ed-monde Magny's The Age of theAmericanNovel: The Film AestheticofFiction Between theTwo Warsprovides a differentpproach to therela-

21 Charge of the LightBrigade (TonyRichardson, nitedArtists, 968).22 RobertRichardson,iteraturend Film Bloomington:ndianaUniv.Press, 1969).23 John arrington,ilm ndlasLiteratureEnglewood liffs, .J.:Prentice all, 1977).24 The termuteur esignateshedirectoror screenwriter,erformer,inematographer,editor) ho nformsfilm ith ersonal ision othedegreehat hework, owevernitiallyderivativercollaborative,ecomes mprinted ith recognizable ersonal tyle.25 George luestone, ovelsntoFilmBerkeley: niv. fCaliforniaress, 968).Of hesix films reatedt length,nly wo areadaptationsf AmericanictionThe GrapesofWrath nd TheOx-Bow ncident); owever,heopening iscussion fadaptationnd thedifferencesnd similaritiesetweenhemedia s extremelyorthwhile.



11/22

Film as American Culture 2'89tionshipbetween the novel and cinema; her workexplorestheaestheticinterchange etween film echnique and prose style as it emerges n thefiction f Dos Passos, Hemingway, teinbeck, nd Faulkner.26 nd,mostrecently, aulkner has been the subject of both Bruce F. Kawin's Faulk-ner and Film and Regina K. Fadiman's narrower tudy,Faulkner's In-truder n the Dust: Novel Into Film.27It is in Literature/Film uarterly,however, that the interested eaderwill find he most practical nd varied discussions of ndividualworksandauthors,as well as actual criticalpractices-devotedo more general andtheoretical oncerns. Outside the ournal's pages, perhaps themostcon-venient ollectionsof material evoted to analyses of the Americannovelas ithas been transformedntoAmericanfilm ppear in Gerald Peary andRoger Shatzkin's The Classic American Novel and the Movies and itslater companionvolume,TheModernAmerican Novel and the Movies.28These anthologies re particularlynteresting ot only because theyfocussolely on American iterature the first anges fromCooper to Faulknerand the second fromCaldwell to Updike), butalso because manyoftheessays acknowledge headaptive processas morethan hecomplextrans-formationfone medium ntoanother. n many selections,film dapta-tions are seen as autonomousaestheticworks,as penetratingritical n-terpretations f literature, nd as ideological structures.Wideningthesignificance nd significationf the adaptive process,the editorspointoutthefollowingn the second volume whichhas a chapteron "The Politicsof Adaptation"):

The act ofdemonstratingowa novelbecomes films more han cademicexercise ndformalisturiosity.t s a tool or oliticalnalysis.nstudyinghemazeof rtisticecisionsmade long heway othe inal ilmext,we canbeginto accountfortheplanned deological hoices within henormally paqueHollywood inema.29Despite the emphasison adaptation apparent n the abundance ofre-search and criticism orne from heunion of film nd literature,ilm lsoexists as literature.n its own language aural and visual), Americanfilm

26 Claude-EdmondeMagny,TheAge of the AmericanNovel: TheFilmAestheticofFic-tionBetween heTwoWars, rans. yEleanorHochmanNewYork:Ungar, 972).Thebookwasoriginallyublishedn France n1948.27 BruceF. Kawin, aulkner nd Film NewYork: Ungar, 977);ReginaK. Fadiman,Faulkner's Intruder n the Dust: Novel Into Film (Knoxville: Univ. of Tennessee Press,1978).The latter olume lso includes hescreenplay.28 Gerald eary ndRoger hatzkin,he Classic American Novel and the Movies (NewYork: Ungar, 1977);The ModernAmericanNovel and the Movies (New York: Ungar, 978).29 Peary nd Shatzkin,he Modern AmericanNovel, 2.



12/22

290 AmericanQuarterlytreats he very ame themes nd motifs ound n moretraditionallyiterarygenres. Indeed, American film s thepopular literature f a nation andculture s equal to any form fwritten iterature n its ability o animateAmericanmythology r to express overtly rsymbolically hepreoccupa-tions ofAmericanexperience.Consider,forexample, thecinema's con-tributiono the myth f theWest. The work of John Ford (directorofStagecoach, She Worea YellowRibbon,and The Searchers),30 am Pec-kinpah director fRide the High Country, allad ofCable Hogue, andTheWildBunch),3'or, for hatmatter, ohnWayne the conicWesternerfromhis kineticyouth n "B" movies to hiscancer-ridden ld age in TheShootist)32 s as important o Westernmythology s the work of NedBuntline, Owen Wister, or A.B. Guthrie.Robert Altman(who madeMcCabe and Mrs.MillerandBuffaloBill and the ndians,orSitting ull'sHistoryLesson) is as conscious and precise a critic of theWestern ro-mance and its morality fstyle s are RobertWarshow,AndreBazin, andRichard Slotkin.33 here are a varietyof ways in which the Westernaddresses themythswhich t has helpedto perpetuate nd alter. n addi-tiontopreviously-citediterature,here re suchdiversestudies s DianaSerraCary's TheHollywoodPosse, whichrecords he arrival fdisplacedcowboysinHollywoodaround1912 ndtheir ubsequentcontributionsotheHollywoodrangeas actors and stuntmen; hilipFrench's Westerns,which interprets he films of the '50s and '60s froma socio-politicalperspective; and JonTuska's The Filming of the West,whichprovoca-

30Stagecoach (John ord,United rtists,939),he Wore a YellowRibbon (Ford,RKO,1949), heSearchersFord,Warners, 956).There s a wealth fmaterialn Ford,but orthree fthebestvolumes,eeJosephMcBride nd MichaelWilmington,ohn ord NewYork: Da Capo Press, 1975); J.A. Place, The Western ilms of JohnFord (Secaucus, N.J.:CitadelPress,1973); ndAndrew dr-ris,he John ordMovieMysteryBloomington:IndianaUniv.Press, 1975).31 Ride theHigh CountrySam Peckinpah, GM, 1962), allad of Cable Hogue (Peckin-pah, Warners,970),The Wild unch Peckinpah,Warners,969). ee Chapter , "SamPeckinpah: he Savage Eye" in Jim itses'keyvolume, orizonsWest:Anthony ann,Budd Boetticher, am Peckinpah: Studies ofAuthorshipWithin he Western,Cinema OneSeriesBloomington:ndianaUniv.Press,1969), 39-73; ndPaulSeydor,eckinpah: heWestern ilms Champaign: niv.of llinois ress, 1979).32 TheShootist Don Siegel,Paramount,976).33 McCabe and Mrs. Miller Robert ltman,Warners,971), uffaloBill and the ndians,orSittingull'sHistory esson Altman,nited rtists,976). or he creenplay,eeAlan

Rudolph and RobertAltman, uffaloBill and the ndians, or SittingBull's HistoryLesson,suggestedyArthur opit's tageplay,ndians New York:Bantam ooks,1976). ee alsoRobertWarshow,MovieChronicle: he Westerner,"n The mmediate xperienceNewYork:Atheneum,971), 35-54;Andre azin,"The Western:r theAmericanilm arexcellence" nd TheEvolutionf heWestern"nWhats Cinema?Vol. 2, trans. yHughGrayBerkeley: niv. fCaliforniaress, 971), 40-57; ndRichard. Slotkin,egenera-tion ThroughViolence:TheMythology f theAmericanFrontierMiddletown,Conn.: Wes-leyanUniv.Press, 1973).



13/22

Film as American Culture 291tively ncorporates hedevelopmental nd economichistory fthegenrewithdiscussions ofsuch legendary igures s Billy the Kid, Jesse James,and Gen. George Armstrong uster.34As well as animatingamiliar mericanmythology, merican ilms lsomore generally rovide a literaturewhich explores withvarying egreesof transparency)pervasive American preoccupations. American filmshave both covertly nd overtly onfronted he tensions nherent n ourconcept of personal success and its paradoxical suspensionof two con-tradictorympulses-one democratic, thical,social, and work-oriented,the other elitist,pragmatic, ndividualistic, nd reward-oriented. hisparadox is covertly ramatized nd resolved nthe gangster ilm, genrewhichflourished n theearly 1930sand made iconic figures f Edward G.Robinsonand JamesCagney, iterally ittlemen gutsy nd smart noughtomake theirway tothe top of an illegal,butcorporate, tructure. obertWarshow has cogentlyobserved the gangster'srise and fall as a veryAmerican tragedy f success, and the genre's thematic ignificance ndvisual iconography as attracted good deal of fascinatingcholarship.35Personal success inAmericanfilmhas also been treatedovertly-as, forinstance,the majortheme of directorMichael Ritchie DownhillRacer,The Candidate, Smile, and The Bad News Bears), or in the unsettlingcinema veritWook at a teamofdoor-to-door ible salesmen ndocumen-taristsAlbertand David Maysles' Salesmen.36 Thus, like novels, shortstories,plays, poems, and essays, films are a mediumthroughwhichstoriesare told and the moods and images ofAmerica givenshape andspecific rticulation.As a form fAmerican iterature, ilmsreflectn adeceptively ffortless aythenightmarenddream magerywhich s part

34 See Calder'sThere Must Be a Lone Ranger andCawelti'sThe Six-GunMystique,Wright's ix Gunsand Society,and Kitses' HorizonsWest. See also Diana SerraCary, TheHollywoodPosse: The Story of a Gallant Band ofHorsemen Who Made Movie History(Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 975); Philip French,Westerns:Aspects of a Movie Genre,Cinema ne Series NewYork:Oxford niv.Press,1977);Jon uska,TheFilming ftheWest New York:Doubleday, 976). n addition,or fine election fessayson theWestern,eeJackNachbar, d.,Focus ontheWesternEnglewood liffs, .J.:Prentice-Hall, 1974).35 See RobertWarshow,TheGangsters TragicHero,"inThe mmediatexperience(NewYork:Atheneum,971),127-33;ColinMcArthur,nderworldSA,CinemaOneSeries (New York: Viking,1972); Eugene Rosow, Born to Lose: The Gangster Film inAmericaNewYork:Oxford niv.Press.1978); ndJack hadoian, reams ndDeadEnds: The AmericanGangsterlCrimeFilm (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977).36 Downhill acer MichaelRitchie,aramount,969), heCandidateRitchie,Warners,1972),mileRitchie, nited rtists,975), heBad NewsBears Ritchie,aramount976);Salesmen Albert nd David Maysles,1969).For an excellent iscussion fAmericancinema verit6 in general and of the Maysleses in particular, see StephenMamber,Cinema Verite n America: Studies in UncontrolledDocumentary Cambridge:MITPress,1974).



14/22

292 American Quarterlyof our aesthetic and culturalheritage-a precious quality of the cinemaappreciated n Barbara Deming's RunningAway From Myself:A DreamPortraitof America Drawn fromthe Films of the 40's,37 nd in all of theodd but often precisely appropriate somnambulent film criticism ofParkerTyler.38While scholarship ndcriticism nfilm nd literaturere abundant, hesame cannot be said offilm nd fine rts. Except forhistorical nd criticalstudies of the American avant-garde, xperimental,underground, ndindependent film terms used both synonymously nd to distinguishnuances of formal, tructural,deological emphases andmeans ofproduc-tion), ittle pecific ttention as been paid to thoseimpulses, echniques,and effectswhichthe motionpicture hares withpainting, culpture, ol-lage, and architecture. ited earlier,P. Adams Sitney's Visionary ilm isespeciallyuseful n this ontext s itdrawsparallelsbetweentheromanticand structural oncernsof American vant-garde ilmmakersnd roman-tic American poetryand abstract expressionistAmerican painting.39However, outside of some briefdiscussion n works whichfocuson filmaesthetics, he only book-length onsideration f film s a fine rt as wellas a literary ne) was originally ublishedin 1915.

In The Art of the Moving Picture, Vachel Lindsay speaks of film ssculpture-in-motion,ainting-in-motion,nd architecture-in-motion,ndmakes specific comparisonsbetween films nd works of fine nd plasticart.40 therwise, he relationship etweenfilm nd othervisual and designartshas been largely gnored. t is telling, or nstance, thatwhile therehas been some interest n the styles and use of design and architecturewithinHollywood films, he scant literature here s tends to emphasizethemechanics ofset designor its history, sually although,happily,notalways) isolating he art director romvisual traditions nd influences ntheculture fwhichhe is a part. t is finallyeft o the reader, ided by theplentiful ketches and photographs rovided n a volume like Caligari's37 Barbara Deming, RunningAway fromMyself:A Dream Portraitof America Drawnfrom the Films of the 40's (New York: Grossman,1969).38 See, in order ftheir riginal ublication:arker yler, heHollywood allucination(1944; pt.New York: imon ndSchuster, 970);Magic ndMyth f heMovies 1947; pt.New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970); TheThreeFaces of the Film: The Art, he Dream,

the Cult 1960; rpt.South Brunswick,N.J.: A.S. Barnes, 1967); Sex, Psyche,Etcetera n theFilm (New York: Horizon Press, 1969); andThe Shadow of an Airplane Climbs the EmpireState Building:A World Theoryof Film (New York: Doubleday, 1973).39 Sitney, isionaryilm.Also seeGregoryattock, d., TheNewAmericaninema:ACriticalAnthology New York: Dutton, 1967)andSitney, d., TheEssential Cinema: Essayson the Films in the Collection of Anthology ilmArchives,1 New York: New York Univ.Press,1975).40 Vachel indsay, heArt f heMoving icture1915; pt.NewYork:Liveright,970).



15/22

Film as American Culture 293Cabinet and Other Grand llusions, to integrate ilmdesign with rthis-tory.41 rchitecture f the motionpicturepalace has fared bit better, tleast receiving overt treatment n Ben M. Hall's The Best RemainingSeats and Dennis Sharp's The PicturePalace.42 The challengestill re-mains: to relate thevisual world offilm o canvas and architecturen theculture.Why not, as an innovative olleague suggested, ook at the com-positionof space in urban films n relation o major architectural tylesfrom ouis Sullivanto Louis Kahn, or at a filmike On theWaterfrontnrelation opaintings rom heAsh Can School or tothe workof Ben ShahnandRobertRauschenberg?43 his is an area in whichAmerican tudies swell able to enrichFilm Studies.

FILM AND HISTORYAs one British ritic ppreciates, n orderto understand he history ffilm nd the significance ffilm o history as well as to national ulture),... we haveto enquire ow tsdiscourses re produced nd consumed, ywhom,what lace do theyhave nthe otalityfsocial relations,owdo theworlds hesediscourses onstructepresentnd nterprethematerial orld;whatrelation o they ear to human ctivityoth s theexpressionf thatactivity nd as an informantf t?44

Americanfilmdoes not merelyhave a history-it also is history.Moviesare a continuous nscriptionnd interpretationf Americanexperiencethrough ime and in theworld. Films are traces of specificmoments nspecific paces mediatedbyhumanbeingswho are alwaysculture-bound.No matterwhat their orm, ll films re constitutedhrough mages bothvisual and aural), and those images are, finally, nly images chosen bypeople. The fiction ilm, herefore,s not as superfluous, nreliable,oruninformatives the casual observermight hink, or s thedocumentary

41 L&onBarsacq, Caligari's Cabinet and OtherGrand llusions:A History f FilmDesign,trans.by Michael Bullock, ed. by ElliottStein Boston: New York GraphicSociety/Little,Brown, 1976). See also MaryCorliss and Carlos Clarens, "Designed forFilm: The Hol-lywood ArtDirector," Film Comment, 14 (May-June 1978), 27-58.42 Ben M. Hall, TheBestRemainingSeats: GoldenAge of theMovie Palace (New York:C.N. Potter, 1961); Dennis Sharp, The PicturePalace And OtherBuildings ortheMovies(New York: F.A. Praeger, 1969). See also ElliottStein, "An Acre of Seats in a GardenofDreams," Film Comment, 15 (March-April 1979), 32-51.43 On the WaterfrontElia Kazan, Columbia, 1954). See KennethHey, "Films and Re-gionalCulture:UnitsforStudywithFilmsandThematicMaterial," a syllabusfiledwith heNational Faculty of the AmericanStudies Association.44 Richard Collins, "Revaluations," Screen Education, 22 (Spring 1977), 36.



16/22

294 American Quarterlyas inherentlyhistorical or objective.45All films, whether fiction ordocumentary, resentthemselvesto the historian ordual service: theyare bothhistorical ocuments nd interpretive istories.How they re tobe used depends not onlyupon the historian'sfamiliarity ith film an-guage, but also upon certain methodological hoices and underlying s-sumptions bout the nature of filmand its history.It might eem, forexample, an eminently easonablerecommendationthat he readerbeginwithone of the generalhistorical urveysofAmeri-can film uch as Peter Cowie's Hollywood1920-1970, Charles Higham'sTheArtof theAmericanFilm, Lewis Jacobs' excellent The Rise oftheAmerican Film and, to bring hings p to date, Axel Madsen's The NewHollywoodorJamesMonaco's AmericanFilmNow.46 Despite theworthof thevolumesthemselves, hisrecommendations based on someques-tionable ssumptions.One is that he history fAmericanfilm sprimarilya history f significantrtists nd significant ilms. t would be just asrelevant o the medium nd its development o direct he readerto indus-trial and technologicalhistoriessuch as Tino Balio's anthology, TheAmericanFilmIndustry,Michael Conant's extraordinary ntitrustn theMotion Picture Industry, and the special issues on economic andtechnologicalhistory ecently ffered yCinema Journal andJournalofthe University ilmAssociation.47Or the emphasis could be shifted osocial history, s it s inRobertSklar's Movie-Made America, LawrenceAlloway's Violent America: The Movies 1946-1964, or ArthurF.McClure's anthology,The Movies: An American Idiom.48Another as-sumptionunderlying ll these recommendations s just as important o

45 See, forexample,Charles J.Maland, AmericanVisions: The Films ofChaplin, Ford,Capra, and Welles, 1936-1941,Dissertationson Film (New York: Arno Press, 1977) andRichardDyer MacCann, The People's Films: A Political History f U.S. GovernmentMo-tionPictures (New York: Hastings House, 1973)46 Frank Cowie, Hollywood 1920-1970 (Cranbury, N.J.: A.S. Barnes, 1977); CharlesHigham,The Art of theAmericanFilm (New York: Doubleday, 1973); Lewis Jacobs, TheRise of the AmericanFilm; A Critical History,with n Essay: ExperimentalCinema inAmerica, 1921-1947 (New York: Teachers College Press, 1975); Axel Madsen, The NewHollywood: AmericanMovies in the '70s (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1975); JamesMonaco,AmericanFilm Now: ThePeople, ThePower, TheMohey,The Movies (New York:Oxford Univ. Press, 1979).47 Tino Balio, ed., The AmericanFilm Industry Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press,1976), Michael Conant, Antitrust n the Motion Picture Industry:Econo'mic and Legal

Analysis 1960; rpt New York: ArnoPress, 1978);"Economic andTechnologicalHistory,"ed. byDouglas Gomery ndRobertC. Allen,CinemaJournal,18 Spring 1979); Economicand IndustryHistoryofthe AmericanFilm," ed. byJeanneThomas Allen,TheJournalofthe University ilm Association, 31 (Spring 1979).48 Sklar, Movie-Made America; Lawrence Alloway, ViolentAmerica: TheMovies 1946-1964 New York: MuseumofModernArt nd New YorkGraphicSociety, 1971);Arthur .McClure, TheMovies: An American diom, Readings in the Social History f theAmericanMotion Picture (Rutherford, .J.: FairleighDickenson Univ. Press, 1971).



17/22

Film as American Culture 295consider and possibly reject): thatthe studyof Americanfilmhistorysan isolationistenterprise, n no need of world filmhistory o provide acontextwithinwhichuniquelyAmerican ventscan be seenas uniqueandAmerican.The problem f nterpretationhich hecinema poses to the historiansalso considerable. What sort ofdocument s film nd what does it docu-ment? What distinctions, f any, need be maderbetween newsreels,documentaries, nd featurenarrativefilms s cinematic documents? sone form f film ny ess mediated han nother? f, naddition o readingseveral of thehistoriesmentionedbove, one specifically eeks outworkslike Erik Barnouw's Documentary:A Historyof the Non-FictionFilm,Richard Meram Barsam's anthology, Non-Fiction Film Theory andCriticism, nd Lewis Jacobs' chronologically-arrangedollection,TheDocumentaryTradition, t quicklybecomes apparent hat he inedividingfactual films and fictionfilms s sometimes barely visible.49One canlegitimatelyuestion, for nstance, f t is any more historically sefulorinstructiveounderstand mericannvolvementnWorldWar orWorldWarII through nalysesof the history, roduction, nd reception fnewsreelsand documentaries r throughnalyses of feature ilmsmade during ndabout those wars.50 uch issues are raised and answered nseveralworksofcrucial mportance o the historianwho would use film orresearch ndpedagogicalpurposes,mostrecent mongthem hepreviouslymentionedanthology, mericanHistory/Americanilm: InterpretingheHollywoodImage. Although tfocuses primarilyn the documentary, he Historianand Film is a general "manifesto"recognizing ilm s rawmaterial,his-torical evidence, historicalfactor,and as a means of interpretingndteachinghistory.And "Flashback: Filmsand History" (an entire pecialissue of Cultures)contains a collection of provocativetheoretical ssayson history nd world cinema.5' n the attervolume,one historianwhose

49Erik Barnouw,Documentary:A Historyofthe Non-FictionFilm (New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 1974);Richard MeramBarsam,Non-FictionFilm Theory nd CriticismNewYork: Dutton,1976);Lewis Jacobs,TheDocumentaryTradition, nd ed. (New York:W. W.Norton, 1979).50 On newsreelsand documentaries, ee Thomas WilliamBohn, An Historical and De-scriptiveAnalysis of the "Why WeFight" Series, Dissertations n Film New York: ArnoPress, 1977); RaymondFielding, The AmericanNewsreel 1911-1967 (Norman: Univ. of

OklahomaPress, 1978);Winifred ohnston,Memo on theMovies: WarPropaganda 1914-1939 Norman:Cooperative Books, 1939); andRichardMaynard, d., Propaganda onFilm:A Nation at War (Rochelle Park, N.J.: Hayden Books, 1975). On war infeature ilms, eeTom Perlmutter,War Movies (New York: Castle Books, 1974); Russell Earl Shain, AnAnalysisofMotionPicturesAbout WarReleased by theAmericanFilm ndustry, 939-1970(New York: ArnoPress, 1976); and Suid, Guts and Glory.51 AmericanHistory/Americanilm. Paul Smith, d., TheHistorian nd Film New York:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1976); "Flashback: Films and History," Cultures,2 (1974).



18/22

296 American Quarterlyaim is to develop a theory f thefilmdocument ddresses a major ssuewhen he states:

. . we must bandon he naiveand dangerousssumptionhat here s a'uniquegenre"offilm ocument hich s simply dapted o theprecise ndcontradictoryequirementsf cientists,eachers, oets nd uthorsfhistori-cal accounts. he cinematographicocumentsnot fabulous nicorn.t sanarray fgenres, ach one differentnduseful n tsownway, ach havingheright,fnot heduty,o follow tsownprinciplesfselectionnd presentationof historicalmaterial.52Given the equal historical ignificance f documentarynd feature ilms,interdisciplinarycholarsare able to approach a particular eriodor areaof Americanpoliticalor social historywith ll of cinema the films nd theliterature) t theirdisposal.Consider,for xample,thepolitical nd economicturmoiln the UnitedStates in the early 1930s, fromthe end of the Hoover administrationthroughRoosevelt's first erm.Alongwith ll the traditionalwrittenndvisual material suallyconsultedon the period,a feature ilm ike GabrielOverthe WhiteHouse can also be a legitimatend telling ocument.Forone thing,WilliamRandolphHearst, who was mostresponsiblefor tsproduction,nfluenced oliticsand the course of America n thoseyears.For another, hefilmwas taken seriouslyby the publicdespite ts bizarreplot. In this film, playboy-bachelor, hrough romisesof political pa-tronage, s elected Presidentof the United States. Oblivious or simplycontemptuous f the economicmisery roundhim,heplaysin office ntilhe is fatally njured n an automobileaccidentofhis own making.How-ever,he is miraculously evivedbyan unseenangelGabriel to become abenevolentand absolute dictator-tacticallya Hitler,but in theheartacombination fTeddy Roosevelt and AbrahamLincoln. Beforehis bor-rowedtime s up, he solves America's problemsby declaring nationalemergency, djourningCongress, and setting p a ruthlesspolice forcewhichguns downuncooperativemobsters.He creates obs through ublicworksprogramsthistwoyearsprior o theW.P.A.), and finallychievesworldpeace by demanding hatforeignwar debts be recalled and thatotherpowersdisarmvoluntarilyr face obliteration.Although et inthefuture, 941, the 1933film ffers he historian wealthof material boutitsownperiod.53 nd Gabriel is as relevant o a study f the1930sas Pare

52 ZbigniewCzeczot-Gawrak, Notes on a GeneralTheoryof the Film Document," trans.by M.F. M&traux,Cultures, 2 (1974), 246.53 Gabriel Over the WhiteHouse (GregoryLaCava, MGM, 1933). For more on thefilm,see Robert L. McConnell, "The Genesis and Ideology of GabrielOverthe WhiteHouse,"Cinema Journal,15 Spring1976),7-26; and AndrewBergman,We're n theMoney,110-20.



19/22

Film as AmericanCulture 297Lorentz's The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936), photographs byWalker Evans and Dorothea Lange, or James Agee's Let Us NowPraise Famous Men. Screeningperiodfilms an be a heuristic nterprisethat tretches arbeyond the llustrativeervicewhichfilmshave usuallyprovided the historian.The scholarly iterature, oth in directionandscope, offers guideto theselection ofparticular ilms r kindsoffilmsthehistorianmight ookat. Thereare, for xample, thedifferingmphasesof Paul W. Facey's The Legion ofDecency (whichbegan its period ofinfluence n 1933), and JeffreyMortonPaine's The SimplificationofAmericanLife-HollywoodFilms of the 1930s. And there are primarydocuments uch as thePayne Fund Studies,which n 1933publishedtheresultsofbehavioral research ntothe influence fmovies on Americanchildren, s wellas itsdetailed ndnegative ritiqueby Mortimer . AdlerinArtand Prudence: A Study in Practical Philosophy.54This brief laborationofthepossibilitieswhichfilms nd film cholar-ship offer hesocial andpoliticalhistorian s meantto be suggestive.Onecould approach a thematic tudyofcensorship n the UnitedStates in asimilarway, lookingperhaps at Ira H. Carmen's Movies, Censorship ndtheLaw andRichardS. Randall's Censorship ftheMovies, and atrepre-sentative films rangingfrom a sophisticated silent work like vonStroheim'sFoolish Wivesand thepre-Production ode Red Dust (withJean Harlow and ClarkGable) to thepresent.55 r one could approach aspecific subject like the House Un-American Activities Committeethrough ilm.There is a great deal ofmaterial vailable, butparticularlyinterestingre AlvahBessie's Inquisition nEden, a "scripted" explora-tionofHUAC from 943-1951, ndJohnCogley'sReportonBlacklisting,a chronologicalpresentation f the 1947hearings, abor strikes, nd the1951 hearings,with an appendix which considers the content of filmsmade by the"Unfriendly en." Gordon Kahn's Hollywood on Trial is acontemporaneous ccount of the hearings, nd ThoughtControl n theU.S.A. is a fascinatingompilation ftranscripts rom Hollywood con-ferenceheld nJuly f1947-three months rior o theofficial tart f the

54 Paul W. Fucey, TheLegion of Decency: A Sociological AnalysisoftheEmergence andDevelopment of a Social Pressure Group,Dissertations n Film (New York: ArnoPress,1974); Jeffrey ortonPaine, The Simplificationf American Life: Hollywood Films of the1930's (New York: Arno Press, 1977); MortimerAdler, Art and Prudence: A Study inPractical Philosophy 1937; rpt.New York: ArnoPress, 1978). Also separate volumes ofthePaine Fund Series have been reprinted y ArnoPress; fortitles,writeArno Press, 3 ParkAvenue, New York, New York 10016.

55 Ira H. Carmen,Movies, Censorship nd theLaw (Ann Arbor: Univ. of MichiganPress,1967); Richard S. Randall,Censorshipof theMovies: The Social and Political ControlofaMass Medium (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1968); Foolish Wives (Erich vonStroheim,Universal, 1921); Red Dust (Victor Fleming, MGM, 1932).



20/22

298 AmericanQuarterlyhearings-to discuss the possibility f an "unwarranted ntrusion" ntothe industry's reativeprocesses. Relevant filmswould includenot onlyworkbyartistsdirectlynvolved nthe proceedings,but also filmswhichcan be read as a commentarynthe hearings nd onthebehaviorofthosewho supported or repudiatedHUAC.56The integral onnectionbetween film nd social history s already rec-ognized by those particularlynterestedn groups withinAmericansoci-ety who suffer olitically nd economically.Film's immensepopularity,its subtlepowers of persuasion, ts ability o perpetuate nd alterculturalstereotypes, ts graphic historicalevidence of social attitudes-all ofthese factorshave been the object of examination y scholars ooking tthe experiences of black Americans, American women, and NativeAmericans.Thomas Cripps' key contributionso research on the partici-pation ofblack Americans n the history f bothmainstreamnd alterna-tive Americancinema (Slow Fade to Black and Black Film as Genre)have beenpreviously ited. The reader s also directed o Donald Bogle'sToms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies and Bucks . . ., Daniel J. Leab'sFrom Sambo to Superspade: The Black Experience inMotionPictures,LindsayPatterson's singular nd fascinatingnthology, lack Films andFilm-Makers,and Henry T. Sampson's highlyuseful source book onblack films,filmmakers, erformers,nd artisans,Blacks in Black andWhite.57The literature n Women's Studies is comparablyrich, although tsfocusgenerally endsto emphasizeon-screen magesofwomen,often tthe expense of considering heiroff-screen resence in the productionhistory f Americancinema. MollyHaskell's FromReverence to Rapeand Marjorie Rosen's Popcorn Venus trace the history of femalestereotypes n Americanmovies,while Karen Kay and Gerald Peary'scritical anthology,Women and the Cinema, provides a complementaryrange ofessays on womenfilmmakerss well as women performersndtheir n-screen mages.More narrowly ocused,BrandonFrench's On the

56 Alvah Bessie, Inquisition n Eden (New York: Macmillan,1965); JohnCogley, Reporton Blacklisting1956; rpt.New York: ArnoPress, 1976); GordonKahn, Hollywoodon Trial:The Storyofthe Ten Who Were ndicted 1948; rpt. New York: ArnoPress, 1976); Kahn,ThoughtControl n the U.S.A. (1947; rpt. New York: GarlandPress, 1976). For filmswhichcomment ndirectly n the hearings, ee, for example,Force ofEvil (AbraittmPolonsky,Warners,1948) and High Noon (Fred Zinnemann,United Artists, 1952).

57 Cripps,Slow Fade to Black and Black Film as Genre; Donald Bogle, Toms, Coons,Mulattoes, Mammies and Bucks . . . (New York: Viking, 1973); From Sambo toSuperspade: The Black Experience in MotionPictures (Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 976);Lindsay Patterson, d., Black Films and Film-Makers:A ComprehensiveAnthology romStereotype o Superhero (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1975); HenryT. Sampson, Blacks inBlack and White:A Source Book on Black Films (Metuchen,N.J.: ScarecrowPress, 1977).



21/22

Film as American Culture 299Verge fRevolt resentsnexplorationfthe hangingcreen mages fdissatisfied omen uringhe1950s, ndE. AnnKaplan'sWomennFilmNoirrigorouslyeconstructshe mage fwoman s it ppearsna groupoffilms dentified ith he post-war 940s nd early1950s.Althoughidiosyncraticallyrranged,RosemaryRibichKowalski's annotatedWomen nd Film: A Bibliography s also recommended or ts citations fliteraturen women nthe inema s performers,ilmmakers,ritics,ndscholars, s wellas on imagesof women n film.58Unfortunately,ook-lengthtudies f heNativeAmericanndfilm restillrare. Ralph Friar and Natasha Friar's TheOnly Good Indian . .. TheHollywood ospeloffersninterestingulti-mediapproach othedualstereotypesf heAmericanndian s noble avage ndvicious rimitive.GretchenM. Bataille nd CharlesL.P. Silet's The Pretend ndians: m-ages oftheNative Americans n the Movies brings ogether heir lreadyconsiderableesearch n the ubject,omeofwhich asappearednfilmperiodicals. arge portionsf JonTuska's TheFilming fthe West ndPhilip rench'sWesternsbothpreviouslyited) re also extremelyse-ful.59 owever, hemost riticalmaterial n Hollywood's imited isionofNativeAmericans,tshomogenizationnd bastardizationfdistinctcultures,tsmanipulationfstereotypicalmages however ympathetic)to suitAnglo eeds, s to be foundnperiodicals hich renot he ocus fthepresent ssay. nterestedeadershould ontactheSyllabus ankoftheAmerican ilm nstitute's ational ducational ervices ndrequestthe mpressive Course File: ImagesofNative Americansn PopularFilm"prepared y JackNachbar nd MichaelT. Marsden; hefile on-tains not onlya wide-ranging ibliographyut also a selectionofdocumentarynd featureilms hat panboth ime ndstereotypes.60

58 Molly Haskell, FromReverence to Rape: TheTreatment f Women ntheMovies (NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974); Marjorie Rosen, Popcorn Venus: Women,Movies, and theAmericanDream (New York: Avon, 1973); Karen Kay and GeraldPeary,Women and the Cinema: A Critical Anthology New York: E.P. Dutton, 1977); BrandonFrench, On the Verge ofRevolt: Women n theAmerican Films of theFifties New York:Ungar, 1978); E. AnnKaplan, Women n Film Noir (London: BritishFilmInstitute, 978).Film noir s also characterized y its dark visual style ndtawdry ituations ndcharacters;RosemaryRibich Kowalski,Woman and Film: A Bibliography Metuchen,N.J.: ScarecrowPress, 1976).59Ralph and Natasha Friar,The OnlyGood Indian ... The HollywoodGospel (New York:Drama Book Specialists, 1972); GretchenM. Bataille and Charles L.P. Silet,The PretendIndians: Images of theNative Americans in theMovies (Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press,1980); Tuska, The Filmingof the Westand French,Westerns.See also Charles L.P. SiletandGretchenM. Bataille, "The Indian nthe Film:A Critical urvey,"Quarterly eviewofFilm Studies, 2 (February 1977), 56-74.

60 Write o SyllabusBank, National Education Services, American FilmInstitute,Ken-nedy Center, Washington,D.C. 20566. Informationn other areas of interest an also berequested.



22/22

300 American QuarterlyAt thispoint, hope t s obvious hat heways n which ilmStudiescan profitablynteract ithAmericantudies re so plentifuls topro-

vokeboth xcitementnd caution n the cholarwhowoulddo ustice othedemands fboth.Onemust igest he elevantiteraturef wofields.One must earn new anguage, newwayof eeingndreading,norderto raise the film extbeyond tsusual status s a visual aid. Andoneshould ee a greatmany ilms, pleasure s well as a charge. hese arethechallenges hich acetheAmerican tudies cholar nd whichmustbe met.Thecinema oesn't ust llustrateuthas been and s Americanart,history,olitics, ulture,nd nstitutionrom 895 o thepresent.tdoes not seem too strong o say thatwithout he inclusion f film,American tudies s notstudying merica.61

61 A selection ofhelpful eferenceworksare Linda Batty,Retrospective ndex to FilmPeriodicals 1930-1971 (New York: R.R. Bowker, 1975);Educational FilmLocator of theConsortiumof University ilm Centers and R.R. Bowker Company (New York: R.R.Bowker,1978); JohnC. Gerlach and Lana Gerlach,TheCritical ndex (New York: TeachersCollege Press, 1974);RichardDyerMacCann and Edward S. Perry,TheNew Film ndex:ABibliography fMagazine Articles nEnglish, 1930-1970 (New York: E.P. "Dutton,1975);Frank Manchel, Film Study: A Resource Guide (Rutherford,N.J.: FairleignDickinsonPress, 1973); Linda Harris Mehr, Motion Pictures. Television and Radio: A UnionCatalogue of Manuscriptand Special Collections in the WesternUnitedStates (Boston:G. K. Hall, 1977);Kemp R. NiverandBebe Bergsten,ds.,MotionPictures romtheLibraryofCongressPaper PrintCollection1894-1912 (Berkeley:Univ. ofCaliforniaPress, 1967);Olga S. Weber,NorthAmerican Filmand VideoDirectory:A Guide toMedia Collectionsand Services, rev. ed. (New York: R.R. Bowker, 1976);and ChristopherWheaton,PrimaryCinema Resources (Boston: G.K. Hall, 1975).

Documents

American Film as American Culture