Of course, there are two exceptions: _Gone with the Wind_ and _The Wizard of Oz_, the former coming out next month, the latter around Christmas; they even showed the commercial for the theatrical reissue (notine its remastering) of _Gone with the Wind_ (and since I've never seen but bits and pieces of it, it might be the best time). Scott On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Kino International Corporation wrote: > Thought I would cross post this > > The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 12, 1998, page B8 > > A Eulogy for Hollywood Cinema > By Robert C. Allen > > Even though I've taught American film history for the past 20 years or > so (or maybe because of that fact), I won't be among the tens of > millions of people the American Film Institute hopes will be watching a > three-hour CBS special on June 16, during which Brooke Shields, > Sylvester Stallone, Ben Stiller, and other Hollywood legends will > announce the institute's definitive list of America's 100 Greatest > Movies (check your local listings for time and station). > > By the same token, I won't be joining many of my colleagues in academic > cinema studies the following morning when they zip off e-mail screeds to > the cinema-studies listservs denouncing the A.F.I. for producing a list > that is transparently self-serving, excludes all documentaries and > experimental films and almost all independent feature films, and just > happens to coincide with the release of the winning 100 films on video > by the Hollywood studios that collaborated with the A.F.I. to produce > the list. > > There is so much to dislike about this whole enterprise that I'm sure my > e-mail rant won't be missed. Maybe I could muster more of a sense of > professional and moral outrage if the whole thing weren't so > predictable, given the A.F.I.'s well-known (at least within film > studies) and long-standing commitment to cheerleading for Hollywood. > > Even though you'll have to wait until next week for the institute's > blue-ribbon panel of experts to tell you whether the films you most like > are really good or not, you can already find out which films _won't_ > make the list. The institute's World-Wide Web site > (http://afi.100movies.com/) provides a list of the 400 American films > from which the winners were chosen. That larger list was culled, we are > assured, by A.F.I. historians, whose chief criterion was that all the > films be feature-length (that is, more than 60 minutes) fictional > narratives. > > The list therefore excludes all documentaries and non-narrative films, > and- because the feature film did not become standard until the 1910s- > virtually all of American film history before 1912. 1 guess calling the > television special The A.F.I. Presents One Way You Might Choose What Are > Arguably the Best 100 American Feature-Length, Fictional, Narrative > Films Made Since 1912 wouldn't fit in the TV Guide listing. > > The criteria seem also to exclude all films not made in English, but > they do not exclude films made outside the United States, as long as > they involved significant creative elements and/or financial support > from this country. This allows the A.F.I. to claim as American such > films as A Clockwork Orange, Chariots of Fire, Tom Jones, and The > English Patient. Those are not hypothetical examples; they are actually > on the Top 400 list. I wonder: Will the Japanese Film Institute make > Godzilla (the American Godzilla) eligible for its list of the best 100 > Japanese films of all time because Sony owns the studio that made the > movie? > > Among the other A.F.I. criteria for selecting the Top 100 are a movie's > popularity over time as measured by box-office receipts adjusted for > inflation; revenue from television broadcasts and syndication, as well > as from home-video sales and rentals; and awards from cinema > organizations and major film festivals. I suppose those last two > criteria explain why- according to the A.F.I's list- the first seven > years of the 1990s produced more excellent American movies than were > made between 1912 and 1930: Hollywood didn't get around to serious > self-congratulation until 1927 (the first year of the Oscars), and video > rentals were pretty slow in the silent-film period. This gives Pretty > Woman a real edge. > > The actual selection of the 100 greatest films was made by a > "blue-ribbon panel" made up of "more than 1,500 influential artists and > executives in the film community," the A.F.I. says. The voters included > actors, directors, screenwriters, producers, talent agents- it's a long > list, with "film critics" and "film scholars" appearing near the bottom > and, presumably, accounting for only a handful of the 1,500 voters. If > this contest were a movie, film scholars would appear in the credits > somewhere between "Animals trained by..." and "Any resemblance to any > person living or dead...." To make sure that the judgments of film > scholars didn't weigh too heavily on the outcome, "the public" is > represented by randomly selected A.F.I. "national members"- that is, > subscribers to the institute's magazine- one each from the 50 states and > Washington. And President and Mrs. Clinton and Vice-President and Mrs. > Gore have been invited to vote as well, which the A.F.I. explained was > appropriate "given their roles as leaders of the nation that most > influences the world with its movies." > This is going to give Jay Leno fodder for his monologue on June 16: > "Hey, did any of you catch the CBS special tonight on the Top 100 > American films of the last century? President Clinton was one of the > voters, but, unfortunately, his ballot had to be thrown out: He was > supposed to vote for 100 different films, but he voted for Fatal > Attraction 100 times." > > No doubt, some of my younger cinema-studies colleagues, as well as > academics in other disciplines with an interest in film, will be > incensed by the list's equation of American cinema with mainstream, > commercial, Hollywood film making. Others will understandably resent a > selection process that is the equivalent of asking the Beef Council to > compile a list of the 100 all-time best recipes and that credits film > scholars and talent agents with equal critical acuity. > > What is especially galling to some of my colleagues in film studies who > are old enough to have dealt with the A.F.I. for most of its 30 years is > the prospect of anyone's thinking that the institute's proclamation of > the 100 greatest American films means that it somehow must have earned > the right to speak on behalf of academic film culture in the United > States. Let's just say that most scholars of film would not list > credibility on the Top 10 list of the A.F.I's strongest assets. Many of > us think it wouldn't take a three-hour CBS special to showcase Thirty > Years Of A.F.I. Contributions to Film Culture. > > But I gave up railing against the A.F.I. a decade or so ago. What I find > fascinating about this whole process- the list, its announcement on a > television special, its use as a marketing tool to sell videotapes, its > elaboration as a TNT cable series, and its promotion on a Web site- is > that it can be read as an unintended, but effective, eulogy for the very > form of entertainment that it sets out to celebrate. In other words: > Hollywood cinema is dead. > > Now, before you (and the A.F.I.) start whining that this is > self-evidently not the case, let me explain what I mean. For 80 years- > from roughly 1910 until the late 1980s- the principal business of the > Hollywood film studios was making movies for movie theaters. But by > 1987, non-theatrical, so-called "ancillary markets" provided fully > one-half of studio revenues; by 1990, studios received $3.2-billion from > video sales alone. As late as 1980, domestic box-office receipts > represented 80 per cent of studio revenue; by 1992, the box office was > good for no more than 25 per cent. By the early 1990s, Jack Valenti, the > film industry's long-time chief cheerleader and lobbyist, had started > speaking of theatrical exhibition not as the core business of the film > industry, but rather as a "platform to other markets." > > Of those "other markets," video rentals and sales clearly have become- > forgive the term- paramount, equaling all other sources of revenue > (including that from movie theaters and broadcast, cable, and > pay-per-view television) combined. In 1996, the U. S. box-office take > for domestic films was approximately $5.9-billion. Yet that year, U.S. > consumers spent $8.7-billion renting videos and an additional > $7.6-billion buying recorded videotapes. Theatrical distribution of > movies accounted for only 23 per cent of American movie studios' > domestic revenue that year, while video sales accounted for more than 55 > per cent. > > Furthermore, with the value of licensed merchandise (those Titanic > commemorative plates and Godzilla bedroom slippers) now dwarfing that of > the theatrical-film business, George Lucas is in the product-licensing > business as much as he is in the film-making business. The Star Wars(tm) > films function as part of a complex corporate strategy, the goal of > which is to keep the Star Wars(tm) license viable as a merchandising > asset indefinitely. Each Star Wars(tm) film becomes the basis on which > old licenses for related consumer items can be renewed and from which > new licenses can be harvested. A pajama manufacturer once astutely > assayed An American Tail: Fievel Goes West, an animated film produced by > Steven Spielberg, by saying: "We think American Tail will be strong in > sizes 2-7." > > Increasingly, what film companies (or the companies that operate them) > own as assets are licenses or brands, and what they control, attempt to > control, or leverage is access to the markets where those licenses and > brands can be exploited. They are no longer in the film business or the > television business or even, arguably, the entertainment business but, > rather, in the business of "synergistic brand extension." As Disney's > Michael Eisner put it: "If you don't have synergy, you have nothing but > new products.... If you have synergy, it goes on and on." > > But, obviously, the movies aren't dead, and the first two weeks, > especially, of a motion picture's release to movie theaters continue to > exercise considerable economic and symbolic influence. To stand the > words of the cultural theorist Walter Benjamin on their head, in a way, > what the movies continue to possess as a lingering residue of their > connection with old-fashioned cinema culture is the promise of creating > an aura for products, people, and experience- that is, of elevating them > above the level of the quotidian and the mere commodity. > > Hollywood and the A.F.I. still want to claim that the movies are the > original, authentic experience, in relation to which licensed products > and videotape copies are souvenirs. Or, to put it another way, the > movies desperately try to retain the power to enchant, to transform > human beings into celestial bodies, labor into dream work, agglomerated > corporations into magic factories, the release of run-of-the-mill (if > indictably expensive) movies into "events." This enchantment is the > "value" that is added by the embodiment of a licensable asset in a film > and that distinguishes the A.F.I.'s list of the greatest American films > from a list of the 100 best interstate-highway rest stops. > > The delicious irony, of course, is that a movie theater is the one place > you won't be able to see any of the A.F.I's 100 greatest American films > of the past century. The hype about the list is in support of a tv > special, a cable series, and, most of all, rerelease of these films for > sale on videotape. If you want to catch Citizen Kane as a result of > seeing the A.F.I. special on the 16th, rush to your nearest Wal-Mart, > not your local multiplex. I'll be watching Godzilla in those Taco Bell > commercials. > > Robert C. Allen is a professor of American studies, history, and > communication studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel > Hill. He is the co-author, with Douglas Gomery, of Film History: Theory > and Practice (McGraw-Hill, 1985). > > © 1998 The Chronicle of Higher Education > > Kino International Corporation > 333 W. 39th St. Suite 503 > New York, NY 10018 > (212)629-6880 > fax: (212)714-0871 > > ---- > Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite > http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite > ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite