Miking Spectacle of Tamte:

The Cultvnl Impiicatbnr of the Academy and Genk Awardr

br Giiliin Robe* B.A. (Hoor), MA.

A thesis submitted to

the Faculry of Gduate Studies in @al fultillment of

the requirernents for the degree of

Master of Arts

Carleton University

Ottawa, Ontario

17 Febf~lllt~.ZOO0

0 copyright

2000. Gillian Rob National Libtary Biblioth ue nationale du Cana3 a uisitions and Acquisitions et "IBib iogiiiphic Sewbs services bibliographiques

The autbor has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format élecîronique.

The author rehs ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substafltial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstmct

This study examines the cultural phenornenon of awds shows in relation to the

Hollywood and Canadien nIm industries. The spectacle of the awds shows is a reflectioa of aad reflected in the nIms they celebmte. While both the Ademy and

Genie Awards an impliated in wnst~~ctingthe industries they support, their success in winning the masent of the viewing public differs. The Academy Awards* with the most gloWly recognuod awanls show spectacle, one which upholds middle-brow tastes, conûast sharply with Canada's considerably lower profüe Genie Awds and theit bid to present Canaâian film as a national and art cinema A comparison ofthe Oscars arid the

Genies, and of their Best Picture winners for 1997-Tilonic and ne Sweet Hereafier, nspectively-illuminates the distinctions between Hollywood and Canridian film where both taste and spectacle are concemed. But intersections of the two awds shows, and these two films, complicate the nlationship between the Hollywood and C&an film industries: James Cameron, director of Titanic, is CPnadian; and The Sweet Hereofrer received two Acaderny Award nominations. Thw, the comparison of the Oscm and

Genies reveals a cultural overhp that maintains and exemplifies a dation~hipof interdependence. Many thdato my supuvisor, Percy Wahon, for her tmnendous support and enthusiesm for this project Thanks dso to LqMcDonald for his ûiendiy scepticism. And for their tolemce and good humour, 1 would Iüre to thpaL Lee Carmthers, AMI Greenwooâ, Sheryl OnmKweg, Aüson Halsall, Knsten Schoenhals, Chailes Tepperman, and hhrk T. Thomson. Table of Contenta introduction

Chapter ûne

Al1 that Glitters Shodd Be Oscar: A Taste

for America at the AcaQmy Awards

Chapter Two

Salvaged Specîacle: Titanic and the Oscars

Chapter Three

nie Invisibility Awards: Locating the Genies

Chapter Four

In Titunic's Wake: The Sweet Hereee,

Celebration, and the CdmFilm Industry

Conclusion

Works Cited Introduction

"Why do observas penia in wdting ibout awards as if they shdd mrlre logid mi>=?" -hy ~cott'

This study attempts to glean sorne "sense"-logical or othenvise-from the cuneat awards show phenornenon in popular culture, with a particular focus on its relation to the

Hollywood and Canadian film industries. Awards shows cova a large span of entertainment media, including, but not limited to, fih, television, th-, music, and music video; monover, each medium has several awards shows that celebrate it Whether these awds are bestowed by academy members, the industry as a whole, the public as voters, or the public through sales nurnbers, certain elements are cornmon to virtually every awards show. In essence, each awards cenmony-however opulent, irreverent, or rninirnaiist it might be-fiinctioas as a celebration and promotion of cultural products; this celebration takes the fom of spectacle as nominees and winnen are put on display for the viewing public. Who decides what is worthy ofcelebration and the rhetoric of what is the

"best" invoke issues of taste. And becawe these awards shows typically celebrate people already in the public eye, stars have become a central component of the awds show spectacle.

The expansive ptesence of awards shows lads to the question, "Does anyone actually are about the more than 60 awds shows throughout the year?" (Lindlaw B4).

The protifdon of these spectacles continues, in spite of views that "[tlhe shows themselves kgin to cheapen each othd(qtd. B4). If am& shows are king reaâered invalici by tao much cornpetition, why do they continue to W on tekvision? In a seme, celebration of cultural products kcomes a competition in itseif. for "[als people become more blasé, it becornes more admore imperative to tiy to capture attention with some new Roberts 2 fuss or mothe?' (ptd. 84). The notion of "cheapening" these presentations is evidence of an awarâs show hierarchy, with the Acadcmy Awaids at the top:

The Academy folks tum up their noses at the likes of the Soap Opera Digest

Awards, Pnmiere's Reaâen Pol1 awards, Digital Hollywood Awards and

Television Movie Awards, not to mention the Peoples' Choice Awards or

the Satum Awards honoring science fiction films. (B4) Part of the hierarchy involves what type of culhiral products are king celebrated; for instance, it is no surprise that the Soap Opera Digest Awarâs, celebrating a much-maligned television genre, do not rank anywhere near the Academy Awarâs. But the Soap Opera

Digest Awds are also voted by readers of Smp Opera Digest, thus placing the awds lower on the hierarchy than the Daytime Emmy Awds, which honour the same programmes. In tum, the Daytime Emmy Awards are considerably lower in statu (han their Prime-Time couaterparts.

While vimislly di awarâs shows involve some kind of voting process, there is a tension between this aspect of danocracy and the elitism of celebrating select individuais or worlrs; this tension increases in oompsring awards shows where the public constiMes the vote^ with those where the indu- itself. or a select academy, declares wminees and mers. In general, the public is afKorded less credibility than members of an entertainment industry. In cases where industry members constitute the awards' voting body, *ers ofta clah that the higbest ~OMM has corne fiom their peers; this rhetonc of gratitude must neajsady shift at awards shows such as the People's Choiœ Awds,

*ce fuis an acknowledged for keeping an actot or television programme in business, or for ensuring the box-office success of a particdm nIm. Roberts 3

There is oha disparity ktween awards shows that celebnite the same cultural proâucts, depending on who cotlstitutes the votiag body. This disparity meals ciifferences in taste, which in tum points back to the voters: 'Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier" (Bourdieu 6). Some vothg bodies, such as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, are perceived as more "legitimate" tben others in theu bcstowal of honours; the Academy thus enjoys "[tlhe authorized speech of status-generated cornpetence" (4 13), one that is not granted to the gened viewing public. But the Academy , widely recognized as having rniddle-brow preferences, is not perceived as "legitimate" by its cntics, oRen those with mon art-house or high-brow tastes. In this sense, the Academy's ciassincations, through the Oscars, do indeed classi@ the Acaâemy in relation to taste.

Fuither, the popularity of the Academy Awarâs televised presentation attests to its affinity with the viewing public, at least in tenns of matchiag middle-brow expectations. That the

Acaâemy Awards should celebrate high-profile films and stage a high-profile ceremony underiines the fed that am& shows themselves are cultural products, integral to the circulation of popular culture.

Not surprisingly, then, stars are a fi- of any awards show that can realistically hop for sucass with the television viewing audience. hdeeâ, star power is an aclmowledged cornpoaent of awards show popularity: "People like to watch people.

People like to stargaze" (ptd in 0s- B 1). The fact that am& shows cm be

"essentiaily divided into two categories: the Oscars, and the test" hs a great ded to do with celebnty pmence: "'ïhey mlly depend on pure rnegastar power. The magnitude of the stars overwhelms everydiing else, and in that regard bey Qn't have to do much to get people to watch" (qtd B 1). Celebrity status itselfis in many ways similar to awards shows. Roberts 4

Like awards, which must be voted upon, "[tlhe artificial-maauf~estory [of celebrity] also offers a strange new interplay between hierarchy and egalitarian democracy"; for while celebrity sets stars apart from the public, "stardom is more accessible" tban traditional class status, "since the inbom requirements are fewef' (Gamson 54). Further,

"celebrities are treate!d, ifaot as a traditionai power eh,as an elite with the power to anoint, however briefly" (132); surely, the bestowal of awâs is yet another gesture of anointing those deemed worthy.

Simiiarly, awards shows with star power are damed worthy of watching. Most of the observations made above speak to the awaids show phenomenoa as it is mdestin

American popular culture; what of its Caaadian counterpart? Cornparisons of Cdan and Amencan culture are complicated by the fact that American popuiar culture is virtuaîly the domestic culture of the Cdianviewing public; thus, awards shows in Cmada, celebrating Canadian culture, perform different hctions than their Amencan cousins.

Taste becornes infùsed with a national(ist) urgency in an attempt to prescribe Canadian ideatity to Canridians. Bourdieu analyzes taste according to class and educational distinctions: "Taste is thus the source of the system of distinctive fmtures which cannot fPn to be perceived as a systematic expression ofa particul class of conditions of existence" (175). Taste, thenfore, fonns part of the poject of class dominance. Such a formulation must be somewhat re-articulated when examining the dominance of nations, particularly the perceived cuihiral impaialism ofthe Uniteû States as fat as Caneda is concermed For if taste '%ctions as a sort of social orientation, a 'sense of one's place"'

(467), whst implications does taste have for Candians' self-orientation in ternis of nation?

The popilsr culture co~lsumedby Cuildiaas is overwhelmingly Ameri- thereby Roberts 5 wmplicating the "sense of place" afforded by taste. In this sense, culhiral celebration in

Canada fùnctions to "retuni" Cdmto their own sense of place (if such a sense cm be presupposed to have existed).' Consequently, Canads's "national awards program" not only provides "an incentive for artists to work towards" (Lyons B 1). but it also hnctions to reassure the Cdanviewing public that there is, indeed, somedllng to celebrate about

Canadian cuiture. While these Chanawards shows play a part in the assertion of

Canadian national identity, it is the Arnerican ttadition of the Academy Awarâs that bctions as point of reference for Canadian awards programs, the Genie Awards in particulai. Discussions of Canaâian awards shows, thaefore, cannot take place in isolation; their relationship to Arnerican popular culture is an essential part of the ways in which they operate.

This study focuses on the relationship between Arnerican and Canadian popular culture by specifically examining the Academy and Genie Awarâs. The degree of spectacle in these awards shows is a rrflection of and reflectd in the films they celebrate.

The Academy Awards, the most globally recognized awards show spectacle, contrast shuply with Canada's considerably lower profle film awatds. Titanic and The Sweet

Hereafler, the Oscar and Genie Best Pichve wimers for 1997, provide a case study for furtber exploration of the interdependence of American and Cdanculhite. Aptfrom the vast diffmnces revealed by cornparhg these two awds celebrations and these two fihs, their intersections complicate the relationship between the Hollywood and Canadian film industries: not only is James Cameron, Titanic's director, Caruidian, but The Sweet

Here* was also nominated for Best AdamScreenplay end Best Director at the Roberts 6

Academy Awards. The Oscars' status as point of reference for the film indusüy, then, is qiialified by such intersections.

The first chapter of this study examines the Academy Awards, beginning with the genesis of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Academy's involvemeat in labour disputes. The Academy's vested interests in the Hollywood film industry reveal the Academy Awards to be anythuig but impartial. The Academy's fùnction of guicihg the taste of the viewing public is also explored, with particuiar emphasis on the Oscars' largely middle-brow selections. Taste not ody constitutes a significant part of the Academy Award winners and nominees, but it is also included in the discourse surrounûing the Academy Awards show. which routinely cornes under fire fhm television critics. The Oscar show provides an opportunity for the Academy, and the laiger

Hollywood industry, to project itself to the world, often with a focus on glamour, but such projections are carefiilly constnicted. America also figures in these projections: with a global audience of one billion people, the Academy Awards figure as a spectacular advettisement for American values. But these values and constructions are not alway s coherent, as the various political protests at the Oscars over the yem have suggested.

However unintentionaily, the Academy Amds do pmvide a platforni for multiple and compeîing voices.

The second chapter discusses Jmes Camen>nysTitanicy both on its own terms and in relation to the Acdemy Awards for 1997. The discourse of excess sunoundhg the film encompasses not only its budget and its gross, but also the film's production values and its success at the Acadcmy A&. Wethe fiim portrays the sinking of Titanic in specbcular fuhion, its genre is a hybnd one tbat includes both disaster or action film Roberts 7 elements as well as those of a period piece. This duality of genre in the film complements a duality of gendered nanative, as Titanic vacillates between masculine and ferninine mtives3 Because of Titanic's blockbustef status, it occupies a curious position where taste is concemed; but the film's sanctioning by the Academy Awards, as well as references to visual art within the film's narrative, work to elevate the film's own status.

The glarnour of the Gilded Age depicted in the film inmases Titanic's visual pleasure; in many ways, the Nm is a perfect match for Hollywood's construction of glamour. The film's overwhelming success at the Academy Awarâs suggests that it is the quintessentid

Hollywood film, and its success symbolized Hollywood's reclaiming of the Academy

Awuds &er a year in which independent films were particularly strong; however, James

CamerotlysCanadian birth and citizenship might complicate the equation of Titanic with

American values.

The third cbpter tums to the Canadien film industry with an exploration of the

Genie Awards. The awds' ongins as the Canadian Film Awards are examimd, dong with the status of the film industry as reflected by the awards aad ceremonies themselves.

While fiction fature filmmaking bas had a srnall presence in Canadi*ancinema for most of the twentieth century, the Canadian Film Awards and the Genies nevertheless exhibit emdation of the Academy Awards, which aie almost entirely devoted to fiction feahirrs.

Ironidly. Oscar-emulation exists dongside the CFAs' and Genies' atkmpts to assert a

Canadian culture distinct hmAmerican culture. The celebration of cultural products in

Ca& contribute to an ideological poject: btof constnicting a national identity, oAen in opposition to America In the celebration of Canadian film, this project has taken the form of wnstructing Canadian cinema as a aud art cinema. The Ge&. as a Roberts 8 platfom of celebration, provide much less spectacle than the Academy Awards; the diffetence betwem the two am& ceremonies exemplifies the gap between the Canaàian and Hollywood film industries. But the Genies have been far less consistent in their presentation of the fih industry than have their Amexican counterparts, owhg in part to shifting perceptions of the Caaadian film industry.

The fourth chapter examines Atom Egoyen's The Sweet Hereafter, a film many

Canadian critics have viewed as a pivotal one in the development of English-Canadian fmture filmmaking, one that mi*ghtbe largely responsible for the changing image of

Canaàian cinema. It is the film's two Acaâemy Award nominations, and the global

(parthlady Amencan) recognition implied therein, which have ptedso much status to this film. In contrast, The Sweet Heredter's recognition at the Cannes Film Festival and the Genie Awards has proven much less infîuential. This chapter examines the tilm not only as a text, but also in relation to the Academy and Genie Awarâs, as weli as to Titanic.

Similarities between the two films at the level of narrative include the focus on a traumatic accident and the foregrounding of memory; but the ways in which the films present these narrative ekments provide a great deal of con- The presence of Tilonc and The Sweet

Here- at the awarûs shows that celebrateâ thcm also nveals vast ciifferences between the film industries they have ken said to teptesent; but the f.ct htthese two films intersected at al1 suggests that distinctions aie wt as uacomplicated as they Uiitiaiiy appear. Roberts 9

Notes

1. "Genie nominees cut ties with the piste"Globe and Mail 18 Mar. 1988: C 1.

2. The CBC television slogan, "Television to cali our own," fits neatly into this agenda.

3. 1 use the ternis 'bmasculine"and "ferninine" in their conventionai sense, to refer to nanatives that have been traditionally directed at either male or female spectators. Chpter Che

Ail That Glitters Shouid Be Oscar

A Taste for America at the Academy Awards

Since 1929, the Academy of Motion PicmArts and Sciences has doled out awards for cinema achievement Since 1953, the Academy Awards a~ualpresentation has been televised, allowing the public to look in on "the most glamorous event in the world"

(Egoyan, "Diary" 62). A thorough annlysis of the Ademy Awards mut examine both the am& themselves and the spectacle of the amds pnsentation. Of prime importance is the relationship between the Academy Awards and the film industry; while awards are seemingly bestowed for ieasons of artistic excellence, the Oscars are not, nor have they ever ken, separate fiom indusûy consideratiom. As far as dsticjudgment is concemed, the Academy occupies a position of privilege as it out its hction as cultural monitor: "[t]hrough the Oscar Award, the Academy members firnction as peea. critics. and tastemaken" (Levy 47). That the predominant Academy taste should be middle-brow not ody raiDsesissues of credibility with aitics, but it also implies connections to the ways in which Arnetica would like to see itself in class tenns. Taste arises in discussions of the

Acaâemy Awards presentation as "an international media event" (xiii) as well: Oscar telccasts have been routinely panned by critics the next moming, but continue to figure as an early-spring viewing rituai. The ceremony operates as a spectacle that celebrates the fl spectacle of the nominated films. Osclr night is the night that Holiywd @omis itself, pmjecthg an image of glamour and inclusiveness.

The Oscar show enjoys an annual global audience of one bülion people, thereôy

CO-g "the world as one suponrtiod commULUty" (Levy xüi). The cultural Roberts 11 constructions in which the Acaâemy Awds participate are multiple: the Oscars shape

perceptions of the American film indusüy (ohnlimited to Hollywood poducts); they consûuct 0thnation's cinemas through inclusion or exclusion fiom the world's "most

visibk piue" (xüi); and they contribute to constnictioos of America and its place in the

globaî community. If the Acadzmy Awards constitute "one of the few symbols that stiil

epitomize 'the American Dream'" (xiv), and "are watched on television by people who are

neither American nor moviegoers" (xiii), then the Oscar bctions to promote not just film,

but specifically Amencan film end the American nation itself. The Academy Awds also

shift accordhg to their social context as the Oscar ceremony "epitomizes . . .where show

biz happens to be at that particuiar moment" (Canby ,"Why" 11 1). While political issues

and protests over the years have intruded upon the Academy's desired unified constnictions

of Hollywood, these protests have themxlves borne part of the Oscars' signification. As

the Academy Awards for 1998 demonsüated, unity can be difficult to maintain in the face

of competing voices.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was founded March 19, 1927

"as a nonprofit association" (Levy 1). Described as "the Leagw of Nations of the Motion

Picm indust~~"by Mary Pickford, the Academy was intendad as an b'all-encornpassing

organization" that would fiinction as "a focal point for orbiased judgrnents, coordination

and cool thuilring in the oh-scrambled movie community known as Hollywood"

(Osborne 7). Important elewats of the AMPAS mandate were as follows:

The Academy will take aggressive action in meeting outside attacks that are

unjust. Roberts 12

It will promote harmony and solidarity among the manbership and among the different branches.

It wili adopt such ways and means as are proper to fiirtber the welfare and

pro- the honor and good npute of the profession.

It wiil emrwage the improvement and advancement of the arts and sciences

of the profession by the interchange of constructive ideas and by awards of ment for distinctive achievements.

It will take steps to develop greater power and influence of the screen.

In a worà, the Academy proposes to do for the motion picture profession in

al1 its branches what other great national and international bodies have done

for other arts and sciences industries. (Levy 1)

From its inception, then, the Academy was concemed with the promotion of the film

Uidustry, taking responsibility for defendhg it from cnticism, and expmding the indusüy's power. Attacks bed corne tiom "[clhurch groups [who] charged that the medium foisted hannfiil influences on unsuspecting patrons, and Parent-Teacher Associations [who] criticized Hollywood's preoccupation with addt themes," as wefl as ftom the government, who "often cast a critical eye on Hollyurood, eager to show the moviemakers how to use, or how not to use, their undeniable influence over the masses" (Osborne 7).

The formation of the Academy was not merely an attempt to increase the influence ofthe film industry, but dso to inaerise the Acsdemy's own sway over the industry.

Robert Osborne, author of 65 Years of the Oscar: the Oflctal Histov of the Acuderny

Awards, avoids invoking any ulterior motives on the put of the AMPAS foundas, claiming that the Academy was founded to '&nefit the enth industry, help solve Roberts 13 technologid problems, aid in aibitrathg labr disputes, and assist Will Hays in policing scm content" (9). Not al1 descriptions of the Academy's inception are as uncritical.

Emanuel Levy acknowiedges that "[a] prime motive for the foundation of the Academy was the 1926 unionizaiion of the motion picture industry" since the union agreement did not apply to "the creative groups-cürecton, writen, and actoa" (2). As Anthwy Holden writes, the Academy, largely the "brainchild" of Louis B. Mayer, began as "a thiniy disguised studio pressure group designed to keep Merunionkation at bay" (89).

Osborne explains that "[tlhe Academy was inteaded as an exclusive, invitational organization" (9), and while ''the Academy's smail size has contributed to its prestige"

(Levy 51, such exclusivity hctioned in the early years to keep the Academy's power in the han& of a few.

Such power did not go uncontested by memben of the film indusûy. Although

"[tlhe Academy managed, as fiim historiaru have observeci, 'to forestal1 serious labor organizing arnong the Hollywood artists for over five years"' (Levy 2), talent groups evennially broke away to form their own unions. As Osborne diplomaticaiiy puts it, "the

Academy often became involved in studio problems and mion maners, but such endeavors were nevet its strongest suit" (13). Both the Screen Wntea Guild and Screen Actors Guild were established in 1933, and they denounced the Academy "as a Company union" (Holden

115) in their jointly published, The Screen GuîIciS Magazine. The founding of SAG was jtrompteâ by reactions to the aew regdatory deof the Motion Picnin Cornmittee (of which then-Academy president, J. Theodore Reed, was a mernber):

The poducer-createû code put a ceilhg on the saiaries ofwriter, mors and

âirectors (but not on those of studio executives); demmded that talent agents Roberts 14

had to be licensed by the same producers they would be doing business

with; and declared that artists could not accept bids fkom other studios when

their contracts were up for reaewal until the original studio bid defmitely

decided not to re-hue them. (Wiley and Bona 47)

The Directors Guild was fonned in Jaauary 1936, and complained that 'Wo one cm respect an orgeaization with the hi@-soutlding titie of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and

Sciences which has failed in every single fiuiction it has assumeci" (qtd. in Holden 127).

The guilds boycotted the Academy Awards that year-unsuccessfully, according to then-

Academy president Frank Capra, but successfully according to the guilds themselves

(Holden 130). Osborne notes that "[bly the the the Lirst decade of the Academy of Motion

Picture Arts and Sciences was over, it was completely out of the arbitration businessy'(13).

The Academy aroused suspicion not only in terms of its involvement in labour issues, but also in its granting of annual awards. As Levy notes, "the bestowai of ment awards was only one, mt the most important, goal of the Academy when it was established (1). But whatever Louis Mayer intended when he suggested the formation of

AMPAS to finther the interests of his own studio, the Academy Awards rapidly became an important fixture in the Hollywood film industry. And just as the Academy's handhg of labour issues was viewed as suspect by mernôers of the industry, so were the voting methods for determinhg award recipients. For the first year of the Academy Awarâs, while nominations were maâe by the larger Academy membership, the winners were chosen by "a Central Board of ludgeemade up of one memkr from each branch"

(Osborne 15) of the Academy. Thus, the final decision-making pmcess was exüemely exclusive, even more so than îhe Acadcmy itself. By the burd Academy Awarâs, "both the Roberts 15 nomination procedure and the final voting was doue by the fidi membership" (16). A change in this procedm was effected in 1936, when "the nominations were made by a special Awds Norninating Cornmittee, appointed by Pcesideut Frank Capra, with the finai vote then done by the fidi Academy membership" (16). The Acaâemy's tension bmmen elitism (exclusive mernbership) and democracy (voting on the Academy Awards) elucidates the power struggles within AMPAS and the larger film industry. Because the

Academy 's membership included powemil studio moguis, there were fiequent accusations of block-voting for studio products. Osborne defuses such accusations by declaring that

"[a10 one was more âisappmving of industry pressures-if they really did exist [-1. . . than the Academy itseif" (1 50). But to displace the Academy fiom the industry is disingenuous. Furiher, such a belief is tremendously nave in view of the power and authority associated with the Academy Awards. The studio moguls "held such sway over the voting process" (Holden 183), instmcting their employees in theù voting choices, that

Academy Award selections were anything but unbiased.

Accusations of "politics and log-rolling" (Churchill, "Refoms" X 5) certainly undermined the Academy's crediiility where lack of bias is concemed. The Academy apparently became more dernatatic when, "[fjor the first tirne[,] the voting was open to the rank and file of the indusûy; 10,000 participate&' (Churchill, "Convenes" X 5). This gesture on the part of the Academy was an effort to resolve its 'hiembership crisis"

(Hohlen 219) by including the Plds tbat had been a thom in the Acaâemy's side. The inclusion of "the rank and file of the industry" in the ûscar voting pnness apparently intruduced another compromise of the Academy's credibüity by throwing taste hto question. Since any member of tbe Sem Actors Guild was now eiigible to vote, puzzling Roberts 16 and seemingly unworthy Oscar victories were blamed on %e eirtnis." Regarding the

Academy Awards for 1942, for example, "[tlhe New York WorMTelegram felt that the

4,500 exmu who got to vote on Best Picbue, Best Song and the Acting Awards held an

Unbaiance of power. The paper scofféû, 'That means the actors' tPste prevds. Mrs.

Miniver had the showy quality and nobility dear to any actor's heart'" (Wiley and Bona

13 1). The previous year, the extras were blamed by Dai4 Variety "for electing the popular ballaâ" (l2l), "The Last Time 1 Saw Paris," as Best Song. It seems that the Academy had becorne too democratic for some, as though the extras constituted tasteless groundling

figures who tainted the lofty Academy aspirations. This alleged imbalmce of power in the

extras' favour undermineci the Academy 's exclusivity, and appemed to justiQ the equation

between exclusive membership and credibility; the extras, in effect, becarne the Academy

scapegoats. Beginning with the Academy Awards for 1946, theù inclusion in the voting

process was limited to participation in nominations (Wiley and Bona 164); tbis inclusion came to an end altogether in 1957, when the Academy "dismissed al1 the Hollywood guilds

fiom the voting process, retuming it to Acaderny mernbers only" (Holden 2 19).

Taste is a crucial issue for the Academy and the maintenance of its crediiility. The

Academy Awards constitute "the most popdat and the most prestigious award in the film

wodd" (Levy 3 1); their visibility alone rnakes the Academy effdve as a cultural monitor,

and ailows its judgrnents to stand as declaratioas of taste. invoking Kant, Pierre Bourdieu

defines taste as "an aquired disposition to 'differentiate' and 'appreciate"' (466), but the

Acaâerny's capacity to ciifferdate and appreciate has not gone unchallenged. As Levy

explains, "The Nationai Society of Füm Critics was fouaded in 1%8 as a 'high-brow'

association, to counter the 'middîe-brow' circles whose tastes were coasideted to be tw Roberts 17 similu to the Academy's" (37). Significantly, the National Society of Film Critics was

founded more than a decade &er the screen guilds were excluded fiom the Academy

Awarâs voting process; thus, the Academy has not always been able to deflect criticism onto the extras.

The position of the Academy "as a standard setter" (Levy 2 1) that depends on

midde-brow taste must be examined. According to Bourdieu, middle-brow culture is

primarily conswned by the middle classes; it offers them a middle ground between

accessibility and the avant-garde, as it comprises

accessible versions of avant-garde experirnents or accessible works which

pass for avant-garde experiments, film "adaptations" of classic cirama and

literature, ''popular arrangements" of classical music or "orchestral

versions" of popular tuna, vocal interpretations of classics in a style

evocative of scout chonrres or angelic choirs, in short, everything that goes

to make up "quality " weekiies and "quality " shows, which are entirely

organized to give the impression of bringing legitirnate culture within the

reach of dl, by combining two normally exclusive characteristics,

imrnediate accessibility and the outward signs of cultural legitimacy. (323)

As pceviously stated, one of the Academy's mandates at its inception was to elevate the

status of cinema; the Academy fwictions as a miââlabrow monitor by upholding film as

art-wcuirly îhe films honouisd by the Ademy-while bestowing awards primarily

on Hollywood productions easily accesseâ by the public. But not everyone agreed tha! the

Acaûemy has been a cuituraîly respomible monitor. Douglas W. Churchill alluded to these

cornplaints in 1939, noting that "[s]ome people may be inclinecl to regard the motion- Roberts 18 picture industry with disappointment because t has not taken itself more seriously as an art"; Churchill himself implies that "some people" may be right, as he follows this statement with references to films as the "product" that Hollywood studios "rnanuf8cture"

("Coaveaes" X 5). And since it is largely Hollywood "products," and obn "box-office hits" (Holden 27), ktreap the benefits of the Academy Awards, it would follow that considerations of "art" fall by the wayside.

Clearly, there is more to the Oscars than artistic judgment As Holden writes,

"[elven in Hollywood, nobody pretends that the Oscars are entirely about artistic merit":

"A long list of apparent inelevancies such as age, public image, previous track record, popuiarity within the industry and above al1 box-office bankability count for as much as the actual product or performance among many Oscar voters" (33). A great deal of commercial value rests on winning an Academy Award, as is made evident by the vigorous campaigning of many Oscar hopefuls. The tensions between art and commerce, credibility and bpnkability, fhstrate the aesthetic impartiality to which the Academy claims to aspire.

Campaigning for an Academy Award is an Oscar tradition itself, beginning witb Mary

Pickford in the Academy Award's second year, when she invited "al1 five members of the

Central Board of Judges to tea at Pickfair, the home she shed with [Douglas] Fairbanks, the Academy's fonder-president" (Holden 99). Studio campaigning began in 1936, when

MGM took out advertisements "in the trade journais for Academy consideration" for the studio's "adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's Ah, Wiiderness" (Wiley and Bona 6 1). By 1939, the Acaâemy was issuing "a dictum pleading for 'no electioneering or lobby& as (here

ôas been in the past"' (Holden 14344). But campaigning contuiued, end in 1945, "JOM

Crawford made an innovation tbat would pemanentiy alter the chaiPaer of the Academy Roberts 19

Awards, by hiring her own personal press agent to press her claim for glory" (172).

Osborne claims that the Acaâemy has denouncd cempaigning "almost amually" since the

1960s, "but with only Limited success at correcthg the problem. The soliciting of votes ptoves to stiU be a habitua1 embarrassment" (150). nie most embamissing implication of such carnpaigning, however, is the notion that it might actualiy make a diffaence in the outcome of Oscar votes. Shakespeare in Love's Best Picture win for 1998 elicited cries of protest from the rival producers of Saving Private Ryon, who claimed diat "excessive spending on Oscar campaigns" @abC3) by Miramax, producer of Shaitespare in Love, created an unfair field of cornpetition.' If such campaigns were regarded as ineffective, they mi# simply be abhomd for theu baâ taste, rather than for wrnpromising the Oscar- voting results. Important to note is that the Academy Awards are not just tied up in commerce at the campaigniag end of the process. but also figure in financial considerations at the der'send:

Behind the smokescreen of @amour,schmaltz and supposed artistic

achievement, Hollywood's Academy Awards are, of course, al1 about

money. For perfomers, an Academy Award aâds instant digits to the

Myhuge faes they cornmanci, as well as wnfiga distinct hint of

immortaîity. For producers and distriIbutors, a men nomination is enough to

wreathe a film and its maicers in dollar signs. A win cm double even a hit

movie's box office. (Holden 3 1)

Thus. the Academy Award is not just an end in itself, and certainly not simply a stamp of aitistic merit hman exclusive club; der, it foman integral part of the ûuiy commercial si& of the film indwtry. Roberts 20

The mualtelecast of the Academy Awards is also inextricably liiiked to business considerations. Prior to the awards for 1952, the Academy had been approached with offers to televise the awâs caunony. Such offers were rejecteâ: regarding the awirds for 1948, Academy president Jean Hersholt "said no on principle" to "the ofFer from local

TV stations to televise the show" (Wiley and Bona 186); at this point, television was regarded by the film industry as a threat to its own pmsperity, so only radio broaâcasts of the ceremonies were welcome. Years later, the Academy "Voted down a move to broadcast the Awards [for 195 11 on television" at the behest of "the theater owmrs, who, theofetically, had the most to lose the night of the ceremonies" (2 15). But these business- nlated concems that prompted the Academy not to televise the awarâs proceedings were ultimately supersedeci by more pressing financial concmis: the Oscar telecast proved necessary to rnaintaining the Academy Awâs ceremonies at dl. The Academy was eccustomed to receiving financial subsidy from the film studios. A aisis had emerged in

1948 when ''the Big FiveMGM, Warners, Fox, Paramount and RKOwere ùistnicted by

''their New York offices to cut expenses. The Academy Awards show was a good place to star&. The quintet issued a statement to the Academy saying that they would no longer be subsiduiag the ceremonies" (185). The Acdemy nsponded by holding the awards cemnony "in the Academy's 950-seat screening theater" (186) in order to reduce costs.

Following the ceremonies, when the withdrawai of financiai support became public, the

-os were attacked for undermining the awarâs while nmaining their "main financiai beneficiaries" (Holden 195). The studios restored theu fiaancial subsidy "on a strictly year-by-year basis" (195), but this support was lost for the awuds for 1952, when

"Universal-International, Columbia, Repubüc and Wamec Brothers made a joint maternent Roberts 21 that they were no longer fcunding the Awards show. It was 1948 al1 over again" (Wiley and

Bona 225). nie Academy accepted RCA's offer "to buy the broadcast rights to the Awarâs and telecast hem on its network" (225) for $100,000: ''AAer long resisting the advances of its enexny, the movie industry was fuially forceâ to succumb to television's blandishments"

(Holden 198). Thus, the television spectacle that hPs becorne the focal point of the Oscars bas its rwts in the financial interests of the Acedemy.

Reactions to the fint Academy Awards telecast were positive, and the ratings were excellent as the Oscar presentation "had outdrawn every other show in television history"

(Wiley and Bona 23 1-32). But in the years following 1953, commercial aspects of the

Oscar show began to grate on the &tics' nerves, since the Academy Awards' sponsor,

Oldsmobik, clouded the Oscar spectacle by promoting its own products. In 1954, Bosley

Crowther complained about "the business of telecasting the ceremony of awards as a gagged-up entertainment on which automobiles were advertised" ('Those" lI 1). For

Crowther, such commercial aspects were distastem, "undignified and unbefitting a great and indepenâent industry" @ 1). The credibility of the Acaderny Awards was thclefore undermined by the taint of cornmercialism and the admission that the film industry wuld not-or was not willing to-support its own celebration. But Crowther betrayed aesthetic prejudice by suggesting "the Academy flair. . . be sponsored as a high-class institutional event" (II1). In 1955, I.P. Shanley suggeskd that the Oscars "be sponsored by the movie indusûy itself This would k a fine idea so long as it did not involve a series of plugs for forthcornhg films" (36). Shanley's allusion to the film industry promoting itself captures the essence ofthe ûscar hction. Writing three decades afbt Shaniey, Vincent Canby acknowledgeâ that the commercials which maLe the AcPdemy Awards posstble "provide r Roberts 22 proper context for what is, in effect, one long commercial for movies, which they make look good" ("Stones" Il 23). To attempt to separate the Academy Awards from commercialism, then, is deceiving, as it implies that the Oscars are exempt fiom such considerations. The Academy Awds are not just compücit in indusüy concems: they are also primarily in the business of plugging the industry itself.

Millions of viewers have watched the Academy Awards since their nrst telecast, and its fairly consistent air date (varying only from late March to mid-April) has facilitated the equation of "[w]atchhg the annual ceremonies" with an "obligatory ritual" (Levy xvi).

Similady, Oscar-bashing by the critics the moming following the telecast is a long-standing tradition. Not only has the commercial component of the awards been atîacked, but aspects of the spectacle itself have also corne under fue. Only one year after declaring the first

Oscar teleaist a success, Jack Gould complained that the staais of film was lowered by its

celebration on television: "If the event is to be tuned into just another video program, its distinction is largely lost"; and the Oscars' greatest sin, repeated by critics almost every

year-before and after the introduction of televiscd ceremonies-was that "the Academy

show at best was only so-so and generally rather dull" (bT'elevision"38). Gould later

condernned the presentation of the awards for 1959 as "a tasteiess disaster, a forlom study

of glamour in a state of dissnay" ("TV" 75). Granted, that particular year held the dubious

distinction of finishing twenty minutes early, as opposed to the usual situation of funning

overtime. But ceremoaies that have UIlfoIded iike clock-work have not aecessarily

gamered stellar reviews: Janet Maslin disüked the ''trimmed-dom version"

("Streamlined" C25) of Oscar at the awivds for 1984. Presdly, the ûscar sptack

should k entertaining (and presumably, tht is why it attrectp an auàience); howevet, if Roberts 23

"the shapelessly infîateâ speztacle" is compriseci of "spun-out 'entertainment' portions of the show" (Canby, "Yawd' 39, how effdve are the Academy Awards as entertainment?

Sorne ycars are better received than others: in 1986, John J. O'Comor praised the Oscar show for its "[s]pi.fQ electronic techniques and pure celebration" combined with "generous dollops of good-nahlled and sometimes outrageaus humor)' (C22). But the Academy

Awards also appear to bave corne to a point in their history where the "awfiilness" of the majority of theu ceremonies has become yet another dubious Oscar hadition, one which fiords a guilty pleasure to the viewer while inverting criteria of taste. Maslin desdbed the Academy Awards for 1979 as a 'Yembly tasteful" flair, acknowledging that "gd taste is not necessarily the stuff on which Oscar thnves" ("Glitter" 2 1). In 199 1, she claimed that it is "the tasteless touches that usuaily make the Osau show more fun'

("Mer"C20). Apparently, without ''the shtick, the schlock and the sheer honor that have markeci so many of Oscar's greatest moments" (Taste" A28), the Academy Awards may avoid conventional accusations of tastelessness, but, in a curious reversal of standards, they

beûay their own tradition of garish spectacle.

Granteci, the Ademy does not set out to put on a display devoid of taste; to do so

would be to undennine its position as cultural monitor. But the Academy's self-

presentation, and its presentation of the industry, is a calculated one, one that focuses on

the centiality of glamour. Because the Oscars promote the Hollywood film indusby. and

the Acaâemy as the cream of the Hollywood crop, glamour becomes a aecessary tool.

Glarnour is not generated organidly, ond the Oscars have not become %e most

glrunorous event in the world" by accident. Throughout its history, the Academy has been

responsibie for upholding giamour for the Amencan public. As the film 'bindustry's Roberts 24 principal stack-in-traàe" (Churchill, ''Convenes" X 5). glamour beçaw a contentious issue during times of cnsis. The bombing of Pearl Hsrbot mesnt that "[tlhe Ademy's grandiose plans for the 1941 banquet were cut short," sin= "[nlightly blackouts prohibited the usual glitter and pomp" (Wiley and Bona 115). Efforts to scale down the Oscars elicited some wgative response. The HoIIywood Reporter complained that the Academy

"me[de] a pretty hefty thtat national morale" (qtd. 115), but concems for morale were not limited to America: 'The criticism came nom as far away as Britain and Australia, when the press insisted that the excitement and the glamour of the ceremony would take their people's min& off of the fighting" (1 15). Of course, glamour presupposes wealth, and a display of the former implies the presence of the latter; in other words, for the

Amencan film industry to put on its glamorous spectacle would be to assure the

public-both national and international-that war-time economic conditions were not as dire as they seemed Through the Oscars, glarnour rnight be perfod for the benefit of the public, but the public does not participate except as audience: one assumpti*on about

glamour is that it belongs to the Academy and to the industry. The amch for 1946, for example, were held in the Shrine Auditorium: "The place had 6,700 seats, and to fil1 them, the Ademy sold ticket to the gewral public" (164). This lack of distinction between

ixtdustry and public appmtly compomised the awds spectacle, for "[a]lthough the

Acadany had expressly requdblack tie. less thui hslf of those attended came fonnally

dressed Sneend a Hollywood veteian, 'That's what happens when you let in John Q.

Public"' (166). Democrscy, it seems, is iM.lompaai1e with glamour, and white the pubiic is

assumai to appociate Hollywood spectacle, it must do so only hma distance. Roberts 25

Not surprisingly, féshion takes centre-stage in Hollywood and Academy Awarâs

glamour. Over the course of Oscar history, individual actresses have been targeted for their

failun to live up to the expectations of theu star status: Bette Davis, who won the Best

Actress Award for 1935, was criticized for her "pIain day cûess" (Holden 130); and in

1958, Joan Crawford decldthat Best Actress winner "Joanne Woodward is setting the

cause of Hollywood glamour back twenty years" (qtd. in Wiley and BOM29 1) for wearing

a dnss she had made herself. Fashion has featured prorninently "in the Oscar cavalcade

fiom the very eadiest days when Mary Piclrford ordered her Oscar gown from Paris the

same week she starteci work on Coquene" (Brown and Pinkston 105). the role for which

she won an Academy AM. But as Peter H. Brown and Jim Pinkston explain, "[ilt was

television . . . which sealed fashion's ovemding importance to the Oscar ceremony":

'From the first televised show in 1953 to the present, appearance has ded. And for the

first sixteen televised yean, designer Edith Head ran the whole fashion show and had the

ri@ of approvd over gowns wom by presenters and wimers" (106). To put one

individual in a position of authority over Oscar fashion is to uni9 the construction of

Hollywood glamour. In fact, directions were often given to actresses in order to prevent

aberrations in HoUywood style: in 1958, the Oscar show producer, Je- Wald, "declared a

ban on the latest fiishion rage fiom Pmi~-sockdresses" (Wiley and Bona 286). Sbifts in

styles of clothing have proven to thteatm Hollywood glamour at various instances,

prompling the Academy to xnd out dnss codes: Julie Christie had to sncek ôy Edith Hed

in 1%7 in order to hide ber mini-slurt; the following year, actnsses were once again

btmtedto "dnss in long gowns"; and in response to f8shiom of the the, "[mien were

reminded that this was a white-tic &air anci that turtieneck sweaters, beads, beards, and Roberts 26 unkempt hair was fiowned upon" (Wiley and Bona 407). That mabers of the Hollywood industry have hed to be told to fotgo cornfort and style for "glamour with a capitai G (qtd.

560) indicates the extent to which Hollywood giamour is collstructecî by the Acaâemy

Awards presentation, and implies a kind of overcompensation for the loss of glamour more readily associated with Hollywood in earlier decades. Indeed, the emphasis on glamour appears to be out of step with cumnt reaîities: in this regard, the Acaûemy Awds serve as "a link to the past and a reminder of the now faded celluloiddsilver nitrate glamour of another era" (Lindsey C12).

In fact, nostalgia has played a visible role at the Acaderny Awds, as it '%as

seemed to be the key theme of recent Oscar shows. . . .The show's homage to Hollywood's

glorious past came as a nsponse to the criticism that it hed becorne too rnuch of a

television event" (Levy 27). Once again, television appears to threaten the status of the

Academy Award spectacle, infecting the celebration with its own stars and aesthetic:

"indeeâ, in recent years. many of the awarâs presenters have been young performers who

have nothing to do with movies, but whose popularity among television vie'uers was the

only reason for their king on the Oscar platform" (27). Nostalgia at the Academy Awards

ofken takes the fonn of celebrating Acaderny Awards history, mcularly in years deerned

a signüïcant Oscar "anniversary." At the Academy Awards for 1947, the twentieth

saniveisery of the Oscors, "the theme of the evening was 'Oscar7s Farnily Album"' (Wiley

and BOM 177); tbis theme was repeated nfty y- tater to celebrate the Academy Awarûs'

seventieth anniversary. The awarâs for 1967-the fortieth anniversary-feanirrd stars in

film clips discussing highlights ofeach ciecaâe of the Acaâemy Awards. These Oscar Roberts 27 ntrospectives add another layer to the Academy Awards celebration: the Oscars not only promote films end the Hollywooâ industry. but also themselves as a cultuml phenornenon.

The Academy Awards do not exist Ui a vacuum; neither does the industry they promote. And Hollywood @amouris not the ody construction effected by the Academy

Awards spectacle. America is also shaped for millions ofviewers, as it is ieflected in celebrated films and performances as well as in the ceremonies themselves. Levy daims that "[tlhe Oscar has always been regarded as more than a local or American prize." and that "the Oscar disregards the nati~nalityof film artists, who can compete in any of the categories" (73). But Holden lets the numbers speak for themselves: "In sixty-two years of the Oscars, 75 percent of the aw& had gone to Ameriran~.The British may have been next in line, but only thirteen had previously won Best Actor-and only five of those in films . . . [were] financeci and made in the British Isles" (29). Further, as Levy tentatively puts it, the British success at the Oscars is "perhaps" related to %e fsct that bey have appeared in English-speaking moMes" (74). Nation is not supposeci to be a criterion for an

Oscar nomination or wh: The Academy des stated fiom the very beginning: 'No

national or Academy membership distinctions are to be considered"' (Levy 73). But this

deappeacs to have been disregarded over the course of Academy history. Nominatecl for

the Best Picture of 1946, Laurence Olivier's Henry V was &en a Specid Awarâ,

qi?ite clearly designed to keep the rd Oscars in American bands. Mayer

and the other moguls who hi seen the phenorneml pwthof tbeu

accidentai brainchild over twenty y-, and who now held such sway over

the voting process, were quite open in their klief tha the am&' prime

hction was to promote ami publicize American products. (Hohien 183) Roberts 28

#en Olivier's Humlet won Best Picture for 1948, "[mlost of Hollywood was not in a celebratoxy mood The Hollywood Reporrer mte: 'Humlet's ghost stalked Hollywood last night and in the most ghoulish seventy-five minutes the picture business ever experienced waltzed off with a tlock of golden Oscars"' (WiIey and Bona 190). Indeeû, nation was sometirnetimes used by members of the Hollywood industry as a carnpaigning tool.

In 1961, Munay Schumach cnticized Oscar hopefuls who indicated 'Wirit [Acaâemy] members should not vote for foreigners" and "[lleading Hollywood columnists [who] repeatedly suggested that Hollywood might be put to shame if the acting awards were swept by foreigners"; for exemple, "attack were particularly strong against the Greek mssMelina Merwuri, who bad been nominated for her performauce in 'Never on

Sunâay"' ("Chart" U 11). A year later, Schumach viewed Sophia Loren's Best Actress win for Two Wontn as "a precedent" set by the Academy, for Loren "ththus became the first foreigner to win an Oscar in a major category for work in a foreip language film"

("Sweep" ïI 9). Schurnach proveà too optimistic, since it took another thirty-seven years for another non-Amencan to win in a foreign-language film role: Roberto Benigni was named Best Actot of 1998 for Lfe is Beaut~fil.

Because there are no se- categones for performen accordhg to natioa, and because the Aderny Awards clah to disregard nationality in nominating and awarding prizes to performances, then the fiict that Amcricans have won the majority of Oscars implies thit Amencan perfomrs are consistently superior to the rat of the world Levy writes that there is "one exception" in teinof separate categories: "the &st Picture Oscar diffetentiates between English-speaking and foreign-lringuage movies" (73). in 1939, the

French film, Lu Grmde iilusion, was tbe htforeign-ianwe hlm to be nomiiilited for Roberts 29

Best Pim. In 1947, a special award was given to the Italian film, Shoe-shine, but 'hot until the 1956 amch year were foreign language fihs saluted in a category of theu own, with nominations" (Osborne 94). Levy's division of the Best Picture category into

English-speaking and foreign-language films is somewhat inaccurate. To begin with, Levy

implies that the two awards are somehow equal in stature; however, it is customary for the

foreip-language award to be presented nid-way through the Oscar ceremony, while for

severai decades now, the Be* Picture award has been the last prize to be announced

Moreover, if the distinction ktween the two am& were really a minor one, the "English-

language" Best Picture award would be medas such. The Best Foreign Film category

contains the threat of foreignness; however, films nominateâ for the foreign-language prize

are still eligible for Best Picture. Indeeâ, a handfhl of films over the course of Oscar

history have been nominated in both categories; none of thern has ever won both. The fact

thaî foreign-language films are eligible for the Academy's supreme prize once agaln

suggests that English-language films (boat always American) are superior to al1 of their

foreign-language counterparts. Thus, the Academy consistently manages to assert

Amencan cinematic supremacy, only very occasionaily slipping to uphold a British film as

the year's kst.

America ha9 beea invoked in various ways at the Academy Awds over the course

of Oscar history. In Oscar's early dedes, especially, American politics were visible at the

Ademy Awuds celebratiom. in 1932, Vice-President Charles Chs was present at the

Academy Awards "to deliver a special tnbute to the nIm industiy, praising it for boosting

national mode during the Depression" (Holâen 48). Hollywood's ability to belp keep

Amenca happy was also appladeâ at the Oscus for 1940, whm "[tlhe ceranony begaa Roberts 30

+ . . with a radio address hmResident Roosevelt"; Roosevelt hd declined the invitation to attend the Academy Awards, "the intemational situation king what it was," and instead used his speech to "lau[d] Hollywood for its defease bd-raising efforts, pus[h] his Lend-

Lease bill and pds[e] filmmalcers for promoting 'the Amencan way of life"' (Wiley and

Bona 108). Roosevelt thus made explicit the Holiywood film industry's fiuiction of advertising America and its values; to include this speech as part of the Oscar proceedings is also to implicate the Academy Awds in a hegemonic project. The ceremony the following year included Roosevelt's unsuccessfùl Republican opponent from the 1940 presidential election, Wendel1 Willkie, as ''fmtured speaker of the 'dinner'" (1 18). In response to the war effort, the Oscars' spectacle was less a display of glamour and more a demomtration of Amencan patriotism: "there were no floral decorations. Amencan flags dominateci the mtrance and the bdlrwm was bedeckd with flags of the Allies. A gold

American eagle kept watch over the podium" (1 18). As an important American cultural institution, then, the Hollywood film industry, via the Ademy Awards, presented its interests as synonymous with the American war effort. And to express this intersection of interests in the context of celebration was doubly to promote American culture.

If Academy interests converge with those of Arnerica as a whole, and if the

Academy Awards celebrate the "best" of Amencan cinematic products, then how is

America itself constructed? Given the dominance of English-spesking films, a laaguage bias is clearly evident, eclipsing other linguistic groups of the American ppulatioa The overwhelmingiy white roster of Oscar winners bas &O been criticized frequentiy over the last several decedes. At the amrds for 1976, Richard Ptyor announceû, Tmhen to eqhinwhy black people wilî never be uomiiurted for rnytbingn (qtd. in Wiley and BOM Roberts 31

522). Only a handfbi of black pdonners have won Academy Awards, beginning with

Hattie McDankl, who won Best Supporting Actnss for her role in Gone With the Wind

McDaniel 'kas not merely the first black person to win an Oscar, but the first to attend an

Academy banquet as a guest nither than a waitress" (Holden 145). Sidney Poitier's Best

Actor win for 1964 was viewed by some as "strong evidence of a warm and liberal feeling"

(Crowther, "Vote" iI 1) and a statement against ''pamhialism [and] prejudice" (Schurnach,

"Cheer" II 7). But this "lberal"feeling has not led to much overall change in the racial distribution of Academy Awarâs. In the years since Poitier's win, a few Afiican-American actors have won awards in the supporting categoxies, but none in the lead actor or actress categories. Other races have ken al1 but absent from the Academy Award winners: for example, Haing Ngor, med1984's Best Supporting Actor for The Killing Fiel&, is the only Asian to have won an Oscar, no Native Amencan bas ever won. Thus, the Oscars' construction of what is '%est" in America has been extremely narrow in its racial scope.

The pmsence of the Best Supporting Actress and Best Actress categories emwes that women are visible at the Academy Awards; however, this presence does not translate into unproblematic npnsentations of gender on the part of the Oscars. Oscar-winning roles for women tend to be quite limited: ''The two most distinctive attributes of the female

Oscar roles have kensex and suffering" (Levy 194). Limitation &ses in other categories as well: no woman had won "a solo Oscar for Onginai Screenplay" (Holden 477) until

Callie Khouri won in 1992 for Thelmu adLouise; and only two womepLina Wertmuller for 1976 and Sane Campion for 1993-have ever been nominated as Best Director. At the level of Oscat spectacle, it secms that womea are more necessary for th& fmhion seme tha for theu taient or cndibility. In 1979, Fanah Fawceü "almost stayed home [ûscar] Roberts 32 night after the LA. Times questioneâ her appropriateness as a presenter. 'We need yoy we need your glamor [sic],' producer Howard W. Koch pleaded" (Brown and Pinkston 118).

Prominent actors or male directun are also more likely to be chosen than actresses or female directors for "the prestigious job of presenbing tbe best pichin awarâ" (Maslin,

"Energy" C 18).

For its ceremonies for 1992, the Academy chose the theme, "Oscar Celebrates

Women and the Movies," ironic "for a year in which there were notoriously few good roles for women" (James II 15). The Academy's choice of a specific year to celebrate women implies that it does not celebrate women in any other year. This theme also sparked some debate about the genâer politics of the Oscars. When asked about the implications of having separate actor and acûess categories, Affre Woodard responded that "[a] separate category is another way of making us a speciai-interest group"; Bette Midler, however, recognizeâ the sad reality of a combined çategory when she replie4 Tmal1 for separate categories or no woman would ewr win an Oscar" (qtd. in James iI 15, iI 23). The achial ceremony presentation for Oscar's Year of the Woman was itself problematic:

[Tlhis year's show misseâ no oppomuiity to emphasize Hollywood's

ferninine side, no matter how misconceived that opportunity might be.

There was, for instance, a quiche tribute to '93 wimem or nominees written

or cowritten by women." But as luminaries were seen entering the Dorothy

Chandler Pavilion, the background music was "Tbanlr Heaven for Little

Girls." . . . The show was determined ta honor women as sanctimoniously as

possible, provided it couid retain the uswi quota of dancing girls. (Msslin,

"'Attention" C1 5). Roberts 33

Hence, even the Acaâemy Award's celebration of women reinforced patronizing attitudes and the fiinctioa of women as display, making w, effort to challenge patnarchal assumptions. Ifthe Academy Awatd is "a symbol that . . .capture[s] the essence of

American popular culture" (Levy xi), the outlook for women involved in producing

American popular culture, and for women in general, does aot look as healthy as it could be.

Granteci, the Academy AW&, to a large degree, operate as a reflection of the

Hollywood film industry that they celebrate; systemic problems within the Academy

Awards are shared by that industry. The Oscars have becorne a target of sorts for political protests: OAen avoided by television carneras so as to bide controversy fiom the viewing public, protestors of various issues to do with the film industry have flocked to the site of the Academy Awaràs to make theü point. The awards for 1961 marked 'Vie frst the . . . pickets used the media spotlight on the Oscars to trumpet their causes. A group calling itself the Hollywood Race Relations Bureau marcheâ outside the Auditorium with placards reaâing 'Film Equality for Negroes' and 'Al1 Negroes Want a Break"' (Wiley and Bona

337). The representation of Latinos as "infienor, incompetent, wordiless and ignorant"

(437) in films was protesteci at the awards for 1%9. Gender has been an issue, particularly in 1984 when Barbra Streisand was passed over for a Best Director nomination for Yentl: bbPoste~of Baibra Streismd greeted the Ademy's guests as thirty demonsûators waved placards that nad: IF YENTL WAS ANSEL, SHE'D BE NOMINATED and SCORE-

1927-PRESENT,BEST DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS: MEN-273; WOMEN-1" (638).

And in 1992, Queer Nation ptested to mise awanwss of homose>nLolty as it criticized

"what it secs as the pervasive anti-homosexual feeling cuwag film makm" (Campbell Al). Roberts 34

Whiie such critiques target larger issues within the film industry, individual members of the industry have also drawn the attention of protestocs. At the awards for 1977, Best

Supporthg Actress nominee Vanessa Redgrave was the focus of both protestors and supporters because of her professed views of the Palestinian situation: "About seventy-five members of the Jewish Defénse League shouted and waved anti-Redgrave signs while n&y some two hundred PL0 members and sympathizers demonstrateci in support of the nominee" (Wiley and Bona 547). Of course, neithet group was "seen by television viewets" (Levy 323).

Although television cameras might avoid including such protests as part of the

Oscar spectacle, politics have oîten entered the ceremonies themselves, much to the chagnn of the Academy. That award recipients have oRen disturbed the seemingly apolitical presentation indicates diat Hollywood and the Academy are hegemonic, rather than monolithic; at times there are challenges to the status quo even whhin the Osav show

itself. When Peter Davis and Bert Schneider won Best Documentary Featun for 1974 for

Heurts and Mid,their film about the Vietnam War, Schneider included in his speech

a wire fkom the Vietcong delegation at the peace talks then under way in

Paris: TPlease transmit to aiî our fiiends in America our recognition of all

they have done on behdf of peace and for the application of the Paris

accords on Vietnsm. These donsserve the legitimate intemts of the

American people and the Vietnamese people. Greetings of ûiendship to

American people." (Holden 300)

Although the wire did not coavey a seme of hostility, the Academy ceMyrd in a

hostile fmhion when FRnL Sinatra, won of the eveaing's CO-hosts,'terad an impromptu Roberts 35 statement issued on behaifof the Academy": "We are not nsponsible for any politid references made on the program, and we are sorry they had to take phce this eveallig" (qtd.

300). This incident and the reactions to it reveal many tensions surrounding the Academy's geshue. The fwt that Sinatra "waiked offstage to a roasting" (30) firom CO-hastShirley

MacLaine, also an Academy member, underünes the fact that the Academy is not necessarily uniform. Further, Francis Ford Coppola pointed out that the Academy's statement coneadicteâ its voting of Heurts mrd Mhds as Best Docurnentary: "In voting for that picture the Academy was sanctioning its message, which was in the spirit of Mt.

Schneider's remarks'" (qtd. 30 1). It seems, then, tbat the "Academy" (in its officiai capacity) wuld only tolerate the display of such a film winning en award, and not the display of politics as part of the winners' speech.

Vanessa Redgrave also sparked a great deal of wntroversy &er winaing her Best

Supporthg Actress awerd for Julia. Her speech included rem& about fighting fascism and anti-Semitism, but it was her refmence to "Zionist hoodlums" (qtd. in Holden 71) that elicitcd boos fiom the audience. Redgrave received ber censure fiom Paddy Chayefsky, who later on in the Oscar show declared himself "sick and tired of people exploithg the occasion of the Ademy Awards for the propagation of their own personal propaganda";

Chayefsky went on to advise Redgrave tbt "her winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, &es not require a proclamation, and a simple ''ihmk yod would have suffjced" (qtd in Holden 71). Chayefsky therefore suggested tbat the

Ademy Awards are not a venue for politicai protes&; and yet, Oscar history bns shown that such a tbcory bas not tnaslrted into ptiœ. Politid protest is indeed a part of the

Acodemy Ad,ngudkss of whether it is samtioneâ by the Academy itseK Chayefsky Roberts 36 implied thet his position was one of neutcaiity, and Redgrave's one of aggressive ideology.

This uony did not go entirely unnoticecl: "Anyone who csstigates another persoa for exercising hanght to free speech is making a political statement. Maybe you agree with him. But get it straight. He was pontificating. He was diâactic. He was politicking" (qtd. in Wiley and Bona 551). What do such protests and statements suggest about the Academy

Awards? Certainly, the exposure granteâ by the occasion fiords protestors with a significant audience. To a certain extent, these protests are subsumed into the hegemonic position of the Academy, contained by the larger values of Hollywood and Amena. But such challenges also expose the cracks in the Academy 's umour (as well as Hollywood's and America's amour), and ensure that there is not only one voice to be heard at the

Oscars.

Recent Oscar history has revealed power stniggles of V~OWsorts, proviag thet while the Academy Awards have strong üaâitioas that continue throughout their histocy, there is an extent to which the Oscars are dynamic. The awards for 19% constituted a slap in the face to Hollywood stuâio products, as al1 but one of the Best Pichire nominees were considered "independenî" films: of me English Patient, Secrets d Lies, Fargo, Shine, and Jerv Maguire, only the last was viewed as a studio product Oranted, rnany of the independent cornpanier+are "actually owned by wnglomerates," but the Academy's preference in 19% for independait features "seemed not only an impücit criticism of studio but aiso the very system thpt ClCItCd them" (WeUinub, 'Zcams" D3). But only a year Iater, the "bigh-te& blockbusters" @3), ta which 1996's successfùl independent fih haâ been conassted. made an ewnnous comeback wïth Titanic's sweep of the Academy

Awards. The centrality of Hoilywood was seemiagly rrstoreâ The Ademy Awards for Roberts 37

1998 provided a stniggie among many different voices. As a text, this Oscar show is rife with dialogisrn; thm seems to be no mitary Academy vision conveyed either by the

Acaâemy Award winners or the Oscar telecast. This poiticular Oscar celebration complicated establisheâ patterns at the Acaâemy Awards. To begin with, Whoopi

Goldberg acted as host for her third time. As a black woman mon or less placed in the

position of spealllag for the Academy, Goldberg challenged the Academy's racial and

gender noms simply by her presence; huseshe was responsible for speaking more than

anyone else in the show, it was her voice that carried the celebration. But cornpetition of

voices was also a part of the show, especially where Elia Kazan's honorary Oscar was

wncened. Coatroversy swmunded the award because Kazan "named names befon the

House Un-American Activities Cornmittee" (Weinraub, "Protests" E3) in 1952. Presenting

the award for sound effects editing, Chns Rock refemd to Kazan as "a rat" Afkr Kazan

came on stage to accept his award, audience reactioas were varied: while many gave

Kazan a standing ovation, some audience membea, such as Steven Spielberg and Kate

Capshaw, clapped while staying seatod (sitting on the fence, as it were); othcrs, such as

Nick Nolte and Ed Ham's, neither stood nor clapped. As these varied responses suggest,

the Academy 's complicity in the blacklisting, by hoaouring Kazan's contribution to the

fih industry, was wt accepted unproblematicdly by everyone in the audiencd Because

the television camecas included shots of al1 these reactions, television viewers were equaîly

aware of the lack of unity in the auditorium; indeed, this lack of unity became part ofthe

Oscor show spectacle.

Clocked in at a mord four hours and two minutes @afoe Cl), the Acdemy

Awards for 1998 seemed to lose its grip in other areas besiâes nirmiag tirne. This Oscar Roberts 38 show fatured a süuggle between the assertion of American fihs and values and the ceiebration of foreign worh. Several montage sequences worked to uphold American primacy in filmmaking: a tribute to the Western credited the genre with "spuk[ing] our dreams of Amend; and a montage of real-life heroes represented in Nms concentrated

mostly on figures who were male, white, and Amencan. Certain presenters were themselves testaments to American national pride: John Glenn introduced the montage of

Imoes; and Colin Powell presented the clips for Best Picture nominees, Saving Private

Ryun and The Thin Red Line. The presence of Glenn and Powell as presenten was uonic,

given criticisms in earlis years of ''inappropriate" presenters who were television stars;

Glenn and Powell do not worlc in show business. The introductions of these presenteis

were full of American rhetoric: Tom Ha& praised John Glenn as "a bona fide national

hero"; and MPAA president Jack Valenti hailed Colin Powell for his understanding of Vie

American spirit, which has defined our nation since its incewon, nom the birth year of the

Republic." Clips of Best Picture nominees were grouped together according to story

concerns; thus, Elizabeth and Shakespeare in Love, as films set in the Elizabethan penoà,

were presented together. Life is Beaut#d is set at the time of World War II; however, it

was not included with the presentation of Saving Priwe Ryon and The Tirin Red Line. It

would seem that the nationality of tfe is Bemclzfil precludeâ it fiom king grouped with

the two American war films.

But although Ameicuuiess was npeatediy asserted over the course of the Oscar

show, it did not eclipse 0th- voices. The Irving G. Thalberg award was given to Nom

Iewison, wbose wok as presenter Nicolas Cage noted, “bas received twelve Oscars and

foriyone Acadetny Award nominations." But iewison has never won a cornpetitive Roberts 39

Academy Award himself, in spite of the Oscar success of bis films and prformen in his fihs. Holden insists tbat the tact that Jewison is Canadian bas prevented him fiom

receiving an Oscar of his own, due to "the Academy's apparent meanness to its cousins

from across the border" (329); regardhg Jewison's failure to win Best Duector for In the

Heat of the Night, in spite of the film's wia for Best Picture, Holden writes that "it is hard

to find anyone to contradict the theory that Jewison missed out in 1967 because he was a

Canadian, and Hollywood dkectors did not want successful foreigwrs muscling into an

already crowded market" (264). Jewison's Thalberg award may fa11 into the category of

honorary awards "offered simply to make amen&" or to "molli@ filmmaken of undoubted

distinction who simply slipped tbrough the net" (Holden 388,389). But the award

nonetheless constitutes a recognition of a Canedian filmmaker on the part of the Academy.

Gmted, lewison's work fits into the context of Hollywood filmmaking, but if his

nationality has previously been an issue for Academy voters, the Thalberg might indeed

fiinction as an apology. Jewison highlighted his nationality in his speech, declaring that

had there been a financial component of the award, he would share it "with the Canadian

Film Centre and the AFI"; in doing so, he made Canadian filmmalring visible aiongside

Amencan filmmaling for an audience of one billion people.

But in this Oscar show, Americanness found even greater challenges to its

Qminance than Norman Jewisoa. Both the Best Actor anci Best Acûess categories

feanired norninated performances in foreign-lmguage hs: Robeao Benigni for Lfi is

Beatltijùf,and Femda Montenegr0 for Cent4Station. Benigni's win made him the first

Best Actor in a foreign-language fih. Life is Beautiful won Best Foreign Film, and was

aiso mmiaated for ûest Pichuc. Beuigni and his film were more visible than pst fmign Roberts 40 film winners; maay of Goldberg's and other presenters' jokes invoked Benigni's üademark exubemce. Benigni hunseif added tremendously to the Oscar spectacle at the announcernent of the Best Foreign Film win, standing on the back of his chaû befoce dngto the stage. Lije is Beaut~filalso won for Best Musical Score for a comedy, adding to the film's presence at the ceremonies. The film did not win Best Picture (perhaps contained by its win for Best Foreign Film), but neither did the Amencan war films. While

Shakespeare in Love was an Amencan-produced film, it did not participate in the rhetonc

promoted by John Glem and Colin Powell. With al1 these cornpethg voices and rhetoric,

Goldberg could only simulate a unitary vision at the end of the show by referring to movies as "a language, that is, as we saw tonight, universai." If the Academy 's traditional identity

is not wming apart at the semns, at least the threads appav to be loosening. Despite efforts to edorce Amena and its ideals over the course of the programme, non-Amencan

infîuences asserted a presence of their own.

As long as the Academy Awck continue, their significance will be dynarnic as

they respond to, reflect, and comment upon shih in the film iadusüy and in society. But

Oscar history and tradition have revealed the Acdany Awards to be as tied up in

commerce as wncemed with middle-brow taste, and as much about holding on to fading

notions of glamour as about celebrating the peseat moment of show business. Regardless

of the AcaQmy's official disregard for nation when granting awards, the Oscars "rdm

the centrai values in Amencan dominant culture" (Levy 334) even as they constitute an

intemationally vieweâ specîacle. As HolQn acimowledges, "the fib and performers

honored by îhe Academy tend to k those reflecting the celluloid American drrem invented

and nurtund by Hollywood. It is thus only logical, perhaps, that the aw& kar much the Roberts 41 same relationship to nrtistic standards as does that dnam to the eveyday iives of most

Americans" (479). The middle-brow taste of the Acaâemy strengthens and maintains the

Oscars' relationship to middle-class America, adding to the constructions of the nation itself The Academy Awards are, therefore, cotemiinous with the Amencan Dreatn, as the

Oscar "has embodied such basic Amencan onrntatiorl~os democracy, equality, individualism, competitiveaess, upward mobility. harâ work, occupationai achievement, and monetary success" (334). The Oscar has haditiodly celebrated the work of white

Amencan males, but those wimers excluded nom some or dl of those categories presumably attest to upward mobility and bard worL; however, such winners also present a challenge to the dominant order, even if such a challenge might be subsumed into the

Acaâemy perspective. The Academy rnay atternpt to project itself as a unified entity, but a uniîaq vision cannot always k convinchg, or even off& in the fmt place. Shifts in the

Oscars over the course of their history indicate chat while certain ken& are dominant, the

Acaâemy is not monolithic: it might cringe at and criticize oppositional voices, but those voices are audiible nonetheless. Roberts 42

Notes

1. Harvey Weinstein, CO-cbaimranof Miramax, responded that Cr)reamWorks actually spent more. praOscars, pushirig Private @ma than he did pushing Shakespeare" @afbe C3).

2. The Academy was also complicit in the blacldisting dwing the McCarthy era

itself Osborne does his best to gloss over this put of Academy history, so as to rnake the

Academy's position as hoReruive as possible: "[tlhough the Academy stayed clear of the

blacklisting controversy, either directly or implied, it hame involved later when certain

scripts by writers involved in the so-called Un-American investigations became eligible for

Oscar consideration although their authors were denied screen credit" ( 102). But Osborne

goes on to include the introduction of the Academy's "bylaw" (descni by Holden as a

"foyaity oath" [211]) on February 6.1957:

Any person who, before any duly comtituted Federal legislative cornmittee

or body. shall have admitted that he is a member of the Comrnunist party

(and has not since publicly rewunced the party), or who shall have refused

to respond to a subpoena to appear before such a cornmittee or body, shall

not k eligible for an Ademy Award so long as he persists in such a

reW. (Osborne 102)

Osborne writes thaî while the bylaw "Was a gesture made in the spirit of the politicai

times," it "proved to k an ernbanassment almost at once'' (102). Among the

embamssments related to the AÇ8demy's position wu the fact that the Academy was

duped more thonce into awarding blacklisted wciters: Dslton Tmbo won an award

under the xuune of 'Xobert Rich" in 1957; the same year, the writers of The Bridge on the Roberts 43

River Kwai, Carl Foreman and Michad Wilson, gave theu screen cndit to Piene Boulle, writer of the work on wbich the screenplay was based (Wiiey and Botta 2 12,214). The

Acaâemy's bylaw was %vokeâ by the Academy's Board of Govemors" on January 12,

1959 (Osborne 102), but the fathat it was ever in place attests to the Academy's part in wnstructing what is and what is not acceptable to include under the umbrella of what is

"American" and %-Amencan." Chapter Two

Salviged Spectacle: Titanic and the Oscars

Pnor to and following its nlease, James Caneron's Tircnic was surrounded by discussions of excess: Titanic was the most expensive film ever made, the highest-grossing film ever nleased, and it tied for a record number of Academy Awards. Excess also cbaracterizes the production values of the film itself, for the $200 million (U.S.) was spt on accentuahg the Wsglamour ad spectacle. The last hdf of Cameton's film portrays the sinking of the ship and the destruction of that glarnow, ail the füm's elernents are ultimately subordinate to the film's spectacle. But the film is precluded from king a mere action füm through the romce plot that complicates Titanic's insertion into a coherent genre. As "haif disaster flick, haif period romance" (Johnson 86). Tiionic has the perfect platform for the staging of glamour and spectacle, displaying both the ship and the film's stars. This combination of two genres translates into a negotiation of gender the separate psrtp of Titanic's stOw conventiodly appeai to either men (in the case of the action sequenoes) or women (in the case of the romance), as the film appears to take on specifically gendered narratives. The narratives of Jack's heroism and Rose's liberation are dependent upon each other, and the film fluctuates in its pnvileging of each story. It seems that both elemeats of the namtive are equally responsible for the füm's success with the viewing public; but Titanic dso found ovexwhelming success at the Academy Awds.

Whiie the Oscars negotiate taste, taste itself bccomes an issue in Titanic, the box-office smash success thit dominsted the Oscars for 1997: references to visual art attempt to alip the film with orti-stic ment in the film's bid to "nprrsai[t] an artistic schievement for a blockbuster king'' (Lacey, "Winaas" C9), The success of Titmic at the Acaderny A&, Roberts 45 where it won eleven prizes, has added to the spectacle of the film itsell; extendhg the significance of the film and its aesthetic. Its multiple Oscar victories also coonect to the film's exploration of the Amencan Dream, of which the Academy Awâs are a supreme symbol. Titanic is significant not only on its own ternis, but also in relation to the larger

Hollywood film industry and its celebration of itself.

As Justin Wyatt and Katherine Vlesmas note, "James Carnema's Titanic entered the public sphere fust and foremost through its budget" (29). Much of the media discourse suftounding the making of Titanic initially focused on the fact that at $200 million, the film was the most expensive movie ever made. in orâer to explain going S 10million over budget, James Cameron invoked his subject matter as justification: "The scale of this picture was largely determinad by the sale of the event it's depicting" (qtd. in Waal 33).

Hence, the film, about excess, is itself excessive, mimicking its subject. Indeed, part of

Titanic's excess is its bid for authenticity in its rendering of the ship: Cameron %ad

Twentieth Cenniry Fox build him a forty-acre production site on Rosarito Beach, in

Mexico, inclucüng a million-gallon seawater tank that would house the demodel of the

Titanic. The model itself was a 718 sale repiica of the ship" (32). Excess characterizes not only size, but also attention to detail: Cameron "persuaâed the original carpet manufacturer to make an 18,000-square-foot reproduction of its 'Titanic' weave"; Mer,

"[slets match old pbotographs nght down to the sculpture and woodwodc; costumes incorporate hgrneats of vinage clothing; even the silver White Star Line ashtrays had to be right" (Maslin, "Spectacle" El, El 8). Whüe much of the film's spectacle involves the dcstniaion of the ship, the detaik of the Titimric itself place the ship, in its intact state, at the cenûe ofthe spectacle d the visual pleasure it offers. Roberts 46

Cameron has said that "[s]ome people tue mistaking Titanic's success for the rehun of the spectacle . . .But it's more than that This movie messes you up emotionally"

(Lacey, ''ûverboud" C9). While the Jack and Rose's love stocy has certainiy played a large role in Titanic's popularity-particularly with teenageci girlethe film does insist on spectacle through what it puts on display. Most of the film's gargantuan budget has been

"in the se~ceof one spectacuhr iiiusion: that the ship is afîoat again, and that the audience is intimately involved in its voyage" (Maslin, "Spectacle" El). The ship does not simply bction as backdrop to the love story; rather, the Titanic is featured for its own sake. Several times in the film, prior to the ship's crash into the iceberg, the Titanic appears in "eye-popping" (Stark ID) long shot, moving across the Atlantic. These shots do not function to advance the narrative, nor to situate the ship in any context: because no land is visible, there is no sense of the ship's progress; that progress is delivered verbally through the dialogue of crew rnembers. The only information that CMbe gleaned fiom these long shots of the Titanic is whether it is night or dey, and that the ship has yet to sink.

Although the distinctions of night and &y might fiuiction for the viewer as a countdown to the sinling, they also provide the film with an opportunity to show off its most expensive star. Interior shots of the ship also enhance the display: the wdenstaircase and the glas dome overhead particularly show off the opulence of the Titmic; several shots begin with the glas dome, and tilt domto showcase the grandeur klow. This position of the ship and its tùnctioa in ternis of display rather tban narrative seem to correspond to Lam

Muivey's classic analysis of the femaie figure in mtivefilm: "The presence of woman is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal narrative nIm, yet ber visual presence tends to work against the development of a story-liae, to fkze the flow of action in Roberts 47 moments of erotic contemplation" (19). IndeecI, the linlr between the ship and the femaie figure strengthens through the references to the Titanic as "she," a comection that

"make[s] the Tltmic itself like a body'' (Lehman and Hunt 102). The ship may not neceswily invite erotic contemplation, but it does invite aesthetic contemplation as the film bitsthe narrative to show off the Titanic's glarnour.

The visual pleasure associateci with the ship renders Titanic's clms commentary highly problematic. The film deiivers a sharp conûast between tint-class and steerage conditions on the ship. As Laurie Ouellette argues, however, "Cemeron's claim that

Titanic stops just 'short of Manllst dogma7implies Uiat the film critiques dominant class relations-and invites controversy in the process-but critique is safely focused on the snobbery of a few loathsome fbt-class characters" (169). Further, the distinction between

tirst and third-class becomes a site of the viewer's pleasure and desire. Cameron writes that the narraiive is "woven . . . fiom the stem to the bow and through every interesting

place and event in between allowing us to experience the optimism and grandeur of the

ship in a way thet most of her pasmgers never did" (vi-vii). It is Rose's class that grants

the viewer access to first-class Iwu~y,puning the audience in a position of pnvilege; Jack's

fnsuent insertions of hirnself into that context of luxury allow the film to linger there,

rather than dwell on third-class accommodations or the fiirnace room where labourers are at

work. Through "Titanic's re-tion of fmt-class culture dwhg the Gilded Age7'

(Oullette 182). class itself becomes spectacle while it is historidy displaced by the füm:

'%y periodizing the Gilded Age, the film invites viewers to observe overt class Merences

and pjudices-and then dismiss them as anomalies of a bygone era" (175). While "Mark

Twain wimd the phrase 'the Giiâed Age' as a critique of the excess he saw amund hh," Roberts 48 the fwt that "the elaborate first-class interiors of Titanic were created at the very peak of

this trend toward ostentationy'(qtd. in Marsh 37) does not serve as criticism in the film. To

a certain extent, ''the Titanic represents the idealized notion of the Amencan Dream, a

dceam which motivated mess migration on board the ûansatlantic ships" (Massey and

Hammond 243); the afflueuce presenteâ by first-class passengers of Titanic, "the ship of

dreams," conhibutes to the film's %pic embodiment of a quintessentid Amencan ciream"

(Munich and Spiegel 155). The hismrical displacement of class issues and this particular

manifestation of the Amencan Dr- irnply that then need be no guilt in enjoying the

pleasure of the film's "lwurious expensiveness" (Anoyo 19). But there is a sense in which

worth is assessed by the film in ternis of potential for spectacle. Although third-class

conditions do not af5ord the opporhinity to show off details of first-class luxury, the

steerage party to which Jack takes Rose is itself a kind of display through performance: the

dancing and music contrast shacply "with [the] rigid images of Cal and the other upper-

class men conversing in a drawing room (Lehman and Hunt 98). First-class wealth can be

displayed through stillxtess; thicd-class worth is established by its contribution to spectacle

through '~volity"(98) and movement.

While the film shows off the ship, as well as class through pcrfonnance, Titanic's

stars, Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. are also put on display. The film teases the

viewer by first showing representations or bief glimpses of these actors. The nude

illustnition of youag Rose, for enample, appesrs on screen befon either old Rose or the

young Rose she remembas. Whea we do nnally see Winslet as young Rose, the scene is

shot so as to diaw attention to the ''uveiling" of the charader. Young Rose tùst apjxxus at

the Titanic dock, getting out of a car, a scene in which Wïnslet is "given an old-fiishioned Roberts 49 movie-star enûance" (Anoyo 18). The camera presents her from a high-angle shot, and reveais first a gloved band held out for assistance in descendhg from the vehicle. Once out of the car, Rose is dlsomewhat hidden by her large tut. As the camera tilts down, Rose lifb up her head, presenting the Wtlive-action view of the younger version of the character. Significantly, àu~ghost Billy Crystal's Gifligm 's Island take-off of Titanic at the Oscars, this shot of Winslet accompanied the he, "the movie star," empbasuiag the glamour and display of the actress's entrance into the picnire.' Again, this introduction

focuses on Rose in a kind of pose before her part in the narrative begins. Rose fiequently adopts a posed position, sometimes fiom Jack's point of view (such as the first time he sees

her looking out fiom the upper deck), other times fiom simply the camera's (such as the

"flying" scene at the ship's bow, which combines the ship's spectacle with tbat of the

film's stars). The most obvious recunrnce of the pose as far as Rose is concerned is during

the scene in which Jack draws her nude; the illustration revealed to the viewer at the

beginning of the film thus reasserts itself during this scene. Here, too, the "ovenvhelming"

blue diamond, the ''Hart of the Ocean," which Rose wears around her neck, Mers the

degree of spectacle. The presence of the illu~tcationin the framing harrative initially

inverts usual expectations of spectacle: young Rose's body is only significant as the

background against which the "Heart of the Ocean," object of Brock Lovett's search, is

displayed. Once old Rose has begun telling her tale, however, and yomg Rose has kn

accordeci subjdvity, both her body ead the bondbecorne signifiant, for the purposes

of both narrative and display.

But it is uot ody the fanele fonn which figures in Titanic's spectacle: as Liam

Lacey argues of Winslet, "she risks king overshadowed by Leonardo DiCaprio's equaily Roberts 50 lovely f&' ("Winnefs" Cg). Indead, Winslet's presence in the film, and her fiuiction as part of the spectacle, has been read by some des as anomalous in compatison to typical

Hollywood practices:

Winçlet's body is overweight in relation to contemporary Hollywood and

culturai noms of fernale beauty. In other words, one of the consequemes of

not having a conventionally beautiful female lead is the intensification of

DiCaprio's boyish good lmks as a replacement for the female star as a

traditional source of cinematic pleasure. (Lehman and Hunt 9 1)

Perbaps it is not surprising, then, that DiCaprio's positioning as "erotic spectaclen (Nash and Lahti 71) goes hand in band with the negotiation of Jack's masculinity. in contrast to

Cal's excessively authontative masculinity, Jack appears feminized; DiCaprio's youth and somewhat ferninine features heighten the contnist between bero and villain as they offer the male figure as an object of display. Again, the film teases the viewer by first revealing

Jack through flashes of old Rose's memory, specifically the brief shots of his eyes as he hwsthe picture of young Rose. While these shots, in the context of the narrative that is to follow, involve Jack viewing Rose as the object of his "(wtistic and romantic) gaze"

(TL), they dm constitute Rose's nhimllig of the gaze; fiuthei, the fsct that the viewers are being teased with glimpses of Leonardo DiCaprio emphasize his statu as object of display.

Titanic was nlcascd &er Baz Luhrmann's William Shakespeure 's Romeo + Juliei (1996), the "quintessential tccn romance" (68) in which DiCaprio played the quintessential doomed lover, thus, this reputation wouid have preceded him to the Tiranic screen, allowing for intertextuai reflections on his position in the later film? The shot of Jack in a medo at the top of the waoden staircase aiso fhctions to halt the nanative w&iie drawing attention to Roberts 51 the spectacle of both the ship and the star. Perhaps Jack's status as dstalso places him in a somewhat feminized position, at least in conhast to Cal. Wherees Cal pulls out a gun during the ship's sinking in order to bill Jack, Jack is presurnably more cornfortable with a pencil in his haad Peter Lehrnan and Susan Hunt argue that the film criticizes "the notion of the awesome spectacle of phailic male powe?' (90). They locate Jack's character in the context of the "earth man," a type that conventiodly "awakes [the] domant sexuality" of

"a conventionally amactive woman [who] is discontented to the point of psychoiogical instability" (94). Jack fits the "earth man" type illsofar as he "lives outside community and family and prefers the Company of 'the other' (in Jack's case, European and workingclass people)" (97). He diverges from type, however, in that "[elarth men are frequently seen disrobed, revealing theu toned bodies," while in DiCaprio's case, "only one arm and shoulder are partiaily visible" during the lovemaking scene; mer,DiCaprio "is thinner, less developeâ, and much more lithe than the earth men of other recent films" (97). But wbt Lehrnan and Hunt identify as "the most strikllig difference between Jack and other body men" is his artist status, a departure fiom the usual "manual laborers" who fit this character type (97).

Although Jack's artist status may partly feminize him, or at least render a kinâer, gentlet version of masculinity, this stanis also legitimizes Jack within the film. Cal is presented as unworthy of Rose foi many misons, one of which is his inability to endorse her artistic taste. Cal refea to the works of modem art she has purchaseâ (one painted by

"Something Picasso") as "finger pwitings"; Rose retorts, "The difference between Cal's taste in art and nine is thet 1have some." Because Rose bas "purchased work by Picasso,

Monet, and Degas'' (Lehman and Hunt 97). artists who will becorne canonued, and are Roberts 52 now recognized for their worth, the film nexessorily upholds her taste by pointhg out her intuition as far as talent is concerned Similarly, regardless of the fact tbat Jack "draws bodies in a highly conventional, realist style-a style against which the philosophical artists rebelleci" (97), the fiim must also endorse Rose's appreciation of Jack's work: as a

"prodigy of taste" (Tunui F 14), she is already on the right track with Picasso, Monet, and

Degas, which art history wiil ultimately prove. In fact, in a circulation of taste, thc film approves its own maker, for "Jack's drawing of Rose was actually drawn by Cameron"

(Munich and Spiegel 162). Ultimately, die film alips itself with high art, which begs

certain questions of the arlistic status of Titanic. During his acceptance speech for the

Director's Guild of America awarQ James Cameron declareci, '4 used to always say I de

movies and not fhs. Remoins of the Day is a film. Tenninator 2 is a movie. Now that 1

have this, I have to admit that I may have inadvertently made a film" (qtd. in Lacey,

"Overboarâ" Cl). The distinction between films and movies is, of course, one of high and

low brow (or high and rniddle brow, or middle and low brow, depending on the critic).

Cameron effdvely elevates his work by declaring Titanic a film, prompted by the

recognition of the Director's Guild of America Carneron's conûast of Remains of the Duy

and Terni- 2 is especially resonant for Tironic's status. If Titanic is indeed half

disaster (or action) flick, half pend romance, Cameron has chosen his examples well: for

Remairu of the Duy is itself a period romance, and Terminafor2 part of the action genre.

In blending these elements, Titanic, according to Cameron, has transcendecl the statw of

movie to becorne thAnd because the nIm itself is concerned with high art and taste, the

distinction is an important one according to the film's own terms.

The "disaster flick" elements of Titonic aumot be ipd, given the last half of the Roberts 53 film; but there is an extent to which the film itseîfengages in negotiation of the inclusion of that genre's elements. The present-day frame of the fih, which involves not only old Rose but also a team of scientist-explorers searching for the 'Weart of the Oc-" offen a platform for this negotiation. Brock Lovett, who heads the expedition, videotapes himself, narrating the approach to the suken ship: "she lmded at two-thirty in the moming of

April I Sth, 19 12, after her long fdl from the world above"; to this peudo-ptic description, Lewis Bodine replies, "You are so Ml of shit, boss," thus undercutting the grandeur of Lovett's narration. Janet Maslin argues that Carnema "treats these explorers as big 90's hotshots, the kind of macho daredevils who could just as easily be found tracking twisters or dinosaurs in a summer action fdm" ("Spectacle" El 8); in facf Bill Paxton, who

plays Brock Lovett, also played one of the main characters in Twister (1996). Lovett's

narration betrays a "pretentiousness" (Krllmer 120), presumably because his reverence is perfonned, rather than sincere. Diane Nera vîews the juxtaposition of Lovett and Bodîne's

narrative devices with old Rose's mtiveas "something of a storytelling contest" (228).

As Adrieme Munich and Maura Spiegel write, "[tlhe fhne shows us the construction of better manhood (and better movies) through the transfonning tale of the Titanic as

recounted by a liberateâ woman" (162); indeeâ, the scientists in Tironic set up the

expectations of a disaster film, which will then be at least partly undercut. A telling scene

involves Bodine's brief explanation of the ship's sinlcing, accompanied by cornputer

graphns. Unülre the film itseif. and its depiction of the sinking. Bodine's description is

short and nductive. not to mention irreverent. Descnihg the ship's stem jutting out of the

water, Bodine declans, "her whole ass is stickhg up in the air. . .and thet's a big ass." Old Rose undermines Bodim's imvennce: 'rninL you for that fine forensic niialysis, Mr. Roberts 54

Bodine. Of course, the experience of it was somewbat different." Thus, the film invokes the disaster genre in order to defuse it dirough Rose's personai experience; it is her namative, her memories of Jack, which preclude the nIm fkom king a stria disaster flick.

The irreverenœ of Boduie is not only undone by bis charactet, when he later urges Rose to continue her penonal narrative, but also by the reverence of the film itself (presented as sincere in opposition to Lovctt's eady namtion). The fiequent hclusioa of angetic- sounding voices singing on the soundtrack, particularly during scenes that preseat the ocean, brings spiritual overtoaes to the film.

That the reverence and partial denial of the disaster genre should be invoked through a fernale character's voice and rerw>llectiom,dong with al1 the elements of display, implies that the film becornes feminized. The narrative of Titanic has ken àisplaced nom the mascuiine world of Brock Lovett and Lewis Bodine. As Lehman and Hunt note, %e hestory even constructs the investigation of the sunken niins as a voyeuristic masculine enterprise. 'Are you seing this, boss?' an assistant as ks as a robot's arms cmss the body of the ship" (93). Furthemore, penetration becornes part of this enterprise when the crew's robot devic~SnoopVision-is sent into the wreckage to retieve Cal Hockley's de.

Peter Krther argws compellingly that Lovett

can k seen as a stand& for director James Cameron, another man obsessed

with the Titanic who did go domi to sec and film the wreck, and a filmic

storyteller who takes command of cornplex technology to achieve his goai.

What happais in the prologue is the unâercutting of Cameron's position,

finit by the comments ofBmck's assistant and then, more importantly, by

his nluctaat handing over of the role of storyteiier to Rose. It is as if Roberts 55

Cameron declad Uiet this story and this film belonged to the woman on the

screen, and ho, by implication, to the women in the audience.

Rose's tale presents a shift away hmthe masculinized narrative, but the last haif of the film, which "operates almost as a self-contained one-and-a-balf-hou-ation movie"

(Kismer 114) may reassert Titanic's rnasculinity, just as Cameron retums the film to the genre for which he is ôetter known. Some critics privilege the love story over the destruction spectacle in assessing the film's popularity; for instance, Melanie Nash and

Marrti Lahti point out that Cameron 'Ys carefbl to characterize his film as a love story mther than a disaster film" (65). But an analysis of the film needs to address both the romance and disaster narratives. While sixty percent of the film's audience was female, the male viewen constituting the odier forty percent (Nash and Lahti 64) are presumed to have enjoyed the film primarily for its action sequences: "Guys unimpressed by Wuislet's stuaning dresses might dearound their seats a bit until Titanic [sic] hits the iceberg, but a& that they'll be hooked" (Barnard B6).

As J. Bruce Ismay explains in the film, the narne of the ship (and by extension the film) is mcaat "to convey sheer size, and size means sîability, lwcury, and above all. strength." The events of the film, however, prove that the ship fails to live up to its name and the masculine traits (Le. sue and sûength) it is supposed to represent, indeed, the largest failing-that of not king able to save al1 the psengers-is nvealed to be a bdamentally cosmetic issue: ship designer Thomas Andrews admits that the originel plans wuid "take an emrow of bats, inside this one, but it was thought by some that the deck would look too clutteredn; coasequently, the feminized concem with display coastitutes a major element ofthe üagedy. The stmgth of the Tiianic ultimately turns on Roberts 56 itself and on its passengers in the sinking sequence, a sequeace that appears to efféct a re- mascdinization of the narrative, as well as of Jack. Rose is entitled to a few masculine, heroic moments (spitting in Cal's faa, cutting Jack's bandcuffs with an axe), but it is Jack who is ulthately in charge. Jack is heroic prior to the ship's sinking when he pulls Rose back over the stem, but his heroism Uicraes in relation to the disaster. Jack initiates the use of the bench as battering-ram to fne the worling-class passengen from the lower decks. And while the attempt to save a single working-class child fails when the father runs the wong way dom a passage, into the oncodng flood, Jack is granted the spectacle of the hem: he chesthe chiM in his amis, Minllig dom the passage as Rose follows. He also retrieves keys underwater in order to unlock the gate bat impnsons him and Rose.

Further, he leads Rose to the stem of the Titanic, instnicting her to hang onto the ship.

Once in the water, Jack punches a man who pushes Rose underwater, and talces her to a piece of wnckage to keep her de. Jack's heroism operates in relation to the excess of disaster, asserting his masculinity. Old Rose claims, "he saved me, in every way that a person can be saved."

Nash and Lahti acknowledge that apart fiom the appeal of DiCaprio to the teenageâ girl audience, "[ilt has also been argwd . . .that Titanic's success with girls rests with

Winslet's character, Rose, and the nanative of her liberation" (69). As aanator, old Rose cbtbat the Titanic initially seemed to her "a slave ship, taking [&] back to America in chains." The dedaration îbat the Titanic was a slave ship nom the perspective of an upper- class white woman is quite preposterous, especially given the slave ships that formed an actual part of Amencan history; but the film goes to great lengths to indicate that Rose is trapped, most specifidy by her engagement to Col, wberein she is 'Wedto hmby ber Roberts 57 mothei' (Munich and Spiegel150). and more generaliy by the stifling societal noms of the upper class. As Lehman and Hunt point out, ''tropes of entrapment and escape are woven tbroughout the narrative: characters repe8tedfy escape hmhandcuffs, break through locked gates, and opai and relock a de" (93). Afkr her suicide attempt, Rose is presumabiy nscued from "the inertia of mer] life" by Jack, who takes her to "a rdparty" in steerage and teaches her how "to spit like a man." Some critics argue that the film accords Rose a great deal ofagency: %oughout the last ninety minutes of Tltunic, Rose

Mly participates in the physical action, shedding clothes to be able to use (ami also display) her body to pater effecf skillfully employing an ax, even hitting people, and running, wading, and swllnmiiig in a most unladylike fashion" (Utmer 1 15). in fact,

Rose's employment of the ax has wm to do with bünd luck than with skiil (indeeâ, she closes her eyes). and while she is not the most conventional damsel in distress, her heroics pale when measured against Jack's. in contrsst to Jack, who is decisive in taking action,

Rose tends to follow his orders or suggestions. Indeed, to a certain extent, her narrative of likmtion simply fiinctiom as a backdrop for her lover's heroics, and her escape fkom the constrictions of upper-class life is realized entirely in relation to Jack. Munich and Spiegel identify the life Rose goes on to lead aftet the ship's sinking as comsponding to Jack's

"vision of hep:

The photographs old Rose b~gsaboard the Keidysh dethis point explicit: Rose beside a plane (Jack's singing 'Josephine and Her Flying

M;achineSinto her ear before they ktkiss); Rose on a horse, not sidesadde,

in front of a roller waster (their conversation about the Los Angeles pier

Jack useû to fiequent and his promise to teach her to ride horxs and rouer Roberts 58

coasters); Rose with ber family (his dying demand that she survive. have

children, live long). (165)

Essentidy, Jack has "authorized her agency, hvmd into a ghost, enabhg her to choose life in the meof his bodiless spirit" (166). Rose's iiberation is sealed, both visually and narratively speaking, when "[slailing beneath the Statue of Liberty, she renames herself

'Rose Dawson"' (166). Hence, not only is Rose's "accomplished life . . .presented as the

fulfillment of her contract with Jack," but that contract "is discursively figured as a marriage" (Nera 227). While her life following the Titanic sinking indicates elements of masculinization of her character (as evidenced by the photographs), this life bas been made

possible through a kind of rnarriage.

Keller argues that Rose's class status continws to be significant even after the

sinking of Titanic. As the photographs that document Rose's 4'adventurous but expensive

life" suggest, she has not "really renounced her class," but instead "rejected . . . its most obviously repugnant values" (146). instead of viewing Jack as working-class, as his

steerage accommodations aboard Titanic suggest, Munich and Spiegel locate him in the

context of "the solid middle class of the Middle West";in fact, Jack's artkt status allows

him to "exis[t] outside the class system" (160). It is Uiis classlessnesdmiddle-cliss

existence (the two king one and the same according to American mythology) that Rose

ultimately embra~es:"We first enwunter ha as the camera foaws on her han& working

a piece of clay; as the carnen tracks bac4 she is situated in a very cornfortable house, a

middle-class house . . .A middle-chss Me. the movie tells us, is the creative Iife" ((160).

Thugh Jack's suggestions, Rose has attained "the historically male-codd Womto

pursue the AmehDream" (Ouellette 180). inâeed, when Rose changes ber name Roberts 59 beneath the Statue of Liberty, her identity becomes a tabula rasa; surrounded by suivivors

fkom steerage, she becomes an Unmigrant like them. one wbo uitimately does achieve the

Amencan Dream.

Rose can iive the life Jack wanted for her because his heroics prevent her from

becoming a casualty in the "spectacle of mass death" (Rich Al 1). If Rose foms part of the

spectacle of the ship in its splendour, she has aot been included among the thousands who

fneze to deatb. The deaths portrayed durhg the sinking are themselves ciramatic: many

fdl off the ship, one man hitting a propeller on the way down. Although the narrative of

Titcinic is ostensibly Rose's memory, many events could not possibly have been witnessed

by her character, both before and after the ship hits the iceberg. But it is the sinking

sequence that takes the camera's position to its extreme, letting the female and feminized

narrative go. Rose's narrative is reasserted by the film's conclusion, where it is not her

memory but her subconscious or soul that forms the perspective. The film reveals old Rose

asleep, cireamhg of the Titanic; however, the film's more powerful suggestion is that Rose,

having told her story, is free to die and to reunite with her lover. In fact, it seems that

Rose's only reason for contacthg Brock Lovett has been to get as close as possible to the

Titanic, tell her tale, and rejoin Jack: whik Lovett has been seelring the "Heart of the

ûcean," Rose has had it ail dong; the night of her death, she throws it into the sea without

ever tellhg hlln it was in her possession. Fresumably, the diamond is meant to siak

towards the wreckage. But after the massive scenes of destruction, the film nstons the

original spectacle of Titanic, not oniy by returniag the ship to its splendour as the

undenmiter wrrck dissolves to a testord version of itself. but also by returning Rose to her

youthfid self: it is Kate Wuislet, not Gloria Stuart, who mets Lconardo DiCaprio at the Roberts 60 top of the wdenstaircase. The "socidly integrateâ" audience, comprised of "passengers fkom al1 decks" (KrlLmer 121-22) of Titanic applauâ, making a spectacle (much like the fih does) of their remion as Jack and Rose kiss.' The camera tilts up to the glas dome,

"the white ligbt of etemity" (Munich and Spiegel 166), asserthg the supremacy of the ship's spectacle before fading out to the film's credits. The reinscription of the love story returns the film to its feminized narrative, and mutes the masculinkation of Rose. The final scene also appears to realize Rose and Jack's "spiritual" (Munich and Spiegel 166) mamage, first suggested by Rose's changing her name to Dawson. Rose wem a white dnss whm she ascenâs the stairs to meet Jack, who is waiting for her; the applause that accompanies their kiss is not udike that at the end of a wedding ceremony. Not oniy does the love story assert its supremacy, then, but persona1 tragedy and mess destruction and deatb are also undone by the celestid resolution, represented by the restored ship and its psengets.

The resounding global success of Titanio-specifically the huge audience nurnbea it has drawn-has meant that "hundteds of millions of people will eventually have this experience in wmmon" (Riding ii 1). Here, the film seems to palle1 the Academy

Awards, where it won in eleven categories, tying Ben-Hw for the record for most Oscars won by a single film. An& because records seem to follow in Titmic's wake, the Oscar broaâcast thso honoured Titanic drew "the biggest audience ever for the annual special"

(Carter E7): bbTitanic'spopularity was widely recognyied as a key faor in its success"

(Wyatt and Vlesmas 39). The exposure of the film mirrored the exposure ofthe Oscar telecast, and the fkt that "[l]&e ail me@&, the movie has becorne a loml of religionm (Ansen 60), certainly fits the Acsdemy Awards' ritualistic aspects. As a symbol of

American show business, the Acaâemy Awâs most certahdy provide a reflection of what

is valueâ by the industry. For 1997, Titanic appeared to dictate Hollywood values through

its public reception aad Academy recognition The spectacle of the fiim conesponded to

the glamour of the Oscar ceremoaies: "This year, there is a movie whose hefty dimensions

meets the Oscar hype" (Lwy, ''ûverboatà'' Cl). in his prediction of Titanic's Oscar

victory, Liam Lacey outlined the following reasons for the fh's inevitable success:

1. It bas the most nominations. The most nominated film has won 21 of

the past 25 years.

2. It's historical. In the past five years, oniy historical pictures have won.

In the pst20 years, only six winnen have ken set in the present day.

3. It has big production values. Twelve of the past 15 winners have also

won best art direction.

4. The hero dies. Fi- of the past 20 winners saw the death of a main

character or someone close to him.

5. It's really popular. Most Oscar winnen are box-office sucases as

well. ("ûvetboard" C 1)

Of Lacey's six reasons for Titanic's victory, four of them have to do with the film's

nlationship to excess, one that he expected (comctly) to be awarded on Oscar night. The

Oscar stage itself was built to refîect the glamour of Tironic:

Evm îhe style of the Shnne Auditorium bas ben redesigneâ to hark lwck

to old-fahioned elegance, combining set design elements of the les

seamy side of L.A.Co&deatial with the baiiroom of Titanic [sic]. 'Tm Roberts 62

using old gold mosaic' crushed velvet, silver leaf, a large 50-foot mirror

ceilhg for a Busby Berkeley efféct," stage designer Roy Cbristopher told

Variety [sic] last week. "Last year wss sparer. This year is opulent, with a * set that may k Wreneû to an old movie pelace in a nineties fiame.''

(Lacey, "ûverboard" C 1)

Titanic becomes linked to expectatioas of glamorous Nmviewing, even in the context of the spectator, invoked through the movie palace. The rilm literally set the stage for the

Academy Awards; Mhemore, both Titanic and the Oscar stage can be said to have "a ninaies frame." And in terms of the Academy's values reflecting the state of the uidustiy, it is important to remember the previous year as one where independent films were the most fatured. Peter Waal identifies Titanic as "a story of salvaged glamour, a sign that the grand Hollywood movie cm rise again" (34); and according ta David Gritten, "Hollywood

bes reasserteâ itself. with Titanic proving a perfkct rally hg point" (20).

Not only the stage, but also the staghg and the ceremony for the 1997 Academy

Awards Sorded Tir

filmeâ sequence tbat inserted him into the nominated films, a sequence that focwd more

on Tiionic tban any other picture, Crystal entered on the bow of a ship, lowered to stairs

that leâ to the stage. Crystai himself linked Titanic's fmtures with the Oscars': "We are just like that great ship. We are huge, we are expensive, and everybody wants us to go a lot

faster." Because 1997 mkedthe 70th anniversary ofthe Academy Awards, Oscar night

was a celebration of itself; the success of Tilmiic was therefore bound up in the Academy's

self.ccleùration, and in some ways became syuonymous with the Acdemy and its

expectaîions. in a clear fusion of Titanic and the Oscars, Cbline Dion sang the film's Roberts 63 theme smg, "My Heart WiI1 Go On," whüe wdnga wckîace designed after the 'Weart of the Ocean." Thus, an element of spectacle from the film becPrne put of the Oscar spectacle. Dion also mjoyed the most spectacular surroundings of al1 the singers. Her performance immediately followed that of Elliott Smith, who stood alone on stage with his acoustic guitar. During Dion's Song, however, smoke fiiied the stage behind her, and an orchestra above accompanied her singing. Titanic's spectacle increased with each nomination and clip which accompanied it, and with each win where a clip of the film accompanied the wimer(s) to stage; mer,the winner(s) could draw attention to the film in their acceptame speech(es). James Cameron came under criticism by the press for his acceptance speeches, particularly those for Best Director and Best Picture: Cameron "set a standard for orgiastic self-congratulation when he dubbed himself 'king of the worlâ'"

(Pains" A22), a far cry from Oscar speeches that usually display "a degree of humility"

(Weinraub El). But like Dion's necklace, Cameron's self-appointment as "king of the worlâ" marked a moment of fusion Meenthe film and the ceremonieq the line belonging to Jack in the film (wcitten, of course, by Cameron). When accepting for Best Pic-,

Cameron also asked ''the audience to observe a few moments of silence for the Titanic [sic] casuaities" (Tains" A22), thus directing the Oscar specîacle itself

Although Wyatt and Vîesmas declare that Titanic's Oscar nominations and wins

"[sIolidifIied] a positive critical response" (39). like the Acaâemy Awards themselves,

Titmic was not unproblernaticaily celebcated by criticd The fih was descnii as v~*ouslyas "awesome even when it's awW (Orocn Cl), "as trashy as it sounds" (Arroyo

17). "a big-screen spectacle with a soul" (Andrews D8). and "a simple-mindeû entertainment" (Miller 52). But there is also a sense thai Titanic has been essential to the Roberts 64

Hollywood industry, aot ody because its financial success provided an "obligatory happy

ending" (Wyatt and Vlesmas 42), but also because "it's the kind of movie Hollywood

believes in, has bonded its sou1 to, wants to see vaiidated, needs to believe can blow the

cornpetition out of the waters' (qtd in Bernstein 24). As a nIm that upholds the Amencan

Dream in however an apparently qualified manner, Titanic expan& the discourse of the

Arnerican Dream through its Oscar success: if the Oscars thernselves epitomize the

Amerkari Dream, and Titanic epitomizes Hollywood filmmaking, the film becornes doubly

intertwined with this discourse of aspiration and success.

Titanic rnay function as the embodiment of Hollywood spectacle, but, somewhat

, curiously, James Cameron has claimed that the film "is his hdictment of mainStream

commercial filmmaking'' (Waal 34). What may or may not complicate the film's

seemingly ready insertion into American discourse is the fact that both Carneron and Cdiw

Dion, who sings the film's theme song: are both Canadian. Norman Jewison's experience

et the Academy Awàssuggests that Cdans,to a certain extent, are viewed as

foreigners by Hollywood. Cameron himself also views himself somewhat in opposition to

the Hollywood industry: "1 feel like I'rn in it and 1 can do it, but 1 don? feel I'm of it" (qtd.

in Johnson 91); however, he has been honound by Hollywood's self-appointcd taste-

malers. Whether Cameron's Canedian origins should Uinuence readings of Titanic is

debaîable; but it is interrsting that not a single essay in the critical collection, Titanic:

Anutomy of a Blockbuster, mentions Cameron's Canedian birth, even though severai essays

discuss the nIm as a promotion of American vaiues. Furtber, Cameron's Oscar acceptance

speech for Best Director hes been descriias "suitably American" (Edwards-Jones Metro

3). In contiasf Clnadian news media bave consistently nferred to Cameroa's nationaiity: Roberts 65

The Toronto Star deemed the Academy Award nominations for 1997 as "Carieda's best

Oscar show ever" (Howell El) on the strength of Atom Egoyan's two nocninatiow and

Titanic's fourteen. Whereas Egoyan's Tlie Sweet HereOpeer is designated as a Canedian h,Titanic ceitainly is not, and yet The Toronto Star inserteâ Tironic into a discourse of

Caaadian filmmaking by vimre of Cameron's bhth.

Cameron has found success in America, which was, in fact, the aspiration of the immigrants abooird Titanic. That the acquisition of the ultirnate Amencan symbol of success and recognition has been possible "even [for] someone fiom a small town in

Ontario, Caniida" (Head 2) perhaps speaki to the power of the Ammcan Dream, and its apparent openness to Ameticans and non-Americans alike. Regardless of Cameron's intentions, Titanic has corne to eucapsdate Hollywood filmmaking, through the film itself as tex& the extratextual financial discourse that has surrounded the film, and the film's

Acdemy Award success and fusion with the Oscar spectacle. Titanic negotiates genre and gendered narratives, thereby negotiating Hollywood film traditions, but ultimately, it poses little challenge to dominant ideological trends: the Titanic appeers to us in the context of femhkd giamour, only to have that glamwr punished with masculinhed destruction sequences; Rose's libration is realizeci on Jack's tems; and class critique, dong with al1 other elements in the film, is secondary to spectacle. As "a Movie Event" (Stone El),

Titanic upholds spectacle and commeicialism, and is therefon a perfit match for the

Acaderny Awards that have traditionally embodied the same values. Using disaster as its subject while avoiding it as a cornmerciai product in the marketplace, Cameron's film managed to resurrct studio nImmikiiigat the Academy Awards &r the year of the indcpcndents; intentiodly or not, as seSappointcd "king of the worlâ," Cameron in effi Roberts 66 reclaimed the Oscars for Hoiiywood. Roberts 67

Notes

1. Rior to Tiicrnic, neither Kate Winslet aor Leoaard DiCapno was considered high-profile enough as a star to "'open' a film at the box office" (Wyatt aiid Vlesmas 29).

Winslet's initial appearance in the nIm certainly &es more sense in "star" ternis following the fh's overwhelming success and Winslet's subsequent increased stardom; however, the entrane is also part of whot makes Titanic appear 90 have been flrned in accordance with old studio practices" (Arroyo 18) of Hollywood's Golden Age.

2. The fact that James Cameron pitched the idea for Titanic as "'Romeo and Juliet' on a sinking ship" (Brown and Ansen 66) underscores the importance of William

Shakespeare 's Romeo + Miet to textuai reflection on Titanic.

3. Julian Sûinger notes that "[wlhile a tüial reunion scene magically reswitates al1 the doomed passengers for a feel-good ending," not everyone is included: the absence of

Cal and his "swing henchrnan Spicer Lovejoy" (210) suggests that while the other psssengen have made it to 'the luxury Liner to heaven" ('WHO" A28), Cal and Lovejoy have been condemned to hell.

4. For a more detailed overview of critical respollses to the film, see Matthew

Bernstein's "'Floating Tnumphantly': The Amencan Critics on Titunic" in Sander and

Studlat.

5. For an examination of the significance of the theme song and soundtrack to

Titanic's success, see Ieff Smith, "Selling My Heart Music and Cross-Promotion in

Titanic" in Sander and Studlar. Chapter Three

The Invisibility Awarâs: Locatllig the Genk

Whereas the AcaQmy Awards operate as a global point of reference, delivering a celebratioa of Hollywood to people around the world, the Genie Awatds, ohrefend to as 4~'sOscars" by way of explmotion, are al1 but invisible not only to the outside world, but also to the people whose nation is ostensibly reflected in the works the

Geaies celebrate. As Noreen Golfman notes, "[mlost people squint tryingly when you ask them if they even know what medium the Genies honour" (7); and the people to whom Golfinan refers are Canadian. But the status of the awards thernselves is inextncably Wed to the status of the film industry they celebrate, as well as to the Prime

Mover of all awds shows, the Oscars. The Genies' precurson, the Canadian Film

AwPrds, scarcely resernbled Hollywood's biggest par&, and clearly demomted the merences between the Canaâian and Hollywood film industries. With the establishment of the Academy of Canedian Cinema and the subsequent introduction of the Genie

Awards, the Canaâian film industry appeared to define itself according to Hollywood pfactices.

The Genie Awards, however, peifonn an entirely different function than the

Oscars. Becwse of poot distriiution of Canadian films in Canada, the Genies offer an introduction of Canaâian films to the Canadian public; most films nominated for high- profile Oscar categories neeâ no such introduction. But the Genies are part of larger, c0~8ctedprojects: they nflect the attempt to conœive of Cariadian cinema as a nationai and art cinema, thus dernollsffating tendencies towardP fixing the Canadian donin some way whik woilriag in opposition to American culture. The situation bewmes more Roberts 69 complicated, however, as the Genies, modelled on the Oscars while attempting to carve a niche for the celebration of Canaâian films, exempliS. Canaâa's profound ambivalence towds its powerful neighbour to the south. In ddition, issues within Canada surfice in the fiim industry and the Genies: teasions betweetl QuCbec and English Canada have arisen, most particdarly at the Canadian Film Awards; definitions of what is "Cansdian" have figured in industry discourse; and the eoonomic realities of the Canadian film industry are repeatedly invoked at Genie ceremoaies. It is the cerernony itself that most clearly beûays the Merences between Cdanand Hollywood cinema, the Genie celebration generally characterized by understatement and low ratings. Hence, the

Genies attempt to create justification for celebratioa through the celebration itself in a larger attempt to consûuct and validate Canadian culture.

The Canadian Film Awards held their first ceremony in 1949. Ualike the Oscars, the CFAs were not awarded by an acaderny of cinemo; rather, the awards were

"[o]rganized under the auspices of the CanadibanAssociation for Adult Education"

(Magder 90). Although the Oscars have corne to serve as mode1 for awards ceternonies, and ceremoaies for film in particular, the Caaadian Film Awds iniîially looked to a

âifferent mode1 to emulate as "[ilt was hoped that these new awdswould k comparaôle in stature with the Govemor General's Awards for literatwe" (Topaiovich 1).

Thus, the inspiration for the genesis of the CFAs came hma pre-existing celebration of

Canadian dturaî products. Indeeû, in the first years of the Canadian Film Awaids, winners were presented with "an original painting by a Canridian artist (includiog manbers of the Group of Seven) as a token of theh achievement" (9,thus rewardiog one meûium with another in a circulation of Caaadian culture. Roberts 70

While part of Amerka's Academy of Motion PicmArts and Sciences' initial mandate was to elevate the stahis of the film industry, the CFAs resembled this mandate with their beginning objectives. At the inception of the Catisdian Film Awards end the

Cariridian Raâio Awwds-Iidministered by sep8t8te cornmittees-the articulateci goals were "recognizing significant Cadancdve effort, helping Canadim to understand the work of creaîive Canaâian ariists, and raishg standards in the fields of film and tadio" (1). The notion of mediating betwwn Canadians and Caaadian cultural products remained a particular firnction of the CFAs and the later Genie Awards. Throughout theu history, the CFAs revealed a tension ôetween remaining ''distiactly" Canadian and succumbing to American or Hollywood influences. Maria Topalovich describes the ht

Canadian Film Awards as 'Tar from glarnorous. There was no hint of Hollywood in the

modest award ceremony: no red carpet stretching from curb to lobby, no crowd surging

forward in search of stars" (6). Iadeed, Cenedian politics, rather than film stars, have ofken had a mong presence in celebraîions of Canedian film, a testament to the -te's

involvement in the Canadimi film industry. At the first Canaâian Film Awards, 'Robert

Winters, Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, was on hand to present the awds on behalf of Prime Minister Louis St Laurent" (5); in the am&' second year, the Prime

Minister presented the awards hirnseif. The third Canadian Film Awards fatured some

star power thanLs to the presence of Mary Pickford Wheceas The Globe and Mail

declorcd tbat "[p]tesentation of the awds was accompinied by comparativeiy linle

Hollywood-style fdm"(National 8). the Ciilzen likened the celebration to "the pomp

addignity of a HoUywd preview" (Piclâord 3), ad FOOdfir Though cLUmd that it

was Pickfiorâ's prcsence tbat "added ghor[sic] and excitement to the œremony" Roberts 71

("Cariadian" 23). The addition of a film star to the celebration therefon tmsformed the event itself. Two yean later, "movie glamor [sic] girl'' (Barris 8) Dorothy Lamour also graceâ the Genies with her presence. But such glamour at the CdanFilm Awaids constitute!~the exception rather thsn the nile, although these moments of glarnour certainly emphasize the tension between Oscar-emuiation and the desin to remain distinct Born Holiywood

The chief characteristic of the CuanFilm Awards (and later, the Geiiies) appears to have been inconsistency. This quality surfies not only in the sporadic appearance of movie stars, but in several other aspects of the awards presentations as well. While the fitst few years of the awds featured presentations in late April and early May, subsequent ceremonies took place in the surnmer, in May again for several years, and then most often in October. Not oniy did the date of the awards vary ,but the location did as well. Ottawa hosted the first three CFA presentations before the awards moved to Toronto. The next year they moved to Montreal. Otber locations for the

CdanFilm Awards have been Stratford (1956) and Niagara-on-the-Lake at the Shaw

Festivai (1975). This varying of location was due to "the cornittee's estabtished policy of rotating the venue of the cornpetition" (Topalovich 21). The later predornimce of

Toronto presentations for the CFAs (as well as the Geuies) does nflect a more centtalized, Hollywood-inspireci system, in opposition to early attmipts to incorporate cbanges of venue into the CFA systcm.

Other changes in the Canadian Film Awds have to do with the awards categories, as the CFAs altered to fit the shifts expaieacad in the Cauaâian film industry.

These categories pvide one of the ciearest diffettnces between the CFAs ad the Roberts 72

Oscars. Wh- the Acaâerny Awds have always been primarily concemed with fiction fature filmmalcing, the CFAs often had no entries in the fature fiim category, adgave no best fature fiim award nom 1954 to 1963; indeed, the CFA$ "emphasis on non-theatrid documentary and theaüicai-short award categories clwly refiected the limits (and strengths) of Canada's fih production" (Magder 90). The CFAs also bestowed awards for amateur Ndng,and for a time iacluded such catcgory distinctions as govemment and non-government sponsored. Although the CFAs did not always name a Film of the Year, bonourable and special mentions were ofken included apart from the wihgfilms. Categories were added or deleted as the industry shifled.

For the 1954 awards, the CFAs "agreed to ensure that the number of Hoaoumble mentions would not exceed twenty percent of the entries in each category" in respome

'?O criticism for granting too many awards in relation to the number of entries submitted"

(Topaiovich 26); the CFAs were therefore chastixd for being too celebratory, and not dramng enough distinctions between films. Individual contriiutions to films were not recopized by the CFAs until the introduction of craft categories, beginning with the

Cairndia Society of Cinematographers' awards for colour and black-ancl-white cinematography. The fht acting adwere given in 1968, the same year that Sorel

Etmg's sculpture was wd as the CFAs' statuette. Thus, &r the initial years of winners

receiving paintings, followed by the years in which certificates were gantai uistead (due

to financial nesons), the CFAs adapteû themelves to the Oscar-inspnd practice of

haading out statuettes to the *ers.

Although the amnls granted by the CFAs came to conform to the Hoilywood

model, in terms of both uttegories d the physicai prize, the actuai cacmonies Roberts 73 themselves displayed only occasional resemblances to the Oscars. The presentations varied throughout the CFAs' history. While the fhtCanadian Film Awards were attend4 by "400 members and supporters of Caaada's burgeoning film industry"

(Tojmlovich 5). later events were ofkn scaled down in the fom of "a private industry banquet" (29). The question of whekor not to grant public access to the CFAs ofien incited some controversy. In 1955, there was no public presentation due to the wishes of the Cornmissioner of the Nationai Film Board. in opposition to the views of "the tbree sponsoring organizations of the annuai event (The Canadian Association for Adult

Education, the Canadian Film Mtute, and the Canada Foundation)" who emphasized

"the public information value of the Awards" (29). The 1956 awards were held in conjunction with a 35 mm International Film Festival in Stratford, where "noted filmmalters fiom Britain and the United States" (33) were in attendance. But for severai subsequent yem, the awards were "handed out at a private industry luncheon" (38) hosted by the Association of Motion Picture Producers and Laboratones of Canada

(AMPPLC). The awds for 1964 rnadced a him towards a gala event, a shift that coincided with "the beginning of an important era in C8118diaa film production-the era of the feature film" (65). Indeeâ, 1964 "marked the first time in eleven years that a dtamatic fature film awarâ hnd been presented" (65), to Claude Jutra's A tout prendre.

The pnsence of higher profile proâucts king celebrated thus nsuited in an increased status for the awards event.

The CFAs received a great deal of criticism over the course of theù history. Not

only were categories wnstantiy king reworkeâ ,but the voting systnn also came under

scnitiny, prticuiarly in 1965 when m Film ofthe Year was given despite strong Roberts 74 cuntenders, and in 1968, when "the jury. . .overlooked the officiai nominees"

(Topaiovich 82) and mmed Don Owen Best DWr. But deeper controversies sunounâing the Canaâiaa Film Awarâs reflecteà larger cultural m'eties. The debate over whether to telecast the awards cenmoay ia 1966 brought such anxieties to the foregrouad. The Directors Guild of Cdwas opposed to the broadcast, arguing "a poorly staged television show would cuise irrepamble darnage to the CFA's, and indeed the entire industry's, crediibility with the general public" (73). The press deemed the

CFA show a "poor man's copy of the Oscars" (73). pointing to the Canadian film industry's failure at Oscar-emulation. The fact that this criticisrn emerged after a telecast, specifically, emphasizes the primacy of spectacle involved at the Academy Awards, and the importance of spectacle for other awds ceremonies, particularly where audience expectations are concemed.

Canada's relationship with Hollywood was not the ody fraught relationship that haà consequences for the Canadian Film Awards; indeed, tensions ôetween Qubbec and

English Canada aiso took a toll on the CFAs. In 1973, independent Québec filmmakers did not enter films hto the CFA cornpetition, "[cliting their chief reason as 'lack of interest"' (Topaiovich 93). Two yem later, an "eleventh-hour boycott" by Quebec filmmalcers forced the caacellation of the Canadian Film Awards, which were to be

'Yelecast live for the first the by the CBC on both the English and French networks"

(101). Among the cornplaints of the Québec fiImmnirers wm the CFA ceremony, which they described "as an imitation Oscars" (Knelman 32).

The cuihinl issues were not Iunited to the appeals to the Hollywood industry, however. the Québécois fhmakets also argued that to judge French- and English- Roberts 75

Canadian fihs together was a negation of the "cwa quite different societies and cultures"; the Canndian FhAwards thetefore "projected a false image of hamony and homogenity [sic)" (Topdovich 10 1). These filmmaicers recognized the role of the

Canadian Film Awards in attempting to establish Chancincma as a national cinema, and the culturai consequences of such an attempt: '70idenhi@ a nationai cinema is first of aiî to speciw a coherence and a unity; it is to proclah a unique identity and a stable set of meanings. The proass of identification is thus invariably a hegemonising, mythologisiag process" (Higson 37). Thus, the CFAs, and later the Genies, fiuiction as part of a lerger cultural systern that seeks to define what is Canaâian in a &ed manner.

As a result of the 1973 boycott, the Canadian Film Awaids were simply presented at a

"sombre press conference" (Knelman 32) in Monûeai. Followirig the boycott, it was rccommended 'Wat the Engüsh- and French-language industries develop and stage two separate awds ceremonies" (Topalovich 105). In 1975, oniy the English-speaking cornmittee submitted e grant application for their awds, and so

the Treasury Board released dl of the hâs[of the CFA grant] to the

English-language group. The understanding was that this exceptional

circumstance would not be repeated, and that in friture a grant would only

be allocated if both industry cornmittees submitted biefs indicating a

concerted effort to present a üuly national event (105)

This decision by the Treasury Board involves a presupposition of what is "truiy national," and what is acceptable for Caaada's national ideatity. Clearly7the "filse harmony" identifiai by the boycotthg Québécois directors is an integral part of the Tnasury Board's &finition of Canada Roberts 76

As Robert Schwartzwald notes,

During the years leading up to Qutbec's 1980 referendum on

"sovereigaty-usociation,". . . an oft-repeated argument for "national

unity" was that without QuCbec, Canada would be indistinguisbable fiom

the United States! This double bind of calling on Québec's "distinctness"

but king unwilling to acknowleâge it withia a new constitutionai

arrangement explains why many Québécois feel they are held hostage by

English Cariade which, unsure of its identity, 'heeds" Qu&ec to prove its

difference. ( 18)

The 1973 boycott and the subsequent decision of the Treasury Board clearly demonstrate this dynamic of tension between English Canada and Québec, although, ironically, it was the Quebecois directors who protested against the similarity between the CFAs and the

Oscars. The Tnasury Board insisted that the CFAs reflect their definition of the nation, one that presumably needs Quebec to prove its difference. in an indirect way, these

Qudbécois direaors did, in fact, prove Canada's distinction fiom America, at least as fat as film awards are concemed: while the Academy Awards con claim never to bave cancelled theù show, culturaf issues in Canada and its film industry have loomed large enough to prc-empt the celebration.

The 1978 Canadian Film Awds narrowly averteâ the fate of the 1973 awards, though the near-canceilation was due to Merent reasons. instead of cultural differences causing a split within the Canidian Film Awarâs, it was criticisms of the jury system,

"dramatic tbreats of 'blachnail,' 'pull-outs' and 'court injunctions"' (Topaiovich 121). which nearly prevented the awads presentation. The members of the Canadian Roberts 77

Association of Motion Picture Producers "insisteci on a semi-academy style system, whereby all members of their association would receive nomiaetiag rights for the Best

Feature Film category" (121). The Academy of Canadian Cinema was formed in 1979

(changing its name in 1985 to the Academy of Carindian Cinema and Television), making

a dedentity responsible for celebrating film, unlike the various associations tbat

previously had been responsible for the Canadian Füm Awarâs. This gesture away from

tiagmentation also included an explicit movemqnt towards the American Academy of

Motion Picm Arts and Sciences; indeeâ, the Academy of Canadian Cinema's was first

known as "the Canadian Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" (124). a clear

example of the Canadian film industry modelling itself on Hollywood practices. The

mandate of the Ademy of Canadian Cinema resembled that of the Canadian Film

Awards: '90 stimulate higher standards of filmmaking in Canada through the

presentation of annual am&; to foster educational activib'es and speciai events; to

develop public awanness of the industry; and to provide a forum for the various

components of the industry" (125). AAer the formation of the Academy of Canadian

Cinema, the CdanFilm Awards (somctimes known as the "Etrogs" following the

uitroâuction of the statuette) were nllllllied the Genie Awards: "A meaningfbl bilingd,

catchy and marketable wne was reqwted" (126).

With the estabiishment of the Academy of Canadian Cinema and the introduction

of the Genk Awards, the celebration of cinema in Canada undement a fwlift ofsorts,

one dw brought the celebration of Cdancinema closer îhan ever to the ûscar model.

Topaiovich descniôes the Gtst Gmies presentation as follows: Roberts 78

On March 20,1980, Toronto's Royal Alewdra Theatre was the glittering

setting for the Acaâemy of Canadian Cinema's first annual Genie Awarâs.

Attended by a capacity theaüe audience of Canadian filrnmakers and

supporters, the awarâs pnsentation was hosted by television celebrity

Bnmo Genissi and highlighted by such Canadian and international stars as

Donald SutherIm& Margot Kiâàer, Jack Lemmon, Chiistopher Plummer,

Helen Shaver, Lee Majors, and Louise Marleau, who participated as the

evening's award presenten. The Genies were telacast live by the CBC

television network. (127)

AccordiDg to this passage, the Genie Awards introduceâ glamour to the Canadian film industry by adding celebnty aud a "glittering setting." The issue of celebrity attendance is paramout, especially in relation to spectacle. If stars constitute a large reason why awards shows have an audience, then celebrity presenœ is a necessity in order for an awds show to have an audience at dl, pticularly if the cultural products being celebrated have wt had wide exposure to the gendpublic. Throughout the history of awds for Canadian cinema, "cekbrities" have of€enincluded such figures as politiciam, broadcasters, fih aitics, and cornedians. Genie hosts, for instance, have included ''well-

Lwwn television interviewer Brian Linehan" (133); signincantly, people such as Liwhan are ktter recognizeâ than many actors in Canadian films. But as Topaiovich indicates, th first Oenie Awarâs were attendeci by "Catiridian and international stars," whose roles as presenters spe~ificailyrelate to the ceremony's spectacle as many of these acûm were not mmina!ed for awuds themselves. Their presence, however, presdly ka& credl'bility to the awuds hmthe point of view of the public. The fact that Roberts 79

"international" stars are pcesent-meaning both HoUywd actors and Canactians who have had Hollywood success themselve+fiirthers this credibility.

The notion of international recognition is a long-standing issue for the celebration of Cariridian aIm. Even while applauding Cdanfilms in Canada, the industry bas consistently looked outside national borders for validation. hdeed, the CFAs took this extenial validPtion to the extreme, as they "relied on international jmn to decide the best Canadian movies and players; a colonial hangover that ended after the 1978 awards"

(Adilman, "Cdan"D3). Topalovich's A Pictor idHistory of the Canadiun Film

Awurds also repeatedly refers to recognitions outside of Caaada for those films celebmted within the country. Of The Loon 's Neckloce, the first CFA wher for Film of the Year, for example, Topaiovich notes that "the imaginative ten-minute colour film had aiready been named among the eleven 'world's most outstanding' non-commercial motion pichues at the second International Festival of Documentary films in Edinburgh. It wodd continue to win awds and distinctions arouad the worlâ" (5). To situate the film in a larger, international forum of awards does serve to uphold the quaiity of the film itselc however, drawing attention to an expanded context of film awards also validates

Canaâa's film awards. Canada need not justify its selection of awardeâ films if those films bave aiready been singled out in other coumies. The Oscars, not surprisingly, figure as the most important outside validation for films given adin Canada.

Topalovich explains that the National Film Board's Evolufion, which won Best Aaimated

Film of the Year at the CFAs in 1971, "won ten hternatiod awds, including an Oscar nomination" (95). Sigdicantly, the international awards the film acaially won go unmention& the Oscar nomination, on the otha band, is tnatcd by Topaiovich as an Roberts 80 award in itself. Not only is it "an honour to be nominateâ" for an Academy Awd, but the Oscar nomination eclipses any other awards that might be won. Thus, the Oscar asserts its primacy as model and culturai monitor even for films awarded in Canada. And while film am& given in Canaâa are meant to reflect Cdanculture and to celebrate what these films mean to Canada, appeais to international validation wmplicate the question of national celebration.

Nation, the internationai commuity, and the issue of "foreignness" are key to the

Genie Awards and their relationship to the Oscars, primarily because of the national images of the comtries which host the awards. At the Oscars, b'f'oreiga" films are those I in a language other than English; indeeâ, Denys Arcand's films, Le Ddclin de 1'empire américain (1986) and Jiim de Monhdal(1989), have ken nominated in the Oscars' Best

Foreign Film categoiy. During the fmt years of the Genie Awds, "foreign" categories had to do with non-Camdian performers in Canadian films. These categories were controversial, for varying reasons. At the tirst Genie Awards in 1980, Canadian winners

Christopher Plumer adKote Lynch

attacked the academy's spedcategories for Outstanding Foreign Actoa

and Actresses, but for opposite reasons. Lynch argued that Cdan

pefiormers were king overlooked and rarely cast in leaâ roles, so that

winning h a category whece the Cdancornpetition was minimal was

meaningless. Plummer, on the other hanci, urged Canadian pecfomers to

recognize themselves as Uitemational peifomms and to compete with

Canadians and nonXamdbs alike. (Topdovich 127) Roberts 81

What both these positions point to are the issues sunoundmg taking Canadians out of an international context. The problems of this nationai industry, and indeed, its insecurities, are reveaied by the inclusion of 'Tonign" categories. In 1984, these categories were dropped; in 1985, the Academy voted to make non-Cariadiaris puticipating in Canaâian films eligible for Genie Awards. At the Oscars, donality does not officially rnake a difference to nominations or aw8fds; however, the majority of wi&g pictures and other award recipients are American. The Oscar ceremony itself is coaducted in English, and most nominations are for tilms in English. At the Genies, Qu&écois films have had a substantial presence, in both nominated and winning films; however, there has been "a definite linguistic bias in the rnanner in which the Genies [are] presented to the public"

(Conlogue, "Ghosts" C7); and the Genies have only been held twice in Montreal. Hence, the Genies have incorpoiated aspects of Qudbecois culture while allowing the cuhure of

English Canada to domhate the presentation. In 1998, the Jutra awards were established to honour Québec cinema, without distinguishing dong linguistic lines: "Any film financed in Quebec that hm run for at least a week in a Quebec cinema during the past year is eligible" (Hustsk B9). The awdswere established as "a result of growing unhappiness in English and French Canaâa with the Genie Awards," though Juûa chairman Roger Frappier daims, 'Tt is not a question of regionaiizing" the Genies; rather, the awards are o reflection of the f8ct that "[o]ftai Quebec films that win Genies are never seen in English Canada'' (B9). Thus, the Genies have not ptedsufficient visibility to the Québécois nIms they honour.

While the Genies are not aiways sucassfiil in lending a higher profile to

Québécois films outside the province in which they en maâe, influences fiom outside Roberts 82

Canada et the Genie Amds are clearly visible wheaever present The establishment of the Academy of Canadian Cinema and the reincarnation of the Canaâian Film Awards as the Genies demoastrate elements of Hollywood practice. Although there were some

positive responses within Canada to the first Genie Awards, the Genies' debt to the Oscar traâition did not go u~oticedFilm reviewer Leonard Klaây claimed the Genies bed

"passeci [their] first year with fiying coiors" by providing a "dazzlùig showcase of talent

and movies" (17), but Jay Scott and Ron Base were more critical and upfiont about

Oscar-emulation: Scott declared the Genie show "a Iess expensive but smoothly operated

clone of the American Oscar ceremonies" ("Changeling" 15); Base proclaimed, "Oscar

had moved north, mated with a beaver and produced an offspring named Genie" (Dl).

Scott apparently saw the first Genies breaking with the pst iasofar as "perhaps for the

fm the, the awards were taken seriously, which is to say wi~erswere ebullient and

losers appeared to aWyregret losing" ("Changeling" 15). But while the @cipants

rnay have paid attention to the resuits of the awards, Base identified key problems that

would continue to plague the Genie Awards, and that would be mentioned by film critics

every year following the Geaies presentation: "The Genies cornmitted the cardinal sin of

award shows aad handed out awards to a bunch of movies no one had even heard of,

much less seen" (Dl). On this point, the Genie Awards can approximate aeither the

statu nor the function of the Acsdemy Awards. The Oscrus are indeed a popular cultural

pladuct in themselves, and can be watched for the spectacle donc; howcver, the fact that

the fih boaoured by the Oscars tend to be movies wbich aîready fit into the circulation

of popilar culture means that the Acrrdemy Awards do not neeû to explain themselves or

the films to the public. Roberts 83

The two major points of cornparison between the Oscars and the Genies, as far as the Cdmpress is concerne& are the exposure of the films celebrated and the show itseK The press bave tended to be quite tepetitive in their anaiysis of the Gaies' situation. John Gcifnn sizes up the reality of the Genie Awarâs as follows: 'No one watches the Genies. Next to no one cares about Cdanmovies" ("No One" C3). The

Genies' diffiiculty is that they celebrate cultural products that are not well known to the public, nor widely circulated within Canacia. Indeed, throughout the Genies' history, a successful year is one in which "the fie nominees for best picture have al1 been shown in major Canadian theatres" (Adilman, 4'Something" E 1) before the awds ceremony. As

Paul McKie cornplains, a film need not receive substantial exhibition in order to be mnninated: "A film may qualim that has never had a proper national release" as long as it has had "a limited engagement" (22) in one Canadian city. McKie goes on to argue that "[ilf these films are so celebrated, surely Canadians outside of metro Toronto should be given the opportunîty to view hem" (22). Of course, the difficuity Canadian films enwunter ûying to make their way to theattical releases is not to be blamed on the

Ademy of Canadian Cinema and Television. And it is diffcuit to make the public care about a low-profile awards show that celebrates fib with only brief theatrical releases.

But there are larger, more deeply culturel issues surrounding the attitude of the

Cansdian public towards Canadian fih. In 1997, David Weaver noted that 'Yhe improved quality of Canadian films hn't been even remotely matched by an increase in the size of the audiencey'(Cl). Weaver blames a discome of cultural potectionism for keeping Cdansdisinterested in their own film culture. Whüe he recognizes that the piitry amount ofscreen the Canlidian nIms -ive in Canada (Weaver puts it at 3%) Roberts 84 does play a role, he also claims that "arguments that Canadians ought to flock to our films because they're good for our national soul are not going to be successful"(Cl).

There are also aesthetic asswnptions surrounding Canadian film, however, aamely an assumption that anythmg that combines cinema and Caaadian production will end in mediocrity at best. Topalovich blames the tax shelter years for the perception of

Canadian tiims as king ofpoor quaiity: "homile fihs with secodrate Amencan stars and disguised locales" (Machmis H8) hardly conjure up expectations of quality cinema for today's Caaadian films. As Topalovich sumarizes the self-loathhg typical of

Canaâians, "If it's Canadian it can't be gW(qtd. H8).

But the Canadian films that exempli@ the "improved quality" of the Canadian film industry hardly appd to the sarne audience as the Hollywood mainstream. A film such as Thirty-two Shorr Films About Glenn Gould is unlikely to hda mainstream audience in any country (though, as Weaver notes, it is somewhat perverse that the film shouid have received "a much wider release" in America than in Gould's own country, where "its unapologetic Canadian subject probably hurt it" [C 11). Weaver argues that oniy "continued exposure to the public" will undo the Canadian public's "perception that

Cainidian films are intrinsically inferior" (Cl). But films in search of an audience have more than issues of nation with which to contend: %e absence of Canadian audiences for Cansdian füm bas to do, at least in part, with taste" (Acland 282). Granted, for

Canadians (padcularly English-Canaâiaas) and their nlationship to popuiar culture, the two are ciifficuit to scparate. Whe- "the Quebec film indusûy has a high profile"

(Mffin, "Montrealn CS), the same motbe said for English Coaada, with its %car total integration with U.S. cinema culture" (Acland 283). Popular tastes in English Ca& Roberts 85 have been predominantly formed anci attended to by Hollywood. Operathg largely outside the context of popular culture, today's English-CWan film industry can hardly exptto attract the same kind of audience as Hollywood productions. Canadian film occupies a kind of foreign status, even within Canada: "the 'foreignness' of Canadian cinema concem its affinity with an international art cinema. Here, 'foreipess' does not designate a geographical distance from the country. but a distance from popular taste"

(284). Because of the dominance of the Hollywood indusm. and the ciifficulty

Canadians films have in achieviug substantial exhibition, this foreignness is perpetuated, and issues of taste becorne fraught when added to the question of nation.

Accorâiag to Herbert J. Gans, "ppular culture reflects and expresses the aesthetic and other wants of many people" (Mi); presumably, then, American popular culture reflects and expresses the wants of much of the Canadian public. Of course, the question of how these wants have been shapeâ, and whether altematives are easily accessible, must be entered into the equation. Canadian culture that has been celebrated in Canada

(especiaily contemporary Canadian film of the "improved quality" Weaver mentions) tends to occupy the sphere of high culture, a notion that corresponds to trends in national cinemas. Steve Neale argues that the art cinemas of several European countries have bctioned 'kth to wunter American domination of their indigenous markets in film and also to foster a film industry and a film culture of their own" (1 L). A sllnilar situation appeam to exist in Canaâa, at least in critical notions of Canaâiaa ciwma that have

'Yocused pcedomiaantly on the art to the utter neglect of the industry" @orland 10). If

"high culture admore status to creatocs than to perfomers" (Gans 78). surely this allocation of status cm be found in contexnpot~iryCanaàian cinema, whem "directors (Aioi~Dond~riciiaicfriarsdrr*~ti~~~la~,~~

Rlg ~ao9oii~c~~~iurrIipamnrbR~ri~~\1~~~ . iaéigbcrilmrrIPsBda~~. - sttu~.\wankathc*~

Gema~for1995,~cririaGcbf~~uldkmtnn8;uic'~~dic

~fihnsm\niora~dattklUY?a~~Fb~~ht~ actwlty

îxostedrbtm. GursugucstburnJO~ti~~n~~thCjr~v'~*i~l~ltk

Iitrcnti0~1toaTiwor~uMtmtratingonpafommJ"(b~ttxfars~~ukl stardom are coIICÉfhed, pcrfwmuJ tuid to becorne stars unly ittcr cnxssiny the hmkr

Gmnteù, Canada simply docs not have a system in placc wvkrby stardoni "cati hc manufLactured through publicity" (Gamson 4). Canadians ccrttlinly du tnkc an iiitemxt ii~ celebrities, but the Canadian film industry itsclf is not bound up in r publirtty tiincliitic 01' the magnitude of that which exists in the United States. Thus. the Çn~diatitIIw ccirliisiry is not tied up in the üappiags of Hollywood populat culture. and iwcs ol'tnrta niid

Canadian cinema confiate concems of nation with conccms of hiyh. middlo. iiid luw brow. Gans declares that "the mere attempt to decidc what culture is or i.r iiot in tho public interest raises the possibility of cultural dictatonhip" ( 123). 'ï'ho~cCnnidiim wlio are wncemed by the lack of public interest in Canadian cinemu, thcrcfom, hava crikon iip a difticult position: "you cannot legislate Canaâian film8 to the Candion puhl ic" (qld. ~ii

"6Q~~tas"47).

The CanedW film industry mut contend with the "troubliny yap bctwcun the cnticai aad pubüc taste for Canaâian film" (Lw."Dreem" R3) and ihc Jiîfiçulty uT getting Canadians to watch their own country cm wem. But if the hcOnn are r

WveiastiftFti011 ofdcfining Canada, it b iitttrcsting to natc that rom film Roberts 87 nominated for Genies must have their Canadian qualifications explained to the press and the public. The question of who is responsible for acknowledging these qualifications demonstrates that there is a system in place that accepts or rejects cultural products on the bais of these criteria The film, Regeneration, for example, was nominated for several

Genie Awards in 1999:

Regeneration was shot in Glasgow and fanired a host of British screen

talent, including Jonathan Pryce. The movie bore no overt signs of

Canadian conteut, but nonetheless managed to meet CAVCO (Canadian

Audio-Visual Certification Office) requirements as a result of its

producers Allan Scott and Peter Simpson. (Monk CS)

The film also featured a Canadian cinematographer, Glen MacPherson, and a Canadian actress, Tanya Allen. Thus, the co-production occupies a peculiar position with respect to the Genies' haion of national affirmation The Red Violin, nominated in the same year as Regeneration (and winwr of Best Picture, among several other awards), is also a

CO-production,but one which is mon identifiably Canadian, th& to its Canadien director (François Girard), Canadian writers (Girard and Don McKellar), a story-üne set in Montreal, and some Canadiaa actors (McKellar among them). Because Academy of

Csnadian Cinema and Television rules stipulate that "[als long as the film meets CAVCO requkments, it's eligible for a Genie" (qtd. in Monk C8), fdms that do not appear oveitly Cairndian, as is the case with Regeneration, are stiil sanctioned by the prornoter of taste for Canadian cinema; therefore, the national boudaries of the Genies are wider tban wbat might be expected fiom what appeam on scmn Canada neeû not be visible at dl in order for a £ilmto be certifiai Tanaâian." Roberts 88

In a sense, it is partly the responsibility of the Genie Awards to convince the public to spend theu money on what few Canadian films make it to the theatres; however,

"[wlhile an Oscar win or even a nomination translates into box-office dollars" (Warren

CIO), the same cause and efféct relationship is not enjoyed to the same extent by Genk- nominated or -winning films. If few Canadians see Canadian films, and few Canadians watch the Genie Awards, and the Genie Awards are not hugely successful in bringing more Canadians to Canadian films, then it appeam as though the Genies fail to huiction as cultural monitor. In 198 1, critic Jay Scott declared that the Genie nominations

"reflected a concem with artistic merit notably lacking in the extravaganza staged by the

CdanAcademy's American inspiration and elder brother, Oscar", indeed, Scott argued the Genies "rnay achieve a dangerous crediibility" ("Debarras" 7) that, pnsumably, the middle-brow Academy Awarâs cannot claim. The Academy of

Canadian Cinema and Television can celebrate Canadian films and deliver its stamp of approval on nominated and winning films, but the absence of an audience large enough to

make a difference Uidicates that the Genies cannot reflect or shape public taste the way the Oscars can.

Perhaps some of the Genie bbcrediiility"fds away at the Hollywdznvy

evinceâ by the Golden Red Award. First presented at the Canodian Film Awards in 1975

to Lies A@ Futher Told Me, the Golden Reel was presented by the Carridian Motion

Picture Distributors Association "to honour the bighest-grossing Canadian film each

yeaf' (Topdovich 1IO) (the award is wwspoasored by Blockbuster). Sid Adilman

contends that such an award is not only ridiculous, given the srnall amounts of money

tnade by many Golden Ra1 wimiers (often betwccn one and two million dollars), but Roberts 89 also "odious" ("Titanica" W)in its celebration of cash over art: "the Genies are al1 about cnativity and not prompt4 by money making" CbSomething"El). But the fact that this

"cms materialism prize" (Martin 19) is part of the Genie systern demonstrates that commercial success is a concem for the Cmadian fih industry and the awards that celebrate it. Peter Harcourt has argued that "[als a collective cultural artifacf as socnethhg that idorms and influences ow lives on a &y to day basis, the Canadian cinema remaim an invisible cinema" (48); Harcourt insists that "[w]e must sûive to make out product popular-to grant it visibility" (49). The Golden Red, therefore, cm function as a mark of visibility for the industry. Hence, the cultural monitor fkction of the Genies is also accompoulled not only by a financial monitor but dso a monitor of popularity and industry viability-

Of course, taste becornes an issue not only for the works celebrated by the Genies, but also for the Geaie show itself as a spectacle in its own right If the lavish ceremony of the Oscars is a fixture in popular culture, what can be said about the Genie ceremony?

Whereas the Oscars enjoy a kind of ritualistic mystique, the Genie Awards, like the

Carirtdian Film Awards, have had many inconsistencies throughout theu history. fiom location to timing, to the show's format, or even whether the show is broadcast live. The

GeMe Awarâs keep reinventhg themselves from year to year, partly through attempts to better perform their fuiiction: not only to "celebrate the films that have ban nominateâ," but also "to raise overall awureness of Canadian nIms and filmmaking" (qtd in "Lepage"

C2). For most of the Genies history. the ceremonies were held in late March, dates very close to the Oscars. Any ritualistic aspects that might have been fabricated by the npeated dates wmoaly overshadoweù by the Genîes Iarger, infinitely mon pop& Roberts 90

American counterpart. Mer the 1990 ceremony, "when the Genies gamered a palûy

391,000 viewers on CTV" (Anderson D2), the Genies did not reappear until November

26,199 1 on CBC. Throughout the last decade, the Genie Awards have also been held in

DeCernber (1993,1994,1997), January (1996,2000), and Febniary (1999). But not oaly the dates have varied: Montreal has hosted the Genk twice (1993,1995), while the

1999 show vennited out of Toronto to land in Mississaug~;and the format of the show itself cm alter drastically from year to year.

This last point demonstrates that the Genies are in seerch of an identity, as well as an audience. While in some years, the Genies have introduced such mainstays of the

Oscar tradition as accompanying acting nominations with film clips (Scott, "Teny Fox"

El) or giving "precedence to the five best-picture nominees with extended clips, each introduced by a star" ("Ndced Lunch" Al), other attempts at Oscar emulation have eamed the ridicule of the Canadian press. Such fmtures as "narcoleptic musical numbers" (Scott, 'Terry Fox" El) are so damned by the critics that Genie shows deemed

4'competently stageâ" (Scotî, ''Black Robe" A 1) or "relatively high on entertainment value" (Hanis Cl) are smash hits in cornparison. Granteâ, the Oscars have receiveâ their

fair sbof niticism, but the Academy Awards are deemed "spectacular" in the

"awfulness" (Holden 77) of theu event, whereas critics of the Genies have seen very little that is spectacuiar, even failure. The Thee~eshave attempted in various years to depart

from the traditional ûscar-type ceremony . In 1987, after the previous year's "grindingly

staie show" (Warren ClO), the Genies changed their format to include skits about

fiImmakurg. Awards show cornmon sense dictates that celebmtions without the "level of

stars" (qtd in ûswald B 1) of the Oscsrs must find other meaw to entenain theu Roberts 91 audience: ceremonies simply cannot sel1 themselves on theu own. And of course, the

Genies must look for ways to avoid being known as a petennial "spectacular non-event"

(McKie 22). In some years, the entire ceremonies have not been broaâcast live. with only selections of the presentations making it to television; however, this approach is not always popular, as The Toronto Star's condemnation of the 1993 show as a "tape-delayed shmozzle of repackaged highîights from Montreai" (bbEx~tica"D 1) demonstrates.

A drastic change in format came in 1996, when the Genies' job of selling

Canadian films to Canadians was more clearly incorporateci into the show. The host of the television broadcast was Mary Walsh, but her presentation had nothing to do with the awâsceremony itself, "which took place earlier in the &y in Montreai, and largely in

French": the ceremony, in fact, "tookup less than half the 90-minute running time of the

TV show" (Conlogue, "Language" Cl). The television broadcast featured interviews with filmmaken and actors and "cheerleaderish intenentions" (Cl)by Gwff Pevere and

Cameron Bailey. Only the speeches for the highest-profile categories (Best Actor, Best

Actress, etc.) were included in the broadcast. Although this format was intended to inforni the public about the films that were king awdeû, it also had the effeçt of delivering "a TV show about an awards ceremony" (C 1). This Geaies broadcast therefore brought the awards show genre to a new level of rlf-teflexivity, one which involveci not oaly the industry and its films but the celebration apparatus itself; the promotion of Cdancinema doubled as the promotion of the Genie Awards.

The Canadian fiim industry. as portrayed und promotcd by the Genie Awwds, is not a satisfid industry, and the Genies are wt a satisfieâ awards programme: ifthen is anything ritualistic about the Genie Awards, it is the constant references to the fhgility of Roberts 92 the indusûy. Telefh receives a great deal of thanlcs during acceptance speeches (and in ment years, Sheila Copps has been thanked at both the Genie and Gemini Awds). The

Genies cerernony also operates as a forum for appds for greater supprt of the Cdan film industry, particularly whm distribution is concerned The 1997 show also saw an appeal for a nhnm to live broadcast of the ceremony itself. Thus, while celebration and pornotion figure prominently at the Genies, there is always a sense of dissatisfaction with the state of fiirnmairing in Canada. The Oscars put forth the notion of movie magic, erasing the workings of the system that produces Hollywood films; in contrast, the Genie

Awards, whether tbrough a triiute to Telefilm or an impassioned speech by a winner, do not mask the inâustry or erase the context in which the films are made. Self-reflexivity is a feature of the Genies, including an awareness that these awards are largely invisible in their own country: at the awards for 1998, host Albert Schultz entereâ on stage and mounced to the audience, Toucame!" While the nlocation of the Genies to

Mïssissauga partly explains Schultz's f&ousness, there is also the sense that

Mississauga is to Canada as ~orontois to America: MississaugdCanaâa king smaller, quieter, and much less interesting. And the Genie Awards are the scaled-dom version of the Oscars, where the stars are less well-known, the fashion much less ostentatious, and the proceedings are sometimes broadcast a &y Iater, ifat dl. As CO-hostPevere told the audience in 1997, "Just to clear sometbing up, 1 know it's on al1 your min&, the answer to your question is because we were very very cheap." indee-d, financial wncems are so prominent for the Canadian film industry and the Genie Awards dut in categories where there is a team ofwinners, only one Genie is given: the other winners rnust purcbase theu own statuette for S600 (Bmwnstein E4). Roberts 93

We can only assume that if the Academy Awards were to require winners to buy their Oscars, it would be an industry scandal. But this point is not the only distinction between the Genies and the Oscars, even as the Genies have been modelled to a gnot extent on the Academy Awarùs. Cpaada has been celebtating films, through the

Canadian Film Awards and the Genie Am&, for five decaâes, anempting to establish a vision for the film industry as weii as for the nation; but there are few traditions that can be pointed to as a way to characterize or identify those am&. The constant revision of the Genies format demonstrates a desire to depart from the Oscar model, but perhaps because the Genies cannot possibly hope to be the Oscars: "'It's like the Genies are trying [to] be the Oscars,' the critical have carped in years gone by" (Scott, "Importance"

Cl); and yet no one is ever fooled But the Genies could not pwsibly attain the status of

"the most successful self-promotional device any industry has ever inventeà" (C 1).

hawig for its context a different indushy and a different country. As Scott argues,

"smaller and nlatively passive Canada does not and should nat strive for that sort of

supremacy, but there's no hann in annually electing each other most popular in hopes

that the contest will inspire a second look at the contestants" (Cl). For many audience

members, the Geaie Awards offer the first look at Canadian films in a given year. In this

way, the Academy only hctioas retroactively as a cultural monitor, and cannot enjoy

the immediacy ofpopular culhnal recognition. If the Oscars "are popular because

viewers WEe to compare notes with enteitainment-indwtry voters" (Oswald B l), the

Genie Awards UUtiate a circle of celebraîion: they awdthe fihs, hoping to send the

audience to the theatre, aRer which the audience can &ide whether the A&my of

Canadian Cinemaanâ Tekvision got it ri*' Roberts 94

Notes

1. My thariks to Charles Teppeman for his editotial suggestions for this cbpter. Chapter Fout

In Titanic's Wake: The Sweet Hereajier,

Celebration, and the Canadian Film Industry

In spite of the fwt that, as Atom Egoyan has note4 'yb]oth The Sweet Hereafler and Titanic have big crashes with ice and water that take place halfwoy through the film"

(qtd. in Lacey, "Tale" AZ), these two films would seem to share little between them. They were made in the context of vastly different industries, accordhg to different aesthetic concerns, with large discrepancies in their budgets and box-office grosses. But the Oscar nominations announceci in Febniary 1998 inserted Titmic and The Sweet Hereafler into the same category, since both Atom Egoyan and James Cameron were norninated for Best

Director. This grouping of the films together sets the stage for a deeper cornparison of the films beyond Egoym's casual observation* These two films, rel& in the same year and fdnglarge vehicles crashing into or through ice, depict these accidents through opposite relations to spectacle. Whereas the last hslf of Cameron's film portrays the sinking of the ship, the sinking of the bus in The Sweet Hereufter lasts only a few seconds, and is shot from a distance. Death itself becornes spectacle in Titmic; The Sweet

Hereqfter, in inntrast, invokes death without representing it The narrative of masculine heroics so important to Titanic is only invoked in The Sweet Hereder to demonstrate its impossibility. Testimony is important to both films, but the narrative structures differ:

Titanic shifts easily between pre~etlt-daynarration and Rose's metnories of the ship; The

Sweeî HereMer conhstemporal relations without using the clear flashbeck structure of

Titanic. The Sweet Hereeer won three prizes at the Cannes Film Festivai, achieved a certain amount of recognition in Canada, mnniag eight Genk Awards and receiviag two Roberts 96

Oscar nominations. But these moments of recognition for 7he Sweet HereMer âid aot nearly enhance its spectacle to the extent that Titanic's awuds âid The relation of spectacle benthe films and the awards shows which celebiste them reflects the status of spectacle widiin the fih themselves: while both films involve accidents which can be deemed ''tragic" in various ways, the distinctions between their representations offer major points of contrast. Tbe Oscars, however, provide a point of intersection for The Sweet

Heredter and Titanic, and may fùnction in some way s to level distinctions, even as the elemmts of the films themselves point to vastly dürerent sensibilities in the treatment of a similar subjeçt. The Skeet Hereofter's Academy Award nominations are also significant not simply in themselves, but in what they have meant to the Canadian film industry and its selEperception and self-presentation.

The Sweet Hereojlr is not based on an incident of the magnitude and publicity of

Titmic,' but in both films7death cornes as no surprise to the audience: in Titanic, beceuse of its high-profile historical subject matter, and in The Sweet Hereafler, where the bus crash is taken for granted fiom the outset of the film. Although The Sweet Hereuper depicts incidents fiom before and &r the school-bus accident, its chief conceni is with the

&math of the children's deaths and the lawsuit Mitchell Stephens attempts to set in motion. Unlike Titanic, which ''sustains an extraocdlliary degree of suspense" (Maslin,

"Spctscle" E18) in spite of its inevitable outcorne, Ilie Sweet Hereafier does not engage in creating suspense, just as it does not make the accident the sole focus of the narrative.

Gmted, with ody a budget of $4.2 Won, The Sweet HereMer cui bardly k expected to portmy the accident in a manner similar to Titanic, the size of the vehicte involved aside.

The Sweet HereMter appears to move in the opposite chdonof Titanic, activetiwiy rehing Roberts 97 spectacle and nlying a great âeal on the unseen

But the figure of the bus does play an important role in the film. Just as the tirst shot ofthe Titanic is ofthe sdenwnck, the first shot of the bus in The Sweet Hereu&r occm aAer the accident: Stephens looks through the garage window at the ruined bus and hears children screarning. A major distinction behmai the ship and the bus, however, is that the bus nevcr enjoys the excessive splendeur of Titanic: even before the accident, shots of the bus reveal it spattered with mud dong the side. The bus bctions as a point of reference for the viewer in tenns of time Me. Because the film shifb fiom the present

(the airplane) to various moments in the past-both before and aAer the accident-the status of the bus often orients the viewer. The bus is fiequently shot âom a high angle, driving dong the road as Billy's mpck follows. While these shots of the bus might be simiiar to the long shots of Titanic tbat show off the ship, they diEer insofar as they do offer a wntext (the natural landscape dways figuring prominently) and Uidicate the prognss of the bus towards the hi11 where it will go off the road. The angle of the shots also heightms the powerlessness of the bus (or, more specificaily, of Dolores, the driver), especidy considering that the audience hows the outcorne fiom the very begiruillig. The crash Mf,"[tlhe lone special effwshot" (Maslin, "Bereft"E13) of the fïîm, alw

f'unctions to minimize the potential disaster spectacle. As Egoyan writes, "In most films,

accidents are designed to 'pay off the audKnce visually. They an covered from a

multituâe of angles, the idea kingto muamise the violence and destructive power of such

events" ("Recovery" 23). In neSweet Hereujter, the crash, unWre that of Titanàc, is

deeply rooted in the point of view of one chamter, Billy, Who watches hmthe road. The

crashing in Titmic takes up the second half of îhe film; in contrast, the bus cnsh in The Roberts 98

Sweet Hereujier occurs at 5650 and lasts only a few seconds, captumi "in terrieing long shot" (Pevere, "Death" 8). The children's scmsare audible, but the childnn themselves are not visible to the viewer. This non-representation of the children contrasts with a similu accident in the 1998 film directed by Mark Steven Johnson, Simon Bi&: the aidait scene, the climax of this fiim, lasts several minutes, aad is shot mostly witbin the sinking bus itself, complete with fiantic chilcûen scrambling to escape.

In The Sweet Heredter, the children's struggie to suMve the bus accident is not the ody missing spectacle: death itself goes uniepresented in the film. Gmff Pevere identifies this issue as one which separates Canadian film nom American film (Pevere having collapsed Amaican cinema into standard Hollywood product). For Pevere, death in

American film ?ends to be an event, either a cathartic punch line that snaps the intricately crafki spen of suspense . . . or, in revenge terms, a convenient motivating agent" ("Death"

6). Pevere argues that this spectacle sumiunding death is necessary because "the only fate worse than death in conternporary Hollywood-think is mis,the suspension of intend caused by even the slightest lape in action" (6). In conbast, de& in Canadian film is "a

nue spectacle"; in fect, according to Pevere, it "seldom plays out on screen" (8). He uses the bus crash in The Sweet Hereujïer as an example to illustnrte this point, and to argue thaî

in Canadien cinerna, "probing [death's] cffi'(8) is mon important than the visual

poitrayal of kathitseif. AHhough the bus mhmight be portmyed through special

effhts, deaîh itselfin the film is not present as point of view is dominant: Billy's dead

twins, for example, do not appear on screen; ratber, the camera shows him mddhg,

plcsumably in iâentification of theu bodies, before the Mesthemselves an covered in

Hudsoc~'sBay blankets. Tiranic does mt shy away hom depicting dead Meson a Roberts 99 massive scale; at the Acaàemy Awards, the film's nominated maice-up artists were said to have met "the challenge of designing death-like frozen f- for hundreds of formerly festive passengers." In The Sweet Hereafir, Billy's grief and the homr of his witnessing the crash supersede the importance of the spectacle of death. Pevere's point about

Hollywood's avoidance of stasis is also appropriate as a point of contrast with this film: the bus sits still on the fiozen lake for a moment before suiking. Sarah Polley has characterizd Egoyan's films as allowing "characters . . . to have the stillness that people have in real life" (qtd. in Winters 26); thus, even Billy 's grief is still. Whenas stillness in

Titanic cornes mostly in the form of a pose or a dead body, The Sweet Hereafier depends upon stibess for its contemplation of the aftermath.

Also misshg from The Sweet Hereajer is a spectacle of beroics. In Simon Birch, the bus crash presents an opportunity for Simon, the film's diminutive hero, to live out his

&sire to bmetndy heroic as he takes charge of the disaster and gets the other chilâren out of the bus, sacrificiag bimself in the process; Simon is closer to Jack in Titanic then any of the chatacters in The Sweet Hereufieet are. Billy witnesses the school bus crash, but is powerless to act, and cannot save even his omchilchen. Mitchell Stephens enters the town following the accident, claiming a kind of belated hero steRis: he offers to "direct [the] rage" of the town's grîeving parents, and to "malce [whoever is respomible] pay." Wanda

Oao, at first skeptical of Stephens, identifies bis sttempts to win her md her husbend over to the case: "So you're just wbt we d Isn't that wbtyou want us to believe, Mr.

Stephens? That you biow what's ktfor us?" Although Stephens admits he cannot compensate the parents for their losses, he does posit himself as a hnd of hero figure, ndnssing wrongs, evai if ody in a hancial capacity. But this attemp, too, ends in Roberts 100 fdm. The film ohnteases the viewer with moments of spectacular action or heroism, only to subvat these moments by not having them occw at dl. At one point, Stephens invokes the possibility of heroics when he describes his daughter's poisonhg by baby spiders, and bis wiiliagness to pedorm an emergency tracheotomy ifnecessary. But ultimatel~~the procedure is not nemsary, not held up to the viewer as spectacle.

Similady, Billy's threat to injure Stephens cornes to nothing: Tell me, would you be kely to sue me if I was to beat you right now? 1 mean beat you so baâ you'd piss blood and couldn't wak for a month." In the course of this conversation, Stephens daims, with nference to his own âaughter, "We've dl lost our chilcirer They're deaâ to us." Zoe's

"death" to Stephens, and his inability to pesfonn heroicaliy to save her fiom her drug addiction, precedes the events of the bus crash. indead, parental-specificaliy paternal-impotence is invoked at the film's beginning, when Stephens' car is trapped in a car wash while he talks to Zoe on his ceIl phone. Bert Cardullo views the car wash eatrapment as "a metaphorid quivalent of the childcen's entrapment in the sinkiag school bus" (109). but Stephen's powerlesmess hmis hmorous, even ridiculou, as he attempts to escape the car wash with an umbrella to protect himseK Impotence, particularlyon the part of the father figures in the film. is part of the absence of heroisrn and spectacle; a mascuiinized narrative Wrc that of Titmic seems Unpossible. Robert Fothergill has explored the pattern of"radid inadquacy of the mole protagonist" ("Coward" 236) in

Carindian cinema, but rather than king simply "sôallow, insincere, manipulative"

("Cowardn 239). the male characters of The Sweet Hereafter are crippîed by their circm(Mer than just îheu naîionality). Becuise so much of The Sweet Hereujter is situaieci in the ahmath (even multiple &maths, such as those of Zoe's addiction and Roberts 101 the death of Billy's wife), heroics are simply too late.

An absent haoic figure ais0 highlights an empbssis on community rather thaa the individuai. In coatrest to the disaster of Tilcnic, which occurs on a massive sale and

involves thousands of pcopk who bave Me comection to eich otber, the bus crash in The

Sweet Hereajb imrolves a small cornrnunity; indeed, the surviving members can name the childnn who died. The fih's narrative structure reflects this commUItity and its brokenness, a broke~essbrou* on wt only by the accident but dso by the fragmentation which emues after the lawsuits are introduced. No single character's point of view dominates. Nicole provides the ody voice-over narration, somewhat similar to Rose in

Titanic. Scenes where Nicole is absent are 0thaccornpoaied by her sin& on the

soundtrack, her voice puilhg the scenes together. But The Sweet HereMer does not depict

her experieuces alone, nor even her expenences prirnarily; each character bas bis or her

own contriiution to the tragedy and its effects.

The representation of time in the film dso reflects the community's broke~ess.

Concem with tirne are present in both Titanic and The Sweet Heredtet, though to varying

degras. Anthony Laue Wfites of Titanic as part of James Cameron's "obsess[ion] [with]

the knding and shaping of tirne'' (157). Lane seems to overstate his case somewhat, for

while Ti'nichas a flashôack structure, motivateâ by Rose's memories of Jack and of what

bappened to the 'Weart of the &an,'' this flashbock structure is sbiiightfomard. nien is

no coafusion bawcen present and pst, for the lines of tempodity are quite clearly

dernard: the actors are dl diffenat in the present-day friime and the 1912 narrative;

snd the setting diffen, too, betwœn the wreck of Titanic and Titanic as a new, lavishly

designecl ship. Wlimis Tirrmic movcs between the prrsent expsdition anâ a linear Roberts 102 flashback sûuctute, The Sweet Hereofer is more conf'using, shce even the scenes set in the past do not unfold in a linear fashion hmone to another. The gap in time hmprwent to past in The Sweet Hereujkv is also much smaller than that of Titanic. The distinctions between before and aAer are oknCOdd by Nicole (i.e. whaher or not she is in a wheelcbair) and by the bus (i.e. whether it is moving or sitting outside the garage, covered in tape that rd:WARNLNG RESTRICTED AREA). The condition of the bus after the accident seems a much less dramaîic version of the sunken Tiionic, mostly becaw the bus is fiameci by its local context, and it symbolizes how its ruined condition has altered the community. Without these visual cues, the Mewer might be completely disoriented as the film "shift[s] cons&ntly and fluidly among more than 30 tirne Mes"(Winters 26). As

Egoyan himself has explained, "When people have suffered loss, theù sense of time has been mptured" (qtd. 26). The rupturecl time of The Sweet Herecifîer involves al1 of the characters, even Stephens, who is not grieving because of the accident, but for his own troubled daughter. The transitions benveen present and various moments in the past speak to a collective disorientation of the characters in theù state of grief.

Shifts in time, in both Titanic and The Sweet Hereojlr, mate a platforni for the

presentation of memory and testimony. Egoym's nIm thematues memory itself es two centmi characters enCounter difficulties remembering: Nicole cannot recail the accident

CCDon'teven try remembering," her fa* says); Md Stephem &es not maanber Allison,

his dau@ter's childhood tiienâ, or her father, his forma business partner. Coupled with

the confused chronology of the film, these lapses of memory create a aPrrPsive of

uncertainty, udike the certain& which drives the narrative of Titanic: whik old Rose con

âeclace, "it's ken 84 years, and I can stiil smell the bhpoint," chanmers like Nicole Roberts 103 canmt unproblematicaîly lay daim to such assertions. Rose narrates her memories to others, as do Dolores and Nicole in The Sweet Hereafier. Testimony figures in both films:

Rose bws witness to the Titanic sinking, and Dolores and Nicole bear witness to the bus crash in The Sweet Hereethese fedecharacters al1 mtetheir memories for an audience. Dori Laub theorizes the act of giving testimony, and descriks the position of

Listener as 'bco-witness'7: "the listener to trauma comes to be a participant and a coswner of the traumstic event: through his very listening, he cornes to partidy experience trauma in himself" (57). This description of CO-witnessingappears to apply to Titunic's hime narrative, wherein the fonnerly cavalier crew memkis of Brock Lovett's team becorne emotionally involved in Rose's taie. Brock Lovett cm be considered "the enabler of the testimony," for, in a sense, he "triggen its initiation" (58) by asking Rose, "Are you ready to go back to Titanic?" But there is a sense of superionty in Rose's storytelling, particularly a moral one, since Lovett wishes to know the fate of the "Heart of the Ocean," and she refùses to divulge this information and contriiute to his financiai gain. To a certain extent, Rose's testimony acts to distract Lovett €tom what he really wants to know.

Conversely, Lovett can be considerd a problematic enabler, since he is less interested-initidly, at least-in Rose's personai history than in the diamond. Rose restores Jack to history ('Uow you know there was a man named Jack Dawson"), but there is no rdsense of urgemy in ber tale, perhaps because of the decades that separate the present fiom the events she nanates; but her lifc &er the sinling, as displayed by her photoenph, has beea one of eosc and pcrsonai fulfiliment Thus, memory serves the task ofuncovery in this nIm. Testimony in The Skeet Hemer, in inntrast, unfolds much closer to the accident, and is ôound up in complicated ways with the notion of recovery. It Roberts 104

&O talces on explicitly legal implications, for Mores tells her story to Stephms, a lawyer, and Nicole tells hm as a deposition in the pesence of Stephens, aaother lawyer, and a court stenographer. Like Brock Lovett, Stephens pmtsa problematic enablet figure, since his fiiisncial gain is intertwined with the success of the case for which he wants these characters to testify; the lawsuit also addresses his personal needs, however, as it presents a

"sunogacy" (Ansen 73) thai helps him deal with his problem with Zoe. Nicole's testimony is especially complicated in that it is, to a certain extenf coerced. She understands she bas

Iittle say in the matter, as is evidenced by her question, "What is it you want me to do for you, Mr. Stephens?" Afkr the scene in which she ovahears Billy urging her parents to drop the lawsuit, however, she uses false testimony for the purposes of recovery.

The Sweet Hereujier's aspects of recovery involve not only the accident, but also the other ways in which chtershave been damaged. Nicole uses a lie in order to sûike kkat her father for his Uiwousrelaîionship with her: she pafonns memory during the deposition-et the cornmunity centre, significantly, for her actions will attempt to save the community fiom merfragmentation-by claiming that Dolores was driving too fast:

"You rememkr this"; "Yes. 1 do now. Now that I'm telling it" The "Pied Piper of

Hamelin" lines, which Nicole mites throughout the film, "are alway s associateci with either the legai activities ofMitchell Stephens or the hcesnious acts of Sam Bumell"

(Cardulio 1 11). During the deposition, it is especially clear that Sam, Nicole's father has bmethe piper "And why I lieci, he ody hew. But from my lie, this did corne true.

Those lips fkom which he dnw his aine were fiozen es a winter moon." The close-up on

Sam's mouth laves no doubt that Nicole identifies him as the piper. Her lie, intended b stop the Irwsuit, also ends her fihr's power over her, as though she breaks the spcll the Roberts 105 piper has cast. Her lie is a spectacuiar one, for she clairns to have been fnghtened at

Dolores's driving, and to have been able to rePd the speedometer. But the real spectacle in

Nicole's life has been the "love" scene ôetween herself and her father in the ôam, srnoundeci by des. Nicole later reveais that Satn promised to build her a stage, 'lit with aothing but candtes"; thus, the scene in the barn has also fiuictioned as spectacle and display. In a retaliation of sorts, Nicole invents her own specîacle/narrative of the accident.

While Nicole's apparently rehimed memory of the accident would constitute a "recovery" by medical standards, recovery, for herselfand for the community as well, is initiated by this performance of memory.

Nicok's lie, constibuting the climax of the fih, also serves as a reminder that the accident itself is not the most important element of the film: the accident is "what the film is 'about' fiom any one-sentence description," but, more importantly, "[il t is the governing action which motivates the drama of the film (Egoyan, "Recoveiy" 23) and rnakes the other narratives possible. The core moments of the film appw to be Nicole's lie (a kind of verbai heroics to save the town, and perbaps the only fom of heroics available to a teenagd girl in a wheelchair) and Stephens' recollection of his daughter at thnt years old. nie feee of young Zafills the scmn at various moments, not only during his narration to

Allison of the poisoning incident, but also after Zoe, in her older incarnation, bas infonned him she has tested HIV-positive. Again, it is the stillness ofNicole as she speaks and the stillncss of Zœ at bira years old that fom the centre of the film, rather than an explosive spectacle of the wident. Unlike Titanic, which porûays not only the lengthy disaster se~uencebut dso tbe celestid restoration of the ship, The Sweet Here@er off- no such resolution. The last shot of the bus pescats it king lifbd by a crane (though the mane is Roberts 106 not visible), the bus tuming slowly in the au. The lifting of the bus might suggest an undoing of the sinking motion; however, the damage done to the bus, still visible at this point in the film, insists tbat the accident cannot be mersed. Similar to Titanic, with its finai tilt up to the glas dome, The Sweet HereMter ends with a bright Light as Nicole, before the accident, approaches the window at Billy 's how. But the similarity ends there;

Rose's sweet hereafter that reunites her wlth Jack does not resemble Nicole's fate. Because the tiw fhme that ends The Sweet Hereofter clearly occurs before the accident, it cannot have the restorative effects of the light in Titanic; cather, the light in Egoyan's Nm seems to fiinction more as a retroactive warning. Nicole's lie may end the lawsuit which is Mer hgmenting the towu, but the laccident and its effects are not undone, neither in temu of narrative nor stylisticaily: as Nicole's voice-over insists, "we're al1 citizens ofa diEerent tom now"; in The Sweet Hereofter the accident and its effects linger in a way that the closure of Titanic refûses.

Although Titanic dominated the Academy Awards for 1997, both in number of am& won and in tenns of spectacle, suggesting a celebration of mainstream Hollywood pictuns, The Sweet HereaJer was also a pnsence, alkit a slight one. The fdm's nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Dinctor meaat that the film could participate in the proceedings, in however srnaii a way. Of course, the film added littie to the Oscar spectacle: Best Director nominees were show in clips ofthemselves at worL; and the screenplay nomination was accompanied by a briefsilent clip alongside a photograph of the miter (Egoyan, in this case). Egoyan himseifappeued on-camera, dong with the 0thdirector nominees, for the few seconds between the nominee Roberts 107 snaouncemmts and the winner dedaration. The nIm thus enjoyed minimal participation in the spectacle itself; but what of the film's inclusion among the nominees? If the 1997

Ademy Awards signalled an unatmshed celebration of Hollywood, wbat do we make of the presence of this small-budget Canadian nIm? The nominations attest to Egoyaa's recognition by the screenwriting and directing manbers of the Acaàemy, for, unlike the votes for the winners, nominations are voted on only by the mernben of thst category, rather than the whole body of the Academy. But the effect of The Sweet HereoJterr's nominations, as far as the Oscars are concerne& seems twofold: there is a LiDd of levelling that taLes place between the Hollywood pictures and the art-house films that are nominated, espcially considering the fact that Titanic and The Sweet Hereaper were both nominated in the Best Director category; and the inclusion of art-house films likely ad& to the Academy's credibility. If a Hollywood tilm wins over an art-house film, the validation of Hoilywood increases.

The Sweet Hereufter may not have dominated the Oscars, but it did dominate, on its own home turf, at the Genie Awards, where the film won eight awatds in December 1997.

Despite such success, however, the fonun of the Genies simply does not allow for the kind of extension of specîacle that Titanic enjoyed at the Oscars; iudeed, even the difference in faShion of the guests is remarkable between ûscars and Genies. In coatrast to the paradox of self-aggrandizementand solemnity displayed by James Cameron, selfansciousness and self-tioa appear more of an aspect of the Genie winners' speeches. The winner of the Golden Reel awsrd for 1997 wss Air Buù, a movie about a basketball-playing golden retriever. In his Best Dircctor speech, Atom Egoyan promiscd that "in the remake of The

Sweet HereMer, the dog hmAir Bud will save the kids." Egoyan also refdto a need Roberts 108 for Merspectacle of the Genies themselves, for the year me Sweet Hererrfter won eight awards, the ceremonies were not broadcast live: accephg for Best Pichire, Egoyan saki, ''1 think it's a good show; we should get it back on air." The absence of live telecast in 1997 is emblematic of an absence of spectacle, regardless of the fat tbat the awds were broadcast on Bravo! the next &y.

But in the aftermath of The Sweet Hereafler's Oscar nominations, the film and the

Genie Awards appear to have gained a pater degree of importance. The Oscar nominations have meant more, it seem, than the Nm's success at Cannes, and much more than its success at the Genies. Critics have seized upon the film as a tuming point for the

English-Canadian film industry because of its Oscar nominations. Sh@ magazine declares,

"Atom Egoyan's Oscar nominations for The Sweet Hereafter and the ncent merger of

Alüance and Atiantis into a mega-studio are just two signs that Canadian film is wming into its own as both a sophisticated art fom and a mature industry" ("Players" 34).

Presumably, the "art form" invocation refers to the Osçar nominations, betraying a presupposition that the Academy fùnctions as cultural monitor to legitirnize films as art

Pevere claims, "It's early yet, but sunly the fact that this uncompromisingly cerebd and anti-sensational movie ha9 becorne arguably the most celebratecl Cariadian film ever made mil have an impact. Its Oscar nomination [sic] represents a syrnbolic global acknowieâgmmt of the Canadian art-movie traâition" ("Classics" 48). Peven appears to conMe the globe with America, for Egoyan dso had success with Enorim at Cannes.

But if. as Pevere suggests, the world hs embraced English-Canaâian film, what has been the effect in Canada? Consider the fact thaî the Genk for 1998 and 1999 were brordast liv-the year aAa the Oscar nominatioL1S-bro&ast, in fein Febni~ry1999 Roberts 109 and late January 2000, much closa to the Academy Awards tban in pmious y-.

Several ptesenters (e.g. Natasha Henstiidge, Jill Hencssy, Mia Kirshner) at the Genies for

1998 were Canadiam who have achieved success outside the country, namely in the United

States. Catherine O'Hara and Debomh Kara Unger were part of the Genies spectacle for

1999: O'Hara won the Best Supporthg Actress award; and Unger presented the film ciips for Best Piaure norninee (and winna) Sdine,a film in wbich Unger herselfacted

These actresses present at the am& for 1998 and 1999 certainly do not constitute the

'bguely familiar Canadian faces" (Golfinan 7) typidly assoçiated with the Genie

Awards; significaatly, they wece the most lavishly dressed of anyone at the ceremonies, thmby setting a standard for glamour. niat Atom Egoyan presented the award for Best

Picture for 1998 also indicates two elements of Oscar-simulation at the Genies: it is oAen customary for the previous year's winnen to pnsent the equivalent of their award (ofh switching the gmder, Le. last year's Best Actress presents this year's Best Actor); therefore, Egoyan's win for Best Pichin entitles him to present this year's award, just as

John Greyson, director of the Lilies, winner of the 1996 awd, presented Best Pictuce to

Egoyan. At the Oscars, however, it is traâition that a seasoned Hollywood perfomicr

(usually male), someone who in some ways defhes the industry, will pent&st Picture

(recent pmnters have included Robert DeNiro, Sean Comery, and HarrisonFord). It appcus as though Egoyan may have taken up this position in relation to the Canadian film industry because of the Oscar nomhtions, a distinction awarded outside the country.

Simüarly, at the Genies for 1999, the presentet of Best Picture was Denys Arcand (rather than François GOVard, director of last year's Best Pictwe winner). Arcand is the director of the Oscar-nomiuated films Le dgciin de i 'mpire umt%uin d Jésus de Montnbl. As Roberts 110

Pevere achiowledges, "it's early yet," but pahaps the last two Genie Awards presentations are a testament to shüting attitudes of Canadians towards films made in their cou~try,or perbaps shifbg attitudes of the Canadian film industry towards itself; this shifi appears to have been effcaed by the Ademy Awards' recognition of Canadien films.

Wbat are the criteria filled by The Sweet Hereofler that have hfked this Nrn with such importance for the Cauaâian Nrn industry? To begh *th, as Peven demonstrates with his analysis of death in Canadian cinems, it fits into the construction of Canadian film as a national cinema: clearly a place where The Sweet Here4terYbut not Air Bud, belongs.

The extemû validation fiom Cannes, but more importantly fiom the Academy of Motion

Pictwe Arts and Sciences in the United States, indicates to Canadians (and others) tbat the film has artistic merit. But, as the Oscar nominations (and the taste thenin implied) suggest, the film is not too artistic: indeeâ, critics have repeatecüy refemd to The Sweet

Herecrfter as EgoyanYs"most accessible [film] to date" (qtd. in Adams Dl); certainiy,

FumiEy Viewing wouid neva be given a second look by AMPAS. But neither would most

Canedians take a second look at many of Egoyan's early films. Egoyan's position in relation to the Caaadian filmgoing public seems to resemble that of Waaâa Otto and her photograpbs in The Sweet HeteMter. Dolons betrays almost a distnist of the photograph

Bear has brought for the school bazaar, saying "Well, it's bizarre al1 right," to which

Wsnda repües. Ath terniirony, that she "wuld wrsp it up-protect the chilâren." But

Wanda's work does have a place in the community: a doubleâ photograpt+WdP's

ûaâed4fNicole hgsbehind her on stage at the fair, and Risa Waiker has one of

Wada's photographs at the motel. Egoyan's work, gedyviewed as "bizam" by the

Csnadian pubüc, might now have taken up an important place in Canadian cultun due to Roberts 111 its new-found accessibility. In foct, llre Sweet Hereqik's success has been questioned for its relation to the Canadian community as a whole. Egoyan writes of "[a] huge pichne of

in The Toronto Star wearing an Olympic cap. The heaâiine is 'Team Egoyan,' and the article is an analysis of whether or not the achievement of the double Oscar nomination is a tnumph for Canada (like an Olympic victory), or just a triumph for @um] persondly" rDiary" 63).

Resumably, Canadians in generai can triumph in The Sweet Here

Durhg the question pend afterwards, someone asks why 1 diân't shoot the

film in the Adirondacks [where Banks's novel was set]. 1 have to explain

that it's a Canadian film, and therefore had to be shot in Canada. I've never

seen somme so confused by such a simple response. ("Diary" 62)

Banks's novel is set in the fictional town of Sam Dent, New York. While most critics nfer to the film's setting as Sam Dent, British Columbia, in her review of the film, Janet Maslin desctr'bes Sam Dent as "a tiny, once neighborly Adirondack town" ("Berett" E13). Maslin thereby confiates the novel and film's satlng, but is it an honest misiale? The film passes

"the licence-plate test" (Fothetgiil, "Wce" 353) by incluâing British Columbia plates, and there are Candian flq shown penodicaily: Abbott, Doloris's husband, bas a Ca~dian flag on his shin pock*; and Mason, Billy's son, hss a Canndian flag on his saowsuit.

Stanky Kaufnnan mites thst "the move [of setthg] Qesn't matter" hmthe novel to the film, aput hmthe accents of the chracters (30). James Adams writes of The Sweet

Hereujk as an ~118pologeticallyCarindian film, cumplete with "a snowbod valley town" and a love sene in which the character, Billy, "makes sure the television set is turned on to a hockey gme before they roll on the beâ" (Dl). But the= are w references in the film's dialogue ta location: charPctas invoke "the city" to indicate distinctions and distance from their town. While "the city" presumably would indicate Vancouver, given the B.C. se- this assumption is not confhned by the film? American phrases appear in didogue:

Dolores claims that Wanda and Hartley Otto have gone to "college," not University; and

Nicole gives the speed of the bus at Y2 miles an hour," rather thm in kilometres. Gmted, the ûttos could conceivably have gone to a comrnunity college, but in Banks's novel,

Dolores also says she believes the ûttos "were college educateâ" (14); whether the sipificaace of "college" is meant to shift meaning along with the nanative's setting is unclear. These discrepancies do not necessarily make The Sweet Hereofter any less of a

"Canadian" film, but they point to a kind of placelessness that complicates what others have viewed as the film's insistent Cdanness at the level of setting, and perhaps add derlayer of "accessibility" to the film: not only are Egoyan's characters emotionaily accessible to the audience, but Canada has become accessible to international viewers through mumi references to nation and plsce.3

Such negotiations of setting in The Sweet Here4ter are in some ways analogous to the other cultural negotistions between the Hollywood and Canadian flm industries, as the intersections between Tle Sweet Hereafier and Titanic suggest The differences between the two films in terms of representing a tragic accident seemingly indicate a distinction between Hollywood and CPosdian fiimmrrking sensibilities, as well as Iarger cultural différences: the Hollywd film, and the Oscars which celebnte it, upholds the centrality of glamour and spectacle; the Cliiadisn film, and the smail deof the Genies, participates Roberts 113 in a denial of spectacle while celebrating an art-house ûaditi011. These declmtiom, however, are deeply problematic, especially wnsidering The Sweet Hereafler's Oscar nominations and the intersections between Hollywood and Canadian film that they npresent. If production context rnakes a difference, the director's place of origin does not always appear to be a fwtor it is difficult to insert James Corneron and Atom Egoyan "in the same box . . . stamped Maâe in Canada," at least as far as filmmalring traditions are concemeâ; as "celebrity interviewer Brian Linehan says ifs a bogus gimmick to try to label the two men as Merent versions of Canadian-bred cinematic talent because they have nothing to do with each other" (McKay B4). But if we take into consideration that Atom

Egoyan bas been recognjzed by the same tastemalcers as James Cameion, in however srnaller a capacity, they must have something to do with each other, if only through &se seemingly unlikely intersections as the Academy Award nominations. And if we identify

Canadian cinema (in its incarnation as a national cinema) as one which is anti-commercial, how do we explain the presence of the Golden Reel award at the Genies, or the pride with which it was announced that The Sweet Hereafrr is "the first English-lanpge film supported by Telefilm Cdto make money in 12 years" (Everett-Green C2)? Likewise, kfon we distinguish American taste fiom Canadian taste, we must recaii not only The

Sweet Hereojir's Oscar nominations, but also the fact that far more Canadians saw Titanic then Egoyan's Genie-winaing film. However tempting it is to posit strict oppositions betwan Canadian and Amencan culture, their points of intedon meal aspects of interdependence. Canidian culture, in particulart is so bound up with American cuitun, it is ohdiflcicult to sepuate it Tiranic and The Sweet HereOper display geat différences between them, in tem of budget, spectacle, ad narration; the points where they meet, Roberts 114 however, whethet they be transportation accidents, or a few seconds of Oscar air-the where James Cameron and Atom Egoyan appear simuUaneously onscreen, emphasize the fiims and the circulation of texts sunoundhg them as evidence of the fluctuating cultutal Roberts 115

Notes

1. In a 1992 review of Russell Banks's novel, The Sweet Hereofer, Jane Griesdorf writes that "[tlhe genesis" of the novel "is a conflation of many recent calamities, one of which was an accident in Texas where a schoolbus descendeci into a quarry" (435).

2. Fothergill makes a similar observation about Slipstreum, set in southem Alberta:

"the nearest wban centre to Mallard's electronic hideaway is never cailed Lethbridge, but always 'the city', allowing viewen to M.&of it as Sait Lake or Oklahoma, as seems good to them" ("Place"353).

3. My th& to Lany McDonald for out discussion of these issues. Conclusion

On March 2 1, 1998,just preceding the Oscars, The Sweer Hereaper won Best

Foreign Film at the Independent Spirit Awards. Atom Egoyan, in his "Oscar diary" printed in Macleun 's, writes of Norman Jewison introducing him to Jack Vaienti, president of the

Motion Picture Association of America: "Norman introduces me and says: 'Jack, Atom just won for best foreign film at the Spirit Awards. Get it, Jack? It's a foreign movie.

Canada is a foreign country"' (64). Such a declaration on Jewisods part functions to criticize the notion of Canada as part of the US. domestic market and the idea that "it's the same culture, isn't it?" (64). But it also ad& an interesting layer to the discourse of

"foreignness" where Canada and the United States are conamed: if Jewison was denied cornpetitive Academy Awards because of his nationality, he took this opportunity at the

Independent Spirit Awards to celebrate tbis foreignness; mer,he implies that such foreignness is not so much a containment of threat to Hollywood filmmaking, but rather an enabling category for Canadian cinema, one that ailows it to assert its own identity.

Clearly, 'Toreignness" at the Independent Spirit Awards signifies sornething different fiom the Oscars' presentation of the concept, as The Sweer Heredter is not a foreign language film; nevertheless, Canada is recognized as "foreign," and this foreignness is part of the system of celebration at the Independent Spirit Awards.

This shrày's atampt to moke "sense" of awards shows has underscored the fact that, not surprisingly, these awarâs and their spectacles of celebration often bave little to do with the nominateci and winning films; or at least, the fihs themselves are only the most obvious component of their systems. Awards categorize, assign positions, pass judgments, contriiute to and initiate discourses surromding cinema They cûaw distinctions according Roberts 117 to taste, language, nation, and culture, and project constnictions of the industries they uphold And by putting on a show, they celebrate themselves in the process.

This celebration does not corne easy in Canada, where a "'felt' national cultural absence has wnsisted of one part lost cuiturai potential, one part manifestos for corrective measures, and two parts self-loathing" (Acland 281). Mormver, celebration of Canadian culture has ofhdepended upon the "reduc[tion] [of] the muitifàrious pleasutes of U.S. cinema to a simplistic notion of ideological invasion" (282). nie question of popularity becornes a key issue: whereas Amencan fiIm is immensely popular in Canada, bbCariAdiao film culture is aot a part of the popular cimrna-going practices of Cdans" (282).

Charles Acland examines the cultural position of the Canadian film viewer as follows:

Though it offers a view to an exhilarating world movie culture, movie going

essentially takes you away from your nationai home. A seat in a Canadian

movie theatre is essentially a seat on international temtory; it offers the

experience of king 'anywhere' and of cosmopolitan connection to other

wotld movie audiences. (283)

As Carisdians are thus âisplaced firom their own geography and culture in film consumption, there are ''habituai ways in which Caoaâians deinternational culture their own" (287). This observation of the Cdmviewing position bas afbities with the npmentation of place in The Sweet Hereclpec while Canadians "make international culture theù oum," the nIm, by somewbat bliariag its sense of place, makes Caneda itself internationai, or a least intemtionally accessible. Anâ, in tum, the film bas becorne intematiody celebrated. This negotiation of nation can also apply to James Cgma~ll's success, an example of "thc pesaice of Carndian talent in the U.S. irrdustry," which Roberts 118

"offers a way for Canadian audiences to view the success of Caaadian talent, to naâ a fiim as a mark of Canadian achievewnt" (Acland 286). To a certain extent, Urnefore,

Hollywood poâucts can often be nad differentîy by CPnadions, distinguishing Canaâipns hom Americans at the level of viewership.

But for those concemecl about Canadians having their own, recognizably Caasdiaa culture, the "star-in-exile system" (Acland 286) of Canadians in Hollywood does not quite fit the bili; coasequently, discourses of Canadian cinema have often taken on a natiodist urgency. As a cinema that has bem fiaaacially supporteci by the state, Canadian film carries ideological implications: "Policies of national culture are ideological attempts to b~gcertain visions of nation and citizenship into existence" (288). As Andrew Higson acknowlodges, ''the state htewenes only when there is a felt feu of the potential power of a foreign cinema, and particuisrly when the products-.and therefore the ideologies and vplues-of a foreign cinema are widely circulated within a nation state" (43). In nsponse to this foreign tbreat (Hollywood,in Canada's case),

Roclamations of national cinema are thus in part one form of "internai

cultural colonialisrn": it is, of course, the fùnction of institutions-and in

this case national cinemas-to pull together diverse and contradictory

discourses, to artkulate a contradictory unity, to play a part in the

hegemonic process of achieving consensus, and containkg difference and

contradiction. (44)

Just as Hollywood and the Academy Awards hction hegemonically, Cdancinema is

involveci in a hegemonic pject of its own. The diffemeppesrs to k that Hollywood is

far more successfùl at achieving consent than Canadian film.' This disprity is not Roberts 119 surprising, for while dissent catainly exists in Amencan society, Chda's larger national identity is fraught with crises and nild attempts to win consent

At the level of cinema, consent con be tied to popuîarity. Higson argues WbPt for a cinema to be nationaily popuîar it must also be international in scope. Thot is to say, it mut achieve the international (Hollywood) standard" (40). Surely, the adjustments made to the Genie Awds following the international reception (namely, the Academy Award nominations) of The Sweet HereMer correspond to this dynamc. CBC television's advertising slogan for the Genie Awards for 1999, "See why the test of the world is excited about Canadian movies," spealrs to Canadian cinema's dependence upon extemal validation to a-t the attention of the Cdanpublic. But even with its international

mgnitiom, The Sweet Hereofeer poses no threaî to the popularity of a film such as

Tilcmic. nie two films competed agaiIlSt each other at the Academy Awards, testifjing to a

coexistence as well as an interdependenœ of Cdanand Hollywood film culture.

Ironicdly, it seems that the ideological project of Cdannational cinema, as manifest in

The Sweet Hereafter, culminates in Amerkm celebration of Caaadian culture, or a

categorization of the two togetber. While the Academy Awards are moted in a different

traâition of taste than tbrt of the national cinema conception of Canadian film, the two

clearly intersect, in pcactice if not in theory. And dthough the Oscars and Genies perform

diffixent bctions as fu as theh celebrations of ckmaare wncemed, they display similar

characteristics when it cornes to nation: the Genies promote Canada to Canadians; the

Oscars pmmote America to itself and to the world Theu diffetences lie in their mamer of

promotion anâ their suc ces^ in fdfilling these projects. Roberts 120

Important questions remah: how enabling is a concept of 'Yoreignaess" to

Catiridian culture, and is t not complicit with the marmerginaliuton of Canidian culture within Cairridn? if "Art House movies requin a more sophisticated set of cornpetencies than the mainStream Hollywood pmduct" (Blewitt 368). cm a Canadian cinema that presents itself to CanadiPas as an exclusive art cinemi successfidly perfom the bction of forging a national culture? Are the issues of Canadian cinema too dependent upon taste to enter into questions of nation? And is the fusion of class and national interests, where taste is concemec!, ultidycounterproductive? The issue is not whether Canadian cinema is worthy of celebration (which is entinly beside the point), but whether such celebrations can perform the roks they designate for themselves. One reason behind the Acaderny

Awds' success is that they bave no trouble finding an audience. Hence, the debate about

Canacüan cinema and celebration is a circular one, for the films need to be seen in order for the Genies to accrue any signincance, and the films need to be distnauted and exhiibited in order to be seen by a larger percentage of the public. Whether it will take several more

Egoyan-type recognitions of Canadian films ai the Academy Awards for the Oenies to find an audience mains to k seen. Similady, awards shows themselves wili continue to adept to the concerns of the industries they support, and their significations will also shift accordingly. What is bound to mnain constant are the use of awards as articulations of taste and collStNctions of cinema and the industries that produce it Roberts 121

Notes

1. The progrsmming of the Genie Awarâs for 1999 against the S~perbowl~

'cstereotypicailyAmeri= mass enteiEaiunent" (Lacey, "Dreun" Rl), illustrates a lopsided cornparison of the success of popular cultural pojects: "It's a metaphor for making films in Canada dly. It's the Superbowl every day" (qtd RI). Works Cited

Ac!and, Charles. cTopularFilm in Cauada: Revisiting the Absent Audience." A Passion

for Identity An Introduction to Canadian Snidies. 3d Edition. Eds. David Tapas

and Beverly Rasponch. Toronto: Nelson, 1997. 281-296.

Adams, James. "Stick with the Snow." Globe and Mail 23 Mar. 1998: Dl.

Adilman, Sid "Canedian filxn-TV academy has a short memory." Toronto Star 18 Nov.

1994: D3.

. "Genie movies sornething to celebrate." Toronto Star 16 Mar. 1986: El, E6.

. 'Titanica stniggie over Genie." Toronto Star 30 Nov. 1993: W.

Ansen, David. 'The Colors of Mouming." Newsweek 24 Nov. 1997: 73.

. "Our Titanic Love Aff'air." Newsweek 23 Feb. 1998: 58-64.

Andrews, Marke. "Love proves unsinkable in this haunting epic." Vancouver Sun 19 Dec.

1997: Dl,D8

Arroyo, José. "Massive Attack." Siaht and Sound Feb. 1998: 16-19.

Banks, Russell. The Sweet Hereafter. 1991. New York: HarperPere~ial,1992.

B-4 Elissa "Titanic worth every dime." Halifbc Chronicle Herald 18 Dec. 1997: 86.

Barris, Alex. 'Tit-Coq Best Film." Globe and Mail 1 May 1953: 8.

Base, Ron. "Genieshow a private party." Toronto Star 2 1 Mar. 1980: D 1.

Bernstein, Matthew. "'Floating Tnumphantly': The American Cntics on Titanic." Sander

and Studlar 14-28.

Blewitt, John. "Film, Ideology and Bourdieu's Critique of Public Taste." British Jod

of Aesthetics 33:4 (1993): 367-372.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Sociai Critiaue of the Jdnement of Tm.Tr. Richard Roberts 123

Nice. London: Routleâge & Kegan Paul, 1984.

Brown, Corie, and David Ansen. "Rough Waters." Newsweek 15 Dec. 1997: 6468.

Brown, Peter H.,and Jim Pinkston. Osçar Dearest: Six Decades of Scandal. Politics and

Greed Behind Hollvwood's Acdemv Awards 1927- 1986. New York: Harper &

Row, 1987.

Brow~lstein,Bill. 'The pdce of fame: Geaies cost some winnm $600." MonW

Gazette 13 Jan. 1997: E4, ES.

Cameron, James. Foreward. Marsh v-xiii.

Campbell, Murray. "Gays try to grab spotlight at Oscars." Globe and Mail 3 1 Mar. 1992:

Al, A2.

"Canadian Film Awds." Food for Thouoht May 195 1: 23.

Canby, Vincent. "For the Awarâs: Approval and a Yawn." New York Times 15 Apr.

1984: II 21, II 35.

. ''The Stories Behind the Oscars." New York Times 5 Apr. 1987: II 23.

. "Why We Watch the Ademy AwELc~~."New York Times 17 Apr. 1983: ïI 1, II

17.

Cardullo, Bert. "Blood, Snow, and Tm." Hudson Review Spring 1999: 107-1 14.

Carter, Bill. "An Oscar Night to Remember." New York Times 25 Mu. 1998: El.

Churchill, Douglas W. "The Academy Convenes." New York Times 26 Feb. 1939: X 5.

. "Refoms in Hollyw006', New York Times 1 Nov. 1936: X S.

Codogue, Ray. 'Cenies revive ghosts of paisnoir" Globe and Mail 28 Nov. 1992: C7.

. 'Two Genies and the language of television." Globe md Mail 16 Jan. 19%: Cl. Roberts 124

Cmwther. Bosley. "Ow Vote for Oscar." New York Times 19 Apr. 1964: II 1, II 8.

. "Those Academy Awds." New York Times 4 Ap. 1954: II 1.

Woe. Chris. "If the award show is like a dinosaur, how big is its brain?" Globe and Mail 23 Mar. 1999: Cl, C3.

Dorland, Michael. So Close to the Statds: The Emereence of Canadian Feature Film

Poliq. Toronto: U of Toronto P. 1998.

Edwards-Jones, hogen. "Arty Animai." Times 28 Mar.3 Apr. 1998: Metro 3.

Egoyan, Atom. "Atom's Oscar Diary: A Director Basks in Chma's Biggest Spotlight"

Maclean's 6 Apr. 1998: 6 1-64.

. "Recovery." Si& and Sound ûct. 1997: 20-23.

Everett-Green, Robert "HederPays Off for Telefiim." Globe and Mail 26 Mar. 1998: a.

"Exotica leads Genie field." Toronto Star 19 Oct, 1994: D 1.

"Farniliar Pains on Oscar Night." Editorial. New York Times 25 Mar. 19%: A22.

Feldman, Seth, and Joyce Nelson, eds. CanaQ'an Film Reader. Toronto: Peter Martin

Associates, 1977.

Fothergill, Robert, "Cowarâ, Bully, or Clown: The Dr--Life of a Younger Brother."

Felhand Nelson 234-250.

. "A Place Like Home." Feldman and Nelson 347-363.

Gamson, Joshua Claims to Fame: Celebritv in Contemmm Ameriw Berkeley: U of

California P, 1994.

Gans. Herbert J. Po~darCulture d Hi& Culture: An Advsis and Evaluation of

Taste. New York Basic Books. 1974. Roberts 125

Golnnan, Noreen. "The Geaies: 1s Anyone Out There Watching?" Canadian Forum

March 1994: 7-8,

Gould, Jack 'Television in Review." New York Times 3 1 Mar. 1954: 38.

. "TV: The ûscar Awards." New York Thes 8 Apr. 1959: 75.

Griesdorf, Jane. Rev. of The Sweet Herder. Owen's Qunrterlv Summer 1992: 434-435.

Griffin, John. "Awards show no one wiU see." Montreal Gazette 23 Nov. 1996: C3.

. "This yw's Genies will be in Moatreal and in French." 26 Feb. 1993: CS.

Gritten, David. 'Titanic proves unsinicable akrdl." Dail? Telemnh 25 Mar. 1998:

20.

Groen, Rick. "And the ship sails on, and on." Globe and Mail 19 Dec. 1997: C 1, C2.

Harcourt, Peter. ''Introduction: The Invisible Cinema" Ciné-tracts Spnng/Sumrner

1978: 48-49.

Hanis, Christopha. 'Tgoyan and Exotica dominate Genies." Globe and Mail 8 Dec.

1994: Cl.

Heard, Christopher. Dreamin~Aloud: The Life and Films of James Cameron. Toronto:

Doubleday, 1997.

Higson, Andrew. 'The Concept of Natiod Cinema" Screen 30 (1989): 36-46.

Holden, Anthony. Behind the Oscar The Secret Historv of the Adern~Awards. New

YorL: Simon and Schustet, 1993.

Howell, Petet. ''CMlida's best Oscar show ever." Toronto Star Il Feb. 1998: El, E2.

Hustak, Alan. "For Quebec nlms ody: the Jutras." Montreai Gazette 18 Nov. 1998: B9.

James, Carys "As the Acedemy Hails Women, Women Tak Back" New York Times 28 Roberts 126

Mar. 1993: II 15, II 23.

Johnson, Brian D. "Titanic Ambition: A Canadian Sails Hollywood's High Seas."

Maclean's 8 Dec. 1997: 86-91.

Kauffhan, Stanley. "A Stricken Town." New Re~ublic8 Dec. 1997: 30-3 1.

Keller, Alexandra, '"Size Does Matter': Notes on Titanic and James Cameron as

Blockbuster Auteur." Sandler and Studlar 132- 154.

Klady, Leonard "Good times roll at Genies." Winni~eaFree Press 24 Mar. 1980: 17.

Knelman, Martia "A Wake for Canedian Cinema" Globe and Mail 13 Oct 1973: 32. mer,Pe ter. "Women First : Titanic Action-Adventure Films, and Hollywood's Female

Audience." Sandler and Studlar 108- 13 1.

Lacey, Liam. "And the winmrs will be . . ." Globe and Mail 21 Mar. 1998: C9

. "Clverboard!" Globe and Mail 21 Mar. 1998: Cl, Cg.

. "A tale of two directors." Globe and Mail 11 Feb. 1998: Al, A2.

. "They Drearn of Genies." Globe and Mail 28 Jan. 2000: RI, R3.

Lane, Anthony. "The Shipping News." The New Yorker. 15 Dec. 1997: 156-160.

Laub, Don. "Bearing Witness or the Vicissitudes of Listening." Testimonv: Crisis

of Witnessinn in Literature. Pwchdvsis. and Histocy. Shoshana Felman and

Laub. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Lehman, Peter, and Susui Hunt. "'Sometbing and Someoae Else': The Miad, the Body,

and Sexuality in Titanic." Sander and SMlar 89-1 07.

"Lepige lads Genie wrninees." Globe and Ul8Nov. 1995: C2.

Levy, Exnanuel. And the Winner 1s . . . : the HiSto~and Politics of the ûscadû Awards.

New York Ungar, 1987. Roberts 127

Lindlaw, Scott 'Wollywd fancy huns to self-love." Winni~epFm Press 25 Mar. 1995:

B4.

Linâsey, Robert. "Waiting and Watching on Holiywood's Night." New York Times 30

Mar. 1982: C12.

Maclnnis, Craig. Yhes anyone dieam of Genie?" Toronto Star 11 Dec. 1993: HL, H8.

Magder, Ted. Canada's Hollywood: The CdanState and Feature Films. Toronto: U

of Toronto P, 1993.

Martin, Robert. ''Lies best film; wins four awards." Globe and Mail 25 Oct. 1976: 19.

Marsh, Ed W. James Cameton's Titanic. New York: HarperPerennial, 1997.

"Mary PicHord Presents Motion Picture Awards." Eveninn Citizen 23 Apr. 195 1: 3.

Maslin, Janet. "Energy, Gallmtry and Glamour at the Oscar." New York Times 27 Mar.

1996: C13, C18.

. The Night Oscar Paid Some Attention to Wornen." New York Times 3 1 Mar.

1993: C15, C20.

. "A Spectacle As Sweeping as the Sa" New York Times 19 Dec. 1997: El, El 8.

. "A 'Streamlined' Edition of 1985 Oscar Awards." New York Times 27 Mar.

1985: C25,

. "A Town Bereft, Limping into the Future." New York Thes 13 Oct. 1997: E13.

. "Where Has Al1 the Giitter Gone?" New York Times 16 Apr. 1980: 21.

Msssey, Anne, ad MiLe Hammonâ. "'It Was Tm! How Can You Laugh?': History and

Memocy in the Reception of Titanic in Bntain and Southampton." Sandler and

Snidlat 239-264. Roberts 128

McKay, John. "Oscar-nominee Egoyan goes to Hollywood" Halifur Chmnicle-Hda 18

Mar. 1998: B4.

McKie, Paul. Tanadian Genie awards spcccecular noncvent." Winnipea Free Press 20

Feb. 1998: 22.

Miller, Laura. Rev. of Titanic. Sirzht and Sound Feb. 1998: 50-52.

Monk, Katberhe. "Genies test definition of Canadian." Vancouver Sun 8 Dec. 1998: CS.

"Movie industry glad no quotas put on Canadian films." Winniœ~Free Press 3 1 May

1984: 47.

Mulvey, Lam "Visual Pleasun and Narrative Cinema" Visual and Other Pleasures.

B loomington: Indiana UP, 1989. 14-26.

Munich, Adneme, and Maura Spiegel. "Heart of the Ocean: Diamonds and Democratic

Desire in Titanic." Sandler and Snidlar 15 5- 168.

Nash, Melanie, and Martti Lahti. '"Almost Ashamed to Say 1 am One of Those Girls':

Tironic, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the Paradoxes of Girls' Fandom." Sandler and

Stuâiar 64-88.

"'National Füm Board WhHonors for Canaâjan Movies." Globe and Mail 23 Apr. 1951:

8

Neale, Steve. "ArtCinemaas Institution." Sc-22 (1981): 11-39.

Nena, Diane. "Tiîunic, SunRvPlism, and the MillemcalMyth." Sanâier and Studar 220- 238.

O'Connor, John J. "The Academy Awuds Cemnony." New York Times 26 Mar. 1986:

c22* Roberts 129

"The ûniy GdHero." Editorial. New York Times 11 Feb. 1998: A28.

Osborne, Robert. 65 Years of the Oscar: The Officiai Historv ofthe Academv Awards.

New York: Abbeville Press, 1994.

"Oscar, With Taste." New York Times 28 Mar. 1990: A28.

Ouellette, Laurie. "Ship of Dreams: Cross-Class Romance and the Culturai Fantasy of

Titanic," Sander and Studlar 16% 1 88.

Oswalâ, Brad ''Millions watch showebut why? Rewards of awards." Winni~gFrœ

-Ress 25 Mar. 1995: B 1. Pevere, Geoff, "Atorn Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafbr: Death, Canadian Style." Take One

Fa11 1997: 6- 1 1, . 'mie 10 Classics: the 10 Most Influential Canadian Movies of Al1 Tirne." Shift

Sept. 1998: 46,48.

"The Players: The 30 Most Inwvative People in Canadian Film." Shift Sept 1998: 34-

44.

Rich, Frank. "Soak the Rich." New York Times 27 Dec. 1997: Al1.

Saadler, Kevin S., and Gaylyn Stuâiar, eds. Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbusta. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgea UP, 1999.

Swtt, lay. "Black Robe turns to gold caphiring six Genie awards." Globe and Mail 27

Nov. 1991: A1.M.

. ''Changeliag wins Genie as year's best rnovie." Globe and Mail 21 Mar. 1980:

15.

. 'I)ebamis' director a successfiil dreamer." Globe andMail 14 Feb. 1981: 7.

. "Genie nomimes cut ties with the prst" Globe anci Mail 18 Mir. 1988: Cl. Roberts 130

. "The importance of being popular." Globe and Mail 16 Mar. 1990: Cl.

. 'Wakcd Lunch top fan at Genies." Globe and Mail 23 Nov. 1992: Al.

. Terry Fox Story wins bat picaire Genie." Globe anâ Mail 22 Mar. 1984: El.

Schumach, Murray. Wollywood Chart." New York Times 23 Apr. 196 1: II 11.

. "Hollywood Cheer." New York Times 19 Apt. 1964: II 7.

. "Hollywood Shi&* New York Times 4 Mar. 1962: II 7.

. "Hollywood Sweep." New York Times IS Apr. 1962: ïI9.

SchWZlttZWald, Robert "adother Cariada anothet Canada? other Caaadas."

Massachusetts Review 3 1 (1990): 9-27.

Shaniey, J.P. "TV: Hope and Hopefuls." 1 Apr. 1955: 36.

Smith, JeK "Selling My Heart: Music and Cros-Promotion in Titanic." Sandler and

Studl~46-63.

Sw Susan. Rev. of Titanic. Detroit News 19 Dec. 1997: 1D, 2D.

Stone, lay. "A Titanic Success." WwaCitizen 19 Dec. 1997: El.

Stringer, Juiian. "'The China Had Never Been Used! ': On the Patina of Perfect hages in

Titanic." Sandler and Studlar 205-2 19.

Topalovich, Maria A Pictorial Histotv of the Canadian Film Awards. Toronto: Stodâart,

1984.

Tuin, Kenneth. "Titanic' Sinks Again (Spectacdariy)." Los Aneeles Times 19 Dec.

1997: F12, F14.

Waal, Peter. ''The M18king of James Cmeroa." Saturda~Night Mar. 1998: 26-34.

Warren, Iaa "Genîes: Daring to be different." Montreal Gazette 17 Uar. 1987: C 10.

Weaver, David. "Geaies: showcase in search of an audience." Glok and Mail 15 Dec. Roberts 131

1997: Cl.

Weinraub, Bernard. "Amid Rotests, Elia Kazan Receives His Oscar." New York Times

22 Mar, 1W:E3.

. 'Wollywd lemsmsll is beautifid." Globe and Mail 25 Feb. 1997: D3.

, "In Oscars for 'Titanic,' An Omen of More Power for Big-Budget Directors."

New York Times 25 Mar. 1998: El, E12.

Wiley, Mason, and Damien Bona inside Oscar: The Unofficial History of the Academy

Awards. Ed Gai1 MacColl. 1986. New York: Ballantine, 1987.

Winters, Lam "A Gentle Interpntcr of Human Fallibility." New York Times 23 Nov.

1997: 17.26.

Wyatt, Justin, and Kathe~eVlesrnas. "The Drama of Recoupment: On the Mass Media

Negotiation of Titanic." Sander and StudIar 29-45.