Cinema’s Unstable Texts: A Historical Analysis of Textual Variation in the Film Industry By Mikhail L. Skoptsov B.A. New York University, 2010 M.A. University of Southern California, 2012 Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Modern Culture and Media at Brown University Providence, Rhode Island May 2020 © Copyright 2020 by Mikhail Skoptsov This dissertation by Mikhail L. Skoptsov is accepted in its present form by the Department of Modern Culture and Media as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date______________ ____________________________ Philip Rosen, Advisor Recommended to the Graduate Council Date______________ ____________________________ Lynne Joyrich, Reader Date______________ ____________________________ Ariella Azoulay, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date______________ ____________________________ Andrew G. Campbell, Dean of the Graduate School iii Curriculum Vitae Mikhail Skoptsov graduated in 2010 from New York University with a B.A. in Cinema Studies with honors, a second major in the French language, and a minor in Producing. He subsequently graduated with an M.A. in Film Studies from the University of Southern California (USC) in 2012. His published academic works include a book chapter in Bringing History to Life Through Film: The Art of Cinematic Storytelling (2013), and articles in the online international journal Series (2015) and Contexts (Spring 2018), the official annual publication of the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology. A forthcoming book chapter will appear in The Hobbit in Film and Fiction: Essays on Peter Jacksons Hobbit Trilogy (2020). As a former film critic, he has published multiple reviews in Washington Square News and The Daily Trojan newspapers. Mikhail has teaching experience, having instructed his own course “Altered Cinema” in Spring 2016 at Brown University’s department of Modern Culture and Media. He has also worked there as a teaching assistant for multiple courses and received a teaching certificate from Brown’s Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning. Prior to that, he had worked as a teaching assistant at the USC School of Cinematic Arts. Additionally, he has experience as a volunteer GED tutor at Columbia University’s community impact program. In 2017-2018, he held an interdisciplinary research fellowship with the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, which led to his working as one of the project leads of an experimental 2018 exhibit called “#CrowdCurated.” iv Preface and Acknowledgements As authors of long-running fantasy works sometimes like to say, the tale grew in the telling. This dissertation changed considerably from its initial plans as it was being written. Its overall length consequently surpassed initial projections, as did the amount of time necessary to finish it. Des- pite the delays that occurred in the process, the members of my dissertation committee continued to offer invaluable advice and encouragement. Without the patience and commitment of Phil Rosen, Lynne Joyrich, and Ariella Azoulay, this work simply would not have been possible. They devoted much time to reading my work, helping me to gain better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses as well as refine its central ideas and arguments. I am especially grateful to my advisor Phil for tirelessly providing constructive criticism and honest feedback that helped steer me in the right direction. I’d also like to express my gratitude to many other professors who were not part of my committee, but who helped develop and shape my academic interests, including Wendy Chun, Ellen Rooney, Adi Ophir, and Gertrud Koch. I have learned much from them during my studies at Brown University, and there can be no doubt that the knowledge I’ve gained contributed to the writing of this project. A special thanks goes to professor Joan Copjec, who served as the director of grad studies, department manager Susan McNeil, and program coordinator Liza Hebert, all of whom consistently clarified my duties and reminded me of my day-to-day responsibilities as a PhD student. Finally, I am greatly indebted to my parents for all the emotional and psychological support they provided me with as I was working on this dissertation. I could not have done this without them. v Table of Contents List of Tables and Illustrations vii Introduction: Film History and Textual Variation 1 Chapter Outline 6 Chapter 1 – Sound On: The Standardization of Variation 13 Chapter 2 – Screen Size Matters: Broadcast Versions, Ratio Variation, and Widescreen 79 Chapter 3 – Art vs. Commerce: Alternate Cuts and the New Technologies of the 80s 144 Chapter 4 – Lost in (Digital) Transition: Modernization and Replacement of Versions 210 Conclusion 276 Bibliography 281 vi List of Tables and Illustrations Figure 1.1 – Camera and Projection Speeds of Select Silent Films 30 Figure 1.2 – Dialogue Breakdown in All Quiet on The Western Front 40 Figure 1.3 – 1929 Early Talkie Films 51 Figure 1.4 – Multi-Version Films: Silent/Synch (Fall 1926-Summer 1928) 58 Figure 1.5 – Multi-Version Films: Silent/Talkie (Fall 1927-Summer 1928) 59 Figure 1.6 – Synch Reissues of silent films (1926-1931) 59 Figure 1.7 – Silent/Synch Multi-Version Films (1928-29) 63 Figure 1.8 – Warner Bros. Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1928-29) 64 Figure 1.9 – First National Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1928-29) 64 Figure 1.10 – Universal Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1928-29) 64 Figure 1.11 – Paramount Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1928-29) 65 Figure 1.12 – Fox Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1928-29) 65 Figure 1.13 – MGM Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1928-29) 66 Figure 1.14 – Columbia Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1928-29) 66 Figure 1.15 – United Artists Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1928-29) 66 Figure 1.16 – Poster of Wings (1928) 68 Figure 1.17 – Warner Brothers Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1930) 71 Figure 1.18 – First National Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1930) 72 Figure 1.19 – Fox Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1930) 72 Figure 1.20 – Fox Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1930) 72 Figure 1.21 – MGM Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1930) 73 Figure 1.22 – Paramount Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1930) 73 vii Figure 1.23 – Universal Silent/Talkie Multi-Version Films (1930) 74 Figure 2.1 – Shane Broadcast Version Summary 103 Figure 2.2 – Major Studios and Flat Widescreen Ratios (March-April 1953) 121 Figure 2.3 – 1953 Studio Backlogs Released in Flat Widescreen 123 Figure 2.4a – Critical Limits for Widescreen Composition in Film Image 128 Figure 2.4b – Critical Limits for Widescreen Composition in Camera 128 Figure 2.5 – Flat Widescreen Formats and New Multi-Ratio Titles (1954-1956) 130 Figure 2.6 – Shane Version Release Chart 137 Figure 3.1 – Pre-Ancillary Cuts On Cable and Video 168 Figure 3.2 – Authorial Revisions on Video I 172 Figure 3.3 – Authorial Revisions on Video II 172 Figure 3.4 – Authorial Revisions on Video III 173 Figure 3.5 – Archival Titles and Restored Versions 181 Figure 3.6 – R-Rated and Unrated Cuts I 188 Figure 3.7 – R-Rated and Unrated Cuts II 190 Figure 3.8 – Manhunter Versions 195 Figure 3.9 – Alternate Cuts by Michael Mann 196 Figure 4.1 – Films Reissued in CGR (1997-2017) 261 viii INTRODUCTION Film History And Textual Variation This dissertation focuses on the role of textual variation within the American film indust- ry. Combining historical research with textual analysis, it examines why the same film texts cir- culate in different versions throughout their lifetimes in reaction to greater historical and cultural changes. In particular, it emphasizes how multiple versions emerge especially during periods of technological transition in the film industry, helping to instill new standards of production, distri- bution, or exhibition. In connection with this, it seeks to address many questions that arise from the very fact that a film can exist in multiple variations, such as: “How does the release of a new version impact a film’s reception and its status as a work of art? Who has the right – moral, legal, artistic, etc. – to create different versions of a picture and why? What does the existence of dif- ferent versions signify for a film as a historical object?” In tackling these questions, Unstable Texts challenges the foundational conception of film as a stable and fixed text, which is often left unquestioned in academic, industrial, and cultural discourses. It does so in the hopes of inciting a redefinition of a film as an inherently variable text and so promotes a conception of American film history as a history of how and why film texts collectively change over time. The inspiration for this work comes from my impression is that there is a general tenden- cy in film and media scholarship to treat pictures produced within the American film industry as stable texts. Consider, for instance, how the scholarly citation of films does not require nearly as much accuracy as that of print texts. As Edmondson aptly puts it, citations “for books, articles, and dissertations routinely include sufficient details to identify the actual copy… by date, edi- tion, publisher, page numbers and so on.... But in the case of an audiovisual work, it’s often just 1 the title.”1 In this, there is an awareness of the fact that a printed text may circulate in different editions or under different publishing companies, and so have differences in content or page count. Providing detailed information is necessary