DOCSLIB.ORG

The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968 Against the Grain Manuscript 8349 Collecting to the Core — The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968 Mark Emmons Anne Doherty Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Collecting to the Core — The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968 by Mark Emmons (Associate Dean of Public Services, College of University Libraries & Learning Sciences, University of New Mexico; Film Studies Editor, Resources for College Libraries) <[email protected]> Column Editor: Anne Doherty (Resources for College Libraries Project Editor, CHOICE/ACRL) <[email protected]> Column Editor’s Note: The “Collecting director is important because making a film a tendency than a theory, more a mystique to the Core” column highlights monographic is a collaborative effort often restricted by than a methodology, more an editorial policy works that are essential to the academic li- the commercial nature of the movie industry. than an aesthetic procedure.”12 The bulk of brary within a particular discipline, inspired “The auteur theory values the personality of his book consists of a hierarchical ranking of by the Resources for College Libraries bib- a director precisely because of the barriers to (mostly) American directors and their works, liography (online at http://www.rclweb.net). its expression.”6 a chronological list of films, and a directorial In each essay, subject specialists introduce Pauline Kael, a movie reviewer for The index. His flamboyantly named categories and explain the classic titles and topics that New Yorker based in San Francisco, was included directors in and just outside of the continue to remain relevant to the undergrad- highly critical of Sarris and auteur theory. pantheon, directors whose works were too uate curriculum and library collection. Dis- In a 1963 article originally published in Film esoteric or ephemeral for them to be consid- ciplinary trends may shift, but some classics Quarterly (reprinted in her collection I Lost ered great, directors who were too serious or never go out of style. — AD It at the Movies), “Circles and Squares: Sar- merely likable, comedic directors, and direc- ris and Joy,” she addressed each of the three tors who were too early in their careers to be premises of the auteur theory expounded by thoroughly evaluated (see Figure 1). Each ifty years ago, Andrew Sarris published Sarris in his original article.7 She argued category described what makes the directors The American Cinema: Directors and that expression and style are more important auteurs and lists their films, highlighting the 1 FDirections, 1929-1968. The book was than technical competence, that the fact that a most worthy. an expansion of an article he had written for viewer can distinguish the personality of the The auteur theory was widely embraced by the journal Film Culture entitled “Notes on director is secondary to the value of an indi- many. For many a movie lover and film student, 2 the Auteur Theory in 1962.” Sarris claimed vidual film, and that cinema is not at all about The American Cinema served as a canon and a that directors are authors of the films they interior meaning and the tension between viewing guide. Cinephiles sought opportunities make, that they should be evaluated on the the director’s personality and material. As a to watch listed movies. Art houses screened entire body of their work, and that judgment result of these premises, Kael maintained that films. Critics analyzed filmmakers and films should rest on their technical competence, auteur critics often glorified trash. She then with an auteur lens. Film schools taught classes distinguishable personality, and the personal explained her own views as a film critic. She on auteur theory and on directors. University style that emerges from the tension between believed that “art is an expression of the hu- and popular presses published academic books their personality and material. man experience.”8 Disparaging of formulaic about directors. Conversations abounded. Crit- Sarris did not originate the idea of the critics who applied a single approach such as icism of Sarris within these circles accepted auteur. He spent some formative years in auteur theory, she considered herself a “plu- the basic premise of directors as authors and Paris in the early 1960s and was inspired by ralist” drawing eclectically and judiciously instead focused on niceties, nitpicking who the ideas of a loose alliance of French film from “the best standards and principles from belonged in the pantheon and complaining that critics and filmmakers writing in Cahiers du various systems of ideas.”9 In contrast to Sar- he included too many commercial directors and Cinéma that included André Bazin and Jean ris, Kael wanted critics to judge the individ- virtually no women. Luc Godard. He was particularly influenced ual movie rather than consider the director’s The auteur theory was also rejected by by the French director François Truffaut who entire corpus. Her riposte was the beginning many. One major criticism was that auteur introduced the idea of politique des auteur of a series of ongoing debates in print and in theory unfairly privileged the director over with his “polemical stance” behind the term person that attracted followers other creative artists. Detractors argued that auteur.3-4 The polemic behind the politique who identified as Paulettes or movie making is a collaborative art, with mean- des auteur was to favor some directors Sarristes. ingful contributions from studios, producers, and to disapprove of others Sarris doubled down when writers, cinematographers, sound designers, based on the style of their he published The American set designers, editors, actors, and more. C. films. As a film critic in New Cinema in 1968. In his intro- Paul Sellors, in his book Film Authorship: York City for Film Culture duction, he briefly explained Auteurs and Other Myths, made a typical and a movie reviewer for the that he compiled the book argument, proposing that his book’s purpose Village Voice, Sarris used his to guide film students and was to “provide further reasons to question the platform to popularize the idea then expounded at length automatic assignment of authorship to a film’s of the director as auteur in the on “the absence of the most director.”13 He traced the idea of the director United States. elementary academic tra- as author back to romantic French notions of At the root of the auteur the- dition in cinema.”10 To help authorship and explored theoretical concepts ory is the idea that the personality fill this void, he delved more of authorship around narrator and narrative of the best directors shine through deeply into the idea of the auteur to derive his definition of “film authorship as in their films. The result is that the audience in his introductory chapter “Toward a Theo- collective intentional action.”14 Modern auteur will recognize directors’ styles by the recur- ry of Film History.” In his afterword, “The theory has evolved to assign creative responsi- ring plots, themes, motifs, and images in their Auteur Theory Revisited,” first added to the bility to filmmakers other than the director, but films. WhileSarris also focused on technical 1977 edition, Sarris addressed the criticism: still focuses on individuals most responsible for competence in his original article, he centered “Still, if I had to do it all over again, I would the style and expression in a film rather than his arguments almost exclusively on person- reformulate the auteur theory with a greater upon a collective author. ality in The American Cinema: “The strong emphasis on the tantalizing mystery of style The auteur theory was also seen as irrel- director imposes his own personality on a than on the romantic agony of the artists.”11 evant by many. Instead of focusing on the film; the weak director allows the personality He concluded his afterword by conceding author and the value of the work, film theorists 5 of others to run rampant.” The strength of a that “auteurism is and always has been more continued on page 34 Against the Grain / February 2019 <http://www.against-the-grain.com> 33 Collecting to the Core from page 33 became more devoted to poststructuralist and ideological perspectives. Poststructuralists read cinema with semiotic, psychoanalytic, lit- erary, and Marxist lenses from the perspective of the viewer, disconnecting and dismantling the meaning of the film from authorial intent. Ideological theorists with Marxist, feminist, postcolonial, or queer approaches interpreted and critiqued film with the aim of challenging dominant power structures and narratives. Neither epistemology found any relevance in auteur theory. Nonetheless, despite the passage of time and the arrival of competing perspectives, auteur theory has persisted. Whether this is due to romantic notions about authors, pop- ular beliefs about how movies are made, or a genuine conviction that directors shape films more than any other creative talent, conversa- tions about cinema often revolve around the director. This fact is reflected in Resources for College Libraries, where nearly nine in ten works listed in the “Filmmakers” section are about directors. This is not due to editorial viewpoint, but is a reflection of the published academic scholarship (though it is worth not- ing that the popular press publishes numerous books about actors in addition to directors). Andrew Sarris and his book, The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968, played a significant role in the development of the idea that the director is the author of a film. This influential work remains a relevant and consequential part of every academic library film studies collection.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Goodbye Cinema, Hello Cinephilia Other Books by Jonathan Rosenbaum
    Goodbye Cinema, Hello Cinephilia Other Books by Jonathan Rosenbaum Rivette: Texts and Interviews (editor, 1977) Orson Welles: A Critical View, by André Bazin (editor and translator, 1978) Moving Places: A Life in the Movies (1980) Film: The Front Line 1983 (1983) Midnight Movies (with J. Hoberman, 1983) Greed (1991) This Is Orson Welles, by Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich (editor, 1992) Placing Movies: The Practice of Film Criticism (1995) Movies as Politics (1997) Another Kind of Independence: Joe Dante and the Roger Corman Class of 1970 (coedited with Bill Krohn, 1999) Dead Man (2000) Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media Limit What Films We Can See (2000) Abbas Kiarostami (with Mehrmax Saeed-Vafa, 2003) Movie Mutations: The Changing Face of World Cinephilia (coedited with Adrian Martin, 2003) Essential Cinema: On the Necessity of Film Canons (2004) Discovering Orson Welles (2007) The Unquiet American: Trangressive Comedies from the U.S. (2009) Goodbye Cinema, Hello Cinephilia Film Culture in Transition Jonathan Rosenbaum the university of chicago press | chicago and london Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote for many periodicals (including the Village Voice, Sight and Sound, Film Quarterly, and Film Comment) before becoming principal fi lm critic for the Chicago Reader in 1987. Since his retirement from that position in March 2008, he has maintained his own Web site and continued to write for both print and online publications. His many books include four major collections of essays: Placing Movies (California 1995), Movies as Politics (California 1997), Movie Wars (a cappella 2000), and Essential Cinema (Johns Hopkins 2004). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2010 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Lonely Places, Dangerous Ground
    Introduction Nicholas Ray and the Potential of Cinema Culture STEVEN RYBIN AND WILL SCHEIBEL THE DIRECTOR OF CLASSIC FILMS SUCH AS They Live by Night, In a Lonely Place, Johnny Guitar, Rebel Without a Cause, and Bigger Than Life, among others, Nicholas Ray was the “cause célèbre of the auteur theory,” as critic Andrew Sarris once put it (107).1 But unlike his senior colleagues in Hollywood such as Alfred Hitchcock or Howard Hawks, he remained a director at the margins of the American studio system. So too has he remained at the margins of academic film scholarship. Many fine schol‑ arly works on Ray, of course, have been published, ranging from Geoff Andrew’s important auteur study The Films of Nicholas Ray: The Poet of Nightfall and Bernard Eisenschitz’s authoritative biography Nicholas Ray: An American Journey (both first published in English in 1991 and 1993, respectively) to books on individual films by Ray, such as Dana Polan’s 1993 monograph on In a Lonely Place and J. David Slocum’s 2005 col‑ lection of essays on Rebel Without a Cause. In 2011, the year of his centennial, the restoration of his final film,We Can’t Go Home Again, by his widow and collaborator Susan Ray, signaled renewed interest in the director, as did the publication of a new biography, Nicholas Ray: The Glorious Failure of an American Director, by Patrick McGilligan. Yet what Nicholas Ray’s films tell us about Classical Hollywood cinema, what it was and will continue to be, is far from certain. 1 © 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany 2 Steven Rybin and Will Scheibel After all, what most powerfully characterizes Ray’s films is not only what they are—products both of Hollywood’s studio and genre systems—but also what they might be.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Sarris Papers, 1955-1988 MS# 1451
    Andrew Sarris Papers, 1955-1988 MS# 1451 ©2007 Columbia University Library SUMMARY INFORMATION Creator Andrew Sarris, 1928- Title and dates Andrew Sarris Papers, 1955-1988. Abstract This collection contains documents related to the life and career of Andrew Sarris, an influential American film critic and Professor in the Film Division of Columbia University’s School of the Arts. Professional and personal correspondence, rough drafts of articles, clippings of newspaper columns written by Sarris and his peers, and back issues of film periodicals represent the bulk of this collection. The documents span several decades, from his start as a film critic and theorist in the mid-1950s to the last years of his long tenure at The Village Voice in the late 1980s. Size 1.67 linear feet (4 document boxes) Call number MS# 1451 Location Columbia University Butler Library, 6th Floor Rare Book and Manuscript Library 535 West 114th Street New York, NY 10027 Andrew Sarris Paper Language(s) of material English Biographical Note A prominent American film critic perhaps best known for his "Films in Focus" column, which ran in New York City’s alternative weekly newspaper, The Village Voice, for much of its history, Andrew Sarris upheld the Voice’s reputation as a piquant publication with his lively and frequently contentious writings on cinema. Born in Brooklyn on October 31, 1928, Sarris was the child of immigrant parents who fell on hard times with the onset of the Great Depression. In 1946, he enrolled at Columbia for his undergraduate studies, but around this time, he developed a love of cinema that interfered with his schoolwork, and consequently his grades were poor.
    [Show full text]
  • {PDF EPUB} the Films of Josef Von Sternberg by Andrew. Sarris —Andrew Sarris, from the Films of Josef Von Sternberg (1966)
    Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} The Films of Josef Von Sternberg by Andrew. Sarris —Andrew Sarris, from The Films of Josef von Sternberg (1966). [16] Time felt the film was realistic in some parts, but disliked the Hollywood cliché of turning an evil character's heart to gold at the end. Sarris, Andrew, The Films of Josef von Sternberg , New York, 1966. Walker, Alexander, The Celluloid Sacrifice , New York, 1967. Weinberg, Herman G., Josef von Sternberg: A Critical Study , … Andrew Sarris, The Films of Josef von Sternberg, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1966, p. 15. Tag Gallagher, “Josef von Sternberg”, Senses of Cinema no. 19, February 2002. Surrendering to the police upon realising that Feathers and Rolls Royce have remained faithful to him, Bull states: “That hour was worth more to me than my whole life.” Sarris has been the film citic for the Village Voice, editor-in-chief of Cahiers du Cinema in English, and an associate editor of Film Culture. He is the author of The Films of Josef von Sternberg, Interviews with Film Directors, The Film, Confessions of a Cultist, The Primal Screen, The John Ford Movie Mystery, and Politics and Cinema. The gangster movies exploded in the sound era with Little Caesar (1931) and The Public Enemy (1931) but it was Josef von Sternberg who gave birth to the modern gangster movie with two crime dramas that took a more romantic approach to the genre. Von Sternberg by John Baxter ( ); Fun in a Chinese laundry by Josef Von Sternberg ( Book ); The films of Josef von Sternberg by Andrew Sarris ( Book ); In the realm of pleasure : Von Sternberg, Dietrich, and the masochistic aesthetic by Gaylyn Studlar ( Book ) Shanghai Express was the fourth, and one of the best, of the seven outstanding films that Josef von Sternberg made with Marlene Dietrich in the 1930s.Unlike their preceding film, Dishonored (1931), which had more of a historical/adventure spin to it, Shanghai Express was a return to the moody and deeply romantic style that characterized Morocco (1930).
    [Show full text]
  • Download Flyer
    ANTHEM PRESS INFORMATION SHEET Screen Writings Volume 2 Genres, Classics, and Aesthetics Bert Cardullo Pub Date: March 2010 Category: PERFORMING ARTS / Film Binding: Hardback & Video / Direction & Production Price: £60 / $99 BISAC code: PER004010 ISBN: 9781843318378 BIC code: APF Extent: 210 pages Rights Held: World Size: 229 x 152mm / 9 x 6 Illustrations: 12+ images Description Volume 2 of Screen Writings offers close readings of genre films and acknowledged film classics in an attempt to explore both the aesthetics of genre and the definition of ‘classic’. ‘The film writings of Bert Cardullo are fresh and lucid, in addition to being revelatory of his belief that the study of cinema is a sacred calling. I marvel at Cardullo’s profound perceptiveness – particularly on display in Screen Writings – about the exemplary meaning as well as the ultimate magic of the movies.’ —Andrew Sarris, Columbia University ‘Among my contemporaries, the best film critic writing in English in America is Bert Cardullo, and Screen Writings proves why. ‘ —Dan Harper, American film scholar Screen Writings: Genres, Classics, and Aesthetics explores both the aesthetics of genre and the definition of ‘classic’, as well as the changing perception of so-called classic movies over time. Implicitly theoretical as much as it is unashamedly practical, this book is a model not only of film analysis, but also of the enlightened deployment of cultural studies in the service of cinema study. The book includes re-considerations of such classic films as I vitelloni, Grand Illusion, Winter Light, and Tokyo Story; it features genre examinations of the war film (Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima), farce (Some Like It Hot), the road film (The Rain People), the New York- centered movie (Manhattan), and avant-garde pictures that privilege narrative (3-Iron and Eternal Sunshine of the Classic Mind).
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael: the Duel for the Soul of American Film Criticism
    1 Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael: The Duel For the Soul of American Film Criticism By Inge Fossen Høgskolen i Lillehammer / Lillehammer University College Avdeling for TV-utdanning og Filmvitenskap / Department of Television and Film Studies (TVF) Spring 2009 1 2 For My Parents 2 3 ”When we think about art and how it is thought about […] we refer both to the practice of art and the deliberations of criticism.” ―Charles Harrison & Paul Wood “[H]abits of liking and disliking are lodged in the mind.” ―Bernard Berenson “The motion picture is unique […] it is the one medium of expression where America has influenced the rest of the world” ―Iris Barry “[I]f you want to practice something that isn’t a mass art, heaven knows there are plenty of other ways of expressing yourself.” ―Jean Renoir “If it's all in the script, why shoot the film?” ―Nicholas Ray “Author + Subject = Work” ―Andrè Bazin 3 4 Table of Contents Preface and Acknowledgements p. 6. Introduction p. 8. Defining Art in Relation to Criticism p. 14. The Popular As a Common Ground– And an Outline of Study p. 19. Career Overview – Andrew Sarris p. 29. Career Overview – Pauline Kael p. 32. American Film Criticism From its Beginnings to the 1950s – And a Note on Present Challenges p. 35. Notes on Axiological Criticism, With Sarris and Kael as Examples p. 41. Movies: The Desperate Art p. 72. Auteurism – French and American p. 82. Notes on the Auteur Theory 1962 p. 87. "Circles and Squares: Joys and Sarris" – Kael's Rebuttal p. 93.
    [Show full text]
  • American Auteur Cinema: the Last – Or First – Great Picture Show 37 Thomas Elsaesser
    For many lovers of film, American cinema of the late 1960s and early 1970s – dubbed the New Hollywood – has remained a Golden Age. AND KING HORWATH PICTURE SHOW ELSAESSER, AMERICAN GREAT THE LAST As the old studio system gave way to a new gen- FILMFILM FFILMILM eration of American auteurs, directors such as Monte Hellman, Peter Bogdanovich, Bob Rafel- CULTURE CULTURE son, Martin Scorsese, but also Robert Altman, IN TRANSITION IN TRANSITION James Toback, Terrence Malick and Barbara Loden helped create an independent cinema that gave America a different voice in the world and a dif- ferent vision to itself. The protests against the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement and feminism saw the emergence of an entirely dif- ferent political culture, reflected in movies that may not always have been successful with the mass public, but were soon recognized as audacious, creative and off-beat by the critics. Many of the films TheThe have subsequently become classics. The Last Great Picture Show brings together essays by scholars and writers who chart the changing evaluations of this American cinema of the 1970s, some- LaLastst Great Great times referred to as the decade of the lost generation, but now more and more also recognised as the first of several ‘New Hollywoods’, without which the cin- American ema of Francis Coppola, Steven Spiel- American berg, Robert Zemeckis, Tim Burton or Quentin Tarantino could not have come into being. PPictureicture NEWNEW HOLLYWOODHOLLYWOOD ISBN 90-5356-631-7 CINEMACINEMA ININ ShowShow EDITEDEDITED BY BY THETHE
    [Show full text]
  • A Conversation with Andrew Sarris and Molly Haskell Andrew Sarris
    Sacred Heart University Review Volume 21 Issue 1 Sacred Heart University Review, Volume XXI, Article 4 Numbers 1 & 2, Fall 2000/ Spring 2001 March 2010 Taking Film Seriously: A Conversation with Andrew Sarris and Molly Haskell Andrew Sarris Molly Haskell Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/shureview Recommended Citation Sarris, Andrew and Haskell, Molly (2010) "Taking Film Seriously: A Conversation with Andrew Sarris and Molly Haskell," Sacred Heart University Review: Vol. 21 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/shureview/vol21/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SHU Press Publications at DigitalCommons@SHU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sacred Heart University Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@SHU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Taking Film Seriously: A Conversation with Andrew Sarris and Molly Haskell Cover Page Footnote Andrew Sarris writes on film for the New York Observer, and is Professor in the School of the Arts at Columbia University. Molly Haskell covers film for the feminist quarterly On the Issues, and writes a regular column for the Observer. This is a lightly-edited transcription of their talk at the Eighth Annual Media Studies Symposium at Sacred Heart University on April 14, 2002. This article is available in Sacred Heart University Review: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/shureview/vol21/iss1/4 Sarris and Haskell: Taking Film Seriously: A Conversation with Andrew Sarris and Moll ANDREW SARRIS AND MOLLY HASKELL Taking Film Seriously: A Conversation with Andrew Sarris and Molly Haskell Molly: We want all of you to get involved in this, and interrupt at any point.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study on Film Authorship: Exploring the Theoretical and Practical Sides in Film Production
    A Case Study on Film Authorship by David Tregde — 5 A Case Study on Film Authorship: Exploring the Theoretical and Practical Sides in Film Production David Tregde* Media Arts and Entertainment Elon University Abstract Film authorship has been a topic of debate in film theory since the Cahiers du Cinema critics first birthed auteur theory. Andrew Sarris used this theory to categorize directors based on their level of artistic au- thorship, solidifying the idea that a director is the sole author of a film. In The Schreiber Theory, David Kipen argues that a writer is responsible for creating the world of the movie and should be considered the author of a film. However, collaborative theories, such as those proposed by Paul Sellors, provide a more practical framework for studying film authorship. Rarely are any film authorship theories compared with specific exam- ples. To compare theory to practice, this research took a two-fold approach. First, theory is explored through primary and secondary sources to give a background and understanding of the main arguments in authorship. Second, this research documents the production of two feature films (Blade Runner & The Man Who Killed Don Quixote) as case studies through analysis of in-depth documentaries. By examining these productions, this study observes theory in practice rather than studying the finished products. I. The Problem of Authorship “Authorship does matter,” says Janet Staiger, because it addresses the issue of acknowledging credit behind a motion picture (Gerstner and Staiger 27). When addressing the responsible parties for a film, it is important to know why such analysis is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Author Functions, Auteur Fictions Understanding Authorship in Conglomerate Hollywood Commerce, Culture, and Narrative
    Author Functions, Auteur Fictions Understanding Authorship in Conglomerate Hollywood Commerce, Culture, and Narrative VOLUME II: APPENDICES Thomas James Wardak A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Sheffield Faculty of Arts and Humanities School of English Literature March 2017 Bibliography ‘2009 WORLDWIDE GROSSES’, Box Office Mojo (n.d.) <http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2009> [accessed 13 March 2017]. ‘2015 WORLDWIDE GROSSES’, Box Office Mojo (n.d.) <http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2015> [accessed 13 March 2017]. ‘3D screens—2004 onwards’, UK Cinema association (n.d.) <http://www.cinemauk.org.uk/the- industry/facts-and-figures/uk-cinema-industry-infrastructure/3d-screens/> [accessed 13 March 2017]. ‘ABOUT REDDIT’, Reddit (13 April 2016) <https://web.archive.org/web/20160413011025/https://www.reddit.com/about/> [accessed 13 March 2017]. ‘Box office revenue in North America from 1980 to 2015 (in billion U.S. dollars)’, Statista: The Statistics Portal (2016) <http://www.statista.com/statistics/187069/north-american-box- office-gross-revenue-since-1980/> [accessed 13 March 2017]. ‘Comic Book Sales by Year’, Comichron (n.d.) <http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html> [accessed 13 March 2017]. ‘Footfall Breakdown for each Station’, Network Rail (n.d.) <https://web.archive.org/web/20160910230139/https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Footfa llBreakdownForEachStation.pdf> [accessed 13 March 2017]. ‘John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln: A collective text by the Editors of Cahiers du Cinéma’, trans. Helen Lackner and Diana Matias, Screen, 13.3 (1972), 5-44. ‘Monthly reach of Empire magazine in the United Kingdom (UK) from October 2012 to September 2015 (in 1,000s)’, Statista: The Statistics Portal (n.d.) <http://www.statista.com/statistics/413664/empire-monthly-reach-uk/> [accessed 13 March 2017].
    [Show full text]
  • Family & Domesticity in the Films of Steven Spielberg
    Bard College Bard Digital Commons Senior Projects Spring 2017 Bard Undergraduate Senior Projects Spring 2017 Why Did I Marry A Sentimentalist?: Family & Domesticity in the Films of Steven Spielberg Emmet Dotan Bard College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/senproj_s2017 Part of the Other Film and Media Studies Commons, and the Theory and Criticism Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Dotan, Emmet, "Why Did I Marry A Sentimentalist?: Family & Domesticity in the Films of Steven Spielberg" (2017). Senior Projects Spring 2017. 232. https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/senproj_s2017/232 This Open Access work is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been provided to you by Bard College's Stevenson Library with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this work in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights- holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Why Did I Marry A Sentimentalist?: Family & Domesticity in the Films of Steven Spielberg Senior Project Submitted to The Division of Arts of Bard College by Emmet Dotan Annandale-on-Hudson, New York May 2017 Acknowledgements I want to thank my advisor, Ed Halter, for pushing me to understand why I love the films that I love. I would also like to thank Natan Dotan for always reminding me why I do what I do.
    [Show full text]
  • Leroy Neiman, Sports World Artist
    A48 OBITUARIES NEW YORK LeRoyNeiman, sportsworld artist BY TOM McELROY told the AP. “You can call me an The Associated Press American first. ...[but] I’ve been labeled doing neimanism, LeRoy Neiman, the painter so that’s what it is, Iguess.” and sketch artist best known for He worked in many medi- PHOTO MES evoking the kinetic energy of the um,producing thousands of TI world’s biggest sporting and lei- etchings, lithographs and silk- sure events with bright, quick screen prints known as serig- ORK WY strokes, died yesterday at age 91. raphy. NE Neiman also was acontribut- His works are in the perma- Sarris helped pioneer a ingartist at Playboy magazine nent collections of many pri- focus on film directors. for many years and official vate andpublic museums. But painter of five Olympiads. His his criticssaid Neiman’s forays NEW YORK longtime publicist Gail Paren- into thecommercial world mini- teau confirmed his death but mized him as aserious artist. Ne- didn’t disclose the cause. iman shrugged off such criti- Andrew Neiman was amedia-savvy cism. artist who knew how to enthrall He was aself-described wor- audiences with his instant rendi- kaholic who seldom took vaca- Sarris, tions of what he observed. In tions and had no hobbies. He 1972, he sketched the world PHOTO worked daily in his Manhattan chesstournament between FILE home studio at the Hotel des movie Boris Spassky and Bobby Fis- AGE Artistes near Central Park that cher in Reykjavik, Iceland, for a IM he shared with his wife of more live television audience.
    [Show full text]