Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Book Review: America's Corporate Art: The Studio Authorship of Hollywood Motion Pictures by Jerome Christensen

Book Review: America's Corporate Art: The Studio Authorship of Hollywood Motion Pictures by... press starting in 1998, marked not the beginning of an independent aesthetic but the end of independent distribution and the rise of indie conglomerates. Studios had good reason to incorporate indie divisions. Their budgets for ``event'' films were skyrocketing, were unable to handle targeted marketing campaigns for mid-range or ``prestige'' pictures. An indie subsidiary also brought with it a library of titles, an increasingly value commodity in an age of video stores and cable licensing. (When Disney acquired Miramax, its library went from 300 to 550 films.) ``Indie,'' like today's ``organic,'' collapses production history, financing, lifestyle, and aesthetics. Perren's distinction between indie and independent is clear and telling-- it's strictly business for her. She does not discuss either how films look or the politics of style or form. In Indie: An American Film Culture (Columbia University Press, 2011), Michael Z. Newman suggested that ``indie'' was a more comfortable word than ``independent'' because it did away with the ``high and noble expectations'' of liberty and freedom; ``indie'' therefore became a style, not an ethics. The word indie insists on an authenticity figured as autonomy from a dominant mainstream or mass. Authenticity and autonomy are not inherent, but conferred--by festivals, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Film Quarterly University of California Press

Book Review: America's Corporate Art: The Studio Authorship of Hollywood Motion Pictures by Jerome Christensen

Kindley, Evan
Film Quarterly , Volume 66 (1) – Oct 1, 2012
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-california-press/book-review-america-s-corporate-art-the-studio-authorship-of-hollywood-0UFuJTHVOY

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of California Press
Copyright
© 2012 by The Regents of the University of California
Subject
Book Reviews
ISSN
0015-1386
eISSN
1533-8630
DOI
10.1525/fq.2012.66.1.65
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

press starting in 1998, marked not the beginning of an independent aesthetic but the end of independent distribution and the rise of indie conglomerates. Studios had good reason to incorporate indie divisions. Their budgets for ``event'' films were skyrocketing, were unable to handle targeted marketing campaigns for mid-range or ``prestige'' pictures. An indie subsidiary also brought with it a library of titles, an increasingly value commodity in an age of video stores and cable licensing. (When Disney acquired Miramax, its library went from 300 to 550 films.) ``Indie,'' like today's ``organic,'' collapses production history, financing, lifestyle, and aesthetics. Perren's distinction between indie and independent is clear and telling-- it's strictly business for her. She does not discuss either how films look or the politics of style or form. In Indie: An American Film Culture (Columbia University Press, 2011), Michael Z. Newman suggested that ``indie'' was a more comfortable word than ``independent'' because it did away with the ``high and noble expectations'' of liberty and freedom; ``indie'' therefore became a style, not an ethics. The word indie insists on an authenticity figured as autonomy from a dominant mainstream or mass. Authenticity and autonomy are not inherent, but conferred--by festivals,

Journal

Film Quarterly – University of California Press

Published: Oct 1, 2012

There are no references for this article.