Showing papers by "Janet Staiger published in 2004"

The Future of the Past

Abstract: Military history has been undergoing a period of fairly intense self-examination in the last few years. Some military historians, including John Lynn, have expressed worry that military history is dying off within the academy. Others, such as Jeremy Black, have offered analyses of trends in military history designed, at least in part, to counter that perceived unpopularity by stressing the connections of military history to trends that pervade the historical profession, including the rising influence of social and cultural historical approaches and global perspectives. In the interests of full disclosure, this reviewer has contributed to this latter thread.[1] This slim volume of articles collected mostly from the pages of the journal Historically Speaking and edited by Donald Yerxa, the Journal’s editor, falls into the analysis and promotion category. Compiled with an eye to students of military history, it aims to show how historians talk to each other, and in the process to reveal some of the main themes of recent military history. I am sympathetic to the aim, but unintended dissonance between the volume’s stated themes and the themes that actually emerge from the text unfortunately render the result somewhat disappointing.

Matters of Taste, Subtexts of Rank

Abstract: In a discussion of the reception of the primetime television program Dynasty, Jane Feuer recounts that in the fall of 1985 her local network affiliate station covered the fan festivities for the show's season premiere.1 Enthusiasts dressed in costumes and the local reporter did a stand-up commentary about the Moldavian massacre, the previous season's cliffhanger ending. Obviously in jest, all parties involved reveled in these playful confrontations with the idea of taste. Who would take such a highly wrought fiction seriously, especially in a medium of mass consumption? Opening premieres of films by major directors, however, produce a very different attitude in star- and director-struck news gatherers. It is standard practice to roll out the red carpet and marvel at the celebrities floating by the cameras and microphones. As this comparison suggests, Framework's observation is well made. Differences exist between cinephilia and telephilia based on a subtext of rank. Although scholars have discussed the widespread pathologization of fans in general, evidently the objects of one's attraction matter in attributions of approbation.2 If someone is well versed in Shakespeare, praise attends this knowledge; competency in batting averages or episodes of Star Trek receives much less acknowledgement. Throughout the history of fans-and the phenomenon is centuries old-constructions of high versus low objects, and by parallel, worthy versus insignificant behavior, have accumulated. Part of the ranking results from sexism and ageism. Love of cinema did not always imply a strategy for reading the authorship of high art through style. The media represented the first fans of cinema as adolescent females. Georganne Scheiner indicates that the terms were nearly synonymous in the popular imagination from the 1920s to 1950s, and perhaps for a very good reason. As Susan Ohmer notes, around 1940 "nearly 90% of the fan mail studios received came from girls under 21." 3 Fan clubs supported stars and stars supported fans. The Joan Crawford fan club that began in 1931 was one of the oldest associations of all, and developed into a national network of groups with annual conventions in Los Angeles. The Deanna Durbin Devotees eventually numbered 300 chapters, with a mimeographed newsletter (Deanna's Journal) and privileged access to Deanna. However, cinephilia, at least as Framework means it, did not develop until during and after World War II. One account of film audiences near Yale in the late 1940s indicates that young men with scruffy beards and leather jackets were repeating lines of dialogue during retrospective screenings of Michael Curtiz's 1942 Casablanca. I do not need to recount the history of spectatorship as training in authorship and cineculture from this point on. However, I do want to make three observations. First, it is at this point that film fandom begins to imply the study of authorship, above and beyond basic star worship. second, the intellectual male typifies this sort of cinephilia, replacing the young female as the dominant representation of an aficionado. Third, unlike cinema, television is available in homes, where the cultural imagination places young women. Intentionally or not, then, the site of telephilia also evokes the status of the domestic, feminine world. So people treat fandom for film and for television quite distinctly. The cause for this distinction is not simply arbitrary, but must be linked instead to the entire complex of cultural connotations: object (feature-length complete narratives versus half-hour or hour-long serial programs) and site of consumption (the public theater versus the private home). Object and site hierarchies correlate to cultural connotations of masculine versus feminine and maturity versus immaturity. Thus, for telephilia to gain respect a new low must be created. Lessons might be taken from the way in which film culture claimed authority for cinephilia. Not surprisingly, evidence of attempts to alter telephilia's status exists. …