16

Cinema studies doesnt matter; or, I know what you did last semester
Toby Miller
I want to lower the tone of academic discussion in this chapter, to engage in a shameless polemic. My target is currents within cinema studies as practiced in the United
States and the United Kingdom. I am not commenting on other countries. Nor am I suggesting that cinema studies in these two places is a closed shop in which there is
no room for dissent or difference. (The Department where I teach, for example, did not employ me because of my standing within conventional cinema studies as
parlayed in business-as-usual journals and talkfests, but out of a desire to include cultural studies in its work.)
Lets begin with three investigations. First, an anecdote about a content analysis of tobacco and alcohol use associated with heroic characters in feature-length
animation films released between 1937 and 1997. The study was published by the American Medical Association (AMA) in March 1999 (Goldstein, Sobel, and
Newman). It received major public attention via a press conference, AMA endorsement, formal replies from Disney, massive TV and newspaper coverage, and so on.
Such a paper references some longstanding English-language concerns of cinema studies. These concerns should have made cinema studies part of the AMAs
discourse and the media discourse on the report, as well as exciting the attention of cinema studies mavens. But how many cinema studies professors or graduate
students read it? How many were asked to comment on it in the media?
My second investigation concerns a related hardy perennial of the screenthe violence debate over whether the screen drives people to commit crime, has a
cathartic effect that releases social-psychological tension, or narcotizes viewers away from sensitivity to suffering. It reemerges all the time in the media. Not long after
the AMAs moral-guardian content analysts released their report, there was a mass shooting during a screening of Fight Club.AmedicalstudentwalkedintoaSo
Paulo cinema in a middle-class mall and fired a submachine gun at the audience. Three people were killed and five wounded. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, an
inspirational figure in sociological dependency theory from the 1970s but now a neo-liberal President of Brazil, attributed the incident to the globalisation of cultural
patterns of behaviour via the media, violence, and international exchange (quoted in Unnatural 1999). Similar tales could be told, of course, in the US and elsewhere.
What part has cinema studies played in this crucial topic of public debate? Zero.
My third investigation is this: how many people teaching Hollywood film can name the number of publicly funded film commissions that underwrite the United States
so-called laissez-faire industry? The figure is 196, including the Palm Beach Film & TV

Office, which advertised in the Society for Cinema Studies 1999 conference program booklet. But if most of us were asked to comment on the implications of these
bodies for cultural policy, or for the claims of neo-classical marginalist economic ideology, I doubt wed have much to offer the public. Why is this so, and what does it
tell us? That is my concern in this chapter.

Norms
I own a how-to book called Going to the Cinema. Its part of a British series from the 1950s that instructs middle-class readers on how to enjoy culture. Noting that
film has to cater for millions, and to do so, must make no demands on the publicFilms are easy to understand, the book promises increased powers of
perception, developing spectators pleasure to make them more discriminating. A list of Films everyone should see is even included, in best Leavisite/Rolling Stone
fashion (Buchanan and Reed 1957:13, 155157). Thats remarkably like most of the graduate syllabuses and textbooks that I see, albeit with textual politics the latterday alibi that displaces a supposedly transcendental taste formation.
Both political and transcendental projects of taste formation reiterate longstanding concerns of film theory, from the silent eras faith in what Vachel Lindsay called
the moving picture man as a local social forcethe mere formula of [whose] activities keeps the public well-tempered (Lindsay 1970:243); through 1930s research
into the impact of cinema on American youth via the Payne Funds ethnographic and sociological studies (Blumer 1933; Hauser 1933; Shuttleworth and May 1933;
Forman 1933); to post-World War II social-theory anxieties over Hollywoods intrication of education and entertainment and the need for counter-knowledge among
the public (Powdermaker 1950:1215; Mayer 1946:24; also see Mayer 1948).

Myths
This remarkable continuity is secreted from most students today, in favor of a heroic, Whiggish narrative of teleological development. We are sometimes told that, to
quote one recent film-theory anthology, there has been a general movement in approaches to film from a preoccupation with authorship (broadly defined), through a
concentration upon the text and textuality, to an investigation of audiences (Hollows and Jancovich 1995:8); or, to paraphrase the fifth edition of a widely used
anthology, that there has been, consecutively, a pursuit of knowledge about film form, then realism, followed by language, and, finally, cultural politics (Braudy and
Cohen 1999: xvxvi).
Excuse me? These teleologies approximate the history of some humanities-based academic work, but forget the staples of popular cinema criticism, social-science
technique, public discourse, social-movement activism, and cultural policy as applied to the screen via (i) the analysis of films; (ii) identification of directors with movies;
and (iii) studies of the audience through psychology and psychoanalysis. All of these have been around, quite doggedly, for almost a century (Worth 1981:39). The twin
tasks of elevation identified in Going to the Cinemaaddressing spectators and examining textshave always informed film theory (Manvell 1950). But you
wouldnt know to read todays primers. There are honorable exceptions among the anthologies (Hill and Church Gibson 1998; Cook and Bernink 1999) but the
dominant US trend is clear: rent-seeking amnesia,

a form of historiography that is self-serving and developmentalist in its assumptions and claims.
To repeat, the tasks of elevation have long addressed audiences and textual ranking. Over time, of course, they both branch out and converge. Audience concerns
include psychological, physiological, sociological, educational, consumer, criminological, and political promises and anxieties. Textual ranking involves authorship, genre,
form, style, and representational politics. The two tasks cross over in the area of mimesis, with audiences interpreting films against their own worlds of race, gender,
class, region, age, religion, language, politics, and nation.
The questions of pleasure and suppression have become central over time, in ways that represent a development. Progressive cultural studies has sought to account
for and resist narrative stereotypes and exclusions in order to explain why socialists and feminists liked things they thought they ought not to (Dyer 1992:4), and why
some voices and images have been excluded or systematically distorted in mainstream culture. Difficulties over pleasure, presence, and absence account for film theory
being highly critical of prevailing representations, but never reifying itself into the Puritanism alleged by critics of political correctness. The extraordinary diversity of
latter-day film anthologies organized by subjectivity makes this point clear. Contemporary feminist film anthologies certainly focus on issues of representation and
production that are shared by many women, but they also attend, routinely, to differences between women of race, history, class, sexuality, and nation, alongside and as
part of theoretical difference (Carson, Dittmar, and Welsch 1994; Pietropaolo and Testaferri 1995; Thornham 1999), while black film anthologies divide between
spectatorial and aesthetic dimensions (Diawara 1993), and queer anthologies identify links between social oppression and film and video practice (Gever, Greyson, and
Parmar 1993; Holmlund and Fuchs 1997).
Concerns about representation and audience are, then, relatively stable across time, but with some distinct changes of focus away from the implicit and explicit
masculinism, Eurocentrism, and universalism of earlier theory, as social movements and third and fourth world discourses have pointed to silences and generated new
methods (Shohat and Stam 1994; Carson and Friedman 1995). Even here, though, there is a long history of protest at, for example, Hollywoods portrayal of
foreigners and minorities, dating back to the African-American print media and many foreign governments during the silent and early sound era (Vasey 1997).
What is left out, though, in todays dominant discourse of US cinema studiesby which I include major journals, book series, conferences, graduate programs,
discussion groups, and editors? Returning to my anecdotes about the AMA, Fight Club, and film commissions, those stories point to: (i) a lack of relevance in the
output of cinema studies to both popular and policy-driven discussion of films; (ii) a lack of engagement with the sense-making practices of criticism and research
conducted outside the textualist and historical side to the humanities; (iii) a lack of engagement with social science. (As an aside, or perhaps a fourth investigation, when
was the last time you saw a humanities paper or book on stardom that addressed the excellent work that appears on that topic in economics [Simonet 1980; Rosen
1981; Adler 1985; Wallace, Seigerman, and Holbrook 1993; Chung and Cox 1994; Albert 1998; de Vany and Walls 1999; Sedgwick and Pokorny 1999] and
sociology [Peters 1974; Peters and Cantor 1982; Levy 1989; Baker and Faulkner 1991]?) How do people get away with this?

Disciplines
This is how they get away with it. Despite the continuity of textual and audience axes within film theory, latter-day lines have been drawn in the US that divide media,
communication, cultural, and film studies for reasons of disciplinary academic professionalismon all sides. The theorization of production and spectatorship relations
between film and television, for instance, continues to be dogged by the separation of mass communications interest in economics, technology, and policy from film
theorys preoccupations with aesthetics and cultural address. Attempts are underway to transform both sides of the divide (Balio 1990; Hill and McLoone 1997). And
the division of labor encouraged by that rent-seeking is imperiled by the excellent work done by the likes of Thomas Nakayama (1994, 1997; Nakayama and Krizek
1994; Nakayama and Martin 1999) and Oscar Gandy (1992a, 1992b, 1998; Gandy and Matabane 1989), and by the fact that so many college jobs in film come not
from the usual suspecta literature department in search of a partial make-overbut also from communication and media studies.
Perhaps the most significant intellectual innovation that we need here can be seen at work in cultural history and cultural policy studies. These areas have witnessed a
radical historicization of context, such that the analysis of textual properties and spectatorial processes must now be supplemented by an account of occasionality that
details the conditions under which a text is made, circulated, received, interpreted, and criticized, taking seriously the conditions of existence of cultural production (for
cultural policy studies, see Cunningham 1992; Miller 1993; Bennett 1998; for a critique, see Miller 1998:6497). The life of any popular or praised film is a passage
across space and time, a life remade again and again by institutions, discourses, and practices of distribution and reception that make each uptake of a text into a
specific occasion. We must consider all the shifts and shocks that characterize the existence of cultural commodities, their ongoing renewal as the temporary property
of varied, productive workers and publics, and their condition as the abiding property of businesspeople (see Bennett, Emmison, and Frow 1999).
The need for a radical contextualization of interpretation is underlined by a surprising turnthe early history of film as part of a vaudeville bill is being reprised. The
moving image is again part of a multiform network of entertainment, via CD-ROMs, computer games, the Web, DVDs, HDTV, and multiplexes. The brief moment
when cinema could be viewed as a fairly unitary phenomenon in terms of exhibition (say, 1920 to 1950) set up the conceptual prospect of its textual fetishization in
academia, something that became technologically feasible with video cassette recordersjust when that technologys popularity compromised the very discourse of
stable aestheticization! Now that viewing environments, audiences, technologies, and genres are so multiple, the cinema is restored to a mixed-medium mode. At this
crucial juncture, the division between the analysis of text and context must be broken up. The who, what, when, where, and how of screen cultureits occasionality
must become central to our work.

Alternatives
So let me focus my polemic prior to making some proposals. Screen literature and teaching need an overhaul. They frequently fail to consider the following key areas
that should be prerequisites to any publication or teaching that makes claims about texts and audiences: engagement with related political and social history and social
theory on the human

subject, the nation, political economy, cultural policy, the law, and cultural history. In place of this, the current orthodoxy is: (i) use of certain limited, seemingly
arbitrarily selected, forms of subject-formation theory; (ii) solitary or classroom textual analysis of film that is actually conducted on a TV screen, an analysis that
magically stands for other audiences, subjectivities, cultures, and occasions of viewing; and (iii) neglect of cultural bureaucrats and industry workers in favor of attention
to individuals, collectives, or (by magical proxy) social movements, because artists are privileged over governments and unions, and scholarly critics decree themselves
able to divine meaning for whole classes of the population, while spectacularity is inordinately prized over the mundane. Such readings are interesting things to do, but
they are insufficient as political-economic-textual-anthropological accounts, and their politics is all too frequently limited to the Academy. Let me offer a snapshot of
what an account of screen texts that followed other protocols might look like. I have chosen a popular film series, James Bond pictures, in keeping with the remit of this
volume.
Wed want to know about the culture that nestles the filmsnot in order to make unsupportable claims about the films reflecting society, but to engage with ancillary
commercial forms that tell us about how producers conceive of their audiences. So, wed not just note that Bond was an imperialist (an easy mark) but look closely at
the 1999 offer from Puerto Ricos El San Juan Hotel & Casino of a James Bond Package, featuring 007 bathrobes, From Russia With Love martinis, and a secretagent pen personally delivered by a room-service worker called Q (MSN Expedia).
This would tell us about the class and gender address of the films, their uptake by affiliated enterprises, and the realities of present-day neo-colonialism. Similarly,
auctions such as Christies 1998 sale of objets Bond (the top price paid was $102,000 for Oddjobs bowler) complicate assumptions about the British legacy of
racismthe second-highest figure was paid by Houmayoun Sharifi for the right to use 007 as the license plate for his Bentley (Swart 1998). Do we regard this as
false consciousness, a sign of a cross-racial form of power identification, an individual quirk, or of no significance for a geopolitical audit of the series meaning? If the
answer to any of these questions is clear, why is it clear, and how is that preferable to other answers?
The 1997 dose of the franchise, Tomorrow Never Dies, broke new ground in product placement: Smirnoff, Heineken, Avis, Ericsson, Gateway, BMW, Brioni,
Omega, and Visa were all party to payments that meant the film recouped its $100 million budget without selling a ticket, video rental, or an actual item of merchandise
(PS 1997). The laddish magazine Maxim advertised a Visa pack that included a license to kill, a photo of an Asian woman, a drivers and assassins license, and a
computer wallet (Mostly ladies numbers) (007 1998). A US commercial saw Bond requiring a Visa Check Card as ID and also promoted the upcoming filma
form of reciprocal endorsement. Crucially, it first appeared during ABCs Monday Night Footballa clear instance of audience targeting. Banks became sites for the
promotion as well, rewarding frequent customers with Bond give-aways (Visa). A full-page advertisement in the New York Times directly interpellated the male
viewer of the new film as a power-mongering, objectifying, wealthy, straight, hedonist: FAST CARS. DANGEROUS WOMEN. HIGH-TECH GADGETS. The ad
promised a James Bond Secret Agent Kit of digital phone, calculator, accessory kit, and digital wireless service. Dos this make the films sexist or commodified? If
so, what does that imply for the purely narrational or diegetic analysis of the texts? And should the advertisements themselves be read literally and damned for political
incorrectness and objectificationor are their meanings

somehow not to be found on a literal level? Should they be interpreted symptomatically, as critiques of that which they seem to endorse, or as signs of wider capitalist
processes? If not, why not?
At the level of political economy, it certainly makes sense, for example, to look at the relative presence in the French market of Gateway 2000, CD-ROMs, Omega
watches, and Bond videos to account for the meaning of Studio magazines offer to Soyez Bond! [Be Bond] by winning these items in a 1997 contest. Similarly,
undifferentiated speculations about spectators to Bond films might be complicated by interviewing, for example, the hundred Americans who pay $1,500 per day each
year to attend Bond conventions in Jamaica (Borrows 1997) and distinguishing them from ordinary punters watching the films in rerun on TV, complete with
commercial breaks, or from 1970s Italian fans, who received a different set of promotions for Live and Let Die from the rest of the world because interracial sex was
airbrushed out (Lisa 1994:9). Or can cinema studies practitioners simply watch a few video tapes from their local store and know the meaning of the films, for all times
and in all places?

Conclusion
We should acknowledge the policy, distributional, promotional, and exhibitionary protocols of the screen at each site as much as their textual ones. Enough talk of
economic reductionism without also problematizing textual reductionism. Enough valorization of close reading and armchair accounts of human interiority without
establishing the political significance of texts and subjectivities within actual social movements and demographic cohorts. Enough denial of the role of government
teaching classes on Hollywood without consideration of the undergirding provided by 196 film commissions. Enough teaching classes on animation, for instance, without
reference to effects work, content analysis, and the international political economy that sees the episode of The Simpsons decrying globalization actually made by nonunion animators in South-East Asia (Lent 1998). These issuesindustry frameworks, audience experiences, and cultural policyshould be integral.
I propose two foci to future work. First, we need to view the screen through twin theoretical prisms. On the one hand, it can be understood as the newest
component of sovereignty, a twentieth-century cultural addition to ideas of patrimony and rights that sits alongside such traditional topics as territory, language, history,
and schooling. On the other hand, the screen is a cluster of culture industries. As such, it is subject to exactly the rent-seeking practices and exclusionary
representational protocols that characterize liaisons between state and capital. We must ask: is screen culture expanding the vision and availability of the good life to
include the ability of a people to control its representation on screen? Or is screen culture merely a free ride for the culturalist fraction of national, cosmopolitan, or
social-movement bourgeoisies? And is cinema studies serving phantasmatic projections of humanities critics narcissism, or does it actively engage social-movement
politics?
Second, there must be a focus not merely on the texts conventionally catalogued as those of the cinema, but on the actual screen experience of citizensto what
extent does the cinema engage them versus TV and other media? The political audit we make of an audiovisual space should focus on the extent to which it is open,
both on-camera and off, to the demographics of those inhabiting it. No cinema that claims resistance to Hollywood in the name of national or social-movement
specificity is worthy of endorsement

unless it attends to sexual and racial minorities and women, along with class politics. Is there a representation of the fullness of the population in the industry and on the
screen? The work of Jeffrey Himpele (1996) on Bolivia and Preminda Jacob (1998) on India is exemplary herebut I doubt wed find them, or the AMA authors
writing about drug use and animation, referenced by the hegemons and obedient graduate students of cinema studies. And nor do I think wed see engagement with
their methods or questions.
Returning to my title: what would it mean for cinema studies to matter? Here is my list
(i) influence over public media discourse on the screen;
(ii) influence over public policy and not-for-profit and commercial practice;
(iii)academically, not generating the reproduction of a thing called cinema studies, but instead promoting the doing of work that studies the screen, no matter
what its institutional provenance.
Business as usual is not good enough. When it comes to key questions of texts and audienceswhat gets produced and circulated and how it is readthe methods of
cinema studies are sadly deficient. Policy analysis, political economy, ethnography, movement activism, and use of the social-science archive should matter to cinema
studies. Because they dont, cinema studies is largely irrelevant outside its tiny cloister of academic parthenogenesis. In short, it doesnt matter.

References
007, Maxim, January 1998: n.p.
Adler, M. (1985) Stardom and Talent, American Economic Review 75 (1): 208212.
Albert, Steven (1998) Movie Stars and the Distribution of Financially Successful Films in the Motion Picture Industry, Journal of Cultural Economics 22 (4): 249
270.
Baker, Wayne E. and Robert R. Faulkner (1991) Role as Resource in the Hollywood Film Industry, American Journal of Sociology 97 (2): 279309.
Balio, Tino, ed. (1990) Hollywood in the Age of Television, Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Bennett, Tony (1998) Culture: A Reformers Science, London: Sage.
Bennett, Tony, Michael Emmison, and John Frow (1999) Accounting for Tastes: Australian Everyday Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blumer, Herbert (1933) Movies and Conduct, New York: Macmillan.
Borrows, Bill (1997) Dr Doh? Loaded 42 (October): 115119.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, translated by Richard Nice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Braudy, Leo and Marshall Cohen (1999) Preface, in Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, eds, Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, 5th edn, New
York: Oxford University Press, xvxviii.
Buchanan, Andrew and Stanley Reed (1957) Going to the Cinema, London: Phoenix House.
Carson, Diane, Linda Dittmar, and Janice R. Welsch, eds (1994) Multiple Voices in Feminist Film Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Carson, Diane and Lester D. Friedman, eds (1995) Shared Differences: Multicultural Media and Practical Pedagogy, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Chung, K. and R. Cox (1994) A Stochastic Model of Superstardom: An Application of the Yule Distribution, Review of Economics and Statistics 76 (4): 771
775.
Cook, Pam and Mieke Bernink, eds (1999) The Cinema Book, 2nd edn, London: British Film Institute.

Cunningham, Stuart (1992) Framing Culture: Culture and Policy in Australia, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
de Vany, Arthur and W. David Walls (1999) Uncertainty in the Movie Industry: Does Star Power Reduce the Terror of the Box Office? Journal of Cultural
Economics 23 (4): 285318.
Diawara, Manthia, ed. (1993) Black American Cinema, New York: Routledge.
Dyer, Richard (1992) Only Entertainment, London: Routledge.
FAST CARS. DANGEROUS WOMEN. HIGH-TECH GADGETS, New York Times, January 12, 1998: A11.
Forman, Henry James (1933) Our Movie Made Children, New York: Macmillan.
Gandy, Oscar H., Jr. (1998) Communication and Race: A Structural Perspective, London and New York: Arnold and Oxford University Press.
(1992a) The Political Economy Approach: A Critical Challenge, Journal of Media Economics 5 (2): 2342.
(1992b) The Political Economy of Personal Information, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Gandy, Oscar H., Jr. and Paula Matabane (1989) Television and Social Perception among African Americans and Hispanics, in M. Asante and W. Gudykunst, eds,
Handbook of International and Intercultural Information, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 318348.
Gever, Martha, John Greyson, and Pratibha Parmar, eds (1993) Queer Looks: Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Film and Video, New York: Routledge.
Goldstein, Adam O., Rachel A. Sobel, and Glen R. Newman (1999) Tobacco and Alcohol Use in G-Rated Childrens Animated Films, Journal of the American
Medical Association 28 (12): 11311136.
Hauser, Philip M. (1933) Movies, Delinquency and Crime, New York: Macmillan.
Hill, John and Pamela Church Gibson, eds (1998) The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, John and Martin McLoone, eds (1997) Big Picture Small Screen: The Relations between Film and Television, Luton: University of Luton Press and John
Libbey Media.
Himpele, Jeffrey D. (1996) Film Distribution as Media: Mapping Difference in the Bolivian Cinemascape, Visual Anthropology Review 12 (1): 4766.
Hollows, Joanne and Mark Jancovich (1995) Popular Film and Cultural Distinctions, in Joanne Hollows and Mark Jancovich, eds, Approaches to Popular Film,
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 114.
Holmlund, Chris and Cynthia Fuchs, eds (1997) Between the Sheets, in the Streets: Queer, Lesbian, Gay Documentary, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Jacob, Preminda (1998) Media Spectacles: The Production and Reception of Tamil Cinema Advertisements, Visual Anthropology 11 (4): 287322.
Lent, John (1998) The Animation Industry and Its Offshore Factories, in Gerald Sussman and John A. Lent, eds, Global Productions: Labor in the Making of the
Information Society, Cresskill: Hampton Press, 239254.
Levy, Emmanuel (1989) The Democratic Elite: Americas Movie Stars, Qualitative Sociology 12 (1): 2954.
Lindsay, Vachel (1970) The Art of the Moving Picture, New York: Liveright.
Lisa, Philip (1994) Everything He Touches Turns to $$$, Hollywood Collectibles 1 (9): 59, 1419.
Manvell, Roger (1950) Film, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mayer, J. P. (1946) Sociology of Film: Studies and Documents, London: Faber and Faber.
(1948) British Cinemas and Their Audiences, London: Dobson.
Miller, Toby (1993) The Well-Tempered Self: Citizenship, Culture, and the Postmodern Subject, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
(1998) Technologies of Truth: Cultural Citizenship and the Popular Media, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

MSN Expedia Staff (1999) Puerto Rico Package for 007 Fans, Microsoft Expedia Travel News, http://www.msn.com.
Nakayama, Thomas K. (1994) Show/down Time: Race, Gender, Sexuality, and Popular Culture, Critical Studies in Mass Communication 11: 162179.
(1997) Dis/Orienting Identities, in A. Gonzalez, M. Houston, and V. Chen, eds, Our Voices, 2nd edn, Los Angeles: Roxbury, 1420.
Nakayama, Thomas K. and R. L. Krizek (1995) Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric, Quarterly Journal of Speech 81: 291309.
Nakayama, Thomas K. and Judith N. Martin, eds (1999) Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peters, Anne K. (1974) Aspiring Hollywood Actresses: A Sociological Perspective, in P. L. Stewart and M. G. Cantor, eds, Varieties of Work Experience,
Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Peters, Anne K. and Muriel G. Cantor (1982) Screen Acting as Work, in James S. Ettema and D. Charles Whitney, eds, Individuals in Mass Media
Organizations: Creativity and Constraint, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 5368.
Pietropaolo, Laura and Ada Testaferri, eds (1995) Feminisms and the Cinema, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Powdermaker, Hortense (1950) Hollywood: The Dream Factory, Boston: Little, Brown.
PS (1997) 007: Licensed to Sell, Bulletin 25 (November): 27.
Rosen, S. (1981) The Economics of Superstars, American Economic Review 71 (5): 845857.
Sedgwick, John and Michael Pokorny (1999) Movie Stars and the Distribution of Financially Successful Films in the Motion Picture Industry, Journal of Cultural
Economics 23 (4): 319323.
Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam (1994) Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media, London and New York: Routledge.
Shuttleworth, Frank and Mark May (1933) The Social Conduct and Attitudes of Movie Fans, New York: Macmillan.
Simonet, T. (1980) Regression Analysis of Prior Experience of Key Production Personnel as Predictors of Revenue from High Grossing Motion Pictures in
American Release, New York: Arno Press.
Soyez Bond! Studio, December 1997: n.p.
Swart, Sharon (1998) Bond Booty Gone, Variety 2127 (September): 124.
Thornham, Sue, ed. (1999) Feminist Film Theory: A Reader, Washington Square: New York University Press.
Unnatural Brazilian Killer, Economist, November 13, 1999: 36.
Vasey, Ruth (1997) The World According to Hollywood, 19181939, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Visa Bonds with 007 in Product Tie-In, http://www.ianfleming.org/007news/articles/visa-bond.html.
Wallace, W. Timothy, Alan Seigerman, and Morris B. Holbrook (1993) The Role of Actors and Actresses in the Success of Films: How Much Is a Movie Star
Worth? Journal of Cultural Economics 17 (1): 127.
Worth, Sol (1981) Studying Visual Communication, edited by Larry Gross, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.