This article utilizes a novel empirical strategy, the study of exemplars, to investigate the transformation of quality conventions in the film industry during the 1960s and 1970s. Exemplars are films or directors which are used as a reference point (focal points) in the evaluation of other movies or directors. We use an original dataset of movie reviews to examine the changing quality conventions and demonstrate that during the investigated period, movies are increasingly treated as singular artistic products. This shift, around the rise of auteur theory and New Hollywood, has been analyzed by others but we provide a more fine-grained analysis of the transformation and are able to demonstrate the neglected importance of cultural trade: the import of European films. We provide evidence that these changes lead to a period of increased quality uncertainty, before a new quality regime becomes established. We explore how such qualitative changes in the market could impact industrial organization and product differentiation in the movie industry, and demonstrate how the analysis of such qualitative changes can complement existing quantitative studies of the movie industry and the determinants of film success, both economically and artistically.
AddisMHolbrookMB (2018) Is movie success a judgment device? When more is not better. Psychology & Marketing35(12): 881–890. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21141.
2.
AlfonsiL (1997) La réception de François Truffaut auprès de la Critique et du public à l’étranger : Les Causes Paradoxales d’un Rayonnement Universel. Dissertation, Aix-Marseille 1. Available via: https://www.theses.fr/1997AIX10021 (accessed 15 February 2022).
3.
AllenMPLincolnAE (2004) Critical discourse and the cultural consecration of American films. Social Forces82(3): 871–894. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0030.
4.
AltmanR (1999) Film/Genre. London: British Film Institute.
5.
AntalABHutterMStarkD (2015) Moments of Valuation: Exploring Sites of Dissonance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
ArendtH (1982) Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
BaiJPerronP (2003) Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. Journal of Applied Econometrics18(1): 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.659.
8.
BalioT (2010) The Foreign Film Renaissance on American Screens, 1946–1973. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
9.
Barthel-BouchierD (2012) Exportability of films in a globalizing market: The intersection of nation and genre. Cultural Sociology6(1): 75–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975511401269.
10.
BaumannS (2001) Intellectualization and art world development: Film in the United States. American Sociological Review66(3): 404–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3088886.
11.
BaumannS (2007) Hollywood Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
BeaverFE (1974) Bosley Crowther: Social Critic of the Film. Manhattan, NY: Arno Press.
13.
BeckerHS (1984) Art Worlds. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
14.
BeckertJ (1996) What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action. Theory and Society25: 803–840. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00159817.
15.
BeckertJ (2016) Imagined Futures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
BeckertJAspersP (2011) The Worth of Goods: Valuation & Pricing in the Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
BeckertJMusselinC (2013) Constructing Quality: The Classification of Goods in Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
BessyCChauvinP-M (2013) The power of market intermediaries: From information to valuation processes. Valuation Studies1(1): 83–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3384/vs.2001-5992.131183.
19.
BielbyWTBielbyDD (1994) ‘All hits are flukes’: Institutionalized decision making and the rhetoric of network prime-time program development. American Journal of Sociology99(5): 1287–1313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/230412.
20.
BoltanskiLThévenotL (2006) On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgement. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
22.
CarrillatFALegouxRHadidaAL (2018) Debates and assumptions about motion picture performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science46(2): 273–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0561-6.
23.
CavesR (2000) Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
CowenT (2004) Creative Destruction: How Globalization is Changing the World’s Cultures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
DekkerEde JongM (2018) What do book awards signal? An analysis of book awards in three countries. Empirical Studies of the Arts36(1): 3–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237416689636.
27.
DekkerEKuchařP (2016) Exemplary goods: The product as economic variable. Schmollers Jahrbuch136(3): 237–255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.136.3.237.
ElliottCSimmonsR (2008) Determinants of UK box office success: The impact of quality signals. Review of Industrial Organization33: 93–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-008-9181-0.
FreyM (2014) The Permanent Crisis of Film Criticism. The Anxiety of Authority. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
32.
GinsburghV (2003) Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts. The Journal of Economic Perspectives17(2): 99–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/089533003765888458.
33.
GomeryD (1992) Shared Pleasures: A History of Movie Presentation in the United States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
HeiseTTudorA (2007) Constructing (film) art: Bourdieu’s Field Model in a comparative context. Cultural Sociology1(2): 165–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975507078186.
HillierJ (1992) The New Hollywood. London: Studio Vista.
38.
HofmannJClementMVölcknerF, et al. (2017) Empirical generalizations on the impact of stars on the economic success of movies. International Journal of Research in Marketing34(2): 442–461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.08.006.
39.
HolmlundCWyattJ (2005) Contemporary American Independent Film: From the Margins to the Mainstream. London: Routledge.
JancovichM (2017) Beyond Hammer: The first run market and the prestige horror film in the early 1960s. Palgrave Communications3(17028): 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.28.
42.
JonesCMaoretMMassaFG, et al (2012) Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the De Novo category ‘Modern Architecture’, 1870–1975. Organization Science23(6): 1523–1545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0701.
43.
KapsisRE (1992) Hitchcock: The Making of a Reputation. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
44.
KarpikL (2010) Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
KerstenA (2012) Terms of enjoyment: Film classification and critics’ discourse in comparative perspective. PhD Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/37945/.
46.
KerstenAVerboordM (2014) Dimensions of conventionality and innovation in film: The cultural classification of blockbusters, award winners, and critics’ favourites. Cultural Sociology8(1): 3–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975513480959.
47.
KingG (2002) New Hollywood Cinema. An Introduction. London: IB Tauris.
48.
KleinDB (2012) Knowledge and Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
KuhnTS (1970) Postscript. In: Kuhn TSThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edn). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 174–210.
LynchEBColeyJDMedinDL (2000) Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions, and graded category structure among tree experts and novices. Memory & Cognition28: 41–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211575.
52.
MalandCJ (1991) Chaplin and American Culture: The Evolution of a Star Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
MurphyJJ (2012) The Black Hole of the Camera: The Films of Andy Warhol. Berkeley: University of California Press.
55.
NeedhamR (1985) Exemplars. Berkeley: University of California Press.
56.
PardoA (2007) The Europe–Hollywood Coopetition: Cooperation and Competition in the Global Film Industry. Navarra: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra.
57.
PolanyiM (1958) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
58.
SarrisA (1968) The American Cinema: Directors and Directions. New York: Dutton.
59.
SarrisA (1974) Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962. In: MastGCohenM (eds) Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 650–665.
60.
SchellingTC (1978) Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W.W. Norton.
61.
SedgwickJ (2002) Product differentiation at the movies: Hollywood 1946 to 1965. The Journal of Economic History62(3): 676–705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050702001043.
62.
ShapiroRHeinichN (2012) When is artification?’Contemporary Aesthetics4: 17.
63.
SimontonDK (2005) Film as art versus film as business: Differential correlates of screenplay characteristics. Empirical Studies of the Arts23(2): 93–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/DM5Y-FHEM-CXQT-UEXW.
64.
SimontonDK (2011) Great Flicks: Scientific Studies of Cinematic Creativity and Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
SmithER (1992) The role of exemplars in social judgment. In: MartinLLTesserA (eds) The Construction of Social Judgments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 107–132.
66.
TaylorAEN (2006) Direction. In: GrantBK (ed.) Schirmer Encyclopedia of Film. Second Volume. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale, 61–71.
67.
ThompsonKBordwellD (2019) Film History: An Introduction. Madison, WI: McGraw-Hill.
68.
VermeylenFVan DijckMde LaetV (2013) The test of time: Art encyclopedias and the formation of the canon of 17th-century painters in the Low Countries. Empirical Studies of the Arts31(1): 81–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.31.1.e.
WatermanD (2009) Hollywood’s Road to Riches. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
