Janet Staiger

I got this because of the title (and the cover featuring Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter), and was slightly disappointed. Staiger has several big points and then a number of case studies—the big points include that “classical” Hollywood film might have a structure designed to produce certain responses in viewers, as classical film theory generally posits, but that design didn’t mean that viewers cooperated. Instead, viewers regularly made their own meanings in ways that can’t be easily categorized as oppositional or accepting of dominant views. Relatedly, she argues, “classic” Hollywood can’t be opposed to modern or postmodern cinema through the idea that now there are no set genres; there were never any set genres, in part because studios deliberately made movies with multiple plot strains to appeal to different audiences. I particularly liked her evidence for this: she looked at what Variety and other significant outlets said at the time that now-classic examples of specific genres were released, and sure enough they’re never described just as that genre—and often enough that genre doesn’t appear at all or is denied, e.g., Stagecoach was not a “western.” Unfortunately for me, the reception studies here are limited to using reviews as a proxy for audience response, with all the race/gender/class limitations that entails (as Staiger acknowledges).… (altro)