The
Film Field.
Project
Statement
By
Jorge Villacorta.
a.
Description of the project.
This project intends to
describe the film field and its reproduction strategies considering the
economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capitals of its agents.
b.
Definitions: Objectives and methodology.
The objective of the project
is a scientific description of the film field guided by sociological theory. To
achieve this objective the object of study will be the American film field with
a focus on its motion picture industry. As a method, we will describe the
social positions of the agents according to the composition of their global
capital (economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capitals), considering their
trajectory in the field, and the group trajectory of similar positions. The
pertinent information will be gathered from previous studies, field research,
and interviews.
c.
The project in the academic context.
Even though the academic research
produces extensive information related to the film field, the scholars from
many áreas of study don’t guide their work with a coherent social model,
demanding the data they obtain a systematization from a sociological
perspective in order to have a simple and efficient descriptive model. A
scholar like David Bordwell (Poetics of
Cinema, On the History of Film Style,
Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in
the Interpretation of Cinema, Narration
in the Fiction Film, Ozu and the
Poetics of Cinema, etc.) doesn’t have a coherent social model or
methodology to study art (or film) in the society. The same happens with
authors like Nöel Burch (Praxis of Cinema)
or Janet Staiger and Kristin Thompson when writing with David Bordwell (The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style
and Mode of Production to 1960.) These and other scholars have the tendency
to write about filmmaking isolating their subjects from the social whole,
privileging the visions that correspond to their social positions. In the case
of my project, the procedure considers all the habitus (social positions) as a whole because they constitute the
film field. With this approach the existence of large minority groups
(subordinated groups) becomes evident.
d.
Subjects or ideas underrepresented in the canon of film scholarship to date.
In the canon of film scholarship
the description of the positions of the agents in the film field based on the
composition of their global capitals (economic, cultural, social, symbolic) is
underrepresented even though this approach respects the individuals and
minority groups because it determines their social particularities using
pertinent general indices. The existence of large minority groups (subordinated
groups) that may even be numeric majorities, produced and reproduced in the
film field, stays unrecognized when the social agents are described with
notions taken from empirical perceptions. The use of scientifically built
concepts applicable to all the field members is an advancement that has not
found its place in the canon of film scholarship yet.
e.
Significance in its field of study.
Sociological knowledge
allows us to understand how society works but, it has to compete with the
empirical notions generated by daily life and the interests that don’t want a
clear comprehension of social phenomena. A scientific description of the film
field would show the existence of large minorities (subordinated groups) due to
the processes of production and reproduction of the film field. It would
explain clearly how the structure of the field is designed to keep and increase
the differences in capitals between the dominant agents and the subordinated
ones, even pointing out how a Grants program intended to support projects that
“bridge he opportunity divide”, functions more like a publicity tool for the
Academy than as a serious endeavor, due to the fact that the way it is
organized, it cannot compete with the immense differences in capitals that the
motion picture industry creates every day. The Academy programs only in appearance
attempt to go against the logic of the production and reproduction of capitals
but it reinforces the process. Thus, the scientific significance of a
sociological study of the film field is enormous because by explaining what
happens provides a theoretical foundation to design social actions that
eliminate unwanted outcomes.
f.
How my professional experience is relevant to the project.
As an actor, filmmaker, scholar,
and curator interested in all the aspects of film production, I have theorized
my own experiences in my doctoral thesis on History of Art, a task that
demanded paying attention to the sociological theory in order to explain the
phenomena at hand. Therefore, I’m prepared to tackle a more generic project.
g.
The project’s significance to my own professional development.
I behave as an idealist but
think as a realist. This project will allow me to clarify my thinking and
understand better what is achievable and what is not in the áreas of my professional
development. When published, the book will be equally useful o a variety of
scholars and readers.
h.
Timetable for completing the project.
2021: Reception of funds.
January – December 2022.
Analysis of the information available. Traveling, interviews, field research.
January – May 2023.
Elaboration of the text.
June-July 2023: Final draft.
December 2023: Publication.
i.
Additional resources and how I intend to use the grant.
I already have the basic
bibliography that will provide the theory to develop this book. Right now, I
don’t have grants, residencies or additional resources available to me. The
grant will be used for traveling, field research, interviews, acquiring
additional materials needed to complete the text, and publishing the book.
The
Film Field.
Select
Bibliography
By
Jorge Villacorta.
Austin, Gay (ed.) (2018). New uses of Bourdieu on film and media studies. New York: Berghahn
Books.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Champagne, Patrick; Duval, Julien;
Popeau, Franck; Rivière, Marie-Christine, Collier, Peter (2020). Habitus and field: general sociology.
Volumen 2. Lectures at the Collège de
France, 1981-1982. Cambridge, UK; Medfort, MA: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Champagne, Patrick; Lenoir, Rémi;
Popeau, Franck; Rivière, Marie-Christine, Fernbach, David (2020). On the state: lectures at the Collège de
France, 1989-1992. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Champagne, Patrick; Duval, Julien;
Popeau, Franck; Rivière, Marie-Christine, Collier, Peter (2020). Classification struggles: general sociology.
Volumen 1. Lectures at the Collège de
France, 1981-1982. Cambridge, UK; Medfort, MA, USA: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Thompson, John B. (2018). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge,
UK: Malden Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Coilier, Peter; Rigaud-Dreyton,
Margaret (2017). Manet:
a symbolic revolution. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2016). The rules of art: génesis and structure of
the literary field. Cambridge: Polity Press
Bourdieu; Pierre; Turner, Christ (2016). The social estructures of the economy.
Cambridge; Malden: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Passeron,
Jean-Claude (2016). The héritiers: les
éstudiants et la culture. Paris: Les Éditions du Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Randall,
Johnson (2016). The field of cultural
production: essays on art and
literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2015). Questions de sociologie. Paris: Les
Éditions du Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Nice,
Richard; Benntt, Tony (2015). Distinction: A social
critique of the judgement of taste.
London;
New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Passeron,
Jean Claude; Nice, Richards; Bottomore, Thomas Burton (2014). Reproduction in education, society and
culture. Los Angeles: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Gutiérrez, Alicia (2013). El sentido social del gusto: elementos para
una sociología de la cultura. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Gutierrez, Alicia B. (2012). Las estrategias de la reproducción social.
Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2008). Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2008). Practical reason: on the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdie, Pierre; Darbel, Alain, Schnapper, Dominique
(2008). The love of art: European art
museums and their public. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Boltanski, Luc (2005). Photography: a middle brow art. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre; De Saint Martin, Monique (1998). The estate nobility: elite schools in the
field of power. Sanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Chamboredom, Jean-Claude; Passeron,
Jean-Claude; Krais, Beate (1991). The
craft of sociology: epistemological preliminaries. New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson,
J., Handbook of Theory and Research for
the Sociology of Education (1986), Westport, CT:
Greenwood, pp. 241–58.
Coulangeon, Philipe; Duval,
Julien (2015). The Routledge companion to
Bourdieu’s Distinction. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Decherney, Peter (2005). Hollywood and the culture elite: How the
movies became American. New York: Columbia University Press.
Duval, Julien (June 2019).
The restricted autonomy of journalism and cinema. Symbolic Goods, a Social Science Journal on Art, Cutlure and Ideas.
Dossier: Autonomies of Art and
Culture. 4. Vincennes: Presses Universitaries de Vincennes. https://www.biens-symboliques.net/337
Duval, Julien (2012)
Critique d’une analyse économique de cinéma. Revue Française de Socio-Économie. (10)2, 137-153. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfse.010.0137 URL: https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-socio-economie-2012-2-page-137.htm
Duval, Julien. (2006). L'art du réalisme: Le champ du cinéma français au
début des années 2000. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales,
161-162(1-2), 96-115. https://doi.org/10.3917/arss.161.0096 URL: https://www.cairn.info/revue-actes-de-la-recherche-en-sciences-sociales-2006-1-page-96.htm
Esquire, Jason E. (2017). The movie business book. New York:
Routledge.
Epstein, Edward Jay (2012). The Hollywood economist, release 2.0: the
hidden financial reality behind the movies. Brooklyn, NY: Melville.
Epstein, Edward Jay (2006). The big picture: money and power in
Hollywood. New York: Random House.
Ferber, Bruce (ed.) (2019). The
way we work. on the job in Hollywood. Los Angeles, CA: Rare Bird Books.
Gomery, Douglas (2005). The Hollywood studio system: a history.
London: British Film Institute.
Gray, Lois S.; Seeber,
Ronald Leroy (1996). Under the stars:
essays on labor relations in arts and entertainment. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Handel, Jonathan (2014). Entertainment residuals: a full color guide.
Los Angeles, CA: Hollywood Analytics.
Handel, Jonathan; Pip Bulbeck (2013). The New Zealand Hobbit crisis: how Warner
Bros. bent a government to its will and crushed an attempt to unionize The
Hobbit. Los Angeles, CA: Hollywood Analytics.
Handel, Jonathan (2013). Entertainment labor: an interdisciplinary
bibliography. Los Angeles, CA: Hollywood Analytics
Handel, Jonathan (2011). Hollywood on strike! An industry at war in
the internet age. Los Angeles, CA: Hollywood Analytics.
Jarvie, Ian C. (2014). Philosophy of the film: Epistemology,
ontology, aesthetics. New York: Routledge.
Jarvie, Ian C. (2001). Towards a sociology of the cinema: a
comparative essay on the structure and functioning of a major entertainment
industry. London: Routledge.
Jarvie, Ian C. (1989-90). Audrey Hepburn: the performer
and the star. Unpublished paper. http://www.yorku.ca/jarvie/online_publications/HepburnAudrey.pdf
Jarvie, Ian C. (1978).
Controlling the international film industry. Unpublished paper. http://www.yorku.ca/jarvie/online_publications/Honolulu.pdf
Khitrov, Arseni (02 july
2020). Hollywood experts: a field analysis of knowledge production in American
entertainment television. Published online: https://doi.org/10.111/1468-4446.12775
Klinger, Barbara (1994). Melodrama and meaning: history, culture, and
the films of Douglas Sirk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press Press.
Nielsen, Mike; Gene Mailes
(1995). Hollywood’s other black list:
unión struggles in the studio system. London: British Film Institute.
Powdermaker, Hortense
(2013). Hollywood, the dream factory: an
anthropologist looks at the movie-makers. Mansfield Center, CT: Martino
Fine Books.
Vogel, Harold L (2015). Entertainment industry economics: a guide
for financial analysis. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
