Critical dictionary of film and television theory

CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF FILM AND

TELEVISION THEORY

CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF

FILM AND TELEVISION

THEORY

Edited by

Roberta E.Pearson

and

Philip Simpson

London and New York

First published 2001

by Routledge

11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada

by Routledge

29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.

“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or

Routledge's collection of thousands of eBooks please go to

www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

© 2001 Routledge

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or

reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,

or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including

photocopying and recording, or in any information

storage or retrieval system, without permission

in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Critical dictionary of film and television theory/edited by Philip Simpson

and Roberta E.Pearson.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Motion pictures-Dictionaries. 2. Television-Dictionaries. 3. Film

criticism-Dictionaries. I.Simpson, Philip. II. Pearson, Roberta E.

PN 1993.45 .C75 2000

791.43’01–dc21

ISBN 0-203-99200-8 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-415-16218-1 (Print Edition)

Contents

List of contributors vii

Introduction xii

Acknowledgements xviii

Entries A-Z 1

Index 662

Contributors

Matthew Allen

Curtin University, Australia

Stuart Allan

University of the West of England, UK

Paula Tatla Amad

Chicago University, USA

Karen Backstein

City University of New York-Staten Island, USA

Neil Badmington

Cardiff University, UK

Bruce Bennett

Bolton Institute of Higher Education, UK

Daniel Bernardi

University of Arizona, USA

Sarah Berry

City University of New York, USA

Andy Birtwistle

Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK

David A.Black

Seton Hall University, USA

Gill Branston

Cardiff University, UK

Will Brooker

Cardiff University, UK

Rod Brookes

Cardiff University, UK

Warren Buckland

Liverpool John Moores University, UK

Nick Burton

Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK

Cynthia Carter

Cardiff University, UK

Paula Chakravartty

University of California, San Diego, USA

G.Briankle Chang

University of Massachusetts, USA

Donald Crafton

University of Notre Dame, USA

Hannah Davies

UK

Bella Dicks

Cardiff University, UK

Stephanie Donald

Murdoch University, Australia

Ken Fox

Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK

James Friedman

UCLA Film and Television Archive, USA

Trevor Gigg

Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK

Lee Grieveson

University of Exeter, UK

Alison Griffiths

Baruch College, CUNY, USA

Sarah Gwenllian Jones

Cardiff University, UK

Mike Hammond

University of Southampton, UK

Matthew Hills

Cardiff University, UK

Simon Horrocks

UK

Mark Jancovich

University of Nottingham, UK

Deborah Jermyn

Southhampton Institute, UK

Rakesh Kaushal

Cardiff University, UK

Frank Kessler

Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Petra Kuppers

Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

Antje Lindenmeyer

University of Warwick, UK

Jane Long

University of Western Australia, Australia

Moya Luckett

University of Pittsburgh, USA

Paula J.Massood

Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA

Geoff Mayer

La Trobe University, Australia

Gary McDonogh

Bryn Mawr College, USA

Alan McKee

University of Queensland, Australia

Adrienne L.McLean

University of Texas, Dallas, USA

Peter McLuskie

Light House Media Centre, UK

Máire Messenger Davies

Cardiff University, UK

Edward Miller

College of Staten Island/CUNY, USA

Jen Neuber

Macalester College, USA

Gabriel M.Paletz

University of Southern California, USA

Katy Pantazis

Macalester College, USA

Roberta E.Pearson

Cardiff University, UK

Elayne Rapping

State University of New York, Buffalo, USA

Philip Rayner

Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, UK

Dickon Reed

Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK

Angelo Restivo

Northwestern University, USA

Tico Romao

Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, UK

K.J.Shepherdson

Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK

Philip Simpson

Formerly of Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK

Clay Steinman

Macalester College, USA

Paul Sutton

Bolton Institute of Higher Education, UK

Allan James Thomas

La Trobe University, Australia

Julia Thomas

Cardiff University, UK

Frank P.Tomasulo

Georgia State University, USA

Berto Trinidad

University of Arizona, USA

William Uricchio

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Andrew Utterson

Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK

Eva Vieth

Cardiff University, UK

Eva Warth

Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Chris Weedon

Cardiff University, UK

Tony Wilson

Monash University, Australia

Cindy Wong

College of Staten Island, USA

Ben Woodhouse

UK

Nick Yablon

University of Chicago, USA

Introduction

The field of film and television studies has emerged from several related disciplines:

literary studies, history, sociology and psychoanalysis among others. During the past

three decades the field has adapted paradigms borrowed from these disciplines, as well as

evolving others of its own, resulting in a complex and sometimes confusing theoretical

apparatus for the study of screen media. Such diversity can bewilder and discourage

people who are encountering the field for the first time. Students are assumed to have

understood difficult and extensive theoretical concepts in order to progress through their

courses, and even more experienced scholars are hard-pressed to keep up with the ever

growing knowledge necessary to their academic practice. The Critical Dictionary of Film

and Television Theory is intended to meet the needs of both these groups by offering an

accessible and authoritative introduction to key concepts in the field.

The Dictionary is equally intended for use in disciplines that have been affected by the

critical and theoretical approaches developed in the past three decades. These disciplines

include communication studies, cultural studies, media studies, film studies, art and

design, literary studies and American and British studies.

The Dictionary gives readers the necessary conceptual framework to understand the

language and terminologies of screen studies by offering new students an introductory

map of the field, and more experienced students and scholars a reminder of basic

concepts. The book is meant to address the concerns of students and teachers in the

classroom; its focus, therefore, is on theoretical terms currently in use. For this reason,

the film theories preceding the 1960s are not dealt with in detail. The theoretical

paradigms of the Dictionary, particularly in relation to television, draw primarily on

cultural studies rather than the social sciences. Film and television texts are related to

their conditions of production and reception, but greater attention is paid to texts and

textual analysis than to factual accounts of television institutions or quantitative studies.

The Dictionary takes into account that television texts and practices, in particular, are

embedded in national contexts, and contributors from Britain and the United States write

with knowledge of their respective media systems. Where possible, reference in the

entries is made to programmes that are known on both sides of the Atlantic. Primarily,

the Dictionary focuses on media systems or cinemas that are British or American,

although many of the theoretical concepts explicated in the book can be applied to other

areas. For example, the entry on Globalization has direct relevance to the study of the

media of the global South.

Using the Dictionary

General

All entries can be accessed through the usual alphabetical listing. Each entry is cross￾referenced, indicated by bold type, so that the reader can follow a specific interest

through a number of entries. Entries of more than 100 words end with a selected

bibliography of some of the key literature in the field.

The major entries, of 2,000 or 3,000 words, offer essays about conceptual terms on

which the Dictionary is based. These concepts have currency in many fields: in the entry

Modernism and post-modernism, for example, these theories are discussed in relation to

film and television in the last two decades, but the argument made in the entry can be

applied to literature and painting. In the same way, the entry on Feminist theory places

film and television within the larger political project of feminism and gender stereotyping

before examining critical approaches relevant to many academic discourses. In this way,

all the major entries provide substantial and authoritative introductions to concepts which

students and researchers in cultural studies generally will find accessible. Minor entries

of 100 to 700 words, such as those on Phenomenology and Binary, fulfil a similar

function: terms from philosophy or anthropology are defined in relation to their usage in

film and television studies.

Biographical entries of 200 words are included in the alphabetical listing. These give

brief details of influential figures in the field, including major publications.

Film and television students

Students of film and television studies, and in the closely allied fields of communications

or media studies, can also gain access through the conceptual map, listed at the end of the

Introduction, which locates individual entries within an overall scheme. The map groups

entries under three main headings: Contexts, Media systems and Media studies. Though

there is inevitably a degree of arbitrariness about the headings, they are meant to move

from broad social and cultural categories (Contexts), through to concepts which can be

seen as belonging to categories mostly familiar within the media themselves (Media

systems), to those categories which have attained particular explanatory force within the

study of the media (Media studies).

Under these headings, terms are grouped so that readers may relate one term

conceptually to another term. The entries on Semiotics, Realism, and Narrative, for

example, are all grouped under a heading that indicates their significance in the analysis

of the Text under the more general heading of Media systems. Though Genre appears

under the same general heading, it is offered here as an aspect of production rather than a

textual effect. The conceptual map is, therefore, a way of indicating to students of film

and television the interrelatedness of key concepts, and, at the same time, to counter the

difficulty of dealing with such diverse concepts as, for example, ‘vertical integration’ and

‘queer studies’ within the same subject discipline.

Further use

The broad field of film and television studies in the past three decades has drawn on

theoretical paradigms from fields as disparate as history, art history, audience research,

psychoanalysis and structuralism. It has also been central in the emergence of new fields

of study such as gender studies and queer theory. In consequence, researchers and

teachers from many disciplines have had to locate their own specialism within the broad

field of screen studies, and to make reference to areas of knowledge which have not been

their immediate concern. For readers in this situation, the Dictionary is intended to offer a

brief introduction to most of the theoretical paradigms that have informed film and

television studies, and provide substantial bibliographical sources for further research.

Cross-referencing in the Dictionary emphasizes the cross-disciplinary nature of film and

television studies; it also reveals the conflicting and contradictory positions which these

studies have traversed in their short history. The entries on Audience, Reading and

Reception Theory, and Screen Theory offer instances.

The Dictionary is also intended to supplement work done in lectures or seminars in a

range of educational contexts by offering teachers and students an accessible and reliable

learning resource in a complex field. For example, the central theme of a class or course

might be film narrative approached through textual analysis. However, the entries on

Genre, Ideology and hegemony, Institution, Studio systems and others, would provide a

context with which students might reasonably be expected to familiarize themselves in

order to provide a shared background of understanding against which the main theme can

be located.

Conceptual map

Group 1: Contexts

art

body, the

children and media

class

culture

gender

history

institution

memory

music and film