application/pdf
2036-461X
19062
5
en
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Cinéma & Cie. Film and Media Studies Journal
Mark Garrett Cooper, Love Rules: Silent Hollywood and the Rise of the Managerial Class (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003)
Text.Serial.Journal
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie
4
Selected by
2004-10-01
2022-11-21
2004-10-01
2024-02-14
Cinéma & Cie
Richard Abel
2004/10/01
2036-461X
5
en
Mark Garrett Cooper, Love Rules: Silent Hollywood and the Rise of the Managerial Class (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003)
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie/article/download/19062/16821
4
SELECTED BY


SELECTED BY: RICHARD ABEL                            and chronicle the relationship between its for-
                                                     mal development and the organization of its
Mark Garrett Cooper, Love Rules: Silent              production” through their “investigation of
Hollywood and the Rise of the Managerial             shots” as “the privileged units of analysis”.
Class (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota          Although Cooper does not engage with
Press, 2003)                                         Miriam Hansen’s current conceptual rework-
                                                     ing of classical Hollywood cinema as “vernac-
   For a book whose text runs just slightly          ular modernism” – in which “the hegemonic
more than 200 pages, Love Rules is quite ambi-       mechanisms by which Hollywood succeeded
tious and provocative in its overall argument,       in amalgamating a diversity of competing tra-
extremely useful for its summaries of theoret-       ditions, discourses, and interests on the
ical issues and debates, consistently insightful     domestic leve [...] accounted for at least some of
in its analyses of specific films – and yet also a   the generalized appeal and robustness of
bit maddening.                                       Hollywood’s products abroad”2 – his argu-
   Basically, Cooper argues that the “the com-       ment complements hers, especially in that it
monsense form of Hollywood narrative” was            seeks to frame quite differently what, “on the
the visual love story, established during the        domestic level,” from quite early on, was
feature film’s development in the 1910s and          specifically American about American cine-
1920s, a story in which “a particular kind of        ma. Indeed, Cooper works from this assump-
couple,” and the family which it founded,            tion: that “the distinctive patterns through
eventually was located in “a particular kind of      which Hollywood tells that most familiar of
space.” In this way, Cooper continues,               narratives” are “spatial in character” – that is,
Hollywood movies “made classification by             “the love story does not happen in space so
race and gender essential means of determin-         much as to space.” Consequently, it progresses,
ing where various individuals belonged,” and         from an incorporeal vantage point, through
according to what “rules,” within a new              “the opposition, transformation, and reconcil-
national culture. Moreover, by securing the          iation of different kinds of spaces,” in order to
authority (in a rising professional managerial       restore “the lovers’ mutual gaze within a clean,
class [PMC] and its “teams of information spe-       well-lighted space” (the masculinist connota-
cialists”) for how the spatial arrangements          tions of that reference are telling). In other
that the couple’s safety and prosperity              words, the love story inspires the viewer’s
required would be managed, the Hollywood             desire “not for more and more visual informa-
love story contributed “to the shift that            tion, but for the proper arrangement, stability,
occurred, roughly speaking, between 1880             and mastery of dangerous differentiation,”
and 1930, when the America of industrial cap-        reducing “the visual field to the space sur-
ital and ‘island communities’ gave way to a          rounding the socially reproducible couple.”
corporate America at once more tightly knit             Cooper is especially persuasive in exploring
by mass media and more vocally subdivided            certain ramifications of this argument in his
into diverse groups.”                                analysis of specific films, from Enoch Arden
   Of particular interest, for me at least, is the   (1911) to The Wind (1928) or The Crowd
alternative this book offers to the paradigm         (1928). First of all, he extends and condenses
that has dominated histories of American cin-        the modifications that have long accrued to
ema, most recently and influentially in              feminist psychoanalytic theory by arguing
Bordwell, Staiger, and Thompson’s The                that “the privilege accorded the heroine’s
Classical Hollywood Cinema:1 that is, histori-       face” through lighting, camerawork, and
ans have tended to “distinguish the Holly-           mise-en-scene does not simply objectify her as
wood feature film from other types of films          the figure “to-be-looked-at” by the hero but

­124
                                                                                        SELECTED BY

presents her as “both part of a space and the       tury print media’s configuration of those con-
site of a soulful interior,” an alluring image      cepts grounded the bourgeois nation-state in
that suggests a subjective depth with the           the proposition that “reading and writing
“power to signify an invisible source of            would allow the masses to rule themselves,”
desire.” As a crucial, paradoxical component        early 20th century visual media’s reconfigura-
of the lovers’ mutual gaze – for instance, in La    tion exposed that proposition as faulty. Here,
Bohème (1926) – the woman’s face implies “a         Cooper offers a lengthy yet invaluable reap-
desirable, because desiring, consciousness,         praisal of Walter Lippman and John Dewey’s
behind it.” Second, he deftly explains how the      landmark 1920s debate, out of which he teas-
normative desire associated with “the face of       es a “state-of-the art theory of mediation.” A
love” is made “white” through the manage-           third is the rise of the PMC (first analyzed by
ment of racial and ethnic differences, in rela-     Barbara and John Ehrenreich) and its acquisi-
tively obvious cases such as Birth of a Nation      tion of authority, chiefly through “new insti-
(1915) and in much more complicated ones            tutions of producing and disseminating
such as The Jazz Singer (1927). Third, as a         knowledge” that “transform the division of
corollary, he demonstrates how sound could          labor and provide the basis for management’s
be used to organize space according to pat-         power.” Wielding that authority, Cooper
terns already established by silent features, so    argues, depended on creating “what the pub-
that, in The Jazz Singer, for instance, Al          lic wants” through such means as advertising,
Jolson’s Jewish voice serves to resolve his char-   controlling a commercial aesthetics that fem-
acter’s struggles through the unconventional        ininized the public as consumers, and manag-
(at the time) technique of musical numbers.         ing reformist institutions and their discourse
Specifically, whereas “Kol Nidre” places that       in such a way as to incorporate “critics in a
voice in the synagogue and locates its              nationwide public relations apparatus.”
American audience (through his intended                Although the overall argument of Love
fiancée Mary) in the Jewish parlor, “Mammy”         Rules is provocative as an intervention in
creates a new arrangement by seating his            writing early American cinema history, the
Jewish mother Sara in a Broadway theater to         individual sections are consistently cogent
hear her son. “In bringing together these dif-      and intriguing, and the concluding paragraph
ferences” and softening the boundaries              a model of concision, what I find a bit mad-
between them, Cooper concludes, “the Jewish         dening is how tenuous sometimes are the
voice enriches America without losing its           links that hold the book together. For
identity.”                                          instance, the Lippmann-Dewey debate, the
   Cooper also includes extremely useful dis-       dangers of racial and ethnic difference, and
cussions of a number of theoretical issues that     the rise of the PMC are yoked together
ground the book’s argument. One, of course,         through what seems sheer homology in order
is the historical relationship between the con-     to read the allegory of the Jewish movie
cepts of race and ethnicity in the early 20th       mogul. More important, why the visual love
century, which he traces through the influen-       story and its “clean, well-arranged, and illumi-
tial writings of Horace Kallen, Robert Edward       nated space,” and not some other story or sto-
Park, and W. E. B. Du Bois. Although ethnicity      ries, became the prerogative of Hollywood’s
generally came to designate a more palatable        PMC and its means of ordering the world and
cultural difference, it supplemented rather         defining a new national culture remains a cru-
than supplanted race: one category was hard-        cial, unaddressed question. Here, Richard
ly intelligible without the other. A second is      Ohmann’s study of mass magazines at the
the historical relationship between the con-        turn of the last century,3 which Cooper cites
cepts of private, public, and mass. If 19th cen-    approvingly in his introduction, may have

                                                                                                ­125
SELECTED BY

provided more of a model for Love Rules, espe-             proclamé, en sortir dans la lumière du “souve-
cially since Ohmann argues that the “paradig-              rain Bien” qui n’est que le chagrin de la perte,
matic story of courtship” in such magazines                lieu de retour du passé, chambre d’échos, cette
as Munsey’s, in the 1890s, extolled a particular           chambre claire du souvenir où désormais les
kind of American modernity, constructed a                  images, les apparences, sous les espèces de la
secure place within it for two supposedly                  photographie, s’éclairent dans l’aura. Ces
autonomous selves, and through both charac-                points d’appui de Milner “parlent” suffisam-
ter and narrative voice “naturalized” the out-             ment aux spécialistes de cinéma – mythe de la
look of the PMC and its new corporate order.               caverne, camera oscura, christologie de l’ima-
                                                           ge, aura – pour éveiller leur intérêt. Plus enco-
                                                           re le fait que Milner déclare avec tranchant
1      David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, Kristin              l’incompatibilité de cette pensée barthienne
       Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema:           de l’image reproductible, la photographie, et
       Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960           de la pensée benjaminienne: “Il n’est pas un
       (London: Kegan & Paul, 1985).                       paragraphe de La Chambre claire qui ne pren-
2      Miriam Hansen, “The Mass Production of the          ne le contre-pied de L’Œuvre d’art [à l’époque
       Senses: Classical Cinema as Vernacular              de sa reproduction mécanisée]. En sens inver-
       Modernism,” in Christine Gledhill, Linda            se, il n’est pas une proposition de L’Œuvre
       Williams (eds.), Reinventing Film Studies           d’art qui ne porte en elle la condamnation de
       (London: Arnold, 2000), pp. 332-350.                La Chambre claire.” (p. 28).
3      Richard Ohmann, Selling Culture: Magazine,             La doxa – dont Milner définit si bien la natu-
       Markets, and Class at the Turn of the Century       re et la fonction dans son étonnante réévalua-
       (London: Verso, 1996). See especially chapter 10:   tion non dupe du structuralisme – répugne à
       “Fiction’s Inadvertent Love Song,” pp. 287-339.     repérer du discord, du différend entre les réfé-
                                                           rences qu’elle s’oblige à révérer. Dans “le
                                                           Journal”, comme dit le mallarméen Milner, et
                                                           dans l’exercice académique qui le flanque, on
                                                           cite volontiers ensemble des noms inconcilia-
SELECTED BY:                                               bles. On dit Deleuze et Derrida, Bazin et
FRANÇOIS ALBERA                                            Benjamin, Barthes… Affaire de cadrage, de
                                                           consensus. Après l’épisode structural, en effet
Jean-Claude Milner, Le Pas philosophique de                qui ne cessait de diviser, on rassemble, c’est la
Roland Barthes (Lagrasse: Verdier, 2003)                   politique de l’apaisement, sans enjeux, on
                                                           énumère (mille e tre…, principe du catalogue
  L’hypothèse que poursuit Milner dans ce                  celui-ci doublant l’exposition ou l’étalage, for-
petit livre à l’argumentation serrée, situe la             mes devenues dominantes dès lors qu’on
pensée de Barthes dans une problématique                   répugne à l’articulation).
née dans la caverne de Platon. Lieu des appa-                 Ce mince et dense ouvrage dérive en quel-
rences mais surtout du sensible, des sensa-                que sorte des deux chapitres consacrés à
tions, la caverne doit-elle être quittée pour              Barthes dans Le Périple structural. Le pas rep-
aller contempler les Idées, débarassées des                rend et détaille l’évocation qui y est faite de l’i-
faux-semblants des cinq sens? Barthes postu-               tinéraire barthésien du Degré zéro à L’Empire
lerait que non et se serait efforcé, via Sartre,           des signes et surtout, il la poursuit jusqu’à La
puis le marxisme, enfin la sémiologie, d’élever            chambre claire. Dans Le Périple, on s’arrêtait à
les qualia du sensible au rang d’idées, avant              L’Empire des signes – où le pluriel qui affecte
d’“aménager” la caverne avec le plaisir du                 le mot “signe” indique une sortie de l’épisté-
texte et, constatant l’inanité de cet hédonisme            mologie minimaliste du structuralisme. Il

­126
