British Cinema of the 1950s: The Decline of Deference
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £6.25
Trade in British Cinema of the 1950s: The Decline of Deference for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £6.25, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Plus, get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Product Description
In this definitive and long-awaited history of 1950s British cinema, Sue Harper and Vincent Porter draw extensively on previously unknown archive material to chart the growing rejection of post-war deference by both film-makers and cinema audiences. Competition from television and successive changes in government policy all forced the production industry to become more market-sensitive. The films produced by Rank and Ealing, many of which harked back to wartime structures of feeling, were challenged by those backed by Anglo-Amalgamated and Hammer. The latter knew how to address the rebellious feelings and growing sexual discontents of a new generation of consumers. Even the British Board of Film Censors had to adopt a more liberal attitude. The collapse of the studio system also meant that the screenwriters and the art directors had to cede creative control to a new generation of independent producers and film directors. Harper and Porter explore the effects of these social, cultural, industrial, and economic changes on 1950s British cinema.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organise and find favourite items. |
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
There should be a warning on the front cover that this book has been written by academics.So then we would know that this book is going to be full of what i would term "acadamese" namely a language which is only understood by fellow academics and educationalists.It totally excludes everyone else which is why i call it critically elitist.
The first chapter of this book is about the NFFC and it is my nomination for the most boring chapter eveer written on British cinema.A hint as to what is to come is the authors choice of the term pari passu.Why cant they just use the term "in equal shares".Many similar examples are found throughout the book.
they then go on to the various production companies in this country at the time.The second chapter is devoted to the Rank Organisation and they give John Davis a good and deserved hammering.This chapter is acceptable.The next is on Ealing and it is here that the authors start to loose the plot.They clearly cannot stand Michael Balcon and have a go at him all the time and allow this chapter in particular to become a feminist tract.It is in this chapter that acadamese rears its head in a big way.I quote on Page 67:
One can make sense of The Ladykillers by this sacred/profane dichotomy.Mrs Wilberforce has attained authority and textual power because she has passed the grand climacteric since she cannot be desired....." and on and on it goes.
the book deals in an interesting way with film production in the 50s but is ruined by the style of the authors.For example in their conclusion they say that john davis cultural capital was jejune and whose management policies were Fordist.translation anyone?
This could have been a really good book instead of which it is one to be avoided.
The first chapter of this book is about the NFFC and it is my nomination for the most boring chapter eveer written on British cinema.A hint as to what is to come is the authors choice of the term pari passu.Why cant they just use the term "in equal shares".Many similar examples are found throughout the book.
they then go on to the various production companies in this country at the time.The second chapter is devoted to the Rank Organisation and they give John Davis a good and deserved hammering.This chapter is acceptable.The next is on Ealing and it is here that the authors start to loose the plot.They clearly cannot stand Michael Balcon and have a go at him all the time and allow this chapter in particular to become a feminist tract.It is in this chapter that acadamese rears its head in a big way.I quote on Page 67:
One can make sense of The Ladykillers by this sacred/profane dichotomy.Mrs Wilberforce has attained authority and textual power because she has passed the grand climacteric since she cannot be desired....." and on and on it goes.
the book deals in an interesting way with film production in the 50s but is ruined by the style of the authors.For example in their conclusion they say that john davis cultural capital was jejune and whose management policies were Fordist.translation anyone?
This could have been a really good book instead of which it is one to be avoided.
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > Business, Finance & Law
- Books > History > Cultural History
- Books > Music, Stage & Screen > Film > Business Issues
- Books > Music, Stage & Screen > Film > Criticism & Theory
- Books > Music, Stage & Screen > Film > Film Studies
- Books > Music, Stage & Screen > Film > History of Film > Britain
- Books > Music, Stage & Screen > Film > History of Film > United States
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences > Cultural Studies > Popular Culture
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
