Evaluative Schemas and the Attention of Critics in the U.S. Film Industry

Critics in market contexts are engaged in a constant struggle for legitimacy—a legitimacy which is dependent, in part, on the establishment of a rationalized and defensible system of standards for evaluating products. By appealing to such standards, critics legitimate the transfer of knowledge embodied in their evaluations and establish their contribution as intermediaries to the market at large. While this idea has received considerable attention in sociological literature, the implications of it in terms of market dynamics have been relatively unexplored. In this paper, I argue that this struggle for legitimacy creates a fundamental bias in the allocation of critical attention. Because of their need to establish and justify their status as non-partisan experts, critics will demonstrate a tendency to favor arenas in which they have developed clear and systematic schemas for evaluation. In such arenas, critics are better able to justify their role in and contribution to the market. As a result, products within such categories will receive disproportionately greater critical attention. I test and find support for this hypothesis within the context of the U.S. feature film industry, analyzing films reviewed by The New York Times and film critic Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) from 1996 to 2001. Greta Hsu 3 12/22/2003