Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective

  • Chapter
International Handbook on Giftedness

  • 7961 Accesses

Abstract

Cinema is an unusual form of achievement in that it involves both (a) extensive collaborative effort and (b) considerable financial resources. A series of investigations examines the operation of both these characteristics in large samples of award-winning films. These empirical studies reveal the multidimensional complexity of cinematic products and indicate the dimensions that are most critical for understanding individual contributions to the collective products. Especially crucial are those who contribute to the dramatic qualities of film, especially the screenplay and direction. Hence, future research should focus on the factors that underlie giftedness and talent in screenwriters and directors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 669.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adler, M. (1985). Stardom and talent. American Economic Review, 75, 208–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, S. (1998). Movie stars and the distribution of financially successful films in the motion picture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22, 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P. A., & Lincoln, A. E. (2004). Critical discourse and the cultural consecration of American films. Social Forces, 82, 871–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basuroy, S., Chatterjee, S., & Ravid, S. A. (2003). How critical are critical reviews? The box office effects of film critics, star power, and budgets. Journal of Marketing, 67, 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazzini, D. G., McIntosh, W. D., Smith, S. M., Cook, S., & Harris, C. (1997). The aging women in popular film: Underrepresented, unattractive, unfriendly, and unintelligent. Sex Roles, 36, 531–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, K. L., & J. M. Bennett (1998). And the winner is …: A statistical analysis of the best actor and actress Academy Awards. Stats, 23, 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blandford, S., Grant, B. K., & Hillier, J. (2001). The film studies dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boor, M. (1990). Reliability of ratings of movies by professional movie critics. Psychological Reports, 67, 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boor, M. (1992). Relationships among ratings of motion pictures by viewers and six professional movie critics. Psychological Reports, 70, 1011–1021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canterbery, E. R., & Marvasti, A. (2001). The U.S. motion pictures industry: An empirical approach. Review of Industrial Organization, 19, 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (in press). A relational perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, B.-H., & Ki, E.-J. (2005). Devising a practical model for predicting theatrical movie success: Focusing on the experience good property. Journal of Media Economics, 18, 247–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, K. H., & Cox, R. A. K. (1994). A stochastic model of superstardom: An application of the Yule distribution. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 771–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Silva, I. (1998). Consumer selection of motion pictures. In B. R. Litman (Ed.), The Motion Picture Mega-Industry (pp. 144–171). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vany, A., & Lee, C. (2001). Quality signals in information cascades and the dynamics of the distribution of motion picture box office revenues. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 25, 593–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vany, A., & Walls, W. D. (1997). The market for motion pictures: Rank, revenue, and survival. Economic Inquiry, 35, 783–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vany, A., & Walls, W. D. (1999). Uncertainty in the movie industry: Does star power reduce the terror of the box office? Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vany, A., & Walls, W. D. (2002). Does Hollywood make too many R-rated movies? Risk, stochastic dominance, and the illusion of expectation. Journal of Business, 75, 425–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmestri, G., Montanari, F., & Usai, A. (2005). Reputation and strength of ties in predicting commercial success and artistic merit of independents in the Italian feature film industry. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 975–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, J. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1988). What’s an Oscar worth? An empirical estimation of the effect of nominations and awards on movie distribution and revenues. In B. A. Austin (Ed.), Current research on film: Audiences, economics and law (Vol. 4, pp. 72–88). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domino, G. (1974). Assessment of cinematographic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 150–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliashberg, J., & Shugan, S. M. (1997). Film critics: Influencers or predictors? Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (1987). Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 879–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferriani, S., Corrado, R., & Boschetti, C. (2005). Organizational learning under organizational impermanence: Collaborative ties in film project firms. Journal of Management and Governance, 9, 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Getzels, J., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilberg, M., & Hines, T. (2000). Male entertainment award winners are older than female winners. Psychological Reports, 86, 175–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburgh, V. (2003). Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17, 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, E. C, & Pieros, A., Jr. (1985). Relationships among indicators of success in Broadway plays and motion pictures. Journal of Cultural Economics, 9, 35–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Popular appeal versus expert judgments of motion pictures. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 144–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindem, G. (1982). Hollywood’s movie star system: A historical overview. In G. Kindem (Ed.), The American movie industry: The business of motion pictures (pp. 79–94). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krider, R. E., & Weinberg, C. B. (1998). Competitive dynamics and the introduction of new products: The motion picture timing game. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, H. C. (1941). The chronological ages of some recipients of large annual incomes. Social Forces, 20, 196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, E. (1989). The democratic elite: America’s movie stars. Qualitative Sociology, 12, 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, E. (1990). Stage, sex, and suffering: Images of women in American films. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 53–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, A. E. (2004). Sex and experience in the Academy Award nomination process. Psychological Reports, 95, 589–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, A. E., & Allen, M. P. (2004). Double jeopardy in Hollywood: age and gender in the careers of film actors, 1926–1999. Sociological Forum, 19, 611–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, J. M., & Petrovich, J. A. (1988). The application of the consumer information acquisition approach to movie selection: An exploratory study. Current Research in Film, 4, 24–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, B. R. (1983). Predicting success of theatrical movies: An empirical study. Journal of Popular Culture, 16, 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litman, B. R., & Ahn, H. (1998). Predicting financial success of motion pictures: The early ‘90s experience. In B. R. Litman (Ed.), The Motion Picture Mega-Industry (pp. 172–197). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, B. R., & Kohl, L. S. (1989). Predicting financial success of motion pictures: The ‘80s experience. Journal of Media Economics, 2, 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markson, E. W., & Taylor, C. A. (1993). Real versus reel world: Older women and the Academy Awards. Women and Therapy, 14, 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medved, M. (1992). Hollywood vs. America: Popular culture and the war on traditional values (1st ed). New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metacritic (n.d.). Accessed from http://www.metacritic.com/

  • Neelamegham, R., & Chintagunta, P. (1999). A Bayesian model to forecast new product performance in domestic and international markets. Marketing Science, 18, 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, S. (1992). The learning curve for writing books: Evidence from Professor Asimov. Psychological Science, 3, 380–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E! Online. http://www.eonline.com/Features/Features/Salaries/index2.html. Accessed on March 26, 2003.

  • Prag, J., & Casavant, J. (1994). An empirical study of the determinants of revenues and marketing expenditures in the motion picture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 18, 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quételet, A. (1968). A treatise on man and the development of his faculties. New York: Franklin. (Reprint of 1842 Edinburgh translation of 1835 French original).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravid, S. A. (1999). Information, blockbusters, and stars: A study of the film industry. Journal of Business, 72, 463–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D. A., & Singh, S. M. (2001). Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy award: Longitudinal study. British Medical Journal, 323, 1491–1496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinstein, D. A., & Snyder, C. M. (2005). Influence of expert reviews on consumer demand for experience goods: A case study of movie critics. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53, 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, S. (1981). The economics of superstars. American Economic Review, 71, 845–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawhney, M. S., & Eliasberg, J. (1996). A parsimonious model for forecasting gross box-office revenues of motion pictures. Marketing Science, 15, 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedgwick, J., & Pokorny, M. (1999). Movie stars and the distribution of financially successful films in the motion picture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 319–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonet, T. S. (1980). Regression analysis of prior experience of key production personnel as predictors of revenues from high-grossing motion pictures in American release. New York: Arno Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104, 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4, 425–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creative development as acquired expertise: Theoretical issues and an empirical test. Developmental Review, 20, 283–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2002). Collaborative aesthetics in the feature film: Cinematic components predicting the differential impact of 2,323 Oscar-nominated movies. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2004a). The “Best Actress” paradox: Outstanding feature films versus exceptional performances by women. Sex Roles, 50, 781–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2004b). Film awards as indicators of cinematic creativity and achievement: A quantitative comparison of the Oscars and six alternatives. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 163–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2004c). Group artistic creativity: Creative clusters and cinematic success in 1,327 feature films. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1494–1520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2005a). Cinematic creativity and production budgets: Does money make the movie? Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2005b). Film as art versus film as business: Differential correlates of screenplay characteristics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 93–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2006). Cinematic creativity and aesthetics: Empirical analyses of movie awards. In P. Locher, C. Martindale, & L. Dorfman (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 123–136). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2007a). Film music: Are award-winning scores and songs heard in successful motion pictures? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2007b). Is bad art the opposite of good art? Positive versus negative cinematic assessments of 877 feature films. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 143–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. P., & Smith, V. K. (1986). Successful movies: A preliminary empirical analysis. Applied Economics, 18, 501–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sochay, S. (1994). Predicting the performance of motion pictures. Journal of Media Economics, 7, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, P. M. (1983–1984). Reel analysis. Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 16, 161–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. A. (1974). Television movie audiences and movie awards: A statistical study. Journal of Broadcasting, 18, 181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry, N., Butler, M., & De’Armond, D. (2003). Determinants of the box office performance of motion pictures. Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Studies, 8, 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, W. T., Seigerman, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (1993). The role of actors and actresses in the success of films: How much is a movie star worth? Journal of Cultural Economics, 17, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zickar, M. J., & Slaughter, J. E. (1999). Examining creative performance over time using hierarchical linear modeling: An illustration using film directors. Human Performance, 12, 211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zufryden, F. S. (1996). Linking advertising to box office performance of new film releases: A marketing planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zufryden, F. S. (2000). New film website promotion and box-office performance. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, USA

    Dean Keith Simonton

Authors
  1. Dean Keith Simonton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dean Keith Simonton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Département des sciences administratives Pavillon Lucien-Brault, Université du Québec en Outaouais, 101, rue Saint-Jean-Bosco, Case postale 1250, succursale Hull, J8X 3X7, Gatineau, Québec, Canada

    Larisa V. Shavinina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Simonton, D.K. (2009). Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective. In: Shavinina, L.V. (eds) International Handbook on Giftedness. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_34

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation