JUMP CUT
A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY MEDIA

 

Notes  

1. Ian Christie, “Introduction: Rediscovering Eisenstein,” in Eisenstein Rediscovered, ed. Ian Christie and Richard Taylor (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 11.

2. See Marie Seton, Sergei M. Eisenstein (New York: Grove Press, 1960); Thomas Waugh, “A Fag-Spotter’s Guide to Eisenstein,” in The Fruit Machine: Twenty Years of Writings on Queer Cinema (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2000), 59-68; and Harry M. Benshoff, “Homoerotic Iconography and Anti-Catholic Marxism: Proto-Feminist Discourse in Sergei M. Eisenstein’s Que Viva Mexico!The Spectator, Fall 1990, 6-17.

3. See Segei Eisenstein, “The Fourth Dimension of Cinema,” in The Eisenstein Reader, ed. Richard Taylor, trans. Richard Taylor and William Powell (London: BFI, 1998), 111-23.

4. Vladimir Nizhny, Lessons With Eisenstein, ed. and trans. Ivor Montagu and Jay Leyda (New York: Da Capo: 1969): 19-62, 93-139; Jacques Aumont, Montage Eisenstein, trans. Lee Hildreth, Constance Penley, and Andrew Ross (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1987), 135-37, 154-56; David Bordwell, The Cinema of Eisenstein (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 141-45.

5. The film journals and periodicals I investigate here are all English-language ones. There were articles written on the film in Spanish-language journals, too, such as: El Mundo (Cuba), El Universal and El Nacional (Mexico), and La Nacion (Buenos Aires). The English-language film journals and periodicals I am investigating here are primarily: Close Up, Experimental Cinema, Filmfront, New Masses, Daily Worker, Modern Monthly, Theatre Arts Monthly, The Nation, The New Republic, and Theatre Arts Committee.

6. See Chris Robé, “Eisenstein in America: The Que Viva Mexico! Debates and the Emergent Popular Front in U.S. Film Theory and Criticism,” The Velvet Light Trap 54 (Fall 2004): 18-31.

7. See Deborah Rosenfelt, “From the Thirties: Tillie Olsen and the Radical Tradition,” in The Critical Response to Tillie Olsen, ed. Kay Hoyle Nelson and Nancy Huse (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994), 54-89; Paula Rabinowitz, Labor and Desire: Women’s Revolutionary Fiction in Depression America (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1991); Paula Rabinowitz, They Must Be Represented: The Politics of Documentary (London and New York: Verso, 1994); and Nan Enstad, Ladies of Labor, Girls of Adventure: Working Women, Popular Culture, and Labor Politics at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999).

8. James Goodwin, “Eisenstein: Lessons with Hollywood,” in Eisenstein at 100, ed. Al Lavalley and Barry P. Scherr (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2001), 91-108; Ivor Montagu, With Eisenstein in Hollywood (New York: International Publishers, 1967); and Robé, “Eisenstein in America,” 18-20.

9. Seymour Stern, “Eisenstein in America,” Experimental Cinema, February 1931, 22.

10. Adolfo Best-Maugard, “Mexico into Cinema,” Theatre Arts Monthly 16.11 (1932):926-27.

11. Greg Mitchell, “The Greatest Movie Never Made,” American Film 8.4 (1983): 53.

12. See Seton, Sergei M. Eisenstein; Harry M. Geduld and Ronald Gottesman, Sergei Eisenstein and Upton Sinclair: The Making and Unmaking of Que Viva Mexico! (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970); and Mitchell, “The Greatest Movie Never Made,” 53-58, for further information about the problems with finishing Que Viva Mexico! Seton’s and Mitchell’s pieces side more with Eisenstein while Geduld’s and Gottesman’s work sympathizes more with Upton Sinclair.

13. I consider the work by Tom Gunning, Miriam Hansen, Ben Singer, Anne Friedberg, Shelley Stamp, and Leo Charney, all of whom Ben Singer deems, “the modernity thesis” scholars, to be of the utmost importance in understanding cinema’s relation to the processes of modernity. Their work helps more thoroughly contextualize the processes of modernity that made montage theory become such a central concept within emergent Left film theory of the late 1920s. See Tom Gunning, “The Cinema of Attraction: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde,” Wide Angle 8.3-4 (1986): 63-70; Gunning, “Tracing the Individual Body: Photography, Detectives, and Early Cinema,” in Cinema and the Invention of Modern Life, ed. Leo Charney and Vanessa R. Schwartz (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1995), 15-45;Gunning, D.W. Griffith and the Origins of American Narrative Film: The Early Years at Biograph (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991); Miriam Hansen, Babel and Babylon: Spectatorship in American Silent Film (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1991); Hansen, “America, Paris, the Alps: Kracauer (and Benjamin) on Cinema and Modernity,” in Cinema and the Invention of Modern Life, ed. Leo Charney and Vanessa R. Schwartz (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1995), 362-402; Hansen, “The Mass Production of the Senses: Classical Cinema as Vernacular Modernism,” in Reinventing Film Studies, ed. Christine Gledhill and Linda Williams (London: Arnold, 2000), 332-50; Ben Singer, “Modernity, Hyperstimulus, and the Rise of Popular Sensationalism,” in Cinema and the Invention of Modern Life, ed. Leo Charney and Vanessa R. Schwartz (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1995), 72-99; Singer, Melodrama and Modernity: Early Sensational Cinema and Its Contexts (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001); Anne Friedberg, Window Shopping: Cinema and the Postmodern (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1993); Shelley Stamp, Movie-Struck Girls: Women and Motion Picture Culture After the Nickelodeon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000); Stamp, “An Awful Struggle Between Love and Ambition: Serial Heroines, Serial Stars and Their Female Fans,” in The Silent Cinema Reader, ed. Lee Grieveson and Peter Krämer (London and New York: Routledge, 2004), 210-225; Leo Charney, “In a Moment: Film and the Philosophy of Modernity,” in Cinema and the Invention of Modern Life, ed. Leo Charney and Vanessa R. Schwartz (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1995), 279-94; and Charney, Empty Moments: Cinema, Modernity, and Drift (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1998).

14. Victor Turin, “The Problem of the New Film Language,” Experimental Cinema, February 1931, 12.

15. B.G. Bravermann, “Josef von Sternberg,” Experimental Cinema, February 1934, 18.

16. Thomas Brandon Collection, Museum of Modern Art Film Archives, Box D43.

17. Harry Alan Potamkin, “Phases of Cinema Unity III,” 5.3 (Sept. 1929): 178-9.

18. Ibid., 179.

19. Seymour Stern, “Hollywood and Montage,” Experimental Cinema, February 1933, 48-49.

20. Ibid., 51-52.

21. Ibid., 49.

22. Sergei Eisenstein, “First Outline of Que Viva Mexico!,” in The Film Sense, ed. and trans. Jay Leyda (San Diego, New York, and London: HBJ, 1947), 251.

23. Geduld and Gottesman, 127-28.

24. Seton, 265.

25. See Stern, “Eisenstein in Mexico,” Experimental Cinema, February 1931, 22; Adolfo Best-Maugard, “Mexico Into Cinema,” Theatre Arts Monthly 16.11 (1932): 926-33;Augustin Aragon Leiva, “Eisenstein’s Film On Mexico,” Experimental Cinema, February 1933, 5-6; Morris Helprin, “Que Viva Mexico,” Experimental Cinema, February 1933, 13-14; Experimental Cinema Editors, “Manifesto on Eisenstein’s Mexican Film,” Close Up 10.2 (June 1933): 210-12; Herman G. Weinberg, “The ‘Lesser’ of Two Evils,” The Modern Monthly 7.5 (June 1933): 299-301, 311; William Troy, “The Eisenstein Muddle,” The Nation, July 19, 1933, 83-84; Seymour Stern, “Second Manifesto by the Editors of Experimental Cinema,” Close Up 10.2 (September 1933): 248-54; Sam Brody and Tom Brandon, “A Mexican Trailer,” New Masses, September 1933, 28; Seymour Stern, “The Greatest Thing Done on This Side of the Atlantic,” The Modern Monthly 7.9 (October 1933): 525-32; William Troy, “Selections from Eisenstein,” The Nation, October 4, 1933, 391-92;Pare Lorentz, “Thunder Over Mexico,” in Lorentz on Film: Movies 1927-1941 (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1975): 118-120;George W. Hesse, “The Cine Analyst,” Personal Movies, November 15, 1933, 268, 285; Upton Sinclair, “Thunder Over Mexico: Mr. Upton Sinclair Defends Himself,” Close Up 10.4 (December 1933): 361-63; Lens (Sam Brody), “Flashes and Close Ups,” Daily Worker, January 18, 1934, 5; Workers Film and Photo League, “The Thunder Dies,” New Masses, January 22, 1934, 21; Irving Lerner, “Glorified Horse Opera,” New Masses, June 12, 1934, 29-30; Marie Seton, “Rev. of Thunder Over Mexico,” Film Art, Spring 1934, 21-22; Anonymous, untitled, Film Art, Spring 1934, 36; Seymour Stern, “Introduction to Que Viva Mexico!,” Experimental Cinema, February 1934, 3-4; S.M. Eisenstein and V.G. Alexandroff, “Scenario for Que Viva Mexico!,” Experimental Cinema, February 1934, 5-13; The Editors, “Manifesto on Que Viva Mexico!,” Experimental Cinema, February 1934, 14.

26. Experimental Cinema editors, “Manifesto on Eisenstein’s Mexican Film,” Close Up 10.2 (June 1933): 211.

27. William Troy, “The Eisenstein Muddle,” The Nation, July 19, 1933, 84.

28. Samuel Brody and Tom Brandon, “A Mexican Trailer,” New Masses, September 1933, 28.

29. Ibid., 28.

30. William Troy, “Selections from Eisenstein,” The Nation, October 4, 1933, 391. It is interesting to note, also, that Troy is one of the first film critics to note the sadistic impulses within Eisenstein. His ability to do so seems to be based in part because Que Viva Mexico! remains one of Eisenstein’s most sado-masochistic films (peons trampled to death by horses, cacti lashed to individuals’ bare backs, point-of-view shots from a bull about to be killed by a matador) and also because of Thunder Over Mexico’s lack of thematic development drew more attention to the film’s spectacular sadistic nature than earlier Eisenstein films had, which nonetheless contained their own forms of sadism (e.g. Stike’s hanging of a worker, dropping of a baby off a balcony, slaughter of a bull, and mass-murder of workers; Battleship Potemkin’s Odessa steps sequence; and October’s stabbing to death of a Bolshevik by umbrellas, to only name a few examples). The focus on sadism would eventually take particular importance in gay readings of Eisenstein’s films. See Tyler Parker, Screening the Sexes: Homosexuality in the Movies (New York: De Capo Press, 1993 ed.); Harry M. Benshoff, “Homoerotic Iconography and Anti-Catholic Marxism: Proto-Feminist Discourse in Sergei M. Eisenstein’s Que Viva Mexico!,” The Spectator 11.1 (Fall 1990): 6-17; Thomas Waugh, “A Fag-Spotters Guide to Eisenstein,” in The Fruit Machine: Twenty Years of Writing on Queer Cinema (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2000): 59-68; and Al LaValley, “Maintaining, Blurring, and Transcending Gender Lines in Eisenstein,” in Eisenstein at 100: A Reconsideration (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2001): 52-64.

31. Troy, “Selections,” 392.

32. Experimental Cinema editors, “Manifesto,” 211.

33. Seymour Stern, “Second Manifesto by the Editors of Experimental Cinema,” Close Up 10.2 (September 1933): 251.

34. Brody and Brandon, 28.

35. Troy, “Selections,” 391.

36. Experimental Cinema editors, 211.

37. Brody and Brandon, 28.

38. Herman G. Weinberg, “The ‘Lesser’ of Two Evils,” The Modern Monthly 7.5 (June 1933): 300.

39. Brody and Brandon, 28.

40. I have debated elsewhere the reading Que Viva Mexico! as simply an anti-religious or anti-Catholic film. It strikes me that Eisenstein approached religion, and Catholicism in particular, much more dialectically than some film scholars have assumed. I argue that although Que Viva Mexico! held a negative view towards the role of the orthodox Catholic church, it also tends to show the power of Catholic symbolism when appropriated by the people to assist in their revolutionary struggles. See Robe, “Eisenstein in America.”

41. Seymour Stern, “The Greatest Thing Done on This Side of the Atlantic,” The Modern Monthly, 7.9 (October 1933): 529.

42. Brody and Brandon, 28.

43. Ibid., 28.

44. Ibid., 28; and Weinberg, “The ‘Lesser’,” 299-300.

45. Christie, “Introduction,” 8-9.

46. Ibid., 4-14.

47. Ibid., 5-6.

48. Ibid., 8.

49. Benshoff, 16.

50. Ibid., 16.

51. Marie Seton also offered her own reconstruction of the film in 1939 with A Time in the Sun, which takes a much more conservative stance towards gender, race, and religion than the Alexandrov version by holding a rather patronizing view towards women and indigenous peoples and minimizing the critique of the later. I don’t prioritize Seton’s film in my analysis of Que Viva Mexico! for several reasons: her distance from being involved with the original project, her unfamiliarity with Mexico, the different cultural assumptions that she makes coming from an American background rather than a Russian one, and the fact that the rough cut of the film was to be previewed at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Hollywood before many of the very same people who denied distribution to Que Viva Mexico!, which can’t help but lead one to believe that this must have somewhat limited the representation of radical political themes within Seton’s reconstruction. With this said, however, I must acknowledge that A Time in the Sun serves an interesting study to see how Eisenstein’s Mexican footage could be edited in less radical ways than I am suggesting for this essay.

52. The Russian director Oleg Kovalov made his own very loose reconstruction of the film during the 1990s, Sergei Eisenstein: Mexican Fantasy (1998). It doesn’t attempt to emulate Eisenstein’s intended structure, but it does provide some extra footage in regards to the “Maguey” and “Fiesta” episodes that cannot be seen in any of the other versions of the film I viewed.

53. This later point hopes to further Judith Mayne’s work in Kino and the Woman Question where she initiated a “dialogue between the woman question and cinematic narrative. Such a dialogue involves the exploration of how Soviet film narrative turns, ideologically and aesthetically, on the representation of woman, and of how the woman question is concerned, centrally and vitally, with questions of narrative” (15). Although Mayne focuses on silent cinema, her observations are still germane in analyzing Que Viva Mexico! And her 1989 observation—the changes that had occurred within women’s lives during the Russian Revolution are barely explored in relation to Soviet cinema— still holds true in much scholarship on Russian cinema (14). Therefore, I consider it important to explore how Que Viva Mexico! might have held residual elements about the woman question within its structure. See Judith Mayne, Kino and the Woman Question: Feminism and Soviet Silent Film (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989).

54. Eisenstein and Alexandroff, “Synopsis for Que Viva Mexico!,” 7.

55. Leyda’s version, even more tellingly, locates this conquest imagery at the end of “Maguey,” making the symbolic link of the upside-down “U” of the two different contexts even more apparent. Eisenstein’s scenario suggests that the conquest imagery was supposed to comprise the “Fiesta” episode. Yet in Alexadrov’s version, “Maguey” follows “Fiesta,” whereas in the scenario, “Fiesta” follows “Maguey”; therefore, Leyda’s footage might represent the transition between episodes found in Eisenstein’s scenario.

56. Leyda’s footage further emphasizes how heterosexual desire and bourgeois familial structures lead to women’s exploitation with its central focus on Maria’s family “giving away” of her to Sebastian. Maria’s father rides on a mule with Maria following him on foot and her mother walking even further behind, picking up loose sticks for kindling. Here we visually see the father’s privileged position and how the mother must still engage in domestic labor (gathering kindling) even when she is out of the domestic realm. Similarly, Maria seems to occupy a liminal gender realm: not yet full-fledged “wife” but no longer an androgynous child. In a long shot, we see the family meet Sebastian in the dessert. Sebastian follows patriarchal protocol by first kissing the father’s hand, then the mother’s, and bows to Maria. After Maria kisses her mom, she briefly kisses her father’s hand, who then immediately waves her off to Sebastian. After a quick sign of the cross, the father turns and leaves with the mother following. The cross serves as an interesting gesture, since it suggests a link between the patriarchal structure of family and church where woman’s symbolic importance as either “wife,” “mother,” “virgin,” or “saint” takes precedence over her individual presence and desires. In the family, women are made to occupy the symbolic position of “wife,” which we see occur immediately after Maria’s family leaves. After being left alone with Sebastian, Maria never directly looks at him, suggesting her submission, emulating her mother’s submission to her father. She is already taking on the role of a “good,” submissive wife, which Sebastian either challenges by placing her on the burrow he has brought, thereby offering her the position that her father denied her mother, or reinforces, if one sees this action as more representative of placing her on a proverbial pedestal, elevating her above the earth, a living symbol of his own good fortune, which is nearly identical with what the Catholic church does except it totally excludes women’s presence from its institutional workings and only uses her as a symbol, ironically, of its orthodox power. Yet, clearly, the looking relations between Sebastian and Maria are emulated in the hacienda scene between the hacendado and Maria. In both cases, Maria does not have the right to look back at the man who observes her. In both cases, an exchange of woman as object occurs: between father and husband, and husband and hacendado. The literal patriarchal position of the father is figuratively re-inscribed in the hacendado. Therefore, the male, heterosexual economy that determines both familial and work structures is exposed as a central agent in causing woman’s oppression.

It is worth noting how this critique of the family seems to offer a visual representation of the very same critique that the Bolshevik’s endorsed immediately after the Revolution. Historian Gail Warshofsky Lapidus claims that the Bolshevik’s initially did not view the family “as a bulwark of freedom and self-fulfillment but as a significant locus of exploitation, oppression, and humiliation” (Gail Warshofsky Lapidus, Women in Soviet Society: Equality, Development, and Social Change (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1978), 82. Lenin pronounced in 1919 that “petty housework crushes, strangles, stultifies and degrades [the wife], chains her to the kitchen and nursery, and she wastes her labour on barbarously unproductive, petty, nerve-racking, stultifying and crushing drudgery” (Richard Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978): 378). One could also argue that Eisenstein’s gay or bi background made him particularly critical of the heterosexual family within his films, noticeable either in its absence from films like Battleship Potemkin, October, and Alexander Nevsky, or in its dysfunctional and sometimes psychopathic status in films like Que Viva Mexico!, Bezhin Meadow, Ivan the Terrible, Part I & II.

57. Jane Gaines, “Can We Enjoy Alternative Pleasure?,” in Issues in Feminist Film Criticism, ed. Patricia Erens (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), 79.

58. Benshoff, 14.

59. Ibid., 14.

60. Ibid., 14-15.

61. Ibid., 14.

62. Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (New York: Pathfinder, 1972), 77.

63. Mayne, 26; Mary Buckley, “Soviet Interpretations of the Woman Question,” in Soviet Sisterhood: British Feminists on Women in the U.S.S.R., ed. Mary Buckley (London: Fourth Estate, 1985): 34; and Stites, 392-406.

64. Benshoff, 9-10.

65. Lapidus, 95-122; and Stites, 406-16.

66. Abram Room’s 1927 film, Third Meshchanskaia Street (Bed and Sofa), serves as an interesting contrast to “Sanduga” in the way that it explicitly investigates women’s “double burden” and critiques men for not picking up the slack in domestic chores. Yet it was because of the film’s rather sophisticated and all too realistic representations of gender issues and domestic labor that led it to be almost unanimously denounced within the Soviet Union, suggesting that the male critics reviewing the film didn’t appreciate being reminded about their failures in achieving women’s equality. See Denise J. Youngblood, Soviet Cinema in the Silent Era, 1918-1936 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991), 119-24.

67. Engels, 145.

68. Eisenstein and Alexandroff, “Synopsis,” 7.

69. Benshoff, 15.

70. Lapidus, 73; Buckley, 37-38.

71. Eisenstein and Alexandroff, “Synopsis,” 12.

72. Ibid., 12.

73. LaValley, 53.

74. Ibid., 56-61.

75. Ibid., 56, 59-60. LaValley also makes an interesting observation on “Fiesta,” in Que Viva Mexico!: “In David Laceaga, the young bullfighter, the film reveals little of the machismo that traditionally surrounds bullfighting, but concentrates instead on the elaborate almost feminine ritual of his dress, his parading into the ring like a dancer, and the extraordinary beauty of his near-deathly dance with the bull” (60-61).Leyda’s reconstruction of the film particularly emphasizes Eisenstein’s fascination with Laceaga’s paso mariposa, “butterfly dance,” in luring the bull to its death. Thousands of feet of film are spent in observing Laceaga’s ballet-like actions.

76. Eisenstein and Alexandroff, 12.

77. Kaja Silverman, The Threshold of the Visible World (New York and London: Routledge, 1996), 90-93.

78. LaValley, 62; Bordwell, 194; Aumont, 50-61; Håkan Lövgren, “Trauma and Ecstasy: Aesthetic Compounds in Dr. Eisenstein’s Laboratory,” in Eisenstein Revisited: A Collection of Essays, ed. Lars Kleberg and Håkan Lövgren (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1987), 93-111; and Rosamund Bartlett, “The Circle and The Line: Eisenstein, Florensky, and Russian Orthodoxy,” in Eisenstein at 100: A Reconsideration, ed. Al LaValley and Barry P. Scherr (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2001), 73.

79. Sergei Eisenstein, Beyond The Stars: The Memoirs of Sergei Eisenstein, ed Richard Taylor (London: BFI, 1995), 421.

80. Octavio Paz, The Labyrinth of Solitude and Other Writings (New York: Grove Press, 1985), 57. Also, in terms of political potentialities opened up by the space of carnival, see Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, trans. Hélène Iswolsky (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1984).

81. Similarly, montage provides an identical operation. By harnessing mundane material and reconstructing it in new ways, film allows spectators to see the revolutionary potential that structures their own lives but that they have been ideologically positioned to largely ignore. Eisenstein believes that it is the cinema’s job to offer spectators a glimpse of the social totality so that they can observe the ways in which the ossified categories that organize their daily lives and actions are merely tentative constructions that only seem “universals” because of the enormous efforts by the ruling class to maintain such illusions.

82. Experimental Cinema Editors, “Manifesto on Que Viva Mexico!,” 13.

83. See Grace Hutchins, “Feminists and the Left Wing,” New Masses, 20 November 1934, 14-15; Meridel LeSueur, “Women On The Breadlines,” New Masses, January 1932, 5-7, and “I Was Marching,” New Masses, 18 September 1934, 16-18; Martha Millet, “Last Night,” New Masses, 19 June 1934, 17; Rebecca Pitts, “Women and Communism,” New Masses, 19 February 1935, 14-18; and Mary Heaton Vorse, “Lauren Gilfillan’s Education,” New Masses, 10 April 1934, 16.

84. See Ella Winter, “Woman Freed,” in Writing Red: An Anthology of American Women Writers, 1930-1940, ed. Charlotte Nekola and Paula Rabinowitz (New York: The Feminist Press, 1987), 228-35.

85. Grace Hutchins, “Women Under Capitalism,” in Writing Red: An Anthology of American Women Writers, 1930-1940, ed. Charlotte Nekola and Paula Rabinowitz (New York: The Feminist Press, 1987), 329-34.

86. Meridel LeSueur, “Women on the Breadlines,” in Ripening, ed. Elaine Hedges (New York: The Feminist Press, 1982), 137-43; and Meridel LeSueur, “Women Are Hungry,” in Ripening, ed. Elaine Hedges (New York: The Feminist Press, 1982), 144-57.

87. Paula Rabinowitz, “Women and U.S. Literary Radicalism,” in Writing Red: An Anthology of American Women Writers, 1930-1940, ed. Charlotte Nekola and Paula Rabinowitz (New York: The Feminist Press, 1987), 8.

88. Pitts, 15.

89. Ibid., 15.

90. Ibid., 16.

91. Ibid., 15.

92. Ibid., 18.

93. Ibid., 18.

94. Agnes Smedley, Daughter of Earth (New York: The Feminist Press, 1973 ed.); Grace Lumpkin, To Make My Bread (New York: Macaulay, 1932); and Tillie Olsen, Yonnondio: From the Thirties (New York: Delacorte Press, 1974).

95. Morris Helprin, “Que Viva Mexico!,” Experimental Cinema, February 1933, 14.

96. Ibid., 14.

97. Ibid., 14.

98. Ibid., 13.

99. Ibid., 14.

100. Paula Rabinowitz, Labor and Desire: Women’s Revolutionary Fiction in Depression America (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 4.

101. Ibid., 8.

102. Seton, Sergei, 507.

103. Seymour Stern, “The Greatest Thing,” 528.

104. Paula Rabinowitz, They Must Be Represented: The Politics of Documentary (London and New York: Verso, 1994), 67.

105. Ibid., 525; Experimental Cinema Editors, “Manifesto,” 211.

106. Herman G. Weinberg, “The ‘Lesser’ of Two Evils,” The Modern Monthly, June 1933, 299.

107. Ibid., 299.

108. Kathy Peiss, Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986); Janet Staiger, Bad Women: Regulating Sexualiity in Early American Cinema (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1995); Nan Enstad, Ladies of Labor, Girls of Adventure: Working Women, Popular Culture, and Labor Politics at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999); and Shelley Stamp, Movie-Struck Girls: Women and Motion Picture Culture after the Nickelodeon. Also see, Miriam Hansen, Babel & Babylon: Spectatorship in American Silent Film (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991); Anne Friedberg, Window Shopping: Cinema and The Postmodern (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1993); and Lauren Rabinowitz, For the Love of Pleasure: Women, Movies and Culture in Turn-of-the-Century Chicago (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1998)

109. Sarah Berry, Screen Style: Fashion and Femininity in 1930s Hollywood (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), xix.

110. Lewis Jacobs, The Rise of the American Film (New York: Teachers College Press, 1939), 410.

111. Peiss, 6; Enstad, 17-47.

112. Hansen, 117.

113. Mike Gold, “Movie Madness and The Child,” New Masses, May 11, 1937, 7.

114. Ibid., 7.

115. Robert Forsythe, “Mae West: A Treaty on Decay,” New Masses, October 9, 1934, 29.

116. Ibid., 29.

117. David M. Lugowski, “Queering the (New) Deal: Lesbian and Gay Representation and the Depression-Era Cultural Politics of Hollywood’s Production Code,” Cinema Journal 38.2 (Winter 1999): 12.


To topPrint versionJC 48 Jump Cut home