Content uploaded by Milan Hain
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Milan Hain on Jan 04, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Slovak Theatre – 2021 – Volume 69 – Issue 3 DOI: 10.31577/sd-2021-0022
FROM STARS TO STARMAKERS. SPOTLIGHTING
THE PRODUCERS OF POPULAR SCREEN IDENTITIES
MILAN HAIN
Faculty of Arts, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
Abstract: Forty years ago, Richard Dyer almost single-handedly inaugurated a new discipline within lm
studies devoted to the study of stars and their social signicance. Since the publication of his ground-break-
ing book, there have been many aempts at expanding his semiotic and sociological paradigm and also at
redirecting the focus to gain a beer understanding of the role of ideology, performance style or historically
positioned audiences. One meaningful avenue of research was opened up, in particular, by Paul McDonald
who has called for studying the industrial and economic processes behind what he calls the production of
popular identities. While his model proved inuential, it seems that most research projects are still domina-
ted by emphasis on individual stars, neglecting or marginalizing other important agents in the star-making
process. In this article, I propose to move one step further and refocus our aention on lm producers, talent
scouts, agents, publicists and other skilled professionals whose business was in the Hollywood studio era
to discover, develop, promote and sell stars. Using a case study focused on producer David O. Selznick and
his “Swedish discovery” Ingrid Bergman I demonstrate that the actress’ public identity – often assumed to
be wholly authentic and autonomous – was in fact systematically constructed by Selznick’s independent
production company.
Keywords: star studies, industry studies, producer studies, stardom, production of stars, Hollywood, David
O. Selznick, Ingrid Bergman
“Those who employ the star will scarcely make an appearance. By diminishing
the presence of audiences and owners, stars are made to seem more independent
than they ever could be in real life.”1
Shining Stars and Hidden Starmakers
Even though it has been more than four decades since the publication of Richard
Dyer’s seminal Stars2 – a book that almost single-handedly inaugurated a new disci-
pline within lm studies devoted to the exploration of stars and their social signi-
cance – it remains a highly inuential text informing much of the research that goes
on in this ever-vibrant area. For instance, in the special issue of the Czech and Slo-
vak Journal of Humanities on stars and star systems in lm and television on which
I worked as editor,3 there was not a single article that did not make a substantial refer-
ence to Stars or to Dyer’s another essential contribution to star studies Heavenly Bodies:
Film Stars and Society published in 1986.4 It seems evident to me, then, that Dyer’s ap-
proach, located at the intersection of semiotics and sociology, remains a cornerstone
of the discipline.
1 FOWLES, J. Starstruck: Celebrity Performers and the American Public. Washington and London : Smithson-
ian Institution Press, 1992, p. 257.
2 DYER, R. Stars. London : British Film Institute, 1979.
3 Czech and Slovak Journal of Humanities, 2019, Vol. 9, Issue 1.
4 DYER, R. Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society. New York : St. Martin’s Press, 1986.
Štúdie
308 MILAN HAIN
However, in his helpful overview Star Studies: A Critical Guide, Martin Shingler
discusses developments in star studies after the publication of Stars and notes that
there emerged two important alternative approaches, “the rst involving a more in-
depth investigation into the part played by audiences in terms of how they engage
with stars and the second in terms of a more detailed examination of stardom as an
industrial process.”5 The laer avenue of research was opened up and explored par-
ticularly by Paul McDonald who has, in his three books and several journal articles
and book chapters, called for studying and analyzing the industrial and economic
processes behind what he calls the production of popular identities6 (a term I have
adopted for the title of the present study). As he remarked in his 1998 essay published
in the revised edition of Dyer’s Stars, “to appreciate the social activity of stardom,
a pragmatics of star practices is needed to accompany a semiotics of star meanings.”7
In his excellent book on stardom in conglomerate Hollywood, McDonald proposed
an elaborate alternative to textual and discursive analyses – which still prevail in
star studies as well as in lm studies in general – by combining interest in the cul-
tural signicance of stars with the principles of industry studies, treating stardom
as a commercial phenomenon.8 As he explains in the book’s rst chapter, “stardom
is a product of industrialized cultural production, the outcome of multiple, highly
organized, inputs and actions.”9 Viewed through this lens, stars become primarily
phenomena of production (as opposed to phenomena of consumption);10 they are
highly valued assets necessary for stabilizing the industry practices and maximizing
prots since their presence on screen and in promotion and publicity contributes to
product dierentiation.
While McDonald’s inspiring model invites us to study the mechanisms behind the
discovery, development, circulation and consumption of stars and star images, it seems
that most research projects are still dominated by the emphasis on individual stars,
neglecting or marginalizing other important agents in the star-making process – studio
executives, producers, directors, cameramen, costume designers, make-up artists, tal-
ent scouts, publicists, PR specialists, gossip columnists, talent agents, managers, law-
yers etc. One only needs to have a look at the two most popular book series within star
studies, the ten-volume Star Decades published by Rutgers University Press11 and Film
5 SHINGLER, M. Star Studies: A Critical Guide. London : British Film Institute, 2012, p. 23.
6 MCDONALD, P. The Star System: Hollywood’s Production of Popular Identities. London : Wallower
Press, 2000.
7 MCDONALD, P. Reconceptualising Stardom (Supplementary Chapter). In DYER, R. Stars. Second
Revised Edition. London : British Film Institute, 1998, p. 200.
8 MCDONALD, P. Hollywood Stardom. Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell, 2013, p. 1.
9 Ibid., p. 14.
10 MCDONALD, P. The Star System: Hollywood’s Production of Popular Identities. London : Wallower
Press, 2000, p. 2.
11 What follows is a description of the series from the publisher’s website: “Each volume presents origi-
nal essays analyzing the movie star against the background of American cultural history. As icon, as medi-
ated personality, and as object of audience fascination and desire, the Hollywood star remains the model for
celebrity in modern culture and represents a paradoxical combination of achievement, talent, ability, luck,
authenticity, superciality, and even ordinariness. In all of the volumes, stardom is studied as an eect of,
and inuence on, the particular historical and industrial contexts that enable a star to be ‘discovered,’ to be
featured in lms, to be promoted and publicized, and ultimately to become a recognizable and admired –
even notorious – feature of the cultural landscape. Understanding when, how, and why a star ‘makes it,’
dazzling for a brief moment or enduring across decades, allows readers to assess the importance of medi-
309
FROM STARS TO STARMAKERS. SPOTLIGHTING THE PRODUCERS...
Stars from the British Film Institute and Bloomsbury12: both projects are highly infor-
mative and enlightening but at the same time they seem to present individual stars as
the only viable subjects for framing a research project in star studies. As a result, a pro-
found imbalance has been produced.
In fact, the issue of agency – according to James Chapman, Mark Glancy and Sue
Harper one of the “buzzwords” of the new lm history13 – is taken up by only a hand-
ful of books and articles that fall within the area of star studies. To move on to discuss
the literature on Hollywood, which will be the primary focus of my essay, there are
indeed several general surveys of how the Hollywood “star machine” functioned14
but only a few in-depth case studies – as opposed to a plethora of books and jour-
nal articles on individual stars. This historical gap is especially apparent and crucial
when it comes to studio-era Hollywood: contemporary stars (especially those at the
top of the hierarchy whom McDonald calls A-list stars15) enjoy great autonomy and
are heavily involved in navigating their careers (often being simultaneously produc-
ers or movie entrepreneurs16), but in the period between the 1920s and 1940s, stars
were mostly contractual employees (however privileged) and most creative and busi-
ness decisions were made for them by the studios. It seems reasonable, then, to situ-
ate their position in a meaningful historical and industrial context and discuss their
role in relation to other participants in the star-making process.
Among the few publications that aempt to do so – in addition to books by Mc-
Donald that have been already mentioned – are Emily Carman and Philip Drake’s dis-
cussion of talent contracts from the edited volume Hollywood and the Law;17 Jane
ated celebrity in an increasingly visualized world.” Star Decades Complete 10 Volume Set. In Rutgers Uni-
versity Press [online]. [cit. 17 May 2021]. Available at: hps://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/star-decades-
complete-10-volume-set/9780813554433. The eleventh volume, titled Stellar Transformations: Movie Stars of
the 2010s, is currently in the making.
12 The objective of the series, comprising almost 20 entries to date, is described as follows: “Stars are an
integral part of the global lm industry. This is as true today, in the age of celebrity culture, as in the studio
era. Each book in this major new BFI series focuses on an international lm star, tracing the development
of their star persona, their career trajectory and their acting and performance style. Some also examine the
cultural signicance of a star‘s work, as well as their lasting inuence and legacy. The series ranges across
a wide historical and geographical spectrum, from silent to contemporary cinema and from Hollywood
to Asian cinemas, and addresses both child and adult stardom.” Film Stars. Bloomsbury.com [online]. [cit.
17 May 2021]. Available at: hps://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/series/lm-stars/.
13 CHAPMAN, J. – GLANCY, M. – HARPER, S. Introduction. In CHAPMAN, J. – GLANCY, M. –
HARPER, S. (eds.). The New Film History: Sources, Methods, Approaches. Basingstoke and New York : Palgrave
Macmillan, 2009, p. 6.
14 Especially MCDONALD, P. The Star System: Hollywood’s Production of Popular Identities. London : Wall-
ower Press, 2000; BASINGER, J. The Star Machine. New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 2007; BALIO, T. Grand
Design: Hollywood as a Modern Business Enterprise, 1930–1939. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London : University
of California Press, 1995, pp. 143 – 177 (chapter “Selling Stars”); DAVIS, R. L. The Glamour Factory: Inside Hol-
lywood’s Big Studio System. Dallas : Southern Methodist University Press, 1993, pp. 79 – 95.
15 MCDONALD, P. Hollywood Stardom. Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell, 2013, p. 23.
16 See for instance KING, B. Embodying the Elastic Self: The Parametrics of Contemporary Stardom.
In AUSTIN, T. – BAKER, M. (eds.). Contemporary Hollywood Stardom. London : Arnold, 2003, pp. 45 – 61.
17 CARMAN, E. – DRAKE, P. Doing the Deal: Talent Contracts in Hollywood. In MCDONALD, P.
– CARMAN, E. – HOYT, E. – DRAKE, P. (eds.). Hollywood and the Law. London : Palgrave, British Film In-
stitute, 2015, pp. 209 – 234. Carman is also the author of the book Independent Stardom which deals with free-
lance women stars, including Irene Dunne and Carole Lombard, in the studio-era Hollywood. CARMAN, E.
Independent Stardom: Freelance Women in the Hollywood Studio System. Austin : University of Texas Press, 2016.
310 MILAN HAIN
M. Gaines’ examination of the same topic in Contested Culture;18 accounts of Bee
Davis and her role at Warner Bros. from Cathy Klaprat and Thomas Scha;19 Ro-
bert S. Senne’s Hollywood Hoopla, a non-academic exploration of promotional strate-
gies used by major Hollywood studios;20 and, perhaps most importantly, Tom Kem-
per’s Hidden Talent, a revelatory account tracing the emergence of Hollywood talent
agents such as Myron Selznick and Charles Feldman.21 The title of Kemper’s book is
very ing, indeed: the work of talent agents, producers, publicists and the like was,
by denition, relegated mostly to behind-the-scenes. Their mission was to make their
clients or employees visible while their own operations remained obscured from the
public view. In this way, the studio system perpetuated the myth that stars were born
when in fact it is more accurate to say that they were made or developed.
What I propose, then, is to look much more closely at the “hidden” work of
those individuals who were responsible for systematically manufacturing, devel-
oping, controlling and disseminating star identities in the Hollywood studio era
(and possibly in other temporal and geographical contexts, too, even though my
focus here – as well as in my work as a lm historian – is classical Hollywood
cinema). The production of stars in Hollywood was a collaborative process and,
in that aspect, it was not unlike the making of lms: both processes relied on divi-
sion of labor and specialization. As stipulated in the talent contracts, the resulting
star image was the property of the studio, not the actor or actress who provided
the “raw material” (body, face and voice), so to speak, and many individuals from
various ranks of a studio hierarchy and sometimes even outside of it were involved.
In other words, the performer was merely one among many agents responsible for
the result. As neatly summarized by McDonald, “lm stardom is therefore never an
individual, innate or inevitable eect. It requires the organized collective actions of
multiple participants.”22
This raises numerous questions that – to my knowledge – remain mostly unan-
swered. For instance, which individuals and studio departments were involved in
discovering and developing stars? Which specic strategies were used at the dierent
levels of the process? How was the work between multiple departments coordinat-
ed? Were there signicant dierences between individual studios or between majors
(MGM, Paramount, Warner Bros. etc.) and independents (Samuel Goldwyn, David
O. Selznick, Walter Wanger)? What was the decision-making process when it came to
casting (typecasting vs. o-casting)? Under what terms were stars loaned out to other
studios or producers and how was the control over the star subsequently divided
among the two parties? What was the signicance of coupling stars with directors,
cameramen, costume designers etc., both for the star images and the economic per-
18 GAINES, J. M. Contested Culture: The Image, the Voice, and the Law. Chapel Hill and London : University
of North Carolina Press, 1991, in particular chapter 5 “Reading Star Contracts”.
19 KLAPRAT, C. The Star as Market Strategy: Bee Davis in Another Light. In BALIO, T. (ed.). The Ameri-
can Film Industry. Madison, WI : University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, pp. 351 – 376. SCHATZ, T. “A Triumph
of Bitchery”: Warner Bros., Bee Davis, and Jezebel. In STAIGER, J. (ed.). The Studio System. New Brunswick,
NJ : Rutgers University Press, 1995, pp. 74 – 92.
20 SENNETT, R. S. Hollywood Hoopla: Creating Stars and Selling Movies in the Golden Age of Hollywood. New
York : Billboard Books, 1998.
21 KEMPER, T. Hidden Talent: The Emergence of Hollywood Agents. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London :
University of California Press, 2010.
22 MCDONALD, P. Hollywood Stardom. Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell, 2013, p. 14.
311
FROM STARS TO STARMAKERS. SPOTLIGHTING THE PRODUCERS...
formance of a studio? Still other areas ripe for exploration include screen tests and
commercial tie-ins.
To start answering these queries, it is necessary to expand the range of materials
dened by Richard Dyer as essential for the construction of stars’ images, namely
lms, promotion, publicity and criticism and commentaries.23 In addition to these,
one needs to look at talent contracts, nancial reports, inter-studio correspondence,
press releases, screen tests, preview questionnaires, fan mail, etc. The problem is,
however, that many of these documents might not be always readily available. For
example, MGM prided itself that it had “more stars than there are in heaven”24 so it
seems that it would be a particularly appropriate subject for such research, but, as
remarked by Emily Carman, “there is no fully centralized or comprehensive archive
available for MGM.”25 Unfortunately, we face a similar situation when it comes to
other members of the so-called Big Five – RKO, Paramount and Twentieth Century-
Fox.
Yet, there are places to start, including the vast collections housed by the Margaret
Herrick Library of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the University
of Southern California, the University of California, Los Angeles (esp. the Perform-
ing Arts Special Collections), the Wisconsin Center for Film and Theater Research
in Madison or the Cinema Archives at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Con-
necticut. Moreover, online tools such as Media History Digital Library26 and Internet
Archive27 are responsible for making available whole volumes of trade journals such
as Variety and The Film Daily as well as yearbooks, pressbooks and other valuable
materials that provide essential entry points into the historical context of studio-era
Hollywood.
In my recent project, I have focused on the star-making operations of David
O. Selznick whose comprehensive archive, consisting of more than 5,000 boxes, is
open to the public at the Harry Ransom Center in Austin, Texas.28 Selznick is primar-
ily known as the producer of such classics as King Kong (1933), Anna Karenina (1935),
Gone with the Wind (1939), Rebecca (1940) and Spellbound (1945) but my research has
demonstrated that “star business” (i.e., discovering, developing and selling of stars)
was an important – and after 1940 even central – aspect of his activities, not merely
an addition to his more widely-known achievements in making of popular and cel-
ebrated lms. Curiously, though, not much research has been produced in this area.
After forming his own independent production company Selznick International
Pictures in 1935, David O. Selznick mostly collaborated with prominent freelance
actors and actresses, for example Ronald Colman (The Prisoner of Zenda, 1937), Ca-
role Lombard (Nothing Sacred, 1937, and Made for Each Other, 1939) and Janet Gaynor
23 DYER, R. Stars. London : British Film Institute, 1998, pp. 60 – 63.
24 FINLER, J. W. The Hollywood Story. London and New York : Wallower Press, 2003, p. 156.
25 CARMAN, E. Independent Stardom: Freelance Women in the Hollywood Studio System. Austin : University
of Texas Press, 2016, p. 167.
26 Available online at hps://mediahistoryproject.org/.
27 Available online at hps://archive.org/.
28 See David O. Selznick: An Inventory of His Collection at the Harry Ransom Center. Harry Ran-
som Center [online]. [cit. 18 May 2021]. Available at: hps://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/fasearch/ndingAid.
cfm?eadid=00671.
312 MILAN HAIN
(A Star Is Born, 1937, and The Young in Heart, 1938).29 Starting in the late 1930s, though,
he revised his priorities and began forming his own star stable which, in short time,
included actors Joseph Coen and Gregory Peck and actresses Ingrid Bergman, Vivi-
en Leigh, Joan Fontaine, Jennifer Jones and Dorothy McGuire. These stellar personali-
ties were essential for Selznick since they helped to dierentiate his lms on the mar-
ket, provided substantial income (especially through loan-outs to other producers)
and contributed to his company’s distinctive brand based on the concepts of quality
and prestige. Because there is not enough space to cover Selznick’s extensive activi-
ties in the eld of star development in one article, let me focus on a single case study
that will hopefully illuminate what kind of knowledge can be gained by investigating
Selznick’s papers and particularly those materials (memoranda, contracts, nancial
reports, press releases etc.) related to his star roster.
The following text that reconstructs the beginnings of David O. Selznick’s profes-
sional alliance with Ingrid Bergman is a partial result of my much more extensive
research on the producer’s star stable. It is based on a study of a large part of the
Selznick collection at the Harry Ransom Center as well as materials in other archives
(here, in particular, the Ingrid Bergman collection, which is housed at the Cinema
Archives at Wesleyan University). I also draw information from the contemporary
press, both daily newspapers and magazines with wide circulation such as the New
York Times and specialized trade journals like Variety.30 By emphasizing Selznick as
a producer of popular star identities, my project is methodologically close to the
emerging discipline of producer studies, which focuses on the role of producers and
their interactions with other prominent agents in the lm industry.31 It is precisely the
mutual cross-fertilization of star studies and producer studies that could represent
one direction in which the study of stars and star systems could evolve.
Constructing Naturalness: David O. Selznick, Ingrid Bergman
and Intermezzo (A Case Study)32
Ingrid Bergman counts among Hollywood’s most highly regarded screen icons
because of her remarkable performances in Casablanca (1943), Gaslight (1944) and No-
torious (1946), to name just a few of her legendary lms. As a three-time Academy
Award winner, she is often celebrated as an exceptionally gifted and versatile per-
former. Moreover, it is often assumed that she became a top leading woman in Hol-
lywood by challenging many industry norms of what a star should be or how she
should look like, remaining on all occasions wholly authentic and autonomous. For
example, Ethan Mordden, author of a book on female stars in Hollywood, described
29 See CARMAN, E. Going Independent in 1930s Hollywood: Freelance Star and Independent Producer
Collaborations at United Artists. In KRÄMER, P. – NEEDHAM, G. – TZIOUMAKIS, Y. – BALIO, T. (eds.).
United Artists. London and New York : Routledge, 2020, pp. 57 – 74.
30 For more comprehensive results of my research on Selznick and his stars, see my upcoming book
HAIN, M. V tradici kvality a prestiže: David O. Selznick a výroba hvězd v Hollywoodu 40. a 50. let. Praha : Casa-
blanca, 2021 (forthcoming).
31 See SPICER, A. – MCKENNA, A. T. – MEIR, Ch. (eds.). Beyond the Boom Line: The Producer in Film and
Television Studies. London and New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.
32 I discuss David O. Selznick and his professional relationship with Bergman in HAIN, M. V tradici kva-
lity a prestiže: David O. Selznick a výroba hvězd v Hollywoodu 40. a 50. let. Praha : Casablanca, 2021 (forthcom-
ing). What follows is an abbreviated and heavily edited version of the book’s rst chapter.
313
FROM STARS TO STARMAKERS. SPOTLIGHTING THE PRODUCERS...
her entry into the American lm industry in the following way: “Into the strait maze
of studio stardom came Ingrid Bergman, on a direct path, saying no. No, she would
not change her name. No, she would not change her looks; she would not play the
same character in every lm. And no, she would not let her employer tell her how
to run her personal aairs. This is the behavior of an individual, not a star.”33 The
archival materials in the Selznick collection and elsewhere, however, show a dierent
picture – one that demonstrates that even Bergman was not exempt from the work-
ings of the Hollywood star machine.
She rst came to the aention of David Selznick in late 1938, after his close col-
laborators from the New York oce Katharine Brown and Elsa Neuberger saw the
Swedish lm Intermezzo (1936) showcasing the actress in the role of a young woman,
Anita Homan, who falls in love with a married violinist, Holger Brandt (played by
Gösta Ekman). At that time, Selznick – preoccupied with the pre-production work
on his monumental Civil War epic Gone with the Wind – was “on the lookout for for-
eign pictures which we might purchase for either remake by ourselves, or as an in-
vestment for resale for remake purposes.”34 Intermezzo directed by Gustaf Molander
became a suitable material for such an enterprise because it was a low-key romance
and it could be made cheaply and quickly by duplicating camera positions and ed-
iting decisions. In addition to closing the deal for the remake rights of Intermezzo,
Selznick also advised his East Coast representatives to sign a contract with Bergman.
As the producer confessed several years later, “I have never seen a quality such as
hers, a quality of spirituality and nobility and purity, plus a sensitive and restrained
talent.”35 After several weeks of considerations, it was decided that Bergman would
indeed make her Hollywood debut in Selznick’s version of Intermezzo, winning over
other potential candidates for the role of Anita, especially Lorea Young.
By the late 1930s, Ingrid Bergman was one of the most popular actresses in her
native Sweden, but her stardom was of strictly local nature. She did make one lm in
Germany, Die vier Gesellen [The Four Companions] (1938) directed by Carl Froelich,
but her other engagements there came to nil after the political developments of 1938
and 1939. Signicantly, her star image had quite dierent contours when compared
to her career in Hollywood which, as I will demonstrate shortly, emphasized her nat-
uralness and authenticity. In most of her Swedish lms, Bergman was presented as an
aractive young woman surrounded by an aura of glamour and luxury. She usually
wears heavy make-up and lipstick, her eyebrows are plucked, her hair is carefully
coied and polished, and she is often seen in formal dresses adorned with jewellery.
Similarly, the camera and lighting in lms such as Swedenhielms (1935), Valborgsmäs-
soafton [Walpurgis Night] (1935) and the original Intermezzo glamorize the actress by
showing her in close-ups in soft focus.36
It wasn’t until her arrival in Hollywood as a Selznick contract player that it was
decided that she would be presented to the American and international public as
33 MORDDEN, E. Movie Star: A Look at the Women Who Made Hollywood. New York : St. Martin’s Press,
1983, p. 260.
34 Qtd. in BEHLMER, R. (ed.). Memo from David O. Selznick. New York : The Viking Press, 1972, p. 98.
35 Leer from David O. Selznick, 10 July 1943, For Whom the Bell Tolls – Campaign, b. 3336, f. 1, Selznick
Collection, Harry Ransom Center in Austin, Texas (hereafter Selznick Collection).
36 The most prominent exception is arguably Bergman’s best Swedish lm – En kvinnas ansikte [A Wo-
man’s Face] (1938) where she played the leader of a criminal gang with a disgured face.
314 MILAN HAIN
a completely natural actress, far removed from the exotic and goddess-like types
often associated with female personalities imported from Europe (Hedy Lamarr or
Marlene Dietrich being prime examples). As aptly described by critic Robin Wood,
though, “clearly, the ‘natural’ is as much a construction as the ‘glamorous,’ the dif-
ference being that the laer foregrounds the notion of construction where the former
suppresses it.”37 The fabrication of Bergman’s naturalness in Selznick’s remake of
Intermezzo was accomplished on two main levels; specically, it involved the actress’
visual presentation in the lm and the promotion and publicity that accompanied its
release in cinemas.
As ingly summed up by David Smit, “Selznick was almost fanatical about what
he considered the ‘natural’ beauty of Bergman’s face, but he also thought her natural-
ness needed to be made up and photographed a certain way in order for the camera
to capture it adequately.”38 First of all, Bergman underwent a series of internal tests
and evaluations with the aim of determining the most appropriate make-up, hairstyle
and costumes. One of the persons involved in this process was her co-star and associ-
ate producer on Intermezzo Leslie Howard who, upon seeing her initial screen tests,
opined that “without make-up (Bergman) looks much more natural and much more
aractive and much less Hollywood. Her skin has a natural sheen and apparently she
has a perfect complexion. Also the lips, instead of looking absolutely fakey and made
up, seem to be very natural and aractive in the test without grease paint.”39 The
truth was that Bergman’s extremely fair skin – exposed to the bright lights needed to
set the scene properly – did require a certain layer of greasepaint.40 It was, however,
cleverly masked so as not to aract any undue aention. Additionally, it was decided
that her eyebrows would not be plucked or drawn in and that her hairdress would
remain simple, without any articial curls or other enhancements. Selznick and his
collaborators, including the celebrated designer Irene, also monitored Bergman’s cos-
tumes which were supposed to conceal her above-average height – especially when
compared to Leslie Howard who was not particularly tall – and wide shoulders, and
some of the pieces of furniture were adapted in such a way so as to minimize the dif-
ference in height between Bergman and Edna Best who played Holger’s wife Margit.41
The most important aspect of the lm, though, was how Bergman was lit and pho-
tographed through the lens of the camera. From the beginning, Selznick pressured
the experienced DOP Harry Stradling to get the best results possible, explaining that
“the dierence in (the) photography (of Bergman) is the dierence between great
beauty and a complete lack of beauty. And unless we can bring o our photography
so that she really looks divine, the whole picture can fall apart from a standpoint
37 WOOD, R. Star and Auteur: Hitchcock’s Films with Bergman. In WOOD, R. Hitchcock’s Films Revisited.
New York : Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 312.
38 SMIT, D. Marketing Ingrid Bergman. In Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 2005, Vol. 22, Issue 3, p. 240.
39 Memo from Leslie Howard, 18 May 1939, Intermezzo Casting, b. 174, f. 11, Selznick Collection.
40 A handwrien note stating “they are using makeup” was added to the memorandum from Leslie
Howard. Undated memo from David O. Selznick, Intermezzo Casting, b. 174, f. 11, Selznick Collection (un-
derlined in the original). See also LUNDE, A. Nordic Exposures: Scandinavian Identities in Classical Hollywood
Cinema. Seale : University of Washington Press, 2010, p. 162.
41 See, for example, memo from David O. Selznick, 17 October 1939, Intermezzo Production, b. 176, f. 1,
Selznick Collection.
315
FROM STARS TO STARMAKERS. SPOTLIGHTING THE PRODUCERS...
of audience eectiveness.”42 The producer felt that conventional lighting techniques
were not suitable for Bergman’s type. Instead, he urged Stradling to make use of
all the available “lighting eects – whether it be shadows across part of her face, or
unique angles, or rim lighting.” According to Selznick, “it would be innitely prefer-
able for the picture to be photographed in the most conventional and ordinary man-
ner, and have gorgeous photography of Miss Bergman, than the reverse.”43
When it became obvious that it was not within Stradling’s abilities to satisfy the
producer’s demands, he was replaced by Gregg Toland, one of the most innovative
cameramen active in Hollywood of the late 1930s.44 The decision came only a few days
after the original director William Wyler was replaced by Gregory Rato. This time,
the reasons for the change are not so clear, but I believe that it is not far-fetched to as-
sume that once again, it might have had something to do with the visual presentation
of Bergman. Not even Toland and Rato could, however, avoid Selznick’s close su-
pervision. On the contrary, the producer compiled a detailed manual on how to pho-
tograph his contract actress. He was absolutely condent that the desired outcome
depended on: “avoiding the bad side of her face; keeping her head down as much
as possible; giving her the proper hairdress; giving her the proper mouth makeup;
avoiding long shots so as not to make her look too big and, more importantly, but for
the same reason, avoiding low camera on her, as well as being careful to build people
who work with her, such as Leslie Howard and Edna Best (as well, of course, the
child ren, beside whom she looks titanic if the camera work isn’t carefully studied);
but most important of all, on shading her face and in invariably going for eect light-
ings on her.”45
Special care was dedicated to Bergman’s introductory scene in the lm because it
would mark the occasion that American and most international audiences would see
Selznick’s fresh discovery for the rst time. In fact, the producer ordered three dif-
ferent versions of her entrée until he was completely satised. He also asked Toland
to pay particular aention to Bergman’s close-ups because “every beautiful shot we
get of her is a great deal of money added to the returns on the picture”46 and he even
entrusted his editor Hal Kern with the task of studying in detail the rough cut of the
lm in order to identify more scenes where close-ups of Bergman might be inserted
without disturbing the narrative. In the end, then, Bergman’s face became perhaps
the most prominent araction of the lm. In the words of David Smit,” (...) in most
of the crucial scenes between Anita Homan (Bergman) and her lover Holler Brand
[sic!, Holger Brandt] (Leslie Howard), Bergman is photographed with a high-angle
shot of the left side of her face, usually with a great deal of high contrast that puts part
of her face in shadow and gives her eyes her signature dewy look. (...) What we might
call the ‘Selznick shot’ of Bergman is (...) a major reason for her image as wholesome
and spiritual. The shot literally highlights Bergman’s beauty: the soft focus bathes
42 Memo from David O. Selznick, 9 June 1939, Intermezzo Casting, b. 174, f. 11, Selznick Collection.
43 Ibid.
44 See SALT, B. Film Style & Technology: History & Analysis. London : Starword, 1992, pp. 232 – 234; BORD-
WELL, D. Deep-focus Cinematography. In BORDWELL, D. – STAIGER, J. – THOMPSON, K. The Classical
Hollywood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960. New York : Columbia University Press, 1985,
pp. 345 – 349.
45 Memo from David O. Selznick, 22 June 1939, Intermezzo Cameraman, b. 174, f. 10, Selznick Collection.
46 Memo from David O. Selznick, 11 July 1939, Intermezzo Cameraman, b. 174, f. 10, Selznick Collection.
316 MILAN HAIN
her in light and shadow and captures the light in her eyes. Her look of longing and
devotion, her posture of submission, all suggest something beyond the mere physi-
cal, something similar to the scenes of saints in medieval painting and in the work of
El Greco.”47
It was specically because of Selznick’s aention to – and perhaps even obses-
sion with – the quality of Bergman’s photography in Intermezzo that the lm was in
production for 45 days instead of 30 as was originally planned and went more than
$300,000 over budget.48 Thus, a relatively modest picture was transformed into an
ambitious star vehicle whose primary goal was to introduce Selznick’s Swedish dis-
covery to the general public in the most eective way imaginable.
Publicity was also essential in creating an aractive identity for Bergman and pro-
voking audience interest. After the contract was signed, Selznick decided that “the
best thing to do would be to import her quietly into the studio (and) go about our
business of making the picture with only such publicity aendant upon her casting
as would be the case with any unimportant leading woman.”49 In one of her rst
interviews in Hollywood, Bergman made several unfortunate comments regarding
her “sexiness” and unusual height that were inconsistent with the objectives of the
studio.50 Following this incident, Selznick agreed with his head of publicity William
Hebert that Bergman would avoid further contacts with the press altogether until the
lm was nished.51 This was later transformed into a signicant advantage because
the absence of typical ballyhoo gave the impression that the public itself was respon-
sible for discovering Bergman and turning her into a star.
The publicity machine began working in full swing after Intermezzo’s premiere in
September 1939. The pressbook for the lm clearly dened the main principles for the
campaign on Bergman who was to be prominently represented in all advertising ma-
terials: “A gorgeous new star to enchant them… Fresh, lovely and unaected as her
native seas and skies and winds… playing with a forthright simplicity and directness
that brush aside all artice… Beautiful of feature, lithe and springlike of gure… and
with a dramatic power to feel and portray the profoundest passions… Ingrid Berg-
man will mean to your audiences a new, exciting departure in cinema heroines, and
to your box-oce the vitality that comes of a new, glamorous screen discovery with
clear intimations of greatness!”52
The pressbook encouraged the exhibitors to emphasize Bergman’s authenticity
and unaected personality: “She still bears the name she was born with. Her own
complexion photographs so well that she uses no make-up before the cameras. (...)
47 SMIT, D. Marketing Ingrid Bergman. In Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 2005, Vol. 22, Issue 3, p. 243.
48 In the end, it cost more than $1,000,000. See budget for Intermezzo from 22 December 1939, Intermezzo
Daily Budget Reconciliation, b. 175, f. 2, Selznick Collection.
49 Memo from David O. Selznick, 27 February 1939, Intermezzo Publicity Cont., b. 176, f. 4, Selznick
Collection.
50 See FRIEDMAN, H. Meet New Star from Sweden. Los Angeles Examiner, ca. June 1939; the article is
part of a collection of excerpts in the Series X Scrapbooks, 1938–1939, 1939–1940, b. 50, Ingrid Bergman
Collection, Cinema Archives, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut (hereafter Ingrid Bergman
Collection).
51 See memo from David O. Selznick, 28 July 1939, Intermezzo Publicity Cont., b. 176, f. 4, Selznick Col-
lection.
52 Pressbook for Intermezzo: A Love Story, The Core Collection, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of
Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Los Angeles.
317
FROM STARS TO STARMAKERS. SPOTLIGHTING THE PRODUCERS...
Ingrid’s tastes are simple and reected in her clothes. White is her favorite color and
predominates in her wardrobe. Corn on the cob, unknown in Sweden, has become
her favorite edible.”53
The publicity strategy was devised in such a way as to dierentiate Bergman’s con-
structed identity on the market where dozens of actresses with contracts at various
studios were vying for audience support. Selznick wanted Bergman to be “glamour-
ous, (but) not in the usual Hollywood way.”54 If Margaret Farrand Thorp, writing in
1939, dened Hollywood glamour as the combination of sex appeal, luxury, elegance
and romance,55 then Bergman under Selznick’s tutelage lacked most of these ingre-
dients and was instead promoted as an anti-star of sorts and certainly the antithesis
of the exotic, mysterious, dazzling type associated with many foreign-born female
stars including her compatriot Greta Garbo or Marlene Dietrich. Bergman was sup-
posed to come across as natural, carefree, easy going and open. Selznick’s publicity
department was responsible for sending out numerous press releases with the aim of
making “her natural sweetness and consideration and conscientiousness (...) some-
thing of a legend.”56 Gossip columnists reproduced stories on how the actress easily
bonded with the lm crew; how she never complained about working overtime; how
she herself wanted to repair a damaged costume that was designated to be discarded;
or how she felt truly sorry for cameraman Harry Stradling who had to be replaced in
the middle of the shoot.57 As one article from January 1940 made abundantly clear,
Ingrid Bergman “ts exactly your idea of what a star isn’t like.”58
Other articles in the press validated Selznick’s strategy by commenting on Berg-
man’s unusual qualities which were strikingly at odds with the widespread concep-
tion of a glamorous female star. A review of Intermezzo wrien by Frank S. Nugent
for the New York Times is worth quoting at length because it clearly demonstrates how
the press – and ultimately the general public – accepted the rhetoric of Selznick’s stu-
dio and welcomed Bergman as a wholly fresh phenomenon, with no equivalent in
Hollywood’s recent history: “Sweden’s Ingrid Bergman is so lovely a person and so
gracious an actress that we are rather glad David Selznick selected the quiet “Inter-
mezzo, a Love Story,” for her Hollywood debut instead of some more bravura drama
which, while it might not have overwhelmed its star, might have overwhelmed us and
made us less conscious of the freshness, the simplicity and the natural dignity that are
Miss Bergman’s pleasant gift to our screen. The reticent, gentle, frequently poignant
qualities of the (...) new lm are safely entrusted to Miss Bergman’s hands—and to
those of Leslie Howard and Edna Best, who have assisted at her debut. (...) Miss
Bergman’s share in it is, of course, the nicest part of it. She is beautiful, and not at all
prey. Her acting is surprisingly mature, yet singularly free from the stylistic traits—
the mannerisms, postures, precise inections—that become the stock in trade of the
matured actress. Our impression of her Anita, who is pallid one moment, vivacious
53 Ibid.
54 Memo from David O. Selznick, 2 January 1940, Intermezzo Publicity, b. 176, f. 3, Selznick Collection.
55 THORP, M. F. America at the Movies. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1939, p. 65.
56 Memo from David O. Selznick, 22 June 1939, Intermezzo Publicity Cont., b. 176, f. 4, Selznick Collec-
tion.
57 See ibid. and other documents in the same le.
58 STINNETT, J. One-Word Sketch of Ingrid Bergman: Dierent. New York World Telegram, 24 January
1940, Series X Scrapbooks, 1938–1939, 1939–1940, b. 50, Ingrid Bergman Collection.
318 MILAN HAIN
the next, yet always consistent, is that of a lamp whose wick burns bright or dull, but
always burns. There is that incandescence about Miss Bergman, that spiritual spark
which makes us believe that Selznick has found another great lady of the screen.”59
Despite such enthusiasm directed at Selznick’s discovery, the lm did not end up
a commercial triumph. In what many consider the best year in Hollywood’s history,60
Intermezzo (eventually released as Intermezzo: A Love Story) was simply too modest in
scale to directly compete with lms such as The Wizard of Oz, The Women, Beau Geste,
Babes in Arms, Stagecoach, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Selznick’s own Gone with the
Wind, which was released in December. By the time the picture was nished, though,
the producer’s aims had considerably changed: originally, Intermezzo was supposed
to generate easy prots by keeping the costs low; after casting Bergman and discov-
ering her star potential, the lm was tailor-made for her with the single purpose of
introducing her to audiences as a new star on the rise.61 In this way, Selznick gave
preference to long-term benets related to developing an aractive and commercially
desirable acting personality over short-term interests associated with producing one
isolated box-oce hit. Ironically, then, the success of Bergman in her rst Hollywood
role was in a way dependent on the commercial failure of Intermezzo in its original
theatrical run: by investing more than he initially planned, Selznick sacriced instant
prots in favor of a more lasting value. The process of transforming Bergman from
a newcomer into a top Hollywood personality was completed in the following years
when she was loaned out to lucrative roles in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941, MGM),
Casablanca (1943, Warner Bros.), For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943, Paramount), Gaslight
(1944, MGM) and The Bells of St. Mary’s (1945, Rainbow Productions/RKO), all of
which became big money-makers and brought Selznick hefty prots.
Another paradox associated with her role in Intermezzo is that all the technical
and personal resources at the disposal of Selznick’s studio were mobilized in order to
construct an identity for the actress that would appear natural and authentic, without
any trace of intervention or manipulation. Simply put, she was assumed to project her
true self in the role of Anita and, likewise, the publicity generated by Selznick’s stu-
dio, which took the form of a number of articles and notices in the press, was believed
to report on her authentic personality. All of this had far-reaching consequences for
the actress. It helps to explain, for instance, the public outrage Bergman caused at the
end of the decade by starting an adulterous aair with Italian director Roberto Ros-
sellini. The public simply could not accept that the saintly Ingrid was capable of such
a transgression of social norms.62
Though heavily abbreviated, I hope that my account – consisting of a parallel
production history of Bergman’s Hollywood debut and her emerging star identity –
59 NUGENT, F. S. The Screen: Four Films in Review, New York Times, 6 October 1939, p. 31.
60 See, for example, HISCHAK, T. S. 1939: Hollywood’s Greatest Year. Lanham, MS : Rowman & Lileeld,
2017.
61 In a personal leer to Ingrid Bergman, the producer wrote that “the principal purpose of the picture
was to introduce you to American and English audiences.” See a leer from David O. Selznick, 16 October
1939, Intermezzo Comment, b. 174, f. 13, Selznick Collection.
62 For more on her aair with Rossellini and its public reception, see MCLEAN, A. L. The Cinderella
Princess and the Instrument of Evil: Revisiting Two Postwar Hollywood Star Scandals. In MCLEAN, A. L. –
COOK, D. A. (eds.). Headline Hollywood: A Century of Film Scandal. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University
Press, 2001, pp. 163 – 189.
319
FROM STARS TO STARMAKERS. SPOTLIGHTING THE PRODUCERS...
proves that it was not luck, coincidence or her resistance to established Hollywood
practices that turned her into a top leading woman in the industry. Instead, it was the
result of a calculated and expertly executed campaign overseen by Selznick and his
collaborators at the studio. Even though the result may have been unique – the accent
on Bergman’s naturalness and authenticity in many ways contrasted with the accept-
ed norms of what a female star in Hollywood should be like – the process was prey
much standard as it relied on a combination of manufacture and concealment. It is
yet another paradox that Selznick, the chief orchestrator of Bergman’s Hollywood
success, was also the creator of A Star Is Born, a mythmaking, Cinderella-inspired
narrative that tried to convince the public that the only thing that really maers when
it comes to “making it in Hollywood” is geing a lucky break. His prolic career as
a producer of stars aests to the exact opposite.
In The Life of the Author, published in 2014, Sarah Kozlo called for the return of
intentionality into our discussion of authorship in cinema.63 My purpose here was to
propose introducing intentionality, along with the related concepts of agency and
collaboration, into the study of stars. Treating the production of lm stars as a com-
plex and collaborative process and redirecting our focus from stars per se to starmak-
ers can bring more nuance to our understanding of the origin and meaning of these
highly visible, seemingly autonomous personalities as well as the lm industry as
a whole.
Translated by the author
This study was funded by a grant of The Czech Science Foundation (GA ČR), reg. No.
17-06451S, ‘Starmaker: David O. Selznick and the Hollywood Star System, 1935–1957’.
LITERATURE
BALIO, Tino. Grand Design: Hollywood as a Modern Business Enterprise, 1930–1939. Berkeley, Los
Angeles and London : University of California Press, 1995. 483 p. ISBN 978-0520203341.
BASINGER, Jeanine. The Star Machine. New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 2007. 586 p. ISBN 978-
1400041305.
BEHLMER, Rudy (ed.). Memo from David O. Selznick. New York : The Viking Press, 1972. 549 p.
ISBN 978-0670467662.
BORDWELL, David. Deep-focus Cinematography. In BORDWELL, David – STAIGER, Janet
– THOMPSON, Kristin. The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to
1960. New York : Columbia University Press, 1985, pp. 341 – 352. ISBN 978-0231060554.
CARMAN, Emily – DRAKE, Philip. Doing the Deal: Talent Contracts in Hollywood. In
MCDONALD, Paul – CARMAN, Emily – HOYT, Eric – DRAKE, Philip (eds.). Hollywood and
the Law. London : Palgrave, British Film Institute, 2015, pp. 209 – 234. ISBN 978-1844574773.
CARMAN, Emily. Going Independent in 1930s Hollywood: Freelance Star and Independent
Producer Collaborations at United Artists. In KRÄMER, Peter – NEEDHAM, Gary –
TZIOUMAIS, Yannis – BALIO, Tino (eds.). United Artists. London and New York : Routledge,
2020, pp. 57 – 74. ISBN 978-0367179007.
63 KOZLOFF, S. The Life of the Author. Montreal : caboose, 2014.
320 MILAN HAIN
CARMAN, Emily. Independent Stardom: Freelance Women in the Hollywood Studio System. Austin :
University of Texas Press, 2016. 236 p. ISBN 978-1477307816.
CHAPMAN, James – GLANCY, Mark – HARPER, Sue (eds.). The New Film History: Sources,
Methods, Approaches. Basingstoke and New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 256 p. ISBN
978-0230594487.
Czech and Slovak Journal of Humanities, 2019, Vol. 9, Issue 1. ISSN 1805-3742.
David O. Selznick: An Inventory of His Collection at the Harry Ransom Center. Harry Ransom
Center [online]. [cit. 18 May 2021]. Available at: hps://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/fasearch/n-
dingAid.cfm?eadid=00671.
DAVIS, Ronald L. The Glamour Factory: Inside Hollywood’s Big Studio System. Dallas : Southern
Methodist University Press, 1993. 444 p. ISBN 978-0870743573.
DYER, Richard. Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society. New York : St. Martin’s Press, 1986.
208 p. ISBN 978-0312366506.
DYER, Richard. Stars. London : British Film Institute, 1979. 204 p. ISBN 978-0851700854.
DYER, Richard. Stars, Second Revised Edition. London : British Film Institute, 1998. 217 p. ISBN
978-0851706436.
Film Stars. Bloomsbury.com [online]. [cit. 17 May 2021]. Available at: hps://www.bloomsbury.
com/uk/series/lm-stars/.
FINLER, Joel Waldo. The Hollywood Story. London and New York : Wallower Press, 2003.
419 p. ISBN 978-1903364666.
FOWLES, Jib. Starstruck: Celebrity Performers and the American Public. Washington and London :
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992. 284 p. ISBN 978-1560981237.
GAINES, Jane M. Contested Culture: The Image, the Voice and the Law. Chapel Hill and London :
University of North Carolina Press, 1991. 340 p. ISBN 978-0807843260.
HAIN, Milan. V tradici kvality a prestiže: David O. Selznick a výroba hvězd v Hollywoodu 40. a 50. let.
Praha : Casablanca, 2021 (forthcoming).
HISCHAK, Thomas S. 1939: Hollywood’s Greatest Year. Lanham, MS : Rowman & Lileeld,
2017. 430 p. ISBN 978-1442278042.
KEMPER, Tom. Hidden Talent: The Emergence of Hollywood Agents. Berkeley, Los Angeles and
London : University of California Press, 2010. 312 p. ISBN 978-0520257078.
KING, Barry. Embodying the Elastic Self: The Parametrics of Contemporary Stardom. In AUS-
TIN, Thomas – BAKER, Martin (eds.). Contemporary Hollywood Stardom. London : Arnold,
2003, pp. 45 – 61. ISBN 978-0340809365.
KLAPRAT, Cathy. The Star as Market Strategy: Bee Davis in Another Light. In BALIO,
Tino (ed.). The American Film Industry. Madison, WI : University of Wisconsin Press, 1985,
pp. 351 – 376. ISBN 978-0299098742.
KOZLOFF, Sarah. The Life of the Author. Montreal : caboose, 2014. 65 p. ISBN 978-1927852309.
LUNDE, Arne. Nordic Exposures: Scandinavian Identities in Classical Hollywood Cinema. Seale :
University of Washington Press, 2010. 224 p. ISBN 978-0295990453.
MCDONALD, Paul. Hollywood Stardom. Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. 352 p. ISBN 978-
1405179836.
MCDONALD, Paul. Reconceptualising Stardom (Supplementary Chapter). In DYER, Richard.
Stars, Second Revised Edition. London : British Film Institute, 1998, pp. 175 – 211. ISBN
978-0851706436.
MCDONALD, Paul. The Star System: Hollywood’s Production of Popular Identities. London : Wall-
ower Press, 2000. 144 p. ISBN 978-1903364024.
MCLEAN, Adrienne L. The Cinderella Princess and the Instrument of Evil: Revisiting Two
Postwar Hollywood Star Scandals. In MCLEAN, Adrienne L. – COOK, David A. (eds.).
Headline Hollywood: A Century of Film Scandal. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University
Press, 2001, pp. 163 – 189. ISBN 978-0813528861.
321
FROM STARS TO STARMAKERS. SPOTLIGHTING THE PRODUCERS...
MORDDEN, Ethan. Movie Star: A Look at the Women Who Made Hollywood. New York : St. Mar-
tin’s Press, 1983. 296 p. ISBN 978-0312550493.
SALT, Barry. Film Style & Technology: History & Analysis. London : Starword, 1992. 351 p. ISBN
978-0950906621.
SCHATZ, Thomas. “A Triumph of Bitchery”: Warner Bros., Bee Davis, and Jezebel. In STAI-
GER, Janet (ed.). The Studio System. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press, 1995, pp.
74 – 92. ISBN 978-0813521305.
SENNETT, Robert S. Hollywood Hoopla: Creating Stars and Selling Movies in the Golden Age of Hol-
lywood. New York : Billboard Books, 1998. 191 p. ISBN 978-0823083312.
SHINGLER, Martin. Star Studies: A Critical Guide. London : British Film Institute, 2012. 240 p.
ISBN 978-1844574902.
SMIT, David. Marketing Ingrid Bergman. In Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 2005, Vol. 22,
Issue 3, pp. 237 – 250. ISSN 1050-9208.
SPICER, Andrew – MCKENNA, Anthony Thomas – MEIR, Christopher. (eds.). Beyond the Bot-
tom Line: The Producer in Film and Television Studies. London and New York : Bloomsbury
Academic, 2014. 289 p. ISBN 978-1441172365.
Star Decades Complete 10 Volume Set. In Rutgers University Press [online]. [cit. 17 May 2021].
Available at: hps://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/star-decades-complete-10-volume-
-set/9780813554433.
THORP, Margaret Farrand. America at the Movies. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1939.
ISBN 978-0405016394.
WOOD, Robin. Star and Auteur: Hitchcock’s Films with Bergman. In WOOD, Robin. Hitch-
cock’s Films Revisited. New York : Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 303 – 335. ISBN
978-0231126953.
Milan Hain
Katedra divadelních a lmových studií
Filozocká fakulta Univerzity Palackého
Univerzitní 3
Olomouc 771 80
Czech Republic
e-mail: milan.hain@upol.cz