Search Results for: Voss

No comments

Completing a PhD by Published Works

  By ,

Bethan Jones, University of York

4 March 2022

In June 2021 I sat my viva. Not unusual for a PhD student, I hear you say. You’re right. But my PhD was done via published works and in the research I did to prepare for the viva I didn’t find much about this route.

A PhD by published works (https://www.postgrad.com/advice/phd/phd_by_publication/) isn’t a particularly common route in the UK, though the availability does seem to be growing. As the name suggests, it’s an option which allows you to submit a thesis comprising of a series of publications on a common theme (books, book chapters or journal articles) which when put together fulfil the requirements of a PhD – original work making a significant contribution to the field and demonstrating a rigorous approach.

I started my PhD journey via the standard thesis routes but for a variety of reasons ended up withdrawing and subsequently applying for a PhD by Published Works at Cardiff University  (https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/research/types-of-degree/phd). Because this isn’t generally offered to students beginning a PhD there were some specific requirements. These will vary from institution to institution but at Cardiff you have to have:

  • graduated from Cardiff University six or more years ago, or
  • been a member of staff for six years, or
  • been the holder of an honorary title from Cardiff University for six years

I received my MA from Cardiff in 2010 and was applying for the PhD by Published Works in 2019 so that checked the first box. I’d also published extensively on anti-fandom and had enough to demonstrate a coherent research direction. My submission was reviewed by an internal panel who approved my application for a February 2020 start. All I needed to do was produce a 5,000 – 10,000 word critical commentary evaluating the field (fan studies in my case) and indicating the original contribution to learning I’d made and submit within 12 months.

Then Covid happened.

Did I mention I was working full time in government communications? Cardiff granted extensions to all PhD students which meant that despite the pandemic I was able to submit in April 2021 and passed the viva in June. I was the first person who’d done a PhD by Published Work in Cardiff for some time, and while I was writing the critical commentary and preparing for the viva I found very few resources for completing this route (Agata Frymus’ IAMHIST blog – http://iamhist.net/2018/06/prepare-viva-8-tips/ – on viva preparation was really useful though!). So here’s what I did and how I did in, in the hopes it might help others undertaking this route.

Writing the Critical Commentary

The critical commentary that I had to produce needed to evaluate the field and indicate the original contribution to learning I’d made. What I did first was arrange a meeting with my supervisors to talk about what I felt the key themes were and how I was thinking of approaching the commentary, and then discussing what they thought the key themes were and how they suggested approaching it. The key things to keep in the back of my mind throughout the writing were originality, significance and rigour. I also had to not be too modest (this is underlined and followed by an exclamation mark in my notes).

We talked about pulling out themes and talking across them, as well as making nods to omission and things I didn’t have the time to do. I had thought about writing the commentary chronologically, but given the often arduous process of academic publishing (one of the chapters I wrote in 2013 was published in 2019) that didn’t really make sense. So I read through each of my articles, noted where there was overlap between the things I was discussing and ended up with four categories (textual anti-fandom and beyond; power structures and hierarchies; intra- and extra- fandom relationships; and ambivalence and unticipation for those who are interested). Each category discussed two of the chapters, and I also included a methodology section which discussed a journal paper I wrote about the ethics of researching anti-fans. My commentary ended up looking like this: introduction; methodology; discussion of submitted papers; absences and future work; conclusion; bibliography.

Introduction

I wrote a paragraph introducing myself and my entry into fan studies as well as the things that led me to researching anti-fandom. From there I went straight into a mini lit review of the scholarship on anti-fandom, the different waves of fan studies as defined by Gray, Sandvoss and Lee Harrington (2007) and where my work intersects and builds upon this. I outlined three key areas which my work has focused on and pointed out where I had expanded previous work, including references to articles and chapters that I’d written as well as work by other scholars. I briefly outlined the later sections of the commentary, again pointing out where my key contributions were.

Methodology

Fan studies borrows a lot of theoretical and methodological approaches from other disciplines and the ethics of research fans has long been a debate in the field. I felt it was important to engage with this not only to show the approaches I’d used across my work and my understanding of different methodologies, but to highlight the contribution I’d made in writing the first article of the ethics of researching anti-fans. A recent special issue of Transformative Works and Cultures (https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/issue/view/59) discussed methodologies so I was able to cite that, as well as older work to demonstrate my depth of knowledge. I also brought these back to other papers I’d written, pointing out the methods I’d used in papers that I would be discussing in later sections. This section also allowed me to demonstrate rigour in terms of number of survey participants, how I approached public tweets, etc.

Paper discussions

Although the paper discussions were divided into four sections each followed a similar pattern. I first gave a brief overview of a key text that had influenced my thinking (e.g. Gray’s 2003 article on anti-fandom), explained why that was important or how I was using it, and then talked about how I expanded on that text in the articles discussed. I highlighted where my original contribution was (there was a LOT of this throughout the commentary) and included pertinent quotes from my papers. I ended each subsection with a short summary of where the papers expanded current thinking and signposted to the next one.

I referred to existing literature throughout this section to demonstrate my understanding of work in the field and to situate my scholarship amongst it. It felt like a lot of blowing my own trumpet, and the consistent feedback from my supervisors was to talk more about my original contribution, to show what I’d done was significant. That was probably one of the hardest things to do but it made me think critically about the work and ultimately helped with the viva.

Absences and future work

I was keen to point of where there were weaknesses in my research and what I was thinking about doing next. 10,000 words isn’t a huge amount to play with, but with current discussions in the field about race and racism I felt it was important for me to address that lack in my work. I also wanted to point out where fan studies as a field was growing and how I was engaging with that, so I talked about a paper I had recently presented and a book chapter I’m writing that engage with the current climate. You’ve always got to show the significance of your work!

Conclusion

The conclusion was essentially a recap of what I’d been saying throughout the commentary: my work has developed as the field has developed and I’ve been able to influence that through the publications I discussed. I also touched on work I’d done elsewhere that I hadn’t included in the commentary, and lectures I’ve been asked to give. This was really the final place where I could underscore how my work has been significant and where my contribution to the field is original.

Preparing for, and Undertaking, the Viva

I submitted the PhD in April and had a few weeks off before thinking about the viva. That time was important not only to switch my brain off but because I’d become sick of reading and rereading my work! When I got the date for the viva I turned to Google to see how others had done their viva preparation. There wasn’t much on the PhD by published works route, so I turned to Reddit and was told it would be very similar to a regular viva except I’ve already got the benefit of having the work peer reviewed and published. The focus would be on showing I did the work and understand it. That was pretty reassuring so I returned to Google, read various blogs and articles about viva questions and jotted down some of the ones I thought I’d struggle with. This blog was particularly helpful with those: http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ResearchEssentials/?p=156. After that I began reading through the publications I was including and making notes as to their key arguments and findings; the methodology and scholarship used; and their strengths and weaknesses (thanks to Agata’s blog piece).

I’d fairly recently read the work for the commentary so each article was pretty clear in my mind. This time though I read the articles on my laptop and made notes and highlighted sections I thought would be useful for answering questions. At the same time had a notebook next to me where I noted really top-line details using the headings Agata outlined in her blog. Once I’d done that I wrote  down the theories used across all articles, the originality of the work as a whole, and its strengths and weaknesses.

That done, I arranged a mock viva with one of my supervisors. As much as I hate doing things like mock interviews it was really useful. My supervisor treated it as a real viva and covered questions from the methods I chose to use to what was significant about particular articles to what had gone wrong and what would I do differently. Some of the questions I could answer easily, others I had to really think about, but it gave me the chance to think through my work and articulate the things that were really important.

The weekend before the viva I read over my notes, then went to visit friends for a birthday party. I had thought about staying home and revising some more, but a lot of the blogs I’d read suggested that would only stress me out and wouldn’t do much good (remember, at this stage you know your work inside out). So I went and had a lovely time, and I’m really glad I did. The day before the viva I put my back out so spent most of that day on painkillers and not doing much reading either. 0/10, would not recommend.

The day of the viva I read through my notes a bit and, I think, played games on my phone. The viva was via Zoom so I made myself a cup of tea and put two bottles of water and some sweets by my computer. I had my submission up on one computer with the other ready to log into the meeting, and I had the notebook I’d been using to prepare with me as well. I took some painkillers because I still couldn’t move without being in pain and also hoped that my cat wouldn’t come in and start meowing at me (I love him, but the number of meetings he interrupts…)

Yes, that is the mug I used…

I logged in at half three, met my examiners and the chair, then logged out until their pre-brief was done and they were ready for me. I’m not going to lie, I was as nervous as I’ve ever been! At this point everyone had been telling me I had nothing to worry about, but with a PhD by Published Works you don’t have the option of different types of corrections – the work is already published so you’re looking at a pass or fail. The first question I got asked – what’s significant about your research – totally threw me even though I’d been preparing for it and it’s one of the most common opening questions. I bumbled through somehow and as the viva went on it did become easier. I got asked about the duty of care we have to research participants (even if we completely disagree with their actions or the views they’re expressing) as well as ourselves as researchers, and the difficulty of undertaking surveys rather than face to face interviews. I got asked to expand upon something I’d mentioned in the commentary but hadn’t talked in detail about; I got a really interesting question after talking about Fifty Shades of Grey about whether you can be an anti-fan of domestic violence and if not, why not. By the time we’d been going for an hour I was really enjoying it. The chair asked if we wanted a break, my examiners said they were done and I got asked to leave while they deliberated. Deliberations took about five minutes but it felt much longer. I got told I’d passed, had a bit of a joke about how normally they’d ask what my publishing plans were but that kind of didn’t apply in this case, and one of my examiners suggested expanding upon one of the things I’d talked about and submitting it to a journal. Then it was over. I rang my family, texted my friends and celebrated with cake.

Dr Bethan Jones is a Research Associate in the Department of Theatre, Film, Television and Interactive Media at the University of York. Her work primarily focuses on gender, anti-fandom, and popular culture and she has been published in Sexualities, Intensities, and Transformative Works and Cultures, among others. She is coeditor of Crowdfunding the Future: Media Industries, Ethics and Digital Society published by Peter Lang and is a founding board member of the Fan Studies Network.

Disclaimer: The IAMHIST Blog is a platform that offers individual scholars the opportunity to present their work and thoughts. They alone are responsible for the content, which does not represent the view of the IAMHIST council or other IAMHIST members.

No comments

‘Stardom and the Archive’ symposium, University of Exeter, 8-9 February 2020: Report

  By

Georgia Brown, Queen Mary, University of London

28 February 2020

[print-me]

The ‘Stardom and the Archive’ symposium, hosted by Lisa Stead and Becky Rae at the University of Exeter, opened with an engaging keynote from Maryanne Dever, who had travelled all the way from Sydney’s University of Technology to challenge our perceptions of what is an archive. By raising questions about the material traces of stardom, the cultural and political economies of archiving, hierarchies of archival significance and value, and the treatment of rubbish or trash in the context of archival collecting and processing, Maryanne started us all thinking about what ends up in an archive and how it gets there. In particular, those items which generate significant emotion in a researcher, not because they have academic significance, but because of their connection to the subject.

Maryanne Dever, Keynote: ‘On Britney Spears’ Shopping List’ (courtesy of Lisa Stead)

This enthusiasm was re-invigorated during the second keynote given by Lucy Bolton (Queen Mary, University of London), who not only described her experiences working with the archives of Vivien Leigh, Marilyn Monroe and Iris Murdoch but also what items are in her own Bolton Archive. This created an atmosphere, maintained over the course of the whole conference, where everyone felt they could let their ‘Fan Flags Fly’ and show, not just their knowledge about their chosen star or archive, but also their sheer joy and excitement about their subject. Most conversations during the subsequent breaks were dominated by the question “what is the one item would you like to have in your private collection/archive?”

Lucy Bolton, Keynote: ‘A Theorist Loose in the Archives of Vivien Leigh, Marilyn Monroe and Iris Murdoch’ (courtesy of Lisa Stead)

The panels themselves were equally inspiring, showcasing a variety of exciting projects and alternative approaches to both star studies and archival research. It was just such a shame that they were so well curated and programmed that it made choosing which panel to attend extremely difficult.

In the ‘Reframing and Retelling via the Archive’ panel, Anthea Taylor (University of Sydney), Jennifer Voss (De Montfort University) and, Sarka Gmiterkova (Masaryk University) discussed how information held in archives can re-visit and challenge the accepted knowledge and opinions. At the same time, Linn Lönroth (Stockholm University), Sarah Rahman Niazi (University of Westminster), Robert Shail (Leeds Beckett University) and Cathy Lomax (Queen Mary, University of London) each examined the different ways that press and publicity were used to create, or to maintain, the star image in the ‘Archiving Press and Publicity’ panel. Using a variety of archival sources, Linn examined how Preston Sturges harnessed the collective skills of his character actors to create the phenomenon that was “The Preston Sturges stock company”. Sarah introduced us to the metaphors of romantic Urdu poetry, which were used to describe the star bodies of 1930s and 40s India in two rare Urdu texts, Filmi Priyan (Film Fairies, 1936) and Filmi Titliyan (Film Butterflies, 1945). It was especially evocative as these texts contained little to no pictures of the stars. From no imagery of star bodies to an abundance, Robert bought along examples of 1960s press books, held at the BFI archives. Using Albert Finney as a case study, he examined how Finney’s image was used and adapted through the 1960s – from angry young man in Saturday Night, Sunday Morning (1960) through the fun-loving Tom Jones (1963), to the man trying to return to his roots in Charlie Bubbles (1968). The last speaker of the panel, Cathy used the financial records, held at the Billy Rose Theatre Division of the New York Public Library to examine the later-life advertising career of Joan Crawford. Focusing on the 1973 advertisement for Eve of Roma Cosmetics, Cathy demonstrated how Crawford established a degree of control over her image which had been denied to her in her early career under a studio contract.

 
‘Archiving Press and Publicity’ panel: Linn Lönroth, Sarah Rahman Niazi, press book of Far From the Madding Crowd (1967) from Robert Shail’s paper, and Cathy Lomax (courtesy of Llewella Chapman).
 

With a focus on British stars, Andrew Spicer (UWE, Bristol), Llewella Chapman (University of East Anglia) and, James Chapman (University of Leicester) demonstrated how different archives can hold different types of information which can be used, in particular accessing financial records to examine the costs of stardom in the ‘(British) Stars in the Archives’ panel. While in the ‘Making Visible’ panel, Lies Lanckman (University of Hertfordshire), Ciara McKay (The University of Edinburgh) and Lisa Stead (University of Exeter) examined previously unexplored elements of a star’s life and/or star image were examined. After briefly describing the circuitous series of events which led her to learn Yiddish, Lies introduced us to the discussions of Norma Shearer in the Yiddish-language American press. While the English-language press did showcase her marriage to Irving Thalberg, creating a star image based upon a happy wife and working mother, Lies had us thinking about the narratives which are neglected in mainstream medias, but which are there to be explored and examined in media of marginalised groups. This theme of re-examination and re-framing was sustained by Ciara and her analysis of Irene Dunne, using archival material from 1930 – 1935. Previously dismissed as “lady-like”, Dunne’s star image in fact encompasses modernity with the validation of working women and “companionate marriage” with her own bi-costal marriage and the suggestion that women “can have it all”. Following a last minute withdraw – and given the weather everyone was very surprised there were not more – Lisa stepped into the breach and took the opportunity to introduce us to the work she had been undertaking to interrogate Vivien Leigh’s connections with the South West of England. And there will be more about that subject in a little bit… For now, back to the conference.

‘Making Visible’ panel: Lies Lanckman and Ciara McKay (courtesy of Lisa Stead)
 

James Downs (University of Exeter), Melanie Williams (University of East Anglia) and Pamela Hutchinson showed how both too little, or too much can create issues for a researcher in the ‘Gaps, Challenges and New Archival Methodologies’ panel. After spending time at the Bill Douglas Cinema Museum in Exeter, James was inspired to research Anton Walbrook, no small task given this very mysterious man left behind no official archive and, indeed, very little paper trail at all. But James persevered and, after building his own archive, will be releasing his biography very soon. Melanie, on the other hand, had the opposite problem of so much information relating to Diana Dors. With a long and varied career – film star, chat show host/guest, memoirist, columnist, commentator, pin-up, recording artist, sitcom actress, variety/cabaret act, celebrity slimmer – as well as her personal life, it is more a question of having to be very focused. Pamela then took us on a tour of star graves and memorials opening our academic minds up to an archive beyond those made up of paper and photographs. Many in the audience were worried that this might have been a morbid and upsetting topic, whereas it was very thought provoking, with many of us considering a star’s posthumous image, few of us include that of their final material legacy, their memorials and final resting places. While in the other panel, ‘Image and Persona through the Archive’, Claire Smith and Wendy Russell (British Film Institute), Polly Rose (University of Bristol) and, Laura Milburn (University of Birmingham) presented on how a star’s image and persona can be examined through their archive.

‘Gaps, Challenges and New Archival Methodologies’ panel: James Downs, Melanie Williams and Pamela Hutchinson (courtesy of Lisa Stead)
 

The final two panels of the day focused on fandom in one room and Cary Grant on the other. Ellen Wright (De Montfort University) and Michael Williams (University of Southampton) both looked at fan magazines to explore the relationship between stars and their fans in the ‘Archives and Fandom’ panel. While Kathrina Glitre (UWE Bristol) discussed Cary Grant’s impact upon the production of Night and Day (1946) in the ‘Cary Grant and the Archive’ panel. With information from the daily production reports, written by the film’s production manager Eric Stacey, which are currently held at the Warner Bros. Archive at USC, Kathrina was able to pinpoint particular scenes where Grant had made a significant changes. By conducting a close analysis of this scene – the one where Cole Porter is trying to manipulate his new wife into giving up their honeymoon so he can go and work in New York – Kathrina was able to demonstrate how Grant’s attention to detail enhanced the performances in the scene. This was followed by Charlotte Crofts (UWE Bristol) who explained the curation of the Cary Comes Home Festival and his continuing impact upon the city of Bristol. She described how the festival uses locations around Bristol to stage a number of events, with previous ones being Bringing Up Baby (1938) being screened in the Natural History Museum and Notorious (1946) screened in a wine cellar along with wine tasting. Charlotte had everybody wishing they could attend both 2020 festivals, the one held in Bristol 20 – 22 November, and the one to be held in New York to mark the 100 year anniversary of Grant’s arrival in America.

‘Cary Grant and the Archive’ panel: Kathrina Glitre and Charlotte Crofts (courtesy of Lisa Stead and @ReframingVL)
 

The two panels held on the morning of Day 2 were ‘Regional Stars, Regional Archives’ with Yektanursin Duyan (Mardin Artuklu University), Claire Mortimer (University of East Anglia) and, Caroline Lankhorst (De Montfort University) who all presented on how a star is shaped by their national and regional identity and, at the same time, ‘Vivien Leigh and the Archive’ with Denise Mok (University of Toronto), Georgia Brown (Queen Mary, University of London) and, Vicky Haddock (Zenzie Tinker Conservation/RAMM) each explored different ways of examining the star image of Vivien Leigh. Visiting us all the way from Toronto, Denise explored the images held in the Edith Nadajewski Scrapbook Collection. A life-long film fan, Edith collected a vast collection of star images and curated her own archive of scrapbooks, each dedicated to a different star. Using the appointment diaries, held within the Vivien Leigh Archive at the V&A Museum, I provided insight into the day to day arrangements of a working actress, and demonstrated just how much effort Leigh expended on preparations for her performances and on her own image. The final paper of the panel was given by Vicky were she explored the impact that Leigh and the characters she performed, had on the dressmaking patterns of the 1930s and 1940s. These three papers demonstrated the labour that Leigh herself put into how she looked and just how much effort fans went to emulate her.

‘Vivien Leigh and the Archive’ panel: Denise Mok, Georgia Brown and Vicky Haddock (courtesy of Llewella Chapman)
 

Braving the weather, many conference attendees stayed in the afternoon for the Reframing Vivien Leigh exhibition, which showcased the research findings of a 20-month project lead by Lisa Stead (University of Exeter) and the project’s research assistant Becky Rae (University of Exeter), and funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The project was run in partnership with the Royal Albert Memorial Museum (RAMM), Topsham Museum and the Bill Douglas Cinema Museum. Lisa led a round table with Rachel Nichols (Topsham Museum), Shelley Tobin (RAMM), Phil Wickham (Bill Douglas Cinema Museum), Keith Lodwick (V&A Museum) and Kendra Bean (Vivien Leigh biographer) as they discussed Vivien Leigh and her connection to the South West. In particular, Shelley and Rachel spoke about the Vivien Leigh items held in their collections. These included dresses designed by Victor Stiebel and by Harald, which had been donated by Suzanne Farrington, Leigh’s daughter, after her mother’s death. She chose to send them to her aunt, Dorothy Holman who established the Topsham Museum and who had a curatorial relationship with Freda Wills at RAMM.

Curators roundtable and Q&A: Shelley Tobin, Rachel Nichols, Phil Wickham, Keith Lodwick and Kendra Bean (courtesy of Lisa Stead)

The highlight was the discussion of the nightdress from Gone With the Wind (1939), which Leigh was given as a gift from producer David O’Selznick. However, we were told that her husband was disappointed that she chose this item, as he would have preferred the Burgundy Ballgown. This lead to much speculation as to why she chose the nightdress, with the practical ones amongst us stating that, with a war on, she would have gotten more use out of a nightdress, not to mention it would be easier to transport back. Indeed, it was so easy to pack that it spent some of its existence stored in a plastic Sainsburys bag. But worry not, this dress is now being properly looked after in the museum archive, to the extent that they had brought a replica with them for display at the exhibition.

Replica of Vivien Leigh’s nightdress from Gone with the Wind (1939) (courtesy of Llewella Chapman)

The exhibition had some other wonderful items on display, including the painting which Leigh herself painted, and which was bought at the recent Sotheby’s auction. We were also able to explore the outputs of Lisa’s research project. These included, getting up close and personal with the 3D models of the clothes held by Topsham Museum and RAMM, travelling with Leigh using the digital map and listening to the 3 episode podcast. All of these outputs can be found on the Reframing Vivien Leigh website (http://reframingvivienleigh.exeter.ac.uk)

Reframing Vivien Leigh exhibition (courtesy of Lisa Stead)
 

It was an inspiring weekend, which generated many exciting conversations, and I would like to extend my thanks and congratulations to Lisa Stead and Becky Rae for organising both the conference and the exhibition. And I must not forget the conference dinner, where the allocated tables encouraged more conversations with new people. Future conferences will have a lot to live up to.

Georgia Brown is a PhD researcher in the department of Film Studies at Queen Mary, University of London. Her research studies the prosodic prominence and overall rhythms in each of Vivien Leigh’s onscreen performances, by analysing the suprasegmental characteristics of accented words and the associated changes in the fundamental frequency (F0). This study will develop an understanding of how Leigh’s voice was impacted by ageing and illness and how this has affected her star image. Georgia has presented her research at the University of Lincoln as part of the Extra Sonic Practice series, at the BAFTSS ‘Stardom and Performance’ Symposium and at the ‘Stardom and the Archive’ Symposium at University of Exeter. Her next paper will be at BAFTSS 2020 in St Andrews.

Disclaimer: The IAMHIST Blog is a platform that offers individual scholars the opportunity to present their work and thoughts. They alone are responsible for the content, which does not represent the view of the IAMHIST council or other IAMHIST members.

No comments

A Day at the Archives… Warner Bros. Archive

  By ,

Jennifer Voss, De Montfort University

17 April 2018

[print-me]

In the summer of 2017, I embarked on a 12-day archival research trip to the film libraries and studios in Los Angeles, along with a cohort of PhD students and supervisors from the Cinema and Television History (CATH) Research Centre and Drama Research Group at De Montfort University, Leicester. Having developed connections with various libraries and archives in Hollywood (such as the Margaret Herrick Library and Warner Bros. Archives) via email prior to the trip, we were able to discuss our requirements and request our materials well in advance. We were also fortunate enough to be able to arrange some additional activities to enhance our experiences within the archives, such as tours of the archives and vaults, as well as a meet and greet with a number of librarians and archivists working as part of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

With my PhD thesis addressing actor training processes and women’s experiences working as actresses within the film industry during the transition from silent to sound, I spent my time in LA divided between the Margaret Herrick Library, and the Warner Bros. Archives at the University of Southern California, School of Cinematic Arts. The Margaret Herrick Library reminded me somewhat of the British Library; in terms of the formalities, securities, and hushed reading rooms, as well as a sense of prestige and legacy. The Warner Bros. Archive, however, was a much more unfamiliar research environment, but one I was eager to immerse myself in.

Located in an industrial area of University Park, across the road from the Los Angeles DMV, the Warner Bros. Archive is housed in a large but unassuming, white painted building. There are no visible windows, just a small door at the front, with ‘3716 S. HOPE RESEARCH ANNEX UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’ printed above it. After being buzzed in via the intercom, my colleague and I were lead through to a set of big double doors with the words ‘USC WARNER BROS ARCHIVES’ stencilled above it (had it not been my colleague’s second day in the archive, I would not have been confident we were in the right place until seeing this sign!). We were then taken through the archive, beyond rows and rows of shelves stacked high with boxes, to a small study area tucked in the back corner of the archive. The Archive Curator, Brett, set me up at one of the 6 or so research desks, and presented me with my single box of requested items.

Prior to the trip, there were some issues accessing the Warner Bros. Archive index, and so there was not a centralised online catalogue or system to search and request. However, this was not a problem as I spoke to Brett via email, and he was quick to offer assistance. I sent him a list of actresses and films I was interested in, as well as the HR information I might find useful, and he sent me a list of potential items to look through and request.

Here are a few examples of some of my exciting finds at the Warner Bros. Archive:

  • Contract files for Dialogue Directors and Dramatic Coaches; detailing the films they were contracted for. Particular highlight: business card/pamphlet for Malvina Dunn, Dramatic Coach, revealing her connection with the Paris Conservatoire.
  • Legal papers and contracts for Colleen Moore from 1928-1928, showing additional clauses for her first three ‘talkies’.
  • Production file for Footlights and Fools (1929); Colleen Moore’s third sound film

On the third day of the trip, the whole group met up at the Warner Bros. Archive, where we were given a tour. The tour began with a brief overview of the history of the archive. Brett explained how the archive was donated by Warner Bros. to the University of Southern California in 1978, and that the archive holds a vast range of Warner Bros. film, television and music material dating between 1918 and 1968. Due to a number of reasons, including the condition of the items, as well as copyright restrictions, the items held in the archive have not been digitised, and are therefore only available to access by researchers on-site. Moving through to the shelved unit situated right next to the study area, we were told that in order to make accessing documents relating the most popular/most frequently requested films easier for both staff and researchers, the archive has ready made-up boxes of records/documents for certain film titles. Brett had set-out one of these boxes for us to look through, to see the sorts of material held in the archive; the film was The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) starring Humphrey Bogart. The file included correspondence from the research department file, script/story developments, legal files, set department stills, budget and other financial statements, press releases, wardrobe and make-up files, as well as more general inter-office memos and correspondence. After taking time as a group to move around and look through the documents, Brett took us on a tour of the building to see where the different files are pulled from, in order to make up the boxes for each individual researcher’s requests. It was a unique opportunity to be able explore the cataloguing and curating side of the archive, and we also got to see some incredibly exciting items, including an original animation drawing of Daffy Duck!

The extensive knowledge of the archive curator was invaluable throughout my time in the archive; he was keen to know what was useful and what wasn’t, and he was more than happy to dig out any additional material while I was working on my pre-ordered items. Similarly, the relaxed and informal atmosphere of the study space creates a really calm and comfortable working environment. The ‘thank you’ messages from students and academics alike which completely cover the partition wall is a testament to the great support offered at this fascinating archive.

This blog post has been adapted from my short blog series documenting my 12-day research trip to the film archives and studios in Los Angeles: https://vpp.midlands3cities.ac.uk/pages/viewrecentblogposts.action?key=P10513638dmuacuk

Jennifer Voss is a PhD candidate in Drama Studies and Film History at De Montfort University, and is funded by the AHRC in partnership with Midlands 3 Cities. Jennifer’s doctoral research, which uses performance theory to build upon a traditional film studies approach to cinema history, focuses on actresses’ performance of emotion during the transition from silent to sound cinema in Britain and America.

https://vpp.midlands3cities.ac.uk/display/P10513638dmuacuk/Welcome

Disclaimer: The IAMHIST Blog is a platform that offers individual scholars the opportunity to present their work and thoughts. They alone are responsible for the content, which does not represent the view of the IAMHIST council or other IAMHIST members.

  • Archives