Ms. Magazine and the twenty-five per cent
Alice's warmest feminist review ran in a magazine part-owned by the studio that made it — reception and commerce in one fact.
- themes
- atomic
- reception
- commerce
Reviewing Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974) in 1975, Karyn Kay and Gerald Peary
noted that the film's positive reception in Ms. Magazine deserved an asterisk: Warner
Brothers, the studio that made the film, held a 25 per cent ownership stake in the magazine
(A Companion to Martin Scorsese, smc 121).
They stop short of alleging anything, and so should we. What the fact does is expose the seam where two context forces meet. A review is a Values document — evidence of what an audience, in this case an explicitly feminist one, made of a film. But the venue carrying that review is a Commerce object, with owners. Reception does not happen in a clean room.
It is the best single teaching example on this wiki for the reception lens, because it needs no theory to land: ask a class whether the review is worth less, and the argument runs itself. The honest answer is that ownership is a reason to check, not a verdict — the same discipline this wiki applies to a release essay or to a gossip-driven history.
Pairs with Selling Psycho: the no-late-admission policy: there, commerce shaped the conditions of viewing; here, it shadows the conditions of reviewing.