I would like this book more if the authors had been more thorough. The theories about socio-political trends reflected in cinema are very valid but provided without citation. Although "further reading" suggestions are provided at the end of each chapter, no specific citations are made for any of the statements. As a book aimed towards students, the authors are providing a poor example.
I realize that the book is geared towards introductory level students, but it could have been a much different and frankly more interesting book if it had just gone further and been a little less sloppy. For example, one statement that immediately bothered me was one that was used as the basis throughout the book. "For the working purposes of this introduction, capitalism as an ideology can be defined as the belief that success and worth are measured by one's material wealth." (Introduction, page 9) Why? Who says? Isn't that actually materialism, not capitalism? Definition of materialism by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: "2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life." Sure, the author is talking about ideology and the tendency of capitalism to promote commodity fetishism. Why not just directly quote Das Kapital by Karl Marx? His model of dominant ideologies (see Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_ideology for a summary) are exactly what the authors use to explore their subject matter and yet they don't SAY that. In "further reading", one book suggested is "Marxism and Literature", so fine, the reader could theoretically gain the same knowledge there, but it's bad academic form to make sweeping statements without any kind of evidence. It also denies the student a richer learning experience and leads to the practice of "parroting" commonly held views without knowing the truth behind them.
And as far as cultural reform goes, it's doing anti-discrimination and equal rights causes a disservice because if they don't provide evidence and sound logic in a scholarly manner, people of opposing viewpoints can discredit their arguments as typical liberal speculation. Thus their very valid criticisms of Hollywood films hold less weight.
This book could have been a major work, had the authors developed it further and used a more academic approach. I guess it's fine as an introductory text, but even so it still should have used a bibliography.
