Search

Background: Soccer is the most commonly played team sport in the world and a high-risk sport for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and subsequent ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose: To assess the rate of further ACL injury in patients who have undergone ACLR with hamstring tendon autograft after soccer injuries in Australia and to determine factors associated with repeat ACL injury and return to soccer. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: From a prospectively collected database, a series of 1000 consecutive ACLRs using hamstring autografts performed in soccer players were identified. Patients were surveyed at a minimum 5 years after reconstruction, including details of further ACL injuries to either knee, return to soccer or other sports, and psychological readiness per the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale. Results: Of the 862 participants reviewed, ACL graft rupture occurred in 85 (10%) and contralateral ACL rupture in 68 (8%) within 5 years after the reconstruction. The 5-year ACL graft survivorship was 94% for females and 88% for males. The survivorship of the contralateral ACL was 92% for males and 90% for females. When compared with those aged >25 years, the odds of ACL graft rupture was increased by 4 to 5 times in those aged 19 to 25 years and 3 to 7 times in those ≤18 years. Further ACL injury to the graft or contralateral knee occurred in 44% of males aged ≤18 years. Risk factors for further ACL injury were younger age at time of surgery, male sex, and return to soccer. Graft diameter did not influence ACL graft rupture rates, and 70% of patients returned to soccer after ACLR. The mean ACL-RSI score was 59, and patients who reported more fear of reinjury on this scale were less likely to have returned to soccer. Conclusion: The prevalence of ACL graft rupture (10%) and contralateral ACL rupture (8%) was near equivalent over 5 years in this large cohort of mostly recreational Australian soccer players. ACLR with hamstring autograft is a reliable procedure, allowing 70% of patients to return to soccer in this high-risk population. Risk factors for further ACL injury are progressively younger age at time of surgery, male sex, and return to soccer. Graft diameter was not a factor in ACL graft rupture, indicating that other factors, particularly age, are of primary importance.

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link. First coined in the UK in the early 1990s as a new label for an ostensibly new, post-1979 kind and cycle of period cinema, the ‘heritage film’ is now firmly established as a widely used term and category in academic film studies. Although the heritage film’s defining features, ideological character and ontological coherence would remain debated, its status as a ‘new’ category hinges, self-evidently, on the presumption that the films of post- 1979 culturally English heritage cinema marked a new departure and were clearly distinct from their pre-Thatcher-era precursors. Yet, paradoxically, the British period/costume films of the preceding decade, the 1970s, have attracted almost no scholarly attention, and none which connects them with the post- 1979 British heritage film, nor the 1980s cultural and industry conditions said to have fostered these productions. This article pursues these questions through the prism of Britain’s largest film production and distribution entity throughout 1970–86, EMI, and EMI’s place as a significant and sustained, but little-acknowledged, force in British period film production throughout that time. In so doing, the article establishes the case for studying ‘pre-heritage’ period cinema. EMI’s period film output included early proto-heritage films but also ventured notably wider. This field of production is examined within the broader terrain of 1970s British and American period cinema and within wider 1970s UK cinema box-office patterns and cultural trends, attending to commercial logics as well as to genre and the films’ positioning in relation to the later heritage film debates.

During their ongoing lives, both E. M. Forster’s gay bildungsroman/romance ‘Maurice’ (written 1913–14, repeatedly revised 1914–1959, posthumously published 1971) and Merchant Ivory Productions’ eponymous 1987 film adaptation have suffered parallel forms of critical dismissal and misrecognition. Both novel and film have been received in terms that dismiss them as works worthy of analysis and deny their cultural, political and affective significance: whether as the first gay love story to deliver an ‘imperative’ happy ending, or as the radical Utopian, visionary queer text Forster’s – open, un‐‘finished’ – ending encodes. Where 1970s critics marginalised Forster’s ‘Maurice’ by dismissing it as an ‘inferior’ work or ‘fairytale’, the dominant critical response to James Ivory’s ‘Maurice’ in the UK would stubbornly pigeonhole and dismiss it as merely a ‘heritage film’ – a stance epitomised in Mark Finch and Richard Kwietniowski’s perverse insistence that Ivory’s ‘Maurice’ is ‘fourthly, and only fourthly, about le vice anglais’ (1988:72). In the early twenty-first century, however, such responses are challenged by the enduring and profound impact of both novel and film on audiences/readers, whose intense responses to ‘Maurice’ are vividly evident in post‐2000 Web 2.0 participatory culture (Monk, 2011b). This chapter instigates and nests within a larger project of reappraising ‘Maurice’’s evolution and adaptation(s) across three phases of its century-long (trans)textual history, including its still-unfolding twenty-first century adaptations and its popular reception and uses in its ongoing public life. First, the complex, palimpsestic history of ‘Maurice’ ‘the’ novel between 1913-14 and 1971: the product of 57 years of private circulation, and intermittent but protracted textual revisions, during which divergent manuscripts were read by multiple ‘peer reviewers’. Second, the 1987 film adaptation, which was the product of a comparably complicated, contested genesis and significant structural reworking (made publicly part-visible for the first time in the 2004 release of the Merchant Ivory Collection DVD, with its 30‐plus minutes of unused or deleted scenes, and in the subsequent Blu-ray/DVD releases of the film’s 30th-anniversary digital restoration since 2017: see Monk, 2017 and 2019). The third phase comprises the responses of ‘Maurice’’s twenty-first-century readers/audiences and fans, which take a variety of forms – some merely made newly visible by twenty-first-century participatory digital and internet culture; others directly enabled, stimulated, or shaped by it – and also the further adaptations, re-adaptations and paratexts of Maurice (Forster’s, Ivory’s, or blurring the two) which have emerged or been made during the same period. These include a great variety of post‐2000 (re‐)adaptations and sequels written by fans themselves, whether published online or in print (within a wider body of ‘Maurice’ fanworks such a pop videos and crossover fictions: see Monk, 2011b). Since 2004, more than 160 fan-authored ‘Maurice’ fictions (including sequels, and crossovers which mix characters and/or story elements from more than one text/fandom) have been published online in English (as well as more than 30 in Russian and some in other languages). These works are of interest not merely for the insights they offer into reader/fan understandings of and investments in ‘Maurice’, but for the work done by fans in extending Forster’s sexual politics and Utopian vision – as well as the Maurice Hall/Alec Scudder cross-class pairing – into ‘the for ever and ever that fiction allows’ (Forster, 1960/1972, p.218), and in their narrative and representational solutions to perceived difficulties or limitations within the novel and/or film.

Despite the transnational character of the 21st-century film and entertainment industries, and the transformation of modes of consumption by the interlinked impacts of globalisation, digitisation, media convergence, social media and participatory culture, academic discourse around ‘heritage cinema’ has nonetheless persisted in framing it (however anachronistically) as a national ‘project’. The Screening European Heritage project, similarly, has pursued research questions that assert the key importance of heritage films within national and European film culture(s), and in supporting domestic film industries and the wider heritage and tourism sector at a national-cultural and nation-state level. As Andrew Higson correctly observes, however, ‘a great deal of what passes as (national) heritage cinema is actually the product of transnational, even global, markets’ (cited by Cooke and Stone, ‘Introduction’ to the current volume, 2016, xxxi). These ‘transnational circumstances’ are thrown into still sharper relief if we focus on the heritage film from the plural, unpredictable and surprising perspectives of transnational audiences and fans – from Europe and beyond. This chapter builds upon my earlier empirical engagements with real UK-based audiences of heritage cinema, and with the place of these films in internet-based fan cultures, to explore 21st-century transnational and transcultural fan discourses, understandings, and creative/participatory practices around Anglophone, ‘culturally British’ heritage films and their actors. Intriguingly and usefully, these fan engagements focus on, or intersect with, the same iconic ‘culturally English’ period-film texts of the 1980s that were cited and denounced in the founding early-1990s British critiques of the ‘heritage film’. Attention to 21st-century internet culture, however, reveals that these same films are consumed, appreciated, understood and (at times) (re-)appropriated by audiences and fans within markedly different generic, media, fannish and transtextual contexts that depart sharply from notions of ‘heritage cinema’ or narrowly national interpretative frameworks, and may even render them redundant. 21st-century global fan perspectives and practices around these films are transnational and even deterritorialised; but also trans-temporal and trans-generational; while focusing on films and actors which, and who, always were more transnational and ‘European’ than the 1990s debates which cast them as exemplars of ‘conservative English heritage’ were willing to concede. The culture of fandom itself shifts the consumption and interpretation of ‘English’ ‘heritage’ films further away from the ‘national’, since committed fans perceive fandom itself as (a, self-evidently, transnational and deterritorialised) ‘community’ in which pseudonymised interactions (which may strongly reveal or conceal nationality, region or other salient facets of identity) are the norm. And, with regards to the presumed relationship between heritage films and heritage tourism, some fan perspectives reveal a passionate interest in sites which remain uncommodified or even un-visitable in relation to the beloved film.