Compare and contrast the following movies: – Mr. Smith Goes to Washington – Citizen Kane – Casa Blanca Discuss the political con

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

The new edition of this infl uential work revises, updates, and expands the scope of the origi- nal and includes more sustained analyses of individual fi lms, from The Birth of a Nation to The Wolf of Wall Street. An interdisciplinary exploration of the relationship between Ameri- can politics and popular fi lm, Projecting Politics offers original approaches to determining the political contours of fi lms and to connecting cinematic language to political messaging. A new chapter covering 2000 to 2013 updates the decade-by-decade look at the Washington– Hollywood nexus, with special areas of focus including the post-9/11 increase in overtly political fi lms and the tension between the rise of political war fi lms like Green Zone and fi lms tightly constructed around the experience of U.S. troops like The Hurt Locker. The new edition also considers recent developments such as the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, the political dispute over Zero Dark Thirty, newer generation actor-activists, and the effects of shifting industrial fi nancing structures on political content. A new chapter addresses the resurgence of the disaster-apocalyptic fi lm, while updated chapters on nonfi ction fi lm, the politics of race, and gender in political fi lms round out this expansive, timely new work.

A recipient of a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship in the Humanities, Elizabeth Haas has pub- lished in numerous journals and teaches fi lm studies at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut.

The author of many books including Local Politics: Governing at the Grassroots, Terry Christensen is professor emeritus in the political science department at San Jose State Uni- versity in California.

Peter J. Haas, recipient of a Fulbright Foundation Senior Specialist grant, is education director for the Mineta Transportation Institute and teaches political science at San Jose State University.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

This page intentionally left blank

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

This edition published 2015 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

The right of Elizabeth Haas, Terry Christensen, and Peter J. Haas to be identifi ed as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe.

First edition published 2005 by M. E. Sharpe

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Christensen, Terry. Projecting politics : political messages in American fi lms / Elizabeth Haas, Peter J. Haas, and Terry Christensen.—Second edition p. cm. Revised edition of: Projecting politics: political messages in American fi lm / Terry Christensen and Peter J. Haas. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Motion pictures—Political aspects—United States. 2. Politics in motion pictures. 3. United States—Politics and government—20th century. 4. United States—Politics and government—21st century. I. Haas, Elizabeth, 1964– II. Haas, Peter J. III. Title. PN1995.9.P6C47 2014 791.43′658—dc23 2014025319

ISBN: 978-0-7656-3596-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-7656-3597-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-72079-1 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLCD

ow nl

oa de

d by

[ U

ni ve

rs it

y of

O re

go n]

a t

20 :5

2 12

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

Preface vii Acknowledgments xi

I. Studying Political Films

1. Setting the Scene: A Theory of Film and Politics 3 2. The Making of a Message: Film Production and

Techniques, and Political Messages 25 3. Causes and Special Effects: The Political Environment of Film 61

II. Political Films by Decade

4. Politics in the Silent Movies 95 5. The 1930s: Political Movies and the Great Depression 105 6. The 1940s: Hollywood Goes to War 121 7. The 1950s: Anti-Communism and Conformity 137 8. The 1960s: From Mainstream to Counterculture 153 9. The 1970s: Cynicism, Paranoia, War, and Anticapitalism 169 10. The 1980s: New Patriotism, Old Reds, and a Return to Vietnam in

the Age of Reagan 193 11. The 1990s: FX Politics 217 12. The Twenty-First Century: 9/11 and Beyond 237

III. Political Films by Topic

13. True Lies? The Rise of Political Documentaries 269 14. Film and the Politics of Race: The Minority Report 291 15. Women, Politics, and Film: All About Eve? 313 16. White House Down? Politics in Disaster 343

Contents

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

CONTENTS

vi

Appendix

Closing Credits: A Political Filmography 371

Index 393 About the Authors 409

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

Interest in the relationship between American politics and fi lm appears to be on the rise. Explicitly political fi lms from the biting documentary about the George W. Bush adminis- tration’s “war on terror” Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) to the historical White House drama The Butler (2013) are fi lling theaters and collecting awards—2012 was even dubbed the year of the political fi lm. Within that trend fi lms with expressly activist discourses also appear ascendant. The rightwing documentary America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014) urges viewers to “stop” the Obama White House, while the DVD release date of the eco- logically themed sci-fi fantasy Avatar (2009) was timed with Earth Day 2010 to support an international reforestation campaign. Yet a review of the academic literature on political fi lm as well as the content of the many books dedicated to the subject reveals disagreement, if not confusion, about what exactly constitutes a political fi lm and why.

All fi lm genres are historical in nature and derive from the repetition of certain fi lm ele- ments, including character types, plot patterns, setting, and iconography. These repeated elements establish a framework recognizable to and shaped by fi lmmakers and audiences alike. Yet political scientists and fi lm scholars seem to agree only on the complexity and diffi culty of assigning to political fi lms any single set of identifying features or genre con- ventions. Researchers into this area will instead encounter a bewildering array of critical and analytic approaches. This book aims to provide a coherent overview of the subject and intro- duces a methodology useful to any researcher of the topic for considering any fi lm’s political value. The second edition revises, expands, and updates the fi rst edition while maintaining its organization and offering sustained analysis of a greater number of fi lms.

We believe that the most important and overarching aspect of the study of politics and fi lm is the political messages that movies may transmit. We therefore believe that such messages have potentially tremendous political signifi cance that transcends basic critical analysis. However, a major obstacle to the task of analyzing fi lm from this perspective is the general lack of reliable data and research that demonstrate (1) that movies indeed send messages beyond general and readily identifi able ideological impressions, and (2) that these messages have verifi able and measurable effects on the political behavior of individu- als and institutions. Although we present research to support these assumptions, it is not within the scope of our intentions for this text to prove that they are wholly valid. Rather we stress the importance of recognizing the varying degrees of political messaging intrinsic to most popular fi lms.

Preface

vii

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

PREFACE

viii

Our interest here is exclusively with (more or less) American fi lms. Certainly foreign fi lms present an intriguing canon of politically interesting releases, but in addition to limit- ing our study to a manageable scope, we believe that American movies are the most likely both to be seen by readers and to infl uence American politics. Thus anyone with an interest in comparative studies will want to supplement this text with other materials. On a related note, we devote most of our attention to popular movies. Certainly other volumes could be devoted to fi lms that fewer people are likely to see, but we think that popular movies are the ones that are most likely to be politically salient—they are also the most accessible, both in terms of audience comprehension and ready availability.

Projecting Politics is divided into three parts. Part I provides a conceptual overview of the relationship between politics and fi lm. Chapter 1 explores the meaning of the term “politi- cal fi lm” in a systematic way, so as to assist those who study politics and fi lm. The goal is to identify a practical yet focused approach for thinking about and classifying all fi lms with respect to their political signifi cance. Chapter 2 explores how the various techniques involved in the production of movies help to create political messages. We examine the elements of fi lm production to reveal how cinematic language can be and has been used to shape political messages in various ways. Chapter 3 examines how the “real world” of politics, ideological institutions, and society affects the “reel world” of Hollywood and fi lm- making. While not meant to be an exhaustive examination, this chapter approaches that real- to-reel connection from a range of perspectives and fi nds that, historically, political forces have had a profound impact on the making of fi lms. We also argue that the worlds of fi lm and politics are increasingly intertwined. When fi lms like Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), 2016: Obama’s America (2012), and Zero Dark Thirty (2012) draw audiences and incite political debate, and a fi lm like The Invisible War (2012) leads to landmark legislation, and an aging Hollywood action hero from fi lms like Total Recall (1990) wins a recall election to become governor of California, these worlds appear even to collide.

In Part II , we provide a historical overview of American fi lms of political signifi cance. Each chapter covers the fi lms of a decade; new to this edition is the chapter covering the period from 2000 through 2014. We recognize that categorizing fi lms in this way is some- what arbitrary. Both historical trends and trends in fi lmmaking overlap decades—and we take this overlap into account. But at the same time, referring to decades provides a ready historical context for the movies we discuss and helps readers comprehend change and development in political fi lmmaking by providing a rough chronological order. Although we look at the tenor of a range of fi lms in each decade, we generally focus most intently on fi lms with overt political themes and content.

Our discussion of each decade of movies is not intended to be entirely systematic from a critical-analytic perspective. In some instances, we seek to explore the political messages of fi lms; in others, we examine the impact or potential impact a fi lm had. We also look at why some fi lms of political signifi cance are more popular with critics and the public than others, as we believe that the reasons fi lms are successful have implications for the relationship between fi lm and politics. But we do not mean to imply that fi nancially unsuccessful movies are categorically without merit or political signifi cance. Additionally, we frequently cite box offi ce numbers and the comments of popular press movie critics as reception studies or indi- cations of how fi lms were received by audiences and made meaningful in popular culture.

Part III of this volume compiles four topical approaches to fi lm and politics: documenta- ries, race, gender, and, new to the second edition, the recently revived disaster and apocalyptic

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

PREFACE

ix

fi lm genre. Our discussion of minority fi lms in Chapter 13 uses as a case study movies by and about African-Americans and concerns racial politics specifi c to that socially designated group alone. This selective approach is not meant to suggest that the nexus of racial identity, race relations, fi lm, and politics is limited to the black experience or that conclusions drawn from this chapter should or even can be extrapolated to other groups. Rather the representa- tion of African-American culture in American popular fi lm offers an especially compelling and instructive case of how racial politics and Hollywood fi lmmaking intersect.

Finally, we include as an appendix a political fi lmography that compiles most of the more blatantly political fi lms in this book, plus others that space and time did not permit us to address, with their box offi ce performance.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

This page intentionally left blank

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

— Dedicated to Ruth Miller Haas and the memory of Harold Haas —

Contributor to the fi rst edition and sole author of the second edition, Elizabeth Haas, would like to acknowledge the principle authors of the fi rst edition, Terry Christensen and Peter Haas. It was a privilege to revise and expand their original work. Many thanks go to editor Suzanne Phelps Chambers and to research assistants James Griffi th and Julie Nagasaki. For helpful comments at the 2012 Society for Cinema and Media Studies Annual Conference and the 2014 Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference much appreciation to Lisa Purse, Matthias Stork, and Natalie Taylor. Thanks also to colleagues Susan Crutch- fi eld, Frank Tomasulo, Roxana Walker-Canton, Montre Aza-Missouri, and Philip Bahr, and to students Angelika Zbikowski, Audra Martin, Eve Seiter, Michael Girandola, and Erik Fong, fi lm authorities all. Bridget Dalen supplied camaraderie and invaluable media exper- tise. Beth Carter, Janice Portentoso, Cheryl Eustace, Deede Demato, and Michelle Chapman provided friendship and the village it indeed takes. For inspiration and abiding kindness, gratitude unfeigned to Tobin Siebers. For making the world new every day, Dash and Jolie each: “Impossible without Me! That sort of Bear.”

Above all: Manyul.

Acknowledgments

xi

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

This page intentionally left blank

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

Studying Political Films

I

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

This page intentionally left blank

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

1

Setting the Scene A Theory of Film and Politics

Argo (2012)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

STUDYING POLITICAL FILMS

4

The study of movies does not fi t neatly into the discipline of political science or the other social sciences. Although fi lm is a mass medium, political scientists have devoted decidedly less attention to it than to mass news media such as television, newspapers, the Internet, and, increasingly, to social media. 1 For one thing, data about movies are diffi cult to quantify in meaningful ways. From one perspective, movies are independent variables, cultural stimuli that potentially address and modify the political attitudes and behaviors of audiences and society. However, many fi lms—particularly the most fi nancially successful ones—seem themselves to be “caused” by external social and political conditions. Furthermore, certain fi lms seem to assume a life of their own and interact with the political environment. Well- publicized and sometimes controversial and politically charged movies such as All The Pres- ident’s Men (1976), Wag the Dog (1997), and Zero Dark Thirty (2012) can even become part of the political landscape and discourse.

However, thinking of movies as independent variables does not seem likely to shed light upon the more nuanced aspects of the relationship between fi lm and politics, especially for fi lms that are—on the surface, at least—not very political. And the relationship may be far more complex and fi nely calibrated than the typical social science model of clearly identifi ed independent and dependent variables. As Phillip Gianos notes, “politics and movies inform each other. . . . Both tell about the society from which they come.” 2 (Or as Wag the Dog ’s Hollywood movie producer hired to create a fi ctional war to distract the public’s attention from a presidential sex scandal cynically describes his efforts, “This is politics at its fi nest.”) Douglas Kellner argues that Hollywood fi lm actually “ intervenes in the political struggles of the day” and like American society constitutes contested territory. As such, “Films can be interpreted as a struggle of representation over how to construct a social world and everyday life.” 3 Rejecting a more passive model of thinking about fi lm and politics, these assessments point to politics and fi lm as actively engaged with each other.

Political analysis of fi lm has commonly taken a qualitative or even literary approach, although some intriguing research has explored the direct behavioral impact of specifi c fi lms. 4 A small- scale audience study in the mid- 1990s found that viewers of Oliver Stone’s controversial biopic JFK (1991) reported a signifi cant decrease in their intentions to vote. The authors determined that the fi lm’s assassination conspiracy premise left viewers with a “hopelessness” that extended to a sense of political futility. 5 A more recent investiga- tion working from a larger sample concluded that popular fi lms retain the power to shape political attitudes in part because the possibility for persuasion is greatest precisely when one is least aware that political messages are being communicated. The authors found that sentimental movies about personal struggles involving aspects of the healthcare system like the romantic comedy As Good As It Gets (1997), in which a waitress has diffi culty affording the healthcare of her ailing son, affected the way viewers appraised policies like the politically contentious Affordable Care Act, leading to the conclusion that “popular fi lms possess the capability to change attitudes on political issues” and that “the potential for popular fi lms to generate lasting attitudinal change presents an important area for future research.” 6 Within narrow fi elds of investigation, both studies found that a few spe- cifi c fi lms had certain measurable effects on generalized audience political outlooks and intentions.

One major obstacle to a more systematic and wider- reaching study of fi lm and politics is the lack of a clear defi nition of what constitutes a political fi lm. In this chapter, we fi rst

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

SETTING THE SCENE: A THEORY OF FILM AND POLITICS

5

outline the contours of political fi lm categorization and then offer a plausible framework for classifying fi lms that may be used as a tool for in- depth analyses.

Political Content

Perhaps the most commonly used approach for distinguishing political fi lms is political con- tent. In this approach, political fi lms are presumed to be those that depict various aspects of the political system, especially (but not necessarily) political institutions, political actors, and/or the political system. Whereas nearly every movie that focuses on political content of this type would probably qualify as suffi ciently political, many other fi lms, some entirely devoid of explicit political references, are excluded using this approach. But in a sense, every fi lm has political signifi cance and meaning. All fi lms transmit ideas of political impor- tance if only by telling some stories instead of others or by favoring one character’s point of view over another’s.

Films on the whole mirror the way political processes manage the confl icting needs and demands of different groups of people. Filmmakers struggle to get projects made or to attract audiences to their work by striking some level of balance between appealing to current atti- tudes and tastes and challenging the same. Political constituencies compete with each other for infl uence and control while political representatives negotiate among them, often picking winners and losers along the way. Even by featuring a popular actor in a controversial part, fi lms indicate bias. Philadelphia (1993) provides a case in point. With all- American funny guy Tom Hanks in the role of an ailing, gay AIDS patient suing his employer for wrongful termination and handsome, winning Denzel Washington as his lawyer, the fi lm preemptively mitigates the chance of wholesale rejection at the box offi ce and builds in sympathy for a politically marginalized and, especially at the time of the fi lm’s release, socially reviled group. Anyone with an interest in the impact of movies must be prepared to sift through any movie as a potential vessel of political meaning.

Until recently, few book- length studies of a genre called “political fi lms” existed. Com- mercial categorizations and genre- based analyses alike have been apt to assign what are arguably political fi lms to other albeit fi tting categories like biography (e.g., Malcolm X , 1992; Erin Brockovich , 2000; W ., 2008; J. Edgar , 2011; Lincoln , 2012) or thriller (e.g., Argo , 2012; Broken City , 2013) as if these more readily agreed-upon and commercially proven genres were also defi nitive and exclusive. 7 Other approaches understandably blur the line between political and ideological meaning. These analyses tend not to establish clear separation between a fi lm’s depiction of a particular political realm and its ideologically more wide- reaching implications. After all, ideology has been called “the most elusive con- cept in the whole of social science” while at the same time proliferating as a critical category both in those sciences as well as in studies of fi lm—especially interdisciplinary approaches. 8

While ideology can refer to explicit political beliefs or belief systems like those endorsed by a particular political party or associated with liberal and conservative perspectives, the more philosophical and social-theoretical conception of ideology is more complex. Ideology in this usage refers to implicit views and assumptions that seem to be common-sense truths or natural beliefs, neutral in their apparent universality, but that really serve the interests of a ruling class or dominant force in society. By defi nition, this kind of ideology or “false ideas” can be diffi cult to discern. Yet Douglas Kellner suggests ideology “functions within popular

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of O

re go

n] a

t 20

:5 2

12 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

STUDYING POLITICAL FILMS

6

culture and everyday life” and that “images and fi gures constitute part of the ideological rep- resentations of sex, race, and class in fi lm and popular culture.” 9 In this view most movies can be useful sites for uncovering ideological meaning not restricted to obvious political content.

For better or worse there has been and continues to be little critical unanimity about pre- cisely which form and content would unarguably indicate a political fi lm. American political fi lms have not widely or uniformly received recognition as a specifi c genre. For example, in the latest edition of the infl uential Film Genre Reader , not one of thirty- six chapters specifi – cally addresses political fi lms. 10 This omission contrasts with the decision of the Library of Congress’s Moving Image Genre Form Guide to include under “political” a succinct defi ni- tion: “Fictional work centering on the political milieu, often of candidates, elections, and elective or appointive offi ce. Some of the protagonists may be corrupt or dictatorial.” 11 The genre’s exclusion from the Film Genre Reader and inclusion in the Moving Image Genre Form Guide ’s comparatively exhaustive list, featuring more than 125 genres and including one dubbed “city symphony,” points less to a dearth of politically topical fi lms than to the widespread lack of consensus over what exact qualities constitute the genre. As implied by the Moving Image Genre Form Guide , there are perhaps enough fi lms that are overtly politi- cal to most viewers to constitute a genre, yet until the last few years they have not commonly been acknowledged, much less promoted, as such.

In fi lm criticism a genre is primarily defi ned as a category or group of fi lms about the same subject or marked by the same style—musicals, for example, or western, gangster, war, science fi ction, or horror movies. Yet most of these genres are “un- contentious,” declares Steve Neale, and their critical categorizations have “generally coincided with those used by the industry itself.” 12 Films in the same genre tend to look alike and observe certain conven- tions, although there are exceptions to both rules even among less controversial genres. Any given fi lm may obey many established generic conventions but vary enough in one crucial aspect that it defi es easy inclusion in that genre. Set in the past in the American west, and featuring horses, dramatic vistas, and physically tough cowboys of few words, Brokeback Mountain shares many conventions with the western. The queer sexuality of its main charac- ter, Heath Ledger’s tortured ranch- hand Ennis Del Mar, however, breaks with the western’s characterization of masculinity as a function of heterosexuality. On the other end of the issue of genre and inclusiveness, Thelma and Louise (1991) is considered a road movie or buddy fl ick, but it also includes many conventions of the western genre. Played by Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon, the title characters are outlaws on the run through Monument Valley, the location of many John Ford westerns from the 1930s and 1940s, and their fate is straight out of the incontestable western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969). Their plight chal- lenges the patriarchal foundation to civilization’s ideas of justice and revenge, a gendered take on a familiar western theme.

Critics often group movies into genres for the purpose of comparison and discussion; audiences, sometimes unknowingly, do the same thing. But political fi lms do not seem to fi t into a unique, recognizable genre marketed to stimulate and fulfi ll audience expectations. They seem more to illustrate what critics call “hybrid” and “multi- generic” classifi cations and the tendency of some Hollywood genres to “overlap.” 13 In practical terms, the quandary looks like this: Is The Green Zone (2010), a fi lm about the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and thereby validate the political justifi cation for the United States’ invasion, a war fi lm or a political fi lm? Are Oliver Stone’s Nixon (1995) and Ron Howard’s Frost/Nixon (2008) both political fi lms by virtue of their eponymous portrayals, despite

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.