A Confession of a Journalist --- In Film and Politics
This journal shall contain my random thoughts of the movies we see in class. They will be often disjointed and out of context. However, in the summation of journaling I shall try to adjoin these thoughts in to some form of coherency. This may not always work, but an attempt shall be made nonetheless. In these epiphanies of thoughts, I shall endeavor to glean some significance or cogent primacy of how movies reflect the public policy in regards to politics, or should say how the public mirrors the prescription of its identity in its display of their movies. Filmmakers despite their some demonization are part of the public, and as such, represent, in some cases, the public pulse to high hyperbole.
Nevertheless, the institution of Hollywood has been used as a propaganda tool to further the causes of those who wish to persuade the public sphere. In so doing, Hollywood has been used as a tool to some degree to instill a moral attitudes and ideals. In addition, Hollywood has been used to reflect what cultural mores that are outmoded and outdated, in the sense that, the injustices, or simply the uncivil intrusions of human rights has been put on display for consideration…..
Dateline August 15, 2008:
I just finished watching Wag the Dog, directed by Barry Levinson, in class today. In the story, we have a president involved in a sex scandal days before the election. If this sounds familiar, it should, it is the President Clinton Monica Lewinski Sex Scandal (not mentioned by name, because the movie was released at the same time the controversy took hold in the media) exaggerated. It is the Grenada action repackaged, it is the Persian Gulf War marketed. The film Wag the Dog uses these references in order to make a point how the influence of government and television can be perverted to massage the ego of the public masses to create fear and pride….
The movie extends one of Karl Marx’s oft quoted references, and I paraphrase, that “Religion is the opiate for the masses.” In other words, the application of power and policy are often the acts of persuasion, trying to convince a people to believe or to do something that may be contrary to what “actors” or “portrayers” actually think, so they can control or keep control of the discussion…..
In the case of an election, the discussion for the actors or participants is to convince the “public” or enough of the “masses” to elect the candidate of their “perceived” choice. I say perceived, because as Wag the Dog illustrated, the medium in which receives cultural attitudes, mores, and ideals are inputted through what they, the public, see on television.
For instance, throughout the movie there is a television commercial, which tells the public, “Not to switch horses in midstream,” in part this is a satire on the communication of campaigning. How the communication experts perceive the public views by stroking the ego by appealing to their sense of traditions and conservatism. Nowhere, in the movie, do we get a sense of what political party is being put on display. Moreover, the face of the president is never revealed, within the movie itself, the characters at the end explain that the president is a marketable commodity. In which, the presidency itself is part of the institution, mythos, and ethos that is America.
America’s name itself is a marketing tool, a product, in which certain depiction of mythos and ethos are products and images that can be parlayed into profit from merchandising. The Denis Leary character proves this out. His character, the “Fad King”, tries to figure out how market the images of America, from the standpoint of merchandise and “backend deals.”
Wag the Dog is a movie that is wrapped in hyperbole, metaphor, and mischief. In so being that, the manipulation, coercion, and the political spinning—lying—that shaped the public perception of the politics of the moment. In the shaping of the election, the scandal of the presidency has to be diverted and distracted from the public view. It is a lesson in illusion and deception. The characters throughout the movie practice a level of perverted deception with not only the public masses, but also with each other. Some of them even practice the art of self-deception, in order to realize the goal so that they create their own world of self-importance—see Dustin Hoffman’s character.
Dustin Hoffman’s character is the “producer” of the war, the “pageant” director of the farce of the war that wasn’t. He aides and abets the political players in fooling the public at large, but he has convinced himself that someday he will be able to tell someone what he did. This is his self-deception. He is told from the beginning that he won’t be able to tell anyone—ever. However, Hoffman’s character, does a “yeah – yeah” with the players because his ego cannot believe that the government would actually kill him or “silence him.” He miscalculates.
This miscalculation by Hoffman’s character is another element for the movie to provide an ominous satirical moment, layered in cliché and perspective, which allows for critical analysis of the American political system; although it is wrapped in political circumspection. This brings me to a point of analysis, in that, this movie’s satirical moments are most critical of the process of not only those who wish to keep power, but those who wish to obtain it; in addition, to those who want to maintain their power. The difference between “keep” and “maintain” is that those who wish to “keep” are elected, and those who maintain are “bureaucratic,” such as the CIA….
There is a moment when the CIA confronts the principal actors of the deception with Al Pacino and Anne Heche; in that moment, we see two primary aspects of communications put on display: the coolness of Pacino’s passionate discourse in response Macy’s CIA intimidation act, and Heche’s second banana role was stereotypical for not only the gender identification purposes, which dictates that women are emotional beings not be trusted, but also as the comic relief in the scene. This scene enactment reinforces a cultural mores, in how to perceive the role of women and men, in the political spheres of power. From the sex scandal to the allocation of implicit sexuality of a White House aide in planting deceptive information to be spun in the press, women roles are deemed as secondary as well as a tool for the creation of illusion.
Ultimately, the illusory powers of spin and deception that are deployed and displayed within the film, leaves the viewer with a cynical outlook of Washington politics and the institutions of powers, and the power brokers.
Dateline August 22, 2008
In the movie, Medium Cool, if one can all it that, there several transitory elements. First of these, is the style in which it is filmed: a documentary, within a narrative fictional story. The second element of this film is the documentation of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. However, this is secondary to the overarching story narrative that is not only convoluted, but also disengaged from the non-fictive elements of documenting the convention.
The third element of the film is how gender is portrayed, of course, remembering the era, in which it was filmed. This is late the 1960s men and women roles were, for the most part, clearly defined. Strong elements of sexism reverberate through this picture, in the instance, in how women are cast as well as underutilized. For instance, women are seen as objects, secondary in nature, and considered subservient to the role of men. The machismo nature of men reigns in the display in not only sexual display of play, but also in the role of occupations. Men in this film are the dominate patriarch: rough, brutish, and clearly dominate. Defining women place as a form of property, and, secondary to that of men in their display of power. Although, there seems to be an element of expressed feminism, it gets lost the convolution of the story and eventually relegated to the status of “fad.”
The fourth element of the story is how the director-cinematographer uses the camera from his wide shots to his narrow shots the audience sees the movie from the camera lens out. There is an aspect of the film, which seems to be voyeuristic, as if one is watching something unfiltered, uncensored, and untoward. It is this aspect of the movie, which draws the viewer; it is the watching of the car accident aftermath, and he actually uses this metaphor to begin and end his movie.
Playing on the viewers visceral need for gratification and curiosity, the director-cinematographer, uses colors to oscillate the senses. The sound, however, is imbalanced, sometimes deafening, sometimes, too quiet to be heard. I think his intentions are to drive the emotionality of his work in a certain direction of an illusionary pathway. In which the voyeur has to be engaged in, straining to understand, searching for meaning in the non-relevant nonsense that was imparted in the narrative of the movie. For instance, the primary character that happens to be a photo-journalist gets involved with a single mother, who is from West Virginia, the principle male character becomes the hero for her and her child by male authority and father figure.
It is this display that lends some coherency to the film, the cinema veritae, which is “tell it like is”, in many fails to convey its main representative point until the very end. For this element, at the very least, should have been better threaded, the movie various tangents, and misrepresentations drives the viewer’s attention span away from its main point: in that, the American culture had become voyeuristic and consumed by its platitudes of democratic ethos.
In a scene with black militants, the photo-journalist is confronted. He is confronted with their angst, anger, and bitterness, in which a system of disproportion has affected the minorities’ access to power and their access to have a voice, a choice in which they perceive that they have none. They ridicule and also look at the photojournalist as way to obtain: both their power and voice. On the one hand, they despise what he represents—the hegemony—the man—but on the other, they realize that his power to tell their story is their only way to gain it.
This gain feeds into the stereotypes of women, of minorities, and also of the press. How the press sensationalizes events, and fails to report those events, and hollows the human narrative to mere surface chatter; and, induces the voyeur to become passive participants. But in Medium Cool, Hesko Wexler, the director-cinematographer, compels (or, at the least, tries to) the viewer to be watchful, and vigilant to the powers that make up the hegemony.
It is therefore compelling to see the filming of demonstrations and police reaction of the Chicago 1968 Democratic Convention. This is the backdrop of the movie, and, is only relevant to the story in that the filming coincided with the political events of the day. American polity was in crisis, and, the citizenry was amidst turmoil. The 1960s assassinations and the Vietnam War along with Civil Rights Movements gave the film a dynamic cannot be duplicated in 2008. In other words, the emotions, which were a product of the 1960s, and the historical of cultural transformation context is quite different from the dynamic of 2008. Cultural views of the 1960s set a different perspective of how persons and people were and are treated.
Dateline September 5, 2008
In Frank Capra’s, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, there is nostalgic feel that may have been present even during its presentation in 1939. There is a romanticism that Jimmy Stewart’s character of Smith is engaging, his ability to convey the new senator’s naivety is memorable, because we see the freshness of America ideals through his eyes. The opening scenes of seeing Washington D C brings a matter of pride and raw patriotism.
The flag waving through the displays of various memorials from Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial sets the premise of the story premise of what it means to be citizen in America. His guffawing to the residence from his receptionist/love interest to his fellow Senators perplexes them, as if this dope had no clue what the “real world” wrought.
We see from the beginning that the city slickers, the newspaper reporters, secretaries, ushers, and page boys are “clued in” to the workings of Washington. They admire him for feelings for the institutions of government, his idealistic views of what government should be, and how he believes that he will make a difference in the programs. Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of the young junior senator’s appreciation of the American promise gave gravitas to the film, in that, despite the fact the political was portrayed as fixed and corrupt, his optimism left the viewer wanting.
However, Frank Capra also deployed the political cynicism with the Washington beat reporters; demonstrating their eagerness to make Jimmy Stewart’s character as a buffoon. He also illustrated this cynicism with Jimmy Stewart’s eventual love interest, on the one hand she is a dynamo that has an understanding of the workings of inside baseball Washington politics, but on the other, Capra is willing to deploy her in a secondary role as a female, allowing for the deployment sexism to be portrayed.
For instance, there is a running gag throughout the movie to show her as “an emotional female,” where she proclaims she going to quit and marry the beat Washington reporter that covers the junior senator’s office every time she faces a crisis of conscious. In another instance however, she is a competent player, but she gets lost in the young senator’s charisma, when they decide to create a bill for the kids of his community similar to a boys club.
This is the moment within the movie that every movie has—the crisis. This sets up the main antagonist. Jimmy Stewart’s main mentor, a person he really respects and thought as a hero, is actually a “made man” in the sense that he has been bought off by a business entrepreneur (or in a today’s world a lobbyist). This “lobbyist” wants to be a build a damn, and, he also has the ability to “clog up” the system by controlling media outlets.
This representation of how powerful individuals or individual is another aspect of the film political perspective; although, democracy, and especially the America democracy is a wonderful thing it is easily influenced by the few, and, can be manipulated by these few—and thereby taking away the representation of the many. Democracy in America is supposed to be representative of the people, not an oligarchy. This is the subtle message of the film. The government’s place is for the people, not the privileged few, which is the driving message of the film.
The people are the source of power for the government and its representatives. This is where Frank Capra direction leads the audience to see how the duality of the power relationship can be corruptive and abusive, but it can also be empowering and tempering. The power of film as used by Frank Capra communicates to the audience, how America is to be seen. For instance, when Jimmy Stewart’s character is standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial, he not only shows the typical average American with his son, but he also shows the under represented American, a minority, who understands the power of President Lincoln leadership during America’s great crisis. This is to adjoin the mythos of America, and, the belief that America is truly the beacon for freedom.
And, when Jimmy Stewart’s character is in crisis and is standing in front of Lincoln statue again—feeling disillusioned—Capra provides the metaphor for salvation: out of darkness comes the light with the love of a good woman.
The many political aspects of Frank Capra’s movie and the movies to follow it, showed filmmakers to follow how to put on display the values and criticism of America, and to demonstrate how the little the guy was to be represented from that of the oppressed and to that of the hero.
Dateline September 12, 2008,
In the viewing of the movie, In the Heat of the Night, by Norman Jewison, it occurred to me what an impact film, for the time it was. This picture stands today as referendum on race relations. The assumptions and stereotypes that seem to be significant in 1967 are still prevalent today.
For instance, when the murder victim is found with his head bashed in, it is assumed that a stranger had committed the act. So, when the deputy comes across an unfamiliar person, who is a stranger waiting at the train station, and is also black (and is played by a black actor Sidney Poitier), it assumed that he is the person who committed the crime. This single event leads to unfounded assumptions and conclusion, which only do not prove out, but leads the audience to reexamine their beliefs; in 1967, the reexamination would have been profound.
In addition, in the aspect of the use of color for a dramatic picture of this type, as pointed by Mark Harris, in his book, Pictures at a Revolution was uncommon. Normally, the use of color, lack thereof it, told the audience that the picture was to be consider an alternate perspective of reality. But, Heskell Wexler, the cinematographer, felt that shrouded the subject unnecessarily. In essence, the lack of color misleads the audience in consideration of the subject.
Moreover, the film took examination of taboo subjects, such as: how “blacks” were to behave, what jobs are blacks to have, how much is a person worth, and how people interact with another, when given an opportunity to observe a person’s character. One of the most powerful moments within the film is when Sidney Poitier’s character is slapped by the richest white man in the county, who also owns a cotton plantation, and still has an “in-house nigger”/butler, and Sidney’s character slaps him back (the white plantation owner that is). There is a moment of doubt of whether Rod Stieger’s character, who is the sheriff, will do something. The white plantation owner expects the Stieger’s character to shoot him, or, at the very least, beat Poitier’s character down. He does nothing.
This moment of the truth within the film communicates to the audience that things have changed; the position of the hegemony, of dominance is no longer valid; in that, the respect of an individual is not contingent on their status or power, but on their character. Admittedly, power and status are still relevant in America structure of stratification, but it is no longer a get out of free jail card, and it is no longer allows for the abuse of authority. As the white plantation owner says, “There was a time ….” He could have Sidney Poitier’s character killed on the spot and no one would question it. The character sense of powerlessness is felt, and, the power of authority and respect is transferred to Poitier’s character. It is also transferred to the sheriff and interestingly enough to the butler who has witnessed the interaction between the characters. His character understands that America is in a transitional moment, where abuse of power is not a given anymore, and he smiles knowingly that the authority of power has now been cuckold.
In addition, when the white plantation owner sends some of the town folk to “teach” Poitier’s character a lesson, Stieger’s character finally has to choose a side, that of justice and righteousness or to simply look away, and, give into the abuse of power, racism, and prejudice. He chooses the former. Again, this signals to the audience that character matters and one’s consciousness is part of one’s character. The importance of this revelation of Stieger’s, Poitier’s portrayals and this film is the placement of it, within the context of history.
The 1960s was in major turmoil in terms of civil strife and cultural transition for the United States. The values, ideals, and beliefs were being reexamined some of it film, some of it within government, some of it within the public sphere. The questioning of the hegemonic culture at large, and place for minorities within that structure had been to some degree questioned implicitly, but now, after fighting a world war, and now fighting another war, it was being question explicitly.
In Hollywood, however, minorities were being seen as another economic vehicle and not necessarily as an equal opportunity. Sidney Poitier was a trailblazer, the Jackie Robinson, for black male actors, but roles afterwards where still shrouded in stereotypes, or certain personality types. Although, Frank Capra tried to reflect minorities in a positive light in his 1939 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, they are still seen as secondary citizen. And, even though Norman Jewison gives Poitier the lead role, and his name appears first in the credits, his representation of powerlessness is that of black plantation worker as the faces of oppression.
Admittedly, Jewison tries to show that poverty is equated to both sides of the races, but it is not given the same weight, because he understands that the color of one’s skin gave a person to some degree a benefit of the doubt—and usurps that equation of equality.
Roles for minorities, blacks especially, in the decades to follow do shift in representation, they become more urbanize and less rural. However, within this new representation comes a new set of stereotypes, after the blaxploitation films, blacks roles for the 1970s and good portion of the 1980s, are represented as: athletes, pimps, hookers, or as comic relief, or tied to another character as a buddy. Stand alone roles would not be considered even on a regular bases until after the 1980s. Positive and character role models for minorities have to be situated. It is not until, a second generation of minority actors does the lead roles start freeing up, and, this is primarily due to the fact that Hollywood has realized the full economic opportunity within their equation. Furthermore, it is not just minorities seeing other minorities, but the general public, white America, is seeing these minority actors in their films.
Another aspect of the film is the role that secondary characters play. For instance, the role of the sheriff’s deputies, as the grudging come to realize that their perspective of Sidney Poitier’s character. Interestingly, as Mark Harris tells in his book, how the movie seem to reflect reality to some extent of where they filmed, and how the politics of the day reflected the turmoil of the 1960s. Moreover, there was a foreshadowing of issue that would be revealed by a 1973 court decision—abortion. In the film, it is used as a plot device to wrap up the conclusion of the movie, but it is also significant that the issue is being used. Again, Jewison uses this device to show the inequity of the have’s and have not’s, in that those with power and status can go to have certain medical procedures done safely, while those without have to use backrooms and unsafe conditions to get access.Jewison is trying to show the inequality of how poverty is the true oppressing force, and not necessarily of race.
This brings me to another point, the sexism, overt and covert used within the movie; first, there is the murder victim’s wife, who happens to be from an urban center, like the Sidney Poitier’s character. There is an element of emotionality that seems to be over the top, but there is another layer as well, the interchange between the wife and Poitier’s character. There is unease, which is left unspoken, but is felt on the screen. It is the matter of an interracial man and woman left together in an emotional moment of loss. His moment of compassion in the telling that her husband is dead leaves the audience raw, when she reacts to his concern. It is to tell the audience that he has to be put in his place, despite the human need for compassion and comfort.
In other words, men and women of different races are not to be seen in emotionality. This is spoken more broadly, when one of the sheriff’s deputies tries to hide the fact, the paramour he believes that is his, will be seen nude by a black man, since she is exhibitionist. The deputy’s paramour is later used as a plot device in resolving the murder, and she used as a “sex kitten” to entice the men of the town. On the other end of scale, though the wife of the murder victim is shown in a typical emotion, she was later seen as a strong, intelligent, independent woman, with her own onus of sexuality as alluded to earlier, but this revelation set up another juxtaposition of stereotypes.
The stereotypes of rural versus urban, which was established early within the film, sets a level of demarcation: small town prejudices versus urban cosmopolitanism, uneducated small town girl versus urban educated woman. These oppositions set principals within the movie as a lens to focused, along with the stereotypes of North versus South……
Nevertheless, the institution of Hollywood has been used as a propaganda tool to further the causes of those who wish to persuade the public sphere. In so doing, Hollywood has been used as a tool to some degree to instill a moral attitudes and ideals. In addition, Hollywood has been used to reflect what cultural mores that are outmoded and outdated, in the sense that, the injustices, or simply the uncivil intrusions of human rights has been put on display for consideration…..
Dateline August 15, 2008:
I just finished watching Wag the Dog, directed by Barry Levinson, in class today. In the story, we have a president involved in a sex scandal days before the election. If this sounds familiar, it should, it is the President Clinton Monica Lewinski Sex Scandal (not mentioned by name, because the movie was released at the same time the controversy took hold in the media) exaggerated. It is the Grenada action repackaged, it is the Persian Gulf War marketed. The film Wag the Dog uses these references in order to make a point how the influence of government and television can be perverted to massage the ego of the public masses to create fear and pride….
The movie extends one of Karl Marx’s oft quoted references, and I paraphrase, that “Religion is the opiate for the masses.” In other words, the application of power and policy are often the acts of persuasion, trying to convince a people to believe or to do something that may be contrary to what “actors” or “portrayers” actually think, so they can control or keep control of the discussion…..
In the case of an election, the discussion for the actors or participants is to convince the “public” or enough of the “masses” to elect the candidate of their “perceived” choice. I say perceived, because as Wag the Dog illustrated, the medium in which receives cultural attitudes, mores, and ideals are inputted through what they, the public, see on television.
For instance, throughout the movie there is a television commercial, which tells the public, “Not to switch horses in midstream,” in part this is a satire on the communication of campaigning. How the communication experts perceive the public views by stroking the ego by appealing to their sense of traditions and conservatism. Nowhere, in the movie, do we get a sense of what political party is being put on display. Moreover, the face of the president is never revealed, within the movie itself, the characters at the end explain that the president is a marketable commodity. In which, the presidency itself is part of the institution, mythos, and ethos that is America.
America’s name itself is a marketing tool, a product, in which certain depiction of mythos and ethos are products and images that can be parlayed into profit from merchandising. The Denis Leary character proves this out. His character, the “Fad King”, tries to figure out how market the images of America, from the standpoint of merchandise and “backend deals.”
Wag the Dog is a movie that is wrapped in hyperbole, metaphor, and mischief. In so being that, the manipulation, coercion, and the political spinning—lying—that shaped the public perception of the politics of the moment. In the shaping of the election, the scandal of the presidency has to be diverted and distracted from the public view. It is a lesson in illusion and deception. The characters throughout the movie practice a level of perverted deception with not only the public masses, but also with each other. Some of them even practice the art of self-deception, in order to realize the goal so that they create their own world of self-importance—see Dustin Hoffman’s character.
Dustin Hoffman’s character is the “producer” of the war, the “pageant” director of the farce of the war that wasn’t. He aides and abets the political players in fooling the public at large, but he has convinced himself that someday he will be able to tell someone what he did. This is his self-deception. He is told from the beginning that he won’t be able to tell anyone—ever. However, Hoffman’s character, does a “yeah – yeah” with the players because his ego cannot believe that the government would actually kill him or “silence him.” He miscalculates.
This miscalculation by Hoffman’s character is another element for the movie to provide an ominous satirical moment, layered in cliché and perspective, which allows for critical analysis of the American political system; although it is wrapped in political circumspection. This brings me to a point of analysis, in that, this movie’s satirical moments are most critical of the process of not only those who wish to keep power, but those who wish to obtain it; in addition, to those who want to maintain their power. The difference between “keep” and “maintain” is that those who wish to “keep” are elected, and those who maintain are “bureaucratic,” such as the CIA….
There is a moment when the CIA confronts the principal actors of the deception with Al Pacino and Anne Heche; in that moment, we see two primary aspects of communications put on display: the coolness of Pacino’s passionate discourse in response Macy’s CIA intimidation act, and Heche’s second banana role was stereotypical for not only the gender identification purposes, which dictates that women are emotional beings not be trusted, but also as the comic relief in the scene. This scene enactment reinforces a cultural mores, in how to perceive the role of women and men, in the political spheres of power. From the sex scandal to the allocation of implicit sexuality of a White House aide in planting deceptive information to be spun in the press, women roles are deemed as secondary as well as a tool for the creation of illusion.
Ultimately, the illusory powers of spin and deception that are deployed and displayed within the film, leaves the viewer with a cynical outlook of Washington politics and the institutions of powers, and the power brokers.
Dateline August 22, 2008
In the movie, Medium Cool, if one can all it that, there several transitory elements. First of these, is the style in which it is filmed: a documentary, within a narrative fictional story. The second element of this film is the documentation of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. However, this is secondary to the overarching story narrative that is not only convoluted, but also disengaged from the non-fictive elements of documenting the convention.
The third element of the film is how gender is portrayed, of course, remembering the era, in which it was filmed. This is late the 1960s men and women roles were, for the most part, clearly defined. Strong elements of sexism reverberate through this picture, in the instance, in how women are cast as well as underutilized. For instance, women are seen as objects, secondary in nature, and considered subservient to the role of men. The machismo nature of men reigns in the display in not only sexual display of play, but also in the role of occupations. Men in this film are the dominate patriarch: rough, brutish, and clearly dominate. Defining women place as a form of property, and, secondary to that of men in their display of power. Although, there seems to be an element of expressed feminism, it gets lost the convolution of the story and eventually relegated to the status of “fad.”
The fourth element of the story is how the director-cinematographer uses the camera from his wide shots to his narrow shots the audience sees the movie from the camera lens out. There is an aspect of the film, which seems to be voyeuristic, as if one is watching something unfiltered, uncensored, and untoward. It is this aspect of the movie, which draws the viewer; it is the watching of the car accident aftermath, and he actually uses this metaphor to begin and end his movie.
Playing on the viewers visceral need for gratification and curiosity, the director-cinematographer, uses colors to oscillate the senses. The sound, however, is imbalanced, sometimes deafening, sometimes, too quiet to be heard. I think his intentions are to drive the emotionality of his work in a certain direction of an illusionary pathway. In which the voyeur has to be engaged in, straining to understand, searching for meaning in the non-relevant nonsense that was imparted in the narrative of the movie. For instance, the primary character that happens to be a photo-journalist gets involved with a single mother, who is from West Virginia, the principle male character becomes the hero for her and her child by male authority and father figure.
It is this display that lends some coherency to the film, the cinema veritae, which is “tell it like is”, in many fails to convey its main representative point until the very end. For this element, at the very least, should have been better threaded, the movie various tangents, and misrepresentations drives the viewer’s attention span away from its main point: in that, the American culture had become voyeuristic and consumed by its platitudes of democratic ethos.
In a scene with black militants, the photo-journalist is confronted. He is confronted with their angst, anger, and bitterness, in which a system of disproportion has affected the minorities’ access to power and their access to have a voice, a choice in which they perceive that they have none. They ridicule and also look at the photojournalist as way to obtain: both their power and voice. On the one hand, they despise what he represents—the hegemony—the man—but on the other, they realize that his power to tell their story is their only way to gain it.
This gain feeds into the stereotypes of women, of minorities, and also of the press. How the press sensationalizes events, and fails to report those events, and hollows the human narrative to mere surface chatter; and, induces the voyeur to become passive participants. But in Medium Cool, Hesko Wexler, the director-cinematographer, compels (or, at the least, tries to) the viewer to be watchful, and vigilant to the powers that make up the hegemony.
It is therefore compelling to see the filming of demonstrations and police reaction of the Chicago 1968 Democratic Convention. This is the backdrop of the movie, and, is only relevant to the story in that the filming coincided with the political events of the day. American polity was in crisis, and, the citizenry was amidst turmoil. The 1960s assassinations and the Vietnam War along with Civil Rights Movements gave the film a dynamic cannot be duplicated in 2008. In other words, the emotions, which were a product of the 1960s, and the historical of cultural transformation context is quite different from the dynamic of 2008. Cultural views of the 1960s set a different perspective of how persons and people were and are treated.
Dateline September 5, 2008
In Frank Capra’s, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, there is nostalgic feel that may have been present even during its presentation in 1939. There is a romanticism that Jimmy Stewart’s character of Smith is engaging, his ability to convey the new senator’s naivety is memorable, because we see the freshness of America ideals through his eyes. The opening scenes of seeing Washington D C brings a matter of pride and raw patriotism.
The flag waving through the displays of various memorials from Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial sets the premise of the story premise of what it means to be citizen in America. His guffawing to the residence from his receptionist/love interest to his fellow Senators perplexes them, as if this dope had no clue what the “real world” wrought.
We see from the beginning that the city slickers, the newspaper reporters, secretaries, ushers, and page boys are “clued in” to the workings of Washington. They admire him for feelings for the institutions of government, his idealistic views of what government should be, and how he believes that he will make a difference in the programs. Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of the young junior senator’s appreciation of the American promise gave gravitas to the film, in that, despite the fact the political was portrayed as fixed and corrupt, his optimism left the viewer wanting.
However, Frank Capra also deployed the political cynicism with the Washington beat reporters; demonstrating their eagerness to make Jimmy Stewart’s character as a buffoon. He also illustrated this cynicism with Jimmy Stewart’s eventual love interest, on the one hand she is a dynamo that has an understanding of the workings of inside baseball Washington politics, but on the other, Capra is willing to deploy her in a secondary role as a female, allowing for the deployment sexism to be portrayed.
For instance, there is a running gag throughout the movie to show her as “an emotional female,” where she proclaims she going to quit and marry the beat Washington reporter that covers the junior senator’s office every time she faces a crisis of conscious. In another instance however, she is a competent player, but she gets lost in the young senator’s charisma, when they decide to create a bill for the kids of his community similar to a boys club.
This is the moment within the movie that every movie has—the crisis. This sets up the main antagonist. Jimmy Stewart’s main mentor, a person he really respects and thought as a hero, is actually a “made man” in the sense that he has been bought off by a business entrepreneur (or in a today’s world a lobbyist). This “lobbyist” wants to be a build a damn, and, he also has the ability to “clog up” the system by controlling media outlets.
This representation of how powerful individuals or individual is another aspect of the film political perspective; although, democracy, and especially the America democracy is a wonderful thing it is easily influenced by the few, and, can be manipulated by these few—and thereby taking away the representation of the many. Democracy in America is supposed to be representative of the people, not an oligarchy. This is the subtle message of the film. The government’s place is for the people, not the privileged few, which is the driving message of the film.
The people are the source of power for the government and its representatives. This is where Frank Capra direction leads the audience to see how the duality of the power relationship can be corruptive and abusive, but it can also be empowering and tempering. The power of film as used by Frank Capra communicates to the audience, how America is to be seen. For instance, when Jimmy Stewart’s character is standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial, he not only shows the typical average American with his son, but he also shows the under represented American, a minority, who understands the power of President Lincoln leadership during America’s great crisis. This is to adjoin the mythos of America, and, the belief that America is truly the beacon for freedom.
And, when Jimmy Stewart’s character is in crisis and is standing in front of Lincoln statue again—feeling disillusioned—Capra provides the metaphor for salvation: out of darkness comes the light with the love of a good woman.
The many political aspects of Frank Capra’s movie and the movies to follow it, showed filmmakers to follow how to put on display the values and criticism of America, and to demonstrate how the little the guy was to be represented from that of the oppressed and to that of the hero.
Dateline September 12, 2008,
In the viewing of the movie, In the Heat of the Night, by Norman Jewison, it occurred to me what an impact film, for the time it was. This picture stands today as referendum on race relations. The assumptions and stereotypes that seem to be significant in 1967 are still prevalent today.
For instance, when the murder victim is found with his head bashed in, it is assumed that a stranger had committed the act. So, when the deputy comes across an unfamiliar person, who is a stranger waiting at the train station, and is also black (and is played by a black actor Sidney Poitier), it assumed that he is the person who committed the crime. This single event leads to unfounded assumptions and conclusion, which only do not prove out, but leads the audience to reexamine their beliefs; in 1967, the reexamination would have been profound.
In addition, in the aspect of the use of color for a dramatic picture of this type, as pointed by Mark Harris, in his book, Pictures at a Revolution was uncommon. Normally, the use of color, lack thereof it, told the audience that the picture was to be consider an alternate perspective of reality. But, Heskell Wexler, the cinematographer, felt that shrouded the subject unnecessarily. In essence, the lack of color misleads the audience in consideration of the subject.
Moreover, the film took examination of taboo subjects, such as: how “blacks” were to behave, what jobs are blacks to have, how much is a person worth, and how people interact with another, when given an opportunity to observe a person’s character. One of the most powerful moments within the film is when Sidney Poitier’s character is slapped by the richest white man in the county, who also owns a cotton plantation, and still has an “in-house nigger”/butler, and Sidney’s character slaps him back (the white plantation owner that is). There is a moment of doubt of whether Rod Stieger’s character, who is the sheriff, will do something. The white plantation owner expects the Stieger’s character to shoot him, or, at the very least, beat Poitier’s character down. He does nothing.
This moment of the truth within the film communicates to the audience that things have changed; the position of the hegemony, of dominance is no longer valid; in that, the respect of an individual is not contingent on their status or power, but on their character. Admittedly, power and status are still relevant in America structure of stratification, but it is no longer a get out of free jail card, and it is no longer allows for the abuse of authority. As the white plantation owner says, “There was a time ….” He could have Sidney Poitier’s character killed on the spot and no one would question it. The character sense of powerlessness is felt, and, the power of authority and respect is transferred to Poitier’s character. It is also transferred to the sheriff and interestingly enough to the butler who has witnessed the interaction between the characters. His character understands that America is in a transitional moment, where abuse of power is not a given anymore, and he smiles knowingly that the authority of power has now been cuckold.
In addition, when the white plantation owner sends some of the town folk to “teach” Poitier’s character a lesson, Stieger’s character finally has to choose a side, that of justice and righteousness or to simply look away, and, give into the abuse of power, racism, and prejudice. He chooses the former. Again, this signals to the audience that character matters and one’s consciousness is part of one’s character. The importance of this revelation of Stieger’s, Poitier’s portrayals and this film is the placement of it, within the context of history.
The 1960s was in major turmoil in terms of civil strife and cultural transition for the United States. The values, ideals, and beliefs were being reexamined some of it film, some of it within government, some of it within the public sphere. The questioning of the hegemonic culture at large, and place for minorities within that structure had been to some degree questioned implicitly, but now, after fighting a world war, and now fighting another war, it was being question explicitly.
In Hollywood, however, minorities were being seen as another economic vehicle and not necessarily as an equal opportunity. Sidney Poitier was a trailblazer, the Jackie Robinson, for black male actors, but roles afterwards where still shrouded in stereotypes, or certain personality types. Although, Frank Capra tried to reflect minorities in a positive light in his 1939 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, they are still seen as secondary citizen. And, even though Norman Jewison gives Poitier the lead role, and his name appears first in the credits, his representation of powerlessness is that of black plantation worker as the faces of oppression.
Admittedly, Jewison tries to show that poverty is equated to both sides of the races, but it is not given the same weight, because he understands that the color of one’s skin gave a person to some degree a benefit of the doubt—and usurps that equation of equality.
Roles for minorities, blacks especially, in the decades to follow do shift in representation, they become more urbanize and less rural. However, within this new representation comes a new set of stereotypes, after the blaxploitation films, blacks roles for the 1970s and good portion of the 1980s, are represented as: athletes, pimps, hookers, or as comic relief, or tied to another character as a buddy. Stand alone roles would not be considered even on a regular bases until after the 1980s. Positive and character role models for minorities have to be situated. It is not until, a second generation of minority actors does the lead roles start freeing up, and, this is primarily due to the fact that Hollywood has realized the full economic opportunity within their equation. Furthermore, it is not just minorities seeing other minorities, but the general public, white America, is seeing these minority actors in their films.
Another aspect of the film is the role that secondary characters play. For instance, the role of the sheriff’s deputies, as the grudging come to realize that their perspective of Sidney Poitier’s character. Interestingly, as Mark Harris tells in his book, how the movie seem to reflect reality to some extent of where they filmed, and how the politics of the day reflected the turmoil of the 1960s. Moreover, there was a foreshadowing of issue that would be revealed by a 1973 court decision—abortion. In the film, it is used as a plot device to wrap up the conclusion of the movie, but it is also significant that the issue is being used. Again, Jewison uses this device to show the inequity of the have’s and have not’s, in that those with power and status can go to have certain medical procedures done safely, while those without have to use backrooms and unsafe conditions to get access.Jewison is trying to show the inequality of how poverty is the true oppressing force, and not necessarily of race.
This brings me to another point, the sexism, overt and covert used within the movie; first, there is the murder victim’s wife, who happens to be from an urban center, like the Sidney Poitier’s character. There is an element of emotionality that seems to be over the top, but there is another layer as well, the interchange between the wife and Poitier’s character. There is unease, which is left unspoken, but is felt on the screen. It is the matter of an interracial man and woman left together in an emotional moment of loss. His moment of compassion in the telling that her husband is dead leaves the audience raw, when she reacts to his concern. It is to tell the audience that he has to be put in his place, despite the human need for compassion and comfort.
In other words, men and women of different races are not to be seen in emotionality. This is spoken more broadly, when one of the sheriff’s deputies tries to hide the fact, the paramour he believes that is his, will be seen nude by a black man, since she is exhibitionist. The deputy’s paramour is later used as a plot device in resolving the murder, and she used as a “sex kitten” to entice the men of the town. On the other end of scale, though the wife of the murder victim is shown in a typical emotion, she was later seen as a strong, intelligent, independent woman, with her own onus of sexuality as alluded to earlier, but this revelation set up another juxtaposition of stereotypes.
The stereotypes of rural versus urban, which was established early within the film, sets a level of demarcation: small town prejudices versus urban cosmopolitanism, uneducated small town girl versus urban educated woman. These oppositions set principals within the movie as a lens to focused, along with the stereotypes of North versus South……
Comments