Terry Christensen and Peter J Haas
Although the cases include a set of questions, it is included
solely to provide structure for the case. The reports should be logically organized rather
than just answers to the case questions. One possibility is as follows: Introduction,
Analysis, Conclusions, and Recommendations. The main object of the report should be
to “sell” your work, which requires a logical, coherent progression of relevant information
that fully reveals the rationale behind the final recommendation.

Setting the Scene
A Theory of Film and Politics

By Terry Christensen and Peter J Haas
Wag the Dog (1997)
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 and
newspapers. For one thing, data about movies are difficult 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 films—particularly the most financially successful ones—seem
themselves to be “caused” by external social and political conditions. Furthermore,
certain films 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 Wag the Dog (1997) and Primary Colors (1998) can even become part of the
political landscape and vocabulary.
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 films that are—on the surface, at least—not very political. And the
relationship may be far more complex and nuanced than the typical social science
model of clearly identified independent and dependent variables. As political scientist
Phillip Gianos notes, “politics and movies inform each other … Both tell about the
society from which they come.” Thus, political analysis of film has commonly taken a
qualitative or even literary approach, although some intriguing research has explored
the direct behavioral impact of specific films. One major obstacle to the systematic
study of films is the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a political fi lm. In this
chapter, we off er a plausible framework for classifying films that may be used as a tool
for in-depth analyses.

Political Content

Perhaps the most commonly used approach for distinguishing political films is political
content. In this approach, political films 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 sufficiently political, many
other films, some entirely devoid of explicit political references, are excluded using this
approach. But in a sense, every fi lm has political significance and meaning. Students of
political science and others with an interest in the impact of movies must be prepared
to sift through any movie as a potential vessel of political meaning. For better or worse,
however, there is little critical unanimity about precisely which form and content
would unarguably indicate a political fi lm; American political films have not widely
or uniformly received recognition as a specific genre. There are perhaps enough films
that are overtly political to most viewers to constitute a genre, yet they are not commonly
acknowledged as such. In film criticism, a genre is usually defined as a category
or group of films about the same subject or marked by the same style—musicals, for
example, or western, gangster, war, science fiction, or horror movies. Films in the same
genre tend to look alike and observe certain conventions, although there are exceptions
to both rules. Critics oft en group movies into genres for the purpose of comparison and
discussion; audiences, sometimes unknowingly, do the same thing. But political films
do not seem to fit the bill of a unique and recognizable genre. For example, is an obviously
political movie like The Candidate (1972) political in the same sense as a satire
like Election (1999)? Both movies deal with the political process in the largest sense,
but they share little in terms of content, structure, or message to the viewing audience.

We can suggest at least four reasons for the lack of a clearly defined genre of political
films:
1. Supposedly political films lack the internal consistency of other film genres—the
forms that political movies take vary widely (e.g., The Candidate and Election).
2. Political films do not share as many conventions of plot and character as do other
genres.
3. Overtly political films oft en allow for variation within the genre by combining
descriptions, as in “political comedy” or “political thriller,” thus vitiating their
status.
4. Some filmmakers and perhaps critics fear the label of political film as box office
anathema, meaning that filmmakers may consciously avoid making political films
or attempt to depoliticize the ones they do. Even if there were a widely recognized and readily recognizable genre of political
films, it would probably not help to identify the kinds of political messages that can
appear in many less explicitly political films. It would thus tend to divert attention from
the frequently interesting political aspects of otherwise seemingly apolitical films.

Sending Political Messages
A second common approach to identifying political films places emphasis on the
political and/or ideological messages they impart. Samuel Goldwyn’s famous bromide
(“Messages are for Western Union!”) notwithstanding, movies frequently do convey
political messages. Rather explicit ideological messages may be present in films entirely
devoid of explicit political referents; however, many of the political messages sent by
movies are not the result of conscious planning by filmmakers. The depiction of gender
roles in movies of the 1930s and 1940s has been interpreted as speaking volumes about
the gender politics of that era, although in many cases this effect was surely not the
intent of the filmmakers. Indeed, it is probably safe to say that most contemporary
American movies are not intended to send any particular political or ideological message;
most are probably meant only to entertain and, more importantly, to make money.
Regarding the perhaps unintentional political statements offered by many movies,
political scientist James Combs offers a useful analogy of the movie as a political
participant: “A film participates in a political time not in how it was intended, but how
it was utilized by those who saw it.” This outlook raises the question of whether the
intentions of filmmakers are a legitimate and significant focus for the political analysis
of films. For among many fi lm scholars and critics, discussing the filmmakers’ intent
implies a problematic methodological and conceptual conundrum. First, many if not
most Holly wood films are the result of a group filmmaking process, so to talk about the
political intentions of the filmmaker may be truly inaccurate. Second, many scholars
and critics of the literary tradition regard cinematic output as a text that must speak
for itself. According to this approach, the political motives of the creators of films are
ultimately irrelevant to the meaning and the effects a fi lm has upon its audience.
However, when the task at hand is political analysis, the intentions of filmmakers
are arguably much more germane. As Beverly Kelley notes, “movies reflect political
choices.” In this respect, to create fi lm is to participate politically. And like all political
participation, some filmmaking is more rational, effective, and ultimately more politically
noteworthy than the rest. Therefore, the political motivations and intentions of
fi ms and filmmakers should be of great interest to students of political films, which
is one reason why this book tends to focus on fi ms that seem to have been made to
impart a political message.

Political Film as Political Theories
Another way of looking at the relationship between fi lm and politics is to regard films
as potential vehicles of political theory. After all, the almost magical capacity of films to
create or alter reality can be seen as analogous to the machinations of political theorists.
Most movies seek either to mimic and/or re-create reality or to bend and twist reality
in creative ways. Some movies may even do both, or attempt to. The two predominant
dimensions of political films—content and intent—seem to parallel the two major
strands of political theory—empirical and normative.
Political content, which frequently entails more or less accurately depicting some aspect
of political reality, resembles empirical (or descriptive) political theory. Thus, films
that emphasize describing political institutions, processes, and actors—rare as they may
be—may help audiences to better understand political phenomena. Conversely, if such
films do a poor job of representing political reality or if they contradict the assumptions
and perceptions of their audience, they may incite objections or even ridicule.
Regard less of its accuracy, this kind of political content almost always makes movies
seem more political. Like empirical political theory, political content usually helps
to describe and explain how politics works. Of course, many movies only marginally
invoke this kind of political content. For example, legal thrillers such as A Civil Action
(1998) almost invariably provide some insight into the judicial system, but such content
is usually not part of the film’s focus.
Political intent generally resembles normative (or judgmental) political theory in
that it seeks to judge, prescribe, and/or persuade. Films that are loaded with intentional
political messages explicitly challenge the values of the audience and may even incite
it to political action. On the other hand, the political messages of many movies may be
lost on the audience amid a sea of competing cinematic themes—usually more personal
than political. Like normative political theory, however, movies rife with ideological
messages may fail to reach unreceptive audiences who reject their exhortations. Or,
as oft en seems the case, political messages may be squarely aimed at the choir of true
believers who are likely to agree with a film’s message without having seen it.

A Basic Typology of Political Films

The two dimensions of political content and intent identified earlier may be combined to
create a rudimentary means of classifying films according to their political significance.
Figure 1.1 illustrates the matrix created by the two dimensions. Most films probably
fall well within the extremes described by this matrix, but these extremes suggest pure
types that may be useful as tools for analyzing movies. At the positive extremes of both
political content and intent, in the upper right corner of the diagram, arguably lie the
most obviously political of all films, consistent with the label of pure political films.
Such films are set in a recognizably political environment and depict political actors
and institutions, thus providing cues to their audiences and presumably describing the
filmmaker’s view of political reality. Note that the “pure” designation does not necessarily mean that such fi lms are more
or less political than others; however, it does suggest that the politi cal nature of such
fi lms will be fairly evident to most audiences. In fact, pure political fi lms may suff er in a
sense from their very transparency. Audiences may understandably recoil from movies
that combine heavy doses of both political context and ideological cant. Combs and
Combs fi nd that such eff orts are prone to evoking the “politics of the obvious.”
Most movies, we will argue, send political or protopolitical messages that audiences
may not even notice, but these overtly political fi lms are political in a way that all of
us readily perceive: they focus on politicians, elections, government, and the political
process (Table 1.1). Th ese are the explicitly political fi lms, the message movies that
Goldwyn warned against. Th e tradi tion of the political fi lm, narrowly defi ned, began
even before Th e Birth of a Nation (1915) and lives on to the present day. Some political
movies are comedies, others are thrillers, many are melodramas, and a few are
biogra phies. Many (e.g., All Quiet on the Western Front, 1930; Platoon, 1986) deal with
the issues of war and peace, while others (e.g., Gentleman’s Agreement, 1947; I Am a
Fugitive from a Chain Gang, 1932; Brubaker, 1980) confront social problems such as
discrimination, the need for prison reform, and the moral responsibility of the press in
a free society. More contentious issue movies such as Norma Rae (1979) and Th e China
Syndrome (1979) are even more obviously political. Most of these fi lms criticize specifi c
aspects of the political process, but a few go even further by off ering a broad critique of
the entire political and social system. All of these movies have as their core a political
message that any viewer can perceive; their themes are not hidden beneath a coating of
special eff ects or couched in, for example, the lifestyle of a hooker with a heart of gold
(à la Pretty Woman, 1990).

Politically reflective Pure Political movies
movies
Political
content
(high)
Political Political
intent intent
(low) (high)

Political
Socially reflective content Auteur political movies (low) Movies
Figure 1.1Types of political Films suggested by Dimensions of Content and Intent

In the lower right corner of the diagram, where extremely high political intent meets
diminished political content, lie films that may be described as “auteur” political movies.
The “auteur” designation does not necessarily confer the traditional meaning of a
director with firm artistic control (discussed in Chapter 2); rather, it suggests films in
which political meaning is imparted—perhaps artistically—without overt reference to
obvious political imagery. Such films may typically invoke symbolism and other artistic
devices to transmit their politically charged messages.
The upper left corner of the diagram depicts films with obvious political content
that are more or less devoid of intentional political messages. Films in this area are
designated “politically reflective” because they often mirror popular ideas about political
phenomena. This label covers fi ms from other genres (romantic comedies, thrillers,
etc.) that use political institutions as convenient backdrops to other sorts of themes.
For example, the 1990s witnessed the release of a spate of films featuring the American
presidency. These films do, of course, address political issues, but they generally use the
institution as a convenient ploy to evoke other themes; the intentional political agendas
of films such as Independence Day (1996), which features a president as a kind of action hero, seem marginal at best.
Such films may be of particular significance with respect to providing symbolic
referents to political phenomena. Dan Nimmo and James Combs provide a compelling
description of how such films can unintentionally create political meanings for audiences.
Nimmo and Combs work from Murray Edelman’s postulate that the mass public
does not experience politics through direct involvement; instead, its perceptions are
founded upon and filtered by symbolic representations, such as those provided by the
fi lm medium. So movies set in political or quasi-political contexts are likely sources of
the symbolic content that informs mass understanding of the political system.
Films that avoid both overt political messages and reference to explicitly political
events are located in the lower left corner of the diagram and are labeled “socially reflective” films. Most Hollywood movies probably fall near this designation, if not squarely in it.

Table 1.1 Examples of Film Types

Politically reflective films: Pure (overt) political films:
Independence Day Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Invasion of the Body Snatchers The Candidate

Many legal, western, and gangster films Most social problem and documentary films
Propaganda films

Socially reflective films : Auteur political films:
Pretty Woman The Godfather
Gone With the Wind Natural Born Killers
Many other genre films

The majority of movies neither have blatantly political contexts nor evokes intentional
political messages to audiences; however, that is not to say that most movies
are not at all political. Despite the benign intentions of their creators, both the socially
reflective and politically reflective types of fi lm are frequently pregnant with political
meaning. Nimmo and Combs further contend that all social reality is “mediated” by
means of communication—much of it the mass communication exemplified by film.
Film, moreover, is a “democratic art,” whose success as an enterprise is dependent upon
the favor of mass audiences. Successful movies, therefore, tend to be the ones that show
the public what it wants to see—just as successful political candidates typically tell the
public what it wants to hear. Thus, a very popular movie can tell us something about
the audience.

Analyzing the Unpolitical Political Film
Most students can recognize overtly political films; however, many students find it
difficult to recognize films that fall roughly into the lower left quadrant of Figure 1.1—
socially reflective movies—as examples of political filmmaking. A casual observer can
interpret and understand the obvious political films, and some can navigate the subtle
ideological nuances of auteur political eff orts. Archetypical political classics such as
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) and The Candidate are generally well received by
contemporary student audiences despite their dated qualities. More difficult for many
is the leap toward understanding how otherwise ostensibly benign films such as Close
Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) or even political thrillers such as Blow Out can imply
messages—both from the filmmaker and about the audience as well as society itself.
With this text, we hope to provide students with the examples and analytic tools they
need to make these interpretations more readily. How do otherwise mostly apolitical
movies evoke political themes? First and foremost, movies intended for mass audiences
are invariable money-making propositions. Gianos notes that “biases follow from films’
most basic role as vehicles for profit making … these biases, of course, are the point.”
Nimmo and Combs state that “those movies that sell and those few that endure do so
because they have treated selected cultural themes that were on the minds, or in the
back of the minds, of large numbers of people.” Popular movies, in other words, invoke
popular ideas about politics. Such films may individually be more or less innocuous, yet
collectively influential: “The power of any single movie to influence one’s viewpoint is
Iimited but obviously repetition has its effect.”
A potential problem for scientific observers (and students) of political fi lms is recognizing
within themselves the proclivity to respond to such themes. A useful analytic
question to pose when viewing such films is this: To which mass, politically relevant
beliefs, hopes, or fears does this film appeal? This is not a straightforward question to
answer, because as Nimmo and Combs observe, “people sort themselves on the basis of
the cultural [fi lm] fantasies that they want to believe.” As moviegoers, we must exam ine
not only our own values and beliefs but also those of others and of soci ety at large. Th e
148 | Political Matinée
following section explores various avenues of analysis by which students of fi lm and
politics may arrive at insights into the political aspects of inexplicitly political fi lms.
Whereas these patterns may be found in all types of fi lm, they are perhaps most likely
to appear in socially or politically reflective films.

Sublimated Politics in the Movies

Fantastic Displacement
Nimmo and Combs draw particular attention to movies that involve what they call
“fantastic displacement … the process of placing fantasies of an age in a melodramatic
setting and story that covertly mediates the political fantasy for a mass audience to
make their fantasies palatable and entertaining.” As an example of this process, Nimmo
and Combs cite the science fiction fi lms of the 1950s, which seemed to substitute fears
of alien invasions and the like for anxiety about the spread of the ostensible Communist
threat. (Th e spate of eco-catastrophe films of the late 1990s and the beginning of the
new century might be analyzed in terms of substituting fantastic threats like asteroids
and volcanoes for anxiety about the fragile ecosystem of earth.) Although many students
are readily able to identify these patterns in older films, such as Invasion of the
Body Snatchers (1956), they tend to miss—or even emotionally reject—similar patterns
in movies of their own era.

 
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!