Downloaded by [Universit

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
D
ow

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
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
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
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
ni
ve
rs
it
y

of
O
re
go
n]
a
t
20
:5
2
12
O
ct
ob
er
2
01
7
7
marked differences in tone, plot, and time period dramatized? If
the answer is a self- evident
“yes,” then does the satirical “sly little comic treasure” Dick

(1999) by defi nition belong in
the same camp? 14 Finally, is an obviously political movie like
The Candidate (1972) political
in the same sense as a satire like Election (1999) or a comedy
like The Campaign (2012)? All
three 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
defi ned genre of political
fi lms:
1. Supposedly political fi lms lack the internal consistency of
other fi lm genres—the
forms that political movies take vary widely (e.g., The
Candidate and Election and
The Campaign ; Nixon , Frost/Nixon , and Dick ).
2. Political fi lms do not share as many conventions of plot,
character, and iconography
as do other genres.
3. Overtly political fi lms often allow for variation within the
genre by combining
descriptions, as in “political comedy” (e.g., The Dark Horse ,
1932; Man of the Year ,
2006; The Campaign , 2012) or “political thriller” (e.g., The
Bourne Identity fran-
chise, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2012), thus vitiating their status.
4. Filmmakers and perhaps popular critics fear the label of
political fi lm as box offi ce
anathema, meaning that fi lmmakers may consciously avoid
making political fi lms,
may depict political topics through allegory to shroud political

intent (e.g., Invasion
of the Body Snatchers , 1958, 1976; The Godfather trilogy,
1972, 1974, 1990), or
may attempt to depoliticize the ones they do make ( Argo ;
Zero Dark Thirty ).
Even if there were a widely recognized and readily
recognizable genre of political fi lms, it
would probably not help to identify the kinds of political
messages that can appear in many
less explicitly political fi lms. It would thus divert attention
from the frequently interesting
political aspects of otherwise seemingly apolitical fi lms. This
murky relationship between
explicitly and obliquely political fi lms persists even when
headlines like “Politics Reigns at
Golden Globes” trumpeted the surprising critical and box offi ce
successes Argo , Zero Dark
Thirty , and Lincoln in 2012. 15 Set decades apart in time
among divergent kinds of political
players and laying out contrasting moral dilemmas, these fi lms
showcase the vibrancy of the
political fi lm spectrum. Their popularity does not, however , put
the genre on a stable foot-
ing, as their considerable differences make plain. Recent studies
that more or less take the
genre’s parameters for granted and/or lean heavily on this
book’s typology of political fi lms
to make their case have not extinguished the need for an
updated and expanded analytic
framework befi tting the ambiguous nature of politically imbued
fi lms that this second edi-
tion provides. 16 The diversity among these recent analyses,
both their analytic styles and the
fi lms they include, further underscores the diffi culty in staking
the genre’s claim to politi-

cally relevant movies.
Sending Political Messages
A second common approach to identifying political fi lms
places emphasis on the politi-
cal or ideological messages they impart. Samuel Goldwyn’s
famous bromide (“Messages
are for Western Union!”) notwithstanding, movies frequently do
bear political messages. 17
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
8
Rather explicit ideological messages may be present in fi lms
entirely devoid of explicit
political referents; however, many of the political messages
conveyed by movies are not the
result of conscious planning by fi lmmakers. 18 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 not necessarily
the intent of the fi lmmakers.
Indeed, it is probably safe to say that most, if not all,
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. Those
that do impart a lesson by
the fi lm’s end tend to be dramas that stress personal,
emotional, or sentimental messages
that, in fact, occlude or undermine a fi lm’s politics. For
example, the critically acclaimed hit
Silver Linings Playbook (2012) draws audiences into the
painful, bewildering, and at times
absurd world of psychological illness by bringing Pat, a man
trying for a second chance in
life after a bipolar diagnosis, to three- dimensional life. The fi
lm does not really concern the
shortcomings of a health care system that fails him. In contrast,
Stephen Soderbergh’s thriller
Side Effects (2013) also addresses issues of mental well - being
but does so by taking on the
psychopharmacological business, questioning the cozy
relationship between doctors and the
drug industry and, more broadly, people’s dependency on
medications like its fi ctional anti-
depressant Ablixa. At the same time, for all its skepticism
toward the entwining relationship
between high fi nance and the omnipotent pharmaceutical
industry, the fi lm aims to thrill as
a whodunit and does not sacrifi ce suspense to make a political
statement.
The overriding importance of economics to the fi lm industry
makes all the more remark-

able the twenty- fi rst- century increase in the production of fi
lms depicting political processes,
exploring the politics of war, and showcasing characters
inscribed by their proximity to
institutional power (e.g., Charlie Wilson’s War [2007] is all of
these). Their very numbers
and unprecedented dominance at the 2013 awards season prove
a new interest by fi lm-
makers in creating, and by the public in watching, ideologically
charged fi lms. This trend
is no less important for being downplayed by those most
responsible for creating it . Char-
lie Wilson’s War is about the U.S. intervention in the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, and
Argo dramatizes a little known rescue of American diplomats
by the CIA and the Canadian
ambassador during the overthrow of the shah in Iran. Both
address international politics of
the 1970s and 1980s and build from the heroism of real people,
highlighting how much it
helps to have a good yarn to tell. Tom Hanks, the lead actor and
producer of Charlie Wilson’s
War , explains, “It’s almost like an anecdotal story of look how
curious things can happen
in the political world when no one is paying attention to what
you are doing, which is prob-
ably the best way politics works. . . . What’s great about nonfi
ction fi lms even though we
make a fake movie about it is that it gives the audience the
knowledge of the fourth and the
fi fth act that goes on afterwards.” 19 On the other hand,
director and lead actor Ben Affl eck
feared partisanship would poison Argo at the box offi ce. In an
article titled “Affl eck Says No
Politics in ‘Argo,’” he shrugs off the political aspect of his
award- winning hit: “I didn’t want

the movie politicized. I have Republican friends and Democratic
friends and wanted them
all to see the movie and enjoy it in equal measure. I certainly
didn’t want it to be politicized
internationally, either.” 20
Regarding the perhaps unintentional political statements
offered by many movies, James
Combs offers a useful analogy of the movie as a political
participant: “A fi lm participates in
a political time not in how it was intended, but how it was
utilized by those who saw it.” 21
This outlook raises the question of whether the intentions of fi
lmmakers are a legitimate and
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
9
signifi cant focus for the political analysis of fi lms. For among
many fi lm scholars and crit-
ics, discussing the fi lmmakers’ intent implies a problematic

methodological and conceptual
conundrum. First, many if not most Hollywood fi lms are the
result of a group fi lmmaking
process, so to talk about the political intentions of the fi
lmmaker may be truly inaccurate.
Second, many scholars and critics of the literary tradition and
the declared “death of the
author” point of view regard cinematic output as a text that
must speak for itself. 22 According
to this approach, the political motives of the creators of fi lms
are ultimately irrelevant to the
meaning a fi lm has for, and the effects it has upon, its
audience.
However, when the task at hand is political analysis, the
intentions of fi lmmakers are
arguably much more germane. As Beverly Kelley notes,
“movies refl ect political choices.” 23
In this respect, to create fi lm is to participate politically. And
like all political participation,
some fi lmmaking is more rational, effective, and ultimately
more politically noteworthy than
the rest. Therefore, the political motivations and intentions of fi
lms and fi lmmakers should
be of great interest to students of political fi lms, which is one
reason why this book tends to
focus on fi lms 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 fi lms as
potential vehicles of political theory. After all, the almost
magical capacity of fi lms to cre-
ate 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 fi lms—content and intent—seem to parallel the two
major strands of political
theory—empirical and normative.
Political content, which frequently entails depicting, more or
less accurately, if not
realistically, some aspect of political reality, resembles
empirical (or descriptive) polit-
ical theory. Thus, fi lms that emphasize describing political
institutions, processes, and
In Charlie Wilson’s War (2007), Julia Roberts plays a
wealthy socialite, Joanne Herring, who urges
louche Texas congressman Charlie Wilson, played by Tom
Hanks, to intervene on behalf of Afghan
rebels against Soviet forces in the early 1980s.
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

10
actors—rare as they may be—may help audiences to understand
political phenomena.
Conversely, if such fi lms 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 ridi-
cule. Regardless of its accuracy, this kind of political content
almost always makes mov-
ies 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)
and Michael Clayton (2007), or even the slavery- era Amistad
(1997), almost invariably
provide some insight into the judicial system and legal theory,
but such content is usually
not the fi lm’s central 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 audi-
ence amid a sea of competing cinematic themes—usually more
personal than political. As
the authors of the seminal Film and Society Since 1945
explain, “Most American social

and political fi lms . . . defi ne political events in terms of an
individual’s fate and conscious-
ness.” 24 Like normative political theory, however, movies r ife
with ideological messages
may fail to affect unreceptive audiences who reject their
exhortations. Or, as often seems the
case, political messages may be squarely aimed at the choir of
true believers who are likely
to agree with a fi lm’s message without having seen it. A serial
adaptation of Ayn Rand’s
novel Atlas Shrugged (2011, 2012, 2014) bears out this claim.
Supporters of Rand’s politi-
cal ideology championed the low- budget productions with an
“it’s about time!” attitude and
wore their enthusiasm for the poorly received fi lms as a badge
of honor. 25 Even the complete
cast change in the second installment did not dampen Rand-
believers’ support even as the
franchise’s “preaching to the choir” effect likely hurt its ability
to draw many nonbelievers.
In his disparaging review of part one, Roger Ebert anticipates
the predisposition of Rand-
fans and tacitly warns off anyone else: “Let’s say . . . you’re an
objectivist or a libertarian,
and you’ve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you
going to get a letdown. It’s
not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an
incoherent and murky fashion. It
would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?” 26
Reviewing the third installment, Alan
Scherstuhl cannot resist taking ironic note of the contradiction
between the fi lm’s ideological
cant and its artistic value: “Rand’s parable is meant to showcase
just how much our world
needs the best of us, but this adaptation only does so
accidentally—by revealing what mov-

ies would be like if none of the best of us worked on them.” 27
A Basic Typology of Political Films
The two dimensions of political content and intent identifi ed
earlier may be combined to
create a basic means of classifying fi lms according to their
political signifi cance. Figure 1.1
illustrates the matrix created by the two dimensions. Most fi lms
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 fi lms,
consistent with the label of pure political fi lms and the bare -
bones description by the Library
of Congress. Such fi lms are set in a recognizably political
environment and depict political
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

11
actors and institutions, thus providing cues to their audiences
and presumably describing the
fi lmmaker’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, nor does it mean that “pure” political
genre fi lms exist in a defi ni-
tive sense. In the words of Janet Staiger, “Hollywood fi lms
have never been ‘pure’—that is,
easily arranged into categories. All that has been pure has been
sincere attempts to fi nd order
among variety.” 28 In this quest for “order among variety,” the
“pure political movies” desig-
nation means that the political nature of such fi lms will be
fairly evident to most audiences.
In fact, pure political fi lms may suffer 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 efforts
are prone to evoking the “poli-
tics of the obvious.” 29
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 ). These are the explicitly political fi lms that fulfi ll
the Library of Congress’s
genre requirements, the message movies that Goldwyn warned

against. The tradition of the
political fi lm began before The Birth of a Nation (1915) and
includes The Jungle (1914), a
movie adapted from the radical immigrant novel/meatpacking
industry exposé of the same
title by journalist- socialist Upton Sinclair. In an essay titled
“The Visual Politics of Class,”
Steven J. Ross notes, “By 1910, movies about class struggle
grew so numerous that review-
ers began speaking of a new genre of ‘labor- capital’ fi lms.” 30
Even the fi rst campaign ad
preceded D.W. Griffi th’s offensive epic; pro- Woodrow
Wilson, “The Old Way and the New”
hit screens in 1912. 31
Figure 1.1 Types of Political Films Suggested by Dimensions
of Content and Intent
Political
content
(high)
Political
content
(low)
Political
intent
(low)
Political
intent
(high)
Politically reflective
movies

Pure political movies
Socially reflective
movies
Auteur political movies
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
12
Some political movies are comedies ( Man of the Year , 2006;
The Campaign , 2012), oth-
ers are thrillers ( Three Days of the Condor , 1975; State of
Play , 2009; The Ides of March ,
2011), many are melodramas ( The Gorgeous Hussey , 1936;
Meet John Doe , 1944; A Face
in the Crowd , 1957), and more than a few are biographies ( The
Young Mr. Lincoln ; W. , 2008;
Iron Lady , 2012; Lincoln , 2012). Many (e.g., All Quiet on
the Western Front , 1930; Pla-

toon , 1986; Stop- Loss , 2008; The Hurt Locker , 2008) deal
with the issues of war and peace,
while others (e.g., Gentleman’s Agreement , 1947; Brubaker,
1980; Silkwood , 1983; Boys
Don’t Cry , 1999; Bamboozled , 2000; and Good Night and
Good Luck , 2005) confront social
problems such as discrimination, the need for prison reform and
work safety regulations,
gender- based crime, and the moral responsibilities of the
entertainment industry and the
press in a free society. More contentious issue movies such as
Norma Rae (1979), The China
Syndrome (1979), and Erin Brockovich (2000) are even more
obviously political. Most of
these fi lms criticize specifi c aspects of the political process,
but a few, like Network (1976),
go even further by offering a broad critique of the entire
political and socioeconomic system.
All of these movies have as their core a political message that
any viewer can perceive; their
themes are not competing with mythic characterization and
special effects as in Christopher
Nolan’s dystopian Batman trilogy (2005, 2008, 2012). Their
critiques are not couched in
the lifestyle of a hooker with a heart of gold (à la Pretty
Woman , 1990) or obscured by the
cartoon styling of WALL- E (2008) or Cloudy With a Chance
of Meatballs (2009), two chil-
dren’s movies rife with comic yet ominous warnings about the
fate of the environment and
out- of- control American consumerism.
In the lower right corner of Figure 1.1, where extremely high
political intent meets
diminished political content, are fi lms that may be described as
“auteur” political movies.

The “auteur” designation does not necessarily confer the
traditional meaning of a director
with fi rm artistic control (discussed in Chapter 2 ); rather, it
suggests fi lms in which politi-
cal meaning is imparted—perhaps artistically—without overt
reference to obvious political
imagery. Instead, such fi lms may typically invoke symbolism
and other artistic devices to
transmit their politically charged messages. Their richest
interpretations may rely more
heavily than other fi lms do on the political and social climate
of the time of their production.
Films as diverse as The Wizard of Oz (1939), versions of The
Invasion of the Body Snatch-
ers (1956, 1978, 1993) and The Crucible (1957, 1996), the
Alien movies (1979, 1986, 1992,
1997), and the phenomenally popular, cottage industry Star
Wars franchise invite symbolic
Table 1.1
Examples of Film Types
Politically refl ective fi lms Pure (overt) political fi lms
Independence Day
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Many legal, western, and gangster fi lms
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
The Candidate
Most social problem and documentary fi lms
Propaganda fi lms
Socially refl ective fi lms Auteur political fi lms

Pretty Woman
Gone With the Wind
Many other genre fi lms
The Godfather
Natural Born Killers
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
13
reading beyond their embrace of conventions associated with
historical, science fi ction, and
fantasy genres. For example, viewers commonly consider
1957’s The Crucible , based on
Arthur Miller’s play, a morality tale about the destructive
Communist “witch hunts” of the
1950s. In the post- Soviet era of the 1990s, the allegory’s new
historical context opened the
fi lm to an interpretation of the upright Proctors and their
predicament as a backlash against
the politics of feminism. Or as Roger Ebert only half- jokingly

supposed, “Perhaps every age
gets the Crucible it deserves. Anyone who has seen the recent
documentary Paradise Lost:
The Child Murders of Robin Hood Hills will recognize in its
portrait of a small Arkansas
town many parallels with this fable about Salem, including
those who mask their own doubts
in preemptive charges of Satanic conspiracies.” 32 Even the
classic, bittersweet love triangle
Casablanca (1942) is often interpreted as a call to arms to the
United States during World
War II. Rick’s mantra, “I stick my neck out for nobody,” is
widely read as Americans’ initial
reluctance to join the fi ght.
The upper left corner of Figure 1.1 depicts fi lms with obvious
political content that are
more or less devoid of intentional political messages. Films in
this area are designated
“politically refl ective” because they often mirror popular ideas
about political phenomena.
This label covers fi lms from other genres (romantic comedies,
thrillers, etc.) that use politi-
cal institutions as convenient backdrops to other sorts of
themes. For example, the 1990s
witnessed the release of a spate of fi lms featuring the American
presidency. These fi lms
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
fi lms such as Independence
Day (1996), which features a president as a kind of action hero,
seem marginal at best. With
Annette Bening playing Sydney, an environmental lobbyist and
love interest to Michael
Douglas’s widowed President Shepherd, the romantic comedy

The American President
(1995) also fi ts as an example. The fi lm humanizes the
president in the service of romance.
With a script by celebrated political drama writer Aaron Sorkin,
issues like gun control share
the screen with more personal concerns like the one voiced by
Sydney’s boss: “The time it
will take you to go from presidential girlfriend to cocktail party
joke can be measured on
an egg timer.” Even this observation—all the more cruel for
being true and symptomatic of
larger concerns about the highest offi ce in the land never
having been held by a woman—
delivers comedy and little else on behalf of the fi lm’s putative
politics.
Such fi lms may be of particular signifi cance with respect to
providing symbolic referents
to political phenomena. Dan Nimmo and James Combs provide a
compelling description of
how such fi lms can unintentionally create political meanings
for audiences. 33 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 fi ltered
by symbolic representations, such as those provided by the fi lm
medium. 34 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 Figure 1.1 and are labeled
“socially refl ective” fi lms.

Most Hollywood movies probably fall near this designation, if
not squarely in it. Most mov-
ies neither feature blatantly political contexts nor evoke
intentional political messages to
audiences; however, that is not to say that most movies are not
at all political. For example,
most of the fi lms examined in Chapter 15 , “Women, Politics,
and Film: All About Eve?,”
fall in the category of “socially refl ective.” With neither
intentional political messaging nor
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
14
political events anchoring their plots, most of these fi lms
instead refl ect, and refl ect on, the
public’s attitudes toward women and gender norms.
Despite the benign intentions of their creators, both the
socially refl ective and politically
refl ective 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 exemplifi ed by fi lm. Film, moreover,
is a “democratic art,” whose
success as an enterprise is dependent upon the favor of mass
audiences. 35 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 politically signifi cant and socially
revealing about the audience.
Analyzing the Unpolitical Political Film
Most viewers can recognize overtly political fi lms; however,
many fi nd it diffi cult to rec-
ognize fi lms that fall roughly into the lower left quadrant of
Figure 1.1—socially refl ective
movies—as examples of political fi lmmaking. A casual
observer can interpret and under-
stand the obvious political fi lms, and some can navigate the
subtle ideological nuances of
auteur political efforts. Archetypical political classics such as
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
(1939) and The Candidate are generally well received by
contemporary audiences despite
their dated qualities. More diffi cult for many is the leap toward
understanding how otherwise
ostensibly benign fi lms such as Close Encounters of the Third
Kind (1977) or even politi-
cal thrillers such as Blow Out (1981) or Syriana (2005) can
imply messages—both from
the fi lmmaker and about the audience as well as society itself.
With this text, we hope to

provide readers 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 invariably
moneymaking propositions. Gianos notes
that “biases follow from fi lms’ most basic role as vehicles for
profi t making . . . these biases,
of course, are the point.” 36 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.”
37 Popular movies, in other
words, invoke popular ideas about politics. Such fi lms may
individually be more or less
innocuous, yet collectively infl uential: “The power of any
single movie to infl uence one’s
viewpoint is limited, but obviously repetition has its effect.” 38
A potential problem for scientifi c observers of political fi lms
is recognizing within
themselves the proclivity to respond to such themes. A useful
analytic question to pose
when viewing such fi lms is this: To which mass, politically
relevant beliefs, hopes, or
fears does this fi lm 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.” 39 As moviegoers, we
must examine not only our own
values and beliefs but also those of others and of society at
large. The 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 refl ective fi lms.
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
15
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.” 40 As an example of this process,
Nimmo and Combs cite the
science fi ction fi lms of the 1950s, which seemed to substitute
fears of alien invasions and
discoveries of earthly mutant creatures for anxiety about the
spread of the ostensible Com-
munist threat and the dawning of the nuclear age following the
unleashing of the atomic
bomb. Likewise, the spate of eco- catastrophe and epidemic fi
lms of the late 1990s and the
beginning of the new century might be viewed as substituting
fantastic threats like asteroids
and volcanoes for anxiety about the fragile ecosystem of earth
and the susceptibility of the
world’s population to global outbreaks of disease.
Although many viewers are readily able to identify these
patterns in older fi lms, such as
Them! and Creature from the Black Lagoon (both 1954) and
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
and Forbidden Planet (both 1956), they tend to miss—or even
emotionally reject—similar
patterns in movies of their own era. They prefer instead to view
cautionary tales as entertain-
ing but safely far- fetched. For example, The Terminator
(1984, 1991, 2003, 2009) and Trans-
former (2007, 2009, 2011, 2014) franchises translate rather
straightforwardly into anxieties
about increasing interdependence between humans and
technology. Less obviously, these
fi lms’ cyborg imagery resonates with the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq—the longest in U.S.
history—and their aftermaths. Due to medical advances on the
battlefi eld, injured soldiers
from these wars survive wounds that would have proved fatal in
previous wars, even one

as recent as the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Wounded veterans
return with machinery appended
in previously impossible ways to their bodies. Some even have
prosthetic limbs capable of
responding to thought patterns. Their renewed bodies visibly
signify human vulnerability,
the stuff of technology- obsessed movie nightmares.
In the critical and box offi ce disappointment Battleship
(2012), a real- life double- amputee
U.S. Army offi cer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan
plays a soldier pitted against a
fully armored alien in a scene edited to highlight the similarity
between the soldier’s pros-
thetic legs and the gleaming metallic limbs of the alien. That
these foreign occupations did
not merit mention during the 2012 Republican presidential
nominee’s convention speech
suggests that both the wars and the plight of returning veterans
remain meager subtext to
the national conversation in which the economy repeatedly
crowds out all other issues. Even
unintentionally, movies can redirect attention to subjects the
national psyche would repress.
Portrayals of Race and Gender
Perhaps one of the most common means by which political
messages seep through Holly-
wood fi lms is through portrayal of sex, race, and gender roles.
Audiences are typically able
to identify and analyze the signifi cance of dated portrayals of
race and gender in older fi lms
(e.g., the black porters and the deferential female roles in Mr.
Smith Goes to Washington ),
but are often at a loss to identify equally dubious portrayals —or

revealing absences—in
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
16
more contemporary fi lms. One problem with identifying
politically signifi cant portrayals of
race and gender is the wide variety of ways they may refl ect
political concerns. Among the
many possibilities: some fi lms invoke offensive or dated
stereotypes; others use plot devices
to punish certain types of characters, such as independent
women or minority fi gures; while
other fi lms signal ideas about politically sidelined groups
through their token presence or
complete absence. 41
Examples of problematic African- American stereotyping
include the highly sexualized
Leticia played by Halle Berry in Monster’s Ball (2001), the
“gentle giant” football player in

The Blind Side (2009), and the obese, poor, illiterate, young
black woman who is sexually
and emotionally abused as the title character in Precious
(2009). (Tellingly, all three of these
fi lms garnered Academy Awards in acting categories, including
the fi rst- ever win for Best
Actress by an African- American, Halle Berry.) Characters
punished for their independence
include a range of women portraying law offi cers, including
Jamie Lee Curtis’s New York
policewoman Meghan in Blue Steel (1990), Jodie Foster’s FBI
agent Starling in Silence of
the Lambs (1991), Jennifer Lopez’s Chicago cop Sharon in
Angel Eyes (2001), and Angelina
Jolie’s CIA agent and title character in Salt (2010). These
women all go through extended
trials- by- fi re to prove themselves worthy of their institutional
authority and the trust of their
predominantly male colleagues. The relationship they bear to
their badges and all that those
badges symbolize more than informs these fi lms; it shapes their
plots.
Finally, Adilifu Nama describes the lack of African- American
characters in science fi ction
fi lms as a structured or symbolic absence. Stanley Kubrick’s
classic 2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968), for example, appears devoid of any references to race
and therefore neutral on the
subject. Closer analysis, however, uncovers a symbolic
blackness in the fi lm that, according
to Nama, “suggests that nonwhites are primitive simian
predecessors of modern humanity.”
He describes this meaningful absence as a consistent feature of
the science fi ction genre to be
diagnosed with a certain amount of self- described hyperbole:

“For decades it appeared as if
science fi ction cinema was the symbolic wish fulfi llment of
America’s staunchest advocates
In Battleship (2012), real- life Iraq war veteran and double-
amputee Col. Gregory D. Gadson plays
Lt. Col. Mick Canales, facing off against an alien whose
metallic exterior compares to Gadson’s
prosthetic legs. Despite Gadson’s actual state- of- the- art
knees, this scene used computer- generated
imaging to create his legs.
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
17
of white supremacy.” 42 The fi lms of Clint Eastwood often
present women characters in a
related presence- through- absence manner. Referred to by other
characters but neither seen
nor heard on screen, dead wives haunt an array of Eastwood
leads. These include city detec-

tive Harry Callahan in Dirty Harry (1971), Old West gunfi
ghter Bill Munny in Unforgiven
(1995), cat burglar Luther Whitney in Absolute Power (1997),
and disgruntled Korean War
vet Walt Kowalski in Gran Torino (2008). The wives’ merely
implied presence affects how
these men understand themselves but, more importantly, frees
them to take action in male-
dominated worlds where patriarchy remains a seemingly
uncontested fact.
Genre
Genres develop through the dialectic of convention repetition
and selective convention vari-
ation. The content of this repetition is replete with clues about
the political and social val-
ues of fi lmmakers and audiences alike. The variations from
established conventions can
be equally telling and instructive. Audiences expect certain
outcomes (e.g., the good guys
should win). Once again, contemporary viewers tend to be more
comfortable identifying
such patterns in older genre efforts (e.g., westerns) than they
are with contemporary releases.
For example, some audiences may be reluctant to identify the
gender dichotomy inherent in
classic “slasher” fi lms as well as in newer models of the genre,
such as the ironic, self- aware
franchise Scream (1996, 1997, 2000, 2011). Male viewers in
particular may resist the idea
that these horror fi lms frequently punish sexually active girls
with a vengeance fi ercer than
any meted out to their male peers. On the other hand, viewers
may also struggle with the
interpretation Carol Clover provides of the Final Girl —her term

for the teen who survives
the typical slasher massacre. Clover’s Men, Women, and
Chainsaws: Gender in the Mod-
ern Horror Film claims that male and female viewers alike
identify with, rather than root
against, the survivor of the genre even though that person is
typically female and, by defi ni-
tion, chaste. 43
Types of Political Messages
Americans in general do not trust politicians. In fact, politics
as a respected profession ranks
well below medicine, law, engineering, teaching, dentistry, and
the ministry. A 2013 Gal-
lup poll found that only 8 percent of those surveyed would rate
the honesty and ethical
standards of members of Congress as high or very high—only
lobbyists ranked lower with
6 percent. Nurses, pharmacists, and grade school teachers rated
at the top. 44 At the start of
2013, moreover, Congress’s approval rating was a dismal 14
percent, the lowest in history
according to Gallup. 45 In the words of one headline,
“Congress Approval Rating Lower Than
Cockroaches, Genghis Khan.” 46
People get their ideas about politicians from experience, the
news media, and the process
of political socialization. Movies play a part in this process by
creating or refl ecting attitudes
about politicians, and as we will see, the cinematic portrait of
politics and politicians is
almost invariably negative. Politicians are often the villains in
movies. They are frequently
corrupt, greedy, self- serving, and ruthlessly ambitious.

Conversely, real politicians of the
past, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt—
Spielberg’s Lincoln and the
Bill Murray FDR vehicle, Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)
notwithstanding—are treated with
such reverence in movies that they become boring and
unbelievable. Neither depiction is
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
18
accurate, of course, but both reinforce the popular view of
politicians as either murderous
crooks or heroic saviors.
Condemning the cardboard clichés of corrupt politics and
conniving politicians, former
senators William S. Cohen and Gary Hart have charged that fi
lm and television producers
are naive about how Washington really works and are
dangerously misleading their view-

ers. 47 Television commentator Andy Rooney responded that
the public “understands that the
crooked politician is a standard dramatic cliché that is no more
typical of the average politi-
cian than the winding marble staircase in a home shown on
television is typical of a staircase
in an American home.” 48 Cohen and Hart suggest that movies
and TV shape our view of
politicians, whereas Rooney insists that we know the difference
between fact and fi ction.
Like others who feel maligned by the media, the senators may
be laying too much blame
on the movies, but Rooney is probably letting fi lmmakers off
the hook too easily. Movies
really do shape, refl ect, and reinforce our opinions, even
though we often dismiss them as
silly—“It’s only a movie.”
Movies, as we noted earlier, also tell us about the political
system and how it works, or
whether it works—that is, whether it can solve our problems.
Usually, they tell us that bad
people can mess up the system and good ones can set it right.
On the whole, these movies
reinforce the status quo, telling us that all is well in America
and that any little problems can
be worked out, usually with the help of a heroic leader. They
seldom point out fundamental
defects in the system, and they rarely suggest that social
problems can be solved by collec-
tive or communal action. They simplify the complex problems
of a complex society, solving
them quickly and easily so we can have a happy ending. Some
critics see a conspiracy in
this pattern, but most agree that it is unconscious and, to some
extent, executed in collusion

with audiences more willing to have their opinions reinforced
than challenged. Selective
perception enables us to ignore even movies that question our
biases. Hollywood’s ubiqui-
tous happy endings further mute such challenges by suggesting
that problems can be easily
solved. The results are what fi lm scholars call “dramas of
reassurance,” movies that support
commonly held ideas and tell us that everything is fi ne.
Political movies send messages about other important aspects
of public life, too. Their
images of politics, politicians, and the political system infl
uence participation in politics, for
example. If politics is corrupt or if heroes and heroines always
come to the rescue, perhaps
there is no need to fi ght city hall. If the movie version of
politics makes those of us who
are not stars irrelevant, perhaps we need not participate. Power
is another frequent subject
of movies, almost always treated negatively, usually by falling
back on the old maxim that
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For an
example, we need look no
further than the fi lm that takes its name from the saying:
Absolute Power contains a president
so craven and villainous he kills his best friend’s wife during a
violent tryst, then to protect
himself orders his Secret Service men to kill a very indirectly
involved second woman sim-
ply because she is a prosecutor. Only a handful of totally selfl
ess, godlike leaders such as
Hollywood’s favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, manage to
exercise power and still come
across as virtuous.

Most American movies avoid, ignore, oversimplify, or
denigrate political ideology, yet
ideology is essential if we are to understand politics. Ideologies
help us make sense of the
world around us. They help us decide whether we are satisfi ed
with the status quo or willing
to change it. All of us have some sort of ideology, but many
Americans pretend they have
none, and so do most of our movies. No wonder the political
motives of most fi lm characters
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
19
are personal ambition and greed. The rare ideologues in
American political movies are one-
dimensional and often silly, thus caricaturing ideology itself. As
a consequence, American
movies, lacking a rich variety of perspectives on society, tend
to see confl ict as a struggle
between good and evil or right and wrong. Political scientists

have noted that Americans, as
a people, are pragmatic rather than ideological. They adapt to
conditions rather than react-
ing to them from a fi xed point of view. Such ideology is vague
and largely unarticulated.
Alternatives are seldom expressed, and we have been taught,
partly by political movies,
that ideology is foolish, impractical, or evil. Indeed, American
ideology as exhibited both in
political fi lm and in the larger society might be said to be
essentially anti- ideological because
of its emphasis on pragmatism and consensus. We like to make
things work, and we do not
like confl ict. Both of these orientations lead us to mute
ideology. But also we place a high
value on individualism, competition, and social equality, all of
which are traditional com-
ponents of an ideology—and all of which are themes that recur
in American political fi lms.
Political movies thus send many different messages. They
describe us, shape us, and
sometimes move us. Although some themes recur, the messages
and our reactions to them
tend to vary over time, refl ecting the historical and political
context. This survey therefore
treats American political movies chronologically, although we
will return to their common
themes and focus on some specifi c issues. Subsequent chapters
of this text will explore how
the fi lms of various eras and genres evoke the various kinds of
political signifi cance we have
discussed.
The Impact of Political Films

The study of political fi lms interests us as political scientists
and fi lm critics primarily because
we theorize that such fi lms might have some kind of impact on
the political system; how-
ever, the specifi c forms of such an impact remain largely
unexplored by both disciplines. A
priori, we can hypothesize several non- mutually- exclusive
ways that movies affect politics:
Movies Contribute to General Social and Political Learning,
Including Affective Patterns
Movies are part of a larger political socialization process. Just
as we learn about our political
system in school and other social institutions, we learn by going
to movies. This socializa-
tion process may include learning affective patterns, such as
support for or opposition to the
role of government. For example, if one attends enough movies
like Independence Day or
Air Force One (1997) as an impressionable youth, one might
be disposed to expect extraor-
dinary achievements by U.S. presidents. A lack of examples of
important female politicians
on screen may undergird public reluctance to support such
candidates.
Movies Provide Information About and/or Orientation to
Specifi c Issues or Events
Not all learning at the movies needs to occur by means of slow,
subtle processes of socializa-
tion. Attending a specifi c movie can provide viewers with
information and possibly change
their attitudes concerning specifi c issues. For example, viewing
The Insider (1999) might

both inform a viewer and instill a negative perception about the
tobacco industry. At the
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
20
same time, fi lms about the 2007 fi nancial collapse may inform
audiences about chicanery in
the fi nancial industry yet leave them unconvinced that avoiding
Wall Street for some nobler
pursuit is the way to go. Despite their antiheroes’ bad behavior,
the movie star glamor and
conspicuous consumption on display in fi lms like Wall Street:
Money Never Sleeps (2010),
Margin Call (2011), Cosmopolis (2012), and Arbitrage
(2012) may prove hard for a viewer
to resist.
Movies Affect Specifi c Political Behavior, Such as Voting in
Elections

A movie whose message contains a specifi c political target
might affect the vote in an elec-
tion. For example, Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) or 2016: Obama’s
America (2012) might have
convinced voters to vote against President George W. Bush or
President Barack Obama,
respectively. The documentary fi lm The Thin Blue Line
(1988) resulted in the exoneration
of a man who had been imprisoned for murdering a police offi
cer. The documentary West of
Memphis (2012) helped release from prison the men known as
“the West Memphis three,”
who had been convicted of killing three boys in Texas as part of
a supposed satanic ritual;
their story is also the basis of Atom Egoyan’s feature Devil’s
Knot (2013).
Movies Affect the Knowledge and Behavior of Specifi c
Groups,
Especially Political Elites
Some elected offi cials, for example, cite John Wayne movies
as infl uencing their political
careers; in Chapter 3 , for example, we discuss a theory that
President Ronald Reagan in
effect reenacted some of the movie parts he played, including
sheriff in a western, while in
offi ce. His presidential image then informed the public
posturing of George W. Bush and his
adoption of cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and ranch backdrops to
stake his political identity to
the ideological underpinnings of the western much as Reagan
had. (Even Hawaii native and
Chicago politician Barack Obama has made public appearances
in a cowboy hat.)

Movies Spark Public Debate and/or Media Interest in Specifi c
Issues
Even a fi lm that is not seen in great numbers by the general
public, such as Wag the Dog
(1997), may have a tertiary impact on the political system
because the mass media or other
elites discuss and use its imagery in public discourse, which
may eventually fi lter down to
other groups, including the general public. Meanwhile, fi lms
based on current events, like
Zero Dark Thirty ’s portrayal of the hunt for and assassination
of Osama bin Laden, percolate
into public consciousness when politicians refer to them in
political contexts. Senators John
McCain, Dianne Feinstein, and Carl Levin all protested the fi
lm as “grossly inaccurate and
misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information
that led to the capture.” 49
This is only a partial list of possible means of impact by
movies, but it suggests that the col-
lective effect of movies may be profound indeed. Several
mediating infl uences on the power
of movies to affect politics ought to be borne in mind, however.
First, decades of political research teach us that, as a rule,
individuals possess consid-
erable capacity to screen their own beliefs from outside stimuli
such as those presented
D
ow
nl
oa

er
2
01
7
21
by political messages in movies. 50 A person with a fi rmly
established partisan identity, for
example, is unlikely to be swayed by the heavy- handed
ideological message of Bulworth
(1998) or the environmentally concerned look at the energy
extraction process known as
“fracking” dramatized in Promised Land (2012). It also bears
mentioning that many movies
(particularly small, independent ones) are not even accessible to
many would- be viewers.
Film studios put many movies in limited release, meaning that
they are seen only in major
urban centers or perhaps only in New York and/or Los Angeles.
Moreover, a person with a strongly conservative worldview is
probably unlikely to go and
see a movie like Bulworth or Promised Land . (After she met
with North Vietnamese offi cials
and imprisoned American pilots behind enemy lines, an entire
generation of Vietnam- era
political conservatives swore off Jane Fonda movies.) Thus,
attending movies is a self-
selected political stimulus. Except perhaps as children, we

generally choose the movies we
want to see and exclude ourselves from many others. Therefore,
many movies with strident
political messages may wind up only preaching to the choir of
its predetermined supporters.
As we have noted, preliminary research suggests people are
least susceptible to persua-
sion by movies that they expect to be political; they are most
open to infl uence when they
are least aware of political messaging. Films overtly aligned
with a partisan cause or party
affi liation would be even less likely to infl uence viewers
already resistant to such issues and
groups outside the movie theater.
A recent analysis by the New York Times found that the
audiences for the liberal docu-
mentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and those of the traditional or
conservative The Passion of the
Christ (2004) were markedly different geographically and
demographically. The theaters
where Passion audiences were the largest tended to be in
suburban settings and dispersed
across the country, whereas the biggest 9/11 audiences were
located in New York, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, and a few other urban centers. 51 The
studios and their distribu-
tion networks contribute to this pattern by exhibiting and
heavily promoting movies in
areas where they think the audience will be the largest. Such a
pattern followed the
release of the anti- Obama documentary, 2016: Obama’s
America , with runs extended in
areas where prospective voters favored Republican presidential
nominee Mitt Romney
and curtailed in “blue” locations where voters were expected to

vote Democratic. Similar
geographic splits defi ned the presidential elections of 2012.
Obama’s fi rmest support
occurred in urban and coastal areas, whereas Romney votes
tended to come from the
suburbs and heartland. 52
Finally, audiences are not monolithic. What little empirical
data we have suggest that
people experience movies politically in fundamentally different
ways. Recent research by
Young suggests that moviegoers have different motivations for
seeing movies; for example,
some just want to kill time while others are trying to keep up
with current trends. 53 Stephen-
son’s groundbreaking research identifi ed remarkably variable
reactions to a short fi lm from
the American Cancer Society, reactions that seemed to depend
on the viewers’ own experi-
ence with cancer. 54 We can therefore expect that different
kinds of political movies will have
varying effects on different kinds of audiences. Whereas that
may seem like a self- evident
conclusion, remarkably little is known about which sorts of fi
lms are most effi cacious (and
why), which types of audiences are most susceptible to which
types of fi lm, and so on. For
now, we must take it mostly as an article of faith that movies
are an important “participant”
in our political system in a variety of ways.
D
ow
nl
oa

er
2
01
7
22
Summary and Implications for the Systematic Study of Film
and Politics
With the goal of helping readers to approach the study of fi lm
and politics systematically,
this chapter has suggested a typology of political fi lms. The
typology is based largely on two
important dimensions of such fi lms: (1) political content—the
extent to which a fi lm refl ects
a political context or setting, and (2) political intention—the
extent to which fi lmmakers
actively seek to impart political or ideological messages.
Whereas movies that exhibit a
great deal of either dimension tend to be readily identifi able as
political fi lms, those with
understated—or even totally sublimated—political content or
expression pose relatively
greater challenges to contemporary students. Several critical
approaches to identifying
political meaning in less obvious political fi lms were briefl y
discussed. The means by which
political fi lms may theoretically affect the political system
were briefl y explored, along with

a series of potentially mediating factors. Finally, much of the
study of political fi lm rests on
largely untested assumptions about the effects of cultural
symbols on the political attitudes
and actions of mass audiences. The rather nascent research
linking exposure to movies and
other media to mass behavior needs to be linked to these often
tenuous assumptions.
Notes
1 . For an example of social science research into the effects
of television on voting, see Danny
Hayes, “Has Television Personalized Voting Behavior?”
Political Behavior , 31.2, June 2009,
pp. 231–260. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109- 008- 9070-
0. For an example of research into
social media and political habits, see Joseph DiGrazia et al.,
“More Tweets, More Votes: Social
Media as a Quantitative Indicator of Political Behavior,”
PlosOne , November 27, 2013; http://
www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.po
ne.0079449.
2 . Phillip L. Gianos, Politics and Politicians in American
Film (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995), p. 3.
3. Douglas Kellner, “Film Politics and Ideology: Refl ections
on Hollywood Film in the Age of Rea-
gan,” www.pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/fi
lmpoliticsideology.pdf, p. 1.
4 . See, for example, Bruce Austin, Immediate Seating: A
Look at Movie Audiences (Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 1989).
5 . L.D. Butler et al., “The Psychological Impact of Viewing

the Film JFK: Emotions, Beliefs, and
Political Behavioral Intentions,” Political Psychology , 1995,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 237–257.
6 . Todd Adkins, J.J. Castle, “Moving Pictures? Experimental
Evidence of Cinematic Infl uence on
Political Attitudes,” Social Science Quarterly . doi:
10.1111/ssqu.12070.
7 . For an example of fi lms about political fi gures classifi
ed as biographical fi lms, see Dennis Bing-
ham, Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as
Contemporary Film Genre (New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2010). For examples of political
fi lms categorized as biography
and thriller fi lms but not as political fi lms, see these fi lm
lists: IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/genre/
biography, and www.imdb.com/genre/thriller. The popular fi lm
reference website IMDb.com
does not offi cially feature political fi lms as a genre but
provides only links to such lists maintained
by users.
8 . David McLellan, Ideology (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1996), p. 1.
9 . Kellner, p. 3.
10 . Barry Keith Grant, Film Genre Reader IV (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 2012).
11 . Library of Congress, Motion Picture & Television
Reading Room, www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/
miggen.html#Political.
12 . Steve Neale, Genre and Hollywood (London: Routledge,
2000), pp. 45–46.
13 . Ibid., p. 46.

14 . Roger Ebert, “Dick”, www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dick-
1999.
15 . “Politics Reigns at Golden Globes,” Politico Magazine ,
www.politico.com/story/2013/01/golden-
globes- politics- 86119.html.
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
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9070-0
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjour
nal.pone.0079449
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjour
nal.pone.0079449
http://www.pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/filmpolit
icsideology.pdf
http://www.imdb.com/genre/biography
http://www.imdb.com/genre/thriller
http://www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/miggen.html#Political
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dick-1999
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/golden-globes-politics-
86119.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/golden-globes-politics-
86119.html
http://www.imdb.com/genre/biography
http://www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/miggen.html#Political

http://IMDb.com
http://IMDb.com
23
16 . See, for example, Ian Scott, American Politics in
Hollywood Film (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-
versity Press, 2011), pp. 12–13. See also Ernest Giglio, Here’s
Looking At You: Hollywood, Film
and Politics (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), pp. 26–27.
17 . Goldwyn himself sent a few messages. His fi rst fi lm
company was publicly committed to “a
foundation of intelligence and refi nement,” and it was
Goldwyn, after all, who produced Lillian
Hellman’s The Little Foxes (1941), a bone- chilling tale of
capitalist greed, and The Best Years of
Our Lives (1946), a poignant story of the aftermath of war. He
also was responsible for The North
Star (1943), one of Hollywood’s most blatantly pro- Russian fi
lms. Apparently Goldwyn was not
so much opposed to messages as ambivalent about them. See
Ephraim Katz, The Film Encyclo-
pedia (New York: Perigee, 1979), p. 491.
18 . See, for example, Louis Gianetti, Understanding Movies
(New York: Prentice Hall, 1996).
19 . “Charlie Wilson’s War—Interview with Tom Hanks,”
IndieLondon , www.indielondon.co.uk/
Film- Review/charlie- wilsons- war- tom- hanks- interview.
20 . Kevin Robillard, “Affl eck Says No Politics in ‘Argo,’”
Politico Magazine , www.politico.com/

blogs/click/2012/10/affl eck- says- no- politics- in- argo-
138010.html.
21 . James E. Combs, American Political Movies: An
Annotated Filmography of Feature Films (New
York: Garland, 1995), p. x.
22 . Roland Barthes, Image- Music- Text (New York: Hill &
Wang, 1978), p. 142.
23 . Beverly M. Kelley, Reel Politik: Political Ideologies in
’30s and ’40s Films (Westport, CT:
Praeger, 1998).
24 . Leonard Quart and Albert Auster, Film and Society
Since 1945 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2011), p. 5.
25 . See, for example, the message boards at IMDb.com,
“Atlas Shrugged, Part 1,” www.imdb.com/
title/tt0480239/?ref_=sr_2.
26 . Roger Ebert, “Atlas Shrugged, Part 1,”
www.rogerebert.com/reviews/atlas- shrugged- 2011.
27 . Alan Scherstuhl, “Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt?”
Has the Year’s Funniest Sex Scene,”
http://www.villagevoice.com/2014- 09- 10/fi lm/atlas-
shrugged- part- 3/.
28 . Janet Staiger, “Hybrid or Inbred: The Purity Hypothesis
and Hollywood Genre History,” Film
Criticism (1997), p. 5.
29 . James Combs and Sarah Combs, Film Propaganda and
American Politics: An Analysis and Fil-
mography (New York: Garland, 1994), p. 8.
30 . Steven J. Ross, “The Visual Politics of Class: Silent Film
and the Public Sphere,” Film Interna-

tional , http://fi lmint.nu/?p=1735.
31 . See the spot at PBS Newshour, “Origins of the Political
Ad: Woodrow Wilson’s 1912 Campaign
Film,” www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/08/origins- of-
the- political- ad- woodrow- wilsons-
1912- campaign- fi lm.html.
32 . Roger Ebert, “Crucible,”
www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the- crucible- 1996.
33 . Dan Nimmo and James E. Combs, Mediated Political
Realities (New York: Longman, 1983),
p. 105.
34 . Murray Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics
(Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1964).
35 . Nimmo and Combs, p. 105.
36 . Gianos, p. xii.
38 . Dan Leab, “Blacks in American Cinema,” in The
Political Companion to American Film , ed.
Gary Crowdus (Chicago: Lakeview Press, 1994), p. 46.
40 . Ibid., p. 108.
41 . See, for example, Susan Faludi, Backlash: The
Undeclared War Against American Women (New
York: Anchor Books/Doubleday, 1992).
42 . Adilifu Nama, Black Space: Imagining Race in Science
Fiction Film (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 2008), pp. 12, 10.
43 . Carol Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws: Gender in
the Modern Horror Film (Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press), pp. 21–65.
44 . Gallup, “Honesty/Ethics in Professions,”
www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty- ethics- professions.
aspx#1.
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
http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Film-Review/charlie-wilsons-
war-tom-hanks-interview
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/10/affleck-says-no-
politics-in-argo-138010.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/?ref_=sr_2
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/atlas-shrugged-2011
http://www.villagevoice.com/2014-09-10/film/atlas-shrugged-
part-3/
http://filmint.nu/?p=1735
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/08/origins-of-the-
political-ad-woodrow-wilsons-1912-campaign-film.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/08/origins-of-the-
political-ad-woodrow-wilsons-1912-campaign-film.html
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-crucible-1996
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-
professions.aspx#1
http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Film-Review/charlie-wilsons-

war-tom-hanks-interview
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/10/affleck-says-no-
politics-in-argo-138010.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/?ref_=sr_2
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-
professions.aspx#1
http://IMDb.com
24
45 . Gallup Politics, “Congress Begins 2013 with 14 percent
Approval,” www.gallup.com/poll/159812/
congress- begins- 2013- approval.aspx.
46 . Huffi ngtonPost.com, “Congress Approval Rating Lower
Than Cockroaches,” www.
huffi ngtonpost.com/2013/01/08/congress- approval- rating-
nickelback- cockroaches_n_2435601.
html.
47 . William S. Cohen and Gary Hart, “TV’s Treatment of
Washington—It’s Capital Punishment,” TV
Guide , August 24, 1985.
48 . Andy Rooney, “Anything You Say, Senator Ewing,” San
Francisco Chronicle , September 29,
1985.
49 . Xan Brooks, “John McCain Criticizes Zero Dark Thirty’s
Depiction of Torture,” The Guardian ,
www.guardian.co.uk/fi lm/2012/dec/20/john- mccain- zero-
dark- thirty.

50 . For a succinct summary of the research on the effects of
mass media on political behavior, see,
for example, Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American
Politics , 6th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ
Press, 2001), pp. 195–225, or David A. Paletz, The Media in
American Politics: Contents and
Consequences (New York: Longman, 1999), pp. 103–113.
51 . Sharon Waxman, “Two Americas of ‘Fahrenheit’ and
‘Passion,’” New York Times , July 13, 2004.
52 . For a geographic breakdown of the 2012 presidential
election, see New York Times, “Special Cov-
erage: The 2012 Election,” http://fi
vethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/live- blog- the-
2012- presidential- election/. See also Geography Education,
“Geographic Analysis of 2012
Presidential Election,”
http://geographyeducation.org/2012/10/09/geographic- analysis-
of- 2012-
presidential- election/.
53 . Namkung Young, “A Motivational Study of Moviegoers:
A Q- Methodological Approach,”
Q- Methodology and Theory 4 (1999): 182–207.
54 . William Stephenson, “Applications of Communication
Theory: Immediate Experience of Mov-
ies,” Operant Subjectivity 1 (1978): 96–116.
D
ow
nl
oa

er
2
01
7
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159812/congress-begins-2013-
approval.aspx
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/congress-approval-
rating-nickelback-cockroaches_n_2435601.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/dec/20/john-mccain-zero-
dark-thirty
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/live-blog-
the-2012-presidential-election/
http://geographyeducation.org/2012/10/09/geographic-analysis-
of-2012-presidential-election/
http://geographyeducation.org/2012/10/09/geographic-analysis-
of-2012-presidential-election/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159812/congress-begins-2013-
approval.aspx
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/live-blog-
the-2012-presidential-election/
http://HuffingtonPost.com
2
The Making of a Message
Film Production and Techniques,
and Political Messages

The Hurt Locker (2008) 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
26
Movies can send political messages in many ways, from the
most explicit political preach-
ing on view in a satire like Bulworth to far more subtle means
involving techniques of
fi lmmaking that most viewers take for granted. For example,
the setting, point- of- view
cinematography, and costuming in the beginning of the war fi
lm The Hurt Locker (2009)
visually compare the rubble- strewn street in Iraq (actually
Jordan) to the pocked surface of
the moon, U.S. soldiers to astronauts, and Iraqis to aliens as an
automated bomb detonator
crawls the rough and dusty street like a mechanical rover
exploring the moon. Politically,
the emphasis on the foreignness of the terrain suggests a war
detached from the Ameri-
can public that may as well be taking place on another planet.
This chapter analyzes how

each step in the fi lmmaking process—from conception of the
idea for a fi lm to its release
(and even thereafter)—can achieve the effect of political
messaging to an audience. Politi-
cal messages may be present in fi lms as the result of either
intention by the fi lm’s creator
or largely unintended refl ections of political and social
realities, or perhaps both. In this
discussion, we focus primarily on intentional messages.
The Filmmaking Process
Creating a popular motion picture in the current era is an
expensive, time- consuming pro-
cess that can involve (literally) a cast of thousands. In this
section, we analyze the fi lm
production process into a series of steps and isolate the
possible contribution each step can
make to the political impact of a fi lm. The steps we identify are
“ideal” ones that in fact
may occur in combination with one another and/or in different
sequences. For example,
the conception of a movie—the very idea of creating it—may
likely coincide with (or even
precede if the fi lm is an adaptation) the creation of the basic
story that the movie will tell.
And although promotion is relegated to one of the fi nal steps in
the process, it is frequently
created and implemented long before a fi lm is completed, as is
evident when a movie trailer
(a promotional short that precedes a movie) is shown months or
even more than a year
before a fi lm is seen in the theater. But breaking the process
into its constituent parts ena-
bles us to see how individual production decisions can create or
affect political messages

Downloaded by [Universit

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Downloaded by [Universit

Similar to Downloaded by [Universit (17)

More from DustiBuckner14

More from DustiBuckner14 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Downloaded by [Universit