Wag the Dog and Politics in Hollywood." Wag the Dog: a Study on Film and Reality in the Digital Age
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Thanouli, Eleftheria. "Wag the Dog and Politics in Hollywood." Wag the Dog: A Study on Film and Reality in the Digital Age. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. 105–142. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 26 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781628929171.ch-004>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 26 September 2021, 09:44 UTC. Copyright © Eleftheria Thanouli 2013. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 4 Wag the Dog and Politics in Hollywood Over the past three generations, the American political movie has been a resilient, frequently neglected but quietly tenacious mirror and shaper, barometer and vessel of US popular culture and national identity. Michael Coyne, Hollywood Goes to Washington 1 The use of metaphors such as ‘mirror’, ‘barometer’ and ‘vessel’ to describe the American political film is fairly telling of the close and yet complex connection between this particular ‘genre’ and its real life referent, i.e. the world of American politics. This intimate bond rendersWag the Dog particularly apt for exploring the relation between cinema and reality in yet another way, namely by focusing on its portrait of the world of politics and its outlook on the viewers’ potential for changing the reality around them. So far, I have demonstrated the growing complexities in the film/reality bipolar, indicating a series of formal and modal elements in the film’s construction that challenged a number of established narrative and semiological norms in analogue fiction filmmaking. Furthermore, I discussed how this particular film and its afterlife short-circuited the distance that separates the filmic from the afilmic reality, suggesting new ways for conceptualizing the relation between these two different ontological levels. Here, I would like to continue the investigation of this relation by returning to the filmic text in order to examine the conventions of the political film and its implications about the role of individuals in the political process. Films about politics are, by definition, engaged in addressing the personal actions and responsibilities of the characters in a political environment, indicating the ways in which they can, or most often cannot, make a difference in the world. Transforming reality to a better (or worse) cause is what constitutes the core of politics and, thus, thematically speaking Wag the Dog is once again ideal for unraveling a rather idiosyncratic side of Hollywood filmmaking. 9781441189363_txt_print.indd 105 03/06/2013 13:28 106 Wag the Dog: A Study on Film and Reality in the Digital Age This chapter will approach the triptych politics–Hollywood–reality in three parts; first, I will dwell on the obstacles involved in solidifying a stable generic identity for films that deal with politics, arguing that the peculiar ‘cultural verisimilitude’2 of these films unsettles the expectations of the industry and the audience alike. Second, I will explore Wag the Dog’s depiction of American politics, concentrating on the topic of agency and indicating various types of ‘actors’ in the political game. In its portrayal of the political scene in the United States in the late 1990s, Levinson’s film, I would like to argue, puts forward a considerably different outlook on contemporary politics; it challenges the tradi- tional faith in individual agency and foregrounds the role of contingency and complexity in the contemporary globalized world order. Finally, I will retread the history and theory of the American political movie in search for various approaches to human agency vis-à-vis the political system. Here, I will discuss certain notable cases such as The Candidate, The Parallax View, Primary Colors (1998) and The Ides of March. Then, I will contrast those fictional accounts of the political world with a supposedly ‘real’ one found in the widely acclaimed documentary The War Room. Once again, the problem of drawing boundaries in the reel/real world will come to the fore, as the books comes full circle with the discussion of the fiction/non-fiction distinctions. Defining the ‘political film’ Many movies were thus caught in a tug of war between edification and enter- tainment, between problem raising and happy endings. Under these conditions, relatively few films turned out to be overtly political. Andrew Sarris, Politics and Cinema3 Whether messages should be sent through Western Union or through movies has been widely debated among filmmakers and critics alike. Even though the industry’s policy promoted the entertaining side of the films, it has become common knowledge that all films, explicitly or not, convey messages and affect public consciousness in ways that have yet to be fully explained. Amidst the bulk of films that are produced in Hollywood, there are those few that openly address significant political, historical or social issues in an effort to raise public awareness and even stir controversy in the audience. In this list, one could include examples as diverse as Casablanca (1942), Cabaret (1972), The Godfather (1972), Platoon (1986), JFK (1991) and Primary Colors. Films like 9781441189363_txt_print.indd 106 03/06/2013 13:28 Wag the Dog and Politics in Hollywood 107 these are often characterized as ‘political’ for touching upon themes related to ideology, society, race or identity, and for resisting the innocuous formula of a Hollywood happy ending.4 However, the definition of the ‘political’ still remains broad enough. If we choose to narrow it down, then we should consider as ‘political films’ only those that deal with the world of American institu- tional politics per se, featuring political figures and political processes, such as elections and campaigns. Why would that be necessary? Because a more precise definition of the ‘political’ and a more ‘exclusive’ list5 of political films will enable us to clarify whether the political film can be construed as a concrete genre alongside the musical or the western. So far, prominent theoreticians of the filmic genres have not designated a separated space for the ‘political film’ on the generic map of Hollywood cinema. For instance, Steve Neale’s thorough account presented in Genre and Hollywood briefly mentions some political films, in the strictest sense, under the categories of ‘social problem film’ and ‘drama’.6 On the other hand, Stephen Prince entitles his essay ‘Political Film in the Nineties’, but his scope in fact includes what he calls ‘socially conscious filmmaking’ whose genealogy begins with Griffith’s Intolerance (1916). The problem of defining the political film has been particularly stressed in those, relatively few, publications that examine the cinema where American politics is in sharp focus. Among those is Michael Coyne’s book Washington Goes to Hollywood published in 2008. Coyne accounts for the dearth of book-length studies on films about politics by pointing to the fact that the narratives in question have not been accorded the status of a distinct genre. Whereas the western, the musical or even the film noir have been minutely theorized by film academics in myriads of publications, the ‘political genre’ has evaded such scholarly attention so far. According to Coyne, this significant oversight could be attributed to the fact that the political film7 amounts to ‘a genre by virtue of content than form’, while being ‘essentially fluid’ and ‘trans-generic’.8 All three claims, however, are equally problematic and theoretically obtuse. The ‘content versus form’ dichotomy has not proved particularly functional within genre theory, whereas other more nuanced approaches, such as Rick Altman’s semantic/syntactic approach, have been more successful in delineating the fine boundaries of each genre as well as its transformations.9 For instance, one could easily identify a series of semantic elements that constitute the core of the political genre, including politicians and institutional processes, as well as a specific iconography that comprises establishing shots of public buildings, close framings of office spaces and even 9781441189363_txt_print.indd 107 03/06/2013 13:28 108 Wag the Dog: A Study on Film and Reality in the Digital Age a distinct dressing mode. Moreover, the relations of those semantic elements could easily be framed within various syntaxes, the fluctuations of which could justify the renewal of the genre across time. It is likely that the political film in the 1930s veered towards the structures of melodrama with a more Manichean approach to politics, whereas later on in the 1960s it adopted the syntax of the suspense thriller to emphasize the role of conspiracy in politics at the time. Such could be the reasoning within a semantic/syntactic approach, which also invali- dates Coyne’s other two characteristics, i.e. fluidity and hubridity. Even though it is commonly felt that all genres change over time and step into each other’s territory, the most theoretically astute explanation on these matters is found in Steve Neale’s article ‘Questions of genre’. There, he argues that genres are better understood as ‘processes’ dominated by repetition as well as difference, variations and change.10 Thus, fluidity is not an essential quality of the political film that thwarts definition. In fact, all genres are inherently fluid, urging us to sharpen our tools for capturing their process-like nature. At the same time, Neale notes that hybrids are by no means a rarity in Hollywood as many would have us believe. Quite the contrary; nearly all films could be considered hybrids to the extent that they tend to combine a romance plot with others.11 Furthermore, Coyne’s lack of a theoretical scaffolding to construct the political genre prevents him from capitalizing on his otherwise insightful observations regarding political films. For instance, in his introduction he embraces Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.’s framework of ‘paradoxes’ within American history, such as Experiment/Ideology, Equality/Tolerance of Inequality, Order/Violence, Conformity/Diversity, Materialism/Idealism and America as Redeemer/America as One Nation Among Many.