World Politics on Screen

Understanding International Relations through Popular Culture

Mark A. Sachleben

• Publisher: The University Press of Kentucky
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9780813143125
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Popular Culture
• Index: Social Sciences

Increasingly resistant to lessons on international politics, society often turns to television and film to engage the subject. Numerous movies made in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries reflect political themes that were of concern within the popular cultures of their times. For example, Norman Jewison's The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! (1966) portrays the culture of suspicion between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, while several of Alfred Hitchcock's movies as well as the John Wayne film Big Jim McLain (1952) and John Milius's Red Dawn (1984) helped to raise and sustain skepticism about the Soviet Union. World Politics on Screen: Understanding International Relations through Popular Culture uses films and television shows like these as well as contemporary including 24, The Simpsons, South Park, and The Daily Show to guide readers to a deeper understanding of enduring issues in international politics. In this unique and insightful volume, author Mark Sachleben demonstrates that popular culture reflects societal beliefs about the world, and that the messages captured on television and film transcend time and place. Using films such as Secret Ballot (2001), Under the Bombs (2007), and Wall•E (2008), he addresses topics such as international relations and diplomacy, the study of war, nuclear weapons, poverty, immigration and emigration, human rights, and genocide. An engaging read for students and for anyone with a general interest in politics and popular culture, World Politics on Screen succeeds in its argument by illuminating unexplored assumptions about international policy.

Part 1

WORLD POLITICS, FILMS, AND EXPLANATIONS

1

THE MODERN WORLD AND THOSE WHO TRY TO EXPLAIN IT

Sometimes a movie about zombies is not really about zombies, and aliens from outer space are not aliens from outer space. For instance, a recent zombie film from Cuba is a commentary about life under the Communist regime.¹ Sometimes there is no overt political message, but there are hidden, sometimes unintentional, messages. Films and television can be about escapism and fantasy. But even those films with no overt political agenda or message contain the essential fundamentals of a culture and are a product of that culture. Contained in the film are subtle messages and cues about how the world should work. People act in a particular way with one another, and there are norms and values that the audience and filmmaker share about the nature of society, which is shaped by culture. This is why when a film or a television program steps outside the norm of expected behavior there is a cultural conversation, usually condemning the program.² The study of popular culture, specifically in films and television, is so important to the study of politics, and this book is designed to bring to the table a wide variety of films to help illustrate issues and trends in world politics.

By viewing, analyzing, and studying films, we are observing the attitudes, values, and cultural conversation of a community.³ As an example, consider the case of Ellen DeGeneres and the depiction of homosexuality on American television. In her relatively successful sitcom, Ellen (1994–1998), the actress portrayed a woman who in the fourth season of the series reveals that she is gay. As such, DeGeneres became the first openly gay lead character in American television. The program caused some controversy and a cultural conversation about the meaning and significance of the episode and the series.⁴ When DeGeneres debuted with a daytime television talk show a few years later, The Ellen DeGeneres Show (2003– ), there was rarely discussion of her sexuality in the media, and her program has become very successful and popular. In the interim between the two programs, several gay characters began to appear on American television screens. Examining these programs (and others) gives us an insight into the politics and cultural dialogue regarding the inclusion of homosexuals into American popular culture and politics.⁵

We live in a world that contains a vast amount of moving images. This is a fact that began long ago and continues to grow today. Not only movie and television screens, but computer, Internet, and handheld devices employ moving images as well. This chapter is designed to provide a background to the politics of film and politics on film and introduce some key ideas to help explain why films and television are so important to politics.

It’s a Big World After All

In an age of globalization and global threats, such as environmental disaster and nuclear weapons, it is tempting to remind ourselves of the song “It’s a Small World,” the plea for international harmony that has become a familiar tune in Disney theme parks around the world. While there is no doubt that there are global threats, it is important to remind ourselves that our experience is not necessarily the experience of the 7 billion–plus other people on the planet. It is dubious, and perhaps a little egotistical, to assume that our stories, lives, and problems are similar to those of other people around the world.⁶ This means that there remain, despite dramatic changes in recent decades, differences in ideas and cultures around the world.

By the 1920s, because of the First World War and other economic forces, Hollywood had become the largest film production center in the world, a dominant position it retains down to the present day.⁷ Although it is true to say that American films tend to dominate the global market, that dominance is restricted to films of a particular genre: the action-adventure film. Typically, these films employ the latest special-effects technology and can count on attracting a mass audience across cultural barriers to create a blockbuster megahit. Yet American comedies, which rely on cultural cues and references, typically do not do as well in foreign markets.⁸ Other film production centers do well, as evidenced by the popularity and appeal of British dramas, even in the American market. British films, or at least Anglo-American coproductions like The English Patient (1996), Shakespeare in Love (1998), and The King’s Speech (2010), tend to be fairly popular at the box office and have garnered many awards, including the coveted Academy Award for Best Picture. Even British television programs such as Upstairs, Downstairs (1971, 2010), I, Claudius (1976), and Downton Abbey (2010– ) have proved to be very successful, celebrated as cultural events in the United States.⁹

While it is tempting to think that everyone sees the same movies, watches the same television programs, or listens to the same music, it is simply not true. Our choice in entertainment is often a reflection of our cultural preferences and practices. The values and references depicted in films and television are extremely important. Thus watching films from around the globe can give us a peek into the cultural conversations of other societies as well as explaining some of our own practices. As pointed out in the introduction, popular culture relies on the shared experience of audiences. Those who enjoy particular films and other forms of popular culture develop catch-phrases and shortcut references for them. This shared experience helps to build community and relationships between people. Part of the importance of literature, music, and film is the sharing of events; humans tell stories and share their experiences so that others will understand them.¹⁰

While the dominance of American popular culture is by no means complete, it is almost axiomatic that there is a prevalence of American culture on movie and television screens around the world. The television series The Simpsons (1989– ) is dubbed in several languages and subtitled in many others for international audiences. The popular American sitcom Friends (1994–2004), which chronicled the lives of twenty-somethings in New York City, was reported to be a major underground hit in Iran.¹¹ Films from the United States, too, are typically at the top of foreign box offices.¹²

World Politics and Film

Films have long been recognized as a way in which messages, themes, and ideology can be disseminated to many people. In an era of mass media and globalization, telling a story to many people is vital to establishing a frame of reference. Consider any issue in politics: getting to the story first is extremely important because the subsequent recounting of events or ideas must reference the first cut. Whoever can tell a compelling story first gets to set the agenda.

It has been argued that the real instructors of young people today are not schoolteachers or university professors but motion pictures and television.¹³ The actor Richard Dreyfuss has said that he was far more influenced by film than he was by textbooks or lectures while he was at university.¹⁴ There is no doubt that filmmakers have understood this for a long time. Darryl Zanuck, legendary producer and head of 20th Century Fox studios, saw his role as an opinion leader. He thought a good producer was one who could determine what the public would want even before the public knew it.¹⁵

Realizing the influential nature of film, some countries have taken measures to protect and develop their domestic film industry. For example, in France and Quebec, the initiatives to protect the French language from the dominance of other languages, particularly English, has prompted governments to fund the production of domestic-language films. Further, under French law, 60 percent of television programs and films shown must be European made.¹⁶

As film historian Steven Boss has pointed out, it is conventional wisdom that Hollywood is a bastion for leftist (or liberal) ideology; however, Boss argues that while there have been high-profile liberals in Hollywood, such as Charlie Chaplin, Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, and Warren Beatty, individuals on the right (or conservatives) in Hollywood have had far more impact on the politics of the United States. Hollywood figures who have held elective office and thus direct political sway on the American political system are all conservatives: Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.¹⁷ An analysis of American films demonstrates that both sides of the political spectrum are present in film and television. It is important to note, however, that there are deeper tendencies than simply partisan ideology at work within films and television. At the core of many films is a basic belief in how politics work; these messages are frequently unstated. The messages are not designed to change the audience’s beliefs or outlook but, instead, to reinforce them. Think about the animated television series The Simpsons or South Park: while both frequently make political and social commentaries, some background messages are taken for granted. Characters participate in politics, which denotes a core belief in participatory forms of government (that is, democracy); there is a general observance of tolerance, as demonstrated by the religious diversity of the characters; and the importance of education as foundational to democratic participation is highlighted by the frequency with which school and education issues are showcased. These trends extend to nonpolitical programs and films as well. Television series such as CSI and Law and Order highlight the work of society’s civil and public servants. These are ideas and concepts that are rarely questioned. These subtle messages can be observed in many films from different cultures, and they give us important clues and information about how different societies operate.

Even the ways in which a story is approached are indicative of the culture that produces the film. In almost every American film that deals with political, economic, and/or social issues, problems and situations almost invariably respond to individual solutions rather than community problem solving.¹⁸ Thus in a film such as Casablanca (1942), overcoming the Nazis and Germany aggression relies on the action of one man, Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) rather than the collective action of the entire community of expatriates. This approach reflects the American political culture trait of individualism. On the other hand, the classic Japanese film Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai, 1954) takes a different approach to the similar problem of thievery and banditry. A Japanese village of farmers hires a diverse group of samurai to protect them from extortionist thievery. It takes the entire group working as a cooperative unit to defeat the bandits.¹⁹ In fact, in one scene the samurai training the farmers explain the necessity of collective defense to those who resist military training.²⁰ The French-Spanish coproduction L’auberge espagnole (The Spanish Apartment, 2002), a metaphor for the European Union, is about a group of university students from across Europe sharing an apartment while studying in Barcelona. The film argues that cooperation and dialogue are necessary to avoid or manage conflicts, a process that mirrors what occurs in the political institutions of Europe. In each of these films, we see how cultural and political norms help to shape the story. Yet in none of these cases are the stories about political culture—rather, the stories are shaped by it.

Films are expensive to make. Even the lowest-budget documentary can cost tens of thousands of dollars to produce. If a filmmaker wants a film to be seen by a wide audience, then considerably more money must be spent. It is unlikely that filmmakers would take a stance too far outside the mainstream of existing political and cultural beliefs because the likelihood of recouping the investment would be negligible. Thus films, more so than other art forms, tend to conform to prevailing political views and social norms.²¹

Nevertheless, it has become commonplace to label films one disagrees with as “propaganda.” In today’s world, propaganda carries a negative connotation, but this has not always been the case. Supporters of the same film might view it as a documentary. In recent times, the distinction between the terms propaganda and documentary has become increasingly blurred. Regardless of the correct application of terms, viewing these films can help us to understand and explain politics. Propaganda can be defined as a deliberate attempt to manipulate symbols and concepts in order to change people’s behavior, attitudes, and thoughts so as to achieve desired outcomes. This attempt will cause controversy among the people who are targeted by the manipulation.²²

Many film scholars cite the cinema of Nazi Germany as among the best at practicing propaganda. For Adolf Hitler the use of the new media of motion pictures and radio was important in creating new adherents and converts to National Socialist ideology. The method of propaganda favored by Hitler was a direct approach, one that condensed complicated ideas into a few simple ideas or slogans. He thought that the state could create effective propaganda by intense repetition and exaggerated symbols. Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, favo...