Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies
Volume 35.2 (2005)
Special Issue: American Sports in Film (Part 2 of 2)
Reviewer: Ken Dvorak, San Jacinto College – South Campus, Houston, Texas.
Author: Beverly Merrill Kelley
Target Audience: Politics and Film
Books:
Reelpolitik: Political Ideologies in ‘30’s and ‘40s Films. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut (1998). 194 pgs. ISBN: 0-275-96019-6.
Reelpolitik II: Political Ideologies in ‘50s and ‘60s Films. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (2004). 331 pgs. ISBN: 0-7425-3041-8.
Author, Beverly Merrill Kelley, professor of communication studies and “novice” film scholar has written two in her planned three volume discourse examining “Reelpolitik’s” or “political ideologies” found in selected popular Hollywood films. Ms. Kelley provides film scholars and their students with an articulate engaging writing style coupled with an expertly crafted, thoroughly researched analysis, examining films chosen for their presumed political ideologies. Volume one examines films from the 1930’s and 1940’s while its companion volume discusses films produced during the 1950’s and 1960’s. The author’s much anticipated volume three focuses on political films produced during the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Readily available on videotape, popular DVD formats and showcased on premier cable outlets such as American Movie Classic’s and Turner Classic Films the current Reelpolitik series provides an excellent resource for scholars and students interested in political /ideological films. The first two volumes, including volume three, differ in their narrative discourse and film analysis but all share a common theme crafted as textbooks for use by government, history, political science and film scholars. The impetus behind the series lay in a film symposium organized by the author and her fellow colleagues at California Lutheran University, that encouraged their students to examine the “reel” political/historical ideologies portrayed in 30’s and 40’s films. Amid student objections about viewing films in “black and white?” and “who are these actors?” the author determined that this “oppositional discourse” provided a perfect opportunity for expanding her initial study for examining the “reelpolitik’s” found in Hollywood films.
Ms. Kelley, and her fellow contributors chose eight films for Reelpolitik I that display oppositional political ideologies such as populism, fascism, communism, and interventionism during a period of American history stunned by the Great Depression and events leading up to World War II. Included are the films Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), The Magnificent Ambersons (1948), Gabriel over the White House (1933), Citizen Kane (1941), Casablanca (1942), All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Our Daily Bread (1934), and The Fountainhead (1939). In an interesting counter analysis each film is then examined for “contrast[ing] ideologies” (pg. 3) this includes elitism, antifascism, anticommunism, and isolationism. However, a more complex discussion prevails throughout the book as each author examines “the defining characteristics of democracy, the tension between individual and community” (pg.164) whose overt implications regarding traditional American values of rugged individualism and social/community homogeneity counter the foreign “isms” the films imply as solutions to the economic/social/political upheavals of the 1930’s and 1940’s.
In Reelpolitik II: Political Ideologies in 50’s and 60’s Films the author deftly maneuvers with zeal among eight Cold War films characterized as political ideological films as outlined above. This is perhaps the strongest argued and analyzed of the two volumes and provides an excellent classroom resource. The eight films discussed include The Last Hurrah, Advise and Consent, A Face in the Crowd, Seven Days in May, The Green Berets, The Steel Helmet, The Manchurian Candidate, and Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. An improvement over volume one is a filmography (pg. 299) that categorizes by topic the films discussed by the author. All of these films are favorites and have been used countless times in my classes but the discussion regarding The Manchurian Candidate is exceptional showcasing the author’s grasp of history, film deconstruction/analysis and the author’s ability to contextualize the film within the mentality of Cold War America.
In the concluding chapter to Reelpolitik II the author discusses with great candor the lure of movies as myth, megaphone, metaphor, mirror, microscope, and magic carpet whose flickering images showcase forgotten political/social/cultural upheavals that have left modern audiences disconnected from past historical events and their impact in shaping modern lives and culture. However, the author remains upbeat stating that “the problem with the future is that we can’t elude it, the problem with the present is that we can’t preserve it, and the problem with the past is that we can’t agree about it.” (pg. 295) Perhaps, but as Ms. Kelley suggests common ground can be found in discussing American “reelpolitik’s” in a more comfortable fashion. Along with the author please, pass the popcorn.
"Simply outstanding," June 6, 2004 (Five-star recommendation posted on Amazon.com.)
Reviewer: Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA)
Political ideologies in 1950s and 1960s film are the topic of Beverly Merrill Kelley's Reelpolitik II, a discussion of political figures in film and how they fostered mythology and changes. From discussions of fascism and antifascism sentiments in movies of the times to Cold War, isolationism and interventionism in specific selected films, Reelpolitik II is simply outstanding.
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS BULLETIN
VOLUME 34, No. 1-2 (Fall 1999)
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication: International Communication Division
Beverly Merrill Kelley with John J. Pitney Jr., Craig R. Smith, and Herbert E. Gooch III, Reelpolitik: Political Ideologies in ‘30s and ‘40s Films. (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1998), 194 pp., paper.
If you believe media are society’s teachers, Beverly Merrill Kelley’s book Reelpolitik will give you insight into some of the political lessons that were offered to the public by American filmmakers in the 1930s and 1940s. Those two decades were years of extremes for America. The country moved from isolationism following World War I, through the national economic collapse of the Great Depression that brought about a flirtation with both fascism and communism, finally to involvement in a global world war. Political awareness among Americans was becoming acute, and questions about the kind of leadership the country needed and its proper role world in the were hotly debated.
The ‘30s and ‘40s were also years when Americans looked for entertainment that would help them forget their troubles. It was the Golden Age of Hollywood, and American films offered this entertainment, but in addition they often socialized viewers to political ideals, values and behaviors. As a source for studying American politics, movies reflect indirectly. But, the authors maintain, they do reflect, and what they reflect is of interest to all those who would understand how America saw its relationship to the rest of the world.
Many of the movies made during the 30s and 40s dealt with the ideological arguments that have always infused American passions: populism and elitism, fascism and antifascism, communism and anticommunism, and isolationism and interventionism. These are the pairs of ideologies Kelley and her three colleagues examine through eight films of the period. The discussions about all these pairs of ideologies are refracted through the lens of the basic debate that underlies all other issues in American politics: individualism or communitarianism, the individual or the tribe. When they were released, all these films faced criticism from political figures, and some were even boycotted by groups who opposed the ideologies represented in the films.
To make the book a useful teaching tool, Kelley was careful to choose films that are available on video, that can be viewed in one or two class periods, and that illustrate clearly the gist of a political ideology. The authors bring expertise from the academic fields of government and political science, public administration and communication studies, as well as practical experience in political campaigns, to the analysis of these films.
To represent the dichotomy of populism and elitism, Kelley selected films from Frank Capra and Orson Welles. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939) is Capra’s civics lesson in patriotism and populism. In "The Magnificent Ambersons" (1942), Welles presents a compassionate portrait of elitism based on a kind of natural aristocracy, if not on old money. Taken together, these two films raise the question of whether people have the essential wisdom to guide themselves, as populists believe, or ought to be guided by an elite group. This argument, of course, is one that has existed since the founding of the United States, and it is one that still underlies all American politics.
The theme of fascism is explored through the films "Gabriel over the White House" (1933) and "Citizen Kane" (1941). In 1933, many Americans believed the only way out of the deep economic depression was through suspending constitutional restraints so that a strong leader would be free to do what was necessary to rescue the country. Some Americans harbored strong authoritarian sentiments and admired the Italian dictator Mussolini. In "Gabriel," the president of the United States dismisses Congress and disregards the Bill of Rights so that he can put people back to work, crush organized crime and save the country. Fascism favors force, and in "Gabriel," the president achieves his goals through force. The political message is blunt. "Gabriel" was backed financially by William Randolph Hearst, who flirted with fascism most of his life. "Citizen Kane," as everyone knows, was about Hearst. In "Kane," however, the political message is more subtle. In "Gabriel," the fascist is hero. In "Kane," the fascist is villain.
If the Depression moved some Americans to admire the efficiency of the fascists, it moved others to yearn for the solution of communism. Kelley looks at themes of communism and anticommunism in "Our Daily Bread" and "The Fountainhead." King Vidor directed both films, a testament to his ability to wrap his mind around two opposite solutions to the same problem. In "Our Daily Bread," Vidor’s attempt to illustrate the depths of the Depression, he creates a commune of characters who save the harvest through collective action. In "The Fountainhead," he portrays the ultimate individualism and egotism. The two films, with their polar points of view, illustrate the ambiguity with which Americans often approach political questions.
During this 20-year period, American foreign policy fluctuated between isolationism and interventionism, the ideologies represented by the films "Casablanca" and "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930). "All Quiet on the Western Front " clearly intended to make a pacifist political statement and was advertised as such. Made a decade after the World War I and at the beginning of the Depression, the film was immensely popular among an audience who were strongly isolationist at the time. "Casablanca" was put together in 1940, when the debate about America’s participation in the war was high, and the script and characters represent variations on the two ideological themes. By the time the film was released in 1942, world events had had their influence and, as all viewers know, the film finally endorses intervention.
The stories of the making of the each of these films is interesting Hollywood history, of course, but it is also interesting political history. The direct influence of the times on the working out of plot is often surprising. The eight essays provide some interesting insight into political movements during this period in America.
Kelley and her colleagues never claim that these films, or any films, influenced the public, but they make a strong case that they were tangible reflections of who Americans were and what we believed.
Paula Renfro, Professor
Department of Mass Communication
Southwest Texas State University
________________________________________________
