Final Film Critique

Review the critical analysis questions in the “Conclusion and Critic’s Resource” section of your textbook. Write an eight to ten page film critique (excluding the cover and reference pages) of an American feature film of your choosing. Use the list of critical analysis questions provided in your textbook as a guide while writing your paper.

Areas that must be covered:StorytellingActingCinematographyEditingSoundStyle and DirectingImpact of society on the film and vice versaGenreApplication of at least one approach to analysis and interpretationOverall textual themes Writing Tips:Students must select a film that they have not previously explored in class, either in written assignments or discussion posts.Students must establish a coherent thesis statement in the introduction of their paper with a claim that they intend to prove. The body of the essay serves to support the thesis through an analysis of the film and other relevant material. Avoid simply rehashing descriptive material from other source.Support your thesis through textual and formal analysis. Refer to specific shots, scenes, characters, stylistic devices, and themes in the film.As much as possible, use technical, literary and industry terms to make your points.If needed, you may use additional resources to support your claims. Suggested sources might include academic books and articles; film reviews; and personal opinions from reputable film critics and scholars. Information other than production details obtained from popular sources such as The Internet Movie Database and Wikipedia is not considered reputable.Only use plot information to support the thematic points of the paper. Include only one to two sentences of plot summary when explaining each of the required filmic elements.Also, students should not choose a film that the authors of the textbook have analyzed in detail.

Writing the Final Film Critique The Final Film Critique:

Must be eight to ten double-spaced pages (excluding the cover and reference pages) in length and formatted according to APA style as outlined in your approved style guide.
Must include a cover page with the following:Name of paperStudent’s nameCourse name and numberInstructor’s nameDate submitted
Must include an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement.
Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought.
Must conclude with a restatement of the thesis and a conclusion paragraph.
Must use APA style as outlined in your approved style guide to document all sources.
Must include, on the final page, a Reference List that is completed according to APA style as outlined in your approved style guide.

Runninghead: HIGH FIDELITY 1

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

Top 5: An Analysis of High Fidelity

Ashford Student

ENG 225

Dr. St. Clare

February 15, 2011

HIGH FIDELITY 2

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

Top 5: An Analysis of High Fidelity

The 2000 film, High Fidelity, explores the ups and downs of relationships through the

eyes of a record store owner in Chicago. On the surface, the film seems to be a simple romantic

comedy in the vein of another film starring John Cusack, Say Anything. By taking a deeper look

at the film’s technical and literary elements, the audience can come to a greater understanding of

the director’s vision of the culture that the film addresses.

High Fidelity is based on a British novel by Nick Hornby. The novel takes place in

London. However, when John Cusack began working on the screenplay with friends, D.V.

DeVincentis and Steve Pink, the decision was made to change the setting of the film to Chicago.

As Chicago was the city where the screenwriters grew up together, this seemed to be the natural

choice. Chicago is very much a character within the film with the art department using an old

record well-known record store, Wax Trax, as the setting for the main character’s record store.

Championship Vinyl as well as the fliers and stickers on the front register or posters in the store

depict bands either from Chicago or on a Chicago record label. The director used the small

neighborhood of Wicker Park to give the film a heart that is very distinct to the area.

Additionally, the choice to film in Chicago allowed the director to stage certain scenes on the

“L” train and platforms (Frears, 2000).

The intimate and familiar setting of Chicago allowed the director to use utilize a

technique within the narrative structure that can be jarring if used incorrectly. Though the

narrative of the film is linear, throughout the film, the main character played by Cusack, Rob

Gordon, will break the fourth wall of the film and speak directly to the audience. Most often this

is done in films with voice-over narration; however, in High Fidelity, the director makes a

distinct choice to allow the actor to look into the camera and explain past or current events

HIGH FIDELITY 3

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

directly to the audience in addition to voice-over narration in flashback scenes (Frears, 2000).

This creates an intimate connection between the audience and the main character, allowing the

audience to better sympathize with his situation. This technique also limits the point-of-view of

the audience, giving the audience a restricted point-of-view from Rob’s perspective.

Most often, when Rob Gordon speaks to the audience, the speech will involve him

creating a top five list of something that he shares with the audience. These lists are a motif

within the film. Everything in Rob’s life seems to be broken down into lists, whether it is the top

five most memorable break-ups, the catalyst for the events of the film, the top five things he

misses about his most recent ex-girlfriend, Laura, or something as simple as his top five favorite

records. Some of these lists are directly shared with the audience as though the audience is part

of his close circle of friends, while others are just part of the everyday conversations he engages

in with the employees of his record store (Frears, 2000).

The most important list that Rob shares directly with the audience in the beginning of the

film is his list of the top five memorable break-ups. After a devastating break-up with Laura,

Rob makes a list of these break-ups which most notably does not include Laura. This is meant as

a slight to her to somehow say that their relationship was less significant than the others. Yet,

this is a form of verbal irony on the part of the character. He knows that this relationship is

significant and therefore the loss of it hurts more deeply than he is willing to admit to Laura at

that moment in time. The loss of this relationship and the subsequent top five list sets Rob on the

path to reconnect with the top five exes to discuss their past and why the relationships failed. It

is a path of self-discovery that will lead Rob to realize how important Laura is, placing their

break-up into the top five (Frears, 2000).

HIGH FIDELITY 4

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

Because the director has chosen to make the narrative of the film subjective with a

restricted point-of-view, it would seem only logical that he would have employed a subjective

camera view as well. However, while the audience experiences many of the events of the film in

the same way that Rob does, many of the scenes are shot using an objective camera with the

audience acting as a neutral observer. Yet, this is not the case in all scenes. The previously

mentioned instances of Rob breaking the fourth wall make the audience a confidant instead of a

neutral observer. The audience is an active participant in the context of the film.

As the narrative goes through each ex, the director uses a flashback to show the previous

events in the Rob’s history. With the restricted point-of-view, these flashbacks show the events

from Rob’s subjective point-of-view. For example, at first the audience sees the recollection of

his break up with Penny from Rob’s perspective and can understand his pain when he finds out

that Penny, who would not have sex with him, has sex with another guy at his school shortly

after the break-up (Frears, 2000). This allows the audience to sympathize more easily with the

character because the audience shares the experience with Rob. It also allows the audience to

come to revelations alongside Rob. For instance, later in the film, when Rob is discussing the

past with Penny, the audience finds out that the reason Penny slept with the other guy was

because she was so heartbroken over being dumped by Rob that she was unable to fight off the

other guy when he tried to have sex with her, that the encounter was very close to a date rape

situation (Frears, 2000).

All of this soul-searching would be uninteresting to the audience if the actor playing the

character of Rob Gordon was ineffective in his role. John Cusack is a personality actor in this

role. Essentially, he is playing a character that is very similar to his own personality and tastes.

Part of this can be attributed to the fact that Cusack had a hand in writing the script for the film

HIGH FIDELITY 5

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

and was instrumental in the change of location from London to Chicago. This allowed Cusack to

tap into his own experiences to create a character history as he was writing the character of Rob

Gordon for himself. Because of his familiarity with the Chicago area, Cusack was able to create

an extensive back-story for the character of Rob Gordon. While these back-stories may not

always be on the surface of a performance, the audience can always tell if this work had not been

done. Cusack has said that while developing the script that he was able to see the high school

that the character went to as well as places he may have hung out while growing up (Bevan &

Frears, 2000). This was perhaps the greatest benefit of changing the setting.

The character of Rob Gordon was not the only role in the film written with a specific

actor in mind. The part of Barry, played by Jack Black, was specifically written for him (Bevan

& Frears, 2000). Up until this point, Black had been primarily playing bit parts in films like The

Jackal, Enemy of the State, and The Cable Guy (IMDB, 2011a). This also allowed Black to use

his abilities as a personality actor to create a character that is much like himself, particularly as a

part of the musical duo, Tenacious D. Looking back at the performance now, it does not seem

much different from the roles that Jack Black normally plays; however, at the time, this was one

of the first major roles that he played.

Other star actors played minor roles in this film. Tim Robbins, who is most often known

for his dramatic work, plays the conflict resolution expert that Laura moves in with after leaving

Rob (Frears, 2000). This is character is a departure for Robbins as he plays the character as an

aging hippie. This is an example of Robbins as a wild card or character actor. He is able to

seamlessly enter this role and move into the background since his character is not the focus of

most scenes.

HIGH FIDELITY 6

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

In addition to Tim Robbins, Catherine Zeta-Jones also played a minor role in the film as

one of Rob Gordon’s top five exes, Charlie Nicholson. Zeta-Jones was not credited for this role

in the main title but is mentioned in the cast list during the final credits. This was a bit part that

probably required minimum shooting time. She also acted the role well utilizing a realistic style

of acting to portray the self-righteous yuppie who is too absorbed in her own world and thoughts

to really seem to care about anyone else’s. This is a realization that Rob comes to over the

course of a dinner party that he attends upon Charlie’s invitation in hopes of catching up and find

out why Charlie left him for another man, Marco (Frears, 2000).

While the actors are the face of the film, without the work of the cinematographer, the

actors would not be seen. It is the cinematographer’s responsibility to light the shots for the film

and work with the director to create the visual style of the film. Seamus McGarvey chose to

make use of natural lighting and flat lighting. This gives the film a look that looks more true to

life with desaturated colors and acts as a physical representation of the melancholy of the main

character (Frears, 2000). The mood of the film would be less effective if the cinematographer

used high-key lighting which would be too bright for the tone of the film. However, if the

cinematographer had chosen to use low-key lighting, the film would have been too dark. The

use of flat lighting allows the haziness of Rob’s situation to come through in a subtle way—the

best example of this use of lighting in the film.

The melancholy of Rob is not only represented in the lighting of the film but in the

costume design as well. Rob dresses like the stereotypical indie-rock/grunge slacker of the early

90s. He wears flannels and old band T-shirts with tight jeans and Adidas sneakers (Frears,

2000). These costume choices are symbolic of his melancholy and laissez-faire attitude towards

relationships. The main complaint of Laura throughout the film is that Rob does not grow or

HIGH FIDELITY 7

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

change. He seems to have no ambitions and goes with flow. The best example of this in the film

is Rob’s list of top five dream jobs if time, education, and qualifications were not an issue. The

first four options are music-related with the last option being an architect, something that Rob

does not even know if he wants to do. Laura points out that he would rather own a record store

than become an architect. Of course, this is a much better option as he is already living that

dream; however, because of Rob’s laid back and melancholy attitude, he does not recognize that

he has accomplished that goal (Frears, 2000).

The character’s attitude is not only reflected in the costume and lighting but in the

editing as well. The editor utilized continuity editing with mostly direct cuts to create a steady

pace to the film using long shots and static camera positions. The focus of the film should be on

the actors’ performances. By not distracting the audience with jarring jump cuts or using

discontinuous editing, the mood of the film is encompassed by the emotions of the characters.

For instance, by using a long take of Rob standing in the rain outside of Laura’s apartment

looking at up her in the window and craning up to see Laura looking down at him, the audience

gets a sense of the separation between these two people who still care for one another (Frears,

2000). The shot creates the feeling of emotional distance by emphasizing the physical

separation.

Besides editing, the director can also use sound and music to help set the tempo of the

film. In High Fidelity, music acts as an additional character in the film. Rob Gordon owns a

record store; therefore, it is imperative that the soundtrack for the film incorporate a specific type

of music. Much of the film takes place within the record store with Rob and his two employees,

Dick and Barry discussing independent rock music that would not have been known by the

average radio listener but speaks to a very specific generation and culture. References to punk

HIGH FIDELITY 8

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

bands like Stiff Little Fingers and other indie rock favorites such as Urge Overkill, Veruca Salt,

and Liz Phair are littered throughout the dialogue and set design for the record store (Frears,

2000). Music is an important of this film and reveals information about the mid to late 90s

independent music scene as well as the characters.

Rob defines his relationships through music. The audience can easily identify the time

periods of the flashbacks by the music that is playing. For example, as Rob is reminiscing about

his break-up with Penny, the song “I Want Candy” by Bow Wow Wow is played (Frears, 2000).

This places the time of this break in the early 80s as the song was released in 1982.

Additionally, Rob begins to organize his personal album collection autobiographically. Music

acts as a means of documenting important events in his life associating specific songs with

individual circumstances. Another example of this is the song “Let’s Get it On” by Marvin Gaye

which he playfully remarks is responsible for his entire relationship with Laura. This song is

also number one on his top five favorite records list (Frears, 2000). Its placement is another

indication of the importance of his relationship with Laura.

All of these components speak to the director’s own style of filmmaking. Stephen Frears

directed High Fidelity. While many of his previous films were period pieces like Dangerous

Liaisons, The Hi-Lo Country, and Mary Reilly (IMDB, 2011b), this film has more in common

with those previous films than one might expect. Frears seems to choose films that deal with the

complexities of human relationships. He uses a steady pacing in the films and relies on the

actors’ instincts to tell a compelling story. Frears will film many takes of a scene until he gets

the desired result. Yet, this film differs from many of his other films in a very significant way.

Often Frears makes films about love triangle that ended tragically; however, this film ends

happily with Rob and Laura getting back together.

HIGH FIDELITY 9

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

While this film deals with the complexity of human relationships in a very real way, its

potential for social impact is minimal. It is simply meant as a form of escapism as most romantic

comedies. That is not to say, however, that the film does not speak to a specific generation of

viewers. Rob is a man in his thirties that is going through a mid-life crisis of sorts. Generation

X has reached adulthood and is struggling to find its place. This film also speaks directly to

those that have had failed relationships and begin to reflect on the past to try to figure out what it

all means (Frears, 2000). It is a situation to which most people can relate.

The lack of potential societal impact is a direct result of the film’s genre. The romantic

comedy has very specific conventions which do not often lend themselves to some greater

meaning beyond escapist entertainment. At its core, the romantic comedy is simply the story of

bringing two people together. The plot of High Fidelity works to bring Rob and Laura back

together as Rob grows into the man he needs to become in order to move past his extended

adolescence into full-grown adulthood. He must leave the fantasy relationship behind and

embrace the true and enduring love that he and Laura share. Unlike most romantic comedies, the

comedy does not come from the events leading up to this resolution but from the conversations

between characters about music and relationships (Frears, 2000). There is a real heart at the

center of this film. It treats romance in a very real way rather than giving the audience an

unrealistic portrayal of relationships (Goodykoontz & Jacobs, 2011).

In conclusion, High Fidelity is a portrayal of the ups and downs in romantic relationships

told through the perspective of a thirty-something Chicago record store owner. The various

elements work together to create a film that speaks to a specific culture and generation of

viewers. There is more than meets the eye to this romantic comedy that can be explored through

the analytical process.

HIGH FIDELITY 10

Proprietary Information of Ashford University. Created by Writing Services-03.21.12

References

Bevans, T. (Producer) & Frears, S. (Director). (2000). Conversations with writer/producer John

Cusack and director Stephen Frears. High fidelity [DVD Special Features]. USA:

Touchstone Pictures.

Frears, S. (Director). (2000). High fidelity. [Motion Picture]. USA: Touchstone Pictures.

Goodykoontz, B. & Jacobs, C. P. (2011). Films: From watching to seeing. Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUENG225.11.1

IMDB. (2011a). High fidelity. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146882/.

IMDB. (2011b). Stephen Frears. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001241/.

10 Criticism and
Analysis

In the arts, the critic is the only independent
source of information. The rest is advertising.

—Pauline Kael

al
t D

is
ne

y
Co

./c
ou

rt
es

y
Ev

er
et

t C
ol

le
ct

io
n

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 255 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 What Is a Critic?

Chapter Objectives
After reading this chapter, students should:

• Understand differences between a film
review and a film analysis; between simple
personal opinions and critical analysis

• Be able to break down films into elements of
their construction to evaluate elements for
the ways they work individually and together

• Recognize some basic theories of film
analysis and criticism and be able to apply
them when appropriate

• Understand what goes into writing a popu-
lar criticism of a film targeted at a typical
newspaper or magazine readership

• Understand what goes into writing a
structural or technical analysis of a film and
relate it to how effectively it tells its story
or presents its message

• Understand what goes into considering a
film in some broader context (e.g., social,
historical, ideological, body of a director’s
work or a genre) and writing a scholarly
critical analysis

• Analyze a movie using one of the scholarly
approaches discussed in the chapter

10.1 What Is a Critic?

What is a critic? There are many definitions, some of which are unflattering, including as they do charges of jealousy, mean-spiritedness, and flat-out incom-petence. Ironically enough, one of the best definitions comes from a character
in a film, and in an animated film, at that. In Pixar’s film Ratatouille (2007), Peter O’Toole
provides the voice of Anton Ego, a famous food critic feared for his discriminating palate
and his withering criticism. When he samples food that has secretly been prepared by a
rat, everyone fears the worst (particularly the rat). However, Ego begins his review with
a spirited defense of the art of criticism, observations that apply just as much to film criti-
cism as to food criticism. In the movie Ego says,

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a posi-
tion over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment.
We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the
bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the
average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism desig-
nating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that
is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new
talent, new creations; the new needs friends . . . Not everyone can become a
great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. (Bird, 207)

This character Ego (and the writers who gave him his words) offers an explanation of
one of the most important—and most satisfying—roles the critic plays: as someone who
can introduce little-known but worthy work to the public. This requires both expertise
and confidence—expertise in the understanding of how films are made, as well as con-
fidence that their opinions are correct. Film textbooks such as the one you’re now read-
ing, along with simply watching a lot of movies, can help with the former. The latter, a
belief in the validity of your opinion, can be practiced but not taught. It requires both

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 256 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 What Is a Critic?

technical expertise as well as a belief in yourself
and your skills, a belief that your opinion and
your evaluation matter.

Most people think of a film critic as someone
who goes to a movie, takes notes, comes home,
and writes his or her opinion of it. And there
is, in fact, a lot of truth to that notion, though
it’s not quite as easy as that sounds. This defini-
tion applies largely to popular critics. With the
combination of a faltering economy sapping
advertising dollars and the increasing amount
of information available for free online, the
professional popular critic is becoming more
and more an endangered species. As with most
jobs in mainstream media, the movie critic once
held a lofty outsider ’s position. Most newspa-
pers, magazines, and wire services employed
at least one movie critic (as well as a television
critic, a food critic, and perhaps even a book
critic). Economic realities have diminished their
number, but a few critics remain in mainstream
media. However, film criticism has exploded.
How can this be?

Perhaps no one has written more passionately
about this development than Roger Ebert, one
of the nation’s best-known critics for the past 30
years, who offers this explanation on his blog:

This is a golden age for film criticism. Never before have more critics writ-
ten more or better words for more readers about more films . . . Film criti-
cism is still a profession, but it’s no longer an occupation. You can’t make
any money at it. This provides an opportunity for those who care about
movies and enjoy expressing themselves. Anyone with access to a com-
puter need only to use free blogware and set up in business. Countless
others write long and often expert posts on such sites as IMDb, Amazon,
Rotten Tomatoes and in the comment threads of blogs. (Ebert, 2010)

We discussed this “new army of critics” briefly at the end of chapter 1. Ebert also notes,
however, that people writing about film must resist a growing trend to ramble on with
uninformed personal opinions, to offer immediate reactions to what they’ve just seen, or
to cater to popular celebrity-based fads. A good critic, he says, is a teacher who can help
readers broaden their perspectives and discover their own answers.

A newspaper film critic should encourage critical thinking, introduce new
developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy

Roger Ebert is a critic who appreciates all kinds
of films. For him the best filmmaking is not
only popular entertainment but also an art.

Photo by Michael Germana/courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 257 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 What Is a Critic?

specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach,
inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged. (Ebert, 2008)

Ebert goes on to bemoan the modern culture’s embracing of fame and glamour with no
desire to think critically or question what they are told. “It is not about dumbing-down. It
is about snuffing out.” Ebert’s comments are a powerful warning and serve notice to both
those who believe the popular critic is too highbrow as well as the academic who consid-
ers much popular culture, not to mention criticism of it, beneath serious consideration. In
truth, popular film criticism may be neither better nor worse than scholarly analysis; the
simple exist side-by-side.

Popular Criticism

Movie reviews are the most familiar form of popular criticism. A simple movie review
may indeed be no more than the reviewer’s personal opinions. However, such a review
typically will hold little weight with anyone whose own opinions are no less valid. This
is not to say that reviewers should avoid opinions, but rather that they should also evalu-
ate the acting, directing, story, and production values in ways that will be useful to read-
ers. Many popular movies, designed primarily to entertain wide audiences, may not lend
themselves to deep analysis, but they can still be evaluated on how well they accomplish
what they set out to do. Far too many amateur critics look at only the story content and
ignore cinematic techniques, while perhaps just as many concentrate only on technical
aspects or only on star personalities and completely overlook what the story is about.

A. O. Scott’s review of the “documentary” Catfish cuts to the heart of the truth test. “It seems either
disingenuous or naïve to say that what happens is ‘just true.’ . . . [Catfish] is bluntly simple-minded even
as it makes a great show of its epistemological sophistication.” (Scott, 2010) The critic asks us to carefully
consider the question: How do we distinguish between justifiable certainty and mere opinion?

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 258 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 What Is a Critic?

A reviewer who is conversant with the principles of mise en scène, cinematography, and
editing can point out far more effectively (and believably) how well or poorly a film might
be made rather than saying “it’s fantastic, a must-see” or “it sucks big time.” A reviewer
who can recognize narrative techniques (or lack of them) will be able to explain why certain
characters come off as strong or weak, why the plot holds together (or doesn’t), and how the
film may present various themes or explore various issues in a satisfactory way (or not). A
good way to start thinking about criticism would be to go back to the truth test introduced
in chapter 1. Is a film true to itself, and does it reveal some truth about human nature? What
is it trying to say, how well does it say it, and was its message really worth saying? Once
a film, however, can stand up to this test, it deserves deeper scrutiny, careful considered
analysis, and a more scholarly approach—analytical criticism, which we will discuss later.

The kind of movie reviews typically printed in newspapers and magazines, or presented
verbally on radio or television, are very short in comparison to a scholarly analysis or even
a moderately in-depth critique. Professional film critics are limited in page space or air
time, so they must become expert at cramming in as much important information, obser-
vations, and evaluation into as few words as possible. A review may average between 400
and 1,200 words (the equivalent of one to four double-spaced, typed pages), so it must
concentrate only on the elements that most impressed the critic (for better or worse). If
a reviewer wants to discuss any serious issues, there is no space to include more than a
sentence or two of plot summary, just enough to put critical comments in a context readers
(or listeners or viewers) will be able to understand. It is also worth noting that, depending
upon publishing deadlines, most published movie reviews must be written very quickly,
within a few hours to perhaps a few days after seeing the film, without the luxuries of re-
watching portions of the movie or making extensive revisions to the review.

The more space a critic is allotted, however, the more time that can be spent on deeper
analysis and interpretation that will give people useful information to influence their
interest in the film one way or another. It can be a real challenge for newspaper critics
to say what they’d like to say in less than a thousand words. Magazine critics often have
double or triple the space available that newspaper or radio/TV critics have. But even
though magazine reviews might be able to present more information and a more genuine
analysis than a quick newspaper review, they usually contain less depth than an analyti-
cal essay for a critical journal or chapter in a book. Film criticism on personal blogs, since
they tend to be self-published, runs the gamut from pure personal reaction to simple plot
synopses to informed critical and technical discussion to in-depth critical analysis and
interpretation. Let’s look now at how even just a little analysis can turn a simple review
into a piece of criticism that others are more likely to take seriously. “Criticism,” unlike
how some may interpret the word, does not mean “pointing out faults.” It means discuss-
ing something intelligently and being able to recognize a variety of approaches to it.

Analytical Criticism

Film scholarship is another, more academic discipline of analysis than writing popular
reviews. Scholarly critics may, instead of reviewing a single film, consider it in the larger
context of other films of its type (i.e., a genre study), and/or of its director (i.e., an auteur-
ist approach). They will be certain to place it within its historical and social context as well.
Effective critics are able to see through technology, styles, and attitudes of whatever time a
film was made to recognize human truths in the story and characters, and what they can tell

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 259 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning

us about both the filmmakers and their intended
audiences. That is, a critic may genuinely believe
in the moment that Goodfellas, for example, is a
great film. But how does it compare to other gang-
ster movies? How will it hold up 20 years after its
release? How will it hold up 20 years after that?
And, perhaps most importantly, what does it say
about society, both at the time it was made—the
late 20th century—and about humanity on a
larger scale? Does the fact that Director Martin
Scorsese invites us to identify with and even root
for sadistic killers, monsters whose solution to
almost every problem involves a fist or, worse, a
gun, speak to a violent culture in which morality
no longer has a firm grip on us? Or is it meant to
be enjoyed simply as a thrill ride, falling back on
the “it’s only a movie” excuse? (Hint: In the case
of Scorsese’s films, the latter is never the case.)

As you can see, these are weighty issues. What
makes the evaluation even trickier is that, at least
on a basic measure of competence, films must suc-
ceed on a technical level as well. The dialogue and
acting may be flawless, but if the director shoots
the film in such a way that, for instance, mean-
ingless shots of scenery distract from the actors’
performances, it will be less satisfying, both in
the short term for popular critics and in the long
term for scholarly critics. Another film might be a
tour de force showcase for brilliant cinematogra-
phy and flashy editing, but it is weakened by poor
acting or rendered meaningless by an incoher-
ent, pointless story. The director, as we have seen,
must perform a balancing act, and any slip-up will
be noticed and discussed in detail.

10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning

The easiest way to explain a film to someone is to give a simple synopsis, telling all the main things that happened in the story and maybe describing a few memorable special effects, followed by a personal “thumbs-up” or “thumbs-down.” But a synop-
sis, no matter how detailed, is not a film review, and it certainly is not an analysis. It’s the
equivalent of a typical fourth-grader’s first book report—or amateur bloggers and Internet
Web forum contributors who simply are incapable of seeing past the obvious. Such people
are simply unaccustomed to looking below the surface layers of a film, and often may not
even recognize the difference between the story they are following and the specific elements
of that story that the film’s plot is actually presenting them in a certain order, for a certain
length of time, and sometimes more than once, as we learned in our chapter on storytelling.

The greatest films and filmmakers, like
the greatest novelists, offer rich, dense
work. The more we bring to a film, the
more we can take away. Federico Fellini
is a filmmaker whose elaborate fantasies
seemed to overflow the screen, such as in
8⅟�, shown here.

Courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 260 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning

Some films are conscious, perhaps even self-conscious personal statements by directors
who consider themselves artists who use film as their medium and who are not expected
to reach wide audiences. Other films are designed specifically as mass-market entertain-
ment in the hopes of becoming blockbuster hits, made by directors who specialize in fast-
paced action-adventure and spectacular visual effects. Although one film may provide
richer material for analysis than another, both types can benefit from scratching below the
surface. Only in that way can we find a better understanding of them. Next we’ll briefly
discuss David Lynch’s Blue Velvet (1986) and Zack Snyder’s 300 (2007), looking for mean-
ing by using four progressively deeper levels of interpretation.

Referential Content

The things that happen in the plot and that we understand about the story, even if merely
mentioned rather than dramatized, are part of the first and most basic level of understand-
ing. This is sometimes called referential content, as it refers directly to what we see and
hear in the film. A one- or two-sentence summary in a TV movie listing or video catalog
is a good example of something likely to explain only the referential content. It tells what
happens, something that anyone who sees the movie will agree with, but it is unlikely to
explain what a movie is about on a deeper level, what it might be trying to tell the viewers.
It takes looking below the surface to interpret the film rather than describe it, and there
are three deeper levels we can find, with meanings that become increasingly more com-
plex, that reach a point where not every viewer may agree with any given interpretation.
A description that uses only referential content to explain David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, for

Wall Street, directed by Oliver
Stone, is a film that refers
to the pre–Great Recession
financial services industry. Its
explicit content takes on new
resonance today.

Gordon Gekko is named after
a cold-blooded lizard. He
proclaims: “Greed, for lack of
a better word, is good. Greed
is right. Greed works.”

Photo by Mary Evans/20th Century
Fox/Ronald Grant/courtesy Everett
Collection

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 261 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning

example, might mention that it is a crime drama in which a college boy and high school
girl investigate a mysterious severed ear, only to discover drug dealers, kidnappers, and
police corruption in their own small town. But anyone who has seen the film is likely to
realize there is much more to it than that.

Explicit Content

Below the surface, or the referential content, is some explicit content that lets the viewer
know some point the filmmakers are trying to make. This, as the term implies, is explicitly
stated in the film, whether by a superimposed title, a voice-over narrator, or dialogue that
comes directly from the mouths of characters in the film. This may be a kind of “moral to
the story” or social, political, or philosophic commentary the filmmaker wants the audi-
ence to be sure to get. One line of dialogue in Blue Velvet that is repeated numerous times
at various points is “It’s a strange world,” something most will agree that film depicts viv-
idly. Visually we see and hear numerous instances of the “ear” motif as well, from the dis-
covery of a severed ear, to a superimposed ear as a character is walking down the street, to
an extreme close-up of Jeffrey’s (the protagonist’s) ear as he sleeps, to Sandy, his girlfriend
mentioning “I hear things.” Additionally, Jeffrey overhears a phone call while hiding in a
closet. Jeffrey and the antagonist Frank later listen in on talk on a police radio. All this is
obvious (explicit) representation of the film’s pervasive theme of voyeurism, particularly
hearing things one might be better off not knowing, things that can get one into trouble.
We also hear the evil Frank at one point tell the naïve Jeffrey to his face, “You’re like me,”
but such an explicit statement has much deeper implications that take a deeper level of
interpretation to uncover—the film’s implicit content.

Implicit Content

Beyond explicit content, which is typically stated in so many words, or depicted in visual
symbolism so obvious it is difficult to miss, is implicit content, or meanings that are
implied rather than revealed directly. We can infer some of the implicit content from dia-
logue, but it usually takes thinking back on what we’ve seen to make the connections. In
Blue Velvet, we see all the trouble Jeffrey gets himself into from his insatiable curiosity; we
see him start to change from a clean-cut all-American college boy to someone driven by
obsession to experience a dark world he never realized existed. We see him torn between
his decent nature, seemingly ideal life, and beautiful girlfriend, and his increasing attrac-
tion to a troubled, sadomasochistic woman with dangerous criminal companions who
has irresistibly drawn him into her dark world. The film’s opening two-minute scene
is implicitly a metaphorical miniature of the entire two-hour film. To the strains of the
romantic title song, we see a beautiful small American city, a storybook neighborhood, a
pleasant-looking older man watering a perfectly kept yard. The man looks healthy, but
something inside his body suddenly gives way and he has some sort of stroke. The grass
looks nice from a distance, but when the camera moves down for an extreme close-up, we
see ominous-looking black insects and hear creepy noises. Things are constantly happen-
ing that we’d rather not think about. By implication, the film is telling us that the average
American town and the average American person has a darker side, however much it
may be hidden or denied. Blue Velvet is packed with much more implicit content that dif-
ferent viewers may well interpret in different ways.

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 262 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning

Symptomatic Content

The referential, explicit, and implicit meanings that a critic can identify to explain what
a film is about all come from details that can be observed within the film itself, what is
called internal evidence. However, a deeper interpretation must look outside the film,
using external evidence to explain its symptomatic content. A film’s symptomatic mean-
ings are symbolic of something above and beyond the film’s plot and even past its explicit
or implicit meanings. Interpreting a film symptomatically literally means treating the film
as a symptom of a greater influence than its own characters and motivations. The things
that happen in the film are a symptom of the time and culture in which it was created,
perhaps even of the director’s personal life or point of view.

Blue Velvet’s plot of crime below the surface of small-town America is a symptom of the
realization by the 1980s that drug-related crime had spread beyond major urban slums
and that police corruption could happen anywhere. The film’s unusually frank depiction
of sexual perversion (for its time), especially in connection with violence and brutal lan-
guage, might be seen as symptomatic of declining morals and loosening standards—par-
ticularly in America, with implicit symbolism of the film’s pervasive motifs of red, white,

This scene from Blue Velvet ironically contrasts an idealized white picket fence suburbia complete with
baby and puppy, and its brightly lit underside of menace and violence—an explicit visualization of its
symptomatic content. The disturbingly comical juxtaposition of the dog happily drinking from its stricken
master’s spraying hose sets up the dark satire that pervades the film.

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 263 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning

and blue. It can be interpreted as a powerful statement on the duality of human nature,
with good and evil constantly warring within each individual. Despite its dark themes,
like other Lynch films, it is also often an affectionate satire, some might say even a campy
parody, on the banality of everyday conversation and personal relationships. By looking
at the symptomatic content, one might also see the film in relationship to other films and
themes treated by director David Lynch: Blue Velvet repeats motifs Lynch had explored
earlier and sets up others he would elaborate upon in later films.

Putting It All Together

Not every film will lend itself to examining all four levels of meaning to the same degree,
but serious thought and analysis of any film should reveal at least something on each
level, even for films not considered to be “arthouse” fare or part of an auteur’s canon
of work. For example, the historical-action-war film 300 was a huge box-office success
and can easily be analyzed for each level of content. On the surface, it’s a retelling of the
ancient Greek story of 300 heroic Spartan soldiers led by their king, Leonidas, to hold
off an overwhelming force of invading Persians at the Thermopylae pass. A referential
description would merely recount what happens in the plot, and for many people who
saw it, that’s all they paid attention to and all they remember.

Analyzing some of the film’s explicit content would mention how speeches of characters
promote the ideals of fighting for individual freedom against imposed foreign tyranny,
of devotion to national duty over personal concerns, and of willingness to stand by one’s
comrades and fight to the death for something one believes in.

On an implicit level, the film is a rousing celebration of the benefits of military prepared-
ness, of extreme personal self-discipline, of a “Spartan” lifestyle (i.e., simple and utilitar-
ian instead of lavish and ostentatious), and of the inspiration found from heroic deeds,
especially martyrdom, for a just cause. The film’s implicit content also shows the danger-
ous (in this case, deadly) resentment that can develop from rejection of a person’s honest
desires despite that person’s lack of ability.

To examine 300 on a symptomatic level, we must understand that the film was released in
2007 while the United States (founded on ancient Greek and Roman ideals) was involved
in a Middle-East war that was threatening to expand. Ancient Persia was roughly the loca-
tion of present-day Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the film’s depiction of Spartan sol-
diers appears to be an idealization of some elite corps of the U.S. Marines. The self-serving
and aging, decrepit, and inbred rulers who refuse to give support to the idealistic warrior
king thus can be seen as direct parallels to the U.S. Congress, while the invading Persians
are depicted as deformed, gigantic beasts rather than as normal fighting men. This may
be easily interpreted on the symptomatic level as a not-so-subtle post-September 11th
demonization of present-day Middle-Eastern regimes out to conquer the civilized West-
ern world of Europe and America.

The 2007 film 300, then, can be analyzed as a rousing action-adventure set in ancient times but
also as a strong modern sociopolitical statement symptomatic of the time and place where it
was created. Far from being historically accurate, it is an allegory whose deeper meaning is
vastly removed from the time, place, and characters actually depicted on the screen.

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 264 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation

10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation

Analyzing levels of meaning below the surface story can greatly enhance enjoy-ment as well as understanding of a film. However, different people can approach the process of analysis from different perspectives and with different purposes; it
is entirely possible for five different people to come up with five entirely different inter-
pretations of a film that are all equally valid. Long essays and entire books have been
written to explain many specific methods of film criticism in great detail. We’ll look very
briefly at several of these approaches below, some of which may cover mainly the referen-
tial, explicit, and implicit levels of meaning, while others try to identify varying types of
symptomatic content and ideological meanings to explain what a film is ultimately trying
to tell its audience.

A few of the many approaches to examining a film will be discussed next. In writing a
critical analysis, many of these may overlap or be used together with one or more other
approaches, especially the auteurist approach that we discussed in some detail in chap-
ter 7 on style and directing, and the generic approach that we examined in chapter 8
on film genres. Topics and issues that interest particular critics usually determine which
approaches they use to interpret films, but it’s worth remembering that no one approach
should be considered definitive. In fact it can be a worthwhile exercise to try to apply as
many approaches as possible to analyzing a film, just to see how looking for different
things can color how you understand what the film is really trying to say. Some approaches
focus on understanding how a film communicates its ideas, whereas others look more at
what the film is saying (whether the filmmaker is conscious of the statement or not). Let’s
look at these approaches now (See Figure 10.1 later in this section for examples of each of
these approaches).

A formalist approach to analysis is concerned with film form, or how the basic elements
are organized to convey certain meanings. Critics using this approach study the film itself,
and possibly its screenplay—the internal evidence we discussed earlier. This includes
things like plot structure, mise en scène, camera techniques, editing, sound—all the ele-
ments that have been discussed in the chapters of this book. A formalist film analysis
that is strictly concerned with narrative elements, however, might ignore most or all of
its cinematic techniques to focus on characters, plot development, story structure, motifs,
foreshadowing, motivation, and the like.

300 can be read as a
commentary on U.S. wars
in the Middle East. This
image reinforces a belief
that discipline and superior
technology (in this case cool
oversized shields) make
a mighty fighting force
invincible.

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 265 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation

The opposite of a formalist approach would be a contextualist approach, which includes
most of the other approaches mentioned and sets a film within some sort of context using
varying types and degrees of external evidence—something completely removed from
the world of the film’s story and characters and cinematic techniques. A contextualist
approach would be looking very much at a film’s symptomatic content. For example,
one type of contextualist approach would be a culturalist approach, or seeing the film as
symptomatic of the culture in which it was created. Another type, a feminist approach,
would look at a film as a statement on women’s place in society, how women are treated,
and various issues related to gender and equality. A Marxist approach would examine
how the plot and characters in a film reflect Karl Marx’s sociopolitical views on class
conflict, labor vs. management, oppressive governments, and more. Typically a Marxist
approach will identify instances of everyday people struggling to survive in the face of
some unsympathetic authority. A psychological approach is especially concerned with
how a film provides examples of various psychological theories and concepts, particularly
those of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung (e.g., sexual symbolism, subconscious repression
and dreams, the id, ego, and superego, the collective unconscious). A dualist approach
tries to identify pairs of opposites in a film’s content and how they’re used in the story
to express certain attitudes. Such opposites often are character types (good–evil, male–
female), but also may be symbolic concepts such as light–dark, urban–rural, quiet–noisy,
civilization–nature, and the like.

A structuralist approach is similar in some ways to a formalist approach, as it examines
the film’s structure and how the constructions of scenes and shots tell the story, but it
digs deeper to find meaning. Instead of merely examining how narrative and cinematic
techniques enhance our involvement in and understanding of the story, structuralists are
more likely to search for hidden symbolism they believe may be present in various ele-
ments of the film. They tend to look at filmmaking as another type of language for self-
expression and try to determine how and why we respond to what we see, and how par-
ticular films illustrate their theories. Structuralist critics often use semiotics as the basis of
their analysis, which is a theory for identifying symbolic content encoded in patterns of
cinematic elements, including mise en scène, framing, and editing. Semiology and other
extreme forms of structuralism get into detailed and highly technical explanations, often
with various psychological and ideological interpretations, of how specific elements of a

Made in Dangenham, a film
about organizing for equal
pay for women workers,
could be viewed from
both feminist and Marxist
perspectives. A culturalist
approach would focus on the
1960s setting of the story.

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 266 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation

film express meanings—in a manner comparable to how the study of linguistics tries to
explain the various ways people use the words and syntax of language to express meaning.

An auteurist approach may concentrate on either cinematic techniques or ideological the-
matic material, or both, but always within the context of the director’s other films. Some
directors specialize in films that are in specific genres, and an auteurist analysis may eas-
ily incorporate a generic analysis. Likewise, the generic approach treats a film as one of
many within a genre, trying to interpret meaning by looking at recurring symbolic motifs,
character types, plot formulas, visual styles, and anything else common to films with the
same genre. As we noted in chapter 8, genre films are often perceived as simple entertain-
ment, but filmmakers often disguise various ideological themes related to contemporary
life in the trappings of some film genre (such as a fantasy or a western). Making genre
films may get the filmmakers’ ideas out to viewers who would never consider watching a
straight drama about social issues or political ideas, and thus genre films often have much
ideological and symptomatic content worthy of analysis.

A realist approach tries to describe how a film depicts “reality.” Of course, film as a
medium is an artificial and artistic reproduction of something real, and always a subjec-
tive interpretation of the director. However, most
mainstream filmmakers try to make techniques
“invisible” so that viewers will be concentrat-
ing on the characters and plot rather than on the
filmmaking process. A few films, on the other
hand, do try experimenting with cinematic tech-
niques, especially the cinematography, sound,
and editing, to simulate some sort of reality one
of the characters is experiencing—intoxication,
love, aging, memory, insanity—and the result
may appear confusing at first, until a viewer
realizes what is going on and why. This type of
film may require multiple viewings to under-
stand the way the filmmaker is hoping to com-
municate. A few examples of films well suited to
this type of analysis include David Lynch’s Mul-
holland Drive, Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, Rob-
ert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and films
written and/or directed by Charlie Kaufmann,
such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,
Synecdoche, New York, Being John Malkovich, and
Adaptation.

A genetic approach to analysis requires much out-
side research and access to earlier versions of a film
and its script. This approach traces a film through
the process of its creation and release. It will docu-
ment and discuss the meaning of various changes
made in screenplay drafts, during production,
scenes cut or added during editing, the theatrical
release version (or versions), alternate endings (if

Billy Wilder is an auteur who worked across
genres, from film noir (Double Indemnity and
Sunset Boulevard) to romance (Sabrina) to a
comedy based on cross-dressing and mistaken
identity (Some Like It Hot). Within the studio
system he was able to create films that
reflected with his cynical take on modernity.

Courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 267 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation

any), and any altered re-release or television/video versions, up through a final and defini-
tive “director’s cut.” Such a study is not typically a mere chronicle of changes, but a critical
evaluation and interpretation of their impact on the film and its meaning. This can be difficult
to do for most films without being an insider in the production process, but a few films have
been released to DVD or Blu-Ray with two or more versions, along with copies of deleted
or alternate scenes, and documentaries about the production. Some of the most prominent
titles that can be studied this way include Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, Steven Spielberg’s Close

Figure 10.1 Approaches to Film Analysis

Analyzing Rear Window from a Variety of Approaches

Approach Possible Things to Consider

Formalist Focus on plot structure, the limitations of the setting, the use of music from
within the setting rather than traditional underscoring, the use of mise en scène
to establish character and advance the plot, the camera and editing techniques
that heighten viewer involvement

Feminist Examine the portrayal of Grace Kelly’s “Lisa” character for female stereotyping
and reversals of stereotyping; contrast her character with other female
characters such as Stella the nurse (who might also be examined in detail for
reversals of stereotype), Miss Lonelyhearts, Miss Torso, and Mrs. Thorwald

Psychological Explore various personality and sexual issues inherent in Jimmy Stewart’s
“Jeff” character, including phallic symbolism of his camera’s telephoto lens, the
obsession with voyeurism into his neighbors’ private lives, his inability to commit
to the prevailing standards of married life

Dualist Discuss various pairs of opposites, such as Jeff/Lisa, Jeff/Thorwald, Jeff/detective,
Jeff’s apartment/the outside world, single people/couples, privacy/socialization,
following due legal process/taking law into own hands, active life/passive life

Auteurist Examine the film’s relationship to other films by Alfred Hitchcock, in style, subject
material, types of characters (e.g., cool blondes, an accused man, a persistent
investigator), popularity with audiences and critics

Generic Compare Rear Window with other murder mysteries, suspense thrillers, and
romantic comedies for shared and differing elements and approaches

Culturalist Look at the film as a metaphor for the public’s fascination with watching other
people’s lives on movie screens (comparing window shape to movie screen shape);
see how characters reflect common personalities and attitudes associated with
the 1950s; find parallels in Jeff’s refusal to settle down with postwar soldiers who
preferred the adventurous life away from a cramped apartment (contrasted with
unexpected husband of Miss Torso); look at influences of society and fashion-
makers on public tastes

Marxist Focus on Thorwald’s character as the overwhelming pressures of capitalist service
to meet sales quotas and satisfy demands of a selfish consumerist wife pushing the
man to commit murder; note how the common people of the apartment complex
can band together in support of each other when needed

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 268 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation

Encounters of the Third Kind, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, and James Cameron’s
Avatar. For instance, in Apocalypse Now, Coppola struggled to come up with an ending and
shot several different ones. There are bootleg versions that last nearly five hours. And in 2001,
Coppola released Apocalypse Now Redux, which restores 49 minutes cut from the original film,
much of it taking place at a French plantation. The restored footage and alternate endings do
not necessarily change the film’s message appreciably, but they do add more context to what
Coppola was trying to say and can be analyzed using this approach.

Figure 10.2 Examples of Critical Approaches

In the following links you will find examples of some of the critical approaches discussed in the text:

• Essays from noted film professor David Bordwell:

MAD DETECTIVE (2007) Nov. 2010
generic and auteruist approach
http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/maddetective.php

LADY IN THE WATER (2006) Sept. 2006
“making-of” book review that includes auteurist, genetic, and culturalist approaches
http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/hearing.php

• filmreference.com essays

BICYCLE THIEVES (1947) by Joel E. Kanoff
social-historical context
http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Kr-Le/Ladri-di-Biciclette.html

BLADE RUNNER (1982) by John McCarty
both generic and genetic context
http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Bh-Bo/Blade-Runner.html

MANHATTAN (1979) by Doug Tomlinson
auteurist context
http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ma-Me/Manhattan.html

METROPOLIS (1927) by B. Urgosikova
social and historical context, including audience reception
http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ma-Me/Metropolis.html

PERSONA (1966) by P. Adams Sitney
structural and psychological context
http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Or-Pi/Persona.html

REAR WINDOW (1954) by P. Adams Sitney
formal approach with psychological context
http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ra-Ro/Rear-Window.html

• Bluray.com
Quite a few of the reviews on this site (especially those of classic, foreign, and independent
films) include concise but surprisingly comprehensive film critiques from one or more
contextualist approaches (most often a generic and/or auteurist approach).
http://www.blu-ray.com

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 269 1/5/11 4:00 PM

http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/maddetective.php

http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/hearing.php

http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Kr-Le/Ladri-di-Biciclette.html

http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Bh-Bo/Blade-Runner.html

http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ma-Me/Manhattan.html

http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ma-Me/Metropolis.html

http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Or-Pi/Persona.html

http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ra-Ro/Rear-Window.html

http://www.blu-ray.com

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Criticism: Weighing the Balance

10.4 Criticism: Weighing the Balance

We have discussed several times the need for all elements of a movie to work in concert if it is to be successful, and that this is, ultimately, the responsibility of the director. However, it is not necessarily essential for each element to work
equally well, and this is important to note when you approach a critical analysis of a film.
As we just examined in chapter 8, there are many kinds of movies made in many kinds
of ways. Thus, it is obvious that no magical formula, no uniform percentage of acting,
writing, directing, technical competence, and whatever else goes into making a movie
can be prescribed universally. We will look at two examples to show that it is possible for
the scales to be evened, for one element to pick up the slack for another. (We should also
acknowledge that it is possible for a rare movie to fire on all cylinders equally well, as with
Schindler’s List, the first two Godfather movies, or classics like Casablanca and The Wizard
of Oz. It just doesn’t happen very often.) We do not need to look only at low-budget or
independent productions to find films that have some merits but don’t quite succeed at
everything they attempt. Apocalypse Now and Avatar both had huge production budgets.
Both were even Academy Award nominees for Best Picture and Best Director, but both
lost those two most prestigious Oscar categories, winning only technical awards.

Apocalypse Now is regarded by many as one of the finest films ever made, in spite of a number
of flaws partly due to its legendarily chaotic, bloated, near-disastrous production. In direc-
tor Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 film, in which U.S. Army Capt. Benjamin Willard (Martin
Sheen) is dispatched to find Col. Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando) and terminate his com-
mand—in other words, to kill him—the film follows Willard’s travels through the jungles of
Vietnam. Filming in the Philippines, Coppola faced several obstacles during the production
of the film, including a typhoon that destroyed sets and added to the ballooning budget.
Brando showed up overweight and did not know his lines. Sheen had a heart attack during
filming, delaying production further. It seemed that the film would be a spectacular bust.

And yet, somehow, it wasn’t. The chaos is reflected in the final film; it actually works to
make it seem like a more realistic depiction of Vietnam than it might otherwise have been.
This is probably a combination of happy accident and genius, for Coppola is a uniquely
gifted director.

Apocalypse Now is a
monumental film, but
Marlon Brando’s over-the-
top performance and Francis
Ford Coppola’s extravagant
jungle setting could be
critiqued as a caricature
of the madness they are
trying to portray. This image
from a behind-the-scenes
documentary catches them
in the midst of the process.

Courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 270 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Criticism: Weighing the Balance

In the case of Apocalypse Now, most of the elements are in place for success, despite the
craziness of production. Coppola shot millions of feet of film, making editing a Herculean
task, but this gave him plenty to work with. The visuals of the film are spectacular, as are
the complexly layered sounds that accompany them in an experimental use of stereo sur-
round effects. Whether the movie is a realistic portrayal of what Vietnam was like during
the war (a question that can be debated, and has been, many times), there is no doubt
that Coppola achieved the sense of madness for which he was looking. Nevertheless,
something had to give, and it did—the acting is somewhat unhinged, with all the main
characters seemingly operating at varying levels of insanity. The stress clearly affected
Sheen’s health; Dennis Hopper shows up as a lunatic photographer loyal to Kurtz. As for
Brando, he whispers most of his lines, lying in a darkened room. Whether this is simply
an idiosyncratic actor doing what he wants or a savvy portrayal of a man who has lost his
grip on reality—even if it is both—it is often remarkably haunting and effective.

Where Apocalypse Now falls even shorter for many viewers is in the story. Based on Joseph
Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, it meanders. Coppola cut out long stretches of the film, some
of which he restored in later versions. Many critics find the last half hour to hour the
weakest, although some actually prefer the film’s final third and dislike the first two-
thirds. Coppola famously could not decide on an ending, shooting several variations, and
it shows. Whereas chaos actually helped the film in some aspects, in trying to tell a coher-
ent story the chaos betrays the story. To try to follow the narrative is like listening to a
crazy person talk. It starts and stops, jumps around, and leads the audience down paths
that it leaves hanging, never to be revisited.

Yet Apocalypse Now genuinely deserves its status as a great film, a brilliant work of art.
How can that be, when the story is such a mess? Because the rest of the film is so superla-
tive, balancing the scales of quality. Some critics hint at this. Writing in The New York Times,
Vincent Canby suggests such a balance: “Vittorio Storaro, who photographed Last Tango
in Paris, among other fine films, is responsible for the extraordinary camerawork that
almost, but not quite, saves Apocalypse Now from its profoundly anticlimactic intellectual
muddle.” (In fact the film won the Oscar for its cinematography, as well as for its sound.)
Yet despite his misgivings, Canby also praises the film as being “as technically complex
and masterful as any war film I can remember” (Canby, 1979).

Avatar, James Cameron’s 2009 film, is another example of an inequitable balance of form and
function, relying as it does upon the jaw-dropping technological mastery of its director to
make up for the banal story (Cameron wrote the film, as well) and wooden acting. Set in the

Much of the success of
Avatar can be credited to the
seamless juxtaposition of
two literally alien worlds.

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 271 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Criticism: Weighing the Balance

year 2154, the film takes place on a moon in outer space called Pandora, where continued
mining by humans threatens the ecosystem of the Na’vi, the blue-skinned indigenous beings
living there. To more fully interact with the Na’vi, humans have developed avatar technol-
ogy, which creates a human–Na’vi hybrid that the human host controls with his or her mind.

Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a Marine recruited for the avatar program, grows increas-
ingly sympathetic to the Na’vi’s plight, despite the objections of the corporation doing
the mining and the paramilitary security force it employs. Jake will eventually lead the
Na’vi in a successful war against the humans and, after his human form is exposed to the
poisonous-for-humans Pandora atmosphere, become a full-fledge Na’vi himself.

The film was a stunning success, taking in more than $2 billion at the box office on its way
to becoming the highest-grossing film in history. Its Oscar-winning art direction and visual
effects are truly stunning, incorporating technology that Cameron himself invented. And
beyond the impressive computer-generated settings and characters, its 3-D format both
accentuates the visuals beyond anything ever seen in a movie before and serves as a dem-
onstration of how 3-D technology might be used as more than the revisiting of a gimmick.
The colors, the textures, the flora and fauna Cameron and his effects team created digitally
in three dimensions are genuinely amazing.

Yet Cameron may have invested too much time in developing the technology at the
expense of almost every other aspect of his film. The story is a mishmash of plots and
themes found in films such as Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas, among others. Its poli-
tics are preachy, predictable, and banal, an oversimplification of the effects unchecked
capitalism and industry can have. The acting, meanwhile, is almost as much of an after-
thought as the plot and dialogue, despite the presence of many talented actors. Sam
Worthington’s Sully is wooden, a disappointment because Worthington is so good in
other projects. Sigourney Weaver is given little to do as a scientist in charge of the avatar
project, which is actually preferable to the work done by Stephen Lang as the leader of
the security force. He is a cigar-chomping cliché, a laughable cartoon instead of a real
character. Giovanni Ribisi fares little better as the boss of the mining operator, a greedy
villain so stereotyped that he lacks only a top hat and mustache to twirl to be even more
of a silly character.

Nevertheless, critics and audiences warmed to the film, even while pointing out its defi-
ciencies. Why? For one thing, Cameron’s sheer audacity is winning. He creates an entire
universe from scratch; years were spent just on the language that the Na’vi speak. That
is ambition on a scale not usually found in filmmaking or any other endeavor. It is, quite
simply, something audiences had not seen before. The emphasis on effects may sacrifice
some of the quality of the other elements of the film, but the finished product is so over-
whelming that some never noticed its faults, and for many, it at least evened things out.

Critic Roger Moore asks at one point, “Did I mention how stupid Avatar often is?” He
calls it “dumb entertainment” and berates its “broad characters, corny dialog,” and other
faults. Yet he goes on to praise the film overall. “But Cameron, sparing no expense, sucks
us into that world and entertains us for most of the two hours and 42 minutes [ . . . ] It’s the
first 3D movie to transport us to a place we’ll never see. As visionary tour guide, Cameron
has no equal. Predictable story, clichéd dialogue and logical lapses aside, he’s still the man
we want leading us into his Pandora’s box” (Moore, 2009).

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 272 1/5/11 4:00 PM

CHAPTER 10Chapter Summary

Apocalypse Now and Avatar both have elements that impressed numerous critics and
moviegoers and elements that disappointed or completely turned off many other critics
and moviegoers. There are countless other examples of films that fall into these catego-
ries; in fact, most do. Every film, no matter how “good” or “bad,” has people who love
it, people who hate it, and people who fall somewhere in between. Nit-pickers may find
fault with the most popular or the most artistically successful films. On the other hand,
even the most derided movie disasters will still have their champions or at least people
who can find something worthwhile in them. Mind you, an utter failure in a single facet
can sink a movie, no matter how strong the others may be. But that failure has to be near-
complete to merit a wholly negative analysis. In the case of these two particular films, one
can also now examine, evaluate, and debate changes made by the directors between each
film’s original theatrical release and a substantially extended “director ’s cut” released to
home video. And knowing all that goes into making a film, whether a mega-budget stu-
dio production or a no-budget independent, makes it easier to appreciate just what the
filmmakers were able to accomplish, even if you don’t particularly like it.

Chapter Summary

You Try It

1. See a movie of your choosing. Find and read a review from a professional
critic; then use the Internet to find the same film reviewed by a blogger or
online-only writer. Compare the two for writing and analytical skill. Which
better reflects your feelings about the film? To find samples of reviews, go
to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/, http://www.metacritic.com/movies, or
http://moviereviewintelligence.com/.

2. Again using a movie of your choosing, pay attention to a single element from
the list of questions in this chapter (e.g., acting, directing, effects, lighting).
Evaluate how this element contributed to the movie’s success—or failure.

3. With a movie of your choosing, write a popular review. That is, review the film
as if your writing would be published in a newspaper or magazine, with atten-
tion paid to whether the people reading it should attend the film. Make a case
for the film being a success or failure at the truth test. Again, samples of popu-
lar reviews can be found at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/, http://www
. metacritic.com/movies, or http://moviereviewintelligence.com/.

4. Use a contextualist approach to analyze a film. Do not limit yourself to current
or even recent releases. Instead, choose a film or films and examine them from
the perspective of what they say about the culture in which they were cre-
ated, as well as how they speak to our culture of today. Your analysis may also
include an auteurist, generic, feminist, or psychological perspective, or any
other external influence that you believe help explains your interpretation of
the film. Some samples of brief critical essays that incorporate various contex-
tualist approaches (social, historical, auteurist, generic, genetic, psychological,
etc.) can be found at http://www.filmreference.com and on noted film profes-
sor David Bordwell’s blog at http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/ (note that
most of these assume the reader has already seen the film being discussed).

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 273 1/5/11 4:00 PM

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/

http://www.metacritic.com/movies

집

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/

http://www.metacritic.com/movies

집

http://www.filmreference.com

http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/

CHAPTER 10Chapter Summary

Auteurist approach: Analysis that looks at a
film as part of its director’s overall body of work
instead of as a single entity.

Contextualist approach: Analysis that treats a
film as within a broader context rather than as
an isolated unit.

Culturalist approach: Analysis treating a film as
symptomatic of the culture in which it was created.

Dualist approach: Analysis that identifies pairs
of opposites within a film and describes how
they are used to express attitudes.

Explicit content: Meaning that a film commu-
nicates to viewers directly, typically through
lines of dialogue or obvious visual symbol-
ism in the plot that the director expects
audiences to understand as something they
should remember (e.g., “there’s no place like
home”).

Feminist approach: Analysis concerned with
describing the roles of and attitudes toward a
film’s female characters.

Film scholarship: In-depth study, evaluation,
and interpretation of a film, aimed at a sophis-
ticated readership who most likely have already
seen the film.

Formalist approach: Analysis treating a film as
an isolated unit, concerned with film form and
how its basic elements (narrative structure,
mise en scène, cinematography, editing) are
organized to convey certain meanings.

Generic approach: Analysis treating a film as
just one in a genre of similar films, rather than
as an isolated unit.

Genetic approach: Analysis that traces a film’s
development through various stages, from script
to screen to revised reissues.

Implicit content: Meaning that viewers can
infer from a film by the ways characters act,
react, and grow throughout various situations
during the course of the story (themes, ideas,
and attitudes that are implied but not stated
explicitly—e.g., “crime does not pay,” “love
conquers all”).

Marxist approach: Analysis concerned with
applying Karl Marx’s sociopolitical views, par-
ticularly those related to class conflict and capi-
talist excesses, to interpreting a film.

Popular criticism: A relatively superficial dis-
cussion evaluating a film, aimed at the mem-
bers of general public who most likely have not
seen the film.

Psychological approach: Analysis concerned
with examining a film as a demonstration of
various psychological theories and concepts,
especially those of Freud and Jung.

Realist approach: Analysis that is especially
concerned with the ways a film is representing
some sort of reality.

Referential content: Content of a film that
would be considered an objective description by
anyone who saw it, referring only to what can be
seen happening rather than interpreting deeper
meanings (e.g., a simple synopsis of the plot).

Structuralist approach: Analysis similar to a
formalist approach but often employing semi-
otics (indentifying symbolic content encoded in
patterns of cinematic elements).

Symptomatic content: Meanings in a film
that can be determined only by looking at the
film as a symptom of something outside of the
film itself (plot, characters, techniques, form),
such as the time and place it was created, or
the filmmaker’s personal life, experience, and
attitudes.

Key Terms

goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 274 1/5/11 4:00 PM

9 Film and Its Impact
on Society

I believe it’s through film that our culture
and values are passed along.

Who’s the good guy, who’s the bad guy,
what’s right, what’s wrong.

—Peter Lalonde

Co
ur

te
sy

E
ve

re
tt

Co
lle

ct
io

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 229 1/5/11 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Film: Beyond Entertainment

Chapter Objectives
After reading this chapter, students should:

• Be able to discuss how film can impact
society and how society may impact film

• Understand the influence of regulation and
censorship in Hollywood

• Be familiar with the Hollywood Production
Code of 1930 and its replacement by the
MPAA ratings system

• Understand some of the ways that films are
edited for television broadcast

• Be familiar with the Hollywood blacklist
and the extent of its impact

• Understand the impact of social media,
such as Facebook and Twitter, on film
today

9.1 Film: Beyond Entertainment

Since their inception, movies have provided inexpensive mass entertainment; cinema is an incredibly popular medium. As we have already seen, audiences spent more than $10 billion on movie tickets in 2009. People definitely enjoy going to the movies;
that much is obvious. It is clear that movies have had a profound impact on society. And
not only are audiences influenced by what they see at the movies; audiences influence
what is shown in theaters as well.

Whether it is in appearance, fashion, or behavior, films romanticize a certain lifestyle
that is eagerly imitated by audiences. Fashion magazines promise that we can “Get
Angelina’s Look” if we follow the tips inside. Celebrity gossip publications keep readers
up-to-date on the comings and goings of seemingly everyone who has appeared in a
movie. The Internet and social media are practically choked with chatter about film—
box-office results, reviews, gossip, and more. Beyond such obviously shallower aspects,
film can influence how we live, our morality, and our behavior. What is open to discus-
sion, however, is the direction of the influence—do films influence culture or do they
reflect it? Or is it both?

Howard Beale’s mad rant
in Network was given
new currency in the 2010
electoral campaign when
a gubernatorial candidate
uttered part of a line from
the film: “I’m as mad as hell
and I’m not going to take
this anymore.”

Courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 230 1/5/11 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Film: Beyond Entertainment

Yes, we go to the movies to be entertained; as Steven J. Ross says in Movies and American
Society, we go “to laugh, cry, boo, cheer, be scared, thrilled, or simply to be amused for a few
hours. But movies are something more than just an evening’s entertainment. They are also
historical documents that help us see—and perhaps more fully understand—the world in
which they were made” (Ross, 2002). Movies, in other words, have something to say, often
beyond their literal meaning. Even bad movies, silly movies, pornographic movies, when
taken as a whole, serve as a sort of pop-culture barometer that often measures more than
just the fleeting. It takes longer to produce a feature-length movie, after all, than it does an
episode of a television show, the other most popular visual medium. Filmmakers who have
something to say about society, then, are better off with subjects that have lasting impact than
trying to capture flavor-of-the-month subjects that quickly become dated and soon seem silly.

For example, George Clooney could write, direct, and act in the film Good Night, and Good
Luck in 2005 and be confident that its subject matter—CBS television reporter Edward R.
Murrow’s dismantling of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in the mid 1950s—would be rel-
evant to contemporary audiences. It was a modern recreation and interpretation of an era
more than a half century in the past and will likely live on as an effective historical drama.
On the other hand, Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo, a 1984 film that attempted to cash in on the
then-current craze of break dancing, was dated practically the day it was released. Such a
film may have little relevance or appeal to audiences of later generations, yet it can serve
as a valuable time capsule documenting a popular cultural element and attitude of the
period in which it was created.

Certainly movies are not made and released in a vacuum. The government and special-
interest groups have tried to police and censor film at seemingly every turn. Experts
debate the effect that films have on the behavior of society, for example, whether violent
films encourage violence in the members of their audiences, and whether promiscuous
sexual behavior on the screen results in audience imitation. Movies are a constant and
easy source of debate because of their ubiquity and their popularity—there are movies
made about almost everything, so naturally opposing sides have no trouble finding a film
that represents their side of the argument on culture wars, often taking their examples out
of the context in which the film was made and intended.

In this chapter we will discuss this impact—how movies at least attempt to shape society
and how society shapes movies. Both topics are fluid, as the growing popularity of the
Internet and social media becomes increasingly powerful elements in discussion of films
and what’s in them.

Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A
Space Odyssey has become
an enduring classic. As robotic
intelligence becomes a reality
and astronomers discover
planets in distant galaxies, the
themes of this film and the
questions it raises are more
relevant than ever.

Courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 231 1/5/11 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Movies and Escapism

9.2 Movies and Escapism

There is little debate that Americans have endured tough times in the first decade of the 21st century. The national dialogue has discussed a lingering, increasingly unpopular war; partisan politics that seemed to divide the country; and an eco-
nomic crisis the like of which has not been seen since the Great Depression. A national
malaise that threatened at times to turn to panic developed. During all of this, what mov-
ies were people going to? The answer might really surprise you. Then again, it may not.

The year 2009 was the most lucrative year at the box office in the history of the movies,
and the top five movies were Avatar, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Harry Potter and
the Half-Blood Prince, The Twilight Saga: New Moon, and Up. Briefly, we have a film set on
another planet, a film about aliens disguised as trucks and cars, a film about a boy wizard,
a film about a girl trying to decide between a vampire and a werewolf, and an animated
film about an old man who ties balloons to his house and drifts to South America. Mean-
while, The Hurt Locker, an incredibly intense depiction of a U.S. military bomb-disposal
unit in Iraq, which won the Oscar for best picture among its six Academy Awards, was the
117th most popular film of the year.

In previous years as well, similar movies came out on top. The most seen films of 2008
were The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, Hancock, and WALL-
E—all which were fare for escapism, or using entertainment to escape the realities of
daily life. Although many of these films do have strong social or political subtexts, that is
not often the main focus of audiences. In 2007 the most popular movies were Spider-Man
3, Shrek the Third, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, and Harry Potter and
the Order of the Phoenix. Do you notice anything in common among these films as well?
It appears as though audiences have not been in the mood to deal with the troubles in
their lives, but instead to escape them by spending two hours in a movie theater. Mark
Waters, the director of the fantasy film The Spiderwick Chronicles, summed up the situa-
tion in 2007:

We’re seemingly enmeshed in a war nobody wants to be in [ . . . ] We have
an economic crisis, a housing crisis [ . . . ] If you read the paper every day,

Some of the harshest critics
of Hollywood suggest that
there are too many films
that may be nothing more
than a profitable exercise
in mindless entertainment.
Jackass 3D is one example
of this.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 232 1/5/11 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Movies and Escapism

it’s hard to maintain that kind of optimism, that feeling that you have any
capability of changing things for the better. When you reflect that back to
the movie . . . it allows people to have hopefulness and excitement and
the possibility of ultimate victory. I can see how it’s extremely compelling.
(Goodykoontz, 2007)

Jon Favreau, the director of the Iron Man movies, argues that we have needed escapism
more than ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11: “I think you saw it happen after 9/11.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the era of Spiderman/Lord of the Rings, good-vs.-
evil escapist fantasies, with very simple, operatic paradigms of good and evil playing it
out in some alternate worlds, allowed us to feel very simple emotions” (Goodykoontz,
2007).

Bear in mind, however, that box-office numbers reflect the audience’s point of view, taking
into account what they wanted to see. This does not mean that filmmakers have avoided
the troubles of contemporary life. In addition to The Hurt Locker, In the Valley of Elah (2007)
was a critically acclaimed film dealing with the effects of war in Iraq on the father of a
soldier killed there, yet it couldn’t find an audience. It made less than $7 million at the box
office. Brothers, about a woman who believed her husband was killed in Afghanistan but
who returns, fared better, taking in more than $28 million, but still it barely cracked the
top 100 of most popular movies of 2009.

In many ways, this trend can be traced back well into the past. Hollywood chose to release
few films about the Vietnam War during that conflict, for instance, because it seemed that
war hit too close to home, with its daily television presence of violence and death beamed
into our living rooms. John Wayne’s Green Berets (1968) was one such attempt to buck the
trend, but its disastrous reception by both critics and audiences discouraged any further
attempts. Interestingly, however, a few years after the war ended, films such as Coming
Home (1978), The Deer Hunter (1978), Apocalypse Now (1979), and Platoon (1986) showed
that audiences, with the passage of time, were ready to explore what happened during the
war. Note that a healthy box-office showing does not make a movie good or important.
We use it here simply as the easiest measure of a movie’s popularity among audiences; we
are strictly going by the numbers.

Audiences may or may not be receptive to films whose directors have made them primar-
ily to explore social issues. People like to be entertained and may prefer mindless escapism
to thought-provoking drama about current social problems. As we’ve seen, especially in
the last chapter on film genres, it is not impossible for films to fulfill audience expectations
at the same time they’re expressing underlying societal concerns, questioning established
values, or reflecting contemporary issues. Highly successful films like The Dark Knight
and Iron Man managed to deal with issues of personal conscience and social responsibil-
ity while also allowing the audience to escape. The former explored themes of vigilantism
in the face of pervasive urban crime and the latter looked explicitly at the Middle East
War and its relationship to greedy corporations supplying military arms to both sides.
But at the same time both had appealing heroes that audiences could enjoy watching tri-
umph over evil. Even a family-oriented animated sci-fi fantasy like WALL-E could depict
a bleak future world devastated by past wars and pollution, while the survivors became
dependent upon machines to survive. The hero was himself a machine, but too cute to be
threatening to viewers.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 233 1/5/11 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Censorship and Hollywood

These films may appear to be escapist fun on the surface, yet all have a depth that’s able to
express ideas the filmmakers want to get across. Generations from now they will be valu-
able documents of the early 21st century, reflecting both what people enjoyed watching
and what issues they were thinking about in their daily lives. Fortunately, movies are a big
enough cultural phenomenon that there is room enough for both what audiences want to
see, and what societal issues need to be explored.

9.3 Censorship and Hollywood

As far back as ancient Greece, philosophers such as Plato argued that art forms like poetry and theater could be dangerous influences on the public and should only be used to provide inspirational or uplifting experiences. In fact, he called for the
banning of works that did otherwise. Others such as Aristotle argued that depicting trag-
edy and realistic events could be cathartic for audiences, allowing them to purge pent-
up emotions safely in the theater, and go on with their normal lives. Virtually identical
debates continue about movies, with some believing movies should be positive experi-
ences and others insisting that movies should accurately reflect what has been happening
in our culture, positive or not.

Animated films are often dismissed as children’s entertainment. Coraline is a film that deftly captures both
childhood anxiety and adult uncertainty, and some viewers may find much of it disturbingly dark despite
the happy resolution. A world where the border between reality and virtual experience is porous may be
too much like our own for comfort.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 234 1/5/11 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Censorship and Hollywood

Modern audiences likely feel, with some justification, that almost anything can be shown
in a mainstream movie. There is graphic violence in any number of horror films. Explicit
sex is shown in Oscar-winning director Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution. A young girl kills sev-
eral people in brutal fashion while cursing like a sailor in Kick-Ass. It is tempting to sug-
gest that these films reflect changing attitudes of society, that again filmmakers are giving
audiences what they demand—certainly what they are comfortable with. And there is
some truth to that notion, but whether or not it equates to a coarsening of the culture is an
open question.

The History of Film Censorship and the Motion Picture Production Code

During the 1910s, filmmakers enjoyed a fair amount of freedom in what they could show
on screen. Not the freedom that today’s directors have, of course, but they were under
no obligation to produce morally righteous films. Directors didn’t have this freedom for
long. From the 1930s to the late 1960s, Hollywood films were required to follow a strict
set of guidelines (though clever writers and directors often found ways around them).
A series of Hollywood scandals in the 1920s involving rape, drugs, and murder led to
the Hollywood studios hiring former U.S. Postmaster Will Hays to supervise a system of
self-regulation that was intended to appease calls for state or national censorship. Looser
moral standards showing up on movie screens by the late 1920s created public outcry and
the creation of the Motion Picture Production Code, which was adopted by major studios
in 1930. For a few years the studios largely ignored, or at least glossed over, the dictates
of the code, many films gleefully stretching and outright flouting it to the point that Hol-
lywood productions from the 1930–1934 period are sometimes referred to as Pre-Code
films. By 1934 increasing pressure, including that brought to bear by the Catholic Church,
resulted in much stricter enforcement, and in July of that year there was a requirement
that no studio picture could be released without a certificate of approval from the Produc-
tion Code Administration, headed by the staunchly religious Joseph Breen.

The Motion Picture Production Code, sometimes erroneously known as the Hays code,
was lengthy and detailed, but essentially it established specific restrictions about numer-
ous issues and potential plot elements that applied to three general principles:

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who
see it. Hence, the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of
crime, wrongdoing, evil, or sin.

2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and enter-
tainment, shall be presented.

3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for
its violation.

Specific applications of the Code prohibited such things as nudity, obscenity, vulgar
language, ridicule of any religious faith, ridicule of laws or the legal system, graphic
violence, condoning of revenge-murders, depiction of criminal methods that might be
seen as instructional demonstrations for those so inclined, drug abuse or any sugges-
tion of drug traffic, prostitution, comic treatment of adultery, any sexually stimulating
material, obvious suggestions or condoning of illicit sexual activity, sexual perversion,

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 235 1/5/11 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Censorship and Hollywood

miscegenation, and more. Note that while under
certain conditions some violence and sexuality
could be permitted (though nothing explicit or
graphic), the overall tone of the finished film
was required to take the side of law and order,
stressing that crime doesn’t pay, and so on. In
theory, this would seem limiting, allowing for
only certain types of films to be made. In actual
fact, Hollywood would enjoy a “golden age” of
filmmaking under the Code, with the best direc-
tors, writers, and producers finding clever ways
to tell their stories even with the limitations.

The MPAA Ratings System

The code would remain officially in place until
1968, although after World War II and especially
after the rise of competition from television in
the 1950s, it would gradually lose its effective-
ness. While the 1939 blockbuster Gone With the
Wind was actually fined $5,000 for using the
banned word “damn” in Rhett Butler’s famous
farewell to Scarlett O’Hara, occasional films, like
Otto Preminger’s light sex comedy The Moon Is
Blue (1953) and his dramatic look at drug addic-
tion, The Man with the Golden Arm (1955), would be released without Code approval. By
the early 1960s, a number of films (Hitchcock’s Psycho, for example) were advertised with
disclaimers warning that they were intended for mature audiences, until finally in 1968
the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) announced its new rating system: G
for general audiences, M for mature audiences, R for restricted audiences, and X for films
to which children under 17 would not be admitted. The M was changed to GP in 1970,
and to PG in 1972. In response to violence in films such as Gremlins and Indiana Jones and
the Temple of Doom, a PG-13 rating was added in 1984. The X rating was changed to NC-17
(no child 17 or under admitted) in 1990.

The MPAA explains the system as follows:

Movie ratings provide parents with advance information about the con-
tent of films, so they can determine what movies are appropriate for
their young children to see. Movie ratings do not determine whether a
film is “good” or “bad.” They simply provide basic information to par-
ents about the level of various elements in the film, such as sex, violence,
and language so that parents can decide what their children can and can-
not see. By providing clear, concise information, movie ratings provide

Films like Baby Face (1933), which are full of
sexual innuendo, led to the enforcements of
the Motion Picture Production Code in 1934.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 236 1/5/11 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Censorship and Hollywood

timely, relevant information to parents, and they help protect the free-
dom of expression of filmmakers and this dynamic American art form
(MPAA, 2010).

Unlike the old Motion Picture Production Code, the MPAA does not provide a code of
acceptable conduct for filmmakers to follow in their films—something former MPAA
Chairman Jack Valenti, who came up with the idea for the ratings system, specifically
wished to avoid, saying, “There was about this stern, forbidding catalogue of do’s and
don’ts the odious smell of censorship” (MPAA, 2010). This sounds ideal, but it doesn’t tell
filmmakers what will or won’t be allowed in the films they are shooting. There is ample
anecdotal evidence of directors being told to trim a specific amount of time from sex
scenes or to limit the number of times a curse word is used to retain the rating they seek,
but exactly what is allowed and what isn’t is something of a moving target. Sometimes
a filmmaker will refuse to make the changes that would fit a film into a certain ratings
category. The MPAA told Darren Aronofsky to trim lurid sex scenes, which were used to
illustrate the degrading lengths to which junkies will go to pay for their drugs, toward the
end of his film Requiem for a Dream. Believing that the scenes were crucial to the film, the
studio released the film without a rating. This could prove troublesome in the lucrative
DVD marketing; some large retail chains will not
stock DVDs with NC-17 or no ratings. An edited,
R-rated version of the film was released on DVD.

Thus, the MPAA ratings system can have a big
financial impact, since, with movies rated R
and NC-17, younger audiences members are
automatically excluded (though with the R
rating, those under 17 can attend with a par-
ent or guardian). In the days that the X rating
was used, mainstream media typically refused
advertising for movies with the rating. This
was obviously detrimental in terms of the
money that a film could make, even though not
all films that got the ratings were pornographic.
One X-rated film, Midnight Cowboy, released in
1969, won the Oscar for best picture. The NC-17
rating was meant to remove the pornographic
stigma, but filmmakers typically still work to
avoid the rating, trimming scenes of violence
and, especially, sex.

Independent features are more often released
unrated, but for a major studio film, the finan-
cial risks are generally considered too great. The
MPAA system is in fact often criticized by film-
makers for inequity among the films that it rates.

Midnight Cowboy was a groundbreaking
film that captured both the grittiness
of New York and the decadence of its
underground art world.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 237 1/5/11 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Censorship and Hollywood

Kirby Dick, the director of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, a documentary that explored the
MPAA ratings system and its effects on society (and sought to identify its members and
the members of its appeals board, who are not publicly identified), concluded that the
system is inequitable in its treatment of studio and independent films, being tougher with
independents. Dick said in an interview that the system has an impact on how people
choose their movies, and that it treats sex and violence differently.

So many people have commented that many sex scenes look similar in
American films. And I think the ratings board is in large part responsible for
that, because filmmakers are shooting for that R rating [ . . . ] and as a result,
everything starts looking the same [ . . . ] [V]iolent films, which are made
by the studios, get through without restrictive ratings, whereas sexuality—
oftentimes very mature, thoughtful examinations of sexuality—gets more
restrictive ratings. [ . . . ] [T]here shouldn’t be a corporation profiting from
violent films at the expense of films that examine sexuality. (Schager, 2009)

Special-interest groups have lobbied the MPAA to include other elements in their decisions,
illustrating the impact films are perceived to have on society. The American Medical Asso-
ciation Alliance asked that any film including “gratuitous smoking” should automatically
receive an R rating. “Research has shown that one-third to one-half of all young smokers in the
United States can be attributed to smoking these youth see in movies,” Dr. Jonathan Fielding,
head of the Los Angeles County Public Health Department, told CNN (as cited in Duke, 2009).

Ironically, some directors and studios seek the more-restrictive R rating, believing that it tells
the audience that their films will be more adult and mature in content and treatment. The
R-rated comedy, for instance, a staple of the 1970s and 1980s with films like Animal House,
Porky’s, and Caddyshack, with copious amounts of nudity and cursing, as well as drug and
alcohol use, had gone out of favor in the 1990s. But films like 2003’s Old School and 2005’s
Wedding Crashers, along with the films of Judd Apatow, which include Knocked Up and
Superbad, created a new interest in raunchier fare. By 2009, The Hangover, about a bachelor-
party trip to Las Vegas, would become the highest-grossing R-rated comedy of all time.

Some critics point to films
as evidence of a coarsening
of our public culture.
Others suggest that in fact
films are responsible for
creating a less civil society.
It does seem clear that
there is a strong correlation
between grossness and
high grosses. American Pie,
an R-rated sex comedy,
grossed $102,561,004
(Boxofficemojo.com, 2010).

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 238 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Censorship and Hollywood

Television and Censorship

Television remains a way that many people see theatrical movies. However, the ver-
sions that they see on the small screen do not always accurately reflect what was origi-
nally on the big one. This is understandable for the most part; pay-cable networks
such as HBO and Showtime show movies uncut and uninterrupted by commercials,
but that is not the case on broadcast networks. On network television, films are cut in
order to make room for at least three commercial breaks an hour, if not more. But the
more noticeable differences in the television version are the cuts made to fall within
broadcast standards. Obviously nudity and gory violence are forbidden on broadcast
networks (though shows like NYPD Blue have at times managed to get bare backsides
on the air).

Language is also restricted on broadcast television. Although a 1999 episode of Chicago Hope,
a CBS drama, included the word “shit” (a handful of shows would follow suit), in general
profanity, beyond “hell” and “damn,” is rarely used. Rather than allow strong profanity,
film producers sometimes also shoot a “clean” version of a scene for later rebroadcast. Other
films simply “bleep” out the offending word—play a beeping sound over it so that it can’t
be identified. And in some cases another non-profane word is dubbed, often with comi-
cal results for those who have seen the original. In the movie Die Hard 2, for instance, the
signature line delivered by Bruce Willis’s character—“Yippee kay yay, motherfucker”—is
replaced with “Yippee kay yay, Mr. Falcon.” When Snakes on a Plane was aired on television,
the famous line uttered by Samuel L. Jackson’s character (which was inspired by an Inter-
net campaign)—“I have had it with these mother-
fucking snakes on this motherfucking plane”—is
changed to “I have had it with these monkey-
fighting snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane.”

While this is a fairly common occurrence that
typically generates more laughs than contro-
versy, there have been times when editing films
for television has created a stir. In 2004, after the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
fined CBS $550,000 when Janet Jackson’s breast
was briefly shown during the Super Bowl half-
time show, 65 ABC affiliates across the United
States declined to show Saving Private Ryan—
which director Steven Spielberg insisted be
shown as shot, complete with profanity and
violence—for fear that the FCC would rule it
indecent. However, no complaints were made
to the FCC.

The debate about ratings will continue, of
course, as long as such systems are in place.
From the start, the best filmmakers have found
ways around restrictions to tell the stories that
they want to tell, and this remains the case
today.

Traditionally films have been edited for
television because of sexual content. It
came as a surprise to many that in response
to FCC regulations the acclaimed film Saving
Private Ryan was in danger of being edited
for language. Instead some stations refused
to air it.

Courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 239 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Censorship and Hollywood

The Hollywood Blacklist

One can debate the genuine influence on society that a film can have, or whether film
influences society or vice versa; however, one episode in American history shows the
level of importance assigned to the impact art, and especially film, can have on culture.
The Hollywood blacklist was created by the House Un-American Activities Committee
(HUAC) to bar from working those in the film industry (and other forms of entertain-
ment) believed to have ties to the Communist Party. Its impact was felt from the late 1940s
through the 1960s, when more than 300 artists were listed.

Some of the more infamous chapters in the Committee’s history involved asking artists to
“name names,” or to reveal which of their friends and co-workers had communist ties. Some
actors, directors, and producers refused to do so, landing them on the list. In total, 11 indi-
viduals refused to cooperate and were cited for contempt and jailed; one fled the country,
while the others imprisoned became known as the Hollywood Ten. Others did name names,
including famed director Elia Kazan, whose films included A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
and On the Waterfront (1954). Kazan’s On the Waterfront was ostensibly an exposé of union
corruption and harassment of its own members drawn from recent headlines, and a study of
people following their own conscience against overwhelming outside pressure. Many, how-
ever, saw the film as a political metaphor—as Kazan’s defense of his own testimony before
HUAC. Other films from that same era, notably the westerns High Noon (1952) and Johnny
Guitar (1954), were also made as not-too-thinly-disguised allegories whose real topic was the
blacklist investigation, yet these films could be seen merely as entertainment by those unfa-
miliar with the political allusions. Those on the list would be banned from working, though
some screenwriters—most notably Dalton Trumbo, who was also the first blacklisted writer
to resume getting on-screen credit for his scripts—worked under pseudonyms.

The nomination of Elia Kazan
for a special Academy Award
was met by protests from
many Academy members.
They still recalled his “naming
names”—identifying alleged
communists—when he
testified before the House
Un-American Activities
Committee decades before
the Oscars ceremony. Kazan
directed On the Waterfront
as a justification for his
cooperation with HUAC. In
the film Terry Malloy “blows
the whistle” to the Crime
Commission, naming the “evil-
doers” responsible for union
corruption.

Courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 240 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

Those who did name names would eventually be seen in a negative light, assuming the role
of turncoats. “I was a rat, a stoolie, and the names I named of those close friends were black-
listed and deprived of their livelihood,” actor Sterling Hayden would say, years later. In fact,
the stigma of having testified as a “friendly” witness, and naming names, was so great that
when Kazan was given an honorary Academy Award in 1999—nearly 50 years after he testi-
fied—it was still considered a controversial choice. When the award was presented during
the Oscars ceremony, many in the audience refused to applaud, so searing was the lingering
resentment, despite Kazan’s obvious gifts as a director and giant in the industry.

As the Committee lost power and prestige, so did its impact and legacy. It became
associated with such “Red scare” investigations as Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s hunt for
communists in the 1940s and 1950s and lost credibility. The Hollywood blacklist shows
just how influential movies can be on society, and vice versa. Even years after the active
blacklist, Hollywood has dealt with the blacklist era more explicitly in films such as
George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), Frank Darabont’s The Majestic
(2001), and Martin Ritt’s The Front (1976). It is clearly an era that had a tremendous
impact on film, both in production and reception. The blacklists and ruined careers are
now seen as dealing a serious blow to the industry, especially to the actors and writers
who refused to name names.

9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

There have been films throughout history that have had a great social impact because they went beyond the limits of what had been previously been standard in the film industry, the status quo. Many of these films that pushed the envelope also made a
large impact on audiences.

How much impact a film has on its audience when it comes to behavior will always be a
source of controversy, hotly debated in part because it is almost impossible to prove with
assurance how strongly a movie’s impact is felt—or whether it is felt at all. This is true, in
fact, of all forms of popular media. Much of the evidence of a short-term impact of films
is anecdotal. For instance, it’s widely regarded as fact that after the film Jaws premiered
in 1975, attendance at beaches plummeted, though one is hard pressed to find actual evi-
dence of this, other than story after story simply saying it’s true. Other claims, such as that
of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids that smoking in movies increases youth smoking,
are disputed, both by special-interest groups and others. Still other films seem to inspire
copycat behavior. At least three young men were killed after being struck by a car while
lying in the middle of the road, apparently mimicking the actions of players in the film The
Program. (These scenes were later deleted from the film.)

However, the impact of these movies is mostly unintentional, more a matter of catching
the attention of the public for one reason or another than actually setting out to deal with
societal issues. Yet some films have had a great impact on society at large—not always
intentionally but with a lasting effect. This list is by no means complete, but it points to a
few movies who went beyond the status quo and whose cultural impact has been notable
on issues of race, sexuality, politics, and religion. And whether it is the movie that caused
a societal shift on these issues, or the societal shift that caused the movie to be created is up
to you to decide. (See Figure 9.1 for some films that had a great impact on society.)

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 241 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

Figure 9.1 Social Impact

A Few Movies That Made A Social Impact

The Birth of a Nation (1915) Created large movie audience across economic classes; set
precedent for films causing widespread public debate; inspired
revival of Ku Klux Klan and provided rallying point to strengthen
newly formed NAACP; set precedent for extra-long films; and
created demand for lavish and large-capacity “movie palaces”

The Jazz Singer (1927) Created demand for talking pictures, which would rapidly replace
silent films; established template for musical film drama

Psycho (1960) Set precedent for popular mainstream horror films that depicted
previously avoided material, sympathizing with the villain, and killing
off protagonists before the film is half over

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) Reached a wide audience with the message that racial bigotry is wrong

Easy Rider (1969) Set precedent that independent, youth-oriented films dealing with
contemporary issues of drugs and sex could reach a wide audience
and make a profit

The Godfather (1972) Legitimized organized crime families in the minds of movie viewers
as typical human beings trying to make a living, even if they were
outside the law, creating a new wave of gangster films with a new
approach to their characters

Jaws (1975) Created a demand for “wide releases” of summer blockbuster films
that would open everywhere at once, rather than travel from city to
city over the course of a year as had been the prevailing practice

Do the Right Thing (1989) Created heated debate as to its ultimate meaning—whether racial
violence can be justifiable or is a tragic extreme to be avoided—in
any case forcing its viewers to think about its issues

Schindler’s List (1993) Created a wider public awareness of the Holocaust; demonstrated
that a film shot in black and white, with a heavy topic, could still find
a wide audience

Philadelphia (1993) Created widespread public sympathy for an openly homosexual
character

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) Proved that an overtly political propaganda film could find a wide
audience far beyond its perceived limited demographics, despite and
perhaps because of the debate it generated

Passion of the Christ (2004) Proved that a film dealing with religious faith, with graphically
depicted violence, and a foreign-language soundtrack could generate
widespread public debate and find a wide viewing audience

Brokeback Mountain (2005) Helped propagate sympathetic public awareness that suppressed
homosexual tendencies may be more widespread than a
stereotyped “gay community”

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 242 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

To Kill a Mockingbird and Do the Right Thing
Americans began the 20th century living as a segregated society; it is not therefore
unusual that films would reflect that reality of racial relations as well as society’s chang-
ing attitudes toward it. Race remains a sensitive but shifting issue, with gains and losses
throughout the years. It is one subject that often remains a taboo topic; it makes many
people uncomfortable no matter what their feelings about it. Film, however, has been
a place where racial issues do appear, even when they do not in polite conversation. In
American society, many of the depictions of racial struggles in film involved African
Americans.

Over time, the representation of African Americans in film has in fact changed. We have
discussed at length the impact of D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, both in film and in
culture, as well as The Jazz Singer, in which star Al Jolson appeared at times during the film
in blackface (theatrical makeup to make him appear black). These films were controversial
even when they debuted for their demeaning depiction of blacks, especially The Birth of a
Nation, but today even pitching such a film would be unthinkable. That these films would
not be released today is a form of social progress and shows society’s changing attitudes
about race; nevertheless, no one would dispute that there is still a long way to go in this
particular social struggle. As Richard Corliss wrote in Time magazine, in his introduction
to “The 25 Most Important Films on Race”:

The films span nine decades, and reveal a legacy that was tragic before it
was triumphant. At first, blacks were invisible; when they were allowed to
be seen, it was mostly as derisive comic relief. The 1950s ushered in the age
of the noble Negro, in the imposing person of Sidney Poitier—the Jackie
Robinson of movies. Only when Hollywood realized that a sizable black
audience would pay to see films more reflective of their lives, whether
funny, poignant or violent, were they given control of the means of pro-
duction. Sometimes. (Corliss, 2008)

The China Syndrome built
on the fears caused by the
partial meltdown at Three
Mile Island nuclear power
plant. For more than 30
years no new nuclear facility
has been constructed in the
United States.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 243 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

Indeed, people of color still struggle to gain equality in the film industry. But there have been
films that have advanced the cause of equality without shying away from the problems that
minorities face: namely, racism. Yet as these examples show, even great movies with noble
goals can sometimes themselves be problematic in the way they approach racial issues.

To Kill a Mockingbird, the 1962 film directed by Robert Mulligan based on Harper Lee’s
well-loved, Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, is almost universally praised. Gregory Peck
won an Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of Atticus Finch, a lawyer in the
small southern town of Maycomb, Alabama, in the 1930s. Finch, the single father of two
young children, is appointed to defend Tom Robinson (Brock Peters), a black man accused
of assaulting a white woman. Because of this, his children, in particular his daughter Scout
(played by Mary Badham, who was also nominated for an Academy Award), are exposed
to the town’s innate racism. Atticus is threatened by the townspeople, and despite his
brilliant defense of the defendant (in particular his closing statements), the all-white jury
finds him guilty. Still, Atticus is treated as a hero by the black residents of Maycomb, while
Robinson is shot to death under dubious circumstances.

The American Film Institute ranks the film as the 25th greatest of all time, the best
courtroom drama, and Atticus Finch as the greatest movie hero of the 20th century
(AFI, 2008). Indeed, Peck’s portrayal is at once understated and powerful; his Finch
attacks racism through quiet decency. The lesson of the film—that racism and bigotry
are wrong and dangerously so—is certainly well meaning. And yet, for all of Finch’s
heroics and the movie’s good intentions, it exists firmly in the tradition of the white
hero coming to the rescue of the wronged black man (and in this case, despite a noble
effort, even he can’t defeat the bigotry of his fellow townspeople). This is not to say
it isn’t a great movie—it is. But is it a great commentary on racism? Roger Ebert, the
famous film critic, argues that it is not:

To Kill a Mockingbird is a time capsule, preserving hopes and sentiments
from a kinder, gentler, more naive America. It was released in December
1962, the last month of the last year of the complacency of the postwar
years. The following November, John F. Kennedy would be assassinated.
Nothing would ever be the same again—not after the deaths of Martin
Luther King, Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, not after the
war in Vietnam, certainly not after September 11, 2001. The most hopeful

To Kill a Mockingbird is
routinely read and screened
by middle school students
across the country. It’s much
less likely that they will
encounter the assertiveness
of a film like Spike Lee’s
Malcolm X.

Courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 244 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

development during that period for America was the civil rights move-
ment, which dealt a series of legal and moral blows to racism. But To Kill a
Mockingbird, set in Maycomb, Alabama, in 1932, uses the realities of its time
only as a backdrop for the portrait of a brave white liberal. (Ebert, 2001)

Fast-forward to 1989, the year Spike Lee’s film Do the Right Thing was released. We have
discussed this film in terms of Lee’s directorial vision, of his control over the content and
tone of the film, which is complete (he also wrote, co-produced, and starred in the movie).
It is the story of a blisteringly hot day in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brook-
lyn. A sprawling film, it incorporates elements of drama and comedy while depicting the
fragile truce with which people of various races co-exist within the community. Lee’s film
is filled with a kind of savage beauty, entertaining yet unflinching in its honesty. Unlike
Mockingbird, this is a film that could only have been made by someone with personal expe-
rience with racial relations—the story is told not just through the prism of race but through
Lee’s singular point of view. He is a gifted filmmaker, offering us striking images and funny
scenes throughout. But he is also furious, and that comes through without fail. From the first
frames, in which Public Enemy’s song “Fight the Power” plays, race is central to all things.
As the lyrics say, “People, people we are the same/No we’re not the same/’Cause we don’t
know the game/What we need is awareness, we can’t get careless.” Lee never lets up.

“I sort of read it back then, and now, as a black nationalist manifesto,” Natalie Hopkinson,
an associate editor for theRoot.com, told National Public Radio as part of a celebration of
the 20th anniversary of the film’s release. “[Do The Right Thing portrayed] a purging of
elements out of the community that did not respect black people and the black presence
in Bed[ford]-Stuy[vesant]” (Martin, 2009).

Whether it is a better movie than To Kill a Mockingbird is open to debate. But, made 27
years later, Do the Right Thing is unquestionably a story about the dangers of bigotry and
racism told from the point of view of a director who understood the intricacies of race and
didn’t shy away from tough topics—as Robert Mulligan, following Harper Lee’s novel and
Horton Foote’s script, arguably did at times. Part of Mockingbird’s power lies in an uncom-
fortable sense of ambiguity that caused some to denounce it as promoting racial violence
whereas others lauded it as a powerful condemnation of racial violence. In either case, it
forced audiences to think about race in a way that they perhaps had not done in the past.

Do the Right Thing is an
intensely thought-provoking
examination of racial tension
and personal responsibility.
The film’s final meaning
has been debated, but its
ultimate purpose in getting
viewers to think is an
undeniable success.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 245 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

Philadelphia and Brokeback Mountain

There is no shortage of examples of stereotypical portrayals of gay men and women; for
decades disparaging portrayals were accepted almost as the norm. Although there were
some rare exceptions, Philadelphia, which was released in 1993, was one of the first main-
stream Hollywood films to feature an openly gay man as its protagonist. While this was
in itself noteworthy, what also made news was the level of top-flight talent involved in
the film. Jonathan Demme, who had won an Oscar for Silence of the Lambs two years ear-
lier, directed the film. Actors featured Denzel Washington, Jason Robards, and Antonio
Banderas. But the casting that attracted the most attention was Tom Hanks as Andrew
Beckett, the lead character in the film. Beckett is diagnosed with AIDS and is fired from
his law firm; he sues, claiming discrimination. Hanks, up until this point, had appeared
mostly in comedies and light romances, so the role was a shift for him.

Tom Hanks’s role in Philadelphia marked the first time an A-list Hollywood actor accepted
a role as an openly gay lead character. Hanks, with his boyish good looks and standing
within the industry as an all-around good-natured, nice guy, was perhaps the perfect actor
for what at the time was considered a legitimately controversial choice. What’s more, his
portrayal—sensitive, intelligent, yet also never backing away from the character’s sexu-
ality (though nothing explicit is shown in the film)—was praised by both critics and his
peers and was widely accepted by the moviegoing public. Hanks won the first of consecu-
tive best-actor Academy Awards for the role, winning the next year for Forrest Gump.

By the time Brokeback Mountain was released in theaters in 2005, the idea of mainstream
actors playing gay characters was not considered as controversial a topic as it had once
been (though it still provoked anger and prejudice among some). Director Ang Lee cast
Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal as two cowboys who meet in 1963 when they are hired
as ranch hands and slowly realize—even they aren’t sure what is happening at first—that
they are in love. Given the time in which the film is set, the characters cannot live together
or have a romantic relationship openly. Instead, they both marry and father children, but
meet each other occasionally through the years. While their relationship is not explicitly
shown, there are scenes of romance—passionate kissing, embraces, and the like—that Lee
directs with great sensitivity (he won the Academy Award for his direction).

Brokeback Mountain not only
challenged stereotypes of gay
men, it also challenged and
revised the conventions of
the classic western.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 246 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

The film was widely praised and a box-office success. Jack Foley, the head of distribution
at the studio that produced the film, said, “We no longer have to worry about breaking
down the homophobic barriers, and [the film is] now breaking into the more mainstream
boomer market” (Gray, 2006). However, the film was controversial as well. For example,
Larry H. Miller, the owner of the Utah Jazz professional basketball team as well as the Jor-
dan Commons entertainment complex in a suburb of Salt Lake City, pulled the film from
his theater there. Despite the controversies both films attracted, Philadelphia and Brokeback
Mountain are considered milestones in their depiction of gay life because they contain
characters who are not shown as stereotypical gay characters as had been common in past
films; instead, they are portrayed as normal people living their lives, thanks to the quality
and honesty the directors demanded of their films.

Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ

These two movies, both released in 2004, couldn’t be made by more dissimilar directors,
nor could their subjects be more different, yet each showed remarkable power both at the
box office and in terms of driving discussion of political and religious issues upon their
release. Michael Moore is an avowed liberal, Oscar-winning documentarian who delights
in taking shots at conservatives with admittedly one-sided films that are both informa-
tive and entertaining. Mel Gibson, meanwhile, is an actor and Oscar-winning director
with well-known religious beliefs. Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is a hugely critical look
at George W. Bush, as well as the war in Iraq and the media that covered it. Gibson’s film,
meanwhile, is a depiction of the last hours of the life of Jesus. Yet despite their differences,
both films serve as examples of the way that movies can capture the imagination—and
sometimes incur the wrath—of audiences and become part of the national discussion.

Because Fahrenheit 9/11 criticizes George W. Bush, his presidency, and more, Moore had
trouble securing financing, finding distribution methods, and finding companies that
would put the film in theaters. The subject matter was considered simply too controver-
sial by some. Released a little more than four months before the 2004 presidential election,
in which Bush was running for reelection, the film also generated plenty of discussion.
Conservative commentators disputed Moore’s facts and credibility, while he fought back
with documentation of his assertions. Christopher Hitchens was particularly brutal in his
critique: “Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an

Both Fahrenheit 9/11 and The
Passion of the Christ are the
products of strongly felt—
passionate—beliefs. Michael
Moore was convinced that his
film could make a difference
in the electoral battle
between George W. Bush and
John Kerry.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 247 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as
a demonstration of ‘dissenting’ bravery” (Hitchens, 2004).

Hitchens’s take-down, while more forcefully rendered than most, was by no means the
only criticism. But when the film was released, it was an instant hit—a blockbuster, in fact,
by documentary standards—the film earned more in its opening weekend than any other
documentary had for an entire theatrical run. It went on to earn more than $222 million
worldwide, by far the most money ever made by a documentary. This status at the box
office, of course, doesn’t mean that Moore was correct in 100 percent of his accusations.
However, it does at least point to an interest in politics among audiences that is strong
enough to get people of any political stripe into the theater. The question now is, did the
film really have an impact on voters? George W. Bush was reelected to a second term in
office even with the film’s scathing criticism of him; however, whether or not the film had
an impact on the number of votes for each candidate in the 2004 election is anyone’s guess.

Meanwhile, Gibson’s film was certainly not the first strongly religious film. Movies such
as Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments were popular, while director Martin Scorsese’s
The Last Temptation of Christ and to some extent Cecil B. DeMille’s King of Kings generated
controversy. But Gibson’s movie is different. All of the film’s dialogue is in Aramaic, Latin,
or Hebrew, to add authenticity. And the depiction of Jesus’s torture and crucifixion is
unusually graphic and violent—again, Gibson said, to portray violence as realistically as
possible. He told ABC’s Diane Sawyer, “I wanted it to be shocking; and I wanted it to be
extreme . . . so that they see the enormity—the enormity of that sacrifice” (Sawyer, 2004).
The film predictably proved polarizing among audiences and critics. Some argued that
the blood and gore, as Gibson argues, were necessary to give the film Gibson’s desired
impact. To soften it, the theory goes, would sanitize the message, would take Jesus’s death
out of the realm of physical pain and suffering—would make it more theoretical than
actual. Others maintained that the level of violence was unnecessary, that it actually took
away from Gibson’s message because it was so distracting. Of course, some of these argu-
ments were also thinly veiled discussions of faith, a subject that is inherently controversial.

Mel Gibson served as writer,
director, and producer of this
self-financed $25 million film.
Due to the religious subject
matter and controversial
approach of The Passion
of the Christ, Gibson had
difficulty finding a distributor,
but once it got into theaters
its unexpectedly large box-
office success helped turn
Lionsgate Films into a major
studio.

Photo by Mary Evans/ICON
PRODUCTIONS/Ronald Grant/
courtesy Everett Collection

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 248 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Pushing the Envelope: These Films Did

Like Moore, Gibson had a difficult time securing financing and distribution for his film,
so he funded production of the film himself and finally arranged with a small indepen-
dent distributor, Lionsgate, to get it into theaters. Churches gave away tickets, and church
groups helped promote the film. Despite the controversy about the graphic violence,
the film would earn more than $611 million worldwide, making it the highest-grossing
R-rated movie of all time. And, like Moore’s film, it led to much discussion, both about
religion and about the level of violence that audiences will tolerate.

Although some focused on the tawdrier aspects of both films, it seemed that for a time,
in 2004, movies drove the national discussion, again proving their power when it comes
to capturing the public imagination. People were incorporating these movies into discus-
sions of both politics and religion. Instead of movies being an escape from the controver-
sial and often tough issues of the day, movies were central to both. This is a phenomenon
that has happened often throughout American history, and it shows that movies can pro-
mote both escapism as in films like the Harry Potter series or Transformers and social prog-
ress and national discourse in films like Do the Right Thing and Fahrenheit 9/11

Thelma & Louise and Winter’s Bone

Even though women have enjoyed a growing power both in front of and behind the cam-
era, their influence is still hindered by a residual prejudice. Female directors like Kathryn
Bigelow and Nicole Holofcener enjoy good reputations as directors, but they don’t neces-
sarily make films geared toward female audiences. In its own way, this is a form of equal-
ity; why should they be pressured to confine themselves to a type? Men are not asked to.
Some films, however, and some directed by men, have been influential in the way women
are portrayed in movies and, arguably, perceived in society. With Thelma & Louise, a major
film directed by a big-name director (Ridley Scott), that is certainly the case. With Winter’s
Bone, a smaller film with no major stars and very little promotion, it might be.

In simplest terms, Thelma & Louise (1991) stars Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis as women
who, motivated by various issues in their lives, go on a road trip. It quickly turns ugly,
as a man tries to rape Thelma (Davis) and Louise (Sarandon) shoots and kills him. Now
they are on the lam, and the experience proves transforming for both of them, subverting
the traditional idea of the male buddy movie. They are victims of violence, yet they also
commit it, an unusual occurrence in a mainstream film. They are liberated by breaking out
of their accepted roles in society, and the film is liberated, as well. The ending, in which
the pair decide to commit suicide by driving off the Grand Canyon rather than surren-
der to police, has been seen as both controversial and empowering. However the viewer
may feel about it, the film places women firmly at its center. Though it was directed by a
man—Ridley Scott—it is the story of two women, told by a woman—screenwriter Callie
Khouri won an Oscar for her screenplay—and it remains a cultural touchstone, with the
mere mention of the movie’s title suggesting a form of female empowerment.

“Although the characters may not have survived their final flight, Thelma & Louise lives
on in unusual places,” writes Bernie Cook in one of many books the movie has inspired.
“Extracinematically, Thelma & Louise has been used as a statement of female empower-
ment and self-assertion and also as a warning of the perceived dangers of female access
to violence. [ . . . ] By representing women as both victims and agents of violence, Thelma
& Louise broke radical new ground in mainstream American representation, profoundly

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 249 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.5 Social Media

threatening masculinist critics who objected to its breach of the norm of violence as male
privilege” (Cook, 2007).

Will Winter’s Bone be discussed in such revolutionary terms 20 years after its release? It
may not, as more ground has been broken in the portrayal of women in film. However, the
2010 film is also very much a woman’s story, directed by a woman—Debra Granik—and
placing a female character in a nontraditional role. Jennifer Lawrence plays Ree Dolly, a
17-year-old girl living in the Ozarks and taking care of her young siblings. Her mother is
mentally ill, almost nonresponsive. So when someone has to find her father, who cooks
meth and has skipped out on his bail, the job falls to her. Dubbed “hillbilly noir” in some
circles, the film puts not just a woman but a teenage girl in the traditional role of detective,
as Ree combs the backwoods looking for her father, dealing with relatives and acquain-
tances that are at best reticent, at worst violent. Yet she plugs away, determined to find
him. If it is not as immediately revelatory as an example of female empowerment as
Thelma & Louise, it is still an exhilarating take on the traditional role of the hard-boiled
detective—and Ree is as hard-boiled as Humphrey Bogart in any of his roles. Time will
tell if the film, lauded by critics but very much a “small” film with limited release, will
prove influential. But to attentive audiences, it should be. Released almost 20 years after
Thelma & Louise, Winter’s Bone proves that there is still new ground to cover in terms of the
portrayal of women on-screen—and that it can be done in a fashion both entertaining and
revealing in what it says about its characters and what it says about us.

9.5 Social Media

In seemingly no time, online services that at first appeared to be nothing more than niche products for young people have become essential tools for marketing and jour-nalism. In particular, Facebook, which has more than 500 million users, and Twit-
ter, which has more than 190 million users, are an increasingly important part of every-
day life. Personal web logs, or blogs, are another popular form of self-expression and
social interaction, as are numerous Internet discussion forums, some devoted exclusively
to online discussions and others that are part of informational sites such as the Internet

Susan Sarandon and Geena
Davis take the battle of the
sexes to a new level in the
title roles of Ridley Scott’s
Thelma & Louise, a film that
reversed typical male/female
stereotypes and provoked
much debate among viewers
and critics.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 250 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Chapter Summary

Movie Database (IMDb). Even though their missions are different, they can all be lumped
under the category of social media. How long they remain popular is anyone’s guess.

Social media has plenty to do with movies. As the number of professional film critics
dwindles, thanks in part to the poor outlook for traditional newspapers and magazines,
many movie fans take to social media to instantly register their feelings about a film. Some
comments and critiques are silly or promotional in nature; however, the sheer volume of
responses to a movie (or television show, CD, book, or any other form of entertainment
media) means that they cannot be ignored. It’s almost like an instant poll, conducted in
real time, by average people.

However, the true effect of social media on the popularity and profitability of a movie
remains a hotly debated topic. In 2009, the movie Bruno, starring Sacha Baron Cohen,
enjoyed a profitable opening day on Friday, the traditional opening day for films. But by
Saturday attendance dropped steeply—36 percent in a single day. Why? Immediately the
media began pointing to the “Twitter effect.” Millions of people, it seems, tweeted (the
verb used for posting an update on Twitter) negative responses to the film. While they,
like everyone else, were limited to 140 characters per post, there’s no limit to how many
posts a user can make. Soon, carried along by an excitable media eager to report on any-
thing related to social media, the Twitter effect was a full-on social phenomenon.

Until, one day, people decided it wasn’t. In a widely circulated story in July 2010, Daniel
Frankel wrote in The Wrap, an online publication, that the effect of Twitter was in fact
overstated when it came to Bruno and other films that suffered sharp, fast drop-offs in
business in 2009: “One year later, the social media trend that was going to revolutionize
word-of-mouth hasn’t demonstrably done so. There are few movies this summer where
you can point to Twitter causing a huge box office bump, or drop.” (Frankel, D., 2010).
However, there is no question that—as Facebook and Twitter users can attest—movie
studios are fully immersed in the world of social media, seeing it as a marketing opportu-
nity, a way to spread good word of mouth more quickly than almost any other method of
delivery. And what about the bad word of mouth? Well, some things can’t be prevented.
As consultant Gordon Paddison told The Wrap, “People say Twitter causes a movie to
bomb. I say a bad film causes people to trash it on Twitter.” (Frankel, D., 2010).

Chapter Summary
Movies have had an impact on society since they began. While one can debate whether
films influence society or society influences films, the more likely answer is that each influ-
ences the other. The best films offer a reflection of the time in which they are made, yet they
also help engender discussion and sometimes change in the community that watches them.

Hollywood has tried, throughout its history, to regulate and influence what kind of mov-
ies are made and to control their content. However, many filmmakers have still been able
to achieve their vision through creative means. The U.S. government at one point even felt
movies were influential enough on the general public that it sought to ban anyone with
communist sympathies from working in Hollywood studios.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 251 1/5/11 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 9Chapter Summary

Not every film has an impact on society, but many do, and they do so to varying degrees.
By watching them, we as the audience are able to more fully form opinions on crucial
issues, and even to join in on the discussion of them. The rapidly rising use of social
media adds greatly to this participation. While much of the online public reactions to films
are merely vague personal impressions, the availability of social media gives anyone the
chance to write and read serious criticism and analysis previously limited to published
professional critics, as well as to do it almost instantly after a film is screened anywhere
in the world.

Questions to Ask Yourself about Societal Impact When Viewing a Film

• Does the movie make you feel as if you are escaping your daily life? (escapism)
• Does the version of the movie you are watching have any censorship evident?

(post-dubbing, cutting out scenes from the original)
• Does the movie address controversial societal or political issues?
• Can it be seen as an allegory for any societal or political issues? How? What evi-

dence is present in the film and outside of the film for this assessment?

You Try It

1. Name one film you have seen recently that you believe has had at least some
impact on society. How did the film achieve this? Do you think the effect was
intentional? The 2010 documentary Inside Job delves into the financial crisis and
its causes. Audiences have been outraged. Will it help usher in stricter financial
reform? A clip offers an example of what the film explores: http://movieclips
.com/qhbs-inside-job-movie-lehman-brothers-goes-bankrupt/.

2. Do you believe that films, in general, influence society, or does society influence
what is shown in films? Cite examples of films you have seen to help illustrate
your answer. The 2010 film The Social Network tells the story of Mark Zuckerberg,
who founded Facebook. Did the popularity of Facebook—and jealousy of Zucker-
berg—influence the film? Will the film make Facebook even more popular? This
clip shows Zuckerberg coming up with the precursor to the popular social-media
site: http://movieclips.com/8PcC-the-social-network-were-ranking-girls/0/43.317.

3. What changes would have to be made in a film such as Pulp Fiction, Blue Velvet,
or another film you have seen that has graphic violence or sexuality in order
for it to have been released under the rules of the Hollywood Production Code?
Think of a few scenes from a movie you have seen and how the code would
change those scenes.

4. Do you believe that movies can influence specific behaviors (such as smoking in
teens or the commission of violence)? Why, or why not?

5. Have you ever been influenced by social media when making the decision
whether to see a film? If so, in what way?

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 252 1/5/11 1:16 PM

http://movieclips.com/qhbs-inside-job-movie-lehman-brothers-goes-bankrupt/

http://movieclips.com/8PcC-the-social-network-were-ranking-girls/0/43.317

CHAPTER 9Chapter Summary

Key Terms

Blog: An Internet-based personal Web site
often used as a random, cathartic form of self-
expression, but also often used to focus on
some particular topic the writer is passionate
about, such as film criticism; short for “web log.”

Escapism: The desire or practice of escaping
from daily cares and worries, often through fan-
tasy, entertainment, or art.

Facebook: A popular Internet-based medium
of communication that provides users with
a personal Web site of text and photos, with
controlled access and the ability for outside
comments, often used as a combination online
résumé, diary, bulletin board, and discussion
forum.

Hollywood blacklist: A list of film industry per-
sonnel, especially writers and directors, who
were believed by the U.S. House of Representa-
tives on Un-American Activities Committee (also
known as HUAC) to have dangerous communist
influences on mass entertainment. People on
the list were forbidden to work on Hollywood
studio films for many years.

Motion Picture Production Code: A formal list
of content restrictions adopted by Hollywood
movie studios in 1930 as a form of self-regulation
in order to avoid the threat of national or state
censorship boards.

MPAA: The Motion Picture Association of
America is a group that provides movie ratings.

Pre-Code: A term applied to many films pro-
duced between 1930 and mid-1934 that flouted
the terms of the Hollywood Production Code
with risqué and/or violent content.

Social media: Forms of communication, par-
ticularly through the Internet and cell-phone
texting, that promote social interaction without
the need for personal contact.

Stereotype: An overly simplified characteriza-
tion of something or someone, especially due
to race, nationality, geographic region, eco-
nomic status, and many more.

Twitter: An Internet-based medium of com-
munication that uses short text messages of
140 characters or less.

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 253 1/5/11 1:16 PM

goo66081_09_c09_229-254.indd 254 1/5/11 1:16 PM

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Final Film Critique ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now