Wednesday, February 20, 2013

The second blog post is on the politics of film.  In the forward of Augusto Boal's book Theatre of the Oppressed, he puts forth the following thesis: "This book attempts to show that all theatre (film) is necessarily political, because all the activities of man are political and theatre (film) is one of them."

In light of Boal's statement, do a reading of one of the films that we have viewed in class (Modern Times, M, or Caligari... not Fargo.)  Explain how this film can be thought of in a political context: what ideas about political relationships can you read into the film?

Below are some questions that you may want to consider, which can serve as starting points.  You do not need to specifically address all of them in your response.  Respond to the issues that you find interesting, ignore the others.

- What political context does this film exist in?
- How does the film respond to this context on the level of narrative?  Is there a political aspect to the structure of the story, the relationships between characters, or other thematic elements of the plot?
- How does the film respond on the level of form?  Can we read a political message in elements such as lighting, camera angles, costumes, set design, or other elements of mise en scène?
- Does film allow us to approach politics in a different way from other forms of art (like novels or TV shows) or from other kinds of information (like newspapers or political debates)?
- Do you agree with Boal's claim that all film is political, or do you think that the primary function of the film is, in fact, apolitical?
- Are there any class readings or discussions that support your response?  How?

(350 words is about right)


57 comments:

  1. The film Modern Times is a political film because it represents the times of the Great Depression and advocated social change for the workers in the industrial industry. Charlie Chaplain, the star, director, and producer of the film wants to state the harsh working conditions, long hours, and the wages that many of these workers receive. He wants to point out that many of these workers seem like robots or not people as perception because all they do is work. Chaplain's personality advocates that they aren't just robots but also people who can have different ideas and goals than just working in a factory. The mise-en-scene I thought served a political purpose was the machine that would've fed the workers so they could have less time for lunch and more time as workers. This was a political social change that Chaplain attempted to come to light. I do believe all film is political and agree with Boal. Chaplain used comedy to tell a message and advocate for social change for industrial workers. Just like every other movie, they all have messages whether we agree with them or not. We have to take what the film says to us personally and make a judgment about what needs to happen. This proves that all film is political because I believe all film tells a message including comedies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that Modern Times tries to politically portray the great depression and the industrial industry. The harsh working condition, long hours, and wages were represented by showing Charlie as man suffering with poverty by the look of his clothes and how he and the gamin had to live in an old abandon shack by some water. This depicts the poverty that people had to endure during those times. Also, with your point on the machines affects on the people, the robotic movements that Charlie uncontrollably performed illustrated the idea that putting people to work in these conditions like a machine was an inhumane act. This led Charlie to "malfunction" and begin to lose control of his human instincts when he repeatedly moved in the robotic fashion and when he kept spraying everyone with oil. I also agree with Boal's statement about film being political. Modern Times is a perfect example of political motives behind the films scenes and plot. The evidence is the previous observations made on the film.

      Delete
  2. The film M is a political film because it discusses how the police force and judicial system works. The criminals decide to all work together to catch the murder because they believe that the police will not be able to get the job done. Also, near the end when they hold their own mock trial the murder begs to be handed to the police. However, the criminals say that if he was he would not get the rightful sentence and would probably be let off in a couple years because he could plea insanity. This is a very political stab at the judicial system and how sometimes it is unjust because there are so many loop holes. The mis en scene was represented definitely in certain camera angles. During the mock trial from the criminals the angle always showed the murder by himself and the rest of the criminals together away from him. The camera angles on the murder were also generally more overshot so it was looking down on him which as the group who caught him was straight on. I believe this was to try and have us relate more with the group giving the trial. Most people would want him to pay for his crime and relate more to that group of people then the murder. They would also look down on him because to us it seems despicable to kill, especially to kill children. I believe film helps to provide a political message better then debates or newspaper articles. This is because generally in films it is an underlying message. It is easy to see but not always the main story plot of the movie. Films have a tendency to plant the political ideas into people's minds but are not extremely straight forward that the political message must be agreed with and followed as debates sometimes come off as. I agree with Boal in his comment that all films are political because of this point that all films tend to have this underlying political message or even political and social commentary about them. Some films have an easier and more blunt political message, while others are more subtle. However, I do believe every film contains some sort of political message in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that one major political theme of M was that there are so many loopholes in the justice system; which can be seen even today. I never thought about the camera angles and how they cause the audience to become more sympathetic with the "jury" during the mock trial scene. Now that I think about it though, I believe that the scene where the murderer is begging to be released to the police and for forgiveness illustrates this point very well, because he is on his knees begging up to the viewer. I also believe that the point you made about how film is more effective because of its underlying message is also true. Sometimes a subliminal message can actually stick with a person much longer than a message that is simply stated.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you that M has a lot of strong political ideas in it. The judicial system is the target for these political messages especially when the criminals become involved and don't want the police to deal with things. I agree with you when you say that films try to put political ideas in people's minds but are not straight forward. I think that is a great way to say it. All films have their own message and political points but they don't overshadow the other parts of the film. They are more just thrown in and you have to recognize them as you go I think.

      Delete
  3. I think that Modern Times exists in a political context. It is a comedy made for entertainment, but it also portrays the conditions of the average urban working class man. Chaplin answered the call for a more socially relevant film when he made Modern Times. I can't speak for people of that generation, but I can imagine that it struck home with many of them as well. The flow of the story is in itself political. Chaplin bounces around from job to job throughout the movie, showing the diffivulty of the times. He was given one job becuase he knew the prison warden, and he got one job by sneaking into the factory. I believe that this shows the extreme difficulty of finding work in those times. Some secondary characters also portray the desperateness of the times. A good man that Chaplin worked with at the beginning of the movie turns to armed robbery to have food to eat. This is the definition of desperate. We can also see a political element in the set in some instances. When Chaplin gets sucked into the machine at the beginning of the movie, this represents him being part of the machine. It shows him as just being another replaceable cog in the factory. He is just another worker lost in the daily grind of a menial job. I believe that this film was political, but I don't agree that all film is political. I have seen films that I can't imagine were for anything other for entertainment. How could an action film like Die Hard or a comedy like the Hangover be political? They have no value other than laughs and thrills. This is why I don't agree with Boal. I don't agree with using all- encompassing words like all and everytime because there are exceptions to almost everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you about that Modern Times is a political movie. Chaplain's portrayal of the working class man is shown throughout the movie and I agree with you that it went well with a lot of workers in that time period of the Great Depression. I agree with you on your take that not all films are political such as the example of the Hangover. Films like these are just for comedic purposes. Maybe Boal doesn't believe it's a movie and thus not political if no meaningful message is taken away from the film. Boal needs to realize that films are not all telling stories or advocating for a certain group but often for pure entertainment such as the Hangover.

      Delete
  4. “Modern Times” really goes after the hard times of the Great Depression. I think that is where it can be looked at as political. The film illustrates the time period and how living in the depression was more of a fight to survive anyway you could. The characters aren’t well off, they don’t have nice houses or much money.
    Right from the start the storyline has some political meaning thrown in. There is the giant clock at the first scene, people are living off the time, it is controlling them. You must go to work from a certain time and that time is money in a way. The men are always trying to move so fast, they are in a hurry trying to make the most money that they can. The workers are stuck working on strict time and so much so that the is an attempt to make lunch shorter. The weird machine that feeds Charlie lunch, everything is about time and getting work done.
    Working conditions were not good either. You can see it in the film in scenes. While at the factory the men are always close together working, there isn’t a lot of space between them. It is to the point where they are hitting each other with tools. I think this is trying to show how bad it was, there is even a camera in the bathroom. The boss is always watching, he is in complete control. He is like a dictator in the film, running everything in strict manner. The angle of the screen his face appears on, he is larger than anything, your attention goes straight to him.
    “Modern Times” focuses on the depression and the conditions that workers had to deal with. I think that film almost always has politics, not 100% of the time but usually it’s there. I would agree that politics is big in film, I never knew before but I see it now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think your connection between "Modern Times" and the Great Depression is a good example of politics in the film. Your idea of time being a big focus in the movie is right on. I think the clock shown at the beginning was a reference to modernity. There's a recorded speech that continues to say "section 5 more speed" which is a great example of this. I also like the connection you made to the food and the Great Depression. I think the reference of food plays a big role in this connection. The first time we see the boss he is doing a puzzle and reading comics at his desk. I agree that he's almost like a dictator-- there's a screen that he can watch the workers on and he seems very impersonable.

      Delete
  5. Boal's claim that all film is political is true. No matter what genre of film or who the target audience is, there will be some form of political message. This can be seen in the movie M, which raises questions about the judiciary system along with the rights of man in general. Film is a powerful media to persuade someone of a political point because it is able to fully demonstrate the range of emotion that can be experienced in real life; rather than just a still like with still art or literature. This can also be viewed in various scenes in M, such as the chilling sequence of cut scenes in the beginning or the emotional speech of the murderer during his trial with the criminals.
    One political point that M makes is the question of free will and if a man can be charged with something that is out of their control. This is exemplified within the trial scene where the murderer claims he cannot help killing children and that it is compulsive. The lawyer argues that a man should not be charged with crimes that he cannot help committing. This raises the question to the audience if someone who is not in full control of their actions should be charged with them. Fritz Lang never fully addresses the answer in the film, leaving it for the audience to answer themselves.
    Another political point is one of the judiciary system and a citizen's relationship to it. With the police force not being able to fully discover the murderer and the town edging on chaos, the overlords of the criminal world decide to try to solve the case. This plot point challenges the idea of the judiciary system while at the same time asking if the judiciary system is not properly working do citizens have a right to take it into their own hands? This is also portrayed with the scene where both the criminals and the police are deliberating how to handle investigating the case, and are going about it in the same manner as shown by cut scenes.
    The final political point made by M is the questioning of a parent's role in society and how much can they do to protect their children. This point is presented with both the opening and closing scenes. In the opening scenes, we are exposed to the chilling image of Elsie getting home from school while her mother stays at home preparing dinner, unaware Elsie is in any danger, through a series of cut scenes. This scene is later coupled with the ending scene of the three mothers of the victims saying that the final verdict will not bring back their children and that they should have kept a closer watch on their children. Lang uses these images, both chilling especially given the circumstances in the point that parents should take a greater responsibility towards their children because they will never get them back. This can be further taken as a view that a parent's role in society is to fully watch and take responsibility towards their children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Carly, I never even thought about how the movie M presents the politics of a parent’s role in society and how much they can do to protect their children. I think it’s very true how the director Lang uses the images and the cutting of scenes to present the point to parents that they need to keep an eye on their children and take responsibility for them. Another point I agree with is how M presents the moral and ethical problem of whether or not the killer should be handed over to the police and if he even should be charged with these crimes because he believes that he cannot control his killings. Although Lang never fully addresses either issue, it is offered to the viewers in a way that they are able to form their own opinions. I also agree that film is a powerful media to persuade people with the range of emotion that art or literature can’t evoke. It is much easier for someone to get emotionally involved in something when they see the emotions of those involved instead of reading about it and having to use your imagination or interpret it with a piece of art.

      Delete
  6. Augusto Boal’s statement that all theatre or film is political reveals to us the idea that things are not always as they seem. Charlie Chaplin’s film “Modern Times” could be considered a classic comedy, yet the film can be read in a political context. For example, at the time this film was produced, the industrial revolution was in full swing in America and thus, the film could be read as Chaplin’s response to the changing times and the lives of Americans living in the Depression.

    The general viewer does not necessarily go to the movies to evaluate the political context of the film, but rather, the viewer attends screenings for apolitical enjoyment. However, for those directly involved in the filmmaking process, such as the writers and directors, political context can play a major role on how they create the film. The opening scenes of “Modern Times” which show a clock and the workers along with a “random” shot of sheep being herded through gates is a direct comparison between how sheep are controlled by the system and how the workers are being controlled by industry and time itself. The black sheep in the shot that seems disruptive and out of place is Charlie’s character who, throughout the film, is out of place as well and does not conform to industry’s standards despite his efforts. In fact, in the beginning when Charlie’s character is part of the industry, Chaplin becomes part of the machine himself: unable to stop screwing in the parts for the assembly line and getting stuck in the gears of the machine. As Charlie bounces from job to job, trying to find his place during desperate times, this political film also takes a comedic aspect. The audience is able to laugh at the absurdity of the characters getting stuck in the machines, Chaplin’s drunken character skating around the department store, and the irony of hearing Chaplin’s voice for the first time, although he isn’t saying real words at all.

    Film, while not always political, is able to cover political topics in a way that a viewer who is just going to see a comedy or an action film would not necessarily spot right away. For example, in response to the above comment about how Die Hard was not at all a political film, the films were actually based off a novel about political terrorism. Upon doing a quick Wikipedia search of the films, it is said that in the DVD commentary, the director altered the original story because he “liked the notion of Cold War-era terrorists throwing aside their beliefs in pursuit of capitalist spoils”. This just goes to show that with a little background research, film (and other art forms) can be seen in a new (political) light.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Felize -
      I definitely agree that many movie attendees don't go to the movies to necessarily evaluate the political context of that movie. However, film and filmakers have the power subconsciously sway a viewer's beliefs, which I think is the essence of politics. For example, in "Modern Times", although the audience may laugh at Charlie's nonconforming antics, it's safe to say that the blue-collar workers are much more likable than the authority figures, such as the policemen or the owner of the factory. Although the audience probably isn't thinking of the greater meaning of this, since Charlie and the Gamine are the heroes, they will watch the movie rooting for them and with a stigma against authoritarian figures. Although isn't always necessarily conscious, the film creates a new set of political beliefs for unsuspecting audiences.

      Delete
  7. Augusto Boal’s idea is that all film is political because all activities of men are political. Whether this is absolutely true or not, I believe that in most cases, the film is not made political by the directors or writers but is created political by one’s own interpretations behind meaning. In the end, people get out of the film what they want to get out of the film.

    By the end of the film “The Cabinet of Dr. Calgari”, I could say that by the end of the movie, that the one of the main messages meant to be conveyed was that that a person’s sense of justice comes from a dark place within our mind and twists reality around it to make it more severe and more like revenge. I could say that one of the main messages was that the use of psychiatry as a cure within mental hospitals goes against the morals of human nature. One could even go so far as to say that a message could be drawn about the dangers of curiosity into scientific discovery and development. All of these points would be political; they would try to sway the current morals and beliefs that a person may have, but is that really what the writers or directors meant to convey? I am honestly going to assume that if there was a main political message to be taken away from “The Cabinet of Dr. Calgari”, that none of the examples I provided were even close to the main message. Just from the act of my writing about these possible messages will lead any readers to wonder where these messages can be taken from. Even within this trace back to where these meanings could come from, people are going to land at different assumptions of meaning taken from different routes of thought. People could assume that the dangers of scientific discovery can be gained from the set design being angular, menacing, and rather calculated. People could assume that psychiatry going against humanity could be taken from the camera shots creating fuzzy, distant images and close ups of the horror, menacing images. People could say that revenge and justice are interchangeable much like the story of sanity is interchangeable as made apparent in the end of the film.

    I agree with Augusto that all film is political but not necessarily because it was created political; rather that all film is political because the individual person will create the politics in the film. I do believe some film is clearly created political, such as “M”, but that not all film is necessarily political until a viewer makes it so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your main point that not all films are intended to be political, but they all end up being that way. I really like your point that even just writing about potential messages leads some readers to contemplate those meanings. This happens a lot with films, especially with the prominence of the internet. Someone will say something that they saw in a film, and then that explodes. Suddenly, everyone is re-watching the movie or reading about it in order to find where the idea came from and aspects of the movie that can back up the point. Eventually movies end up getting associated with certain political or ideological messages and ideas that the writers or directors didn't necessarily intend to include.
      Granted, some movies are intended to be political. "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," "M," and "Modern Times" seem as thought they were intended to be political. However, it is probable that over time the message has changed with the audience.

      Delete
    2. I really enjoy the point you stated about a film being political may not be because the writers and the directors intended it to be, however because of people's different interpretations. I believe it is an excellent point to make that people take out of a film what they want. Certain political messages if intended or not will only be truly recognized if the viewer realizes the political message or wants to take that out of the film. I agree with the ideas of different camera angels in "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" contributing to the insanity. The character is in a mental institution and now looking back on the film, the blurriness, close ups and far aways for horror effect, and different odd colors used in the film contribute to this sense of insanity. Political messages sometimes are harder to deduce from a film, however I believe every film has some sort of political message that can be taken away.

      Delete
  8. In the silent film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a politically driven theme throughout the story of Franzis and Alan is on authority. Siegfried Kracauer claims that this theme is lost in the five minutes added on to the end of the movie, but I believe that the five minutes only emphasized this original theme of the true power of authority figures. Kracauer claims that the makers of this film showed their obsession with the idea of authority and tyranny by presenting figures with power as higher than everyone else, literally. For instance, the clerk who yells at Dr. Caligari to “Wait!” was sitting on a desk chair that was abnormally high. Kracauer mentions in his essay that this effect may have been lost when we find out that Franzis resides in the insane asylum. I do not understand why Kracauer believes this because I felt that it showed how the authority of one man, Dr. Caligari, could ruin Franzis’ life. The audience is left wondering whether Dr. Caligari is sane, or if he is the man that his patient believes him to be. As Freud would say, it left the viewer with an uncanny feeling about people of authority. This left the audience questioning every scene in the film to reveal the source of the uncanny. I agree with Kracauer on many points throughout his essay on The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, but I believe he miss judged the power of Weine’s new ending. If the director and writers of this tale were attempting to dismantle the postwar-public’s previous views on the effectiveness of authority, I believe they accomplished this goal. Authority is a very influential theme of this movie, which makes this movie very political.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kathryn, I enjoy your analysis on The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Kracauer's essay; however, I have to disagree with your stance on the effectiveness of framing the movie. You take the opposite stance of Kracauers, but I have to agree with him. I believe the writers' intended take on the story was to, in a way, persuade the German viewers to reevaluate their views on authoritarian power. According to Kracauer's essay, it seemed that the writers were upset by the framing technique used in the filming process. Having the movie framed as a story from an asylum inmate almost invites the viewer to think that questioning authority is frowned upon or, dare I say, crazy. This is just my view, but that is how I interpreted their anger towards using the framing device.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I completely agree with the fact that the change in the ending is political. Something that we do not really think about while watching films is the decisions that occur behind the curtains. The directors and writers may be influenced or pressured by their government to add or not include something in their film. They may also add bias in their films by letting their opinions slip through into the film. This okay, but it is political and impacts the movie.

      Furthermore, I would like to add to one of your statements. You talk about how the original writers of the film were obsessed with power and tyranny. They like were obsessed with them, but I feel like it was likely more about overthrowing and overcoming the power and tyranny. This is shown when Franzis exposes Dr. Calgari's evil doings.

      Delete
  9. The film Modern Times is a political film due to its concern with the Great Depression, and Charlie Chaplin's general view on societal issues. The movie begins with the scene in the factory, and Charlie clearly being overworked (as was common for factory workers). The president of the factory cared only about production capabilities and not the well-being of the employees, which literally worker Charlie into the machine (which was also an allusion to a film reel). The movie then showcases the life of the woman, and how the great depression is making her fend for herself when it comes to food. Chaplin shows the harsh reality of families being split apart due to the mass confusion and hysteria of the times. Another political allusion is when Charlie is accidentally (and humorously) leading a Communist march, and the incompetent cops arrest the unknowing Charlie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely a free with your point. The film is great example of Boals point, and uses the Great Depression. The movie goes out of its way to include all walks of life, women, men, and children. We see all these different people go through life during this time time, and feel for them. It is the definition of a political themed film. Well done James.

      Delete
  10. In the film Modern Times, it is very easy to think about it in political context. To start out with, the setting of this film is during the Great Depression of the 1930s, which is a very political context because many people were out of work and others could barely survive. This film shows how people struggled during this time period and how some were able to have a positive outlook on life like Charlie Chaplin’s character. Throughout the film, I noticed that the characters were always looked down upon, literally, by the boss. In the scene where the boss in yelling “more speed” to the worker, his face is positioned above the worker so the worker has a sense that he is subordinate to the boss. This is political because during the time of the Great Depression, most workers did not have a say in anything about the environment in which they were working because their bosses were superior to them. This film brings out the theme about bad working conditions many times, for example, when Chaplin’s character keeps moving in a robotic way after he stops working and when the boss tries to introduce the automatic feeding machine.

    Film allows us to approach politics in an entirely different way than newspapers and political debates. With film, the viewer may witness things that they feel are absurd, but in reality, could be exactly what is going on across the world. Also, most viewers of films are passive when it comes to watching films in that they take everything in without fully realizing what is happening. This could potentially sway these viewers’ opinions on all types of political issues, just by how they portray an issue or a person.

    The thesis that Augusto Boal puts forth about how film is political because all actions of men are political is absolutely true in my opinion. Film is a way for people to express their beliefs and try to sway others to think that way. Even if the director doesn’t always attempt to put an underlying message throughout the film, many viewers pick up on things that they like or dislike along with other perspectives they hadn’t originally thought about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam,
      You make some very good points on how politics are portrayed in the film "Modern Times." I completely forgot about how the boss orders more speed over and over again while calling down to the workers. I also feel that when Chaplin's character can't stop moving from the repetitive motion of work, the directer was trying to show that man is another machine in the industry and Chaplin was breaking down or malfunctioning.
      I also believe that political views can be seen in all movies like you mentioned. How films depict the political aspects differ greatly from other sources of media but can also get pass a point along in a less inconspicuous way with the viewer not having watching the movie for a political sense. These aspects get put into a film in a discrete way whether it is for the viewers interest or to try to persuade the audience to think about a strong topic. I strongly agree with your opinion on all movies having political sense in them, whether we notice these or not.

      Delete
  11. In the film "Modern Times", the narrative of the film provides a political message that government or higher powers control your thoughts and actions. The ability of Charlie Chaplin's everyman character to break away from the monotonous routine of everyday life gives the audience a sense of belief that they too can be themselves and that they don't have to conform to the ideas constructed by more powerful entities. The movie does a great job of showcasing Chaplin's character as being part of a machine that is created by more powerful people. We witness the owner of the factor studying a jigsaw puzzle as he orders other people to work at a faster pace. Then we see Chaplin's character become an actual cog of the machine as he as pulled into the assembly line. This set construction gives you a clear sense that he is just a piece in a big machine that is controlled by the owner of the factory. In humorous fashion we witness Chaplin's character break out of control from the factory and proceed to wander through life in a care free manner that allows him to live how he wants to live. And as we see the last image of him walking down the street with a girl, we get the feeling that he is moving on to a new life of his choosing.

    I think the ideas of films being political are subjective to the thoughts of the viewer and the thoughts of the director and writers. There are certain films that are made by a director and writers to feature a certain political message. But I think that most films are not made by directors and writers to have a certain political message. The view of a political message is then found by the viewer and the certain message that he wants to receive from the film. So the overall political message of a film is subjective to the viewer, and is a combination of the ideas of the writers and director, and the thoughts and experiences of the viewer. As a viewer of Modern Times I saw a simple political message that says it's okay to be yourself and that you should try to make the best of whatever situation you have been presented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your ideas that movies are not always necessarily created with a political ideals but rather that viewers find political messages in them regardless. John Lennon actually wrote a song "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" that literally had no underlying message other than that he wanted people to stop looking for meanings in all of his songs. While I do think that Modern Times probably had a more raw political message in mind when it was filmed and directed, I feel that a lot of people may not even pick up on the intended message but may pick up other messages. I feel that maybe the nature in the Arts today is maybe not necessarily employ a literal meaning in all of the artwork but rather to leave art open for interpretation. I agree with your statements and can see where you got your interpretation of the meaning of the film.

      Delete
    2. I also agree with your ideas that movies are not always necessarily created with political ideals. I remember reading a comic strip once where an "educated mind" was interpreting the author's line of "the sky is blue." The intellect was giving deep and complex meanings as to why the author wrote this line. Later, at a Q & A sessions, the intellect gets to ask the author what he meant by "the sky is blue," to which the author replied "I meant the sky was f*ckin' blue." I find that too many times that intellects like to overanalyze simplicities in order to make them seem more complex than necessary.

      Delete
  12. In the movie “Modern Times” an industry of people and an industry of machines come into conflict. During the time that this movie was made factories were a new thing. One of the main characters, Charlie, is seen as a “black sheep.” In the scenes in the factory Charlie is disruptive of the “choreographed” working. The movements that the actors display seem almost machine like. I agree with Boal’s claim that all film is political. An example from this film that supports this is the title of the movie. Modernity is all about being new—the world is figuring out how to adapt to the new way of living. This is present in the film because of the new use of factories. People aren’t used to machines doing all the work, which is something that they’ll have to adapt to. The regimentation of time is another example of politics in this film. Time is very valuable which is a noticeable concept in “Modern Times.” There’s a recorded speech that says, “Section 5, more speed,” which indicates that things need to be done quickly. A couple more examples of politics in this movie are people working behind the machines and all the different people supervising.

    A class reading that I think supports my response is Marx’s “Machinery and Modern Industry.” After reading this article I concluded the idea that politics is a lot more widespread than what we think. I think the idea of “everyday life” actually means that everyday is political because everything you are doing is making you participate in political activity. In this article it’s saying that machines are taking over the human individual and the machines are meant to make everything about the human life better, but they haven’t. They’ve resulted in unemployment, child labor, and an unsafe working environment. An inference one could make is that the factory has a body of its own and the people become tools of the machine. In this article Marx says, “All activities of human beings are political,” which I agree with and also think is a supporting statement for Boal’s claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you've stated about "Modern Times" as a good example of how all film is political, and your examples throughout the movie reflect this idea well. One very politically-driven scene in the movie was when Charlie spoke his first "words." At the time, Talkies were becoming the new trend, and Chaplin was not ready to conform to such ideas. To show this, he had his character act out his made up words suggesting that actions speak louder than words. This scene was attempting to make a statement, and whether it did or not, it was political. I also agree with your connection made to Marx's where people were becoming tools of the machines that were meant to make their lives better. In "Modern Times," Chaplin suggests this many times as well. One example of this is when Charlie falls into the machine and literally becomes part of it. Boal's statement seems to be strongly supported by "Modern Times" and Marx.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The film "M" exhibits political themes about crime, and human rights revolving around crime. The political aspects are major parts of the film's plot. When the local criminals decided to start hunting down the killer, they touched on the controversial subject of whether or not citizens have the right to take problems of that size and matter into their own hands. The criminals justified their actions because the police could not do the job themselves, so they decided that someone had to find the killer and deal with him.

    I think that Fritz Lang took a stance on this subject. He feels that citizens can involve themselves in criminal matters, such as arresting or detaining them. However, since the cops interrupted the criminals' jury trial for the killer, Lang thinks that judicial affairs should be left to officials and/or the government.

    The killer's make-shift jury trial raises questions about accountability for one's actions. The killer claimed that he could not help himself, and that he needed to murder the children. The killer's appointed defense consultant stated that the killer could not be held accountable for his actions because he could not control himself. He says, "Nobody can be punished for something he can't help."

    Lang stayed indifferent on this subject because we never find out what happens to the killer. We see the official court case begin, but we do not see the result of it.

    I agree with Boal's statement because politics influence our actions. We are always either abiding to the law, or defying it. Politics form the line in between the two and governs that line.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree with Boal’s statement that film, along with all acts of man, are political. Once everything becomes political, though, I also think that the meaning of the word ‘politics’ is slightly hazy. For the purpose of analyzing the film, ‘Modern Times’, I’ll define politics as something that Chaplin consciously incorporates into the film in order to make a critical statement.
    From the rhythmic machine-like movements of his body, getting swallowed by the machine, and the force-feeder, Chaplin comments on how technology has become something like a secondary function of the man through the level of form. The opening scene, which includes a shot of men followed by a shot of sheep, is but another political statement about the machine-like and structured nature of men in the modern world.
    On the opposite end, through her form, the Gamine contradicted the machine and bypassed many of the modern world’s constraints. She remained vivacious, as depicted by her intense but somewhat sweet gestures and always somehow ended up eventually escaping authority and constraint. Even her tattered dress and bare feet comment on her unwillingness to become complacent in the modern world.
    The narrative of the story also sends a critical message. While the Tramp was living in the city and working in the factory, the story seems almost overwhelming. The Tramp is always getting in trouble or messing something up. Yet, once he meets the Gamin and moves into the shack, the couple seems a lot more comfortable despite the fact they essentially have nothing. I feel like not having “enough” material possessions is a source of anxiety for most people in the modern world, but Modern Times shows how living in a world of machinery can cause a lot more anxiety than living in a world without.
    I believe that the “political” message of Modern Times is positive. Through both form and narrative, Chaplin displays the anxieties of the world today, and how production and success should not necessarily be the main focus of modern life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely agree with you that Modern Times is a political film. Your analysis of the use of form in this film is very interesting as I had never thought of how even the movements of the Chaplin’s character display the effect the “improved” technology has on society. However, I’m not sure I understand your comments on the shot of the man and the shot of the sheep in context to the machine-like nature of the modern world. Are you commenting on the film presents the two scenes, or is there involvement of actual technology in it?
      Your analysis of Tramp and Gamine was also excellent. Their relationship and the actions that go along with it are crucial components to presenting the political message. I especially like your comparison of city living to shack living. Tramp is more comfortable in the shack even though he seemingly has nothing, which shows that this improved industry and technology may not be the best solution for everyone.
      I’m not sure the message Chaplin is sending is necessarily positive. Wouldn’t the anxieties of the world, etc. promote a negative message instead?

      Delete
  16. The film "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" definitely has politics portrayed through the film. One political statement comes from the set design of the chair and desk of the city official where Dr. Caligari goes to get his permit. The desk and chair are very tall, thus making him seem more important and influential. Everyone must look up in order to see him. However, such a tall desk is not practical. He has to climb in order to sit in or get down from it, the chair doesn't move, so he's sitting awkwardly far from the desk, and it just doesn't make sense. While the whole set design of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is such that everything is basically normal, but just slightly off, I think Robert Weine chose to have this portrayal of the official's desk to plant the idea of questioning authority.
    I don't think all film intends to be political, however, film and media have so much impact on society that most films can be read in a political context. Politics in film have a large part to do in what context the audience is watching it. This is the case in most art forms, not just film. Take for example, the ancient Greek play "Lysistrata". "Lysistrata" is about women bringing an end to the Peloponnesian War. Now, in the context of 21st century United States of America, it is seen as a play about women's rights, and helping the feminist cause. However, during the time when the play was first seen, the idea of women ending a war was as ridiculous as Aristophanes' play The Birds. The audience watching a film has a very large impact on their view of the politics in the film. In "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", for example, someone for whom mental illness is an important issue, might see the film as an example of the impact mental illness can have on lives of patients. However someone else might see the film completely differently, based on his or her own life experiences. Even films in which the politic agenda seems very obvious, can be seen in different ways by different people.
    Film affects so many people, millions of people go to the movies every year, many more than that watch movies online or on TV. A medium affecting that many people will inevitably give them ideas about what to think, and even unintentionally put the creators and viewers political agenda on the screen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that your view of the desk in Dr Caligari is very accurate. It's something that doesn't immediately become apparent because everything in the scene is odd shaped. But sublimanely the heightened desk definitely puts the city official literally on a higher pedistal than everyone else. This reinforces the idea of that the city official is untouchable and of greater importance. Expanding on your thoughts of film and media having a large impact on society, a film is one of the few events that is so wide reaching into various cultures, ethnicities, and beliefs. I think that such a vast audience makes it nearly impossible for everyone to have the same view on a film and therefore makes the film political to someone.

      Delete
  17. After reading Kracauer’s article on The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), I became very interested in seeing the film and was pleased to find out we would watch it. The article clearly shows that the original writers of the film (Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz) were attempting to make a very political argument through the film. The context of the film is in post WWII Germany, which would make it very difficult to produce something without some political influence.
    The structure of the film—as described by the writers—has an extremely political argument behind it. The quest of the writers was to be anti-authoritarian. Ultimately they wanted to use a brainwashed killer (Cesare) to symbolize a German soldier during the war. The original screenplay had Dr. Caligari turn out to be the negatively viewed authority figure. However, at the dismay of the writers, when the film was made the director adjusted the story to be told by a patient in the mental hospital that Caligari directed. Overall, much of the revolutionary ideals were lost with this change. The writers felt that their intentions were lost with this change.
    It is very easy to agree with Boal (all film is political) when there is such a clear example like Caligari. Especially with firsthand accounts from the screenwriters themselves, explaining their political intentions. However, is all film truly political? It’s tough to say, the Coen brothers once said something along the lines that the point of all movies is to entertain, and anyone who says otherwise is just dumb. I think that no matter then intentions of any film—whether to make a political argument, or simply to entertain—anything can be read in a political light. That is the beauty of art, we can take what we want from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This post actually made me look at the film a little differently. I never really comprehended how this film was anti-authoritarian. Cesare as representing German soldiers never even occurred to me. It was very interesting to think of this point of view. In this light, Caligari represents the government and the party in power in Germany at this time, thus making the film anti-establishment and anti-war. I do agree with you also that the ending with Caligari actually as the institution director ruins the anti-establishment views of this film. This ending makes it look as if Caligari is really a good guy all along, thus ruining the message of the movie. It becomes merely an object of entertainment after that. I also agree that it is tough to say whether some movies are political. I believe that not all movies are, and many are made just for entertainment like the Coen brothers said. I have seen too many movies that are just dumb fun to believe that they are all political.

      Delete
  18. The films we have watched in class so far have been perfect examples of Boal's thesis. In each film, one can see a political controversy and point to be made. I think Boal has a valid theory, though I believe it over reaches its boundaries. Though many films, like the ones we have seen, have a powerful political narrative. I think many do not, an art film for example makes a point to use film to challenge the audiences perception and interpretation of the art of film making, versus push an agenda or have a political reasoning. I agree with Boal on many films, yet for all films to fall under his theory one has to be very lax with the definition of "political". If politics is the "art of influencing people on a personal level" in its most basic form, Boal's theory lies true. But after a century of film history, one can look back at film and see the ebb and flow of movements, changes in popular thought, and all kinds of political transformations. Film/theatre now serves more than just politics, it represents a catalogue and representation of its own history.
    The film that struck me as the most Boalian is M by Fritz Lang. It has a clear cut political mission statement and bolsters its statement scene by scene. The film opens into a world of unrest, a reeling post-war Germany with anarchic sensibilities. A place in which the governing power holds such little control that mothers fear for their children's lives on a daily basis. And as we see in the film, have their motherly concerns justified.
    M is set in a Germany where crime is more powerful than law. A Germany with a bustling black market and legions of criminals. The police are seen working diligently, yet with an air of indifference. The chief is seen munching on cigars and circling maps. While his underlings run about looking for a murder, but due to incompetence come up empty.
    The law enforcers buckling down, catches the criminals attention. The police render their crime ridden town locked down and the criminals don't take kindly too it. They see that for the polices state to be alleviated they must catch the murderer. And they do.
    Finally the criminals try the murderer, and through the trial the audience sees their hypocrisies.
    M, makes the point that under the Wienmahr Republic Germany is unstable. The people are sick(child murderer), the leaders incompetent(police chief), the public frightened(all citizens) and the crime thriving(successful criminals). M's Germany is ripe for political change, and the message Fritz Lange conveys to the audience is a foreboding one. Germany is on the path to ushering in the radical third reich.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have to agree with your analysis. The German authorities are virtually powerless, and completely inept at locating the murderer. Thus they determine that the murderer must be a part of the criminal underworld, and go to known establishments of criminal activity. As a way to keep their way of life, the criminals resort to hunting down the murderer themselves. When the murderer is finally caught, the criminals are determined to kill him. To me the criminals are representative of the third reich. They are an extreme reaction to a bumbling police force, which represents the Weimar republic, which lacks any sort of power, and is incapable of accomplishing anything.

      Delete
  19. I would agree that all films are political. Every movie has a message that the director is trying to convey and a movie gives them a medium to do so. Caligari is a movie riddled with political themes and messages. After viewing and reading about Caligari, it was evident that the film had a strong political context.
    The original story, before it was changed by the director, had an overthrow authority theme. Once it was changed, the theme became one about the glorification and necessity of authority. The movie is set in North Germany in a town named Holstenwall. The setting is significant because the writers intended to make a commentary of the German government at the time. The reading suggested that Caligari could be viewed as the German government at the time the script was written. When the script was written, it was post World War I and the government had unlimited rule and control over the people of Germany. In the text, it describes Caligari as a person with “unlimited authority” and “a lust for domination, ruthlessly violates all human rights and values”. He uses his power to influence Cesare and force him to kill and do his bidding. The original story is resolved when Caligari is proven to be insane by his apparent obsession to fulfill a story about an 18th century hypnotist named Caligari. The authority in the story was overthrown and the killing had ended. However in the movie, the story continued from that point because the director wanted to convey a different message. The story takes a turn when the perspective to which the story is told turns out to be insane. The authority turns out to be real and Caligari’s rule continues until the end of the movie. This change in ending makes authority appear necessary and just. The fact that the director changed the theme of the piece is political all in itself. This theme of authority is very political by nature. When viewing films, we should be aware of the different political views the film is trying to convey.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I do not agree with Boal's statement that all films are necessarily political. I think that many of them are political, certainly Modern Times, M, and Caligari are all political. Personally, I thought that The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was the most overtly political film. Unlike Modern Times, it did not try to hide anything through the use of comedy, or a heartwarming storyline. Which is likely why I enjoyed it. Had the additional five minutes not been added onto the end, The film would have been perhaps a bit too blatant, however to me it would have been a bit incomplete, as the opening scene would not have been explained very well. However, if the narrator was not insane, and was being held against his will in the mental asylum, then this film did achieve its goal of showing how authority can be used to the extremes. Perhaps this is a comment on Freud's work, who was known to give his patients cocaine to give them more vivid dreams and supplying himself with more material to analyze.
    I was a bit surprised to discover this film was made in 1920 in Germany. A film warning of the dangers of authority coming out of Germany, I would have expected would have been closer to the rise of the Third Reich. The message still rings true to this day however, that unchecked authority can be a very dangerous thing, but it is a necessary entity. The necessity of authority is what the additional five minutes provides, showing that now that the delusion was discovered, the man could be cured of it.
    To me, film is the most powerful of the medias in which a political message can be delivered, because of the visual aspect of it, and also because when a person watches a film, they become fully absorbed in it for the full length of it. When you watch a movie in a theatre, the rest of the world is completely blocked out, and you get absorbed into the world that is shown. And the most successful films are those that best incorporate their audience into the film. From 1900 to the current, films have gone from being used in an entertainment context, to protesting and providing a social commentary and in the future, I do believe film will become the most important way a political message will be delivered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I agree with your points on film being a very powerful media for political and social messages, I find myself disagreeing with your first comment on “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari”. You argue that it is the “most overtly political film” but on the grounds that it does not have comedy or a heartwarming storyline. I agree that those can be distractions, but Cabinet has many distractions of its own. The story is a macabre horror story, which definitely has the villain using absolute authority, but this political message is still not overt. The extreme stylization sets up for a masterful horror story, but does not exactly put political subversion on one’s mind. Personally, I found Modern Times to be the most overtly political of films. Yes, it is a comedy and this can serve as a distraction in some cases, particularly the slapstick brands of comedy, but this comedy is mostly satire of the political and socio-economical setting the film was released in. This satire does not distract from the political message, but rather, enhances it, in my opinion.

      Delete
  21. In the film Modern Times, Charlie Chaplin the hard times of living in the Great Depression with the many different problems and issues that the characters see throughout the film. These troubled times, as well as the fear of Communism creates a political view on the film and evolves from start to finish. Modern Times is filmed during the Great Depression when work and food was hard to find but the movie begins to push past the depression and into the Industrial Era with work beginning to pick up and the standard of living increases. The moves from one part of an era to another as the Industrial boom begins and the threat of Communism troubles the town. These steps that are laid out in Modern Times show a type of time travel through history.
    The best scene to link a political message to the viewer is at the beginning of the film when it shows the giant clock as well as herding sheep. The boss of the factory is "herding" his employees into work as time passes by. This is showing the dominant power which is making the workers work hard and for long hours to increase profitability.
    I believe that nearly all films have a sense of politics that drives the plot and climax of the film but in today's society, the films seem to be driven more for the pleasing of the crowd. Modern Times, as well as many other "old" films seem to show the political aspect and mainline this as the film progresses. Although the director may not have had the idea to bring up political views in movies, us (the critics) see differing perspectives of the film and can nearly always link political influence to a movie we have seen before. In saying this, I believe that Boal's claim is true and that all films have a sense of politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure I agree with your point about this film displaying a time travel through and out of the Great Depression. Though I do think that our main character does find himself better of at the end of the film than the beginning, I don't think that him or his fellow workers had been able to significantly improve their quality of life. Even though Chaplin's character is able to find other work throughout the movie, he still isn't able to keep any of those jobs and while he does find himself with a nice lady friend at the finale of the film, he is still wandering the countryside without a job or any prospects for one. I think that instead of showing the viewer a chronicle of the progression through the Great Depression, this film tried more to offer the audience an optimistic picture for the future and the sentiment that although times may be hard right now, there is reason to have hope and look forward to the future. I think that this is what the final scene of Chaplin and the Gamin is trying to display: even though there have been tough times and the road ahead is unknown, one should still hold on and hold out for the better times.

      Delete
  22. The movie “M” has many examples of political motives in cinema. The first of many is the idea presented to demonstrate that many criminals commit their crimes because of a force beyond their control. It can be debated on whether these criminals should be punished for doing such crimes or if they should be treated for their mental issues. At the end of the film, the mock trial was held because the criminals of the city and even the regular civilians believed that true justice would not be found if the child murderer was brought to the authorities.
    This part of the movie is also a clear hit on the way our government and penal system are run. While on paper it would seem that justice was served by giving this man his rights, the people of the town feel that proper justice would be killing the child murderer for his crimes against humanity. Also, throughout the film the criminals are portrayed in similar ways as the police officers, in particular when the two groups separately are meeting to discuss how to take down the serial killer. The officers discuss which way is proper by standards of the law, and the criminals are discussing how to show true justice the way the law fails to do. In a way, the way the film was set up portrays the criminals as the true heroes in taking down the murderer.
    Though there were many examples of political motives in this film, I disagree with Boal’s statement about ALL films having to do with politics. I have found that many movies I watch may have little to no politics involved. Most comedies tell stories that entertain a certain audience, but there is usually no political motive being presented or argued. He also says that all activities of man are political, when in fact many activities that we do are for arguably no good reason, such as going clubbing and dancing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that your ideas are spot on. I especially like your discussion in the second paragraph about justice being served. This brings up the debate over the death penalty, and also the fact that justice is not always served accordingly through the judicial system, with its many loopholes and flaws. This may cause people, such as the other criminals who captured Hans Beckert, to take matters into their own hands. While this is obviously not a just thing to do under the law, is it still the right thing to do?
      I also agree that not all films are made with a political message in them, although I am sure that there may be unintentional politics in them, or that someone may be able to twist it in a way to make it so.

      Delete
    2. I agree with your ideas about "M". However, I am going to disagree with you about films being political or not, but only because I think it's impossible to tell if a film isn't political. What I mean is, is that it's easy to tell if a film is political and as an audience we can say it is. But then when it comes to a film that one may say "isn't" political, there isn't really any way to prove it isn't because we don't know exactly what the writer or the director's motives were when creating the movie. And I guess we could say that about movies that are so obviously political too, that there's no real way to prove it. So I guess my argument is that there's no way to prove a film is or isn't political, but maybe that's what makes it political?

      Delete
  23. I believe "Modern Times" is a prime example of political film. I think the reason for that has a lot to do with the time the movie is set. Any movie filmed during The Great Depression is going to be political because of the simple fact that the Depression was such a monumental and political time that raised many questions about how the world was being run. I think it would have been impossible to NOT create a film that was so obviously political, with all that was going on how could someone just look past that and write a story that didn't call attention to the stressful and dramatic times. People were angry and "Modern Times" helped them focus their anger and understand what was happening, which is what made it so political. I also believe it brought new ideas to light in the eyes of the viewer. For example, the whole "big brother" feel sort of showed the audience something they may have never realized or really thought about. "Modern Times" did this by telling a story of something the audience is really familiar with, like industry, the factory, and the pursuit of happiness. The audience was able to connect and almost place themselves in the same situation, which allowed them to be influenced by the political message. And of course the present day audience is in a little bit of a different situation than the audience during the days went it came out (but not entirely unrelated, i.e. the recession), but the message still comes across.
    "Modern Times" reinforces us of the ideas of class struggle and production/consumption. It does that by literally putting a man in the machine and distinctly illustrating the gap between classes, all sending a political message. The director and writer wanted the audience to formulate ideas about what was really going on during these “modern times” and to understand or become angry. Sides were decided in response to this film, one side in which the film particularly favored. This is ultimately what makes something “political”. At least that’s what I think. I may be completely off and missing the point but that’s what I understand it as.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would agree with your claim that “Modern Times” is an example of a political film. As you said, it is hard to have a movie about the Great Depression without having it be slightly political in some sense. The movie brought up new ideas and possibilities that the audience had to decide whether the new idea was good or bad. For example, when you mentioned “big brother” and how people had to question if they wanted such a device in their “modern times”. I don’t know if you have seen the movie “1984”, but I felt like they have taken some ideas from this movie. The large TV screen used to communicate and keep an eye out on the citizens in “1984”, was very similar to the bathroom and factory scenes in “Modern Times”. There are many parallels between these two films and both of them are considered political. The new ideas that were presented in these two films calls the viewer to question what is the status quo and where do we want our culture to go.

      Delete
    2. Like the above comment, I agree that "Modern Times" was a political film. It makes sense that given the political climate during the making of this film, that the meanings behind the art of the time such as this film would convey they artists' feelings towards the current status quo. What struck me about your comments was the idea that the viewers could understand and be influenced by the political message being shown in this film because they themselves were familiar with the hard times and conditions being shown in the film. This makes me wonder: if we took this concept, and applied it to the more popular films being made and screened today, would we be able to see familiar, seemingly "for fun" movies in a political light? For example, does Boal's statement about all film being political apply to such a movie as The Avengers? In my view, yes it can. Although this movie seems like your typical superhero flick, the storyline showcases several concepts that today's movie-goers are familiar with like the need for a clean energy source and the need to use individual strengths to accomplish a single goal. Perhaps these familiar messages are what make movies like Modern Times and The Avengers so popular among the viewers of their time.

      Delete
  24. Modern Times came out in 1936, in the depths of the Great Depression. Those times were dire for a large portion of the United States and the world and I think that Modern Times definitely works as a sort of political commentary for the time. Our main character, Factory Worker played by Charlie Chaplin, does not function quite normally in society. Even in the first scene at the factory we can see that he doesn’t fit in and is often disruptive of the “choreography” that the other workers keep in sync so well. The whole factory worked as one machine yet Chaplin could not function inside of it. I see this a comment on the fact that many people at that time found themselves out of money and out of work simply because an integral machine in society had crashed. In the same way that Chaplin was not able to operate inside the factory, so the American people were not able to operate in the political and social machinery in the United States.
    I also think that the movie attempts to offer the viewer a sense of hope for the future, which many people would have appreciated during the Depression. Throughout the whole movie Factory Worked and his partner A Gamin are used and abused by the system, finding hard times around every corner. However, at the end of the movie, the pair is finally able escape for good and we are shown the two walking down a road into the distance, presumably toward a better life. This closing sequence offers an optimistic view and projects the idea that even though life can beat you down, there are better times ahead. This was an important sentiment to have at this time, when life was so hard for so many people.
    I don’t think that all film is political, at least not these days. Obviously political films still exist, but I think the films that get the most exposure and are shown in theaters and pretty much strictly for entertainment. It’s almost like Hollywood itself has become a machine, churning out movie after movie for the public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the point made that the movie attempts to bring a kind of hope to the audience for the future and the depression coming to an end. It is clear throughout the film that Chaplin's character along with others are not living in ideal conditions. But Chaplin continues on with a perky swagger and an optimistic view on the world. In the end of the film, he does end up having a happy ending, but it is not quite the conventional one. A predictable happy ending would have something to do with Chaplin finally having a dependable income and living with class. Instead, the two love-birds walk off together, running from the law. This could be meant to show that even without material belongings, happiness can be achieved in hard times.

      Delete
    2. I really like how you pointed out that Chaplin represented people who could not quite assimilate to the modernizing world. I agree with you saying that the film's end was supposed to be optimistic. It seemed that the conclusion was a sign that individuals would have to begin enjoying the little things more and more, because freedom and the American Dream were much harder to come by then they had once been. I very much agree with you saying that film these days is primarily for entertainment and not necessarily political. I mean can we really call "Jack the Giant Slayer" a political film? Even though Boal argues that everything we do is political, it is hard to argue that a film like this is trying to do anything but entertain some adolescent boys.

      Delete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I definitely agree with Boal’s statement that all film, along with the activities of men, are political. Charlie Chaplin’s “Modern Times” while traditionally is seen as a comedy, can also be viewed in a political context. The film is set during the Great Depression, and Chaplin plays a factory worker during this time. Through his character and setting, Chaplin creates the attitude that the majority of Americans were feeling during this time. While capitalism is supposedly the creator of the American Dream, in “Modern Times” it is viewed through an extremely negative lens by showing workers oppressed by society. The film introduces the oppressed hero through his Tramp character working in the factory, tightening bolts of machine parts as they move down a conveyor belt. This constant repetition eventually appears to take over the character’s basic functioning, effectively turning the man into a machine. This action is an obvious commentary on the effect of industrialization on society. As a result, it would appear that this rapid evolution of technology dehumanizes society.
    One of the most poignant scenes in the film occurs when Tramp gets caught in the belt and dragged into the machine. Through this action and the other workers that cannot keep up, Chaplin shows that the humans have become inferior to the machine.
    One interesting aspect of form in Modern Times appears through the costumes of the film. One example comes in the form of the secretary’s skirt, decorated with buttons that resemble the nuts on the machine parts. This nuance reinforces the concept that once again, the machines are taking control of society.
    I think film as whole provides a much different perspective with regard to politics. It creates a much more subtle message than the up front techniques that newspapers or novels tend to. Using film allows the audience to connect with the audience and understand the motives behind their actions. Very often, because audiences can connect with a character, they feel the same way regarding injustices the character faces, ie political injustice. Any other form of media does not have the same effect on audiences as film does.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This film can be thought of in a political context through the production of social realism that lives in the film Modern Times. Modern Times social realism aspect brings political value that influences thought of the great depression and industrial production. Chaplin illustrates the effects of the depression by showing the life of two characters Charlie and the gamin. These two characters struggle through the social aspects of the depression by not being able to find food to eat or even find somewhere to live. This illustration through narrative gives political meaning behind the scenes of the film where the gamin has to steal food or when charlie and the gamin sleep over night in the store and later find and old shack by a pond to live. This demonstrates the struggle a lot people had to endure during that rough time. Even the mise en scene illustrates the depression effects with the run down shack by the pond and the clothes that charlie and the gamin are wearing.
    The political point on industrial production is that production by machine is almost in-humanistic to the workers. This is demonstrated when Charlie begins to produce uncontrollable mechanical movements due to working on the industrial line. Charlie also has a "breakdown" where he is running around uncontrollably spraying people with oil. This gives that scene a political view that the industrial production causes mental disturbance to people.
    With the previous words as a prime example, I do believe film is tied with politics. Politics is the idea of illustrating a point of view or demonstrating an opinion. In any film, there is a point that the director or writer is trying to convey. Even if some points are shallow, there is always some aspect of film that can be analyzed and connected with a political point. There is a reason film is produced and made. Since there is always a reason, film is always political.

    ReplyDelete
  28. What Boal says about politics in film is very true. A movie that I believe has a great political message in it is M. What appears at first to be an average serial killer movie actually turns into a bigger question of right and wrong. At first thought, the serial killer, Hans Beckart, is a horrible person who should be punished accordingly for his crimes. At the end of the movie, however, the question of mental health is brought up. Hans Beckart himself states that he cannot help killing innocent children. He has to, and his mind will not allow him to do otherwise. To the “jury”, these claims are preposterous. Hans Beckart’s statements, however, bring up the debate over mental health. These concerns are especially relevant for today’s society in the aftermath of many horrible tragedies. Can people really be so mentally psychotic that they have to kill? Should a person who apparently has no control over his actions be imprisoned or condemned to death? This is a great political debate occurring today, and M is far ahead of its time in this regard.
    Another political message in M takes place towards the end of the film as well. The mob that captures Hans Beckart wants to take justice into their own hands. Again, this plays into today with extraordinary accuracy. There are so many movies and TV shows with this idea of “vigilantes” who wish to take the law into their own hands. Dexter, The Dark Knight trilogy, Law Abiding Citizen, Revenge, and many others end up making us sympathize with these criminal characters. But because these characters are only committing crimes against other criminals, does that make it okay? The law says no. Killing is still a crime, no matter why you are committing it. A big problem with these laws are that they are so particular that slipping through and getting away with a lesser sentence is relatively easy if you have a good lawyer. Casey Anthony, whom many believe to have been guilty, still got away. These sorts of politics, while a large part of the law, show many flaws and weaknesses.
    Overall, I think that Fritz Lang gives us a great movie with many political messages throughout that can spark discussion and debate over issues that are still very relevant today.

    ReplyDelete