American Cinema, Research Paper Example

The Critique Of Politics In The Comedies “Wag The Dog” And “The Distinguished Gentlemen”

Despite their humoristic narratives, comedies are often genres that can present critical social commentary and the exploration of social themes. In American cinema, there is a long tradition of such an approach to the utilization of comedy. For example, in the films Wag the Dog (1997) and The Distinguished Gentleman (1992), the viewer encounters scathing critiques of American politics in the form of a comedic narrative. In particular, both films address corruption and the manipulation of the democratic and political system by individuals and private interests. Moreover, both films show the extent to which such corruption and greed are prevalent in modern American government, and therefore, these two films from the 1990s can be understood as post-Watergate critiques of the corruption inherent to the American political system. Nonetheless, both films offer two different appraisals of the situation, with pessimistic and optimistic conclusions respectively. In the following essay, we shall compare and contrast how these two respective films use comedy and other devices to tackle this social and political issue.

It is relevant to summarize the narrative of both films so that we can understand how they develop the ideas of social criticism and thereby identify various problems in the American governmental sphere. In the film Wag the Dog, the story revolves around securing a re-election for the President, who is involved in a sex scandal. The President’s political team decides to cover-up the affair with the gesture of creating a war between United States and Albania. However, the entire war is a fake: there is no such conflict. Rather, the main characters organizing the entire scenario, played by Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman, create the semblance of a war using various means of media, while playing on sentimental feelings within the American population in order to secure support for the President. The plot of Wag the Dog thus identifies two key issues related to the political and the social sphere: firstly, it emphasizes how politics in America is largely controlled by individual interests as opposed to any general faith in democratic principles. Hence, even a war may be evoked in order to realize individual ambitions in the political arena: the film shows the subversion of some idealized version of democracy in American society, replacing it with a highly individualistic quest for power. Secondly, the film demonstrates how easily it is to manipulate the American population through various propaganda techniques. Using all forms of entertainment, slogans, and the staging of spontaneous acts of support for a captured solider in Albania, the characters of De Niro, a political propagandist, and Hoffman, an ex-Hollywood producer, demonstrate both media savvy and a clear understanding of manipulation and propaganda. In the film, all media become tools for ideological propagation and are used to advance a particular political agenda.

The film The Distinguished Gentleman starring Eddie Murphy provides its own critique of the political process. Murphy’s character is a small-time con man, who realizes that politicians are also con men, but on a larger scale. Hence, Murphy decides to embark on his own political career using deception to gain a place in the Senate. Murphy, capitalizing on the general apathy of the voters, wins a Senate seat merely because of the fact that he has the same name as the deceased Senator of the state of Florida. In Washington, Murphy becomes familiar with the widespread corruption in government, particularly in terms of how private interests can influence political voting to the extent that almost the entire Senate is portrayed as corrupt. Murphy, however, undergoes a change of heart and decides to combat this very corruption, eventually clearing the Senate of the corruption at the cost of his own Senate seat.

What both plots demonstrate is the central role of corruption and private interests at the heart of American political life. Both plots employ various striking devices to show the extent of corruption, using twists in the narrative to show either how the public is manipulated or the extent to which politicians will go to realize their ambitions. Thus, both plots characterize the issue of political corruption in terms of an uncompromising portrayal of politicians as irrefutably selfish and self-serving.

Nevertheless, both films ultimately differ in terms of how they treat this corruption and manipulation. In Wag the Dog, such problems appear essential to the democratic system itself. In other words, there is no way out of such ideology and corruption. For example, the plan of the staged-war works perfectly, and there is not the least bit of resistance to it. Any problems in the plan are rather internal problems, which are all eventually resolved. Hence, when in the film Dustin Hoffman’s character, a film producer, out of a fit of ego, decides that he wants the public to know that he contributed to staging the war, he is systematically assassinated. Thus, in Wag the Dog, corruption and ideological manipulation are presented as phenomena very deeply implanted in American politics, phenomena that cannot be easily removed, but rather are essential to the entire democratic system itself.

In contrast, The Distinguished Gentleman offers a more optimistic perspective on the same social issue. In this film, there is a clear identification of the existence of corruption and manipulation amongst politicians. However, Murphy’s shift in character from a soulless con man to an altruistic politician seems to present the possibility of breaking with this very corruption. In other words, in The Distinguished Gentleman, there is nothing hopeless about the situation – it is possible to eliminate some corruption in the government. To eliminate such corruption, what is required are strong displays of individual character dedicated to some common democratic and altruistic principles.

The differences between how the two films treat corruption is thus clear: in Wag the Dog, this corruption is irrevocably systematic, it is prevalent everywhere. In other words, it is the very nature of politics as such. These ideas surface in relation to the absurd situations presented in the film, both in the areas of politics and in the media. In other words, in Wag the Dog, there is an impossibility to break from the status quo. The system is so corrupt, interconnected, and subject to manipulation, that there is no way to break from this conglomerate of apparatuses and political ideology. On the contrary, in The Distinguished Gentlemen, there remains an optimistic hope that the system in itself can be saved and that the democratic system in essence is a just system with the potential for change. However, to realize this inner potentiality of democracy, what is required is an elimination of special interests, lobbyists and corruption according to a strident commitment on the parts of individuals who are willing to change the system. Thus, in The Distinguished Gentleman the status quo is not necessary, and it can be overcome, although only through some individual courageous efforts. In other words, it is clear that Wag the Dog and The Distinguished Gentleman provide respectively pessimistic and optimistic pictures of the American political situation and its future.

Since both films are comedies it is also relevant to consider how the comedy genre itself supports this critique of political systems. First of all, in both films the shared comedic method employed is to show the absurdity of the corruption in the political system. This is a crucial way of making light of it. In other words, by showing some common media and political tropes blown up to hyperbolic proportions, both films effectively demonstrate the underlying absurdity of what is presented in the media as sacred in democracy, for example, the notion of free elections. As political commentators constantly cite free elections as America’s greatest democratic quality, both films show that this idea is a myth. In The Distinguished Gentleman, the importance of free choice is superceded by the importance of a familiar name, as Murphy’s character wins the election only because he shares the same name as a previous senator in Florida. Furthermore, when Murphy’s character uses a combination of familiar political slogans, such as “It is time for a change, change for a time”, he demonstrates both the vacancy of these slogans and the apathy of the voters. In Wag the Dog the absurd lengths to which politicians will go to manipulate an election are shown, such as the all-out usage of the media to spread a particular ideological content. On the one hand, this comedic technique demonstrates the ignorance of the general populace, such that the public is forced to laugh at itself; on the other hand, it shows the pervasiveness of these mechanisms for control and ideology. In other words, the viewer is forced to laugh at the absurdity of the entire corrupt system.

Thus, both films present a decidedly cynical portrayal of American politics. They both emphasize the illusionary nature of the political systems, slogans and institutions that are given a profound importance in American society. Comedy is effectively used to show the absurdity of things within society that are considered to be normal, such as the political process itself. Nonetheless, both films offer a different forecast as to what such a corruption means. As mentioned, in The Distinguished Gentleman, the failure of the social and political system, is the result of the corruption of a few powerful men in high positions; but this can be overcome with people dedicated to a cause. Wag the Dog offers a much more dystopic picture of this same political system: the system is controlled by a few powerful men, but their power extends into every aspect of society. Thus, change is impossible to create because the entire system itself is corrupt. Both comedies, therefore, effectively use humor to present a thorough critique of American politics, while nonetheless offering two different viewpoints on possible ways out of corruption and ideological manipulation.