None of these stories can be said to reflect or advance the agenda of something you might call left. Mainstream American films have been in love with guns for decades, suspecting democracy, ambiguous about feminism, squeaking about divorce, allergic to abortion, and everywhere on sexuality issues. I am very nervous about my relationship with race.
I know there are exceptions, and I’m not trying to flip the script to reveal Hollywood’s reactionary face, but the year of production code (from the mid-30s to the late 1960s) ), Hollywood certainly endorsed a fairly conservative vision of American life. Non-marital relationships were cracked down and interracial romance was completely banned. The crime could not be paid and the dignity of the system had to be protected. Even in the years after the zip code, what mainstream American movies most often offered is not a significant connection to reality, but a fantasy of the status quo. The predominant narrative form, which tends towards a happy or redeeming ending, or more recently towards the horizon of an infinite sequel, is a fundamental affirmation of what things should be. What they affirm is, above all, consensus, the ideal of harmony to find expression in box office revenue rather than voting booths, not anti-political or non-political.
At least since the end of World War II, consensus building has been an integral part of Hollywood’s cultural mission and its business model. During the war, the studio worked closely with the military to boost morale and deliver a message to the general public at the homefront explaining its mission. This collaboration has helped to raise the reputation of the industry and its sense of importance. Despite challenges such as television, the Justice Department’s antitrust department, and demographic changes in viewers after the war, the studio considered their mission in universal language. The movie was for everyone.
Articles of that belief have always been unsold in a society defined by polarization, by pluralism, and perhaps more permanently than we would like to admit. The idea that late 20th century films reflect the now-disappearing consensus is doubly questionable. Unless Hollywood manufactured it, there was never a consensus there. Perhaps more than any other American institution, Hollywood sought to promote the agreement, resolve conflicts and imagine spaces that didn’t want contradictions, inside theater walls and on screens. In the Westerns, cowboys fought Indians, ranchers fought railroads, and sheriffs fought outlaws. But the result of those struggles was the calming of the frontier and the advancement of a less violent and more benevolent civilization. In the drama of racial conflict, Sidney Poitier And intolerant avatars (Tony Curtis, Spencer Tracy, Rod Steiger) Finally, I found something in common.
This was not an advertisement in the usual sense, but rather an elaborate myth, a storehouse of stories and meanings that did not need to be believed to be effective. We always knew that movies weren’t real — we want to argue that watching movies is a kind of dream — and that’s part of the reason we love movies so much.
“We” means the audience of the movie. It is a collection that has long implied the parallel form of citizenship, the identity of citizens with their own ideology.The best cultural history of American cinema by critics and scholars Robert Skuller, Called “Movie-Made America”. The natural consequence of the title, and one of Sklar’s claims, is that watching movies made Americans.
