Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
How President Ronald Reagan's rhetoric influenced the changes in Hollywood films during the 1970s and 1980s, specifically in relation to masculinity and anti-communist themes. The author argues that Reagan's persona and policies helped create an ultra-masculine hero archetype and contributed to the increase in anti-communist sentiment in films. The document also discusses the correlation between Reagan's rhetoric and the production of films such as 'Rambo' and 'Red Dawn'.
Typology: Summaries
1 / 112
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
PRESIDENCY ON HOLLYWOOD OF THE 1980s
A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts
Samuel E. Rossi June 2007
This thesis titled REAGAN, RAMBO, AND THE RED DAWN: THE IMPACT OF REAGAN'S PRESIDENCY ON HOLLYWOOD OF THE 1980S
by SAMUEL E. ROSSI
has been approved for the Department of Political Science and the College of Arts and Sciences by
Hector Perla, Jr. Assistant Professor of Political Science
Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
List of Tables
Tables Page 1.A US-USSR Relations ................................................................................................. 1.B American Renewal, Success, Weakness .................................................................. 2.A America at Risk........................................................................................................ 3.A Protagonist-Antagonist Persona............................................................................... 4.A Cold War Rhetoric – Hollywood Film .................................................................... 4.B Latin American Communism – Hollywood .............................................................
of this era. Considering that a movie’s ability to find an audience depends in part on its incorporation of the popular trends found within society, it is very reasonable to expect that popular policies and issues in the world of politics may work themselves into Hollywood productions. If the ideas and actions of a political elite are embraced by the masses, it is reasonable to expect that, in an attempt to maximize earning potential and attract as large of an audience as possible, movie studios will make an attempt to incorporate such popular themes and motifs in their products. Moreover, the popularity (or lack thereof) of a sitting President should be viewed as a potential contributor to the themes found in movies. Whereas a President helps in shaping popular opinion, mainstream films often times reflect such sentiments. Whereas a studio’s primary goal in producing a screenplay is to return a profit, the product being released has to be able to find an audience. Because of this, Hollywood executives are constantly in search of stories that will cater to the masses. Central to striking a chord with movie-goers, is the process of defining what is currently popular within a society and somehow incorporating it into a two-hour motion picture. The trends and sentiments people are willing to accept in their lives are the same ones that they will embrace while watching a movie on the silver screen. The act of incorporating the popular into Hollywood films is an ongoing task for those in the film industry. Since popular trends are ever-changing, so are movies released by Hollywood studios. Although a certain type of film may have been immensely popular two decades ago, it is unlikely that the exact same formula would work today. Even if such a formula can be recycled, it would be important to change it in a way that modern
problems, concerns, trends, and ideals were incorporated. While in many cases it may be relatively simple to see what is popular in today’s world, the act of finding out why it is proves much more daunting. As Timothy Gould writes: “When you begin to investigate the popular element of the arts you are beginning from somewhere outside of the popular. To investigate the popular you must somehow locate it within other thoughts and feelings and other cultural productions’ receptions” (Gould 121). Thus, it is important to remove ourselves from the cultural mindset and analyze the reasons why certain things have been embraced by the masses, and others have not. Of course, time serves as a key causal mechanism in probing the identification of popular trends. As noted earlier, the popular is not permanent – it is ever-changing. Once one trend or style runs its course, another emerges to take its place, and so on. Therefore, time acts as a primary causal mechanism for what is adapted as being popular. As time runs its course, what was once popular ultimately is relegated to becoming vintage or nostalgic. It is, in part, for this reason that each decade seems to take on a unique life of its own. Considering the power of films to influence and shape the public’s psyche, it is important to study its relationship with politics. Often, movies provide social commentaries that delve into the pressing political issues of the time. In addition, they also serve a historical purpose, relying on them to show us what American conditions were like in a specific time and place. Also, it must be noted that the players who determine which films are made and which are not hold the power of pushing certain issues and topics to the American forefront. In some cases, such as during World War II,
prevalent throughout America at the time. In particular, some of the highest-grossing films of the 1980s were action movies and revisionist narratives regarding the Vietnam War. Also, many films of the time took on real-life issues such as political unrest in Latin America, terrorism, and the Cold War. Seeing that Ronald Reagan served as president during this time, and that he is remembered for his effective oratory, I hypothesize that his presidency had an influence on the changes that were seen in Hollywood films between the 1970s and 1980s. In the following chapter I will provide an overview of the eleven-year period being studied. First, I will examine the major political issues and events that were prevalent during the presidencies of both Carter and Reagan. Although several issues came and went as can be expected in an ever-changing world, some issues such as the Cold War and Middle-Eastern relations were constants throughout both administrations. In turn, we will also see how the overall national mood changed through the course of time and how it affected each man’s standing as a leader in the eyes of the American masses. The second part of the overview will focus on the types of film that were being released in the late 1970s up through the 1980s. Whereas many of the films released in the 1970s offered a cynical and tragic tone, the 1980s saw a shift into a more crowd- pleasing hero-saves-the-day type of fare. To help with this, I will include a literature review of the existing publications that will help set the framework for much of this study. This portion will aim to explain many of the key elements and motifs that contributed in making the films of each decade starkly different from one another.
Next, I will layout the methodological process that was undertaken in completing this study. This thesis will rely heavily on the quantitative method of content analysis to create an empirical point of reference for the study. Through the development of two separate coding sheets, I will closely examine a sample of the major speeches given by both presidents, as well as a sample of some of the most popular films of the period being studied.^2 While two different coding sheets and protocols will be used in respect to each sample, they will both consist of similar variables. The major issues and talking points found through the analysis of the speeches will be restructured in a way so that they will be applicable to the world of film. Specifically, the coding sheet used for films will emphasize how such variables are found in relation to elements such as protagonist- antagonist relationship, plot, setting, and semiotics. A statistical analysis of the data findings will then be provided in the following chapter. By first analyzing the coding results of the speeches and then the films, I will be able to point to select instances where certain topics either entered the American mainstream or faded out. For instance, variables concerning U.S.-Soviet relations and American morale will aid in spotting any rhetorical shifts that may have occurred through time. After explaining the results of both coding exercises, I will provide an assessment of how the findings from each relate to one another. A central goal is to find correlation between events in the political arena and themes presented in the films over a period of time. If my hypothesis is correct, then I would expect to see that changes in political discourse precede any significant changes in the content of Hollywood narratives.
(^2) Coding Sheets A and B can both be found in the Appendix section of this paper.
During the tumultuous 1970s, Americans were left in a cynical daze due to the failures in Vietnam and the fallout from the Watergate scandal. Whereas Richard Nixon resigned from office in disgrace and his successor, Gerald R. Ford had made the unpopular decision to pardon President Nixon, it was Jimmy Carter who was given the duty to heal a nation that was still reeling after years of disappointment. Entering into office in 1977, Carter’s presidency was marked by great difficulty. During his tenure he was faced with heightening tensions with the Soviet Union, skyrocketing inflation rates, an energy crisis, mid-east turmoil, and the Iranian Hostage Crisis. By the end of the decade, Americans still had not found a way to restore their confidence. In a 1979 televised addressed, President Carter even shed light on this concern by saying: “For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people feel that the next five years will be worse than the past five years”.^3 Although the Cold War would reach its conclusion a decade-and-a-half later, tensions between the East and West seemed to be unwavering. It appeared to most that Carter was eager to open a dialogue with Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev regarding arms control. However, little progress was made during Carter’s term in office. Early on it was clear that Soviet leadership was “uneasy about Carter’s desire for sharp reductions in nuclear weapons, and they were upset by the president’s outspoken criticism of human rights violations in their country” (Slocum-Schaffer 121-122). Despite the signing of the SALT II treaty by both Carter and Brezhnev after a long series of debates, criticism of the
(^3) President Carter delivered this speech on July 15, 1979. It would later be dubbed as the “Crisis of Confidence” speech.
administration’s policy remained.^4 While some viewed the treaty as another step toward lasting peace, many blasted it as part of the continuing “long line of concessions made to Moscow” by the Carter Administration (Slocum-Schaffer 121). Whatever progress, if any, which was made by the SALT II agreement, would be short-lived as the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Day 1979 – once again heightening tensions between the Democratic West and the Communist East. While the success of the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt marked a high-point for Carter’s time in office, it would be another event involving a Middle Eastern nation that would prove most detrimental for his re-election hopes. Criticism of Carter began to stream out of Iran following the Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power. Initially, members of the Carter Administration had praised Khomeini as “a reasonable, moderate and in every way adequate substitute for the despised Shah”. In fact, Ambassador Andrew Young and Department of State Country Director for Iran Henry Precht had actually praised the Ayatollah as a leader; Young even went as far to say that the Ayatollah was “some kind of saint”. On November 4, 1979 in Tehran, a group of radical Iranian students seized the American Embassy taking over 60 hostages in protest of the Carter Administration granting the former Shah entrance into the United States to receive medical treatment for cancer. The hostage-takers went on to demand that the Shah be returned to his home country to be executed and that the U.S. pay billions of dollars to Iran’s new government (Spencer 77, 80). Refusing to meet the demands, the crisis lasted for a total of 444 days, saw the highly-publicized failure of an American
(^4) SALT II stands for Strategic Arms Limitations Talk. This was the continuation of a previous treaty which was set to expire in October 1977 (Slocum-Schaffer 122).
Despite varying degrees of pessimism felt throughout the nation by the end of the 1970s, many saw a sign of hope in the form of Republican Presidential Candidate Ronald Reagan. Challenging the incumbent in the 1980 presidential race, the former California governor and one-time Hollywood actor re-emerged on the national stage as a stark contrast to Jimmy Carter. Running on promises to shrink “Big Government”, stimulate the stalling economy, and build up a renewed national defense, it was easy to see that Reagan was, for the most part, the anti-Carter. For example, whereas on only the second day of his presidency Carter had pardoned “virtually all Vietnam-era draft resisters and allowing those living abroad to return to the United States”, Reagan had drawn national attention during his days as governor by going toe-to-toe with young radical groups, such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Black Panthers throughout the 1960s (Slocum-Schaffer 65). Furthermore, what helped Reagan set himself apart from his opponent the most was his attack on Carter’s failures in leadership and foreign policy. “Reagan charged that the Carter administration had allowed U.S. military capabilities to become dangerously weak, and that Carter was ‘totally oblivious’ to the Soviet Union’s drive toward world domination” (Slocum-Schaffer 86). Perhaps the defining moment of the 1980 presidential race came just a week before the election when the two candidates squared off in a final debate before voters went to the polls. Reagan summed up his bid for the Oval Office by directly addressing the American people and bluntly asking if their quality of life had improved during Carter’s time in office.^5 Whether by convincing the
(^5) The final Carter-Reagan Debate occurred on October 28, 1980, only days before the election. During which, Reagan looked into the camera and asked the American people: “Are you better off than you werefour years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America respected throughout
public of major national concerns or by striking fear that another four years of the Carter administration would prove detrimental, Ronald Reagan succeeded in winning the election by a landslide in the electoral college; in turn, opening the door for a new course in the country’s direction. Throughout his presidency, Reagan worked hard to set himself apart from his predecessors on domestic and foreign issues. At home, he went forward with his promise to cut so-called unnecessary expenditures in the national budget – mainly coming in the form of reduced funding to social programs. Also, he made good on drastic tax cuts to the American public; though, most opponents would chastise such cuts claiming that they only benefited the nation’s upper-class. The new President enjoyed largely favorable ratings, which spiked only a few months following his inauguration when he survived a failed attempt on his life.^6 Reagan’s ability to survive the assassination attempt would serve as a catalyst for his persona as president. By cheating apparent death at such a late stage in his life Reagan would go on to symbolize, what Susan Jeffords terms as, the hard body ; whereas critics were often quick to draw attention to Carter’s weaknesses, Reagan would go on to thrive through way of his symbolic masculinity. Jeffords sums up the relationship between the “Reagan Revolution” and the issue of masculinity as a political tool as follows: “It was a revolution whose success pivoted on the ability of Ronald Reagan and his administration to portray themselves successfully as distinctively
the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four yearsago?” (^6) On March 30, 1981 the 70 year-old Reagan survived a bullet delivered by would-be assassin John Hinckley, Jr. After a hospital stay, Reagan would appear before a joint session of Congress in a nationallytelevised address. The warm-reception by Congress and the President’s speech would make it into one of the key events of Reagan’s time in office.
to balance much of his rhetoric between a hostile and reconciliatory tone toward the Soviets, as we will see later in an examination of his major speeches while in office. In addition to Soviet relations, Reagan also fought hard to stop what he perceived as the spread of communism to the Latin American nations – most notably in El Salvador and Nicaragua. In addition military actions in Grenada and Libya would also mark his presidency. While the virtues of his policies in these situations continue to be debated, it is felt by many that much of Reagan’s action on the international stage was an attempt at erasing the stigma that was left by American defeat in Vietnam. Like much of the country following the war, Reagan had felt that the nation was now viewed as weak throughout the world. Although the events and final result of Vietnam could never be erased, Reagan would attempt to restore America’s standing as a bona-fide “Super Power”. A new era of flag-waving Americans emerged, as reflected by the “Morning in America” slogan on which Reagan successfully ran on for re-election in 1984. In many of his State of the Union speeches, Reagan would emphasize that America was back. Seemingly, the administration worked hard to incorporate this message in nearly every one of its policies throughout the 1980s. Despite the occasional misstep, including the near disastrous Iran-Contra Scandal, Reagan left office in 1989 with a high approval. In his eyes, and in the eyes of many Americans, the nation’s strength had been restored and prosperous days seemed to be ahead. It appeared at least that the 1980s that Ronald Reagan was leaving behind were a far cry from the 1970s Jimmy Carter had left. At home, unemployment rates had dropped, inflation rates decreased in drastic numbers, and the economy had recovered. In
addition, the Soviet Union appeared to be crumbling as America seemed to have regained its international clout. While debate will continue as to the effectiveness of his presidency, the sentiment felt by a majority of Americans at the time of his departure from Washington was that Ronald Reagan had left the nation in better shape than it had been in just a decade prior. Reagan reflected this belief in his farewell address, saying: “We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands.”^7 Turning to the films of the era, one can easily spot a stark contrast between the films of the 1970s and those of the 1980s. Whereas Hollywood of the 1970s included many of the carry-over sentiments that were felt during the late-1960s, the 1980s brought with it an apparent shift in the tones of its films. As the nation moved farther away from the tumultuous events surrounding civil rights, Vietnam, Watergate, and the early feminist movements, so did Hollywood productions. The national malaise that Jimmy Carter spoke of was evidenced by several motion pictures of the late-1970s. Many of these films were much darker than in years before in their depictions of crime, war, and the establishment. Young Hollywood mavericks such as Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Dennis Hopper, and others relied on the archetype of the anti-hero in their attempts to convey social and political messages through film. Unlike the chivalrous and honorable heroes played by the likes of John Wayne and Cary Grant in the previous era, the anti-hero was often a loner with a dark,
(^7) President Reagan’s Farwell Address was delivered on January 11, 1989 from the Oval Office. The mention of leaving America in “good hands” is a reference to the fact that Reagan’s Vice President foreight years, George H.W. Bush, had been elected as the 41st (^) President of the United States just two months earlier.
