Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story

 South Carolina is a heavily contested state because it is the first primary in the south, it represents the conservative base in the United States, and big money contributors emerge to support the winning candidate.  The small number of delegates awarded from the state may not be significant, but they don’t hurt either.  The manner in which the state has become such a vital stop on the road to the White House is convoluted. There are a few key people and factors that have cemented South Carolina as historically significant. One factor is the aggressive “Southern strategy” which exploits racism from Southern whites. This strategy was adopted by the Republican party and finds a receptive audience in South Carolina.  A master of this strategy was the South Carolina native Lee Atwater who made his way in American politics by winning the primary with dirty tricks and false rumors. Although “whisper campaigns” date back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the rhetoric that develops in South Carolina during the primary is legendary. Unfortunately, the “wedge-issues” that develop in the state are becoming more banal. 

History has proven that the logistical significance of the South Carolina Primary has often been overshadowed by the rhetorical one. Until 1980 South Carolina held a caucus much like most of the other southern states in order to decide the candidate. In September of 1979 GOP state chairman Dan Ross coordinated the effort for the primary to put South Carolina in a powerful position.  By being first in the south and  creating a firewall for the frontrunner to establish his base in the southern states, South Carolina would attract a lot of media attention.  Meantime Lee Atwater, an energetic and scrappy young man was a consultant working on campaigns for state legislators.  Atwater had a knack for creating “wedge-issues” that white southerners loved to buy in to. By getting the word out early and quick he could take an assumption or a whisper and leak it to the press, thus killing the opponents campaign for very little money.  South Carolina was his stomping ground and he understood which issues would hit the nerves of the voters. In 1980 Ronald Reagan had been in a tight race with John Connally.  Connally ran a 13-month campaign in South Carolina with the support and endorsement of popular Senator Strom Thurmond. Connally was blind-sided by the claim (put out by Atwater) that he had been trying to buy black votes and as a result lost all but one delegate. Ida Mills of Clarksville, Arkansas is now known as the 11 million dollar delegate. Connally quit the race after the devastating loss.  After 1980 Republicans would hold the White House for the next 20 years. Some political insiders credit this to Atwater’s dirty tricks. 

In 1988 South Carolina was a must-win state for all the candidates, Jack Kemp, Pat Robertson, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush.  Dole had refrained from campaigning in the state and unlike the other candidates, did not see it as a must-win. Dole had won in Iowa and it was assumed that he would win in New Hampshire. He felt confident about seeing a second place finish in South Carolina.  Bush had finished third in Iowa and won in New Hampshire, but he was under scrutiny going into South Carolina over a policy that had dismantled the textile industry in the state. During the primary in New Hampshire The Bush campaign released negative ads and began attacking Dole on his tax policy. This strategy led to his good standing going into South Carolina. Atwater was hired as campaign manager for Bush.  If Bush were to lose South Carolina, then Atwater may have been fired from the campaign. Kemp was running out of money.  Robertson, a beloved televangelist was not seeing good poll numbers.  Negative press was circulated linking Robertson to the Jimmy Swaggart, a fellow evangelists sex scandals which successfully ridiculed him.  The Bush campaign released negative ads calling Dole “Senator Straddle” for being on the fence about key issues.   Although later breaking his promise, Bush ended up winning the primary and put Dole in a position of defending himself from the bottom on the new tax pledge that Dole refused to sign. Atwater stayed on as campaign manager. He and Bush had knocked out his opponents in South Carolina. They went on to use their tactics against Michael Dukakis in the general election such as the Willie Horton ads and accusations of flag burning by Dukasis’s wife Kitty.  Atwater later died in 1991 from a brain tumor after serving as the head of the Republican National Committee.

South Carolina in 2000 was a nasty primary season for the Republicans. There was a fight between George W. Bush and John McCain for the nomination.  While working on his father’s campaigns, Bush had been an understudy of Atwater.  Karl Rove is Atwater’s protege who had hired Atwater as his campaign manager for his run as President of the Young Republicans.  Bush hired Karl Rove to run his campaign.  Instituted by Atwater and passed on to Rove, dirty tricks were back in play.  A whisper campaign was started in South Carolina to put John McCain’s mental health into question calling him “unstable”. There was also a smear campaign against his wife for being a drug addict and another accusing him of fathering a black baby from a prostitute.  Bush supporters had circulated fliers questioning McCain’s sexuality. Bush reinforced the rumors by commenting that if he were elected he would not consider any homosexual appointments to his administration. The sentiment the candidates had about South Carolina’s confederate flag was a hot issue during the primary as well.  Bush  was able to skirt the issue while McCain had a flip flop and  gaffe related to his feelings about the flag. Bush succeeded in crossing the South Carolina firewall, and had a great deal of contemptuous rhetoric for McCain throughout the rest of the primary season. 

The people of South Carolina love a political fight. The winners of the Republican primary in this state have always shown tenacity and aggression while campaigning. The campaign values of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and the white supremacy of Strom Thurmond have inundated the citizens of the state who feel it is their civic duty to choose the Republican candidate. In the week before the 2012 primary Newt Gingrich may have solidified his position to win South Carolina by calling President Obama “the food stamp president”.  It is almost as if Lee Atwater coined the phrase himself.  When asked how Reagan could get to the racist Democrat George Wallace voter by claiming to cut down on food stamps Lee Atwater said,

 “You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

With the success of the Gingrich win in the South Carolina primary of 2012 the legacy of Atwater lives. If nominated as the Republican candidate, Gingrich will likely continue to operate out of Atwater’s playbook and use the “Southern strategy” all the way to the general election

Driving Miss Daisy

     Driving Miss Daisy was released in 1989. It was originally a play of the same name by Alfred Uhry who also wrote the screenplay. The film is directed by Bruce Beresford and won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Three others including Best Actress for Jessica Tandy, Best Makeup, and Best Adapted Screenplay were awarded. The score of the film was written and produced by Hans Zimmer. He performed the score entirely on his own using electronic instruments. It has become a well known score and is a tribute to Daisy’s impetuous sassiness.  

  Jessica Tandy plays Daisy Werthan, a wealthy Jewish widow living in Atlanta in the fifties. After she becomes unable to drive, her son Boolie Werthan (Dan Aykroyd) hires her a chauffeur. The driver is a black man named Hoke Colburn (Morgan Freeman). Daisy also has a black maid named Idella (Esther Rolle).  Daisy is very set in her ways and refuses to allow Hoke to drive her anywhere at first, but by the end of the film they become close friends, developing a love for each other that transcends all racial, ethnic, and age boundaries.  

Although the Southern Jews had arrived at the end of the 17th century and were common in cities like Atlanta and Charleston throughout early American history, the civil rights movement brought about an antisemitic sentiment.  Jews are less than 1 percent of the South`s population and the  first Jewish settlements were those of Savannah, Georgia and Charleston, South Carolina.  By the beginning of the 19th century  there were more Jews in Charleston than in any other U.S. city.  The Jewish people of the south were neither more nor less likely to own slaves than their Christians peers, though it is said that they were more likely to show empathy for blacks.  Around 40,000 Jews, most of them German immigrants, made their way to the South in years between the end of the Civil War and the start of World War I. As Jews became more accepted, intermarriage and assimilation helped to lessen their cultural presence. This resulted in many synagogue closings in the South after 1950. In the scene when Daisy is in Temple, we can see disproportionate amount of empty seats in the grand building.

       As a Jewish family, the Werthan’s break the shopkeeper stereotypes of southern Jews at the time such as Neiman and Marcus from Texas. The family owns a textile plant in Atlanta that is now run by Boolie. Boolie is like many southern jews who are very different from the northern jews because historically they intermarried and assimilated more frequently and quickly. This is seen through Boolies marriage and his mother’s disgust when he embraces his wife’s excessive holiday traditions. 

  As Daisy becomes closer to Hoke, she becomes sympathetic to his struggle as a southern black man. Whether she knows it or not, Daisy’s identity as a southern Jew helps to define her character.  Through the progression of the film she becomes more aware of their similarities.  She is very defensive and feels as if being called rich is an insult. She is very proud of her hard work as a teacher and it shows when she beams with pride as she teaches Hoke to read. On a rainy day Hoke and Diasy are stuck in traffic on the way to Temple. Hoke gets out to see what is going on. He returns to tell her that the Temple has been bombed.  Hoke empathizes with Daisy’s pain by telling her about the hanging of his friend’s father.  Daisy seems to be in denial that the antisemitic bombing is in any way related to the racism that Hoke experienced. As a white woman, it was a very different reality for Hoke than Diasy and she refuses to feel sorry for herself.  Ethnicity is defined as more fluid than race. A white person can chose to be more or less Jewish, but a black person is externally identified and cannot change the color of his skin. 

The congregation bombing is perhaps a reference to the bombing of Hebrew Benevolent Congregation, Atlanta’s oldest and most prominent synagogue. It was the fourth Temple bombing within the time frame. At the time, the congregation was being led by Rabbi Rothschild and it was his support of racial integration that perhaps ignited the hatred that led to the bombing. In 1947 Rothschild had spoken out at the pulpit against segregation in the region. After the Little Rock 9 incident in 1957 Rothschild helped author the Ministers’ Manifesto which asked for communication between racial and ethnic groups. In the months before the bombing Rothschild said, "We must resolve not to surrender to violence, or submit to intimidation”. Later in the film Daisy attends a dinner with another important civil rights figure,  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and hears a speech that resonated with her.  King said, “history will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the vitriolic words and violent actions of the bad people but the appalling silence and indifference of the good people. Our generation will not only have to repent the words and  actions of the children of darkness but also the fears and apathy of the children of light.” 

Toward the end of the film Daisy shows signs of dementia. One morning, Hoke shows up to work and Daisy is having an episode where her mind is lost in time. This is the first sign of her degenerating mind. She is looking for school papers and is frustrated. Boolie is called to the house and shortly after she regains her coherency and  is upset at herself. Hoke cheers her up by telling her that she is lucky to not be in a state hospital. Daisy let’s him know that he is her best  friend. Time goes by and her house is sold and Daisy is sent to live in a home for the elderly. Although Boolie never had any children and lived in a large house, she is still sent away. Her condition has come to a point that she can no longer live on her own, as many people with degenerative dementia experience.  In a symbolic gesture, Boolie drives Hoke to visit Daisy and after a biting comment about Boolie’s wife being a republican national committeewoman, Daisy and Hoke share a final intimate moment as Hoke sweetly feeds her.  

This last moment and reference to the republican party speaks to the politics on the way aging Americans are treated and the films theme of aging. Boolie may be a committed son, but his need to succeed in a capitalist society takes over. In the past few decades it has been common for party lines to be drawn on issue of the treatment of aging Americans. Currently the line is drawn on  Medicaid and Social Security programs. Republicans often offer a disgusting sentiment for any social program and speak of it like a it is a free ride that only promotes laziness and takes money from the pockets of job creators (a.k.a. the wealthy). When Americans, black or white, Jewish or Christians have worked hard for the majority of their lives like Hoke and Daisy, they do not deserve to be left out in the cold by the government while capital accumulation of the wealthy continues to drive politics. Driving Miss Daisy is a film that helps bridge the gap between rich and poor, black and white. Aging happens to everyone and all human beings deserve to do it with dignity even if the United States has deprived them of it in the past. 

The Godfather

      The film The Godfather was one of the most influential films in American movie history. The film invented a genre of “mob movies”. The first, along with it's sequel The Godfather Part II received nine academy awards including two Best Picture awards. The Godfather Part III was created 20 years later. The influence these movies had on the film-making world is not to be overshadowed by the impact that the series had on the perception of the Italian-American by the rest of the word.  The stereotypes that the film may have encouraged have been insulting to some Italian-Americans. There is a sweetness to the loyalty and the closeness of the family structure but overall the Corleone family is portrayed as inherently violent as well as corrupt.  They do the dirty work for the white men and at a high price, and they do it well.  This movie may be a dramatization of the actual Italian-American, the Sicilian history plays into the place that the Corleone family resides in America. When applying Allport's theory of contact to The Godfather we see that the levels of discrimination do not change when the Corleone family gains upward mobility as wealthy Americans.

Southern Italians came to America as poor peasants. But before arriving in the United States Sicilians had a violent past. The Corleone family was from an area of Italy actually called Corleone. This was in the most southern area of Italy which is called Sicily. It is the actual birthplace of many of the mafias most dangerous and notorious bosses. Sicilian life is also a breeding ground for organized crime because of the nepotism and raccomand­a­zioni, which in Italian means "for recommendation". This is a process of upward mobility at the hands of an agent for a preferred individual, usually a family member regardless of their skill level or ability. A recent example was the hiring of dozens of bus drivers in Palermo who had no driver's licenses and were hired above other qualified workers. Most were related to the Palermo mayor. We see several examples throughout The Godfather. This form of  cronyism is practiced to the detriment of the people of Italy and causes great political corruption and makes it very difficult for young people to attain work (Romano). Using your family connections for favors and to ones advantage has been part of Sicilian culture since the 15th century. However, murder and criminal activity may come from a different area of life. The geography of Sicily makes it a frontline for wars and battles. In post-feudal Sicily, high food prices and public rights being diminished caused criminal activity to rise. There was a need for protection by the people and a high demand for skilled criminals. The people had to police their own land and form bands of  criminals to protect themselves and their farms (Wikipedia). The violent  behavior and loyalty of families  are portrayed as the Corleone family The Godfather.   

The first scene of the first movie defines what Don Vito Corleone was all about. He may have been corrupt, but he had values and he did not compromise them for any monetary price. When Bonasera ask's Don Corleone to avenge the murder of his daughter we are informed of these values. 

“I understand. You found paradise in America, had a good trade, made a good living. The police protected you; and there were courts of law.  And you didn't need  a friend of me.  But, now you come to me and you say “Don Corleone give me justice.” But you don't ask with respect.  You don't offer friendship.  You don’t even think to call me Godfather. Instead, you come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married, and you ask me to do murder, for money  ...That is not justice, your daughter is still alive”

However, if he needed to protect or avenge his family he would not hesitate to act. He had a way of doing things that came from his Sicilian roots. 

While Don Vito Corleone used the old Sicilian approach to his job,  his son Michael seemed to have gotten a taste of the American dream and when Michael took over he began using a capitalist approach to running things.  

Allport's theory of contact can be applied to this move in that we see the interaction between the politician's and the Corleone family at the congressional hearing. We hear Senator Kane defending Corleone, but we also know that he has his reason's. He attempts to use the “I have lots of <insert minority here> friends” defense, which usually implies an underlying prejudice. His monologue at the senate hearing tells of an ideal view of Italian-American's but directly contradicts the portrayal of such in the movies.

“Many of my constituents are Italian and have been honored with that certain friendship by my close Italian friends. Up to this point before I have to leave this hearing to join my own committee, let me say, that this hearing on the Mafia is in no way a slur on the Italians by the Senate; nor is it meant to be; nor will I allow it to be. Italian Americans are the hardest working, most law abiding patriotic Americans of our country. It is a shame and a pity that a few rotten apples give them a bad name. We are here to weed those rotten apples out of the vast healthy barrel of Italian Americans, who are one of the backbones of our country.”

In defending the family and Italians, he is defining the discrimination that is taking place. The only reason there was a Senate hearing is because the family was wealthy. Senator Kane is defending them out of fear, not genuine admiration.  The upward mobility of the Italian-American's obviously offended they WASP senators.  We also see Allport's theory play in the relationship between Kay and Michael. Michael's attempt to Americanize himself won over Kay in the beginning of the first film. He went to college and joined the Army. He became what he thought of as the all-American boy. The more Kay got to know him and his roots, the more she hated him. She even had an abortion so that she would not bring another Corleone son into the world. 

Allport also had a theory on the functional autonomy of motive. Throughout The Godfather we constantly wonder what is motivating  Michael to remain on his violent and corrupt path when he know's better.  Allport theorized that drive  can come from the manner and environment  in which one is raised. In The Godfather, Michael's roots come back to him, no matter how hard he tries to avoid them it is in his blood to be a Corleone. He holds on to many of the traditions, but inteprets them in his own way, that best serves his intentions. Allport wrote, “Just as a child gradually repudiates his dependence on his parents, develops a will of his own, becomes self-active and self-determining, and outlives his parents, so it is with motives. Each motive has a definite point of origin which may possibly lie in instincts, or, more likely, in the organic tensions of infancy. Chronologically speaking, all adult purposes can be traced back to these seed-forms in infancy, but as the individual matures the tie is broken. Whatever bond remains, is historical, not functional.”

The influence of these films on American perception of Italian-American's cannot be repudiated. Today we see most portrayal's in the media of this ethnic group as violent and corrupt even thought most of them aren't. No matter how far they have come, it seems that this immigrant group is framed by a stereotype only perpetuated by The Godfather films. 

Wall Street Convolution Explained: Margin Call & Too Big to Fail

         In Margin Call, it took a rocket scientist to figure out that the economy was in a downward spiral. The film is written and directed by J.C. Chandor. The opening scene is a typical Wall Street office being seized by human resources conducting layoffs.  Among the fired is a 19 year veteran executive Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci).  He is handed a folder called “looking ahead” with a picture of a sailboat on it and given 6 months salary. After packing up his office he pathetically walks down the hall with his head down. As he steps on the elevator he is approached by a sympathetic and concerned young coworker, former rocket scientist Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) who works in the risk department.  Dale hands him a flash drive and tells him to be careful with it. Kevin Spacey plays the boss, Sam Rogers, who is sitting in his office as the seize is going on.  Will Emerson (Paul Bettany), head of trading,  comes into is office and asks what is wrong he says that he is upset because his dog is dying and he doesn’t know what to do with her. Later that night Peter finishes the project that Dale had given him and discovers that the company is worthless because the projected losses are greater than the worth of the company, a margin call. This is the discovery that set the ball rolling on the current financial crisis.  Sam Rogers is called back in to the office after euthanizing his beloved dog. When Will Emerson shows him the figures and he says that he doesn’t know how to read them.
  The remainder of the film is set over the next 24 hours. A meeting with Jared Cohen (Simon Baker), Sara Robertson (Demi Moore), Ramesh Shah (Aasif Mondvi), and eventually the CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) is called in. Sullivan explains that the entire business model that they have all gotten rich from is bad. They have to come up with a plan to try and survive the eminent crash. Tuld and Rogers argue over the strategy during a break. Rogers is explicitly telling Tuld that if they start the ball rolling on unloading their toxic assets it will take down the entire financial market because it will cause mass panic. This is the beginning of the end of the bursting housing bubble. Companies like the one dramatized in Margin Call capitalized on banks that made bad loans to poor candidates. They did so by buying bundled assets, securing them, and then betting against them. Financiers made a lot of money despite the huge risk to their clients and the economy. In the end, the toxicity of the assets came to fruition.  Tuld’s character in the film understood the risk and when it all crashed down he was prepared for it as if he expected it to happen all along. He had been in the business a long time and had lived through several cycles of capitalist consequence. The final scene is Sam Rogers burying his beloved dog.

Too Big To Fail is  based on the book by Andrew Ross Sorkin about the tumbling of the US economy. The events in this film take place in the last weeks of September and early October 2008. The film shows the domino effect of mistakes made by Wall Street which were facilitated by the Bush administration.  The importance and value of public perception to the financial market and the U.S. government is dramatized and the very close and intimate relationship between Washington and Wall Street is perused.
The CEO of Lehman Brothers, Dick Fuld (James Woods) has the humbling and humiliating experience of watching his giant investment bank fail while the largest nine others were being bailed out. John Tuld in Margin Call is most likely a tribute to Fuld.  Lehman was allowed to fail so that the government didn’t look too much like socialists.   Letting Lehman brothers fail was seen as  Public Relations gold for the Treasury Secretary and the Bush administration. They made an example of Lehman and promised no more bailouts.  He gave false hope to Americans and their faith in the real estate and stock markets.  Until AIG fails. They held the insurance and secured the bad loans made by the other banks. The world economy begins to crumble as businesses are not able borrow money. Henry Paulson’s lecture on the moral hazard of not bailing out bad business becomes hypocritical as he realizes AIG is too big to fail. The homeowners are put at fault even though the lenders bottom fed, praying on the delusion of the American Dream. As the housing bubble burst and housing prices dropped, the mortgage backed securities tank and AIG had to pay them off all over the world at the same time. Of course, they couldn’t  do this and all of the banks that they back would fail and the entire U.S. financial system would crumble. During the debacle, Henry Paulson and Timothy Geitner came up with the solution, a 700 billion dollar bailout that they call the troubled asses relief program (TARP). This money would be handed over to the big banks whether or not they wanted it, to shore up capital so that they could hold on to their toxic assets and circumvent a margin call. The real question that this movie begs is “where was the regulation?” The perception by the public was that the banks knew what they were doing and the U.S. government was watching out for the best interest of the American People. This perception is being protected in Too Big to Fail.
Some could theorize that the financial crises  are caused by human nature, greed, and the all-American need to become wealthy and own a home. This fantasy is  known to Americans as “the American dream”, a delusion that acts as a pillar for the U.S. economic philosophy.  The financial institutions could be held responsible for not regulating themselves correctly.  Financial experts and law makers also believed in faulty theories from economists who believed that free markets are self sufficient and self-regulating.  Any single factor could be blamed and each film analyzed holds one or more of these theories responsible for the current state of the United States economy.  However, there is a bigger problem at play and it covers the spectrum of brouhaha in all of the films.  The current crisis was made by the way that we came out of the last one. It is a perpetuating cycle of capitalism. Capitalism does not solve its own crisis, it simply moves them to another location.  The 1970’s were recovered from the excessive power of labor by shipping jobs overseas and the neo-liberal doctrine. By the mid-1980’s the labor-power issue was solved and there was access to the global market of labor. Capital became very accessible and companies were able to buy, sell and trade capital all over Wall Street. Finance capital continues to grow as wages of labor go down. However, this creates an issue with demand, the internal contradictions of capital accumulation (RSA).  With little wages Americans cannot spend money and demand goes down. This is solved with credit cards and easy loans with high interest rates.
Capitalism thrives on financial innovation because it never solves it’s issues, it simply moves them around. Financial innovation has only given all the power to the financial consultants, speculators and brokers. As one mistake of capitalism is made, it takes rooms and buildings full of analysts, experts, and brokers to circumvent the crisis. By the 1990’s financial profits had shot up as manufacturing wages went down. (RSA) The financiers have written the rules to the game and  have created an imbalance that is dramatized in the films. The leading characters are all part of the capitalist dance.
Power is what the main characters in the films evaluated have aspired to have or have attained and are trying to hold on to. Speculation is the vehicle that  has driven their power and speculation is the vehicle that can take it away.  In the modern United States, wealth and power are not mutually exclusive.  The only thing more powerful than wealth is the perception of power and that is what the films all have in common. People have to believe that a politician is powerful in order for him to attain his power by being elected.  The same could be said for a company or a certain commodity to climb the stock market.  The perception that other people will buy into the entity is the most important factor. In  laissez faire or free capitalist market, speculation is the foremost virtue. If speculation falls in your favor, so does capital, political or monetary. They are one in the same.

Dr. Strangelove. 1964 Film or 2011 Reality??!!!!???

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb debuted in 1964. It was directed by Stanley Kubrick and based on the book Red Alert written by an ex- RAF pilot Peter George (Bryant). Kubrick, George and Terry Southern wrote the screenplay.   It was nominated for four academy awards among many others. Peter Sellers takes on 3 roles and won the oscar for the film. Kubrick also won for best director and shared the writing oscar with Southern and George. As a Cold War satire, the plot of the film revolves around the panic that occurs after the insane General Jack Ripper (Sterling Hayden) orders his men to wipe out the Soviet Union with a nuclear airstrike. Ripper’s reason for doing this is because he feels that the communists are polluting our bodily fluids by using water fluoridation as a biochemical weapon. Meanwhile, the Russians have prepared for the instance of a nuclear attack and developed a doomsday device that will wipe out the entire Earth if they are nuked. So, unless someone can figure out a way to stop the impending attack on the USSR, the world as we know it would cease to exist.  As Kubrick proved with Paths of Glory, he has a point to make and saving the world at the end of the film just would not have driven it home. He gives no retreat to his anti-war message once again and we see existence and humanity go up in a puff of smoke.  The film gives no dignity to war and leaves little behind for politicians and military men. It sends a message on the absurdity and fallacies of war and violence. It’s too bad that more people didn’t get that message. The primary message that is conveyed in Dr. Strangelove is that we have a conglomerate of people who do not consider the best interest of the people when doing their job.  It isn’t that they are all evil and hope for our ultimate demise, but that they are human and are incapable of being anything other than mere mortals who have limited mental capacity. Kubrick shows us a very scary fact through General Ripper’s nervous breakdown. Men in power are only human and anyone can meltdown at any moment. Especially the guy that has his finger on the big red button that could wipe us all out. Kim Jong il is a very eccentric and insane dictator from North Korea that has access to nuclear weapons and could easily lose it and blow us to smithereens.  So not only do we take a message of warning about who we elect and give power to, but there is also a Camusian existentialist message from the film by pointing out the absurdity of creating nuclear weapons only to turn around and try and stop them. The film ends with more Camus-like paradox. How will we survive and recover from nuclear holocaust? The paradox that ties in the existentialist theme is that finding meaning in life is not discussed until survival is eminent. There was not a survival plan prior to this discussion, although the weapons were made in order to facilitate such an occurrence. Once again, Kubrick’s anti-war message was loud and clear with a hint to not take anything for granted because some crazy little man could push a button any minute. 

Dr. Strangelove, like any satire was made in order ridicule and shame society into improvement.  Strangelove was made just a few years after the Bay of Pigs incident when there was a heightened intensity in the United States and in places around the world over nuclear weapons and the technology used to set them off. Paranoia was rampant which was a breeding ground for absurdity and maniacal behavior.  Any moment of hysteria in one of the button-pushers could have set off nuclear war.  The “missile gap”  between the United States and the USSR was a common source of propaganda in order to continue manufacturing more nuclear weapons and was parodied in the film with the “mine-shaft gap” when formulating the survival plan.  The fallacy in the philosophy of nuclear deterrence is also shown by the film.  Kubrick brings to life it’s absurdity by showing how meaningless it is to create a market for shared annihilation of both the attacker and the defender with no victory,  but only effective reciprocal destruction. With the paradox of shooting down nukes when a doomsday machine going off is imminent, Strangelove points that nuclear war is inherently suicidal. Buck Turdlington (George C. Scott), who is advising the President says, “we need to get us one of them Doomsday machines”. His fallacy is that he is unaware that he already has one. Nuclear was is unwinnable and is not a rational strategy to fight communism, which is an ideology. 

There is much creativity involved in Dr. Strangelove. The sounds, sights, and character names are all contrived in order to emphasize the absurdity of the situation.  The juxtaposition of the music that is played throughout the film is a technique used by Kubrick before. In the beginning of the film we hear the whimsical music while we see the off-shape, scratchy and harsh handwriting. It is easy to display the sadness of an event by confusing our ears with something that sounds beautiful and nostalgic while watching something disgusting and disturbing. He used this technique at the end of Paths of Glory as well as Dr. Strangelove. The harmonies of the voices of the characters was also an important aspect. The dialect of the cowboy Air Force pilot was so important to Kubrick that he hired an actor to replace Peter Sellers from playing that part among the other 3 because he didn’t quite sound like he was from Texas. The irony of the Texas pilot dropping the bomb on an undeserving terrain is not at all lost nowadays, but perhaps is a happy accident by Kubrick since W was just a small boy at the time.  Sellers does an excellent job as the snarky and clueless American President (Johnson was in office at the time) who breaks the news of nuclear holocaust to the USSR Premier like a neighbor calling to let you know that his son accidentally hit a baseball through your car window. Perhaps the most apparent form of ridicule are the names of the characters. Obviously General Ripper is alluding to Jack the Ripper, the infamous serial killer.  President Merkin Muffey is a reference to slang words for a woman’s vagina and is the antithesis for Buck Turdlington. Buck is a term for a male stud and Turdlington could simply be a turd reference or could also be emphasizing the word “turgid” meaning swollen and distended.  Buck’s facial expressions and histrionics are no doubt a creative aspect of the film. His overacting is on point and aids the message. “Bat Guano” simply means bat excrement and the USSR Prime Minister “Kiss-off” is  a term for the start of disaster. The Russian ambassador is named after the Marquis de Sade - an infamous and perverted sexual lover and sadist in the 18th century.  The appearance of Dr. Strangelove toward the end of the film was the cement that held Kubrick’s vision of absurdity together. The put the peoples ultimate fate in Strangelove.  He was obviously a former Nazi who was desperately trying to hold down his “Heil Hitler” arm. Right before the fallout, he stands up out of his wheelchair and says that he can walk. He is the personification of the absurd. 

Dr. Strangelove has gone from satire to reality. While Kubrick’s intention was to ridicule the Cold War, it is shameful that it is becoming a reality. Last month the Tea Party managed to outlaw the fluoridation of water in one of Florida’s largest counties. The law was not passed with health or safety of the residents in mind, but rather silly propaganda distributed by the Tea Party-goers. There was a three hour debate before the bill was voted on where Dentists showed decades of empirical data that fluoride was a safe and effective way to safeguard people against tooth decay. The argument for fluoride was followed by an activist Tony Caso who said, “Fluoride is a toxic substance and it is all part of an agenda that's being pushed forth by the so-called globalists in our government and the world government to keep the people stupid so they don't realize what's going on”. He went on to claim that “this is the U.S. of A., not the Soviet Socialist Republic," (MSNBC Article) If this man is using the same philosophy as General Ripper in Dr. Strangelove to control votes, then imagine what the same man could do if he controlled the nuclear weapons. With economic meltdown occurring, crazy dictators with nukes, as well as religious fundamentalist extremists getting into the heads of scared and manic people, the events in Dr. Strangelove may not be too far off base and out the realm of possibility. The film was not only relevant then, but remains even more so relevant today, and that is quite frightening.  

Independent for Governor: An Idealist's Grueling Run

        Independent for Governor was made in 2005 Huixia Lu, former professor of digital filmmaking at the University of Central Arkansas. The film was produced, directed, photographed and co-edited by Lu. This is a documentary film that peruses the daily life of Rod Bryan with his friends and family and is centered around Bryanʼs candidacy as Arkansasʼs first Independent on the ballot for Governor since 1940. The film had itʼs world premiere at UCA in November 2010 and has been screened at the Arkansas Film Festival and the Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival. It was also recently selected for screening at a major festival in Chicago that will take place in January. " Independent is based entirely on honesty. This film shows Bryan, relatively unfunded, losing the election that he fought so very hard for. Bryan and his supporters worked for months to gather over 11,000 signatures so that his name could be put on the ballot. He also did his homework. Bryan had developed initiatives, outlines, policies, and entire plan for how to use Arkansas resources for the good of the state and itʼs people. It seemed that he had it all figured out. However, he was unwilling to lay downhis values and gain funding from corporations or join one of the two parties. 
       The message of the film is the antithesis of All the Kingsʼs Men, The Ides of March, or The Last Hurrah. Although these films center around an idealist and down to earth candidate who genuinely has the best interest of the everyday man in his heart, Rod Bryan refuses to do as Jack Burden says “You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet”. Unlike the typical candidate that we have seen in almost every other campaign film, Bryan refuses to make compromises to his values in order to be elected. While this proves to be an honorable and virtuous position, Bryan remains without his omelets.
Independent was made by Lu as a work of art. As an artistic filmmaker who enjoys her craft she chose direct cinema as her genre. This is a style of documentary that is shot from an anthropological posture. Lu has said that she is not very interested in politics and for the film to be considered direct cinema then she shouldnʼt be. The filmmaker must be objective to the subject. As a foreigner, Lu says that she didnʼt even understand the politics in Arkansas at the time. This aids in solidifying her objectivity. One of the intentions of direct cinema is to question the relationship of reality with cinema. Lu sticks to the genre well. By making this film she scrapes off the scab of what we all believe to be fair and honest elections. She paints an area of gray that causes us to question what are voting for by not fully understanding the election process or what the candidates are really up to. Much like direct cinema rebels from hollywood, Rod Bryan is a rebel of the typical candidate. This makes a perfect recipe for successful direct cinema.

           Through Luʼs use of direct cinema she comes across a story that is incredible. Arkansas is a beautiful state and there are many scenes in the film that showcase this. The juxtaposition of Bryanʼs struggle with the backdrop of the seemingly effortlessly gorgeous landscape is captured by Lu. The innocent and adorable children are also part of the story captured by her as well as the aging grandparents. Bryan makes no apologies to his family for his epic quest. It is obvious that it is all for them, even if they do not understand what he is doing. These “characters” are extremely important to this film because there is no set design, decorating, lighting or art direction. All Lu has to work with is what is in front of her. The moments that she captures are pieced together chronologically and it helps the audience to gain yet another perspective, Bryanʼs evolution within his own humanity. Through the sequence of events Lu shows how his life and his identity are effected by the election process. At one end we see the simplicity of a small business owner and family man, and at the other the convolution of a defeated man who has to figure out what to do next. Set in a place like Arkansas, which has the wealth of Wal-Mart, Tyson, and Stephens juxtaposed by the poverty in the delta and urban Little Rock, Lu creates a metaphor within a metaphor. The art is not lost in the political message of the film. It is a carefully and well crafted piece but never ceases from its truth.

" Although the intention may not have been there at the time, Independent has organically become a metaphor for the battle that every American faces against capitalist greed today. With the Occupy Wall Street movement gaining momentum we

are hearing more about the income gap, corporate greed and the detriment that capitalism is causing Americaʼs people. However, very little (definitely not enough) is being said about campaign finance reform. The importance of this film is that it aids in connecting the dots of what is wrong with America. While having to shift ones policies or personal beliefs may have to be done in order for people to vote for a candidate, campaign finance reform is the root of most of the compromises that a candidate must make in order to be elected that most people do not recognize. While Beebe and Hutchison saw fat checks roll in, Bryan did not. For that, he had very little funding. He was obviously just as smart as the other guys and better looking. He isnʼt a “nut”, extremist, radical, or hippie. He has all the makings of a great candidate in the ideal sense of the word, but todays candidate is not simply a smart and capable idealist. He is a representation of his contributors. If candidates dressed like Nascar drivers then Bryanʼs outfit would be quite plain. This film does not prove that Bryan should have won the election, but it shows us what campaigns and candidates would be like without the large and commanding checks of corporations. Independent gives us a glimpse into an alternate universe where politicians are honest, idealistic, and own their own message and values. Changing the current election system that rejects good guys like Bryan and embraces the corporate idols has to start somewhere. This begs the question, how does someone get elected in order to make the changes? There are many gaps to be filled when it comes to disparity in Arkansas and the entire Untied States. Independent effortlessly helps to fill one.


*This film's name has recently been changed to "Forty Miles Below Hope: An Independents Run for Governor"

Reel Injun and the portrayal of the Native American in Cinema

Reel Injun  is a documentary film made by Cree filmmaker Neil Diamond. Diamond’s mission was to explore the myths and misconceptions about Indians that Hollywood has influenced on America.  He travelled around the United States to explore these stereotypes and attempt to disarm them.  Reel Injun tells of the history of the portrayal of the Native American Indian in film since it’s conception.  Commentators who hold actual Indian heritage are interviewed and tell of their feelings in response to seeing white men given roles as Indians and the savage and ignorant beasts that they play.  These people express pain and shame when speaking of the negative stereotypes that films have propagated about the various Indians. However, what seems to be the most upsetting is the generalization and the deculturalization  of the various individual tribe’s heritage.  Diamond uses these opinions, as well as clips from various films to make his point that the preponderance of the Hollywood lens has caused the doctrine of the savage Indian to be accepted by Americans.  He also explores modern Indian cinema, where Indians have taken back the agency and are telling their own stories of their individual tribes and the cultures that exist within them. 

There have been over 4,000 films made about Native Americans.  They were one of the first subjects of silent film at the dawn of cinema over 100 years ago. The Western movie was one of the most popular type of films in the 20th century and the Indians played a role in almost every single one. Within this genre of film they were usually being taunted by, tortured by, hunted by, murdered by or sneaking up on the Cowboy heros and shooting them with a bow and arrow. The film’s themes commonly played upon the notion that Native American’s were ignorant and savage creatures that were bloodthirsty and had little to no humanity.  They were seen as sadistic people that came after the white man. In John Ford’s 1956 western The Searchers we see the demonization of the Indians as the plot revolves around chief scar kidnapping a small girl.  John Wayne’s character goes in search of her for several  years while his own hatred of Indians is implied.  As the girl becomes assimilated with the natives, it is clear that her uncle (Wayne) would rather kill her than bring her home.  In the end, Wayne is still the hero, in spite of his racism and wanting to kill his own niece and the Indian is brutally buried by other white men.  Although it is a scenically beautiful film and perhaps John Ford was trying to expose racism and how much it complicated and hindered Wayne’s life, but at the time he was such a hero that it backfired and only confirmed the negative Indian stereotypes that other Westerns had put in place. In Reel Injun, clips from The Searchers are shown and the film is discussed. 
Reel Injun brings together history, activism and film when it delves into the Incident  at Wounded Knee in 1973. This historical site is where members of the 7th Calvary massacred over 300 people, Indians and members of the calvary itself, in 1890.   A church was built on the hill where the mass graves of Indians is located to honor the people who lost their lived that day.  In February of  1973 about 200 Lakota and other members of the AIM (American Indian Movement) seized the town of wounded knee. The occupiers wished to reopen negotiations and discuss the issue of broken treaties with the United States government. The protest and occupation turned violent and three protesters were killed and one FBI agent was paralyzed from gunshot wounds. Russell Means is a contributor to Reel Injuns and was one of the leaders of the 71 day takeover.          
The occupation at wounded knee became relevant in Hollywood at the 45th annual Oscars when Marlon Brando, who was an AIM supporter, boycotted the ceremony and refused to accept his award for his role in The Godfather because of the negative portrayal of the American Indian. After consulting with Means, Brando sent Sacheen Littlefeather, who is also featured as a commentator in Reel Injun onstage to give a speech about his feelings. After being told she couldn’t give the entire 15 page speech that Brando had written, she made a short statement and was met with both applause boo’s from the crowd. Littlefeather said in Reel Injun that John Wayne had to be restrained by four security guards to keep from coming after her.  Her message was heard loud and clear by not only the film industry, but the entire world.  After this incident, proxy acceptances were no longer allowed at the Oscars. 
Reel Injun also introduces us to the “fake” Indian.  Most actors with lead roles in the old westerns were not really American Indian. Some were white, and some were actual Indians that were costumed to look more like “Reel” Indians. They were sprayed with makeup and given elaborate costumes to wear that were not likely to be historically accurate.  Actors like Johnny Depp in The Brave (1997) and Mickey Rourke in Killshot (2008) are very white men who attempted to play American Indians. Not that anyone is discrediting their acting abilities in Reel Injun, but that actual American Indian actors are overlooked when these roles are cast.  The older westerns were especially absent of any actors with actual American Indian heritage.  Henry Brandon played Chief Scar in The Searchers and he was actually born in Germany. Gary Cooper played an Indian in the old westerns as well. Many of the extras in some of the films were actual American Indians, but overlooked in the lead roles until later. 
The issue of white supremacy in films is explored in Reel Injun is explored as well. Dustin Hoffman plays Jack Crabb, a 120 year old man, in Little Big Man. He was a Forrest Gump type of character. He was a not so bright man who encountered extraordinary people and circumstances throughout his life.  He has the historical perspective of both  a caucasian and a native American. He plays the type of hero that doesn’t know he is a hero. Like the hero we see in Forrest Gump, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. The Indians are simply part of the journey of Crabb.  In Reel Injun, Poet John Trudell voices his frustration over many of the American Indian themed movies actually being stories about white men, and not the Indians themselves. Trudell references Dances With Wolves, a movie starring Kevin Costner who encounters a Sioux tribe that he finds to be  his friends in the end. Although the story has a lot to do with the tribe and is a beautifully made film, Indians could be replaced by many other minorities in many other time periods. It is Trudells frustration in the same old story line with the Indians and their culture being used as decorum and an excuse for a beautiful setting and mystery than the misrepresentation of the Indian.  Although Little Big Man[’s] story was told by a white man, it failed to give agency back to the Indian because it was the historical perspective of yet another white man.  It is in films like these that the American Indian is objectified. Although loyalty and brotherhood were the themes in Dances With Wolves and paint the Indian culture in a positive light, it is simply not enough for the American Indian. 
The new genre of American Indian cinema is introduced in Reel Injun as well. Smoke Signals is a film that was directed by Chris Eyre who is a Cheyenne and Arapaho filmmaker. It is one of the five highest grossing independent films of all time and is cast with almost all American Indians.   The film takes the perspective of an young  Indian living on a reservation and explores his modern day struggles to find his place in society. This may be a common theme in a lot of films, but the fact that the perspective is from a Native American gives it an honesty that America needs in film. Using humor, the film breaks down the stereotypes that people hold to Indians. The main character is not a brave a fearless warrior, but a nerd who struggles with social anxieties and identity issues. Another Indian made film that is referenced is Atanarjuat: (The Fast Runner). This is a 2001  directed by Zacharias Kunuk.  This film is the first feature length movie to be completely acted in the language Inuktitut. This film, and others like it in the future will aid in correcting history and stereotypes propagated by the film industry. They will give agency back to the American Indian. Rather than their story being told by the white man, they are now telling their own beautiful story and educating society on how the Indian culture has thrived for centuries despite the European influence and perspective.