“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” Demonstrated True Patriotism in a Time of Fascism

One of director Frank Capra’s best-remembered films, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, debuted at Constitution Hall in Washington, DC on the evening of October 17, 1939, about six weeks after France and the United Kingdom had declared war on Germany to initiate World War II (“Senate Historical Office”). As film commentator H.V. Kaltenborn puts his testimonial in the film’s theatrical trailer, the film “emphasizes democracy in action,” (Capra, Trailer). The film contrasts its naive protagonist’s idealism and enthusiasm for democratic ideals with the pessimism and the corruption that dominate the attitudes of those at the heart of American government. In that way, Mr. Smith paints a picture of a well-intentioned political infrastructure in dire need of reform. Though the work is ultimately pro-American, it is far from nationalist propaganda. Joseph Breen, director of the Production Code Authority, was originally reluctant to greenlight the script on account of its “generally unflattering portrayal of our system of Government, which might well lead to such a picture being considered, both here, and more particularly abroad, as a covert attack on the Democratic form of government,” (Maltin). The film’s release was also met with a negative response from members of Congress who were angered by their portrayal in Capra’s work. However, many contemporary critics cited the film’s patriotic spirit as a reason for their positive impressions of it (Ibid.). This disparity between how critics and government officials perceived Capra’s esteem for his adopted country makes it an interesting film to compare with the body of work produced by the Nazi propaganda machine, whose depiction of the German government was invariably positive. Through close readings, this essay will attempt to deconstruct Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and compare its approaches to a number of topics to those used by several Third Reich-era German films in order to establish Capra’s work as a fundamentally un-fascist film.

A comparison of Mr. Smith and German film productions of the Third Reich would fit well into larger discussions about the relationship between wartime German and American cultures. One way in which this comparison fits into larger conversations is that it shows the differences in each country’s film industries went about contributing to their national cultures. Nazi Germany’s culture machine was controlled by the state. During the reign of the Third Reich between 1933 and 1945, Joseph Goebbels and his Ministry of Propaganda produced films through the nationalized UFA studio company (Britannica). Goebbels used this industry to transmit messages directly from the Party leadership to the people. Their mission, as Goebbels wrote in his diaries, was to form a people out of the masses through the imposition of cultural unity (Rentschler, “The Imagined Community”). Therefore, an analysis of Nazi-era German films would only grant insight into the beliefs of the ruling class. Because propaganda cannot simply introduce new concepts into a cultural psyche but must first ground itself in already-accepted social norms and values, one thing that Nazi films reveal is the selection of pre-existing values that Fascists wanted to reinforce and depict as worthy of preservation in their re-structuring of society. The UFA studios film Hitlerjunge Quex, for example, attempts to glorify the Nazi Party by associating its members with the traditional German emphasis on orderliness and discipline (Steinhoff). Likewise, a deconstruction of Third Reich era films would expose the new principles that the Party intended to impress into the masses, such as submission to authority and violent anti-Semitism.

While Nazi Germany’s culture machine was an extension of its political leadership, though, Hollywood remained independent from the American government. The 1930’s American film industry was primarily a business, meaning that its producers had to appeal to audiences rather than to bureaucrats who had the final say. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, produced by Columbia Pictures, was the second-most popular film of 1939 (behind Gone with the Wind), so the democratic values championed by the characters in Capra’s world clearly resonated with American audiences (“Senate Historical Office”). Because the filmmakers operated without the constraints of governmental demands, the movie represents an independent piece of art to which theatergoers responded well, as opposed to a calculated effort from a propaganda ministry to shape public consciousness. Many scholars — most notably the cultural historian Jeffrey Richards — have pointed out that Capra’s narrative of an American figure from a rural background advocating for the rights of the individual in the face of big business and big government aligns perfectly with the values of the Populist Party (Rushton, 30–31). By 1939, the Populists had been out of prominence on the American political scene since William Jennings Bryan’s failed presidential campaign more than four decades prior (Edwards). The fact that a film espousing the virtues of a political party other than the ruling one was so widely consumed is indicative of some of the fundamental differences in the structure of the American and German film industries of the time. A comparison of Mr. Smith and the works of Nazi-era cinema will thus contrast the beliefs of the American masses with those of the German political leadership.

The first way that a close reading of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington shows it to be fundamentally opposed to the elements of Fascism is the attitude it takes towards internal divisions in American society. Films of Nazi-era Germany relied on the notion of a community without internal divisions being a desirable ideal. The 1940 UFA film Jud Süss, for example, accomplishes this feat by manipulating the historical events on which it was based. The film depicts an eighteenth-century German principality that almost falls apart because of the interference of a Jewish outsider, though in reality the cause of the chaos was the Grand Duke’s corruption that he achieved independent of foreign influence. Linda Schulte-Sasse writes in her book Entertaining the Third Reich about how by ostracizing its Jewish antagonist, the film is able to portray its setting as a harmonious and cohesive unit; because its problems come from an outsider, the members of the principality are above blame for their society’s breakdown. She explains: “The manifold textual components that collaborate to make Jew Süss… are able to work together because of a common narrative delimitation as an ‘inside,’ which provides an imaginary fulfillment of the desire for harmony, and an ‘outside’ that threatens harmony,” (Schulte-Sasse, 90). The goal of a politically and culturally homogeneous society lies at the heart of fascist aesthetics.

While the films of Nazi Germany attempt to mask the boundaries that pervade their society, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington openly addresses some of the ways that American political life is characterized by contradictions. Though the film never explicitly reveals the political affiliations of either protagonist Senator Jefferson Smith or his colleague Joseph Paine, the references to their district offices in Jackson City indicate that they represent the state of Missouri, both of whose senators were Democrats in 1939. Nonetheless, the dichotomous nature of the two-party system is explored early in Smith’s arrival at the Capitol. Approximately 36 minutes into the film, Smith asks a page boy to locate the Majority Leader on the Senate floor. The boy obliges by gesturing at Senator Agnew, but then immediately follows it up by also pointing out Senator Barnes, the Minority Leader. As the camera pans from Agnew to Barnes, it shows a physical gap between the small crowds that each Senator was addressing. This image, which comes right after several exposition shots of the Senate floor, serves to remind the audience that even though the politicians present are united in their attendance in this legislative body, they still remain internally divided over the matter of political party. The fact that special attention is given to the presence of both the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader so soon after the characters’ arrival in the Capitol helps to set the tone for the remainder of the film. Additionally, as soon as the Senators start discussing the protocol for swearing in Senator Smith, an unnamed colleague stands up and criticizes Smith’s appearance on the front page of several Washington newspapers that morning: “a versatile performance, I grant you, and one that his party will no doubt applaud,” (Capra). These two events that take place so early in the film’s second act immediately dispel any impressions the audience might have about political homogeneity in this Senate.

Mr. Smith not only rejects the Nazi technique of portraying a completely unified society through its emphasis on the existence of political parties, but also through its vilification of big business. The film’s principal villain is Boss Taylor, the supreme powerbroker in the home state of Senators Smith and Paine. Taylor’s character works as a villain because his control over numerous civil servants and politicians puts him above the reach of the law and effectively makes him the behind-the-scenes ruler of both Missouri and Washington. Taylor’s power comes from his monopolistic ownership of media outlets across the state, which, as he points out to Paine about seventy-five minutes into the film, effectively gives him control over public opinion and the ability to curb free speech should he so choose (Capra). What makes this villain so un-fascist in his characterization is how he owes his entire existence to the very society that he antagonizes. Taylor came to his power legally and within the existing framework of American capitalism; he is in no way an outsider. In creating this dynamic, Capra is not depicting a desirable model of society that needs to be safeguarded against infiltration, but rather one that requires restructuring in order to purge itself of elements injurious to freedom.

Another way that Capra’s film rejects the paradigm of villainous “others” in favor of pointing out flaws in the society it depicts is the moral ambiguity present in Senator Paine’s character. Paine’s defining moment comes after about eighty-one minutes when he tries to justify his participation in Boss Taylor’s political machine to Senator Smith. He explains: “I compromised, yes, so that all those years I could sit in that Senate and serve the people in a thousand honest ways… I’ve served our state well, haven’t I? We have the lowest unemployment and the highest federal grants,” (Capra). This morally ambiguous portrait of a governmental system that yields positive results but is aware of its own gaping faults would never fit into the black and white portrait worldview that fascist propaganda requires to succeed.

In propagandist films of Nazi Germany, the reigning political system is shown as being above question. The details of the Nazi’s political platform are almost never discussed in their films, and they are never debated or thoroughly examined. Instead, the Nazis typically rely on showing their party iconography associated with accepted symbols of power (Rentschler, “Keywords II: Propaganda”). One of the most famous examples of this phenomenon can be found in the Leni Riefenstahl film Triumph of the Will. The third day of events being portrayed in the film immediately opens up to a fairground scene containing scores of Hitler Youth recruits roughhousing and preparing a feast’s worth of meats. This demonstration of opulence that prefaces a speech from Hitler about the purity of the Aryan race serves the clear purpose of acting as an affirmation of fascist aesthetics; Nazism will harness the strength of the German people to bring about prosperity (Riefenstahl). That message is the deepest that the film goes into exploring the merits of such a political system.

The contrast between the films of the Third Reich and the American cinema represented by Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington can be simplified to a comparison of the values of fascism and individualism. Fascist aesthetics rely upon the use of the mass ornament and on black and white political narratives to mobilize their consumers into a single people. Totalitarianism requires the absorption of persons into the state, which is personified in the godlike representations of its leader. At its core, Mr. Smith is a film about how one man can make a difference, even against the impossible odds of trying to deconstruct a political machine and bring awareness to widespread corruption. German films of the Nazi era, on the other hand, encourage their viewers to give up their individuality and join that political machine; they encourage complacency and a blind faith in the competency of authority. Capra’s vision of populism dismisses this call to obedience and instead calls upon its viewers to examine how well a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” actually lives up to its noble ideals and then to use their power as individuals to help it reach them.

Works Cited

“Senate Historical Office.” 1921: Mr. Smith Comes to Washington. United States Senate, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. <https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Mr_Smith_Comes_To_Washington.htm>.

Maltin, Leonard. “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) — Notes — TCM.com.” Turner Classic Movies. Turner Entertainment Networks, Inc., 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. <http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/3771/Mr-Smith-Goes-to-Washington/notes.html>.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Dir. Frank Capra. Perf. James Stewart and Jean Arthur. Columbia Pictures, 1939. Netflix.

1939 Mr Smith Goes to Washington — Trailer. Dir. Frank Capra. Perf. James Stewart and Jean Arthur. Columbia Pictures, 1939. Youtube. Sony Pictures, 17 Jan. 2008. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm9qaEJ3MBc>.

The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica. “UFA (German Film Company).” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 7 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/612566/UFA>.

Rentschler, Eric. “The Imagined Community.” Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding 59. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 16 Sept. 2014. Lecture.

Hitlerjunge Quex. Dir. Hans Steinhoff. Perf. Jürgen Ohlsen. Ufa, 1933. DVD.

Rushton, Richard. “Democracy and Totalitarianism: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The Politics of Hollywood Cinema. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillian, 2013. 130–156. Print.

“The Populist Party.” 1896: The People’s Party. Ed. Rebecca Edwards. Vassar College, 2000. Web. 24 Oct. 2014. <http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/populists.html>.

Schulte-Sasse, Linda. “Jew Süss.” Entertaining the Third Reich. Durham: Duke UP, 1996. 47–91. Print.

Rentschler, Eric. “Keywords II: Propaganda.” Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding 59. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 30 Sept. 2014. Lecture.

Triumph des Willens. Dir. Leni Riefenstahl. UFA, 1935.