Cinema’s Cold War
This article was written for the third issue of SAVAGE, UCL’s Arts and Culture Journal, responding to the edition’s theme of ‘War and Peace’. I edited a trailer for the magazine’s release, which you can watch below:
No film has ever caused armed conflict, but cinema has always indirectly influenced war through propaganda. During the Second World War, Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (1935) promoted Nazi ideology; on the other side of the world, Frank Capra’s Why We Fight (1942) series patriotically outlined the reasons for American intervention. But more indirectly, films can mirror global politics to depict the fractious world we live in: a film can contribute to, even create, the narrative of war. Cinema and war are closely linked; both rely on mass participation and both are created by those in power, intent on pushing an ideology forward.
In June 2014, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg filmed The Interview, an irreverent and satirical attack on North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The trouble the film caused should have been expected: when you mock a country’s values and beliefs, and imitate the assassination of its beloved leader on screen, retaliation is almost inevitable. But rather than react violently, North Korea threatened America verbally, in an act of quid pro quo — ‘you fictionally attack our country, we’ll feign an attack on yours’. This is the cold war between cinema and reality: whether constructed by satirical filmmakers or national leaders, the very real danger of nuclear war is concealed beneath fictional words and images.
‘If someone is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don’t like.’ These were Barack Obama’s words in response to North Korea’s threat. By separating fiction and non-fiction, the President suggested that The Interview cannot be considered a propaganda film, like the documentaries made during the Second World War. But Obama acknowledges that the film was able to ‘intimidate’ because it put forward America’s culturally antithetical perspective of North Korea. At least indirectly, The Interview functioned as propaganda from an outsider’s point of view — and point of view is vital when deciding whether a film’s satire promotes a war of weapons as well as words.
What makes Obama’s comment contentious is the one-sided nature of the comedy in The Interview. The film finds comedy in criticizing the politics of a foreign nation, concluding with Kim Jong-un’s assassination, set to Katy Perry’s ‘Firework’, and North Korea’s consequent transition to democracy. But the film does not turn its satirical attentions towards America. Instead, it uses its crowd-pleasing veneer to promote Western values and the use of violence to transform the beliefs of others. Not merely a light comedy, The Interview cultivates a biased political stance, which led to these threats, and the closure of many cinemas across America in the fear of a terrorist attack by North Korea’s government.
The Interview’s Kim Jong-un argues: ‘you know what’s more destructive than a nuclear bomb?… Words.’ Any cold war — where real violence never occurs — revolves around the spreading of panic. Cinema, as a mode of mass-communication, has the power to proliferate the fear of a foreign threat, characterized as a stereotypical villain in films like The Interview. It also has the power to avoid the reductive, binary opposition between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ — but The Interview’s partial storytelling satirizes the follies of a clear opponent, causing a greater gulf between friend and foe.
Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove (1964) lampooned the Cold War fears of a nuclear conflict between the USSR and the US. It led to no real-life diplomatic problems like The Interview, because its sharp comedy is not directed at the ideology of the ‘other’, but attacks Western behavior while showing awareness of its fictional status. Both Strangelove and The Interview conclude with violent images set to contrapuntal, joyous music; but while The Interview’s ‘Firework’ sets its target on an individual enemy, Strangelove ends with the sight of total nuclear annihilation, confirming the senselessness of a conflict which, if it came to fruition, would make us all victims, regardless of political stance.
Today, films are made for an explicit audience, as demographics are identified and attracted. In the same way a Hollywood film might target young adults, a video put online by Islamic State might target teenagers. What the fallout from The Interview shows us is that, in the 21st century, moving images, whether factual or fictional, can cause an immediate international reaction — and if these images are constructed to offend and attack, a war of weapons, rather than words alone, could be incited.
SAVAGE’s War and Peace issue is available at UCL from March 15. For more, go to savageonline.co.uk
