« Masquerade as Harmful or Helpful? | Main

The Source of Didion's Monster

Fear is, and has been since the beginning, a driving force in Hollywood. The fears of the industry and of American culture have become integral to the pictures themselves. The Red Scare established an era of film identifiable by its themes of overt paranoia or unparalleled escapism, and type roles like the “sissy” were built to mock and belittle the homosexual which was of concern to the American nuclear family. The greatest fear of Hollywood, however, penetrates almost every domestic film. In her essay, Joan Didion refers to the “Monster of Hollywood” It is collaborate work of producers and studio moguls, and it exists in order to “stifle everything that is interesting and worthwhile and ‘creative’”. What Joan tends ignore is the more ultimate factor for the existence of this monster; the audience. The viewing public is the real “monster” and one that takes its shape in most films as the Hollywood fear to take risks and challenge what they know people alright like; the happy ending, the Christian morals, and so on.

Obvious evidence of this is offered in Guilty by Suspicion. Though it was made in 1990, the filmmakers were still plagued by fear of the public’s disapproval of subversion. According to Thompson, the writer “had wanted the De Niro character to be a real Communist”, and though this did not make it into the final film, the writer still removed his name from the credits. Even more interesting is the ending. The film is often viewed as a parallel to the actions of Elia Kazan during the Blacklist, and direct reference was made to that (including a loose quote from On The Waterfront, “I’m not going to be a fucking stool pigeon”), yet the final sequence plays out opposite of Kazan’s real-life hearings. The end became heroic and moral, as well as damning of Kazan’s actions.

Didion’s “Hollywood Monster” is rarely one to come directly out to the public and admit that they are using formula to avoid risk. There is, however, an exception. During the Blacklist, as Gin has shown in her lecture, Hollywood made a direct public plea, claiming that they will not make subversive films, nor will they employ subversive individuals. The result was the popularity of films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which resorted to overtly anti-communist themes to not raise alarm, and included lines such as; “this malignant disease is spreading through the whole country”.

Possibly the most subtle evasion of public disapproval is Bad Day at Black Rock. The film is a criticism of the United States’ treatment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War. What is interesting, however, is that this is addressed in the film as an isolated incident, even remarking that “there aren’t many towns like this”. This was a single town that trains never stopped at and it was the actions of a few individuals towards a single Japanese-American. It is easy for the public to ignore this as a statement about America as a whole. Another way in which the film dodged the “subversive” label was by casting Spencer Tracy who was considered to be a model, moral American. The producer even gave the character a physical disfigurement in hopes that it would appear to a challenge role and that Tracy would be attracted to it. It is as if to suggest that the film couldn’t be subversive, because every American idolizes Spencer Tracy.

Hollywood is seen by movie goers as a playing out of their fantasies, which requires a fair amount of trust that they will not be betrayed by dark, unsettling, anti-American, or tragic imagery. The manners in which films avoid public distrust, even on subjects of an unsettling nature are diverse but all serve to protect against that “Monster” of the audience.

Comments

I idolize Spencer Tracy.

Post a comment