Anyone who says that Hollywood should stay away from politics has clearly not seen much TV, or paid attention to politics. Media and politics are intrinsically linked beyond the six o'clock news; politics is an ever-present force whether we like it or not. However, rather than spill more ink on the supposed wokeness infecting our screens by pointing out the inherent political messaging in our culture's most defining movies, it would perhaps be more worthwhile to discuss how politics is directly portrayed on our screens. By looking at TV politicians and political acitivites in different eras, and different genres, we can get a clear sense of what the sentiment of the day was more accurately than hearing the real life speeches of our leaders.
In the UK, there is a level of consistency to how we saw politicians. In both Yes, Minister and The Thick of It, two comedies based in Whitehall, politicians are portrayed as, frankly put, incompetent buffoons. In the former, the civil service personified in Sir Humphrey drive the agenda, suggesting true power lays in the operators of the pernament institutions rather than elected officials. While this has often been suggested by insiders to be a fair reflection of the truth to a certain extent, there is a distinction between this portrayal and the one in it's successor which debutted 25 years later. In this, the politicial operatives working behind the scenes, guiding the hand of the civil service, are just as hopeless as their elected masters. While we can all appreciate Peter Capaldi's take of Alistair Campbell, it does not suggest someone who is in complete control of the reigns of power. Instead, government is shown to be a chaotic mess, with all concerned more about what it looks like, rather than what it is. This is perhaps a fair distinction in how our perspectives changed between the 80s and early 00s in the UK - politics was seen as boring activities undertaken by boring people, and the idea of a shadow entity pulling the strings was certainly an acknowledged reality. On the wave of Blair, there was perhaps an optimism that this could change, that our politics could be changed by our elected officials and no longer obstructed by a civil service unable or unwilling to alter course. Yet The Thick of It suggests that this project was a failure; only the external perception changed, rather than the internal workings. While incompetence makes for good comedy, does it stack up to the reality? I will leave the answer to anyone who watched the Conservative 2024 election campaign.
This idea of incompetence and presentation above substance was also found in the U.S. based comedy Veep. This is no surprise given the creator was the same as the man behind The Thick of It. The brazen self interest of the characters across the show was on full display, and the reception to it showed an American public who did not believe that government had its best interests at heart. Then again, isn't this foundational to the United States, a distrust in government? Haven't they always felt this way.
Enter The West Wing. A love letter to public service that during the Bush Jr era left many hoping for a more aspirational politics where the government was run by smart people with good intentions. It is no surprise then that the ending of that show mirrored the eventual rise of Barack Obama and his message of hope for a better future. It is perhaps telling then that towards the end of his presidency, the U.S. version of House of Cards became a phenomenon that was essential to the eventual dominance of Netflix original shows and streaming more broadly. House of Cards functions as the dark twin of The West Wing, displaying a corrupt and shameless politics that is a machinery driven by lust for power rather than the betterment of others. This is not to suggest that Obama was this type of politician, but rather that he lost the debate on how U.S. politics should look. The Tea Party showed how obstructionism and populism could succeed, paving the way for Obama's orange successsor. The West Wing laid out a thesis that the tools of government, if wielded effectively could achieve big things. House of Cards and the real politics of the last 12 years have proven that was true, but not in the way Sorkin envisioned it.
The question remains what weight the shift in politics focused media holds for our real political discourse. It enters a chicken and egg debate of if the image it portrays reflects the exisiting sentiment, or creates that sentiment. As often is the case with those types of relationships, it is probably a bit of both. In which case, a move towards a more optimistic portrayal of politics could be a useful weapon in the fight against a discourse driven by division and cynicism. It would not be desirable to white-wash politics and suggest that those working in government always have good intentions (they have proven themselves to not). But often people gravitate towards roles they see themselves occupying. If people only see media portrayals of politicians are craven and idiotic charicatures, their desire to operate in that sphere lessens. If however their exposure to politics includes Sam Seabornes and C.J. Creggs, they may see a path towards working in government and using that machinery the way it is meant to be used. And the more people who see that and act on it, the closer we can get to a critical mass where the Bartletts outweigh the Underwoods. As someone who watched West Wing before any of the other portrayals of politics, I would welcome a few more people entering the political arena with an underlying belief, albeit consistently challenged by TV and reality, that public service can matter and politics can improve the lives of people in our communities.
Comments