No other film better exemplifies the spirit and intent of this course than the dark comedy “Wag the Dog”. Pushing satire to its outer limits, “Wag the Dog” takes aim at the power of media to construct realities regardless of facts or validity, and demonstrates the ease with which masses are manipulated while not so subtly taking digs at the naivety and gullibility of the American public. The combination of arrogance and ignorance is a heady cocktail, and the movie illustrates how by capitalizing on that lethal combination, an entire population can be persuaded to wholly buy into a shared delusion as fact. Directed by Barry Levinson and starring both Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro, “Wag the Dog” effectively utilizes both the incongruity and superiority theories of humor to support Constructivist theories of International Relations, and forces us all to re-examine the truth behind the hype of the 24 hour, nonstop cable news network media blitz that defines contemporary political culture.
It is important to recognize and define several key theories that are at work within the film. Critchley defines Incongruity in humor as “produced by the experience of a felt incongruity between what we know or expect to be the case, and what actually takes place in the joke,gag, jest, or blague” (Critchley, 2). He quotes the philosophers Plato, Aristotle and Hobbes in defining Superiority Theory in humor as “suddaine Glory arising from suddaine Conception of some Eminency in ourselves, by Comparison with the Infirmitiyes of others, or with our own, formerly” (Critchley, 2). “Wag the Dog” utilizes these forms of humor in an effort to demonstrate the Constructivist nature of politics and media. According to our course lecture “constructivism focuses primarily on the importance of ideas and culture in shaping our understanding of international politics. “ This ultimately refers to the concept with Constructivism that everything around is a construct based on shared perception, i.e. the sky is blue because we all agree that the sky is a color we all perceive and refer to as “blue”. This concept is critical to the film “Wag the Dog”, as the entire premise of the movie is based on reality being rooted in shared perception, not necessarily fact.
The movie opens with several White House aides gathered in seclusion to come up with a plan to damage control the breaking news that a teenage “Firefly” girl has accused the incumbent President of sexual misconduct a mere 11 days prior to the election. Political “problem solver” Conrad Breen (Robert DeNiro) is brought in to take the helm and begin the process of distracting the American public. Calls are made, information about a mysterious B3 Bomber is “accidently” leaked out, and the wheels are set in motion to begin constructing a new, more pressing crisis than the alleged sexual impropriety of the President. Conrad brings on board larger than life Hollywood producer Stanley Motts to stage an all out war with Albania. Metts assembles a team to help him fabricate the makings of a war, including patriotic songs, footage of a fleeing Albanian village girl (complete with CGI kitten), and even “homegrown” fads to unify everyone around the common cause of defeating the Albanian terrorists. The construct evolves to become more and more elaborate, infiltrating all levels of American society in record time. Every time a potential obstacle or conflict arises, Stanley rises to the occasion, dismissing the challenge as “nothing”, and proceeds to add more and more layers of detailed deceit, culminating in the use of a mentally ill rapist convict as a supposed POW in Albania. The rapid fire speed with which this all occurs is a testament to the new global media. Ultimately, the public is distracted long enough to allow the President to secure reelection without facing the music of his actions. While congratulating themselves on a job well done, Conrad and Stanley see a pundit credit the Presidents cheesy campaign slogan “Don’t change horses midstream” for his successful reelection. This is more than Stanley’s ego can bear, as he wants credit for his efforts. Despite being warned that he was risking his life by saying that he was going to come forward, Stanley insists that he is going to tell the story so he can get credit for the genius of his well-orchestrated illusion of war. So Conrad has him killed, and stages it to look like a heart attack. The implication is that these types of actions are business as usual, and that we need to open our eyes and stop taking what the media covers at face value.
The scene in the movie that best illustrates the Constructivist nature of the film, as well as clear examples of both incongruity and superiority humor, is the scene where Conrad and Winifred meet with Stanley for the first time to hash out the details of their plan, and Stanley’s team is assembled to begin the process of bringing concept to “reality”. This scene takes place right after the initial scene where we meet Conrad and the nature of the dilemma is presented, and we see the first machinations of Conrad’s crisis management methodology. The scene takes place in the producer’s outrageous and ostentatious Hollywood mansion, complete with uniformed help and topiary. When they first meet Stanley, he is laying in a tanning bed. This detail alone is an example of both incongruity humor (a tanning bed in a living room?), and superiority theory (“I would never be as shallow and vapid as to have a tanning bed in my home”). The scene follows this dynamic throughout, painting the celebrity elite as both eccentric and ridiculous. Conrad and Winifred explain the situation to Stanley, and ask for his help. Slowly the story begins to take shape, and a general outline of the war and its causes is formed. There is definitely some irony in the decision to make it about fundamentalist terrorists, given that the movie was made a mere four years prior to 9/11. As the story begins to take shape, Stanley gets on the phone to reach out to his key “people”- a musician played by Willie Nelson, responsible for creating the patriotic soundtrack to the war “pageant”, a character named simply “Fad King”, played by Denis Leary, responsible for creating “homegrown, grassroots” trends and movements, i.e. the Yellow ribbon movement, and Lorraine, his costume designer. Once they gather, the scene focuses on the idea-tossing and banter of the group, finally ending with them all walking out of Stanley’s house with a loosely outlined plan for a war with Albania, sold to the American public with “raw footage” of a young peasant girl and her kitten escaping the terrorists bombs.
This scene is critical to the film, because it lays the foundation for the audience’s understanding of the level of orchestration being put into the constructed reality. Additionally, it introduces the audience to the superficiality and pomposity of the upper echelon types pulling all the puppet strings. This is the message the movie wants you to take away, and it’s all neatly demonstrated for you in this one scene of the film.
The scene is definitely funny, for many reasons, but perhaps none more so than for the over-the top personality of Dustin Hoffman’s character Stanley. He exemplifies the consummate Hollywood producer, all bravado and ego and flair. At one point, the President is on the line for Winifred, and Stanley tells him he can wait, he’s finishing a story-not even the President of the United States is more important. The humor of this scene relies on the cheesy self importance of the archetypical Hollywood scenesters. This, coupled with the outrageousness of the plot, plays heartily into both the superiority and incongruity theories. We laugh because the behaviors and actions are completely outlandish and unexpected, yet we also laugh because we assume we’re better than these shallow “Hollywood types”.
The humor in this scene is definitely successful, in that it effectively points out the inherent ridiculousness of most propaganda and fads. It also calls out how easily the public is duped. The goal of the director is to demonstrate to the audience that what we believe to be real could easily be fabricated by specific political interests, and that what we perceive as reality is often the construct of those in power. This is successfully achieved by using humor to soften the blow of such a discouraging revelation. If we see the people pulling the strings as ridiculous and inferior in some way, it takes some of the sting out of realizing how easily we’re duped, thus making us more receptive to the possibility, which in turn encourages us to be more skeptical and scrutinizing. The message of this scene is “Anything can be fabricated with effort, and the people doing the fabricating don’t necessarily have the public’s best interests at heart.
This scene reveals much about world politics; primarily that much of it is staged for the benefit of those who wish to remain in power. It is a theatre of the absurd. It also speaks to the ability of a superpower to exert their will on a smaller nation (in this case Albania), or at the very least exploit that nation to their own ends, regardless of whether or not there is any factual basis to their actions. It is really shocking when you consider that this movie was made prior 9/11, prior to the war in Iraq, prior to much of the heavy-spin propaganda of the last decade. It almost feels prophetic in hindsight (WMD’s, the B3 bomber….), and really provides some thought provoking arguments on behalf of the many conspiracy theorists.
The film is about as direct as you can be when it comes to its political message, but the use of humor gave it more plausibility, and made the assertions of the film less threatening and therefore more palatable to the public at large. It’s one thing to make the statement “Your government and media lie to you”. It’s another thing entirely to show you how easily and humorously our government and media could conspire to mislead us through the use of great storytelling. For this reason, humor was a necessary strategy in order to reach a broader audience with their message.
“Wag the Dog” effectively used humor to make the “medicine” of their message go down a bit easier, and called attention to the power of perception. The movie clearly demonstrates how easily reality is constructed, and provides a sound argument for Constructivism as dominant theory in International Relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment