Analysis of Hollywood's Movies: Ideas and Ways of Thinking about the World - Movie Review Example

Analysis of Hollywood's Movies: Ideas and Ways of Thinking about the World Although primarily seen as a form of inexpensive entertainment and amusement, the films coming out of Hollywood can often provide a great deal of insight into the social relations and functions of the greater society. Films capture the sense of current modes of thought in terms of political, social and economic structure in a given part of society. There are a great number of theories regarding how the media works to reinforce or reject specific cultural attitudes regarding class, race and gender, most of which are based on the theory of ideology brought forth by Karl Marx in which ideological views generally reflect the opinions of power and the dominant social group. As a result, many of the films that come out of Hollywood tend to reflect the ideologies held by those with the most amount of money regardless of humanitarian concerns or with respect to the effects that the actions of big money might have upon those at the other end of the economic spectrum. These messages are so prevalent that they are not even questioned in most circles, but rather exist as fundamental beliefs of the prevailing culture. Because of the ways films draw on and/or participate in the production of ideas about power, social relations, institutions, and intimacies, it is crucial to analyze Hollywood, both as an institution that articulates ideas and ways of thinking about the world as well as a reflection regarding what is taking place in the world. More broadly, what does Hollywood say when it comes to important issues such as the morality and humanity of the death penalty and more specifically, how do films participate in the creation of our collective society and value systems? Aims and Objectives Films that may be included in this study include Dead Man Walking (1995), Just Cause (1995), Primal Fear (1996), Last Dance (1996), The Chamber (1996), True Crime (1999), The Green Mile (1999), Shot in the Heart (2001), The Life of David Gale (2003) and/or Monster (2003). These films were selected because Hollywood advertised them as films on “death penalty.” In watching the films I am first looking for how the death penalty is articulated within the context of the story (one or more of the characters in the story is executed through the normal legal processes of the state). Secondly, I am looking to see what kind of epistemological framework is articulated, as well as the ways theatrical aspects of the film (visible elements of the film) and cinematography (evidence of behind the scenes activity) contribute to the overall effect. The pattern that unfolds is significant as it comes to depict just what Hollywood is telling us regarding the morality and humanity of the death penalty. This pattern will finally be compared to what current criminal justice research has revealed and thus help determine whether Hollywood presents an accurate view of reality. In watching these films, I am looking for major themes that emerge regarding the death penalty within the context of the story (one or more of the characters in the story is facing execution through the normal legal processes of the state). A set of questions will be applied to each film in the areas of theoretical aspects of the story, theatrical aspects of the film (visible elements of the film) and cinematography (evidence of behind the scenes activity). Through this process, it is believed that a pattern will emerge depicting just what Hollywood is telling us regarding the morality and humanity of the death penalty. For instance, is the portrayal of the major character who comes to be understood to “deserve” death penalty as understood by the audience antagonistic or sympathetic? Through this research, I am arguing that Hollywood is interested first in telling an interesting story and then supporting its big money backers. I am arguing that some films demonstrate sympathetic portrayals of the criminals and thus encourage audiences to stand against the death penalty as an effective means of controlling crime through the realization that it is an unfair and often biased practice. This view is compared to other films which end up supporting the use of the death penalty as an effective means of deterring crime. Content analysis will be used as a means of determining the stance taken on the issue within each film. It will be important during this analysis to consider whether these films represent a typical or atypical death penalty case as these are defined within criminal justice literature, primarily as issues pertaining to race, class, economic and other social factors come into play. Literature Review Whether Hollywood is leading the charge to get the death penalty abolished or is merely taking part in a national dialogue that has been occurring under the radar of today’s politicians remains an unanswered question (Waxman, 2000), but the idea that the motion picture does indeed have an effect on public opinion cannot be denied. According to Sydney Cohen, president of the Motion Picture Theater Owners of America near the beginning of the industry’s rise to greatness, the power of film lies in its mode of delivery. “Its language is simple, vivid and direct, because it appeals to the eye, which has been called the immediate channel of the soul; because it impresses with equal force the literate and the illiterate, the motion picture has developed into an agency more powerful than either the printed or the spoken word (cited in Pierce, 1998). It was recognized even as early as 1921 when this statement was first uttered that film’s ability to transcend questions of literacy and language could function as a control to either subdue or incite public reaction regarding a variety of issues and causes. The available literature demonstrates a tendency within Hollywood to choose only those stories of death row inmates who have a sympathetic side, such as the death row inmate Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams who was recently executed in California. In an article written by Rick Halperin (2004), it is outlined how this man, who killed four people as a founding member of one of the most violent gangs in Los Angeles, has had a movie made about him because of his actions after imprisonment and is thus about whether or not a man can find redemption rather than about his violent past. “This movie, more than anything, defined for us an almost Greek-like version of drama and a dramatic question of: Can a man redeem himself? In this instance, can a man who’s been convicted of the most heinous of human acts redeem himself?” (Peter Liguori cited in Halperin, 2004). It was argued by the families of the victims, however, that even though the film did not go into the details of the crimes committed, through its very title – Redemption – it suggested that the death penalty was too harsh a penalty for his crimes. Despite the impression that many of the films produced in Hollywood are working against the death penalty, though, there is disagreement regarding whether the industry is actually working to abolish the practice or has the impact it once might have had. According to one professor at the University of Chicago, a combination of a more aware public, more practiced in screening the information they receive from media outlets, and a great deal of outside information from anti-death penalty groups create a situation in which it is difficult to judge just how much films are impacting public opinion in this area (Waxman, 2000). In addition, Hollywood directors argue that there are more films in favor of the death penalty through various means, such as depicting bad guys who would never consider redemption as a desirable choice even when these criminals are never brought to trial within the context of the film. Opponents to this argument suggest that because these bad guys are killed rather than taken, the question of whether the death penalty was appropriate is never considered. Through arguments such as these, it becomes a matter of interpretation whether the death penalty was even truly brought into the conversation. Thus, to gain a better understanding of whether Hollywood has made an attempt to reflect the current research regarding death penalty cases, it is necessary to understand what the current research suggests. One of the major elements of the debate is whether the death penalty constitutes ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ or if it is justice to end criminals’ lives as a result of their taking of life. The Supreme Court has always ruled the terminology of the Eighth Amendment does not exclude the implementation of death as punishment (Mott, 2004). The Constitution is a malleable document, however. The interpretation of the Eighth Amendment has evolved as a result of changing societal values. With respect to capital punishment, though, “the Court has maintained that there remains broad public support for the death penalty as a remedy for the most serious of crimes” (Mott, 2004). Historically speaking, the rational for punishing criminals has been to avenge the crime, to protect society by imprisoning the criminal, to deter that person and other potential offenders from the commission of crimes and to obtain reparations from the offender (Wolfgang, 1998). Throughout the history of civilization, this rational has not changed substantially. The four fundamental reasons society punishes can be classified into two areas. One is to obtain desired consequences which includes protecting society, seeking compensation and deterrence. The other, retribution, reparation or vengeance, involves punishment for a wrong perpetrated on society. Those that subscribe to retribution as justification for the death penalty often invoke the Bible’s reference to ‘an eye for an eye.’ Aggression must be met with aggressive punishment (Olen & Barry, 1996: 268). “This use of punishment is society’s way of striking back at one who has disturbed the emotional and ethical senses of a people” (Lunden, 1967: 232). In addition to a vengeful act, the death penalty is the ultimate preventative measure (Olen & Barry, 1996). The Supreme Court has upheld that capital punishment does not fall under the category of exceptionally ‘cruel’ but has ruled that it does violate the Eighth Amendment if it is considered unusual. In the Furman v. Georgia case of 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was being subjectively applied because a disproportionate amount of minorities had faced execution which made the practice ‘unusual’ (“Furman v. Georgia”, 1972). As a result of the decision, approximately 600 persons on death row had their sentences commuted to life. In addition, no executions were permitted in the U.S. until it was again resumed in 1976. However, the majority of death penalty opponents believe that the practice continues to be intrinsically biased against those of lower income and minorities (Olen & Barry, 1996: 272). Capital punishment opponents claim that wealthy, white criminals are less likely to be executed than underprivileged minority members of society and if the victim is white or wealthy, it is more likely to be imposed. The statistics provide evidence for their claim. Since 1976, 43 percent of executions in the U.S. have been black or Hispanic. This group accounts for 55 percent of those currently on death row. About half of those murdered in the U.S. are white but 80 percent of all murder cases involve white victims. From 1976 to 2002, 12 whites were executed for killing a black person while 178 blacks were executed for murdering a white person (“Race”, 2003). It would seem that the ‘unusual’ aspect of the death penalty continues to be a valid argument but another aspect must be present for the practice to again be abolished. “There is ample evidence that the death penalty is applied with a discriminatory impact based on the race of the victim, but a constitutional challenge requires intentional discrimination” (Mello, 1995: 933). Many proponents of the death penalty believe that it is an option of last resort for criminals that cannot be rehabilitated. They also argue that every murderer executed is one less person that the taxpayers are not feeding and housing. They believe “the cost of supporting criminals in maximum security prisons until they die is very high and they do not feel the innocent tax payer should not have to foot the bill for the care of depraved criminals who’ve demonstrated that they have no respect for society’s laws or human life” (Olen & Barry, 1996: 273-274). Additionally, a lengthy appeals process is a costly process that ties-up the court system. This cost is considered by opponents to be an insignificant argument because the value of human life cannot possibly be broken down into columns on a profit and loss ledger. Department of Justice statistics clearly illustrate that the death penalty contains many constitutional flaws. Between 1973 and 1993, almost half (forty-two percent) of inmates awaiting the death sentence had their sentences commuted or reversed. Capital punishment is “a waste of money and resources in producing what turns out to be counterfeit death sentences in almost one out of every two instances” (McCloskey, 1996: 7). Opponents deny that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime because of the nature of the reasons people commit homicide. These crimes are usually committed as a result of impulsive actions and not carefully considered beforehand. Therefore, “the deterrent case has no validity” (Johnson, 1968). If the person committing the murder does contemplate the consequences, they may kill not only the victim but any witnesses as well rather than risk being caught (Olen & Barry, 1996). Many studies have been performed to determine if the death penalty is indeed deterrence to crime. They are conducted by “comparing homicide rates in contiguous jurisdictions, some of which had abolished capital punishment; examining time series data on homicide rates within a jurisdiction during the years before and after the abolished capital punishment; and comparing homicide rates in a jurisdiction before and after the imposition of the death sentence or execution” (Hagan, 1985). These studies have unanimously demonstrated that the death penalty does not deter crime. Criminal justice literature thus enumerates several issues related to the death penalty that might appear in Hollywood productions in such a way as to either support or protest the death penalty. The first of these is determining whether the death penalty constitutes ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment either via method or in terms of socio-economic status. Inherent in this question, then, are considerations of whether the death penalty is viewed as a punishment of last resort and whether minorities or lower socio-economic class are over-represented. There is also a concern regarding whether or not the death penalty is actually an effective deterrence to crime and whether the cost of prosecution is justified. How Hollywood films address or ignore these issues can convey a great deal regarding how they influence public perception regarding this punishment option. Research Method Content Analysis Generally speaking, content analysis refers to a process whereby a specific element is analyzed for instances of various individual aspects. For example, it might be counted how many times reference is made to the pathos of a character or how often the lighting becomes subdued in a film to illustrate lack of personal direction. Because it relies more upon the number of instances of a given element, this is deemed to be a less subjective method of evaluating what is being presented. It is also deemed an effective means of determining the effect a presentation might have upon an audience (List, 2002). During the course of this research, several films concerning the death penalty will be watched carefully for instances related to the five main issues identified through the criminal justice literature as being of prime importance in the death penalty debate. These will be looked for in a theoretical, theatrical and cinematographic context and presented in a brief discussion. There will be a necessary element of subjective opinion within the research as it will be up to the researcher to determine which theoretical, theatrical and cinematographic elements support or refute which criminal justice issue as the questions applied to each film will necessarily be answered differently based upon the subjective presentation of each film. As much as possible, however, the researcher will attempt to discover means of applying questions equally despite subject differences. Following this content analysis, qualitative analysis will be undertaken to determine how the film ultimately affects the viewer. By considering questions such as what are the most lasting images of the film and what the content of these images might be – of the crime, of the perpetrator in a sympathetic light or of the perpetrator in an antagonistic light – one can begin to determine whether the producers and directors felt the death penalty should be supported or denied. In considering whether the more lasting images of each film are positive or negative in relation to the criminal and just how these images came about, other elements of the film may be emphasized or discounted to provide a final conception regarding the death penalty issue, particularly as it applies to the real world questions of whether it constitutes cruel or unusual punishment, is a discriminatory practice, is used as a last resort, is a deterrence for crime or if the cost of the process is justified. Time Constraints The number of films to be reviewed will necessarily be limited by time constraints as each film will require approximately two and a half hours to watch the first time as a means of familiarizing the researcher with the story. This viewing will then need to be followed by an unknown succession of viewings as a means of appropriately analyzing the content of the film and its sociological impact regarding the issue of the death penalty. Only once these stages have been completed will it be possible to apply the predetermined set of questions for the research fully to the films and the analysis written up. References “Furman v. Georgia.” (1972). The Supreme Court Collection. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Available May 4, 2009 from Hagan, J. (1985). Modern Criminology: Crime, Criminal Behavior, and it’s Control. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Halperin, Rick. (April 3, 2004). “TV portrayal of death row inmate opens old wounds.” Death Penalty News. Johnson, E.H. (1968). Crime, Correction, and Society. Illinois: The Dorsey Press. List, Dennis. (2002). Know Your Audience: A Practical Guide to Media Research. Wellington, New Zealand: Original Books. Lunden, W.A. (1967). Crimes and Criminals. Iowa: The Iowa State University Press. McCloskey, J. (1996). “The Death Penalty: A Personal View.” Criminal Justice Ethics. Vol. 15, pp. 2-9. Mello, M. (1995). “Defunding Death.” American Criminal Law Review. Vol. 32, pp. 933-1012. Mott. Jonathan. (March 2000). “Is the Death Penalty Constitutional?” This Nation. Available May 4, 2009 from Olen, Jeffrey & Barry, Vincent. (1996). Applying Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Pierce, David. (1998). “Baring the Heart of Hollywood: The Truth About the Motion Pictures.” The Dearborn Independent. (originally published October 29, 1921). Retrieved May 4, 2009 from “Race and the Death Penalty.” (February 26, 2006). Unequal Justice. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. Available May 4, 2009 from Wolfgang, M.E. (1998). “We Do Not Deserve to Kill.” Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 44, pp. 19-32. Read More