subscribe to this page
-from Sage Full-Text Collections
Holdings: 1996-
In his letter to the editor of the PMLA, Walter Shear argues that Robert L. Carringer’s analysis of Kane’s character in “Rosebud, Dead or Alive: Narrative and Symbolic Structure in Citizen Kane” is overly complex and fails to see the obvious simplicity of the film. Carringer argues that Kane’s personality is a pastiche of the multiple viewpoints of all his closest acquaintances, and that this distorts any seemingly objective display or definitive account of the actual character. Carringer argues his case citing that the only way Kane’s character is revealed in the film is through interviews with close friends, associates and family members. As a result, the character, he argues, is subjected to the various biases of those describing him to the inquiring reporter, Jerry Thompson. Mr. Shear argues on the contrary that Kane’s character is revealed through his desire for people to love him. As Shear cites, “’Love… that’s why he did everything. That’s why he went into politics.’” He states that this relatively simple view can closely describe Kane’s actions and ambitions. Not only does it support Kane’s decision to run into politics; it also justifies Kane’s desire for his paper to have a personal relationship with each one of his readers. He also has multiple relationships in his young adulthood. Shear states that this quest for love could be a search to replace his mother as a source of love in his life. (This being a result of being snatched from his family at too young an age.)
Shear convincingly describes the motives of Charles Foster Kane’s impulses in life – politics, running a newspaper because it would be fun and enthusiastically underwriting his second wife’s singing career – all in an effort to gain acceptance and be adored by the public. With this knowledge in hand, one can very easily watch the film and understand some of the seemingly rash decisions that the character of Kane makes. Who in their right mind, with so many alternatives, choose to run a faltering newspaper “because it looks fun?” With a secure personal fortune and no need to earn money, it would make sense that a person in such a situation would seek to find personal gratification of a love that was never present in childhood.
posted by: Jeffrey Wolf , Web Producer
written by: Kyle Clark , Reporter
DENVER - A state senator who was hassled for his congestion pricing idea has a suggestion for Coloradans: build a better bill yourself.
Sen. Chris Romer (D-Denver) says he received more than 800 constituent e-mails in response to his proposal for tolls along Interstate 70 during peak travel periods. Romer admits the feedback was overwhelmingly negative.
"Almost all of them ended up with the final line, 'I hate your idea but I love the fact that you started the dialogue,'" said Romer.
Now he's asking the public to help him come up with another idea. On Friday, Romer unveiled what he calls a "Wiki-Bill," a spin-off of the popular online user-edited encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Anyone can log onto a Web site created by Romer's staff and outline their solution to the congestion on ski weekends.
Call#: Van Pelt Library R725.5 .R676 2007
A Brief History of Neoliberalism [02:02:30]
David Harvey
@ University of Pennsylvania (2006-11-02
From the Urban Studies Program at UPenn: "In his talk, Harvey will draw on his recent book, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005), in which he traces the rise of neoliberal principles based on the theory of free markets and unfettered international capital flows from an obscure economic theory to dominance on the world stage. Harvey shows how proponents of a neoliberal economic philosophy, such as the influential leaders Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, gained the consensus of key figures and economic and political institutions, driven by an aspiration to re-establish class power. He dissects the logic of neoliberalism, revealing its built-in contradictions and the tremendous variation in how it looks from place to place and at different scales. He will talk about how cities have both complied and resisted neoliberalism's discipline."
Lecture begins 00:06:35. Lecture ends and questions begin 01:25:55. Audio goes bad around 01:34:00.
Tim Wu talks with Neal Conan on NPR's Talk of the Nation about the possible ways presidential candidates might attempt to reach younger voters in the 2008 election. Wu speculates about candidates battling in virtual worlds (which may prove more "exciting" than real-life rallies, since you can actually blow things up). He talks about the increasing participation in virtual worlds like Second Life, but doesn't really contextualize the still relatively small virtual world population. Wu also speculates that it might become more acceptable for serious politicians to make cameo appearances on TV shows as a way of advertising their brand, i.e. themselves. Although he mentions Clinton, it might be useful to think about Gore's career since he left the White House. Appearances on Saturday Night Live and most recently the Oscars with his film An Inconvenient Truth have turned him into Hollywood's golden boy without detracting from (and if anything, increasing) his political clout. Will candidates still in office be able to garner popularity in this way - without worrying about their reputations as "serious" presidential candidates?
This clip is also useful because it imagines the possibilities for increased voter participation throughout the political process.
Call#: Van Pelt Library JF799 .I62 2006
Owen’s article is optimistic regarding future civic engagement, but often defines this engagement in terms of student political projects, voters looking at government websites, etc. She doesn’t offer much concrete evidence that these online practices translate into actual voting. She does, rather inadvertently, point out an interesting paradox: those users who are currently the most web-savvy are not yet old enough to legally vote. Furthermore, Owen’s article reveals that the Internet may only further engage those already intending to vote. She also rethinks the traditional concept of engagement, which in this case may mean community-building, blogging, etc. as opposed to actual voting.
This article gives useful breakdowns of American populations using the Internet by age, gender and race (although only in the categories “White” and “Black”) – but does not offer any analysis through more nuanced categories or race, class, geographical location, etc.
Call#: Annenberg Library Reserve P94.65.U6 J46 2006
In chapter six, Jenkins discusses the role of popular culture in emerging political communities. Jenkins (as is the case throughout Convergence Culture) is focused on how old and new media interact and the dynamics of collaboration and participation. While Jenkins recognizes the scoff-factor when implying the concept of “photoshop for democracy” (user-generated images that often map themes from popular culture onto the political campaign) is any sort of substitute for real political activism, he insists that this kind of user-generated content and mass dispersion is a serious act of citizenry. In fact, using popular culture as a means of engaging voters might just be the most effective way of re-establishing interest in politics as a part of our everyday lives. Jenkins focuses on the 2004 election and recognizes that the next step is to think of “democratic citizenship as a lifestyle.” Furthermore, online political communities seem to be segregating voters, as opposed to encouraging dialogue across ideologies. Although he seems to offer popular culture as a kind of national balm for the ailments of political fragmentation, Jenkins recognizes the inherent limits of its role in (or applicability as a model for) contemporary political communities.
For me, the most useful parts of this argument is the attention he pays to the increasing participation of average Americans (now as monitorial citizens as opposed to informed citizens) in the media landscape and the possibilities for the integration of politics and popular culture. However, he doesn’t seem to offer any real solution for the acutely polarized political landscape.
Michael Cornfield's Commentary summarizes the ways in which the internet has become an essential medium of American politics. Cornfield outlines five major innovations of the Howard Dean (Joe Trippi, manager) 2004 campaign: news-pegged fundraising appeals, net-organized local gatherings, blogging, online referenda, decentralized decision-making. Cornfield examines the different Deanian techniques that Kerry and Bush utilized in their campaigns - Kerry focused more on fund-raising while Bush concentrated on grass-roots mobilization. Cornfield ultimately concludes that the Democrats started too late and were not effectively organized.
In an effort to analyze the techniques utilized by the emerging 2008 candidates, this article is useful for historicizing Internet politicking. One of the most interesting comments is Cornfield's re-imagining the concept of an "activist" - who might soon include "people who do little more than what ten minutes a month at their computers enable them to do." Although Moveon.org got 500,000 people to sign the petition against impeaching President Clinton, the House ultimately voted for impeachment. The organization's real power seems to have come from fund-raising for candidates. Is online activism now (say online petitions or virtual marches) as effective (in terms of real-world effects in policy, etc.) as live-action grassroots efforts - or could it be in the future?
This article (as its title indicates) is focused on the internet aspect of the 2004 campaign and does not offer a well-rounded examination of other campaign factors.
This article discusses Edwards' efforts to use new media to gain an edge in the 2008 elections. Formally announcing his candidacy via youtube, encouraging voters to text message their support, blogging through his own site www.onecorps.com, Edwards is, according to those quoted in the article, ahead of the online campaign curve. The article interestingly compares Edwards' approach to that of former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Warner too utilized the online avenues but, according to Nancy Scola (former Hill staffer Howard Dean campaign volunteer) came across stiff and uneasy online. The implication here is that not only a campaign, but a particular type of personality, must be staged online to be effective. This leads me to wonder whether particular personalities translate across media - can Edwards mobilize his supporters outside of cyberspace? Although this report positively announces that twice as many Americans use the web as their primary source of news about the 2006 elections as they did in 2002, it seems to posit that the real political audience is still reached through TV. Concluding with a reference to Howard Dean, the article settles on the view that the Internet is an increasingly important medium, but still only one piece of the campaign puzzle, leaving us a bit unsure of the implications regarding Edwards' mastery of online tools. Ultimately, when it comes to presidential campaigns, does money still rule - or will the internet increasingly become THE most important piece of a candidate's strategy? In the future, could e-campaigns prove a democratizing force in the uneven playing-field of big-money politics?
This blog covers "how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the web, and vice versa," as well as looking at the effects of voter-generated content, social networking sites etc. For example, the attention paid to the number of friends a particular candidate has on a site like myspace is particularly interesting when thinking about the Howard Dean campaign and its inability to translate as an e-candidate to a real-time political contender. The contributers seem to represent a fairly broad political spectrum, and are ostensibly against "partisan" arguments. The bloggers include the Internet director of Dean's 2004 campaign and the e-campaign director for Bush-Cheney 2004.
This is my primary source of information for researching the ongoing efforts of the hopeful presidential nominees for the 2008 election. In particular, I'm curious to compare John Edwards' efforts to those of Howard Dean and speculate a bit on whether or not popular e-candidates have a shot at competing against campaign giants (with massive campaign contributions) like Obama, Clinton, Guiliani and McCain.
This blog covers "how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the web, and vice versa," as well as looking at the effects of voter-generated content, social networking sites etc. For example, the attention paid to the number of friends a particular candidate has on a site like myspace is particularly interesting when thinking about the Howard Dean campaign and its inability to translate as an e-candidate to a real-time political contender. The contributers seem to represent a fairly broad political spectrum, and are ostensibly against "partisan" arguments. The bloggers include the Internet director of Dean's 2004 campaign and the e-campaign director for Bush-Cheney 2004.
This is my primary source of information for researching the ongoing efforts of the hopeful presidential nominees for the 2008 election. In particular, I'm curious to compare John Edwards' efforts to those of Howard Dean and speculate a bit on whether or not popular e-candidates have a shot at competing against campaign giants (with massive campaign contributions) like Obama, Clinton, Guiliani and McCain.Call#: Van Pelt Library JK1764 .T75 2004
Call#: Van Pelt Library JK1764 .D37 2005
Ch. 1: “Electronic Political Discussion”
This chapter offers an overview of various online communications, including electronic email lists, Usenet and blogs. Davis addresses the question of whether or not online discussions make any difference in political processes, institutions or societal behavior and ultimately decides that the prophesized utopia of direct democracy has not yet been achieved. The obstacles facing such restructuring include: inequality in the levels of accessibility and the fragmented nature of electronic political discussion. Even the more tempered notion of deliberative democracy faces hurdles - most notably human reliance on technological solutions.
This chapter is a helpful summary of current online discussion forums and briefly pulls apart the kind of Trippi-esque claims of revolution. I'm going to utilize the rest of this book in order to examine the broad claims of internet revolution which, in the case of much writing about the internet, seem devoid of factors like accessibility.
Call#: Van Pelt Library JK2281 .C67 2004
This chapter analyzes five cases of online politics, including the use of the internet by Bush and McCain in 2000, the phenomenon moveon.org, Web White and Blue and the “instant response meter” developed by Speakout.com. The moveon.org case study discusses the evolution of the wildly successful organization which proved to have a mobilizing capacity beyond all expectation. It summarizes its strategy of providing a voice for those unheard during the Clinton scandal as well as using the Internet to broaden the early donor pool. The article mentions in the last few sentences that there is no conservative counterpart to the MoveOn model, perhaps because “grassroots action works better in opposition – and the conservatives are in power.” I think this is a valid point and worth examining in relation to the Democratic takeover in the midterm elections although at the moment it seems too early for a conservative backlash.
As the chapter points out, Joan Blades and Wes Boyd (the founders of MoveOn) are not political candidates. They (in the vein of many environmentalists or human rights organizations responding to a specific problem) started their site/online petition as a reaction to the Clinton impeachment issue and grew to become a kind of brand of endorsement for selected democratic candidates. Also, they bundle donor choices to make sizable contributions to a slate of candidates. Would any one candidate be able to mobilize the kind of broad support this portal of the people harnessed?
OpenCongress brings together official government information with news and blog coverage to give you the real story behind what's happening in Congress.
For most people, finding out what's really happening in Congress is a daunting and time-consuming task. The legislative process is frequently arcane and closed-off from the public, resulting in frustration with Congress and apathy about politics.
Small groups of political insiders and lobbyists know what's really going on in Congress, but this important information rarely makes its way into the light. The official website of the library of Congress, Thomas, publishes the full text of bills, but we can do much more to inform ourselves and make our government accessible. Now, with OpenCongress, everyone can be an insider.
OpenCongress is a free, open-source, non-profit, and non-partisan web resource with a mission to help make Congress more transparent and to encourage civic engagement. OpenCongress is a joint project of the Sunlight Foundation and the Participatory Politics Foundation.
11/21/97
Episode 84
A parable of politics and race in America. The story of Chicago's first black mayor, Harold Washington, told on the anniversary of his death. We first broadcast on the tenth anniversary of his death and reran this on the 11th. Washington died November 25, 1987.
Act One. Yesterday. A history of the brief mayoral career of Harold Washington, and its lessons for black and white America, as told by people close to him. Many of them are activists and politicians: Lu Palmer, Judge Eugene Pincham, Congressman Danny Davis, then-alderman Eugene Sawyer. There are people from his administration--Jacky Grimshaw and Grayson Mitchell--and some reporters who followed his story: Vernon Jarrett, Monroe Anderson, Gary Rivlin, Laura Washington (who became his press secretary). Plus a few ordinary voters, and a political opponent of the late mayor. Act One continues after the break.
Act Two. The present and the future. Thoughts about why there are no black mayors in the nation's largest cities today--New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. Plus a visit to a white Chicago ward, to see if ordinary voters have learned any tolerance in the last ten years since Washington's death.
Song: "At Last" Etta James
Call#: Van Pelt Library JN96.A58 L44 2003
Call#: Van Pelt Library DT33 .F313 2004
Call#: Van Pelt Library 324 SE991 V.1
Call#: Van Pelt Library E813 .H87 1973
This book examines the life and political career of the 33rd president of the United States, Harry S. Truman. Born in Missouri, he went off to serve as a captain of artillery in World War I. Upon his return, he began his career in politics and quickly rose to great local and state popularity due to his "reputation of honest and efficiency as well as for party regularity." His political shrewdness caught the attention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, searching for a new vice presidential candidate to replace Henry Wallace in the 1944 election. After Roosevelt died in April of 1945, Truman assumed the presidency and was initially preoccupied with foreign policy: the Allied conference in Potsdam and the conclusion of the war in Europe. But perhaps the issue that took precedence at the time, and remained a major point of political debate the year after (1946, when The Best Years of Our Lives was made), was the decision in August to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Though Truman maintained till his death that he made the decision solely on the basis of ending the war, preventing an invasion of Japan and saving American lives, the book explores alternative beliefs that Truman had alterior motives, such as preventing participation of the Russiancs in the Japanese defeat, as they had pledged to do at the Yalta conference.
The decision to drop the bomb was initially greeted with great acceptance by most Americans, who were relieved to see the surrender of Japan, the end of the war, and the return of the troops. Soonafter, however, people began to question the morality of leveling an entire city and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians with a single bomb. People began to question if dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good decision, if perhaps the US should have warned Japan of the awesome power their new weapon was capable of, if it should have been dropped on a military base rather than a city. This debate was very much alive and well during 1946, the year of The Best Years of Our Lives, and this social commentary is very much interjected into the film. For example, upon Army Sergeant Al Stephenson's (Fredric March) return home, his son promptly asks him if when in Hiroshima he saw the damaging of effects of radioactivity on survivors of the bomb. The film is not a sterotypical, patriotic postwar film for many reasons, and its ability to recognize domestic debate over foreign policy is one reason for that; its discussion of complex issues lends it a layer of intellectualism. At that point in American History, and still to this day, the American conscience has not been able to completley accept the decision to use the atomic bomb.
Abstract from First Monday:
In groups people can accomplish what they cannot do alone. Now new visual and social technologies are making it possible for people to make decisions and solve complex problems collectively. These technologies are enabling groups not only to create community but also to wield power and create rules to govern their own affairs. Electronic democracy theorists have either focused on the individual and the state, disregarding the collaborative nature of public life, or they remain wedded to outdated and unrealistic conceptions of deliberation. This article makes two central claims. First, technology will enable more effective forms of collective action. This is particularly so of the emerging tools for "collective visualization" which will profoundly reshape the ability of people to make decisions, own and dispose of assets, organize, protest, deliberate, dissent and resolve disputes together.
Charles Maland’s article “Dr. Strangelove (1964): Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of the Liberal Consensus” reviews the way in which Stanley Kubrick’s film responds to dominant culture’s social norms of the 1930s and later war years. The article notes the way which Dr. Strangelove, and other Kubrick films, addressed the “gap between man’s scientific and technological skill and his social, political, and moral ineptitude” (p. 701). Kubrick’s message in the film comes across strong; man’s technological progression has outpaced his morality and wisdom. Skill and good judgment should balance each other, but because of their disproportion scientific progression is able to do more harm than good.
Considering the social conditions leading up to the production of Dr. Strangelove one can understand the formation of Kubrick’s perspectives. The 1930s saw social concentration shift from the economy to foreign governments. The war years directed attention towards defeating opposing powers. Success in war and economic prosperity created a paradigm that required the US lead other countries (p. 698). Russians, under new leadership and not wanting to appear the weaker nation after a difficult war, pursued a similar course of action. The resulting international tension established an atmosphere ripe for a film like Dr. Strangelove. Anxiety ran high and the most paradoxical elements of public policy seemed to lie at the heart of the guidelines. Dr. Strangelove masterfully captures the realities of its period but in a mode so embellished one can discern the message propagated by the film.
America’s insistence on involving itself in the control of foreign nations, an issue recurrent in many of the articles regarding Dr. Strangelove and more broadly the Cold War, is again addressed in the article “Central America as a Theater of U.S. Cold War Politics.” Here author Susanne Jonas observes the late 1980s political movements in Central America that mirror actions of the Cold War era. Jonas also notes tendencies of US government to “control its allies (particularly in Europe)” (p. 125). As mentioned in the article by Robert Frase, Jonas points out that elitists run political programs, especially international agendas, and in the case of Central America the majority’s interests were not considered when drafting policy. For example when considering wealth reallocations Jonas points out that “[i]n short, the new strategy was based on the assumption that the Central American working class (both rural and urban) would be kept at bare subsistence level” (p. 124).
The article by Jonas also recognizes the effects of Vietnam on the Cold War attitude of the US. After essential losing in Vietnam, America “no longer dominat[ed] the capitalist world like it once did and [was] no longer able to impose its will by unilateral action” (p. 126). The circumstances of Vietnam help put in perspectives the policies adopted by the US government regarding arms. Confronted with failure, the US may have found it necessary to outpace the USSR to reaffirm its position as an international superpower. Such competition would drive the arms race and create tensions between the countries.
America’s actions in Central America resemble the type that Dr. Strangelove satirizes. Again, the US appears like the over-zealous fighter ready to get a hand into other countries operations. Although the Central American countries don’t have the resources that were available to Russia, the underlying circumstances of the situation resemble those that started the arms race and Cold War between the US and the USSR.
In his article “Atomic Energy and the Democratic Process” Robert Dahl examines the way in which democracy governs atomic production. Dahl notes that in a democracy really only a portion of the public actually participates in an issue, though any individual can be mobilized into the active group if compelled by an issue. The author notes that when addressing atomic energy the group allowed to participate is constricted by the requirement of secrecy (regarding details of weapon production and emergency plans). Dahl points out that citizens “in the absence of secrecy, perhaps could and would be activated as attentive citizens” (p. 2). The author then steps further to indicate that to maintain this secrecy only a handful of “elites” are allowed to rule. The fact such important decisions lie in the hands of a few is alarming. Secrecy contradicts the idea of democracy in itself. Considering the actions of leaders in the Cold War and the sentiments of the public, one must question whether nuclear proliferation by both the US and the USSR were moves that benefited public interest or a handful of individuals acting on their own behalf.
The idea of elitist control permeates Dr. Strangelove's message. In the film a deranged general sends US planes towards Russia to be intercepted, essentially precipitating WWIII. The general’s relatively unchecked control signifies the power leaders commanded and could manipulate regardless of public interest. One must question whether given the concerns of nuclear accumulation society as a whole would have pursued the path of nuclear development. Considering the apocalyptic ending of Dr. Strangelove it would seem Kubrick thinks not.
Robert Frase’s article “International Control of Nuclear Weapons” immediately addresses the notion that control of nuclear power “is as much a psychological and political problem as a technical one” (p. 16). In the article Frase recognizes four issues that prevented the United Nations and the Soviet Union from establishing an atomic energy resolution, a deal which would have allowed the international observation of nuclear programs and possibly have prevented an arms race. The four issues Frase identifies are 1) a fear of contact with the west, 2) Soviet attitude of inferiority in joint enterprise, 3) lack of immediate economic benefits included in a Soviet atomic energy plan, and 4) hedges placed around offers of an international joint effort (p. 17). Recurrent behind these points is the issue of American insistence upon cooperation in joint projects. Soviet concern that non-military information would be given up then lead to adamant rejection of energy proposals. It seems, as mentioned in the Maland piece, that determination on both sides to establish themself as the superior power lead to the irreversible accumulation of weapons. It is interesting to consider that the Frase article, written in 1953, essentially identifies reasons for and predicts a tense continuation of the arms race yet could not create a change to prevent it.
In Dr. Strangelove the obstinate doggedness of each leader and the illogical agreement between countries epitomizes the actual indifferences the US and the Soviet Union couldn’t overcome. Also, unlike the rather ineffective message of the Frase article, Kubrick’s satirical approach to the confrontations between countries opened the doors to a great deal of political criticism.
Reelpolitik II studies how political perspectives influenced and were influenced by film and media in the 1950s and 60s. Specifically, chapter 9 of the book, “Cold War Dovism in Dr. Strangelove”, closely examines social perception of nuclear war and the effect opinions had on the acceptance of the film’s message. In the book, author Beverly Kelley argues that “dovism”, pacifist, anti-war attitude, overwhelmed militarism because of the public’s apprehension of the consequences of international conflict.
The chapter starts by detailing important Cold War events that escalated international alarm, and shows the impact such incidents had on the public. The book then focuses on the presidents that guided the country through the perilous times, noting how both President Eisenhower and President Kennedy (it notes President Johnson only briefly) avoided nuclear warfare using polar approaches. Finally, the chapter turns its attention to Dr. Strangelove, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. This section addresses first the representation of characters in the film, and then the consequences of the message on the public. Dr. Strangelove satirically highlights the absurdity of nuclear armament, and, though humorously, addresses frightening issues.
In its review of mid-1900 political ideology, Reelpolitik II illuminates the issues that underlie the message of Dr. Strangelove. The film wittily captures the irrationality behind the use of weapons as protection. Reelpolitik II summarizes the political atmosphere that the film satirizes and indicates how socieity's attitude was influenced by the film's message and how the film's message was shaped by society's posture.
Muscio describes Roosevelt’s collusion with Hollywood: FDR overlooked Hollywood’s oligopoly in exchange for its help propagandizing his administration. Hollywood’s investment in the New Deal facilitated Roosevelt’s assertion of political and economic stability (at least for the already dominant industries), counteracting voices that demanded more revolutionary political changes. In these senses, Muscio depicts Roosevelt politics as rather conservative, in spite of their expression of / appeal to liberal ideologies.
Since Chain Gang was released a week after Roosevelt’s election to office, and in light of the striking myth-making similarities between Chain Gang and Roosevelt’s platform (e.g. emphasis on the plight of the forgotten man), and considering Warner Brothers’ especially friendly relationship with Roosevelt, it seems absurd to argue that Chain Gang did not play a strong role in aligning American popular culture with New Deal politics.
Muscio also takes into account the emergence of sound technology and studio self-censorship codes’ roles in facilitating and defining Hollywood’s relationship with Roosevelt. She cites Lizabeth Cohen’s argument that “the talking audience for silent pictures became a silent audience for talking pictures” (75). Although the critical implications of the industry’s transition from silent to sound warrant more nuanced readings, Muscio’s arguments stress 1932 technology’s essential role in manipulating American political culture. The sound film, by approaching what audiences perceive as verisimilitude, sutures its viewer into becoming a voyeur, all the while naturalizing its own artifice. This basic understanding of sound technology’s impact on traditions of film receptivity in America suggests the singularity of the emergence of the New Deal’s and thus Chain Gang’s historical moment. Chain Gang’s aesthetic, narrative logic, and social arguments articulate a dynamic synthesis of cultural, technological, and political forces unique to 1932.
The Hays Code, which too facilitated Hollywood’s control over the market, further engendered the film industry’s alignment with the government. In the context of Chain Gang, a pre-Code film – i.e. post-Production Code, pre Joseph Breen’s rigid enforcement of said Code – the dynamics of a political and market codified aesthetic generate many ambiguities. Chain Gang’s iconoclastic renarrativization of Hollywood formulae, which actually transgresses censorship regulations in a fairly typical way for this period, aligned its viewer’s plight with the studio’s thereby establishing Warner Brothers as the “socially-conscious studio.” This image facilitated WB’s maintenance of industry control over mounting societal tensions that posed threats to Hollywood and fostered a space in American culture for the popularity of New Deal politics.