Film Ideology

            Ideology originated in politics as a generalization for a set of beliefs or ideas. In film, it similarly refers to the messages or ideas that are portrayed through film as an art medium.When Ideology is explicit in film it is an idea that clearly stated by either a character or someone with an important contribution in the film's creation like a director. In film implicit ideology is the underlying thoughts or ideas that are not ever clearly stated but are simply implied or hinted upon. This gives an interactive opportunity to the audience who can choose to make a decision about what they see and whether an idea or message appears in a film or not. This is because implicit ideology, being unclear, is debatable.

            When looking at an actor in film, often times a specific actor has certain characteristics that are emphasized and targeted when being casted for a movie. An example of this being Jackie Chan. Martial Arts master, having learned kung fu in his younger years to star in some of his first movies like Drunken Master (1978), Enter the Dragon (1973) and Snake in the Eagle's Shadow (1978). These three movies, all made in Chan's early career as a famous actor included him displaying insane feats of strength, stamina and martial arts ability. In addition to the seriousness that came with Chan's conflicts and fighting in these movies, some comedy is always added. Even more surprising people in this time period is that Jackie Chan always did his own stunts in his movies and still does many of them today even at nearly 58 years old. Relating Chan's early movies to the modern day, we can look at any of the three Rush Hour movies or The Forbidden Kingdom where Jackie Chan still does his own stunts, scaling buildings, dodging knives and wielding swords, all accompanying a fine display of martial arts. I can only assume that his next roll in a movie will follow suit. I imagine that the film will take place in America with traveling back and forth to China. It's likely that some old enemy of his, maybe from his village steels a sacred artifact that has spiritually protected his family for centuries. In order to get it back he tries to team up with both the United States and Chinese police forces who ignore him. His mission to get back the artifact results in damage and chaos in  both countries, minuscule thought to the damage that may be caused by his enemy if not stopped. The world watches in aww as this now an international incident unfolds. Watching Chan through the media, hated by the governments, loved by the people, he eventually catches his enemy but cannot bring himself to execute them. In a final attempt at victory his enemy will attack him, but reacting Chan will do away with him easily and accidentally killing him, upset but thankful he will return the artifact to his village as a hero. 

            When looking at film ideologies over time it is clear that their narratives have changed to match the time period. An easy example of this is movies surrounding war. When we look at movies about war prior to the war that exists now, we found films rarely about WWI, or Vietnam, and limited movies about WWII. The popular movies that did fall in this category were often documentaries like Leni Riefenstal's  Triumph of Will. A brilliantly done film, documenting the Nuremberg Rallies and Nazi propaganda, it impressed the world in completely unexpected ways, changing the documentary film genre permanently. Almost never though was a movie like The Hurt Locker or the remade A-Team found prior to 2000 where a story was told like a fictitious book based on a real situation, exploring the unimaginable and experimenting with the emotions characteristics that can only be seen on the battlefield in war. Many older documentaries could not capture such emotions as the film industry can create today. Narratives have changed drastically over time to a point now where we have moved away from a direct focus on society like Taxi Driver and movies now look at the impossible and the fantasy worlds that exist inside the audiences' imagination through movies like Avatar, Warrior or Captain America. All have some sort of plausible premise: the discovery of a distant planet with new life that humans exploit, two distant brothers meeting in the final fight for a title, or even a super soldier created from governmental experiments that people claim still go on today. The majority of these ideas highly unlikely, their possibility does exist slightly, this allows an audience to grasp onto a plausible situation that then leads into an indulgence of their fantasies and wildest dreams. This is how the narration of movies has changed from the realistic films and long shots of the earlier 1900's.    

            I think that the financial support of a film or the ownership of a production company does greatly influence the power of an ideology represented in a film, and slightly the idea being portrayed itself. It is widely discussed that Walt Disney was anti-Semitic, this shown through productions of his,  and his company the Disney corporation. In this case the coporation greatly influenced an ideology that was portrayed, but at the same time the main person in the production of the films also represented the entire corporation. In many cases though I feel that while those supporting a film do give some ideological influence, that it mainly comes down to those directly working on the film like the writers and directors. For example a T.V show; in a  T.V show, the obscene or hilarious statements made by a character are the product of the writers. When and how these things are said is up to the director and the actor who work together for the explicit reason of presenting a specific idea or tone or message. While it's true that the person who gives them the money to do all this may say 'I want him to talk about italians and how they talk'. That is a limited influence by the supporter of the show, but the specific words scripted, the person it is said to and when it's said, decided by the director, and the tone and attitude in which the statement is made changes everything. These three aspects completely uncontrolled by whoever gave the initial idea, shape the entire scene, maybe as racist, stereotypical, or maybe as an observation when talking to an Italian man in one scene. The possible portrayal of one simple idea is unlimitedly vast in methods and is completely controlled by those directly in contact with the film. So I think that the financial supporters or corporation owners may have some limited input, but even less affect on the actual idea being portrayed in the final product.