Pols335, A Face In The Crowd: Wherein Foghorn Leghorn is acknowledged for the bastard bird he is.

Posted On 2021-07-06

God, I hated this movie. That’s all I remember about it; how irritating it was to watch. Still liking my writing though. A Pulp Fiction joke, ‘noble civil savages’, there’s some good stuff in here.

A Face in the Crowd

• How does the film end? In the final scene what does the writer Mel Miller (Vanderbilt ’44, played by Walter Matthau) say about people like Lonesome Rhodes and the American public?

The film ends with Walter Matthau setting the record straight for both Lonesome (describing his eventual pathetic return and fading from memory) and Marcia (pointing out how her seeing through Rhodes was just her part of a shared responsibility). While elsewhere the film describes an ignorance of the public, Matthau speaks of some deliberative skill on their part, applied as a duty to protect against manipulation. The implication is that charismatic psychopaths have happened before and will happen again. It’s the job of the people to see through those words when they’re spoken, and since it’s people sitting on their thumbs that permits the rise of such charlatans, the audience should do something about that too.

• What does the film say about advertising in America? How does television take advertising to new heights? What is the link between advertising for a product and advertising in politics?

Advertising in the film is subversive, undermining media’s mission elsewhere to inform. The capacity for television to capture a more profound viewer response comes from its engagement of the senses. With radio, we can interpret tones of voice and construe emotionality or motivation. On television, the viewer is unconsciously engaging not only with the sound of the speaker, but with the speaker’s body language, their eye contact, their facial expressions. Without a skeptical filter in place, a viewer could be easily convinced by the proffered sincerity of a corporate hairdo. When it comes to politics, that corporate hairdo is often the product being sold. Either way, marketers have long understood that you don’t sell the product, you sell the experience the product provides.

• How are issue of race and racism dealt with in the film?

Race is a matter of comfort and convenience in Rhodes’ world. When things are going well for the lead white man, things are good for everyone. People can all just get along, and Rhodes can solicit donations in support of a black woman whose family had lost their home. Later in the film as his popularity craters, the black waitstaff become props for him to casually assault and cast out of the room. When things go badly for the white guy, things go badly for everyone. The minorities become a scapegoat for the white man when the going gets rough, a reasonably accurate portrayal.

• What does the film say about money and its influence on human behavior? What does Marcia say about money?

Money is cast here as a corruption, but the demonization falls flat. Some of that may be due to changes in filmmaking style over the years. The exuberance and bombast that carried performances decades ago is hammy and grating on the screen. That he goes from being a happy drunk to an angry drunk is difficult to ascribe to his paycheck when he walks in the door as flawed as he is. Marcia’s role on the other hand offers more of a transition to work with. Her motivation at the outset isn’t money, it’s discovering connections with people. As a woman of that time, there’s no way she could be getting paid enough to waltz into a jail to record interviews with convicts. It isn’t until those connections become intolerable that money becomes a thing of value to her. 

• A Face in the Crowd was one of the first films to take on the issue of the influence of television on society. What does the film say about the potential power of television to influence people?

The film’s suggestion is that television can be a powerful influence, but it is unclear where the film places responsibility. Telling his viewers to all unleash their dogs on the Sheriff’s lawn or go swimming in the network owner’s pool are clownish stunts. That his viewers actually did so suggests a willful ignorance on their own part, a choice to be led regardless of direction. Lonesome has found the levers and started working them, but his audience left those levers unprotected and unattended.

• Was there a point in the film when you liked Lonesome Rhodes? Does he change in the film or do you think he is just a complex mixture of good and evil?

My father’s favorite cartoon character when I was a kid was Looney Tunes’ Foghorn Leghorn. I never understood the choice; my dad struck me as a decent guy and even as a child I could see clearly what an irredeemable asshole that rooster was. The Andy Griffith Show was also a staple, country bumpkins make good. I never saw the connection until seeing Griffith’s performance here. The character is inexcusable, with no complexity or desired qualities. He and the grating sound editing prevented the film from being enjoyable in any way, because you just knew when that obnoxious laugh first rang out that it was going to be shoved down your throat for the duration. There is no change from Rhodes as the picture progresses, there is only exposure. The cameras don’t create his demons, they only reveal them.

• There is a famous quotation near the end of the film where Rhodes says: “Rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, hausfraus, shut-ins, pea-pickers – everybody that’s got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle. They don’t know it yet, but they’re all gonna be ‘Fighters for Fuller’. They’re mine! I own ’em! They think like I do. Only they’re even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for ’em. Marcia, you just wait and see. I’m gonna be the power behind the president – and you’ll be the power behind me! What does this quote say about social class and political influence in America?

Rhodes’ words echo a sentiment voiced by the General earlier in the film when he describes the people as a simple class, wanting and needing leadership and protection from special people. This is predicated on the idea that class and money and leadership are things you are born into, things that are excluded from other more unworthy classes for cause, because they would be incapable of using those tools effectively. Because their relative poverty is tied to estimations of intelligence. The quote suggests a government for the people that is worthy of only some of the people- and then only if those people are men, because a woman’s place was behind the curtain.

• Rhodes is introduced to the television audience as only owning one suitcase with a bible inside. Why is this important?

With that description, Rhodes is framed to appeal to every God-fearing American. He is faithful and unencumbered by any other bias or affiliation, wandering the Earth (like Caine in Kung Fu) with only the Word at his side. He’s someone the audience can trust, and touching upon the Christ metaphors in Meet John Doe (1941), someone they can believe in.

• What are the political views of Senator Worthington Fuller? Why does he seek assistance from Rhodes and do you think there are any parallels to the behavior of real life politicians?

Fuller is an economic conservative whose stripes are revealed as he discusses in an interview the social ills of welfare and public assistance. In seeking reelection he finds that his politics don’t appeal to the “common man” that Rhodes is bringing out of the shadows, and so he looks to Rhodes as a gateway to those voters. Fuller does not seek to alter his politics to reflect his constituents, but to steer his support in spite of them. This consciousness of image has been a staple of politics since Kennedy made Nixon look like a troll on national television.

• How does Rhodes suggest that Vitajex be marketed? Can you think of any products that are sold to the public in the same way?

Rhodes’ marketing proposal for Vitajex is perceptual in nature. His thought is to remove the product from the dry fields of science or medicine, and place it into living personal lifestyles. A show of predatory lewdness (as a side effect) speaks to the insecurities of men while catering to the stereotypical “secret desires” of women who aren’t scripted to argue much. Changing the color of the pill from white to yellow is suggested not to improve the product, but to improve consumers’ perception of the product as something distinctive or special. One is reminded of the far more current marketing for the “little, yellow, different, better” painkillers sold by Nuprin, because it turns out people don’t really change much over the years. 

• Discuss the various film making techniques – music, lighting, editing, angles, cinematography etc. used by director Elia Kazan.

Kazan is (by reputation at least) a brilliant filmmaker who uses the medium to present here something I can’t imagine anyone wanting to watch. Some conventions used are consistent with the format- as with the black and white ‘Citizen Kane’, lighting is used to create contrast and suggest conflict, or to diffuse hot spots in favor of texture or subtlety. The use of sharp angles to skew perspectives creates tension, and the sound editing contributes to that- the sharp rings of the phone, the barking laugh- while the image of Griffith’s grossly bobbing tongue fills the screen. If Rhodes’ comeuppance had started any later, I might not have been able to tolerate the film any longer.

• What does The General say that the people need from government? Is this in any way similar to other characters in films we have seen this summer?

The General has a paternalist approach to leadership, insisting that the people needed the stewardship of the elites in government to ensure their security and prosperity. That level of discernment or capability is beyond their simple reach, for they are simple noble civil savages. This early application of the White Man’s Burden has not been uncommon in this course, it’s a sentiment shared by Charles Kane (Citizen Kane, 1941), DB Norton (Meet John Doe, 1941), and others.

• Lonesome says: “ I’m not just an entertainer. I’m an influence, a wielder of opinion, a force… a force! “ Do you see any similarities between Lonesome Rhodes and any real life performers/entertainers? Discuss the influence that celebrities have on politics.

As shallow and artificial as Rhodes is presented, the man is certainly a spiritual Kardashian (with the added political genius of a Kanye). He is the creation of a media contract, he is the perpetuation of fame absent achievement, he is a walking presumption of entitlement. His radio debut was Kim Kardashian’s sex tape, and the education provided him by the General was the fine-tuning and family-friendly cleanup of her public persona on reality TV. He was famous for being famous, and then (like Kanye) attempted a leap into politics-as-entertainment with no real awareness of the nuances or complexities involved.