Ideology: An Essay

How valuable has ideological analysis been in developing your understanding of the themes of your chosen films?

An ideology is a set of beliefs held by an individual or group that defines their world view and societies have dominant ideologies, which influence the people living within that society and the products they create. As an audience living in Western society, we expect the films we watch to reflect back our own ideologies and conform to Western conventions; however, a director is able to guide the film according to their ideology, which the audience can either accept, negotiate with or reject. Both La La Land (Damien Chazelle, 2016) and Beasts of the Southern Wild (Benh Zeitlin, 2012) are heavily influenced by their director’s ideology, La La Land as Chazelle’s passion project and Beasts of the Southern Wild as an independent film, although audiences have brought their own ideologies to the films by applying different readings.

Beasts of the Southern Wild is an independent film, which means Zeitlin was more focused on presenting his artistic vision than purely making profit. He “live[s] in New Orleans [so] was interested in telling a story about people who are staying in South Louisiana and why they’re holding on”, choosing to reflect the ideology of a low-income community, rather than the dominant ideology in America of family-importance and capitalism. Although independent films are usually limited to a festival audience, Beasts of the Southern Wild‘s success at numerous festivals enabled a cinema release on 318 screens in America. This opened the film up to a more mainstream audience, whose ideology was more likely to be challenged by watching it.

Zeitlin wanted to make the film accessible to audiences even with different ideologies; for example, the film portrays the devastation caused by climate change and was arguably inspired by the impact of Hurricane Katrina on people of colour and those in poverty; however, Zeitlin claims there is no intentional political message and “even people who don’t believe in global warming [can] sit down and watch it”. This suggests his ideological presence in the film is only implicit as he tries to refrain from pushing a strong message.

The film seems to conform to aspects of Marxist film theory, as it presents the Bathtub community and praises the nature around them through close-up shots of nature in documentary-style, particularly in the opening of the film. These realistic shots fit with the ideology of Italian neo-realism, in addition to Zeitlin’s use of non-professional actors, real locations and conversational speech. By focusing on the Bathtub community and framing their eviction as aggressive, Zeitlin sides with the community’s ideology and positions contemporary capitalist society as a threat to this, thus challenging dominant ideology. Furthermore, Hushpuppy is then dressed in more stereotypically feminine clothes in the hospital scene, making her conform to society’s ideology of what a girl is.

Hushpuppy continually challenges societal expectations of both girls and children, which could fit with a feminist reading of the film, as she is shown to be independent and strong rather than passive and weak. The wide-shot with her and the aurochs towards the end emphasises her power, as she is physically small in comparison, but the aurochs “lowers her head with respect” and stops before Hushpuppy. On the other hand, Wink reinforces dominant sexist ideology by suggesting strength is a masculine quality and only praising Hushpuppy for being “the man” when she engages in a display of strength with the arm wrestle, then calling her “a stupid little girl” when she shows perceived weakness.

Although the strong presence of a community in the film fits with Marxist ideology, some aspects of the film do not, mainly the fact that the film is focused more on Hushpuppy as an individual with the Bathtub community as the background. Additionally, Zeitlin pushes this focus on Hushpuppy through editing, instead of allowing the audience to choose their focus as is encouraged in Marxist film theory. Hushpuppy appears in nearly every shot and even Wink’s death scene has a lot of close-ups on her because her response is more important for the viewer than Wink’s actual death. Hushpuppy dominates the film aurally with her narration, which again reinforces the subjective nature of the film and Hushpuppy’s perspective.

La La Land, in contrast, is a mainstream Hollywood film funded by a studio, although Chazelle uses its niche genre to provide flexibility for the ideologies he portrays on-screen. Chazelle had the idea for La La Land before his debut film, Whiplash, which he used to gain more recognition and funding for La La Land. He was given large amounts of freedom when making the film, although arguably it does still largely conform to society’s dominant ideologies.

The film challenges the audience’s expectations of Hollywood protagonists with its fairly realistic and ordinary leads Mia and Seb. The ending particularly challenges convention of musical happy endings by separating the characters, although they are materially successful. This success fits with the dominant ideology of the American Dream that anyone can succeed with enough hard work; therefore, although La La Land challenges some expectations, it mostly fits with American society’s ideologies.

This is also true of the relationship portrayed on-screen between Seb and Mia: a typical heterosexual relationship where the woman is more passive, shown by Seb being the one to find Mia and ask her out at the cafe. Throughout the film, Mia supports and admires Seb, repeatedly watching him perform from when she first meets him in the restaurant to Keith’s concert, whereas he fails to turn up to the opening night of her show. Additionally, Seb plays the role of educator, preserving and preaching about ‘pure’ jazz, whilst maintaining his artistic integrity by struggling to play Christmas carols for money instead of playing what he wants.

However, a feminist interpretation suggests it is actually Mia and her journey as an artist that is the focus of the film, because the audience is first positioned in Mia’s perspective to learn about her ambitions and struggles. Although she plays the role of an audience member for Seb, she is never passive in her appreciation and the close-up shots maintained on her face during his performances show the importance of her above him. Anna Leszkiewitz argues that “We rarely see [Seb] perform if not through [Mia’s] gaze, and we see her emotionally develop through her evolving reactions to his music.”, showing her artistic growth rather than focusing on Seb’s. Moreover, it is ultimately Mia who is able to innovate as an artist, whilst Seb stays safely stuck in the past to recycle what others have already done.

Throughout the film, there is mostly a balance between the two characters and they are treated as equals, which contrasts typical Hollywood films where the woman is purely a love interest and has no personality of her own. This is best indicated with Seb and Mia’s first meeting: the start of the film follows Mia until she walks into the restaurant and we expect the male gaze to be subverted when she watches Seb play, but Chazelle cuts before we see the piano player and instead introduces Seb individually, which eventually leads to their gazes lock as equals with no male or female gaze present. In addition, this initial meeting subverts audience expectations of a romance film ‘meet-cute’ because Seb barges past Mia, setting up the challenge to Hollywood film relationships that Chazelle continues throughout.

The two films are very different in the ideologies they portray on-screen: a Marxist interpretation can be applied to Beasts of the Southern Wild, whereas La La Land fits very nicely with the dominant ideology of the American Dream in the capitalist society. Both challenge stereotypical portrayals of women – Hushpuppy is independent and Mia can be seen as the true artist over Seb, because she innovates whilst he continues to recycle and live in the past. As an independent film, Beasts of the Southern Wild has more room to challenge ideologies, which it does through representation of a different community to what is usually shown in mainstream cinema. Though La La Land does offer some variation in the ideology it portrays, it still overwhelmingly fits with the dominant representation of a heterosexual, white couple portrayed on-screen, perhaps due to the nostalgia of the film that pays homage to the Golden Age of Hollywood where this was the expectation. Both films use implicit ideology that is presented through the worlds they create or reflect, rather than making explicit statements on the dominant ideologies they challenge.