In relation to film, I believe that an ideological analysis of the medium is extremely useful in contextualising it. That is to say, that by deciphering what the filmmaker is suggesting, we can gain greater insight into the thinking behind designing the film and the society that produced it.
Of critical importance is acknowledging that a filmmaker decides to display everything in a formatted way. That everything inside of a film is constructed and carefully thought about. Therefore, we can presume that the entire film is a reflection of the filmmakers’ views on the world. Most of these views are shown through the protagonist’s interactions with their environment. Since most modern mainstream American films encourage the audience to align with the protagonist, the filmmaker can implicitly encourage the audience to accept their views as truth or fact.
In terms of the specifics of ideologies or ideas, we are mainly referring to how society accepts particular notions. Consequently, ideologies have changed throughout the years. These changes have been both positive and negative. For example, the move away from the reductive attitude towards women as homemakers to parity between genders in the workplace, is wholly positive. It can be argued that the transition from an open society into a ‘cancel culture’, has had negative implications towards free speech and expressionism. This is especially poignant in certain genres of film; which almost have an unwritten duty to push the boundaries of what is accepted and challenge certain beliefs and moral codes.
There is also a disparity in how ideologies vary geographically. This is perhaps most evident when you look at political ideas and structures. In the United Kingdom, we have a democratic system of electing a Government, where people vote on who they want to lead the country every four years. This is extremely different to North Korea, which uses a dictatorship, where one person has sole leadership for the duration of their life. This difference in ideology ensures that beliefs held by a North Korean will be entirely different to those held by somebody living in the UK. It cannot be forgotten that spectatorship plays a further part in highlighting the nuances between individual beliefs and that ideologies are a general consensus and not true for all.
This can be shown by looking at some of the recent events in America. Whilst they have a similarly democratic system to the UK, parts of the American population believe that Donald Trump should stay in office, even though he lost the election. They seem to ignore the democratic ideology that most American’s take as fact. This will upset and confuse some Americans, as this signals a disrupt to the status quo. Whilst I would argue that this is a negative situation, it highlights that ideological changes aren’t always positive (as I believe that anything less than democracy is a regression).
This raises an important point about dominant ideologies within a society. That is to say that everything accepted as: fact, lawful or morally right by a large section of a population, falls under the umbrella of a dominant ideology. There are lots of examples from the UK, for example, we value education and it is offered for free. We also value healthcare, which is available for free as well. These are services that we believe are conducive to a healthy society. In terms or moral beliefs, most people in the UK believe that crimes should be punished in a fair way. Many people go to court where a jury decides how they will be punished. Lots of people also believe that everybody should be entitled to free speech.
The point is, that dominant ideologies are beliefs held by the majority of a population. Films and the media in general, conform to these dominant ideologies in how they display content. More often than not, these ideologies are reflected back to the audience because the viewer finds comfort in this familiarity. The issue arises when structured ideologies are considered. These concern how particular sections of society have their ideologies shaped by other organisations, rather than by general consensus. For example, religion sometimes warps people’s ideologies and moves them away from dominant ideologies. Whilst this isn’t abjectly bad, it can sometimes incite animosity between different groups and viewpoints.
Even more specialised categorisation of ideologies can occur. How far a filmmaker goes to persuade their audience to side with their viewpoint can be denoted by three separate categories:
- A film with a neutral ideology does little to nothing to persuade. The action is generally played for laughs or excitement and isn’t concerned with questioning morals. This isn’t necessarily bad because most mainstream films present neutral ideologies to entertain rather than question and persuade, which is mainly the role of alternative films. What is critical to remember is that although a neutral ideology may be presented, the ideology is still most probably the dominant ideology of the target audience.
- Implicit ideologies are still rather common. Usually we see a the filmmakers’ ideological stance suggested through some sort of binary opposition between the protagonist and the antagonist, with the protagonist usually coming out on top. This allows for the filmmaker to subtlety hint at a message but nevertheless remain quite neutral. This can be effective in situations where the director has a slightly unorthodox ideology that they want to present to their viewer but it can be just as effective in reinforcing traditional values and ideas for comfort and familiarity, for example in family films or films primarily aimed at young children.
- Explicit ideologies are films that have an ideological message that the filmmaker is determined to teach or persuade their audience into believing. Whilst a film might start off with an implicit ideology, if the outcome for the antagonist is extremely negative or the outcome for the protagonist is extremely positive, the film can be labelled as having an explicit ideology.
Even though it’s quite rare for a film to have an explicit ideology, it’s all the more exciting to analyse. This is because it can help to explain why certain features of the film were prominent or highlighted. For example, if a filmmaker used an explicit ideology of patriotism and jingoism throughout their narrative, one can presume that any elements of the film that are made to glorify violence and war are done because the filmmaker believes that these things are important. Whilst this might be a poor reflection of the filmmaker in today’s eyes, if the film was made during a world war, the dominant ideological stance towards violence might have been very different to right now. This is why it’s important to take into account contextual factors when analysing why a filmmaker might push certain explicit ideologies onto their audience.
To summarise, ideologies concern how and why we behave in a certain way and believe particular things. This is important because films most often reflect dominant ideologies back to us. Some of the more complex and questioning films will challenge these dominant ideologies and present alternate ideologies through their protagonists. This might make the viewer feel uncomfortable but it’s necessary, perhaps now more than ever, in progressing our society towards a more optimum level of: equity, happiness and equality.
Olly Staniland's Film Studies Blog 