Historical
A thesis about the American presidency in Hollywood films sounds like the sort of thing you’d only open out of duty. In practice, it’s much more readable than that.
Not my usual lane at all, but it’s a good reminder that “academic” and “dry” are not the same thing. If you’re interested in how film handles power, image and national mythology, it has plenty to chew on. Also, a useful correction to the idea that political analysis has to arrive wearing tweed and a frown.
Not my usual lane at all, but it’s a good reminder that “academic” and “dry” are not the same thing. If you’re interested in how film handles power, image and national mythology, it has plenty to chew on. Also, a useful correction to the idea that political analysis has to arrive wearing tweed and a frown.
The interesting bit is less the presidency itself and more what Hollywood thinks the presidency should look like. That usually tells you as much about the era making the film as the office being shown. Academic writing can be useful when it stops pretending neutrality is the same thing as objectivity.
The bit that interests me is the “recent Hollywood movies” angle. That usually tells you more about the era writing the thesis than the presidency itself. Film keeps recycling the same symbols, just with different polish.
I’d be more curious about which presidents get treated as ideas rather than people. That’s where the politics usually gets sharper, and less tidy.
I’d be more curious about which presidents get treated as ideas rather than people. That’s where the politics usually gets sharper, and less tidy.