Can Movies Win Elections?

America goes to the movies. Politics rules the world. Can a marriage of film and politics result in movies that actually influence the votes of the people and the fate of the world for the better? Or are the opinions of those behind the cameras best left to be voiced at hip Hollywood cocktail parties instead of manifesting themselves as overtly biased rabble-rousing for one side of the political fence? Does showbiz have a responsibility to simply entertain or should it entertain the idea of ideology? And why are filmmakers suddenly so determined to "get involved"?

Anticipating the upcoming U.S. presidential election, filmmakers have created an unprecedented number of films aimed at promoting and advancing their favored political agendas. As might be expected, that agenda doesn't include four more years of Dubya for better or for worse.

Politically flavored films have more than made their mark this year, seeking in some instances to operate as individual political campaigns. While political overtones used to be subtle references in allegory, subplots, or allusion, artists and filmmakers in this political year have attempted to overtly boost votes and promote their own causes by spinning the public. What once might have been decried as propaganda (or, even worse, ignored as boring pontification) now rules as entertainment.

Is this merely a one-time blip corresponding with an electorate still smarting over the divisions exposed by the 2000 election? Or is this the beginning of a period in which filmmakers will risk being viewed as a partisan media voice in politics? How far will studios permit political movies to go at the risk of alienating a broader viewing public? While traditionally opposed to such films in the past, mostly because of their tenuous economic viability, recent successes have the studios considering their options.

With Fahrenheit 9/11 raking in the dough, are studios open to tossing the cash cow of broader-audience formula films and focusing instead on a smaller, but possibly guaranteed, audience share of hard-core political junkies? And are Hollywood and its studios and filmmakers embracing the new political activism to stimulate the creative art of filmmaking or to cater to the needs of cinematic politics? A review of developments in the last few years gives an indication of some possible answers.

The undisputed poster boy for the new activist cinema is Michael Moore. Dubbed "The Golden Boy" of the Democratic Party following the success of his Fahrenheit 9/11 and the resulting media blitz, the larger-than-life Moore has shattered the myth that overt partisanship can't sell tickets. In the process, he has re-energized the Democratic Party and infuriated Republicans. To date, his Fahrenheit 9/11 has grossed $119 million domestically since opening in June 2004, and an incredible $94 million overseas. 9/11 is the top-grossing documentary film to date and number 210 in all-time box office figures. The film's take will no doubt continue to rise as Bush-haters snap up their copies of the DVD.

The story of Moore's unprecedented rise to politico-celebritydom is as remarkable as his talent. Although 1989's Roger and Me (his attempt to single-handedly indict General Motors for the decline of his beloved Flint, Michigan) won him limited critical acclaim, his Bowling for Columbine provided him with a national audience - and a soapbox for his particular brand of populism.

The movie's criticism of the National Rifle Association (NRA) had Charleton Heston, Ted Nugent and other Second Amendment supporters up in arms, while Rosie O'Donnell and others gladly shelled out the dollars to applaud Moore's message. Although at times only a pseudo-documentary (the NRA was founded by ex-Union officers, not Confederates), the film resonated within Hollywood and America, allowing Moore to capture the eyes and ears of the voting public. To date, Bowling for Columbine has earned $58 million worldwide and domestically.

In his stirring but controversial commentary at the 2003 Academy Awards, Moore voiced strong sentiments against the war in Iraq and openly criticized the actions of President Bush. Moore pushed his speech past the time limit of an acceptance speech and put many of the attendees in a difficult position - most of the celebrities probably wanted to cheer him on, but the cameras were rolling and opposing a then-popular war could damage a career. Calculated self-interest generally prevailed, hands were sat on, stiff upper lips maintained, and boos and catcalls soon erupted. Months later, as the war dragged on, Moore's position would come to dominate not just Hollywood, but the Democratic Party. Sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC almost a thousand casualties later, Moore had all the appearance of a man vindicated.

Moore's personal convictions on the war in Iraq and the search for weapons of mass destruction inspired him to produce Fahrenheit 9/11. Although a majority of studios turned their backs on the controversial 9/11, a determined Moore sought the public's assistance in persuading theaters to screen the film - with excellent results. Fahrenheit 9/11 was released by a coalition of studio companies that included Lionsgate Films, IFC Films and Harvey and Bob Weinstein's Fellowship Adventure Group.  What transpired was Lionsgate taking the bull by the horns in distributing the film and expressing its anti-war, anti-conservative, anti-Bush message.

In addition to unprecedented financial success - which, incidentally, if disbursed to the citizenry of Flint, the movie's gross proceeds to date would result in $1,666 for every man, woman, and child - Moore has received critical acclaim. This past summer, Fahrenheit brought Moore his first Palme d'Or and his second major award at the Cannes Film Festival. Moore is the first documentary filmmaker in cinematic history to be honored twice at Cannes, having also received the Cannes Film Festival's 55^th Anniversary Prize in 2002.

Despite many Republicans taking offense to the film, 9/11 became the largest grossing documentary to date in the USA, and gave the Democrats a huge boost during the Democratic Convention. A number of the themes and arguments made in the movie have been borrowed by the Kerry campaign. The movie paved the way for a showdown in November as the race for president drew to a climax.

And now it seems a no-brainer that Tom Ortenberg, president of Lionsgate Releasing, and Jonathan Sehring, president of IFC Entertainment, will continue efforts to open peoples' minds and wallets to more political, envelope-pushing films, because it's downright profitable to do so. "America has clearly demonstrated their love for this type of film and the numbers prove it. We are ecstatic about how 9/11 has held, and we're extremely proud to be behind this summer's true box-office success story," said Ortenberg. "The momentum of this film is astounding," stated Sehring. "It continues to reach a varied audience across the country, and inspire debate."

Indeed, we may be watching cinematic history in action, as brave dissidents within the film industry dare to go where few have gone before. In the past, political dissidents found themselves synonymous with the students protesting in Tiananmen Square, China, in the '80s. Now these same dissidents have become known as heroes to the free world due to their brave endeavors toward political freedom and expression. Fellowship Adventure Group's Harvey and Bob Weinstein commented, "This continues to be stunning and has now become part of the American conversation, and it's growing and growing." The more fiscally conservative and traditional studios that passed on the film may now view politics in film as a viable support to the industry and not something to turn their backs on.

But the question must fairly be asked why there has been no strong return of Moore's volley on the conservative side of the fence. Is this simply a case of most "creatives" in show biz being wrapped up in the incestuous idea pool of Hollywood, where being open-minded often means agreeing with the left? Kiku Terasaki, an independent producer and postproduction supervisor, states, "Hollywood and New York have a bias; they confuse what interests them with what interests an audience in Peoria, Illinois." Or is Moore's success indicative of a real liberal ideological revolution that is growing in response to President Bush's polarizing policies, much the same way a conservative swell swept the nation and the congress as a reaction to President Clinton's election and polices?

The trend toward politics that is definitely surfacing in the independent films being produced well outside of Hollywood suggests a revolution of sorts could be occurring, for whatever the reason. The low cost of DV filmmaking has encouraged fledgling political advocates to pick up cameras and attempt to smear or support any candidate or election issue they choose. Film festivals across the country are finding more and more political theme films, both feature and documentary, on their submission doorstep. Some festivals are discovering that the truth does not hurt the glitz and glamour of an opening night, as documentaries are culling a larger acceptance and a wider venue for a screening audience. The growing abundance of political films is harder and edgier. They aggressively attack political opponents with sharp facts and truths, with the effect of forcing the public to reevaluate their opinions and decisions about politics.

That these movies have gotten their sea legs at festivals is no surprise. Political films usually find their beginnings at a film festival screening. While the big studios need to see the proof of profits before they'll veer off the ideological edge, the festivals have proven a good drawing board for support for "think pieces." But the trend is definitely on the rise.

One glance at major film festivals within the United States will prove the growing abundance of documentaries and politically informative films. In the past, most of the major festivals had about five percent of their program devoted to documentaries. However, documentaries and politically oriented films that were once considered dry, stodgy and boring are now crossing over into the mainstream. Politics have taken on sex appeal as our culture craves the facts of life now more than ever before. Stories like the "monkey business" of Gary Hart and the Kennedy's and Marilyn Monroe have been indelibly etched in our minds, as have Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and the infamous image of Monica "sharing" a cigar with Bill Clinton. As a result, film festivals are now filling up to 15 and 20 percent of their program with documentary and politically directed films.

Now in its 29^th year, the Toronto International Film Festival organization was always balanced and clean - until this year, which saw a tremendous rise in the number of politically influenced films being screened. Filmmakers this year were clearly using their creative vision to share stories and information regarding state issues. Their attempts to influence the voters were apparent in the publicity surrounding some of the movies. Political themes at this year's film festival covered a wide range of issues, including free thinkers, realizations of apartheid, political prisoners, the strife of war-torn countries, exposés of offensive dictatorships, civil war massacres, an assassin's attempt on the United States President, and the making of U.S. Presidential hopefuls. A large cross-section of the 3000 films submitted to the Toronto festival contained a message that was legislative in nature.

As for the top U.S. film festivals, Sundance rolled out the red carpet for candidates at its mountain ski resort film festival. With the presidential election this year, the political players made appearances at galas and private receptions, gathering their special gift bags while pumping up votes and films. The presence of Robert Redford lending assistance to films with political agendas went a long way to ensure the mixing of politics with films and festival visitors. Al Gore was the most visible of the political visitors, shopping on Main Street, viewing films, and attending many awareness and fund-raising receptions. The Hollywood elite were also present, seizing the opportunity to play at mixing film and politics.

Even the Iowa Cause had a soirée in Park City. Attendees discussed films and politics at a Sundance fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee. The Easy Street Brassiere hosted this event to highlight Let the Church Say Amen, a documentary directed by David Peterson which tells the story of a church located in Washington, D.C. One-time Democratic front-runner Howard Dean attended the party to add his support, and pressed the flesh as he attempted to influence voters for the primaries.  A "Dean Dance" was held later during the week, providing yet another opportunity for guests to discuss political films.

Beyond Moore, other interesting collaborations came together within the industry this election year. For example, Bush in 30 Seconds was a project sponsored by the MoveOn.org group. This group defines itself as a prestigious mix of producers, directors, studio heads, and actors recruited by top filmmakers. MoveOn.org created a series of thirty-second commercials in which film industry notables gave harsh commentary on the Bush Administration. The commercials were screened this past spring, thereby adding political vote-counting to the mix of the Festival's parties and glamour. By all accounts, the power of film is turning its creative energy toward changing the political landscape.

Another film that was defiantly produced to influence the voting public was Horns and Halos, made two years ago by Suki Hawley and Mike Galinsky, who co-directed the film. The film, which centers on a small publisher's fight to get the unauthorized George W. Bush biography Fortunate Son into stores, enjoyed a brief theatrical run in 2003, and was showing again this summer at the Republican Convention. The film is also due out in September with a small release, and a DVD comes out on October 5 to fuel the momentum of the election. "With the convention that came to town, and all of the protesters trailing along, it just made a lot of sense to get the film back in front of people," Hawley says. "We've reached out to a lot of the lists that protesters are on and we'll be giving out postcards at the protest events because we really do want to reach these people. Protesters are the sort of activists who'll really get the balanced nature of this film." During the convention, the filmmakers concentrated on reaching as many people as possible with their insightful documentary.

Bush's Brains, by directors Michael Paradies Shoob and Joseph Mealey, delivers a powerful and probing look at Karl Rove, the elusive and devoted George W. advisor who is credited as the brainchild behind Bush's unlikely rise to the presidency. Rove's efforts were instrumental to the rise of the Republican Party in Texas and Bush's surprising ascent to the White House. The film utilizes interviews with pundits and others who have had dealings with Rove, now labeled a political genius. The film premiered with rave reviews at the South by Southwest Film and Music Festival.

The much anticipated documentary Going Up River: The Long War of John Kerry shares the story of John Kerry's struggle during a time of national crisis. Based on the best-selling book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, Going Up River is an insightful glimpse into John Kerry as a man and a national figure, and the key events that led him to who he is today. Of course, there also just happens to be a particular emphasis on his service in and against the Vietnam War. As a Vietnam War hero and anti-war activist, Kerry's story is at the center of a defining era in American history. More than a biography of John Kerry, Going Up River is the story of an American generation that came of age in the war-torn sixties and that has now come to prominence at the beginning of a new century - when issues of war and morality once again hold center stage. Despite these forays into his past, Kerry is now looking to the presidency to culminate his long and active political career and to focus his leadership efforts on the nation as a whole. ThinkFilm is the distributor for the film which, in fact, premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival.

Not all the films out there are calling for the political beheading of George W. Bush and political conservatives. But certainly the predominance of those films make others stand out. Case in point, Rated R: Republicans in Hollywood is a film by director Jesse Moss, a former Democratic speechwriter. Moss utilized the summer Republican Convention to set up screens before the film was broadcast on the American Movie Channel (AMC). The Network then followed suit later that week during the Convention. The film includes interviews with such Hollywood conservatives as Vincent Gallo, Drew Carey, Ben Stein, John Milius, and others. Moss hoped to draw a mixed crowd of delegates, protestors, and New Yorkers while at the Convention. "I'm hoping to have a dialogue after the film," said Moss. "I didn't make it to preach to the choir. It seems like there's plenty of that around. I can't think of too many events that will have Democrats and Republicans in the audience at the same time. That's why I'm screening during the convention; I think it's the right occasion to do that." Jesse Moss wanted his film to reach as many politically interested people as possible, whether Republican or Democrat.

But as for the lack of pro-Bush programming, most say that the Republican Election Committee and its constituents have a strong base in Hollywood and are directing their efforts in areas that have proven tried and true. This, however, was conveyed before Fahrenheit 9/11. And, as already stated, the conservatives' response to 9/11 has gone unanswered. Could it be that no filmmaker wants to go up against Michael Moore and his message? Or maybe conservatives would just rather run for office rather than run a camera (e.g., Ronald Reagan, Fred Grandy, and Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Whatever the reason for the politics, this election year has truly seen a move to create films that entice and coerce the voters. For both Republicans and Democrats, 2004 has been the biggest year in history for political films. The new narrative and documentary films are paving the path to a year of strong political messages. Bold filmmakers are fueled by their own passion for politics to tell a story, highlight a plight, express injustice, or share humanity. All films should have a purpose, be it political, fact finding, emotional, or entertaining. Political films are finding one such purpose in seeking to influence the voting public, be it positive or negative. Pinpoint timing in releasing the films is essential, as the popularity of candidates can rise and wane overnight.

But the studios now face an interesting challenge, if not a quandary. A politically explicit movie, targeted to a specific electoral demographic, should generate an almost predictable revenue. In theory, movie viewers on both sides of the aisle should be attracted to films that promote their worldview. Witness the success of 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ. Both were targeted at a relatively narrow audience, and both performed dramatically above expectations.

On the other hand, however, studios cannot risk alienating their broader audience. And is a backlash a possibility? Not many liberals will watch Fox News; will conservatives begin to tune out - if not boycott - movies or even companies that are seen as promoting a progressive, liberal agenda? Many viewed the colossal failure of The Alamo as due to a perception that it superimposed contemporary, "politically correct" values on historical events. Did the politics of The Day After Tomorrow drag it down at the box office? Studio executives perusing websites such as worldnetdaily.com may be stunned to see how little it takes to offend the Right Wing in America.

Or, worse still, will people grow tired of being preached to even when the preaching is in line with their own political views? Could even the anti-establishment message become tired as the message of the Establishment of Hollywood?

Whatever the future may be, executives now are becoming more open to smart, sophisticated entertainment that gives more back to the audience. Intelligent films that provide information on our government and our world could now be a formula for popular movies to the masses as well to the truth seekers of cinema. As production executives expand their scope of production to include government and politics, will we see harder looks at legislative, world, and domestic affairs in future movies?