What will Hollywood cinema look like in the Trump… | Little White Lies

Long Read

What will Hol­ly­wood cin­e­ma look like in the Trump era?

15 Jan 2017

Trump caricature: Oversized face of Trump at podium, flanked by supporters, in black and white illustration style.
Trump caricature: Oversized face of Trump at podium, flanked by supporters, in black and white illustration style.
Movies have always reflect­ed social atti­tudes and trends – and that could prove espe­cial­ly vital over the next four years.

It’s fair to say that Don­ald Trump is a Pres­i­dent unlike any oth­er in the his­to­ry of the Amer­i­can repub­lic. He is the prover­bial bull in a chi­na shop, except that in this case, the chi­na shop is the entire free world and the bull is a nar­cis­sist with the nuclear codes at his dis­pos­al. As the world comes to terms with Trump’s inau­gu­ra­tion, there are plen­ty of poten­tial con­se­quences to pon­der, many of them tru­ly unprecedented.

Yet in one regard, Pres­i­dent-elect Trump actu­al­ly sig­nals con­ti­nu­ity with pre­vi­ous admin­is­tra­tions: he won’t be the first com­man­der-in-chief with con­nec­tions to the enter­tain­ment indus­try. In fact, he won’t even be the one with the most exten­sive ties. That hon­our would have to go to Ronald Rea­gan, the Hol­ly­wood cow­boy-turned-pres­i­dent. Fit­ting­ly, Rea­gan steered Amer­i­can for­eign pol­i­cy with the good ver­sus evil’ men­tal­i­ty of a gung-ho – if poor­ly writ­ten – movie character.

It’s been pret­ty typ­i­cal of cul­tur­al com­men­ta­tors to expect that Amer­i­can movies will be flavoured by the atti­tudes and ide­olo­gies of the gov­ern­ing admin­is­tra­tion. The term Rea­gan­ite Cin­e­ma’ was coined to describe a cer­tain com­mon thread in main­stream movies of the 80s – name­ly a renew­al of mil­i­tarism, gun fetishism and a yen for phys­i­cal strength and fit­ness. All of this was seen in response to or in light of Reagan’s own macho, tra­di­tion­al­ist and aggres­sive polit­i­cal agenda.

With this in mind, it’s tempt­ing to offer con­jec­ture about what the next four years of a Trump pres­i­den­cy will yield. One can imag­ine Trump’s spir­it in the vul­gar­i­ty and xeno­pho­bia of Michael Bay’s Trans­form­ers series, where causal nar­ra­tive log­ic is set aside for the sake of CGI smoke and mir­rors. The New York­er has report­ed that the mogul has an abid­ing love for Jean-Claude Van Damme action flicks, and often fast-for­wards through the expo­si­tion to get the may­hem of the fight sequences.

It stands to rea­son that if the polit­i­cal pow­ers-that-be are close to the financiers, pro­duc­ers and var­i­ous exec­u­tives who run Hol­ly­wood, the dynam­ic changes con­sid­er­ably. This may turn out to be the case with Trump, whose cab­i­net picks include sev­er­al peo­ple who have worked direct­ly inside the Hol­ly­wood sys­tem. Fore­most of these is incom­ing Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury Steven Mnuchin, a for­mer Gold­man Sachs banker and co-founder of Rat­pac-Dune Enter­tain­ment. To those of us who’ve been look­ing, his name might be famil­iar – it appears in the cred­its of some mas­sive recent block­busters, includ­ing Avatar, Sui­cide Squad, Amer­i­can Sniper and Sul­ly. The pulling pow­er of sev­er­al of these movies has been indus­try-shift­ing, sug­gest­ing that Mnuchin is in an dis­tin­guished posi­tion. Mon­ey talks.

Stephen K Ban­non, the reviled Bre­it­bart chief, is also a decades-long Hol­ly­wood play­er – even if his con­tri­bu­tions to the film­mak­ing field have been large­ly to prop up var­i­ous right-wing caus­es. His cred­its include fear-mon­ger­ing doc­u­men­taries like Occu­py Unmasked. Per­haps even more ger­mane to the top­ic of Trump’s insid­i­ous influ­ence, there are a hand­ful of busi­ness man­age­ment firms and agen­cies with finan­cial ties to Bre­it­bart, includ­ing Freemark Finan­cial Firm. The firm man­ages the busi­ness inter­ests of many stars across tele­vi­sion and film – includ­ing actors in Star Wars, Break­ing Bad and the Fast & the Furi­ous fran­chise. How – or indeed whether – these con­nec­tions will influ­ence main­stream cin­e­ma remains to be seen.

The major talk­ing point after this year’s Gold­en Globes cer­e­mo­ny was a speech giv­en by Meryl Streep, who was on stage to accept a Cecil B DeMille Life­time Achieve­ment award. It was an emo­tion­al plea for empa­thy and the defence of the free press, with­out once men­tion­ing Don­ald Trump by name – and nonethe­less leav­ing no doubts about to whom she was refer­ring. It raised the ire of the PEO­TUS him­self, who respond­ed – in trade­mark fash­ion – by tweet­ing that Streep is one of Hollywood’s most over-rat­ed’ actors.

With Trump’s real­i­ty TV back­ground and the gild­ed tow­er he lives in, you’d be for­giv­en for assum­ing that he is media-friend­ly no mat­ter the occa­sion. But his atti­tude of all pub­lic­i­ty is good pub­lic­i­ty’ has marked­ly shift­ed since his polit­i­cal career took hold. Nowa­days, you only have to look to Trump’s Twit­ter account to see exact­ly what he thinks about his detrac­tors. He’s ready to pub­licly denounce and belit­tle any­one who dares to crit­i­cise him.

With clever insid­ers like Mnuchin and Ban­non at his dis­pos­al – and a pres­i­dent that despis­es and tar­gets even his mildest crit­ics – who will want to stick their heads over the para­pet? As much as Hol­ly­wood – exem­pli­fied by Streep – may appear activist-ori­ent­ed at this time of cri­sis, trans­lat­ing an off­screen ral­ly­ing cry into onscreen action is liable to prove dif­fi­cult. Hol­ly­wood has a long his­to­ry of, at least implic­it­ly, uphold­ing the sta­tus quo. If his­tor­i­cal prece­dent is any­thing to go by, the cen­tu­ry-old insti­tu­tions of Hol­ly­wood are slow to progress, and very hes­i­tant to alien­ate any of their audi­ences. For the most part, it’s anath­e­ma to main­stream Hol­ly­wood to put them­selves at risk. From ear­ly 40s anti-fas­cism to the protest years of the 70s, polit­i­cal engage­ment always occurs a lit­tle bit late.

On a more opti­mistic note, Trump’s influ­ence arrives at a time when the Gold­en Globes them­selves are reflect­ing a beau­ti­ful­ly dis­parate film land­scape. The num­ber of lead female parts and POC pro­tag­o­nists is steadi­ly ris­ing as evi­dence in Hid­den Fig­ures and Moon­light. Reformist ten­den­cies are also pop­ping up across film and tele­vi­sion in the likes of 13th and Orange Is the New Black.

This pro­gres­sive impe­tus was reflect­ed in the inclu­siv­i­ty of Streep’s speech, as she cel­e­brat­ed the diver­si­ty and immi­grant sta­tus that defines so much of the Hol­ly­wood com­mu­ni­ty. It may be that the stereo­typ­i­cal cry of lib­er­al Hol­ly­wood’ is large­ly true, and that execs like Steve Mnuchin will be ostracised by the major­i­ty of the movie colony. Try­ing to pre­dict the future, par­tic­u­lar­ly these days, is a fool’s errand. For all we know, the major stu­dios may soon start churn­ing out anti-fas­cist agit-prop.

But it seems more like­ly that, as in the 1980s with Spike Lee, David Lynch and oth­ers, it will take inde­pen­dent­ly-mind­ed film­mak­ers to forge a path for­ward. In 2017, per­haps fig­ures like Bar­ry Jenk­ins and Ava DuVer­nay will con­tin­ue to lead the way. That’s all we can rea­son­ably ask of them. Of course, there isn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly any art-relat­ed sil­ver lin­ing to come. But now more than ever, sub­ver­sive cin­e­ma – what­ev­er that may ulti­mate­ly look like – is more like­ly to come from out­side the estab­lished perspective.

In order to mean­ing­ful­ly coun­ter­act the Trump admin­is­tra­tion, cin­e­ma must either pro­vide inspi­ra­tion or solace in one form or anoth­er. This doesn’t strict­ly mean explic­it­ly polit­i­cal film­mak­ing – though that will undoubt­ed­ly play its part. More than any­thing else, what we real­ly need is a vari­ety of artists with the moral courage and for­ti­tude to stick up for their principles.

You might like