“A Face in the Crowd” by Elia Kazan Term Paper

Introduction

Media is one of the more acceptable and probably the most dominant form of social communication, which today has gained global synchronization through the internet and digital networking.

Media includes the traditional print, broadcast, and the multi-media streamlining of the internet, which crept in the most personal of space as more portable gadgets supporting it land on the hands of consumers. These include cellular or mobile phones, personal device assistants, laptops, and their supporting mechanisms that allow the individual access to information, entertainment, or hard facts from the remotest of areas.

While it has long been contended by critics how television — the earlier and still an active version of audio and visual media — represents a stranger that comes inside the family house teaching and influencing viewing children of violence, sex, and other negative forms of information and entertainment, it has been ingrained as a basic commodity that need be in every house, specifically, inside the western home where consumerism is highly acceptable and aggressively promoted to the point of advocacy.

This paper will try to dissect how media influence the public through the 1957 movie A Face in the Crowd and how the Frankfurt School theory on mass culture provides parallel implications to the public consumer.

Theoretical Context

A Face in the Crowd: The Movie

A Face in the Crowd is a movie said to be based on several popular media personalities that include 1950s CBS radio-TV star Arthur Godfrey, Tennessee Ernie Ford, who had a hit record “Sixteen Tons” and later signed by NBC for the weekly half-hour program “The Ford Show,” Uncle Don Carney, children’s program host on New York’s radio station WOR, and multi-faceted actor Will Rogers. Released in 1957, A Face in the Crowd was directed by Elia Kazan and written by Budd Schulberg (both story and screenplay).

The cast of characters is Andy Griffith as Larry ‘Lonesome’ Rhodes, Patricia Neal as Marcia Jeffries, Anthony Franciosa as Joey DePalma, Walter Matthau as Mel Miller, Lee Remick as Betty Lou Fleckum, Percy Warm as Gen. Haynesworth, Paul McGrath as Macey, Rod Brasfield as Beanie, Marshall Neilan as Senator Worthington Fuller, Alexander Kirkland as Jim Collier, Charles Irving as Mr. Luffler, Howard Smith as J.B. Jeffries, Kay Medford as first Mrs. Rhodes, Big Jeff Bess as Sheriff Big Jeff Bess, Henry Sharp as Abe Steiner, Cara Williams as Nurse, and cameos Bennett Cerf, Faye Emerson, Betty Furness, Virginia Graham, Burl Ives, Earl Wilson, and Walter Winchell as themselves (Internet Movie Database).

The plot is about a bum Larry Rhodes from fictional Pickett, Arkansas, discovered by radio personality Marcia Jeffries who was given a chance to work on radio. While Rhodes was rough and ingratious, he had a natural charm to listeners, and that in trussing on his sponsor Luffler Mattress, it backfired in a positive way by increasing consumer sales. The wife of the owner of Luffler Mattress herself was a follower of Rhodes. These made the owner stop canceling Lonesome Rhodes’ show. Rhodes, later on, became a television spokesman in New York City for a dietary supplement Vitajex. Several sequences of his television campaigns in the movie showed how the audience is influenced by Rhodes, a representation of con-artist that sways a gullible audience towards something unbelievable.

Rhodes became influential to his public and was even able to support the ticket of a senatorial candidate where the extent of influence, including positioning in government bureaucracy, was shown. Nevertheless, a time came when Jeffries became so fed up with the abusive Rhodes so that in his last episode, while Rhodes was cursing and belittling his audience, Jeffries turned on the switch, airing Rhodes off-sided remarks. As Rhodes rode down the elevator after his show, it was a hyperbole of his slide down the ratings, as modern popularity surveys would say.

The Masses and A Face in the Crowd

According to Raymond Williams, there are two “masses” in the mid-century British society who are those at the working-age while noticing the emergence of masses that “are always the others, whom we don’t know, and can’t know” (Williams, 299-300). While he concluded that there are no masses, Williams suggested there were ways of recognizing people as masses.

It has been suggested that director Elia Kazan and screenwriter Budd Schulberg closely worked on the movie A Face in the Crowd in an effort to warn the American people on the dangers of television in manipulating the majority of their audience called the masses (Maloney 326). The movie provided a sharp critique on the media represented by television in redirecting public focus and opinion as well as on the control and influence of advertisers on political matters. In the movie, the masses both represent Williams’s “masses” as the “working people” and “other people” as it enacted the way in which viewers see the audience as masses.

Already, a diminished role is implied. So much as Williams criticized in Culture and Society on the common acceptance of masses as the majority and the mob, he pointed out that it seemed “masses” which comprise the majority of the population is a threat to culture and democracy. On the other end of the spectrum, Williams also argued that the term itself is degrading and anti-democratic. For Williams, the mass is contrasted against “community,” which represents the working-class institutions that showcase solidarity. On a positive note, Williams also acknowledged that “mass” is also comparable to solidarity, where people act as one to effect change in a condition.

For Maloney, the audience in A Face in the Crowd is “the masses” who are seen as gullible dupes and, in the end, powerless as fooled by a character such as Rhodes, the television influence, as well as those who support the television program and the network itself. Kazan, aside from representing a self known for personal conscience, individual freedom, and social responsibility, was suggested to have done the movie with an aim to attract major movie outlets in order to work with the industry people he wanted (Maloney, 270).

As Maloney observed, “The actions taken by Lonesome’s audience have to be read in the context of the basis of Lonesome’s appeal in the film: he is understood by his audience to be, to a great extent, one of them. Lonesome’s “I’m just a country boy” persona encourages them to identify with him” (Maloney, 271). In fact, the audience themselves felt what Rhodes was saying, the irreverence and fed-up attitude or speaking against the powers that are, and felt that through him, the audience, the masses, saw a spokesman in Rhodes. In fact, the meeting and marriage of Rhodes to one of her adoring fans, Betty Lou, signaled a scenario for the unprepared Jeffries who represent a supposedly educated and learned strata of the society as against the masses so that the heartbroken lover Jeffries called it the marriage of “Lonesome Rhodes and his mass audience.” She has compared the naivete, Betty Lou, to a dim-witted audience who are in fact also disrespected by Rhodes himself. This discovery by the audience was perpetrated by the person who actually helped make him: Jeffries.

But beyond personal background, preferences, or professional aims, the characterizations in the movie has been pushed and influenced by a need to react to the forces of radio, television, the popularization of characters, as well as their influence on a substantial portion of a public that in turn affect leadership and governance.

The Media

Aside from the traditional radio, print, and television media, the internet today has emerged as the more preferred and most powerful of them all as it successfully combined all the features and capabilities of the traditional media. As may be the case at hand, its value and influence on its users need close scrutiny even after its demographics are examined.

In the 1980s, it was suggested that the public confidence in media has dropped, which was countered with the reliability of the information source. This shifted weight from media credibility to the credibility of the source of the message.

Media credibility further slid down in the 1990s as a 1996 National Opinion Research Center poll showed that the percentage of those who have great faith in the press has declined from 18 percent to 11 percent from 1986 to 1996. Those who had some confidence in the media dropped from 72 percent to 59 percent (The Public Perspective 4). The Pew Charitable Trust reported that some 74 percent of viewers found the three networks as credible, which was ten points lower than in 1986. A 1997 Roper study also found that 78 percent said that the source they rely on most delivered high-quality information, and 47 percent believed that the media, in general, were doing a good job. The majority also believed that negativity, bias, and manipulation by special interest groups are the major problems in media coverage.

With the advent of new media internet as a source of information, a study conducted among 134 graduates and undergraduates (Brady, 8) asked about the reliability of the information in a website created for that purpose containing congressional candidates, 71 percent found the website more in-depth than television, 54.5 saw it as biased as television, and 43.3 percent said it was less biased.

Another Pew Research Center study (PRC) found that 54 percent of those online users surveyed agreed that they find more accurate information about what is going on on the internet rather than in newspapers or television.

Historical Context

Prior to the release of the film, Maloney (1999) suggested the presence of “the mass culture debate,” controversy about the danger of mall culture among the academe and popular media in the late 1940s to the ’50s. The growing popularity of television has also impacted filmmaking, and A Face in the crowd both portrayed a television dilemma as well as provided for the beginning of a Hollywood trend called narrow-casting that targets a specific audience as against the prevalent filmmaking for the general public. Aside from warning the American public of the dangers of the persuasive and more accessible television, it placed the movies as an alternative for culture development. As contrasted, the television audience was considered uneducated, rural working class, against the movies’ patrons who are “constructed as liberal, intellectual, […] implicitly urban and middle class,” (Maloney, p 255).

As mentioned earlier, popular television characters were predominantly abusive and extremely seen as formidable not only among the people they work with but by industry supporters, mainly advertisers and even political leaders. Goddfrey was said to have made fun on his advertisers’ scripts and sponsor executives as well as to his own production team. Goddfrey rose to stardom despite his notorious image but his popularity eventually diminished with one mistake to another that involved firing of his own people in his show. Tennessee Ernie Ford on the other hand although not considered as abusive and disrespectful enjoyed such success and fall as a pioneering recording artist. Do Carney on the other hand was said to have said, “This is Uncle Don, saying good night (good night). We’re off. Good, that will hold the little bastards,” (Wikipedia).

Frankfurt School Theory on Mass Culture

Based primarily on Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, Frankfurt School theory on mass culture concerned primarily on the culture industry as a result of a historical process influenced by the development in technology including communication technology and the production of commodities that increases consumption of goods. In the production and reproduction of audio and films are generally accepted as entertainment by nature. For the Frankfurt School theory on mass culture, consumers neglect to understand or even question the ideological purposes of these movies or aired productions as they adapted their needs around these products. This imposes a limitation on the consumer without their conscious knowledge and would not even realize that movies and radio programs hardly provide for their basic needs, nor reflect social, political or economic concerns. This in turn makes them docile consumers, literally blind and already manipulated (Adorno 159).

The Contemporary Scene

It is generally accepted among the US public that every election period, campaign funds flow everywhere and elsewhere, but most specifically hidden is with the media. There is a closely guarded secret of who gets paid by whom and this in turn becomes dangerous to the public when a less competent candidate has a bigger clout, or budget for the media. However, in the recently concluded presidential election between Barrack Obama and John McCain, the streaming media provided a seemingly equal opportunity for both opposing candidates: the internet allows publication even for those who cannot afford television or mainstream media airtime which are grossly and insanely high. Likewise, the public debates arranged by organizers and covered by the media showed the actual capacity and natural mental capability of both candidates on matters that affect the lives of the majority of voters. In the process, the media properly served its purpose.

However, one alarming incident is the accessibility of some forms of entertainment that directly corrupt and influence senses of both young and adult viewers and consumers. Such may be the case for electronic games, life-threatening sports such as F1, boxing, and other “adventure” laced reality shows, and even hardcore pornographic and ogrish shows easily accessed on the internet. In fact, social decline (Dell, 2008) has also been reported as actual suicides happen online, suicide caused by online perpetrators are tried on court, child and sexual abuse were initiated and progressed online, and other crimes are completely executed online through electronic fraud totally un-controlled by authorities.

Another thing which cannot be ignored is the prevalence of advocacy groups such as those who “credibly” promote aggression and armed supremacy through the presidential campaigns touching on issues of “American safety and security”. During the campaign, issue on American safety as earlier campaigned by President Bush with his powerful Department of Homeland Security was carried out through the campaign of John McCain which generally, as after the “9-11” tragic attack on the Twin Towers of New York (McCain, 2001). This leaves a lasting echo in the minds of viewers, listeners and online users who may be swayed with what happened nearest them (the New York attack) and not on a bigger disaster which was a war inflicted by the US on Iraq with more numbers of US soldier deaths as well as financial loses, not to mention the death of a multitude of Iraqi innocents and destruction of their lives as they continue living until today.

Another implication of the campaign was the availability of campaign funds which automatically relates to publicity generation using the various forms of media which undermines the credibility and integrity of the candidates. In this manner, it was openly known that McCain and the Republicans had the bigger funds, and as reported by Garrahan (p 1), “RNC (Republican National Committee) may not consult the McCain campaign over how cash is used but there are loopholes that both parties have exploited in recent elections.”

So much like in A Face in the Crowd, a form of manipulation through use of media and popularity are used to maximize means of getting “a message” across to the public in many ways facilitated by media.

In the same article, the strategy used by former candidate and president-elect Obama obviously leaned on the use of popular personality always associated with the media. The fund-raising conducted by Obama, although a first in opting out of the $84m public campaign since it was introduced in the 1970s, is also another strategy to gain the sympathy of the tax-paying public by way of showing the whole world tax payer money was not touched for purposes of the campaign. This is a two-pronged approach to maximizing media publicity: use of Hollywood celebrities Leonardo DiCaprio, Jodie Foster, Pierce Brosnan and Barbra Streisand, all superstars in their own right, in fact bigger-than-life reality of a Lonesome Rhodes.

Conclusion

A Face in the Crowd provided a timeless reminder and warning for docility, for blind compliance and acceptance of what is popular and generally consumed. This may be applicable to an era of abundance when there is easy access to whatever or whichever is popularized by the media but as timeless now funded with current multinational companies feeding the media as advertiser or otherwise. In the advent of internet, another form of easy access and mass consumption has emerged where consumers may be provided what they want at the touch of a finger in the confines of their rooms. While prices may be questionably high for some products, or reasonably low for the majority of online surfers, accessibility is the bigger factor played upon by current media moguls such as in the case of Microsoft, internet access providers, and other major players. Even small and start-up players who may bank on other personal interest of individual media audience or internet users easily join the fray nowadays provided with the cunning and inside knowledge on how the information technology may be tweaked.

The masses in this instance remain as helpless as what has been shown in A Face in the Crowd. The powers that were in traditional media now slowly collapsing and losing their audience have morphed to become the “biggies” in the new media internet as they can afford to buy the most talented technology geniuses, attractive talents and talented creative teams. Likewise, as earlier warned by World Trade Organization critics, multinational corporations emerge and continue manipulating international economic governance and relations, dictate trends and laws, as well as feed the majority of craps that need not be considered as useful nor practical at all, all with the lending and total support of major media outlets. As already indicated above, the more discernible are wary on the source of information more than the means of dissemination, which is the media. This should not create indifference on the part of the media and the people in and behind it. But this has seemed the case as western media are generally viewed to be self-serving and support those who can afford to pay them in the form of advertisements and unseen transactions.

So much like the movie, the fall of Enron, Lehman Bros, the financial collapse of hedging institutions, major MNCs and even the United States current crisis show how irreverence on people, “masses” that they are, lead to naught. The question remains: when will we ever learn?

But as the “masses” who have not been easily swayed to a less-budgeted presidential campaign in the camp of candidate Obama, a strong voice of the “masses” spoke out: that the US citizens have not remained clueless and manipulated by those “who have” and would want to try an underdog, the fighter with an open mind to respect, event he so-called masses. The point is shown: the masses are actually learning. And as John McCain conceded, the masses have chosen and spoken through their votes.

References

1. Adorno, T. W. “How to look at television.” In J. M. Bernstein (Ed.), The culture industry (2001) pp. 158-177
2. Apostolidis, Paul. “Culture industry or social physiognomy?: Adorno’s critique of Christian right radio.” Philosophy & Social Criticism, 1998; vol. 24: pp. 53 – 84.
3. Brady, Dwight. “Cyberdemocracy and Perceptions of Politics: An Experimental Analysis of Political Communication on the World Wide Web.” (1996) Paper presented at the annual meeting of Midwest Association for Public opinion Research, Chicago, Il.
4. Chua, Hanna Faye, Janxin Leu, and Richard E. Nisbett. “Culture and Diverging Views of Social Events.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2005; vol. 31: pp. 925 – 934
5. Dell, Kristina. “How Second Life Affects Real Life.” Time, Health & Science, 2008.
6. Garrahan, Matthew. “Criticisms as Obama reaches for the stars.” 2008. Financial Times
7. The Internet Movie Database. (2008) “A Face in the Crowd.” Web.
8. McCain, John. “No Substitute for Victory.” The Wall Street Journal, 2001.
9. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. “One-in-Ten Voters Online for Campaign ’96,”
10. Smith Jacob. “The Frenzy of the Audible: Pleasure, Authenticity, and Recorded Laughter.” Television & New Media, 2005; vol. 6: pp. 23 – 47
11. The Public Perspective.. “Political Institutions, the press, and Education Show Big Declines”.
12. Wikipedia (2008). “A face in the Crowd.”