Nationalism Reveal Itself Through Films

¶ … nationalism reveal itself through films during World War II?

Nationalism in World War II cinema

During World War II, the entire nation mobilized to fight. Every aspect of the United States' economy was channeled to serve the war effort, including the cinematic output of the motion picture industry. Just like factories shifted from creating nylon stockings to making parachutes for the Air Force, Hollywood shifted from making comedies and romances to cheer up Depression-era audiences to making propaganda films to support the war effort. The popularity of the movies enabled the government to use motion picture images to support their effort on a mass scale that was undreamed-of, during World War I.

Today, when Hollywood is often demonized in the rhetoric of conservative politicians as 'liberal' and 'un-American' it is easy to forget that the big studios became instrumental in the propaganda effort designed to encourage the weary American public to be filled with enthusiasm about fighting Hitler and the Japanese empire. "During WWII television was not the vehicle of mass communication that it is today. Instead that role was served by radio and by films. Films were produced and distributed to audiences within the United States, but also overseas as well. Between 1942 and 1943, films reached a weekly paid attendance of 85 million, not including the free viewing offered to millions of military service members. Thus, government officials believed films could reach the mass audience with propaganda messages better than other forms of mass media" (Christie & Clark 2008, 56)

Today, the best-remembered films of the era are classics such as Casablanca and Mrs. Miniver because they have strong narrative power that transcends the one-sided, pro-war propaganda inherent in the films. Propaganda, by definition, is a one-sided depiction of an issue designed to elicit a specific response from the viewer. "At the onset of the Second World War, the Office of War Information authored and distributed the Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture Industry to "assist the motion picture industry in its endeavor to inform the American people, via the screen, of the many problems attendant on the war program…the power, cruelty and complete cynicism of the enemy should be pictured…" (Christie & Clark 2008, 62-63). In Thomas Christie and C. Andrew M. Clark's 2008 article, "Framing Two Enemies in Mass Media: A Content Analysis of U.S. Government Influence in American Film during World War II," films of the era were viewed and 'coded' for various characterizations of the enemy. Germans were primarily shown, the viewers found, as violating people's rights and dominating by force (Christie & Clark 2008, 65-66). The Japanese were coded as being 'sneaky' and disregarding other peoples' rights. In the 11 films examined, "six of the ten government-encouraged characterizations were found" of the Japanese and in 17 depictions of the German enemy, 9 of the ten characterizations were found (Christie & Clark 2008, 67-68). The consistency of these portraits, state Christie and Clark, accompanied by "the substantial financial incentives accompanying government approval of film (i.e., releasing the film for overseas distribution)" suggest that the major studios were highly influenced by government pressure to portray 'the enemy' in a highly specific fashion (Christie & Clark 2008, 69).

Christie and Clark acknowledge that other influences may be at work. After all, the United States film industry is a private enterprise that wishes to make money. The public was already angry at the Japanese army for its bombing of Pearl Harbor, and at the Nazi's encroachment over much of Europe. American boys were fighting and dying abroad, so films that appealed to popular anger against these forces were likely to draw wide audiences, versus films that did not.

While Christie and Clark admit there are certain deficits in their study's portrayal of the complex nature of government influence and nationalism in films of the era, one interesting aspect of their findings is the fact they do not examine nationalism and racism, given what an important component these factors played over the course of World War II. Anyone who has ever talked to a relative who lived through that era, or read personal accounts of World War II knows that while the German forces were referred to as 'Germans,' the Japanese were called 'Japs.' Anti-Japanese propaganda often portrayed the Asian enemy in quite explicitly racist terms, because of the Japanese's 'foreign' racial status, in the eyes of most Caucasian-Americans of European ancestry. Unlike the Germans, the American government even allowed the internment of Japanese-Americans, solely because of their race, even though many Japanese-Americans fought loyally on the United States' side during the conflict. While Germans are always 'Nazis' in films, the Japanese are always 'villainous Japs' (Beidler 1998, 12).

Noting the racism that was often exhibited in American propaganda, however, hardly excuses the racism that was also present in Japanese propaganda. One interesting subgenre of this phenomenon is in Japanese films like China Nights, which portrays the Japanese conquest of China as 'good' by showing the eventual, willing submission of a beautiful Chinese woman to a Japanese officer. The member of the 'dominant' race is shown as a man and the member of the 'subordinate' race is shown as a woman. The Chinese woman, much like in a conventional movie romance, at first resists the dominant man's advances, but then discovers the pleasures of his control (Chambers & Culbert 1996, 37). The personal relationship of the Japanese man and the Chinese woman is used as a metaphor justifying Japan's conquest of China. The personal becomes a metaphor for military politics. This is particularly interesting, given that the Far East, including Japan, was often portrayed as feminine in American propaganda, and as subtle and cunning rather than overt in its advances.

When characterizing the portrayal of the two sides, Robert Fyne's book review of We'll Always have the Movies, states that after the war: "Finally there were no more two-dimensional Japanese villains wearing those coke-bottle eyeglasses, waving samurai swords, running up hills shouting 'banzai,' or some suede-gloved, monocle-wearing, heel-clicking Nazi extending his right arm forward exclaiming "Heil Hitler" (Fyne, 2006, 60). These characterizations exhibit the cinematic distinction between the two national groups in American films. The Nazis were shown as bad individuals. The Japanese were depicted as 'nerdy' coke-bottle glass wearing individuals, banding together as ravaging hordes.