Motivation In Wag The Dog

The representation of political motivation and action in Barry Levinson’s film ‘Wag The Dog’ allows the responder diverse and provocative insights into both the events of the film and the political worlds they reveal. Through the presentation of a ‘behind the scenes’ perspective on a political campaign, Levinson reveals the complete fabrication of a truth, constructed for public consumption and motivated by the desire for political power. The constant link between the political forces in the film, represented by Conrad Bean and the forces of the media, represented by Hollywood producer Stanley Motss comments on the role of the media in the manipulation and construction of reality and the production element behind it. On the other hand, the

2011 ‘Moms Demand Action’ campaign poster is an example of the use of media as a means to challenge the motivations behind socially accepted political actions, rather than enabling them. By challenging the responder to consider two separate political actions in comparison with each other, it creates a provocative insight into both individually.

One particularly pertinent scene to Levinson’s critique of political agenda is the ‘construction of war’ scene in which Motss and Bean falsify footage of a young Albanian girl fleeing the wreckage of war. The significance of this scene lies in its satirical manufacture such as the debate over whether having the girl hold a kitten or a puppy would generate the greatest sympathy from the public. Similarly, the film technique of close-up shots, and the use of technology to intercut real photographs with staged footage and to add sound effects such as screaming and explosions, and the ease at which they can be altered, also enhances this grand deception; “give me some flames, some sounds of screaming”. Furthermore, the use of the young girl and the white kitten in such a sinister falsehood is an ironic perversion of their symbolism of innocence and youth. The absurdity of the footage’s creation process in contrast with it’s success in achieving the desired outcome with its audience, while comical, also serves to highlight how susceptible we as the responders are to an emotive image in allowing them to distort our perspective; “Of course there’s a war, I saw it on TV”. Despite this absurdity, aspects of the edited final version of the Albanian girl footage that are recognisably similar of media in reality gives this absurdity a very real sense of possibility. The viewer is left to wonder if what they see of politics in reality is constructed in a similar way.

The progression of the falsified war, accompanied by the further deterioration of the government’s moral authority sees the conspired formulation of a supposed ‘war hero’, William Schumann, an American soldier trapped behind Albanian lines; “You can’t have a war without a war hero”.

The motivation behind Schumann being both to maintain the public’s distraction from the President’s indiscretions and to inspire blind patriotism. Schumann’s construction is undertaken as absurdly as the Albanian girl scene, again using a sentimental plea to encourage emotional investment with the words “courage, mom”. Although Levinson challenges the morality of political motivation to a greater extent as it is revealed that William Schumann is in fact an imprisoned sex offender. Regardless of this revelation, Schumann goes on to be worshipped as an American hero, a direct comparison to the President, who’s alleged sexual assault of a child is the entire purpose behind the fake war distraction. Levinson presents the presidency as morally bankrupt. This undermines the politcal force of an institution that is supposed to be regarded with the highest honour and forces the responder to question the extent the government will go to remain in power. This by extension challenges the integrity of the democratic system in its

entirety.

By comparison, the 2011 ‘Moms Demand Action’ campaign achieves a provocative effect similar to Levinson’s film in denouncing the government’s position on gun control.

However in this case, media is being used as a vehicle for divergence rather than mere acquiescence. The campaign poster depicts two children in a classroom setting, one holding a ‘Kinder Surprise’ chocolate and the other holding an assault weapon and reads “One child is holding something that’s been banned in America to protect them. Guess which one.”. The visuals of the poster achieve an immediately disturbing impact from the juxtaposition of a young girl in a classroom setting paired with a gun almost her size, making the gun appear much more severe than in its usual context. Additionally, the size of the chocolate egg, fitting right into the boys palm in comparison to the magnitude of the gun emphasises how the chocolate feels natural whereas the weapon seems even more foreign. The classroom setting also has a particular resonance for an American audience, due to a high incidence of school

shootings.

The use of language: “Guess which one” in combination with the visuals serves to highlight the irrationality of banning a chocolate in the interest of safety whilst allowing so much freedom in acquisition of firearms. Having established the ‘senselessness’ of these actions, it then invites the responder to question the motives behind them; “We won’t sell Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs in the interest of child safety. Why not assault weapons?”. By leaving the question unanswered the campaign allows the responder to consider this new insight in contemplating the answer themselves.

The representation of political motive and actions in ‘Wag The Dog’ is such that the combination of satire and aspects of the fiction that are present in reality encourages a more active scepticism of how and why information is presented to us. By showing the responder a perspective from the inside of politics and the political process of constructing a truth rather than the final product, Levinson allows the responder to experience a more provocative insight on the integrity of the systems that govern them. This is also more subtly achieved through the ‘Moms Demand Action’ campaign in that it uses a comparison of real life political stance to expose inconsistencies between actions and motive, and thus the fallacy of the powers behind them.