The Political Influence of Frank Capra’s Popular/ist Films
Director Frank Capra once described film as “one of the three universal languages, the other two: mathematics and music.” Thus, film, a captivating and entertaining integration of images, voices, and music can and has been used as a very effective form of propaganda. Popular culture in general, but especially the cinema, is an efficient way to simultaneously keep people engaged and propagate certain principles. Frank Capra, an Italian-born but wholeheartedly American filmmaker, was a master of using film as propaganda. His most obviously propagandistic films, the Why We Fight documentary film series, were created from 1943 to 1945 in an effort to educate soldiers, and subsequently the public, about “the objectives and the aims of why America had gone into the war, the nature and type of our enemies.”[1] However, Capra’s popular films (made to entertain rather than educate and persuade), most importantly Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and Meet John Doe, were also had important and lasting effects on their viewers, shown through newspaper reviews and the numerous letters that Frank Capra received from his fans. Frank Capra’s popular films spoke to large audiences and had a significant influence on the way Americans viewed their country and their government. However, the films were not specifically made as propaganda, and thus did not have the same impact on public opinion that true propaganda films like the Why We Fight film series did.
The seven Why We Fight films had a clear message: The United States has a legitimate reason to be in World War II, and the U.S.’s enemies are evil, conniving people who had to be defeated. The messages were demonstrated through patriotic quotes, songs, and American symbols paired with images of a proud, marching U.S. army, which were contrasted against negative and even racist portrayals of Japanese and Germans.[2] The use of this type of documentary film, with a very obvious purpose- even included in the title, Why We Fight- is a very direct form of propaganda. Therefore, it is not hard to believe that viewers were much more likely to support the war and understand the reasons behind the war after viewing it. In an interview, Capra described a study done that saw a“marked change in attitude among the soldiers that had seen [The Battle of Britain]” compared to those who had not.[3] The fact that a film made expressly for the purpose of changing public opinion, did in fact, change public opinion, is a rather obvious and uninteresting historical truth. Perhaps more interesting is an analysis of the influence of Frank Capra’s other films, those not made with a specific propagandistic purpose.
Frank Capra’s earlier films, which started gaining popularity during the beginning and middle part of the Great Depression, were more about the feeling and story behind the film, about raising people’s spirits during such a deep recession. It Happened One Night, which, premiered in 1934, “dazzled the public with…complete gayety and charm.”[4] Mr. Deed Goes to Town, which was first shown in theaters three months after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s second presidential inauguration, represents a shift in Capra’s filmmaking style. The film itself is more ideological than his previous, and themes often associated with Capra- individualism, the little guy versus the big machine- are very prevalent.
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town is the story of a man named Longfellow Deeds, who inherits twenty million dollars from a late uncle. Deeds, played by Gary Cooper, is a simple man who plays the tuba and writes poetry for a living in his small town of Mandrake Falls, Vermont. Upon inheriting the fortune, he moves to New York City and makes the headlines of every newspaper in town. The papers start referring to Deeds as the “Cinderella Man” and ridiculing his every move. After a poor and desperate farmer comes to Deeds’ home, chastising Deeds for not using his money to feed the poor, Longfellow Deeds decides to spend his fortune setting up farms for poor families, who will be able to keep the farm after working the land for three years. A distant relative of Deeds, upset that Deeds is giving away twenty million dollars, and jealous that he did not receive the money, makes the claim that Mr. Deeds is insane, and cannot be responsible for such a large sum of money. After a long trial with many witnesses who attempt to prove Deeds’ insanity, Deeds makes a final speech explaining that his giving away the money does not make him insane, and that he was only trying to help out the people that really need it. The judge declares him to not only be sane, but “the sanest man that ever walked into this courtroom”.[5] In the end, Deeds is able to prove his sanity and prove that he, as the rightful heir to the fortune, has the right to choose how he spends his money, and finally, that the interests of the wealthy and powerful are not always appeased. Thus, the film represents the strength of the individual against the system, and is often viewed as the first film in the Mr. Deeds-Mr. Smith-John Doe “trilogy.”
However, the reception of Mr. Deeds at the time was far less ideological. A New York Times review called it “rousingly comic” film with a “gay, harebrained…quality”.[6] The Los Angeles Times claimed that almost all film critics “unite in proclaiming it perfect entertainment,” and focused on the humorous elements and personal touch of the picture.[7] The public response was clearly positive; the LA Times predicted it to be one of the most successful films of the season, and they were correct: from its Radio City Music Hall premiere, “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town broke box office records of all kinds”.[8] However, the public seemed to appreciate Mr. Deeds more for its entertainment value than its political principles.
The following films in Capra’s individual-against-the-machine trilogy, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Meet John Doe, had a much more powerful and enthusiastic public response. Both films involved much more local and national political messages, and therefore generated a public reaction that more often centered around the political implications of the films.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is about a man named Jefferson Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart, whom the governor nominates to the Senate in an attempt to please the people of his state. Though Smith can quote Jefferson and Lincoln verbatim, he knows very little about government. Thus, the fellow state politicians, Jim Taylor and Senator Joseph Paine, plan to use his naivety to advance their graft plan involving a dam project in their home state. However, Smith becomes very interested in the Senate and in the process of passing a bill, and he writes a bill creating a summer camp for boys on the land that involves the damn. When Paine and Taylor try to thwart Smith’s plans, Smith resists, prompting Paine and Taylor to create a lie that Smith is collecting the money that is supposed to go to the boy’s camp for his own purposes. After Senate hearing involving many forged documents, Smith loses his reputation and almost returns home. However, before the Senate can vote him out of office, Smith starts a filibuster- a now-famous, passionate speech about the evils of corruption and graft, the importance of liberty, and the dignity in sticking up for a “lost cause.”[9] After twenty-three hours of speaking, Smith collapses, prompting Paine to finally admit that Smith was telling the truth. Jefferson Smith represents the average man; he is a “true American” standing up to big government. Jefferson Smith is a man that, through the power of his own voice (and with a little help from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) can influence a larger structure.
Capra’s other more political popular film, Meet John Doe is the last film in Capra’s sort-of “little-man” trilogy. When a newspaper reporter, Ann Mitchell, loses her job, she writes one last piece: a fake letter from a man named John Doe, who claims to be so fed up with unemployment and the state of the country that he plans to commit suicide by jumping off of City Hall on Christmas Eve. Thus, Mitchell is able to keep her job by finding a homeless man to pretend to be John Doe (played by Gary Cooper) and writing articles entitled “I Protest!” and speeches for him. His first public speech is a summation of the ideology of the entire film. In a very populist fashion, the fake John Doe talks about all the John Does of the world- “he’s a million and one things…we raise the crops, we dig the minds, work the factories.” He refers to the average man as the “little punk,” claiming that “the character of a country is the sum total of the character of its little punks.” He urges Americans to get to know their neighbors, “tear down the fences” between them, and help out their fellow man.[10] As New York Times columnist Bosley Crowther pointed out, “…there is no deep philosophy contained in the words of John Doe;” the movie itself exposes that these ideas are nowhere near revolutionary or original.[11] Yet John Doe receives thunderous applause for the speech, and what starts as local following turns into a national movement. John Doe clubs sprout up all over the country. The owner of the newspaper, D.B. Norton, funds these clubs as well as John Doe’s excursions to different parts of the country to make speeches. Norton does this not only to sell papers, but also to create a wide voter base for his planned presidential run, which hopes Doe will endorse. But the fake John Doe and Ann Mitchell have come to truly believe in the John Doe principles, and refuse to help Norton turn their philosophy into a presidential campaign. In response, Norton exposes John Doe as a fake to an entire John Doe convention, and the John Doe movement essentially falls apart. In the controversial ending, John Doe attempts to commit suicide on Christmas Eve, but is stopped by Ann Mitchell and a former John Doe club.
All three of the aforementioned films were widely successful, with Mr. Smith leaving the strongest impression on 1930s audiences and leaving the longest legacy of any of Capra’s films. No other movie in the era garnered anything near the reaction that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington did. For some, it was a very emotional experience. One theater manager, in a column entitled “What the Picture Did for Me” explained: “I have just seen one of the greatest emotion pictures of my life…I am filled with song and tears and I am sitting on a mountain peak watching a new sun rising over this land… with a new insight on kindness, greatness- a new realization of the meaning of truth and freedom.”[12] Though possibly a melodramatic example, many found to Mr. Smith to be a “transcendental experience,” a movie that explained life in the United States.[13]
However, audiences also came to see the film as much more of a political experience, as compared to Capra’s previous films. A Los Angeles Times review claimed the movie to be “the most hair-raising adventure along political, social, and patriotic lines that has ever been conceived,” and called Jefferson Smith “a crusader” for justice and all other American values.[14] Most who wrote to Capra also saw the film as very pro-America and pro-democracy. Some wrote into newspapers or to Capra himself, boldly claiming that a law should be passed mandating that every citizen see Mr. Smith, or at least “every member of the Senate and Congress,” and that the film should be shown in schools as “the greatest lesson in ‘American Way of Thinking’”. Another L.A. Times columnist agreed, writing “every schoolboy, parent and citizen in the country should see it.”[15]. Local theater managers exacerbated this politicized movie viewing by building election booths, fake campaign headquarters, and ballot boxes for the lobby display. With the help of these managers’ advertisements, the public began to see the film as a crystallization of the relationship between the nation’s people and the elite. “Capra’s film shows how the conflation of popular culture, history, and patriotism could in fact mobilize audiences to voice displeasure with corporate and elected leaders.”[16] The fact that many constituents wanted their Congressional representatives to watch the film indicates that they were unhappy and about the way the government was being run and even possibly suspicious about corruption. The people were directly relating what they saw in the theater to their personal and political lives.
Meet John Doe received a similar reaction in that newspapers and fans saw it as very democratic and American to its core: Hollywood columnist Hedda Hopper described it as “the picture all America has been waiting for,” while the New York Times claimed it to be Capra’s “most trenchant picture on the theme of democracy”.[17],[18] However, the difference between the public’s reaction to Mr. Smith and John Doe is that John Doe represented something much more realistic, almost a warning of what could truly happen in the United States. The New York Times described it as representing “the way this country might conceivably fall into the hands of a ruthless tyrant,” adding a cautious “it could happen here.”[19] Capra’s fans mostly agreed; the large majority of the letters written to Capra about Meet John Doe largely interpreted the film as the “possibility of a fascist takeover” by a domestic (rather than foreign) leader in the United States. Thus, many filmgoers were equating the fictional attempted presidential run by D.B. Norton in the film to Roosevelt’s very real unprecedented third election. This was a legitimate fear at the time; no American president had ever ran for and won a third term in office. The fear “fascist takeover” was probably exacerbated by the sweeping, big-government policies of the New Deal, which included the Social Security Act, the Works Progress Administration. It’s interesting to note that over the course of the New Deal, Roosevelt’s popular vote percentages decrease and Capra’s films become more popular and the reactions to them become more intense. From the 1936 election to the 1940 election, FDR’s percentage of the vote drops from 60.8 to 54.7, and drops again in 1944 to 53.4.[20] This time frame happens to be Capra’s most successful period as a director. Obviously, this correlation in no way implies causation; Capra’s films were not the direct cause of FDR’s waning popularity. But the correlation does imply a general sentiment about the New Deal and the government as a whole. Capra, who was decidedly anti-Roosevelt and a staunch Republican, probably saw Roosevelt’s presidency and big-government New Deal policy as the demise of the individual and the triumph of the federal government’s power over the people. The public, according to their letters, seemed to be afraid of this, especially after seeing Meet John Doe.
Perhaps in response to these legitimate fears, Meet John Doe also generated the most real political action of any of Capra’s popular films: one theater manager described the audience in the movie theater as transforming into a temporary John Doe Club, and “Capra received no less than a dozen letters telling him that his film had indeed started a John Doe movement,” describing the creation of real John Doe clubs.[21] Despite the fact that these small clubs or movements never became national, they were significant because they meant that filmgoers were not going to the movies to forget about their problems, like many of the “escapist” movies of the Depression era. Instead, they were going to the movies to “contextualize” their problems “and to see them in relation to the issues that this film addressed.”[22] They were not going to the theater and subsequently moving on with their lives, but carrying the messages of the movie outside of the theater into their daily lives and into local politics.
Why did Capra’s films resonate so well with the average American? Capra’s significant influence cannot solely be attributed to superior filmmaking skills or a sophisticated ideology-his timing was also quite impeccable. First, Capra began making movies in a time period in which going to the movie theater was increasingly popular and a very important part of the working class American’s social lives. In Lizabeth Cohen’s study of Chicago working class people, she found that Chicago workers spent “more than half of their amusement budgets on movies,” and even the poorest of workers “made the motion picture a priority”.[23] As neighborhood theaters began to be taken over by large production companies, “chain-owned theaters” became more prevalent. Many of the local theater managers in the 1920s showed films he knew the community would enjoy, changing them every few days. The neighborhood theaters had a distinct “ethnic character,” with yelling in native languages and stage shows performed by community members. In contrast, during the 1930s-when many of Capra’s films were coming out- Americans across the country were seeing the same movies in approximately the same setting. “Workers would still find theaters in their neighborhoods during the 1930s, but their ambiance had become as standardized as the films on screen.”[24] Thus, filmgoing became a national experience, one that every person, no matter their age, race, geographical location, or gender, could participate in.
Also, the specific era in which Capra released his films was conducive and supportive of the messages he attempted to convey. During the mid- to late-1930s, a sense of intense national identity was forming. National symbolism was everywhere, with “…parades, Fourth-of-July celebrations, Civil War commemorations, and other city, state, and countrywide festivities.”[25] The celebration of the ratification of the Constitution from 1937 to 1939 was also very important in creating a more unified national identity, and mass media allowed these festivities to reach millions of people. Media in general this time period was highly patriotic and “pro-America,” which was accepted and encouraged by the public if it seemed sincere. Capra’s films were more than sincere enough, which is why they were so favorably received (Though Capra was born in Italy, in interviews he would often talk about how he “fell in love with Americans” and would very seriously state in interviews, “I am an American”)[26]. Americans came to expect media to promote democracy and American values, or at least expect the media to portray the United States favorably. New York Times columnist Bosley Crowther stated that Hollywood’s wisest move in these “perilous times” would be “to reconsider its concepts of America, to vision it more often as a land of simple, hard-working people.”[27] (He went on to say that Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington were two films he believed fit this criteria). Many letters to Capra follow this belief; the letter-writers praise Capra for creating films about democracy and about “real Americans.” Movie exhibitioners even wrote that they were disappointed that more films like Capra’s weren’t being made.
“The Doe letters indicate a desire for a kind of viewing practice that addressed the audience as a nation and that audience members could apply outside the theater, particularly in the development of the national unity and the regard for democracy that so many fans stressed should be the primary goals for motion pictures.”[28]
Capra was making movies there were a high demand for: movies about a unified, democratic nation. Perhaps if his movies had been released a different period of American history, when national unity was not as emphasized, his films would not have received the same amount recognition and praise.
However, all of the reactions to Capra’s narrative films, though powerful, seem to have instigated a more personal or local influence than a widespread political or social movement. Moviegoers were content to contemplate the film on a mountaintop and create a short-term, community John Doe Club, but despite Capra’s personal political views, his films did not change public opinion as a whole, at least not as effectively as the Why We Fight films did. There are many possible reasons for this. First, Capra’s films seemed to be more anti-big-business and anti-politics rather than in support of or against any one party, and for many viewers, it was “impossible to say whether the political philosophy of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or Meet John Doe [was] fundamentally Republican or Democratic, New Deal or anti-New Deal, populist or elitist”.[29] This distinction may not have been explicitly clear because Capra’s films had a way of being rather contradictory: they promoted the individual while simultaneously creating a mass movement behind a certain individual. Capra said about himself, “I had always been a rebel, against conformity; for the individual, against mass conformity. That means mass conformity of any kind.”[30] Obviously Smith, Deeds, and Doe are Capra’s prime examples of the capabilities of the individual. But they also represent the common man, and they represent the masses, who rally in support behind them. Mr. Deeds has a large mass of farmers to support him at his trial, Mr. Smith has the support of the Boy Rangers and the public in the viewing sections of the Senate chamber, and John Doe has the support of John Doe Club members across the country, thousands of whom come to hear him speak or listen to his speeches on the radio. Each man achieves a celebrity-like status, with the masses listening, watching, reading, and acting upon their every move. Even the way Capra viewed his audience was rather antithetical to his individualist rhetoric: his audience was “a thousand pairs of eyes and ears,” and he referred to them as “my John Does, about whom and for whom I made my films”.[31] The public felt the same way about themselves as an audience; newspapers referred to Capra fans as the “John Does”, and many signed their letters to Capra as “John Doe”.[32] Thus, the contradictory nature of Capra’s film ideology may have made Capra’s intended message less clear.
Another possible reason for the lack of a lasting political response to Capra’s films is that Capra’s films were made for entertainment. Unlike the Why We Fight series, Capra’s ideology in his popular films was shrouded in elements of comedy and romance. Capra said in an interview “I dealt with serious problems, protest films, but they were done with entertainment.”[33] Therefore, the uneducated viewer could still enjoy and appreciate the films for their sentimental value without fully grasping their political meaning. Though the public was appreciative of films that reflected the political times, movies were still mostly seen for entertainment rather than education.
Capra’s popular films, the most famous and memorable being Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and Meet John Doe, were all representations of Capra’s strong belief in the power of the individual against the masses. Unlike Capra’s documentary films made during World War II, these films were not made with such an obvious purpose or doctrine behind them. Thus, changing public opinion as a whole cannot be directly related to these films; there was no ideological shift in political thinking. Regardless, Capra’s combination of narrative elements and ideology created often passionate, emotional reactions, and his films were rare and special in that they allowed and encouraged people to relate the themes and messages of the movies to the political reality of the day. Thousands of people were so moved by the films, they wrote to Capra himself about their personal reactions. Capra’s infamous trilogy allowed the public to take the political messages outside the movie theatre and into their daily lives to think about, discuss, and apply to their existing political opinions. Capra’s films truly did become a “universal language” for filmgoers of the 1930s.
[1] Capra, Frank. "Popular Art: Frank Capra." Interview by Arthur B. Friedman. 1957.
[2] Why We Fight. Dir. Frank Capra. 1943-1945, Film.
[3] Capra, Frank. "Popular Art: Frank Capra." Interview by Arthur B. Friedman. 1957.
[4] Smoodin, Eric Loren. Regarding Frank Capra: Audience, Celebrity, and American Film Studies, 1930-1960. Durham: Duke UP, 2004. Print.
[5] Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. Dir. Frank Capra. Perf. Cooper, Gary and Jean Arthur. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.: 1936, Film.
[6] Nugent, Frank S. “The Screen: ‘Mr Deeds Goes to Town,’ Another Merry Comedy From Capra and Riskin, at the Music Hall.” New York Times. 17 Apr. 1936: 17
[7] Lusk, Norbert. “News and Gossip of Stage and Screen.” Los Angeles Times. 26 Apr. 1936: B3.
[8] Carney, Ray. American Vision: The Films of Frank Capra. Hanover: Wesleyan UP, 1996. Print.
[9] Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Dir. Frank Capra. Perf. Stewart, James, and Jean Arthur. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.: 1939, Film.
[10] Meet John Doe. Dir. Frank Capra. Perf. Cooper, Gary and Barbara Stanwyck. Frank Capra Productions, Inc.: 1941, Film.
[11] Crowther, Bosley. “How To Be A Good American.” New York Times. 16 Mar. 1941: X5.
[12] “What the Picture Did For Me.” Motion Picture Herald. 25 Nov. 1939: 51.
[13] Smoodin, Eric Loren. Regarding Frank Capra: Audience, Celebrity, and American Film Studies, 1930-1960. Durham: Duke UP, 2004. Print.
[14] Schallert, Edwin. “’Mr. Smith’ Evidences Wizardry of Frank Capra.” Los Angeles Times. 25 Oct. 1939: A15.
[15] Hopper, Hedda. “’Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ Films High Patriotic Ideals.” Los Angeles Times. 8 Oct. 1939: C2.
[16] Smoodin, Eric Loren. Regarding Frank Capra: Audience, Celebrity, and American Film Studies, 1930-1960. Durham: Duke UP, 2004. Print.
[17] Hopper, Hedda. “Whats Wrong With Our Movies? – Hedda Answers.” Los Angeles Times. 30 Oct. 1938: C1.
[18] Crowther, Bosley. “How To Be A Good American.” New York Times. 16 Mar. 1941: X5.
[19] Crowther, Bosley. “’Meet John Doe,’ An Inspiring Lesson in Americanism.” New York Times. 13 Mar. 1941: 25.
[20] Carney, Ray. American Vision: The Films of Frank Capra. Hanover: Wesleyan UP, 1996. Print.
[21] Smoodin, Eric Loren. Regarding Frank Capra: Audience, Celebrity, and American Film Studies, 1930-1960. Durham: Duke UP, 2004. Print.
[22] Smoodin, Eric Loren. Regarding Frank Capra: Audience, Celebrity, and American Film Studies, 1930-1960. Durham: Duke UP, 2004. Print.
[23] Cohen, Lizabeth. Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.
[24] Cohen, Lizabeth. Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.
[25] Smoodin, Eric Loren. Regarding Frank Capra: Audience, Celebrity, and American Film Studies, 1930-1960. Durham: Duke UP, 2004. Print.
[26] Capra, Frank. "Frank Capra: One Man-One Film." Interview by James R. Silke and Bruce Henstell. 1971
[27] Crowther, Bosley. “America In Films: How Truthfully Do Our Motion Pictures Reflect Our National Life?” New York Times. 12 Jul. 1942: X3.
[28] Smoodin, Eric Loren. Regarding Frank Capra: Audience, Celebrity, and American Film Studies, 1930-1960. Durham: Duke UP, 2004. Print.
[29] Carney, Ray. American Vision: The Films of Frank Capra. Hanover: Wesleyan UP, 1996. Print.
[30] Capra, Frank. "Frank Capra: One Man-One Film." Interview by James R. Silke and Bruce Henstell. 1971
[31] Capra, Frank. The Name Above the Title. New York: Macmillan, 1971. Print.
[32] Crowther, Bosley. “’Meet John Doe,’ An Inspring Lession in Americanism.” New York Times. 13 Mar. 1941: 25.
[33] Capra, Frank. "Frank Capra: One Man-One Film." Interview by James R. Silke and Bruce Henstell. 1971
