I’ve never been one to look deeply into films on my own. I’m always interested in the narrative, the story rather, and the costumes and music, but the politics of non-political films have consistently alluded me. After our discussion on Thursday it’s obvious to me that nearly every film of any substance can be read as having political undertones. I knew the Lion King was basically Hamlet. And obviously the Hunger Games have blatant politics and rebellion. But in films where these are not apparent from the trailer the politics are subtle, believable, and possibly more important to everyday audiences. I suppose the question is if they are intended or if they simply seep in from the influence of the writer, director, actors, producers, and so on. I think the answer would have to be a bit of both. When you’re a writer or any sort of artist really your opinions and peculiar ideas must naturally become part of the work you’re putting your heart into. Sentimental, I know.
Beyond the idea of sneaking ones soul into a narrative, I really enjoy the idea that in films like The Hunger Games it is easier to define the enemy or the bad guy, and the strong, resilient underdog. There are obvious sides. In reality no one ever sees themselves as the ‘bad guy’. This makes it more difficult to understand, but also more realistic. As humans we, non of us, think alike. In the films we have seen it’s difficult to always put the protagonists and antagonists into neat little boxes. Especially in Bhumika. The protagonist herself is less than likable. In stead of fighting against societal politics of her world she turns into them. Believable, but not the escape from reality that we look for in a film.
Maybe it isn’t even that the political ideals of the creators gets boiled into the narrative, maybe we find it ourselves. Or maybe at this point its incredibly difficult to separate any aspect of our lives from politics so wee see that in our favorite characters. Seems like both a good, and horribly upsetting thing all at once.