To many, the Vietnam War represents a dark stain on the pages of American history. As the war stretched on through a full decade opinions within the population polarized; one side at war against a foreign enemy, while the other at war with government authority (Giglio, 2005). With over thirty years of retrospect the war's legacy still remains in the form of a question, often characterized as Vietnam Syndrome. This refers to the idea of "anxiety about our nations ideology, identity, national mission, foreign policy, and images of what constitutes a warrior and a hero" (Christensen & Haas, 2005). Needless to say, the Vietnam War and the definition of heroism remains an explosive/controversial topic, and although frequently addressed by cinema, has arguably never been fully explored. Michael Mann's 2001 biopic, Ali, is a prime example of a Hollywood film whose plot addresses a powerful political issue, while the narrative structure works against it. Specifically, a close textual analysis of the Ali Bumaya scene near the end of the film highlights the degree of construction required to avoid a firm political message.Ali is a biographical film based on the loose lipped, controversial boxer Muhammad Ali. The director, Michael Mann, profiles Ali's life both in and outside the ring, during the turbulent and politically charged years of 1964 to 1974. This film introduces the viewer to Ali, his family, friends, conversion to the nation of Islam, as well as the social upheaval he faced following his refusal of the Vietnam draft and subsequent banishment from boxing. The scene at hand takes place in Zaire in October 1974, just prior to his highly anticipated fight against George Foreman. Ali is seen preparing for his fight by doing street training through a poverty stricken town, followed by mobs of children who eventually lead him to a mural. This mural is a depiction of his battles inside the ring, but more importantly outside the ring. In it, he is shown punching a military tanker, and helicopter. Ultimately, this scene reflects Hollywood's failure/reluctance to address politically charged issues.
Historically, the film industry has been politically bifurcated. Although selected executives and movie stars are liberal, the studios themselves continue to be controlled by conservatives who view movies predominantly as a business (Giglio, 2005 p.209 ). This ideology, whereby production and distribution of movies is based largely on anticipated profit, ensures Hollywood’s avoidance of politically charged issues for fear of alienating potential audiences. With the exception of war films, the film industry rarely uses its medium to deliver messages of concrete ideologies, and when they do so it is approached with extreme political sensitivity. Consequently, to a degree the political message is lost in the narrative structure. Indeed, in some instances the narrative itself is constructed to undermine its’ own political message. In contrast, certain films loaded with intentional political messages explicitly challenge the values of the audience and may even incite them to political action. However, such films run the risk of isolating unreceptive audiences with views counter to those presented. Therefore, in order to avoid financial losses the majority of films revolve around political messages squarely aimed at the "choir of true believers" who are likely to agree with a films message without having seen it (Christensen & Haas, 2005). To this day Ali is the number one film to open on Christmas day, with a current estimates Gross at $87,713,825 (Box Office Mojo). It is clear that the film was marketed to a widespread audience; as a result, it is necessary to appease multiple political standpoints, not challenge them.
The Vietnam War was left un-addressed by Hollywood for several years following the war. When the film industry finally decided it was safe to tackle the topic, they did so with a consistent and widespread ambiguity. According to Giglio, although the war may have been divisive and unpopular at home, political expediency dictated that Hollywood stick to tradition and play it safe. Whether produced by studios or independents, no Hollywood film on Vietnam ever questioned directly the legality or morality of the American presence (2005). Given American's inability to ignore the war, or take a neutral stance, the tradition of Hollywood to do so for over thirty years must be questioned. In the past Hollywood neglected to address the war with any firm political stance because there was still no consensus among the nation. However, in today's mainstream cinema one would think that the film industry's portrayal would have changed with the country's attitudes. By a strict plot analysis, that may be true. However, with close analysis it is clear that the filmic elements undermine any political message the plot may seemingly address.
Mann, who was born one year after Ali, also faced the issue of enlistment to the United States forces, and in retaliation moved to London to complete his Masters' degree at the London International Film School (James, 2006). Mann's avoidance of the draft is a clear indication of his political stance in regards to Vietnam, and the draft itself. In light of this personal history, one might expect the film to present a strong anti-war perspective. However, Mann takes a very neutral political stance, refusing to portray the war in any specific light. Instead, he diverts attention away from the issue and focuses on character development. Christensen and Haas state that "movies with political subject matter frequently focus on the individual drama of politically active roles, which tends to make them more palatable to mass audiences" (2006, p. 25). Mann's creation of Ali, the hero, influences the viewer to think that he is taking an anti-war stance. However it is argued that he instead aims to distract from the controversies of the political issue in order to meet a traditionally sanctioned neutral presentation of it in order to appease the American movie goer. Mann's technique of creating Ali the hero is especially apparent in his meticulous construction of the storyboard scene, Ali Bumaya. At this point we witness Ali discovering why he is a perceived as a hero in Africa, and his reaction to this realization. Up until this point Ali had viewed himself in terms of American reception of him, which at the time was that he was an un-American draft-dodging boxer. In this scene he is exposed to another attitude towards his actions, where he is viewed as an anti-war hero. Although the most blatant display of creating Ali the hero is through the screen time dedicated to the visual depiction in the mural, there are several other contributing factors within the mise-en-scene. These range from the obvious, Including shots of the herds of children chasing him through the streets, to the more subtle aspects like the soft slow placed cinematography accented by the emotionally rich Islamic soundtrack. Additionally, several frames dedicated to the children lifting Ali's arms up in triumph as his loose white shirt falls in a manner similar to that of the wings of an angel further strengthens the portrayal of Ali as a hero. Mann makes a point to divert the viewers' attention away from the issue at hand by focusing on Ali - the hero - and restricting the story to only focus on the character, avoiding any overt political message. This scene contributes to the film's blatant disregard to the world outside of Muhammad Ali. At this point in time, Ali's life was overwhelmed by the war and the draft, yet Mann manages to divert the audience's attention away from any type of political evaluation.
In Ali, the film's plot revolves around the issues of the Vietnam War, yet the filmic elements do little to address the politics of the issue in any specific light. Although some may argue that that the warrior or hero's experience on the screen is a technique to mirror the wide spread cultural confusion about how we interpret the Vietnam era, I conclude that this is personalization is merely an attempt to distract from expressing a strong political standpoint on the Vietnam War. According to Metelski and Street, because film's dramatic form is particularly well suited to enact significant social conflicts and anxieties, it is not surprising that Hollywood's treatment of the war would downplay politics in favor of symbolic portrayals of warriors' experiences (2003, p.135). However, what is surprising is that the same country that avidly avoids this technique in a dramatic form used the same dramatization and representation of the population’s anxieties to evoke support for yet another unjust war.
References
Box Office Mojo. (2007). Ali. 11/20/07, from, < id="ali.htm">.
Christensen, T., & Haas, P.J. (2005). Projecting Politics: Political messages in American Films. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Giglio, Ernest. (2005). Here's Looking at You: Hollywood, FIlm, and Politics. New York: Peter Land Publishing, Inc.
James, Nick. (2006). Michael Mann: The criminal mastermind. 11/04/07, from,
Matelski, M.J., & Street, N.L., eds.(2003). War and Film in America: Historical and Critical Essays. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Peters, J. & Mann, M. (2001). Ali [Motion picture]. Columbia Pictures Corporation.
Rollins, P.C. (2003). The Columbia Companion to American History on Film. New York: Columbia University Press.
