Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:50:03.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Argo and Zero Dark Thirty: Film, Government, and Audiences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 December 2014

Michelle C. Pautz
Michelle C. Pautz*
Affiliation:
University of Dayton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the prevalence and accessibility of film today, we must wonder how film affects its audience. In particular, how does film influence an audience’s perceptions of the government? Regardless of the content, research demonstrates that film has the power to shape perceptions of its moviegoers on a range of subjects. In this study, two recent films, Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, were chosen as case studies to explore how Hollywood portrays the intelligence community in film and shapes opinions about the government more broadly. This research found that about 25% of viewers of the two films changed their opinion about the government after watching one of the movies. Additionally, many of those changes are reflected in an improvement in the sentiments about the government and its institutions. This exploratory research provokes interesting discussions about the ability of film to influence the perceptions of an audience.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 120 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baecker, Dirk. 1996. “The Reality of Motion Pictures.” Modern Language Notes 11 (3): 560–78.Google Scholar
Bandura, Albert. 1994. “Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication.” In Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, ed. Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D., 61–90. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cook, David A. 1996. A History of Narrative Film, 3rd ed.New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Franklin, Daniel P. 2006. Politics and Film: The Political Culture of Film in the United States. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Geen, Russell G. 1994. “Television and Aggression: Recent Developments in Research and Theory.” In Media, Children, and the Family: Social Scientific, Psychodynamic, and Clinical Perspectives, ed. Zillmann, Dolf, Bryant, Jennings, and Huston, Aletha C., 151–62. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Geen, Russell G., and Thomas, Susan L.. 1986. “The Immediate Effects of Media Violence on Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 42 (7): 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodsell, Charles T. 2004. The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic, 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Holzer, Marc, and Slater, Linda G.. 1995. “Insights into Bureaucracy from Film: Visualizing Stereotypes.” In Public Administration Illuminated and Inspired by the Arts, ed. Goodsell, Charles T. and Murray, Nancy, 75–89. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Internet Movie Database. Available athttp://www.imdb.com. Accessed October 18, 2013.Google Scholar
Kolker, Robert. 1999. Film, Form, and Culture. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Lee, Mordecai, and Paddock, Susan C.. 2001. “Strange but True Tales from Hollywood: The Bureaucrat as Movie Hero.” Public Administration & Management 6 (4): 166–94.Google Scholar
Mazur, Michelle A., and Emmers-Sommer, Tara M.. 2002. “The Effect of Movie Portrayals on Audience Attitudes about Nontraditional Families and Sexual Orientation.” Journal of Homosexuality 44 (1): 157–79.Google Scholar
Miller, Karen S. 1999. “Public Relations in Film and Fiction: 1930 to 1995.” Journal of Public Relations Research 11 (1): 3–28.Google Scholar
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). 2012. Theatrical Market Statistics 2012. Available athttp://www.mpaa.org/resources/3037b7a4-58a2-4109-8012-58fca3abdf1b.pdf. Accessed October 18, 2013.Google Scholar
Ortega-Liston, Ramona. 2000. “American Film: Perceptions of Public Programs, Public Policies, and Public Officials.” American Society for Public Administration conference paper, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Pautz, Michelle C., and Roselle, Laura. 2010. “Are They Ready for Their Close-Up? Civil Servantsand Their Portrayal in Contemporary American Cinema.” Public Voices 11 (1) (Winter): 8–32.Google Scholar
Pautz, Michelle C., and Warnement, Megan K.. 2013. “Government on the Silver Screen: Contemporary American Cinema’s Depiction of Attractive, Capable Bureaucrats, Incompetent Cops, and Brave Soldiers.” PS: Political Science and Politics 46 (3): 569–79.Google Scholar
Riggle, Ellen D. B., Ellis, Alan L., and Crawford, Anne M.. 1996. “The Impact of ‘Media Contact’ on Attitudes toward Gay Men.” Journal of Homosexuality 31: 55–69.Google Scholar
Roberts, Donald F., and Maccoby, Nathan. 1985. “Effects of Mass Communication.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, ed. Lindzey, Gardiner and Aronson, Elliot, 539–98. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Sklar, Robert. 1994. Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Vogel, Harold L. 1998. Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis, 4th ed.New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Barbara J., Linz, Daniel, Donnerstein, Edward, and Stipp, Horst. 1992. “The Impact of Social Issue Television Programming on Attitudes toward Rape.” Human Communications Research 19 (2) (December): 179–208.Google Scholar