:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/v-day-in-germany-3134873-5b7636b2c9e77c0057a127ec.jpg)
The impact of World War II rippled throughout the cinema industry in all of the war entangled territories, very much including the United States, and everything changed. The filmmaking process changed rapidly and significantly, and the subject matter within them shifted to more modern and periodically relevant ideas. These subjects specifically, among others, will be evaluated in this essay, and show the true impact that the second world war had on the ever-expanding American film industry. I will conduct my analysis by using accurate data to form coherent arguments about the subject, that I have collected from multiple sources, including films of the time. I will tackle the aforementioned ideas of the film industry operation and film content arguing how they were affected, and conclude by summarising and reinstating these points.
First and foremost, the fashion in which the industry operated fundamentally changed after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbour, Oahu, on December 7th, 1941, the event that cemented the United States’ involvement in WW2. The ambush from the Japanese left the nation shocked, and this soon had its impact on the cinema industry.
Before the attack, the industry’s operations had already been impacted as foreign trade had fallen due to conflict elsewhere, with the US going into ‘pre-war’ mode in anticipation of an attack. As cynical as it sounds, in 1940 the motion picture industry knew it would benefit hugely should war break out involving the Americans (Acciari, 2020). Germany and Japan had drastically decreased its import of American pictures in the late 30s by approximately 75%, so the industry needed a big domestic boom to bounce back from the decline in international profits. It received this desired boom, with the Wall Street Journal reporting a 12% increase in box office revenue between 1940 and 1941. (Schatz, 1999:27). The boom continued throughout 1941 leading up to the attack in November. Popularity remained high, but operations at studios changed and the government got involved in the industry as part of the war effort.
The first thing to change after the attack was that President Roosevelt asked the industry to ask itself a question before producing any film: “Will this picture help win the war?” (Margasak, 2016). He and others, including military generals and cinema industry experts, insisted that movies helped boost morale for soldiers and citizens alike. Roosevelt appointed Lowell Mellett as coordinator of government films, to bridge the gap between politics and cinema at the highest level. Roosevelt specifically wanted no censorship in the movies as they must remain ‘free in so far as national security will permit’ (Schatz, 1999:139). This meant the cinema industry had – or at least thought it had – escaped the ‘war conversion’ treatment that many other industries were receiving, as Roosevelt believed there could be ‘workable alignment’ between them (Schatz, 1999:139). The decision led to the conception of the Why We Fight (Capra, Litvak, 1942-45) films, arguably the most impactful wartime series of all, to be discussed more later.
In terms of exhibition, some cinemas became community centres that collected ‘critical materials’ to support the war effort. The government began supporting the industry financially by funding the production and distribution of the films. The influx of cash opened the door to vast amounts of production, presenting informative short films, cartoons, actual war footage, newsreels, and of course full-length movies (Margasak, 2016). These kept civilians and soldiers up to date with what was happening elsewhere and kept them entertained in the troubling times.
For certain though, the industry boomed significantly in 1942 and the films were successful as propaganda, as public announcements and as hope for the soldiers, as well as lots of profit. The quality of the films also improved, but the main success was that profits were at an all-time high, reaching a combined $50 million in grosses from the top 8 studios in 1942 (Schatz, 1999:131). The trend continued throughout the war, seeing actors, producers, and studios remain committed to the effort. This all reflected Roosevelt’s belief that movie-going was a ‘necessary and beneficial part of the war effort’ (Doherty, 1993:162)
However, some things changed for the worse. After specifically stating that censorship was not to be of concern for the studios and directors, Roosevelt and his administration created the Office of War Information (OWI), to inform the country of what was happening in the war involving America, effectively the country’s first propaganda agency.This sparked tension with the two parties, but the decision was made to convince American’s that they had made the correct choice by joining the war, and the director of the OWI, believed:
‘The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realise that they are being propagandized’ – Elmer Davis, 1942 (Koppes & Black, 1990:64)
After some time in turmoil, the deal was back on as each party needed each other to excel as much as possible. Using each other’s support, the government were able to effectively insert propaganda into the entire range of films being produced, including feature films like Casablanca (dir. Michael Curtiz, 1942).
This collaboration brought a change to the content being produced by studios, placing underlying themes and messages about patriotism and anti-Nazism directly into the films. During this time, over a third of all films being produced in America were war-related. A great study for this is the aforementioned Casablanca, considered a classic to this day, as audiences watch on despite the war being over for so long. Another notable study is the Why We Fight series, which was a move away from fiction and the propaganda within it was more obvious. Both films however were very effective at powering the war effort.
As Casablanca was in production, the filmmakers were tailoring the script to make sure it met all the expectations of the OWI. From the opening scene, pro-war messages are presented in the film, showing a run-down of the political situation in Europe at the time of the film’s setting to provide context for the rest of the story. The underlying themes continue throughout the start of the film as our main protagonist, Rick Blaine, portrayed by Humphrey Bogart, starts as a lone wolf, but soon cannot resist helping some peers at the roulette table, allowing them to afford to escape to America. This is the first of many small acts of intervention, a sign from the filmmakers to the audience that it’s good to intervene if it’s needed, as the USA did a year prior to the film’s release. Later in the film, Rick kills the main antagonist, Major Strasser, as a sign of American ideals beating the fascist Nazi ideals, completing the transformation from someone reluctant to fight to someone who intervenes for his country. This kind of content reminded American and the allies why they fight, while it allowed the government to drill the ‘hero’s journey’ (Campbell 2003:1), into the minds of the American people in a bid to tie them into the war. It encouraged people to take a stand against totalitarianism. The film was an ‘immediate hit’ (Schatz, 1988:316) and resonated well with audiences.
The Why We Fight series made a similar plea, this time as a non-fiction picture series. It glorified the American way of life in an attempt to increase patriotism (and with it tolerance and sacrifice), portraying it as a haven for refugees across the world (Acciari, 2020). The ‘grim realities of war’ (Acciari, 2020) were absent lots of the time, especially in newsreels but the Americans enjoyed the ‘realism’ of the reels (Borde & Chaumeton, 2002:21). These reels, and films similar to Why we Fight, were a major catalyst in getting people involved in the war effort. Some reels asked for volunteers while some simply asked for financial donations, one saying:
‘In democratic America, everybody is doing his bit!’ (Acciari, 2020)
This mentality made it unpatriotic to not get involved in the war effort in some way, and the encouragement worked, seeing millions of Americans contribute some sort of service, whether it be physically, financially, or simply by accepting their rations understandably, as it was a time of crisis.
Both types of films, those subtle like Casablanca and that crude like Why we Fight, reassured and provided an escape for citizens while engraving the American war mentality into them. Stars like Charlie Chaplin created war films as well such as The Great Dictator (dir. Charlie Chaplin, 1940), an unrelenting critique of fascism, to help with the effort, and audiences loved it.
Overall, after the devastating Pearl Harbour attack, the cinema industry in America changed drastically, becoming more nationalised, initially to the displeasure of many. However, after some time to reflect, the industry and the government began to benefit from each other, all while the audiences kept flooding into theatres across the country. The changes were largely successful, and were enough to get America and the allies over the line to win the war.
Bibliography
Books
BORDE, R & CHAUMETON, E. (2002) ‘A panorama of American film noir’ (1941-1953). City Lights Books, CA. page 21 Available from: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s1l0ENN6vAwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=newsreels+1941+america&ots=pqMiEP5v8l&sig=n8b8Km7nAiwf-HR2Qld2OdkpyuM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=newsreels%201941%20america&f=false [Accessed 5th March 2021].
CAMPBELL, J. (2003) ‘The Hero’s Journey: Joseph Campbell on his Life and Work (vol. 7) New World Library, Novato, CA. page 1. Available from: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0LIxpikJraoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=hero%27s+journey+campbell&ots=o9rvj7UIOz&sig=-P-HF8zZ_9_0tit9mJRBVfW79Sk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hero’s%20journey%20campbell&f=false [Accessed 5thMarch 2021].
DOHERTY, T. (1993) ‘Projection of War: Hollywood, American Culture and World War II’. New York: Columbia University Press, NY, page 162
SCHATZ, T. (1999) ‘Boom and bust: American cinema in the 1940s (vol. 6). University of California Press, CA, page 27, 131, 139 Available from: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Boom_and_Bust/dwf5SUcfousC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Boom+and+bust:+American+cinema+in+the+1940s&printsec=frontcover [Accessed 4th March 2021].
KOPPES, C. R. & BLACK, G. D. (1990) ‘Hollywood goes to war: How politics, profits and propaganda shaped World War II movies’. University of California Press, CA. page 64 Available from: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_MNa1E9-Zc4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Hollywood+goes+to+war:+How+politics,+profits+and+propaganda+shaped+World+War+II+movie&ots=x-upFBvXzA&sig=-ZuZjyrX4Fh7Z5OxGtf871FG8Ec&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Hollywood%20goes%20to%20war%3A%20How%20politics%2C%20profits%20and%20propaganda%20shaped%20World%20War%20II%20movie&f=false[Accessed 3th March 2021].
SCHATZ, T. (1988), ‘The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era. Pantheon, NY, page 316
Online Articles
MARGASAK, L. (2016) ‘Hollywood went to war in 1941 – and it wasn’t easy’ [Online] Available from: https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/hollywood-went-war-1941 [Accessed 4th March 2021].
Lecture notes on Blackboard
ACCIARI, M. (2020). ‘Hollywood at War?’ from FILM1001 Introduction to Global Film History. De Montfort University, Leicester, UK 7th December 2020. Available from: https://vle.dmu.ac.uk/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_558915_1&content_id=_4891091_1[Accessed 3rd March 2021]
Filmography
Casablanca. (1942) dir. Michael Curtiz [Film] Los Angeles, CA, Warner Bros.
The Great Dictator. (1940) dir. Charlie Chaplin [Film] Edendale, CA, Charles Chaplin Film CorporationWhy We Fight. (1942-45) dir. Frank Capra, Anatole Litvak [Documentary Film Series] Washington, D.C, United States
Vision Tower Productions 