How Should a Political Message Be Told in Film?

When watching The Hour of the Furnaces, it’s understandable to became slightly detached from the picture. As was tradition for Third Cinema, the film is essentially a visualized manifesto. Zero plot, zero characters, organized into chapters in the same structure as an essay. It’s the opposite of conventional films and incredibly heavy handed in its message because it isn’t telling a traditional narrative that wants the audience to find the meaning, it’s a piece of propaganda that is forcing them to understand the meaning. The question then becomes, how successful were these films at spreading its message? Furthermore, how do political films successfully convey its meaning in the present day?

I see the answer to this question resulting in a spectrum, one that has conventional narratives on one side and untraditional on the other, one the has nuance on one side and blunt tellings of the themes on another. In other words, which is more successful at spreading its message, propaganda films or those that are stories first that express their messages through plot? To work through this question, I’ve chosen a few films that represent the different positions on the spectrum.

As stated previously, The Hour of the Furnaces is a manifesto through and through. The narrator is essentially reading an essay at the audience for over three hours (including both parts of the film) that’s paired with footage taken from reality to apply this thinking to the real world. In this way, it’s understandable as to why the filmmakers of Third Cinema saw film as the best way to convey their message. Not only is film an audio and visual medium, meaning one could be hearing the manifesto and see the real world applications at the same time, but film encourages crowds. The written manifesto is personal, difficult to spread on a large scale in comparison to film. Cinema is a means of bringing together a group people that are present simply to see what the film has to say. In other words, it’s perfect for spreading a convincing political message. At the same time, this is an overtly political film, one that would gain a reputation as such, and thus have little appeal to anyone outside of the films political beliefs, or more importantly for the modern day, is just uninteresting to the majority of movie goers. I find it nearly impossible that in the modern day, where attention spans are shorter and the film landscape is dominated by hegemonic stories, that the average viewer would hear of a film like The Hour of the Furnaces and think “well, let’s hear what they have to say”. By making a film overtly political, more akin to a visual essay than a film, it alienates itself from a large chunk of its intended audience.

This problem stems from a lack of nuance, which is also seen in Don’t Look Up. One of the most common critiques with the film was its blunt messaging, its characters literally screaming directly at the audience, rather than telling a nuanced story to convey those themes more fluidly. The reason this explosive style of thematic development was a problem for so many was specifically because of its traditional narrative framework. When presented with a story, the audience is expecting to be conveyed a message through actions, dialogue, narrative events on a level that requires at least some decoding. If that message is made explicitly clear however, the audience is turned off, as they feel they are no longer watching a narrative, but propaganda. They are not actively engaging with the film, just watching. This is the no man’s land of political cinema, it isn’t explicit enough to be classified as “political cinema” due to its confinement to conventional narrative structures, but is so focused on relaying its message it not only fails at telling a successful story, but similar to some Third Cinema films, has the potential of alienating the very audience it is attempting to address.

What I believe to be a step in the right direction for films that seek to spread a political message can be seen in Memories of Underdevelopment, a Third Cinema film that does actually have a narrative. However, this narrative is still far from the patterns of Classical Hollywood, and in fact, actively disregards the techniques of that industry. It does have a story, yes, but that story is told between inserts of documentary footage and is overlaid with narration from the main character referencing societal issues and political events. The film has a distinct feeling of space and time, the audience is centered in the struggle for freedom in Cuba, seen through the lens of the protagonist. To me, this seems like the more digestible form of The Hour of the Furnace. It still makes its messages clear, but in a subtler way. It’s not overt with its ideas, but still has strong ones it successfully conveys. At the same time, it’s artistic, moody, methodical in its storytelling and somewhat unconventional in its presentation. This by no means makes it unsuccessful in its approach to themes, in fact I believe it strengthens them, but this could also alienate mainstream viewers that have no interest in art or political films. To truly reach the widest audience possible, I believe a film may have to still be generally entertaining, and possibly inherit some of the traits from dominant storytelling. Again, I’m not trying to disregard any of the films on this list as unsuccessful in the execution of their meanings (maybe Don’t Look Up) or saying they don’t have a significant place in film history, but I find it interesting that these films so clearly isolate themselves from the audiences they seem to be targeting. This is where I believe our next film wildly succeeds in spreading its message to as wide of a demographic as possible.

Academy award best picture winner Parasite was the first foreign film to win the title. Not only was it a worldwide phenomenon upon release, but is still highly talked about years later. I find this interesting, as the message of the film is one that would seem to not be unpopular, but potentially raise some eyebrows from specific demographics. An anti-capitalist film through and through, the film still succeeded in capitalist countries around the world. This isn’t just because the message is one many agree with (although this is true), but rather because it is a film first, manifesto second. It is impossible to see The Hours of the Furnace gaining worldwide recognition like Parasite, it simply isn’t audience friendly and is difficult to digest for its untraditional presentation and incredibly explicit messaging. Similar thoughts can be applied to the other films discussed, but not Parasite. The film is a masterclass in nearly all aspects, but most importantly for this article, it is textbook thematic development. Through narrative beats, the unsaid meaning of dialogue, the world the characters inhabit, the characters themselves and their respective arcs and even the symbols, the anti-capitalist message is developed. A war on class runs through this films core in a delicate balance of just present enough to be incredibly impactful, but just as subtle to not isolate itself from specific demographics. Parasite is also an energetic thrill-ride of a film that any viewer can enjoy, thus bringing in a bigger crowd that would then adopt the message its presenting.

However, I would be remised to acknowledge the fact that some people may completely miss the message of a film if it isn’t displayed explicitly like Don’t Look Up or The Hour of the Furnace. These films are overt because they want to make sure their message is not missed, but in that pursuit makes viewers not even want to watch the film in the first place. Personally, I feel as though the risk of the audience member missing the point is worth it as long as they even watch the film in the first place. This is why I believe Parasite is the blueprint of spreading a political message in a film: make it a story about politics, not a visual manifesto.