America’s Missing Reel: The Invisibility of Poverty in Mainstream Hollywood Films

It is often said that Hollywood feature films are more than simply a pure source of entertainment.  Some also say that films not only provide an escape from reality, but also serve as a catalyst for getting people to think about the course of their own lives.  In truth, both statements could not be more correct.  Movies are the lifeblood of American society as they frequently mirror countless theories, thought processes, behaviors, opinions, and sociological trends that are most popular at any given point in time.  The post 9/11 years, for example, saw a variety of movies transform into darkly-toned, dramatic spectacles that dealt with subject matter involving unspeakable tragedies.  Notable films of this nature involve Ladder 49 (2004), Flight 93 (2006), World Trade Center (2006), Reign Over Me (2007), and more recently, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011).  A handful of years after the Vietnam War and the political controversies that overshadowed its conclusion, films such as The Deer Hunter (1978) and Apocalypse Now (1979), both catered to specific, heartfelt feelings that the American public had towards the conflict.  All in all, each of these examples boils down to one major question which is, in turn, followed by another question.  With poverty being one of the most frequently talked about issues in recent months (due in part to the 50^th anniversary of Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty”), where are the films that accurately provide a face for the poor?  Where are the films that truly depict what it means to be poor?  Such questions serve as a starting point for an important discussion regarding Hollywood’s negative attempts at keeping the poor off-screen and invisible to the public eye.

A Lack of Poverty-Centric Conflicts

 

First and foremost, conflicts in screenplays that arise between main and supporting characters are often middle and upper class-centric and thus, do not accurately reflect problems that are even remotely relevant to someone in poverty.  Issues involving “hanky-panky” with the CEO of a major accounting firm, comedic hijinks at a prestigious college, or even the “all-important” decision of whether to break off an engagement in order to accept a job offer in another state, all have “privileged” qualities to them that simply do not apply to those who are severely underprivileged.  One film, in particular, that drives this issue home is the 2009 Vince Vaughn comedy, Couples Retreat, which tells the story of four couples on the verge of either a break-up, or a divorce who are desperate to repair their sinking relationships at any cost.  One of the couples decides to take a vacation to a therapeutic island getaway and encourages the others to join them as part of a “package deal” offered by the resort.  Comedic exploits ensue when only one couple makes an effort to repair their marriage, while the others are simply there to escape their humdrum lives back home.  As one might gather from this brief synopsis, the major focus of the film caters to the middle and upper class movie going audience by presenting a solution to a problem that only those with a large bank account might view as being a legitimate option. 

Big Expenses for an Average Salary

This concept leads into the second invisibility tactic where characters that make a working class (or even a middle class) wage are somehow able to afford a penthouse in the middle of a bustling New York City, projecting the idea that everyone, no matter their social class, is clearly living the American dream and living it well, which is simply not the case.  The late Nobel Prize-winning film critic, Roger Ebert, discusses this topic with fellow film critic, Gene Siskel, in an episode of their movie review program entitled, Siskel & Ebert, where common film clichés of the 1980’s and 1990’s are put into perspective.  While brief, the discussion they have is an important one as it leads one to think about what needs to change in order for those in poverty to be accurately represented beyond the common movie cliché of a “rags to riches” story arch.    

In the end, instead of making films that strive to include all classes of individuals in society, the movie industry continues to render society’s poorest members invisible.  In the process, those who are affluent are constructed and built up as a representative sample of what American society supposedly looks like, a process that is also familiar in the news media spectrum.  According to a 2013 research study conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, mainstream media news coverage of poverty in America “amounted to far less than 1% of available news space.”  Astounding?  Most definitely.  Surprising?  Hardly.  Based upon the aforementioned film tactics alone, one does not have to look too far to notice just how invisible poverty truly is, especially when it comes to the entertainment aspect of the mainstream media universe. 



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/05/01/politicians-press-must-confront-poverty-in-america

Former Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, discusses the issue of poverty and its invisibility in the eyes of policy makers, as well as what must be done to make those in poverty visible in the mainstream limelight. 

http://siskelandebert.org/video/B5KN9HU9XS9H/They8217ll-Do-It-Everytime-Part-2-1992

Beginning at 13:50, this video segment from the now defunct movie review program entitled, Siskel & Ebert, features film critics, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, as they discuss a particular movie cliché that involves characters being able to afford expensive apartments on average/below average salaries.