Scot Brown

CAS 100C

April 28, 2008

Mr Smith Goes to Washington: Myth and Consensus

America is a nation of myth and legend. By saying this, I do not mean to suggest that the actual country of the United States of America of fictional. Rather, what I mean is that even though Americans pride themselves on being rational and independent people, the truth of the matter is that a large part of our collective understanding and vision of America and Americanism, is rooted in legend, myth, and tall tale, as is the case for every society. From the myths of the discovery of our land (where a Columbus who, in the real world, miscalculated the size of the Earth, then misnamed a landmass and enslaved and massacred the entire populace becomes a champion of adventure and discovery, who we celebrate with a national holiday), to the totally unchallenged idea of the Manifest Destiny of the white man (while most people today will agree that what was done to Native Americans was wrong, they would defend it on the basis that America could not have been completed without it), to the myth that the bloodiest war in our nations history was waged idealistically to end slavery, instead of the actual reason of preservation of the union. Right down to the very idea of the American dream, to the individualism that we take so much pride in, these myths run through. And they take many forms. Word of mouth used to do the trick, then came books, newspapers, telegrams, and finally film. Film, which does so much to disguise the fact that its very existence is artificial. Some films work themselves into the public imagination more than others. Were one to choose, one would be hard pressed to find a film more enduring and more evocative of the spirit of Americanism than Frank Capra’s 1939 Mr Smith Goes to Washington. This tale of the political outsider, who comes to Washington and through naught but his own goodness and ideals, challenges the workings of a corrupt political machine, has all of the elements of good myth. It addresses our fears, of corrupt men with money and power, of big government, and of social disorder. But it also does so in a way that assure us that at the end of the day that America, and all those things we still hold dear about her, will prevail. I do not have the space here to discuss all of the formal elements that contribute to the construction of “the cinema of the consensus,” for an explanation of that refer to Richard Maltby’s work Harmless Entertainment: Hollywood and the Ideology of the Consensus. However I will attempt to address the more plot based elements and story choices, an analysis of which most regular movie viewers will be more comfortable with, and seek to understand the power of Mr Smith as a tool for extending, and adding to, these national myths that are so much a part of our American experience.

Mr Smith is one in a long line of Capra films dealing with the struggle between the individual and modern society. In this tradition, it is preceded by Mr Deeds Goes to Town and followed by Meet John Doe, along with several other of Capra’s works. Common to these is the figure of the everyman (Gary Cooper in Deeds and John Doe, James Stewart in Smith) who is thrust into situations seemingly beyond his control or command, and which present a tangible challenge to the American way of life. In Mr Smith the enemy is James Taylor and his big political machine, which controls seemingly every politician, media outlet and handwriting expert in the state of Montana. The machine, with Taylor at the helm, is presented to us as a great threat to American democracy and pluralism, requiring the good honest efforts of a man, Mr Smith, from outside the political arena to come in and set things right. Just like in the classic tall tale of the steel driving man John Henry, it is man versus machine, with all of the fears about impersonalization and loss of agency embodied in machine. In this way, we can see how Capra speaks to the fears and anxieties of the nation. His is not just a battle of good versus evil, but also of the struggle for men’s individuality. Here we draw from that great American myth, which constructs every man as a rational, unbridled individual, free to speak and think and go as he pleases, and rejects the idea of man as a social creature, subject to the ebbs and flows of culture and their peers. The machine is threatening to Jefferson Smith not just because it will rob the people of his state, or because it will prevent the boys camp from being established. It is threatening because it can twist and pull men away from their own individuality and ideals, as it did with Senator Paine. Jefferson Smith’s valiant efforts on the Senate floor are almost wasted because Taylor will not let his words be disseminated to the people. Smith first had to fight to be able to find his own voice in the system, and accomplishing that by rejecting Taylor’s offer to be incorporated into the machine, he strikes out on his own. Now his fight is against forces which serve to dehumanize him and cut out his humanity. The machine works in vast network to eliminate the human element from the equation, allowing Taylor to mold public opinion. There are strong parallels drawn between the machine and the forces of modern society, and similarly between Smith and traditional American pluralism, which may account for some initial reactions to film to see it as an un-American or even anti-American film (Capra, 1971). Smith would have lost his battle if not for the intervention of Senator Paine, and his marvelous vindication of Smith’s cause. Smith’s efforts have resulted in a triumph of individualism, although not from the source we would expect. In the end, even though Smith, the ultimate outside, has struggle so hard for this cause, it takes the work of the ultimate insider, Paine, and his moment of individualistic triumph to beat the machine.

Just because in the end it takes individual effort to triumph over evil, does not mean that all faith in institutions is lost. Indeed, the film, far from condemning our institutions and their operation, instead offers a rather hearty endorsement of them. The Taylor machine works to pull down the foundations of our democracy and freedom, not by overthrowing them, but by pulling from the inside. In the end, all Jefferson Smith does is prop back up the pillars of democracy and pluralism, handed down to him by men who lived long ago. This brings us to another great myth, that of the inevitability of right prevailing under our American system. Any incentive for radical social change is subsumed under the mantle of democracy, and the assurance that all will turn out right in the end. Here, the system (without the Taylors of course) is good, and should be preserved. As long as we follow Smith’s simple rule, to Love Thy Neighbor, and have faith in America, right will prevail. Critics cited the film’s apparent demonization of the United States Senate as example of the films un-American leanings, and at face value this claim may have merit. But that is a very superficial reading of what the text identifies as problematic and unproblematic in the American system. While the Senators all initially detest Smith and his cause, it is not because they are all cogs in the gears of the Taylor machine. Rather, it is that they, along with the Press, the secretaries, and practically everyone of note in Washington, have settled into accepting things the way they are. While there are some disparaging remarks made about the senators through the movie, such as when Clarissa tells Jeff to go home because he’s “halfway decent,” and he “doesn’t belong here” (Mr Smith, 1939), overall the honor and integrity of the senate body is not impugned, save for the few bad apples such as Senator Paine. The system works, it just needs a reboot every now and again. As Thomas Jefferson said, “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Petrie, 2008). Well, Smith has come to stage a revolution, and he will offer his own blood, in his self sacrificial filibuster, as well as the blood of the tyrannical Taylor machine, to refresh that tree of liberty. And the tools Smith uses in his task are his knowledge and reverence of American history, and the works of those who have come before him.

While liberty and freedom are center stage issues in the film, what goes unexamined is whether these ideals are equally as applicable to non white racial groups. Race is not a non issue, as it is used selectively in this text. It becomes an issue when it is convenient to make a point, but is otherwise not granted much attention. It would be uncomfortable and detrimental to the cause of myth building otherwise. The only two examples of racial difference being an issue are the scenes with the black porters at the bus station, and Smith’s visit to the Lincoln memorial. The bus station scene is an intriguing one. Throughout the scene the black porters are shown carrying around the luggage for the (white) politicians. There is no ironic subtext at work in here, and no commentary on the obvious racial discrimination and racial hierarchy that places blacks at the level of mere beasts of burden for powerful white men who must go about their official business. Towards the end of the scene something strange happens, as the blacks get an opportunity to make their presence known. Taking advantage of the confusion cause by the disappearance of Mr Smith, they abandon the luggage and quickly bolt, leaving Chick McGann (Eugene Pallette) flustered. One could read this scene as simply comedic relief, and that may be the case, as Pallette’s character performs the comedic functions of the funny fat man through the film (getting stuck in phone booths, shaking his jowls, falling on stairs). We may also see in this an example of the black porters attempting to enact their own form of power through abandonment of their duties. They dump the bags and take off, because they can get away with it, and it gives them a sense of power, however small and fleeting, in the face of their white overlords. But that the scene is not played with any irony or commentary on these oppressive social relations shows the acceptance such hierarchies had gained in our American consciousness.

Another incident where race is a factor occurs when Smith visits the Lincoln memorial. Here he stands in the shadow of the Great Emancipator and listens as a young boy reads the words of the Gettysburg Address off the wall. The boy’s grandfather is there, reading along, and soon another man, a grizzled old black man, arrives, and listens. As they read Lincoln’s talk of freedom and equality, the camera cuts between the old white man, the boy, and the old black man. We are meant to understand that the white man was a Civil War veteran (remember there were still Civil War veterans alive at this time) and that the black man was a slave, freed by Lincoln’s emancipation. The black man’s emotional reaction to the reading is supposed to be evidence of the significance Lincoln had to these people and their lives in America, and the importance of the legacy Mr Smith has come into. What goes unsaid is the reality that, although slavery had ended, the lot of many black people in America had not appreciably improved. And the implication in the reverence for Lincoln is that he did this thing, freed the slaves, out of the goodness of his own heart. What makes this story hard to believe is that this same Abraham Lincoln once said that “if I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that” (Lincoln, 1862). Add to this the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed approximately zero slaves (remember it only applied to states not under Union control) and we begin to see a problem with Lincoln “the Emancipator.” But it is a convenient story to tell ourselves, and it makes for a touching moment on film. It also establishes the connection between Smith and Lincoln, for where Lincoln freed the slaves, Smith must free the people of the nation from Taylor’s machine. Lincoln preserved the union, holding the same belief in the power of the American system that Smith would have us believe. By playing up these relations, the power of the mythic vision Smith advocates is given legitimacy.

While Mr Smith serves primarily as a vehicle of myth and consensus, it at times threatens to break with its own notion of the triumph of righteousness. When we leave the Senate at the end of the film, Smith is unconscious, but alive, in a heap on the floor, Paine has just attempted suicide, and Taylor is still sitting fat atop his throne of lies. Just as Smith’s cause seemed hopeless, we are given no assurance that what will prevail in the end will be good. We are left to infer that Taylor will be ruined in the scandal that follows and Washington will be all the better for it. Yet how many Taylor’s are left out there, and how many more will the future hold? Capra offers no promises to the total triumph of good. In a scheme he would repeat in later films, such as Meet John Doe and It’s a Wonderful Life, the strain placed on the system becomes almost too much to bear, to the point that no total reconciliation is possible. What we should read into this is not a resignation to accept the Taylors and Potters and Nortons of the world, but rather a recognition of their continued existence, and the prevalence of the American way in spite of their efforts to the contrary. Here is have just begun to deconstruct Mr Smith Goes to Washington and its own particular brand of myth building, and I do not mean to sully it or the tradition from which it springs. Some element of myth is necessary for our national character. What is dangerous is when we fail to understand the workings of the myth and question the ways it is asking us to think about the world.

Works Referenced

Capra, Frank. The Name Above the Title: An Autobiography. New York: Macmillan, 1971.

Carney, Raymond. American Vision: The Films of Frank Capra. New York: Cambridge Press, 1986.

Lincoln, Abraham. Letter to Horace Greely, 1862.

Maltby, Richard. Harmless Entertainment: Hollywood and the Ideology of Consensus. New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1983.

Mr Smith Goes to Washington. Dir. Frank Capra. Perf. James Stewart, Jean Arthur, and Claude Rains. Columbia DVD, 1999.

Petrie, John. The Greatest Thomas Jefferson Quotes. 2008. <http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html>