Dr. Maryam Khaleghi Nejad: University Professor and Head of the Department of Cultural Diplomacy, Art, and Cinema at the Iranian Association for West Asian Studies
Nearly a century after the Lumière brothers claimed there was no future for the new medium, cinema has become one of the most significant tools of political power. For example, Nazi Germany used this medium for its most effective propaganda purposes, as it was highly efficient in fostering national self-reliance. After the 1917 Revolution, Lenin called cinema "the most important art" (Williams, 2002: 6).
One of the most influential centers in this regard is Hollywood. The United States has long used film to assert and restore its dominance. What is crucial about American films and their relationship with politics, particularly U.S. foreign policy, is that these films influence, shape, and expand viewers' perceptions of U.S. foreign policy. In this domain, scholar Robert Gregg suggests that films help us understand "valuable windows into international reality." For instance, historical narratives, though they may distort history, have significantly increased historical awareness. Films also provide valuable historical lessons and facilitate connections by bringing distant spaces closer.
Another important function of cinema in international relations is in the realm of ideology. While this coexistence is not easy, cinema, as a social institution, also serves the reproduction of ideology. For example, the reproduction of bourgeois ideology is a prominent feature in some Hollywood and European films. According to various experts, films are ideological in that they reflect the views of their creators, essentially serving to represent supportive ideologies. However, this representation may not always be intentional. In some cases, films may act in opposition to or even undermine an ideology. Some view cinema as a bridge between the popular and the political, with films directly contributing to the reproduction of foreign policy. Another significant aspect of cinema involves identity, where certain awareness is depicted as an essential part of the subconscious.
During the Cold War, Hollywood and the U.S. government had close ties, with Hollywood participating in endorsing and solidifying the political objectives of U.S. policymakers. Whenever the U.S. government faced obstacles or challenges, this cultural and industrial giant was at its service. The main assumption is that during the Cold War, the U.S. government and Hollywood were strategic partners. The government used this partnership to create a discursive space where it could appear as a distinct actor in contrast to others. Although World War II ended with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for nearly forty years, the United States used cinema to portray repeated nuclear threats as external dangers, aligning domestic and even international minds with its objectives. The Hollywood film industry was very successful in aligning with the government to depict who the friends and enemies were, who could be trusted, and who should be avoided—all in line with U.S. policies.
During and after the Cold War, Hollywood sought to create consensual discourses for U.S. foreign policy. To see the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy in Hollywood, one only needs to look at the films of that era. This chapter of the relationship between U.S. governments and Hollywood cinema during the Cold War illustrates that America was engaged in a process of political construction from a national perspective, initially rallying domestic support and then engaging beyond its borders. In some American films of this period, high-level policies were promoted through cinema and shaped into meaningful discourses. These were not merely products of Cold War culture but were in service of naturalizing U.S. foreign policies and fostering moral and political support for those policies. At that time, films served to build national morale. For example, the films Armageddon (1998) and Independence Day (1996) convey the message that the United States is the center of the universe and that Americans bear the "burden" of saving the world. Armageddon portrays American superiority as the saviors of humanity, with Washington as the center of the world. In Armageddon, a comet is set to shatter the Earth, and it doesn't matter where it strikes. As the comet hurtles toward Earth, a team led by Harry Stamper lands on the comet's core, drills 200 meters deep, and plants a nuclear bomb. The explosion splits the comet in two, saving Earth. Here, America is depicted as the world's savior. In Independence Day, the narrative also seeks to portray America as the world's savior.
Armageddon and Independence Day are just small examples of how U.S. foreign policy is constructed in Hollywood. The United States skillfully uses this soft power industry to bolster both its industry and its influence. During critical times, Hollywood essentially represents U.S. foreign policies in the international order, preparing and promoting policy discourses and decisions, legitimizing them in the minds of audiences outside the United States, and portraying America as the world's savior or universalizing its narratives.
Keywords: Politics, America, Cinema, Hollywood, Armageddon
Editorial Board, Iranian Journal of International Relations
