Wag_the_Dog_Essay

Truth is essentially in the eye of the beholder. That is, there is no one absolute reality, but the significance of a truth is determined by the purpose and power of its pursuer. This is not to say that there is no truth, rather what is perceived as reality can be constructed to suit the aims of those in power and also reflect the contextual paradigms of society. Two texts that explore the distortion of truth for the preservation of power are the film Wag the Dog, directed by Barry Levinson which satirises both the manipulative role of the government in fabricating reality and the gullibility of the public and the novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles in which Thomas Hardy challenges the construction of moral truths to maintain an established social hierarchy. In both these texts, the concept of truth and certainty as definite is questioned, provoking the audience to reconsider the validity of the truths they adhere to. In Wag the Dog, Levinson immediately raised the question of how truth is influenced by power. In the opening, the viewer is asked to consider the reality of public sovereignty in the democratic electoral process through the metaphor of the films title. The concept of the “tail wagging the dog” alerts the audience to the grim truth of government manipulation. The negotiability of truth in the film is established by the plot of the President’s alleged sexual impropriety, the legitimacy of which is side lined by Conrad Brean’s question “what difference does it make if it’s true'” This rhetorical question is posed furthermore to the viewer, challenging the audience to examine the conflict between truth and implication. Whether or not the story is perceived as true is determined by the media, the power of the image, which the government harnesses to control public opinion. Though it is the government that uses the media as a tool to manipulate the public’s perception of the truth, Levinson reminds us that it is ultimately the media which yields greater influence over the public as it is able to propagate select perspectives to a wider audience and prescribe a response to events which is “given to the public”. Levinson’s use of the omnipresent television screen emphasises its influence. Moreover, the film raises an awareness of the potency of emotive images. Levinson’s intertextual references to actual war images lends verisimilitude to the satire, and includes the audience in the mockery of a public who “remembers the slogans” but “don’t remember the wars”. Levinson suggests that it is the public’s lack of discernment when consuming information and a social desire for heroic sensationalism that drives the success of the governments “pageant”. While corrupt in constructing a war, it can be argued that the government, led by Conrad Brean merely toyed with the truth the American people wanted to believe; producing the war as a show to “give ‘em what they want”. The scene of the staged Albanian news report conveys the simplicity of stirring public sentiment with “poignant” images that exploit the emotive power of vulnerable young girls. The government is able to generate support for the war by playing to the public’s self-appointed sense of moral authority, an image evident in the lyrics of “The American Dream” which evokes patriotism by idealising “democracy” and “liberty” as the archetypal lifestyle. Likewise the idolisation of the war hero with the song “God Bless the men of the 303” imbues the war with religious significance, adding to the idea of moral obligation. Levinson satirises the American public with the ironic view of themselves as global benefactors when in reality there is a very limited knowledge of other cultures, conveyed in the absurdity of casting a typically American girl as a “born and bred Albanian”. While the viewer is made privy to the government’s manipulation through Levinson’s behind-the-scenes portrayal, we are still subjectively involved in the presidential candidates power struggle for public approval, Levinson allows for the uncertainty of the incumbent presidents morality and positions the viewer as a direct audience for senator Nole’s criticism of the president in order to present two conflicting perspectives and illustrate the necessity of discernment as an audience. Senator Nole is characterised and portrayed as authoritative, appraising “honour…integrity…principles” as vital in a president, and takes the higher moral ground in contrast to the president who is portrayed as corrupt, self-serving and evasive, emphasised by his absence in the film .The truth of who would prove the better president is influenced by the lens trough which each character is viewed. Nevertheless it is not a specific president who Levinson seeks to satirise, but political institutions collectively, which is achieved through also the ambiguous presence of the President and the characterisation of the films protagonists as parodies. The manipulative power if the government is exemplified in the character of Conrad Brean, a spin artist hired by the president. Brean is introduced as “Mr. Fix- it”, which appropriately conveys his dubious methods. His unassuming appearance belies his power, reflecting Levinson’s exploration of the government’s underhanded control. What is most lethal about Brean’s influence is his talent for repositioning others to view his perspective as truth. The ability to “talk a dog off a meat truck” empowers Brean to influence others inconspicuously. Conversely, Winifred Ames represents the government as appearing in control, with a sleek visage and an air of authority within presidential confines. However when challenged, Ames’ calm exterior deteriorates instantly, conveying that the government possesses no control in reality, merely the desire for control. Both characters are inherently opposite to what their appearances portray, which furthers the concept of truth as determined by perspective. Levinson further blurs the line between fact and fiction with the plot device of employing a Hollywood producer to manage the deteriorating presidential campaign. The concept of “producing” a war to “distract” the public is made more ludicrous by the characterisation of Stanley Motss. Motss as a caricature exemplifies the dangers of merging reality and “show business”; the viewers first impression of Stanley is the ostentatious setting of his mansion, a grandiose further developed by the mis-en-scene of his bedroom with stage-like curtains and his exaggerated manner. The absurdity adds to the satire and reduces the sobriety of an election to a “pageant”, emphasised by Stanley’s view of the presidency as “a change on wardrobe”. This flippant view of reality is most pronounced during the producing of the Albanian war footage; Stanley thrives on the drama of the scandal, progressively losing perspective of the gravity of the situation, shown through his leitmotif “this is nothing” and his callous treatment of William Schumann’s death. In addition to his message that truth is often subjective, Levinson illustrates in Stanley that a warped perception of reality stops individuals from forming their own truth and obscures the boundaries of morality. The idea of truth as easily changeable correlates with the question of what it is to be moral. Individuals are liable to view their own beliefs of morality as truth, inevitably creating conflicting perspectives. The Victorian era was one that rigidly supposed its own system of morality to be the absolute truth. In his revolutionary novel, Tess of the D’Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy challenged social mores by exploring the individuals place within the stringent moral laws. The Victorian period was heavily influenced by religion, with harsh Christian doctrines providing the social code. Most notable of the era was its preoccupation with sexual repression, which gave rise to constructed feminine ideals, particularly that of the “angel of the house” whose duty was to preserve to moral ideals upheld by society. As in Wag the Dog, it is evident that it is those in power who prescribe moral truths to the general public in order to maintain the hierarchy and guard their place of authority. In the novel, Hardy illustrates the self-righteousness of those in authority as well as the double standards of social values in regards to gender and class through the parallel characters of Alec D’Urberville and Angel Clare. Alec represents male objectification of women, particularly that of upper-class men to lower-class women, assuming a cultural right to possess Tess, calling himself her “master”. Angel otherwise, personifies the hypocritical values of ruling Christian doctrines, which Hardy satirises as conflicting with the humanitarian spirit of the age, where “morality good enough for divinities...is scorned by average human nature”. The Vicar’s refusal to give the baby a “Christian burial” due to its illegitimacy conveys the injustice of stringent Victorian morality. Angel imposes upon Tess as strict morality which he himself fails to exemplify, with the limiting image of the “virginal daughter of Nature”. Both Angel and Alec accept the patriarchal truth that women are at fault for their circumstances in order to protect their own moral positions. However, Hardy challenges the notion that a woman’s worth is measured by her “virtue”, by characterising Tess as intrinsically pure, tainted only by “her conventional aspect, and not her innate sensations”. Tess’ “large innocent eyes” rejects the identity of an “artful hussy” imposed upon her by society represented by Alec, but Hardy also characterises Tess as exuding an unconscious sexuality, not the “celestial”, spiritualised ideal that consumes Angel. The “brimfulenss of her nature” emphasises her transcendence of Victorian limitations of women, denouncing the social ethical code. As the novel progresses, Tess assumes a part of the natural landscape, with her emotional circumstances mirroring either the burgeoning romance in the “warm verments” of Talbothays or the desolation found in a “starve-acre farm”. Hardy’s pathetic fallacy identifies Tess as more natural, thus closer to the truth than the socially constructed identities placed upon her. Tess embodies the reality of the Victorian woman’s’ position in society, and while as modern readers of the novel we are able to sympathise with her situation and view her as ultimately pure, it is evident that the truth of who is moral relies on one’s perspective. It is paradoxical to question the certainty of truth, and yet it is evident in such texts as Wag the Dog directed by Barry Levinson and the novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy which both explore the consequences of conflicting truths that reality in the perspective of on e individual may contrast to the view s of another, and thus it the finality of a truth lies essentially in the power of those that perceive it.