•
Rating: In these days of Christmas holidays, when free time should not be lacking once lunches and dinners have been digested, it's not a bad idea to watch some good films (certainly crossing off the so-called "cinepanettoni"). This year, I decided to follow the advice of a friend who pointed out to me the possibility of finding, on YouTube, an old film that for various reasons I had not been able to see in the past, namely "A Face in the Crowd" by Elia Kazan, made in 1957. A title I was eager to find not only for certain circumstances related to the director himself but also for its intrinsic visionary quality, as if the author had foreseen the developments of some latent tendencies in the then modern American society (but not only).
First, it must be said that Kazan's cinema has always had the ability to highlight certain dark sides of the seemingly happy Yankee society, so clean on the surface but equally sordid and contradictory in certain social and economic aspects (it would be enough to mention the film "On the Waterfront" with Marlon Brando to get an idea). And all this must be recognized in Elia Kazan, who, however, did not emerge well in the McCarthyism phase in the 1950s since he named some of his colleagues as communist sympathizers (although they were only progressives) and got them into trouble in Hollywood. In short, Kazan had to redeem himself somehow for his misdeeds and, staying within the realm of committed cinema, he made "A Face in the Crowd" in 1957 (based on the story "Your Arkansas Traveller" by Budd Schulberg).
The plot begins with a certain Marcia Jeffries (played by the talented newcomer Patricia Neal) who, on behalf of a local radio station, is on the lookout for an anonymous face in the crowd, precisely, who can prove to have a natural talent to impose himself as a radio speaker. It so happens that she finds, just arrested and imprisoned, a kind of vagabond drunken folk singer (a true lonesome hobo) who could do well. And from here begins the rise to fame and success of a man named Larry Lonesome Rhodes (an overwhelming and theatrical Andy Griffith) who, after landing on national television networks, will prove to be a ruthless public charmer to the point of finding himself a step away from embarking on a fruitful political career. But if you remember an old fable (perhaps by La Fontaine if I recall correctly) you can imagine the tragic end that awaits those who inflate themselves too much...
A film of this kind still offers interesting points for reflection today. It is not just another confirmation of the success that goes to the head of those who cannot manage it and then falls ruinously. There is above all something else. Meanwhile, Kazan does not refrain from caustically representing the power of mass media in modern society to the point of influencing the public who convincingly follow modes and skillfully influential characters (then, after radio, television was establishing itself and today we find ourselves with the predominance of the Internet and social media). To this must be added the dangerous nature of characters like the protagonist Lonesome Rhodes who, skillful and unscrupulous, present themselves as one of us, simple and down-to-earth, but in reality, hardened manipulators and greedy for power anyway. It is inevitable that such types, convinced by their economic success, launch themselves into the political fray, proposing themselves as representatives of that unbearable common-sense populism, going so far as to call themselves "advocates of the people", or immune to the intrigues of the "political theater" (any reference to real Italian persons and facts is purely coincidental, and I limit myself to mentioning only two examples among many others...).
Perhaps it is no coincidence that when the film was released, the response from critics and the American public was decidedly lukewarm, and the work did not receive any awards like the Oscar, despite the impeccable acting of the actors and actresses. It was indeed a film ahead of its time, but it would later become increasingly evident the subsequent decline of American politics (and not just) to the level of empty squabbles devoid of ideals and ideologies, so much so that voting would become a choice not between substantial political programs but between interchangeable faces, as if choosing between different brands of soaps or detergents. It is precisely the crisis of politics, as it has manifested in Italy after the collapse of the First Republic parties, now for 30 years and with the rampant phenomenon of populism.
And the ending of the film, somewhat prescient, has nothing reassuring when the character played by a young Walter Matthau (already then in great shape) comments on the disastrous fall of Lonesome Rhodes, stating that the system will continue anyway because other demagogues will rise to prominence to manipulate the masses, the latter unfortunately afflicted by short memory and destined to repeat the usual mistakes. Because unfortunately, it is true that man never changes.
Loading comments slowly
