<p style=”text-align: left;”><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>I found Frank Capra’s film </span><i><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Mr. Smith Goes to Washington</span></i><span style=”font-weight: 400;”> fascinating. I was very quickly reminded of Mark Twain in the sense that the portrayal of the senators and the political system is heavily satirized both through characterization and the cinematography. Multiple scenes of Senators making backroom deals are full of quick cuts and montages that emphasize the pace in which these significant decisions that affect millions are made. I think the film succeeds in ways the many contemporary films that attempt to satirize important cultural/political systems fail to do. Specifically, the film does not get bogged down in its own cynicism via the character of Mr, Smith who is consistently genuine and righteous throughout the film unlike most of the other characters. Many contemporary films are just satires or see certain American systems as fundamentally irredeemable. A severe example of this is the </span><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Todd Solondz film </span><i><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Happiness </span></i><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>in which the American nuclear family is portrayed as fundamentally corrupt and absurd and irredeemably so. Similar to this, David Lynch films often expose the dark underbelly of American small-towns and institutions, also often without a sense of redemption or hope. I say all of this to emphasize what I think </span><i><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Mr. Smith</span></i><span style=”font-weight: 400;”> does successfully.</span></p>
<p style=”text-align: left;”><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>The film accurately fictionalizes the corruption of Washington, that is enormously topical today, while also acknowledging that these systems can be redeemed by those with strong will, and firm commitment to public good. I would also argue that </span><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Clarissa Saunders is the central hero of the film, even though Mr. Smith is the primary vehicle, as the senator trying to “drain the swamp,” in Washington. Clarissa writes the original bill for the Boys Camp, convinces Smith to return to congress and fight for justice, and guides Smith through the process and complex rules of senate hearings in order to initiate the filibuster that allows the corruption of Washington to be exposed. I think too, the film is significantly more progressive than it may seem to modern audiences. I was initially disappointed that Mr. Smith’s rhetoric about supporting all American Boys seemed to only apply to white children. However, both in Smith’s speeches and the portrayal of the “boys” including in a few shots a young black boy helping produce the paper that makes Smith’s filibuster work, viewers can see the film makes an attempt to push back against 1950’s racism and anti-blackness. The standard of inclusiveness and social justice is much higher, as it should be, in 2017, but I think the film is still successful for its time in representing young black boys as apart of the America worth preserving and holding on to. A flaw to this is the lack of inclusion of women/girls in this representation of the American spirit, although this is somewhat remedied by the characterization of Clarissa as I mentioned earlier. Overall, for those reasons, I believe the film is better than most contemporary films dealing with satire as the narrative manages to avoid total hopelessness and cynicism while also embodying at least some of the ideal and inclusive practices that a better America would have.</span></p>
<p style=”text-align: left;”><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>-by Thomas McCarthy</span></p>
.
