Regarding the OP, how about The Scarlet Pimpernel? The movie portrays the hero saving the ruling elite from the excesses of the French Revolution. While it is undeniable the Revolution turned horribly bloody and much injustice was done, the past history of the kings and aristocracy of France is filled with all sorts of horrible bloody crimes against the populace. After reading Barbara Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror, it’s pretty hard to sympathize with the French nobility, even though we know individuals who suffered in the Revolution had not personally committed those excesses.
And of course, the Scarlet Pimpernel was motivated partly by traditional British power politics – at all costs, prevent a single unified Continental power from coalescing – in addition to his humane motivations.
Certainly the movie has elitist / anti-populist undercurrents.
As Nameless is leaving on his mission, Broken Sword attempts to dissuade him by writing a character in the sand. The word was, I believe, “tien shun”, which was translated “our country”.
I had a buddy who was very interested in east Asian cinema; he showed me Hero on DVD about a year and a half before the U.S. theatrical release. The DVD was subtitled in English, but not the same translation as the theatrical version; in that, “tien shun” was translated “one under Heaven”. There is probably not one exact translation from Mandarin to English, but “one under Heaven” is certainly capable of an antidemocratic, pro-one-party rule interpretation.
Well, there are certainly quite a few movies that show the seamy side of democracy without necessarily saying that some other system of governance would be better. In addition to Bob Roberts, off the top of my head I can think of Advise and Consent, Head of State, Ides of March, All the King’s Men, All the President’s Men, The Best Man, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Tanner on Tanner, The Seduction of Joe Tynan and The Candidate.
The movies attempt to put forth that message. They fail, many of the audience leave with symphathy for the Empire which let’s face it was much better.
Another movie: Syriana
Yeah the Star Wars prequels end up being anti-democratic. The people can’t do anything and their elected officials are ineffectual, tied up in bureaucracy. And a dictator controlling everything is also bad.
What’s good? A small elite (the Jedi) who are superhuman and don’t need laws and regulations to keep them from doing what’s right, and are only bound by their own code.
Yet another vote for this film. One of the more interesting bits is that it accurately predicts the threat that airplanes posed to warships with the President displaying that tactic to cow the rest of the world. Also rather progressively the mobs of unemployed people protesting (based on the Bonus Army) included both whites and blacks while they seem to have used actual Asians to portray Asian characters.
A post WWII British comedy come to mind, though I’m not quite sure it fits.
Passport to Pimlico – A ancient Royal Charter is found granting a neighborhood in London to a minor French royal. The descendant of the royal is found, and the neighborhood secedes from England. There’s more to it of course, but it’s a very fine film and enjoyable whether it fits or not.
In addition to what’s been mentioned above, it’s hard to consider The Last Samurai to be anti-democratic when Meiji Japan wasn’t a democracy in any way, shape, or form.
Not the I disagree with you (I might), but what specifically about it is anti-democratic? It is anti-interventionist for sure, but the concept of democracy isn’t really taken to task.
One problem is that people tend to use the word “democracy” to mean something akin to “American patriotism” or “chauvinism,” really, in the literal sense of that word. If you take the pure definition of “democracy” as majority rule, then any film that portrays an individual bucking the complacency of the crowd qualifies here.
Immortality’s not much good without invulnerability. And anti-aging.
Damn, I’ve got to pull those books off the shelves again. Been too long since I’ve read them, and I curse the fate that prevented Hughart from writing more.
To give the Devil his due, Birth of a Nation tells a rather uplifting story IF you accept the premises it takes for granted:[ul]
[li]that [del]African-Americans[/del] “Negros” are a race of imbecilic hominids, only distinguishable from the apes by a rudimentary power of speech, and incapable of existing in civilization except under the guidance of white masters- either their kindly southern owners, or the demagogic Yankees.[/li][li]That the Civil War was due to the scheming of the emerging northern “money power”, which used some progressive fanatics’ ranting about slavery as an excuse for conquest.[/li][li]That having disenfranchised the former rebels, the Yankees set up corrupt puppet governments of carpetbaggers and scalawags that looted the South; and used the Negros as their Janissaries, “payed” in permission to loot and rape.[/li][li]And that at last, a heroic resistance arose and liberated the people* of the South from oppression.[/li][/ul]
*whites of course; negros don’t count. In fact the entire Southron attitude makes perfect sense given a single premise: that Africans aren’t human beings, at least not in the same sense whites are.
Fair enough, but it takes the side of an aristocracy trying to keep its inborn privileges, and contrasts them with the common folk, who are depicted as uncouth levelers (refusing to show deference to a samurai and mocking his top knot) and cultural sellouts (serving in the Imperial army, and moved to tears after defeating the samural in battle, shamed at what they’ve done).
Thus, it advocates rule by a privileged minority over a weak, venal common mass.
Well, in the latest one, a scheming villain convinces a mob of easily-manipulate resentful losers to rise up, take over the city by force, and start having show trials (and real executions) of anyone who’s seen as too rich and obnoxious. The democratically-elected city and national governments are helpless, so two strong men – one military (Commissioner Gordon) and one industrialist (Wayne/Batman) – ignore the law and, using the power and resources of a private business mega-conglomerate, successfully fight back and save the helpless populace. And of course, the strong men don’t abuse their power; they only use it for the good of all.
How much more of an argument for fascism can a movie possibly be?
I mean, if the movie had Batman going on to rule the city with an iron fist and violently-enforced cult of personality, then it would be an anti-fascist movie, wouldn’t it?
Really, I think every standard superhero movie is fascist at heart : they say that us people, even working together, can’t solve our problems. We need a strong man who is above the law to come and save us from the Anarchist/Communist/Eastasia menace. And that includes super-cop/super-spy movies, too.
Making it all the stranger that DW Griffith’s next film was Intolerance, about the harm done by man’s intolerance of those who are different from himself, throughout the ages.
I watched “The Adventures of Robin Hood” (the one with Errol Flynn) over the weekend and this OP came to mind. While it is true that Robin’s Merry Men were more democratic than Prince John and the other bad guys, they were far from democratic. At the end especially, it was clear there was definitely a caste system flowing downwards from Richard the Lion Hearted to Sir Robin, etc.