Author’s Note: Portions
of this essay-review will be re-used in a new series of posts highlighting
Important and influential Sociologists
BACKGROUND
C. Wright Mills was one of the most
influential, polemic and incendiary public intellectuals of the late 20th
Century. Listed as one of the greatest Sociologist to have ever lived (just
behind classical Europeans like Emile Durkheim and Max Weber); C. Wright Mills
and his work has been a staple of the Sociologist’s diet for at least the last
40 years. Each year every burgeoning
would-be sociologist is introduced to C. Wright Mills in Introductory to
Sociology courses around the country and abroad (Usually by reading an excerpt
from his influential text The Sociological
Imagination). C. Wright Mills has become the base of Sociological Thought
for many Sociologist working in the field today. Yet, this was not always the case.
During Mills’ career he was often seen as a
firebrand, an instigator; especially at Columbia University Labeled as a “Radical Nomad”[1]
and a “Post Modern Cowboy”[2],
many of his biographies contain stories that are so fantastical that they
boarder on myth (One of my favorites is a story involving a rant he gave during
one of his lectures about the how to incite a violent revolution in the US in
front of President-elect Eisenhower) His
life being unceremoniously cut short in 1962 (due to a fourth and fatal heart
attack) Mills never got to see the fruits of his labor, and personally bask in
the recognition he so richly deserves.
One of Mills’ most enduring concepts
outside of the groundbreaking and eventually foundational notion of The Sociological Imagination in Post
Civil Rights Sociology, was The Power Elite. For Mills, The
Power Elite are a small group of individuals that operate within high positions
of the powerful social institutions. In Mills’ work he exclusively mentions the
institutions of Politics, the Military and the Economy. Additionally, today
Media and Media corporations are also included.
It is through their positions (not necessarily themselves) that these
“elite” wield power, and from them gain prestige (status), prosperity (wealth)
and persuasion (influences). They are
often a collusive and intimate circle that isolates themselves from the general
public. If and when people speak of The
Power Elite these are often names that you do not know or at most only vaguely
heard of. They are not celebrities, or
media personalities, they are the visibly invisible. All of their actions are
transparent and can be contentious but are far removed from the general public.
It’s this collective’s decisions, or indecisions that shape society itself.[3]
These are the 1% of the 1%. They are CEO’s, Congressional Committee Members,
high ranking military officials, and lobbyists.
Mills
(2000) describes lobbying as:
“liaison work [used] when issues are firmly
drawn, individuals related to the larger corporate interests are called upon to
exert pressure in the proper places at the strategic time…in various
subcommittees, prestigious clubs, open political affiliations and consumer
relationships…within the confines of [the] elite. (p.291-292)[4]
Lobbying is a political practice in
which individuals and or groups are paid by corporations and special interests
to exercise their will in congress. Typically, a corporation and/or industry
will use lobbyists to sway congressional votes through the promise of campaign
finance, gifts, or other more nefarious tactics in order to defeat or promote a
bill. It is in the world of lobbying and the Millsian intersections of
politics, special interests and corporations that the film Miss Sloane takes place.
REVIEW
From the Film’s Marketing:
In the high-stakes world of
political power-brokers, Elizabeth Sloane is the most sought after and
formidable lobbyist in D.C. But when taking on the most powerful opponent of
her career, she finds winning may come at too high a price.
Plot
The
titular Miss Sloane (I would prefer the title of Ms. Sloane) played by Jessica
Chastain, is one of the most ruthless cut throat lobbyists in Washington. She
is cold, calculating and rational. As
she states in the film, “[She] was hired to win, and that is what
[she}does.”. The film opens with her
asked to spearhead a new campaign to promote Gun ownership in women by the NRA.
She not so politely declines and decides to leave her lobbying firm to be hired
by those that are lobbying congress for universal background checks for all
private and public gun sales. What
follows is a political cat and mouse thriller that broadens the scope of the
Millsian understanding of lobbyists and paints shades of grey with a very broad
brush.
Film analysis
This film is a tightly wound well-paced
engaging thriller that only slightly tips its hand just before delivering the
twist. Supported by terrific
performances by Chastain, Waterson, and Strong this movie is efficient in its
execution building to its satisfying conclusion.
The film stands on the shoulders of
Jessica Chastain. A less capable actress would have made this a subpar
film. Chastain fills Sloane with her
gravitas, giving her complexity and ambiguity. As a moviegoer, you are reviled
by her and some of her tactics, yet oddly you root for her to win through her
duplicity, because you loath the opposition that much more.
The Cinematography is subtle for this
film. Some of the color is leeched out to give it a despondent feel that is
reflects the kind of work (and behaviors) lobbyists are asked/required to do.
There are no quick frenetic cuts that give you a feeling of hyper urgency and
alertness. Over the shoulder two shots, panning and wide shots are often used to
focus not on where the scene is, because everywhere starts looking the same
after a while, but what is being said, is ultimately Unique.
The
Script was one of 2015’s top five on
the famous Hollywood blacklist[5]
a survey website that identifies the favorite, if not “unproducable” scripts/screenplays
of the year. The dialogue and the care to which the audience has to listen and
piece together the plot should make a fan of mysteries and tense drama
swoon. There is no moment of this film
that can be missed, each scene builds upon the foundation of the previous one
and helps to strengthen the proceeding scene. This is a welcome respite from
the mindless explosive (both literally and figuratively) blockbusters[6]
that continues to dominate cinema[7].
This is quiet, thinking person’s thriller that sheds light on society and
sociological issues.
Social Issues
As
mentioned, this film is a window into the Military-Industrial Complex that was
outlined by C. Wright Mills. What this film attempts to do is humanize the
corrupted industry through the characterization of Miss Sloane and the
supporting cast of the film. Lobbying in this film, much like “the force” in
the Star Wars Universe, is treated as a constant (of our socio-political system)
and can be used for “good” (in the case of the film to created stricter
background checks) or “bad” (the manipulation of the justice system to make gun
laws more lax). Either way both parties, regardless of their intentions operate
in a morally grey space, akin to Utilitarian philosophies, specifically
Consequentialism[8]
While this may make many people uncomfortable, especially those whom are either
morally pure or anti-establishment, if we look to Max Weber[9],
whose work was instrumental to Mills’ own writings, we see that the
bureaucratic system (of which the Military Industrial Complex is a part) exists
as a system that is constant, regardless of the players that are involved.
Like many other Anti-heroes before her,
Elizabeth Sloane is the wild card to fight against a corrupted system, because
she is a product of that corrupted system. Because of that the film’s ending
ultimately “takes her off the board” mainly because we can not be sure that on
a separate social issue, Miss Sloane would be on “the right side.”, which makes
her both compelling and interesting.
CONCLUSION
I
cannot recommend this film enough, both as a cinephile and as a
sociologist. Those sociologists whom
have an admiration for the works of C. Wright Mills will more likely get more
out of it that other sociologists and the majority of the movie going
public. Additionally, since modern movie
goer tastes[10]
err on the side of action and explosions these days, this film is a quite
sleeper and (hopeful) independent hit that reminds us of the true craft of
filmmaking and the use of film as a sociological mirror to criticize our own
society.
[3]
Yet in a response to criticism Mills points out that “the power elite is not a
homogeneous circle of a specified number men whose solidified will continuously
prevails against all obstacles.”
(Mills 2008: 148)
[6]
Where you can literally miss the large chunks of the movie without missing plot
details or understanding of the films progression. Additionally, this speaks to
the trend of mindless escapism and nostalgia that is chiefly desired by the
populace today. We
all know where that can lead.
[7]
Over the last 5 years, particularly since the end of Nolan’s
Batman Trilogy, I have personally been experiencing the law of diminished
margin utility when it comes to Superhero films. The more I consume, the
less satisfied I am by the product. And, like a drug addict, who moves on to
harder and harder drugs for the same high, it is the films that are unique, or
outside of the mainstream (Think of your Guardians
of the Galaxy or Deadpool)
in order to get excited or even really like a Superhero film. It is my fear
that I will eventually reach a maturation point where I will never be contented
again
