- Hardcover: 232 pages
- Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (February 9, 2006)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0742538087
- ISBN-13: 978-0742538085
- Product Dimensions: 7.2 x 0.7 x 9.3 inches
- Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 1 customer review
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #5,678,542 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Politics and Film: The Political Culture of Film in the United States
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Customers who bought this item also bought
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Students, citizens, and scholars are increasingly aware that films' stories and metaphors—'American Tales,' if you will—influence our perception of politics. Daniel Franklin's Politics and Film is a welcome contribution to our ongoing conversation about the evolving relationship between entertainment, art, commerce, and politics—and how this in turn affects the shape, style, and bias of our political attitudes and collective memory. Those who wish to connect the dots between the reel world of Hollywood and the real world of American political culture will find some serious food for thought in this engaging, entertaining book. (Kevan M. Yenerall)
This is a fun book to read, hard to put down, and spiked with intriguing information that will be unfamilair to most readers. Students of all ages will love it. (Political Science Quarterly)
It has become practically a national pastime to criticize Hollywood movies for their sex, violence, and ultra-liberal politics. But why are films like that? In this book Daniel Franklin enters the scholarly controversy about the sources of American film content. His conclusion, vigorously argued, is that film-makers are simply acting as good capitalists and responding to the audience. Because filmgoers are more secular and liberal than the population as a whole, films are more secular and liberal than they would otherwise be. (David Prindle)
About the Author
Daniel P. Franklin is associate professor of political science at Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia. He is the author of Making Ends Meet: Congressional Budgeting in the Age of Deficits and Extraordinary Measures: The Exercise of Prerogative Powers in the United States and is coeditor of Political Culture and Constitutionalism: A Comparative Approach. He teaches courses on American government, politics of the presidency, and politics and film.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
My primary complaint about this text is probably more a fault of the editors. It is not very well organized. He laid out some pretty fundamental arguments in the early chapters of the book that are of course relevant to material discussed in later chapters. However, rather than a simple reminder of those fundamental arguments (e.g. the three eras of monopoly), he explains and re-explains this material far too often. I cannot help but ask myself: “Is he simply trying to fill up pages in his book, for the sake of filling up pages?” For example, pages 123-126 could have been entirely omitted—we have already read all of this in previous chapters, besides one or two new ideas. Why dedicate an entire section to the evolution of the economics of the film industry when this subject has already been exhausted in chapter 2? I understand the need to refer back to a previous argument in order to give credence to a new one, and that he is discussing a new subject in this chapter, but this is over the top. He only presents a couple of new arguments in this section of chapter 6—but they could have easily been included in chapter 2.
The blurred line between subjectivity and objectivity as well as the superfluous in-depth repetition of previously discussed topics may lead many intellectually curious readers to conclude that, without all of the added fluff, this textbook could have been just as effective had it been 30% shorter. Better yet, if Rowman and Littlefield had a page limit requirement for Franklin, he should have filled up that extra 30% with new material and new arguments that build on his old ones rather than parade the same material as entirely new arguments.