Donald Trump - A Face in the Crowd (1957) Discussion

[–] caller85071 8 years ago

I watched this film last week, and Trump did come to mind while viewing it.

Maybe the fact that this film was made almost sixty years ago highlights how entertainers have held an unreasonable amount of power for a long time. The most veritable explanation for Trump's success seems to be that people are really going along for the entertainment and allowing themselves to be bedazzled. In the world of usually boring politics he is an aberration, and people are willing to let themselves completely give in to the person that's bringing the most charisma and keeping them amused. That's where our culture is at now, and it's probably been there for quite some time.

I'm not going to discount how desperate Republicans are just to get a president back in The White House, but there were clearly more qualified-but less bombastic-candidates available. I'm sure Trump's success took many of them by surprise, but it was something I saw coming as soon as he entered the race and they pretty much have to back him at this point.

Back to the movie, apparently Rhodes was loosely based on Will Rogers, another entertainer who had a presidential campaign.

reply

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

"I'm sure Trump's success took many of them by surprise..."

It was as if none of the other candidates knew what to make of Trump in the debates, he was rude, crude, disrespectful, seemingly approaching it as some game. By the time he had cornered enough delegates for the nomination no one in that party knew what hit them.

As an aside I have been saying for several years now, the main reason Democrats have been able to elect their presidential candidate is because the Republicans keep failing miserably at fielding qualified candidates. Just one example, Sarah Palin for VP? Were they really serious?

There is a great value in a two-party system, if both parties approach things with the best interest of the country and its residents in mind. But the Republican party has completely lost touch with all but a minority core of "conservative" faithful and the divide just gets bigger and bigger. I just can't see it changing in the near future as the residents get more and more diverse. It isn't a country of old, rich white men anymore and the Republicans refuse to give up that vision.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes not.

reply

[–] caller85071 8 years ago

I'm still not sure if I see a true Republican when watching and listening to Trump. He really feels like someone who should be running as an independent. It looks like certain people are trying to come his aid, but he's felt pretty uncontrollable so far.

I'm now wondering if a catch-22 situation could be developing. If they do manage to tame Trump, does he start losing the support of those who only followed him because he had the attributes that you pointed out? If he refuses to quell some of his rhetoric, can he sway those who are a somewhat put off by him?

Of course, he'll always have those people who are going to vote for him simply because he isn't Hillary Clinton. The Republicans could have nominated someone who aspires to be the next Hitler and that group would still exist.

reply

[–] Wendell Walker 8 years ago

apparently Rhodes was loosely based on Will Rogers

I think the specific example of media star was Arthur Godfrey, but there's certainly more than a little of Will Rogers in there too.

reply

[–] jojomack2006 8 years ago

This movie is one of The Greatest! Got all the credentials too! (Director, Cast, Story.) EXCELLENT! Now, Donald Trump; it's a conspiracy I've pitched to everybody: The Clinton's are at Trumps 3 wedding (they were too! Look it up) one or both whisper in Donald Trumps ear, "you could do it!! Run for President! BE President of United States!! Knowing all the time he hasn't got a snowballs chance in Bakersfield. Hasn't got a prayer. Trump gonna get buried!! You know it..I know it.

reply

[–] vgarci2003 8 years ago

I've been thinking the same thing since he threw his hat in the ring.

reply

[–] cunninghammer 8 years ago

ha ha. nice call smart one

reply

[–] ath-11 8 years ago

Absolutely Donald Trump, no question about it.

Almost 60 years ahead of his time.

- - -

...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.

reply

[–] evilbastard9 8 years ago

The problem is that the Trump Supporters are so far gone that they will never change their mind.

reply

[–] caller85071 8 years ago

I just don't understand how common people such as myself began feeling like he was veritably relatable. At least Dove came from the same class, if not a lower one, as the people who fell in love with him.

reply

[–] jimprideaux2 8 years ago

I saw a fusion of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. Hillary is Marcia but as Marcia turning to the dark side.

reply

[–] gromsall-1 8 years ago

your ALL way off in your comparisons
See Mike Judges'" Idiocracy"
Donald Trump IS President Comacho

reply

[–] sewh-86-654926 8 years ago

It's a perfect analogy!

reply

[–] randycrawford52241 8 years ago

Remember 1992, when Bill's front men recruited Ross Perot? All it took was an appeal to his patriotic vanity and his available expense account. Once Perot had split the opposition to bulldoze an easy path for Bill, he and his -----?Who am I, Why am I here?--- VP flunky Stockdale were counselled to melt down and shrug off as easily as they had been seduced into entering the take-a-dive alleged contest in the first place. This time around, Trump is merely billionaire number two, conveniently engineered to self-destruct at every twist and turn. The only difference is that Perot was clueless, whilst Trump knows exactly what he is doing. Vote for Hillary and you get Hillary, or vote for Trump and you get a Hillary front. Either way, it's only the little people who will get stomped on. Cheers.

reply

[–] randycrawford52241 8 years ago

More from the real world:
Every time you use a credit card, you get a receipt and can later check how many pennies you spent on the Internet, plus you get a monthly statement. But you don't get a receipt for your vote because the audit/count people want to be able to steal or change your vote however they please. If the system were honest, you'd get to pick a serial number off a computer screen, which would then transfer the number to your paper ballot (along with date, state, county, and precinct code). Your unique number after that would equal a unique ballot.

Once you vote, you get to keep the unique xerox copy, like ATM's can give a xerox copy of every check you deposit into the machine. Then, you can go anonymously to any computer, google the entire precinct voting record, and scroll anonymously down to your vote. To see if it got recorded accurately. They don't know who you are or which vote you are inspecting, so all votes have to be honest. You can totalize any precinct, any county, and and any state to see what the real vote results are.

But the "experts" don't want to show the system is honest, since it isn't. Bring this up with your local elections officials, and watch them twist and turn to explain how it's all unnecessary and how the experts have every bug and steal potential already solved for you. Right. All they want to do is have people trust them, with no documentation that any trust is warranted. Guess why they can't do what the credit card companies are already doing.

Some will claim that identifiable ballots contribute to vote bribing and blackmailing, which is baloney since 30% plus of votes are absentee and already subject to bribes and blackmail. What the crooks want is for honest people to have no clue how their votes are actually being counted.

reply

[–] film_flam_man 8 years ago

Your idea sounds reasonable and might very well work. But the system to implement it would have to be procured by the government. Have you ever worked on a government IT proposal or project? In many cases it's a miracle if the resulting system works at all, never mind works as intended. Consequently, I attribute the lack of election transparency as much to incompetence and politics as usual than to bad intentions per se.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (28128673) 8 years ago

I've been on many political blogs during this endless, controversial campaign season. I like to compliment the posters on this thread for very interesting and respectful posts.

I'm watching "A Face in the Crowd" right now, three days before the national election. It's a film that will always, sadly, be relevant, and the times may prove it tragically relevant.

reply

[–] flarrfan 8 years ago

TCM is airing it on Friday, 1/20/17, at 5:45 ET. Too bad it's not on at noon.
Coincidence?

reply

[–] CountJohn 8 years ago

The thing to remember is that Rhodes is just an adviser to a candidate for president, to teach him how to appeal to the masses. The man behind the curtain with the real power so to speak. Someone like Rhodes/Trump running for president and being elected would have been on its face ludicrous in 1957. The fact that Trump was able to be elected this year is evidence of the very "culture rot" he and his supporters criticize.

reply

[–] Eurasiana 8 years ago

Indeed, Trump is like a come-to-life version of the colorful and charismatic Lonesome Rhodes, the persona of a man of the common people and working class hero (the "blue collar billionaire" moniker), a larger-than-life, force of nature, cult of personality. A case of life imitating art!

I wasn't sure if Trump would prevail, but even *way* back when many scoffed at his chances, what I was definitely sure of was if *any* GOP candidate had a chance of defeating Clinton, he was the only one who could do it. His whole ballsy and bombastic persona and views that were a liability in numerous respects, also in many ways was an asset and whipped up passion and devotion where it counted.

Along with (the fictional) Rhodes, Trump's image and appeal is also highly reminiscent of Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot.

A very important point to note is this was the perfect time for Trump (just as 2008 would have been Clinton's time had not Obama burst onto the scene). Despite his Lonesome Rhodes image which made inroads to large swaths of the populace, a highly unconventional candidate as Trump almost certainly would never have been able to make much headway, let alone emerge victorious (in the primaries *and* general) if this was another time in modern politics. Also, if it was another candidate he was up against, such as Sanders or Biden instead of the uncharismatic, inauthentic, baggage-laden Clinton. The stars aligned perfectly and it was a perfect storm for a Lonesome Rhodes candidate.

reply