Skip to main content
  • 197 Accesses

Abstract

The five films analyzed during the course of this book sit quite comfortably in the shifting and blurred landscape of American film in the 1990s, although Forrest Gump may be considered quite unusual since it was so massively successful, and since it was the only one produced and distributed by a major studio on its own (Paramount). All the others were either independent (The Player) or semi-independent (Bob Roberts, Wag the Dog, and Primary Colors). The three latter films all occupy what King has called a hybrid location, where different sectors overlap in terms of production, distribution, and consumption, whereas the former two are studio and independent fare, respectively.2 However, all films can be considered hybrids in terms of combining materials from different traditions of filmmaking.3 This kind of mixing of materials, it is interesting to note, is also a long tradition in the history of satire, where works have been considered borrowers of forms.

Every joke is a tiny revolution.

—George Orwell1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. George Orwell, “Funny, But Not Vulgar,” in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 3, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (London: Secker & Warburg, 1968; Boston: Nonpareil Books, 2000), p. 284.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Chapter 2 in this study and Geoff King, Indiewood, USA: Where Hollywood Meets Independent Cinema (London: I.B. Tauris, 2009), pp. 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dustin Griffin, Satire: A Critical Reintroduction (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1994), p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  4. David Bordwell, The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style in Modern Movies (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 2006), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Noël Carroll, Interpreting the Moving Image (Cambridge, New York, and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 242.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture (2nd edition, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010), p. 229.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Michael Z. Newman, Indie: An American Film Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), p. 145.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Örjan Roth-Lindberg, Skuggan av ett leende: Om filmisk ironi och den ironiska berättelsen (Stockholm: Bokförlaget T. Fischer & Co, 1995), p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Paul Simpson, On the Discourse of Satire: Toward a Stylistic Model of Satirical Humour (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003), p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Terry Christensen and Peter J. Haas, Projecting Politics: Political Messages in American Films (Armonk and London: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2005), p. 210

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kristin Thompson, Breaking the Glass Armor: Neoformalist Film Analysis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 2013 Johan Nilsson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nilsson, J. (2013). American Film Satire. In: American Film Satire in the 1990s. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137300997_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics