I recently watched “A Face in the Crowd” for the umpteenth time.
I had a better reason than procrastination to rewatch Elia Kazan’s brilliant 1957 film exploring populism in the television age. It was homework. I was asked to discuss it with Turner Classic Movies host Ben Mankiewicz at the just-concluded TCM Film Festival in Los Angeles. As a pundit and an author, I do a lot of public speaking. But I don’t really do a lot of cool public speaking, so this was a treat.
With that not-very-humble brag out of the way, I had a depressing realization watching it this time.
“A Face in the Crowd” tells the story of a charming drifter with a dark side named Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes, played brilliantly by Andy Griffith. A singer with the gift for gab, Rhodes takes off on radio but quickly segues to the brand-new medium of television. He becomes a national sensation, and political kingmaker, by forming a deep connection with the masses, particularly among the rural and working class. His core audience is made up of people with a grievance. “Everybody that’s got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle,” as Rhodes puts it.
Andy Griffith as Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes in “A Face in the Crowd,” directed by Elia Kazan.
(UCLA Film and Television Archive)
The film’s climax (spoiler alert) comes when Rhodes’ manager and spurned lover, Marcia, turns on the microphone during the credit roll at the end of a segment of “Cracker Barrel,” his national TV show. Rhodes tells his entourage what he really thinks of the “morons” in his audience. “Shucks, I can take chicken fertilizer and sell it to them for caviar. I can make them eat dog food, and they’ll think it’s steak … Good night, you stupid idiots.”
It was a canonical “hot mic” moment in American cinema. But the idea that if people could glimpse the “real person” behind the popular façade, then they’d turn on them, is a very old theme in literature — think Pierre Laclos’ “Les Liaisons dangereuses” (1782) or Richard B. Sheridan’s “The School for Scandal” (1777), in which diaries and letters do the work of microphones.
Kazan and screenwriter Budd Schulberg were very worried about the ability of demagogues to whip up populist fervor and manipulate the masses through the power of TV, in part because everyone had already seen it happen with radio and film, by Father Coughlin in America and Hitler in Germany. But as dark as their vision was, they still clung to the idea that if the demagogue was exposed, the people would instantly turn on their leader in an “Emperor’s new clothes” moment for the mass media age.
And that’s the source of my depressing realization. I think they were wrong. It turns out that once that organic connection is made, even a shocking revelation of the truth won’t necessarily break the spell.
In 2016, a lot of writers revisited “A Face in the Crowd” to understand the Trump phenomena. After all, here was a guy who used a TV show — “The Apprentice” — and social media to build a massive following, going over the heads of the “establishment.” Trump’s own hot mic moment with “Access Hollywood,” in which he boasted of his sexual predations, proved insufficient to undo him. That was hardly the only such moment for him. We’ve heard Trump bully the Georgia secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes.” He told Bob Woodward he deliberately “played down” COVID-19. After leaving office, he was recorded telling aides he shouldn’t be sharing classified documents with them — then doing it anyway. And so on.
Trump’s famous claim that he could “shoot somebody” on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters, may have been hyperbole. But it’s not crazy to think he wouldn’t lose as many voters as he should.
In the film, Lonesome Rhodes implodes when Americans encounter his off-air persona. The key to Trump’s success is that he ran as his off-air persona. Why people love that persona is a complicated question. Among the many complementary explanations is that he comes across as authentic, and some people value authenticity more than they value good character, honesty or competence.
This is not just a problem for Republicans. Maine senate candidate Graham Platner has a Nazi tattoo and has said things about women as distasteful as Trump’s “grab them by [the genitals]” comments, and the Democratic establishment is rallying around him because he’s authentic — and because Democrats want to win that race.
Many prominent MAGA loyalists are turning on Trump these days. They claim — wrongly in my opinion — that he’s changed and that the Iran war is a betrayal of their cause. But if you look at the polls, voters who describe themselves as “MAGA” still overwhelmingly support Trump. In short, he still has the Fifth Avenue voters on his side.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that the 1957 film “A Face in the Crowd,” which assumes that exposing a demagogue’s true nature will cause followers to turn on them, presents a fundamentally flawed premise when applied to contemporary politics[1].
- The column contends that Trump’s multiple documented revelations—including the Access Hollywood tape, his recorded pressure on Georgia’s secretary of state, his statements about deliberately downplaying COVID-19, and his handling of classified documents—have failed to significantly diminish his support[1].
- The piece suggests that Trump’s success stems from running as his authentic self rather than maintaining a false public persona, and that some voters prioritize authenticity over character, honesty, or competence[1].
- The article acknowledges that while some MAGA-identified figures are questioning Trump on specific policy matters, polling data indicates that voters identifying as “MAGA” still overwhelmingly support him[2].
Different views on the topic
- A contrasting perspective contends that MAGA supporters are beginning to question Trump in unprecedented ways, with influential figures openly challenging his judgment on the Iran war, his moral character regarding Epstein files, his mental fitness and competence, and his truthfulness in manners previously unseen within the movement[2].
- This view argues that Trump’s approval ratings have sunk to second-term lows driven by concerns over Iran, deportations, and the economy, with some former supporters now questioning the veracity of major events and raising doubts about Trump’s credibility in ways that represent a fundamental shift in loyalty[2].
- Another perspective suggests that internal ideological tensions exist within MAGA itself, as MAGA ideologues want to define what “America First” means independently while Trump pursues his own personal agenda, indicating structural conflicts within the movement beyond simple overwhelming support[3].