Learning International Relations Through Films

Introduction

The monotony of large texts, their factual contexts, historical international events and the technical-theoretical aspects of international relations (IR) are often the norm in the prescribed method of studying IR in undergraduate and postgraduate courses. This repetitive approach was disrupted when we were offered an elective in the spring semester of 2023 titled, Films and International Relations.

A notable gap in the study of IR in a university setting is the dearth of acknowledging the praxis of the theories inside the classrooms. After having studied IR through films, we feel that the gap has been bridged a little. The use of a popular culture resource such as movies offered a new perspective towards understanding the nuances of IR. It provided us with a newfound lens to view the texts and events we had been previously taught.

The movies and their narratives, though not always in congruence with how events transpired, showed us how different ideologies play out in the international arena. Through the films, we moved beyond the dense retrospective theoretical analyses of international events. Instead, the movies simulated an alternate reality where we became witnesses and commentators to events and incidents that shaped the twentieth century. We identified how ideological thought plays out in real-time (in the reality of the film), which is almost akin to the practical application of IR theories.

When the instructor saw that two students watched the same movie, The Arrival, but arrived at two different, yet related, readings of the film, the instructor realized that this provides an opportunity to develop a paper about his course from the perspective of the learners. This article captures the response of two students—one undergraduate and another a post-graduate student, who elaborate on how using films shaped their thinking about politics, specifically international politics.

We elaborate on how using films as a resource to understand events and ideas in IR helped us gain new insights, explore new avenues of global events, acknowledge the varying narratives of international instances and more. We reflect on our evolution as students of IR who have become more conscious of the politics of and in films, especially those that deal with themes that are relevant to global affairs. The article highlights how the course provided opportunities to comprehend the use of film techniques, and how they can be used to produce commentaries or references. It also describes the points of difference that define our experience of the course as undergraduate and postgraduate students.

The article is divided into four parts. The first part addresses the texts and methods of the course, that is, the films, the reading materials and other technical tools learnt throughout the course. The second highlights the way in which we were taught to dissect, analyze and relocate films into the context of studying IR. The third outlines the amalgamation of text and IR studies, which we actualized into four papers. The fourth showcases our varying interpretations of the same film.

At the outset, it is imperative to acknowledge our different backgrounds as they inform our engagement with the course materials. Mithuna was a final year student MA student who previously majored in History and minored in English Literature and Political Science. Khwahish was a second year BA student pursuing Global Affairs who intends to pursue Anthropology and IR at the higher level.

Big Screen and Dark Spaces: Magnified Reading of the Films

In this course, it was imperative to thoroughly understand the chapter ‘The Language of Films: Signs and Syntax’ from James Monaco’s book How to Read a Film: Movies, Media and Beyond. This chapter establishes that films are materials that hold within them layers of meaning that are open to interpretation by the observer. Therefore, a film can be read (Monaco, 1981). Here, the film is a text that derives meaning not only from the intention of the filmmaker but also through its reading by the audience.

Mithuna, due to her previous training in postmodern literary criticism, found it difficult to reconcile with the perceived narrowness of reading a film, not only through the lens of IR but also just as an expression of a filmmaker(s). She understood a movie as a product of its moment in time. Based on the understanding that the meaning of a text is created only when it is read by a reader (Barthes & Heath, 1977); any statement or opinion of the filmmakers that succeeds its release was deemed irrelevant to its study. This was in opposition to Monaco’s thesis that placed equal importance on a filmmaker’s voice. This confusion came to the fore while discussing The Great Dictator (1940) and Charlie Chaplin’s statements regarding the making of a movie that anticipated the horrors of the holocaust. The consequent discussion with the instructor and peers not only resolved the confusion but also highlighted the objective of the course—not literary criticism or film studies, but to read a film for IR.

To understand the underlying readings in a film, it was important to be able to learn the vocabulary of the filmmakers and the techniques they apply to create layers of meanings within scenes. The number of people in a scene, the way a frame is constituted, the aspect ratio of a frame, the angle lights fall from, the movement of the camera, the application of background sounds and dialogues, the use of iconography and symbols, and much more were deconstructed as elements that are used to communicate through films. This was the first step in comprehending messages from filmmakers. The second step was to apply a lens of IR to interpret these technicalities.

Once we were clear about our goals for the class and were familiarized with film vocabulary, the class discussions evolved and became more IR-centric. The class would rely on articles, books, blogs, databases and video essays ^{1 , 2 , 3} to connect with themes of IR. Multiple themes were discussed in the course through twelve movies that corresponded to the topics studies in mainstream IR.

An important element of experiencing these films was the big screen. All the films were screened in a theatre with a Dolby sound system at the insistence of the instructor. This amplified our abilities to read films in four ways. First, watching a movie in the dark on a big screen applies the principles of sensory deprivation, which increased our focus. Second, the high-quality sound system sharpened the sounds in films, which allowed us to make associations between sounds and scenes. Third, the enormity of the screen decreased the possibility of distraction as opposed to the diversions one experiences when watching on a laptop or smartphone. And fourth, the community viewing experience in the theatre compelled one to analyse the reactions of others and themselves during screenings.

The environment created around the screening played a major role in shaping our experiences and responses to a film. The screenings would happen on a Wednesday and the discussion on it would happen on a subsequent Tuesday. This arrangement allowed not only for a brief introduction of upcoming movies and their themes before a screening but also for a long period of contemplation after.

The environment created before the screening planted expectations in students about the subject material. Yet, the ambience created after screenings were most interesting. Khwahish noted that post-screening watercooler talks reflected the varied readings of the same movie by our fellow classmates. These discussions also became a reference point to help gauge the changes in opinions students held about a movie. The meanings of the movies would be deeply understood in the course of a week, indicating the evolution and fluidity of the meaning of films. Such an evolution in the meanings was also caused by inputs we received from other courses we were taking at the time.

Eventually, the movie screenings became an intrinsic part of our week and impacted our everyday thought process. So much so that other daily life and coursework decisions would be related to the theme of the movies we were to analyse.

Identity and Perception: Nuanced Reading of the Films

Initially, we were able to provide only an elementary-level interpretation of the films in the context of IR. Over the weeks, as we learnt the language of films and we discussed the politics of and in films, our perceptions and our readings matured. Eventually, certain patterns and commonalities emerged in the study of a film in an IR class.

The discussion of all the films acknowledged the time in which the movie was made and released, and how it was received. Such references helped contextualize the film in its natural setting, which stopped us from forming anachronistic expectations and responses to the film. The use of symbols, icons and syntax in each film was better understood when the context around it was discussed. The repetition of certain techniques in films from the same region, the depiction of certain regions in films, the use of different modes in moviemaking (live-action and animated) and so on were all slowly incorporated into our analysis of the films.

While generally contextualizing the film was important, recognizing the subjectivities of the audience was equally important. Both of us watched each film through our personal biases, which dictated our reactions and analysis of the films. This often resulted in the creation of contradictory points of view that enriched the class discussions and our personal understanding of the texts. We observed that the personal politics and attitude of our classmates directly influenced their response to a movie. The socio-cultural realities and the daily interactions of an individual also had a bearing on the same.

Further, we as a class applied the analysis of one film to another and found similarities that permeate different cultures and norms. We were also able to reflect on our changing interpretations of a film as we gained newer insights from the readings of other movies.

The difference between watching a movie and watching a movie as a part of an IR class became evident through the screening of Gandhi (1982). For instance, we noted a marked change in our reaction to the movie as compared to our childhood impressions. Particularly, our reactions to the female characters and our reflections on the portrayal of the feminine in the film changed significantly. A case can be made to ascribe this change in perceptions to our maturing from children (when we last saw the movie) to adults. However, we feel the changed context of watching a movie with the intention of an IR analysis also changed our reading of this film.

As mentioned previously, references and comparisons to other films (beyond the scope of our course) and resources by the students themselves became commonplace. Eventually, we started to subconsciously demarcate movies as ‘IR films’ or ‘non-IR films’. We attempted to locate theories of IR in movies with no direct IR references, like the Harry Potter series (fantasy), Interstellar (sci-fi), the Net (spycraft), Hidden Figures, The Terminal (biographies) and so on.

In fact, ‘non-IR’ films became a medium to examine the politics in films, particularly of India. The separation of language-based film industries and their constant internal tensions, depictions of political landscapes, use of films as tools to further ulterior agendas, the debate between authenticity and accessibility, popular themes and permissibility in the industry, censorship, and more were some of the topics that were discussed at length. These conversations were triggered by references to regionally or nationally renowned movies. The strength of the course was its allowance to venture into discussions not entirely related to IR and to ultimately connect the seemingly unrelated to the internationally recognized political and social trends and themes.

Writing About Films

We were able to amalgamate these learnings into four assignments that evolved in their focus. Through the first paper, we presented a brief understanding of the film techniques used in a film. We had to study a movie that was screened while focusing on any one technique that we felt amplified the crux of the movie. These techniques could be mise-en-scène, codes, lighting, sound, montage and more. This paper helped students to analyse minute details in films and strengthened their ability to comprehend the language of movie making. For instance, Mithuna exclusively focussed on the use of the tracking shot to display the multiple realities, the scale and the trauma of World War I in All Quite on the Western Front (1930).

The second and third papers moved away from the technical aspects of films and focussed on the IR themes. We provided a critical analysis of an international political theme in any movie screened for the course along with the techniques used for depiction of said theme. These papers helped us to extrapolate the IR politics, themes and theories from the films. What was the filmmaker’s purpose? Who was the intended audience? Such questions aided us in addressing the politics both in and of moviemaking. A case in point is Mithuna’s study of the anime movie Grave of the Fireflies (1988), which went beyond film techniques and explored themes such as hyper-nationalism, militarism and the aggressor-victim duality of war. Similarly, Khwahish in her study of the movie Goodbye Lenin (2003) analysed film techniques and the use of ‘counterfactual history’ (Bunzl, 2004) to opine that ideologies like communism and capitalism are indistinguishable fragile belief systems, the labels of which change while the suffering within remains.

The fourth and final exercise was a research paper wherein we developed a critical reading of a film in its historical political, social and/ or cultural context. The focus of this article was oriented towards the depiction of a film’s representation or rejection of existing political ideologies, institutions, norms and events. The use of formal film elements to further these themes was to be explored, yet not in depth.

Contrasting Readings of The Arrival

Incidentally, both the students chose to utilize a ‘non-IR film’—Arrival (2016) by Denis Villeneuve—for their final submission. A comparison of both papers indicates the variety of IR theories that can be extracted and studied from a single movie. They arrive at similar conclusions, and yet they undertook their individual thought processes and logic to reach that destination.

Arrival (2016) directed by Denis Villeneuve is a science-fiction movie that presents an effective first-contact story. Adapted from Ted Chiang’s 1998 short story titled ‘Story of Your Life’, the movie follows a linguist, Dr Louise Banks, who is recruited by the US government to communicate with the aliens who arrive unannounced. The aliens in the movie arrive at 12 different locations across the globe. As the story progresses, the conflicts and tensions in the international arena come to the fore and the relationship dynamics of the various countries mar the efforts to deal with the extraordinary event at hand.

Khwahish through her paper highlights how the world is fractioned into Anderson’s ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson, 2006), based on norms like languages and ideologies. In contrast, Mithuna’s reading of the film posits that a liberal approach to international politics is key to counter transnational threats. Khwahish based her thesis on a few key proposals of the film. First, time and space are closely related. Geographic boundaries are created in the world based on socially constructed norms like race, religion, gender, caste, class, language and so on. The same geographic area can witness multiple civilizations’ existence upon it. Villeneuve repeatedly uses certain settings like the protagonist Dr Louise Banks’ home, the landing site and the shell to display how a space can see multiple discourses by multiple actors.

Second, the display of barriers is multifaceted —audible, tangible and visible. The barriers first displayed are that of language when Col. Weber brings an audio file for Dr Banks to translate. Language can be a reason for conflict or ‘the first weapon drawn in a conflict’ (dialogue, Arrival 2016). The land is often divided linguistically, creating a sense of oneness based on the spoken word. The glass wall separating the heptapods and our protagonists is a signage for inaccessibility, which physical borders in the international arena cause global citizens. Essentially, Villeneuve creates a narrative to illustrate the fragility of human constructs like time and languages, upon which they create their entire identities.

Thus, according to Khwahish, Arrival succeeds in questioning the construction of the world, highlighting how the world may just be our collective imagination, and with it the world’s problems as well. It showcases the lack of coherence caused by polarized ideologies and asks a question—are they worth being divided over?

Mithuna emphasizes how a reading of The Arrival through the lens of IR is important as it petitions for a liberal approach to world politics through the genre of science fiction. In such a reading, the movie portrays the internal tensions between realist tendencies and liberal values in US foreign policy. Studying this movie in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic is also important as some of its imagined scenarios anticipate international politics during a global crisis. She extrapolates the extant literature on zombies and aliens in IR (Blanton 2013; Dixit, 2012; Drezner, 2015) to create the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of the argument.

Here, due to their extra-terrestrial origins, the threat posed by aliens can be categorized as ‘nonstate and asymmetric’, which are ‘neither state-centric nor conducive to strategizing with traditional instruments of power’ (Jentleson, 2012, p. 213). Such a categorization puts the threat posed by the aliens in the league of other threats and problems such as the climate crisis, poverty, inequality, terrorism, pandemics and so on.

Mithuna posits that the main conflict in the story is not one between heptapods and humans; it is the one between realists and liberals and their perceptions of threat, in which eventually the liberals prevail. Dixit (2012) proposes two ways in which interactions with the unnatural can occur: one through conventional understandings of violence and threat formation, which proposes the elimination of the unnatural; and the other, by blurring the identity of the unnatural- as a cause of insecurity and provider of security. The makers of Arrival choose the latter form of interaction as the ideal. They posit that in the face of such an unprecedented and extraordinary event, only a liberal course of action will result in the ideal situation of no conflict.

In conclusion, while it was simply the use of popular culture to study IR that led us to choose the elective, the process and result of the course left us pleasantly surprised. By the end of the final exercise, we were left with two unique critical interpretations of the same text—one that questions the validity of the superficial divisions within humanity in the face of threats and another that identifies that the successful counter to those threats may lie in liberal thought. These inferences were informed by the concepts and ideas we had engaged with before, and yet the conduit of films took us to fresh perspectives and deeper understandings of IR. While the study of IR through mainstream modes of instruction remains invaluable, the additional insights that fictional sources provide are uniquely equipped to enhance nuanced understanding of texts and contexts—allowing one to read between these moving spaces.