"Nick plays a corrupt politician, which is kind of a redundant statement"

The quote by Alan Rudolph, "Nick plays a corrupt politician, which is type of a redundant declaration", is a wry observation that brings several layers of significance, often playing on social perceptions, the track record of politicians, and the expectations related to such functions in movie and media.

To start with, the quote recommends that the image of a politician is practically naturally related to corruption, to the level that combining the terms "corrupt" and "political leader" might be seen as redundant. This shows a common cynicism about political figures, a belief that is extensive in lots of cultures due to historical and ongoing scandals including political corruption. The ramification is that to be a politician, particularly within the narrative frame of film and storytelling, already carries the expectation of moral compromise, deceit, or dishonest behavior.

From a media perspective, this redundancy talks to how politicians are frequently illustrated in films and television. The archetype of the corrupt politician is a well-worn trope, frequently used to check out styles of power, aspiration, and moral downfall. It's a character type audiences recognize and comprehend, so much so that their depiction as corrupt becomes practically a provided. This enables filmmakers to look into complex plots without needing to justify or flesh out the politician's corrupt nature; it's assumed.

Furthermore, by specifically calling "Nick", Rudolph individualizes and contextualizes this concept. If Nick is a star known for playing ethically unclear or problematic characters, the statement might even more use the audience's expectations of Nick's roles, meaning typecasting or a return to familiar area for the actor.

In general, the quote is a creative commentary on the interplay in between social perceptions, media portrayal, and audience expectations, with a hint of humor and sarcasm targeted at the predictability of certain character portrayals within the cinematic landscape. It indicates both a critique of real-world political ethics and a nod to the natural storytelling mechanisms within the world of film.