Is this a modern-day propaganda film?
- Thread starter Grug
- Start date
MikeGunter
Well-known member
It's not the sort of thing I'd go to see anyway.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
THis film looks bizarre. Bad bad gayness.
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Can we have a "Hudson Quote of the Day." section on the site?
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
Maybe it illustrates the majestic, oppressive, "emptiness" of a night sky. Who knows. Point taken, Kubrick. But my rebuttal is that just because you don't "get it" doesn't mean there's not an agenda. And I personally can't see how you can create anything without imbuing an agenda.
I couldn't even finish it. Barf.
"All art is propaganda" is the kind of pointless discussion like "all life is change". It tells us nothing.
I think what folks mean by "propaganda" is something that has been explicitly designed to promote a political agenda, and where everything serves that purpose, i.e., not films where a point of view or agenda is merely implicit, or a mere byproduct of the creator's background and views rather than forming the central thrust of the film.
Films which are specifically designed to push a "patriotic" agenda are an interesting cultural phenomenon. Look at some of the old propaganda movies made by the government here or elsewhere. Look at some of the stuff like "reefer madness". It often WORKED at the time it was produced. The intended audience was impacted by it, influenced consciously or subconsciously, they bought into it on some level. And yet, these kinds of works often don't stand the test of time well at all. Today we look at these old propaganda movies and laugh - they can even have the opposite from the intended effect (like "reefer madness" did). A really BAD propaganda movie is old before its time - upon release it is already laughable and people don't buy it.
My point? This link by the OP is to one such super sucky deal. The techniques are so hackneyed, so tired, so lacking in even a scintilla of freshness or novel approach, it reeks so horrendously of bad acting, bad writing and brain-dead editing, that it is essentially DOA - dead on arrival. I doubt even folks in the deepest flyover country would swallow something so foul. If anything, this kind of junk has the potential to boomerang against the very thing it seeks to promote. Nobody likes to be manipulated, especially when the manipulation is so utterly incompetent.
"All art is propaganda" is the kind of pointless discussion like "all life is change". It tells us nothing.
I think what folks mean by "propaganda" is something that has been explicitly designed to promote a political agenda, and where everything serves that purpose, i.e., not films where a point of view or agenda is merely implicit, or a mere byproduct of the creator's background and views rather than forming the central thrust of the film.
Films which are specifically designed to push a "patriotic" agenda are an interesting cultural phenomenon. Look at some of the old propaganda movies made by the government here or elsewhere. Look at some of the stuff like "reefer madness". It often WORKED at the time it was produced. The intended audience was impacted by it, influenced consciously or subconsciously, they bought into it on some level. And yet, these kinds of works often don't stand the test of time well at all. Today we look at these old propaganda movies and laugh - they can even have the opposite from the intended effect (like "reefer madness" did). A really BAD propaganda movie is old before its time - upon release it is already laughable and people don't buy it.
My point? This link by the OP is to one such super sucky deal. The techniques are so hackneyed, so tired, so lacking in even a scintilla of freshness or novel approach, it reeks so horrendously of bad acting, bad writing and brain-dead editing, that it is essentially DOA - dead on arrival. I doubt even folks in the deepest flyover country would swallow something so foul. If anything, this kind of junk has the potential to boomerang against the very thing it seeks to promote. Nobody likes to be manipulated, especially when the manipulation is so utterly incompetent.
Hawk Teflon
Veteran
I miss Don LaFontaine
HorseFilms
Look ma no hands
puke:zombie_smiley:
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Which could include (but not to say it does) "Collateral Damage", "Spiderman" (remember the trailer when Spiderman lands on the WTC infront of the flag (post 911) and the audience went buck wild including me, not to mention all of NY coming together to aid Spidey), and how about "Live Free or Die Hard". I have to admit, I love action films but I do find myself cheering a lot more at something such as "Live Free or Die Hard" versus my old "Oh another Die Hard flick, cool" reaction. So the question is were these images explicitly designed to promote a political agenda. The answer is: You really don't know.
"Collateral Damage" under went some editing before it went to theaters. I can admit Arnold was a hero of my youth and to see him kick the terrorist a$$ only he could kick (because when Arnold is around he can find people in the jungles that the government can't with billions of dollars worth of sophisticated technology) was probably a lot more fun than it was normally. Implicit? (spoiler) The terrorist is taken down with a fireman's axe to the chest. I don't know about you but I cheered. But is it propaganda? In many ways yes. Also notice Arnold didn't shoot anyone in this film. He was a Fireman, a life saver = not proficient in guns but proficient in using an axe even if that means throwing it. Somewhat of an RPG sensibility. (For those who have played "Heroes Unlimited" you know where I'm coming from).
Invasion USA. Typical Chuck Norris versus terrorist film. Post 9/11 it could be considered propaganda. Was it? Is it? Not implicitly but times change and things have different meaning now. If Fox News or a big network with conservative leanings decided for some reason to show a movie the night before the election and it was these two beloved films, wouldn't that be propaganda? See my point?
As for Van Gogh's Starry Night or Beethoven's 9th symphony??? I think when Cheesesailor77 says "...just because you don't "get it" doesn't mean there's not an agenda." he pretty much covers it. But if you use the words explicitly designed then who knows? But as I've shown above who knows what's on the minds of those who create?
Everything that's on a screen or book, magazine or album cover is there for a reason. We are taught this is Psychology of Advertising and indeed everything is propaganda. If someone can convince you to pay $300 for the same $25 jeans made in the same factory in China based on the tag sown inside them then you have to say "hey waitaminute". Ever wonder why when Old Navy has a sale on fleece so does Gap and Banana Republic? Check it out, do some research. When you're taught what I've been taught you realize movies, music and advertising are all part fun and excitement and part social engineering by default.
-Nate
Last edited:
Here's the problem with the idea "everything is propaganda" - it cheapens, devalues and ultimately renders utterly meaningless the term propaganda, when it is stretched beyond its lexical meaning. If one were to use this tactic with all words, communication would be impossible, because you wouldn't really have meaning at all.
Example: "all matter is a banana" - why, after all, a banana is composed of atoms, and since the diamond is also composed of atoms, hey, that diamond is a banana! That building over there, same thing, it's gosh golly - a BANANA! As a matter of fact OMG - EVERYTHING IS A BANANA!!!11ONE!UNO! That's deep, man, deep, yeah man, get with the program!
So too for any and every word. Since you can always find a six degrees of separation between any two things, EVERYTHING is EVERYTHING.
Just because a banana shares some characteristics with a diamond (atoms, f.ex.) doesn't mean THAT IT IS THE SAME THING.
Just because propaganda art shares some characteristics with non-propaganda art, doesn't mean THAT IT IS THE SAME THING.
Words have meaning. Respect it.
Yes, there are gray areas, and ambiguity, and overlap. That STILL does not make it the same thing. That's equivalent to saying "gray areas are really black or white areas"; "ambiguity really is clarity"; "partial overlap is really total overlap". Err, no.
Words have meaning. Respect it.
It's lazy thinking, and kindergarden philosophy to conflate all meaning. "Everything X is really Y" is stoner-level "insight", good for the bong times, but little else. Sloppy, lazy, and not very smart.
Yeah, real analysis is hard work. The examples you give are complex situations, which gain NOTHING from being dismissed as "all propaganda" - that's lazy and false.
I don't have the time to write a novel here on every example you gave - use your mind. A few points: the primary aim in some of the examples you gave, was generating A STRONG RESPONSE, so that the audience will carry good word of mouth and MAKE MONEY for the creators. They used imagery which may be called "patriotic", simply because that was an effective tool - but it was not to affirm your inclinations, or influence your views, rather it was to make you respond positively and tell your friends for more ca-ching $ to the creators. Propaganda works differently - the motive there is not profit FIRST, but influencing your views FIRST. In other words, the other way around. To not make a distinction between these two situations, does violence to the meaning of the word "propaganda"... may as well call it "banana". Think a bit deeper about this. And don't get distracted by ambiguity or secondary or irrelevant factors (like "how do you know it was meant as x, y, z" etc.).
Anyhow, I don't want to spend the time on this nonsense, it's only interesting to 15 year olds who first discover the concept of "something X is also Y"
... so this will be my last response in this thread. Good luck!
Dennis_FIQ
Member
"Art is what you can get away with." - Andy Warhol
Dvader
Well-known member
Just to follow your argument, to say Starry Night or Beethoven's Ninth have an agenda, and just because you "don't get" it doesn't mean it's not there, would imply everything is propaganda, and like OldCorpse said, renders the word completely useless, so what's the point in that?
To say every creation has an agenda, therefore is propaganda is kind of absurd. Does my ceiling fan have an agenda? It was created, and if you say no or even if you say yes: to provide air circulation, well what if I make a sculpture of a ceiling fan, does it have an agenda? Everyone's interpretation of the sculpture would be different, if I had an it agenda would only have been for creating it, so propaganda of creation? perhaps for the sake of beauty, so the propaganda of beauty then? In my eyes that's absurd.
The meaning of words change over time, and nowadays the word propaganda implies "a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) Van Gogh's Starry Night and Beethoven's 9th, along with other countless pieces of artwork do not qualify. Most advertisements do and many many movies do too, but some art doesn't.
To say every creation has an agenda, therefore is propaganda is kind of absurd. Does my ceiling fan have an agenda? It was created, and if you say no or even if you say yes: to provide air circulation, well what if I make a sculpture of a ceiling fan, does it have an agenda? Everyone's interpretation of the sculpture would be different, if I had an it agenda would only have been for creating it, so propaganda of creation? perhaps for the sake of beauty, so the propaganda of beauty then? In my eyes that's absurd.
The meaning of words change over time, and nowadays the word propaganda implies "a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) Van Gogh's Starry Night and Beethoven's 9th, along with other countless pieces of artwork do not qualify. Most advertisements do and many many movies do too, but some art doesn't.
Dennis_FIQ
Member
This reminds me of a article on John August's blog:
The purpose of drama, and its relationship to Cameron Diaz’s ass
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Is your ceiling fan art? When Cheesesailor77 said everything is propaganda I agreed with him from the point of view that every piece of art has something behind it based on where it comes from. Obviously I didn't mean everything created has some evil agenda but on a very basic level art comes from within and usually supports one's beliefs, ideas, etc. But the majority of current H-wood films and music currently are propaganda, especially rap.
-Nate
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
Words have meaning. Respect it...
It's lazy thinking, and kindergarden philosophy to conflate all meaning. "Everything X is really Y" is stoner-level "insight", good for the bong times, but little else. Sloppy, lazy, and not very smart...
Anyhow, I don't want to spend the time on this nonsense, it's only interesting to 15 year olds who first discover the concept of "something X is also Y"
C'mon dude, the tone's not necessary. We're just having a friendly discussion. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but you don't have to get insulting. We're just debating because it's fun, even if it's "stoner level"
go do something smart. Don't worry, I've got the kindergarten philosophizing covered here
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
lol, and we agree again. exactly what I was going to say.
There's an excellent documentary from the BBC on Freud, advertising and propaganda....all episodes are on Youtube and google video,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml