Movies as propaganda.

[plindboe]

I have read that the movie "Black Hawk Down" portrayed the american soldiers as struggling heroes while the somalies was shown as vicious savages, without even questioning what the american soldiers did in Somalia in the first place. I haven't seen it yet though, since this really doesn't seem like my kind of movie, so not sure how correct this is, but from the reviews I have read it does indeed sound like mindless propaganda.

The following article quotes a leaflet that was distributed at New York screenings of the film, and it raises some interesting questions:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/478/478p20b.htm

I especially find this to be interesting:

Since September 11, Bush administration officials have held meetings with Hollywood representatives regarding the content of the movies they produce. In an October 17 meeting, Hollywood heads “committed themselves to new initiatives in support of the war on terrorism”.

Can anyone verify if this is correct? And who participated in these alleged meeting? Was it some of the directors we see these days make movies such as "Black Hawk Down", "Tears of the sun" and similar.

It continues:

Black Hawk Down is just one of those movies, made hand-in-hand with the Pentagon. Weeks before its release, the Motion Picture Association of America held a private screening for senior White House advisers and allowed them to make changes. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others, attended the movie's Washington, DC, premiere.

Again, can anyone verify this?

I honestly don't know enough about the conflict in Somalia, which is why I started this thread; to learn. I'm also interested in people's opinions, from all sides, about Hollywood & propaganda, preferably without too many ad hominem attacks(which usually is the norm on this board). Thanks.

[Shinytop]

From all I have read and from military personnel present in Somalia the movie is a decent attempt at truth. But I do not know as I was not there. It should be recognized that the military is seldom quite as altruistic as Hollwood portrays and seldom as evil as the left would have it portrayed.

[corplinx]

IIRC, black hawk down was shot before sept11. It was probably in post when 9-11 happened. It was released after. I could be wrong though.

[Chaos]

This is an old hat. In German news magazines, I have read reports on that at least a year ago (before that latest Tom Clancy movie was released, the one with Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman).

[a_unique_person]

You obviously haven't seen any movies on Vietnam.

[Mr Manifesto]

And then there's 'Rules of Engagement'.

Samuel Jackson is a marine being court martialed for killing civilians in Yemen, including children. Samuel maintains his innocence despite the mounting evidence against him, and the only one who'll believe him is his old friend, Tommy Lee Jones.

At the end of the movie, a testimony reveals that the civilians were EVIL (there was even a little girl on crutches firing a pistol that was about three times as big as she was... the look on her face! EVIL I TELLS YA!), and were all shooting at the marines. Even woman who, I'm told, traditionally don't have firearms in Islamic society. The poor, hapless marines were only defending themselves.

William Friedkin, what happened to you? You went from the French Connection to this?

edit to add: Link (http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/r/rules-of-engagement.html) to film review that sums it up better than I do.

[Mr Manifesto]

The other point to consider is subtle aims of some propaganda. For example, Platoon.

Platoon diverts attention away from who the bad guys really were in Vietnam. The focus is on a traitorous sargeant (or lieutenant, can't remember his rank) who gives the US army a bad name. The moral is simple: we were in 'Nam for good reasons, but it was guys like that who wrecked it for everyone.

The movie diverts attention away from the fact that the US had no business being in Vietnam. There wasn't any comment on those who actually sent 'out boys' to 'Nam. This movie, according to John Ralston Saul, created the myth that we were in 'Nam with good intentions that soured. This also helped perpetuate the myth that 'we coulda won' (the mantra of every losing team).

[Cinorjer]

If you use the resources of our military in the making of a movie, then the Pentagon reserves the right to have some control over the message being put out by the movie. You want to shoot some scenes on an aircraft carrier? Or have one of their helicopters doing stunts? Then they want to see the script.

You can't blame them for this. They do have a Public Relations policy, after all. Should you expect them to actively participate in a movie that's going to slam them? Movies do get made that are critical of our military policy. The producers just don't ask our Pentagon for their help in producing them.

[bangdazap]

"[T]he producers of the recent film "Windtalkers" yielded to Pentagon demands for script changes. For example, the original script featured a Marine called "the Dentist" who methodically removed the gold in the mouths of dead Japanese — a practice known to have occurred during World War II. The military objected and the scene was eventually removed, as was a scene of a Marine killing a surrendering Japanese soldier. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0819-05.htm

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
If you use the resources of our military in the making of a movie, then the Pentagon reserves the right to have some control over the message being put out by the movie. You want to shoot some scenes on an aircraft carrier? Or have one of their helicopters doing stunts? Then they want to see the script.

You can't blame them for this. They do have a Public Relations policy, after all. Should you expect them to actively participate in a movie that's going to slam them? Movies do get made that are critical of our military policy. The producers just don't ask our Pentagon for their help in producing them.

Exactly. Coppola did just that in Apocalypse Now. So why use the Pentagon if they're going to impact on your artistic integrity? Unless, of course, you have none.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Exactly. Coppola did just that in Apocalypse Now. So why use the Pentagon if they're going to impact on your artistic integrity? Unless, of course, you have none.

And there´s a subtle, but important difference between not smearing the Pentagon and gloryfing the Pentagon or falsifying historical events. In short, the difference between truth and propaganda.

[Checkmite]

I'm sure that many films that could be called "propaganda" have been made; I don't believe Black Hawk Down was one of them.

War films are a tricky thing; it's a subject which leaves plenty of room for plot twists, gobs of action and character development, yet at the same time leaves plenty of room for criticism - even more if the flim is "based" around an historical event, like Vietnam or the American campaign in Somalia. There are people who expect films that use these venues to reference or explain certain things about the events themselves, yet I think this is unfair and even unnecessary.

A movie is nothing more than a story - it has a primary plot, a setting, a few subplots, and characters. Primary plot comes first - everything in the movie must serve the primary plot, including the setting, and the primary plot must of course have a clear conclusion (except in rare cases, such as mysteries) - the Good Guys escape, the Guy gets the Girl, whatever. Subplots, though they each serve the primary plot, must also have clear conclusions - the Mother-In-Law excepts the Guy, the Items are delivered On Time, etc, and those conclusions must in turn help lead to the primary plot's conclusion. Considering that you only have 120 minutes to get everything explained and wrapped up, it's prudent to not have more subplots than is necessary to make sure the primary plot is resolved.

When it comes to war movies, most writers use the war as simply a setting - such as in Saving Private Ryan and Platoon. In Saving Private Ryan, the primary plot is, of course, that Captain Miller and his patrol must find and "rescue" Private Ryan. There are several subplots as well: the death of Ryan's brothers, Captain Miller's tiring of war, the battle of the bridge at the end, etc. The reasons, the "wheres and whys" of the war itself do not serve the plot, therefore they are unnecessary to the story and are left out.

Take another movie, in which the war is more than just a setting - Pearl Harbor. It's sometimes obvious and sometimes difficult to tell, but the main plot of this movie is the trials and tests of the friendship between Capt's McCawley and Walker. All the other subplots lead to its conclusion (including the love story, the attack, and Dolittle's Raid). However, the writers decided to include some of the reasoning behind the war itself; thus, the "War" is no longer a setting, but a subplot that must be resolved. A subplot as complicated as the reasoning behind a war is nearly impossible to resolve artistically, which is why, after the Dolittle Raid, the "end of the war" is quickly and cheaply told in sound bites and video clips. The result was a murky, confusing, and overlong movie with a dissatisfying ending.

Now apply this to Black Hawk Down. The primary plot is simple - The Good Guys are trapped and need to Get Out. There are subplots, of course - the food-hoarding warlord they needed to capture, the rescue mission sent in after them, etc. The plot is resolved nicely when Hartlett's character (what is it with him and war movies, anyway) and his team finally make it out of the danger zone. The rescue team and warlord subplots are resolved as well. If the writers had decided to explain what the Americans were doing in Somalia in the first place, the "war" would cease to be a setting and become a subplot, and the movie would have to end with the Americans leaving Somalia. That would've complicated and destabilized the movie - and distracted from the original story.

[Nyarlathotep]

Corplinxis correct, "Blackhawk Down" was shot before 9/11 and released after, IIRC they cut a bit out of the ending so it looked less like we were running away from Somalia so as not to get criticized in the post 9/11 political environment. A move that I find ridiculous becuase the incidint wasn't that many years before and we pretty much DID cut and run right afterwards and anyone with any sort of memory would rmember that.

As much as I would LIKE to blame the government for the steaming pile that was "Blackhawk Down", I really can't. The blame still falls squarely on the writers, director, actors etc. Given the production cycles of most Hollywood movies, we are probably just now starting to see movies that weren't underway before 9/11.

[Yahweh]

Movies as propaganda.
Propaganda? I think movies are made to generate profit before the directors decide to throw in all the propaganda...

[Malachi151]

If you wanna see propaganda go watch SWAT. Now that is total propaganda.

As for movies being used as propaganda, that's as old as movies have been around, WWII was really heavy on propagnada movies.

And of course we can't forget the classic, Birth of a Nation where the KKK is portrayed as heroes having America from the negro menace, a movie heralded by President Woodrow Wilson.

[Wire]

Mr Manifesto

The aim of every film is to gain our attention, consequently diverting it from anything else (for example what's happening three rows behind you while you are sitting in the cinema). Thus every film is conspiracy and propaganda.

[Skeptic]

I have read that the movie "Black Hawk Down" portrayed the american soldiers as struggling heroes while the somalies was shown as vicious savages, without even questioning what the american soldiers did in Somalia in the first place.

The problem with the "What were they doing there in the first place?" argument is that, for some reason, it is ONLY considered legitimate against certain groups. Nobody considers it legitimate to ask, when a black kid is lynched, "well, but what was he doing in a white neighborhood in the first place?" or "why did he risk himself and go where he knew he wasn't wanted?"--and quite rightly so, of course. But when an American (or jew) is brutally lynched by a mob for the "crime" of being where someone doesn't want him, this is suddenly a legitimate question! Why? Even if we grant--which I do not--that the Americans or jews were NOT supposed to be there (for the sole reason that somebody doesn't want it, of course), why is death-by-savage-lynch-mob suddenly an appropriate punishment?

The reason the somalians, or arabs, are portrayed as savages is not because they never have legitimate grievances; it is because they consider killing babies by blowing up their own children, or tearing people limb from limb in a mob, as a legitimate way to deal with these grievences. Consider, by way of contrast, the many illegal aliens in the USA. They certainly aren't supposed to be there. But does anybody--even the likes of Buchanan or David Duke--suggest lynching them, or blowing them up with native-born suicide bombers? Of course not, because America is a civlized country, which simply doesn't do such things.

In fact, even legally deporting them is often greeted with hues and cries of "racism"--often by the very same people who "understand" the somalians or palestinians and keep saying that if those jews or americans weren't where they aren't wanted, they wouldn't have been butchered.

Go figure.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Nobody considers it legitimate to ask, when a black kid is lynched, "well, but what was he doing in a white neighborhood in the first place?" or "why did he risk himself and go where he knew he wasn't wanted?"--and quite rightly so, of course. But when an American (or jew) is brutally lynched by a mob for the "crime" of being where someone doesn't want him, this is suddenly a legitimate question! Why? Even if we grant--which I do not--that the Americans or jews were NOT supposed to be there (for the sole reason that somebody doesn't want it, of course), why is death-by-savage-lynch-mob suddenly an appropriate punishment?


Wow. I saw that you replied to this topic and thought, "Naah, he's not going to bring up Jews, no way", but there you are bringing them up. When, pray, has anyone said of a Jew lynching 'what were they doing there in the first place'?

Every morning you wake up must be like that scene in Evil Dead II for you. "We're gonna getcha... We're gonna getcha... We're gonna getcha... We're gonna getcha... We're gonna getcha... We're gonna getcha... We're gonna getcha... "

The rest of your post is typical Skeptic rant. Tar all Islam with the same brush. Nothing added to the debate. Your bucket's waiting for you to stick your head back in.

[Shinytop]

MM, if you change the word Jew to almost any other race can you get off your high horse long enough to read what he said and condiser it. He brought up very good points. Why is not the people's reaction considered barbaric and savage regardless of the reason?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Shinytop
MM, if you change the word Jew to almost any other race can you get off your high horse long enough to read what he said and condiser it. He brought up very good points. Why is not the people's reaction considered barbaric and savage regardless of the reason?

No he didn't. He said, "But when an American (or jew) is brutally lynched by a mob for the "crime" of being where someone doesn't want him, this is suddenly a legitimate question!" without citing examples. You don't respond to crap, except to say that it is crap.

As for the rest, I will consider debating it if he cites examples. Otherwise, it's more meaningless Skeptic rant, and it goes in the bin.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by bangdazap
"[T]he producers of the recent film "Windtalkers" yielded to Pentagon demands for script changes. For example, the original script featured a Marine called "the Dentist" who methodically removed the gold in the mouths of dead Japanese — a practice known to have occurred during World War II. The military objected and the scene was eventually removed, as was a scene of a Marine killing a surrendering Japanese soldier. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0819-05.htm

Windtalkers was prolly the worst war fim in history.

Oh. Black hawk was shot down in 1992ish wasnt it?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Windtalkers was prolly the worst war fim in history.

Oh. Black hawk was shot down in 1992ish wasnt it?

No it came out in 2001, The book on which it was based didn't even come out unti 1998 or 1999 if I remember correctly. For that matter, I don't think the incident upon which the movie was based even happend until 1993 or 1994.