This article on propaganda cinema was published in DNA on 2nd May, 2010.
DNA compares the three Hollywood war movies playing right now in the city’s multiplexes and situates them in the context of Hollywood’s long history as a vehicle of war propaganda
To say that war is as old as human civilisation would be stating the obvious. A better way to put it is the tagline of The Hurt Locker running in theatres currently, ‘War is a drug’. And cinema has for long been a major tool of influence at the hands of governments seeking to win people over to the agenda of war.
It is for this reason that the Iraq war film, The Hurt Locker and its subsequent Oscar triumphs have aroused a great deal of controversy across the world. Despite showing the plight of ordinary soldiers left with no option but to fight a war not of their making — merely in order to survive — it has been criticised for glorifying violence and war.
Critics also point out how showering the film with awards suits the interests of the current US regime, as it will only serve to promote the worldwide distribution of an Iraq war film that doesn’t at all criticise the US’s military presence.
On the other hand, there’s Green Zone, which released alongside The Hurt Locker, but gives a different perspective on the same war.
While The Hurt Locker aspires to be apolitical, Green Zone delves into the politics of the Iraq war and squarely puts the blame on the US administration. That this film has been allowed to release and find a mass base across the world despite being critical of US foreign policy is a minor miracle.
Animation films also provide a counter-balance against war propaganda. Anti-war messages are cloaked in beautiful metaphors. A good example is the 3D animation film that released last week, How To Train Your Dragon.
Targeted at the holiday audience both in the US and India, the film, despite its seemingly innocent plot, is actually an indictment of wars waged by adults. In a fictional Viking village, dragons are the ‘enemy’ meant to be killed on sight. The myth is rife, till a kid refuses to kill a dreaded dragon, makes the animal its pet, and shows that all it takes is a little kindness and understanding, even as the elders embark in ships to destroy the dragons’ nesting place.
An old marriage
The marriage between Hollywood and war propaganda has been a long one. Not many know that the classic Casablanca (1942) was a war propaganda film, meant to swing public opinion in favour of the US joining the Second World War with the Allied forces.
Mrs Miniver (1942), another multiple Oscar-winning film, was more direct in its call to join the war, bringing the danger closer home in the form of a fugitive German soldier. Such films were made even during the First World War, and include, most notably, DW Griffith’s Hearts Of The World (1918) and Cecil B DeMille’s The Little American (1917).
Other forms of governance across the world have been more open about propaganda in cinema. Vladimir Lenin, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, said, “Of all the arts, the most important for us is the cinema”.
He realised the importance of films in spreading the revolution to rural areas and for raising the awareness of illiterate peasants. He set up the Soviet film industry and provided patronage to such greats as Sergei Eisenstein, two of whose masterpieces, Battleship Potemkin (1925) and Ten Days That Shook The World (1928), were essentially propaganda films.
Nazi Germany’s foray into propaganda was much more notorious. Leni Riefenstahl’s masterpieces Triumph Of The Will (1935) and Olympia (1938) would forever bear the stigma of being Nazi propaganda films despite their cinematic excellence.
However, in a democracy, explicit propaganda of any kind is viewed with suspicion, and associated with totalitarian regimes. Hence the US government could at no time be seen to be directly involved in propaganda of any kind. Hollywood offered the perfect solution: Not only did it reach the masses, its power over the audience was more than that of any other art form.
A propaganda office
Hence, after the attack on Pearl Harbour, an official ‘propaganda’ office was set up under the instructions of President Franklin D Roosevelt to form a cordial relationship with Hollywood. Their mandate was clear: to make films the most important channel to inform the public about war, and to ensure that no films misconstrued or misinterpreted war efforts, i.e. no anti-war films would be allowed certification.
John Wayne, whose popularity as an American hero has not yet been surpassed, starred in many propaganda films, during and after the war, and called for patriotism as the need of the hour. A popular joke after the war was that America did not win the war, John Wayne did.
Propaganda war films are meant to inspire national pride and boost audience morale by displaying the nobility of one’s forces pitted against the villainy of the enemy. These jingoistic films are unrealistic and do not present the truly devastating nature of war or a realistic portrait of the ‘enemy’. It is in this context that The Hurt Locker has been criticised the most, as it depicts American soldiers as fighting a good war against the bad Iraqis, notwithstanding the realism when it comes to showing what goes on in the minds of soldiers. Ironically, though not as realistic as The Hurt Locker, Green Zone has been praised for its empathy towards the enemy, and for its recognition that an enemy soldier is driven by as much patriotism as one’s own.
By refusing to shy away from critiquing its own government, Green Zone ultimately presents a more realistic picture of the futility of war and the reasons for which they are fought.
While ‘war as a drug’ is the message of The Hurt Locker, Green Zone makes a plea for peace, and its thesis is that war is never inevitable. What message you subscribe to, will eventually determine what type of films you’ll end up liking — films that are subtle war propaganda, or anti-war films.
DNA compares the three Hollywood war movies playing right now in the city’s multiplexes and situates them in the context of Hollywood’s long history as a vehicle of war propaganda
To say that war is as old as human civilisation would be stating the obvious. A better way to put it is the tagline of The Hurt Locker running in theatres currently, ‘War is a drug’. And cinema has for long been a major tool of influence at the hands of governments seeking to win people over to the agenda of war.
It is for this reason that the Iraq war film, The Hurt Locker and its subsequent Oscar triumphs have aroused a great deal of controversy across the world. Despite showing the plight of ordinary soldiers left with no option but to fight a war not of their making — merely in order to survive — it has been criticised for glorifying violence and war.
Critics also point out how showering the film with awards suits the interests of the current US regime, as it will only serve to promote the worldwide distribution of an Iraq war film that doesn’t at all criticise the US’s military presence.
On the other hand, there’s Green Zone, which released alongside The Hurt Locker, but gives a different perspective on the same war.
While The Hurt Locker aspires to be apolitical, Green Zone delves into the politics of the Iraq war and squarely puts the blame on the US administration. That this film has been allowed to release and find a mass base across the world despite being critical of US foreign policy is a minor miracle.
Animation films also provide a counter-balance against war propaganda. Anti-war messages are cloaked in beautiful metaphors. A good example is the 3D animation film that released last week, How To Train Your Dragon.
Targeted at the holiday audience both in the US and India, the film, despite its seemingly innocent plot, is actually an indictment of wars waged by adults. In a fictional Viking village, dragons are the ‘enemy’ meant to be killed on sight. The myth is rife, till a kid refuses to kill a dreaded dragon, makes the animal its pet, and shows that all it takes is a little kindness and understanding, even as the elders embark in ships to destroy the dragons’ nesting place.
An old marriage
The marriage between Hollywood and war propaganda has been a long one. Not many know that the classic Casablanca (1942) was a war propaganda film, meant to swing public opinion in favour of the US joining the Second World War with the Allied forces.
Mrs Miniver (1942), another multiple Oscar-winning film, was more direct in its call to join the war, bringing the danger closer home in the form of a fugitive German soldier. Such films were made even during the First World War, and include, most notably, DW Griffith’s Hearts Of The World (1918) and Cecil B DeMille’s The Little American (1917).
Other forms of governance across the world have been more open about propaganda in cinema. Vladimir Lenin, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, said, “Of all the arts, the most important for us is the cinema”.
He realised the importance of films in spreading the revolution to rural areas and for raising the awareness of illiterate peasants. He set up the Soviet film industry and provided patronage to such greats as Sergei Eisenstein, two of whose masterpieces, Battleship Potemkin (1925) and Ten Days That Shook The World (1928), were essentially propaganda films.
Nazi Germany’s foray into propaganda was much more notorious. Leni Riefenstahl’s masterpieces Triumph Of The Will (1935) and Olympia (1938) would forever bear the stigma of being Nazi propaganda films despite their cinematic excellence.
However, in a democracy, explicit propaganda of any kind is viewed with suspicion, and associated with totalitarian regimes. Hence the US government could at no time be seen to be directly involved in propaganda of any kind. Hollywood offered the perfect solution: Not only did it reach the masses, its power over the audience was more than that of any other art form.
A propaganda office
Hence, after the attack on Pearl Harbour, an official ‘propaganda’ office was set up under the instructions of President Franklin D Roosevelt to form a cordial relationship with Hollywood. Their mandate was clear: to make films the most important channel to inform the public about war, and to ensure that no films misconstrued or misinterpreted war efforts, i.e. no anti-war films would be allowed certification.
John Wayne, whose popularity as an American hero has not yet been surpassed, starred in many propaganda films, during and after the war, and called for patriotism as the need of the hour. A popular joke after the war was that America did not win the war, John Wayne did.
Propaganda war films are meant to inspire national pride and boost audience morale by displaying the nobility of one’s forces pitted against the villainy of the enemy. These jingoistic films are unrealistic and do not present the truly devastating nature of war or a realistic portrait of the ‘enemy’. It is in this context that The Hurt Locker has been criticised the most, as it depicts American soldiers as fighting a good war against the bad Iraqis, notwithstanding the realism when it comes to showing what goes on in the minds of soldiers. Ironically, though not as realistic as The Hurt Locker, Green Zone has been praised for its empathy towards the enemy, and for its recognition that an enemy soldier is driven by as much patriotism as one’s own.
By refusing to shy away from critiquing its own government, Green Zone ultimately presents a more realistic picture of the futility of war and the reasons for which they are fought.
While ‘war as a drug’ is the message of The Hurt Locker, Green Zone makes a plea for peace, and its thesis is that war is never inevitable. What message you subscribe to, will eventually determine what type of films you’ll end up liking — films that are subtle war propaganda, or anti-war films.
No comments:
Post a Comment