The document discusses how cinema has often been used as a propaganda tool to promote political messages and ideals. It provides examples of American and Soviet films during the Cold War era that contained overt or subtle propaganda, promoting anti-communist ideals or supporting political actions. More recently, some disaster films have also been analyzed as containing messages about climate change. The internet has made viewers more attuned to analyzing propaganda techniques in films.

1. When
Real ty H des
WORDS by Aurora Bosotti
ILLUSTRATION by Divya Scialo
Propaganda in cinema is the
proper way to promote fear,
war and climate change.

2. In times of need, mankind’s created the
strangest ideas to stay up to date with the
world. Phones, laptops, K​eeping Up With
the Kardashians,​and films have become
part of daily life to stay connected and
entertained.
But much like computers have
turned into mass­controlling weapons for
hacking, online crimes, etc. cinema has
been of great importance to seekers or
maintainers of power. They have often
controlled cinematography to propagate
their messages through subtle, and not
so subtle innuendo and political messages
masked as witty quotes.
The recipe for a successful
propaganda­-esque film is easy; keep the
plot simple. No complicated ideas to send
a message, but a believable hero fighting
against the bad guy. Over time watchers
have become attuned to the techniques
of film propaganda, possibly thanks to
the worldwide exchange of ideas made
possible by the internet. It’s easy to find
a bunch of people complaining about the
messages pushed upon them on Twitter.
When A​merican Sniper ​(2014) came
out, protesting voices rose up against the
forthright “We did what we had to in Iraq,
get over it” message promoted within.
Celebrating America’s greatest sniper, the
film transformed bloodshed into a black
and white tale ignoring historical context.
Just another American film then.
But Hollywood films have a long
history of holding hidden messages. The
power of cinema was used as a weapon
on several occasions as politicians tried to
stabilise their positions or promote their
ideals. The most blatant and amusing time
of US propagandist cinematography was
the Cold War era. Threats of communism
loomed over actors and directors – hello
Charlie Chaplin! – and so the film industry
unleashed its creativity to best pass on
the message that commies were bad.
The scaring purpose of these films
were at times clearly stated in their titles,
for example T​he Red Scare​ (1949), shot in
a documentary style to add an element of
realism, and T​he Commies Are Coming,
The Commies Are Coming ​(1957). When
reality wasn’t appreciated, scriptwriters
would stroll down the sci­-fi path instead.
Don Seigel did a wonderful job turning
communists into aliens in T​he Invasion of
the Body Snatchers ​(1956). The film’s​pod
extra­terrestrials looked more similar to
the edamame beans from my local Japa-
nese restaurant than the Russian Council
of Ministers. This film also teaches a les-
son that no character in sci-fi or horror
films has yet learnt; if an alien begins to
open up then it’s probably going to kill you
and you really should run! For years we’ve
seen characters fatally die this way and
these actors still don’t get it. One day.
With time, the propaganda notes
snuck in by filmmakers became subtler.
The​ Rocky​ film series are a good example.
American producers enjoyed the thrill of
the fight to maintain the anti­-communist
message of their films when the Cold War
was drawing to a close. The first vessel of
. 15
|

4. propaganda is young Rocky Balboa, the
epitome of the American dream he comes
from a poor background but prevails over
all the obstacles life loves throwing at him.
In 1985, the relatable hero came
back in R​ocky IV​with a massive, scary
opponent who could easily bench­press
a Tube carriage. The frightening boxer
goes by the name of Ivan Drago. He’s big,
strong, and guess what? Russian. Drago
not only dares to challenge the strength
of Rocky, but he also kills his best friend.
Oh, the gloves are coming off now. Rocky
takes a pounding in the first rounds in
the ring, but this means nothing as Dra-
go is cheating with his steroids use. Rocky
stays true to his American heritage by lift-
ing rocks and cutting wood and somehow
wins the tough battle although it seems
pretty impossible. But he’s Rocky; he’s
determined, brave, and can do absolutely
anything thank you very much.
World War II and the Vietnam War
represented more occasions where film
directors were allowed to get creative­to
solidify the public’s opinions. Casablanca​
(1942) hides behind its romantic drama
façade a strong message of support to
the Anglo-­American powers as characters
Rick and Ilsa struggle to reconcile their
love with their need to do the right thing.
I understand sacrificing for the war effort
but if you have Humphrey Bogart, dear In-
grid, you don’t go off with Paul Henreid.
Everybody knows that!
Vietnam! Vietnam! ​(1971) was a
United States Information Agency film
to promote the actions of the US army
in Vietnam. If the public hadn’t had a
change of heart during post-­production,
it would’ve succeeded thanks to Charlton
Heston as narrator and Ronald Reagan.
The Interview​(2014) is the latest in the
list of propagandistic, political satire, with
North Korea in place of the USSR. The
film provoked a diplomatic incident that
risked ruining Christmas with nuclear war.
Moving on from the US and their
seeming love for propaganda, plenty of
countries demonstrate clever influencing
tactics through film. Russia wielded the
power of cinema during times of unrest
to establish mass stable support. In 1925,
Battleship Potemkin​ was created by the
Soviet government to silence protesting
voices of the monarchist revolutionaries.
It’s a dramatised account of the rebellion
against Tsarist officers which was sparked
by the 1905 revolution resulting in brutal
police massacre. Sergei Eisenstein (the
director) nods to necessity of revolution
to achieve a better future for Russia. Its
scenes are painful and boring, however
the realism and powerful message makes
B​attleship Potemkin one of the greatest
propaganda films ever made.
Propaganda doesn’t stop at war,
and films have evolved from their role
within the war effort to present other
tragic issues. First up for analysis is R​eefer
Madness ​(1936) which sent a message to
parents about the dangers drugs can have
on high schoolers. Consequences of drug
use in the film varied from homicide and
. 17
|

5. | WHEN REALITY HIDES.
hit and runs, to suicide and madness. Drug
of choice; marijuana. Call me skeptical, but
I can’t help but feel this storyline is slightly
farfetched. I don’t see numerous chronic
pain sufferers running rampant. However,
Reefer Madness may have had the desired
effect, it’s rumoured that the theatricality
of it helped pass the 1937 Marijhuana Tax
Act, criminalising the drug.
On to disaster movies, T​he Day After
Tomorrow ​(2004) preceded by two years
the less vivid A​n Inconvenient Truth ​(2006).
Striking images depicting a sub­arctic New
York City had greater impact on climate
change supporters than the more detailed
scientific reports in​An Inconvenient Truth.​
Perhaps the flamboyant graphics and Jake
Gyllenhaal could entice us to hop on the
energy ­efficient, vegan lifestyle train.
The power of film is mighty in-
deed. In the past, watchers would believe
these fictitious/semi-­fictitious truths until
they’re proven false. Nowadays the sly ef-
fort of filmmakers is subjected to thorough
study as people debunk fishy facts to post
on reddit. The internet is full of conspiracy
theories from films to real life, such as the
ghost in 3​Men and a Baby​(1987) and the
death of Paul McCartney. Even if these are
never proven true, people have the chance
to explore whether they’re false or not. If
all art is propaganda, like Upton Sinclair
used to say, we might as well enjoy what’s
thrown at us, because there’s no escaping
it. Just remember to keep your brains on!
|
“ The recipe for a successful propaganda­-
esque film is easy; keep the plot simple ”