MovieChat Forums > Bronenosets Potyomkin (1925) Discussion > Propaganda...isn't almost every film pro...

Propaganda...isn't almost every film propaganda?

posted 17 years ago by D_vd_B
16 replies | jump to latest

Unless the story has no intention to portray an opinion. Ofcourse, that doesn't make them tools of a governement, but I just see little difference between a movie about the russian civil war or a 'western' movie funded by defense?

So what I read on IMDB, is that one of the following criteria must be met in order to make a movie propaganda:
-It must be foreign
-Strong political opinion
-Glorify the rise of evil guys

But now look at it from the other side of the ocean....The Patriot is as much a propaganda film as Potemkin, isn't it? And what about Gandhi, Platoon, Rambo or Casablanca...aren't they all propaganda in their own way?

So...what do you think should qualify as a propaganda film?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sara-452 17 years ago

Also, I don't know if you saw Rambo, it wasn't so much propagande as it was blowing stuff up, and ruining a really good book.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pundit-1 17 years ago

In a sense the film was propaganda or used as such by those promoting it.
However it doesn't rule out the fact that the film has some artistic merit.
It is a great example of a silent film classic and ranks up there with
"Birth Of A Nation".

This American classic by the way could be classified also as a propaganda
piece even if it wasn't originally intended to be.
Most American films are really designed as entertainment anyway but because
the KKK were portrayed as heroes in this one some racist segments of the population strongly identified with it and used it to promote their less
than ideal sentiments.

I have actually heard of one mail order racist group that sold this film
along with copies of "Protocols Of Elders Of Zion" to those who with a neo-nazi
mentality.

Are you in the future vividly remembering this present moment?

H.L.

[–] Theo87 17 years ago

i would consider all the films you listed as propaganda, except Ghandi. it doesn't mean that this lessens the quality of them but if it's propaganda against what i believe i obviously like the film less. i good example for this would be Triumph des Willens.

[–] pundit-1 12 years ago

Maybe Gandhi could be a propaganda film also.

Are you in the future vividly remembering this present moment?

H.L.

[–] Theo87 12 years ago

come to think of it, you are probably right.

[–] mangoloid 17 years ago

Whoa, I didn't realize IMDB made up their rules on what to consider propaganda; they're pretty stupid rules, too.

Intersting topic. I wish more people had input.

I think Hitler said something like (completely paraphrased): propaganda is meant to limit/narrow a person's point of view.
[I'm hoping someone more intelligent than I will come around and correct my horrible mis-statement.]
So, in effect, propaganda can be classified as a blatantly one-sided message. Yeah, I agree that The Patriot is heavy propaganda.

This becomes incredibly odd territory considering Eisenstein's dialectic principles, which would seem to go completely against the notion of propaganda... it's odd because it doesn't. Dialectic propaganda? That's pretty sophisticated stuff.

Much love to Sergei for manipulating the masses into a more open understanding. Actually, that was the aim of all Soviet Formalism, wasn't it? (What else were those frivolous boxes painted for?) Much love to the Soviets.

I proclaim ignorance in everything I say.

[–] rwsmith29456 16 years ago

Once I saw a re-edited version of Potempkin with a Czarist viewpoint. A little snipping and it's a 180 degree flip. So I guess that neutraled me out.

[–] jonnyunpleasant 16 years ago

This is an attitude that Vladimir Nabokov would describe as "poshlust."

Potemkin isn't just "a movie about the russian civil war." Eisenstein's stated aim for this and all his other movies was to influence the masses and spread Soviet doctrine. Every device he uses is designed for the purpose of making you as sympathetic to the "proletariat" and antipathetic towards the Czarists as possible.

[–] jd-276 8 years ago

This is not about the Russian Civil War, which was from 1918 to 1921. This was well before the Bolsheviks. The revolution of 1905 was about trying to establish a parliamentary democracy with Czar Nicholas II as head of state. Nicky was having none of it. Had he been less stupid and had that revolution succeeded, the rise of the Bolsheviks in October 1917 might never have happened. The point was not about the proletariat - since that word had not yet entered the vernacular - but about the absolutist rule of the Czar and the nobility in 1905. Don't make the mistake of thinking that pre-Revolutionary Russia was anything like the rest of Europe.

For the record, there were three revolutions in Russia in the early part of the 20 th Century: the revolution of 1905, the revolution of February 1917 and the revolution of October 1917.

[–] Emerald-S 15 years ago

I don't know where that criteria came from but it's pretty ridiculous. "It must be foreign" just doesn't make sense. An Italian propaganda film is as much a piece of propaganda to Italians as it is to the rest of the world. Seriously, like, wtf does that mean?
LMFAO @ "Glorify the rise of evil guys"...lmao, okay ur like 12? 13? hahaha!!! Okay, neway, just because Mussolini and Hitler made propaganda movies doesn't mean every movie with propaganda in it glorifies evil. The propaganda in Casablanca (does that rhyme?) is meant to be assure the US citizens that the US was right to enter the war. There's no glorifying evil there IMO.
Also, like any film, propaganda films have prescribed audiences. Fascist movies pre-1945 were as much directed towards the international community as the locals to prove that the fascist leaders were great and everybody was enjoying their leadership.
So a propaganda film basically needs a political agenda, but those points u made up are completely off.

[–] D_vd_B 15 years ago

What I was talking about (obviously) was the criteria that is used on the boards to call something propaganda. Maybe you didn't understand.

"I don't know where that criteria came from but it's pretty ridiculous. "It must be foreign" just doesn't make sense. An Italian propaganda film is as much a piece of propaganda to Italians as it is to the rest of the world. Seriously, like, wtf does that mean? " ...you almost get the point here. It's not that these are MY criteria, but ones that are handled by many people (and therefore subject to their point of view).

A fine example of 'propaganda' is Oni srazhalis za rodinu. According to lots of sources it's a propaganda film, but I view it as a story about the horrors of war. The fact that the Soviet soldiers are the main characters and in fact, the people we are sympathetic to. Sadly, Soviet filmmaking is assumed by many western countries as propaganda, not matter the story. So it's all just a point of view.

[–] Emerald-S 15 years ago

I don't think you're looking at this properly. I mean Battleship Potemkin is the most blatant propaganda film I've ever seen, but that doesn't take away from the film at all. It makes it a part of history. And the story isn't exactly a major breakthrough in originality (it being somewhat taken from reality), what makes films like this so important in the west is the techniques. The Soviet Montage was what really keeps the film relevant today IMO.