In the end you'll see it say "Iran/Iraq joint project" or something like that., This was most-definately a propaganda film. I'm not saying I thought Saddam Hussein's government was great but there's no denying that this was a propaganda film.
shareI guess it's hard to find a movie in this era that is completely free of political message, especially movies made about the middle eastern conflicts.
But you must agree that this film was about a more basic problem than Saddam's regime and that is the catastrophic nature of war itself, as a universal problem, that leaves its most tragic marks on the most innocent of the population: the poor children.
I am sure that this is a propaganda film. In start of the movie, it writes "Borderline: Turkey, Iraq, Kurdistan." But, there is no any land named Kurdistan in the world, like everyone knows.
shareKurdistan is in the northen part of iraq. Look it up.
share"stan" just means land of...so yeah, there im sure there would be a kurdistan, even if it wasn't a geographical region, as proven by the following poster.
hasn't anyone ever told you that smoking was bad for you?
no..no one..THANK YOU.
Kurdistan is a recognized region(or state if you prefer) in the north of Iraq. This movie oould only be viewed as propaganda by someone with a very one-sided, one dimensional view of the world. As an American, I am saddened when I go to work every day and the damn tv in the breakroom is permanently locked onto fox news, yuck. now that is propaganda and if you doubt it, check the travel restrictions for vice pres. Dick Cheney. Every hotel room he visits is required to have the tv on and tuned into fox news. I guess he cannot fathom the idea of hearing one word that doesn't defend his insanity. and at this point, I really feel that he should be impeached.
shareThere is land called Kurdistan, there always was and always will be. Everyone knows where it is, even you. I think what you're trying to say is that it is not officially a country. There is no denying that fact. Today it is classified as a region. Call it whatever you want, it is the land of the Kurds, the indigenous people who lived on that land for 5,000 years. And that is a historical fact, not propaganda.
Jimmy Ringo
"Most of our suspicions of others are aroused by our knowledge of ourselves."
Well said, ssinjari. I hate when people use the argument that Kurdistan does not exist because it's not a state, retarded argument.
share"ssinjari wrote - There is land called Kurdistan, there always was and always will be. Everyone knows where it is, even you. I think what you're trying to say is that it is not officially a country."
Kurdistan in Iraq is now a de facto country in that it rules itself, has its own flag and shares its natural resources on a paid contractual basis. It has its own language, culture, customs and national consciousness......what else does it need to be a country, its own war????
"Kurdistan ("Land of the Kurds";[3] also formerly spelled Curdistan;[4][5] ancient name: Corduene[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) is a roughly defined geo-cultural region wherein the Kurds form a prominent majority population, and Kurdish culture, language, and national identity have historically been based.
The earliest official use of the toponym Kurdistan dates back to 12th century when Saljukid ruler Sanjar conquered the Kurdish territory and established a province of that name, centered at Bahar, near modern Hamadan.[13]
Contemporary use of Kurdistan refers to parts of eastern Turkey (Turkish Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan), northwestern Iran (Iranian Kurdistan) and northern Syria inhabited mainly by Kurds.[14] Kurdistan roughly encompasses the northwestern Zagros and the eastern Taurus mountain ranges,[15] and covers small portions of Armenia.
Iraqi Kurdistan first gained autonomous status in 1970 agreement with the Iraqi government and its status was re-confirmed as an autonomous entity within the federal Iraqi republic in 2005.[16] There is also a province by the name Kurdistan in Iran."
Do your research of Treaty of Sevres, this should tell you enough about what you need to know of the existence of Kurdistan.
If it was enough to be in a treaty, it was REAL, no matter how hard you try to remove it from history.
are you guys serious?
you can't say something that's either "endorsed by", or "made with support of..." is propaganda. with that same logic movies like "top gun", "saving private ryan" and "pearl harbour" would be propaganda... even TV series like "J.A.G." (!!!).
there's no denying, without the support of the united states army, providing locations, equipment, information, and the "ok", all those projects i mentioned would be, if not impossible, very difficult.
its obvious that any project that's accepted by a given government will be biased towards the official "version", and that doesn't affect me (I'm not American), and it shouldn't affect anyone. simply because those movies aren't propaganda, they are not intentionally trying to change my mind on a subject, they are presenting me with their version. whether i accept them, or see them as exaggerated "ideal" versions of reality, that's my business.
i think that's the logic you should take when watching movies, documentaries or even a newscast from another country. (you cant even imagine the chills i get when i watch fox news on DTV... now THAT borders propaganda.)
as long as you see Hollywood's movies as "just movies", you cant say that any other's nation's movies are propaganda. and believe me, from where I'm standing movies like "aw yeah we're marines! and we're off to save the world from evil terrorists by carpet bombing anything outside of the US border!!" are quite pathetic. both on the "movie" aspect, and the "propaganda" aspect.. (psst, here's a hint: the viewer it's not supposed to laugh at the propaganda...)
PS: excuse my English, as i sed... I'm not American.
I just loved your reply.... rightly said... I cant fathom how anyone could say that this movie is propoganda. I am an Indian and I feel that such movies do not get their share of credit just because they are not American. Sorry if I sounded disparaging but I cant see a reason why they dont grab the limelite. It is an amazing movie and a must watch.
shareand by the way...propaganda to what side?
it wasn't glorifying america, or saddam...
hasn't anyone ever told you that smoking was bad for you?
no..no one..THANK YOU.
Has America really become that paranoid that it's citizens view films like this as propaganda!?
"Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Propaganda techniques include: patriotic flag-waving, glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, using appealing, simple slogans, stereotyping, testimonials from authority figures or celebrities, unstated assumptions, and encouraging readers or viewers to "jump on the bandwagon" of a particular point of view."
The above definition sounds more like the goings on in today's America! With Bush in power and Fox News on the airwaves you can't argue with that, so go on wave your little flag at me!
I'm British by the way.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble... but this film spoke the truth; the truth about war, and its impact on the civilians who are victimized by it. You wouldn't know it first hand, since most of us only sit on the couch and watch some footage on TV. And that footage looks like cool high budget movies you used to go see in high school.
What happened to these children rings a 100% resemblance to the truth, and the truth makes the warmongers look bad.
Also, your comment about Iran/Iraq... that's a bit racist. Are you actually denying that children get hurt in wars? The storlylines in this film are EXACTLY what has happened to many civilians in that region.
The original poster is of course correct - this film is propoganda.
A piece of propoganda that dares suggest that if we insist on allowing the most vulnerable in this world to be treated as sub-human and permit children to wallow in the most horrific and violent mire we seem intent on creating for them then ... well....that might be wrong and we might be dooming the world and dooming ourselves.
I know - shame on the film-maker. I would have preferred to live in ignorance.
wow, so many racist ppl on this site who hate kurds n their multimedia capablities.
shareHow brainwashed must you be to see a film like this as propaganda? Things aren't as black and white as you try to say. Get used to it, the US kills loads of innocent people and is guilty by broad propaganda
shareI'm sorry to burst your bubble... but this film spoke the truth; the truth about war, and its impact on the civilians who are victimized by it.[...]I'm in the puzzled camp on this one too re this thread. Who is this propaganda for? Not the U.S. certainly. In the end the pro American kid having experienced what the armless boy had with the mine, his sentiment changes. I noted they mentioned at the beginning that the mines were American and Italian made. It wasn't pro Saddam either. I agree w the poster who said only a hard line Turk would call this propaganda.
What happened to these children rings a 100% resemblance to the truth, and the truth makes the warmongers look bad.
Propaganda which way? It actually could have used more political subtext than it had. As it was I couldn't tell whether people thought the American invasion was good or bad.
shareI think the end suggested that they initially supported the invasion. I'm making that judgement based on the dream where Satilite is brought Saddam's arm and the child says the Americans are watching the prohibited channels with the children. I think everyone had high expectations for the invasion and satilite and many of the other children believed (or at least hoped) they would be immediately delivered from their hardships. However, in reality, the soldiers just roll through the town and nothing has really changed. I don't think the film was making a judgement about the invasion, rather it was observing that as long as there is war or oppression, there will be pain. If I hav interpreted the film correctly, I don't think it is necessary for it to have taken a side in the current conflict, rather, just observe that war brings pain.
sharepropaganda? LOL! this was a story about children in a refugee camp, filmed in a refugee camp, with real children refugees. hollywood has produced something like 2500 war movies in the 20th century and over 2000 were made with participation of the pentagon/war dpartment. this film is an instant classic. ghobadi is easily one of the best up and coming filmmakers in the world.
shareHow, exactly, is this film propaganda? and for whom?
Yes, "Satellite" and many others look forward to the invasion and freedom from Saddam- they're Kurds. Kurds are an ethnic minority that suffered badly under Saddam's practice of 'Arabization' of Iraq and literally did cheer in the streets when Saddam fell. That's not propaganda, that's reality.
But, as another poster has already stated, despite an initial celebratory feeling as US troops passed through, it is a startling realization to Satellite when the US troops, after his initial jubilation, simply keep moving on- leaving them in the filth and mud in exactly in the same position they had been in before. It was possibly worse for Satellite, as many of his young charges dispersed by the tide of the US forces to seek their fortunes elsewhere.
We already know that the 'predictions' of the armless boy and later Satellite were more akin to omens- everything they predicted was either bad or immediately followed by something tragic happening. So when, at the end of the movie, Pashow tells Sattelite that the armless boy said, "In 275 days something else will happen in this area," Satellite knows that essentially nothing has or will change- he looks around at his world as the US troops that are oblivious to his presence roll by, realizing that what his world was how it was, and the US troops and the war would not, in the end, change his little corner of the world at all.
If it is supposed to be US propaganda, it's terribly bad. Sure Satellite and the Kurds are happy to be rid of Saddam. But at the same time, it points out the fact that most of the mines the children hunt are US mines- or at least built in the US (And probably sold to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war when the US supported Saddam)- and most of the kids who have lost limbs or been maimed have been as a result of mines.
If it is supposed to be anti-US propaganda, again it fails. Saddam is clearly shown as no friend of the Kurds and the 'raping' scene is shown to be Iraqi soldiers- at least the US soldiers were at least friendly to the kids recognizing them at least as children- whereas to the Iraqi soldiers the Kurds are less than even human. The kids who are mutilated in some way arent maimed as a reslut of the US invasion- though it may have been American mines that did the damage, they were in all likelyhood laid by Iraqi soldiers.