This post is due by Tuesday, January 28 @ midnight for full credit.
Email late posts to rwilliamsATchamplain.edu for partial credit.
1. Read Dr. Williams' "Screening the Homeland" chapter from the new Censored 2014 book. (He will email it to you as a PDF).
2. Share THREE SPECIFIC observations from the chapter at the blog thread below - how do Hollywood movies like "Argo" and "Zero Dark Thirty," the Arab Spring movements, and U.S. goals and policy in the Middle East all intersect?
"That via the silver screen, Hollywood’s job is to prepare American hearts and minds for embracing the collective actions of the state— both domestically and globally" was a quote that stuck out to me. The reason being is because it is beyond true. Movies have an unreal power; they make you feel feelings with out having to have any consequences. You have the ability to say, oh it’s just a movie, but at the same time that idea is now with in your head. The other night I watch red dawn, the new version, and after watching I felt as if I was ready for war. Film is such a useful tool that people can dig into, get into, and take things, good or bad, away from.
ReplyDeleteThe line "make clear that the chief goal of the twenty-first century US is nothing less than world domination in the name of waging a sequential, global war for the planet’s remaining fossil fuel energy resources" does not surprise me one bit. Who ever have the majority of the control over oil will have the most power. Currently in our world we cannot survive with out oil. Sometime in the future we will run out of oil so when we start to run out, which we already are, the person with control over the oil will with hold the power. Movies are the perfect way to get Americans and other countries on board with the movement. Its scary to think about what could come of a world-dominating nation.
"In May 2013, independent journalists broke a news story that revealed the extent to which the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs collaborated with Bigelow and Boals in drafting Zero Dark Thirty’s script through a series of “five conference calls” designed to “help promote an appropriate portrayal of the Agency and the bin Laden operation.”" Obviously, The U.S is not going to want us to look bad in any way, they are going to want us to look as powerful as possible. This film was not only to get the American people feeling patriotic; it was also to scare other people with in other countries. This film showed other countries that we could do what ever we want; we even have a team of killers to do it that won't leave a trace. Its a barely undercover marketing tool to show others how bad ass we are as a country.
I think that Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, the Arab spring, and the goals of the U.S all tie in very well together. They get people on board with the U.S, they make Arabs look bad, and they get people to believe they are doing the right thing. Which they very well might be, but at this point who knows. Those movies serve as a marketing tool to get people onboard with the U.S. It adds fuel to the fire and is helping America reach its goals
Although, Ben Affleck disagrees with the fact that his movie Argo was solely based on a true story and he wasn't trying to misrepresent Iran or Muslims in general but it is all for entertainment not for politics. As I also do agree with the reading that all movies are politics and which is using powerful images driven media to entertain, educate, and inspire with narratives that shape our hearts and mind just like how Argo did. For instance, being overwhelmingly right-wing pro-American propaganda, demonizing Iran as backward, barbaric and fanatical which is particularly problematic considering the United States rising tensions with Iran these days.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that scientific experiments have shown that violence and stereotypes could impact people in a lot of ways. And that is certainly true, now a days that so many movies are being made and have shown Muslims in a bad way or being tortured in movies like ZDT and showing people that it's OK to torture brown man just as it said in the reading. So when, people do watch these kinds of movies especially the young generation it does affect them in how they view the Muslims. It could change their perception in making them ignorant of other people and it could cause serious problem in the future.
Whether it be Argo or ZDT they are certainly not entertainment but politics that can cause lots of problems and can certainly change the perception of Westerners about Muslims in general. When movies like Argo and ZDT are made in Hollywood and ends with heroic patriotic resolution carried out by CIA operative and reintegration of the American family unit, complete with waving of the American flag in the background you don't have a movie that's and it is certainly not entertainment either but you would have the total opposite which is a movie that is deeply and fundamentally conservative American propaganda (Reel Politik).
I found it interesting to think of Hollywood films as propogandda. As a movie-goer I think I am pretty good at spotting product placement, but never considered political placement in American pop culture.
ReplyDeleteOn page 3, the author makes the claim that since 9/11 the U.S. has been obsessed with fear, security, and servailence; my question is how does that differ from the Cold War? I was not alive during that time but my parents tell me about living in constant fear of MAD and the U.S.S.R. Are we not in a similar state now, just with better servailence technology?
I was surprised to learn that Bigelow and Boal's only contact with the CIA for fact checking was via confrence calls. The second I read that all my red flags went sky high. The CIA has every insentive not to tell the truth, like giving away covert tactics, and no reason to be truthful. I feel like the CIA has painted a murky picture for the public, why would they all of a sudden open up to Hollywood?
The films, the Arab Spring, and the U.S. all intersect in that there is an effort to keep the public down. The U.S. is trying to minipulate how the public thinks and feels just like any country involved in the Arab Spring; the main difference is the U.S. has a high quality of life attached to it so reveolution is not a concern.
-When reading the article the first thing that came into my mind was how easy it is to be watching something and immediately assume its fact, especially when it says based of real events. Then I got thinking of government intervention/influence on a political screenplay. I am somewhat surprised in regards to Ben Affleck because I thought he pretty liberal...perhaps I'm just lumping him in with Matt Damon. Regardless I wouldn't pin him to help the government by making a pro-propaganda movie. In concern of the role Hollywood plays in our views of the Arab World there is no doubting that it plays an equal, if not more powerful role, than news media. Most people see a movie and assume that is what life is like in that certain place, and this happens all over the world. In the time I have spent overseas, most people think that everyone in the US lives in big cities for example.
ReplyDelete-Secondly, it is really scary to think about how our government has become a "military-industrial-surveillance state". This is not only true abroad but within the US as well. It is hard to refute the authors point of the US seeking world domination and control of fossil fuels, thus explaining the large role the US plays in the Middle East.
-And lastly, I would like to hear some sort of a response from the middle east on their views of Hollywood/US pop cultures portrayal of the Middle East. While we don't see a vast amount of foreign films in our daily lives, hollywood and american culture has spread throughout the world and there is no doubt that these films are readily available in the Middle East.
Argo, ZDT, the Arab uprisings and the U.S. goals in the Middle East are all intertwined in that they all contribute to a sense of Global Americanism, with the aforementioned films being effective propaganda tools to promote that Imperialism. I personally don't see America as an "evil" state, but rather one which has been tremendously warped in what it feels is the right thing, even when, to outside observers, it is obviously wrong. That's why Hollywood is so needed to keep the Image of a "good and just" America alive.
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely frightening to realize that a majority of people in the US are so introverted when it comes to world events. Most people are more concerned with celebrity news, than what is happening in Ukraine for example. This is where the Hollywood machine is so effective. The US public (imo) is obsessed with entertainment and illusion. Thus what better way to form an image of America that through films?
While i did enjoy Argo for its movie aspects, it obviously wasn't fully truthful and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. However, isn't it logical to look at all film in such a way. You can enjoy it for its entertainment value, but to assume its actuality probably isn't the best idea. (This is obvious with TONS of movies, for example Pacific Rim, but im talking about movies supposedly based on True Events)
With ZDT, it was painfully obvious how pro-CIA, pro- America that film is. It does not surprise me in the least that the CIA was on the phone with them during production to make sure it turned with them in a good light. But any rational person would have to expect that a film about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden is going to have some Federal influence in there.
Just on a side note, I feel any argument could be made for Lone Survivor being a pretty effective propaganda film. i thought it was a cool watch anyway though.
“Some critics have followed female director
ReplyDeleteBigelow in interpreting Maya as a “feminist folk hero”—tenacious,
scrappy, and determined to succeed in a man’s world.24 Others,
including this writer, see Maya’s constructed composite character
as an unconvincing bone thrown to would-be feminists who are
happy to see Maya kick some chauvinistic white male ass (while
brown male asses get the life beaten out of them)”. This quote caught my eye, and here’s why. As much as i don’t like conspiracy theories, this subject could have an underlying tone of reasoning for the film. Maybe it was to distract from what was really going on by rowling up all of the feminist so it could take away the horrors of brown men dying. Creating an uproar of support could diminish the actual horrors of the film.
“Zero Dark Thirty’s most powerful use as a propaganda piece
involves using the silver screen to convince American audiences to
accept torture and extrajudicial killings in the name of the greater
imperial good” Pretty interesting statement to say the least. As Americans are we programmed to believe that killing and belittling middle easterners is for the greater good and that we’re entitled to these things because of 9/11? I don’t think it’s right.
“movies occupy a central place in our national storytelling culture like no
other medium. And yet, too often, movie audiences fail to watch
with a skeptical eye, and movie reviewers fail to report on films
critically, while influential corporate commercial and political
interests are quick to exploit Hollywood’s uniquely powerful reach
to propagandize, rather than to educate” What are the purpose of movies today? should they be used more to educate about a subject instead of just entertainment. Filmmakers should be more culturally sensitive.
Films like ZDT, Arab spring and U.S policies all tie in similarly. The goal is to make that culture look like savages and make us look great, Period.
Screening The Homeland
ReplyDelete- "Adoring American movie going audiences and critics turned out in force, and were subjected to the film's remarkable flaws: the almost complete lack of historical context and/or misrepresenting of the decades-long US/Iranian political relationship, the odd downplaying of the Canadian embassy's central role in rescuing US hostages ( real life former Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor was outspoken in his criticism of Argo, nothing that the film portrayed the Canadians as being just along for the ride), and major moments from Argo that Affleck's production team invented whole cloth, including Argo's climax, featuring machine gun-toting Iranian soldiers pursuing the hostage's departing airplane down a Tehran runway in a high-speed Jeep chase that ends badle (for the Iranians) and triumphantly (for the Americans)."
Through my short lived years of college education I have realized a lot and I am now starting to see things for what they really are. I love movies for movies are a big particular that I really start to notice these trends, these odd depictions of a people or the "other" which has been termed in many lectures, scholarly sources and by many of my professors. And as I look back at movies I had watched in the past I start to really see the differences and I really start to notice what most will see as something of the "norm", that this stereo-type, this "other" is something that is apart of the norm. But most don't even see it like this though, because they never think twice about what is happening in front of them on the screen and they don't think twice later after they have had time to think about the film and what it was doing. I don't want something that I love to be something that I should fear or something that I should hate but that is mainly because I don't think that would be the right answer. Even if these movies are internally forwarding our governments agenda to have the population on our side, there is a better way to approach the problem. This is a problem.
I watched a film very recently in my "Make Films Not War" class and I found it really compelling. The films title was "A Separation" by Asghar Farhadi and it goes over a lot of varying points of view, issues on many sides of these arguments and I found the film to be astounding and something I rarely see in most block bluster esc. titles in the US. I can still see that there are many movies made in the US that are very deep in their plots and how each has great character development and depth and how the story itself becomes so compelling over such a short amount of time. I still think that American movies hold a very important place in the world as we know it today and I think that they hold a lot of significance in the world too. I see the flaws pointed out in this essay but movies are just movies. However I also see the argument of how influential movies truly are, more so than most would like to admit, I haven't seen either of the two movies discussed but I now look forward to watching them. Mostly because it would give me a far better understanding and interpretation of what I believe they are about or what they are truly portraying. Whether they know what they are doing in the movie is still a valid question, if these directors all have the full intention of something more sinister or is the sinister side coming from the people critiquing the movies? Are we digging for diggings sake? Or is there something to be found after all?
"Hollywood plays a deep and abiding role as popular propaganda provider for an ever-expanding United States of Empire bent on “full-spectrum dominance” of the planet and the demonization of all things Muslim." It was shocking to think about Hollywood movies being a home to U.S. political propaganda.
ReplyDelete"Zero Dark Thirty’s most powerful use as a propaganda piece involves using the silver screen to convince American audiences to accept torture and extrajudicial killings in the name of the greater imperial good" This was extremely shocking to read because it is completely inhumane to convince people to accept the torture or killing of anyone. Why is it acceptable to look down on the people of the Middle East?
"It is here, at the intersection of realpolitik and art, where Hollywood pop culture plays a critically significant political role" I never realized how true this actually is until now. What a better place to get a political point across than in an interesting movie that catches the viewers eyes.
Hollywood movies like "Argo" and "Zero Dark Thirty," the Arab Spring movements, and U.S. goals and policy in the Middle East all intersect in a way that makes it seem as though the U.S is doing the right thing.They also intersect by making all Arabs look bad. They are motivating people to believe that they should back the U.S and help them reach their goals.
When reading the chapter the first thing that popped out to me was “Hollywood and DC not only need each other, they are sleeping together in serial multiplex fashion” (Screening the Homeland). While the thought that Hollywood does plant ideas into people’s heads I never really thought that Hollywood was creating movies that reflected political views as endorsements. The second observation was Ben Affleck’s statement in which he stated that “It’s okay to embellish, it’s okay to compress, as long as you don’t fundamentally change the nature of the story and of what happened,” When talking about Argo, while the specific event could be identified some of the major events like the escape have been changed. Finally, knowing that Michelle Obama was the one that gave Argo the award was an acceptance that the two worlds, Hollywood and the government, are both connected.
ReplyDeleteWhen connections come into play I believe that the U.S. creates goals which are then fortified by Hollywood. This is done by the creation of movies that ultimately create a backing of ideas in the government.
Argo: “According to everyone involved in the real-life escape, the sheer lack of drama and ease of exit proved to be their escape’s most defining feature. But, in the world of American cinematic triumphalism, such details are easily replaced by more Hollywood-esque endings. Argo paints a stereotype of Middle Eastern people that reeks of the worst cultural clichés. A few mainstream US critics picked up on this disturbing stereotype. Instead of keeping its eye on the big picture of Revolutionary Iran, Argo settles into a retrograde ‘white Americans in peril’ storyline, recasting the oppressed Iranians as a raging, zombie-like horde.” This makes me think that although Hollywood says it will not stray from the truth, but they end up twisting it to meet their own ends.
ReplyDeleteZero Dark Thirty: “Zero Dark Thirty’s most powerful use as a propaganda piece involves using the silver screen to convince American audiences to accept torture and extrajudicial killings in the name of the greater imperial good” This brings to question what type of messages is Hollywood sending to the public and how are their views on foreign people are being manipulated.
“Movie audiences fail to watch with a skeptical eye, and movie reviewers fail to report on films critically, while influential corporate commercial and political interests are quick to exploit Hollywood’s uniquely powerful reach to propagandize, rather than to educate.” We must start finding the small truths in the over exaggerated fantasies that movies show us.
I think the movies Argo, ZDT, the Arab spring, and the goals of the US tie together because there are always different sides telling us what we should believe, and who we should fear.
Screening the Homeland
ReplyDeleteAlthough I have not seen ZDT or Argo, this article really brought to my attention how easy it is for America to believe these "true" stories that Hollywood shows. Ben Afflick admits that its okay to embellish and compress, but if that's the case then it isn't the truth that's being showed. And without even seeing the movie, I know that the embellishing that was done was to portray the Iranians as evil as possible. America is so sheltered when it comes to seeing the truth with what is going on over in the Middle East and its in part due to Hollywood.
One part in the article describing Argo describing the Americans as "the good guys" and Iranians as "bas guys" really caught my attention as well. In so many movies, not just ZDT & Argo, a criminal or "bad guy" is portrayed by an actor from the middle east and as an evil person. An entire race is labeled as 'the bad guys' ever since the war on terror began.
The comment on Zero Dark Thirty and the "five conference calls" between the directors and the CIA while drafting the script was interesting. Hollywood isn't going to make the CIA/US look bad. Especially in a movie based on the war on terror and the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Removing certain torture scenes was done to make the CIA look the best they can. Hollywood isn't going to show America the awful torture techniques used. And that goes back to my point of how sheltered we are and were censored to what's really happening.
This article has made me more interesting in seeing these two movies and plan on watching them before the semester is over.
I believe Hollywood movies, the Arab Spring movements, and U.S. goals and policy in the Middle East all tie together very well. Hollywood and the US goals and policy want the United States all on the same page, and that is to view the Middle East as an evil place with evil people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I think one of the key reasons that the movies had such an impact on the public’s point of view was the attitude of the directors. In both cases, the directors vouched for the accuracy of their movies, which (even though it may not be true) has an impact on the audience. Closely associated with this is the line “Based on actual events,” which has much of the same effects (2).
ReplyDelete2. A viewpoint that the article presented that was new to me was the idea of the US as an empire that is striving for “world domination” (3). Along with that viewpoint, which I can’t say I don’t agree with, is the idea that media promotes these world domination efforts and helps to “legitimize US imperialism abroad” (2,11).
3. One point that I think is undeniable is that many people rely on the media for education and to build an understanding, especially of foreign affairs (2). The ignorance of those that believe anything they hear leads to the misconceptions that Argo and Zero Dark Thirty lend themselves to, which creates “islamophobia” or hatred of all things Arab (4).
Overall, it seems as though media has been a huge promoter of the activities of the US in the Middle East and could be responsible for the widespread acceptance of these foreign actions.
The movies mentioned in the chapter were both very similar in that they served the same purpose: To change people's perceptions of true events and eliminate any wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. Argo and ZDT both focused on the exploits of the CIA, in different eras. Both of these movies portrayed risky operations done by the CIA, and told the story of the successes and left out many of the negative aspects. For example, in Argo, the plan was shown to be very risky and stressful, while in actuality it did not happen like that at all. This is evidence that the U.S. media is able to twist true stories to work better for the audience.
ReplyDeleteThis is true for news events as well as movies. During the Arab Spring, the media is able to portray events as they see fit, leaving out important details that may paint people or groups in a bad light. By doing this, they are able to sway public opinion, and even influence official policy. This has already been seen during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the "CNN effect" caused many people to believe things that weren't true, mainly that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda. This media sway can influence the public perception of Arabs and Muslims. This is also highlighted in "Reel bad Arabs" which shows how the media can influence opinions.
and it's 11:59...
First point that was interesting to me in the article was the PNAC document and what is was controversially stating. "Easily accessible federal government documents,such as the vision articulated by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC),6 make clear that the chief goal of the twenty-first century US is nothing less than world domination in the name of waging a sequential, global war for the planet’s remaining fossil fuel energy resources." This document is shocking yet hits home in that it accurately depicts the way society is functioning today, and why. Another point in the reading that stuck out to me was the quote from Michelle Obama about Argo. (“movies that lift our spirits, broaden our minds, and transport us to places we have never imagined,” Ms. Obama went on to note that “these movies made us laugh, they made us weep, and they made us grip our armrest just a little tighter.”). This to me is a people pleasing quote to make your heart swell with american pride. It's cheesy, and naive. Not to mention she was surrounded by US military men and women, just to fuel the american fire. Lastly, I was shocked at the lengths the CIA went to in order to make them selves look good in ZDT. ("In May 2013, independent journalists broke a news story that revealed the extent to which the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs collaborated with Bigelow and Boals in drafting Zero Dark Thirty’s script through a series of “five conference calls” designed to “help promote an appropriate portrayal of the Agency and the bin Laden operation.”). Well actually, maybe I'm not shocked at all...
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this article on page one, when it says “filmmakers and their audiences often argue that movies are just mindless eye candy for purely entertainment purposes,” versus films being vessels for perpetuating motives. The art of writing and creating a movie is just that – an art, a means of twisting the human experience into something beautiful and grandiose, to illuminate a theme or message. When a screenplay has been written it essentially goes up for auction to producers, who select scripts which they believe will have the most public popularity. For this reason, screenplay writers must keep popular public mindset at the tip of their pen. Blockbuster movies then become a reflection of popular public opinion rather than a catalyst. Imagine, as a writer, stumbling into the true story depicted in “Argo”: a mission so elaborately and glamorously undercover that it sounds like the stuff of fantasy, the kind of story too grasping to not tell. But pop audiences don’t want to go see a movie where the first fifteen minutes are a history documentary detailing the events of the Iranian revolution. No one wants to see a story where the climax is everything going way easier than expected and everyone living happily ever -- so the writer, in the name of selling, cuts the political nuances out, adds a gun shootout. Only have the first 3 minutes to thoroughly convince an audience that the ambassadors are in danger? Don’t waste screen time showing civilized Iranian diplomatic dispute, show a hundred screaming, violent, Iranian radical protestors. You still thoroughly research the event, and put ‘based on a true story’ at the beginning to respect the fact that you are representing some real people, but you are not creating a work of non-fiction. Once successful everything then becomes a PR frenzy – take, for example, the British Government’s posthumous pardon of Alan Turing, just months before the release of film “The Imitation Game” – of course the Obama administration, under attack from every public sector, would want it’s fingers in the pie of any movie that’s as popular and makes the US look as good as “Argo” does (and what better way to stick them in than by having millions of star-struck Americans get routed straight to Michelle Obama).
ReplyDeleteI hadn’t thought, though, about what this article says on page 8, that ZDT and movies like it “reinforces the dominant popular US political narrative… that whatever nasty business the US may do in the Middle East, it is being done as a response.” This reminds me of the tv show 24, which disgusts me with its endless scenes of Keifer Sutherland torturing innocent Muslims in the name of justice. The CIA’s involvement in the making of ZDT reeks much more closely of propaganda.
If you want to “move our Hollywood moviemaking culture beyond simplistic stereotypes, rehashed storylines, and political propaganda,” then go see “Winters Bone”, “The Book Thief”, or “The Life of Pi”. Look into the US’ funding of Iranian Sesame Street to teach kids about equality, or the fact that the biggest women’s rights initiative in Turkey is not a march, but a film festival. But do not be surprised that the government turns “Argo” into a PR tool, or that the bible belt gave ZDT positive reviews.
This article really opened my eyes to how films based on true events are really skewed and not as true as they seem to be. I was surprised at first when I realized that these movies are manipulated, however I wasn't surprised when I really thought about it. Show business is not going to get away with exposing the CIA in hit movies seen by a huge portion of Americans. When Ben Affleck said he didn't "want the movie politicized", I was a bit taken back because every movie now a days is influenced by politics. Especially this particular movie he was starring in, unfortunately politicizing movies like these are essential for providing more entertainment and drama for the audience. After all that's what it's all about, not the truth. I just find it unfortunate that the government is now being seen as using movies like these as "propaganda" and more or less giving us false information even on an entertainment level.
ReplyDeleteYalla, Arab Spring'ers - let's discuss your insights in class!
ReplyDeleteShukran - Dr. W