Most Popular Content

News - Jul 21, 2008 18:03 - 0 Comments

Propaganda as Documentary

Documentary film has long been used as a method of distributing a propaganda message, and the United States government as well as political parties are perhaps the the most expert proponents of this method. They, of course, take their cues from Hitler’s Nazi Germany who used propaganda with expert precision. Leni Riefenstahl’s body of films, produced by the Third Reich, are both visually stunning and effective in the shaping of the party message.

One of the major issues in documentary film today, as I see it, is the idea perpetuated by many that the films are somehow “objective” and free from any lens or judgmental point of view. I don’t mean to insinuate that filmmakers make films under this paradigm, merely that they are received as such, and often used as “proof” of fact - when in fact it’s entirely possible a film may be used effectively to distort the fact and the medium itself then becomes a powerful weapon of persuasion.

During the 2008 political season, we’ve just started to see the first of these “documentaries” used by one party to deride another or to further incite their constituents. Citizens United is one such group that is poaching the power of the documentary medium as a vehicle to win votes and to confuse viewers by presenting their agenda within a “documentary” that is both a) factual and b) objective.

Objectivity in the medium is impossible, as even news documentaries are produced with a particular point of view, and are (as most producers would readily admit) totally subjective to the research team, directorial, executive, and producer opinion on the subject.

The BBC4 came under heavy criticism when it aired an anti global warming documentary that refuted Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. Airing in March 2007, The Great Global Warming Swindle intentionally set out to prove that man had nothing to do with global warming. What wasn’t revealed, and hence the criticism, was the illegitimate and widely discredited “experts” it used to tell its story. And of those experts who were legitimate, many wrote in editorials and letters of complaint to distance themselves from the piece because their views had been “distorted” and “twisted” or “taken out of context.”

The latest of these films to make headlines is Citizens United, a conservative interest group, has produced a “documentary” on Barack Obama. From a recent New York Times article on the subject:

The ad is a prelude to the film, “Hype: The Obama Effect,” which Citizens United plans to release in early September. According to the film’s Web site it will ask — and answer — a few questions about Mr. Obama, including whether he is “the uniter the country begs for, or a liberal divider.”

Will Holley, a spokesman for the group, said the film will be released in theaters in select markets across the country and offered for sale on DVD.

The Obama campaign declined to comment on the film.

Independent groups like Citizens United are increasingly inserting themselves into the contest between Mr. Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain. Another advocacy organization, Let Freedom Ring, plans to begin broadcasting a commercial accusing Mr. Obama of being a flip-flopper on Tuesday. The group, Vets for Freedom, is spending $1.5 million on an advertising and grassroots effort trumpeting what they say is the success of the troop buildup in Iraq.

The use of this powerful medium as a way to persuade - what it was intended to do even back in John Grierson’s day - has become the weapon of choice as of late for many individuals and organizations who want to tell a certain version of events for strictly political or personal gain - not necessarily for the good of the community or nation at large.

One of the other culprits who I feel sometimes (not all of his films do this) uses the medium to berate an audience or lead them in a certain direction with blinders on, is the successful documentary filmmaker Michael Moore. Conservatives like to pan his use of the documentary as propaganda, but his presentation of fact is no more salacious than political advertisements dressed as documentaries that run during a campaign (remember swiftboat?) season. I hope Moore (as he said he would) does a documentary on a subject about the next president, or about environmentalism, etc.

I happen to like some of Moore’s films, and I think he’s done a lot of good for the medium. Thanks to Moore, major theaters are now showing documentary films and funding has become (albeit somewhat limited and difficult to access for independent types) more readily available. What Flaherty did for doc films in the 20’s and 30’s and even again in the late 50’s with his Louisiana Story, Michael Moore has done in the last 20 years.

No political party or cause is immune from the temptation to produce a documentary as a way to sell their message, or product even. What needs to change is our teaching of the medium as a medium of truth/fact/black/white. This is simply not the case, nor will it ever be. Documentaries tell a certain story, from a specific point of view, regardless of breadth and regardless of how benign the topic might seem. Ken Burns’ documentaries are not objective, and should not be sold as such. It’s sort of the same issue with wikipedia - it’s not an objective source. Peer review, film responses, awards, criticisms, box office success, all play and should continue to play a role in how we enjoy and receive, and process the medium we love.

More In News

• SnagFilms.com Finds Virtual Theaters For Documentaries
  Wednesday, July 16, 2008 19:45 - 0 Comments
• Documentary Film “The Unforeseen” Examines Texas Land Development
  Tuesday, July 15, 2008 21:15 - 0 Comments
• National Press Club Documentary to Be Distributed at Journalism Educator’s Conference in Chicago
  Tuesday, July 15, 2008 21:05 - 0 Comments

News