Film as a Weapon (Earth, creation, hell, attend, America)

[Dr. Nosophoros]

This is a pretty interesting (though dated technologically) essay written by a Nazi propagandist dealing with the use of film as a powerful way of molding political and social thoughts/opinions. He was not the first to realize the power of film or media to politically/socially indoctrinate, there were others before him, but I feel that this best sums it up in a nutshell.

Found at:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hippler1.htm

Calvin.edu also has a lot of other interesting WWIIinformation.

************************************************** ************************************************** *****
Film as a Weapon

by Dr. Fritz Hippler

If one compares the directness and intensity of the effect that the various means of propaganda have on the great masses, film is without question the most powerful. The written and spoken word depend entirely on the content or on the emotional appeal of the speaker, but film uses pictures, pictures that for almost a decade have been accompanied by sound. We know that the impact of a message is greater if it is less abstract, more visual. That makes it clear why film, with its series of continually moving images, must have particular persuasive force.

Some circles recognized this effectiveness early. It also makes it plain why film's relatively great costs "pay off": film stock, equipment, studios, the large technical and artistic staffs, etc., all cost a lot of money, but the result, the finished film, may bring in tens of thousands whose admission fees not only cover the costs, but result in a good profit.

Government offices and educated circles looked upon film's growth either with indifference or with distrust. Hardly anyone recognized the enormous possibilities. As a result, in the area of the weekly newsreel the German market was taken over by French films (beginning around 1909-1910). At the beginning of the World War, Germany was completely helpless in this area, while its enemies had a dangerous weapon in their smoothly functioning newsreel systems. Metzter, the great German film pioneer, published "The Film as a Means of Political Advertising" in 1916. He ended with the warning that it was time that "our responsible offices immediately begin thinking about how the masses can be reached with pictures." However, the World War was ending and world opinion about Germany was as the opinion makers wanted it to be.

This brief account is sufficient to show how important film is in influencing opinion abroad. Whether in a newsreel or a German feature film, it is the mirror in which the broad masses of the world sees Germany. It is also, like radio, the way that the poorer classes of the people can be presented with culture inexpensively. It is foolish and short-sighted for bourgeois aesthetes to shake their heads and say that film cannot be art, that it is a danger to the theater. The latter of these two contradictory opinions is refuted by the facts. The first is fundamentally false. It is entirely possible to make films that are great works of art. Doing so is a matter of costs and paybacks. A film of Stephan George's literary creations is indeed possible, but would surely lose money. The film must be directed to mass sensibilities. It of course has an educational responsibility, and may not avoid all standards in order to meet the public's tastes.

One may also note that ever since the Classical Era, there has been a certain relationship between theater, literature, and the public, without damage to cultural standards. Arnold Bennett once said that: "an artist who demands that the public submit absolutely and completely to his own demands is either a god or a complete and utter fool." The same is true of film, which is forced for these as well as economic reasons to appeal to the masses not only through its pictures, but also through its content.

German citizens have been increasingly drawn to film in recent years. We surpassed England, the previous European leader, in film theaters last year. There is no doubt that a systematic increase in the number of film theaters is not only economically important, it is also necessary to increase the impact of film. The prospects for growth are clear if we look to other nations. In 1934, 413 English per 1000 went to the movies each week, 343 per 1000 of Americans, and 160 per 1000 French. In Germany, only 86 of 1000 went to the movies! Leaving aside the cultural and historic differences between Germany and these other nations, it is clear that increasing German film attendance is among the most important tasks of German film policy, and that doing so would increase the effectiveness of film in propaganda and popular enlightenment.

************************************************** ************************************************** *******

If we look at CNN during the Clinton years and more recently FOX news in the U.S., popular films passed off as "history", television "dramas" that include political and social ideas that include characters that are considered "normal" or "good" while others "abnormal" or "ignorant" in the way they are handled, interacted with etc. I don't think it takes too much thought to conclude that these lessons and ideas were not forgotten.

The internet and other technologies changed that dynamic, but one must take the initiative. The Internet allows an individual to read news reports from many different sources from within their own country and around the globe on the same subjects, not all but many- so the ability to indoctrinate is diminished as an individual is better armed with more diverse facts, views, opinions, etc. in short, knowledge is power. After all this, one must sift through all the rubble to be better able to discern what is most true, but that must also be judged with an empty slate, if an individual doesn't, they will focus on what they most want to believe. The ability to realize that we ourselves are just as capable of our own propaganda against ourselves is as important as realizing propaganda is possible from outside sources- in fact more important, because fooling oneself is easier and has a farther reaching impact than the effect that an outside source could ever have.

[No*s]

I think I agree wholeheartedly. The media is a weapon, and the internet has the potential to be a far more potent weapon. With broadband becoming more and more common, I hope that it will allow smaller news groups to rival the household favorites. After all, once broadband is common enough, it has the potential to seriously challenge the TV. Most people want video, and when this has occurred, they will be able to have their video and independant news as well.

[cardero]

There were a few books written on UFOs by researchers who reviewed film as a way to sway public interest in the UFO phenomenon. If you view the films on "Martians" and extraterrestrials of the 50's 60's (Mar's Attacks, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Earth Vs.The Flying Saucers) that the aliens depicted in those movies are malevolent and something to be feared. In the 70's and 80's they were depicted as benevolent and loving BEings (Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, ET, Mac And Me). The 70's and the 80's were also a time where it was rumored that the government was to share what classified information they had with the public on extraterrestrials. In the 90's (Independence Day, Mar's Attacks, Fire In The Sky) and the new millennium they are now depicted again as malevolent BEings.