Political references In Mainstream cinema.

Tools    





.:*why So serious*:.
Hey Guys, Girls And all manner Of creatures from the night.

As i have Been watching, lately i have noticed Quite a few References To the government in mainstream Films Positive and negative (mainly of the Government being useless/ untrustworthy)

In My opinion The Media industry is the biggest and most powerful in it's country as it controlls what people know, What the don't know and even what people think, It has a massive influence on the population and it is in control of what information we are allowed to have.

The example i have of head are The Tranformers movie and Simpsons movie, however there are more out there and i'm sure more to come.

Simpsons movie, Government Emplyee: " Hey We found them, Everybody! The government actually found something they're looking for! Yahooooooooo!

Transformers movie end Credits, Sam's Parents: "I'm Sure if anything had happened here, the government would have told us..., Oh definetly..."

So What do you think of These views?, what are yours?
How Powerful is the media?
How Is the government being portrayed, Why ?
General opinions?
Is there something going on here, Is it purposeful?
Let me know what you think...



The Fabulous Sausage Man
All films have political references, often unintended ones. Films don't exist in a vacuum, they are products of their time and they all reflect the collective social conciousness of that time. The media does not only 'control' what people know, but can mirror the views and attitudes which all ready surround it. Examples of governmental mistrust can not only be found in many films made today, but also in the 70s, where Vietnam and Watergate were fresh in people's minds (e.g. Romero's zombie films, paranoia thrillers like The Conversation, The Parallax View, Chinatown etc.) It is not just the films which should be questioned, but also the audiences.



Its only natural that the present goverment in America is being portrayed as inept and farcical in today's films as the Bush administration has being nothing but a complete disaster. The general public does not have faith in them anymore so why would directors portray a world in which they are seen as competent and efficient??
__________________
'I have nothing to declare but my genius!'



In My opinion The Media industry is the biggest and most powerful in it's country as it controlls what people know, What the don't know and even what people think, It has a massive influence on the population and it is in control of what information we are allowed to have.
Well, if we in the media control what people know and think, how did we miss you? Our mind-controlling powers must not be too powerful since sooooo many people out there dislike what we do.

One of the reasons our forefathers revolted against England was because they didn't want their newspapers operating under government license that could be pulled (and the paper shut down) any time the government disliked what they wrote. There are still countries where the radio and television stations are government property or otherwise government controlled. Lots of places where reporters have been killed for speaking out against those in power.

If we really controlled what you read and think, would newspapers be going out of business all over this country?

Think about this: how many newspapers do you read on a daily basis? How many magazines and books do you read each day? How much television do you watch and how much of that is news related? How many movies do you see? And most important, do they all agree on issues or do you get different opinions from different sources?

If the media and/or government were out to control your access to information or your thoughts, you wouldn't be plugged into the Internet right now where anyone can type in any thing they want, no matter if it's right or left, lies or truth.

Talk about the political power of the media always gives me a chuckle. We reporters generally take what's called "liberal arts" courses in college--history, English, language, sociology, very little economics, almost no business courses. The people who own and in an overall manner manage newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations are business majors, accountants, lawyers. So here you have people with a liberal arts background going out and covering events, writing and editing or broadcasting reports with what I'll concede is a more liberal view, at least in comparision to the generally more conservative people who own the media outlets and who hire and fire us. The media hardware--presses, cameras, mikes, etc.--are big business with big investments and salesmen trying to sell advertising slots to merchants--very much a major part of the establishment. The "software"--the reporters and editors who gather and write the news--are more the hippy-dippy types with longer hair, beards, and dress kinda funky while working for wages. Nearly all of us got into this business because it's more fun than working. Now do you really think those two very different groups are going to agree on what "misinformation" to feed the gullible public? If that were the case, would there be a Wall Street Journal and The Village Voice? The New York Times and The Rolling Stone? A William Buckley and a Gore Vidal?

To tell the truth, in more than 30 years as a reporter, I've never really cared what a reader thinks or learns. That's totally immaterial to me. I write for only one person, the editor who edits my copy and hands out assignments. I've covered the local Republican Party and the Black Panthers. I've interviewed cops and robbers. I've talked to Jane Fonda and Henry Kissinger. Princes, presidents, and bag ladies, it's all the same to me.

I once covered dueling demonstrators with pro-life on one side, free-choice on the other, the cops in the middle and me running from one bunch to the other. Later I got letters from the pro-life bunch complaining that I was biased toward the free-choice group, and from the free-choicers claiming I was in cahoots with the pro-life conservatives. I also got letters from other people on each side saying how fair and neutral my coverage had been. Go figure!

Truth was, I didn't even have an opinion on the subject. It was just another job to me. Do this interview, write up the article, give it to the editor, and go on to the next assignment.



.:*why So serious*:.
Well, if we in the media control what people know and think, how did we miss you? Our mind-controlling powers must not be too powerful since sooooo many people out there dislike what we do.
Obviously I didn't actually and literally mean Control as in mind control! thats another subject,
But Regardless of What the Media outputs, It influences peoples way of thinking and reason etc... It's like any other form of influential behaviour but it is fed to the public,
wheather you care or not about what you produce to them, People who read it will still take it in and Contemplate it's point.
In Countries Such as darfour The internet has been censored of most of the content, Why ? because the Dictators of the country don't want people within to become inspired to revolt and aware of Change outside the World, They are basically cut off, And that is controlling what they know, by removing Certain media, and replacing it with propaganda.

Btw i like the replies Keep em coming guys
And This is a topic ihave chosen for my a level media, being one of the purposed of this thread Thanks Keep it coming ! Great stuff here



Obviously I didn't actually and literally mean Control as in mind control! thats another subject,
But Regardless of What the Media outputs, It influences peoples way of thinking and reason etc... It's like any other form of influential behaviour but it is fed to the public,
I didn't literally mean mind control either. You said the media influences your mind, yet not to the point that you are not critical of it. Personally I think the influence of the media is way overblown especially today when you have so many more media outlets expressing so many more differing opinions and even accounts of events.

Think about it. Has the media ever completely changed your opinion on an issue or does it more often reinforce the opinion you already hold? With your lifetime of exposure to the media, can you on one hand count 5 instances where the media influenced you for the good, and on the other, 5 occasions that it influenced you to do wrong?

The one example you gave was of a government taking over the media--but then that's the government, not the media, doing the influencing. It would seem then that you would be more concerned about a Seven Days in May takeover of the government and media more than media itself planting rebellion (or repression) in your mind.

Also, the media is not the only source of influence--there's also your parents, brothers, sisters, school teachers, Sunday School teacher, neighborhood pusher, every politician asking you to vote for her and not for him, comic books, classic books, catalogs, pamplets, neighborhood newspapers, local municipal newspapers, national newspapers, international newspapers, magazines, advertising handouts, your good decent friends that your parents like, the "low-life" crowd they wish you would stop running with, your favorite moves and TV programs, the others that you know are boring and dull so you don't watch, video games, athletic games, the coach you look up to, the principal you hate, the region where you live, the regions where you wouldn't live for a million bucks, the pizza ad you find stuck on your windshield, and millions of other influences including the ever-present all-reaching internet via your laptop.



.:*why So serious*:.
Also, the media is not the only source of influence--there's also your parents, brothers, sisters, school teachers, Sunday School teacher, neighborhood pusher, every politician asking you to vote for her and not for him, comic books, classic books, catalogs, pamplets, neighborhood newspapers, local municipal newspapers, national newspapers, international newspapers, magazines, advertising handouts, your good decent friends that your parents like, the "low-life" crowd they wish you would stop running with, your favorite moves and TV programs, the others that you know are boring and dull so you don't watch, video games, athletic games, the coach you look up to, the principal you hate, the region where you live, the regions where you wouldn't live for a million bucks, the pizza ad you find stuck on your windshield, and millions of other influences including the ever-present all-reaching internet via your laptop.
Bout 75% of examples here are media forms, Tv, Newspapers, Comics Etc, All media.

I'm Not having a go at media at all, btw, i like media i just think it has a massive ionfluence on the consumers views and is a source we look to for answers a lot of the time.



Bout 75% of examples here are media forms, Tv, Newspapers, Comics Etc, All media.
I'm Not having a go at media at all, btw, i like media i just think it has a massive ionfluence on the consumers views and is a source we look to for answers a lot of the time.
Actually 100% of everything I listed including your parents and friends are forms of media, which is comprised of different mediums. One of many dictionary definitions of medium--the one that I'm using here--is "a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment;" also "a mode of artistic expression or communication." In other words, anything or anyone that communicates information to you is part of the media that surrounds you. Doesn't matter if the message is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong, it's still being communicated through some medium. Even a hot stove can be a medium if you touch it.

By listing all of those media sources--both the 75% you recognized and the 25% that you didn't--I was trying to make the point that there is not "a (as in single or exclusive) source" as you indicated. Instead, there are many, many mediums or channels of communication, with many, many messages that often conflict, rather than one monolithic media source that dictates a party line of any kind. Anyone who would rely on a single source for all of his information would be a fool, but I do not think you are--in fact, I'm sure you are not.

The fact that one obtains information through media does not taint the media or those who specialize in communication via mass media. The media even communicates criticism of the media, from The New York Times reporting one of its own reporters faked news reports to broadcasts of people who claim the moon landings were faked with the help of the media. Media is a threat only when all of it comes under the control of one group or person with a specific agenda to communicate. In the US, the First Amendment is the best guarantee against such abuse.



.:*why So serious*:.
Good point there mate, If one person was to gain control of it though ( highly unlikely or not) It would be be a control over thee poulation.



I've been walking through your streets
Where all your moneys are earned
Where all your buildings crying
And clueless neckties working
Revolving fake-lawn houses
Housing all your fears
Desensitized by TV
Overbearing advertising
God of consumerism
And all your crooked pictures looking good
Mirrorism, filtering information for the public eye
Designed for profiteering
Your neighbor, what a guy...
Modern globalization
Coupled with condemnations
Unnecessary death
Matador corporations
Puppeting your frustrations with a blinded flag
Manufacturing consent is the name of the game
The bottom line is money
Nobody gives a ****
Four thousand hungry children leave us per hour from starvation
While billions are spent on bombs
Creating death showers.. =(



.:*why So serious*:.
Nice and constructive robb...
Care to explai]n a meaning of Serj tankian's song "BOOM!"?
rather than simply quoting it... ?



nice one pass



Good point there mate, If one person was to gain control of it though ( highly unlikely or not) It would be be a control over thee poulation.
Yeah, that's why in real life or movie revolutions, one of the first targets for the rebels are the local radio stations (TV, if they have 'em).



any of you like political undertones?


Actually, by complete accident there are some in our web-series- check my signature.

Also, anyone like The People v. Larry Flynt?
__________________
-Survivor and Stranded
Los Angeles, CA Zombie Outbreak
http://www.iamnotinfected.com



Saw on TMC the other night an interesting old film about politics called Gabriel Over the White House, in which a young Walter Huston plays a party hack who's elected president. The country is sinking in the Great Depression, but he doesn't even listen to the news casts. Then he's in a car wreck and goes into a coma for several days, in which time a breeze blowing though the curtain and a flash of bright light in the room suggests that something perhaps supernatural has occurred because soon the president is not only out of his coma but on his feet ready to clamp down on gangsters and help the starving workers. He doesn't even resume his affair with his lovely "personal secretary."

What I found most interesting is that the President decides the only way the problem can be solved is via a dictatorship. He places the country under martial law, recesses Congress because the elected officials there spend too much time debating issues, forms a military style national police that use tanks to blast gangsters out of their liquor warehouses, tries them by courts martial, and shoots them. What's interesting is that at same time in real life, the Nazi Party was using some of those same methods to "save" Germany. Apparently such takeovers were a popular concept in Hollywood resulting in similar solutions in multiple films; must have been popular among the American public, too, that paid to see those movies. Seems I remember Shirley Temple proposing something like that if she was in charge of the government in one of her films.

Apparently the studio head (I forget now which studio) shelved the Gabriel film after it was finished because as a good Republican he felt it was detrimental to President Hoover who was doing little to address the depression in its early years. He released it after FDR was elected, apparently hoping it would tarnish his administration. One feature in the film had the reel-president forming a "construction army" in which the US government would pay men (apparently there were no women workers back then) a "fair wage" to build houses, parks, roads, dams, whatever the country needed. The government would not make a profit on the construction but would use the money to hire more workers for more jobs. With more people having wages to spend, more money would flow back to the government through taxes, so that government could grow as its government programs grew. Which was a lot like what was going on in Russia at that time as the communist government made work for citizens.

Thing is, the Roosevelt administration actually established the Civilian Conservation Corps that recruited unemployed young men, housed them in military-style camps, and set them to work building walkways in national parks, fighting forrest fires, and other such jobs. The wages were low but it gave men a bed with a roof over their head and three square meals a day, plus a little spending money in their pockets, and that was better than riding the rails broke. Only in real life, the government didn't go into business that competed with private enterprise; the approach outlined in Gabriel would have caused private businesses to close because they couldn't compete with government-run industry, which would have thrown more people out of work, creating a greater need for more government make-job programs until everyone is working for the government.