In some sense, there is no "mere" about the category of propaganda film. In a review of the book Film Propaganda and American Politics by James E. Combs and Sara T. Combs (1994), reviewer Chris Sheridan writes that "... 20th century advances in mass communication have had profound impact on society. In particular, movies can have incredible influence on many people because it is through the act of play that the audience gets the message - we become involved with the characters and caught up in the visuals and sounds... A major thesis of the book [Film Propaganda and American Politics] is that propaganda ' works by its ability to frame human problems and situations in aesthetic terms and icons.' And there is no better medium than the cinema for expressing a message with kinetic symbols and social drama.1"
The propaganda film has a hallowed place in the history of film. See http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/contents.htm for a description of the common techniques of propaganda, and be sure to check out the site's Gallery of Propaganda (film clips). Then view Live Free or Die and ask yourself the question: does this film use techniques of name-calling, glittering generalities, euphemisms, false connections by transfer or testimonial, special appeals (to plain folks, bandwagon, or fear) or logical fallacies? We will be filling in the gaps over the coming months, arguing through analysis of Live Free or Die that the film's many awards and accolades stem primarily from its intelligent use of the techniques of the propaganda film. Does that make it a bad film? No, but does put it in a different category from the documentary film proper.
1Sheridan, Chris. Book Review
and Chapters Summary of Film Propaganda and American Politics by James
E. Combs and Sara T. Combs; http://www.youknow.com/chris/essays/film/filmproprev.html,
February 1996.
| Home | The Film | Film Critiques | Censorship, Sensationalism, & Semantics |
Who We Are | Guestbook |