![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHere I'm focusing primarily on two movies that were absolutely groundbreaking in the evolution of filmmaking but are also rather notoriously racist and preach very evil messages. The first of these is The Birth of a Nation. To summarize that movie you have the Southern view of the US Civil War and the view of one Woodrow Wilson that the KKK were a positive good emblazoned on screen, with the "black" characters being whites in blackface. The unfortunate reality of this movie (besides the sequel that actually preached a message of racial tolerance, may have been even more forward-thinking in terms of itself as a movie and which has been completely forgotten) is that it's also one of the most innovative movies in Hollywood.
The other example is the movie Storming of the Winter Palace. This particular Soviet film has been influential in ways that people almost never realize. The scene of the "storming of the winter palace" is a still from this movie, not the historical incident in 1918. This of course raises the irony that as the movie was a deliberately sensationalized piece of propaganda it has influenced both views of the event and shows a general, fundamental ignorance of one problem of historical movies: any resemblance to real events is purely accidental on the part of the film-makers.
So there are two different types of political influence here, one the stirring tales that stir up hatred and help perpetuate demonization and false history, and the other the views of historical events that make them much grander and much more stirring events than what they actually were. In both of these cases, too, the films have an impact and influence that is entirely negative. To me this is one reason to be mindful of the kind of dangerous impact in making movies explicitly for propaganda purposes and why films in this sense should always be viewed with a grain of salt the size of Sicily. Your thoughts?
The other example is the movie Storming of the Winter Palace. This particular Soviet film has been influential in ways that people almost never realize. The scene of the "storming of the winter palace" is a still from this movie, not the historical incident in 1918. This of course raises the irony that as the movie was a deliberately sensationalized piece of propaganda it has influenced both views of the event and shows a general, fundamental ignorance of one problem of historical movies: any resemblance to real events is purely accidental on the part of the film-makers.
So there are two different types of political influence here, one the stirring tales that stir up hatred and help perpetuate demonization and false history, and the other the views of historical events that make them much grander and much more stirring events than what they actually were. In both of these cases, too, the films have an impact and influence that is entirely negative. To me this is one reason to be mindful of the kind of dangerous impact in making movies explicitly for propaganda purposes and why films in this sense should always be viewed with a grain of salt the size of Sicily. Your thoughts?
Shot in a single take!
Date: 3/10/11 18:10 (UTC)That is an impressive way to produce a film. The opulence is also striking. It reminds us of what Russia was like when it was a "democratic" country.
Re: Shot in a single take!
Date: 3/10/11 23:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/10/11 18:12 (UTC)Sorry, could you make a small edit ? "The Storming of the Winter Palace" is the title of the Soviet film (Russian Ark is a 2002 movie).
(no subject)
Date: 3/10/11 18:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/10/11 20:27 (UTC)