Propaganda in Films - Essay Example

?Compare Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will with Humphrey Jennings’ Listen to Britain' in their function as propaganda films. Is propaganda an isolated political phenomenon or an inevitable component of all documentary filmmaking? Introduction Propaganda is a powerful tool as can be gleaned from the experience of the world in the various stages of its history. It is a wonder, for example, how Hitler and Nazi Germany, had perpetuated the annihilation of millions of Jews under the very noses of the German people or how many other dictators such as Mussolini and Stalin had managed to hold on to power for so long despite their largely repressive style of governance. A scrutiny of these phenomena shows that most of them have resorted to propaganda to manipulate their constituencies into believing that their rules were the best for the people and the country. In the early 20th centuries, with two wars closely following each other, both the Allied and Axis Powers resorted to propaganda to persuade the world and their constituencies to their positions. The ubiquitous use of propaganda was closely associated with Hitler and the Nazi Party, but Great Britain was not excepted as it also dabbled in propaganda produced by a film outfit attached to one of its agencies to help in the war efforts. Two brilliant examples of wartime propaganda are Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of Will, which was released a little before WWII, and Humphrey Jenning’s Listen to Britain. These two documentaries can be differentiated by their artistic approaches and perspectives: one presented a stunningly visual, technically revolutionary film with intense and graphically powerful scenes whilst the other projected a laidback style with sequences that lingered more on leisurely activities rather than the frenzy that usually accompany war. Propaganda: Definition Propaganda, which comes from the Latin word ‘propaganda,’ literally means ‘to sow’. Originally connoting something positive, the word eventually carried a pejorative implication because of the Roman Catholic’s adversarial manner of propagating religion, which was to defeat the rise of Protestantism. There are various approaches with which to regard propaganda. However, propaganda is almost always associated to a form of communication process with a specific objective. Jowett et al defines it as “the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”1 As a powerful tool to shape public perception, propaganda had been used in the various periods of history to persuade the public to support politicians and governments, change faith, initiate and sustain wars, campaigns and revolutions, restructure societies and justify expansionism. In ancient of Athens, propaganda was employed by Pisistrasus, who feigned victimisation to gain the support of the public, and subsequent rulers as well as philosophers. During the Middle Ages to the Age of the Enlightenment, monarchical power was advanced through favourably written history, wandering minstrels, pilgrims and legal philosophers. Propaganda became prevalent and took a modern form during the French Revolution where committees were established by the revolutionaries to handle the different aspects of propaganda. French revolutionists employed the strategy naming of official enemies of the people to consolidate public perception, encourage revenge and compensate inadequacies. This technique was later adopted by Hitler with the Jews and Lenin against the Kulaks.2 A Comparative Analysis: Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl and Listen to Britain by Humphrey Jennings Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl and Listen to Britain by Humphrey Jennings are two documentary films that have each earned a reputation as well-crafted propaganda for their respective countries. The first was released in 1934 in Germany prior to World War II at the time the Nazi Party was gaining popularity and was used to portray a Germany that was fast gaining its former glory under the helm of the Party whilst the other was made in 1942 to depict British tenacity and solidarity even during the height of World War II. Triumph of the Will is a two hour documentary of the 1934 Nuremberg rally sponsored by the Nazi Party. The title was purportedly given by Hitler himself, who ordered the filming of the seven-day huge event that had attracted a mammoth crowd of over half a million. It featured speeches by Nazi party leaders and footages of throngs of party members set amidst Wagnerian music, German folk songs, military marches, and party anthems. It was generally well-received by the German public and Hitler was reportedly pleased with it although some party members thought it was too artistic to be a documentary film.3 On the other hand, Listen to Britain is a 20-minute short made by English filmmaker Humphrey Jennings in collaboration with Stewart McAllistair in 1942 that depicted British life in the middle of World War II. It was produced by the Crown Film Unit, which is an agency within the Ministry of Information particularly established to help the British Government in the war effort.4 The documentary has a “narrative structured around 24 hours in the life, work and music of Britain,” a Britain “at work and at play but also at war.”5 These two documentaries are considered major contributions to film history because of the innovations they introduced into documentary filmmaking. Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will employed a crew of 172 persons, but discarded the static type of filming usually used in documentary filming in favour of mobile photography, using rails, tracks, lifts and even roller skates, associated with fictional films.6 On the other hand, Jenning’s 21-minute Listen to Britain was astounding for its poetic style manifested by its “unhurried and indirect” approach, which was unique considering that its subject was an ongoing war. It was said that Jenning’s magic was really in the editing room. He often began by shooting random situations without a clear cut idea why he was shooting them until he discerned a pattern in them. His use of music and sound to string and make sense of images, often subtly mixing them, created a unique poetic structure in the process.7 Both films eschewed the commentary type of approach in presenting the films. The two documentaries, both of which were aimed at evoking the support of the public to their respective causes, tell their stories in two different ways. Triumph of the Will takes the usual highly visual, sequential telling-a-story path whilst Listen to Britain presents a cacophony of images that collectively recognizes the ongoing war, but individually seems unrelated to one other. Triumph of the Will begins, for example, with opening titles that point out the significance of the day of the Nuremberg Party by relating it to other significant events such as WWI outbreak, the day that Germany suffered defeat at the end of that war and the recent rise of the Nazi Party. After the opening title the film shows Nuremberg from the point of view of an airplane, which happens to be Hitler’s plane. From within the clouds, the view opens to the city below with thousands of uniformed men snaking and marching in the streets. The plane finally descends and Hitler alights with throngs of well-wishers greeting him in the airport, their right arms stretched out while chanting the now all familiar “Heil Hitler” salute. The sequence ends with Hitler arriving in his hotel after passing through streets where thousands of enthusiastic people greeted his arrival.8 On the other hand, Listen to Britain employs the stranger point-of-view by opening the film with a narrator who identifies himself as Canadian exhorting the public to “listen” to the sounds of Britain. Immediately, four planes in the sky come roaring into the screen whilst farmers are seen harvesting and plowing fields, unperturbed by them. The screen cuts to a dance hall where men, some of whom are wearing soldiers’ uniform, and their women-partners are dancing to a lively “Roll on the Barrel” tune. This scene, however, is interspersed with silhouettes of soldiers looking out to sea and a young woman talking to a soldier. The next sequence shows coal miners working at night and workers at a factory assembling planes. These images are intermingled with leisure activities and musical performances for the workers, in which the Queen is shown attending one of such events.9 While the two documentaries’ goal is evidently to impress the audience of their respective countries’ might and stability, Riefenstahl and Jennings proceeded to do so in opposing manner. On the one hand, Riefenstahl attempted to persuade the public to see Germany’s cause by presenting it as a strong, revitalized country through a stream of images of young soldiers en masse marching in cadence and united in their fervour to reclaim the glory of Germany under the leadership of the Fuhrer. Likewise, the documentary depicts vitality and excitement through the thousands upon thousands of ordinary Germans trooping to the streets excitedly gathering to meet and see Hitler. Jennings, on the other hand, takes the not so well-trodden path of combining propaganda and poetry, to impress the audience of the quiet strength and confidence of Great Britain. Unlike the pomp and grandeur of thousands of soldiers perfectly marching in cadence, Jennings presents ordinary activities and even extraordinary ones as factory workers are seen treated to musical performances. Lovell and Hillier refer to it as “a most unwarlike film. Its basic motivation is a balance between menace (to a culture rather to a material thing) on the one hand and harmony and continuity from the past on the other.”10 Jennings’ was a war propaganda that artistically masked itself with scenes of everyday activities leaving the audience the impression that war is an event that Britain must prepare for, but not distract it from enjoying life. Conclusion: Propaganda as Isolated Phenomenon or Inevitable Component of Documentaries As earlier stated, propaganda is generally perceived as an attempt to manipulate people’s point-of-views so as to achieve the manipulator’s goal, which is usually to gain support for an undertaking. Edward Bernays who is one of the founders of public relations in the US believes, however, that propaganda and education are the same and is separated only by perception. A person who believes in what is being fed to him sees it as education, and one who does not sees it as propaganda.11 Ellul, however, insists that propaganda is distinct from education or preaching and rhetoric because of the element of intention to indoctrinate.12 However propaganda is defined, one thing remains: its objective is to persuade its audience to adopt a certain frame of mind towards a specific thing. The propagandist, therefore, has a goal, either short-term or long-term, which he wants to meet. Moreover, propaganda must have, at least, a medium of reaching the public or that sector of society that it wants to manipulate or persuade. Whether propaganda is an isolated phenomenon or not depends on one’s perspective. The perspective that propaganda is an isolated phenomenon has some truth to it when associated with studies of specific religious events, political campaigns, war history, and disputes in the international front. Thus, propaganda was first associated with the Roman Catholic Church in its effort to spread Catholicism in 1622 with Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide.13 Nazi Germany, as illustrated by Triumph of the Will, was known for its widespread use of propaganda creating for that purpose a Ministry for Propaganda to manipulate the public into thinking that Hitler and his Party are steering Germany back to former glory as well as justify a move for expansionism.14 Propaganda was also associated with the defunct USSR to promote socialism under Marxist-Leninist fundamentals and to weaken capitalism.15 Ellul would also probably hold the view that propaganda is an isolated phenomenon considering that he has attached to it the element of willful intent to indoctrinate. To him, what is considered as sociological propaganda, which merely persuades the public to create new habits, is not strictly propaganda considering the absence of intent to indoctrinate, making his views of propaganda largely inclusive.16 From this perspective, Jenning’s Listen to Britain would hardly count as propaganda despite the fact that it was produced by a film outfit that was associated with the British government. Jenning’s documentary is too laidback with so many seemingly unconnected images that it could hardly have the intended effect of indoctrinating unlike Riefenstahl’s intense documentary whose opening title already puts the audience on the edge and subsequent sequences infused with scenes of people and soldiers glorifying Hitler. A similar perspective would justify the assertion that documentaries are not inherently propaganda. This is considering that many of the documentaries are evidently not made with a deliberate intent to indoctrinate as most have been made for educational purposes. As such they defy Ellul’s definition of propaganda, which he has associated with specific machinery that exerts influence on the individual and cannot be measured by the mere existence or the manipulation of symbols or abstract influence on opinions.17 Conversely, an opposite perspective justifies an assertion that propaganda is not an exclusive phenomenon, but whether it justifies a claim that it is an essential element of documentaries is doubtful. For example, scholars now see a link between propaganda and public relations, which rose to prominence after the war referred to as the “Big Communication.” The PR industry is deemed to be a result or an extension of the successful propaganda practices during WWI, where proven propaganda tactics in the war was integrated into PR by publicists, the new name of these propagandists. PR, as is propaganda, is associated with powerful interests that have resources to manipulate public opinion and persuasion.18 Granting the validity of this association, propaganda ceases to be an isolated phenomenon and becomes pervasive permeating even into simple advertisements and other PR-related publications. Nonetheless, this does not justify treating all documentaries as propaganda considering that there are documentaries that are merely instructive or are purely educational such as women giving birth, or those depicting various animal lives and habitats. References: Dancyger K (2007). The Technique of Film and Video Editing: History, Theory, and Practice, 4th Edition Focal Press. Devereaux M (2001). ‘Beauty and Evil: The Case of Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will’ Aesthetics and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection by Levinson J. Cambridge University Press. Jowett D & O’Donnell V (2006). Propaganda and Persuasion, 4th Edition SAGE. Kanet R (1987) ‘Soviet Propaganda and the Process of National Liberation’ The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and the Third World by Kanet R. Cambridge University Press. Lay S (2002). British Social Realism: From Documentary to Brit-Grit. Wallflower Press. Leach J (1998). ‘The Poetics of Propaganda: Humphrey Jennings and Listen to Britain’ Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video by B K Grant and J Sloniowski, Wayne State University Press. Levy EA (2004) Propaganda and the Jesuit Baroque. University of California Press. ‘Listen to Britain’ YouTube accessed on Marlin R (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion, Broadview Press. Sartwell C (2010). Political Aesthetics, Cornell University Press. ‘Triumph des Willens’ YouTube Welch D (2002). The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda. 2nd Edition, Routledge. St John B (2010) Press Professionalization and Propaganda: The Rise of Journalistic Double-Mindedness, 1917-1941. Cambria Press. Read More