“All art is propaganda, but not all propaganda is art.” Proverb from 1984 And Animal farm Features author George Orwell The Story of a British Propaganda FilmA new book in the British Film Institute’s (BFI) British Screen Stories series at Bloomsbury Publishing, written by Scott Anthony, deputy head of research at Britain’s Science Museums Group, which is made up of five British museums.
An archival project based at the BFI National Archive, the book shows how propaganda was central to the development of British film and how it filtered people’s understanding of modern British history. Although the term “propaganda film” was traditionally associated with wartime narratives, Anthony emphasized that it did not end after World Wars I and II.
Instead, it became “a tool to package our cultural heritage, promote tourism and transform British culture,” a summary highlights. His rationale: Propaganda need not always be insincere or false. It can also highlight certain aspects of culture and act as a tool of soft power.
Explaining how the emergence of film as a global media phenomenon reshaped methods of propaganda, and how new methods of propaganda changed the use of film and other forms of moving images, the book is a classic of cinematic propaganda. Distinguishes examples, e.g Battle of the Somme (1916) Listen up Britain (1942) and Animal farm (1954), before discussing such beloved film franchises James Bond, Harry Potterand Paddington Movies and TV showsAlong with such TV series Crown Princedigital media, and more.
In an age of fake news, disinformation, and disinformation, Anthony argues that “the response to the ubiquity of the propaganda film has often been the product of more propaganda,” leading us into what he calls “the propaganda era of tomorrow.” “
The author, who has published mystery novels before. Changidescribes three periods or phases of British propaganda film. “The book describes how the propaganda film went from being a standalone thing. Triumph of the Will or Battleship Potemkin – to be part of a wider media environment,” explains Anthony. THR.
It also means a change in scope and audience focus. In the history of British propaganda films, WWII was the period that saw the greatest production of classic and popular standalone propaganda films. “For example, there have been many films made about WWII or The Blitz that say what the war or The Blitz meant to the British people,” the expert explains. “But when you study it, a lot of popular movies — like A fire was set. – were made a year and a half after The Blitz ended. These films represent a very traumatic event that happened, and played a role in shaping the viewer’s response to it, not necessarily in a cynical way, but in a psychological processing way. You can think of it as an attempt to channelize people’s energy. Such stand-up films were shown in urban spaces, canteens, military posts, trade union halls as well as cinemas.
After the start of the Cold War, in the second phase, “propaganda is seen as something that other people do, that only the Soviet Union and totalitarian societies do,” Anthony told THR. “And there’s still a sense that they still have to answer that. So they start making films that try very hard not to look like propaganda.
Those that the expert focuses on are “primarily made-for-television films, which operate in a very private, enclosed, or individual setting. Many of these films feature these individuals. are about those who resist conformity or are very skeptical or shake up an established profession. So they’re on a pretty subtle level,” Anthony explains. “I don’t mean that they’re insincere, but it’s a kind of individualistic propaganda. Part of it is the anti-Communist thing, ‘Don’t be afraid to say no, don’t be afraid to doubt, the individual is the real driver of history.’ ,’ all that kind of stuff.
Finally, the third era of propaganda film discussed in the last part of the book focuses on the post-war world of terrorism. In the age of digital media, Anthony notes that traditional definitions of “films” no longer capture the full breadth and scale of propaganda content. “You still get one-sided propaganda films, but a lot of things are clipped or remembered or shared,” the expert highlighted. “Actually, as individual items, a lot of movies aren’t that interesting, but they’re often very, very ubiquitous and will come up in the news media or somewhere else.”
While in the earlier era of British propaganda film, films were linked to shared experiences, for example war, now “digital expands our geographic range,” says Anthony. “You have a lot of people who can see things on their phones individually rather than collectively, but also see things that they haven’t experienced or don’t know about themselves. So it’s There’s kind of a loop thing going on that a lot of digital media calls itself or refers to other digital media. So it’s more of a circular thing.”
Scott Anthony
So what does Anthony mean when he speaks of an “age of total propaganda”? “What I’m talking about in terms of total propaganda doesn’t mean everything is a lie,” he explained. “But I mean it in the sense that it’s actually now about trying to create an information architecture or an information environment rather than ‘I’m watching this film about the British National Health Service NHS, and I am inspired to believe it and use it.’ Instead, it’s more about ‘let’s create the kind of culture that anchors everyone’ and is kind of encompassing.
At the same time, in an age of total propaganda driven by the wider availability and affordability of media technology and tools that have opened up content creation to more and more people, “now attempts to organize “There’s going to be who’s what and a kind of authentication and fact-checking: ‘This is authentic, that’s not,'” notes Anthony.
This also fits with a key finding of his research. “One thing I realized was that propaganda doesn’t always lie but can be quite sincere,” he explains. THR. “I think it’s more ubiquitous than I was expecting. But in some ways, the current trend is worrying because it’s moving away from the individual film and more towards creating an environment.
In the early days, government agencies often played large roles in propaganda films across the board. For example, an animated film Animal farm From 1954, based on the Orwell novella directed by John Hales and Joy Batchelor, funded by the CIA, Anthony Highlights.
But he also points out that British propaganda films also often portrayed Britain as a different player from the US and the rest of Europe. “Part of the story of America’s rise is that WWI destroyed old Europe and film became the emerging global technology. And many countries around Europe began to intervene in the cinema market, partly But because they’re worried, the phrase you always get is that movie theaters are basically American embassies and all our citizens are basically going to be like American citizens,” Anthony explains. “Governments in Europe get involved because they fear that America will dominate this new medium and shape their public. At the same time, many of these countries are becoming democratic for the first time.
In Britain, the focus was “on positioning ourselves as a slightly higher market in the Anglosphere,” the expert points out. THR. “France can be a bit protectionist because it has French, but the UK does not have the option of linguistic protectionism. So, therefore, you have to do something else. You have to try and find some other way to differentiate yourself.”
how to do Harry Potter, Paddington And other franchises fit into the UK theme using their soft power in film form? After the Cold War, policymakers began to question the need to fund film production after the end of globally defined conflicts. What happened in the UK with Tony Blair’s New Labor government was the creation of the UK Film Council, which was rooted in the belief that “we need to sell a global vision of Britain” and attract people to our culture. And to bring tourists. Clever foreigners and the like, explains Anthony. It therefore became more important to promote Britain, its culture and its creative output.
This is where 007 fits in for Anthony. “We are funding films, and films should support our global brand in an age of globalization,” he says. “With regard to James Bond, I had that bit in the book because it strikes me that Britain is no longer a superpower. They’re not really a military power, but they still have a great reputation for espionage. So people like it. [famous British computer scientist] Alan Turing and Espionage and Deception is a fascination.
Anthony’s book also mentions the appeal of the British royal family and related material. Crown Prince. “The kingdom has played a huge role,” he explains. THR. With a post-war focus on democracy and modernity, British film also reflects this. “You also get the re-modernization of the monarchy in Britain and you actually see that dramatized in the film, e.g. The King’s Speech. So, the monarchy is a big part of how Britain markets itself abroad. And Crown Prince Related to the movie. the queen With the same writer (Peter Morgan) who ran with the material. It’s basically an upmarket soap opera. It’s very entertaining, and I think it serves a purpose in selling the vision of Britain abroad.
Where will it go with King Charles III? “I think what’s interesting is how far this is actually the monarchy and how far Queen Elizabeth II is, because she had an incredible footprint,” Anthony offers.
Credit : www.hollywoodreporter.com
