I find it ironic that Chomsky's film is all about propaganda, and that the film itself is, in fact, a form of propaganda; and like any good propaganda film, it does have a stylistic way of presenting its argument. One technique at the beginning of the film is a classic for propaganda films, in which the audience is presented with an image that invokes an emotion or represents an idea, and is then replaced by a new image in order to make a relation between the two. Chomsky explains the difference between two extremes concerning free speech: that of a totalitarian state, which offers its people little consideration for what they think or refuses them the right to free speech all together, and that of a free state, which allows its people to speak freely with little or no restraint. When he is talking about the totalitarian state, the film cuts to stock footage of a Nazi parade, with thousands of people in attendance, many of them carrying banners with the Swastika emblem, the most widely recognized symbol of militarism and totalitarianism today; he states that this form of government “holds a bludgeon” (Chomsky) over the heads of its people, forcing them to do whatever they are commanded. Then, as he begins to talk about the free state, the film cuts to an American protest, in which the demonstrators are also carrying banners, only with words such as “children” and “earth” painted on them; Chomsky goes on to say that by not ruling the people with force, they may “become arrogant” and lose “the humanity to submit to a civil rule”, (Chomsky) an idea that is furthered by stock footage of riot police tending to barricades. It could be argued then, that by juxtaposing these separate images, Chomsky could be inferring that if government control and civil liberty are not relatively balanced, which is the ideal that democracy is supposedly based on, it may cease to be a democracy; and propaganda is a means to upset this balance, because the average man would rather believe that the system is working and just do what everyone else is doing, as opposed to actually taking an active role in the process.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Blog 2 Manufacturing Consent
I find it ironic that Chomsky's film is all about propaganda, and that the film itself is, in fact, a form of propaganda; and like any good propaganda film, it does have a stylistic way of presenting its argument. One technique at the beginning of the film is a classic for propaganda films, in which the audience is presented with an image that invokes an emotion or represents an idea, and is then replaced by a new image in order to make a relation between the two. Chomsky explains the difference between two extremes concerning free speech: that of a totalitarian state, which offers its people little consideration for what they think or refuses them the right to free speech all together, and that of a free state, which allows its people to speak freely with little or no restraint. When he is talking about the totalitarian state, the film cuts to stock footage of a Nazi parade, with thousands of people in attendance, many of them carrying banners with the Swastika emblem, the most widely recognized symbol of militarism and totalitarianism today; he states that this form of government “holds a bludgeon” (Chomsky) over the heads of its people, forcing them to do whatever they are commanded. Then, as he begins to talk about the free state, the film cuts to an American protest, in which the demonstrators are also carrying banners, only with words such as “children” and “earth” painted on them; Chomsky goes on to say that by not ruling the people with force, they may “become arrogant” and lose “the humanity to submit to a civil rule”, (Chomsky) an idea that is furthered by stock footage of riot police tending to barricades. It could be argued then, that by juxtaposing these separate images, Chomsky could be inferring that if government control and civil liberty are not relatively balanced, which is the ideal that democracy is supposedly based on, it may cease to be a democracy; and propaganda is a means to upset this balance, because the average man would rather believe that the system is working and just do what everyone else is doing, as opposed to actually taking an active role in the process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment