The Thin Line Between Film and Progaganda

In an advertising class I am taking this semester, we frequently discuss the fine line that exists between a simple advertisement and a propaganda piece. As our analysis continues, it becomes more and more apparent just how flimsy this distinction can be.

Technically what defines propaganda is its dishonesty: it presents falsification as fact in order to achieve a certain end, to invoke a particular sentiment. But it is also as simple as this: typically a work is deemed propaganda when those consuming it do not agree with its content or purpose.

The same, it seems, could be said of movies. When films fall on our good side—when we like the political points they make-- we call them “moving,” “persuasive,” “telling,” “revealing,” “exposing,” and oh-so often “Oscar-worthy.” When we don’t, when we disagree, we call them “propaganda.”

It is appropriate here to recall the readings of Walter Benjamin that we analyzed earlier in the semester. I his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” (1935) Benjamin posits that “all film is political,” and I will say that since my first reading I have warmed to his theory. If the term “political” is interpreted as motivational—aimed at changing the minds of those effected—I would say that all film certainly falls into this category. It is the inherent aim of film to persuade viewers to occupy a certain alternate viewpoint, to suture them into a certain world and convince them that it is real and right. Film is manipulative by nature. In this sense, all things political seem to be propaganda, and ipso facto it seems that all film could therefore be thought of us propaganda.
Take, for example, “Triumph of the Will,” a directed by Leni Riefenstahl in1935 –the same year Benjamin was writing. The film documents the 1934 Nuremberg Congress of the Nazi party and is widely considered one of the most notorious examples of propaganda in film history. Riefenstahl’s cinematography is worthy of applaud: she used many innovative techniques such as moving cameras, telephoto lenses, aerial shots ad swelling music in order to emphasize the strong presence of Hitler and his party—to suggest the power found in numbers. For this glorification of fascism, many find the film controversial and offensive. I would argue that to ignore the artistic success of the piece because of the bad taste its historical implications leave in some mouths is to ignore the subtleties of film as an art form.

In many ways, this film finds its foil in “Life is Beautiful” (1997, Roberto Benigni), a film that champions those on the other side of the story. The movie follows a Jewish family throughout the Holocaust. The film won many awards and is regarded as one of the most well-done movies about this historical event. It, too, takes pains to convince viewers of its viewpoints by casting a charismatic actor, a beautiful heroine, an adorable young boy to portray those forced into concentration camps. The artful shots, the beautiful scenery and costuming, the wonderful cast and score all come together to make it virtually impossible for viewers not to sympathize with the intended “good guys” of the film. It is possible that, in this regard, Benigni is as guilty of creating propoganda as Riefenstahl.

Both “Triumph of the Will”and “Life is Beautiful” are examples of aesthetically compelling cinematic arguments. The makers of these movies are both very talented, but each used his or her skills to achieve very different aims. While Riefenstahl sought to glamorize the images of the masses and the spectacle of power, Benigni championed the individual human and the agency of the powerless. My point is that both of these films are political, and which one you consider propoganda could easily depend on where your loyalties lie.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang: Noir or No?

Recently, my film class began its exploration of the concept of genre. We kicked off this discussion by focusing on films traditionally labeled as film noir-- “Detour” (1945, Ulmer) and “Out of the Past” (1947, Tourneur)-- and neo-noir--“Chinatown” (1974, Polanksi)--in association with the critical writings of Rick Altman, Thomas Schatz, Paul Schrader, and John G. Calweti.

As is to be expected of any single genre study, some of us were more into it than others.

Maria, author of the blog “And Then There was None”( http://dotdual.blogspot.com) expressed strong opinions on the genre, summing up the general criticisms of it as such: “I've heard many people say that the characters portrayed in film noirs, as well as their relationships, are unrealistic. They are too suave, too sharp, the perfect parting shot always poised atop perfectly-painted lips. They fall in love too quickly. They are this and that, but never human.” After screening “Out of the Past”, Maria apparently found her suspicions confirmed, and blogged that her tastes ran towards more contemporary conventions: “I prefer color, realistic characters, happy endings.”

This posting, however, came before our instructors completely complicated our understanding of film noir by subjecting us to a screening of “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang,” (Shane Black, 2005). For this, I think we owe them many thanks.

This wildly entertaining film, produced decades after film noir’s heyday, dances in and out of film noir territory—boasting many distinguishing characteristics of the genre while also indulging in elements of other genres. For every cigarette, silhouette, cheesy one-liner, or over-the-top plot twist, the filmmakers have included an unexpected retort—a hyperrealistic image, a sweetly genuine romance, an unconventional character trait, an almost-saccarine ending. Oh, and if these errant elements weren’t enough to muddy the genre waters, the film is also filmed in Technicolor BUT, not without, as Arielle points out on her blog (http://ariellefilmstudies.blogspot.co), the occasional low-lighting allusion to the days of black-and-white. Even at the technical level, the film embraces the fact that it is at once noir and anti-noir.

So what do we make of a film like this? Does it pose a threat to the notion of the genre altogether? And how could it possibly sit happily on just one shelf at Blockbuster?

These are the questions that my fellow classmates ventured to grapple with in their subsequent blogs.

The resounding conclusion was this: we liked it. Most students pointed out that “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” was a successful tribute to the concept of film noir. Others, like Ari in his blog (http://arisfilmblog.blogspot.com), deemed it a parody, writing that it, “exploits the film noir genre; making fun of its conventions as it uses the very same ideas it mocks to build an engaging and entertaining story.”

On the topic of parody, Wynn Hunter (http://1wynnhunter.blogspot.com/2009/02/lesson-in-generic-transformation-and.html) reminds us of John G. Calweti’s argument that parody is an inevitable part of the life cycle of a genre. In his posting, Hunter suggests that the mere exitence of a parody suggests that a genre has been played out or has reached capacity: “Perhaps the greatest signifier of generic exhaustion is the proliferation of parodies and satires of the genre in question.”

I might say that, rather than marking a particular genre’s demise, parody has the power to breath new life into it by reminding audiences of all the conventions they once appreciated as fresh.

Arielle seems to agree. In her posting, she writes that, “many films, in fact, use this debate on genre ironically, ultimately laughing in the faces of the people who try and classify them.” Specifically, she writes, “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” brings to light the dangers of shutting movies into corners; Black shows us a film that cannot possibly be characterized, and therefore escapes the scope of categorization.” Here, Arielle makes a strong point: “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” is a work that refuses to be classified. (Even if it is, n.b, stocked in the comedy section of Blockbuster.)

Another way in which “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” wags a tongue at the concept of genre is through setting. The action takes place in Los Angeles and centers around the oftentimes ludicrous lives of those affiliated with movie-making. In this way, it is not only a parody of movie genres but also of those who create and propagate this system of classification.

By dabbling in all film genres (and thus taking the wind out of the concept's sails) while simultaneously exposing the slimy nature of filmmaking culture itself, “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” makes a bold statement about the movie industry on the whole.

And yet it is the audience that the film renders the victim of its most caustic mockery. How? By leaving us immensely entertained.

The success of “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” shines a spotlight on our collective folly, exposing the reality that no matter how aware we are of film as flimsy artifice, we will buy into whatever Hollywood flickers in front of us.