 |
rigorousintuition.ca
What you don't know can't hurt them.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MacCruiskeen
Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 3253
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I actually think you're right about CGI, Jeff. I certainly feel that fatigue myself, and my teenage kid feels the same way. (Independently of me, I think. I don't foist these lectures on her, only on you lot and on any adult who'll listen to me, or can't escape.)
There was something about the sheer overkill of (say) Lord of the Rings that disturbed me and kind-of sickened me. Sure, those battle scenes were jaw-dropping, and I 'enjoyed' them. But it was as if this weird corporate artwork was perceptibly functioning as a vampire. You come out of these debauches drained to the core, with less money, less time, less energy, less faith in the ability of any individual or small collective to match or challenge the corporate Spectacle.
Same applies to Pirates of the Caribbean 2, the last of these bats I permitted to latch onto me. Couldn't wait for it to end.
_________________
"Work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation." (Alasdair Gray)
Last edited by MacCruiskeen on Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
professorpan
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 3540
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And what is it that makes you so certain? I've seen no evidence that artists (screenwriters and directors) can push producers to take artistic chances, unless those chances are well within the permitted boundaries. |
You need to study the subject a little more before making such generalizations. How about:
Lynch. Cronenberg. Gus Van Sant. Michael Moore. Errol Morris. Kubrick. Terry Gilliam. John Waters. Todd Solondz. Darren Aronofsky.
And the list goes on. All have pursued their own artistic visions, and managed to secure the money to make films.
| Quote: | Anecdotal evidence from people I trust; and (more importantly) the fact that perception-management via the mass media has been a primary concern of the CIA since its early days. And that's a demonstrable fact. The CIA itself admits it, acknowledges it ane even boasts about it. (I don't have to tell you to google 'COINTELPRO' or any number of other relevant terms.)
Ruppert said: "The CIA is Wall Street; Wall Street is the CIA." I think that's true. |
Though I know it's a truism among some RI posters that the CIA manipulates film content, I would like someone to lay out some actual evidence of CIA control or manipulation of movies. I'm quite well versed in CIA operations, and COINTELPRO was NOT about films -- if you had googled it yourself you'd know that. And Mockingbird was about manipulation of the news, not movies.
(And yes, I have read and considered Hugh's arguments to the contrary, and found them very unpersuasive.)
| Quote: | | Movies have found a way of turning your time and attention (and mine, and everyone else's) into money. When we go to the movies or watch TV, we're essentially working AND paying for it. It's the genius of late capitalism to convince us -- even and especially the self-appointed intelligentsia -- that we're in fact partaking of rest and relaxation, and indeed even educating ourselves. (Observe the rise of Film Studies, and the number of people who drop Lacan's name at every available opportunity as an excuse for being addicted to David Lynch's fake mysteries.) But when we go the movies, purchase or rent the DVD, or switch on the box, all we're really doing is buying our own intuitions back from them, in a commodified, sanitised and homogenized form. But with better production values than our own minds could ever manage. |
Sorry, I don't buy that. There are many kinds of movies -- some rank, commercial dreck and some that are brilliant artistic visions that can only be told on film. "Buying our intuitions back" doesn't make any sense to me. The best films, like any great art, can deeply move and inspire people.
It's easy to make sweeping generalizations -- and such statements are usually wrong. So until someone shows some actual proof of pervasive CIA manipulation of entertainment content, I suggest people start qualifying such statements as opinion, instead of fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathan28
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1684
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| professorpan wrote: | Sorry, I don't buy that. There are many kinds of movies -- some rank, commercial dreck and some that are brilliant artistic visions that can only be told on film. "Buying our intuitions back" doesn't make any sense to me. The best films, like any great art, can deeply move and inspire people.
It's easy to make sweeping generalizations -- and such statements are usually wrong. So until someone shows some actual proof of pervasive CIA manipulation of entertainment content, I suggest people start qualifying such statements as opinion, instead of fact. |
You're conflating arguments here. The first is more general, and I find more often than not the case. I can remember watching something like ten or fifteen movies in a row that matter-of-factly depicted violence against female characters (i mean fists, not some culture-studies "violence) without it having much relationship to the story, plot, etc. It was just taken for granted, uncritically accepted. That's a specific point, but the general point is that, with the exception of some more cutting-edge stuff (which in a few years won't be so cutting edge) or some good artistry (Lynch, Aronsky, et al. have plenty of box-office flops), mass-market film will just recapitulate the dominant ideology. At the same time, though, a lot of older-movies have some pretty subversive content, like Soylent Green or the Manchurian Candidate.
The best propaganda, they say, is the stuff you don't know is propaganda.
Likewise, the most subversive stuff is probably the stuff that gets relegated to the straight-to-TV/DVD pile. Like Night of the Living Dead, where the zombie-killing police posse at the end shoots the protagonist, who clearly isn't a zombie, for being black. There was some FX made-for-TV movie where some Muslim terrorists take over a nuclear plant, then one of them goes turncoat and helps the Lone Hero SWAT team guy or whatever. So Our Hero tries to keep the guy safe after he defuses the bomb, and then realizes the best way to keep his turncoat ally alive would be to take him hostage. He's leaving the now-defused nuclear plant, with the turncoat's arms held behind his back, demanding to be let out with his hostage or else... and then a police sniper shoots the unarmed, physically restrained turncoat Muslim. They fade to black, then a Fox Newscaster makes an announcement that glosses over the entire incident. Rather than riding off into the sunset, that's subversive: a movie showing that doing the right thing was punished by the authorities, who won't even let anyone know what actually happened.
The second point is that "zOMG teh CIA Keywords!" I have little doubt that some movies have been key-word-coded. Like possibly the most recent Indiana Jones flick. But to think that most films are is just ridiculous. They don't need to be. I remember when Starship Troopers was getting bashed by the critics, and the director said, in a true Dada moment, something like,"Look, they just gave me twenty million dollars to make a ridiculous pro-fascist movie." Do you really need to "keyword" the latest Rambo film? or Die Hard 4? Or Iron Man, where the protagonist is Dick Cheney in a suit of flying armor? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brainpanhandler
Joined: 29 Dec 2006
Posts: 2073
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I buy the following:
| Pan wrote: | Lynch. Cronenberg. Gus Van Sant. Michael Moore. Errol Morris. Kubrick. Terry Gilliam. John Waters. Todd Solondz. Darren Aronofsky.
And the list goes on. All have pursued their own artistic visions, and managed to secure the money to make films. |
It's what I meant when I wrote:
| Quote: | | Hollywood still manages to create art and artists are generally subversive by their nature. |
But be reasonable Pan.
| Quote: | | I would like someone to lay out some actual evidence of CIA control or manipulation of movies. |
It's not like the CIA or any other intelligence agency is going to readily provide this evidence. I'm not sure there is any evidence you would accept anyway. What evidence would you accept? Sworn affidavits? Not likely. Cofessions of insiders and whistleblowers? Not likely. I know of no evidence that intelligence agencies are involved in creating and altering Hollywood cinema at any stage of production. Maybe Hugh does, but I am assuming that at this point he has presented whatever evidence he had and you did not find it convincing.
Wouldn't you at least admit that films which use pentagon assets and advisors are at least slanted in a direction the pentagon deems advantageous or desirable?
_________________
Do not wubba me or I will wubba you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacCruiskeen
Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 3253
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Lynch. Cronenberg. Gus Van Sant. Michael Moore. Errol Morris. Kubrick. Terry Gilliam. John Waters. Todd Solondz. Darren Aronofsky. |
Pan, in what way have any of those directors ever threatened the studios' profits, much less the US political system or capitalism itself? I never once suggested that contemporary movies were prevented from showing people swearing, facing scary monsters, being unhappy and alienated, undergoing thrilling adventures, riding on cannonballs, getting trapped in random portentous mysteries, arguing that Bush is bad, or being Divine. There are lucrative markets for all these things, so why should Hollywood shun them?
Even the disgust-me demographic is a good dollar, a huge dollar these days, not so much for David Cronenberg as for the studios that employ him to service the fast-growing everything-is-an-inescapable-nightmare market. ('Inescapable' being the word that matters.) New markets are being opened up all the time.
- Full disclosure: I have never seen any films by Darren Aronofsky, Gus Van Sant or Errol Morris. By each of the others, at least one; in the case of Kubrick, all of them.
Kubrick is a special case, a real artist, an exception that proves the rule. But he was also a very conservative thinker, and feeler, deeply pessimistic about human nature itself; in that sense, not exceptional in Hollywood at all. Above all, he was respectably profitable, and therefore welcome to Hollywood; eventually, to some extent, though he was always risky as regards both form & content, and therefore financially risky too.
But the risk paid off. And they don't call it Venture Capital for nothing.
_________________
"Work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation." (Alasdair Gray) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
professorpan
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 3540
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please, please, let's not make this about keyword hijacking.
| Quote: | | That's a specific point, but the general point is that, with the exception of some more cutting-edge stuff (which in a few years won't be so cutting edge) or some good artistry (Lynch, Aronsky, et al. have plenty of box-office flops), mass-market film will just recapitulate the dominant ideology. At the same time, though, a lot of older-movies have some pretty subversive content, like Soylent Green or the Manchurian Candidate. |
Yet mass market films often contain subversive content, too -- I could create a huge list of films from the past couple of decades that portray the military/industrial/intelligence complex as malign and criminal.
| Quote: | | The second point is that "zOMG teh CIA Keywords!" I have little doubt that some movies have been key-word-coded. Like possibly the most recent Indiana Jones flick. But to think that most films are is just ridiculous. They don't need to be. I remember when Starship Troopers was getting bashed by the critics, and the director said, in a true Dada moment, something like,"Look, they just gave me twenty million dollars to make a ridiculous pro-fascist movie." Do you really need to "keyword" the latest Rambo film? or Die Hard 4? Or Iron Man, where the protagonist is Dick Cheney in a suit of flying armor? |
Where did you get that Starship Troopers quote? The film is very much a satire of militaristic fascism, not an endorsement of it. And I know some people here have posted reviews of Iron Man that would contradict your interpretation (I haven't seen the film myself).
Again, it's fine if people want to theorize about CIA control of movies -- as long as it isn't stated as explicit fact. Because there is no objective proof. I welcome it, if it exists, but I'm grown weary of the dogmatic acceptance without a shred of proof.*
*I do recognize military meddling with film content/message, particularly when the director/producers want to use real military hardware. That kind of thing HAS been documented. But wholesale monitoring/manipulation of scripts? Not a shred of evidence, and plenty of evidence that it *doesn't* happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathan28
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1684
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| professorpan wrote: | | Please, please, let's not make this about keyword hijacking. |
Sorry, I didn't mean to use the k-word unthinkingly. That quote is third-hand, but it's meant to point out that Starship Troopers was a send-up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
professorpan
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 3540
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's not like the CIA or any other intelligence agency is going to readily provide this evidence. I'm not sure there is any evidence you would accept anyway. What evidence would you accept? Sworn affidavits? Not likely. Cofessions of insiders and whistleblowers? Not likely. I know of no evidence that intelligence agencies are involved in creating and altering Hollywood cinema at any stage of production. Maybe Hugh does, but I am assuming that at this point he has presented whatever evidence he had and you did not find it convincing. |
I would certainly give consideration to affidavits, insider's accounts, whistleblowers, and the like. But guess what? Despite all sorts of exposures of CIA shenanigans and projects, there isn't a single account of someone claiming that the CIA has manipulated, let's say, a popular film to encode some kind of CIA-endorsed content, massage the message, or alter the director's intent. I mean, if it is such a huge program, as many here would and have asserted, why hasn't there been a whistleblower? Or a book about it? An investigative report? Nope, I'm supposed to simply *believe* because... well, just because it's de rigeur among a very vocal segment of the RI population.
| Quote: | | Wouldn't you at least admit that films which use pentagon assets and advisors are at least slanted in a direction the pentagon deems advantageous or desirable? |
Of course I would, because there is evidence of it! But extrapolating from that to "Disney is CIA for Kidz!" or, as Mac stated, "I am as good as certain that the CIA keeps a pretty close eye on every major Hollywood film in its development phase" is not supported in any way by facts. And it can be detrimental to waste time and energy chasing spooks that simply don't exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elfismiles
Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1705
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| professorpan wrote: | | Despite all sorts of exposures of CIA shenanigans and projects, there isn't a single account of someone claiming that the CIA has manipulated, let's say, a popular film to encode some kind of CIA-endorsed content, massage the message, or alter the director's intent. |
Uh ... Prof ...
| Quote: | The cartoon that came in from the cold
For George Orwell, there was nothing pro-American about Animal Farm. The CIA, however, had other ideas. Karl Cohen tells the remarkable story of how US intelligence secretly funded a landmark British movie
Friday March 7, 2003
The Guardian
America’s use of animated propaganda during the second world war is fairly well known, but propaganda made after the iron curtain went up is rarely seen or discussed. By the late 1940s, the CIA was spending tax dollars creating culture as a secret weapon to combat communism around the world. When Frances Stonor Saunders published Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, she mentioned a single animated film, John Halas and Joy Batchelor’s Animal Farm, which was made in 1954.
Article continues
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,908925,00.html |
Last edited by elfismiles on Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elfismiles
Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1705
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | British Cinema and the Cold War: the State, Propaganda and the Consensus by Tony Shaw
Page
... Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, revealing the involvement of the CIA in the former and comparing the film and television versions of the latter. ...
Page
... CEA Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association CFU Crown Film Unit CIA Central Intelligence Agency CND Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament COI Central Office of ...
Page 49
... MI6 and the CIA.56 Little Red Monkey (Ken Hughes, 1954) stands out among these productions principally because it was the first British film to suggest ...
Page 75
Official Western propagandists, including the CIA and IRD, took every opportunity to contrast the West and its 'gospel' of ...
Page 76
... funded and briefed by the Foreign Office and CIA respectively, consistently sought to 'mobilize the great spiritual and moral resources' that were still ...
more »
Page 93
... and was housed within the CIA for administrative support.1'' Frank Wisner, OPC chief, was fascinated by the power of propaganda and consequently, ...
Page 96
... had worked with the firm while chief of the Marshall Plan's European Film Unit (also linked with the OPC via the CIA) in the late 1940s. ...
Page 98
Established in April 1951, the PSB was charged with uniting the whole of the American national security bureaucracy - State Department, CIA (which absorbed ...
Page 104
... for obvious reasons, Napoleon was renamed Caesar, it was lauded as a powerful parody of the Soviet regime.8S The CIA helped to finance distribution, ...
Page 218
The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (London, 1999), pp. 175-7. See Chapter 4 for more on the British Society for Cultural Freedom. 33. ...
Page 219
113-51; David E. Murphy, Sergei A. Kondrashev and George Bailey, Battleground Berlin: CIA versus KGB in the Cold War (London, 1997). 43. ...
Page 224
149-54; John Ranelagh, The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA (London, 1988), pp. 198-202, 216-24. 20. Thomas, The Very Best Men, pp. ...
Page 225
Incorporated in 1949, the National Committee for a Free Europe was a CIA front organization that encouraged Eastern European emigres to promote democratic ...
Page 228
For the support given by the CIA in this period to Abstract Expressionism, the American avant-garde, in order to enhance American cultural prestige abroad, ...
Page 261
... 1983) Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri, The CIA and American Democracy (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989) Jones, Harriet and Kandiah, Michael (eds), ...
Page 264
... 1987) Murphy, David E., Kondrashev, Sergei A. and Bailey, George, Battleground Berlin: CIA versus KGB in the Cold War (Yale University Press, 1997). ...
Page 265
... The CIA and the Marshall Plan (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1991) Powdermaker, Hortense, Hollywood, the Dream Factory: An Anthropologist Looks ...
Page 266
The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (Granta, 1999) Sussex, Elizabeth, The Rise and Fall of British Documentary (University of California Press, 1975) Lindsay ...
Page 267
... since 1945 (Blackwell, Oxford, 1993) Thomas, Evan, The Very Best Men: Four Who Dared — The Early Years of the CIA (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1995). ...
Page 276
... 145, 147 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 1,49,75-6,93,96, 98, 104 Chamberlain, Neville 190 Chaplin, Charlie 123, 178-80 Chaplin, Michael 179 Chatto, ...
Page
... made by one of Hollywood's blacklisted directors, Joseph Losey; and the CIA-funded, animated version of George Orwell's novel Animal Farm. ...
http://books.google.com/
|
Last edited by elfismiles on Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orz
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 4036
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MacCruiskeen wrote: | | And I think it's possible to discuss artworks and commercial products rationally, unlike preferences in ice-cream. (Coconut! Yum yum! David Lynch! Yum yum yum!) |
I'm the one telling you that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sunny
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 4289
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | COPYRIGHT 2001 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
As reported by the August 31st South China Morning Post, according to recently released military documents, "Hollywood filmmakers have frequently changed story lines, altered history and amended scripts at the request of the Pentagon." The Morning Post points out that "the documents show that the Pentagon sees Hollywood as important for public relations." One Pentagon memo was quoted as stating: "Military depictions have become more of a 'commercial' for us," and producers and directors are pressured to make sure that the U.S. military is portrayed in a positive, heroic light.
The Pentagon's leverage over movie studios stems, in part, from filmmakers' requests for access to expensive military hardware or to film on military property. "Assistance is withheld if alterations are not made," reported the Morning Post. Armageddon, Air Force One, Pearl Harbor, and Top Gun are among the films which have been altered in order to obtain Pentagon approval. Pentagon special assistant for the entertainment media Philip Strubs denies that such tactics undermine filmmakers' rights. "It would be anathema to us [to interfere with] the artists' rights and first amendment rights," said Strubs. Cheryl Rhoden of the Writers Guild of America West is not so convinced. "Any time that any outside entity attempts to effect changes is of concern to writers." |
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10265445_ITM
| Quote: | Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor, Windtalkers, Top Gun… What do these big-budget Hollywood films have in common? They were all produced with the U.S. army’s support.
This may sound surprising but nowadays a large number of American producers work in close collaboration with the military. Moreover, “filmmakers and politicians bear the complete responsibility for this bond, and actually find refuge behind the theme of war”, says journalist, author of “Hollywood-Washington: Comment l’Amérique fait son cinema” (editor Armand Colin/2007), and guest in our studio, Erwan Bénezet.
For the Pentagon, as well as for Hollywood, it’s a “win/win” deal. The military draws attention to its work, and facilitates recruitment. “It’s a win/win situation for us to show up in American and global popular culture”, says FBI agent Catherine Viray, whom we met on the shooting of TV series “Numbers”. As for the producers, they manage to make significant savings: the military not only graciously lends them all sorts of equipment (trucks, armored and all-terrain vehicles, aircraft carriers…) but also provides technical advice, shooting and training.
In return for this help, however, filmmakers do have to agree to certain requirements. Hence, the army can demand the suppression of certain parts of the scripts, an example of which has already occurred in Jerry Bruckheimer’s “Black Hawk Down”. The Department of Defense’s goal is first and foremost to produce movies that portray the glory of the US army.
This collaboration goes even further. We went to investigate at the ICT (Institute of Creative Technologies), based in California. This research center received 100 million dollars from the Pentagon to implant more creativity in military training exercises. “We have high-level Hollywood screenwriters helping us invent scenarios in collaboration with our military experts. They come up with stories that are then used in our training system” says Jonathan Gratch, the director of the research center. Hollywood also benefits from this partnership. One of the technologies devised in the ICT center helped in the construction of 3D models used in action movies such as “Aeon Flux” and “Spiderman 3”.
Can we therefore call Hollywood “the Pentagon’s armed right-hand”? Not always. Oliver Stone’s movie “Platoon” never received the army’s support, and the filmmaker actually had to fight for over a decade to find the necessary funding. Another example is Francis Coppola’s world-famous “Apocalypse Now”: indeed, it appeared completely unthinkable for the army to finance a movie whose plot itself questioned the legitimacy of the Vietnam War!
The collaboration between political powers and filmmakers is not just an American characteristic, however. The French movie “Les Chevaliers du Ciel” which was produced by Laurent Brochand, was directed in a joint effort with the Air Force.
Nevertheless, this was not the case with Philippe Haïm, whom we met at the Cannes film festival. He just directed “Secret Defense”, a movie which will be out in October. He refused to send his script over to the French Ministry of Defense, and despite it landing in the hands of the French equivalent of the CIA, which forced him to explain the motive behind his film, he did not change a single line of his script.
In the globalised economy we live in today, cinematographic images partake in an economic war. Indeed, behind them, it’s a whole culture and consumption trend that are really sold to the public. |
France24
_________________
QUESTION EVERYTHING, for fucks sake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacCruiskeen
Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 3253
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for posting that, elfismiles. Also:
"Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon bullies movie producers into showing the U.S. military in the best possible light."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_403.html
The Pentagon is not the CIA, but 'CIA' was shorthand anyway; and it would be bizarre to suggest that they don't practically always serve the same general interests. (I know that Pan has already acknowledged the US military's influence on Hollywood.)
-- Pan, I know you're trying to respond to several people at once, but I just wanted to remind you that the CIA was only a very minor and secondary part of my argument. Which was to point out that the profit motive alone is almost always enough to keep Hollywood safely on-message. So: no spooks needed, most of the time; or at least they rarely have to make their presence felt, and they need not necessarily out themselves when doing so. But the Orwell example shows that they're there, all right.
_________________
"Work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation." (Alasdair Gray) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacCruiskeen
Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 3253
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| orz wrote: | | MacCruiskeen wrote: | | And I think it's possible to discuss artworks and commercial products rationally, unlike preferences in ice-cream. (Coconut! Yum yum! David Lynch! Yum yum yum!) |
I'm the one telling you that. |
??
(What are you drinking, orz? Can I have some?)
_________________
"Work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation." (Alasdair Gray) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
professorpan
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 3540
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry -- I am aware of the Orwell film and should have mentioned that. Thanks for pointing it out, elfis.
But the rest of the examples, from multiple posters, again point out what I was saying: that when filmmakers seek the use of military hardware or otherwise involve the military, the Pentagon will -- as would be expected -- try to have their forces portrayed positively.
Jumping from that to a belief that the CIA controls content in a majority of, or even a large number of, non-military-themed films, is still a baseless assertion.
Mac, I do understand you're talking about two different things -- I was addressing your initial points about CIA manipulation and monitoring. I can address how profits drive the entertainment industry separately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages | 
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Log in
Register
