Idiocracy - The Movie Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Idiocracy - The Movie Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See

Postby yesferatu » Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:15 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2150627/">www.slate.com/id/2150627/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><<Idiocracy, the feel-bad comedy of the year.<br>By Reihan Salam<br>Posted Friday, Sept. 29, 2006, at 2:28 PM ET <br>Mike Judge<br>Mike Judge could have gone the easy route. His last movie, Office Space, became a smash hit on DVD because the frat boy douchebags he mercilessly mocked became its biggest fans. But rather than make another feel-good comedy, he's made the extremely bizarre Idiocracy, which you might call a feel-bad comedy about the silent killer of American civilization, namely our collective stupidity. A feel-bad comedy that has grossed just over $400,000 to date, barely enough to cover the cost of spray-tanning the stars of Laguna Beach. Given that the release was limited to six cities—and that there was literally no promotion—the poor showing makes perfect sense. The tragedy is that Idiocracy is easily the most potent political film of the year, and the most stirring defense of traditional values since Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. <br><br>This should come as no surprise. Office Space, perhaps Judge's most celebrated work, appears at first glance to be a simple shits-and-giggles romp about how work sucks. Buried just below the surface, however, is a critique of the modern American workplace and of the materialism that makes us slaves to our machines (particularly our fax machines). Not only are we supposed to work mind-numbing, soul-sapping jobs without complaint—we're supposed to love every minute of it. When Peter, our hero, leaves his desk job to become a manual laborer, he breaks with bourgeois convention to embrace a vigorous, manlier, more traditional life. <br><br>If Office Space is about taking responsibility for your own happiness, Idiocracy is about something larger, namely our responsibility for our shared future. Like all the best dystopian fables, Idiocracy is a scathing indictment of our own society. And so it begins in the present with a brief portrait of the villains who are destroying America, represented here by an affluent couple and an imbecile ne'er-do-well named Clevon. The two yuppies are shown agonizing over the decision to have a child. It's never the right time, until the right time finally comes—and the couple is infertile. The yuppies will leave no legacy behind. Clevon, in contrast, lustily and enthusiastically impregnates not only his wife but a bevy of gap-toothed harridans, each one dumber and uglier than the next. The screen slowly fills with his spawn, foreshadowing the nightmarish future to come.<br><br>What follows is a series of events, including an all-too-brief discussion of the distinction between a pimp's love and the love of a square, that send hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold Rita (Maya Rudolph) and the extremely average Army Pvt. Joe Bowers (Luke Wilson) into separate hibernation chambers for a supersecret military experiment. Like so many of us, Bowers has spent his life avoiding responsibility. Whenever his commanding officer tells him to "lead, follow, or get out of the way," he invariably chooses to "get out of the way." So, when he is tapped for this dubious honor, he's none too pleased.<br><br>Fully expecting to wake up after a year, Joe instead emerges from his icy casket in the year 2505, a nightmarish future populated exclusively by Clevon-like simpletons. The last geniuses died perfecting advanced methods for regrowing hair and sustaining erections, beautifully illustrated by a quick cutaway shot of a lab monkey with what looks to be a Jheri curl, a lit stogie, and a gigantic boner. As a result, the machines that have kept the masses of morons happy and fed are falling apart. Starvation looms as crops die across the land, all because Americans, or rather Uh-mericans, are too stupid to water them with anything besides a colorful sports drink rich in electrolytes.<br><br>At times, you get the sense that Idiocracy is Mike Judge's penance for unleashing Beavis and Butt-Head on the world more than a decade ago. The most popular film in 2505 is called Ass, a lineal descendent of Judge's own outré creation that features two pairs of human buttocks audibly discharging methane gas as though they were dueling banjos. Though no words are spoken, Ass is said to have won an Oscar for best screenplay. <br><br>Because Joe occasionally enunciates, he is immediately under suspicion as a "faggy" and otherwise obnoxious person, infractions that somehow lead to his incarceration. Eventually, Joe—with the help of the defrosted Rita—chooses not to "get out of the way." At great personal risk to himself (he narrowly escapes death at the hands of a monster truck built to resemble an enormous metal phallus), Joe saves the world from starvation. But he also saves himself from his own laziness and self-absorption, not least of all when he starts a family with Rita.<br><br>Now, Idiocracy isn't perfect. Despite being only 84 minutes long, it drags at points and feels more than a little shaggy. Plus, there's obviously something a little creepy about all this. Is Mike Judge really saying that some people should breed and others shouldn't? Well, sort of. But he's also taking on the laziness and the self-absorption, and the materialism and the willful ignorance, of his own audience. Watch Dogville or Fahrenheit 9/11 or even The Passion of the Christ and you get the distinct sense that you're being congratulated for believing the right things. Rare is the movie that challenges your beliefs. Rarer still is the movie that tells you you're a fat moron, and that you should be ashamed of yourself. The unmarried adultescents swarming the cities, the DINKs who've priced families with children out of the better suburbs, the kids who never read—these are Hollywood's most prized demographics, and Mike Judge has them squarely in his sights. Is it any wonder 20th Century Fox decided Idiocracy would never be boffo box office? <br><br>Idiocracy challenges a central article of faith in American life, the notion that we are destined for moral, material, and intellectual progress. And what if things really are getting worse? What if, more to the point, we really are getting dumber? Recently there's been some troubling evidence that the arrow of intelligence is pointing downward. A British study found that the intelligence of British 11-year-olds has actually declined during the last 20 years. Data from the Danish draft board indicate that intelligence peaked in the late-1990s and has now fallen to levels not seen since 1991, when MC Hammer-inspired parachute pants were all the rage. If that's not enough to make you slit your wrists, I don't know what is. <br><br>To his everlasting credit, Mike Judge doesn't counsel despair. Instead, he's telling thoughtful Americans that we can't expect other people to solve our problems for us. If you're alarmed by the callousness and the crassness of our culture, which you certainly should be, do something about it. Lead or follow. Getting out of the way is not an option. Failing that, you should at least try to outbreed the people you hate most.>><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
yesferatu
 

Idiocracy

Postby dugoboy » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:54 pm

as Yoda said:<br><br>'there is only do or do not. there is no try.'<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>According to the Austin American-Statesman, [2] 20th Century Fox, the film's distributor, has done nothing to promote the movie -- no trailers, posters, television spots or even press kits for media outlets are being provided. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>This has led to speculation in some quarters that 20th Century Fox may be actively trying to keep the film from being seen by a large audience, while fulfilling a contractual obligation to release the film in theaters before releasing it on DVD</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A>  <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.geocities.com/orcthrasher/files/images/Qn38113.gif" BORDER=0> at: 9/30/06 2:03 pm<br></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Idiocracy

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:01 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>outbreed the people you hate most<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>If only the Chinese had thought of that instead of restricting population growth to manageable levels? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Idiocracy - The Movie Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See

Postby yesferatu » Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:16 am

Sorry for reviving this thread, but this points to something really wrong. Not that we aren't aware of it, but here we have further proof "they" are micro-managing us even in the fine details of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>what efffin movie they allow us</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. It is sickening. When I say "they" I really mean to ask WHO controls this kind of BS???? WHO?! And let's face it. To be micro-managed on <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>this</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> ridiculous level points to necessarily, logistically, quite a few (albeit upper level) people who are "in on it"...."it" being thought-management in service to The State, which can be called by many nasty names. Of course you may see this as just bad marketing, that there cannot be so many people doing the bidding of dark ignorance here in good ol' Murka.<br>See what you need to see, I guess. <br><br><<Patt Morrison: The Funniest Movie You Can't See<br>Fox downplays 'Idiocracy,' a film that portrays 2505 Americans as grossly fat, lazy and stupid.<br>October 5, 2006<br><br><br>SO WHICH will be harder to spot this season — Mark Foley campaign signs or movie ads for "Idiocracy"?<br><br>If Foley had been as stealthy about messaging teenage pages as 20th Century Fox has been in releasing this dystopian social satire, Foley might still be the honorable member from Florida's 16th Congressional District.<br><br> "Idiocracy" couldn't be more undercover if it were wearing a burka: a film released without an ad campaign, without movie trailers, without media screenings. <br><br>You can see "Idiocracy" if you live in Atlanta, but not in New York. In Houston, but not in San Francisco. I saw it in Pasadena on a double feature with "The Celestine Prophecy," a cinematic mismating on the order of Lenny Bruce hooking up with Glinda the Good Witch. <br><br>I got wind of "Idiocracy" only because I know people who know the guy who made it — Mike Judge, who did "Office Space" and "King of the Hill." This film stars Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph, with a cameo by Thomas Haden Church, the Oscar-nominated roué in "Sideways." And yet Paris Hilton got more press for "House of Wax." <br><br>"Idiocracy" begins as your standard suspended-animation plot, with its stars thawing out in 2505, in an America that will bring hosannas from the creationist crowd because, clearly, Darwin has struck out. The smart people have dithered themselves out of the gene pool. America 2505 is populated not by the fittest but by the fattest and the dumbest — the overbreeding, oversexed spawn of the cast of "Jackass." Their Barcaloungers are fitted out with toilets so they don't have to miss a moment of the top-rated show, "Ow, My Balls!" The nation's hit movie is "Ass": 90 wordless minutes of bare butt, winner of Oscars for best picture and best screenplay. <br><br>It's worse than Big Brother — it's Big Bro.<br><br>Time traveler Joe Bowers was "remarkably average" five centuries ago, but here he's the smartest man around. People who converse in hip-hop catchphrases and advertising jingles mock Joe's subject-verb agreement as "faggy." But the nation plunges into crisis — no more burrito toppings — because a canny uber-CEO bought the FDA and replaced water with sports drinks, even for crops. The president, a pro wrestler who's put mud-flap girls on the White House gates, puts Joe in charge of saving them all. "Do something smart," the Cabinet orders him, by the light of a pool-hall beer lamp.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Why has Fox deep-sixed this film?</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> A Fox spokesman tells me that "Idiocracy" was "a limited release, that's it, nothing to really talk about." <br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>But the cine-blog world is roiling with questions. Did Judge's film, by sheer happenstance, mirror Rupert Murdoch's blueprint for a Fox-fed nation of fat, dumb and happy? Is the problem a threatened lawsuit over the way "Idiocracy" treats corporate America?</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Starbucks in 2505 serves speedy sex acts with the coffee, and Carl's Jr. and H&R Block get the same rough handling. But that's why studios have lawyers, and that's why we have the 1st Amendment. <br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Perhaps it's been cast out of distribution Eden for the same reason that Newsweek made "Losing Afghanistan" its cover story last week in every country except the United States. We got a cover story about a celebrity photographer.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>It could be the same reason the $400-billion "war on terror" has been slyly financed by "emergency" legislation, put on the nation's credit card, where the bill never seems to comes due. Or the same reason the administration bans pictures of coffins coming back from Iraq. <br><br>And that would be because Americans are being mollycoddled and infantilized. If we're not getting the truth — even delivered via satire — it might be because leaders think we can't take it, or they may be afraid of what we might do if we did get it. President Bush dismissed leaked intelligence reports critical of the Iraq war because they could "create confusion in the minds of the American people." Goodness no; don't confuse us with information.<br><br>Luke Wilson's Joe is cinema's classic "average guy" who spills the beans to the other folks — Gary Cooper's John Doe, Jimmy Stewart's Sen. Smith. Such men are dangerous. And "Idiocracy," in its snarky way, is a dangerous movie. <br><br>Joe tells a fellow time-traveler to return to the past to "tell people to read books, stay in school…. I think the world got like this because people like me never did anything with their lives…. There was a time in this country when smart people were considered cool." In a culture devoted to "getting and spending," that's radical talk.<br><br>Slate.com calls "Idiocracy" "the most stirring defense of traditional values since Edmund Burke's 'Reflections on the Revolution in France.' " I wouldn't go that far, but Judge may be a man out of his own time too. You have to wonder whether he's making satire — or documentaries.<br><br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>patt.morrison@latimes.com<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
yesferatu
 

Re: Idiocracy - The Movie Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See

Postby FourthBase » Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:29 am

Don't worry, I have a feeling it'll be the biggest word-of-mouth Netflix hit ever, and I'll do everything I can to make it such by telling every goddamned person I know (not just my smart friends) about this movie. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Idiocracy - The Movie Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See

Postby elfismiles » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:20 pm

Yep, this movie is getting even less promotion and distribution than PKD's A SCANNER DARKLY.<br><br>At least one scene of Idiocracy was filmed at the warehouse where we store the audiobooks we distribute to the blind and print disabled for the Texas Talking Book Program in Austin, Texas. If you saw a warehouse scene in this movie with a Raiders of the Lost Ark look to it, with aisle after aisle of endless green plastic containers on metal shelves, you saw where I've worked for the first 5 years of the 10 I've been employed by the Talking Book Program.<br><br>It took them 18 eight-teen-wheeler trucks outside our facility to facilitate filming what probably amounted to 18 minutes of footage or less for the movie.<br><br>Our inside joke was something like, "if our warehouse of audiobooks looks like the future we are all in deep trouble."<br><br>SMiles <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Idiocracy - The Movie Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:34 pm

Check out Entertainment Weekly's "review":<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/movie/0,6115,1528246_1_0_,00.html">www.ew.com/ew/article/rev...0_,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>As one of the commenters pointed out, "I'm confused as to how this is a review. There isn't a clear normative statement here other than a D on the side. That's not criticism, that's Mike Judge's vision coming true 500 years early." <p></p><i></i>
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Idiocracy - The Movie Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See

Postby yesferatu » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:37 pm

Hey that's pretty cool. <br>Rub any shoulders with Judge or the actors?<br>I will definitely look for that warehouse scene! <p></p><i></i>
yesferatu
 

Re: Idiocracy - The Movie Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:54 pm

Thanks, yesferatu, for showing how important cultural artifacts like 'entertainment movies' are to TPTB.<br><br>Mike Judge's film obviously has too much cultural 'truth' in it.<br><br>The infamous Carlyle Group bought up one of the movie house chains back when Michael Moore's 'Farenheit 911' was outing the Bush-Saudi-911 story for The-Public-Who-Stares-At-Screens.<br><br>The movie and publishing world routinely dispose of messages that are a threat to power through non-distribution, outright disposal through shredding, and character assassination reviews.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I saw it in Pasadena on a double feature with "The Celestine Prophecy," a cinematic mismating on the order of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Lenny Bruce hooking up with Glinda the Good Witch.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Lol. This plausibly deniable tactic was used against Jimi Hendrix, the strongest black man in the Woodstock Generation who was sabotaged by a CIA-Mafia 'manager.' Hendrix was booked to tour with...the Monkees. Yes, the manufactured-for-TV mop-tops who were safer than the Beatles and Jim Morrison.<br><br>Hendrix was utterly demoralized to be playing for a sea of screaming 13 year-old girls.<br><br>'The Celestine Prophecy' movie is worth a whole thread by itself because it was cross-marketed exactly the same way as 'The DaVinci Code' with multiple books and for the same reasons:<br>>to steer towards emotional muddling myth and confusing superstitions<br>>to steer away from rational cause and effect history<br>>to eat up attention span bandwith with spin-off products and discussion groups.<br><br>That was back in the early 1990s and this will be done again.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

uh

Postby orz » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:57 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sorry for reviving this thread, but this points to something really wrong. Not that we aren't aware of it, but here we have further proof "they" are micro-managing us even in the fine details of what efffin movie they allow us.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->What? this is MACRO-managing... however many millions have been spent making this film and now they just decide not to put any effort into promoting it. Standard practice for filmmakers biting the reactionary hollywood hand that feeds them, and evidence AGAINST theories like Hughs which imply total control over every detail.<br><br>I mean, this film was funded, shot and completed!... if 'they' were so totally in control of the media in the way implied by some here, why would they allow it to be made in the first place?<br><br>It's a lot like the old communist system... East European filmmakers like Jan Svankmajer would be given sometimes extremely lavish budgets and all the time and resources they needed to produce their subversive, anti-communist films! Then the censors would take one look at it and it would languish un-shown in a state movie company vault until the fall of communism.<br><br>Fortunately we don't have to wait for the fall of anything; tho under-promoted it WILL be released and seen on DVD etc.... shared on bittorrent... <br><br>further evidence AGAINST theories of Micromangement of the media by the CIA... further evidence FOR the theory that the media are reactionary and evil but not all powerful... or at least control things in a more subtle way, leaving us a little illusion of freedom. :-S<br><br>Still, sounds like a great movie!<br> <p></p><i></i>
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

uh

Postby orz » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:00 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sorry for reviving this thread, but this points to something really wrong. Not that we aren't aware of it, but here we have further proof "they" are micro-managing us even in the fine details of what efffin movie they allow us.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->What? this is MACRO-managing... however many millions have been spent making this film and now they just decide not to put any effort into promoting it. Standard practice for filmmakers biting the reactionary hollywood hand that feeds them, and evidence AGAINST theories like Hughs which imply total control over every detail.<br><br>I mean, this film was funded, shot and completed!... if 'they' were so totally in control of the media in the way implied by some here, why would they allow it to be made in the first place?<br><br>It's a lot like the old communist system... East European filmmakers like Jan Svankmajer would be given sometimes extremely lavish budgets and all the time and resources they needed to produce their subversive, anti-communist films! Then the censors would take one look at it and it would languish un-shown in a state movie company vault until the fall of communism.<br><br>Fortunately we don't have to wait for the fall of anything; tho under-promoted it WILL be released and seen on DVD etc.... shared on bittorrent... <br><br>further evidence AGAINST theories of Micromangement of the media by the CIA... further evidence FOR the theory that the media are reactionary and evil in a general sense but not all powerful... or at least control things in a more subtle way, leaving us a little illusion of freedom. :-S<br><br>Still, sounds like a great movie!<br> <p></p><i></i>
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: orz' comment

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:17 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>theories like Hughs which imply total control over every detail.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Obviously "total control over every detail" is impossible. sheesh.<br><br>So, orz (and Professor Pan and Robert Reed), this isn't my contention so don't set up that straw man. Your efforts to 'stamp out' this non-assertion wastes lots of bandwith here at RI.<br><br>I DO say there is far more control than you think. FAR more.<br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>And as the perceived need arises, more control is waged.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>During WWII the Office of War Information HELPED WRITE SCRIPTS for Hollywood. That was sixty years ago.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The Office of War Information (OWI) was founded by the government to monitor the content of the war films fed to the American Public and set standards to follow and frameworks to work within.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0810833107.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~ksoroka/hollywood1.htmlhttp://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/ ... wood3.html<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Office of War Information<br>For the benefit of both your studio and the Office of War Information it would be advisable to establish a routine procedure whereby our Hollywood office would recieve copies of studio treatments or synopses of all stories which you contemplate producing and of the finished scripts. This will enable us to make suggestions as to the war content of motion pictures at a stage when it is easy and inexpensive to make any changes which might be recommended.<br><br>-Lowell Mellett (FDR presidential liaison to media) to studio heads, December 9, 1942 (4)<br></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>The Office of War Information (OWI) was one of the numerous government bureaucracies created by the total mobilization effort of the Victory Program. On June 13, 1942, the White House announced the creation of the OWI and the appointment of its chief, Elmer Davis. OWI was to undertake campaigns to enhance public understanding of the war at home and abroad; to coordinate government information activities; and to handle liaison with the press, radio, and motion pictures. In effect, the OWI was charged with selling the war. The agency issued elaborate guidelines, divided into numerous categories, to insure conformity in every film. OWI asked film makers to consider the following seven questions before producing a movie:<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong># Will this picture help win the war?<br># What war information problem does it seek to clarify, dramatize, or interpret?<br># If it is an "escape" picture, will it harm the war effort by creating a false picture of America, her allies, or the world we live in?<br># Does it merely use the war as the basis for a profitable picture, contributing nothing of real significance to the war effort and possibly lessening the effect of other pictures of more importance?<br># Does it contribute something new to our understanding of the world conflict and the various forces involved, or has the subject already been adequately covered?<br># When the picture reaches its maximum circulation on the screen, will it reflect conditions as they are and fill a need current at that time, or will it be out-dated?<br># Does the picture tell the truth or will the young people of today have reason to say they were misled by propaganda? (7)</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>This last question was, at first, a consideration of extreme importance for OWI. The agency, which was often classified as "liberal" by other branches of the government, started out with the intention of truthfully representing the war. Films like Casablanca genuinely attempted to inform the moviegoing audience of the causes of and reasons for the war. The OWI sought to avoid hate pictures, providing instead a balanced view. These good intentions quickly dissolved, though, as the OWI found it necessary to crack down on the motion picture industry. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hollywood turned out numerous anti-Japanese films, some of them quite racist. Particularly, the mid-summer 1942 Little Tokyo, U.S.A.,which dealt with the controversial subject of Japanese internment, caused the OWI to crack down on the artistic license of Hollywood. As the OWI became more regulatory, truthfulness gave way to the use of sentimental symbolism to manipulate opinion by denying or clouding relevant information. By the end of World War II, the OWI had a heavy hand in all production coming out of Hollywood. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The shift from 'informing' to manipulating.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:23 pm

"As the OWI became more regulatory, truthfulness gave way to the use of sentimental symbolism to manipulate opinion by denying or clouding relevant information."<br><br>Again, this was sixty years ago. Before the CIA's 1951 Psychological Strategy Board was tasked with influencing the entire country all the time.<br><br>Consider the level of behavioral science study, experiment, infiltration, financing, and outright institutionalization of this goal.<br><br>It's called 'scientific fascism' and we are living in it.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 1942 - Bad news leads to MORE control of films

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:38 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~ksoroka/hollywood4.html">history.sandiego.edu/gen/...wood4.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The Battle Ground</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>The first year of America's involvement in World War II constituted a period of almost unrelieved bad news. Allied outposts in the South Pacific fell, the Nazis pushed toward Stalingrad, and the Suez Canal was threatened. What victories did occur, such as the defensive victory at Midway, carry more importance in retrospect than they did during 1942. A year of bad news left the American public fearing that, perhaps, "we could have lost that war, and were within inches of losing it..." (6) T<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>he grim atmosphere of 1942 caused the OWI to take "Will this picture help the war?" quite seriously. Every act seemed to carry great importance for the war. OWI decided that drastic measures were needed to bring Hollywood in line with the agency's propaganda program.<br><br>The tightened control of the motion picture industry resulted in an outpouring of films about war. Hollywood produced numerous battle films dealing directly with the conflict, in an effort to offset the ominous events following Pearl Harbor. These films offered the same theme: as in World War I, the Yanks were coming. The early battles were lost, but final victory would belong to America. Film after film pictured Americans routing their enemies and liberating enslaved nations. The general victory motif included themes on military strength, heroism, and Allied cooperation. </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->While many of these war films were turkeys, some represent World War II Hollywood at its best. Films like Sahara, Bataan, Flying Tigers, Guadalcanal Diary,andWake Island represent not only the best of Hollywood's persuasive skills, but also classic cinema.<br><br>These films filled a void left by the depressing news from the fronts. Later, when the tides turned toward victory, the battle-film genre served to glorify American military spirit. But what about the issues facing the home front? The fact that, by the final phase of World War II, less than one-third of all films were directly connected to the war indicates that Hollywood did not spend the entire war period shooting down Japanese planes and exploding Nazi tanks. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Hollywood turned to different genres: the comedy, musical, and nostalgia films. However, these films served just as much propaganda purpose as did the battle films. </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 1943 - Basic morale is bucked up to support the war

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:43 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~ksoroka/hollywood5.html">history.sandiego.edu/gen/...wood5.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Morale Films:<br>Courage, Comedy, and American Nostalgia</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>While American soldiers were off fighting the Axis powers in faraway places, civilians at home found their normal way of life completely altered. Consumer goods became limited as rationing went into effect: crude oil, rubber, butter, meat, canned goods, clothing and shoes were all in short supply. Unacustomed to such constraits, Americans chaffed under the restrictions of home front mobilization. The one place where the public could still spend its money freely was at the movies. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The OWI recognized the discontent of the average American, and sought to counterbalance this mobilization effect with entertainment. OWI enlisted the help of Hollywood to bolster the morale of the American public. </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->Hollywood responded with enthusiasm-if there was one subject Hollywood producers thought they knew, it was America. The Hollywood propaganda machine poured out countless morale films, in an effort to sustain spirits on the home front. Stuios produced upbeat stories with happy endings about people who were beautiful, witty, and successful, but not so far removed from a middle class norm as to make it difficult for audiences to identify with the actors. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The films presented an idealized version of American society, glorifying the average citizen who made personal sacrifices for the war effort. Hollywood and the OWI found that they could use similar sacred and sentimental symbols in the propaganda effort.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>(HMW note: This is what Disney does to kids, "present an idealized version of American society.")<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>One of the most surprising outputs of the WWII propaganda machine was the film genre of American nostalgia. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>These films, which had no direct relation to the war itself, subtly reminded the American moviegoer why the war was being fought. </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->These films fondly looked upon eras of American history and culture. Films such as Meet Me In St. Louis and Life With Father depicted turn-of-the century America. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Ironically, these films represent some of the best Hollywood propaganda. The American public unknowingly absorbed the message that they must continue to make personal sacrifices for the war effort, in order to preserve the innocent and idealogical American society portrayed on the screen. </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/6/06 1:55 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests