Skip to main content

Propaganda In Hollywood: Case Studies

Estimated Read Time: 4 Minutes 20 Seconds

propaganda in hollywood moviesPropaganda originates from the Latin “Congregatiode Propaganda Fide”, meaning to "spread the faith".  The contemporary definition of the word has roots as far back as World War One when the term became associated with political messages. 

Propaganda has been defined in the modern sense by Jowett and O’Donnell as, “the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” (2006: 163). 

The seven elements of propaganda contain the ability of propaganda to tap into emotions, source credibility, opinion leaders, using music or other media as a way to trigger an irrational response, group norms, visual symbols and the language used when engaging in propaganda. 

A modern propagandist can gain access to many sources of mass media, including television, movies, and radio, not to mention social media. 


Case Study: Three Kings (1999)

Three Kings (1999) is a film in which 3 U.S soldiers try to steal Kuwaiti gold from Iraq while serving in the U.S armed forces during the 1991 Gulf War.



The United States has a history of placing propaganda within mass media productions including children's cartoons during World War Two. Three Kings is an interesting movie to analyze because it takes place during the first Gulf War and before the post 9/11 ‘war on terrorism’


Propaganda In The Movie 


This movie contained several elements of propaganda, mainly aimed at Saddam Hussein, but there was definitely some anti-American propaganda present. The first piece of propaganda is when Conrad Vig calls every surrendering Iraqi soldier “Abdul” (creating a stereotype for Iraqis), and other derogatory names, many of them are incredibly racist. 

This behaviour can be interpreted in one of two ways. Firstly, these racial slurs could be viewed as anti Arab in the eyes of many in the general public who saw this movie due to ignorance about the conflict and ignorance of other cultures apart from western. This is also using language as a way to demonize the enemy; specifically, Conrad Vig is demonizing Iraqi soldiers. Secondly, this could also be viewed as anti-American because Conrad Vig is viewed as a ‘redneck’ and these views of his could be seen as synonymous with the American army or even American society in general due to the stereotyping that was/is common with Iraq and Iraqi citizens. 

1991 Gulf WarAnother piece of propaganda found during the movie is the anti-Saddam Hussein message. The Shiite Rebels are portrayed as the good guys, helping the American soldiers after the attack on their truck and the way in which they speak of Saddam Hussein and his regime seem to fit in with the American view of the situation. Although they are seen as the good guys in the movie, they complain that George Bush Senior encouraged the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein but did nothing when thousands of Iraqi’s were killed in doing so. This, along with other events of the movie parallel real-life events and this can be viewed as anti-American because it highlights the shortfall of the American campaign.  

Another instance of propaganda in this film is when Barlow is being tortured by an Iraqi soldier. This scene is particularly interesting to analyze because there are both anti-American and anti-Iraqi/ anti-Saddam Hussein messages throughout the scene. Initially, the torturing of Barlow by the Iraqi soldier is seen as anti-Saddam Hussein because his regime has encouraged the torture of prisoners; this scene shows how brutal the torture can become. The scene also contains the Iraqi soldier telling Barlow that the American military bombed his family home killing everyone apart from him, including his daughter. This piece of dialogue can be seen as anti-American because the American military had little or no regard to civilians during the 1991 Gulf War

An interesting observation of the film is that all of the soldiers wear the patch of the United States Psychological Operations (PSYOP), a well-known propaganda manufacturer and distributor.  


Final Thoughts

The elements of propaganda found throughout this movie would have an effect on the audience through the use of demonizing language and images of both the Iraqi and American army throughout the film. These effects would (for some) call into question some of the American techniques during the war such as bombing civilians and calling upon civilians to uprise against Saddam without offering adequate support knowing that the rebels were hugely out armed and trained. 

1991 Gulf War
This movie also creates a hatred for the Iraqi army because of the scene with the Iraqi soldier torturing an American soldier and attacking the American army after they had stolen the gold back from the troops. 

Jowett and O’Donnell claim that “a propagandist does not have to win people over on every issue to get their support” (2006: 200) and this quote is very useful in the analysis of this movie. The propaganda found in this movie is both anti-American and Anti-Iraqi, leading to the conclusion that both sides could be influenced by the movie. 

This may lead to differing views between different audiences as this movie could be interpreted either way.


Further Reading 





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Legal, Political, and Economic Marginalization of Maori in New Zealand

                             Estimated Read Time: 6 Minutes 12 Seconds Maori people living in New Zealand have found themselves in what Laguerre (1999), describes as ‘minoritized spaces’, dislocated from ‘white’, ‘normalized’, majority spaces. This article seeks to explain the legal, economic, political, social and cultural marginalization of the Maori people within New Zealand and how this has affected Maori society. The colonial paradigm for power and control will also be introduced to further understand how systematic marginalization has taken place in New Zealand. What Is Racial Marginalization?  Cram, 2004, describes marginalization as; “totally removing the importance and power of someone…..the forcing of peoples out of the mainstream of political, economic or social life…to push to the sidelines or the periphery of a society or dominant group” (pp1-3). Cram then applies marginalization...