Total propaganda, James Bond, “The Crown”, questions and answers on British propaganda films

“All art is propaganda, but not all propaganda is art.” The saying from 1984 AND Animal farm author George Orwell is featured in The history of the British propaganda filma new book in the British Film Institute's (BFI) British Screen Stories series at Bloomsbury Publishing, written by Scott Anthony, deputy head of research at the UK Science Museum Group, which includes five British museums.

An archive project based on the BFI National Archives, the book shows how central propaganda was to the development of British cinema and how it filtered people's understanding of modern British history. Although the term “propaganda film” was traditionally associated with wartime narratives, Anthony pointed out that it did not end after World Wars I and II.

Instead, it has become “a tool to package our cultural heritage, promote tourism and transform British culture,” a synopsis points out. His argument: Propaganda doesn't always have to be insincere or false. It can also highlight certain aspects of a culture and function as a soft power tool.

Showing how the emergence of film as a global media phenomenon reshaped propaganda practices, and new propaganda practices in turn reshaped the use of film and other forms of moving images, the book analyzes classic examples of film propaganda , how The Battle of the Somme (1916), Listen to Great Britain (1942) e Animal farm (1954), before talking about beloved film franchises like James Bond, Harry PotterAND Paddington movies and TV shows, along with TV series such as The crowndigital media and more.

In the age of fake news, misinformation and disinformation, Anthony argues that “the response to the ubiquity of the propaganda film has often turned out to be the production of more and more propaganda,” bringing us into what he calls “the age of total propaganda.”

The author, who also previously published the mystery novel Changidefines three periods or phases of British propaganda film. “The book describes how the propaganda film went from being an autonomous object – he thinks Triumph of the will OR The battleship Potemkin – to be part of an expanding media environment,” says Anthony THR.

This also meant a change in scope and public attention. In the history of British propaganda films, the Second World War was the period that saw the greatest production of classic and iconic propaganda films. “For example, there are many films about the Second World War or The Blitz that tell what the war or The Blitz means to the British people,” explains the expert. “But when you study it, many of the most iconic films – like Fires broke out – were made a year and a half after The Blitz ended. These films depicted a very traumatic event that happened and played a role in shaping viewers' responses to it, not necessarily in a nefarious way, but in a sort of psychological processing. You can think of it as an attempt to channel people's energy.” Such independent films have been screened in civic spaces, canteens, military headquarters, union halls, and movie theaters.

After the start of the Cold War, in a second phase, “propaganda is seen as something that others do, that only the Soviet Union and totalitarian societies do,” Anthony tells THR. “And yet there is an understanding that they still have to respond to this. So they started producing films that do everything they can to not look like propaganda.”

The ones the expert focused on the most are “those essentially made for television, which operates in a much more private, closed or individualized space. Many of these films are about individuals who resist conformity or are highly skeptical or disrupt an established profession. So they're at a pretty subtle level,” Anthony explains. “I don't want to say they're fake, but in a way it's a kind of propaganda of individualism. Part of it is the anti-communist thing of “don't be afraid to say no, don't be afraid to be skeptical, the individual is the real driving force of history,” all that kind of thing.”

Finally, the third period of propaganda film discussed in the final section of the book focuses on the post-War on Terror world. In the age of digital media, Anthony notes that traditional definitions of “film” no longer capture the full breadth and mass of propaganda content. “One-off propaganda films are still made, but many things are made to be cut out, stored or shared,” the expert points out. “In reality, as individual objects, many films are not that interesting, but they are often very, very ubiquitous and will end up in the media or elsewhere.”

While in the early period of British propaganda films were rooted in shared experiences, such as war, now “digital expands our geographic reach,” Anthony argues. “There are a lot of people who might be very individualized and watch things on their phone rather than communally, but they also watch things they haven't experienced or don't know about. So there's this kind of loop happening where a lot of digital media refers to itself or refers to other digital media. So it's more of a circular thing.”

Scott Antonio

So what does Anthony mean when he talks about the “total propaganda era”? “What I talk about in terms of total propaganda doesn't necessarily mean that everything is a lie,” he explains. “But I mean that in the sense that it's actually now about efforts to shape the information architecture or the information environment rather than 'I see this film about the British National Health Service (NHS) and I'm inspired to believe it and to use it.' It's more about 'let's create this kind of culture that is an anchor for everyone' and is in some sense all-encompassing.”

At the same time, in this era of all-out propaganda, driven by the wider availability and affordability of technology and media tools that have opened up content creation to more people, “there is now an attempt to order and shape who is what and a kind of credentialism and fact-checking: 'this is the authentic one, not that,'” Anthony observes.

This also accords with a key finding of his research. “One thing I've discovered is that propaganda isn't always lying, but it can be quite sincere,” he says THR. “I find it much more ubiquitous than I expected. But in a way, the current trend is alarming because we are moving away from the single film to shape an environment.”

In the past, government agencies often played larger roles in propaganda films at all levels. For example, the animated film Animal farm 1954, directed by John Halas and Joy Batchelor and based on Orwell's novel, was partly funded by the CIA, Anthony points out.

But he also points out that British propaganda films often positioned the UK as a different actor from the US and the rest of Europe. “Part of the story of America's rise is that World War I destroys old Europe and cinema becomes the emerging global technology. And many European countries are starting to intervene in the film market, also because they are worried. The phrase you always hear is that movie theaters are basically the embassies of the United States and all of our citizens are going to essentially become like American citizens,” explains Anthony. “Governments get involved in Europe because they're terrified that America might master this new medium and shape their audiences. At the same time, many of these countries are becoming democratic for the first time.”

In Great Britain the focus has been on positioning ourselves “in the Anglosphere as a slightly upscale market,” explains the expert THR. “France can be a bit protectionist because it has the French language, but Britain does not have the possibility of linguistic protectionism. So, therefore, you have to do something else. You have to try to find a different way to stand out.”

How to do it Harry Potter, Paddington and do other franchises fit the theme of Britain using its soft power in cinematic form? After the Cold War, politicians began to question the need to finance film production after the end of the world conflict. What happened in Britain with Tony Blair's New Labor government is the creation of the UK Film Council, which is linked to the belief that “we need to sell a global vision of Britain” and attract people to our culture and attract tourists and intelligent foreigners and the like, Anthony explains. So promoting Britain, its culture and its creative output became more important.

This is also where 007 fits in for Anthony. “We are financing films, and films should support our global brand in the age of globalization,” he says. “As for James Bond, I put this part in the book because it strikes me that Britain is no longer a country of strong power. They aren't really a military power, but they still have a great reputation for espionage. So people like it [famous British computer scientist] Alan Turing, spies and deception are fascinating.”

Anthony's book also mentions the fascination with the British royal family and related content The crown. “The monarchy played a huge role,” he says THR. With the post-war focus on democracy and modernisation, British cinema also reflected this. “In Britain we are also seeing a modernization of the monarchy and we actually see this dramatized in films, such as in The king's speech. So, the monarchy is an important part of how Britain sells itself abroad. AND The crown has a relationship with the film The queen with the same writer (Peter Morgan) who worked with that material. It's essentially a high-concept soap opera. It's great fun and I think it serves the purpose of selling a vision of Britain abroad.”

Where will it end with King Charles III? “I think what will be interesting is how far back the monarchy is and how far back Queen Elizabeth II is, because she had an incredible impact,” Anthony explains.

Leave a Comment

url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url