Live data from Hacker News

Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

worldbeyondwar.org

311–320 of 577 posts

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#311
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That billions of equipment and resources provided by the woke cabala? Hundreds of millions are spent worldwide on endowments for universities to push this specific agenda. So, yes, I wouldn't find it surprising if the movie makers are sponsored, too. Now, it's clear why US army would want a positive optics. But who's to benefit from, say, Tajiks internalizing the "oppression scale"?

What exactly does this woke agenda push, if I may ask?

"Woke" is simply the left's word for what the right calls 'Redpilled'. In both subcultures it means 'a recognition of some fundamental truth that does not bring joy'.

Done well, it can be a vehicle for criticising one's own culture in a constructive way. Done poorly, it can be a vehicle for oikophobia and gatekeeping, a means of distinguishing oneself from the naively patriotic proletariate.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#312
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-native English speaker not living in the US, I've heard the word (or rather, read) multiple times but I honestly have never bothered to research what it actually means but I think I've kinda gotten the context around it(?) I've seen it being tossed around on Reddit when there's post about US politics/US social issues and it always looked to me like a generic insult thrown at somebody who doesn't like the mor…

I don't see what urban dictionary entries lead you to believe you are on the right track, but the top voted 2-3 do not. Those are what it means: hypocrisy and insincerity about progressive causes.

Might be a language thing then. I'm reading through Urban Dictionary and most of them read to me like "I think I know the other person is dishonest or stupid".

Let's take the most popular definition there:

  Woke - The act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue
Again, as a non-native English speaker I have to click through "pretentious". The most popular definition:

  Behaving in an attention-seeking manner via presenting oneself on the surface as being intelligent, provocative, important, avant-garde, humorous or significant, yet harboring ulterior motives, typically involving some form of personal gratification or material gain (e.g. advancement in social status, career, wealth, etc.).
  Note that using this word is often conflated to be a pretentious act in and of itself, as this word is frequently used as a way to easily discredit people, works of art, ideas or statements while simultaneously boosting one's own status.
(btw, as far as I can tell, there's no word or phrase for the same thing in my native language. Which might already start to explain why the whole concept is hard to really understand for me)

So somebody who calls someone else "woke" looks to be, often, trying to discredit the other person, while simultaneously boosting their own status by making the statement that the other person has ulterior motives and does not actually hold the beliefs that they are saying that they hold.

Idk.. it looks like I'm too far from the US culture to really understand this. When somebody says that they think that gay people should not have equal rights to non-gay people, then I see no reason to assume that they don't actually hold that belief and that they would be pretentious. When somebody says the opposite - that gay people should have the same rights than non-gay people then again, I see no reason to assume that they don't actually hold that belief and are pretentious.

Nothing about this looks to have anything to do with progressiveness or hypocrisy or insincerity as far as I can tell but for some reason there's a made-up word to tell the other "side" that "I know you are full of shit and you don't actually believe in what you say".

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads like a butchered Chomsky reference. In actual fact so-called liberal democracies are free to the degree that authoritarian tools wouldn’t and can’t work.

"In actual fact " Is the USA a liberal democracy? Authoritarian tools (like packing the courts) seem to work there. Successive UK governments have tightened control over the BBC. Assange stews in a high-security prison, untried, for reporting the truth. Craig Murray has just completed his prison sentence for reporting the truth. Neither of those jailings has received significant coverage in the mainstream UK press.

It wasn’t meant to be a compliment.

EDIT: I mean that the category “liberal democracy” is not meant as some kind of praise. That’s just what they/we call them.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#314
post #301
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Hollywood is lot less subtle now at trying to push political propaganda than it was ever then, except that wokeism is the theme of the day. In some instances it has completely taken over the plot, like in the last season of Fargo, to the point of becoming some sort of unwatcheable catechism.

I just watched Don't Look Up on Netflix and the propaganda was so thick it actually made the whole movie painful to watch. I suppose it's naive to think that old movies are propaganda-free. But I find myself missing the narratives I grew up with. The new ones are whiny, cynical and uninspiring. At least the old ones inspired me towards positive things.

The “propaganda” as you call it is called satire, and it’s actually the entire point of the film.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#315
post #301
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Hollywood is lot less subtle now at trying to push political propaganda than it was ever then, except that wokeism is the theme of the day. In some instances it has completely taken over the plot, like in the last season of Fargo, to the point of becoming some sort of unwatcheable catechism.

I just watched Don't Look Up on Netflix and the propaganda was so thick it actually made the whole movie painful to watch. I suppose it's naive to think that old movies are propaganda-free. But I find myself missing the narratives I grew up with. The new ones are whiny, cynical and uninspiring. At least the old ones inspired me towards positive things.

The “propaganda” as you call it is called satire, and it’s actually the entire point of the film.

Propaganda != opinion that you disagree with

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#316
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly does this woke agenda push, if I may ask?

Quoted post unavailable.

> you might be racist

On the contrary, I asked OP because often times when people talk about woke-agendas, they mean "I don't like seeing black or gay people in my movies", so I tend to wonder what they mean when they say woke.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll try an easier and more concrete one to help you out. Do you think Hollywood is at all hypocritical or insincere about their collective rhetoric about gun violence while also producing movies that glorify guns and people solving their problems with violence? The OP's argument was that modern movies are political propaganda supporting "wokeism", so a concrete example where Hollywood movies are often - intentiona…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Direct opposite of what?

Hollywood films allegedly being "woke propaganda", which was the claim which started this "what do you mean by woke?" subthread. Films which glorify guns are categorically not examples of Hollywood anti-gun propaganda; if they are any sort of propaganda at all, as opposed to just stuff that sells, they are clearly very non-'woke' pro-gun propaganda.

> I don't think it's necessarily an example of that although for some people perhaps it is. But the fact that Hollywood has excluded such people from such roles and then they take a specific role that was developed by a white man and put a black woman into it "because it's time", and make a big noise about how wonderful they are for doing such a thing is near the epitome of insincerity and hypocrisy in my opinion. I don't have a problem with them deviating from a checklist of skin color, genitalia, and sexual preferences for traditional roles like this (are all the previous 007s the same height, same hair color, same eye color?), I have a problem with them endlessly going on about how wonderful they are, how all those other people are racist and sexist, for us only to find out that hey it's not the redneck from West Virginia who has been writing and producing and acting in these exclusionary Bond movies all these years. Turns out it was Hollywood all along. And the "fix" they congratulate themselves for is not to actually put effort into develop characters and roles and stories that different people have the opportunity to make their own and different audiences can build a following with. They just do the cheap "this character is now a black woman" thing. I realize not everybody sees it that way, but that's my opinion and I don't see how it's invalid or based on bigotry

Do I think Hollywood not casting certain people was a Hollywood decision? Yes. Do I think they deserve massive congratulations for casting Lashana Lynch? No. And if you want to argue the black 007 character wasn't actually that great or big a deal, fine. I'd largely agree with you on both points.

But for many years prior to Lashana Lynch being cast, there were people insisting that the idea of a black 007 was "woke propaganda or "political correctness gone mad" that should be opposed. I think it's something of a heroic stretch to suggest that their real objection of the anti-'woke' crowd to the casting of a black 007 was that Hollywood ought to have done it much earlier.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#318
post #28
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another country that comes to mind is India - but I've never been enough of a Bollywood fan to be able to make any assessment on this topic. But it's a very effective tool to shape public opinion. I'm fairly certain without the overwhelmingly heroic portrait of (members of) the military, the public would be more inclined to question the huge investments that go into warfare. Particularly the display of highly achieve…

Haider is the only Indian movie that I can think of that doesn't take the establishment position when it comes to the portrayal of the armed forces. More recently, a certain Canadian national has carved out a niche for himself by staring in ultra patriotic movies that are very popular with the Indian audience.

And the dude in question peddles ceramic tiles made with “desh ki mitti” aka “soil of this country”. The hypocrisy rankles.

Still, it is clearly working because he’s ubiquitous while the erstwhile big 3 of Indian cinema have all but disappeared from ads.

FWIW, I hear he’s applying to become an Indian citizen again.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#319
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There might have been some improvements in this area but I still haven't seen any (male) IT guy in a movie who is not portrayed as some kind of weirdo and relegated to the side. Even female nerds are at the very best assisting the hero. TV lawyers and doctors however get to hold jargon-filled monologues and be in lead roles. /rant

> (male) IT guy in a movie Who is tony stark?

Tony Stark is a "next level" rich scientist, engineer/inventor, and ladies man. His IT related sides are incidental at best.

The only recent and decent "IT guy" series was Mr. Robot and the differences from any other field are obvious. The main "IT guy"-character is presented as socially dysfunctional. The supporting IT-people are tiny little gears turning in their cubicles.

Military - always fighting in the harshest condition, against the toughest enemies, saving the world.

Lawyers - good looking people, living a lavish lifestyle in corner offices of New York skyscrapers, having the cool monologues that wow the courtroom.

Doctors - brilliant but otherwise normal people facing very difficult decisions every day, making brilliant decisions to save life after life, and dealing with loss.

Spies - absolutely superhuman skills and knowledge, constantly capable of turning the tide of any way with a single person concentrated effort. (The more you go towards the "military/spy" side of things, the more likely it becomes about superhumans.)

IT focused movies/characters are probably just not attractive to the wider audience. Or at least nobody really proved that they can be. So even in Mr. Robot didn't focus on the hacking as much as on the larger plot. It simply made a very realistic point of that hacking.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#320
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked because whenever I hear about someone complaining of “wokeism” they’re complaining about things that I think are good. Giving black actors roles in areas normally dominated by white actors? That’s awesome! But whenever this happens loads of people online will claim that is “wokeism”. Representation for gay, lesbian, queer, and trans people in media? Wow that’s great! Many complain this is “wokeism”. Recognizi…

Quoted post unavailable.

In the 70s/80s already we had a lot of great black actors roles: Apollo Creed, Winston Zeddemore, George Martin, "B.A.", all of Eddie Murphy films and Danny Glover...
Post reply on HN