Propaganda During WWII

Beginning before the war, propaganda of a political nature was very prevalent in the United States. It would mostly be employing the appeals of logos and pathos (logic and emotion). The American public would be made to feel that if the country doesn't get involved in the war they were somehow un-patriotic. In other words, getting involved was the "American" thing to do. As time went on and we did join the war, the message slightly changed. While there was still a great air of patriotisim about the propaganda, the focus shifted more to rooting for the troops as one would for a sports team. This sentiment is obvious now in Iraq as well.
In 1940, United Artists co-founder Charlie Chaplin released The Great Dictator, a highly poignant comedic film mocking Hitler and the Nazis. Throughout the film, the actions and lines of the characters hinted toward the need for American involvement in the war. One line in which Hannah states that fighting the stormtroopers is an impossible task if done alone but may be possible with cooperation could be considered a logical appeal. The moving speech given by Chaplin's character at the end is truly a use of pathos if ever there were one.
The "Red Scare" might also be considered an example of pathos. Authorities across the country encouraged great fear and paranoia among the public. The army certainly used the fear to their advantage as seen in one poster that reads "'Arise Americans' Your country and Your Liberty are in grave danger... Protect them now by joining the United States Nave or the U.S. Naval Reserve." (http://www.futureofthebook.org/sivavaidhyanathan/archives/warprop1.jpg)
This might also be seen as one of the logical appeals. To protect your country, join the army and fight. Seems logical enough...right?
To sum up, propaganda was a prevalent and effective form of political persuasion during the WWII era. From film to posters it would seem the general idea was to evoke patriotism whenever possible.

Works Cited

The Great Dictator. Dir. Charles Chaplin. DVD. Charles Chaplin Productions/United Artists, 1940.

Propaganda in Film

Film: Less Art, More Politics
Cinema has evolved tremendously over the years. Innovation after innovation have truly helped a remarkable art form emerge. One important innovation that has become infused with the art of film is propaganda. The more popular film became, the more it was utilized for political purposes. Examining the varieties of this utilization as well as how its approaches have changed can be truly fascinating.
Maria Tumarkin examines this issue in her article. It would seem that the use of propaganda in film peaks during times of war in America. From WWII to the Cold War and onward, propaganda has had great influence throughout the country. Now, with the current war in Iraq, cinematic propaganda has become more criticizing than ever. Just the fact that this is going on during the war rather than after is a change in itself. Of the films mentioned (Lions for Lambs, In the Valley of Ellah, and Rendition), Rendition is the only one I have seen and I can safely say this was a film that was approached with great suspicion of the practices of the American government. So, is the filmmakers’ relationship with the audience is more important than that with those in power or vice versa? With a new crop of editorializing documentaries such as Who Killed the Electric Car? one can safely call real cinema the eyes and propaganda the corrective lenses.
Speaking about the article as a whole, the appeal is mainly (if not all) a logical one. Logos is employed by way of facts and examples. The points made are clearly logical, reasonable ones. For instance, when Tumarkin says “After all, throughout the 20th century, films have been made to rally troops of all kinds...” which is an intriguing point on its own but it is followed immediately with: “...Just consider Fahrenheit 9/11, Supersize Me, The Corporation, The Fog of War, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism or Fast Food Nation (accused by the touchy fast-food industry of being ‘indigestible propaganda’)” (2).
The propaganda itself seems a truly eclectic mix of rhetorical appeals. Although the logical aspect seems most obvious, some seem emotional as well. Pathos is visible when many films are examined closely. Take Rendition for example. This particular film employs emotions such as fear to get people thinking. I can safely say that viewing torture scenes including “water-boarding” was truly terrifying to me. Not to mention, I didn’t really know what the term “water-boarding” meant until seeing this movie. It truly put me on edge and, considering the victim was innocent, in a suspicious mood towards the American government and current political practices.

There is also, obviously, the issue of kairos present in all of this. Most prominently, war propaganda. From times when the public was living in constant fear of communists to times when American foreign policy practices are coming under scrutiny domestically, films to match the public sentiment seem to be released at the opportune moment.
Seeing as the article was so effective and interesting, I don’t see any other way to make this appeal. Each and every point is well supported. As an alternative, however, there may be an opportunity to include a bit of pathos. While reading the article I was saddened by the fact that all these politics seem to be consuming the beautiful art that is film. Although films don’t change the way I think (sometimes they lead me to consider certain possibilities), the flow of creativity that should go into them seems to be hopelessly clogged. Perhaps discussing the loss of innocence in cinema would also be effective. This article gets the audience to think but, unless you’re truly passionate about film, doesn’t really get them to feel.
As for the featured propaganda, there is already a bit of every appeal so I can’t imagine what could be improved upon.
To sum up, Tumarkin makes a very logical and interesting argument about the changing influences of cinematic propaganda. Although what is considered propaganda and what is not can be a fine line at times, films have always influenced the general public. Over the years, film propaganda has become more critical. Gone are the days of the overly patriotic American film hero enlisting in the army to better serve his country. Film and its many evolutionary twists and turns remains an ongoing and fascinating story in itself.












Works Cited
Rendition. Dir. Gavin Hood. Perfs. Reese Witherspoon, Omar Metwally. Film. New Line Cinema, 2007.
Tumarkin, Maria. “A Catalyst for Change; Holiday Edition-Cinema.” The Age 29 December 2007: A2.