Tag Archives: propaganda

How propaganda was used: Mazower’s “Dark Continent” and Eisenstein’s “October”

Posted on by

October: Ten Days that Shook the World, directed by Sergei Eisenstein and Mark Mazower’s Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century illustrate differing perspectives of Russia’s October Revolution–the film is clearly a work of propaganda. The film shows exclusively positive elements of the Bolshevik Revolution.

The film tries to express the ‘unilateral’ support of the Proletariat at a time when Stalin was fighting to gain complete and undeniable control over the country. For this reason, Trotsky has a minimal role at the beginning of the Revolution. The film uses words to update the audience on changes, but offers no further explanation of why Trotsky, for instance, wanted to postpone an armed uprising. Stalin’s government wants to stop Trotsky’s influence to help cement his own claim to the Soviet Union. The film, in condemning the opinions of Trotsky, places Lenin as the hero of the revolution. This idea was used to aid Stalin at the beginning of his reign so that he could gain more legitimacy–he was following in the footsteps of Lenin. Eventually, this type of propaganda will change as Stalin begins to distance himself from Lenin and Lenin’s plans for the USSR–namely, the New Economic Plan for Collectivization and Dekulakization.

The film clearly exaggerates certain events: the toppling of the czar’s statue in the first few moments of the film is a key example of this. This film celebrated the 10th Anniversary of the Revolution. To do this successfully, the film needed to show that the Revolution had broad and sweeping support. Each time opponents of the Revolution are shown, words such as “traitors” and “turncoats” are flashed across the screen to show that these men and women have betrayed their country. Moreover, the film shows violent confrontations unfolding as the Bolsheviks win control over St. Petersburg/Petrograd and the Winter Palace–an event that occurred without violence and bloodshed.

Furthermore, all representations of the Provisional Government show a lazy group that does not fight for all the people. Near the end of the film there are many words shown across the screen that show the Provisional Government as wanting to discuss the changes and negotiate, rather then implement changes. The strongest image is when the screen says the Provisional Government is trying to save itself, but flashes to an empty office.

The film ends with the win of the Bolsheviks. This win is displayed “across the world” with the use of clocks to show that this is a monumental step for the entire world. The other countries will soon follow the example of the USSR and communism will become the new world order. The film presents a romanticized perspective of the Revolution and one that is extraordinarily different from the history described by Mazower. In Dark Continent, the Revolution is placed within the context of the extreme political change and radical political sentiments that were shaking Europe as WWI unfolded and ended. None of this was explored within the film because it would have undermined the struggle of the people that the Soviet government wanted to propagate.

Two Portraits of Revolution

Posted on by

Revolution has proven to be an incendiary topic throughout history, thus becoming the subject of countless different interpretations across various mediums.  Mark Mazower’s Dark Continent, a rigorous portrait of early twentieth-century European governments, and Battleship Potemkin, a Russian propaganda film relating the story of a Russian sailing crew’s mutiny against the ship’s oppressive officers, present two equally informative images of the Russian revolution that vary drastically in perspective.

Mazower’s text revisits the topic of interwar European government from a perspective that does not presuppose the primacy of democracy.  Consequently, he presents the Russian revolution as a quasi re-imagination of liberal democracy.  The author recounts the revolution’s optimistic origins as a move toward the unification of Russia behind the “‘universal democratic soul'” described by Prince Lvov (Mazower, 10).  However, Mazower acknowledges the divisions that arose due to the ambiguity of the revolution’s goal (i.e. “‘bourgeois democratic'” vs. “‘proletarian socialist'”) and how this ultimately led Russia to be “squeezed increasingly tightly between the twin extremes of communism and fascism” (Mazower, 10 & 13).

Conversely, in Battleship Potemkin, the sobering relative objectivity that pervades Mazower’s work vanishes into overt propaganda.  The plot is simple and quickly established by the on-screen dialogue, which is dominated by rallying cries for revolution such as “All for one and one for all!” and “Let nothing divide us!”  These lines originate in the mouths of the mutinous sailors and eventually find their way to the people of Odessa, who rally against the Tsarist regime upon hearing the story of the death of sailor Vakulinchuk (“Killed for a plate of soup”).  This text in conjunction with the insistently dramatic bombast of the score and several poignant images (the destruction of the Odessa Opera House, a baby carriage careening down a flight of steps in the midst of a riot) creates a poignant albeit transparent appeal to the pathos of the viewing audience in an attempt to glorify the concept of a Russian revolution.

Ultimately, Mazower’s view of the Russian revolution is one of factual pragmatism that benefits from several decades of hindsight and research, while Battleship Potemkin (much like Triumph of the Will) is equally useful as an image of one faction’s ambitions created in the climate of the revolution it advocated.

Paper proposal

Posted on by
  • I want to examine the effect that photography as propaganda can have on a society.  Photographs are the ultimate tools of manipulation because they are seen as facts/reality/truth. In reality, photographs are easily manipulated and can cause people to believe whatever they see, without considering what “lies beyond the frame.”  Because of peoples’ tendencies to believe whatever is in a photograph, photography is often used in propaganda by governments in an attempt to sway the people in a certain direction. I will examine propaganda from Nazi Germany that was used to persuade Germans that Jews are inherently “bad” and are the cause of all their problems. Propaganda in Nazi Germany often involved unflattering photographs of Jews, causing people to view them in a negative light. Ultimately, photography played a huge role in turning Germany against the Jews.  I will go on to discuss propaganda in democratic societies and how, although we may not consider it propaganda, photography has often been used as a means of persuasion in America. For example, during the great depression, the Farm Security Administration produced many photographs depicting the impact of the depression on rural America.  The goal of these photos was to sway public opinion in favor of Roosevelt’s rural economic recovery program. Although the intentions of these photographs were good, they could be seen as propaganda because their point was to influence politics and the public opinions.

 

  • Propaganda and censorship are both methods used by the government to control their people. In The Republic, Plato describes a society in which censorship of literature is used in order to shelter society from negative descriptions of the gods. However, he is also trying to form a utopia in which everyone is educated and has escalated from the “cave” that is naïveté.  By including censorship in his government, isn’t Plato actually pushing society back into the cave? How are censorship and propaganda similar and what effects have they had when implemented in real-world societies? What makes photographs such a powerful tool in influencing people? Can propaganda be ethical?

 

  • The use of photography in propaganda has been debated for a long time and many have questioned the ethics of using images to persuade a society.  In the book of essays, On Photography, Susan Sontag argues that photography, in a way, has chained humanity down, creating a reality for us that may not actually be true.  She argues that a camera is like a gun in that whoever holds it has complete control over the subject and the situation. Her overall thesis is that we are chained down by our assumption that everything we see in a photograph is true.  This concept relates to propaganda throughout history, beginning with Nazi Germany.  One example of propaganda in Nazi Germany is a book called The Eternal Jew, which contains unappealing and dehumanizing photos of Jews.  Photos like these made Germans more comfortable with blaming and turning against Jews because they seemed less human.  Another source I will use is an article called “The FSA photographs: Information or Propaganda?” by Chris Meyer. This article takes a look at the photographs used by the Farm Security Administration and discusses whether or not they should be considered propaganda.  This can tie into my question of whether or not propaganda is always bad

 

  • There is enough evidence to prove my points.  There are many books and essays explaining how photographs can be deadly because people believe whatever they see.  Furthermore, many people have written about the effects of photography in propaganda and how a society can be influenced through the use of photography. I will use a few primary sources, with pictures of influential propaganda and I will also use some secondary sources that argue what the effects of propaganda are.  All of these books and journals are available in the library, but On Photography is checked out right now.  It can be borrowed from another library though.

 

Works cited:

Chris Meyer. “The FSA Photographs: Information or Propaganda?” WR: Journal of the Arts & Sciences 1, no. 1. http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-1/the-fsa-photographs-information-or-propaganda/

  • This article is helpful because it confronts my question of whether or not propaganda is always bad.  This article examines the FSA photographs and how they influenced Americans. While the consequences of these photographs may have been beneficial, they were still aimed at manipulating the political views of Americans, and therefore they are propaganda. This article will help me discuss how photography in propaganda has also been prevalent in democratic societies, but perhaps in a different way than in authoritarian governments.

San Mateo County Community College District. “Persuasion, Propaganda, and Photography.” Films on Demand video, 27:00. 2001. http://envoy.dickinson.edu:4734/PortalViewVideo.aspx?xtid=30811

 

Sontag, Susan. On Photography. London: Penguin, 1997.

 

Morris, Errol. Believing is seeing : Observations on the Mysteries of Photography. New York: Penguin Press, 2011.

 

Welch, David. The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda. New York: Routledge, 1993.

 

Bytwerk, Randall. “The Eternal Jew.” German Propaganda Archive. August 2004. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/

  • This website is helpful because it includes various examples of Nazi German propaganda that portrayed Jews as evil. These examples will be very useful because in order to fully understand the effect that propaganda had, people must see the actual propaganda itself.  The pictures on this website will help to show how the Nazis attempted to portray the Jews as hideous, inhuman creatures.