Total Propaganda, James Bond, ‘The Crown’, British propaganda film Q&A

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

The book, an archival project based at the BFI National Archive, shows how central propaganda is to the development of British film and how it has filtered people’s understanding of modern British history. Although the term “propaganda film” was traditionally associated with war stories, Anthony emphasized that it did not end after the First and Second World Wars.

Instead, it became “a tool to package our cultural heritage, promote tourism and transform British culture,” a synopsis points out. His argument: propaganda does not always have to be insincere or untrue. It can also emphasize certain aspects of a culture and function as an instrument of soft power.

The book shows how the rise 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 dissects classic examples of cinematic propaganda, such as The Battle of the Somme (1916), Listen to Britain (1942) and Animal farm (1954), before discussing such beloved film franchises as James Bond, Harry PotterAnd Paddington movies and TV showsalong with TV series like The Crowndigital media and more.

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

The author, who previously also published the mystery novel Changidefines three periods or stages of British propaganda film. “The book describes how the propaganda film went from being an object in its own right – think Triumph of the will or Battleship Potemkin – to be part of an extensive media environment,” says Anthony THR.

That also meant a change in scope and target group focus. In the history of British propaganda films, the Second World War was the period that saw the greatest production of classic and iconic stand-alone propaganda films. “For example, many films have been made about the Second World War or The Blitz that tell what the war or The Blitz means for the British people,” the expert explains. “But if you study it, many of the most iconic films look like this Fires have started – were made a year and a half after The Blitz ended. These films represented a very traumatic event that had occurred and played a role in shaping viewers’ responses to it, not necessarily in a nefarious way, but in a kind of psychological processing. You can see it as an attempt to channel people’s energy.” Such stand-alone films were shown in public spaces, canteens, army locations, trade union halls and cinemas.

After the start of the Cold War, in a second phase, “propaganda is seen as something that the other guys do, that only the Soviet Union and totalitarian societies do,” Anthony tells THR. “And yet there is the realization that they still have to respond to that. So they started producing films that try very hard not to look like propaganda.”

The ones the expert focused on most are “essentially made for television, which operates in a much more private, enclosed space or individualized space.” Many of these films are about individuals who resist conformity or are deeply skeptical or shake up an established profession. So they are at a fairly subtle level,” Anthony explains. “I don’t mean that they are insincere, but in a way it is a kind of propaganda for individualism. Part of it is the anti-communist aspect of ‘don’t be afraid to say no, don’t be afraid to be skeptical, the individual is the actual driving force behind history,’ all this kind of stuff.”

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

While the films in the first period of British propaganda film were rooted in shared experiences, for example of war, now ‘digital is expanding our geographical reach’, Anthony argues. “You have many people who are very individual and view things on their phones instead of collectively, but also view things that they have not experienced themselves or that they do not know themselves. So a kind of loop happens where a lot of digital media refers to itself or refers to other digital media. So it is more of a circular thing.”

Scott Anthony

So what does Anthony mean when he talks about ‘the age of total propaganda’? “What I’m talking about in terms of total propaganda doesn’t necessarily mean that everything is a lie,” he explains. “But I mean it in the sense that now it’s actually 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 in it and use them’. It.’ Instead, it’s more about ‘let’s create a culture that includes everyone,’ and that is, in a sense, all-encompassing.”

At the same time, in this age of total propaganda, driven by the wider availability and affordability of media technology and tools that have opened up content creation to more people, “there is now an attempt to sort and shape who is what and sort of credentialism and fact-checking: ‘this is the authentic one, not that one,’” Anthony notes.

This also ties in with an important finding from his research. “One thing I discovered was that propaganda doesn’t always lie, but can be very sincere,” he says THR. “I think it’s more ubiquitous than I expected. But in some ways the current trend is alarming, as it moves away from the individual film and towards shaping an environment.”

In the past, government agencies across the board often played a larger role in propaganda films. For example, the animated film Animal farm from 1954, directed by John Halas and Joy Batchelor, based on Orwell’s novella, was partly financed by the CIA, Anthony points out.

But he also points out that British propaganda films also often positioned Britain as a different player 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 film becomes the emerging global technology. And many countries in Europe are starting to get involved in the cinema market, partly because they are concerned. The phrase you always hear is that movie theaters are essentially American embassies and all of our citizens are essentially going to become American citizens,” Anthony explains. “Governments are getting involved in Europe because they are terrified that America will dominate this new medium and shape their audience. At the same time, many of those countries are becoming democratic for the first time.”

In Britain, the focus was on positioning “ourselves in the Anglosphere as slightly more expensive,” the expert says THR. “France can be a bit protectionist because it… The French language, but Britain does not have the option of linguistic protectionism. That’s why you have to do something different. You have to try to find another way to distinguish yourself.”

How to do Harry Potter, Paddington and other franchises fit into the subject of Britain using its soft power in film form? After the Cold War, policymakers began to question the need to finance filmmaking after the end of the world-defining 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 get people into our culture attract and have to bring in tourists and tourists. smart 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 finance films, and the films must support our global brand in the age of globalization,” he says. “As for James Bond, I had this piece in the book because it strikes me that Britain is no longer a hard power country. They’re not much of a military force, but they still have a great reputation for espionage. So people like the famous British computer scientist Alan Turing and spies and deception are a fascination.”

Anthony’s book also mentions the appeal of the British Royal Family and such content related to it The Crown. “The monarchy has played a major role,” he says THR. With the post-war focus on democracy and modernization, British film also reflects this. “You also get a re-modernization of the monarchy in Britain and you actually see this dramatized in film, as in The King’s Speech. So the monarchy is a big 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 walked around with that material. It’s essentially a luxury soap opera. It’s very entertaining and I think it serves a purpose in selling a vision of Britain abroad.

Where will that go? King Charles III? “I think it will be interesting to what extent it is actually the monarchy and to what extent it is Queen Elizabeth II, because she had an incredible impression,” says Anthony.