"Flight 93" not nominated for any golden globes

[scubadiver]

Just thought I would mention it after reading the "Oliver Stone" thread.

Heard it on Radio 2 this morning.

[telecasterisation]

[kc]

Empire reckon its the best film of the year tbf

[telecasterisation]

[kc]

Empires a British mag though mate, more pinko anti establishment than patriotic Coulteresque. Personally I always have a problem with the dramatisation of events we cant possibly know.

"Now eat my *!!!" ;)

[kc]

dangnammit swear filter - makes it a tad tricky to drop lines from Borat !

[Hazzard]

Maybe becuase people realise its bs.

This is one time Hollywoods media machine can churn out enough * to keep their desired product affloat.

[Mark Gobell]

On a more general cinematic note, does anyone think that movies have played a part in the pre/post 9/11 propaganda effort ?

If so which ones would you nominate as likely candidates and why ?

[marky 54]

i think after thinking about this, that film/tv can be used as a psy-op to implant a thought or idea in your head or sway your opinion in advance of an event that would need that opinion. its strange stuff to explain but ill try.

make a programme of something that is just seemingly made up, fiction.
make it seem bizarre for example its just james bond stuff this dosnt happen in real life. then put in parts or part of a plot(that is yet to happen in real life). make sure the hero saves the day.

now when the plot is carried out the truth will seem bizarre as its just stuff in films and will be the less likely scenerio in anyones mind.

now you can carry out anything you want as people will rule out scenerio's in films as impossible just fiction.

could this be why its hard to believe to some people that goverments can be invovled in bad stuff, when films clearly show us our leaders would save us when it came down to it.

films show us what we want to imagine the world to be like, hero's good people ect, ect. but you can implant the truth within them and have it past of as impossible, as if.

this makes me worry about the spooks series and i wonder if that was for the same point, if anything happened we would instantly dismiss anything that was in spooks as a possibility as to who was responsible or how it was carried out. if indeed anything happened.

[marky 54]

my point is films can sway our opinion if those that do evil are shown to be doing good.

james bond/spooks ect: our secret services protect us how could they possibly do us any harm

armageddon/simular films: our leaders protect us and put there whole time into ensuring we are all safe, how could they possibly harm us?

the world is full of hero's trying to fight evil isnt it? so we dont need to worry we can sit back and let our fictional hero's exsist and save the world.

or is it all a hoax to give us a false impression so when anything bad happens people dont suspect any of the above, instead we suspect the evil characters shown in films, ie: OBL, SADDAM, ect ect.

[Mark Gobell]

Proof, for me of what you are saying here is the way that many people now relate things back to their viewing experience.

Check for yourself, it's an interesting social experiment.

Very often during conversation thought processes and responses are framed with reference to a TV experience, film plot, character or catch phrase. For many, their perceptions are contextualised within their viewing experiences.

A simple illustration would be the parrotting of catch phrases.

A less obvious correlation would be, as you suggest, the interpretation of new or radical information, ideas and theories based upon known television or film experiences.

It is not difficult to reason therfore that the psychological groundwork to manage the outcomes of the viewing audience can be achieved through these mediums.

This works both ways in my experience. The first is that the reaction to new information is negative because it contradicts the messages delivered by TV and film, or, in a more subtle, less obvious way, because the new ideas have already been delivered by TV and film.

The first reaction we all understand. The TV told me to think this way about this issue so therefore I cannot possibly entertain an alternative view.

The second is perhaps unexpected. Take for example the Lone Gunman episode where an airliner has been hijacked remotely because some baddies have stolen the codes and unless the blackmail terms are agreed to they will crash the plane into the twin towers. Although not widely disseminated and not at all outside the USA to my knowledge, this TV reality serves to undermine the acceptance of a near identical theory as being a possible reality for the real events of 9/11, because it's already been done on TV and so therefore wasn't real, isn't real and could never be real.

A paradox then.

On the one hand we have the rejection of new information because the TV has already told us the truth, but on the other hand the idea is rejected because the TV has already told us that this idea is fiction.

So the TV is believed because it tells the truth and because it tells lies.

Either way the message of an individual or group has to compete within this paradigm.

Film has always been used for propaganda purposes and TV is another exteremely powerful medium with which to inculcate ideas and to create and manage perceptions.

I am not a movie watcher so have to trawl the web for likely candidates vis 9/11.

Any ideas about TV & film that may have been part of the 9/11 propaganda effort would me most welcome.