Some people argue that “Triumph of the Will” is a propaganda film while others argue that is a documentary because it was made up of “actual” footage of the Nazi Nuremburg rallies. How would you categorize it and why?
This is really a fallacy in thinking--that a film must be one or the other--that propaganda films or documentaries are mutually exclusive. The reason the argument exists is simply becuase "Triumph of the Will" is both a propaganda film AND a documentary. A further fallacy is that documentaries are true/factual/unabirdged representations of real life/events/movements. The very fact that human beings are subjective, and therefore a filmed event is even more subjective (based on the limited perspective of the camera), documentaries, especially any that employee editing (read: all), are influenced by subjectivity and therefore attempting to communicate some message--and therefore propaganda.
There is no problem with propaganda; there is a problem with people accepting it carte blanche. The point is to understand that any purveyor of any view has an interest in you believing or disbelieving something. Propanganda is nothing more than a poorly-constructed, one-sided argument that does not atttempt to represent a complete perspective. That encompasses most arguments in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment