Michael Francis Moore is an American author who produced this documentary film. He is an Academy Award winner and director of "Fahrenheit 9/11", "Sicko" and "Bowling for Columbine". And these three documentaries are the top documentaries of all time.
In this documentary film, this Academy Award-winning director-producer has tried to examine the Bush's financial ties to the Saudi Arabia and the Osama Bin Laden's family. This film is a well researched and a very controversial documentary film. By using the actual visuals and documents , the producer has looked the political events took place both before and after the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. It begins with the polarizing Supreme Court decision that ultimately gave the state of Florida and the 2000 election to George W. Bush. More has tried to reveal how the U.S. government helped the bin Laden family return to Saudi Arabia immediately after September 11, when all other flights remained grounded.
Moore has attempted to get congress men to enlist their own sons and daughters in the military force. He himself has visited VA hospital where soldiers began to question America's involvement in Iraq and spended time with a family whose eldest son faught fighting in Iraq.
REVIEW - A MASTER PROPAGANADA
Fahrenheit 9/11 is the "temperature" at which the presidency of George W Bush burns. The controversial propaganda documentary by anti-war activist Michael Moore is undoubtedly a potent missile fired at the White House's regime of truth, simultaneously unmasking the conformist American media as well as the capitalist logic of war making. It is a humorous, compassionate, critical and enlightened examination of a rather sad chapter in contemporary American history marked with war, terrorism and overzealous counter-terrorism trampling on citizens' rights.
Michael Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11" launched an unapologetic attack, both savage and savvy, on an administration he felt betrayed the best of America and done extensive damage in the world.
Unabashedly partisan, wearing its determination to bring about political change on its sleeve, "Fahrenheit" can be nitpicked and second-guessed, but it can't be ignored. This landmark in American political filmmaking demands to be seen..
With expertly deployed footage and a take-no-prisoners attitude Moore has made an overwhelming film. It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth, and too much here is taken from the record not to have a devastating effect on viewers.
Moore has always been a master provocateur, adept at raising temperatures and arousing passions. Under his shambling, wilfully unglamorous persona lies a shrewd intelligence, someone with the keenest of eyes for the preposterous and the absurd, a filmmaker who knows both what he can make fun of and what makes fun of itself.
What Moore has constructed in "Fahrenheit" is more ambitious and more complex than anyone had reason to expect. And he gives no one, least of all President Bush, the slightest benefit of the doubt.
The core of "Fahrenheit's" appeal comes in Moore's alternating familiar images with footage many Americans may not have seen. The resulting mosaic, the cumulative effect of experiencing everything together in one place, is easily the most powerful piece of work.
The new material includes clips that were not broadcast widely or at all, some of which Moore says were sent to him unsolicited by people who heard about his project and wanted to help, a kind of unofficial coalition of the willing. Many of the most damning involve the president saying and doing things his handlers probably wish he hadn't.
Here is George W. Bush in 1992, candidly explaining why he was a hot business-world commodity: "When you're the president's son, in Washington people tend to respect that. I can reach my father at any time. Access is power." More current is the post-9/11 president calling sternly on the world's nations to "stop terrorist killers." Assuming that only that much would be broadcast, he steps back to reveal that he's on a golf course, not in a war room. Switching roles like a practiced performer, he smiles and says, "Now watch this drive."
Perhaps the most disturbing of all is footage showing the president on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing with a photo op involving a Florida elementary school class reading "My Pet Goat" for nearly seven minutes after having been told that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center.
It's an unflattering picture of irresolution and even paralysis, one that informs Moore's thesis of a president in over his head and pervades the entire film.
Another category of clips comes from Iraq, where Moore managed to get camera operators embedded with U.S. troops under non-Michael Moore pretences. These include soldiers taking snapshots of each other exulting with hooded captives, and laughing as they grab a drunken prisoner's genitals through a blanket.
Though the overall soberness of the subject matter means that this will not go down as Moore's funniest film, the director has added his trademark comedic moments. It's his unmistakably biting voice-over that holds this film together.
Moore also makes extensive use of absurdist juxtapositions of politics and pop culture to get genuine laughs. In a sequence about how the government allowed Bin Laden family members to depart soon after Sept. 11
In "Fahrenheit's" opening section, which deals with how Florida put George Bush in the White House, "Fahrenheit" includes almost surreal footage of the joint session of Congress that, with Al Gore presiding, certified the election. One by one, African American members of the House object to the certification and fume when not a single senator agrees to join them in a written protest that could have derailed the certification.
After Sept. 11, 2001, Moore claims, the administration concentrated not on chasing terrorists but on terrorizing the American people so they would support the invasion of Iraq. "Fear does work," Moore is told by Jim McDermott, a Democratic House member who is the chamber's only psychologist. "The administration played us like an organ."
This first part of "Fahrenheit 9/11" turns out to be so closely argued, so dense with information, that the film runs the danger of being too much to take in.
Perhaps realizing this, Moore eventually stops the bombardment. He increasingly personalizes his story by focusing on the people who actually pay the price for all the posturing out of Washington.
He goes back, invariably, to his hometown of Flint, Mich., where a destroyed economy means that the armed forces are perhaps the best career opportunity young people have.
And he spends a considerable amount of time with a wife and mother named Lila Lipscomb, who provides the film with its emotional center.
A self-described "really proud American" who flies the flag every day and strongly encouraged her children to opt for a life in the military as their best career option, Lipscomb undergoes a wrenching change of heart as she searches for a reason to believe in a war that ends up taking the life of her son. "People think they know but they don't know," she says, in tears. "I thought I knew but I didn't know."
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a piece of master propaganda .It proposes conspiracy theories in support of pacifist American foreign policy. Some of the films major assertions are that a connection between Bush and Osama Bin Laden can be made, that Bush has acted in favor of Saudis at the expense of Americans that the Saudis were behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11.The film implies that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are ineffective and unjust .
Final Solution
Rakesh Sharma is the maker of this film. He began his film/TV career in 1986 as an assistant director on Shyam Benegal's Discovery of India. His broadcast industry experience includes the set up/ launch of 3 broadcast channels in India: Channel [V], Star Plus and Vijay TV and several production consultancy assignments. He has now gone back to independent documentary film-making. His last film "Aftershocks: The Rough Guide to Democracy" won the Best documentary film award at Fribourg, Big Mini-DV and at Big Muddy and won 7 other awards (including the Robert Flaherty prize) at various festivals in USA and Europe during 2002-03. It has been screened at over 90 international film festivals.
Final Solution is a study of the politics of hate. Set in Gujarat, India, the film graphically documents the changing face of right-wing politics in India through a study of the 2002 genocide of Muslims in Gujarat. The film examines the aftermath of the deadly violence that followed the burning of 58 Hindus on the Sabarmati Express train at Godhra on February 27 2002. In "reaction" to that incident, some 2,500 Muslims were brutally murdered, hundreds of women raped, and more than 200,000 families driven from their homes. Borrowing its reference from the history of Nazism, the title of the film exposes what the film director calls 'Indian Fascism' and seeks to remind that "those who forget history are condemned to relive it."
Part 1: Pride and Genocide deals with the genocidal violence against Moslems and its immediate aftermath. It probes the patterns of pre-planned violence by right-wing Hindutva cadres which many claim was state-supported, if not state-sponsored.
Part 2: The Terror Trail reconstructs through eyewitness accounts the attack on Gulbarg (Ahmedabad) and acts of barbaric violence against Moslem women at Eral and Delol/Kalol (Panchmahals) even as Chief Minister Modi traverses the state on his Gaurav Yatra.
Part 3: The Hate Mandate documents the poll campaign during the Assembly elections in Gujarat in late 2002. It records in detail the exploitation of the Godhra incident (in which 59 Hindus were burnt alive) by the right-wing propaganda machinery for electoral gains.
Part 4: Hope and Despair studies the situation after the storm and its impact on Hindus and Muslims - ghettoisation, segregation in schools, the formal call for economic boycott of Muslims and continuing acts of violence more than a year after the carnage.
REVIEW
On February 27, 2002, a train packed with Hindus was attacked by a mob of several hundred Muslims at the Gujarat town of Godhra in the north of India. The train had been bound for Ayodha, where in 1992; Hindus had destroyed the Babri Masjid mosque, believing it to be on the site of the god Ram's birthplace. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or World Hindu Council, planned to erect a temple to Ram at the controversial location and those on the train were activists. The exact details of what followed have never been determined, but Coach S6 of the Sabarmati Express was set alight, killing 58 people.
Final Solution chronicles the aftermath of reactions to this event, alleging the Indian government's complicity in violence that saw over 2,500 Muslims brutally murdered, hundreds of women raped and more than 200,000 families driven from their homes. Taking its title from Nazism's calculated programme of genocide, this soberly shot but emotionally powerful account examines the rise of the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and what director Rakesh Sharma calls 'Indian Fascism'. Banned by the government, the film found an audience through a guerrilla pirate and circulate campaign and won the Special Jury Award at last year's Berlin Film Festival, as well as Best Film at the Index on Censorship's Freedom of Expression Awards in London.
Probing into the horrendous massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, in 2002, as well as all things pertaining to Hindu nationalism and communalism, it employs the technique of interviews with minimal commentary, allowing for a very nuanced and interesting flow/style, and allowing for a relative open-ness for your own critical thinking to ferment.
A no-nonsense, well-researched documentary containing footage the Indian media will never show. It does not exposition or proselytizes, just shows the fact about what happened in Gujarat and its consequences.
The documentary clearly shows the insidious ways used by the RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal and BJP to spread their doctrine of hate and poison Hindu minds against Muslims just for the purposes of getting votes. See what is being done in the name of Hinduism. The documentary has made an international impact.
"Final Solution" is indeed a harrowing record, featuring none of the talking head 'expert' opinion characteristic of such filmmaking. Instead, its Hindu director relied upon first person testimony drawn from the Muslim ghettoes and refugee camps and the fervent BJP rallies.
"Final Solution" takes its viewers on a grim journey of Gujarat in a period of 18 months, from the February 2002 torching of 59 Hindu train riders at Godhra that sparked reprisal violence across the state, to the aftermath of the mayhem.
An unvarnished look at the violence that ripped two communities apart with the abetment of political groups, the documentary holds a mirror to political elements that used hate as a tool of power and won elections.
At the very end of the four-part documentary comes the most shocking clip - the mind of two children, one Hindu and one Muslim.
Little Preksha Joshi watches a video CD of "Ram Sevak Amar Raho" (Long live Ram worshippers!) and tells Sharma that she has stopped talking to her close Muslim friend because of what "they" did to Ram Sevaks (the Hindus killed in Godhra).
Then four-year-old Ijaz, a Muslim, tells the filmmaker he wants to be a soldier when he grows up. "I want to kill Hindus," he explains simply.
"Why?" prods Sharma. "Will you kill me? I am also a Hindu." Ijaz looks uncertain, then decides - "Not you. You are nice. You are not a Hindu."
"To him, Hindus could not be nice, because he saw them abuse, kill and strip his women relatives," recounts Sharma.
The documentary studies the great divide that has happened in Gujarat post Godhra. A reality in which the majority has been aroused into feeling justifiably threatened by the minority and into believing that any inhuman acts of retaliation or violence are justified. The politics of hate has succeeded in dividing Gujarat so much that even the very young grow up with hatred for the others, thinking that an eye for an eye, or perhaps two eyes for an eye, is the way of today. Hitler is of course praised in this world of ethnic cleansing. In Narendra Modi's world... While we all know about the horrors of Gujarat, the film is chilling to watch as it is an experiment that seems to have succeeded since Modi won the subsequent election.
Triumph of Will
Leni Riefenstahl is the maker of this documentary film.She was a German film director, dancer and actress widely noted for her aesthetics and innovations as a filmmaker. Her most famous film was "Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will)", Its a a propaganda film made at the 1934 Nuremberg congress of the Nazi Party. Riefenstahl's prominence in the Third Reich along with her personal friendships with Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels thwarted her film career following Germany's defeat in World War II, after which she was arrested but never convicted of war crimes.
The propaganda value of her films made during the 1930s repels most commentators but many film histories cite the aesthetics as outstanding. After her death the Associated Press described Riefenstahl as an "acclaimed pioneer of film and photographic techniques." "Der Tagesspiegel "newspaper in Berlin noted, "Leni Riefenstahl conquered new ground in the cinema. The BBC said her documentaries "were hailed as groundbreaking film-making, pioneering techniques involving cranes, tracking rails, and many cameras working at the same time." Reviewer Gary Morris called Riefenstahl "an artist of unparalleled gifts, a woman in an industry dominated by men, one of the great formalists of the cinema on a par with Eisenstein or Welles." Riefenstahl later published her still photography of the Nuba tribes in Africa and made films of marine life.
"Triumph of the Will" is a propaganda film. This film contains excerpts from speeches given by various Nazi leaders at the Congress, including portions of speeches by Adolf Hitler, interspersed with footage of massed party members. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an unofficial executive producer; his name appears in the opening credits. The overriding theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power, with Hitler as the True German Leader who will bring glory to the nation.
REVIEW
"TRIUMPH OF THE WILL" has long been viewed through a dual perspective: It is both reviled by many for its glorification of Hitler, and at the same time praised for the masterful propaganda work of its director, the legendary Leni Riefenstahl. The truth is, it is all of that and more - a highly memorable, fascinating experience on several levels.
Despite the subject matter, it must be acknowledged that this film does what it was made to do marvelously well: It is a masterpiece of the art of propaganda. Something that is practiced every day by all governments, in advertising, and in all political campaigns but never better than this. The film does an amazing job of tapping deep into the German psyche, with scenes of Nuremburg, youth, etc., and allusions to great Germans of the past, all designed to tug at the "volkish" national sentiment, then deftly superimposed with images of Hitler. Very crafty, but no different than what we see every day in our media-saturated world.
As a study of the early the Nazi era, it is invaluable. Regardless of what happened in the years that followed, TRIUMPH needs to be viewed as a statement of its own era, when none of the horrors had yet happened and many around the world still referred to the Nazi regime (which was then consolidating power and trying to reach the hearts and minds of the people) as "the German renaissance". The commentary track adds a fascinating "what happened to that Nazi?" perspective.
This film has become unbelievably influential. It is perhaps second only to THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN as the most visually quoted film in history.
Triumph Des Willens opens with Wagnerian fanfare and a series of introductory captions, identifying it as "the historical document of the 1934 Congress of the National Socialist German Worker's Party."
It's interesting to note the skill with which Leni Riefenstahl constructed the 1934 Party Congress as a nationalistic, moral-booster to inspire the Germans that their time of destiny has come. However, it's also an exercise on picking up hints of Hitler's plans. Hitler says that the racially best of Germany are the carriers of the best blood. At the Night Rally, he declares that "The State does not order us. We order the state" and "The State did not create us. We created the State."
The excellence with which Riefenstahl's film is put together is both magnificent and chilling, and communicates exactly how Hitler had 1930's Germany under his spell. This film was made to further that spell and is direct in its attempts to inspire National pride, devotion, and the feeling that the Nazi party truly can conquer anything that opposes it; as such it is a work of Fantasy more than a work of Politics. Riefenstahl's editing abilities almost match those of her directing and her portrayal of Hitler is messianic.
There is very, very little Anti-Semitism in "Triumph of the Will" but rather a demonstration of the beauty and perfection that Nazi Germany brought to the German people. To the modern viewer this film is seen as the propaganda that it is, however to the viewer of yester-year this film was an Inspiration a Marvel which they sat back and watched while oblivious to what was actually taking place.
This documentary if anything set the standard for long shots, the power effect transcended by mass crowd, and the choking close-ups of a symbol, that of the swastika, and as a piece of art transforming speeches and marches into a political extravaganza, is a masterpiece.
Reefer Madness
Apparently none of the studios in Hollywood cared if French-born director Louis Gasnier's work was consistently mediocre. For one thing, he had an excellent professional background: working at the Paris-based Pathé studios in 1905, he helped bring comedian Max Linder to prominence . Also, Gasnier had an excellent ability to spot talent, discovering leading French actor Jules Berry and American serial queen Pearl White.
In charge of Pathé's American offices in 1914, Gasnier directed White's immortal "The Perils of Pauline". The results have prompted one influential film historian to tag Gasnier's direction as "appalling beyond belief". Throughout the '20s, Gasnier directed several major feature films, which nearly always drew praise for the stars and writing, but never for the directing. When talkies arrived, Gasnier's difficulties in grasping the English language relegated him to poverty-row productions. Gasnier's low-budget "masterpiece" was an anti drug propaganda and was an instant hit. Louis Gasnier retired in 1942;.
The undisputed champion of camp entertainment! An anti-drug propaganda film from 1936 that has become a worldwide cult hit because of its histrionics concerning marijuana use. Teenagers smoking marijuana quickly go insane, start playing "evil" jazz music, and commit acts of rape, murder and suicide. Meant to be an important and affecting cautionary tale, this dated black-and-white film's true value is in its many moments of unintended hilarity.
REVIEW
"Reefer Madness" is perhaps the classic piece of 1930s-era anti-drug propaganda. The story of a stereotypical teenager, whose exposure to the "demon weed" ultimately leads to his being framed for the murder of his girlfriend. It is a film about a drug pusher who lures kids to an apartment party to smoke reefers. A studious friend of one of the regulars winds up getting addicted to the drug and gets caught up in a wild series of marijuana assisted events. Jazz dancing, reckless driving, hit and runs, suicide, murder and sex are all shown as results of smoking reefers in the film. This is a film that is so outdated it becomes good, and it even has a decent plot; the court hearings in the later half of the movie gives it a much more serious tone than the first half which is by today's standards a comic representation of marijuana use. Surprisingly this film is quite entertaining, the 30's view of marijuana is laughably inaccurate to the truth and the story of the school kids who get caught up with the drug is pretty interesting. The documentary gives a historical look at how marijuana was perceived seventy years ago.
This is one of the most notorious exploitation films of the 1930s, largely because young audiences in the 1960s and 1970s made it a cult film in their amusement at its lurid depiction of marijuana and its effects. The film opens with a high-school principal, Joe Forte, lecturing parents on the evils of the weed. He relates the tragic story of how two youngsters from his own school, Kenneth Craig and Dorothy Short, became entangled with dope dealers. In flashback, we see that Thelma White and her male cohort have an apartment where high-school students go to get high. One day McCollum, Short's brother, goes there with a friend, Dave O'Brien. After one puff, O'Brien is hopelessly addicted, and soon brings along his friend Craig, who with equal swiftness becomes a reefer-head. When McCollum drives his sinister supplier over to the supplier's connection to buy some more pot, the stoned boy hits a pedestrian on the return trip. Short, by now concerned about her brother's recent lackadaisical behavior, trails him to the apartment. He isn't there, but O'Brien is. He gives the innocent girl a joint, telling her it's a regular cigarette, and when she's stoned he tries to rape her. Craig stumbles out of a bedroom (where he's just spent the night with O'Brien's girl friend, Lillian Miles) and in his drugged-out state hallucinates that Short is willingly succumbing to O'Brien's advances. A fight ensues in which a gun goes off, killing Short. Craig proceeds to lapse into unconsciousness and when he wakes, White and the others convince the poor boy that he killed Short. The police break in, and O'Brien, found to be hopelessly addicted to marijuana, is committed to a home for the criminally insane "for the rest of his natural life." White goes off to jail; Miles is so overwhelmed by her guilt that she jumps out the high window of the courthouse. When the truth about the shooting comes out, Craig is let off with a reprimand. Some of the dialogues are hilarious, as when O'Brien demands that Miles play the piano "Faster, faster!" as he becomes more and more agitated. All the performers either overact laughably or under act to the point of just standing in place and speaking lines in a monotone. Whether the film ever stopped anyone from smoking marijuana is doubtful, but it certainly turned out to be a greater success than its producers ever dreamed.
The curse of marijuana abuse is spreading across the United States of America like a plague and must be halted. Parents are instructed to learn what they can about the evils of this narcotic and warn their children against it. Dr Carroll (Joseph Forte) is holding a talk about the menace for the horrified parents of the students at his school, where he tells them that marijuana is more addictive than opium, morphine and heroin, and will lead to hallucinations, violence and sexual misconduct - you just have to read the headlines in the newspapers to see that this is the case. To illustrate his points, he settles down to tell the meeting about a recent case they may have heard about, one which happened in their city, near their school, but about which he knows the real facts.
Tobacco is never questioned, but the downward spiral in to drug abuse hell is spelt out with enthusiasm in Reefer Madness.
Dr Carroll's tale is of the visitors to an apartment which is owned by two dealers in dope who lure unsuspecting teenagers into their den of vice, apparently with the "hook them while they're young" mentality of the tobacco companies, but on a reduced scale. Funnily enough, we never see anyone paying for the drugs, as on this evidence they're handed out willy-nilly to anyone the dealers catch in their net; Jack, the main dealer, may be seen visiting his boss who sits at his desk tapping away at an adding machine, but possibly the main reason they want to get the kids on drugs is to bring down society.
Three innocent young people are drawn in by the promise of a party, first Jimmy and Bill two exemplary students up until this point, and later Jimmy's sister and Bill's girlfriend Mary. One drag and they're hooked - we've already seen the piano player at the local cafe is an addict, which presumably explains his over-excited tickling of the ivories. Smoking the weed makes you laugh uncontrollably, dance wildly, and indulge in promiscuous sexual behavior - and that's just for starters. Jimmy can't get enough which results in him mowing down a pedestrian while driving, and Bill's behavior is suffering too. Previously these square kids have been the type who would turn down a cup of strong coffee in case it rendered them light-headed but now anything goes.
There's no need for the old chestnut about marijuana leading to harder drugs for the unwary - here marijuana is the drug to beat them all. Naturally tragedy is right around the corner, as happens when Mary ventures into the apartment looking for Jimmy. She is offered a joint, thoroughly enjoys it, and ends up almost raped by hanger-on Ralph . I say "almost" because before it goes too far she is shot in a scuffle between Bill and Jack and the film adopts the trappings of a courtroom drama, with Bill on trial for murder, little knowing that Jack had pulled the trigger. Incurable madness and suicide await the characters now, and if you haven't finished rolling your eyes you'll be able to see the funny side. However, all Reefer Madness looks like nowadays is bait to bring punters in with the promise of sex and violence instead of any educational value, and therefore a small masterpiece of hypocrisy. It's still not as amusing as its reputation, regardless of the deranged behavior from the actors.
Raising a question
If we are to define or at least somehow describe what makes a film a documentary, the answer comes up like this: "It is a type of film that is based on the real world and real people, depicting things as they are or telling about historical events in a supposedly truthful or objective manner." Or it has to do with a certain realism of style and that it is "filming on some real location without actors, artificial props or a pre-constructed narrative." Sometimes we also just cite the title of a classic book on the subject saying that it is "representing reality." And often enough, we go on to talk a lot about "facts" and "truth" as a necessary condition for non-fiction film. Some smart people may even suggest that it is nothing but the opposite of fiction.
Well in that case a person can be justified in claiming that he is working on documentary films, when in fact what he does for a living is to install surveillance cameras at gas-stations and supermarkets. After all, this does seem to meet the criteria of representing reality, of filming without the use of actors, and recording as truthfully as possible what is actually there - and it is not fiction.
But then certainly this mechanical type of recording and displaying video does not make the man a documentary filmmaker; we need to see some artistic point of view, a message of some sort, a moral or ideological ambition with the film made - in short, a wish to make a difference, to change the world, or at least the way in which some relevant audience will look upon the world or themselves. A documentary film director may adopt the so-called "observational" mode of filming or try to be like "a fly on the wall" but this is a process demanding a lot of choices both in the recording and in the editing phase. It is not just about recording what is there; it is also about selecting and presenting and editing in such a way that we see present conditions as wrong and begin to look for alternatives that should be brought about. Documentary film- making - and also the reception of documentary films - is all about ethics, politics and an aesthetic approach, and as such it is a highly subjective or personal matter.
Reality - Manipulation and Presentation
The example above with the surveillance camera indicates that "recording reality" is too vague a criterion. The continuous mechanical recording of a raw tape lacks the touch of someone selecting and editing for the purpose of expressing or communicating something to someone. Both fiction and non-fiction films differ markedly from a simple mirroring or duplicative function. This is among other things revealed through the camerawork, i.e. all the intentional changes such as camera moves, cuts, composition, all sorts of adjustments that come from human intervention, and through the post-production process of organizing various sound tracks and visual tracks into a whole that was not there before. Time may be condensed and the chronology changed, music, subtitles, or voice-over added, shots may be interlaced or interrupted by wipes, etc. So this is where propaganda actually comes in to the picture. Every change is intentional.
A documentary is not a mere representation, but a willed presentation of something made by someone in a specific way and for someone. So, it becomes obvious that propaganda techniques are applied in documentaries .The phrase "representation of reality" is utterly mistaken as a definition of documentary, because the idea of film as mirroring is a false one and a very misleading ideal. Its here the link between documentary and propaganda is established.
This however does not mean that it is all right to disregard facts or to tell a lie in a non-fiction film. But it must be noted that the "truth" of a film can be understood in other ways. A lot of facts or statements about facts that can be verified may be present even in a fiction film. The whole story may be pure fantasy, the characters fictitious and the behavior of the actors may consist of incredible stunts - but still the film may be striving for "truth" in another sense of the word: true emotions and perhaps even to illustrate some more general truths about human life.
Few filmmakers would admit to making propaganda, although, in effect, many so-called educational films and all advertising or promotional shorts, whether featuring consumer products, vacation sites, or religious sects, may be seen as examples of propaganda. This form of film bears a stigma because of its undisguised aim: to influence ideas and change behavior. Cinematic artistry serves merely as a tool in propaganda.
Propaganda isn't a form of communication which simply seeks to inform; instead, it is both directional because it often seeks to get people to act in some fashion and emotional because it seeks to condition certain emotional reactions to specific situations.
Conclusion.
When a corporation uses the media in an organized and deliberate way to get people to think that a new type of razor is better than the old, that's propaganda. If a private group uses the media in an organized and deliberate way to get people to adopt a negative attitude towards immigrants, that's also propaganda.
