So was this a complete US propaganda film? I liked the movie, but, if you step back and think about it, the entire movie is the glorification of a failed US operation.
Also what are some legitimate hidden propaganda films today? The Green Beret, IP man, and Braveheart come to mind.
>It's a "Everything that is ever depicted in media is intended to glorify it, and this is inherently bad" thread
>>>/pol/
>>929946
I never said that nor I am promoting /pol/ cause. I know media always has a direction, but some are blatantly used to promote propaganda, a government agenda.
>>929907
any movie made with the express collaboration of the armed forces is propaganda, since they won't collaborate unless the message is reasonably pro military and nationalistic. the US armed forces are famed for this, but i suspect any armed services whose tanks n' shit have been asked for by a production company will be equally keen to see a script and veto any anti-military and/or subversive messages before allowing collaboration. the only exception i can think of offhand was the phillipines and their collaboration on apocalypse now.
even supposedly subversive and harrowing portrayals of war never really question the assumption that "we" are the good guys, it's only ever really down to the good guys fucking up or a few bad apples that bad things happen because of us.
9th company was a good russian example. they could have taken on board the shaky cam realism hollywood had infused it's propaganda with, though. the battle scenes were kinda shit imho.
>>929907
>IP man
It's not just Ip Man. Pretty much any movie made in China has at least some amount of obvious nationalistic propaganda in it. They have to in order to be approved by the country's film board.
>>929907
That Delta operator though.
>>929907
>thread about a movie released 15 years ago about something that took place 23 years ago.
>>929907
>Black Hawk Down
>in any way glorifying one of the greatest publicity blunders of the American military
You are stupid, OP.
>propaganda
>an hour and a half of americans getting fucked up by a bunch of africans in one of the worst military blunders in us history
>>929907
>its a "movie about the US military has a theme of anything other than how evil and bad all american soldiers and america is in general, so its right wing propaganda" thread
It's not propaganda. It's film about Americans, made by Americans, for Americans. Were they supposed to portray glorious islamist militias in their struggle against the UN oppressors?
>>929907
The movie was based on the book of the same name so it probably follows the account of events in it although there are probably some other points of view out there that weren't mentioned especially coming from the Somali side.
It's still loads more accurate than Braveheart.
Here's some actual footage of the UN intervention for comparison.
https://youtu.be/v0MftGJSjwM
https://youtu.be/bwL4hKi6qhc
>>929946
Most military films have propaganda of some form in it. You can only have tanks and other american military vehicles in your film if the army approves the film's plot and story (i.e. it makes the army look good). Coppola had to use helicopters from the Phillipine army because America didn't approve of the films message.
>>929946
>people are actually this ignorant
>>>/reddit/
>>930011
And that's why all the good Chinese movies are about revolutionary China or ancient China and not communist China.
I love how literally everything that isn't a revisionist Oliver Stone tier bitchfest where all soldiers are rapists and the message is WE ARE THE REAL BAD GUYS, is labeled propaganda.
I mean you could've picked at least American Sniper which actually can be labeled propaganda, but Black Hawk Down, seriously faggot?
