Americas Soviet Film Industry

Letters from O'Brien #38

Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for receiving my letters once again and I am glad you have re-engaged with your readership. Today I’m writing to you about the film industry, an institution that has such a profound impact on most of us, and which seems to be going in a rather disturbing, yet not unexpected, direction. Let me explain…

Something strange has happened to Americas film industry, but it would be a mistake to think that it hasn’t happened before, nor that it cannot be effectively countered.

To begin, it is worth noting that Americas entertainment industry - and specifically its film and music industry - have been at the cutting edge of socialist propaganda since the baton was passed on from the Soviet Union in 1991. This is now becoming more obvious to me. But while the infiltration of a state organisation takes time to reform the entire population, private entities such as film studios can, it seems, be manipulated overnight, and this seems to have been the case in America. During the 1960s, while intelligence agencies and government organisations were slowly being infiltrated from within and ‘re-filled’ with pro-socialists (through a process known as ‘Entryism’) the private sector was being targeted with the same tactic.

There was a refocusing on the private sector as ‘tools’ (rather than mere obstacles), and this most likely emerged from Critical Theorist Herbert Marcuse’s new philosophy on socialism in the west. He believed that (by the 1960s) capitalism had become too good at pleasing people, and thus resolved that activists should no longer focus on the working class, but on the institutions and private corporations. From the 60s onward this tactic worked, and especially so from the late 1980s through to the early 2010s. Two of the first major victims of the socialist infiltration of the private sector were the music industry (although for more complex reasons), and shortly thereafter, the film industry.

DYNAMICS

The underlying principle within the revolutionary socialist mindset is that the United States - like all western free market societies - is a society and culture of contradictions. This was first extrapolated by Karl Marx, but has since been fleshed out in Critical Theory, and later more abstractly by postmodern Theory and Intersectionality. The idea is now stronger than ever, and the past five or so years have seen it influence almost everything in the entertainment industry.

Historical films are the most prone to this destructive restructuring process, and it is part of the reason why so many big-budget historical films are produced while simultaneously being denounced as garbage by historians and fans of history alike.

This is why it is so rare to find - for example - a modern film about the Vietnam war which does not subliminally portray it as an American military industrial complex scheme, or an evil crusade against noble communists. And this extends to World War II films as well. It is no longer enough to produce a film which shows historically accurate facts. It is necessary that a film - particularly if the focus is on the US - include the highlighting of societal contradictions. For example creating a parallel between the Nazis and American racism towards black servicemen or sexism towards women. These moral dilemmas - which may or may not even be historically accurate depending on the film - often completely derail the narrative focus away from the primary objective (for example, soldiers on a particular mission) and on to social commentary about the revolutionary change needed in America, and why it was necessary to implement socialism.

To step out of this line of thinking - willingly or unwillingly - will have consequences from the socialist camp. Dunkirk, for example, received much criticism, not because of any filmmaking error, but because it did not include women or ‘minorities’ as part of its narrative. Since it did not consciously acknowledge systemic oppression which occurred at the time, it was labelled as a film which ‘enables’ or ‘justifies’ the system which oppresses.

The logic behind this argument is simple; if one wants to portray heroism, they must either marry it with inherent contradictions (thus lessening or clouding the heroic theme), or rewrite the narrative to accommodate the victims of systemic oppression in order to portray them - not anyone else - as the true heroes. This serves an interesting purpose, in that it allows the writer to both undermine the concept of a working pre-socialist society (since it suggests that only a society under socialist liberation can produce true heroes) and allows contradictions to be portrayed when non-oppressed characters succeed; they are merely ‘benefiting from the system’, and thus by proxy are furthering the oppression.

These ‘minorities’ - by the way - are not chosen because of any actual care about them on the part of the writers, but because they are the necessary ‘character’ to uphold the illusion that revolutionary change was needed to liberate and restructure society. They provide the ‘living proof’ of the contradictions within a pre-revolutionary culture.

Luckily there are still a few exceptions to this process every year. For example, the big-budget WWII drama Midway stayed surprisingly true to actual events, portrayed American heroism and camaraderie, and didn’t ‘propagandise’ the Japanese. It also refused to partake in the ‘demoralised’ tone popular amongst post-Vietnam war films. The lesser-known Mr Jones - another mostly accurate depiction of the Soviet genocide in Ukraine during the 1930s - is another example. Even Top Gun 2 managed to stay true to the older model of filmmaking, without forcing ideological talking points into the narrative. However, as time goes on, I am worried that such films will become rarer with each passing year.

THE SOVIET PROCESS

This exact same process has been undertaken by practically all socialist nations. The film industry is overtaken, then used to repaint history - both foreign and domestic - in a way which validates the revolutionary cause. Films produced before the ‘revolution’ (be it literal or psychological) are labelled as by-products of the pre-socialist culture, and as such are inaccurate or biased. Thus, history can be rewritten, and anything preceding it can simply be done away with in the name of ‘accuracy’ or ‘bias’. Great examples of this include the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China.

The Soviets - for example - were some of the best filmmakers in the world at the time of the revolution, and by the 1920s were revolutionising cinema as well. Modern editing emerged from Soviet filmmakers, who experimented with cutting and splicing to produce particular psychological outcomes. The films were good, but they were also blatant propaganda aimed at rewriting history. The Soviets perfected the process early on by intertwining socialist ideas with culturally popular themes to appeal to the audience (something western socialists are not so adept at), such as nationalism and pride in the Russian nation (popular among young people following World War I), and the rise of capitalist America in the 1920s. An interesting side note is that several Soviet films produced between the 1920s and 1940s portrayed America as a racist and unfair nation.

This exact same process would repeat in National Socialist Germany, which also produced some of the best cinema for its time. As with all socialist media, it also sought to repaint history and use complex psychological (and subliminal) processes to attain particular outcomes from the audience. For example, a common narrative was the idea of a ‘lost’ or ‘forgotten golden age’ some time far back in history, in which the Germanic people lived united under paganism, before the introduction of Christianity, the free market or bartering (rather than working the land), and democracy (inherently corrupted). As with the narratives pushed today regarding the history of America, actual stories and historical events are used, but the overarching narrative is so vague and abstract that it almost certainly had to be crafted by a modern writer by stringing together unrelated ideas. 

REWRITING HISTORY

This leads me to the conclusion that one of the primary aims of this process is to create a rewritten view on history, with a particularly emphasis on one’s own history, in order to absorb him into the broader mindset that history is being ‘perfected’ through the realisation of societal contradictions.

In the Soviet Union some common narrative themes included the Bolshevik Revolution, life in pre-revolutionary Russia (highlighting societal disparity), stories of the White Army and its ‘atrocities’ against the noble Bolshevik fighters (famously portrayed in Battleship Potemkin, which ends with ‘class solidarity’ between Tsarist and Red Army soldiers against the rulers). In most cases the films presented themselves as objective in their retelling, or at least in their moral presentation of historical events.

Hollywood mimics the Soviet approach in many ways. This should now be evident. While the Soviets sought to establish a new Russia in the mind of the viewer and do away with the idea of the old, Hollywood seeks to demoralise the viewer in regard to his own nation and heritage, taint the name and history, and re-educate him to realise his own role in the establishment and prolongation of a racist, oppressive regime.

OVERTURNING CULTURE

Now as the topic is on filmmaking, another albeit tangential, idea comes to mind. The past decade has seen an endless number of reboots, recreations, sequels, and spinoffs, not only of popular or iconic films, but of TV series, video games, and theatrical plays. Now it is to be expected that successful ideas are followed up occasionally, or perhaps ‘modernised’, but never to the extent that the entertainment industry has accelerated this trend in recent years.

Viewer ratings of such films are all one needs to look at to understand that people not only don’t like these films, they don’t even want them in the first place. But what many fail to see is that there is a reason why these films are produced, and produced in such a way as to essentially destroy or taint the names of the original artistic works they supposedly stem from.

This side motive is basically a form of demoralisation (a Soviet cold war ploy against the west if there ever was one). Films which are well established within the public eye (and indeed any artistic work more broadly) creates a sort of cultural bond between people. Not only that, but good films often inspire said groups. A great example is Star Wars, which has created a cultural bond not only amongst Westerners, but across many nations, and this bond has grown stronger across three generations of people. Its heroic setting, broad appeal, and uncontroversial ethics lead it to popularity. The initial six films stuck to this method. However, as with so many other iconic franchises, the ‘Sequel Trilogy’ (episodes 7 through to 9) appears to be destroying this legacy.

Part of this destruction came in the form of ideological narratives, which were forced strongly into the 7^th and 8^th films. Themes of racism, sexism, and oppression run deep in these two films, again causing a moral dilemma for the audience. Other ideological talking points are thrown in, including themes of women’s liberation and the oppression to women caused by straight men. Then, most importantly, the iconic heroes of the old films are (almost symbolically) dethroned from their glory in various fashions and killed off. Han Solo was portrayed as an out of touch old person, unable to keep up with the changes taking place. Leia’s death was also handled poorly, allowing room for the writers to invert her historically feminine character and turn it into a launching pad for the strange feminist narrative presented in the 8^th film. But worst of all was the attack on the character of Luke Skywalker, first by presenting him as incompetent, and then throwing him into an ideological allegory in which the oppressed woman (Rey) proves herself to be more than the bigoted, out of touch male (Luke), thus undoing an entire series of character development. Even the actor - Mark Hamill - admitted that he thought what the writers were doing to his character was wrong.

Luckily the writers of the 9^th film in the franchise appear to have restrained themselves from continuing doing this to the same extent, although it is still there, and it’s confusing narrative and structure prevents it from redeeming the series from the damage done by the 7^th and (especially) 8^th films. And this is just one example. Many other franchises have been attacked in the exact same way, with writers seeking to corrode the fabric of the narratives and turn the series into points of political agitation and demoralisation.

COUNTERING THE THREAT

So, is it possible to counter the threat raised by the ideological intrusion into the film industry? I believe the answer is yes.

Unlike the earlier Soviet and Chinese methods of media manipulation, the current infiltration into the western culture relies on an ‘opt-in’ mindset, paired with a little (artificial) social pressure. Since the levers of power cannot be completely manipulated as was the case in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and so forth, in which anyone could be force into whatever position the state wished, there is a much broader opportunity for the western world to rebel against this takeover.

What Marcuse did not appear to realise is that the private sector must be under direct and absolute state control (and thus no longer be a private sector) if it is to continually produce neo-Marxist propaganda. Why? Because a manipulated private sector is still technically subject to the free market, and by extension something which must pass the approval test of the public. There are exceptions, but generally speaking this is the case. Because most neo-Marxist ideas are not naturally appealing (in contrast to some Soviet and Maoist ideas were appealing to people) this means that the turnout for films pushing these ideological talking points will usually fail at the box office. The result is an unsustainable industry, which is propped up by larger corporate funders, who themselves must either adhere to the ideology and eventually fail due to falling profits or contradict themselves and actually listen to the free market (thus enabling ‘the system’ to continue).

Two things appear most effective, and these are two of the most obvious responses; do not watch films which appear to push a neo-Marxist agenda, and critique the films from a logical perspective, highlighting why they are propaganda, and why the public does not wish to absorb such content anymore.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien

Previously from O’Brien…