The Hunger Games: War Propaganda 101

Economics Political Theory
21

OK, some more thoughts on HG (spoilers, of course).

First of all, I will note my consternation that entertainment can no longer simply be entertaining. This is always a symptom of pervasive politicization of society. We have songs, art, books, movies, and so on that are supposed to “send a message”. The Elites have staged a takeover of the liberal arts and the humanities and what was once a weapon of liberalism (the Arts) has been perverted to serve the ends of the State.

But the fact always remains that it is the System which is corrupt and careful unmasking of the System will never fail; people recognize true art when they see it. In an era where the Arts have become the handmaiden of State propagandists, Hunger Games absolutely stands in the proud tradition of truly anti-Establishment art. I don’t think it’s going to change the world or anything but it’s a welcome relief from the relentless onslaught of Pentagon-funded recruiting films and other propaganda bullshit being pushed through every form of media today. Until such time as we can return to the days where a movie was just a diversion and songs were just fun and meant to be danced along with, we can at least enjoy the few tidbits of anti-Establishment satire that come along.

The climactic scene of the movie is its primary message and it is different from most movies, even movies that are critical of the Establishment. The two tributes embarrass the ruling Elites by a simple act of moral determination. Simply by choosing to refuse to go along with the Games, committing suicide rather than going along, they force the Gamemakers to back down on live television in front of the entire country. As the Mentor says, “They don’t take these things lightly” and that’s a fact. You can see this in the reaction to the breakdown of the 2009 Copenhagen Summit which was supposed to usher in a world government. It was hushed up almost immediately and I believe a globe-spanning string of retaliatory strikes was launched against whoever was responsible. Embarrassment, mockery and ridicule is the one thing they will not tolerate.

Unlike most movies, forcing the Establishment to budge didn’t require “everyone to work together.” Almost everyone did the wrong thing: played along. To the extent required to defend their own lives and the lives of other innocents, Peter and Katness also fought. But they went no further. The Establishment was forced to make a concession by two individuals, each acting in accordance with their own conscience and simply refusing to do what is immoral: murder. This is not just another tired exhortation to the modern panacea of democracy.

The Capitol is clearly displayed as a place filled with deviants and vapid narcissists. It is opulent in the extreme. In the “outlying districts”, Katness has supported her family by poaching squirrels and fowl and cooking them or selling them in exchange for bread and other supplies in black markets. The arrival of the Peacekeepers for the Reaping is welcomed because it is possible to raise large amounts of money by selling black market goods to the Peacekeepers. The implication is that Peacekeepers are well-paid while the commoners are reduced to hunting and eating varmin to survive.

And how did things get this way? Well, a propaganda video clearly lays it out for us. Once upon a time, Panem was ruled by the Capitol and all was peaceful. But then some traitors began a rebellion and war and famine engulfed the land. But the Capitol bravely fought off these rebels and once they had been defeated, the Districts decided to form a binding pact that would prevent this horrible war from ever happening again. And so the Hunger Games were created and each year, each District offers up in tribute a young man and a young woman between the ages of 12 and 18 to be killed, that is, to fight to the death. Every year, 23 of the 24 Tributes die and the victor is showered with wealth and enters a life of low-level political moving-and-shaking and might become a mentor to other Tributes.

So, the opulent Capitol rules the 12 districts by blood tribute for their own good, of course! The only reason the country is not back in the horrible wars and famines is because of the Capitol. Duh. This is a wonderful deconstruction of political unionism. The standard line of the political unionist when confronted with the suggestion that secession is a valid solution to political ills: “Secession is racism!” This is iron-clad logic, folks. But HG puts the lie to this bullshit and makes it clear that the purpose of political unionism is the enrichment of a useless political class in a far-off land.

OK, that’s all I have for now. I’ll ruminate further and write down whatever else comes to mind.

Clayton -

22

I figured I’d jump in too.

I haven’t read the books, but the first thing my wife got on her Kindle for Christmas was get all three of the books. She read them very quickly. She’s a fairly voracious reader when she’s got something she likes - like Harry Potter or Twilight (God love her). She’d react to the books as she read them and I’d ask her to tell me what was going on and so I had a pretty decent understanding of the plot.

I don’t want to hype it too much, but I really liked it. Compared to the other teeny movies it was by far the best one (my wife took me to the first Harry Potter movie before giving up on those movies and we made it halfway through the second Twilight movie before giving up on those).

The camera work was a bit jumpy (think Bourne series), but I thought it was very well done. The first scene during the games was pretty good, you knew kids were being slaughtered and you knew pretty much how they were being killed but the director did a nice job making it disturbing without being graphic.

I love that the movie (and book I assume) were chock full of symbolism - militarism, imperialism, statism, media duplicity (Stanley Tucci did a FANTASTIC job in a role that could easily have been made into a farce) and a whole host of other things.

I’d definitely let my daughter read this series when she’s 12-13 years old. Lots of great teaching points.

23

Watched it tonight, was pretty awesome. I have not seen a movie like that in theaters that actually had me into it, to where it would affect how I was feeling, and that movie is pretty suspensful during the “game.” Only problem is I work at a movie theater, so everything is already a spoiler and I had already seen the end of the game and knew who survived, but besides that I was pretty glued to what was going on and was far from being bored.

SPOILER

Some things I enjoyed, what her boyfriend said in the beginning, “If we don’t watch, they don’t have a game.” This line alone can be interpreted in many ways, but it again made me think of Spooner and voting.

Second thing is when Rue was killed and her district starts to riot. Bluntly put, that was the shit. One of the things they started to destroy was the containers for the grain, and when you take their food your name gets put into the raffle for the games.

Woody Harrelson did a pretty good job at being a rather disinterested and pessimistic mentor. He knows how the system works, he doesn’t like it, he knows the best way is to think out the box to grab their attention. For him it’s already past, the best he can do is help whoever else. Plus he looks better with long hair compared to other roles he plays in.

24

If it was just satire, then I might see how the OP could come up with the wrong conclusion. But this movie was direct, in your face anti-war and more specifically anti-conscription.

Biggest risk I see in misinterpretation is an assumption this has to do with rich vs. poor or as an attack on capitalism. I expect some to make that argument, but there’s no grounds for it.

The bad guys are clearly the state, the media that advances it, and entities (individual or corporate) that back it. Although, I didn’t see any specific reference to any corporate entity.

The message can apply to the US or just about anywhere in the world, which is one of the reasons I believe this film is doing well. I’m pleased to see such a movie made and widely accepted. The studio is going to make a ton of money.

25

http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/clabough10.1.html

26

Wow, I have a very unique view here, but I would expect you guys to have some more original ideas than “wow this hollywood production is both brilliant and absolutely not anything to do with propaganda!” Your responses seem more like knee jerk reactions and void of elementary critical thinking.

Obviously, it was very explicit about having seemingly anti-war anti-state things going on. But the devil doesn’t just show up looking all scary and opposed to us, if he is trying to warp our minds as any rational person knows Hollywood is. I’m more interested in the propaganda of it, the subtle messages and themes.

Of course there is propaganda in it, since it’s a major production. Specifically its war propaganda. I pointed out the things I noticed, another way is to look at the people in charge.

An extremely elementary look at the men behind the curtain will reveal some basic facts that should at least make anyone think.

Lionsgate, the distributor, is “the most commercially successful independent film and television distribution company in North America.” You would expect if the powers that be wanted to push a propaganda through conventional media, Lionsgate would be near the top of their list. To take it a step further, you would realize that you probably don’t become so huge in Hollywood unless you’re serving the masters well. On the surface, that means providing content for viewers; underneath the surface that means accomplishing the goals of people behind the scenes who hold massive power over their careers and reputations. Lionsgate has distributed a laundry list of propaganda, obviously including the standard war, sex, and openly-warp-your-mind propaganda.

The producers come from movies like Boys and Girls, Mean Girls, Flirting with 40, and Alexander. The director, also a screenplay writer, is working on another war propaganda movie at the moment. The other screenplay writer comes from movies like The Shooter and Hart’s War.

So maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the fact that it looked and sounded like war propaganda had nothing to do with the fact it was funded by the heart of hollywood and produced by people with a history of war and sex propaganda. You’re right, I was jumping to conclusions…

27

You forget that ultimately it’s about the $$$. I can’t seem to recall where I saw this, but recently I caught a segment talking about what movies ultimately get made (and if I recall, there was bit of focus on the notion that studios or companies or a liberal Hollywood bias drives the industry), and they had various producers and such being honest and just saying how they can’t just make whatever they want…ultimately it’s about what makes money.

I distinctly remember one producer or director saying how people always ask him “why don’t you make more movies like Radio or ___.” And he was like “because people…don’t…watch.”

(If anyone can tell me where this is from, I’d really appreciate it).

But as you can see from the post above, the book did incredibly well…(and not to mention was a series, and geared toward a younger audience)…all of which these days spells “enormous hit” at the box office (ever heard of something called Twilight or Harry Potter?) And as anyone who glances at the latest numbers can see, the trend continues.

28

Even Brave New World was about the rebel, and it all fell apart at the end but don’t you actually believe Aldous Huxley genuinely wanted everyone to oppose the new world order. Since when is Hollywood promoting anti-establishment messages? Take the premise of the film/books. This dystopian future already happens. Right off the bat, it’s mental conditioning to a preconceived plan. Which can be verified entirely in UN documents.

So, everyone comes out saying, “yeah, fight the man!” And then they go watch UFC in SUVs with “support the troops” stickers. Because their government isn’t like that. They’re free…

29

I don’t really understand your criticism. These things were made in purpose to show how evil are those people. The white dominant murderer was not supposed to be a positive character you know.

One propaganda technique is to simply expose people to a particular concept through fiction, so that they will be less surprised when they encounter it in real life - being less surprised, one is less likely to react. For this purpose, it makes no difference how the concept is portrayed (i.e. negatively or positively), as the idea is to generate familiarity with the stimulus, not to condition a particular response to the stimulus.

People talk about how we’ve been desensitized to violence - we have. But this was accomplished primarily through constant exposure to violence, not so much through the glorification of violence (yes, of course there’s plenty of that too, by IMO it’s less of a factor, and it’s aimed at creating future soldiers/cops, not so much at the general population - they just want the general population to be docile in the face of things that should upset them).

30

Habba, exactly.

Minarchist, exactly, also. It doesn’t matter what you see, what matters is that you don’t really think too hard about it one way or the other so the perpetrator elicits the proper unconscious response—or at least a strong wrong response in the sense that if you get people asking the wrong questions then their response doesn’t matter. That’s the whole basis of any fantasy content, actually. And people know this, which is why it works—for example, nobody watched the hunger games thinking it was an honest independent documentary. Like it didn’t matter that visually we see the military superhero “lose” and be “exposed” in the end, what matters is that repeatedly our unconscious associates him with a 10 and his killing with “getting the girl” and the sound of girls giggling. What matters is that his being a 10 and girls giggling from slaughter is never examined rationally, even if we accept that he was a bad guy in the end. Hollywood is overflowing with evil villians that have attractive personalities and other enjoyable features to distract us from objectively examining the evil and the inherent contradictions in any Hollywood story.

I think a major THING for lack of a better word in the movie is to show us so much conflicting information that we just don’t bother untangling it. So it doesn’t matter if 90% of the movie seemed libertarianish to 90% of viewers, as long as the crew managed to slip 10% of X propaganda content and as long as viewers prefer socialism and giggle at twisted circumstances in the end. That isn’t an anti-state movie, it’s a plain war propaganda movie with sex slave themes, delivered in Hollywoods superficial anti-state wrapping.

I don’t recall every last thing perfectly, but I rarely watch a lot of mainstream productions of any sort and the propaganda was blatant to me. It was just shallow and transparent with a pretty picture. I don’t know anything about the supposed anti-state themes of the book, or anything about the story other than what I saw, and while I was watching the movie with a blank slate and utter curiousity I never expected anyone to think it had strong anti-state themes. I must be a much more critical thinker than I realized.

31

Can one of the mods change the title of this thread? I am frustrated that the only thread about Hunger Games on this forum implies in the title that it’s “war propaganda” when nothing could be further from the truth.

Clayton -

32

This movie was based on a novel, by the way. It wasn’t actually dreamed up by Hollywood.

The basic story is based on an old archetype, modified to incorporate gladiatorial combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus#Theseus_and_the_Minotaur

You can also see this archetype applied to a futuristic totalitarian society in the first novel written by Stephen King, ‘The Long Walk’, which is a good read btw. Very political compared to what he became better known for.

33

Yeah, people seem to forget that in their anti-hollywood fury sometimes. There ain’t nothing wrong with a struggle against leviathan.

34

Although if you want to be paranoid, it is worth noting that the United States has been split into 13 competing “Districts” in the books (the 13th is thought lost, and doesn’t appear in the first book)…

And the DHS has already split the United States into 13 Regions in real life… :slight_smile:

http://www.dhs.gov/files/reportincidents/gc_1268677752685.shtm

35

No.

As a discussion, you’re welcome to say that in your opinion based purely on your feelings it’s not propaganda.

However, since it is actually propaganda and I built the case for that, then if you intend to argue that it’s not propaganda the burden of proof is entirely on you. You will utterly fail miserably and embarrassingly trying to prove a Hollywood movie produced by war and sex propagandists and distributed by the biggest mainstream propaganda dealer in North America isn’t propaganda. That, and the OP, and the actual movie itself, at a bare minimum.

Again, the devil doesn’t just show up looking like a scary monster to scare you off if he’s trying to warp your mind over the course of years. Neither does Hollywood—except, as I pointed out, when they are trying to sell you scary monsters so you can purposefully warp your own mind. It doesn’t matter what you see 90% of the time, or even if you rationalize the other 10%, as long as your unconscious doesn’t question the propaganda of it.

Generally, you know if propaganda is working because the vast majority of people will deny it. For example, here.

36

I think Bert’s list just grew.

37

I think your mom’s list just grew, but you don’t see me throwing that around like some valuable on topic contribution to this thread.

However, if you care to actually address something I said in context then I am perfectly willing to show why you’re hilarious for thinking a major production during a major crisis period in our nation, funded written directed and produced by the heart of Hollywood and professional war and sex propagandists is somehow actually a movie intended to promote anti-statism and libertarian themes during a time when the powerful people in this country want the exact opposite.

Because without rational arguments supported by evidence, we just have idiots bumbling around blowing hot air at each other like “I think Bert’s list just grew.”

38

Clayton, you are analyzing the story, not the propaganda. The story is what you see and comprehend consciously. Anyone can analyze that.

This thread is about the propaganda. The sounds combined with visuals to elicit an emotional response in your unconscious, that is, by definition you don’t think about it unless you’ve already caught on. Sure, a bomb may explode and someone may die and you may think that’s bad—and that would be an example of the story and not addressing the propaganda. If we address the propaganda of the scene then we realize it was just a second among billions of split-seconds people see for years upon years as preparation for war and PTSD. Like how the movie showed trauma, didn’t address it objectively or rationally, and them completely movied on to more trauma and impossible moral decisions. It’s the subtleties. The implied things. Like how it is implied that the military superhero is getting BJs in between scenes of girls giggling around him as they slaughter people.

39

A movie trying to get an emotional response from the audience?! A action sequence that get us thrilled and worried? OH MY GOD, IT’S THE SUPERSTRUCTURE BRAINWASING WAS, CALL THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL TO SAVE US.

40

@hashem: And then there are people whose job it is to do damage control whenever non-PC approved books or movies make a break-out into the popular press and the movie screen. These people are called disinformation agents and they say things like “Apocalypse Now was a pro-war movie masquerading as an anti-war movie! Look at all the bloody scenese! Don’t see it!” or “Hunger Games is just anothe pro-war propaganda movie meant to desensitize you!”

You clearly didn’t see the movie or at least weren’t awake and paying attention through the the whole thing. If the implication of the scene depicting the “10” running around with some girls (and guys) is that “the warrior gets the girl”, then it is much more strongly stated that the good guy actually lives to become wealthy, famous and likely get the girl.

If you ask me, the only conflicting information that needs untangling is coming from you, not the movie.

Sex-slavery is a logical consequence of slavery-slavery which is - again - directly depicted in the movie. District 11 (most black) riots after the weakest little girl (Rue) is killed. In fact, the principle of Karma as actually taught by, for example, the Dalai Lama (rather than the bastardized, Western version of Karma) is accurately depicted in the movie when Katniss is fortuitously saved from certain death by the knife-wielding girl (I believe from District 1, where they do the military training and volunteer for the games) by a black Tribute who - despite being in it for himself like all the others - is moved by Katniss’s protection of Rue and attempted humanization of her death, at great risk to herself.

I wonder why that is.

Oh yes, you are a very deep thinker. You even admit yourself that you haven’t even seen the movie.

There’s no “sex slavery” direct or implied and I already explained why exploring the sexual abuse dimension of a slave-society is both unnecessary (we’re already sexually libealized, probably too much if anything) and simply inappropriate to the intended audience. Most kids, despite the propaganda, don’t have much sex and whatever little sex they are having is not sufficient to put the issue in proper perspective. For kids, sex is a world filled with the goblins and demons of their own ignorance. As they mature, most of those goblins and demons are dispelled and the true nature of sex - in all its glory and ugliness - is revealed to them.

Author Suzanne Collins explicitly states that she got the idea while watching a news clip of troops going into Iraq after clicking over from a channel on a reality TV show (I presume something like Survivor). Whether this is a true story or not is beside the poitn - the implication of her explanation of the motivation for writing the book is not only anti-war but deeply conspiracy theoretic. The implication is that war is a production. Not only is it a production, it’s the most expensive production of them all. And it’s put on by the Powers That Be on a continual basis so as to keep people in line. The true purpose of war is not winning territory - which can be done at much lower cost through diplomatic means, assassinations, strategic threats and economic bullying. Collins is saying through Hunger Games that the true purpose of war is the spectacle of it. That’s as insanely anti-war as you can possibly get.

Nice try at damage-control with this thread, though. Anyone who has seen the movie will see right through your BS.

Clayton -