Summary:

    Eisenstein’s short article addresses the issue of subject matter in the movie Alexander Nevsky. As the title suggests, Eisenstein vehemently argues that throughout the entire production of the movie, the slogan “patriotism” was “constantly before me and before our entire group, during the shots, during the sound recordings and during the cutting” (398). He also asserts that Communism, or the Communist Party is the guardian of national identity, national independence and true patriotism throughout the world. He links the Teutonic and Livonian knights that invaded Russia in the 13th century to contemporary fascists in the Germany and draws metaphors between the specific historic epoch depicted in Alexander Nevsky and the perils of Hitler’s rising aggression in the late 1930s, only to triumphantly affirm that Communism will prevail against all enemies, since the struggle for the ideal of fairness, freedom and national rights derives its moral from the Soviet Union.

Evaluation & Analysis:

    From an artistic perspective, this article is totally irrelevant because it doesn’t elaborate on any cinematic theories nor does it scrutinize film’s form or content, and even if it does interpret its content in some fashion, it is obvious from the beginning that we are dealing with the communist propaganda of Socialist Realism, which automatically renders any artistic reading of this article invalid. Nor does the document offer any details on the collaboration activities between Eisenstein and Prokofiev. However, this article is a showcase of the Communist Party’s absolute control over the realm of art and from a historical perspective, it is serves as a practical demonstration how the Party extolled the doctrine of Socialist Realism as the prescribed art form for Soviet writers, artists and film-makers, starting in the early 1930s. Despite the fact that Eisenstein used his first sound film to illustrate his theories on the use of sound and the cooperation with Prokofiev led to production of a magnificent score, by publishing a political propaganda article of this kind, Eisenstein himself undermines the aesthetic value of his own film. Since the Socialist Realism was the only accepted form of art in the Soviet Union, this article also rises an important question – does Prokofiev’s and (especially) Eisenstein’s political subservience to Stalin deny these artists their positions as one of the great artists of the 20th century? And how does the doctrinaire nature of Alexander Nevsky affect the artistic values of the film and its musical score?

• Leonard J. Leff. "The Breening of America." PMLA, Vol. 106, No. 3 (May, 1991), pp. 432-445 Published by: Modern Language Association

Leonard J. Leff’s article “The Breening of America” works to point out the fact that as head of the PCA Joseph Breen worked not only out of concern for upholding decency and morality, but at the same time he attempted to promote a political, profit-seeking agenda. The article indicates that many famed Hollywood directors including Charlie Chaplin shared the same contempt for certain aspects of American culture written about by famous authors such as Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Steinbeck, but they did not have the same freedom in expressing it.

The article characterizes Joseph Breen, who had fully realized power in July 1934 when The MPPDA created the PCA and named him director. Breen is noted to be morally conservative, and at the same time to have tyrannical tendencies. Nevertheless, Breen is described most aptly in this article as a facilitator between social forces, and American filmmakers. He is attributed with both providing a staunch conservative influence on the social environment, and with maximizing the profitability of Hollywood by way of giving the American public precisely what they wanted to see.

This is a particularly interesting portrayal of an organization that was for all intents and purposes designed to provide censorship. A censor of the film industry cannot be arbitrarily lawless and continually maximize profitability. Joseph Breen realized this and therefore took on his aforementioned facilitator role. This applies directly to The Grapes of Wrath because it begs the question; would the film have been as profitable if it it’s thematic focus was more closely aligned with Steinbeck’s? Leff would contend that it probably would not have been as profitable. Needless to say however, the thematic focus of the film was tailored toward providing entertainment that was uplifting at least to some extent.

• Peter Lisca “The Grapes of Wrath as Fiction.” PMLA, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Mar., 1957), pp. 296-309 Published by: Modern Language Association

Peter Lisca writes in his article “The Grapes of Wrath as Fiction” that Steinbeck artfully integrates the two essential elements of a piece of fiction in such a way that it cannot suffer from the potential criticism of being labeled propaganda. The two elements Lisca aims to highlight are plot and characters. More specifically, Lisca is referring to the creation of the fictional family the Joads and their relationship to the harsh realities of the Great Depression.

Steinbeck is able to indicate quite convincingly that the entirety of his work is representative of circumstances brought on Americans by the economic and political context of life during the Great Depression. He falls short of shameless propaganda however, because he is able to develop his characters in such a way that all of their emotional responses are the byproduct of real social conditions. Further, the portrayal is not one-sided. There are moments of hope throughout the novel, and it even ends on a relative high-note.

It is important to note that there are very few critics of Steinbeck’s work. This being the case, if the theme of The Grapes of Wrath the film were aligned with Steinbeck’s it can only be assumed that it would have been popular and profitable. The film could certainly have been more inclusive of social conditions, and less focused on simply an examination of a solitary family unit. Nevertheless it is vital to recognize that the film did not represent a departure from a propagandistic theme. The thematic difference lies in the completeness of the portrayal of plot and characters.

Miller. Peter. " Evil genius of Hitler's propaganda machine," Sunday Times (London) 05 Jul 1992. LexisNexis. 29 Nov 2008

      This article is about Joseph Goebbels and his pivotal role in the formation of Adolph Hitler’s status and power.  Goebbels was one of few individuals that realized early on the importance of the support of the masses in attaining power.  As minister of propaganda, Goebbels was in charge of making sure that the citizens perceived all information the way that the Nazi Party wanted them to.  While originally he was against Hitler, he soon recognized Hitler’s great oratory talents.  While Hitler was the orator that delivered the message to the German people, Goebbels was the one making sure that the content of the message was, indeed, the "proper" message to be relayed to the masses.  Goebbels utilized radio, television, and cinema to spread his propaganda.  He was very effective with this media and realized their importance in fostering public support. Through this manipulation of the public did Goebbels enable the Nazi Party to accomplish its many terrible deeds.  Goebbels was very committed to the Nazi cause and arguably was just as or even more important to many of its “accomplishments” than Hitler.  Like Hitler, Goebbels and his family also suffered a bloody fate.
     Goebbels realized that before the Nazi Party could gain power and take over the state, they had to win over the hearts and minds of the people.  Because of the importance of fostering the support of the masses, Goebbels placed such a great emphasis on propaganda.  His use of film allowed his propaganda to most effectively reach the masses. Film was the most influential medium for propaganda because it allowed for great subtlety in the portrayal of the message the Nazis wanted.  The importance of film as a tool for propaganda and Joseph Gobbels’ high priority of attaining the support of the German public as minister of propaganda led to an overemphasis of the value of film, specifically when he unwisely allocated an excessive amount of money and troops—much needed resources for the war—to the making of the film Kolberg.

Marshall. L. "A Nazi Piece of Work," Herald Sun 06 May 1995. LexisNexis. 1 Dec 2008

     While Kolberg, has been criticized for being such an extravagant film that was filmed very late in the war and so close to Germany's defeat, there was another film that was being produced after Kolberg.  The production of this film went on almost until Germany’s defeat.  With shortages, bombings, and death only twenty miles away, Goebbels ordered the making of another extrazagant film, Das Leben geht weiter or Life Goes On. The set designer of this last film of the Nazi era, was instructed to “spare no expense to recreate the aftermath of the devastating Berlin air raids in November 1943”(Marshall).  This film was meant to be an updated version of Kolberg that just as extravagant.  The idea of the film was Goebbels', who definitely became obsessed with film.   This last film had mostly been forgotten in history.  This is in part because those involved were embarrassed they were part of the film , so they did not talk about the film.  The other reason is that the footage was completely lost.
    Most film historians view Kolberg as Goebbels' last production and biggest folly, but Das Leben geht weiter apparently takes its place.  This last film shows how illogical Goebbels was.  Germany did not have the resources to endure in World War II, but Goebbels felt that it had the resources to make a 2.5 million marks budget film.  Goebbels' priorities were very misguided.  He definitely should have had someone checking his power.  Goebbels wasted so many of Germany’s resources on useless film production.  Kolberg was barely viewed by audiences and Das Leben geht weiter was never finished and the footage was completely lost.  Even if these films had been viewed, they still would have been wasteful because the resources were needed so much more for the war effort.  Goebbels definitely overvalued film to the point where he was willing to sacrifice the war.  While this wasteful film production was not the cause of Germany’s loss, it definitely did nothing to help Germany endure with so many resources were being diverted away from the war.

Kracauer, Siegfried. From Caligari to Hitler, a psychological history of the German Film. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947.

“Nazi Views And Measures”

    All films in Nazi Germany were propaganda films.  Newsreels and features were the two forms of propaganda.  Newsreels were a means of propaganda not information.  The purpose of newsreels was to give the German people skewed world views.  The production of newsreels greatly increased at the onset of WWII. While newsreels portrayed falsified messages, the scenes shown were never faked—they were always actual footage taken on site.  This element made these propaganda newsreels more believable.  The Nazis prided themselves on the fact that the cameramen for newsreels were like “regular soldiers, doing a soldier’s full duty, always in the first lines…” (Kracauer 276).  The deaths of these cameramen and reporters at the front lines were emphasized to the public to reiterate the fact that the reporters were, indeed, amongst the soldiers on the war front. These newsreels were considerably long, so that the propaganda techniques could be repeated for increased effectiveness.  While newsreels were long, unlike feature films, newsreels were produced rapidly so that the information was timely and viewed as actual news. 
    While in my thesis I use the broad term film, I only consider the term to describe feature films.  This chapter highlights the importance of the newsreel.  The newsreel is a form of film propaganda that I really should not have ignored.  Because of the newsreel’s entirely different nature, its inclusion would have given my thesis more depth.  The newsreel did not have the same production costs or length of time needed for production because all the footage is filmed live at the scene.  Considering these facts, newsreels as film propaganda were much more cost effective than feature films.  While newsreels directly told Germans what to believe, newsreels still were subtle forms of propaganda because they were being portrayed in documentary style as fact.  In my thesis I argued that film was overvalued by the Nazis at times because of its great cost when resources were needed badly for the war effort.  Newsreels, though, would have served as a good compromise. Still, though, when the situation with the war became very dire, resources should never have been diverted from the war effort.

McEvoy, JP.  "Walt Disney Goes to War".  The LA Times. 5 Jul 1942.

This piece from the LA Times is from 1942, the year that The New Spirit was made.  The author summarizes the different types of war films Walt Disney had made at that time, and who views them.   Disney made films to be distributed internationally in support of the American cause, shorts advocating the Agricultural Department’s food drive, and training movies for the military.  He used the same characters that appeared in his cartoons for children to promote American ideals, and he was able to have a considerable influence on the American public.

The most defining line in this article is that art is a “dynamic force”.  For Disney, his art became a cultural and political force both at home and abroad.  He was able to apply his comedy to films that addressed the very grim reality of war.  Because his films featured familiar characters and lighthearted storylines, they appealed to a wide audience and were extremely effective.  As the article points out, with The New Spirit, he was able to make audiences laugh while paying their biggest income tax installment.  His unique ability to make war films funny is why he is considered a “propaganda genius” and was able to be so influential.

Citation:

Blakley, Johanna. "Propaganda, Pop Culture & Public Diplomacy.” Warner’s War: Politics, Pop Culture & Propaganda in Wartime Hollywood 73-77.

In the book entitled Warner’s War: Politics, Pop Culture & Propaganda in Wartime Hollywood, Johanna Blakley discusses the influence the Warner Bros. studio had during the wartime and how its films and cartoons influenced public opinion and war sentiment during the time.  In this chapter, Blakley specifically talks about the Warner Brothers studio and how it was deeply entrenched in the pro-war movement by creating pro-war, patriotic, and antifascist films and cartoons.  The article briefly talks about how Casablanca was a prime example in which Warner Bros. used a romantic theme as a stage for propagandistic undertones which supported aiding the Allied European powers.  As a whole, the article demonstrates Warner Brother’s clear intention of spreading propaganda which supported the antifascist movement.  This is important because it establishes a clear connection between a pro-war studio and Casablanca.  This ultimately demonstrates that the studio intended to have propagandistic undertones in its film.   

Citation: Kallis, Artistole. “Nazi Propaganda and ‘Coordination’: The Haphazard Path to Totalitarianism.” European Review of History 13.1 (Mar 2006): 115-139.

This articles presents information on censorship in regards to German cinema during the Nazi period. Kallis explains that once Goebbels takes charge as the Minister of Propaganda, he goes to work to rescue German cinema from its current financial and cultural problems that lingered when the Nazis came to power. In order to create change in the film industry, Goebbels created institutions such as the RKK and RMVK. These groups were established to bring all aspects and cultural and leisure activity under the control of the National Socialist regime. In addition, Goebbels made the decision to stray away from negative censorship and instead focus upon an idea of positive censorship. This new method of production would enable the regime to partake in every step of the film’s creation rather than simply view the end product. The article argues that, with this change, the Nazi hierarchy could not only ensure that film conformed to the regime’s political planning but could also promote and actively endorse its own objectives.

This source serves as background information for further evidence that the Nazi regime whole-heartedly sought to promote a positive feeling about war and a strong connection between home and the front through the creation of Wunschkonzert. Due to the fact that hierarchy had a hand in every step of film production, it was easy for the Nazi power to ensure that war, self-sacrifice, and the idea of community were portrayed in the best light.

Citation: Zimmerman, Clemens. “From Propaganda to Modernization: Media Policy and Media Audiences under National Socialiam.” German History 24.3 (Aug 2006): 431-454.

    In the section entitled, “ ‘Propaganda’ as the Key Concept of Earlier Media-Oriented Analyses of the National Socialist System,” Zimmerman takes a close look at propaganda and its impact on National Socialism. First, Zimmerman emphasizes the fact that the real study of propaganda lies in an examination of subliminal messages that are being displayed. He goes on to conclude that it is not only the content of the message that is important but also the function that the media performs within the communication of society. Zimmerman presents an opposing view to many of the other sources included which is based on the idea that entertainment films were predominantly meant for entertainment and only marginally produced to present propaganda. However, although Zimmerman states that an audience interprets media differently in regards to their gender, educational background, sex, age, and previous life-experience, the author does suggest the fact that media mass communication can influence people’s emotion, that people tend to agree with majority opinion, and that the media can set agendas on topics in which uncertainty exists.

    Despite the fact that this article presents some facts in opposition of the thesis stated above, the facts presented in support of propaganda in entertainment film can be supported through an analysis of German society during the Nazi regime. The fact that the Nazi hierarchy had power over much of the culture and activity in Germany did not leave much freedom for citizens to develop their own thoughts and beliefs or to express them openly. Therefore, film production and the messages being relayed by these works of art and entertianment played a large role in the formation of society’s opinion on a variety of different topics, including politics and war. It is undeniable that films such as Wunschkonzert served as an escape and form of amusement for the German population; however, one mustn’t fail to recognize the conditions of the society at the particular time and the heavy influence that the Nazi regime had over society and their overall beliefs on important issues.

The last chapter of Robert Fyne's book Hollywood Propaganda of World War II is called “Distortions, Prevarications, Fiction-as-Fact: Reflections on Propaganda”.  It explores the question of how accurate and how effective propaganda films from World War II really were.  While many GIs took issue with the inaccuracies in the way that the war was portrayed in most films, the author argues that the movies offered audiences the escapism and reassurance that were necessary for the Allied victory. 

Disney’s war films were consistent with much of what was discussed in this chapter.  In Spirit of ’43, stereotypical images of German and Japanese people were used to distance Americans from the enemy.  They were very patriotic and featured the symbol of the American flag.  They also offered the American public reassurance that the Allies would defeat the Axis, and that actions like saving money to pay income tax would make a real difference.  Disney made other war films that had similar messages, and it encouraged the viewers to heed their advice in order to ensure the defeat of the Axis powers.

Arnold, Thomas K. "DVD-Day for Disney's WWII Films".  USA Today. 18 May 2004.

This article from USA Today is about the release of Disney's WWII films on DVD in 2004.  It explains that some of the material may be seen as offensive today since the films frequently portray Germans and Japanese in a negative manner.  The film critic Leonard Maltin comments on the DVD set, saying that Disney’s short films like The New Spirit are so significant because they are unlike any others put out by Disney or other studios.  The article also offers statements from an animator who worked on many of Disney’s war shorts.

The release of these films on DVD 60 years after they were first shown to audiences is a testament to their lasting impact on American culture.  The article states that Disney produced “hundreds of hours” of material, which is why his films were so prevalent during this time.  Maltin said that this set of DVDs was one of the most important ones he has been involved with, and this is because of the unique circumstance of their production.  A studio that usually made films for children was now a powerhouse of wartime propaganda and military morale building films.  Films like The New Spirit are considered to be a part of American history, even though their influence is even more far-reaching than the national level.   The article states that Hitler was inspired by Disney’s shorts to commission his own animators to produce German propaganda films.  Through his animated shorts, Disney became a political player in WWII.

"Donald Duck to Clear Income Tax Mysteries".  New York Times.  22 Jan 1942.

This article is from the New York Times in 1942, and it announces the impending release of The New Spirit to local theaters.  The film is presented as an informative guide on preparing income tax returns that will be shown in 12,000 theaters across the country.  The film was made by Walt Disney, but it was commissioned by the US Treasury, and its tax experts chose Donald Duck to be the featured character to represent the head of the household.

This article is a primary source from the year that The New Spirit was released.  Its premiere received coverage from a major newspaper, which shows that Disney films were in the national spotlight.  The film is described as being purely informational to explain how to fill out income tax returns, with no mention of political agenda.  However, the film’s use of the phrase “Taxes to beat the Axis” clearly implies that paying taxes will result in American victory in the war.   The article also explains that the use of Donald Duck as the lead character was because he was the head of the household and had a “legal and moral obligation” to his adopted nephews.  Disney used characters that people could relate to, and the Treasury Department’s use of that terminology could indicate their attempt to make the American public associate paying taxes with their obligation to their families as well.  Studies done after the release of the The New Spirit will show that more people did in fact pay their income taxes early after viewing this film.

This book gives a comprehensive overview of the animated films produced in America during World War II.  It contains an extensive filmography of all the cartoons mentioned in the book as well.  Walt Disney was an important figure in the industry of animated short films at this time, and was perhaps one of the few executives to realize early on that cartoons could be both entertaining and political.  Disney made a wide variety of short films during the war.  He made some films due to his own beliefs, some that were commissioned by government agencies, and some that were meant for military training.  The New Spirit and Spirit of ’43 were each included in the book’s filmography, and both films focused on emphasizing the patriotic duty to pay income tax.  Both of these films were successful, with The New Spirit having a record 11,700 bookings.

The authors assert that animated shorts are an important part of the study of wartime films.  Disney was a very powerful producer during this period, and his propaganda films were highly influential.  He decided to use cartoons to make political statements early on in the war, and he was able to procure numerous contracts to make government films.  Disney took full advantage of every filmmaking opportunity the war presented him, making a specific business plans and diversifying the types of films he made, and that is why his influence was so widespread.

This is a transcript from testimony Walt Disney gave in 1947 in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee.  Disney explains the films he made during WWII, referring to them as propaganda and anti-Nazi.  He also talks about the impact he believes his films had on the public during the war, particularly with regards to The New Spirit and Spirit of ‘43.  According to Disney, 29% of Americans said that the films caused them to pay their taxes earlier and gave them a better understanding of what taxes do.  He goes on to implicate former studio employees as members of the Communist party, and states that they are to blame for the strike the Disney studio experienced a few years prior.  In his testimony, Disney makes clear his anti-Communist and anti-labor union sentiments.

In this source, Disney himself discusses his war films and the effect they had on the world during World War II.  He establishes that film is an effective way to disseminate propaganda, and cites a study that claims that his films caused 29% of people to file their income taxes earlier.  This is a very significant effect, and it indicates that not only were people watching the Disney films, but they were changing their behavior based on them.  In part due to Disney’s films, the war effort was able to garner the support of the American people.

Citation: Assorted Nazi political films, 1932-1943 [videorecording]. Videocassette. International Historic Films, 1985.

    This film recording provides an opportunity to further understand the effect of the Nazi regime on Germany and its people.  The video begins by showing audiences the speech that Hitler gives to the people of Germany after winning the election in 1932.  Hitler speaks of the way in which the country needs to unite and rid itself of the 30 plus political parties that now exists in the country and instead join as one front.  He goes on to makes statements about the leaders who have been in charge for the past thirteen years, holding them accountable for any financial, cultural, or societal dilemmas that had arisen to weaken Germany.  Finally, he challenges the people to rise up with him in the hopes of creating a stronger, more powerful Germany.  He explains that the strength of the nation starts with the people and that no progress can be made without their support.  The next recording is a speech of Hitler’s in Vienna in 1938 on the Anniversary of Munich Putsch.  The crowds roar and soldiers raise their arms towards their leader as Hitler speaks once again of a country united in a fight for power and strength.  Finally, the video displays a speech given by Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, in 1943.  Within his speech, he challenges the German people to remain loyal to their motherland.  He explains that this is the time in which people must be willing to make heavy sacrifice for the greater good of their others and their country.  He ensures society not to lose hope and reminds them of the potential German had to exude dominance and power in the world. 
    After watching this film, I could not help but relate it back to the idea of Nazi propaganda and reflect on the way in which Nazi power had such a great influence over German society.  In every clip of this recording, there is an abundance of German citizens cheering and saluting, each in favor of the Nazis quest for power.  Even in 1943, when the tides of the war were beginning to turn, Nazis still were able to influence the people and instill in them a sense of duty and loyalty to the Nazi hierarchy and Germany in general.  These video recording demonstrate that, during the Nazi regime, Nazi leaders held the power to persuade the German people and evoke emotion within them.   This insight into the societal structure in German society proves to explain how film production could affect the sentiments of society.  The German people was so heavily shaped by the Nazi regime that it is not hard to believe that Nazi films, such as Wunschkonzert, were indeed capable of evoking in audiences a particular emotion and leaving a last impact on their outlook on cultural, war, and many other aspects of German life. 

Citation: Kallis, Artistotle. Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005

In the section entitled, “Commercial and political value? The ‘entertainment film’ and NS Propaganda,” Kallis addresses film production during the sensitive war period. He explains the idea that during this time, groups such as RMVP and the RPL in accordance with the Minister of Propaganda managed every aspect of the regime’s film policy and suggests that, despite this control, there is a blur in the distinction between politics and entertainment. He goes on to present the idea that strictly political or historical films were much less appreciated than romantic comedies or dramas in German culture. In fact, it seemed as if many audiences were unmoved by the importance and significance of events captured in political film and showed little admiration or respect for political productions. Therefore, the author concludes, that “the most commercially successful films ever produced under the Third Reich were indeed popular Unterhaltungsfilme, such as the Wunschkonzert” (212). The novel stresses the belief that the success of Wunschokonzert and films of its kinds could have power over an audience and society and thus, could be used as a new form of Nazi propaganda during a time in which traditional methods of political propaganda were suffering.

This portion of the novel is relevant to looking at Wunschkonzert as a Nazi propaganda film because it stresses the idea that despite the fact that this film was considered an entertainment film, there can be no doubt that its content had an impact on German society. The film touched on social conformity; however, it remained predominantly influenced by political objectives. In fact, the way in which political propaganda was much more dispersed within the plot line rather than being the driving force behind the story seemed to be better appreciated and well received by audiences.

Citation:

Wilson, Kristi. "Casablanca." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. Gale Group, 1 January 2000.

In this article, Kristi Wilson gives a brief summary of the plot of the movie and expands on this superficial interpretation of the film by analyzing how the film presented a strong antifascist sentiment.  Wilson begins by contrasting the different characters in the film.  To begin, Lazlo and Isle gain sympathetic compassion from viewers on account of their troubling situation and the flashback history of chaos they experienced in Vichy-France.  This is used the make the viewers feel empathetic towards the French Resistance.  A deeper connection with such sentiment is achieved through the development of Rick’s character.  Rick, whose involvement in the resistance becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses, creates a heroic character image in which the viewers support his endeavors.  Wilson explains how such support is augmented by the viewers’ hope that his romantic endeavors succeed.  In contrast with these characters, the German officers are portrayed as being stiff and unyielding.  Garnering little sympathy, but rather gaining distaste for their apparent egotism, the German characters are continuously portrayed as being corrupt and malevolent.  Such stark contrast, as Wilson states, creates a classic protagonist vs. antagonist in which there is a strong political undertone against the power and authority of the Nazi command.  Consequently, the film demonstrates a strong antifascist motif by the way it contrasts the characters and their personal objectives and dispositions.  

This is a contemporary essay of how government agencies helped shape Hollywood documentaries.  What is particularly interesting is that an author of the essay was involved first-hand in the Hollywood-US government interaction: Robert Katz was Deputy Chief of Long Range Operations in the Office of War Information (OWI), Overseas Branch and then Assistant Chief of Production Planning in the International Motion Picture Division of the Department of State in 1946 and 1947.  In this essay he co-authors with Nancy Katz, Robert Katz discusses the role of the "Private Snafu" series vis-à-vis other elements of government propaganda to manage and ensure morale of the troops.  Specifically, the Katzs discuss how one of these shorts film portrays the consequences of Private Snafu neglecting a hole in the mosquito net: death at the hands of "Anopheles Annie," a malaria-carrying mosquito.  Such films were direct answers to concerns and questions that soldiers had about life in the military.  In addition to the Armed Forces, other forms of government interaction with the film industry included the Overseas Branch of the OWI, which actually made films that were shown exclusively abroad to promote elements of the New Deal.

This essay places the “Private Snafu” series in historical and contextual perspective in relation to other war time film propaganda, both in terms of the intended audience and the production process.   It also captures the importance of the documentary filmm=-making approach and its relevance for effective propaganda.

Smoodin discusses the complex relationship between Hollywood and the government, which essentially acts as a studio as it plays a increasing role in controlling film media during World War II.  Smoodin points out the irony that in serving to assuage soldiers’ discontent with military life, the “Private Snafu” series also reinforced how much discontent permeated the military.   By presenting a negative example of how not to act, these films were effectively both modeling and providing resistance against military authority.  

Smoodin’s argument resolves the fact that the “Private Snafu” series both illuminated and worked to address contradictions within military life.  In fact, the seeming irony does not undermine the ideological purpose and inherent success of these films to serve the needs of the government in maintaining morale in the military because they represented the reconciliation between the individual and the group in social psychology.  The relevance of psychology and one’s awareness as an “everyman” soldier vis-à-vis the greater goals of the group (and the nation) meant that the “Private Snafu” series provides more positive answers to address soldiers’ concerns than exposes negativity about these concerns.

Ohmer notes in her review of "Animating culture: Hollywood cartoons from the sound era" by Eric Smoodin (Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, 1933. 216 pgs) that "Private Snafu" series was often shown at civilian theaters at the end of military film. According to Smoodin, the character of Private Snafu acted as an outlet that addressed soldiers' discontent while also indoctrinating them further with ways of military life. 

Ohmer’s discussion hints at a counterpoint to the effectiveness of the “Private Snafu” series in that the propaganda may have done more harm than good for its audience.  Although the films succeeded in ironing out soldiers’ qualms, their discussion of these qualms reinforces many of the negatives of military life.

In this article, Danks focuses on "Spies" as a quintessential example of the "Private Snafu" series and how its close relation to documentary film reinforced its effectiveness as propaganda.  The films were produced by Frank Capra and commissioned as part of "The Army-Navy Screen Magazine."  Their targeted audience is reinforced in the film’s use of sexually suggestive content that would have been banned by the Production Code if not for the film’s role in propaganda for the military.  In addition, the series was also the first collaboration of Dr. Seuss and Chuck Jones, and drew attention to the social psychology of the individual in the military.

“Private Snafu” was particularly effective because of the many ways in which it was allowed to differ from mainstream cinema as a result of its production for a specific audience.  Exclusive exhibition to the military enabled the films to capitalize on its creativity and often raunchy humor to tell the story of Private Snafu.  Furthermore, the propaganda purposes of “Private Snafu” give it an approach similar to that used in documentary film-making aimed at telling the “truth.”

Citation:

Crowther, Bosley. "'Casablanca' With Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman." New York Times 27 November 1942.

This is the original film review from the New York Times written on November 27, 1942 after the film’s release.  This review, unlike the myriad of reviews on the films, gives the unique perspective of an erudite audience of that specific time period.  The reviewer not only heralds the film as one of the greatest of all times, but remarks about its unique story and subtle tendencies.  He demonstrates how Warner uses the action-packed thrill of the setting to enhance the romantic overtone to the film.  Most importantly, the author describes how the film contained a strong political message.  He writes that the film “inject[ed] a cold point of tough resistance to evil forces afoot in Europe today”.  With this statement, it is apparent that the film was viewed as a propagandistic tool of the war effort.  Its antifascist undertone and subliminal support for aiding the European cause against the Nazis is clearly demonstrated and understood at the time.  This further shows how the film was viewed not only as a great romantic drama film, but also a powerful piece of propaganda that influenced its audiences.

Citation :

Leon, Charls L. Ponce de. "Progressive Politics and American Dreams." Review in American History September 2008: 348.

Charles L. Ponce de Leon provides a critical analysis of Lary May’s book, The Big Tomorrow: Hollywood and the Politics of the American Way.  Leon begins by giving a background into film history and how cinema developed in a political manner.  He demonstrates how it became politically powerful and how it can be interpreted in revisionist studies through cultural anthropology, sociology, literary criticism, and social history.  It is with these methods that Leon further critiques the work of May’s book and demonstrates the true power of cinema.  Leon demonstrates how cinema’s production can be used to “peddle products that are subversive” and create a specified appeal for audiences.  In this manner, he claims that producers are able to use film techniques to create an exact interpretation which can vary little amongst audiences in the grand scheme.  Leon also states that cinema uses political implications to challenge the authority of the elites.  Such is seen in the production of Casablanca.  Leon then progresses his critical analysis towards films of the 1940’s and how they were heavily influenced not only by the lingering effects of the New Deal and the Great Depression, as can be seen by the dramatic mise-en-scene of the city of Casablanca in the film.  He also demonstrates how “progressive moviemakers eagerly contributed their talents to government service and a host of pro-war, antifascist films”. Leon then moves to analysis of the cultural, social, and political implications of the film Casablanca specifically.  He contends that the films played an important political role to the antifascist movement and demonstrated a strong propagandistic desire to aid the resistance movement.  However, he also notes that Rick’s “loss of independence” later hurt the film’s political undertones and created an opposite sentiment later on in the sixties.  In all, Leon critiques May’s book which discusses the political and social effects of early cinema and discusses the value they have towards audiences.  With this, he lends support to Casablanca’s social significance as a film of antifascism and pro-war significance.

Citation:

Sexton, Timothy. "Casablanca and the Use of Mise-en-Scene in the Construction of Propaganda." 2008 29 January. AssociatedContent. 1 December 2008 http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/558967/casablanca_and_the_use_of_miseenscene.html?page=3&cat=37.

Shull, Michael S. and David E. Wilt. Doing Their Bit: Wartime American Animated Short Films 1939-1945. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2004.

Chapter 8 of Shull and Wilt's book describes the history of Private Snafu and his role as an educational tool. GIs could relate to Snafu, yet did not want to be him. Private Snafu was goofy-looking, physically unimposing, ignorant, and disgruntled young soldier: "a diametrical opposite of the handsome soldier portrayed in Hollywood films." Private Snafu proved to be the transition between the sanitized training videos and the harsh realities of war.

Wartime US military videos often downplayed the gory traumatic injuries and death of war. The Private Snafu series, being an animation, could portray GI death and ease soldiers into reality that disobedience and noncompliance would lead to death. After all, animations lived in the borders of fantasy and reality, so death, capture, or pain were unreal, even comical to the viewer. Such has to be the outlet for the anxieties the soldiers felt. It had to allow soldiers to desensitize them from the senseless destruction around them. In many ways, the transformation of Private Snafu mirrors the transformation of every GI. In the beginning (the first few episodes), Private Snafu is the complete idiot who disregards authority, but by the end, becomes a quirky member of the unit that gets the job done.

  Kolberg. Dir. Veit Harlan. Perf. Horst Caspar, Gustav Diessl, Heinrich George, Kurt Meisel, Kristina Soderbaum . DVD. UFA, 1945. 

    Kolberg is a historical epic of the Nazi film era.  It is about the patriotism of the people of Kolberg during the Napoleonic wars and the importance of the average citizen.  The film highlights the patriotism of Nettleback.  He steps on the toes of his superiors to make sure that victory was had in Kolberg at all costs because that is what the people of Kolberg desire, for they are a proud and loyal people.  The officer in charge of Kolberg’s defense is doing a poor job and conflicts with Nettelback, imprisoning Nettelback, who was merely trying to correct the deficits in Kolberg?s defenses.  Nettelback sends his trusted Maria to the king to ask for a different officer for Kolberg.  Maria meets with the queen and is struck speechless by the Queen’s beauty and majesty.  She is successful in getting Nettelback’s request granted.  The way Nettelback and the newly appointed officer work together shows how the citizens and the government can truly combine efforts for the greater good.  Romance also finds its way in the film with Maria and Lieutenant Schill.  The reoccurring theme throughout the film is that a citizen must be willing to sacrifice all for his country.  Honor and loyalty to one’s country trump all else. This theme is illustrated in Maria and Lieutenant Schill's conversation about their willingness to sacrifice all for Kolberg and how only then would it be enough.
    Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda, felt that Kolberg would inspire the citizens to support World War II by drawing on astounding examples of patriotism by average citizens and its great significance to Germany.  Because of the importance Goebbels placed in the impact of the film, he was willing to divert many of Germany’s much needed war resources to the making of this movie, which was the one of costliest of this era.  Two hundred thousand troops were used in the making of the film, troops that were taken away from battle.  The cost of the film was very extravagant, and Germany really did not have the surplus of resources to accommodate such a project.  Film production began in 1943 and was not completed until 1945, so the film’s impact as a source of propaganda was very minimal, considering Germany was on the brink of defeat and most of the theaters were closed from the mass destruction from the Allies’ bombings.  “The film remained virtually unseen as the city fell to Soviet troops” (Thompson and Bordwell 274).  Overall, Kolberg was a great folly of Goebbels and a waste of money and resources that Germany could not afford. (Thompson and Bordwell 274)
Thompson, Kristin, and David Bordwell. Film History An Introduction. 2nd. New York: McGraw Hill, 2003.

Citation:

University, San Diego. Casablanca. 1 December 2008 http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~ksoroka/hollywoodfilm.html

An article from the Film History department of the University of San Diego, this short reference demonstrates a crucial interpretation of a scene in which Lazlo (Paul Henreid), a French refugee, begins singing “La Marseillaise”, the French national anthem, as a direct challenge to the German officers who occupy Rick’s (Humphrey Bogart) nightclub.  The article explains how this action glorified the French resistance against the Vichy regime and displays propaganda in favor of the Allied powers.  The scene begins with the German officials who display their dominance and power in the locale by chanting the patriotic German song Die Wacht am Rhein.  Lazlo, a member of the Resistance Movement, begins to counter their power by singing the French National Anthem.  The entire nightclub, previously subdued by the German chant, begins to join Lazlo and Rick, a former member of the Resistance Movement in France, orders the band to play the tune.  In the end, the German officers stop their chanting and appear defeated by the resistance, a clear metaphor for their hopeful downfall.  The scene not only demonstrates support of the resistance against the Nazi regime, but it also demonstrates the renewed resistance in Rick’s character.  As noted in the article, his broken love with Isle (Ingrid Bergman) made him a “cynical” person, but such was the sacrifice he needed to make in order to pursue his duty to combat the wrongdoings of the Vichy-Berlin situation.  

Ohmer, Susan. Rev. of Animating Culture: Hollywood Cartoons from the Sound Era, by Eric Smoodin. Film History Vol. 6, No. 3 (1994): 405-408.

Animation was an outlet of soldiers to vent their frustrations, but more importantly, a tool to indoctrinate them about military life and protocol. The cartoons emphasized fulfilling patriotic duty, despite tensions and contradictions in military life. But additionally, Smoodin asserts that cartoons functioned to reduce tensions arising from the rest of the program. The film bill exemplified American ideals, the cause that the soldiers fought for, but also diffused potentially jarring differences to produce a smooth, functional unit. Animation was a key component in mitigating differences.

Frank Capra produced the Army-Navy Screen Magazine, which featured newsreels, training, and usually concluded with Private Snafu. As the entertaining and humorous portion of bill, animations was a happy contrast to newsreels and dramas, which dealt with more serious subjects. SNAFU stood for "Situation Normal: ALL F**ked UP". It was an unofficial acronym describing how the normal state of affairs is in a mess.  The Private Snafu series presents the idea of tensions and contradictions in military life, but in an acceptable manner. Often times, newsreels, training films, and dramas triggered tension, which needed a safe outlet: cartoons. This led to acceptance of the norm and desensitization towards the harsh realities, even the idea of killing or being killed becomes less foreboding.

Citation: Welch, David. Propaganda and the German Cinema, 1933-1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. 112-121

In the fourth chapter of the novel, Welch focuses on the impact of the Olympic Games in Berlin in the section entitled, “Olympiade (1938): The Master Race and Strength through Joy.”  Within this section, Welch explains how the Olympic games and films made surrounding this event served as the perfect medium for Goebbel’s execution of Nazi Propaganda.  As the host of the games, Germany used this opportunity as an exercise in national respectability.  The Olympic games were an opportunity to portray Germany as a peace-minded country in both the eyes of foreign guests as well as German citizens.  Similarly, Welch suggests that, with the creation of one of the most popular films of the Third Reich, Wunschkonzert, this Nazi philosophy was conveyed to an even greater extent.  Wunschkonzert once again displays Germany as peace-loving nation and, through the story of two lovers who meet and fall in love in the Olympic Stadium, helps to convert the feeling of pride, strength, and joy that was felt during the Olympic games to the first phase of the war.    

The significance of Wunschkonzert as a Nazi Propaganda Film is strongly supported within this novel.  Welch explanation of Goebbel’s plan to use the Olympic games as means of uniting Germany and changing the perception of the country in the eyes of foreign and domestic people alike is important in understanding the value of Wunschkonzert.  This film enabled Nazi Germany to instill a sense of joy, strength, and love within the German community that could be converted to similar positive feelings about fighting and being triumphant in the Second World War. 

Citation: Baird, Jay. The Mythical World of Nazi War Propaganda, 1939-1945. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1974. 3-11.

In the first chapter entitled “The Mythical World of Nazi Propaganda,” Baird seeks to explain to readers the unique way in which the Nazi propaganda merged the political and practical with the mythical. He describes how Hitler focuses on the irrational, such the use of myths and symbols, to covey Nazi propaganda. The author continues by explain the way Nazi propaganda film merges the themes of traditional German patriotism with Nazi ideological motifs. In the initial part of the chapter, Baird focuses on the way in which films such as The Eternal Jew and Jud Suss contributed to the feelings of anti-Semitism in Germany and help the Nazi regime gain support in their quest for the evacuation of the Jews. Baird goes on to discuss war as an important component in Nazi mythical ideology. He explains that films, such as Morgenrot and Wunschkonzert, help to convey the message that war was the German spirit of life; those who died in battle for their country not only were ensured eternal life but also served as an inspiration for Germans in future centuries. Finally, the author makes note of the importance of the anti-Bolsheviks motif in films that strove to depict the Nazi agenda of conquering Bolshevism and Soviet Russia.

This chapter helps to further explain the way in which Wunschkonzert depicts the positive side of war and, thus, serves as a propaganda film. It explains that, within through the heroic death of Schwarzkopf for Germany, the film conveys to the audience the Nazi idea that fighting for one’s country was an essential part of German life and should be looked at as a gallant and necessary duty by all German citizens.

Birdwell, Michael. Technical Fairy First Class? Is this any way to Run an Army?: Private Snafu and World War II. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television Vol. 25, 2 (2005): 203-212.

This article explains how Private Snafu was brought about and why he was brought about.  Snafu was the anti-soldier: he kept idle, left weapons in disrepair, skipped training, and so forth. He "died--again, and again and again--so that many GIs might live". Snafu was a tool of indoctrination that the military believed was necessary for the average GI. The lack of censorship for crass behavior catered to the soldier's need for humor and escape from the mundane training videos and dramas.

Chuck Jones used the voice of Bugs Bunny for Private Snafu's voice, creating a dissonance. Soldiers associated Bugs Bunny with wit, doing the right thing; Snafu, on the other hand, does the wrong thing, but still preserves two essential traits of Bugs Bunny: disrespect for authority and a knack for smart-aleck remarks. This dissonance leads soldiers to distance themselves from Snafu and unite against his blunders. The message is clear: every GI could be snafu. As mentioned in the article, the Private Snafu series was an antidote to the tedious training videos and reinforced what they had learned from those training videos. Additionally, the parody of Jiminy Cricket, the Technical Fairy First Class, served to represent the shortcuts in the military that always backfires. In end, Snafu is bi-polar: on one hand, we have the normal non-career solider that the GIs related to and on the other, we have the anti-soldier that GIs had to alienate against. This enforces obedient behavior--the "if I follow orders, I will be fine" mentality.  It desensitizes them against reality, in hopes of staying alive.

Kemnitz, Thomas M. "The Cartoon as a Historical Source." Journal of Interdisciplinary History Vol. 4, No. 1 (1973): 81-93.

Cartoons often capture the seriously formed judgment, usually representative of the prevailing national sentiment, of a prominent idea, situation, or event, though in humorous terms. The key of these sources is how the current national opinion of that time differs (or not) from the current opinion of the viewer. The power of cartoons lies in how it conveys its message quickly and pungently. The rest of the article describes the six specific interrelated areas for investigation, which include artists and method by which cartoon reaches people, but this is less relevant to my thesis.

This is a guiding framework for this paper. It is crucial in watching the propagandistic animation to consider how the expressed views reflected public opinion and how the views tried to shape public opinion. It suggests that there are two types of cartoons: the joke cartoon and the cartoon of opinion. The propaganda falls under the second type, which are cartoons that try to advance a particular agenda of sentiment, as opposed to the joke cartoon, which tries to capture a sentiment in one moment. In particular, I tried to look at the medium, in this case film, to transmit the opinion to the target audience, the soldiers. In Spies (1943, Private Snafu series), there are the buck-teeth Japanese spies and objectification of the German female spy, which is funny as an animation, but underscores the point that no one is to be trusted. I propose that the blend of joke cartoon (such as the objectification of the Nazi woman's breasts as a transmitter) and the cartoon of opinion ( the point that everyone can be a spy) associates a serious message with humor and makes acceptance easier, leading to desensitization.

This book gives a timeline of the Disney Studio beginning in 1901, a historical context of how Walt Disney created his company, and an explanation of how the Disney Company was able to rise. It compares the Disney Company to other studios and explains how Disney became involved in making films for the government. It mentions that “Disney cartoons took on wartime themes” in 1942 and that there were “a number of films, produced for the government which were to meant to entertain and educate,” such as Food Will Win the War and Out of the Frying Pan into the Firing Line. Also, it discusses the impact The New Spirit had on Americans. “Donald Duck was chosen to star in the film, and a vast percentage of Americans testified that it encouraged them to pay their taxes promptly.” This helped the American government because the film was made “to try to persuade Americans to pay their income taxes on time as the money was so necessary for the war effort.”
    This source addresses both parts of my thesis. First, it provides a historical context for the Disney Company from its beginning to the present and discusses how Disney cartoons were made. Yet, it is also valuable to the second part of my thesis because it provides an actual example of a Disney propaganda cartoon affecting the way Americans acted.

The author analyzes the function of Disney characters, why they were created and what purpose they serve focusing on Donald Duck’s character. In the introduction, David Kunzle says, this “book studies the Disney productions and their effects on the world. It cannot be a coincidence that much of what they observe in the relationships between the Disney characters can also be found, and maybe, even explained, in the organization of work within the Disney industry.” He goes into detail saying that none of the Disney characters seem to have parents. Characters have cousins, nephews, uncles, and aunts, but there do not seem to be any sons or daughters. He also claims that Disney’s cartoons are used to manipulate children. He says that Donald Duck represents unemployment. “The bourgeois concept of entertainment, and the specific manner in which it is expounded in the world of Disney, is the super structural manifestation of the dislocations and tensions of an advance capitalist historical base. It is altogether normal for readers experiencing the conflicts of their age from within the perspective of the imperialist system, to see their own daily life, and projected future, reflected in the Disney system.”
    This source is valuable to my thesis as it goes into depth describing how Disney characters were constructed. To understand how Disney propaganda was used, it is necessary to analyze the characters, which made Disney cartoons possible. The book also examines how Disney cartoons could affect people suggesting that viewers could identify with the characters.

This book shows how Mickey Mouse’s character affected America. Disney himself is said to have “perceived Mickey as a powerful and important symbol in American culture.” He had previously been used to help “people escape from their Depression anxieties.” This is one reason why Disney films were popular, but this source investigates why Disney cartoons were so well liked and finds that “Disney combined the myth-making medium of film with his perception of American popular taste.” The author claims “Mickey’s creation of a fantasy world is an accurate reflection of the cultural mood in 1944. After three years of war, Americans were tired of propaganda, and beyond ‘those glorious days of 1942, when audiences cheered the American flag on the screen.’” Uelmen goes on to explain that the Disney studio offered an escape to the war by providing audiences with a fantasy world. Disney “played an important role in projecting images of wartime unity.” Unity was defined as the civilian war effort and “how Mickey perceives cultural difference in America is a reflection of both the wartime consolidation of public opinion and Disney’s unique way of seeing the culture.” For example, Minnie says that in San Francisco the sun sets in the perfect place, but in Chinatown she says that she cannot read any of the signs in stores. Disney may “have been making a subtle reference to the power of Western resources to defeat the ‘Asian monster.’
    This source is very useful as it answers both parts of my thesis suggesting that Mickey Mouse’s character allowed Disney propaganda films to be successful. Uelmen discusses the background of Mickey Mouse and shows that his character was a precedent for why Disney cartoons were effective. Mickey’s character was used to help people deal with the Depression, so Americans were able to bond with his character. Therefore, they would be more inclined to trust and agree with the ideas presented in Disney cartoons later on even if the beliefs were pro-war.

The author examines five different cases to discover whether or not propaganda movies were able to reach the audiences they were designed to influence and if the films were actually capable of making an impact. One conclusion he makes is that audiences found their own meanings in the movies, so it was more the audience than the person supplying the propaganda who determined whether the film would have an effect. Data was recorded that actually showed that some American propaganda films “had no effect ‘on men’s motivation to serve as soldiers, which was considered the ultimate objective of the orientation programme.’” He thinks “while propaganda might be good at enforcing existing attitudes, it was largely ineffective in changing values that were determined to a far greater extent by family, peers and other important social influences.” In his book, he looks at British film propaganda in both World Wars, Soviet film propaganda in between 1917 and 1928, Film Propaganda in Germany in between 1933 and 1945, and Italian neorealist films.
    This book is valuable to my project because it discusses the second part of my thesis by investigating how film propaganda in general can affect people. The author, Nicholas Reeves, seems to agree with David Welch, the author of another article that in this bibliography, as he claims that propaganda’s effects are determined by the viewer. Also, the author reinforces ideas presented in other sources, which suggest that Disney used the American public’s ideas and Mickey Mouse’s character was based on American values. Lastly, this source is useful because it includes examples of propaganda in Europe, so this allows for comparison to American propaganda. Though my thesis is strictly about American propaganda, it would be helpful to read about the way propaganda was utilized in other countries.

David Welch’s article describes how the Nazis used propaganda to influence public opinion. He argues “the concept of a ‘national’ or ‘people’s’ community was a key element in the ‘revolutionary’ aims of the Nazi regime, and illustrates the remarkably ambitious nature of its propaganda.” He claims that German propaganda was ambitious because it attempted to unite the classes. The author also analyzes “two sections of the community- the industrial working class and German youth.” He believes that there is “considerable evidence to suggest that Nazi policies and propaganda reflected many of the aspirations of large sections of the population.” This argument continues as Welch says that propaganda is “as much about confirming rather than converting public opinion. Propaganda, if it is to be effective must, in a sense, preach to those who are already partially converted.” He points out that the “regime’s propaganda was pragmatic enough to recognize that its policies could be maintained provided section of the community who were opposed to Nazism remained quiescent.” He mentions that Nazi leaders such as Joseph Goebbels identified the importance of propaganda and attempted to utilize it to their advantage. Propaganda may have been effective in Germany because the country was suffering from national humiliation after World War I and was also was facing economic troubles. The propaganda also based on traditional German ideas, which included: an “appeal to national unity based on the principle: ‘The community before the individual,’ the need for racial purity,” and “charismatic leadership.” The purpose of Nazi propaganda was to radically “restructure German society so that the prevailing class, religious and sectional loyalties would be replaced by a new heightened national awareness.”
    This article gives an interesting viewpoint about the effects of propaganda as the author says that propaganda is more capable of confirming an opinion that already exists than completely altering a person’s perspective. This idea conflicts with Meaney’s article, which describes how propaganda can manipulate any person’s mindset. Yet, Welch’s argument is supported by some of the sources that describe the Disney Company, which claim that Disney based some of its cartoons on public opinion. Though the article uses Germany as an example, it tends to discuss propaganda mostly in general terms, so its arguments are applicable to my thesis.

This article explains why propaganda is such a powerful force and uses Germany as an example. The author thinks that propaganda is not a means of persuasion, but rather “an extension of the techniques of psychical coercion.” He incorporates ideas from Adolf Hitler, who tried to manipulate facts to control public opinion. Meaney investigates the way Hitler used propaganda and concludes that “terror used with suddenness can stampede the masses into a course of action; used over a prolonged period it can exhaust individuals psychologically and cause them to collapse and to yield.” In his argument, he also discusses modern advertising, which makes it easy to spread propaganda. With an example, he demonstrates “the full effect of concentrated propaganda on an individual, showing that a gradual, unconscious, involuntary, but nevertheless effective breaking down of the will’s latent opposition took place.”
    This article addresses the second part of my thesis as it explains the effects of propaganda. Though it focuses on German propaganda, which differed from American propaganda, the author discusses propaganda in general to show that it can be incredibly powerful. The example that Meaney uses demonstrates how any person can be manipulated by propaganda, so it seems as though the author would argue that Americans would have been greatly affected by cartoon propaganda during World War II if he were writing a paper with my thesis.

The author claims that World War I was the “first total war” and the use of propaganda was an important aspect. He says that the First World War was “waged not only against the enemy’s armies, but also against the civilian population” because it was also a war of ideologies. He discusses how censorship suppressed information and how propaganda became influential. According to the article, German leaders felt that “only an effective propaganda campaign could re-establish confidence” in Germany. The author goes on to explain that cartoonists were “bound by the restrictions of military censorship and obliged to observe the propaganda guidelines laid down by the press bureaus.” The role of cartoonists changed significantly, as “before the war they were social critics,” but after the war broke out they needed to “behave as good patriots.” The author describes the situation in Germany, but states that many countries experienced “similar developments.” He claims that cartoons “took on a new function: its task was to mobilize the population both morally and intellectually for the war, explain setbacks, confirm belief in the superiority of the fatherland and proclaim the hope of final victory.”   
    This article is important because it shows how propaganda was used during World War I. Obviously, this lead to new developments and influenced the way propaganda was utilized for World War II. It also explains the role that cartoonists had during the Second World War and how cartoons were transformed into propaganda carriers. Though the article focuses on Germany, the author claims that many nations used propaganda similarly, so the article is still applicable to my thesis, which investigates propaganda in the United States.

This article goes into the history of the cartoon and how it was developed. The author argues that cartoons can be used to show historians the attitudes of the societies that produced them and he explains that there are two types of cartoons: joke cartoons and cartoons of opinion. He chooses to focus on cartoons of opinion, which are defined to be “visual means of communicating opinions and attitudes or of ‘summing up’ situations.” They deal with “domestic politics, social themes, and foreign affairs.” Kemnitz does discuss a few joke cartoons however, “such as William Mauldin’s great World War II cartoon.” Regardless of type, the author claims that cartoons are more effective than other mediums in communicating because they convey messages “quickly and pungently.” He also acknowledges that the “cartoon too frequently has been employed as a propaganda tool.” He believes that cartoons were used in the First World War “to whip up hatred and thereby sustain the civilian enthusiasm which made the sacrifices of total war tolerable.”
    This article is important because it defines cartoons, which my thesis discusses. It also explains how propaganda was first used in cartoons, which is important because it is likely that cartoonists at the Disney Company watched these cartoons and used them as a reference when making cartoons for the Second World War. Additionally, it says that cartoons are the most effective form of propaganda, so the second part of my thesis is addressed. According to Nelson, it is probable that Disney cartoons had a significant impact on public opinion in America during World War II.

Fagelson, William F. "Fighting Films: The Everyday Tactics of World War II Soldiers." Cinema Journal Vol 40. No. 3, (2001): 94-112.

Fagelson looks at the feeling of alienation from home felt by World War II American soldiers. Soldiers, in an attempt to "keep in touch" with the home front, would watch the popular flicks. However, as they saw the film, they pinpointed Hollywood as a source of the home front's inaccurate understanding of the war and of able-bodied men who remained safely at home (and misrepresented them in film). Additionally, film's portrayal of promiscuous women ignited fears of infidelity and portrayal of idle able-bodied men created resentment of civilians whom soldiers perceived as doing nothing in the war.

The article emphasizes how soldiers were skeptical of Hollywood films. However, cartoons were an alternate source of propaganda, which WWII soldiers would have been familiar with since they had grown up with it. It is important to understand the mentality that was united against what was perceived as a disingenuous portrayal of war. Despite being preyed on by films, soldiers continued to watch films, but actively challenged the themes.  Cartoons portrayed the "fun" side of patriotism and used parody to tone-down the same propaganda elements available through cinema.

Downing, Taylor.  Olympia.  London: BFI Publishing, 1992.

            The chapter “Aftermath” in Taylor Downing’s examination of Olympia describes the reception of the film and its post-release history.  Initially the film received generally positive reviews, but as Germany became more threatening, Riefenstahl and the film became less popular, resulting in a boycott of the film in the United States.  For the rest of her life, Riefenstahl would have trouble clearing her reputation for her involvement with the Nazi party.  The film stands as a major artistic achievement, however, and the author notes its influence on films about future Olympics, although competition with television coverage of the games made a cinematic masterpiece such as Olympia more difficult.  Downing argues that Olympia beautifully captured the spirit of the Olympics, and Riefenstahl’s use of retakes in the film aid its artistic vision if they decrease its level of journalism.

            The chapter concludes by grappling with the film’s propaganda question.  Downing notes that the Berlin Olympics themselves were designed as propaganda to promote Germany as a friendly, peace-loving nation, and hence the Nazi party invested in Riefenstahl’s production to display their propaganda to the world.  The author affirms Riefenstahl’s artistic independence during the production, however, and concludes the film is not intentionally propagandistic.  Nevertheless, he maintains the film is still political since it was set up for political reasons and documents a political event, but he argues this fact does not and should not detract from its artistic merit.

Large, David Clay.  Nazi Games: The Olympics of 1936.  New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007.

            The chapter “Olympia” in David Clay Large’s book on the 1936 Olympics provides a succinct history of the film.  It notably refutes some of the claims made by Riefenstahl regarding her independence from the Nazi party in the making of the film.  While Riefenstahl claims the film was commissioned by the International Olympic Committee and funded by a firm called Tobis Films, the author contends it was commissioned by the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda and financed by the party.  Furthermore, while Riefenstahl claims that Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, was at odds with her, Large asserts that he tolerated her despite his preference for a different director to make the film, although he acknowledges that Goebbels did cause some problems for Riefenstahl such as when he audited her company.  The chapter then discusses some of the technical innovations of the film and some of the difficulties the crew encountered during filming, and finally finishes by describing the mixed critical reception Riefenstahl received internationally.

            The chapter also devotes some time to discussing the film’s propaganda value.  Large argues the film, even the German version, was not explicitly partisan in any particular way.  The film gives no sense that the Germany was the winning team, and it includes some of the nation’s defeats as well, although the Ministry of Propaganda did mandate fair reporting of the games.  On the other hand, while the author notes that the black Jesse Owens was portrayed very favorably, other black athletes did not receive as much screen time as they probably deserved.  Furthermore, many of the most dramatic moments are of German athletes, and some events featured disproportionately more footage of Germany and her allies Japan and Italy.  Additionally, the German version contained more shots of Hitler and swastikas and placed a greater emphasis on the games as a national battle.  And finally, the film’s glorification of physical perfection and the communitarian togetherness depicted in the Olympic Village are reminiscent of Nazi values.  The author concludes by suggesting the film’s late release lessened its political potential as propaganda to foreigners, however, since by then Germany was well into its path of aggression, undermining any sense of international good will the film could evoke.

Masumoto, Naofumi.  “Interpretations of the Filmed Body: An Analysis of the Japanese Version of Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympia.”  Critical Reflections on Olympic Ideology.  Centre for Olympic Studies, 1994.  146-158.  31 Mar. 2008 <http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/ISOR/ISOR1994t.pdf>.

            This article analyzes the Japanese version of Olympia and explores its relationship to contemporary Olympic events.  While it touches on a wide variety of questions such as the film’s political implications, its focus is on the aestheticization of the human body, particularly of the strong and victorious.  It suggests that Olympia was not so much a document of the 1936 Olympics as it was a unified body of art.  While the article acknowledges the historical context of the film and its influence, it affirms Riefenstahl’s commitment to producing an artistically free and independent picture.  For example, it notes that Riefenstahl beautified the bodies of not just Aryan athletes, but also blacks and Asians, against the wishes of Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels.  Additionally, it argues that Riefenstahl’s use of retakes and overdubs serves to discredit the film as a historical documentary but instead supports it as an artistically united statement.  It connects the film to today’s Olympics by contrasting its emphasis on beauty with mass commercialization yet also notes the film represents universal and unchanging Olympic ideals.

            The article raises several points in the question of the extent that Olympia is propagandistic.  Aside from noting the film’s beautification of the human body irrespective of race, the article suggests the film was not propaganda in and of itself, but rather a record of a propagandistic event.  On the other hand, the article also spends some time on the introductory sequence in which an Olympic torch is carried from Greece to Berlin, suggesting the Germans as the true descendents of the culturally advanced Greeks.  Additionally, it argues that the film’s depiction of Hitler as a typical sports spectator humanized him and was inherently positive.

Riefenstahl, Leni.  Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir.  New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.

            The chapter “Problems and Worries” in Leni Riefenstahl’s memoirs describes the harassment she received from Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, during the making of Olympia.  Goebbels requested that she include less footage of “niggers” in the film and that she dismiss her press chief because of his marriage to a “non-Aryan” wife.  Riefenstahl ignored both demands, and Goebbels resultantly cut off her funding in an effort to take over production of the film.  She appealed to Hitler, giving him a police report indicating the Ministry of Propaganda had previously had members of her staff arrested.  Her work was then removed from the auspices of the Ministry of Propaganda and placed under Rudolf Hess, which, to Riefenstahl’s delight, ended any harassment and interference during the film’s production.

            This chapter is significant to the question of Olympia as propaganda because it supports Riefenstahl’s claim that her work was not propaganda.  Riefenstahl’s account describes her work as not an instrument of the Ministry of Propaganda, but rather a nuisance.  She refused to bow to Goebbels’s demands that would have incorporated propagandistic elements into the film.  When her film was removed from the Ministry’s authority, she noted that she felt liberated, suggesting that her film should be understood as artistically free and without political influence.

Rings, Guido.  “Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympia: A Documentary Film as Instrument of Propaganda?”  Storia della Storiografia 36 (1999): 105-119.

            This article examines the question of Olympia as a propaganda film and largely concludes that it is indeed propaganda.  Much of its argument is derived by drawing parallels between the aesthetics of Olympia and the ideals espoused by National Socialism.  The author argues that in its depiction of the athletes the film glorifies the strong, healthy, and young and celebrates physical perfection, creating a cult of the idealized body that Nazism champions.  The sacrifice of the individual for the better of the community, epitomized in the marathon sequence as the runners visibly suffer for their nations’ glory, is also a key part of Nazi ideology conveyed in the film.  The author notes a militarist tone that celebrates discipline and unity over individuality throughout the film, especially during the parade and calisthenics sequences.  The article concludes by pointing out that although the film may not have explicitly been intended as propaganda, the fact that there existed propagandistic overtones meant German audiences, who were accustomed to such ideas being conveyed in their media, would make the political connections suggested by the film.

Other points relevant to this debate that the author mentions include, as other scholars have noted, that the shots of Hitler depict him as an average, relatable person, and he suggests that these shots are intercut with segments in which Germany is winning, thereby linking Hitler with the success of the nation.  While other scholars have praised Olympia for its seemingly fair treatment of the black athletes, Rings takes issue with the fact that they only appear on the podium as winners once, despite winning numerous times.  Overall the article takes a less forgiving stance towards the film, and its assessment of the political connotations of Olympia’s aesthetics is quite useful.  However, the author sometimes quotes German sources without providing an English translation, which can make a full comprehension difficult.

Rother, Rainer.  Leni Riefenstahl: The Seduction of Genius.  London: Continuum, 2002.

            Rainer Rother’s analysis of Olympia in the chapter “The Political Significance of an ‘Unpolitical’ Film” looks at the ways the film conveys a political message.  Rother reasons that the film is unsettling because it was supported by the Nazi party, presumably because of its propaganda value, yet it does not contain explicit pro-Nazi material.  He notes the Berlin Olympics themselves were largely ideologically motivated and considers some of the ways the film builds upon that ideology.  The beginning of the film is perhaps the most explicitly political in its homage to Nazi Germany and Hitler, especially during the highly nationalistic opening ceremonies.  Additionally, the commentary and reaction shots of the patriotic audiences emphasize a battle between races and nations.  Still, the fact that Hitler appears in the film even when the Germans don’t win conveys a certain respect for other nations’ achievements.

            The chapter is directly relevant to the debate on the question of the propaganda value of the film.  The author concludes that the film is largely non-ideological, but notes certain ways in that it communicates political messages.  The film’s emphasis on nationalism is the theme most clearly in line with Nazi ideology.

Hinton, David B.  The Films of Leni Riefenstahl.  Filmmakers Series, No. 74.  Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2000.

            David B. Hinton provides a succinct history and analysis of Olympia in his chapter of the same title in his collection of works on Riefenstahl’s films.  He holds it to be the first truly successful film about the Olympics, having been a massive undertaking that captured the spirit and beauty of the games in ways that previous newsreel footage could not.  He praises the prologue of the film, set in the Greece, which connects the games to their ancient roots and implies the unchanging nature of beauty.  He spends some time detailing the meticulous preparations Riefenstahl made for shooting the film such as devising innovative camera techniques that influenced how sports would be shot from then on.  He goes on to describe Riefenstahl’s perfectionist quality, as she controlled every aspect of production to the minutest detail.  The end result of her toils was that the film did not just record the games but rather illustrated the essence of each event, such as the physical strain of the marathon and the beauty of the divers.

            The chapter discusses some of the accusations of propaganda leveled against the film but discredits most of them.  Hinton notes that Riefenstahl’s use of retakes made the film less of a historical documentary but more of an artistic vision, which could potentially aid any propaganda aims.  Still, he rejects the presence of Hitler in the film as evidence of propaganda because his appearance is brief and unspectacular.  Furthermore, Riefenstahl’s choice to give the black Jesse Owens significant credit for his athletic accomplishments instead of downplaying them undercuts any support for racist Nazi ideology.  The Germans are not portrayed as a “master race,” but rather internationalism is honored, as the Olympic flag is the dominant symbol, not the swastika.  Some critics have contended that the glorification of competitiveness and strength reflects fascist ideals, but Hinton argues that this is an inherent quality of the Olympics themselves and not the film.

Mandell, Richard D.  The Nazi Olympics.  New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971.

Richard D. Mandell’s work on the 1936 Olympics provides a notably positive overview of Olympia in his chapter “The Olympics Preserved.”  The chapter begins with background information about Riefenstahl, her career, and her close relationship with Hitler.  Mandell then turns to the film itself and notes its technical achievements in areas such as editing and its use of zoom lenses and slow motion, which ultimately contributed to a dramatic cinematic experience that was unprecedented in sports film.  Mandell likens Riefenstahl in the editing process of the film to composing a masterpiece more than a documentary film.  He then spends some time analyzing particular scenes to reveal their drama and beauty, but notes that the second part of the film, “Festival of Beauty,” is less successful than the first because it is more disjointed and varied.  The chapter ends with a discussion of Riefenstahl’s disgrace after World War II for her associations with the Nazi party, a fate the author considers lamentable given her artistic genius.

            Mandell’s appraisal of Olympia is mostly positive, and he considers the film to be largely non-political and lacking in propagandistic content.  He points out the prominence of black and Asian athletes in the film as evidence of the film’s disassociation with racist Nazi beliefs.  He acknowledges that the mass exercise scene is reminiscent of the grand and awe-inspiring shots of Triumph of the Will, but contends that it is nonpolitical and only meant to convey beauty.  Mandell does admit, however, that the film does capture the Nazis’ promotion of nationalism through the games’ intense communal competitiveness.

Graham, Cooper C.  Leni Riefenstahl and Olympia.  Filmmakers Series, No. 13.  Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1986.

            Cooper C. Graham’s text on Olympia is one of the most in-depth and thoughtful on the subject.  In its concluding chapter, it provides an insightful and articulate investigation of the film as a piece of National Socialist propaganda.  Graham’s main argument lies in the claim that Olympia can qualify as propaganda without being a politically motivated project if it encompasses what he terms “sociological propaganda.”  He notes that such propaganda does not have to be intentionally constructed to permeate certain ideologies or beliefs, and in this sense Olympia does promote views in support of the Nazi party.  Graham argues that in the 1930s, the Nazi party was attempting to mold the image of Germany as a peaceful and liberal nation, in direct contrast to its true aspirations, and saw the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a unique opportunity to further this public relations campaign.  The party took measures to ensure the competing nations were treated well in the press to create an aura of fairness, and in the same manner Olympia fulfills this goal with its apparently evenhanded depiction of the games.  Hence Olympia did not need to promote racist Nazi ideals or glorify Aryan athletes to be propagandistic; in fact, not doing so made the film seem more credible and effective.  The film is propaganda because of the deceptive image it gives to Germany, that of a happy, benevolent, and just society, an image the Nazi party was eager to promote.

            Graham raises several other points relevant to the question of the film as propaganda.  He notes the Nazi party financed and was heavily involved in the production of the film.  The shots of Hitler also humanized him by portraying him as a friendly, average sports fan.  Additionally, he explains that the existence of the film itself served as a symbol of German technological and intellectual achievement.  While the film’s most significant element of propaganda lay in its apparent fairness, Graham contends that some portions of the film were subtly skewed towards a pro-German stance through dramatic shots that emphasized German athletes and victories, especially in the German version of the film.

Schneider, Robert C., and William F. Stier.  “Leni Riefenstahl’s ‘Olympia’: Brilliant Cinematography or Nazi Propaganda?”  The Sport Journal 4.4 (Fall 2001).  31 Mar. 2008 <http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/leni-riefenstahls-olympia-brilliant-cinematography-or-nazi-propaganda>.

            This article provides an overview of the debate about whether Olympia qualifies as a Nazi propaganda film.  It presents many of the arguments’ pros and cons, and the authors ultimately side with the belief that the film did contribute to the Nazi movement, though in subtle ways.  They reject the claim that Riefenstahl, and by extension her film, was removed from Nazi politics because of her professional talent and political skills that provided her with connections to the Nazi party.  The authors acknowledge that it is difficult to prove that Olympia was produced with the intent of serving as propaganda, but they maintain that the film functions as propaganda anyway, largely because it portrays Germany in a kind and positive light, even if it does not attempt to indoctrinate its viewers with Nazi principles.  One of the ways it does this is by portraying the athletes of other nations positively, hence harboring good will towards the seemingly fair host nation, Germany.  Additionally, the fact that Olympia’s finances were controlled by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, lends support to the argument that the film served certain propagandistic purposes.  On the flip side, the seemingly unbiased depiction of the multinational athletes lends credence to the argument that the film is not propaganda.  Riefenstahl even resisted pressure from Goebbels to modify the film to endorse Nazi beliefs.  After acknowledging both sides of the debate, the article concludes with more support for the argument that the film is propagandistic.

            The article is directly relevant to the film Olympia and the question of whether it is a Nazi propaganda film.  While the article is not as in-depth as some other sources on the topic, such as Cooper C. Graham’s work on the film, it does provide a succinct overview of the debate and several of its key points.