| Summary, etc. |
Cinema, perhaps more than any media or art form, exercises the most shaping <br/>influence on human consciousness due to the nature of the medium itself. During the <br/>1940s and 1950s, about 70% of people reported having dreamed in black and white <br/>(Schwitzgebel 25). In 1999, 56% of people dreamed in colour, and the percentage of <br/>those who still dreamed in black and white plunged to only 4% of those who were <br/>older citizens (26). Unlike the linguistic sign, cinema presents images that penetrate <br/>directly into consciousness without the mediation of the written sign. In its <br/>identification with the real world, it presents its concepts, roles, and images as givens <br/>that go subliminally to the inner strata of consciousness, which hardly retains any <br/>active role and is turned into a passive recipient shaped by them in a state of <br/>relaxation. Through its predominantly narrative form and claim to function as a tool of <br/>entertainment, it merely tells stories. As a basic form of human understanding and <br/>making sense of the world, stories shape one‘s outlook. Many of one‘s notions about <br/>success, understandings of the past, expectations of the future, one‘s roles in the <br/>world, class identifications and gender roles do not form consciously but rather <br/>unconsciously through identification with certain role models. Cinema pictures the <br/>world and passes the image it creates as the only reality. By affirming the world as it <br/>is, it denies any other formation. The act of affirmation is, by the same gesture, an act <br/>of negation. By affirming the world as it is, cinema supports the powers that be, the <br/>dominant vision of history and passes the present as the only logical and inevitable <br/>development of history. It, hence, supports the hegemonic powers which dominate and <br/>naturalises their hegemony. By denying any other vision, it negates whatever departs <br/>from the world as it is. In this negation, it banishes the possibility of critical <br/>consciousness. As a result, it functions as the supreme ideological apparatus par <br/>excellence. <br/>1<br/>The classic theory of cinema, which holds that the camera is an impartial <br/>instrument which grasps the world and merely represents its reality turns out to be a <br/>conservative ideological product of a world that seeks to affirm itself. Therefore, the <br/>genres and techniques that presume the impartiality of the camera are based on the <br/>assumption of the transparency of cinematic technique, while the latter functions with <br/>a world-affirmative agenda. The appearance of reality in cinema is the product of an <br/>ideology-laden technique and it serves the agenda of this technique. Just as a historical <br/>film portrays the current age‘s understanding of a certain historical era rather than the <br/>era in itself, the presumed appearance of reality is a product of the dominant ideology. <br/>Therefore, a realist film does not portray reality but rather the dominant ideological <br/>understanding of what reality is. The assumption of the transparency of technique is a <br/>product of the power of ideology to pass itself as the uncontested and uncontestable <br/>reality. <br/>The situation now is one of double falseness: a world which has been shaped by <br/>liberal ideology and passes its historical formation as natural and presents itself <br/>through the camera, which claims transparency to reality. To lay bare the techniques <br/>for creating the appearance of reality shows it as a product of the cinematic apparatus. <br/>To depart from realism is to renounce affirming the dominant ideology. Moreover, it is <br/>also to renounce the current formation of the world as it is, which has already been <br/>shaped by ideology. Thus, realist cinema, first, shows a world already formed by <br/>ideology—liberal, capitalist, Nazi, communist or otherwise—and, second, passes it as <br/>the only correct portrayal of reality. Reality is nothing but an expression of the <br/>dominant ideology. If one is unaware of the role of ideology, he or she is likely to fall <br/>victim to both kinds of false consciousness. The presumption of the impartiality of the <br/>camera turns out to be a conservative, reactionary and world-affirmative one with <br/>more disconcerting consequences than one may expect at first. <br/>Realist cinema, no matter how critical it may be, ends up being insufficient to <br/>offer a critique of ideology in this condition. Speculative genres, like alternative <br/>history, science fiction and dystopian cinema, by definition, deny themselves the <br/>2<br/>comfort of representing reality as it is. By rejecting realistic representation, they <br/>negate the world and refuse to participate in its naturalisation and duplication. They <br/>create alternative worlds, which negate the apparent naturalness of the world. <br/>Moreover, they do not claim any transparent representation of reality. The worlds <br/>created bear traces of the real world and, mostly, show the logical outcome of the <br/>functioning of certain economic, political, administrative and punitive structures and <br/>institutions if they are left unchecked. <br/>During World War II and the liberal combat against Nazism in Germany and <br/>Fascism in Italy, Karl Mannheim (1893–1947) realised the efficiency of Fascist states <br/>manifested by their ability to make use of the new techniques ―the concentration of <br/>power‖ through the use of technology, modern mass media, the ―mechanized mass <br/>production of ideas through press and wireless works,‖ by which he refers to radio and <br/>televised transmission, ―the new science of Human Behaviour‖ (2), propaganda, and <br/>central planning (3). He conjectured that ―Like all techniques, they are neither good <br/>nor bad in themselves... If they are left to themselves and develop unguarded they lead <br/>to dictatorship‖ (4). While such techniques may have been necessary during wartime, <br/>technique can never be separated from the result it leads to. If not constantly put under <br/>check by democratic institutions, the use of such techniques as mass media and <br/>propaganda annexed to the centralisation of power is bound eventually to subject the <br/>masses to central power, which is the very form of totalitarian society they were used <br/>to combat. The ideological clash with Communism during the Cold War made the use <br/>of such techniques a matter of necessity. This, in turn, led to McCarthyism, the Red <br/>Scare, and the Cold War propaganda. McCarthyism still stands as a warning sign <br/>against the loss of freedom in the process of fighting for freedom and against <br/>totalitarianism. Yet, this also confirms that the use of a certain technique cannot be <br/>separated from the context in which it was devised and the logical result to which it <br/>leads. <br/>The use of modern techniques of control in democratic societies and their <br/>influence on the masses create the legitimate fear that they may end up with the same <br/>3<br/>kind of dictatorship they fought against and were able to overcome. Western <br/>democracies express their fear of losing freedom and falling into totalitarianism in the <br/>form of dystopian films. V for Vendetta, Snowpiercer and The Hunger Games are the <br/>products of liberal consciousness, aware of its ironic attempt to maintain liberty <br/>through the use of techniques that lead to the concentration of power in the hands of <br/>the few. The proliferation of such products as dystopian fiction and films is a sign of <br/>the awareness of this consciousness of its separation from its liberal ideals. The liberal <br/>fear of the loss of liberty is projected onto the future in the form of dystopia. These <br/>films are symptoms of a conflicted consciousness suffering from the realisation that its <br/>means and ends are at odds. <br/>Regarding their relation to social reality, each film genre can be classified as <br/>reactionary and conservative or critical and progressive. Each genre has its ideological <br/>content based on the nature of the genre and its conventions. Horror films are mostly <br/>conservative because the sense of horror they induce in the audience makes them seek <br/>security by confirming the role played by the traditional institutions of society like <br/>religious institutions and the police. Through showing danger and containing it, <br/>thrillers and action films are conservative because they make the audience feel the <br/>need for the source of safety in state institutions. Romantic comedy is conservative <br/>because it shows the possibility of the success of love stories and reaching happy <br/>endings in society in its current state. They, consequently, confirm society as it is. <br/>Realistic films are mostly conservative because they show society as it is, use its <br/>stereotypes and confirm the prevalent social roles. Comedy, more often than not, is a <br/>subversive form because it focuses on the contradictions in reality and, through <br/>laughter, makes the audience distance themselves from what they are watching by <br/>showing how ridiculous it is. <br/>Speculative genres, like science fiction, fantasy and alternative history, for <br/>instance, are subversive because they do not confirm society as it is. They, rather, <br/>offer an alternative reality with which current society can be compared and its <br/>shortcomings highlighted. While there are many exceptions to these generalisations, <br/>4<br/>dystopian films, in particular, belong to a conflicted genre. They are subversive in the <br/>sense that they highlight certain social trends and methods of control utilised in current <br/>societies that, if left unchecked, could lead to future dystopias. They sound the alarm <br/>about the dangers of these methods. Yet they also contain their subversive potential by <br/>showing a world much bleaker than the real one. This can induce a sense of <br/>satisfaction with the status quo, which, no matter how bleak, appears in a more <br/>positive light than the dystopian world presented. <br/>Belonging to the speculative genre, dystopian films do not depict social reality <br/>but rather create parallel universes in which the functioning of the control mechanisms <br/>utilised in liberal societies is taken to its logical conclusions. Affirming class society <br/>and fueling antagonism are methods of aligning the upper class with the interests of <br/>the ruling elite in The Hunger Games and Snowpiercer. The Hunger Games <br/>themselves function as a spectacle that materialises the power of the Capitol and its <br/>ability to subject the 12 districts. It also distracts the masses, quells the hope for the <br/>success of any rebellion, and keeps the districts apart by antagonising them. Watch <br/>cameras are everywhere, exercising a constant panoptical effect over all the people <br/>and subduing them to the demands of the Capitol. Propaganda works ceaselessly in V <br/>for Vendetta. Screens are everywhere and keep displaying the constant presence of <br/>Chancellor Sutler all the time. Televised transmissions keep reminding people of how <br/>great his role was in saving the world from the outbreak of disease, which killed <br/>80,000 people. The same propaganda machine functions ceaselessly in Snowpiercer, <br/>deifying Engineer Wilford and the immortal Engine and teaching little kids at school <br/>how he saved the world by inventing it. This occupation of headspace is achieved <br/>through education in Snowpiercer and the talking heads of the televised propaganda in <br/>V for Vendetta. The metaphor of occupying headspace is literalized. Revolution in <br/>Snowpiercer is engineered by Wilford in order to reduce the population of the <br/>tailenders while also keeping them in existence as a constant supply of little children <br/>who work inside the engine. <br/>5<br/>The films reveal the functioning of the RSA and ISAs like education, ideology, <br/>propaganda, the panoptical effect of surveillance cameras and the display of power <br/>through spectacle in unrealistic future dystopias. The same techniques utilised in the <br/>actual world are also used in the dystopian world, yet without check. The films <br/>renounce any glorification of the liberal world and deny realistic representation. They <br/>reveal the functioning of ideology, propaganda and control mechanisms. Yet, they <br/>also depict dystopian worlds in contrast to which the current world appears more <br/>satisfying. Therefore, they offer criticism of the liberal societies that created them and <br/>its dominant ideology by displaying the disastrous consequences of its control <br/>mechanisms. Yet they also contain the progressive consciousness and the potential for <br/>liberating action they have. <br/>Here, the role of ideology critique becomes clear. It works to reveal how these <br/>films offer criticism of the ideology dominant in liberal societies. It displays how they <br/>depart from realistic representation, debunk the claim that the camera is an impartial <br/>instrument and lay bare the transparency of technique as an effect of ideology. <br/>Moreover, it lays bare how speculative films deny the naturalness of current societies <br/>and refuse to affirm them through representation. It shows a dystopian process of <br/>historical development that could materialise if the control mechanisms of the status <br/>quo go unchecked. Ideology critique functions as a consciousness-raising mechanism <br/>to combat false consciousness. It also questions its naturalness and raises awareness of <br/>its historical formation. Most importantly, it also draws attention to how these films <br/>contain the potential for liberation they have. When used to study media, ideology <br/>critique functions to develop media literacy, without which one can so easily fall <br/>victim to the effects of the cinematic apparatus, genre conventions, behavioural <br/>conditioning, and subliminal messages. <br/>In summary, this dissertation seeks to provide the basic strategies for raising <br/>consciousness about the ideologies dominating the film industry and the ideological <br/>content of films and for subversively reading them in order to dispel their magic aura and <br/>6<br/>avoid falling under their spell. Like the red pill in The Matrix or the glasses in They Live, <br/>it seeks to help readers decipher the hidden messages delivered by the films. <br/>Mannheim, Karl. (2010) Diagnosis of Our Time: Wartime Essays of a Sociologist. London: Routledge. <br/>Schwitzgebel, Eric. (2003) ―Do People Report Dreaming in Black and White? An Attempt to Replicate a <br/>Questionaire from 1942.‖ Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2003,96,25-29. |
