• Author / Uploaded
• mmaria65

• Categories
• Agencia Central de Inteligencia
• Sátira
• Medios de comunicación en masa
• Agitación
• Violencia

Citation preview

Movie analysis: Wag the Dog (1997)

Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail were smarter, the tail would wag the dog.' Barry Levinson's film Wag the Dog' thus begins with these opening credits, an early indication of a dark socio-political satire that would unfold to criticise the vulturous mass media and fickle public opinion, but most importantly, the abuse of power by political leaders. Wag the Dog' also satirises the naivety of society and how people's unquestioning absorption of propaganda only encourages the media to exploit them on a higher level. Conrad Brean is a retired political consultant, a spin doctor' who resurrects the support for the US President's after his disastrous scandal with a teenage girl just eleven days before the election. In order to smother the sparks of rumour ignited by the media, Brean invents an international crisis to sway the people's vote he fakes a war on Albania. The president heroically ends the war' and his compassion and exceptional leadership qualities are presented through the mass media to the people, winning back their faith. Through satire, the visual piece also enforces the jaded belief that politics is merely the art of media manipulation, an image that intensifies when Brean enlists the help of Stanley Motss, a Hollywood producer. Politics is presented as a species of show business, and as opined by Motts, It's all a change of wardrobe.' The audience watches Wag the Dog' incredulously, inevitably recognising the parody of their own folly, as the American public devours the created scenario and rises to the call of blind patriotism. Wag the Dog' repeatedly exemplifies society's complete trust in the imagery of media presented to them, and subsequently their seduction by political propaganda. Wag the Dog' was released in 1997, ironically preceding the sex scandal of President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, and the hasty bombing of some minor' African cities. Wag the Dog' was based on Larry Beinhart's book American Hero,' which argued that the Gulf War was filmed by Hollywood producers hired by the first Bush government to boost support for his failing presidency. The film is full of acerbic allusions to the Gulf War Gulf War? Smart bomb falling down a chimney, 2500 missions a day, 100 days, one video of one bomb. And the American people bought the war. War is show business,' as Brean justifies his war' by blurring the line between politics and Hollywood, between truth and perception. The plausibility of the film is never questioned for there have been several instances in history, of wars being started or battles being faked by the media, for example the Spanish American War, or the live footage' of WWI, staged by a Hollywood director and broadcasted internationally. As well as the relevance of its political context, Wag the Dog' places a heavy emphasis on the power of media in our modern society. It represents a new level of understanding of our mediated world and induces overdue contemplation of our society's obsession with media in all its manifestations, 1

whether it is television, music, radio, movies, books or the Internet. As citizens of the same context as Wag the Dog' we are well aware of the propaganda and moral bankruptcy of politicians, yet we place our trust unquestionably on the media, a system that welcomes corruption and exploitation by politicians. Wag the Dog' never fails to portray vividly the media system as infinitely malleable and the reality it represents to the people. Barry Levinson employed the use of a combination of satirical and film techniques to produce the satire of Wag the Dog,' including parody, irony, travesty, humour and ridicule. Parody is consistently produced in Wag the Dog' especially in its references to the Gulf War, the corruption of the government and the submissive attitude of people to media influences. The feeling of political paranoia after viewing the film is a standing testament to how closely it resembles reality. Media is a prime target for parody in Wag the Dog' the entire airport-waiting lounge grew dreadfully quiet as the news of the president's infidelity was broadcasted on the public screen. There is particular stress placed on their facial expressions and body language that indicates their conviction that the media is telling them nothing but the truth. Throughout the film, we are constantly reminded of the power of media, as many scenes depict people riveted to the television screen or intently listening to the radio. Stanley Motss: Why Albania? Conrad Brean: Why not? Motss: What have they done to us? Brean: What have they done FOR us? What do you know about them? Motss: Nothing. Brean: See? They keep to themselves. Shifty. Untrustable. Travesty, as well as parody is a dominant technique used in producing the satire in this particular scene. The nature of their conversation is of grave consequence: they are discussing a war, and their casual attitude trivialises the discussions of politicians in general. The reference to Albania keeping to themselves' is irony in itself, for politicians are infamous for their confidential' dealings and their dishonesty towards the public. The heavily guarded conference room in the White House ridicules this secrecy by likening the elite group of the president's advisors to an illegal underground gang. The film technique of lighting is applied to produce the elongated shadows of this conference room, creating an atmosphere foreboding corruption and deception. In order to emphasise the corruption of politics, Levinson has used the satirical technique of exaggeration pedestal the government officials for public ridicule. For example, the President of the United States is presented as a trivial and nebulous figure, a product' that is sold' to the general population. The slyest farcical element of the film is the fact that the president is entirely irrelevant, aside from jeopardisng the reelection aspirations of his party. He is only shown from the back, and only ever appears to deliver a speech previously prepared by a Hollywood producer or making superfluous suggestions, such as a white cat for a war commercial, instead of calico. His structured 2

absence diplomatically avoids naming the president the film criticises for it is more a satire of the concept of our modern politicians rather than individual targets. A subtle film technique that again underlines media's domination is the pattern in which the audience discovers a change to the plot. Somehow, it is always through the news the characters are watching, and ironically, even the government officials are not free from their dependence on the media. Brean boosts the comical parody when he mourns the war is over, I saw it on TV,' as his unscrupulous plan backfires. The impression of this statement on the audience is if television has told America that the crisis is over, then nobody would be able to argue the war is not over. This message illustrates what media embodies for our modern society integrity and reliability and here, the technique of irony is used to create the sharp contrast between this message and the reality of the perverse media. Conversely, Wag the Dog's' depiction of media manipulations creates the impression that the media and the president are mere pawns in a larger game. A crucial film technique is the plausibility of the imagery and other forms of propaganda presented to the public. Images such as a little girl and her kitten in the war-ravaged Albania are created, as are the heroic tale of a suffering American soldier left behind by his troops. These images appropriate reality so closely that it is impossible to differentiate between fact and fiction. They also instill suspicion in the hearts of the audience and induce reflective thought on the authenticity of the images and other media forms our society receives and accepts obediently. The repetition of the playful thematic music throughout Wag the Dog' is another film technique subtly inserted in synchronisation with the action to enforce the comical elements. There are several other instances in Wag the Dog' where the dark irony and humour is harpooned to create satire. The susceptibility of the people to propaganda is enforced with the ease with which Motss seduces a nation with a patriotic song and the story of Old Shoe,' who is actually a psychopathic rapist. Brean's assistant, on the verge of deceiving millions of people, frantically demands whether the actors they employ are illegal immigrants.' This is verification to the distrust Americans hold towards foreigners through the rigidity of their immigration policy, whilst in reality; their own democratic government is betraying them. The metaphorical opening credits are also open to many interpretative deconstructions. Many argue the dog is public opinion and the tail represents the media; the dog is the media and the tail the political campaigns, or the dog is the people and the tail is the government. The expression the tail wagging the dog' alludes to any case where something of greater significance (such as a war) is driven by something lesser (such as a sex scandal). The mere fact that these credits are based on an old joke immediately establishes the satire, for it directly contradicts the seriousness implied by a political film. Wag the Dog' demonstrates the power of a combination of the essential elements of propaganda in stirring up public sympathy for the government's cause. With enervating cynicism, it satirises the hypocrisy of the government and their exploitation of the malleable media and the exasperatingly 3

naive public. However, one positive message does emerge from the sinister skepticism of Wag the Dog'. The film is at least a demonstration of the increasing number of people who cease to fall for the selfish manipulations of the politicians, their consultants and the media, and increases the audience's awareness of the propaganda horizons of the future. http://www.helium.com/items/722880-movie-analysis-wag-the-dog-1997?page=4

4

"Wag the Dog" Impressions "Wag the Dog" was simultaneously hilarious and terrifying. Hilarious because in the reality of the movie the characters weren't really doing any harm, they were simply getting revenge on the media that had, perhaps unfairly, made the president's private life public and jeopardized his reelection chances. They didn't cause any suffering, they were just telling a good story. It was terrifying though, because it served as a reminder of how easily the media can be manipulated, as the lead up to the Iraq war showed. A compelling story will usually trump rational analysis (Al Tomkins comments about "remember[ing] what you feel" may as well been stolen from the Robert De Niro character), and when the government lacks transparency it is hard for the investigative journalist to get the facts. It's terrifying to think that the White House could invent a pretense for a war against a foreign nation that most Americans are ignorant about, and then stymie any investigation, claiming a need for secrecy. With the media's concern for the bottom line I worry that investigative journalism will no longer be cost effective, and the press will become increasingly susceptible to manipulation.

5

Wag the Dog Wag the Dog (Directed by Barry Levinson, 1997) Good afternoon. Today I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security. President Bill Clinton, August 20, 1998 Wag the Dog, which was released eight months before this Clinton statement,is dark political satire in the grand tradition of The Great Dictator (Charlie Chaplin) and Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Story Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley Kubrick). The idea for the script was triggered by Larry Beinhart‟s American Hero, a zany book about how political Svengali Lee Atwater and President George H. W. Bush initiated the 1991 Gulf War as a launching pad for Bush‟s reelection campaign. Academy-Award-winning Director Barry Levinson (Good Morning, Vietnam, Tin Men, and Tootsie) engaged a stellar cast, including Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, and Willie Nelson, to make a film that explores the dark side of political cynicism and White House media manipulation that, at the time, seemed unbelievable to many Americans. It is not as especially good movie. What gives it a lasting significance is its focus on how the media seems docilely to accept bizarre White House spin and the implications of this sweetheart arrangement for American policy and for the American public. In the film, less than two weeks before a president‟s reelection bid, TV broadcast his involvement in a sex scandal in the White House. This is seen as potentially crippling to the president‟s reelection bid. Spin doctor De Niro is summoned. His solution is to create a bigger story that would dominate the media until election day. He then sets out to create a war. Albania is selected as the target. De Niro goes to a famous Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to script this “war.” Hoffman, who is an expert image maker, swiftly sees that he would be producing a “pageant, rather than a war.” He sees this as “politics at its finest.” Together with a studio and sound stage, Hoffman requires music for his pageant. Willie Nelson is drafted as singer of a series of instant patriotic songs. One minor problem is that it is hard to rhyme Albania. Another is that there is no corroborative evidence in Albania of a war. A terrorist group is invented, with appropriate filmage. As this script starts to unravel, an American hero behind the Albanian front lines is created. The media provides fulsome coverage of these fast-changing pageant scenes. Eventually the „American hero‟ has to be „removed,‟ after he plays his part. Ultimately, to assure that this fraudulent pageant would not unravel prior to the president‟s reelection, producer Hoffman also becomes extraneous. Meanwhile, Willie Nelson is struggling to sing patriot songs that are hastily created to match the rapidly-changing scenario. Good Old Shoe, We Guard Our American Borders, and The Men of the 303 tug at the heart strings of red-blooded Americans who are riveted by this make-believe war. This beguiling piece of fiction, which was nominated for numerous awards, assumes a topical dimension with the headlining of the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. At the height of Zippergate, President Clinton announced the U. S. attacks on “terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan.” Editorials and cartoonists had a field day in linking Wag the Dog to the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Some cartoon captions included:  A White House reporter asking Clinton “How do we know these attacks aren‟t meant to distract us from distracting the country?”  Clinton, with his pants down and draped in an American flag, saying “Rally Round the Flag.”  Clinton looking at a “Monica Tells All” headline, while a general tells him “The best form of defense is attack.”

6



A husband and wife watching CNN. When she asks “Do you want to watch Wag the Dog, he responds “I thought this was Wag the Dog.” There is no definitive evidence that the Clinton-ordered air strikes were primarily intended to divert attention from his domestic political situation. Nonetheless, it is instructive to assess the scenario of the bombing of an „Osama-bin-Laden-associated nerve gas factory‟ in the Sudan. The president, on August 20, 1998 stated that “Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan associated with the bin Laden [terrorist] network. The [Shifa] factory was involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons.” Initially, the media accepted this statement as fact. In an August 22nd Gallup Poll, Clinton‟s action was applauded by two thirds of the respondents. The facts, as they gradually emerged, tell a far different story. Key evidence for this „nerve gas‟ accusation was a soil sample taken in December, 1997 across an access road about 60 feet from the factory.. A private lab (why tests were not conducted in a federal facility is unclear) concluded that this indicated the presence of a critical component in the making of nerve gas. According to less-than-reliable clandestine sources (the American Embassy in Khartoum was closed in January, 1996), this factory was under tight security and, thus, was not available for personal inspection. Scientist observed that this sample may well have been contaminated by sloppy collection procedures. Moreover, scientists questioned whether this component was related to any „nerve gas‟ process. The purported „nerve gas‟ factory had, with private U. S. engineering assistance, been constructed as a pharmaceutical plant supplying about half of the Sudan‟s medical needs. On August 26, 1998 a British technician, who had been a technical supervisor in the 19921996 construction of this factory, said that he had gone into every corner of the plant and that there was no „high security.‟ This “secret plant” was officially opened by the British ambassador. A World Health Organization inspected the plant in December, 1997. Other recent visitors included an American delegation, which had inspected this medical facility. There had been serious doubts within the U. S. government about this purported „nerve gas‟ facility. At the State Department, analysts in the office of Intelligence & Research published a paper that challenged the alleged nature of this facility. Major doubts were also raised by the head of the CIA Directorate of Operations, the CIA African division chief, and the chief of CIA‟s Counterterrorism Center. CIA “Slam Dunk” Tenet, though he stated that the link between bin Laden and the factory could only be drawn by inference, expressed greater certainty of the plant‟s involvement with chemical weapons. A small group of high-ranking U. S. officials, without drawing on intelligence and chemical war experts, made the final determination to target this Sudanese plant. Soon thereafter, the plant‟s owner was subjected to legal action and his bank accounts were blocked. The U. S. government quietly dropped its case in July 1999. The parallels between the Sudanese „nerve gas‟ facility and the Weapons of Mass Destruction high-level deceptions prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom are striking. Perhaps most disturbing was that the media initially overwhelming accepted and trumpeted official U. S. government statements without rigorous investigative reporting. After Wag the Dog, but before 9/11, this issue of media manipulation was discussed in a trailer to the film. Barry Levinson expressed grave concern that, increasingly, what we are seeing is fabricated. As he phrased it, “If seeing is no longer believing,” how can the public distinguish between fact and fiction? A journalist who had worked for Edward R. Murrow described the Six O‟clock News as the National Enquirer.

7

Tom Brokaw observed that, from the time of William Hearst, the line between news and entertainment has been blurred. Former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers said that impressions are imbedded in people‟s minds very quickly. In the „political spin game,‟ “Once it is out, you can‟t bring it back.” Buying the War, a recent Bill Moyer‟s special, is a stinging indictment of how the media, almost without exception, bought the White House spin on Weapons of Mass Destruction, the al Qaeda link with Saddam Hussein, and other specious evidence presented by Vice President Cheney, Defense Department official Douglas Feith and others. How can we be certain that a similar spin is not being attempted on the current situation in Iraq? The film‟s title comes from the joke: "Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail was smarter, the tail would wag the dog." Related to Wag the Dog, the dog seems to be the president (who we never see) and the tail represents his PR assistants, who immediately assume responsibility for damage control. The expression "the tail wagging the dog" refers to any situation where something of greater significance is driven by something lesser. Wag the Dog seems far-less-absurd than when it was first released. Recent events reinforce my distrust of both government information and the credibility of the principal media sources. Our country as a whole is the victim of this lack of government-media integrity. Perhaps it is time for Mr. Levinson to consider a Wag the Dog sequel. I suggest several possible story lines:  Did President Reagan authorize the invasion of Grenada in 1983 because: 1. A leftist government and a Cuban construction battalion posed a serious threat to U. S. vital national interests? or 2. Such an invasion would divert attention from the killing of 241 American military in Beirut? or 3. It was imperative to protect the source of half of the world‟s nut meg supply to assure Xmas egg nog?  Did President G. W. Bush initiate the invasion of Panama in 1989 because: 1. He was surprised that General Noriega, who had been on the CIA payroll for over 15 years, was a scummy character? or 2. There was a local security situation that threatened U. S. vital national interests? or 3. He wanted to alter his image as a “wimp?” Writers of fiction would be hard pressed to top some of scenarios that have been spun in White House “pageants.” Who, for example, could have imagined a Watergate script in which a White House official delivered $75,000 in a garbage bag to a gum shoe awaiting him on a park bench or that Gordon Liddy, in a meeting with former Attorney General John Mitchell, proposed „taking out‟ those who opposed the president? When The Washington Post doggedly pursued a Watergate story that other papers ignored, Mr. Mitchell threatened to put Post CEO Graham‟s “tits in a wringer.” As the cartoonist wrote in 1998, there may not be much difference between watching Wag The Dog and viewing the evening news.

8

Wag the Dog (1997) – An Exercise in Meta-Propaganda A Brilliant Revelation of the Method By: Jay Wag the Dog (1997) is one of those 90s movies you somehow missed. I don‟t know how I did, but I recently came across it looking for something along the lines of propaganda and psychological warfare in film, and boy was I in for a treat. Wag the Dog is dark satire and is far more than I expected it to be. The film is about private intelligence consultants/marketing experts creating a fake war as a distraction during a presidential candidate‟s re-election that is racked by scandal. Robert deNiro plays Conrad Brean, “Mr. Fix It,” the intelligence/media manipulator hired to create a big distraction that ends up being a fake war with “Albanian fundamentalist terrorists.” There are several people this might be, and it could also be a composite, but given his hat and appearance, E. Howard Hunt immediately comes to mind, though the timing is off. While most analyses of the film would focus on the film‟s narrative itself as an expose, which is true as far as it goes, I”d like to take a step back and point out that it is more than that. It‟s an example of what I‟d call meta-propaganda, in the sense that metanarrative in the study of Shakespeare involves a story about the process of writing a story, so with Wag the Dog we have an example of meta-propaganda. The film is itself propaganda about the process of making propaganda. This is the secret power and effect of predictive programming: hoodwinking a unknowing mass populace into accepting a manipulation of archetypes and emotional images that produce a desired effect. The chief medium of this craftworking is film and news. Brean and companion Winifred Ames (played by Anne Heche) concoct the idea to create a war by hiring a bigtime Hollywood producer, Stanley Motts (played by Hoffman), to script and direct the war. The war, however, will not exist in any sense, but is shot on a green screen with actors and the latest CGI effects to create an emotional propaganda effect. One of the best scenes is the production of the fake young Albanian girl (played by Kristen Dunst) carrying a bag of Tostito‟s (since they can‟t find a kitten). A Calico cat is then added, with bombings and gunshots superimposed in the background. While one might balk at such an idea, allow me to remind you that the film is basically a composite of the last twenty years of propaganda and political machinations. Presidential sex scandals and elections are really about inside shadow government workings, and much of the war and terror propaganda is just that – propaganda. The events and narratives are literally scripted, as they are in the film. Thus enters the metapropaganda aspect.

Throughout the film, genius screenwriter David Mamet drops countless hints as to what is really going on. We see the characters making insightful comments such as follows: “It‟s all a pageant.” “They want to destroy our way of life.” „We just found out they have the bomb. It‟s a suitcase bomb.” “The Albanian terrorists have placed a suitcase bomb in Canada.” “Nuclear terrorism is the future.” Following the exchange between Brean and Motts, a crew of actors and celebrities are brought in to promote the war, including Willie Nelson, who conducts a hilarious, raciallyintegrated “We Are The World” style song (“The American Dream”) geared towards promoting the war as the defense of “American freedom” and “democracy.” Can anyone say, “Toby Keith”? They even sell merchandise for the war. 9

Apparently several of the genius commenters at Youtube fail to realize this is satire. As Motts scripts the events, he jokes that the “First Act” will be the Albanian response: “They deny everything.” This brings to mind the famous Kissinger clip prior to the invasion of Libya during the Egyptian unrest, that it was the first act of a play. The film is therefore genius in its presentation of dark satire and the scripted nature of reality, and I think functions on an even deeper level as meta-propaganda. The viewer is being shown how the propaganda is created, while simultaneously functioning in the world where this is exactly how the propaganda is created. In other words, the film is fiction, but is true, leaving the viewer with the idea that truth is fiction, and fiction is truth, subconsciously. This is precisely the best form of manipulation because it is so subtle and functions on so many levels. It is also not overly complex, though it may give the impression of being “deep.” On the contrary, the truth is very simple: the establishment creates a false reality everyone believes, by placing that false reality in fiction, that then becomes reality. This is what my thesis was on: look around you and see that it works. Consider, too, this excellent video showing the Wag the Dog process:

10