Figure 1.-- |
|
The power of visual images has been known from am early point in nan's development. They begin with the cave paintings of prehistoric man. Ancient rulers recognized the importance and erected huges sculptures of themselves to demonstrate their power. The manner in which they were depicted offers tantalizing clues into their personalities and civilization in which they arose. The various art mediums was the primary way this was accomplished. This changed in the 19th century with the invention of photography and subsequently at the tirn of the 20th century, the motion picture. Movies were developed in democratic, free enterprise societies and thus film msking was left in the hand of private companies. And in these hands was made the first and enormously effective propaganda film--"Birth of a Nation" (United States, 1915). Politicians did not begin to grasp on the political implications until World War I and the need arose to generate populsr support for the War. Even so after the War, film industries were lagely left in private hands. The Bolsheciks seized on the arts to legitimize and promote their regime. Theeir forst propaganda film was Sergei Eisenstein "Potemkin" (Soviet Union, 1925). Most Soviet propaganda films fell flat because the propaganda was so obvious and the films so poor. NAZI prpaganda films were more effective because Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels understood that propaganda was more convincing if it was subtle. Of course the Perhaps the greates propaganda film of all time was the NAZI paean, Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Wills" (Germany, 1935) portraying a eople united by Fascism building a New Order. Of course the NAZis also created films totally lacking in subtlety. The pinacle of this genre was "The Eternal Jew" (Der ewige Jude) (Germany 1940), but this was more to generate hatred among the already convinced and to provide a justification for what was to come. HBC is building aist of particularly effective scenes in major films. HBC readers have commented on films that have affected them.
The power of visual images has been known from am early point in nan's development. They begin with the cave paintings of prehistoric man. Ancient rulers recognized the importance and erected huges sculptures of themselves to demonstrate their power. The manner in which they were depicted offers tantalizing clues into their personalities and civilization in which they arose. The various art mediums was the primary way this was accomplished. nPrinting greatly increased the potential reach of visual images. Lurid images of the Spsnish Inquisition were used by Protestants to attack Catholics. And the anti-slavery movement used printed images to portay the evils of slavery and in the final period, photographic images became available.
The use of visual images changed in the 19th century with the invention of photography and subsequently at the tirn of the 20th century, the motion picture. Movies were developed in democratic, free enterprise societies and thus film msking was left in the hand of private companies.
Motion pictures provide the most powerful tool of all time to influence the public. Not only can you compose stuningly effective visual images, but the combination with dislog and music can make an emotive impact far beyond the singular vimpact of imagery.
And in these hands was made the first and enormously effective propaganda film--"Birth of a Nation" (United States, 1915). Politicians did not begin to grasp on the political implications until World War I and the need arose to generate populsr support for the War. Even so after the War, film industries were lagely left in private hands. The exception was the totalitarian powers thar rose in Europe. Girst the Blolshevicks and then the Fascists. The Bolsheciks seized on the arts to legitimize and promote their regime. Theeir forst propaganda film was Sergei Eisenstein "Potemkin" (Soviet Union, 1925). Most Soviet propaganda films fell flat because the propaganda was so obvious and the films so poor. NAZI prpaganda films were more effective because Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels understood that propaganda was more convincing if it was subtle. Of course the Perhaps the greates propaganda film of all time was the NAZI paean, Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Wills" (Germany, 1935) portraying a eople united by Fascism building a New Order. Of course the NAZis also created films totally lacking in subtlety. The pinacle of this genre was "The Eternal Jew" (Der ewige Jude) (Germany 1940), but this was more to generate hatred among the already convinced and to provide a justification for what was to come.
One flaw in motion pictures, both entertaimenr films and documentaries is that it is much easier to depict emotion than fact. And film makers can easily manipulate the gacts either on purpose or accidentally because of the focus on visual imagery. Take the classic "I want more" scene in Oliver. For most people this is the primary visual image of the Industrial Revolution and the wreched poverty of many working people. Virtually fogotten is the fact that the Industrial Revolution created great wealth. Much of it went to the factory or mine owners, but much was also widely destributed among workers, clerks, and professions, giving rise to the middle class and modern democratic society. Never before in history was so much wealth made availble to so many people. Yet the image of poverty and destitution is what endures. Another example is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. The images that endure are the highly emotive images of the Japanese suffering from the effects of the bombs. But how does one portray the American and Japanese soldiers who lived because there was no invasion of the Home Islands and the concentration camp survivors who lived because the War was ended. Amd even more important the nillions of Japanese who did not starve as a result of a famine which would have ensured if the War had coninued into the Winter 1945-46. Terrifying images of the dead and mamed trump non-existent images showing what did not occur. And film makers with hiden agendas can take an actual event and use it to attack a policy, country, people even though the event is atypical.
HBC has noted certain scenes in the movies listed here that are particularly powerful or provide interesting information about boys clothing. Perhaps the most powerful scene with a boy is the 'Tomorrow Belongs to Me' scene from 'Cabaret', but many other scenes have created powerful images and provide fascinating insights about boys' clothing. Interestingly, quite a few come from musicals. Some are humerous, such as 'Aunty Mame' and 'Music Man'. Others are encouring, and optimistic like 'Camelot'. Others depressing, even haunting such as 'Aurevoir les enfants' and 'Schindler's List'. The imapct on people of these and similar scenes in incalculable. We note that there are some winderful films such as 'To Kill a Mockingbird' that are no included because no one one scenes grabs the viewer likes the scenes listed here.
HBC readers have commented on films that have affected them.
My most impressive memory of the power of film was in 1998. I attended a museum lecture and films were shown from the period 1890. One comedy film was about a gardener water the plants. A boy stood on the pipe to stop the flow of water. The boy stood off the hosepipe when the gardener looked down to see what the matter was. He was instantly drenched in water. The 8 year old children watching laughed out loud and thought it was very funny.
The footage was 100 years old and it was still giving pleasure all those years later.
Would a book be able to have the same impact 100 years after it was published.
I do not rember seeing the film, but I must have seen Disney's Song of the South (United States, 1947) when it was released or shortly afterwards. I wouls have been 4-5 years old. I know I must have seen it because the songs stuck in my head. And later when working on HBC I found images there were very familiar to me. An even more interestingly, the message of the film must have some how seaped through my unconcious. Several years laters later a black boy moved in next door to us (1953). They had a boy my age--the first black boy I ever met. The other children in the neigborhood were not overtly mean, but wanted nothing to do with him. A Jewish friend and myself made friemnds with him. And at the advanced age of 10, we perpetrated our first act of civil disobedience to mske sure he was not excluded from a comunity picnic. To this day I am not sure why we did this. It was not because my parents were particularly open minded. As far as I can rembember, they were silent about our new neigbors. I believe that somehow I understood at age 10 that racial prejudice (before I understood the term) was wrong and I believe that "Song bof the South" had an influence on this.
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main movie page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Theatricals]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]