-5

For the past few years the United States has been more active in producing political-based movies such as Argo, RED 2 and games like Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Battle Field 3 and more, that show the Iranians are terrorist, hostile, bad people and Americans are saviors, good people, family oriented and sweet.

I'm not going to make this question opinion-based so really, what is the purpose of all that? is U.S Government, the influenced Hollywood and/or probably the Israel Gov doing that to erroneously show their people or the world how Iranians are? there are many undeniable proofs for my statements to show that those movies and games are highly political-based. it couldn't be that the Hollywood is just keeping up with the recent political incidents between U.S and Iran because what is happening is too aggressive against Iran but it doesn't seem like that due to the U.S power over public media.

Does making such political movies and games convince people and affect them? i know that if the U.S continue making even thousands of them, it still doesn't truly change anything because they are based on Lies and that's a Fact, not mine or anybody's opinion. most graduated or literate U.S citizens have no problem with Iranians.

So referring back to My question, what is the purpose of U.S by making those political-based movies and games? should a sane person who has not even visited Iran for one single time to see what is really going on believe those highly opinion-based Media?

Update: For more information visit this page or download the included fully-explained PDF file About the Soft War.

  • 6
    It might not seem like that to you but you should realize that “probably the Israel[i] Gov” borders on antisemite conspiracy theory. – Relaxed Feb 28 '15 at 16:27
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about Hollywood rather than politics. Likely belongs on Movies.SE – user1530 Feb 28 '15 at 18:53
  • 3
    Bollywood releases many more moves than the USA releases, but I don't think people in India expect hundreds of people to break into song and dance whenever two people fall in love. There is this little thing called make believe. While Hollywood does sometimes get tax breaks on making their movies, the US governement doesn't directly pay for movies or control the content of those movies. This question is more of a rant, with a child's understanding of the movie business, what constitutes a government entity, and fiction. If the Iranian's biggest threat is Hollywood, you are in big trouble. – user1873 Feb 28 '15 at 20:02
  • 1
    The only one of those movies/games that I've seen/played was Argo, and that movie didn't even look like it painted Iran in a particularly bad light. Do you have any specific examples of false anti-Iran propaganda that we can anchor to? – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Mar 2 '15 at 16:32
  • 1
    @SamIam maybe you need to refresh your memory and watch it again? I've already specified good examples but you seem not to be able to use them. in Argo All the Iranians were shown as primitive people but this is the strategy of Hollywood to stimulate feelings of racism in the viewers against Non-Arabs and revolutionary Muslims. it also never have been mentioned that those protesters were University students and instead they are showing the "army of the Guardians of the Islamic revolution" Logo all over the movie. that much emphasis clearly says that they are afraid of that Organization. – Conspiria Mar 2 '15 at 18:28
6

You are looking at it from your perspective but the way it's perceived in Iran or whether it's accurate is neither here nor there.

Consider American Sniper. It's not about Iran but the way Iraq and the invasion of Iraq by the US have been portrayed is very controversial. It's also been a huge box office success. Now, the film is not merely a money-making machine. Clint Eastwood recent work can also be seen as a personal take on current events or social issues. But it's in any case quite successful as an entertainment product.

From this perspective, such films get made because they resonate with a large portion of the public (for some of the worse examples, you could say they ‘pander’ to their prejudices), certainly in the US but also in Europe.

Importantly, Hollywood is definitely sensitive to the general Zeitgeist and the interests of the country but it's not directed from some government office. The range of ideas that can be expressed reflects broader trends in US culture, which can be quite different from those you and I are used to, but it's not like all films would reflect a single “official” point of view.

Consequently, “What's the purpose of the US in making such films?” is probably not the right question to ask. The US as a whole, and in particular its government, are not making films. More meaningful questions would be “Why are such negative views of Iran so widespread?”, “Why aren't people bothered by films with anti-Iranian message?” or “Why do simplistic Hollywood films have such large audiences?”.

Also, I haven't heard much about it but it seems that Circumstances is something else altogether. It's an independent film with a rather small budget made by people who actually come from different countries and it seems rather incongruous to interpret it as representative of the “US view” on anything.

  • 3
    @Saeed The plans for Michelle Obama to present an Oscar award were made well before voting had even closed. Her presenting it had nothing to do with what movie won. The one thing you know for sure, that the US government has control of public media, is utterly false. – cpast Feb 28 '15 at 19:12
  • 2
    @Saeed even so, the movies are made by private corporations and writers who do not work for the government without government funding. The government is not relevant here. – Avi Mar 4 '15 at 13:02
  • 2
    @Saeed it sounds like you've already made up your mind then as to the answer to your original question (without evidence, I might add). – Avi Mar 4 '15 at 20:02
  • 2
    @Saeed ironically yes, that does seem to be the case. – Avi Mar 5 '15 at 0:43
  • 1
    @Relaxed - For what it's worth, Saeed and I had a long chat about this, and I believe he came to understand what you (and Avi and I) were saying here. – Bobson Mar 11 '15 at 19:09
2

what is the purpose of all that?

To sell tickets to make money. The movie industry is a business.

because they are based on Lies

Or, more accurately, they are works of fiction. They are stories. Make believe.

Some may be based or inspired by real stories, but nearly all hollywood films are still mostly fictionalized stories purely to make them entertaining.

should a sane person who has not even visited Iran for one single time to see what is really going on believe those highly opinion-based Media

No, sane people should understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction.

  • I'm accepting this as an answer but as i said, it's more aggressive and way too much to be believed that it is only about selling more tickets. politics and fiction are professionally merged with each other but it doesn't take much skills to recognize the differences. – Conspiria Feb 28 '15 at 19:41
  • 1
    @Saeed Now that's very strange because DA.'s answer is very similar to the one that irritated you so much, only more forceful in rejecting the notion that there is anything political about US movies or any influence from the US government on Hollywood. – Relaxed Feb 28 '15 at 22:19
  • 1
    This is correct on a naive level, but money isn't the only thing that motivates Hollywood. Money doesn't explain the obsessive left wing anvilitiousness of most of its products for example (similar to how left wing mass media basically foregoes all of the income from right wing audience, which brilliantly collected untold gazillions for Murdoch/Ailes empire when they realized the gap). – user4012 Mar 3 '15 at 18:48
0

political-based movies such as Argo, RED 2 and games like Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Battle Field 3, that show the Iranians are terrorist, hostile, bad people and Americans are saviors, good people, family oriented and sweet [...] what is the purpose of all that?

The purpose of art is to hold a mirror up to nature. If those movies show Iranians as terrorists, hostile, and bad people, then they are doing a good job reflecting reality.

Is U.S. Government influencing Hollywood and/or the Israel government doing that to erroneously show their people or the world how Iranians are? [...] Hollywood is just keeping up with the recent political incidents between U.S and Iran [...] but, it doesn't seem like that due to the U.S power over public media.

I think you have that backwards. The U.S. government has little influence over the movie industry, but the movie industry heavily lobbies the government and tries to influence it. As for Hollywood keeping up with recent political events, I wouldn't call these events recent. Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. The movie Argo is based off the Iran Hostage Crisis from 1979, when Iranian student revolutionaries stormed the US embassy and took Americans hostage. While the film took some artistic license, we have multiple sources that corroborate the events. The Israeli government has even less influence than the US government. Perhaps you were only bringing it up because Hollywood and the comic book industry have a heavy Jewish influence.

Does making such political movies and games convince people and affect them? [...] Should a sane person who has not even visited Iran for one single time to see what is really going on believe those highly opinion-based Media?

Convince them of what? Affect them, probably. If it doesn't, it isn't doing its job. I don't understand your examples of Argo, RED, Splinter Cell, and Battlefield 3 for this point. How can anyone visit the Iran of 1979 to "see what is going on." We have historical records that tell us what was going on. As to the comic books and video games, most people are well aware that these aren't real. Complaining that Iranians are portrayed as terrorist in popular media is trying to fix a symptom, instead of trying to fix the problem (I.e. If you don't want to be portrayed as a terrorists, stop being terrorists).

  • If we are terrorists then why are we fighting ISIS in Iraq and other countries? Israel, the Child killer machine, is terrorist. and how about U.S that welcomes netanyahu? the fact that U.S can't have troops and agents in Iran like other countries in Europe and middle-east makes us terrorist? it was necessary for us to take over the US den of Espionage to stop them spying on us and those who did that are more knowledgeable than you, no offence. – Conspiria Mar 4 '15 at 8:37
  • Sources you provided say that it's about the extraterritorial operations of Iran by special forces in IRGC. things similar to what U.S also does in other territories but of course it must be kept off the record. the mirror you're talking about, take a closer look, it's not a mirror, it's a 4K UHD TV that shows people what U.S want. let me tell you why they're make those movies and games against Iran, because that's the only way and place they can show up as the winners and still Iran is the safest country in the middle-east. that's what you'll see once inside Iran, not 1979's necessary events. – Conspiria Mar 4 '15 at 8:38
-2

Modern brainwashing techniques can bypass your judgement and plant beliefs in your head without your even knowing it. In Bertrand Russell's words:

A belief may be compared to a cistern plus a pipe plus a tap. The tap can be turned on, and the belief can influence the action, but neither happens without an additional stimulus. When a man is believing something, there must exist in him either appropriate words, or appropriate images, or, at the very least, appropriate muscular adjustments. Any of these, given certain additional circumstances(which correspond to turning on the tap), will produce action, and this action may be such as to show an outside observer what it is that is being believed; this is particularly the case if the action consists in pronouncing appropriate words. The impulse to action, given the right stimulus, is inherent in the presence of words, images, or muscular adjustments. To entertain an idea vividly and not act upon it is difficult. If, alone at night, you read a story in which a man is stabbed in the back, you will have an impulse to press your chair tight against the wall. Booth the actor (the brother of Lincoln’s assassin), on one occasion when he was playing Macbeth under the influence of liquor, refused to be killed, and chased Macduff murderously all through the stalls. It is unwise to read a ghost story just before walking through a churchyard at midnight. As these examples show, when an idea is entertained without belief, the impulse to belief is not absent but is inhibited. Belief is not something added to an idea previously merely entertained, but something subtracted from an idea, by an effort, when the idea is considered without being accepted.

Another example is the difficulty that uneducated people feel about hypotheses. If you say, “Let us suppose so-and-so and see what comes of the supposition,” they will tend either to believe what you suppose, or to think that you are wasting your time.

Source: Russell, Bertrand. Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon And Schuster, 1948

  • 1
    This in no way answers the question – user1530 Mar 4 '15 at 5:07
  • 1
    +1. Although that's not merely an answer but it helps to understand the situation. – Conspiria Mar 4 '15 at 16:55
  • 1
    @GeorgeChen yes, i agree with you. – Conspiria Mar 5 '15 at 6:13
  • 1
    There is a garbage-peddling industry in the U.S. – George Chen Mar 6 '15 at 4:43

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .