Movies as CIA Propaganda

[excreationist]

I thought this is more relevant to the Media and Culture forum. According to AI it isn't very dangerous for ordinary people to criticize the CIA.


6:31
The Animal Farm cartoon

when one of George Orwell's most important works was adapted into a movie, the CIA had the final say over its closing moments. That film is Animal Farm, a classic anti-establishment story about rebelling against power. After Orwell died, the film's rights to Animal Farm were purchased by two men, and both were undercover CIA agents. This was in 1954, the height of the Cold War and the Red Scare. When the fear of communism was at its peak, the CIA funded the entire animation. They hired British animators, avoiding American studios to create distance and because the agency distrusted Hollywood animators during the Red Scare and they rewrote the ending.

In Orwell's book, the animals look through the farmhouse window and can't tell the pigs from the humans. The line says, quote, "The creatures outside looked from pig to man and from pig to man and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which was which." This is the whole point. Revolution replaces one set of oppressors with another. Capitalism and communism are equally corrupt. The CIA couldn't have that message going out. So, their version ends with the animals triumphantly overthrowing the pigs in a second revolution. Communism bad, rebellion good, America wins by implication. See, watch how they storm the building and show it doesn't imply the same message as the book at all. It's subtle, but the new version reinforces the division between good and bad. It creates a moral precedent that corrupt systems can be overthrown and replaced with something better, which is a really comforting thought unless you realize it's exactly the story the CIA tells every time it topples a government.

Orwell's ending says the opposite that power corrupts regardless of who holds it and that revolution just replaces one set of oppressors with another. The director Joy Bachelor strongly opposed the change. So the CIA threatened to pull financing. The intelligence officer E. Howard Hunt, who later became involved in the Watergate scandal, said the film was quote carefully tweaked to heighten the anti-communist message.

BTW my class had to watch the cartoon in high school.

15:16
Shooting the enemy

in World War I, one of the problems that they had was people didn't want to be over there killing people. And so, people were shooting, but they weren't shooting at the actual enemy. And so, then they realized, well, we've got to do something about that. And so, after that, they started creating all these really patriotic war movies where the guys are heroes. They go over and they shoot all the bad guys and then they're awesome. So then the next group of people that go to war are all going to be indoctrinated with these films.

15:43
Torture in movies/TV

John Kiryaku thinks that nowhere has that indoctrination be more effective or more dangerous than in warming the population up to the idea of torture. One thing that bothers me the most is when Hollywood perpetuates the myth that torture prevented acts of terrorism or disrupted acts of terrorism. And to me, that myth is dangerous in that it affects public opinion. You can put whatever euphemism you want on it. You can call it enhanced interrogation tech. I don't care what you call it. What we did to some of those people was just illegal. Kiryaku would know. He's the only CIA officer who ever went to prison over the torture program. I objected to the CIA's use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, which I believe to be torture, and I went public with that information in December of 2007. All this time, by the way, I'm waiting for somebody to come out and say something, and nobody said anything. As a result, I was prosecuted and served 30 months in prison. But I'm glad I did. Somebody had to do it.

This is especially true in the film Zero Dark 30 which is about capturing Osama bin Laden. John Kiyaku thinks is the strongest example of making the CIA look clean from every angle. Zero dark 30. So Zero Dark 30 I think is the most egregious example of CIA interference in Hollywood. The CIA gave the filmmakers classified briefings over a classified mockup of the Bin Laden compound. The film essentially pushed at the torture program as what led them to bin Laden. Kiryaku says that's a complete lie. This was a film that the CIA made a policy decision on that it was going to cooperate fully to the point where senior CIA officers gave them inappropriately classified briefings over a classified mockup of the Bin Laden compound. Okay, that's chargeable under the Espionage Act. The CIA just turned it over. Why? Because it made the CIA look good.

In real life, intelligence work is edgy, gruesome, and morally ambiguous. Mainstream TV and cinema don't need to be accurate. They just need to feel right and not leave the audience with too many lingering questions or ambiguity. They pick up on this exact point in the podcast. Even though it they are torturing people now entire population is so kind of almost like brainwashed into but they are good guys so torture is okay as long as good guys are doing. the narative and they've got so desensitized towards doing bad And if it's the CIA or if it's Tom Cruz or if it's like Mission Impossible and they're doing bad and they're torturing people, that's okay. Like now the message is that's okay. You don't worry about it.

It seems there were typos in the transcript. BTW this torture topic reminds me of Jack Bauer in 24.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course there are propaganda movies. This is water-is-wet level news.

 

[brewer]

 

[steve_bank]

Actually there used to be violence. speech, and sexual consent limits in moves.

It pretty much went away with court cases claiming first amendment freedom of speech.

I think it is more about making money through violent movioes.

AI Overview
Yes, Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch was intensely controversial upon its 1969 release primarily because of its groundbreaking, graphic, and unsparing depiction of screen violence

The Matrix was a violent movie,.

A local DTV channel that is running an endless stream of low budget ultra violent movies, many of them Steven Segal. Continuous gunfights and brutal fighting, torture, little plot and dialogue. Occasionally bare boob and sex Jet Lee. Jason Stratham is arelatively new action violence movie star.

The there is the violent video games where kids kill for points.


BTW, it should be obvious this forum is a CIA front.

 

[excreationist]

Of course there are propaganda movies. This is water-is-wet level news.

I think most viewers of the Animal Farm cartoon would assume it was faithful to the book rather than it being changed by those connected to the CIA to not be against capitalism and think that overthrowing the government is the answer as the movie portrays.

 

[excreationist]

Actually there used to be violence. speech, and sexual consent limits in moves.

It pretty much went away with court cases claiming first amendment freedom of speech.

Yeah because of that it seems people are allowed to watch movies like those of Lucifer Valentine. But apparently things that are illegal include:
Any sexual content involving minors (CSAM)
Real criminal acts where viewing = participation (e.g. real murders or torture)
Classified government documents or footage that is illegal to possess

I think it is more about making money through violent movies.

I think R rated movies tend to get a smaller cinema audience than if it had a lesser rating. The Deadpool movies were pretty popular but they were only MA15+ in Australia (rather than R18+).

The Matrix was a violent movie,.

It has violence though it was only rated M in Australia. A lot of mafia movies are very violent though.

A local DTV channel that is running an endless stream of low budget ultra violent movies, many of them Steven Segal. Continuous gunfights and brutal fighting, torture, little plot and dialogue. Occasionally bare boob and sex Jet Lee. Jason Stratham is arelatively new action violence movie star.

Some cartoons like Rick and Morty are also very violent.

The there is the violent video games where kids kill for points.

The GTA games mostly just involve commiting criminal acts such as murder. Though they don't seem to include any children. Games that include children usually make them impossible to injure. Though in my Bible game you're meant to kill everything that breathes including animals and babies (because of God's commands)

Thread 'Controversial upcoming game: Brutal Bible Bloodbaths'

Mar 26, 2024

In 2020 I made a top-down view prototype in Scratch for the university subject "Playcentric Game Design". Now I'm working on a game in Unity that has graphics a bit like Minecraft. Note that in the Koorong Christian bookstore there are 6 books about portraying the Bible in Minecraft:



It is based on Deuteronomy 20:16-20 which says to kill everything that breathes in the cities of the promised land but don't hurt the fruit trees:

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 20:16-20 - New International Reader's Version

But what about the cities the LORD your God is giving you as your own? Kill everything that breathes in those cities. Completely destroy them. Wipe out the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. That’s what the LORD your God commanded you to do. If you don’t destroy...

www.biblegateway.com

It has a temple that has child sacrifice and temple prostitutes...

• excreationist
• Replies: 60
• Forum: Media & Culture Gallery

• 
• 

 

[steve_bank]

I watch some movies on DTV, mostly older ones.

I have not been to a theater or watched a new movie in over 25 years. Tyhey are mind numbing.

Way back I went to see Natural Born Killers. I walked out.

If yiu have seen the original Invasion Of The Body Snatchers movie, I read in the day it was about communist infiltration. So yes, thre has always been propaganda in movies.

The movie Top Gun was supported by the Navy, it was a recruitment advertisement.

You can go back to the old silent racist American propaganda movie Birth Of A Nation. It should be online.

The original Mission Impossible TV show was an American anti communist propaganda show. The truth is those kinds of things were actually occurring by Russian and American intelligence.

 

[excreationist]

The original Mission Impossible TV show was an American anti communist propaganda show. The truth is those kinds of things were actually occurring by Russian and American intelligence.

I think the TV show 24 is a lot worse though since it portrays torture as being necessary in some situations and the US uses torture.

 

[steve_bank]

That wuld be a thread on morality forum. Can torture be situational justified?

TV, movies, ad music,present abuse of women as OK,


In the Miss on Impossible show the bad guys made use of torture, the good guys us Americans used dirty tricks.

As to Mission Impossible as propaganda all cultures need reinforcing propaganda. The Top Gun movie was a feel good Ame can flag waving movie. We need that to be socially stable.

 

[excreationist]

That wuld be a thread on morality forum. Can torture be situational justified?

The point is that torture is considered to be a war crime and a human rights violation. Though apparently it doesn't work (people would confess to anything and even make stuff up to satisfy the torturer). In the OP I mentioned that it seems the CIA can be pro-torture when handling movies. In 24 the hero of the show uses it so that implies that it is ok for the US to use it too aka "enhanced interrogation".

Torture is also banned in peacetime under multiple human rights treaties:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)

These treaties establish an absolute prohibition — meaning torture is illegal under all circumstances, with no exceptions for national security, emergency, or public order.

Amnesty International emphasizes that torture is always illegal, always a violation of human dignity, and always a human rights abuse.

So it is illegal though Trump doesn't care about the legality of things either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually there used to be violence. speech, and sexual consent limits in moves.

It pretty much went away with court cases claiming first amendment freedom of speech.

Yeah because of that it seems people are allowed to watch movies like those of Lucifer Valentine. But apparently things that are illegal include:

Note that the Hollywood limits only applied to theaters.

Any sexual content involving minors (CSAM)
Real criminal acts where viewing = participation (e.g. real murders or torture)

Viewing doesn't mean participating. I have seen actual video of murder on YouTube--not graphic, but a real person died by criminal action.

Classified government documents or footage that is illegal to possess

Nope. US law doesn't make classified materials illegal to possess. It is a crime on the part of the person with the security clearance that let you see them, but not a crime to have them, or even to publish them. There have been high profile cases of such publication.

I think it is more about making money through violent movies.

I think R rated movies tend to get a smaller cinema audience than if it had a lesser rating. The Deadpool movies were pretty popular but they were only MA15+ in Australia (rather than R18+).

A lot of the people who are interested are stopped by the rating. As an adult, I consider "R" to stand for "Rotten". It almost always means they spiced up a lousy movie.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That wuld be a thread on morality forum. Can torture be situational justified?

The point is that torture is considered to be a war crime and a human rights violation. Though apparently it doesn't work (people would confess to anything and even make stuff up to satisfy the torturer). In the OP I mentioned that it seems the CIA can be pro-torture when handling movies. In 24 the hero of the show uses it so that implies that it is ok for the US to use it too aka "enhanced interrogation".

Yeah, torture is stupid if you don't have a means of determining the truthfulness of what somebody said.

 

[excreationist]

That wuld be a thread on morality forum. Can torture be situational justified?

The point is that torture is considered to be a war crime and a human rights violation. Though apparently it doesn't work (people would confess to anything and even make stuff up to satisfy the torturer). In the OP I mentioned that it seems the CIA can be pro-torture when handling movies. In 24 the hero of the show uses it so that implies that it is ok for the US to use it too aka "enhanced interrogation".

Yeah, torture is stupid if you don't have a means of determining the truthfulness of what somebody said.

I asked AI to give an in depth answer about whether torture can be useful and if not, why would the US use it:

So it generated a lot of thoughts... but it could be biassed into giving "safe" answers.

No — torture is not useful, even in the situations where people think it might be. The evidence shows it produces unreliable information, causes long‑term damage, and is less effective than non‑coercive interrogation.

What people mean when they ask if torture can be useful​

Usually the imagined scenario is the “ticking time bomb” — a terrorist knows where the bomb is, and torture might force them to talk. But research shows this scenario is fictional, not how real interrogations work. Under extreme pain, people will say anything to stop suffering, including lies.

What the evidence actually shows​

• Torture produces false or misleading information. Survivors often give incomplete or fabricated answers just to end the pain.
• Torture damages memory and cognition, making accurate recall less likely. Neuroscience shows coercive methods impair the brain regions responsible for memory.
• Non‑coercive methods work better. Rapport‑based interviewing consistently outperforms torture in real intelligence cases.
• Even governments that used torture found it counterproductive, degrading their own intelligence capabilities.

The one narrow “exception” experts acknowledge​

Some scholars note that torture might occasionally produce a useful detail — but they emphasize this is rare, unpredictable, and surrounded by massive costs:

• It sweeps up innocents
• It destroys interrogators psychologically
• It degrades institutions
• It yields poor, uncheckable information

This is not “usefulness” — it’s statistical noise.

The real-world purpose of torture​

Psychology and political science research shows torture is not used because it works — it’s used because it:

• Instills fear
• Silences opposition
• Punishes or degrades
• Demonstrates power

These are political goals, not informational ones.

The consequences make it even less “useful”​

Survivors suffer long-term:

• Chronic pain
• PTSD
• Depression
• Cognitive impairment

These effects make future cooperation or testimony even harder.

Summary​

Can torture be useful? No — not for gathering reliable information, not for saving lives, not for intelligence work. The scientific, historical, and psychological evidence all converge on the same conclusion: torture is ineffective, counterproductive, and deeply harmful.

The United States has used torture not because it works, but because of political pressure, institutional culture, fear after 9/11, and bureaucratic incentives that rewarded “action” over effectiveness. When you look at the evidence, the pattern is clear: torture persists for psychological and political reasons, not practical ones.

I’ll break it down cleanly and directly.

Why the U.S. used torture even though it doesn’t work​

These are the four major forces historians and investigators consistently identify:

1. Post‑9/11 panic​

After 9/11, the U.S. government was operating under extreme fear of another attack. This created a mindset of:

• “Do anything to stop the next one.”
• “If we don’t act aggressively, we’ll be blamed.”

Fear overrides evidence. Institutions default to force, not science.

2. Institutional culture inside the CIA​

The CIA has a long history of:

• secrecy
• autonomy
• internal loyalty
• a belief that “hard measures” show strength

This culture made it easy for torture to be framed as necessary, even heroic.Interrogators were told they were saving lives. They were rewarded for compliance, not accuracy.

3. Legal euphemisms and loopholes​

The Bush administration’s lawyers redefined torture using extremely narrow criteria. Anything short of organ failure or death was argued to be “legal.” This allowed the CIA to claim:

• “We’re not torturing.”
• “We’re using enhanced interrogation.”

Language made the illegal seem legitimate.

4. Hollywood influence​

Shows like 24 and films like Zero Dark Thirty portrayed torture as:

• fast
• effective
• heroic
• morally justified

This shaped public opinion and even influenced policymakers. Real interrogators have said CIA officials literally referenced 24 during meetings.

The deeper truth: torture serves political goals, not intelligence goals​

Research shows torture is used because it:

• demonstrates power
• intimidates enemies
• satisfies public anger
• creates the appearance of decisive action

These are political incentives, not intelligence incentives.

Even the U.S. government later admitted it didn’t work​

The 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded:

• Torture produced no unique actionable intelligence
• It produced false information
• It delayed real investigations
• It damaged U.S. credibility globally

The CIA’s own internal documents showed the same thing.

So why did it continue?​

Because institutions don’t stop harmful practices just because they’re ineffective. They stop when:

• public pressure forces change
• legal accountability becomes unavoidable
• political leadership shifts

Effectiveness is rarely the deciding factor.

 

[excreationist]

Any sexual content involving minors (CSAM)
Real criminal acts where viewing = participation (e.g. real murders or torture)

Viewing doesn't mean participating. I have seen actual video of murder on YouTube--not graphic, but a real person died by criminal action.

I think it is about:
"A snuff movie is a film that claims to show a real, intentional murder committed for the purpose of being filmed and distributed"

I think it is more about making money through violent movies.

I think R rated movies tend to get a smaller cinema audience than if it had a lesser rating. The Deadpool movies were pretty popular but they were only MA15+ in Australia (rather than R18+).

A lot of the people who are interested are stopped by the rating. As an adult, I consider "R" to stand for "Rotten". It almost always means they spiced up a lousy movie.

I like dark comedies like Happiness and Bad Boy Bubby and they're R18+. Then there's movies like Taxi Driver - I'm not sure what you'd think of them.