Manufacturers Movie Reviews


More Depth, Please!
Well worth the time and moneyThe number and range of reviews displayed here prove that this is a film worth seeing. The film's director does a masterful job of revealing Chomsky - his politics, his vision and the keen, analytic scientist who pioneers discovery.
For the past 3 decades Chomsky has turned that keen, scientific mind towards America; it's politics and it's power. This film delves into the control the media exerts, the subtle and not-so-subtle ways its used to control and influence America's political posture.
A thorough and entertaining introduction to Noam ChomskyAlthough it says "DVD release date 2002" above, you should realize that this film is kinda old. Some of the cheesy visual and sound effects are laughable, but that's not what's important with this DVD. Another thing that you should know is that this is not the type of film that you want to watch on a romantic evening with your loved one. My girlfriend was bored to tears for all THREE hours of it! Of course I was loving every minute of it. Buy it, make yourself some coffee, and watch it alone.
One more thing: Although this is no substitute for Noam Chomsky's book of the same title, this is also an excellent source of the basic ideas in the book. By the time you finish watching this documentary, you'll be able explain to your friends how the media selectively filters information in the interests of themselves, the government, and the system (not how Noam would say it) before reaching you and the history books.
"Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" represents the efforts of three documentary filmmakers to condense Chomsky's ideas about the media and the structures of American power into a nearly three hour visual presentation. The title of the film, according to Chomsky, comes from a phrase coined by Walter Lippmann, an early twentieth century public intellectual who feared the American public to such an extent that he argued for the implementation of specific methods to control and shape public opinion. This, says Chomsky, leads us to our present predicament, a situation where elites in American society acquire control of media through corporate institutions in order to manage the flow of information to the public. In other words, propaganda supporting elite activities is the name of the game at the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, The Washington Post, and other primary forces in the news business. Secondary or tertiary news outlets simply take their cues from these trendsetters, often running stories only after the national elite media decide that they are stories.
Moreover, the media systems filter out dissident opinions through various techniques. One of these methods is "concision," or giving limited airtime or column space to a specific story in order to control the parameters of that story. Chomsky claims concision keeps people like him out of the news because only allowing a person to make comments within a two-minute period does not let new ideas get through. If a person should get on the air and claim that the government bears primary responsibility for the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, for example, the audience would want to know a lot of facts about such an alien idea. According to Chomsky, this rarely happens. Instead, the short time allotted to guests on a news show serve only to reinforce already accepted propagandistic platitudes that ultimately support elite positions. "Concision" keeps new ideas out and stymies debate regarding accepted ideas. There are several more points to Chomsky's theory in the film, along with a test case concerning the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in the 1970s presented in an effort to prove the propaganda model. I am leaving a ton of stuff out here, but since I also believe that the media promotes elite interests, the whole thing ultimately boils down to what type of news system we should have.
The good professor supports alternative/small press media as a balance to the huge corporate news systems, and I agree with this conclusion too. For far too long, big East Coast interests have controlled what the majority of the population eats, thinks, wears, and discusses. There is simply no geographical balance. The recent blackout in New York City had absolutely no bearing on my life out here in the wilds of the Midwest, but there it was on every news channel on television and prominently displayed in my local newspaper. Chomsky argues that alternative media will lead to a greater, freer dialogue about important issues. The professor claims the alternative press might even lead to a complete overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with anarcho-syndicalism, a belief system that posits self-management, direct democracy, and working class solidarity. This political system sounds like communism, doesn't it? Well, I really don't think Chomsky is a communist, but I simply don't trust anarcho-syndicalism. At one point in the documentary, the professor avers that there are no perfect solutions to our problems and that we should all at least try his theory. One presumes that if we don't like it, all we need to do is say so, right? Wrong. Revolutions don't work that way. Replacing one political system with another tends to be quite messy, and telling the new masters that you just don't think you can go along with them always seems to lead to the behavior we saw in Stalinist Russia. Chomsky's promise that his new order will be open to different ideas doesn't satisfy this cynic. I am not ready for a cure that might be worse than the disease.
Overall, "Manufacturing Consent" left me unsatisfied. In an attempt to cover as much ground as possible, the filmmakers never provided as much depth to Chomsky's theories as I would have liked. Obviously, I could buy the book and see for myself exactly what the professor's arguments are, but you would think a nearly three hour documentary could provide a better presentation of this man's beliefs. As for the DVD, the picture and sound are good and there are several lengthy extras consisting of debates Chomsky had with Michel Foucault and William Buckley. Noam Chomsky comes across as an accessible, likeable guy who really cares about social problems, and I agree with most of what he is saying. I just disagree with his vision of a post-capitalist world.