Die Konsens-Fabrik - Noam Chomsky und die Medien

Noam Chomsky has been called "arguably the most important intellectuals alive" by the New York Times and has been at the forefront of dissenting intellectual thought and activism for several decades now. This film takes a witty and intelligent look at Chomsky's well-documented theories on how the media serves the agendas of the corporate/government power structure - not as a conspiracy theory, but simply as an analysis of the way things necessarily operate.

This film is bound to polarize audiences. The ideas which are put forward and the facts which are revealed will shake some people's world. Many will disagree and argue against Chomsky and his ideas. Good. I think that's much of why this film was made. The disclaimer at the end of the credits states that the film was made with the intent to promote discussion about the media. If you aren't aroused one way or another by what is put forward in this film then either you must have been sleeping through it or else you are just plain apathetic.

The film is long. It has to be. Chomsky points out that part of the way in which the mass media manufactures consent is through concision. Sound-bytes. They don't take a lot of time to look at the facts or to thoroughly examine both sides of most issues. In order to think outside the paradigm of the mass media and to adequately discuss and defend views which go against mainstream thought, then you have to take some time. That's exactly what "Manufacturing Consent" does. However, the filmmakers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, keep it interesting. They keep it from turning into three hours of talking heads.

To do this the filmmakers use some of the very techniques which Chomsky identifies the mass media as using in order to influence their audiences. It's wonderful and humorous to see how they speak the very language which they (and Chomsky) are exposing and criticizing. Don't be fooled, this is a propagandist film in favor of Chomsky and in favor of thinking about the world around you and then getting off your butt and doing something about it! Keep in mind when I use the term 'propaganda', that propaganda isn't always necessarily bad (the USA used propaganda to muster support for World War II and consequently Hitler's genocide was stopped). 'Propaganda' it just basically means that it pretty blatantly favors one view over another. Don't get me wrong, "Manufacturing Consent" is not completely one sided. Both sides of the argument are given screen time, but Chomsky's views come out on top.

Watch this film. Even if you don't agree with it, the discussion of the issues presented is important. It will raise your consciousness of what is happening to you every day whenever you turn on the TV or the radio, or pick up a newspaper, or even when you go to a football game. It will change your perspective and maybe even your life. And how many films really do that? That's why I say it's one of the most important documentaries ever made.

A wide-ranging, at times glowing documentary on Noam Chomsky's life and views on the American media, both large and small, mass and alternative, Manufacturing Consent took five years to create and covers Chomsky's life with over a hundred hours of interviews and lectures spanning 23 cities in seven countries. Directors and producers Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick followed around Chomsky in an effort to capture his beliefs on any media they had around them, including everything from 16 mm film to 8 mm videotape. Manufacturing Consent showcases Chomsky's profound beliefs and profiles his personality in humorous and thought-provoking ways that compel the viewer to learn about the topics he broaches with as much vigor Chomsky himself.

An anecdote from Chomsky about his childhood in the first part of the film sums up his attitudes in a charming elementary school story. Chomsky tells of a time where he attempted to defend a 'fat kid' in first grade from a group of bullies, but after a while he became frightened and let the child he was defending fend for himself. Chomsky says he was always ashamed for leaving the side of that person, and he parallels that instance to his defense of people, free speech and his support of human rights in third-world nations.

Often in the film, Wintonick appears in the background with camera in hand, or is heard off camera interviewing subjects familiar with Chomsky's controversial work. However, the most visually appealing aspect of Manufacturing Consent is the visually creative segments that break up interviews on-screen talking. The segments appeal to the visual learner not akin to grasping some of the advanced concepts and often detailed (convoluted at times) speeches of Chomsky. The best example of this learning tool is one problem Chomsky had with the New York Times after they manipulated a story from London's The Guardian concerning genocides in East Timor. The Times rearranged the story's paragraphs and cut out entire paragraphs to add a different spin to the story, as the U.S. was allegedly funneling arms and supporting the occupying Indonesians in order to make U.S. involvement appear minimal, and at best, positive. Hands appear on screen, with the newspaper article on a mini operating table, and medical instruments, shiny, reflective and lined up, are ready to dissect and take out pieces of the article. Essentially a pair of hands in white surgical gloves 'operates' on this news article, all to display the point more effectively. Similar visual segments are used during the film, all with as much of an impact as this one.

While Achbar and Wintonick show almost as many dissenters of Chomskys ideas as they do supporters, one could easily infer that the two are supporters of his ideas. However, they do not interject any of their own political ideas into the fray. The only on camera activity the two participate in is the acting out of Chomsky's ideas via the aforementioned visual segments. Although they are only acting out Chomsky's ideas, the pair still help to illustrate those ideas, thereby implicating their support. While Wintonick had experience doing political films before, they were mostly simple campaign shorts for Canadian politicians. For Achbar as well as Wintonick, Manufacturing Consent was their crowning achievement, and the film went on to become the top-grossing feature documentary in Canadian history.

Released in 1992, the film is only vaguely similar to today's political documentaries. While it is a far cry from the almost cinematic documentaries of Michael Moore, it laid the groundwork for Moore's films with its approach, full of archival footage, interviews, and humor. The stock footage, narration over still photos, and interview after interview are all used in an attempt to get as many of Chomsky's basic ideas across as possible, stretching the film out to two hours, 45 minutes.

There are two parts to Manufacturing Consent, the first covering Chomsky's life-- early background and his foray into protest from his professorship at Massachusetts Institute of Technology-- while the second portion focuses on his dissidence from the mass media's ideologies, or at least his dissidence with the mass media's way of communicating information. The directors only interview Chomsky directly for a small portion of the film. Most of the interviews are done by other subjects; everyone from alternative radio news anchors to talk show hosts to newspaper writers interview Chomsky, and Achbar and Wintonick are right there with their cameras to capture Chomsky's ideas and often the ensuing arguments. Anyone not familiar with the ideas of Chomsky before seeing this film need not worry, as this mammoth of a documentary covers the basics of Chomsky's ideas and writings. Several of his lectures at universities around the country are showcased, not only exposing his ideas but the personality behind them. While The New York Times lauded Chomsky as the greatest intellectual of our time and one of the film's visual segments show a group of baseball cards, only with 'philosopher all stars' as the theme (Chomsky is included), such blatant quotes and visuals are not needed to let the viewer realize Chomsky's genius, however disputed it may be. The filmmakers profile Chomsky in a way that, while it is not 'Noam Chomsky 101,' makes for an interesting profile of the man and fully encompasses his ideas on general issues like the mass media, and more specific ones concerning human rights violations and freedom of speech. Chomsky's detractors are also profiled in the film, and at one point, his defense of freedom of speech causes the Jewish raised Chomsky to be labeled as an anti-Semite. His preface for a revisionist book by author Robert Faurisson is a defense of free speech. In a later scene where Chomsky is surrounded by reporters questioning his preface, he says that only allowing freedom of speech for ideas that one supports inherently makes that person an adversary to free speech. While the directors make it clear that Chomsky is no revisionist or Holocaust denier, their inclusion of his willingness to grapple with controversial subject matter further illustrates Chomsky's daring personality backed by his intellectual prowess. The film does not have a clear-cut story per se, but rather it is a loose collection of ideas and theories that Chomsky has, all of which fall under his comments on the media. The directors take their time in illustrating those ideas with a variety of story telling and learning devices. Perhaps this is why the film is so long. After viewing, it is safe to say that besides a few of the visual segments, none of this film's content could be cut out to trim the story down. In attempting to cover the ideas and life of an intensely academic man who wrote dozens of books and articles, it may not be best to compact it in a single film, but the directors somehow succeed at succinctly conveying his messages. The soundtrack is similar to ones heard in other political or academic documentaries in that much of the music is reminiscent to that of the music heard on cable news channels or at worst, game shows. The use of sound effects during visual segments more often than not is solely provided for humor or to induce a feeling of haste, as most of the segments are played at double speed. The challenge in this film is to implement just enough background music so that the lengthy interviews and lectures do not become too monotonous. Most often, the use of music or background noise is used to break up long interviews. The budget for this film is not immediately discernible. While the directors admitted to not having enough money to follow Chomsky to Japan for an award he received during the film and they had to 'direct' a local film crew there for the scene, they still traveled with him to other locales. However, after viewing, it is obvious that the filmmakers following around Chomsky only had to film his public speaking engagements and interviews not related to the documentary. They just filmed his pre-arranged interviews with outside news sources and lectures at universities. The film was shot over four years and that time span can undoubtedly take up much of the budget. The main sources of tension found in Manufacturing Consent come from Chomsky's ideas themselves. His personality, at times confrontational when others disagree with him, or even when others merely interrupt him (most notably on news talk shows such as Firing Line in 1969), can be a proponent of tension between him and others. The other, less obvious sources of tension, are culled from more abstract issues involving Chomsky as the dissenter to popular, or as he puts it, 'corporate' opinion.

Manufacturing Consent attempts to teach deep social, political and philosophical studies with mainstream and sometimes simplistic filmmaking that edges on a PowerPoint visual aids strategy. But... it works! The movie is not necessarily targeting MIT intelligentsia, but the people-in-the-street that the same media depicted in the film are aiming at. If you liked the movie, or if it just left you wondering, read the book! The film and/or the book will probably be worth your time... more, anyway, than any Hollywood littering the screens nowadays. In this day and age of political and social polarization, of media playing the role of king-makers (or king-slayers), of discussions of the very existence or relevancy of democracy in a highly mediated and influenced political climate, Chomsky's suggestions are as timely as ever.

This movie, like the title suggests is required viewing for every single person living in the free world. Not many movies can claim to start political and grass-roots movements but this one has.

If you value your intelligence, if you don't believe a pre-fabricated word of what the media machine throws at you, if you want to fight to keep your intellect alive and your own individual thinking original, if you are sick and tired of how this world is NOW and passionately want to change it for the better, then this movie is for you. The movie and accompanying book claim to be primers in intellectual self-defense, which they certainly are but beyond that, they also serve to showcase the many talents of linguist/political dissident/writer/philosopher/professor Noam Chomsky.

I'm surprised the movie didn't win a Best Documentary Oscar, which it certainly should have, perhaps more than anything it just goes to show you that the contents of this movie probably strike too close to home and make the media elite squirm in their seats.

Take 3 hours off some Sunday afternoon instead of watching the football game and WATCH THIS MOVIE, you won't regret it! The movie leaves you with an immense feeling of hope and a profound sense that each one of us can do something actively and constructively in order to make this a better world to live in. If you're apolitical now and/or politically inactive, you won't be after you watch this movie. Guaranteed.

The film makers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, achieve the seemingly impossible by turning Noam Chomsky's dry political theories and persona into a fascinating, entertaining movie, and all on a presumably tight budget. If you want to gain insight into the workings of the US media system then this movie will give you some food for thought. Hardly surprising then that Hollywood did not award them an Oscar for this, even thought they sure would have deserved one.