Cinema was methodologically controlled by the government – including but not limited to the Organization for Vigilance and Repression of Anti-Fascism (OVRA). Cinema created a place where the government could test the effectiveness of its propaganda efforts. The OVRA recorded rumors surrounding directors, producers, and actors, and the secret police monitored the audience’s reactions. Courriol writes, “The authorities’ obsession with carefully cataloguing public reaction is additional evidence of the value attached to it at the time” (3). In addition to the extensive monitoring of film, the government had control of the industry known as "economic censorship," referring to the withholding of funds if not approved and gaining awards if successful in the government's eyes (Forgacs and Gundle 208). Examples of Italian films follow.
Passaporto Rosso, a 1935 patriotic drama, focussed on Italian emigration to South America and included elements of nationalism and propaganda. However, its plot was aimed at a narrow audience of Italian immigrants in the Americas and their descendants, lacking attraction to Italian audiences. Additionally, since it was only produced in Italian, failed to attract many American audiences. This resulted in a "less than satisfactory" reaction from the public (Forgacs and Gundle 210).
As another Italian drama, Scipione l'africano depicted the Punic Wars, which were a series of ancient Italian-Carthrage battles from 200 BC. Scipio Africanus (236-183BC), for whom the movie's title stems, has been thought of as one of the greatest generals and strategists of the time. The movie was financed directly by the state, had a clear propagandistic purpose, and attempted to show that Fascist Italy could produce great films. By attempting to parallel this glorious Italian period in history to Italy at the time, the film was designed to "show that Fascist Italy was the true heir of imperial Rome" (210). Planning on its success, other Italian blockbusters were in the making. However, its reception was "less than triumphant," just as other attempts for Fascist cinematic propaganda.
Giarabub portrayed the Siege of Giarabub (1940–41) during the Second World War, in which Italian troops defended Libya for nine months against British force. The film showed how amazing Italy is for saving Libyans and also reflected a “tragic military episode” (Courriol 4). The film was intended to stimulate national sentiment, but its intentions were not met. In the movie, Italy had “a few small and rickety tanks” (14), whereas Britain could “afford the luxury to make the war last for many more years” (14). Instead of emphasizing Italian bravery in the face of aggression, Italy appeared weak in comparison to Great Britain, which did not boost support for the war, but became unencouraging and triggered criticism.
The movie Bengasi was designed to support Fascism and portrayed Libya before being conquered by Italians. It was even praised for its "efficient exaltation of noble patriotic virtues" (Courriol 15). Although it won the Coppa Mussolini (Mussolini Cup) for best Italian film in 1942, it did not provoke public enthusiasm that was expected, disappointing the filmmakers and government.
Noi vivi and its second part Addio Kira! were anti-authoritarian and anti-communist films, resulting in the movies banishment by the Fascist government. It became the biggest commercial hit of the year in 1942, which was the year before Mussolini's fall from power, highlighting the public dissent and contempt for his government. Though the movies did not involve any Italian characters and the prima facie message was anti-communism, the generalized anti-authoritarian theme resonated with Italians, because it “implicitly ties together communism and Fascism” (5). Unfortunately, there were many parallels between Soviet Russia and Fascist Italy. They did not in fact offer any solution or alternative vision [to communism]” (5), but they did emphasize a return to the individual rather than unquestioned deference to the state, political organizations, or an ideology. Many OVRA reports were dedicated to Noi vivi and Addio Kira!, which allows researchers to confirm that it was the most problematic film of the Fascist period. One viewer commented: “it is a wonderful work of Italian cinema that in normal times would have been a good idea for anti-Soviet propaganda. However, it is, at the moment, completely inappropriate to present a film with very clear propagandistic objectives, since it invites vast portions of the audience to meditate on the political means adopted by certain regimes in order to impose their doctrines” (20).
As the opposite of Noi Vivi and Addio Kira!, the film L’assedio dell’Alcazar was Fascist propaganda disguised as entertainment as both “civilians and soldiers were ready to die for a transcendent cause” (Courriol 6). The movie portrayed the "Republican enemy, bloodthirsty and immoral, was condemned as absolute evil" (6).
Un pilota ritorna is yet another example of cinematic propaganda gone wrong. Focussing on an Italian prisoner of war captured by the British, the core of the movie was supposed to be patriotic and propagandonistic. It was developed from an idea by Vittorio Mussolini, the dictator Benito Mussolini’s son, and therefore benefited from the support of government. Contrary to its goals, it sparked hostile feelings toward the war.
Though these films were laced with both obvious and subtle attempts to influence the people, many failed to gain the desired reaction. Italians wanted to escape because they were so “fed up with the war and patriotic propaganda” (12) that they wanted movies to allow for a break from constant political information being thrown in their faces, which may suggest why so many propagandistic movies failed. War stories depicted the physical, material conditions of war to highlight the bravery of Italian soldiers, but viewers were not inspired by these depictions. Rather, the films were either “depressing the audience’s morale or sparking public outcry” (12). Some films were authorized and were produced and funded by the government, which "triggered reactions of detachment and mistrust” (16), directly contradicting their intended purpose to instill national pride. Sadly, the public could not identify with war objectives portrayed on screen. Unfortunately, cultural authorities failed to connect decisions regarding film with the audience’s emotions and personal experiences. Instead, they judged films according to war propaganda guidelines, which clearly did not solicit the intended effect. Courriol expertly says, “as citizens experienced deep deprivations, viewers grew even more aware through film, among other sources, that the new social and moral order [the government presented in favor of war] had not been achieved, and that the war had on the contrary worsened inequalities within the Italian society” (11).
date: August 11, 2018
Passaporto Rosso, a 1935 patriotic drama, focussed on Italian emigration to South America and included elements of nationalism and propaganda. However, its plot was aimed at a narrow audience of Italian immigrants in the Americas and their descendants, lacking attraction to Italian audiences. Additionally, since it was only produced in Italian, failed to attract many American audiences. This resulted in a "less than satisfactory" reaction from the public (Forgacs and Gundle 210).
As another Italian drama, Scipione l'africano depicted the Punic Wars, which were a series of ancient Italian-Carthrage battles from 200 BC. Scipio Africanus (236-183BC), for whom the movie's title stems, has been thought of as one of the greatest generals and strategists of the time. The movie was financed directly by the state, had a clear propagandistic purpose, and attempted to show that Fascist Italy could produce great films. By attempting to parallel this glorious Italian period in history to Italy at the time, the film was designed to "show that Fascist Italy was the true heir of imperial Rome" (210). Planning on its success, other Italian blockbusters were in the making. However, its reception was "less than triumphant," just as other attempts for Fascist cinematic propaganda.
Giarabub portrayed the Siege of Giarabub (1940–41) during the Second World War, in which Italian troops defended Libya for nine months against British force. The film showed how amazing Italy is for saving Libyans and also reflected a “tragic military episode” (Courriol 4). The film was intended to stimulate national sentiment, but its intentions were not met. In the movie, Italy had “a few small and rickety tanks” (14), whereas Britain could “afford the luxury to make the war last for many more years” (14). Instead of emphasizing Italian bravery in the face of aggression, Italy appeared weak in comparison to Great Britain, which did not boost support for the war, but became unencouraging and triggered criticism.
The movie Bengasi was designed to support Fascism and portrayed Libya before being conquered by Italians. It was even praised for its "efficient exaltation of noble patriotic virtues" (Courriol 15). Although it won the Coppa Mussolini (Mussolini Cup) for best Italian film in 1942, it did not provoke public enthusiasm that was expected, disappointing the filmmakers and government.
Noi vivi and its second part Addio Kira! were anti-authoritarian and anti-communist films, resulting in the movies banishment by the Fascist government. It became the biggest commercial hit of the year in 1942, which was the year before Mussolini's fall from power, highlighting the public dissent and contempt for his government. Though the movies did not involve any Italian characters and the prima facie message was anti-communism, the generalized anti-authoritarian theme resonated with Italians, because it “implicitly ties together communism and Fascism” (5). Unfortunately, there were many parallels between Soviet Russia and Fascist Italy. They did not in fact offer any solution or alternative vision [to communism]” (5), but they did emphasize a return to the individual rather than unquestioned deference to the state, political organizations, or an ideology. Many OVRA reports were dedicated to Noi vivi and Addio Kira!, which allows researchers to confirm that it was the most problematic film of the Fascist period. One viewer commented: “it is a wonderful work of Italian cinema that in normal times would have been a good idea for anti-Soviet propaganda. However, it is, at the moment, completely inappropriate to present a film with very clear propagandistic objectives, since it invites vast portions of the audience to meditate on the political means adopted by certain regimes in order to impose their doctrines” (20).
As the opposite of Noi Vivi and Addio Kira!, the film L’assedio dell’Alcazar was Fascist propaganda disguised as entertainment as both “civilians and soldiers were ready to die for a transcendent cause” (Courriol 6). The movie portrayed the "Republican enemy, bloodthirsty and immoral, was condemned as absolute evil" (6).
Un pilota ritorna is yet another example of cinematic propaganda gone wrong. Focussing on an Italian prisoner of war captured by the British, the core of the movie was supposed to be patriotic and propagandonistic. It was developed from an idea by Vittorio Mussolini, the dictator Benito Mussolini’s son, and therefore benefited from the support of government. Contrary to its goals, it sparked hostile feelings toward the war.
Though these films were laced with both obvious and subtle attempts to influence the people, many failed to gain the desired reaction. Italians wanted to escape because they were so “fed up with the war and patriotic propaganda” (12) that they wanted movies to allow for a break from constant political information being thrown in their faces, which may suggest why so many propagandistic movies failed. War stories depicted the physical, material conditions of war to highlight the bravery of Italian soldiers, but viewers were not inspired by these depictions. Rather, the films were either “depressing the audience’s morale or sparking public outcry” (12). Some films were authorized and were produced and funded by the government, which "triggered reactions of detachment and mistrust” (16), directly contradicting their intended purpose to instill national pride. Sadly, the public could not identify with war objectives portrayed on screen. Unfortunately, cultural authorities failed to connect decisions regarding film with the audience’s emotions and personal experiences. Instead, they judged films according to war propaganda guidelines, which clearly did not solicit the intended effect. Courriol expertly says, “as citizens experienced deep deprivations, viewers grew even more aware through film, among other sources, that the new social and moral order [the government presented in favor of war] had not been achieved, and that the war had on the contrary worsened inequalities within the Italian society” (11).
date: August 11, 2018