Manufacturing Consent
A film directed by Mark Achbar
Canada, 1992
Reviewed by Tracy Sorensen
Noam Chomsky is famous for a revolutionary development in the theory of language. In the late 1950s, he argued that there was a basic grammatical structure common to all languages, and that this was genetically programmed in human beings. Linguistics has apparently never been the same since.
Fascinating stuff. But this is not what Canadian director Mark Achbar's Manufacturing Consent is about, except for a cursory five minutes or so near the beginning. Instead, this very long, very thorough film is an overview of some of the ideas which have motivated Chomsky as a radical political activist and analyst over 30 years.
The US is a stupendously rich and relatively free country, says Chomsky, scholar and author of dozens of books, including Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. The US also does some rotten things in the world, and its record on health and welfare is a scandal — all of which is the result of the domination of society by a minority.
To keep themselves in this comfortable position, members of this minority ensure that public opinion is either wiped out by apathy or alienation, or brought into a consensus which serves their interests.
Chomsky estimates that about 80% of residents of the US fall into the category of people encouraged not to think, while the remaining 20% are encouraged to think and come to convenient conclusions. The 80% have to make do with the football; the 20% are supposed to vote and get involved in running school committees.
"Life is a lot more subtle, a lot more complicated than that. How insulting to say people are simply dupes manipulated by a cabal", a range of representatives and technicians of the minority class — including the editor of the New York Times and a leader of the Dutch government — wearily tell the film makers.
The film unfolds as a spirited defence of Chomsky's thesis. Yes, it is complicated and sometimes subtle, and there are countervailing factors, such as the professionalism of some journalists and writers. But thought control exists, nevertheless, and how this process happens can be analysed and fought.
Achbar's team launch themselves into their project with obvious relish, using the special qualities of their medium to underline their message. Who controls public opinion? Why? How is it done? What evidence is there of this? The topic is analysed first from one, and then from another, angle.
The result is intellectually rigorous, fast moving and sometimes very funny. This is a real achievement for the film makers, whose subject, g but not charismatic public speaker and who avoids the emotionally charged rhetoric and imagery other radical activists have used to great effect.
The film makers underline, and never cut across, Chomsky's approach. The emotionally charged stuff — such as the use of Laurie Anderson's "Oh Superman", a song guaranteed to evoke a soulful hatred of imperialism, behind footage of politicians' speeches — is handled with restraint.
Instead, Achbar chooses to hold our attention and underline key points with a volley of gimmicks and visual puns. The film makers are so cheerfully, cheekily present throughout that there is never any danger of feeling cheaply manipulated — a pitfall to be avoided in a film such as this, which seeks to expose the techniques of propaganda.
Some points are just too important to play around with. To make sure you get it, the film makers occasionally stop everything, black out the screen and put a sentence up in luminous white letters.
In a celebration of the alternative media, for example, (which Chomsky says is a form of "intellectual defence" against the "developing lie"), the words THERE ARE WAYS OF COMPENSATING FOR THE ABSENCE OF RESOURCES suddenly appear and linger.
That's true. For activists, this is a film to reinspire; for those interested in a radical media analysis, and/or Chomsky's work and ideas, this film provides an excellent introduction and overview.