• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Regarding Red Dawn

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I didn't think I could post this in "Liberal Only," but some interesting points were raised in this thread: Red Dawn

I watched the 1984 original Red Dawn last night. First time I've actually seen it. I've been aware of it for years, but I was quite shocked how many of the core points of Right Wing conspiracy theory are obviously drawn directly from it. Evil Latin infiltrators sneaking across the Southern Border? Check. Rounding up and mass executing "real" Americans? Check . Using gun registration and licensing to identify and arrest law abiding gun owners? Check. European allies abandoning America "in her hour of need", making international alliances pointless and useless? Check. Mass media propaganda as a form of control? Check. Untrained, logistically unsupported soldier citizens causing mass casualties against a numerically and technologically superior force with nothing but patriotic fervor, guts and a couple of hunting rifles? Big check.

I've been arguing with these idiots for years, but watching this movie last night, so much clicked into place. SO many of their fundamental talking points are lifted straight from this fairly forgettable pulp movie. It's like a Rosetta Stone for the paranoid Right Wing mind.

Just wanted to share the observation.

One thing I noticed about Red Dawn when I first saw it was how much the scenario was taken almost verbatim from a scenario outlined in a propaganda video put out by the American Conservative Union in the early 80s. One of my social studies teachers was friends with a retired American general who fought with MacArthur in the Philippines, and he visited the class one day and told us stories about WW2 and retaking the Philippines. Then he came in another day and showed us this video and talked about the right-wing Reaganite concept of "Peace Through Strength."

A lot of it focused on Central America and the rise of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Many right-wing policymakers have always this obsession with Latin America and how dangerous these countries would be if the Communists ever gained a foothold in North America. Back in the early 80s, the big push was about supporting aid for the Contra rebels who were fighting against the Sandinista regime. (The Contras also figured prominently in US Middle Eastern policy with the Iran-Contra deal. The US obsession over communism actually hurt us in the long run, compromising and weakening our position in the Middle East, a mistake which has come back to haunt us numerous times in the decades since the Cold War.)

As for Red Dawn, on the surface, it looks like it's some kind of right-wing propaganda piece. But sometimes I wonder if it was some kind of subtle parody. There's a scene early in the film when the Soviet forces attack the town, and they show a car with a bumper sticker that says "They can have my gun when they pull it from my cold dead fingers," while showing a Soviet officer doing exactly that.

I also still chuckle at Powers Booth's recounting of the events of the invasion when he used the phrase "the whole Cuban & Nicaraguan armies come walking right through, rolled right up here through the Great Plains."

The scenario did seem somewhat contrived and unlikely. For example, one of the preceding events was that NATO dissolved and that Mexico plunged into revolution, presumably becoming a pro-communist state and ally of the Soviet Union (and the whole Cuban and Nicaraguan armies). If the world situation had deteriorated that badly, I seriously doubt that they'd leave the border virtually unguarded or carry on some kind of pretense (as shown in the first scene, pre-invasion) that life in the U.S. is still peaceful and worry-free. The survivalists and others of that ilk would have been frantically building bunkers and caches of weapons throughout those mountains they hid in the weeks or months before the invasion, because given the world circumstances outlined at the beginning, they would have been expecting it.

Likewise, considering how much people want to secure the border now, when there isn't really any military threat, think of how much that sentiment would intensify if there really was a bona fide military threat. We'd be madly building walls, minefields, bunkers, and putting a huge number of troops along the border. I can't imagine even the most liberal of presidents ignoring such an obvious threat.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I've not got any real grip with the actual history, but the communists were not ineffective in causing bloody revolutions. Our FBI and CIA were new when these revolutions began, and it was our first FBI director who named them 'Godless communists' and began a crusade against communism in the USA. I'm not going to say he was wrong, because it was a serious problem in many countries. Even decades later when communism was a clear failure it was still being preached like a doctrine in many places. The USA got away with relatively little suffering.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Seems to me if one goes looking for it, a person can find some sinister social message behind most movies/books. Not saying it not there, some intended moral message by the creators. However, I can't see past the fact that it is a fictional creation. The plot, characters, circumstances all fiction. So to me, I see little value in investing much angst into any such social message, intended or otherwise.

I understand maybe a lot of folks find some purpose/motivation by such fictional realities. While I can't but help feel a bit sorry for them, I suppose this is the way the world works.

The only moment in the film which stood out for me was the part where one of the leaders spied some of the rebels sneaking through town. Instead of calling out an alarm, there was a momentary connection of humanity, each doing their best to struggle with the circumstance they found themselves caught up in.

Recently I watched the movie 1917. The Germans were portrayed as real dicks. Maybe the circumstances are far enough removed or it is still socially acceptable to cast Germans as evil ********, but I really haven't heard much social out-rage about it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Red Dawn was a so so movie.
A far better imagining of Ameristan's being
conquered is the series, The Man In The High Castle.
In it, the Nazis won WW2, & ruled an occupied USA.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I didn't think I could post this in "Liberal Only," but some interesting points were raised in this thread: Red Dawn



One thing I noticed about Red Dawn when I first saw it was how much the scenario was taken almost verbatim from a scenario outlined in a propaganda video put out by the American Conservative Union in the early 80s. One of my social studies teachers was friends with a retired American general who fought with MacArthur in the Philippines, and he visited the class one day and told us stories about WW2 and retaking the Philippines. Then he came in another day and showed us this video and talked about the right-wing Reaganite concept of "Peace Through Strength."

A lot of it focused on Central America and the rise of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Many right-wing policymakers have always this obsession with Latin America and how dangerous these countries would be if the Communists ever gained a foothold in North America. Back in the early 80s, the big push was about supporting aid for the Contra rebels who were fighting against the Sandinista regime. (The Contras also figured prominently in US Middle Eastern policy with the Iran-Contra deal. The US obsession over communism actually hurt us in the long run, compromising and weakening our position in the Middle East, a mistake which has come back to haunt us numerous times in the decades since the Cold War.)

As for Red Dawn, on the surface, it looks like it's some kind of right-wing propaganda piece. But sometimes I wonder if it was some kind of subtle parody. There's a scene early in the film when the Soviet forces attack the town, and they show a car with a bumper sticker that says "They can have my gun when they pull it from my cold dead fingers," while showing a Soviet officer doing exactly that.

I also still chuckle at Powers Booth's recounting of the events of the invasion when he used the phrase "the whole Cuban & Nicaraguan armies come walking right through, rolled right up here through the Great Plains."

The scenario did seem somewhat contrived and unlikely. For example, one of the preceding events was that NATO dissolved and that Mexico plunged into revolution, presumably becoming a pro-communist state and ally of the Soviet Union (and the whole Cuban and Nicaraguan armies). If the world situation had deteriorated that badly, I seriously doubt that they'd leave the border virtually unguarded or carry on some kind of pretense (as shown in the first scene, pre-invasion) that life in the U.S. is still peaceful and worry-free. The survivalists and others of that ilk would have been frantically building bunkers and caches of weapons throughout those mountains they hid in the weeks or months before the invasion, because given the world circumstances outlined at the beginning, they would have been expecting it.

Likewise, considering how much people want to secure the border now, when there isn't really any military threat, think of how much that sentiment would intensify if there really was a bona fide military threat. We'd be madly building walls, minefields, bunkers, and putting a huge number of troops along the border. I can't imagine even the most liberal of presidents ignoring such an obvious threat.

It's just a movie. I actually liked it, things like this are usually based off conspiratorial musings with a little bit of real world facts thrown in such as our long-standing relationship with various Warsaw pact countries as an adversary.

It's a bit like Tom Clancy storytelling and far better than the shallow modern storytelling such as Fahrenheit 9/11 and similar.

Also Red October was a good one too.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Seems to me if one goes looking for it, a person can find some sinister social message behind most movies/books. Not saying it not there, some intended moral message by the creators. However, I can't see past the fact that it is a fictional creation. The plot, characters, circumstances all fiction. So to me, I see little value in investing much angst into any such social message, intended or otherwise.

I understand maybe a lot of folks find some purpose/motivation by such fictional realities. While I can't but help feel a bit sorry for them, I suppose this is the way the world works.

The only moment in the film which stood out for me was the part where one of the leaders spied some of the rebels sneaking through town. Instead of calling out an alarm, there was a momentary connection of humanity, each doing their best to struggle with the circumstance they found themselves caught up in.

Recently I watched the movie 1917. The Germans were portrayed as real dicks. Maybe the circumstances are far enough removed or it is still socially acceptable to cast Germans as evil ********, but I really haven't heard much social out-rage about it.
My point in the post OP was referring to wasn't to claim there's some sinister motive to the movie. Frankly, I don't think there is. It's just a pulp '80s movie. The point I was trying to make is how it has so thoroughly influenced a great many people, who seem to have internalised a fiction as a reality.

It's not a criticism of the movie at all, it's a criticism of the people who think it was a realistic depiction of the real world.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
It's a bit like Tom Clancy storytelling and far better than the shallow modern storytelling such as Fahrenheit 9/11 and similar.

Also Red October was a good one too.

Fahrenheit 451 is a dystopian novel by American writer Ray Bradbury, first published in 1953
The Hunt for Red October is the debut novel by Tom Clancy, first published in 1984

Aww, those mean old facts making you look uninformed again?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Movies....some people watch them, & think "Wow...this
inspired people to behave as they do!".
I wonder why they behaved as they do before the movie?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
My point in the post OP was referring to wasn't to claim there's some sinister motive to the movie. Frankly, I don't think there is. It's just a pulp '80s movie. The point I was trying to make is how it has so thoroughly influenced a great many people, who seem to have internalised a fiction as a reality.

It's not a criticism of the movie at all, it's a criticism of the people who think it was a realistic depiction of the real world.

I guess we agree then. It's kind of weird or at least not advisable to internalize fiction as a reality.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Fahrenheit 451 is a dystopian novel by American writer Ray Bradbury, first published in 1953
The Hunt for Red October is the debut novel by Tom Clancy, first published in 1984

Aww, those mean old facts making you look uninformed again?

Just one more thing. That title that you posted in regards to Fahrenheit 451?

Um ... How am I going to tell you this? .....

How to break it to you my super duper Bushido buddy, but my post had stated clearly that it was actually Fahrenheit 9/11.

Did that mean ole' fact make you feel uninformed? Again?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Just one more thing. That title that you posted in regards to Fahrenheit 451?

Um ... How am I going to tell you this? .....

How to break it to you my super duper Bushido buddy, but my post had stated clearly that it was actually Fahrenheit 9/11.

Did that mean ole' fact make you feel uninformed? Again?
Pardon me for assuming you knew the difference between fiction and documentary. You're right, I gave you too much credit and made a mistake based on the assumption you were making sense. I apologise.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Pardon me for assuming you knew the difference between fiction and documentary. You're right, I gave you too much credit and made a mistake based on the assumption you were making sense. I apologise.
And ad hominem?

You're not running out of things to say are you?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
My point in the post OP was referring to wasn't to claim there's some sinister motive to the movie. Frankly, I don't think there is. It's just a pulp '80s movie. The point I was trying to make is how it has so thoroughly influenced a great many people, who seem to have internalised a fiction as a reality.

It's not a criticism of the movie at all, it's a criticism of the people who think it was a realistic depiction of the real world.

True, although the overall influence towards that way of thinking had been around for quite some time. It seemed to subside for some time during the late 60s and 70s, but the 80s came around and war was supposedly fun again. Other movies of that era, like Top Gun and Iron Eagle had a decidedly pro-military theme.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
True, although the overall influence towards that way of thinking had been around for quite some time. It seemed to subside for some time during the late 60s and 70s, but the 80s came around and war was supposedly fun again. Other movies of that era, like Top Gun and Iron Eagle had a decidedly pro-military theme.
I wonder about the claim that people think these movies are realistic.
Who actually believes that?
I've never run across anyone who does.
And I know some real crazies.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I wonder about the claim that people think these movies are realistic.
Who actually believes that?
I've never run across anyone who does.
And I know some real crazies.

Realistic? No, I don't know anyone who believes that. These are more along the lines of live action comic books.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Realistic? No, I don't know anyone who believes that. These are more along the lines of live action comic books.
and yet a great many people seem to want to base defence policy, private firearm policy, and foreign policy on ideas from this and similar fictional works. I'm willing to accept that this is subconscious for most of them.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
and yet a great many people seem to want to base defence policy, private firearm policy, and foreign policy on ideas from this and similar fictional works. I'm willing to accept that this is subconscious for most of them.

I think these movies might be able to present a point of view which shapes certain perceptions about the world. Westerns also seemed to have the same influence and effect, at least in a certain way.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I think these movies might be able to present a point of view which shapes certain perceptions about the world. Westerns also seemed to have the same influence and effect, at least in a certain way.
Hmmm... a bit of a chicken egg thing, I guess? Do the movies impart a certain world view? Or are the movies made to appeal to those with a certain world view? Or is it all a self reinforcing feedback loop? "paranoid prone individuals see a movie designed to appeal to paranoid individuals, which reinforces their paranoia, which in turn leads to more movies with more paranoia appeal," and so on?
 
Top