Alcohol in the movies is not because it is in life

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

One of the most common arguments sounds like this: "alcohol and tobacco are in our life, so they are in the cinema." No one argues: everything that is present in real life, one way or another, will be reflected in films and TV shows. The only question is in scale: you can casually mention it in one of the many films, or you can arrange alcohol and tobacco parades in each.

Before reading the article, we recommend watching a short video:

Now the situation is like this:

• 90% of films contain stills with cigarettes and alcohol
• on average, the duration of the demonstration of these drugs is from 2 to 5 minutes for an hour and a half film
• individual episodes - 5-10 for an hour and a half film
• often there are close-ups, long smoking in the frame, often pouring alcohol inside is the only semantic element of the visual series
• there are more positive statements about alcohol than negative ones
• you can see how alcohol for some reason is attracted by the ears into the frame, diligently integrating it into the plot, as much as possible
• alcohol is never called "poison" and "drug", there are no teetotal characters in the movies

Natural mention and artificial promotion

There is a natural mention of a product, which happens by itself, and there is a special promotion - when something is added to the film for the purpose of popularization. For example, Sony Ericsson's technology can appear in the frame - once and for natural reasons, but when it is encountered several times in one film, it’s already strange. So, in the tape "Casino Royale" the inscription "Sony Ericsson" appeared at least 3 times, what is this, if not a hidden advertisement ??! Moreover, such "exposure" of the brand costs a lot of money, as it works for a positive image of the brand and recognition, as a result, increases sales. The Sony Ericsson brand definitely exists in real life, but do we understand that this is not the reason why it appeared in the film?

With alcohol and tobacco scenes, the situation is similar: with a natural mention of them, there would be 10-30 times less of them, that is, a maximum of 1 film out of 10. There is no reason to think that hidden advertising is done to popularize specific goods and brands, but for popularization of alcohol and smoking, as such, no one will do propaganda, even those interested in it.

I advise you to read the material under the link about hidden advertising technologies, after that you are unlikely to say that there is a mention of brands in movies just because they exist in life. There is a concept of hidden advertising, they pay quite a lot of money for it - a director can earn more from it than from selling movie tickets and DVDs.

The essence of such advertising is to create the impression that the presence of a product in a film is due to its popularity and necessity in life, and not because it is specially pushed into the frame for advertising. Everything is like promoting alcohol! Most people do not see hidden advertising, they perceive it as a natural mention of a product or service, and therefore it is so effective. For example, Apple's technique is very common, you can make whole collections of TV shows and films in which this "apple actor" was filmed.

You can compare two similar scenes: one promoting alcohol and the other not. Moreover, in a scene with his propaganda, he is logically less appropriate than in a scene where he is almost absent. And the fact is that one director aimed to promote alcohol, and the other did not.

I hope you realize that hidden advertising exists, now you need to understand that propaganda exists. To do this, let's look at a few examples, for example, in the 1925 film "Battleship Potemkin" there was propaganda of ideology:

Let me remind you of the definition of the concept of "propaganda":

The propaganda in the aforementioned film is not only about the red flag, but also about what the film is about. After all, the plot of the film is certain facts, and we were shown the point of view of the events of 1905 of one side, that is, some facts were silenced, while others were told.

Imagine that former opponents are making films about one battle after the war. For example, a film from Germany and the USSR about the Battle of Stalingrad - agree that given the same historical facts, two films will create different historical impressions. Moreover, it is not even necessary to specially falsify the story or add propaganda, since the directors always leave the imprint of their worldview on the film, therefore, if the director has already been "led" to propaganda, then his work will not remain without it. But if the director had a specific propaganda goal, then every scene can be crammed with propaganda, as in Burnt by the Sun 2, where any scene is either anti-Soviet propaganda or preparing the ground for showing it.

The effectiveness of propaganda on the example of Nazi Germany

It is not enough to prove to opponents that propaganda exists; we must also help them to realize that it affects not 5% (or just a small part of people), but 95%. The typical person is not aware of the influence of propaganda either on himself or on others, so he disagrees that most people are governed by it. As a result, a person does not attach due importance to the influence of the media.

There is political, ideological and other propaganda, and it is quite effective, for example, because of propaganda, ordinary German men decided not to work at a factory, but to join the army, and attack first Europe, and then the USSR. It is no coincidence that everyone still remembers the head of the NSDAP propaganda department, Goebbels.

Nobody will say that the fascist propaganda was because in life there is what they tell? There is some truth everywhere, but in this case it is the most common propaganda with lies and specific goals, moreover, note that an entire country fell under its influence, and then a united Europe. And 95% of people didn’t see through it, but all together “fell for it”. This is a large-scale project that someone has done and which someone has managed, there are no uncontrollable processes. And the result of the project - more than 54 million people died in the Second World War, as planned, because no one starts a war, thinking that there will be no losses.

Convincing people to take weapons and go kill others is possible, but convincing people to take a glass of alcoholic poison and kill themselves is impossible, isn't it funny? In Nazi Germany, when 5% of the population, aware of propaganda, tried to explain to the rest of 95% of people who fell for it, and they were also told that everything that is broadcast in the media is the essence of reality and the "truth of life", and not stuffing that there is no smoke without fire, and other arguments are unaware of the influence of propaganda.

How was propaganda carried out in Germany? It is unlikely that these were special radio programs called "Propaganda of Fascism" or columns in the newspapers "Suggestion and Manipulation". All this is integrated into the supposedly natural informational background of the media, here you are listening to a radio program about the nature of Eurasia, and there something bad about the USSR is mentioned to you. That is, the topic is one thing, but at the same time, they “push” another, using the technology of hidden advertising, they integrate the mention under the guise of natural.

In the promotion of alcohol in the same way, they are trying to convince us that several alcohol-tobacco scenes in an hour and a half of a film are like in life. But here you need to know that there are large forces similar in scale to those that led Germany into the Second World War. For example, the same transnational corporations like Philip Morris - do you think they are interested in increasing the sales market? Now imagine that they have taken over almost the entire smokers' market and made almost all the cigarettes they buy. The only thing left to do is to expand in the direction of agitation for non-smokers - to start smoking. But it is also necessary that the percentage of smokers be maintained, that is, a person born without nicotine addiction must eventually acquire it, otherwise income will fall. Who can say that the tobacco giants are sitting idly by and hoping that the younger generation will start smoking on their own? And if it doesn’t start, then it’s all to the business of the khan, we close the ten-year-old feeding trough and start another business from scratch.

And now a significant part of the population in our country is sure that alcohol is not a drug, that it is the norm of life; some are sure that it is a food product. But in Germany there were scientists, political scientists, conscientious media, honest politicians, did they really understand nothing and could not explain to the common people? And people were not medical idiots, how could they be deceived? But it was possible - a fact. And now it is possible to deceive a significant part of the world in relation to alcohol and tobacco.

Competent propagandists, PR specialists and even stylists worked on fascist Germany. The uniform for the Germans was developed by the now popular fashion clothing company Hugo Boss. A generally beautiful gesture was chosen and discredited, when a hand with a straight palm is thrown up at an angle of 45 degrees. This and much more was done to give the impression that the Nazi was cool. And now some people think that drinking and smoking is cool, they even post photos with a cigarette on social networks.

If people stop smoking in films, people will quit on the sly. After all, humanity was able to overcome many phenomena that killed it, for example, there used to be a plague and other epidemics, but now humanity knows how to make sure that no one gets sick. And for some reason this does not happen with alcohol and tobacco, although alcohol does only harm to the drinking society. It does not happen because people produce alcohol and tobacco, and they are financially interested (and there are still interests above financial) in the sale of these drugs.

If alcohol and tobacco are present in films because they are present in life, then:

• Why is alcohol never called a drug in films if that is a popular point of view? In the USSR GOST of 1973, alcohol is a drug, but not a single Soviet film called it a drug, although it was present in almost every film.
• Why isn't alcohol called poison? He kills not only microbes, but also people.
• Why are there many times more positive statements about alcohol and tobacco in the cinema than negative ones?
• Why are there an order of magnitude more scenes with a "high" from alcohol than scenes with a hangover?
• Why do cool characters who drink tons of alcohol show supernatural physical capabilities if it's not like in life?
• Why are there no teetotalers in the films, if they exist in life?
• Why are there more scenes in the movies where the drinker starts drinking than scenes where the drinker stops drinking? I can't remember a single scene where someone quit drinking, but I know a few where they started.

The media shape reality, not reflect

History knows several cases when media stories about what happened provoked a repetition of events. For example, someone got into the habit of setting fire to cars for incorrect parking, the media told about this, as a result, the number of arson increased, as people were given an idea. The situation was stopped only after it was forbidden to talk about new cases in the media.

The situation is similar with terrorist acts - if you do not talk about them in the media, then their meaning is lost. Terror is translated from Latin as "fear". The point of terrorist attacks is to intimidate people, but this is impossible, if no one finds out about the terrorist attack, the very purpose of the terrorist attack will not be achieved. Terrorist attacks happen in life, does it follow from this that it is necessary to talk about them in the media? On the contrary, they can be stopped only if you do not talk about them. Please note that terrorist attacks are carried out by terrorists, and they intimidate only those who saw the terrorist attack, or heard about it from those who saw it, and this is a small number of people. But the media intimidate tens and hundreds of millions with their messages, so who terrorizes us more? Only special services should know about terrorist attacks, not the target audience.

In the case of drugs, the situation is similar, because if you stop showing them in every episode, then people will think about them by an order of magnitude less. For example, as a teetotaler and non-smoker, I see 95% of alcohol-tobacco scenes in films, and not in reality. That is, if it were not for the movie, then I would see 20 times less smoking and alcohol consumption. I don't mention how exactly these scenes are shown, if you think that they are shown as in real life, then this is not so - they are embellished.

The Werther effect is a massive wave of mimic suicide that occurs after a suicide widely reported on television or other media. Suicide rates rise significantly 0-7 days after such a news story. There is a similarity between the situation of the first suicide who became famous and the situations of those who committed suicide after him (if the suicide was older, suicides increased among the elderly; if he belonged to a certain social circle or profession, then suicides in these areas increased).

The Werther effect is so called after the publication of the novel by Goethe, where the main character named Werther committed suicide from unrequited love, which provoked a wave of suicides. And in Russia, after the publication of N. M. Karamzin's book "Poor Liza" in 1792, there was also a wave of drowning among young girls.

It is a scientific fact that an example of a character's suicide can lead people to commit suicide. It is not so difficult to guess that the examples of constant smoking and pouring alcohol inside among the characters of the films also push the viewer to such destructive behavior, only in the cinema it is presented not as destructive, but as the norm. If, after the aforementioned books, not all readers have engaged in suicide, then you should not think that this works only for a small percentage, for two reasons:

1. To commit suicide, a person needs to step over the most important instinct - the instinct of self-preservation. And to follow the example of movie stars to drink or smoke - nothing is needed, especially since all films convince that it is not scary.
2. Books and films where the main characters (and the audience associates itself with them most of all) commit suicide make up a very small percentage, and films where people smoke and drink - 90%. If in 9 out of 10 films the heroes committed suicide, then there would be an order of magnitude more suicides. Although alcohol and cigarettes are slow suicide.

We can remember how imitators of maniacs appeared, when the media reported about a maniac who killed victims in a certain way, then people appeared who repeated his handwriting.

In these cases, the mechanisms are not exactly the same as in the presence of alcohol-tobacco scenes in the movies, but the principle of action is similar. The media show this allegedly because it is in life, but only increase the frequency of the repetition of cases. But any media is a business, that is, the goal of the project is money. The media talk about something, not because it is in life, but because it will make money. Not a single major media outlet aims at objectively reflecting reality, it can only declare this goal, but this is for show, and the management tells its journalists at planning meetings that their task - to make ratings and earnings does not lie in objectivity. Creating the illusion of objectivity in the audience is important, but don't confuse creating the illusion with the actual goal setting of showing objectively.

Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University. Deputy Minister of Communications of the Russian Federation Alexey Volin: Your task is not to make the world better, but to earn money for the owner

It's the same in cinema - the viewer must think that everything shown is natural or accidental, and not done with the aim of subconsciously influencing his opinion. There are a lot of empty slots in the cinema where you can put something, for example, characters use phones, you can make nameless phones, and then there will be no money, but you can agree with Sony Ericsson or Apple so that these phones are exactly their brands, and already money for hidden advertising. And unconscious advertising is a hidden influence on the psyche of the viewer, and there are many slots for such influences. Another example of a slot: the characters can talk in the park on the street, or you can make them "accidentally" choose McDonald's or KFC and talk at a meal - the restaurant logos are attached in the frame. The viewer will still not understand, but there is an advertisement on the screen. And you can also make a character smoke, and this must be shown, because without this, the director's happiness would not be complete.

Another slot can be the car of the protagonist, you can just show any random brand, or you can get money for advertising, because just mentioning the brand is enough. But if we agree on hidden advertising, then why should we not only show the car, but also make separate scenes, how good it is? Advertising will be more effective - there will be more money. So we get such pearls as in "Die Hard 5", where a Mercedes jeep drives almost along the walls, such a good cross-country ability.

And there are a lot of such slots, where you can invest meaningful for someone, in films, and not only in the field of promoting commercial brands. The basic principle is that you do not realize what stereotype the film is forming for you, you seem to be just watching a movie, and do not pay attention to the fact that there are either no children in the family at all, or 1 child. And meanwhile, if you watch this from childhood, then a stereotype is laid that the norm is 1-2 children, but if you show 5-7 children in a movie, then most will be sure that so much is needed for a full life.

For example, in the air defense they understand the hidden influence, therefore this party not only speaks in words about the need to have many children, and not only in the party's program there are points that give this opportunity, but it affects at an unconscious level for 95% of voters, which can be seen from this images.

The main deception of the media is that a typical person does not even know how many of these slots are, and what exactly they suggest. For example, a person may be aware of the fake story in Burnt by the Sun 2, but not see the propaganda of alcohol and tobacco.

Why are there no teetotalers in the cinema?

Do you know why propagandists are afraid to show teetotalers and those who quit drinking in the movies like wildfire? They even ridicule them and show them as fools very, very rarely, I know of only one case when teetotalers were shown in the cinema, and then for ridicule, and I saw him not naturally, but in the analysis from Teach Good. But I can name dozens (if not hundreds) of films where there are no teetotalers, but drinking characters are shown.

More precisely, in the films they still showed teetotalers, but only when they start drinking alcohol in doses, that is, propaganda to switch from teetotalers to cultural drinkers, for example, as it was in "Caucasian Prisoner" and "Diamond Hand".

The propagandists are afraid of the very idea of sobriety most of all, because even if they ridicule teetotalers, it means that the viewer will see that in addition to “drinking a lot” (alcoholic) and “drinking relatively little” (cultured drinker), there is also a teetotaler. They believe that even the very idea that one can live without alcohol should not occur to people, otherwise they will start repeating! For example, the alcoholic propagandist Dmitry Puchkov writes in his book "Moonshine" that only children and the sick do not drink, although he knows very well about the existence of teetotalers, but his readers do not need to know about it. Of course, we know about such a phenomenon, but if you constantly show, tell and write in books how cool it is to drink, and suppress the idea of sobriety, then it is displaced from consciousness, a person seems to forget about it, concentrating on what he sees often - and these are alcohol and tobacco scenes.

If the media start talking about how people quit drinking and smoking, then the number of quitters will increase, so they don't talk about it. At the same time, propagandists can even distort the essence of sober propaganda, as was the case with the anti-alcohol videos "Take care of yourself", in which they crammed alcohol propaganda under the application, but this is 2009, then even such videos were like a breath of fresh air in a smoky and alcoholic society …

Will you tell your child something bad about his ancestors? If your child asks you to tell something about his great-grandmother or great-grandfather, then you tell something good so that the child will take a positive example. In the life of any person there are unworthy actions, but it is unlikely that you will say in every story, for example, about a smoking grandfather, that he smoked. In films, you will definitely be shown smoking, as if it somehow affects the plot. You won’t tell the child: “And so your great-grandfather, having lit a cigarette, sat down in Pobeda, and went …”, it does not matter whether he lit a cigarette or not, so that the child does not take an example and you won’t talk about it, right? Although it was in life, you understand what effect stories (like fairy tales) have on upbringing, and the media don't seem to understand this …

People have many vices in life, not only smoking and alcohol, but for some reason these vices are not present in every film. Why are alcoholic scenes consistently shown in films, regardless of the plot, and another vice, for example, masturbation, only when it is necessary according to the plot? According to statistics, in life about 70% of people are engaged in this, which means that such scenes should be in every 5-10 films, but they are less often present. The answer is this - if you popularize masturbation, then no one will make money, but if you popularize smoking, then the money is quite specific. But it’s not only about money for Philip Morris, the population decline, the weakening of passionarity is also important, and through poisons they also weaken geopolitical competitors.

More than half a century ago, war was relevant as the first priority, and now wars are not only cold, but also informational. When the Americans entered Afghanistan, the production of drugs there increased 40 times, and they were not exported to the United States. It is clear that this is not accidental and not natural, but on purpose. Maybe in the cinema, which is mainly run by the American dream factory Hollywood, is it on purpose? More than 100 years ago, they guessed purposefully to build a whole city in order to shoot films on an assembly line, but they did not know how to integrate the necessary propaganda there - “I don’t believe!”, As Stanislavsky said.

Although now in the films not only masturbation has begun to be shown, in addition to this there are many perversions, this is done due to population decline, they are trying to make asexual people who will eventually become excellent zombies and slaves, since they will not have any human values and aspirations other than those imposed in the media. There is more gay propaganda in films and even computer games like Far Cry 4. And this is not just the presence of gays as characters, it is precisely the use of mind manipulation techniques or suggestion to the viewer. It cannot be justified by tolerance, as in the case of the obligatory presence of blacks in films, here - the work with hidden methods with the psyche of the viewer.

If you find out how much natural (that is, "because in life") and random in films, then you will be very surprised, I advise you to read the materials for this, how films are made - everything is done there according to a refined technology. The media successfully manipulates people because of their belief that media manipulation only works for clinical idiots. And they are sure because they do not study this topic. People do not know how it works from where they get 95% of information, and it’s not so much about conscious information, but about the influence of the media on the subconscious.