The Interpreter: Interpreting The Propaganda

How neutral is the media? I would say not very much! Since the beginning of the development of technology after the World War II, the flow of information is in the hands of authority. In this case, the United States as the winning party of Cold War.

Since the US's winning in the Cold War, media is used to spread its ideas all around the world. As Avtar Brah stated in her journal, the US's predominance is intrinsically inscribed among global power relations. The US does not have to depend on expanding its territory to secure its status and power. The knowledge of US propaganda in media is prevalent. The film is no exception.

Watching The Interpreter (2005) by Sydney Pollack, it would seem like another political thriller movie starred by the marvelous Sean Penn (Tobin Keller) and Nicole Kidman (Silvia Broome). Well, not until we find out the background information behind the making of the film. The plotline tells the story of a UN interpreter who overhears an assassination plot of Edmond Zuwanie (Earl Cameron), president of Matoba -a made up country in Africa- who was once praised as a hero for bringing freedom to his homeland but later accused of killing hundreds of people who are against him by dissembled them as terrorists to justify his action.

The resemblance of the plotline to an actual polemic happened in Africa is surprisingly accurate. Robert Mugabe, the leader of Zimbabwe, was widely known for his dictatorship, racism, and "Gukurahundi," a tragedy in the 1980s he conducted. More than 20,000 members of the ethnic minority were being killed. Australia and New Zealand have been pushing the UN Security Council to indict Mugabe before the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity. No action was taken, making the world questions its actual role. The scene of fake and plotted assassination also happened in which Mugabe was portrayed as assigning a Dutch mercenary to attempt an assassination on him. Soon after released, the film was banned in Zimbabwe. Even Tafataona Mahoso, the chairman of the government's media and information commission, called The Interpreter as "typical of US Cold War propaganda."

All of the facts above, I was surprised that The Interpreter was not labeled based on a true story. Many questions occurred regarding the controversial film: Is it true the resemblance is made for a purpose? Why was it allowed to be filmed in the UN Headquarters, making it the first-ever movie taking place there? Why choosing Nicole Kidman for the leading role when a black actress would make more sense? Is it the US's propaganda?

United States Agenda.

At that time, the world had quite a bad impression of the US. All because of George W. Bush's Bush's decision in responding to the 9/11 tragedy. Making him known as a wartime president and sparked islamophobia across the country. The US needs to secure its position as a veto right holder and the country with the most vital political influence throughout the world. In this movie, the US is portrayed as a neutral party. The scene in which a representative tried to bring Zuwanie to the court is pretty shady. If anyone should have been given credits for the fight, it was Australia and New Zealand. However, even their names are not mentioned in the film.

The racial issue is also brought up in the plot. People argued why the role landed in Nicole Kidman? For the role of an American, born and raised in Africa, who speaks perfect Ku language and once a supporter of Zuwanie, it would make more sense if a black actress represents Silvia Broome. The result is that Pollack has to add an extra conflict to keep the red line. Broome switched to Zuwanie's opposition in the film, yet she was ditched because she was white. Now, why would the director squeeze in another political side conflict into the plotline that emphasizes a racial issue here? Many assumed it was a selfish attempt to make a distinction between Americans and Africans. This is where the term media framing works. In this case, the media has the authority to take on reality and project it to the audience. The problem is that the projection is often influenced by power and hidden agendas that the audience perceives has been manipulated to reach specific goals. People who watch The Interpreter might interpret the US as the "savior". It is shown as a problem-solver, trying to bring peace by involving itself in the movie's international issue. Some even said it was a "white" show-off as the most pluralist group.

United Nations Agenda.

UN has been questioned for its role in dealing with international conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq war, slavery in African countries, and not being politically more substantial than the US. Tobin Keller and Silvia Broome, as members of the UN purposely used in the film to "save the UN's face as they are the ones who ended up being the heroes. For preventing the assassination and. Bringing Zuwandie to the court. This is the agenda-setting that is created to give a good impression to the audience. That UN still has its authority and credibility.

Donald Shaw, Maxwell McCombs, and their colleagues stated that the power of media depends on particular issues at particular times, the extent of conflicting evidence as perceived by individual members of the public, the extent to which individuals share media values at a particular time, and the public's need for guidance. There is a reason why The Interpreter was the only one allowed to be filmed at UN Headquarters. As the theory above, it gave the UN the authority to insert its purpose into the film. A media that later consumed by a large audience promoted the UN's impression of people's perception.

Public Opinion.

Media has the power to shape the public's opinion. The dominant media reflects the mass society view. Dennis McQuail argues that society after industrialization and urban immigration has the characteristics of family privatization, competitiveness, and lack of solidarity and participation. Thus, society relies much on the media to view the world yet in terms of pseudo-environment. The problem is that the media is highly dependent on the power-holder and authority. That's why the content is more likely to serve political and economic power holders' interests. This has been a fact that cannot be separated from the practice of media. So it has to be understood that when there are media, there is an agenda.

There is a state of opinion and belief that a party needs to put in the audience's mind. Lasswell's classic work Propaganda Technique in the World War (1927), explaining the attempts of propaganda: "It refers solely to control of opinion another formant symbol, or to speak more concretely and less accurately, by stories, rumors, reports, picture and other form of social communications." In this term, the film is the form that is being exploited. In this term, the Zimbabwe conflict and the US also UN heroism is the main idea.

Shaping the public's opinion is not necessarily tricky. In the Communication field, cultivation theory explains the long term effect of media. George Gerbner and his colleagues start with the argument that television has become the central cultural arm of history. The one who tells most stories in the family. The primary concept is, the more time people spend "living" in the television world, the more likely they are to believe the social reality portrayed on television. Nowadays, the film has become one of the dominant subcultures in society; the effect is pretty much the same.

The fact that media is very much affected by the power holder and its agenda is not deniable at all. It isn't very comforting to see the impacts of media’s attempts to shape audience opinion. We can the result nowadays: racial discrimination (minority-blaming), islamophobia, the spread of Western ideology such as strong liberalism values that is a threat to local values, the normalization of violence, even gender discrimination. The Interpreter is a ‘courageous’ example of spreading propaganda and creating the public’s opinion. Aside from the controversy, I’d love to salute Pollack for his brutally-honest artwork. A beautiful film for the common audience, a neat propaganda tool for those aware of the hidden plots behind the media.

So, how neutral is the media? I would say, not very much!

Written in December 2015

REFERENCES

Brah, Avtar. 2002. Global Mobilities, Local Predicaments: Globalization and the Critical

Imagination. 3 April 2002.

Borchers, T. A. 2013. Persuasion in the Media Age. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press

Matel, Francais. 2015. Stop Making Cecil The Lion Parenthood Story. [online]. Accessed December 27th 2015. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/04/stop-trying-

to-make-cecil-the-lion-a-planned-parenthood-story/

Littlejohn, Stephen W., dan Karen A. Foss. 2005. Theories of Human Communication ed. 8.

Singapore: Wadsworth Publishing. 2009. Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. London: Sage Publication. McCombs, M. 2004. Setting the Agenda. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

McQuail, Dennis. 2000. Mass Communication Theory ed. 4. London: Sage Publication.

Mushekwe, Itai. 2007. The Interpreted Misinterpret [online]. Accessed December 26th 2015. http://www.theindependent.co.zw/2007/10/12/the-interpreter-misinterpreted/

Severin, Werner and James W. Tankard Jr. 1997. Communication Theories : Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media ed. 4. New York: Longman Publishers.

Young, Emma. 2005. Oscar for the Best Use of Holly. [online]. Accessed December 26th 2015. http://www.theindependent.co.zw/2007/10/12/the-interpreter-

misinterpreted/lywood-for-propaganda-goes-to-/2005/05/01/11148 86249646.html