American Politics & Pop Culture

Sahara:

I didn't enjoy Sahara nearly as much as Citizen Kane. It was pretty dull and the only parts that were really that entertaining to me were the ones that really illustrated how old the movie is. It was sort of funny at the end when the well was full and they were all surprised. If anything I think it kind of downplayed the seriousness of war and made it into a light hearted predicament. The sergeant, Joe never really seems to get that upset and the ending is far too elated for a story about war.

However, Sahara does adhere very nicely to the six guidelines set by the government for Hollywood films. The first one being the "Issues of War." In the movie the characters never quit even when things seem impossible. They stay overly upbeat and no matter how hopeless things get at the end when it is just two of them left against the countless number of Germans they never surrender. This illustrates the first guideline because it set an example for the American public to support the war effort no matter how hopeless their situation seemed to be because it would all pay off in the end.

The second guideline was "The Nature of the Enemy." Throughout Sahara there are all sorts of references to Hitler and the Nazi's along with the Italian. In the beginning when Joe and his gang come across a British soldier with an Italian prisoner. Joe is set on leaving the prisoner stranded out in the desert to die. His exact words are "I'm not taking a load of spaghetti," even after the prisoner begs and talks about his infant child at home. After they are attacked by a German plane and the plane goes down in flames they go to question the German soldier. The black soldier of their troop goes to search the man and the German snaps that he will not be searched by an "inferior race." I think the purpose of this must be to show the character of the Germans. There is also more than one reference about Nazi's being like "mad dogs."

Sahara also adheres to the other guidelines in at least one way, the first two just stuck out to me.

Posted by joh02296 at 05:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara, while being an entertaining movie, has a decidedly palpable streak of patriotism, and could clearly be characterized as a propagandist film. Of the six guidelines for Hollywood films laid-out by the government, this film adheres mostly to “The Issues of the War,” “The Nature of the Enemy,” and “The Fighting Forces.”

In the lecture slides, there was an image of a propaganda poster that said something with regard to “dampening cynicism” and had the general purpose of keeping people optimistic (or at least, not openly critical) about the war. This similar attitude of discouraging cynicism is evident in the film when, after the tank breaks down in the desert, one of the soldiers, in frustration, refers to the tank as a “tin can.” Sergeant Joe Gunn reprimands the soldier for his remark. Joe Gunn tinkers with the tank a bit more, and it starts right up. I think this is related to guideline one, “The Issues of the War,” because the underlying message is of remaining positive, not criticizing the war effort despite the conditions, and essentially, that blind patriotism will lead one in the right direction.

There are many examples in Sahara that follow guideline two, “The Nature of the Enemy.” In the film, after they capture the German soldier, a black soldier attempts to search him and the German solider recoils, not wanting to be touched by someone of an “inferior” race. This illustrates the enemy’s ideology of hate for anyone not like themselves. An example that illustrates the enemy’s methods is, when the captured German soldier is not forthcoming about his ability to understand/speak English and uses this as a means to thwart the plans of his captors. Another example is when, after not reaching an agreement with the German soldiers, the French soldier turns away and in the process of returning to his encampment, is shot in the back. These examples show how deceitful and callous the enemy is, and are used to inspire hate for them.

Guideline six, “The Fighting Forces,” which refers to the armed services, allies, and associates, is certainly apt for this film. Much of the film involves interaction between soldiers of different countries, most prominently British and French soldiers. The film depicts these soldiers as the “followers” of the Americans. When the American troops find the British and French soldiers in the desert they relay to them their plans to head south. The “foreign” troops initially scoff at their plans, but when the Americans start to leave, they cave and ask to come with. Also, the highest ranking British soldier relinquishes his authority to Sergeant Joe Gunn, allowing him to be in charge. Both of these examples give the impression of American superiority, strength, and dominance; that we are there to “save the day” for all the other countries that could not hack it.

Posted by palaz012 at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading "Christopher Lewis Sahara" »

Posted by Chris Lewis at 11:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I too, found myself really, REALLY, thirsty for the duration of this film. In fact my water bottle didn’t leave my grip.

I believe that the film does adhere to all categories:
1. The Issues of the War: Bogart as a man who wears a plate of armor during war to protect his reasonable and normally levelheaded existence (ex: when after deliberation he finally let the Italian solider come with them, instead of leaving him to die in the desert)
2. The Nature of the Enemy: example: The captured German solider, his cockiness, his deceit in not telling the Allies that he could understand English and the fact he stabbed the Italian in the back
3. The United Nations: The Allied soldiers were all from different corners of the world French, British, Irish, American and African working together to find water and get back to the front to defeat the Germans.
4. The Production Front: The tank and guns used were well made and could withstand desert heat
5. The Home Front: the sturdiness of the tank and materials used, the remembrance of sweethearts at home
6. The Fighting Forces: The film was about men in the army
I really didn’t see any other theme in the film other than propaganda. To be honest I was ready to walk out on this film. Thinking Oh great another over-the-top, preachy, WWII film that I’ve seen a dozen times already watching AMC with my Dad as a kid. But the thing that stood out for me was the ending. More specifically the fact that the bomb or shell, whatever it was that loosened up the well and caused it to fill up for the German soldiers at the end. It put the kibosh on any notion that the Americans/Allies had the final say on anything. It was pure chance, or perhaps divine intervention that the shell landed where it did and if it were up to Bogart’s character, the Germans would have died of dehydration with a look of disbelieve and horror on their face that they had been duped in to believing they were saved. So in a way it showed how cruel even Americans could be. We saw the real morals of Bogart’s character. He was willing to deceive the Germans out of their only hope, and he was willing to die for that deception.
Stereotypes in this film abound, with the exception of the representation of the minority. The black allied solider was seen as an equal later on in the movie, especially in the well, when he discovers the little drip of water. But when he was first introduced, he was seen as feeble and almost comically inept at detecting friend from foe.
While it’s true that there was not a woman physically in the movie, the way they named the tank Lulubell and referred to it in a feminine manner and chances are that it was produced from a factory of women, made a female presence sort of possible and tangible.

Posted by byro0028 at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara is an amazing movie, not just because the film was quite witty and amusing, but because it offered an interesting perspective on the foreign policy of the United States during World War II. During the film I thought of the movie being a well made propaganda film. An entertaining part of the story line was that every character on the Allied forces sides was from various regions (Sussex, Brooklyn, Texas, South Africa, Sudan, and France. They made these characters quite likable in comparison to their counterparts the Germans and Italians. Though the Italian was seen as a character that did have some virtue, the film does an excellent job when he renounces Mussolini announcing that Mussolini was no Hitler. Thus when the Italian dies he dies with honor. The film tries also does a marvelous job portraying the Nazi German officer as barbaric in comparison to the Sudanese man who was treated as a second class citizen by the German officer. In one scene the Germans shoot one of the allied soldiers in the back (incredibly dishonorable) whereas the Sudanese man dies fighting to protect the allied soldiers (honorable). The captured German officer was also quite kniving and dishonest in comparison to the Italian soldier.

Throughout the film the director clearly made it clear that message was that war effort was the most crucial thing for all Americans. Humphrey Bogart’s character is quoted to say “its everyman’s duty to do what’s right for his country.” Thus the allied forces men were risking their lives to defend the territory in order to get the message of Nazi movement across. Though Humphrey Bogart says that they have a 1 in 100 shot of surviving they are willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of their nations. One line I loved was by the British soldier was that the allied forces were stronger than the Germans because of their dignity of freedom.” Though this film was relatively well put together it is clear it is more of a propaganda film that the U.S. government clearly had a hand in.

Posted by dhill004 at 11:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Some of the themes discussed regarding American propaganda in films during WWII were shown well in Sahara. The issues of the war were portrayed most noticeably in the dialog between the soldiers when they would speak of their families. In many cases during the movie a soldier would make reference to his family and home and in a few instances would show pictures of his wife and children. This seemed to be the source of motivation behind achieving victory, to survive and save those back home.

The nature of the enemy is certainly depicted in an obvious way. The captured German soldier represents the image of the American's enemy in WWII and is shown to be many things: untrustworthy even when a white flag of surrender is waived, immoral when the German captive is said to have a "uniform on his soul", stupid when the outnumbered German wants the Allied soldiers to be his prisoners, racist when the German addresses the South African and even weak when the defeated German soldiers run desperately to the water hole in the end.

The United Nations and the Allies fighting together against a common enemy is the most prominent theme in this film. The movie starts with the three Americans picking up a group of Englishmen and a Frenchman, even an Italian and a German are added to this voyaging group to show a small sample size of the tension and relationships the countries involved in this war had.

The theme of the production front is is not shown at all during this film. Women provided a great contribution to the prodution of WWII supplies and not one woman was casted in this movie. It is interesting however to see that a film contributing to American moral and the smooth and unfaultering ways of the American soldier has a tank which has a bad engine showing the soldier's supplies are holding him back.

The home front is also ignored in this film. The soldiers spend the entire duration in the desert and the civilian contribution goes unnoticed. Aside from the mentionings of the soldiers families, the "people back home" are forgot when watching.

The fighting forces is a theme shown well. The group of men all represent countries in the Allied and Axis powers. A relationship is established between Bogart and the Englishmen and there is a noticeable respect for one another. Another thing that is worth noting is the tension and disagreement between the Italian and the German when the two soldiers should be fighting for the same beliefs and the same cause.

Posted by luli0004 at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First off I want to say that I really enjoyed the film “Sahara”. The acting from time to time could have been more up to par, but what is more important is that the film served its purpose of the six categories of propaganda for Hollywood in the help of the war efforts. I thought American propaganda was portrayed very well through out this film in many unique and interesting ways, but what stuck out to most to me was “the nature of the enemy”. This use of propaganda was very clear for me and it was used from the beginning to the end of the film. Because the movie was written from the Americans perspective of war the Germans were sought out as extremely terrible people that could not be trusted in any way, shape or form. An example of this is when the soldiers see a Nazi plane flying over the top of them and they shoot the plane down, capturing the pilot. From the minute they captured him he was given no credibility, it was as if the soldiers thought every word that came out of his mouth was not the truth. I believe that this was a way to show how powerful the United States of America truly was and that there was nothing to be worried about because they were not going to let the Germans beat us. Another example that comes to my mind is when one of the soldiers goes to negotiate with the Germans. The white flags were up, which means no combat. The negotiations went south to say the least and the soldier was shot by a German, again this portrayed the Germans as terrible people with no morals.
These are just a few examples in the film of how propaganda was used. “The nature of the enemy” was somewhat obvious and I believe it was used to help make our country embrace one another through hating the enemy and knowing how much more powerful we were then them.

Posted by white968 at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The film “Sahara” does a poor job reflecting the ethnic and racial aspects of World War II. In the film, a small group of diverse men come together. An American, an African, an Italian, a British man, and an Italian all meet in the desert and join together in an effort to escape and later battle the enemy, who are the Nazi Germans.

The makers of this film would put this diverse group happily together primarily to stick to the standards the Government issued to Hollywood. By having a united group of men from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds it portrays a united front among the US and its allies. The idea that ‘we all work together’ makes the US and its allies seem more coherent and may persuade more people to join the cause. This type of film makes it seem as if anyone could make a difference in the war no matter what a persons’ ethnicity or race is.

Also, by not having any woman characters in the film it makes it more difficult for women to relate to it. This doesn’t necessarily detract from the film’s persuasive purposes, but it does make it more difficult for women to see what exactly their patriotic duty would be. This movie seems to be intended more for men, but it would have given women an idea of what was going on overseas during war time.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I enjoyed Sahara for what it is - a classic propaganda film emphasizing teamwork, equality, and happy endings. Beyond that it had little meaning to me, mainly because this story has been told a million times and frankly I am sick of seeing the same film over and over! However, I give Sahara more credit than I would otherwise because of it's age and the fact that it was done well. Anyway, on to the assignment...

3) The film follows an unrealistically diverse group of Allied men banding together against the Germans. Sounds like a pretty empowering, patriotic story right? It is! Unfortunately it was just a BIT more patriotic than our country was at the time, as segregation was still very real for the United States Army. Cute story; not quite reality. If I was an adventurous young man alive during this time and I went to go see this film, the illusion presented would definitely soften up a part of my heart to the U.S. Army, and I might feel so patriotic that I would go enlist. This sense of patriotism is exactly what the OWI wanted in Hollywood's films at the time, which is why whites and blacks are fighting side by side in Sahara. If this film portrayed the truth, the black man wouldn't have a Spanish prisoner or be fighting the Germans alongside the very white Humphrey Bogart, but might be imprisoned with the Spaniard and the German for being found without an apron on, alone in the desert. This could have turned some American filmgoers away from the army, which of course was unacceptable at the time. As for a lack of women in the story, this was very realistic. Women didn't fight in the army, and this didn't detract from the film's persuasive purposes for me. It added a sense of realism. Bogart comparing the tank on a couple occasions to a woman brought me in as if I was there with them, dreaming and longing for my girl back home. Well done.

- Andrew Probelski

Posted by probe001 at 10:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As a war propaganda tool, I thought Sahara was an ideal film to promote democracy and patriotism. As the movie moves a long, we learn a lot about intimate details of wives and children connected to the crew of soldiers that was made up of members from such allied powers as France, Great Britain and the United States. These stories really represent what these soldiers are fighting for, freedom for themselves and their family. Sahara really portrays the enemy in a negative way, except for the Italian prisoner, who in a conversation with the German prisoner reveals his true feelings about Benito Mussolini. He talks about how the Italians are like slaves under Mussolini's regime. It was a very anti-authoritarianism moment in the film. The scene in the film where the French soldier is shot in the back as he leaves his negotiation with the German general reaffirms the dirty stereotypes of how Germans fought in battle. Another thing we see from the enemy, is racism and ignorance when the German soldier requests another man to search him besides the Sudanese soldier. Overall, the film successfully sets up a negative stereotype for war methods and attitudes of the axis powers. Sahara also displayed the resilience and dedication of the allied troops throughout their struggle in the desert in a personal way, while the enemy was portrayed in a very impersonal way. The mercy shown by the crew of soldiers towards their fellow soldiers and even the enemy may be unrealistic, but is represented by the scenes where enemy soldiers aren't left for dead in the desert and treated with equal respect.
The Sudanese soldier, who is not amongst the ranks of the U.S. military represents an important role for a minority. He bravely chases down the German pilot before he gets back to his ranks and reveal the secret plan while eventually making the ultimate sacrifice. The only racism towards him comes from the enemy, which probably isn't fair since minorities were segregated by the U.S. These minorities played huge rules in WW2 just like the character in Sahara. I think the absence of women in this film represents their roles on the home front. The roles may not be as visible as those of the soldiers in the film, but without their "behind the scene" contributions the WW2 would have been lost.

Posted by cros0189 at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In relation to Hollywood and the control of wartime propaganda, I believe that the premise of “Sahara” fit well within the government’s six basic themes of war effort contributions. The themes that shone through best were the issues of war, the nature of the enemy and its contrast to our forces, allies working together as one, and the fighting forces in general. Humphrey Bogart’s character made some valuable remarks contributing to these themes, particularly about the purpose to fight for what is good at any cost. Also, the group of men fighting against the Germans was a conglomeration of those from different countries and backgrounds, which illustrated allies coming together to fight for a single purpose. The least represented themes concerned civilians at home contributing to the production front and home front, as the setting of the entire movie was on the fighting territory.

The nature to fight for a larger cause must be well correlated to the “implicit rationale” defining the moral consequences of fighting and dying, which is why we have a sufficient number of young men and women willing to enter the armed forces today. In “Sahara,” this idea is well-represented, specifically from character Joe Gunn’s point of view, as he expressed there are potential negative effects of battle to the individual, but an advantage to the fighting force from individuals working together. This was demonstrated when he convinced his crew of men to stay and hold the fort in anticipation of fighting the Germans upon their arrival. Even if it meant giving their own lives, they were fighting for something bigger, and any way to contribute to the common cause was their motivation.

“Sahara” did its best to reflect the reality of different roles/expectations from people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds, but it was done on almost too small a scale to be realized. The characters all had more of an equal role in fighting, compared to the possible reality of segregated roles. As for the lack of women characters, it is probably due to the fact that women were not allowed in the armed forces at the time, but I don’t believe that this detracted from the film’s messages.

Posted by joh02361 at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm going to address the second question posed in the email. I think this movie definitely defines and establishes that fighting and dying for one's country is very honorable and moral. Every one of them chooses to stay behind and fight impossible odds (500 vs. 9) and they all do it to defend their country and stand up for their personal beliefs. Many of them had families, girlfriends, and many other things to live for, yet they were all willing to face certain death in an effort to "delay" the enemy (as stated by Bogart's character). He establishes that they will be able to beat the Germans because as men who have tasted freedom, they have much more to fight for than the Germans who blindly follow Hitler. This is primarily represented through the interaction with the German prisoner. While he lies and kills to fight for his country, which are in fact the same thing the Allies did to trick the Germans, he is portrayed as an evil character while the American's are portrayed as very honorable and as heroes. This shows the propaganda present from the American government in this film. When watching this movie you automatically support the Americans and their cause. Without much question the viewers are being groomed to support the war and the soldiers. The movie is entertaining, funny (although I don't think it was originally intended to be funny), and also delivers a positive war message without being overly blatant to the viewers of its time. It does, however, portray the German soldiers as extremely evil with terrible intentions and no sense of honor while portraying every other character with some degree of dignity. Even the Italian character, who was also an enemy, was portrayed as honorable and simply following Mussolini because he had no other option, while the Germans were shown as following Hitler because they were all just as evil and inhumane as he was. There is obvious propaganda present, but to patriotic Americans in the 1940s, it was probably much less apparent.

Posted by marsh401 at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The movie Sahara, starring Humphrey Bogart, follows all six themes outlined by the United States government for Hollywood’s contribution to the war effort. The movie outlined the reason why the soldiers were fighting against near impossible odds (500 to 9) through brief explanations of why each soldier was fighting. For example, the Frenchman was fighting to avenge the deaths of citizens of his village who were slaughtered by the Germans; Gunn was fighting for patriotism; the Sudanese soldier was fighting for family and tradition (many of his relatives, including his father, were soldiers); etc.
The nature of the Germans was portrayed through a German soldier who was captured after his plane was shot down by the allied tank. The German soldier was depicted as a liar (pretended not to speak English), a racist (refused to let the Sudanese soldier search him) and a drone that mindlessly followed all of Hitler’s ideologies. Also, when the Germans were giving up their guns for water, they were depicted as almost zombie like as they walked mindlessly towards the well. The nature of the Italians was portrayed through an Italian soldier who had been captured by the Sudanese soldier. He was depicted as a weak coward (begged to be taken as a prisoner of war after he was released to fend for himself in the desert) and traitor to his people (talked poorly of Mussolini).
The United Nations (allies in arms) theme was shown through the banding together of a rag tag group of soldiers from all over the United States, Europe and Africa. The production front theme was portrayed by the soldier’s tank. America was the only nation among the rag tag group that was able to supply means of transportation through the desert. Also, all of the soldiers banded together under the leadership of the American, Captain Gunn. The home front theme, probably the weakest theme in the movie, was represented by brief references to loved ones back home who supported their respective loved ones in the war effort. The fighting forces theme was represented through all nine of the soldiers agreeing to stay and fight against the odds in order to delay the German advancement through the desert.
Overall, the movie was both entertaining and patriotic. It served as an excellent source of propaganda using Humphrey Bogart (one of the best actors of the 1940s) to portray a united ally front. America and the allies were able to defeat the Germans against all odds.

Ian Bell

Posted by bellx236 at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought that the movie that we watched in class this week was really eye opening and pretty interesting. I have seen a couple of WWII films but never any from that specific time period that talked specifically about the war.
The thing that i most liked about this movie was that part that the minority played in the story. The minority part was mostly of a black soldier, i didn't catch his name in the movie. We talked in class about the roles that minorities had in the army in this period of time. They were confined mostly to the job in the mess halls as cooks.
I liked that part that this soldier played in the film. It was interesting to me that he was their guide to find water that they were so desperately in need of. And even when they made it to the second well he was the one that went down into the well and found that it was still dripping water. It was also interesting for me to see that he was the one that ran down the German soldier that had escaped their custody. For me this soldier had one of the biggest parts in the movie if not the biggest. With out him the group might have never found what they were looking for.
I did notice that there were no women that had roles in this movie. I think that maybe the film wanted people to think that women's places were at home helping the war effort through building war items in the manufacturers
I think that for a film of this time period that it did a good job of portraying the minority.
One thing that i really liked about this film was that of the irony that was present throughout the plot. One point in the movie that i found the most irony was at the end when there were only two men still standing to guard the well and all of the German soldiers were walking towards them with guns raised pleading for water. . And the two men still guarding the well thinking there was no water left told them to have as much as they wanted. Coming to find out that the well had actually filled up with water. I thought it was a interesting twist.

Posted by metze015 at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I enjoyed watching Sahara as a class. Hollywood did a great job of combining war propaganda and humor into this film. Out of the six categories and themes the government laid out for Hollywood to follow in their movies during WWII, I believe the first two were implemented in Sahara. The issues of the war and the nature of our enemy were the main focus throughout the movie. In the category of the “issue of the war,” Sahara strongly reinforces the reason for fighting is to preserve out freedom and the freedom of others. This quote by Sgt. Joe Gunn, “Do you know why we're able to do it? Because we are stronger than they are...I don't mean in numbers. I mean something else. You see, those men out there never knew the dignity of freedom” is a perfect representation of why our U.S. military was out there fighting in the second world war. They are there to preserve the American way of life that is so different from that of the majority of the Europeans. The movie makes it seem that the Germans fight because they are brainwashed and told to fight, and that the Italians fight alongside the Germans because it was the easy thing to do. This brings me to the second category of the “nature of the enemy: his ideology, objectives, and methods.” Sahara makes a point to clearly show the evil the German possesses. When the Nazi pilot is shot down and captured, by first impression any viewer would be inclined to believe he was a liar and racist. He lies about his ability to speak English and refuses to be searched by an “inferior race.” On the other hand the Italian merely wears the uniform and fights out of fear for the safety of his family. He did not want to help the German sabotage the small band of American and United Nation fighters, but was eager to inform the Americans of the German’s escape once he was literally stabbed in the back.
I believe the movie had a strong rah-rah U.S.A theme to it. The fact that the American Sgt. Wanted to stay at the well and hold off the Germans as long as they could, outnumbered a hundred to one, shows the fight our soldiers possess. Then with the Americans holding back and outwitting the German forces gave a real strong patriotic feel to the viewer.
I believe the movie was a real representation of the reality of racial and ethnic problems that were currently happening in the U.S. Sgt. Major Tambul acted as an inferior to some of the other white officers even though he had a higher rank. There were also no female characters in the film. The only female representation was that of one of the soldier’s sweetheart back home. For me this was a good use of propaganda. It showed that the men were at war out on the front line fighting for their girls and families back home. Also that the women were not fighting, but at home, and should do as much as they can for the men at war because they are out there fighting for them.

Posted by mcgui149 at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At first I was kind of skeptical of this film, just because I'm not big on old war films, but once it got into it, I realized why we were watching it. I think that this film was defineltyl a propaganda film due to the fact that we (United States) teamed up with our allies to defend our conutry against the Germans. I also think that the film contributed all of the government's themes to make it be classified as a patriotic film as well.
I found it interesting how the group of soldiers felt for the outsiders of their country and made them appart of their own to better themselves. The "frenchie" played a great role in what the soldiers wanted, due to the fact that he did whatever they said and would probabaly die for each and every one of them. When they picked up the German, he appeared to think that he was very "above" the african soldier when he was searching him, and made believe himself as not speaking english. This was believable at the time, but the soldiers caught on to his tactics, and unfortuantly the German killed the frenchie while trying to escape.
I think this was a good film overall and it showed the kind of patriotism it needed for Hollywood during its era. I feel that in the "issues of war," our soldiers and our allies appeared to be fighting for guns and power, but what it really seemed to be, was that they were all fighting for survival, especially water. I feel that when the allies gave up due to thurst, they really weren't "fighting for their countries" like our soldiers were. They gave up because they wanted to LIVE, not DIE for their countries.

Posted by Katrina Heikes at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Watching Sahara was not as bad as I thought it was going to be. Of course this movie was laced with huge amounts of propaganda for the Allies but this movie was also quite enjoyable to watch. This movie gives great examples of how the Allies were shown as being kind and more humane than the evil portrayal of the enemy. This could also be an example of how the Allies were fighting for more than just political, but also for the freedom and justice that America stands for. The movie Sahara also shows how well the Allies worked together and conquered the enemy by getting over the obvious differences such as nationality and race. This is a very stark contrast to the racial superiority of the super-race that Hitler and the Nazis believed in.
If you were some one who was living back in America and saw this movie you would instantly have more faith and respect in the government. This would have a very powerful impact on how I will support the war as a civilian. This could have been done in lots of different ways such as buying bonds, growing victory gardens, or donating supplies that are crucial to the war effort. Although this movie won't go down as one of my all-time favorites I can understand why this movie had such a big impact on the people and culture in that time and how Hollywood cinema went hand in hand with what the American government wanted the public to see and think.

Posted by hove0107 at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara is a good example of a film that served as a propaganda piece, during World War II, in order the aid the American war efforts. During this time, the U.S. government established six basic categories and themes that were made as a guide for Hollywood’s donation to the war effort. These categories included; The Issues of the War, The Nature of the Enemy, The United Nations, The Production Front, The Home Front, and The Fighting Forces. Sahara adheres very well to these categories, for example, this movies represents the Germans as sly, untrustworthy, and dangerous. This film also represents the Germans as people whom are easily outsmarted by the clever Americans. This film also shows the Americans surrounded by a group of people that a very ethnically diverse, which shows the companionship that America has with many different countries. The only category that wasn’t represented very well was "The Home Front." Civilian’s responsibilities weren’t really mentioned at all during the film. The storyline pretty much stuck to the soldiers and what they were doing to help end the war.
The moral consequences of fighting and dying were effectively represented sometimes but not during others. The time when it wasn’t really represented was when they were fighting at the stone structure and one of them would get shot by a German. When this happened their deaths seemed really insignificant with no heroism attached to them. The time when the moral consequence of fighting and dying for one’s country was effectively represented was when Joe Gunn gave his speech before they decided to go against the massive German army. He told his men that the odds of them winning are very slim, but this is what they signed up to do. They could die and be forgotten, or they could live and be remembered as war heroes for the rest of their lives. His men eventually decided to fight, and against all odds they won. I like that it showed both perspectives of dying for ones country, because it gave people a more realistic view of what war really is.

Posted by clay0115 at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1) As most of my peers enjoyed the movie, so have I. I'm not one to watch old movies like "Sahara", but this movie has definitely opened my horizon for older movies. I think Sahara did a good job in depicting the thoughts and ideas of the 1940s which is war and politics. In the movie, America or American soldiers were the good guy. They weren’t fighting because they wanted to take the world over, but for their freedom. American soldiers in the movie made numerous references about returning to normal life after home. Never once did they make a reference of taking over the war. I felt that that was a common theme for some of the characters like the Italian who was fighting for freedom rather than power. The nature of the enemy portrayed was they are the bad guys and America is the good guys. At the end of the movie, America wins because of its patriotism and submission to the American government. I think that the movie was trying to tell movie goers that they too need to have the same fighting spirit as the soldiers and submission to the government to be winners. The tank represented “a lady” the captain. He was treating the tank well, putting his faith and trust into it, fixing the problems that it may have, much like a relationship with women. In a sense, showing quality women viewers must posses like patience, faith, and helping as much as they can for soldiers or civilian responsibility. I feel that all of the main points were hit upon in the propaganda of the war in Hollywood films. I also feel that the movie showed that Americans can trust other country man except Germany. They showed the German Nazi as a traitor instead of other country man. I think in the movie they showed that other country man can get along as long as they are fighting for freedom.

2) I definitely think that the movie showed the morale consequences of fighting war. Bottom line is if you die fighting for your country you were a true American. To be a good American, you must fight for, comply with, and trust the US government. Joe Gunn displayed his concern for American lifestyle. He understood that his purpose it to fight the war with those who oppose the US, but at the same time he was sympathetic to his soldiers and their family. He gave them the decisions on the type of strategy used to fight in the war in order decide their fate.

3) I believe to a certain point they kept referring him as a black man instead of a human being. On the other hand, there were instances were his skin color didn’t matter, but it was his noble intent to fight for freedom. The black soldier helped as much as he could like guiding them to water wells, collecting water, and even giving his life up in the war. I believe that there were black soldiers who capable to fight a war as much as a white soldiers. In the movie, it depicts that race wasn’t important, winning the war for America was. As for women, they weren’t viewed as soldiers but an inspiration for living. Often the soldiers referenced to their wives or girlfriends to get their mind off war. I feel they were not being recognized for the roles they played as far as helping out in “man” jobs in America. The purpose of the movie was not detracted from because the underlying theme was males fighting for freedom.

Posted by tuazo001 at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It was clear in watching Sahara that the main purpose of the film was to promote patriotism. While it is a good movie, the plot and themes are very bone dry. All six government-imposed themes are obviously touched on at some point in this World War II propaganda film. By picking up five members of a British medical unit, the “Frenchie,” and the Sudanese soldier, multiple members of the Allied Forces are included as characters. These men discuss their ideals and attitudes on why they are fighting for their countries. Upon meeting Tambul and his Italian prisoner, Giuseppe, it is due to the American’s strong belief in “compassion” that they don’t leave the enemy to die in the desert alone. This is contrasted greatly by the ruthless German tactics later in the movie.

The German Major is used to portray multiple unethical methods used by the Axis Powers. He is first shown to be racist when he refuses to have an “inferior race” search him. He is also shown to be a liar by using a supposed language barrier as a weapon and he is demonstrated as callus because he literally stabs his ally, the Italian prisoner, in the back to escape. Giuseppe compares his views to the Germans by describing that for Italians, “only the body wears the uniform, not the soul,” showing that Germans are evil on the inside while cowardly Italians only put on a front out of fear for their families. He believes that Mussolini is not as good as Hitler because he can dress up his soldiers, but he can’t change his men. Other instances of German cruelty include, the soldier who slaps water away when it is offered and the soldier who orders his men to shoot at the French soldier when his back is still turned.

The only female character in the movie is “Lulubelle,” the tank. I found this to be important because in the beginning, Sgt. Joe Gunn refers to the tank with a slightly sexual connotation several times as if they have a relationship. The other soldiers bond over their ladies and their hometown lives, but Gunn, our iconic American hero, declares, “I’m from nowhere, just the army.”

Posted by weir0041 at 09:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara as a movie was an entertaining work of fiction. As a piece of political propaganda, it entices some interesting American values. As an observer watching for signs of American propaganda, it was fairly obvious to see the lines and actions that were placed in the movie for that effect, but I could see how someone in 1943 might not catch the patriotic undertones presented. I did like the fact that even in this early (chronologically) film, minorities and foreigners were portrayed as equals to the American soldiers. Much of the action in the movie is portrayed in an all or nothing fashion, where no matter what obstacle is presented to them, they must give it their all and risk death at every corner to survive and keep their way of life intact. Civilian responsibility is lightly touched in the movie with the example of the Italian soldiers uncle working in the steel factory in Pennsylvania. The film does a good job of covering all of the six themes outline by the government by portraying the war as a struggle between 'good' and 'evil' with the 'evil' forces embodying many characteristics that comic book villains contain. I believe that the government pushes the dehumanizing of the enemy to try an garner more support for the war.

I think the film showed some moral consequences of fighting and dying, but I don't believe that they were effectively represented. I think the best example of this is in the Italian character. He was giving up much of what he loved at home to go out and fight for his country, even though he didn't embody the ideals that the leaders of his country were trying to promote. I think Humphrey Bogart's character, Joe Gunn, does a good job of embodying the hardships of war through the misery shown by the fact that he thinks that he has little to lose since he has no wife or children.

The film somewhat reflects the reality of the segregated makeup of the American forces, but somewhat goes against that by showing the allied African soldier being one of the heroes of the movie. It seems to me to be a very valuable main role, and not a supplemental role as I thought he would portray. I think the purpose of his inclusion in the movie, and the role he takes is to dually include much of the African-American audience, and promote the values of togetherness and equality that the Nazi soldier hates. I think the lack of women in the movie is to try and maximize the masculinity of the film, as I believe it is trying to pander more toward the male audience. I think it increases its persuasive purpose, but only for the male populace.
-Dominic Nemmers

Posted by nemme003 at 09:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I really enjoyed watching Sahara it is was an interesting movie. I think it clearly is an American propaganda film but, has a lot of entertainment value as well. The movie follows many of the guidelines that the government suggested in order to make the movie patriotic enough. The German was shown as cold, arrogant, and conniving. The Italian was shown as blindly following the orders of his government and once he was put in the care of the “good guys” he saw the error of his way. This follows the Nature of the Enemy guideline, showing two ways the people who opposed us could act.
The group of soldiers that is gathered in the movie happens to be a widely diverse group that contains a people from half a dozen different countries. This completes the United Nations guideline and the Fighting Forces. The movies shows a diverse group puling together to defeat the enemy. There is even a Sudanese soldier. He is shown to be equal to the white soldiers and in the end is very heroic. In real life, he would not be fighting as an equal beside the white men. In the movie, the German shows disdain towards the African soldier who is then defended by Joe Gun. I think it shows a little bit of hypocrisy since in real life the African soldier would have been treated in a similar manner by the Americans as by the German in this film.
This film works very well as a propaganda film. It shows the Americans and their allies as noble men fighting heroically against the evil Germans. It was also a very entertaining film with an interesting storyline, so people would enjoy watching it.

Posted by will1920 at 09:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The overall patriotic theme of Sahara is so strong, it's often humorous at times. Although it quite obviously shouts "Rah-rah USA" every chance it could get, there is a lot more to the film then just that. The nature of the enemy and the United Nations: our allies in arms were the most touched upon categories out of the six. Our rugged American crew runs into a group of British allies right off the bat and with the Americans being their best shot at survival, they decide to join them. Power is given to the Americans when the British sergent gives his leadership up to Joe Gunn, rah-rah USA. The British allies are protrayed as humorous and light hearted, they make the audience fall in love with them. America's allies should very well be liked as they help us win in battle.
The enemy is bashed in every possible way to protray them as evil and inhumane. The only individual separated from the Nazi group is the racist parachuter and he does not win the German side any points of dignity, especially when he attepts to run away and squeal to the Germans. While our side is heroic, tactful, and honest The Nazi's are seen as angry, backstabbing fools. Joe Gunn and Frenchie attempt to reason with the other side with no luck and Frenchie gets shot in the back. A cheap shot by the German side. The Nazis in the film show how democracy wins over their ways of dictatorship when Osmond and Gunn are the last standing on the American side and they win. However they managed to unarm seemingly hundreds of German soldiers and take all of them hostage is beyond me but they won. They won the American way of life, the democracy, the freedom, the liberty all of that from two men. God bless America indeed.
The black man in Sahara was protrayed as an honest hardworking soldier just as the others but there were a few differences. His beginning line was " I thought I captured me a tank," not very intelligent words, his english is also slightly broken. He is given a few more orders then the others but he is treated no less then a reliable friend and becomes an asset to the groups defenses. He is seen as a true hero when he brings down the runaway Nazi bringing himself down in the process. Women have no presence in the film because at the time women stayed home and helped out in every way they could there. They had no place on the battle ground, it was a man's job to fight.
There were some human obsessions as well as depravities evoked by the war seen in the film. One very obvious and continuous obsession/depravity was water, it's what made the Americans win in the end. All the soldiers, it didn't matter which side, were slowly dying without it. Some were even whispering it in their sleep. Family and women were another obsession evoked by the war. Our soldiers would frequently whip out photos of girlfriends, wives, and precious families they had to get back to. I think I recall one of the men's last word was that of his loved one right before he died. It is truly a heartfelt and deeply dramatic American war film.

Posted by kolsu002 at 09:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I am extremely irritated to say the least because I just typed my entire reflection and as I submitted it I got booted off. This is frustrating because I know that my second reflection will not say the same thing as I so perfectly stated the first time.
The movie Sahara portrayed most of the themes as outlined by the U.S. government for Hollywood during WWII. The most obvious were the issues of war, the nature of the enemy, and the United Nations. Also notable was the idea of the fighting forces. I would describe the specifics of all of these themes, but since I just spent some time doing so for nothing, and since many of my classmates described these themes so well, I won't spend anymore time on them.
What I found most interesting about the film, was that although the producers filled Sahara with tons of propaganda and pro-American ideas, I saw an underlying theme that connected every country in the film. Every single soldier in the movie had one main drive- to obtain water. I saw this as a way to promote equality among the nations. Even though Sahara portrayed a war against the Germans, the film portrayed a war against the elements. Every country in the movie was essentially fighting for the same thing. The scenes in the film were so sandy and arid and miserable, that even as I watched, I became thirsty and uncomfortable. The severe desparation for water in the film is what connected all of the soldiers to one another, whether this was intended or not. It is important to note that water is what kept the battle going; it seemed as though in the end, Germans cared more about retrieving water than defeating the Americans.
So, I really enjoyed the movie Sahara. I thought the producers did a great job of stuffing the film with propaganda. And although the film's main purpose was to promote American patriotism, it provided a light way to educate, although in an extremely biased way, the people on such an important matter. I think the U.S. government did a great job infiltrating Hollywood during the time of WWII, however, I don't think a strategy such as this would prove successful today.

Posted by Courtney Marlow at 09:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Contrary to what I was expecting of the movie, Sahara turned out to be quite to my liking. It didn't support the Allies as much as bash everyone else. The movie lowered the "mighty" Arian race to that of everyone else by showing that they too were only human. Everyone needs the basic parts of life to survive and when even the Nazi's couldn't hold out it showed their weakness in a real way. This also showed the compassion(?) on the Allied side by allowing the Germans to make their way to the water, instead of mowing them down.
Of the six categories however, the movie failed to display some of them, but was showed the others very effectively. I didn't see much of the Production Front or the Home Front but the others were very well represented. We saw the nature of the enemy present itself in the POW's and the soldiers knew what they were fighting for when they made their stand at the ruins. Our Allies in Arms may have showed fear in the beginning but they came through by the end of the movie just like what was expected of them. Everyone was fighting for their freedom and it meant their lives to them. It even made the French look good. These soldiers knew the overall goal of the war was to win and they knew it was their duty to see that through, even if it cost them everything.
However there was the happy ending we were all looking for, which would attribute to the greater impact of the movie. We always like to see our side win and even if only one person makes it out, it wasn't in vain. It was a humorous bonus to see the well full of water though.

Posted by leex2727 at 09:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This week's movie was definitely supportive of the war propoganda. Bogart's role was very much the ideal "american hero." The movie was pretty good overall and even better in terms of following the government's agenda for Hollywood. The movie portrayed the enemy as one which was ruthless and must be taken down. For example, the nazi soldiers killed the french man by shooting him in the back after meeting to try and come to an agreement. The American soldiers were seen as very brave and yet good hearted men. This was seen by the way that they treated the Italian man whom they came across in the desert. I do not think that the movie really showed the role of minorities much. However, from whatever was shown of the sudanese man, you can clearly see the discrepancies in roles of white men versus men of color. The sudanese man was shown in a very slave like role. He was very obedient to the other soldiers based not only on the ranking of the soldiers but solely on their skin color. He is told to jump down the well and without any hesitation immediately jumps. Also, I feel that even the minority religion which he belonged to (Islam) was not portrayed correctly. The sudanese man claims to quote the Prophet Muhammad when in fact, being a muslim myself, I don't think that the given phrase was authentically the Prophet's. A mockery was made of not only the sudanese man, but also of Islam in that scene.
The fact that women were not really a part of the storyline says something on its own. I feel that it kind of puts the role of women secondary to everything else that is shown. Perhaps this was not deliberate on behalf of the film's producers. However, I feel that by not adding any significant female role in the film, the producer's have made a statment of their own regarding the war.
Overall I thought that Sahara was a pretty decent movie. I think that it must have really served its purpose in the time it was made. It is very supportive of the war and I can see how it may be used to boost morale regarding the war efforts.

Posted by mahmo024 at 09:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The propaganda represented in the film was extraordinary. Specifically, its skewed view towards the make-up of our armed forces. In this film, the Nazi's are portrayed as a world ending menace that must be stopped. The film shows the entire world banding together to stop the fascist menace of the Germans. Americans, French, English, and even a South African contribute to this effort. Most telling however is the inclusion of a black fighter in this group. To the psyche of that time, when the U.S. forces were strictly segregated, this was a powerful statement about what was necessary to win the war. Everyone, every person and people, must band together do their duty to succeed. While this is a telling inclusion, the absence of any women is even more telling. The movie showcases a breakdown of certain societal strictures in the face of adversity, but it seems that women had their own function within the war machine which combat had no part of. Even Hitler's drilling holes and filling up heads with madness was not enough for the complete equality between men and women.

Posted by drey0022 at 08:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The film Sahara fits some of the six basic categories and themes outlined by the US government for Hollywood contribution to the War. There are the three categories that I found best fitted the propagandistic purpose of the movie.
The issues of war, the American soldiers in the movie were fighting for the American way of life. The American way of life is freedom and equality. One of the characters in movies stated the Americans had something behind them helping them fight the good fight. It wasn’t because they were more skilled soldier or because they had the right supplies but they were fighting for freedom. The enemy on the other hand did not believe in freedom or equality. The German soldier refusing to be searched by the Sudanese solder showed the Germans did not believe in equality but the Americans did. The American solders fight side-by-side with Sudanese, they saw black men as equal. Needless to say this was the 1940’s and America was racially segregated
The two captured soldiers portrayed the nature of the enemy in the movie. The German solder was depicted as the “bad foreigner” brainwashed by Hitler’s ideologies, was fighting to deprive others of their freedom. He couldn’t really be trusted and he saw other race as inferior. The Italian soldier was represented as the “good foreigner” who had a brain of his own. The Italian soldier was able to change and adopt the American ideology of freedom.
The United Nation and allies in arms were shown in the movie to stress this war wasn’t just the war of the America but it had brought many nations fighting for the common goal of freedom. The British, French and the Sudanese were all behind America. The Sudanese soldier was the ally of the American, who also was portrayed as the “good foreigner” who had accepted the American ideology. One time in the movies he criticize polygamy stating it wasn’t right for him.
Over all I thought Hollywood did a great job contributing to the propaganda of the war. It pulls viewers with its storyline and characters to support America and the fight for freedom.

Posted by mula0013 at 08:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Overall Sahara does a relatively good job to represent most of the six basic categories and themes that were outlined by the U.S government to ensure that Hollywood films are not just entertaining but also patriotic in its contribution to the war effort. As this film is produced in 1943 (during WWII) it was important to fit the propagandistic nature. This compares to the films of today as they focus mainly on the entertainment value.

The most obvious theme throughout the film was "the nature of the enemy". In the film the Germans were seen as dirty, horrible, backstabbing, no good enemy's that could not be trusted. This is evident when Frenchy comes down to negotiate with the Germans. The white flags were up which represents no fighting, however negotiations did not go the way the Germans would had liked so hey shot him in the back on his return. This was also shown through the German Pilot that was captured. He continued to be arrogant throughout the film pretending to not know the English language.

Another theme shown in the film is "the issues of the war". This is emphasized by all of the countries fighting in the war for their freedom. One scene that I can remember from the film was where some soldiers pulled out a picture of their wife and would talk about maintaining safety and freedom of their loved ones back home in America.

The third theme shown in the film is "the united nations" theme. This is well represented as the British and the U.S Soldiers led by Humphrey Bogart worked well in alliance together fighting for the right reasons. On top of their brave fighting against the Germans the U.S and British soldiers bonded together one the US Army tank picked up their allies and even worked together to defeat 500 Germans with only 9 of their men in a battle of the odds.

"The production front" theme was not as obvious, however throughout the movie it was emphasized that the allies and U.S needed more resources. There was only one tank remaining which would continue to break down, and the water wells were all dried up except one which was just dripping the remaining of it's water.

"The fighting forces" theme was evident throughout the entirety of the film. It showed how the U.S had great leadership, effectiveness, and fairness. A scene that comes to mind is the rationing of the water to each of the soldiers and prisoners. Humphrey Bogart the U.S leader ordered that each soldier can only drink three gulps each, even allowing the prisoners the same fairness.

"The home front" was not evident throughout this film as the entire film is produced in the desert with no civilians present, however soldiers did talk about their homes and their loved ones.

Overall I really enjoyed this movie. It had good humor along with good themes related to the war. I mentioned in last weeks blog that I am not a big fan of older films, however after this weeks film I am starting to appreciate the value of them, and would definitely watch Sahara again.

Posted by campb503 at 08:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Out of the six categories, I think the movie touched mainly on the nature of the enemy and the fighting forces. Although we are shown that we are backed by the United Nations and British forces, that is not the main focus of the movie. When the soldiers shoot down the Nazi plane and capture the pilot , he is immediately shown as a liar, a cheater and a thief. The Italian prisoner of war is a coward who hides instead of helping the axis soldiers in the battle. Even the pilot of the plane tries to alert his fellow troops of the Allies' movements. Right from the get go, I felt like instead of making the United States look good, the movie was trying to bash the opposing side. So in that aspect it does have apects other than "Rah Rah USA" because although it depicts our strength and honor, it also bashes the axis forces in an attempt to make us look better.

I feel like the film accurately represented how race was viewed in our country at the time. For instance, the character Sgt. Major Tambul, although he is a Sgt. in the military, acts completely inferior to the other soldiers. In all actuality all of the other soldiers, besides Capt. von Schletow and Sgt. Joe Gunn, ought to have acted with inferiority towards Tambul. The fact that there aren't any women characters is kind of hypocritical to me. The US government was trying to get the women of our nation to join the war effort by becoming nurses aides or working in the factories, yet they had no role whatsoever in the movie. I think it distracts from the film's persuasive purposes because it gives no credit to women or to segregated blacks. why would they want to contribute if they know they're going to get no recognition?

Posted by stor0245 at 07:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Out of the six categories, I think the movie touched mainly on the nature of the enemy and the fighting forces. Although we are shown that we are backed by the United Nations and British forces, that is not the main focus of the movie. When the soldiers shoot down the Nazi plane and capture the pilot , he is immediately shown as a liar, a cheater and a thief. The Italian prisoner of war is a coward who hides instead of helping the axis soldiers in the battle. Even the pilot of the plane tries to alert his fellow troops of the Allies' movements. Right from the get go, I felt like instead of making the United States look good, the movie was trying to bash the opposing side. So in that aspect it does have apects other than "Rah Rah USA" becau