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 5:06 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)

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 9:57 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 9:48 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 9:48 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 9:48 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 9:47 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 9:41 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 8:27 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 8:22 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 8:05 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 7:48 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" 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 7:48 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" 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 7:48 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" 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 persuade 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 7:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I believe that the film Sahara adhered quite well to 6 of the categories of propagandist entertainment. Category 1: The perseverance and determination in Gunn to succeed in the face of 'evil' and that which threatens the American way of life. The Gunn character is in and of himself a representation of the US. C2: The enemy is menacing and threatening, consistently detrimental to the well being of those who represent good. C3: The diversity of the cast of soldiers banded together to fight in the face of evil represents the UN. C4: Supplying the materials for victory, the men guard the only well in the desert. C5: It is the job of relatively ordinary men to represent the ideals of their countrymen to not give up on fighting for their cause. C6: The fighting force portrayed in this film is made up of relative civilians ready and willing to support one another - allied against the Nazis.
Sahara is unlike other propaganda films of the era in that while the enemy is portrayed as a stereotype their faces are also exposed. In this case the enemy is no longer a faceless mass. In showing the face of the enemy soldiers they are humanized to an extent. They have faces and can become individuals like the main characters in the film. This effectively represents the idea of moral consequences of fighting and dying - if the enemy has a face are they really that evil and different? Bogart’s character does effectively address the moral consequences of fighting and dying. He is depicted as a man whose moral propensities drive him to do what he deems right and honorable for the right cause: the American cause. Gunn acts a vessel for the audience to comprehend how important and beneficial it is to take a stand.

Posted by tapol001 at 7:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The film Sahara has a lot of propaganda woven into the story line, and was popular (and required by the government) in Hollywood at the time of WWII. The propaganda cliches are all there, but most notably is the ethnic make up of the "allied" soldiers, and their portrayal of being good while the germans were portrayed as evil. The make up of Sgt. Gunn's men was not a realistic representation of those actually involved in WWII. This is most apparent with the Sudanese (who is Black) soldier they picked up. Along with the British, French, and South African soldiers joining the Americans, they represented the Allies. African Americans in the military were excluded from combat and were only allowed as mess hall cooks, so the inclusion of the Sudanese soldier in a combative role is very unrealistic. War films at the time were often made ethnically diverse in order to reach a wide audience and to obtain a supportive attitude for the War throughout the country.

Posted by smit1989 at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

To begin with I really enjoyed the film Sahara. The way it was filmed was exceptioanally good for a 1940's film. The acting at some points was a little poor compared to current day actors. An example of this was when one of the men were shot and they would collapse in a very wooden fashion.
The diversity of the characters was very important in the film. There were many differnet nations included: United State, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Semanese. The coloured soldier was surprising to me. I would have thought a film of that time would have a black character in a minor job or to be portrayed as an enemy. To have him as one of the soldiers fighting for the greater cause shows how forward thinking the film was. Because it was being shown after the war, using a black person was very clever to try to bring everyone in America together. In the film everyone of the characters got on well, which is to show the audience (the American public) that no matter what race you are you can all get along and work together for an overall good cause.
The film doesn't really relate to the reality of a war situation, but it used very well for a propergander point of view. It shows that even in a war situation good things can happen if you keep trying.
Overall, it was a very good film that was a film to bring a coubtry together after tough times rather than a documentary on what war life is like.

Posted by culve018 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As far as the six categories for propaganda with entertainment, I believe that Sahara filled all of these.
The Issues of War- It has been said a lot that soldiers fight for someone back home or the country in general. There was mention of people they left at home or for instance Waco talked about his home town and what he missed. Also, they were not going to back down from the Germans, even if they were out numbered 500 to 9.
The ideology of the enemy- The German that they captured was portrayed as deceitful and someone who could never be trusted. When he was first captured he was arrogant, and as they took him to the well, he pretended not to know the language, all the while he was listening and then tried to warn his fellow soldiers.
The United Nations- As they continued, the met our allies along the way and bonded with them. They were willing to help our cause throughout all of this and joined in for the fight against the Germans seeking water.
The Production Front- This was one of the least evident piece of propaganda in the film. they had a tank that would break down as well as Waco's car that broke down. If anything it would show that they needed more help and more supplies to have a more successful victory.
The Home Front- Since there was no civilians in this film, this did not seem to be addressed.
The fighting Forces- This tied in with the entire film. It showed the evilness of our enemies, the kindness of our soldiers and killing them in cold blood. It showed the strength of our forces in defeating the Germans when they were outnumbered.
Overall, as propaganda, I think this movie would of served its purpose in what it was intended to show the civilians back at home and get them to help support the war.

Posted by lile0005 at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara obviously carries the ideals of the American government during World War II. The film covers the American way of life, the nature of the enemy, the roles our allies played in the war and more. America is portrayed as the leader and rescuer throughout the film. Joe Gunn, even by name, exemplifies American Exceptionalism. Gunn has God on his side. One soldier remarks how Gunn performed a miracle in finding water. He also rescues British and French allies, who in turn gladly put him in charge. He also represents the American ideology of responsibility to one’s country. Though alone in a desert, he wants to live in order to “fight again.� As Gunn and the allies fight the Germans, they are completely outnumbered. Yet Gunn declares it is his duty to delay the enemy, thereby continuing to fight. Their lives, of course, should be sacrificed in order to help the greater whole (the Allies) and the greater cause (spreading freedom to those oppressed).

Gunn shows compassion for the Italian prisoner when he adopts an American ideology. The Italian prisoner becomes a family man, one who is following his government’s orders only because he must, and so on. He is a victim of Mussolini. Oppositely, the German prisoner is treated terribly. He is portrayed as evil, inhumane and animal-like. The enemy ceases to be a person and becomes a beast, a “mad dog.� A Nazi even shoots a French Ally in the back, something unheard of in American warfare.

Racial tensions are felt throughout the film. The German prisoner considers a black soldier unclean and inferior. But, being good Americans (though only on film) the soldiers accept the black man and even find similarities between them. This shows a feeling of solidarity in the cause for fighting and integration and acceptance.

A strong tie to the home front is shown by the Allies. They talk of wives, girlfriends and children. The soldiers fight to for the “dignity of freedom� for their loved ones at home. The soldiers show what war does to a man. They cry, feel bad about a comrade’s death and respectfully bury the fallen. While, the men did not inherently want to kill others, they feel it is their duty to protect and serve their country so others do not have to die. Women are not shown in the film because they would not have been allowed to fight on the front lines like their brave, masculine counterparts. The idea of women is used to convey a sense of duty to one’s home and protections of virtue, honesty and love.

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 5:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I liked sahara a lot, I silghtly remembering seeing in on T.V. maybe 5 years ago. I've been reading other peoples refelctions of this film and I have to say that I partly disagree with nearly all of them. They see racism where I don't, and they have a revisionist view of feminism in regard to the film.( One post even pointed out the abscence of female characters. Well what would a woman be doing in the open desert between al-alamein and tobruk in 1941?)
. I think that the amount of propaganda in the film is counter-balanced by subtle hints at shared humanity and overall the messages are constructive and anti-nationalist. I'm pretty sure that these differences in opinion are just because we all watched the film through our own ideological prism. And so without further to do: My distortion of the film:

I think the greatest transendent message that is reinforced by the storyline and dialog is how the soldiers on all sides are facing the same needs: Water, food, shelter(from sandstorm) and the constant threat of suddenly being cut down by a bullet. This cuts away the different uniforms and flags that the characters are loyal to. That, I believe is the most far-sighted part of the movie. It's this idea that even while the war is going on we still have to reconcile our values with our actions . It's hard to claim moral superiority when you show no mercy. That was the conflict in the film, whether and when to show mercy and when not to. Joe Gunn constantly had this crisis of conscience. So it was when he decided to save the italian prisioner, and also when he offered surrender to the German mechanized division. As he said when sharing the water "three swallows" and repeating "everyone gets three swallows", and everyone get that, even the prisioners.
That is the paradox that we face even today: How do we beat our enemy without becoming them?.

It's the emphasis on shared humanity that sets this films apart from it's hateful contemporaries and even the terrible later film "The Green Berets". The writers of this film must have had to balance this desire to see victory and defeat your enemy at all costs with the fact that at some point the United States and it's allies would have to normalize relations with the axis powers at some point.( Another film that expounded on this point is Bridge over the River Kwai) The italian prisioner(Guiseppe said something to the effect of "You germans don't see it that it is only the body not the soul that wears the uniform."

The Italian prisioner shows his lack of hatered when her refuses to rise up against his captors with the German pilot. I see that as a moment where the rejection of nationalism is demonstrated. Guiseppe has no love for Mussoulini
saying "Must I kiss the hand that beats me.. lick the boot that kicks me?!?" You must divorce yourself from the State and the nation at the same time or else you stop being human.

Many people marched off to their death for a malevolent dictator. The paradox is how could the U.S. assert it's power without becoming what we hate most. Could the U.S. emerge from world war 2 as the greatest superpower without then using that power to take over the world?

I think that we've done well so far. Europe is growing strong now only because of the emphasis on universal brotherhood. The European Union is getting stronger by the day, defying predictions. The Euro is becoming the strongest currency on earth( People said it would never take-off). Who would have thought that after thousands of years of fighting over religion, borders, and ethnicity that europe would be on track to become a political union.

Someday war will be over and it will all be for nothing because there will be no divisions. "Nothing to live or die for" (if you get the reference)

Posted by gonza275 at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In last week’s assigned readings, we explored the connections between the cultures of art (specifically film) and politics. This week, we looked at those concepts in the context of 1940s America and its involvement in World War II. The movie Sahara served as a good example of how the government used the medium of film during this time to reinforce key messages to the general populace.

Most of the standard themes that the Office of War Information (OWI) had set forth as guidelines for Hollywood productions are obviously present in every scene of this movie, many of which were simply evoking patriotic idealism and civic duty to the war effort. However, upon further reflection a couple of other really stood out to me from the rest.

Many of you have discussed how the German and Italian enemies were depicted in the movie. Higashi’s article from this week’s readings offers a further look into how the Japanese enemies were depicted in newsreels and films of the same time. Although there are similarities between construction of the “other� on both fronts, it is necessary for us to confront the complex race played between them.

The same is true when addressing the concept of illustrating the makeup of our armed forces. This movie followed a small multi-national unit of individuals that came together under a common purpose. Although it offered a glimpse into how America regarded its allies, it also served as a metaphor for how American combat forces were organized during WWII. Gerstle’s article from this week’s readings actually dives deep into this idea. He examines the fraternal bonds create among those serving together and how the war gave those of different cultural backgrounds to meld together in an accelerated nature, just as Joe Gunn’s group did in the movie.

There is a very important difference between the movie and reality of course, that exposed a blatant hypocrisy in the messaging marketed to the masses of the time. The American propaganda machine called on everyone alike to sacrifice and do their part, but in practice most African Americans were denied combat service and those that were not served in racially segregated units.

These two themes are very intriguing, because the generation that was denied access to opportunities during the war are the same people that would shape the socio-political events of the turbulent decades to come.

Posted by skog0031 at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think the movie clearly has a lot of symbolism and messages toward its audience. It reflects the nature of the enemy as inferior and absurb. In the movie, the German is portrayed as weak and defeated. At near the end, when the guy from the U.S. came out and talked with the German soldier about their rule of exchanges for weapons, then turned his back to return to his base. At the time he was shot by the Germans as he turned his back. That clearly stated the German army as the ones who "stab" their opponents in the back. The movie also addresses the issue of black and white segregation. The black man was the one who did all the hard work, such as checking for dangers, or staying down the well to collect drops of water from day to day. However, at almost the end, the black guy was made a hero. He was the one who killed the escaping German, trying to tell the German army that there really isn't any water in the well. The black guy chased after him and killed the German man, saving the U.S. group from being exposed. It was a big sacrifice for the U.S. Without him, the whole thing would have been over. I think this was a way of the movie to say that the minorities are as good as the white, if they are given the same opportunity to serve the country.
Throughout the movie, the U.S. was portray as the winning team. It has power, intelligience, and energy. I think it was very humorous and entertaining to see a movie trying to claim something so obvious. Just one shot from the U.S. , its enemy failed down and died. I had some good laugh all along.

Posted by truon052 at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I find it absolutely fascinating how movies during World War II had specific meaning and purpose as well as theatrical value; movies today merely serve as entertainment. When thinking of the movie Sahara, it seemed to fit the propagandistic nature and fulfilled the six themes set by the government for Hollywood films at that time.
The first theme related to “The Issues of the War.� This was fulfilled in the movie as it portrayed the overriding fight for freedom by all parties. Looking at the picture of his sweetheart from home, one soldier brought forth the issue of freedom to love for which he so valiantly fought. Another soldier spoke of his wife and family which reflected the desire to maintain safety and freedom on the home front. With America rising as a world power, it also showed the strong leadership of the United States as the American soldiers led the rag-tag group through the dessert with the allies following their orders.
Next, the Nature of the enemy was taken into account as it portrayed the Germans to the American people. Portrayal of the Germans in this movie was propagandistic as it provided battle scenes against the Axis Powers. Showing the sly nature of the Germans at this time may have been another objective of the filmmakers as suggested when the German pilot refused to allow the allies to see that he understood and spoke English. Overall, this may have led Americans to further distrust of the German people. At the same time, it also revealed the Germans as bland, weak, and somewhat dimwitted as revealed when the German commander met Joe Gunn amongst the desert sands to discuss a possible pact between the two opposing armies.
Throughout World War II, the United States was not alone in its struggle with the Axis Powers. Of all the messages fed to the American people through this film, the sense of teamwork amongst the United Nations may have been the strongest. Not only were the British and French represented, but also the African people who may have been overlooked as allies with such high emphasis on the war in Europe at that time.
The Production Front was another government theme that was strongly portrayed in this movie. With the harsh Saharan climate, it was difficult for troops to not only receive the necessary supplies of food, water, and clothing, but also proper fighting materials such as tanks, guns, and ammunition. This movie could have been very effective in increasing awareness of the need for supplies in Africa and led to greater support by the American people and war material companies.
As this movie was only set in the actual war zone, it did not portray the homefront of the time. However, a few of the American soldiers talked about a sweetheart or family at home which reminded movie-goers of the continual need for support as the soldiers seemed to draw strength and happiness from looking at pictures of loved ones. One scene of the film includes Joe Gunn telling of his past experiences with the military and lack of a family which has brought him to his current position as a ranking officer. This scene serves to remind viewers of the need to not only support loved ones, but also the boys without families to call their own.
Fighting Forces was the last government theme of the era. Overall, Sahara portrayed Americans as superior in leadership and equipment to their allied forces. In one of the first scenes, the British troops join the Americans and commit to following the orders of Joe Gunn by relinquishing their canteens in the dry Saharan desert. At the same time, a strong brotherhood is felt amongst soldiers of the Allied Forces in this film as they fight side by side. This could have encouraged the American people to also support the Allies as they were in teamwork with husbands, sons, fathers, and sweethearts of those on the homefront.

Posted by basse044 at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought Tambul, the black character, served an important role in the film. Though in the US the segregation of the army forced blacks to work only as mess hall cooks, Sahara worked around that by making Tambul a member of a different army. He is used as a main example of why the Nazis should be defeated in the war; when the Allies capture the German soldier, Gunn tells Tambul to search the German even though the German flinches at the sight of the black man. This is used to demonstrate America's superior morals compared to the Germans'. Tambul also "saves the day" when he prevents the German captive from telling his fellow Germans of Gunn's bluff about the water. As a propaganda film, Sahara does a good job of demonstrating America as worthy of being the victors in the war, and of showing that the Germans are truly worth fighting.

Posted by ward0373 at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Even though Sahara was made in the early 1940s, the movie demonstrated the reality of the war and patriotism. Obviously with the technology they had back in those days, they couldn't illustrate the exact picture or image of the war, but i think they still delivered the message to the people very well. The movie was serious, but there were also some comedic scenes, which i thought it was important because Hollywood movie around that time was all about patriotism and entertainment - Sahara did a nice job in those two areas. But i think the main purpose that they made this film was to show how the people were loyal to their country and how strong they were compared to the others. I think the producer of this film simply wanted to let the audience know how tough and strong the US army was, and to show how much the soldiers loved their country.
The movie also illustrated how cruel it is to just survive out in the desert even if you're not in a battle. Everyday was a challenge for the US soldiers - looking for a source of water and food everyday. It showed that these soldiers were always in the risk of dying whether it was gonna be a death from dehydration or an attack from the enemy.
In conclusion, i thought Sahara showed a lot of different things including loyalty, bravery and the strength of the US army. Sahara did a great job in delivering those messages to the audience.

Posted by katay007 at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara effectively combines propagandistic purpose with entertainment, and strictly follows the six basic categories and themes outlined by the government. Particularly prevalent were demonizing the nature of the enemy, and expressing the responsibility on the home front.
The nature of the enemy is obviously stated when the French soldier was killed and one of the American soldiers states, “Frenchie was right, we don’t know the Germans. They shot him right in the back.� The Germans were depicted as conceited, self-righteous, and deceitful.
The plot revolved around the other five categories. The British troop fought obediently along side the American troop (as our “allies in arms�); the issues of the war were brought out through the American soldiers and their feelings, their thoughts, and their personal lives; there was an obligation to “supply materials for victory,� which encompassed one of the main themes throughout the film, searching for water and weapons. I feel that the civilian’s responsibility on the home front was the main message, however. It was intertwined into several other categories—such as supplying materials—and also in the strong message from Joe Gunn, during his “it’s our duty to stay and fight� speech, which implied that the dedication and strength the soldiers have should motivate civilians to be just as dedicated, as well.
The film smoothly incorporated each category into the plot, which left the overall effect mainly “rah-rah U.S.A.� However, I feel that it embodied humanistic qualities of the enemy, as well, which surprised me. When the film started, my first assumptions were that they would completely vilify both Italians and Germans, but it does show the enemy as humans, with families and emotions through the Italian soldier.

Posted by riva0067 at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I believe that Sahara definately portrayed a propaganda film for WW2. The film brought up several different points that the government used as a guide for war movies. One of the big topics in the movie that was brought up was what the American troops were fighting for. Throughout the movie there were a few occasions where the American soldiers kept on bringing up their freedom and their families telling the viewers two big reasons to fight. There were times where the soldiers would gather and show pictures of their loved ones to the other soldiers and tell stories of their lives back home. For the American Platoon their leader was Joe Gunn. Once they met up with the other platoon he took over that one as well. He was a fierce and selfless leader who took control and everyone obeyed him and listened to him. I really liked how when they did find the water well he allowed everyone a certain amount of gulps of water before he took any himself. I think by him doing that it also showed the respect that the americans had for their allies.
I found it very interesting how the movie protrayed its enemies. The Italian character in the movie was shown as kind of an awkward guy but a guy that you could respect and get to like where as the German enemy and prisoner was shown as a very dirty and mean character where he stabs the Italian prisoner in the back and than tries to escape during the battle. I also really liked the quote in the movie where Bogart said that the Americans "have that extra something" to fight for that the Nazi enemies don't like freedom. I thought that was a very strong and powerful line that kind of told the story of the movie and what the government was trying to get across to all of the American people. Also, racism was portrayed in the movie but only the Nazi's. I found it interesting the this film had no appearce of women or what their role was during the war. I feel this is mostly becuase they are not on the front line fighting nor in the ranks, therefore making them insignificant to the film. Overall, I felt this film did it's job is protrayin and reinacting WW2 and was able to get the point across to the public. I feel this movie was very well received by the Americans, I enjoyed the film as well.

Posted by pelt0071 at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although Sahara was a moderately boring cinematic adventure, it was interesting to compare with war films of today due to the different political climate it was made in. Dissent, which in regards to war seems to be so hot right now, is all over Hollywood nowadays whether in movies like Jarhead or spouting out the mouths of famous celebrities. It is funny to think that at one point the government actually had enough influence to coax Hollywood into putting out such a blatant piece of patriotic propaganda. At this, Sahara does succeed. It is wildly inspiring; troops fighting David and Goliath type battles knowing they would most likely die, but they would die to help the whole of the army, and ultimately their country. The theme of dedication, dying for a bigger cause, is strewn throughout the story, summed up best in Gun’s speech in the last quarter of the film. That got me. I was about ready run out to my local recruitment office and go try to be all can be. But then it ended, and I got distracted by a text message on my phone, and decided to go watch some re-runs of American Idol instead.

The point being: Sahara was probably extremely effective as propaganda within the time period it was made in; it does tug at those patriotic heart strings, and the public at that time was most likely more receptive. It is easy to think about the government in sinister terms in this context, some suits plotting the planting of this “rah-rah, USA!� film, rallying support for the troops, but I think in that climate it might actually have been almost therapeutic for society. But if those suits tried to make a movie with that sentiment about the Iraq war was made, I’d doubt anyone in Hollywood would pick it up now because there would be a very small demographic that would be receptive to it. Makes you wonder how organic United 93 and World Trade Center were though.

Posted by mende058 at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the film Sahara, the amount of propaganda is quite ubiquitous, and blatant. The production front; supplying materials for victory, civilian responsibility, nature of the war itself and the subordinate relationship of other allied nations and especially the German and Italian nations (the enemy) America are all adequately represented by Tom Gunn. He is the all American anti-intellectual who is most representative of the American propaganda especially as it is conveyed and taught to Americans as an ideology. First, according to the prevailing ideology, the production of materials at home was everyone's responsibility. It is only natural that the film would have a scene where the hard boiled anti-intellectual wouldn't give up when his tank broke down, but would instead keep trying to fix it until it worked because there was a serious war going on and everyone had to do their share. His name too "Tom Gunn" sounds like "Top Gunn" is appropriate. He is a hired gun with no wife and kids at home, he's just here doing his job, his duty. This was a serious working class man who could have been just like anyone. His image and identity is more popular with the masses of poor working class people who were the one's who really help the war effort at home. The depiction of the English and French as totally subordinate to the US is embodied or symbolized when the French and English officers give the sargeant Tom Gunn full responisbility to lead them to the promised land. There is also a fleeting joke about Tom GUnn being Moses at one point in the film too. The French officer is called "Frenchie." Something that French men would undoubtedly object to today. His character is portrayed as a lazy playboy who just want to follow the mission because he likes the AMerican's cigarettes. The joke implies an open stereotype. The nature of the enemy too is an open form of ideology that is not an accurate depiction whatsoever. The Germans and the Italian prisioner were alienated throughout the film, the germans in particular were seriously depersonalized. One way this is carried out is through language. Everyone in the group speaks English. But the German doesn't speak English until the end and even then it is only for political purposes, not for humanitary ones. THe Italian prisioner's accent is deliberatley accentuated to give the slight impression of foreignness. And the mission of the war in general has a kind of Christian appeal that is executed through some Christian motifs in symbolism and allegory. For example, the tank is like Noah's Ark and the grandiose mission is to have every one of the European allies and axis together in this "universal" human dillemma against the forces of nature. But the irony(or lack thereof) is that it is a working class anti-intellectual American who is conducting this mission for "humanity." Even the geography is like the middle east (Israel). Also TOm Gunn lambasts the German prisioner at one point in the story by saying that he is willing to "cheat, steal, and kill his neighbor." This was three and a half of the ten commandments the German was being accused of breaking. (the half was the reference to neighbor. "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife") I don't know what's more sacreligious, breaking the ten commandments or using this ideology to slander others reputation in film with an American audience. There is a moment when in a triumphant jubilee of victory, someone yells out "it's a miracle." after realizing there is a spring of water that was just discovered that no one knew about in the desert. John the Baptist anyone? Finally there is one allegory of the "sermon on the mount." Tom Gunn acting as Jesus, gets tempted by the German commanding officer of a regiment acting as Satan on the Temple of the mount acting as whatever mount they were standing on(?) three times. THe third time the German officer, Satan, gave in and wanted some water. Thus they were metaphorically weaker than the anti-intellectual version of Jesus the AMerican savior of humanity...

Posted by dahme012 at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara was obviously good for a few laughs and I felt the one-tank-across-the-desert plot was kind of fun as well, but the wartime propaganda present within the film was strikingly obvious and really detracted from it from a modern perspective. Having seen Bogart's tough but sentimental character a few times now, it really wore the persona thin this time around, and I found myself wishing that Joe Gunn was a lot more tough and a lot less sentimental. His character was just one of many things that the propaganda evidently tainted in the course of the film. Other obvious instances were found in a lot of the decision-making--or in other words, logic went right out the window. Where in the actual war in a situation such as they were in the prisoners would've been left behind or even gunned down on the spot, Joe Gunn just couldn't leave them behind because he's such a great American and yadda yadda yadda. And if he actually cared for his men, he wouldn't have staged an Alamoesque showdown with the Nazis just to keep them from getting water, which, in the end, they somehow miraculously did get. The be-a-martyr-for-your-country theme was really driven into the ground, and "(G.I.) Joe Gun" being the super-soldier/super-American (shooting down that plane!?!?) was also emphasized a little too much for my taste. Trying to pin racism solely on the Nazis and not including women at all in the film also hurt it as a whole, at least from today's perspective. But even then, there was a lot to like as I said in the beginning. Being lost in the desert with one tank and a group of diverse soldiers was a great concept in my opinion. I read somewhere that it was actually a remake of a Soviet film if I remember right, which is pretty disappointing, but that aside, it's still a fun little nugget in its own little way.

Posted by Darth Nep0wix at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“Sahara� adheres well to the categories outlined by the Office of War (OWI). The American way of life, “what we’re fighting for,� is depicted by the soldiers’ comradery and pride as they tell their family histories, make friendly bets with each other, and enjoy each other’s good humor. While the Allies demonstrate the ingenuity and perseverance of the American way, creatively solving problems and beating the odds with bravery and sacrifice, the enemy is cowardly and dishonest with phony white flags and blind obedience to superiors. The captured German embodies arrogance, racism, and deceit. Still, the Allies are compassionate, willing to share scarce resources to prevent the suffering of abandoned Axis soldiers, despite the ruthlessness of the enemy.
The United Nations and allies are well represented, working is harmony with the American troops. An opportunity is even made to realistically represent not only tolerance by comradery with a black man. Glazing over the fact that African Americans were not allowed to fight along side with whites, the Americans are still able to be shown in stark contrast to the Nazis through their alliance with the Sudanese soldier.
As the handsome, brave Humphrey Bogart and company depict the sacrifice of American soldiers, Americans are reminded of the importance of sacrifice on the home front. Seeing soldiers go without water for days, long for home, and give up their lives for the cause can be an emotional provocation to buy war bonds and contribute to production at home, reminding civilian Americans that their sacrifice pales in comparison to that of the men on the front lines.
I suspect the OWI was quite pleased with “Sahara,� as it fit their guidelines well, but “Sahara� was more than a propaganda piece. Or, at least, just because many of the films themes pleased the OWI does not denote that the themes are false. It was a great film with a genuine representation of ideas and emotions.

Posted by mayxx145 at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think Sahara did an excellent job of portraying or justifying why soldiers must fight and die. It is inspiring to see a movie in which the soldiers maintain so much loyalty to their country, and are willing to stay and fight against seemingly insurmountable odds in order to give the rest of the army time to reposition troops and mount a counterattack. Joe Gunn was a fascinating character, for at first he seemed hard nosed and cold, but by the end of the movie he turned out to be compassionate and likable. The scene in which Joe Gunn attempts to leave the Italian POW is a great way of showing the hardships that soldiers must deal with, and the dedication required for the job. American soldiers always do the right thing, even if it means less water for their own troops (for example). Ironically, the Italian ended up being the least patriotic, choosing to be a coward and not fight while the German gave his life in an attempt to warn his own army.

The most memorable scene, near the end of the movie when Gunn gives his pep talk about staying and dying or running and possibly living, was great propaganda for the wat effort. This group of men was so dedicated to their country that they considered it more important that their own lives, or the emotional hardship their deaths would inflict upon loved ones back home. Clearly, only the army can produce such strength in the man, which was the exact message they were trying to get across. While I don't know if this movie caused any young men to jump out of their seats and call a recruiter, it certainly showed American soldiers in a positive light that would hopefully serve as motivation for young men everywhere.

Posted by hanse978 at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

During World War II the government was highly influential in making sure that the films produced were patriotic, propagandistic, and for the war effort. After watching Sahara this movie clearly represents the U.S government’s political agenda through Hollywood films. This WWII film was given six categories and themes that were outline by the U.S government to ensure its patriotic message to the entire American public. Out of all the six categories Sahara effectively adheres to four out of the six which are “The Issue of the War� “The Nature of the enemy� “The United Nations� and “The Fighting Forces�. In the movie Joe Gunn talked about freedom what we are fighting for which equals dignity that what Americans have that Germans do not have and that why they were able to make this into a miracle. As for “The Nature of the Enemy� the film makers set it up when the two American prisoners the German and the Italian were talking about making an escape the Italian said he had nothing against the Americans and the German called him a traitor. The Italian said we may dress like you but we do not believe in what you Germans do. This scene shows the American public that even the Italians are fighting against their will so we are doing a good thing. Sahara film makers made the movie with all different American Allies soldiers to form this miracle they accomplished. Sahara really didn’t address “The Production Front� and “The Home Front�. I know that the soldiers talked about their home lives but Sahara did not talk about civilian responsibility back home. As for “The Production Front� in the movie it was clear that the soldier didn’t have the supplies or materials for victory. This film also addressed racially that blacks were very important to the war effort. They showed this black man being very important to their effort to find water although you never saw him drink the water out of the cup. There was definitely racial differences between whites and black but there seemed to be a good relationship between them. It was very interesting to seem them give the black man a gun and let him fight even though black really never fought in combat. Over all Sahara was produced to be a patriotic and propaganda piece of film. Just like Bing Crosby in your readings Joe Gunn was the “AVERAGE MAN� he exemplified what it meant to be an American.

Posted by towar003 at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a time where great changes were being made, the willingness to hold on to values that forever would be seen, World War II would go down in history as a struggle. Each struggle needs it aids. Sahara would attempt to justify this ramification. Humphrey Bogart portrayed a character whose name, Joe Gunn, was something more that just actor. His portrayal outlined key initiatives the US government guided Hollywood’s contribution to the war effort.

These struggled initiatives set base around key issues that would help support the war effort. One issue of was the Nature of the Enemy. In Sahara a German was shot down from the sky by the US and the pilot was captured. In an attempt for sympathy the US soldiers did not leave him to die. Assuming that he did not speak a word of English they took him in and even gave him food and water. It is when he betrayed the soldiers that showed the initiative in its prime. Not only was the enemy portrayed as a traitor they were portrayed as liars. This attempt held propagandistic purpose for Americans not to let traitors and liars go to power. It was power that the Germans wanted and was was it right for traitors and liar to be in charge?

One great scene in the movie was the attempt to draw two initiatives together thru another initiative. The two initiatives were the civilians responsibility on the home front and the production front with supplying materials, all done thru the theme of the nature of the enemy. An Italian, an enemy in the war, is picked up on the route thru the Sahara desert. At first he is not picked up but the captain changes his mind because he feels bad for them man. A large selling point is the story he attempts to tell about a cousin he has that helps with producing tanks in the United States. This shows the audience that their help really does go noticed even in Italy, with the supplying of the tank that they are in. Not only does the tank save their lives it will help the US win the war on the open front.

Thru the struggles of war, reform is necessary. With its limitations reform can be achieved in all venues including the production of movies. Not only did movies attempt justice, but so did other social incantations that meandered thru the daily life of an American, whether it is the black helping or the uses of human obsessions. Struggles can be overcome and it’s all about the vehicles we use to overcome them that can really make a difference.

Posted by remy0004 at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Of the six categories mentioned in the blog assignment I think the film touched on all of them, however I believe it really hit on 2. The nature of the enemy, and 6. The fighting forces. We learn from the film that the men are fighting for America and that we are supported by the British and the UN, but that is not the main focus. When the men capture the German pilot we see the enemy portrayed as liars who cheat and steel. The German lies to the men about not speaking English so they think it's safe to talk about their plans around him. He is never corporative and tries to escape to tell the secrets he has learned. Also, when the other two Germans are being questioned one of them dumps out the water he is offered. These scenes show the enemy as terrible people who must be stopped. The other main point the movie talks about is the fighting forces. This depicts the responsibility of the men to continue fighting when they are so out numbered. It is like the cinderella story of war, how just a few men can have victory over so many and can overcome such great odds. One important scene in the movie is when the men are deciding if they are willing to stay and die for their country or if they should surrender. All of the men say they are willing to serve and die with dignity. This was an important message to those watching the film. It is giving the same message as all those support war posters that were hung everywhere. This war can be won, people just need to be dedicated in every way, mentally and physically. This film was made to support the war, and having a few men conquer a large group is a great way to gain support. It also says that if you join the war you can be a part of something great.

Posted by elmxx014 at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The film 'Sahara' adheres to the idealologies of what the government wanted the american people to see in their films during the war to support the war effort. The actors portraying the allies were continuously talking about fighting for the freedom and the american way of life. The film portrayed the enemy Nazi's as always being an enemy and an Italian who eventually became an allie towards the end of the film. Throughout the film the actors continuously talked about their families and the 'home front'. The allied troops int he film also had an M3 Lee tank that seemed to run forever. The troops always seemed to be able to fix it when it broke down and during their fight with thte German's it always seemed to have enough ammo to fend them off, even though it was 300+ vs. 9. The soldiers of the allies were willing to risk anything and everything for the war effort.

Almost all of the categories and themes that were outlined by the government were shown in this film. Some were more subtle than others and vice versa.

I believe that the film is very "rah-rah USA". They show a Sudanese soldier heling them with thte war effort, but the military was still segregated at this time. The film also depicted teh British, French, American, African and Germans against the Nazi's.

There were many examples of the human obsessions and depravities during the film. The actor portraying the Nazi always came off as 'mad' or 'angry' at the allies during his capture, but he also had an air about him that was cocky yet confident in what he believed in and who he believe in, Hitler. The allied soldiers were ready and willing to sacrifice their lives for their country and their war efforts.

Humphrey Bogart's character is all about the "rah-rah USA" idea in this film. He is willing to sacrifice everything for his country. He takes his 9 troops and wants them to fight against 300+ Nazi soldiers in the desert. Bogart's character does not die in the film, but he does announce that he will not surrender when there are only himself and one other soldier remaining against the Nazi's.

I found it interesting that the film had a Sudanese soldier with an Italian prisoner that joined with the allies and fought against the Nazi's. The US was still segregated at this point and blacks were not allowed to serve during the war. I am confused as to why they had an African in the movie fighting for the allies when the country was still segregated.

The minorities in the film portray allies that believe in the war effort of the allies and are willing to sacrifice just as the Americans are. The film makes the Americans seem like they are the ultimate fighters and that their beliefs are the only ones that are 'right' or correct.

I believe that there was not a woman in the film because they wanted to keep it 'rah-rah USA' and our strong courageous men doing all of the hard, dirty work. I would have liked to see a woman in the film helping out in some way.

Posted by hanl0083 at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have not seen the most recent remake of this film, however I am glad that I have now watched the original version first. There were a number of interesting components that really stood out throughout the movie.

The most engaging aspect was that of the United States government’s influence in ensuring the patriotism of Hollywood motion pictures. The government’s aim was to incorporate their propaganda into the entertainment industry. This type of “Rah-Rah USA� ideology is prevalent in Sahara. This was first noticed when Sergeant Gunn’s soldiers were exchanging stories about where they were from and where their loved ones lived. The soldiers shared a brief background about which state or country they were from, but when Sergeant Gunn was asked where his home was, he replied, “Noplace, just the Army.� This seemed to be the typical “All-American� answer, exhibiting that he has no homeplace, no loved ones, nothing but America – the land of the free and home of the brave. It was for this reason that even when Gunn realized that staying at the water well and fighting an army of 500 with only nine men could be a death mission, he persuaded his men to stick together and fight for the honor of being “the nine American soldiers� who killed hundreds of Germans. Another example of this American ideology was when Sergeant Gunn told his soldiers that he was going to make the Sergeant of the German Army stick to his terms – either they would trade guns for water, or nothing at all. He made it very clear that ‘we are American and we will not surrender to anyone else’s terms’ – the typical ‘Go USA!’ mentality.

Another aspect of the film, which I found to be disturbing, was the blatant racism toward minority races. The first example of this was when Sergeant Gunn refused to allow the Italian prisoner to join their tank. He accepted the Sudanese soldier only because he was British, however the Italian meant nothing to him other than an additional mouth to feed. Although the Sudanese soldier was accepted among Sergeant Gunn’s tank, racism toward him was still prevalent. Gunn ordered him to climb down the well to see if there was any water remaining, making the black man do the manual labor and dirty work of collecting water from a dried well. The captured German pilot also demonstrated racism when the Sudanese soldier attempted to pat him down – he replied that “he doesn’t want to be touched by someone of an inferior race.�

- Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think that Sahara did a great job representing most of the categories set forth by the government, for films. One of the most prominent in the film was “The Nature of the Enemy.� In the film the Germans were seen as horrible almost inhuman. The German that was captured was unwilling to cooperate with his captives and did what he could to make his capture very difficult. When negotiating terms for water, the German commander was willing to sacrifice the well being of his own men then try to work with the other side. Also, when “Frenchy� was sent to give the terms from his commander, the Germans shot him in the back while he was leaving. The Italian character showed that the Italians were tricked into thinking that the war would be good for their country and the people. After the war started many began to disagree with Mussolini and no longer wanted to fight. They looked as if they were victims and forced into the war. Two of the other more prominent categories focused on were “The Fighting Front� and “The United Forces.� It showed the many hardships that our fighting forces suffered. It also showed the undying spirit of the allied forces. They never gave up and did what they could even when they really had no chance. When the Americans found the British soldiers, neither side seemed to agree much with the other. Despite their differences, as the movie moved on, both sides really became friends. Because there were characters that represented many of the major allies in the movie; the audience could see that even though the many differences of the countries, we could all united and fight for good. Overall it was a good movie and although I think it had many of the elements for primarily a propaganda piece we can still watch it today and look at it as an entertaining WWII film.
As far as racial and ethnic makeup was interesting. The American commander seemed to have some stereotypes when talking to some of the characters. I found it interesting the representation of the black character. He fought alongside everyone and he was valuable to everyone. He was not given any different tasks then the rest of the soldiers. I think the united group of men from different areas, countries, and ethnicity was Hollywood’s more subtle way of fighting some stereotypes. I also think that it showed that many of the soldiers really did not care who they were fighting alongside because they were all fighting for the same thing.

Grant Flatgard

Posted by flat0101 at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara demonstrates some of the moral consequences of war, but not to the extent that Americans would question the morality of war. The prime example is when Gunn decides not to leave the Italian POW in the desert, even though he initially thought he would. The undercurrent seems to be that there is a common humanity that underlies all soldiers and the moral consequences of leaving a man to die are worse than the physical consequences of sharing water. The message implies that Gunn is therefore a moral (and almost Christ-like) figure because he can rise above hate for Italians to save a life.

The group's decision to stay and fight off the Germans at the well is interesting because it ignores the moral consequences and evaluates only practical ones. The members of the groups with families ultimately decide that their families would be proud of them for fighting, even if they lost their lives. It ignores moral questions of whether it is right to make that decision for one's family and whether dying in war is a "moral" way to die.

Ultimately, however, the overwhelming message in the film is that it is morally acceptable to kill in war. The characters take their own deaths as a necessary consequence of fighting for the right side, and we never see regret when the allied forces kill hundreds of Germans. The sheer numbers of deaths do not demonstrate the same respect for humanity that Gunn showed in saving the Italian. Functionally, killing is appropriated as a natural act of war and whether it is right or wring is not discussed.

Posted by vieir013 at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I found the film Sahara to be very enjoyable. I feel the way the movie reflected patriotism and brotherhood, while leaking in some comedic situations was fantastic. In this way I feel the movie really let viewers see the seriousness of the situation, but also did not let that aspect bog down the viewers enjoyment of the film. I am not sure if the film reflects reality, but i can see some similarities with the few minority high ranking soldiers, and the lack of women soldiers. But overall, I think the main objective by the filmmakers and the government at this time was to project a strong sense of pride and loyalty to the United States. The movie portrayed the Germans as backstabbing, shifty, untrustworthy individuals. I believe that the 11 men standing their ground against all those German soldiers was to portray how much stronger and how much more heart Americans have compared to the Germans. In concluding I believe this film served its purpose to advocate for the American soldiers and the goals of the American government.

Posted by zabor005 at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The United solders work as a collective whole with other counties to facilitate a victory. During its long run of isolationism America needed to now show its dedication to the united front against the fascist forces, the group becomes comprised of members hailing from all over the globe, each with distinctive ethnic characteristics, joined together in the fight. This particular film could show this foreign commitment with out letting go of the all important American standard, because the leader of the group is distinctively American. The American characters of the film are meant to depict slice of life characteristics form around the country meant to symbolize the fact that “our men� are over there, reminding the American public of their sons or brothers, husbands or fiancées that where in the was and facilitate further support here in America. The desolation portrait of the Sahara region plays directly the troop’s desperate need for supplies, a major theme in the film is the hunt for water by both sides and this sense of lacking seems to instill a need to for the American public to throw out their arms and assist the troops in any way possible. The united soldiers are depicted as brave and intelligent, they know they must retreat because they are following orders, but do so in smart fashion and later they manage to skillfully trick the enemy and negotiate with the Nazis over a well that is dried up they also trick an enemy fighter pilot by pretending to be out of ammunition, this shows a superior intelligence to the enemy which can foster a sense of pride in the ability of “our men� in the American public. When confronted with the opportunity to leave an Italian solider to die in the desert they speak of the ruthlessness of the Italian’s and eventually they take him in because of guilt. This dyad between the merciless Italian and the kind and fair united forces who take one of them in after a heart felt plea for his family. The Nazi is shown as a blatantly racist and Bogart’s character, on many occasions, stands up for the rights of the African soldier showing a moral superiority to the Nazi forces. In the scene where the group is discussing weather to leave or stay Bogart’s Character discusses the how he understands the importance of what was at stake of the men. He referenced the home life of the men and made parallels to the American dream life which is what was at cost for every American during the war so I believe that Bogart’s character did a good job of laying out the importance of the situation and the cost of fighting and dying. The Nazis are show as sneaky and desperate with out lot of reasoning, during the sand off at he well the Nazis are ferocious At the beginning of the film two of the soldiers talk about the an instance where The Nazis “waved a phony white flag� this shows that they are merciless in their tactics. A captured Nazi solider seems deluded in his thinking as he spoke to the united men who took him down, he tells them that they are to be his prisoners, this type of the arrogance makes the Nazi seem irrational. The African solider seems to have to big of a part to be representative of the African presence in the war, however the character’s function seems to be on par with the involvement of the Africans on one occasion the African man is ordered to jump down the well and does the grunt work of getting the water while the others watch and enjoy the benefits of his work. The fact that there is no woman in this film seems appropriate and dose nothing to hurt the intention of the film, this is an isolation film, if there had been a infirmary then woman might be seen but the film is about a roaming group of men.

Posted by swanx058 at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think that while this movie follows many of the guidelines of American propaganda film, it does something special with the story's main character, the Sergeant Joe Gunn. Throughout the movie, during moments of calm, the soldiers discuss their home life. The Sergeant never talks about his life. This gives him an Everyman quality, a feeling that anyone could be as good of a soldier (and by inference, a good person). By adding in a background for all of the characters, they become humanized, not simply soldiers; however, the Nazi soldier is never given a background, so that he remains simply an evil, treacherous, killer.
The film addresses death as an inevitable. By placing the characters in the desert, they are constantly in peril from dehydration; by the end of the film, the Nazis surrender because they need water, not because they want to stop fighting. The two deaths--from war and from lack of water--constantly force the hand of the characters. This only shows that water, like guns, could be used to kill. The means to killing--the strategies, the struggles--are always emphasized over the actual violent acts. It is shown that the enemies are evil (at one point, they shoot a negotiator in the back), and therefore killing them is a total good.
In the end, though, the Allies end up saving the Nazis they had been struggling to kill. By giving them water and taking them prisoner, they show their mercy-- a trait their enemies lack, that must be the cause of their downfall.

Posted by aretz008 at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

During world war 2 the government was definintely higly influential in making sure that the films produced were patriotic, propagandistic, and for the war effort. The movie "Sahara" clearly represented the governments guide for Hollywoods contribution to the war effort by presenting the issues of the war, the nature of the enemy, the production front, and the fighting force. The movie clearly presented that we are fighting for the american way of life. This Joe Gunn stated explicitly. The nature of the enemy, specifically the Germans, were presented as arrogant, heartless, ruthless, backstabbers racist, liars, etc. This was represented by both the captured German pilot and the German commander, who ordered his soldiers to fire on Frenchie's back while Frenchie was walking away from the negotiation talks. The production front was touched on by implicitly presenting that we need materials to win the war. This was symbolically shown through the control of the water wells. The fighting force: including the French, British, Sudanese, and the potential for the Italians to fight with us, was also clearly presented and it showed them fighting and dying together against a common enemy. A few of the themes however, i felt were no really represented, including the United Nations and the civilians responsibilities. This movie had more that "rah-rah" U.S.A and a morale booster . It was also informative in the fact that it represented us as united with the blacks, inferior and not worthy to even be touched by according to the German pilot,French, British, etc. against our common enemy and our way of life.

Posted by karp0040 at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout the Sahara, we witness many patriotic soldiers, the ones that will fight for the good of their country, the soldiers that are willing to die for their country regardless of what is waiting for them at home. You see different countries, the allies (UK, Sudan, France and an Italian man) fight for the enemy (Germany). You can easily depict who the movie is targeting. We see that Italian man be against Mussolini, as he represents the Italian people who do not agree with this war. The Germans who will shot a “man in the back,� literally. We see the Germans as the enemy and this movie make sure he is hated. He is seen as a coward and will fight dirty. It shows how our allies fighting with us like we are an “army of one;� they are willing to die for their country, it shows true bravery. I can see the people in the audience watching this movie just being motivated to fight for our country. The idea of fighting and dying at war was to show the American audience that we are fighting for a cause, and it was not just a foolish war made in decision by a foolish president. This film represents the black community as the man from Sudan (with an American accent) helped fight for America, his ally. The reason that I believe that not one single women was in this film was to show the audience that they do not belong in war to fight, but help them understand that there time was needed in factories and nursing facilities.

Anthony Zerka

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 2:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Any film that opens with a dedication to the Armed forces of the United States is obviously going to be a film with an agenda that aims to showcase the United States' Army in a positive light. The 1940's were a time when not only Hollywood, but the enite country was bound by Patriotism. There are a lot of insights about a range of topics that can be explored when discussing this film and I hope to reach conclusions on the film's presentation of race, ethnicity, democracy, gender (or lack there of), and compassion. First, race is a very interesting part of this film. There is one African in it and everyone seems to show him respect except for the German. This is something that makes Joe Gunn (Bogart) upset. This depicts the enemy as being cruel and racist, when infact, African Americans were only able to serve in the US Armed Forces as mess hall cooks during this period. For this, I actually applaud Hollywood for showing this character as an equal human being rather than a lower class. It is hypocritical, but then again there are so many internal contradictions in so many American beliefs. As far as ethnicity is concerned, we have an Americans, British, French, African, Italian, and German. The first four are shown as compassionate as they keep the Italian along as a prisoner of war. The German is really shown as the jerk, racist, cold hearted bad guy in this film. I thought it was interesting how Joe Gunn was always making the wise, compassionate decisions, like when "Frenchie" wanted to kill the German he said no, and he ultimately decided to save the Italian and make him a prisoner. I can see how this film glorified the American way and American presense as being the "Right" and "Best" ways, but as far as a weapon of democracy, I feel that scenes like the one where each man gets 3 drinks of water is more geared towards communism because they don't have a vote on it, Gunn decides. I'm not saying this is a communist film at all, infact it's far from it, but that one scene did stick out to me. Plus Hollywood was known for having a leftist agenda and this was only a few years before the McCarthy senate hearings on the So-called Reds in Hollywood.. This was more of an anti-facist film than pro-democracy, in my opinion. In terms of it being a propoganda piece, I would say it ultimately had good intentions. For instance, it's nothing near the frightening Leni Riefenstahl directed 1935 Nazi propoganda film Triumph des Willens. My only problem was that the first half felt like it was a

Built Ford Tough

Like a dame, you don't feed her, they won't do nothing.

Posted by moros007 at 12:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Before the movie started, I really did not think that I was going to enjoy it. I was extremely surprised how much I actually liked this movie. I really thought Humphrey Bogart did a great job acting in this film. I liked how this war movie added some humor to it to try to lighten the mood. Most war movies are very sad and action packed and I found this one surprisingly different and I really enjoyed it. One thing that I found fascinating in this film was how they portrayed the minorities. I was really surprised how well they all got a long and you could see this by the sympathy the men had for the Italian man by going back and picking him up so he was not left in the desert to die. They also showed how the Sudanese man was inferior to the white men because his only job was to find the wells of water but yet they showed the American soldier talking to him and they both said they have a lot to learn from one another. I like how they portrayed the minorities in this film because they should not be seen as inferior people and for the most part they didn't. Now on the other hand, they did make the German Nazis look like bad people and that is because they were in fact terrible people. I believe that when this movie was produced, its main goal was to try to raise the spirits of the Americans at home. War was not a very easy topic but I believe that it was much more wanted after the affects of Pearl Harbor. Also, everyone was able to hear about all of the horrible things that Hitler was doing and knew that this was very wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and really found some good themes behind this movie.

Posted by kapla137 at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While watching the film Sahara, I found it to be a fairly entertaining film. By creating the film as war effort propaganda and incorporating comic relief to the reality of WWII, the final product results in a very successful American war film. In addition to this, I found the racial/ethnic makeup of the film to be most intriguing. The goal of incorporating characters of various ethnicities, for example British, French, African, Italian, German, and American, seems to reflect on the attempt to portray the war effort and heroes as a culturally diverse group. In the case of the German on the other hand, the goal is to portray the Nazi German effort in a negative way. However, the portrayal of American war heroes being a culturally diverse group is not particularly accurate with reality at the time. For example, the film shows the Sudanese man fighting side by side with the rest of the group, where as in reality blacks were quite segregated during World War II, only being allowed to work as mess hall cooks. The goal of portraying the character from various cultures as positive aspects in the war effort is intended to boost the overall morale at the time, regardless of how accurate these portrayals might have been. The fact that there are no woman characters in the film does not necessarily detract from persuasive purposes because women were not at all involved with the battle aspect of war, which the movie is dominated around. Women’s war efforts came from their contributions back at home, such as the working in factories. While not every aspect of the film might have been extremely accurate, the symbolism and portrayals connected with the diverse ethnic characters contributed to the overall boost of American morale and resulted in a successful war film.

Posted by munoz047 at 9:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was surprised that I enjoyed Sahara as much as I did. I've always liked Humphrey Bogart, especially in the movie African Queen but I was a little sketchy when the movie began. However, I did end up finding the movie quite entertaining! A couple elements stood out in the movie for me.
One interesting element was the way the roles of minorities were portrayed in the film. The Sudanese man was immediately portrayed as inferior to the white soldiers. This is shown when the German soldier refuses to be searched by a man of an "inferior race". Also, the Sudanese soldier's main role was to find the wells full of water for the American soldiers. Once he found a well, he was immediately ordered to climb down the well and retrieve the water and the soldier responded without hesitation, like he knew it was his duty to obey ever order given to him by the Americans. This movie, however, showed some respect for minorities. By giving the Sudanese and Italian the same sips of water from the well as the other soldiers. Also, Joe Gunn showed some concern for the Italian man when he felt sorry for him and didn't leave him in the desert alone. Another part in the movie showing some respect for minorities was when one of the American soldiers was talking with the Sudanese man down in the well. The two were talking to each other about their lives and cultures and the American soldier confronted the Sudanese man about what he thought their culture consisted of. After the two were done talking the American man said "You sure learn a lot in the army" and the Sudanese man said "We both have much to learn from each other". This showing that these two men, both very different than each other, are willing to accept that fact and respect each others differences.
Another element that I found interesting was that there weren't any women in the film. I can understand this because women couldn't fight in the war but that doesn't mean that they didn't participate in any war efforts. When women were mentioned they were mentioned as dames, daughters, mothers, and wives. It seemed like women weren't appreciated for anything other than being there for their men. While the men were highly portrayed as heroes, the women didn't even get acknowledged.for any part of their participation in the war efforts.
Overall, this movie was an entertaining and interesting movie to watch.

Posted by ruff0046 at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Overall, I thought this was a good movie. It was comprised of comedy, action, and drama just to name a few. This film did a good job trying to enstill unity for the citizens of the United States. In WWII, the U.S. armed forces were segregated. Blacks were allowed to serve, but only in the capacity of a mess hall cook. This film, however, protrayed a different story. It showed a black man as a sergent who was allowed to fight, not just cook. This was not the reality. The purpose of this was to show that everyone was important to the war efforts and that everybody should do what they could to help, whether that means to work in a factory or to enlist, even if it does mean to become a mess hall cook. I do not believe that the fact that there isn't one woman in the movie detracts from the film's persuasive purposes. Women weren't allowed to fight. It's reality. They knew that. But they were also being told that if they were to work in a factory to help make things for the war, they are just as important as those who are fighting. Or if they were to become a nurse, they would help treat those who had been fighting, they were just as important. Women might not have been allowed to fight, but they were still able to help the war efforts in some way.

Posted by woehl007 at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When Sahara was produced back in 1943, it was partially intended to serve as a propaganda tool to boost the morale of the American citizens at home. Though in general the United States’ involvement in World War II was very supported after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the exposure of the heinous crimes committed by Hitler in Europe, loss of life was nevertheless substantial and America’s armed forces were guilty of their own form of racial persecution.

Part of Sahara’s propaganda message is the acceptance of minority (primarily African American) soldiers within battalions. At the time there were very few black soldiers in active duty, and they were almost always segregated by squadron. Sahara portrays the Sudanese soldier as a strong, heroic character that is an integral part of the group’s success. He is able to lead the others to water and sacrifices himself to prevent the captured Nazi pilot from escaping.

The film also makes sure to demonize the Germans, portraying them as a heartless, mindless, barbaric people. Although Hitler’s atrocities gave more than sufficient grounds for people to think these things of the Nazis in the first place, the producers (and likely the Office of War Information, which controlled media content to promote the war) wanted to instill this thought in the film’s viewers.

I was impressed with the film, and I think that many people today would still find it entertaining. It certainly features more action elements than Citizen Kane did, and is successful in using these elements along with humor and a good plot to keep the viewers interested.

Posted by dunh0037 at 5:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara Reflection: Mariam Elrashidi

I have to say, I was disappointed to find out that this original version of Sahara did not star Matthew McConaughey hunting for treasure in the Sahara Desert. I strongly prefer films with an adventure-esque or psychological thriller element to them. That aside, I truly thought the original Sahara was a humorous film that without a doubt exemplified the six themes throughout the movie. For example, the theme of “the issues of war� was addressed several times by the American troops while they were discussing what they were going to do in their situation. Also the theme of “the nature of the enemy� was more than clear because the Germans/Nazis were portrayed as conniving, cruel, and vicious people. For example, in the film, the German Nazi that was captured stabbed the Mexican prisoner because the Mexican wouldn’t betray the Americans. Also, when two other Germans were captured by the American troops, Joe Gunn offered one of the Germans water, only to have his offer rudely turned down. These are just some examples that were presented in the film that related to these themes mentioned above.
However, the rest of the themes, such as, “the United Nations,� “the production front,� “the home front,� and “fighting forces,� were presented throughout the entire film as well. Watching this film I definitely would categorize Sahara as a propaganda film because it clearly portrayed all the six themes.
This film not only portrayed a propagandist film but also the quality of what people want to see in an American film. For example, the heroism, bravery, courageousness and loyalty the American troops had for their country as well for each other is a symbolic American trait that Americans like to empathize with. That said, I agree that Joe Gunn effectively addressed the moral consequences of fighting and dying for one’s country or cause. Throughout the film he portrayed a strong, heroic sergeant who not only helped his troops, but any other troops he came across. Examples include the Mexican prisoner, and the Sudanese Sergeant.
I believe that Gunn’s heroic persona was the reason his troops wanted to follow him and support him in whatever decision he made or discussed because they knew he was doing the right thing. Even if the “right thing� meant fighting five hundred Nazis and having a huge chance of losing, their devotion to their country and one another was much stronger because Joe Gunn always made them see the positive outlook on it.
Watching the film I noticed the racial segregation among the
American troops, the Mexican prisoner, and the Sudanese Sergeant. Since the Sudanese Sergeant was of upper authority like Joe Gunn, they willingly said they would take him along. However, they were not initially willing to take the Mexican prisoner along because he was no one to them except a prisoner who they would have to share their food and water with. However, Joe Gunn being the considerate and generous man that he was went back and picked up the Mexican prisoner and treated him like one of his men when sharing food and water. Another racial scene occurred when the American troops ran out of water and were trying to find a well. When they eventually found the well, they sent the black Sudanese Sergeant to get the water instead of the Mexican prisoner or one of the other men. Although there were some racial discrimination scenes throughout the film, the American troops and Joe Gunn treated all the men well and shared everything they obtained (food, water and shelter). Looking back on the film, I am not too sure that it reflects the reality of how it would have been in actual wars because I think that if the Sudanese sergeant and the Mexican prisoner came across other American troops, they would have been treated differently. In the 1940s people who were basically not white American (i.e., blacks, Mexicans) were treated differently than white American soldiers. Overall I thought this film was beneficial to watch because it showed how cultural differences progress with time.

Posted by elras004 at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara Reflection: Mariam Elrashidi

I have to say, I was disappointed to find out that this original version of Sahara did not star Matthew McConaughey hunting for treasure in the Sahara Desert. I strongly prefer films with an adventure-esque or psychological thriller element to them. That aside, I truly thought the original Sahara was a humorous film that without a doubt exemplified the six themes throughout the movie. For example, the theme of “the issues of war� was addressed several times by the American troops while they were discussing what they were going to do in their situation. Also the theme of “the nature of the enemy� was more than clear because the Germans/Nazis were portrayed as conniving, cruel, and vicious people. For example, in the film, the German Nazi that was captured stabbed the Mexican prisoner because the Mexican wouldn’t betray the Americans. Also, when two other Germans were captured by the American troops, Joe Gunn offered one of the Germans water, only to have his offer rudely turned down. These are just some examples that were presented in the film that related to these themes mentioned above.
However, the rest of the themes, such as, “the United Nations,� “the production front,� “the home front,� and “fighting forces,� were presented throughout the entire film as well. Watching this film I definitely would categorize Sahara as a propaganda film because it clearly portrayed all the six themes.
This film not only portrayed a propagandist film but also the quality of what people want to see in an American film. For example, the heroism, bravery, courageousness and loyalty the American troops had for their country as well for each other is a symbolic American trait that Americans like to empathize with. That said, I agree that Joe Gunn effectively addressed the moral consequences of fighting and dying for one’s country or cause. Throughout the film he portrayed a strong, heroic sergeant who not only helped his troops, but any other troops he came across. Examples include the Mexican prisoner, and the Sudanese Sergeant.
I believe that Gunn’s heroic persona was the reason his troops wanted to follow him and support him in whatever decision he made or discussed because they knew he was doing the right thing. Even if the “right thing� meant fighting five hundred Nazis and having a huge chance of losing, their devotion to their country and one another was much stronger because Joe Gunn always made them see the positive outlook on it.
Watching the film I noticed the racial segregation among the
American troops, the Mexican prisoner, and the Sudanese Sergeant. Since the Sudanese Sergeant was of upper authority like Joe Gunn, they willingly said they would take him along. However, they were not initially willing to take the Mexican prisoner along because he was no one to them except a prisoner who they would have to share their food and water with. However, Joe Gunn being the considerate and generous man that he was went back and picked up the Mexican prisoner and treated him like one of his men when sharing food and water. Another racial scene occurred when the American troops ran out of water and were trying to find a well. When they eventually found the well, they sent the black Sudanese Sergeant to get the water instead of the Mexican prisoner or one of the other men. Although there were some racial discrimination scenes throughout the film, the American troops and Joe Gunn treated all the men well and shared everything they obtained (food, water and shelter). Looking back on the film, I am not too sure that it reflects the reality of how it would have been in actual wars because I think that if the Sudanese sergeant and the Mexican prisoner came across other American troops, they would have been treated differently. In the 1940s people who were basically not white American (i.e., blacks, Mexicans) were treated differently than white American soldiers. Overall I thought this film was beneficial to watch because it showed how cultural differences progress with time.

Posted by elras004 at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara Reflection: Mariam Elrashidi

I have to say, I was disappointed to find out that this original version of Sahara did not star Matthew McConaughey hunting for treasure in the Sahara Desert. I strongly prefer films with an adventure-esque or psychological thriller element to them. That aside, I truly thought the original Sahara was a humorous film that without a doubt exemplified the six themes throughout the movie. For example, the theme of “the issues of war� was addressed several times by the American troops while they were discussing what they were going to do in their situation. Also the theme of “the nature of the enemy� was more than clear because the Germans/Nazis were portrayed as conniving, cruel, and vicious people. For example, in the film, the German Nazi that was captured stabbed the Mexican prisoner because the Mexican wouldn’t betray the Americans. Also, when two other Germans were captured by the American troops, Joe Gunn offered one of the Germans water, only to have his offer rudely turned down. These are just some examples that were presented in the film that related to these themes mentioned above.
However, the rest of the themes, such as, “the United Nations,� “the production front,� “the home front,� and “fighting forces,� were presented throughout the entire film as well. Watching this film I definitely would categorize Sahara as a propaganda film because it clearly portrayed all the six themes.
This film not only portrayed a propagandist film but also the quality of what people want to see in an American film. For example, the heroism, bravery, courageousness and loyalty the American troops had for their country as well for each other is a symbolic American trait that Americans like to empathize with. That said, I agree that Joe Gunn effectively addressed the moral consequences of fighting and dying for one’s country or cause. Throughout the film he portrayed a strong, heroic sergeant who not only helped his troops, but any other troops he came across. Examples include the Mexican prisoner, and the Sudanese Sergeant.
I believe that Gunn’s heroic persona was the reason his troops wanted to follow him and support him in whatever decision he made or discussed because they knew he was doing the right thing. Even if the “right thing� meant fighting five hundred Nazis and having a huge chance of losing, their devotion to their country and one another was much stronger because Joe Gunn always made them see the positive outlook on it.
Watching the film I noticed the racial segregation among the
American troops, the Mexican prisoner, and the Sudanese Sergeant. Since the Sudanese Sergeant was of upper authority like Joe Gunn, they willingly said they would take him along. However, they were not initially willing to take the Mexican prisoner along because he was no one to them except a prisoner who they would have to share their food and water with. However, Joe Gunn being the considerate and generous man that he was went back and picked up the Mexican prisoner and treated him like one of his men when sharing food and water. Another racial scene occurred when the American troops ran out of water and were trying to find a well. When they eventually found the well, they sent the black Sudanese Sergeant to get the water instead of the Mexican prisoner or one of the other men. Although there were some racial discrimination scenes throughout the film, the American troops and Joe Gunn treated all the men well and shared everything they obtained (food, water and shelter). Looking back on the film, I am not too sure that it reflects the reality of how it would have been in actual wars because I think that if the Sudanese sergeant and the Mexican prisoner came across other American troops, they would have been treated differently. In the 1940s people who were basically not white American (i.e., blacks, Mexicans) were treated differently than white American soldiers. Overall I thought this film was beneficial to watch because it showed how cultural differences progress with time.

Posted by elras004 at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was pleasantly surprised at how much I liked Sahara. I thought that the movie was extremely interesting. It is probably more interesting today in that we are able to look back at the time it was made and more understand the message more thoroughly. Sahara is very apparently a war propaganda movie. I can see how in the 1940’s when this movie was made, it would make people want to commit themselves to the war effort. After watching that movie, I could have probably been convinced to fight!
Sahara definitely adhered to the guidelines set by the OWI. The two sides of the war were clearly depicted. The Allies were represented as compassionate. They were committed wholeheartedly to their cause. This was the part that would make people want to get involved. The fact that the handful of soldiers would give up their lives to defend against a much larger German force was extremely inspiring. On the other hand, the evil axis was represented as haughty, ruthless and dishonest. This is seen in the German pilot sneering as he attempts to kill Sergeant Gunn and his soldiers and again when he is uncooperative after being captured.
Joe Gunn is the character that really made the movie. His character was so inspiring to the other soldiers. He was able to conceive off and install a plan to trick and hold off the German soldiers from the “well full of water� until reinforcements arrived. He was willing to die to defend his country and his cause. But, if he was going to die he was going to do it in a way that would help the rest of the war, by holding off the Germans from other fronts.
Also, the fact that nine men from all different countries and backgrounds would stick together and fight for their cause under a soldier that they didn’t know was so inspiring. Most of these men had families at home and they still stayed to fight when their chances of staying alive were slim.

Posted by swens389 at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara was an enjoyable film. For its purpose (propaganda film during WWII), and for when it was made (1940's), it was well done. The main moral of the story was America and its allies are good, and Germany and their allies are bad. We were basically hit over the head with this idealism. The first instance being when the allied crew stumble accross and African, allied soldier escorting an Italian prisoner. The ensuing scene ends when Captain Gunn decides to leave the Italian too die in the desert, with the rationale being that Captain Gunn is looking out for the wellfair of his soldiers, savig 10 at the expense of one. He soon has a bit of compassion and stops the tank to save the Italian. This again shows that the Allies are good, and they have heart. Another example of the heart and compassion of the Americans is when Captain Gunn allows the German and Italian prisoners to have the same amount of water from the well as the allied soldiers received. Again, Allies good. We see the cockiness and treachery of the Germans throughout the film. Whether it is the pilot who was shot down who asked the Allies to surrender to him, because the allies were in a hopeless situation, or it was the German officer who shot Frenchy in the back. Germans are clearly not to be trusted, they are cocky, evil, and treacherous.

Of the six government catagories and themes that Hollywood was to use as a guide for propoganda films, I think the movie adhere's to four of the themes. One, the movie tries to show what we are fighting for, freedom from Germanies rule. Two, the movie clearly tries to show the nature of the enemy. Italians are in line with the Germans, however the movie portrays the soldiers and people of Italy as good. The issue is with Mussolini, not the people. By the end of the movie, the Italian prisoner was seen as a good person, who could no longer fight for the beliefs of Mussolini or Germany. The movie, however, portrays all Germans as no good, treacherous, back-stabbing thugs. Again, this is most evident when Frenchy is shot in the back. Three, the movie shows our allies in arms. The group of soldiers picked up at the medic station are French, English, and Scottish. The movie shows how American and its allies are in the war together, and fighting for the same cause. Like the third catagory shown, the fourth catagory is the fighting forces. I think both these last two tie together and show how if the allied forces stick together the war will be won.

The racial make-up of the cast was fitting for that time of our history. There were no women, women were not allowed in the military at that time. There was one black soldier, but he was from another country. Blacks were not allowed to fight in the Army at that time, so it was a creative way to add another racial group into the film. Even though blacks were not allowed to fight in the military, the propoganda machine still had to try and keep everyone back home in synch with the war effort. I thought it was somewhat amusing in the scene where the Black soldier is asked to search the German pilot. The German pilot wants someone else to search him, and Captain Gunn has the black soldier search him anyways. My take on that scene was that the film makers were trying to show how much worse it would be for blacks in a Germany ruled world as apposed to a democratic, allied ruled world. The scene is overtly racist and seems to basically say that even though America has repressed black Americans, a world led by Germany would be even worse for blacks around the world. Wouldn't you rather be subjected to American racism, rather than German racism?

Overall I thought the movie was good. It used war propaganda as many movies of that time did. It showed how war wasn't pretty, and that a soldier had to fight and die for what he believedin. That a few allied soldiers, with enough heart, could overcome a battalion of German soldiers. America is good, its enemies are bad. It addressed the moral consequences of war in the scene were they left the Italian to die and then changed their minds, and also with the speach that Captain Gunn gave to the allied troops to get them to stay and fight. They new they would most likely die, but for the good of the war, and to help save freedom, they would make their stand. The movie wasn't overly PC, but it was a different time, and the movie can be taken for what it is. A good old fashion, good guy versus bad guy war movie.

Posted by bela0003 at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara...
Sahara did a great job of supporting the U.S. war propaganda. Humphrey Bogart was the “stereotypical� American hero. He was good looking, brave, and had a nicer side. He also ran the show. I think the biggest sign of propaganda was when he said he was going to stay and try and hold off 500 plus of the enemy soldiers. That was meant to send a message to young soldiers and keep the American moral up. Making it look like all of the American soldiers are like him. They also made the enemy’s stereotype known. That way viewers could link the stereotypes in the move to the actual people. Like when the Italian was stabbed by the German prisoner, who was pretending not to understand them the whole time. Then the German captain ordered everyone to shoot Frenchie when his back was turned. The movie made it very apparent that American soldiers would never do anything like that. But the Germans, being the enemy are backstabbers.
I do think that it was really inspiring that so many men from so many countries could come together and all fight for the same cause. That they all stayed knowing that 9 against 500 was a slim to none chance, but they all stayed. Some of them had wives and children that they sacrificed for. Humphrey’s comment was that he doesn’t have a family to go back to so it didn’t make any difference if he died or not, that he was going to do it for his country. Ironically the only guy who had nothing to lose was one of the few that survived. But we all know the American Hero never dies.
I don’t know if I would say this movie is “real� or not. There were some racial and ethnic disputes but none came from the U.S. characters really. Which in my opinion would not represent the truth. I think that the U.S. is one of the most egotistical countries and I’m sure back then, when we were one of the power houses we had an attitude that we were the best. I think in terms of the movie the minorities played some of the most important roles. The Italian didn’t take sides with the German prisoner, which in turn cost him his life. Then the local commander lost his life because he chased the German on his feet, stopping him from telling the rest of his crew that there really wasn’t any water. I think the fact that there are no women in this movie makes it more realistic. Because back then women didn’t fight. They were just getting jobs and being nurses. But they still talk about them constantly, and bring pictures to show. Which I think is what most of them would have done anyway.
All and all it was a good movie. But it was so meant to make the U.S. and the war look good. Which is typical of us, we are always the good guys, which is certainly not the case some of the time.

Posted by robak003 at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What made Sahara such an effective propaganda movie was how it depicted America's openness towards other ethnicities on film, while in reality this was not the case at the time. When coming across the Italian POW for the first time, Sgt. Joe Gunn (what a great name for an American military commander!), referred to him as a "bowl of spaghetti". Yet, when forced to determine whether or not to leave this prisoner to die, Gunn being the noble American he was, changed his mind and allowed the Italian to ride with them despite their low water rations.

This theme was displayed from the American's perception of the Nazi's point-of-view when they shot down and captured an attacking Nazi pilot. When Gunn directed the black Sudanese soldier to search the Nazi prisoner, the Nazi did not want to be touched by such an "inferior" race. It can be argued that the Nazi's believed that all races other than their own were "inferior", regardless of skin color. Sahara further displayed the Nazi's quest for world domination when the Italian prisoner, who grew to have compassion for the Americans, would not go along with the Nazi's attempt to escape. Once an enemy, the Itallian had no quarrel with the men who ulitmately spared his life.

Although Sahara was successful in portraying the pro-American ideology, what I noticed most while viewing this movie was the portrayal of men in it's time. During wartime in the early 1940's, American women and minorities stepped into the workforce in roles previously held by men. This allowed American industry to support the war effort as companies such as Avon altered cosmetic manufacturing into producing munitions. This labor movement, however, changed American industry, society, and culture forever as the while male would no longer dominate the ideal that they were the only worthy race or gender.

We see this evolution in recent films such as Courage Under Fire and Crimson Tide today where the role of women and minorities have become more central and representative of today's culture. Just as it was socially acceptable to see Humphrey Bogart dominating the screen in Sahara in 1943, it is just as acceptable for us to see Meg Ryan and Denzel Washington in the lead role today.

Posted by char0018 at 8:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As one who is not a fan of war movies, I was surprised that I stayed awake through Sahara and actually liked it. It is definitely evident that it was used for propaganda. Honestly, however, if I were an American watching it during that period of time, I would have bought into it- the story sucked me in. I empathized with the characters, felt their sense of patriotism, their comradery, their fear of tough decisions, etc so much to the point that I was even getting thirsty after watching them fiend for water in the desert for so long :)

I think Sahara covered most of the guidelines set by the OWI, however, I didn't notice any discussion of the home front or civilian responsibility. The other guidelines that resonated most with me the most were the Fighting Forces and the Nature of the Enemy ones. At first I could not understand why they would want to stay at the well and risk their lives when they could press on and quite possibly all survive. Then, after the Sergeant's monologue about how important individuals could be toward achieving the greater goal, I began to understand the rationale behind it. However, even understanding that, as a soldier, I do not believe that I would have the bravery or passion necessary to make such a selfless decision. I think the fact that they are willing to do so only further illustrates the dedication and patriotism of the soldiers, part of the film's main goal. Secondly, Germany is clearly villainous here, even from when the German pilot was flying the plan and shooting at them, seemingly sneering and happy when trying to kill our heroic group of allies. Upon meeting him, he is snotty and uncooperative, hiding his ability to speak English. Not to mention later when he tries to get the Italian to join him by threatening and degrading him and ends up stabbing him in the back, which is deemed to be quite underhanded and cowardly. The same goes for the German troops. The audience receives the message that the Germans are no good, sneaky, liars and back-stabbers. It does a good job at using small events to reinforce such ideas.

Besides being "rah-rah USA", I think the movie is entertaining and has lessons of compassion (rescuing the Italian prisoner), friendship (the soldiers trying to look out for one another when one is injured), selflessness (losing their lives for the greater good), hope (the well having water at the exact right times and the irony of the Germans surrendering right when the Americans were ready to die in defeat), perseverance/determination ( they defended the well until the very end, and on and on. Though it is clearly propagandistic, I would classify it as a "good" movie because it also possessed all of the above aspects. Plus, I thought the acting was well done also.

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

Sahara's most touching scene depicts one of the caucasian men sitting down in the well with the token black man discussing how their cultures differ, especially in regards to how many wives they're allowed to have. The black man reveals, however, that he only has one wives, when the white man expresses surprise, the black man says, "We both have things to learn from each other". Okay so maybe it was more hokey than touching, but it paints perfectly what the Office of War Information wanted to promote to the world. That is, that Americans, in sharp contrast to the Germans and their Aryan race, were accepting of everyone with arms wide open and open to learning more about each other.

Sahara has a relatively wide array of representation of other races. The German man they capture even expresses his distaste of such inferior races in a nice juxtaposition between the good Americans and the evil Germans. Bogie even gives the enemies water just to show us just how compassionate Americans are even to the undeserving. The Americans treat everyone fairly and give everyone they run across a chance to save themselves by going with them and their tank, even an Italian prisoner of war.

However several blanket statements are made that counteract the movie's attempt to show us just how wonderful these Americans are. The best example is when one of the crew says, when talking about the five hundred Germans they're fighting, "We're stronger than they are. . . they've never known the dignity of feeling". That scene seemed to contradict what the filmmakers had previously been going for: Americans are openminded and nonjudgemental. Yet it was probably what the Office of War Info wanted-- to promote the hatred of the Germans while still showing that the Americans were so much better than the Germans, even at the risk of hypocrisy.

Perhaps Sahara was not so realistic in terms of racial makeup but that wasn't the point of the movie. It was meant to be entertaining while still patriotic, meant to inspire ordinary citizens to wave the flag proudly and perhaps even enlist in the army and be cool like Bogie. It was also meant to show the Germans in an extremely negative light and show Americans as martyrs.

Posted by bergm150 at 10:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s 1943 and the world is at war. Maybe you have your doubts about it, the politics involved or perhaps you’re just not sure you agree with war on its most fundamental level. These thoughts can’t help but persist through a pervasive and all out assault-on-the-senses pro-war campaign. Everywhere you look there’s a poster telling you that supporting the war is the decent thing to do. Your neighbor came by to collect your old tires. “For our boys,� he said. Everyone’s on board. I mean…Hell! Who can argue with Bing Crosby? And now it’s Saturday night and you naturally want to go to the pictures, relax a bit, take your mind off the job and whatnot. Bogey in Sahara. How can you go wrong? You have no idea what sort of filmic valium, what panacea for the un-patriotic awaits you.

*********

It’s hard to imagine this sort of movie being made today. As a movie-as-pure-propaganda goes, it’s a relatively entertaining little jaunt, although I’m not sure its more comic moments were intended by the filmmakers. Columbia studios adhered triumphantly to the OWI’s standards. The first agenda, “demonstrating what we are fighting for,� was made clear by several memorable lines. The soldier known as “Doc� speaks of the Germans never knowing the “dignity of freedom�. When they reach the well, Sgt. Gunn tells his men they’re each allowed three swallows. He stresses “every man,� and he includes the POWs. This touches on one of the “Four Freedoms� as outlined by Roosevelt in his famous speech, the freedom from want for ALL nations, a democratic ideal to say the least. Perhaps one of the crowning lines, however, was the obvious heralding of the American Dream in, “The only miracle I believe in is the one you have to work for.�

The Nature of the Enemy was mapped out nicely as well. If we follow the film’s portrayal, the Germans are duplicitous and under-handed, hardly a heroic image, and by that token certainly not the type to win a war. The Italian POW is treated a bit better, but only becomes likable when he denounces his reasons for fighting and sides with the Americans. The message here being: "It’s never too late to support the war."

The Allies are represented well. They are all amicable and competent though clearly taking a back seat in command to Sgt. Gunn. The Frenchman provides a bit of comic relief, because well, let’s face it... The French are funny.

The “Supplies� and “Civilian Duty� standards take a slightly less prominent role. I did find it interesting, however, that the only female present in the movie was a mechanically challenged but lovable tank named “Lulubelle�. There are no civilians present in the movie, but plenty of messages are aimed at them. The line, “It is the duty of every man to do everything he can for the armed forces,� certainly hits its mark.

The soldiers themselves are well represented. They bring along the Italian POW despite their dangerously low water supply, thus demonstrating they are noble, decent men. The Allied soldiers fight in cunning and clever ways while the Germans are brutish and rely on sheer force.

I’ll let two unidentified American soldiers sum things up for me just in case you weren’t clear on where the movie stood on things. Call it another dose of medicine….
“Is he dead?�
“No, he’s an American.�

Posted by coats001 at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had expected to thoroughly hate the movie "Sahara." War movies are not my bag, and the fact that this particular war movie was old and in black-and-white wasn't helping much. However, I enjoyed the movie if only for its unintentional hilarity.

As a propaganda film, it represents all of the categories suggested by the government except for a clear representation of the home front.

1. The Issues of the war: The film states that the Allies are fighting for freedom from tyranny and for the right for men to choose their own destiny. They are interested in the dignity of choice.

2.The Nature of the Enemy: We are presented with two different faces of the enemy: The Italian and the Nazi. The Italians are explicitly made out to be the lesser evil. The Italian states that while Mussolini can force his people into war and make them wear the uniform of soldiers, he cannot force them to believe in his ideas. The Italians are portrayed as good people who have been forced into war by an evil dictator. The Nazis on the other hand, have apparently become so corrupted by Hitler as to be evil to the core. They have lost their humanity so much that they are willing to shoot men in the back and even murder their own soldiers. By dehumanizing the Germans to such an extent, it helped to rally people in favor of the war because no one would refuse to fight an enemy so vile.

3. United Nations: Sahara features a microcosm of the allied forces. There are British troops (featuring both Irish and English soldiers), American troops (with a Texan, a New Yorker, and a career army soldier), a Sudanese soldier, and a Frenchman. The government, while apparently keen to show the strength of the world allies coming together to fight the insidious evil of the Axis, it is of note that the Americans are the de facto leaders of this group.

4. Production Front: The Italian, in his attempt to ingratiate himself with the allies, makes an appeal to the American soldiers and the fact that his relative worked in a steel mill in Pittsburgh. He suggested that his relative may have even had a role in producing their tank.

6. The Fighting Forces: This category was obviously the most well represented in the film. The film showed the soldiers fighting on the front, the tactics used, and the bravery and honor of those fighting.

The film was successful in terms of a propaganda piece. It was clear that the Allies were right in their decision to fight, and that we clearly were to root for them. However, "Sahara" went beyond the propaganda to portray a black man as an equal. While this integrated unit did not reflect the reality of American troops during WWII, Tambul was an important character. He was portrayed as just as much of hero as his white counterparts. He gave his life to ensure success of the mission, and his role in killing the Nazi POW was perhaps the most important single act in the film.

Posted by Melissa Green at 8:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The movie "Sahara" works the American propaganda well. The movie is centered around the American troops as they travel the desert and how they react to the people they encounter. They show how the ideal American soldier should behave and react to situations. The first encounter is with their french and british allies. The American soldiers stay true to their mission, being obedient to their orders while the allies are somewhat hesitant, but in the end pull through and decide to come along. The next encounter is with the black soldier with the italian prisioner. They automatically take in the allied soldier as one of their own, and need some convincing to take on the prisioner. The Americans are shown to use more logic and reasoning when it comes to rationing out food and protecting the water supply, so they see the addition of the Italian enemy as a threat to their own survival. Though despite the war and differences among the countries, the American leader gives the order to let the Italian in the group because he shows compassion for the individual. The Americans also strongly believe in what they are doing. They believe that it is their duty to do everything they can in order to stop the Nazis, even if that means dying to get the slight edge over them. The American leader later remarks that the "dignity of freedom" is why the few allies there were able to fight off the hundreds of Germans.

In showing the nature of the enemy, the impression given by the enemy Italian is someone who is pathetic and desperate in the beginning. Later he is shown as a prisoner to his country in this war in that he doesn't believe in what he was fighting for and he can not be ruled by cruel thoughts the way the German is and eventually dies standing up to the German. This view of the Italian enemy is very different than the one given by the German enemy. He comes off a cocky and heartless. He also is very cunning in a deceitful way and is shown as someone not to trust in any sense. The Germans will quite literally shoot you in the back.

The goal of the movie besides pro-American propaganda was to inspire black people to join the Army and to try and convince them that they would be essential to the war. This was shown by the black soldier having the skill to capture an enemy as a prisoner and then being accepted right away into the ally tank. He was also given a key leadership role of finding the water wells and even when the first one was dry they trusted him to lead them on to the next well, which was nearly dry. They also stood up for him when the Nazi soldier showed disgust towards the "inferior race" searching him. The black soldier was also shown as doing a heroic deed in personally killing the Nazi when he escaped and giving the thumbs up in his death, making him seem proud to die for the cause and to confirm to his allies that the Nazi was indeed dead and that the mission could continue. Despite all these positive images, there was still some underlining racism present. The black solider was shown to do the dirty work for the rest of the crew such as getting the water from the well, sending up cans filled with water for the white soldiers while only taking the drops remaining on his hands in-between water transfers. Though they tried to downplay this a bit by having one of the white soldiers come down to offer to collect the water after a while, offer the black solider a cigarette, and then chit chat, but that was somewhat counterproductive since then it the white solider was poking fun at the other's culture and the fact they he is allowed multiple wives. Overall i found that the portrayal of the black soldier was in a positive light, but in doing that reality was overlooked, since that's not the role black soldiers really played.

Posted by kenne404 at 6:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I’ve never been a big fan of war movies, so I wasn’t surprised that I didn’t enjoy Sahara. It was obvious that the movie was made to promote the war, maybe with the assistance of the Office of War Information; however, I don’t think this effort was executed correctly. If I was a white male watching this movie in the 1940’s perhaps it would’ve been an effective tool to raise support for the war. But looking at the movie through the eyes of a woman or a male of any other ethnicity I think this movie does exactly the opposite.

First, there were no women characters in the movie. This is realistic in the sense that there were no women actually fighting as soldiers in WWII, but they did participate in other important war efforts. They received no encouragement from Sahara to help in the war, and are portrayed simply as wives, girlfriends, and daughters. There were also sexist comments made, such as when the tank breaks down and one of the soldiers says, “It’s like a dame – you don’t feed her and she won’t do nothin’.� Women appear to be objects for the men to fantasize and nag about while they are out being “heroes�.

The role of minorities in the movie is also very unfavorable, specifically with the Sudanese soldier. The Sudanese soldier successfully finds a well, only to have a soldier order him to climb down the well and collect water. They make his character look so childish as he answers like a slave and quickly climbs down and collects water, while rubbing it on his face. The Sudanese soldier also dies as he is trying to kill the escaping German prisoner. As he is dying he gives a stupid thumbs up sign while the white soldiers make a joke of his death. This is very unlike when the American soldiers die and there is sadness and sympathy displayed by the other soldiers.

So, while Sahara might have been effective in raising support from white males, I think it was a discouragement to women and minorities on their abilities to assist in war efforts.

Posted by osbo0100 at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

They just don't make movies like this anymore. Where to begin, really?The heroic machismo and quasi-chauvinism of the American troops, the weak willed turned-courageous (thanks to the Americans) allies, the enemy turned friend, and the soulless but pitiful enemy troops. If this is what the war was, then we should have won it in a 3-day weekend. But of course the movie wasn't accurate as that was never its intention. It's intention was to give somewhat peace of mind to the people here, and the movie probably did that at the time. Each soldier was a hero only too happy to give his life for our cause, and each enemy just seconds away from surrendering. Mr. Bogarts foolhardy but ultimately successful plan seems be there to get people comfortable with the idea of dying in war. They weren't dying for no reason, the deaths of 10 or so Allied forces resulted in in the decimation and capture of an entire German battlement. With odds like that how could we not feel better about the war? No, it wasn't realistic, but its greater purpose was to keep people on board with the war, and it seemed to do that.

What's really wonderful is the films approach to race. For years before the war, and for a few afterwards, any black character on film was a goofy stereotype. Hell even during the war they were still shown that way in some movies. In the movie the black guy is a foreigner fighting for us, not a soldier from our own country. He shows a social other on our side while keeping away from the issue of civil rights. It's just fine if this guy dies for us, if an African-American died people would consider him a hero equal to a white one and thus laying the groundwork for equal treatment. And then there's the Italian soldier who dislikes his own side and in the end sees the light. Same with the German scout who was later executed. Why is it that the Germans and Italians could be capable of redemption? Was the same seen in movies where the enemy was the Japanese? Lastly, you ask us why we think there aren't any women in the movie. But what place would the serve in a movie like this? If one was with the soldiers she would most likely have been killed or at least put in such danger that people would be made uncomfortable. Men can die in war, but women at the time were still innocent bystanders of the war and treasure to be protected. The only role women have had in a war movie that I can think of are the French country girls in "Alls Quiet on the Western Front" but there role was really just having sex with the German soldiers in exchange for food.

While this is an American culture study class, I would have liked to see what propaganda films from the other WW2 countries were like to see how they contrasted. I know the Germans had some, but I can't think of any the Japanese had.

-Thomas Kuppe

Posted by kupp0012 at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara was a fairly accurate portrayal of the racial makeup of the U.S. armed forces at that time. The two Americans in the film were white. As blacks were not allowed to hold fighting positions in the army at the time it makes sense that they were not included as American soldiers. There was an odd assembly representing many of the allies of the time. Still predominantly white, there was a black British Sudanese soldier. He was depicted in a fairly progressive role for the time; however it was not necessarily a role equivalent to his white counterparts.
Though all the different nationalities in their small group had (horrible) accents corresponding to their countries of origin they were still shown as intelligent and funny. They often had humorous lines and some kind of background story. We didn’t really learn anything about the Sudanese soldiers history and he spoke in the typical broken English with simple sentences that other ethnicities were saddled with in that era of film making.
He played the role of the ‘native guide’, leading the group from waterhole to waterhole. He was the only character that could find the precious source in the desolate desert. His father and grandfather were also in the army, demonstrating their loyalty and his entitlement to this position. While the American soldier fraternized with him in the well, most of the other soldiers kept a polite distance throughout the film.
He served as good foil for the German’s obvious racism, as the German prisoner did not want to be touched by someone of an “inferior race�. This exemplified the important moral difference between “us� and “them,� the German enemy. Towards the end of the film the Sudanese man got the chance to perform his act of heroism that was denied Americans of African descent in the United States. This was a gentle nudge that tried to include audience of different ethnicities and perhaps highlight the error in America’s strict segregation. His final “words�, the thumbs up gesture as he lay dying, further drove home the point that he was on our side and an able and inspirational combatant.

-Nyssa Shawstad

Posted by shaw0139 at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As we discussed in class the military was extremely segregated during WWII. Blacks were forced to simply serve the white soldiers as cooks and not allowed to fight. Knowing that, it was interesting to see a black character in Sahara although he was not part of the US army.

Sahara used this character as a way of masking the reality of the segregation in the army without truly lying. Since the character was a Sudanese soldier he was not part of the US army which is true to the times. But the film did portray him as a decorated soldier that captured a prisoner, led the group to water, and fought alongside the other men. He was shown as somewhat of a saving grace. Also, Joe Gunn defended the Sudanese soldier when the German soldier did not want a "member of an inferior race" to search him by saying his color "won't come off on his pretty uniform".

I believe the film used this black character to inspire black men to enlist even though they would never get to do what was seen on screen and to provide a contrast between the enemy and the United States. The army needed everyone "to do their part" and that included people working in the mess halls. Also, the US shared the same view as the Germans - that blacks were not equal to whites. By showing a knowledgable black soldier being trusted and even defended by white soldiers it portrayed the United States as a nation of equality and contrasted to Hitler's mission of a superior race.

Posted by fran0723 at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is well known that in many aspects the U.S. armed forces was very segregated. The film tried to conceal this reality but there are cues that still stood out.

The most obvious cue is that Sahara had only one black, Sudanese character named Sgt. Tambul, a French fighter. None came from the U.S. army side, which differs from today's U.S. army, where one would probably see a black soldier in every five.

Another cue is that Sgt. Tambul did not hesitate to fall under Sgt. Joe command. They both were allies and were on the same superiority level, but it is easily to tell that Sgt. Tambul was more of a servant to the group of allies. He did not socialize as much as everyone else in the group because there was an obvious sense that he did not measure up to the same level of superiority with them.

If Tambul were a white Sgt., he probably would not have been the one to labor for the water. He was just as thirsty as every other soldier, but being that he was the black one, he knew without asking that he was expected to do the labor.

The Nazi soldier initially resisted Sgt. Tambul as he wanted to search him and he said that he would not allow an inferior race to search him. Such resistance from a prisoner, and even worse the statement, would have been enough to stir a Sergeant’s anger.

In general I would say that the film accomplished its task of making the U.S. Armed forces look good as being humanitarians and strong. Whether or not it was intended to portray a back character as being inferior, racism definitely played a role.

Chimezie Ononenyi

01/31/08

Posted by onon0006 at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the reading "Good War, Race War," the film Sahara was deemed "radical" because of the way the African American character, Tamdul, was depicted. Not only was he "equal" to the white Americans but he was also a hero for his acts of bravery during the film. This "equality" was unusual to see because during WWII the military was segregated, thus many African Americans who wanted to help the war effort cooked meals, rarely making it to battle.

While the film Sahara shed African Americans in a better light than most WWII films, it still managed to illustrate the racism of that time period, in subtle ways. For example, once captured, the Nazi soldier refuses to be searched by the African American soldier stating, "I don't want to be searched by an inferior race." Later in the movie, Tamdul was confronted about his "multiple wives", a stereotype assumed by the other soldiers in his platoon. Later to find out he had one wife just like them.

After reading "Good War, Race War" and hearing the personal stories of each platoon (specifically Manchester's memoir), it is a shame that the military did not desegregate during WWII. I say this because Manchester's platoon was like a "melting pot" and despite all the different ethnicities of the soldiers, they bonded on such a high level that Manchester said, " [We] didn't fight for [the] flag or [the] country . . . we fought for one another." Author of "Good War, Race War" Gary Gerstle makes the suggestion that if black men and white men had the chance to fight alongside one another in battle, the bond they could have formed may have helped to break down the vicious walls of racism. "When German shells and bombs are raining about them, they do not worry as much about the race or creed of the man next to them, Walter White (NAACP chairmen-1944).

Posted by dollx040 at 9:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In Sahara, there exists a strong undertow of governmental propaganda regarding the American war effort. Humphrey Bogart, himself, represented a tough-as-nails general. His portrayal was consistent with the masculine ideals being propagated by posters and advertisements on the American home front. The issues of the war were portrayed in an inherently biased way. The Germans were continually being vilianized; for example, radio transmissions using terms like “the Germans have wiped out…� and “The Germans took over...� These statements shadowed the reality of Germany’s European invasions during the war. The American way of life is addressed in minute instances: the Texan soldier talking about his hometown and wife, and the Italian’s brother in Pittsburgh, showed America as a land of opportunity and new beginnings for all. Similarly, when Bogart asks the troops if they agree to stay and hold off the Germans, or go home, he has nothing to lose, but t they have families and loved ones. This illustrates the importance on family values held by American’s during the war.
The German’s were consistently snide, ruthless, and untrustworthy in Sahara. As they were shown shooting the Frenchman in the back, stabbing the Italian in the back, and killing their own soldier who cracked under the pressure; the allies were shown burying their men, and Bogart couldn’t leave behind the Italian to die. There was an obvious attempt to completely polarize the compassion of the Allied powers from the heartless Axis powers.
The areas of material supply and civilian responsibility were addressed through the constant shortage portrayed in the film. The men are always in need of something, whether it be food, water, or ammunition. This portrayal was used as a motivator for the home front to continue to do their part in supplying the war effort with the above scarcities. Britain, France, and Italy listened to and obeyed the American general (Bogart), the strong and competent leader reflected the American “we are the world� mentality of military superiority and influence
For the time period, I feel that the non existence of women on the battlefield was appropriate, and did not take away from the film; it simply reflected gender roles at that time. The issue of race was also indicative of society, as all of the men of diverse backgrounds worked together to stop the Germans, however, they were not exactly all treated with the same respect. For instance, the black man was expected to climb down the well and check for water. Although I liked Sahara, it served no other purpose aside from spreading war propaganda.

Posted by joh03704 at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Despite Sahara being predictable and having lame special effects, I was ultimately still able to enjoy the movie. It made me laugh, possibly unintentionally, but regardless I found it humorous. Sahara’s propagandistic purpose was bluntly evident throughout the entire movie, forcing me to classify it strictly as a propaganda piece. It followed practically every theme the government outlined. The issues of war were addressed in a conversation in which one of the characters is telling Bogart’s character how they are better than the enemy because of freedom. It shows the nature of two enemies, German and Italian, in the prisoner’s conversation, in which we are told the German’s are ruthless killers to the soul and are full of hatred, while the Italian’s are just fighting a war out of fear of what will happen to their families if they don’t. The movie obviously lays out the United Nations and the fighting forces by adding the English medical unit, “Frenchy�, and the Sudanese solider to the expedition. Sahara briefly discusses the production front and the home front when the Italian makes reference to his brother-in-law from Pittsburg who works in a steel mill, which could have helped to build the Lulu Belle.

The idea of war evoked depravities is clearly represented in Sahara. One example is when the German prisoner stabs the Italian prisoner in the back for not following orders. Another is when the German commander orders his men to fire on Frenchy, while his back is still turned. Another example of this depravity is when we find out the German prisoner who drank the water was executed for talking to the enemy. The morale consequences of fighting and dying for one’s country are addressed by Bogart’s character Joe Gunn. His speech about staying to stall the enemy being every soliders duty, even though they have families, and how it is most likely that they will all die, shows the consequences of fighting and dying for one’s country so that one’s country wins and protects the ideals they believe in.

The film does not reflect the reality of the emphasis of race in the military at that time, but instead shows a black man being a hero. The purpose of the gallant Sudanese solider was to get minorities to sign up for the war effort in hopes of the same glory that they could never attain due to racism. There was reference to wives and girlfriends back home, but no female characters in the film. This is because at that time the women’s place was not on the battlefield, but rather back home in the factories. This did not significantly take away from the movies persuasive purposes because it still made the point that we, the Americans and our allies, are good and that we will win because we’re smarter and righteous, while the enemy, who is bad and deceitful, will ultimately lose.

Posted by nels5175 at 12:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought Sahara was a fantastic film. After having it brought to my attention, it was very easy to see the propagandistic attributes of the movie as it progressed from start to finish. As we discussed in class, OWI (the Office of War Information) outlined six basic categories and themes that were to serve as Hollywood's contribution to the war effort. I was able to see each and every one of them at some point within the movie. The movie was out to make the Germans evil and the American/Allied forces righteous. One example of this notion was the scene in which the captured German fighter pilot exclaims, "I don't want to be touched by a man of inferior race." Another example was when the Italian character shouted, "Italians are not like Germans - only the body wears the uniform and not the soul!" Another glaring example would be the two scenes in which the Germans either shot a man in the back or literally stabbed a man in the back! And yet another, slightly more subtle example was when the German P.O.W. continually lied about his ability to speak English. Now on the flip side, there were just as many if not more scenes that shed a light of righteousness upon the American commando/America. For example, the Americans welcomed people of other ethnicities (blacks, "frenchies", and Italians). Even in moments when water was extremely scarce, the Americans would still have the decency to share water with the German P.O.W. Also the Americans were willing to sacrifice their lives even if it meant that it was only going to "slow down" the Axis forces. The men were out there to protect freedom and to die for what they believed in. There are far too many messages and powerful ideas and ideals strew throughout Sahara to list and or articulate them all. Ultimately, I thought the movie was great. It was great because of its ability to present powerful American ideals in such an effective, entertaining, and uplifting way.

Posted by John Erck at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sahara definitely fit the bill for a WW2 era propaganda film, presenting all the aspects intended by the Office of War Information that were outlined by Gerstle. It portrayed the iconic American hero, played by Bogart, taking charge and saving the day. It portrayed bravery and sacrifice, with the unusual crew risking and sometimes losing their lives to advance the greater good. They acted together with members from all the Allied nations to put their duty to their cause and countries above their own life. It also showed the humanity of the American GI, because they risked their own water and rations just to save an enemy from an agonizing death. The film also showed audiences what all were fighting for, as various soldiers displayed pictures and recounted stories of the loved ones back home. The Nazi enemy was portrayed as coldhearted and demonized, with a prisoner going so far as to literally stab his ally in the back to escape. It does not address the civilian side of responsibility and the roles at home directly, but the Frenchman’s account of his civilian life at home does emphasize once again what the troops are fighting for. This is definitely a pro-American film, as Bogart explains that the troop captured victory because “American’s are stronger,� and they “have that extra something� that the Nazi enemy lacks.

This film showed the human depravity that people are capable of that is displayed by the Nazi, but it also emphasizes the courage that it evokes, demonstrated by the soldiers turned heroes when the hard decisions and sacrifices need to be made. It showed that sometimes an individual’s death is not in vain if they lived and die to advance the “good fight,� as this ragtag group did. The film did incorporate the aspect of racism, but it was only displayed by the Nazi enemy. The Allies seemed ready to accept the Sudanese soldier as one of their own, but as Gerstle pointed out, the OWI was careful not to force Americans to address the issue of racial equality in their own forces. The Sudanese soldier even sacrificed himself for the good of the crew, which serves to provide African Americans at home with aspirations of heroism without granting them equality in their ranks. The absence of women in this film is inconsequential, because the war did not include women on the front and definitely not in the ranks. Overall, this film would have served as an ideal propaganda film to accomplish the intended messages the government wished the public to receive.

Posted by schr0845 at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After watching Sahara, I would definitely classify it as a propaganda film. The film touched on several of the points the government used as a guide for war time movies. The issue of war, meaning what American troops were fighting for was one theme touched on in the movie. The character Joe Gunn was the leader for the American platoon, and he quickly became the leader of all the other platoons. Gunn became the selfless leader by letting others drink the newly discovered water before himself while he parented the soldiers by allowing them so much to drink. He was looking out for the safety of the other soldiers before himself. This could help give American viewers the impression that America was fighting for other allied countries freedoms as well as it’s own. Sahara also did a good job of portraying the enemy as a common evil. The Italian prisoner is found first and is shown as a very cowardly, but still likeable character. The German prisoner, however, is shown as cold hearted and back stabbing especially when he stabs the Italian prisoner while trying to escape during the battle. He is only known as a killer. The movie is uplifted a little when his character is killed, which shows how much the filmmakers wanted viewers to get a negative reaction to the Germans from this movie. The movie also incorporates the theme of United Nations because of the union of all the different platoons in the beginning of the movie. They all came together and endured pain together when they were out of food and water and while they later watched their comrades die in battle at the hands of the Germans. The production front and the home front were not mentioned often in the movie other than a glimpse at a letter to or from home. The final theme of fighting forces is also touched on in the movie. It depicts the platoon fleeing from German attack while trying to find refuge. Then, they get caught up in battle where they out-wit the German forces to win their battle. This is an important piece of propaganda because it would demoralize the home front by showing the same platoon on the losing end of the Sahara battle. When they win, it helps boost the morale of the American people.

Posted by kuni0018 at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)