"Propaganda" is a strong word, creating influential narratives would indicate a more balanced point of view. However, the word is used, because techniques and structures of influencing are addressed here and in this sense "propaganda" seems to be an honest word, naming and explaining structures of influence, which in a way can't be avoided, only reflected and re-framed.
The starting point of the line of reasoning is the Netflix documentary Five Came back (Wp = Wikipedia gives some backgrounds), which is itself based on a book of Mark Harris. Both sources show, how Hollywood created the means of propaganda, which were not existent, before 1942, before the US entered WW2. Hollywood was already influential before 1942, but central was making money, not shaping the narrative. This changed with entering the Propaganda war and the documentation shows, how the famous film directors analyzed in the sources are developing the film film-language of propaganda. The book gives personal and biographical background of the six directors, referring to books and letters of (and about) the persons. The Netflix documentary shows part of the movies, with comments of six contemporary directors and offers direct access to movies. This shows in a direct and reflexive way the creation of the propaganda movies, possible only through the means of an internet streaming service. It would of course in theory be possible, to do this all via DVDs, but it would be more expensive and inconvenient. Netflix is using its potential to reflect on the development of media culture, a very laudable move indeed. I almost regret using the harsh word "propaganda", because the possibility to see and the movies and analyze them, is of course reflection and not propaganda. But the observer and critic of the media can't leave the visual media. Tony, the shinning alter ego of Danny in the film "The shinning" (Wp) calls the images we see, "pictures" ("It's just like pictures in a book, Danny. It isn't real" is the quote, in the sentence- context). We can't escape the media, but that is not all. There are consequences. They are related to Media in general (too big topic to continue on that here) and on mass-media (also a big topic, but I feel it can be reduced to a meaningful outcome here). Since the development of Hollywood propaganda movies (42 to 45), to the year 2021, the structures of Mass-Media changed, but some basic propaganda elements remained, constructing a second reality, a war-movie reality. On the level of the film-analysis it would be interesting to monitor if there are basic changes from the pre-propaganda area (see the film "Jurarez" as an example), but this would need a too long digression. On the level of the society (as world society), the new propaganda-films opened a new chapter for the society as cultural memory (see Luhmann 1996:173, English translation 2000:97). The development consists of two elements: the new forms (means) and as a function for society: self observation out of a memory. But this memory is nothing static, but something, which as to be renewed through new adaptations and narrations. And the other part is the theory of a "just war" (Wp), which is traditionally not used in connection to the prevention of a Genocide. This seems to be a quite abstract and difficult angle to discuss films, but it seems to better and more consistent than just focussing on war battles in class, which I of course not do (Wabisabi learning).
Luhmann, Niklas (1996), Die Realität der Massenmedien, English (2000): The realtiy of massmedia, Translated by Kathleen Cross, Stanford University Press
