Manufacturing Consent

I admit Manufacturing Consent was a better film than I expected. It was enjoyable after I got past the fact that it was filmed in the early 1990s. Being a student interested in such subject matters as media manipulation public control, this film was both entertaining and informative (for the most part).

Noam Chomsky proves to be a very convincing speaker and author. Throughout the entire documentary I could not help but be envious of his ability to articulate everything he had to say. Although I have good enough ideas to share, I tend to be a little clumsy with words. Chomsky, however, seems to have no problem with either the ability to think or the ability to express his thoughts and convince others to agree with him. Even when Chomsky was in a heated debate with one of his critics he still was able to stylishly dismiss his opponent and was even able to get his point across. No AP English student could watch him without having the slightest bit of jealousy.

Even with such a successful author as its topic matter, the film was far from perfect. It begins by discussing Noam’s brilliant ideas about the use of language and how beneficial its structure can be; but then about half way through Part One the viewer is bombarded with a sudden change in topic matter. The documentary suddenly changes its focus from the manipulation of language to the horrors of diplomacy in the United States. I can understand the link, but the transition was so quick it took a minute for me to catch on to the discussion change. After the change, and therefore for a good portion of the movie, the subjects it discussed drudged on and on. Good points would be made, but their further explanations would last longer than needed. This caused the movie to lose its impact for me.

When I began the film I was unaware of how long it was. So, after almost 2 hours when only the time for intermission came I sat amazed. The film easily had my attention for the first hour and a half or so, but the length of it forced my interest to fade. Believe me, I am interested in politics more than most teenagers my age, but the amount of history and repetition in Chomsky’s arguments began to irritate even me.

I still must admit that the film made me think more deeply about language. I have just recently grown an appreciation for people who have the ability to write or speak very well, and this film only confirmed it. Noam Chomsky is a very smart man; whether a person agrees with his ideas or not, he/she cannot help but admit at least that he is intelligent. This is the main reason why I continued on with the movie after I began to feel a bit of irritation.

Not only is Chomsky an appreciator of language, but he was an advocate for many causes. The film does a decent job informing its viewers of the bad actions of governments (especially America’s government) and the large influence the media has in these situations. In the documentary Chomsky unveils the biases that plague the media. He warns people to be aware of what they are watching on television or reading in the newspaper so that they could protect themselves from the conglomerate’s manufacture of public consent.

The messages Chomsky was trying to get out were very good ones despite everything. He talked about language and politics with such logic and knowledge that watching the film was worth while.