hi, i saw these three documentary and i don't understand everything but i understand some parts. In fact,i truly loved the part with the women who smoke. The cigarettes become symbol of freedom for women. Everybody supports this because it's the liberty. even the photographers taking pictures of women who smoke. Journalists make the items. This makes a lot of advertising for cigarettes. That is why we can say that advertising is not necessarily bad. Linda G
Hello ! I have watched the videos °1 and 3° one more time, but I'm not sure to understand all the documentary... Like Linda, the second video is my favorite ! I like old documents which show 20th century's way of life : behaviors, clothes, cars, etc.
I have watched some video about american 60's way of life, and it's true that all the women skoked ! It's impressive. Social imaginary have changed a lot, and this subjet (cigaret) show this envolvment very well.
I just saw these 3 videos. We can say that Edward Bernays was the most influential man of the 20th century. Before watching these videos, I don't know who was Edward Bernays. I don't understood everything so I went to "wikipedia" who was to me a good help. Before going to wikipedia, I told me “thank you Bernays, thanks to you womens smoke but it's not a simple “cigarette“ but a symbol of freedom. And after wikipedia I told me “bravo“ bernays thanks to advertising you have manipulate the masses.
It's maybe the influence of SIgmund Freud (because Bernays was Freud's family),
Bernays have understood what people mind and wanted (freedom, democratie), so he is famous but he is the symbol of advertising, and we can say that advertising is bad because she prevent people to think themselves.
These videos are very interesting! See how people create needs by studying massive minds is impressive...! Create an advertising isn't so simple i believed...Manipulating minds, finding deeper desires & fears and playing on that to create needs is brilliant. But on the other hand, we have to be aware of consequences, not to be addicted. We have to be reasonable. So, i think we can say advertising is good and can be bad in some occasions.
Hello ! I think thats those videos show the same things as last week. The differce is that we see the fact that this kind of manipulation is not new, but the idea came for the last century. The idea is the same, population is not the same as yesterday but it react exactly the same and again for a long time. Manipulate people doesn't seem to be difficult as all...
hello, I have watched these three documentaries, it's difficult for me to understand them but i have tried! Like Armelle I have looked on wikipedia who was Edward Barneys and that help me to understand the subject of these videos: crowds, manipiltion of masses, the diffusion of some product of consommation (cigarets for example)...
I'm not sure I understand all the documentary. I found it difficult to understand clearly what the voice was saying. However, I liked the second video, and more particularly the passage about cigarettes. Smoking is a way for women to claim their freedom.
Hello. After have watched these three videos, I don't know if we can say thank you to Edward Bernays or not. My opinion is very ambiguous. When you see the impact on the society, we can arise the question. Of course, this man has been a positive impact but the society is became a crazy consumer society.
As usual, I will be the one complaining, but.. well.. I really don't like the documentary. Well first of all because I think the only thing separating Freud from fraud is just one letter, and this documentary, even if it's crticising Freud's influence, still believe in his work. And furthermore, because it really suppose that we, the audience, are stupid and passive, and that we are being manipulated by the almighty advertising corporations... It's really not that simple.
An interesting point of view, since I had never thought about the ties between the development of psychoanalysis and consumerism before.
I appreciated therefore this documentary, and still I felt like it lacked something.
The choice of organizing the whole narration the figure of Bernays was, in my honest option, misleading, in that we would think that the advent of the mass society is the issue of an individual, more than of an historical necessity. Propaganda and manipulation always existed, and public relations are just the historical avatar of an old practice. Nor, one can object, psychoanalysis is the only - or even the most effective, and common - knowledge used in dealing with masses: to name some other, rhetoric, deception, information control, violence and trust gaining are no less used in dealing with masses. We can see how propaganda worked perfectly even in contemporary Nazis Germany, though Goebbels was not a nephew - biologically or ideologically - of Freud's.
Furthermore, I agree with Jean-Baptiste when he argues that masses are not so easily manipulated, and that the pre-behaviourist scheme of need and satisfaction is no more than a scheme facing a far more complex reality. For instance, one may object that symbols are culturally-situated, and that no such thing as an "objective phallic replacement" can exist. More blatantly, we could simply ask ourselves if it is was necessary to apply Freudian theory to conceive a campaign like Bernays pro-smoke campaign : was the very act of lighting a cigarette in public meaningful because of the intrinsic phallic reference of the cigarette, or rather because of the reappropriation of a gesture who had been culturally assigned to the class of males ?
That is some of the criticism that I could put in form ; indeed, I watched the video with a feeling of growing uneasiness, as if the documentary was missing "the big picture" to concentrate on a single, relatively unimportant, character.
Nonetheless, I reckon that the value of this part of documentary, and the thing that should be retained from it, is the idea of the psychoanalysis having had an effect on the birth of mass society - but not as the sole and major actor, as the documentarist seemingly suggests.
Theses videos show us how people could be manipulated at the beginning of the century thanks to Freud's theories. Today, for me, we find the same principle in advertising: it tries to control our minds and our feelings, but, in ordre to push us to consume. Advertising, as Freud's theories, is based on the manipulation !
Those videos were quite interesting even if they were quite hard to understand. they seem to be the illustration of Freud's theory that advertising companies try to control our minds by creating new desires and new needs.
but is it not there the role of an ad to promote a product and to encourage people to buy it?
hi,
ReplyDeletei saw these three documentary and i don't understand everything but i understand some parts. In fact,i truly loved the part with the women who smoke. The cigarettes become symbol of freedom for women. Everybody supports this because it's the liberty. even the photographers taking pictures of women who smoke. Journalists make the items. This makes a lot of advertising for cigarettes. That is why we can say that advertising is not necessarily bad.
Linda G
Hello !
ReplyDeleteI have watched the videos °1 and 3° one more time, but I'm not sure to understand all the documentary... Like Linda, the second video is my favorite ! I like old documents which show 20th century's way of life : behaviors, clothes, cars, etc.
I have watched some video about american 60's way of life, and it's true that all the women skoked ! It's impressive. Social imaginary have changed a lot, and this subjet (cigaret) show this envolvment very well.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI just saw these 3 videos. We can say that Edward Bernays was the most influential man of the 20th century.
Before watching these videos, I don't know who was Edward Bernays. I don't understood everything so I went to "wikipedia" who was to me a good help.
Before going to wikipedia, I told me “thank you Bernays, thanks to you womens smoke but it's not a simple “cigarette“ but a symbol of freedom.
And after wikipedia I told me “bravo“ bernays thanks to advertising you have manipulate the masses.
It's maybe the influence of SIgmund Freud (because Bernays was Freud's family),
Bernays have understood what people mind and wanted (freedom, democratie), so he is famous but he is the symbol of advertising, and we can say that advertising is bad because she prevent people to think themselves.
Armelle
Hey Lily!
ReplyDeleteThese videos are very interesting! See how people create needs by studying massive minds is impressive...!
Create an advertising isn't so simple i believed...Manipulating minds, finding deeper desires & fears and playing on that to create needs is brilliant. But on the other hand, we have to be aware of consequences, not to be addicted. We have to be reasonable. So, i think we can say advertising is good and can be bad in some occasions.
Sandra
Hello !
ReplyDeleteI think thats those videos show the same things as last week. The differce is that we see the fact that this kind of manipulation is not new, but the idea came for the last century. The idea is the same, population is not the same as yesterday but it react exactly the same and again for a long time. Manipulate people doesn't seem to be difficult as all...
hello,
ReplyDeleteI have watched these three documentaries, it's difficult for me to understand them but i have tried! Like Armelle I have looked on wikipedia who was Edward Barneys and that help me to understand the subject of these videos: crowds, manipiltion of masses, the diffusion of some product of consommation (cigarets for example)...
Marion
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHello
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand all the documentary. I found it difficult to understand clearly what the voice was saying.
However, I liked the second video, and more particularly the passage about cigarettes.
Smoking is a way for women to claim their freedom.
Joana Neves da Fonseca
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello.
ReplyDeleteAfter have watched these three videos, I don't know if we can say thank you to Edward Bernays or not. My opinion is very ambiguous. When you see the impact on the society, we can arise the question. Of course, this man has been a positive impact but the society is became a crazy consumer society.
Kévin
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, I will be the one complaining, but.. well.. I really don't like the documentary.
ReplyDeleteWell first of all because I think the only thing separating Freud from fraud is just one letter, and this documentary, even if it's crticising Freud's influence, still believe in his work.
And furthermore, because it really suppose that we, the audience, are stupid and passive, and that we are being manipulated by the almighty advertising corporations... It's really not that simple.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point of view, since I had never thought about the ties between the development of psychoanalysis and consumerism before.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated therefore this documentary, and still I felt like it lacked something.
The choice of organizing the whole narration the figure of Bernays was, in my honest option, misleading, in that we would think that the advent of the mass society is the issue of an individual, more than of an historical necessity. Propaganda and manipulation always existed, and public relations are just the historical avatar of an old practice. Nor, one can object, psychoanalysis is the only - or even the most effective, and common - knowledge used in dealing with masses: to name some other, rhetoric, deception, information control, violence and trust gaining are no less used in dealing with masses. We can see how propaganda worked perfectly even in contemporary Nazis Germany, though Goebbels was not a nephew - biologically or ideologically - of Freud's.
Furthermore, I agree with Jean-Baptiste when he argues that masses are not so easily manipulated, and that the pre-behaviourist scheme of need and satisfaction is no more than a scheme facing a far more complex reality.
For instance, one may object that symbols are culturally-situated, and that no such thing as an "objective phallic replacement" can exist.
More blatantly, we could simply ask ourselves if it is was necessary to apply Freudian theory to conceive a campaign like Bernays pro-smoke campaign : was the very act of lighting a cigarette in public meaningful because of the intrinsic phallic reference of the cigarette, or rather because of the reappropriation of a gesture who had been culturally assigned to the class of males ?
That is some of the criticism that I could put in form ; indeed, I watched the video with a feeling of growing uneasiness, as if the documentary was missing "the big picture" to concentrate on a single, relatively unimportant, character.
Nonetheless, I reckon that the value of this part of documentary, and the thing that should be retained from it, is the idea of the psychoanalysis having had an effect on the birth of mass society - but not as the sole and major actor, as the documentarist seemingly suggests.
Hi !
ReplyDeleteTheses videos show us how people could be manipulated at the beginning of the century thanks to Freud's theories.
Today, for me, we find the same principle in advertising: it tries to control our minds and our feelings, but, in ordre to push us to consume.
Advertising, as Freud's theories, is based on the manipulation !
What interisting videos but hard to understand !
Hi Lilly
ReplyDeleteThose videos were quite interesting even if they were quite hard to understand.
they seem to be the illustration of Freud's theory that advertising companies try to control our minds by creating new desires and new needs.
but is it not there the role of an ad to promote a product and to encourage people to buy it?
Sarah