Propaganda: A message in Plain View

I have always believed in the theory originally projected by Edgar Allen Poe, the American writer. The best place to hide anything is where everyone can see it.

                                            –Basil Rathbone in Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon  (1943)

        In all matters of Sherlock Holmes, all begins and ends with Basil Rathbone. I’ve always preferred his acting because it’s closest resembles what I imagine Sherlock Holmes to be like in the flesh. I have watched the movies since I was young, due to my introduction to them by my father. Even my young mind could recognize the quality of the acting and storytelling, which is a hallmark of the films. 

Just recently, however, I have noticed another hallmark of the films- they all have curious allusions to American society. The reason for this phenomenon is something that has been explained to me but never confirmed. Apparently, the movies were created in order to strengthen relations between America and Britain. The idea was that by showing Sherlock Holmes speaking highly of American icons and customs, Americans would thus think favorably of the British. Seeing as Sherlock is such an important example of British writing, the idea holds water. 

                Nevertheless, the examples of “Americana” are prevalent throughout the films. In watching Terror by Night (1946) Dr. Watson mentions playing Gin Rummy, an American game. Another example is found in the installment to the series In Pursuit of Algiers (1945), when Holmes mentions a man in Brooklyn. The most striking example is that the creators of the films even went as far as making a film where Holmes goes to America, called Sherlock Holmes in Washington (1943). This wasn’t even an adaptation of the original stories, but rather a completely fictional one designed for American audience. While some of these examples may be subtle, they are no doubt intentional.  The time line also supports the theory, seeing as they were made from 1939-1946, a time when British-American relations were important due to the global climate.

                Essentially, the movies are propaganda but still examples of the art of filmmaking. They have an extremely obvious message intended to sway the audience towards a certain line of thinking, and are beloved.

                Other forms of propaganda aren’t as received as graciously as the Holmes movies, however. Masuji Ono’s work in “An Artist of the Floating World” is a perfect example of the blurred line that distinguishes art from propaganda. Kazuo Ishiguro’s central character finds himself grappling with the reality that a great deal of his work is viewed as distasteful propaganda of no artistic significance, though he may not admit the latter.

                Take for example Ono’s recollections of his transition from an artist who painted the subtleties in life to one who harshly painted to influence the nation of Japan. Ono holds the belief that he acted in a way that would “be a significant approach to the people of (his) nation,” and that he was trying “some new approaches.” It’s difficult to distinguish Ono’s thoughts as accurate memories or twists of the truth. After all, he is in control of his destiny to the reader because he is the narrator.     

There is certainly evidence he was acting in good faith. Ono consistently mentions that the poor and impoverished conditions for Japanese made “one want to do something… .” He frequently revisits this sentiment throughout his stream of conscious narrative. He also portrays his acts in a noble and necessary fashion, saying “in such troubled times such as these, artists must learn to value something more tangible than those pleasurable things that disappear with the morning light.”

Ishiguro highlights this urgency Ono felt in his initial conversation with Matsuda, the leader of the nationalist group Okada Shingen. The scene highlights the two men intentionally walking through a downtrodden village. Ono reminisces “I wouldn’t object (to walking in the village) if it won’t make us late for our appointment,” which is followed by Matsuda’s replying “(o)n the contrary, we will save ourselves a kilometre or two by cutting through down there.” Translation: cut to the chase with your art, which will help Japan and it’s people.

Ono’s art is very affective in this manner. His new style used “bold red characters” and highlighted favorably Japanese that took action. No longer would Ono favorably portray the complacent. This jab’s at the artistic group Ono used to belong to, because they were complacent in his mind.

Obviously though, Ono and his art lost the war. Japanese citizens died, and the nation was set back a great deal. Ono realizes this, and admitting “I am now quite prepared to accept the validity of such an opinion.” He has remorse for what his art has done, but he doesn’t completely dwell on it because “there is surely no great shame in mistakes made in the best of faith.”

So is Ono’s work art or purely propaganda? Due to the unreliability of his testimony, it is hard to determine where exactly his work stands. I venture to say, however, that most propaganda has artistic qualities, particularly that of Ono’s style. The artistic aspect of it is what reaches the audience.

However, there is some propaganda that isn’t artistic at all. Take for example a country dropping fliers over a nation, which have text that discourages the population.  No artistic quality lies in unimaginative phrases like give up, you have lost the war.

Conversely, not all art is propaganda. An abstract painting that is a collection of gray clouds may inspire thought in the observer, but it certainly doesn’t cause a mass exodus of action identical to all who see it. Art is such a large and ambiguous medium that propaganda may be a section or style within it, but certainly not an encompassment.

The summation of all of this mess is there is no true answer to the problem of art and propaganda’s standing within in. Ono’s work, seeing as it involved painstaking talent and innovation, is artistic propaganda. The same can be said for the Sherlock Holmes films. Both are talented ensembles of art that not just anyone creates. This makes them art. As far as why the two are propaganda is best explained unintentionally by Basil Rathbone in Holmes’s allusion to Poe, because “the message in question is always in plain view.