From Voice ~ Topics: criticism, ethics
The Case of the Missing Swastika
I don’t have any answers. But I do have a question?
CBS was obviously banking on Manson’s disturbing legend to seduce audience share (perhaps away from the “Sopranos”), as evidenced by the unremitting promos aired during the week leading up to the “World Premiere,” as well as the “where are they (the Family, that is) now” related news features, in addition to some costly full-page newspaper advertisements, notably one published in The New York Times main news section opposite the jump of a front-page story about Lynndie R. England and her MP colleagues who are charged with the Iraqi abuses. My question is not about the efficacy of showing or even advertising this TV movie in the wake of a real-life scandal; the question is why is it that in the newspaper advertisement the portrait photograph of the actor playing Manson is scarred with an X mark on his forehead rather than the backwards Swastika that the real Manson carved into his skin a few years after he was incarcerated?
Is it acceptable on primetime to show killer Charles Manson turning a group of sexy hippie chicks into cult-enslaved, cold-blooded killers but offensive to recreate the graphic symbol he is seen wearing in many news photographs and videos. The hooks of the Hakenkreuz (or hooked cross of the Swastika) are removed leaving what amounts to the logo for X Box. Could there be a subliminal tie-in here? I doubt it, but could it be that the advertising standards and practices department made the decision that promoting a tale of horrible ritual murder is fine, but Nazi iconography steps over the line? Actually, the Swastika Manson painfully tattooed onto his brow was not an evocation of Nazism but rooted in the ancient history of the symbol as a sign of good fortune that dates back perhaps thousands of years to Hindu and numerous other early cultures. If such a highly publicized tattoo is removed from the virtual Manson, doesn’t it make one question the voracity of all TV docu-dramas and advertising in general? Okay, it doesn’t really make one question what is accepted as “faction,” but it is nonetheless curious that the network would go to all this trouble to falsify something so well-known, while only a few weeks before it opened up a Pandora’s box of real scandal and incrimination.
Incidentally, this new television movie is based on the true story of the infamous Tate/LaBianca murders, as chronicled in the bestselling book Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor in the Manson case. Various books, including Ed Sanders’ disturbing “The Family,” were published about Manson, who also appeared on the covers of Life, Rolling Stone and other magazines in the late 60s and early 70s as the veritable cover boy of hippy-drug-rock-music-inspired depravity. Manson's followers, at his instruction, brutally massacred seven people over two consecutive nights in Los Angeles, and scrawled bloody messages on the walls of the crime scenes, including the title of the Beatles' White Album song “Helter Skelter."
Six years after the horrific event CBS broadcast the mini-series “Helter Skelter,” based on the Bugliosi book, which was the highest rated two-part made for television movie. It focused on the investigation of the gruesome slayings and the trial of Charles Manson. In this era of revivals, the new “Helter Skelter” focuses, states CBS’ publicity, “on who Manson was, why he did what he did and how this morally corrupt ex-con persuaded the members of his Family to commit such horrifying acts.”
Thirty-five years and an untold number of horrible murders later, some people may still be interested in knowing how this particular megalomaniac convinced others to do his evil bidding. But any semblance that “Helter Skelter” offers more than a voyeuristic peek at madness is underscored by the falsification of the mark on Manson’s face. There is nothing worse than an exploitative, sensationalistic show that also lies in its advertisements.
-
Why did I watch Helter Skelter? Like most dupes I was drawn into the recreation of the sensational crime. Needless to say it wasn't done well. It also seemed trivial compared to the Iraq revelations.
Also, aside from its base exploitation, frankly, I'm sick of bad films about the Sixties where all the actors where coarse wigs that look made from horse hair. I'm not sure I understand why the swastika was removed from the ad, or even if it is all that important, but I am sure that films like this do very little to enlighten or inspire. -
I find it outrageous -- the removal that is. Not that I wouldnt find it offense to see, nor do I agree with the air-ing of such a thing. But, its seems basically stupid to try to erase such a thing, that has become somewhat of mansons trademark--be that bad or good, it doese not matter.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. -
Of all the designed symbols in history the swastika is the most disturbing. I realize that it has a history that dates well before the Nazis, but many are of us westerners only see Hitler's image, not the good fortune or well being it once represented. That said, I can see why CBS would leave out the image on the ad. Why inflame and already inflamatory image of Manson. Since I did not see the film I don't know whether Manson is wearing the Swastika on screen. But if he is, this is just another example of the movie poster that shows a little more or a little less than there is on the screen to heighten or soften expectations.
My understanding, however, and this could be incorrection, was that Manson had first carved the X and then years later made it into a backwards swastika. I guess there's not alot to do in prison, except play with sharp objects on oneself or others. -
The term "documentary" seems to have lost its factual meaning, with the X on Manson's head and Fahrenheit 9/11.
-
"I realize that it has a history that dates well before the Nazis, but many are of us westerners only see Hitler's image, not the good fortune or well being it once represented. That said, I can see why CBS would leave out the image on the ad. Why inflame and already inflamatory image of Manson."
Just because you don't like to acknowledge certain crimes and atrocities of history doesn't mean that we should revise them. Following that rationale, we should also remove any references to slavery or the Holocaust from all forms of media since it might offend someone, somewhere. -
I think that since 9/11 and even the now infamous costume malfunction of the Super Bowl CBS does not want anymore contraversey. They already were the ones that had to apologize to the nation of veiwers and because of them now live T.V. runs on a three second delay. We are a nation of political correctness all the time and CBS was scared of what could happen and in fear of the million or so people who do not know what the swastika represents.
-
"We are a nation of political correctness all the time and CBS was scared of what could happen and in fear of the million or so people who do not know what the swastika represents."
They shouldn't air shows that hint at any semblance of historical accuracy if that's the case. And excuse me, but I can only guess that you'd have to be living under a rock not to have a basic idea of what happened during the Holocaust. Maybe you can tell the survivors that it's too unpleasant to think about. I'm guessing that Abu Ghraib is something that you'd like to ignore as well. Who are you going to inflame by showing a Swastika on Manson's forehead? -
A rant:
I was reading a review today of tonight's A&E "docu-drama" about General Ike. It says that the director (the same guy who gave us the hyperbolic Geo W. Bush 9/11 "docu-fiction" last year, has drained the real Ike of his historical equity and gave him overblown heroic traits that he actually did not possess. Odd, since most people acknowledge his handling of the last "just" war was fairly good - and we won, after all.
This just goes to show, that "docu-dramas" are more drama than docu, designed both to entertain and excite. We are routinely fed high production mythic bullshit in place of documented fact. Or, as in the case of the Swastika, we are not given all the facts lest we be offended and not buy the sponsor's wares. No revelation here, but its worth repeating.
Mr. Kertesz's tone is angry. And he, like the rest of us, has every right to be angry that media manipulates us like we're dummies.
I just saw The Day After Tomorrow, and while it does shed a glimmer of refracted light on the perils of global warming (and the criminal negligence of the current administration in rejecting the Kyoto Accords, its message is subsumed by stupid pandering to low brow entertainment standards.
Frankly, I see this all of a piece. CBS removes swastikas, A&E exaggerates leaders, Hollywood makes pap and passes it off as conciousness raising. Bull! Thank heavens for the Daily Show. -
Has anyone here seen American History X? I can tell you from first hand experience that just seeing the symbol can incite some people regardless of the story behind it. The same can be said with all these post 9/11 Nazi shows I keep seeing on the History channel. From many people a documentory on Hitler is just a documentory, but for some, it is a reminder of a man, a nation, and a race's ideoligy they they believe to be at one time great and powerful. It gives them hope that their power can rise again. We do live in the United States, so hypotheticly we are suppose to say and see what we want, but at the same time, it is merely a sweet dream. I believe in representing the truth no matter how horrible. I believe one of the big problems we have in the United States, and elsewhere, is that very few poeple know their true history. We try to hide our crimes from the youth only so they can grow up blind and repeat those same errors. I am ok with inciting a few so that the whole can know what is really going on. The problem is we don't really want to know what is going on. Evreybody is either guilty of this, is some small way, or the kind of person I have never met. Who doesn't brush up their reality at least a little bit? To represent the swastika and Manson in true form would be the correct thing to do. I am afraid the unfortunate fact is there are too many people here in the UNITED STATES and beyond that would shed their own light to the vision of the swastika, a dark light! The question is if this is the a product of too little or too much education.
-
It's all about ratings. The network didn't clean up the character of Manson to glorify him, but began to erase what might push people away from wanting to watch.
Think of swimsuit models and airbrushing, Marlboro Man and cigarettes, War on Terror and economy... Whatever...
It's most certainly wrong, if only to say that money always comes first- and ratings, even if someone watches until the first commercial, is money made.
Disgusting. -
It is about ratings. It is also the peoples demand to control and protect perceptions. I'm not talking some government conspiricy. It could be linked to one, I wouldn't want the evidence if I found it, but I'm talking on a personal level. Networks want to make money and money is wonderful, so I heard. They lie to make their money and it is disgusting, but even more disgusting is the people that buy it and eat it up.
-
Dear Mr. Kertesz,
I agree with designboy, why do you sound so angry? As a jewish woman I am fully aware of the swastika and what it represents. After growing up in Maryland in a primarily jewish area I moved with my husband to North Carolina. I teach graphic design at the high school level. You would be surprised at what the children at this age are ignorant to. Not only that, my collegue an Honors History teacher had to start from square one with her classes because of all of the misconceptions about the jewish people and the holocaust. I don't believe that the Jewish people ever saw the swastika as ever representing anything good. I also agree with designboy in the fact that television networks and the media manipulating us like dummies but the fact is that not all people are as informed as we are. If I touched a nerve with Mr. Kertsz I apologize, that was not my intent, however, my view stands. -
I'm not angry, just opinionated.
If you don't like to discuss how the media manipulates their audiences, that's fine. This isn't about me. -
Discussion of the swastika and image manipulation each raise hackles on their own. When discussed together in one story, you have explosive fusion.
The purpose of VOICE is to present ideas and prompt discussion. We have entered the so-called "image war" where images and symbols are used to pursuade or trigger anger. Further discussion is more than welcome. -
can i really be contributing to a controversy so clearly orchestrated by cbs?
-
What is it about insanity that is so intriguing. Animals kill their own kind on a regular basis and we barely even notice. Humans do the same and then adorn themselves with symbols causing an entire range of emotion and turmoil. We're a bit of a funny lot aren't we.
-
Charlie X'ed himself out of the trial FIRST.
Later on, he turned the X into a swastika.
This was in the book Helter Skelter, which I read about 15 years ago. -
And, since this article is so wholly off-base, it should be deleted as an embarrassment to the AIGA.
Charled X'ED himself out during the trial (no swastika til later on).
See previous comment below... this was in the book Helter Skelter, published many years ago. -
i'll have to pick my words very carefully here...
a while back i picked up a copy of a strange book titled "adolf hitler: the unknown artist". we all know about hitler's art pretensions and 'failed career ' as an artist before turning to politics. this book basically attempts to collect every known painting or drawing that hitler did (that still exists) into one volume for study. turns out he wasn't a bad architectural landacape artist. but, whenever he attempted to draw people, he seemed to distort their bodies and get the faces sorta screwed up. interesting psychological territory in that.
but what i found the most astonishing was the collection of cataloged pencil sketches in the back of the book. among the many sketches of still lifes, architecture and models were a very large number of design pieces. it turns out that adolf was the fella who not only sketched out and essentially designed the treatment of the nazi swastika (there is one sketch of a number of different 'runic' and "aryan" symbols he played with that has the nazi swastika design hi-lited on the page), but he also designed insignia, the nazi flag, the currency, the uniforms, banners, much of the architectural ideas, many many posters and propoganda adverts, there's even his original sketch for the volkswagon looking amazingly like the classic bug.
it seems that adolf hitler was a great art director! his efforts seem to have been the base poiint for so much iconographic design for the twentieth century, that he may well be the most important and influential art director of the last century. centainly his impact and reach and proven ability to utilize marketing technique to control and influence the general population set new levels that have yet to be fully achieved elsewhere. his impact is so profound that here all these years later, we still have to deal with his design ideas. thus this article.
it's such a shame that such a horror has to be the foundation of modern political manipulation techniques (aka 'propaganda'), but it's plainly evident. hitler was an art director of frightening power.
scary business we're in, aint' it?
- art -
ok, then have you seen a copy of that book i mentioned? if you have a copy (i believe you once told me that you did), please go examine the images in the back in the b&w section. then get back to me and tell what's going on with that stuff. was it mindless doodles of some copycat? i don't think so. it shows rather powerful intent of art direction. those are DESIGN sketches - concept work of an art director.
if not, then what is that stuff?
- art -
The book that Art C mentions has a number of drawings (poster sketches, etc.) by young Adolf. The book was doubtless used as reference in the making of "Max."
Hitler wanted desperately to be an artist. Various exhibitions of his watercolors prove that he was a competent technician. Indeed he made and sold handpainted postcards of Vienna during the years he tried and failed to get accepted into the art school there.
He was wise to latch onto the swastika. It already had a history connected to Aryanism ( a concept that he appropriated from others). In Mein Kampf Hitler takes credit for the red, white and black flag (inspired by the Communist banners that waved in Weimar Germany at the time). And he extended the Swastika franchise beyond the simple applications used by the Erhardt Brigade and Thule Society. Yes, he "art directed" it, so to speak, but it was a gaggle of willing designers who carried it through.
In any case, for those of us who think most world leaders, and most clients for that matter, are design illiterate, Hitler understood the power of graphics. By the way, Nixon launched the NEA. Oh well. -
hitler was an "artist" (actually, like you said, he was a technical artist. today, he's be working in our field) who became a dictator. now, just exactly HOW would such a person actualize his vision? why, logic would dictate (pun intended) that he would design it as carefully and demandingly as possible. the result was a created vision of a utopia that went to far as to attempt a creation of the perfectly designed human being through genocide and eugenics. it's an extremely spooky result of what the design instinct can do if given enfettered power.
of COURSE, he totally controlled all aspects of his vision - right down to the logo, uniforms, architecture, flags, propoganda, etc. etc. because that is what dictators do - they dictate and control. so, to dismiss his involvement as the ultimate art director because he was a monster is sort of blind. one way to look at him (and i think it's a viewpoint that definitely needs to be considered) is the end result of art director megalomania. he certainly had the best designed horroeshow in history. and to say he had little to do with it because he used others' talents sort of ingnores what an art DIRECTOR does. he directed the design of his dictatorship as surely as any contemporary art director controls the vision of any client. maybe more so.
- art -
I have to say that the medium of film and hte language of television inherently points to drama, entertainment. It seems to hook viewers and ratings television programmers need strong, visceral imagery to compete and win the ratings game? Hence the manipulation and exaggeration of factual imagery and history. It is done over and over - especially now when we are constantly bombareded - The simulated (mediated) imagery is more real than the physical. We tend to trust this simulacra - and in a way it is replacing or most prominent idea of expereince. The new mediated experience - through 8-12 hrs / day in front of some kind of screen!?
-
What i liked best about Helter Skelter was Steve Railsback performance.He was mesmerizing.I thought he was even better in The Stuntman with Peter o"toole.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
© 2008 AIGA | 164 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10010 | 212 807 1990
Comments