The premise of "distrust of authority is propaganda" is so self-contradictory that I wonder if this article is a deliberate troll.
I love movies and books where authority is the villain because it mirrors my own (and most other people's) struggles in real life. Children strive for freedom from overprotective parents and overworked and misunderstanding teachers that don't have time to listen to them as individuals. Adults have to deal with bosses, cops, politicians, preachers and other banana dictators who hold the keys to their freedom and prosperity. Anyone who has read Parkinson, The Peter Principle or Dilbert knows organizations have issues. This is not fiction, but unfortunate reality and one that your audience can easily identify with.
It doesn't help that he uses more talented and successful film makers as bad examples. Star Wars had the rebel alliance - a well organized, powerful, and benevolent organization. Even the Empire was competent (until Tarkin and the other senior leadership were destroyed in the first Death Star.) And what does teenagers splitting up in horror movies have to do with the struggle against incompetent and uncaring authority? That example doesn't work but it does make this sloppily-written rant gratuitously longer - an excellent technique to keep readers that disagree with you from being able to finish it. A technique that many commenters here also seem to be abusing.
Silence of the Lambs was a poor example as well. Dr. Chilton (the head of the facility where Hannibal was kept) was as 2-dimensional a corrupt bureaucrat as you can get.
In conclusion: the thesis made no logical sense, the examples were poor, and the writing was needlessly verbose.
"The premise of "distrust of authority is propaganda" is so self-contradictory that I wonder if this article is a deliberate troll. [...] In conclusion: the thesis made no logical sense, the examples were poor, and the writing was needlessly verbose."
Likewise. I was thoroughly disappointed with the article. It started off as a hopeful "hint" at social commentary about the underlying nature of how movies/stories/epics affect us in subtle ways. And it turned out to be a glorified, overly verbose rant against the "distrust of authority".
Maybe I should take a leap and suggest that perhaps this author is currently having a bit of a political crisis in his life and is trying to reconcile democracy with how he views what the article refers to as "idiots". Either he accepts that the majority are "idiots", or he constructs a narrative around how they're not really "idiots", and that it's just the "propaganda" that tricks us into thinking so. Or it could be just me, projecting.
The thing about "distrust of authority" as propaganda is that it's usually served up by another authority (or wannabe authority) saying that they'd be different. Vide Tea Party.
The reaction that "this can't be propaganda" is part of the engineered truthiness they're aiming for.
I love movies and books where authority is the villain because it mirrors my own (and most other people's) struggles in real life. Children strive for freedom from overprotective parents and overworked and misunderstanding teachers that don't have time to listen to them as individuals. Adults have to deal with bosses, cops, politicians, preachers and other banana dictators who hold the keys to their freedom and prosperity. Anyone who has read Parkinson, The Peter Principle or Dilbert knows organizations have issues. This is not fiction, but unfortunate reality and one that your audience can easily identify with.
It doesn't help that he uses more talented and successful film makers as bad examples. Star Wars had the rebel alliance - a well organized, powerful, and benevolent organization. Even the Empire was competent (until Tarkin and the other senior leadership were destroyed in the first Death Star.) And what does teenagers splitting up in horror movies have to do with the struggle against incompetent and uncaring authority? That example doesn't work but it does make this sloppily-written rant gratuitously longer - an excellent technique to keep readers that disagree with you from being able to finish it. A technique that many commenters here also seem to be abusing.
Silence of the Lambs was a poor example as well. Dr. Chilton (the head of the facility where Hannibal was kept) was as 2-dimensional a corrupt bureaucrat as you can get.
In conclusion: the thesis made no logical sense, the examples were poor, and the writing was needlessly verbose.