The governments and ideologies understand how impactful the cinema is, making propaganda films more compelling than any pamphlet on influencing people's thoughts or feelings toward any government or ideology. Hollywood has produced many examples of propaganda films since the inception of film and will most likely continue to do so. Movies about how wonderful it is to be a member of the U.S.A. would be great examples of propaganda films, as would those celebrating the Chinese Communist Party's 100 years in existence.

While propaganda films continue to exist, we must also be able to distinguish between and realize their existence. Politics can always be found in all forms of art; the only difference is whether or not they are obvious or subtle.

Several of the most popular movies from the past few years teeter between entertainment and ideology, as described below.

To illustrate, the top grossing Chinese film of all time is The Battle at Lake Changjin (2021), a Korean war epic that details a major battle between Chinese and American forces during the Korean War. Released in conjunction with China's National Day and the Chinese Communist Party's 100th anniversary, the film depicts Chinese troops as the selfless heroes, while classifying the American troops as aggressors. Many critics lauded the technical aspects of the film, while the vast majority of international analysts noted the near complete absence of any subtlety concerning the geopolitical context.

Another example would be Top Gun: Maverick (2022), an enormous box office success and a film which won over the majority of movie critics. This sequel's financial success can be attributed to the close coalition that the movie's producers had with the U.S. Department of Defense, who provided military aircraft and equipment in exchange for the right to approve the movie's final script. The portrayal of military service as fashionable, exhilarating and uncomplicated has been described by some media scholars as "soft recruitment" or advertisements for military service. Notably, the film completely obscures the actual identity of the enemy nation; the only reference to any nation's name is to refer to the enemy as "the enemy."

Sound of Freedom (2023) tells a story of a real life federal agent and depicts child trafficking as a real, serious issue; however, some in the media have commented that the distribution of the film is heavily influenced by a network of political elites and that the film promotes a variety of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. In addition to examples of how emotional issues can be used for profit and mass manipulation.

Not everyone agrees that cinema propaganda is always damaging. Scholars and advocates for civil liberties cite the positive role that the films can serve, including creating social unity in time of crisis, raising awareness about real injustices (even if one side of the issue receives the most emphasis), preserving historical memory in cultures that lack the ability to document their own history, and encouraging individuals to participate civically in advocacy on significant issues. 

Nonetheless, there are significant risks associated with films as propaganda. First, films simplify complex realities into heroes and villains, making it difficult to obtain a fuller and richer view of any given situation. Second, films that promote propaganda can help to normalize the dehumanization of those who fall outside the "in group" and of foreign nations. Third, since many films appear to be nothing more than entertaining media (but are also often equipped with persuasive elements), the persuasive intent of the film can be hidden from the viewer. Fourth, when the military and/or government control the film's script, its originality and creative integrity are often compromised. Finally, films that promote propaganda typically create emotional blocks to viewing critically at the times when the viewer needs to be able to think critically.

A significant definitional issue exists about the degree to which good films reflect clear moral or political positions; according to a large number of academic Subculture and Cultural Studies researchers, what differentiates "propaganda" from other forms of film relates not to the existence of a particular point-of-view (POV), but rather to how the POV is deliberately manipulated and/or disguised, and how different POVs are suppressed and/or demonized in the process.

Among other things, propaganda films are characterized by three common elements: (1) there is an associated organization or institution that is promoting the film's political agenda (2) that includes attempts at systematic suppression of important information, and (3) that uses an "emotional" approach to design films so as to circumvent viewers' ability to evaluate them critically, rather than to encourage critical analysis.

Media literacy experts suggest posing a couple of key questions regarding any political film: Who is funding this particular film? What are these financial backers getting out of it? Is there an absence of any perspectives that are frequently represented? Does the film invite complexity or discourage it? Does the film accurately depict events that take place in the real world? If there are inaccuracies, how does the filmmaker manipulate the inaccuracies for their own narrative? 

None of this means that one should avoid these types of films. Understanding how propaganda functions–including the abuse of emotion as a means of persuasion–is absolutely necessary for successfully navigating the information landscape of today. So while a movie may be entertaining, well-produced, provide an emotional experience, etc., it does not mean that it is not trying to sell you something. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

As long as there has been filmmaking studio there have been mirrors reflecting their respective cultures. Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent a film from using the mirror as a weapon or a tool to harm someone else.