I partially agree to this statement to an extent, in the sense that this "accurate portrayal of people, places and situations" are only subjective to the film's preferred reading, the conglomerate's vision for the consumers of what they want “reality” to look like, and only filter parts of the truth that will reinforce and undermine the dominant ideologies that the conglomerate desires.

 

For example, the movie that portrays people and places accurately in its preferred reading is “It Lives”. It portrays the “reality” of consumers being manipulated and their interactions with the media controlled by the conglomerates. In addition, the hidden world (“location”) of subtext behind advertisements is exposed through a visual representation of a gray, dull, repetitive world that is roamed by the blinded public and skull-faced conglomerates.

 

This representation of a scary and alienated form of the conglomerates implies the preferred reading from the filmmakers on their intentions to isolate the conglomerates to the consumers, and accentuating their evilness and monstrous persona in manipulating society through various hegemonic forms. As theorized by Gramsci, this is a perfect example of how the film “Live it”- a hegemonic form, can contain the preferred readings of the power bloc’s control in media, and deliver the dominant ideology of the manipulation of the media and conglomerates over the public, to the consumers.

 

Thus, the representation of people (the evil conglomerates) in Live It are only as accurate as the filmmakers desire it to become, as long as it fulfills and satisfies the dominant ideology and benefits of the conglomerate commissioning the media product.

​

In terms of representing situations, this may be the most over-exaggerated aspect that films possess. The physics, chances and consequences of real-life situations are seldom considered, hence being accurately portrayed frame by frame.

 

In situations such as terrorists attacks on government officials in Air Force One, the film can be argued to weigh heavily on their preferred reading on the terrorist and protagonists’ appearances, with russian speaking and foreign, sadistic actors to paint the enemy and inhumane portrayal of terrorists, while the president is an attractive, well-built and white man, who is a decorated war veteran to emphasize the propaganda of nationalism through consent.

 

Meanwhile, the reality of the situation with one man (being the president) taking down a whole plane of terrorists is beyond the chances of reality. Through this diversion, the film forces the audiences to think less about what is real, and focused more on the representation of the situation and the stereotypes shown of the characters, while receiving gratification under the dominant ideology to praise America as united and strong against all opposing forces.