The Revolution Should Not Be Televised
By Daniel Graham
“There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock news
And no pictures of hairy armed women liberationists
And Jackie Onassis blowing her nose
The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb or Francis Scott Keys
Nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom Jones, Johnny Cash
Engelbert Humperdinck, or The Rare Earth
The Revolution will not be televised”
Gil Scott-Heron was best known for his poignant commentary on politics and racial relations through music following the Civil Rights Movement and the subsequent “war on drugs” that led to the disproportionate incarceration of black men.
In an interview with Skip Bloomberg for the series "The 90s", Gil Scott-Heron explains, "What I meant by the phrase 'the revolution will not be televised' was, the first revolution takes place in your mind. It's not something you can catch on film... It'll just be something that you see and you just realize, 'Hey, I'm on the wrong page.'"
Why do contemporary filmmakers, then, insist on televising the revolution?
The film “One Battle After Another” (2025) follows a burnt-out “revolutionary” as his past comes back to haunt him. What the film boldly assumes is that revolution is something that you can “grow out of,” once you start a family rather than a daily struggle.
What the film assumes is that everyone in the revolution is only in it until they find themselves an easy out.
When the main protagonist (aptly named Bob) wakes from his stoned stupor, he flails about and struggles to remember anything about the movement he played a vital role in years prior (as the demolitions expert).
The most egregious violation of the film is utilizing Gil Scott-Heron’s “The Revolution Will Not be Televised” as a code for the revolutionaries to distinguish themselves from infiltrators while utilizing a well-recognized actor for their main protagonist through Leonardo Di Caprio.
Di Caprio recently came under scrutiny for taking a 10% stake in an Israeli hotel being built in the midst of a genocide in Palestine; further adding insult to injury for his role in the film.
How is it possible to use an easily-recognized actor to recite a song that so loudly denounces the presence of revolution in television? It follows a trend of movies that insert politics into them but rarely mention the implications of them.
Films like “The Transformers” franchise utilized collaboration with the United States Department of Defense (now known as the Department of War) to put real military ordnance on full display at the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to help drive recruitment numbers.
“The Big Lebowski” (1998) was seen as an allegory for the Gulf War (1990-1991) for its references to “unchecked aggression” while also commentating on the decline of masculinity through a cast consisting of “weak men” in the form of disillusioned pacifist and a staunch Zionist contrasted against strong female characters.
Despite this academic analysis, the most common belief is that the film has no meaning and is instead a story of acceptance, drawing similarity to the book “The Gulf War Didn’t Happen".
If the past is any indication of the present, it is clear that film cannot be used as a basis for political theory; it could however be used to analyze the political or economic state of the world.
When viewing films that market themselves as “progressive” or “about a revolution,” it is important to examine just exactly why it is being made in the first place. Large budgets mean deep pockets, and it has become increasingly clear that the government would spare no expense to produce propaganda.