Listen to the article
Propaganda or Documentary? Examining the Controversial “Melania” Film
A self-described “creative experience” that cost Amazon $75 million has become one of the most controversial film releases of the year. “Melania,” directed by Brett Ratner and executive produced by former First Lady Melania Trump herself, has ignited fierce debate about the blurring lines between documentary filmmaking and political propaganda.
The film, for which Melania Trump reportedly received approximately $28 million, follows the former First Lady as she prepares for what would be Donald Trump’s second inauguration. Rather than offering genuine insights into her role or personal life, critics say the production presents a highly curated image that stands in stark contrast to the political realities of the Trump administration.
“Anyone who goes into ‘Melania’ hoping to see even a glimpse of what it is like to be first lady, or indeed Melania Trump, will find instead a super-long version of ‘we followed [someone] as they got ready for the Oscars,'” notes one industry observer.
Ratner, who is directing his first major project since facing sexual misconduct allegations from six women, frames the Trump presidency with reverential cinematography. The film lingers on presidential motorcades and includes soundtrack choices like “Battle Hymn of the Republic” during inaugural ball sequences, creating an almost hagiographic portrait.
Most scenes consist of carefully choreographed entrances: Melania arriving via private jet, emerging from black cars, or entering lavishly appointed rooms. Conversations center on seamless gown designs, caviar-laden inaugural dinner menus, and White House furnishing plans following the Biden administration.
The film does include brief glimpses of substantive matters. In one scene, Trump video conferences with French First Lady Brigitte Macron about cyberbullying initiatives. In another, she meets with Queen Rania of Jordan to discuss foster children. A particularly emotional moment features former Hamas hostage Aviva Siegel, though critics suggest this segment serves primarily as an opportunity to showcase Trump’s personal kindness and inject political messaging.
Throughout the 90-minute production, the former First Lady maintains what critics describe as a “relentlessly poised and personally inaccessible” demeanor. One rare unguarded moment occurs when Ratner attempts to get her to sing along to Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean,” eliciting a genuine laugh.
The timing of the release has drawn particular criticism, coming just days after federal agents killed two citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, in Minneapolis. Some public figures, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, have been condemned for attending celebratory screenings featuring cookies iced with “Melania.”
Critics argue the fundamental problem lies in the film’s presentation. While Trump narrates her dedication to making life better for Americans—especially children and families—this portrayal sits uncomfortably alongside her husband’s administration policies, which included controversial immigration enforcement actions and proposed cuts to federal assistance programs.
“The superficial blandness of ‘Melania’ isn’t boring; it’s calculated,” writes one film critic, who draws parallels to political propaganda films of the past, albeit with far less technical innovation.
Melania Trump herself has been forthright about the film’s nature, stating at its premiere: “Some have called this a documentary. It is not. It is a creative experience that offers perspectives, insights and moments.”
As Amazon faces the prospect of significant financial losses on their $75 million investment, the controversy surrounding “Melania” raises important questions about the responsibility of streaming platforms in distributing content that blurs the line between documentary and campaign material, especially during a contentious election season.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
I’m generally skeptical of high-profile documentaries that are so closely tied to the subject. It’s important to have independent, objective perspectives when examining the role and experiences of public figures, especially in the political realm. This project seems to fall short in that regard.
Interesting to see the debate around this documentary. I’m curious to hear more about how it portrays Melania Trump’s role and experiences as First Lady, beyond just the inauguration prep. A balanced, nuanced look at her time in the White House could be valuable.
Hmm, it’s interesting to see the director’s previous allegations of sexual misconduct now involved in this high-profile project. That certainly raises some red flags about the credibility and intentions behind the documentary. I’ll be curious to see how this plays out.
$28 million for Melania Trump’s involvement in this documentary? That seems like an exorbitant amount, even for a high-profile figure. I wonder if the funds could have been better used for more pressing issues or causes. The political motivations behind this project are concerning.
The significant financial investment in this documentary is quite concerning, especially given the potential for political bias and propaganda. I hope future projects on this topic are more transparent about their funding sources and motivations, and prioritize journalistic integrity over commercial interests.
This film sounds like a highly curated and sanitized view of Melania Trump’s time as First Lady. Documentaries should provide genuine insights, not just a glossy, PR-friendly image. I hope future projects on this topic offer more substantive and critical perspectives.
I’m always skeptical of documentaries that are heavily influenced or controlled by the subject. This ‘Melania’ film sounds more like propaganda than an objective look at the former First Lady’s experiences and role. Balanced, independent journalism is crucial in these cases.
While I appreciate the desire to provide insights into Melania Trump’s time as First Lady, this documentary appears to be more concerned with creating a carefully curated image rather than genuine, balanced reporting. Documentaries should strive for nuance and critical analysis, not just PR-friendly narratives.