9 ms·

I was made aware of how much propaganda there is in Western movies by a comment here on HN: "The major exception here is the Department of Defense, which has a

by clicks 13y ago

I was made aware of how much propaganda there is in Western movies by a comment here on HN: "The major exception here is the Department of Defense, which has an ‘open’ but barely publicized relationship with Tinsel Town, whereby, in exchange for advice, men and invaluable equipment, such as aircraft carriers and helicopters, the Pentagon routinely demands flattering script alterations." http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the-deep-politics-of-hollywood/11921 http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the... http://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-mcelwee/2013/04/28/propaganda-and-censorship-the-hollywood-industrial-complex/ http://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-mcelwee/2013/04/28/propag... Do you recall any big American movie in the last decade (or even more) that painted America's military in a non-positive light? I don't. I do remember Zero Dark Thirty (if you watch carefully you'll see how they basically say that torture works great in getting prisoners to hand over information), I do remember The Hurt Locker, and a whole list of other movies, Iron Man and Captain America being the latest examples (Iron Man originally used to be about fighting communism, now it is about fighting terrorism). Hollywood output is a very valuable export to the world in this way of framing America's image in the world, and I'm betting America is becoming even more aware of this and will put even more resources to this effort in coming time. To me, truly the most amazing thing about this is that pretty much no-one knows about this! Tell someone that there's a lot of American propaganda in Western movies and they'll take you for a conspiracy nut.

adamors 13y ago
There was a documentary about Apolcalypse Now and I think it was Coppola who said that they had to remove footage which showed US soldiers desecrating vietnamese corpses (even though these shots were based on actual photographs/eye witness accounts) because otherwise the US government refused to give them helicopters and whatnot.
- cleverjake 13y ago
  hearts of darkness? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  Hopefully as computer graphics improve and get cheaper and easier to make, film makers can bypass this whole issue and just do it on a computer.
- dublinben 13y ago
  Coppola didn't use American helicopters though, he borrowed them from the Philippine army. That's what Hearts of Darkness (the documentary you probably saw) revealed, at least.
  - nness 13y ago
    If I recall; these helicopters kept getting re-routed due to a nearby conflict and this not only annoyed Coppola but was one of the reasons why the film was delayed and ran over cost.
- codex 13y ago
  I don't believe Apolcalypse Now was made with any cooperation from the U.S. Department of Defense. It was too soon after Vietnam.
  - rjsw 13y ago
    I'm fairly sure Full Metal Jacket wasn't either, it was filmed in the UK.
mcantelon 13y ago
The effectiveness of Western propaganda comes from the high production values and the degree to which the propaganda agenda is concealed. Modern propaganda techniques have evolved over nearly a century[1]. Employers at media companies covertly liason with the CIA, deals are made with the US military exchanging access to military props for script approval, controlled opposition is used to create a sense of objectivity, etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Propaganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Propaganda
- objclxt 13y ago
  I think people here are making this out to be a considerably bigger deal than it actually is. Studios that make war films like having DoD support. It is a useful benefit. However, it's not required. Indeed, if you're shooting your film in Canada or Australia (which is fairly common) you're not going to really be able to make much use of the platoon of extras the US army is willing to lend you. Similarly, the DoD doesn't have to spend money 'buying' the support of movie studios because the American public already want pro-US military films. Studios want to make films that will bring in buckets of money. Audiences in the US are far more willing to go and watch patriotic films than those that question the actions of the military or government. You'd have lots of pro-US war/military films with or without DoD support. What's interesting is that we're starting to see films being edited - and entirely new scenes being added - for non US markets that are not quite so American-centric. A good example of this would be Iron Man 3, which had several minutes of additional footage added in for the Chinese market.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    >Studios want to make films that will bring in buckets of money. Audiences in the US are far more willing to go and watch patriotic films than those that question the actions of the military or government. >A good example of this would be Iron Man 3, which had several minutes of additional footage added in for the Chinese market. Yeah, doesn't seem like it worked too well for them[0]… if they really wanted to make 'buckets of money' in this case, why not add footage that would resonate with the audience (possibly non DoD supportive stances) instead of irrelevant shots of a local pop star? How can one go about hand-waving this situation that presented itself? They didn't feel like taking the time to understand the Chinese audience? Easier to employ Edward Bernays techniques of misdirection and diversion in order to try and associate good feelings with the movie? [0]: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0510/Chinese-roll-their-eyes-at-local-footage-added-to-Iron-Man-3 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0510/Chines...
marshray 13y ago
Just about anything relating to Vietnam. But yeah, that's been a while. But what we have today is absolutely nothing compared to films produced right after WWII. I think one factor in that is there was a massive amount of combat footage just lying around waiting to be spliced together, as well as a whole bunch of surplus equipment just waiting to be blown up.
ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
When you take into consideration that propaganda films have "disappeared" it seems like common-sense that the message is still getting out there. You can just look at Jerry Bruckheimer's career and make mental notes how every movie since Top Gun has seemingly garnered him more and more access to military assets for his films.
- dingaling 13y ago
  Interestingly the US military involvement in Top Gun was a reaction to their contribution to Final Countdown. A US Navy Commander was dismissed for having authorized the use of US Navy assets for the latter film without appropriate 'controls' ( and technically he wasn't of appropriate rank to have signed it off ) . That's not a mistake they made with Top Gun.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The Navy actually charged Paramount Pictures for the costs of operating a carrier for the film scenes. Paramount tried to get the Navy to agree to refund some of the cost if Paramount let the Navy run a recruiting pitch before the movie in theaters, but Naval officials concluded (correctly) that Top Gun itself was as good a recruiting film as anyone could develop, and charged full price.
dobbsbob 13y ago
Anybody who remembers Iron Eagle I-III and Red Dawn knows Hollywood is full of propaganda. Goebbels found that it was difficult to change the movie viewers’ beliefs, but easy to reinforce their prejudices. He preferred entertainment that propped up these preconceptions instead of blatant political messages. Assange has been advocating for nobody to watch this flim after he read the Iranian prejudice in the script and dismissed this as Goebbellian manipulation.
- andreyf 13y ago
  What is the Iranian prejudice?
  - dobbsbob 13y ago
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/julian-assange-says-wikileaks-movie-anti-iran-propaganda/story-e6frg8pf-1226560555359 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/julian-assange-say... Basically layers of silly Iran nuclear weapons fiction.
    - nkoren 13y ago
      According to a friend of mine who was close to Wikileaks and had some access to this production, the Iran subplot was scrapped completely, and replaced with a still-fictitious but entirely more plausible Tunisia subplot. Which is rumoured to have since been replaced with yet another fictitious and potentially less-plausible Libyan or Syrian subplot, probably on account of American audiences not knowing what Tunisia is...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
codex 13y ago
The last film to mock the U.S. military was Dr. Strangelove, after which there was no military-sanctioned Hollywood film until Top Gun, 30 years later.
- danso 13y ago
  The last film to mock the U.S. military was Dr. Strangelove? You're kidding, right? Even if you only count Kubrick movies, there's Full Metal Jacket.
- coldcode 13y ago
  Wag the Dog.
- codex 13y ago
  Sorry: I meant "to mock the U.S. military with active cooperation from the U.S. military."
sudomal 13y ago
It's known as soft power. Another example is the BBC World Service, which is currently funded by the British government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
temphn 13y ago
Avatar was quite negative. Syriana, Rendition, and Jarhead were as well. Your general point definitely stands, post 9/11 at least, but those are notable exceptions.
tylerkahn 13y ago
Both of those sites that you cited are terrible, filled with conspiracy theories and shrill rhetoric. Unfortunately more and more people on HN seem to be citing them. Anyway: > Do you recall any big American movie in the last decade (or even more) that painted America's military in a non-positive light? The Bourne series. Though that was about the CIA. Safe House, also CIA. Avatar, as someone else mentioned, analogously painted the US military in a bad light. Full Metal Jacket certainly shows some of the more brutish and shameful sides of the US military. > I do remember The Hurt Locker, and a whole list of other movies, Iron Man and Captain America So are you upset that these movies didn't pause to lecture the audience about the horrors of American imperialism? Are you upset that they don't serve your particular political agenda? > To me, truly the most amazing thing about this is that pretty much no-one knows about this! The people who don't know don't care. This information is readily available. And even some of the people who do know don't care (like me).
tptacek 13y ago
Full Metal Jacket. • Three Kings. • In The Valley of Elah. Good Morning Vietnam. A Few Good Men. Platoon. • Jarhead. Casualties Of War. • The Men Who Stare At Goats. The Deer Hunter. The Thin Red Line. • Syriana. • The Green Zone. • Stop Loss. Also, • HBO's "Generation Kill". (•'d relatively recent movies) I don't think "The Hurt Locker" was particularly critical of the military and didn't count it. Also not counting documentaries like "Restrepo". I hereby dispute the idea that the DOD has made it impossible for big-budget Hollywood movies to criticize the US military, and suggest instead that the bias Hollywood in favor of the military is responding to customer preferences and not leading it. Given what I presume to be America's default position of "supporting our troops", I'm struck by how many films Hollywood produce that challenge that default. Remember also that Hollywood confronts at least two vectors of consumer preference in marketing films: first, Americans (in the large) have a (typical) diffuse nationalistic home-team support for our overseas adventures, and, more importantly, there's a less-political less-issue-oriented reverence expected for the sacrifices made by the young people we send into combat which is especially intense during times when large numbers of people are serving in combat zones. In other words, it's especially tricky to criticize the military during active conflicts. Also, Three Kings is a fantastic movie.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >I hereby dispute the idea that the DOD has made it impossible for big-budget Hollywood movies to criticize the US military, and suggest instead that the bias Hollywood in favor of the military is responding to customer preferences and not leading it. Yeah, the problem with anti-military movies is nobody wants to watch them. It certainly hasn't been a lack of effort on the part of film producers.
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    Are you kidding me? Many movies on that list are both critical and box-office successes.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      Well, critical success means nothing. As far as financial success goes, post 1991 there isn't much.
X4 13y ago
You're right. I only remember Stargate SG-1 that very early on dissed the NID (=NSA) and other agencies (but I rarely watch TV). They went so far to criticize agencies and senators and many other privately working corporations as control addicted, corrupt and inhuman moneybags. Senator Kinsey was exposed telling lies to the voters like: "We do the best a christian can for our God blessed America", just to get their votes. Even though he seemed to believe what he said, the actions he made were all but "christian". He willingly destroyed an entire solar system, just to test a bomb. The arrogant evil joy was truly revealing his real character. He was obviously an opportunist, who collaborated with evil aliens just to remain in power. And that last part sounds like our governments, who sell our data to other governments, when the price is right. That's why I really admired how this was the only series (except star-trek) where most stuff, contrary to most beliefs (imho) was a pure mix of fiction and actual ancient history. Although it was clear that Colonel Jack O'Neill had strong prejudices against the Russian and communists in General (and russians always died first) he had deep respect to them as a Soldier. To me it looked like the authors tried to express some of their true thoughts, but were often forced to change or include parts into the script to reflect a more positive America, that really stood out. Unfortunately Star-Trek was very pro American, which is hard to believe, because a developed human in the future would most probably see all of us as greedy, barbarian, war-hungry hypocrites and not focus one just one continent.
- krapp 13y ago
  To me it looked like the authors tried to express some of their true thoughts, but were often forced to change or include parts into the script to reflect a more positive America, that really stood out. I'm not stating flat out you're wrong, but do you have any actual evidence of parts they were "often forced to change?" Isn't it possible they included pro-American material because they didn't necessarily have a completely negative point of view about the US and the military? Not every opinion that America is less than evil necessarily has to be propaganda.
  - X4 13y ago
    @krapp thanks for asking. I have no real evidence, except that he worked closely with military and you cannot be against your feeding hand. See interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF6hOMY2vxA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF6hOMY2vxA So obviously he is pro USAF, but that didn't mean he needed to portray the US Government in a good light in StarGate SG-1. He showed the USAF in a very good light though. He also supports the Greenpeace (Sea Shepard) and Charity.
rayiner 13y ago
'Tptacek mentions a great list. What I'll add to that is that, contemporaneously, criticism of the military doesn't sell movie tickets. Nobody wants to watch a movie about how American soldiers might be put in harm's way for a bad reason, or might not behave honorably, at least not unless the event is historically removed enough that the audience can separate the message of the movie from their own family, friends, and kids on the front lines.
- Moto7451 13y ago
  Agreed. Additionally, it's thematically popular that when part of the US military becomes the bad guy, it's usually limited to "those guys" and not the entirety of the Military. Typically "those guys" comes in the form of a well meaning but rouge unit, a General with a vendetta against an opposing force (i.e. hasn't gotten over the end of the Cold war), a traitor of some kind, an indifferent chain of command, etc etc. These are things audiences will rally around. Behind Enemy Lines is an example[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_Enemy_Lines_(2001_film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_Enemy_Lines_(2001_film)
  - eru 13y ago
    What's a rouge unit?
    - apu 13y ago
      One blush ;-) [Moto7451 obviously meant rogue unit]
      - eru 13y ago
        Oh, my guess was on rough. But then, I'm not a native speaker, so I'd better ask. (I was really hoping for some funny idiom involving rouge.)
        apu 13y ago
        Ah sorry, I shouldn't have said "obviously" -- that was a bit rude of me.
drjesusphd 13y ago
The Pentagon even red-lighted Forrest Gump and refused support. They said: "the generalised impression that the army of the 1960s was staffed by the guileless or by soldiers of limited intelligance" was unacceptable. "This impression is neither accurate nor beneficial to the army." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/29/media.filmnews http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/29/media.filmnews
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
"Iron Man originally used to be about fighting communism, now it is about fighting terrorism" Uh? Let's look at the villains in the recent movies: Iron Man 1: Terrorists, later revealed to be puppets of a corrupt American military contractor. Iron Man 2: A Russian scientist with a personal grudge, later teams up with a corrupt American military contractor. Iron Man 3: Terrorists, turn out to have been entirely made up by a corrupt American military contractor. In every movie the real villain is a representative of the military-industrial complex. In two of the three, cutting-edge American military technology is publicly and embarrassingly subverted and used against American citizens. In the related Avengers movie, American military authorities order a nuclear attack on New York City. There is a lot of American propoganda in American movies (oh God, Battleship), but Iron Man is a pretty poor example.
- gcb1 13y ago
  more like terrorists, which turn out to be terrorist trying to infiltrate and undermine the holy american militar complex posing as honest contractors.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    Not really, no. All three were legitimately respected industrialists before getting hit with the villain stick, and are motivated only by money and power. In the one film that involves actual ideological terrorists, the villain makes them his patsies and then has them all killed to tie up loose ends.
rwmj 13y ago
Flat Earth News is the book to read on this topic. The largest press agency in the world is ... the CIA. http://www.flatearthnews.net/ http://www.flatearthnews.net/

by clicks 13y ago

adamors 13y ago

There was a documentary about Apolcalypse Now and I think it was Coppola who said that they had to remove footage which showed US soldiers desecrating vietnamese corpses (even though these shots were based on actual photographs/eye witness accounts) because otherwise the US government refused to give them helicopters and whatnot.

cleverjake 13y ago
hearts of darkness? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
mike-cardwell 13y ago
Hopefully as computer graphics improve and get cheaper and easier to make, film makers can bypass this whole issue and just do it on a computer.
dublinben 13y ago
Coppola didn't use American helicopters though, he borrowed them from the Philippine army. That's what Hearts of Darkness (the documentary you probably saw) revealed, at least.
- nness 13y ago
  If I recall; these helicopters kept getting re-routed due to a nearby conflict and this not only annoyed Coppola but was one of the reasons why the film was delayed and ran over cost.
codex 13y ago
I don't believe Apolcalypse Now was made with any cooperation from the U.S. Department of Defense. It was too soon after Vietnam.
- rjsw 13y ago
  I'm fairly sure Full Metal Jacket wasn't either, it was filmed in the UK.

mcantelon 13y ago

The effectiveness of Western propaganda comes from the high production values and the degree to which the propaganda agenda is concealed. Modern propaganda techniques have evolved over nearly a century[1]. Employers at media companies covertly liason with the CIA, deals are made with the US military exchanging access to military props for script approval, controlled opposition is used to create a sense of objectivity, etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Propaganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Propaganda

objclxt 13y ago
I think people here are making this out to be a considerably bigger deal than it actually is. Studios that make war films like having DoD support. It is a useful benefit. However, it's not required. Indeed, if you're shooting your film in Canada or Australia (which is fairly common) you're not going to really be able to make much use of the platoon of extras the US army is willing to lend you. Similarly, the DoD doesn't have to spend money 'buying' the support of movie studios because the American public already want pro-US military films. Studios want to make films that will bring in buckets of money. Audiences in the US are far more willing to go and watch patriotic films than those that question the actions of the military or government. You'd have lots of pro-US war/military films with or without DoD support. What's interesting is that we're starting to see films being edited - and entirely new scenes being added - for non US markets that are not quite so American-centric. A good example of this would be Iron Man 3, which had several minutes of additional footage added in for the Chinese market.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  >Studios want to make films that will bring in buckets of money. Audiences in the US are far more willing to go and watch patriotic films than those that question the actions of the military or government. >A good example of this would be Iron Man 3, which had several minutes of additional footage added in for the Chinese market. Yeah, doesn't seem like it worked too well for them[0]… if they really wanted to make 'buckets of money' in this case, why not add footage that would resonate with the audience (possibly non DoD supportive stances) instead of irrelevant shots of a local pop star? How can one go about hand-waving this situation that presented itself? They didn't feel like taking the time to understand the Chinese audience? Easier to employ Edward Bernays techniques of misdirection and diversion in order to try and associate good feelings with the movie? [0]: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0510/Chinese-roll-their-eyes-at-local-footage-added-to-Iron-Man-3 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0510/Chines...

marshray 13y ago

Just about anything relating to Vietnam. But yeah, that's been a while. But what we have today is absolutely nothing compared to films produced right after WWII. I think one factor in that is there was a massive amount of combat footage just lying around waiting to be spliced together, as well as a whole bunch of surplus equipment just waiting to be blown up.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

When you take into consideration that propaganda films have "disappeared" it seems like common-sense that the message is still getting out there. You can just look at Jerry Bruckheimer's career and make mental notes how every movie since Top Gun has seemingly garnered him more and more access to military assets for his films.

dingaling 13y ago
Interestingly the US military involvement in Top Gun was a reaction to their contribution to Final Countdown. A US Navy Commander was dismissed for having authorized the use of US Navy assets for the latter film without appropriate 'controls' ( and technically he wasn't of appropriate rank to have signed it off ) . That's not a mistake they made with Top Gun.
- mpyne 13y ago
  The Navy actually charged Paramount Pictures for the costs of operating a carrier for the film scenes. Paramount tried to get the Navy to agree to refund some of the cost if Paramount let the Navy run a recruiting pitch before the movie in theaters, but Naval officials concluded (correctly) that Top Gun itself was as good a recruiting film as anyone could develop, and charged full price.

dobbsbob 13y ago

Anybody who remembers Iron Eagle I-III and Red Dawn knows Hollywood is full of propaganda. Goebbels found that it was difficult to change the movie viewers’ beliefs, but easy to reinforce their prejudices. He preferred entertainment that propped up these preconceptions instead of blatant political messages. Assange has been advocating for nobody to watch this flim after he read the Iranian prejudice in the script and dismissed this as Goebbellian manipulation.

andreyf 13y ago
What is the Iranian prejudice?
- dobbsbob 13y ago
  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/julian-assange-says-wikileaks-movie-anti-iran-propaganda/story-e6frg8pf-1226560555359 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/julian-assange-say... Basically layers of silly Iran nuclear weapons fiction.
  - nkoren 13y ago
    According to a friend of mine who was close to Wikileaks and had some access to this production, the Iran subplot was scrapped completely, and replaced with a still-fictitious but entirely more plausible Tunisia subplot. Which is rumoured to have since been replaced with yet another fictitious and potentially less-plausible Libyan or Syrian subplot, probably on account of American audiences not knowing what Tunisia is...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

codex 13y ago

The last film to mock the U.S. military was Dr. Strangelove, after which there was no military-sanctioned Hollywood film until Top Gun, 30 years later.

danso 13y ago
The last film to mock the U.S. military was Dr. Strangelove? You're kidding, right? Even if you only count Kubrick movies, there's Full Metal Jacket.
coldcode 13y ago
Wag the Dog.
codex 13y ago
Sorry: I meant "to mock the U.S. military with active cooperation from the U.S. military."

sudomal 13y ago

It's known as soft power. Another example is the BBC World Service, which is currently funded by the British government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

temphn 13y ago

Avatar was quite negative. Syriana, Rendition, and Jarhead were as well. Your general point definitely stands, post 9/11 at least, but those are notable exceptions.

tylerkahn 13y ago

Both of those sites that you cited are terrible, filled with conspiracy theories and shrill rhetoric. Unfortunately more and more people on HN seem to be citing them. Anyway: > Do you recall any big American movie in the last decade (or even more) that painted America's military in a non-positive light? The Bourne series. Though that was about the CIA. Safe House, also CIA. Avatar, as someone else mentioned, analogously painted the US military in a bad light. Full Metal Jacket certainly shows some of the more brutish and shameful sides of the US military. > I do remember The Hurt Locker, and a whole list of other movies, Iron Man and Captain America So are you upset that these movies didn't pause to lecture the audience about the horrors of American imperialism? Are you upset that they don't serve your particular political agenda? > To me, truly the most amazing thing about this is that pretty much no-one knows about this! The people who don't know don't care. This information is readily available. And even some of the people who do know don't care (like me).

tptacek 13y ago

Full Metal Jacket. • Three Kings. • In The Valley of Elah. Good Morning Vietnam. A Few Good Men. Platoon. • Jarhead. Casualties Of War. • The Men Who Stare At Goats. The Deer Hunter. The Thin Red Line. • Syriana. • The Green Zone. • Stop Loss. Also, • HBO's "Generation Kill". (•'d relatively recent movies) I don't think "The Hurt Locker" was particularly critical of the military and didn't count it. Also not counting documentaries like "Restrepo". I hereby dispute the idea that the DOD has made it impossible for big-budget Hollywood movies to criticize the US military, and suggest instead that the bias Hollywood in favor of the military is responding to customer preferences and not leading it. Given what I presume to be America's default position of "supporting our troops", I'm struck by how many films Hollywood produce that challenge that default. Remember also that Hollywood confronts at least two vectors of consumer preference in marketing films: first, Americans (in the large) have a (typical) diffuse nationalistic home-team support for our overseas adventures, and, more importantly, there's a less-political less-issue-oriented reverence expected for the sacrifices made by the young people we send into combat which is especially intense during times when large numbers of people are serving in combat zones. In other words, it's especially tricky to criticize the military during active conflicts. Also, Three Kings is a fantastic movie.

tsotha 13y ago
>I hereby dispute the idea that the DOD has made it impossible for big-budget Hollywood movies to criticize the US military, and suggest instead that the bias Hollywood in favor of the military is responding to customer preferences and not leading it. Yeah, the problem with anti-military movies is nobody wants to watch them. It certainly hasn't been a lack of effort on the part of film producers.
- scott_karana 13y ago
  Are you kidding me? Many movies on that list are both critical and box-office successes.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Well, critical success means nothing. As far as financial success goes, post 1991 there isn't much.

X4 13y ago

You're right. I only remember Stargate SG-1 that very early on dissed the NID (=NSA) and other agencies (but I rarely watch TV). They went so far to criticize agencies and senators and many other privately working corporations as control addicted, corrupt and inhuman moneybags. Senator Kinsey was exposed telling lies to the voters like: "We do the best a christian can for our God blessed America", just to get their votes. Even though he seemed to believe what he said, the actions he made were all but "christian". He willingly destroyed an entire solar system, just to test a bomb. The arrogant evil joy was truly revealing his real character. He was obviously an opportunist, who collaborated with evil aliens just to remain in power. And that last part sounds like our governments, who sell our data to other governments, when the price is right. That's why I really admired how this was the only series (except star-trek) where most stuff, contrary to most beliefs (imho) was a pure mix of fiction and actual ancient history. Although it was clear that Colonel Jack O'Neill had strong prejudices against the Russian and communists in General (and russians always died first) he had deep respect to them as a Soldier. To me it looked like the authors tried to express some of their true thoughts, but were often forced to change or include parts into the script to reflect a more positive America, that really stood out. Unfortunately Star-Trek was very pro American, which is hard to believe, because a developed human in the future would most probably see all of us as greedy, barbarian, war-hungry hypocrites and not focus one just one continent.

krapp 13y ago
To me it looked like the authors tried to express some of their true thoughts, but were often forced to change or include parts into the script to reflect a more positive America, that really stood out. I'm not stating flat out you're wrong, but do you have any actual evidence of parts they were "often forced to change?" Isn't it possible they included pro-American material because they didn't necessarily have a completely negative point of view about the US and the military? Not every opinion that America is less than evil necessarily has to be propaganda.
- X4 13y ago
  @krapp thanks for asking. I have no real evidence, except that he worked closely with military and you cannot be against your feeding hand. See interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF6hOMY2vxA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF6hOMY2vxA So obviously he is pro USAF, but that didn't mean he needed to portray the US Government in a good light in StarGate SG-1. He showed the USAF in a very good light though. He also supports the Greenpeace (Sea Shepard) and Charity.

rayiner 13y ago

'Tptacek mentions a great list. What I'll add to that is that, contemporaneously, criticism of the military doesn't sell movie tickets. Nobody wants to watch a movie about how American soldiers might be put in harm's way for a bad reason, or might not behave honorably, at least not unless the event is historically removed enough that the audience can separate the message of the movie from their own family, friends, and kids on the front lines.

Moto7451 13y ago
Agreed. Additionally, it's thematically popular that when part of the US military becomes the bad guy, it's usually limited to "those guys" and not the entirety of the Military. Typically "those guys" comes in the form of a well meaning but rouge unit, a General with a vendetta against an opposing force (i.e. hasn't gotten over the end of the Cold war), a traitor of some kind, an indifferent chain of command, etc etc. These are things audiences will rally around. Behind Enemy Lines is an example[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_Enemy_Lines_(2001_film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_Enemy_Lines_(2001_film)
- eru 13y ago
  What's a rouge unit?
  - apu 13y ago
    One blush ;-) [Moto7451 obviously meant rogue unit]
    - eru 13y ago
      Oh, my guess was on rough. But then, I'm not a native speaker, so I'd better ask. (I was really hoping for some funny idiom involving rouge.)
      - apu 13y ago
        Ah sorry, I shouldn't have said "obviously" -- that was a bit rude of me.

drjesusphd 13y ago

The Pentagon even red-lighted Forrest Gump and refused support. They said: "the generalised impression that the army of the 1960s was staffed by the guileless or by soldiers of limited intelligance" was unacceptable. "This impression is neither accurate nor beneficial to the army." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/29/media.filmnews http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/29/media.filmnews

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

"Iron Man originally used to be about fighting communism, now it is about fighting terrorism" Uh? Let's look at the villains in the recent movies: Iron Man 1: Terrorists, later revealed to be puppets of a corrupt American military contractor. Iron Man 2: A Russian scientist with a personal grudge, later teams up with a corrupt American military contractor. Iron Man 3: Terrorists, turn out to have been entirely made up by a corrupt American military contractor. In every movie the real villain is a representative of the military-industrial complex. In two of the three, cutting-edge American military technology is publicly and embarrassingly subverted and used against American citizens. In the related Avengers movie, American military authorities order a nuclear attack on New York City. There is a lot of American propoganda in American movies (oh God, Battleship), but Iron Man is a pretty poor example.

gcb1 13y ago
more like terrorists, which turn out to be terrorist trying to infiltrate and undermine the holy american militar complex posing as honest contractors.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  Not really, no. All three were legitimately respected industrialists before getting hit with the villain stick, and are motivated only by money and power. In the one film that involves actual ideological terrorists, the villain makes them his patsies and then has them all killed to tie up loose ends.

rwmj 13y ago

Flat Earth News is the book to read on this topic. The largest press agency in the world is ... the CIA. http://www.flatearthnews.net/ http://www.flatearthnews.net/