The military entertainment complex

[Nomad4Ever]

I'm sure many people have heard of the military industrial complex, but many have not heard of it's cousin, the military entertainment complex.

Most people don't realize the military has any connections with the film industry. However, the DOD actually has an entire office dedicated solely to Hollywood films that can be traced all the way back to WWI. This relationship exists for a simple purpose; to create pro-military propaganda. When watching the latest big Marvel or Transformers film, you might not think much about where all the random tanks, planes, battleships, Humvees, or even US soldiers come from. You might even assume they are surplus. In fact, they are often loaned out by the US military. The military allows the use of these assets under certain conditions, usually pertaining ensuring the movie portrays the US military in a positive light. They can demand a script is edited, a scene is cut, or the inclusion of whatever they want as part of the contractual use of these resources, which often significantly reduce the cost of filming compared to CGI.

Now, I'm at this point many of you are wondering what my source for these claims of propaganda conspiracy between the DoD and Hollywood are. Well, it turns out the DoD directly and publicly states their involvement and intentions.

The Defense Department has a long-standing relationship with Hollywood. In fact, it’s been working with filmmakers for nearly 100 years with a goal that’s two-fold: to accurately depict military stories and make sure sensitive information isn’t disclosed.

While Hollywood is paid to tell a compelling story that will make money, the DoD is looking to tell an accurate story. So naturally, there can be challenges in combining the two.

“There are compromises on both sides. There’s a point where we just have to say no -- ‘It’s either going to happen like this, or it’s not going to happen at all,’” Hyde said, although he admitted it rarely comes to that. Production agreements require the DoD to be able to review a rough cut of a film, so officials can decide if there are areas that need to be addressed before a film is released.

How & Why the DOD Works With Hollywood

Did you know the Defense Department has worked with Hollywood for nearly 100 years? Here are some details of that relationship.

www.defense.gov

Essentially, the DoD will allow film makers to use USG resources for their film...on the condition that the DoD gets to read and approve the script. These resources are hugely valuable to move producers. It greatly cuts the costs of production and looks better than using SFX.

Producers looking to borrow military equipment or filming on location at a military installation for their works need to apply to the DoD, and submit their movies' scripts for vetting. Ultimately, the DoD has a say in every US-made movie that uses DoD resources, not available on the open market, in their productions.[citation needed][4]

The movie Top Gun, produced by Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer at Paramount Pictures, and with DoD assistance, aimed at rebranding the US Navy's image in the post-Vietnam era. By the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, Hollywood producers were stressing script writers to create military-related plots to gain production power from the US Military.

Military–entertainment complex - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nomad4Ever]

This relationship can only be described as widely successful. As a Washing Post article notes:

Not only did enlistment spike when “Top Gun” was released, and not only did the Navy set up recruitment tables at theaters playing the movie, but polls soon showed rising confidence in the military.

Although “Top Gun” was not the first movie to exchange creative input for Pentagon assistance and resources, its success set that bargain as a standard for other filmmakers, who began deluging the Pentagon with requests for collaboration. By the time the 1991 Persian Gulf War began, Phil Strub, the Pentagon’s liaison to the movie industry, told the Hollywood Reporter that he’d seen a 70 percent increase in the number of requests from filmmakers for assistance — effectively changing the way Hollywood works.

The result is an entertainment culture rigged to produce relatively few antiwar movies and dozens of blockbusters that glorify the military. For every “Hurt Locker” — a successful and critical war film made without Pentagon assistance — American moviegoers get a flood of pro-war agitprop, from “Armageddon,” to “Pearl Harbor,” to “Battle Los Angeles” to “X-Men.” And save for filmmakers’ obligatory thank you to the Pentagon in the credits, audiences are rarely aware that they may be watching government-subsidized propaganda.

Strub described the approval process to Variety in 1994: “The main criteria we use is . . . how could the proposed production benefit the military . . . could it help in recruiting [and] is it in sync with present policy?”

The article even goes as far as to question the constitutionality of such a practice.

Why does the government grant and deny access to that hardware based on a filmmaker’s willingness to let the Pentagon influence the script? And doesn’t such a practice violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against government abridging freedom of speech?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/25-years-later-remembering-how-top-gun-changed-americas-feelings-about-war/2011/08/15/gIQAU6qJgJ_story.html?noredirect=on

Again, the military is completely blatant regarding it's goals. As the Military Times reports on a bill that would restrict DoD and Hollywood collaboration:

These self-imposed limitations take away one of the most effective tools in our efforts to persuade, and bring about, democratic reform in communist countries such as China. Movies are one of the best ways for the U.S. to foster a positive image around the world. As a retired U.S. Army infantry officer, I’ve seen firsthand the power of Hollywood’s narration of military engagements. “American Sniper” and “Black Hawk Down” both depict some of my past deployments and operations, and neither film would have been possible without the assistance of the Pentagon.

In addition, the bill’s limits on cooperation with skilled storytellers at American movie companies would significantly degrade the ability of the US government to tell its own story in order to help to neutralize the effects of Marxist and other types of anti-American propaganda.

imply put, over the decades, Hollywood has provided one of the most powerfully positive images of our military. No Pentagon-based press relations operation could come close to what Hollywood has achieved through its films.

Oppose China’s censorship, but don’t kill the Hollywood-military partnership

Hollywood has provided one of the most powerfully positive images of our military, and denying cooperation with movie makers would degrade the U.S. government of its ability to tell its own story, says the author of this commentary.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Many well known films were refused DoD requests to edit their stripts:

Some of the better-known movies refused help because their directors would not agree to Pentagon demands include: The Last Detail (1973), Apocalypse Now (1979), An Officer and a Gentleman (1982), Born on the Fourth of the July (1989) and Forrest Gump (1994).

Many others capitulated:

Windtalkers also ran into trouble with the Pentagon over its portrayal of the Code Talkers story. Code Talkers were Navajo Indians who joined the US Marines during WWII and used their native language as a code that the Japanese were unable to break.

Marine sergeant Joe Enders (Nicolas Cage) is assigned to protect a Code Talker, with orders to kill him in the event of his capture by the Japanese. This became a major point of contention with the Pentagon.

Captain Matt Morgan of the Marine film liaison office claimed that the movie’s portrayals were “un-Marine” and demanded changes. He claimed that the orders to Enders “to take your guy out” were a “fiction” and had to be removed. Contrary to Morgan’s claims, however, Marines were given just such orders. This has been verified by surviving Code Talkers and the US Congress.

Military interference in American film production

Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon shapes and censors the movies by David L. Robb, a former journalist for Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, is a timely work. Published in 2004, a year after the US-led occupation of Iraq, it exposes one of the dark secrets of American movies—military...

www.wsws.org

It extends past movies. The Army even has an official video game production team.

America's Army is a series of first-person shooter video games developed and published by the U.S. Army, intended to inform, educate, and recruit prospective soldiers.

The Army Game Studio houses the development and management staff for America's Army outreach products as well as numerous Military and Government applications.

America's Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The author of the book Operation Hollywood, a book which explores many of the concepts I've covered here writes that:

Congress, Robb writes, must launch a “complete investigation into the Pentagon’s role in the filmmaking process” while the Writers Guild of America (WGA) should insist that the employers cannot show writers’ scripts to the military. These actions, combined with consumer boycotts and class action lawsuits, should be initiated, he says, to force Washington to establish a transparent tendering process and a “schedule of uniform fees” for film producers wanting access to military equipment. (Source)

In my opinion this collaboration is abhorrent. It's a blatant and open effort to manipulate the kind of media that is produced with the goal of perpetuating the US military industrial complex, US imperialism, and manufacturing consent for endless foreign wars.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Of course, other countries have their own propaganda machines. China, who seems to copy all the worst things about the US and then make them more horrible, recently received headlines for it's own propaganda film:

The three-hour long action flick, based on a novel of the same name, is one of several patriotic movies the Chinese government has commissioned in celebration of the Chinese Communist Party’s centenary anniversary this year. The story follows the advance of a fictional Seventh Company in China’s real People’s Volunteer Army during the (also real) 1950-1953 Korean War—or the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, as the conflict is known in China.

You’ve likely never heard of 2021’s top-grossing film—a Chinese 'propaganda' war epic

'The Battle at Lake Changjin' became 2021's highest-earning film based solely on China ticket sales.

fortune.com

However, I think it's important to draw attention to our own domestic propaganda, as it is often harder to see when you are inside of it.

I realize this post is rather long. Many won't read all of it. But I think it's an important topic that is worth your time. I already edited a lot of information I wanted to include for brevity. If you are interested in more information, obviously Manufacturing Consent is a classic, the book I cited (Operation Hollywood), or for the visually inclined this YouTube video.

 

[Rogue Valley]

US police departments have a similar pro-propaganda rationale.

From Dragnet to Chicago PD.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

US police departments have a similar pro-propaganda rationale.

From Dragnet to Chicago PD.

Very true.

I actually wanted to cover that too...but I realized I had probably already well outstripped the average person's willingness to read. At some point I might edit down this post and try posting a more concise version.

 

[phoenix2020]

Most organizational entities engage in marketing their goods and services. It would be quite unusual if this did not apply to an organization as large as the US DoD. I don't find it abhorrent, just inefficient.

 

[Roadvirus]

I'm sure many people have heard of the military industrial complex, but many have not heard of it's cousin, the military entertainment complex.

Most people don't realize the military has any connections with the film industry. However, the DOD actually has an entire office dedicated solely to Hollywood films that can be traced all the way back to WWI. This relationship exists for a simple purpose; to create pro-military propaganda. When watching the latest big Marvel or Transformers film, you might not think much about where all the random tanks, planes, battleships, Humvees, or even US soldiers come from. You might even assume they are surplus. In fact, they are often loaned out by the US military. The military allows the use of these assets under certain conditions, usually pertaining ensuring the movie portrays the US military in a positive light. They can demand a script is edited, a scene is cut, or the inclusion of whatever they want as part of the contractual use of these resources, which often significantly reduce the cost of filming compared to CGI.

Now, I'm at this point many of you are wondering what my source for these claims of propaganda conspiracy between the DoD and Hollywood are. Well, it turns out the DoD directly and publicly states their involvement and intentions.

How & Why the DOD Works With Hollywood

Did you know the Defense Department has worked with Hollywood for nearly 100 years? Here are some details of that relationship.

www.defense.gov

Essentially, the DoD will allow film makers to use USG resources for their film...on the condition that the DoD gets to read and approve the script. These resources are hugely valuable to move producers. It greatly cuts the costs of production and looks better than using SFX.

Military–entertainment complex - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Read about this in a Uncle John's Bathroom Reader.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I don't find it abhorrent, just inefficient.

You don't think a state using it's resources to condition it's population to accept seemingly endless wars , military spending, and recruitment is abhorrent?

As I pointed out in my OP, it's been argued if nothing else it's a trampling of the first amendment.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Read about this in a Uncle John's Bathroom Reader.

Do have any meaningful criticisms about what I wrote?

 

[bomberfox]

I'm sure many people have heard of the military industrial complex, but many have not heard of it's cousin, the military entertainment complex.

Most people don't realize the military has any connections with the film industry. However, the DOD actually has an entire office dedicated solely to Hollywood films that can be traced all the way back to WWI. This relationship exists for a simple purpose; to create pro-military propaganda. When watching the latest big Marvel or Transformers film, you might not think much about where all the random tanks, planes, battleships, Humvees, or even US soldiers come from. You might even assume they are surplus. In fact, they are often loaned out by the US military. The military allows the use of these assets under certain conditions, usually pertaining ensuring the movie portrays the US military in a positive light. They can demand a script is edited, a scene is cut, or the inclusion of whatever they want as part of the contractual use of these resources, which often significantly reduce the cost of filming compared to CGI.

Now, I'm at this point many of you are wondering what my source for these claims of propaganda conspiracy between the DoD and Hollywood are. Well, it turns out the DoD directly and publicly states their involvement and intentions.

How & Why the DOD Works With Hollywood

Did you know the Defense Department has worked with Hollywood for nearly 100 years? Here are some details of that relationship.

www.defense.gov

Essentially, the DoD will allow film makers to use USG resources for their film...on the condition that the DoD gets to read and approve the script. These resources are hugely valuable to move producers. It greatly cuts the costs of production and looks better than using SFX.

Military–entertainment complex - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The funniest thing is people believe hollywood is a communist organization.

 

[phoenix2020]

You don't think a state using it's resources to condition it's population to accept seemingly endless wars , military spending, and recruitment is abhorrent?

That's correct. Human beings tend to fight with each other over scarce resources. Until you figure out how to change that basic behavior (which may well be in our genes) it makes sense that we try to have the best military we can afford. (Note: this is not to say I support our current DoD budget which IMO is too high.)

As I pointed out in my OP, it's been argued if nothing else it's a trampling of the first amendment.

I could see that.

 

[bomberfox]

You don't think a state using it's resources to condition it's population to accept seemingly endless wars , military spending, and recruitment is abhorrent?

As I pointed out in my OP, it's been argued if nothing else it's a trampling of the first amendment.

Depends on what it is used for. The us government used cartoons for recruitment and sometimes training videos during world war II. Private SNAFU is a favorite of mine.

 

[Moon]

You don't think a state using it's resources to condition it's population to accept seemingly endless wars , military spending, and recruitment is abhorrent?

As I pointed out in my OP, it's been argued if nothing else it's a trampling of the first amendment.

Film makers want to use military assets and you don’t think the military might have some conditions attached, like showing the military in a favorable, or at least a neutral, light? The government isn’t compelling the studios to use their assets, the studios are free to find what they need elsewhere.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Film makers want to use military assets and you don’t think the military might have some conditions attached, like showing the military in a favorable, or at least a neutral, light? The government isn’t compelling the studios to use their assets...

The issue I take isn't that they are compelled to.

The ethical issue to me is that it creates an incentive structure that subsidizes sanitized views on the actions of the US military. It is essentially the state subsidizing pro US messaging. Large movies have rewritten their scripts to alter well documented historical events compelled by the incentive of saving millions on production.

Bribery isn't the same as compelling, but that doesn't make it less morally reprehensible. Especially when it is coming from our own government.

...the studios are free to find what they need elsewhere.

And some have. Most don't. Movies are made for profit and only the most principled of directors have given their artistic vision precedence over profit.

Again, the moral issue in the incentive structure. If they government wants fair compensation then that's fine, but they shouldn't get to view the scripts.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Depends on what it is used for. The us government used cartoons for recruitment and sometimes training videos during world war II. Private SNAFU is a favorite of mine.

I don't really care what it is used for.

I don't think the government should be able to influence the types of media that is produced by private entities.

 

[Moon]

The issue I take isn't that they are compelled to.

The ethical issue to me is that it creates an incentive structure that subsidizes sanitized views on the actions of the US military. It is essentially the state subsidizing pro US messaging. Large movies have rewritten their scripts to alter well documented historical events compelled by the incentive of saving millions on production.

Bribery isn't the same as compelling, but that doesn't make it less morally reprehensible. Especially when it is coming from our own government.


And some have. Most don't. Movies are made for profit and only the most principled of directors have given their artistic vision precedence over profit.

Again, the moral issue in the incentive structure. If they government wants fair compensation then that's fine, but they shouldn't get to view the scripts.

Studios rewrite well documented historical events for a variety of reasons, hence the common disclaimer “based on actual events”.

The government also shouldn’t have to allow someone to use its resources and personnel to tell a badly biased story. I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill here.

 

[roguenuke]

The filming of Stealth on our ship is the reason for my poor opinion of Jessica Biel. Granted I am basing it off of hearsay, what others said about her and her complaints, but we weren't getting similar complaints about the other stars working on the film and they were from what I considered trustworthy sources at the time at least.

We were out to sea so they came out to film for a couple of weeks out on the ship (including bringing the prop fighter plane they used, wasn't all that exciting looking in the hangar bay). They were put into private berthing spaces in officer country (which meant some of the officers had to actually give up their spaces for them). They ate with the officers or the CO (who has his own cook and she happened to be in the berthing under ours). She was complaining about the accommodations and food, on an aircraft carrier.

I think it was The Core that also had some filming done on our ship. They like to do that, use ships, especially carriers, for movies. I imagine there is going to be some tit for tat there.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Studios rewrite well documented historical events for a variety of reasons

They do, but none of those reasons should have to do with the state financially incentivizing them to.

The government also shouldn’t have to allow someone to use its resources and personnel to tell a badly biased story. I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill here.

You're right, and it also shouldn't use its resources to tell a badly biased story either...which is what it is currently doing.

This response to me feels like when on topics of mass surveillance people say "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."

 

[Moon]

They do, but none of those reasons should have to do with the state financially incentivizing them to.


You're right, and it also shouldn't use its resources to tell a badly biased story either...which is what it is currently doing.

This response to me feels like when on topics of mass surveillance people say "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."

No, and it’s dishonest to say that because I’ve not said anything remotely close to that.

It’s a simple concept. Film makers want to use someone else’s property and there’s always a cost attached. If they don’t like the cost, they have options. It’s not like the government is going to shut down a production if the studio decides to go somewhere else for military vehicles or locations.

 

[phoenix2020]

I think it was The Core that also had some filming done on our ship. They like to do that, use ships, especially carriers, for movies. I imagine there is going to be some tit for tat there.

The Core might be my all time favorite B-Movie. "The planet's core stopped spinning; let's jump start it with some nukes!" So insane. I love everything about it.

 

[Roadvirus]

Film makers want to use military assets and you don’t think the military might have some conditions attached, like showing the military in a favorable, or at least a neutral, light? The government isn’t compelling the studios to use their assets, the studios are free to find what they need elsewhere.

Coppola had to rely on the Philippines military for Apocalypse Now....until they had to go and use those military assets in real battles against real communists, which caused filming delays.