Download
1 / 6
60 likes | 167 Vues
The Relationship Between Hollywood and the US Military. By: Kevin Crosby. Introduction. Since Hollywood’s inception there has been a saying that they have been at war. Propaganda is a bit like pornography-hard to define but most people know it when they see it.
E N D
The Relationship Between Hollywood and the US Military By: Kevin Crosby
Introduction Since Hollywood’s inception there has been a saying that they have been at war. Propaganda is a bit like pornography-hard to define but most people know it when they see it. In 1942, the Office of War Information (OWI) set up a Hollywood Office. Between 1939 and 1945 some 2500 war films were released. OWI preferred to convert Hollywood, not censor it. Still today, the Pentagon ask filmmakers, will this picture help us win the war?
Literature Review The “Hollywood War Machine” refers to the production of studio films that depict and glorify wartime heroic exploits while embellishing the military experience. In a meeting with Karl Rove in Hollywood, film producers were called upon to serve the country in the “war on terror” and make patriotic films. The Iraq War Films released to date have been made on relatively modest budgets, generally only a fraction of the US$100 million average for Hollywood- produced film. In terms of financing theBlack Hawk Down, the military provided all armed services including helicopters. Furthermore, when it comes to the military backing films, the only provide assistance when “they depict real people and real in an authentic manner. (Robb 2004, 92)” Producer Jerry Bruckheimer stated that it would have cost millions of more dollars without the aid of the military because of digital alterations and computer generated effects to create the helicopters used in the film.
Political Economy During the production of Top Gun (1986), the Pentagon worked hand-in-hand with the filmmakers, reportedly charging Paramount Pictures just $1.8 million for the use of its warplanes and aircraft carriers. But that taxpayer-subsidized discount came at a price, the filmmakers were required to submit their script to Pentagon brass for meticulous line edits aimed at casting the military in the most positive light. Transformers (2007) received record amounts of DOD aid, including aircraft, tanks, and active duty soldiers. Furthermore, the first film alone had access to twelve different types of Air Force Aircraft and troops from four different bases. Today, the Film Liaison Office is among the most powerful forces in the movie business. Teaming with each armed service’s own film arm, the office cuts sweet deals with studios desperate for the kind of real-life props and troops that can't be generated by computers. Philip Strub, the current head of the office, wields one of the mightiest pens in show business. He reviews scripts sent in by producers and studios, deciding whether or not to provide material assistance based on, he said, "whether [the film] is something that might be of information value to the public or whether there is some benefit to military recruitment and retention."
Discourse Analysis What the reviews and the exit polls do not touch upon directly regarding pro-war films is the fact that the military has such a large hand in crafting the story and especially the action sequences, which the audiences found most appealing. ‘Why does the military let me use their stuff?’ asks its director Michael Bay. ‘Because they look good at what they do in my movies … I really admire them for the service they do for their country’ (DVD commentary). Transformers consensus: “it's a big, cool, dopey, noisy, non-stop action powerhouse.” The reviewer’s completely missed the fact that the military had such a large influence on the film. In contrast, film critic Roger Ebert, in his review of Platoon (1986) is quick to point out “there are no false heroics in this movie, and no standard heroes; the narrator is quickly at the point of physical collapse, bedeviled by long marches, no sleep, ants, snakes, cuts, bruises and constant, gnawing fear.”
Analysis/Conclusion Director Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down) thinks ‘every war movie is an antiwar movie’. Some filmmakers are willing to sacrifice artistic creativity for financial benefits. When making films, should the art or the finances come first? I was told this past summer that because Hollywood budgets have become so large, the art is determined by the finances. Are there ethical issues involved when the military manipulates public opinion on social and world politics? At the end of the day, is placing the worlds most powerful military into the world most powerful medium in the publics best interest?
