All of "us"? Really? Or are you promoting a book? From the footnotes: David Sirota is is a syndicated columnist, radio host and the author of "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now." Americans are souring on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military budget is under siege as Congress looks for spending to cut. And the Army is reporting record suicide rates among soldiers. So who does the Pentagon enlist for help in such painful circumstances?
Hollywood.
In June, the Army negotiated a first-of-its-kind sponsorship deal with the producers of "X-Men: First Class," backing it up with ads telling potential recruits that they could live out superhero fantasies on real-life battlefields. Then, in recent days, word leaked that the White House has been working with Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow on an election-year film chronicling the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. Is that the military, or the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP)?
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. With Ronald Reagan wrapping military adventurism in the flag, with the armed forces scoring low-risk but high-profile victories in Libya and Grenada, America fell in love with Maverick, Iceman and other high-fivin' silver-screen super-pilots as they traveled Mach 2 while screaming about "the need for speed." You got a shortage-of-testosterone problem, bud?
As Mace Neufeld, the producer of the 1990 film "The Hunt for Red October," later recounted to Variety, studios in the post-"Top Gun" era instituted an unstated rule telling screenwriters and directors to get military cooperation "or forget about making the picture." Economics drives that directive, Time magazine reported in 1986. "Without such billion-dollar props, producers [have to] spend an inordinate amount of time and money searching for substitutes" and therefore might not be able to make the movie at all, the magazine noted. Like Apollo 13, made without any support from NASA. It was made without NASA support, but you could of fooled me!
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. Funny how I think there are so many anti-war movies. Maybe that's all the media promotes?
Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, recently sent letters to the CIA and the Defense Department demanding an investigation of the upcoming Bin Laden movie. He criticized the practice of granting ideologically compliant filmmakers access to government property and information that he says should be available to all. The "alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history," he argued.
Considering King's previous silence on such issues, it's not clear whether he's standing on principle; more likely, he is trying to prevent a particular piece of propaganda from aiding a political opponent. Ah, but the writer sees a silver lining to that King-Kloud!
Yet, even if inadvertent, King's efforts make possible a broader look at how the U.S. government uses taxpayer resources to suffuse popular culture with militarism. Getcher tin-foil hats here!
If and when King holds hearings on the matter, we could finally get to the important questions: Why does the Pentagon treat public hardware as private property? To cover the cost of fuel?
Why does the government grant and deny access to that hardware based on a filmmaker's willingness to let the Pentagon influence the script? For technical accuracy?
And doesn't such a practice violate the First Amendment's prohibition against government abridging freedom of speech? Make the movie you want without their help, like Apollo 13, you whining cry-baby!
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/28/2011 08:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
....And yet these movies consistently do well (or at least break even), while anti-military flicks tend to crash/crater/burn at the box office. You'd think there was a lesson there....
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/28/2011 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I guess he didn't go to all those anti-military anti-war movies either which, pun not intended, bombed. Maybe if he'd check the polls on confidence in American government institutions, he'd discover what a few in Hollyweird have discover and which the publishers of loads of vidgames already know, that the military ranks among the highest in respect from the general public. Something else he can't grasp. Those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines come from middle America, not the ruling caste or their publicists of the media. They know first hand who and what the military is from family and neighbors versus the crazed demonized veteran portrayed by most of Hollyweird, the MSM, and Homeland Security. First hand bets slimy propaganda any day.
#3
BTW, the military spends millions in recruiting advertizing. Just consider this, as the Pentagon does, product placement, another common Hollyweird practice. That's where business pays the production company to put their product conspicuously in the film or broadcast. This is just resources in kind. Do you recall any corporation that engaged in product placement in a movie that trashed what they were selling? /rhet question
#12
As for Top Gun, the pilots who made it must have been laughing at the plot. I talked to several former pilots -they were unanimous saying that any pilot who pulled the shit that Maverick did would have been grounded and lost their wings on the first stunt.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
08/28/2011 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Yeah badanov, for a second thought there was an Armageddon I hadn't seen.
Tarantino has a different take.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyN8VN4BSzM
NSFW, children, sunday school.
Pearl Harbor sux. Battle LA, after I got past some techinical questions and just watched the movie, was not just entertaining but yes military good.
#16
Anonymoose add the military game Modern Warfare 2 in which your military isn't the bad guy and it grossed over a billion dollars in comparison. The leftards whine about not being able to sell their crap (ie - no one want [anti] war films) , but ignore the take when another media crushes their vile output. It's called supply and demand. I guess Hollyweird is preparing their narrative for a bailout. Hey, it worked for the UAW and Detroit's substandard output.
#17
I don't buy Sirota's thesis that Hollyweird has considerable influence on the American public. It seems to me that Procopius2k in spot on regarding: Those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines come from middle America, not the ruling caste or their publicists of the media. They know first hand who and what the military is from family and neighbors versus the crazed demonized veteran portrayed by most of Hollyweird, the MSM, and Homeland Security. . Often, events drive enlistments such as 911 and Pearl Harbor.
#18
All "Top Gun" did was further reveal that people like action movies with a heart-warming end. See "Independence Day".
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/28/2011 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#19
So, profitable whether we like it or not.
Free Radical,
This is one of the dirty little secrets of holiwood: It is virtually impossible for a studio to lose money on a film nowadays, no matter how lousey it is.
Not long ago the Variety newspaper ran a story on why Hollywood has been puting out so much crap recently. It used the example of a Nickolas Cage flop that made its money on DVD rentals after it had bombed at the box office.
It also pointed out that "green light" decisions are based as more on foreign sales and product tie-ins than they are on whether the movie will be any good. E.g. "Cars 2" was made solely as an excuse to sell car toys to pre-teen kids.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
08/28/2011 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
#20
"It is virtually impossible for a studio to lose money on a film nowadays, no matter how lousey it is. "
Exactly Al. By my numbers, 'Rendition' made at least a %100 profit... probably more by now. They picked a hot-button topic and let the DVD/rental market carry it.
So even if a super-majority of Americans hates the socialist crap, the production houses are not being punished on the bottom line.
I think that is because there is no alternative. If someone put a bunch of money behind a 'Fox-News' movie house, they would probably clean up financially. And I say that knowing that Fox isn't 'right-wing,' they are just to the right of their competitors.
#21
Don't confuse creative bookkeeping with 'profit'. When the senior holding company management directs its other subsidiaries to purchase/rent bundled products to run on Starz, HBO, Showtime, they're simply moving the money around from captured revenue to cover losses in one part of the overall accounting. It's basically no different than when the investment houses bundled bad paper with good to manipulate the books. Having to answer to institutional investors, its a nice way to even out the bean counting for the financial statements.
#22
Also, with the remakes. Not only is the sales pitch easy, familiarity, there is a bump in sales and television re-play of the previous versions - which are already paid for.
Saving Private Ryan, exciting especially the first couple go rounds, but I hate that movie, more each time I see it. Doesn't help that only one of the actors went on to not be a kook. The Great Raid, practically no budget or advertising in comparison, far superior movie.
#23
Not all movies make a profit. All big budget movies perhaps, because they make sure they are big and dumb and will appeal to audiences foreign and domestic as much as possible.
You will notice the anti-war movies tend to be smaller budget affairs. They might make money but mostly they are made as a bone for big name actors, yes we'll take a loss on your little anti-war picture if you sign up for our big tent-pole blockbuster.
The anti-war movies also allow the producers and such involved to get positive attention at all the best Hollywood parties. Something a pro-military movie might not provide even if it made bank. That is pro-military that isn't a movie about WW2.
#24
I think it is important to seperate the difference between a character movie with a military setting, and a war movie. War Movie: Tora Tora Tora...character movie: Pearl Harbor. They can be both, as with Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, but they tend to be more character movies with intense action scenes.
I also think the op/ed overestimates film influence, like with Top Gun where the main character was the F-14 and the pilots filled space and set plot; and then goes on to underestimate influece, such as with gutsy call or as I call it, No Brainer, where for example what if Blackhawk Down was released in summer 1996.
Furthermore, the writer misses the obvious pro-military movies of the 80's as citation, such as Delta Force, Invasion USA, Red Dawn, Rambo II. Red Scorpian made its rounds as well. No opinion about Platoon, Full Metal Jacket? What about Glory? If this were the thesis, why not mention Predator and Die Hard, though not really war flicks showcased American Badassdom.
As this is, and I am not familiar with Sirota, but this just comes across as writing about a conversation overheard at a party.
#26
FWIW, When Paramount made 'Flight of the Intruder,' the only thing they (Paramount) did not cover was our pay (we were TAD for 'training'). They were charged the cost per flight hour we used for the OPTAR, they bought the fuel, paid for our lodging and food, and when we blew a motor and an ejection seat, they paid the going rate for replacements plus the transportation charges. What i don't know is what they were charged when we were at sea on the Independence for 11 days. They also paid for all the (concrete) bombs we dropped. And for our airframe shop to repair a 6 foot 5 rental van that the J.O.'s tried to fit into a 6 foot 3 garage. and any swag we received from them had to be 'blessed' by the on scene CHINFO rep first.
#27
Flight - Stephen Coonts authored - a great American author an supporter of America. How TF did Danny Glover (Friend of Chavez and Castro) get cast?
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/28/2011 23:41 Comments ||
Top||
#29
1960's = 1990's MADONNA = "MAVERICK" RECORDS ...
SHE-WHOM-COULD-SHOOT-DOWN-FIVE-ENEMY MIGS-IN-HER-SLEEP lives for the DANGER ZONE ...
versus
* CHINA DAILY FORUMS > FEMALE CHINESE STUDENTS RETURN FROM FRANCE [Universities = Studies, etc.]AS FLOOZIES: JUDICIAL SCHOLAR, i.e. as definitely un-Chinese, not-the-girl-we-sent, super-duper SuperSluts= "Super PAN JINLIAN" STYLE CHARACTER from the famous Chinese novel "WATER MARVEL".
The conventional wisdom is that the Palestinian Authority has outwitted Israel, the United States and the international community and stands poised to get a a declaration of statehood from the United Nations. Yes, the United States will be obligated to veto any measure in the U.N.Security Council, but the PA can go to the General Assembly, get an impressive vote and then have a club to use against Israel in its lawfare operation to discredit and delegitimize the Jewish state.
Well, the evidence is now mounting that this may have been a good career move for Mahmoud Abbas, who can retire with a feather in his cap, but a disastrous move for the Palestinians.
This week former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams wrote:
For years the Palestinian leadership has taken legal advice from a law professor at Oxford University, Guy Goodwin-Gill. But now it seems that they forgot to consult him before demanding a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood. In a recent legal brief for the leadership, the good professor demolishes the arguments for U.N. recognition.
As reported in the Palestinian media, the brief argues that a U.N. decision to recognize Palestinian statehood replaces the . . . [Palestine Liberation Organization] with the Palestinian Authority, and this would have what the article calls dramatic legal implications . . . .
interesting discussion of how the Palestinians could lose all, as well as end up at the receiving end of Israeli kinetic actions and their own Arab Spring uprising.
The conventional wisdom is that the Palestinian Authority has outwitted Israel, the United States and the "international community" and stands poised to get a a declaration of statehood from the United Nations. Yes, the United States will be obligated to veto any measure in the U.N.Security Council, but the PA can go to the General Assembly, get an impressive vote and then have a club to use against Israel in its lawfare operation to discredit and delegitimize the Jewish state.
Well, the evidence is now mounting that this may have been a good career move for Mahmoud Abbas, who can retire with a feather in his cap, but a disastrous move for the Palestinians.
This week former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams wrote:
For years the Palestinian leadership has taken legal advice from a law professor at Oxford University, Guy Goodwin-Gill. But now it seems that they forgot to consult him before demanding a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood. In a recent legal brief for the leadership, the good professor demolishes the arguments for U.N. recognition.
As reported in the Palestinian media, the brief argues that a U.N. decision to recognize Palestinian statehood replaces the . . . [Palestine Liberation Organization] with the Palestinian Authority, and this would have what the article calls "dramatic legal implications" . . . .
interesting discussion of how the Palestinians could lose all, as well as end up at the receiving end of Israeli kinetic actions and their own Arab Spring uprising.
#3
Israel should allow them to become a state. Make a big show of support. Let it be known that if Israel is attacked by another nation they will go ape-shit on that state and those that armed them (if possible, meaning China and the Russians will probably get away with arming the Pals but Egypt and others won't).
The Palestinians have been allowed to play their game primarily because they are not an actual state. All of Israel's neighbors generally leave her alone because they don't want to be destroyed.
Judging from the fervor of their celebrations, the Libyan people are acutely aware that they will benefit from the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. But Libya is hardly the only country that has reason to rejoice.
As committed as the dictator was to destroying his own country, he posed an equalperhaps even greaterdanger to developing countries in other parts of the world. From the time he assumed power, Qaddafi leveraged Libyas oil money, and his own willingness to have his country become a pariah state, to support insurgencies from East Asia, to South America, to southern Africa. With any luck, a number of long-running civil wars will disappear from the world stage together with Qaddafi himself.
One of his pet projects, in fact, was the World Revolutionary Center, which he established near the city of Benghazi. Stephen Ellis referred to the institution as the Harvard and Yale of a whole generation of African revolutionaries. While many of his graduates shared an anti-Western ideologywhich appealed to the Libyan dictators own self-image as one of the few statesmen willing to stand up to would-be imperialistssometimes the rebels on his bankroll had no discernable ideology at all. Qaddafis ideological inclinations were often outweighed by his appetite for power, his desire to be seen as a dominant powerbroker in Africa, his fantasies of revenge against America, or simply his love of mischief.
The dapper colonel was never a friend to the West. It was only that for a brief period after 9/11 he was afraid to be seen to be on the side of the jihadis. More at the link.
#1
Saddam Hussein handed out $25,000 checks to Palestinians who murdered Israelis. His training camp at Salman Pak had a jet for rehearsing hijackings as well technical training programs in bomb-making, production of chemical weapons, and other terrorist skill sets. He's gone, along with his sons.
Moammar Kadaffy had a training camp for terrorists, of which Salman Pak was a copy. The graduates formed the cadres of so-called revolutionary -- really terror-- movements throughout the third world, including jihadis. He and his sons are on the run, and may soon be captured or dead.
Iran's Mullahcracy, Pakistan's ISI, the Saudi princelings, they should be concerned that the next president will continue this trend, though they are totalitarian oligarchies instead of individual enterprises.
#2
Salman Pak had a jet for rehearsing hijackings as well technical training programs in bomb-making
Ah yes, Salman Pak. Lovely place. Had just a bit more than training facilities TW. But of course discussing those very nasty realities might reveal the evil Bushhitler's justification for going to war.
#3
That is not to say that they are responsible for the mayhem caused by the former regime. But by recognizing their political inheritance, and perhaps setting aside some funds for victims of Qaddafis international terror...
True to form, the Progressive propagandist Kurlantzick, weaves his usual template of already knowns with highly questionable assumptions into one disingenuouse narrative. Not to be the spoiler here but the moral of most of his tales end with a common theme - Intervention is a moral imperative and economic development drives democratization. The reason Kurlantzick and his ilk seldom proclaim this in concise language is becuase it would reveal that they veiw international laws that govern soverign states as quaint inconveniences. Not to mention, doesn't economic development sound much better then redistribution of wealth?
#4
Lovely place. Had just a bit more than training facilities TW.
Indeed, Besoeker. But that was on the other side, for President Hussein's local team. And honestly, I only have a glimmer of an idea of what went on there, which would be enough to give me nightmares, did I think on it very deeply.
Depot Guy, you don,t mean to say the gentleman is a neocon?
I suspect Kurlantzick fancies himself as more of a Third Wayer. Therefore, by affilliation he would have no choice but to publicly reject the neoconservative worldview. But as you noticed, when it comes to foriegn intervention there's really not a dimes worth of difference betwixt the two. Ironic ain't it?
I have supported NATO's military action. Gaddafi's downfall really is a positive development for the West, but while the successor regime objectively can't get any more dangerous than Gaddafi we should keep in mind that they might become as dangerous.
A stern warning to the rebels right now while the situation is still fluid might do wonders.
#7
Well, to be fair lets ask ISRAEL vee ISLAMIST IRAN'S AHMADINEJAD [aka MAD MOUD aka SHORT ROUND], shall we???
To wit,
* NEWS KERALA > "NO ROOM FOR ISRAEL" [in ME Region] AFTER CREATION OF INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN STATE, IRAN PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD.
ARTIC > MOUD = Creation of sovereign independent Paleo State is just the FIRST STEP in the final struggle towards the liberation of any + all Palestinian lands [from pro-US Crusader Zionist Jewish-Israeli Occupiers].
IOW, MOUD = NO JEWISH STATE IN THE MIDDLE EAST PERIOD.
E-V-A-R!
OR ....
* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS, PEOPLE'S DAILY FORUMS > IRAN FORIEGN MINISTRY: MUSLIM NATIONS FIRM IN ERADICATING | HALTING ISRAEL.
D *** NG IT, GOOD MUSLIM POLITICIANS SAY THEY WANNA "ERADI-HALT" THEM WILY DASTERDLY JEWS!
* NEWSMAX > [Senior Israeli Defence Official] ISRAEL "COULD NOT STOP" NUCLEAR IRAN WITH ONE STRIKE.
ARTIC = ONLY THE US HAS ANY CHANCE OF FORCING IRAN TO STOP ITS NUCDEVPROGS.
IMO, REGIONAL, GLOBAL SHIA ISLAMIC REVOLUTION + "OWG CALIPHATE" PREMISES = short of any Popular-led, EFFEC "REGIME CHANGE" = SUCCESSFUL
"PERSIAN/ARAB SPRING" [Summer?] IN IRAN, I DON'T SEE THE USA STOPPING A HARDLINE, NUKE-HAPPY IRAN SHORT OF WAR.
To paraph CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER > SAY IT WID ME, AMERICA = AMERIKA, NOSTRADAMUS = " ...NONE SHALL SEE THE POWERS OF ASIA DESTROYED UNTIL THE
SEVEN/SEVENTH HOLDS THE LINE".
Decisive = Heavenly/Divine Battle.
A Soldier named Francis ...
A River + Valley called the Little Big Horn.
An Asteroid the size of Texas.
A Sword named EXCALIBUR ...
There were other Battalions in the Valley - we weren't the only one - but somewhere out there [yet unseen] was an entire Enemy Regiment = Division.
[1960's = 1980's OLIVER STONE'S "PLATOON", JEFFERSON AIRPLANE'S "WHITE RABBIT", MTV here].
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Americans are souring on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military budget is under siege as Congress looks for spending to cut. And the Army is reporting record suicide rates among soldiers. So who does the Pentagon enlist for help in such painful circumstances?
