How does the Pentagon currently try to influence the content of Hollywood movies - Essay Example

How does the Pentagon currently try to influence the content of Hollywood movies? Introduction The relationship between Hollywood and Pentagon is notentirely a new phenomenon, or something dubious. The Pentagon would claim that it evolved out of a historic necessity, during the World War I when the State very much needed domestic support for the war. Pentagon in fact won with this logical premise to get license to interfere in the media industry. But now the relationship has matured and the interference has become mandatory to preserve and protect the image of the US Army, Marines and the Air Force, particularly in the wake of the US military operations after the Cold War. ‘Pentagon today sees the film business as an important part of public relations.’ Military depictions have become more of a commercial for them. Pentagon’s objectives Pentagon is not alone, many organisations like the CIA have their liaison offices in the Hollywood to influence the content of the film. But no doubt the biggest influence i that of the Pentagon’s ‘which exercises control over the films in which military are involved by providing soldiers and equipment or by refusing them.’ The Pentagon has three main objectives in trying to control the entertainment industry. The first is to teach history to the world as the United States sees it, or you can say an American version of the occurrences around the world, something like embedded reporting or embedded journalism. A real propaganda of the American policies. The second is to create a good image for the military. This includes recommendations to use sober, spruced up language, (no foul language!), no use of drugs or other unnatural or offensive behaviour. The third objective is to make a military career seem attractive to youngsters and children encouraging them to join the forces. The teaching of history Propaganda is a word known to everybody like journalism. Propaganda is the deliberate manipulation by means of symbols such as words, gestures, flags, images, monuments, music and the like of people’s thoughts or actions with respect to their beliefs, values and behaviours. Pentagon’s objective is nothing but to communicate to the world by means of images that assert that every military action has an absolute reason, and thus teaching people that American policy and diplomatic decision and well thought out and right. The Pentagon found the right medium in film and go on to assert that ‘most people learn history from movies, not from historians.’ There are numerous examples of Pentagon censorships and subservience of an assortment of film industry executives directors and writers over the last fifty years. The studio chiefs in collaboration with Washington not only established a blacklist in 1947 to purge scores of left-wing directors, writers and actors from the industry but also produced a string of anti-communist films including The Red Menace(1949), I Married a Communist (1950), I Was a Communist for the FB I(1951) Trial (1952) and others to promote Cold War Hysteria. The other attempts to re-tell, rewrite or teach new history involves denying permission to scores of films to use US military hardware and also helping others who changed their script according to the Pentagon instructions. Some of the better-known movies refused help because their directors refused to accept 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) James Bond movie Golden Eye that was produced in 1995 had a US Navy admiral betraying state secrets in its original script. This was changed to make the traitor a member of the French Navy! Thirteen Days(2000) also had to delete all references to the US Army deployments in Latin America and Mexico including jokes about rape and pillage. Some of the characters were toned down or eliminated entirely for access to military bases for shooting! What a careful and dedicated history teacher? The right image The Pentagon rightly wants to maintain a good image for the forces, their behaviour, their view of the world, the superiority of their form of patriotism and for that matter their reasons for going to war. On many occasions films have been changed so that the US armed forces are shown in a more heroic fashion. Film companies agree to the changes because doing so saves them millions of dollars in production costs. If they do not agree to the proposed changes, financial assistance is withheld. An Officer and a Gentleman (1982) was denied all access to military equipment and locations, because the Pentagon said that the movie’s depiction of navy officer’s training programme was ‘inaccurate’. The Independence Day (1996) also failed to gain access to Department of Defence heavy equipment as Pentagon asserted that the movie did not contain any ‘true military heroes’ and that Captain Steve Hiller(Will Smith) was too irresponsible to be cast as a Marine leader (he dates a stripper). The recruitment drive The Pentagon wants the films to be overtly militaristic and patriotic films with Rambo-like heroes that boost military recruitment. According to navy, recruitment of young men into naval aviation increased by 500 percent after the release of Top Gun. The military even set up recruitment booths inside some of the cinemas. Pentagon believes that movies are wonderful recruiting tools, and military movies serve as two-hour recruiting commercials. The big screen is not alone. Among the earlier changes include a scene from an episode of the children’s television series Lassie in which a light aircraft crashing in the woods concerned the Pentagon. A change in the script was asked as the military did not want children, the subject of its future recruitment drives to get the idea that the US Army produced faulty equipment! Conclusion The situation today has become more commercial, and for producers it is not a case of propaganda or American political views; the only thing Hollywood likes is a good deal. than a good movie. Top Gun, Stripes and The Great Santini have proved it make it hit at box offices. Then why not turn villains into heroes, remove central characters, change politically sensitive settings or add military rescues to movies that require none. Now everything has become easy for the Pentagon. Works Cited: 1. Campbell Duncan, Top Gun Versus Sergent Biko? No Contest says the Pentagon, The Guradian, 29 Aug, 2001 2. The Pentagon and Hollywood, http://wais.stanford.edu/Politics/pentagonandhollywood.htm 3. Potter James.W, The 11 Muths of Media Violence, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 2003 Read More