Interesting article.


Hollywood's dirty little secret

February 20, 2005



It's the scripts that pay a high price when Hollywood goes into battle. Brian Courtis looks at one of the movie world’s murkier truths.

Well, we've known the rules. We've known them since Errol Flynn liberated Burma without any help from British, Australian or New Zealand forces. Churchill and a few Diggers may have been upset, but the fact is when it comes to Hollywood only the good guys win and, since we're playing with their toys, those good guys must inevitably be Americans. Never let the absurdities of history get in the way of a box-office blockbuster.

They really do not want to discuss this, of course, in Tinseltown. They still see only their heroes and our villains. And they continue to win everything alone. Remember Steven Spielberg's D-Day spectacular Saving Private Ryan? Someone simply forgot that 72,000 British and Canadian troops were also involved. And if Hollywood is to be believed, it was the Americans who captured the Enigma coding machine from a German submarine; never mind that the Brits were there and accomplished that six months before the Yanks entered the war.

Not everything has been quite so eagerly promoted. We hear less, for instance, about the effects of the powerful relationship that has grown over the years between the Pentagon and the Hollywood studios, a partnership that not only can save millions of dollars for filmmakers and produce fine recruiting propaganda for Washington, but can twist history and reality to produce the ultimate in international spin.

In Operation Hollywood, which SBS screens on Tuesday, filmmaker Emilio Pacull follows up an investigative study by film industry journalist Dave Robb on the help producers have sought from the military over the years. Robb, who worked for Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, says he found himself obsessed with the minutiae of these negotiations with the boys with ships, tanks, materiel, information, bases, access to land, troops and some very real-looking fireworks.

His report, a page-by-page study of scripts submitted by the studios to the Pentagon, reveals an intriguing pattern of censorship and propaganda. For Hollywood, acceptance of this system means the difference between "full co-operation" and no co-operation. For the military, it involves maintaining an idealised image of 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.

So why, they would argue, should the Pentagon spend its money on pacifism or promoting the darker side of the soldier's world? Why reward a Platoon when The Green Berets is what you're after?

Among those with an opinion in Operation Hollywood are Australian director Phil Noyce, Phil Strub from the US Department of Defence, historian Lawrence Suid and Joe Trento, author and president of the anti-war Public Education Centre. This, they all agree, is a world where lines, plots and nationalities are changed so that film producers can gain access to expensive military hardware.

In the 1995 James Bond movie Goldeneye, for example, the original script had a US Navy admiral betraying state secrets. This was changed to make the traitor a member of the French navy. After that the military's co-operation was forthcoming. Pacull and Robb takes us from the pedantry to the powerful in examining the changes to scripts. They list the producers and the movies that have fallen into line and show how the military's script editors work. Interestingly, it's not the censors who come under fire here quite so much as those co-operative, self-censoring filmmakers.

Still, as Robb says, in what has become ostensibly his campaign against this system, the long-term effect on generations of young Americans is an unknown. “How many of those killed in Iraq died because they joined up after they saw what was presented in a film?” How many have died as the result of unknown recruiting propaganda?

All a producer needs do for assistance, it seems, is submit five copies of his script to the Pentagon for approval, make whatever script changes the Pentagon suggests, film the script exactly as approved by the Pentagon and preview the finished product for Pentagon officials before it's shown to its broader audience. And, according to Robb, as he puts the boot firmly into Jerry Bruckheimer, Tom Goldberg (Stripes), John Woo and other producers and directors, many do this gladly. It is, he insists, Hollywood's dirtiest little secret.

Not that the big screen is alone. Among the early changes we hear about is 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 to the script was called for. The military didn't want children, the subject of its future recruitment drives, to get the idea that the US Army produced faulty equipment.

Not surprisingly, Washington will back what it sees as the positive message every time. There is enthusiasm for such gung-ho films as The Longest Day, Top Gun or, believe it or not, Pearl Harbor. There is no point talking to them about Apocalypse Now, Platoon or Dr Strangelove. As for films about the wounded and traumatised victims of war, concentration camp horror, or civilian casualties ... well, that has nothing to do with them, does it? Use your imagination, however, and make a heroic star of yet another four-star general and you will be marching step-in-step with America's medal-winning movie buffs. And be rewarded for it.

There are other ways to win the day. It would be interesting, for example, to see how the Pentagon would react to the sentimental reflections on wartime that British television so enjoys. In the escapism of Foyle's War, for example, the message is one of sacrifice and understanding. Michael Kitchen's wise old police chief, Foyle, uses wisdom, patience and tolerance in an idyllic Sussex setting against petty crimes and sabotage. This, rather than some one-sided battlefield slaughter, shows us the old values we're fighting for.

Soldiers and civilians are generally given positive treatment; blimpish landowners, politicians and generals get short shrift. This week, in They Fought In The Fields, the sweet and splendid Sam (Honeysuckle Weeks) is on the farm with a troubled gang of land girls, while her boss is out sorting spies from prisoners of war. There are few fireworks, few toys from the boys, but a gal's still gotta do what a gal's gotta do.

Operation Hollywood, Tuesday 8.30pm, SBS Foyle's War, Sunday 8.30pm, ABC




Copyright © 2005. The Age Company Ltd.

All the American government's saying is: if we are going to invest our time, money, and equipment into your film, we get to say how we, and that equipment are portrayed. Slimy...yes. Big Brotherish...maybe. But this has been going on since the mid 1980's, most notably with "Top Gun." The United states experienced a strong surge in military recruitment following that film, and have been admantly offering their services to filmmakers since. These big budget guys want to cut their costs as much as any good business man would and... well, one hand washes the other.
As for propagandists being responsible for military recruitment and consequent deaths, I have to be a little cynical. I'd like to think that choosing a career in the military has to do with little more than Tom Cruise's smile, or Ben Affleck's sex appeal, but in the case that it does, well, have a nice trip.

And finally this British WWII grudge, I seriously don't understand where this comes from. I mean, the first place I'd heard anything about this was when I was a child and watched "A Fish Called Wanda." I remember Kevin Kline's character "Otto" as the American @**hole shouting at John Cleese "You'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for us!"
I didn't pay much attention to it until about 2000 or so. I don't remember the year exactly, but the United States was playing England in the World Cup of Golf or something or other. The Americans made some kind of miraculous come from behind play and they were all cheering and celebrating. The English had one final shot and they fopuled it up. Afterwards, a British commentator remarked: By the way the American team celebrated you'd have thought John Wayne alone won the second world war. I thought that was kind of a silly, non-linear remark to say the least.
More recently, Samuel L. Jackson starred in a movie called "Formula 51" about an American Chemist who creates a new psychodelic drug and auctions it off to the highest bidder in the London underground. The movie is riddled, if not completely held together, by a series of "fish out of water" jokes thrown at Jackson's "American" character. The film was originally called "The 51st State," implying either that Americans veiwed Great Britain as no more than that, or that Britons themselves thought that much of their country, as is suggested by both a British and an American gangster in the film.
I think the irony here is that Great Britain and the United States are so much alike, they're a bit paranoid with one another, almost sure the one is making fun of the other behind their back, or short changing them in some way.
Yank or Limey, football or soccer, they're just movies, and shitty ones at that.
Cheers.

And finally this British WWII grudge, I seriously don't understand where this comes from. I mean, the first place I'd heard anything about this was when I was a child and watched "A Fish Called Wanda." I remember Kevin Kline's character "Otto" as the American @**hole shouting at John Cleese "You'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for us!"
I didn't pay much attention to it until about 2000 or so. I don't remember the year exactly, but the United States was playing England in the World Cup of Golf or something or other. The Americans made some kind of miraculous come from behind play and they were all cheering and celebrating. The English had one final shot and they fopuled it up. Afterwards, a British commentator remarked: By the way the American team celebrated you'd have thought John Wayne alone won the second world war. I thought that was kind of a silly, non-linear remark to say the least.
[right][snapback]505220[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It was the Ryder cup and the reason that the captain.of the European side was SOOOO p8ssed was after the Americans sunk the Putt the entire Team AND THEIR WIVES danced all over the green in celebration.
OK they got a little over excited and who could blame them? it was an amazing fight back.The trouble is....well..... The European team still had a Putt to tie the match.the American team and their familys had just jumped up and down all over the green and all over his line to the hole.It was roughly 15 mins before he could continue.
You NEVER walk over someones line to the hole let alone dance on it for 1/4 of an hour.That is just a Golfing No No!

All that being said.I think this article isn't so much bashing the USA as drawing attention to the fact that some of these movies are held up as Historical truth.Considering that Film has taken over from books as the most popular form of passing on infomation,Factual or other wise to the masses .These films may in the future be held up as fact instead of "poetic license".

meh i didn't find saving private ryan to portray it as an american victory, it was shown from an american perspective, from the landing on omaha and then following a squad around on one insignificant mission. There was no, "OMG the great american Tom Hanks defeated hitler"


but yeah, if the US military is going to invest its time, money and hardware in a film, they should get a say in how they are portrayed.

Hollywood is losing its' hold on the American public. Viewer apathy has been noted for the Scrn Actors Guild fete and also the Oscars. I think we will see a general decline in the influence of the Entertainment Industry as the economic and political situations worsen.

Thanks for the golf info. I really don't know all that much about the rules and customs of it. I'm sure the Americans were out of line, but I still say that commentator was reaching, evincing some sort of British contempt held for the USA's ...shall we say, "boisterous" attitude.
All I'm saying is that these comments seem to bolster and be indicative of a larger opinion that I'm not sure alot of Americans are quite aware of or for the most part understand. The international community is very, for lack of a better word, catty, when it comes to perceptions of the United States, and it's citizens for that matter.
Jerry Bruckheimer and other filmakers like him are heavily critizized and mocked in the States for they're cartoonish approaches to filmaking. When the American public go to see these films, the majority aren't putting any historical weight to it, as some foriegn journalists suggest, they're just having a piss at the special effects!
To suggest that Americans, or any industrialized nation for that matter, are influenced a great deal by the media is perfectly legitimate.
To suggest that Americans derive their knowledge and sense of world history from John Wayne or Tom Hanks is as niave as it is insulting.
I certainly don't see many Americans believing Her Majesty's loyal subjects go bouncing around cobblestone streets saying "Shagadelic!" or Pikey's having shootouts with London mobsters.
Why is it then that so many Europeans believe Americans walk about with spurs and side arms?
Cheers.

Actually it's a push for all sides......

The Britsh could have eliminated the U.S. in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

We save their butts in WW 1 and WW 2 with men and equiptment so we're even.

The French there just pukes anyways and who really cares.

And as far as Iraq if you look the recruiting numbers have not risen that drastically since 9/11.

If you ever get over here look me up! i can certainly arrange a "pikey shootout " for ya!

And i have met Plenty of T*ssers who think saying "shagadelic" and "yeah Baby!" are the pinnacle of comedy.

Sorry if i seemed insulting.I didn't mean to suggest that the American public in general gets their Historic view of the world through Film.I actually said that IN THE FUTURE there May be a problem with this.

After all Film and TV are the "new" Oral tradition and the most common method of passing on infomation.

Oh, not at all. I just become fearful sometimes that the only way we seem to experience each other's countries are through Michael Bay films, "wanker" tourists, and tabloid television.
I dated a girl for 5 years whose parents came from East Devon, and everytime her realtives came for a visit they didn't want to see anything of hitorical relavance, or experience anything in our contemporary culture... they wanted to go to malls! Mind you I live in Philadelphia, the 4 th largest city in the U.S. and probably the most historic and they seemed more impressed that people DELIVER PIZZA to your doorstep than with Constitution Hall. My ex girlfriend's parents weren't much better. They were obsessed with Elvis Presley, Gone with the Wind memorabelia and...guns.
Now I'm sure there is some @**hole American family in the English suburbs right now with macs on, listening to "Rubber Soul" and drinking Guiness. I am positive some midwesterner just got off a plane at Heathrow and is thinking only of posing in pictures with the guards in the big fuzzy hats.
Trust me when I tell you Americans and Brits are so much alike it's BLOODY frightening. But, there are, however, obvious differences, subtle as they may be, that are vital to this conversation.
I have to disagree with you slightly about your concerns with film becoming history as it were, and more than that Amero-centric at that. If anything, American art, literature, politics, and even film are becoming more and more introspective and "supra-national." If anything, Americans, now more than ever, are acutely aware of just how distorted mediums can be. We're practically tripping over ourselves, apologizing to Native Americans for John Wayne, to Asian Americans for Charlie Chan, to African Americans for practically everything before 1986...
I had a film class called Visual Misrepresentation: A history of bias in Film. I was a business major!
Simply put...and with no disrespect to my new friend...relax.
Saving Private Ryan and 007 won't be of any more historical gravity in a hundred years than "The Birth of a Nation" is now. If anything, film exists as a visual marker to provoke and compare truths in human history, the worst and the best. So long as there is freedom of information and discussion, filmakers aren't going to get away with things, in the long run I mean. The test of time isn't measured in minutes, and what is tastless and popular always succumbs to the scrutiny of time.

People who value the essential truths in human expression live in a very enduring place.
We just gotta stop worrying about the tourists.
Cheers.

I'm not even going to bother with giving a smartarse remark to this, been there done that, get off your high horse.

Have to strongly agree with the above post. It's comments like that that really piss off our cousins over on the island, and for very good reason. Remeber, we (Americans) entered WWI and WWII 3 years and 2 years later, respectively, than our allies. Keep in mind also that Germany secretly prepared for this war for Five years!
Was the United States a procuring cause in the determination of allied victories? Absolutely, but not because of any ineptitude on the part of the British. They fought their asses off in the face of often incredible odds. We Americans enjoyed strategic immunity from bombings, a larger industrial resource pool, and fresh troops.
We get pissed off and afraid after ONE airplane attack, and rightly so. Imagine living in a London suburb in 1941 and hearing bombs fall around you EVERY NIGHT.
If we're going to direct hostlity, or dangle our percieved achievment's in other countries faces, give it to the thankless French, whose idea of resistance was being "very rude" to the Germans during their five year holiday there.