US military intelligence agencies have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows | Hacker News Reader

US military intelligence agencies have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows

medium.com

381 pointsnabla9207 comments

"The CIA even helped to make an episode of Top Chef that was hosted at Langley, featuring then-CIA director Leon Panetta who was shown as having to skip dessert to attend to vital business. Was this scene real, or was it a dramatic statement for the cameras?"

Wow. Good work on the FOIA retrieval, but I'm utterly out on the hyperbolic speculative tone. The editor undercuts the good journalism being done here when they allow foolishness like this in.

I think the authors are also making the unsupported assumption that every government / Hollywood cooperation incident is a propaganda op, instead of far simpler explanations like "Joe in Langley publicity gets to brag to his family that he made the Top Chef episode happen."

> I think the authors are also making the unsupported assumption that every government / Hollywood cooperation incident is a propaganda op, instead of far simpler explanations like "Joe in Langley publicity gets to brag to his family that he made the Top Chef episode happen."

This presumes a (IMHO dubious) philosophical position that at high enough levels (e.g. director of agency), public actions don't automatically create an implied message automatically and can actually be presented in a separate, neutral, context..

On that level then you're calling everything a high level individual does publicly propaganda which dilutes the term into meaninglessness. Willful public manipulation is interesting, but if you cast the net so wide as to say everything public is manipulative, you can't be justified in being upset at all.

Hey, they've come a long way since Jackson Pollock [1].

While I do enjoy quite a bit of modern art, I was nonetheless disappointed to discover that some of the "tastemakers" of '60s/'70s abstract expressionism were US federal three-letter-acronym agencies [2]. The saga, apparently, continues to this day. Caveat emptor, indeed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock#Critical_debat... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...

Art is one of the businesses that is conducive to money laundering.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/arts/design/art-proves-att...

I'm not much of a conspiracy nut but I don't have any issues with the excerpt you quoted. Those "reality" TV shows are famously heavily scripted and edited, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they did script the "skip dessert to attend to vital business" to some degree. Maybe he did have to leave early because of a scheduled meeting but it just didn't have the same ring to it?

Now you could say that it's not a big deal either way and I would tend to agree but one could argue that there's a slippery slope when you muddy the line between reality and fiction in the minds of the audience of a mass media.

>Now you could say that it's not a big deal either way and I would tend to agree but one could argue that there's a slippery slope when you muddy the line between reality and fiction in the minds of the audience of a mass media.

In reality television that line has passed the horizon a while ago.

Where is the line? Some shows like The Only Way Is Essex in the UK was confusing when it first came out, later on we found out it wasn't "reality tv", but a new genre "curated reality".

I much preferred some of those Gordon Ramsay series UK versions. Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares was more akin to a documentary than the US version's on FOX with its awful jumpy editing and constant music in the background. The TV becomes more compelling when game show music isn't blaring and the focus is on how to run a restaurant. Instead of only about family infighting.

The extra 5 or 6 mins helps a lot, nothing feels rushed to a conclusion like US reality TV.

Another good one was Gordon's Great Escape. Documentary style reality tv works so much better IMO.

Indeed, those are different things, the US kitchen nightmares being more about the "people zoo" aspect.

I flew next to a navy Commander who was responsible for coordinating the use of Navy ships and personnel with television and movie production companies. His take on it was that the Navy wouldn't participate if it made the services look bad or show them to be operating in a manner that wasn't in service to their mission. It seemed like a reasonable trade-off.

He also mentioned that CGI was making the use of actual hardware less common.

That's not a take, it's longstanding policy. Apocalypse Now is a well-known example (link goes to google books, shortened because their real URLs are infinite):

http://goo.gl/szAMGZ

Thanks for the link, the referenced article would be so much more balanced if it included it as well.

> making the unsupported assumption that every government / Hollywood cooperation incident is a propaganda op, instead of far simpler explanations like "Joe in Langley publicity gets to brag to his family that he made the Top Chef episode happen."

To me it's like /r/hailcorporate, it doesn't primarily matter if it's intentional or not. There are many people exhausting their potential, credibility and dignity for the sake of identifying with some Moloch or other. Here, there, elsewhere. What had to be mostly forced, on people who had to be broken and tamed in the first place, now comes flowing freely, because Stockholm Syndrome is the gift that keeps on giving. So? Not everything is a propaganda "op", just like a piece of moss is not a fabricated carpet. It still has the effect of a carpet among other things, and grows systematically, consciously or not.

By the way, even the White Rose considered their own leaflets propaganda, then there's things like agitprop, I kind of wonder when and when that became such a hard word to use in earnest without theatrical eye rolling. The problem isn't propaganda, the problem is the lack of integrity and morals. In a more decent world, I would absolutely LOVE to have firefighters and cops and IT security people and whoever make propaganda, I would help them make it. There would be no soldiers obvs, because the only use those have is to defend against other soldiers at best, murder civilians at worst, which is a net negative.

Anyway, the problem to me is the corruption of institutions, not the institutions. A non-corrupt institution "being cute" or "posing as cool" actually is cute or least dorky in a likeable way respectively. Otherwise, "op" or not, propaganda or not, it's always way over the nasty line for me, certainly when money, lies and murder are involved.

this kind of program, or eg tv specials about the obl assassination, serve as pr in terms of establishing shadowy three letter agency figures as relatable humans. putting faces to them encourages positive default assumptions, versus the frequently critical news media attention directed toward them.

The money and involvement have had quite an effect. Just look at the percentage of combat films Hollywood makes and compare to 30 years ago. To go by Hollywood the country is on a war footing.

And don't forget other entertainment industries like sports. The Pentagon paid millions of dollars a year just for cross promotion with NFL football (not for recruitment advertising): "honor our troops" and the like.

On the other hand the "think for yourself" crowd... :-(

Edit: in changing "hundreds of thousands" into "millions" I ended up with "hundreds of millions"

53 million over 3 years, or 17 million dollars a year over multiple sports. A far cry from "hundreds of millions of dollars"

And I'm pretty sure that advertising in sports is common sense. Advertising during daytime TV isn't likely to have the same bang for your buck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/defense-military-tribute...

Thanks, I made an editing typo, so updated my comment.

> And I'm pretty sure that advertising in sports is common sense.

There are two sorts of advertising. One is recruitment ("join the army, blow shit up, have fun") targeted at potential employees.

The other is a broad-based effort to change public perception in the interests of the advertising organization. "Honor our troops" is an example of this, in the effort of sustaining the military-industrial complex (term coined by a 5 star general officer, FWIW).

Note that the commonplace perception of the US military through the 1970s was one bureaucratic incompetence that nevertheless got the job done (just look at Stars and Stripes even from WWII). Perhaps a necessary burden taken up and then discarded. We made fun of countries like Turkey who exalted their military at the expense of civilian culture.

Now the military, locked in endless remote warfare and sucking up huge chunks of the economy, is the most respected entity in the country.

(and note that the original word for what we call "advertising" was, in fact, "propaganda" -- propagating the message. The name took on some, umm, unsavory overtones and was replaced by "advertising". But remember Goebbels was Germany's minister of "advertising")

How originally do you mean? In Henry James's novel The Ambassadors (1903), a character speaks of going into advertising "Advertising scientifically worked presented itself thus as the great new force."

Consider Bernay's book "Propaganda"

(BTW Bernays was Freud's nephew).

I am aware of the relationship. But it appears that this book Propaganda appeared in 1928.

If you mean that pro-military or simply pro-government advertising has been termed "propaganda", then I guess I see what you mean.

"Public Relations" is the rebranding of propaganda

The ludicrous propaganda of military jet fly overs, national anthem spectacles, huge flags, and people in the military standing on the side of the field at private for profit sports game in a stadium paid for by taxpayers for the team owner's benefit is hilarious.

Why is that hilarious. The alternative would be a nation that's not behind it's troops. The us would likely not be a super power. US citizens greatly benefit off the super power status.

Seems like the military is acting in the citizens best interest.

Feigning patriotism at a commercial sporting event is not being behind one's troops.

My idea of being behind troops is to not send them into a combat zone for the private interests of politicians, and participating in our democracy by educating oneself and voting. Or perhaps holding the elected officials to account for Veterans Affairs issues. Flying a flag and singing a song and giving someone a military discount have nothing to do with patriotism.

This is the type of logic that leads to mandatory military parades, the banning of religion as a distraction and "Dear Leader"-style propaganda and mythology. If the military would like to do something in my benefit I request they stop destabilizing the world and causing death for profit instead of glorifying and normalizing it through state-sponsored propaganda.

What a scary statement.

First: you make a false dichotomy: one can be behind troops without a hagiographic approach to discussing the military (or any subject). In fact the best way to support troopers is to keep them out of harm's way. Consider WWII in Europe: Eisenhower set the invasion a year later than the other allies wanted in order to manage the supply chain better (supporting the troops) and to make sure the real bleeding of the enemy was done by non-US troops. In terms of materiel and logistics, the US won the war in Europe; in terms of fighting, the Russians unquestioningly did. Excellent call by the US if you ask me.

Second: there are other means of being a superpower than military might (which is only one tool in the toolbox....and as history has shown, usually not the right one). If you don't criticize the military, how can you reasonably discuss tradeoffs between military intervention / negotiation / economic hegemony / ignoring the issue?

And I know it's just an HN comment, but the phrase "the military is acting in the citizens best interest" is worrisome on its face: the military should be under civilian control and thus acting in the interests the citizens have specified. The military is the organization that should act in its own interests the least since it has the weapons.

I'm not sure if you are making this comment seriously, or intending it as hyperbole.

If you are serious, it's important to note that at the time of its founding, US law forbade the creation of a national military, precisely because of the fear of too much centralized control of lethal force.

In the centuries since, we've seen that this fear was very well founded. The founders did not want to prevent the US from having a strong military, but they wanted the rallying and dispatch of it to require significantly more consensus than even a super-majority vote from congress.

Imagine if the Iraq war had required even a super-majority vote... millions of lives would not have been lost. Imagine if the Vietnam war had required a super-majority vote how many more people would be alive today.

Knee-jerk use of power is arguably as American as a six shooter drawn quickly from the holster at the slightest provocation. Many associate this sort of hot-tempered use of force with power and machismo.

But is it really an indication of strength to rob the people of trillions of dollars for a folly in Iraq without true democratic approval? I'd argue that it's a sign of weakness and of failed checks and balances.

I'd prefer that the troops be behind our nation and not the other way around, thanks!

Anyway, how did you equate "military spending on propaganda" to mean that "the nation is behind the troops"? Obviously the nation is not behind them if they have to brainwash people into behaving a certain way.

Why should I celebrate a member my country's military any more than say a sewage plant employee or a school teacher?

I'd much rather all that money be spent improving the VA, or numerous other problems veterans face after serving. Then we can talk about football flyovers.

Just because people disagree doesn't mean they should downvote you, so I upvoted you.

That being said, I don't know how to respond. I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't think that the military acts with the best interest of most citizens.

Right it's outrageous the military gets to attend for profit games and for America to show its pride. It's not like they don't do the same exact things in other Countries...

We should just have military parades and drive our missiles and tanks around D.C. Just look how Russia and North Korea do it.

This kind of nationalistic-militaristic crossover with sports is not a thing anywhere in Europe, as far as I know. It's super cringey. Same category as having kids in school recite the pledge of allegiance every day. Just really weird.

I know: when I was a kid I was taught that the countries that needed these ritualistic pledges of patriotism and flag worship were the totalitarian ones (USSR, GDR, Turkey, Imperial Japan, etc). It was a shock to see my kid have to learn a flag prayer in the USA.

And sport is a private sector activity -- why should the government be involved?

"Flag Prayer"? The Pledge of Allegiance?

Only US citizens should recite the pledge of allegiance. Non US citizens owe their loyalty to another country. But schools don't do that, because it would mean identifying US citizens.

I would respectfully disagree that US citizens "should" recite the pledge of allegiance every day at school. I understand that you probably meant something along the lines of "it makes no sense for non-US citizens to recite the pledge of allegiance at all", but I'd still like to address the point you happened to write.

I'm firmly convinced that no child, citizen or not, should engage in a daily ritual like that, especially not at school. The worst aspect of contemporary education -- not only in the US, but in many other countries -- is teaching through indoctrination. Instead of encouraging our kids to develop their critical thinking, our educational systems focus on making them learn by repetition and trust the authority.

If you were not already convinced, just one photograph of American schoolchildren doing the "Bellamy salute" to the US flag would probably do so.

Nobody should make the pledge because it's a downright lie. Liberty and justice do not exist in the US.

Yes, that's what I mean. Pledging allegiance to a flag is dangerous (remember the roman legionaries swore allegiance to their standard, not to the republic, and took the sides of their generals in civil wars). Perhaps to you, steeped in it, it doesn't look like a prayer, but to an outsider it appears little different from a religious invocation.

These differences my seem subtle or even trivial, but history has shown that it is dangerous.

Note that in the US soldiers and other holders of the public trust swear to uphold the country's constitution, not its flag.

It all comes down to the order of primacy: the country, constitution, civil institutions, chain of command etc are all in service to the support of the citizenry not the other way around.

Have you read the pledge? The flag stands for "the republic". It is a pledge to the United States itself...

I think you're confused. The first objective clause is pretty direct.

"...the flag, and to the republic for which it stands

Right. The flag and the Republic.

Individually and collectively perhaps, but not only the Republic.

I guess it depends on the definition of "Stands". If it literally means the flag standing up, I guess you're right.

The day after a holiday celebrating independence from another nation is a hilarious one on which to be defending a trumped-up loyalty oath.

You're really defending the US by comparing it to NK and Russia? That's a very low bar indeed.

Also, a lot of other countries don't have such extreme levels of jingoism, certainly not in Europe we don't. World War II taught us where such extreme patriotism leads. Trump is a natural and direct result of jingoism; but yet it continues.

The whole post was sacastic.

Supposing that's true, you might need to get acquainted with Poe's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

"certainly not in Europe we don't"

Jingoism is alive and well in some parts of the UK print media.

True but can the UK be truly considered part of Europe when we are talking about the US?

As someone who's actually visited Russia (and is married to a Russian), you can't compare Russia and the US at all. Russians deeply respect the people who lost their lives in the past but in the present, a few years military service is mandatory for all males, so service doesn't have nearly as much glory. There's absolutely nothing like the disturbing hero worship Americans have. As for military parades, typically they only happen on Victory Day, the day that celebrates the end of WWII. Parades like that aren't uncommon throughout Europe. Here's a French one for an event of similar significance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day_military_parade#/...

I think you're thinking of the Soviet Union during WWII or the Cold War era.

in the present, a few years military service is mandatory for all males, so service doesn't have nearly as much glory

It's been only one year for a decade or so.

In the past, the attitude toward conscripted service (rather than a career choice as a commissioned officer) was ranging from a nuisance to something to be avoided at all costs, depending on the class and region the conscript was from.

Now while it's considered as a nuisance by many, military service is also seen as a type of social elevator by others, particularly in the Caucusus. Drafts from Chechnya and Dagestan are generally oversubscribed and having to pay bribes to be conscripted is not uncommon [1].

There's absolutely nothing like the disturbing hero worship Americans have.

Seconded. Furthermore, the threshold for being considered a hero is very high. Being called a hero just for putting on the uniform is unthinkable.

[1] http://vestnikkavkaza.net/articles/society/34432.html

Military jet fly-overs cost basically nothing at the margin. Pilots need X hours of air-time a month to stay trained, so it costs very little to do it over public events. It's money that will be spent either way.

So it doesn't matter where they are flying? The comment to which you are replying isn't talking about the cost, but the propaganda value. Plus if they have to fly, let them fly over a military base, not a populated area.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If they're going to fly anyway, and it doesn't cost extra, why not get free advertising out of it and entertain some people? I don't get what the downsides of the flyby are.

The point is not to make exposure to military hardware, and especially the sanitized and sexy parts of the military, a routine element of civilian entertainment.

There's another comment of mine down thread where I distinguish recruitment advertising from propaganda. That explains my point.

And the cost is not the issue. In fact due to how missions are structured I doubt flying over a football stadium is in any way net cost free.

Its not really that hillarious when you consider how effective it has been. The "support our troops" propaganda has successfully disconnected the average citizens perspective of the soldier from the war it's self. Compare how returning veterans from Vietnam were treated to how returning Iraq/Afghanistan veterans have been treated for the past 15 years.

Not to mention, if you talk to anyone who was in theatre, how they were treated while actually in the war. There's been massive profiteering at the expense of the troops.

What? No.

I was treated great during all of my deployments, so were all of the various units I was attached too. Actually they made a huge effort to treat us better during the actual fighting than during any training. I mean, it's a war zone so no luxuries or anything, but overall my time deployed was my favorite time of my enlistment.

I don't know what you're talking about

I haven't watched a single current-day military movie since 9/11. I just assume it is all propaganda in some way or another.

according to the article the involvement includes such "military movies" as Meet the Parents, America’s Got Talent, Oprah and Jay Leno to Cupcake Wars.

It's like High Fructose Corn Syrup -- in everything whether you expect it or not.

> Meet the Parents

Ah yeah, isn't the stern father in that movie supposed to be ex-CIA or something?

As of 2009 Fox News indicated that the DoD has over 27,000 "recruitment, advertsing , and public relations" employees. Even the Fox writer back then seems slightly perturbed by the bursting-at-the-seams state of the war industry.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/05/pentagon-spending...

There is also good evidence from the Stratfor hacks that the DoD is engaging in astroturfing.

And if you're younger they come to your school and speak at assemblies, call your home phone every few months (at least in my time), etc. I once humored the army recruitment guys by talking on the phone for about 2 minutes, but I was absolutely clear that I had no interest in joining before hanging up. A day later though, two soldiers in uniform showed up at my parent's house and demanded to see me!

> The money and involvement have had quite an effect. Just look at the percentage of combat films Hollywood makes and compare to 30 years ago. To go by Hollywood the country is on a war footing.

But the US has been at war in Iraq/Afghanistan for the past 16 years, so the "war footing" is actually just a fact of life, not something spurred by US military throwing money at Hollywood. There are many many movie-going age people for whom war has been a constant for over half of their lives. Of course there's going to be a lot of war movies now.

I would not call that being on a "war footing." Sure, tax dollars have gone to blow stuff up around the globe but it's day-to-day impact on the vast majority of Americans' lives is negligible. Horrific for many veterans and their families of course but they are a small proportion of the population. It's been a bonanza for military contractors of all sorts as well.

Compare it to pre-vietnam-war activity: no bond drives, no rationing, no sense that there is an existential threat that needs combating and then all involved can go back to the farm and "study war no more." In fact it was hardly a topic in the 2016 elections.

So no, war is simply another background activity conducted by others and visible on the screen. Its most visible influence in daily life is a made up "war on drugs" and a made up "war on terrorism". Neither of which, of course, has anything to do with improving citizens' life expectancy much less quality of life.

> no sense that there is an existential threat that needs combating and then all involved can go back to the farm and "study war no more."

That much, at least, I'd call a good thing. A watchful peace, or a world where violence simmers rather than boils, is a realistic goal, but attempts to permanently end war have a history of semi-permanently ending peace instead. Think of the Peace of Versailles, which will be 100 years old in two years...

Sure, we're not rationing food and supplies, but I'd argue that many people think there is an existential threat that needs combating. The war on terror, which you mentioned, can be viewed as another front to the war in Iraq/Afghanistan (or vice versa), and I think you'll find that many people in the US view them as directly related. The threat a lot of people perceive is from "terrorists" or "Islam" or even just "middle easterners". And that was at least part of the reason the current US president was elected. The travel bans in the US are not normal everyday business. They are part of that. The US might not be in a WWII-style war footing, and it might not affect you specifically very much that you're aware of, but it's definitely still in a war footing.

Which brings this full circle: a state of lowgrade permanent fear is created and maintained through jingoistic propaganda in order to control the populace and keep the money flowing with minimal dissent. Since the US doesn't face an existential terrorism threat (compared even to the 70s), the idea of a few have been created -- and are just remote enough that people will be afraid but not ask questions.

Jeez reading that over I sound like a conspiracy theorist. But it in fact is straight out of the playbook.

I guess we differ in our perception of whether the US is at war with anyone or not.

Yep, the us is definitely killing foreigners, and its own people for that matter, but the direct impact on citizens' everyday life is pretty minimal. No war has been declared, and apart from a distortion to the budget and impact on GDP it's essentially invisible.

When I've been telling everyone that James Bond and other similar movies serve the same role as military parades in Soviet-block countries, and heavily scripted by the military, they told me that this is another conspiracy theory and I must be plainly wrong.

I wasn't.

This was documented 30 years ago after the release of Top Gun.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-05/entertainment/ca-2040...

Not sure why you wouldn't illustrate your argument with this information.

Nah, I'm pretty sure everyone familiar with the subject knows that movie industry is an effective propaganda tool and has been used for this since forever for everything: military, police, democratic values. You just can't hide propaganda even if you want to.

On the contrary, in my experience most people believe that propoganda being used within western countries is a conspiracy theory.

I suspect people assume propaganda is only propaganda if there's a centralized "Ministry of Truth" that (a) has one coherent message, (b) is controlled top-down from a central authority, and (c) has police authority to silence deviations from the playbook by force.

As with so much in Western capitalist democracy, America's style of propaganda doesn't fit that authoritarian rubric, but it ends up having similar effect. Major differences are (a) different departments of the US government are protecting their own interests; to the extent the message is "one coherent", it's the principles baked into the institutions, (b) control is decentralized (every department has its own PR budget), and (c) rather than coercion by force, it's coercion by incentive; if you want the opportunity to get your movie "super right" by having professional on-site advisors or access to authentic hardware, you play by the providers' game (and you do want that, because you believe your audience wants that).

House of Cards made me realize something very self-evident: the baddies in "realistic" entertainment media do not reflect the baddies in real life (ditto for the good guys, for that matter). I saw one day that I was conflating real world and HoC politics. Not the actual events, but rather how the different actors got or lost their way. Since I don't know what's going on behind the curtains, I started filling that gap in real-world knowledge with constructions based on the personal politics portrayed in HoC. Now, I try to be as suspicious as sanely possible of anything even remotely tied to politics, and yet it took me a month to notice my error.

What happens in minds that don't? I suspect they imagine the real world functions like the dream worlds created in studios. I think that's the insidiousness of propaganda you're describing.

> What happens in minds that don't?

You get our current surreal, completely separated from reality political climate.

I loved this newest season of House of Cards. There is a lot of political commentary in the form of allusions to real-life people and things, and some of them fall into what is considered "conspiracy theory" (e.g. a Bohemian Grove / Cremation of Care reference).

I don't see it as being that close to reality in every way, but the central message of this season is something I've been trying to communicate to people for a long time. In my interpretation, that message was of the government being captured by the war industry and of those captured factions using and even manufacturing terrorism to goad the public into war. Frank Underwood's rise to power is plausible in a political climate like in the US, and the scenario of a corrupted president retaining power by forging a deal with the war industry is also plausible IMO.

I don't pretend to know exactly how it happened, but there is no doubt that something similar is going on in the US. If anyone can offer me a coherent narrative for G.W. Bush's Iraq war with consideration to the 9/11 "28 pages" and related evidence, Obama and Trump's sale of hundreds of billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia, a never-ending state of war without need for congressional approval, the extreme erosion of civil liberties in the Patriot Act, 2012 NDAA, etc., then I am keen to hear it.

but it's yes, most people are not familiar with the subject. And you can hide propaganda. Only a very few people are familiar with what goes on. It needs journalism similar to the featured article to raise the awareness of more people.

Consider that idea flawed? Then think about Snowden's revelations and the comments on HN before and afterwards.

That's how you know the propaganda's working, when it becomes part of daily life and people deny it's propaganda. Probably also because they have other associations with the word.

James Bond is essentially a franchise built around the psychological need to cope with the collapse of the British empire and all of the associated loss of status that goes with it.

In other words, you are correct, Bond movies do not try to hide their nationalism. This is no great revelation.

I think you might be over estimating how much the British care about having/not having an empire.

If you can get around the paywall, this might be worth a read: https://www.ft.com/content/a9c45baa-1dc6-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f2...

Thank you for sharing this, I was able to get the cache [0]

I look forward to the following "The terminal point of empire is introspection, not a restless desire to do it all over again. "

[0] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iE3HTh...

> I think you might be over estimating how much the British care about having/not having an empire.

Even if the linked piece is correct (tending to agree somewhat), it is written in a modern context with respect to Brexit. The James Bond novels were created in the early 50's when the empire was still a real thing that was actually breaking up, and before 'multiculturalism' was really a thing in any serious way (see mid 60s-70s-80s for that). Not sure if I agree with the actual point above, but the contexts are certainly different, an adult in early 50's Britain certainly would need to psychologically adjust to a shifting national identity, whether they cared for empire or not..

The Bond novels do explore Britain's role in the world but for the readers were also a tantalising glimpse into a post-austerity world following the rationing and privations of WWII. Bond visits places (e.g. Monte Carlo, Jamaica, etc) that seemed exotic at the time but would now be viewed as 'boring' by a gap year student. IMO, the Harry Palmer spy stories [1] (e.g. The Impress Files) better reflect the cynical end of empire feeling.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Palmer

A fair point. I have unintentionally misrepresented what was being said in order to make my own point. Although, I think it is worth referencing next time you hear someone talk about attitudes to empire in the context of modern Britain.

This goes hand in hand with the US assesment that the UK military is useful to the states only for its nuclear deterrent, intelligence and special forces. Bond being the latter.

James Bond is child's play.

24 was straight up propaganda. Just about every cop show on TV includes a SWAT style raid by Federal or NYPD law enforcement.

Being patriotic isn't the same as being propaganda. Those movies are cool and people like them. Probably for the same reasons they're susceptible to propaganda. It's not a conspiracy, they just found a formula to make money.

While being patriotic and emphasizing the good that the military do they often also portray civilian government as ineffective, out of touch, overpaid, etc.

The thing that bothers me is that its an inherently right wing message.

So in exchange for production support, DOD and IC reserve the right to back out if certain topics are broached, or if they’re represented in a way they don’t approve of.

The movies and tv shows come to them, and they’re subsequently influenced as part of the deal.

Am I reading this correctly? They’ve really tried to make it scary but I’m left feeling “well, yeah I guess that makes sense, sucks tho I guess”...

yeah exactly. also you didn't need a freedom of information act to know this. I remember generals / DOD officials talking about it in a TV interviews (1996 independence day, 2007 transformers). directors are overly focused on realism for better or for worse, so a lot also goes to providing stock footage for inspiration, advice, and fact checking like 'is this aircraft meant for the role its portrayed in the movie'. etc.

and as they said openly in the interviews: they often do it for free, but if they dont like the content they will pull out.

To give a source: Watch some of the behind the scenes on The Stargate TV series for a practical primer on what the Air Force required. It surely wasn't some requirement that everyone in the AF was a saint.

Yeah, traitors in both civilian and military leadership as well as just plain red tape were pretty common plot elements in that show.

That's a show I should watch again.

In Top Gun (1986) the studio reimbursed the US Navy for flight time during filming. $7,800/Hr for the F-14 in 1986. The tech advisor was recently retired Radm. Pete "Viper" Pettigrew, a TOPGUN instructor who shot down a MiG over Vietnam. He was paid for his technical advisor role by the studio.

One key change at the Navy's request is Maverick dating a civilian instructor, not a women in the Navy, as that is against Navy regs.

In Independence Day (1996) The Pentagon withdrew support over references to "Area 51", the location of the USAF Flight Test Center (Detachment 3) that officially didn't exist.

Decisions regarding Pentagon support for movies are sometimes made by the Secretary of Defense, personally. If he doesn't like it, they withdraw support.

Independence Day was released in 1996, not 1986.

Thanks. Fixed the typo.

Speaking of Bay specifically: Bay is very pro-military and goes out of his way to portray the US military in a positive light.

Observe the scene from Battleship where Lt. Col. Gregory Gadson, the director of the U.S. Army's Wounded Warrior Program, was cast to play a double-amputee soldier who, among other things, fist-fights an alien. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMX3v6exVf8

Michael Bay wasn't involved with Battleship, though it has been pointed out that it seems to be an imitation of his style

Wow, major egg on my face; thank you for the clarification!

I've actually been operating under the mistaken belief that Bay directed that movie. It feels incredibly Bay.

For some reason I just re-watched the first two transformers movies. (I don't know. They were still bad, but I like robots.)

The funny thing is that he is not only pro-military, he's anti-government. It's not just that the military has to be seen in a good light, other government people have to also be seen as bad.

"The CIA even sabotaged a planned series of documentaries about their predecessor, the OSS, by having assets at CBS develop a rival production to muscle the smaller studio out of the market. Once this was achieved, the Agency pulled the plug on the CBS series too, ensuring that the activities of the OSS remained safe from public scrutiny."

That stood out to me as well, but not in a positive way. Their sole example of the sort of proactive scheming and weaving I was expecting from our spooks, and it happened in the 40s/50s? Again it sounds scary on the face of it, but I'm just not quite feeling it.

Since its entertainment, I can hardly think that "scared" would be an appropriate reaction to take anyways.

Some good things to take from this article though: 1. The integrity of writing and original scripts are being altered to fit a specific message.

2. Propaganda is being inserted into our media with no disclaimer or way to discern it.

3. These institutions are essentially subsidizing film budgets, which seems like an inappropriate use of funds (in my opinion of course)

Of course it isn't anything to be worried about, but it does bring into light how these 3 letter agencies are very aware of their not-so-patriotic actions, and are taking measures to try to erase or distract people.

The fact the the CIA has assets at a US broadcasting company is a scary thought.

I agree the article overplays it. Any organization, be it governmental, corporate or private, would probably do the same. If you want their help and they aren't in the business of movie making, are going to probably refuse it if it casts them in a light they don't like.

Hollywood is fully capable, I'm certain, of providing mock-ups and stand ins for much of what the military provides. I'm sure when it comes to the bottom-line though, this is a much better deal from them.

I just don't see a vast propaganda conspiracy.

You don't need an actual vast conspiracy for the world to behave as if one exists, through emergent effects. Discrimination against blacks, for instance; okay, there was an evil cabal there (the KKK), but it wasn't required for the overall effect, which emerged out of large numbers of individuals acting in what they believed was their own self-interest.

Also, if you're talking Hollywood specifically:

To a first approximation, movies that cast the government in a positive light sell better, because Americans think of the government as a reflection of themselves and want to feel good. Exceptions exist, but you rarely hit blockbuster numbers with a downer movie with a downer ending.

> Exceptions exist, but you rarely hit blockbuster numbers with a downer movie with a downer ending.

And that's true regardless of the topic of the film. It doesn't matter whether the movie involves the US military or not.

I agree. If they wanted to film at any major corporation, one of the major points in the agreement will be something like: "The film will present Acme Corporation in a positive light" with the consequence if they don't, the studio loses the right to film there and won't have access to corporate people & resources.

This ignores the not so small difference that the government is not a company and shouldn't behave like one.

These orgs are supposedly there to serve the interests of the American people. It's none of their fucking business how movie writers decides to portray them. History reeeeally seriously tells us that it is a big deal when the state is able to influence the media in a pro-military fashion.

Movie writers are free to portray them any way they want to.

But writers who portray them in a positive light get favors and get their tickets bought by mainstream audiences.

I mean, agreed and understood.

This is bad in the sense pro-military influence & "rub my back I'll rub yours" is bad in general, but I'm not seeing the directed efforts that would justify the tone or title of the article. It smells like clickbait, and now I smell like military apologism from saying so!

As a movie buff this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm still waiting for THE movie about the US intervention in Iraq, the same kind of movies that Apocalypse Now, "The Deer Hunter" and even Rambo I were for the Vietnam war. I think my wait will be in vain.

What do you think about Three Kings (1999)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kings_(1999_film)

Wrong Gulf war.

There was a right one?

What do you think about Argo?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(2012_film)

pure CIA propaganda

Umm, it was propaganda but it was Hollywood propaganda about Hollywood. That's why this rather minor movie won Best Picture because Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood.

As to it being pure CIA propaganda, you'd have to explain more about that.

it might be reference to simple fact that US embassy was covertly used by CIA to actively destabilize the region and revolution, plus support corrupt dictator - something no embassy should ever be used for. Not sure why CIA was naive enough to think they are safe there when rest of country is burning.

Iranians made a mistake that they imprisoned US staff - they should just seize all belongings and kick them out of their own country. But one must admit that common fate to spies caught during war - execution (also done by US troops in WW II) was not done on any of them and all returned home eventually.

Of course look at media portrayal of Iran back then and even now, when places like Saudi Arabia are big US friends and you hear no loud critics about them... what a sad, pathetic joke

It was. Also, the CIA did help in the production of Argo. [1] And in fact the US (the Dulles brothers actually) overthrew Mosaddeq. [2] We absolutely deserved what little we got in the hostage crisis. I'm a big Carter fan but as President not as person he symbolized the responsibility and his office deserved this. It's a shame because Reagan was much worse than Carter vis a vis those relations. He actively supported Iraq in their border war.

Since Iran was breaking off relations with the US this wasn't exactly a mistake. To this day, we still do not have normal relations with Iran. Bill Clinton was able to re-establish relations with Vietnam. Obama re-established relations with Cuba (although the Republican Senate refused to confirm an Ambassador). While Obama and Hillary Clinton were able to negotiate with Iran we don't have diplomatic relations.

Mosaddeq was a democratically elected nationalist who toured the US trying to garner support (that he'd never get because of British Petroleum). It's a damned shame we couldn't respect that.

[1] https://news.vice.com/article/cia-helped-produce-top-chef-co...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-rol...

Wasn't Iraq rather overshadowed by the subsequent events in Afghanistan which does have some superb movies (Kajaki, Restrepo, Korengal, Bitter Lake....).

All due respect to those movies (3 of them which appear to be documentaries) but they have not had the same cultural impact as a movie like Apocalypse Now had back in its time. It's a shame, I'd rather a director like Nolan had made a movie about Iraq or Afghanistan instead of Dunkirk, the same as Coppola had made Apocalypse Now just a couple of years after he had directed the first two Godfather movies. That way you'd be 100% certain that said film and its vision on the realities of current war would make it to almost all the cinemas around the world.

War Machine doesn't rise to the level of Apocalypse Now, but that's a really high bar. It was good and controversial though:

[1] http://www.metacritic.com/movie/war-machine

To be fair, Apocalypse Now didn't come out until 1979, four years after the war's end and twenty four years after the war's start. Though 15 years after official US involvement. So, depending on how you count it, we still have some time :)

Subsequent? Afghanistan was first.

Yes, poor choice of wording. However, wasn't the bulk of the fighting in Afghanistan after the Iraq war in 2006 to 2011 or so?

The Hurt Locker ?

That's the closest example to what I really want from such a film (and De Palma's "Redacted"), it is a great film, but I think it was not enough.

I've found it to be a typical example of American propaganda.

Some good reasons given here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-militarization-of-hollywood...

Considering Kathryn Bigelow, the director of 'the Hurt Locker', also did 'Zero Dark Thirty' in many respects, the non plus ultra C.I.A control and influence over hollywood, the 'Hurt Locker's' critical position is dubious. In fact it's worth noting that the C.I.A is so good at this that they are not beyond putting ostensibly damaging material or arguments in their films in order to refute them at a more fundamental level, or coming around to devour them more completely in some other film. As paranoid and wacky as it sounds, the general project of propaganda is a totality spread across the cultural field...

Finally it's worth noting that with the advent of widespread piracy, we have been forced to pay for our films / entertainment in other ways. A pirated movie still delivers its ideological payload, whether or not it's corporate interest determining the cars that feature in the 'Fast and Furious' franchise or the military industrial complex permitting a flock of Ospreys to feature prominently in a scene ...

I'm in the apparent minority of people who thought "The Hurt Locker" was an awful movie.

Probably not going to happen. In the "not documentary" category it's probably generation kill or occupation that's even remotely close.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0995832/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l9sw3

It won't happen because Apocalypse Now was feeding off massive cultural backlash against the Vietnam War, and the backlash against the current wars has always been much weaker. Probably because people aren't getting drafted this time.

Syriana and The Kingdom criticize US politics in the region, but they mostly concentrate on Saudi Arabia or UAE.

If you dare to even mention the role of Israel in that context the movie won't even see the light of day.

And now watch my comment quickly fade to white...

It might see, but then you are immediately blacklisted by most major studios. No wonder why you didn't see Penelope Cruz or Javier Bardem for some years in a Hollywood movie.

It probably will be.

The key difference between the Iraq ops and the Vietnam War is the lack of a draft. Iraq wasn't nationally felt the same way Vietnam was; such a film would have its audience, but you're actually lacking the overall cultural zeitgeist that Rambo was able to tap into.

Not a movie, but "Generation Kill" comes pretty close?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0995832/

As for movies, there's "In The Valley of Elah" comes to mind:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478134/

And more generally, about modern warfare, I suppose "Eye in the Sky" warrants a mention:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2057392/

Generation Kill is unwatchable, in the sense that you'd rather see the characters die at the hands of Freddy Kruger or Jason Voorhees, than bother to care about, oh, i dunno, a plot line or whether it's based on real journalism?

Same goes for The Hurt Locker, among others. So many, are simple emotional pandering, set against a dubious backdrop, without dealing with the premise of the backdrop. American Sniper simply feels like an effort to influence, even with Clint Eastwood's involvement (or perhaps even more so, with it).

Live from Baghdad is a shade too early, and the wrong Iraq war, but captures the joke-like atmosphere of the post-hoc rationale for even going to war in the region.

Similar era war movie, but different conflict, is Restrepo, which is a documentary. And, unfortunately, maybe it's accurate enough to be completely unflattering. No one appearing on screen is particularly charismatic or inspiring, and so too the story it tells is uneventful, no surprises.

But these jingoistic movies suck because very nearly all movies in general mostly suck. Everything seems like long-form, substance-lacking music videos, or student exercises in cinematography and digital effects editing. Oh well. Keep waiting for any good movie, but don't hold your breath. They are few and far between, since the advent of digital production techniques.

It's just how things are now. Now that all footage makes it make it past the film-developer-chemical bath, it's easy to undo, and selectively retry. It's too easy to make a movie, so it's very easy to make meaningless movies.

As well as Three Kings and Hurt Locker mentioned elsewhere, there's also Jarhead. All great movies.

There was also Green Zone, which was OK.

Not exactly the same thing, but the new movie War Machine with Brad Pitt was quite good. Its theme was the stark irony of the US "helping" the Afghans when in reality they're causing conflict thats destroying their country.

Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/uZwuTI-V8SI?t=30

I like how the article failed to mention the most obvious example. The military backed out support for the movie Independence Day because they didn't want to feed conspiracy nonsense about hiding aliens at area 51.

Clearly this is a propaganda effort to bend the truth into a lie..... right?

I also like how the article never mentioned military supported movies that indicate dishonorable conduct like Invisible War and The General's Daughter.

I think all these very obvious omissions were intentional because the article is wanting to indicate some level of propaganda. Tipping its toe into the pool of conspiracy foolishness.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General%27s_Daughter_(film...

EDIT:

I have rethought this comment (slow day at work). I do not mean to say the article is completely invalid. The fact of the matter is that the military holds trademarks over most of its common insignia, military bases are private property, and its personnel are employees. It has the right to offer or withhold any of its assets as it deems much like private entities.

That said the military has the right to disqualify commentary or stories negatively without qualification. I believe the word for this is disparagement. You can be negative about the military and still receive military support, but it must be qualified.

My personal opinion on the matter is the military does shape how it is perceived by the public through entertainment. It does shape that narrative. This has the potential to hint at, though very lightly, something resembling propaganda but I strongly believe this is not the intent.

If the public wanted the most accurate and realistic portrayal of the military they would receive their view of that world from journalism or documentaries. This isn't want the public generally wants though. They want entertainment and all the suspended disbelief that comes with it. If you believe this is unfair then choose books as your source of fiction on military interests, which don't appear to have any such manipulation.

In full disclosure I am a warrant officer in the US Army.

Agree. Not to mention the most obvious point: actual military cooperation hasn't been needed –– not in many years –– in order to show giant explosions, cool jets, or slick military bases.

I don't think I've ever read a FOIA-based article with a worse signal to noise ratio.

I hope the authors, who are based in London and Bath, find something worth writing about soon or they may go insane from CIA BRAIN WAVES.

The department of defense actually has a group that produces favorable news pieces for local news. Can't remember the name of it.

After Vietnam they made some decisions about how and when they would deal with the media. Journo's "embed" with troops. Staff officers give commentary on cable news. We don't see bodies of American's or anyone else. No one pushes back on the idea that "smart bombs" still kill bystanders.

Don't even get me started on the whole "special forces can do anything" message that they have been pushing for years.

One of the problems is that any level of criticism is immediately taken out of all proportion.

All of that being said...Warrant officer? That's cool. Like helicopters and stuff? I'm an Air Force brat.

From the article even documentaries aren't safe. Also from the article, they have censored any reference to military suicides, which is certainly very real and quantifiable.

In my opinion, though, public relations should not be something the military should be actively engaging in. They are not a private entity nor a corporation, so why treat them as such?

Three thoughts on this article:

IMO the author fails to draw the connection to decades of cop shows teaching people that it's ok for cops to break procedure left and right because that's how work gets done.

The bit on military suicide make sense. The more you talk about something the more acceptable it becomes. It makes sense that people who's job is to influence opinion don't want to talk about it.

Technical and subject matter advisors from "industry" aren't worthless. Terrorists in Hollywood movies have been taking batteries out of cell phones when not in use since the early 2000s.

I am sure "24" was pure propaganda. And "West Wing". I enjoyed them though, at the time. But now they would just revolt me.

I never watched west wing, how did it seem like propoganda, and what message did it send?

If it was propaganda it must be Democratic propaganda, because it's view of Washington was recognisable as quite close to the Democratic worldview.

As far as I can tell, "West Wing" clearly is aligned with the worldview of Aaron Sorkin, just as "24" seems pretty aligned with the worldview of Joel Surnow.

I'm not sure at what point a strong worldview from a creator crosses over to the "propaganda" definition? So many shows over time have had creators with very distinctive, often strong, worldviews and opinions. I can say that about so many shows ranging from "Twilight Zone" to "Star Trek" to "MASH" to "South Park". I'm not sure I'd call any one of these "propaganda".

For whatever reason, I tend to think of "propaganda" as persuasion coming more from group collectives, such as governments.

I'd say it is coming from a group collective, because Joel Surnow and Aaron Sorkin are nothing without a platform for their shows. It's the conglomerates that own US television networks that chose to fund and broadcast the strong worldview of these writers.

I'm not the person you're replying to but one thing I've seen pointed out [1] is that it portrays a largely unelected whitehouse staff where everyone is selfless, good, hard-working, quick-witted, reveres the constitution, always ultimately putting the country's interests before their own, always taking the moral choice and turning out to be right.

There's nothing that makes you question the way the country is run, or that tries to explain why real-world politicians' approval ratings are so low.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3OQIp4lda8

Also the endless monologues where the speaker is just so correct that no one can dare question what they are saying and the target of the monologue is left speechless with just how wrong they were.

Same thing happened with The Newsroom, it's a Sorkin trademark. Although the heavy-handedness was relaxed with season two.

Interesting, this goes a long way towards explaining a good friend of mine's odd political views.

So is Designated Survivor.

Same with "The Wire". I enjoy it however I feel like it grants a false sense that law enforcement follows all the rules for obtaining warrants for surveillance.

Spoiler alert, but I recall the police figuring out how to get around the requirements of getting a warrant to be a huge plot. Perhaps it showed a rosier than normal view of police getting warrants, but I feel like it definitely displayed a variety of situations where law enforcement did not follow the rules.

There's a lot of plot points where the cops break laws in service of their investigation.

One of the seasons of 24 (second?) had a launch event in Washington with Rumsfeld and other high level members of the administration on the stage.

As a way to spread propaganda these efforts are probably as good as they can be in liberal democracy. The methods are subtly directing the "sentiment" and removing unwanted issues without trace. They are not trying to hammer ideology too obviously.

If you want to see clear modern US military propaganda film that reaches the pinnacle of Nazi wartime propaganda (not that obvious propaganda like "The Eternal Jew", but highest quality epic and inspiring movies with strongly embedded sentiment) you should watch Act of Valor (2012) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/ The only problem with the Act of Valor is that it's not very good movie. The delivery of propaganda in the movie is perfect. It leaves you feeling the same way as the Nazi movie Kolberg (1945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolberg_(film)

This is an absurd situation, having a military minder that tells you what you can and can't say in a production. It is hard to avoid some kind of interference if you want to borrow military equipment though. There is always some standard that you want to uphold that is probably higher than what is allowed by the first amendment.

The solution is to not allow the military to lend any assistance to movie productions. Frankly, it's not their job anyways. This is the only way to avoid the kind of influence described in the article.

> The solution is to not allow the military to lend any assistance to movie productions. Frankly, it's not their job anyways. This is the only way to avoid the kind of influence described in the article.

Unfortunately this 'solution' doesnt facilitate the foreign effect from distributing these films abroad to spread positive american sentiment and further the goals of the US govt and Hollywood and corporations (product placment for starters, mindshare, etc), so it is 'inferior'..

The article is poorly written so I can’t tell what’s real and what’s not, but it seems to imply that people go to the military asking for “toys” (article is very non-specific here), and that’s part of the deal. It doesn’t seem to imply somehow the military is censoring all films made in the US.

As a teenager I was always watching action films, because my father loves them. I remember at around age 21 thinking, "This just seems like tasteless propaganda and I don't want to watch it"...

What I really want to know is: How was it that Neo's passport expiration date was 9/11/2001 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Passport.png

It was issued on 12 Sep 1991. US passports expire after ten years.

That passport photo wouldn't be accepted today. (light blue background and shadows)

Finally an explanation for why Michael Bay keeps getting work.

There's a very good film critique dissection of Bay's work done by Lindsay Ellis titled "The Whole Plate" (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJGOq3JclTH8J73o2Z4VM...). She uses Bay as a lens to talk about film studies for a couple of reasons; one of them is that there is no doubt the guy's movies are raking it in, so film theory both highlights what he's doing that's working and---when film theory suggests "What he does should not work"---provides interesting counter-examples to the standard rules.

(Note that while you're not wrong, it's not ultimately the US government buying all those movie tickets ;) ).

American propaganda is alive and well.

It's the news too. Almost every article or TV news report on TSA screening includes someone saying how the security theater is worth it because it keeps us safe.

I wonder about Conspiracy Theory and the CIA's Project MKUltra. Did the CIA manipulate it? Or somehow not have the opportunity?

I would think such things are OK because if people saw it in a fictional movie that doesn't say "based on true events" at the beginning they may be inclined to believe it didn't really happen.

Maybe. But MKUltra was mentioned by name, and the methods portrayed were quite gruesome.

I remember back when the bush administration gave the TV show JAG, a show about the navy's judge advocate general's office, detailed descriptions of the military tribunals that they came up with...before the media or congress.

Shady, man. The military and IC are the only parts of govt that get to do this weird Public Relations. They shouldn't be able to.

It's not just the military/IC.

The first episode (2010) of Blue Bloods (NYPD show) has Donnie Wahlberg torturing a guy in a ticking-time-bomb-like scenario and then his Capt. father (Tom Selleck) correcting his DA daughters reference to "torture" by seriously saying "you mean Enhanced Interrogation" and how awful it is they can't convict the guy without some other "legal" break in the case.

Even years after Bush & Cheney are gone, "liberal" Hollywood filled with this stuff.

If this was China or Russia, our media would point and scold, calling them names and declaring them immoral, and the enemy.

However, since it's the US, I doubt this will get much coverage in mainstream media outlets here.

Most major movies are, if not "CONSUME", "OBEY", etc billboards (like in "They Live"), at least party-line affairs promoting the establishment.

Between promoting the prevalent mores (instead of criticizing them), military manipulation to promote "national interests" like in TFA, product placements, and plots for your inner 13 year old in movies for 40 year olds, with the rare exception it's a long way since the 60s-70s and films like "The Network", "Apocalypse Now" and the rest..

“The Network” and “Apocalypse Now” were, and are remembered now because they were, rare exceptions in their own time as well.

This is an example of the filter effect. It's like how people turn on the classic rock station where they play only classic rock hits and assume that music today is just worse - the classic rock station doesn't play the stinkers that were also on the radio and popular, so you get the illusion that classic rock has always been solid gold hits.

>This is an example of the filter effect.

Yeah, no. There was a big counter-establishment wave in the 60s and early to mid 70s, documented in myriads of books, articles, biographies, documentaries and such.

And it reflected in Hollywood too.

(In European cinema it was even more extreme with every second movie having leftist leanings).

Were there other, more typical/banal movies? Yes. But that critical movies were far more common in the 60s-70s than they are now is a historical fact, not some "filter effect".

(Also the idea that all periods have the same median quality in arts and same distribution of tendencies is wrong. Some periods do have more/better art than others, or more art of a certain tendency than others, for various reasons).

They are remembered because they were quite good. We also remember the "Sound of Music" from the same era, and it's anything but anti-establishment.

But my points wasn't that ALL movies were like that, but that far more movies were like that. The 60s had a whole counter-culture, anti-establishment and protest movement that's not the same as the 80s (decade of the self, yuppies) and 90s or even today (identity politics and conservatism battling it out).

Decades do have a character and certain tendencies or fashions if you like, including in the arts.

> But my points wasn't that ALL movies were like that, but that far more movies were like that.

The movies that get critical acclaim now are often like they, just as they were then.

> The 60s had a whole counter-culture, anti-establishment and protest movement that's not the same as the 80s (decade of the self, yuppies) and 90s or even today (identity politics and conservatism battling it out).

Sure, the cultural context is different today than in the 1960s, but your doubly wrong in characterizing politics today as identity politics vs. conservatism. Is identity politics significant, sure—on both sides of the left/right divide (just as was the case in the 1960s.) Particularly, white identity politics is probably more of an overt factor today than it has been any time since the 1968.

> Decades do have a character and certain tendencies or fashions if you like, including in the arts.

Sure. I'm just saying that you are wrong in your specific identification of how the character of the late 2010s differs from the 1960s. I have no problem with the much simpler claim that there is a difference.

Yet no mention of Wag the Dog.

IIRC, the movie "Wargames" rejected a DOD plot request, and had to do without any support for even external base footage for the film.

With use of computer graphics they can do more movies without the military interference.

Can they? Isn't the depiction of (real / existing) military hardware protected by idk, trademarks and the like? I mean all bets are off if it's all fantasy weaponry and organizations (like idk, in Starship Troopers).

No it is not. The depiction of branded assets is fair game. Mentioning the branded goods is also fair game, but more dangerous because in some cases it might be construed as slander and slander is actionable grounds for a lawsuit. (Famously, LVMH sued Warner Bros successfully when they used a fake LV handbag as a prop and a character said "This is a Louis Vuitton".)

One of the resources the military provides is computer graphics assets like models of planes. So no, a movie that tries to create cgi scenes of war without military approval will be at a strong financial disadvantage compared to one that is allowed to use premade assets supplied by DOD.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5xfBtD6rLY

So, if you want DOD support and resources and voluntarily go to them for help, they will have a say in the script?

To me it seems that anti-establishment Americans are so eager to find evidence of "censorship", "police state" and "tyranny" that they forget what do these words actually mean.

DoD policy is to "approve" scripts for movies that request DoD assistance, and has been for a long time.

Production companies are free to get another countries' military to provide assets under different terms. The French and Israeli military have provided filming support for US movies before.

Rotten Tomatoes

Its not secret, if you want to use the pentagons toys and personnel and facilities then they have to have script approval and will make suggestions if they don't approve. And those suggestions make the film a recruitment tool and propaganda mouthpiece. They request positive depictions of the military, the military solving the problems, etc.

I have also noticed they tend to carry a negative depiction of the other civilian branches of the government especially the CIA, "they made the problem/they tied our hands and now we gotta clean it up" seems a consistent theme.

Finally! I've been saying for years "The largest propaganda machine in the world is Hollywood." People usually just roll their eyes.

The America of "Snow Crash" has as its primary exports software and culture, via Hollywood.

It seems to continue to be an apropos prediction.

No it's not. Software is not even in the top ten of US exports

iOS, Android, Facebook, Snapchat, Whatsapp, etc are all software...

Okay. So?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_the_United_...

America's infatuation with their military is disgusting

> Jon Voight in Transformers — in this scene, just after American troops have been attacked by a Decepticon robot, Pentagon Hollywood liaison Phil Strub inserted the line ‘Bring em home’, granting the military a protective, paternalistic quality, when in reality the DOD does quite the opposite.

So glad the authors were able to stay objective and emotionally removed from the subject /s

All nations have propaganda, USA included. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com