Operation Hollywood

[Moses]

Hollywood's dirty little secret[/size]
February 20, 2005[/b]

Where were the British and Canadian troops in Saving Private Ryan? They may have been present in history, but that didn't wash too well with Hollywood ... or the Pentagon.

---

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

[Moses]

Usraeli Propaganda in the New York Sun, pushing Pentagon-backed Propaganda film. Propagandists promoting propagana. That's the new American "product". Thanks for ruining our country, neocons.

This NY Sun chickenhawk war-promoter doesn't mention, after bashing all films made that don't tout the Iraq War, that the Film he touts, was made by a DOD consulting firm. The sleezy propagandist writes about it as though it is an Indy film by promising young filmmakers. The Usraeli propaganda, with its contemptuous and deliberate deception of Americans has this country eye-high in their manure. Everyone who is sick of these slicks, raise their hand:

.... Audiences should be aware, however, that what makes for good cinema does not amount to good politics. There are too many realities that the contemporary language of movies is simply not up to expressing. That's why I thought the most indispensable of the movies about the war was last year's "Voices of Iraq."

It's true that this, too, was stitched together by its authors, the editors, Robin Russell, Martin Kunert, and Stephen Mark and the producers Eric Manes and Archie Drury, with the help of ironic quotations, just like "Gunner Palace." But I liked "Voices'" use of the device better - perhaps just because the target of the irony was journalists rather than politicians, soldiers, and high administration officials. I am more willing to believe that the former are deluded and partisan than that the latter don't know what the hell they're talking about, to quote that universal genius, Senator Biden.

But "Voices of Iraq" also gives us a uniquely unmediated cinematic experience by putting 150 video cameras into the hands of ordinary Iraqis and asking them to film anything they want. The editors have of course had to make a pretty rigorous selection from a huge volume of material, but the format makes them comparatively free of the need to speak the documentary language as it has been honed by auteurs such as Messrs. Moore and Jarecki.

The result is a movie that conforms to nobody's political prejudices and has the power continually to surprise. It doesn't set out to make any argument for or against the war, but by showing us the human reality - mostly not as grim but equally authentic as that in "Turtles Can Fly" - it allows us to make up our own minds.

"It allows! us! to make up our own minds!" Right-- they think we are idiots and have never heard of editing. Real slick, slick. See Clouded origin of Iraq War propaganda film

[Moses]

Same Ghetto, Different Wallpaper

By Alison Rowat


....If the power of the box office has worked in favour of black actors, it is unlikely to do the same for the cause of truth and Iraq.

Already the familiar stench of bovine waste products, as prevalent in LA as the whiff of pesto and gasoline, can be detected. With the exception of Tim Robbins's satire Embedded, Hollywood intends to refight the war to reflect nothing but glory on Old Glory. It is like Abu Ghraib and Iraqi civilian casualties never happened. The siege of Fallujah makes the cut, but only in a film starring Harrison Ford, old Indiana Jones himself. Make of that what you will.

With upwards of 1400 of its troops dead, America feels the need to feel good, or at least a bit better, about Iraq. Yet as David Robb, author of Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies, discovered, films that show the military in a positive light boost recruitment faster than any official call to arms. So in doing a Disney on Iraq, Hollywood could, in fact, be sending more youngsters – its own audience – into harm's way.

Will America swallow Hollywood's take on Iraq like so much cheap popcorn? It is doubtful. Newspaper stories about troop deaths might have been relegated to the inside pages, and the funeral footage rarely makes it past the local news here, but the truth is still out there. Any director who supplies too happy an ending to this particular movie risks being laughed out of town.

In any case, the smart writers are taking their cue from Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and moving on from the Iraq war to its sequel. But there cannot be war with Iran. For one thing, the best title is already taken. Apocalypse Now, Part Deux? Even in la-la land, no-one would buy that.

[Moses]

Hollywood is producing a slew of propaganda movies:

Hollywood waging war on troops' side

Cesar G. Soriano and Ann Oldenburg
USA Today
Feb. 11, 2005 12:00 AM

Hollywood has gone to war.

In a reflection of America's conflict in Iraq, a proliferation of TV and film projects is focusing on the U.S. military, the war or both.
Big-screen ventures in the works range from dramas (No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah, set to star Harrison Ford; and Jarhead, about the Gulf War and starring Jamie Foxx and Jake Gyllenhaal, opening Nov. 11) to comedies (The Tiger and the Snow, starring Roberto Benigni) and documentaries (Gunner Palace, opening March 4).

Television is even bolder:
• Three cable channels are solely devoted to all things military.
• Award-winning producer Steven Bochco is creating Over There, a drama series about an Army unit serving in Iraq, set to air this summer on FX


Not since World War II has Hollywood so embraced an ongoing conflict. It took years for pop culture to tackle the Korean and Vietnam wars, and time had to pass before the country was ready to be entertained by those politically charged conflicts.

With Iraq, however, and after 9/11, "all bets are off," says [far-right neocon propagandist] film historian [sic] Leonard Maltin.

"Whatever happens in real life inspires and affects our storytellers." ["OUR"! -- what's this "WE" all the time, whiteman? -- "Storytellers"!]

With no resolution in sight, Iraq remains a timely backdrop.

Audiences are hungry for glimpses of history in the making. March 19 is the war's second anniversary.

But not any and every angle of war is being depicted. One aspect is glaringly absent from most projects: negativity. The U.S. soldier is the hero; the cause is just. Story lines featuring the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal or war protests are no-nos.

"That gets you into arenas of policy," says Bochco, who[re] has written four episodes of Over There, which is filming in California. "We'll be telling the story about young people's experience in war. I've always tried to stay off a soapbox. I don't think proselytizing is good storytelling."

The show will focus on the men and women in uniform and the families who are left behind.

"Our aim is to humanize soldiers and their families and to tell stories about the trials and tribulations," Bochco says.

And because it's on cable, there will be no glossing over of gory images or expletives.

FX executive John Landgraf, who had the idea of setting a show in Iraq, says it's surprising there haven't been more projects about recent military conflicts.

"The best purpose of television and film is to tell stories that are truthful and of the moment and dig into the human experience," Landgraf says. The Iraq war "is such a grand natural human drama."

But it's also an explosive issue that can alienate viewers and advertisers. Criticize the war, and you could be accused of criticizing the warriors, Maltin says. Even Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's scathing documentary of the Iraq war, was careful not to attack the troops themselves, he says.

"In Vietnam, the anti-war movement gradually became anti-military, anti-soldier attitude," a concept that was reflected in pop culture, says Bing West, 62, who's writing the Battle for Fallujah screenplay with his son, Owen, a Marine infantry officer.

"The films coming out now are pro-soldier. I think it genuinely says that Americans across the political spectrum have a strong degree of admiration for the military," despite how they might feel about the war in Iraq, West says.

"Books and movies like No True Glory will focus on the bravery of our soldiers and point out why our military can be relied upon to do the right thing."

Days of our Lives took a similar approach when a main character, Philip Kiriakis (Kyle Brandt ), joined the Marines.

"We will always be patriotic in our representations and will never take a political stand," executive producer Ken Corday says.

That makes the Pentagon brass happy.

"These days, there is an unwillingness to criticize individual servicemen and women, which was quite common in the Vietnam era," says Phil Strub, head of the Pentagon's film liaison office.

"We're very glad that this attitude tends to pervade all entertainment."

Hollywood always has relied on the U.S. military for assistance. That includes access to tanks, aircraft carriers, helicopters and troops that would be too expensive to re-create. The Pentagon, in return, gets to approve the script to ensure the military is portrayed in a positive light.

That relationship is blinding Hollywood into whitewashing the Iraq conflict, says David Robb, author of the 2004 book Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies.
"In many ways, Hollywood is embedded with the military," Robb says. The military "knows that when positive images are portrayed in movies and television shows, they see huge spikes in recruitment. The military is really pressing to get into these pictures.

"These films (that receive Pentagon assistance) should have a disclaimer: "This film has been shaped and censored by the military to meet recruiting goals.' "

Viewers are either unaware of the relationship or don't mind.

Military culture is hotter than ever.

"It's always been a popular genre for our viewers," says David Karp, general manager for the Military Channel, which launched in January. Previously called Discovery Wings, the channel is one of three competing for military enthusiasts. The others are the Pentagon Channel and the Military History Channel - a spinoff of A&E's History Channel, which has used the military as a staple for years.

Amidst the entertainment industry's obsession with military culture, a few anti-war projects can be found.

Why We Fight, director Eugene Jarecki's critical study of the American military-industrial complex, won the grand-jury prize for an American documentary at January's Sundance Film Festival.

Embedded, a satire on the madness of the war, premières March 20 on the Sundance Channel. It is written by and stars Tim Robbins, who's well known for his anti-war stance.

Still, Robbins says, "about the only thing we don't poke fun of is soldiers."

USA Today reporter Mike Snider also contributed to this report.

---

What that creep at the NYSun had to say about the Sundance film:

But lefties have their movie-spokesmen, too, in documentarians like Mr. Moore, who of course did make a lot of money. Eugene Jarecki's "Why We Fight" - ironically named after the Frank Capra film series made during World War II - won the American Documentary Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Festival last month. It's only right-wing, pro-war movies, if any, that don't show up on any cultural radar screens.

Mr. Jarecki's film reportedly attacks that old left-wing favorite, the military industrial complex, in specifically Orwellian terms as a self-sustaining system built on the need for continuous warfare - which it then becomes the job of politicians to supply, as needed, creating phony crises like Iraq which call out for military intervention.

Michael Moore suggested something similar with his invocation of Orwell in "Fahrenheit 9/11," but the paranoid left can never have too much confirmation of what it already knows. Talk about self-sustaining systems! Talk about Orwellian! Here is a political Newspeak that, by starting from the assumption that all wars are undertaken to keep the military establishment in business, comes close to making it impossible to think that any war involving that establishment could ever be justified.

Nice to have all the hard work of argument in any given geopolitical situation already done for you!

But documentary-town is pretty much a one-party state these days. Perhaps there was a time, before politics went cultural, when it was possible to make a film that weighed arguments pro and con and came to some kind of balanced conclusion, but if so, that time has long gone. Now most documentaries are not only parti pris but increasingly resemble those of Mr. Moore, in which the only permissible attitude to the other side is scorn, ridicule, and the assumption of bad faith.

[Moses]

Supporting the Troops

By WilliamPitt,

Tue Feb 22nd, 2005 at 08:09:27 PM EST :: Iraq ::
A blogger named Mike on a page titled 'Cold Fury' has delivered the seven millionth iteration of the old chestnut about liberals hating and disrespecting U.S. soldiers. His impetus for doing so came from a New York Post story that describes troops receiving less-than-fully-supportive letters from schoolchildren. Some of the comments in those letters:

One Muslim boy wrote: "Even thoe (sic) you are risking your life for our country, have you seen how many civilians you or some other soldier killed?" His letter, which was stamped with a smiley face, went on: "I know your (sic) trying to save our country and kill the terrorists but you are also destroying holy places like Mosques."

Interestingly, the Cold Fury page does not bother to actually quote any of the letters themselves, but only relates the reaction of the soldier who received them. Right out of the gate, there is a degree of intellectual dishonesty here. The young Brooklyn letter-writer above clearly states the soldier is defending our country, but dares to ask why civilians are dying and why mosques are destroyed. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's a fair question, and from the mouths of babes to boot.

The larger issue here, however, isn't about kids asking soldiers about dead civilians and smashed mosques. It's about yet another conservative writer wrapping himself in the flag while denouncing his political opposites for failing to 'support the troops.' This nonsense has gone on long enough.

[Moses]

See the biggest Child Predator cabal of all:

Watch the film, on-line: Operation Hollywood (1 hour)