National Security Cinema

1. The Pentagon and CIA extensively influence Hollywood productions

The scale, scope, and range of the CIA's activities in Hollywood are difficult to assess, even for their own Inspector General, let alone outside researchers.

Pervasive involvement: The Department of Defense (DOD) and CIA have a long history of involvement in Hollywood productions, far more extensive than previously believed. Between 1911 and 2017, 814 films received DOD support, while 1,133 TV titles benefited from military cooperation between 2004 and 2016.

Diverse content: Government influence extends beyond war films to various genres, including action-adventure, political dramas, comedies, and science fiction. This widespread involvement allows the national security apparatus to shape public perception across a broad spectrum of entertainment.

Hidden influence: Much of this cooperation occurs behind the scenes, with government agencies providing script input, technical advice, and access to military equipment and locations. In exchange, filmmakers often agree to portray the military and intelligence agencies in a favorable light.

2. Government script changes sanitize and alter narratives

The original script framed US policy in less favourable terms but fell afoul of the Pentagon's marker pen.

Sanitizing narratives: The Pentagon and CIA frequently request script changes to remove or alter elements that portray them negatively. This can involve:

• Removing scenes depicting war crimes or unethical behavior
• Changing character motivations to align with government interests
• Altering historical events to present a more favorable view of US actions

Altering key scenes: In some cases, entire plot points are changed to suit government narratives. For example, in "Clear and Present Danger," the DOD successfully altered depictions of the White House, National Security Advisor, and Colombian government to present a more positive image.

Impact on historical accuracy: These changes can significantly impact how historical events are portrayed, potentially misleading audiences about the realities of war and government actions.

3. Product placement and corporate interests shape film content

Product placement in motion pictures is a billion dollar industry, involving the vast majority of the Fortune 500 companies.

Financial incentives: Major corporations invest heavily in product placement, with some films earning over $100 million from associated brands. This financial influence can shape storylines, character choices, and even entire plot points to accommodate brand integration.

Impact on creativity: The emphasis on product placement can lead to:

• Prioritizing marketable elements over artistic integrity
• Altering scripts to include specific products or brands
• Influencing the tone and content of films to appeal to corporate partners

Broader implications: This commercialization of filmmaking contributes to a focus on safe, marketable content that may avoid controversial or challenging themes in favor of broad appeal and brand-friendly narratives.

4. Directors face challenges in maintaining creative vision

Oliver Stone returned from Vietnam as a great man and artist but he remained forever a soldier on hostile terrain.

Industry resistance: Even acclaimed directors like Oliver Stone face significant challenges when attempting to make politically challenging films. Examples include:

• Difficulty securing funding for controversial projects
• Pressure to alter scripts or tone down political messages
• Limited distribution or marketing support for films that challenge the status quo

Career impact: Directors who consistently push against the system may find:

• Fewer opportunities for big-budget productions
• Reduced studio support for future projects
• Pressure to conform to more mainstream narratives

Rare successes: Some directors, like Paul Verhoeven, have managed to create subversive films within the Hollywood system, but often under unique circumstances or by disguising their messages within genre conventions.

5. Overseas governments exert influence through financial incentives

The Abu Dhabi Film Commission offers a 30% rebate on all costs incurred by productions seeking to film in the emirate, a deal that some of the biggest movies including Fast and Furious 7 and Star Wars: The Force Awakens have benefited from.

Financial allure: Many foreign governments offer substantial rebates and incentives to attract film productions, which can influence how these countries are portrayed on screen.

Content changes: These financial arrangements can lead to:

• Alterations in scripts to present countries more favorably
• Removal of content that might be seen as critical or controversial
• Addition of scenes that showcase a country's positive attributes

Global impact: This practice extends the reach of soft power, allowing countries to shape their international image through popular entertainment.

6. War films often promote militaristic perspectives

Lone Survivor is important in shaping public perceptions of present-day foreign and national security policy.

Glorification of conflict: Many war films, especially those with government support, tend to:

• Present a heroic and noble image of military personnel
• Downplay or justify controversial actions
• Simplify complex geopolitical situations into clear "good vs. evil" narratives

Historical revisionism: Some films alter historical events to present a more favorable view of US military actions, potentially distorting public understanding of past conflicts.

Recruitment tool: These portrayals can serve as effective recruitment tools for the military, presenting an idealized version of service that may not reflect the full realities of war.

7. Some filmmakers resist government interference

Verhoeven said they thought of themselves as 'fighting with the book' and described how the film is an attempt to tell two stories, one of, 'young boys and young girls fighting giant bugs, and then there is a counter-narrative of "by the way, these people are fascists."'

Subversive techniques: Some directors find ways to include critical or subversive messages in their films, often by:

• Using genre conventions to disguise political commentary
• Employing satire or irony to critique government policies
• Crafting multi-layered narratives that appeal to different audiences

Independent production: Filmmakers may choose to work outside the studio system or seek alternative funding to maintain creative control and avoid government interference.

Career risks: Directors who consistently challenge the system may face career setbacks, limited distribution, or difficulty securing funding for future projects.

8. Public transparency is needed for government-Hollywood relationships

We don't believe in censorship, nor do we believe in bans. In a free but more accountable society, there are two reasonable reforms that should suit anyone who has nothing to hide: the government should be required by law to make their files on Hollywood cooperation open to the public and studios should explicitly declare any cooperation in the opening credits of their films, television shows, and videogames.

Lack of transparency: Currently, there is little public awareness of the extent of government involvement in film production, with many viewers unaware of how their entertainment is shaped by military and intelligence agencies.

Proposed reforms:

• Mandatory disclosure of government cooperation in film credits
• Public access to government files on Hollywood collaborations

Potential impact: Greater transparency could:

• Allow audiences to make more informed decisions about the media they consume
• Encourage more critical viewing of films with government involvement
• Potentially reduce the effectiveness of propaganda efforts

Implementing these reforms could lead to a more open and honest relationship between the entertainment industry and its audience, fostering a more informed and critical viewership.

Last updated: November 18, 2024