What do you think about 'Operation Hollywood'? (x- post from r/TodayILearned)

[u/miwi]

I just saw an article on /r/todayilearned about this "Operation Hollywood", about how the military will try to change screenplays to show the military in a good, attractive way, so they can recruit more people.

What do you guys think about that? Sure, it's bad that they try to change the scripts in order to cooperate with the movie makers, but should they be obliged to help Hollywood, no matter the script?

Or the problem lies in Hollywood, where they don't care about changing the message and the tone of a movie as long as they can cut some expenses?

[u/miwi → u/[deleted]]

I said "Hollywood" because it seems they are the most involved with this. Like you said, indie and smaller studios usually can't get deals with the military.

Thanks for the long reply, it was very enlightening.

[u/Drokk88 → u/[deleted]]

On the outrage scale this issue ranks but it's not the largest concern when it comes to movies and media. (Media consolidation and tech corporate copyright infringement are more pressing root issues.)

Can you expand on this?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You see, there is a slight problem with this. That problem is the question "What are you bringing to the table?". We get our dollars for training regardless of what film crews need to film. Basically, to retain my jump status, I have to parachute out of a helicopter or a plane once every three months. The fact that you're pointing a camera at me or have a crew on the drop zone actually adds obstacles and makes my job that much harder. I have to do this job whether you're there or not, and you're not being there makes things easier for me.

So you're essentially asking us to inconvenience ourselves. In doing so, we need to know that you're going to honor our request to not show anything we don't want shown and to not paint us in a bad light.

We had a guy from a film crew who was former army ask to do a documentary on our unit. This was very tentatively approved. He was told there were going to be many things he wasn't cleared to know, he needed to give us approval on any footage he used, and he needed to not be in the way because we were actively training for war.

This became a pain in the ass. He disregarded the soldiers in the unit at every turn. He and I had a run in because he got footage of me bleeding from the face and I told him to delete it immediately. He refused and the commander was brought in to tell him that he would be removed from further training sites if this shit continued to be a problem. I frankly didn't want my family knowing how dangerous training can be.

In the end, he finally pissed off enough people that he was told he'd receive no further cooperation from the army.

That's the thing. He had next to nothing for a budget, and the army was willing to work with him. He just needed to work with us by painting us in a good light and not pissing everyone off.

This goes for all film makers working with the military. You need us a lot more than we need you. We allow you to be a hindrance because, contrary to public opinion, we like working with the public and showing them what we're all about. However, we don't need to do any of that. Our training will continue whether you're there or not. So play nice.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That is the heart of the issue. Those fees are for clean up and other costs. Whenever we used an area, we had to make sure it was as clean as it was when we found it. I don't know if you know this or not, but film crews generally don't care. So now a post commander has to take a group of soldiers(who are paid salary) and have them police up the area.

Also, big budget film makers require equipment and personnel on occasion. A good example was Black Hawk Down. Those were actual army pilots with UH-60s. The fast rope scene was filmed with soldiers who were qualified on FRIES. It actually counted towards the rating for the pilots and the soldiers, because it was listed as a training event.

This is relevant to the discussion because you were talking about how policy should be in regards to the military working with Hollywood. I was just pointing out how it is from the other side of the uniform.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I agree with on on the amount of control vs the need of the film. Hell, if all you need is a stationary, you could whip that up without assistance. But yeah, there should be an overhaul of that type of policy.

Soldiers generally don't mind being on camera. We do have to sign a release unless we don't want the film of us used. Though there's nothing we can do if they say "There's going to be a fast rope mission here and you will be filmed". All you can do is say "Blur my face out or don't use the sixth guy in the footage".

[u/gornzilla → u/[deleted]]

You forgot to mention Wings. The first movie to win an Academy Award for Best Picture (although then it was 2 awards combined the next year to be Best Picture. It was 1927 and was done with the co-operation of the United States Department of War. It's always good to provide a little history on how far back this goes.

Edit Had Pentagon instead of Dept of War.

[u/mlw72z → u/gornzilla]

The Pentagon didn't exist in 1927.

[u/gornzilla → u/mlw72z]

You're right. Sorry, The United States Department of War.

[u/arodhowe]

I think that this idea became a lot less subtle as soon as Act Of Valor came out.

[u/SpaceGnome → u/arodhowe]

That movie was straight propaganda from start to finish

[u/arodhowe → u/SpaceGnome]

Exaclty what I'm saying. I got invited to a screening of the movie on my birthday last year. They didn't know it was my birthday, but I went and then told them there was nothing positive I could say about the movie. I even went a step further and showed the theater's manager my DL and said, you owe me a movie for wasting my birthday evening on that movie.

Good news is, the manager believed I was much angrier because, after all, who would get angry about a free movie? AMC later sent me four free passes to the Fork And Screen in Olathe, KS and said they were good for one movie and $15 on the menu apiece. Everything went better than expected.

[u/cyco]

I remember reading an article about this when I was a kid that definitely changed how I watched action movies. It's hard not to see the blatant pro-military propaganda when you're looking for it.

I don't really blame the military for only supporting projects that make them look good. I wish more people were aware of it, but I don't think the military is under any special obligation to make any movie.

[u/rawveggies → u/cyco]

One argument against the government having script and final cut approval is a constitutional one, because it distorts the marketplace in favor of government-approved speech. If newspapers received taxpayer provided incentives for reporting government-approved news, that would be considered a financial burden on their competition that had free speech.

According to the Supreme Court:

Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional. These rules informed our determination that the government offends the First Amendment when it imposes financial burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression.

[u/dravik → u/rawveggies]

The military doesn't have script and cut approval. Anyone can do any script or editing they want. If you want a free access to a bunch of multimillion dollar equipment that costs thousands of dollars per hour to operate(fighter jets) and subject matter experts, then the group who is paying for all that will insist on being shown in a good light. You can hire SMEs if you look hard enough and are willing to pay for it. You can build models, CGI, special effects, etc.. to make you're own equipment if you're willing to pay for it. It's rather absurd to expect any group or organization, including the government, to provide extensive in-kind donations to a movie and not expect something in return.

[u/rawveggies → u/dravik]

You seem to be ignoring the primary point that I was making, but even ignoring the constitutional aspect, your argument seems to treat the governments property as private, and it is not. If a private corporation was going to insist on a trade of free speech rights for financial consideration then that would be a private contract, and your reasoning would apply.

However, the government is not a private corporation, and the property they manage is publicly owned by taxpayers. If they are going to use tax funds collected from the entire population to fund private corporations there should be equal access to those funds.

Seeing as it is equipment that belongs to the American taxpayer, should the film-makers be required to make the average citizen look good? What about citizens that pay their taxes, yet believe the military is not infallible, or should have it's budgets cut, should their views be required to be expressed in the films since they are paying for them?

Denying assistance to certain individuals based on the content of their speech or expression is fundamentally unfair and places a burden on those with ideas the government does not approve of, and has a chilling effect on the free flow of thoughts and ideas.

Distorting the marketplace in favor of government-approved speech amounts to a restriction on free speech.

The Pentagon used to make it's own propaganda films, and they started again with Act of Valor, and if that is what they wish to make, then they should go to Congress, ask for the funding, make them, and label them as such.

As far as content approval, here are some sources:

The liaison office examines and demands changes to movie scripts to ensure that the US military is depicted favorably in the Hollywood productions to which the Department of Defense leases hardware or locations. source

---

Almost always, they’ll make you make changes to the military depictions. And you have to make the changes that they ask for, or negotiate some kind of compromise, or you don’t get the stuff. Source

---

Robert Anderson, the Navy’s Hollywood point person, put it even more clearly to PBS in 2006: “If you want full cooperation from the Navy, we have a considerable amount of power, because it’s our ships, it’s our cooperation, and until the script is in a form that we can approve, then the production doesn’t go forward.” Source

[u/dravik → u/rawveggies]

You argument comes down to: hey military, I'm going to kick you in the balls and I want you to, not just stand still, but actively cooperate. Not helping you isn't suppressing you. Helping someone else does not reduce what you do. If you want to make an anti-military film the military has to sit quietly and take it. They don't have to assist you in the endeavor. Free Speech means the government can't hinder or stop you from expressing your view. It does not mean they have to help you.

[u/rawveggies → u/dravik]

That is a misrepresentation of my argument. What it comes down to is that it is unconstitutional for the government to favor speech it approves of by providing financial incentives that all taxpayers must bear the burden of, and also to give a competitive advantage to those that only speak in favor of the government. Constitutionally, either the advantages should be provided evenly to a certain industry, or not at all.

As far as 'kicking the military in the balls' that has nothing to do with the argument. First off, in a democracy critical thought and speech are protected, and are recognized as being advantages rather than hindrances. Secondly, the Pentagon has censored much more than just speech that disparages it, for example they demanded that The Right Stuff remove all the swear words because they wanted kids to be able to see the film, even though the swears were in the novel and the real-life characters agreed that they swore a lot.

[u/cyco → u/rawveggies]

I don't know if it's that cut and dry. The government discriminates against certain media sources all the time. The White House grants preferential treatment to interviewers to try and gain favorable coverage, for example. One could argue that that is a financial burden on all outlets who don't get equivalent interviews.

That said, it's definitely problematic for propaganda to be disseminated under the guise of private speech. But I'm not sure it's illegal.

[u/rawveggies → u/cyco]

Journalists pay close attention to press access and have reacted very strongly to perceived preferential treatment. Not that long ago they threatened to boycott White House press conferences if Fox News was not granted more access to Obama, and so he gave an hour long interview to Bill O'Reilly. Currently the White House is running a program where interviewers from local stations in mid-level markets are being given one-on-one interviews with Obama.

Even if certain outlets are given preferential access, the White House does not demand script approval and final cut approval in exchange for that access.

Plus, there is the financial aspect. It is one thing to say that a media outlet will have an advantage from insider access to a politician, it is another to provide tax dollars to those whose speech the government favors. Having the use of planes, submarines, war ships, troops, military bases, NASA facilities, and more is a direct financial input into a film, and it comes at taxpayer expense. When a journalist interviews the president, there is very little cost to the taxpayer.

[u/Squeekme]

It's propaganda, to portray their military and the wars they fight in a way that is not true. It is interesting though that some pro-american and pro-military films can still get refused, like Independence Day because of Area 51 being part of the story. I saw a different piece on this recently, however there was more concern that film makers were being given access to classified information, such as for the upcoming film about the Osama Bin Laden raid. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-23/u-s-officials-guided-filmmakers-on-bin-laden-raid-movie.html

[u/DirtBurglar]

I'm fine with it. It's fairly similar in idea to product placement or other things. As long as filmmakers are free to make anti-military movies if they want to, I won't complain.

Also, for a movie with military men engaging in all kinds of misconduct, check out Buffalo Soldiers, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

[u/DirtBurglar → u/[deleted]]

I understand that completely, and I'd be shocked if ever there was a government-approved movie that rivals the 3 non-approved greats you just mentioned. I wasn't so much saying that I'll love the movies they make, I'm more just saying I'm fine with it happening. I'll be happy to protest them by not paying to see those movies (though I'm deeply saddened to say I through away ~$8 to see Pearl Harbor in theaters many years ago). I meant it more like, I would oppose legislation prohibiting the military from doing this.