"War Porn:" Hollywood benefits from the Death Machine

The military has division called the "Film Liason Unit" with offices in the Pentagon and Los Angeles. Hollywood wants the real equipment, and the Pentagon wants favorable military portrayal. Together, they are strange bedfellows.


Discuss.

IMO this is not really new to me. Movies depicting war and extreme amounts of gore receive more lenience in ratings, while soft-core pornography receives a higher rating.. Go figure.

War Porn is deemened "less harmful" than sexual pornography. I find this odd.

It's basically propaganda, because these films are editted by the government to give them a favorably portrayal regardless of what the truth is.

The first casualty of war is truth, which apparently is true of movies as well.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
IMO this is not really new to me. Movies depicting war and extreme amounts of gore receive more lenience in ratings, while soft-core pornography receives a higher rating.. Go figure.

War Porn is deemened "less harmful" than sexual pornography. I find this odd.

edit on 26-12-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Propaganda? Yes! But please explain to me the benefit that "Black Hawk Down" had. But in reality, it all comes down to..."What Would John Wayne Do?"

reply to post by Rob1971


Blackhawk Down, Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, etc, seem to all glorify war. The music coupled with story-telling all points to the glorification of war. I have not seen a war movie that paints war in a bad picture, it's always painted in a glorified manner, with focus on the violence.

Indeed. The video goes in depth about the connection between hollywood and the pentagon that helps forge these favorable views.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by Rob1971

 

Blackhawk Down, Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, etc, seem to all glorify war. The music coupled with story-telling all points to the glorification of war. I have not seen a war movie that paints war in a bad picture, it's always painted in a glorified manner, with focus on the violence.

Can't watch it now, marking for later.

Is there stuff in it about bringing cameras to the battlefield? I've been thinking a lot lately about all the footage you see from ww2 from the gun-cameras on planes, and I was wondering what goes through the pilot's mind when they turn the camera on, or if it was somehow automated.
Also wondered about the dudes running around with cameras while guys to their left, right, front and back are being ripped up by bullets/explosions...

I'm guessing it's more about propaganda/political motives though?

Originally posted by alaskan
Is there stuff in it about bringing cameras to the battlefield? I've been thinking a lot lately about all the footage you see from ww2 from the gun-cameras on planes, and I was wondering what goes through the pilot's mind when they turn the camera on, or if it was somehow automated.

Aircraft gun cameras only came on when the trigger was squeezed. The pilot didn't have to do anything. And it wasn't for Hollywood; it was for documention; back up claims to fighters shot down, for intel to look over for any new fighters, etc.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
Blackhawk Down, Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, etc, seem to all glorify war. The music coupled with story-telling all points to the glorification of war. I have not seen a war movie that paints war in a bad picture, it's always painted in a glorified manner, with focus on the violence.

Really? You think so? I really don't think that BHD, SPR, etc glorified any war. It showed what really happens. People get killed and sometimes you're scratching your head afterwards trying to figure it all out.

reply to post by Somehumanbeing


Full Metal Jacket? Any intelligent understanding of this movie reveals it to be very anti-war in tone.

reply to post by Grumble


Though I have seen it as an anti-war film in the past, it seems to me now that the very fact that it is on an entertainment medium allows it to be seen by the general populace as promoting a "glorification of war" message.

Before I headed to basic training here, a good quantity of the post-BT and post-IET grunts here used to tell the recruits that FMJ was as close are you're gonna get to portrayal of training. The way they said it is what bothers me, they all said it in a tone and manner that promoted the perception that FMJ was a very "cool" movie to watch. That alone seems to provide me with a source for my asumptions that the movie glorified war in a manner, or perhaps the people that have that particular psychological or genetic characteristic prone to seeking "thrills" are more susceptible to take these movies the wrong way?

Either way, the movie would serve as a propaganda piece.

Beyond that propaganda, I just think the monetary gain hollywood essentially gets from the tax payers is uncalled for. They have enough money to buy their own equipment, but decide to use the miltary's on the terms that they portray them in a good light no matter what the truth is.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Beyond that propaganda, I just think the monetary gain hollywood essentially gets from the tax payers is uncalled for. They have enough money to buy their own equipment, but decide to use the miltary's on the terms that they portray them in a good light no matter what the truth is.

Individual production companies don't have the scratch to buy several Blackhawk helicopters, or tanks, or weapons, or whatever. That's why they ask the military to borrow theirs. In the case of BHD, they wanted to use Blackhawks; if the military didn't cooperate, they'd have to use Hueys, which would sort of detract from the title of the movie.

And how do you think the military should have been protrayed in BHD? How about in Saving Private Ryan? How should have Soldiers been protrayed during Omaha Beach?