Question:
I'm doing a media project on american war films and whether they are more or less pro-american today than they were 20/30 years ago (vietnam era)? Platoon, full metal jacket etc.
If so why is this? Due to sept. 11th or has it been a gradual thing over time since the self 'criticisism' of vietnam?
What do you think? Is pearl harbor more pro-american than 'tora, tora,tora'? Why?
Or have any links to good websites.
If you can help I'll REALLY appreciate it so much.
Thanks.
There were a surprising amount of war films out last year, sadly none of them were classics.
They were all filmed pre September 11th as far as I know though, We Were Soldiers, Windtalkers, Black Hawk Down etc.
Gary A
in my opinion yes there are more american biased and far-fetched movies based on war.
it has been going on for a few years and the events of 9-11 can't have helped the cause any, Americans will make themselves feel better by portraying success on the big screen.
Pearl Harbour is more pro-American than Tora-Tora-Tora as the Japanese were not consulted in the making of Pearl Harbour but they were in Tora-Tora Tora. So Pearl Harbour is purely an American's view of the events.
But not all films show American success, i suppose it all depends on the director and script writer (people who have been through the awful events of war might feel themselves compelled to tell the true story, whereas journalists and novellists are more likely to fabricate the truth). The most recent example of this is "We Were Soldiers" - a great movie but doesn't end with any true winner (altho some may say the Americans won due to the fact they wiped out the mound)
UFO Boxset 2 - from amazon sale.
It's definately an interesting project you've got there. One of the only true anti-american war films I've seen would be De Palma's 'Casualities Of War' (1989) but that bombed (excuse the pun), wonder why?
Definately in the 70's and 80's, the Vietnam fallout, there were a number of anti-war films, many of which are now regarded as classics, my favourite line in 'Full Metal Jacket' has to be "inside every gook is an American waiting to get out", Kubrick genius for so many reasons.
Tora! Tora! Tora! which I saw only last week is one of the most even-handed films ive seen regarding American involvment in a war, certainly incomparable to 'Pearl Harbor' which is just flag waving cack, pardon my french. 'We Were Soldiers' another prime example I thought.
So yes, I think American war films these days are definately a lot more patriotic and a lot less critical of their involvement in war. Look at the spate of recent 'sole american soldier vs the world' scenario's we've seen in the likes of 'Behind Enemy Lines', patriotism gone mad. I suspect one of the reasons could be Vietnam was 36(ish) years ago now, that was a previous generation's problem/error. I do think its important to remember though that for a long time, since the end of the cold war, America's common enemy has been terrorism, long before 9/11. Films such as 'Die Hard' which was amongst the first to pick up on this. One would assume things can only get worse, but it will make the likes of 'Starship Troopers' and 'Paths of Glory' shine even more than they already do as we are hit by another wave of super-patriotism and mindless propaganda!
I don't think America are helping themselves in the world stage, on the one foot playing judge, jury and executioner and on the other being supreme isolationists - its important to remember they won't be the only true world super power for much longer now...thank god!
Thanks for your help.
It's a nice subject for a project, but I find I'm a bit overwhelmed with info at times through google, so it's nice to see the comments on here.
I have to compare a film made in the last 2 years and contrast with a film from any time before that. I did have Pearl Harbor in mind along with tora x3. Anyone think that I should chose anything different - behind enemy lines for example? Although thats on a different war so makes it slightly more difficult. the benefit is that 'behind' was made after sept. 11th so that could tie in with us govt. collaboration (which was probably going on before anyway but i'm not sure)
I have read stuff in the past like US military only allow equipment if they are shown favourably in return, and a US govt. person met heads of studios after sept. 11th. Anyone have any more info on this?
Your help is greatly appreciated :clap:
The only one recently i can think of that actually questioned recent(ish) American foreign policy (and Micheal Jackson) was Three Kings.
behind enemy lines for example? Although thats on a different war so makes it slightly more difficult. the benefit is that 'behind' was made after sept. 11th so that could tie in with us govt. collaboration
Behind Enemy Lines opened in November 2001 - only 2 months after 9/11!!. Most films take around a couple of years pre-production and filming so even if 9/11 has had any effect on film subjects, we wouldn't have seen them yet.
The majority of war films since The Deerhunter have tended to take a serious look at the effects of war rather than treating the subject simply as entertainment. Pearl Harbor is a bit like films of the past such as Where Eagles Dare in using a war setting to provide exciting and spectacular entertainment. Unfortunately Pearl Harbor goes totally over the top with its gung-ho heroics, whilst characters speak the sort of dialogue which just wasn't used in the '40s. I doubt that it signifies any trend though.
Most war movies coming out of Hollywood are made with the cooperation of the American armed forces. They provide equipment (tanks, large ships, planes etc.), extra's and military consultants. Of course that cooperation comes at a price - their influence on what becomes the final movie is very big. This has been the case since the beginning of film btw and not something of the recent past.
There's an excellent book written about this: Lawrence Suid's "Guts And Glory: The Making Of The American Military Image In Film".
Two excellent articles from Suid about Pearl Harbor:
http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/articles01/NHsuid8.html
http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/articles01/nhsuid6.htm
If you do a search in Google on Lawrence Suid you'll probably find more useful articles by him.
Thanks once again.
Thank god I didn't have to do projects before the internet was around :clap:
Most war movies coming out of Hollywood are made with the cooperation of the American armed forces.
This may have been true in the past but I'm doubtful that "most" Hollywood war films have such co-operation nowadays - especially in the case of the many films which have been critical of Vietnam ie Full Metal Jacket.
Don't forget Oliver Stone made Platoon WITHOUT US government support or cooperation and has made several other films (Born On The Fourth Of July, JFK and Nixon) all with politically challenging views against the US. I haven't seen Salvador yet, but I that should be dropping through my letter box any day now!
IIRC Full Metal Jacket was made with US army support - in fact wasn't Lee Ermey (the guy who plays Gunnery Sgt. Hartman) playing the part he did in real life, serving in Vietnam!
Just read this from IMDB in fact;
"Very talented character actor known for his military roles, R. Lee Ermey was in the Marine Corps for eleven years. He rose to the rank of Gunnery Sergeant, and his Marine service included one and a half tours in Vietnam. After injuries forced him to retire from military service, he moved to the Phillipines, enrolling in the University of Manila, where he studied Criminology and Drama. He appeared in several Phillipino films, before being cast as a Helicopter pilot in Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now"
Originally posted by vanmunchen
This may have been true in the past but I'm doubtful that "most" Hollywood war films have such co-operation nowadays - especially in the case of the many films which have been critical of Vietnam ie Full Metal Jacket.
Yeah, the US Navy was -ahem- "up in arms" about Crimson Tide and the was Gene Hackmans character was protrayed. There was a news reported (in the film) standing on a French warship because the US refused to co-operate
Since I only saw Black Hawk Down last year, its the only one I can mention. I think there was a bit of pro-Americanism(!) in it, but there was just as much negetivism too(!) when the blaming started and the asian army (Pakistani?) came to the rescue. I think it was anti-war anyway
Starflashed, a good book would be Pocket Essential's great "Vietnam War Movies".
It is fair to say that in the late 90's and into the new millennium that US war movies have kinda gone full circle and are more patriotic, not to say however they haven't always been, i.e. The Green Berets!
Originally posted by vanmunchen
This may have been true in the past but I'm doubtful that "most" Hollywood war films have such co-operation nowadays - especially in the case of the many films which have been critical of Vietnam ie Full Metal Jacket.
I said most not all. Of course if a film is going to be critical of the US armed forces than it more than likely will not get the support of the Pentagon. A good indicator of Pentagon support is the authenticity of the more expensive hardware that is being used (I don't mean cheap things like trucks here). You'll see that the critical Vietnam movies like Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket don't use authentic Bell UH-1 helicopters (the famous Huey) for instance. A recent movie like Black Hawk Down on the other hand with its expensive UH60 Black Hawk attack helicopters was obviously made with Pentagon support. We Were Soldiers more than likely had support as well.
It also depends on the type of war movie that is being made and how authentic the filmmaker wants it to look. The US Armed Forces are a lot less useful to a filmmaker making a WWII movie than they were 50 years ago - they simply haven't got the hardware anymore. If you want to make an authentic looking WWII movie depicting the Battle Of The Bulge then the Pentagon is not much use to you as I doubt that they have any running Shermans left. The filmmaker will have to resort to re-building the tanks; look for them in museums or private collections or use CGI (but I doubt that Saving Private Ryan would have looked very good with a CGI'ed Tiger).
On the other hand, a filmmaker might care a bit less about authenticity or is simply forced to make a compromise because of costs. If you want to make a WWII picture depicting the Battle Of Midway then you are nearly forced to use the US Navy if you want large ships like destroyers and carriers in your movie (that is, if you don't want to re-build them or depend wholly on CGI). You will not get authentic 1940's vintage destroyers but what the US Navy will supply is relatively cheap and most moviegoers won't notice the difference between a 1940's carrier and a modern one anyway. Case in point, Pearl Harbor which uses modern destroyers and carriers.
For movies dealing with recent conflicts it will also depend on the kind of story a filmmaker is going to tell if he wants/needs support of the US Armed Forces. If he is going to make a "small" squadlevel type of movie focussing on the relationships between the soldiers rather than large scale action than he is not going to need much expensive hardware and he probably could get by without support of the Pentagon. A movie like Platoon simply did not need support of the Pentagon to look more or less authentic as there was not much hardware needed.
If on the other hand a filmmaker is going to make an action oriented movie with lots of expensive hardware like attack helicopters and jetfighters than Pentagon support would be very welcome obviously. Of course, in the future dependence of filmmakers on usage of Pentagon supplied hardware might diminish as computer generated illusions get better and better.
If so why is this? Due to sept. 11th or has it been a gradual thing over time since the self 'criticisism' of vietnam?
What do you think? Is pearl harbor more pro-american than 'tora, tora,tora'? Why?
Or have any links to good websites.
If you can help I'll REALLY appreciate it so much.
Thanks.
Answers:
There were a surprising amount of war films out last year, sadly none of them were classics.
They were all filmed pre September 11th as far as I know though, We Were Soldiers, Windtalkers, Black Hawk Down etc.
Gary A
Answers:
in my opinion yes there are more american biased and far-fetched movies based on war.
it has been going on for a few years and the events of 9-11 can't have helped the cause any, Americans will make themselves feel better by portraying success on the big screen.
Pearl Harbour is more pro-American than Tora-Tora-Tora as the Japanese were not consulted in the making of Pearl Harbour but they were in Tora-Tora Tora. So Pearl Harbour is purely an American's view of the events.
But not all films show American success, i suppose it all depends on the director and script writer (people who have been through the awful events of war might feel themselves compelled to tell the true story, whereas journalists and novellists are more likely to fabricate the truth). The most recent example of this is "We Were Soldiers" - a great movie but doesn't end with any true winner (altho some may say the Americans won due to the fact they wiped out the mound)
Answers:
UFO Boxset 2 - from amazon sale.
Answers:
It's definately an interesting project you've got there. One of the only true anti-american war films I've seen would be De Palma's 'Casualities Of War' (1989) but that bombed (excuse the pun), wonder why?
Definately in the 70's and 80's, the Vietnam fallout, there were a number of anti-war films, many of which are now regarded as classics, my favourite line in 'Full Metal Jacket' has to be "inside every gook is an American waiting to get out", Kubrick genius for so many reasons.
Tora! Tora! Tora! which I saw only last week is one of the most even-handed films ive seen regarding American involvment in a war, certainly incomparable to 'Pearl Harbor' which is just flag waving cack, pardon my french. 'We Were Soldiers' another prime example I thought.
So yes, I think American war films these days are definately a lot more patriotic and a lot less critical of their involvement in war. Look at the spate of recent 'sole american soldier vs the world' scenario's we've seen in the likes of 'Behind Enemy Lines', patriotism gone mad. I suspect one of the reasons could be Vietnam was 36(ish) years ago now, that was a previous generation's problem/error. I do think its important to remember though that for a long time, since the end of the cold war, America's common enemy has been terrorism, long before 9/11. Films such as 'Die Hard' which was amongst the first to pick up on this. One would assume things can only get worse, but it will make the likes of 'Starship Troopers' and 'Paths of Glory' shine even more than they already do as we are hit by another wave of super-patriotism and mindless propaganda!
I don't think America are helping themselves in the world stage, on the one foot playing judge, jury and executioner and on the other being supreme isolationists - its important to remember they won't be the only true world super power for much longer now...thank god!
Answers:
Thanks for your help.
It's a nice subject for a project, but I find I'm a bit overwhelmed with info at times through google, so it's nice to see the comments on here.
I have to compare a film made in the last 2 years and contrast with a film from any time before that. I did have Pearl Harbor in mind along with tora x3. Anyone think that I should chose anything different - behind enemy lines for example? Although thats on a different war so makes it slightly more difficult. the benefit is that 'behind' was made after sept. 11th so that could tie in with us govt. collaboration (which was probably going on before anyway but i'm not sure)
I have read stuff in the past like US military only allow equipment if they are shown favourably in return, and a US govt. person met heads of studios after sept. 11th. Anyone have any more info on this?
Your help is greatly appreciated :clap:
Answers:
The only one recently i can think of that actually questioned recent(ish) American foreign policy (and Micheal Jackson) was Three Kings.
Answers:
behind enemy lines for example? Although thats on a different war so makes it slightly more difficult. the benefit is that 'behind' was made after sept. 11th so that could tie in with us govt. collaboration
Behind Enemy Lines opened in November 2001 - only 2 months after 9/11!!. Most films take around a couple of years pre-production and filming so even if 9/11 has had any effect on film subjects, we wouldn't have seen them yet.
The majority of war films since The Deerhunter have tended to take a serious look at the effects of war rather than treating the subject simply as entertainment. Pearl Harbor is a bit like films of the past such as Where Eagles Dare in using a war setting to provide exciting and spectacular entertainment. Unfortunately Pearl Harbor goes totally over the top with its gung-ho heroics, whilst characters speak the sort of dialogue which just wasn't used in the '40s. I doubt that it signifies any trend though.
Answers:
Most war movies coming out of Hollywood are made with the cooperation of the American armed forces. They provide equipment (tanks, large ships, planes etc.), extra's and military consultants. Of course that cooperation comes at a price - their influence on what becomes the final movie is very big. This has been the case since the beginning of film btw and not something of the recent past.
There's an excellent book written about this: Lawrence Suid's "Guts And Glory: The Making Of The American Military Image In Film".
Two excellent articles from Suid about Pearl Harbor:
http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/articles01/NHsuid8.html
http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/articles01/nhsuid6.htm
If you do a search in Google on Lawrence Suid you'll probably find more useful articles by him.
Answers:
Thanks once again.
Thank god I didn't have to do projects before the internet was around :clap:
Answers:
Most war movies coming out of Hollywood are made with the cooperation of the American armed forces.
This may have been true in the past but I'm doubtful that "most" Hollywood war films have such co-operation nowadays - especially in the case of the many films which have been critical of Vietnam ie Full Metal Jacket.
Answers:
Don't forget Oliver Stone made Platoon WITHOUT US government support or cooperation and has made several other films (Born On The Fourth Of July, JFK and Nixon) all with politically challenging views against the US. I haven't seen Salvador yet, but I that should be dropping through my letter box any day now!
IIRC Full Metal Jacket was made with US army support - in fact wasn't Lee Ermey (the guy who plays Gunnery Sgt. Hartman) playing the part he did in real life, serving in Vietnam!
Just read this from IMDB in fact;
"Very talented character actor known for his military roles, R. Lee Ermey was in the Marine Corps for eleven years. He rose to the rank of Gunnery Sergeant, and his Marine service included one and a half tours in Vietnam. After injuries forced him to retire from military service, he moved to the Phillipines, enrolling in the University of Manila, where he studied Criminology and Drama. He appeared in several Phillipino films, before being cast as a Helicopter pilot in Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now"
Answers:
Originally posted by vanmunchen
This may have been true in the past but I'm doubtful that "most" Hollywood war films have such co-operation nowadays - especially in the case of the many films which have been critical of Vietnam ie Full Metal Jacket.
Yeah, the US Navy was -ahem- "up in arms" about Crimson Tide and the was Gene Hackmans character was protrayed. There was a news reported (in the film) standing on a French warship because the US refused to co-operate
Since I only saw Black Hawk Down last year, its the only one I can mention. I think there was a bit of pro-Americanism(!) in it, but there was just as much negetivism too(!) when the blaming started and the asian army (Pakistani?) came to the rescue. I think it was anti-war anyway
Answers:
Starflashed, a good book would be Pocket Essential's great "Vietnam War Movies".
It is fair to say that in the late 90's and into the new millennium that US war movies have kinda gone full circle and are more patriotic, not to say however they haven't always been, i.e. The Green Berets!
Answers:
Originally posted by vanmunchen
This may have been true in the past but I'm doubtful that "most" Hollywood war films have such co-operation nowadays - especially in the case of the many films which have been critical of Vietnam ie Full Metal Jacket.
I said most not all. Of course if a film is going to be critical of the US armed forces than it more than likely will not get the support of the Pentagon. A good indicator of Pentagon support is the authenticity of the more expensive hardware that is being used (I don't mean cheap things like trucks here). You'll see that the critical Vietnam movies like Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket don't use authentic Bell UH-1 helicopters (the famous Huey) for instance. A recent movie like Black Hawk Down on the other hand with its expensive UH60 Black Hawk attack helicopters was obviously made with Pentagon support. We Were Soldiers more than likely had support as well.
It also depends on the type of war movie that is being made and how authentic the filmmaker wants it to look. The US Armed Forces are a lot less useful to a filmmaker making a WWII movie than they were 50 years ago - they simply haven't got the hardware anymore. If you want to make an authentic looking WWII movie depicting the Battle Of The Bulge then the Pentagon is not much use to you as I doubt that they have any running Shermans left. The filmmaker will have to resort to re-building the tanks; look for them in museums or private collections or use CGI (but I doubt that Saving Private Ryan would have looked very good with a CGI'ed Tiger).
On the other hand, a filmmaker might care a bit less about authenticity or is simply forced to make a compromise because of costs. If you want to make a WWII picture depicting the Battle Of Midway then you are nearly forced to use the US Navy if you want large ships like destroyers and carriers in your movie (that is, if you don't want to re-build them or depend wholly on CGI). You will not get authentic 1940's vintage destroyers but what the US Navy will supply is relatively cheap and most moviegoers won't notice the difference between a 1940's carrier and a modern one anyway. Case in point, Pearl Harbor which uses modern destroyers and carriers.
For movies dealing with recent conflicts it will also depend on the kind of story a filmmaker is going to tell if he wants/needs support of the US Armed Forces. If he is going to make a "small" squadlevel type of movie focussing on the relationships between the soldiers rather than large scale action than he is not going to need much expensive hardware and he probably could get by without support of the Pentagon. A movie like Platoon simply did not need support of the Pentagon to look more or less authentic as there was not much hardware needed.
If on the other hand a filmmaker is going to make an action oriented movie with lots of expensive hardware like attack helicopters and jetfighters than Pentagon support would be very welcome obviously. Of course, in the future dependence of filmmakers on usage of Pentagon supplied hardware might diminish as computer generated illusions get better and better.
1 2