[noah-kun]

American films often use military assets and personal, and give the military final cut on the films. They follow rules set by the navy, Air Force, etc to portray their personnel and decision making in a certain, glorifying way. This program has been rampant in US film, but it's arguably increased in it's offerings to film makers; more money, more sets, more extras--and more demands. Film franchises work with U.S. forces to produce recruitment material using the film's IP, story, actors and brand.

Black Mirror, from memory, season 3 episode 5(?), a soldier fights a non-human enemy that is simply hiding from them. [Spoiler ahead] Turns out, military manipulation of the soldier's brain causes him to see non-humans where there are actually helpless humans.

Independence Day 2 lent their story, one of fighting alien invasion, to US armed forces recruitment videos. Actors gave mock interviews about their brave children who fought the aliens, and viewers were encouraged to join the REAL armed forces to be like the fictional ones fighting the fictional enemy.

This scratches the surface of what I mean to compare Cook's alleged requests to. Apple, without military money, asked writers to be sensitive of another nation. Their motive: a wider audience and more subscribers and customers. Heinous and selfish--sure, why not--but a far cry from recruiting folks to dump napalm on villages or use Iraqi farmers as target practice.

As a freaking media company, producers and other executives ask for content and define the market in which they want to address. It sounds like that's all Apple's really done. And if they've actually made an effort to curb US propaganda about China, then, even better. But I think it's more about expanding to a very promising market.

[izacus]

Yeah, the fact that any appearance of US military assets requires Pentagon to approve the script means that Hollwood is unable to record a movie depicting modern US millitary in any critical or non-heroic manner. Is you look at the records, you can see that the requirements are very strict, to the point where many movies aren't even allowed to depict US millitary losing in larger combat operations.

This obviously shifts the tone of any war movie to the point where we could almost call it propaganda. How can movies be true to history if they're not allowed to ever show a major player in a bad light?

[speedplane]

> Yeah, the fact that any appearance of US military assets requires Pentagon to approve the script means that Hollwood is unable to record a movie depicting modern US millitary in any critical or non-heroic manner.

Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon ... There are probably more movies critical of war than promoting it. Actually, the general theme is to display the senseless of war than to glorify it. To say hollywood is in the pocket of the pentagon is to ignore most of its history.

China on the other hand, won't approve a movie if winnie the pooh appears in it.

[nabla9]

US military refused to cooperate filming Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and many other films. For Apocalypse Now they pressured Australian and Philippine governments to deny assistance as well. US military has successfully removed lines from silly action movies like James Bond films and Marvel movies.

It's not comparable to what Chinese do of course, but the intention is there. Anyone who directly compares Chinese censorship to US censorship is an idiot.

[computerex]

There is a huge difference between refusing to cooperate and forbidding the making of film altogether. The U.S military doesn't have the power to restrict freedom of speech. Of course no organization would want to be portrayed in bad light. That is obvious. But unlike China where everything has to be approved by their authoritarian government, we have freedom of speech laws that protect us.

[goatinaboat]

US military refused to cooperate filming Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and many other films

The story goes that the US Army refused to cooperate with Heartbreak Ridge once they read the script, but the USMC agreed without reading it. That’s why you’ve got the corrupt supply sergeant, the useless platoon commander, the cowardly company commander, the unit that is forced to repeat basic training and everything else that portrays everyone but Clint Eastwood’s character in a poor light.

[izacus]

Yes, movies about old operations can be made because you can get/mock hardware without military approval. But note how those are all more than 50 years in the past.

And we didn't even get to censorship of any sexual content, where depictions of human bodies make sure that US will censor it.

It's really hard to be sympathetic to this US hand-wringing where we've had our own content censored constantly under conservative American value system on American platforms.

[intended]

This is a spurious comparison- at the end of the day if you wanted to make a movie or Documentary denouncing the army- you can in america.

You can’t in China.

The act of NOT giving resources and bases to film makers is not censorship.

[izacus]

It doesn't matter if something is forbidden by directly via law or via indirect pressure of money. The result isn't all that different.

[intended]

Since The results are very different, in practice and observable reality, I would have to say that the statement is wrong.

For all the indirect pressure, anti war movies do exist as do movies that challenge American systems and narratives of superiority - from within their own country.

Dissent is enshrined as a part of existence in america.

In China it is anathema, and they explicitly and implicitly act to maintain that strength.

Hence the whole point of the article - it’s not america which is asking Apple to take down apps because they hurt China’s image, and it’s not America telling the NBA to correct its errors.

When people kneeled in america during football games, or highlighted their protest, it was handled publicly and all sides were audible. political tribes fought over the act on the air waves- but that’s something that doesn’t happen in China at all; No one was whisked away to a re-education camp.

[computerex]

This is nonsense. The U.S military doesn't fund the U.S film making industry. The result is different, there are plenty of films critical of the U.S armed forces. In contrast that's not even a possibility in China because they have no freedom of speech and censorship is ubiquitous.

[yyyk]

China won't allow even foreign companies to criticize it == US army won't help others criticize it. That's exactly the same. Not.

P.S. Just wait until you get the Chinese value system, which surprisingly censors everything US does and much much more.

[jaynetics]

Everyone knows about sexuality anyway, but not about all of the topics that China wants people not even to mention.

[poudfeahw]

It's strange that the movie wasn't approved, but a Winnie the Pooh ride in Shanghai Disneyland is fine

https://youtu.be/338iWj670N4

[input_sh]

Almost as if specific images containing Winnie the Pooh were blocked, not every single possible mention of the character.

[StreamBright]

- Apocalypse Now: 1979

- Full Metal Jacket: 1987

- Platoon: 1986

Anything more recent?

[speedplane]

- Jarhead: showing the boredom and uselessness of war

- Hurt Locker: showing the lack of clear morality (good guy/bad guy) in war

- American Sniper: showing the lasting psychological damage that war can inflict on the individual soldier.

Even though some of these movies depict individual heroism in war, none of them would be allowed in China (without heavy editing) because they are at their heart, critical of the entire endevour.

[noah-kun]

Yes, American Sniper, White House Down, 24 (TV Series), just to name a few. The 3 you list are barely even patriotic.

[StreamBright]

American Sniper,:

"Kyle meets Taya Studebaker at a bar, and the two soon marry. He is sent to Iraq after the September 11 attacks. His first kills are a woman and boy who attacked U.S. Marines with a Russian made RKG-3 anti-tank grenade. Kyle is visibly upset by the experience but later earns the nickname "Legend" for his many kills. Assigned to hunt for the al-Qaeda leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Kyle interrogates a family whose father offers to lead the SEALs to "The Butcher", al-Zarqawi's second-in-command. The plan goes awry when The Butcher captures the father and his son, killing them while Kyle is pinned down by a sniper. This sniper goes by the name Mustafa and is an Olympic Games medalist from Syria. Meanwhile, the insurgents issue a bounty on Kyle."

How this disproves that "Hollwood is unable to record a movie depicting modern US millitary in any critical or non-heroic manner"?

If you have mentioned Generation Kill I would have given you props but it is not an accident that many people in US have not heard about that series (and the book).

[speedplane]

> American Sniper ... How this disproves that "Hollwood is unable to record a movie depicting modern US millitary in any critical or non-heroic manner"?

It's very critical. While American Sniper does indeed glorify the heroism of individual soldiers, it simultaneously criticizes the entire endevour. Yes, the lead protagonist is depicted as a hero, but he is never confident in his own morality, and even develops a professional kinship with the people that he is ordered to kill. It also highlights the severe physiological damage that war can bring, the movie ending in tragedy.

While American Sniper may glorify the individual warrior, it's largely critical of war itself.

[doubletgl]

Agree with your general point, but I think you're generalizing a bit too much. There's plenty of movies that aren't Top Gun-level propaganda. The Hurt Locker, Jarhead, all the ones commented below.

[izacus]

You'll also note that they have a very limited depiction of US Army hardware (or use older/fake models).

[computerex]

This is complete non-sense. The 1st amendment of the U.S constitution is the freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want against the U.S armed forces and portray them however you wish, and there are plenty of examples.

[nradov]

The growth of CGI technology has made it increasingly possible for filmmakers to make motion pictures about the military without military cooperation.

[noelsusman]

Lack of access to US military assets does not prevent you from being able to make a movie about the modern US military saying whatever you want.

[seppin]

> American films often use military assets and personal, and give the military final cut on the films

Which is a voluntary process. How does that compare to top down state censorship?

[aquadrop]

It creates unfair competitive advantage against those who don't want to adhere to state approved propaganda.

[noah-kun]

I know some are weak at geography, law and business. It's fine. But Tim Cook, nor Apple, are leaders of China nor a state.

If an executive asks for changes to remove homophobic comments from a Western film, they are not engaging in "top-down state censorship". That's just a person helping other people not be jerks.

[seppin]

> If an executive asks for changes to remove homophobic comments from a Western film, they are not engaging in "top-down state censorship". That's just a person helping other people not be jerks.

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. If I had to guess, you are comparing removing hate-speech to adding CCP propaganda. Those are the same thing.

Can that possibly be right?

[PavlovsCat]

> a far cry from recruiting folks to dump napalm on villages or use Iraqi farmers as target practice

It's not. People get recruited to look the other way as Uyghur graveyards get disappeared, not to mention what is done to people. The main difference is that the Winter Soldier hearings didn't just take place, you can still watch them on American websites, or buy the movie from American sellers. Or take this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal

> The Russell Tribunal was included by historian Guenter Lewy as part of a "veritable industry publicizing alleged war crimes", as increasing numbers of American servicemen were stepping forward with published accounts of their experiences with atrocities, and scholars and peace organizations were holding tribunals dealing with war crimes.

That is not at all comparable with the situation in China. And even as bad as COINTELPRO was, notice the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Intended_effects and "disappear anyone deemed an enemy, disappear who talks about it, if the people protest, roll over them with tanks". We also don't only ever hear about the Kent State shooting from people living in exile, or see it in archives of non-US news organizations.

There is propaganda on both sides, but basically zero criticism or reflection (allowed within earshot of the government) on just one of them. That the crickets are chirping under the CCP while atrocities of the US military are heavily publicized and discussed, also by American filmmakers and journalists, in itself says a lot.

[StreamBright]

Yes, and the top of that mainstream media is always pro-war. Just look at this, "liberal" pushing for war without knowing anything about that is really happening in the word. People have to explain why they are against war, and this is the norm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y1nylDLW-Y

[seppin]

You just referred to an entire media landscape as one thing, then linked a tulsi gabbard video falsely claiming she is "anti-war" (she is very pro-Russian bombs killing Syrians, even criticized Obama for not killing more Syrians under the guise of fighting terrorism). https://theweek.com/articles/855766/tulsi-gabbard-no-peaceni...

I struggle to define this "anti-war anti-democrat anti-media (usually pro-Trump)" demographic I see online. Just a light scratch of the fingernail and their entire ideology falls apart.