[anon114]

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" talks about some of the American film propaganda machine. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

Want to shoot a war movie? Need access to military assets? You're going to have to run the movie by the Pentagon first to make sure it portrays "The Right Side of the Story".

Also the US has tax credits for scripts which incorporate messages in support of the war on drugs. This is why you see ridiculous bullshit on CSI like kids dying after falling off a roof while high on.. GASP.. MARIJUANA!

Land of the free, home of the brainwashed. This is why I try not to consume very much mainstream media. It's not exactly on the level with denial of historical events - people wouldn't stand for that. It has to be more subtle, and it is, and it works.

[jrockway]

Oh right. I find this so transparent that I find it difficult to even begin to use the word propaganda. But I could be dangerously out of touch with "the common man" or whatever.

Basically, if someone tries to tell me something is bad and it's not a paper on PubMed, I don't really buy it. But I guess most people believe secondary sources.

[miked]

>> You're going to have to run the movie by the Pentagon first to make sure it portrays "The Right Side of the Story".

You mean like Avatar? Or Redacted? Stop-Loss? Battle For Haditha? Green Zone? Or any of a host of other war movies made by Hollywood in the last 40 years that trash the US military to varying degrees. Go further back in time and you get movies like Casualties of War, Apocalypse Now, etc.

You accuse others of lying in the service of their politics, all the while you engage in that very thing. The term for this is projection.

[Retric]

You forgot about: Need access to military assets? Avatar had zero need for military assets.

The most effective form of censorship is self censorship. Let's not say really bad things about X, because I don't want to burn any bridges. There is a popular image of the US military has little to do with reality. Consider the number of times an active army US soldier is portrayed as raping someone in a movie vs the other guy's army. Or the extremely high unemployment rate rate for soldiers you only serve one tour.

[lotu]

So you are saying that if you want to shoot a film about the army killing and raping people the Pentagon won't help you out by letting you borrow some tanks for some of the scenes? You could still use replicas, CGI, or even borrow a privately owned tank so I don't see this issue.

The reason you see a positive portrayal of the US soldier in movies is because a large percentage of the audience either is or if friends with someone who is a soldier. So unless you movie is explicitly about evil US soldiers there is no profit to be had in portraying the US army in a negative light.

[Retric]

Sorry, I was not clear. The military uses a light touch to shape perceptions, but the most powerful force is still indirect censorship.

Filmmakers don't offend people without gaining something from it. It's not just a question of the military + audience but also producers and actors etc. Also, sound effects people don't bother using actual hoof beats when people are so used to hearing cocoanuts and writers / producers don't challenge perceptions unless that's their direct goal.

PS: The DoD does not try and get people to think that most US soldiers are Captain America wannabes. The goal is closer to: "Well trained, Deadly, Loyal, Young, Americans, that need all the support they can get." For various reasons they would rather be seen as crazy than infective.

[khafra]

>> Want to shoot a war movie? Need access to military assets?

Where did Avatar use current military technology?