[mcantelon]

The effectiveness of Western propaganda comes from the high production values and the degree to which the propaganda agenda is concealed. Modern propaganda techniques have evolved over nearly a century[1]. Employers at media companies covertly liason with the CIA, deals are made with the US military exchanging access to military props for script approval, controlled opposition is used to create a sense of objectivity, etc.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Propaganda

[objclxt]

I think people here are making this out to be a considerably bigger deal than it actually is.

Studios that make war films like having DoD support. It is a useful benefit. However, it's not required. Indeed, if you're shooting your film in Canada or Australia (which is fairly common) you're not going to really be able to make much use of the platoon of extras the US army is willing to lend you.

Similarly, the DoD doesn't have to spend money 'buying' the support of movie studios because the American public already want pro-US military films. Studios want to make films that will bring in buckets of money. Audiences in the US are far more willing to go and watch patriotic films than those that question the actions of the military or government.

You'd have lots of pro-US war/military films with or without DoD support. What's interesting is that we're starting to see films being edited - and entirely new scenes being added - for non US markets that are not quite so American-centric. A good example of this would be Iron Man 3, which had several minutes of additional footage added in for the Chinese market.

[cinquemb]

>Studios want to make films that will bring in buckets of money. Audiences in the US are far more willing to go and watch patriotic films than those that question the actions of the military or government.

>A good example of this would be Iron Man 3, which had several minutes of additional footage added in for the Chinese market.

Yeah, doesn't seem like it worked too well for them[0]… if they really wanted to make 'buckets of money' in this case, why not add footage that would resonate with the audience (possibly non DoD supportive stances) instead of irrelevant shots of a local pop star? How can one go about hand-waving this situation that presented itself? They didn't feel like taking the time to understand the Chinese audience? Easier to employ Edward Bernays techniques of misdirection and diversion in order to try and associate good feelings with the movie?

[0]: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0510/Chines...

[krapp]

They didn't feel like taking the time to understand the Chinese audience? Easier to employ Edward Bernays techniques of misdirection and diversion in order to try and associate good feelings with the movie?

This is the same film industry that still seems to typecast roles by race, to the point of whitewashing minorities out of leading roles they feel American (read "white") audiences will be uncomfortable with.

I doubt they thought it through much further than "You know what Chinese people want to see? Other Chinese people!"

[cinquemb]

Possibly, considering all the work that goes into A/B testing in general even in software (even for the most mundane of things with less money on the line than motion picture budgets), I doubt it was that simple.

Besides there's a basic premise behind statements like "You know what Chinese people want to see? Other Chinese people!" that is often overlooked, especially when its used to justify an action meant to display an image or viewpoint of some kind that is usually to the benefit of nobody but the person/company who wants to shape that viewpoint and related parties interests who are aligned with it, no matter how misguided it may appear…

Interestingly enough, they talk about how the technique of 'giving people what they want' as way of control in Adam Curtis' Century of Self in the second half [0; 1h57min]…

[0]http://vimeo.com/61857758

[krapp]

Fair enough, I don't know how much effort actually goes into testing recuts of a movie for foreign markets - you're probably right about it being more complicated than I suggest.

Nevertheless, I still believe their primary and overriding goal is making money. If those interests intersect with the interests of the American government in making sure it gets perceived well overseas, so be it, but I don't think major studios are going out of their way to make propaganda consciously.

[cinquemb]

>I don't think major studios are going out of their way to make propaganda consciously.

I used to think the exact opposite, because being aware of how the interests of the state align with ones monetary goals would enable those to take advantage of situations more so than those who aren't aware… However over time and because of events like those of the nature that took place with Russell Brand being kicked out of the GQ awards, I've taken a more nuanced position.

[megablast]

You don't understand how it works, think about it as AB testing. They aren't interested in one movie, they are interested in lots of movies. They will try something different next time.

[cinquemb]

I'm thinking you didn't read my comment below about AB testing, or detected the sarcasm, or maybe me using the conditional of wanting to make buckets of money in this case wasn't clear enough…

[jules]

You are forgetting the key point: it really shouldn't be the DoD's business to influence movies. That is an incredibly perverse role the DoD is taking.

[mpyne]

You act like DoD is going out into Hollywood to change the movies directors are making.

It's almost precisely the opposite: Hollywood studios are trying to enlist DoD help in making their movies.

DoD doesn't always help. They didn't help with the famous movie "Officer and a Gentleman", for instance (and not because the Class Drill Instructor was mean in the screenplay either).

Likewise, DoD did not assist with the film 'Crimson Tide' as the Navy objected to the core portions of the screenplay.

But like any other business relationship, it's not DoD's job to volunteer to help in situations where the movie itself would portray DoD in a negative light. So they do ask for changes to movies to be made if the director wants assistance sometimes, but that's always up to the studio/director to decide.

[icebraining]

it's not DoD's job to volunteer to help in situations where the movie itself would portray DoD in a negative light.

But is it the DoD's job to help in situations where the movie portrays the DoD in a positive light?

I'm not from the US, so my opinion doesn't count much, but I'd rather have our Ministry of Defence help no movies than playing favorites.

[mpyne]

Well good luck finding movie topics that don't touch positively on any government agency anywhere.

E.g. a movie where a team of Federal prosecutors and investigators bring down a megacorp CEO and Board for conspiracy, fraud, etc. while having to fight through an insider within the government who's in on the conspiracy might cause agencies as disparate as the SEC, FBI, DoJ to be looked upon favorably.

Is it your position that no one from the SEC, FBI, DoJ, etc. should be allowed to advise moviemakers on how such an investigation and prosecution would proceed in real life?

[icebraining]

My point wasn't that they shouldn't help movies that portray them under a good light, but that they should help them regardless of how the movies portray them, or they shouldn't help at all.

Essentially, if everything else is the same, a movie where the FBI saves the country should received the same help as a movie where the FBI breaks it apart.

[jules]

It's not the DoD's job to help with movies period. The fact that the DoD does not assist with all movies makes it worse, not better. If the DoD were assisting with all movies it would merely be a waste of funds.