[cam_l]

A bunch of exceptional films in that list.. you have good taste.

So, you acknowledge that there is a default, and that the films you mention challenge that default. I think everyone can agree on this.

Why are films like 'the thin red line' or 'full metal jacket' so powerful. The only pro-american-military film which I can remember having such a deep impact on me was 'black hawk down', and I think we all know the story behind that one.. I would argue that they tell a truth, and in the face of 60 years (give or take) of holywood military propaganda. And what does it matter that a dozen critical films come out over a thirty year period when, lets say 50 films a year come out pro-military.

Breaking it down your essential argument is - there is no propaganda because people like the propaganda. Question you should be asking is, who created that default?

[chrischen]

The default is in the hearts and minds of the American public. The American public usually are not anti-military, even if they are anti-war. They usually oppose military policy set by the administration, and not the soldiers or the military itself.

If Hollywood went against this mindset, they'd be going against the default, and they would need good reason to do so.

[eru]

Interestingly, the consensus respect for the military is relatively recent (i.e. since WWII). See http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21586311-america...

[cam_l]

That is just such a lazy answer, and to a question i did not even ask.

I would point you back to my original comment (which you either did not read, or did not understand) but for fear that it may create a recursive loop from which there may be no escape.

[chrischen]

Did you edit your response after I posted mine?

Anyways, the world isn't a ball which is pushed once and moves with constant velocity.

There are always forces tugging and pushing to modify the default. So unless the military is actively changing the default, they aren't not manipulating the default.

[cam_l]

No I did not, but thanks for the clarification.. which I quite like (though I don't really understand the double negative).

I think along pretty similar lines, and the ball analogy is quite apt. It took a lot of propaganda to get the ball moving in the first place, but only takes a little bit to keep it going in the same direction. But make no mistake, it is manipulation and it is forced, however gentle that force may be..

[tptacek]

My argument isn't that there's no propaganda.

[cam_l]

For the record, I understood that your assertion about 'the bias' against the relative impact of propaganda is not the same as 'there is no propaganda'.. I concede my pointless hyperbole clouded my argument.

However, implicit in your assertion is that the effect plays a minor role, whereas I would argue it plays a compounding role. My contention is given time and a reduction in military involvement, the marketability of pro-war propaganda would naturally decrease.