Asymmetrical Information

Make movies, not war.

Yes, it's wrong to mandate free military assistance to filmmakers (can anyone qualify as a filmmaker? I'll be filming my daughter's first birthday party---a tank or two in the background would be way cool!)

But perhaps the U.S. military should not be exercising editorial control over civilian films.
There's a not-so-polite word for that.

Besides, I hear movies make lots of money; and I hear our armed services currently need more of that.

Its part of the deal. You get to borrow the tanks or shoot on the military base or whatever it is that your film requires, and in exchange, you paint the military in a positive light, or whatever light it is that they want to be painted in.

Its not really censorship, its just the terms of the deal.

If you want to be unfettered and free of Pentagon editing suggestions, you simpily dont ask for their services.

Nothing wrong as far as I can see...

While the Pentagon's editorial policies seem silly,

I disagree, if they’re going to be making an important contribution to a film (e.g. providing equipment, location, and vehicles that the producers might not otherwise have access to), it makes sense that they would want to have some level of control over what kinds of movies they are contributing to. It’s no different than a producer who provides financing for a project wanting input into the final product.

It particularly makes sense in a case in which a movie may have an impact on the military (e.g. "aid in the recruiting and retention of personnel") that they would want to be selective in supporting only those projects which aid in their mission while avoiding those that might make it more difficult. Granted there may be examples in which they go overboard or make questionable choices, but the editorial policy itself seems to make sense.

Since no one has a “right” to receive any assistance from the military in making their movie and movie makers are free to decline such assistance and the editorial strings that go along with it, it is not a First Amendment issue.

Brent: What's the not-so-polite word for it?

Moviemakers aren't forced to go to DoD for props or support; those are available from other sources, should a lack of editorial control be desired.

I don't see any particular reason they should be, for example, required to give Michael Moore access to tanks and uniforms so he could, say, make a movie of US tanks running over a road of innocent babies and kittens.

I definitely don't see any First Amendment issue here. But IANAL.

As much as it pains me to admit this, Thorley is absolutely right, as is Sigvald. If you were never allowed to use a tank or a gun without the pentagon's permission, then Garafolo et al would have a point. But no one is forcing the film makers to use army bases or army tanks (unless they're documentary film makers and then that's a different issue entirely) and there are other ways to get that equipment...It's just not free. Tough crap. No one every said that free speech wasn't going to cost you something.

There's another aspect to consider, too. Films made with the assistance of the military state that in their credits, and even though it is not intended as an endorsement of the film, viewers tend to see it that way.

And I disagree with the characterization of the Pentagon's policy as "substantial editorial control." In essence, the Pentagon reserves the right not to assist with a script that paints the military in a bad light. This is usually interpreted to mean presenting only one side (the worst) of the story, and if the script shows military bad guys, but also shows military good guys, then it will likely receive assistance. Think "Under Siege" for example.

If various members of the Bush administration hadn't ordered the torture of prisoners, maybe people wouldn't be inclined to compare them to Nazis.

Except, Orbitron, the BushLied! and BusHitler(tm) crowd was comparing Bush to Hitler (who, if I recall correctly, had a connection to the Nazis) long before the abuses at Abu Ghraib came to light. Before the invasion, in fact. Not to mention the absurdity of the comparison even taking the torture into account.

The Pentagon spends a huge amount of money every year in advertising to recruit people for the military.

They look upon these movies as advertising that will help their recruiting. Rather than giving money, they give the use of equipment. In return they want advertising value for their money. This is done by hundreds of companies who place their brands in movies-all expect and get favorable showcasing of their products in their movies.

If the end result does meet the military’s advertising expectation, they make the movie company pay for the use of the equipment. Just as any company that deals with movie companies would do

Move on, no story here.

Well, Fred, unlike you I don't think the US government should be engaged in torture. I'm pretty God damn mad about it, in fact, so excuse me if I don't care that you think the anti-Bush people are going too far with their rhetoric.

By the way, Bush's grandfather was in tight with the Nazi party.

Orbitron-

Not only have you marginalized your posts into the state of "pathetic", trying to start a flame war not even related to the topic is very rude.

Is Orbitron likening Hollywood movies to torture? If so, I could not agree more. We have got to stop these Nazis in Hollywood before they torture us anymore. Thanks, Orbitron, for your brave stance against these monsters.

Jim English
Chicago

What about the torture us rational folk suffer when they read shit like Orbitron's?
The gold tooth extraction editing out cited as one form of military editorial naziism did occur, and participants were punished if caught, just as the democrats punished Barney Frank's boyfriend for running a whorehouse in Barney's townhouse. No, wait, they didn't? Gee.

is it true that Al Franken is beating Rush in the NY market?

Given Sy Hersh's proven lack of interest in truth where it conflicts with sensationalism (see, say, his book on JFK), why do I believe his utterly unsubstantiated charge that the Administration ordered torture?

Well, you see, it fits my preconcieved ideas about the evil RepubliNazis and Bushitler/Mussilrumsfeld. Now I've got a club I can beat the reich-wingers with, and I'll take any opportunity to do so.

"Editorial control" is not what the Pentagon requires.

In exchange for filming millions of dollars' worth of equipment and men, the Pentagon requires approval over the script, not over the editing, and their primary concern is accuracy.

To quote William C. Martell, a writer who has had at least two scripts approved by the Pentagon (and who, by the way, is nobody's right-winger): "The Navy requires that the script accurately depict US Navy life, procedures, and policy."

The script is written long before the movie is shot. Editing occurs after shooting. I don't see how you can even come close to calling this censorship.

(Martell also had a thriller produced about US soldiers running drugs. Guess what? No Pentagon cooperation. And nobody bitched about it, either!)

"... 'clearly unconstitutional' - a violation of first amendment rights."
How so? If he went to Coca-Cola or Pepsi for help in return for "product placement," would he expect them to say "sure" if they find his film will only show the drink in question as deadly poison? He'd be lucky to escape a lawsuit!

And as noted by several others, there are prop companies with heavy military gear available, or who will construct modern replicas on older chassis. He wants to steal the bread from their children's mouths! (Sorry, must have been channeling somebody-or-other.)

Of course, nowadays one could simply fake all the military hardware with CGI. I suspect it would cost less than flying a real F14, but quite a lot more than "free".

GT - a bit out of the blue. Franken can be funny. Garofalo, Seder and the incredibly grating Randi Rhodes are just horrible like a train wreck, especially when you add in all the dead air and other technical glitches.

As I said in an earlier post, I've never actually heard Rush Limbaugh's show.

Air America beat Rush and got over 6.4 million internet listeners alone. Looks like some on the right need to eat some crow.

Air America beat Rush and got over 6.4 million internet listeners alone.

Um, cite please? And don't say "Air America's web site!"

Gee, RMc, do you mean you haven't joined the rest of the nation hanging on every precious word?

[This comment has been removed for name-calling. I believe the author's point was that even if you don't object to these sorts of policies in the private sector, you should when it is the Government doing the editing. In general he was unimpressed with an analogy to Pepsico. - Ed.]

As you can see, I exercise Substantial Editorial Control!!

Mindles,

Yes, I know my point was a bit off-topic. And I agree with your assesment of the Air America shows. I was just curious if anyone else had heard that.

It merely describes a simple contract to note how Pentagon cooperation in a movie is dependent on the military being shown fairly (in their view, of course). Take it or leave it. To conflate this with censorship is pure sophistry. It is similar, however, to Chomsky's method of comparing 100 million dead under communism to millions starving in India under socialism, and blaming it all on capitalism. It's a neat trick, the illogical syllogism, and not without its own wizardry with words. But in the end it's no different than the used-car dealer talking you into buying the Tru-Kote underspray for an additional $150. Dishonest and abusive, but effective on a few folk.

In Hunt for Red October, the DoD requested a
change, and Clancy felt it was an improvement
on his book.

In the book, when they lower Ryan to the sub,
the cable breaks and drops him into the water,
in the movie, the DoD had Ryan pull the pin
on his harness to voluntarily drop him into
the water.

Just felt I'd add this.

On the other hand, the Navy did not want to participate in a movie, "Crimson Tide," that depicted a mutiny aboard a US Navy vessel, in this case a ballistic-missile sub. They did film the exteriors of a real sub, in this case USS Alabama, on her departure from NavSubBase Bangor, which is west of Seattle. Hence, they got some swooping images of a surfaced Navy boomer (apparently taken from a helo and some boats), to the chagrin of the boat's CO, who was my neighbor-- small boats moving around large and not-that-spry vessels are always cause for concern, not least when they're there specifically to be near the large vessel. For the details aboard ship, they hired a retired USN consultant, natch.

"Air America beat Rush and got over 6.4 million internet listeners alone. Looks like some on the right need to eat some crow."

AA beat rush in the 18 to 34 year old slot in NYC. But overall the network is doing okay for a startup but hardly slaying giants.

http://www.radioandrecords.com/Subscribers/ratings/homepage.htm

I also believe the 6.4 million refers to the amount of individual streams not individual streamers. One person can stream multiple times due to internet difficulties etc.

Thank god for AA, factoids devoid of context are no longer the exclusive domain of the right!

Comments are Closed.